Discussions
Is the New Testament Valid?
Posted by voodooKobra • 11/23/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: religion
I mean, it's not exactly NEW. 2000 years is a long time.
User Comments
-
was it ever? -
Nope. -
Title fixed. I was modeling it after this:
www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/is-the-old-testament-still-valid-
I figured as much. Couldn't imagine you thinking that it was valid at some point
-
-
Aristotle is pretty old and I find some good ideas in there.
PS. Most of the NT isn't 2000 years old.... -
I like the old one better there's more begatting in the old one, why do they always have to bring out a new improved version it's like the whole new coke/classic coke debacle. -
-
I'm getting along without it pretty well.
I reckon first hand experience is the way to go as far as one's "spiritual orientation" is concerned. It's a personal thing - but even then, the personal experience of one can't be verified or proven or dogmatised for someone else to live by, eh VK? ;-) -
Define "valid" -
Definition
Valid: well grounded in logic or truth or having legal force; legitimate; legally acceptable; not expired; logical; well-founded.
Scriptures from all faiths provide guidelines, inspiration and contain wisdom. At the personal level spirituality is about experience and practice. What we experience becomes valid. Granted that individuals and groups have different explanations for what they experience but, there are teachings and tenets for practices that can be recognized as universal, regardless of which spiritual path one may follow:
dana = authentic generosity (charitable giving of the self and sharing of possessions, donation)
metta = selfless love and good will toward all beings (loving kindness)
karuna = compassion (respect, acceptance, forgiveness)
mudita = altruistic joy filled with peace and contentment (appreciative joy at the success and good fortune of others)
sila = self discipline -abstaining from physical and vocal actions that cause harm to oneself and others
uppekka = equanimity (an inclusive state of open mind free of attachment, aversion, bigotry, craving, ignorance and intolerance)
These universals are the essence of teachings of both Buddha and of Jesus. They are also found in other traditions as well. -
Didn't we just have this conversation?
I'm like all confused now.-
I'm confused too. I thought voodookobra posted this thread first and then nomadic posted her thread.
-
Remember when there was that "I'm a douchebag; ask me a question" discussion board meme? I was trying to start one.
-
-
No, the other one was if the Old Testament was valid. -
Good point.
For a book that old, the name really isn't accurate.
Perhaps the Not As Old Testament?-
I propose a "New New Testament." It can go like this:
The Book of Nameless
1. Everything preceding this passage is all bunk. Seriously.
2. Murder is not justifiable. -
I second that motion.
-
@VK...but now you are going to have to define "murder" because a lot of zealots will co-opt the word and give it their own meaning (PETA, Anti-Choice groups, etc.) -
2. Murdering any being with a developed nervous system is not justifiable. - Fixed
-
I propose that we restrict that to genetically bipedal primates in the family Hominidae. -
Fair enough.
-
-
what is murder?
does any killing categorize as murder?-
Murder is the act of violently ending a life without permission.
-
limited to human life ???
note: i kill every tiny red ants without permission in my desk, am i considered as a murderer ?? -
Did I say human life in that definition, minori?
Anyway, animals that lack sentience don't count. -
I don't think it has to be violent. And an argument can be made that it is still murder even with permission. -
[And an argument can be made that it is still murder even with permission.]
No, that's a mercy kill. -
I don't understand.
-
If a person is dying a slow and painful death, and wants a faster, less-painful death, would you give this person what they want or let them suffer?
-
I don't see how a merciful motivation necessarily obviates moral responsibility. One could easily be mistaken about that sort of thing. And perhaps life is not for a human being to take from another.
-
[And perhaps life is not for one human being to take from another.]
Pacifist much? Personally, I think the world's overpopulated and we should knock everyone off with an IQ below 106. -
At least until we're in the threatened box:
-
-
a historical document yes, anything else no-
I would disagree here on two points. First, there is really nothing in the scripture that can be taken as a "historical document" along the lines of Josephus or Plutarch. Second, I feel that to teach virtue and morality it is still quite valid.
