Patrons of the Sacred Art

Can't log in? Contact Us

OPEN TO REGISTER: Click HERE if you want to join Alchemy Forums!

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 51

Thread: Old vs. New Testament

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In the moment...
    Posts
    8,492
    Blog Entries
    2

    Old vs. New Testament

    I've been looking into the Old Testament of late, especially non-KJV translations... more "source" material and it makes me wonder...

    Christianity has the Old and New Testament as two parts of the same book called The Bible... but maybe it is actually two distinctly different religions altogether. Allegorically imagine a book where part one is The Lord of the Rings and part two is Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone...

    Perhaps these two NEVER were meant to be part of the same "thing".

    Thoughts?

    Don’t let the delusion of reality confuse you regarding the reality of the illusion.


  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,042
    Blog Entries
    80
    Its an interesting theory and I believe it does have some merit.

    If we look into Gnosticism and Luciferianism, we can see some interesting truths that the Christians would love to deny. I shall explore these with you a little later.

    We should all try to remember that Jesus did not 'swing' the the Pharasee's and Scribes. He was an Essene; whoms people believed in more hermetic like traditions and faiths, strived to actually live the ways of God as upposed to the hypocritical ways of the other Jews, and who shared interesting and (hidden from us) ideas about the creation that are missing from the typical Canon.

    There is always the fact that Rome constructed the Bible, not the Jews or early Christians, so there was a bit of a bias hand in compling the canon(bible).
    Join me; on a voyage of stupidity, and self discovery: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=vccZSHroTG4

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    I get around.
    Posts
    118
    Thought provoking indeed. I don't know the answer but if these "two parts" (1 being the Old Testament and 2 being the New Testament) were "not" meant to be part of the same thing, this book The Bible, then why the prophecy?

    "The Lord himself will give you a sign: The Virgin will conceive and give birth to a Son, and will call him Immanuel.’ (which means ‘God with us’)." - ISIAH 7:14

    "All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The Virgin will conceive and give birth to a Son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”)." - MATTHEW 1:22-23

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In the moment...
    Posts
    8,492
    Blog Entries
    2
    That prophecy is not only in the Bible... also Jesus is not called Immanuel?

    Another theory could be retroactive editing.

    Don’t let the delusion of reality confuse you regarding the reality of the illusion.


  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    I get around.
    Posts
    118
    About Jesus Christ,

    His whole title in Aramaic is actually " ישוע משחא בר אלהא אחדאיא ", or "Jesus the Messiah, the only Begotten Son of God", according to the Nicene creed written in Aramaic. It shows how God is with us in that respect.

    Not only that, but the prophecies in Isaiah can be taken to mean qualities of the Messiah, literally being called (qarat shemo וְקָרָ֥את שְׁמ֖וֹ, or in Aramaic taqarai shemieh תקרי שמיה ), as in He will be called Immanuel, otherwise, it would have been "at shimo את שמו".

    Also in this verse, the literal Hebrew and Aramaic both state that his name will be called, not that his name will be.

    Isaiah 7:10
    Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

    לָ֠כֵן יִתֵּ֨ן אֲדֹנָ֥י ה֛וּא לָכֶ֖ם א֑וֹת הִנֵּ֣ה הָעַלְמָ֗ה הָרָה֙ וְיֹלֶ֣דֶת בֵּ֔ן וְקָרָ֥את שְׁמ֖וֹ עִמָּ֥נוּ אֵֽל
    It's not directly "at shimo Immanual" it's "qarat shimo", or "called the name Emmanuel".

    The Aramaic Targum and Hebrew text out the prophecy, showing it's what earlier Jews believed. It is as much a name as it is a title of Christ.
    Yesh'ua (Heb.) is rendered "Jesus" or "Joshua" today. It is his given name. It means "Jehovah Saves."

    Christos (Greek) is a title translating the Hebrew "Messiah" or "Annointed One." It highlights his annointed and special status.

    Immanuel (Heb.) is a simple Hebrew construction that says "God is with us." It is as much sign as name. It signifies that in coming to Earth, God has chosen to dwell among us.
    Full Link

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,510
    Quote Originally Posted by Awani View Post
    I've been looking into the Old Testament of late, especially non-KJV translations... more "source" material and it makes me wonder...

    Christianity has the Old and New Testament as two parts of the same book called The Bible... but maybe it is actually two distinctly different religions altogether. Allegorically imagine a book where part one is The Lord of the Rings and part two is Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone...

    Perhaps these two NEVER were meant to be part of the same "thing".

    Thoughts?

    The New Testament books were written quite late and they became a "single book" even later (which was, in my opinion, a political decision -i.e, which books were going to be "the New Testament" and which ones were not going to get into the canon).

    They are certainly two different religions... obviously one of them is based on the idea of "the messiah was born, lived, died, resurrected, etc"... the other one is based on "We are still waiting".

    The New Testament books make an obvious effort to fulfill several prophecies of the Old testament... but then again, neither the Old Testament or the New Testament were written as to become ONE book (i.e, both of them are compilations), but some things of the New Testament would never make sense without the Old one... So there was a clear intention of making the books of that LATER became the New Testament become somehow a "part II" (having in mind that it's quite obvious that none of the authors of the Old and new Testament ever imagined that they were going to participate in a compilation book)... but the "two books in one" makes sense... in the same way that the Tao Te Ching followed by the New Testament as ONE book would not make any sense.

    Then again, of course they are two different religions, though the two of them influenced each other (i.e, the ideas of Philo of Alexandria were certainly taken on loan by John... but it is also true that the early Christian writings had a very deep influence on Kabbalah, which became a central part of the Jewish religion for many practitioners).

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    867
    What zoas said. There was quite some time between the old and the new one. Of course it was possible to "adjust" the new to the old afterwards.

    Independently there are very interesting similarities between the story of Jesus and the alchemical practice imo.

    Of course that counts for many passages of the OT as well. Studying both can lead to many insights about the symbols of the great work imo.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In the moment...
    Posts
    8,492
    Blog Entries
    2
    I guess the "seed" of my query is not really OT vs. NT, more the Torah vs. NT as well as the Neo-Torah parts of OT. However the Torah chapters of the Bible are the "famous" ones...

    My impression is that the OT is a Jewish religion and the NT is an "anyone" religion. So when the NT was written, and in order to get any traction you need some "street rep"... in comes the OT. The fact that there are some hints in the OT about the NT is an easy trick, since the NT was written at a later date. Also the opposite, everyone knew the OT so it would not be hard to compose parts that paid tribute to the OT.

    OT is clearly a "Jew Only" religion, below one example from OT and one from NT:

    Deuteronomy 14:2: For you are a holy people to YHWH your God, and God has chosen you to be his treasured people from all the nations that are on the face of the earth.
    Philippians 2:3: Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves...
    Having studied these two books it does give me the impression that the OT is a Jews Up their Own Ass religion... and the NT is a general "thing" for anyone... However it may very well be that originally this is not what YHWH meant regarding "chosen"... regardless according to statistics 66 % of Israeli Jews believe they are the chosen people, which I think is directly and indirectly a BIG part of the drama that has been going around for hundreds of years.

    I think Christianity would do "better" if it simply "chopped off" the Torah completely.

    Don’t let the delusion of reality confuse you regarding the reality of the illusion.


  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,042
    Blog Entries
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by Awani View Post
    OT is clearly a "Jew Only" religion, below one example from OT and one from NT:
    Awani, this is, aswell as many other things you've said, so true.... except for 0.001440000 percent of the time...

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On another note, I've been casually studying your signature, and have found much joy in the many layers of comedy and earnt-experience it conveys.

    Join me; on a voyage of stupidity, and self discovery: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=vccZSHroTG4

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    5,646
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Awani View Post
    I think Christianity would do "better" if it simply "chopped off" the Torah completely.
    Why stop at the torah? Because the NT/christianity is so much better? Has it helped with decreasing small-mindedness, misogyny, homophobia, religious bigotry and religious wars? NO, it hasn't.

    "Chop off" the whole thing. ALL organized religions are POISON. "Scientism" included. And so are many of the "non-organized" ones.

    Fuck them ALL.

    Amen.

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts