Anonymous wrote:At mass this year (attending to keep my family happy) I heard a homily story that I was told was popular about how God sent his son so that he could speak our language. Something about how animals needed another animal of their kind to understand and follow to do things and that's why Jesus came to us as a baby human.

There are so many thinking flaws with this story and to me they point out one of the reasons why Christianity is flawed. First, people and animals do not always respond to their own kind. In revelation the depiction is much more convincing that a God is present. Not very convincing with a baby. The wisemen and star are convincing but these are not historically accurate or verified. It makes much more sense that people used this story to convince others to be more child-like and convince others that a normal human was God and much less sense that Jesus as a baby had anything to do with humans following him as the Messiah. Second, the jews didnt listen to Jesus for the most part. So even though he came as a human it didnt work for God's chosen people. So God needed to go from being the wind and however else hes mentioned in the old testament to being a human and then he tried his best but the Jews were too stubborn so he turned his attention to others? I'm not following this illogical thinking. It doesnt make sense that God would abandon his people or that God would turn his attention to another group or that God would need a new way of communicating. So God lost his ability to talk to his people like in Exodus but tried with Jesus and failed? Mission failure?

I'd love to hear fron others. Do others have the same confusion from the old testament to the new testament?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Canaanites didn't believe the early Israelites' religion. So taking Jewish pov as established fact doesn't work, either. It's like the old myth about there being turtles all the way down.

God didnt make a covenant with them. They weren't his people. Thats why it makes no sense that God then chose the Romans to be his people.

You are inverting the Christian understanding with the bolded. God did not choose the Romans (or anny other people) after Christ. After Christ’s redemptive act on the cross on behalf of all humans, God is no longer choosing a people within humanity, but rather God is allowing all of humanity to choose to be in relationship with God, through Jesus. Hence, the emphasis on John 3:16, especially in Protestant circles. John 3:16 sums up the Christian understanding/message as succinctly as possible. There is more depth to it, but that is the very core essence of Christianity and how it builds upon the OT.

Except that it doesnt build upon the OT except possibly the commandments. There is little correlation from God's plan in the OT to God's plan in the NT. Even the afterlife is different. As well as the commandments. What was the point of Leviticus or even the Exodus? There is no flow from one to the other from God's perspective.

Yes and no. A lot of different variables in play, and your views might differ slightly from one Christian denomination to another. Catholics and the Orthodox absolutely see a flow and symmetry between the OT and NT. In the sense that Jesus himself says he came to establish a new order and a kingdom not dreamed of before, then I understand how you see it as not flowing. But Jesus claimed to be the fulfillment of the Mosaic law and Christian theologians believe this established a new covenant with a new set of rules that in some cases built upon the old rules (the two greatest commandments...) while others would be seen a sort of a "New Deal" (healing on the Sabbath, the sermon on the Mount).

If for no other reason than educational purposes, you might consider the Bible in a Year podcast with Fr. Mike Schmitz. As the name implies, he starts on Jan 1 and goes through the (Catholic) Bible day-by-day until you complete the whole thing in a year. Daily, about 10-15 minutes are spent on a set of readings from two or three books of the Bible (sort of in chronological order) and then another 10-15 minutes on a theological reflection of the readings. The podcast was wildly successful and many non-believers enjoyed it just to broaden their understanding of Christian thought. One of the themes he hammers over and over again on his podcast, and his chosen format really works well for it, is that the OT, in Christian thought, is interpreted as preparation for Christ's arrival on Earth and Christ's time spent in his earthly mission. That sort of touches on what OP might have heard in the homily at Mass.

Fr. Mike does a great job of pairing OT and NT readings where it makes sense to see how they compliment each other.

And it ignores where they completely contradict each other. Why would an omniscient entity be inconsistent?

Theists will tie themselves up in knots trying to explain it away.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Canaanites didn't believe the early Israelites' religion. So taking Jewish pov as established fact doesn't work, either. It's like the old myth about there being turtles all the way down.

God didnt make a covenant with them. They weren't his people. Thats why it makes no sense that God then chose the Romans to be his people.

You are inverting the Christian understanding with the bolded. God did not choose the Romans (or anny other people) after Christ. After Christ’s redemptive act on the cross on behalf of all humans, God is no longer choosing a people within humanity, but rather God is allowing all of humanity to choose to be in relationship with God, through Jesus. Hence, the emphasis on John 3:16, especially in Protestant circles. John 3:16 sums up the Christian understanding/message as succinctly as possible. There is more depth to it, but that is the very core essence of Christianity and how it builds upon the OT.

Except that it doesnt build upon the OT except possibly the commandments. There is little correlation from God's plan in the OT to God's plan in the NT. Even the afterlife is different. As well as the commandments. What was the point of Leviticus or even the Exodus? There is no flow from one to the other from God's perspective.

Yes and no. A lot of different variables in play, and your views might differ slightly from one Christian denomination to another. Catholics and the Orthodox absolutely see a flow and symmetry between the OT and NT. In the sense that Jesus himself says he came to establish a new order and a kingdom not dreamed of before, then I understand how you see it as not flowing. But Jesus claimed to be the fulfillment of the Mosaic law and Christian theologians believe this established a new covenant with a new set of rules that in some cases built upon the old rules (the two greatest commandments...) while others would be seen a sort of a "New Deal" (healing on the Sabbath, the sermon on the Mount).

