how seriously should christians take the old testament?

Author: n8nrgim

Posts

Total: 31
Topic's author
#1
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,023
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
on one of the most fundamental levels, the old testament teaches an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. the new testament teaches turn the other cheek. how can such a fundamental difference be something that a christian must accept both as infallible truth? does truth change? how?

but it's more than that core theological difference. the old testament has God killing people over and over again, or commanding them to die. see the story of noah where he killed the whole earth, or the time he turned a woman to stone for questioning where she was headed and looking back to her old lifei understand that it's plausible that the consequences of sin is death, which even the bible says and is as true a statement as they come. but it seems to again be in stark contrast to the God of the new testament. what's with this bipolar God of the new testament and the hippie God of the new testament? i realize even Jesus pointed out that the commandment and consequence of disrespecting ones parents is death, but how can such a difference be fundamentally compatible with each other? (i often wonder if jesus was being literal that that's the way the world is, or if he was saying 'even by this standard, the pharisees weren't being consistent with mercy')

but it's more than these broader frictions. the old testament says unclean food is ungodly, yet the new testament says nothing God has made clean is unclean. how should we accept that Jesus' death change something unclean to something clean? or the old testament says men with deformed penis' can't enter into the assembly of the lord, which sounds like they can't enter heaven. how did jesus' death make deformed penis' acceptable? and the context doesn't indicate this old testament verse was against self mutilation, but that any deformed penis was too much, even from a disability or injury. the best i can surmise, if these old testament verses are true... is that these are ceremonial laws, and ceremonial laws can change with a covenant change, assuming the covenant change was legit to begin with. it's kinda like how often cultural differences are legit changes in the bible, (why it says women can't lead or wear hats in church, even in the new testament, but everyone now accept as just cultural norms being changed) and not infallible differences being changed arbitrarily. ceremony and culture are both legit and reasonable ways of differentiating, but the theology for why the rules were the way they were to begin with, or how they can change, can still seem arbitrary and capricious, to use legal jargon.  

we also have things that dont make sense theologically.
-the bible looks literal of the story of noah in the old testament, and the new testament treats the story literal too. i dont have time to list all the scientific discrepancies of that story, such as how there's a constant lineage of cultures everywhere and constant archeological evidence of no flood everywhere, yet supposedly God destroyed it all... and hid or changed the evidence? to me, when God performs a miracle like he does with phsyical healings even in this day and age, he supports the miracle with evidence and truth. (such as the congregation of the causes of the saints with the catholic church) the story of noah isn't supported by evidence, but contradicts it. maybe it wasn't meant to be taken literally or was a local event? 
-i'll add more examples in the future. 
#2
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,601
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@n8nrgim

Well remember what Einstein said about the Bible. ‘The word God is for me nothing but the expression and product of human weaknesses,’ Einstein wrote to Gutkind, ‘the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change anything about this.’
#3
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,639
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Some contradictions in the Bible can be solved by using basic principle of what a contradiction is.

Logical contradiction:
Something cannot exist and not exist at the same time.
Something cannot be true and false at the same time.
Something cannot be and not be at the same time.

The main clue is "at the same time".

I can exist today, but not exist after 50 years.

So I can both exist and not exist, just not both at the same time.

The laws of the Old Testament can be true for their time, and not be true for time of and after Jesus.

So they can be true and not true at the same time.
(Edit correction here: I meant to say they cant be true and not true at the same time)

The laws of logic are not simple. In fact, I often say that the most logical things usually sound very dumb.
#4
Morphinekid77
Morphinekid77's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 47
0
0
5
Morphinekid77's avatar
Morphinekid77
0
0
5
-->
@n8nrgim
God, in both testaments, deals with humans in covenants. Which is a fancy word for contract. 

The old testament doesn't contradict the new. And visa versa. 

They're two different contracts, for two different groups of people, with two different sets of terms and conditions. 

Once you realize that, you'll save yourself a lot of trouble
Topic's author
#5
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,023
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
im mostly looking for theological and philsophical ways to reconcile the basic covenants... eye for an eye, turn the cheek; salvation by works, salvation by faith. 

i still maintain it's possible to say the bible is inerrant, depending on how one interprets it, as i think i was self working out in my opening post. (i presented problems, then showed ways of reconciing them)

i do know, the new tesstament isn't as bad, except it has difficulties too (such as how jesus said no one can divorce except for unlawful sex reasons, then everyone in the church twists this to the point of breaking the rule, while claiming to beleive in an inerrant bible, and then holding gays to the standard of no gay sex, even when that could plauisbly the rationalized with the right interpreation while the divorce rule is clear and seemingly not open to interpration. except by reading to it things that aren't there)
Topic's author
#6
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,023
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@Morphinekid77
how do you reconcile 'and eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' with 'turn the cheek'? how can a consistent God at different times teach both? how does truth change? i realize jesus' death changes things, but why is that the case that they're different at all? why couldn't his death focus more on defeating sin and death, and not trying to square up things that look like contradictions? 
#7
Morphinekid77
Morphinekid77's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 47
0
0
5
Morphinekid77's avatar
Morphinekid77
0
0
5
-->
@n8nrgim
There's really no need to reconcile the covenants because they're not at odds with each other. They're just two different contracts, put in place at different times, for two different people groups. They don't have to be the same, or do and say the same thing. 

Some things from the first contract are carried over to the second (no murder, no gay relations, etc) and some are reversed (divorce in the first contract but not the second) and some are completely new.

Again, I see no reason to try and make them agree with each other when they were never even supposed to
#8
Morphinekid77
Morphinekid77's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 47
0
0
5
Morphinekid77's avatar
Morphinekid77
0
0
5
-->
@n8nrgim
how can a consistent God at different times teach both? how does truth change? 
There are moral truths that transcend both covenants. i.e. murder was wrong before during and after the old covenant. But there are some moral stipulations that were for a specific time. Turn the other cheek is superior to eye for and eye, and is the recommended way for all nations. The Jews practiced eye for an eye because that was best for their society at the time
#9
Morphinekid77
Morphinekid77's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 47
0
0
5
Morphinekid77's avatar
Morphinekid77
0
0
5
-->
@n8nrgim
And furthermore, the Law of Moses was the golden standard to show us how sinful we are and how severe God is. It showed us our need for a Savior.

Once the need is met however, the Law has done it's job. 
Topic's author
#10
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,023
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
i also have some issues with how Jesus did mostly healing miracles, which we still see today, while the old testament has miracles that dont happy anymore of the same type, like the red sea being split. maybe he today he's not making the supernatural obvious by obviously supernatural things, leaving room for plausible deniablity and faith, given faith is a purpose of this life)
#11
Morphinekid77
Morphinekid77's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 47
0
0
5
Morphinekid77's avatar
Morphinekid77
0
0
5
-->
@n8nrgim
But even miracles of the magnitude of the Red Sea being split are still extremely rare in the O.T. 

And even then how many people would have believed it if they had not seen it? 

God could set up shop on the moon and perpetually glare at us making sure we don't sin.

But He doesn't force His presence on any of us, and wants us to respond in faith.

And, also, I would strongly challenge the idea that we are seeing healing miracles of the magnitude Christ performed today. 
Topic's author
#12
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,023
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@Morphinekid77
how can a consistent God at different times teach both? how does truth change? 
There are moral truths that transcend both covenants. i.e. murder was wrong before during and after the old covenant. But there are some moral stipulations that were for a specific time. Turn the other cheek is superior to eye for and eye, and is the recommended way for all nations. The Jews practiced eye for an eye because that was best for their society at the time
you are good at making general arguments, but i'm not seeing a deeper way of reconciling these apparently irreconciable truths. i understand that the purpose of love with both being good, but also being merciful when we aren't good, but i can't see saying the old testament idea of an eye for an eye was 'being good or good enough' when they are flatly contradictory. i could see if we said the old testament ideas were just cultural like we make about other old bible rules, but we are told that the old covenant was more than just cultural but a divine contract. i still maintain they seem to contradict each other on a moral truth level. 
Topic's author
#13
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,023
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@Morphinekid77
"And, also, I would strongly challenge the idea that we are seeing healing miracles of the magnitude Christ performed today. "

