Holy Bible: OT vs NT

[Julius Seeker]

Speaking of judgement, someone stole my frickin bible over the last weekend!

[SineSwiper]

Speaking of judgement, someone stole my frickin bible over the last weekend!

That's okay; it was probably inaccurate anyway. *zing* I'm here all week.

Speaking of which, when is somebody going to finally seperate the two Testiments so that these fuckers who quote from the bible don't get confused? Old Testiment = Jews, New Testiment = Christians. Quit qouting fucking Deuteronomy if you're not Jewish!

[Lox]

Speaking of which, when is somebody going to finally seperate the two Testiments so that these fuckers who quote from the bible don't get confused? Old Testiment = Jews, New Testiment = Christians. Quit qouting fucking Deuteronomy if you're not Jewish!

If you mean that the Old Testament is about the Jews and the New Testament is about Christianity, then yes. At first I thought you meant that you shouldn't worry about the OT if you're Christian.

[Julius Seeker]

I kind of like how they leave it like that. So when the religious folk (the ones with a lot of ignorance) quote the bible to prove that homosexuality is very sinful, you can direct them to the next page and show them how to correctly sacrifice a bull.

Also, yeah, all bibles are innacurate, and no reader can read the bible accurately. For example: "And so John got stoned off of his ass" does not necessarilly mean the same thing it would mean today.

[Lox]

Also, yeah, all bibles are innacurate, and no reader can read the bible accurately. For example: "And so John got stoned off of his ass" does not necessarilly mean the same thing it would mean today.

Is that in the Old Testament or the New Testament?

That's exactly why you need to actually study the bible including ignoring what the English translation says and finding out what the true meaning of certain words/phrases is.

[SineSwiper]

If you mean that the Old Testament is about the Jews and the New Testament is about Christianity, then yes. At first I thought you meant that you shouldn't worry about the OT if you're Christian.

No, I pretty much mean that. I mean, yeah, the OT is good for historical reference, but it really shouldn't be called the Christian Bible, per se. The god portrayed in both books are two entirely different entities.

Again, they should be seperated from each other, instead of combining them into one book and calling it the Holy Bible. The whole book is not the teachings of Christ. In fact, Christ denounced the majority of the OT, which is the reason why they wrote another book.

[Lox]

No, I pretty much mean that. I mean, yeah, the OT is good for historical reference, but it really shouldn't be called the Christian Bible, per se. The god portrayed in both books are two entirely different entities.

Again, they should be seperated from each other, instead of combining them into one book and calling it the Holy Bible. The whole book is not the teachings of Christ. In fact, Christ denounced the majority of the OT, which is the reason why they wrote another book.

I wouldn't say he denounced the OT, rather he built a new covenant (covenant=testament) between people and God. I guess it depends how you look at it, but I don't see him as denouncing it, but changing the way salvation is received. Now, it's through faith in Jesus. The OT was all about following laws and rituals (and Jesus hadn't arrived yet).

I disagree with separating them into 2 books. The God in the OT is the same God in the NT, IMO. It's just that what the Jews had been building up to (their Messiah coming) came in what is described in the NT. Again, how you look at it. From my view, since He is the same God in both, there are still things that can be learned from the OT. The parts that I don't believe apply anymore are the ones that have to do with how salvation is achieved because Jesus changed that. The examples in the OT are still great for learning about the God of the NT, I think.

You know what the problem is? It's that, like everything else, there are people who might take the Bible as a whole and have no clue that there is a difference between the OT and NT. And these people act like morons. Solving the problem just requires intelligence, not seperation of the 2 parts.

[Julius Seeker]

The problem with the religious texts of 1700 years ago is that they were written for the Roman Empire. The world is a very different place than it was back in those times. The new testament nowadays means very little to religious people, they can't even take the words literally anymore. It is similar to Catholic dotrine during the middle ages (which did not draw much from the bible) being outdated by the 14 and 1500's. That's part of the reason why so many different protestant revolutions broke off, Calvin's, Zwingli's, and Luther's, all occured relatively around the same time; each nation needed a different religious way. I do not believe that Martin Luther wanted people to actually take the bible literally, he (and the German Princes supporting him, along with the Swedish Empire) wanted a new way of going about Christianity which was suitable for the Germanic peoples. Zwingli was a bit different, he had very similar goals, but he was much more aggressive I found, he lived by the sword and died by the sword. Zwingli is also a character I like in history (he's the one who said that Christianity was breaking the ten commandments, worship of the cross, Jesus, and the virgin mary are sinful according to those commandments).

Essentially though, I believe that there will be another religious revolution sometime in the near future (next three hundred years or so, possibly a lot sooner than that). A revolution which will expand and cover much of the existing other religions. I believe it will be a form of Mysticism (a movement which exists in nearly every religion already, and has done so for a thousand years or more in Europe alone). Mysticism has never been very popular, but I think that a lot more people nowaday subscribe to similar beliefs (they often 'incorrectly' call it spiritualism); but I think it will be very popular soon. Reason, the bible, the Qur'an, the Torrah, and everything else that I can think of at this time is outdated; similar to how the old Aryan Gods (Zeus, Odin, Indra, etc...) became outdated (though they are not extinct, there are millions of people in the world who still worship Aryan gods).

[ManaMan]

There are millions of people who still worship aryan gods? I've never met them.

[SineSwiper]

I disagree with separating them into 2 books. The God in the OT is the same God in the NT, IMO.

You can't be serious. NT God loves and forgives everyone. OT God tried to KILL Abraham's son! Shit, I don't know what is more disturbing about that tale: the fact that He (pretended that He) wanted a human sacrifice, or the fact that he would show more faith in Him than his own son. If I was him, I would be like "Hey, fuck you! Killing my only son isn't the nature of my god!"

You know what the problem is? It's that, like everything else, there are people who might take the Bible as a whole and have no clue that there is a difference between the OT and NT. And these people act like morons. Solving the problem just requires intelligence, not seperation of the 2 parts. :)

True, but when your goal is to try to convert as many people to Christianity as possible, you're bound to have a religion with a large number of people, and some of those people are going to be morons. You have to dummy-down the bible for them, and putting both books in the same bible only confuses things. Sure, have both books in the churchs (and just the one book in the synagogue), but make sure that the public understands that they are two different books.

[Julius Seeker]

There are millions of people who still worship aryan gods? I've never met them.

I think the vast majority of them live in India.

[SineSwiper]

I think the vast majority of them live in India.

Keep in mind that there's a big difference between Hindus and Olympians. There's not too many followers of Zeus or Aries, nor Jupiter or Mars.

[Julius Seeker]

I think the vast majority of them live in India.

Keep in mind that there's a big difference between Hindus and Olympians. There's not too many followers of Zeus or Aries, nor Jupiter or Mars.

They are still all derived from the original Aryan Gods. I don't really follow the Hindu religion, but their Gods and language are from Aryan culture.

[SineSwiper]

They are still all derived from the original Aryan Gods. I don't really follow the Hindu religion, but their Gods and language are from Aryan culture.

True, and Christianity are derived from pagan sources. The more I look at Catholicism, the more it looks like the rituals are just redone forms of the religions that they condemn.

Eating the body of Christ?
Drinking the blood of Christ?
Chanting Hail Marys?
Carrying totems of Christ's cross, or idols of the Virgin Mary?
Whispering spells/prayers of protection to God?
Visually marking the sign of the cross in the air, or crossing the heart on a person's body?
The use of incense by alter boys?

It seems like the The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn was just trying to take it to the next logical step.

[Agent 57]

. The more I look at Catholicism, the more it looks like the rituals are just redone forms of the religions that they condemn.

I was lent "The Da Vinci Code" the other day, and that's pretty much exactly what the book suggests Constantine did back in the day.

It *is* just a fiction book, though...apparently there's been a lot of debate on how much of it is historical record and how much is BS. I need to do some reading on that after I finish it.

[Julius Seeker]

There's a good reason why the early Christians shaped the religion into the way it was. It didn't just take the place of other religions. During the dark ages (you can see this by reading some of the existing Dark Aged texts) the Christian religion actually took on many attributes of the religions of the major tribes that it covered. Beowulf has a sort of half Pagan approach to Christianity. Then of course, once Europe was Christianized, the religion began to evolve to suit the needs of the Romans. Innocent III represented the most powerful of the Popes; through him great evolution took place in the religion.