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

One for Bible study I would guess

Message 4 of 32 (292094) 03-04-2006 12:21 PM

Reply to: Message 3 by AdminPhat 03-04-2006 11:31 AM

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 If the New Covenant superceded the old, then why keep the old?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.

Message 6 of 32 (292141) 03-04-2006 2:57 PM

Reply to: Message 1 by ohnhai 02-23-2006 2:50 AM

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.

Message 7 of 32 (292142) 03-04-2006 3:10 PM

Reply to: Message 1 by ohnhai 02-23-2006 2:50 AM

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.

Message 8 of 32 (292144) 03-04-2006 3:33 PM

Reply to: Message 1 by ohnhai 02-23-2006 2:50 AM

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.

Message 11 of 32 (296700) 03-20-2006 2:29 AM

Reply to: Message 10 by DeclinetoState 03-20-2006 2:12 AM

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

Message 13 of 32 (296772) 03-20-2006 10:29 AM

Reply to: Message 6 by Modulous 03-04-2006 2:57 PM

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.

Message 14 of 32 (296897) 03-20-2006 6:01 PM

Reply to: Message 8 by jar 03-04-2006 3:33 PM

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.

Message 15 of 32 (296901) 03-20-2006 6:06 PM

Reply to: Message 14 by Philip 03-20-2006 6:01 PM

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.