I'd like to defend the Old Testament

[More Than A Feeling]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x25931#25939

In the thread above, there are comments that the Old Testament is no longer valid for Christians, that people shouldn't "have their noses stuck in the Old Testament."

I think the Old Testament is a part of the Bible for a very important reason. Who Jesus was for Christianity (in general, not personal interpretations) cannot be understood without the Old Testament, IMHO. For example, what is a messiah, and why were the Jews looking for one? What did they think one would be like, and how was Jesus different from their expectations? Why did God have to send anyone, if he was speaking to the Jews face to face on mountains long before? How did the teachings of the prophets foreshadow those of Jesus, and so on.

For this reason, when the writers of the Gospels went to chronicle the exploits of Jesus, they quoted the Old Testament to prove that Jesus was, in fact, the one who was expected.

There are indeed, a great many horrifying things in the Old Testament, and I agree that the teachings of Christ are the most important thing for Christians, but that is very far away from discarding the Old Testament wholesale. Besides, I expect that the majority of the people to whom the Old Testament really belongs to don't take the bloodshed and horror as serious models to be followed. I haven't seen any posts asking why Jews still use the Old Testament, for that very reason, most likely. Christians should do likewise.

My point is, the horrors of the Old Testament should not be understood as commands to be followed, but at the same time, the Old Testament should not be completely thrown on the trash heap.

[rockymountaindem]

1. There are some horrifying things in there, but there are also good ones.

For example, from this week's Torah portion in Deuteronomy said that since there will always be poor people in the land, we should not harden our hearts to them, but instead share freely. If we do so, we will be God will bless us for our generosity.

People say that "God helps those who help themselves". This is not true. God helps those who help others :)

[trotsky]

4. I don't like that kind of thinking.

"there will always be poor people in the land"

Why? That, to me, smacks of defeatism. We could easily eliminate poverty if resources were more fairly distributed. But no, plenty of people will write off that kind of thinking and point to the bible and say, "See? There will ALWAYS be poor people, there's nothing we can do!"

[renter]

6. Hi trotsky

This is not meant to be a "flame-fest" or a one oneupmanship sometimes demonstrated on D.U. I'm going to respectfully disagree with your sentence:"We could easily eliminate poverty if resources were more fairly distributed."
Let me kindly give two examples:1. As stated in an earlier post I was a renter, now I am a owner of a duplex. In the apartment next to mine (I have the smaller one) is a single woman with three children, two different fathers. Three irresponsible "adults." The males are not men, they do not see their children or support them. The money she had saved went for tattoos, cigarettes, and cable t.v. She did not wish to take me up on an offer to go to the library for her so that she may read to her children. She has yet to take me up on an offer to go to the farmer's market where they accept food stamps for local, organic produce. She is a nice person and, I suspect, a hard, decent worker. She means well, but no amount of money she receives will enable her to break out of her poor mindset and habits.
Example #2: Our church among many others contribute to a community food bank. Church members will deliver to those who cannot get to us.
We do not receive, or ask for, tax dollars. We are entirely faith supported. We delivered food to a home that had cigarettes, beer, a partially-hidden and empty whiskey bottle and a BRAND NEW large screen t.v. The children were not loved. The parents were not kind, much less clean. They said they were "owed" free food. When asked if they had any luck finding a job the awnser was "no." "No one will give me a job I want." No offer was made to unload the free bags of food from the car. No effort was made to clear a path from the driveway to the door; to the door to the table. Nor a thank you for the effort. They were healthy only physically. No amount of resource distribution would help these people. Some things are a personal responsibility.
Again, I wish to make clear that this is not intended to be a "I know more than you" post. Just observations on the facts of life that man does not, and cannot, live on bread alone.

[trotsky]

8. You know, there IS a solution other than just giving money.

"no amount of money she receives will enable her to break out of her poor mindset and habits"

Distributing resources more fairly includes resources such as education, infrastructure, etc. I should have been clearer.

Defeating poverty will take a lot of effort, but it CAN be done. What I'm saying is that accepting the defeatist attitude as exemplified in that bible verse is bad for humanity in general.

(By the way, your church does indirectly get tax dollar support by requiring everyone else to pay more property taxes, etc. to make up for your church not having to pay any.)

[cssmall]

2. I agree with you.

I'm just talking about the points of faith that need to be discussed in the case against war. However, I view, personally, the Old Testament as a history of what the faith led into the New Testament.

[shrike]

3. I've always regarded the Old Testament as a story of mankind

Man at his best, and his worst.

[PatsFan2004]

5. The death of Jesus Christ does not make sense without the Old

Testament. We see the foreshadowing of the ultimate sacrifice in all of the Old Testament. Eliminating the OT would make the NT nonsensical in many respects.

It is important to note that much of what Paul the Apostle wrote about included commentary on the Old Testament and how Christ's sacrifice fit into the overall picture. The whole Book Of Hebrews emphasizes this.

Many pronouncements from Paul and the other apostles reaffirmed commands given in the Old Testament. For example, God commanded the Israelites to not intermarry with the heathen. In the New Testament, Paul pronounces against marrying unbelievers, also. In the OT, the Jews were commanded to tithe and make offerings. In the NT, we are encouraged to give sacrificially. In the OT, adultery and non-natural sexuality were prohibited. In the NT, they are still prohibited.

Some Christians teach that the OT is written for us and the NT is written to us. However, I look at the Bible as a unified book with one theme: that salvation comes through the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ the Lord.

And note that before the whole of the New Testament was written, Paul wrote the following to Timothy.

2 Tim 3:15-17 and you remember that ever since you were a child, you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching the truth, rebuking error, correcting faults, and giving instruction for right living, so that the person who serves God may be fully qualified and equipped to do every kind of good deed.

The Holy Scriptures referred to above was the Jewish Scriptures.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

7. A lot of people who criticize the Old Testament don't actually know

anything about it.

Sure, the narrative parts are full of bloodthirsty stories and "the wrath of God," and these are the stories we hear in Sunday School. However, if you go into the prophets and the Psalms, you see why Jews have such a long tradition of social activism.

The prophets are full of passages condemning exploiters of the poor, religious hypocrites, and mindless accumulation of riches. Even the historical books speak of prophets who confronted kings and kings who were punished for their evil deeds.

[moobu2]

9. Just one question though.

If you don’t believe in all of the Bible, then why would you believe any of it? Why pick and choose?

[trotsky]

10. Good question.

And what criteria does one use to decide which parts to pick and choose? That puts one in the precarious spot of needing to look outside the bible for moral guidance to determine which parts of the bible are good and which are not. In which case, how can the bible be suggested as a moral guide?

[grumpy old fart]

11. Given the varying and contradictory "lessons" in the Bible, it's a poor

guide indeed. Other than following the words attributed to Jesus, there is little to recommend the rest for moral instruction. IMHO

[PatsFan2004]

12. If we follow only the words of Jesus, we have to deal

with His many quotes from the Old Testament. For example, in His ordeal in the wilderness fasting alone for 40 days, He quoted "The Scriptures says man should not live on bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" (Matt 4:4, Deut 8:3). That is a strong argument that limiting ourselves to the words of Jesus really does not limit anything at all. Jesus constantly referred to the Jewish scriptures throughout His journeys.

[grumpy old fart]

13. Of course he did, but the one's he picks out are arguably the only........

ones to which we should pay attention. Don't get me wrong, I personally believe the OT is just a collection of Jewish folk tales and history and the NT contain no actual writings by Jesus or any of his 12 disciples.

So what really "matters" is anyones guess. But if ya want to make an argument as to the usefulness of Jesus' sayings, I'll stick with what I said.

[Darranar]

14. You can use "choose life."

It comes straight from Deuteronomy, and is presented as a result - but also, I think, a summary - of following the Law.

Christians can use Jesus's statement that "love your God" and "love your neighbor" are the most important commands, or Paul's statement about love.

Jews can use the statement of Rabbi Hillel that the whole Law is summarized as "do not do to others what you would not want done to you."

Understanding context and metaphor helps a lot, too.

[onager]

15. So who's first to follow this "loving" advice from Jesus?

Matthew 5:29--And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Matthew 5:30--And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not thy whole body should be cast into hell.

[Darranar]

24. "Understanding metaphor and context helps, too"...

Jesus was not advocating self-mutilation - he was emphasizing the importance of distancing oneself from sin.

[Zhade]

26. So why do some not understand metaphor with regards to, say, resurrection?

Or a "virgin birth"?

See, to me, those are obviously metaphor, since no one - ever, anywhere, at any time - has been able to prove that the resurrection and virgin birth actually happened.

Why is it that many, indeed I'd say most, Christians don't think the world was literally created in six days, but do believe in a literal resurrection of the flesh?

[Darranar]

27. Ask them. Sorry, I can't answer that one. n/t

[arwalden]

28. Uh... Okay. So Now Jesus DOES Use Metaphors?

In another thread in this forum, some folks here were arguing the exact opposite and trying to convince us that Jesus did NOT speak to us using metaphors or symbolism.

Here's how one of those persons tried to explain communion and transubstantiation to me:

<< Jesus said "This is my body" not "Pretend this is my body." >>

[catbert836]

16. The Old Testament

was a chronicle of the Hebrew people's triumphs and hardships, over 4,000 years. The reason God seems jealoys and angry is because, as a people living in the desert, they saw their god as a deification of their natural habitat and attitudes. You get the same anywhere else you go. For example, the Native Americans had plenty of food and beauty on their land and a philosophy of live and let live, which is why they worshipped the wise and just Great Spirit, which inhabits all things. The Norse were clans fighting each other in a tundra, so they saw their gods as angry warriors.

[PatsFan2004]

17. IIRC, most of the Jewish sojourn was in Israel, the land of milk and

honey. They became the most powerful and rich nation in the region until the Romans came with some ups and downs along the way.

[moobu2]

18. True during the later parts of the Old Testament

But the Israelites God concept developed well before they were in “the land of milk and honey”. The Israelites God was developed during extreme living conditions, upheaval, constant threat of war and inhalation (literaly and culturaly) and hardships and so on.

[Tafiti]

19. What do you mean?

Were they high, both literally and culturally?

OK, sorry, I'm being a smartass.

For the record, it's "annihilation".

[Darranar]

25. Judea was never the most powerful nation in the region...

Egypt and Assyria, then Egypt and Babylonia, were more powerful, until the Babylonians destroyed Judea and exiled its population. Though some Jews returned when the Persian emperor Cyrus allowed them to, the post-Babylonian state was never a major power, in fact being something of a vassal state of the Persians - until the Greeks conquered it. The Maccabean revolt brought a temporary period of independent rule by the Hasmonean kings, eventually ending with the Roman conquest of the territory.

[DerekG]

20. Hell, if I defended the Star Wars prequels, I'll come to the aid of the OT

The secular humanist may harbor the desire to salvage the synoptic gospels and chuck the rest (proceeding then, of course, to expunge the "supernatural" elements, a la Jefferson), but then our delightful "opiate of the masses" comrades would be missing the moral evolution of Judaism: beginning, most odiously, with the tribal, warrior god of Genesis, yet taking a turn--after the Babylonian conquest--with the prophetic books, wherein Yahweh becomes the protector of "the widows and orphans," and the enemy of tyrants. In books such as Amos and Micah, we are not told to accept *what is*, but rather, *what ought to be*. Hence, we have the foundations for social justice.

You'd be missing one hell of a story, not to mention the sublime poetry of Job, the inspiring confessionals of Pslams, and the erotic musings of Song of Songs.

Oh well, let's listen to these guys, anyway. It's not like the Bible is some cornerstone for three world religions (which amounts to about 2.5 billion adherents). Got a match?

[trotsky]

21. Such valuable lessons of life can be found in numerous works.

Many precede the bible by centuries. Once again, though, I see the argumentum ad populum becomes the weapon of choice. If you can't beat 'em, wow 'em with numbers! 2.5 billion people can't be wrong, eh?

[DerekG]

22. Of course, but they're also found in the King James Bible

Does it disturb you that some of our greatest firebrands looked to the Bible as a moral repository?

Levi/Catharine Coffin
David Walker
Rev. Elijah Lovejoy
William Lloyd Garrison
Frederick Douglass
Harriet Tubman
John Brown
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Dorothy Day
A.J. Muste
Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
Pope John XXIII
Sen. George McGovern
Archbishop Oscar Romero
Archbishop Desmund Tutu

[trotsky]

23. Nope.

No more than it bothers you that many more of our "greatest" firebrands looked elsewhere.