Discussions
Is the Old Testament still valid?
Posted by 06mopar • 8/15/07 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: Bible, God, religion, testament
About a month ago I out a poll on my blog. It ask is the Old Testament still valid. I have gotten a minimal response but I really want to know what you think. Also a poll doesn't give you the opportunity to elaborate. It is a,b,c,or d. I would like to hear from all of you especially those of you with some amount of knowledge in the field of biblical history.
User Comments
-
I meant hear from you on this thread but I see only a couple of people have looked a this thread anyway. How about a place I can find an answer.
-
Depends on what you mean by 'valid'. Are you talking historic, philosophical, religious? You're being too vague.
Also, remember that the Old Testament is actually the Tanakh (the differences being minor).-
I mean are we supposed to follow it still or only use it as a reference tool. For instance I had a discussion where the other person said the laws of the old testament were for health reason sort of a public service announcement and if the old testament was written today then the majority of it would be left out. The whole discussion broke out over a tattoo.
-
The Bible talks about tattoos? Or the tattoo had a Biblical theme? -
Its a hard question to answer without knowing the situation. The OT is a religious work. How you interpret that work is up to you. Are you a Baptist? Methodist? Catholic? Jew? What is your non-religious context - scientist, historian,lay-person, linguist? All of these things matter.
This is the beauty of religious text. You must make up your own mind as to whether it is pertinent to today's world or not, whether it should be followed or used as reference. Do your study and make up your own mind - and make up your mind backed with sound reasoning. Pray about it, certainly, but study and do not shy from whatever truth you find. Keep an open mind, then decide for yourself.
-
-
Sorry, but me and religion don't always mix well. And your question presupposes some truth claims about the Bible that I don't want to get into. So I thought the polite thing to do would be to overlook it.
One more thing: Isn't the question a bit too broad? The *entire* Old Testament? There is a lot of stuff in there!-
You are right about the question. I purposely left it vague as to entice people. I am not the best christian either which is why I am asking others for a little help.
-
-
Being from the bible belt this type of thing is a big deal. It just became legal to get a tattoo last year. Thank you for the reply either way.
-
Really? Last year? What state?
I had a student several years ago who explained to me that in Mississippi, where he came from, the question was not, "Do you go to church?" as it might be around here, but rather, 'What church do you go to?" That pair of questions really stuck in my mind.
-
-
Oklahoma. Kind of he same way here.
-
I did my basic training at Fort Sill in 1983. Unfortunately, that's the only part of Oklahoma I know. I wasn't too thrilled about the state's 2% beer, although it was better than nothing after the first eight weeks of training with no alcohol at all.
-
My family settled down in Oklahoma. My brother lives in Lawton and Norman Oklahoma.. I know Ft Sill very well.. I don't think the 2% beer applies anymore.
-
-
Still weak on the beer but they are trying to change that as we speak. To answer your earlier question according to my wife it says something to the effect of you should not mark your body.
-
Oklahoma has changed quite a bit since your last visit but you got the jest of it even if you have only been to Lawton.
-
-
Thank you Ghost. I have been trying to do so but I have found myself sort of stuck on this one. I will keep trying. I was raised Baptist. My grandfather was a southern baptist preacher. I sort of have to Stigmata (movie) point of view.
-
I would recommend visiting this site:
www.rzim.org/radio/archives.php?p=JT
Listen around to some of the "Podcasts" (audio archives) there, this apologist views philosophy and the human understanding of truth from all sides and comes out with the truth of the Bible. He is a real good teacher if you want some real deep thoughtful intelligent teaching. -
Thank you I will give it a listen
-
What Christians call "The Old Testament" is (as ghostytwofish points out) Jewish scripture. So keep in mind that when you phrase a question in this manner, you are basically saying "Is Judaism a valid religion?" Given the history of Jewish-Christian relations, I sincerely hope that this is not what you mean by your question. The point is that it is important to understand the meaning of the questions you ask.-
I doubt Brian meant to offend. As I think he confirmed elsewhere, the situation where he lives is a little like how a student once described Mississippi. Quoting him loosely some five years after the fact, this student said that people in the South don't ask if you go to Church, but what Church you go to.
I have no idea how other faith traditions fit into that picture. Sure, I've heard of the new South, but I don't recall hearing anything about a new Oklahoma. -
I don't think he meant to offend either, I was just pointing out that given the history, he was in risking causing offense, and warning him that sometimes how one asks a question displays certain presuppositions of which the inquirer is unaware.
-
No I didn't mean to offend anyone with the question. I can understand how somebody could see it that way but that was not my intention.
-
-
I believe the Old Testament is still very relevant as a historical document and as a prophetic document for the coming of Jesus. It is in the Old Testament that we Christians learn not only our history, but also the significance of Jesus' act of opening up the promises made to the Jewish people to all nations and peoples. Jesus did not come to break the law (the Old Testament) but to fulfill it. I think the confusion comes for many people in deciphering what was meant specifically for the Jewish people at that time and what was meant as prophecy and as expectations of God for His people. There are still many valid and important lessons to be learned from the Old Testament. I know Christians who grew up in the church and yet have never even read the Old Testament. To me, this is learning only half the faith. We can only understand the remarkable ministry of Jesus by understanding the Old Testament.
-
That might just be the best explanation I have ever heard. Thank you.
-
-
We lets see, Moses taught Against: selfishness, greed, arrogance, pride, oppressing the poor, dishonest gain, falsely accusing, bearing false witness, stealing, murder, sleeping with another mans wife, Idolatry, coveting which is desire, lies, being lazy, complaining.
So from what Moses taught, is it still valid ? -
I have been reading the old testament lately.. not as a Christian but as someone who turned away from the faith long time ago. I just wanted to reconnect and see if it had anything else to teach me
I think there are some good points in there but as a whole.. it hasn't been too enlightening for me. The stories don't make sense for me and it has a lot of outdated practices. But it probably worked well in that time to explain some of the natural phenomenons that were unexplainable at the time
I much prefer the Greek and Roman Mythologies which had many gods and goddesses and were imperfect like humans. It was more interesting to read. Or even Buddhist and Hindu Texts (although Buddhism isn't really a religion but rather more of a philosophy) I find that those texts resonate with me more. -
It's hard to say. The deity presented in the Old Testament is quite different from the deity presented in the New Testament. He goes from being much more human in most attributes to being highly abstracted, more of a cosmic principle or representation of the Absolute in the NT. The same happened with deities in Ancient Greek religions (Zeus, Apollo, Dionysus), as well as with deities in Hinduism (Shiva, Krishna).
The OT continues to be a tricky subject for Christians; and try as they might to "make it theirs" by finding the "figura" of Christ beneath the surface, the OT will inevitably remain what it is, the religious texts of the Hebrews (and not the Christians) at various points in the history of that tribe.-
The deity presented in the Old Testament is quite different from the deity presented in the New Testament.
The deity in the Tannakah is multifaceted and is quite different from book to book, whether one is reading Genesis, Ezekiel, Job, or Jonah. This idea that there is a "God of the Old Testement" and a "God of the New Testement" is a form of Christian triumphalism-- and leads to some very simplistic misconceptions of Judaism as a religion. -
"The deity presented in the Old Testament is quite different from the deity presented in the New Testament."
How so? I hear this very often, but virtually never with any specifics. -
I was quoting Lotusinthehills. I did not realize that BC does not allow usage of the italic markers-- otherwise I'd have used "quotation marks."
It is common amongst some to insist that the God of "The Old Testament" or of Judaism is a God of laws, judgement and vengeance, while the God of "The New Testament" or of Christianity, is a God of mercy, compassion and love.
I disagree with that notion as overly simplistic-- as there are too many instances of the Jewish God being merciful, compassionate and loving, and many instances of the Christian God judging and taking vengeance. God in any of the great religious traditions is multifaceted and individuals see what they want.
-
-
It takes wisdom to figure it out, which a person has to figure out what Moses taught first. The writing style is difficult, but it is impossible to understand the new testament without understand what Moses and the Prophets taught.
The "God" is the same, just present in a different way, plus the teaching of Paul was a different era then Moses. The culture also changed.
Visit clearlyenlight.com for more information. -
I think it is still valid. Obviously if a person were Jewish it would be, but as a Christian I like to read it as an example of God's faithfulness.
As a student of Bible prophecy, wow, what eye openers when you lay Daniel ch. 7 and Revelation 13 side by side. There we have the nations that will exist during the time of the antiChrist (Great Britain, Russia and Germany )and it was written how many years ago. Not to mention the prophecy in Ezekiel about Israel being reborn after being driven into other nations... (1948)
And of course you couldn't really understand books like Romans, Hebrews and Galatians if you didn't have the old testament to use as a reference. There are so many references to Abraham and Adam in those books.
Try reading Hebrews chapter 11 if you didn't know who these great people of faith are... -
There is am overwhelming presupposition in this discussion towards reading Jewish scripture as if it should be read as a prelude to and foreshadowing of Jesus' ministry, and while I believe that the people stating this position mean well, they really need to be aware that historically speaking, this reading has been used as an excuse and justification for all sorts of antisemitism.
Christians must keep in mind that when they debate over whether or not "the Old Testiment is still valid" that this is not simply a discussion between Catholics, Orthodox Christians, and Protestants. They are discussing the validity someone else's holy scripture-- and so, this isn't an abstract debate about texts or between Christian denominations-- this is a discussion about Christianity's relationship to Judaism and personal relationships between Christian and Jewish peoples.-
Excellent point.
-
I think what you mean to say, Ian, is that you feel it SHOULD be a discussion about Christianity's relationship to Judaism. In fact, it IS a discussion about what is being discussed and no more (by definition). Bryan referenced a post on his blog in the question; readers of his blog will know that he asks the question from a Christian perspective. It's one thing to broaden the discussion to something related and perhaps even integral; it's quite another to fault people for not having framed the discussion that you would have started had you been the one to ask the question.
-
Tiffany, I think you're seeing this in far too narrow terms. This is a public discussion, not for Christians only, so the question by its very existence has implications for Jewish-Christian understanding.
-
Mark, I think you, too, missed my point entirely (which comes as a huge surprise to me). I had no intention of limiting the discussion. For the third or fourth time, my only objection was to Ian's "this IS a discussion about..." when clearly it WASN'T a discussion about those things...he wanted it to be, and was free to expand it to such, but that could easily have been done without the condescending "you're discussing this wrong" lecture to Bryan and the others who were thus far participating in the thread.
Then, you may have noticed, when I made that objection, Ian's response poured out all of the typical knee-jerk hyperbole that certain anti-christians spew every time a christian opens his mouth, regardless of relevance, accusing me of being "uncomfortable with the issues" and tossing in the old "fear of questions".
My perception was and remains that the issues Ian interjected into the discussion could have enriched it had that interjection not been so arrogant and mean-spirited, which is a disappointment to me after Ian's initial posts. He may be new enough to think that I'm afraid of serious discussion and alternate viewpoints, but I suspect that you know better. -
I don't think it is up to any one of us to say what a discussion is or isn't about. As soon as Ian made his point, we had new possibilities. Unfortunately, I am not versed enough in Bible Studies to take him up on his invitation for dialog.
-
And yes, Tiffany, I know you better than that. But I can understand Ian's response. He doesn't have the same background information as I do, does he? For that matter, how much do you have on him? Why not back up and engage in such a dialog?
-
-
No, MadameX, anyone with an awareness of the history of Christian apologetics understands that when Christian theologians discuss the status of "The Old Testament" in relation to the "The New Testament" or its status in Christianity in general, it boils down to how Christians perceive Judaism and the relative status of Judaism and Christianity.
Even if Bryan is asking his question from a Christian perspective, he is ultimately asking about Jewish scripture, and whether it is valid from a Christian perspective. The Torah is perhaps as central to Judaism as Jesus is to Christianity-- so the issue is, in fact, a group of Christians are discussing Judaism and whether they should regard it as valid. Whether your prefered theologian is Paul of Tarsus, Augustine of Hippo, Thomas of Aquinas, or Martin Luther, any discussion of the relationship between Old and New Testaments is implicitly a discussion of the relationship (from a Christian perspective) between Judaism (as Christians care to interpret it) and Christianity.
What Bryan does on his own blog is irrelevent. He has the right to moderate or delete comments to his blog. BlogCatalog is effectively a public forum, and as far as I know, doesn't allow users to define discussions as "for Christians only" or "for our type of Christian only"-- so to chastise me for addressing Bryan's question head on because you happen to be uncomfortable with the issues that arise is highly inappropriate.
A strong faith is unafraid of difficult questions.-
"when Christian theologians"
Well, there you have it.
Who on this board, in this discussion, do you think might be a theologian? -
"A strong faith is unafraid of difficult questions."
It's not clear to me what this might have to do with anything, except that it's the standard buzz phrase that people like to say when Christians disagree with them, even if the disagreement has nothing to do with religion, or with fear.
I'm disappointed to see it from you. Your previous posts indicated actual thought. The erroneous assumption that your comments make me "uncomfortable" because I disagreed with your approach to introducing the issue into the conversation shows a kind of knee-jerk blather that I would not have expected based on your previous intelligent discourse. Perhaps if you read what I said again, you'll be able to understand that I in no way objected to the introduction of the issues you raised, but to your choice to introduce those issues through a criticism of the previous discussion rather than simply adding a new dimension. -
I am sorry if this discussion has upset you. I didn't mean for that to happen. That being said if you don't approve of the line of questioning or the discussion then you don't have to read it or take part in it. I try to be as nice as possible to everyone and try to take their opinion into account. I can see that you are taking this very personal and I don't want that to hurt anyone feelings. So feel free to start your own discussion about Judaism. I hope this doesn't hinder an opportunity at friendship and I wish you the best.
-
The point is that the participants in this forum, though they may not be professional theologians, are speaking on theological matters. Does a lack of professional credentials entitle one to speak thoughtlessly without regard to the inplications of their speech?
You don't like what I have to say-- you are entitled to your feelings. However, I have treated the question posed with seriousness and thoughtfulness without resorting to a personal attack or trying to tell someone that their perspective is unwelcome because I only want to hear from people of my own creed. -
MadameX:
Your statement was that I was somehow attempting to make this conversation what it is not, and that since Bryan's post was from a Christian perspective, that any responses should somehow conform to that perspective. Of course, there are also plenty of Christians who think seriously about their faith who make the point I make-- which is the position a Christian takes on Jewish scripture is ultimately a perspective on Judaism.
I haven't seen anyone dispute my point-- and this point is not original to me-- its a point on which all of the thelogians I named in an earlier post agree.
Refering to my statements as "blather" and stating your disappointment with me is inappropriate to this discussion. You made it clear that my comments were not welcome here because they offered a perspective you did not want to consider.
Bryan:
I'm not taking this personally. I never believed you meant to offend.
I've spent many years thinking through how this question has been posed time and time again for many centuries and thought through the way these questions have been answered over many centuries. Your question just has far more sweeping implications than you might have thought when you asked, and I only sought to remind people as to what those implications might be. -
Ironically, Ian, that's exactly what I feel you DIDN'T do. My sole objection was not to the issues you introduced, but to the fact that you presumed to tell the people already engaged in the discussion that they were having the wrong discussion. Since you felt that the perspective of the original poster was too narrow (and thus unwelcome), you attacked that, rather than simply broadening the scope of the discussion.
Then, because I objected to that approach, you made several assumptions about my reasons, motivation, and personal convictions and responded to those (a personal attack is a personal attack, however artfully veiled). You strike me as an intelligent person, so I can only assume that your protestations of innocence here are purely disingenuous. -
MadameX:
I note you do not veil your attacks, nor do I.
My contribution to this discussion on the status of scripture was exactly what it was: a discussion of the status of scripture. It was not an attack.
I am uninterested in going any further with this back and forth about what just happened when the discussion is here for everyone to read for themselves.
-
-
Oh and Thank you Mark and Tiffany for helping me out on this one. You are both right in what I meant with this questions. So thanks for taking up for me in my absence.
-
Let's try to set the discussion back on track--as a side note, I sometimes wonder whether the Internet is really suited for serious discussion, I get the feeling that without the vocal and physical cues of real conversation, the impression of rancor is created where there is none, and then everyone gets angry :-(
One question that keeps bugging me is that the deity in the Hebrew and Christian scriptures changes. Ian indicates this when he said that the deity of the OT is multifaceted, and that we see a different aspect depending on which book we're reading. Dealing specifically with the Christian deity, take a 14th c. Byzantine idea of the Supreme Being, and an 18th c. Enlightenment idea of what is supposed to be that same Supreme Being, and you may as well be looking at entirely different religions. How do we reconcile all this change with what is supposed to be an absolute, independent, eternal and unchanging deity?
Now, you might say that it is just man's idea of the deity that changes, and not the deity itself. I would reply that seeing as we will never and can never know the nature of the Supreme (otherwise it wouldn't be Supreme), then men's ideas are all we have to deal with.
You might say that all are simply different faces of one deity, but that is not without its problems, either.-
Very good point and yes lets get this back on track please.
-
-
I'm not saying I only want to hear from people of my own creed I am saying that I just want your opinion on the validity of the Old Testament. I think I know your answer but just for giggles why don't you tell me what yours is. I mean no disrespect to anyone hear nor am I saying that your religion is any more or less valid than any other. I am not as knowledgeable about the subject as many people here are which is why I was asking for some help in the matter.
I don't want to upset you or anyone else. I hope you can forgive my ignorance of the subject matter and explain it to me as if I were completely new to the entire subject. I don't see how asking about the validity of the old testament is an attack on Judaism. Please don't be upset just explain it so that I might understand. The point to this question was about getting a tattoo and that the old testament says it is wrong. My wife says the OT is valid and her friend says it isn't. I am undecided.
PLEASE help me with this. I hope that this can remain civil. I am looking for the opinion of those that have a higher knowledge of the subject matter. -
I think it's valid. Whether it is true or not you still need a basis of history to know where you're going. If the bible is a part of your faith then yes the Old Testament is very valid.
The question is: Is the New Testament valid?
The OT does not tolerate sin but the NT does. OT spoke of a God in the flesh and NT delivers (that is if Jesus was the Yahweh of the Old Testament).
I think they are both valid but it's another question to ponder.-
The New Testament tolerates sin?
-
Jesus died for all the worlds sins. It's all taken care of even if you are a sinner. Acknowledging and asking for forgivness is the first step in telling God you know better now and that you believe in the works of Christ.
Death and hell is for those who are not touched by the Word of God.
Old Testament is that sin equals eternal damnation no matter what. No fair huh?
-
-
Thank you. You make a good point.
-
Ok I have reported my own discussion now before anyone gets their feelings hurt. It isn't worth upsetting anyone. So sorry if you were offended by this thread. Thank you to everyone that contributed to this discussion and I have learned a few things from it.
-
Bryan-
If your question is simply about whether you should get a tatoo when doing so conflicts with your wife's religious beliefs, then the issue isn't about theology, the issue is how important you regard your relationship with your wife and how deeply she is opposed to that tatoo and how badly you want that tatoo. Is the tatoo going to just make your wife shake her head and roll her eyes or is it going to upset her greatly?
Her friend's opinion on tatoos and Leviticus are irrelevent since the friend isn't married to either of you. I'm not married to you either, but your wife is, and so she'll be married to the tatoo as well.
On the theological status of scripture, I've said all I feel like saying as clearly as possible.-
Well thank you for your thoughts and I hope we can put all of this behind us and just be friends. You are right about the being married to her. I haven't gotten one for that very reason. Her friend has a bunch of them and it is just funny to listen to the two of them go on and on about it. My wife is much more important than a stupid tattoo. I am still interested in other peoples opinions though. Hopefully this discussion will be removed soon and we won't have to worry about it anymore.
Next time I will just do a you view my blog kind of thing. That seems to be a lot less problematic.
-
-
Hmnn....valied yes because it's still a source of lessons for us all!
Visit my AD FREE blog at www.shaydelgado.com -
The only way to read the Bible is with the guidance of the Holy Spirit to give you revelations. Simply pray honestly and earnestly to God to help you understand something from Him before you read and see how He answers your prayer.
best regards,
nada -
For the record, when Ian first made his initial criticism of this thread, I pointed out that Brian was coming from a different world and didn't mean to offend. Ian was quick to acknowledge that and expand on his line of thinking in a manner that invited dialog. So I'm a little mystified as to why Tiffany took offense and went on the attack. If I may venture a guess, it might something to do with the two different academic cultures of which Tiffany and Ian are products, one legal, one rooted in the humanities. The former seems to encourage the elimination of things from the terms of debate, while the latter seems to encourage casting as wide a net as possible. Yes, these are sweeping characterizations, but they might be useful in this case.
-
Thanks Stoneman, I think that was a fair account. The only thing I would change is the idea of "casting a wide a net as possible" to "seeing the larger implications within historical context."
I agree that Brian and most of the participants in the discussion are from a "different world", and when I did bring in the perspectives of the "worlds" of which I have lived or visited, most of the people on this list showed no hostility and even seemed interested.
-
-
And Brian, relax. You did nothing wrong here. You can't be responsible for where a thread turns.
-
The only way to understand the hebrew scriptures is to get an interlinear and also need to have a biblical hebrew dictionary. The Jewish Scribes manipulated it starting format he captivity of Babylon. Just to read the travels of Moses takes deep study. This is the reason.
If you want to read the travels in order you would have to read like this. This is from the time they got to the Mountain. Exodus chapters 19, 24, 32, 34:1-28, 33:12-23, 34:29-35, 33:1-6. Then to continue on with the journey starts at Numbers 10:11 through Chapter 14 to the end of the book of Numbers.
Ex 15:22 through Chapter 18 should be in numbers, the reason is because they plundered Egypt before they left, they would of had plenty of food and water on the way to the Mountain, which they traveled directly to the mountain.
The commandments of human behavior Exodus Chapters 20-23, 34 + Lev 18, 19, 25, 26.
The law of the temple and priests Exodus chapters 25-31:11 35-40.
There are also many human behavior commandments throughout the stories. Moses wrote with a writing style that he taught through a story format.
Visit this link for more information clearlyenlight.blogspot.com/2007/05/teachings-of-moses.html
A person has to understand what Moses what teaching before a person can understand the rest of the hebrew scriptures. Plus a person needs to understand who the Canaanites were next to the Israelites, keep in mind the two became one and came out of Babylon as Jews.
Genesis teaches to respect the culture of the land and the art of listening. Many more lessons are taught in Genesis, just hard to recognize.
The hebrew scriptures is a very valid text which anybody can benefit, I guess most people don't what to take the time to deeply study. -
If you think that things like "You shall not steal, You shall not lie, you shall not kill" are important things for humanity to embrace, then yeah.-
That's right, Moses also taught Against Greed and Selfishness, arrogance. He taught these things within a story format. Recognizing the bottom lesson of what was taught is the trick.
Keep in the back of you mind when reading the lesson of greed and selfishness, faithless.
The Commandments that Moses wrote down will always apply ( there are more then the ten) This is why this world has problems because of the Idolatry that mankind and religion has attached to.
-
-
Oh absolutely!
Funny, tonight at my bible study, my friend was talking about how relevant the OT is today and how you can not have the NT w/o the OT.
The OT talks about the "old us" and what we, or God's people did, and the NT talks about the "new us" and is a hope we have learned from our mistakes.
Either way, God forgives, if asked by anyone, and God forgets.
The OT prophecies about Jesus' birth, life,death and ressurection. The NT shows us how he lived and what we can do to be more like Christ.-
The point I was making earlier, that I think Christians should remember is that when they are talking about "The OT" they are talking about the Jewish Bible and that Jews do not understand their holy scripture as "prophecies about Jesus' birth, life,death and ressurection." There is not going to be mutual understanding or mutual respect if that is not undertood.
-
-
So my question is how could I ask something like this without posing it the way I did. I have never thought about how this question would look to anyone that is not of the christian faith. Nor did I realize that the Jewish religion even used the Old Testament. I just always assumed the their faith was based on a different book entirely. I guess you learn something new everyday.
-
"how could I ask something like this without posing it the way I did[?]"
The key thing is to seriously ask yourself how you wish to be understood. You have to realize that when you are on the internet-- especially on a website that isn't Christian oriented, you are going to be encountering people of different religious and cultural traditions than your own. This isn't a problem for me as I live in an international city and I have friends and neighbors of nearly all the major world religions-- and as a naturally curious person, I have always tried to learn about other cultures.
"Nor did I realize that the Jewish religion even used the Old Testament. I just always assumed the their faith was based on a different book entirely."
First lesson: Jews do not call it "The Old Testament" because Jews do not hold "The New Testament" (Gospels, Letters, Acts, and Revelations) as cannonical. The Jewish Bible is refered to as "Tanakh"-- the first five books are collectively known as "Torah." This is probably the source of your confusion.
The connection between Christianity and Judaism, because of shared scripture, is an intimate one, but one frought with some horrific episodes-- and as a Christian, this is part of your history-- but if we can learn to communicate respectfully we can avoid repeating history. I'd highly recommend James Carroll's "Constinine's Sword: The Church and the Jews" (Carroll is a Catholic and a former priest) which was the first book I've seen writen by a Christian that attempts to grasp the history of this relationship. -
Yes I have heard of the Torah. My church is going to teach a class on the difference between Christianity and Judaism. I am looking forward to it. Hopefully I can learn something. I will make it a point to find Constinine's Sword and read it. I am glad we have been able to have this conversation it has been educational. My only regret is that it took us going through as the trouble that we did to get to this point.
-
-
I thought about this topic the other day.. and I have been harping on Isaiah chapters 25 and 26 since yesterday, look at how it starts homies!
Isa 25:1 O LORD, thou art my God; I will exalt thee, I will praise thy name; for thou hast done wonderful things; thy counsels of old are faithfulness and truth.
thy counsels of old are faithfulness and truth.
this answers the question put forth on this discussion!
nada -
The Old Testament is definitely still valid! It is also vital! After all, Jesus quoted it hundreds of times. The Old Testament was a type and shadow of Jesus and The Church. The Word is The Word from cover to cover! And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld His glory!
Grace and peace,
Ed -
Yes, the Old Testament and the rest of the Holy Bible is the living Word of God.
-
The Old Testament is about the relationship God has with people and it all points to a need for a savior. The foundation for the New Testament is the Old Testament so yes it is still valid. Jesus accomplished what the law could not do, restored relationship with God.-
"The Old Testament is about the relationship God has with people and it all points to a need for a savior. The foundation for the New Testament is the Old Testament so yes it is still valid. Jesus accomplished what the law could not do, restored relationship with God."
Except as I pointed out over a year ago in this thread you are only treating the Tanakh as a prelude to the birth, ministry, death, and resurection of Jesus, and not as the Holy Scripture of Judaism. So you are stating the text is valid while in the same breath, invalidating Judaism.
-
-
I still read Proverbs regularly, much of its wisdom is still valid. -
Question: Is the Old Testament still valid?
Valid (www.thefreedictionary.com/valid)
1. Well grounded; just: a valid objection.
2. Producing the desired results; efficacious: valid methods.
3. Having legal force; effective or binding: a valid title.
4. Logic
a. Containing premises from which the conclusion may logically be derived: a valid argument.
b. Correctly inferred or deduced from a premise: a valid conclusion.
Answer: No
Example:
Deuteronomy 22 starts counsels the return to the rightful owner items such as oxen, sheep, asses and clothing that have been lost. Probably most of the world would agree that's a good idea.
But then it goes weird on us. At least to those of us in the modern world. Perhaps when it was written, 3,000 years ago, it made sense... at least for the old men who wrote it.
Indeed, it does say in Deuteronomy (verse 22) that "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God." (King James Version)
Before we consider other commandments of this same verse, let us consider this particular section. Is it not true that virtually every modern woman blatantly violates this verse on a regular basis? Within a literal interpretation of the foregoing verse would not millions of contemporary women appear as an "abmonination" to the Lord in the wearing of pants, shorts, mens-style shirts and jackets, overalls, cowboy boots, athletic shoes, baseball caps, physicians smocks, construction site attire, and many other items of clothing that were originally designed exclusively for the male gender? Of course.
This fact in itself is enough to invalidate any modern levity to which this hoary verse may still aspire. But there is much more contained within infamous Deuteronomy 22 that will compel the modern reader to completely disregard this verse from having any validity in civilized culture.
Deuteronomy insists that you must build a "parapet" (ledge) around your roof so no one will fall off.
Deuteronomy commands you to fashion tassels or fringes on the four corners of your cloak or coat.
Deuteronomy lays the law down against wearing any garment that combines fibers.
Deuteronomy sternly admonishes families to retain evidence of their daughter's virginity at the time of marriage (the bedsheets from her wedding night, presumably smeared with blood from the piercing of the hymen), so that they may have proof if the husband later accuses his wife of not being a virgin. Now, if this happens, the woman can be taken back by her father, but is still regarded as married to the husband and cannot be divorced from him as long as she lives. BUT... if the claim is true and she really was not a virgin upon marriage (or if the parents lost that bloody sheet and cannot prove otherwise)... well then Deuteronomy commands that she be dragged to the door of her father's house and stoned to death.
Deuteronomy proclaims that if a man sleeps with another man's wife, or with a betrothed virgin, then both of the lovers must die.
Shall I go on and on and on ... Is the Old Testament still valid? I think not. -
people attribute validations to whatever they want. The voodoo doll is valid to some, the koran to others, to me what is valid is what is out there (and subjective to you) -
It is all valid forever. You just have to adjust it for modern times. Our blogs won't be valid 2,000 years from now. You have to adjust them also.
It does not take away from the overall meaning of the bible though just because it is old. It is still the word of God. -
If you accept that the New Testament is valid, then there are two different ways of approaching the question of the validity of the Old Testament.
1. It has been superseded by the New Testament, or New Covenant, made by God with his chosen people through the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, it is invalid.
2. It has been fulfilled by the Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection. As Christ said, "Think not that I am come to abolish the Law and the Prophets... not one jot nor one tittle shall be removed from the Law until all is accomplished." Therefore it is valid.
All this assumes you accept the NT as valid. If you don't, then you have to accept the Messiah has not yet come. OR that the OT is invalid too.-
Either interpretation you offer is an invalidation of Judaism. Isn't there a path for Christianity to take that doesn't lead to a triumphalistic contempt towards the people from whom Jesus came?
-
To Ian Thal: Well I don't really know all that much about the Christians, but I don't think they are triumphalist against the followers of Judaism. At least, not so much as they were in some earlier periods of history. If they were, then they would be running counter to a command in one of their own sacred books, I think it's Romans, where they are told to be tolerant of the Jews, the original Chosen Race. (If I've read it correctly?)
Anyway, I actually DID include the Judaism interpretation, but you seem to have missed it. -
"I don't think they are triumphalist against the followers of Judaism."
1.) Christianity, so long as it continues to understand the "Old Testament" as the prophecy of Jesus's life, death, and resurrection (and see that prophecy as the only possible interpretation) is triumphalist.
2.) Christianity, so long as it places responsibility for the crucifiction primary on the Jews or the Pharisees is triumphalist.
3.) Christianity, so long as it views Jews pimarily as people who have rejected Jesus or teach that the Pharisees were the enemies of Jesus is triumphalist.
These teachings have been a breeding ground for antisemitism for centuries, and often times, these teachings have allowed to anti-Semites to believe that they are doing God's work.
Thankfully, there are many Christians who are working hard for a more amicable relationship between the two communities, and are trying to move beyond a triumphalist theology.
I am just asking anyone who cares about interfaith dialogue and understanding to speak more thoughtfully, and think more deeply when they ask these scriptural questions. When a Christian asks if the Tanakh is /still valid/ he or she is also asking if Judaism, and thus Jews are /still valid/, even though, sometimes these questions are asked with no ill will (after all, the author apparently didn't know that "The Old Testament" was Jewish scripture.)
-
-
Interesting question.
Here's a sensible approach. If you can take a passage from it and contemplate it and then have something to help you grow in compassion and love then it is of use (valid). If it separates you out and makes you judgmental and makes you grow in pride, then it is downright dangerous.
What you are asking here is is the Torah, the book of Jewish faith valid also.
It is a mis- mash of wisdom, corruption, power hungry zealots, history of a nation and numerous other things friendly and unfriendly.
Can we live without it? yes. Is it useful in some way? Yes, but it's a matter of wading through the crap and extracting the wisdom that is no doubt embedded there.-
@fiolsofia
Loosely speaking, I believe the positions you put forward are indicative of the differences between conservative and liberal theology. The requirement for being in a position to assent to either one of them is that one must be a "believer" and I am not. I do not believe that the Judeo/Christian god as depicted in the applicable scriptures exists.
@redpanda
Here's a sensible approach. If you can take a passage from it and contemplate it and then have something to help you grow in compassion and love then it is of use (valid). If it separates you out and makes you judgmental and makes you grow in pride, then it is downright dangerous.
Thanks for your contribution. I appreciated it. It reflects the view of the majority of my family members who, unlike myself, do believe in the existence of a Judeo/Christian god as described in the applicable scriptures. -
Acousticguitarist, (For anyone out there) Read it and take from it what you will. Then each of us, as we will anyway, will decide if any words written on its pages applies to us. -
To timethief: In fact, I put forward no less than FOUR positions! The two that you mentioned, plus the Judaism view, plus the view of all those who are either atheists or non-Christians.
Also, I think you may possibly have switched around the conservative and liberal theologies, but it doesn't matter a great deal.
Personally I find the Old Testament a bit annoying. Sorry I don't mean to upset anyone, but that's just the way I feel. -
theresa:
There are passage that i find very beautiful. The book of jeremiah has some good stuff on the future when the Law is written in the hearts of mankind and the old law will be no longer needed.
The book of Daniel is of utmost importance
My God is a God of Love, not one of vengeance, fear and wrath
-
-
"the old men who wrote it" ... timethief you are the best! exactly!
this question that the old testament is still valid implys that it was valid before. this false proposition is based on a blind faith that this is the word of a magical force and not of the old men you so correctly point out. why should this story be any more believeable than the quran, or tales of zeus for that matter? they are all stories fabricated by the minds of old men just trying to explain the natural world without a lick of science but plenty of power to maintain.
i write this not to change any minds, because i know that the faithful are committed to their beliefs, of which many result in ways to live their lives that i share. i write this because this is a general discussion and having read thru the thread felt a few dissenting voices are necessary. as a non-believer, i wanted to register a contrary thought. no disrespect intended.-
@cranelegs
You said [bold lettering supplied by me]
"this question that the old testament is still valid implies that it was valid before. this false proposition is based on a blind faith that this is the word of a magical force and not of the old men you so correctly point out. why should this story be any more believable than the quran, or tales of zeus for that matter? they are all stories fabricated by the minds of old men just trying to explain the natural world without a lick of science but plenty of power to maintain."
We are on the same page.
-
-
Yes! The Old Testament is the testimony of God's Holiness, Righteousness and plan for mankind. It also introduces God's standard so that all men will know that it is impossible to please Him, to be perfect before Him and points the way to He, Himself, paying the price for our wickedness. It is called the "law covenant" giving us God's plan for the world through Jesus Christ, God's plan for Israel and a remnant that will be saved and God's impending judgment against those who will not believe on His Son - the Messiah and Israel's deliverer, Jesus Christ.
It also points to the coming of Jesus Christ, His earthly ministry, His death and His resurrection. It than becomes the grand opening of what we know today as the "blood covenant" that is the New Testament.
www.codybateman.org-
So, in other words, what you call "The Old Testament" is only valid as a prelude to the ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus? Correct?
Does this mean that Jews are reading the Tanakh incorrectly, and that Judaism is invalid?
Does this also mean that God will be rendering punishment against the Jews for not believing that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies contained in the Tanakh?
Let's just be very clear.
-
-
What do you mean "still valid"? It never was valid!-
Exactly. It never was valid and is not valid today.
As cranelegs said above: said [bold lettering supplied by me]
"this question that the old testament is still valid implies that it was valid before. this false proposition is based on a blind faith that this is the word of a magical force and not of the old men you so correctly point out. why should this story be any more believable than the quran, or tales of zeus for that matter? they are all stories fabricated by the minds of old men just trying to explain the natural world without a lick of science but plenty of power to maintain."
IMO the myth that a non-existent big guy in the sky created all there is including mankind declared them very good, and later condemned all mankind to the hell fires of damnation (original sin), just so he could appear on earth as his own son born of a (cough) virgin (possibly impregnated by another non-existent supernatural being called an angel) to fulfill the role of savior, and rescue a select few from the same hell fires of damnation at end times, if and only if they believe in him, is beyond ridiculous. IMO it's delusional.
-
-
Of course, in order for anyone to, with authority, claim that the Bible is not valid; would already have to be a god. You would have had to be there in the beginning (you weren't), you would have had to have god eternal qualities (you can't) and you would have to have a universal comparative knowledge that transcends God's wisdom (you won't).
God says it more succinctly than I ever could, "To those who are perishing, the Word of God is foolishness but, to those who are being saved by it, eternal life!"
Why not challenge God and dare Him to reveal Himself to you? At your young age - I am more than sure He can and will if you earnestly seek Him. That is His promise to you and all others too.-
How interesting that you profess to believe in a supernatural creator being that allows you to put words into his mouth. I am an apostate, and I find your use of this forum for the purpose of proselytizing to be offensive.
-
[Of course, in order for anyone to, with authority, claim that the Bible is not valid; would already have to be a god.]
No, I just have to cite the complete lack of evidence against the existence of any god (including Thor, Zeus, Mithras, Horus, etc.), the conflict between the three omnis that modern Christians use to define their god and the existence of evil, the psychological tendencies of humans to associate an intent with everything they can't explain, and the fact that an amputee's limb has never spontaneously regenerated as a result of prayer. Need I go on? -
There are more than one way to interpret "valid". One interpretation is, of course, based on whether or not there is a god and that god is the god of the old testament. One's belief or disbelief in that is a matter of faith. Another interpretation is based on whether people are living/believing in the old testament. That answer is yes, it is valid. Jew/christians/muslims all have a basis in the old testament. As long as j/c/m exist the old testament is valid. Another interpretation is if there is something of value in the old testament. There are lessons and guidelines in the old testament that still have meaning today. Therefore, it is still valid.
-
-
..hmmm....it is depend to a person who believe this,,..may be some other anit anti-christ are not to waste their time by following those testaments... thats my opiion...:-)
www.gamerster.blogspot.com -
Actually timethief, God indeed tells His followers to proclaim exactly what He already declares of Himself. How strange then, that I am reproved of you for using this forum to "proselytizing" Jesus Christ declarations.
May I ask then, whom are you "proselytizing". Because, whether you know it or not, you are only repeating what has already been declared before. Are not your words of disdain against God as offensives as my declarations of His love for me and you is offensive to you?-
I honestly mean this: I strongly recommend you take an English class. Also, a logic class (PHI 2100).
-
"God indeed tells His followers to proclaim exactly what He already declares of Himself."
Except that isn't in the Tanakh, which is the subject under discussion. -
Take PHI 3060 Symbolic Logic, it also counts as a math credit!
-
-
Old testament is more reliable than the new testament -
The whole Bible is the Word of God! Jesus used the old testament when He was here on earth. The whole Bible shows us how God has dealt with His children throughout biblical history. It is a testament to His character - therefore it is still relevant if we are trying to be more like Him. -
-
i believe it to be just as valid as it ever was.
(can you see my tongue poking out of my cheek?)
-
Anyone's view on this topic is wholly dependent upon their own belief system and even then, it is subjective and therefore invalid.-
Agreed.
-
-
Is the Old Testament valid? Simple answer-YES. -
Just a simple observation, I have noticed that most people that dispute the Old Testament are those that continue in the sins it exposes, whether it be homosexuality, infidelity, coveting, envying, disrespect of parents, etc. The staunchest dissenters will often be those that are holding on to one of the sins mentioned in the Old Testament as it is often part of their core identity.
-
Hmmmm .... judging others and failing to express your faith in a compassionate Christ-like manner? A part of your core identity, eh?
-
[...most people that dispute the Old Testament are those that continue in the sins it exposes]
Is atheism an Old Testament or New Testament sin?
-
-
No judgement, just an observation (although I am biased by my own experience and faults); I am the worst among sinners, thank God I finally admit it. I will continue to love other sinners as Christ would... (sorry if my post seemed un Christ-like, good reminder)
p.s. Good question about atheism - I don't have an answer, I'll pray on that.
Peace and God Bless Us! Everyone! -
All of these Christians are gonna kill me for typing this but like my license, we both have expiration dates--which ones goes on after that beats the fire and brimstone out of me? I read the Old Testament and I must say that it was one of the most violent reads of my life. Is it supposed to be like a governmeant? (no pun intended) The more frightened we are, the more we obey? (come to think of it, maybe it was eBay)
Feed me to the lions gently! -
-
No thingys, a real Christian would never kill you, although before Christ came into my life I was definitely the killing type. It is a violent read (and a violent world). The reality is sometimes Christians are the worst offenders when it comes to Christian values; just goes to show you that Christians are no better than anyone else– we are sinners! Sometimes, non-Christians portray the most Christ-like qualities. All I have to say about it is try not to judge. I’ll do my best to not judge you or others; only the sin that contaminates us. You are welcome to judge me, but realize you will only find infinite reasons to judge, [I Am A Sinner!] If you need to judge Christianity, do it based on Christ, not on the sinners he is shepparding.
p.s. the ebay thing got me laughing, you have a great gift of humor (I dig your Blog). Don't worry about the lions, they only eat Christians.-
[No thingys, a real Christian would never kill you]
Really?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquistador
Also, don't catch yourself in a No True Scotsman fallacy:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman -
No true Christian would kill, vk. Really!
see that very same wikipedia article you posted:
No true Scotsman fallacy- Errors in usage
In situations where the subject's status is previously determined by specific behaviors, the fallacy does not apply. For example, it is perfectly justified to say, "No true vegetarian eats meat," because not eating meat is what defines a person as a vegetarian.
So, don't catch yourself in an error in usage, I guess. Take a logic class! -
Murder isn't the antithesis to believing in Jesus Christ. Eating meat is the antithesis to being vegetarian. There's a difference.
-
Believing is Jesus Christ may necessary to be a true Christian but is not in and of itself sufficient. For instance a Satanist may very well believe in Jesus Christ and is certainly no Christian. Killing is antithetical to being a Christian.
-
No; pacifism is antithetical to murder, but Christianity is not.
For example,
www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html -
Pacificism is central to the teachings of Jesus.
-
But Christianity is not equal to pacifism. Therefore, you are wrong.
-
You are correct that pacificism is not identical with Christianty.
Pacifism, though not alone sufficient, is a necessary condition to being a true Christian.
Murder is the antithesis of pacifism.
Therefore murder is antithetical to being a true Christian.
Q.E.D. -
You are right, you win, enjoy!
Take Care! -
I know this is the tee-ball generation, but we can't all be winners scmcqueen;)
Edit: Now you're a true Scott! -
There must therefore be very few "true Christians" if your statement is correct. However, you are not.
The exception to the True Scotsman fallacy is when there's a discrepancy between definitions. A vegetarian cannot eat meat, while a Christian certainly can murder.
dictionary.reference.com/browse/Christian
Chris·tian
n.
One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder
mur⋅der
–noun
to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.
If these were definitions with no possible overlap, you would be correct. However, there are Christians who commit murder.
You are invoking the True Scotsman fallacy and trying to dance around it by saying "But this is the exception!" No, it isn't. If you want to invoke the exception, it must be tautological.
dictionary.reference.com/browse/tautology
Example: True Christians believe in Jesus Christ. True Atheists don't believe in any god.
P.S. Scmcqueen, don't profess victory before the battle is over. -
I am inclined to agree with that first bit. There are very few true Christians.
-
Historically speaking, Christian theologians and clergy defended and encouraged violence and tyranny, citing scripture (specifically the New Testament.) In most cases, the primary target of this violence were Jews. This eventually resulted in the Final Solution to "The Jewish Question."
There are serious efforts being made by committed Christian thinkers and activists to rethink the interpretation of scripture in light of this history so that Christians never do this again.
However, to say that the people who committed these horrendous acts "aren't real Christians" is simply an unthinking response and a type of denial that allows for these things to happen again (and an insult to those thoughtful Christians who are engaged in the endeavors I described), as it is very well documented that their specific interpretations of Christianity were the motivations and the justifications for this violence. -
I have to disagree. Historically speaking, blaming Christianity for the horros of Nazism seems to me a particularly unthinking response, in light of the fact that Nazi ideology took more from a misinterpretation of evolutionary biology (which was still a primitive science until even the 1950s that espoused bogus "racial" theories in the guise of academia) than it ever did from Christianity.
What I am saying here is quite simply to blame the murderer and not the murderer's purported religious beliefs which they are clearly not following by committing murder in the first place. -
Sorry, diabolicomix, but I have done a lot of research on this topic.
Jews had been an oppressed and hated class of people in Europe due to many centuries of Christian teachings, including the deicide charge, triumphalist theology, and the portrayal of the rabbis in the Gospels. In addition, both Catholic and Protestant churches openly promoted policies of segregation, discrimination, forced conversions, pogroms, burnings of Jewish books, as well as anti-Semitic folklore like the infamous Blood Libel.
The Vatican (and many Protestant institutions in Germany) gave public support to most aspects of the anti-Jewish laws that were passed in both the Third Reich and Fascist Italy during the 1930s including, stripping Jews of citizenship, barring Jews from certain professions (teaching, medicine, politics, the civil service), expelling Jews from public schools, and segregating Jews into separate neighborhoods (essentially restoring the Church supported policies of pre-Napoleonic Europe.) The Vatican's only reservations on these laws was that since Catholicism does not recognize race, it campaigned for exceptions to be made for "non-Aryan Christians."
While there were many examples of Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox clergy, or religiously identified activists in Axis nations or occupied areas rescuing Jews from the Holocaust, many more were willing onlookers or participants.
Bottom line was that while it was the Nazis and their allies who implemented the "Final Solution", it was Christianity that insisted that the Jews were a problem and had attempted the previous solutions. While one cannot lay the genocide charge on Christian teaching, every step leading up to the genocide had been supported by Christian teaching.
-
-
You are right, you win.
Take Care -
-
Thats what I was thinking! I think?
-
-
One man's junk is another man's treasure
What you get out of any of those books is your own newly found gem.
Make a necklace out of it, wear it for a while and then throw it away. -
The whole Bible is God's testament of Himself. That makes your "old" and "new" testaments a part of the whole Word of God and what He has already declared of Himself to the whole world.
The Tenach, according to God Himself, was His message to a rebellious world (gentile) and a chosen people (the Hebrews) until such time, God Himself would come and dwell amongst us. According to Hebrews 1 then, Jesus Christ is that fulfillment spoken of through men of Old and the Hebrew prophets... making the "old" testament as relevant as the "new" today!-
Except that isn't in the Tanakh, which is the subject under discussion.
-
-
IMHO I View the Old Testament as as very valid, However, the Old testament is a collection of books, Some telling history, some laying out the "constitution" of an ancient society, and still others containing musings, prophecies, prayers, and biographies of biblical characters.
This question was brought up when Jesus was walking the earth. he gave several answers to cover the topic.
'I have not come to do away with the law (all of the societal laws in the old testament) but to fulfill the law.' - the spirit of what he was saying was that the requirement to be "blameless" from the perspective of the "law" would be absorbed by his sacrifice. Ushering in an age of grace reminiscent of the days before Moses.
'Love God. Love your neighbor as yourself. On these two hang all the law and the prophets.'
here he clarifies that the "Spirit of the law" is to love God and love your neighbor as yourself. demonstrating that God's motive has never been to restrict us from freedom, but to free us from selfishness- a very difficult task indeed, since our every thought from the time we escape the womb is to serve ourselves first.
The legacy passed on from the Jewish faith is very relevant and I have always held a great respect for the People of God as the "Chosen People" To me the only personal struggle is that the acceptance of the gift of Jesus is a precipitating choice that must be made, ultimately allowing one to choose to be judged in the end by their works or be "passed over" in judgement because of their choice to accept the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus. I absolutely choose the latter as the most viable due to my inherent tendency to be a bad boy.-
I think I always find these threads after everyone is already tired of them!
-
You go JasontheBaldGuy! -
I couldn't have said it better than JasontheBaldGuy. The old testament is very valid. I mean without GENISUS we wouldn't know where we came from right. Does that mean that we should still stone to death unwed mother's like they did in LEVITICUS? No that is why JESUS made the ultimate sacrifice and shed his own blood so our slates would be clean(now that's what I call love). Now to the Jews you are God's chosen people You Guys are still waiting on the messiah and you have every right to believe what you want. Christians also have that very same right. We all can agree to disagree.
ps I know the feeling I always find these discussions too late
HollytheHousewife
hollyb27.blogspot
-
-
The "Old Testament" is the "New Testament" concealed. The "New Testament" is the "Old Testament" revealed. Both go hand in hand.-
So, you are saying that the Jewish interpretation of Jewish scripture is incorrect?
-
-
The jews seem to think so... -
Considering it was written a long time ago and things were very different then than they are now, most of it doen't even pertain to the modern society. It remains, though, an important part of the bible.-
the same could be said of the new testament. Fairy tale and folklore all of it...
-
-
Define "valid"-
"valid" means robust, healthy, and therefore, by extension, having some strong foundation in truth. It comes from the Latin, valere, to be healthy, or to be strong or fit. Of course, the antonym is "invalid" which, when used as a noun, means a sick person.
-
-
Inspired to post an article based on this discussion! Enjoy...
"Old Testament promise, New Testament hope"
codybateman.org/2008/11/24/testament/-
Great post and Blog!I'll be reading often. God Bless!
p.s. Any Christians that like to discuss, there is a great group on BlogCatalog with various discussion groups. It is called Christian World View. Does require approval to join, may take a couple days. But it is worth the wait! Nice to participate in the discussions without distractions.
-
-
The Old Testament is valid if you want it to be. -
Just thought this was worth submitting to the discussion:
The Bible is a compilation of 66 books written by over 40 separate authors from a variety of backgrounds (from lowly peasants to noble kings) over a period of at least 1,600 years. These 66 books are divided in two principle parts, the "Old Testament" (39 books) and the "New Testament" (27 books). The Bible was completed in its entirety nearly 2,000 years ago and stands today as the best-preserved literary work of all antiquity with over 24,000 ancient New Testament manuscripts discovered thus far. Compare this with the second best-preserved literary work of antiquity, Homer's Iliad, with only 643 preserved manuscripts discovered to date...
...and this:
The only place where these (Old Testament) laws apply within today’s culture is within certain Jewish sects, who contend that the Halakha (Jewish religious law) along with its 613 Commandments, should still require strict obedience. Among the vast majority of modern American Jews a person only binds himself to the Halakha by his own volition, a choice few actually make. Even among Orthodox and Haredi Jews, the most conservative segments of Judaism, the death penalty has been done away with since the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD...
source:
www.allaboutgod.com/
www.allaboutworldview.org/old-testament-law.htm
Hope this answered the question of not only validity, but the laws found in it.-
Except that the Jewish scripture is far more than 613 commandments. It's mostly narrative in content. It's a Christian tendency to view Judaism exclusively in terms of adherence to the Law-- but it's also an inaccurate reading both of the Tanakh, and of Judaism.
That said, I've read the "New Testament" and have to note that most of those "27 books" are a page or less in length. Hardly "books" at all: they're Epistles.
-
-
Hasn't been valid for centuries now..but after the whole 'coptic text' icident, I think it's pretty much null and void now!-
How does that work? Did all the Jews suddenly become Coptic Christians? Did the Catholics become Gnostics?
-
-
Think about this, The Bible is the only book
in the world that has never been altered in any
form,shape,manner or content. Ask yourself this question, WHY.
If you cannot answer this question, think about why man has never
achieved perfection and the answer is clear. Only Gods Word never changes.
Man always changes, go through your history, In fact, yesterday you were young and lived a different life than what your living today. The Old Testament is a reference to past with the new testament being the rule of thumb to live by today. So yes, The Old Testament is valid and gives an accurate account of the way life was, just as our history books(Not Accurate And Always Changing), Gives you a reference to reflect on and move ahead. Question, Has Man gave us a book to live by today for all time to come or is he still learning from his past mistakes and still attempting to rewrite history to suit his needs.
Norm Seavey
Americlense Technologies-
[The Bible is the only book
in the world that has never been altered in any
form,shape,manner or content.]
What about the Council of Trent? -
[The Bible is the only book
in the world that has never been altered in any
form,shape,manner or content.]
Actually, their have been many versions of the bible. One could go also go so far as to say the new testament is an alteration of the message in the old testament, not to mention the koran as an alteration of new/old together. -
"The Bible" as we know it, is an anthology. The contents of the Tanakh were written over a period of seven or eight centuries and were often edited by later writers. Even my favorite book, "Job", clearly has at least three different authors (one of the prose pieces at the beginning and end, one for the narrative poem, and a third for the speech of Elihu.)
Then again, the Catholic and Protestant compilations of "The Old Testament" have a slightly different table of contents than the Tanakh (and slightly different from one another.)
The "New Testament" was written by several different authors over a period stretching from circa 55 to 100CE, with the exception of "Revelations" which was a pre-Christian Jewish text that was rewritten much later. But the ultimate decision as to which books were to be included in the "New Testament" wasn't until the fourth century CE-- and a lot of works were rejected for inclusion.
-
-
They are correct who say that the vegetarian example and the Christian example are not the same. Dy definition, a vegetarian cannot eat meat, since in so doing, they would cease to be a vegetarian. But it is logically possible for a Christian to commit murder. It is logically possible for a Christian to commit any or all wrongful acts. Many people outside the church believe that Christians are in some way setting themselves up as perfect people who can't do any wrong, but of course, that is most certainly not the case at all. A Christian is capable of committing murder just the same as anybody else.
The aftermath of such an act is interesting to look at though. An earlier commenter spoke about what they termed a "true" Christian, by which definition I take them to mean one who is not just "going through the motions." Such a "true" Christian, after committing a wrongful act and certainly one as serious as murder, would presumably undergo a crisis of conscience. The act of murder, apart from being horrible in itself, whatever one's religious profession, or lack of it, is categorically forbidden in one of the Ten Commandments (of the Old Testament.) And the founder of Christianity just as categorically declared that he did not come to abolish the Law. Therefore the question becomes one of justification.
There seem to be three different ways in which this could turn out.
Firstly, if a Christian commits murder, and attempts to justify himself - to say that he was right to murder someone - then it is hard to see how he can continue in his Christian profession. It is a clear case of law breaking.
Secondly, if a case can be made that there were mitigating circumstances, for example, self-defence, or killing in an attempt to defend a victim of a murderous assault, then a Christian would be justified by those circumstances in the same way as is routinely ruled by the law courts. There was a case a few years ago when a naked man armed with a samurai sword burst into a church in London one Sunday morning while a service was taking place, and began to violently attack the worshippers. The situation was resolved by the quick-thinking organist, who extracted one of the organ pipes and hit the attacker over the head with it, rendering him unconscious. If the attacker had died as a result (he actually survived), it is highly likely that the organist would be found innocent of any crime, and also innocent of any sin in the view of the Church.
The third possibility is that the conscience of the murderer would lead him to an acknowledgement of his sin, and in this case his justification would have to be by faith. This would be the only course possible for the "true" Christian of that earlier definition. In the Catholic Church, the sinner would make use of the sacrament of Confession, after which the priest, who is invested through his ordination with the required authority, could pronounce absolution, usually with a prescription for a quite severe penitential activity. Of course, the sinner would also be subject to criminal proceeding in court as well, and would be advised to comply with these proceedings. In the Reformed churches, where there is no defined procedure for confession, nevertheless, the process of "re-entry" into fellowship would follow a similar pattern.
So while it is logically possible for a Christian to commit murder, it is not easy to see how the two could be sustained without some form of conscientious action.
A fourth possibility springs to mind. The murderer might try to deny that the act of murder really was wrong. This seems a rather absurd position to take, given that "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is about as clear as it can possibly be. However, some branches of the church have been struggling with some slightly more debatable examples, such as homosexuality, which many in the church denounce as sinful, while others do not. If there had been a commandment against it, then the matter would be simple to solve, but of course, there wasn't one.-
The memory of the just is blessed. remember that filosofia that is what the bible says. Also you really don't have to make things as complicated as you do. You either believe in the word or you don't. No one is trying to force you to believe. I can assure you if you are trying to change a christian's mind you won't. Just like I will never be able to change your mind. It really is that simple. Black and White we will just have to see on the day of judgement who is right or wrong huh????
-
Christians choose to re-interpret the Jewish construct of God and the events found in the Old Testament in a manner that enable their Christ based faith, and the dogma and doctrine created by the early church. There is absolutely no support whatsoever for violence of any kind, even when committed in self defense, found in the New Testament teaching attributed to Jesus of Nazareth.
thistimethisspace.com/2008/06/29/wake-up-america-god-is-not-on-your-side/
thistimethisspace.com/2008/07/02/america-awake-killing-is-not-a-christian-v...
@hollythehousewife
She can correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe these posts made by filospfia are inspired by belief. I believe where she is coming from is an academic focus on philosophy.
-
-
We seem to have wandered somewhat away from the original question "Is the OT still valid?", but perhaps not all that far, when you think about it.
The question about whether there are any circumstances in which a Christian is justified in taking the life of another human being, is one which has received a great deal of attention throughout history.
At first glance, it seems to be a straightforward matter. There is the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill" and there is also, even more radically, the teaching of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere, to "resist not an evil person", to "turn the other cheek" etc.
The concept of a "just war" became highlighted around the time of the First Crusade" and has been used to justify one war after another ever since. However, those who scoff at the Christians for failing to practise what they preach when they go to war, should ask themselves the question, "What would you do if another Hitler were to rise to power?"
The whole question of whether it is ever right to kill is certainly not a simple one to be solved by a couple of glib sentences. -
I know that the people here that don't believe in in the Christian faith are coming from an academic focus on philosophy. Filosofia said the original question was do u believe the OT is valid. The whole point is if you are a christian then you believe it is valid. If you are not a Christian then you don't believe in the old or new testament. My point is people who don't believe will never convince the people who do believe of anything different no matter how much academia you throw at them. Just like I will never convince the people who don't believe anything different no matter how much I quote the good book. I am not saying there is anything wrong with that. I say everyone can agree to disagree. That is what is so wonderful about living in this country. I have friends who are jewish and muslim and we decided a long time ago that no matter whose belifs are right or wrong that we still love one another and our kids will grow up together and there is no point in debating it. We waste too much time trying to change people's mind and we already know it won't happen. So why waste time debating and more time enjoying life.
-
To HollytheHousewife: I agree totally with you. The reason I enjoy looking at questions like this is for the fact that I find them really interesting, and not because I want to change anyone's mind about anything, least of all to change their religious beliefs. On the other hand, I am more than happy to have my own mind changed, because I hope to learn as much as I can from everyone I meet or interact with.
I think the original question of this thread is too blurred, too out of focus. Phrased as it is, it's almost impossible to give a sensible answer. You might just as well say the answer is 42. When they ask, is the Old Testament valid, they have to state what they are asking it's valid FOR?
Let me try to explain what I mean. The Old Testament can be used in the following ways:
1. As an interesting read.
2. As a source of information about attitudes in the Middle East in ancient times.
3. As the sacred book of one's religion.
4. As the forerunner to the sacred book of one's religion.
5. As a form of divination to predict future events.
There are, of course, many more ways to use the OT. I'm not saying I agree with any or all of these, only that these are uses that people put on the OT.
Now I think it should be clear that, depending on your point of view, the OT may well be valid for one or more of these applications, but not necessarily for ALL of them. For instance, even an atheist might allow that the OT is valid as a piece of documentary historical evidence. But if they said that yes it is valid, they might be misunderstood to be saying it was valid as a religious document.
Therefore the question, as it is phrased, is virtually impossible for anyone to answer. -
"I know that the people here that don't believe in in the Christian faith are coming from an academic focus on philosophy. [...] The whole point is if you are a christian then you believe it is valid. If you are not a Christian then you don't believe in the old or new testament. "
Actually, the point I keep making is that Christians are deabting whether Jewish scripture is valid-- and thus debating on the validity of Judaism.
The idea that Christians are somehow privileged to pass judgement on the validity of Judaism is triumphalist and has historically led to violence and tyranny. -
The interesting thing is that the Old Testament predicts that God's people would reject Jesus and ultimately kill Jesus. The Old Testament also said what he would be named and predicted many details of his life and his death. Unfortunately as predicted, traditional Judaism still sticks to traditions and laws rather than accepting the reign of the Messiah.
Judaism simply refuses to accept the continuation of Gods plan. thus the grafting in of the "Gentiles" due to the documented and repetitive stubbornness of Israel to follow God. And it is all in the Old Testament - a very valid collection of documents carefully maintained and carried forward for over 4500 years! there are more ancient copies of old testament scriptures than any other ancient texts ever written.
-
-
The old also validates the new...
If you stop to think abouit it, it is astounding that the simple, unasuming birth of a peasant baby boy more than two thousand years ago in the Middle East can today cause traffic jams every December in places like New York City, Tokyo, and Rio de Janeiro.
The night Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem, a small group of poor shepherds were quietly tending their flocks of sheep in a nearby field, looking up at the stars. Nothing seemed any different from a thousand other nights. But what was about to happen would transform not only their lives, but billions of other lives as well. The world would never be the same again. - The Purpose of Christmas (back cover)
alexanderwrites.blogspot.com/2008/12/if-you-stop-to-think-about-it.html -
ok filosofia if you are opened to have your mind changed that is WONDERFUL!!! This is what I know and believe JESUS made the ultimate sacrifice by shedding his on blood and he was beaten to minced meat (that is what the BIBLE) says so that our sins could be forgiven. I mean that is love unconditionally,do u know what I mean. So to say the word of the lord is invalid no matter what testament it is is wrong. That is why I say it is so simple. There really is no reason for debate you either believe and have faith or you don't. There doesn't have to be debate. I mean you can throw questions about this interpretation or that interpretaion but, if you are a believer there is no need for those kind of questions. You will always have a counter point to my point. That is not FAITH. Faith in the LORD is so very,very,simple once you really believe. I mean you either have it or you don't.
-
To HollytheHousewife: You don't need to tell me that. I've been to a Catholic school for 10 years, so trust me, I know what Jesus did. I'm sorry but I find it a little bit embarrassing to discuss matters of personal conscience and belief. I'm a European so I hope that explains it.
-
-
The idea that Jesus was born into a dirt-poor peasant family is an appealing one, and a view that has attracted a great deal of popularity over the years. Sadly however, there is not a shred of evidence to support it, either in the Bible or elsewhere.
In fact the Bible states that both Mary and Joseph were of the House and lineage of David, that is, they were descended, in different lines, from the great King David. Hence, whatever their current financial situation (about which, again, there is no hard evidence) they were both of them of a social status which today we would call aristocratic. The poor peasant idea is just a cosy little fantasy.-
...and so is the fantasy of being descended from the house of David. That was only introduced into the story of Jesus' life decades after the events occured, most likely after anyone who actually witnessed the events was dead.
-
Zencath
Your statement of "The idea that Jesus was born into a dirt-poor peasant family is an appealing one, and a view that has attracted a great deal of popularity over the years. Sadly however, there is not a shred of evidence to support it, either in the Bible or elsewhere."
Isn't quite true. Yes Mary and Joseph were both from the house and lineage of David, but this had little bearing on the financial status of the village carpenter and his young wife.
The "proof" in scripture that demonstrates their prosperity is seen in Luke 2:22-24 - After the birth of a son a woman was considered to be ceremonially unclean for 40 days (Leviticus 12:2-5) and after this time she was to offer a yearling lamb and a dove or pigeon for sacrifice to the priest. "The lamb was for a burnt offering and a pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering" (Lev 12:6)
Lev 12:8 says "And if she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take two turtle doves or two pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. And the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean."
Looking back at Luke 2:22-24, scripture tells us that when the time came for purification (after 40 days)they went to the temple to offer a sacrifice according to the Law of the Lord "a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons."
If they could have afforded a lamb, then that would have been required.
As far as your idea that they were members of the "aristocratic" part of their society Matthew 13:55 states that Jesus was the carpenter's son (Joseph was the carpenter in Nazareth). Usually in society the aristocrats don't typically labor for wages.
So although they were from the lineage of David, Matthew 1:1-16 shows us that they were 28 generations removed from King David.
So I refute your notion that it was just a cozy little fantasy.
-
-
The basic ideas are relevent today as always. Yet as happened when the Old Testament was first written, it was not exactly followed by its believers, and in many cases forced on by violence.
Either way it is a good historical read regardless if you believe it or not, with some very old stories that pre-date the Bible by thousands of years. Whlie its relevence now may only be skin deep to many people, the historical stories, whether that happend or not, are very important. -
To Ian Thal: Me as a christian I can't judge u. All I know is what I believe
and have faith in. I don't understand where you are coming from? The
HOLY BIBLE ot and nt is VALID if that is what you believe. I mean Jews,Christians,muslims,buddaist,etc... it doesn't matter one day we will all see on the day of judgement. It kind of looks like you are looking for a fight when there doen't have to be one.-
I'm not looking for a fight, Holly.
I'm making a scholarly point about both Christian theology and the history of Jewish-Christian relations.
That point is that when a Christian argues that the New Testament is somehow a completion or replacement of the Tanakh, that is, Jewish scripture, that Christian is arguing that Judaism has been superceded and is no longer a valid. That belief has been used to justify centuries of anti-Semitic violence.
-
-
to filosofia ????????
-
except Ian Thal I haven't met one CHRISTIAN that doesn't believe the OT in not valid.The difference between you and I are you are basing your arguments on theology. I base my arguments on faith.If you are a true christian you realize it isn't about judgeing someone else on what they believe in.I mean believe me I could start a discussion on why my girls aren't allowed to say their prayers at school. I think alot of christians are being treated unfairly too. My point is why waste so much time arguing about who is right or wrong and just enjoy life for the hear and now.
-
@hollythhousewife
For goodness sake please wake up and understand that Christians deliberately interpret the Old Testament in a manner required to uphold the doctrine and dogma that depicts Jesus as God. They borrow the Tanakh from the Jews, sans the rabbinical teachings. They cherry pick passages from it and put their own spin on it because if they didn't they would have only the New Testament books to base their religion upon. Hence the Christian interpretation of the Tanakh is NOT valid to the Jews and it never will be.
Worse still they teach people, like yourself, who lack a Judaic background that their Christian re-interpretation of the Tanakh is the ONLY correct interpretation of Judaic scripture.
The Christian re-interpretation of the Tanakh has been used to justify centuries of anti-Semitic violence just as IanThal has stated. -
@hollythehousewife
Also while I'm at it your children can say their prayers anywhere they wish to silently. On one hand, praying aloud in public places like public schools before others, who do not wish to pray to your god is not in keeping with New Testament teachings. On the other, praying privately and silently would be in keeping with the teachings attributed to Jesus.
Unless you are prepared to have the teachers in public schools request that your children join them in praying prayers out loud that are directed to gods other than your own god then your position is untenable.
Matthew 6:
5 And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.
6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
Lastly, when it comes your feelings that Christians are badly treated then look first to scripture and see what it says there. Next take a long hard look a history and note the horrific damage, death and destruction that pushing the Christian agenda as the one and only true religion has brought upon the people of this world. Then take note of the American Constitution and amendments and prepare yourself and your children for the future. -
Thank you, Time Thief. At least I know a few people reading this understand where I am coming from and are neither putting words in my mouth or attributing aggressive motives to me.
-
@IanThal
You're welcome. I'm sorry that some people just don't get it. I have no more patience to extend to those, who are deluded or in a state of denial about how Christian dogma and doctrine were invented, what the cost of that religious movement to humanity has been, and who paid it.
-
-
It never was relevant. It is a book of short stories written by man and translated who knows how many times over the centuries. As a former military linguist I know how easy it is to mistranslate text. Even a tiny mistranslation can completely change the meaning of a sentence, paragraph, scroll etc.
The only way to understand the context is to read the original text in its native language. You CAN NOT translate full meaning of text across languages. You HAVE to read it in it's native language.
Oh and there is no God. :-)-
@ Slashbe, ur comment there is no GOD. Don't u feel blessed living in a country where u can say that. I'm sorry blessed is the wrong word. I mean if you had said those words in Iran,Iraq(under saddam hussien)lyma,pakistan,the congo,darfur,somalia,the list goes on and on etc......
You would have been beheaded,burned,tortued,and who knows what else.Anyway that is ur right in AMERICA to believe what u want to belive. Guess what I'm gonna pray for you and I sure hope your heart softens. I don't care if u don't belive in GOD I do and it is an awesome right to have in this great country.
Thx for listening HollytheHousewife
hollyb27.blogspot.com
-
-
@ timetheif: 1st my girls are 4&5,they don't know how to pray silently.Plus there have been many a christian's burned at the steak and pursacuted for what they believe in. I mean have you ever looked at the roman empire and see what they did to someone who didn't worship the roman emporer.like I said earlier Timetheif (me as a CHRISTIAN)I am not pushing a CHRISTIAN AGENDA. I am simply saying that if I have to be tollerable of other religions in public places then why can't other people be tollerable to my faith?
-
Holly,
No one is being intolerant of your faith. The reality is that once you are in the public square or on the internet, you are in a religiously pluralistic society and what you call "The Old Testament" isn't exclusively Christian scripture.
Being asked to be aware of these things "persecuting Christians"; No one is asking you to turn your back on Christianity.
-
-
timethief said. "For goodness sake please wake up and understand that Christians deliberately interpret the Old Testament in a manner required to uphold the doctrine and dogma that depicts Jesus as God. They borrow the Tanakh from the Jews, sans the rabbinical teachings. They cherry pick passages from it and put their own spin on it because if they didn't they would have only the New Testament books to base their religion upon. Hence the Christian interpretation of the Tanakh is NOT valid to the Jews and it never will be. "
You cannot speak for all Christians since all Christians do not believe the same things. Not all Christians believe that Jesus is God.-
except for me because god said he created JESUS out of his on image
-
@hollythehousewife
Above you have said: ... god said he created JESUS out of his on image
Where in the Tanakh do you think that you find any reference at all to what you just stated above?
Jesus was not the only one who was referred to as the Son or Sons of God. Many others in the Bible were called the sons of God and children of God, so does that make all those people God? I say not.
In the Tanakh, the phrase "sons of god" has multiple meanings:
* The Hebrew the phrase Benei Elohim, often translated as "The Sons of God", describes angels, demigods or immensely powerful human beings. (Genesis 6:2-4)
* It is used to denote a human judge or ruler (Ps. 82. 6, "children of the Most High"; in many passages "gods" and "judges" seem to be equations); and to the real or ideal king over Israel (II Sam. 7. 14, with reference to David and his dynasty; comp. Ps. 89. 27, 28).
* The phrases "sons of God" and "children of God" are applied to Israel as a people (comp. Ex. 4. 22 and Hos. 11. 1), the Jewish people, and also to all members of the human race.
In the New Testament Jesus calling God his Father, or own Father does not amount to what you convey. It is common if you are addressing yourself you will say my Father, or my house etc. isn't it? Jesus called God the Father of his people (the Jews - the children of Israel )too, so when Jesus referred to God as my Father he was doing this when he was addressing himself. And when Jesus addressed other people he calls God their Father. If one of those people were alone, they could address God as their Father and say my Father in Heaven. Would that mean that the people are equal with God? Would that mean they are God?
In the Tanakh the term "son of God" does not connote any form of physical descent from, or essential unity with, God. The Hebrew idiom conveys an expression of godliness. -
Isn't it the definition of christian to believe that jesus christ who is the son of god?
-
@xmarks
Cross reference to www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/religion-and-sexuality-christians-and-hom... -
Phoenix1972, it would appear that you define the use of the word Christian (which of course does not appear in Scripture)in a much broader way than most.
These were then known as Christ Followers and then Christians.
I'm curious, do you consider yourself a Christian? And were you speaking of yourself in not believing that Jesus is God?
I ask out of curiosity, as typically the disciples of Christ came to be known as followers of "the Way" as Christ said, I am the way, the truth and the light and no man comes to the Father except through me" John 14:6 -
@cgoodson
I you click the user name for phoenix1962 who posted to this thread 10 days ago now, you will find that he's no longer active here. www.blogcatalog.com/user/Phoenix1962
-
-
@HollytheHousewife
"except for me because god said he created JESUS out of his on image"
What does God's voice sound like? -
@slashbe: If you believed you would hear him to. To answer your question the only way I could discribe it, is if love had a sound then that would be GOD's voice.
-
@timetheif: Listen,I don't want to argue with anyone. I am saying I have my belifs you have yours. Like I said in an earlier comment I beleive the OT is valid. I don't know anything about the Tanakh. You are obviously a very smart person and it seems like you want to get to the bottom line and figure everything out.I used to be the same way to. Then I realized I will never know everything. So I believe what I believe and no one can change my mind. Just like if I researced and counterpointed all of your arguments it would not change your mind. That is why I think it is a waste of time arguing about it because nothing will ever change.Do you see what I mean??
-
@hollythehousewife
The Tanakh, the Old Testament and the Pentatuch are differnt name for the same 5 books. Christians refer to the first 5 books in their Bible, which are the Judiac Tanakh, as the Old Testament, and as the Pentatuch.
You have said: So I believe what I believe and no one can change my mind.
I completely understand where you are coming from, because I was raised in a Christian evangelical fundamentalist family and graduated from Bible college.
That is why I think it is a waste of time arguing about it because nothing will ever change. Do you see what I mean??
I certainly do understand what you mean because at one time I was brainwashed too.
Best wishes -
Actually, the Tanakh has the five books plus bonus works of holy scripture (as a limited time offer). You'll get the Torah (the five books), the Nevi'im (Joshua, Judges, and other prophets as well as the minor prophets), and the Kethuvim (the writings including the Psalms, Proverbs, Job...).
And if you order right now, we'll throw in a Sham-WOW!!!
(operators are standing by)
-
-
@timetheif: best wishes to u too.
-
The New Testament specifically says that all of the Old Covenant laws were canceled. However, I think we do ourselves as Christians a disservice when we fail to look at all of Scripture, and not just the perceived people-friendly parts.
In recent months, I have heard gifted people of God preach on several Old Testament books in cluding Ruth, Nehemiah, and Hosea, and I can’t begin to tell you how much delving into OT books has come to shape, and support how I’ve come to understand the New Testament. It really does help to look back within “God’s history” for an explanation to very events and circumstances mentioned in the New Testament. It’s disheartening to think that some feel that the OT is “relevant” to our culture, because I seemed to remember hearing that God doesn’t change, His Word is indeed useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, and we should continually meditate on it day and night.
thundercatt99.blogspot.com/
thundercatt99.wordpress.com/-
Actually, the laws of God were not "canceled" but fulfilled in the finished work of Yeshua on Calvary! (This is why Jesus Himself states that He came to do the work of the Father and at the last breath, stated, "It is finished!"
FYI -
Right on! ....and Merry Christmas!
-
-
@ian thal:
most of the people in this thread know how you feel.
It is only me and maybe a couple of other's don't agree w/ u.
I never said the OT wasn't used in other religions. I said the OT and NT were valid to christians.The HOLY BIBLE OT and NT is the outline of christian faith. So if your not a christian you don't believe in it. IF you are a Jew I guess you do believe in it except you call it something different than the Bible. -
I just posted an article directly related to this discussion...
Just using the Book of the Prophet Isaiah makes the "Old Testament" relevant to both Jew and Gentile believer alike. (Notice I did NOT say Jew and Gentile) for they have rejected the counsels of God already... making all the testament of God of non-effect!)
The only ones qualified to correctly answer this forum's question will be Jewish and Gentile followers of Yeshua - an unbeliever, no matter how "learned" educationally - cannot discern spiritual things while they remain carnal.
I did not say these things, God Himself has said these things...
I have provided a link to my newest entry called, "The two books of Isaiah"
codybateman.org/2008/12/17/the-two-books-of-isaiah/
Side note: I love these "religious" Q. and A. showing up in general discussion areas - for it gives all followers of Yeshua the wonderful opportunity to share the hope that is found in He alone - a beautiful reminder of why Jesus Christ came as a babe long ago as the Lamb slain but returning a second time the Lion of Judah roaring out of Jerusalem! (Again, making the Old Testament as relevant today as it was in the days Isaiah prophesied the birth of Christ, death, resurrection and coming as King.) -
@timethief:
You don't have to apologize for me. I don't apologize for what I believe in.Or as u put it deluded. You also have the right to say you don't agree w/ the invention of christianity or what has done to humanity. The last time I checked it wasn't us fundy christians hijacking airplanes and killing 3,000 Americans in the name of GOD-
Merry Christmas HollytheHousewife!
May the Lord bless you immensely!
-
-
With open heart and clear mind truth is revealed within every "thing." All flowers out of the formless love that we are.
Blessings. -
As opposed to total religious irrelevancy or as opposed to the New Testament?
Both are pretty offensive questions. It's been relevant to me the past 36 years, and my family and my neighborhood and my community. -
Accidental double comment. Move along.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
