Christianity and the Old Testement

E

Ekimklaw

Believer in God
Registered Senior Member
Christianity and the Old Testament

Hey there,

A careful distinction needs to be made about Christianity as it relates to the Old Testement.

I spend a great deal of time on this board defending attacks on stories from the Old Testement. Inconsistencies become contradictions, verses are juxtaposed and controversy rages.

Yet there is a distinction that must be understood.

I am NOT a Jew. I am a Christian (and a "gentile" to boot).

Have you ever looked through old family pictures. When you see images of yourself as a tiny baby your mind is often filled with amazement that you were once so helpless. That is you there in that crib. It doesn't seem like it, but it is. You look through other pictures. Family members long since gone. Cousins/uncles/friends grown and far away. Familiar faces that are so far removed from your life today. Yet they form the foundation of your life called "your past". They are parts of the sum total of you. You would never say they were NOT important, but yet they are somehow not relevant to your immediate daily life.

The "Old Testement" is sort of like that for the Christian. The stories of Moses, Abraham, and David, Solomon, Joseph, Samson, Noah, etc. are very important in that it shows the early work of God as he created and collected, loved, punished, and protected a race of people called the Jews, or Hebrews.

This would be the race from which "The Messiah" would come to Earth. The entire "Old Testement" was written specifically to the Jewish people. Its purpose was to show how God had loved and cared for them as a race, and that through them the savior of the world would one day come. Today Jews carry holy scriptures they call "The Torah". This is essentially "The Old Testement" in your average Christian Bible. The Jews still follow the laws. (They bristle when Christians call it the "Old Testement". Because to them, it isn't "old". It is alive and thriving. To Jews the "New Testement" is irrelevant.) To this day the Jews still wait for the promised Messiah. Christians, on the other hand, believe that Jesus was that Messiah, and was the culmination of the "Old, or first, Covenant".

The reason Christians divide the Bible in two and call the ancient writings the "Old Testement" is because it represented the "First Covenant" established between God and his chosen people, the Jews. The "Old Covenant" was a set of strict laws for the Jewish people. In order to keep themselves holy as a people.

The "New Covenant" or "New Testement" records the moment in history when the event so longed for by every writer of the "Old Testament" happened. Jesus the Messiah came to Earth (as a helpless baby, and not as a mighty warrior as some had hoped). He fulfilled prophesy and was the living culmination of the "Old Covenant".

Jesus was careful to explain that he was actually the fulfillment of "the Law". He clarified the Law. For example, He reduced the 10 Commandments to two simple all encompassing commandments: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and body, and love your neighbor as yourself. (See Matthew 22:36-40)

Through signs and miracles, and healings, he persuaded many to follow him. Later, following Jesus' death, resurrection, and ascension "The 12 Desciples", his inner nucleus of followers, began spreading the message of Jesus throughout the world. As a religion it has never ceased from that time to this.

This ushered in the age of "Grace", aka "The New Covenant". This new age established Jesus as the savior of mankind. He is the culminating act of God's love. He took human form and allowed himself to be unjustlt tried and killed, in order that mankind's sin debt was paid in full. Now there was no need for daily animal sacrifices for sin like in the Old Testement. Jesus made the ultimate one, which requires no more daily sacrifices. In the age of Grace we are asked to believe in Jesus and aspire to be like him, and sacrifice or selfish desires.

Up through the Gospels the New testement mostly concerns the Jewish phase of Jesus' ministry. But then, in Acts, Jesus tells Paul (formerly a persecuter of Christians) to be the apostle to the Gentile (or NON-Jewish) nations. The door of salvation was opened to everybody at that point. Through Jesus, Jews and Non-jews alike were given the opportunity to partake in the grace of God. The section of the Bible written specifically for Non-Jews (with some exceptions) are the letters of the New Testement. Otherwise known as the "epistles".

So therefore, we today live in the age of Grace.

I love the Old testament, and cherish the stories (Here's a secret for you... Most of the stories in the Old Testement are an analogy of the work of Christ. For instance, look at the story of the ark. The ark represents Christ preserving those who believe from harm, etc.) but the scriptures I adhere to closely and study regularly are in the NEW TESTEMENT.

The whole Bible, old and new is about Christ. The Old Testement looks forward to Christ. The Gospels tell of Christ, and the rest of the Bible points back at the life and teachings of Christ. It is all about Jesus.

As an aside, did you know that many theologians agree that Christ actually appears a few times in the Old Testement? Some think He was the one referred to by Old Testement authors as "the Angel of The Lord". They didn't fully understand exactly who or what that "Angel Of The Lord" was. But they tell several incidents where he appears. In this present "age of Grace", it would seem it was God in human form (aka Jesus) on Earth, hundreds or thousands of years before his official advent on Earth. These are called "Preincarnations of Christ" (To see the connection between the being referred to as "The Angel Of The Lord" and God, see Exodus 3:1-6 where "the Angel of the Lord" speaks to Moses from the burning bush and then says "I am the God of your father...") This is kind of a deep meaty subject that I am still in the process of learning. But i thought you might find it intriguing.

For the Christian it is ALL about Christ. I am not a jew and I'm tired of being asked to be a "Torah theologian". I do not want to fuss about Old testament minutiae like why Lot was in Sodom to begin with, did Lot's wife really turn into salt, Who did Cain marry, etc.

I am interested in the Old Testement insofar as it relates to Jesus. Again, I am not a Jew -- I am a Christian. The Christian part of the Bible is the New Testement.

Does that mean I think the Old Testement is wrong? No. But it was written to and describes the life and times of one specific people on Earth. It is of interest to the Christian only insofar as it is connected with JESUS! As an example. Since Jesus came from the "House of David" the Christian is naturally interested in who David was. His history is recorded, warts and all, in the Old Testament.

Once and for all, please understand the difference. I am a Christian. Not a Jew. I will defend Jesus and the New Testement.

You can direct all your Old Testament questians to any Jewish theologians who are members of this board.

Just remember. As Christians, the Old Testement was written FOR us, but not TO us.

FOR us in the sense that it provides foundational history of the origin of the world and the Jewish people through whom the Savior would come. But not TO us. Christians are NOT subject to Mosaic law, etc.

Thanks for your kind indulgence. I've been wanting to get this off my chest!

-Mike

Ps. Pardon any typos...
 
Last edited:
Ekim,

The focus upon the accuracy of the Bible (both the OT and NT) is in response to Christian claims that the Bible is literal, historical truth. There is a very vociferous faction of Christianity that makes such a claim. Analysis of the Bible itself reveals internal inconsistencies that belie such literalist claims. In response the Christian usually claims that select passages are either analogical or allegorical, in effect, claiming that the inconsistencies are due to interpretive inaccuracies. While this is somewhat effective it begs the question of how one can validate these various interpretations. In my experience, Christians have failed to provide a solution that is both consistent and verifiable, yet they still lay claim to the "truth" and "infallibility". A position that is, at least, questionable.

While I understand your position in regards to the OT, whether your position is defensible or not lies largely upon how you interpret the OT. From your posts, it seems that you follow a fairly common modern perspective that some aspects are literally true while others are analogical or allegorical. Again, I would bring up the question of validation. Upon what grounds are you able to determine how a particular aspect should be interpreted?

~Raithere
 
Originally posted by Raithere
Ekim,
The focus upon the accuracy of the Bible (both the OT and NT) is in response to Christian claims that the Bible is literal, historical truth. There is a very vociferous faction of Christianity that makes such a claim. Analysis of the Bible itself reveals internal inconsistencies that belie such literalist claims. In response the Christian usually claims that select passages are either analogical or allegorical, in effect, claiming that the inconsistencies are due to interpretive inaccuracies. While this is somewhat effective it begs the question of how one can validate these various interpretations. In my experience, Christians have failed to provide a solution that is both consistent and verifiable, yet they still lay claim to the "truth" and "infallibility". A position that is, at least, questionable.
While I understand your position in regards to the OT, whether your position is defensible or not lies largely upon how you interpret the OT. From your posts, it seems that you follow a fairly common modern perspective that some aspects are literally true while others are analogical or allegorical. Again, I would bring up the question of validation. Upon what grounds are you able to determine how a particular aspect should be interpreted?
~Raithere
Click to expand...


I understand what you are saying. My position has changed over the course of my life. As a younger man, I took the perhaps contoversial position that the so-called "Old Testament" (hereafter referred to as OT) was basically of no use to me as a member of the Christian religion. I thought to myself... yes the stories are great and educational, but they don't apply to me so why bother? As I studied the Bible further, I came to the realization that the OT is a forward looking collection of books. The central theme running through ALL of it is the eventual Earthly incarnation of God known as "The Messiah" (translated "Christ" in Greek). Obviously I believe this Messiah turned out to be Jesus.

Therefore, it became clear to me that the OT is valuable insofar as it relates to the following things:

-The devine nature of God (the Father)
-The work of the preincarnate Christ (the Son)
-Predictions (prophecy) about the coming Messiah.

This information is given through a collection of various "Books". There are:

5 books of Law (by the way, the books of Law have a fair portion of Jewish history in them too)
12 books of Jewish history
5 books of Hebrew poetry
5 major prophetic books
12 minor prophetic books

This forms the complete OT as it has come down to us. And is usually included as the first section of the Christian Bible.

With the advent of Jesus, the old paradigm transformed into the "New Covenant". God's word *went global* if you will. His plan of salvation now included, not just the Jews, but ALL who would accept him as Lord. From the embers of the Old Covenant came the New Covenant. Phase two of God's masterplan. At this time there came to be "Followers of Christ" aka "Christians".

Hopefully you can see that the link between Christians and Jews is tenuous at best. We are sort of like "second cousins on our Father's side" if you know what I mean.

But no practicing Jew is a Christian. And no Christian is a practising Jew. Because by definition, a Jew is still looking forward to the coming Messiah and is not particularly interested in Jesus, while the Christian is literally a "follower of Jesus Christ".

I believe the OT is the devinely revealed word of God written to the Jews! I believe that the OT is very useful to today's Christian (for the above mentioned reasons). But haggling over the minor details of who did what to who and why in the OT stories, to me, has VERY little interest. It diverts the attention away from the central question to modern Christian theology. Namely: What about Jesus?

Keep in mind that the OT is written by multiple authors. Inconsistencies may occur as always when multiple witnesses report a shared experience. These inconsistencies do not mutually exclude each witness testimony, but merely provides a different point of view. Bearing this in mind you will see that on matters of theological importance, the Bible is NOT contradictory.

If I collected 10 witnesses to a murder, they may not all agree straight down the line about every minute detail of the crime. But taken together, though minor inconsistencies may creep in, 10 witnesses will usually give a more complete account of the major facts of an occurance than a single witness would.

Look at the Kennedy assassination for instance. Just because the hundred or so witnesses do not agree 100% straight down the line about exactly what happened minute by minute in Dealy Plaza that day, are we to conclude that NONE of them are right? Or worse yet, that Kennedy wasn't even shot?

Please keep this in mind and you will see that so- called "contradictions" are simply either "minor inconsistencies" or misunderstandings of the text.

Thanks.

-Mike
 
There are Gospels that the Roman Catholics Priests and Judaism Rabbis dont want you to see or believe in
 
There are Gospels that the Roman Catholics Priests and Judaism Rabbis dont want you to see or believe in
Click to expand...
Hearsay. And you know this because?

Having grown up in the Catholic church I was often told about these so called 'hidden' gospels(I read a few of them and it was a topic of a few discussions in 'sunday school'). Do you think these 'gospels' hold some sort of truth that would bring the whole Christian religion to its knees? And why are only Catholics and Rabbis hiding these? Are the protestant division sects of Christianity not intelligent enough to discover them?

nothing more than conspiracy theory.
 
im sorry if i have offened you but i did not mean to put everyone into the same group as i did, i meant it just as groups that appear to be more into "hidding" as such these scriptures. i did not intentionally catogerise these secetors of religions of covering these up as it is well known im sure, that the protensent churches probably do not agree with these anymore than the RC. But i beleive that i can make judgment on the opinion i made. Back when the weston world was being introduced to the bible into non christen sociities it was i beleive if im correct, (feel free to correct me if you find me wrong), it was the RC that were deciding on the scriptures that went into the bible, as this was the only seen domination of the church as there was no protensent church untill later on. Therefore due this i came to the conclusion from here that it was that the RC that had decided that these scriptures were not for ppl to read freely. i can also make this judgement as however freely these scripture are read it is still not seen as part of the bible, even though as you
said yourself that it is commen place for these lost gospels to be disscused. To me this seems strange as it would be easily done to introduce these as part of the known christian new testatment. Does this not seem strange to you at all?
 
andrew, how do you prove if a gospel is devinely inspired or not? How do you prove it was written at the same time as the others? How do you prove its a 'gospel'?

I do not know the definitive answer to these, and I suspect that if a so called gospel was deflammatory towards Jesus and went against what the rest of the bible said, they would easily (and with good reason) disregard it. I am definitely not the person to say whether or not a certain book belongs in the Bible or not, and I doubt you are either. There are books in there now that get much controversy on whether or not they actually belong in the Bible (revaltions comes to mind).

If you really beleive that a book is not added in or removed with the sole point of 'duping' people, that is your opinion. While it logically fits, it is also very reasonable to assume that the people that chose the books to go into the Bible did so because they believed those books were the real deal. I am not a believer that everyone is out to fool and screw over the world, so I choose the latter option.
 
Originally posted by Ekimklaw
Hopefully you can see that the link between Christians and Jews is tenuous at best. We are sort of like "second cousins on our Father's side" if you know what I mean.

I couldn't disagree more. Jesus was a Jew. Christianity is simply Judaism after the coming of the messiah. Granted, Paul did quite a bit of bending of Jewish tradition in order to ease the conversion of the Gentiles and make it more acceptable to the Roman citizenry in general but you can hardly call the relationship tenuous. It's like saying that the link between the USA and England is tenuous.

But no practicing Jew is a Christian. And no Christian is a practising Jew.

Actually there is a sect of Judaism that believes in Jesus; or would that be a sect of Christianity that follows Jewish tradition? And what about Christ himself, was he not a practicing Jew?

I believe the OT is the devinely revealed word of God written to the Jews! I believe that the OT is very useful to today's Christian (for the above mentioned reasons). But haggling over the minor details of who did what to who and why in the OT stories, to me, has VERY little interest.

So what is it that you are stating? If it is "divinely revealed" does that mean it is inerrant?

Keep in mind that the OT is written by multiple authors. Inconsistencies may occur as always when multiple witnesses report a shared experience. These inconsistencies do not mutually exclude each witness testimony, but merely provides a different point of view. Bearing this in mind you will see that on matters of theological importance, the Bible is NOT contradictory.

Actually, eyewitness reports are terribly prone to error. There are many studies upon this subject. Besides which, what do you do when two accounts are in direct opposition? How do you reconcile the difference?

But taken together, though minor inconsistencies may creep in, 10 witnesses will usually give a more complete account of the major facts of an occurance than a single witness would.

The only reason 10 accounts are better than one is because commonalities can be found between them. Generally, in such cases, the differences are rejected as untrue or at least unverifiable. This, of course, ignores the possibility of collaboration or revision.

Look at the Kennedy assassination for instance. Just because the hundred or so witnesses do not agree 100% straight down the line about exactly what happened minute by minute in Dealy Plaza that day, are we to conclude that NONE of them are right? Or worse yet, that Kennedy wasn't even shot?

Great example. We can't even get a consensus about who shot JFK or why. If we cannot determine such simple and essential facts from this recent incident despite it being recorded on film and having been seen by hundreds of people how much more suspect are accounts written down decades after an event, thousands of years ago, and which was exclusively in the hands of those whose interest are suspect for a considerable time?

Please keep this in mind and you will see that so- called "contradictions" are simply either "minor inconsistencies" or misunderstandings of the text.

No. I don't see it that way. The contradictions are glaring and obvious. I find the attempts to reconcile these contradictions to be disingenuous and self-serving.

Lastly, I would point out that you really failed to address the main point of my previous post. You seem to simply be claiming that the discrepancies are interpretive, observational, or semantic in nature due to the fact that the Bible was written by many people. You avoided the entire question of veracity.

~Raithere
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top