See other Religion Articles
Title: What do we know about the Old Testament?
Source:
Giwers World
URL Source: http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/ot.phtml
Published: May 15, 2005
Author: Matt Giwer
Post Date: 2005-05-15 08:44:21 by Zoroaster
Keywords: Testament?, about, What
Views: 888
Comments: 76
What do we know about the Old Testament? by Matt Giwer, © 2005 [March] Proceeding strictly from the physical evidence the material we consider to be the Old Testament first appears in history as the Greek Septuagint. Neither belief nor argumentation is acceptable. Only physical evidence is of interest. There is not one prior mention of such material, stories or events. There are a few questionable translations of single words or passages. There are a few name similarities. In no case do any of these have any connection with any event or situation in the bible. Today not one inscription has been found which predates it. While Egypt is the most professionally dug place in the world, the playground of more archaeologists than any place else in the world, Palestine is a close second for the professionals. Palestine including Israel teams with amateurs often thwarting the antiquities laws. In addition modern Israel has had more construction per square mile in the last fifty years than Egypt will likely see in the next century. Everything from homes to highways, parking garages to high-rises, it is likely the most dug place in the world. The construction companies are ruled by the strict antiquities laws. Israel itself has both a religious and a political drive to establish biblical Israel. For the last half century Israel has financed digs aimed directly at finding physical evidence of the Old Testament. Nothing has been found. Nor is there any sign of a Hebrew language which predates it. There is a circular argument used by bible believers. When Phoenician inscriptions are found outside the areas the Old Testament says the Hebrews lived it is identified as Phoenician. When they are found inside those areas it is identified as proto-Hebrew. Without the Old Testament "guidance" the inscriptions are indistinguishable. What is called proto-Hebrew is Phoenician. By the simple rule for ancient writings, the first mention of a document is the date of the document. This means the Greek Septuagint is the original document. There is no mention of the Septuagint being a translation until Josephus nearly three centuries later. The Greek Septuagint appears in history full blown without antecedent or prior mention nor today with the least physical evidence that it is other than the original. Given the religious interest of the Christian world in evidence for the Old Testament and of the Jewish world for both religious and political evidence one would assume if the above were in error museums around the world would display the evidence I say does not exist. These are the days of the internet and many good search engines starting with Google.com. Please use it to find these artifacts. You will be disappointed. Israeli museums should be full of them. All you will find are artifacts of other cultures mostly from the Greek and Roman period along with Phoenician, Assyrian and even Egyptian. You will find nothing specifically related to any biblical event or story. When you get out of the professional links you will find circular reasoning from the Old Testament. A typical mention will be "dated to the time of Solomon." That is simply using bible begats to determine a time frame. We can find artifacts in the New World dated to the time of Solomon. Saying dated to the time of Solomon does not connect it to Solomon or Israel even if found in Palestine. To be an artifact of biblical Israel it has to have some intrinsic feature which makes that connection. This is why the forged temple inscription was of such interest when it came to light in 2004. It had words roughly like those found in the Old Testament. Had it not been a forgery it would have been physical evidence and would have been the first physical evidence that the Old Testament predates the Septuagint and the latter being a translation. The same people who created this forgery are also credited with forging the "pomegranate" and the James ossuary. In a more general sense simply showing bibleland was populated in the past is meaningless. Ever since primates started leaving Africa millions of years ago the land has been populated. Gibbons and orangutans lived there. Home Erectus, Neanderthal and Sapiens have lived there. There is no way out of Africa without passing through Palestine. Another way of trying to salvage the Old Testament is to say "so much is known that Solomon could have been no more than a local warlord." That is not saying he was a local warlord or that he existed. It is phrased to true believers can hold on to their beliefs. The need to believe is strong. Consider those who would believe Solomon was just a local warlord. Simply believing that says the entire Old Testament is false as there is no biblical Israel, no great kingdom, nothing. It is no different from finding an inscription outside of bibleland which only has a name similar to a name in the Old Testament and saying it confirms all of it. A find means absolutely nothing more than what it says internally. It is physical evidence only of itself. So who wrote it? It appears about the time the Maccabees appear in history. By the physical evidence all we have of them are a couple coins with the image of the grandson of Judah Maccabee so we can't run too far with it. But it is the only confirmed event we have which coincides with the appearance of the Septuagint. Did the revolt in the books of Maccabees occur? There is no evidence of it. We have only the story in the books. Remember we only have those coins as evidence of their existence. Why did they create it? I have no idea. It does make their claim to the land by conquest. Ownership of land by conquest was the only basis for the claim until after WWII when it was formally abjured. We have no idea if this is other than an modern aberration. Another possibility was it was a guileless creation. The land was ruled by the eastern Greek empire at the time; braggadocio in the books of Maccabees to the contrary as those books are not part of the Septuagint. In this case it would be simply recording the myths of the local people as the Greeks had recorded their myths making it a simple matter of emulation. How could they have created such a huge work so quickly? Perhaps even creating a religion so quickly? We have seen Joseph Smith create the Book of Mormon and a successful religion which shows no signs of disappearing. We have L. Ron Hubbard creating Scientology and needs only make a few changes to avoid future criminal charges to go mainstream. Given a plethora of legends to work with cobbling something together would not be a significant challenge. Given the history of the region, essentially always ruled by so many other cultures all of those legends would have been available. Name changes and making the people related no matter how incongruous would not have been a difficult matter. For example, the life of Solomon is almost identical to the life of Ramses III. It is obviously the model. And yes, much of the Old Testament is incongruous. We do not find anything intrinsically incongruous with fairy tales because we suspend disbelief, we feel free to fill in the blanks and explain away incongruities. As we are not only raised to believe it in but immersed in a culture which usually behaves as though it believes in it we just do not notice the incongruities. And very few of them are thrown in our faces. In a fairytale which do not have to make sense the stories are changed in the retelling to make them more credible. Popularity chooses among the retellings. So also a bible story rarely appears on its own, start to finish. The scene is set, the story is liberally retold without regard to the original content, and we are told what it means. There are very few stories which hit us in the face as unexplainable such as Abraham sacrificing Isaac and those are subject to unending explanations. For example the story of Adam and Eve clearly says why they were banished from Eden, to prevent them from eating of the Tree of Life and living forever to become gods themselves. But as that clear statement does not comport with the Old Testament as a religion the clearly stated reason for being banished is left out of the retelling. But if you leave it in you see why the god of the Old Testament rules with the stick instead of the carrot. And you can see why that god has no problem tormenting people like Abraham and Job. The bible does not make sense as written. It is filled with magic and miracles therefore it is nonsense. But people are told they must understand it. People believe they are required to find ways to understand it. And there is no dearth of people explaining it in different but acceptable ways. The point of all of this is the collection of stories in the Old Testament is not some massive, coherent work which implies some super editor in the sky. It is a set of short stories with cardboard characters loosely stitched together. As such the origin of the David and Goliath story can as easily have been based on the Tortoise and the Hare fable as anything else. It is called great literature but it is never studied as literature as it is barely literature. What little literary merit there is exists only in the King James Version translation which introduces it. It does not come close to the quality of ancient literature. An Afterthought What has always struck me as interesting is the interest in the "Hebrew" bible by true believers. Let us assume for the moment it is the original and the Septuagint a copy. Fine. Is not the Septuagint a translation into a very well known, relatively unambiguous language, Greek, 2200 years closer to the original than us? Would not they be immeasurably better qualified to know the real meaning of the original than we? So why is not the Septuagint taken as the original meaning?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-36) not displayed.
.
.
.
#37. To: 1776, Sam Houston, christine (#36)
The true, prefect God, unlike the Yahwistic war god of the ancient Israelites, does not play favorites.
I had the same reaction about a year or so ago when I began reading the OT. It was actually repulsive to me and, to be honest, unbelievable. I kept saying to myself, why would God do that and this makes no sense.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Amen. I'll leave the OT translation/verification to the wiser, and centuries-qualified theologians of the Church.
They are not two Gods but one. Jesus said before Abraham was, I AM, applying to humself the "I AM THAT I AM" Yahweh declared himself to be to Moses on Sinai. Jesus also said the he and the Father are one. If they seem to you like different beings, you've misapprehended either Yahweh, Jesus, or both.
The 'God' of the OT is the God in the
New.. God never changes.. He was as He is.. In OT often spoke of God's wrath and
in the NT His wrath is there also.. but.. His wrath was taken out upon Himself..
the crucifixion of God in human form, Christ Jesus.. God cannot look upon sin..
and the only sinless one was and is Jesus.. and the wrath of God toward sin was
satisfied with His death .. and if anyone wants to 'escape' His wrath.. that is
being condemned as we stand before God, it's through the acceptance of Jesus'
sacrifice as our redeemer..
Incidentally, this bible is 'The Daily Walk Bible' New Living Translation. I don't know whether this is supposed to be a good one or not.
you explained it well.
The New Living 'translation' is what is called a 'free/dynamic' translation.. translations are catagorized in 3 ways: free/dynamic, mediated/balanced and word-for-word or formal... Free/dynamic translations are more for introduction..not for any serious study or understanding..
I hope that summarized it .. its not the easiest thing to comprehend.. for it seems as if there are two Gods.. a very harsh and a very loving.. but if you read the OT you will see God's 'loving kindness' expressed and mentioned many many times.. His plan for salvation began at the foundation of time.. all the OT prophets knew and looked forward with faith to the time of their redemption.. just as we look back to Jesus' sacrifice for ours. It is faith that saves both in the OT and in the New.
Wouldn't the one true God be inscrutable to some degree to fallen men? If he were completely apprehendable by finite beings who's minds have been clouded by sin, wouldn't that make what has been revealed about him even more suspect? There are no contradictions in scripture and, if there seems to be, it's indicative more of our own imperfect understanding than any lack of perfection in the whole revelation of God or in God himself. Seeming contradictions are red flags that we're missing pieces of the puzzle and require further searching and study to get at the whole truth. Just like oysters must first be irritated by a grain of sand before they can produce pearls, seeming contradictions in scripture are the irritating grit which eventually yields pearls of deeper understanding, provided that one does not expell the irritating grit entirely and, instead, embraces it. ;^) Could you site one specific act of God recorded in the OT that you find repulsive/unbelievable/senseless, that way, I can better understand what's causing you to doubt what is revealed in the OT.
I'm sure that's true, Mark. Admittedly, I have
done very little reading of (and this was over 25 yrs ago) and study of the
bible, particularly the OT. I'm a very far backslidden christian. I do believe
that redemption is only possible through belief in Jesus Christ as savior.
Beyond that, I have a lot of doubts and questions in the bible as God's word
entirely because of the many translations by mere men. I'd have to get my
OT out and refresh my memory as to what stories specifically repulsed me and/or
made me question its factuality. Much of it seemed like fairy tales or visions
from some demented mind.
A big AMEN.
Well let's be real kind to them and say they "borrowed" liberally from Zoroastrianism.
You get the credit for discovering the Zoroastrian roots of Popeye the Sailor Man.
interesting posts, Matt. welcome to 4. Interesting as manifestations of psychological disturbance, perhaps, but history? I don't think so. I am constantly amazed at the lengths some will go to in their desire to divest the Jewish people of their divinely-ordained identity and destiny. And, somehow, they can deny that the Old Testament is divine revelation even as they claim to embrace Christ, when Christ affirmed OT scripture as the word of God at every turn of his ministry and called upon it repeatedly as proof of his Messiahship. It is impossible to deny the OT (or the truth of what is revealed therein) and regard it as merely some late contrivance by Maccabeans, without also denying Christ. Are you a Christian, Matt?
So, you reject the notion that the OT is the word of God. Do you reject the NT too? If so, how do you reconcile your views about the OT with Jesus' reliance upon it in his earthly ministry? It's clear that Jesus believed the OT to be the word of God, for he cited it repeatedly as such. The OT was the very basis for Jesus' claims to Messiahship! In my mind, this means that one cannot reject the divinity of the OT without also rejecting Christ. How do you square this circle? Or do you not bother and follow pagan dieties instead like Zorastor instead?
Jesus referred to the Septuagint, which has its differences from the Old Testament as used popularly in America and elsewhere.
Those who talk of the Old Testament as a "Holy Book" are merely admiring it as a monument over the grave of Christianity.
A distinction without a difference, even if it were true. The Septuagint is merely the OT translated into Greek. The same "bloodthirsty, racist killer of children as deity" as you blasphemously refer to him is in the Septuagint. But it's not clear in any case that Jesus knew Greek or referenced the Septuagint. Being a native-bord Jew, he read and spoke Hebrew and Aramaic and is more likely to have read the scriptures in their original language, rather than a Greek translation, don't you think?
How can that be when Christ himself spoke of it as a "Holy Book"? That's a strange Christ-less Christianity you practice, Z.
When I quote Galatians above I did so for a reason.
On the contrary, the Jewish God in the OT is also the God of Gentiles and desires their redemption also. God sent Jonah on a mission to the Gentile city of Ninevah, that they might repent and avoid divine judgement. It is prophecied thoughtout the OT that Gentiles would also come to know the one true God. Israel's divinely appointed mission was be a light unto the Gentiles. This is why Jesus' Jewish followers were so zealous to reach Gentiles with the gospel. They understood that the Messiah would bring salvation to the whole world, not just Jews. And they understood that from the OT.
Are you saying that there is a greater difference between Christianity and Judaism than that the Jews simply missed that Messiah has already come? Let me ask a different way. A Messianic Jew or a Jewish Believer is a Jew who embraces Christianity. And of those I have read about, many do still enjoy the traditions of Judaism, considering becoming a Christian as a sort of completion. Would you say that's a mischaracterization? That they are confused or misled about Judaism or even Christianity.
True believers never examine the credibility of their sources, who wrote at a time when lying to promote faith was widely acceptable.
If you haven't read Jung's "Answer to Job," it may interest you. In it, Jung sees God as the great force behind the universe, an unconscious force, to be sure, but an awesome force to be feared. God's nature, in Jung's view, knew little of man--Christ, then, became the conscious side of God, to complete His understanding of humanity. I have the article in my "Portable Jung." You should be able to locate it on hard disk with a Goggle search.
All of this trying to make something out of names >Of these names, one is ahmi, meaning I am, and another, ahmi yat ahmi, I am that I am. so far as I can tell is mental masturbation. The best sources for the idea are people quoting older guesses without proper foundation. For example, what does the name Israel mean? The bible says Israel means "wrestles with God" but that is a problem. In what language is the name? If the people who spoke the language used the name the statement would be "Israel, which means Israel" or "wrestles with god means wrestles with god." It is like saying the name New York means New York. If Israel means wrestles with god then the name is certainly from a language the people who wrote it down did know. And then we ask, how did they know? The "meaning" matches not language yet discovered but the actual name does match Egyptian, IS throne/seat/land, Ra chief god of Egypt, El chief god of Palestine. The New Kingdom of Egypt ruled Palestine from before the begats have Abraham born to after Joshua invades lands ruled by Egypt without noticing the Egyptians ruled it.
>Interesting as manifestations of psychological disturbance, perhaps, but history? I don't think so. We know there is no history in the Old Testament as there is no archaeological support for anything of interest in it and much well known evidence which makes all the important points impossible. So we have facts from the science of archaeology against faith in the OT. >I am constantly amazed at the lengths some will go to in their desire to divest the Jewish people of their divinely-ordained identity and destiny. Without a confrontational attitude the revised english jewish prayer books now contain material supporting everything I am saying. Mainly it is all metaphorical having no basis in fact although it fudges the wording on the latter. As to divinely ordained you should read mine. It is all in a book I wrote. For only $29.95 you can have your own copy. >And, somehow, they can deny that the Old Testament is divine revelation even as they claim to embrace Christ, when Christ affirmed OT scripture as the word of God at every turn of his ministry and called upon it repeatedly as proof of his Messiahship. I notice the OT does not claim to be divine revelation. All the books are independent. None claim any external verification of authenticity much less divine origin. The viewpoint of the author clearly cannot be from a viewpoint of divine origin. As to Christ affirming it, no way! Unspecified "scripture" is the only assertion. The OT was not codified until after the NT was condified by Constantine. There was no official "scripture" he could possibly have meant. If in fact he did say such a thing (if in fact he existed and there is any validity to the gospels) there is no way to know what "scripture" he was talking about. >It is impossible to deny the OT (or the truth of what is revealed therein) and regard it as merely some late contrivance by Maccabeans, without also denying Christ. The facts cannot be anti-christian. Facts are merely facts. If you have physical evidence the OT is older than the Macabbees please post it. >Are you a Christian, Matt? What does that have to do with the facts? Since you are open to calling for stake-burning at the moment, let me drop one more on you. It is as certain that Egyptians worshipped Ra that Astarte was worshipped in Jerusalem into the early first century AD and that there was a temple to her in Jerusalem. The Judeans were clearly polytheists. How do you explain the absense of mention of this in the Gospels?
It was good that you also mention the entire lack of any archaeological evidence for the alleged 40 years wandering in the desert. It clearly didn't happen. The entire Egyptian story as related by the Jewish Supremacists is bogus, made up out of whole cloth.
You obviously are an unbeliever who is ignorant of the very scriptures you attack. I direct your attention to Luke 24, verses 25-27 and 44-49. Jesus, resurrected, meets his disciples. First, on the road to Emmaus, he says to two despairing believers who are perplexed by the accounts they've heard of an empty tomb... Moses and the Prophets refers to all the OT save the Psalms. These are the scriptures Jesus teaches of himself from. These were the only scriptures extant at the time since the NT had yet to be written. Then, later, he says to his disciples: The "Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms" is the OT. That is the scripture from which Jesus taught his disciples of himself. That is the source of the prophecies of him, prophecies which confirm his Messiahship. Jesus regarded the OT as the word of God and said to unbelievers, "If you had believed Moses, you would believe me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?" ~ John 5:46-47 You don't believe Moses. I suspect you don't believe Jesus either. Because if Moses and the rest of the OT is a late contrivance of Jewish priests and not the word of God as you say, Jesus is not Messiah either. Thankfully, the prophecies fulfilled by Jesus' life, death and resurrection leave little doubt about whose view of the OT is correct. They prove the OT to be exactly what Jesus said it was: the word of God to men, just as they prove Jesus to be exactly who he said he was: our God, Messiah and King.
I meant to ping you to my post above.
Where is HE now, Arator? In a sea of lies and war, where is HE? It's impossible for me to march, lock step, in hopes of some divine intervention down the road. While you argue what best passage of the bible fits some argument, we are trudging down the road to hell. We need HIM now. If we are truly in the grip of an anti-Christ, NWO, let HIM come and fight with us. Frankly, I don't expect HIM anytime soon. As each of us is carted off to jail, one by one, HE remains in his kingdom looking down at HIS creation which is in turmoil. We're in a mess and need HIS help. Have HIM bring the OT or the NT, but mostly we need a sign that HE is in charge. The wait is literally killing us.
No doubt. It's been killing us for the last 2000 years. Why does he tarry? What is he waiting for? I've got a theory, but if you're inclined to dismiss OT claims, you're probably not going to like it. Ever since the calling out of Abraham from the nations, the nation of Israel has been central to God's plan. They have second billing in this divinely- ordained drama, second only to Messiah himself. What is Jesus waiting for? He's waiting for his people to say, "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord." The world has been frozen in a kind of spiritual stasis for the last 2000 years. On the one hand, the Jews continue to reject Jesus' claims to Messiahship. On the other hand, Rome (the Beast) continues to infect his Church, twist Jesus' into an anti-Judaic figure, mis-associate his name with Torah-trashing Jew-hatred and general lawlessness, and make the Messiah unrecognizable to his own people. We've been locked in this stasis since at least Constantine, and so the Jews and Jesus continue their estrangement even as Romanized (fake-Christian) Gentiles continue their vicious patterns of conquest, subjegation and empire. Both remain on track to culminate in the full Beast horror prophecied with benighted Israel persisting in looking to it for security and safety instead of their rightful King and Lord of the Universe. So, what on earth can break this deadly 2000 year-long repeating cycle of mutual failure and futility? What can tame the Roman beast and revive the spiritual heart of Israel? Well, if gentile Christians had been true to their calling, the unnatural estrangement of the Jews from their Messiah might have been overcome long ago. Unfortunately, "Christians" have continued to be more Roman than we care to acknowledge, worshipping Caesar and Empire instead of Christ. So the agonies of Rome continue and the evil of Rome intensifies... I think this is our circumstance: if we, both Gentiles and Jews, continue in our ancient ruts believing ancient lies, the natural evil that results will culminate to its fullest effect, and eventually, it will be so horrible that all who have eyes to see will finally recognize the horror and repent of it. Many of us already have, but not enough, which is too bad. Until we do, the Beast and the Woman who rides her will continue to rampage, destroy and devour until it meets its end. We've had 2000 years to defang this beast ourselves and avert such disaster. But, having failed to do so, the false gods this world worships will continue their misrule until their misrule becomes so unbearable, even the blindest bloodlusting Caesar-worshipping Roman/Christian or Rome- favoring/Messiah-rejecting Jew might see through the lie to the truth. Together, we Gentiles and Jews might have gotten to this collective change of heart the easy way. But, instead, we're getting there the hard way, which is a damn shame.
Anatomy of a One World Religion? http://www.truthbeknown.com/theocracy.htm
Agreed.. Jesus quoted from the OT ..spoke of Moses and the prophets so if one says they believe in Jesus and disregard his words as untruth then what else is to be discarded?
So God is
where? You have no idea how ill I become when Jews are venerated as the
chosen ones. Chosen for what, to intertwined in our government and steer out
politicians (through raw political clout) toward a war-like neo conservativism?
Chosen to dominate the top positions of our corporate media and Hollywood?
Chosen to stuff top secret documents in their underwear (Sandy Berger)? Chosen
to reject this nation in favor a government known only to their parents and
grand parents (Jonathan Pollard)? Chosen to build homes on neighboring soil and
claim them to be 'settlements‘? Chosen to live in a state of war since its
creation as a nation in 1948? They're chosen all right; chosen to be a flaming
tire around this nation's neck. I, for one, choose to toss it off and set
their people free - free to fight their neighbors or make peace with them,
all without our help. I’m a proud isolationist, protectionist and American
Firster. How Israel lives, or if they survive, will depend on their guile and
statesmanship, and perhaps a hefty dose of religion. Israel, being the mostly
secular nation that it is, could use some bible verses, be it the OT or NT. All
imvho.
Bookmarked for later reading. Thanks.
I agree with you. Many Israelis would also.
And I agree with you. As with this nation, only a tiny few at the top direct government function; the people are out of the loop. The average schlub hasn't a clue, except what is force fed to them via the TV or newspaper.
#38. To: 1776, Zoroaster (#36)
I recall reading as a youth all of the atrocity and perversion taken as the norm, as the will of God, in the OT and recoiling.
#39. To: Zoroaster, robin, zipporah (#37)
The true, prefect God, unlike the Yahwistic war god of the ancient Israelites, does not play favorites.
#40. To: 1776 (#39)
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
#41. To: 1776, Zoroaster (#36)
The god of the OT does not favorably compare with God as revealed in the New Covenant.
#42. To: 1776 (#36)
The god of the OT does not favorably compare with God as revealed
in the New Covenant.
#43. To: All (#38)
#44. To: Zipporah (#42)
#45. To: christine (#43)
#46. To: christine (#44)
#47. To: christine (#38)
I had the same reaction about a year or so ago when I began reading the OT. It was actually repulsive to me and, to be honest, unbelievable. I kept saying to myself, why would God do that and this makes no sense.
#48. To: Arator (#47)
Seeming contradictions are red flags that we're missing pieces
of the puzzle and require further searching and study to get at the whole
truth.
#49. To: Zipporah (#42)
The 'God' of the OT is the God in the New.. God never changes.. He was as He is.. In OT often spoke of God's wrath and in the NT His wrath is there also.. but.. His wrath was taken out upon Himself.. the crucifixion of God in human form, Christ Jesus.. God cannot look upon sin.. and the only sinless one was and is Jesus.. and the wrath of God toward sin was satisfied with His death .. and if anyone wants to 'escape' His wrath.. that is being condemned as we stand before God, it's through the acceptance of Jesus' sacrifice as our redeemer..
#50. To: Arator, zoroaster, christine, robin, Matt Giwer (#41)
They are not two Gods but one. Jesus said before Abraham was, I AM, applying to humself the "I AM THAT I AM" Yahweh declared himself to be to Moses on Sinai.
Long before there was a Shmuley Boteach and his ilk there was the Zendavesta and in one of the Yashts long, long, long before the Anti-Christs wrote their books Ahuramazda informs Zoroaster that the utterance of one of his sacred names, of which he enumerates twenty, is the best protection from evil.
