Why Was A New Covenent Required?

[ad_orientem]

Since Jesus always referred to "our Father,"  I for one will stick to that.  Not that it is of any great matter.

Since the (overwhelmingly male) editors of the works that became the New Testament rendered a term that the patriarchic society that poetically translated the works chose to render as 'our Father' you can choose to think that Jesus said 'our Father', but not really anything more.

As ever, it's not a demonstrable fact or even reasonably solid deduction, it's an assertion.

In which case that applies to almost any piece of history.

[Jack Knave]

Go on then, I'm listening.

If you study the Old Covenant, you will find that it was made between God and the people of Israel for a particular purpose.  They were to serve as witnesses to God's love for the people of the 'world' (and that may have meant those people groups amongst whom the People of Israel lived at the time, or might have meant the wider people groups of the world, through indirect transmission - such as trade).  As we also know, the leaders of the people twisted this, deciding to tell the people that they had been chosen as a special nation, and to restrict the knowledge of this God to themselves. 

The Old Testament record suggests that God suspected that this would happen, but chose to allow the people of Israel to make their own choices. 

The result was that God's 'Plan B', as it were, had to be enacted which led to the good news of God's love for humanity being made available to all humanity through the 'New' Covenant. 

Again, the people of the New Covenant haven't always served the purpose particularly well, but have also had their covenant hijacked by the likes of Constantine and his family; other authorities and even some power-greedy churchmen - such as the Borgias.

Firstly, couldn't God have worked through all peoples, and not just the Jews. Is God limited? Did It not 'suspect' but actually knew what was going to happen?

If plan 'B' is so good why didn't It introduce it from day one? And what made 2000 years ago so right for the implementation of plan 'B'? (my point here is that the reason all this Christianity came about was because of what was going on in Israel politically and with the Roman occupation, and the Maccabean revolt some 150 years earlier - feelings were running high, and the desire for salvation from all this was at fever pitch)

I would add that it was around 1000 years from the start of the Jews (Exodus etc.) to JC, and yet it is now 2000 years from JC and that plan 'B' has passed its use by date.

[Jack Knave]

Why?

How did God fail to get it right the first time? I mean It is suppose to be the all knowing, super-duper all powerful God.

And going on from this incompetence what makes you think It got it right the last time, 2000 years ago, as they claim?

I would argue that it always was just meant to be a precursor to a newer and better covenant.

Go on then, I'm listening.

That it was always part of God's plan, so the speak, that the old covenant was only for a certain people for a certain time, that is until the Christ should come and inaugurate a new covenant. In otherwords, God intended the old covenant to only be a preparation for the new.

So God is so limited that It needs a run up to Its plan. It creates the universe etc. in 7 days but then needs 1000s of years to put right Its initial cockup with mankind?

[Outrider]

Since Jesus always referred to "our Father,"  I for one will stick to that.  Not that it is of any great matter.

Since the (overwhelmingly male) editors of the works that became the New Testament rendered a term that the patriarchic society that poetically translated the works chose to render as 'our Father' you can choose to think that Jesus said 'our Father', but not really anything more.

As ever, it's not a demonstrable fact or even reasonably solid deduction, it's an assertion.

In which case that applies to almost any piece of history.

To a degree, yes - that's  why historians depend on corroboration between sources to enhance the reliability of claims. There is virtually nothing that backs up the majority of the claims of either the Old or New Testaments.

O.

[Anchorman]

Hope.

The new covenant was never hijacked by Constantine. That's just rubbish.

Sorry, ad_o, but history tells us that Constantine and his family - and hence the Romans - adopted Christianity as a way of overcoming the problems that had begun to develop as an increasing number of higher-level citizens of Rome and the Empire took it on board.  As you will agrre, in th early days (the first couple of hundred years), the church was predominantly made up of the poor, the enslaved and the dienfranchised with a smattering of more educated people.  Remember too, that a couple of Constantine's familial successors sought to roll back the acceptance of Christianity, to the extent that itwasn't fully accepted by Rome for several decades after Constantine's death.

You've been reading too much Edward Gibbon. Constantine converted because he had a vision from Christ and both him and his mother, who found the True Cross, have received their reward. It was part of God's plan that the Empire that at first persecuted the Christians should itself eventually become Christian. For that we can thank Ss. Constantine, Helena and Theodosius.

-
I agree with Hope - and I haven't read Gibbon.
Constantine was a political animal - he wanted armies, and Christians were ripe for the legions.
After his supposed vision at Milvian Bridge, he kept his options open - actualy sponsoring building work to the "unconconquered sun" and Mithras, whilst cosying up to the Christians.
Not exactly faith in one God, was it?
The Empire would have become Christian in a few decades, with or without Constantine's help - numbers of believers were growing exponentially.
What Constantine DID do was impose an Imperial style beaurocracy, with it's endless red tape, rank, privilage and opportunity for corruption, on the church.
Constantine was a genious - a military strategist par excellence, a political animal to boot.
Religion wise, he kept his cards close to his chest - only 'converting' when he was about to snuff it.

We'll just have to agree to disagree, innit. But for my part I do believe the visions him a d his mother received were genuine and that they have both received their reward in heaven.

If those visions he recieved were genuine, why did he continue to build and endorse temples to both Mithras and the Unconquered sun?
If He was convinced that Chriist was who He claims to be, why did Constantine endorse constructions to gods he wasn't supposed to believe in anymore?

And don't even think of starting on Helena and her litter picking in Palestine with not a shred of archaeology to back up her 'relic fest'.

[ad_orientem]

But you're a Protestant. Nuff said! Why did it take Jonah so long to do as God said if what was said to him really came from God?

[Jack Knave]

Hope.

The new covenant was never hijacked by Constantine. That's just rubbish.

Sorry, ad_o, but history tells us that Constantine and his family - and hence the Romans - adopted Christianity as a way of overcoming the problems that had begun to develop as an increasing number of higher-level citizens of Rome and the Empire took it on board.  As you will agrre, in th early days (the first couple of hundred years), the church was predominantly made up of the poor, the enslaved and the dienfranchised with a smattering of more educated people.  Remember too, that a couple of Constantine's familial successors sought to roll back the acceptance of Christianity, to the extent that itwasn't fully accepted by Rome for several decades after Constantine's death.

This brings me to another issue of what is true Christianity? If it has been tainted by such usurping people, who must have coloured things as these events gradually get ingrained over many, many generation, and present Christians have no way of engaging vis-à-vis with the early lot then on what basis do Christians today think they have the real thing. Wouldn't Paul view them as heretic if he could see them today? 

[Anchorman]

But you're a Protestant. Nuff said! Why did it take Jonah so long to do as God said if what was said to him really came from God?

-
No.
I'm a Christian - I consider the word 'protestant' confined to history, and Northern Ireland.
I'm also a historian, ad_o; and we need to take into account the documented evidence as well as what the church claims is history.

[ad_orientem]

The proper word is Protestant. Let's call things by their proper name. You can't trust secular historians' opinions about matters of faith.

[Nearly Sane]

Things don't have proper names in the sense of some Platonic naming ideal.

[Outrider]

The proper word is Protestant. Let's call things by their proper name. You can't trust secular historians' opinions about matters of faith.

Why not? Surely you can trust them more than you can trust religious scholars who have, by definition, a vested interest and a partial viewpoint?

O.

[Dicky Underpants]

Why?

How did God fail to get it right the first time? I mean It is suppose to be the all knowing, super-duper all powerful God.

And going on from this incompetence what makes you think It got it right the last time, 2000 years ago, as they claim?

Don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet, but there are at least four major divine covenants* in the OT (the one with Noah, the one with Abraham, the one with Moses, the one with David - and yet another mentioned in Jeremiah 31.
So that's quite a lot of 'false starts'.

*Perhaps it's high time to begin referring to the Old Testaments (or Covenants). Or use the Hebrew term Tanakh. Then there's the argument that the historical Jesus didn't actually start anything new.....

[Jack Knave]

But you're a Protestant. Nuff said! Why did it take Jonah so long to do as God said if what was said to him really came from God?

Because it is a story and has a moral to express.

[Dicky Underpants]

But you're a Protestant. Nuff said! Why did it take Jonah so long to do as God said if what was said to him really came from God?

Because it is a story and has a moral to express.

And if you look beyond the absurd literal descriptions, that moral is quite interesting. Jonah is rather a forward-looking book in the OT, written by a Jew who was looking beyond mere tribal gods and identities, believing that his Yahweh had a message for non-Jews as well.

P.S. I note that Hope thinks that this 'universalism' was there in God's plan from the first. I depends where you read in the OT - there are certainly suggestions of this here and there, mixed up with extremely xenophobic Jewishness and the absurd Levitical system - as well as a decidedly hot-headed old Nobodaddy of a tribal Yahweh much of the time.

[Jack Knave]

Why?

How did God fail to get it right the first time? I mean It is suppose to be the all knowing, super-duper all powerful God.

And going on from this incompetence what makes you think It got it right the last time, 2000 years ago, as they claim?

Don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet, but there are at least four major divine covenants* in the OT (the one with Noah, the one with Abraham, the one with Moses, the one with David - and yet another mentioned in Jeremiah 31.
So that's quite a lot of 'false starts'.

*Perhaps it's high time to begin referring to the Old Testaments (or Covenants). Or use the Hebrew term Tanakh. Then there's the argument that the historical Jesus didn't actually start anything new.....

Pondering this over lunch I think the Jewish covenant was the second covenant (I'm seeing covenant here as the means to correct God's mistake). The first was the crude flood experiment. I don't know about the others you mention were they trying to redeem the world?

[Dicky Underpants]

Why?

How did God fail to get it right the first time? I mean It is suppose to be the all knowing, super-duper all powerful God.

And going on from this incompetence what makes you think It got it right the last time, 2000 years ago, as they claim?

Don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet, but there are at least four major divine covenants* in the OT (the one with Noah, the one with Abraham, the one with Moses, the one with David - and yet another mentioned in Jeremiah 31.
So that's quite a lot of 'false starts'.

*Perhaps it's high time to begin referring to the Old Testaments (or Covenants). Or use the Hebrew term Tanakh. Then there's the argument that the historical Jesus didn't actually start anything new.....

Pondering this over lunch I think the Jewish covenant was the second covenant (I'm seeing covenant here as the means to correct God's mistake). The first was the crude flood experiment. I don't know about the others you mention were they trying to redeem the world?

The Davidic one was simply to establish an everlasting dynasty of Jewish kings, as far as I can see. The Abrahamic one was more 'universalist' (the idea that through Abraham's seed all the peoples of the earth should be blest - which St Paul deliberately twisted by saying that 'seed' was singular, and therefore referred to Christ). Moses' covenant seems to be largely tribal. The Jeremiah passage I've only just heard of, so I can't say much about that.

P.S. Having just read Jeremiah 31, it seems largely tribal, predicting a rosy future for "The chief of nations". Seems to look forward to a time when the people of the huge Jewish diaspora will return to Israel and 'regroup'. No doubt lots of metaphorical stuff here.

[Jack Knave]

But you're a Protestant. Nuff said! Why did it take Jonah so long to do as God said if what was said to him really came from God?

Because it is a story and has a moral to express.

And if you look beyond the absurd literal descriptions, that moral is quite interesting. Jonah is rather a forward-looking book in the OT, written by a Jew who was looking beyond mere tribal gods and identities, believing that his Yahweh had a message for non-Jews as well.

P.S. I note that Hope thinks that this 'universalism' was there in God's plan from the first. I depends where you read in the OT - there are certainly suggestions of this here and there, mixed up with extremely xenophobic Jewishness and the absurd Levitical system - as well as a decidedly hot-headed old Nobodaddy of a tribal Yahweh much of the time.

I think Job is also forward-looking.

I do wonder where the various nations came from if they are all suppose to stem from Noah? Why didn't God just start dealing with all peoples from after the flood (i.e. Noah and family, than waiting when they had formed different nations and then choosing one as Its chosen ones.

[Dicky Underpants]

I think Job is also forward-looking.

Very much so. But I'm sure you know that Jung didn't think those ancient scribes came up with any satisfactory answers to the problems it poses

I do wonder where the various nations came from if they are all suppose to stem from Noah? Why didn't God just start dealing with all peoples from after the flood (i.e. Noah and family, than waiting when they had formed different nations and then choosing one as Its chosen ones.

God had to wait till certain characteristics had begun to assert themselves (these are sometimes rather less than honourable, so one wonders quite what criteria he had in mind). But didn't all notable ancient civilisations think they were somehow especially blessed by their gods?

[wigginhall]

Although didn't some civilizations also think that they were cursed by their gods?   I suppose some of them had a mixture of bad gods and good gods, so you could explain the changes in life.   

But I sometimes wonder if the Abrahamics have kind of included a similar sort of dualism, but they have stressed that we deserve the wrath of God.   So you can have God in full-on smiting mode, but that's OK, because you've been disobedient.

A while ago I read an 18th century diary of a clergyman, and it was amazing to see him twisting and turning to justify the various ways of God.  Since he believed in providence, he tried to justify many things - for example, his daughter died, and he saw it as a kind of admonishment.

I suppose this has died out largely, but not entirely.  Especially in the US, you still get the 'hurricanes will increase because of gay marriage, and God is very angry' and so on.  Even more common is the view that God reduces you a bit, as you were becoming too prideful.    It does verge on masochism.

It also seems ad hoc, and a kind of retcon.   I mean, you didn't realize you were being prideful, but your comeuppance has made you look back, and realize you were.   Hoody, doody. 

[Anchorman]

The proper word is Protestant. Let's call things by their proper name. You can't trust secular historians' opinions about matters of faith.

-
No.
The proper word is "Christian" - as in someone who follows Christ.
If you want to be pedantic, and play around with words, then "Reformed Christian" is acceptable; as in
'A Christian who is a member of a Reformed Church.'.
Protestantism is a phenomena associated with 16th-18th century reformed Christians, but that movement is over.
The motto "Semper reformanda" - always reforming - is still aplicable to Reformed Churches.

[ippy]

Oh by the way Len, American or not I think there must have been some very heavy indoctrination applied there to an in the first place a particularly credulous subject, when or where?

ippy

I'm sorry mate, but I can't make sense of that question. Can you rephrase it for an old guy, and I'll answer it? 

The poor bloke is really gone, a no hoper, no cure, I really think it's so sad when they are so far gone as this one obviously is. 

Sorry about that Len I just posing the question of when or where this man received such a  heavy dose of indoctrination, I wasn't expecting an answer.

ippy

[ippy]

I've a London accent myself, incidentally have you ever noticed that London is the only place in the UK that doesn't really have a local accent

Eh? I was born in the East End of London and lived in London for 25 years and I'm pretty sure that there is a London accent, unless I've been mistaken all these years.

The point I was making was that it's the others that have accents not us Londoners.

I didn't think there was a need to be totally without any kind of humour when addressing this forum.

ippy

[Hope]

The point I was making was that it's the others that have accents not us Londoners.

I didn't think there was a need to be totally without any kind of humour when addressing this forum.

Part of the problem, ippy, is that when you try to do so, you do so so poorly.

[Leonard James]

Oh by the way Len, American or not I think there must have been some very heavy indoctrination applied there to an in the first place a particularly credulous subject, when or where?

ippy

I'm sorry mate, but I can't make sense of that question. Can you rephrase it for an old guy, and I'll answer it? 

The poor bloke is really gone, a no hoper, no cure, I really think it's so sad when they are so far gone as this one obviously is. 

Sorry about that Len I just posing the question of when or where this man received such a  heavy dose of indoctrination, I wasn't expecting an answer.

ippy

Oh, OK man! I didn't realise that.

[Hope]

You've been reading too much Edward Gibbon. Constantine converted because he had a vision from Christ and both him and his mother, who found the True Cross, have received their reward. It was part of God's plan that the Empire that at first persecuted the Christians should itself eventually become Christian. For that we can thank Ss. Constantine, Helena and Theodosius.

Sorry to disappoint you, ad_o, but like Jim, I've never read any of Gibbon's work. Whether or not God's plan was that the "Empire that at first persecuted the Christians should itself eventually become Christian" doesn't nullify the historical facts that I outlined in the post you refer to.