If for no other reason than educational purposes, you might consider the Bible in a Year podcast with Fr. Mike Schmitz. As the name implies, he starts on Jan 1 and goes through the (Catholic) Bible day-by-day until you complete the whole thing in a year. Daily, about 10-15 minutes are spent on a set of readings from two or three books of the Bible (sort of in chronological order) and then another 10-15 minutes on a theological reflection of the readings. The podcast was wildly successful and many non-believers enjoyed it just to broaden their understanding of Christian thought. One of the themes he hammers over and over again on his podcast, and his chosen format really works well for it, is that the OT, in Christian thought, is interpreted as preparation for Christ's arrival on Earth and Christ's time spent in his earthly mission. That sort of touches on what OP might have heard in the homily at Mass.

Fr. Mike does a great job of pairing OT and NT readings where it makes sense to see how they compliment each other.

Anonymous wrote:The people that wrote it had different styles and lived in different eras, lol. And yes, atheists, I don't subscribe to Biblical inerrancy or that it is the literal word of God.

Anonymous wrote:It’s all ancient mythology. Focus on the now.

Anonymous wrote:I believe in the flying spaghetti monster.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Canaanites didn't believe the early Israelites' religion. So taking Jewish pov as established fact doesn't work, either. It's like the old myth about there being turtles all the way down.

God didnt make a covenant with them. They weren't his people. Thats why it makes no sense that God then chose the Romans to be his people.

You are inverting the Christian understanding with the bolded. God did not choose the Romans (or anny other people) after Christ. After Christ’s redemptive act on the cross on behalf of all humans, God is no longer choosing a people within humanity, but rather God is allowing all of humanity to choose to be in relationship with God, through Jesus. Hence, the emphasis on John 3:16, especially in Protestant circles. John 3:16 sums up the Christian understanding/message as succinctly as possible. There is more depth to it, but that is the very core essence of Christianity and how it builds upon the OT.

Except that it doesnt build upon the OT except possibly the commandments. There is little correlation from God's plan in the OT to God's plan in the NT. Even the afterlife is different. As well as the commandments. What was the point of Leviticus or even the Exodus? There is no flow from one to the other from God's perspective.

Yes and no. A lot of different variables in play, and your views might differ slightly from one Christian denomination to another. Catholics and the Orthodox absolutely see a flow and symmetry between the OT and NT. In the sense that Jesus himself says he came to establish a new order and a kingdom not dreamed of before, then I understand how you see it as not flowing. But Jesus claimed to be the fulfillment of the Mosaic law and Christian theologians believe this established a new covenant with a new set of rules that in some cases built upon the old rules (the two greatest commandments...) while others would be seen a sort of a "New Deal" (healing on the Sabbath, the sermon on the Mount).

If for no other reason than educational purposes, you might consider the Bible in a Year podcast with Fr. Mike Schmitz. As the name implies, he starts on Jan 1 and goes through the (Catholic) Bible day-by-day until you complete the whole thing in a year. Daily, about 10-15 minutes are spent on a set of readings from two or three books of the Bible (sort of in chronological order) and then another 10-15 minutes on a theological reflection of the readings. The podcast was wildly successful and many non-believers enjoyed it just to broaden their understanding of Christian thought. One of the themes he hammers over and over again on his podcast, and his chosen format really works well for it, is that the OT, in Christian thought, is interpreted as preparation for Christ's arrival on Earth and Christ's time spent in his earthly mission. That sort of touches on what OP might have heard in the homily at Mass.

Fr. Mike does a great job of pairing OT and NT readings where it makes sense to see how they compliment each other.

Anonymous wrote:I cannot believe anyone still believes any of this in this day and age.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many of the early Christians were Jews. The church in Jerusalem was a big deal.

Not in the great scheme of things Jewish. No jew even wrote about Jesus except maybe one one time. Christianity took off when it became part of the Roman religion. Either way, its obvious that God wasnt convincing to the Jews enough to make it worthwhile to their lives and future lives. It was a bust for the people it was intended for.

He didn't come just for the Jews. You people need to take a Bible Study class.

Isaiah 49:6 — New International Version (2011) (NIV)

6 he says:

“It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept.

I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.”

But even this one line says the jews will be a light for the gentiles. Not that he will abandon the jews.

Why would he abandon his chosen people? Christians are supposed to follow the Jews, who are his chosen people.

Exactly. And they dont. So God wasnt successful for the jews or the gentiles.

Sounds like you're saying that God was a loser.

Anonymous wrote:I cannot believe anyone still believes any of this in this day and age.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many of the early Christians were Jews. The church in Jerusalem was a big deal.

Not in the great scheme of things Jewish. No jew even wrote about Jesus except maybe one one time. Christianity took off when it became part of the Roman religion. Either way, its obvious that God wasnt convincing to the Jews enough to make it worthwhile to their lives and future lives. It was a bust for the people it was intended for.

He didn't come just for the Jews. You people need to take a Bible Study class.

Isaiah 49:6 — New International Version (2011) (NIV)

6 he says:

“It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept.

I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.”

But even this one line says the jews will be a light for the gentiles. Not that he will abandon the jews.

Why would he abandon his chosen people? Christians are supposed to follow the Jews, who are his chosen people.

Exactly. And they dont. So God wasnt successful for the jews or the gentiles.