Zone1 Is it the "New Covenant"? "Old Covenant"? Or,.... The "Renewed Covenant"?
- Thread starter TruthSeeker112125
- Start date
So Buddhism is a cult too? Because Siddhārtha Gautama was a Hindu reformist. He believed that Hinduism had become fettered. Theology, ritual, authority, grace, mystery and tradition are components of religion. He believed they had become overbalanced. Where the form had replaced the meaning. He didn't reject them. He rejected the imbalance. He was a called the rebel child of Hinduism.
You don't need to use pretzel logic, technically, all religions are cults. Religion is the original basis for that word. It wasn't always used in such a negative fashion as you are trying to use it now.
The word "cult" has religious origins from the Latin cultus (meaning "worship," "care," or "cultivation"), initially describing a system of worship or a specific religious practice, like the cult of Dionysus. However, its meaning evolved, and by the 19th century, it gained negative connotations, referring to unorthodox or spurious religions, and later to groups with excessive devotion or manipulative practices, a shift from its original neutral religious basis.
Evolution of the Word "Cult"
- Latin Roots (Cultus): The word stems from Latin, relating to tilling the soil, care, training, and eventually, worship or adoration, sharing roots with words like "culture" and "cultivate".
- Early English Usage (17th Century): The first English uses meant "worship" or a specific set of devotional rites, as in the "cult of the Virgin Mary" or Roman imperial cults.
- Broadening Meanings (18th Century): It began to refer to intense, non-religious devotion to a person, idea, or fad (e.g., "the cult of success").
- Modern Negative Sense (19th Century Onward): The term started being applied to new or unorthodox religious movements, often with negative judgments, and now frequently describes groups seen as manipulative or harmful.
While "cult" began as a neutral term for religious devotion, its meaning shifted from describing a specific religious practice or branch to labeling groups perceived as dangerous or unorthodox, a change that has made the term highly controversial.
You can't imagine God amending the "thing?" Have you read the Old Testament?"New Covenant"
"Renewed Covenant"
I thought it was a pact between man and God. I can't imagine Him amending the thing. It's not like the US Constitution where the corrupt and unholy can change the thing to suit their agenda.
God made several key covenants with the Israelites, primarily the Abrahamic (promise of land, nation, blessing), the conditional Mosaic Covenant (Ten Commandments, Law for blessings/curses), the Land Covenant (Palestinian), and the Davidic Covenant (eternal dynasty), culminating in the promise of a New Covenant, all defining their unique relationship with God, promising nationhood, law, and future restoration.
Here are the major covenants with Israel:
- Abrahamic Covenant (Unconditional): God promised Abraham a great nation, land, and that through his descendants, all peoples on earth would be blessed (Genesis 12, 15, 17).
- Mosaic Covenant (Sinai Covenant) (Conditional): Given at Mount Sinai, this covenant established Israel as a kingdom of priests, giving them the Torah (Law, including the Ten Commandments) as terms for blessings or curses, defining their holy nation status (Exodus 19-24).
- Land Covenant (Palestinian) (Unconditional): God promised the land of Canaan to Israel, with conditions for blessing or cursing tied to their dwelling within it (Deuteronomy 29-30).
- Davidic Covenant (Unconditional): God promised King David an everlasting dynasty and throne (2 Samuel 7).
- New Covenant (Promised): Spoken of by prophets (Jeremiah 31), this covenant promised internal transformation and forgiveness, fulfilled through Messiah, replacing the old covenant's external law with an internal one.
Is it the "New Covenant"? "Old Covenant"? Or,.... The "Renewed Covenant"?
Given that there were four covenants before it and the promise of a fifth, I'd have to say it was a new covenant.
You must include in your thinking that at the time of Jesus Jewish messianic expectations were about as irrational as Christian expectations are now for the second coming of Christ.
There never will come a time when any man will fulfill any of that superstitious archaic lore.
Did you just refer to the OT as superstitious archaic lore?
No, I referred to the irrational expectations based on an ignorant perverse superstitious interpretation of the words used in the Bible of both Christians and Jews for what they expected the messiah to do when he comes, which still remains even after he came.
Back then, it was expected that the Messiah was going to defeat the Romans with a magical sword when God farted fiery angels out of the sky to help the Jewish people butcher the Romans and then the Messiah would put an end to death itself… Literally.
Now Christians expect Jesus to float down from the sky and they will float up into the sky to meet him in the air while everybody else burns in the fires of hell when the dead crawl out of their graves at the end of time itself creating a new heaven and a new earth….Literally.
What would you call all that if not superstitious archaic lore.
Any other questions?
Last edited:
No, that's not what you were referring to. The statement "superstitious archaic lore" pertains directly to the OT accounts themselves.
If you say so, lol, even though your perverse superstitious irrational expectations for the 2nd coming of Christ and absurd beliefs about Jesus the first time around are even more insane.
Jewish messianic prophecies weren't seen as superstitious folklore by ancient Jews but as real, developing expectations for a divinely appointed leader, though interpretations evolved, with early texts like Isaiah pointing toward a future king, later intensified by political turmoil (like Antiochus IV) leading to figures like Daniel's vision, and evolving beyond simple kingship.
Development of Messianic Ideas in Judaism
- Early Roots: Some trace the concept back to Genesis 3:15 (the "Protoevangelium"), but explicit messianic leadership ideas appear later.
- Pre-2nd Century BCE: No Jewish texts before 200 BCE mention a messianic leader, though some passages hint at one.
- Rise in the Second Temple Period: The oppressive Seleucid rule under Antiochus IV Epiphanes spurred heightened messianic hopes, reflected in the Book of Daniel, leading to figures like the Maccabees.
- Evolving Expectations: Beliefs continued to develop, with interpretations shifting from a conquering king to other roles, influenced by historical events like the Hasmonean dynasty's end and Roman rule.
- Isaiah: Contains "Servant Songs" and prophecies (e.g., Isaiah 7:14) interpreted as messianic by later Jews and Christians, though the original context is debated.
- Micah: Prophesies the Messiah's birth in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2).
- Daniel: Predicts a Messiah coming before the Second Temple's destruction, with a violent death in 32 CE, interpreted by some as Jesus.
Jewish messianic prophecies were not viewed as mere folklore but as foundational scriptural promises of redemption and leadership, though the specific identity and nature of the Messiah were interpreted differently across time, especially when compared to Christian theology's fulfillment in Jesus.
Yes, did you get your belief that ancient Jewish texts are archaic, superstitious lore from an atheist website?
No, its far more simple than that. When I first heard the story of A&E and a crafty talking serpent was introduced I knew immediately that it was just like a fairy tale where the moral lessons are not necessarily directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used. I was 8 years old and knew this already for half my life. I was astonished to learn that adult Christians and Jewish people too didn't understand this universal metaphor for a specific human archetype, what people today would call a malignant narcissist, but instead 'believe' a serpent was given the power of speech or was about a manifestation of guile. Way off.
¿Comprende? ¿Lo ves? Tradición arcaica supersticiosa.
Pinche payaso.
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure that no on back then believed that account was about the serpent. You have totally missed the point of that account.
It actually isn't more simple than that, if what you just said were true, you would have never characterized those accounts as archaic superstitious lore in the first place.
Any irrational interpretation, not the written words, are what is superstitious archaic lore.
Dummy.
Yes, the superstitious archaic lore that the messiah will end death itself literally or that Jesus will float down from the sky ANY MINUTE to destroy the people who make fun of you.
Dream on!
You've already revealed your true beliefs. Backpedaling won't change that. Rather than referring to these accounts as timeless wisdom of countless value, you referred to them as archaic, superstitious lore.
Like I said, it is not the words that are irrational it is the ignorant superstitious archaic lore completely divorced from reality, YOUR BELIEFS, that have absolutely no value at all except to the talking serpent that beguiled you. For cash.
The talking serpent represents the Pharaoh who wore a serpent on his head. It was written by Moses to teach Hebrew children about the dangers of losing your mind for life to a con artist, a cult leader, expert in the magical arts, sorcery, what is now well known as mind control. Here is the timeless wisdom of incalculable value. Even so it didn't stop you from being beguiled by a direct descendant of that ever elusive talking serpent of old because you have been diverted into hell by superstitious archaic lore and lost your soul, your sanity.
