Why the ideological differences, ie. OT vs. NT

[Magnetic]

There seems to be a vaste difference in how God was in the Old Testiment and how God was in the New Testiment. The distinctions are rather stark in how they pertain to treatment of your 'enemies'.

Old Testiment:

Exodus:

12:29 And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that [was] in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.
12:30 And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for [there was] not a house where [there was] not one dead.
17:14 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this [for] a memorial in a book, and rehearse [it] in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.
17:15 And Moses built an altar, and called the name of it Jehovahnissi:
17:16 For he said, Because the LORD hath sworn [that] the LORD [will have] war with Amalek from generation to generation.

In Leviticus:

26:7 And ye shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword.
26:8 And five of you shall chase an hundred, and an hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight: and your enemies shall fall before you by the sword.

In Deuteronomy:

2:30 But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him: for the LORD thy God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate, that he might deliver him into thy hand, as [appeareth] this day.
2:31 And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land before thee: begin to possess, that thou mayest inherit his land.
2:32 Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to fight at Jahaz.
2:33 And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people.
2:34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:
2:35 Only the cattle we took for a prey unto ourselves, and the spoil of the cities which we took.
etc...(too many to note, in lue of not having a lengthy post).

New Testiment:

Matthew (KJV)

5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have [thy] cloke also.
5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
5:42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
5:46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
5:47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more [than others]? do not even the publicans so?
5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

So, how do you see these two obviously distinct ideologies?

[Rye]

Simple, the sources that compiled the old testament were specific groups of jews, then different groups of jews made first century christianity years later, so yeah, you're going to get different teachings.

[Magnetic]

I can see that, looking at it with a simple objective and/or historical look, but moreso, for those who would see the bible as inerrant and the word of God, who is supposed to be ". . . the same yesterday, today, and forever", I don't see how it can be rectified with any satisfaction.

[CaptJodan]

I can see that, looking at it with a simple objective and/or historical look, but moreso, for those who would see the bible as inerrant and the word of God, who is supposed to be ". . . the same yesterday, today, and forever", I don't see how it can be rectified with any satisfaction.

I think that's why many faiths, including if I'm not mistaken Catholics, tend to look at the OT as alagory, and focus exclusively on the NT.

Actually, I think it's more to do with the fact that they realize the atrocities committed in the OT are horrific and unpopular in today's society so they try to sweep them under the rug and try to have us focusing on Jesus' love.

Now, if we look at more fundementalist views, such as many of my family beliefs, you get the old Mule story. Basically, it all boils down to the fact that they believe that back then, God had to get man's attention. If a child is being disobediant no matter how many times you tell him to stop, then God's actions in the OT are akin to a spanking. "You've got to get the mule's attention". After using the stick, then God presents humanity with the carrot.

At least that's how it was explained to me.

[Darth Wong]

There's actually not that much difference if you look at Paul, as opposed to Jesus. Most of the hatefulness attributed to modern Christians can be traced directly to the writings of Paul.

[Darth Wong]

As to the causes of the distinction (leaving aside Paul's conservatism), I would say that it probably has something to do with the desire to advertise and spread the religion. This requires modification of its teachings to make it more palatable to the Greco-Roman civilization that was in power at the time.

In short, I believe that Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism which was modified for marketing purposes. That's why you have its uncomfortable dichotomy between reminding you to pay heed to the Old Testament and then telling you that it doesn't actually matter because it's all about "salvation" for the unjust anyway.

[mr friendly guy]

The first Bible was put together from several existing manuscripts written by various sources. The church actually voted on which manuscripts made it into the Bible and which didn't. Needless to say there was most likely politicking going on in that regards. It seemed that passages got put in based on political support rather than a need to make it internally consistent with itself.

But a good source of Biblical contradictions and errors and also an explanation of how the first Bible was put together, look for the The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy by C. Dennis McKinsey which I am currently reading. Good as a reference book.

[EmperorSolo51]

The first Bible was put together from several existing manuscripts written by various sources. The church actually voted on which manuscripts made it into the Bible and which didn't. Needless to say there was most likely politicking going on in that regards. It seemed that passages got put in based on political support rather than a need to make it internally consistent with itself.

