The Bible - The good, sexist, beautiful, violent book

philologos

Some of you might have been shocked at the thought that I would start a thread with this title on a Sunday afternoon of all times

However, this is the title of an article written in the Guardian recently which offers an assessment of the Biblical text from a non-believer point of view. I'm feeling very much in a let's discuss this sort of mood today.

He argues that the Bible is a book of contradictions, a book which is difficult to decipher and read, and a book that we rarely give due assessment to, and a book which has both a lot of good and a lot of bad to it. Of course I am in disagreement with the author, but I would like to put this forward for discussion first before I join in

I would ask to keep this civil, and hopefully we could have a good discussion about what the author has written. The link is here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/aug/07/alpha-course-religion-christian

stevejazzx

I really don't think there is any mystery as to why it is so contradictory. It was written by people from a middle eastern culture a couple of thousand years ago who were only at the beginning of this road to ultimately morality that we still traverse. A couple of thousand years from now morality will be much different. The people in that future time will probably comment that we got a lot of the big stuff (murder etc) right but were so unrefined with regard to the lesser stuff.
And as we look back two thousand years at our ancestors we see roughly the same except, as they were earlier on this road to ultimate morality, they happened to get some of the big stuff wrong also. That's why although murder wasn't advised it was used more readily by the ruling forces and for lesser crimes (usually those involving disrespect for a deity). No one gets stoned anymore except in a very fundamentalist setting! Morality progresses and becomes more secular. It is only among todays more fundamentalist minds that these ancients books still make full sense because that compartmentalized mindset is what is required in order to glaze over the bad bits.

philologos

stevejazzx wrote: »

I really don't think there is any mystery as to why it is so contradictory.

Is it contradictory in the understanding that there is a Judaic Covenant, and a New Covenant in the Biblical text that differ?

If one reads the Bible one begins to understand that there are clear stages to the divine revelation:

1. God reveals Himself to the patriarchs and leads them into Egypt.
2. The Israelites are held captive in Egypt, God through Moses and Aaron leads them from the land of Egypt through the desert to Israel.
3. God reveals to Moses the Jewish law while in the desert.
4. After years of Judges ruling over the land of Israel, monarchies are set up.
5. The people of Israel are led into sinfulness, and their leaders also become sinful.
6. After years of waiting, God judges the people for what they have done and leads them off into captivity.
7. During this captivity God speaks to the Israelites through prophets and tells them that He will give them a New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34) that will differ to the Old one.
8. Jesus is born, preaches the New Covenant and seals it in His own blood (Luke 22:20), as Moses sealed the Old Covenant (Exodus 24:1-8)
9. Jesus fulfilled the Torah, and revealed to us what was to be retained from Jewish tradition while He was alive.
10. He did not reveal everything, He said to the Apostles that more would be revealed to them by the Holy Spirit (John 15:13), which makes up much of the Epistles.

Point is, yes there are contradictions between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, precisely because the New Covenant was intended to be different to the Old. Elements of Jewish tradition are ultimately incompatible with Christian tradition. As Christians believe that the tradition of Christ supercedes the tradition of Moses we regard Jesus as having fulfilled the Torah and we regard Jesus as the provider of a better Covenant (Hebrews 8:6, Hebrews 3:3)

The Bible contradicts itself, but it is ultimately coherent in it's narrative.

stevejazzx wrote: »

And as we look back two thousand years at our ancestors we see roughly the same except, as they were earlier on this road to ultimate morality, they happened to get some of the big stuff wrong also. That's why although murder wasn't advised it was used more readily by the ruling forces and for lesser crimes (usually those involving disrespect for a deity). No one gets stoned anymore except in a very fundamentalist setting! Morality progresses and becomes more secular. It is only among todays more fundamentalist minds that these ancients books still make full sense because that compartmentalized mindset is what is required in order to glaze over the bad bits.

Actually stop there. If you read the writings of the New Testament. Paul makes rather clear that all sinners are deserving of death (Romans 1:23) but we have been given mercy, therefore we are to show it unto others. (Matthew 5:7, Matthew 6:14, Ephesians 4:32). This has been a Christian concept for the last 2,000 years.

What you say concerning stoning to death is true of the Judaic Covenant, but is not true for Christians under the New Covenant due to our understanding of the mercy and salvation given to us by Jesus Christ.

This has absolutely nothing to do with secularism.

I always find it quite strange that atheists claim that we are picking and choosing in this respect. The Jewish prophets made it quite clear that there would be a New Covenant that would differ from the Old hundreds of years before Christ.

stevejazzx

Jakkass wrote: »

This has absolutely nothing to do with secularism.

Morlaity is refined further in a world that simply has to entertain a secularist philosophy. That was all I was saying.

jakkass wrote:

I always find it quite strange that atheists claim that we are picking and choosing in this respect. The Jewish prophets made it quite clear that there would be a New Covenant that would differ from the Old hundreds of years before Christ.

I din't make that claim exactly. I said that morality was simply 'evolving' and therefore a lot of the stuff that would have been done in the name of God thousands of years only survives today in very fundmentalist settings.
That was, I thought, a more rounded approach to the idea of picking and chosing morality. You somewhat galze over this point by saying that the overall message is 'coherent'. Well it's not if we consider the sum of the parts which believers are very reluctant to do which is why the pick/chose claim is often brought up. You 'can't have your cake and eat it' springs to mind.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I always find it quite strange that atheists claim that we are picking and choosing in this respect. The Jewish prophets made it quite clear that there would be a New Covenant that would differ from the Old hundreds of years before Christ.

If you look at how Jews interpret the passages of the new covenant that is not the interpretation they arrive at.

So what ever about who is right or wrong it is certainly not "quite clear" that the Christian interpretation of a new covenant that differs and supersedes the old one is correct.

In my experience Christians tend to filter reading of the Old Testament through already accepted belief in the divinity and infallibility of the New Testament. It is like the New Testament becomes the book on how to interpret the Old Testament. It is hardly surprising then that Christians who do this arrive at the conclusion that the Bible contains no important contradiction between Old and New testaments.

philologos

stevejazzx wrote: »

Morlaity is refined further in a world that simply has to entertain a secularist philosophy. That was all I was saying.

Why does it have to entertain a secularist philosophy?

stevejazzx wrote: »

I din't make that claim exactly. I said that morality was simply 'evolving' and therefore a lot of the stuff that would have been done in the name of God thousands of years only survives today in very fundmentalist settings.

Yes, but I'm merely claiming that the death penalty wasn't advocated by the earliest Christian leaders as a penalty for sin. This was based on religious teaching, it was nothing to do with secularism.

stevejazzx wrote: »

That was, I thought, a more rounded approach to the idea of picking and chosing morality. You somewhat galze over this point by saying that the overall message is 'coherent'. Well it's not if we consider the sum of the parts which believers are very reluctant to do which is why the pick/chose claim is often brought up. You 'can't have your cake and eat it' springs to mind.

The Bibles overall message is coherent. Elements of it pertain to a former age I.E have been fulfilled by Jesus. For example, I don't sacrifice animals, because Jesus is the all sufficient sacrifice for my sins. Interestingly the Bible also says that these things would pass away far far earlier than Jesus (Hosea 6:6).

It is coherent if we have a basic understanding of Christian theology, which is there are two main Covenants or agreements between God and humanity in the Bible.

The first being the Judaic covenant, the second being the New Covenant.

Moses delivered the first, Jesus delivered the second.

The second is based on the first, but ultimately differs.

Edit: Same God, two different relationships.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

If you look at how Jews interpret the passages of the new covenant that is not the interpretation they arrive at.

I'm quite aware that Jews (excluding Messianic Jews) disagree with Christians on the Messiahship of Jesus and the New Covenant. I have good reason to believe that they are mistaken through Messianic prophesy.

Wicknight wrote: »

So what ever about who is right or wrong it is certainly not "quite clear" that the Christian interpretation of a new covenant that differs and supersedes the old one is correct.

I'd argue it is rather clear from the Biblical text. You are entitled to disagree of course, but for anyone who reads the whole way through the Bible in a careful manner it is completely clear that there is a difference between the Covenant that Christians are under, and the Covenant that pre-Christian Jews were under.

Wicknight wrote: »

In my experience Christians tend to filter reading of the Old Testament through already accepted belief in the divinity and infallibility of the New Testament. It is like the New Testament becomes the book on how to interpret the Old Testament. It is hardly surprising then that Christians who do this arrive at the conclusion that the Bible contains no important contradiction between Old and New testaments.

We are meant to interpret the Old Testament in light of the New Testament. I.E Jesus is meant to change how we regard it. Even the Jewish Torah recognises that the Messiah will have authority in what He commands:

Deuteronomy 18:18 wrote:

I will raise up for them a prophet[URL="javascript:void(0);"]*[/URL] like you from among their own people; I will put my words in the mouth of the prophet,[URL="javascript:void(0);"]*[/URL] who shall speak to them everything that I command. Anyone who does not heed the words that the prophet[URL="javascript:void(0);"]*[/URL] shall speak in my name, I myself will hold accountable.

