Why do Christians need TWO Bibles?

C

charles brough

Registered Senior Member
We all know there is a vast difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament. The older one is the Judaic Bible. It recounts the history of an historically obscure, monotheistic tribe which, in Numbers, Deuteronomy and other parts describes their invasions and slaughtering of the men women and children of the lands they stole.:eek:

In comparison to the brutal Judaic Bible, the New Testament is generally a beacon of pragrance and light---even though, of course, there are exceptions. Being only half as ancient and hence that much less out-of-date, the offensive parts are much less in number: such as the admonitions to hate your family (Luke 14:26), Kill Jesus's enemies (Luke 19:27 and Math. 10:34), regarding dealing with slaves (Eph 6:5) and the subjection of women (1Tim 2:11-12).:(

Since there is this vast difference between the two Bibles, why is the Jewish Bible considered part of the Christian Scripture?:shrug:
 
charles brough said:
We all know there is a vast difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament. The older one is the Judaic Bible. It recounts the history of an historically obscure, monotheistic tribe which, in Numbers, Deuteronomy and other parts describes their invasions and slaughtering of the men women and children of the lands they stole.:eek:
Click to expand...

It's called the Torah. Not the Jewish bible.

In comparison to the brutal Judaic Bible, the New Testament is generally a beacon of pragrance and light---even though, of course, there are exceptions. Being only half as ancient and hence that much less out-of-date, the offensive parts are much less in number: such as the admonitions to hate your family (Luke 14:26), Kill Jesus's enemies (Luke 19:27 and Math. 10:34), regarding dealing with slaves (Eph 6:5) and the subjection of women (1Tim 2:11-12).:(

Since there is this vast difference between the two Bibles, why is the Jewish Bible considered part of the Christian Scripture?:shrug:
Click to expand...

Because the Jewish Torah contains the Law and it is the Law that convicts all men of sin. The Torah sets up the New Testament which shows the way God has given to overcome the penalty of the Law. Without the Torah a great deal of the New Testament would not make sense to a Christian.

They are one continuous developing revelation that took about 4000 years to be completed.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days
 
There aren't two Bibles.
There is only one.
It is a collection of books chosen by the early Christian Church as genuinely representing Christian doctrine.
Jesus was a Jewish scholar, and virtually everything he ever said was linked with the words of other Jewish writers.
Some Jewish books were rejected, and also some of the works of Christian followers who were felt to have gone astray.
They also burnt a lot of books and killed a lot of people, but that's another matter.

The books written by Jews before Jesus are collected into the Old Testament, and those written by the followers of Jesus are collected into the New Testament.
But "The Bible" is a single collection.
Sometimes people just read the New Testament. Or even just the Gospels.
Is that what you mean?
 
Last edited:
charles brough said:
We all know there is a vast difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament. The older one is the Judaic Bible. It recounts the history of an historically obscure, monotheistic tribe which, in Numbers, Deuteronomy and other parts describes their invasions and slaughtering of the men women and children of the lands they stole.:eek:

In comparison to the brutal Judaic Bible, the New Testament is generally a beacon of pragrance and light---even though, of course, there are exceptions. Being only half as ancient and hence that much less out-of-date, the offensive parts are much less in number: such as the admonitions to hate your family (Luke 14:26)
Click to expand...

That's a doctrine about what might be required of those following the new religion, not a commandment to actually hate their family.

, Kill Jesus's enemies (Luke 19:27 and Math. 10:34)
Click to expand...

The first is a parable relating the expression of a theoretical king, not a commandment to "Kill Jesus's enemies". The second is a statement about the division that the new religion will cause.

Hell, why not just assert that Luke 14:24 is a commandment to deny people food?
 
Without the Old Testament there is no background mythology to explain the what and why of Jesus' mission.
 
The Christian church does not speak for God. In fact, St. Peter was not a true discple of Christ, as he did not have faith in him.

Matthew 14:31 Jesus immediately reached out his hand and took hold of him, saying to him, t“O you of little faith, why did you doubt? (Speaking to Peter)

He certainly would not have been my choice to carry on the church of Christ.

Book of Revelation 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

The Angel talking to John says this phrase by my count 7 times in the book of Revelation; "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches." Sounds like a warning to me.
 
Last edited:
Faithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaithfaith
 
It has to do with with BC and AD, the Old Testament written in BC and the New Testament in AD.

The year numbering system used with Common Era notation was devised by the Christian monk Dionysius Exiguus in the year 525 to replace the Diocletian years, because he did not wish to continue the memory of a tyrant who persecuted Christians.[19] He attempted to number years from an event he referred to as the Incarnation of Jesus,[19] although scholars today generally agree that he miscalculated by a small number of years.[20][21] Dionysius labeled the column of the Easter table in which he introduced the new era "Anni Domini Nostri Jesu Christi."[22
Click to expand...

After all that time we still use BC and AD.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top