|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5163 days) Posts: 649 From: Melbourne, Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Should the Bible contain the Old Testement? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ohnhai Member (Idle past 5163 days) Posts: 649 From: Melbourne, Australia Joined: |
I had the impression that the New Testament was exactly that. A new set of rules that replaced the old set in entirety. If this indeed so; then why does the bible, still contain the Old Testament? Surely, as we have been given the second testament via Jesus then, for a Christian, the Old Testament should be meaningless.
One for Bible study I would guess
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPhat Inactive Member |
Hello, ohnhai! I have seen many a Bible that only contains the New Testament.
Accuracy/Innerrency may be a better fit for this, but Faith/Belief would be even better yet. Do get back to me and elaborate on the direction that you wish to go with this topic. Respond By March 7th This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 03-04-2006 09:31 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPhat Inactive Member |
Whats up, Ohnhai? Still wanna pursue this topic? Read my suggestions and get back to me....
GOT QUESTIONS? You may click these links for some feedback:
*************************************** New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out: "DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU" AdminPhat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminTL Inactive Member |
AdminPhat, I haven't been active enough on this board to want to promote this topic on my own authority.
However, I most definitely want to address this question, and I think the question is clear. If the New Covenant superceded the old, then why keep the old? It seems like a legitimate question, and I'd love to give my answer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminChristian Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I had the impression that the New Testament was exactly that. A new set of rules that replaced the old set in entirety. If this indeed so; then why does the bible, still contain the Old Testament? Surely, as we have been given the second testament via Jesus then, for a Christian, the Old Testament should be meaningless. My take on it - the Old Testament isn't just rules. There is Genesis (which Jesus doesn't throw out) and the history of the Jewish people. That stuff is important to Christians. I guess the rules are kept there for historical purposes...also it gives important context. If Jesus is throwing out the old rules, it might be useful to know what rules they are and why they are being replaced. One more reason is because of the Messiah prophecies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4060 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
I had the impression that the New Testament was exactly that. A new set of rules that replaced the old set in entirety. That's a common modern theory. The Christians that collected the writings that make up our Bible wouldn't agree, and it's obvious by the copious OT quotes that the writers of the NT didn't agree, either. Here's the thought of the mainstream early church: Y'shua (Jesus) said he didn't come to abolish the Law, but to "fill it up." He said this in Matthew 5:17, and he spent the rest of the chapter explaining what he meant. "You've heard it said, don't murder, but I say, don't even be angry with your brother, etc." You can read the chapter for yourself. It's clear enough there that Y'shua believed he was bringing the OT to fullness, not completely wiping it out. Most people don't realize that's what everyone thought for a long time. Paul, for example, uses the law about not muzzling oxen to make a point about the support of ministers. He also says that Hagar and Sarah represent the old and new covenants. If you read through the early church writings, you'll find that when they quit keeping the Jewish Sabbath and quit keeping Jewish dietary laws, they saw themselves as keeping the spiritual Sabbath and spiritual dietary laws. How can one sanctify a day, they asked, except by living holy on it all day long? Thus, every day should be sanctified to God, and not by resting, but by working inside the rest of Christ. The real point of the dietary laws, they said, was that we are to ruminate on the word of God and part from the world, not worry about whether our food ruminates on cud or parts the hoof. Paul wrote that the new moons, feasts, and Sabbaths are a shadow of things to come, but the body that casts that shadow belongs to Christ. The reason the Old Testament was not thrown away is because the New Testament is the fullness of the old one. It's to the old one like a body is to a shadow, or to use Y'shua's terminology, like an inflated balloon to a deflated one. Also, while the old covenant was written on paper, the new one cannot be. The new one is written on minds and hearts by the Spirit of God, and those who belong to it can read the spiritual lessons, the fullness, behind what's written in the law. What's called "the New Testament" is not the New Testament at all, but is simply some letters, biographies, and an apocalypse that happened to be written by men who were under the New Testament. So the New Testament didn't replace the old set in entirety. It's not one book replacing another. It's one covenant replacing another, and the new one isn't a book. The new one is spiritual and makes use of the previous one by "filling it up," in Y'shua's words.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 395 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Jesus did not say throw out the old, instead, what he did was simplify and refine all of the rules found in the Old Testament.
Basically, what Jesus says is "All of those rules really break down to two Great Commandments, Love GOD and love others as you love yourself." Einstein, like Jesus, looked at the existing world, then took all the various rules and theories and reduced them, simplified them into the basics. E = mc2 Jesus did not want us to forget all that came before but he did want us to go directly to the important parts, the essentials. Love GOD, and loves others as you love yourself. It really is that simple. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 613 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
It would have made the Jewish peoples suffering a lot less if the Christians DID throw out the Tanakh, rather than changing it's meaning, and using that as an excuse to be prejudiced against the Jews.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DeclinetoState Member (Idle past 6438 days) Posts: 158 Joined: |
Isn't the O.T. necessary to provide context for the N.T.? Many N.T. passages are (allegedly) quoted from the O.T. I don't think you can really understand what some N.T. passages are really supposed to be about unless you have the O.T. That's one reason why I don't like "Bibles" that are only New Testaments.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4111 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
the problem with this is that though the NT used context from the OT, the authors of the NT got them wrong. It comes down to why the jews don't believe jesus was the messiah, because a person, even a layman versed in OT scripture knew that jesus written in the NT doesn't fit the messiah. from what i understand its the reason the author of matthew had problems converting jews to christianity
IMO they have the OT as part of the bible as background or proof that the NT is right to convince people with no understanding of jewish doctrine or what jews believe, that not only the NT is right but the OT backs it up!which is wrong since what people consider "messiah" prophecys are fabrications at best
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
But in what context can we determine what "Wrong" even is?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Philip Member (Idle past 4723 days) Posts: 656 From: Albertville, AL, USA Joined: |
There is Genesis (which Jesus doesn't throw out) and the history of the Jewish people. That stuff is important to Christians. I guess the rules are kept there for historical purposes 2Ti 3:16 (KJV) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness... Besides Messiah prophecies (as you realize), there are Messiah *portraits*, 'shadows', and 'types' from Genesis to Malachi. These portraits and types of Christ are employed by gospel preachers everywhere. They become part of the Gospel (NT) hope in that sense. Poetic books (Psalms, Canticles, etc.) expound out some of the *heart-felt groaning* (if you will) of Christ's vicarious sufferings (e.g., on the cross) and *sin-stricken consciences* of Christians (please go easy on my grammar guys). Then there are the pervading 'sacrficial' atonement(s) for sin in the OT, each providing some additional *detail* of the *great sacrificial atonement* (Christ) ... the Christian's mechanism for forgiveness. Or (I may be wrong) consider it (the Bible) as an enzyme. Change one of the thousands to millions of fitly-joined *dummy* (OT) atoms (excluding perhaps hydrogen) and the active site (the Gospel) may become decayed and/or destroyed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Philip Member (Idle past 4723 days) Posts: 656 From: Albertville, AL, USA Joined: |
(1) Love GOD, and (2) loves others as you love yourself. Actually, this old commandment (testament) seems to me to have been replaced, modified, changed and/or re-worded by: 1Jo 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should (1) believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and (2) love one another, as he gave us commandment. Notwithstanding, I grant you that both simplifications may be argued as similar ... that is, if you somehow construe 'Love God' (with all heart soul mind & strength) as equivalent to 'Faith in the name of his Son Jesus Christ'. To me, Christ's simplification fails unless I believe on a Christ. For I might just as well say: Love the God of this world (Satan) and love one another.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 395 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
To me, Christ's simplification fails unless I believe on a Christ. For I might just as well say: Love the God of this world (Satan) and love one another. You are free to believe anything you want, but that is not what Jesus said. In addition, you seem to have missed the really essential part of the second Great Commandment. It is a two part command: Love others as you love yourself. You need to remember that second part. Before you can Love GOD, before you can love others, you first must love yourself. Love GOD, and love others as you love yourself. It really is that simple. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024