Why is God so different in the Old Testament and the New Testament?
>>490867
Because the people who wrote the New Testament only gave a cursory, if any, reading of the Old Testament before they got started.
>>490867
Because they were written by different people in different times without any divine inspiration. I would have thought that was obvious senpai.
>>490875
How?
>>490875
Mark, 1:2
>Καθὼς γέγραπται ἐν τῷ Ἡσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ Ἰδοὺ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου, ὃς kατασkευάσει τὴν ὁδόν σου·
And yet the next part isn't from Isaiah at all!
It's almost like.... wait for it, the guy who wrote Mark had only a vague idea of what was going on in the Old Testament, to complement his vague idea of things like local geography, law, customs, and language.
>>490880
The Bible was written by Jews, whose eponymous book in their historical ethnonym, "People of the Book", is the Torah or Old Testament. Ergo, the people who wrote the Bible were familiar with the Old Testament or Torah --a fact so plain as to be semiotically redundant. Ergo, I do not deem it likely that you know very much at all about the Bible, or it's compilers, contents, &c.
>>490896
>New Testament
>Written by Jews
Pull the other one, it has bells on.
Tell me, oh wise anon, what Jew-turned Christian would:
>Make basic grammatical and linguistic mistakes about Aramaic, the way Mark does concerning the overhearers of Jesus's final plea on the cross?
>Confuse the titles of Judean officials, something all of the gospels do, calling the various tetrarchs kings.
>Be confused and contradictory as to the power the Sanhedrin held under Roman rule, the way Acts and the Gospels explicitly disagree upon
>Misquote and even make up scripture to create new messianic prophecies (Hello Matthew!)
>Use the Septuagint rather than a Hebrew version of the Old Testament even when it contains obvious translation errors like Paul does in 1 Corinthians 15:54?
>Forget that lambs as sin offerings, a common motif for Jesus, are FEMALE.
>And, oh yeah, wrote in Greek.
There's a reason Christianity was enormously more successful away from Judaism than it was within it, and why the earliest extant Christian writings are all from Greek sources, not Judaic ones.
>>490869
>>490883
>the people who wrote the New Testament
>only gives Mark for example
>>490910
Yeah, the gospels are full of mistakes. Contradicting each other, adding obvious myth (such as Jesus saying that one thing as a child), misquoting scripture, etc.
It's still the best thing we have to an idea of how things actually happened, as they generally agree on the turn of events and aren't mistaken on every single thing either. Better than what certain early Christians did anyway (such as putting Jesus in older myths).
Paul was advocating against those who preached a gospel different than his own. It would be pretty funny if it just so happens that a couple of the NT's gospels are such ones.
>>490910
>>Make basic grammatical and linguistic mistakes about Aramaic, the way Mark does concerning the overhearers of Jesus's final plea on the cross?
Koine Greek is also full of semitisms though
>>490925
I only gave one basic example to begin with, I also wrote 490910, and can spit out more, if you're really interested.
>as they generally agree on the turn of events
They don't even agree as to when Jesus was crucified, and that's before you get into any theories that they might have been deliberately trying to cover things up, such as Maccoby's theory that they were recasting disputes with the Sadducees as disputes with the Pharisees to ingratiate themselves with the Romans post 66-70 Jewish revolt.
There's really very little in the New Testament that demonstrates its various authors are very familiar with the Old. They were almost all certainly Greek/Syrian Christians rather than Jewishly rooted ones.
>>490927
Well of course it is; Koine is almost a creole language, most popular in Hellenized areas of Egypt and the middle east. You mix Greek with what are mostly a lot of Semitic languages, and finding semitisms isn't exactly a surprise.
Going from that to familiarity with a specific Semitic text in a language that is no longer commonly spoken at the time you have the NT being composed is another thing entirely.
>>490943
>
Hence the "generally". As in, Jesus goes around teaching stuff, gets noticed, gets crucified. The big picture remains the same, although each gospel is so different that, effectively, the Bible had to contain several of them (and they are so clumsy still that their historicity is debatable).
You're well-versed on these things, where did you learn about it? Just Internet research?
>>490952
I used to work at a library, and a slow one. One of our frequent borrowers was a little old lady who kept grabbing religious scholarship. While pretending to re-shelve the books, I read quite a few of them; that's where the core of my knowledge comes from.
But I'm going to have to go to bed, it's getting a bit late. It's been fun on this thread, I'll get back to it if it's still up in the morning (likely).
Good night, anon.
>>490910
It's koina so barely greek, it's like saying Chileans speak Castilian spanish
>>490957
Nice. I'd really like to study this too but I only have the Internet for that. I just found the site Bible.org that has studies on each book of the OT and NT, I'll dive into it.
Good night anon, and happy new year
Yo bloods, we wuz Israelite KANGZ n shieet.