-
[ Second, I feel that to teach virtue and morality it is still quite valid.]
Oh, of course. Without a doubt.
Instructions for selling your daughter as a sex slave:
And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. - Exodus 21:7-8 -
Which virtues? What morality? The bible is the basis for several sets of moralities stemming from Catholicism, which does not condone birth control, all the way to the Jesus movement who biblically proclaim free love. Not to mention that Rastafarianism is also entirely biblical. There simply isn't cohesion as to which set of morals one should follow. There is no one biblical morality.
-
@flamingpoodle
I think what you demonstrate there is that everyone takes something different from the Bible.
The same is true of the Holy Koran, which has led to dozens of different interpretations ranging from Sunni to Shi'ite to mystic Sufi. Or compare the two major schools of Buddhism; Theravada (the way of the elders) couldn't be more different from the less superstitious Mahayana (the great vehicle). Or the Vedas which have given rise to numerous different Hindu philosophies.
There isn't a single interpretation for any Holy Text, rather each person who approaches them in sincere faith develops their own and it is authoritative to them. -
Diabolicomix-san, does this mean that everyone gets their morality from the bible, or that the bible gets its moralities from everyone?
-
-
Hi Kob
There's some stuff in there that I like. What worries me is the twisted fanatical cults which have used Revelations as a foundation for brainwashing . I've always liked the sermon on the mount, and Jesus walking n water, now that is cool. Some of Jesus's words are about being kind to each other inspiring. I think if someone can take the good bits and put them into practical usage then it's valuable, if it separates people into us and them, then have grave concerns about it.
I had a dream once, and maybe dreams are just that 'dreams', but in that dream i saw Jesus and he was sitting on a rock with the apostles, he was rather rough and dirty looking, he had a dirty old grey robe on, falling apart sandals and nothing else. What struck me most in the dream was the simplicity of it all but it was a pretty beautiful experience. And as I said, maybe dreams are just dreams but it's one I felt was worth remembering
T-
[I think if someone can take the good bits and put them into practical usage then it's valuable, if it separates people into us and them, then have grave concerns about it.]
Well, I can't really object to that. It's too rational for me to lambaste. -
Since when did that stop you from lambasting things?
-
AG: Good point in the obsession with Revelations. As a fundie, I was STEEPED in end-times theology. It is almost worst of the worst, as far as the bible goes. People use it as justification to let the world fall apart because they can't fix human mistakes/sin or stop wars ... they actually use it to justify unrest in the middle east... and that the only person who can fix it is JC. It is one of the most dangerous aspects of the new testament that is taken literally by the fundies. And I'm constantly dumbfounded how modern day christians still hold onto it with a death grip.
-
-
If the new is valid, the old will be not. -
new testament no longer valid since the invention of quran. or so what i heard (from moslems).
eheheh..... -
Sequels are never as good as the original. -
The Bible is not actually divided into "old" vs. "new" as I said earlier. In fact, Matthew is a Jewish writing and John the Baptist was the last "old testament" prophet foretelling the coming of my Lord and God, Jesus Christ!
Having said these things, I just posted an article briefly explaining the relevancy of the Old Testament to the New Testament. As far as this particular discussion question is concerned; God declares how important the "new" is to the "old" too:
"God, who at many times and in many ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, by whom also He made the worlds, who being the shining splendor of His glory, and the express image of His essence, and upholding all things by the word of His power, through Himself cleansing of our sins, He sat down on the right of the Majesty on high, being made so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they." Hebrews 1:1-4-
[The Bible is not actually divided into "old" vs. "new" as I said earlier. In fact, Matthew is a Jewish writing and John the Baptist was the last "old testament" prophet foretelling the coming of my Lord and God, Jesus Christ!]
Why the exclamation point? -
Actually, they are two separate books entirely. The Old Testament is based on the Hebrew bible, or Tanakh. The New Testament corresponds to the Greek New Covenant.
Furthermore, there are many apocrypha which are considered heretical by some, yet as part of the bible by others. There is no one bible. Even some Christians don't believe that the bible is one work. Among them, Martin Luther:
"We believe, teach, and confess that the distinction between the Law and the Gospel is to be maintained in the Church with great diligence. "
The law being the Old Testament and the gospel being the new. -
All of the books that comprise the volume called the Bible are all free standing books (volumes) in their own right. What's being forgotten here is that in order to be a member of the early Christian cult refererred to as "the way" which existed for 200 years the believers chose to re-interpret Judiac scripture (Old testament books) in their own unique way. It must be recognized that the interpretation is a departure from the way in whcih Jews both then and now interpret their scripture.
Aside from that different cults have different translations and even unique versions that are specially created for them like LDS and the JW's.
Septuagint
The Septuagint a source of the Old Testament for early Christians during the first few centuries AD. Many early Christians spoke and read Greek, thus they relied on the Septuagint translation for most of their understanding of the Old Testament.
The New Testament writers also relied heavily on the Septuagint, as a majority of Old Testament quotes cited in the New Testament are quoted directly from the Septuagint (others are quoted from the Hebrew texts). Greek church fathers are also known to have quoted from the Septuagint. Even today, the Eastern Orthodox Church relies on the Septuagint for its Old Testament teachings. Some modern Bible translations also use the Septuagint along side Hebrew manuscripts as their source text.
Septuagint - What Does It Contain?
The Septuagint contains the standard 39 books of the Old Testament canon, as well as certain apocryphal books. The term "Apocrypha" was coined by the fifth-century biblical scholar, Jerome, and generally refers to the set of ancient Jewish writings written during the period between the last book in the Jewish scriptures, Malachi, and the arrival of Jesus Christ. The apocryphal books include Judith, Tobit, Baruch, Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus), the Wisdom of Solomon, First and Second Maccabees, the two Books of Esdras, additions to the Book of Esther, additions to the Book of Daniel, and the Prayer of Manasseh.
Apocryphal Books
The Apocryphal books were included in the Septuagint for historical and religious purposes, but are not recognized by Protestant Christians or Orthodox Jews as canonical (inspired by God). Most reformed teachers will point out that the New Testament writers never quoted from the Apocryphal books, and that the Apocrypha was never considered part of the canonical Jewish scripture. However, the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches include the Apocrypha in their Bible (except for the books of Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh).
The Vulgate
The Vulgate is an early Fifth Century version of the Bible in Latin became the definitive and officially promulgated Latin version of the Bible of the Roman Catholic Church. In the 13th century it came to be called versio vulgata, which means “the published translation”. There are 76 books in the Clementine edition of the Vulgate Bible: 46 in the Old Testament, 27 in the New Testament, and three in the Apocrypha. -
voodoo... you probably don't appreciate the nuances of a true believer's relationship with the bible (which is fine by me)... you can't have new without the old, and that there is crossover and that Everything in the bible points to JC's coming again, his godhood, his saveing grace, his love, his ability to save humans from hell.... and that only jesus can do that.... and Everything in the bible ultimately points to this.
-
@timethief
Great and informative post. I have only a minor disagreement, the New Testament writers (in my opinion) recognized certain Jewish apocryphal books such as Sirach
Compare: 51:26-27
Put your neck under the yoke, and let your soul receive instruction: she is hard at hand to find.
Ecclesiasticus Behold with your eyes, how that I have but little labour, and have gotten unto me much rest.
Matthew 11:28-20
"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."
Here Jesus Christ seems to be quoting Jesus Ben Sira directly. -
agree with timetheif's details. the making of the bible required a lot of infighting, politics and human editing. It's just a matter of those who believe that the final edit is god-inspired, versus people who see the final edition, and ALL edits, as Human inspired.
-
There are by far more details. Sadly, most Christians who proclaim their knowledge of scripture are exceeding ignorant on this subject.
The name for 14 books believed to written between about 200BC and AD100 is Apocrypha, meaning “hidden” or “secret”, and refers to the mysterious nature of their origin. Neither their authors nor the circumstances of their writings are known. Neither the Jews nor the early Christians accepted these books as inspired scripture and the books themselves do not contain any “Thus saith the Lord’s”.
Although the New Testament has 263 direct quotations from and 370 allusions to the Old Testament, there is not a single reference to the books of the Apocrypha in them. This is because the choices of the books to be included in The New Testament made by the early roman catholic church fathers excluded them. It was not until the Council of Trent, on April 8th, 1546, that the pope declared both "tradition" and the Apocrypha to be canonical and authoritative.
Christians today have been instructed to believe these books teach false doctrines and contain many inaccurate historical facts. That's despite the fact that the so-called historical facts contained in both the old and new testament books are not in fact, an accurate depiction of history. And it's despite the fact that the selection of which books to include and exclude in the bible was a decision made by the early roman catholic church fathers, which made on the basis of creating their own dogma and doctrine, aimed at negating Jewish interpretation of scripture and replacing it with an interpretation that supported their Jesus centered religion.
Apocrypha
(1) I Esdras (9 chapters) History of Israel from Josiah to the return from captivity.
(2) II Esdras (16 chapters) A book of seven prophetic visions supposedly written by Ezra (5:1-10; 7:26-32; 15:33-36).
(3) Tobit (14 chapters) A book wherein where Tobit’s son Tobias marries a widow who was married seven times yet was still remained a virgin by having all her husbands killed by the demon Asmodeas (3:7-10). In the book Tobias is depicted as dispelling Asmodeas through exorcism (6:1-7; 8:1-3).
(4) Judith (16 chapters) is a book wherein a Jewish widow disguises herself as a traitor to her ownpeople, gets an Assyrian general drunk and saves her people by chopping off his head and hanging it on the city wall.
(5) Additions to Esther (7 chapters) Visions, letters and prayers intended to bring the mention of God to the book of Esther (10:4).
(6) Wisdom of Solomon (19 chapters) A book of ethics commending wisdom.
(7) Ecclesiasticus (51 chapters) A book aimed at general morality and modeled after Proverbs.
(8) Baruch (6 chapters) A book of prayers and confessions of the Jews in exile.
(9) Song of the Three Holy Children (1 chapter) A book intended as an addition to Daniel 3.
(10) History of Susanna (1 chapter) A book which was added as the 13th chapter of Daniel, wherein Daniel frees a woman falsely accused of adultery.
(11) Bel and the Dragon (1 chapter) Another addition to Daniel telling a tale of Daniel destroying 2 Babylonian idols.
(12) The Prayer of Manasseh (1 chapter) A supposed book of prayer of 2Chronicles 33:18-19.
(13) I Maccabees (16 chapters) A history type book covering 40 years (175-135BC) from the accession of Antiochus Epiphanes to the death of Simon Maccabees.
(14) II Maccabees (15 chapters) Another history type book covering same period as I Maccabees (2:1-6; 3:23-27; 5:1-4).
Seven Lost Books
The Lost Books are books named in scripture but no longer in existence. Christians are instructed to believe that if they were meant to be scripture, then God would have preserved them.
(1) The Book of the Wars of the Lord (Numbers 21:14)
(2) The Book of Jasher (Joshua 10:13; 2Samuel 1:18)
(3) The Book of the Acts of Solomon (2Kings 11:41)
(4) The Book of Nathan the Prophet (1Chronicles 29:29)
(5) The Book of Gad the Seer (1Chronicles 29:29)
(6) The Prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite (2Chronicles 9:29)
(7) The Visions of Iddo the Seer (2Chronicles 9:29)
Pseudographia
The word Pseudographia means “false writings” and refers to all the books claiming to be scripture but never accepted as "inspired" by Jews or Christians.
