Poll: Is Christianity Based On NT or the Entire Bible?

It's clearly both, but Jesus challenged traditional interpretations of the Old Testament, and in some cases contradicted the text itself (esp. 'eye for an eye' in Matthew, chapter 5.) So, the best answer would be both, but only as they fit into Jesus' teachings and interpretations.

__________________
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
Galatians 5:22-23

Read in the original context, "eye for an eye" is intended to break the "no quarter" cultural norm, or in other words, to LIMIT retribution, especially in the case of sociopolitically unequal parties. For example, if you're my slave, just because you accidentally broke my vase doesn't mean I get to break your face. The Jews were using it to justify vengeance, when in fact it was written in the spirit of mercy.

I would argue that Jesus NEVER contradicts the text itself -- merely bastardizations that go against the "spirit" of Torah.

__________________

Really? The Torah allows for divorce and remarriage, but Jesus considers them sinful.

I do not think the above posts paints a valid picture of Jesus view of sin and divorce at all, it is simply to narrow.

i think the point at hand regarding Jesus and the divorce issue is a problem for us today. Back then there was a theological war going on between the two major Pharisaic schools of thought... this was brought about by an ambiguity in the Hebrew text where Moses permits divorce for 'something unseemly' but the text does not specify what for us.

the two schools came down on two polar opposite viewpoints, one was that grounds for divorce were valid if the wife burned the pots, the other if she prostitution/adultery. Jesus appears to fall more to this side of the fence on the issue.


Steve

p.s. as it says It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke
of a pen to drop out of the Law. (so far the sky is still blue(ish)).

__________________

What I was told was that the Pharisees were using the "certificate clause" as the SOLE condition for divorce. As in the days of Malachi, they were divorcing left and right, much like today, simply because they didn't "fancy" the "wife of their youth" anymore. Jesus, in response, depicts the heavenly nature of marriage and thus advocates a highly exclusive view of divorce. According to Jesus, unfaithfulness is the ONLY relevant condition.

__________________

Jesus goes beyond even the most conservative school of his day when he says what he does about divorce and remarriage but I don't believe he contradicts the Old Testament text.

Deuteronomy 24:1-4 "When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, 2 "when she has departed from his house, and goes and becomes another man's wife, 3 "if the latter husband detests her and writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her as his wife, 4 "then her former husband who divorced her must not take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.

This is the passage in question and the two parties in Jesus' day as well as some modern English translations misread the text as a command to write a certificate of divorce. In reality the writing of the certificate of divorce is not a command but a description of what was taking place. It is descriptive, not prescriptive. The only command found in the passage is that the first husband cannot take the wife back after she has remarried.

The two parties are squabbling over who can get divorced. Jesus points out that the writing of the certificate of divorce was never God's intent in the first place.

__________________
Poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese. - G.K. Chesterton

entire bible. how could a true christian say otherwise?

I do believe a Christian today could be Spiritually fed on just reading the New Testament, but I couldn't give up Proverbs; so I voted other. There is no need to judge me because I differ with you, since I didn't say both; or to say I couldn't be a true Christian because of this. We all will give an account to the Father for our own words, so let me worry about it.

The OP is somewhat vague, so I can see why you responded in this way, but I think I can help explain what it's getting at.

There are two basic camps on this issue: the dispensationalists, who believe that upon the advent of Christ, God's ways in handling the world changed decisively; and the covenantalists, who believe that God has consistently dealt with humanity from the beginning, but due to the nature of progressive revelation these dealings took diverse forms.

Dispensationalism is still popular among Lutherans, Baptists, Pentecostals, etc. and covenantalism is more popular among the Reformed, Presbyterian, etc. I dunno about the high church.

__________________

If I was forced to "give up" the books I could "live without," I think all that would be left would be Genesis, Exodus, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Isaiah, one of the synoptic gospels, the letter to the Hebrews, and James.

I guess I'm not very appreciative of Paul

__________________