Old Testament- Optional?

Great Debates
1

One thing I’ve noticed in debates with and about theists is that the Old Testament is seemingly treated as “optional”- that is, God’s excesses (mistreatment of Job, the destruction of (almost) all life on Earth with the flood, the daughters being given to the mob, etc.) are pretty much ignored by most Christians, or at least the ones I’ve seen online.

It’s rare, in my experience, to meet a Christian who subscribes to the Old Testament.

Now, how is this justified? Is Christianity like a cafeteria, in which you can pick and choose what parts you believe in? Or, if some parts are meant to be metaphorical, how do you know which ones are supposed to be?

It seems to me that there’s no such thing as a “Christian”, if everyone interprets the bible in different ways. “No true Scotsman”, I guess.

My question, I suppose, is “What parts of the bible do you follow literally, and what parts do you take as metaphor, and how do you know which ones are what?”

2

I don’t really follow any parts. But the Bible does make for entertaining reading.

3

Follow the parts that are consistent with the definition of God as “love”, the moral imperative to “be perfect”, and the command to “love one another”. Any parts inconsistent with that are mistakes, misinterpretations, contradictions, or lies.

4

So (if I follow you), the only reason to believe that “God is Love” is because you say so, not because the bible says so?

No offense, but that just seems… wrong, somehow. It seems like you’re saying you can pick and choose your belief- that you don’t have to take the good with the bad… uh, so to speak.

5

[SUB]Er, I actually meant “bad with the good”, rather than the other way around.[/SUB] :smack:

6

How do we know that the “good” parts are true, while the “bad” parts are lies (or mistakes, or whatever), and not the other way 'round?

Or even, perhaps, that both the good and bad aren’t both elements of God’s nature? If all moral authority ultimately stems from God (and, thereby, only applies to us), then He is pretty much free to act as He pleases, regardless how we feel about it. So, why not accept that God is, at times, capricious, spiteful, and possibly hateful, while at others being loving and helpful?

7

Yes, religions are all cafeteria-style.

Some don’t like that, but it is still true.

(life does not have really detailed blueprints - sorry)

8

For anyone really interested, I recommend Barbara Tuchman (justly famed for The Guns of August) book, Bible and Sword. It was going to be her Ph. D thesis, but then she decided “Screw being Dr. Tuchman.” In it, she describes how the “Old Testament” became enormously important to certain groups of English people, largely due to the availability of printed Bibles. Those are the people who split from England to the US, and is largely why so many old-fashioned names are like Ezekiel, and Jebediah, and so forth and so on.

And, of course, all her other books as well.

9

Can anyone around here grasp the idea that according to some people’s views there might be a benevolent God who attempted to get His ideas of how people should behave (mercifully and benevolently towards each other, etc.) through to a rather-above-normal-morally Semitic amphictyony (multi-tribe group) with varying degrees of success, and that what some fundamentalists (not all!) worship in place of Him is a record of those efforts, not a cast-in-stone set of rules and regulations from On High?

10

Well. I’ve heard this question plenty of times before, and the biblical answer is easier than you’d think…its just overlooked too easy. Before I answer, let me explain that when I say “Christians” I am not referring to any specific religion. I’m referring to what the bible says is a Christian, which would be exactly what the New Testament commands, adding and removing nothing. So I’m not talking on anyone’s behalf except for biblical Christianity. So from hereon out, Christians (non-quoted) will be the biblical Christians, and “Christians”(quoted) will mean denominational “Christians” of the day. (note: I’m not blasting any religion. I’m just saying what the bible says in order to help)

One of the biggest problems in “Christianity” today is that a lot of people think that we are commanded to follow the ENTIRE bible, when in fact, that is really not the case. The bible is divided up into two sections, the Old and the New testaments. The Old Testament has many different sections from history, poetry, psalms/proverbs, prophecy, and law. Many times throughout the bible, the Old Testaments rules are referred to simply as the “Law”. The Law (which can be read in books Exodus through Deuteronomy. The infamous 10 commandments are in Exodus). Was very clearly written to the people, and actually very complicated (probably to where it was ridiculous to follow every last one, but the point was to try, hence the continual sin offerings from the people) and was written in a “don’t do that” style. It counters the New Testament radically because instead of telling people what they should do (i.e. Jesus’ teachings), it was written much like our governmental laws are in the United States: “You do this, you face this punishment”.

