Why Was A New Covenent Required?

[Jack Knave]

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

We still don't have answers.   

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?

But if they all came from Noah, who was deemed good by God, then all his offspring should also be good. The question that follows from this is where did the evil natures come from after Noah?

[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?

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.

I saw an archaeological programme that claimed that at the time of David his tribe were just a load of poor, insignificant shepherds and that the history that led to its greatness was massaged afterwards, as it always is - the victors writing the history books.

[Hope]

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

It was never meant to be credible, Floo.  It was actually written in the 5th or 6th century BC, sortly after the return to Palestine of the people from Babylon, and was part of a theological document that sought to expalin how and why the God of Israel was different from the gods that the people had caome into conact with whilst in Babylon.

Its only gullible people like you who think that it, along with the rest of the first 11 chapters of Genesis, its a historical record of anything.

[Shaker]

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

It was never meant to be credible, Floo.

Good stuff. Then let us sweep it aside as the self-evident tosh that it is and treat it as the exceedingly minor historical curio that it is, which is to say, ignore it just as we do with the ancient myths of societies and cultures whose names, legends, heroes and demons most people can't even pronounce let alone identify.

[ad_orientem]

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

It was never meant to be credible, Floo.  It was actually written in the 5th or 6th century BC, sortly after the return to Palestine of the people from Babylon, and was part of a theological document that sought to expalin how and why the God of Israel was different from the gods that the people had caome into conact with whilst in Babylon.

Its only gullible people like you who think that it, along with the rest of the first 11 chapters of Genesis, its a historical record of anything.

Yeah right. I'm dead sure that's what Moses thought when he wrote it. Oh yeah! But you don't even believe he wrote it. Gordon Bennett!

[jeremyp]

Yeah right. I'm dead sure that's what Moses thought when he wrote it. Oh yeah! But you don't even believe he wrote it. Gordon Bennett!

He didn't write it.  As Hope says, it was most likely written in the 6th/5th century BCE. 

[Anchorman]

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

It was never meant to be credible, Floo.  It was actually written in the 5th or 6th century BC, sortly after the return to Palestine of the people from Babylon, and was part of a theological document that sought to expalin how and why the God of Israel was different from the gods that the people had caome into conact with whilst in Babylon.

Its only gullible people like you who think that it, along with the rest of the first 11 chapters of Genesis, its a historical record of anything.

Yeah right. I'm dead sure that's what Moses thought when he wrote it. Oh yeah! But you don't even believe he wrote it. Gordon Bennett!

-
Er....Most modern scholars - including the Orthodox lecturer in NT Greek (later a bishop) who taught me theology, would say that the Pentateuch as we have it was very hevily edited in the 6th or 5th century BC, and therefore was a product of several authors/editors.

[ippy]

Secondly, can I ask that you use the commonly accepted English pronoun for a sentient being of no specific gender

If God is so great why did she get it wrong first time round and why did she have to issue a second covenant?

Sorry jeremy, 'she' is gender-specific in English, and as such, it is no better than 'it'.  Mind you, as the Jews knew, God was both male and female in being, hence of the 144 Jewish names for God 72 are female and 72 are male.

Hi there Hope It must be wonderful to have this sort of really useful knowledge at your finger tips, Im really impressed.

ippy   

[Hope]

Hi there Hope It must be wonderful to have this sort of really useful knowledge at your finger tips, Im really impressed.

Most linguists have this kind of information to hand, as do many other non-linguists and non-Christians.  Pity that you don't seem to have this level of background knowledge about other languages, let alone your own language.

[Hope]

Yeah right. I'm dead sure that's what Moses thought when he wrote it. Oh yeah! But you don't even believe he wrote it. Gordon Bennett!

Sadly, ad_o, the material itself shows that Moses couldn't have written it as it includes ideas and concepts that wouldn't have existed in the early- to mid-2nd millennium BC.

A general question - would 1850BC be regarded as early- or late- 2nd millennium by modern scholars?  I always get muddled

[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

We still don't have answers.   

I can suggest two:
"There is no God" and "Shit happens".

[ad_orientem]

Yeah right. I'm dead sure that's what Moses thought when he wrote it. Oh yeah! But you don't even believe he wrote it. Gordon Bennett!

Sadly, ad_o, the material itself shows that Moses couldn't have written it as it includes ideas and concepts that wouldn't have existed in the early- to mid-2nd millennium BC.

Of course you think that.

[Anchorman]

Yeah right. I'm dead sure that's what Moses thought when he wrote it. Oh yeah! But you don't even believe he wrote it. Gordon Bennett!

Sadly, ad_o, the material itself shows that Moses couldn't have written it as it includes ideas and concepts that wouldn't have existed in the early- to mid-2nd millennium BC.

Of course you think that.

_

Not only that, if the Exodus involving Moses HAD been written by him - and left unaided, why did he neglect to mention the major powers in Syria/Palestine, such as Mitanni and Ammuru?

[ad_orientem]

I'd say the same to you as I said to Hope.

[Anchorman]

I'd say the same to you as I said to Hope.

-
So, in writing the Pentateuch, Moses created mini states which didn't exist till the eleventh century BC, while at the same time ignoring the 'superpowers' of the region which existed from c1600-1000 BC?
Funny, dat!
Or could it be that those who edited and re-wrote the Pentateuch had access to the Books of Kings, Chronicles, etc, which showed a remarkable grasp of the well documented situation from c1000 BC onward, but ommitted the superpowers of the previous five centuries since they had either lost influence or ceased to exist by then?

