Busy Abraham!

[notsmart]

He circumcises himself and all the males in his household, and in Genesis 14:14 it seems there are a lot in the household at that time. He already had 318 slaves.
Then later he feeds God! and 3 angels! Butter, milk, and a calf…?

That’s not a koser meal he served at all. And, why does God need to eat?

I really don’t see the point of reading the old testament.

 

[Cari]

He circumcises himself and all the males in his household, and in Genesis 14:14 it seems there are a lot in the household at that time. He already had 318 slaves.
Then later he feeds God! and 3 angels! Butter, milk, and a calf…?

That’s not a koser meal he served at all. And, why does God need to eat?

I really don’t see the point of reading the old testament.

ROFL!

I might be wrong, but I thought that kosher laws weren’t given until Moses, so Abraham didn’t have to follow them, since he didn’t know them. Of course, my grasp of the OT is shaky at best, so I’m willing to be corrected.

Far smarter people than I (who also find reading the OT confusing at best) have said that what the OT conceals, the NT reveals. That the OT not only shows the paving of the way for the Messiah in history, but also helps to pave the way in our hearts as well.

It is a seamless love story, of God pursuing a cold lover from the initial betrayal in the garden all the way to their reunion at Calvary and beyond.

 

[Mintaka]

What’s the point of reading the Old Testament?

What’s the point of reading the history of your family, or your country? Gosh, you might learn something about where you come from, and meet some interesting people. You might learn how people think and what they’re capable of, good and bad.

Beyond that, of course, you get the skinny on God’s plan of salvation, and typology of the Savior and His Kingdom’s eternal glory, too.

But wait, there’s more! Read now, and we’ll throw in a Ginsu knife set!

 

[notsmart]

What’s the point of reading the Old Testament?

What’s the point of reading the history of your family, or your country? Gosh, you might learn something about where you come from, and meet some interesting people. You might learn how people think and what they’re capable of, good and bad.

Beyond that, of course, you get the skinny on God’s plan of salvation, and typology of the Savior and His Kingdom’s eternal glory, too.

But wait, there’s more! Read now, and we’ll throw in a Ginsu knife set!

Please tell me about Jesus telling people not to wear sandals, in Mat 10:10 but …

We are told to “shake the dust off our sandals”
and God will show no mercy to the city that ignores those he sent…(he wants them to go without sandals, but he wants them to shake their sandals off to do worse to them than he did in Sodom)



Yeah, I read it and the OT stinks.

 

[Cari]

Please tell me about Jesus telling people not to wear sandals, in Mat 10:10 but …

We are told to “shake the dust off our sandals”
and God will show no mercy to the city that ignores those he sent…(he wants them to go without sandals, but he wants them to shake their sandals off to do worse to them than he did in Sodom)



Yeah, I read it and the OT stinks.

My copy of the Douy-Rheims says not to take shoes, and to shake the dust off their feet- which would make sense, seeing as how they’re barefoot and all.
You can see it here:
drbo.org/chapter/47010.htm

As for the whole Sodom thing- I guess that’s another reason why it’s important to read the OT- that way, we can see how God was willing to curtail His wrath at the request of one godly man. And when even the paltry standards that man put forth weren’t met by the city, God acted. But not before being willing to show mercy at the request of a servant.

I think the passage in Matthew is saying that in the case of cities that reject the disciples, God will not listen to any pleas for mercy, as they will have sent the godly men away already. It will be worse for those cities, because their advocates will have been thrown out by their own hand.

 

[notsmart]

Cari, that is a good explaination.

However, Matt 10:23 reads one way… then Matt 24:14 reads another way.

I am starting to wonder what the message was they meant for us to know.

 

[Cari]

Cari, that is a good explaination.

However, Matt 10:23 reads one way… then Matt 24:14 reads another way.

I am starting to wonder what the message was they meant for us to know.

Ok, I’m checking those two passages- hang on…
Matt 10:23 says:
23 And when they shall persecute you in this city, flee into another. Amen I say to you, you shall not finish all the cities of Israel, till the Son of man come.

and 24:14 says:
14 And this gospel of the kingdom, shall be preached in the whole world, for a testimony to all nations, and then shall the consummation come.

