Old Testament VS New Testament ( Compare / Contrast )

[superblue]

Wasn't sure what to title this.....

 

I have found out recently in my community that I am not alone in my struggles with the Old Testament, in trying to determine what is literal, and what is spiritual in scripture. Some things that have been addressed in my classes that i pay attention to off an on, is how numbers may have been inflated for parts of scripture that address battles.

The literal part of the scriptures should seem easy enough to  determine by scientific methods, but seeing that almost everything where archeologists ( i am not using spell check get over it ) want to dig are probably not able too due to the locations being located in hostile areas or areas that are just not going to allow such digs to take place out of what ever reason.

So even if people can verify certain parts of scripture , there are still the obvious parts that can not be verified, the spiritual.  

We get to see how the Israelites ( again not using spell check ) had a covenant with God, and for awhile things are good, until they grow weary or uncertain and go back to do doing what they want, God in turn reminds them of the covenant through various means mostly not so nice in the Old Testament.  It is those seemingly horrible things that happen that come into question or also, how God could want his peoples army to destroy pagan cities etc > * i am paraphrasing my own thoughts so if you are confused i guess you need to have some knowledge of the old testament , i am not clarifying anything. < *  Plus i have an old man sitting next to me making old man noises and it is bugging the snot out of me///////  okay back to topic,   so then the question is, how to rationalize why God in the old testament would seemingly be rather mean ( when he is slow to anger and rich in kindness ) It appears that perhaps during the old testament his anger was not that slow to enact.

Question is, has anyone , any where ever questioned if the people of God in the O.T , were just flat out misrepresenting God to justify the wars and actions they took and claiming it was all done in the name of God. ?  If that is not even a possible ; why ?

 

Versus the New Testament, we no longer see the wrath of God, and everything that Christ teaches is the exact opposite of the war and anger of the Old Testament.

 

p/s  it is extremely hard to compose  thoughts when old man time is yapping and making noises and thriving for attention.

[Gabriela]

Trying to keep my response organized, so:

1. Listen to this: http://www.wordonfire.org/resources/homily/the-hard-texts-of-the-old-testament/1014/

2. God has the right to smite us immediately the second we commit the smallest sin. That He waited generations and Generations and GENERATIONS to "retaliate" against a whole nation that repeatedly took advantage of His benefits then tossed Him to the curb seems mighty patient to me. Remember that His time is not our time. He doesn't even exist in time.

3. Yeah, back before I was a Christian I sometimes wondered if maybe the Israelites made up the "God told us to do it" thing to justify wars. But once I believed in the divine inspiration of the Bible, I had to accept that the Bible is kind of all or nothing. You either accept that it contains lies, and so anything in it could be a lie, or you accept that it is all Truth, and so nothing like what you mention happened to "slip by" the authors. There are people(s) in the Bible who waged war not at God's command, so the Bible does make distinctions there. It's not blind to the phenomenon you're talking about, either: Jeremiah is full of prophets who claim God sent them, and God insists that He did not.

4. Every time I've ever even accidentally hinted that the OT is "angry" and the NT is "merciful" and there's some difference between the God of those books, theologians jump down my throat. I read something once that took a bunch of quotes from the OT and the NT, quotes about wrath and mercy, and asked you to identify where they came from. The point was: There's just as much wrath and mercy in each. It's the same God in both books. If you doubt this, go look for mercy in the OT. You'll find plenty of it. Then go look for wrath in the NT. There's plenty of that, too.

Here are a couple other sources that might help:

http://www.cuf.org/2008/11/the-old-testament-why-cant-we-just-get-rid-of-it/

http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=333801&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu= 

[Credo in Deum]

Ananias and Sapphira in Acts. Just saying.

[superblue]

Trying to keep my response organized, so:

1. Listen to this: http://www.wordonfire.org/resources/homily/the-hard-texts-of-the-old-testament/1014/

2. God has the right to smite us immediately the second we commit the smallest sin. That He waited generations and Generations and GENERATIONS to "retaliate" against a whole nation that repeatedly took advantage of His benefits then tossed Him to the curb seems mighty patient to me. Remember that His time is not our time. He doesn't even exist in time.

3. Yeah, back before I was a Christian I sometimes wondered if maybe the Israelites made up the "God told us to do it" thing to justify wars. But once I believed in the divine inspiration of the Bible, I had to accept that the Bible is kind of all or nothing. You either accept that it contains lies, and so anything in it could be a lie, or you accept that it is all Truth, and so nothing like what you mention happened to "slip by" the authors. There are people(s) in the Bible who waged war not at God's command, so the Bible does make distinctions there. It's not blind to the phenomenon you're talking about, either: Jeremiah is full of prophets who claim God sent them, and God insists that He did not.

4. Every time I've ever even accidentally hinted that the OT is "angry" and the NT is "merciful" and there's some difference between the God of those books, theologians jump down my throat. I read something once that took a bunch of quotes from the OT and the NT, quotes about wrath and mercy, and asked you to identify where they came from. The point was: There's just as much wrath and mercy in each. It's the same God in both books. If you doubt this, go look for mercy in the OT. You'll find plenty of it. Then go look for wrath in the NT. There's plenty of that, too.

Here are a couple other sources that might help:

http://www.cuf.org/2008/11/the-old-testament-why-cant-we-just-get-rid-of-it/

http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=333801&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu= 

so are you suggesting, that the old testament is all literal, and not meant at some parts to be taken as an alagory / if the concenous is that the parts where God did instruct armies to wipe out cities lock stock n barrel then I guess that is good to know that the authors were not trying to justify their actions by invoking God.

I can understand having internet theologians  jumping on you about comments on the bible in general, but there is just more violence in the Old Testament, no one can fault anyone for admitting that, very graphic stories / scripture at times. An so it is good for Catholics to know how to defend their understanding of the old testament.

 

I was more interested if anyone even considered asking or vetted in some shape or form of what the o.t authors were saying.

i am not questioning the inspiriation of the bible in any shape or form.  and as i stated i had old man troubles around me so i didn't really have a chance to clarify..... but yeah, alagory or literal. which to what.

[Gabriela]

so are you suggesting, that the old testament is all literal, and not meant at some parts to be taken as an alagory / if the concenous is that the parts where God did instruct armies to wipe out cities lock stock n barrel then I guess that is good to know that the authors were not trying to justify their actions by invoking God.

I can understand having internet theologians  jumping on you about comments on the bible in general, but there is just more violence in the Old Testament, no one can fault anyone for admitting that, very graphic stories / scripture at times. An so it is good for Catholics to know how to defend their understanding of the old testament.

 

I was more interested if anyone even considered asking or vetted in some shape or form of what the o.t authors were saying.

i am not questioning the inspiriation of the bible in any shape or form.  and as i stated i had old man troubles around me so i didn't really have a chance to clarify..... but yeah, alagory or literal. which to what.

Some is allegory, some is literal. It's hard to know which is which sometimes. For example, did God create the world in six 24-hour days? Probably not. Why call it "days" then? Cuz we're human, and we understand that.

In the first website I linked to, Fr. Barron talks about the battle with Amalek (where Moses holds his arms up, you know). But that passage says that God will continue to wage war against Amalek for ages to come—so was that a "real war" with a "real nation"? Probably not, cuz if so, how could God wage war with Amalek "for ages to come"? Amalek must be standing in, symbolically, for something.

There are commentaries on the Bible that make clear which passages are to be taken literally, and which allegorically. Of course, even literal passages may have allegorical, spiritual meaning also. Thus, there's really no simple answer to your question: It depends on the passage, and even then, there may be multiple meanings.

The best way to get the answers you want is to throw open a commentary on the Bible and look for interpretations of the passages that concern you. That's not the fast way, but it's the surest in the long run.

BTW: I wasn't referring to "internet theologians", but real, live, three-dimensional ones.  

[superblue]

 That I think is my problem as you mentioned Gabriela, the interpretations of the commentary ( I am just learning that there are pretty much endless interpretations ) and then the problem of no simple answer/ and you have dealt with the real 3d theologians , well congrats and double props on you for being able to handle that, they are by no means my cup of tea, and i live with at least 3 of them !  So i am learning moderation on spending time with them.

 

But I also learned that  one of the major mind blowing announcements of the Old Testament or i should probably say the Torah / is in regards to the author of what Moses is deemed as having written, the parts in scripture that talk about the death of Moses and the immediate events there after, could not have been written by Moses, because he was Dead.  Seems simple enough to understand, but from what was spoken about in the O.T class I am in, it blew the very best i guess scholars / theologians minds away at that time.

So anyhow pretty much reitterating things now after this point.

 

With no simple way to get a standard interpretation of the commentaries , it is some what daunting for those who are not of the scholarly / theologian level  of understanding, and that I think is a problem for those who want to understand these things in a simple manner because they are simple people, and not in a negative sense by any means, it is just not everyone can grasp things at the same level... so maybe perhaps i am answering my own problem right there, perhaps there are simpler commentaries out there to read that are not on such a sophisticated level but explains in a manner that is not diluting things to a level that is leaving important stuff out.