This is actually a big misconception. By the time of the Council of Nicea, most of the books that are in your Bible (Westher they be NIV, or NAB, or KJV) were already settled. The Orthodox/Catholic (nodistinction until 1054), and Arianist bishops all agreed the the 4 Gospels, the Epistles, and several other books belonged in the first Codex becuase the early church father's generally agreed on the Authirship of the books and the time they were written. These were books that had been in local Canons for generations and now were going to be made part, of a all encompassing Church Canon.

There were only two books that were brought up for debate at the council of Nicea. The debate was on Authorship. The books were St. Paul's Letters to the Hebrews, and the the Revelation of St. John of patmos. Other than that, the bible by Nicea was already agreed upon by tghe time the Council was convoked by the Emperor Constantine.

[Rye]

The council of Nicea wasn't about canonicity, that was the council of Carthage, and they DID get their agendas into choosing what went in.

[EmperorSolo51]

The council of Nicea wasn't about canonicity, that was the council of Carthage, and they DID get their agendas into choosing what went in.

While it is true that the list of bible Canon was infact promulgated by Athanasius of Alexandria at Carthage, it does not change the fact that the the Four Gospels, the Epistles, and Revelation, plus Tobit and others, found in the modern day Catholic Bible, were already part of the local canons across the the Christian world in the second, third, and fourth centuries AD.

[EmperorSolo51]

Take this for what you will.

The Roman church says they proclaimed which books were actually inspired and placed them in one volume, so we should all be indebted to the Catholic Church for the New Testament. Actually the Catholic Church in 397 the Council of Carthage had the 27 books considered the canon. However these books were read and distributed as Ccripture for over 300 years by individual Christians and church’s long before their church councils claimed to give us the Bible. The Synod of Antioch in 266 AD. had rejected Paul of Samosata’s teaching (a modalist) as foreign to the ecclesiastical canon. Athanasius, who fought to preserve the Trinity in the council of Nicea in 325 Ad. when the Church was being challenged had all 27 books of the New Testament. When Athanasius argued in his debate against Arius he used much of the New Testament and quoted from almost every book. He said they were the springs of salvation do not add nor take away.

Almost 40 years later the council of Laodicea in 363 A.D. decreed that only canonized books of the old and new Testament were to be read in the Church’s. None of the councils made any list of what is in or out, the reason being that the majority of the church had accepted and used these books for many years before them. Are we to accept the premise that 300 years passed with confusion and we waited for the church to decide in 397 A.D. what was to be our Scripture? Generations would have come and gone not having the whole Bible. The truth is that we can produce almost the entire Bible we have today from the early church writings in the mid 100’s to 200’s.

In 397 Ad. the council of Carthage put their approval on the canon that was already read by and throughout the church. It then became a fixed canon for the western church as it was for the eastern.

[Magnetic]

Here's my latest post in the other forum, posted yesterday, but have yet to have a reply.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I guess my problem is with how God is perceived in the Old Testiment as in contrast to what Jesus taught in the New Testiment. Such as the verse in Exodus 17:16 "For he said, Because the LORD hath sworn [that] the LORD [will have] war with Amalek from generation to generation." One would think that God would be more interested in turning the hearts of these 'enemies' rather than being a war with them and their children and children's children. It is a contrast with sending out disciples to make new disciples of every nation. . . . .

There's also the issue of the book of Leviticus, the MANY rules that they were to follow, most of them under penelty of death, .. . . . .if I were them, I'd be afraid to get up in the morning! I mean, there's "expecting obedience" then there's opressive rules of obedience with even some of the most benine acts resulting in death. ei. Having 'unkempt hair', tearing your clothes, unauthorized fire, working on the sabbath, etc.

Here's a look at another section.

Deuteronomy 7:1-5
"When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations--the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you-- and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire."

So rather than 'witnessing' to them, trying to turn them from their religious ways and to God, they are instructed to completely kill every one of them, men, women, and children.

Then there's Deuteronomy 13:12-15
"If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods you have not known), then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock."

How about something like being stubborn or rebellious?

Deut. 21:18-21 "If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death."


We've all heard the story of The Walls of Jericho, especially as children in Sunday School, but if you really look at what happened, the Israelites were told to completely destroy that city, even when they had shut the gates out of fear of the Israelites. Joshua 6:20-21
"When the trumpets sounded, the people shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the people gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so every man charged straight in, and they took the city. They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it--men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys."

They even chased fleeing people in Joshua 8:24-25
"When Israel had finished killing all the men of Ai in the fields and in the desert where they had chased them, and when every one of them had been put to the sword, all the Israelites returned to Ai and killed those who were in it. Twelve thousand men and women fell that day--all the people of Ai."

There is count after count of instances where other races were killed off for having other gods, or having other gods while living in the 'promised land'. City after city:

Makkedah, totally destroyed everyone in it...
Libnah, left no survivors there...
Lachish, the city and everyone in it he put to the sword...
Eglon, totally destroyed everyone in it...
Hebron, they totally destroyed it and everyone in it...
Debir, everyone in it they totally destroyed. They left no survivors...
Negev, totally destroyed all who breathed, just as the Lord, the God of Israel, had commanded.

That's just some of that book, and there's the same in Judges, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles 14

"The LORD struck down the Cushites before Asa and Judah. The Cushites fled, and Asa and his army pursued them as far as Gerar. Such a great number of Cushites fell that they could not recover; they were crushed before the LORD and his forces. The men of Judah carried off a large amount of plunder. They destroyed all the villages around Gerar, for the terror of the LORD had fallen upon them. They plundered all these villages, since there was much booty there."

It is things like this that rise up questions in my soul. I'm sorry I'm being long winded, but there is just so much in there that is so harsh, merciless, . . . . it's no wonder the term "fear of the Lord" became used.

I know that many of you say that it was done to keep the Israelites pure from the influences of other gods, but I would think that if your God is as great and mighty as you have seen (as the Israelites would have seen), you'd not worship other gods that are nothing but gold (golden calf) or made of stone. But regardless, the way God handled other religions in the OT is completely different then the NT and especially today, especially in the way one is to treat enemies in the Matthew verses in the first post.

I hope you all can see where I'm coming from, and the heart of my post. I have my own theories about the subject, but they aren't Protestant, so I'll not mention them here.

[Darth Wong]

I suppose it's too obvious to point out that it's very easy to explain the differences between the NT and OT if you don't actually believe the Bible is true. It's the fools who think that these events all happened just as described who have to jump through absurd mental hoops in order to explain the differences.

[PrinceofLowLight]

To use the terminology of the Sci-Fi/Fantasy Boards....

Out of Universe/"Author's Intent" Explanation: The Bible was compiled from many, many different sources, ranging from different people writing at different time periods.

Further, there were a number of editting processes. Lots of different very powerful people were involved, all with differing and sometimes conflicting agendas. Like any work created by committee, there were parts that were meant to satify some and other parts to satisfy others. This tends to create a contradictory product.

In Universe/"Suspension of Disbelief" Explanation: One is outlined on Lord Wong's Creationism site, though I forget what part. It postulates that an omnipotent god would be incapable of empathizing with or understanding limited beings like humans.

Think of an irritable but otherwise eloquent person who's dealing with a crying child and beats it in frustration. He doesn't know what to do, so he does whatever removes the object of his annoyance, regardless of what he does to the person.

That doesn't excuse his actions, but it explains his behavior. After incarnating himself as Jesus, he understood our limitations and became merciful.

Another explanation is the one offered by the Gnostics, a very old Hebrew group that jumped on the Christian bandwagon, and was one one of the first groups to be classified as heretical. They felt that the god of the Old Testament was evil and created the material plane for nefarious purposes.
They also believed that there was another, Good god. The Gnostics figured Jesus was a figure sent by the Good god, so they jumped ship. From their view, the god of the OT and NT are completely different figures.

[Magnetic]

Interesting, PrinceofLowLight!

[Surlethe]

In Universe/"Suspension of Disbelief" Explanation: One is outlined on Lord Wong's Creationism site, though I forget what part. It postulates that an omnipotent god would be incapable of empathizing with or understanding limited beings like humans.

Morality comes from humans, not God.

The essay essentially takes the analogy of God the father all the way, comparing God to an abusive father; then, it develops the idea of redemption coming from man for God, not vice-versa. It really is an interesting read.

[PrinceofLowLight]

Thanks, Surlethe

And here's a good article on Gnosticism:
http://www.rotten.com/library/religion/gnosticism/