This passage is the reason why Jesus says that the Father has given all authority unto Him.

stevejazzx

Jakkass wrote: »

Why does it have to entertain a secularist philosophy?

This really should be self evident.

jakkass wrote:

Yes, but I'm merely claiming that the death penalty wasn't advocated by the earliest Christian leaders as a penalty for sin. This was based on religious teaching, it was nothing to do with secularism.

I also said that in first post, although I said not advised instead not advocated.

jakkass wrote:

The Bibles overall message is coherent. Elements of it pertain to a former age I.E have been fulfilled by Jesus. For example, I don't sacrifice animals, because Jesus is the all sufficient sacrifice for my sins. Interestingly the Bible also says that these things would pass away far far earlier than Jesus (Hosea 6:6).

It is coherent if we have a basic understanding of Christian theology, which is there are two main Covenants or agreements between God and humanity in the Bible.

The first being the Judaic covenant, the second being the New Covenant.

Moses delivered the first Jesus delivered the second.

The second is based on the first, but ultimately differs.

Edit: Same God, two different relationships.

We could get into a Leviticus, Deuteronomy thing here where I lay out various passages and highlight the contrainess of it. But it's been done to death on this forum. Any fair minded onlooker would have to concede it is at the very least contradictory. Any attempt to consolidate, infanticide, genecide, murder, rape, misogyny and homophobia with love and understanding is an excercise in futility.

philologos

stevejazzx wrote: »

This really should be self evident.

This is a cop out. I don't see why people having secular morality should be seen as favourable to having religious morality.

stevejazzx wrote: »

We could get into a Leviticus, Deuteronomy thing here where I lay out various passages and highlight the contrainess of it. But it's been done to death on this forum. Any fair minded onlooker would have to concede it is at the very least contradictory. Any attempt to consolidate, infanticide, genecide, murder, rape, misogyny and homophobia with love and understanding is an excercise in futility.

Did you read any of my posts? I said that there are two covenants which differ in the Biblical text, I.E Two different relationships. This is the reason why contradictions exist. I then said, if one takes the narrative into account it is overall coherent.

However, I would see there are being a lot in harmony between the two covenants even though they do differ.

As for getting into the Tanakh and discussing it, I'd say let's get on with it. I argue that elements of the Tanakh differ but by and large there are consistencies between them. Infact, I'll go one step further and say that the vast majority of the Gospel teachings can be found within the pages of the Tanakh.

stevejazzx

Jakkass wrote: »

This is a cop out. I don't see why people having secular morality should be seen as favourable to having religious morality.

You've misunderstood everything there. I said morlaity refines itself in secular society. You asked why?
I said surely that was evident i.e the greater the exposure to other cultures we have the more refined (better) a certain part of our morality becomes.
I never mentioned it whether or not was a favourable outlook over certain religious societies. I suppose you might have extracted that from my general text though and that is not an unreasonable determination to make.

philologos

stevejazzx wrote: »

You've misunderstood everything there. I said morlaity refines itself in secular society. You asked why?
I said surely that was evident i.e the greater the exposure to other cultures we have the more refined (better) a certain part of our morality becomes.
I never mentioned it whether or not was a favourable outlook over certain religious societies. I suppose you might have extracted that from my general text though and that is not an unreasonable determination to make.

This assumes that separate cultures cannot retain their own forms of morality independent of the other. We find that this isn't the case in many societies in the West.

I wouldn't exactly agree that this necessarily "refines" our morality in any way. Better is largely in the eyes of the beholder, it isn't really an objective concept unless you believe that there is some universal standard of morals and ethics that have been set. One has to have a benchmark before one can get into a reasonable comparison.

Of course it's unreasonable to say that secular ethics are in any way superior to any religious ethics. Secular ethics are largely based on individualism, one cannot tie them down to certain teachings. While variance may exist within Christianity, it does not exist on as large a scale.

As for misunderstanding, you have to admit that there isn't much to understand when someone says "This really should be self evident".

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm quite aware that Jews (excluding Messianic Jews) disagree with Christians on the Messiahship of Jesus and the New Covenant. I have good reason to believe that they are mistaken through Messianic prophesy.

Well perhaps, but like I said irrespective of who is right or wrong it is not quite clear that the New Testament concept of the new covenant does not contradict with the Old Testament concept of the new covenant.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd argue it is rather clear from the Biblical text. You are entitled to disagree of course, but for anyone who reads the whole way through the Bible in a careful manner it is completely clear that there is a difference between the Covenant that Christians are under, and the Covenant that pre-Christian Jews were under.

That wasn't quite my point.

Jews do not interpret the passages in the Old Testament prophecising the new covenant as a covenant that differs in the content of what the deal is.

Christians on the other hand, who believe the New Testament is describing the new covenant do believe that the covenant would different in its content.

It is the difference between me having my contract renewed at work under the same terms (this becomes the "new" contract, but the content remains the same) and me leaving to go to a different job with a new set of contract content.

Depending on how you interpret the Old Testament prophecy of the new covenant will effect how you approach the validity of the New Testament. If you do it the other way around, accept the New Testament and then go and look at the prophecy of the new covenant in the Old Testament that biases your interpretation, rightly or wrongly. Which is fair enough, but it is pointless to then say that the Old Testament backs up the New Testament.

Jakkass wrote: »

We are meant to interpret the Old Testament in light of the New Testament.

According to who?

If one is approaching the Bible from the point of view of non-belief, which the author of this article is, it is circular reasoning to suggest that is how you are meant to do it. You are only meant to do that if Christianity is true, which is not something that has been established yet from the point of view of a non-believer approaching the Bible looking to be convinced of its truth.

It is very easy to say there are no theological contradictions between the New and Old Testaments if you accept the axiom that the Old Testament should be interpreted on the basis that the New Testament is true. But that makes the process some what pointless.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

Well perhaps, but like I said irrespective of who is right or wrong it is not quite clear that the New Testament concept of the new covenant does not contradict with the Old Testament concept of the new covenant.

Read my posts again. I never said that they didn't contradict. I said overall given the Biblical narrative, the Bible remains coherent if you realise that the Bible involves two relationships, one with the ancient Israelites and another with the followers of the Messiah both with differing terms.

Wicknight wrote: »

Jews do not interpret the passages in the Old Testament prophecising the new covenant as a covenant that differs in the content of what the deal is.

If the Jews wish to do that that is their perogative. You know as well as I do that I regard that point of view as mistaken. We could get into discussing Judaism all day but I am discussing non-religious views as expoused in the article I provided about Christianity.

By the way, Jeremiah and Isaiah both make it clear in the text that it would differ. I mean just read this:

Jeremiah 31:31-32 wrote:

The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt—a covenant that they broke, though I was their husband,[URL="javascript:void(0);"]*[/URL] says the Lord.

Wicknight wrote: »

Christians on the other hand, who believe the New Testament is describing the new covenant do believe that the covenant would different in its content.

Indeed, they do believe that elements of the Jewish law have been fulfilled by the coming of the Messiah, precisely because the Tanakh itself says that the New Covenant would differ to the Old.

Wicknight wrote: »

It is the difference between me having my contract renewed at work under the same terms (this becomes the "new" contract, but the content remains the same) and me leaving to go to a different job with a new set of contract content.

No. The terms differ.

Disobedience in relation to the Jewish covenant meant that one would be physically removed from the land of Israel, and that foreign occupiers would make war on the land. (Leviticus 26).

Now, what relevance would that have to a Gentile like me living in Ireland?

Disobedience in relation to the New Covenant means exemption from the New Earth and the New Jerusalem (Revelations 21), and that one would be condemned (John 3:18).

Different terms for a different covenant.

Wicknight wrote: »

Depending on how you interpret the Old Testament prophecy of the new covenant will effect how you approach the validity of the New Testament. If you do it the other way around, accept the New Testament and then go and look at the prophecy of the new covenant in the Old Testament that biases your interpretation, rightly or wrongly. Which is fair enough, but it is pointless to then say that the Old Testament backs up the New Testament.

It isn't really pointless to say that the Old Testament backs up the New Testament when one can visibly show that it does through the use of Old Testament texts. It depends how obtuse one wants to be in disregarding textual evidence.

Wicknight wrote: »

According to who?

Consult the book of Hebrews. There are also other references from both the NT and indeed from the Torah itself about the authority of the Messiah.

Wicknight wrote: »

If one is approaching the Bible from the point of view of non-belief, which the author of this article is, it is circular reasoning to suggest that is how you are meant to do it. You are only meant to do that if Christianity is true, which is not something that has been established yet from the point of view of a non-believer approaching the Bible looking to be convinced of its truth.

I think his objections are unjustified, although it was an interesting read. It's fine if you want to hold an alternative view to how you should read the Old Testament. However the advice given by the Apostles and those involved in the early Christian church was to interpret the Old Testament in the light of Jesus' coming. As a Christian, understandably I seek to follow this example. I would have thought that to be obvious.

Wicknight wrote: »

It is very easy to say there are no theological contradictions between the New and Old Testaments if you accept the axiom that the Old Testament should be interpreted on the basis that the New Testament is true. But that makes the process some what pointless.

Read my posts again. Seriously go do it immediately before you misread them again :pac:

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Read my posts again. I never said that they didn't contradict. I said overall given the Biblical narrative, the Bible remains coherent if you realise that the Bible involves two relationships, one with the ancient Israelites and another with the followers of the Messiah both with differing terms.

Read my post again :P

I know you are saying that the two books contradict, your argument is that they are supposed to in details because the Old Testament details the old covenant with God and the New Testament details the new covenant with God, and these are different covenants. So of course they are going to seem different.

I'm not debating that.

What I'm pointing out is that many do not interpret the New Testament concept of the new covenant as being compatible with the Old Testaments prophecy of the new covenant.

Jakkass wrote: »

If the Jews wish to do that that is their perogative.

Well yes but are we not discussing non-believers approaching the Bible. Is Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament not important to how a non-Jew, non-Christian would seek to accept the Old Testament, New Testament or both?

Jakkass wrote: »

You know as well as I do that I regard that point of view as mistaken. We could get into discussing Judaism all day but I am discussing non-religious views as expoused in the article I provided about Christianity.

But Christianity makes a claim to build upon the Jewish religion. You can't say we will just look at Christianity and not worry about Judaism. All the prophecies that Christianity is suppose to match come from Judaism.

Jakkass wrote: »

By the way, Jeremiah and Isaiah both make it clear in the text that it would differ. I mean just read this:

And in the next passage it says what the difference will be.


32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them,"
declares the LORD.

33 "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time," declares the LORD.
"I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.

34 No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,'
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,"
declares the LORD.
"For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more."

That passage refers to Exodus and the way God made the contract with them.

6 Moses took half of the blood and put it in bowls, and the other half he sprinkled on the altar.

7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, "We will do everything the LORD has said; we will obey.

Originally the covenant was sworn to by the mark on the hand and taught from man to man. The Israelites broke this covenant because it was only a verbal agreement.

The new covenant will not be sworn to, nor will it be taught, the law will be placed in the mind (to avoid confusion or misrepresentation) it will be made in the heart (to ensure it is happily followed).

That is the difference between the two covenants, how it is deployed. The context, the law, remains the same. Or at least that is how the Jews view it. I appreciate you don't agree, but why you think someone approaching Christianity should ignore this interpretation, which to me seem perfectly valid, is beyond me.

BTW does this sound like Christianity? Do Christians have the covenant put in their minds and hearts? Do men no longer teach to their neighbour that you should know the lord because God has touched all and all know him?

Jakkass wrote: »

No. The terms differ.

Disobedience in relation to the Jewish covenant meant that one would be physically removed from the land of Israel, and that foreign occupiers would make war on the land. (Leviticus 26).

Now, what relevance would that have to a Gentile like me living in Ireland?

That is a rather weak argument. You are, again, using circular reasoning, assuming this is true and then forcing an interpretation on it because it has to make sense some how.

Maybe it just doesn't make sense. Maybe the men writing this weren't thinking about how an Irish man living 3,000 years in the future was going to worry about interpreting it.

Again that is not how a non-believer would approach this.

Jakkass wrote: »

It isn't really pointless to say that the Old Testament backs up the New Testament when one can visibly show that it does through the use of Old Testament texts. It depends how obtuse one wants to be in disregarding textual evidence.

It always comes back to this True Scots Man argument, doesn't. If you are being honest with your interpretation you will agree with me. You aren't agreeing with me, therefore you are not being honest with your interpretation.

You don't have to be obtuse at all to conclude that the New Testament does not fulfill the old testament. Jews have been doing that for centuries.

Jakkass wrote: »

Consult the book of Hebrews. There are also other references from both the NT and indeed from the Torah itself about the authority of the Messiah.

The New Testament says you should read the New Testament first and then interpret the Old Testament based on that. Wow, shocking.

If one of the basis of the truth of the New Testament is that it fulfils and continues the covenant and prophecies of the Old Testament does it not make much more sense to study the Old Testament in great detail before one looks at the New Testament in order to be able to assess whether or not this is the case?

Jakkass wrote: »

I think his objections are unjustified, although it was an interesting read. It's fine if you want to hold an alternative view to how you should read the Old Testament. However the advice given by the Apostles and those involved in the early Christian church was to interpret the Old Testament in the light of Jesus' coming. As a Christian, understandably I seek to follow this example. I would have thought that to be obvious.

But then you can't use any justification from the authority of the Old Testament.

You can't say Right I've read the New Testament right I'm going to interpret the Old Testament based on what it says, wow that is amazing, the Old Testament totally predicts what happens in the New Testament.

I've no issue if someone wants to read the New Testament and then interpret the Old Testament based on the New Testaments telling of the Old Testament (heck I believe all this stuff is nonsense anyway).

But if you do this it is a logical fallacy then to argue that the Old Testament supports the New Testament and use that as support for the New Testament.

Coriolanus

Even ignoring the conflict between the old and the new testaments, there's plenty of contradictions between the gospels etc.

I know it's a tired one, but the differing genealogies of Joeseph found in Matthew and Luke comes to mind. Even the mentioning of the genealogies strikes a wrong chord since with none of Joesephs blood running in Jesus' veins, it's irrelevant, unless they're a relic of earlier attempts to identify Jesus as the Messiah by virtue of direct descendance through the line of David, which can be traced through Joeseph.
The lack of any mention of the Virgin Birth in ... Mark and John(?), nor in Pauls writings, even though it's a fairly revelatory part of much Christian faith.

Any of these points alone draws suspicion on the idea that book is not divinely inspired in it's current form, and if it's not, then it's fair to ask where else there are mistakes.

Anyway, it's been a while since I studied the Bible in any detail but afaik the points above are things that have been wrestled with for centuries and still aren't satisfactorily answered within the light of the Bibles supposed absolute truth.

Zombrex

Nevore wrote: »

Even ignoring the conflict between the old and the new testaments, there's plenty of contradictions between the gospels etc.

I know it's a tired one, but the differing genealogies of Joeseph found in Matthew and Luke comes to mind. Even the mentioning of the genealogies strikes a wrong chord since with none of Joesephs blood running in Jesus' veins, it's irrelevant, unless they're a relic of earlier attempts to identify Jesus as the Messiah by virtue of direct descendance through the line of David, which can be traced through Joeseph.
The lack of any mention of the Virgin Birth in ... Mark and John(?), nor in Pauls writings, even though it's a fairly revelatory part of much Christian faith.

Any of these points alone draws suspicion on the idea that book is not divinely inspired in it's current form, and if it's not, then it's fair to ask where else there are mistakes.

Anyway, it's been a while since I studied the Bible in any detail but afaik the points above are things that have been wrestled with for centuries and still aren't satisfactorily answered within the light of the Bibles supposed absolute truth.

I would feel it is relatively safe to assume that there are no glaringly obvious contradictions in the New Testament, because to put it frankly they would have just been changed if there were.

It is probably safe to assume that what is written in the New Testament at least made sense in some shape or form to the Christians of the time.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

What I'm pointing out is that many do not interpret the New Testament concept of the new covenant as being compatible with the Old Testaments prophecy of the new covenant.

Yes, Jews do not. Christians do. We've established this. I've also mentioned that I do think that Jewish view is mistaken. I'm discussing how both the author and many atheists misunderstand Christianity and how we interpret the Biblical text, not how they misunderstand Judaism.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well yes but are we not discussing non-believers approaching the Bible. Is Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament not important to how a non-Jew, non-Christian would seek to accept the Old Testament, New Testament or both?

See above.

Wicknight wrote: »

But Christianity makes a claim to build upon the Jewish religion. You can't say we will just look at Christianity and not worry about Judaism. All the prophecies that Christianity is suppose to match come from Judaism.

Christianity does make a claim to build upon Judaism, but Christianity never asserts itself to be the exact same as Judaism, but infact the fulfilment of Judaism.

Wicknight wrote: »

And in the next passage it says what the difference will be. 32 It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them," declares the LORD. 33 "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. 34 No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."

Interesting that you mention this, you should consult Hebrews chapter 8, the exact same prophetic passage is used to explain the New Covenant. Paul also continues on this concept that it is possible for what is moral to be contained in ones heart without knowing the precepts of the law beforehand, see Romans 2:14-15. Doing what is commanded is of much more value than knowing what is commanded.

Wicknight wrote: »

That passage refers to Exodus and the way God made the contract with them. 6 Moses took half of the blood and put it in bowls, and the other half he sprinkled on the altar. 7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, "We will do everything the LORD has said; we will obey.

Hang on. Wicknight that quotation from Exodus 24 is the sanctification of the covenant through blood. Blood was seen in Judaism to be a purifying source. It was used to sanctify the vestments of Aaron and his sons in the ordination ceremony. You note that Jeremiah signifies a change in how God will be understood through the heart (very much a centre of Jesus' teaching) rather than through ceremonies and rites. If there were to be an adequate change there would have to be a change in covenant. Just as the first covenant was sealed in blood, so was the New Covenant. So indeed given that context it would be apt if the New Covenant followed the Crucifixion of Christ, of which there seems to be a rather good case considering that other prophesies such as the pouring of the Spirit as prophesied by Joel were fulfilled after Jesus' Ascension on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14-21, Joel 2:28-30) Note how Joel also continues to say that all who call on the name of the LORD would be saved. Interesting concept, one that is quoted from in Romans 10:9. Another difference between the New Covenant and the Old Covenant. This is what I would say to both you and the Jews who would object to Christian teaching on this is, if you object, provide a better case, refute the Christian claims concerning these prophesies and provide us a better explanation with your knowledge of the Jewish scriptures.

