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.

[chrispalasz]

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

Cool. I'm excited.

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

??? - I'm confused. Old Testament = Old Covenant. They're the same thing... Greek to English = Covenant. Greek to Latin to English = Testament.

http://www.wesleymission.org.au/ministr ... 040815.asp

KEITH SUTER:
The second question is, shouldn’t the Old Testament and the New Testament really be called the Old Covenant and the New Covenant?

DR REV GORDON MOYES:
Yes indeed. In fact it is called the Old Covenant. You see the word Covenant, when it was translated into Latin, the Latin word for covenant is Testamentor…

KEITH SUTER:
Ahh right…

DR REV GORDON MOYES:
And the English translators translated it from the Latin and they took the Old Testamentum and took the New Testamentum. There are many people that will say there are two covenants, the Old covenant and the New Covenant. Not correct. There are at least five covenants, we read about the first covenant between God and Noah and when the world was destroyed by the great flood, Noah made a sacrifice and God made a covenant and said “He would never again destroy the earth” and the rainbow was a sign of that covenant. There was a covenant made with Abraham for example. That he would be a blessing to all the peoples of earth and so on and he would have descendants without number, like sands upon the shore. There was a covenant made with Moses and that was at Mount Sinai and most of our Old Testament is about Mt Sinai covenant. It meant that God would be the God of these people Israel if they obeyed Him, kept the Ten Commandments and worshipped Him only. Jesus came and they celebrated that with a Passover meal.
Now Jesus came and said this is the New Covenant in my blood, and we remember that every time we have communion. It’s a new agreement that not made with one race, but with the whole world for God’s so loved the world He gave for His only begotten son. It’s base not upon obedience to keeping the Ten Commandments but having faith in Jesus Christ. It is based not upon what happened on Mount Sinai, but upon Mount Calvary. It is quite correct to say that this is the Old Covenant, and this is the New Covenant, the word for covenant is Testamatur and that’s where we get our word testament

richic: 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 terms of the 10 commandments, etc.

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

Sorry. I think that maybe my point above has already been made.

Should Christians follow the Old Testament?

Everything in the Old Testament exists to show us that nothing we do can possibly reconcile us to God. When Jesus Christ came, He fulfilled the Old Testament. He was the final installment. In due time, God sent Him to be like: see? Check out history. Nobody is good. Nobody has followed God's commandments. Let me help you.

Christ proceeded to follow the Old Testament laws... perfectly, as they were meant to be followed. Because of this, we are able to also follow the Old Testament laws through receiving the Holy Spirit, being guided by it, and having Faith in Jesus.

The Old Testament was constantly misapplied and misinterpreted by everyone! Jesus was always correcting them. When they tried to condemn Him using scripture, He would use scripture to defeat them.

The Pharisees did nothing but read the TaNaK. They memorized it... yet Jesus would often say to them, "have you not read?". He knew very well that they DID read... but what he was saying THROUGH that is that if you have read but you don't understand... then you truly have not read. For what is the purpose of reading if not to gain understanding?

SO: Yes. Christians SHOULD follow the Old Testament... and we DO - through having Faith in Jesus Christ because He fulfilled the scriptures.

[samuelbb7]

While I agree with your points. I would point out that most Christians do not obey the ten commandments. In fact many of them teach they are done away with.

Do you know the Ten Commandments from Exodus 20 not the abbreviated version but the actual commandments. the average person can name only three. They are not even number the same by Catholics and Protestants. While the list is the same in all Bibles. The Catholic Catechism drops this one.

4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Do you know the other one that is not regard by most churches?

[arayhay]

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.

if you get rid of the so call ot you get rid of Messiah.

have you looked at the old covenant, it's a lot like the new covenant. the Torah [the complete OT] is written on the heart.

[Confused]

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.

Perhaps I am a bit muddled here (I am so good at that) but doesn't Christ Himself say that He wasn't here to change or eliminate the OT?

Matthew 5:17-20 The Fulfillment of the Law
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. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

[achilles12604]

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.

Perhaps I am a bit muddled here (I am so good at that) but doesn't Christ Himself say that He wasn't here to change or eliminate the OT?

Matthew 5:17-20 The Fulfillment of the Law
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. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Actually I think he expressly said he was NOT here to change or eliminate them. Word by word verse 17 says "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law".

However, I do believe that in fulfilling the law, Jesus did have a "cancelling" effect, in so much as he fulfilled the rolls taken on by people and animals. As for the specific rules and regulations, there is a passage right near the end of the OT which I believe summs it up nicely.

Jeremiah 31
31 "The time is coming," declares the LORD,
"when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.

32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them, "
declares the LORD.

33 "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time," declares the LORD.
"I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.

34 No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,'
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,"
declares the LORD.
"For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more."

I think this was a pretty clear cut-off point between the two covenants.

1) There will be a new covenant
2) The new covenant will not be like the old one
3) The old one was broken by the people, necessitating a new agreement.
4) The new covenant will be written on the hearts and minds of his people, rather than on parchments and stone.
5) The new covenant will usher in a personal relationship between man and God, rather than one facilitated by prophets and leaders.

These ideas are mirrored all of the New Testament and Jesus teachings. So I think that the OT and the NT will both be valid for their respective people, however the OT does not apply to the NT generations. The distinction is fairly clear between the two.

