Can one exclude the OT and still be Christian?

[Deacon_Joseph]

verne humphery:

Heretical sect founded in A.D. 144 at Rome by Marcion and continuing in the West for 300 years, but in the East some centuries longer, especially outside the Byzantine Empire. They rejected the writings of the Old Testament and taught that Christ was not the Son of the God of the Jews, but the Son of the good God, who was different from the God of the Ancient Covenant.

I certainly made no assertion that Christ was not " the Son of the God of the Jews". I don’t reject any of the OT. I just think the NT is all that is necessary.

Thanks,

Does that mean you view the OT as a record of history only? Do you not think Christian theology is a part of the OT? I believe some of the Hebrew prophets made reference to Jesus’ coming. What is your opinion?

Peace.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Other than refuting those who don’t believe that Christ fulfilled the OT and is the New Covenant, why does anyone place such emphasis on it? Once one believes the Good News (NT) why isn’t the New Testament solely sufficient to be the Christian Testament?

Thanks,

• Because God is the same in both, for one thing.
• A better answer is found in the words of St.Paul - “These things were written for our learning…” (Romans 15).
• The NT would be incomprehensible without the OT - they are alive & present & powerful in each other.
• Jesus always treated the OT (as we call it) with great respect; so should we

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Because God is the same in both, for one thing.

In the New Testament, however, we are given a new window onto G_d. We are also told that the old window is at best unclear, as Paul says, we see ‘through a glass, darkly’, (KJV), remember tat Roman glass was produced by hammering the soft melt onto a wooden anvil, with a wooden hammer. Though this glass passed light better than finely shaven horn, it was what we now describe as obscure glass, and images could not be perceived through it.

A better answer is found in the words of St.Paul - “These things were written for our learning…” (Romans 15).
The NT would be incomprehensible without the OT - they are alive & present & powerful in each other.

Except that Our Lord was careful, in his teaching, to include such OT passages which were needful to his message. Thus all of the OT that we really need is included in the NT.

Jesus always treated the OT (as we call it) with great respect; so should we

Yes, and no. Our Lord often made fun of those who took the OT too literally. It is clear that he saw the differences therein, between verbum dei, commentary, historical tales, and mythological conjecture.

 

[NotWorthy]

In the New Testament, however, we are given a new window onto G_d. We are also told that the old window is at best unclear, as Paul says, we see ‘through a glass, darkly’, (KJV), remember tat Roman glass was produced by hammering the soft melt onto a wooden anvil, with a wooden hammer. Though this glass passed light better than finely shaven horn, it was what we now describe as obscure glass, and images could not be perceived through it.

And yet, St. Paul tells Timothy, “All Scripture is profitable…”

Except that Our Lord was careful, in his teaching, to include such OT passages which were needful to his message. Thus all of the OT that we really need is included in the NT.

Where does it say this?

Yes, and no. Our Lord often made fun of those who took the OT too literally. It is clear that he saw the differences therein, between verbum dei, commentary, historical tales, and mythological conjecture.

Where did He make fun of those who tooks the OT too literally?

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

And yet, St. Paul tells Timothy, “All Scripture is profitable…”

Yes, but not equally profitable.

Where does it say this?

Of course it does not say this, but the context of Our Lord’s sayings, with his references to OT texts, make it quite clear that he quotes texts that he deems needful.

Where did He make fun of those who tooks the OT too literally?

Surely you have not forgotten the seven brothers who, in turn, married the same wife. Here Our Lord is using ridicule. That is a variety of fun. ‘Rideo’ :: ‘I laugh’

 

[NotWorthy]

Yes, but not equally profitable.

I’m sorry, but where does it say “not equally profitable”? You almost sound like, “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others”.

Of course it does not say this, but the context of Our Lord’s sayings, with his references to OT texts, make it quite clear that he quotes texts that he deems needful.

No, He says much more than this. The inspired authors only used these stories to detail their Gospels.

