|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Aug 24, 2020 6:55:16 GMT
I have not studied the Bible in detail so, to those who have, this may seem a stupid question. But so what, see what you think.
Is it possible that the Old Testament is included in the Bible to show how not to do it?
In other words, the Old Testament is how it used to be, and that was draconian and bad, and then along came Jesus and showed us the way. So the New Testament is what you are supposed to follow and the Old Testament is only there for comparison to show you how good the new teachings are, but is not to be followed, is in fact to be rejected. So anyone quoting the Old Testament as part of Christianity is wrong.
Possible?
|
|
|
|
Post by yggdrasil on Aug 24, 2020 9:09:39 GMT
Possible but doubtful, Just differences in dogma and time periods, the OT was written over a large period of time it's believed but probably a thousand or so years before the NT. Whereas the OT was about God and the fear of, the NT was a textbook for setting up an organised, religion based theocracy and weeding out any bits that went against the "structure" of Church such as Gnostic beliefs,
The early church wasn't even too bad until it took over established Roman beliefs in the old Gods with Constantine onwards in the 4th century and went on a spree of madness murder and destruction that would bring on the dark ages.
Think how much earlier we could have had major advances had Christianity not wiped out the Library of Alexandria for instance and banned "heretical" thinking.
|
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Aug 24, 2020 10:14:38 GMT
Possible but doubtful, Just differences in dogma Quite significant differences, though. Jesus's teachings go very much against the Old Testament. He preached love and kindness, the Old Testament very much did not. That is why I ask. |
|
|
|
Post by yggdrasil on Aug 24, 2020 12:41:27 GMT
Possible but doubtful, Just differences in dogma Quite significant differences, though. Jesus's teachings go very much against the Old Testament. He preached love and kindness, the Old Testament very much did not. That is why I ask. "He" preached it, but the Church very much didn't though. Lure them in with sweet talk and then drop the bomb. The Church very much preached the kindness of torture and destruction to "save" the souls of people in the afterlife. But, having two separate strains, one of which is the Hebrew Bible (OT) and the other is a saviour story showing a road out of the fire and Brimstone through the teachings of Jesus/Paul (what people call Christianity is actually "Pauline Christianity" which perverts Christ's teachings through someone else's viewpoint) creates a fractured whole in some ways. Jesus of course, if he was a historical character rather than a composite would have been very much aware of the OT and known that he was merely copying the prophesies from there on his road to his fate which would make him an utter fraud. They conveniently forget that bit though. |
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Aug 24, 2020 14:42:44 GMT
Quite significant differences, though. Jesus's teachings go very much against the Old Testament. He preached love and kindness, the Old Testament very much did not. That is why I ask. "He" preached it, but the Church very much didn't though. Lure them in with sweet talk and then drop the bomb. The Church very much preached the kindness of torture and destruction to "save" the souls of people in the afterlife. But, having two separate strains, one of which is the Hebrew Bible (OT) and the other is a saviour story showing a road out of the fire and Brimstone through the teachings of Jesus/Paul (what people call Christianity is actually "Pauline Christianity" which perverts Christ's teachings through someone else's viewpoint) creates a fractured whole in some ways. Jesus of course, if he was a historical character rather than a composite would have been very much aware of the OT and known that he was merely copying the prophesies from there on his road to his fate which would make him an utter fraud. They conveniently forget that bit though. Bit rich that they call themselves 'christian' then. My personal view is that Jesus did exist and was a preacher but was also a political agitator who was vying for the throne of Israel. His blood line can be traced back to David, I believe, upon which he staked his claim and was a threat to Herod. To build up his following, either the disciples exaggerated his powers, hence the miracles, or that was all added later by the writers of the church's business plan. Ultimately, Herod got rid of him due to his plans to usurp him. Supporting evidence for this is in a church in Spain which I visited and saw, below a picture of the crucifixion, an explanation for INRI (what was inscribed on the plaque on the cross). Most say it stands for Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum - 'Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews'. However, below the painting in Spain it says "Inuit Natutorum Rex Iudaeorum - "he said he was born king of the Jews". In other words, this plaque is not his name, it is his crime. I.e. Herod was making it very clear to everyone that trying to overthrow him will get you killed. |
|
|
|
Post by Joc Spader on Aug 24, 2020 14:56:57 GMT
Any thoughts on the book of Enoch? I have the audio book of 3hr26 mins. Have not made it all the way through yet. Wanted to now more about the giants and the fallen angels who sinned with birds and they wiped man out.