Wicknight wrote: »

Originally the covenant was sworn to by the mark on the hand and taught from man to man. The Israelites broke this covenant because it was only a verbal agreement.

I'm not entirely sure if one could say that it was merely a verbal agreement. The Israelites had texts of the Torah which were to be read every 7 years from the Tent of the Lord's Presence / Temple. They violated the law, they fell short of God's standard. God punished them, but told them that He would restore them but on new terms.

Wicknight wrote: »

The new covenant will not be sworn to, nor will it be taught, the law will be placed in the mind (to avoid confusion or misrepresentation) it will be made in the heart (to ensure it is happily followed).

This isn't

Wicknight wrote: »

That is the difference between the two covenants, how it is deployed. The context, the law, remains the same. Or at least that is how the Jews view it. I appreciate you don't agree, but why you think someone approaching Christianity should ignore this interpretation, which to me seem perfectly valid, is beyond me.

I'd argue that the law does remain the same. Indeed, I would argue that Christians but that it has been fulfilled by Jesus as the High Priest. In Judaism when rulings were made about how the Torah should be executed, it was at the discretion of the High Priests. In Christianity we have one High Priest Jesus Christ. As such Jesus' judgement of mercy on the Torah is entirely valid. Christians believe that the Father has given all authority to the Son. The sacrifices which are spoken of in the Torah, are fulfilled through Christ's all complete sacrifice as prophesied in Isaiah 53. Likewise the Passover is still served as a perpetual ordinance each year through the Easter festival remembering both the salvation of the Israelites from Egypt (Exodus 12), (Matthew 28:18)

Wicknight wrote: »

BTW does this sound like Christianity? Do Christians have the covenant put in their minds and hearts? Do men no longer teach to their neighbour that you should know the lord because God has touched all and all know him?

Yes, it does sound like Christianity. By calling out genuinely to the LORD we are saved, and God has given all mankind a rudimentary moral sense by which they can build on through faith. We are justified not by knowledge of the Law as in the Judaic covenant, but by living by faith in God. Man is not made righteous through knowledge, but man is made just by faith in the Christian belief system. A quick read of Romans explains this nicely from chapters 1 through 5. So yes, it sounds like Christianity.

Wicknight wrote: »

That is a rather weak argument. You are, again, using circular reasoning, assuming this is true and then forcing an interpretation on it because it has to make sense some how.

If the Bible were only one book with one purpose it might be circular reasoning. Luckily I know that there are 66 books in the Protestant canon, and 72 in the Catholic one.

Wicknight wrote: »

Maybe it just doesn't make sense. Maybe the men writing this weren't thinking about how an Irish man living 3,000 years in the future was going to worry about interpreting it.

I could hold that view if I hadn't good reason to regard the Bible as being divinely inspired.

Wicknight wrote: »

Again that is not how a non-believer would approach this.

Of course it isn't. I'm discussing how the article writer misunderstands how Christians would view the Bible.

Wicknight wrote: »

It always comes back to this True Scots Man argument, doesn't. If you are being honest with your interpretation you will agree with me. You aren't agreeing with me, therefore you are not being honest with your interpretation.

I can quite clearly show you how the New Testament is solidly backed up by the Old Testament through citation. Infact if you look at a cross reference Bible from Matthew 5 through 7 it will surprise you how much of Jesus' teachings are solidly backed up by Jewish writings. I'm actually sure that a lot of Jewish scholars would agree that the New Testament is influenced by Judaism. I don't think people are being honest with their interpretation if they are refusing to see how influenced the New Testament is by former divine revelation.

Wicknight wrote: »

You don't have to be obtuse at all to conclude that the New Testament does not fulfill the old testament. Jews have been doing that for centuries.

I would consider it misguided, that it all I am saying. People are entitled to disagree with me, and I am quite entitled to regard it as obtuse to do so.

Wicknight wrote: »

If one of the basis of the truth of the New Testament is that it fulfils and continues the covenant and prophecies of the Old Testament does it not make much more sense to study the Old Testament in great detail before one looks at the New Testament in order to be able to assess whether or not this is the case?

I read the Old Testament before I ever read the New Testament. I started from Genesis through Revelation the first time. When I started posting on this forum, I was reading through the Jewish text and learning what I could from others here. Having read the Old Testament I found that the New Testament view made sense and that it was a continuation of divine revelation.

Wicknight wrote: »

But then you can't use any justification from the authority of the Old Testament.

How exactly?

Wicknight wrote: »

You can't say Right I've read the New Testament right I'm going to interpret the Old Testament based on what it says, wow that is amazing, the Old Testament totally predicts what happens in the New Testament.

If there are genuine connections between the Old and the New Testament then they are certainly worth investigating. It also works vice versa admittedly. Let me give you an example:

Matthew 21:12-13 wrote:

Then Jesus entered the temple* and drove out all who were selling and buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold doves. He said to them, ‘It is written, “My house shall be called a house of prayer”; but you are making it a den of robbers.’

The house of prayer refers to Isaiah 56:7 which says "My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations". Jesus was in the Court of the Gentiles the only area where non-Jews were permitted. This was also where the traders would have commonly sold as the people would have entered the Temple. Now, look at Jeremiah chapter 7:

Jeremiah 7:9-14 wrote:

Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, make offerings to Baal, and go after other gods that you have not known, and then come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, ‘We are safe!’—only to go on doing all these abominations? Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your sight? You know, I too am watching, says the Lord. Go now to my place that was in Shiloh, where I made my name dwell at first, and see what I did to it for the wickedness of my people Israel. And now, because you have done all these things, says the Lord, and when I spoke to you persistently, you did not listen, and when I called you, you did not answer, therefore I will do to the house that is called by my name, in which you trust, and to the place that I gave to you and to your ancestors, just what I did to Shiloh.

From this we can see that Jesus in his reference to Jeremiah is foretelling a similar fate for the Temple of his age. Destruction as Jeremiah foretold. Mark 13:2 confirms this view. Cultural context, and the context of the Jewish Tanakh can help us to understand the New Testament in ways that we never thought of before. Looking up and finding references that Jesus quoted can be of huge value as well to find the context, and to see if there was anything more that Jesus was saying at the time.

Wicknight wrote: »

I've no issue if someone wants to read the New Testament and then interpret the Old Testament based on the New Testaments telling of the Old Testament (heck I believe all this stuff is nonsense anyway).

I'm aware that you consider this to be all nonsense. Thanks for giving the time to the discussion all the same.

Wicknight wrote: »

But if you do this it is a logical fallacy then to argue that the Old Testament supports the New Testament and use that as support for the New Testament.

No not really. One can look to the Old Testament independently and explain the influence on the New Testament in two ways: 1) That teachings from the Old Testament directly assisted in forming teachings of the New Testament. I've been struck at how much this is the case, it's something that has challenged a few of my former views about Christianity. 2) That Old Testament events were a shadow of what was to come

Hebrews 10:1 wrote:

Since the law has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered year after year, make perfect those who approach.

This in Christian theology is known as Christophany: An example of this would be in Genesis 14 when the priest Melchizedek blesses Abraham and gives him bread and wine. Many see this as a foreshadowing of the Christian eucharist, and so on. I feel the case is better made with the first rather than the second though.

Nevore wrote: »

I know it's a tired one, but the differing genealogies of Joeseph found in Matthew and Luke comes to mind. Even the mentioning of the genealogies strikes a wrong chord since with none of Joesephs blood running in Jesus' veins, it's irrelevant, unless they're a relic of earlier attempts to identify Jesus as the Messiah by virtue of direct descendance through the line of David, which can be traced through Joeseph.

This was refuted as early as the 4th century. Here is an extract from Eusebius' History of the Church explaining it. This quotes Africanus another Christian scholar:

The names of the families in Israel were reckoned either by nature or by law; by nature when there was genuine offspring to succeed; by law when another man fathered a child in the name of a brother who had died childless.

See Genesis 38, and Deuteronomy 25. As for why Joseph is used in the genealogy continuing on in Eusebius' own words:

In tracing thus the genealogy of Joseph, Africanus has virtually proved that Mary belonged to the same tribe as her husband, in view of the fact that under the Mosaic law inter-marriage between different tribes was forbidden, for the rule is that a woman must wed someone from the same town and the same clan, so that the family inheritance may not be moved from tribe to tribe.

See Numbers 36 for backup of this.

Nevore wrote: »

The lack of any mention of the Virgin Birth in ... Mark and John(?), nor in Pauls writings, even though it's a fairly revelatory part of much Christian faith.

This isn't what one would refer to as a contradiction. This is a difference in what is contained. This does not mean that both cannot have occurred.

