Old Testament Questions

[karl schuch]

question: did god just get nicer in the NT? if so how do we reconcile that with an unchanging god?

 

[Q_20]

did god just get nicer in the NT? if so how do we reconcile that with an unchanging god?

I've been thinking about why the perception of God changes so drastically between the Old and New Testament, and here is the conclusion that I have come up with. It's not that God Himself changed, rather the people's/author's perceptions of God did. If you look at the New Testament, the people WANTED and EXPECTED Jesus to be this mighty warrior king to rise up and conquer all their enemies. Why? Because that's what their perception of a powerful God and Saviour looked like. It was always like that. Many books of the OT, particularly the histories, weren't actually written down until hundreds of years after the actual events. Let's take Joshua's battle, for example. According to archeological evidence covering the entire time period that the battle would have taken place, the previous inhabitants before Joshua "conquered" the Promised Land, and all the surrounding cities he conquered afterwards, showed evident signs of being peaceful, artful, and agricultural people, not even close to the barbarous, wicked people the Bible describes. Archeologists have also found evidence of that location having heavily fortified walls as described in the Bible that were destroyed by earthquakes a few times around the time period of Joshua's battle. They even found records of a well known king or military leader (whether historical or mythical I don't remember) who's signature was to blow trumpets around cities before taking them. Personally, I believe that the authors who gathered hundreds of years later to finally write the story down would have known all of these things: the Promised Land's walls crumbling, a leader blowing trumpets, and their people finally entering the Promised Land. The Hebrews were HORRIBLE at keeping written records for a very long time (in comparison to the Egyptians, who have an almost perfectly recoverable account that lines up with the Biblical story of Joseph), so it's not surprising that they used what they knew of the history surrounding Joshua's conquest, and put the pieces together in a way that they THOUGHT represented their perception of God and to make a point of God's deliverance and favor for their people.

That's just my two cents of my personal conclusion. I watched a couple documentaries about it that helped me put some of this into perspective, so if you're interested, I'll post the links!

~Queen

 

[DawudTalut]

I've been thinking about why the perception of God changes so drastically between the Old and New Testament, and here is the conclusion that I have come up with. It's not that God Himself changed, rather the people's/author's perceptions of God did. If you look at the New Testament, the people WANTED and EXPECTED Jesus to be this mighty warrior king to rise up and conquer all their enemies. Why? Because that's what their perception of a powerful God and Saviour looked like. It was always like that. Many books of the OT, particularly the histories, weren't actually written down until hundreds of years after the actual events. Let's take Joshua's battle, for example. According to archeological evidence covering the entire time period that the battle would have taken place, the previous inhabitants before Joshua "conquered" the Promised Land, and all the surrounding cities he conquered afterwards, showed evident signs of being peaceful, artful, and agricultural people, not even close to the barbarous, wicked people the Bible describes. Archeologists have also found evidence of that location having heavily fortified walls as described in the Bible that were destroyed by earthquakes a few times around the time period of Joshua's battle. They even found records of a well known king or military leader (whether historical or mythical I don't remember) who's signature was to blow trumpets around cities before taking them. Personally, I believe that the authors who gathered hundreds of years later to finally write the story down would have known all of these things: the Promised Land's walls crumbling, a leader blowing trumpets, and their people finally entering the Promised Land. The Hebrews were HORRIBLE at keeping written records for a very long time (in comparison to the Egyptians, who have an almost perfectly recoverable account that lines up with the Biblical story of Joseph), so it's not surprising that they used what they knew of the history surrounding Joshua's conquest, and put the pieces together in a way that they THOUGHT represented their perception of God and to make a point of God's deliverance and favor for their people.

That's just my two cents of my personal conclusion. I watched a couple documentaries about it that helped me put some of this into perspective, so if you're interested, I'll post the links!

~Queen

Peace be on you. Were Arian thoughts much closer to OT? and if one minuses the role of Paul, would not true and real Christianity of Unity of God appear?
Thanks

 

[CMike]

I realize this started about a year ago.

So yeah, this has been on my mind for quite some time now. Is the O.T false?

Now first off, the style of writing and ideology greatly differs from the N.T and in the O.T,

in the O.T God has told the Jews to kill all Akkadians and encouraged slavery.

