@ Appletonian
Are you serious? Did you actually just jump to the conclusion that he was using some terribly translated version without actually looking up the passages, just because you don't like what it said? Check the NIV, the KJV, or any other version... For instance, on BibleGateway.com...
Basically, the new testament should overshadow the old because the new testament is much more recent and has much more accurate translations, while the old testament is very mistranslated and misunderstood, etc.
Orly? Guess that's ignoring the fact that we still have extremely old copies of the OT, and that there is almost no difference between those and contemporary, generally accepted translations. I guess that's also just ignoring the fact that Jesus rigorously studied (and memorized most of, if not all of) the Jewish texts like other children in that time, and throwing away anything he had ever quoted from the books. Not to mention the fact that the OT is THE source of all of the prophecies which Jesus supposedly fulfilled, usually (if not always, aside from the prophecy of his birthplace) doing so consciously and explicitly just for the sake of fulfilling them.
You can say that the NT is more contemporary. You can't say that the OT should just be ignored because it is "misunderstood". The OT and the NT revolve around the same selfish, insecure, genocidal "god". Whether or not that makes you feel good doesn't change that fact.
Oh, but god didn't kill many people in the New Testament, did he? Nope. He just condemned them to a place of eternal, unimaginable torture if they didn't totally submit their lives to him and become his slave. He still loved them, of course.
reply
share
sympho_natica
15 years ago
Well, Jesus probably studied the OT in the same way that we had to study Charles Dickens, or Shakespeare.
But, on another note, christians have a habit of "picking and choosing" what they find acceptable to follow: "Some OT verses are good, some aren't. Some are accurate, some aren't." I personally say - Screw the old testament! They're literally a bunch of old Hebrew and Jewish Laws that christians were never intended to follow anyhow. I mean, Stone those who plant crops side by side? Burn those who wear multi-fabric clothing? Stone a woman who is not a virgin when married? Sell your daughter to slavery, and make sure you sell her for a good price too? Some crazy stuff goes on in the OT - Mainly because it isn't well translated AND because it has little to do with what Christianity is meant to be - Christ centered.
"Christian" translates literally into "christ-like", meaning to have, or try to have, the qualities of Jesus. According to the NT, Jesus seemed like a pretty cool dude. Healed people, taught valuable lessons, told everyone to care, etc etc. He never once led a bloody massacre, or told someone that they'll suffer an eternity in hell. He ate with the people who, back then, were considered unclean. His followers were apparently people that nobody would care to know in the first place.
Another thing to remember that the men who wrote the bible were human, and were subject to the bias of their society. Perhaps those old, violent Bible stories were fairy tales told to the children of that time? Perhaps that somebody changed the stories a little bit each time it was passed? Who knows. Frankly, you just can't trust anything anymore. But, putting the OT as the basis of Christianity's issues is somewhat shaky, mainly considering that the OT is probably not intended for Christianity, but are instead some random documents that said "Yahweh", which automatically got them placed with the rest of the "Yahweh" documents. Who knows though.
reply
share
BlackHeart314
15 years ago
Well, Jesus probably studied the OT in the same way that we had to study Charles Dickens, or Shakespeare.
Hey, maybe you shouldn't make claims about something you don't know anything about. Do you know what a Rabi is? Yeah, Jesus was one of those. So no, he didn't just study the OT flippantly, it was very serious. Not to mention the numerous occasions in the NT where he specifically says he had no intention whatsoever of removing the old law.
Another thing to remember that the men who wrote the bible were human, and were subject to the bias of their society.
And that means... you should only accept the parts of the Bible that make you feel good inside? Odd conclusion.
But, putting the OT as the basis of Christianity's issues is somewhat shaky, mainly considering that the OT is probably not intended for Christianity, but are instead some random documents that said "Yahweh", which automatically got them placed with the rest of the "Yahweh" documents.
Shaky? Okay... really? I mean... REALLY? You honestly have no clue about anything behind the religion you submit yourself to, do you? Dude, seriously, for your own sake, read up on something instead of blindly adopting it, or at least before you try to convince people that it's logically acceptable.
reply
share
sympho_natica
15 years ago
No need to be too defensive. I wasn't pointing out 'facts', I was just making speculation. I don't enjoy arguing (especially over the internet), and i try to avoid it. But apparently, It aint happenin.
I have read up about Christianity, the Bible, and so forth. I know what there is to know, and I'm still learning even more about it now-a-days. I'm growing to dislike it more and more.
Also, If Jesus never intended to remove old laws, then does that mean everyone who wears mixed fabrics should be put to death? Or how about football players who've touched a football? Don't forget about all those nasty people who've eaten shellfish! All those people would have to be stoned, or imprisoned, or etc. for not abiding to the OT laws. You know, why would Jesus want to keep the Old laws if he knew practically everyone on earth was going to break them at one point or another? Were they even written for us? Maybe he was talking about another set of laws; 10 of them - written on slabs of stone.
If you were to right a book today about all of your personal opinions, how would it be viewed 2,000 years from now? How would your views differ from a person's view who is years in the future? Do you think they'd think the same way, or do you think changes in society might've changed his viewpoints around a bit? For example: Now-a-days, it is taboo in America to walk around naked. 2,000 years from now, everyone may be naked and see nothing 'immoral' or 'weird' about it. Nakedness would be considered normal, and so people of that time would be biased for it. It has nothing to do with me directly picking and choosing what makes me feel good. 2,000 years AGO, people were executed for the most ridiculous things (for breaking the strangest laws) and they saw nothing wrong with it.
I'm sorry if I bothered you by my original post.
P.S. You spelled Rabbi wrong. ;)
reply
share
Appletonian
15 years ago
Jesus had nothing to do with the Bible and nothing to do with Christianity.
reply
share