Nevore wrote: »

Any of these points alone draws suspicion on the idea that book is not divinely inspired in it's current form, and if it's not, then it's fair to ask where else there are mistakes.

Not really, this is only the case if one considers either of those cases to be mistakes. I personally don't because it doesn't diminish truth.

Nevore wrote: »

Anyway, it's been a while since I studied the Bible in any detail but afaik the points above are things that have been wrestled with for centuries and still aren't satisfactorily answered within the light of the Bibles supposed absolute truth.

The answer concerning the genealogies put it to rest for me. As for the Virgin Birth not being documented in Mark, or Luke, I again don't see this as a "contradiction" rather than an omission.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, Jews do not. Christians do. We've established this. I've also mentioned that I do think that Jewish view is mistaken. I'm discussing how both the author and many atheists misunderstand Christianity and how we interpret the Biblical text, not how they misunderstand Judaism. See above.

Yes but you are basing your claim that they misunderstand Christianity based on a Christian position.

A non-believer says I'm having trouble with this there seems to be major contradictions between the Old and New Testaments. Your response is basically Not if you are a Christian. That ain't particularly helpful, since we aren't Christians

Or, to put it another way, why would a non-believer believe you over a Jewish person?

Jakkass wrote: »

Paul also continues on this concept that it is possible for what is moral to be contained in ones heart without knowing the precepts of the law beforehand

Ok, but if Christianity isn't true then Paul has no authority to comment on Old Testament prophecy? So quoting him is not very helpful.

Jakkass wrote: »

Hang on. Wicknight that quotation from Exodus 24 is the sanctification of the covenant through blood. Blood was seen in Judaism to be a purifying source. It was used to sanctify the vestments of Aaron and his sons in the ordination ceremony. You note that Jeremiah signifies a change in how God will be understood through the heart (very much a centre of Jesus' teaching) rather than through ceremonies and rites. If there were to be an adequate change there would have to be a change in covenant. Just as the first covenant was sealed in blood, so was the New Covenant. So indeed given that context it would be apt if the New Covenant followed the Crucifixion of Christ

Yes but the new covenant isn't going to be sealed in blood. That is in fact the point. That is the change.

It will be written by God into the hearts and minds of all. It is not going to be understood through the heart it will actually be written their by God. I don't know about you but that doesn't sound like Christianity to me.

Jakkass wrote: »

This is what I would say to both you and the Jews who would object to Christian teaching on this is, if you object, provide a better case, refute the Christian claims concerning these prophesies and provide us a better explanation with your knowledge of the Jewish scriptures.

I'm not following? Better than what? Christianity? That isn't how it works, I can't pick a better example because Jews don't believe any of this have come to pass yet.

As far as I can tell they do believe that the idea of a "son" of God is nonsense, God is one. They don't believe the messiah will be God. They don't believe the new covenant will be taught, but written in the hearts of men by God.

Jakkass wrote: »

In Christianity we have one High Priest Jesus Christ. As such Jesus' judgement of mercy on the Torah is entirely valid.

Only if Jesus is the Messiah. Again circular reasoning. You got to stop that it does nothing to help your arguments.

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, it does sound like Christianity. By calling out genuinely to the LORD we are saved, and God has given all mankind a rudimentary moral sense by which they can build on through faith.

That is not what is described in the prophecy, not even close.

For a start mankind had this rudimentary moral sense before the New Covenant. So what has God done with the New Covenant? How is this rudimentary moral sense God writing his law in our hearts and minds so that we all know from from the weakest to the greatest.

Does the world look like we all know God?

Jakkass wrote: »

We are justified not by knowledge of the Law as in the Judaic covenant, but by living by faith in God.

Again not what the prophecy says will happen.

Jakkass wrote: »

Man is not made righteous through knowledge, but man is made just by faith in the Christian belief system. A quick read of Romans explains this nicely from chapters 1 through 5. So yes, it sounds like Christianity.

But that is not the prophecy. Man is made righteous through knowledge.

I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think people are being honest with their interpretation if they are refusing to see how influenced the New Testament is by former divine revelation.

I have no doubt that the authors of the New Testament believed they were fulfilling the Old Testament sincerely. That isn't the issue.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but you are basing your claim that they misunderstand Christianity based on a Christian position.

No, I'm saying that they misunderstand the Christian position to begin with.

Wicknight wrote: »

A non-believer says I'm having trouble with this there seems to be major contradictions between the Old and New Testaments. Your response is basically Not if you are a Christian. That ain't particularly helpful, since we aren't Christians

No. My point is that if one reads the entire Bible, one will understand that there are two separate covenants. Old and New. Elements of the Judaic covenant are fulfilled, while much is retained. Despite these differences, the Bible is coherent. It explains the differences in the relationships, it explains what is to be retained and what will be fulfilled.

Wicknight wrote: »

Or, to put it another way, why would a non-believer believe you over a Jewish person?

A non-believer wouldn't believe me or the Jewish person without first being willing to seek God. It's rather easy to rubbish ones explanations if one isn't genuinely interested in finding answers.

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok, but if Christianity isn't true then Paul has no authority to comment on Old Testament prophecy? So quoting him is not very helpful.

If is irrelevant if we are trying to explain the Christian position.

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but the new covenant isn't going to be sealed in blood. That is in fact the point. That is the change.

That passage does not say that at all.

Wicknight wrote: »

It will be written by God into the hearts and minds of all. It is not going to be understood through the heart it will actually be written their by God. I don't know about you but that doesn't sound like Christianity to me.

It sounds perfectly like Christianity to me.

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not following? Better than what? Christianity? That isn't how it works, I can't pick a better example because Jews don't believe any of this have come to pass yet.

If one is to rubbish the Christian explanation, one should propose a better alternative, or a clear solid refutation.

Wicknight wrote: »

As far as I can tell they do believe that the idea of a "son" of God is nonsense, God is one. They don't believe the messiah will be God. They don't believe the new covenant will be taught, but written in the hearts of men by God.

It will be up to them to refute the Christian position effectively then.

Wicknight wrote: »

Only if Jesus is the Messiah. Again circular reasoning. You got to stop that it does nothing to help your arguments.

I'm arguing that the Biblical text is coherent, and clarifying the Christian position. I need to refer to key concepts such as the Messiah if I am to explain how Christians regard the Jewish law.

Wicknight wrote: »

That is not what is described in the prophecy, not even close.

For a start mankind had this rudimentary moral sense before the New Covenant. So what has God done with the New Covenant? How is this rudimentary moral sense God writing his law in our hearts and minds so that we all know from from the weakest to the greatest.

Ever heard of conscience Wicknight?

Wicknight wrote: »

Does the world look like we all know God?

I think this is yet to be fulfilled. Other prophesies are left to be fulfilled at the Second Coming. So, yes I can understand that as an objection.

Edit: Read Romans chapter 11, where Paul says that all the people of Israel will believe.

Wicknight wrote: »

But that is not the prophecy. Man is made righteous through knowledge.

I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.

This can be attributed to conscience.

Wicknight wrote: »

I have no doubt that the authors of the New Testament believed they were fulfilling the Old Testament sincerely. That isn't the issue.

It is the issue if people genuinely do not understand what Christians advocate.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

No, I'm saying that they misunderstand the Christian position to begin with.

From reading the article I don't think he is that concerned with the Christian position. He is reading the Bible from the point of view of a non-believer. The position that it is contradictory is the position of a non-believer. Or at least that is what I took from it.

Jakkass wrote: »

No. My point is that if one reads the entire Bible, one will understand that there are two separate covenants. Old and New. Elements of the Judaic covenant are fulfilled, while much is retained. Despite these differences, the Bible is coherent.

Not according to a lot of people who have read it, including myself and apparently the author.

Jakkass wrote: »

It's rather easy to rubbish ones explanations if one isn't genuinely interested in finding answers.

And fun too :P

Seriously though, that is just a cop out. It is a way of explaining away people who do not agree with your interpretation.

Jakkass wrote: »

If is irrelevant if we are trying to explain the Christian position.

Weren't not, at least I didn't think we were.

Jakkass wrote: »

If one is to rubbish the Christian explanation, one should propose a better alternative, or a clear solid refutation.

Why?

I think it is enough to rubbish the Christian explanation. I don't really care about proposing a better alternative, though the Jewish one that none of this has happened yet seems perfectly fine.

Jakkass wrote: »

It will be up to them to refute the Christian position effectively then.

I think they have. I don't believe any of this is real, and I'm not Jewish. But it does seem pretty clear to me that the New Testament authors did not understand the Old Testament prophecies they used to justify their new religion. This is not particularly surprising, modern cults regularly put forward positions on Christianity for authority that most Christians reject as nonsense.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm arguing that the Biblical text is coherent, and clarifying the Christian position. I need to refer to key concepts such as the Messiah if I am to explain how Christians regard the Jewish law.

Yes but you are using the assumption that Christianity is true as justification that the Bible text is coherent. If Christianity isn't true then there is no need for the Bible text to be coherent. If the Bible isn't coherent then Christianity isn't true.

Saying the New Testament says the Bible is coherent is pointless. Of course it does.

Jakkass wrote: »

Ever heard of conscience Wicknight?

I'm not following. The prophecy talks about God writing his law into our hearts because of the failure of the verbal agreement he took with the Israelites. That is the law he had already established with them. How is that in anyway tie into our conscience? Our conscience is not God's law. If it was we would all be Christian (or Jewish actually) None of us have the Jewish law in our hearts or minds. Plus I'm pretty sure that they had a conscience before the original covenant, never mind the new on.

That interpretation is really grasping a straws.

Jakkass wrote: »

I think this is yet to be fulfilled. Other prophesies are left to be fulfilled at the Second Coming. So, yes I can understand that as an objection.

But there is no indication in the prophecy that bits of it will happen and then other bits will happen 2000+ years later. That makes no sense considering that it all reads as a single event.

We do not all know God. We do not have God's law written in our hearts or our minds. So how has this prophecy come to pass?

Again I'm with the Jews on this one. The Christians attempted to use this prophecy as justification for their small cult, possibly under the idea that they believed sincerely that they were at the end times, and it soon would come to pass. I think if you told a 1st century Christian that this had still not come to pass 2,000 years later they would have been shocked.

Jakkass wrote: »

Edit: Read Romans chapter 11, where Paul says that all the people of Israel will believe.

Why? Is it going to tell me that Christianity does fulfill this? :eek:

ChocolateSauce

Which Bible was he talking about?

togster

I have no problem in what he said and i agree so much with this line

It spells out how pernicious and weird religion can be, and how beautiful and important compassion is. If you can manage the whole thing without the burden of faith, there is no better guide to being a good humanist.

It baffles me when so many Christians claim to believe in the bible without having read it or studied it's history .

philologos

togster wrote: »

I have no problem in what he said and i agree so much with this line

It baffles me when so many Christians claim to believe in the bible without having read it or studied it's history .

Why is it important to remove faith from Christianity? That's where I disagree with him entirely. Faith is the most important thing about Christianity itself.

I agree with you on the baffling. I think that the Bible is an important text and crucial to Christianity.

His point about using the Bible as a moral example for those who don't believe is interesting I guess. Wicknight has expressed that one cannot use the Bible as moral guide without belief on another thread (correct me if I'm wrong Wicknight).

togster

Jakkass wrote: »

Why is it important to remove faith from Christianity?

Whos faith? If it's your own then fine, but the vast majority follow a faith they were born into rather than having the oppurtunity to read the bible and believe what they want from it.

Jakkass wrote: »

Faith is the most important thing about Christianity itself.

No. Jesus Christ is the most important thing about Chritianity? Or at least it should be.

Jakkass wrote: »

I agree with you on the baffling. I think that the Bible is an important text and crucial to Christianity.

My problem is with indoctrination or brain washing. What ever you want to call it. A child is told at the age of five what and what not to have faith in.

JimiTime

togster wrote: »

No. Jesus Christ is the most important thing about Chritianity? Or at least it should be.

Exactly. Faith in Christ.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

His point about using the Bible as a moral example for those who don't believe is interesting I guess. Wicknight has expressed that one cannot use the Bible as moral guide without belief on another thread (correct me if I'm wrong Wicknight).

Correct. I think there are good moral fables in the Bible but as a foundation for morality it requires belief in order to actually find principles and axioms from it.

philologos

togster wrote: »

Whos faith? If it's your own then fine, but the vast majority follow a faith they were born into rather than having the oppurtunity to read the bible and believe what they want from it.

I think that is highly unfair. Many whose parents were Christians do look into the Scriptures for themselves. As for "believing what they want from it". I don't see Christianity as a supermarket. I want to accept God's standard on my life, not my standard on God.

togster wrote: »

No. Jesus Christ is the most important thing about Chritianity? Or at least it should be.

Faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and in the truth of His words. How do you believe without faith?

togster wrote: »

My problem is with indoctrination or brain washing. What ever you want to call it. A child is told at the age of five what and what not to have faith in.

I'd have to ask, what indoctrination, what brainwashing? Parents teaching their children about faith doesn't constitute this.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

And fun too :P

Seriously though, that is just a cop out. It is a way of explaining away people who do not agree with your interpretation.

It's merely the truth. You aren't interested in finding answers, you're interested in rubbishing everything that has to do with religion somewhat.

Wicknight wrote: »

Why?

I think it is enough to rubbish the Christian explanation. I don't really care about proposing a better alternative, though the Jewish one that none of this has happened yet seems perfectly fine.

To rubbish the Christian explanation adequately one needs a better answer than "But the Jews...". If you are not willing to follow through with a refutation of the Christian explanation it is useless. It's a red herring unless you are actually genuinely going to sit from a Jewish perspective and continue to argue it.

Wicknight wrote: »

I think they have. I don't believe any of this is real, and I'm not Jewish. But it does seem pretty clear to me that the New Testament authors did not understand the Old Testament prophecies they used to justify their new religion. This is not particularly surprising, modern cults regularly put forward positions on Christianity for authority that most Christians reject as nonsense.

Brilliant. You think they have, that's fine. I need you to explain why you think they have.

As for it being pretty clear that the New Testament authors didn't understand the Old Testament prophesies, considering that Jesus Christ and the Christian community seems to have adequately fulfilled so many of these prophesies from the Tanakh I would have to doubt your position very strongly unless you were willing to explain why you think that. I.E Follow it through.

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not following. The prophecy talks about God writing his law into our hearts because of the failure of the verbal agreement he took with the Israelites. That is the law he had already established with them. How is that in anyway tie into our conscience? Our conscience is not God's law. If it was we would all be Christian (or Jewish actually) None of us have the Jewish law in our hearts or minds. Plus I'm pretty sure that they had a conscience before the original covenant, never mind the new on.

God's law wasn't verbal at the time by which they had violated it. The Torah had existed in written form, and it was read every 7 years in the Temple.

Conscience is quite clearly a part of the mind. The prophesy of Jeremiah 31:31-34 refers to hearts and minds. Jesus taught that what was unclean came from the heart, not from what people ate. Hearts in Jewish terminology often refers to conscience. If you look to Exodus chapter 36, concerning giving for the construction of the Tent of the Lord's Presence:

Exodus 36:2 wrote:

Moses then called Bezalel and Oholiab and everyone skilful to whom the Lord had given skill, everyone whose heart was stirred to come to do the work;

Wicknight wrote: »

That interpretation is really grasping a straws.

And your interpretation isn't? Give me a break

Wicknight wrote: »

We do not all know God. We do not have God's law written in our hearts or our minds. So how has this prophecy come to pass?

Are you a Jew or a Gentile? Read the first line of Jeremiah 31. The people that are being referred to are the Israelites. Nowhere does it say that every Gentile will come to believe. This is why I asked you to look at Romans 11:

Romans 11:25-27 wrote:

So that you may not claim to be wiser than you are, brothers and sisters, I want you to understand this mystery: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved; as it is written,
‘Out of Zion will come the Deliverer;
he will banish ungodliness from Jacob.’
‘And this is my covenant with them,
when I take away their sins.’

Consistent with Jeremiah 31:31.

Not all has been fulfilled yet from the Jewish prophesy. Hence why there is a second coming, and hence why on a read of Revelation you see quotations from several books of the Jewish Tanakh to support what is to happen in the final days.

Wicknight wrote: »

Again I'm with the Jews on this one. The Christians attempted to use this prophecy as justification for their small cult, possibly under the idea that they believed sincerely that they were at the end times, and it soon would come to pass. I think if you told a 1st century Christian that this had still not come to pass 2,000 years later they would have been shocked.

Yes, of course you're with the Jews, when it is convenient. I wonder if there was a Jewish forum on boards would you still be as interested in being with the Jewish POV?

As for what you say about the 2,000 years. Luckily this is dealt with by Peter:

2 Peter 3:8-10 wrote:

But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day. The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and everything that is done on it will be disclosed.

Wicknight wrote: »

Why? Is it going to tell me that Christianity does fulfill this? :eek:

It will tell you that Christianity will fulfil this.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

It's merely the truth. You aren't interested in finding answers, you're interested in rubbishing everything that has to do with religion somewhat.

Ok ...

How is saying I think the Jewish interpretation makes more sense than the Christian interpretation equate to "rubbishing everything that has to do with religion" Is Judaism not a religion now?

It would be very easy Jakkass for me to dismiss everything you say as simply a desire for Christianity to be true because it provides you with comfort. I'm giving you the curtsey to listen to what you are saying about how you interpret the Bible.

Jakkass wrote: »

To rubbish the Christian explanation adequately one needs a better answer than "But the Jews...".

Well it is the bit after the "But the Jews ..." that you should be paying attention to. It is their religion after all. You guys regularly make calls to authority in these matters, it seems odd to me that you reject off hand the interpretation the Jews make of these passages.

Jakkass wrote: »

Brilliant. You think they have, that's fine. I need you to explain why you think they have.

I am. You just keep saying that you don't accept that interpretation and if I read this paragraph in this book of the New Testament I will see how I'm wrong.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for it being pretty clear that the New Testament authors didn't understand the Old Testament prophesies, considering that Jesus Christ and the Christian community seems to have adequately fulfilled so many of these prophesies from the Tanakh I would have to doubt your position very strongly unless you were willing to explain why you think that. I.E Follow it through.

See ...

You make claims that Jesus fulfilled prophesies as if it is a fact. It isn't. It is Christian interpretation of these prophesies working off the assumption that the New Testament is a fact.

Jakkass wrote: »

God's law wasn't verbal at the time by which they had violated it. The Torah had existed in written form, and it was read every 7 years in the Temple.

That isn't the verbal bit. The Israelites made a verbal commitment to the law.

In the new covenant the law will be written in the hearts and minds, a verbal commitment will not be necessary.

Jakkass wrote: »

Conscience is quite clearly a part of the mind. The prophesy of Jeremiah 31:31-34 refers to hearts and minds.

Yes but for conscience to be the new covenant there would have to have been no conscience before the new covenant. Which is ridiculous. Plus conscience does not match what the new covenant is described as, God's law which he had already given to the Israelites. I don't know about you but my conscience doesn't sound like the Hebrew laws.

Jakkass wrote: »

Jesus taught that what was unclean came from the heart, not from what people ate. Hearts in Jewish terminology often refers to conscience.

I don't think the prophecy is meant to mean that God would literally write something on the heart organ.


If you look to Exodus chapter 36, concerning giving for the construction of the Tent of the Lord's Presence:

Jakkass wrote: »

And your interpretation isn't? Give me a break

My interpretation is the literal interpretation of the prophecy. After the broken commitment of the Israelites with the old covenant God, with his new covenant, will instil his law in the hearts and minds of all and all will know God. There will be no need for man to teach his neighbour about God's law because we will all know it in our hearts and we will all know God.

That is the common Jewish reading of this prophecy, it is the reading Jews have always made as far as I know and it makes complete sense to me.

It is Christians who have to find a way to reconcile this prophecy with Jesus' and the obvious fact that this has not happened yet (that is the danger with supernatural prophecies).

So you get very vague interpretations that try and sledge hammer reality into this prophecy. When God says he will write his law in our hearts and minds what he is referring to is the vague moral code we have in our conscience (that doesn't make much sense) and all the other stuff hasn't happened yet (again not much sense).

Not particularly convincing Jakkass.

Jakkass wrote: »

Nowhere does it say that every Gentile will come to believe.

No where does it say the Gentiles will get the new covenant in the first place.

Jakkass wrote: »

Not all has been fulfilled yet from the Jewish prophesy.

That is a cop out. Where is the indication that this prophecy would take 2,000+ years to be fulfilled (in the Old Testament)?

It is nonsensical to claim that something has fulfilled a prophecy apart from the bits it hasn't which all must surely happen later. That is ridiculous.

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, of course you're with the Jews, when it is convenient. I wonder if there was a Jewish forum on boards would you still be as interested in being with the Jewish POV?

Why not?

I'm with the Christian POV plenty of times. "Your so biased" is just another way of you saying you don't have an answer.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for what you say about the 2,000 years. Luckily this is dealt with by Peter:

Groan

You are really missing the point Jakkass. Where is it dealt with in the Old Testament.

It is pointless for you to point to the members of the early Christian cult adding or reinterpret these prophecies to make them fit with what has already happened and what they already believe

togster

Jakkass wrote: »

I think that is highly unfair. Many whose parents were Christians do look into the Scriptures for themselves.

Perhaps. Most don't though. I think the vast majority learn about christianity tyhrough religion class and going to mass.

Jakkass wrote: »

Faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and in the truth of His words. How do you believe without faith?

Yes i see your point.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd have to ask, what indoctrination, what brainwashing? Parents teaching their children about faith doesn't constitute this.

Wiki:

Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology. It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned

Brainwashing (also known as thought reform or re-education) consists of any effort aimed at instilling certain attitudes and beliefs in a person — beliefs sometimes unwelcome or in conflict with the person's prior beliefs and knowledge.[1] Motives for brainwashing may include the aim of affecting that individual's value system and subsequent thought-patterns and behaviors.

The majority of parents don't teach Christianity. The church does.

It is indoctrination. Into an institution of belief which the child has no choice about. We like to talk about right to life of the unborn, but what rights does it really have afterwards if it is born into a system of belief.

*Anyway this was about the bible. And all i said was that i agree in prinipal what the author said. And the bible is critical as you say. So surely people who follow Christ should read the bible for themselves and not be told what to believe. <

---

That is my issue with the bible. Every Christian i know has never read it or if they have they have only ever read extracts.

Tim Robbins

Why is it called the 'New' Testament when it is 2,000 years old now?
It's clever piece of spin - isn't it?

It makes it sound so up to date when the reality is it's possible one of oldest books you'll ever come across unless you dabble in some Greek philosophy.

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Why is it called the 'New' Testament when it is 2,000 years old now?
It's clever piece of spin - isn't it?

It makes it sound so up to date when the reality is it's possible one of oldest books you'll ever come across unless you dabble in some Greek philosophy.

Meh, I still call America the New World. Though the Americans don't like it when you call them colonists :P

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

How is saying I think the Jewish interpretation makes more sense than the Christian interpretation equate to "rubbishing everything that has to do with religion" Is Judaism not a religion now?

It's more your intention behind using the Jewish texts that I am finding interesting.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well it is the bit after the "But the Jews ..." that you should be paying attention to. It is their religion after all. You guys regularly make calls to authority in these matters, it seems odd to me that you reject off hand the interpretation the Jews make of these passages.

If this were actually Jewish opinion I would be open to discussing it, and infact if you were willing to give me a clear refutation of the Christian explanation I'd be willing to listen to it. You provide no sources to back up that Jews hold the exact same opinion of these passages that you do. I'd be rather interested if I could actually discuss Jewish opinion on boards, but unfortunately there aren't enough Jews to start a Jewish forum.

Wicknight wrote: »

I am. You just keep saying that you don't accept that interpretation and if I read this paragraph in this book of the New Testament I will see how I'm wrong.

Wicknight, I'm merely saying this:
The New Testament is clearly a continuation from the Old Testament. The Old Testament has clear influences on it that one can demonstrably show. I disagree with you and the author in saying that the Biblical text is not overall a coherent text in both testaments.

You go raise the red herring by saying "But the Jews..." without raising your own objections. I have shown you already that principles in the New Testament are clearly based on principles in the Old. A mere look to the Sermon of the Mount will show you that there is a heavy basis on the former Jewish tradition in those speeches.

From the definition of adultery not to lust:

Proverbs 6:25 wrote:

Do not desire her beauty in your heart,
and do not let her capture you with her eyelashes;

Matthew 5:28 wrote:

But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

To praying with few words:

Ecclesiastes 5:2 wrote:

Be not rash with your mouth, nor let your heart be hasty to utter a word before God, for God is in heaven and you are on earth. Therefore let your words be few.

Matthew 6:7 wrote:

And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words

The argument that the text is overall incoherent can be nullified with a mere study of New Testament teachings in comparison to Old Testament teachings. New Testament teachings of fulfilment also adequately explain why Christians do not sacrifice animals, or why these sacrifices fell short in atoning for sin.

Jesus also explains why it is more important to look to the moral rather than the ceremonial.

Wicknight wrote: »

You make claims that Jesus fulfilled prophesies as if it is a fact. It isn't. It is Christian interpretation of these prophesies working off the assumption that the New Testament is a fact.

When have I said it was fact? I just think it is evident. People are entitled to disagree with me. The prophetic basis of Christianity to be is overwhelming and that is why I am largely convinced by it, and largely why I regard it as coherent. Not to mention the strong connection between Christian moral teaching and Jewish moral teaching.

Wicknight wrote: »

In the new covenant the law will be written in the hearts and minds, a verbal commitment will not be necessary.

I'm yet to see the issue with Christianity here in respect of this prophesy.

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but for conscience to be the new covenant there would have to have been no conscience before the new covenant. Which is ridiculous. Plus conscience does not match what the new covenant is described as, God's law which he had already given to the Israelites. I don't know about you but my conscience doesn't sound like the Hebrew laws.

Hang on a second. This is nonsense again. This doesn't deal with the existence of conscience, it deals with whether or not God has given us guidance in our moral compass.

As for the Hebrew laws, if we select a minority of Hebrew laws and seek to twist them it is rather clear that it wouldn't suit what ethic you have defined for yourself. That's true. There is also the notion of whether or not one can ignore ones conscience. I think this is possible, and I think I can account for it a bit in myself.

I think you are being a bit dishonest in saying that the vast majority of the moral laws in the Torah are not beneficial to society though. That's for another discussion. We've been through the slavery argument before.

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't think the prophecy is meant to mean that God would literally write something on the heart organ.

Hang on? Didn't you say you were interpreting the prophecy literally in the next quote? :pac:

Wicknight wrote: »

My interpretation is the literal interpretation of the prophecy. After the broken commitment of the Israelites with the old covenant God, with his new covenant, will instil his law in the hearts and minds of all and all will know God. There will be no need for man to teach his neighbour about God's law because we will all know it in our hearts and we will all know God.

