NationStates Jolt Archive

I've read a lot on this forum where people have quoted the Old Testament, to which others respond with things like, "any good Christian knows not to make use of the Old Testament," or words to that effect.

I understand that the New Testament defines Christianity with the advent of Christ. But I am wondering, if the Old Testament is so untrustworthy, why it is still part of the Christian Bible at all? Is it meant to be contextual or what? No criticism meant of anyone; I am just wondering.

I've read a lot on this forum where people have quoted the Old Testament, to which others respond with things like, "any good Christian knows not to make use of the Old Testament," or words to that effect.

I understand that the New Testament defines Christianity with the advent of Christ. But I am wondering, if the Old Testament is so untrustworthy, why it is still part of the Christian Bible at all? Is it meant to be contextual or what? No criticism meant of anyone; I am just wondering.

My understanding is that the Mosaic law of the Old Testament was a type, or a likeness, of the higher law given in the New Testament. The sacrifices of animals, for example, are explained as a symbolic representation of the Atonement and, later, the sacrament. I think many religions retain it as a sort of a backdrop for the New Testament, a history of God's dealings with chosen people, and as a good source of symbolism, especially Isaiah.

This is one of my main arguements against Christianity. Some of the laws laid down in the OT are just horrific, and many downright stupid. People look to the old testament chiefly for their guidence on homosexuality (Leviticus particuarly), yet some of the stuff in there are HORRIFIC. Things like you're not to cut your hair or shave (seriously) and stone to death any child who is rebellious. It also states women were made from man and are therefore inferior. It is SICKENING.

and for those saying that the OT does not apply anymore.. :
"Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited of me; he shall be set free. And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered" -Jesus Christ, as quoted in Mark 7:9-13.

Taking the sarcastic approach, I would say the distinction, in practice, means the following: In a debate, any fundamentalist can make use of quotes from the Old Testament as proof for their point that gays are t3h evol...

Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, that is detestable. Leviticus 18:22

But in the rebuttal, an atheist or agnostic cannot argue that by the same logic, shrimps and lobster are alse t3h evol...

And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you". Leviticus 11:9,10

Because then, straightaway, another fundamentalist will argue that the entire old testament is t3h evol...

Hebrews 8:13 "In that Christ says 'a new covenant,' Christ has made the first obsolete."

...

Apart from the bits they agree with, of course.

http://biblebabble.curbjaw.com/index.html

This is a very good insight on Christianity as a whole

and for those saying that the OT does not apply anymore.. :
"Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited of me; he shall be set free. And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered" -Jesus Christ, as quoted in Mark 7:9-13.
I was unaware of this quote, thank you for it. Since Christ, on whom Christians base their religion, makes direct reference to obeying what the OT holds, how therefore can its existence not be as pertinent as the NT? (Or, at the very least, of some guidance and use?)

PS. I agree that some of the stuff in the OT is simply barbaric. Apparently, a lot of it is not meant to be taken literally; why, then, are others parts supposed to be? I find it confusing, I must admit.

I was unaware of this quote, thank you for it. Since Christ, on whom Christians base their religion, makes direct reference to obeying what the OT holds, how therefore can its existence not be as pertinent as the NT? (Or, at the very least, of some guidance and use?)

PS. I agree that some of the stuff in the OT is simply barbaric. Apparently, a lot of it is not meant to be taken literally; why, then, are others parts supposed to be? I find it confusing, I must admit.

And there, arises part of the conflict.

Christ advocates the Old Testament as relevent, but, also revokes parts of Mosaic Law - for example, re-issuing his own amended versions of the Ten Commandments. If even Jesus contradicts himself over the issue, what hope can normal folk have?

I have met a lot of Christians who claim that the Old Testament is irrelevent... since it was replaced by the New Testament. Some have cited the fact that the New Testament 'replaces' the Old. I find that a curious conception... since they also argue that Jesus is "Christ", and they draw their evidence from Old Testament prophecy.

How can the Old Testament be the word of god AND replacable?

Taking the sarcastic approach, I would say the distinction, in practice, means the following: In a debate, any fundamentalist can make use of quotes from the Old Testament as proof for their point that gays are t3h evol...



But in the rebuttal, an atheist or agnostic cannot argue that by the same logic, shrimps and lobster are alse t3h evol...



Because then, straightaway, another fundamentalist will argue that the entire old testament is t3h evol...



...

Apart from the bits they agree with, of course.

Lol that is how it goes

Someone pulls OT quotes against homosexuality
you refute it with other silly laws

Someone else says OT is debunk

lol its silly and goes that way every time

I've read a lot on this forum where people have quoted the Old Testament, to which others respond with things like, "any good Christian knows not to make use of the Old Testament," or words to that effect.

I understand that the New Testament defines Christianity with the advent of Christ. But I am wondering, if the Old Testament is so untrustworthy, why it is still part of the Christian Bible at all? Is it meant to be contextual or what? No criticism meant of anyone; I am just wondering.

I believe that there are many lessons in the stories of the OT that are important.

However, many of the details should really be used as a "what not to do" kind of thing. Many of the horrific laws you refer to were written into scripture by the men of them time - who thought they were doing what God wanted, but (in my opinion) were not. They were also following out of fear. When Christ came and died on the cross, it was to demonstrate God's love for the world, and human beings were meant to see this demonstration of love, and begin to follow God out of love, instead of fear. Unfortunately, it seems that the vast majority didn't really get the point.

--> Not exactly standard theology, but I think Abelard was a really intelligent theologian, even if he was a bit arrogant.

How can the Old Testament be the word of god AND replacable?

Contradiction adds to the freedom of the interpreter. And the bible has a lot of contradictions. With it, you can prove basically everything and its opposite.

That means that whatever you want to believe, you can support with the Bible if you look long enough and twist the quotes a little.

Scary.

I've read a lot on this forum where people have quoted the Old Testament, to which others respond with things like, "any good Christian knows not to make use of the Old Testament," or words to that effect.

I understand that the New Testament defines Christianity with the advent of Christ. But I am wondering, if the Old Testament is so untrustworthy, why it is still part of the Christian Bible at all? Is it meant to be contextual or what? No criticism meant of anyone; I am just wondering.


The OT/Torah laws are still important in Christianity....

Torah is taught by Messiah & Isa.2:3;8:16; John12:50

The OT/Torah laws are still important in Christianity....

Torah is taught by Messiah & Isa.2:3;8:16; John12:50
Right, OK, but why then do so many people still claim that it is shouldn't be used as a Christian guide? Surely it either should or it shouldn't.

You can't examine the changing of mythologies in the midst of it. Take a step back into the mist of infinity, and all will become clear.