Fellow Christians - What is your take on the Old Testament?

[CrabCake]

Not necessarily as evidenced by so divergent interpretations of so many so learned people.
More importantly, why have you not answered my question before asking your own?

It seemed your question was why we should read the bible if reading the bible wasn't important throughout Christianity's history. My questions were an answer to that question. The fact it was not possible before but now is should be celebrated and should give us a greater reason to read it now.

Having re-read your post to see why you feel your question wasn't answered, I see you were actually going deeper than that and questioning the necessity of the bible for salvation. I don't think we disagree on this. Salvation does not require reading the bible and it never has. But salvation is the starting point of the Christian journey, not the end. I believe we were made for more than salvation. God didn't save us so that we would continue living an aimless life. God saves us and invites us to join him in the task of restoring the Earth. The bible is one of the most valuable resources we have for guiding us in doing that and helping us to understand our place in world history. Sure, you could still rely on your church leaders to read and interpret it for you, and the vast majority of believers still choose that route instead of doing it on their own; but we don't have to now that we have access to it ourselves.

 

[prometeus]

It seemed your question was why we should read the bible if reading the bible wasn't important throughout Christianity's history. My questions were an answer to that question. The fact it was not possible before but now is should be celebrated and should give us a greater reason to read it now.

Having re-read your post to see why you feel your question wasn't answered, I see you were actually going deeper than that and questioning the necessity of the bible for salvation. I don't think we disagree on this. Salvation does not require reading the bible and it never has. But salvation is the starting point of the Christian journey, not the end. I believe we were made for more than salvation. God didn't save us so that we would continue living an aimless life. God saves us and invites us to join him in the task of restoring the Earth. The bible is one of the most valuable resources we have for guiding us in doing that and helping us to understand our place in world history. Sure, you could still rely on your church leaders to read and interpret it for you, and the vast majority of believers still choose that route instead of doing it on their own; but we don't have to now that we have access to it ourselves.

Thanks for the reply and for the reconsidering my question. Bible reading not being necessary for salvation only partially answers my question. There wee back then and still exist today people have never herd of Jesus, or event the One God, much less the teachings of the bible, yet they too were and remain God's creation. Were and are those people destined for damnation?

 

[braymoore]

I shall be direct and quick with my answer. Yes, the OT has importance and should not be less studied than any other scripture. I think people don't teach/talk about it as much as the NT because let's be honest it's very difficult to understand. The way they talk and the analogies that several prophets used makes it a little harder to figure out just what they are wanting to tell us. The OT has many valuable teachings that most people overlook. And to be frankly honest most people probably don't care for it because Jesus actually isn't alive or in this book. "Why read about some prophets teachings when we have the words of the Lord himself?" is probably what most people think about the OT and NT. But I would even go as far as saying that the OT has equal or more teachings than the NT.

 

[shrubnose]

The question is in the title, of course, but I'll give some context here. As a child and young adult, I was raised in what was technically a non-denominational church, but the theology was most certainly Baptist in nature. For a long time, and for obvious reasons, that's what I considered myself and didn't think much of it. But, as a lot of us do as we get older, I began to question the things I was taught and the things I believed. Ultimately, I spent a lot of time praying, meditating, and studying in the hopes of finding out whether or not I was inclined to believe differently than my parents/upbringing had suggested, and if so, how much differently. Coupled with my internal studies, prayer, and mediation was a great deal of time spent studying comparative religion and as much theology (from across the board - Catholicism and the seemingly infinite number of Protestant theologians and philosophers that emerged later on) as I could/could understand well, and I finally found myself comfortable and confident in my faith.