The old covenant is a carnal testament, the new covenant is the Spirit which fulfills it. The OT God is going to be framed in carnal terms, figuratively, whereas NT God, having a physical body with the Spirit, can be framed in harmonious terms. These covenants do not describe God per se, but God's relation to humanity. His relation to us in the old covenant is the guardian of our carnal law and those who fear him, whereas in the new covenant, his relation to us is very, very different. In reality, his relation to us was always the same, but from a purely carnal perspective on our part, it's going to be obscured because we cannot access the spirit (and thus our relation to him will be conveyed by emblems of the flesh, such as unleavened bread, circumcision, and carnal morality).
you've been duped by the renaissance paintings of Jesus as a long haired hippy
if you just take Jesus' words, you wouldn't get that impression... like all the times he says "there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth", or talks about the tares being burnt up, about unbelievers being thrown into outer darkness
and that's not even mentioning Revelation, where he judges all the dead for their sin and throws them in everlasting fire
a common mistake is for people to take Jesus' words either specifically to believers, or sometimes specifically to his inner circle of 12 disciples, and describes his love for them. heathens will take his words and imply he's talking about loving everyone. i bet Hitler in his bunker told his wife and his dog that he loved them. that doesn't mean he loved gypsies and jews
>>490867
>Why is God so different in the Old Testament and the New Testament?
God differs between each fragment of each book you fool.
>>490871
This
However the bullshit Christian excuse is that in the New Testament he was showing people that they can't do it without him while in the New Testament he was saving them or some shit like that.
>>490867
Because the old testament god was the Demiurge to be honest famiglia.
I think His coming to earth didn't help Him understand His creation as it did to help His creation better understand Him.
Jesus is and was God; there was never a time when He wasn't God. So truth be told, if we can hold on to this idea of Jesus being God, then the God we read about in the Old Testament is actually the God of the New. It really changes the way the Old Testament is read when you insert His name in key passages.;eg , Genesis 1:1: "In the beginning Jesus created the heavens and the earth...".
>>490943
>They were almost all certainly Greek/Syrian Christians rather than Jewishly rooted ones.
So wait. New Testament was written 40-100 CE, how quickly did it turn from a Jewish off-shoot to Goyim club?
>>490987
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."
JC had some edge to him
Pastors usually do not select those passages for Sunday's sermon
>>491775
He came to separate people from those who did not tolerate Christianity. C'mon, man.
>>490867
OT's "God" is the Demiurge.
>>491779
What happened to turning the other cheek?
Lots of gnosticucks ITT
>>491787
I'm not sure how this is at odds with that. He came with a sword to separate them and put them at odds with each other, that doesn't mean to get physically violent toward those who are not Christians.
>>490867
>Why is God so different in the Old Testament and the New Testament?
Because they're both bullshit.
>>490867
Because humans change across time and space, and hence, changes to their traditions are necessary. Most anthropologists and sociologists understand this. Change is inevitable in a religion because human beings are not static. They change across space (geography) and time (centuries). Then throw in migrations, conversation through imperial expansion and you have a swirl of mixing that can generate new sects, or new religions.
>>490965
Well, yes, but it is still at least Greekish. It's a long way off from Hebrew or Aramaic.
>>491725
That is a complicated question. In large part because during this period, there wasn't so much Christainity as Christianities, many of which were in opposition to each other.
But probably the single biggest factor was the big Jewish revolt, the one that ended with the temple being smashed. The more "Jewish" aligned sects within Christianity generally threw in their lot with the rebels, while the ones who were either non-Jewish in origin or less aligned with Jewish thought and cultural practices either hid or got out of the country.
End result, you had a selective pressure in Christianity (Christianities) away from Judaism.
But it's also probably in large part related to Paul, who was proselytizing to the gentiles and was wildly successful.
>>490867
>Why is God so different in the Old Testament and the New Testament?
That's an easy question.
Because according to the Christian mythology he simply gave up on trying to fix us at some point.
You just have to think back on the original sin - acquiring knowledge - who killed Jewsus and was the lord of the lands he was living in at the time? Rome - the most technologically advanced civilization to exist in the span of the 3000 years when Abrahamic religion was invented.
There is a reason why 666 - Caesar Nero - is the human embodiment of the devil in the New Testament.
The jews simply piggybacked on a chauvinistic religion to try to fight a technologically advanced enemy and in the end managed to cast Europe in a thousand year long scientific stupor.
It's amazing really.
>>490867
>Why is God so different in the Old Testament and the New Testament?
Different authorship in different time-periods.
>>490965
Had you studied classic (attic) Greek, you'd seen koiné as an easier for of Greek, but 100% Greek still.
The semitism you find on the bible are there because they are speaking about Hebrew traditions hard to explain in pure Greek.
Koiné was the common tongue of the different peoples of the time, were they Romans, Egyptians, Greeks, etc. It wasn't a creole mixing Hebrew and Greek as some anons here seem to think.
>>490867
Having a kid tends to soften guys up
Demiurge =! Monad
He's not. What you're failing to see is that Jesus did not exist physically in the OT. Jesus bridged the gap between man and God and the people who talked about God in the NT were already one with him such as Jesus and his disciples who wrote their letters and books.
People love to quote the OT parts of the bible which talk about Gods anger and bloodthirst but they never quote the hundreds of fragments where God is talking about his love for nature, beauty and various other tender poetic aspects of life. God is the God of life and love, not death. God is all about life and just like pruning a plant to help it grow, God sometimes needs to destroy the wicked to give the righteous a chance so they don't get hurt.
>>493223
>God sometimes needs to destroy the wicked to give the righteous a chance so they don't get hurt.
Ahhh, what a little sweetie.
>>490867
The god in the OT was jews trying to scare rival tribes.
