Cristians, Do you recognize a dichotomy/paradox between/in the old and new testament?

Question

Happy, I don't think that you can't be a christian by acknowledging that conundrum. In fact, I guess it would make you a better one.

I guess I'm just thinking that the new testament is about forgiveness and love. The old one seems to have a lot of vengence and righteousness.

Yeah Dan, that's the part I don't really get. I mean a lot of christians *fundies* seem to put lots of stock in the ot. Just trying to get a sense of where folks are coming from. BTW, this Q is not meant to offend. It's just an exploration into peoples thoughts.

Cindy, These are symantics.

Sorry Lucky, I'd take it off if I could. I'll try not to use that word. :)

Then Moara, doesn't that demonstrate that God is more of a concept than a truth? I mean God is subject to our beliefs as much as we are to its'?

Pretty interesting thought.

Sorry everyone, I don't mean to be dumb. It's just very complicated stuff.

I guess the point I'm trying to explore is "is God subjective?"

If humans were wiped out, would God still exist? I think no but I still believe in God but not Heaven or Hell or life after death. Wouldn't that be the truest faith of all?

Lucky, after rereading my comments I realize that I owe you an appology for an ignorant and prejudiced remark. I sincerely appologize.

Tuberoot, I think that such contradictions reinforce my thought that God is subject to the hearts of people and vice versa.

Answer 1

The moment christian recogonize it they ceases to be christians..so your question is also a paradox.

Answer 2

There are generally two steams of thought on this among Xians. One is that there is a complete change in the covenant (agreement) between God and man. The second is that the same covenant just takes a different form. i.e. baptism parellels circumcision.

In both cases, it's not God that has changed, merely the way that he relates to mankind. The old testament was more concerned with creating a just society for God's people. In the new testament, the covenant is explanded to all people, under different governments, so the seemingly stern and severe ruler/judge aspect of God is replaced by local gov'ts, so in the new testament he seems more loving, but really it's just what he want of us that's changed.


EDIT: thanks for the response. It doesn't neccesarily demonstrate that God is a concept. If you start with the assumption that God doesn't exist then it might, but if you start with the assumpiton that he's real, then it doesn't.
BTW no need to apologise. I love open honest questions like these.

Answer 3

I have read a few of your comments and I think that I see what you are getting at. But what if I can prove that God desired to love and practiced it in the Old Testament, and that Jesus condemned some in the New Testament? What then? Jesus even condemned entire cities in the New Testament.

I think that many people miss the points of the Old Testament, and therefore see a difference in God. For one thing, they really don't understand why things are the way they are exposed in the Old Testament.

Here is a point in the Old Testament:
1 ) Sin would one day be taken from the Earth. It wouldn't exist in creation ever again.

This is a point where a tact may be taken in several ways.
2) One way is to realize that there was no sin atoned for in the Old Testament. The blood of animals was not sufficient to save any one. It was faith all along but also it was God's selection of who He wanted to respond to Him.

3) Since there was no sin atoned for in the Old Testament, there was the promise of sin being atoned for. Jesus is all over the Old Testament, in types and shadows found where he is typified and prophesied.

4) God would relieve humankind from sin, not wanting it around any more. The humans who would be relieved wouldn't have to suffer with it any longer.

All of this is shown in the Old Testament. God will take it all away and humans my live even in His presence in peace with Him. So God is terrible, but good. Those who reject Him are not going to have a good time, while those who trust Him are going to be His people. And it was that way before, it is that way now.

Answer 4

Dichotomy-Division into two usually contradictory parts or opinions.
Paradox-Appears to be contradictory but expresses some measure of truth.

There are many instances that contradict between the old and new testament. Here's one: The Old Testament required live sacrifices and the New Testament simply requires acceptance that we are sinners and doomed to hell without the sacrifice of Jesus. I believe this is more a paradox than a dichotomy.

Answer 5

I see no dichotomy between Old and New testaments. Could you elaborate?

Ok... The OT was a shadow of what was to come in the NT. Everything in the OT points towards what Christ would reveal in the NT. There is no contradiction or dichotomy if you read it in context.

Answer 6

One doesn't have to be a Christian to recognize a dichotomy/paradox between/in the old and new testaments, both of which I've read.

Answer 7

Not only do they recognize it, it is part of the Christian doxology. The OT defined a stern, demanding, unforgiving God whereas the NT changed that 180 degrees. That's the whole point of Jesus and all.

So their mythology goes anyway.

Answer 8

I see love in both.....

in the old testament...God spends thousands of years forgiving stupid people that sin over and over....

in the new testament...he sends the messiah to take the punishment for these stupid people because they would never be able to handle the punishment due them for their sins.

Answer 9

As others have pointed out, it is a common mis-perception that God's 'Judgement' is to be found in the Old and God's 'Mercy' is to be found in the New, there's plenty of both in both.
I'm just wrapping up a study on the Bible where I have argued that the Scriptures really belong together. I see some of my fellow Christians here have made some good points, but I would like to give you a 'non-theological' answer if you will permit me.

First of all, let's ask the question, who wrote the Old Testament?
Second, let's ask 'do these books themselves go together?
If we can answer those questions, then we can address whether the New Testament goes with the Old.

According to the Rabbis of the 2nd Century, the Torah (first five books of the Bible) were composed by Moses, who was a prophet. Now you can debate to what extent the actual Moses composed these books or not, that's really immaterial to what I'm saying. The point is, they were ascribed to a Prophet. In addition, the Rabbis referred to what we normally call the 'History' books, 1&2 Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Judges, Joshua etc, as the 'Neviim Rishonim', which means 'The former Prophets'. Later we have the books we call 'the Prophets' propper, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, etc., which the Rabbis refer to as the 'Neviim Aharonim' or, the 'Later Prophets'. In addition there are a few books, Job, Song of Songs, Proverbs and Psalms which are referred to as the 'Ketuvim', the 'writings', but it is clear from the attitude of both the Jewish Rabbis and the Jewish Christians that these books were considered prophetic (that is to say, composed by someone inspired by God's Spirit) as well.
So then, I think we can make a case that the books of the Old Testament were composed by Prophets. These after all, would have been the people in Ancient Hebrew Society who would have been reguarded as Spiritual Authorities.

That's all well and good, but do they go together?

In Lev 13 Moses talks about prophets who will come after him, and enjoins the Hebrew people to listen to them. At Sinai, God announces himself as the 'God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob', this means that God is making reference to the past experience of former prophets (in Hebrew terms, those who have made direct contact with God) as a means of establishing both His identity and His legacy to Moses. If you read the books of the later prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Haggai, Habbakuk, etc. you will see numerous references to the events of the Exodus and the time of the Patriarchs, to the reign of former kings recorded in the books of Samuel, etc., as well as passages such as this one in Joel:
(Joel 3:1&2)
'Adonai says,
In the Last Days I will pour out My Spirit upon all Flesh
Your sons and daughters will prophesy
Your young men will see visions
Your old men will dream dreams
Even on My slaves, both men and women
Will I pour out from My Spirit in those days
And they will Prophesy...'

So not only do we have Hebrew Prophets referring back to other prophets and other books that went before, but we have them predicting that in the future, still other prophets will be touched by God and give still other prophecies. So the idea that Prophecy is an on going phenomenon, and that these books are related to each other and re-enforce each other is very much part of the Prophets own thinking.

But what about the New Testament?

As it so happens, the passage quoted above from the Prophet Joel is the very passage quoted by Peter in the 2nd chapter of Acts to describe what was happening in Jerusalem on the day the Christian Church was born. I think this is extremely significant. The first leader of the first church in the first hour of the church describes the Church entirely in terms of Prophecy. Not theology, not Rabbinic Midrash, but Prophecy. So then, Peter is invoking the legacy of the Prophets to explain the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, when all of Christs followers were in Jerusalem and the Spirit came upon them and they began to Prophesy. I think if you read the Gospels closely, and then look at the Epistles of His followers and the rest of the New Testament, you will see that what Jesus taught was not Christian Theology as we have it today, nor Rabbinic Judaism, but Prophecy. Jesus saw Himself and His followers as heirs to the great legacy of Hebrew Prophecy that began with Abraham in Harran some twenty four centuries before.

Our perception that the New Testament does not 'fit' with the Old is entirely due to our own pre-concieved notions about who Jesus was, that He came, as it were 'out of nowhere' to preach something entirely new to the Jewish People. Yet if we sit down and actually read what He said, we see that He quotes the Old Testament hundreds of times in the Gospels, and the authors themselves make many more references. Jesus Himself clearly didn't think His ministry was unprecedented— on the contrary, He thought exactly the opposite— His ministry had been foretold numerous times by the Prophets before. I would go so far as to say that this was in fact the reason the Gospels were written to begin with— to prove that Jesus fulfilled the Messianic Prophecies of the Old Testament. That, after all is where the idea of 'Messiah' was to be found, and that is why we call Him 'Christ' (Messiah) today. I think the more you read the Scripture, the more you study what was on the minds of the people who wrote it, the more you will see it all goes together. As Jesus said:
(Matt5:17-20)
'Do not think that I have come to abolish the Torah or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish, but to complete. Yes indeed! (Amen we Amen) I tell you that until Heaven and Earth pass away, not so much as a Yod or Chirik (jot or stroke) of the Torah will pass away until everythin that must happen has happened.'

Answer 10

Jesus answered your question long ago in a very interesting and insightful parable at Luke Chapter 20 - highly recommended reading!

Answer 11

I answer questions on Yahoo! Answers and today I saw a particular one asking if people saw the dichotomy/paradox between the Old and New Testaments. Normally I answer these questions with Scripture, but this time, I answered with my opinion, and I am wondering how others may feel about this opinion---I only recently started looking at the dichotomy in this way...Thank you for any who may answer.


Yes, I do see a dichotomy, but not the dichotomy that most churchgoing Christians and rabbinic Jews see. The Old and the New Testament is a division within the very same book, meant for both Jew and Gentile, of living life in the flesh and living life in the spirit.

The Old Testament sets the background for the creation of monotheistic people, people who were to show a sign of accepting the allegiance to Him by a fleshly sign-circumcision of the foreskin of their penis, and if they are women, by marrying such a man and keeping a house as he has been taught. There is an evolutionary progression as mankind listens, learns from the acts of the spiritual form of G-D, a G-D determined from the onset that mankind would be created in His image-an image that cannot be seen but can be experienced, and of which mankind is aware of His presence.
Laws are given by this celestial being to mankind on how to be more reverent, to be more righteous, to grow in the ways. And there are particular people set aside to do the teachings, and keep the people close to the word. The intent is. through the prophets, the writings, the laws, the stories of discipline, mankind is to mature spiritually, develop a deeper understanding of how to be more like the spirit of the Creator.
As that first portion of the book draws to its close, the latter day prophets of the Old Testament begin to speak of the arrival of G-D in the flesh, the G-D that will lead people into being more of the spirit than of the flesh, as a New Covenant is made. It's like when one's parents tell them it is time to put the toys away, because we have reached a certain age and should be acting more like adults.

If one follows the evolutionary progression of the covenants, and what is asked for as a sign of these covenants, it is as if the Old Testament is taking mankind from its infancy to its toddler-hood to its childhood to its long trek through school, and the upper levels of school where mankind is expected to practice maturing traits of adolescence in preparation for commencement of a new life, to finally, the New Book. It is not ironic then that graduation from High school, College is called commencement, the new beginning.

In the Old Testament, a G-D who appears in spirit governs mankind who is learning to live life in the flesh. In the New testament, intended for both Jew and Greek, a G-D who appears in the flesh prepares mankind for life in the spirit. Same G-D, but different stages of mankind require Him to meet different needs. As with Moses, those who have matured can see beyond the clothing of flesh to the spirit of the G-D that livea underneath. The dichotomy that exists is not between Jew and Christian, even Jesus tells us that in Matthew 5:17 when He says He has come to fulfill the Law and the Prophets and throughout the gospel. The dichotomy that exists is between man living life in the flesh and living life according to his spirit, first having gotten instruction from the Master, then being counseled along the way as a Spirit indwells in us. As the spirit/adult ways ripen, we lose more and more track of the childhood we knew, but it is always there and it is there to remind us of our development. The laws we learn as children still apply, the role models modeled roles many are meant to play.

The final stage is leaving the world of the flesh altogether ot live in the world of the spirit. That time will come in time, as we have supposedly learned to love even the persecutors, not to judge but to accept and be firm in our foundation of faith, not to deny who we were when mankind was in its childhood stages but to embrace it, cherish it as part of the beginning of the evolution. We learned the commandments and rules by which we were to live as children, and added to them those rules that apply to the adult, or to those who have joined us in our journey through Earth's civilization.

In time, those who have matured in the faith will live together in a land where only Spirits dwell, the spirits of those who were willing to make the entire journey from whatever path they joined it...whether they joined it from their or found out more along the way.

Then, we will realize, there was no paradox, because we will appreciate our heritage, our legacy, our past, our ancestral past, our present and our future all as one.