Is there version of Christianity that rejects the Old Testament?

It seems that the God in the Old Testament (mean, vengeful) has nothing to do with the God in the New Testament (loving, forgiving).

Also, Jesus’ “turn the other cheek” and “love your enemy” is the exact opposite of “an eye for an eye”.

So, shouldn’t there be a sect in Christianity that rejects the Old Testament, and uses only the New Testament?

My question is: is there such a sect, and, in general, does it make sense for Christians to reject the Old Testament?

Yes, there was, but they are extinct now:

Manicheanism (or Gnosticism, one or both of the two) posited an evil demiurge as the God of the OT, whereas the Father of the NT was a different entity.

It is not a wholesale rejection of the OT, but it’s something close.

I would say that general Jesus Freakery also comes pretty close to rejecting the OT, at least ignoring it.

For the record, Jews don’t consider God to be “mean and vengeful”. He’s just a bit of a hardass.

Have you actually studied the Tanakh and New Testament or have you decided this using some other means?

I don’t know what the “Tanakh” is, but I assume you are referring to the Old Testament.

I have read both, but of course I’m not a Bible scholar.

But, you really don’t have to be. Just contrast Jesus’ “turn the other cheek” and “love your enemy” to “an eye for an eye” and you’ll see that the two belief systems are fundamentally different.

Christians do reject the old testament in a sense. Jesus was, according to them, the fulfillment of the law. That means that a lot of what’s in the OT doesn’t apply anymore, though a lot of it does.

I’ve never actually been clear on whether there’s an actual method to which laws are fulfilled and which aren’t, though.

Anyway, it’s easy to draw contrasts by only using a few quotes. Just remember that Christianity is the group that came up with the idea of every member of humanity being doomed to hell because of Adam and Eve, and that the Old Testament God went through quite the rigamarole to show Jonah that he loves all his creations.
I think your understanding of one or both religions is a bit selective.

The God of my people? He’s a hardassed diety for a stiff-necked people, is all. Doesn’t mean he isn’t loving, and we certainly wouldn’t have it any other way.

The “hard ass” God of the OT made provison for proper care of orphans, widows, the poor, and alien residents, making sure that such disadvantaged one weren’t abused or taken advantage of. (A point that seems to be often overlooked in these arguments.) But, he did have a lot of “they needed killin” going on.

Also, when looking at the actions and speeches of Peter, Phillip, and Stephen in Acts, and reading the arguments from the Mosaic Law expert Paul in his letters, it seems pretty clear that they valued the writings of the OT. They referenced The Law and the Prophets quite a bit.

As to how things may be interpreted in modern times, though, it looks as though some denominations, sects, or individuals pick and choose to support ther own beliefs.

ymmv

This needs to be bronzed and erected into a monument placed at the entrance of Great Debates, so that all those tempted to generalize about the Bible on the basis of a little cursory reading of selected passages can be sent over to look at it.

As far as your last paragraph goes, I think that’s true for all denominations, sects, and individuals – or at least to the extent that some passages are focused on and others glossed over. The difference I’d draw is that some groups found this on Jesus’s own concepts of what was important and what extraneous, while others make their own selections. (Obviously this will not apply to Jews in any way, shape, or form – they have their own sense of how to interpret and focus, which amazingly enough seems in large part to mirror much of what Jesus taught.)

Thank you, Polycarp. That means a lot to me.

The “out of context” Biblical arguments are why I tend to avoid GD Biblical threads and stick to GQ and IMHO Bible subjects. It gets really frustrating, as you are well aware.

Anyways, you made my day, brother.

Getting back to the OP…

I think it is impossible for any Christian sect to completely disregard the OT in toto. The reason for this is simply because of the belief that Jesus is the messiah that was promised and expected. As such, they need the OT to make the claim that Jesus is the messiah.

OTOH, many (all?) Christians “disregard” the laws under the notion that Jesus fulfilled the law. As to then why certain OT laws are kept (prohibitions on incest, adultery, witchcraft, homosexuality, etc.) and others were deemed to be “fulfilled” (the holidays, kashrus, mezzuzah, etc.), I never really received a good answer on that. I started a thread on it a while back and while several ideas were put forth by some of our more knowledgeable posters, no concrete “rule” was set forth.

Zev Steinhardt

Not a hard fast rule, that’s for sure, but some things viewed as wrong by Christianity actually preceed the Mosaic Law Covenant.