Along the way, I noticed a running theme of reverence, but disregard for the Old Testament in practical terms. I realized that the Old Testament was kept around during the birth of Christianity largely due to the prophecy it laid out, but beyond that, it didn't seem, in practical terms, to have much functional value. I don't want to seem as if I am diminishing the value the OT offers. But even in my youth, the OT was only occasionally taught/preached from (aside from the famous allegories of Adam and Eve, Noahs Ark, etc., as well as the Ten Commandments), and when it was, it was usually about prophecy or was from Psalms and other, more poetic and esoteric books. Otherwise, it seemed to be disregarded. And, at least from my personal endeavors into studying Christianity, this seems to be the case, speaking in general terms of course, across the board. But I did notice that when I went to discuss this with some fellow Christians, they seemed put off by it - like I was attacking it or something. I certainly didn't mean to come off that way, and hope I don't here.

So, TL, DL:

What is your take on the Old Testament?

Do you view it as merely the prophetic justification of the New Testament and therefore ultimately replaced by it? Or is it still core to your particular denomination, sect, etc. of Christianity? I certainly don't want to undersell its utility, but what do you feel is its practical purpose in the faith, if you believe it has one?

A lot of things that happen in the Old Testament aren't going to happen in the USA.

When was the last time that someone was stoned to death for picking up firewood on Sunday?

 

[CrabCake]

Thanks for the reply and for the reconsidering my question. Bible reading not being necessary for salvation only partially answers my question. There wee back then and still exist today people have never herd of Jesus, or event the One God, much less the teachings of the bible, yet they too were and remain God's creation. Were and are those people destined for damnation?

That's a much deeper question, and actually one that is worthy of its own topic on this forum.

There are two major points of view on this in Christian theologia. There is the exclusivist position and the inclusivist position. In addition to this, there is the pluralist position (all religions are legitimate paths to God), but it is not a position that finds support among Christian theologians.

The exclusivist position, favored by Reformed theology (which dominates baptist, presbyterian, and non-charismatic evangelical movements) posits that without a conscious acceptance of Christ's atoning sacrifice, one cannot be saved. This obviously seems unjust, but as Reformed theology teaches predestination anyway, it isn't any more unjust than being pre-destined for condemnation and hearing the word.

The inclusivist position, which is favored more among Wesleyan, Catholic, and Orthodox theologians teaches that we are saved through Christ's atoning sacrifice on the cross but that knowledge or acceptance of that fact is not necessary for salvation. This is the position I tend to take. Exclusivist positions vary, from those who tend towards universalism (God saves everyone), to those who claim only that God finds a way to try to establish a relationship with people whether or not they have access to the word.

I think there is evidence that God finds a way to communicate with people who don't have the benefit of growing up in a culture that knows him. It's actually fitting that I'm about to reach back to the Old Testament for evidence since that is what this thread was about. Take the story of Balaam; although the story does not end well and Balaam eventually betrays God's people, when we first meet Balaam (in the book of Numbers) we discover that he is a Moabite who communes with God. Now, at this point in time, there hasn't been any interaction between the Moabites and the Israelites, so we know this is not a situation where there were Israelites who were living in Moab and brought their religion with them. This is before the temple and during the time that Israel was wandering the wilderness getting ready to take the promised land. Yet here is a Moabite, someone with no connection to Israel, who is portrayed as someone who had a relationship with God. This points to the possibility that people can have a relationship with God even though they have had no contact with God's people and do not have the benefit of the law and the tabernacle (or in our case, the bible).

 

[prometeus]

That's a much deeper question, and actually one that is worthy of its own topic on this forum.

There are two major points of view on this in Christian theologia. There is the exclusivist position and the inclusivist position. In addition to this, there is the pluralist position (all religions are legitimate paths to God), but it is not a position that finds support among Christian theologians.

The exclusivist position, favored by Reformed theology (which dominates baptist, presbyterian, and non-charismatic evangelical movements) posits that without a conscious acceptance of Christ's atoning sacrifice, one cannot be saved. This obviously seems unjust, but as Reformed theology teaches predestination anyway, it isn't any more unjust than being pre-destined for condemnation and hearing the word.

