?????

[bladespark]

The Bible.

Consists of two books, the Old and the New Testaments.

The Old Testament = history of the Jewish people, Moses, Abraham, Adam, lots of wars, the Ten Commandments, the Levite law for Israelites, and a bunch of prophecies, some of which are about Christ, but most of which are about the destruction of Jerusalem, and the end of the world.

The New Testament = teachings of Jesus Christ, plus the story of his birth, ministry, crucifixion, and return from death, and then some letters his followers wrote to each other after that.

Now. If you are Christian (not Jewish, Christian,) which of these two books is the most important?

This should be a no-brainer here.

And yet outside of Mormonism I have NEVER seen anybody say that the New Testament's teachings are more important than the Old. When people argue "but the Bible says X and it says Y, and they contradict each other!" they never even bring up that X is OT and Y is NT. I just finished reading a huge long rant about the ten commandments and how they're stupid, and not really good moral guides because they were mostly about not having idols and not working on Sunday and so on, and I just went "duh!" Of course they're not, they're OT. The sermon on the mount is the good moral guide of the Bible for Christians because it's NT, so it's what Christ said.

Am I alone here? Why do people not distinguish between NT and OT? They just say "The Bible." The Bible is TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT BOOKS!!!!!

I am a Christian. This means that if I find the Bible saying "stone anybody who works on the Sabbath" and I also find the Bible saying "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath," I don't need to think really hard about which of these two statements is more important. Moses said the first one, and Christ said the second one. I'm Christian, not Jewish, so I'm going to follow the second one.

Duh.

Comments

[harliquinnraver.livejournal.com]

you are absolutely correct.

usually i dont jump into religious discussions (and you know i have my reasons) but i agree with you 100%. too many speak of the Bible as tho its God's diary, written by his own hand. um, no.

and youre right, its 2 books, and the content in each is different.

yeah, i dunno if thats what youre gtting at or what....im sorry i suck with religious topics XD

[bladespark.livejournal.com]

Eh, I just get frustrated when Christians try and justify doing something stupid by saying "it's in the Bible" Sure, homosexuality being an abomination is in the Bible. But eating shellfish is an abomination in the Bible too.

If you're going to believe something, you need to have a better justification for it than "it's in the Bible." All kinds of weird stuff is in the Bible.

[harliquinnraver.livejournal.com]

yeah theres some weird stuff in there!

is the shellfish thing really in there? isnt there something about not eating animals with cloven hooves? like pigs? XD

[bladespark.livejournal.com]

"And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you." Leviticus 11:10

"3 Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat.
4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
5 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you." Leviticus 11:3-7

[graydown.livejournal.com]

A short explanation (http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm) (no, really) of the dietary laws.

The really weird stuff is in the next chapter, which talks about treating diseases.

[aoanla.livejournal.com]

Well, of course, a lot of the "abominations" in Leviticus are associated with activities which render you more likely to get or spread illness. I assume that male-male anal sex, in the medical and cultural conditions of the ancient world, is somewhat more likely to spread illness than male-female vaginal sex, and hence the argument is justified.

It's a pity that God didn't get around to waiving sexual restrictions at the same time he waived the dietary ones for the Apostles...

[2dlife.livejournal.com]

Hypothetically, male-male anal sex would be less likely to spread disease due to cross-tropism -- all things being equal (like level of abrasions). It's the anal sex followed immediately by vaginal sex or anal sex followed by oral sex that would be devastating.

[privatepony.livejournal.com]

Actually, the bible is 66 different books, divided into two testaments. :) From the term "Biblia Sacra" meaning "holy books." I can't name them all, as I haven't been to church in about 8 years and haven't opened a bible in about 7.

[bladespark.livejournal.com]

Yes, I know.

But the major division, as far as content goes, is OT/NT.

[loweko.livejournal.com]

But the Old Testament has all that smiting and doom and holy fire, while Jesus largely tells his followers to be decent, compassionate human beings.

And you can't use that stuff to smugly criticise other people at all.

[unspeakablevorn.livejournal.com]

Some places, though, you can just imagine Jesus dopeslapping people. Especially that bit about the plank.

Vorn

[aoanla.livejournal.com]

Well, he picked on a fig tree, and mentioned bringing a sword, so clearly he wasn't adverse to a bit of rough-housing. ¬¬

[graydown.livejournal.com]

Of all the laws in what you call the old testament, the only ones that apply to Christians are the seven laws of Noah. That's what irks me when Christians start quoting the laws in Vayiqra; those laws weren't meant for them. Besides which, as you said, they're not interested in following inconvenient laws (give up fast food? horror!) and they don't distinguish between laws of conduct and laws of purity... better for everyone if they just left Jewish law to the Jewish people.

[lightgreendryad.livejournal.com]

I quite agree, SPark.

[starkruzr.livejournal.com]

There's also the matter of Paul condoning slavery.

IMO, the entire Bible has to be read with a conscience, or it's meaningless.

[rabbitsystem.livejournal.com]

On the other hand,
"All Scripture is God breathed"
"Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolih them but to fulfil them."
"It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law."

Taking the NT alone won't do. It's more complicated than that.

[bladespark.livejournal.com]

I never said to take the NT alone. I said when the NT and OT disagree, I go by the NT.

[pet-tiger.livejournal.com]

I've personally always felt that the New Testament's teachings were the more important ones, as well as the 10 commandments being a good guide. Not that I've studied the Bible all that much.

All I know is that I try to live my life by "Do unto others as you would have done unto you", because it seems the best idea to me.

Let me start by saying I mean no offense....

[endymion-v1.livejournal.com]

One thing I've tended to see out of other people, especially back when I was in high school, is that of the more religious people that I knew, they all basically believed that any moral guidelines set for their religion was meant to apply to all people of all religions.

I never quite understood how this would work. Though all people should try not to screw others over badly, IMO, How can one person or another say whose set of 'laws' are the correct one? Who would decide that in the end? Who is right, and who is wrong?

Those are the sorts of things that always confused me about most religions :/

Re: Let me start by saying I mean no offense....

[bladespark.livejournal.com]

Everybody thinks that their way is the best way. People who are religious think that their religion is the best way. People who aren't religious think that not being religious is the best way.

Human nature.

[malakim2099.livejournal.com]

You know, one thing that I just realized... mainly because it was pointed out by a sports writer of all things:

Lesbian relationships are not forbidden by the Old Testament.

Just something I thought interesting, considering all these evangelistas bring down the hellfire and brimstone and justify their bigotry in the Bible... when there's nothing really forbidding it in the first place.

[bladespark.livejournal.com]

*chuckles* True enough.

Now the prophet saying homosexuality is a sin, well...that's a place I can start, at least, in forumating my own opinions. But you can't just go "it's in the Bible." Lots of stuff is in the Bible.

[silveradept]

Despite the abundance of material in the more recent of the two books that is supposed to be the "new covenant" between G-d and his people, there are quite a few people who prefer the vengeful god to the peaceful one. I guess that they like smiting more than making up. Maybe because it seems easier?