the old and the new testament

[syo]

in orthodoxy, we are taught that the new testament is greater than the old testament, that is why we use the epithet ''old'' for the old testament. it's kind of, the ''new'' testament replacing the ''old''. if there are any contradictions between the two, the new testament prevails. it makes sense. the words of christ are words of god himself, and they prevail the old.

 

[syo]

No The OT is also the word of God. You don't need to change either of them.

that is correct. but the word of god in the ot is through the mouth of prophets. and the prophets' mission was to foretell the coming of the messiah. the messiah completed the word of god, not the prophets.

 

[Rival]

The Christian Testament contradicts Tanach, so it's thrown out

 

[wizanda]

we are taught that the new testament is greater than the old testament

The knowledge required to understand the NT properly, is supplied in the OT...

As without the prophets explaining what is taking place, we would be left taking for granted that somethings add up properly.

the prophets' mission was to foretell the coming of the messiah.

Plus they tell of a Curse and a Snare on the Nations, a coming of the Lord, a war with everyone against God's people, so that God steps in, and reality changes...

In other words, OT prophecy is confirmed by Yeshua; yet it doesn't stop there, there is loads more prophesied to come in both OT + NT = Bible...

Personally love how the book of Revelation is confirmed by its succinctness with the prophets, in ways that just sound garbled to begin, until we realize a lot is referenced elsewhere in the Tanakh.

In my opinion.

 

[Akivah]

in orthodoxy, we are taught that the new testament is greater than the old testament, that is why we use the epithet ''old'' for the old testament. it's kind of, the ''new'' testament replacing the ''old''. if there are any contradictions between the two, the new testament prevails. it makes sense. the words of christ are words of god himself, and they prevail the old.

It's really quite simple. Christianity uses a different bible than Judaism uses. That's why we have different theologies.

 

[syo]

The Christian Testament contradicts Tanach, so it's thrown out.

It's really quite simple. Christianity uses a different bible than Judaism uses. That's why we have different theologies.

yes, exactly! these two religions (judaism and christianity) are very different, they follow different books.

 

[wizanda]

The Christian Testament contradicts Tanach, so it's thrown out.

Yet the Tanakh contradicts the Tanakh in places?

Christianity uses a different bible than Judaism uses. That's why we have different theologies.

It really isn't that different, it is majoritively the same text... The problem comes from blinkers, Jews ignore the NT on the right eye, and Christians ignore the Tanakh on the left.

these two religions (judaism and christianity) are very different, they follow different books.

The religious groups of people do; yet the text its self can be read all encompassing, else it doesn't all make sense without a proper context.

In my opinion.

 

[Akivah]

It really isn't that different, it is majoritively the same text... The problem comes from blinkers, Jews ignore the NT on the right eye, and Christians ignore the Tanakh on the left.

In my opinion.

In my opinion, your opinion ignores reality. These two religions differ on many central and important topics. There is really very little that we agree upon. Judaism is far more aligned with Islam than it is with Christianity.

 

[Rival]

Yet the Tanakh contradicts the Tanakh in places?

Not on major issues like whether G-d is one, a man, human sacrifice, how to atone for sin and the messiah. Christianity bulldozes all these things with a trinity, a human god, a human sacrifice, a human sacrifice sin atonement/deicide and a different messianic concept.

 

[Kemosloby]

that is correct. but the word of god in the ot is through the mouth of prophets. and the prophets' mission was to foretell the coming of the messiah. the messiah completed the word of god, not the prophets.

Not all of the OT was foretelling the coming of Jesus. A Jew before Jesus was born summed up the law as "love your neighbor as yourself" then Jesus said "love your enemies too". So Jesus fullfilled the law by dying on the cross, as it is written "There is no greater love than laying your life down for a friend"

 

[wizanda]

These two religions differ on many central and important topics. There is really very little that we agree upon.

Of course the religions are divided, it is like different reviews of the same information, yet missing huge sections of data on each side.

Judaism is far more aligned with Islam than it is with Christianity.

Agreed Muslims are closer to Jews, yet not as they bother to read the whole Bible either.

Not on major issues like whether G-d is one

There is a council of Elohim (Psalms 82:1).

a man

The Lord walked with Adam, wrestled with Jacob, eat with Abraham, and had his back to Moses...

human sacrifice

Though I've tried to show to myself there are no signs of human sacrifice in the Tanakh; there are sites giving logical reasons, why this isn't the case.

how to atone for sin

There are lots of ways to atone, and it is overly complicated, where somethings are ambiguous; such as Isaiah 53, which both Christians and Jews like to try claim as their own...

Whereas I'd say if we read the first line of Isaiah 53:1, 'who'd have believed the rumor' to me means it is so far fetched in Hebraic culture, how could anyone believe it, as it does not match the Noahide Law.

Christianity bulldozes all these things with a trinity, a human god, a human sacrifice, a human sacrifice sin atonement/deicide and a different messianic concept.