False

God supposedly promoted racial segregation, murder, rape and many other horrible crimes which were completely denied in the N.T

False

Now In the N.T it has been told that Christ put an end to the O.T when he died at the cross, and the whole 'I did not come to abolish but to complete' takes on a whole different meaning if you read it in Greek/Hebrew. The thing is, the only obstacle between me and Christianity is the O.T. I find the N.T to be beautiful and touching, but the O.T seems to be too childish/genocidal for my taste. Remember that God is portrayed as loving and caring in the N.T, however in the O.T he seems to act like the Zeus: Jealous, paranoid and if anything murderous.

That's because you have a very poor understanding of the Torah.

I've seen a couple of religious arguments about the morality of the bible and I see that the common argument is mainly against the O.T, I rarely come across anything about the N.T.

That's because the religious arguements you get are from people who have zero understanding of the Torah.

Now I'm not exactly a bible scholar,

Apparently.

but is the N.T heavily supportive of the O.T? I don't see it like that but I'd like to see if any argument like this is valid. Also should we consider the society during that time? Would the Jews have listened to Christ if he simply denied everything they've been holding on to for the past 2000 years? And couldn't directly tell them it was false? Is it part of a greater plan?

Actually, jews today wouldn't have listened to jesus because we consider him a falsae god.

1) Calling the Torah the OT is insulting. It implies that our scriptures are inferior to yours. They aren't.

The Torah is the five books of Moses. The Tanach is the five books of Moses, plus prophets and scriptures.

2) What is the Torah? The Torah is the journey of the jews from the beginning until the jews were taken into Israel.

During the time to get to Israel the jews were faced with many bad people and had to fight numerous nations.

Would G-D talking about that America should go to war against the nazis be promoting murder and killing?

Would G-D guiding the american colonies to attack Britian and get it's independence be promoting war and genocide?

It's very easy to through out flowerly ideals when it's only theoritcal. Hey let's just all love everyone and give them roses is different when there are enemies out to crush you.

That said, Pres. Bush and Congress signed a proclamation that the 7 laws given to non jews in the Torah is the foundation of American western civilization.

The Torah teaches love and morality.

There are people who simply don't understand it and don't care enough to learn the real meaning. Even though the Torah allows for the death penalty it also makes the criteria so high to implement the death penalty that it makes it nearly impossible to implement.

The problem is that many people don't care enough to understand this.

The Torah is where the 10 commandments comes from.

It is an all encompassing law and governing system. It covers civil law, how to deal with your neighbor, how to treat others, what to do if you damaged someone else's property, laws of marriage and divorce, dietery laws, how to slaughter an animal, laws of how people should behave toward one another, etc.

The Torah doesn't condone the christian bible because the christian bible deals with worshipping another god, but that is a different story.

The Torah is completely different than the christian bible.

I am saddened by how many people twist and pervert it.

 

[CMike]

I've been thinking about why the perception of God changes so drastically between the Old and New Testament, and here is the conclusion that I have come up with. It's not that God Himself changed, rather the people's/author's perceptions of God did. If you look at the New Testament, the people WANTED and EXPECTED Jesus to be this mighty warrior king to rise up and conquer all their enemies. Why? Because that's what their perception of a powerful God and Saviour looked like. It was always like that. Many books of the OT, particularly the histories, weren't actually written down until hundreds of years after the actual events. Let's take Joshua's battle, for example. According to archeological evidence covering the entire time period that the battle would have taken place, the previous inhabitants before Joshua "conquered" the Promised Land, and all the surrounding cities he conquered afterwards, showed evident signs of being peaceful, artful, and agricultural people, not even close to the barbarous, wicked people the Bible describes. Archeologists have also found evidence of that location having heavily fortified walls as described in the Bible that were destroyed by earthquakes a few times around the time period of Joshua's battle. They even found records of a well known king or military leader (whether historical or mythical I don't remember) who's signature was to blow trumpets around cities before taking them. Personally, I believe that the authors who gathered hundreds of years later to finally write the story down would have known all of these things: the Promised Land's walls crumbling, a leader blowing trumpets, and their people finally entering the Promised Land. The Hebrews were HORRIBLE at keeping written records for a very long time (in comparison to the Egyptians, who have an almost perfectly recoverable account that lines up with the Biblical story of Joseph), so it's not surprising that they used what they knew of the history surrounding Joshua's conquest, and put the pieces together in a way that they THOUGHT represented their perception of God and to make a point of God's deliverance and favor for their people.

That's just my two cents of my personal conclusion. I watched a couple documentaries about it that helped me put some of this into perspective, so if you're interested, I'll post the links!

~Queen

I can't see anything you wrote that has a kernel of truth.

 

[CMike]

I get your point.
Not easy to explain, it takes some doing.
The teachings of the Bible would make more sense to you if you could see the script for what it is and the players for who they are.
I had a few 'break downs' in reality in the last couple of years, I used to think and see like you, well, almost.
I don't mean to upset anyone but it is inevitable, as Krishna Murti said; 'The 'truth' will upset you free'.
First, read the Bible with extreme cautiousness, Ex.3 4 And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said: 'Moses, Moses.' And he said: 'Here am I.'
Only after Moses was distracted and strayed from the path did YHVH called him and told him whatever he liked because Moses' Mind was not his own anymore.
This is how they do it to us on a daily basis, it's a guide book for some.

What utter nonsense. G-D repeated Moses' name as a sign of love for him.

The rest of the post is utter nonsense as well.

 

[Q_20]

I can't see anything you wrote that has a kernel of truth.

This is supposed to be a discussion, not a debate, so would you mind explaining why you disagree instead of so abruptly condemning my beliefs? I'm honestly interested in hearing different views on this topic. As I said in my previous post, I've been contemplating this topic for a while. I was just offering a perspective that I found worked for me, but I'm open to new ideas! I never said that my post was the truth, I specifically said it was just the personal conclusion that makes sense to me and my beliefs.

 

[CMike]

This is supposed to be a discussion, not a debate, so would you mind explaining why you disagree instead of so abruptly condemning my beliefs? I'm honestly interested in hearing different views on this topic. As I said in my previous post, I've been contemplating this topic for a while. I was just offering a perspective that I found worked for me, but I'm open to new ideas! I never said that my post was the truth, I specifically said it was just the personal conclusion that makes sense to me and my beliefs.

Rather than write what the Torah isn't, I already wrote what the Torah is.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3535492-post45.html

 

[CMike]

question: did god just get nicer in the NT? if so how do we reconcile that with an unchanging god?

Since us jews don't believe that G-D had anything to do with the christian bible, the answer is no.

 

[CMike]

Peace be on you. Were Arian thoughts much closer to OT? and if one minuses the role of Paul, would not true and real Christianity of Unity of God appear?
Thanks

What's OT?

 

[DawudTalut]

Peace be on you.
1-God has always been One in Old Testament. [O.T.]


2-

17"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.

18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

19"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20"For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Mathew 5.
Ref: biblehub.com


These words did not change their sense due to cross factor as OP thought so as

" Now In the N.T it has been told that Christ put an end to the O.T when he died at the cross, and the whole 'I did not come to abolish but to complete' takes on a whole different meaning if you read it in Greek/Hebrew." Ref: words of OP


Considering human are basically made as Image of God [i.e. Pure and Clean = No Original Sins stands, Latter weaknesses corruptions sneak; if done on purpose, called sins, and Reformers come for corrections and take the people high up from raw state to pure child-like-pure state. They struggle to bring human back to pure state of Image of God, by showing their own purity of character, in that sense Jesus was an Image of God for his time, other holy men are Images of God for their times.....Holy Quran everyone to have color of God i.e. image of God. God says in Holy Quran: "" Say, ‘(We will adopt) the color of Allah; and who is better than Allah in color, and Him alone do we worship.""(chapter 2 : verse 139)...Here is used as attributes, believer is being asked to imbibe attributes of God on human level; it is taught through Messenger/Prophet of God who is the best image of God at human level -- remaining human. ]

26Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,a and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

Genesis 1
Source:http://biblehub.com/niv/genesis/1.htm


Thus in the light of Jesus's words, trinity should have no place in true chritianity.



