Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 89 (8890 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-15-2019 4:01 PM
191 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, dwise1, JonF, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tanypteryx (7 members, 184 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,540 Year: 2,577/19,786 Month: 659/1,918 Week: 247/266 Day: 19/92 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23Next
Author Topic:   Should the Bible contain the Old Testement?
ohnhai
Member (Idle past 3204 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 1 of 32 (289687)
02-23-2006 2:50 AM


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


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminPhat, posted 02-24-2006 8:35 AM ohnhai has not yet responded
 Message 3 by AdminPhat, posted 03-04-2006 11:31 AM ohnhai has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Modulous, posted 03-04-2006 2:57 PM ohnhai has not yet responded
 Message 7 by truthlover, posted 03-04-2006 3:10 PM ohnhai has not yet responded
 Message 8 by jar, posted 03-04-2006 3:33 PM ohnhai has not yet responded
 Message 10 by DeclinetoState, posted 03-20-2006 2:12 AM ohnhai has not yet responded
 Message 26 by Eliyahu, posted 07-29-2013 3:40 AM ohnhai has not yet responded
 Message 27 by kofh2u, posted 07-29-2013 7:32 AM ohnhai has not yet responded

    
AdminPhat
Administrator
Posts: 1907
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-03-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 2 of 32 (290025)
02-24-2006 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ohnhai
02-23-2006 2:50 AM


Some Bibles are only the NT
Hello, ohnhai! :) I have seen many a Bible that only contains the New Testament.
  • Do you want to assert that the Old Testament is no longer a valid piece of religious literature?
  • How would you present your Bible Study? Bible Study is a forum for Christian and/or Jewish Believers who view the Bible as a philosophical/Theological faith based discussion.

    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


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by ohnhai, posted 02-23-2006 2:50 AM ohnhai has not yet responded

        
  • AdminPhat
    Administrator
    Posts: 1907
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-03-2004
    Member Rating: 2.0


    Message 3 of 32 (292081)
    03-04-2006 11:31 AM
    Reply to: Message 1 by ohnhai
    02-23-2006 2:50 AM


    Paging Ohnhai
    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:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • Forum Guidelines
    ***************************************
    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month" Forum
    "DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU"
    AdminPhat


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by ohnhai, posted 02-23-2006 2:50 AM ohnhai has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 4 by AdminTL, posted 03-04-2006 12:21 PM AdminPhat has not yet responded

        
    AdminTL
    Inactive Member


    Message 4 of 32 (292094)
    03-04-2006 12:21 PM
    Reply to: Message 3 by AdminPhat
    03-04-2006 11:31 AM


    Re: Paging Ohnhai
    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.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 3 by AdminPhat, posted 03-04-2006 11:31 AM AdminPhat has not yet responded

      
    AdminChristian
    Inactive Member


    Message 5 of 32 (292109)
    03-04-2006 1:12 PM


    Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
      
    Modulous
    Member (Idle past 146 days)
    Posts: 7789
    From: Manchester, UK
    Joined: 05-01-2005


    Message 6 of 32 (292141)
    03-04-2006 2:57 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by ohnhai
    02-23-2006 2:50 AM


    Why keep the Old?
    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.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by ohnhai, posted 02-23-2006 2:50 AM ohnhai has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 9 by ramoss, posted 03-06-2006 11:56 AM Modulous has not yet responded
     Message 13 by Philip, posted 03-20-2006 10:29 AM Modulous has not yet responded
     Message 30 by Eliyahu, posted 10-20-2013 1:40 AM Modulous has not yet responded

      
    truthlover
    Member (Idle past 2101 days)
    Posts: 1548
    From: Selmer, TN
    Joined: 02-12-2003


    Message 7 of 32 (292142)
    03-04-2006 3:10 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by ohnhai
    02-23-2006 2:50 AM


    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.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by ohnhai, posted 02-23-2006 2:50 AM ohnhai has not yet responded

      
    jar
    Member
    Posts: 30934
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004


    Message 8 of 32 (292144)
    03-04-2006 3:33 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by ohnhai
    02-23-2006 2:50 AM


    Jesus was the Einstein of Theology.
    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
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by ohnhai, posted 02-23-2006 2:50 AM ohnhai has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 14 by Philip, posted 03-20-2006 6:01 PM jar has responded

      
    ramoss
    Member
    Posts: 3097
    Joined: 08-11-2004
    Member Rating: 6.6


    Message 9 of 32 (292727)
    03-06-2006 11:56 AM
    Reply to: Message 6 by Modulous
    03-04-2006 2:57 PM


    Re: Why keep the Old?
    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.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 6 by Modulous, posted 03-04-2006 2:57 PM Modulous has not yet responded

      
    DeclinetoState
    Member (Idle past 4479 days)
    Posts: 158
    Joined: 01-16-2006


    Message 10 of 32 (296696)
    03-20-2006 2:12 AM
    Reply to: Message 1 by ohnhai
    02-23-2006 2:50 AM


    Context
    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.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by ohnhai, posted 02-23-2006 2:50 AM ohnhai has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 11 by ReverendDG, posted 03-20-2006 2:29 AM DeclinetoState has not yet responded

      
    ReverendDG
    Member (Idle past 2152 days)
    Posts: 1119
    From: Topeka,kansas
    Joined: 06-06-2005


    Message 11 of 32 (296700)
    03-20-2006 2:29 AM
    Reply to: Message 10 by DeclinetoState
    03-20-2006 2:12 AM


    Re: Context
    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


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 10 by DeclinetoState, posted 03-20-2006 2:12 AM DeclinetoState has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 12 by Phat, posted 03-20-2006 7:38 AM ReverendDG has responded

        
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 12025
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.4


    Message 12 of 32 (296739)
    03-20-2006 7:38 AM
    Reply to: Message 11 by ReverendDG
    03-20-2006 2:29 AM


    Re: Context
    But in what context can we determine what "Wrong" even is?
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 11 by ReverendDG, posted 03-20-2006 2:29 AM ReverendDG has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 16 by ReverendDG, posted 03-21-2006 1:35 AM Phat has not yet responded

      
    Philip
    Member (Idle past 2764 days)
    Posts: 656
    From: Albertville, AL, USA
    Joined: 03-10-2002


    Message 13 of 32 (296772)
    03-20-2006 10:29 AM
    Reply to: Message 6 by Modulous
    03-04-2006 2:57 PM


    Re: Why keep the Old?
    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.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 6 by Modulous, posted 03-04-2006 2:57 PM Modulous has not yet responded

      
    Philip
    Member (Idle past 2764 days)
    Posts: 656
    From: Albertville, AL, USA
    Joined: 03-10-2002


    Message 14 of 32 (296897)
    03-20-2006 6:01 PM
    Reply to: Message 8 by jar
    03-04-2006 3:33 PM


    Re: Old Commandment replaced ?
    (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.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 8 by jar, posted 03-04-2006 3:33 PM jar has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 15 by jar, posted 03-20-2006 6:06 PM Philip has responded

      
    jar
    Member
    Posts: 30934
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004


    Message 15 of 32 (296901)
    03-20-2006 6:06 PM
    Reply to: Message 14 by Philip
    03-20-2006 6:01 PM


    Re: Old Commandment replaced ?
    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
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 14 by Philip, posted 03-20-2006 6:01 PM Philip has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 17 by Philip, posted 03-21-2006 9:49 AM jar has responded

      
    1
    23Next
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019