I offer the example of Joseph and the “sin” of adultery. Though there was not (as far as I know) a written code yet, when he was propositioned to commit adultery by Potipher’s wife, he refused, saying in effect, (paraphrased) “I cannot take another’s wife and thus sin against God.”

Maybe that has something to do with yourexcelent point, Zev, maybe not. I do find it interesting, though.

Not a sect, but a historical organization that might qualify:

the Deutsche Christen (German Christians) were the organized pro-Nazi faction in the main Protestant churches in Germany. They sought to dissociate Christianity from its Jewish roots; at their general assembly on November 13, 1933 they passed a resolution that the OT should be removed from the Bible. They did not succeed in getting this passed in the representative bodies of their churches, though.

As getting rid of the OT would seem to be a logical precondition of dissociating Christianity from its Jewish heritage I would not be surprised if there were some small anti-semitic sect somwhere that wholly repudiates the OT.

Do you have a link to that thread? It sounds like interesting reading.

Right. That and the fact the NT at times refers to the OT, thus a Christian would need to OT to understand the context. Pretty hard for any Christian sect to totally diregard the OT. Although some see it as being of minor importance.

The Golden Rule is from Leviticus.

The Book of Revelation contains a God who is as hard-ass and vengeful as anything in the Tanakh.

Neither the Hebrew Bible or the Christian New Testament can be simplified as representing only one particular image of God.

I remember that, Zev, and IIRC I declined to answer, simply because I don’t agree with the moral vs. ritual law distinction. (I may have made an effort to explain the position of those who do, though, insofar as I “get” it.)

Here ya go.

Zev Steinhardt

I meant to take on Zev’s Q at the time- this is certainly not a full response but it’s the best I can come up with at the moment-

Basically, the moral law (often called the Noachic law) precedes the ritual law, appearing either explicitly or implicitly throughout Genesis. The only ritual laws that show up in Genesis are animal sacrifice, tithing, fully bleeding animals, eating clean meat & Sabbath. The festivals, Levitical priesthood, tabernacle service & Israel-Gentile distinctive laws were not given till Sinai. As Christ’s mission was for Israel AND all people, the non-Israelite believers are just called to obedience to the original moral laws & modification of the Genesis ritual laws (the crucifixion fulfilled the sin offerings, the first-day Resurrection festival replaced the Sabbath, Peter is given permission to eat Gentile food when sharing the Gospel with them). The Mosaic system came to an end in 70 C.E. The original Jewish followers of Jesus did keep the laws to Israel, but as the Church became Gentilized & all Jesus-folliwing Jews expelled from the Synagogues, the Israelite laws became less relevant until, unfortunately, the Church went to the extreme of forbidding their observance.

Basically, the letter to the Hebrews (from a Paul-follower, I think Luke) & the Acts of the Apostles show the process & thought involved.

I can get into more specifics if needed. That’s all I can come up with offhand.

To continue Zev’s hijack:
I agree with Polycarp that the Torah makes no distinction between moral and ritual law; it is an artificial, post-hoc distinction that is foreign to the views of both the Jewish and Christian scriptures. Nevertheless, I also knoe that Judaism has always recognized that there are moral (and even religious!) demands that apply to all humans based on who and what we are. (Some believe these to be part of the Noahide Code, predating the Mosaic Code, but this is irrelevant.) This is the basis of the concept of the Righteous Gentile. Christians are required to be righteous; they are not required to be Jews.

Paul spent quite a bit of ink trying to convince his flock that things like incest and idolotry, though no longer forbidden to Christians by the Torah (and in fact never forbidden to the Gentile Christians by the Torah) were nevertheless Not Good Ideas.

Polarius, Tanakh is the Jewish term for what Christians call the Old Testament. It is an (Hebrew) acronymn for the three groups of writings that comprise the Hebrew Scriptures (Christians order and divide the books differently): Torah (Teaching, Law), Nevi’im (Profits), and Kethuvim (Writings). It was used above either because the poster is Jewish or, I suspect, to coax this admission from you

on the assumption that people without dictionaries or extensive vocabularies must not know what they’re talking about. I admit I may have done this sort of thing to people myself; it can be a useful way of pointing out when someone doesn’t know what they’re talking about (as, quite frankly, was the case in your OP). But even when it’s useful it’s still mean and fallacious.

(And the fact that you didn’t know what you were talking about isn’t necessarily a bad thing. I mean, we’re all here to have our ignorance fought, right? It’s the people who continue obstinately in their ignorance in the face of greater knowledge and wisdom who deserve to be smacked. So far, you haven’t done that here, so you’re all right by me!)