OT vs. NT

by Ticker 9 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Ticker

  Who here has had or still has problems trying to equate or harmonize the old testament with the new testament? I do and I always have had a very hard time accepting some of the things in the old testament, etc. incest, murder, killing of innocent people, murdering children over petty issues, men having 100's of wives, all the idols that were present in the old testament temples(cherubs and golden bowls, excetera excetera), the seemingly merciless nature of God toword many while yet forgiving others for grave sins such as adultery, or the delivering of punishment to innocent people in order to discipline the sinner(example-David's sensus of the israelite nation in which they were destroyed not him).

  Now we contrast that against the New Testament which focuses on God's extension of mercy and love for mankind through his son Christ Jesus. Much more tolerance is set forth and much more justified then the OT ever seemed to be.(example we all stand before the judgement seat of God to answer our own sins while the OT called for punishment upon generation after generation, whole family's dying due to one member) Its almost as if they are two totally different concepts if it wern't for the links between the plan for the redemption of mankind, I would almost swear they had not much in common. Almost like two different religions as their practices and tolerances are much different.

  Do you figure that Christ could have changed the orginal Jewish religion as a measure of keeping with the times, pulling away from the rudementery animal sacrifices and such? Do you feel he had much more of a heart and compassion for people and this led to his revolutionizing teachings of love and mercy not sacrifice? Or was this somehow the plan all along?

  Im really kind of having turmoil with this one because every ounce of me wants to give credential to the bible but to look at the two books from a unbiased opinion, they almost hardly have anything in common. It is almost as if Christ started a revolutionary movement or sect within the traditional Jewish system and this was further expanded on and developed through the apostles and further church fathers. This has always been a nagging doubt for me as too how people can harmonize the two books in their entirety. I would really appreciate both sides on this issue, atheist and christian. How are you Christians able to harmonize these seemingly contradictory personality traits of God so that you can put it to rest in your mind? Non biblical believers what is your take on what happened? Just another sect started by a man?

  Ticker
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  of course, it's just another version of the same successful meme. that is how memes are successful, and why this one in particular is so successful. the religion/meme required reform, and that's where the NT writers came in. they were just looking for power, of course, but found the extension of this already existing meme quite convenient.

  Its almost as if they are two totally different concepts if it wern't for the links between the plan for the redemption of mankind, I would almost swear they had not much in common.

  the only thing i would mention in addition to your write up, is that now in the NT, god is much more lenient, until you die that is. at that time you only have two choices, one of which is eternal torture at the hands of one of His multiple personalities, Lucifer. the other, only slightly more appealing, is heaven. whatever that is supposed to be.
• 

  Ticker

  Well we got the critical viewpoint and it is very likely it could be so. Thank you Tetrapod.sapien. I wish I could back in time to investigate but unfortunately we cant but I agree reform was needed and reform came through a man callled Jesus. Much like christianity itself has had to morph it ideas in order to stay with the times.

  So all these others look at the thread but no takers yet. Where is all the Christians who are itching to defend the bibles synchronization between the OT and NT. Is it that difficult to defend that no one has even attempted it yet? I honestly cant seem to harmonize the two books, two different religions it seems to me and two different personalities of God. If this is so then how can the bible find credability? Please someone help.

  Ticker
• 

  hamsterbait

  The first century Jews according to Bertrand Russel wanted a religion that could give them a feeling of inner superiority despite obvious oppression and failure.

  Also the Roman yoke was very cruel to them, and because they could not themselves legally mete out cruelty to others they wanted a God who did not kill or crucify the weak as they had done in Canaan. Who would deliver them to a Bambi Paradise.

  Aww. Bless.

  Along comes someone with total escapism. The times were right for it. Interestingly (AAAH WTspeak) the Mithras cult taught almost identical doctrines to early Christianity, and was very popular in the Northern empire. Only difference was that the lamb of god was a bull.

  There is a well preseved Mithras shrine near Hadrian's wall in the UK.

  The NT is so different because the world had changed, as had the way western europeans thought about the world. Paul was thoroughly hellenised and romanised. Thinking like a european, he was able to reinterpret the writings of bronze age nomadic killers in the light of world weary sophisticated philosophy.

  This difference between the eastern way of thinking and western is still seen today when you compare how educated greeks think as opposed to educated arabs.

  HB
• 

  Ticker

  the Mithras cult taught almost identical doctrines to early Christianity, and was very popular in the Northern empire. Only difference was that the lamb of god was a bull.

  Very interesting Hamsterbait, I never knew their was another cult that had similar doctrines to that of early christianity. I find it interesting too in how this sort of parallels with the jewish relgious system and how its roots seem to come from pagan religion. ie.-the flood and gilgamesh, even the divine name possibly having an origin with the tribunal babylonish gods(please correct me on that one but I remember reading about it and seems to me that name had something to do with a baal God or that it was borrowed from babylonish religion by Abraham. I remember reading a lengthy book on biblical origins put out by the National Geographic society and they showed the very probable links between Abrahams religion and that of the surrounding nations in Ur.(ie. animal sacrifices, alters, incence offerings) The main difference being is that Abraham had essentially broken a mold by turning to mono-theism instead of poly-theism, the latter one being most prevalent at that time.)

  Even today we see a reversion back to poly-theism in christianity with the introduction of the trinity doctrine.

  I also like the point about Paul being Helenized and Romanized because maybe that was the critical point in which christianity became much more liberal and appealing to gentiles. If the apostles had been intolerant as most Jews were of gentiles I think christianity would have had a much differerent face then it does today.

  Ticker
• 

  Dragonlady76

  in the NT, god is much more lenient, until you die that is.

  Yup.

  Ticker,

  Jews veiw the OT as a book of stories that gave them structure and laws to live by. Historically the Jews were literate, while most other groups, tribes and races were not in those times. Jews also don't sit around and try to interperate every word in the OT and live by it as christians try to do with the bible. They just stick to the old Mosaic law.

  DL76
• 

  Narkissos

  Judging old texts by modern standards is probably unavoidable, but pointless imo.

  There is too much diversity within the OT and NT corpora to characterise the former as bloodthirsty and the latter as tolerant and peaceful. Moreover, within the same groups of texts there are a lot of items which seem to us (i.e., by modern standards) morally contradictory. "You shall love your neighbour as yourself" comes from Leviticus 19:18, yet the next chapter lists many grounds for capital punishment, with which few Christians would agree. "God is love" is from 1 John, yet 2 John advises not even to greet the "apostates". What is contradictory by our standards obviously was not always so by the writers'.
• 

  greendawn

  The God of the new testament is infinitely more tolerant than the jehovah of the old testament though we have to agree that the mosaic law given the context of those days was far more humane and advanced than anything else at the time. We are talking of 1500 BC how many laws demanded that if a master knocked out a slave's tooth he was to go free?
  
  I tend to ignore the OT and concentrate on the NT though it is not 100% perfect in my opinion I accept the core beliefs. We don't have the original writings but a copies many times removed from the originals, no doubt some spurious additions, and copying errors were made. How much more in the OT which was written over 1000 years not 40 or 50 as was the case with the NT
• 

  zen nudist

  its not just ot vs nt, there is an evolving going on even before you get to the NT

  in the beginning there is nothing offered to anyone but blessing and cursings in this life and death for violators of serious laws... there is no talk any where of any after life. Often sited in Job about his pondering whether god might remember him after he died is just that, pondering, not statement of faith no doctrine of promises, as none were given in that direction.

  ECC 9:6 often sited by JWs as proof of no soul surviving death basically sums up the original jewish view of things... there was no immortal soul thought about in the beginning....

  prior to the NT and after the babylonian exile came the new view, not from God but from pagans.... it infected the jewish worldview and caused them to ponder what would happen to them after death.... they no longer thought in terms of worm food but wanted something more.... like the pagan cousins.
• 

  Ticker

  Greendawn stated: The God of the new testament is infinitely more tolerant than the jehovah of the old testament.

  That to me is a dirrect conflict with these two books being in harmony. A direct conflict with the God of the OT and NT. Are they not supposed to be one and the same? If so how can a personallity change take place in a perfect being who is evermore, non ceasing, and non changing in standards? If you cant accept the one how can one accept the other? Not that I am disrespecting God or would want to cause a division within the bible but I am honestly questioning. I cant see how harmony can be found if one cannot accept both. One would have to dismiss certain books of the OT as pherhaps errornous in their introduction into the bibal canon.

  Zen Nuddist very interesting thought. I had never even pondered that thought that pherhaps they had picked up the afterlife thought from the babylonians. Seems like it well could be so and very probable, since resurection and afterlife become greatly mentioned in the NT. I have not personally read the accounts of the maccabees and other texts post babylonian captivity but it would be interesting to see if the introduction of after life became more and more evident. I think I may look into this theory a little more closely with some study.

  Thank you all who commented I appreciate it very much,

  Ticker