even jesus said that his followers would go on to perform greater works than the people of his day saw. most people interpret that as miralces but is there more to it? i do acknowledge that we dont see the dead raised and such, but there are healings all the time, medically, even to this day. you might be right but i would be careful to say so, even the conventional wisdom of that bible verse, and the fact that miracles still happen to this day. 
#14
Morphinekid77
Morphinekid77's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 47
0
0
5
Morphinekid77's avatar
Morphinekid77
0
0
5
-->
@n8nrgim
still maintain they seem to contradict each other on a moral truth level. 
The Law was sent to show us our need for Christ. It is the gold standard that nobody could uphold perfectly. And therefore the judgment was death for breaking it.

Once we get to Christ we are saved from the penalty of the Law, and now our new contract has different terms and conditions for not just a single nation (Israel) but all humanity. 

So eye for and eye for example, is still true, and still the standard. But as the saying goes, an eye for an eye would make the world blind. So, the new covenant teaches turn the other cheek. This, put into practice is more suitable for all humanity
#15
Morphinekid77
Morphinekid77's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 47
0
0
5
Morphinekid77's avatar
Morphinekid77
0
0
5
-->
@n8nrgim
even jesus said that his followers would go on to perform greater works than the people of his day saw. most people interpret that as miralces but is there more to it? i do acknowledge that we dont see the dead raised and such, but there are healings all the time, medically, even to this day. you might be right but i would be careful to say so, even the conventional wisdom of that bible verse, and the fact that miracles still happen to this day. 
Fair enough, but even the healings today aren't of the same magnitude. Jesus was out there regrowing peoples limbs and such. We just don't see that today

Topic's author
#16
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,023
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@Morphinekid77
still maintain they seem to contradict each other on a moral truth level. 
The Law was sent to show us our need for Christ. It is the gold standard that nobody could uphold perfectly. And therefore the judgment was death for breaking it.

Once we get to Christ we are saved from the penalty of the Law, and now our new contract has different terms and conditions for not just a single nation (Israel) but all humanity. 

So eye for and eye for example, is still true, and still the standard. But as the saying goes, an eye for an eye would make the world blind. So, the new covenant teaches turn the other cheek. This, put into practice is more suitable for all humanity
it seems like you're arguing 'that's just the way it is'. which could be true, but i am just not seeing how they can be reconciled, the two theologies both being possible. 
Topic's author
#17
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,023
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@Morphinekid77
it's almost such, that i want to say the old testament is man's covenant with God, but the new testament is God's covenant with man. but i know you and other good christians would tell me i'm wrong. 
#18
Morphinekid77
Morphinekid77's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 47
0
0
5
Morphinekid77's avatar
Morphinekid77
0
0
5
-->
@n8nrgim
Again I'm not sure what there is to reconcile. Do you have children? Do the terms and conditions you set in place for them change as time goes on?

Is the way you handle a three year old little baby the same way you handle that child at 13?

If I tell my 5yo child if they eat all their peas I'll let them have a cookie, we entered into a contract. They'll do their side of the bargain and I'll do mine.

That same child, ten years later, I may enter another contract with them. If you eat all your peas you can go to your friend's house for the night.

Imagine someone coming along and saying:

"How can we reconcile these two moral truths? Which is it? A cookie or a friend's house????"

It's both. One worked for that time and one worked for the other. 

Now imagine your children are tens of thousands of Israelites, and 1000 years from now, you're going to adopt more children, all the gentiles. Of course there's going to be differences in the covenants. 
Topic's author
#19
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,023
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
Ancient Judah wasn’t just a religion, it was a country with its own civil law. In the United States, if you crash your car into another vehicle, and it’s your fault, the other person can take you to court and force you to pay for the damages to their car. Similarly, in ancient Judah, if you punched some guy and blinded him in one eye, then he had the right to take you to court and have you blinded in one eye as well.
One section of the Bible (called the Torah or Pentateuch) is mostly just a list of civil ordinances. It covers everything from how to deal with cases of assault to the penalties for allowing your cow to trample someone else’s field.
The Bible contains a list of civil ordinances that are only applicable to the nation of Judah, and are by no means intended as a guide to the daily morality of someone living in the middle of the United States (or any other country that isn’t ancient Judah). The law in the United States mandates jail time for thieves, but that doesn’t give you the right to lock someone in your basement for five to ten years if you catch them breaking into your car. Some laws are designed to govern a nation, and some penalties are meant to be enforced by a governing body. Other writings in the Bible make this point perfectly clear: the law was meant for the citizens of Judah (i.e. the Jews). If you were not a citizen of Judah, either directly or by proxy, then those laws did not apply to you.
Jesus was a reformer of sorts. Imagine you stop at a stop light and some other car crashes into your back bumper. In the United States, at least, you have the right to claim damages from the other driver. Jesus would have argued that the right thing to do is to let the other driver go without suing them for damages. A few years after the time of Jesus, Paul of Tarsus theorized that the civil law of Judah was primarily intended to show would-be criminals what they deserved, and not to show would-be victims the penalties that they should impose. In other words, the law was meant, in part, to instruct people in good behavior by appealing to empathy.
I recently saw a comment in which a woman asserted that anyone who swears at another person in a bar deserves to have a beer dumped over their head. That certainly seems like a rational option to an angry person, doesn’t it? The whole “eye for an eye” thing teaches us otherwise. A beer over the head deserves a beer over the head, and mean words only deserve mean words. Jesus, of course, would have argued that a beer over the head deserves a beer over the head, but the right thing to do is walk away from the conflict without exacting retribution.


i found this excellent analysis on the internet. but even by this standard, it seems 'an eye for an eye' is a man made law for that local people, or for humans as humans. but if this was the case, it was still only a law for humans and by humans. maybe an eye for an eye isn't God's rule, but maybe the heart of the old testament is that God's rule for them was "be good enough". and the law of the new testament was "have faith and try to be good". (more precisely, repent, believe in jesus, and try to progress in holiness)

here are more great insight into finding how to reconcile this stuff

maybe an eye for an eye, literally, was a criminal penalty, and also a basis for fair civil judgments? it's fair to penalize people criminally, and there does need to be a way to meat out justice civially in the name of justice, even if the higher standard of Jesus and st paul was to let shit slide and let bygones be bygones. considered this way, maybe an eye for an eye is still the law of humans as a default, even if normally we're called for more?

i feel like i'm getting closer to reconciling the two theologies, but it seems the only way to authentically do so, is to tweak the old rule beyond what it's normally interpreted as
Topic's author
#20
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,023
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@Morphinekid77
what do you think of my last post and the quoted text i gave? would you be open to the idea that 'an eye for an eye' wasn't God's teaching for humanity, but God's practical approach to work with humans? like a lot in the bible, it doesn't quite make sense if we approach it the way we've been taught by religions, but could make sense if it's understood differently and tweaked. 
#21
Morphinekid77
Morphinekid77's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 47
0
0
5
Morphinekid77's avatar
Morphinekid77
0
0
5
-->
@n8nrgim
I agree wholeheartedly with that text you quoted, and that was exactly what I was trying to articulate. However, your interpretation that it was "man's law" is not what the article was saying. 

It was divine law, in fact, it was perfect divine law, showing sinners what they deserve. But the penalties are not acted out in the new covenant because God has given us a more merciful way.

But yes, I agree with the article
Topic's author
#22
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,023
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@Morphinekid77
well i've made a certain peace with the idea that maybe the penalty of sin is death, and not only that, that maybe humans are made to put them to death for sinning, at least in the old testament. (though the modern death penalty could be said to be morally and divinely applicable sometimes too).... so is the bottom line, that, criminally, when someone injures someone else, that person who insured the other, they deserve to be injured themselves?  if a person pokes out someone's eye or take their tooth, is their just penalty for their own eye and tooth to be taken? i understand that there can legit be a play on when the law is necessary, and when mercy is necessary.. but it's a lot to accept that the just consequence of insuring someone is that they the transgressor should himself be injured. 

the short quote and you, are both not clarifying whether the old law was just meant for them, or if it's what we all deserve, even if there was a higher way made by jesus. 
#23
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,639
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@n8nrgim
maybe humans are made to put them to death for sinning
Death is not the punishment.

Life is the punishment.

#24
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@n8nrgim
After the creation story. The bible becomes a book of war and conquest. That is only concerned with the welfare and  prosperity of one blood line.   With recurring themes.
Topic's author
#25
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,023
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@Morphinekid77
an eye for an eye is the default and what humans deserve, but jesus showed a higher method? but, point blank, if a human injures another human, the transgressor deserves to himself be similarly injured? if even we as christians choose mercy instead? 
Topic's author
#26
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,023
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
or maybe an eye for an eye was never meant to be taken literally, but just meant that injuring another person, allows for proportional compensation. that's not so bad, if we interpret it that way. 

"An eye for an eye" is a metaphor that means punishment should be equal in kind to the offense. It's based on the concept of lex talionis, the law of retaliation, which is expressed in Exodus 21:24. The principle of "an eye for an eye" means that if someone puts out another's eye, one of the offender's eyes should be put out. 

However, some say that "an eye for an eye" can't be applied to all situations because it would produce absurd results. For example, a car thief may not have a car to steal, and an arsonist may not own anything to burn down. Others say that "an eye for an eye" would not be fair if the person is punished even though they are innocent. 

In Judaism, Isaac Kalimi said that the Rabbis "humanized" the lex talionis by interpreting "an eye for an eye" to mean reasonable pecuniary compensation.

#27
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Best.Korea
Death is not the punishment.

Life is the punishment.

Not sure how true that is BK. But it certainly feel like it at times.

#28
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,512
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
It's really funny how Christians try to justify the athrocities of said "God" in the old testament. 

I don’t know what kind of covenant commands you to do such bloody punishments to your enemies. For obvious reasons, I'm not going to mention it, it's really disgusting. But if I had to analyze the said God I would say he is a damn psycopath. 
#29
Morphinekid77
Morphinekid77's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 47
0
0
5
Morphinekid77's avatar
Morphinekid77
0
0
5
-->
@IlDiavolo
You're being dramatic
Topic's author
#30
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,023
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
a good argument that an eye for an eye wasn't meant literally, is that both modern and ancient jews didn't take it literally. 

This is a complex topic that may have varying interpretations. 

Rabbinic Judaism rejects the literal meaning of "an eye for an eye" in the Torah. Instead, they insist that it stands for compensatory damages, such as the value of an eye for an eye. 

The Talmud interprets "an eye for an eye" as mandating monetary compensation in tort cases. They argue against the interpretation by Sadducees that the Bible verses refer to physical retaliation in kind. 

"An eye for an eye" is a famous summary statement regarding appropriate punishment for a wrong, especially personal injury. It has been variously understood as requiring equivalent, even duplicate, punishment or as setting a limit on punishment. 

The principle of "an eye for an eye" was used in Hammurabi's Code and also in Judaism.