ZC: Naturally, since the Hebrew Bible accepted on its face teaches Judaism, not chr*stianity.
Thank you! I have been trying to tell that to literalistic, fundamentalist Protestants.
Hey, I'm "literalistic." And I have far fewer problems without the "new testament" messing up things.
For some reason chr*stians seem almost congenitally unable to imagine a Hebrew Bible standing on its own rather than being a relatively minor and unimportant prologue to chr*stianity. It's the one thing that they all seem to have in common. You're an exception, of course, and though I applaud you for it, I sort of lament the price you have had to pay.
Actually they say it is ALL important yet only the Gospels sit on the altar in Orthodox/Catholic churches. Not even the New Testament, only the Gospels. The Protestants, on the other hand, tend to overemphasize the Hebrew Bible and Paul and minimize the Gospels.
Both communities of the ecclesial divide do this because of inherent difficulties in creating a "seamless" union of the two Testaments (because they are inherently incompatible), the Tanakh and the Gospels in particular.
It's the one thing that they all seem to have in common. You're an exception, of course, and though I applaud you for it, I sort of lament the price you have had to pay.
Well, I would ask Orthodox priests about some passages in the Old Testament and would often get an angry reaction from them (especially the OCA ex-protestant converts), or a patronizing reply along with "you need to read more," but never a really sensible answer.
Looking for archtypes and prefeguring of Chirst in some passages of the OT really stretrches one's imagination. But the Church says "it's there..." I guess that's why we call it faith. :)
As for the price, my pay is the same and when I look at myself in the mirror, I know I have not been a hypocrite. I see no connectin between those two books, but that's not the "official truth."