How Much of the New Testament Is Actually New?

[firedragon]

That's only a highly speculative idea. We know the that Mark was written down in the neighborhood of about 35-37 years after Jesus, so therefore for instance some of the ~ 20 year olds that heard him in person would still be alive. So making a theory that no one could remember anything is highly speculative. In reality people remember some events that make a strong impression on them in youth, and some people remember with accuracy. But for events that have a lot of witnesses, they need only compare their memories and it becomes clear what is widely remembered in common. So, the most plausible hypothesis for a non believer would be that Mark conveys some real sayings.


Interesting you say "half". Why "half" in particular, instead of 'some' or 'many' or 'most', etc.?

Please refer to the context of the post you are replying to .

Cheers.

 

[sojourner]

Alright. Which verse are you referring to? Words of Jesus himself.

You tell me. You brought it up.

 

[halbhh]

Mark contains many authentic Jesus quotes. They have multiple attestations in Q and in Thomas many times.


It’s an approximation. Research by Gospel scholars has calculated this approximation.

One way I now assess things in the new testament, including things in epistles, is that all things would reasonably be expected to align to scripture generally (not strongly contradict general principles from the older scripture). So, when Christ says that to love God and to love your neighbor as yourself are the 2 greatest commandments which summarize all the law, then I can actually consider what I've read throughout all the old testament, for example, to consider if that is a summary that accurately aligns to what is in the old testament generally, and it is. Now, if it happens one realizes that all the things in the gospels at least align or are fully compatible with all in the old testament (if one has read so thoroughly and gone over the texts more than once), then it would not in itself prove of course He literally said those things in those 3 years, but at least that they are useful sayings anyway (even if one held they didn't know the providence). How else might one try to guess whether or not the sayings are direct quotes? Consider: it's not as if there is just 1 source, like gospel of Thomas, that will be known to factually be exhaustive. In other words, if it isn't in G of T, it doesn't prove he didn't literally say it, of course. For myself, this issue just doesn't even arise, because I never assumed any of it was necessarily accurate, but instead was entirely focused solely on testing the sayings first hand, to see if they work the way said. Perhaps what confirmed faith to me was that some of the more obscure and unlikely seeming instructions actually work (perfectly), and very much to my surprise. Those became a kind of validation. Once you know God exists, and if you believe Jesus is of God, aligned with God perfectly, then it stands to reason also, additionally, that He could intervene in some manner, even if beforehand, to cause certain things to be included, regardless. In other words, miracles wouldn't be assumed (without reason) to be constricted by time.

In other words, if God wants us to know that love is the supreme command, then not even heaven or Earth or any power therein could stop him, really.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Did Yeshua come as a radical revolutionary to do away with an old, outdated system? Is the NT all about grace and love, whereas the tanach was full of wrath and judgment? Does the New Testament lay out new standards for us to live by, doing away with the need to follow the torah?
These are all things I've heard, and I want to know what y'all think about these and other things, and why. Keep in mind that YHWH does not change.

Malachi 3:6 “For I am the Lord, I do not change;
Therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob.

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

There are different componants of the NT. Let's look at each individually.

1. Jesus taught Torah, and it was basically beit Hillel Torah, with only a few deviations. Arguments amongst rabbis and scholars regarding Halakha were already a time honored tradition, and Jesus simply participated in this normal Jewish activity.

2. Jesus taught many things about himself, if you believe the gospel accounts, such as that he was the son of God and the son of Man. When Peter says he is the messiah, he offers no correction. Writers such as the author of John indicate Jesus pre-existed his birth, and seem to say that he is God. All of these statements about the person of Jesus are new, and contradict Jewish teaching.

3. Paul teaches a gospel of grace and belief, that one is justified by faith alone and not by works. This runs contrary to the message of the Torah and Tanakh which is "When all is said and done, one thing remains: fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole of man."

 

[Deeje]

Now lets see...........

Are you aware that Shaul/Paul took sin sacrifices to the temple on demand of all the disciples for his "sins"?
I believe Paul lived after the crucifixion of the messiah?

No reference? Please provide one so we can see exactly what it says....

Paul (Saul) lived at the time of extreme persecution of the Christians and he himself presided over the murder of Stephen. He joined the other apostles after Jesus' resurrection when he had an experience on the road to Damascus intending to persecute more followers of Jesus. That encounter with Jesus, turned him around completely.

Paul wrote in clear terms..."For Christ is the end of the Law, so that everyone exercising faith may have righteousness.". . . ."For sin must not be master over you, seeing that you are not under law but under undeserved kindness. (Grace)" (Romans 10:4; Romans 6:14)

Paul was very clear in his teachings, but also mindful of the prejudices of the Jews. One example is the circumcision of Timothy, a requirement under the Law, but when the Law was removed the necessity for circumcision was also removed, meaning that Gentiles did not have to be circumcised, but Jews were still free to do so if they wished. Timothy was the son of a Jewish mother but a Greek father and hence not circumcised. So in order not to offend Jewish sensibilities he circumcised Timothy because he did not want to stumble the Jews to whom they were preaching.

Christ taught them that in fulfilling the Law, he laid down his life as a permanent sacrifice for sins, meaning that the animal sacrifices that were offered regularly at the Temple, were no longer necessary.

Since the Temple was destroyed in 70CE and has never been rebuilt, we can see why it had served its purpose.

Are you aware that with the 3rd temple all Nations will bring sin sacrifices to the temple?

Since the Temple and priesthood on earth were representative of things in heaven, the true Temple of Jehovah is not on Earth...the earthly arrangement was 'a shadow of the reality'.

Colossians 2:16-17....
"Therefore, do not let anyone judge you about what you eat and drink or about the observance of a festival or of the new moon or of a sabbath. 17 Those things are a shadow of the things to come, but the reality belongs to the Christ."

So Gentiles did not have to observe even the Sabbath.....the Law was exclusively for Jews. But do you know why?

 

[Windwalker]

Yes, but at this point we are not sinless, even Paul talked about how he did those things which he did not want to do. Our sin will be completely taken away when the Messiah returns, when we are given an incorruptible body. However all the particulars of that work out, at some point we will no longer sin.

But what was Paul saying in this lament? He's not saying you cannot overcome sin in this. He's contrasting that the fleshly nature draws him away from God, when the spiritual part of himself wishes for something other than the suffering that causes. He then gives the remedy, which he speaks of in many places in his writings, Christ in you. In other words, by surrendering to the Divine, you are able to live free from sin. "What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!"

Now you can read that literally, that human flesh itself is an evil that attacks the spirit, but I don't think he meant it literally. Metaphorically, it means that the natural desires of the flesh can drag us down spiritually. But you hear in many places in the NT how we can "overcome the flesh". That means, you can live free from sin. It doesn't require you to physically die first, and all this happens later on. What good is that? The expectation is to overcome the flesh, in this life.

Where do you find that breaking the rules is different than sinning? What is falling short of the mark in your opinion? To what point can you break these rules before it becomes sin?

I just making an important distinction. Sin does not come when the act happens. Rather the sin causes the act to happen. That is why Jesus made a point to call out the legalists, the religionists who place the rules of the texts as all-important, that while they may say they have never committed adultery, or murder, or, you name it, if they have been desiring it, wanting that, feeling that, sending that out energetically to another, they are already sinning right there, without doing something physically.

That's an important lesson to understand about the nature of sin. It's the intent of the heart, that is the caldron of sin. But that can be replaced with Love instead. That's the message of Grace.

I never said I thought we justified ourselves by the works of the law. I believe salvation is a free gift, but we are still called to walk in righteousness; not to earn right standing with God, but to do those things which please him. I understand that it is through Yeshua that our heart is cleansed, but just because one keeps the Torah doesn't mean they are trying to earn salvation. If Yeshua came to save us from sin, why would we continue walking in sin? Did the definition of sin change?

There is a distinction to be made here as well. It's one of those things that's a fine distinction to make, but it's a watershed point of understanding. I think someone could fulfill the Torah, never knowing one thing it says. The point is that it is not in following the Torah, in the sense of observances, and rituals, and various rules and customs, such as circumcision, or dietary restrictions, or observances of days, etc. But they would be following the Torah in what is encapsulated beautifully by Jesus himself saying about the Two Great Commandments; "love God... and love your neighbor as yourself," when he pointedly added, "Upon these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets".

Now some folks read "Love God" to mean, follow all those laws, diets, rites, days, etc. That by doing those you are "loving God". But I do not believe that is really what Jesus meant. It certainly isn't something earlier Christianity ended up adopting from the teachings of Jesus, where there was "neither Jew nor Greek, but all are one in Christ". Clearly they did not take "Love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength to mean following those practices. Rather to love God, means to do no harm to others. You don't, because love does not envy, it does not boast, etc.

So are you saying you believe that if you have love you won't sin? How does that fit with Yeshua turning people away from the kingdom of heaven because they were "workers of iniquity" i.e. anomia=lawlessness? In the same breath, Paul goes on to say this:

Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.

Yes, I believe that if you have love you won't sin. "Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." Romans 13:10. If you walk in love, you don't sin. It's a rather simple formula.

Now as far as Jesus turning away worker of iniquity, let's be clear. They were religionists, claiming the name of Jesus, but not walking in love. "I never knew you", is the response from the Divine. There was nothing that they were doing that came from that as the source. He even says, it's not those who say lord, lord, or claim they are followers of Jesus, but those who do God's will - meaning, they walk in the Way of Divine Love, and as a result, flowing out from that Love within that as the source, the "love their neighbor as themselves". Love is the fulfillment of the law, ~Ro. 13:10

Right, if we are in him we are not to walk in sin. He came to redeem us from our sins, therefore because of his righteousness in us, we should turn away from said sins. Again though, what is sin? If we have his righteousness in us, does that make it right for us to do those things God has laid out as sin?

If we are filled by the Spirit of God, "in him", in other words, then you won't sin. It's not a matter of you "should not sin", in other words make an effort to not sin. There should be no effort necessary. It shouldn't enter into your heart to sin.

Think of it in terms of laughing. If you're laughing, do you have to try to not be angry? No, you don't. It doesn't enter into your mind or heart to be angry, if you are happy, or laughing, or joyus. Would you ever say to someone who is smiling and full of joy, "You need to try to not be angry"? That makes no sense. Anger can't exist with happiness, and sin can't exist with love.

And how do you love God? It's not just a feeling.

When we speak of the love of God, or God's Love, we are not speaking of emotions or feelings. It's a perspective, an attitude, a condition of being, an intention of will, etc. Emotions can be anything, up or down, sideways, rollercoaster, etc, yet you still live in Love. In fact that is what makes it all bearable, frankly. That is what leads to being a master of your own house. "Abide in me", says Jesus. To me, that is what that means.

If you think that righteousness comes from within, will that righteousness look different from what he says is righteous in his word? "Being" righteous instead of doing righteously? If you "are" righteous, you would be walking in righteousness, and YHWH tells us what righteousness is.

Of course righteousness comes from within. At a certain stage of moral development it certain does, and should. There are whole fields of development that demonstrate this is a normal progression from early externalized rules imposed upon you, to you internalizing them as a moral agent. You don't just not doing something because someone might catch you, for instance. You don't do it because you lived by internal principles.

Although, some may never advance that far in life, it's truly a sign of moral maturity. Morality expands in its reach and understanding. Any area of development is like that as well, starting as rules outside of you, to internalizing them in understanding and freedom of movement. At later stages of maturity, you don't need to be told anymore, with long lists of do's and don'ts, like this hilarious sign I found at a school while I was out biking last summer.

Hopefully, they will eventually internalize good conduct, and not need to be told by a schoolmaster anymore. "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." ~Gal. 3:24

 

[roberto]

No reference? Please provide one so we can see exactly what it says....

Paul (Saul) lived at the time of extreme persecution of the Christians and he himself presided over the murder of Stephen. He joined the other apostles after Jesus' resurrection when he had an experience on the road to Damascus intending to persecute more followers of Jesus. That encounter with Jesus, turned him around completely.

Paul wrote in clear terms..."For Christ is the end of the Law, so that everyone exercising faith may have righteousness.". . . ."For sin must not be master over you, seeing that you are not under law but under undeserved kindness. (Grace)" (Romans 10:4; Romans 6:14)

Paul was very clear in his teachings, but also mindful of the prejudices of the Jews. One example is the circumcision of Timothy, a requirement under the Law, but when the Law was removed the necessity for circumcision was also removed, meaning that Gentiles did not have to be circumcised, but Jews were still free to do so if they wished. Timothy was the son of a Jewish mother but a Greek father and hence not circumcised. So in order not to offend Jewish sensibilities he circumcised Timothy because he did not want to stumble the Jews to whom they were preaching.

Christ taught them that in fulfilling the Law, he laid down his life as a permanent sacrifice for sins, meaning that the animal sacrifices that were offered regularly at the Temple, were no longer necessary.

Since the Temple was destroyed in 70CE and has never been rebuilt, we can see why it had served its purpose.



Since the Temple and priesthood on earth were representative of things in heaven, the true Temple of Jehovah is not on Earth...the earthly arrangement was 'a shadow of the reality'.

Colossians 2:16-17....
"Therefore, do not let anyone judge you about what you eat and drink or about the observance of a festival or of the new moon or of a sabbath. 17 Those things are a shadow of the things to come, but the reality belongs to the Christ."

So Gentiles did not have to observe even the Sabbath.....the Law was exclusively for Jews. But do you know why?

Wow, you are so sure of yourself that nothing that I say or prove from scripture will affect/effect your belief.

No use.

Rob.

 

[roberto]

You can do that now. No need for a temple.

I am talking about/referring to:

Yechezkel - Ezekiel - Chapter 42

13 And he said to me, "The northern chambers and the southern chambers, which are below the fortress, they are the holy chambers where the priests who are near the Lord will eat the most holy sacrifices; there they shall lay the most holy sacrifices and the meal offering, and the sin offering, and the guilt offering, for the place is holy.

 

[Harel13]

I am talking about/referring to:

Yechezkel - Ezekiel - Chapter 42

13 And he said to me, "The northern chambers and the southern chambers, which are below the fortress, they are the holy chambers where the priests who are near the Lord will eat the most holy sacrifices; there they shall lay the most holy sacrifices and the meal offering, and the sin offering, and the guilt offering, for the place is holy.

Nonetheless, you don't need a temple. You can buy some bricks and burn some wheat in your backyard.

 

[roberto]

Nonetheless, you don't need a temple. You can buy some bricks and burn some wheat in your backyard.

Mat 12:36 Moreover, I tell you this: on the Day of Judgment people will have to give account for every careless word they have spoken;
Mat 12:37 for by your own words you will be acquitted, and by your own words you will be condemned.

 

[Harel13]

Mat 12:36 Moreover, I tell you this: on the Day of Judgment people will have to give account for every careless word they have spoken;
Mat 12:37 for by your own words you will be acquitted, and by your own words you will be condemned.

So why ever would you think you would need a temple for anything?

 

[Deeje]

Wow, you are so sure of yourself that nothing that I say or prove from scripture will affect/effect your belief.

No use.

Rob.

Well, I was hoping for a discussion, but apparently you yourself are so sure of your beliefs that nothing I have shown you will move you either.....you are in a debate forum, so if you can’t debate, why are you here?

I asked you for a reference for a comment you made but all you did was run away......your choice...

 

[roberto]

Well, I was hoping for a discussion, but apparently you yourself are so sure of your beliefs that nothing I have shown you will move you either.....you are in a debate forum, so if you can’t debate, why are you here?

I asked you for a reference for a comment you made but all you did was run away......your choice...

 

[roberto]

So why ever would you think you would need a temple for anything?

Never said I did.

 

[Harel13]

Never said I did.

Then what did you mean by this:

Are you aware that with the 3rd temple all Nations will bring sin sacrifices to the temple?

?

 

[Brian2]

The law was for Israel, and also for any who wished to turn from their ways (idolatry, etc) and come into covenant with YHWH, thus becoming part of Israel.
Please show me where it says that about the new covenant. The new covenant is exclusively with the house of Israel and the house of Judah (Jeremiah 31:31), not with gentiles or anyone else. That is why we have to come into covenant with YHWH, and be "grafted in" as it says in Romans 11. In Yeshua we become Abraham's seed.

The New Covenant is for Israel and for any who wish to turn from their ways and come into covenant with YHWH, thus becoming part of Israel, we become grafted into Israel.
You seem to be agreeing with me but disagreeing at the same time.
The New Covenant was preached to the gentiles by the apostles.

 

[Batya]

Then what did you mean by this:

?

I think that was said because another person was saying that the sacrifices were done away with by Yeshua coming, and his death permanently removed the need for them. That there will still again sacrifices be a temple and sacrificed is clear in Ezekiel, as was mentioned, and it is not really in keeping with the entirety of the scriptures, as we see them, tanach and NT, to say there won't be.
I'm not sure that it will be the nations who bring sin offerings, since it seems to be speaking of the people of the land (I'm assuming that's Israel) and the house of Israel (Ezekiel 45:16-17), but the point is, we who claim to be followers of Yeshua should accept this. Sort of like how Christians don't believe we should keep the sabbath, even though it's clear we will be keeping it in the millennial age (again, as we see it. I know you don't agree with our views and you don't think these things have any bearing on us since we are not Jews, I'm just saying we are hypocritical if we say we believe in His word yet throw out or ignore certain things).
Anyway, I think that was part of the reason behind what was said, hopefully.

 

[halbhh]

There are different componants of the NT. Let's look at each individually.

1. Jesus taught Torah, and it was basically beit Hillel Torah, with only a few deviations. Arguments amongst rabbis and scholars regarding Halakha were already a time honored tradition, and Jesus simply participated in this normal Jewish activity.

2. Jesus taught many things about himself, if you believe the gospel accounts, such as that he was the son of God and the son of Man. When Peter says he is the messiah, he offers no correction. Writers such as the author of John indicate Jesus pre-existed his birth, and seem to say that he is God. All of these statements about the person of Jesus are new, and contradict Jewish teaching.

3. Paul teaches a gospel of grace and belief, that one is justified by faith alone and not by works. This runs contrary to the message of the Torah and Tanakh which is "When all is said and done, one thing remains: fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole of man."

About #3, this is often misunderstood. I'll try to just communicate it very briefly, but if you want more than these 2 passages to illustrate, there are many more from Paul in the like.

The most famous passage -- notice how it starts just as you say, but then notice how it continues:

8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
Bible Gateway passage: Ephesians 2:8-10 - New International Version

8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
Bible Gateway passage: Romans 13:8-10, Galatians 5:14 - New International Version

(as you can see, there is another of the passages in that last link)

Does this help clarify? Paul is saying we are only saved by Grace -- we could never earn this amazing redemption on our own -- but that having been saved by Grace, we are then to do as Christ commands: love one another. And that it fulfills all the law regarding how we live together.

We see the same in Isaiah -- Grace, unearned. Free, if we merely repent.
Here:
Isaiah 55 NIV
(one needs to read the full chapter I feel, but you will see verse 7, and this chapter is really the gospel, as Christ also tells us)

 

[Sand Dancer]

Did Yeshua come as a radical revolutionary to do away with an old, outdated system? Is the NT all about grace and love, whereas the tanach was full of wrath and judgment? Does the New Testament lay out new standards for us to live by, doing away with the need to follow the torah?
These are all things I've heard, and I want to know what y'all think about these and other things, and why. Keep in mind that YHWH does not change.

Malachi 3:6 “For I am the Lord, I do not change;
Therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob.

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

A lot of it is regurgitation of the Old Testament stories with different characters.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

About #3, this is often misunderstood. I'll try to just communicate it very briefly, but if you want more than these 2 passages to illustrate, there are many more from Paul in the like.

The most famous passage -- notice how it starts just as you say, but then notice how it continues:

8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
Bible Gateway passage: Ephesians 2:8-10 - New International Version

8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
Bible Gateway passage: Romans 13:8-10, Galatians 5:14 - New International Version

(as you can see, there is another of the passages in that last link)

Does this help clarify? Paul is saying we are only saved by Grace -- we could never earn this amazing redemption on our own -- but that having been saved by Grace, we are then to do as Christ commands: love one another. And that it fulfills all the law regarding how we live together.

We see the same in Isaiah -- Grace, unearned. Free, if we merely repent.
Here:
Isaiah 55 NIV
(one needs to read the full chapter I feel, but you will see verse 7, and this chapter is really the gospel, as Christ also tells us)

I completely agree. However, Paul doesn't attach these good works and obedience to salvation, therefore they are of no use in Christian terms.