The "Crazy" Old Testament

[ProdigalSon4293]

A lot of the times that I see anti-Catholic/atheist stuff on the internet, there seems to be one argument used quite frequently. They say things like: “You believe in a book filled with talking animals, incest, evil snakes, homosexuality, and murder?” Basically, they’re asking if Catholics actually follow a book filled with such nonsense. They find it hilarious that Catholics believe in that.

But here’s my question, or rather, here’s my take on it:

I feel that the Old Testament is INTENDED to be filled with odd, scary, disgusting, absurd things, etc. Why? I think it sets up for the New Testament. All of this crazy stuff is happening before Jesus comes, and it shows a world of corruptness and confusion and other bad things. When Jesus shows up in the New Testament, he makes things very normal and clear. He comes into the Bible, which at this point is set in a messed up world, and shows us what the core of Christian faith is. I almost want to relate it to, say, a riot that’s going on–everything is crazy, on fire, people running and screaming, but then all of a sudden everything is paused and cleaned out immediately, and the people become happy and stop rioting. (I’m sorry, that’s not the best example but it was the only one that came to mind right now). Basically, Jesus comes in at the New Testament to clear things up and say “Hey, look, this is not how it should be. Let me tell you what God really wants for us.”

So, I guess what I’m asking is, am I on the right track? I know you guys are very knowledgable about the Bible so I wanted to see if my opinion was correct to some extent. Thanks for your time.

 

[kentuckyliz]

We are contextualists and consider the intention and culture of the original author. I love the Old Testament!

The New Testament is hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is revealed in the New.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

To me, your approach is viable.

But I have heard that many great Catholic theologians, such as St. Augustine, who were also bothered by all the “craziness” in the OT, simply decided that no one is obligated to take all of those events as literal events, that we Catholics can interpret some of them as being sort of more like parables with symbolic and spiritual lesson, than as literal history (which would make Yahweh God or the People of Israel seem cruel and unjust in certain ways).

That is the approach I take.

When I read the OT, I find some of it really unacceptable and immoral, in how it depicts Yahweh God and some of the People of Israel.

But, don’t take my word for all this. I’d recommend some research on this, especially on the views of St. Augustine (since so many people respect his views on so many things).

 

[itullian]

it’s not crazy considering the time it takes place in and the practices of those times.

the stories whether real or allegorical tell a truth.

the OT points to the NT and Christ.

 

[PeterGStanley]

The New testament is hidden in the Old testament - it tells us all about Jesus long before he came and the lessons he taught which becomes clear when reading the New testament.

 

[bmonk]

The Old Testament was given to a community that was only gradually coming to understand God as the God of life and love and mercy. They often resisted, or went astray–and those struggles and the violence is reflected in the text. We even see, for example, the Prophets giving a much more loving approach–Hosea springs to mind, or Isaiah’s Book of Consolation. It’s not only a growth all at once with Jesus–much of the groundwork came long before.

What the Old Testament did was prepare a people who could be able to accept and respond to the Messiah, who would have a chance to understand what Jesus was teaching and doing, and be able to hand it on in the world.

This means, however, that some of those earlier texts look pretty crazy or gruesome. And yet, even through them God is trying to lead us to holiness and love.

Consider, for example, David. He’s violent and adulterous, not afraid to kill (and employ killers like Joab) but he’s still devoted to God such that he will not raise a hand against Saul because Saul is the Lord’s anointed king. He learns, and accepts God’s correction, such that at the end of his life he leaves to Solomon certain matters to resolve in justice. He is no longer that young, wild, violent person, but has grown. Not perhaps all the way to Gospel virtue, but he’s made a lot of progress.

 

[Crumpy]

First, I’d reject the premise about the “crazy” old testament. It’s an atheist oversimplication to sweep away everything with a shallow criticism. This is not even a nice try.

I was thinking about the particular issue of circumcision, required in the OT after Abraham, but which is abandoned as a regulation in the NT. What’s with that? Was that just some “crazy” practice?

