• expired

FREE Digital Audio "Old Testament Theology" by Dr. Tremper Longman @ Credo Courses


Normal Price: $99. Free Digital Audio for a limited time.

If you aren't interested in Credo Courses deals you can simply hide that store from your deal feed. https://www.ozbargain.com.au/wiki/help:faq_beginner?#how_can...

30 Audio Sessions

Dr. Tremper Longman is the author of over 10 books. This course provides an overview of the Old Testament from a theological perspective addressing discrepancies, themes, and controversies.

The Old Testament
Most of us get our theology from the New Testament (NT). But where did the authors of the NT get their theology? They got it from the Old Testament (OT).

The religious leaders had misunderstood what God was telling them. Jesus and his disciples showed how the OT had been prophesying about Jesus and the new covenant that he would institute.

Dr. Tremper Longman is the author, editor, or contributor to over 22 titles including: An Introduction to the Old Testament, Song of Songs, and Literary Approaches to Biblical Interpretation.

This course contains 30 sessions covering all aspects of this topic:

Introduction to Old Testament Theology (What is Theology?)
How the Old Testament Relates to the New Testament?
The Synoptic Issue in the Old Testament (Part 1)
The Synoptic Issue in the Old Testament (Part 2)
The Exodus Theme in the Old Testament (Part 1)
The Exodus Theme in the Old Testament (Part 2)
The Exodus Theme in the New Testament
God as King
Noahic and Abrahamic Covenants
Mosaic and Davidic Covenants
Jesus Fulfills the Covenants
God as Warrior in the OT: Harem Warfare
God as Warrior in the OT: 5 Phases of Holy War
God as Warrior in the NT
God as Husband: Love and Marriage
God as Husband: Song of Songs
God as Wisdom (Part 1)
God as Wisdom (Part 2)
God as Shepherd
God as Father and Mother
Genesis 1–3: What it Doesn’t Teach
Genesis 1–3: What it Does Teach
Holy Places (Part 1)
Holy Places (Part 2)
Holy People: The Priesthood
Holy Actions: Sacrifices
Holy Time: The Sabbath
Ecclesiastes: Life Is Difficult and Then You Die

Related Stores

Credo Courses
Credo Courses

closed Comments

        • Just saying that convincing others trying to make sense of the world to join a religion isn't the most charitable act I can think of.

        • @AustriaBargain:

          Have you considered doing actual charity instead of proselytising?

          Thanks for advice! I have already taken it to heart.

          In Kenya, where many people speak at least some English, most people and patients I met are already avowed Christians.

          In one of the other countries, even being a foreigner has recently made one vulnerable to being ritually executed, let alone if I 'preached'. I spent quite a few weekends travelling the countryside by myself, I wasn't going to 'proselytise' in such a vulnerable position.

          And in one of the other countries, it is explicitly illegal for me to proselytise. This year, when I was in there, my previous landlord (who shares similar beliefs to myself) was detained and tortured. My own residence in that country has also in the past been 'host' to about ten police officers on a fishing expedition for incriminating evidence of … something, I'm not really sure what. Anyway, my local language skills in that country are good enough only for shopping, tourist activity and some medical work.

          As it turns out, I'm not really the proselytising type. Perhaps I have taken too much heed of "…the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark."

          … so I much prefer to do medical work (I am a medical doctor) and just a little general chat to people about their lives when I am overseas.

          I find medical systems around the world, even around Australia, quite interesting and there is a lot to both learn and share when in a different culture and medical system to what one is used to. I hope you too will or have had the opportunity and experience of unpaid 'charity' work either locally or in diverse settings, and would be delighted to hear of your experiences of the same.

        • @AustriaBargain: it also depends on the premise Christans understand that Jesus purpose was to save us from the judgement of God. And he thought it was so bad that he became a human and died to save us from it. Therefore the most charitable thing we can do is to help people take advantage of thae don't want to just help the symptoms but the root cause.

        • isn’t being ritually executed for trying to convert others to Chrisitianity something all Christians secretly hope for, the ultimate martyrdom? You wouldn’t have mentioned it unless it was at least a little bit tantalising to you. So the moment they remove your heart, you’ll pop in front of Jesus, he’ll give you a big hug, and whisper in his ear that the top tier of heaven has been reserved for martyrs like him.

        • @AustriaBargain: we dont need martyrdom to be saved, trusting in Jesus death as saiour and resurrection as king is enough to guarantee it. Jesus just says if you trust in him and hold fast to his teaching people will end up doing to his followers what they do to him. so…. nope

        • @AustriaBargain:

          isn’t being ritually executed for trying to convert others to Chrisitianity something all Christians secretly hope for, the ultimate martyrdom?

          As @berserkk states, martyrdom is not some sort of 'brownie point' to establish a better relationship or reconcililation with God, because Jesus's death and resurrection has already restored the relationship in full.

          I mention the hazard because it happened to be one reason why I (and perhaps others) could not easily proselytize in such a situation (should I have been skilled and inclined enough to do so), simply because of the risk. Far better service of our God and to all of his people (his creation) to treat more patients with love and compassion (and appropriate use of medication and therapies as per current guidelines), rather than needlessly risk my life in unnecessary gestures.

          Acceptance of my eventual mortality (I'm kind of feeling my age…) is indeed a virtue, though I'm happy enough it wasn't this morning when riding my bicycle. There's a few more items on my list of things to do!

          Happy to clear up this misunderstanding of the Christian relationship with God, and happy to hear any more questions.

        • seriously though, Jesus probably had a better relationship with martyrs in heaven. They are probably chummier with each other and the Christians who never risked their lives prolly live like second class citizens.

        • @AustriaBargain: still nah, the whole point of heaven is a perfectly restored relationship with God and his creation. No jealousy, no ambitions, no greed. Desires completely changed and completely fulfilled enjoying All the good of God's new creation
          (martyr in Greek just means witness, it just came to mean dying because so many of those witnessing to Jesus were killed like Jesus)

          Revelation 21
          Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,”[a] for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4 ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’[b] or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”

        • how many years ago was that written though, things change over time. And perhaps when that Jewish tribesman was writing that he wasn’t channeling God correctly, or maybe the devil spoke to him to confuse man about the nature of heaven. Maybe there’s an even newer heaven now and non martyrs are servants for the Christians who actually risked their lives to convert more people.

        • +3

          @AustriaBargain: yeah maybe… The Old testament is pushing 4000 years got fulfilled though.. revelation was one of the last books of the new testament. written about 2000 years ago ad90 give or take, holding up pretty good though think I'm going stick with it ;)

      • In stark contrast the moral vacuum in countries such as China is precisely due to the lack of Christian beliefs

        Yeah but the catholic church clergy (for example) seems to exhibit a similar "moral vacuum" yet they're supposedly full of believers! In that context your theory doesn't make sense.

        Also, it implies that Muslims must all be immoral, and all athiests…god, the list would go on and on!

    • +2

      I've watched that series twice, I love it!
      Another good one is Jordan Maxwell on Astro Theology - not nearly as captivating a delivery but still really cool stuff.

    • -1

      You say erosion of faith, I say increasing rates of freedom from archaic institutions. I can list the good that theology does for the world today on one fingerless stump.

    • +5

      It seems like it, being a migrant-converted-Christian who grow up in 'socialist republic' country ( which is just communist ), I can see the decline in Western country's morality. Some young gen even convinced that Socialist is the best form of government … I wish them just go over to that socialist country which they must survive on the income of people over there and see how long they would last.

      Jordan Perterson does have some good points too.

      • But that's not real socialism.

    • +3

      Most of the core tenets of "Western Civilization" (liberty, democracy, philosophy, the rule of law) came about in Greco-Roman times, before Christianity was even invented.

      In fact, the Dark Ages were really a time where Christianity came to dominate and the "Pagan" traditions of the past were abandoned. Western Civilization essentially collapsed until the classical traditions were rediscovered during the Renaissance. Our modern system of governance is based on those traditions.

      I have no problem with Christianity as a faith, but to claim that Western Civilization is built upon it entirely ignores the place that the city states of Athens and Rome had in establishing the Western traditions. I really think that the writings of Plato and Cicero have more influence over Western Civilization today than the Bible does.

      • +1

        While that's true, western values such as compassion, humility, charity, egalitarianism came from Christianity. It transformed Greco-Roman culture.
        Of course those specific values are just part off the bathwater being chucked out ;)

        • +1

          Read your classics. Those values existed well before Christianity.

          I mean, egalitarianism and humility were key political issues in Republican Rome. It was considered a serious faux pas to put yourself above others (even during a Triumph), and there were constant conflicts around the amount of power plebeians should have (with populare politicians bring major figures).

          Pretending that Christianity invented these values is just plain wrong. It may have exemplified them, but they existed before that.

          The Western Tradition came fom Athens and Rome. Christianity inherited it, and built on it, but the substance was there before it was even created.

        • @marlor: Yes, not denying the values didnt exist or that christians "invented" the values - But they are the core values of those who follow Jesus, their God who humbles himself to die for his creation.
          I would argue that those values (putting others before yourself) were "core" values in greco rome - gaining honour and reputation for yourself seem to be much greater values.
          That said, im willing to admit i only get my knowledge second hand from an ancient history lecturer and havent read the classics myself. http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2011/10/27/3349673.h...

        • @berserkk:

          John Dickson is a Christian scholar. He founded the Centre for Public Christianity, did his PhD on early Christianity, and is an unabashed evangelist. Of course he sees things through a pro-Christian lens, and he doesn't hide that.

          Personally, I'm no historian (I do have a PhD, but not in Ancient History), but I read the Classics, and pretty much everything I can get my hands on related to Republican Rome. So I see the world through the lens of Cicero, not Jesus. This work predates Christianity, but seems more in touch with our modern values, and certainly has a clear grounding in ethics and morality.

          For me, Cicero's "De Officiis" is as relevant a moral handbook as you will find in terms of modern society, yet it predates the New Testament by a century.

        • @berserkk: Yep, Christians are the exemplars of moral behaviour. That must be why prisons across the western world are disproportionately populated with the religious; and why, by almost any objective measure of societal health - be it education, human rights, health, crime or more - the more religious a society is, the worse they do.

          But given your proclivity to assert that Christianity is in any way responsible for instilling moral values in ancient civilisations, and ignore all the immoral lessons taught by its scrupture, you don't seem to be the sort of person who's persuaded by facts.

  • It's baffling why Christians - especially the passage quoting Americans - hold the old testament so dearly. Pretty sure Jesus preached rebelling against the old traditions. Probably the general 'turning the other cheek' theme in the new testament was too unbearable. Anyway I think Revelation was a really bad acid trip.

    • Which passage quotes Americans? Is that one of the "secret" books?

      • I think the comment was referring to Americans who quote bible passages.

      • This is when hyphens matter!

    • +3

      "Pretty sure Jesus preached rebelling against the old traditions.' Pretty sure you've got some reading to do then.

    • Revelation is quite heavy in old testament imagery ;)

      Jesus was/is the Jewish messiah, his scriptures we the old testament that speak of the Messiah.

      Problem with some "passage quoting Americans" particularly ones that get paraded around are that they don't read all the Bible like the passages you quote "turn the other cheek" and "love your enemies, do good to those who he you " -they claim to be fundamentalist but they aren't fundamentalist enough or they would be living the hell out of their perceived enemies.

    • +1

      It's was the Pharisees that were rebelling against the established order of the religion. Writing their own religious laws and causing controversy. Jesus "rebelled" against the Pharisees for doing this and tried teaching people the testament instead. That's what I gathered from it anyway.

