Does Christianity endorse the Old Testement?

reply to post by In nothing we trust


I respect you for being honest with me. Thank you .

Let me say this, as I can only speak for myself.
Perhaps it should be considered that for those who call themselves christians that the things of the OT are not particularly required of you anymore. Infact, they are not even required by the Jews if they were to accept Chist as the messiah..

What I mean by this is that one should look at the old testament as the laying of a foundation for something greater. It is not an easy task to bring something large to fruition when it fights you everystep of the way the way the Jews fought against God.
However with the advent of Jesus came also a new covenant with the people..ALL PEOPLE.

When dealing with the jews I attempted to use my military analogy to try and bridge the gap where often times there is a communication problem. Theologically speaking the Jewish and Christian faith is about a war against a spirit of evil. A war required soldiers and to make a soldier you have got to be hard. Go to any military facility and watch as they scream about blood and stabbing under the general guidance of a yelling screaming lunatic known as their drill instructor. Once they graduate from the harshness of such training and later make it to a career, the same people screaming and demanding pain and suffering are now loving fathers with families and friendships. To claim that God can not be both is like saying a person cant be both.

I assume only that the Jews were being conditioned and trained in order to fulfill prophecy. Once this occurred the new covenant could then come into play, and with it a new message. Phase 2 if you will.

the idea that Christians can endorse the OT should probably be looked at in the sense that they believe it as biblical truth, as it was under the same God as the Jews. Though the line between Jew and Christian is drawn by prophecy, that prophecy is in the Christians point of view Jesus Christ.

reply to post by In nothing we trust


Ill make it plain and simple. There is a fight for your mind, so to speak. It is the last source of yourself that they cannot "take" away. It can be lost though, as any thing. The trick is not to get lost, if you catch my drift.

Originally posted by The Endtime Warrior
reply to post by In nothing we trust

 

Ill make it plain and simple. There is a fight for your mind, so to speak. It is the last source of yourself that they cannot "take" away. It can be lost though, as any thing. The trick is not to get lost, if you catch my drift.

Sounds like you need a rock to hold onto.

Something solid that does not change and withstands the tests of time.

reply to post by In nothing we trust


Indeed and I've touched on this before. Care to take a read?

The Last Philosophy...

Forget where you are, remember how you got here

The first 5 books of the Old Testament is called the Tanakh and used by Jews. Supposedly written by Moses. The 614 Levitical laws there do not have to be practiced in Christianity, because they werent given to the Gentile, they were given to Israel for Israel at that time in history.

The Old Testament reads like a detailed novel with lots of stories, geneology, and prophecy. Most of the prophecies are rehashed into Christianity, particularly end of the world prophecies, and those confirming Yahshua as Messiah. The story goes, God made a favorite people as an example to the world, but the Israelites fell away, practiced Idolatry and other bad things, and having civil war with their fellow tribes. By the end of it, theyve been taken off into exile, northern tribes to Assyria, and southern tribes to Babylon. This was because God's favor left them because they continually sinned and disobeyed.

Its like a warning, or a lesson, "Dont continually displease God or such terrible things can happen to you," Plus it is a historical reference, whereby many geneologies of real people were detailed and events detailed that we conform from historians of those days who werent Jewish, but Hellenistic, or Greek.

reply to post by runetang

Good historical post.
However the first five books are the Torah, and the whole OT the Tanakh (from what I've heard at least).
What do suppose displeases God (except for gay people and gay rights)?

Since the laws were not given to the gentiles by your argument, they cannot really displease Him then either.

Originally posted by runetang
The first 5 books of the Old Testament is called the Tanakh and used by Jews. Supposedly written by Moses. The 614 Levitical laws there do not have to be practiced in Christianity, because they werent given to the Gentile, they were given to Israel for Israel at that time in history.

The Old Testament reads like a detailed novel with lots of stories, geneology, and prophecy. Most of the prophecies are rehashed into Christianity, particularly end of the world prophecies, and those confirming Yahshua as Messiah. The story goes, God made a favorite people as an example to the world, but the Israelites fell away, practiced Idolatry and other bad things, and having civil war with their fellow tribes. By the end of it, theyve been taken off into exile, northern tribes to Assyria, and southern tribes to Babylon. This was because God's favor left them because they continually sinned and disobeyed.

Its like a warning, or a lesson, "Dont continually displease God or such terrible things can happen to you," Plus it is a historical reference, whereby many geneologies of real people were detailed and events detailed that we conform from historians of those days who werent Jewish, but Hellenistic, or Greek.

That sounds terrible. (Sinning, War, Terrible things, Exile, Slavery, Displease, Conform, etc)

I'm afraid just reading that.

I'm feeling better about athieism already.

In response to the original question: Christianity would have an awful hard time of dis-owning the old testament entirely -as pointed out the assumptions and events of the new testament (whether real, falsified or exaggerated) were claimed to have meaning because they 'fulfilled the prophecies' (my own paraphrase).

But now that most people are literate, science has explained many things that used to be mysterious and politics has enabled people to ask questions without fear of being tortured and executed, many of us are perceiving much of the OT as the transparent fabrications of local warlords seeking to control their followers and egg them on to bloody tribal turf wars.

Also, many people now form their sense of ethics outside of what the church tells them, and are much less likely to accept the horrific acts of violence, overt racism, slavery, subjugation of women, human sacrifice, punishment of innocents and all the rest of the things the OT condones as normal.

Naturally the church has had to back away, which it has been slowly doing since it's inception, but at no time as quickly as now.

But the institution of Christianity is highly schismed, maybe more so than any other religion. The various denominations differ greatly in how and how much they attempt to sweep the OT into the closet. I remember from my parents' Lutheran church how sanitized the whole affair is: it's all about Jesus and forgiveness there, when you occasionally do hear a verse from the OT it is usually a gentle parable of ordinary life, never a Mosaic exhortation to genocide or cursing this or that. But there are other denominations that aren't afraid to read the NC-17 rated sections of the OT to their children. And of course there is choice of material and style available to the individual doing the preaching as well.

We do see more of a preponderance of (often out of context) OT references from religious right wingers trying to advance their political agendas, with the mainstream of Christianity and especially the left gradually backing away from the OT.

Oh, and someone mentioned that "...St. Paul was an ex-Pharisee, or something". Hyam Maccoby has made an excellent case that Saul/Paul was in fact a failed Pharisee, who after flunking out of Pharisee college went to work as a political operative for the Sadducees ("The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity", Maccoby, Hyam; Harper-Collins; 1987)

Interesting originall question and discussion.

In regards to the original question what exactly do you mean by "endorse" the old testament?

Since the OT is a series of books that include law, history, poetry, and prophecy it's a little tough to quantify that.

However; from the laws of the books of Moses I once heard a pretty good explaination from a friend of mine who also is a Baptist minister.

He said that one of the primary functions of the laws of the OT was to make the idea of salvation through legalism and religous action utterly IMPOSSIBLE. God requires perfection, the law is essentially the guide to perfection. Since humans are fallable and cannot follow the law to perfection God sent Jesus as redemmer. By living the perfect life and conquering death one doesn't have to try to attain salvation by, "following the law" one has to only beleive and accept Christ's sacrafice. Essentially this whole and basic doctrine is what the book of Romans is about.

I think that's why many people have such a hard time with Christianity. Because in it's pureist form it isn't religion. Religon is imperfect man's attempt to reach to a perfectGod. FAITH in Christ is a perfect God's offer to reach us.

Originally posted by SpinOZA238

Oh, and someone mentioned that "...St. Paul was an ex-Pharisee, or something". Hyam Maccoby has made an excellent case that Saul/Paul was in fact a failed Pharisee, who after flunking out of Pharisee college went to work as a political operative for the Sadducees ("The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity", Maccoby, Hyam; Harper-Collins; 1987)

So these Sadducees and Pharisees they work for the CIA, Pentagon, Federal Reserve or something?

reply to post by SpinOZA238

I've changed my mind on the critical and literal readings of the OT.
In it's context there was nothing better about.
Were the Mayas, or the Greeks or Romans, or Babylonians any better?
So why single out the OT?

Sure, I wouldn't use it as a literal rule-book.
Rather it deliberately presents allegoric situations that challenge the reader morally.

The Bhagavad-Gita takes place on a battlefield, which presents Krishna with the opportunity to explain our true spiritual position.

So all spiritual texts seem harsh, because they do not value the physical body or its death very highly.
Even the New Testament is not much different.

So, the OT can be a wonderful tool.

Originally posted by SrWingCommander

In regards to the original question what exactly do you mean by "endorse" the old testament?

The title could have been rephrased, 'Does Christianity "Follow" the Old Testement?'

... one of the primary functions of the laws of the OT was to make the idea of salvation through legalism and religous action utterly IMPOSSIBLE. God requires perfection, the law is essentially the guide to perfection. Since humans are fallable and cannot follow the law to perfection God sent Jesus as redemmer. By living the perfect life and conquering death one doesn't have to try to attain salvation by, "following the law" one has to only beleive and accept Christ's sacrafice.

Well that's what I believe.

Why do they bother with the Old Testement?

Obviously the masses just aren't getting it.

Perhaps christianity just can't be taught?

I think that's why many people have such a hard time with Christianity. Because in it's pureist form it isn't religion.

Couldn't they just simplfy things?

It seems like such a complex belief system.

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
All the time I am seeing people quote the old testement and pinning it on Christianity.

I hear christian preachers quoting from the old testement.

So is christianity all about a belief in the old testement?

Has christian belief been intentionally perverted into something else entirely?

I recently asked a friend who is Baptist about the OT and he told me that they pay no attention to it at all. This in answer to my questions regarding what Leviticus says. You know, about how it's OK to sell your daughter into slavery and so on. So I guess they pick and choose what they like and hope that no one notices the parts about which they have no answers.

The Bible was written by men who knew far less than we do about the world and every man or woman living today has access to God which is equal to any of the "prophets" of the OT. It is a great mistake to give those authors more credence than that given to any other historical archivist.

This is the great mistake that religions make. And they make it all the time.

tt

Originally posted by trailertrash

... I guess they pick and choose what they like and hope that no one notices the parts about which they have no answers.

Well it seems like someone (CIA, DIA, etc) is releasing cliff notes, press releases and/or talking points on parts that they would like to have emphasised to the Christian masses.

i.e. Reguarding Homosexuality, Supporting Israel, Islamic fundementalists, etc

Originally posted by RuneSpider
I love the Old Testament. Slavery, rape, pillaging, incest, then they released the new edition which added zombies!

All that was in the old testament was approved by God... groovy fellow that is.

LMAOPMSL..

Sweet Zombie Jesus... as Professor Farnsworth would say

Well said

So these Sadducees and Pharisees they work for the CIA, Pentagon, Federal Reserve or something?

As Maccoby explains it, the Pharisees ran the schools, all the way from elementary through college level. They also administered some civil functions, although most civil functions were performed by non-clerical appointees. The Pharisees also acted as clergy, but at the level of your local pastor -not a bishop or cardinal or anything.

The Sadducees where an elite, semi-hereditary priest class concerned with running the temple, collecting the offerings and serving as high religious authorities (i.e. bishops-pope etc.).

There were far far more Pharisees than Sadducees. Maccoby argues that there was a wide range of political and social opinions among the Pharisees (for instance at one point in the new testament the Pharisees are in their official assembly debating about Jesus' claims, there seem to be a great deal of individuals and positions involved). One impression I get is that the ranks of the Pharisees would include what we now call "intellectual academia", but other viewpoints as well.

The Sadducees were small in number but very powerful. Think the Vatican, which in a theocracy includes elements of the presidency. Maccoby describes Paul as somewhere between an informant and mole for the Sadducee 'Secret Police' and a political activist for hire. The Sadducees would have been very concerned about Jesus' claims since it was a direct threat to their power.

Remember all this was against the backdrop of a Roman occupation, where the Romans allowed the Jews to administer their own internal religious functions as well as a good portion of civil affairs, as long as the taxes kept getting paid.

It has been over twenty years since I researched this stuff in depth, so I'm not exactly sharp on all the fine points. Maccoby was my primary source, but I consulted quite a few other books as well in an effort to verify.

When I was raised (many moons ago) Christianity endorsed the Old AND New Testaments. More and more these days, I see Christians discounting the Old Testament as the "old law". They say it doesn't apply to modern life. Neo-Christianity seems to embrace the New Testament and reject the Old, except, of course, for those few gems they cherry pick to support their modern-day prejudices, like homosexuality.

It was Saint Anthony who set up the whole preaching formant still use today.
He found similar teachings in both Old and New Testament where as the
Gospels of the New Testament centers around what Jesus says and did.
So Jesus knew His Old Testament even if some Genius finally put it all together.
Saint Anthony was given the task to solidify the Christian teachings against
any perversion so that is what we have today.
Those thinking otherwise just does not know the whole story.
ED: What is also nice about the Old Testament and ancient writings
is the Velakovsky findings that have no religious impact but makes
the godless scientist look quite dumb.