Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Why Does Christianity Have Two Bibles?


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 charles brough

charles brough

    "overviewist"

  • Members
  • 531 posts

Posted 17 September 2011 - 11:55 AM

We all know there is a vast difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament. The older one is the Judaic Bible. It recounts the history of an historically obscure, monotheistic tribe which, in Numbers, Deuteronomy and other parts describes their invasions and slaughtering of the men women and children of the lands they stole.

In comparison to the brutal Judaic Bible, the New Testament is generally a beacon of pragrance and light---even though, of course, there are exceptions. Being only half as ancient and hence that much less out-of-date, the offensive parts are much less in number: such as the admonitions to hate your family (Luke 14:26), Kill Jesus's enemies (Luke 19:27 and Math. 10:34), regarding dealing with slaves (Eph 6:5) and the subjection of women (1Tim 2:11-12).

Since there is this vast difference between the two Bibles, why is the Jewish Bible considered part of the Christian Scripture?

#2 dduckwessel

dduckwessel

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 466 posts

Posted 17 September 2011 - 01:00 PM

We all know there is a vast difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament. The older one is the Judaic Bible. It recounts the history of an historically obscure, monotheistic tribe which, in Numbers, Deuteronomy and other parts describes their invasions and slaughtering of the men women and children of the lands they stole.

In comparison to the brutal Judaic Bible, the New Testament is generally a beacon of pragrance and light---even though, of course, there are exceptions. Being only half as ancient and hence that much less out-of-date, the offensive parts are much less in number: such as the admonitions to hate your family (Luke 14:26), Kill Jesus's enemies (Luke 19:27 and Math. 10:34), regarding dealing with slaves (Eph 6:5) and the subjection of women (1Tim 2:11-12).


Dare I add my two cents...they're not different but rather the same (uniquely rephrased). One expounds (or expands) the other. The sameness is not readily apparent until you superimpose same topics, thus getting the full picture (each verse is only half of the whole, or 1/3, etc):

"In the beginning..." (Gen.1:1 - OT/Written Torah)
"In the beginning..." (John 1:1 - NT)

Since there is this vast difference between the two Bibles, why is the Jewish Bible considered part of the Christian Scripture?


It's certainly one of the more apparent contradictions...Judaism and Christianity are very different religions and have virtually nothing in common. Strange that quoting from the same source could create such differences? However, they're not quoting from 'the same' source! Judaism is strictly OT/Written Torah while Christianity is predominantly N.T.

To further confuse the issue, Judaism is seeing the words through a different contruct (conventions and traditions) than Christians do.

The contradictions are interpreting ones as at face value the two books appear very different. And until a consistent interpreting methodology is used things will remain as they presently are, which I believe for some people is as they like it. If something popped up that would end the arguments once and for all, a lot of religious scholars would lose credibility, and jobs.

The political ramifications in finding such a consistent interpreting method are huge not only for religion but science as well as it would be a great blow to conventional thinking.

#3 charles brough

charles brough

    "overviewist"

  • Members
  • 531 posts

Posted 17 September 2011 - 02:47 PM

Dare I add my two cents...they're not different but rather the same (uniquely rephrased). One expounds (or expands) the other. The sameness is not readily apparent until you superimpose same topics, thus getting the full picture (each verse is only half of the whole, or 1/3, etc):

"In the beginning..." (Gen.1:1 - OT/Written Torah)
"In the beginning..." (John 1:1 - NT)



It's certainly one of the more apparent contradictions...Judaism and Christianity are very different religions and have virtually nothing in common. Strange that quoting from the same source could create such differences? However, they're not quoting from 'the same' source! Judaism is strictly OT/Written Torah while Christianity is predominantly N.T.

To further confuse the issue, Judaism is seeing the words through a different contruct (conventions and traditions) than Christians do.

The contradictions are interpreting ones as at face value the two books appear very different. And until a consistent interpreting methodology is used things will remain as they presently are, which I believe for some people is as they like it. If something popped up that would end the arguments once and for all, a lot of religious scholars would lose credibility, and jobs.

The political ramifications in finding such a consistent interpreting method are huge not only for religion but science as well as it would be a great blow to conventional thinking.


Yes, the two books see a different world view because one is of a barbaric tribe of herders and the other is of a much later and more advanced Roman Helenic Age people. The New expands on the Old because the Old adapted the Babylonian creation myth after simplifying and improving it.

There is no mainstream religion or world-view system that was, has been or can be successful that does not include an answer to a few basic questions dealing with the so-called mysteryies of life---one of which is "what is our origin?" Christianity had to answer the question and it needed the Old Testament to do it. Most of the OT is a brutal history of invasions and slaughter, but the myth of Creation is fundamental to both Judaism and Christianity.

All that helps explain why it is so difficult explaining human evolution to the faithful. Over half the population of the US does not believe we evolved from other, older primates.

#4 dduckwessel

dduckwessel

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 466 posts

Posted 17 September 2011 - 04:03 PM

Yes, the two books see a different world view because one is of a barbaric tribe of herders and the other is of a much later and more advanced Roman Helenic Age people. The New expands on the Old because the Old adapted the Babylonian creation myth after simplifying and improving it.



Again Charles, I'm convinced that the two books are the same; the NT is a copy (though not readily apparent) of the old.


Most of the OT is a brutal history of invasions and slaughter, but the myth of Creation is fundamental to both Judaism and Christianity.


If you read it verbatim then yes you will see slaughter (and slaughter is repulsive) but even up to present day there's still slaughter going on in different parts of the world. What I mean to say is that slaughter is not just an OT thing, it has been going on from the beginning of time and seems inherent within our species, where you find certain conditions (dictatorships usually).

All that helps explain why it is so difficult explaining human evolution to the faithful. Over half the population of the US does not believe we evolved from other, older primates.


Here again, I believe the problem is with interpretation for Genesis clearly agrees with the evolutionary path. Even if it didn't, you would think the scientific evidence would be enough. :)

#5 coldcreation

coldcreation

    Resident Bright

  • Members
  • 1577 posts

Posted 17 September 2011 - 04:47 PM

[...]

All that helps explain why it is so difficult explaining human evolution to the faithful.


First of all, this is a discussion that revolves around theology, not history, and so would be better appreciated in the Theology Forum rather than in the History Forum.

Secondly, what you write above does not help explain why it is so difficult explaining human evolution to the faithful. The so-called mysteries of life are simply dealt with (in the bible) by piling on more mysteries of life. It is not an alternative to evolution at all.


Over half the population of the US does not believe we evolved from other, older primates.


Just because half (or more) of the population believes that dolphins are fish does not make them fish.

Maybe half the population should take a field trip to their local Natural History Museum to see the evidence for themselves, rather than take the word of their local prelate.


CC

#6 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • 15348 posts

Posted 17 September 2011 - 10:00 PM

...
Since there is this vast difference between the two Bibles, why is the Jewish Bible considered part of the Christian Scripture?


i honestly don't know what kind of good you think you are doing by provoking folks on our science forum with this religious business. :jab: :naughty: tant pis that you have been here a while & jolly well know how it's going to go. good grief. render unto caesar...

to your pointed question the pointed answer is jesus was a jew.

#7 charles brough

charles brough

    "overviewist"

  • Members
  • 531 posts

Posted 18 September 2011 - 04:25 PM

i honestly don't know what kind of good you think you are doing by provoking folks on our science forum with this religious business. :jab: :naughty: tant pis that you have been here a while & jolly well know how it's going to go. good grief. render unto caesar...

to your pointed question the pointed answer is jesus was a jew.


:thumbs_do
:whp-pssh:

You're right! Enough is enough.

#8 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 8034 posts

Posted 19 September 2011 - 09:05 AM

i honestly don't know what kind of good you think you are doing by provoking folks on our science forum with this religious business.

Intentions aside, CB’s question is a legitimate history one. While asserting the factual truth of the Bible in a gathering of rational people is like taunting bulls with capes, discussing the document’s history shouldn’t be.

Since there is this vast difference between the two Bibles, why is the Jewish Bible considered part of the Christian Scripture?

In short, because Christian church leader assembled on several occasions over many years, discussed and argued the subject, and came to the consensus that it should be. The consensus concerning what should be in the Bible appears to have been reached around 393 to 397 BC. Though the question was argued in many meeting of church leaders for many centuries more, these meetings mostly addressed conventions of interpreting different books of the Bible as more or less important than one another, and occasional proposals to exclude or include a few controversial books.

Because most of these assemblies were well documented, there are many good, unbiased accounts of this, such as the wikipedia article development of the Christian biblical canon.

It [the Old Testament] recounts the history of an historically obscure, monotheistic tribe which, in Numbers, Deuteronomy and other parts describes their invasions and slaughtering of the men women and children of the lands they stole.

While parts of the OT appear to be a history, it’s important, I think, to note that it’s a poorly corroborated history. In short, large parts of it are almost certainly great exaggerations or pure invented myth and political propaganda with little connection to actual ancient events.

In comparison to the brutal Judaic Bible, the New Testament is generally a beacon of pragrance and light ...

Commentary on the relative moral virtues of different religions is controversial (for example, opinions of the relative brutality and goodness of the OT and the NT vary strongly between Jews and Christians) is against hypography’s site rules. Please stick to historically verifiable data, such as religious beliefs being given by people as justification for brutal or good acts.

PS: what’s “pragrance”?

#9 charles brough

charles brough

    "overviewist"

  • Members
  • 531 posts

Posted 19 September 2011 - 10:56 AM

(The OT became part of the Bible) because Christian church leader assembled on several occasions over many years, discussed and argued the subject, and came to the consensus that it should be. The consensus concerning what should be in the Bible appears to have been reached around 393 to 397 BC. Though the question was argued in many meeting of church leaders for many centuries more, these meetings mostly addressed conventions of interpreting different books of the Bible as more or less important than one another, and occasional proposals to exclude or include a few controversial books.


Yes, that is historical, but why did they convene? Why was unity of doctrine important to them? Why did they feel the need to include the OT?

Commentary on the relative moral virtues of different religions is controversial (for example, opinions of the relative brutality and goodness of the OT and the NT vary strongly between Jews and Christians) is against hypography’s site rules. Please stick to historically verifiable data, such as religious beliefs being given by people as justification for brutal or good acts.


Surely. The OT purports to be a history of a monogamous tribe of herders, ones that descended upon and slaughtered
the people of the communities they encountered, a process that was common to hunting and herding tribes clear on up into Muslim times. However, they may have been bragging and have exaggered their prowess.

“pragrance” is a miss spelled word. I thinc we shood have the rite to spel words anyway they sownd. :D

#10 Fluxus

Fluxus

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 37 posts

Posted 19 September 2011 - 07:19 PM

I'm not sure how you missed it, but....

Historically speaking, Jesus was in fact a Jewish prophet. He was born a Jew, he was raised a Jew, his theology was essentially Jewish, he was very likely influenced by Jewish groups like the Essenes, and his primary goals were to get rid of the Romans, reform the Temple of Jerusalem, and change the behavior of the Jewish community.

It took several generations, two Jewish revolts against the Roman occupation, and the utter destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem for his followers to differentiate themselves from what was at the time mainstream Judaism. IIRC it took another ~150 years for the new Christians to decide which texts to gather together into a single volume as "The New Testament," and a many more years for Gnosticism, Marcionites, Valentinians and the like to get sorted out (i.e. suppressed) and for the Catholic Church to really form as an institution.

As such, Christianity accepts the Tanakh as revelations from their deity before Jesus showed up. Many of its rules are accepted as valid (e.g. 10 Commandments), others were considered superseded as part of a "new pact" with God (e.g. dropping the laws of Kashrut).

Or in short: Christians believe that Jesus was the Messiah. Jews believe the Messiah hasn't shown up yet.

The two religions are intimately connected -- much in the same way that Islam accepts both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament, and all of their prophets. Do you really not know this?


Life circa 30 CE was violent, nasty, brutish and short, even for the Roman elites. Slaves made up roughly half the population of the Roman empire, science and medicine were essentially non-existent, literacy rates would be a joke by modern standards, conquest was the rule of the day. The Romans were more than happy to butcher and enslave as many people as necessary to maintain control, and crucifixion was a routine punishment for slaves and non-Romans. (I might add that contrary to Christian belief, the world was essentially oblivious to the execution of yet another a Jewish trouble-maker during Passover.) Most Israelites, including Jesus, despised the "sophisticated" Romans who occupied Israel, and wanted little more than to get rid of the whole lot of trafe-eaters and go back to living the way they had for centuries. I rather doubt that Jesus -- who, to my knowledge, did not have a Roman education, and spent his youth as a carpenter -- and his contemporaries would appreciate being called "Hellenized" or "Romanized."

