Then why are Jews wrong?

(Or anybody who believes the OT is the true Bible and the NT is fake)

Doesn't it seem more plausible that God got it right the first time and didn't need to change "for the times" 400-500 years later...but then not "change for the times" again in the last 2000 years?

My response to Jib in another thread when he expressed his disapproval/disgust of mainstream Christianity:

"Resculpturing Christianity to be more pleasant than it is doesn't do anything to add to the validity of it. All you're doing is making it more pleasant.

But to your own defense, it's a normal thing. The whole reason the NT came out was because OT believers (Jews mainly) were fed up with all the horrors in the Old Testament. Christ appealed to folks who wanted something more pleasant. In terms of probability, it's MUCH more likely that the OT is true than the OT+NT are both true. I mean seriously, God got it wrong the first time, but 500 years or so later corrected it (and hasn't provided anymore updates to change with the times in the last 2000 years)? LOL."

Discuss.

Your 2 posts above sound like you've never attended a church or read the bible. Have you?

Yes and yes. Many times. Does that make me stupider than you are, or was your post only meant to be condescending if I didn't attend a church or read the Bible?

I think it's safe to say that the majority of posters here, theist and atheist alike, have either been to church or read the Bible.

I was even a youth group leader at a fairly large and popular Catholic Church for two years.

I think we all know what standard "explanation" is for the OP's question. Obviously, the idea is to flesh out the argument and point out any number of odd philosophical/theological implications that can be drawn if we assume this explanation is valid.

That's all right. I'll leave your thread alone.

My standards are too high and there's too much religion variation on here for everyone to agree on terms and bible themes.

You're more than welcome to participate in the thread, but stick to the topic at hand. I'm not going to fall for the "If you read the Bible, but didn't come to the same conclusions as me, you need to re-read the Bible" argument here.

Exactly.

I just think that belief in the OT is so many times more valid (statistically/probabilistically speaking) than belief in both the OT and the NT.

the lord works in mysterious ways.

My personal take is closer to your second post, that the idea that god had to fix an earlier misunderstanding and that the best way to do this was to send his "son" to earth and die for our "sins" in some backwater is bizarre. To the point where it seriously calls into question what kind of being the NT god is supposed to be.

QFT. I am so sick of theists bringing up this argument, even though it's been refuted before.

The fate of all those that weren't God's "chosen" people was death, inevitably, ie other civilizations such as modern day India or China.

"Chosen" does not mean God hand picked, it means they were direct descendants of the good Abraham son (?)

The NT has to occur so people that weren't "chosen" will have a chance.

At least you're admitting that the NT was written by people who were fed up with the policies of the OT. Does this make the NT more or less likely to be true? (not a trick question)

Additionally (and this is where it gets REALLY good), why are there "Chosen" people to begin with? What kind of just and merciful god would allow this kind of heresay in his Holy Book and then have to publish another book 500 years later to correct the injustice?

And better yet, isn't it slightly convenient that these supposed Chosen People were (coincidentally) the same ones who wrote the book (OT) about them being Chosen People?

Well, maybe you don't take issue with this stuff, but I do.

Like I said, they aren't chosen, it is the way it is, because they were descendants of the righteous son of Abraham.

Asking this question, is like asking why are there rich people and poor people.

And yes, everything you've thought about, i have also questioned many times. I am human just like you. Gotta go, will answer your other q's later.

Yes. You are an A among 2s. Best to block everyone here, or just leave the thread when faced with an argument.

I will try my best to explain what I believe to be true.

God created Adam and Eve they rejected him.

God then needed to pick a race of people on this earth that Jesus would be raised into so he picked the Jews and provided them with the OT to live by until Jesus would be born (Hence Gods choosen people)

The Jews rejected Jesus has they were looking for a King to rule them and free them from the Romans.

Jesus then turned to the Gentiles and they accepted him after his death this is what we call the Church of Chirst so God give us the NT to live by.

what passage(s) of the bible lead you to the conclusion that the existence of the NT means that God "got it wrong and needed to change"??

what passage(s) of the bible lead you to the conclusion that this "need to change" was a "change for the times"??

i think the NT was in God's plan from the very beginning and that the nation of Israel was a tool in the execution of that plan. why do you assume differently?

i love stuff like this. are you saying god did it right in the OT and there was no need for any changes? and also, are you saying that the OT is true and correct? because anytime i, or any atheist, points out what a bloodthirsty genocidal maniac god is in the OT, Christians immediately talk about how it doesn't matter because we have the NT.

you cant have it both ways. either God did those things, or he didnt.

these are actually excellent questions.

anytime i point out to a believer how god puts the OK Rubber Stamp on slavery in the OT, believers always babble something incoherent like "well, those were the times..."

i dont even know how thats a valid response, but if god is trying to keep up with the times, he stopped an awfully long time ago. why not a NNT?

::

also, your on point about the Jews too. if the NT is correct, then the Jews are wrong, because they have turned away the messiah. that is to say, the OT is not whole and complete on its own. but that's the Jews Holy Book! (probably why most of them are atheists.)

the op was based on the premise that God intended the OT to be the final plan. but that plan somehow failed b/c it wasn't "hip with the times" and so God scrambled to come up with a "plan B", the NT.

i wanted to know where that idea came from. if we can first address the error of this premise, we can more effectively deal with your concerns.

so,

The idea came from logic, not the Bible. I'm sorry but (regardless of what you might think) we don't need the Bible to use logic. So if logic tells me that an all-knowing god should not have to redo a holy book 2 times in a 500 year span, I'm going to question the fact that it happened.

EDIT: What was so incredibly different between the people who lived at 400BC and the people who lived at 100AD -- that it was necessary for God's entire nature to change?

he didn't "redo" any holy book

your logical skills are on par with most of the believers around here