Should the Bible contain the Old Testement?

I thought more about this, if you do not require jesus to be the messiah, but still be the son of god the NT still works, but if jesus has to be the messiah you must have the OT in there as background for people to claim jesus is messiah.if we determin that the jewish writers are the authority on what the OT says and jesus and the NT doesn't fit the bill then its wrong
if christians do not claim that jesus is the jewish messiah then the OT is not needed
lots of people claim to be the son of god, kings,religious leaders, nuts This message has been edited by ReverendDG, 03-21-2006 01:36 AM

Actually Jesus stated the opposite, that is, to hate oneself:Luk 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.Albeit, men and women argue and twist this scripture every conceivable way.More on topic: "Should the Bible contain the OT?" as per Jesus' words?.(1) From a legalistic viewpoint: That Jesus thoroughly quoted the OT (probably more than anyone) might be another indication for OT 'exhibits'.On the other hand:(1) I'm not sure the simplified OT Jewish religion (i.e., 'Love God and neighbor') is a viable mechanism anyway, as it denies Christ: that Jesus is not the Redeemer, the Atonement, the Gospel, the Resurrection, the New Life, etc.(2) The OT seems dead as far as carnal ordinances are concerned. It seems even dead to most Jews who don't observe and obey those fastidious sacrifical ordinances.(3) Evangelically, It might be argued that the NT Gospel does not require OT exhibits, at all. I.e., Romans, John, Revelation, and Hebrews are *key* evangelical writings.

to which Philip replied: This is just another perfect example of why the Bible cannot be taken as the sole base for the Christian Religion and why quotemining is so popular. It is simply filled with inconsistencies and can be used to prove any point of view.However the subject is should the Bible contain the Old Testament. IMHO the answer is yes. The reason is that the OT is a glimpse into the peoples and eras of that part of the world. They were a small and insignificant peoples, never amounting to much, never a super power or even a major power, never producing anything of greatness.Except maybe the idea summed up in the two Great Commandments.The Bible, the Old Testament, New Testament, Apocrypha and other writings are our only window into these peoples, their times and their thoughts.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

how do you know this? any evidence for this assertion? huh? why does it deny christ? because it doesn't require his death to be the center of the religion? its not the center though. of course the jewish religion doesn't need jesus, the jews don't beleive he is the son of god or the messiah maybe to you, but its a great book to learn about religious history if you are a jew, and why would they practice laws that conflict with social laws? if you require that jesus is the jewish messiah then yes you do, but if you don't think you need it and he is not the messiah then theres no point to having it in there

I have some questions that will answer (weird isnt it?)Q1) Why did Jesus die?
A1) To save us from our sins.
Q2) What is sin?
A1) Sin is what you do wrong, evil, that sort of stuff.
Q3) How do you know?
A3) It says in Genisis.
Q4) Where is Genisis?
A4) In the Old Testament.

Yes, the Old Testament has to be included in the Bible.It is likely that people who say that it should not be included are taking the New Testament in an Old Testament way. I mean they replace the commandments of the law of Moses with the new commandments of the New Testament.In either case people tend to view religion as basically a list of Dos and Don'ts. With the Old Testament you had the ten Dos and Don'ts. Now they assume that these have now been replaced by the Dos and Don'ts preached by Jesus and the apostles. If you just do the list of things you're suppose to do then you are a Christian.So, they may surmise "Why do we need any longer the old list of things to do? Now the teaching of Jesus has a new list of things to do. So the Old Testament is really not needed."It could be that this "Obey the List of Things to Do" mentality sees little need for the old Do List to be around as long as the new Do List is here.The new Do List teaches us to do such things as hate your self, or turn your cheek when struck, or give to the poor, or care for your family. Many things seem pretty similiar to the Old Do List. But many things seem contradictory to other Dos in the new Do List.Actually, the New Testament is about abiding in, remaining in, dwelling in, and walking in the realm and sphere of a living Person - Jesus Christ. God, in the New Testament, is in Christ, as the Holy Spirit, imparted into the innermost being of the Christian disciple."But there are many commandments in the New Testament. Are there not?" some would say. My answer is yes there are.So what gives then? That's all I'll write for this post.

The Bible has to contain the Old Testament, it is the easiest way of seeing which scriptures Christians take out of context.Brian.

Very often, when a new translation or version of the Bible comes out, the New Testament comes first. It is usually easier to translate, since it comes from Greek, a European language distantly related to English, rather than Hebrew, a Semitic language unrelated to Greek or English. Also, the NT is shorter than the Old Testament, so you can get a complete part of the Bible on the market sooner.Of course, it is also possible to divide the OT up into sections, such as the Psalms and/or Proverbs, the Pentateuch, the Prophets, etc., and sell or distribute them separately.IMHO, while it is possible to use "only" the NT, it seems incomplete to use it without the OT. Besides, why call it the New Testament if there isn't also an Old one?

Lest any of His audience mistake Christ's intention to abolish the law and the prophets He said - "Do not think I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have not come to abolish but to fulfill" (Matt. 5:17)If we abolish the Old Testament from the Bible it would be impossible for us to really understand what Christ came to fulfill.He goes on - "For truly I say to you, Until heaven and earth pass away, one iota or one serif shall by no means pass away from the law until all come to pass" (Matt. 5:18)He did not come to abolish the law and the prophets. And neither did He teach that the smallest detail of the law should pass away until all prophecy come to pass.I'm glad the Old Testament is included with the New in the Bible.

...I'm Not trying to strain many knatts; here's a little feedback.Jesus, it seems to me, quoted OT more than anyone in the NT. Of course, all the other NT writers quoted it extensively, too. The point only being that they *fit* scriptures into gospel. (i.e., 1COR 15.3) ...this may require some clarification, ReverendOn the other hand, most AL X'tians (here in the Bible-belt) I know don't really get into either testament; but hymns seem more important (Amazing Grace, etc.).Another speculation seems somewhat valid to me: 'Phlegmatic personality' types don't really require *sound OT doctrine* as much as 'Choloric' or 'Melancholy' personality types might.

Bs'dThe Bible should ONLY contain the OT (Only Testament)Read here why: Bs"d - MountZion.

​

.In the service of Y-H-W-H,Eliyahu, light unto the nations"Hear Israel, Y-H-W-H is our God, Y-H-W-H is ONE!" Deut 6:4"All the peoples walk each in the name of his god, but as for us; we will walk in the name of Y-H-W-H our God forever and ever!" Micah 4:5.

​

.

The New Testament is a comforter for the Jews who realized that Jesus was the suffering messiah.
The comforter they had in reminding themselves of the whole gospel story and the amazing things Jesus taught them were at first told by the witnesses, and set down in writing @ 54AD.But the Old Testament is the very source for what Jesus revealed.Jesus said "I am the truth," and he meant, truth about what the Old Testament is telling us, as opposed to the Rabbi and pharisees of his own day.He also meant in a larger sense, that he personified Truth, itself, and the natural opposition to the Truth by men in general.
His message was to do as the Torah says, by facing the Truth about what it is we and the Jews then were really doing.Much like the Catholic of today who "confesses" of Saturday and pays a tithe on Sunday, but returns again next week to the same vices, the Jews had become fixated in their same bad behavior in spite of offering up their sacrifices of barley, doves, and lambs.Jesus was facing down the forces that maintain a culture that does what it wants, while preaching otherwise.
We saw the Christianity of Truth at work in 1965 when Rev Martin Luther King stood for the Truth when it was unpopular.

If someone things that "Jesus is the suffering messiah", they are not Jewish.End of story.

It requires Truth for people to recognize that their selfish motivations which drive the behaviors that hurt others is not loving of God or others.Religious paradigms again and again set up systems where cycles of sinning are excused by confessions, tithes, donations, sacrifices of grain or doves or bulls, while the same actual behavior continues from generation into the next generation.A society can be redeemed when the Truth espoused by Rev Martin Luther King become apparent to the sinners, and they actually change.
The century of "Separate but Equal" is good example of lip service that avoided the Truth, and allowed white America to feel "all was well in the world of USA cultural practices."....
Jesus said, "I am The Truth,... and the way and the life"....Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

Bs'dDoes JC throw anything out? This is what JC says about the Torah:"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
Matt 5So JC doesn't throw anything out. It is the Christians who follow Paul and not JC, who throw the whole law of God overboard, and replace it with paganism.