So only 32% of the Tanakh is contained in the Christian Scriptures
Can someone please explain why the need for the rest of the 68% of the Tanakh when it has quite literally nothing to do with Christianity?
Literally. No relation to Christ, no relation to Christianity whatsoever. Just books from another religion.
There are plenty of prophesies related to the Messiah in the OT not referenced in the NT. Just because they’re not referenced doesn’t mean they’re not important.
Because the other stuff gives surrounding context. When you hear “as the prophet Isaiah foretold” you can go back and read everything he said. When you hear “as it was in the days of the prophet Jeremiah” you can go see what they’re talking about.
If you were reading a book, and saw it quoted 32 FUCKING PERCENT of another book, you’d think “man, that other book is probably pretty important to read, isn’t it”
How is it any important if it's not related to Christ and therefor to Christianity? For example i don't see Christians make such a big deal out of Cain, Abel and their descendants. Literally pointless
>When you hear “as the prophet Isaiah foretold”
So the meaning of what he said makes sense in the verse he's referring to. The rest of what he has to say is made redundant if the Christian interpretation, or better said the part of Isaiah relevant to Christianity, is provided in the same context
Like you aren't going to claim Isaiah has an overarching theme because it was written in like 3 distinctive time periods in wholly different historical contexts
If you read a book, and that book quoted a full 32% of another book, you would assume the other book is also important
just ditch the whole fucking judeo-christian autism and save your brain cells for more important subjects
>It's another Atheist telling Christians How to be Christian filler episode.
Important only insofar as that 32% is given it's own, in this case Christian, context.
Independent and in many cases quite different from whatever it was the rest of the 68% had to say. It's why the religion is Christianity today and no longer Second Temple "Why do righteous Men suffer" school of thought
>It's another Christlarper not knowing basic ideas from the religion he's cosplaying as.
But that's the entire basis for Western Civilization with elements from ancient Greek thought, my friend.
Wrong.
>Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. (Matt 22:29)
>And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. (Luke 24:44)
>Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. (John 5:39)
So, while 32% of the Old Testament is directly quoted, there are still many verses saying to familiarize yourself with them. Try again
That's bogus. You don't need to stop at literally every passage which makes direct or indirect reference to the Tankah because the meaning for their reference is given shortly after they are mentioned or is deductible from the overarching context of the particular Gospel or even from the other Gospels which deal with that particular reference to the Tanakh in more detail.
Since the Gospel is nothing more than Christian interpretation of Tanakh for Jesus as the Messiah. It already contains the most important and relevant parts from the Tanakh in Christian form and understanding.
>Can someone please explain why the need for the rest of the 68% of the Tanakh when it has quite literally nothing to do with Christianity?
Proper context is necessary.
>Literally. No relation to Christ, no relation to Christianity whatsoever. Just books from another religion.
It's one religion, God has one religion. Jews rejected his religion and chose the talmud instead of Christ(God). Muslims chose the quran(muhammad) instead of Christ(God). Atheist chose themselves and their own minds instead of Christ(God), Pagans chose themselves and their own idols instead of Christ(God.
Though words from a neognostic cosplaying as an atheist cosplaying as a leftist.
Nice numbers, 3 times 75.
btw to be perfectly honest western society is 1/4 Christianity, 1/4 Greek thought, 1/4 Roman Law and 1/4 the European peoples and their pre-existing attitudes, genes and myths (boardly everything that was allready there before the previous three). But you are correct imagining the West withouth Christianity is like imagining China withouth the Tao, India withouth the Dharma or West Africa withouth wooden masks. Ridiculous.
Go and read the Church fathers, the fist counsel.
Literally google your question there are a million and one answers out there.
We had a thread like this yesterday even.
>We had a thread like this yesterday even.
We have continuous "atheists telling Christians How to be Christian" threads to the point when It's more grating than guenonposting. It's an obvious raid but, You know, (((free speech))) and all that.
i dont mind them that much, but their objections have been answers in the 3rd century is what is annoying.
Proper context is given within the same text or other Gospels. Where did this mindset that each Gospel is separated from each other and interpreted individually instead of collectively come from? It's like saying you need to be a jew in order to properly understand Christianity
You see I'd be fine with people just asking things like these Because I can't assume Everyone has read the Church fathers and That's fair. It's the subtext that rustles my jimmies. Like a 2000 year old Tradition could feasibly be "BTFO" by a 15 yo brainlet who takes Dawkins seriously.
i dont mind if its hones question but allot of it seem forced bullshit.
And the explanation is that simple the Church fathers unanimously agreed to it. More on that can be found in their objections to the specific problems by regretting the old Testament like aginst marcion
I've yet to see anywhere where the demiurge or other forms of gnosticism has been mentioned itt
You're presupposing that the OT belongs to jews when actually it belongs only to Christ, his apostles, followers and his Church. The jews rejected and crucified him, so they lost their covenant, they lost the keys to scripture and they lost their temple.
Jews can come back if they repent and convert, but majority will not.
The OT and the NT belong to us. It's simple.
OK but OT is still used by Jews today and the difference between Christians and Jews is that Christians have the Gospels on top of the OT while the Jews have the Oral Torah on top of the OT. It's a set of common scriptures both religions share, which isn't really a special case considering so many Hindu religions sharing so many sacred texts but interpreting them differently according to their own tradition.
that is exactly what Marcion believed. So yea proven yourselves illiterate once again.
Other forms of gnosticisum just pick up against heresies by Irenaeus
>that is exactly what Marcion believed.
Not really. He believed there were two gods, one in the OT and one in the NT and the one in the OT is a demiurge. Which is something not said anywhere ITT
You're right, the Judeo-Christian religion sucks.
Much better to be an Islamo-Hindu or the Marxo-Buddhist - now those are the religions of the future!
Yes that was his reason for refection of the Old Testament and that makes some sense. That is why I recommend critique agins him.
The reason in this tread on even weeker.
Just because it's not quoted in the new it's not important. Makes no sense since you have to accept that prophets wrote the old Testament but you also have to reject what they have to say. So you end up rejecting what you believe in.
>The prophets wrote
No they didnt. Not the entirety of the books which were heavily addee after the exilic period
Marcion and Valentinus were right though.
Because the OT God is the same God as the NT. Why would you ignore any scripture related to your GOD
>tfw Zen-sunni
God is of little impact in Christianity. The entire reason for the OT is the passages where the Messiah is confirmed. Themselves already included in christian interpretations of the NT
>he doesnt know
>tfw converted to a religion because of a mediocre genre fic
>God is of little impact in Christianity
dont even have a brainlet wojak dumb enough for this
Lawrence of Arabia is a masterpiece though and so is Hamlet.
It's called CHRISTianity, not Godianity, you twit.