• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Old Testament versus New Testament

W

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
allfoak said:
The first example has horns and the second has wings.
Can't have one without the other.
The devil has both. :eek:
Click to expand...

The eye for an eye limits the punishment, avoiding the endless funding and fighting
You shall love your neighbor as yourself is a case of Jesus quoting Leviticus
 
W

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
will be happy to try again
so there always was a heresy called Marcionism where the Old Testament God was harsh and the Newer Testament as nicer, but the Christian view is that it is one God and for good reason

In the case of Leviticus, it has the calls to mercy and justice that the New Testament does
It has the year of Jubilee of freedom for the oppressed which is amplified with the coming of Jesus who started his ministry in Luke declaring a 'year of jubilee' and even the US picked up on this theme putting the year of Jubilee verse on the Liberty Bell feeling the Christian world view is an extension of the hopes of the Old Testament
 
W

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
Lot's to learn from both.. for example in the Older Testament

MLK day is a good day to ponder the bad king from the book of Jeremiah named Zedekiah.... Zedekiah freed all the slaves... good right? ... well... as I said he was bad... he un-freed them later.... bad huh? see Jeremiah 34

now you free them now you don't?
 
H

Hawkins

Well-Known Member
midopafo said:
In particular, " Eye for an eye " versus " Forgive your enemies "
Click to expand...

Eye for an eye is the policy for the Jews to survive in an environment surrounded by the Canaanites. In terms of war ethics back then, if the Jews were defeated they could be killed. So in the absence of this policy it becomes that the Canaanites can kill the Jews but not vice versa. Then the Jews would have been the first to be wiped out from history which subsequently puts God's salvation plan for humans to an end. After the Judaism firmly standing, it's no longer a necessity to adapt this policy, especially the NT applies to humans as a whole. Actually, it will be a very negative fault if this policy extends to the whole world.
 
W

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
IMG_3768.JPG

Both the love of God and the wrath of God are seen with greater clarity in the New Testament
but God is the same in both

and I think you can read them both on your smart phone using the Gidean App if you aren't sure
 
Last edited:
W

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
midopafo said:
In particular, " Eye for an eye " versus " Forgive your enemies "
Click to expand...


DA Carson answered this in one of his books:

The reality is that the Old Testament displays the grace and love of God in experience and types, and these realities become all the clearer in the New Testament. Similarly, the Old Testament displays the righteous wrath of God in experience and types, and these realities become all the clearer in the New Testament. In other words both God’s love and God’s wrath are ratcheted up in the move from the Old Testament to the New. These themes barrel along through redemptive history, unresolved, until they come to a resounding climax in the Cross.

Do you wish to see God’s love? Look at the Cross.

Do you wish to see God’s wrath? Look at the Cross.

—From D.A. Carson, “God’s Love and God’s Wrath,” Bibliotheca Sacra 156 (1999): 388–390.
 
S

SethZaddik

Active Member
Goddess_Ashtara said:
There is no "versus". There is great strength, power, wisdom, and beauty within the Old Testament as well as the New Testament. I will say, however, that I feel there is a strong connection between the Old Testament and Sumero-Babylonian mythology... and a strong connection between the New Testament and Zoroastrianism...
Click to expand...

I actually own the Zend Avesta and it doesn't have anything in common with the New Testament at all.

Some concepts were borrowed from the Parsees religion by proxy from the Jews but not directly from Zoroastrianism.
 
S

SethZaddik

Active Member
As a Muslim I consider the New Testament and the Old to be corrupted by men who had agendas.

I think the Qur'an does an excellent job of correcting those issues.

God bless the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)
 
S

SethZaddik

Active Member
SethZaddik said:
As a Muslim I consider the New Testament and the Old to be corrupted by men who had agendas.

I think the Qur'an does an excellent job of correcting those issues.

God bless the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)
Click to expand...

To add, I heard a Rabbi call it the first Midrash. I thought that was nice of him.
 
S

SethZaddik

Active Member
Hawkins said:
Eye for an eye is the policy for the Jews to survive in an environment surrounded by the Canaanites. In terms of war ethics back then, if the Jews were defeated they could be killed. So in the absence of this policy it becomes that the Canaanites can kill the Jews but not vice versa. Then the Jews would have been the first to be wiped out from history which subsequently puts God's salvation plan for humans to an end. After the Judaism firmly standing, it's no longer a necessity to adapt this policy, especially the NT applies to humans as a whole. Actually, it will be a very negative fault if this policy extends to the whole world.
Click to expand...

Eye for an eye has nothing to do with Canaan. It was borrowed from the Code of Hammurabi as Musas story about his infancy was from the story of Sargon.
 
MHz

MHz

Member
midopafo said:
In particular, " Eye for an eye " versus " Forgive your enemies "
Click to expand...
The OT is about Adam's time and when the giants were exterminated that was when the Law changed and the 10 Commandments became the law of the land in the time it takes for the two bruises from Ge:3:15 to unfold. The OT from then and the 4 Gospels of the NT are all things to do with the bruise to the heel and the 'seed of Eve' was the 12 Tribes. For the events connected to the bruise to Satan's head it is the Church of the NT that will be the 'seed of Eve' that is important to that determination. That is finished on the day the 7th trump from Re:11 sounds. Time and Law will then revert back to what it was from the days of Adam until that day the last giant dies during the exodus wars.
 
Kemosloby

Kemosloby

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
midopafo said:
In particular, " Eye for an eye " versus " Forgive your enemies "
Click to expand...

I recall a part in the old testament where the wise king Soloman orders a baby cut in half. The woman who cried out not to cut the baby in half Soloman deemed to be the real mother. So perhaps an eye for an eye is meant as a test to see who demands anothers eye be plucked out vs. who forgives. Many times God threatens to destroy the Israelites but Moses keeps asking for forgiveness, and Moses rates very high with God.
 
R

Ron Hackel

Member
God made a covenant with the Jews to be their god. What ever they asked he did. They asked for a human king and he allowed them a human king although he was supposed to be their king.

At Mount Sinai they asked for a pagan god. God simply gave them what they asked for. God had said if they would have kept their part of the covenant they would have been a holy nation and a kingdom of priests (ex 19:5&6). To make holy is the definition of sanctify.
John 17 : 17 "Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth."
2 PETER 1 : 21 "For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke FROM GOD as they were carried along by the SPIRIT."
The Jews never listened to the prophets and thus never knew the truth about God.

The second part of the covenant said they would be a kingdom of priests. In the second chapter of Malachi God admonishes the Jews for never doing what priests are supposed to do. They were supposed to stand in awe of his name. Don't fall for the uneducated Christian church and think that saying his name in some reverent manner is what is meant. Name in Hebrew means one's character. Just go to EXODUS 34:6. Moses asks God his name and God tells him His character. The verses in Malachi said to be a priest they were supposed to educate and preserve the knowledge of his character. God said they didn't keep their part of the covenant.

JEREMIAH 13 : 11 "For as a belt is bound around a man's waist, so I bound the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah to me,' declares the Lord, 'to be my people for my renown and praise and honor. But they have not listened."

ISAIAH 46 : 11 "What I have said, that will I bring about; what I have planned, that will I do."

God had planned for Israel to introduce his character to the world. Since they didn't do it, Jesus came as a Jew under the law to fulfill the covenant. He redid the steps of the Jews. He was taken into Egypt and came out and then spent 40 days in the wilderness. He came to show the character of God.

JOHN 5 : 43 "I have come in my Father's name (character), and you do not accept me"
JOHN 13 : 15 "I have set you an example that you should as I have done for you."

The disciples were supposed to fulfill the covenant as Jesus had.

1 PETER 2 : 9 "But you are a chosen people, a royal PRIESTHOOD, a HOLY NATION, a people belonging to God, THAT YOU MAY DECLARE THE PRAISES OF HIM WHO CALLED YOU OUT OF DARKNESS into his wonderful light."
 
R

Ron Hackel

Member
God gave us an analogy to understand what has happened. The verse I quoted in Jeremiah is followed by this:

JEREMIAH 13 : 12 "This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: Every wineskin should be filled with wine."

God gave a word that nobody should be fooled into thinking was to be taken literally. The same as when he said that he would rebuild the temple in three days. He was talking about his body. The church has taken many words literally that should be taken with their spiritual meanings instead.

JEREMIAH 51 : 7 "Babylon is a gold cup in the Lord's hand; she made the whole world drunk, The nations drank her wine; therefore they have now gone mad."

Babylon gave a false picture of what a god is like. All pagan gods had to be appeased by sacrifice. The nations were drunk and couldn't think clearly. So producing good wine would be showing the true character of God. God then compares Israel to a vineyard.

ISAIAH 5 : 7 "The vineyard of the Lord almighty is the house of Israel and the men of Judah."
ISAIAH 5 : 7 "He built a watchtower in it and cut out a winepress as well.

Obviously the vineyard was for making wine if it had a winepress. The watchman in watchtowers would warn the vineyard of dangers coming.

HOSEA 9 : 8 "The prophet, along with my God (Jesus) is the watchman over Ephraim."
Jesus and the prophets would warn the Jews when they were going off the track.

HEBREWS 1 : 1&2 "In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son."

ISAIAH 5 : 4 "When I looked for good grapes, why did it yield only bad?"
PSALM 80 : 8 "You brought a vine out of Egypt; you drove out the nations and planted it."

What do you do with a useless vine that is just taking up space and not producing any good grapes?

PSALM 80 : 16 "Your vine is cut down, it is burned with fire; at your rebuke your people perish.

But again, God said the Jews would produce usable wine. They would show the character of God. So what should God do?

PSALM 80 : 17 "Let your hand rest on the man at your right hand, the Son of Man you have raised up for yourself."
Do you think this is describing Jesus?

JOHN 15 : 1 "I am the true vine and my Father is the gardener."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top