The Tanakh was largely completed around 450 BCE and canonized a few hundred years later. It's roughly contemporaneous with the works of Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras and other ancient Greek luminaries. The world simply did not change that much between the writing of the Hebrew and Christian texts.

All that all being said, your negative characterization of the Torah is really not a smart move. It's massively insulting to Judaism in general, and to the extent that the Old Testament is accepted as the Word of God, I can't imagine it would be appreciated by most Christians either.

#11 IamJoy

IamJoy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 35 posts

Posted 01 October 2012 - 06:23 PM

"why is the Jewish Bible considered part of the Christian Scripture?"

I thought it was pretty obvious that it's because all the way through the NT there are references to verses from the OT, so you need the OT as the foundation that the NT has grown from. Besides, during christian history there have been plenty of people who have tried to begin new branches of it omitting either all, or some of the OT, but inevitably were branded heretics by the catholic church, whose doctrine has always won out in the end (until the modern day).

Logically though it'd seem that if christians only need the bits of the OT that are referred to in the NT then all the rest of the OT could be omitted - which in reality is what they do anyway (i.e. with the Jewish dietary laws and punishments). Like Jesus only refers to a few books in the OT and not to any of the vile slaughter-fests (like the book of joshua) so I don't see why christians can't omit these books as it'd end a lot of religious confusion.

#12 HydrogenBond

HydrogenBond

    Creating

  • Banned
  • 3058 posts

Posted 04 October 2014 - 04:28 PM

The two books represent a continuing story, written in two acts. Like a play, each act is separate yet connected with a curtain call in the middle. The old testament begins in paradise, where nature is in harmony and the pre-humans are like advanced animals, integrated with nature. The pre-humans live in harmony with nature until they gain free will and choices. 

 

It was no longer easy to be integrate with nature, when humans have too many choices apart from natural instinct.  The humans could no longer coordinate with the plan of nature. Once the top of the food chain began to disengage from the plan, all the related ecosystems get messed up such that death appears as a ripple effect from top to bottom. People who lived in those days give witness to what they observed. 

 

After humans leave natural instinct in favor of choice, only some of these humans use their free will and choice to return to God, which was like an upgraded instinct of the mind. These peoples and cultures are sparse and often struggle under difficult conditions. The Old Testament also tells of their story and their struggles. Within these stories and struggles are prophesies of a future where a redeemer will appear; return to paradise. This redeemer dude is tough and can enforce good choices. The Old Testament culminates in Jesus, who was a Jew and a descendant of David, whose job was to fore fill prophesies. 

 

The New Testament tells of the transition from the old to the new dispensation, where a new path is laid out based on love and cooperation instead of adherence to law, since law of good and evil was what had started to the process of humans losing harmony with creation. The new Testament ends with newer prophesies which seem to indicate a third book will someday be added, that discusses those final days leading up to the new transition; software update, where paradise again will appear, for 1000 years. The uninstalled process is very stressful since it will need to disrupt thousands of years of bad choices.  . 

 

What I think is more interesting is why the bible stopped at the New Testament, since there is 2000 years of history connected to the new dispensation, some of which is very interesting. Maybe the old testament genealogy approach was considered obsolete. A third book did not appear in that style. The New Testament was not about genetic lines, like biology, but about mental/spiritual pregnancies and births, which is harder to quantify. Key ideas and drives lead the ebb and flow of New Testament history from all places. 

 

The Church that Christ help found; Christianity; goes through some very tough times for several centuries, finally to become integrated into the Roman Empire. The stone which the builders rejected became a chief cornerstone.The word is preached to all the nations through the Holy Roman empire, as well as through the empires that it spawns, like Great Britain, France, Spain, etc.,, who explore and influence the entire world. 

 

America is part of that third book story, where free will and choices, work in a coordinated way, via the melting pot. Not all her choices coordinate with the image of paradise still in the future. But even today the vision of paradise continues as humans attempt to renew the land and save the animals so the future can benefit by them. 


Edited by HydrogenBond, 04 October 2014 - 04:38 PM.


#13 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8582 posts

Posted 04 October 2014 - 06:38 PM

[Moderator's Note: the previous post is actually borderline proselytizing, but is being charitably considered "Theology" for purposes of proper deconstruction by this post. Proselytizing is not only discouraged at Hypography but is something we ban people for if it gets out of hand, so be careful with any responses in this thread that are not mostly historical in nature.]

 

 

The two books represent a continuing story, written in two acts. Like a play, each act is separate yet connected with a curtain call in the middle. 

 

Well if you're Jewish that first part stands on its own and the second part is heretical drivel. If you're Muslim, it's a nice but unimportant second act, where you need only to really pay attention to the third act (the Koran).

 

I've always been fascinated that the two are so at odds in construction, style and content that it's pretty hard to see why they were ever published in the same book.

 

The Old Testament's "wrathful" and "jealous" God who willingly wipes out all of humanity in floods and burns their cities to the ground and explicitly favors the Israelites and speaks and is constantly directly quoted quite suddenly transmogrifies into an unseen and infinitely benevolent and forgiving God who asks only that you try to be nice to other people but as long as you accept him as your savior fully the minute before you die, all your sins are expunged and you're saved.

 

There are endless pages on the internet trying to say that these differences aren't there, but it's pretty hard to whitewash these very distinct deities.

 

Volumes are filled with other distinctions, but we can save those for later.

 

The old testament begins in paradise, where nature is in harmony and the pre-humans are like advanced animals, integrated with nature. These pre-humans live in harmony until they gain free will and choices. 

 

It was no longer easy to be integrate with nature, when humans have too many choices apart from natural instinct.  The humans could no longer coordinate with the plan of nature. Once the top of the food chain began to disengage from the plan, all the related ecosystems get messed up such that death appears as a ripple effect from top to bottom. People who lived in those days give witness to what they observed. 

 

After humans leave natural instinct in favor of choice, only some of these humans use their free will and choice to return to God, which was like an upgraded instinct of the mind. These peoples and cultures are sparse and often struggle under difficult conditions. The Old Testament also tells of their story and their struggles. 

 

This is the "life's a bitch and then you die" interpretation of Judaism that you hear from Christians and Muslims and it sure sounds depressing. 

 

For most Jews, it's a rather complete set of history set in stories from which you can learn how to deal with the fact that life is not fair and how to get along with your fellow man.

 

For Christian's though, this gets turned around into a "see? Those Jews were lost until Jesus came along!" so you end up always getting this sort of transition where Jesus is the "culimination" of the Old Testament:

 

 

Within these stories and struggles are prophesies of a future where a redeemer will appear; return to paradise. This redeemer dude is tough and can enforce good choices. The Old Testament culminates in Jesus, who was a Jew and a descendant of David, whose job was to fore fill prophesies.  

 

...which is pretty obnoxious if you're a Jew. Sure the Jews think there'll be a messiah, but they're not actually *waiting* for him/her (yah, the Reform Jews think it could be a girl), in quite the same hyperventilating way that Christians await the Second Coming of Christ, with major subsects insisting he's gonna show up "any day now!"
 
In any case, the real connector between the two was kind of forced by the fact Jesus is actually represented as the "Son of God" which has always been taken as equivalent to being Jewish Messiah, and indeed the ongoing conflict between the "original" religion (Judaism) and the "new sect" (Christianity) has resulted in lots of pejorative interpretations that put the Jews on the side of not liking all the good things that Jesus "stood" for:

 

The New Testament tells of the transition from the old to the new dispensation, where a new path is laid out based on love and cooperation instead of adherence to law, since law of good and evil was what had started to the process of losing harmony with creation. The new Testament ends with new prophesies which seem to indicate a third book will someday be added that discusses those final days leading up to the new transition; software update, where paradise again will appear, for 1000 years.  

 

So Jews slavishly follow old, out of date laws based on arbitrary "good vs. evil" laid out on a couple of stupid stones, whereas Jesus  is all about "love and cooperation."

 

Man that reeks.

 

Oh and only if you follow Jesus will you be able to enter "paradise" whereas all those nasty unaccepting Jews will be tortured to death in the Tribulation...

 

The uninstalled process is very stressful since it will disrupt thousands of years of bad choices that lead to humans messing up the earth and each other.  

 

...while good Christians will get to skip all the nasty results of those "bad choices" because they'll all get Raptured.

 

Nonetheless, Christians are still kind of stuck with the Old Testament, and it's actually quite interesting how the most fundamentalist sects--especially those that seem to have adopted the Republican Party/Corporatist political positioning--rely so heavily on that old wrathful, intolerant Yahweh and interpret him in the most limiting, absolutist way.

 

Jews on the other hand, take their God as being a source of Goodness who in fact is still fallible and very human.

 

What I think is more interesting is why the bible stopped at the New Testament, since there is 2000 years of history connected to the new dispensation some of which is very interesting. Maybe the old testament genealogy approach was considered obsolete. The New Testament was not about genetic lines, like biology, but about mental/spiritual pregnancies and births, which is harder to quantify. Key ideas and drives lead the ebb and flow of New Testament history from all places.  

 

Well the reason it stopped is that the Roman Catholic church got a hold of it and froze it to their liking because it was a source of their power and the reason behind making it the "word of God" and infallible. Only the split with the Eastern Orthodox (which really was less a schism than a transfer of power when Rome fell and then a power play by Western Europe to pull back control with the rise of the Holy Roman Empire), and then the Protestant Reformation have made even modest changes to the Bible because from the viewpoint of political power--and the Christian Church was all about political power for most of those 2000 years--it was convenient to have absolute unquestioning primacy of a document that could be "interpreted" however those in power wanted it to be.

 

Those who would seek to add to the accepted Bible--or even try to bring back elements that were excised--were immediately branded as heretics because they were not just questioning the Bible, they were questioning the Powers That Be.

 

Now at the same time--especially over the last hundred years--we have seen massive fracturing of the Christian Church into competing viewpoints that has greatly diminished it's power. The Roman Catholic Church--and to a lesser extent the Eastern Orthodox Church--have mostly stayed intact although they have seen losses in membership (as a percentage of the population), while the Protestant sects have really gone in different directions, encompassing the very liberal (e.g. the Lutherans, and now thankfully Pope Frank) and the very conservative (e.g. Southern Baptists, American Bishops and Conservative Catholics). This is also a time where we've seen a lot of pressure to start reconsidering *why* some of those books were banned from the Bible and just how "human" those decisions were as opposed to being the unquestioned hand of God.

 

What's fascinating when looking at Christianity from the outside of course is that in spite of all these schisms, there's a closing of ranks about the unified, single truth of Christianity that is all rosy and perfect:

 

The Church that Christ help found or Christianity goes through some very tough times for several centuries, finally to become integrated into the Roman Empire. The stone which the builders rejected became a chief cornerstone.The word is preached to all the nations through the Holy Roman empire as well as through the empires that it spawns, like Great Britain, France, Spain, etc.,, who explore and influence the entire world. 

 

Uh...oh and yah, interrupted not only by all those wars and overthrows and expulsions and inquisitions that made Christianity the central justification of power ("the Divine Right of Kings") for two millennia:

 

 

America is part of that third book story, where free will and choices, work in a coordinated way, via the melting pot. Not all her choices coordinate causing some causing division, with the image of paradise still in the future. But even today the vision of paradise continues as humans attempt to renew the land and save animals so the future can benefit by them. 

 

...and as an extension of this, we're now in a period where people are invoking a Divine justification for "American Exceptionalism" since we're the most Christian country and evidence is being pulled right out of these good old/new testaments chock full of conflicting justifications for forcing the rest of the world to bend to our will.

 

And of course most of those justifications are coming from the Old Testament which under strained interpretation supposedly prohibits homosexuality and equal rights for women (and permits slavery or at least the maltreatment of people of other colors and creeds), and eschews the unquestioned love of one's fellow man preached by Jesus, who seems to have actually loved the money changers and dictates that we should withhold alms for the poor because it makes them lazy. 

 

And coming back to the already written "third act"--which has been so transparently not only ignored but recently called an evil document that some in the US are trying to outlaw--whether or not the "next act" (third, fourth, fifth or higher number if you want to include the Bhagavad Gita, Book of Mormon, or Dianetics to the list that it'll follow) after it isn't going to be some completely out there text that again bears no resemblance to the "Old" and "New." 

