Should Christians follow the Old Testament?

[richic]

I started this because Otseng said so, and I just finished a bible study so I've got something on this.

The Old Testament was not nullified by Jesus, the Old Covenant was.

Essentially, prior to Jesus you would sacrifice an animal to receive forgiveness for a sin.

Jesus was the New Covenant, a perfect sacrifice, where all sins are washed away for eternity. The Old Covenant disappears as does the guilt stemming from the sins.

I think everything else in the OT still applied in term sof the 10 commandments, etc.

Then of couse there was the whole belief in Jesus thing.

[McCulloch]

If the OT is divine wisdom from the perfect triune unchanging creator God, then Christians would be irresponsible to ignore the teachings, examples and commandments of it.

[micatala]

If the OT is divine wisdom from the perfect triune unchanging creator God, then Christians would be irresponsible to ignore the teachings, examples and commandments of it.

I would agree with a couple of caveats and an emphasis on the 'if'.

First the if: Even if God is perfect and unchanging, the OT does not necessarily represent 'perfect divine wisdom'. Though inspired by God, the authors could have understood their inspiration imperfectly, and I would argue that since people are inherently imperfect, this is much more likely than not.

Secondly, even if God is unchanging, we as individuals and as a species and our various cultures are not. Thus, God might give wisdom which is relevant only for particular groups or for people at a particular time. This is not unlike a parent who might have a hard and fast rule that his children will pick up after themselves, but would communicate this and enforce this rule differently to his 3 year old than his 13 year old.

Thirdly, while I would agree that simply 'ignoring' what might be relevant information is not a good thing, I think there is a difference between cursorily dismissing a particular teaching versus giving careful and in depth consideration of various teachings that might be relevant and then deciding that one takes precedence over another, or that one truly is irrelevant for ones particular situation.

[achilles12604]

If the OT is divine wisdom from the perfect triune unchanging creator God, then Christians would be irresponsible to ignore the teachings, examples and commandments of it.

I would agree with a couple of caveats and an emphasis on the 'if'.



Secondly, even if God is unchanging, we as individuals and as a species and our various cultures are not. Thus, God might give wisdom which is relevant only for particular groups or for people at a particular time. This is not unlike a parent who might have a hard and fast rule that his children will pick up after themselves, but would communicate this and enforce this rule differently to his 3 year old than his 13 year old.

This is one of the best explainations (and simplist) that I have heard for the OT's differences. Well done. It makes good sense. Of course God would deal differently with a civilization of Nomades vs a structured nation.

I feel dumb for not thinking of this sooner.

[micatala]

If the OT is divine wisdom from the perfect triune unchanging creator God, then Christians would be irresponsible to ignore the teachings, examples and commandments of it.

I would agree with a couple of caveats and an emphasis on the 'if'.



Secondly, even if God is unchanging, we as individuals and as a species and our various cultures are not. Thus, God might give wisdom which is relevant only for particular groups or for people at a particular time. This is not unlike a parent who might have a hard and fast rule that his children will pick up after themselves, but would communicate this and enforce this rule differently to his 3 year old than his 13 year old.

This is one of the best explainations (and simplist) that I have heard for the OT's differences. Well done. It makes good sense. Of course God would deal differently with a civilization of Nomades vs a structured nation.

I feel dumb for not thinking of this sooner.

You are very kind!

It just seems to me that if one looks at the Bible as a whole, once can clearly see that the themes, teachings, messages, etc., have changed over time. Sometimes these changes are just a matter of emphasis, but sometimes there is really quite a change of direction. I don't see the point in trying to minimize or explain these away in order to shoehorn scripture into some pre-conceived notion of what the implications of an 'unchanging God' should be.

[McCulloch]

It just seems to me that if one looks at the Bible as a whole, once can clearly see that the themes, teachings, messages, etc., have changed over time. Sometimes these changes are just a matter of emphasis, but sometimes there is really quite a change of direction. I don't see the point in trying to minimize or explain these away in order to shoehorn scripture into some pre-conceived notion of what the implications of an 'unchanging God' should be.

Good! Now we can all abandon the idea of an absolute set of morals that must be from God.

[arayhay]

It just seems to me that if one looks at the Bible as a whole, once can clearly see that the themes, teachings, messages, etc., have changed over time. Sometimes these changes are just a matter of emphasis, but sometimes there is really quite a change of direction. I don't see the point in trying to minimize or explain these away in order to shoehorn scripture into some pre-conceived notion of what the implications of an 'unchanging God' should be.

Good! Now we can all abandon the idea of an absolute set of morals that must be from God.

it's one thing to say that the Torah is a 'living document' and quite another to say that it's antiquated. isn't there something in the Bible that says; 'don't let the world squeeze you [me] into it's mold.' also look at Isa. 29:16 the work doesn't say to the One Who Made it what's what.

[micatala]

It just seems to me that if one looks at the Bible as a whole, once can clearly see that the themes, teachings, messages, etc., have changed over time. Sometimes these changes are just a matter of emphasis, but sometimes there is really quite a change of direction. I don't see the point in trying to minimize or explain these away in order to shoehorn scripture into some pre-conceived notion of what the implications of an 'unchanging God' should be.

Good! Now we can all abandon the idea of an absolute set of morals that must be from God.

it's one thing to say that the Torah is a 'living document' and quite another to say that it's antiquated. isn't there something in the Bible that says; 'don't let the world squeeze you [me] into it's mold.' also look at Isa. 29:16 the work doesn't say to the One Who Made it what's what.

Just because someone is suggesting a change in interpretation of scripture does not mean that they are letting the world influence them. It could be that they are being inspired by God to correct the current erroneous understanding.


As far as being antiquated, I am wondering if you are willing to address a previous question.

Do you think Christians should feel obligated to follow all of the OT laws? Yes or no.

If no, which particular laws do you think Christians do not need to follow and why?

If you want to say that it would be preferrable or advisable but not required for Christians to follow all of the OT, then I think I would be largely in agreement with you, although there are certain items I would suggest it would actually be better for Christians not to follow (e.g. stoning people for various offenses).

Are not the dietary laws considered 'antiquated'? If not why not?

[arayhay]

It just seems to me that if one looks at the Bible as a whole, once can clearly see that the themes, teachings, messages, etc., have changed over time. Sometimes these changes are just a matter of emphasis, but sometimes there is really quite a change of direction. I don't see the point in trying to minimize or explain these away in order to shoehorn scripture into some pre-conceived notion of what the implications of an 'unchanging God' should be.

Good! Now we can all abandon the idea of an absolute set of morals that must be from God.

it's one thing to say that the Torah is a 'living document' and quite another to say that it's antiquated. isn't there something in the Bible that says; 'don't let the world squeeze you [me] into it's mold.' also look at Isa. 29:16 the work doesn't say to the One Who Made it what's what.

Just because someone is suggesting a change in interpretation of scripture does not mean that they are letting the world influence them. It could be that they are being inspired by God to correct the current erroneous understanding.


As far as being antiquated, I am wondering if you are willing to address a previous question.

Do you think Christians should feel obligated to follow all of the OT laws? Yes or no.

If no, which particular laws do you think Christians do not need to follow and why?

If you want to say that it would be preferrable or advisable but not required for Christians to follow all of the OT, then I think I would be largely in agreement with you, although there are certain items I would suggest it would actually be better for Christians not to follow (e.g. stoning people for various offenses).

Are not the dietary laws considered 'antiquated'? If not why not?

obligated, no, privileged and responsible yes. to be Torah OBSERVANT is both a responsibility and a privilege that Yahshua says is upheld, supported, dependant a-top two great foundational instructions; Love YHVH with all my heart and soul and strength; and the second is like it, love my neighbor as my self. commandments are not suggestions to pick and chose from.

Ex.5:2 And Pharaoh said, 'Who is YHVH that I should obey His voice ...

I realize that this would make christianity a sect of Judaism. that's what it should be.

let me ask you something; if easter is not about rabbit's and eggs and eating ham, but about the resurrection, why is the feast of unleaven bread not observed right after it. A. because easter is a replacement for the passover.

[arayhay]

Are not the dietary laws considered 'antiquated'? If not why not?[/quote]



lets ask Adam and Eve.

[micatala]

Are not the dietary laws considered 'antiquated'? If not why not?

lets ask Adam and Eve.

Didn't help. No response was forthcoming. This might be because Adam and Eve as actual personages never existed, but I am not sure. Perhaps you could find a cell phone number for me. I heard they were living in L.A.