Bible & new testament contradictions

[drag]

Greetings !

I'm really no expert in the field although I do have
good knowledge of the bible. I would like to ask how,
if at all, Chritianity deals with the many contradictions
between the Bible and the teachings of Jesus in the new
testament ?

After all, Jesus' teachings resemble much those of
Mahatma Ghandi, for example. While the bible speaks
of "eye for an eye", killing of that who comes to kill you,
killing enemies of the Lord and so on. So, any experts in the
field here who can ellaborate on this ?

Thanks !

Live long and prosper.

 

[CrystalStudios]

Drag - this is how religious idiots deal with contradictions.

They will say that they don't really mean what they say - they're try to lie their way out.

In other words they dodge this at ALL costs.

 

[drag]

CS, I would like, if it is possible, to leave the
truth/falsality of religion out of this discussion, please.

Like I said, I am not interested in why the contradictions
exist or religion itself, but rather in the expert specifics
of HOW these apparent contradictions are dealt by Chritianity.

Peace and long life.

 

[Dx]

Many teachings of the Bible like everything else have been misconstrued thru time. Eg., Ever ask someone to explain something to 3/4 other people and once that information you sent out to the other 3 persons became misconstrued or interpreted in words not exactly your own. I am a catholic and I believe that the Bible is biult upon the way your interpretations of the Bible are. An eye for an eye, your right it contradicts the teaching of Jesus but if I recall that's why God gave Moses the commandments on Mt Sinai as a way to have his people do the right thing. Its hard to talk about religion cause everyone has their own interpretations of scriptures. I am no expert but I am hoping this could best explain your question or at least give my opinoin on it.
May God Be Always With YOU!
Dx

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Dx
Many teachings of the Bible like everything else have been misconstrued thru time. Eg., Ever ask someone to explain something to 3/4 other people and once that information you sent out to the other 3 persons became misconstrued or interpreted in words not exactly your own. I am a catholic and I believe that the Bible is biult upon the way your interpretations of the Bible are. An eye for an eye, your right it contradicts the teaching of Jesus but if I recall that's why God gave Moses the commandments on Mt Sinai as a way to have his people do the right thing. Its hard to talk about religion cause everyone has their own interpretations of scriptures. I am no expert but I am hoping this could best explain your question or at least give my opinoin on it.

Intresting !
This is a surprising interpretation that never occurred to me.
This actualy partially reminds me of Buddhism and far-eastern
religions. I think I should note though that in the Bible,
I am less familiar with the new testament, the laws of God
and religious restrictions in general are regarded in
a rather strict and non-questionable manner. Still, this
is indeed an inresting, and positive in my opinion, interpretation
that improves the connection of such a religion with the
human nature, I think.

Anybody else ?

Live long and prosper.

 

[CrystalStudios]

Drag - I thought I answered your question. Let me repeat.

My experiences show that "they" try to weasle their way out of it. They never will address the issue at all - ask them and they're just turn it into something else...

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

I'm really no expert in the field although I do have
good knowledge of the bible. I would like to ask how,
if at all, Chritianity deals with the many contradictions
between the Bible and the teachings of Jesus in the new
testament ?

After all, Jesus' teachings resemble much those of
Mahatma Ghandi, for example. While the bible speaks
of "eye for an eye", killing of that who comes to kill you,
killing enemies of the Lord and so on. So, any experts in the
field here who can ellaborate on this ?

Thanks !

Live long and prosper.

Actually the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament is that one establishes The Law (the Ten Commandments), and the other is the ultimate fulfillment of that law, and hence "transcendence."

Truth is the vessel (the law) and good is contained within (life in accordance with the law).

 

[Royce]

One of the things that Jesus was suppose to have said according to the New Testament was that he came to free us/them from the law. The jewish laws had become so strict and far from the original intent of Moses's laws that the people had to be freed from those laws and learn to live life lawfully because it was right and good not because they feared the jewish law.
One cannot really call the differences between the teachings of the N.T. and what was written in the O.T. as contradictions because they are really about what became two different religions.
There are quite enough contradiction in the testaments within themselves to keep anyone busy for quite awhile. But only a relative few of the christian denominations believe in the literal translation of the bible and they frequently contradict themselves and interpet various passages to fit their own dogma or beliefs so most are not really all that fundamentalist even though they claim to be.

 

[Royce]

While I agree that the Old Testament does contain a lot of hate, bigotry and bloodshed it also contains a lot of truth, love and wisdom.
It is after all a collection of stories whose historical validity has nothing to do with the validity, truth, wisdom and worth of the contents and moral of the story. Remember about who and what and when those stories were written.
They depicted life as it was then and tried reconcile it with a god that they were just getting to know.

All Christian do not believe in the literal translation or truth of the bible but read it for what it is, a collection of stories poems and songs and faith. They get out of it what they are looking for, understanding and guidance. I don't believe that is cause for ridicule nor condemnation any more than reading the work of Plato, Aristotle or Socrates just to name a few.

 

[Hurkyl]

My experiences show that "they" try to weasle their way out of it. They never will address the issue at all - ask them and they're just turn it into something else...

I've heard many a crackpot say the same thing about scientists when topics like relativity are under discussion (and claim triumph when the unexperienced debaters falter in such discussions). What makes your experience better?

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by CrystalStudios
Drag - I thought I answered your question. Let me repeat.

My experiences show that "they" try to weasle their way out of it. They never will address the issue at all - ask them and they're just turn it into something else...

I'm sure those guys at the Vatican did not sit there for so
long without applying some ellaborate "tricks" to the whole
thing. Anyway, you can call it "weasling out" if you want
and see it that way, but that's what I want to know so please
allow me to learn, thanks.

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Actually the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament is that one establishes The Law (the Ten Commandments), and the other is the ultimate fulfillment of that law, and hence "transcendence."

Truth is the vessel (the law) and good is contained within (life in accordance with the law).

Well, that kin'na ignores the contradictions all together.
Even in the 10 commendments a law such as the one that
speaks of murder is in indirect contradiction of Jesus'
teachings which on this issue we can sum up - "you shall
not kill" - not kill anybody under any curcampstance.
In addition, the Bible contains a lot more laws and
general guidences of God in addition to te 10 commendments
in these are in clear contradiction to Jesus' teachings
(like my examples in the first post of this thread).

Originally posted by Royce
One of the things that Jesus was suppose to have said according to the New Testament was that he came to free us/them from the law. The jewish laws had become so strict and far from the original intent of Moses's laws that the people had to be freed from those laws and learn to live life lawfully because it was right and good not because they feared the jewish law.

I am not referring to strict religeous laws, but rather
to the fundumental laws and guiding lines of God's actions
and intentions that the bible contains.

Originally posted by Royce
One cannot really call the differences between the teachings of the N.T. and what was written in the O.T. as contradictions because they are really about what became two different religions.

But the Bible is still viewed as a holly book in Christianity
so the connection should be relevant, I think.

Originally posted by Royce
While I agree that the Old Testament does contain a lot of hate, bigotry and bloodshed it also contains a lot of truth, love and wisdom.

I disagree with that opinion, but that is already a subjective
matter. I do not think that the Bible's teachings are inferior
to those of Jesus, quite on the contrary in fact. But, like
I said that is a matter of subjective opinion and I still
have the greatest repsect for the courage and mental power
of people like Mahatma Ghandi who, with no direct connection,
followed a path similar to that which was preached by Jesus,
I think.

Originally posted by Royce
All Christian do not believe in the literal translation or truth of the bible but read it for what it is, a collection of stories poems and songs and faith. They get out of it what they are looking for, understanding and guidance. I don't believe that is cause for ridicule nor condemnation any more than reading the work of Plato, Aristotle or Socrates just to name a few.

Hmm... Then it would seem that the problem is transferred from
the context to the status of the entire book itself in this
religion. After all, the Bible is supposed to be the word of God.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by drag
Well, that kin'na ignores the contradictions all together.
Even in the 10 commendments a law such as the one that
speaks of murder is in indirect contradiction of Jesus'
teachings which on this issue we can sum up - "you shall
not kill" - not kill anybody under any curcampstance.
In addition, the Bible contains a lot more laws and
general guidences of God in addition to te 10 commendments
in these are in clear contradiction to Jesus' teachings
(like my examples in the first post of this thread).