|
|
|
|
Post by yggdrasil on Aug 24, 2020 16:19:45 GMT
"He" preached it, but the Church very much didn't though. Lure them in with sweet talk and then drop the bomb. The Church very much preached the kindness of torture and destruction to "save" the souls of people in the afterlife. But, having two separate strains, one of which is the Hebrew Bible (OT) and the other is a saviour story showing a road out of the fire and Brimstone through the teachings of Jesus/Paul (what people call Christianity is actually "Pauline Christianity" which perverts Christ's teachings through someone else's viewpoint) creates a fractured whole in some ways. Jesus of course, if he was a historical character rather than a composite would have been very much aware of the OT and known that he was merely copying the prophesies from there on his road to his fate which would make him an utter fraud. They conveniently forget that bit though. Bit rich that they call themselves 'christian' then. My personal view is that Jesus did exist and was a preacher but was also a political agitator who was vying for the throne of Israel. His blood line can be traced back to David, I believe, upon which he staked his claim and was a threat to Herod. To build up his following, either the disciples exaggerated his powers, hence the miracles, or that was all added later by the writers of the church's business plan. Ultimately, Herod got rid of him due to his plans to usurp him. Supporting evidence for this is in a church in Spain which I visited and saw, below a picture of the crucifixion, an explanation for INRI (what was inscribed on the plaque on the cross). Most say it stands for Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum - 'Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews'. However, below the painting in Spain it says "Inuit Natutorum Rex Iudaeorum - "he said he was born king of the Jews". In other words, this plaque is not his name, it is his crime. I.e. Herod was making it very clear to everyone that trying to overthrow him will get you killed. The quote was supposed to be the Romans mocking him with the title. If he was a real figure then it is likely that he was a teacher (he is referred to as Rabbi in the Bible) which was very close to a preacher back then, also likely that he was a "Zealot" or from some very similar cult movement. Ironically you could probably compare him to someone like Bobby Sands but hopefully without the dirty protest. Would definitely have been viewed as an existential or terrorist threat to the State. |
|
|
|
Post by Top Bloke on Aug 24, 2020 17:06:44 GMT
I thought that the NT is obviously given precedence over the OT but doesn’t repudiate the OT. Only where there is conflict between the teachings of the OT and NT is where the NT is superior. Otherwise the OT is still a part of the bible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Aug 24, 2020 20:40:12 GMT
The quote was supposed to be the Romans mocking him with the title. Maybe. Or maybe the command that Herod gave to the Roman soldiers to pin him up with. |
|
|
|
Post by yggdrasil on Aug 25, 2020 8:29:02 GMT
The quote was supposed to be the Romans mocking him with the title. Maybe. Or maybe the command that Herod gave to the Roman soldiers to pin him up with. Personally I still tend towards the composite character theory. All a little neat and in line with prophesies otherwise. All religions follow the same old persecution complex nonsense anyway. The Christians were just another bunch of thugs trying to gain power through fears of damnation, same old same old. |
|
|
|
Post by yggdrasil on Aug 25, 2020 8:32:42 GMT
Any thoughts on the book of Enoch? I have the audio book of 3hr26 mins. Have not made it all the way through yet. Wanted to now more about the giants and the fallen angels who sinned with birds and they wiped man out. There are quite a few other apocryphal texts that didn't make it into both Testaments. "Enoch" was one but there are probably others still unknown in caves unfound. |
|
