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.

[otseng]

Moderator intervention

so your point is one of very profound wisdom. YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW THE ANSWER. WOW.

YOUR JUST A MIND JOCKEY.

your mind could use a stretch.

if you have the capacity to look at the issue honestly , and put aside your bias, then do so.

Please avoid making personal comments directed at another poster. Simply present your facts and arguments without resorting to making comments about another.

[tentex25]

One of the things I have never understood about the OT and NT is they seem to contradict so much. You know the old saying "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." Then you have "turn the other cheek."

[Easyrider]

One of the things I have never understood about the OT and NT is they seem to contradict so much. You know the old saying "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." Then you have "turn the other cheek."

There's a New Covenant, tentex. An eye for an eye in that time was meant to be a measure of justice, so that the punishment for lawlessness fits the "crime." "Turn the other cheek" is more on a personal level than a state-system justice level. For justice via authorities for civil and state crimes read Romans chapter 13.

[micatala]

One of the things I have never understood about the OT and NT is they seem to contradict so much. You know the old saying "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." Then you have "turn the other cheek."

There's a New Covenant, tentex. An eye for an eye in that time was meant to be a measure of justice, so that the punishment for lawlessness fits the "crime." "Turn the other cheek" is more on a personal level than a state-system justice level. For justice via authorities for civil and state crimes read Romans chapter 13.

I think this is a reasonable point. An 'eye for an eye' was ensconced in Hebrew law while 'turn the other cheek' is more of a call to an 'ideal behavior', and even possibly a way to show love even to one's enemies.

If the larger point EZ is making is that the nature of the covenants is different, I also agree with this. The OT was about requirements. You must do this or you must not do that. The NT is about acting out of love. Thus, IMV, there are really very few, perhaps no, hard and fast 'behavior rules' in the new covenant. Acting in a certain way might be OK in some circumstances but not in others, partly based on the attitude of the person acting and partly based on the effects.

For example, in some cases confronting someone about their behavior might be considered acting in love and for the person's benefit. In other circumstances, even if the motivation is right, the person doing the confronting might be misguided or end up producing a worse effect than doing nothing. In this case, acting in love might dictate behaving differently. Certainly if the confrontation is not motivated by unselfish love, but rather is an exercise of personal or political authority, then it is likely not right.



The Romans passage in a nutshell is that believers should in general submit to the governing authorities, whatever they may be. One might make a case that there is an exception for 'extreme circumstances', especially if one brings in other passages like Acts chapter four.

18Then they called them in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. 19But Peter and John replied, "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God. 20For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard."

Again, it seems to me it is hard to make a hard and fast rule that would apply in all circumstances. Would we expect African slaves of the 19th century to willingly submit to the ruling authorities? Would they or their abolitionist allies be wrong in attempting to circumvent or defy those authorities?

[samuelbb7]

The Two love Commandments about love GOD and love your neighbor are both direct quotes from the Torah. Leviticus and Deuteronomy. So the difference is not love.

The difference is about a individual and a theocracy or government.

Secondly not all the law was the covenant. The Ten commandments are the basis of the covenant and the rest of the books was commentary and ways of living healthfully etc.

[arayhay]

Whether or not Adam and Eve were literally real as described in Genesis is not really on topic, but if you wish to debate it, we already have a thread devoted to Did Adam and Eve Exist?

then why did you bring it up ?

Actually I wasn't the one who brought it up, someone else had.

the point that i was trying to make, if you can grasp it is, that if someone wants to say that the dietary law is no longer relevant , then they have to explain why THIS one dietary law is still having such a PROFOUND effect on us all. sure you can say that they didn't exist, or this is not a dietary law. but your not being honest with your assessment. and it's very droll. what is it if not a dietary law ? a regulation, or a rule. maybe it's an ordinance, or order. but it's not a suggestion that will be obsolete in a few thousand years. because our culture is so different.

Just because something has had an effect which has made the world today different than it might have otherwise been does not mean it is still in effect.

Hitler and the effects he caused have changed the world. THis does not mean Hitler is still in power.

Slavery was once legal in this country and this fact has had repercussions that we are still living with today. However, slavery is no longer legal.

If you want to call the prohibition against eating the tree a dietary law, I guess that is fine, but that does not mean this law is still in effect. The tree is no longer there for one thing. THus, the law cannot possible 'still be in effect'.

In Acts chapter 15 and Romans chapter 14 we find that the dietary laws that all Jews were required to follow were no longer 'in effect' for believers in Jesus, arguably even for those who remained Jews.


Clearly, in the sense that believers are no longer required to follow all of these laws, they can be considered archaic.

if your talking about a rule, or law, or power that's one thing. But then if you neglect the consequences of that you annul your premiss. they can't be separated
just so we can ignore their validity.

first, lets start with how you put hitler and YHVH on par. they are not equals, so this is not a fare comparison to make.

secondly, just because the tree is not still available doesn't mean that the rule or law is done away with. for example; the Temple is no longer standing, but Moses says that after Israel has been scattered that if they are careful to obey all that he has instructed they to DO, that YHVH will restore the Nation and bring them back from where they are scattered. so the opportunity exists for Israel to obey ALL and that has to include the sacrificial Torah as well. i personally believe that Israel has to re-build a Tabernacle not the Temple for this to be fulfilled.

Is the tree still there ? No, but the CHOICE is.


thirdly, hitler's power is not the issue, his authority is the issue. YHVH still has authority the last time i checked.

lastly, when you say that hitler has caused effects on the world i agree. the consequences / or results have effected the world in numerous ways that i CAN'T ignore. this is the only leg your argument cant stand on. both what took place in the garden and what took place in WW II have INFECTED THE age THAT WE LIVE IN. but they are not UNDONE by the stroke of a keyboard.

[arayhay]

The Two love Commandments about love GOD and love your neighbor are both direct quotes from the Torah. Leviticus and Deuteronomy. So the difference is not love.

The difference is about a individual and a theocracy or government.

Secondly not all the law was the covenant. The Ten commandments are the basis of the covenant and the rest of the books was commentary and ways of living healthfully etc.

not all the law was the covenant. oh really. who do you think you are to say that ?

Jer. 31:31 on says that the law / Torah will be written on the heart. not some of it.

The difference is about the covenant being kept 100 %. the individual has ALWAYS been a keystone in the way YHVH deals with mankind.



matt. 5:18

[samuelbb7]

Dear arayhay

I am not in particular anybody. But this is what the Bible says.

Exd 34:27 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.
Exd 34:28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.


True each individual is responsible for their part. I agree. But the Covenant is also general ans made with the children of Israel which both the New and Old covenant are made with.

Like I said the Ten Are the basis and the rest is mostly filling in blanks. By the way I have read Jewish Rabbis say something similar.

Agape

[arayhay]

Dear arayhay

I am not in particular anybody. But this is what the Bible says.

Exd 34:27 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.
Exd 34:28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.


True each individual is responsible for their part. I agree. But the Covenant is also general ans made with the children of Israel which both the New and Old covenant are made with.

Like I said the Ten Are the basis and the rest is mostly filling in blanks. By the way I have read Jewish Rabbis say something similar.

Agape

duet. 27:8 And thou shalt write upon the stones all the words of this law very plainly.

ok the ten words are the foundation of the covenant with Israel.

the word law is Torah; instruction, teaching, revaluation, not legalistic observance of rules and regulations.

the ten commandments are instructions to guide Israel. not bind them. they are 'life' to them. and us if we are Israel.

i know your not saying that the law is is a bondage, but i'm using this train of thought to illustrate what most people thing is the reason that the law /Torah is not for today. read Duet. 29:15-29

the Torah can never be done away with unless all of it is fulfilled. that hasn't happened yet.