4 ms·

It’s common usage within the Christian community to refer to it as such. Christianity’s roots are in Judaism - and that fact doesn’t constitute poor taste. So n

It’s common usage within the Christian community to refer to it as such. Christianity’s roots are in Judaism - and that fact doesn’t constitute poor taste. So neither does using the Christian term for the Tanakh within a Christian context. Now, knowingly calling it that to a Jew might possibly be interpreted as a form of disrespect, but in my experience most Jews don’t mind at all. It’s a shared scripture, so there’s common ground there regardless of the terms we use.

fortran77 7y ago
Saying that the bible of a certain religion is obsolete and has been superseded (which is what "old" means in this sense) can't be interpreted kindly to say the least. You have every right to feel that it is obsolete, of course, but you should at least realize that this is not going to be considered well by the people whose holy books you appropriated, modified, and replaced.
- TimTheTinker 7y ago
  > which is what "old" means in this sense You’re very mistaken. “Old” in the term “Old Testament” does not mean obsolete and superceded, at least not in the way you mean. To think so would be considered heresy from most mainstream Christian schools of thought. “Old” and “new” are, with regard to the sections of the Christian bible, temporal designations delineating the law and the prophets that were written before Messiah and the writings that came afterward. But all of it is considered to be the holy word of God. As any Jew knows, the coming of Messiah heralds major changes in religious life and practice. As Moshe said, “you shall listen to him”. If some believe that has happened, that’s no slight on the former scriptures. In fact, if such a Messiah were to declare them no longer the word of God, any Jew would know and be right to say that such a person is a false messiah. So there are aspects of the Tanakh that the coming of Messiah causes to be obsolete — like certain temple practices, or the first covenant at Sinai. Jeremiah 31 speaks of a “new covenant” God will make with the house of Israel and Judah. That doesn’t mean the first covenant is no longer God’s word. It’s like when David gave directions for the construction of the temple and Solomon built it, that didn’t mean Moshe’s directions regarding the tabernacle were no longer God’s holy word — even though there never again was a tabernacle.
- TimTheTinker 7y ago
  > whose holy books you appropriated, modified, and replaced I don't know what you're referring to - these claims have no basis in reality. > appropriated Christianity did not appropriate the Tanakh. The first Christians were actually Jews (and converts to Judaism), and no gentiles even joined them until about 2 years after Christianity began to spread outward from Jerusalem. The most prominent leaders and evangelists in the early church continued to be Jews for many years after Jesus (who was himself a Jew) -- all 12 of the primary apostles, Paul the apostle, James the leader of the church in Jerusalem (who was actually a half-brother of Jesus), etc. All of these Jewish Christian leaders (including Jesus himself) recognized the Tanakh as scripture, so any subsequent gentile converts were assenting to that designation, not appropriating it for themselves. So in terms of descent, Christianity and modern Judaism have a common ancestor, the pre-Talmud Judaism of first-century Israel. You could just as well say that modern Judaism appropriated the Tanakh--and that statement would be just as absurd. > modified Christianity has not modified the Tanakh. Our modern translations use the Masoretic Text as their primary source, with insights from the Septuagint, various targums, the dead sea scrolls, and other early sources -- all of which came from pre-Christian Judaism. The MT itself is attested by hundreds of early copies, so our textual criticism allows for very high accuracy, especially when helped by ancient witnesses like the dead sea scrolls. There is absolutely no basis to your claim. > replaced Christianity has not replaced the Tanakh. See my other reply to your comment. It is and always will be God's holy word, to all eternity.

fortran77 7y ago

Saying that the bible of a certain religion is obsolete and has been superseded (which is what "old" means in this sense) can't be interpreted kindly to say the least. You have every right to feel that it is obsolete, of course, but you should at least realize that this is not going to be considered well by the people whose holy books you appropriated, modified, and replaced.

TimTheTinker 7y ago
> which is what "old" means in this sense You’re very mistaken. “Old” in the term “Old Testament” does not mean obsolete and superceded, at least not in the way you mean. To think so would be considered heresy from most mainstream Christian schools of thought. “Old” and “new” are, with regard to the sections of the Christian bible, temporal designations delineating the law and the prophets that were written before Messiah and the writings that came afterward. But all of it is considered to be the holy word of God. As any Jew knows, the coming of Messiah heralds major changes in religious life and practice. As Moshe said, “you shall listen to him”. If some believe that has happened, that’s no slight on the former scriptures. In fact, if such a Messiah were to declare them no longer the word of God, any Jew would know and be right to say that such a person is a false messiah. So there are aspects of the Tanakh that the coming of Messiah causes to be obsolete — like certain temple practices, or the first covenant at Sinai. Jeremiah 31 speaks of a “new covenant” God will make with the house of Israel and Judah. That doesn’t mean the first covenant is no longer God’s word. It’s like when David gave directions for the construction of the temple and Solomon built it, that didn’t mean Moshe’s directions regarding the tabernacle were no longer God’s holy word — even though there never again was a tabernacle.
TimTheTinker 7y ago
> whose holy books you appropriated, modified, and replaced I don't know what you're referring to - these claims have no basis in reality. > appropriated Christianity did not appropriate the Tanakh. The first Christians were actually Jews (and converts to Judaism), and no gentiles even joined them until about 2 years after Christianity began to spread outward from Jerusalem. The most prominent leaders and evangelists in the early church continued to be Jews for many years after Jesus (who was himself a Jew) -- all 12 of the primary apostles, Paul the apostle, James the leader of the church in Jerusalem (who was actually a half-brother of Jesus), etc. All of these Jewish Christian leaders (including Jesus himself) recognized the Tanakh as scripture, so any subsequent gentile converts were assenting to that designation, not appropriating it for themselves. So in terms of descent, Christianity and modern Judaism have a common ancestor, the pre-Talmud Judaism of first-century Israel. You could just as well say that modern Judaism appropriated the Tanakh--and that statement would be just as absurd. > modified Christianity has not modified the Tanakh. Our modern translations use the Masoretic Text as their primary source, with insights from the Septuagint, various targums, the dead sea scrolls, and other early sources -- all of which came from pre-Christian Judaism. The MT itself is attested by hundreds of early copies, so our textual criticism allows for very high accuracy, especially when helped by ancient witnesses like the dead sea scrolls. There is absolutely no basis to your claim. > replaced Christianity has not replaced the Tanakh. See my other reply to your comment. It is and always will be God's holy word, to all eternity.