Of these names, one is ahmi, meaning I am, and another, ahmi yat ahmi, I am that I am.
#51. To: 1776 (#50)
#52. To: Elliott Jackalope, Dakmar (#51)
And people wonder why 4 is so popular.
#53. To: christine, jethro tull, Matt Giwer (#34)
Thanks for the historical primer Matt, and welcome to 4.
#54. To: 1776 (#50)
#55. To: Arator, christine (#54)
Or do you not bother and follow pagan dieties instead like Zorastor instead?
Zoroaster was not a deity he was a prophet who communed with the God of Light, Ahuramazda. I am not a zoroastrian but one can see it is the basis for much of the judaic myth.
I accept Jesus the Christ, I accept the New Covenant. I find particular inspiration from the the Gospel of John.
I find it paradoxical that one can embrace a bloodthirsty, racist killer of children as deity worthy of worship.
The Incarnation taught a different deity than that of the judaic, talmudic, version. I believe in that Father.
I would suggest that most evangelicals are firmly in the camp of the Golden Calf and that thus you have no worries over any mass movement of Christians who adhere to the Christ.
Phl 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
#56. To: 1776 (#50)
#57. To: 1776 (#55)
Jesus referred to the Septuagint, which has its differences from the Old Testament as used popularly in America and elsewhere.
#58. To: Zoroaster (#56)
Those who talk of the Old Testament as a "Holy Book" are merely admiring it as a monument over the grave of Christianity.
#59. To: Arator, christine, robin (#58)
Judaism has an ethnocentric deity, Jewish god is not universal.
The God of the Christians is
#60. To: 1776 (#59)
When I quote Galatians above I did so for a reason. Judaism has an ethnocentric deity, Jewish god is not universal. The God of the Christians is
#61. To: 1776 (#59)
#62. To: 1776 (#39)
#63. To: Zipporah, christine (#42)
The god of the OT does not favorably compare with God as revealed in the New Covenant. The 'God' of the OT is the God in the New.. God never changes.. He was as He is.. In OT often spoke of God's wrath and in the NT His wrath is there also.. but.. His wrath was taken out upon Himself.. the crucifixion of God in human form, Christ Jesus.. God cannot look upon sin.. and the only sinless one was and is Jesus.. and the wrath of God toward sin was satisfied with His death .. and if anyone wants to 'escape' His wrath.. that is being condemned as we stand before God, it's through the acceptance of Jesus' sacrifice as our redeemer..
#64. To: 1776, Arator, zoroaster, christine, robin (#50)
#65. To: Arator, christine, jethro tull (#53)
#66. To: Matt Giwer (#65)
Egyptians worshipped Ra that Astarte was worshipped in Jerusalem into the early first century AD and that there was a temple to her in Jerusalem. The Judeans were clearly polytheists.
#67. To: Matt Giwer, 1776, Jethro Tull, christine, Zipporah (#65)
As to Christ affirming it, no way! Unspecified "scripture" is the only assertion. The OT was not codified until after the NT was condified by Constantine. There was no official "scripture" he could possibly have meant. If in fact he did say such a thing (if in fact he existed and there is any validity to the gospels) there is no way to know what "scripture" he was talking about.
"Oh how foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the Prophets have spoken. Did not the Messiah have to suffer and then enter his glory? And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the scriptures concerning himself."
"'This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.' Then he opened their minds so they could understand the scriptures."
#68. To: Zoroaster (#67)
#69. To: Arator (#67)
#70. To: Jethro Tull (#69)
The wait is literally killing us.
#71. To: Jethro Tull (#69)
#72. To: Arator (#67)
#73. To: Arator, all (#70)
Ever since the calling out of Abraham from the nations, the
nation of Israel has been central to God's plan.
#74. To: Zoroaster (#71)
#75. To: Jethro Tull (#73)
I, for one, choose to toss it off and set their people free - free to fight their neighbors or make peace with them, all without our help. I’m a proud isolationist, protectionist and American Firster. How Israel lives, or if they survive, will depend on their guile and statesmanship, and perhaps a hefty dose of religion. Israel, being the mostly secular nation that it is, could use some bible verses, be it the OT or NT. All imvho.
#76. To: Arator (#75)
Many Israelis would also.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest