New old covenants

Source: TW

A subtle point to note is how Xtians like to use the idea of “concessions” when they encounter something unsavoury or unpalatable in their scriptures. A few examples follow:

Ritual sacrifice shift

  1. Yahuda sacrificial system in Vayikra (Leviticus) under the “old covenant” obviously resembled that found in Near-Eastern polytheisms. Xtian theologians often point out that these rituals were a concession & were done away with under the new covenant under Jesus, who performs the final and ultimate sacrifice with himself.

But this doesn’t make much sense. If one is making a concession and is merely tolerating a certain state of affairs, why would he express a particular preference for certain aromas? Why dedicate so many rules to what he wants from each type of sacrifice. Concessions suggest a minimalistic approach, which does not square with the level of detail accorded to the sacrifices.

Priesthood

  1. Old Yahuda, Levitical priesthood was a concession for an imperfect world that nevertheless needed priestly intermediaries, till Jesus came and became the ultimate priestly intermediary between “God” & man.

After all, as Hebrews 7 points out, Jesus himself was from the tribe of Judah, a tribe without priestly rights in the Yahuda temple.

So, if the old, hereditary priesthood was going to be ultimately unimportant & destined to be superseded by a higher priesthood, why would Yahweh go berserk at Moses & Aaron’s behest & kill Korah & his supporters who asked for equal priesthood rights, by causing the earth to swallow them up.

Seems like a grossly disproportionate& violent overreaction for something that was a mere concession to imperfect humans’ needs and that which was going to be superseded eventually.

… Why did your “God” cry in the Torah like a little bitch about Korah (who was also a Levite) wanting equal priesthood rights as the lineage of Aaron? Sure, as a Xtian coper, you will say: Old covenant, new covenant. Why did your “God” change his mind about priesthood under the new covenant? Was he wrong before?

Slavery

  1. The allowance of slavery in Ephesians 6:5-7 is a concession for a time when the movement against slavery was too weak and to prevent a violent slave revolt that could disturb the peace.

If it’s a mere concession, why would “God” (since, in Xtianity, all books, including those written by humans like Paul, are inspired by the “Holy Spirit” & therefore ultimately revealed by “God” alone) ask slaves to keep carrying on their work with fear & trembling, act so even when their masters are not looking at them & see the work they do for their human masters as actually work done for “God”.

Very strange to call this a mere concession to social realities, when you are going out of your way to tell slaves to not just act submissively on the outside but actually and genuinely feel such submissiveness inside.

It is clear that “concession” as used by Xtian apologists is but a duplicitous, exegetical tool to defend their scriptures.