|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Would we be better off without the Old Testament?
|
Bartolomeo
Musical Engineer
# 8352
|
Posted
Recently I've encountered a number of satires that poke fun at Christianity by caricaturing the faith using examples from the OT that are at odds with the present-day Christian experience.
Examples include polygamy, slavery, subjugation of women (and treatment of women as property), Levitical law, an overtly classist society, and hereditary monarchy as the presumptive form of government.
Does the OT deserve its place of pride together with the NT? Do we still need to include Leviticus in every copy of the Bible? Is it time to revisit the choices made 400 years after the time of Christ on what the Bible should contain?
--------------------
"Individual talent is too sporadic and unpredictable to be allowed any important part in the organization society" --Stuart Chase
Posts: 1291 | From: the American Midwest | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bartolomeo:
Recently I've encountered a number of satires that poke fun at Christianity by caricaturing the faith using examples from the OT that are at odds with the present-day Christian experience.
Examples include polygamy, slavery, subjugation of women (and treatment of women as property), Levitical law, an overtly classist society, and hereditary monarchy as the presumptive form of government.
Well, we'd have to get rid of the NT, too, if we wanted to expunge examples of your list from scripture. Even Marcion wouldn't have gone that far...
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
The Bible is fine. It's the general (an in many cases conscious) ignorance of how the Bible is used in the Christian tradition that is the real issue.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
No. Unfortunately we have to take the whole of the Bible, warts and all as it were, to have a complete understanding of the revelation it presents. Some of the contents aren't nice, Judges 19 springs to mind, but still have to be there for it to be an honest and integral whole.
It's kind of like insects, not nice and mostly seen as pests which we'd like to be without, but if you get rid of them then all the beauty of nature collapses around you.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bartolomeo:
Recently I've encountered a number of satires that poke fun at Christianity by caricaturing the faith using examples from the OT that are at odds with the present-day Christian experience.
Ooohhh, the nasty atheists are making fun of us! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote:
Examples include polygamy, slavery, subjugation of women (and treatment of women as property), Levitical law, an overtly classist society, and hereditary monarchy as the presumptive form of government.
And what's changed? Did those things just get invented last week?
quote:
Does the OT deserve its place of pride together with the NT?
Yes (reasons in a minute...)
quote:
Do we still need to include Leviticus in every copy of the Bible?
Yes
quote:
Is it time to revisit the choices made 400 years after the time of Christ on what the Bible should contain?
Only if you are worried about Revelation, 2 Peter, Jude, and just possibly Hebrews. The rest of the NT was settled well before then.
And the OT was fixed before the time of Jesus (except just possibly for the book of Esther), the Torah at least 400 years before.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
In practical terms, much of the New Testament would be more difficult to understand without the context of the Old Testament. Jesus frequently quotes from the O.T. The story of the Samaritan would be less meaningful without the background of Jew versus Samaritan.
Of course, the O.T. also contains a great deal of pretty language and memorable stories and some philosophic debate (as in Psalms, Jonah, Job).
On the other hand, many centuries remove us from nearly everything in the Bible. It may be unreasonable to insist that 21st Century Christians must learn details of life in the Bronze Age, the Iron Age and the early Roman Empire.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
The point about Christianity, what makes it different from, say, Islam, is the belief in the Incarnation. The idea that Jesus was at the same time a normal man (not some sort of superhero or demigod with magic powers) but also in some sense God as well. The author writing themself into the story as a character. So its a fundamentally historical religion - the place and time and culture into which Jesus was born are important. Its not about handwavingy "timeless truths" but things that are supposed to have happened. And God is meant to have arranged all that by means of choosing the Chosen People, that is Israel. So from a Christian point of view the Old Testament is God preparing the ground for the Incarnation, the begining of the story to which Jesus is the punchline.
The story of Israel is the story of the Chosen People, and so part of the story of the Incarnation. Israel as a people were entrusted with the written words of God, just as they were later entrusted with the living Word of God. (Which is also FWIW one of the two theological reasons behind using the Hebrew version of the Hebrew scriptures rather than the Greek one - the other even more persuasive one is that its the version Jesus used.
As for Leviticus and so on t the "Law of Holiness" part of it doesn't apply to non-Jews. Jesus and the Apostles never claimed to abolish the Law for Jews (such as themselves). Most of the laws in the Torah are not general moral laws, they are specific rules to mark out Israel as separate and different from other peoples, the so-called "Law of Holiness". All that stuff about not wearing cloth woven from two fibres, or eating shellfish or cutting you hair in certain ways, They explicitly don't apply to Gentiles. In fact Gentiles who were following those rules would really be breaking the rules because they would be falsely pretending to be Jews. (Yes and those rules include the hundreds of verses about diet as well as the one or two verses condemning homosexual acts). Acts and Paul's letters make it clear that the early Christians were Synagogue-going Temple-worshipping orthodox Jews. What they did was decide that Gentiles who became Christians weren't expected to convert to Judaism - that's quite clear in the NT. So the rules of conduct for Israel in the Torah do not apply to Christians who are not also Jews - irrelevant as law anyway, very instructive as historical examples of God's dealings with humans, and very relevant to us as background to the story of Jesus.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
Our fearless leader, Bishop Bennison, has said that the church defined the Bible and it could redfine the Bible.
While this is true in theory, in our present fractured condition Christendom would never agree on a redfinition and all that would happen is that we'd further lose face. That probably wouldn't worry Bishop Bennison much, because these days he doesn't have much face to lose.
Despite all coos of ecumenical peace and love, we've never even been able to agree (for long, anyway) on a lectionary. I bet that there was more uniformity in Eucharistic readings through the year among Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and Anglicans in J.S. Bach's time than there is now. Can you imagine the chaos if the canon of scripture were opened up for reconsideration?
Such criticisms of the "Old Testament" as come from unbelievers are a combination of ignorance on their part and on ours. Too many Christians see every passage in the Bible as having the same viewpoint and stature as every other. They forget to note simple things like "to whom was God speaking when He said thus-and-so?" With friends like these, who needs enemies? Augustine complained long ago about the disrepute brought upon the Christian faith by proselytizers whose interpretations of scripture defy common sense. This hasn't changed.
There were early Christians who urged scrapping the OT as scripture and just going with the new. They were eventually condemned as heretics. I don't recall the name of this heresy. Someone here will be able to fill me in very soon, I'm sure.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
I don't think Jesus would make much sense without the "old" testament. We worship a Jewish rabbi; you have to understand what he was reforming, and why the priests he was confronting weren't just selfish ass-hats, but in fact had what they thought were good reasons for doing things the way they did.
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Would we be better off without the Old Testament?
I reckon that the sort of people who seriously ask this kind of question - and expect an answer in the affirmative - are probably not terribly interested in the New Testament either. Certainly the Jesus of the Gospels is someone who believes in the writings traditionally attributed to Moses. And what exactly are "the Holy Scriptures" mentioned in 2 Timothy 3:15-17, if not the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings - i.e. the Hebrew Bible, aka the Old Testament? If the OT goes down then so does the NT.
Yes, there are tough passages in the OT, and whoever said that for something to be acceptable it should be easily comprehensible? Hey, why don't we abolish nature itself, as much of that is also bloody difficult to understand?!!
The whole Bible does not pull its punches when it comes to judgment on evil. If some people have a problem with that, then that's just too bad. God's character isn't going to change to accommodate attitudes that are forever trying to deny the reality of human moral responsibility. As for polygamy, "slavery", certain harsh judgments etc, why not look at the reality of the context? Perhaps the preference of slavery over destitution was considered something of a no-brainer. That's the reality of a world not accustomed to the comforts of modern western "civilisation".
There is no part of the Bible that promotes a form of "love" that has no moral content and no moral bite. For those who desire that concept of "love" I suggest you ditch the entire Bible, and go and find yourself another kind of "god".
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Perhaps the preference of slavery over destitution was considered something of a no-brainer. That's the reality of a world not accustomed to the comforts of modern western "civilisation".
This is a bit of a tangent, but why do you assume that the destitution/slavery dichotomy is an either/or proposition? Historically it was more of a both/and kind of deal. Pretending otherwise usually involves a lot of historical revisionism.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
@EtymologicalEvangelical
So if the conditions change again would slavery become moral? Is this the Objective morality you defend so much?
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
So if the conditions change again would slavery become moral? Is this the Objective morality you defend so much?
Oskar Schindler employed slaves. People, including his ex-slaves, usually believe that he did the right thing under the circumstances.
Believing that some things are right or wrong depending upon the circumstances is not the same as believing that some things are right or wrong depending upon my opinion of them.
NB - according to a definition advanced by Henry Gates Jr (IIRC) the Biblical institution is not slavery proper. That is, in the Biblical institution the owner had no power to separate husbands and wives.
[ 01. August 2012, 19:50: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
We should remember that our Jewish brothers and sisters are doing quite well with their Scriptures ("OT") and without ours (NT). If the Hebrew Scriptures are so horrible that we'd want to chuck them, what is that saying about the Jewish religion today?
I think it's much healthier to adopt some of the Jewish tradition's way of wrestling with the Scriptures (e.g., midrash, and the rabbinic tradition of balancing multiple points of view). Like Jacob with the angel, we should engage with them until they bless us, even if we leave the scene limping.
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
In CofS we still sing Psalms.
Also there are quite a few bits of the OT quoted in NT by these authors.
And when we study the Bible as a group we use both OT and NT, and learn lots of the history as well as what physical happenings went on as well as "spirituality".
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
I think it's much healthier to adopt some of the Jewish tradition's way of wrestling with the Scriptures (e.g., midrash, and the rabbinic tradition of balancing multiple points of view). Like Jacob with the angel, we should engage with them until they bless us, even if we leave the scene limping.
What churchgeek says.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
The OT may be nasty, but it doesn't include the idea of eternal punishment, which the NT (or at least Matthew and Revelations) appears to.
It is this wretched idea that all of scripture is equally important that is all wrong.
On its own, Leviticus is a mystery: but it provides the background to Hebrews and all the NT references to sacrifice. (Unfortunately Leviticus never says why we need sacrifice in the first place...)
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
Allowing slaves to be beaten to death if they survive a day or two after the beating is not the same as what Schindler did. And before you argue using other translations of the bible that what is really says is that they have to survive for it to be allowed you still have to explain why beating slaves is 'good'.
Exodus 21 20-21
Also Shindler was the beneficiary of slave labor, but he was able to use his status to save some people. This made him an exception form other german "businesmen" But this does not make benefiting from slave labor "moral".
But if it is accepted that the biblical defense of slavery is somehow okay because of differing circumstances, but it no longer applies because our standard of living is better.
Why is that standard not used in the case of other Dead horses topics?
But on the actual topic of thread Venvede has a good point.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
I think it's much healthier to adopt some of the Jewish tradition's way of wrestling with the Scriptures (e.g., midrash, and the rabbinic tradition of balancing multiple points of view). Like Jacob with the angel, we should engage with them until they bless us, even if we leave the scene limping.
This. Write it above pulpits everywhere. If I look at the OT and see lessons for reproof
e.g. that if you think God is your God and only for you you will do some pretty horrible things in His name
e.g. that the 10th Commandment and other entries declare that women are property
etc, etc
I'm wrestling with the content. There is unjustified tribalism, superior attitudes towards others, all mixed up with a wider mercy, a wider understanding of justice. Tribal henotheism rubs shoulders with profound monotheism. Is there any doubt which we should take more seriously?
Of course we should wrestle with it, rather than either swallow it hook line and sinker or reject its value because some of it makes us sick.
Why edit it? The stuff which can justifiably seen as a matter for reproof of unthinking religiosity must be left in, if only to remind us of our spotty history (both personal and as a group). I'm not in favour of spring-cleaning any history.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
Quite often nowadays the beauty of nature and respect for creation are linked with Christian belief.
You have to go to the OT to find scriptural support for that attitude.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pine Marten
Shipmate
# 11068
|
Posted
Well said, churchgeek and Barnabas62. Once you start 'spring-cleaning any history' (lovely phrase!) or censoring the bits you don't like you're on a dodgy path indeed.
--------------------
Keep love in your heart. A life without it is like a sunless garden when the flowers are dead. - Oscar Wilde
Posts: 1731 | From: Isle of Albion | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Another good reason for reading the Old Testament is that it's then less of a surprise when God behaves like a total bastard.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Another good reason for reading the Old Testament is that it's then less of a surprise when God behaves like a total bastard.
And here we have the point which most modern Christians don't cope with: given that we are accountable to God and all deserve death, the miracle of grace is that we don't get our just deserts immediately. Once you place the OT in that context, a lot of what happens ceases to be a challenge. God is our creator. As Paul expresses it:
quote:
who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called
Rom 9:19-24
I may declare every week that 'I believe in God... creator of heaven and earth', but in practice I don't REALLY believe it... When something bad happens to me, I tend to ask 'Why me' - rather than reflecting this truth and being grateful for the good things that I have AND THAT I DON'T DESERVE.
Of course you may be perfect and deserve perfect health, happiness and prosperity ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
ES - we're back with the President of the Immortals then, aren't we?
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Without the OT, we wouldn't have all our stuff about social morality and justice.
Tell that to Luke and James
OK, they are channelling the OT, but they are in the NT...
Last week some of our church met in a pub and read through the whole of Ecclessiastes, followed by the whole of James. They have more in common than I woudl have expected!
(We've been doing pub Bible stidies for a few months now - started with Mark, then Romans - we've been reading the whole book aloud in one go, each taking turns for a chapter or so, then chatting about it - beer and cider help a lot ![[Biased]](wink.gif) )
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
If we deleted the OT would we then have to edit out about a third of the NT too? (All quotes plus allusions.)
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
The OT may be nasty, but it doesn't include the idea of eternal punishment, which the NT (or at least Matthew and Revelations) appears to.
Hmm - not sure:
quote:
“Then they will go forth and look
On the corpses of the men
Who have transgressed against Me.
For their worm will not die
And their fire will not be quenched;
And they will be an abhorrence to all mankind.”
Is 66:24 seems to point to this permanent punishment and this phrase about worm and fire reappears in Mark 9:48 when Jesus is warning about hell:
quote:
If your eye causes you to stumble, throw it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into hell, where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The Bible is fine. It's the general (an in many cases conscious) ignorance of how the Bible is used in the Christian tradition that is the real issue.
Bingo, and thank you.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
It was (and is in some circles) a standard bit of anti-catholic polemic that they denied the Bible to the laity.
Given there are so many ghastly bits in the Bible (none of which as far as I'm aware cropped up in the course the liturgy) I'm inclined to think catholic tradition showed good sense.
Of course an informed knowledge of scripture is a Good Thing, but if the alternative is people basing their lives on Revelations (which the Orthodox church never reads in the course of their service) or Judges, then perhaps...
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
otyetsfoma
Shipmate
# 12898
|
Posted
I am not a fan of the Apocalypse, since it is easily mis understood and used to promote serious errors, but am shock to see an educated divine pluralising its english title.
Posts: 842 | From: Edgware UK | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
Thank you for the compliment. I am not a divine. That is probably why I post here - that I have little opportunity of talking about theological matters at church.
However I am a lousy typist. I am moderately educated.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Enders Shadow
I've discussed these issues a few times in my local congo with more conservative folks congo and found an interesting personal insight. For many folks brought up with an inerrant view of scripture, the word "holiness" seems to have special connotations. It is taken to mean "one who cannot look on sin", therefore "separate". The consequence is that whenever the OT shows God behaving in ways which if a human being did that would mark him out as a "total bastard", the defence is often enough that God is "Holy" and "His thoughts are not our thoughts".
Well, Jesus is revealed as the Holy One of God (John 6:69). And so far as I can make out, He seems to give us pause for thought about this "OT" understanding of God's holiness. For the holiness he presents encourages little children to approach without fear, speaks to sinners in words they hear gladly, and only seems to cause offence to the rich, the powerful and the religious self-righteous.
Maybe we need to "spring clean" some of these traditional attitudes to holiness? There will be a final judgment on these things. Meanwhile, there is following Jesus to be getting on with.
[ 03. August 2012, 07:49: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Maybe what we should do is remove the designations 'Old Testament' and 'New Testament' and have a Bible where the first page of Matthew's gospel follows immediately after the last page of Malachi without a title page.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Enders Shadow
I've discussed these issues a few times in my local congo with more conservative folks congo and found an interesting personal insight. For many folks brought up with an inerrant view of scripture, the word "holiness" seems to have special connotations. It is taken to mean "one who cannot look on sin", therefore "separate". The consequence is that whenever the OT shows God behaving in ways which if a human being did that would mark him out as a "total bastard", the defence is often enough that God is "Holy" and "His thoughts are not our thoughts".
Well, Jesus is revealed as the Holy One of God (John 6:69). And so far as I can make out, He seems to give us pause for thought about this "OT" understanding of God's holiness. For the holiness he presents encourages little children to approach without fear, speaks to sinners in words they hear gladly, and only seems to cause offence to the rich, the powerful and the religious self-righteous.
Maybe we need to "spring clean" some of these traditional attitudes to holiness? There will be a final judgment on these things. Meanwhile, there is following Jesus to be getting on with.
No - I think you overlooked some NT material: when Peter gets a miraculously large catch of fish, his reaction is to say 'Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord.' Lk 5:8. When Jesus stills the storm, the response of one of 'great awe' Mk 4:41. And of course the response of John to Jesus in Revelation is to fall on his face Rev 1:17. And in the context of the Kenosis, it makes sense that the holiness is veiled most of the time in order to ease communication.
But you don't seem to be engaging with my central point, which is as creatures who have acted in ways that deserve judgement, anything less is as a result of God's grace. It's only because we don't believe that that we get into this sort of mess.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
ES
On the scriptures you mentioned, well, Jesus did not depart from Peter, even after the denial. Actually, he promoted him. Which suggests that Peter may have been modelling an OT understanding of Holiness, while Jesus was showing something deeper.
There may be language issues re "awe". "Awe" is not the same as "fear". God in his essence does indeed dwell "in light inaccessible", and that does produce awe. But Jesus has made Him known to us by His attributes. Including the perfect Love which casts out fear.
I hope not to miss your central point. I may be mistaking your argument, but the way it reaches me is you seem to believe in a God who is nastier than you are.
The OT genocides provide no safe model for us to emulate as faithful and obedient people. If you or I believe we hear from God that we should participate in mass murder to purge an offence to His presumed Holiness, either our "hearing" is wrong or our belief about God's Holiness is wrong. Take your pick.
Or do you argue, in all seriousness, that it may be necessary for you and any other believing person to participate in a massacre if you really believe God has so commanded? The human capacity for self-deception is far too great to allow for that. Far better to seek to love those we categorise as our enemies, or God's enemies. And pray for them, despite their spite. That looks like the Jesus way to me.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The OT genocides provide no safe model for us to emulate as faithful and obedient people. If you or I believe we hear from God that we should participate in mass murder to purge an offence to His presumed Holiness, either our "hearing" is wrong or our belief about God's Holiness is wrong. Take your pick.
Sometimes, when I read about (say) Samuel going off and hacking Agag to pieces, I try to imagine any of the ministers of my acquaintance doing this - especially the more theologically conservative ones. It makes the head spin.
I also wonder what would happen if Ananias and Sapphira's sudden deaths occurred in a modern church. Could you imagine the police investigation and the coronial inquiry? And the TV news reports?
Whatever taking the Bible literally means, very few people these days copy these biblical behaviours by respected ministers of God in the Bible. But it is fun, in a bizarre way, to imagine those events happening in the modern world, with leaders as respected as Samuel or the apostles were in their days.
Maybe Billy Graham hewing into pieces the President of an enemy nation? Would that be the equivalent? I'm just trying to picture it.
--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade
Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Maybe what we should do is remove the designations 'Old Testament' and 'New Testament' and have a Bible where the first page of Matthew's gospel follows immediately after the last page of Malachi without a title page.
Of course, having Malachi as the last book of the OT already begs a lot of questions...
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papouli
Apprentice
# 17209
|
Posted
Precisely, the Gospel according to St. Matthew immediately follows the Book of Daniel.
Posts: 28 | From: New England | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Maybe what we should do is remove the designations 'Old Testament' and 'New Testament' and have a Bible where the first page of Matthew's gospel follows immediately after the last page of Malachi without a title page.
Better still, print the OT in the right order and have Matthew follow Chronicles.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
I doubt there was any such thing as a right order until Jews and Christians started binding books together instead of using scrolls. And since Christians are known to have been early adopters of book technology I suspect that the Christian Old Testament order is earlier than the Jewish Tanak order and therefore has a better claim to be the original order or the right order.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elephenor
Shipmate
# 4026
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I doubt there was any such thing as a right order until Jews and Christians started binding books together instead of using scrolls.
Good point.
I may have to abandon the argument I always liked that Luke 11.51 constitutes indirect evidence that 2 Chronicles already stood at the end of a c1st canon. (Taking that this is indeed the Zechariah of 2 Chronicles 24.20-22, despite Matthew's denial.)
Whilst the A-Z alphabetisation only works in the Roman alphabet, I suppose it possibly suffices that Zechariah could have been seen as in some sense the last martyred prophet chronologically, even if not canonically.
--------------------
"Man is...a `eucharistic' animal." (Kallistos Ware)
Posts: 214 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Without the OT, we wouldn't have all our stuff about social morality and justice.
We might not have the same exact wordings, but I don't see how you can be sure that the same concepts would not have been promulgated (indeed some of them were around prior to appearing in the OT), perhaps without the superfluous baggage of deity.
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
Hugh -
What leo presumably meant that without the OT Christians would have considerably fewer canonical texts to support ideas of social justice.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chamois
Shipmate
# 16204
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
Sometimes, when I read about (say) Samuel going off and hacking Agag to pieces, I try to imagine any of the ministers of my acquaintance doing this - especially the more theologically conservative ones. It makes the head spin.
I also wonder what would happen if Ananias and Sapphira's sudden deaths occurred in a modern church. Could you imagine the police investigation and the coronial inquiry? And the TV news reports?
Whatever taking the Bible literally means, very few people these days copy these biblical behaviours by respected ministers of God in the Bible. But it is fun, in a bizarre way, to imagine those events happening in the modern world, with leaders as respected as Samuel or the apostles were in their days.
Maybe Billy Graham hewing into pieces the President of an enemy nation? Would that be the equivalent? I'm just trying to picture it.
I think this hits the nail on the head. One of the most important things about the OT to me is that it shows that people's ideas about religion can change. There's nothing static about the OT. For example, you get the early view of Yahweh as one god among others (Rachel sitting on her father's household gods, Solomon installing images dedicated to the sun in the first temple, etc), then the centralisation of religion under Josiah (abolition of the local shrines), then the post-exilic 2nd temple with absolutely no images and the development of monotheism. And everything is contested - for example the different views on who is included and excluded from the worship of God expressed by Isaiah and Ezekiel.
If we didn't have the OT we would be in danger of getting stuck in a static religion, with on evolution of practices or socially accepted norms, and that would be the surest way to a dead religion.
So no, I think we would be much worse off without the OT. I only wish it was explained better in church.
--------------------
The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases
Posts: 978 | From: Hill of roses | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu
@EtymologicalEvangelical
So if the conditions change again would slavery become moral? Is this the Objective morality you defend so much?
If "moral" is understood in the light of something called "reality", then I suppose giving someone the opportunity to be fed and housed is better than letting them starve to death on the street. And if the only job the free market can provide is one which a person cannot leave without becoming destitute, then that person is, in effect, a slave. A wage slave. A "circumstances slave".
But, anyway... it really warms my heart to know that all these Old Testament haters give away their money to the destitute on a daily basis, lifting such people out of poverty while respecting their freedom. I am sure that is what you do. I am right about that, am I not???
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I doubt there was any such thing as a right order until Jews and Christians started binding books together instead of using scrolls. And since Christians are known to have been early adopters of book technology I suspect that the Christian Old Testament order is earlier than the Jewish Tanak order and therefore has a better claim to be the original order or the right order.
I half agreed with that when I started writing this reply, I was going to say that the threefold grouping of scriptures as Law, Prophets, and Writings is older than Christianity for certain; but the internal order within those categories might not be. But I think I realised I was wrong while writing this post and now I think that it looks pretty certain that the traditional Jewish order of the books is mostly or all from before Jesus's time.
The Law is simply the Law, the Torah, the Pentateuch, five scrolls, and existed in something like its present form by the fall of the northern Kingdom of Israel at the latest (because the Samaritans used it but refused to acknowledge Jewish books) and possibly a lot earlier. There is of course an internal, historical, order to these books.
The Prophets are themselves in two sections - the Former and Latter Prophets, a distinction also made before the time of Jesus, four scrolls each - Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings among the Former Prophets, These books also have an internal chronological order, one follows after the other. Then Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel (three scrolls in chronological order), and one scroll of the twelve Minor Prophets. All considered canonical well before Christianity. The traditional order of the minor prophets would have been kept in the way they are written on a single scroll. It has to go back to about two centuries before Jesus, because we have written record of it from then - there seem to have been one or two minor differences, and the Septuagint order is slightly different again, but perhaps 8 out of the 12 are always in the same place.
And within the Writings there is another threefold division: first the "poetic" books, apparently called the "books of truth" Psalms (five scrolls) + Proverbs + Job, presumably due to Psalms having been used in temple worship.
Then the five "megilloth": Ruth, Song of Songs, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther. These are the only part of the Hebrew canon that may still have been in dispute among mainstream Rabbinical/Pharisaic Jews at the time of Jesus (the Sadducees, Essenes, Samaritans, and who knows what other sects had their own versions of course). They seem to have been accepted becacuse they were used in synagogue liturgy, or possibly in ceremonies in private homes, each associated with a different annual festival. There is an internal order to these, but its different among different groups of Jews - some use the supposed order of writing, others the order in which the festivals come during the year (I can never remember which goes with which!), which is not exactly the same for all Jews.
Last the "other Writings", Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles. Three scrolls because Ezra and Nehemiah go together. These don't count as prophets, and as far as I know were not used in Jewish ritual (I might well be wrong though, I'm not at all knowledgeble on that) Nowadays they are always printed in that order. I have no idea why - Ezra follows directly on from Chronicles. And I have no idea when they were first arranged in that order.
So my guess is that at the time of Jesus there was an accepted order to the books, which was almost but not exactly the same in every Jewish community. And that it was probably the one we have now. The only likely variation would be within the Minor Prophets and within the Megilloth. So there would have been a last book of the Bible for Jesus, and it would probably have been Chronicles, but might just have been Daniel or Nehemiah.
The last book of the Prophets would of course have been the Minor Prophets and the last one of them is always Malachi, so the traditional Christian view of the OT prophecies as ending up pointing to the Messiah still works ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
