Christians: does the new testament invalidate the old testament?

[Flyback]

(Please no insults on Christianity or religion in general, this is meant to be an informative fact-finding thread only.)

Does the new testament and the whole Jesus era make anything before that invalid? Do Christians still read the old testament as belief and a way of life, or can you be a Christian and only believe and follow the new testament?

What is the split like between different denominations on this--do some adhere and some not?

 

[nageov3t]

yes, more or less

 

[BigJ]

Invalidate is a strong word. A delicate way of saying it is that it changes the playing field quite a bit.

 

[Caveman]

Almost all "Christian" affiliations don't understand the validity of the OT in the context of the NT.

Most people don't understand that the original followers of "the way" based their beliefs on the OT (the "NT" wasn't written yet). The phrase "NT Christian" is a misnomer; there really isn't a such thing. If you discount the OT, you omit the premise/foundation for the latter books.

One of the proofs that the bible is "different" than any other literary work, is it's cohesivness throughtout the huge swath of time that it was penned, as well as the large number of authors who contributed. The OT and NT are just manmade names for different parts of the bible and have no other relevance. Once one drops their preconceived ideas about what they think the bible is, the truths that it contains are inescapable and follow a common thread throughout.

 

[Flyback]

Originally posted by: BigJ
Invalidate is a strong word. A delicate way of saying it is that it changes the playing field quite a bit.

Care to elaborate? Ambiguities suck when it comes to rules

 

[Flyback]

Originally posted by: Caveman
Almost all "Christian" affiliations don't understand the validity of the OT in the context of the NT.

Most people don't understand that the original followers of "the way" based their beliefs on the OT (the "NT" wasn't written yet). The phrase "NT Christian" is a misnomer; there really isn't a such thing. If you discount the OT, you omit the premise/foundation for the latter books.

One of the proofs that the bible is "different" than any other literary work, is it's cohesivness throughtout the huge swath of time that it was penned, as well as the large number of authors who contributed. The OT and NT are just manmade names for different parts of the bible and have no other relevance. Once one drops their preconceived ideas about what they think the bible is, the truths that it contains are inescapable and follow a common thread throughout.

I understand early followers were believers in the old testament.

To be Christian now, does one practice the rules listed in both books or just one? It sounds like you suggest that they are both the same body of work and should be treated as one? (and follow both to be Christian)

 

[Rastus]

Originally posted by: Flyback
(Please no insults on Christianity or religion in general, this is meant to be an informative fact-finding thread only.)

Does the new testament and the whole Jesus era make anything before that invalid?

When Jesus came to earth, he fulfilled the prophesies of the Old Testament. He also released the people that accepted him from the old laws and rules they had to follow.

Do Christians still read the old testament as belief and a way of life, or can you be a Christian and only believe and follow the new testament?

Some sects preach heavily from the Old Testament and some preach exclusively from the New Testament. For every variation between, there is probably a sect for it.

What is the split like between different denominations on this--do some adhere and some not?

Most sects are offshoots from a sect that came before. They usually broke off because they didn't like they way the leadership was selected after the original cult of personality had passed on.

 

[Flyback]

Originally posted by: Rastus

Originally posted by: Flyback
(Please no insults on Christianity or religion in general, this is meant to be an informative fact-finding thread only.)

Does the new testament and the whole Jesus era make anything before that invalid?

When Jesus came to earth, he fulfilled the prophesies of the Old Testament. He also released the people that accepted him from the old laws and rules they had to follow.

Do Christians still read the old testament as belief and a way of life, or can you be a Christian and only believe and follow the new testament?

Some sects preach heavily from the Old Testament and some preach exclusively from the New Testament. For every variation between, there is probably a sect for it.

What is the split like between different denominations on this--do some adhere and some not?

Most sects are offshoots from a sect that came before. They usually broke off because they didn't like they way the leadership was selected after the original cult of personality had passed on.

And the original Christian faith was...Catholicism? Or something else?

What is the most purest original form of Christianity? If one reads the new testament literally word for word and takes the rules as truth, would they be a Christian in the truest sense?

 

[Rastus]

And the original Christian faith was...Catholicism?

Yes, one of Jesus desciples (Paul) is considered the first Pope.

Or something else?

There were other early Christian sects, but since Paul was a witness to Jesus' ministry, they probably are offshoots from his church.[/quote]

What is the most purest original form of Christianity?

Probably when Jesus was walking. It's a lot more complicated than that though because of Old Testament and New Testament practices (baptism, sacrament, etc...) that take place.

If one reads the new testament literally word for word and takes the rules as truth, would they be a Christian in the truest sense?

Most Protestant sects make the claim that they follow the New Testament exactly as it is written and all others have it wrong. It's really a matter of opinion.

 

[Flyback]

If one reads the new testament literally word for word and takes the rules as truth, would they be a Christian in the truest sense?

Most Protestant sects make the claim that they follow the New Testament exactly as it is written and all others have it wrong. It's really a matter of opinion.

What do you mean, wrong? Opinion? If you read the original Greek scripture would it not be literal?

 

[jackace]

Rastus is right. The old testament contains the word of god, but the people were living the old law (sometimes to referred to as the lesser law). Jesus fulfilled that Law and introduced a new law (referred to as the higher law). The old testament has very "physical" requirements, such as blood sacrifices, eye for an eye, only walk so many steps on the sabbath, etc. After Jesus fulfilled that law, he introduced a new law that is more spiritual and more of a 1 on 1 relationship with God rather then following all the physically rigid laws of the old testament.

The basic teachings of the Old testament are still valid, but the laws followed are now those introduced by Jesus not those contained in the old testament.

 

[iamaelephant]

Originally posted by: Caveman
One of the proofs that the bible is "different" than any other literary work, is it's cohesivness throughtout the huge swath of time that it was penned, as well as the large number of authors who contributed.

Wait wait wait. Are you trying to claim that the Bible is especially internally consistent, more so than other works of that time? You don't really believe that do you? The Bible is a messy, garbled volume of inconsistencies and flat out contradiction. There is nothing "cohesive" about the 'good' book.

The Gospel of Luke claims that the miraculous birth of Jesus happened in a year when the Emperor Caesar Augustus ordered a census that happened when Herod reigned in Judea, yet it is well documented that Herod died 4 years BC. Furthermore, no Roman historian has ever recorded a census by Augustus.

The writers of the Bible disagree with one another on many key points, including the Sermon on the Mount, the anointing of Jesus and the treachery of Judas.

The Gospel of John tells us that Jesus was neither born in Bethlehem nor descended from King David.

And isn't it funny that Mary appears to have absolutely no memory of Gabriel's visitation or the swarm of angels telling her she is the mother of God? Don't you think maybe she would have a stronger memory of having become pregnant without having to go through the usual motions the circumstances demand?

Do you want me to go on? The internal inconsistencies and logical back-flips in the 'good' book are well documented. And this isn't to even speak of the ridiculous contradictions between the old and new testaments and the birds nest of crazy tale-weaving and reverse engineering required to square up the old testament prophecies with the events that actually did transpire. To claim that the bible is virtuous due to its own internal cohesiveness is dishonest to the highest degree - the 'good' book is neither virtuous nor cohesive in any way.

 

[compuwiz1]

Science, Christianity and Geeks do not mix.

The earlier you learn this, the better off you'll be.

 

[Analog]

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: Caveman
One of the proofs that the bible is "different" than any other literary work, is it's cohesivness throughtout the huge swath of time that it was penned, as well as the large number of authors who contributed.

Wait wait wait. Are you trying to claim that the Bible is especially internally consistent, more so than other works of that time? You don't really believe that do you? The Bible is a messy, garbled volume of inconsistencies and flat out contradiction. There is nothing "cohesive" about the 'good' book.

The Gospel of Luke claims that the miraculous birth of Jesus happened in a year when the Emperor Caesar Augustus ordered a census that happened when Herod reigned in Judea, yet it is well documented that Herod died 4 years BC. Furthermore, no Roman historian has ever recorded a census by Augustus.

The writers of the Bible disagree with one another on many key points, including the Sermon on the Mount, the anointing of Jesus and the treachery of Judas.

The Gospel of John tells us that Jesus was neither born in Bethlehem nor descended from King David.

And isn't it funny that Mary appears to have absolutely no memory of Gabriel's visitation or the swarm of angels telling her she is the mother of God? Don't you think maybe she would have a stronger memory of having become pregnant without having to go through the usual motions the circumstances demand?

Do you want me to go on? The internal inconsistencies and logical back-flips in the 'good' book are well documented. And this isn't to even speak of the ridiculous contradictions between the old and new testaments and the birds nest of crazy tale-weaving and reverse engineering required to square up the old testament prophecies with the events that actually did transpire. To claim that the bible is virtuous due to its own internal cohesiveness is dishonest to the highest degree - the 'good' book is neither virtuous nor cohesive in any way.

The OP asked that this not turn into a war on the bible. If you are not capable of contributing to the thread's question, then may I suggest that you keep your opinions to yourself, or create a new thread. This is not an attack on your beliefs (or lack of). I find it irritating to see such thread crapping.:frown:

 

[iamaelephant]

Originally posted by: Analog

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: Caveman
One of the proofs that the bible is "different" than any other literary work, is it's cohesivness throughtout the huge swath of time that it was penned, as well as the large number of authors who contributed.

Wait wait wait. Are you trying to claim that the Bible is especially internally consistent, more so than other works of that time? You don't really believe that do you? The Bible is a messy, garbled volume of inconsistencies and flat out contradiction. There is nothing "cohesive" about the 'good' book.

The Gospel of Luke claims that the miraculous birth of Jesus happened in a year when the Emperor Caesar Augustus ordered a census that happened when Herod reigned in Judea, yet it is well documented that Herod died 4 years BC. Furthermore, no Roman historian has ever recorded a census by Augustus.

The writers of the Bible disagree with one another on many key points, including the Sermon on the Mount, the anointing of Jesus and the treachery of Judas.

The Gospel of John tells us that Jesus was neither born in Bethlehem nor descended from King David.

And isn't it funny that Mary appears to have absolutely no memory of Gabriel's visitation or the swarm of angels telling her she is the mother of God? Don't you think maybe she would have a stronger memory of having become pregnant without having to go through the usual motions the circumstances demand?

Do you want me to go on? The internal inconsistencies and logical back-flips in the 'good' book are well documented. And this isn't to even speak of the ridiculous contradictions between the old and new testaments and the birds nest of crazy tale-weaving and reverse engineering required to square up the old testament prophecies with the events that actually did transpire. To claim that the bible is virtuous due to its own internal cohesiveness is dishonest to the highest degree - the 'good' book is neither virtuous nor cohesive in any way.

The OP asked that this not turn into a war on the bible. If you are not capable of contributing to the thread's question, then may I suggest that you keep your opinions to yourself, or create a new thread. This is not an attack on your beliefs (or lack of). I find it irritating to see such thread crapping.:frown:

I'm not thread crapping. Caveman told a blatant lie and I'm not going to let that slide.

 

[imported_LoKe]

Do tell: Do you work on the sabbath day?

 

[IamBusby]

Originally posted by: Analog

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: Caveman
One of the proofs that the bible is "different" than any other literary work, is it's cohesivness throughtout the huge swath of time that it was penned, as well as the large number of authors who contributed.

Wait wait wait. Are you trying to claim that the Bible is especially internally consistent, more so than other works of that time? You don't really believe that do you? The Bible is a messy, garbled volume of inconsistencies and flat out contradiction. There is nothing "cohesive" about the 'good' book.

The Gospel of Luke claims that the miraculous birth of Jesus happened in a year when the Emperor Caesar Augustus ordered a census that happened when Herod reigned in Judea, yet it is well documented that Herod died 4 years BC. Furthermore, no Roman historian has ever recorded a census by Augustus.

The writers of the Bible disagree with one another on many key points, including the Sermon on the Mount, the anointing of Jesus and the treachery of Judas.

The Gospel of John tells us that Jesus was neither born in Bethlehem nor descended from King David.

And isn't it funny that Mary appears to have absolutely no memory of Gabriel's visitation or the swarm of angels telling her she is the mother of God? Don't you think maybe she would have a stronger memory of having become pregnant without having to go through the usual motions the circumstances demand?

Do you want me to go on? The internal inconsistencies and logical back-flips in the 'good' book are well documented. And this isn't to even speak of the ridiculous contradictions between the old and new testaments and the birds nest of crazy tale-weaving and reverse engineering required to square up the old testament prophecies with the events that actually did transpire. To claim that the bible is virtuous due to its own internal cohesiveness is dishonest to the highest degree - the 'good' book is neither virtuous nor cohesive in any way.

The OP asked that this not turn into a war on the bible. If you are not capable of contributing to the thread's question, then may I suggest that you keep your opinions to yourself, or create a new thread. This is not an attack on your beliefs (or lack of). I find it irritating to see such thread crapping.:frown:

I don't think he's thread crapping. He's just pointing out the inaccuracies in his statement.

 

[jupiter57]

I am true, born again Christian, and I believe that Jesus brought us the true way to live a Christian life. Such as "It's not what goes into the mouth, but what comes out of the mouth" as words that make us righteous. It's not what you et, but what you say.
Though I DO have problem when the "Money Churches" go back to the old testament selectively, such s for "Tithing", or giving money to the church. But they somehow manage to overlook the other parts, such as eating shellfish or pork, as well as lots of other Old Testament teachings.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: Rastus

Originally posted by: Flyback
(Please no insults on Christianity or religion in general, this is meant to be an informative fact-finding thread only.)

Does the new testament and the whole Jesus era make anything before that invalid?

When Jesus came to earth, he fulfilled the prophesies of the Old Testament. He also released the people that accepted him from the old laws and rules they had to follow.

Do Christians still read the old testament as belief and a way of life, or can you be a Christian and only believe and follow the new testament?

Some sects preach heavily from the Old Testament and some preach exclusively from the New Testament. For every variation between, there is probably a sect for it.

What is the split like between different denominations on this--do some adhere and some not?

Most sects are offshoots from a sect that came before. They usually broke off because they didn't like they way the leadership was selected after the original cult of personality had passed on.

And the original Christian faith was...Catholicism? Or something else?

What is the most purest original form of Christianity? If one reads the new testament literally word for word and takes the rules as truth, would they be a Christian in the truest sense?

Technically, the original faith was judiaism... (it wasnt called christianity because christ wasnt born yet) and it was only available to the people of israel. After they failed in their many attempts to follow it (which may or may not have been pre-destined) in accordance with all that had been prophetically proclaimed, christ was born, died, and raised again, thus amending the original faith. It was now open to the jews and gentiles alike, and was to be preached to all nations. However, it cannot be said to completely replace the original faith, in the last days there will be a great falling away of the christian church, Israel will be restored, its temple will be rebuilt, the jews will realize and mourn because they rejected the messiah in his first coming adn they will again be the "chosen" people.

 

[dud]

Actually IMHO the NT validates the OT. The coming of Jesus Christ was fortold in the OT.

There are many Old Testament Bible prophecies that foretold and foreshadowed the life of Jesus Christ. The New Testament, which records the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, was written hundreds of years after the Old Testament had been written.

Examples include:

- The Messiah would be born in Bethlehem (Old Testament (Micah 5:2)) says:
"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."

- The Messiah would be betrayed by a friend (Old Testament (Psalms 41:9)) says:
Even my close friend, whom I trusted, he who shared my bread, has lifted up his heel against me.

- The betrayal money thrown in the temple and given for a potters field (Old Testament (Zechariah 11:13)) says: "And the Lord said to me, "Throw it to the potter"--the handsome price at which they priced me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the Lord to the potter."


these are but a few examples that I have found ...