3- Arian did not believe in trinity.
Note:

Although "Arianism" suggests that Arius was the originator of the teaching that bears his name, the debate over the Son’s precise relationship to the Father did not begin with him. This subject had been discussed for decades before his advent; Arius merely intensified the controversy and carried it to a Church-wide audience........................However, because the conflict between Arius and his foes brought the issue to the theological forefront, the doctrine he proclaimed—though not originated by him—is generally labeled as "his".

Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arius


4- Jesus was sent as reformer only like all men of God. After sometimes when conditions were unfavourable, he survived the cross and went to continue his ministry for "lost sheep" i.e. other tribes of Israil and was very successfull.
Source:https://www.alislam.org/library/books/jesus-in-india/index.html


5-Trinity was incorporated to copy Roman rituals.

Apparently there were two options available to St. Paul, either to fight the strenuous battles against a world of superstitions, myths and legends prevalent in the lands of the Roman Empire from times immemorial or to give in to them and let Christianity change to suit their requirements and ambitions. This gave them the message that Christianity was not essentially different from their legends and myths. He found the adoption of the second option far more profitable and convenient and let Christianity change to suit the ambitions and philosophies popular in the gentile world.

This strategy worked well in as much as it gained a great number of converts to the new faith which otherwise would not have been easily available. But at what cost. Unfortunately, it ended up only in an unholy competition between noble Christian values and pagan myths. What St. Paul changed was only the names of the pagan gods and replaced them with Jesus, God the Father and the Holy Ghost. It was not him in fact who invented the myth of Trinity and introduced it to the pagan world in the name of Christianity, on the contrary he borrowed the myth of the Trinity from pagan mythology and bonded it to Christianity. From then on it was the same old paganism but with new names and new faces.

Pauline Christianity, therefore, did not succeed in changing the doctrines, myths and superstitions of the pagan world but only ended in changing Christianity in accordance with them. If the mountain did not respond to his call, he decided to go to the mountain.

Source:https://www.alislam.org/library/books/christianity_facts_to_fiction/chapter_7.html#pgfId-1006208

 

[Tumah]

Maybe parts of the O.T is fake? Wouldn't that answer that question? Maybe only certain parts of it were forged, that way the O.T and the N.T can both be real.

I agree that the OTand NT can't both be real. But personally, I would say that your question is approaching this from the wrong angle. The OT came first. So maybe the NT was the fabrication.

 

[CMike]

There are parts of the that I simply cannot grasp, mainly in the Torah., I don't really have much doubt about the rest of it, but I'm a bit sceptical about parts of the O.T, since they contradict with the N.T.

I don't know what the OT is?

However of course they contradict.

Christian beliefs are vastly different than jewish beliefs. They have little in common.

 

[CMike]

The Old Testament is much more primitive than the New Testament. The Jewish religious leaders were trying to control their people through their religious writings. God did not tell the Jews to kill Akkadians or anyone else, the Jewish religious leaders just said that.

No one knew why natural events happened back then so they were thought to be "Acts of God", even today they are still called that but God sent no plagues, or storms. The religious leaders used these unknown things to promote their own agenda which was to control the people.

The reason the Jews did not accept Christ was because they wanted and fully expected the Messiah to lead them to victory over the Romans and make them powerful. Christ did not come to give the Jews power over other men. Christ came to tell everyone about His Father.

Jesus came for whatever reason.

The Torah was given by G-D, for the jews, to be interpreted by jews.

The chrisian bible was just made up of people who followed the teachings of a a person.


The jews will only worship their G-D. It's against jewish law to follow false gods, alien gods, and people.

Jews place their trust solely in G-D.

 

[CMike]

I get your point.
Not easy to explain, it takes some doing.
The teachings of the Bible would make more sense to you if you could see the script for what it is and the players for who they are.
I had a few 'break downs' in reality in the last couple of years, I used to think and see like you, well, almost.
I don't mean to upset anyone but it is inevitable, as Krishna Murti said; 'The 'truth' will upset you free'.
First, read the Bible with extreme cautiousness, Ex.3 4 And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said: 'Moses, Moses.' And he said: 'Here am I.'
Only after Moses was distracted and strayed from the path did YHVH called him and told him whatever he liked because Moses' Mind was not his own anymore.
This is how they do it to us on a daily basis, it's a guide book for some.

YHVH is the flame of pro-creation, like the 'Shofar (horn) the Jews use to blow on their new year, it is: Gen.1 11 And God said: 'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.' Bold type explains the concept of YHVH in people too.

Elohim is plural because of the plurality of the Mind, 2 main brain lobes, check the Caduceus.
We are told many things, I tend to read the book and use what I learned from the 'Law' and I only use 5 senses, once I do that I can use a bit of imagination that is free from dogmas shoved down my throat as a young child.
I was passed through the fire to Molech (the ruler) at school, they burnt the disc called my mind, but evidently the 'job' was flawed, because 50 years later I can see their game.
It's a cross and double cross game.
Last August I was told by a Kabalist in Tel Aviv to pay more attention, a lowly cab driver, would you believe, yes, they come to you in all different forms.
I went away, it took me a day to see my mistake, and bingo, of course, the Bible makes sense.
Baal, Hebrew is Husband, the ownner, Lord, Adonai-my Lord.
YHVH- the procreative cycle.
Y- concious will (hand) Male, H-Upper female, v Vav- Child, Vav spins and multiplies opposite, creates a Het, an enclosure, as in marriage, the joining of man and woman creating a child, and then comes the lower H-female, which joins the Y Yod in Hebrew which completes the cycle.
YHVH is not just linear it is also cyclical, a spiral, like the galaxy, male female created them, the continuation of life, that is why you see all the sexual symbols everywhere, in the Vatican and every majour city in the world. The gates of the churches, the towers etc.
Mon-Santo took away the cyclical creation and instead give us monster seeds, they now conrol the seed's YHVH.
By the way; one should only UNDERSTAND one's own Mind, Father, God, Please don't ask me to stand under your mind or command, it is offensive, I try with all my heart not to use that word any more, it belongs with those who confounded the language.
We are told to see the word Baal as the bad guy.
This is not about good or bad, it's about seeing the concepts and what they mean.
Ba-spirit, Al-El, in the spirit of El, El is not exactly Elohim, missing a few letters, the lower Lord takes over the higher God, the Hormonal system takes over the Mind, the nervous system.

I can see the tricky times ahead, trying to get people to see the deception in the teachings of the script.
It's easier to fool people than to unfool them, not entirely our fault, our minds were burnt at schools and churches and sunagogues and madrasas at a young age, when: Gen 2,6 "but there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground". For earth read body, still children, pre pubescent, best time to indocrinate.
PS. Hebrew is a made up language from old Ugarit, so I read, the history we are told is written by who knows, Hebrew was never meant to be a spoken language, now it is, still full of confounding and the way I was taught the Bible and History was very much like you, left me with a lot of confusion and not knowing, once you read the 'Law' and its history, you start seeing differently.

Oy vey.

 

[Hawkins]

So yeah, this has been on my mind for quite some time now. Is the O.T false? Now first off, the style of writing and ideology greatly differs from the N.T and in the O.T, in the O.T God has told the Jews to kill all Akkadians and encouraged slavery. God supposedly promoted racial segregation, murder, rape and many other horrible crimes which were completely denied in the N.T

Now In the N.T it has been told that Christ put an end to the O.T when he died at the cross, and the whole 'I did not come to abolish but to complete' takes on a whole different meaning if you read it in Greek/Hebrew. The thing is, the only obstacle between me and Christianity is the O.T. I find the N.T to be beautiful and touching, but the O.T seems to be too childish/genocidal for my taste. Remember that God is portrayed as loving and caring in the N.T, however in the O.T he seems to act like the Zeus: Jealous, paranoid and if anything murderous.

I've seen a couple of religious arguments about the morality of the bible and I see that the common argument is mainly against the O.T, I rarely come across anything about the N.T

Now I'm not exactly a bible scholar, but is the N.T heavily supportive of the O.T? I don't see it like that but I'd like to see if any argument like this is valid. Also should we consider the society during that time? Would the Jews have listened to Christ if he simply denied everything they've been holding on to for the past 2000 years? And couldn't directly tell them it was false? Is it part of a greater plan?

You misunderstood the situation.

The Jews are told to kill because it's the only way they can survive among the cruel and brutal enemies (humans in the middle east at that time are cruel and brutal anyway). Only after settled in Canaan that God started to 'educate' them to be more civilized. To put it another way, if the Jews don't kill, they will be the first ethnic group vanish in history, they will be eradicated by their enemies. Then God's salvation plan will be put to an end.

