What is the life span of Christianity?

[Taure]

Traditional Christian doctrine is that Jesus came as a fulfillment of the old law. That the old law was adequate, but that Jesus is a greater truth.

"For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" John 1:17

So yeah, pretty much. The Old Testament is the legal and cultural history and context within which the New Testament occurred, but the New Testament replaces it as a greater truth.

People don't like to shout this out too much, because of all the bandying about of the 10 commandments and the like. Fundamentalists especially don't like it, because it undermines the "authority" behind their bigotry. But it is the traditional standpoint.

Also, with all this shouting about of "Obey the Bible" and so forth, people need to remember that the Bible as we read it is a fairly recent phenomena. Just think about it for a moment. The vast majority of the New Testament is a series of letters. Letters, which various people of authority have decided were wise along the way and have somehow deified. But I think it's important to always remember the origins of the Epistles. They were humble letters. Really no different to a letter sent from a vicar in the present day to a congregation. At the time they weren't regarded as scripture, and their authors never intended them as such.

Who knows what other letters were sent that didn't survive, or weren't included in what became the Bible?

 

[MorkandMindy]

...
The big theological contribution of the present day form of the Trinity came from the Coptic Athanasius in Alexandria who was the theological heavyweight of the time. I remember cheering for Arius but after hearing Athanasius I shut up and went with him instead.

Dear MorkandMindy,

Thank you for your clarification.



Indeed and amen (Or, as a student put it to me recently: 'Athansius rules, Arius drools')

Peace,

Anglian

Arius was also a teacher in Alexandria so I think you ought to back him too .


Arius taught, as far as we can deduce, about the same things as his teacher Lucian of Antioch who was canonised by the Roman Catholic Church, and Eusebius of Nicomedia who argued in favour of Arianism but eventually signed agreement with the Nicene Creed 'with my hand but not with my heart'.

Others followed the example of Eusebius so it went from an apparent 50/50 over to just 3 against and hundreds for. This left the Arians in a lot of trouble.

But then Constantine II came out in favour of Arianism, and the pendulum swung back and forth as civil war broke out in Rome between Athanasian and Arian Christians, and then Rome fell and Arian Christians came in from outside and Rome became Arian, then Athanasian Christians from Byzantium attacked and finally the Church of Rome managed to gradually coerce everyone over to Athanasian.


If Athanasius hadn't argued so effectively - If Constantine hadn't been persuaded, would we all be happy Arians?

And would we have saved an awful lot of people a painful death in the subsequent wars?

 

[DailyBlessings]

Athanasius was the kind of person who backed up theology with bloodshed, in a way that Arius was not- one can hardly support that.

 

[ttreg]

Nevermind

 

[MorkandMindy]

Traditional Christian doctrine is that Jesus came as a fulfillment of the old law. That the old law was adequate, but that Jesus is a greater truth.

"For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" John 1:17

So yeah, pretty much. The Old Testament is the legal and cultural history and context within which the New Testament occurred, but the New Testament replaces it as a greater truth.

People don't like to shout this out too much, because of all the bandying about of the 10 commandments and the like. Fundamentalists especially don't like it, because it undermines the "authority" behind their bigotry. But it is the traditional standpoint.

Also, with all this shouting about of "Obey the Bible" and so forth, people need to remember that the Bible as we read it is a fairly recent phenomena. Just think about it for a moment. The vast majority of the New Testament is a series of letters. Letters, which various people of authority have decided were wise along the way and have somehow deified. But I think it's important to always remember the origins of the Epistles. They were humble letters. Really no different to a letter sent from a vicar in the present day to a congregation. At the time they weren't regarded as scripture, and their authors never intended them as such.

Who knows what other letters were sent that didn't survive, or weren't included in what became the Bible?

Thank you for your response, would you simplify it a bit to specify what a Christian should do with the Old Testament?

One response so far to this thread was that Christianity will still exist as long as someone is obeying the Bible. But this was followed by a claim that it isn't necessary to obey the O.T., which appears to mean 76% can be safely ignored and I've gotten confused.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Thank you for your response, would you simplify it a bit to specify what a Christian should do with the Old Testament?

One response so far to this thread was that Christianity will still exist as long as someone is obeying the Bible. But this was followed by a claim that it isn't necessary to obey the O.T., which appears to mean 76% can be safely ignored and I've gotten confused.

It seems fairly clear to me that the two posters disagree with one another.

 

[MorkandMindy]

here is what is puzzling me from earlier in this thread:

Post 24

It stops being Christianity when they go against what is written in the bible. The bible tells us the standards to live by to please God and when we veer off from that, especially in worship, it is not the church.

Post 29

Lev. is in the Old Law, the old law has been done away with...

My question is: what should we do with the Old Testament; obey it or not?

 

[daydreamergurl15]

here is what is puzzling me from earlier in this thread:

Post 24


Post 29


My question is: what should we do with the Old Testament; obey it or not?

Sorry for it taking me so long to respond, I only saw this post today.

The Old Testament is history of God's people. Israelites obeyed the Old Law which is written in the "Old Testament" section. The New covenant in the New Testament is a new and better covenant that is given to us when the Son of Man was slain for our iniquities, Hebrews 8:6. The Old law was a tutor for us to obey the new law.

I think the problem is the wording. The Old Testament is the history, but the Old law was the covenant that God made with the people for a time. But the Old law was to be done away with in light of the New covenant, that is written in the New Testament.

In Jeremiah 31:31-34
"31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

And to continue on what the Apostle Paul in Galatians 3:16-25
16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,”who is Christ. 17 And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. 18 For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one.
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.


No, we do not follow the Old law, but by all means, keep the Old Testament near and dear to your heart. But we are under a new covenant written in the New Testament, and it's those commandments that we much obey.

 

[MorkandMindy]

...
But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.” (Jeremiah 31: 33&34)

That is a beautiful promise.

I think to some extent a law is already written on people’s hearts. Humans have always lived in communities and have always had a sense of what is fair.

There are two ways of looking at right and wrong.

The first is as a set of rules used throughout the community and that I guess Christians regard as ‘Law’.

And the second entirely different approach is intention. It could be expressed as intended results. This is more difficult to judge and enforce, but far more profound and a lot better.