Non-Smartass Religion Question for Believers

[orchiddoctor]

Let's tickle the question. What has the New Testament to do with the Old Testament? Ever match them up? They don't fit to begin with. The New is not an extension of the Old. It may borrow, but it does not subscribe.

The twelve disciples can't seem to agree on that much either.

None of this should be surprising. The "scriptures," or writings, paradoxically come from an oral tradition, much as Homer's works did. What was chanted in 500 B.C. was not the same as what was finally written down--in, I believe, Latin! Thence to English via King James and others. Like the various Christian--and Jewish--sects, there is much disagreement about the language and intent of these tomes.

This is not to belittle or dismiss the value or beauty of either work. The Old Testament is the history of a people, complete with moral code and even dietary law. Christ's appearance signals a new approach to God, and as such offers a new moral order and path towards a redemption that the Old Testament never mentions.

But both are rife with metaphor and themes from the collective unconscious (most religions have a flood, for example). In fact, neither Judaism nor Christianity are unique in their thought or content (please explain the Easter eggs. Oh yes, fertility and renewal).

None of this is meant as critical commentary or blasphemeous opinion. It is just my 2 cents on how to perceive the paradoxes that can drive one crazy. I view these books as a kind of wonderful poetry from which to derive, in part, my own moral ethic. "Poetry," wrote Shelly, "should teach and delight. "The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want." Words of faith, words of beauty.

What was the question again?

[sheldonm]

Let's tickle the question. What has the New Testament to do with the Old Testament? Ever match them up? They don't fit to begin with. The New is not an extension of the Old. It may borrow, but it does not subscribe.

The twelve disciples can't seem to agree on that much either.

None of this should be surprising. The "scriptures," or writings, paradoxically come from an oral tradition, much as Homer's works did. What was chanted in 500 B.C. was not the same as what was finally written down--in, I believe, Latin! Thence to English via King James and others. Like the various Christian--and Jewish--sects, there is much disagreement about the language and intent of these tomes.

This is not to belittle or dismiss the value or beauty of either work. The Old Testament is the history of a people, complete with moral code and even dietary law. Christ's appearance signals a new approach to God, and as such offers a new moral order and path towards a redemption that the Old Testament never mentions.

But both are rife with metaphor and themes from the collective unconscious (most religions have a flood, for example). In fact, neither Judaism nor Christianity are unique in their thought or content (please explain the Easter eggs. Oh yes, fertility and renewal).

None of this is meant as critical commentary or blasphemeous opinion. It is just my 2 cents on how to perceive the paradoxes that can drive one crazy. I view these books as a kind of wonderful poetry from which to derive, in part, my own moral ethic. "Poetry," wrote Shelly, "should teach and delight. "The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want." Words of faith, words of beauty.

What was the question again?

I don't really think it was a questions as much as trying to poke holes in something he doesn't believe in....but very good answer anyway.

m~

[orchiddoctor]

Just trying to keep my reply from seeming too serious !

[JSngry]

I looked into the link gdogus posted and I read it with interest. However, if we look to Luke for evidence of the "it was really Mary who was descended from David" explanation, what are we to make of this?

Luke.2

[1] And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

[2] (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

[3] And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

[4] And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)

[5] To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

So Luke states with great confidence that it was Joseph who was related to David, not Mary.

Moreover, at least in the KJV, Luke's geneology is also clearly patrilineal:

[23] And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

[24] Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

[25] Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,

[26] Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,

[27] Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,

[28] Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,

[29] Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,

[30] Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,

[31] Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,

[32] Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,

[33] Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,

[34] Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,

[35] Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,

[36] Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,

[37] Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,

[38] Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

I don't see any Mary in there, do you? Then, of course, the "mother" explanation is designed to explain the fact that Luke's geneology bears virtually no resemblance to Matthew's. But both lines seem to trace Jesus's bloodline through the father, not the mother (also, all of the names here are male).

As to the "Mosaic Law" explanation...I don't know. You might have a point there. The OT prophesies only say that the Messiah will be from the "House of David." Doesn't say how the Messiah gets into that house, does it? So you could get around it that way, I suppose.

Again, I suggest you read Theiring. These conflicting geneologies have "Essene" written all over them.

You really should read Theiring, unless you're dead-stuck on the notion that "Jesus" never existed in any form. And if that's the case, this is nothing more than a parlor game. And you can do better than that.

[sheldonm]

...it just bugs the shit out of some people when they see someone believe in something they don't get/won't get/can't get/ have no desire to get......they just can't let it go and get on with life.... It's like that popcorn kernel you can't get out of your tooth! If I like something/believe in something (Jesus or atheism for the sake of this particular thread), it has zero importance to me if someone agrees or not! Let it go!!!

I'm not ripping on Alexander because I appreciate his input on Organissimo and although it may have been posed as a "non-smartass" questioned, I think it was a poke at the believers on the board.

m~

[JSngry]

As to the question of who "claims" what, it is true that Jesus doesn't go around saying that he's the Messiah because he's related to David. But since the authors of the Gospels were clearly TRYING to fob Jesus off as the Jewish Messiah, it was obviously very important to THEM that Jesus fit the profile exactly.

Again - look to the Essenes.

Lon's done a lot more research into these type things than I have, and we have somewaht different conclusions, but I think that we can both agree that an understanding of what was going on in the Essene community around the time of Jesus' reported life is crucial to an understanding of the general climate that resulted in the earliest birthings of Christianity.

It was a turbulent time, they were some turbulent people, and what they and many of the very earliest Christians (who may very well have been looking at it all as a new form of Judaism) were all about probably has little if anything to do with post-Pauline Christianity.

Between Paul, Constantine, I feel safe in saying that doctrinal "Christianity" as it has come to exist is based on the historical Jesus in much the same way that Presidents Day sales are based on George Washington & Abraham Lincoln. You can get some great deals, and it keeps the name and ideals in the public eye, but...

[JSngry]

Let's tickle the question. What has the New Testament to do with the Old Testament? Ever match them up? They don't fit to begin with. The New is not an extension of the Old. It may borrow, but it does not subscribe.

Unless you read the inter-testamental literature that survives, especially The Book of Enoch. That literature, and that book in particular (perhaps the defining work for setting the stage of the millieu in which Jesus stepped up to the plate, so to speak), gives a very good picture of how things evolved in the Jewish community both socially and spiritually, and why everybody was so hot for a Messiah to appear. Traditional Christianity tends to teach that the Jews of the time were merely looking for an "earthly king". Well, hey, it was a lot more that that in some circles. Let's just say that the Apocalyptic fervor that grips the most extreme of today's zealots of all faiths ain't nothing new...

This is the stuff that "official" Christianity doesn't encourage their people to read (excepting the Catholic church's inclusion of a few of these writings in The Apocrypha), and the stuff that it seems that a lot of Jews regard as totally irrelevant to the events described in the first three Gospels. But in my opinion, it's essential to an understanding of it all, regardless of one's personal beliefs.

We tend to think of the OT as "Point A" and the NT as "Point B". But in reality, the NT is "Point C". A lot of things happened between the end of the OT and the beginning of the NT. A lot. The various inter-testamental writings are the true "Point B". They're not going to be of interest to anybody whose beliefs are set-in-stone dogmatic, but for anybody with an open mind and an intellectual curiosity (regardless of their faith or lack thereof), they make for some illuminating and fascinating reading.

[jazzbo]

Jim wrote:

We tend to think of the OT as "Point A" and the NT as "Point B". But in reality, the NT is "Point C". A lot of things happened between the end of the OT and the beginning of the NT. A lot. The various inter-testamental writings are the true "Point B". They're not going to be of interest to anybody whose beliefs are set-in-stone dogmatic, but for anybody with an open mind and an intellectual curiosity (regardless of their faith or lack thereof), they make for some illuminating and fascinating reading.

This is very true, and many don't realize how much Christian literature was in play before the NT became the NT as we know it, and how differently many Christians viewed Jesus and his teachings.

I find it so fascinating myself how little his teachings are given more than lip service with many churches and "believers". . .. Fascinating and disheartening. I've read what I could of his official and now considered unofficial teachings, and I find them so radical to empire and empire building. To me it all seems directed at a kingdom rather of HEAVEN (which I always get the sense from Jesus is an earthly kingdom, the rule the way God wants things to be on earth) that would turn the way our human world has long been run on its ear. It's so ironic to me that the Empire swallowed the religion and digested it into something else. . . .

