Do all Christians reject the Old testament?
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
"Rejected" is not the proper word. The majority of Protestant Christians look upon the OT as a reference guide as to how things WERE prior to the establishment of Christianity and the path it outlines leading up to that establishment.
They also believe that the various laws and regulations found in the OT have been replaced by those commandments found in the NT.
Till Eulenspiegel
Registered Member
I am Christian and I don't reject the Old Testament. However the Old Testament has been superceded by the New Testament. The Old Testament is considered a mixture of law, history and literature. It is a history of the covenant between Yaweh and the Hebrews.
The New Testament is a new covenant between God and man in which God says that since man cannot fulfill the law God has sent his son to fulfill it for us.
The two testaments compliment each other.
The New Testament is a new covenant between God and man in which God says that since man cannot fulfill the law God has sent his son to fulfill it for us.
The two testaments compliment each other.
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
Jesus upholds the law of his forefathers. Cancelling it out was an idea dreamed up by Paul, who wanted to sell his new religion to the gentiles.
Modern day Christians need a creation story, so they cant toss out the OT entirely.
So what they end up with is something that looks like de-classified UFO documents...with the naughty bits blanked out.
Modern day Christians need a creation story, so they cant toss out the OT entirely.
So what they end up with is something that looks like de-classified UFO documents...with the naughty bits blanked out.
Agreed. SAM, "Testament" means "covenant", basically a defined relationship between Man and God. With Jesus arrives a new Covenant. It defines salvation through faith and how that related to the Law revealed in the OT.
The OT has three parts, historical, poetical, and prophetic. Christians reference the OT quite a bit. As said above, they complement each other.
SAM, you really should read the New Testament some time. It talks about developing a very personal relationship with God, more to do with what's in your heart than following rules. You will find God to be personal, knowable, and loving, not a distant, unreachable authority.
Christians cherry-pick the OT, SAM. When it suits them, they're able to find the right words to justify their bigotry. When it doesn't, they remind their critics that the NT "supersedes" the OT.
Its disingenuous and hypocritical to say the least. Its also fun to watch Christians jostle with Matthew 5:18-19, in which the alleged messiah is supposed to have said not one iota or dot will "pass from the law" (the OT).
Has all been accomplished? Do adulterers still get stoned to death? Can I stone my neighbor to death for not keeping the Sabbath? Deuteronomy 13:6-15 says I should kill those that worship other gods. It even says that we can put to the sword whole cities of people that worship other gods. Is that how the Bush administration justified bombing Iraq? Probably not, but it gives one pause...
Now watch as the apologists find apology for Matthew.
Its disingenuous and hypocritical to say the least. Its also fun to watch Christians jostle with Matthew 5:18-19, in which the alleged messiah is supposed to have said not one iota or dot will "pass from the law" (the OT).
Has all been accomplished? Do adulterers still get stoned to death? Can I stone my neighbor to death for not keeping the Sabbath? Deuteronomy 13:6-15 says I should kill those that worship other gods. It even says that we can put to the sword whole cities of people that worship other gods. Is that how the Bush administration justified bombing Iraq? Probably not, but it gives one pause...
Now watch as the apologists find apology for Matthew.
Fred Phelps is certainly a Christian. You'll probably never find a bigger fan of the OT than him. Hear him in his own words He pays very close attention to what the bible actually says.
Last edited:
*************
M*W: The catholic church has readings from the OT as well as the NT, so they still make an effort to give the OT its due during Mass.
M*W: The catholic church has readings from the OT as well as the NT, so they still make an effort to give the OT its due during Mass.
Some of them, Skin. Thankee.
Sorry, but I've never heard this anywhere as being the entire OT. Commandments only.
Yes, apparently. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", and so forth.
Is he? He doesn't seem to have cottoned to the not stoning and being an asshole thing.
(Insert title here)
Not entirely. Er ... I think. But it of great importance in the American debate about religion. I cannot, at present, locate the volume, but the arrival of a book on my doorstep earlier this year prompted a topic in which I discussed the Ten Commandments. The book's authors are the president of 3ABN, a Christian television network, and one of the program hosts. In arguing about the Ten Commandments, they raise a point about whether or not the decalogue was "nailed to the cross" with Jesus. Unfortunately, I didn't reproduce that portion of the text in the aforementioned topic, and if I dig up the book anytime soon, I'll try to post some of the relevant information.
But the argument about the status of the Old Testament comes up in the Sabbatarian debate, which is at the heart of Shelton and Quinn's consideration of the Commandments. Christians who go to church on Sunday are violating a commandment. I know, it sounds like a minor point, but the Sabbatarian Christians are kind of creepy on this point. I once read a Seventh-Day Adventist tract about how the U.N. would enforce a national Sunday law in the United States, rounding up all the Sabbatarians and throw them into tiger cages to await their execution in the electric chair. Thankfully, I've toked a good portion of that memory away; it was really scary to think that people actually believed that kind of crap, and a bit frustrating to think they're allowed to inflict that kind of paranoia on their children.
As to the topic post:
The short answer is that it depends on the Christian. But I went out in search of a website and found one of my own posts—the one with the text I was hoping for—first. For some reason, I thought it was a lot older than April, 2005. Anyway, once upon a time, I wrote:
At any rate, that post relies heavily (entirely) on a website called "Bible Research: Internet Resources for Students of Scripture". In the above-linked post, there are citations regarding the New American Standard Bible, Revised Standard Version, and New Revised Standard Version that discuss the Old Testament. It's easier to point you to them than reproduce the citations here.
It should, hopefully, be enough to say that the question of the Old Testament often has to do with its historical context. Some Christians tend to treat the Hebrew experience—described in the OT—as a necessary precursor to, and therefore part of the Christian experience of the NT. Others don't see it as quite so necessary. If the Hebrew experience is a necessary precursor, then the OT needs to be reconciled with the NT. That reconciliation is at the heart of the dispute over translations I noted a couple of years ago.
It should be noted, also, that such a reconciliation is more important if one is given to believe in premillennial dispensationalism, or, simply, the belief that the Jews have a necessary role in the Second Coming of Christ. To let Bill Maher tell it:
I've linked before to Michelle Goldberg's talk at Elliott Bay Book Company in Seattle. She addresses toward the end the idea of premillennial dispensationalism; I recommend the talk for general consideration, but part of the relevant discussion is as follows:
S.A.M. said:
Not entirely. Er ... I think. But it of great importance in the American debate about religion. I cannot, at present, locate the volume, but the arrival of a book on my doorstep earlier this year prompted a topic in which I discussed the Ten Commandments. The book's authors are the president of 3ABN, a Christian television network, and one of the program hosts. In arguing about the Ten Commandments, they raise a point about whether or not the decalogue was "nailed to the cross" with Jesus. Unfortunately, I didn't reproduce that portion of the text in the aforementioned topic, and if I dig up the book anytime soon, I'll try to post some of the relevant information.
But the argument about the status of the Old Testament comes up in the Sabbatarian debate, which is at the heart of Shelton and Quinn's consideration of the Commandments. Christians who go to church on Sunday are violating a commandment. I know, it sounds like a minor point, but the Sabbatarian Christians are kind of creepy on this point. I once read a Seventh-Day Adventist tract about how the U.N. would enforce a national Sunday law in the United States, rounding up all the Sabbatarians and throw them into tiger cages to await their execution in the electric chair. Thankfully, I've toked a good portion of that memory away; it was really scary to think that people actually believed that kind of crap, and a bit frustrating to think they're allowed to inflict that kind of paranoia on their children.
As to the topic post:
The short answer is that it depends on the Christian. But I went out in search of a website and found one of my own posts—the one with the text I was hoping for—first. For some reason, I thought it was a lot older than April, 2005. Anyway, once upon a time, I wrote:
In short, it seems there's much debate to be had about whether or not the Old Testament should be treated in its own historical context, or presumed to be a natural precursor for the New Testament. By the former, variation and even contradiction between the two scriptures is acceptable, and even expected. By the latter, though, it is problematic.
Curiously, the question plays to accommodate that same bloc of Christians I mentioned earlier. It is an issue of simplification: some Christians presume that there must necessarily be complete harmony between the testaments, and that presumption is simply unacceptable.
For centuries, many Christians have looked past the arrhythmia of the Old Testament, the ministry of Christ, and the Pauline evangelization. Much of the problem comes from trying to manage the detail of discordant testaments that are supposed to be in complete agreement. The authors of the Old Testament didn't write as part of the Christian experience, the Jews of Christ's day obviously rejected the ministry, and today's Jews don't recognize that continuity else they would be Christians. We have no reason at all to expect complete harmony between Hebrew and Christian testaments. Only the Christians have a stake in establishing that continuity.
It's hard to find mention of the presumption in the King James Version; such a presumption does not seem to be an issue until the 20th century. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems the issue only came up after someone dared consider the Old Testament in its own context.
Generally speaking, I consider the presumption that the Old and New Testaments must necessarily be in harmony a strike against any given Biblical consideration that might require it. If virgins and forthwith are important enough contextual considerations to argue about, what of the fundamental presuppositions to which a translation is expected to agree?
(Tiassa)
Curiously, the question plays to accommodate that same bloc of Christians I mentioned earlier. It is an issue of simplification: some Christians presume that there must necessarily be complete harmony between the testaments, and that presumption is simply unacceptable.
For centuries, many Christians have looked past the arrhythmia of the Old Testament, the ministry of Christ, and the Pauline evangelization. Much of the problem comes from trying to manage the detail of discordant testaments that are supposed to be in complete agreement. The authors of the Old Testament didn't write as part of the Christian experience, the Jews of Christ's day obviously rejected the ministry, and today's Jews don't recognize that continuity else they would be Christians. We have no reason at all to expect complete harmony between Hebrew and Christian testaments. Only the Christians have a stake in establishing that continuity.
It's hard to find mention of the presumption in the King James Version; such a presumption does not seem to be an issue until the 20th century. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems the issue only came up after someone dared consider the Old Testament in its own context.
Generally speaking, I consider the presumption that the Old and New Testaments must necessarily be in harmony a strike against any given Biblical consideration that might require it. If virgins and forthwith are important enough contextual considerations to argue about, what of the fundamental presuppositions to which a translation is expected to agree?
(Tiassa)
At any rate, that post relies heavily (entirely) on a website called "Bible Research: Internet Resources for Students of Scripture". In the above-linked post, there are citations regarding the New American Standard Bible, Revised Standard Version, and New Revised Standard Version that discuss the Old Testament. It's easier to point you to them than reproduce the citations here.
It should, hopefully, be enough to say that the question of the Old Testament often has to do with its historical context. Some Christians tend to treat the Hebrew experience—described in the OT—as a necessary precursor to, and therefore part of the Christian experience of the NT. Others don't see it as quite so necessary. If the Hebrew experience is a necessary precursor, then the OT needs to be reconciled with the NT. That reconciliation is at the heart of the dispute over translations I noted a couple of years ago.
It should be noted, also, that such a reconciliation is more important if one is given to believe in premillennial dispensationalism, or, simply, the belief that the Jews have a necessary role in the Second Coming of Christ. To let Bill Maher tell it:
I've linked before to Michelle Goldberg's talk at Elliott Bay Book Company in Seattle. She addresses toward the end the idea of premillennial dispensationalism; I recommend the talk for general consideration, but part of the relevant discussion is as follows:
Last edited:
If you listen to him, it quickly becomes apparent that the god he worships is a vindictive asshole.
By the tone of this I can just imagine SkinWalker's face turning red with veins popping out everywhere. Sure I'll offer an apology - for SkinWalker's rant. SAM, if you really want to understand Christianity, ask a Christian.
No, Only in Islam, no, no it doesn't, no it doesn't, no.
Yes I would give pause anytime SkinWalker tries to explain the Bible.
Could you point me to some threads where Christians are having trouble understanding this? Have you considered the problem is in your not understanding the explanation?