Crosswords0 min ago
Old/New testament?
16 Answers
What's the story with the Old Testament and the New Testament? I just kind of assumed that the Old was before Jesus was born and the New one is after his birth. Am I right or way off the mark?
Answers
1 to 16 of 16
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by styley. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The Old Testament shows us that God is a jealous, angry, meglomaniac, psychopath with predilictions towards genocide, barbarism, stoning people to death, making cruel laws and punishments and enjoying the killing of children, animals, women, men and just about anything that breaths.
The New Testament tells us that 'God is love'.
kinda strange really....
The New Testament tells us that 'God is love'.
kinda strange really....
Thats about right.
The OT is a collection of stories and books from the beggining of time (Up until the point of Jesus). I have no idea why or how the sellection process took place. It is made up mostly of legend and word of mouth accounts. The NT is a collection of stories bassed on Jusus, believed to be the acounts of the apostles of Jesus, as well as letters written to other parts of the world and specific empires in an attempt to spread christianity.
Thus, The OT is a collection of stories and books, and the NT is a collection of stories and accounts specifically about Jesus (as well as letters written by Paul).
It's not so much about time (as in "before this" of "after that"), but more about subject matter.
The OT is a collection of stories and books from the beggining of time (Up until the point of Jesus). I have no idea why or how the sellection process took place. It is made up mostly of legend and word of mouth accounts. The NT is a collection of stories bassed on Jusus, believed to be the acounts of the apostles of Jesus, as well as letters written to other parts of the world and specific empires in an attempt to spread christianity.
Thus, The OT is a collection of stories and books, and the NT is a collection of stories and accounts specifically about Jesus (as well as letters written by Paul).
It's not so much about time (as in "before this" of "after that"), but more about subject matter.
Wouldn't waste your time with it mate, instead look at the origins of Christianity and how the Gospels of the New Testament were chosen. Sadly it has been the worlds biggest trick, also the Nag Hammadi library was written by people closer at the time and more qualified to describe what was happening, not by Luke, foreg, who wrote his 400 yrs after Christ, in Turkey!! Sad really because so many people believe this Christianity and its heartbreaking when you go that bit deeper. The Con of Man!!!
Hassanrafeeq, the NT does not contain accounts by any alleged apostles of Jesus. The gospels were written long after the supposed life of Jesus by unknown people. There are no ear- or eye-witness accounts of anything to do with Jesus either in the NT or anywhere else.
Sorry, the rest of you, I have had to explain this so many times on this site that it must have become a bore for you all. So what do I do? Shut up and let the likes of Hassanrafeeq continue to spread false information? I dunno...
Sorry, the rest of you, I have had to explain this so many times on this site that it must have become a bore for you all. So what do I do? Shut up and let the likes of Hassanrafeeq continue to spread false information? I dunno...
-- answer removed --
thh Egyptians had many gods. One pharaoh worshipped a single god, the sun god Aten, around 1350 BC; after his death the old gods were restored. The single Israelite god dates back much further - to Abraham perhaps, about 2000BC.
The OT is a sort of ideological history of the wanderings of the Israelites and the prophets among them who relayed God's word to them. This OT God is not far from the Jewish and Muslim gods.
The basis of Christianity is that he changed his mind and sent his son to live among men; without actually rejecting any of the words of his father, Jesus modified them, insisting that love, not war, is the divine message. Under this 'new covenant', God had changed. This NT God is the God most Christians worship, and is distinct from the Jewish and Muslim gods - they don't accept that Jesus was the messiah. The fire-breather of the OT is mostly of historical interest.
And to reiterate: the gospels seem to have been written down 50-100 years after Jesus's death but that doesn't mean that they hadn't originally been handed down, in written or oral form, from eyewitness accounts. I'm not saying they were, just that we don't know. The fact that they disagree on details doesn't mean they're all wrong.
The OT is a sort of ideological history of the wanderings of the Israelites and the prophets among them who relayed God's word to them. This OT God is not far from the Jewish and Muslim gods.
The basis of Christianity is that he changed his mind and sent his son to live among men; without actually rejecting any of the words of his father, Jesus modified them, insisting that love, not war, is the divine message. Under this 'new covenant', God had changed. This NT God is the God most Christians worship, and is distinct from the Jewish and Muslim gods - they don't accept that Jesus was the messiah. The fire-breather of the OT is mostly of historical interest.
And to reiterate: the gospels seem to have been written down 50-100 years after Jesus's death but that doesn't mean that they hadn't originally been handed down, in written or oral form, from eyewitness accounts. I'm not saying they were, just that we don't know. The fact that they disagree on details doesn't mean they're all wrong.
The gospel of John was supposed to be written bassed on John's eye witness accounts. John was the son of Zebadee (spelling?), and one of the 12 apostles of jesus. He witnessed many mericals. Many christian scollers still believe the gospel of John to be written bassed on his eye witness account of Jesus. My intent is not to spread false information. If I have errored, then please correct me.
Just to be clear on my point, so I'm not accused of spreading false information again. All I was saying is that many christians believe the bible to be written basses on eye witness accounts. Weather there are eyewitness accounts in the bible or not, that was not my point. My point was that the "eye witness accounts" (notice the quotation marks, they symbolize scarsacm), were not written at the time of Jesus, and there is no way to tell if they were written by auctual eye witnesses.
If my understanding of this matter is wrong, please tell my why.
If my understanding of this matter is wrong, please tell my why.
A lot of you guys seem to know what you are talking about and it is all very interesting,but I will say this, if you go out into the street and ask an average joe christian when was the bible written I would guess 9 out of 10 of the people you ask would say it was written while Jesus was around. In fact I'll bet they would never have even thought about it before.
There is no reason at all to connect the gospel called "John" to the apostle of that name.
The gospels remained anonymous until the late 2nd Century when they were given their present names quite arbitrarily. Since John is such a common name it is as daft to relate the two as it would be to try to relate John Donne, John Milton, John Lennon and John Major, all of whom were actual people, no less.
The apostle John was a Galileean fisherman, who would have spoken Aramaic and probably have been illiterate. What would he have been doing, at a ridiculous age, either writing or inspiring a gospel in Greek, full of mysticism, Hellenism and the basics of christology. The idea is ludicrous.
johnlambert's claim that "John" of the gospel was a witness to anything to do with Jesus is simply untrue. None of the gospel writers - whoever they were - was such a witness.
I never fail to be astonished at such claims when the truth is easily discovered with a minimum of study.
The gospels remained anonymous until the late 2nd Century when they were given their present names quite arbitrarily. Since John is such a common name it is as daft to relate the two as it would be to try to relate John Donne, John Milton, John Lennon and John Major, all of whom were actual people, no less.
The apostle John was a Galileean fisherman, who would have spoken Aramaic and probably have been illiterate. What would he have been doing, at a ridiculous age, either writing or inspiring a gospel in Greek, full of mysticism, Hellenism and the basics of christology. The idea is ludicrous.
johnlambert's claim that "John" of the gospel was a witness to anything to do with Jesus is simply untrue. None of the gospel writers - whoever they were - was such a witness.
I never fail to be astonished at such claims when the truth is easily discovered with a minimum of study.
1 to 16 of 16
