question(s) about the old testament

do people still follow it? i didn't think they did, but i asked a friend of mine and she said there's lots and lots..

but if Jesus is God, and doesn't come into the picture until the New Testament, why follow the Old?

or if Jesus isn't God and only his son (whatever you believe), didn't his teachings in the New Testament make the Old Testament irrelevant?

 

But if he weren't son of god etc. then would not the new testament be irrelevant?

 

^no, not necessarily. In the early days of the church, there were people who did not see Jesus as god, just as a man who was somehow special, enlightened, or given special knowledge. I think they were called Arians. Their teachings were eventually, after a council (Nicea?), banned as heresy.

I think, then, that in that case, Jesus was the son of god inasmuch as we all are.

 

When Jesus had just died, a lot of people were running around wondering what the deal was with jesus- was he really the messiah? questions like that.. lets remember all his followers were jewish... anyway, paul/peter/guy (i forget. hes the one seen as the founder of the christian church) was actually running around saying "jesus was the messiah, the end of days are coming, so we don't actually have to worry about following the commandments anymore! huzzah!" and the like.
People that followed his lead are seen as the very first christians. They didn't think they needed to follow the old testament rules (jews have 613 commandments), in such detail, so they eventually adopted the 10 commandments instead. The 10 commandments are, of course, entirely from the old testament.

So both yes and no- no, christians do not entirely follow the old testament. no, they don't exactly need to because jesus taught the commandments set out in the old testament anyway (although, of course, the new testament does not cover all of what jesus said, nor does jesus cover the commandments comprehensively in it).

Your third question seems a tad misguided. Christians believe in the holy trinity- G-d, jesus, and the holy ghost. So yes, confusing, jesus is his own father. But even if jesus erred from the teachings in the old testament, he would not have contradicted g-d because most of the old testament is not g-d telling people what to do. The old testament is largely composed of a number of fables and stories, some of which do not even include g-d. These fables and stories have been analysed in depth by a number of figures, who came up with the 613 commandments which jews follow. Although christians do not follow the 613 commandments, they follow the 10 commandments which were delivered to Moses at Sinai in the old testament. Even if christians did not follow those, they would by implication because they formed the basis of Jesus' teachings. But i repeat myself.

 

Romans 7:6
But now we are delivered from the law (the OT), that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

Colossians 2:14
14Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances (the law/OT) that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

The OT is still very important to christians, of course, with the prophecies and Jesus, but now we are under a new Covenant.

 

both books are full of shit.

 

I think that the first 11 chapters of genesis is of course still on. They tell about historical neccessities. Creation, fall, first human couple, first wrong doing, first kill, separation of nations.

Then there is the calling of abraham. It is nice that bible tells us that there was none left who really served God. God just called one idol worshipper who answered to that call and made a nation out of him. I think many israelis or christians do not remember this, neither they read about the words Ezekiel to the Israel of today (Ezekiel 33:23-26). So to that point I think it is neccessarely to read the OT.

But of learning all of the Old I dont think is needed. The gospel is about God giving a sacrifice to redeem men. Every nation have had some sacrifices, so the OT is not needed to make that thing clear. Usually people who accept Christ as their saviour do not know anything about OT. Why to make them learn all of the Old covenant, when new is based on the fulfilled sacrifice, the law of love and the guidance of the apostolic teaching and the Holy Spirit? I have found it myself very confusing, though I have not abandoned it. I can still feel the spirit in it.

An then there is the point of the prophecies, but I dont think they are absolutely needed. When you have a relationship with a living Christ, what more can prophecies do to you?

And still one thing about the LAW. When in the old and the new testament people talk about the law, it is many times speaking of the five books of Moses or even the whole OT. Sometimes not, only the commands. But when Jesus said he didnt come to abandon the law but fulfill it, it is (as I understand it) speaking of fulfilling the prophecies told in the law. And when it is said that nothing is taken from the law until everything is in the end, it concerns also the promises of God given in the books of law, not some specific commands.

 

Well..namely, the Jews. Additionally, Christians. The OT (Pentateuch, "history" books, Wisdom literature and the Prophets) is the beginning of God's story in Christian tradition, with Jesus of Nazareth as the fulfillment of the position of messiah/savior. However, Jesus was not the kind of messiah that the Hebrews expected. He was not a king, he did not have political power, and he kept breaking the laws of cleanliness that the Law of the Pentateuch (the first five books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy,) prescribed.

Again, Jesus fulfilled the Law, not destroyed it. Matthew 5:17: Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Wetbikerider, thank you for your helpful contribution. Very friendly and informative.

 

It's held in reserve to support the innate prejudices of the weilder.

It says in the OT, in Leviticus, (literal translation) that anyone who lies with another man in the bed of a woman shall be put to death. That's typically translated as "lies with another man AS with a woman" which is then subsequently translated to "GAYS MUST DIE".

It also sez that you shouldn't eat lobster.

Guess which of the two gets trotted out by pompadoured fat white guys who are uptight and seeking to get as involved with politics as their churches?

 

So are you talking about Jews here as well since the Hebrew Scriptures, commonly known as the Old Testament, are looked to as Scripture by Jewish people..the Tanakh.... Or just us Christians? (Since it's so obvious that we're all fat white guys )

 

Yeah, Ive always understood that part to be speaking out about male bisexuality, (and/or husbands having extramarital sex with men). It later goes on to say gay male prostitutes are outlawed, for much the same reason. There's nothing in the bible speaking out against gay men, and its actually really understanding/tolerant of lesbians. It drives me nuts how you get these ignorant twats on tv, with a massive following, who don't actually know what the bible says or means.. they just exploit it and take it out of context. Bastards. Might i also add that when christians took the old testament from the jews they ignored book upon book of explanatory text- hence the many misunderstandings today.

 

The old testament is just as screw up as the newer christians bible.

 

RE: Yeah, Ive always understood that part to be speaking out about male bisexuality,

Or, considering that the rest of Leviticus is about purity (don't put two crops in the same field, two dissimilar animals in the same yoke, two dissimilar cloths in the same garment etc) the notion of NOT riveting a guy in a woman's bed (where procreation takes place) makes sense. I mean, look at David and Jonathon --- those two were up to something. And they embraced naked and kissed each other until they both exceeded.... right...

RE: (and/or husbands having extramarital sex with men). It later goes on to say gay male prostitutes are outlawed, for much the same reason.

Actually the quote is "no homosexual of the sons of Israel, no prostitute of the daughters of Israel" actually that refers to temple prostitution - a foreign religious practice to a foreign God the Yahwists thought repulsive. The word they use that gets translated as "homosexual" actually means "anointed" and referrs to the male temple prostitute. In the same sentence they use the word for the female equivalent, go figure.

 

Yes. You've hit the nail on the head. The key word here people is TV/TELEVISION.

Just as the "Real World" on MTV is not a true representation of your reality, not all Christians are like the ones you see on tv. I think many are not actually..I'm working with Christians literally everyday.

It seems like a lot of people on this site believe everything they're seeing on tv, which really surprises me.

 

it's an excuse to make it all seem bogus. None of the CHristians i know (and i know alot) are like the CHristians you see on TV. Television is Satan's greatest tool. It gets our attention off of eachother, and on to the idiot box on the wall, so we can open our minds and dump the garbage in. The more garbage, the more lies...the more lies, the less room for truth.

 

the old testement is the laws that people hadto keep in order to be right with god, then jesus came in the new testement and made a new covenant or promise-some of the religious laws were no longer nessisary but some of the things that were taught are echoed in the new testement

 

I have always thought of the Old Testament as the story of the evolution of Judaism's understanding of the divine. Just like Western History, at least since the Renaissance, has been the story of the evolution of Europe's and America's understanding. Both the Old Testament and Western History are full of stories of false starts, ignorance, violence, and tragedy, as well as brilliant, enlightened developments in the way humans live in relation to reality.

The good news is both stories are part of a bigger picture. One that hopefully, in the balance, continues to unfold and develop and evolve into something better.

Peace and Love

 

Right on brother!!!

 

Varuna, isn't it the same for the New Testament? Just another step in the understanding of the Jews? Admittedly, not all the Jews agreed, but for some of them this was a further step.

I just don't see why the Old Testament is suddenly unimportant and just history, while the New Testament is the holy word of God. Didn't God say all the stuff in the OT? Is it suddenly unimportant? Isn't God immutable (unchaging)?

If God isn't immutable, then maybe the Muslims are right and Mohammed's teachings were an even further step in the understanding. After all, if the OT can be tossed out by the NT, what's to stop the NT from being tossed out for the Qur'an?

 

Whoever said the Old Testament was "suddenly unimportant and just history"? Isn't the understanding of the reader an important part of the story, an important part of every story?

Yes, of course. But do you honestly think (or believe) that you or I or anyone has a complete consciousness of the divine? Isn't there always more depth of knowledge to be understood?

Well, for Muslims, and for everyone, the Qur'an certainly is a valuable step in the understanding of the divine. It is wise to recognize that the Qur'an does not negate any additional understanding of the divine.

Whoever said it has to be an either/or situation?

To point out the obvious, if you pick up any copy of the Holy Bible, you'll notice that both the Old Testament (The Jewish Holy Scriptures) and the New Testament are always present.

In my library, I have at least two translations each of the Bible (KJV, NIV), The Qur'an (Pickthall, Ali), The Bhagavad Gita (Mitchell, ?), The Tao Te Ching (Jane English, King) and The Dhammapada (Easwaran, ?). When you realize that they are all talking about the same thing, then each becomes more valuable and complementary to the others.

With this thought in mind, I would suggest to anyone who is genuinely interested that they read each of these, regardless of which one they read and understood and believed first.

As is certainly the case with the religions represented through each of these books, each may have a different emphasis that served to address the needs of the time and place and people for which they were written, but they are all talking about the same thing. When you realize this, then the whole point of reading this stuff comes into focus just a little bit more clearly.

Peace and Love