Will there ever be another new testament?

[pat34lee]

I'm not going to go into the list of things I consider crazy, or morally wrong. I am sure most are familiar with these questions. Topics such as stoning, odd rules to worship, talking snakes, people living to be hundreds of years old, basically certain scriptures if talked about practicing today most would want to put you in jail or in a mental hospital is what I am curious in finding the answers to.

When I ask these questions I always get pointed to other scriptures, why can't the scripture I ask about be talked about alone? Or I get told, at the time of the writing it was normal life, such as stoning women, so it was written that way for the times. When I am told the second answer, I immediately ask, why has Gods position changed on that particular topic?

If it is accepted that the meaning of scriptures change, and should not be taken literally because we evolved, or newer scriptures cancel out the old crazy ones. I ask one final question. Should there be another testament written for modern times?

God never changes, but people do. You think Old and
New Testaments, but it is one book written by many
authors. And there is no need for more, because the
main point was to lead us to God through Yeshua (Jesus).

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The Bible is God's map to lead us to salvation. It isn't a history or science textbook. There is a lot that sounds mythic in it, especially the Pentateuch. But whether it is historic or not, the stories and ideas are important to establish the groundwork for 2nd temple Judaism from which Christianity arose. Stoning and genocide etc. is par for the course in the history of the middle-east, but these aren't integral ideas to Christianity or Judaism. The important things are sin and salvation, so don't worry too much over the minutiae.
As Christ died for our sins, the main act of human history has already occured, so there is no real need for another testament. Those old testament laws may have just been there to create the setting for the Incarnation and to show the radical nature of the love of God.

I would ask you to read Mere Christianity, I think it would help you. Don't get too caught up in literal interpretations, for if you reject everything because of one or two things you disagree with, then you can never accept anything.
Do you agree with everything the governments doing or has done in the past? Does this mean we can reject the concept of government entirely? Of course not. Same with Christianity, it won't fit exactly the criteria you want, because Truth usually does not fit our presuppositions.

If your looking for evolving scriptures with newer testaments and prophets, try Baha'i not Christianity.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I was making reference to laws of man evolving. Most civilizations do not stone women anymore. Science also makes us evolve. Science has forced people to interpret the bible differently.

Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection also forced people to interpret the bible differently. We didn't have to wait hundreds of years for science to develop to begin to do so.

2PhiloVoid

 

[Hawkins]

I'm not going to go into the list of things I consider crazy, or morally wrong. I am sure most are familiar with these questions. Topics such as stoning, odd rules to worship, talking snakes, people living to be hundreds of years old, basically certain scriptures if talked about practicing today most would want to put you in jail or in a mental hospital is what I am curious in finding the answers to.

When I ask these questions I always get pointed to other scriptures, why can't the scripture I ask about be talked about alone? Or I get told, at the time of the writing it was normal life, such as stoning women, so it was written that way for the times. When I am told the second answer, I immediately ask, why has Gods position changed on that particular topic?

If it is accepted that the meaning of scriptures change, and should not be taken literally because we evolved, or newer scriptures cancel out the old crazy ones. I ask one final question. Should there be another testament written for modern times?

Except for the New (and final) Covenant, every covenant usually comes with a set of Law. The first set of Law may have come through Noah to us. We thus have a set of moral code in our hearts to govern our behavior. However, humans got more and more corrupted, thus God provided a set of commandments for the Jews to obey.

Matthew 19:7-8 (NIV)
"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

God also allow Moses to design part of the set of the Law in accordance to what the Jews already considered lawful. God allows a said standard which is achievable by the Jews to be set as part of the covenant such that if the Jews can obey what makes sense to them, such that they are proven to be obedient to the said standard that they can be saved by God's Grace through Jesus Christ. That's what a covenant is basically for.

Romans 5:20-21 (NIV)
20 The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,
21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

[Luke17:37]

Talking snakes: We don't know if animals could talk back then, but it doesn't really matter. The story of Adam and Eve is very symbolic. That's not saying that there were no Adam and Eve, just saying that the story was simplified and told in such a way as to make the message, not the details, the focal point. And the message is simply that disobedience (sin) created a separation between God and man.

It's even possible that God created many Adams and many Eves all at once. That detail however is not important. The point is, there's symbolism in the story. Personally I don't think there was a talking snake in the garden. I think the talking snake merely symbolizes temptation, which we all still struggle with today. The reason a serpent was used as the symbol for temptation is because temptation is from the devil.