The inclusivist position, which is favored more among Wesleyan, Catholic, and Orthodox theologians teaches that we are saved through Christ's atoning sacrifice on the cross but that knowledge or acceptance of that fact is not necessary for salvation. This is the position I tend to take. Exclusivist positions vary, from those who tend towards universalism (God saves everyone), to those who claim only that God finds a way to try to establish a relationship with people whether or not they have access to the word.

I think there is evidence that God finds a way to communicate with people who don't have the benefit of growing up in a culture that knows him. It's actually fitting that I'm about to reach back to the Old Testament for evidence since that is what this thread was about. Take the story of Balaam; although the story does not end well and Balaam eventually betrays God's people, when we first meet Balaam (in the book of Numbers) we discover that he is a Moabite who communes with God. Now, at this point in time, there hasn't been any interaction between the Moabites and the Israelites, so we know this is not a situation where there were Israelites who were living in Moab and brought their religion with them. This is before the temple and during the time that Israel was wandering the wilderness getting ready to take the promised land. Yet here is a Moabite, someone with no connection to Israel, who is portrayed as someone who had a relationship with God. This points to the possibility that people can have a relationship with God even though they have had no contact with God's people and do not have the benefit of the law and the tabernacle (or in our case, the bible).

Thanks for the reply, it is greatly appreciated.

 

[CrabCake]

The inclusivist position, which is favored more among Wesleyan, Catholic, and Orthodox theologians teaches that we are saved through Christ's atoning sacrifice on the cross but that knowledge or acceptance of that fact is not necessary for salvation. This is the position I tend to take. Exclusivist positions vary, from those who tend towards universalism (God saves everyone), to those who claim only that God finds a way to try to establish a relationship with people whether or not they have access to the word.

I found a significant typo and unfortunately I can't edit the post anymore. So, I just want to point out that in this paragraphi I am referring to the inclusivist position, thus the bolded word there should be "Inclusivist" not "Exclusivist".

Basically, inclusivist views range from universalism at one end (which says that God saves all people), to a view that there are only rare exceptions to the rule that one must accept Christ's atoning sacrifice in order to be saved.

I tend to view knowledge of Christ's sacrifice, belief in it, repentance, baptism, and ongoing sanctification as the preferred and ideal path to salvation. But not necessarily the only path. But more importantly, I see salvation as the beginning of a journey, not the end goal. We are saved for a purpose and called into certain kind of life. So these questions of salvation, though important, I feel like they can often distract from the more important question; yes, you are saved, but now what?

 

[blackjack50]

The question is in the title, of course, but I'll give some context here. As a child and young adult, I was raised in what was technically a non-denominational church, but the theology was most certainly Baptist in nature. For a long time, and for obvious reasons, that's what I considered myself and didn't think much of it. But, as a lot of us do as we get older, I began to question the things I was taught and the things I believed. Ultimately, I spent a lot of time praying, meditating, and studying in the hopes of finding out whether or not I was inclined to believe differently than my parents/upbringing had suggested, and if so, how much differently. Coupled with my internal studies, prayer, and mediation was a great deal of time spent studying comparative religion and as much theology (from across the board - Catholicism and the seemingly infinite number of Protestant theologians and philosophers that emerged later on) as I could/could understand well, and I finally found myself comfortable and confident in my faith.

Along the way, I noticed a running theme of reverence, but disregard for the Old Testament in practical terms. I realized that the Old Testament was kept around during the birth of Christianity largely due to the prophecy it laid out, but beyond that, it didn't seem, in practical terms, to have much functional value. I don't want to seem as if I am diminishing the value the OT offers. But even in my youth, the OT was only occasionally taught/preached from (aside from the famous allegories of Adam and Eve, Noahs Ark, etc., as well as the Ten Commandments), and when it was, it was usually about prophecy or was from Psalms and other, more poetic and esoteric books. Otherwise, it seemed to be disregarded. And, at least from my personal endeavors into studying Christianity, this seems to be the case, speaking in general terms of course, across the board. But I did notice that when I went to discuss this with some fellow Christians, they seemed put off by it - like I was attacking it or something. I certainly didn't mean to come off that way, and hope I don't here.

So, TL, DL: What is your take on the Old Testament? Do you view it as merely the prophetic justification of the New Testament and therefore ultimately replaced by it? Or is it still core to your particular denomination, sect, etc. of Christianity? I certainly don't want to undersell its utility, but what do you feel is its practical purpose in the faith, if you believe it has one?

No. It isn't the core. Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament. He is the new covenant. The laws of the Old Testament are only valuable as they were valuable to the Jews and their guidelines for life. Render unto ceasar and all that. Jesus was about the after life. Not so much this life.

 

[it's just me]

Yes I do and it is entirely irrelevant to my question. Care to offer an answer?

I already did.

 

[prometeus]

I already did.

Not to the question I asked in the later part of my post.

 

[it's just me]

Not to the question I asked in the later part of my post.

Do you mean this?

How about the countless people in the rest of the world many to this day who have never even heard of the bible, are they all destined for eternal damnation?

Do you mean people who are righteous but have not heard? See Romans 2:5-16.

 

[tosca1]

The question is in the title, of course, but I'll give some context here. As a child and young adult, I was raised in what was technically a non-denominational church, but the theology was most certainly Baptist in nature. For a long time, and for obvious reasons, that's what I considered myself and didn't think much of it. But, as a lot of us do as we get older, I began to question the things I was taught and the things I believed. Ultimately, I spent a lot of time praying, meditating, and studying in the hopes of finding out whether or not I was inclined to believe differently than my parents/upbringing had suggested, and if so, how much differently. Coupled with my internal studies, prayer, and mediation was a great deal of time spent studying comparative religion and as much theology (from across the board - Catholicism and the seemingly infinite number of Protestant theologians and philosophers that emerged later on) as I could/could understand well, and I finally found myself comfortable and confident in my faith.

Along the way, I noticed a running theme of reverence, but disregard for the Old Testament in practical terms. I realized that the Old Testament was kept around during the birth of Christianity largely due to the prophecy it laid out, but beyond that, it didn't seem, in practical terms, to have much functional value. I don't want to seem as if I am diminishing the value the OT offers. But even in my youth, the OT was only occasionally taught/preached from (aside from the famous allegories of Adam and Eve, Noahs Ark, etc., as well as the Ten Commandments), and when it was, it was usually about prophecy or was from Psalms and other, more poetic and esoteric books. Otherwise, it seemed to be disregarded. And, at least from my personal endeavors into studying Christianity, this seems to be the case, speaking in general terms of course, across the board. But I did notice that when I went to discuss this with some fellow Christians, they seemed put off by it - like I was attacking it or something. I certainly didn't mean to come off that way, and hope I don't here.

So, TL, DL: What is your take on the Old Testament? Do you view it as merely the prophetic justification of the New Testament and therefore ultimately replaced by it? Or is it still core to your particular denomination, sect, etc. of Christianity? I certainly don't want to undersell its utility, but what do you feel is its practical purpose in the faith, if you believe it has one?

To me, the Old Testament is more than just a book of prophecies. It is history - how do we know, study and understand Christianity if there is no Old Testament to begin with?

So many detractors of the Bible point to the Old Testament as evidence of a raging and lunatic God thus perhaps so many Christians try to "distance" themselves from the Old Testament. Some denominations I'm told don't even bother with the Old Testament.

To me, the Old Testament gives us some understanding as to what God truly requires from us. One thing I've come to see in reading the Bible (I'm on my third time now) is the love of God for His people. How He truly was grieved by the repeated unfaithfulness of Israel despite all the things that God had given them. It will be hard to see that love without knowing the details from the Old Testament.