[Gabriela]

 That I think is my problem as you mentioned Gabriela, the interpretations of the commentary ( I am just learning that there are pretty much endless interpretations ) and then the problem of no simple answer/ and you have dealt with the real 3d theologians , well congrats and double props on you for being able to handle that, they are by no means my cup of tea, and i live with at least 3 of them !  So i am learning moderation on spending time with them.

 

But I also learned that  one of the major mind blowing announcements of the Old Testament or i should probably say the Torah / is in regards to the author of what Moses is deemed as having written, the parts in scripture that talk about the death of Moses and the immediate events there after, could not have been written by Moses, because he was Dead.  Seems simple enough to understand, but from what was spoken about in the O.T class I am in, it blew the very best i guess scholars / theologians minds away at that time.

So anyhow pretty much reitterating things now after this point.

 

With no simple way to get a standard interpretation of the commentaries , it is some what daunting for those who are not of the scholarly / theologian level  of understanding, and that I think is a problem for those who want to understand these things in a simple manner because they are simple people, and not in a negative sense by any means, it is just not everyone can grasp things at the same level... so maybe perhaps i am answering my own problem right there, perhaps there are simpler commentaries out there to read that are not on such a sophisticated level but explains in a manner that is not diluting things to a level that is leaving important stuff out.

Having kept up with this thread, and read your most recent OP in Open Mic, it does sound to me like you're just being compelled to go through an educational process that really doesn't fit your personality. Okay, so we're not all intellectuals. That's fine. Maybe you don't need these answers cuz you don't ask these questions. But now this educational process is bringing up these questions, and it's hard on you cuz now the questions are there, but the answers are hard to grasp.

That's a rough spot to be in, man.

From where I sit, it would seem just fine for you to hear the questions, hear the answers, not understand the answers, and so ignore the questions. As long as you've still got your Faith, it matters not at all that you understand lofty theological arguments. If they frustrate you and disturb your peace, why grapple with them at all? Stop, and rest in Him.

If I can offer any consolation, maybe it's this: Your spirituality, your way of approaching God, what's natural to you—it's fine. Let the education wash over you like water over a duck. If it doesn't sink into your head, no big deal. At the end of it—and maybe even before then—you'll know that this isn't your way of approaching God, and knowing your own spirituality better is an excellent outcome from any education. It will make you "more you", and more accepting of the way God created you.

Have you ever talked to St. Joseph of Cupertino? I love the guy. You might look into him if you haven't.

[tinytherese]

I'm part way through "Did God Really Command Genocide" by Copan http://www.amazon.com/Did-God-Really-Command-Genocide/dp/0801016223/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1446259416&sr=8-1&keywords=did+god+really+command+genocide    and I recommend it. 

You also might find "Is God a Moral Monster" by the same author helpful http://www.amazon.com/Is-God-Moral-Monster-Testament/dp/0801072751/ref=pd_bxgy_14_2?ie=UTF8&refRID=1JZ2VJ0BQM4B8QFRSEGJ as well as "A Father Who Keeps His Promises" by Scott Hahn. http://www.amazon.com/Father-Who-Keeps-His-Promises/dp/B00E84HMBY/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1446259639&sr=1-2&keywords=father+who+keeps+his+promises

 

Jimmy Akin wrote an article about Old Testament genocide too. http://jimmyakin.com/2007/02/hard_sayings_of.html

[Amppax]

All of Scripture has both a literal and spiritual sense (See CCC 115-119). It's not as if some of Scripture can only be interpreted allegorical while others only literally etc. However, it's important to understand what the literal sense is, and is not. It's almost more accurate to call the literal sense the literary sense, as it is especially important to take the genre of writing into account when trying to understand the literal sense. 

[Norseman82]

And this, my friends, is why we as Catholics don't (or shouldn't) do "private interpretation".

[Gabriela]

All of Scripture has both a literal and spiritual sense (See CCC 115-119). It's not as if some of Scripture can only be interpreted allegorical while others only literally etc. However, it's important to understand what the literal sense is, and is not. It's almost more accurate to call the literal sense the literary sense, as it is especially important to take the genre of writing into account when trying to understand the literal sense. 

I agree with this, but think it needs qualification. How do you draw allegorical meaning out of, say, the LONG genealogies in the OT? I'm sure it's possible, but I think those are really much more heavily focused on the literary sense, as you put it, than on any allegorical or spiritual meaning. Those genealogies are key to the genre, but there's not much we can derive from them spiritually.