However, it's also possible that Satan literally came into the garden and manifested himself in a physical form. Like I said, such details don't really matter, and whether you believe there was literally a talking snake or if you believe it's merely symbolism for something more believable, also doesn't matter. What matters is that you understand the message.

That's baloney. There's no symbolism in Genesis 1-3 at all, except for the first prophecy of Jesus in Genesis 3:15 (about the Seed of the woman crushing the head of the serpent...). It's a historical account; it's not symbolic.

Adam and Eve were one couple, the only couple at that point. Since Eve was made from Adam, all humans are descended from Adam. Therefore, when Adam sinned, he brought sin and death to the entire human race (Romans 5:12-21), but when Jesus obeyed and offered His body to the cross, He brought life to many.

You probably believe the account of Balaam's donkey talking to him and that Jesus did miracles and rose from the dead, so there's no reason to doubt that the enemy talked through a snake.

If death wasn't the penalty for sin and Adam's sin didn't bring a sin nature and death to us all, there would have been no point for Jesus to die. And He wouldn't have died for nothing. It was necessary for the only righteous man (conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, having no human father and thus, no sin nature) to die in place of the wicked, so God could be both just (punishing sin appropriately) and merciful towards the sinner.

This is a sermon about the fall of man and how Jesus' death made it possible to be free from the condemnation of our sin. I remember the title and main Scriptures years later because it was so good. https://www.mcleanbible.org/sermons/necessity-changing-races-0

 

[Luke17:37]

If it is accepted that the meaning of scriptures change, and should not be taken literally because we evolved, or newer scriptures cancel out the old crazy ones. I ask one final question. Should there be another testament written for modern times?

No new testament is needed. The Bible was completed when Revelation was written. The Old Testament is still quite relevant, except for the civil laws of the nation of Israel. And Jesus became the once and for all blood sacrifice for the forgiveness sin, so additional blood sacrifices for sin are no longer needed or helpful.

I recommend the book 30 Days to Understanding the Bible (http://www.amazon.com/Days-Understanding-Bible-Max-Anders/dp/1418545945) and also Begin (http://www.amazon.com/Begin-Journey-Through-Scriptures-Believers/dp/0890516308).

 

[Luke17:37]

The Bible is God's map to lead us to salvation. It isn't a history or science textbook. There is a lot that sounds mythic in it, especially the Pentateuch. But whether it is historic or not, the stories and ideas are important to establish the groundwork for 2nd temple Judaism from which Christianity arose.

...The important things are sin and salvation, so don't worry too much over the minutiae.

Whenever people say the Bible isn't a history or science textbook, they usually do so to dismiss the history and science He presented in favor of the ones mere men proclaim today. The Bible is true on everything it discusses, from creation, to science, to salvation, to the end of the world. We can't dismiss any of it.

When Jesus talked to Nicodemus, He said:

John 3:11-12
11 Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?

If we can't believe the Bible on history and science, why should we believe the Bible on salvation? I caution caution anyone who would disregard the history and science presented by the Bible and say that salvation is the only important message. God's plan of salvation without the historical foundation of Genesis 1-3 makes no sense. Further, 2 Peter 3:3-9 warns that in the last days scoffers who foundationally had rejected the Bible's creation account and the worldwide flood will reject the Bible's clear teaching on the end - a literal, bodily return of Jesus Christ. So then, disbelieving the beginning provides a great foundation for disbelieving the end.

Don't get too caught up in literal interpretations, for if you reject everything because of one or two things you disagree with, then you can never accept anything.

I think this is bad advice. I encourage people to believe the Scripture at face value, even if they don't understand why or how God did what He did.

Same with Christianity, it won't fit exactly the criteria you want, because Truth usually does not fit our presuppositions.

This is true. Scripture needs to change us to its standard, not the other way around.

Psalm 50:21
21 These things you have done, and I kept silent;
You thought that I was altogether like you;
But I will rebuke you,
And set them in order before your eyes.

Isaiah 55:8-9
8 “For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord.
9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts.

 

[Radagast]

If it is accepted that the meaning of scriptures change, and should not be taken literally because we evolved, or newer scriptures cancel out the old crazy ones. I ask one final question. Should there be another testament written for modern times?

Nothing important has changed since the last one.

People have not changed in the last 1900 years (we have not "evolved"). Jesus Christ has not returned during that time.

And the old ones were not "crazy."