I think there are many levels of interpreting the scriptures. You might assign a point score, on a scale of 1000, to how much understanding or clarification there is, in any particular explanation.

The ending of the requirement for circumcision, as St. Paul explains in so many places (Romans, Galations) is because Christ has fulfilled the law. The law was given for people who were weak and did not achieve righteousness through faith, as Abraham did, for example.

anyway, at the intuitive level, the ending of the requirement for circumcision ( and other Jewish cultic practices – food regulations, observing sabbaths, new moons, etc.) underscores how Christ has brought about a big change. Both Jews and Gentiles who are baptized into Christ are a “new creation.” And, they are members of the one mystical body of Christ.

So, here it comes: if nothing else, the circumcision-then-no-circumcision symbolizes that the Gentiles are not converting to Judaism, but to something “new” in Jesus Christ. So, at some level, the requirement was imposed, simply and explicitly so it could later be rejected – as a big sign that the “fullness of time” had arrived and that God had established a new covenant.

It was created as a sign of loyalty and dedication to the OT God, but along comes Jesus and we have the new, replacement sign (and more than just a sign, at that) of faith in Jesus Christ.

Don’t waste your time being defensive about criticisms. Life is too short. The gospel is about the truth – Jesus Christ. The Bible itself says in places that there were those who simply didn’t believe in God or heaven or anything like that. OK, so let’s move on. What the Bible also says is that the obstacle for the Jews was not a talking snake or donkey, but Jesus Christ. He was (and still is) their stumbling block.

For non-believers, Jesus is a much bigger obstacle, the ultimate obstacle. That’s what faith is about.

Psalm 1 says the “blessed” one does not sit in the company of scoffers (atheists). In Chap 4 or 5 of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians he says not to associate with certain people – look it up and heed the lesson.

 

[HelenRose]

A lot of the times that I see anti-Catholic/atheist stuff on the internet, there seems to be one argument used quite frequently. They say things like: “You believe in a book filled with talking animals, incest, evil snakes, homosexuality, and murder?” Basically, they’re asking if Catholics actually follow a book filled with such nonsense. They find it hilarious that Catholics believe in that.

But here’s my question, or rather, here’s my take on it:

I feel that the Old Testament is INTENDED to be filled with odd, scary, disgusting, absurd things, etc. Why? I think it sets up for the New Testament. All of this crazy stuff is happening before Jesus comes, and it shows a world of corruptness and confusion and other bad things. When Jesus shows up in the New Testament, he makes things very normal and clear. He comes into the Bible, which at this point is set in a messed up world, and shows us what the core of Christian faith is. I almost want to relate it to, say, a riot that’s going on–everything is crazy, on fire, people running and screaming, but then all of a sudden everything is paused and cleaned out immediately, and the people become happy and stop rioting. (I’m sorry, that’s not the best example but it was the only one that came to mind right now). Basically, Jesus comes in at the New Testament to clear things up and say “Hey, look, this is not how it should be. Let me tell you what God really wants for us.”

So, I guess what I’m asking is, am I on the right track? I know you guys are very knowledgable about the Bible so I wanted to see if my opinion was correct to some extent. Thanks for your time.

One thing you can say about the Old Testament. It does not “white wash” humanity. The human being in all his or her weaknesses, strengths, fears, gallantry, glory, shame, beauty and ugliness are revealed.

This is why I believe the Bible. It does not lie about the leading characters. They are real in their humanity. Good men and women do bad things. Bad men and women do good things. The stories are alive with reality, strength and beauty.

I won’t try to second guess God’s purpose in giving us such a wonderful panarama of human history.

 

[Uriah_Betrayed]

About your opinion on the New Testament.

I would say there is plenty of “craziness” in the New Testament as well, what with Jesus bringing the dead back to life with no one panicking or reporting it to the Romans, in fact during the Resurrection of Jesus the whole of Jerusalem was apparently filled with holy men brought back to life (whether it was for that moment or permanently I don’t think its made clear)

This is actually a really bad issue I’m facing with trying to reconnect spiritually. If the Vatican can say that the story of Noah and Adam and Eve are not literal because science proves that it can’t be literal then why accept that Jesus brought a man to life or walked on water, or the biggest allowed a mass resurrection of apparently well known people which was never recorded anywhere else other than the New Testament? I’m sure a lot of Jewish schools of thought, the Sadducees, Pharisees, and Essene would have been rather keen to record a mass resurrection occurring in Jerusalem.

 

[HelenRose]

About your opinion on the New Testament.

I would say there is plenty of “craziness” in the New Testament as well, what with Jesus bringing the dead back to life with no one panicking or reporting it to the Romans, in fact during the Resurrection of Jesus the whole of Jerusalem was apparently filled with holy men brought back to life (whether it was for that moment or permanently I don’t think its made clear)

This is actually a really bad issue I’m facing with trying to reconnect spiritually. If the Vatican can say that the story of Noah and Adam and Eve are not literal because science proves that it can’t be literal then why accept that Jesus brought a man to life or walked on water, or the biggest allowed a mass resurrection of apparently well known people which was never recorded anywhere else other than the New Testament? I’m sure a lot of Jewish schools of thought, the Sadducees, Pharisees, and Essene would have been rather keen to record a mass resurrection occurring in Jerusalem.

Here is a view of the Bible. (not the only view)

The Old Testament is the literature of a people. Some of the books are law like our constitution. Some of the books are history like our history books. Some of the books are poetry. Some of the books are novels. Some of the books are commentaries.

The truth about Adam and Eve is that all human beings spring from one source. We are all related. We are one.

Take the story of Jonah. That is the truest book in the Bible - in the world - when it comes to understanding human nature. Jonah sitting under a tree whinning because God did not destroy Ninivah. You can’t get more real than that.

Non-believers who nit pick the Bible are literalists and do not really have much of an imagination.

 

[PJM]

=ProdigalSon4293;9319034]A lot of the times that I see anti-Catholic/atheist stuff on the internet, there seems to be one argument used quite frequently. They say things like: “You believe in a book filled with talking animals, incest, evil snakes, homosexuality, and murder?” Basically, they’re asking if Catholics actually follow a book filled with such nonsense. They find it hilarious that Catholics believe in that.

But here’s my question, or rather, here’s my take on it:

I feel that the Old Testament is INTENDED to be filled with odd, scary, disgusting, absurd things, etc. Why? I think it sets up for the New Testament. All of this crazy stuff is happening before Jesus comes, and it shows a world of corruptness and confusion and other bad things. When Jesus shows up in the New Testament, he makes things very normal and clear. He comes into the Bible, which at this point is set in a messed up world, and shows us what the core of Christian faith is. I almost want to relate it to, say, a riot that’s going on–everything is crazy, on fire, people running and screaming, but then all of a sudden everything is paused and cleaned out immediately, and the people become happy and stop rioting. (I’m sorry, that’s not the best example but it was the only one that came to mind right now). Basically, Jesus comes in at the New Testament to clear things up and say “Hey, look, this is not how it should be. Let me tell you what God really wants for us.”

So, I guess what I’m asking is, am I on the right track? I know you guys are very knowledgable about the Bible so I wanted to see if my opinion was correct to some extent. Thanks for your time.

It’s not “wrong” but certainly incomplete.

There are many beautiful accounts recorded in the OT. Genesis, Exodus, Job, Sirach, the Prophets all have endearing componants.

Keep in mind the purpose of the OT is to lead to its fulfillment and perfection by Christ in the NT.

I have often wondered how different were the Obstinate Jews of yesteryear and for example protrestants; and even many “catholics” of today who seem to see a “right” to their OWN personal-religious beliefs and understandings; never permitted by either Yahweh or Christ? And what about today’s “New- Age” religions and complete unbelievers?

It seems that PERHAPS we have assumed too much? Because we “can” does not mean we should.

There is a perspective that say’s times changes; but we seem not to?

God Bless you,
pat/PJM

Is today REALLY all that different?