Question about the bibles

[Zysoclaplem]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: NuclearNed
Christians follow both the New and the Old Testament, although a minority of Christians erroneously believe that the Old Testament is no longer relevant.

The Jewish faith follows the Old Testament, but not the New.

Okay. So why are certain things ignored from the Old? I was told Jesus came and made the Old Testament no longer relevant.

Because it's easier to get people to follow you if there are rewards and happiness, not a wrathfull vengful God.

I was also told that God is angry and vengeful, and Jesus was passive and forgiving. And that the Holy Ghost just floats around and does it's own thing. But they are all one, but not. Is God suffering from Multiple Personality disorder?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
If you are a Christian you follow the New Testament, correct?
Jesus came and changed things, and now Christians use the New Testament, not the Old Testament.
But the Jewish still use the Old Testament?
Is this correct?

Is the Old Testament what the Jewish refer to as the Torah?

I believe the Torah is just the first five books of the OT.

 

[Zysoclaplem]

Originally posted by: DearQT

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: NuclearNed
Christians follow both the New and the Old Testament, although a minority of Christians erroneously believe that the Old Testament is no longer relevant.

The Jewish faith follows the Old Testament, but not the New.

Okay. So why are certain things ignored from the Old? I was told Jesus came and made the Old Testament no longer relevant.

They pick and choose. Homosexuality is an acceptable prejudice, so they hang on to Leviticus re: homosexuality. They reject a heap of other sh1t in Leviticus. I have come to believe that a majority of christians are dishonest hypocrites.

Ummm ... you don't have to look at Leveticus to find a condemnation of homosexuality. I don't understand why some people are so hung on the Old Testament. Perhaps it appears they pick and choose because the people you hear it from are not well-informed about the very book they reference.

For a New Testament reference to homosexuality look at Romans 1:26-27. (There are other references, but not as explicit as this one.) To squash the New Testament argument, you'll have to try again, Aidanjm, for an intellectually honest discussion.

I was told that the reference in the New Testament was made by Paul, not God or Jesus.
And they were his words, his opinions. In fact both references to this were made by Paul if I am not mistaken. And both of them were Paul's personal opinion. I was also told that Paul frequented prostitutes.

 

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: NuclearNed
Christians follow both the New and the Old Testament, although a minority of Christians erroneously believe that the Old Testament is no longer relevant.

The Jewish faith follows the Old Testament, but not the New.

Okay. So why are certain things ignored from the Old? I was told Jesus came and made the Old Testament no longer relevant.

Because it's easier to get people to follow you if there are rewards and happiness, not a wrathfull vengful God.

I was also told that God is angry and vengeful, and Jesus was passive and forgiving. And that the Holy Ghost just floats around and does it's own thing. But they are all one, but not. Is God suffering from Multiple Personality disorder?

It's becoming increasingly clear that you were insincere with your questions. You're baiting, aren't you? Now you wouldn't happen to think that in every dimension existence is dependent upon time, would you? So your perception of what constitutes reason and normality must be what applies to every other entity?

There are issues in Christianity, but you cannot find an answer when you intentionally pursue it with no intent to reason and find the ultimate truth if any exists. If you go to a Jehovah's Witness or Mormon, for instance, there is no such thing as the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity only became mainstream after fierce debates among the Christians of that era.

 

[Zysoclaplem]

Originally posted by: DearQT

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: NuclearNed
Christians follow both the New and the Old Testament, although a minority of Christians erroneously believe that the Old Testament is no longer relevant.

The Jewish faith follows the Old Testament, but not the New.

Okay. So why are certain things ignored from the Old? I was told Jesus came and made the Old Testament no longer relevant.

Because it's easier to get people to follow you if there are rewards and happiness, not a wrathfull vengful God.

I was also told that God is angry and vengeful, and Jesus was passive and forgiving. And that the Holy Ghost just floats around and does it's own thing. But they are all one, but not. Is God suffering from Multiple Personality disorder?

It's becoming increasingly clear that you were insincere with your questions. You're baiting, aren't you? Now you wouldn't happen to think that in every dimension existence is dependent upon time, would you? So your perception of what constitutes reason and normality must be what applies to every other entity?

There are issues in Christianity, but you cannot find an answer when you intentionally pursue it with no intent to reason and find the ultimate truth if any exists. If you go to a Jehovah's Witness or Mormon, for instance, there is no such thing as the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity only became mainstream after fierce debates among the Christians of that era.

No. No. And for the last question, what existance have I ever known other than my own? Perception is everything.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: NuclearNed
Christians follow both the New and the Old Testament, although a minority of Christians erroneously believe that the Old Testament is no longer relevant.

The Jewish faith follows the Old Testament, but not the New.

Okay. So why are certain things ignored from the Old? I was told Jesus came and made the Old Testament no longer relevant.

They pick and choose. Homosexuality is an acceptable prejudice, so they hang on to Leviticus re: homosexuality. They reject a heap of other sh1t in Leviticus. I have come to believe that a majority of christians are dishonest hypocrites.

http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/309.htm

There are basically two Biblical prohibitions cited repeatedly and forcefully by those claiming homosexuality is condemned by God, hence should remain illegal. These two are Leviticus, chapter 20, verse 13 and Romans chapter 1, verses 26 and 27. Let's take a look at each.

Taken out of context, Leviticus 20:13 would certainly seem to prohibit homosexuality:

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Yup, extreme.

A quick look at the violations punishable by death in the same chapter of Leviticus, however, tells a very different story:

If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:9)

...and? I don't know about you, but I've never tried to curse my parents, and the vast majority of people in what we would call the civilized world do not even believe curses work. If they do, then while somwhat extreme, that's not too out there.

I wouldn't even have a chance to get to verse 13; I'd be dead by verse 9.

If a man commits adultery with another man's wife?with the wife of his neighbor?both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10)

Bye bye Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker.

<badjoke>You know, it isn't sounding so extreme, anymore...</badjoke>

If a man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. (Leviticus 20:11)

Poor papa!

Hmmm, Oedipus(sp).

If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads. (Leviticus 20:12)

Poor son!

Yeha...

If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal. (Leviticus 20:15)

Poor livestock!

If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. (Leviticus 20:16)

Note the man has to do it, but the woman need only approach.

...and people wonder why the ME has such problems...

A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:27)

O, the carnage at the Psychic Hotline!

Yeah, pretty interesting given other stuff going on. God talking to people, some staff curing people and getting water in a cave...

It's easy to see that, in context, the always-quoted-out-of-context admonition against homosexuality is hardly God singling out gays for special punishment.

It was, in fact, one of the laws of Leviticus that was responsible for the death of Jesus:

[A]nyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. (Leviticus 24:16)

Jesus was tried by Sanhedren, the ruling religious body of Jerusalem, and found guilty of blasphemy. According to the religious powers that were, to claim he was the son of God was blasphemous. The charge of sedition was added so the Romans would approve of and carry out the death sentence.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: DearQT

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: NuclearNed
Christians follow both the New and the Old Testament, although a minority of Christians erroneously believe that the Old Testament is no longer relevant.

The Jewish faith follows the Old Testament, but not the New.

Okay. So why are certain things ignored from the Old? I was told Jesus came and made the Old Testament no longer relevant.

They pick and choose. Homosexuality is an acceptable prejudice, so they hang on to Leviticus re: homosexuality. They reject a heap of other sh1t in Leviticus. I have come to believe that a majority of christians are dishonest hypocrites.

Ummm ... you don't have to look at Leveticus to find a condemnation of homosexuality. I don't understand why some people are so hung on the Old Testament. Perhaps it appears they pick and choose because the people you hear it from are not well-informed about the very book they reference.

For a New Testament reference to homosexuality look at Romans 1:26-27. (There are other references, but not as explicit as this one.) To squash the New Testament argument, you'll have to try again, Aidanjm, for an intellectually honest discussion.

I was told that the reference in the New Testament was made by Paul, not God or Jesus.
And they were his words, his opinions. In fact both references to this were made by Paul if I am not mistaken. And both of them were Paul's personal opinion. I was also told that Paul frequented prostitutes.

Paul was largely responsible, but did not live to see much of what the texts were to become.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: DearQT

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: NuclearNed
Christians follow both the New and the Old Testament, although a minority of Christians erroneously believe that the Old Testament is no longer relevant.

The Jewish faith follows the Old Testament, but not the New.

Okay. So why are certain things ignored from the Old? I was told Jesus came and made the Old Testament no longer relevant.

They pick and choose. Homosexuality is an acceptable prejudice, so they hang on to Leviticus re: homosexuality. They reject a heap of other sh1t in Leviticus. I have come to believe that a majority of christians are dishonest hypocrites.

Ummm ... you don't have to look at Leviticus to find a condemnation of homosexuality. I don't understand why some people are so hung on the Old Testament. Perhaps it appears they pick and choose because the people you hear it from are not well-informed about the very book they reference.

For a New Testament reference to homosexuality look at Romans 1:26-27. (There are other references, but not as explicit as this one.) To squash the New Testament argument, you'll have to try again, Aidanjm, for an intellectually honest discussion.

Yes, it is easy to misinterpret Paul's words as a condemnation of homosexuality. But then, Paul's comments can be dismissed as easily as those in Leviticus. (Who today would endorse Paul's racist and misogynist comments? And yet we are supposed to cling to his homophobic and heterosexist comments? Lol.) Zysoclaplem's thread is about why Christians accept or reject the old Testament. My point is that many Christians I have personally encountered tend to dip into the Old Testament, select what they find to be convenient, and ignore the rest. I give Leviticus on homosexuality as the classic example. I don't see how my comments are in any way intellectually dishonest.

 

[rahvin]

The Bible consists of a collection of sixty-six separate books. These books were chosen, after a bit of haggling, by the Catholic Council of Carthage in 397 A.D.--more than three hundred years after the time of Jesus. This collection is broken into two major sections: The Old Testament, which consists of thirty-nine books, and The New Testament, which consists of twenty-seven books. (Catholic Bibles include an additional twelve books known as the Apocrypha.)

The Old Testament is concerned with the Hebrew God, Yahweh, and purports to be a history of the early Israelites. The New Testament is the work of early Christians and reflects their beliefs about Jesus; it purports to be a history of what Jesus taught and did.

The composition of the various books began in about 1000 B.C. and continued for more than a thousand years. Much oral material was included. This was repeated from father to son, revised over and over again, and then put into written form by various editors. These editors often worked in different locales and in different time periods and were usually unaware of each other. Their work was primarily intended for local use and it is unlikely that any author foresaw that his work would be included in a "Bible."

No original manuscripts exist. There is probably not one book which survives in anything like its original form. There are hundreds of differences between the oldest manuscripts of any one book. These differences indicate that numerous additions and alterations were made to the originals by various copyists and editors.

Many biblical authors are unknown. Where an author has been named, that name has sometimes been selected by pious believers rather than given by the author himself. The four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are examples of books which did not carry the names of their actual authors. The present names were assigned long after these four books were written. In spite of what the Gospel authors say, biblical scholars are now almost unanimously agreed that none of the Gospel authors was either a disciple of Jesus or an eyewitness to his ministry.

Although some books of the Bible are traditionally attributed to a single author, many are actually the work of multiple authors. Genesis and John are two examples of multiple authorship.

Many biblical books have the earmarks of fiction. For example, private conversations are often related when no reporter was present. Conversations between God and various individuals are recorded. Prehistoric events are given in great detail. When a story is told by more than one author, there are usually significant differences. Many stories--stories which in their original context are considered even by Christians to be fictional--were borrowed by the biblical authors, adapted for their own purposes, given a historical setting, and then declared to be fact.

The Flood story is an example of this kind of adaptation. Its migration from the earliest known occurrence in Sumeria, around 1600 B.C., from place to place and eventually to the Bible, can be traced historically. Each time the story was used again, it was altered to speak of local gods and heroes.

http://www.infidels.org/librar...ald_morgan/intro.shtml

That should answer questions of the bibles origin.

 

[jspeicher]

You know it really doesnt matter since there are chapters/volumes that are kept hidden from all of us.

 

[Zysoclaplem]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: DearQT

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: NuclearNed
Christians follow both the New and the Old Testament, although a minority of Christians erroneously believe that the Old Testament is no longer relevant.

The Jewish faith follows the Old Testament, but not the New.

Okay. So why are certain things ignored from the Old? I was told Jesus came and made the Old Testament no longer relevant.

They pick and choose. Homosexuality is an acceptable prejudice, so they hang on to Leviticus re: homosexuality. They reject a heap of other sh1t in Leviticus. I have come to believe that a majority of christians are dishonest hypocrites.

Ummm ... you don't have to look at Leviticus to find a condemnation of homosexuality. I don't understand why some people are so hung on the Old Testament. Perhaps it appears they pick and choose because the people you hear it from are not well-informed about the very book they reference.

For a New Testament reference to homosexuality look at Romans 1:26-27. (There are other references, but not as explicit as this one.) To squash the New Testament argument, you'll have to try again, Aidanjm, for an intellectually honest discussion.

Yes, it is easy to misinterpret Paul's words as a condemnation of homosexuality. But then, Paul's comments can be dismissed as easily as those in Leviticus. (Who today would endorse Paul's racist and misogynist comments? And yet we are supposed to cling to his homophobic and heterosexist comments? Lol.) Zysoclaplem's thread is about why Christians accept or reject the old Testament. My point is that many Christians I have personally encountered tend to dip into the Old Testament, select what they find to be convenient, and ignore the rest. I give Leviticus on homosexuality as the classic example. I don't see how my comments are in any way intellectually dishonest.

This is what I have heard too. If you are going to use the Old Testament when it is convenient, but ignore it when it's not, what is the point to having the full book? Why not condense the bible into good and bad parts.
I'm not saying that is what everyone does.

 

[Zysoclaplem]

Originally posted by: rahvin

The Bible consists of a collection of sixty-six separate books. These books were chosen, after a bit of haggling, by the Catholic Council of Carthage in 397 A.D.--more than three hundred years after the time of Jesus. This collection is broken into two major sections: The Old Testament, which consists of thirty-nine books, and The New Testament, which consists of twenty-seven books. (Catholic Bibles include an additional twelve books known as the Apocrypha.)

The Old Testament is concerned with the Hebrew God, Yahweh, and purports to be a history of the early Israelites. The New Testament is the work of early Christians and reflects their beliefs about Jesus; it purports to be a history of what Jesus taught and did.

The composition of the various books began in about 1000 B.C. and continued for more than a thousand years. Much oral material was included. This was repeated from father to son, revised over and over again, and then put into written form by various editors. These editors often worked in different locales and in different time periods and were usually unaware of each other. Their work was primarily intended for local use and it is unlikely that any author foresaw that his work would be included in a "Bible."

No original manuscripts exist. There is probably not one book which survives in anything like its original form. There are hundreds of differences between the oldest manuscripts of any one book. These differences indicate that numerous additions and alterations were made to the originals by various copyists and editors.

Many biblical authors are unknown. Where an author has been named, that name has sometimes been selected by pious believers rather than given by the author himself. The four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are examples of books which did not carry the names of their actual authors. The present names were assigned long after these four books were written. In spite of what the Gospel authors say, biblical scholars are now almost unanimously agreed that none of the Gospel authors was either a disciple of Jesus or an eyewitness to his ministry.

Although some books of the Bible are traditionally attributed to a single author, many are actually the work of multiple authors. Genesis and John are two examples of multiple authorship.

Many biblical books have the earmarks of fiction. For example, private conversations are often related when no reporter was present. Conversations between God and various individuals are recorded. Prehistoric events are given in great detail. When a story is told by more than one author, there are usually significant differences. Many stories--stories which in their original context are considered even by Christians to be fictional--were borrowed by the biblical authors, adapted for their own purposes, given a historical setting, and then declared to be fact.

The Flood story is an example of this kind of adaptation. Its migration from the earliest known occurrence in Sumeria, around 1600 B.C., from place to place and eventually to the Bible, can be traced historically. Each time the story was used again, it was altered to speak of local gods and heroes.

http://www.infidels.org/librar...ald_morgan/intro.shtml

That should answer questions of the bibles origin.

That's an interesting read.
But if the bible is just a collection of stories used for control, why do humans, who are intelligent beings, cling to it?
I also heard that the Old Testament is for God's Children or Chosen, which are the Israelites. Is that correct?
So anyone who is not, is not subject to it. Only the New Testament applies to those who are not. I can't remember what they are called, but they have a specific name.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
That's an interesting read.
But if the bible is just a collection of stories used for control, why do humans, who are intelligent beings, cling to it?
I also heard that the Old Testament is for God's Children or Chosen, which are the Israelites. Is that correct?
So anyone who is not, is not subject to it. Only the New Testament applies to those who are not. I can't remember what they are called, but they have a specific name.

You should follow the link and read other articles linked at the bottom.

In answer to your question, humans cling to order and cause even when there is none. In answer to your second question, the sacrafice of Jesus purports to bring the choosen status to the gentiles, this can be found in the works of saul/paul (who was one of the first gentile conversions to early christianity).

 

[rahvin]

Just as an aside, I've posted that biblical history quote to I think three bible threads on this board, every one of them died immediately after I posted it. For some reason I find that intriguing.