Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(I posted this in another discussion forum, but thought it might be an interesting topic here.)
The Christ that is followed by Christians, in my view, had little but contempt for Old Testament morality. Jesus Christ was a man who taught peace and love. He referenced the OT for no other reason than, firstly, to support his belief in the almighty creator, an secondly, to acknowledge that basic principles of morality were self evident, even to the ancients.
I think that any Christian who uncritically follows the teachings of the OT is not being a Christian at all, and most of Christ's life, he fought against the cruelty and injustice of the OT and its fallacious man-made admonitions.
Jesus would have been meaningless if all he had done was to rally the people Fred Phelps-like to the prevailing OT dogma. Instead he taught a new morality of peace and love, which a true Christian would honor.
What, then, is the relevance of a literal interpretation of the Old Testament in the character of the religion of Jesus Christ?
i am not a christian, but the christians in my life who share quite vocally on this very topic say vehemently that it's "all" the word of god, both the OT and the NT, and one can't be studied without the other, or it is tantamount to discarding the word of God. that's what they tell me
bear in mind that Jesus did not come to earth to start a new religion, nor did he come to earth to be worshipped as a god. he came as a human (a Jew) showing people how to be in relationship with god.
If you ask most Christians if they believe the whole bible is the "Word of God", they'll usually answer yes. Thats the old and new testament, not one or the other.
If you bring up the contradictions between the old and the new, and some of the more bloody and controversial portions of the old testament, they'll answer, "Well that was before Jesus." Meaning that Abraham and God had a covenant, that was in the old testament. Jesus created a new covenant between man and God, allowing anyone to be saved and get into heaven. It also means that you don't have to follow the old rules like, eating pork, killing homosexuals, and not working on the Sabbath, just to name a few.
But I don't think you can have it both ways. When Jesus was asked about the old testament rules, his response was, "You know my fathers laws." He didn't specify which ones, and most Christians believe he was talking about the ten commandments, but he never mentioned them by name. I personally believe you are either all in, you either believe every word is the actual word of God, or you then open things up to a greater debate, what is the word of God.
You can't have it both ways. If all of the bible isn't the word of God, and it clearly isn't, then what is his word? I think that is a decision each person should make for themselves, and not given to the followers by any organized religion. Your relationship with God is yours, no Pope, no Preist, no Pastor, no parent should tell you who or what to believe. If someone wants to believe that homosexuals are bad, because of the old testament, thats fine. However, they shouldn't look down on other Christians because they don't buy that "law".
Is your God a loving God, or is he the childish, insecure, bloody, tyrannical God of the old testament? The choice I say, is up to you.
(I posted this in another discussion forum, but thought it might be an interesting topic here.)
The Christ that is followed by Christians, in my view, had little but contempt for Old Testament morality. Jesus Christ was a man who taught peace and love. He referenced the OT for no other reason than, firstly, to support his belief in the almighty creator, an secondly, to acknowledge that basic principles of morality were self evident, even to the ancients.
I think that any Christian who uncritically follows the teachings of the OT is not being a Christian at all, and most of Christ's life, he fought against the cruelty and injustice of the OT and its fallacious man-made admonitions.
Jesus would have been meaningless if all he had done was to rally the people Fred Phelps-like to the prevailing OT dogma. Instead he taught a new morality of peace and love, which a true Christian would honor.
What, then, is the relevance of a literal interpretation of the Old Testament in the character of the religion of Jesus Christ?
You asked the question and then answered it.
What is your reason for asserting that the teachings of Jesus contradict the OT? Any specific examples?
...and what about Rehab the prostitute and Ruth the Moabite?
There were also instructions concerning how non-Jews could become converts to Judaism.
Where is the "major" divergence?
Gentiles were never allowed to become Jewish. You had to be born Jewish in the old testament. You could allow some people to join the Jewish camp, but they had to be from the house of Abraham to do that.
Romans, were not of the house of Abraham. They could not be saved, according to the bible.
Not to mention the fact that according to Jesus, all you have to do is ask forgiveness, and before that, you had to pay tribute in the form of sacrafice to God for forgiveness. Either by means of gold or a sacrifical animal of some type.
Not to mention Matthew 5 38-39, where Jesus flat contradicts the "eye for an eye" law, which is supposidly directly from God.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.