Questions about the Bible , I ask as I read

[Zkribbler]

Re: Re: Questions about the Bible , I ask as I read

Originally posted by VJ

...the Old Testament [is] s a collection of Jewish books and different Christian factions can't even agree which one should be included and which one excluded among the collection.

That dispute hasn't happened since circa 400 A.D. when the Emperor Constatine brought together all the bishops of Christendom to agree on the first and only generally accepted Bible.

Earlier there was a bishop who put together his own Bible. He believed that the God in the Old Testiment was not as loving as the God described in the New Testiment, and so he concluded the two gods must be different deities. He left out of his Bible all of the Old Testiment and much of what is now the New Testiment. However, that "Bible" was never official.

I haven't read the "God of the Old Testiment has Issues" thread, but I imagine it has a point. The God who destroyed Sodom and Gamorrah, who tortured Job, who flooded the entire world, etc., etc., etc. certainly seems much more harsh that the God who sacrificed his only Son for the benefit of all mankind.

However, those who say that the Old Testiment is not part of Christianity forget two things. First, Christianity began as a cult within the Jewish faith; it wasn't until St. Paul, circa 100 A.D., that Christianity spread beyond Jews to the Gentiles. Second, Jesus said he'd not come "to change one jot or tittle of the [Jewish] law."

*****

I doubt if this answers aneeshm's question....but then again, I doubt if mankind knows the answer to aneeshm's question.

[Japher]

Christianity is crock... sort of

The bible is a good guideline. I don't think that one should take it so literaly.

The story of Moses in Egypt is not to be one of gods vengence but of one of gods power. If you read from the stand point of the jews then you gotta love god through this passage, that he would defend you and is there for you even when you think he has forsaken you. It is not to be interpreted that Egyptians are evil so god killed them. I doubt this is the truth.

[Arrian]

You need to get to the New Testament. After all, that's the bit where Christianity shows up.

Unless you're dealing with some fundy who thinks the Bible is the literal truth. Then the OT is great fun.

-Arrian

[Japher]

where's Ben when you need him?

[Sava]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
The Old Testament is a history of what made God decide to sacrifice His son.

What you're mostly going to get from this place, that's full of Atheists, is just trash and ridicule. I no longer have time for it.

your face

[RGBVideo]

history of the bible

Originally posted by Zkribbler

...the Old Testament [is] s a collection of Jewish books and different Christian factions can't even agree which one should be included and which one excluded among the collection.

That dispute hasn't happened since circa 400 A.D.

I don't think there's an active quarrel about this, but having read a Catholic bible (in French) printed in the 50s, I can tell you right now that it had more content in the Old Testament than my Protestant bible (Finnish) printed in the 80s has.

[Kontiki]

Re: Questions about the Bible , I ask as I read

Originally posted by aneeshm
This seems incompatible with the Christian ideal of a loving and kind god . Could a Christian please clarify ( this is a request I will be making a number of times in this thread ) ?

In all seriousness, you're going to be asking this question alot as you read through the OT. It might be better to seek a blanket explanation from someone who can give you a satisfactory answer.

[Hot Mustard]

Re: Re: Questions about the Bible , I ask as I read

Originally posted by Kontiki
In all seriousness, you're going to be asking this question alot as you read through the OT.

This statement makes sense whether you read OT as Old Testament or Off Topic - nice!

[Ben Kenobi]

Dealing with this thread through more fruitful channels.

[Lorizael]

Ben Kenobi's on the job, folks.

[Ben Kenobi]

That dispute hasn't happened since circa 400 A.D. when the Emperor Constatine brought together all the bishops of Christendom to agree on the first and only generally accepted Bible.

Actually the story is rather different. For the most part the books had been generally upon agreement, what happened after the Council of Constantinople is that Jerome published his Vulgate, or the Latin translation of the Septuagint, and the first to include the New Testament books together. Jerome's translation became the canon of the Church up to that point, relying upon the earlier testimonies of the church father regarding which books should be included.

St. Jerome, a rising light in the Church, though but a simple priest, was summoned by Pope Damasus from the East, where he was pursuing sacred lore, to assist at an eclectic, but not ecumenical, synod at Rome in the year 382. Neither the general council at Constantinople of the preceding year nor that of Nice (365) had considered the question of the Canon. This Roman synod must have devoted itself specially to the matter. The result of its deliberations, presided over, no doubt, by the energetic Damasus himself, has been preserved in the document called "Decretum Gelasii de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris", a compilation partly of the sixth century, but containing much material dating from the two preceding ones. The Damasan catalogue presents the complete and perfect Canon which has been that of the Church Universal ever since

So we see that the canon was not established until 385 with Jerome, well after the death of the emperor Constantine.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

Earlier there was a bishop who put together his own Bible. He believed that the God in the Old Testiment was not as loving as the God described in the New Testiment, and so he concluded the two gods must be different deities. He left out of his Bible all of the Old Testiment and much of what is now the New Testiment. However, that "Bible" was never official.

Which bishop was this Zkribbler? When did this occur?

I haven't read the "God of the Old Testiment has Issues" thread, but I imagine it has a point. The God who destroyed Sodom and Gamorrah, who tortured Job, who flooded the entire world, etc., etc., etc. certainly seems much more harsh that the God who sacrificed his only Son for the benefit of all mankind.

Yet God demanded the perfect sacrifice of his one and only Son in order to redeem mankind for their sins. Justice is just as much a part of God as mercy, you cannot have mercy without justice, nor justice mercy.

However, those who say that the Old Testiment is not part of Christianity forget two things. First, Christianity began as a cult within the Jewish faith; it wasn't until St. Paul, circa 100 A.D., that Christianity spread beyond Jews to the Gentiles.

Rather hard when St. Paul was himself martyred in 67.

Second, Jesus said he'd not come "to change one jot or tittle of the [Jewish] law."

Not the least stroke of the pen. Yet Christ himself came to fulfill the law, not abolish it.

[Alex Woehr]

A blanket explanation from a fundamentalist perspective:

@aneeshm:

Before you can properly interpret this passage (from a fundamentalist viewpoint), you have to keep in mind three things:

a) Pharoah (like all humanity) has sinned against God, and, therefore deserves punishment.
b) God has extended a certain amount of mercy to everyone, in that he does not punish anyone right away (i.e. we do not necessarily die the second we commit our first sin).
c) God has already promised Abraham that he will be the progenitor of a great nation.

Therefore, according to conservative theology, God is quite just in hardening Pharoah’s heart, since he is a sinner. At the same time, He is setting things up for the ten plagues, which will culminate in the plague that will kill Pharoah’s son, which will in turn initiate the Passover ritual and the eventual release of the Hebrews from bondage.

You may then ask, why would God set it up this way? I don’t believe that I, or anyone else for that matter, is qualified to answer that question. You are approaching the concept of God from a fundamentally different perspective than most Christians; Christians approach the Bible knowing (by faith) that God is good, and we interpret accordingly. You are approaching the Bible looking for proof that God is good based on your own definition of "good." I’m sorry, but God does not have to act according to deontological or humanistic ethics.

Furthermore, there is the issue of spiritual health vs. physical health. God is more concerned, in general, about spirituality than physical well-being. Hence, God will put his own people through sometimes horrendous suffering if it will improve them spiritually (i.e. Job’s case, for example).

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't think there's an active quarrel about this, but having read a Catholic bible (in French) printed in the 50s, I can tell you right now that it had more content in the Old Testament than my Protestant bible (Finnish) printed in the 80s has.

The dispute arose with Martin Luther over the Old Testament

Protestants and Catholics will have these books unbolded. Bolded are those left off by Luther.

HISTORY:

The five books of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy),

Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings (1,2 Samuel, 1,2 Kings), 1,2 Chronicles

1,2 Ezra (Ezra-Nehemias)

1,2 Maccabees

Tobias, Judith

WISDOM

Esther(1-10:3)(10:3-16), Job

Psalms, Proverbs,

Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs

Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus

PROPHETS:

Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekial, Daniel(1-12) (Daniel 13,14)

Baruch

And then you have the 12 minors.

[DaShi]

Re: Questions about the Bible , I ask as I read

Originally posted by aneeshm
Here is a thread dedicated to my questions about the Bible and its God . I have started reading the Bible in its dead-tree form in the past few days , and I want to ask questions to Christians regarding the interpretation they give to certain passages which , to me , seem a bit strange or otherwise inappropriate .

I'll begin with a query I have around the part I am now reading . In Exodus 6.3 to 6.5 , God appears to be telling Moses that he will deliberately harden the heart of the Pharoah so that Egypt will suffer plagues in order that Egypt may know that the LORD is the LORD . This seems incompatible with the Christian ideal of a loving and kind god . Could a Christian please clarify ( this is a request I will be making a number of times in this thread ) ?

Shock and awe!

[Vesayen]

G-D did not hardened Pharoah heart till the 6'th plague. He had plenty of time and decades to change his ways. At that point G-D used Pharoah for his own purposes, which seems fine considering that it would of been morally justified at that point to just kill him. There, you have a sound theological explination which answers your question and does not make G-D look like a blood thirsty sociopath. Trolls be gone.