Surely you have not forgotten the seven brothers who, in turn, married the same wife. Here Our Lord is using ridicule. That is a variety of fun. ‘Rideo’ :: ‘I laugh’

Yes, He Ridiculed the Sadducees for trying to trap Him. You see, the Sadducees did not believe in life after death. So they were bordering on the absurd when they (who didn’t believe in the afterlife) asked Jesus about the marriage ties (in the afterlife).

So they weren’t adhering too much to the Scriptures, they were ignoring the Scriptures that dealt with the afterlife (the Sadducees only followed the Pentetauch).

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I’m sorry, but where does it say “not equally profitable”? You almost sound like, “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others”.

No! It is you who are claiming equality without witness.
Paul stated all are useful, but he did not claim that they were equally useful.
If you are relying on his witness, he does not support that conclusion.

No, He says much more than this. The inspired authors only used these stories to detail their Gospels.

Are you claiming that the OT references are glosses inserted by the Evangelists, and not references made by Our Lord? Fie!
Are you also suggesting that Our Lord made other references which the Evangelists, though guided by the Holy Spirit, forgot to include? Fie!

Yes, He Ridiculed the Sadducees for trying to trap Him. You see, the Sadducees did not believe in life after death. So they were bordering on the absurd when they (who didn’t believe in the afterlife) asked Jesus about the marriage ties (in the afterlife).

So they weren’t adhering too much to the Scriptures, they were ignoring the Scriptures that dealt with the afterlife (the Sadducees only followed the Pentetauch).

So what is your argument, Our Lord made fun of the Sadducees’ misinterpretation of the scripture. Is that not what I claimed?

 

[NoelFitz]

Q: Can one exclude the OT and still be Christian?
A: No

I have not read all the 67 contributions to this discussion.

However isn’t it interesting that one of the oldest heresies in the Church, that of Marcion, rejected the OT.

*Marcion taught that the god of the Old Testament was not the true God

Marcion was excommunicated from the Roman church c. 144 CE, but he succeeded in establishing churches of his own to rival the catholic Church for the next two centuries. earlychristianwritings.com/marcion.html*

See also newadvent.org/cathen/09645c.htm
and earlychurch.org.uk/article_marcion.html.

 

[NotWorthy]

No! It is you who are claiming equality without witness.
Paul stated all are useful, but he did not claim that they were equally useful.
If you are relying on his witness, he does not support that conclusion.

I’m simply taking Paul at his word.

All Scripture is profitable. You are the one putting the stipulation in.

Are you claiming that the OT references are glosses inserted by the Evangelists, and not references made by Our Lord? Fie!

Are you also suggesting that Our Lord made other references which the Evangelists, though guided by the Holy Spirit, forgot to include? Fie!

No, I’m simply saying each Gospel author had an audience, and a specific purpose. Matthew audience were the Judeans. He has tons of OT Scripture references in his Gospel showing the Jews how Jesus fulfilled so many Messianic Prophecies. Without this “authorization”, the Jews wouldn’t have bought into this Christianity thing. Mark, however, is talking to Christians in Rome suffering the persecutions of Nero. He is trying to show that suffering for Jesus is “sharing in His glory”. He doesn’t pay very much attention to the OT. Different audience - different story.

So what is your argument, Our Lord made fun of the Sadducees’ misinterpretation of the scripture. Is that not what I claimed?

No, you claimed that our Lord ridiculed the Sadducees for “over-emphasising” the OT Scripture - for paying too much attention to it.

My point is, the Sadducees were using an OT Scripture that they don’t even believe in to try and trap Jesus. Think of it as a Protestant using 2nd Maccabees to trip up a Catholic.

It’s the exact same thing. They are using Scripture that they don’t even recognize to try and win a point with Jesus.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I’m simply taking Paul at his word.

All Scripture is profitable. You are the one putting the stipulation in.

No, You are stipulating equality, I am stating that the assumption of equality is not supported by Paul.
Equal, thy could be, but that assumption is not pretended or supported.

