Get rid of 39 books of OT - or accept all as scripture - the Word of God for the saints?

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,191
5,710
49
The Wild West
✟476,419.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
"Jesus loves me this I know - for the Bible tells me so" -


Some would argue we need to dump 39 books of the bible - since the rise of the NONES (those that walk away from religion) has risen to 20-29% in America these days - maybe we should should not tether Christianity to the Bible so closely. Allow for things to drop off -- like the entire OT or the Gospels before the cross or the creation week or ... (it is pretty much endless).

(For a video example of a guy slam-hammering the "Jesus loves Me..for the Bible tells me so" form of accepting the Bible -- see this post on this same page same thread #15 )

At the end of Matthew we find this statement in Matt 28
Matt 28:​
16 But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated to them. 17 And when they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. 18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. 19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to follow all that I commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”​
That Matt 28:19-20 statement is NOT of the form
"forget all that I have commanded you... from now on make up a new set of teachings"

Some will say to take the scissors out at the point of - these verses to divide OT and NT (OC and NC?)

Matthew 27:50​
Mark 15:37​
Luke 23:46​
John 19:30​

Such that following the teaching that find prior to that point is to choose to be under the Old Covenant rather than the New Covenant.

Which misses the point that Matt 1:1 is years AFTER the ascension of Christ and is in direct response to the Matt 28:20 command of Christ.

And in Matt 24 we have this
14 This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.​
Not some other gospel - but the one Jesus was preaching in Matt 24.

And so years LATER after the ascension of Christ - they are doing that very thing by writing the GOSPEL of Matt, Mark, Luke, John.

Heb 1 says that in the past God spoke through prophets but in this New Testament His SON came directly to Earth and spoke to us. I.E those Gospel accounts that some views are so anxious to distance themselves from.

John 17 Jesus said that He promised life not just to those who heard him then but to all who would believe through their word as eye witnesses of Christ and His teaching.

No wonder then in Luke 24 when Christ appears to His disciples on the road to Emaus - He does not reveal Himself directly to them. Rather "beginning with Moses and the prophets He

25 And then He said to them, “You foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to come into His glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the Prophets, He explained to them the things written about Himself in all the Scriptures.

In every case in the NEW Testament where we see the term "scriptures" it always includes all of the 39 books of the Hebrew Bible and in some cases it includes the NT Letters as we see in 2 Peter 3.

===================

In Genesis 1 - 3 we have the Bible teaching on marriage, on gender, on the weekly holy day, on the fall of mankind into sin, the need of the gospel , the doctrine on origins etc.

Really it seems to me your own denomination by omiting important books, included in the KJV, like Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus and Tobith, is among those that could be charged with omitting portions of the Old Testament, some of which were held as extremely important by the early church.

And of course, Flavius Josephus and his biased Pharisaical opinion of the OT canon will be brought up in defense of the Adventist denominations and perhaps certain other Protestant denominations, such as Calvinist Baptists, but Flavius Josephus was not a Father of the Early Church but one who rejected Christ, as far as we know, and he was also an unreliable historian. I don’t seek to mention this for your benefit but rather that people are aware of what the early church taught and what traditional Christians still teach. And one thing they did not teach was that there existed any kind of “intertestamental period.”

I would also criticize the Adventist denominations for at times prioritizing the OT and taking it out of context, ignoring the revelation of its prophetic nature at the end of Luke in favor of a legalistic literalist interpretation which clashes with important parts of the new Testament. Indeed the entire Lukan and Pauline corpus seems to be subject to an eisegetical hermeneutic among the various Adventist denominations.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,368
10,610
Georgia
✟912,931.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Really it seems to me your own denomination by omiting important books, included in the KJV, like Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus and Tobith,
I don't have those books in my KJV nor do other protestant denominations nor is it in the Hebrew Bible NOR can it be said that those books you reference were authored by Christians or that Christians were the custodians of those books as they were written.

So your "your own denomination" statements seems to be pointless. What am I missing?
I would also criticize the Adventist denominations for at times prioritizing the OT and taking it out of context, ignoring the revelation of its prophetic nature at the end of Luke
Looks like little more than t a false accusation on your part against a POV that you do not agree with. Not particularly compelling. I prefer "the details"/

in favor of a legalistic literalist interpretation which clashes with important parts of the new Testament.
Not true - but you have free will and can choose those pejoratives as it pleases you.
Indeed the entire Lukan and Pauline corpus seems to be subject to an eisegetical hermeneutic
Only if you insist on doing that. I recommend against it.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,368
10,610
Georgia
✟912,931.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
As instructions given to Noah are not for you (you do not literally build an ark), as instructions given to Abraham to leave his home country are not literally for you, etc, so also instructions given to Israel are not for you. Are sacrificial rules still for you today?
As instructions to Timothy to bring Paul his coat and some books are not specifically to you - AND YET cannot be construed to imply that this means the New Testament does not apply to a Christian today - it seems your argument above fails at that point.
 
Upvote 0

trophy33

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2018
9,262
3,694
N/A
✟150,381.00
Country
Czech Republic
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
As instructions to Timothy to bring Paul his coat and some books are not specifically to you - AND YET cannot be construed to imply that this means the New Testament does not apply to a Christian today - it seems your argument above fails at that point.
If you say that the law given to Jews applies to Christians, because "All Scripture is inspired", its your logic that fails.

"All Scripture is inspired etc" is not an argument for the Jewish law being for us. It was given to a specific group of people and for a specific period, which is also said in the same Scripture.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0