How will we even fully understand the importance of the Messiah - as prophesied and referred to often in symbolisms throughout the Old Testament.

And it is relevant to the NT, and very much a BIG part of Christianity whether we like it or not. - Jesus upheld it, and was quoting from it.

 

[tosca1]

I knew of someone who was so interested by the Vietnam War that he bought and collected various non-fiction materials that talked about it from different angles and perspectives.

If our interest is in our salvation and entering the kingdom of God, shouldn't we try to know and understand as much as we can?

 

[tosca1]

fight?

Nah. not at all. It was 24 years ago now and my life is 1000% better.
In the recovery the first thing you learn is that no human power can restore us to sanity. All I did was follow orders and be in pain, God did the rest.

I knew in advance that there would be no argument, but in here I take a lot of heat and certain posters troll me, looking for ammunition, and what better target than a believer.

What so few people get, IMHO, is that it's not about church, its not about how much or how well you pray, it is about having a one-on-one relationship with a living being. With that relationship HE will do the teaching.

Two years ago I was having trouble getting to a Bible study group and as I fretted about it, working up a good head of anxiety, I heard/felt a strong voice say: "I will teach you."
Two weeks later I was enrolled in a theology course on scholarship. And it is from that course that dealt with traditions, culture and anthropology where I saw how God handling of His people has changed and modified, not because HE has to change, but because will will not understand it....

If God had given me the same level of understanding I have today when I first 'met' him, I would have likely had myself committed.

I've tried to read the Bible way back and couldn't get past the first few pages. It was hard to understand. I never opened it again even though I wanted to be like my dad who read from the Bible everyday. He looked so at peace.

It was when I was feeling restless and in need of faith that I "accidentally" stumbled onto a preacher on tv (Charles Price from Living Truth) talking about the Rocky Road to Faith that I got glued to the screen.
He would read a passage from the Bible and explain it, and indeed the passage made sense.
The preacher made it look so easy to read and understand the Bible that I started reading on my own!
I never stop since then. I also got a Bible Study Bible to help.

 

[TobyOne]

If you're a christian, this is nonsense. If you're not a christian then you don't have a point.

My simple take on the old testament is that Jesus Himself said that he "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." Mathew 5:17 KJV and it's also written "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Matheww 5:18-19 KJJV Therefore from these statements of Jesus Christ himself i have to conclude that we cannot throw out the old law and anyone who says so shall pay for there decision in time i feel most Christians abandon the old Testament when in fact they are the greatest of our laws the entire New Testament was simply an extension of the Old with Christ's laws as well as the apostles neither testament is greater then the other.

 

[jmotivator]

I have found throughout my life that the chief criticisms hurled at Christianity by non-Christians stem from selected passages from the old testament. Invariably the person making these observations is attempting to prove that they have a learned grasp of the text. This has always been a rather bizarre and self defeating argument. It is akin to saying that you read Moby Dick but didn't like it so much because they never found the whale.

 

[Logicman]

The question is in the title, of course, but I'll give some context here. As a child and young adult, I was raised in what was technically a non-denominational church, but the theology was most certainly Baptist in nature. For a long time, and for obvious reasons, that's what I considered myself and didn't think much of it. But, as a lot of us do as we get older, I began to question the things I was taught and the things I believed. Ultimately, I spent a lot of time praying, meditating, and studying in the hopes of finding out whether or not I was inclined to believe differently than my parents/upbringing had suggested, and if so, how much differently. Coupled with my internal studies, prayer, and mediation was a great deal of time spent studying comparative religion and as much theology (from across the board - Catholicism and the seemingly infinite number of Protestant theologians and philosophers that emerged later on) as I could/could understand well, and I finally found myself comfortable and confident in my faith.

Along the way, I noticed a running theme of reverence, but disregard for the Old Testament in practical terms. I realized that the Old Testament was kept around during the birth of Christianity largely due to the prophecy it laid out, but beyond that, it didn't seem, in practical terms, to have much functional value. I don't want to seem as if I am diminishing the value the OT offers. But even in my youth, the OT was only occasionally taught/preached from (aside from the famous allegories of Adam and Eve, Noahs Ark, etc., as well as the Ten Commandments), and when it was, it was usually about prophecy or was from Psalms and other, more poetic and esoteric books. Otherwise, it seemed to be disregarded. And, at least from my personal endeavors into studying Christianity, this seems to be the case, speaking in general terms of course, across the board. But I did notice that when I went to discuss this with some fellow Christians, they seemed put off by it - like I was attacking it or something. I certainly didn't mean to come off that way, and hope I don't here.

So, TL, DL: What is your take on the Old Testament? Do you view it as merely the prophetic justification of the New Testament and therefore ultimately replaced by it? Or is it still core to your particular denomination, sect, etc. of Christianity? I certainly don't want to undersell its utility, but what do you feel is its practical purpose in the faith, if you believe it has one?

Here's something that I think will clarify matters concerning OT righteousness and the purposes of the "Law."

The law was powerless to justify anyone righteous in the eyes of God for the simple reason that no mortal human was able to keep the law.

“There is no one righteous, not even one…no one who seeks God.
There is no one who does good, not even one.” (Romans 3:10-11)

“I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he
is obligated to obey the whole law.” (Galatians 5:3)

One might sweat out an entire lifetime trying to keep only one of God’s laws, much less all of them. No, keeping the law was not the way to justification.

The law has four main purposes:

1. It shows us the moral character of God
2. It serves as a tutor to lead us to Christ, by defining what sin is.
3. It is a guide for Christian living.
4. Knowing the law can keep us from suffering the adverse consequences of sin.

“When Adam sinned, all that he was and all that he did was ‘imputed’ to the whole, unborn human race. Sin left a debit on the books (Genesis 3:1-16; 2:17; Romans 5:12; 6:23). In Adam all sinned, and all died, spiritually and physically (I Corinthians 15:22). When Christ died on Calvary, the sin of Adam and the whole human race was ‘imputed,’ or put to Christs’ account. And because God imputed our sin to Christ, He suffered our penalty, which was death. All our liabilities were transferred to Him….(and) Christ’s righteousness was ‘imputed’ to us. His righteousness is credited to us, put to our account (Psalm 32:8; Romans 4:8). Justification pronounces the sinner legally innocent, freeing him from condemnation.”

Romans chapters 3-4 contain the magnificent statements of justification for those who place their faith in Jesus Christ. Romans 3:21-22 states:

“But now a righteousness from God, apart from (observing) the
law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets
testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in
Jesus Christ to all who believe.”

A few sentences later, Paul declares, “For we maintain that a man is justified (righteous in the eyes of God) by faith apart from observing the law.” (Romans 3:28)

Justification by Faith – How believers are declared righteous by God « The Righter Report

Righteousness was ALWAYS by faith in God (Genesis 15:6, Ephesians 2:8-9), and not by 'works'.

 

[Jerry]

The question is in the title, of course, but I'll give some context here. As a child and young adult, I was raised in what was technically a non-denominational church, but the theology was most certainly Baptist in nature. For a long time, and for obvious reasons, that's what I considered myself and didn't think much of it. But, as a lot of us do as we get older, I began to question the things I was taught and the things I believed. Ultimately, I spent a lot of time praying, meditating, and studying in the hopes of finding out whether or not I was inclined to believe differently than my parents/upbringing had suggested, and if so, how much differently. Coupled with my internal studies, prayer, and mediation was a great deal of time spent studying comparative religion and as much theology (from across the board - Catholicism and the seemingly infinite number of Protestant theologians and philosophers that emerged later on) as I could/could understand well, and I finally found myself comfortable and confident in my faith.