(1) The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles
(2) The Epistle of Barnabas
(3) The Shepherd of Hermas
(4) The Apocalypse of Peter
(5) The Gospel of Nicodemus
(6) The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary
(7) The Gospel of the Savior’s Infancy
The bottom line here is that the early roman catholic church fathers chose which books would be included in the bible and which would be excluded from it. Their work was aimed at creating doctrine and dogma that was consistent with Jesus of Nazareth being the Son of God and Savior. There is no extant (complete) copy of the book of Mark in existence so the early roman catholic church fathers (complete) copy the created their own verses to create and ending consistent with their dogma and doctrine.
doctrine n. A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief , as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group.
dogma n. A religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof. In Catholicism, a dogmatic definition is an extraordinary infallible statement published by a pope or an ecumenical council concerning a matter of faith or morals, the belief in which the Catholic Church requires of all Christians (although Christians who are not Catholic do not recognize the Catholic Church's authority in such matters).
What Christians do to create a case for the existence of their own Jesus centered religion, is agree to negate the Jewish interpretation of their holy scriptures and their construct of God.
-
-
Emphatic hope in His soon appearing!!
-
no comment
-
-
"Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter."
www.answers.com/topic/yoda-
Indeed.
-
-
Wanted to thank you for visiting one of my sites...voodooKobra! I'm doing so here because you locked your shouts from me, but that's OK...I still love you! -
something about this comment doesn't sit well with me.
-
@freeatlast
Ahhh ... it appears that you also have a functioning passive aggressive manipulation detector. -
I enjoy VK's biting humor, inquisitive nature, and thirst for knowledge.
-
Of course you do. What's not to like? You crave attention and he gives you the credence of responding to comments that you post.
-
Don't you know? Blogging isn't about getting attention, it's about makin' that paper!
-
@VK...did you get my message above? The one about thanking you for visiting my site.
-
-
LOL
-
Whether or not it is valid is besides the point. It makes an excellent and entertaining historical document that can teach you a lot about human nature and why people do things.-
A glimpse into the darker side of human obsession?
-
Ya...that's right...why would so many people obsess on the New Testament? Hmmmmmm.
-
@wehireu
Actually neither the Old or New Testaments can be relied on as providing accurate historical accounts. Like any written language the myths contained are first transmitted orally. It's assumed that this is how the Flood story contained in the ancient Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh was reconstructed and presented in the Old Testament as the Noah and the Flood story.
The Epic of Gilgamesh is, perhaps, the oldest written story on Earth. It comes to us from Ancient Sumeria, and was originally written on 12 clay tablets in cunieform script. It is about the adventures of the historical King of Uruk (somewhere between 2750 and 2500 BCE).
www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/index.html
-
-
During the middle ages, the priests took out one of the most important books of the bible. The Book of Cheeseburger.
-
what is it about validation of the bible all the time? if you are a believer the answer doesn't matter. if you are a non believer, the question doesn't matter?
seriously, which i'm usually not, where is the discussion. i don't get it.
could some one enlighten me as to any other way to look at it?-
Heh. You're missing the point.
www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/is-the-old-testament-still-valid
When someone makes an inane topic, I like to make a (occasionally tongue-in-cheek) mockery of it as another thread... all in good fun. -
yeah, i really did miss the point, didn't i. i remember that thread.
i was having a bad humor moment. i get it, now! good job!
-
-
old testament is all crap, arranged by the vatican so that it can have power over kings of that time-
Do you mean new testament? The vatican didn't do the old one.
-
-
Let's just look at this from an archeological standpoint:
The foundations of the Jewish Temple Mount built by Herod the Great still stand in Jerusalem. The "Southern Steps" where Jesus and his followers entered the Temple are preserved in an active excavation site. The Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem is generally considered a credible site for the birth place of Jesus. The huge Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem is also considered a reliable historical site covering the locations of the crucifixion and burial of Christ. These sites were covered over (and thus, preserved) by the Romans in the second century AD.
On the Sea of Galilee, towns such as Nazareth are still active. Capernaum and Chorazin, two sites Jesus visited often, have been excavated and preserved. Sites of famous teachings such as Kursi (the swine miracle), Tabgha (loaves and fishes), Mount of Beatitudes (Sermon on the Mount) and Caesarea Philippi (Peter's confession) are all preserved as reliable historical sites.
On the Sea of Galilee, towns such as Nazareth are still active. Capernaum and Chorazin, two sites Jesus visited often, have been excavated and preserved. Sites of famous teachings such as Kursi (the swine miracle), Tabgha (loaves and fishes), Mount of Beatitudes (Sermon on the Mount) and Caesarea Philippi (Peter's confession) are all preserved as reliable historical sites...
That's just for starters!
source:
www.allaboutthejourney.org/new-testament-archaeology.htm-
"The Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem is generally considered a credible site for the birth place of Jesus. The huge Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem is also considered a reliable historical site covering the locations of the crucifixion and burial of Christ"
Generally considered by who? Now I have no axe to grind either way but what you posted there was utter bollocks. -
By millions of people. Did you want me to start giving names?
-
An archeologist who questions this site, first says this...
The town of Bethlehem in the West Bank, some six miles south of Jerusalem, is revered by millions as the birthplace of Jesus. According to the New Testament account of the apostle Matthew, Joseph and Mary were living in Bethlehem in the southern region of Judea at the time of Jesus' birth and later moved to Nazareth in the northern Galilee region. In the more popular account of the apostle Luke, Joseph and a very pregnant Mary traveled more than 90 miles from their residence in Nazareth to Joseph's Judean hometown of Bethlehem to be counted in a Roman census. Regardless of the variation, both apostles agree that Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, the city where King David had been born a thousand years earlier. The Christian Messiah could thereby be considered a descendant of the House of David--a requirement for followers of the Judeo-Christian tradition.
To read his theory of a "Bethlehem of Galilee" in an article titled "Where was Jesus Born?" go here:
www.archaeology.org/0511/abstracts/jesus.html -
Millions of fanatical fundamental Christians isn't archaeological evidence.
"But while Luke and Matthew describe Bethlehem in Judea as the birthplace of Jesus, "Menorah," the vast database of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA), describes Bethlehem as an "ancient site" with Iron Age material and the fourth-century Church of the Nativity and associated Byzantine and medieval buildings. But there is a complete absence of information for antiquities from the Herodian period--that is, from the time around the birth of Jesus."
Aviram Oshri is a senior archaeologist with the Israel Antiquities Authority
Edit: There was no Roman census that year. -
"Millions of fanatical fundamental Christians"
Wow! That's scary, isn't it?
One archeologist does not erase history. -
Yes it is.
-
-
The New Testament has some good ideas in it. I'm not a Christian, but I think that more people should look into the human kindness side of religion. I suppose it's as 'valid' as any other religious text. Well, except maybe scientology, that's full of irefutable proof *joke* -
I wonder what would have happened to the New Testament, if we had been allowed to see the dead sea scrolls? -
The holy bible was written in Palatine traditional in culture of literature. It was a mixed racial art of literature of The Hebrew Greeks in Craddle and later in Latin. 1990 I was asked by some Muslim scholars to buy and procure for them a copy of this book in original Hebrew in Craddle and in Greek.
The mode of writting is different than the way we present day expressed and attest truth and consiquences by real act. The Palatine Hebrew Craddle literature expressed it in so called term; "Legend" to them is an act of diplomacy Superiority in legal legitimate attestation of truth.
I believed on it with all my heart and soul.
It is best to read the bible. Try to learn to appreciate first The Cutures of "GOULS! ESTE CELTICS!"-
[It is best to read the bible.]
I'd rather read The Epic of Gilgamesh. Have you ever read it? Fascinating stuff!
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