No, I’m simply saying each Gospel author had an audience, and a specific purpose. Matthew audience were the Judeans. He has tons of OT Scripture references in his Gospel showing the Jews how Jesus fulfilled so many Messianic Prophecies. Without this “authorization”, the Jews wouldn’t have bought into this Christianity thing. Mark, however, is talking to Christians in Rome suffering the persecutions of Nero. He is trying to show that suffering for Jesus is “sharing in His glory”. He doesn’t pay very much attention to the OT. Different audience - different story.

So Matthew only included the OT references because he was aimimng his evangelion at the Jews.
So Mark ignored much OT reference because it was irrelevant to the Romans.
So some OT references can be irrelevant.
Is that not just what I was claiming?

No, you claimed that our Lord ridiculed the Sadducees for “over-emphasising” the OT Scripture - for paying too much attention to it.
My point is, the Sadducees were using an OT Scripture that they don’t even believe in to try and trap Jesus. Think of it as a Protestant using 2nd Maccabees to trip up a Catholic.
It’s the exact same thing. They are using Scripture that they don’t even recognize to try and win a point with Jesus.

You are dividing hairs.The Sadducees are misusing the texts. Our Lord makes fun of them in debunking their misuse.
Actually, the reference to levirate marriage concerns honour, not criminal law. The maximum punishment that the widow can impose upon the brother who fails to satisfy honour, is that of public disgrace.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Q: Can one exclude the OT and still be Christian?
A: No

I have not read all the 67 contributions to this discussion.

However isn’t it interesting that one of the oldest heresies in the Church, that of Marcion, rejected the OT.

*Marcion taught that the god of the Old Testament was not the true God

Marcion was excommunicated from the Roman church c. 144 CE, but he succeeded in establishing churches of his own to rival the catholic Church for the next two centuries. earlychristianwritings.com/marcion.html*

See also newadvent.org/cathen/09645c.htm
and earlychurch.org.uk/article_marcion.html.

It was not for setting asside the OT that Marcion was rejected, it was for his blatent gnosticism. His so-called gospel reeks of it.
It was an easy error to make as he OT ‘window’ onto G_d was of very poor quality compared with the ‘window’ provided in the NT.
Thus the OT requires a great deal of educated interpretation, and can be more of a hindrance than a help, if used wrongly, which is commonly the case.

 

[NotWorthy]

No, You are stipulating equality, I am stating that the assumption of equality is not supported by Paul.
Equal, thy could be, but that assumption is not pretended or supported.

OK, at that point you and I are at an impasse.

So Matthew only included the OT references because he was aimimng his evangelion at the Jews.
So Mark ignored much OT reference because it was irrelevant to the Romans.
So some OT references can be irrelevant.
Is that not just what I was claiming?

No, for the OT references are extremely important to some. Don’t you think there are different needs of Evangelism for different people. Just because you feel you don’t need the OT, doesn’t mean others are in the same boat.

There would have been little or no Jewish conversions if Jesus and Matthew didn’t point them out to the Jews. The Greeks (Luke’s audience) and the persecuted Romans (Mark’s audience) didn’t have this same need, but that doesn’t necessitate the Jews’ need for the OT and some poeple today.

You are dividing hairs.The Sadducees are misusing the texts. Our Lord makes fun of them in debunking their misuse.
Actually, the reference to levirate marriage concerns honour, not criminal law. The maximum punishment that the widow can impose upon the brother who fails to satisfy honour, is that of public disgrace.

The only time I divide hares is when making a gumbo!!!

You are focusing on the wrong point. Jesus is ridiculing the Sadducee’s for their false assumption on the Resurrection (BTW, did you see Today’s Gospel reading?). The Gospel itself reveals this. The story begins with “The Sadducee’s, who didn’t believe in the Resurrection…” and it ends with Jesus saying that God is the God of the Living, not the Dead". Jesus is ridiculing the Sadducee’s for their false assumption in the afterlife, rather than their truly Jewish following of the laws of marriage.

 

[NoelFitz]

Dave

many thanks for your thoughtful reply to my post. However I respectfully disagree with you.

I consider that Jesus came to fulfill not replace the Hebrew Bible.

I also consider that Jews, Protestants and Catholics differ very little.

Catholic morality is based on the Hebrew Bible.

*You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might.
The Holy Bible : New Revised Standard Version, Dt 6:5 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989).

You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.
The Holy Bible : New Revised Standard Version, Le 19:17-18 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989).

 

[Pax_Tibi]

Thanks.

Dave

many thanks for your thoughtful reply to my post. However I respectfully disagree with you.

I consider that Jesus came to fulfill not replace the Hebrew Bible.

I also consider that Jews, Protestants and Catholics differ very little.

Catholic morality is based on the Hebrew Bible.

*You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might.
The Holy Bible : New Revised Standard Version, Dt 6:5 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989).

You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.
The Holy Bible : New Revised Standard Version, Le 19:17-18 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989).

NoelFitz:

I agree that Jesus came to fulfill not replace the OT. Since it has been fulfilled, Jesus is the New Covenant. All that we need to be Christian should be contained in the NT (Christian Testament).
Jesus culled the relevant points in the OT and restated and clarified those things necessary for us. The NT is the final edited version.

Could it be that Faiths that cling to the OT, after receiving the NT, seem to think that Jesus didn’t get it right?

I have to disagree with you about,“Jews, Protestants and Catholics differ very little”. The NT is irrelevant to Jews. From what I hear on the radio and television, maybe not “mainline” Protestants, but certainly fundamentalists and evangelicals, place an inoridinate emphasis on the OT, vis-a-vis, the NT. However, maybe if all Christians taught and preached from Jesus’s Testament exclusively, much of the hatred and distrust within the faith might possibly be lessened.

Just some thoughts.
Thanks.

 

[NotWorthy]

The problem, Pax, is that to read the New Testament without understanding the old is like going to some place unknown without asking for directions. You may get there, but you’ll make numerous wrong turns.

In the case of the OT, you’ll find that you will understand the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles much clearer if you when you have a decent grasp of the Old Testament.

For instance, why does the High Priest tears his robes and yell blasphemy when Jesus says, “I am; and 'you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.’”?

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Dear Friends,
I believe that the conclusion we are all approaching is this:
The OT provides good background reading, setting the context of the time. However, it is not ‘de rigueur’, apart from those passages which Our Lord chose to emphasize.
Thus in a sense, the NT is ‘de rigueur’ for Christians, the OT for Jews, but optional material for Christians.
So, as Paul says, it is useful.

 

[NotWorthy]

Dear Friends,
I believe that the conclusion we are all approaching is this:
The OT provides good background reading, setting the context of the time. However, it is not ‘de rigueur’, apart from those passages which Our Lord chose to emphasize.
Thus in a sense, the NT is ‘de rigueur’ for Christians, the OT for Jews, but optional material for Christians.
So, as Paul says, it is useful.

I’m sorry, but I’m not working towards that conclusion. Not even close. Every time I read the OT, I come to a fuller and deeper knowledge of Christ and the New Testament. If you love someone, don’t you want to know everything about them? Don’t you want to do the same with Christ?

I asked a question of Pax and I’ll ask one or two to you.
"Why does the High Priest tears his robes and yell blasphemy when Jesus says, “I am; and 'you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.’”?

What is the significance of Jesus saying “Let anyone who thirsts, come to me. And I will give him living water”.

If you understand this only from a NT perspective, you’ve just run your understanding through the rinse cycle of the carwash.

If you understand them from the books of Daniel and Zechariah, then you’ve just ran your understanding through the Deluxe Wash, Wax, and Spot-Free Dry Cycle!!!

 

[NotWorthy]

Dear Friends,
I believe that the conclusion we are all approaching is this:
The OT provides good background reading, setting the context of the time. However, it is not ‘de rigueur’, apart from those passages which Our Lord chose to emphasize.
Thus in a sense, the NT is ‘de rigueur’ for Christians, the OT for Jews, but optional material for Christians.
So, as Paul says, it is useful.

OK, so after I go look up the meaning of the phrase "de rigueur’, I need to re-address this point.

There is a logical “next step” if you will to this line of reasoning. First it’s, Hey, if it’s OT, it’s not too important. The next step is, “Hey, if Jesus didn’t say it in the NT, it can’t be too important. So all this Sacred Traditions that you Catholics strut around with isn’t necessary, either.”

This thought process some of you have presented has been nagging at the back of my mind ever since this thread started and I didn’t know why. Now, I realize that that is what’s bugging me.

Nothing personal, mind you, for I certainly don’t mean it that way. It’s just something I’m passionate about.

BTW, do you feel this way about the OT because you’ve read it, and you didn’t sense the importance? Or do you feel this way maybe because you haven’t read it? Just wondering.

 

[Pax_Tibi]

NotWorhty:

I sincerely admire your deep knowledge and sincere passion concerning the Word of God. My intention was never to be disrespecful of the OT. I hope you know that.

As to your question:

For instance, why does the High Priest tears his robes and yell blasphemy when Jesus says, “I am; and ‘you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.’”?

My best shot would be: When Jesus said “I AM”, He meant that He was God. This was the ultimate blasphemy. Simply saying the words was forbidden by custom. The tearing of the clothes is a dramatic gesture exhibiting overwhelming shock. Sitting at the right hand of the Power and not standing or bowing would be that Jesus equates Himself as equal.

To your next post: I have not had any formal bible study. Have I read it (OT)? Yeah. Haphazardly over the years. And obviously at the readings during Mass.

I know I’ve said this too many times and sound like a broken record and this may be unjustified, but I get turned off by the simplistic preaching of radio/TV evangelists misusing the OT. It’s as if Jesus hadn’t come yet.

Voco proTatiano:

You come the closest to what I mean, but say it better.

Thanks to all.

 

[NotWorthy]

NotWorhty:

I sincerely admire your deep knowledge and sincere passion concerning the Word of God. My intention was never to be disrespecful of the OT. I hope you know that.

As to your question:

For instance, why does the High Priest tears his robes and yell blasphemy when Jesus says, “I am; and ‘you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.’”?

My best shot would be: When Jesus said “I AM”, He meant that He was God. This was the ultimate blasphemy. Simply saying the words was forbidden by custom. The tearing of the clothes is a dramatic gesture exhibiting overwhelming shock. Sitting at the right hand of the Power and not standing or bowing would be that Jesus equates Himself as equal.

To your next post: I have not had any formal bible study. Have I read it (OT)? Yeah. Haphazardly over the years. And obviously at the readings during Mass.

I know I’ve said this too many times and sound like a broken record and this may be unjustified, but I get turned off by the simplistic preaching of radio/TV evangelists misusing the OT. It’s as if Jesus hadn’t come yet.

Voco proTatiano:

You come the closest to what I mean, but say it better.

Thanks to all.

No disrespect detected. Don’t worry, sometimes I’m so dense, I can’t tell that someone’s cutting me down. Life is so much better that way.

The short version of the “Blasphemy” theme is that the High Priest recognizes Jesus’ allusion to the Book of Daniel. Not only is Jesus saying that He is God (as you correctly put it), but that Jesus is also condemning the Jewish leaders. In the book of Daniel, the Son of Man came down as Jesus describes to destroy the beasts, which is what Jesus is comparing the High Priest to. These beasts are similar to the beasts in Revelation, with the same connotations.

Yes, the OT is abused by numerous preachers, but that doesn’t eliminate the need for it, for through it we come to recognize more fully the story of Jesus.