From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: 18 Nov 92 18:59:08 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1e5m2jINNob7@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:

> The New Tesament CANNOT be reconciled with what you refer to as the
> 'Old' Testament, and I refer to as the Bible.  The whole idea of the
> New Testament was that the OT was replaced, not augmented.

Nonsense!  The Old Covenant was neither replaced nor "augmented", but
rather fulfilled -- fulfilled by a Jew of Nazareth named Jesus.

> I am a Jew.  As a Jew, I have no use for, or interest in Jesus or
> Christianity.

Rather, ignorance and misinformation seem to be your specialties.

> As the focus of the NT is on Jesus, the form of the NT is
> 'biographical.'

How do you know this?  How is it that you come by this information
(and consider yourself qualified to comment on it) when you -- by your
own admission -- have no interest in these matters?

Your statement above could be considered marginally accurate -- only
if the New Covenant consisted only of the four Gospels (which it
doesn't).

> The OT is a narritive of the growth of the human race as a moral
> species.  It is the story of God trying to teach us right from wrong.

You apparently know as much about the Old Covenant as you do about the
New Covenant.

It is futile to attempt to characterize the Bible as having only a
single thrust, as intended to accomplish only a single objective.  The
Bible is a representation of the character of God -- and thus is much
too broad to be characterized in a single sentence (or even a single
paragraph) -- but it is _NOT_ broad enough to be devoid of specific
meaning.  True, it is an account of God trying to teach us right from
wrong -- but this is a far cry from comprehending the whole of God's
Plan regarding mankind.  And with regard to the Old Covenant being a
"narritive of the growth of the human race as a moral species", are we
to infer anything from the fact that the Old Covenant concerns itself
exclusively with "the children of Israel"?

The Old Covenant is, first and foremost, what its moniker implies: a
covenant.  It is a covenant based on a Promise.  The Promise was made
by God to Abraham.  First of all, the Old Covenant begins with a bit
of history (which explains why the covenant is necessary in the first
place).  Among this history, it recounts the circumstances whereby
this Promise was made.  After the Promise came the Law.  Now the
Promise was made between God: and Abraham and his Seed (not seeds, as
of many; but Seed, as of One), that is, Christ.  The objective,
particularly where the prophets are concerned, was to get the Promise
(which is the Word of God) into the earth.  The objective of the Law
was to protect godly men from the consequences of sin until the Seed
to whom the Promise was made should come.

The Seed finally came in the person of Jesus; he walked on the earth
as a man, and yet he had authority over the devil -- but on the basis
of the Promise as outlined in the Old Covenant (and _NOT_ because he
was the Son of God).  He ultimately paid the price for breaking the
Promise: _SPIRITUAL_ death.  He kept the Promise even in death while
being tormented by Satan and was then raised from the dead.  At the
resurrection, a New Covenant was made -- between God and His firstborn
Son from the dead.  The New Covenant has no provision for any penalty
for its being broken as did the Old (which is where the original
question arose, concerning the apparent different character of God
between the Old and New), because neither God nor Jesus are going to
break it.

Our interest in the New Covenant is to be found in Jesus' declaration
that we also can partake in its benefits -- if we become his
followers.  If anyone professes to have no interest in the New
Covenant, then what he is saying is that he has no interest in any of
its benefits which are extended to us.
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc