Alternative Culture: Gutters-- the New Testament, a new reboot?

Recently, the webcomic Gutters portrayed the New Testament as a reboot of the Old Testament, parodying the 2011 DC comics reboot.

Wait... what is a reboot?
In the comic industry, a reboot is to discard all or much of previous continuity of the series to accomodate new ideas. An example of this in the film industry is the 2005 movie Batman Begins, which discards canon in the previous canon.

So is this portrayal of the New Testament accurate? Does it discard the canon of the Old Testament?

What did Jesus say?
When we look at Christainity, we first have to look at Christ, and in this case on how he treated the Old Testament. Jesus treated the Old Testament as something he came to fulfil (Matthew 5:17-21). Jesus also had a high regard for Scripture (John 10:35), and referred to events that happened in the Old Testament (eg: Mark 12:26).

What did his followers say?
The followers of Jesus also made frequent reference. It would make little sense if the disciples intended to discard the Old Testament and yet frequently referred to it (eg: Romans 2:24; 1 Peter 1:16).

So did Jesus disregard anything from the Old Testament?
If he made anything new, Jesus gave a new convenant- one of his blood (Luke 22:20-23). The writer of Hebrews makes this even clearer, especially in Hebrews 8 (and at the same time, alluding to events in the Old Testament.

Wait, but reboots do make references to the past too, right?
That is true. For instance, the Iron Man comic book series received a reboot, which updated his origin from Vietnam to Afghanistan. However, that reboot did not dicard any of his previous stories. However, the New Testament cannot be loosely compared like that as the Old Testament does alludes to events in the New Testament (specifically the life of Jesus), while older story lines in the Iron Man stories do not intentionally allude to the future retcons.

Allusions to the New Testament went as far back as Genesis (eg: Genesis 3:14-15) and found in many of the prophets (eg: Isaiah 53, Isaiah 9:1-2, Micah 5:2). In fact Micah 5:2 was the verse that the wisemen quoted in finding Jesus (which frightened Herod) (Matthew 2: 1-12).

Conclusion
Hence, we see that the New Testament is not a reboot (in the literature sense) because
a) Frequent reference to Old Testament from the New Testament (including Jesus)
b) Future allusions from the Old Testament to the New Testament.

If the New Testament brings anything new, it is the fact that God came down in Jesus, so that we can look at Him for our righteousness and forgiveness.

For further reading

Alpha-- do prophecies about Jesus Matter?
Bethinking-- how did Jesus view the Old Testament?


PS: Gutters is a great parody site for comic book fans!

With Due Respect: Martin Luther is Anti-Semite!

Holocaust memorial in Berlin, 2008

One of the greatest atrocities commited in the history of mankind was the attempted mass extermination of the Jews by Nazi Germany. This event, known as the Holocaust, killed about 6 million Jews in Europe (about two-thirds of European Jews), and millions of others whom the Nazis deemed "weak" such as the Slaves, the Gypsies and the infirmed.

In order to sway public opinion against the Jews, the Nazis used On Jews and their Lies (one of Martin Luther's tracts) and advocated it as the epitome of German virtues. Undoubtly, the tract contains slanderous material against the Jews, such as descibring than as being full of "devil's feces" and that their synagouge (place of worship) as a "whore" and "slut". Hence, Lutherean churchs have distanced and denounced the tract.

Often it is easy to conclude that the Reformer Martin Luther was anti-Jew and thus dismiss his theology in one swoop. But not only is this view a lazy representation of his theology, it is also a caricature of it.

Getting a few things straight....
Luther's style
One must understand that Luther's writing style is deliberately provoking. For instance, in his work Table Talk, he argued against the philosophy of Aristole, stating Aristole's reasoning is the "enemy" of Christian faith. While I am not condoning Luther's choice of words, one must understand how he wrote before assessing him hastily (Reeves, 2009).

Supporting the Jews
In fact, in 1523 Luther wrote That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew, arguing against the mistreatment of Jews by Christian. He dedicated his work to a converted Jew  (whom he later would support financially and whose son he would house).

So why did Luther have a change of heart?

Anti-Semite?
After years of attemtping to convert Jews to Christianity, he described them as having a certain "hardness of heart" that prevented them from seeing how their own Scriptures led to Jesus. He wrote on Jews and their Lies as a response against attacks by Jewish apologists on Christianity.

Although painful to read (due to Luther's choice of harsh language), he argued that being children of Abraham was a matter of adoption, rather than family line. He went on to show how Jesus is the promised Christ from the Old Testament.

After that he went on to make a list of recommendations of how then standard anti-blasphemy laws show be applied to Jews. To be fair to Luther, he also argued against acts of personal vengenace against the Jews.

Conclusion
So was Luther racist? Not really. He was more against their spirtual beliefs than their genetic makeup. He argued against them, not because of their race (as the Nazis were against), but rather against Judasim (their religion). The harshness of the punishments recommended against them were standard against heretics of that time.

Nevertheless, his harsh tone towards the Jews (or more accurately, Judaism) had made his legacy a tough pill to swallow.

For more, read:

Reeves, M. (2009) The Unquenchable Flame