  • Can you share the direct link?

    • Just found out there is no direct link to download all, have to download them one by one!

      • +2

        Check my comment below for direct links.

  • +2

    Just bought 10, thanks OP!

  • This bargain has a dig at another religion, which I thought would have been against the posting rules:

    "The Jewish religious leaders had misunderstood what God was telling them"

    • Jews can mean ethnic Jews not necessarily Judaism. For example, Messianic Jews are considered Christians.

  • +3

    Just looking at the table of contents you can see that it's not a scholarly production.
    "Jesus Fulfills the Covenants". No such thing in the OT.
    It's just a proselytizing brainwashing sermon.

    • +3

      From the index of sessions listed, it's evidently a book that explores both textual and source criticism and biblical theological disciplines at an entry level. This dude wrote a number of my text books and he's definitely a scholar.

      If you bothered to listen to the session on Jesus fulfilling the covenants, you might not be persuaded, but you'd at least be able to see why he (and most other Christian scholars) would disagree with you that there's "no such thing in the OT".

      • what does Jesus have to do with the OT? Nothing.
        He's supposed to be talking about the OT, not preaching about Jesus. That makes it a sermon on his own faith and personal dogma, not scholarly at all.

        • You appear to have a very strange view of scholarship.

          "what does Jesus have to do with the OT? Nothing." which is exactly why there is a talk on Jesus fulfilling the covenants, because the goal is to show you how you're incorrect. Or would you prefer a scholar only agree with your narrow (dare I say dogmatic) view of the old testament?

          Talk two is clearly titled 'how the old testament relates to the new testament' so that's obviously on the agenda and there's no reason to feel duped. Christians see the all books of the bible as one equally relevant text, so I think it would be entirely reasonable to include a section on someone, who in the new testament extensively quotes and explains the scriptures, especially in terms of covenant (which is a very heavy theme in the first 39 books).

          Talk to any Jew today and they'll tell you they're still waiting for a messiah that is clearly 'present' in the Old Testament, as a fulfilment of the Davidic covenant (a king on David's throne forever), and who will be a 'prophet like moses' relating to the Sinaitic covenant. The Old Testament itself speaks about anticipating a new covenant in quite a number of places (especially in the book of Isaiah and in the Psalms). To exclude this talk from his collection (rather than including it) would be the failure of scholarship.

          All of this I'm sure is actually discussed in the courses… so rather than arguing someone shouldn't speak on a highly appropriate topic, it might actually be worth listening to them! Of course you're welcome not to, especially if you're not interested in the field, but it's another thing to decide what a scholar is and isn't based on your own assumptions. Why not do someone the courtesy of listening to what they've dedicated their scholarly life to, rather than writing them off as unscholarly.

    • "No such thing in the OT"
      OT = Old testament
      Testament literally means covenant
      Not sure what your referring to as not existing? Is there no testament in the old testament?

  • +6

    Copied the direct download links for all 30 parts straight from AWS. Use jDownloader to get them easily.


  • +1

    The religious leaders had misunderstood what God was telling them.

    This bargain should be tagged Comedy instead of Education.

  • +1

    Jesus Christ.

  • +2

    Faith - strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

    • What about historical and archeological evidence to support a belief? Even atheist have faith. Even in everyday life we have faith in things we don't have proof.

      • +5

        Atheist doesn't have Faith.
        When there is no or not enough evidence, we simply say " I don't know."

        • You're sure atheist don't believe everything is created out of nothing? Although they can't prove it. Or atheist don't believe in things they can't observe like dark energy and dark matter? Atheist have faith.

        • +1

          @gto21: The thing about Atheists is that you can't group them into one big theological thought pile. Their most distinguishing feature as a group is that they think for themselves.

        • +1

          When there is no or not enough evidence, we simply say " I don't know."

          That's agnosticism.

        • @Zenyatta: According to this pictorial you can be both: https://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://www.stanleyco...

        • +1


          You're sure atheist don't believe everything is created out of nothing? Although they can't prove it.

          No. Cosmologists do not know what started the universe. I'm not aware of any that claim to know for certain, although some have ideas.

          But again, I don't see why "universe was created somehow" is a less sound argument than "Everything was created by God. Err, God was just always there, mm-kay"…

          Or atheist don't believe in things they can't observe like dark energy and dark matter?

          Dark matter/energy are currently thought to exist because of observations (of other phenomena).

          Atheist have faith.

          Sure. We have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, that the banks will give us access to our money, our spouses won't kill us in our sleep, etc.

        • @abb: I was going to give an example of the person an atheist choose to marry is also an act of faith. That was the main point. The statement atheist doesn't have faith is not true.

        • @stormii:

          [atheists] most distinguishing feature as a group is that they think for themselves.

          Rather Western-centric view, which even if correct, would only be demonstrably correct if most atheists don't know any other atheists. (the counter-factual being that atheists associate with similarly minded people and are group-thinkers, which might explain comments like "How can any logical, sensible, thinking people believe in God?", which implies that the person either doesn't know many people, or only knows sensible people who are atheists)

          Most atheists in the world come from the most populous country in the world. Which has an education system not extremely well known for creating free-thinkers.

        • +3

          @gto21: Atheists don't have anything, except the shared rejection of all present and past god claims. That's literally all that atheism means. Perhaps what you're thinking of is a skeptic, and no, they don't have faith either.

          Skeptics have levels of confidence, which they apportion appropriately according to past experience, evidence and potential consequences. And when something happens which proves that predictive model to be incorrect, they will adjust their model so it becomes more accurate.

          An atheist doesn't just randomly pick someone to marry, and have 'faith' it will work out. They go through a process of courtship, whereby trust can be built, and they have the evidence they need to make their decision. Do you do it differently in the theist world?

          That's not faith, that's trust. We already have a perfectly good word for that. Your attempts to equate faith with trust are tried and failed apologetics wordplay. Faith is the belief in something when you don't have good reason to do so. Because if you had a good reason to believe, you'd say what it was, rather than just handwaving it away as "faith".

          If you're not going to use words dishonestly, you're not really interested in having a discussion or presenting a good argument: your only interest is in abusing Ozbargain as a platform for you to preach your harmful ideology. But let's be real here: logical fallacies and idiotic wordplay are the only tools left in the apologetic toolbox, when evidence and reason are sorely absent.

        • -1

          @Oracle128: First it misrepresent me since it not what I wrote. I did not wrote randomly marry someone. Your decision can be based on the current data you have. You might think your marriage will last for a lifetime based on the data you have. However, many people get a divorce. (Not just Atheist). And faith can be based on knowledge and evidence. You can have faith in the person you choose to marry, I did not wrote blind faith. I think your the one playing with words. Answer me this question. Can an Atheists be a skeptic?

        • @Oracle128: While I generally agree with your comment, I feel you're taking an overly-narrow definition of the word "faith", in contrast to its general use. A quick internet search found this:

          1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
          2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
          3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.



          Can an Atheists be a skeptic?

          I think it's pretty safe to guess that most atheists are skeptics, at least with regards to religion.

  • According to Wikipedia, Dr Longman is a reformed theologian. Perhaps calvinist. Will be a good read.

  • Send a copy to your favourite Liberal politician today!

    They can use all this Old Testament hellfire and brimstone to really put the boot into their "friends" in the party…..

    Much better than the polite stuff that's gone on so far!

    • +1

      I think they are already working from a copy of Orwells 1984.

  • To prove you all did the course and didnt just upvote God, please send me your 500 word essays on Harem Warfare. God would be sad if you used your upvotes incorrectly.

    • Much like the udemy deals, we don't actually do the free courses, we just hoard them.

Login or Join to leave a comment