 

Let's just hope that the folks pushing things like the Turner Diaries and Atlas Shrugged don't win in this battle for the expansion of the Biblical canon.

 

 

 

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs, :phones:

Buffy



#14 HydrogenBond

HydrogenBond

    Creating

  • Banned
  • 3058 posts

Posted 11 October 2014 - 08:55 AM

If you ever read the bible, especially, Isaiah, prophesies, foretell the future of the Messiah; Act 2. This is felt to be satisfied in Christ by some but not by all. 

 

The Jews don't use the New Testament, because they, like others, maintain a glory days mentality, when they were the twinkle in their father's eye.  Once the new baby was born, their glory days is now in the past since the baby gets all the attention. The older child will complain that too much attention is being given to their baby sibling, so they not participate out of protest. 

 

Relative to Arabs and Jews, they both come from Abraham, with that in common. But there is where their two books diverge into the glory days of each. ISIS or ISIL is trying to control the lands of past glory days.The Jews returned to the land of their glory days. They did not just maintain the present and move on, because this was not as glorious; when they were the only special child. 

 

If you look at America, in the north and deep south, pockets of the deep south still live in their glory days from the Revolution to when the  Rebel flag was flying; civil war. While the north sees the Revolutionary war, as act 1, and the civil war act 2, because glory was still in motion. 

 

The atheists see their glory days as pre-civilization, when there was no religion. They try to get their herd to go back and live more by natural animal standards. They also complain like the displaced child  trying to show how two new babies crapped his diaper in acts 1 and act 2; sour grapes. 

 

There will be confusion, answering this question, based on where one's glory days line is drawn by their clique and clan. Each group is a subjective slave of their glory days bias. The title of this topic is why Christianity has two bibles, and not why atheists resent it. 

 

Christianity continues to evolve, but it does not have act 3, from Christ to now, because that would change their glory days, from the birth and rebirth of son of God, unto the reign of man, which is not as glorious. 

 

Glory days is why the middle east will remain unstable. The feuding children of Abraham don't want any new baby to be born, since this would change their glory days. The modern middle east, is  analogous to the baby sibling having died, young (Christian Britain), so the two older children, each who had their time in the eye of the dad, once again get to be the twinkle in his eye. But this time, being older by experience, they will resist any new baby being born that might displace them, again. They also fight each other for the exclusive attention of dad, the God of Abraham. 


Edited by HydrogenBond, 11 October 2014 - 09:04 AM.


#15 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8582 posts

Posted 12 October 2014 - 11:42 AM

The Jews don't use the New Testament, because they, like others, maintain a glory days mentality...Once the new baby was born, their glory days is now in the past since the baby gets all the attention. The older child will complain that too much attention is being given to their baby sibling, so they not participate out of protest.  

 

Shorter HB: Jews are whiny and too stupid to know that the New Testament is the only truth.

 

 

ISIS or ISIL is trying to control the lands of past glory days.The Jews returned to the land of their glory days.  

 

Shorter HB: Kick the Jews and the Arabs out of Palestine: it should still be commanded by the righteous United Kingdom.

 

 

Christianity continues to evolve, but it does not have act 3, from Christ to now, because that would change their glory days, from the birth and rebirth of son of God, unto the reign of man, which is not as glorious 

 

Shorter HB: Christians on the other hand are superior because they don't have glory days to look back at...um, well, uh, the best is yet to come cuz we're all gonna be ratpured and *you're* not! "Heaven on Earth" and all you know! But of course only once those gutter religions are punished thoroughly in the Tribulation and convert or die.

 

And in sum....

 

Shorter HB: You all hate Christians because we're beautiful.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------

 

A "glory days" argument in which only Christianity is evolving? That's not only the argument of a simpleton, but proselytizing at that.

 

Consider yourself warned: arguing that your religion is better than the others will have consequences around here. Do not do it any more.

