Does it? A very religious friend told me that considering the Old Testament as part of the bible is incorrect, and that something that only appears in the Old Testament cannot be said to be “in the Bible”. Is this factually accurate?
I’m sure your friend is sincere and for their purposes and beliefs the OT is not part of the bible.
Still, I would be amazed to find out that anything but the tiniest fraction of those calling them Christians would agree with your friend.
The common position is that the bible is comprised of the OT & NT.
Christians are all over the map on this. Some want the Ten Commandments posted in schools and courthouses; others, including some I’ve debated here, are quick to say that the Hebrew Bible (“Old Testament” is at best condescending to Jews) is irrelevant for Christians, especially when confronted with a verse they don’t want to acknowledge.
IMO the best answer comes from one J. Christ, who said (Matthew 5):
“17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18For 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.
19Whosoever 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.”
The Law and the Prophets are two of the three main divisions of the Hebrew Bible. Last time I checked, heaven and earth have not passed away, and everything Jesus predicted, especially end-time stuff about stars falling and people being judged, has not been fulfilled.
No, because there is no single version of “The Bible” that is definitive across religious traditions.
Of course, for Jews the New Testament is not considered part of the Bible.
Virtually all Christians consider the Hebrew Bible to be part of the Bible. Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox differ on exactly which parts of Jewish scripture are to be included in the Bible as the Old Testament.
Your friend’s opinion may be true for whatever denomination he belongs to, but it does not apply to most Christians.
Wiki provides a breakdown of the composition of the Bible according to various religious traditions.
The OT is in the Biblie if you are:
Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican/Episcopalian, Lutheran, Copt, Methodist, Presbiterian, Baptist or basicall any denomination. I’m sure there are groups that say it isn’t but they are 0.01% of all Christians.
Which is not to say that all or most or any of those groups think that the ritual laws in Exodus, Leviticus, etc are binding.
Just posting to agree with all the other answers, and to link to the Straight Dope Staff Report Who Wrote the Bible? which certainly includes the Old Testament.
Unless there’s some qualifying context we’re missing, what your friend told you is a very, very fringe view, and not one that I recall encountering—though, as noted, you’ll find Christians with differing views on how binding, relevent, or applicable the Old Testament is.
Right, that’s another part of the deal: for the Christians, those parts of the NT that contradict the OT implicitly or explicitly (e.g., Acts 15, exempting gentile converts from almost all of the ritual laws except those dealing with idolatry or sex) take precedence. FWIW, some of the laws in Exodus and Leviticus themselves forbid things that apparently were allowed back in Genesis (e.g. Abraham marrying his half-sister). Just as in US law the constitutional amendments override conflicting text in the original 1789 Constitution, but it does not make the original false or invalid or that it has passed away, just that it has since been, um, updated (this is more troublesome for those who argue for the absolute literal infallibility of every last word) .
Except for the parts about butt sex.
I was always taught that the entire bible (Old and New Testaments) is one cohesive story of God’s relationship with humanity. It starts in the Garden, goes through Egyptian slavery to the Exodus, settling of Canaan, to the kingdom of Israel and its division, the Babylonian conquest, the return to Israel and rebuilding of the temple, etc. Along the way are teachings of the coming of a messiah who will restore God’s broken relationship with humanity. Which, we are taught in the New Testament, is Jesus. The gospels use the Old Testament passages about the messiah as evidence that Jesus is him. It then goes on to detail the founding of the Christian church and the development of its beliefs and traditions. The New Testament is useless without the Old. Whether you choose to believe that is a different story, but I think this is the most common interpretation among Christians.
The Old Testament is all about God and His relationship with the Chosen people. The Old Testament law’s were for the Jewish people.
I am not a Jew, but am able to be grafted into the Christian Church through the sacrifices of the Jews and am so grateful for this.
The New Covenant that is in Christ allowed this.
The Ten Commandments are still in effect but anyone whom is In Christ, and Christ in Him will not be held to the Law, only in that we do not have to be reminded with written words to how to live like the written law was meant. A simple test of this is to know that you are a Murderer if you hate anyone on the face of this earth. I did and have repented for that and no longer have hate in me.
And I didn’t have to do 400 pushups or sit in a cell for years to be free of being a Murderer.
Sounds like your friend could be referring to supersessionism - basically, the question of which bits of the OT are still considered binding. Roman Catholics, for example, believe the OT covenant was completed and replaced by a new one.
With the caveat that not all churches with the same name agree on everything:
I’ve encountered members of a Church of Christ that did accept anything uless it was specifically mentioned in NT. Musical instruments in worship was one I remember.
I think most Christians think that the OT is God’s word but that the NT is the “revised customer agreement”.
This is what keeps them from stoning their neighbors.
I’m not sure about 0.01%, but this is basically correct. Your friend would be in the tiniest minority of Christians.
This thread has me thinking…which Christians don’t consider the OT part of “The Bible?” I’ve never encountered any.
There was an early form of Christianity called Marcionism that rejected the whole Old Testament (and also rejected the God of the Old Testament as not being the true God, but just some sort of lower, inferior, not very nice being). As already noted, the vast majority of Christian denominations (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, and assorted offshoots of those) consider Marcionites to be big old heretics.
It seems to me that people’s views about whether the OT is binding, etc., are irrelevant to the question. The term Bible is generally taken to include the OT, regardless of how one views it.
I don’t think your friend holds a minority position within Christianity. I think it is much more likely that he simply is mistaken or misspoke. Of course, it’s hard to claim that someone is mistaken in their claim that they believe something, but I’d be willing to bet that if you pressed him, either he’d admit that, ok, technically the Old Testament is part of the Bible and he always refers to it as such, but the point he was trying to make is that it doesn’t count OR that he is repeating something he learned from someone else who actually meant no such thing at all.
I’d be surprised if there is any organized religious group in the US with more than five members that actually teaches that the Old Testament is not part of the Bible. OTOH, there are millions and millions of people who will cheerfully assert any stupid thing that pops into their head if they think it will help them make a point or sound intelligent!
I think that the closest you get to “OT ain’t Bible” is the general idea that, if there is a contradiction or difference, it’s the NT who wins.
But we still consider the OT as part of the Bible. Not counting it as part of the Bible is like saying “this encyclopedia has 72 volumes, but only the last 27 are in it” or “world history begins in the year 1734”.