But the whole point is that maybe there aren't so many contradictions as people might think. And just as times change, so did the Bible. The first part involved the establishment of the law -- in the "external sense" -- and the second part involved its fulfillment -- in the "internal sense." Where the first part is rough and unyielding, and the second part involves compassion and forgiveness. Thus the second part becomes the means by which to transcend the first.

 

[CrystalStudios]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
But the whole point is that maybe there aren't so many contradictions as people might think. And just as times change, so did the Bible. The first part involved the establishment of the law -- in the "external sense" -- and the second part involved its fulfillment -- in the "internal sense." Where the first part is rough and unyielding, and the second part involves compassion and forgiveness. Thus the second part becomes the means by which to transcend the first.

Gods laws don't change. Time changes, but Gods laws stay forever the same, duh!

You have done nothing to explain anything, which is a recurring pattern with you.

 

[TENYEARS]

You know the answer to to this. The truth is and I do mean the truth is no blunt pun intended, the bible was written by varying degrees of englightenment. It was passed down through time and modifed in some cases. There is a phrase he that find the spirit within him will go no more out. What do you think that meant? There is the "word", the living water, etc... What do you think this stuff means? The bible is quite real and expresses truth, but you must look objectively admit you do not understand and be open to that lack of understanding and then in your search it happens. This is also true of science, but many people stop short for the answers of others because they are not really concerned with questions and answers.

Don't settle, I double dog dare you not to.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by CrystalStudios
Gods laws don't change. Time changes, but Gods laws stay forever the same, duh!

You have done nothing to explain anything, which is a recurring pattern with you.

No, I'm just not here to tell people what they want to hear.

Of course when we say times change, that also implies that our inpretation of who we are, in relation to "God's law" changes, in which case it does change or, the need for it ...

But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." (Jeremiah 31:33-34).

Whereas to truly understand something, is to cast aside its exterior shell (form) and "imbibe" its internal meaning (essence).

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
I've heard many a crackpot say the same thing about scientists when topics like relativity are under discussion (and claim triumph when the unexperienced debaters falter in such discussions). What makes your experience better?

That someone can back the scientist up, if they knew enough.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
But the whole point is that maybe there aren't so many contradictions as people might think. And just as times change, so did the Bible. The first part involved the establishment of the law -- in the "external sense" -- and the second part involved its fulfillment -- in the "internal sense." Where the first part is rough and unyielding, and the second part involves compassion and forgiveness. Thus the second part becomes the means by which to transcend the first.

So, basicly, you're saying that God changed his mind ?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by drag
So, basicly, you're saying that God changed his mind ?

No, I'm saying perhaps we should look at it in terms of different stages of human development. Much as there's a difference between an infant, a child, a teenager, an adult, etc.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
No, I'm saying perhaps we should look at it in terms of different stages of human development. Much as there's a difference between an infant, a child, a teenager, an adult, etc.

Intresting !
Another interesting perspective I never considered.
I wonder what a more modern stage would be like ?
Like today for example you could say that the "child" is all
grown up - an adult and is no longer guided but rather left
to make his own descisions.

Thanks !

Live long and prosper.

 

[Iacchus32]

The Church of Man

Originally posted by drag
Intresting !
Another interesting perspective I never considered.
I wonder what a more modern stage would be like ?
Like today for example you could say that the "child" is all
grown up - an adult and is no longer guided but rather left
to make his own descisions.

Thanks !

Live long and prosper.

Actually I have a bit of a different take on it: where the Christian Church is 4th in succession to the three previous churches -- the Church of Adam (1), the Church of Noah (2) and the Israelite Church (3) -- the four of which can be viewed as the Church of Man. And, since the Bible compares the relationship between God and the Church with that of Husband and Wife, then it only seems fitting to compare these four churches to the development of the "in-laws" (or parents) of the bridegroom and the bride which, have yet to be introduced. Does that make any sense so far?

Whereas the Church of Adam corresponds to the man's masculine side or his father (1), thus giving rise to his "dominant aspect" and, to God Himself; the Church of Noah corresponds the man's feminine side or his mother (2), as it was Mother Earth who delivered Noah from the great flood; the Israelite Church corresponds to the woman's masculine side or her father (3), essentially a refined or "substantiated" version of the man's father, thus giving rise to "God's people" so to speak (hence the third leg which completes the triangle); and the Christian Church corresponds to the woman's feminine side or her mother (4), thus giving rise to her "dominant aspect" and hence the "virgin conception" (where woman gives birth to God).

Beyond that the Bible speaks of Christ as the bridegroom and refers to his "second coming" at the end of times which, is what the Book of Revelation foretells. And yet, the end of times does not signify the end of the world but, the end of an era or age, and hence "church." Whereas contrary to what most people believe, regarding the Book of Revelation in particular, this has already occurred, and the 5th church has already been established. As a matter of fact it coincides more than anything with the "Age of Enlightenment" and the advance of science. And indeed, the person associated with founding it -- i.e., http://www.swedenborg.com/ -- was a scientist! So if you happen to be a real science buff maybe you can appreciate this?

So here we have the advent of the 5th church, and hence the bridegroom, and yet very few people are aware of it, least of all those who call themselves "Christians." Nor does it belie what has happened since then, for indeed the 5th church has already come to a close, and a 6th church has been established -- which, is the current "Church of Today." This is only a recent development (over the past 20 years), and coincides with the development of the bride, and more in accord with the United States, the freest nation to ever exist, and hence the emancipation of the "woman's will" (thus entailing the bride's "free choice" in marriage). And here it isn't altogether different from what you were suggesting, in that it involves growing up and making our own decisions.

I hope this answers your question about the current "state of today?" Sorry for being so verbose, I just didn't know how else to put it? If you would like to read more about it, you can do so by reading the first three chapters of my book ... Thanks!

Chapter 1 | Chapter 2 | Chapter 3

 

[megashawn]

First off, I don't disagree with Iacchuss. He's put much more time and thought into this one.

I have always understood that Jesus's death and reserection, and therefore are ability to repent and be saved, nullified the Old Testament Laws.

So essentially, the OT law still stands, and breaking that law is sinful, such as being Homosexual. But through Jesus one is able to repent his sins and stop his sinful behavior and be welcomed into heaven.

Whats this mean? Well, people such as, oh say Charles Manson may repent there sins and be kicking it in heaven with all the other saved people.

Basically, as I understand most christians to believe it, Jesus has made it possible for one to live his life as he/she chooses, so long as Jesus forgives them.

OT was about living by a certain code and adhering to it. NT is about being human, making mistakes, and having a chance to make up for it.

So, in a way I do agree with Iacchus, although I'm sure we differ in some areas.

 

[TENYEARS]

No being can nullify the law, that is why the jews when nuts when Jesus spoke of forgiving sins. What Jesus meant you can only understand if you witness god. You are free from yourself, but not the law of causation(physics). The payment plan would most likely change from that point forward. No more credit unless absolutely needed.

 

[Dark Wing]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

I'm really no expert in the field although I do have
good knowledge of the bible. I would like to ask how,
if at all, Chritianity deals with the many contradictions
between the Bible and the teachings of Jesus in the new
testament ?

After all, Jesus' teachings resemble much those of
Mahatma Ghandi, for example. While the bible speaks
of "eye for an eye", killing of that who comes to kill you,
killing enemies of the Lord and so on. So, any experts in the
field here who can ellaborate on this ?

Jesus also says "you think i come in peace, i come with a sword to turn mother aginst daughter and father against son". tell me, where is the peace there?

I think the turn the other cheek philosophy was simply a way to show the jews how to live in a society where they were under the roman thumb. a lot of the things said were simply "how to live" kind of problems. The violence, and the end of the world/ kingdom set up that Jesus talkes about is more of when they should expect from God. So, while the old testement talks of what God will do to you, and how God will rule over you, Jesus talkes about how to live with each other under oppression until he comes back to kill us all.

I will think more on this and get back on this.

 

[CubeX]

-It's all based on the historical context of the Old Testament. Actually, the basis for this is layed out in Genesis! If you read through it, there is a group of kings that rebel against the Lord. Well, the lord gives them 400 years to repent of their ways and return to Him! This is the time that the Isrealites were in Egypt. Now, then they came out of captivity and finally to the promised land. They took back the land promised to them by God (I believe through Abraham). Now, if a nation would surrender and ask for mercy by God, then they were saved. If not, then they would be destroyed. God didn't teach an eye for an eye here, He taught that He is compationate enough to give us time to come back to Him.

-CubeX