 

 

And was Jerusalem builded here, among these dark Satanic mills? :phones:
Buffy


#16 HydrogenBond

HydrogenBond

    Creating

  • Banned
  • 3058 posts

Posted 15 October 2014 - 08:30 AM

You sound like your are eating sour grapes. The topic is about Christianity and two bibles, with the glory days explanation why the Christians use two bibles, and the Jews use only one. Both Jew and Muslim agree with Abraham, but diverge after that. The Jews and Christians go their own ways at the New Testament. 

 

The lessons of the second book or New testament is more inclusive and less clannish. It welcomes and includes all people, based on a criteria of the heart/mind (inner spirit) and not just genetics on the mother's side. This new approach was smart because it allowed the new church to expand and grow everywhere. If you stick with only genetics, this puts a limit on your future and sets you up for misunderstanding and defensiveness, unless you can outbreed all the rest.

 

Your suggestion of Great Britain taking over the middle east to restore peace, won't work because all it does is add another glory days variable to the situation. You can't relive the past due to the second law of entropy; perpetual motion is not allowed. The middle east needs a future vision and not three blind (mice) visions from the past. 

 

There were originally twelve tribes of Israel, with Judah only one of the twelve tribes. The land is called Israel, but it is not run by the twelve tribes, but only by one of the twelve tribes. This will never be stable since it is not the future but the past. Judah or the Jews own the land around Jerusalem but not all the land of Israel. The other eleven tribes get the rest. 

 

Where Christianity comes in is the other eleven tribes were scattered throughout the world and were reached though the New Testament. I am not an expert, but I heard two of the tribes were scattered to Great Britain and then to America; two grandsons of Israel. They have a stake, but not the entire pie, either. 



#17 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8582 posts

Posted 15 October 2014 - 10:31 AM

You sound like your are eating sour grapes. 

 

Sour grapes is when you lose a football match and say that you lost because you had a sore ankle.

 

Calling "sour grapes" in this case pretty much proves your intent is triumphalism, claiming the superiority of your religion, proven further by your pejorative word choices:

 

 

The lessons of the second book or New testament is more inclusive and less clannish. It welcomes and includes all people, based on a criteria of the heart/mind (inner spirit) and not just genetics on the mother's side. This new approach was smart because it allowed the new church to expand and grow everywhere. If you stick with only genetics, this puts a limit on your future and sets you up for misunderstanding and defensiveness, unless you can outbreed all the rest.

 

Of course this sets up religion as a "competitive game" with a "winner." Obviously the only real goal of Christianity was political power, log rolling people into joining because if they want to remain greedy ("money changers") murdering ("passion play") Jews, they deserve to suffer ("the Tribulation" followed by "burning in hell for all eternity").

 

That's so much better than insisting that people request 3 times before a Jew will talk to them about being converted, being humble about one's goals and abilities, and not needing a concept of Hell to keep people in line.

 

 

 

Your suggestion of Great Britain taking over the middle east to restore peace, won't work because all it does is add another glory days variable to the situation. You can't relive the past due to the second law of entropy; perpetual motion is not allowed. The middle east needs a future vision and not three blind (mice) visions from the past.

 

Ah, glad we agree on the UK not re-invading Palestine.

 

However I doubt anyone has as their primary justification that it would fail primarily because it would induce people into the horrifying clutches of "glory days" cultdom that is by definition doomed by the laws of thermodynamics (and of course this is a closed system, so they apply, right?).

 

Um.... 

 

 

There were originally twelve tribes of Israel, with Judah only one of the twelve tribes. The land is called Israel, but it is not run by the twelve tribes, but only by one of the twelve tribes. This will never be stable since it is not the future but the past. Judah or the Jews own the land around Jerusalem but not all the land of Israel. The other eleven tribes get the rest. 

 

Where Christianity comes in is the other eleven tribes were scattered throughout the world and were reached though the New Testament. I am not an expert, but I heard two of the tribes were scattered to Great Britain and then to America; two grandsons of Israel. They have a stake, but not the entire pie, either. 

 

Damn greedy Jews taking all of Israel is sure unstable. And the only way to fix it is to turn the land outside of the Jerusalem city limits over to the "other 11 tribes" who have all of course converted to Christianity because of the superiority of the New Testament. But of course those towel-head Muslims don't get any either because they don't have proper respect for the New Testament either, right?

 

 

We know that these clashes with Asia and Jewry are necessary for evolution, :phones:
Buffy