Old Testament vs New Testament

Want to make it clear in BIG BOLD LETTERS, this is an analytical discussion between the old and new testament, so please don't take the vs as a means of battle. This is an open discussion on the contents, supposed meanings and origins of the old and new testament. Please feel free to state any opinions you may have and feel free to post any links to back up anything you see as factual. As much as the old and new testaments are about the Israelites and the messiah, this op is not a focus on the religious aspect, but the historical aspect of the literature, and although we can't avoid the religious aspect, I don't want this turned into an op about religious beliefs or does god exist? again, it's an analytical look on the historical aspect of the writings of the bibles and when and how they came into being, not about any of it's supernatural claims about it's god. Now that we've got that out of the way, lets begin.

I believe it's a consensus that over three thousand years ago, there was no bible (The Bible, from Koine Greek τὰ βιβλία, tà biblía, "the books") is a canonical collection of texts sacred in Judaism and Christianity. There was no single "Bible" and many Bibles with varying contents existed). We've come along way in understanding the old testament bible, gone are the days when it was thought the whole old testament was written by one man, Moses, and know now that it was varying texts written over different time periods constantly reconstructing and at times recreating the Jewish faith.

Then you have the new testament which is very different in tone, both in it's story, it's portrayal of the Jewish/Israelite deity YHWH, culminating in the messiah believed to be Yeshua/Jesus for the Christians. The main and obvious difference between a Christian and a Jewish person is the subject of the messiah, which is what all the new testament is mostly about, those that believe that the messiah came in the form of the jewish rabbi Yeshua and became known as Christians, calling themselves that due to his being the anointed one in their eyes, (Christós, meaning "anointed") is a translation of the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ (Māšîaḥ) and the Syriac ܡܫܝܚܐ (M'shiha), the Messiah, and is used as a title for Jesus in the New Testament) while the Jewish people who remained faithful to their Jewish origins didn't believe in the jewish prophet Yeshua/Jesus being the messiah they were expecting. I would like to know, is there any debate as to whether the old testament, though they may say it's still relevant to them (Christians) are they obliged to actually follow it's writings? Was the new testament written to do away with the old testament? Therefore reforming the religion in it's entirety which is why a lot of the Jewish people didn't take to well to being told this? I'd like to know peoples thoughts and takes on this? What was the main purpose and focus of the reformation in the new testament?

The New testament was not to nullify but ascertain the Old testament.

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill." Matthew 5:17

Dear friends, I am not writing a new commandment, for it is an old one you have always had, right from the beginning. This commandment – to love one another – is the same message you heard before. Yet it is also new. (1 John 2:7-8 NLT)

Nice. But, there are obvious contradictions in the writings and teachings, as much as the writers may have claimed to ascertain the OT, they also created a lot of ways to get around the old laws and ways, by first and foremost not having to be of Jewish descent to get involved with the new scriptures and messiah, as the messiah was suppose to be of Jewish descent sent for the salvation of the Jewish people in particular, that got re-written with the NT, which I'm assuming is why they didn't take to well to it.

@lordraiden: So then Mary was not of Jewish descent?

Um, I'm quite sure she was!

@lordraiden: Then Jesus was of Jewish descent then. Then why did the Jewish people not believe he was the messiah?

@mr_clockwork91: they expected the Messiah to be a great king and military leader, not a poor carpenter who didn't advocate violence

Can we do this in the religion thread instead please?

Yes he was, but, I believe messiahs have also been a dime a dozen and Jesus hasn't been the only one claiming that title, and there's still Jewish people claiming to be the messiah over the last two thousand years. Just because your a Jewish rabbi doesn't automatically entitle you to the role of messiah from what I've read (but, to be honest, you'd have to ask a Jewish person that question as to why they didn't believe him, I can only give you my opinion) Which brings me to self fulfilling prophesy, as the messiah had to come from a certain lineage, that being from the lineage of David (which is debatable if he's even an actual historical figure, with only a name on the Tel Dan stele that has ever evidenced a house of David?), but, according to the NT, it is Joseph who supposedly comes from the house of David (which differs in the two readings of his genealogy), since Joseph isn't even blood related to Jesus, and has nothing to actually do with Jesus other than being a surrogate father, then that would make Joseph's genealogy irrelevant, one would think? Even in the OT there was a lot of self fulfilling prophecies, people little realizing that they were texts written in different time periods.

?? No, that's why I created this thread, if you read the original op, as much as it involves the religion of the old and new testament and what it's about, this op is not about whether god is real or not or religion in that sense, it's strictly about the analytical discussion of the old and new testaments and there texts, who wrote them, what time periods where certain texts and documents written etc I wanted it separate from the other thread. Why would you even ask that?? You don't have to contribute if you don't want to, up to you entirely.

@lordraiden: Who wrote the Old testament? And do we know the validity of it's accuracy?

Eh it is all fiction anyway..

The writers are numerous, as evidenced over the last century. There's what's reffered to as the J document/writer, the P document/writer etc. It's accuracy? That's difficult to gauge, as quite a lot has been shown to be non factual from an archaeological/scientific standpoint like the Exodus story amongst others, like the taking of Cannan through force and battle. I believe from what I've read and seen the Israelite/Jewish scribes were going back and re-writing/creating their own history and creation, so I don't believe it to be written as a historical document per se, that's not to say it does not contain or written amongst history from that period, but history from the people's point of view that are writing it, in their best interest showing it in their favour, it is I believe from historical findings and readings that a lot of it is metaphorical in it's creation of a people and their connection to their god and way of life.

So is Harry Potter (though none of that is based in history all together), interesting read never the less ;-)

I have always held that view about religious texts. I was reading(glancing) a book that was about ancient Korea astrological and atmospheric phenomenons, it did mention religious applications like King "what" prayed to their believed god at the time to bring rain but this was not the focal point of the book. Just an observation from a scientific standpoint noting what happened on each day about what had happened in terms of atmosphere and astrology. But if you were to read religious texts from that era, it would be different as to why the sky brought rain.

How about neither

Well yea I guess so.

neither what?

I know what your getting at but alot of the events in the bible did actually happen- The War between Assyria and Palestine territories, Sacking of Jerusalem and Samaria etc.

Personally I prefer the Old Testament. Some of the stories are really funny, in a morbid way anyway :P

I was really talking in regards to the things that are really only in and specifically come from the bible.

Yeah god was more of an evil tyrant and was more up front about it as opposed to the more new testament passive aggressive version.

Somebody say my name?

@lordraiden: All Viners are expected to shoehorn religious topics into the religion thread to minimize the probability of flame wars.

Old and new testament

Well, since this isn't specifically about religion, can't help you with the shoehorning (I'm not a fan of shoehorning) Like I said, if you wanna join in discussions here, feel free, if it's not your cup of tea, then don't discuss. Simple.

@arcus:

To add to what arcus said. another reason they didn't believe Jesus is the Messiah is because Jesus had to be a descendent of King David on his FATHER'S side. Who was Jesus father? God. So Jesus is not a descendent of David therefore he can't be the Christ. Also, he messiah was supposed to do certain things. His kingdom was to be from sea to sea and he was supposed to free the Jews. He did neither

I prefer the old testament. God was more real. He's the All Mighty and if you cross him, he will F*CK you up. He didn't care about what you thought was right or wrong. It's his way or death. He was very strict. But if you obeyed him he would bless you until you had no want. I fully understand why Jews don't believe the NT. It is in stark contrast to the OT. Also the OT scriptures were written every few decades. The NT was written 400 yrs after the last OT book!!! Plenty of time for a sect or cult to invent a new religion

I stated the same earlier, they trace the genealogy of his mother Mary, who's suppose to be a virgin, which really doesn't make sense? You generally trace the genealogy through the father, which would be Joseph, who's lineage they traced (or made up) to go back to David, and since Joseph had nothing to do with Jesus biologically, makes it a fallacy trying to trace his ancestry back to anyone? I believe Jesus was a walking contradiction to the Jewish people as the supposed messiah, imo.

@lordraiden: So what do you prefer? OT or NT? Do you believe any of either is inspired?

Whichever one is the closest to the original thing is what I would go with (I don't know a lot about religion) but from what I have heard some of the stories/parts were removed or altered over time for whatever reason, and I would rather read whichever one is more true to the source material.

@blade_r: You're going to want the dead sea scrolls then. Some sects of christianity have different interpretations toward the texts as well as slightly different translations. Most of the bibles out there are as close to the originals writings as possible.

Old, you very much know where you stand in the OT, no grey areas. Inspired? Nothing otherworldly, if that's what you mean? It has some great literature, poems, stories etc but nothing that would come even close imo that has anything divine about it other than it constantly referring to their god as the be all and end all, which is nothing new about any other religion and belief in their god. I never did see how a book that has mass genocide, infanticide, slavery etc and isn't condoning it but on the contrary enforcing it, as divine. It's divine to the people writing it because it's giving them what they want shedding them in right light, irrelevant of it's atrocities, as it should, if your writing the book! It's a collection of texts and documents on the creation, structure and purpose of a people from the time period. Again, it's based in history, but not historical in it's telling and accuracy, as that is not it's purpose.

That is why this discussion is about the bibles themselves, the writings, the people, the time periods, not about the belief in it's god, there's already a thread about religion and god(s). The closest I can feel myself agreeing to is that there may be some prime mover, something bigger than what we can perceive? If that is the case? you can't define it by giving it a name, feelings, attachments and constantly anthropomorphising it constantly and personalizing it. but I digress, no, I don't believe any of it is inspired in that sense, having done a lot of reading up on it's history and people, it is a great creation, and indeed has some very interesting reading.

Ah yes that's one of the ones I heard about, ill have to look into it some more. Also idk what religion it is related to but I have also heard about "The Book Of Enoch" and how its considered non-canon or "uninspired" or something. While I am not really religious (For the record im not an atheist either) I do find many things about different religions very interesting.

Anyway which one would you go with, old or new?

There actually are no original txts for the NT, there are copies of copies of copies of copies. I think the best we have is a third gen copy of the original, most are like 5th and over. No one knows or has seen what the actual first originally written texts ever said? ironic!

"sigh".

Enoch is Old Testament. It's apocryphal, I believe. That's where you get the Nephilim, who were the angels that mated with humans, who's offspring ranged from 10-36 feet.

@blade_r: I'm a history major so I want to say Old Testament because of all the major events that occurred during that time period, but the New Testament has some amazing wisdom that anyone can take in whether they are religious or not. The book of Proverbs is really awesome. Too hard to choose for me :P, funny this is my name is Joshua and I finally read through the book of Joshua last week. I feel like that should have been my first book of the Bible to read lol, guess not.

@lordraiden: I would have to look into this first. What is so ironic to you.....

What did you think? Some great and interesting reading.

@lordraiden: I enjoyed it for the most part. I thought it was interesting how many battles were fought throughout the course of the book. Also that he was the only man to give a command to God that was followed through.

@lordraiden said:

@blade_r said:

@eisenfauste said:

@blade_r: You're going to want the dead sea scrolls then. Some sects of christianity have different interpretations toward the texts as well as slightly different translations. Most of the bibles out there are as close to the originals writings as possible.

Ah yes that's one of the ones I heard about, ill have to look into it some more. Also idk what religion it is related to but I have also heard about "The Book Of Enoch" and how its considered non-canon or "uninspired" or something. While I am not really religious (For the record im not an atheist either) I do find many things about different religions very interesting.

Anyway which one would you go with, old or new?

Enoch is Old Testament. It's apocryphal, I believe. That's where you get the Nephilim, who were the angels that mated with humans, who's offspring ranged from 10-36 feet.

Yes! That's it! Lol I have been trying to remember that but couldn't for the life of me, thank you! I'm going to look into that, as the idea of angels and humans mating is very intriguing to me.

Awesome :) I guess ill have to check out both then and see for my self :) Ill probably start with the old then read the new one. Lol that is kind of funny , the only one I have read from start to finish was the book of revelation and it was pretty interesting, I need to reread it though as that was a long time ago

Old Testament has way cooler stories, and a much larger variety.

However, from a religious perspective, the New Testament is more important because it deals with "eternal life" and how to ascertain that and such.

So in terms of entertainment and readability, Old Testament.

In terms of religious impact, New Testament.

See guys? That's how you make an intelligent comment without feeling the need to demean other people and their beliefs.

Jmarshmallo

@lordraiden said:

@blade_r said:

@eisenfauste said:

@blade_r: You're going to want the dead sea scrolls then. Some sects of christianity have different interpretations toward the texts as well as slightly different translations. Most of the bibles out there are as close to the originals writings as possible.

Ah yes that's one of the ones I heard about, ill have to look into it some more. Also idk what religion it is related to but I have also heard about "The Book Of Enoch" and how its considered non-canon or "uninspired" or something. While I am not really religious (For the record im not an atheist either) I do find many things about different religions very interesting.

Anyway which one would you go with, old or new?

Enoch is Old Testament. It's apocryphal, I believe. That's where you get the Nephilim, who were the angels that mated with humans, who's offspring ranged from 10-36 feet.

36 Foot Giant... That's nearly 4 Times Larger than Goliath in the Bible... Goliath was 9 feet 6 inches tall.

@king_saturn It gave his height as 9'6 in the bible??

New Testament was far more useful as a political instrument.

Culturally more important, as it manifested into at least 2 faiths: Christianity and Islam (the latter not recognising the NT as a text but Jesus as a Prophet); you could also include Ba'hai in this

Lots of fictional stories have actual historical events in them. Spider-Man comics have real-life events in them.

We can discuss history, or we can discuss fiction. The Bible is simply a combination of both. The problem comes when people cant tell the difference.

At the end of the day it's fruitless to discuss the actions and motivations of fictional people based on a work of fiction. With the Bible, especially so. At least if we were discussing the actions and motivations of Harry Potter, or Gandalf, or Spider-Man, everyone would (presumably) agree that they are fictional people. No one would be offended because they have a "personal relationship" with Harry Potter.

Ba'hai? I haven't heard of that one?

@lordraiden:

The faith? I think I put the apostrophe in the wrong section Bahá'í

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1'%C3%AD_Faith

or recognising Jesus as a prophet of his time

Cheers, something to look into. much appreciated.

I see no big and/or bold letters, sir.

This man is a farce!

I hope that's more to your satisfaction, good sir.

Indubitably.