If you pay more attention to the slavery described in O.T., you may notice that there are actually 2 slavery system co-existed. First is a Hebrew labor system, the other is the world's slavery system.

The intention of the Hebrew slavery system is actually a labor system to help the poor. A Jew is not allowed to be enslaved forever, it's a 7-year contract when the 7 years time is up, the slave will have to be released.

On the other hand, the Jews (rich Jews) also follow the world's standard to hire non-Hebrew slaves. There are regulations which are to make sure that the Jews will treat those non-Hebrew slaves in a better way comparing to their surrounding nations.

However, as time goes by, the Hebrew slavery system was corrupted by the rich. Jeremiah thus called for putting an end to the system.

 

[John Martin]

So yeah, this has been on my mind for quite some time now. Is the O.T false? Now first off, the style of writing and ideology greatly differs from the N.T and in the O.T, in the O.T God has told the Jews to kill all Akkadians and encouraged slavery. God supposedly promoted racial segregation, murder, rape and many other horrible crimes which were completely denied in the N.T

Now In the N.T it has been told that Christ put an end to the O.T when he died at the cross, and the whole 'I did not come to abolish but to complete' takes on a whole different meaning if you read it in Greek/Hebrew. The thing is, the only obstacle between me and Christianity is the O.T. I find the N.T to be beautiful and touching, but the O.T seems to be too childish/genocidal for my taste. Remember that God is portrayed as loving and caring in the N.T, however in the O.T he seems to act like the Zeus: Jealous, paranoid and if anything murderous.

I've seen a couple of religious arguments about the morality of the bible and I see that the common argument is mainly against the O.T, I rarely come across anything about the N.T

Now I'm not exactly a bible scholar, but is the N.T heavily supportive of the O.T? I don't see it like that but I'd like to see if any argument like this is valid. Also should we consider the society during that time? Would the Jews have listened to Christ if he simply denied everything they've been holding on to for the past 2000 years? And couldn't directly tell them it was false? Is it part of a greater plan?

Human beings are in the process of evolution in relationship with God. It is like climbing a hill. As we climb higher and higher the way we understand God and human relationships change. The Old Testament presents this evolutionary process. When human consciousness is in the lower levels its understanding of God and human relationships are very limited. God is understood as cruel, jealous and violence. They are the projections of our human mind. Jesus has completed this evolutionary process and reached the top of the hill. He experienced one God,one creation and one humanity. he experienced that the human consciousness is one with the divine consciousness. In that sense N.T.is seen as the fulfillment of the O.T. In the N.T. we have one hundred percent love of God and one hundred percent love of neighbour. No one can go beyond that. Hence we must not take the O.T in an absolute sense but something that reveals to us the evolutionary process of the divine human relationships.

 

[Devin]

So yeah, this has been on my mind for quite some time now. Is the O.T false? Now first off, the style of writing and ideology greatly differs from the N.T and in the O.T, in the O.T God has told the Jews to kill all Akkadians and encouraged slavery. God supposedly promoted racial segregation, murder, rape and many other horrible crimes which were completely denied in the N.T

Now In the N.T it has been told that Christ put an end to the O.T when he died at the cross, and the whole 'I did not come to abolish but to complete' takes on a whole different meaning if you read it in Greek/Hebrew. The thing is, the only obstacle between me and Christianity is the O.T. I find the N.T to be beautiful and touching, but the O.T seems to be too childish/genocidal for my taste. Remember that God is portrayed as loving and caring in the N.T, however in the O.T he seems to act like the Zeus: Jealous, paranoid and if anything murderous.

I've seen a couple of religious arguments about the morality of the bible and I see that the common argument is mainly against the O.T, I rarely come across anything about the N.T

Now I'm not exactly a bible scholar, but is the N.T heavily supportive of the O.T? I don't see it like that but I'd like to see if any argument like this is valid. Also should we consider the society during that time? Would the Jews have listened to Christ if he simply denied everything they've been holding on to for the past 2000 years? And couldn't directly tell them it was false? Is it part of a greater plan?

I realize I am quite late to this Theological party, but wanted to ask anyway. Have you found the answer you were looking for?
Blessings,
Devin