[micatala]

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.

if you get rid of the so call ot you get rid of Messiah.

have you looked at the old covenant, it's a lot like the new covenant. the Torah [the complete OT] is written on the heart.

I agree the new covenant is one to be written on the heart.

However, looking at the old, there are certainly many items that I do not think are of a nature as to be 'written on the heart.' There are some that are more like arbitrary proscriptions that almost no Christian today would consider relevant. They may have had a larger purpose at the time, but they are certainly not in and of themselves important, IMHO. I am talking about things like the dietary laws, not cutting your hair in certain ways, etc. Even NT "suggestions" like those found in Paul concerning women's hair etc. are much more cultural, IMV, than "eternal precepts to be written on the hearts of men."

[arayhay]

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.

if you get rid of the so call ot you get rid of Messiah.

have you looked at the old covenant, it's a lot like the new covenant. the Torah [the complete OT] is written on the heart.

I agree the new covenant is one to be written on the heart.

However, looking at the old, there are certainly many items that I do not think are of a nature as to be 'written on the heart.' There are some that are more like arbitrary proscriptions that almost no Christian today would consider relevant. They may have had a larger purpose at the time, but they are certainly not in and of themselves important, IMHO. I am talking about things like the dietary laws, not cutting your hair in certain ways, etc. Even NT "suggestions" like those found in Paul concerning women's hair etc. are much more cultural, IMV, than "eternal precepts to be written on the hearts of men."

oh so the dietary laws are not important ah. someone should tell Adam and Eve, they might not HAVE sinned after all.

[arayhay]

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.

Perhaps I am a bit muddled here (I am so good at that) but doesn't Christ Himself say that He wasn't here to change or eliminate the OT?

Matthew 5:17-20 The Fulfillment of the Law
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. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Actually I think he expressly said he was NOT here to change or eliminate them. Word by word verse 17 says "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law".

However, I do believe that in fulfilling the law, Jesus did have a "cancelling" effect, in so much as he fulfilled the rolls taken on by people and animals. As for the specific rules and regulations, there is a passage right near the end of the OT which I believe sums it up nicely.

Jeremiah 31
31 "The time is coming," declares the LORD,
"when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.

32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them, "
declares the LORD.

33 "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time," declares the LORD.
"I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.

34 No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,'
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,"
declares the LORD.
"For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more."

I think this was a pretty clear cut-off point between the two covenants.

1) There will be a new covenant
2) The new covenant will not be like the old one
3) The old one was broken by the people, necessitating a new agreement.
4) The new covenant will be written on the hearts and minds of his people, rather than on parchments and stone.

so was the old - to be written on the heart; Duet. 6:6 And these words, which I Command thee this day, shall be in thine heart.; 10:16 Therefore, circumcise the foreskins of your heart; and don't be stiffnecked any longer! THIS SOUNDS LIKE BEING BORN AGAIN TO ME.



5) The new covenant will usher in a personal relationship between man and God, rather than one facilitated by prophets and leaders.

i wonder, WAS HE PERSONAL with Israel ? And if the new covenant is fulfilled yet, or still to come? are prophets and leaders done away with now ?


These ideas are mirrored all of the New Testament and Jesus teachings. So I think that the OT and the NT will both be valid for their respective people, however the OT does not apply to the NT generations. The distinction is fairly clear between the two.

are they EXPLICIT / OR JUST IMPLIED; the mirrored teaching that is ?

read this; not subject to the Law of God ? http://yashanet.comlibrary/underlaw.htm

[micatala]

33 "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time," declares the LORD.
"I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.

34 No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,'
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,"
declares the LORD.
"For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more."

Doesn't this come at least pretty close to saying the Bible is, if not irrelevant, at least not necessary? If the law is written on our hearts and in our minds by God, this to me is saying that our 'inner witness' is more important than what was written on paper to other people hundreds or thousands of years ago.

Given nearly every Christian on the planet ignores at least parts of the OT, and often we offer rationale which are essentially equivalent to saying that we know in our hearts that we do not need to follow certain lawas, why do we not simply state up front that the OT is not to be considered binding?

[arayhay]

33 "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time," declares the LORD.
"I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.

34 No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,'
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,"
declares the LORD.
"For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more."

Doesn't this come at least pretty close to saying the Bible is, if not irrelevant, at least not necessary? If the law is written on our hearts and in our minds by God, this to me is saying that our 'inner witness' is more important than what was written on paper to other people hundreds or thousands of years ago.

Given nearly every Christian on the planet ignores at least parts of the OT, and often we offer rationale which are essentially equivalent to saying that we know in our hearts that we do not need to follow certain laws, why do we not simply state up front that the OT is not to be considered binding?

this is complete non-sense. but understandable. the currant demonstration of a lack of UNDERSTANDING of the relevance of the Taanach is the result of nearly 2000 yrs. of replacement theology, compounded by unrefuted allegory. To say that the so called ot is no longer binding, is an contradiction of the very scriptures that that reveal Who YHVH is and HOW We are to relate to Him; conaniah, fellowship and understanding. A blatant attempt to stripe YHVH of His authority. when The Word even says 'not to add too , or take away from ...'

really weird.