If the Old Testament is a reference to understand the context in which JC came to teach... \n\nWhy would someone call him or herself Christian and define God (judgmental and often intolerant) from the Old Testament and base a strong part of the Dogma based on Old Testament fondation ? Is it not manipulating JC message to fit him into that world that he came toss ?
120312
I will make this simple for you; the people that followed the Old Testament god killed Jesus. If Jesus came back to earth today; the people following the Old Testament, will kill him again. The Old Testament god is not the real god and is a contradictory of everything Jesus taught. Someone following this god is not a Christian.
238893
It's no mystery.  The old testament covers Jewish morality.  Start with the ten commandments, for example.  You know Jewish morality already, you just don't realize it.
307362
Delightfull!Teasing the "believers" is such a pleasant diversion. I see they are the only ones answering your question, so permit me to offer a change of pace.Lets see now,could it be the christian god?Perhaps allah?The jewish one? I give up,surely such a barbarous,murderous misanthrope would not be considered a god?No?
328484
If "the word" was a reference to God, they would have put it "the LORD".  It is a reference to Jesus.  The Jews do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah, though, Christians do.  Also, Jews go with the OT, not the NT.\nOn what evidence do you make that?  Under investigation, that statement wouldn't even last.  The last thing that the Romans would want is something that goes against their gods.\nIf you take that description to mean an albino, that means that your grandpa is one too.  Also, albino's don't have "eyes like a flame of fire" (Rev. 1:14).  And there is no reference to boots, only feet.  Even if it were boots that were being referenced, how would you draw from that the Roman boots?  That is highly far-out speculation.  The sword coming out of His mouth possibly represents His powerful, life-or-death giving words, as in Proverbs, words of the mouth are compared to swords many times.  \nWHERE ARE YOU GETTING SABBATONS FROM!!!!????  When it says that the beast has bear's feet, the beast has the feet of a bear!  It's that simple, and not very far-fetched!  A beast with bears feet!  Do you expect a beast to have babies feet?  Or wearing military boots?\nWhere did you hear that?  A lion can be a symbol of strength, or danger if your on his bad side.  And yet, a lioness so gently carries her cubs with the same mouth that kills creatues many times larger that itself.  As for the leopard, it just means beutiful.  I don't think that the Son of God would be very ugly, do you?
539371
I agree. Jesus Himself used that model....He is a pretty good example to follow! Plus I myself am always most interested in what God has said - for His opinion is far more valid than mine.\n\nAlso it seems logical. For if we were answering questions about the constitutionality of something, it would only make sense that we would refer to the Constitution wouldn't it?
504932
In Protestant (liberal) theology there are several "middle grounds."  There is the notion that the Bible "contains God's word" and also that is can "become God's words."  These are of course nuanced meanings of how Scripture communicates God's message through a supposedly imperfect text.
141455
Thank you for the article- it had some interesting insights!\n\nI have long thought that there was something odd in the part of Genesis 2:1 and the phrasing Genesis 1 used. I've been looking for things that explained it and your article did just that.\n\nIt simply makes no sense that the God who sent His people to the wilderness for 40 years would have (or needed to) rush the planet in 6 days, then fake various items to make it seem much older. He does not work that way at any other time, so why then?\n\nI have said for years that when the Bible and science or reality conflict, our understanding of one or the other is flawed- and I think we've really messed up our understanding of the Bible!
669001
It's easy to ignore.  Cause today God is different.  If they say otherwise, then they are the one's who are dishonest.  Why would selling your daughter as a sex slave be alright in one book, then suddenly bad the next?  Obviously something has changed here.  And I am sure that many will justify it by calling you Ignorant and say you don't know what the Bible really says (even though you just quoted it).  No matter how they turn, though, there is no rationalizing the Old Testament God with the New Testament God.\nGood to see you, btw.  ^_^
316130
I'm an ordained evangelical minister and see no problem with either the movie or the book. The problem is that Dan Brown has stated that the book and movie are fictional, but Christians say it's misleading--but their problem is that they are trying to pick apart DVC without going to the Bible to find out what is true in DVC and what isn't. If they'd just stick with the Bible as their source for truth and read it and absorb it, and keep in mind that DVC is fiction, then it's absolutely no problem. I just wonder how many Christians are seeing the movie or reading the book without opening their Bibles. :-(
155595
A good and fair question my friend! It's hard to defend all that has been said by Judeao-Christian faiths, but I would assume that most of the time like Catholics they are just doing what they were told, not what they read. Or they are reading the Bible as a tool of judgment against others instead of against their own beliefs. I'm sorry if a Judeao-Christian was offensive and I thank you for not being rude or mean about it! Jesus said," I did not come to abolish the Law(old testament) but to fulfill it." so it falls on us to follow His example of fulfilling the Law as close as we can. The Old testament is just as important to God as when He first designed it. I hope this helps you and others. God bless.