Christians are told to believe these things by Paul, John and Simon the stone (petros)...

They're told not to examine the full context, and that there is a veil over the Tanakh in understanding; so many choose to ignore it as such or superimpose their presuppositions onto the Tanakh.

In my opinion.

 

[DavidFirth]

The old testament is the old covenant while the new testament is the new covenant.

See Hebrews 8.

Hebrews 8:13
By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

 

[Rival]

There is a council of Elohim (Psalms 82:1).

Here is the Chabad translation:

A song of Asaph. God stands in the congregation of God; in the midst of the judges He will judge.

Next.

The Lord walked with Adam, wrestled with Jacob, eat with Abraham, and had his back to Moses...

A decent translation can work wonders.

And they heard the voice of the Lord God going in the garden to the direction of the sun, and the man and his wife hid from before the Lord God in the midst of the trees of the garden.

And Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him until the break of dawn. When he saw that he could not prevail against him, he touched the socket of his hip, and the socket of Jacob's hip became dislocated as he wrestled with him. And he (the angel) said, "Let me go, for dawn is breaking," but he (Jacob) said, "I will not let you go unless you have blessed me."

Abraham ate with three angels.

The Rambam on the Moshe issue, spoilered for length:

Spoiler

Behold, it is explicitly stated in the Torah and [the works of] the prophets that the Holy One, blessed be He, is not [confined to] a body or physical form, as [Deuteronomy 4:39] states: "Because God, your Lord, is the Lord in the heavens above and the earth below," and a body cannot exist in two places [simultaneously].

Also, [Deuteronomy 4:15] states: "For you did not see any image," and [Isaiah 40:25] states: "To whom can you liken Me, with whom I will be equal." Were He [confined to] a body, He would resemble other bodies.

[If so,] what did Moses, our teacher, want to comprehend when he requested: "Please show me Your glory" [Exodus 33:18]?

He asked to know the truth of the existence of the Holy One, blessed be He, to the extent that it could be internalized within his mind, as one knows a particular person whose face he saw and whose image has been engraved within one's heart. Thus, this person's [identity] is distinguished within one's mind from [that of] other men. Similarly, Moses, our teacher, asked that the existence of the Holy One, blessed be He, be distinguished in his mind from the existence of other entities, to the extent that he would know the truth of His existence as it is [in its own right].

He, blessed be He, replied to him that it is not within the potential of a living man, [a creature of] body and soul, to comprehend this matter in its entirety. [Nevertheless,] He, blessed be He, revealed to [Moses] matters which no other man had known before him - nor would ever know afterward - until he was able to comprehend [enough] from the truth of His existence, for the Holy One, blessed be He, to be distinguished in his mind from other entities, as a person is distinguished from other men when one sees his back and knows the structure of his body and [the manner in which] he is clothed.

This is alluded to by the verse [Exodus 33:23]: "You shall see My back, but you shall not see My face."

Though I've tried to show to myself there are no signs of human sacrifice in the Tanakh; there are sites giving logical reasons, why this isn't the case.

There is no human sacrifice ordained by G-d in Tanach.

There are lots of ways to atone, and it is overly complicated, where somethings are ambiguous; such as Isaiah 53, which both Christians and Jews like to try claim as their own...

Whereas I'd say if we read the first line of Isaiah 53:1, 'who'd have believed the rumor' to me means it is so far fetched in Hebraic culture, how could anyone believe it, as it does not match the Noahide Law.

One may repent simply by prayer. That is very simple.

 

[Akivah]

The old testament is the old covenant while the new testament is the new covenant.

Hebrews 8:13
By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

Yes, this is false information that Christianity has taken on. Judaism knows better. The Original Testament is Eternal. It can't be changed, altered, deleted, or switched around.

The quote is also wrong that the "outdated" will SOON disappear. It's been two thousand years and the Original Testament (aka Hebrew bible) is still here.

 

[Rival]

Yes, this is false information that Christianity has taken on. Judaism knows better. The Original Testament is Eternal. It can't be changed, altered, deleted, or switched around.

The quote is also wrong that the "outdated" will SOON disappear. It's been two thousand years and the Original Testament (aka Hebrew bible) is still here.

And Jews.

 

[DavidFirth]

Yes, this is false information that Christianity has taken on. Judaism knows better. The Original Testament is Eternal. It can't be changed, altered, deleted, or switched around.

The quote is also wrong that the "outdated" will SOON disappear. It's been two thousand years and the Original Testament (aka Hebrew bible) is still here.

The book of Hebrews also explains why Israel holds on to it.

 

[Akivah]

The book of Hebrews also explains why Israel holds on to it.

You mean because it was given directly to us by G-d?

 

[DavidFirth]

You mean because it was given directly to us by G-d?

Read the book.

 

[Akivah]

Read the book.

Nope. I have no interest in your bible.

 

[DavidFirth]

Nope. I have no interest in your bible.

And I have no interest in your old covenant. The New one is better.