Read the last quote I gave you. You even conceded yourself that you weren't given a literal interpretation to it.

Wicknight wrote: »

That is the common Jewish reading of this prophecy, it is the reading Jews have always made as far as I know and it makes complete sense to me.

Is it? One would have to cite Jewish opinion to back this up.

Wicknight wrote: »

No where does it say the Gentiles will get the new covenant in the first place.

Actually in numerous places in Isaiah it says that God will be preached to the nations, and that God's hope will spread out from Jerusalem. I'll leave you to do the reading and the research for yourself.

Wicknight wrote: »

That is a cop out. Where is the indication that this prophecy would take 2,000+ years to be fulfilled (in the Old Testament)?

If we are talking about Jewish opinion here, and if you were a Jewish person arguing this to me. I would point out the mere fact that the Messiah has been prophesied for over 3,000 years, and yet apparently has not come?

There is nothing in the text that suggests that it is limited by time. That would be an assumption on your part.

Wicknight wrote: »

It is nonsensical to claim that something has fulfilled a prophecy apart from the bits it hasn't which all must surely happen later. That is ridiculous.

Not particularly given Jewish opinion on the Messiah.

Wicknight wrote: »

Why not?

I'm with the Christian POV plenty of times. "Your so biased" is just another way of you saying you don't have an answer.

I have a feeling that if there were a Jewish forum on boards, you would be in to criticise the Torah law in a flash.

Wicknight wrote: »

Groan

You are really missing the point Jakkass. Where is it dealt with in the Old Testament.

Nowhere in the Old Testament does it give a time restriction for when prophesies are to be fulfilled.

Wicknight wrote: »

It is pointless for you to point to the members of the early Christian cult adding or reinterpret these prophecies to make them fit with what has already happened and what they already believe

I think it's quite reasonable to demonstrate that Christians don't have a time period on when prophesies will be fulfilled concerning apocalyptic events, it is also reasonable by extension to suggest that there aren't time periods stated in the Old Testament on the issue. I've already shown you what my response would be if a Jewish person posted such an objection to me. I feel that most Jews would have more sense in the knowledge that they do not believe that the Messiah has even come.

philologos

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Why is it called the 'New' Testament when it is 2,000 years old now?
It's clever piece of spin - isn't it?

It makes it sound so up to date when the reality is it's possible one of oldest books you'll ever come across unless you dabble in some Greek philosophy.

Perhaps we should call it the "Newer Testament" :pac:

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

Perhaps we should call it the "Newer Testament" :pac:

Newest sounds even better still

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

It's more your intention behind using the Jewish texts that I am finding interesting.

Ok? Do you find it interesting because I'm not agreeing with you?

Jakkass wrote: »

If you were willing to give me a clear refutation of the Christian explanation I'd be willing to listen to it.

I thought I already had?

Jakkass wrote: »

You provide no sources to back up that Jews hold the exact same opinion of these passages that you do. I'd be rather interested if I could actually discuss Jewish opinion on boards, but unfortunately there aren't enough Jews to start a Jewish forum.

What are you debating here?

I'm saying that this is as far as I understand it the Jewish position on these passages, and that I agree with this position and you are attack me because what exactly? You don't think that is the Jewish position?

You seem to have gone from wishing to genuinely discuss this to just wanting to attack my motives for discussing it with you. That is not a good sign.

I will try and dig up where I read about this from a Jewish perspective, though I suspect you don't really care that much.

Jakkass wrote: »

Wicknight, I'm merely saying this:
The New Testament is clearly a continuation from the Old Testament. The Old Testament has clear influences on it that one can demonstrably show. I disagree with you and the author in saying that the Biblical text is not overall a coherent text in both testaments.

"Over all coherent" really doesn't mean much Jakkass. It leaves it up to the reader to figure out how much detail one is to go into before they accept contradictions.

One could say that the message of the Old and New Testaments is that God loves us, therefore the books are over all coherent even if they were completely different.

There are lots of things that are not coherent at all. Ask a Jew about the idea that Jesus was the Son of God. They will tell you that such an idea is ridiculous in terms of the description of God in the Old Testament. Ask a Jew about the Messiah being divine. Again, they will say that is not the Messiah that is prophecies in the Old Testament.

Your excuse that all this is explained in the New Testament is some what worthless.

Jakkass wrote: »

You go raise the red herring by saying "But the Jews..." without raising your own objections.

They are my own objections and they are based on reading and talking to Jews. I can't say I have researched it in huge detail, to be honest I don't care that much. I just chalk it down as reason #103432 why I don't believe Christianity.

Jakkass wrote: »

I have shown you already that principles in the New Testament are clearly based on principles in the Old. A mere look to the Sermon of the Mount will show you that there is a heavy basis on the former Jewish tradition in those speeches.

I'm not suggesting otherwise.

I believe the early Christians believed that they were fulfilling the Old Testament by following Jesus. Just like many cults today believe they are following the Second Coming of Jesus.

Jakkass wrote: »

The argument that the text is overall incoherent can be nullified with a mere study of New Testament teachings in comparison to Old Testament teachings.

You are the one who brought up the straw man of "over all coherent" Jakkass.

Considering what is "overall" coherent is very subjective I find the term almost useless.

Jakkass wrote: »

New Testament teachings of fulfilment also adequately explain why Christians do not sacrifice animals, or why these sacrifices fell short in atoning for sin.

Jesus also explains why it is more important to look to the moral rather than the ceremonial.

I'm really running out of ways to explain to you that calling on the New Testament to justify the New Testament is circular reasoning.

Jakkass wrote: »

When have I said it was fact? I just think it is evident.

You keep stating it as if it were a fact, and being perplexed when people don't agree with you (and getting a bit nasty about calling into question their motivations)

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm yet to see the issue with Christianity here in respect of this prophesy.

Well then you are not looking very hard, as I've highlighted a number of issues already. You just pull out a New Testament passage to explain the contradiction away, yet fail to understand the fallacy in doing that.

Jakkass wrote: »

Hang on a second. This is nonsense again. This doesn't deal with the existence of conscience, it deals with whether or not God has given us guidance in our moral compass.

No it doesn't Jakkass. It deals with whether or not God has written his law, the law of the old covenant, into our hearts and minds as a new covenant.

The argument that this can be explained by our conscience is so flawed it is hardly worth considering. You might as well say it is UN Charter of Rights.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for the Hebrew laws, if we select a minority of Hebrew laws and seek to twist them it is rather clear that it wouldn't suit what ethic you have defined for yourself. That's true. There is also the notion of whether or not one can ignore ones conscience. I think this is possible, and I think I can account for it a bit in myself.

But that completely goes against the whole point of the new covenant. God already relied on the Israelites to keep his laws through a simple promise to him. They didn't. They broke the covenant. The new covenant will be written into us (or them depending of this applies to us or just Jews, doesn't really matter since neither has happened yet) so that there is no ambiguite. All will know God. No one will teach his laws to each other because the law will be known in the mind and heart.

That has not happened Christianity did not fulfil this prophecy. Jews do not have God's law written in their hearts and minds. It has to be taught to them. Same with you. You do not have God's laws written in your heart and mind. You were taught God's laws by others. This is exactly what the prophecy says the New Covenant will make unnecessary.

I can't really make it any clearer. I can't see any way Christianity can claim the new covenant has taken place without fudging this prophecy so much as to make it unrecognisable.

Jakkass wrote: »

I think you are being a bit dishonest in saying that the vast majority of the moral laws in the Torah are not beneficial to society though. That's for another discussion.

I don't remember saying that, but ok

Jakkass wrote: »

There is nothing in the text that suggests that it is limited by time. That would be an assumption on your part.

You didn't answer the question. There is nothing in the text to suggest that the bits of the new covenant will take place over large stretches of time. Again it is a cop out.

What is the point of claiming authority from prophecy if you leave the interpretation of prophecy so open as to be meaningless.

It is easy to say that something has fulfilled a prophecy except for all the bits it hasn't which I'm sure it will some time in the future. It becomes meaningless.

Jakkass wrote: »

I have a feeling that if there were a Jewish forum on boards, you would be in to criticise the Torah law in a flash.

Probably. Is that your argument that I'm wrong?

Jakkass wrote: »

Nowhere in the Old Testament does it give a time restriction for when prophesies are to be fulfilled.

Sorry but that is ridiculous. It is like someone looking at Revelations and thinking the mark of the beast has appeared because people have at random points in time had the letter 6 some where on their hands and the person saying No where in the book does it say that they would have 666 on their hand at the same time

It describes what the new covenant will be. Until that happens there is no reason to believe that this prophecy has been fulfilled and the new covenant has taken place, is there?

Jakkass wrote: »

I think it's quite reasonable to demonstrate that Christians don't have a time period on when prophesies will be fulfilled concerning apocalyptic events, it is also reasonable by extension to suggest that there aren't time periods stated in the Old Testament on the issue.

That make the prophecies meaningless. Jesus filfulls the prophecies of the Messiah and the New Covenant except for the all the bits he doesn't because well I'm sure they are yet to come.

What is the point?