[Alien]

Yeah right. I'm dead sure that's what Moses thought when he wrote it. Oh yeah! But you don't even believe he wrote it. Gordon Bennett!

Sadly, ad_o, the material itself shows that Moses couldn't have written it as it includes ideas and concepts that wouldn't have existed in the early- to mid-2nd millennium BC.

Of course you think that.

_

Not only that, if the Exodus involving Moses HAD been written by him - and left unaided, why did he neglect to mention the major powers in Syria/Palestine, such as Mitanni and Ammuru?

What date are you using for the Exodus, Jim?

[ippy]

Hi there Hope It must be wonderful to have this sort of really useful knowledge at your finger tips, Im really impressed.

Most linguists have this kind of information to hand, as do many other non-linguists and non-Christians.  Pity that you don't seem to have this level of background knowledge about other languages, let alone your own language.

Wow the ability to tip a discussion without having to look up anything from a book, impressive.

ippy

[Anchorman]

Yeah right. I'm dead sure that's what Moses thought when he wrote it. Oh yeah! But you don't even believe he wrote it. Gordon Bennett!

Sadly, ad_o, the material itself shows that Moses couldn't have written it as it includes ideas and concepts that wouldn't have existed in the early- to mid-2nd millennium BC.

Of course you think that.

_

Not only that, if the Exodus involving Moses HAD been written by him - and left unaided, why did he neglect to mention the major powers in Syria/Palestine, such as Mitanni and Ammuru?

What date are you using for the Exodus, Jim?

-
Oh, 'eck.....
Don't get me started on THAT, Alan!
There are umpteen dates for the Exodus, from c1700-c1200 BC.
I'd go with the latter end, though, mainly because we have more evidence for a settled Davidic state from c1000 BC onwards, and events recorded in Kings and Chronicles tie in remarkably well with external events.
(And before anyone asks: yes, I do believe in an exodus of Hebrews from Egypt - though not in the numbers quoted by those who 'edited' Exodus)

[cyberman]

2) Didn't It see that coming? If It did then ....

I like the deferential way you capitalise the pronoun when you are referring to god!

[Jack Knave]

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

We still don't have answers.   

I can suggest two:
"There is no God" and "Shit happens".

Jung would have seen it in archetypal psychological terms so the issue of God was not present as such but only as a symbol and image of the collective unconscious, and that the 'action' was between consciousness and the collective unconscious and so was not subject to the whim of random causal events. What caused Job was the advancement of consciousness and its push back against the rule of the unconscious/instincts in man's life. I.e. a more of a cooperation between the two in the machinations of man's psyche and life.

[BashfulAnthony]

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

We still don't have answers.   

I can suggest two:
"There is no God" and "Shit happens".

Jung would have seen it in archetypal psychological terms so the issue of God was not present as such but only as a symbol and image of the collective unconscious, and that the 'action' was between consciousness and the collective unconscious and so was not subject to the whim of random causal events. What caused Job was the advancement of consciousness and its push back against the rule of the unconscious/instincts in man's life. I.e. a more of a cooperation between the two in the machinations of man's psyche and life.

Where was that googled from?

[Nearly Sane]

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

We still don't have answers.   

I can suggest two:
"There is no God" and "Shit happens".

Jung would have seen it in archetypal psychological terms so the issue of God was not present as such but only as a symbol and image of the collective unconscious, and that the 'action' was between consciousness and the collective unconscious and so was not subject to the whim of random causal events. What caused Job was the advancement of consciousness and its push back against the rule of the unconscious/instincts in man's life. I.e. a more of a cooperation between the two in the machinations of man's psyche and life.

Where was that googled from?

since are accusing the writer of plagiarism, any proof of that? It's quite a serious accusation, so care to justify it?

[BashfulAnthony]

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

We still don't have answers.   

I can suggest two:
"There is no God" and "Shit happens".

Jung would have seen it in archetypal psychological terms so the issue of God was not present as such but only as a symbol and image of the collective unconscious, and that the 'action' was between consciousness and the collective unconscious and so was not subject to the whim of random causal events. What caused Job was the advancement of consciousness and its push back against the rule of the unconscious/instincts in man's life. I.e. a more of a cooperation between the two in the machinations of man's psyche and life.

Where was that googled from?

since are accusing the writer of plagiarism, any proof of that? It's quite a serious accusation, so care to justify it?

It's up to him to refute my suggestion, then, and not you, by the way.

[Jack Knave]

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

We still don't have answers.   

I can suggest two:
"There is no God" and "Shit happens".

Jung would have seen it in archetypal psychological terms so the issue of God was not present as such but only as a symbol and image of the collective unconscious, and that the 'action' was between consciousness and the collective unconscious and so was not subject to the whim of random causal events. What caused Job was the advancement of consciousness and its push back against the rule of the unconscious/instincts in man's life. I.e. a more of a cooperation between the two in the machinations of man's psyche and life.

Where was that googled from?

And how did your single brain cell manage that comment?

Sadly, you haven't a clue about what I'm talking about with Jung, something far more important than monotheistic religions.

[Shaker]

NS, knowing stuff is one of life's mysteries to Bashers - the acquisition and retention of data just passes him by. Every time something crops up which he doesn't understand, he accuses the writer of having just Googled it.