Question about the "New Covenant"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-05-2013, 05:51 AM (This post was last modified: 08-05-2013 06:00 AM by houseofcantor.)
RE: Question about the "New Covenant"
(07-05-2013 06:29 PM)JAH Wrote:  Gwynnite, I did not check out the book. I might ask if we are to worship a female figure should she not be more fulsome. A skinny woman should not be worthy of our praise and devotion.

There is no "we" in "god." You must find your own Gwynnies. Thumbsup

(08-05-2013 01:50 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  What Bucky said.

Allow me to expand on this a little.

The "New Covenant" idea was Paul's.

The problem I had this morning was that in order to address the question rationally, we need to know who the actors were, and we don't. I would say, "the old covenant of foreskin removal was supplanted by Paul's baptism in Spirit" (A much less painful marketing ploy to evangelize Judaism to the gentiles.)

But who was Paul? And was there a Paul? Seems to me that behind all the smoke that is Christianity, there's just more smoke...

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2013, 06:44 AM
RE: Question about the "New Covenant"
Thanks for a lot of thoughtful replies. It appears that I misunderstood the complexity of the issue as it simply isn't an interpretation of a NT verse or two. The context is that on another sports themed mb there was a thread on gay marriage and an evangelical proclaimed gay marriage to be despicable and contrary to the written word of the bible. I of course noted that gay marriage isn't noted at all and that the Leviticus verses only proclaim certain sexual acts as wrong. I pointed out some other insane verses in Lev. concluding that unless you follow the whole thing you can't cherry pick. He responded that the New Covenant wiped away the OT conveniently wiping out his homosexuality is bad argument. However I was intrigued by this notion of the new covenant.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2013, 08:49 AM
RE: Question about the "New Covenant"
(08-05-2013 01:50 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  What Bucky said.

Allow me to expand on this a little.

The "New Covenant" idea was Paul's.

Paul was a salesman with an ambitious agenda. He hoped to expand his interpretation of Judaism into the gentile world. I think he had a plan to undermine those dangerous Nazarene beliefs that roused rebellion against Roman rule.
He wrote to various groups scattered throughout the Empire, and desperately insisted they believe only his theology. He was so obsessed with snaring converts that little else in his life mattered. In Romans 15:16, he wrote that Gentiles were an offering he would bring to God.
“That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.”

Most of the people he wrote to were Gentiles (pagans) associated with Jewish synagogues, (“God-fearing Gentiles,”) although he wrote to some Jews too. From Paul’s perspective, his patrons were in desperate need of direction and an authoritative, charismatic leader to look up to. He considered himself just the man. He knew how to win the hearts, minds, and souls of people, as he imagined himself as one of the few god fearers (i.e. Jews) who understood Gentile cultures.

Paul’s theology probably had a long and carefully thought out gestation. He was a salesman who knew his customers. In order to appeal to gentiles, he needed a product very different to traditional Judaism, which required obedience to cumbersome dictates. The Jews believed one had to be circumcised, a painful and embarrassing procedure, not easy to sell to an adult man. They worshiped Yahweh, who is portrayed in Jewish scripture as a thunderous and violent pro-Jewish anti-gentile God. They could only eat kosher food, marry someone Jewish, and had to stop work on the Sabbath. Jewish heritage and history were regarded as superior, and all Jews were expected to take part in the fasts and feasts celebrating the ancient epic of Israel. The Jews thought they were one day going to be the masters of the world. Paul knew that gentiles found all this inconvenient, irksome and out of touch with reality, so he labeled these Jewish rules and beliefs as a type of “slavery.” He also knew Jewish traditions were an obstacle to the peace Rome imposed on the people of the empire. He had to jettison the old rules, so he did, by reinventing Judaism so that it was more to the gentile world’s liking.

According to Paul, there was now no need for circumcision or to stop work on the Sabbath. The dietary kosher rules were out; bacon sandwiches were on the breakfast menu. He downplayed the importance of the Jewish Temple, and replaced the political messiah of Israel with Christ, the savior of mankind. The “kingdom of God” became a place in heaven, not in Israel. He declared Yahweh was such a decent deity he’d sent his own precious son, the Christ, to earth. He alleged gentiles were descendants of Abraham too, and that the centuries-old Jewish Law was a “curse.” All that was now required was faith in his claims about Christ. Voilà! The Christ myth and Christian theology were born.

Paul was one of history’s first examples of an ambitious cult leader who, when the rules of the established religion were no longer convenient, simply invented new ones to suit himself. He replaced the so-called “old covenant” of the Jews with his entirely fabricated “new covenant.” He was trying to reinvent Judaism and I think doing his best to dampen down Jewish messianic dreams. He was bending over backwards to dilute Judaism with Gentiles and Gentile ideas. He had no idea he was creating an almost entirely new religion, yet that’s precisely what his writings helped do many years later.