The contrast of the presentation of the Old and New Testaments is where a lot of confusion arises. Why is it that God commanded in Exodus 20:8 to keep the Sabbath day, yet in the New Testament church, its all right to go about life on Saturday? When faced with a question like that, many shrug and say God didn’t want us to anymore, but He wants us to follow the other 9. How is that fair? Its never mentioned in the New Testament to stop keeping the Sabbath….so are we just randomly picking that commandment and disregarding it? Who’s to say I cant throw out verse 13 and go off on a murdering rampage? How about animal sacrifices? We don’t do that either. Obviously something is missing here if you can pick and choose what commandments to follow and what ones not to.

Well that “missing” thing isn’t that hard to figure out. Christians aren’t supposed to follow the Old Law. Yup. According to Jesus, we are not under the 10 Commandments anymore. Now before you start screaming “blasphemy”, hear me out. If you’ll notice, Jesus mentioned throughout his life things that the world should do….the things that Christians should follow. On those things, he says that we shouldn’t murder, commit adultery, etc…basically all those things that God didn’t like ever back in the old times. So where’s the proof? Read the New Testament. Matthew 5:17 and 18 say
“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fufil. For assuredly I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.”
OK, so here Jesus is saying that His being on Earth is to not destroy the old Law, but instead to fulfill all the prophecies written about in the prophets (that there will be a Savior born of a virgin, He’ll save the people, etc…, all the way up till His death, burial, resurrection, and ascension. Once the ascension took place, then everything would be “fulfilled” from all of the prophecies). So Jesus says that absolutely nothing in the Law would be altered in the least (a jot and a tittle are the Hebrew markings much like our “dots” over our i’s.) until (and until is the keyword) everything was fulfilled. So, in layman’s terms, the Old Testament was to stay in effect until he ascended into Heaven. After that, then the new Law, those things Jesus preached and those things the New Testament writers wrote about would become the new Law, the only things that people would need to follow.

This wasn’t anything incredibly new to the people back then either. Hebrews 8:7-13 talks about how in the Old Testament it was prophesied that God was going to make a “New Covenant” and the old one would become “obsolete”. Verse 13 clearly states that the first law became “obsolete” and would soon “disappear”. Chapters 9 and 10 talk in entirety of how the Old Law is gone, and how Jesus’ blood on the cross created the new Law. Back this up with Galatians 1:8-10 and its made pretty clear: Christianity doesn’t follow the Old testament. Its completely new, and in fact it was in God’s eternal plan for it to be that way. (John 1-5, hey, its even prophesied in Genesis 3:15!)

Some denominations of the world have made Jesus’ life on Earth out to be a mistake. They claim that Jesus was supposed to take up an 1000 year reign on Earth (i.e. the “Kingdom”), but He was killed before he could do so, so Jesus instituted the church as a last minute kind of thing until he could come back again and “make up” for what He messed up on. The scriptural evidence for this is simply non-existent. Granted the Jews believed/believe that there will be an 1000 year reign sometime (due to the prophecies and Jesus talking about the “Kingdom of God”)….but has anyone noticed that all throughout the bible, before Acts 2 the “Kingdom of God” is always referred to “as coming”, but after Acts 2, its always talked about in past tense. So what’s in Acts 2? Well that would be the founding of the church….hmm…aint that ironic. Its also nice to add in that Jesus told the masses that some wouldn’t die before they saw the Kingdom of God…so unless there are 2000 year old people walking around, I kind of doubt the Kingdom hasn’t already been established yet.

So the New Testament doesn’t talk about an 1000 year reign…but wait, what about Revelation? Whew I could go into great detail the reasons…but the prophecies in Revelation aren’t ever referring to a rapture or an 1000 year reign. Take this for thought. John wrote Revelation while under a sort of “house arrest” on the small island of Patmos. Now if you were John and you got a prophecy that the Roman empire (the very people oppressing you) were going to be eventually die out, would you really write a letter to fellow Christians say “CAESAR’S GONNA DIE!”…that would be pointless and stupid. That would only get you in a heap of trouble, hence the cryptic language…change Caesar for a 7 headed dragon (how many hills were there in Rome again….oh 7 I forgot) and bingo, you got a letter you can slip past centurions no problem. Why else did the churches of the day receive and understand it? Sorry folks, this isn’t from me, this is from the bible…no rapture, no climactic war, no 1000 year reign, no signs for us to know when the second coming is. (Matt 24:36-44)…Matt 24-15-28 is in reference to the signs of the destruction of Jerusalem, not the second coming. If this weren’t true, then why do Historians account for people who fled Jerusalem before it was destroyed? Somebody must have noticed what Jesus was talking about because the church at Jerusalem continued on after they left.

Whelp, there you go. That’s the very long biblical explanation of why Christians don’t follow the Old Testament and instead follow the new Law that Jesus brought in with His death. Don’t get me wrong, I still think the Old Testament is a great thing to have. It tells us our History, gives us some background, and gives us some great lessons of life…the point is though, that Christianity doesn’t follow those rules anymore. We have our new law, and its our job to follow through with them. If its commanded in the New Testament, we are supposed to follow it….all of it. Adding nothing, and taking away nothing. If we were to do either one, we would be ignorant enough to think we know better than God does, which is wrong. If we decide even on one thing not to follow, then that only opens up the floodgates….its pick and choose for everyone, and God’s plan would be defiled by individuals. We cant pick and choose.

11

Thanks for clearing that up.

All you “Christians” got that?

12

Like I said. I wassnt blasting anybody. Thats simply what the bible says on the matter, so dont take it offencively. There was a question asked, I just answered it. Now if you want to catagorize what religions actually follow what the bible says or not, thats not for me to do.

13

Wow, TGwP, that’s a lot to take in. Thanks for taking the time.

I’m confused about one thing, though… you say that the new covenant is now in effect, which encompasses and supercedes the previous one. Obviously, a lot of the Commandments were “grandfathered in”… but what about things like animal sacrifice? Is there a passage in the New Testament which says, “Okay, you guys can forget about the whole burning animal flesh thingy”?

It seems to me that the original big ten left little room for interpretation… but if there’s no cut-and-dried version of those in the NT, then… well, that’s a lot of wiggle room, there.

Also… it’s always appeared to me that there’s almost two different Gods between the two Testaments- the previous was all hell-fire and brimstone, while the new is a “kinder, gentler” God. Maybe I’m jaded, but it really feels like big G got a new publicist, and he’s getting a new spin. Any thoughts?

14

I’m seeing a lot of conjecture being displayed as knowledge in the post by TGwP.

Esp:

15

There’s probably gonna be a lot of people who are gonna hate me for saying this…but the bible says that there is a Hell. Like I mentioned in my mammoth post before, that if we pick and choose what we care to believe or not believe according to the bible, than that makes God’s will not His, but our own.

I care to think that God hasn’t changed. The church was God’s plan after the first sin in the Garden. Instead of smiting people on the spot. A great example is Uzza of Old Testament fame…he was the guy who grabbed the ark of the covenant to keep it from falling off the livestock that was transporting it. He had great intentions, but God said that nobody could touch the ark. Despite the self-thought wise intentions of Uzza, he was still struck down dead on the spot. Cain had great intentions as well when he offered the best of his crop to God, but it still wasn’t what God asked for, and was displeased. Many consider God to be hateful for examples such of these, but I don’t consider it so. Both people knew beforehand what God expected, but still disobeyed because they thought that their own intentions superseded God’s (or were at least ignorant enough not to take God into consideration). But now times have changed. Jesus ushered in the new Law to where instead of God smiting people on the spot, he was benevolent enough to give us a better chance. Before, all it took was the instant that Uzza touched the ark to receive his punishment, but now we have an entire lifetime to make up for our mistakes.

God had a very specific system for redeeming oneself under the old Law. I’m not going to go in an explain it all (read Leviticus if you are really interested) because of the huge amount of details, but suffice to say, animal sacrifices were what “cleansed” people of their lesser-sins (not ones made spitefully). So with the new Law, all it took was perfect blood to “make up” for all those animal sacrifices. Take Hebrews 10 for example:

“For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purged, would have no more consciousness of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins…(10) By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified. And the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before, ‘This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,’ then He adds, ‘their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.’ Now where the remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.”

There’s plenty more where that came from too. Hebrews is a great book that explains the transition from Old to New law/covenant the best. I personally like chapter 8 verses 7 through 13

“For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. Because finding fault with them, He says: (note that the next part was written in the old Testament in the prophets) “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah- not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother saying ‘Know the LORD’ for all shall know Me from the least of them to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will know no more’. In that He says, ‘a new covenant’ He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.”

To summarize, God planned on getting rid of the old law, and in the new law he would open up an opportunity for those that follow God. Everyone will (does) know God…its just a matter of following Him or not in order to receive his pardon.
So yeah, its not like God just stopped handing out punishments. God’s punishment still exists, its just a matter of when we receive it. Instead of a worldly death, we have an eternal death. Note Matthew 15:31-46. Once again, if people chose to remove or disregard Hell, than God and Jesus would be liars and then who would know what was the truth and what was a lie? Suffice to say, if the bible were an ALA carte line, we’d all be in a LOT of trouble. Ditto with the “wiggle room” that you mentioned. Sure, Jesus said Himself that the greatest commandment is to love God with your entire being, and the second is to love your neighbor (everyone) like you do yourself. If you really stop and think about that, where’s the wiggle room? If you truly love God, than you want to respect His wishes, and follow Him and his commandments. Same thing with your neighbor. Just because Jesus presented things in a slightly different format doesn’t mean that He didn’t tell people what not to do as well. He said several times not to be like the Pharisees which were vain hypocrites who focused more on what people thought of them than what God thought of them. There you go, there’s 3 things right off the bat that we know we cant do. That’s not all that he did either. He was pretty blunt when He needed to be. Mark 16:16 – “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned”. (side note: “He who walks up to the base and swings the bat will hit the ball, but he who does not walk up to the base can not hit the ball”…you cant hit a ball if you are in the dugout can you? To fully believe is to be baptized) And if what Jesus said isn’t enough for you, check out the rest of the new Law, the inspired word from the apostles and followers of God written in books like the Corinthian letters or Romans or…well…Acts through Revelation. The epistles are very cut and dry. Just cause its not written up in point by point format doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. God was wise enough to present it to us in the form of letters where explanations and reasons are given, but if point by point format is more your style, Check out Galatians 5:19-21…blunt and to the point there, but its an uncomplete list.
Stpauler- note what I said on Hermeneutics. Understanding the bible and understanding the context are symbiotic. If you just rush into it and take everything literally, then you really are going to believe in 7 headed dragons and Armageddon and a bloody moon. If you rush into it disregarding everything, then you miss out on crucial things like Mark 16:16 like I mentioned above. But, if you go into each verse, reading the history and context of the bible, than you can understand exactly what is being said. Lets not forget that Revelation in itself contradicts Jesus saying that He will come like a thief in the night. Check Galatians 1:8-10 again. John wouldn’t write things totally against Christ’s message unless there was something else going on. So really, John didn’t contradict Jesus, it just appears that way unless you know the history.

16

:smiley:

Well, for heaven’s sake! Of course you should cherry pick. That’s common sense discernment. Why would you deliberately “take the bad”? The Bible does say that God is Love, but that’s not why I believe it.

17

That is exactly the god that is worshipped by some. To worship their god is a moral choice.

But I love the fact that the God Whom I worship loves goodness. As Lewis has said, God loves goodness so much that, were there an entity more good than He, He would worship it. And as far as I’m concerned, a god who is not perfectly good deserves no worship.

That’s just my own moral decision.

18

I guess I must still be confused by your posts TGwP, because it seems that you’re contradicting yourself.
First you say:

Then you refute what you say by saying that things are to be taken in with respect to context of the time and not literally.

A la carte, it seems to be Old County Buffet to me. It would appear that your interpretation of the 7 headed dragon and armageddon are solely political messages and not the word of God. So using that as your basis, you’re picking and choosing what is the word of God and what isn’t. (I’m not saying what is the word of God as I’m an atheist and it’s reality is irrelevant to me but it is relevant to the supposition of the OP).

So if you could elaborate if I’m misinterpreting your words or not I’d appreciate it.

Thanks,
S

19

I think not…

[ul]
[li]Exodus 12 clearly indicates that Passover is to be kept every year, forever.[/li][li]Exodus 31 clearly indicates that the Sabbath is to be kept forever.[/li][li]Leviticus 3 clearly indicates that the prohibition against eating certain fats and blood is to last forever.[/li][li]Leviticus 10 clearly indicates that the prohibition against a kohen entering the Temple grounds drunk is to last forever.[/li][li]Leviticus 23 clearly indicates that the prohibition against doing work on the Sabbath is to last forever.[/li][li]Leviticus 23 clearly indicates that the holidays of Shavuos, Succos and Yom Kippur are to be kept every year, forever.[/li][li]Numbers 15 clearly indicates that the commandment to put tzitzes on one’s garments is to last forever.[/li][li]Deuteronomy 5 clearly indicates that the commandments (in general) are to be kept forever.[/li][/ul]

I think you can hardly say that it was God’s plan to trash the commandments at any point.

Zev Steinhardt

20

something to remember… THE BIBLE IS NOT A BOOK!!!

it is a collection of books. they are bound in one cover so you can carry it around but it is still a collection of books, thats why there are diffrent names for diffrent parts.

go to a library… you will see a collection of books, pick up cat in the hat… it will teach you a lesson. pick up “quantum physics for the 190+ IQ set” it will teach you a lesson.

one book is litteral one is a fable. if you can prove that cat in the hat did not happen, can you go get a nobel prize for disproveing quantum physics?