Along the way, I noticed a running theme of reverence, but disregard for the Old Testament in practical terms. I realized that the Old Testament was kept around during the birth of Christianity largely due to the prophecy it laid out, but beyond that, it didn't seem, in practical terms, to have much functional value. I don't want to seem as if I am diminishing the value the OT offers. But even in my youth, the OT was only occasionally taught/preached from (aside from the famous allegories of Adam and Eve, Noahs Ark, etc., as well as the Ten Commandments), and when it was, it was usually about prophecy or was from Psalms and other, more poetic and esoteric books. Otherwise, it seemed to be disregarded. And, at least from my personal endeavors into studying Christianity, this seems to be the case, speaking in general terms of course, across the board. But I did notice that when I went to discuss this with some fellow Christians, they seemed put off by it - like I was attacking it or something. I certainly didn't mean to come off that way, and hope I don't here.

So, TL, DL: What is your take on the Old Testament? Do you view it as merely the prophetic justification of the New Testament and therefore ultimately replaced by it? Or is it still core to your particular denomination, sect, etc. of Christianity? I certainly don't want to undersell its utility, but what do you feel is its practical purpose in the faith, if you believe it has one?

I've read the OT a couple times, and my take was....I didn't like it. The bible made the whole faith feel like a "wow god you're so great please let me suck your dick so you don't kill me"...where the only reason to worship God is to save your own ass, not because God inspired anything inside me.

I listen to Dave Ramsey, on his show he quotes the "scripture of the day"...and it's usually something pretty good, and I think "wtf were was that when I read the bible". http://www.daveramsey.com/church/scriptures/

 

[ash4kh]

So, TL, DL: What is your take on the Old Testament? Do you view it as merely the prophetic justification of the New Testament and therefore ultimately replaced by it? Or is it still core to your particular denomination, sect, etc. of Christianity? I certainly don't want to undersell its utility, but what do you feel is its practical purpose in the faith, if you believe it has one?

I believe the Old Testament is what God wanted us to know before Christ was born. A history lesson. He wanted us to know how we were created. Also, by having the OT we learn the lineage of Christ. His blood line. We get to see Jesus' ancestors, imperfect people, lead up to a perfect being. And we learn of the power that God has and what power even Satan has. Job for instance. And see how people make mistakes but God still used them.

And also so we could learn from it. Proverbs, for instance, is something all people can read and learn about how we better ourselves. To be kind and gentle. Hate the sin not the sinner. Points that husbands, wives, and children can learn from. We get to read the songs that were lifted up to God through Psalms. But favorite chapter in the Bible is in Psalms.


There is great importance to the Old Testament. Obviously what I wrote was just a drop in the bucket but i am at work and can not write too much at one time.

God wanted it written and wanted it read. That makes it important.

 

[yobarnacle]

The New Testament is TRUE because of the blood of the Apostles. They KNEW the life and death and resurrection of Christ was TRUE.
OR ELSE, they KNEW it was a contrived LIE!
They were there and witnessed it. They KNEW one way or the other, truth or lie.
That most Apostles died agonizing deaths, when recanting would have saved them, attests THEY believed in Christ wholeheartedly.
While people have died believing in lies, NOBODY under goes torture and willing dies for a lie they KNOW is a lie!
Apostolic TRUTH is the proof of the NT is the Word of God. They affixed their signatures written in their own blood!
The Old Testament has three proofs it's the Word of God.
The Apostle's endorsed it as did Jesus.
The prophecies came true. Prophetic truth.
The third is the mechanics of accurate Oral History found in the OT.
Oral History, TRUE oral history, is very clever in maintaining purity of narrative.
First, it's sung or chanted. How many long poems do you know compared to how many songs lyrics do you know?
Did you think the lyrical nature of the OT was accidental? KJV is considered beautiful in it's poetical cadence.
Music aids memory of lengthy recitations. Synagogues have cantors to chant the scriptures. Latin for singers, look up cantor in spanish.
In addition to being recited and taught, with other learned sages monitoring for deviation, good oral history included 'clever tricks' to keep it accurate.
The OT is full of numerology, anagrams, secret codes. These aren't arcane magic or mystery religion intrusion. But deliberate and for a righteous cause.
They are checks against accuracy. Proofs the history is intact.
If the History gets distorted or embellished, the numbers don't add correctly, the anagrams turn to gibberish, and the codes are nonsense.
Study of the OT reinforces our faith!

 

[tosca1]

When Jesus was arrested and killed, most of His disciples went into hiding, fearing that they will be rounded up and persecuted.
But that fear was replaced by courage. Courage that can only stem from sheer confidence.

Indeed, the fearlessness of the Apostles who willingly died as martyrs....because they had personally WITNESSED the Resurrection. They saw the evidence that Jesus is the MESSIAH. The Apostles were not the only witnesses. There were others.

Here's how most of them died.

During the persecutions in the early Church many an apostle became a martyr. James the son of Zebedee was beheaded, this is recorded in Acts 12:1-3: “Now about that time Herod the king stretched out his hand to harass some from the church. Then he killed James the brother of John with the sword. And because he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to seize Peter also.” But it was not Peter’s time as angel rescued him while the saints prayed. Both Peter and Paul were both eventually martyred in Rome about 66 A.D., during the persecution under Emperor Nero. Paul was beheaded by the sword. Peter was crucified upside down at his request, since he did not feel he was worthy to die in the same manner as his Lord.

Andrew preached in Asia Minor, modern-day Turkey, and in Greece and was crucified on an “X”-shaped cross. It is known today as St. Andrew’s Cross.

Philip had a far reaching ministry in Carthage North Africa and in Asia Minor. He converted the wife of a Roman proconsul who retaliated by having Philip arrested, scourged and thrown into prison. Afterwards he was crucified at Heliopolis, in Phrygia A. D. 54

Simon the Zealot was ministering in Persia, and was killed after refusing to sacrifice to the sun god. Mark was dragged to pieces by the people of Alexandria. According to Foxes book of Martyrs Mattias who replaced Judas in the closed group of twelve apostles to Israel was stoned at Jerusalem and then beheaded.

James who was the pastor of the Jerusalem church; step brother of Jesus and author of the Epistle died in 62 A.D., by his fellow brethren he tried so desperately to reach. The Sanhedrin Pharisees and Sadducees assembled demanding him to declare from the galleries that Jesus was not the Messiah. He went to the roof and instead of blaspheming the name he shouted out Jesus is the Son of God and judge of the world. Enraged the Jews hurled him off the temple he was then beaten and as he was stoned He prayed as Jesus did, “father forgive them they know not what they do.” He finally had his Life ended with a club.

There were known to be 10 waves of persecutions under the Roman emperors. Christians were tortured, even woman and children the young and old- whole families died for their faith in horrible ways. Drowning, burning parts of the body, being torn in pieces, burnings at the stake and being beheaded were commonplace. It is said for several weeks the countryside was lit up by Christians that were torched. But with all this being done the Church increased. No one could say anything against the brave faith illustrated by these martyrs facing death, God’s grace was upon them, even more so in their death.

Some of the most vicious persecutions were under the watch of Emperor Trajan. Ignatius wrote before his exit “Now I begin to be a disciple. I care for nothing, of visible or invisible things, so that I may but win Christ. Let fire and the cross, let the companies of wild beasts, let breaking of bones and tearing of limbs, let the grinding of the whole body, and all the malice of the devil, come upon me; be it so, only may I win Christ Jesus!” As he heard the lions roaring, he said. “I am the wheat of Christ: I am going to be ground with the teeth of wild beasts, that I may be found pure bread.” (Foxes book of Martyr’s)


Martyrs of the early church



John 20
26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.



The OT was upheld by Jesus and the Apostles in their preachings.