A question about the Old Vs. New testament God

Garr · Post by **Garr** » Tue Apr 29, 2008 12:38 pm

Also, consider the literary issues regarding the OT. It's actually adapted from the Torah/Tanahk, right? So something had to have gotten lost in translation. Literally, and figuratively. You have the new regime preparing their holy word for their new believers. You can assume that the OT was cast in a harsher light than the NT when the same types of things were probably happening. Don't even get me started on the effect that the Romans and English had on the Bible. They doused it all up.

It's driving me crazy because I cannot remember the name of the Roman ruler who was instrumental in the canonization of the Bible, but he held a lot of sway there too. Consider the Middle Ages' efforts to convert the pagans in central and western Europe. I mean, look at some of the traditions, artwork, and symbology. They so closely mimic pagan religions in some areas that they are almost inseparable.

It's all a mixed bag to me. Believe what you want, no one has it right, no one ever will. As long as you don't screw it all up for other people, you can believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster for all I care!

http://www.venganza.org/

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Tue Apr 29, 2008 12:53 pm

Garr wrote:Also, consider the literary issues regarding the OT. It's actually adapted from the Torah/Tanahk, right? So something had to have gotten lost in translation. Literally, and figuratively. You have the new regime preparing their holy word for their new believers. You can assume that the OT was cast in a harsher light than the NT when the same types of things were probably happening. Don't even get me started on the effect that the Romans and English had on the Bible. They doused it all up.

It's driving me crazy because I cannot remember the name of the Roman ruler who was instrumental in the canonization of the Bible, but he held a lot of sway there too. Consider the Middle Ages' efforts to convert the pagans in central and western Europe. I mean, look at some of the traditions, artwork, and symbology. They so closely mimic pagan religions in some areas that they are almost inseparable.

It's all a mixed bag to me. Believe what you want, no one has it right, no one ever will. As long as you don't screw it all up for other people, you can believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster for all I care!

http://www.venganza.org/

Actually, considering the very early transcriptions that have been found - some dating to 3500BC, very little was lost in the translation or down through the years. Very little was changed at all - very minute, inconsequential things is about all. And it was Constantine... He was the Roman Emporer who made Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire.... I think - again, off the top of my head from Church History classes.

What does get lost sometimes is the nuances of Hebrew and Greek into English. For instance, there are 3 Greek words for love - Friendship, brother/familial, and basically, "I would die for you", but in the English translation, those are all translated "love". That's the passage where Jesus asks Peter if he loves him 3 times. First was, "am I your friend?" Then "Am I your brother?" and the third, "Would you die for me?"

You also have to take culture into consideration. "Easier for a camel to go through the eye of the needle than a rich man to come to salvation." Well, the eye of the needle was a treacherous part of a canyon that only a very well-trained camel would walk through and only at the insistance of his rider/owner/trainer. It was possible, but difficult - but, that's completely different than a camel going through the eye of a sewing needle, which is obviously impossible.

"The Gates of Hell" is another example. It was a very real place where Pagan religions of the day practiced all sorts of sexually explicit spiritual rituals. So, that passage means essentially - all these pagan religious practices won't prevail against the love of Christ.

Garr · Post by **Garr** » Tue Apr 29, 2008 1:03 pm

I'm pretty darn familiar with pagan religions and I've never come across anything in my reading (over 20 books to date, countless articles, and even more web pages) and I've never found a mention of "The Gates of Hell." I'm not saying you're wrong, Brad, but I'm wondering if that's not propaganda. Do you have any reading sources that you can provide me? I'd like to learn more about that.

Thank you for recalling Constantine. It was right there on the tip of my fingers, but I couldn't bring it out. Whole books were left out of the canonical Bible and then, many of the books of the NT contradict each other. On top of that you have the Book of Q which is the historian's combination of the gospels in an attempt to verify the tellings of the disciples. It gets very involved. I can't remember the name of the historian who has written several books, but Brad and I discussed him once before. He paints a very interesting picture regarding the canonization of the Bible by Constantine's efforts.

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Tue Apr 29, 2008 1:09 pm

Strobel?

I think the Gates of Hell were in Ephesus - or Corinth, one or the other. It was what the Jews called the place. It wasn't the official name. It was so immoral that the Jews refered to it as "the gates of hell"...

deek · Post by **deek** » Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:03 pm

Garr wrote:I'm pretty darn familiar with pagan religions and I've never come across anything in my reading (over 20 books to date, countless articles, and even more web pages) and I've never found a mention of "The Gates of Hell."

I haven't read 20 books to date, articles and such on this subject, but a simple search pulled up a Bible basic study text stating that gates of Hell was translated from "gates of Gehenna", which was an actual place.

This was located near Jerusalem (Josh. 15:8), and at the time of Christ it was the city rubbish dump. Dead bodies of criminals were thrown onto the fires which were always burning there, so that Gehenna became symbolic of total destruction and rejection.

In his masterly way, the Lord Jesus brought together all these Old Testament ideas in his use of the word 'Gehenna'. He often said that those who were rejected at the judgment seat at His return would go "into Gehenna (i.e."hell"), into the fire that never shall be quenched; where their worm dieth not" (Mark 9:43,44). Gehenna would have conjured up in the Jewish mind the ideas of rejection and destruction of the body, and we have seen that eternal fire is an idiom representing the anger of God against sin, and the eternal destruction of sinners through death.

The reference to "where their worm dieth not", is evidently part of this same idiom for total destruction - it is inconceivable that there could be literal worms which will never die. The fact that Gehenna was the location of previous punishments of the wicked amongst God's people, further shows the aptness of Christ's use of this figure of Gehenna.

I guess a five second search just put me one step ahead of you on the "gates of hell" knowledge ladder:)

Either way, discussion on religion is about as useful as a discussion on politics...and it makes us all look like asshats:)

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:38 pm

not if it stays informative rather than accusatory

Garr · Post by **Garr** » Tue Apr 29, 2008 5:02 pm

I did a search on google using "the gates of hell" as criteria, and the first two pages were full of references to the movie and to the sculpture. Even so, the text you quoted makes no reference to pagans, regardless of it's informative value.

I also agree with Bassjones that a discussion of the scholarly, historical, or academic value of religions in an informative voice is always beneficial (and usually entertaining). So far, I haven't seen much that I would consider someone trying to push beliefs on anyone else, but I have seen a lot of good information to serve as a study catalyst.

deek · Post by **deek** » Tue Apr 29, 2008 8:32 pm

Carry on then.

Garr · Post by **Garr** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 6:24 am

Thanks for your permission ::roll::

deek · Post by **deek** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:02 am

Garr wrote:Thanks for your permission ::roll::

You know you were looking for it:)

MrSpall · Post by **MrSpall** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 9:46 am

Back to MC's original question of how a being outside of time can change:

Presuming God doesn't fit with our human concept of time - which seems necessary - doesn't preclude him from all notions of time. I would imagine God has his own notion of time. What seems like years to us - a length of time that allows for considerable change in a human - may seems like seconds to an infinite being.

Imagine it like Bill Gates with money. I've read somewhere (can't remember the source) that with his money he can buy Bentley's the same way an average American buys a pack of gum. What seems like a ton of money to us is inconsequential to him.

That's the way God views time. This allows for a gradual progression in his personality.

I've got more to say on the subject - but must for now return to work.

WBOB · Post by **WBOB** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 9:53 am

MrSpall wrote:Back to MC's original question of how a being outside of time can change:

Presuming God doesn't fit with our human concept of time - which seems necessary - doesn't preclude him from all notions of time. I would imagine God has his own notion of time. What seems like years to us - a length of time that allows for considerable change in a human - may seems like seconds to an infinite being.

with which I agree,....our time on the planet is the equivalent to
the "wink of an eye".

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 10:50 am

"A thousand years is like a day, and a day like a thousand years..."

Dagwood Lee · Post by **Dagwood Lee** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:24 pm

"A thousand years is like a day, and a day like a thousand years..."

Tell that to the millions suffering around the world in the very real, very present here and now.

It's such bullsh*t. An infinite being would not even experience "time"..."gradual progression in his personlaity"? WTF? So Freud was correct: God really is merely a human projection. Not a whole lot different than the Olympian deities of Antiquity. He shows all the same attributes: rage, jealousy, hate, envy, greed, and blood lust that we humans do. So how is he any better, more evolved, or "holy"?

He/She/It does not exist outside of time or space...He/She/It exists within our MINDS. Just look at the language and imagery we use to talk about Him/She/It. Even language is a cognitive construct.

The best analogy I ever heard that debunks the concept of God as the omnipotent judge of the world is a simple one: If an earthly jusdge were to sentence a petty thief, a child molester, an 80-year old grandma who got a speeding ticket and Hitler to the same number of years behind bars, we as humans would be outraged. We would call for his license to be revoked, etc. Yet God, in His infinite "wisdom" does just that when it comes to "salvation" through Christ. He makes no real judgement calls or deliberations on what might be "fair". Everyone who doesn't believe in Jesus, regardless of their relative ethical or moral fiber gets the same treatment: ETERNAL DEATH.

It's so damn silly. And yet so many still believe.

Garr · Post by **Garr** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:38 pm

Well, consider this as well, time, in general, is relative. We measure our time by the rate of rotation and revolution around our star. Who even knows how that relates to other galaxies and/or planets. I mean, who even knows where we fit (in any aspect) in the machine that is.