[charles brough]

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 Being only half as ancient and hence that much less out-of-date, the offensive parts are much less in number: such as the admonitions to hate your family (Luke 14:26), Kill Jesus's enemies (Luke 19:27 and Math. 10:34),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?

[dduckwessel]

charles brough, on 17 September 2011 - 08:19 AM, said:

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 Being only half as ancient and hence that much less out-of-date, the offensive parts are much less in number: such as the admonitions to hate your family (Luke 14:26), Kill Jesus's enemies (Luke 19:27 and Math. 10:34),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)

Quote

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.

[charles brough]

dduckwessel, on 17 September 2011 - 09:24 AM, said:

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.

[dduckwessel]

charles brough, on 17 September 2011 - 11:11 AM, said:

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.

Quote

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).

Quote

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.

[coldcreation]

charles brough, on 17 September 2011 - 11:11 AM, said:

[...]

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.

charles brough, on 17 September 2011 - 11:11 AM, said:

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

[Turtle]

charles brough, on 17 September 2011 - 08:19 AM, said:

...
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. 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.

[charles brough]

Turtle, on 17 September 2011 - 06:24 PM, said:

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. 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.

You're right! Enough is enough.

[CraigD]

Turtle, on 17 September 2011 - 06:24 PM, said:

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.

charles brough, on 17 September 2011 - 08:19 AM, said:

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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”?

[charles brough]

CraigD, on 19 September 2011 - 05:29 AM, said:

(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?

Quote

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.

[Fluxus]

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.