(I need them side-by-side to make any sense out of anything)
First of all, one of the reasons I’m a horrible Bible reader is because it doesn’t make sense to me. I’m a fairly smart person. I’m used to things making sense. I’m used to enjoying above average comprehension skills. But when it comes to reading the Bible, I feel like God’s talking in Charlie Brown grown up language, KWIM? That “wah-wah-wah-wah” voice? I know it’s me, but I can’t shake the feeling that the Bible is an awfully nuanced thing, and I’m too simple to grasp it.

That said, I’m guessing that the coming of the Son of Man from 10:23 and the consummation from 24:14 are two different things. We know from Jesus’ ministry that He first went to the tribes of Israel, THEN to the Gentiles. It is my poor and uneducated guess that the first passage is referring to the ministry to the Jews, the second passage deals with ministry to the Gentiles.

Maybe if we could get a definition of “consummation” as Jesus was using it, it would help us both out.

 

[notsmart]

Ok, I’m checking those two passages- hang on…
Matt 10:23 says:
23 And when they shall persecute you in this city, flee into another. Amen I say to you, you shall not finish all the cities of Israel, till the Son of man come.

and 24:14 says:
14 And this gospel of the kingdom, shall be preached in the whole world, for a testimony to all nations, and then shall the consummation come.

(I need them side-by-side to make any sense out of anything)
First of all, one of the reasons I’m a horrible Bible reader is because it doesn’t make sense to me. I’m a fairly smart person. I’m used to things making sense. I’m used to enjoying above average comprehension skills. But when it comes to reading the Bible, I feel like God’s talking in Charlie Brown grown up language, KWIM? That “wah-wah-wah-wah” voice? I know it’s me, but I can’t shake the feeling that the Bible is an awfully nuanced thing, and I’m too simple to grasp it.

That said, I’m guessing that the coming of the Son of Man from 10:23 and the consummation from 24:14 are two different things. We know from Jesus’ ministry that He first went to the tribes of Israel, THEN to the Gentiles. It is my poor and uneducated guess that the first passage is referring to the ministry to the Jews, the second passage deals with ministry to the Gentiles.

Maybe if we could get a definition of “consummation” as Jesus was using it, it would help us both out.

“We know from Jesus’ ministry that He first went to the tribes of Israel, THEN to the Gentiles”

You mean the gentile who begged him for the scraps that fell from the table when Jesus told her he was not here to help the gentiles?
Yet to keep her quiet, he gave her scraps?

Paul was the only one who went boldly to the gentiles.
And, his career was a bit, sketchy.

 

[Usagi]

notsmart,

It sounds as though your problem is not just with the Old Testament, but with Scripture as a whole, since you are now discussing New Testament passages.

It’s true that there are numerous apparent discrepancies of fact in the Scriptures, and we may not be able to read Scripture as some have been wont to do (as an absolutely accurate historical record of Israel and biography of Jesus).

Still, people have been working for thousands of years on reconciling such issues; our generation is hardly the first to take notice of them.

As for the value of the Old Testament, it has great value as a record of Israel’s growing understanding of and relationship with God. Additionally, Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, and we can hardly understand His ministry or the structure of His Church without looking back at the heritage and history out of which He and His followers came.

Ignorance of our spiritual history, both Jewish and Christian, has caused a great many troubles for the Church, from the Christian persecution of Jews to the proliferation of Protestants sects that try to reinvent everything from scratch using the Bible (ripped from its historical and social context) as an instruction manual.

Throwing out the Old Testament because some of its details are unpleasant creates far more problems than it solves. It leaves Christianity utterly rootless. When Jesus speaks of Moses and Elijah, or talks of His Father as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, how are we to know what He is talking about without the Old Testament record?

Usagi

 

[Usagi]

“We know from Jesus’ ministry that He first went to the tribes of Israel, THEN to the Gentiles”

You mean the gentile who begged him for the scraps that fell from the table when Jesus told her he was not here to help the gentiles?

True, Jesus himself did not seek to spread His ministry to the Gentiles. He came among the people He had long been preparing— a preparation we only know about through the Old Testament.

Yet to keep her quiet, he gave her scraps?

Rather, because she showed great faith, he gave her exactly what she asked for. I see no “keep her quiet” there.

Paul was the only one who went boldly to the gentiles.
And, his career was a bit, sketchy.

Well, it wasn’t just Paul, but he was the primary Apostle to the Gentiles, yes. At Jesus’ command, of course.

In what way was Paul’s career “sketchy”?

Usagi

 

[Cari]

“We know from Jesus’ ministry that He first went to the tribes of Israel, THEN to the Gentiles”

You mean the gentile who begged him for the scraps that fell from the table when Jesus told her he was not here to help the gentiles?
Yet to keep her quiet, he gave her scraps?

I don’t know if it was to keep her quiet. I think it was to show how we are expected to be active participants in our salvation. This was the Gospel passage two weeks ago, and in his homily, my parish priest talked about how this shows the importance of intercession. The mother was interceeding on behalf of her daughter- and Jesus’ actions (His initial denial to help, followed by agreement) were intended to show that God desires just this kind of action on our part.

Paul was the only one who went boldly to the gentiles.
And, his career was a bit, sketchy.

Not true. Jesus commanded, in the Great Commission, all the Apostles to go and make disciples of ALL nations- not just the tribes of Israel.

• Sts. Simon and Jude evangelized in Egypt, Mesopotamia and Persia
  -St. Philip preached in Greece and Asia Minor
  -St. Matthias is thought to have made it all the way to Ethiopia
  -Sts. Thomas and Bartholomew evangelized in India

 

[juliamajor]

I must disagree vehemently with OP about the OT.It is necessary to read it to understand the NT. Salvation History starts at creation- to remove or discount the OT is like throwing away half of “Gone with the Wind!”. You wouldn’t know How Scarlett met Rhett just like you wouldn’t know how important covenant is to the NT.Each book of the Bible lays upon another one. you cannot say any one book stands on it’s own.Could you really read the Gospels with clarity without knowing their roots in the OT?where would we be without the Psalms? or the Prophets? The care for the “anawim” that Jesus talks about so much has it’s roots in the writings of the prophets.Exodus- a type of baptism. Isaac, Moses types of Jesus.NT wouldn’t make much sense without the OT. During the past 5 years of covering the whole Bible in my Adult faith formation classes-I’ve been told by my students that the got much more out of the NT by studying the OT.It’s like their eyes become wide open and the see symbolism of the OT littered throughout the NT.I could go on and on. I wish you’d reconsider your position. reading the OT with understanding is important in understanding Biblical theology. Peace& Joy

 

[notsmart]

Thank you juliamajor,

I do try to. Its very hard for me to get over the harder passages that dont give me any connection to Jesus, or the rituals practiced in the catholic church. I am talking about the Hard passages. I have no problem with seeing the beauty inherent OT, with the ways you mention. However, there are many places in the OT, (too many) where you see no such thing you describe here. But, I will try my best to ignore that for the time being.
Thank you for your post, and I assure you I agree but with hesitations…

Monica

I must disagree vehemently with OP about the OT.It is necessary to read it to understand the NT. Salvation History starts at creation- to remove or discount the OT is like throwing away half of “Gone with the Wind!”. You wouldn’t know How Scarlett met Rhett just like you wouldn’t know how important covenant is to the NT.Each book of the Bible lays upon another one. you cannot say any one book stands on it’s own.Could you really read the Gospels with clarity without knowing their roots in the OT?where would we be without the Psalms? or the Prophets? The care for the “anawim” that Jesus talks about so much has it’s roots in the writings of the prophets.Exodus- a type of baptism. Isaac, Moses types of Jesus.NT wouldn’t make much sense without the OT. During the past 5 years of covering the whole Bible in my Adult faith formation classes-I’ve been told by my students that the got much more out of the NT by studying the OT.It’s like their eyes become wide open and the see symbolism of the OT littered throughout the NT.I could go on and on. I wish you’d reconsider your position. reading the OT with understanding is important in understanding Biblical theology. Peace& Joy