Thou shalt love thy clan member as thyself? Biblical scholars tell us that the testaments, old & new, refer back and forward to each other. So, are you opining that in Matthew 20:19, for example, Christ instructs one to love one’s clan member as one’s self?
Most Christians seem to have a somewhat different understanding of the Biblical meaning of “neighbor.”
“The rule applied to the Jews and Jews only, just as everything else in the Torah, and is not a universally applicable Golden Rule, but a binding commandment meant to preserve and protect the Jewish clan/nation from self-destruction.”
Oh, I see.
Scripture continuity is evident as long as it provides an opportunity for scripture scoffing and Christian bashing. The moment the opportunity disappears, the continuity likewise disappears.
And even though the Hebrew Golden Rule is not universally applicable, the Hindu version and all the many other golden/silver rules somehow take on an added significance?
Including for non-observant Jews?
“JCB is quite right about the "millennial update"
Really?!
Where?
Observant Jews do not recognize Christ as the Messiah and take no (official) notice of the New Testament, so what “millennial updates” exist in their scriptures? If they have something wrong, perhaps they have need of your scriptural expertise to set them straight.
Christians have the New Testament, and try to read and understand the Old Testament in context with the New.
So, I ask again, what startling new revelations have magically appeared in the New Testament around approx 1000CE (Christian Era)?
It’s true generally, I think, that Christianity’s scriptural understanding has changed over the centuries. Perhaps this is equally true for Jews (I’ll leave that to them). But it’s quite another thing to try to suggest that God’s word has changed.
You mean Christian biblical scholars? Sure, by inference, but not in any direct way. And the New Testaments makes references to the Old Testament in a way the Jews never knew their scriptures. Jewish biblical scholars and the Old Testament make no such back-and-forth references.
So, are you opining that in Matthew 20:19, for example, Christ instructs one to love one’s clan member as one’s self?
Yes, because that same Matthew also says that Jesus also explicitly stated he was sent for the "lost sheep of Israel only" and that this includes neither Gentiles nor even the Samaritans.
Matthew's (in)famous 28:19 uses the terms "ethne" which can be interpreted as nations or tribes (but not necessarily as Gentiles only), just as we call Navajo a 'tribe' or a 'nation'.
Most Christians seem to have a somewhat different understanding of the Biblical meaning of “neighbor.”
Not Greek or Slavic Christians, since their New Testaments actually use the word that means someone related, and these terms are a true equivalent of the Hebrew term used in the Old Testament.
Old Testament says nothing about loving other nations (who deny the God of Israel). To the contrary. The only reference to any God's concern and expectation of the Gentiles is to be found in the Noahide laws. The Gentiles have no other obligation or role in God's kingdom. The OT is about and for Jews and Jews only.
Oh, I see. Scripture continuity is evident as long as it provides an opportunity for scripture scoffing and Christian bashing.
Not really. The alleged "continuity" is strictly one way — retrograde, that is from the NT to the OT. The fact that Christians scholars see it as a two-way street is by design. Some alterations and changes had to be made to make it that way. After all, the Mormons will tell you that there is perfect bidirectional scriptural continuity between the OT, NT and the Book of Mormon! It's also by design.
And even though the Hebrew Golden Rule is not universally applicable, the Hindu version and all the many other golden/silver rules somehow take on an added significance?
I am not sure. You will have to ask JCB.
Observant Jews do not recognize Christ as the Messiah and take no (official) notice of the New Testament, so what “millennial updates” exist in their scriptures?
It wasn't quite "millenial" consideirng that the Torah was reduced to writing circa 6th century BC, and the rest of the OT was added slowly as late as the 2nd century BC (the last book being the "prophetic" book of Daniel, c 160 BC).
The quincentennial "updates" are strictly a Christian creation. The Golden rule was added to the New Testament because Christianity obviously had no choice but to seek universal appeal (and a new authority) after Jamnia.
Christians have the New Testament, and try to read and understand the Old Testament in context with the New.
Correct.
So, I ask again, what startling new revelations have magically appeared in the New Testament around approx 1000CE (Christian Era)?
It's a never-ending process. Between approximately 90 AD and 380 AD (after first two ecumenical councils) the Christian dogma was pretty much set in stone and, shortly thereafter, so was the Christian version of the Bible. But this is precisely when the real innovaitons began to emerge!
By the 11th century the East and the West were teahcing two different Christianities and the Church was ocming apart at the seams ending in monumental split (1050 AD) that hasn't sotpped since then and it's unlikely to be repaired any time soon.
It’s true generally, I think, that Christianity’s scriptural understanding has changed over the centuries. Perhaps this is equally true for Jews (I’ll leave that to them). But it’s quite another thing to try to suggest that God’s word has changed.
Assuming it is God's word, it was changed over the centuries with impunity by Christian copyists and translators. The OT concepts were changed to fit the Christian doctrine, first by divorcing them of their Judaic roots, and then transplanting them to yield a new meaning, doctrinally correct meaning. Word such as the Kingdom of God, the Son of Man (ben adam), the Lamb of God, the messiah (meshiyah), the holocaust, and so on, and on.