Why Was A New Covenent Required?

[Shaker]

The flood story is not credible. Just because Jesus and other Jews believed it to have credence doesn't mean it had.

Credible:

Show us being a planet with life in what appears a vast lifeless void existing..
What is credible about that?

What is credible about that is that it exists.

[Sassy]

If, the story of Noah isn't true then Christ cannot be a decendant of ABRAHAM and    what is more, Abraham could not  have existed... Neither could David or Christ be related.

Trying to make a coherent, sensible story of dozens of books written by different authors at different periods is an impossible task, with or without the "Holy Spirit". 

That is why you Christians squabble about it so much, and break into different factions.

To make sense of the bible you have to know and focus on the writer.
The person who inspired all those Prophets to write the truth.
Christians don't squabble who are all of one mind and one Spirit.
They know every word of God is true because the person writing/inspiring it's writers is not a liar.

The bible is about coming to know God and a living relationship with him.
Those who seek God need to understand that God is not a liar and every word he gives us in the OT is true.

[Sassy]

The flood story is not credible. Just because Jesus and other Jews believed it to have credence doesn't mean it had.

Credible:

Show us being a planet with life in what appears a vast lifeless void existing..
What is credible about that?

What is credible about that is that it exists.

How to all intents and purpose is that possible?
There is no credible reason for us to exist...

[Shaker]

How to all intents and purpose is that possible?
There is no credible reason for us to exist...

Physics, chemistry and biology.

[Leonard James]

To make sense of the bible you have to know and focus on the writer.
The person who inspired all those Prophets to write the truth.
Christians don't squabble who are all of one mind and one Spirit.
They know every word of God is true because the person writing/inspiring it's writers is not a liar.

So all the Christians who disagree with your interpretation are not really Christians. Is that what you are saying?

The bible is about coming to know God and a living relationship with him.
Those who seek God need to understand that God is not a liar and every word he gives us in the OT is true.

You are delusional.

[Leonard James]

To make sense of the bible you have to know and focus on the writer.
The person who inspired all those Prophets to write the truth.
Christians don't squabble who are all of one mind and one Spirit.
They know every word of God is true because the person writing/inspiring it's writers is not a liar.

So all the Christians who disagree with your interpretation are not really Christians. Is that what you are saying?

The bible is about coming to know God and a living relationship with him.
Those who seek God need to understand that God is not a liar and every word he gives us in the OT is true.

You are delusional.

[Shaker]

So all the Christians who disagree with your interpretation are not really Christians. Is that what you are saying?

That's always been the way it goes with the religios, Len. Monotheists especially.

[Leonard James]

So all the Christians who disagree with your interpretation are not really Christians. Is that what you are saying?

That's always been the way it goes with the religios, Len. Monotheists especially.

One bright sign is that the new generation seem to be escaping from this hideous indoctrination

[Shaker]

One bright sign is that the new generation seem to be escaping from this hideous indoctrination

It never pays to be complacent - you can't let down your guard - but yes, it's heartening to see how youngsters are abandoning religion even and especially in a formerly highly religious nation such as the USA - "Generation None" as they're sometimes called (from the answer they give when polled about what religious affiliation or adherence they have, if any).

[Sassy]

How to all intents and purpose is that possible?
There is no credible reason for us to exist...

Physics, chemistry and biology.

So Chemistry, biology and Physics all existed before the earth and the elements did? Seems they are rather incompetent if they existed before creation and only managed one planet with life in that vast void... That is right the three DO NOT explain why we exist.. do they? They are the findings of the created the Humans which have created them for their own need. Outside human understanding they don't exist and did not exist till after humans created.. Oh dear! anything else after that epic failure?

[Leonard James]

One bright sign is that the new generation seem to be escaping from this hideous indoctrination

It never pays to be complacent - you can't let down your guard - but yes, it's heartening to see how youngsters are abandoning religion even and especially in a formerly highly religious nation such as the USA - "Generation None" as they're sometimes called (from the answer they give when polled about what religious affiliation or adherence they have, if any).

It's the same here in Spain. Very few youngsters go to church any more, or acknowledge the "God" of the Bible. The change in the last 25 years is astonishing.

[Shaker]

So Chemistry, biology and Physics all existed before the earth and the elements did?

Physics, being the most fundamental of the sciences, did, yes, that's absolutely correct.

Seems they are rather incompetent if they existed before creation and only managed one planet with life in that vast void...

Who says that this is the case? 

That is right the three DO NOT explain why we exist.. do they?

Yes. Learn some science.

They are the findings of the created the Humans which have created them for their own need.

What?

Outside human understanding they don't exist and did not exist till after humans created..

Physics, chemistry and biology create humans, not vice versa.

[Sassy]

To make sense of the bible you have to know and focus on the writer.
The person who inspired all those Prophets to write the truth.
Christians don't squabble who are all of one mind and one Spirit.
They know every word of God is true because the person writing/inspiring it's writers is not a liar.

So all the Christians who disagree with your interpretation are not really Christians. Is that what you are saying?

The truth is you don't have the ability to know or understand who is telling the truth. We were discussing the understanding of the bible. So is the above wrong?
Is it wrong to believe the bible the word of God is true because God is NOT a liar?
Or are you just saying the same old thing because I am right you do not have the ability to know if I am telling the truth. You a self confessed one time Christian who said he believed?   I never said at any stage that I was comparing myself to other believers or their interpretation of the bible. I stated the one truth which the bible would teach any reader...

King James Bible
God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

The bible shows God is not a man, that he should lie.
If you do not have an answer for that which is set before you then don't intentionally imply something against me which had not been said or implied anywhere in the actual post.

The bible is about coming to know God and a living relationship with him.
Those who seek God need to understand that God is not a liar and every word he gives us in the OT is true.

You are delusional.

Ahhh but you cannot prove that!  Nothing in my post is delusional because God has said about himself that he is NOT a liar. So maybe you see from this post by the things you say we can see you attack that which you have no answer for and do not understand.

[Leonard James]

Ahhh but you cannot prove that!  Nothing in my post is delusional because God has said about himself that he is NOT a liar. So maybe you see from this post by the things you say we can see you attack that which you have no answer for and do not understand.

Thank you for proving my point, Sass! The delusion that "God" really exists has addled you mind completely.

Now confirm the fact by telling us that sometimes he talks to you. 

[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

I understand humour as well as most, especially sarcasm, but it didn't come across as a joke.

It wasn't meant to be a joke just a small amount of mild humour, but there, you understand humour, so you inform me.

I'm not your enemy, it's your religious ideas that I don't agree with or can see why they are deserving of any special respect.

ippy 

[Dicky Underpants]

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.

wiggi

Yes, I think that's fairly clear from the early books of the Bible - though 'being disobedient' seemed principally 'not giving supreme devotion to Yahweh' - modified to 'not giving exclusive devotion to Yahweh' when the ancient Hebrews became less henotheistic.
It's interesting how the Book of Job (which Jack mentioned) tries to grapple with this problem of a good bloke who does everything right according to the rules, but still finds himself in the shit. I believe the origins of this story are quite ancient and come from non-Jewish sources, so I wonder just when it was thought to epitomise the problem of 'where does unjustified suffering come from?' Probably post-Babylonian exile?

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 believe the death of his daughter was a turning-point for Darwin, who was not prepared to stomach any more the kind of double-think that (fundamentalist) Christians are still prepared to indulge in to preserve the moral integrity of their presumed creator. Mind you, Darwin had been well prepared by his exhaustive studies of nature's sublimely arbitrary indifference to such theological tangles.

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.

I think the tendency of such groups is to single out 'those degenerates not like us' as the first cause for divine anger, rather than taking a look at themselves. Not that either attitude has the slightest significance regarding the behaviour of the natural world (except in the extent to which the 'saved'  may be polluting the environment - but in that case, what the hell - Armageddon's just round the corner)

[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?

Further to my mentioning the Davidic covenant, it's interesting to note how the notion of an everlasting dynasty of Kings is perpetuated in the OT, even after it's quite obvious that invading nations have laid all Israel's hopes to waste, and even Solomon's temple has been reduced to ruins. The dating of the writings in question is still open to debate, but it appears that a later redactor, or redactors, were prepared to gloss over such matters, and move the emphasis back to the Covenant at Sinai (or Horeb - depending where you read).

That's the problem with all these ancient texts - it really does depend on where you read, because there is such a wide diversity of accounts which never say quite the same thing (and sometimes very contradictory things). These matters are not helped in objective discussion by those of inflexible religious persuasion trying to tell us that there is one unique message throughout, first misunderstood by the Jews, and then requiring its ultimate reinforcement by the Incarnation of Jesus. What a load of bollocks.

[Anchorman]

There's a flood thread on the faith sharing board, folks.
Any chance of continuing deluge debate there?

[ad_orientem]

Hope is actually correct.
What we DO know of second century Christianity suggests that, although they shared a core doctrine, practice, procedure, language and leadership structure varied widley within congregations or groups of churches.
Only when Constantine transferred the structure of an Imperial-style beaurocracy, with all its' opportunities for vice, corruption and self-promotion, on the Church, did those separate structures end (sometimes at the point of an Imperial sword)

You know nothing of the early Church. All you need to do is read the Ante-Nicene Fathers to see how Orthodox they are, especially concerning the role of the Church and that we are to keep that which has been handed down to us.

[Anchorman]

Hope is actually correct.
What we DO know of second century Christianity suggests that, although they shared a core doctrine, practice, procedure, language and leadership structure varied widley within congregations or groups of churches.
Only when Constantine transferred the structure of an Imperial-style beaurocracy, with all its' opportunities for vice, corruption and self-promotion, on the Church, did those separate structures end (sometimes at the point of an Imperial sword)

You know nothing of the early Church. All you need to do is read the Ante-Nicene Fathers to see how Orthodox they are, especially concerning the role of the Church and that we are to keep that which has been handed down to us.

-
Er.....
hang on:
The Church existwed before the Nicene council, and definately before Constantine stuck his oar in.
Actuallty, I know quite a bit about the pre-Constantine Church, both in Syria/Turkey (as it is today) and Egypt.

[ad_orientem]

I accidentally missed out the word "bishop", so it should have read "the role of the bishop in the Church".

[Dicky Underpants]

There's a flood thread on the faith sharing board, folks.
Any chance of continuing deluge debate there?

Any chance of you Christian chaps continuing with something related to the subject of this thread as well? Perhaps you'd like to give your take on the Covenant delivered to David through God's prophet Nathan at 2Samuel:7. Especially the following quote:

"16] And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure for ever before me; your throne shall be established for ever.'" "

Well, God seems to be telling David that there will be an everlasting line of Jewish kings, issuing "from the loins" of David. Well, we know this prophecy didn't last long, since certain rather nasty periods of defeat and exile for the Jews followed.

However, I suppose you're going to say it was really all about Jesus

[Anchorman]

The thread concerns the New Covenant instituted by Christ through His atonment.

[Dicky Underpants]

The thread concerns the New Covenant instituted by Christ through His atonment.

I didn't think you were one of those who wished to detach the NT from the vagaries of the old. I'm not sure quite how much you trust the words of the Bible (I get the impression that you're far too intelligent to be of the biblical inerrancy brigade). However, when you get prophecies and supposedly absolute pronouncements from the deity which seem to have gone hugely astray, it does call into question such things of the divine omniscience of the Judaeo-christian God.
Okay - I suppose you're going to claim that it was all humanity's fault, and especially the Jews', who just failed to live up the standards expected of them. So God has second thoughts and devises this baffling scheme of the vicarious atonement. Well, that's how the story goes, largely according to Paul. But not according to some of the recorded sayings of Jesus. Leaving the floor open to cafeteria christians*, btw   

*"Cafeteria christians" - I first heard this term used by a very dogmatic Catholic over on the old BBC board. I interpret it as meaning a Christian who simply picks the bits from the NT that he appeal to him/her, without such things making too many demands on him/her. And, importantly, without much scholarship determining what goes into the accepted selection.

[Dicky Underpants]

The thread concerns the New Covenant instituted by Christ through His atonment.

There are of course precursors for the Atonement idea in the OT - the scapegoat, the Paschal lamb etc, but it does seem odd that the idea achieved such momentous significance in Christianity, set against all the pronouncements of supposed prosperity, if only people would just do according to what God's laws were supposed to be (which of course were changed by the Jewish prophets over time - Isaiah gets them down to three, I think, and Micah just two. Hillel got them down to one, which not even Jesus achieved).