mountainman

Ten years ago now I asked myself a question about the bible as a textual "well of wisdom" and "spiritual advice". This question was simply:

"If you could only personally retain a fragment of the biblical text, and had to let all the rest of the text be lost, which phrase or series of contiguous phrases would you choose to retain, and why.

My own answer to this question 10 years back is outlined at this web page:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/thebible.html
The text I selected was of the two commandments, and concluded with "On these two commandments hang all the law and prophets."

However these two commandments are essentially derived from the Old Testament, and are they not expressed in the same fashion there?

If so, this is not novel at all in the NT, and I'd like to ask "What is novel in the NT" aside from the variously reported (or not) resurrection. Would anyone like to tell me what they think is novel (in terms of spiritual instruction) in the NT that does not exist in the OT.

For example, can the content of all the "spiritual instruction" contained in "the sermon on the mount" be also found (scattered) within the OT, on a phrase by phrase basis?
http://www.mountainman.com.au/jc_mount.html

If not, what novel phrases of "spiritual instruction" (which would probaby need to be a phrase(s) purportedly spoken by Jesus, and not his followers) serve to identify the claim that the new testament is in fact a manifestation of an evolution of thought over the older Judaic scriptures.

Thanks for any opinions on this issue.

Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au

mephie00

Something novel from the NT. Do you mean the whole NT or just the gospels? Many jewish people that are familiar with the biblical text and teachings can name numerous things that are very different from OT teachings, like the concept of burning in Hell. The epistles contain such a huge amount of novel ideas that it's one of the main reasons as to why there are different christian denominations. One group takes Paul's teachings on something while another group takes Peter's, or John's. This plays into the idea of how one is "saved". Protestant groups take Paul's idea of "saved by grace so no one may boast." (And yes, I am aware that there is an endless list of protestants who still endlessly boast) while Catholics look more into the "faith without works is dead" concept that stems more from Peter.

I think that coming from the gospels, there are various instances where the Pharisees and Saducees get all up in Jesus' face because he broke some law from the OT. Jesus would then make a reply that did contradict the OT idea of following the laws of the OT. That is novel, and it would be one of the things I'd consider being kept if the rest of the NT was to be done away with. What is the logic, the spiritual significance of following hundreds of archaic and at sometimes completely absurd regulations. One specific example that comes to mind is Jesus said inregards to the dietary laws that "it is not what goes into a man's mouth that defiles him but what comes out of it." However, in arguing against some of those OT laws, there are some examples in the OT of that being done. Jeremiah and Ezeikiel both make statements critical of animal sacrifices. So just arguing against the law would not be a novel thing but the laws that are argued against would be.

Oh, and if I had to make a choice, you keep the parable of the good Samaritian.

mountainman

What I mean is something "spiritually positive" which I would demand (or at least expect) to be derived from the purported words of the messiah of the NT whereby we could be assured that his message represents a "spiritual advancement" of the human concept of divinity over the OT. Thus, unless we credit that a supposed disciple of the wise-one has provided a "better message" somewhere else in the whole NT, then we seek a saying from the gospels.

The concept of "burning in hell" I would relegate to the rubbish bin of "spiritual discernment" as it is (IMO) but a contrivance of coersion, or at the least, a parable not "spiritually clarified" and an argument by force of will, rather than the power of enlightenment.

....[trimmed] ...


Is the essence of this parable enacted at all in the OT?
IMO it is (also traditonally) an expansion of the "love thy neighbour as thyself" which has clear precendent in the OT.

I am attempting to seek whether there are any phrases in the NT (and presumably somewhere in the gospels - words of JC) which can be regarded as "spiritually edifying" that are not elsewhere represented in the OT.

Of course, there may not be such a phrase or phrases, which I suspect may be the case, but I have posted this question to seek other opinion. Thanks for yours.


Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au

mephie00

Ok, how about when Jesus argues agaisnt "an eye for an eye"?

mountainman

Well, I'd be arguing that the sentiment expressed at this stage
in the NT is represented in the OT with the following:

Isaiah 50:6
I offered my back to those who beat me,
my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard;
I did not hide my face from mocking and spitting

Lamentations 3:30
Let him offer his cheek to one who would strike him,
and let him be filled with disgrace




Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au

mountainman

What does the new testament tell us about the philosophy of the world that was not already existent in the old testament? What parables of the new testament are not represented already in the text of the old testament?

What novel thing did Jesus say that had not already been said by the ancient Hebrew sages?

Nothing that I can find.
But I am willing to be corrected.



Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au