The Old Testament in Christianity

Dave!

Hey folks,

I'm hoping ye can clear something up for me. I'm trying to establish what the various Churches, and the New Testament's, belief is with regards the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible.

Most Catholics seem to distance themselves from it because of the brutal nature of the god described in it. But I'm sure I heard or read somewhere that the New Testament commands Christians to respect and adhere to the laws, etc., in the Old Testament. Maybe someone could clarify this?

Does the RC Church use the OT as well as the NT? I don't remember that far back, so I don't recall if priests recite readings from the OT during mass.

Or was the OT discarded in one of the Councils centuries ago?

Excelsior

All Christian denominations hold the 39 books of the Old Testament as Holy Scripture. The Roman Catholic Church, rather than discarding it, actually hold 5 more books called the Apocrypha to be Scripture too.

Christians believe the God of the Old Testament is the same God as the New Testament. As a fun game, guess where these two quotes come from,

"For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings."

"But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves."

To clarify the relationship: Jesus clearly believed in the God of the Old Testament and claimed that he was this same God made flesh. Christians take the Hebrew Scriptures as equally vital as the New Testament.

Dave!

hmmm, now that I think about it a bit more it seems obvious that since Jesus was a Jew, and there was no New Testament until after he died, that it must have been the god of the Old Testament, Yahweh, that he was talking about while he was alive. Am I understanding that correctly?

Tim Robbins

DaveMcG wrote:

hmmm, now that I think about it a bit more it seems obvious that since Jesus was a Jew, and there was no New Testament until after he died, that it must have been the god of the Old Testament, Yahweh, that he was talking about while he was alive. Am I understanding that correctly?

The Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches all differ on whether Jesus had a brother or not.
The Greek Orthodox say it was a half brother, The Roman Catholic say he didn't have a brother and some Protestant Churches say Jesus had a normal brother. This is all based on how passages are interpreted by different Churches.

They all just read from the NT although some of the Protestant teach the OT at Sunday school and Roman Catholics learn the OT in School.

Although unfortunately facts like how 2 copies of 10 million species can fit on a boat which has no archeological evidence are usually just put as God did it.

Excelsior

Dave, I think you are right on the button and answering the question in a very profitable manner. Remembering Jesus was a Jew is something that Christians sometimes neglect to do and most sceptics often neglect to do. Without this lens to examine Jesus through, pretty much every portrait you paint will be an anachronism.

To answer the little puzzle I gave you, the first quote was from the Old Testament prohpet Hosea and the second was from Peter's 2nd Letter, which is (obviously) in the New Testament.

TR, while I appreciate the socio-historical question of Mary's perpetual virginity or lack thereof you are wildly off the mark when you say that Catholics merely teach the Hebrew Scriptures in school and that some Protestant churches teach it in Sunday School. The Old Testament forms a vital part of the common worship of all the Christian churches. There is always a reading from the Hebrew Scriptures in the liturgy of the mass and the Protestant churches don't just teach it in Sunday school. The last sermon I preached was on Leviticus 25, for example.

Finally, your massive generalisation regarding Noah's Ark is laughable. It would be good of you to back up your points. I have never heard any Christian describe Genesis 5-9 in the terms you have used.

Tim Robbins

Excelsior wrote:

TR, while I appreciate the socio-historical question of Mary's perpetual virginity or lack thereof you are wildly off the mark when you say that Catholics merely teach the Hebrew Scriptures in school and that some Protestant churches teach it in Sunday School. The Old Testament forms a vital part of the common worship of all the Christian churches. There is always a reading from the Hebrew Scriptures in the liturgy of the mass and the Protestant churches don't just teach it in Sunday school. The last sermon I preached was on Leviticus 25, for example.

Fair enough, I accept your point there. It was the way I described anytime I went to any of them.
Do you ever read any of the more brutal passages from the OT and if so how do they go down?

Finally, your massive generalisation regarding Noah's Ark is laughable. It would be good of you to back up your points. I have never heard any Christian describe Genesis 5-9 in the terms you have used.

The point is based on God creating all species i.e. no evolution as evolution is not mentioned or explained in the Bible.
That would mean all 10 million species were on the boat. Quite a big boat.
My own religious education (non denomial Christian) never made much of a point about the OT because most of it sounded ridiculous.

maitri

Excelsior wrote:

All Christian denominations hold the 39 books of the Old Christians take the Hebrew Scriptures as equally vital as the New Testament.

Really?
I would think there are a lot of things in the Old Testament that Christians disregard. Take a look at this for instance.

Excelsior

TR, why would the Bible mention evolution? It also doesn't mention a grand unifying theory which our astrophysicists might one day discover or a genetic condition that might lead to glandular disorders or any other of the countless empirical discoveries we may make in the future. The fact that you bias towards evolution over other theories should demonstrate to any fair minded reader that you are asking questions of the Bible that it has no interest asking.

As someone who is very familiar with Christianity in Ireland across all of its spectrum points, I know that you massive generalisation regarding Genesis is out of place.

Saying "most of it" "sound ridiculous" is an equally unchallengeable claim. It is a totally subjective and irrational claim. Perhaps you can embellish it somewhat to give it some meaning but as it stands there is nothing I can do with such broad sweeps.

Maitri, all of those points detailed in that much published list are acontextual. In a strict sense they have no meaning in the form presented so it would only be sensible for you to conclude that they are meaningless. However, the Old Testament was never written to be read parsed by its verses and no mainline church that I am aware of tries to do that. So what you are presenting is a skeptics argument that actually bears no resemblance to the Christian life lived in communities all around Ireland.

Tim Robbins

Excelsior wrote:

TR, why would the Bible mention evolution? It also doesn't mention a grand unifying theory which our astrophysicists might one day discover or a genetic condition that might lead to glandular disorders or any other of the countless empirical discoveries we may make in the future. The fact that you bias towards evolution over other theories should demonstrate to any fair minded reader that you are asking questions of the Bible that it has no interest asking.

Ok, put it this way, if there are 10,000,000 species in existence now, how many species do you think went on the boat with Noah?
1. At least 10,000,000?
or
2. Less than 10,000,000?
or
3. You don't think the boat existed, it is metaphorical?

Sorry I'm with maitri on this one, there is a plethoria of ridiculous stories in the OT. Take your pick.

As someone who is very familiar with Christianity in Ireland across all of its spectrum points, I know that you massive generalisation regarding Genesis is out of place.

Saying "most of it" "sound ridiculous" is an equally unchallengeable claim. It is a totally subjective and irrational claim. Perhaps you can embellish it somewhat to give it some meaning but as it stands there is nothing I can do with such broad sweeps.

Fine you are entitled to your opinions, beliefs.
I don't believe snakes talk, a bloke called Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines, I don't believe Samson killed a 1,000 men with the jawbone of a ass, Giants, Ravens bring people food.

I would think it irrational to believe any of that, so we are just the other way around.

Excelsior

Can you believe in things that are phrased metaphorically?

How will historians 5400 years hence interpret news headlines greeting the fall of the Berlin Wall as an "Earth Shattering Event"? Will they think an earthquake caused it?

What I am trying to do is avoid a 7000 word post explaining what the different genres of the Hebrew Scriptures intend to communicate and demonstrate instead, in a few questions, how important it is that we understand the context before we interpret.

Tim Robbins

Excelsior wrote:

Can you believe in things that are phrased metaphorically?

How will historians 5400 years hence interpret news headlines greeting the fall of the Berlin Wall as an "Earth Shattering Event"? Will they think an earthquake caused it?

What I am trying to do is avoid a 7000 word post explaining what the different genres of the Hebrew Scriptures intend to communicate and demonstrate instead, in a few questions, how important it is that we understand the context before we interpret.

Good counter.
It would be possible for those events to be metaphors and that they didn't actually happen. I have much more respect for Christians who think that way. However, the question just manifests then, which books or which part of which books in the Bible are metaphorical and which are not.
Unless you have some good evidence (i.e. better than scripture) it is impossible to say.

Excelsior

Tim Robbins wrote:

Good counter.

Thanks.

TR wrote:

It would be possible for those events to be metaphors and that they didn't actually happen.

A metaphor only makes sense if it is maps on to a reality. Seamus Heaney writes a poem about digging for potatoes and it works as a metaphor for the young poet finding his identity because:
a) This young poet came from farmers
b) He had to go deep in to his heritage to come to terms with his vocation.

To say that the poem is metaphorical is not to suggest that Heaney's father never went out and dug. Even though the poem is a generalised collation of Heaney's adolescent experience as opposed to a single incident doesn't lead the reader to conclude that such events were not commonplace around their home in Derry.

TR wrote:

I have much more respect for Christians who think that way.

Your respect or lack thereof for any individual Christian is unlikely to deter them in the sincerely held beliefs they hold.

TR wrote:

However, the question just manifests then, which books or which part of which books in the Bible are metaphorical and which are not.

I hope my quick meditation on the teenaged soul searching of one of my favourite poets serves as an illustration of how naive a question this is.

Take a favourite Biblical book of mine: Hosea. A Hebrew Prophet active around 600BC, Hosea believed that he was the vessel of God's warning and judgement against the greedy, idolatrous Israel. He lived out his teaching by marrying a prostitute and buying her back from a flesh market when she deserted him and his kids. This is a "literal" thing that happened. When God talks through Hosea about how Israel's unjust society pains him, he speaks metaphorically. He is not the husband of the Jewish nation but that is how he metaphorically depicts himself. The literal meaning of this metaphor is that God is committed to the covenantal relationship he established with Abrahm.

See TR, originally, the word literal meant the actual meaning of the text. Thus, much of the Bible must be read "metaphorically" for the "literal" meaning to be grasped.

TR wrote:

Unless you have some good evidence (i.e. better than scripture) it is impossible to say.

Again, I'd take issue with the values laden even in your choice of words but I can assure you that as I seek to interpret, preach and teach Scripture, I draw on archeology, history, art and anything else that can shed light on the hermunetical process. This is once again, a standard practice within Christian communities you seem totally ignorant of.

mymind

The Old Testiment is broken down by catagories 1 the Torah the 1st 5 books which Moses wrote, 2nd the Law, 3rd Prophets and Songs of Solomon and Spalms and Proverbs. The Old Has a very earthly connection with God and His governmental Rule along with more earthly blessings. Jesus came to fulfill the law and all the prophets. The New Testiment is a new covenent with God believing in His only begotton Son of God. Grace is simply this ( Gods Riches At Christs Expense) Christ was everything to God. As we read and sometimes forget, For God so loved the world. Now nothing has changed in refrence to the law. If we read in Romans Chapter 7 we find we are all guilty of breaking the law but what gives even a chance at salvation? Jesus and having faith in His finished work that was done at the cross. Now in the New testament we have a Heavenly Blessings being bought with the blood of christ. Ephesians 1 verse 10 we see all things Heaven and earth will be gathered together in Christ.

Zombrex

Excelsior wrote:

Can you believe in things that are phrased metaphorically?

Do you believe that the Old Testament not necessarily literal history?

That the Earth wasn't actually created in 6 days and that Adam and Eve weren't actually the very first humans created out of thin air by God, and that all land creatures weren't wiped out in a massive "flood" that covered all mountain ranges across the globe?

Its really great if you do but equally it would be helpful if you could pop along to some of the other threads and explain to your fellow Christians that it is actually possible to be a Christian without taking the stories in the Old Testament as absolute literal accounts of history.

Excelsior

Wicknight wrote:

Do you believe that the Old Testament not necessarily literal history?

You know I believe that there are parts of the Old Testament that are not literal history.

Wicknight wrote:

That the Earth wasn't actually created in 6 days and that Adam and Eve weren't actually the very first humans created out of thin air by God, and that all land creatures weren't wiped out in a massive "flood" that covered all mountain ranges across the globe?

I think there is considerable evidence both geologically and anthropologically for a flood of the Middle East, that devastated the whole world known by the compilers of Genesis. I don't think the same flood need necessarily have deluged the whole globe. I think the Earth was formed about 4 billion years ago and that humans probably arose in the Serengeti Valley in the last 100000 years or so. There must have been first human communities and I think these first human communities made devastating mistakes which the Bible would call sin. (I find the extinction of neanderthals fascinating on that point)

Crucially, the Old Testament never intends to give us a scientific explanation for the origins of man. Instead it offers a teleological explanation- sharing with us why man exists, not how. In both the Creation story and the flood story there are crucial translation issues at play that have led people down the road to believing in literal history but this is a new idea. Rabbis in Jesus' day didn't even make the same mistake. They knew their own texts too well to read them so flatly.

Wicknight wrote:

Its really great if you do but equally it would be helpful if you could pop along to some of the other threads and explain to your fellow Christians that it is actually possible to be a Christian without taking the stories in the Old Testament as absolute literal accounts of history.

Back when I was moderator of this forum it was the non-Christians like you and Scofflaw that treated me best. The Christians saw me as a turncoat. I'd be happy for you to PM me the links and go and look at the threads but the reality is that the bulletin board discussions naturally polarise people (just look at the rabid generalisations that have been made in this thread). We'd be far better having these discussions over a pint!

(The Old Testament never got around to forbidding drink!)

Zombrex

Excelsior wrote:

Back when I was moderator of this forum it was the non-Christians like you and Scofflaw that treated me best. The Christians saw me as a turncoat. I'd be happy for you to PM me the links and go and look at the threads but the reality is that the bulletin board discussions naturally polarise people (just look at the rabid generalisations that have been made in this thread). We'd be far better having these discussions over a pint!

You are probably right

Bradidup

This quotation from 2 thimothy 3:16 answers any question with regards to the old testiment teachings and its importance. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness".

Excelsior

It doesn't actually. It only "answers" the questions that an already believing and not particularly rigourous-thinking person might have.

The verse in question raises many questions but I am sure a more sincere sceptic like Wicknight can elaborate them for you if you cannot automatically see them.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

You are probably right

Can I join you guys for the pint?

philologos

Tim Robbins wrote:

They all just read from the NT although some of the Protestant teach the OT at Sunday school and Roman Catholics learn the OT in School.

We have 3 readings at a service in general in the Anglican tradition. One is read from the Old Testament, 2 from the New Testament. There is always a piece from the Old Testament read in Church for everyone present, not just for sunday schoolers.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Ok, put it this way, if there are 10,000,000 species in existence now, how many species do you think went on the boat with Noah?
1. At least 10,000,000?
or
2. Less than 10,000,000?
or
3. You don't think the boat existed, it is metaphorical?

there wouldn't have been that many species in existence at the time as many were the result of different species breeding with eachother. So yes there were far less species in existence at that time in question.