Still, for the large majority of biblical passages, I think you're right. And anyway, these aren't the passages superblue is concerned with. For all the ones he's worried about, I'd say... yeah.

Edited October 31, 2015 by Gabriela

[little2add]

I thought the whole thing about Catholic was to follow Jesus Christ the New Testament  

[superblue]

And this, my friends, is why we as Catholics don't (or shouldn't) do "private interpretation".

This just is not possible, and i am barely starting to touch on the councils that had to deal with that topic of interpretation, from what i have gathered, we rely on and trust the Church to do this interpretation, which I am also learning it isn't so much interpreting but commentating on scripture. Then you have seminarians  who are learning to do just this, learning to interpret scripture on multiple levels ( what i notices is this is being done with out exactly telling them that is what they are learning to do for their homilies )  BUT even then they are still doing their best to do this interpreting from the way they were taught , and then I guess we hope that God works in them to interpret scripture in their homilies so that we can understand.

But to say shouldn't do " private interpretation "  then what do you call private praying of the bible, what are we supposed to call what we are doing when we decide as lay people to crack open our bible, and start reading. An again the councils have already addressed these issues.

I thought the whole thing about Catholic was to follow Jesus Christ the New Testament  

Indeed we are, but here is the thing, we are lacking if we only limit ourselves to understanding the New Testament,  the old testament is a real struggle, especially for those who rarely even read it.  An if some of the readings we hear on Sunday, were taken from Samuel or Judges, forget it people would be scratching their heads in utter disbelief.  What barely realized until I got much older and am really starting to pick up on, is how civilization was in the old testament.  Anyhow the Old Testament ( which i am also learning has fallen into the pit of political incorrectness ) is our roots in so many ways. It can't simply be disregarded as not worth anything to us spiritually just because the new covenant has been fulfilled. 

 

An Gabriel thank you for your latest response, it helped me reflect on my situation and I agree that what you noticed is exactly what i am feeling and going through. 

[Benedictus]

The Catholic Church has its own way of interpreting the Bible. This is important because different denominations have read the bible and concluded certain parts of them are literal and others aren't, and each disagrees with the other. One area of disagreement, and a central one, is interpretation of biblical texts over the body and blood of Christ (the Catholic Church doesn't just rely on scripture alone, unlike most other denominations, and that has major implications too).

The Hebrew part of the Bible should always be viewed as an ancient collection of books speaking specifically, although not exclusively, to an ancient society. It's important to appreciate how the writers of those times constructed texts, perceived history, myth, truth and audience etc. It's important to draw on church experts in the area who have an appreciation, and most do, for the dialogue and commentary that went along with these texts at the time throughout their development, through ancient groups to the formation or progression of the Jewish community, and the theological view/understanding that was created over time. The Torah isn't the only source document that's important.  I'm skeptical of any writers who appraoch these texts retrospectively, often to affirm there current theological opinions, without dealing with the wider social, cultural, political and education/worldview implications of the periods concerned.

The short snippets people get on a Sunday don't do the texts justice and individuals need to do more research on the context and application of the texts if they are to be understood correctly. It is easy to take a plain reading, with a 21st century mindset, and read more, or less, into the texts at face value. Many people do that, and sadly, this causes rash judgement on the ancient writers, the people of the time and the texts. One of the biggest weapons in the wrong hands is a religious book!

Academic study of the texts is helpful and essential, but elements of it approach the area as simply a critical discipline and then dissect it to pieces. There are academics that will tell you Moses didn't exist as an individual person per se (along with most of the core biblical characters) and most of the events in the texts aren't literal history (and wasn't intended to be seen as such either). It is easy, and it happens, that those with false ideas about the construction or conceptions of the Bible, mostly protestant fundamentalists, have had their sense of faith blown to shreds in established theological and biblical academic departments. They simply haven't had the correct preparation or grounding in their churches and I guess this easily happens if you still believe Genesis is literal history and that the earth is only thousands of years old etc.

Monastic tradition, espcially Benedictine, is to see the Bible as a collection of poetry. The lectio divina allows God to speak to you through the text in your heart. The book is the tool, not an idle. Like poetry the words make an impression on your soul and you grow closer to God. However, the reading needs silence, discernment, and church guidance.

Our development is clear from the progression of the biblical texts. God was nurturing us all the way along -  mistakes on our part in discernment and understanding were made and required growth. How could it not be so? The texts say alot about the human journey to enounter and find God. Not everything said or done in the name of God, even in the texts, mean God desired it or felt it ideal. God is the same before, now and in the future. We are the ones that develop and change.