67220
I think the question becomes: "Is the creation story as written in the Old Testament to be taken literally or figuratively"?\n\nRemember, in the New Testament, Jesus often used parables to illustrate a point.  My opinion is that the writer of Genisis did the same thing and used a story to make the point that God created the universe.  I don't believe that it was intended to be an historical record.
215957
Well according to the Old Testament, God hates a lot of people and a lot of people are going to hell.  Off the top of my head, people who eat shrimp, bankers, rich people, women who don't take rituatl baths after their period, people who are judgemental or arrogant, people born into other religions.  We don't prevent them from becoming Christians.  \n\nJesus said there were only two new commandments : Love God and Love Thy Neighbor.  So do you buy into all the old laws or just follow what Jesus said?  What about Paul?  Does his word carry the same weight as that of Jesus?  What about when Jesus and Paul disagree, which happens a lot?  Who do you side with?\n\nMost gay Christians believe that as long as you obey the words of Jesus himself, that is all that is really important.  The old testament, paul, all that stuff is extra and since a lot of it contradicts Jesus himself, its really not as valid as the word of the actual son of God.  The words of Christ himself are what was important, and Christ never said anything bad about the homos.  It depends on how you set up your Christianity... do you follow Jesus or Paul?  Do you try to follow them both?  \n\nOddly enough, there is almost nothing in the Bible about lesbianism, and none in the new testament.  It really is just gay male sexuality that is troublesome.  So Biblically, you can be a lesbian and a Christian with no contradiciton because Paul declared that Christ brought a new covenant that invalidates most of the old testament.
370613
I'm not one, but I have throughly studied the history of your movement.  Ask your elders about 1975, and how they reconcile it with what Deuteronomy 18 says about how if a prophet ever makes a false prediction, they are never to be listened to again. Don't let them tell you they did not predict Armmagedon back then, because I was a freshman in high school at the time, and I remember many JW kids telling me that it was going to happen before the year was over.   \n\nThe New World Translation's rendering of John 1:1 is not only biased, but it does not flow with the structure of the Greek.  If you also read Colossians 1 in your translation, you see that the word "other" has been added when it talks about Christ being the creator of all things (they even go as far as to bracket the word, to as much as admit that it was not in the original manuscripts.)  \n\nHave you ever wondered why your former president, Fanz's nephew left the organization?  He was a member of your allegedly infallible governing body, but was disgusted with the fact that they were more interested in keeping the decpetion of Armmagedon about to arrive more then they were in Biblical truth.  \n\nI know they tell you people like me are of the swine class, and we are not to be listened to, because we are of the devil.  Ever wonder why they really tell you that?  If a lawyer goes into court knowning he has an open and shut case, he does not fear the other side's argument.  It is when the other side has evidence that is incriminating that he does what he can from getting it heard.  When the Bereans searched the scriptures to see if what Paul told them was true, he did not chastise them for questioning him (Acts 17:11).  \n\nJesus was not the reincarnation of the archangel Michael.  He was the very incarnation of Yaweh God in Human form. (Hebrews 1:1-3).  Salvation is a free gift, not one you have to work for to be found worthy of "paradise on earth".  I have documented evidence that the Watchtower has lied to both you and many of its other followers time and time again, and would be willing to send you my studies.  I know they would tell you not to do so, because I am of the swine class.  But, please think for a minute, why would they tell you that if they didn't have something to hide?\n\nIn response to the gentleman after me, here is a detailed article about not only the history of the NWT, but also the qualifications of its translators, as well as how accurate it is to the original Hebrew and Greek.  Well respected Biblical Scholars, who are considered experts in both languages, are quoted.  \n\nThe New World Translation EXPOSED!\n\nThe Watchtower Society's Corrupt Bible\n\n \n\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nBy Ben Rast | Contender Ministries | Posted May 15, 2005 \n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n \n\nDr. Walter Martin once said that the average Jehovah’s Witness can make a “doctrinal pretzel” out of the average Christian in about 30 seconds.  This does not mean Jehovah’s Witnesses are doctrinally correct.  There are a couple of reasons this is so.  First, the average JW gets exponentially more training in their doctrine than the average Christian gets in orthodox biblical doctrine.  This disparity must be corrected by pastors, teachers, and even the individual parishioners, who must take responsibility to educate themselves on sound, biblical doctrine (as well as attacks on that doctrine).  One other smaller (but still vitally important) reason is the reliance of Jehovah’s Witnesses on a biased and erroneous translation of the Bible – the New World Translation.  If you allow a JW to recite from the NWT without checking the verse in a more accurate translation – such as the NIV, NASB, or KJV – you may be relying on an erroneous translation of a verse.  While there are scores of examples of error
473610
True, and it is what I've been saying all along. When I was a Christian, I still didn't believe in the letters of Paul. Was it not the prophets of the ancient times that brought laws and the word of G-d through revelation (ie. a burning bush, the direct voice of G-d)? Then years later, the "new" testament is revealed through letters and secondary sources written by people who weren't even there.  Another great point, thanks for the question.
373468
The Old Testament, was transcended by the New Testament.  Hence the terms, old and new.  The Old Testament is about works and law, the New Testament is about grace and mercy.\n\nJesus says he desires mercy, more than sacrifice.\n\nAlso, He states that the 2 "laws" that fulfill all the others are to love the Lord with all the heart, mind, soul, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself.\n\nThe rest of the ten commandments would most likely be ways we would act in loving our neighbor as ourself.  But it would not be because it was a rule, it would be because of love.\n\nI think because the first "Christians" had no written New Testament, and were Jews, the Old Testament remained as a teaching tool in the services.  Also, they used the OT prophesy to prove to others that Jesus was the Messiah.\n\nAs instruction in the way of life and faith, the teachings of Jesus supercede it, and the study of Jesus teachings alone, are beyond sufficient.
91846
Just so you know where I stand. I asked a question of whether or not all the Bible should be taken literally or not. The best answer chosen was a good one.\n\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ales.wK5IftnZfqP3dD5hbHsy6IX?qid=1006012504879\n\nWhen Jesus said regarding the bread and the wine, "this is my body and this is my blood of the New Covenant", He was not speaking literally. When the Bible says that the blood of Jesus washes away sin, we do not go off to mount Calvary and look for spots of blood to wash our sins away. Jesus said, "I am the door, whoever enters by any other way is a theif." The disciples did not turn to Jesus and see a large board with hinges and a knob. Jesus was saying there is a single way to heaven, and He is the Way.\nQuite a bit of the Bible is spoken in allegorical and metaphoic language. Jesus said that He was the Light of the world, the Good Shepherd, Living Water, the Bread of Life, and more. He came as the Lamb of God. He will return as the Lion of the tribe of Judah. All of which is true, but all spoken in a metaphoric language.\n\nWrath, I have not run in to any Christians who believe the Bible is 100% literal. However, there are many areas of the Bible that ARE literal and many are trying to change the statement because it is not politically correct, or they have an agenda or they find it personally offensive.\n\nCase in point:\nRobert Anderson worked for Scotland Yard during the Victorian era. He was the main investigator for finding Jack the Ripper. He took the prophecy in Daniel and was able to calculate the coming of the Messiah to the DAY. This is in the his book "The Coming Prince". He started this project based on taking the prophecy as being literal. He was rewarded for this effort with knighthood from Queen Victoria and became Sir Robert Anderson. However, in this same book, he notes the prophecies about Israel being gathered together and becoming a nation once more. Seeing how this has never happened in history, he dismissed the literal meaning as pure fantasy. In May 14th 1948, this brilliant man was proven wrong. The idea that the Jews would return to the land and make it Israel was so preposterous that this brilliant man equated it to being metaphorical--the literal interpretation was too hard to believe. So we could easily make a mistake by either way.\n__________________________\n\nBTW-This topic reminds me of a very good movie called "Lady Jane". One of the main focuses was the rise of the Protestant movement against the Roman Catholic church--especially in regard to transubstantiation. The Roman Catholics took the sacraments as being literally the body and blood of Christ, while the Protestants kept arguing that it was metaphorical. Check it out sometime!
504777
Ah ...the soft-shoe routine you can get from people who believe in the "inerrant" Bible - when a text clearly states something so awful that it must be re-re-reinterpreted.\n\nSo .. a word from our sponsor:\nIsiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and CREATE EVIL: I the LORD do all these things."\n\nAnd now let's hear the various (laughable) renditions of what "evil" means "in this context," or "the actual Hebrew means something totally different." - obviously it couldn't just mean "evil," .... could it? \n\nThere is no one answer to your question. Current theology, in a vain attempt at sidestepping the mystical trend that produced the citation above, holds that God did NOT do what He says He did, or that it's a "mystery to be revealed in the end to us all."