To help realize this remodeling of belief, he undermined Yeshua’s family and disciples behind their backs. He was surprised and angry to find himself competing with them for people’s allegiance. They were treading on what he considered his turf. How dare they preach old-fashioned Jewish theology and disrupt his mission to set up communities of believers! Those annoying war mongering Jews were full of subversive fantasies about a messiah, but God had revealed to him the real Christ, the up-to-date modern Christ! He, not them, was plugging the “good news.” He knew what the newly flexible, expansionist, less violent, less Judaic God expected in these modern, pro-Roman times. He was an educated, savvy, Greek-speaking sophisticate who knew a stack more about selling religion to the subjects of the Empire than the anti-Roman bumpkins from the backwater of Galilee!

Yes, this precisely why.


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
08-05-2013, 09:32 AM
RE: Question about the "New Covenant"
On the ask a theist thread I asked for a specific verse that allowed me to eat pork or crawfish. I got a bunch of nonspecific mumbo jumbo. There are only nonspecific verses in the NT that allow, in their minds, christians to pick and chose what to believe in the OT.

There basically is no new convenant. There are vague verses that christians hang on to absolve themselves of some of the requirements of the OT. They do not seem to understand that these also absolve others from following the OT. As others point out they go back to the OT when it suits their purposes.

As I asked once on an other atheist forum show me a blood splattered alter. I might worship in that church. Or maybe not, I do love my bacon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2013, 10:18 AM
RE: Question about the "New Covenant"
Just a part of the never ending "christian shuffle" that lets them try to distant themselves from the batshit crazy stuff in the old testament......what i could never figure out it why god left his chosen people in the dark about all the new laws.....i think the christian shuffle say's they will eventually come to christ..not sure...oh well at any rate it seems well thought outThumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2013, 12:18 PM
RE: Question about the "New Covenant"
[quote\Not being a biblical scholar myself, can someone explain the basis (or shoot me a link to something that explains it critically) for essentially throwing out the OT? I did a quick google search and perhaps my search terms sucked but the top responses were all from apologist sites.
Is the NT clear on this or is there a bit of interpretation required?
How is this rationalized with a perfect being who appears to change their mind quite drastically?
Does it truly abandon the entire OT or just the inconvenient parts?
Are there any contradictions in the NT?[/quote]

Um, "throw out the old covenant"?

Matthew 5:

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Pretty clear, isn't it?

If you're Jewish, the Mosaic Law applies to your life. If you're a believing Gentile, you follow the Law of Love.

The HB says not to commit adultery but I am to treat my spouse far better.

The HB says not to murder but I am to love my neighbor as myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2013, 12:38 PM
RE: Question about the "New Covenant"
PleaseJesus, do you eat pork or crawfish. If so how do you reconcile those acts with the verse from matthew you quote.

I may be an atheist but I do know that many christians claim a new covenant on the basis of the NT.

I will keep returning to my quest to be a christian theist (not in my lifetime but in the beloved afterlife) if I can get a complete answer on why I can eat pork or crawfish.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2013, 12:43 PM
RE: Question about the "New Covenant"
(08-05-2013 12:18 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Matthew 5:

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Pretty clear, isn't it?

If you're Jewish, the Mosaic Law applies to your life. If you're a believing Gentile, you follow the Law of Love.

The HB says not to commit adultery but I am to treat my spouse far better.

The HB says not to murder but I am to love my neighbor as myself.

Saul of Tarsus, in creating his new cult, (called Christianity/Paulianity), said they were free from the Old Law, (when it was convenient), and not, when it wasn't. Women had to follow it, and shut up, and be subservient. Men were free of it.

Galatians 4: 26-29 "But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, you barren that beareth not; break forth and cry, you that travailest not: for the desolate has many more children than she which has an husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now"

"Nevertheless what says the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman" (verse 30).

According to this argument, then, those who would preach God's law as it appears in the Old Testament are actually to be cast out, chased out of fellowship, lest this law somehow taint the Christian congregation and bring bondage again.

"So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free" (verse 31).

Too bad SexuallyPleasingJebus knows nothing about the Bible.

Weeping

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
08-05-2013, 12:57 PM
RE: Question about the "New Covenant"
BuckyBall, WTF, how do you make any sense at all out of that gibberish. Maybe trying to make sense out of nonsense like that has as much do with me quitting religion as missing 49er games.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2013, 01:53 PM
RE: Question about the "New Covenant"
(08-05-2013 12:57 PM)JAH Wrote:  BuckyBall, WTF, how do you make any sense at all out of that gibberish. Maybe trying to make sense out of nonsense like that has as much do with me quitting religion as missing 49er games.

49er games are definitely more worthwhile.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: