Why have the Old Testament?

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Can anyone explain to me why the Old Testament is part of the Christian holy book? Why is it not just a historical reference text that Christians use? Why do Christians treat it as part of the Christian theology and derive rules and base their lives upon it?

Can anyone explain to me why the writings or Paul are considered to be part of the holy book? Why do Christians put their faith in the writings of a man who, for all intensive purposes, is no different than Mohammed or Buddha. He is just a man writing what he thinks, like any other enlightened prophet or moral guide.

Did Jesus create Christianity, or did Paul? Or did the early church? Or the Roman Emperors? Who do Christians follow: the thoughts of a man who had underlying motives and was not sinless, or the third person account of God incarnate?

My point is, why is there such emphasis on the books of the Bible outside the Gospels? Aren't the gospels all we need? Shouldn't they be all we need?
The Old Testament is from the archaic Jewish religion which Jesus came to correct and change, is it not?

 

[Hentenza]

It is impossible to understand the NT without the OT. The OT is not merely a history of the Jewish people. It is fully Christological. You can see Christ shadows and types in every single book of the OT.

 

[heavensprings]

Can anyone explain to me why the Old Testament is part of the Christian holy book? Why is it not just a historical reference text that Christians use? Why do Christians treat it as part of the Christian theology and derive rules and base their lives upon it?

Can anyone explain to me why the writings or Paul are considered to be part of the holy book? Why do Christians put their faith in the writings of a man who, for all intensive purposes, is no different than Mohammed or Buddha. He is just a man writing what he thinks, like any other enlightened prophet or moral guide.

Did Jesus create Christianity, or did Paul? Or did the early church? Or the Roman Emperors? Who do Christians follow: the thoughts of a man who had underlying motives and was not sinless, or the third person account of God incarnate?

My point is, why is there such emphasis on the books of the Bible outside the Gospels? Aren't the gospels all we need? Shouldn't they be all we need?
The Old Testament is from the archaic Jewish religion which Jesus came to correct and change, is it not?

The OT is all about Christ. As Hentenza said... "You can see Christ shadows and types in every single book of the OT."

(Luk 24:27) And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. (He being Christ)

God gave Paul the full revelation of His will/counsel and he was the Apostle to the Gentiles.

(Act 20:27) For I shrank not from declaring unto you the whole counsel of God.

 

[Webers_Home]

.
My brother and I were as different as night and day when it came to cars. To him, they were just a mode of transportation and a way to impress the chicks. But I much preferred to get under the hood; poke around, disconnect things, dismantle parts, see how all the various systems worked together as a cohesive unity, rather than just get behind the wheel and drive away. Subsequently, I took two years of auto shop in high school while my brother went out for track.

A book like the Bible is of little practical use to personalities like my brother's. They're okay with carrying one to church under their arms and opening them up to chapter and verse in Sunday school. The Bible is to them an accessory, like a gold watch and cuff links that you wear to church on Sunday; but they really have no stomach for getting under its hood. And that's okay by me; I mean, after all, not everyone is cut out to be a mechanic nor is everyone cut out to be a conscientious Bible student. If people don't care to get under the Old Testament's hood in order to better understand how it's works together as a cohesive unity with the New; what do I care so long as they stay out of my way and mind their own business.

C.L.I.F.F.
/

 

[Albion]

You couldn't really know the NT without the OT. Not only did Jesus refer to its contents often but it tells the whole story leading up to him, why there was a need for a savior, how we'd know him, etc.

Without the OT, the NT would surely be called into question. As for Paul, many have asked your question, but the other Apostles accepted that he had been directly chosen by God and so his writings have been considered inspired as much as the writings of the other Apostles and the prophets of old.

Historians have agreed with you that Paul is the one most responsible for making Christianity a success, a world religion, but after all, Jesus who founded the Church did not choose to be the one who exported the Gospel to the rest of the world. He commissioned the Apostles generally to teach and baptise all nations and Peter to bring about the first great rush of Jewish converts from other parts of the Roman Empire through his speech on Pentecost. So also did he choose Paul to be the Apostle to the Gentile world.

 

[Glorthac]

Can anyone explain to me why the Old Testament is part of the Christian holy book? Why is it not just a historical reference text that Christians use? Why do Christians treat it as part of the Christian theology and derive rules and base their lives upon it?

Can anyone explain to me why the writings or Paul are considered to be part of the holy book? Why do Christians put their faith in the writings of a man who, for all intensive purposes, is no different than Mohammed or Buddha. He is just a man writing what he thinks, like any other enlightened prophet or moral guide.

Did Jesus create Christianity, or did Paul? Or did the early church? Or the Roman Emperors? Who do Christians follow: the thoughts of a man who had underlying motives and was not sinless, or the third person account of God incarnate?

My point is, why is there such emphasis on the books of the Bible outside the Gospels? Aren't the gospels all we need? Shouldn't they be all we need?
The Old Testament is from the archaic Jewish religion which Jesus came to correct and change, is it not?

The Law of Moses is attested to by Jesus in Matthew 8:4, Matthew 17:3, Mark 1:44, Mark 7:10, Luke 5:14, Luke 16:29, John 3:14, John 5:46, etc.

The Psalms are attested to by Jesus in Luke 20:42, Luke 24:44.

The Prophets are attested to by Jesus in Matthew 5:12, Matthew 5:17, Mark 1:2, Luke 11:47, Luke 11:50, John 6:45, etc.

Isaiah is attested to by Jesus in Matthew 13:14, Jonah is attested to by Jesus in Matthew 12:39... must I continue?

Paul is attested to by Luke, who wrote Luke-Acts (Luke and Acts weren't 2 books originally, but 1) in Acts 13:2, etc. and Paul's letters are attested to by Peter in 2 Peter 3:15.

And if you must learn anything: the Roman Emperor's certainly didn't create Christianity, we have Trinitarian references way before 325. St. Ignatius of Antioch, the disciple of John the Apostle, wrote his letter to the Ephesians, Chapter VII, before 98 AD, saying:
"But our Physician is the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word,"

So I must ask you, if you hold to the Gospels, why do you reject what they say about the Law and the Prophets? If you hold to the Gospel of Luke, how can you reject Paul? Why does a disciple of John the Apostle teach the Trinity in the 1st century?

 

[Phaedron777]

Because life is serious. We take it for granted, but the old testament demonstrates God's power and that he ought be feared, as well as loved.

And yes Bible is the inerrant word of God. The Torah code proves it.

 

[Soulgazer]

Can anyone explain to me why the Old Testament is part of the Christian holy book? Why is it not just a historical reference text that Christians use? Why do Christians treat it as part of the Christian theology and derive rules and base their lives upon it?

Can anyone explain to me why the writings or Paul are considered to be part of the holy book? Why do Christians put their faith in the writings of a man who, for all intensive purposes, is no different than Mohammed or Buddha. He is just a man writing what he thinks, like any other enlightened prophet or moral guide.

Did Jesus create Christianity, or did Paul? Or did the early church? Or the Roman Emperors? Who do Christians follow: the thoughts of a man who had underlying motives and was not sinless, or the third person account of God incarnate?

My point is, why is there such emphasis on the books of the Bible outside the Gospels? Aren't the gospels all we need? Shouldn't they be all we need?
The Old Testament is from the archaic Jewish religion which Jesus came to correct and change, is it not?

Except for a minority, early gentile Christians rejected the old Testament. Catholicism(which means "universal") sought to reconcile all of the differing faiths that made up Christianity. Unless one rejects catholicism all together, you are stuck using it.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

If the Bible were simply meant as a book of rules or a moral guide to Christian living then, probably, the only thing that we'd need written down is, "Love the Lord your God ... and love your neighbor as yourself." That is, after all, what Jesus says is the entire sum of Divine Law.

But the Bible is a lot more than that. It's a holy narrative. That holy narrative isn't simply a relic or an artifact, but informs us because our story is part of that story.

From a Christian perspective the Jesus Story isn't an interruption in the big story going on, but is the climax of the story. But a climax isn't very climatic unless it is understood within the narrative context it finds itself.

When I watch the movie Independence Day with Will Smith, the big climatic battle where Smith and Goldblum's characters blow up the mother ship and then the shields on the invasion ships go down and the pilots blow them up simply wouldn't be as meaningful a scene in the movie without the entire narrative leading up to it. That drama finally leads up to the climax; and while sure the scene on its own might look really cool, but without the drama and narrative context it loses all significance and real meaning.

It's not that the Jesus Event isn't amazing on its own, but it loses all its meaning and significance if removed from its place as the climatic event in the biblical narrative and human history.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Over]

I dont really like the OT - but thats cuz im not afraid to say how i really feel.