did jesus believe in the old testement?

[_Z_]

did jesus believe in the old testement?

seams like a strange question perhaps, but i am wondering if he believed in things like the earth being made in 7 days and that we are all born from adam and eve. doesn’t the OT represent much of what he was against?
if this is completely silly please forgive my ignorance.

[Bandit]

Who knows for sure what Jesus really believed. Does anyone really ever know anyone in that way? Did Jesus really even exist?
I dont know if it represents what he was against, but more like maybe no one will ever know. For example one thing he was against having more than one wife or husband but Moses law allowed it.

In my belief, (not Jesus' belief) for whatever that is worth- Jesus is the first man Adam reincarnated, both the first and the last Adam...the beginning and the end, the root & the offspring of David, before Abraham was I am... so from that tid bit, I would say that Jesus believed in Adam & Eve.

I thought science has pretty much concluded that all humans are from the same one man & the same one woman. While they disagree on when, how & where, I dont see why the human race can't be the human race from one origin man & woman or why it would need more than one couple to get the reproduction process going.
Or do you think a god makes a whole bunch of different humans all over the globe & then they make babies?

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by _Z_

did jesus believe in the old testement?

seams like a strange question perhaps, but i am wondering if he believed in things like the earth being made in 7 days and that we are all born from adam and eve. doesn’t the OT represent much of what he was against?
if this is completely silly please forgive my ignorance.

Not really a strange question Z. But one that should be taken into context. I would think Jesus would be founded in the Judaism of two thousand years ago, complete with the politics and zeitgeist of that time. I don't think Jesus interpreted the Bible as a modern Christian would, if that is what you might be asking.

[Thomas]

The Catholic and Orthodox view is, of course, that Jesus is the Old Testament.

Thomas

[Azure24]

Hi all,
Z, the question itself isn't silly, but asking us the question is (you're not going to get one answer, or even the right one...perhaps). But then again why are we here for?

IMHO, the actual events themselves of the Old Testament hold no value to me, but the morals (there is probably a better word other than "moral") of it do.

[Thomas]

Actually, I need to qualify my post — and repeat that this is the Catholic and Orthodox viewpoint.

The word 'testament' is from the Latin testamentum, used to translate the Hebrew word b'rith, 'covenant'.

The 'testimony' aspect of the Hebrew Scriptures belongs to the community formed by the covenant, the people of the Exodus, much as the 'testimony' of the New Testament belongs to the Christian Community, of which the Apostles were members and leaders.

But the object of the New Testament is Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the covenant being by, through, in and with Him ... and in like manner the covenant of the Hebrew Scriptures was equally effected by, through, in and with Christ.

"No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." John 1:18
The above text is not a relative, but an absolute, statement.

Thomas

[wil]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Not really a strange question Z. But one that should be taken into context. I would think Jesus would be founded in the Judaism of two thousand years ago, complete with the politics and zeitgeist of that time. I don't think Jesus interpreted the Bible as a modern Christian would, if that is what you might be asking.

I think that depends on your modern Christian. err actually I think most modern Christians think they interpret the bible as Jesus did, but there are 453 variations on that theme.

I believe Jesus saw the books of his day as largely metaphor and a code of ethics and laws. That he spoke in parables so others could further understand the metaphors and analogies in the stories. He definitely saw a closer relationship to spirit than was supposed by many of his day. He indicated he did not come to break the law...the law being the 'old testament'

As for the seven days, I think Jesus learned that was a story too. As the stories go he was known to discuss the stuff with the learned of the day, and I'd bet they delved well beyond the surface of the texts.

[Dream]

Jesus geneology' includes Adam & Eve, Enoch, and Noah. I think people debate what it implies. I don't meet many people who will insist that any of those four people don't in some way represent the Jewish lineage, but not everyone has the same point of view on it.

The metaphorical meaning is something gentile Christians learned from the Jews. In Revelation chapter one, Jesus addresses 'the seven churches' and calls them 7 golden lampstands, and addresses their 'angels' as seven stars. This harks back to Torah references to the 7 Pillars of wisdom (creation wisdom) in Proverbs, the golden lampstand of the temple (which had seven lights) and also to the 7 days of the week. Each day is one word, one spirit, or one revelation or star. These words represent all of creation in its entirety, its wisdom, and from its beginning to its end. That is why the work is 'finished' on the seventh day. When Jesus refers to the seven churches as seven lampstands, there is a similar idea behind it.

Keep in mind that John the gospel, I & II John, and Revelation were written with the same hand. When John speak of the beginning (John 1:1), he's borrowing the opening phrase from Genesis 1:1 to imply that Jesus' ministry marks the beginning of a creation within the larger creation. (Yes, some people interpret it differently) In John 3:16-19 Jesus describes his ministry as the light that came into the world and the separation of light from darkness and in Revelation he's referred to as the beginning and the end, alpha & omega, probably in reference to the creation within creation. Jesus or at least John appreciated the metaphorical meanings of Genesis, and it is likely that so did the 12 apostles plus Paul.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by Dream

When John speak of the beginning (John 1:1), he's borrowing the opening phrase from Genesis 1:1 to imply that Jesus' ministry marks the beginning of a creation within the larger creation. (Yes, some people interpret it differently) In John 3:16-19 Jesus describes his ministry as the light that came into the world and the separation of light from darkness and in Revelation he's referred to as the beginning and the end, alpha & omega, probably in reference to the creation within creation. Jesus or at least John appreciated the metaphorical meanings of Genesis, and it is likely that so did the 12 apostles plus Paul.

and a god of that stature or supreme being would have no beginning or end thus it can not apply & would have to create something so there could be a first & something later to an end, so there could be an end. Though eternity can have a beginning & move in one direction as well as having no beginning moving in both directions to the vanishing point. I am not sure why that is so hard for some to grasp, well I know why but will just leave that at that...
I am he that was dead...and if I have a god, then it would not be a god capable of being dead in any sense of the word & would apply to that which is capable of death.
Some people have gods with human attributes & capable of death or capable of bouncing back & forth from death to life, war & etc... I don't but some do.

If the day ever comes they will rid of the theology definitions that people made up along the way and do not even come close to the original definitions, thus stick to original hebrew & greek definitions...
Ya kind of need a prototype to get it rolling & that has to be within though some think they can pass the protoype as if it is not needed.

Your point of a smaller creation inside of the bigger is well taken as it flows & trickles gently into many other caverns & possibilites...and does not have the stigma of 'just believe this because someone said to' and that no one can ever explain along side of it.

Nice to see

[Bandit]

so does jesus believe in the OT?

I bet some stuff yes & some stuff no- though all you really have to go by is what someone else wrote about it, viewing that through someone elses eyes & if you can get past the few obvious tamperings & half cocked puffed up interpretations & mistakes of hundreds of years...good luck.

For example some writers wrote as if Jesus actually knew of Abraham & Noah, Moses and even Seth as a literal persons who existed but not really knew him in the literal sense, or so it appears. Matt (was there a real Matthew who wrote that?) says 14 generations from Abraham to David. hmmmm...well maybe & maybe not
Did Jesus believe that? or is that just what some people wrote & figured out by using the OT?

It was not uncommon in those days & for hundreds of years after for people to believe what is unthinkable today, including the different jews & christian sects, both large & small.

In other places you have this Jesus saying to write this down...kind of like, why dont you write it down yourself! or taking only a select individual or two at a time to reveal something that no one else would ever grasp.

Refine it?





eh...

[Dream]

Originally Posted by Dream

the golden lampstand of the temple (which had seven lights, the seventh in its center)

That is likely a mistake. I don't actually know which one is the seventh, first, or which lamp is which; however I know there were seven. Sorry about that.

[_Z_]

bandit hi
thanks for the info, yes apparently all of humanity comes from africa, so the story does have a factual background in the genetic context. apparently we mixed with neanderthals a little after that genetic mutation to some degree.
my reasoning is that jesus seamed to be against the judgemental nature of the jews. i think it is that side of xtianity that some people don’t like so much. i mean i like the NT but dislike the OT although it has good stories etc.
juantoo3 hi

I don’t think Jesus interpreted the Bible as a modern Christian would

no, he seamed to be quite like a hippy and his followers like that of pythagoras ~ well in my extremely extraneous and broad view of things lols.
thomas, hi
it strikes me then that the NT is more directly to god, because it is about jesus ...who is more direct to god? perhaps if it is like a step pyramid with jesus at the top?

wil

He indicated he did not come to break the law...the law being the ‘old testament’
As for the seven days, I think Jesus learned that was a story too. As the stories go he was known to discuss the stuff with the learned of the day, and I’d bet they delved well beyond the surface of the texts.

indeed, this is the point really, he didn’t need to come at all if the OT was all we needed. perhaps he only wanted to add to it, but i feel he was quite radical ~ dare i say it! his ideas were new and made people rethink everything.
_____________
jus readin the rest

[Joedjr]

Hi Thomas,

Originally Posted by Thomas

that Jesus is the Old Testament.

Thomas

Well I "almost" agree with you here!

Some well known quotes from the NASB John1

1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with G!d, and the Word was G!d. .....

14: And the Word became flesh, .....

Why, I never knew that the Catholic teaching was that Jesus was the enbodiment of Torah. I'll have to look further into this.

Joe

[Thomas]

Hi Z:

Originally Posted by _Z_

... yes apparently all of humanity comes from africa, so the story does have a factual background in the genetic context ...

We should be careful not to overstate the case, but it does throw up an interesting aside ... Catholic theology currently favours phylitic monogenism: the descent of humanity from a single family unit.

Originally Posted by _Z_

no, he seamed to be quite like a hippy

Actually this is a total myth, fabricated in a post-60s haze of dope smoke and psychedelics.

Jesus Christ was absolutely nothing like a hippy — in argument he was dogmatic, intolerant and 'took no prisoners'. For His disciples, the slightest slip brought instant correction, and sometimes in the harshest terms.

Jesus would have absolutely no time for hippies, then or now ... hippy is all about self-indulgence.

Originally Posted by _Z_

it strikes me then that the NT is more directly to god, because it is about jesus ...who is more direct to god? perhaps if it is like a step pyramid with jesus at the top?

No. I said 'Catholic and Orthodox' — so in our eyes Jesus is God, and furthermore no-one has ever seen the Father (nor, the Orthodox insist, can they, whereas the catholic holds otherwise) ... but the Son.

Thomas

[mee]

Throughout his ministry he quoted from the written Hebrew Scriptures, from Genesis through Malachi. (Matt. 19:5; 11:10) Why, in just what is now Matthew, chapter twenty-two, Jesus quoted from four different places in the Hebrew Scriptures. (Matt. 22:32, 37, 39, 44) We cannot avoid the fact that Jesus considered the Hebrew Scriptures to be inspired.