I've gotten sandblasted (that's just short of being stoned) on another board for my thoughts, so I'll keep most of them to myself. But yeah, there was so much going on there in that world that Christianity sprang from. . . from mystery religions of men-gods torn apart and dying and rising again, to mother goddesses who bore sons who were murdered and then avenged, to ascetics who fastidiously bathed and tried to scrape the material world from their minds, to people who couldn't wait to stand and be washed in the sacred blood . . . weird melting pot and a real boiling caudron of energy and influences. I also don't think it's safe to make assumptions about Jesus and about Christianity without looking beyond OT and NT, but that's just me.

[jazzbo]

I'm not ripping on Alexander because I appreciate his input on Organissimo and although it may have been posed as a "non-smartass" questioned, I think it was a poke at the believers on the board.

m~

I think so too, and it's dangling material like this out there that has really wreaked havoc on the board I mentioned above (nonjazz). . . . It's dangerous walking and talking. . . .

[Noj]

Why does the Bible have to be so long-winded and difficult to decipher when it is used to explain straightforward, simple things such as morality and respect?

Trust in the motivations of the people who have translated this ancient document and in those who originally transcribed the word-of-mouth stories is misplaced. They seem an awful wide chasm between Christians and the basis of their spirituality. Ever play the children's game telephone? The story always changes beyond recognition by the time it is whispered to the final person.

For me, the lessons from the Bible which make the most sense and are most applicable to the modern world should be kept, and the rest ought to be tossed out. None of the lessons should be so rigid as to not adapt. Clinging to a bunch of stories and worrying about the details of the stories is not productive and is nothing that will ever achieve a consensus. The lessons are the point, not who begat who.

What is the point of caring whether or not Jesus is God's only Son? From where I sit, this is a contention which only results in divisiveness. The very point of such a claim is to divide. Is that what Jesus would have wanted?

I'm an agnostic who hasn't read the Bible, so these are just surface impressions.

[RDK]

It's all moot anyway as the future belongs to Xenu...

[7/4]

It's all moot anyway as the future belongs to Xenu...

[GA Russell]

Apropos, I see that tomorrow's Gospel is Mark 12:35-37, which deals specifically with Alexander's original question.

[Alexander]

It's all moot anyway as the future belongs to Xenu...

Blasphemer! Everyone knows that it is Cthulhu who will harvest the souls of the living!

Now THAT'S a God we can all get behind!

(Dammit! Now I'm in the mood for sushi...)

Edited June 8, 2006 by Alexander

[Alexander]

BTW, speaking of Cthulhu, here's a great song parody I found on-line. It's sung to the tune of "Hakkuna Matata" from "The Lion King"...

(The singers are Dagon and Abhoth)

Cthulhu Fthagn --

What a wonderful phrase!

Cthulhu Fthagn --

Say it and you're crazed!

It means "Cthulhu,

Rising out of the haze!"

It's a prophecy,

We'll all soon see

Cthulhu Fthagn.

Ahhh, yes! Cthulhu Fthagn. It's our motto, our slogan, our credo!

Oh, I hate that!

What?

Han Solo clearly shot first!

Not "Greedo", "credo"!

When he was a Outer God --

When I was a Outer God!

Easy on the reverb, sport.

He found that his form lacked a certain appeal,

All his glistening pseudopods made blood congeal.

I'm a sensitive soul! At the end of the day,

It hurt that my friends' flesh all melted away.

Oh the shame! The terrible shame!

What a disgrace! Falling from grace!

Till I decided to blame Whose fault is it?

The whole human race! Yeah! What the heck where they doing

hanging around with an acidic mass of

flesh-devouring polyps, anyway?

Hey! Can I help it if I'm an "ick" magnet?

Cthulhu Fthagn!

Now we're in for strange days!

It screws up your noggin --

Turns planets into buffets!

And Great Cthulhu

Spares whoever obeys!

So get off of me,

You monstrosity!

Cthulhu Fthagn!

Cthulhu Fthagn!

Cthulhu Fthagn!

Cthulhu Fthagn!

-- if we keep doing this, he's gonna show up.

... Kewl!

It means "Cthulhu,

Rising out of the haze!"

It's insanity,

For humanity --

Cthulhu Fthagn!

I say Cthulhu!

And I say Fthagn!

If I said Ithaqua,

We'd need a toboggan!

Cthulhu Fthagn!