The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Would the Bible be better without the Old Testament? I mean, the New Testament seems to represent a reversal of parts of the Old Testament with Jesus coming down to the assistance of the wretched (prostitutes and beggars).

Having the Old Testament (harsh condemnation for the wretched) tacked onto it would seem to present a change of heart by God, meaning God changed his mind at some point. Does God need to change his mind? Isn't God perfect in all ways and therefore never mistaken? Is it possible that the Old Testament was just plain wrong? Written by archaic people who worshiped health, fertility and victory in battle? Jesus seems to say and do just the opposite.

Jesus was a Jew- why not throw away everything he was taught

-Imp

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2026 1:25 pm Would the Bible be better without the Old Testament?

I say go in the other direction. Bring in the Gnostic Gospels, the Apostolic Fathers, excluded Acts and Apostolic Narratives.

This makes sense only for Christians to discuss.

A Jew would hear this as "discarding the Bible"

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2026 3:08 pm This makes sense only for Christians to discuss.

A Jew would hear this as "discarding the Bible"

Good point!
I'm neither Christian nor Jewish, but weighed in since I think what's included affects us all.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2026 1:25 pm

Heavens no. God is beyond limitations and good sons often surpass fathers.

Ditch the whole thing altogether.

The OT is a misery text of declared untruths and half-truths; the NT is a bogus one dependent not on Jesus, whoever he was, if he was, but on Paul who certainly was.

Dubious wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 8:52 pm Ditch the whole thing altogether.

The OT is a misery text of declared untruths and half-truths; the NT is a bogus one dependent not on Jesus, whoever he was, if he was, but on Paul who certainly was.

Hi there Brother Dubious. You are, I think, wrong here. First, it is possible to get to the essence of Christianity if all of metaphysics is allowed. I.e. Vedanta, Gnosticism, Platonism, etc. The other metaphysical systems (compendiums) are needed if the NT doctrines are to be understood.

Even Paul can be better understood if and when he is viewed via other, better developed, metaphysics.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2026 1:25 pm Jesus seems to say and do just the opposite.

Yes indeed. Jesus seems to act against Hebrew structures quite radically. He was — it must be recognized — an antisemite (in ways requiring careful explanation). He was in many ways far more Gentile and estranged from late Hebrew (state) forms. And indeed he could well have received training in areas further to the east. The whole idea of a “resurrection body” is waaaay outside of typical Judaic definition, at least I think so.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2026 9:26 pm Yes indeed. Jesus seems to act against Hebrew structures quite radically.

Uh .... you think this only if you know nothing about how rabbis of his time ruled on cases, how they taught, etc. I see nothing radical in any of his rulings. For example, one teaching technique was to APPARENTLY break some rulre and the explain why NOT breaking the rule (very careful analysis of the rule)

Hillel (the Elder) lived a generation or so before Jesus (he died in Jesus's boyhood). Now he ruled radically but remember in 99+% of the cases, Jewish legal tradition ended up following Hillel's opinion << at the Seder last week we have an example of where Hillel's opinion not followed but Hillel's opinions so respected after the "right way" we do it his way too (just no blessing said) >>

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2026 10:45 pm Hillel (the Elder) lived a generation or so before Jesus (he died in Jesus's boyhood). Now he ruled radically but remember in 99+% of the cases, Jewish legal tradition ended up following Hillel's opinion << at the Seder last week we have an example of where Hillel's opinion not followed but Hillel's opinions so respected after the "right way" we do it his way too (just no blessing said) >>

If you, if we, take the Gospel accounts as true, and Jesus was crucified, what do you think the reasons were?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Apr 07, 2026 3:21 am
If you, if we, take the Gospel accounts as true, and Jesus was crucified, what do you think the reasons were?

You would ask the Romans.

Do note that the Jewish accounts don't have one of the rabbi/judges arrested and crucified. Arrested, yes, and some parts of the accounts match (like the rabbi ordering his body guards not to fight and the Sanhedrin meeting at night to discuss the crisis -- but that rabbi/judge released, not crucified). Please note your Gospels include accounts of Jesus acting as judge in legal proceedings. NOT the total outsider. Earliest Christianity, especially in Judea, not yt separated from Judaism

I think it is problematic to deny the intensity of the Christian opposition to Hebraic religious and political structures. In the Gospels, whether one validates them or not, the story line is of a literal attack on *that* which later evolved to include the destruction of the Temple and the led to the Diaspora.

It is as if the very mind of God changed. And indeed God’s own intolerance of a state tradition came to an end. The Christian God then appearing showed itself not quite Yahweh any longer, but another, universally-directed divine power. In the Story, the Chosen Jew was knocked down quite a number of pegs. Indeed the role then established (for Judea) was that of obstructing power.

Obviously, nearly all aspects of Jewish historical tragedies stem from these storied events. And these events have not ended by any means. In fact they have increased in intensity.

I have actually transcended all these terrestrial issues by and through perfecting the preparation of Matzo Ball Soup. I tried to get others here to take up the discipline, but no, no interest. Fools!

Disappointing. If people would learn to prepare my version of MBS (and followed attendant practices, such as self-anointing with schmaltz) peace would come to the Middle East!

did you hear about the beaver's dam?

gnostic here, gnostic there...

-Imp

edit: Matzo bats don't stir the soup as well as cricket bats, but the flavor of crickets is an acquired taste...

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2026 9:20 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 8:52 pm Ditch the whole thing altogether.

The OT is a misery text of declared untruths and half-truths; the NT is a bogus one dependent not on Jesus, whoever he was, if he was, but on Paul who certainly was.

Hi there Brother Dubious. You are, I think, wrong here. First, it is possible to get to the essence of Christianity if all of metaphysics is allowed. I.e. Vedanta, Gnosticism, Platonism, etc. The other metaphysical systems (compendiums) are needed if the NT doctrines are to be understood.

Even Paul can be better understood if and when he is viewed via other, better developed, metaphysics.

True in a sense but within the narrative of historical fact such laminations become superfluous if one want's to understand its true history without the metaphysics which is mostly used to inflict meaning. Such would be a different subject with a different intent, its conflation being the error.

Nice to hear from you!