The Old Testament versus the New Testament

· Christianity, CHRISTIANITY
Authors

“And the Jews say, ‘The Christians stand on nothing;’ and the Christians say, ‘The Jews stand on nothing;’ while they both read the same Book. Even thus said those who had no knowledge, like what they say. But Allah shall judge between them on the Day of Resurrection concerning that wherein they disagree.” (Al Quran 2:114)

This verse gives us wonderful insight into comparative religions, especially in the contrast between Judaism and Christianity.  In all the teachings wherein Christianity differs with Judaism and Islam, by comparing the Old Testament and the New Testament, we can very easily demonstrate the truth of the Holy Quran and Islam.  In this post I will share a few video clips, which demonstrate this reality, as Christian and Jewish apologists quibble with each other.

In the following clips the famous Christian apologist, William Lane Craig, faces uphill battle about Trinity against a Rabbi:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlD-zWa0ODc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgA6gyv2ICE&feature=related

All the Jewish Prophets, starting with the Prophet Abraham and Isaac, had no idea of Triune God, whatsoever and William Lane Craig concedes this point at least! Either God played a joke on the Jewish prophets for 2000 years before Jesus or St. Paul played a joke on the 2 billion Trinitarians! If I were you, I would err on the side of God and assign the guilt to St. Paul!

Phillip Cary (born June 10, 1958) is a philosophy professor at Eastern University with a focus on Saint Augustine. He received his Ph.D. from Yale Divinity School, he preaches respect of all the Monotheistic traditions and in the following excerpt he is arguing interdependence of Christianity and Judaism in an eloquent manner.  What he says adds further to our understanding of the verse quoted in the beginning of this post.  He writes:

Judaism, Christianity, Islam–all of them have scriptures; all of them have Scriptural texts to which they have an unrevisable allegiance. To be a Jew is to have an allegiance to Torah; to be a Christian is to have an allegiance to the Bible; to be a Muslim is to have an unrevisable allegiance to the Koran. But that means also to be a Jew is to be involved in critical discussion about the meaning of Torah, and to be a Christian is to be involved in critical discussion and argument about the meaning of the Bible, and to be a Muslim is to be involved in critical discussion of the Koran.
These three traditions can never be insulated from one another because their scriptures are interrelated. Christian scripture is inherently dependent on Jewish structure; that’s something that Luther got right. If the Jewish scriptures do not bear witness to Jesus Christ, then Christianity is false. Christians and Jews do have to fight in one sense over the Bible; Christians and Jews do have to argue about whether the Jewish Bible bears witness to Jesus Christ. They shouldn’t fight about it in warfare, there shouldn’t be bloodshed, but they should argue about it. What I want to suggest is that we should get used to the idea that traditions are engaged in ongoing arguments, that this argument is a good thing. It should be respectful argument, not bloodshed. 1

Additionally, there is tonnes of human elements in the Bible and more so in the New Testament.  Thirteen of the 27 books of the New Testament are written by Saint Paul.  So, by definition contradictions will abound.  This insight is also gathered from one of the verses of the Holy Quran:

“Will they not, then, meditate upon the Qur’an? Had it been from anyone other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much disagreement.”   (Al Quran 4:83)

Prof Bart Ehrman has very precisely collected many contradictions in the New Testament, in his 40 page chapter A World of Contradictions in his book Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don’t Know About Them).

1.  Prof. Phillip Cary. Luther: Gospel, Law, and Reformation. Teaching Company Course Transcript, 2004. Pages 212-213.

 

3 Comments

Comments RSS
  1. Zia H. Shah

    Jewish Expectations of the Messiah
    The Holy Quran states:

    “And the Jews say, ‘The Christians stand on nothing;’ and the Christians say, ‘The Jews stand on nothing;’ while they both read the same Book. Even thus said those who had no knowledge, like what they say. But Allah shall judge between them on the Day of Resurrection concerning that wherein they disagree.” (Al Quran 2:114)

    If we contrast the understanding of the Jews about Messiah and the understanding of the present day Christians about Messiah the Truth becomes apparent to the perceptive mind. Bart Ehram writes:

    Why is it that the vast majority of Jews has always rejected that Jesus is the one who was predicted-a savior sent from God in order to suffer for others, so as to bring salvation, and then be raised from the dead?

    The answer is actually quite simple. In the Jewish tradition, before the appearance of Christianity, there was no expectation of a suffering Messiah.

    But doesn’t the Bible constantly talk about the Messiah who would suffer? As it turns out, the answer is no. Since the beginning, Chris¬tians have frequently cited certain passages in the Old Testament as clear prophecies of the future suffering Messiah, passages such as Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22, in which someone suffers horribly, some¬times expressly for the sins of others. These passages, Christians have claimed, are clear statements about what the Messiah would be like. Jews who do not believe in Jesus, however, have always had a very effective response: the Messiah is never mentioned in these pas¬sages. You can check it out for yourself: read Isaiah 53 or Psalm 22 (I’ll quote the relevant verses later in this chapter). The term “Mes¬siah” never occurs in them. In Jewish tradition, these passages refer not to the Messiah but to someone else (or to lots of someone elses).

    Before Christianity there were no Jews that we know of who an¬ticipated a Messiah who would suffer and die for the sins of others and then be raised from the dead. What then would the Messiah be like? We know from Jewish documents written around the time of Jesus that there were various expectations of what the Messiah would be like. In none of these expectations was he anything like Jesus.

    The term “Messiah” literally means “anointed one.” It was used of various figures in the Old Testament-for example, priests and kings-who were ceremonially anointed with oil as a symbol of divine favor, indicating that God had set them apart to perform their tasks (1 Samuel 10:1; Leviticus 4:3, 5). The classical Jewish view of the Messiah derived from the ancient Israelite view of kingship.

    According to traditions found in ancient Israel, God promised King David that there would always be a descendant of David sitting on the throne of Israel (1 Samuel 7:14-16). But the vicissitudes of his¬tory created a disconfirmation of this promise. The nation of Judah, over which the Davidic monarch had reigned for over four hundred years, was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BCE. There was no longer a Davidic king sitting on the throne. But God had promised that there always would be. How could the promise be reconciled with the historical reality?

    Some Jews thought that God would make good on his promise by restoring an anointed king to rule Israel when he was finished pun¬ishing his people for their disobedience. This would be the Messiah, the newly anointed one, a great warrior-king like David who would overthrow the enemies of Israel and establish Israel once again as a sovereign state in the land. This hope ebbed and flowed over the years, as the Babylonians were succeeded by the Persians, then the Greeks, then the Egyptians, then the Syrians, then the Romans: all of them controlling the land of Israel, and no descendant of David on the throne, down to the time of Jesus.

    Professor Bart Ehram. Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don’t Know About Them). Harper One, 2009. Page 228-230.

  2. Zia H. Shah

    Were the first Christians Unitarian or Trinitarians?

    The Catholic Church by their words and deeds has suggested over the centuries that Trinity was the original view and Unitarianism was a later invention. That is what the Church wants gullible people, to read into history. But there is an easy way out, read the early history of Christianity and history of Judaism. Arius was not a heretic, his was the orthodox position! Jesus Christ was a Jew. He was circumcised and raised as a Jew. For the first 50 years there was also the controversy whether every Christian should be circumcised or not.

    There is 2000 year history of Judaism before Christianity, starting with the Prophet Abraham, and going through Moses, Aaron, David, Solomon, Jeremiah, Ezra and John the Baptist, to confirm Arius’ position and strict Unitarian Monotheism. The Unitarian Christians are orthodox and in line with the two millenniums of Jewish tradition and Trinity is a heresy. The more you learn about the Jewish history, clearer it becomes to you that Trinity is a later fabrication and not orthodox!

    One easy way to learn about Jewish history is to watch a very interesting four hour PBS documentary:

    Empires – The Kingdom of David – The Saga of the Israelites ~ F. Murray Abraham, Rene Auberjonois, Jake Borowski, and Keith David (DVD -Mar 8, 2005) It is available on Amazon.com only for $12.00.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: