Can one exclude the OT and still be Christian?

[Voco_proTatiano]

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.

Likewise, no disrespect is intended, nor criticism of faith.
It has been said by many, and not without some justification, that the OT window onto G_d is one of a very unsavoury character who does not baulk at genocide or fratricide. This is not the Loving G_d which we see through the NT window, thus to some can be a stumbling block.
The difference between the two windows is such that not a few have concluded that these two windows cannot be onto the same G_d. I reject this conclusion, using Paul’s observation, that the OT window gives only a dim and distorted vision of G_d. That is why it needs to be treated with caution.
Yes, a blind man can be a useful guide in the dark, but would you not prefer a fully sighted man to guide you in full daylight?
However, these are just differences of opinion, if they are a threat to friendship, then I will desist. This has been a very enlightening discussion.

 

[NotWorthy]

Likewise, no disrespect is intended, nor criticism of faith.
It has been said by many, and not without some justification, that the OT window onto G_d is one of a very unsavoury character who does not baulk at genocide or fratricide. This is not the Loving G_d which we see through the NT window, thus to some can be a stumbling block.

One should always remember that this is the same God. I think the God “of the OT” is bringing up his people, like a father does his child. You’ve got to let them stumble, let them try to figure things out for themselves, until they come to realize that they can’t do things on their own. They still need a father to guide them. But if one thinks that the OT God is not a loving Father, is not reading the same OT that I read.

The difference between the two windows is such that not a few have concluded that these two windows cannot be onto the same G_d. I reject this conclusion, using Paul’s observation, that the OT window gives only a dim and distorted vision of G_d.

This is what the author of Hebrews says:

Since the law has only a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of them, it can never make perfect those who come to worship by the same sacrifices that they offer continually each year.

It’s not a distorted view of God. I think God reveals himself rather clearly in the OT.

That is why it needs to be treated with caution.
Yes, a blind man can be a useful guide in the dark, but would you not prefer a fully sighted man to guide you in full daylight?
However, these are just differences of opinion, if they are a threat to friendship, then I will desist. This has been a very enlightening discussion.

No threats to friendship, and please do not desist.

I look at the OT this way. If the NT is college, than the OT is kindergarten through the 12th grade. It is necessary to go through all the grades in order to excel in College!!!

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I look at the OT this way. If the NT is college, than the OT is kindergarten through the 12th grade. It is necessary to go through all the grades in order to excel in College!!!

Actually Friend, I view the OT in a contrary way.
I remember my Chemistry classes, when we were taught that vaious elements were acidic or basic, and had valencies of 1, 2, or 3, but never given an inkling as to how or why this was, and we survived lacking that knowledge.
Later, as I studied advanced physics at university, I learned about quantum mechanics, and that explained the whys and wherefores that I had somehow survived without. This knowledge did not make me a better chemist, though it did satisfy a frustrated curiosity.
That is how I see the OT.
The NT teaches you all you NEED in order to be a Christian.
The OT then, is useful, but not needful, unless your curiosity concerning some details is left frustrated.
I see NT as kindergarten to high-school, but OT as university, leading to doctorate.
It is not without reason that the most successful evangelists left their OTs gathering dust, while they concentrated on teaching from the NT, and then concentrating on the Gospels.

 

[NotWorthy]

But Voco, you said that the OT is a shadow (an incomplete picture) of the NT. That’s why I consider it “stepping stones” in understanding the NT. It teaches some of the necessities of understanding God and His Love for mankind, but not until the NT are all the pieces put together.

Of course, at this time, we are both just stating our opinions, so I’m not saying, “Neener, neener, neener, I’m right and you’re wrong”.

At least, I’m not saying that just yet…

 

[FCEGM]

But Voco, you said that the OT is a shadow (an incomplete picture) of the NT. That’s why I consider it “stepping stones” in understanding the NT. It teaches some of the necessities of understanding God and His Love for mankind, but not until the NT are all the pieces put together. . .

Yes, NW. Further, with the Incarnation and the New Testament accounts of Our Lord and His life among us and the living Tradition of the Church the pieces are seen as a whole, OT and NT. Now we can look back into the OT to see the deeper meaning behind the context of the earlier sacred texts. In the Holy Father’s new book, Jesus of Nazareth, (I’m just starting to read it), he writes something apropos:

"This ‘deeper value’ pertains most of all to words that have matured in the course of faith-history. For in this case the author is not simply speaking for himself on his own authority. He is speaking from the perspective of a common history that sustains him and that already implicitly contains the possibilities of its future, of the further stages of its journey. The process of continually rereading and drawing out new meanings from words would not have been possible unless the words themselves were already open to it from within.

“At this point we get a glimmer, even on the historical level, of what inspirations means: The author does not speak as a private, self-contained subject. He speaks in a living community, that is to say, in a living historical movement not created by him, nor even by the collective, but which is led forward by a greater power that is at work. . . .”

pg. xx.

It seems to me, then, that one sets aside God’s inspired words of the OT at the peril of losing consciousness of - and membership in - that “living historical movement” that impels the Church ever deeper into Christ.

Another quote to the point:

“The People of God - the Church - is the living subject of Scripture; it is in the Church that the words of the Bible are always present,”

pg. xvi.

 

[paarsurrey]

why isn’t the New Testament solely sufficient to be the Christian Testament?
Thanks,

Hi
In my opinion, JesusYeshuaIssa was a subordinate ProphetMessenger of Moses, and as he himself said he has come to comfirm OT and not to cancell it, so a real follower of JesusYeshuaIssa can never exclude OT and still be a Christian.This is what I understand.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi – a peaceful faith in Islam bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions/agnostics
The West, as I understand, due to certain disinformation has seen only MullahIslam or MullahShariah; the true face of Muhammad’sIslam and PromisedMessiahImamMahdi’sIslam is yet hidden from their eyes, which is truly speaking only peaceful.
GodAllahYHWH is All-Knowing; one should invariably give Claim and Reason on all important issues from one’s Revealed Book; one shouldn’t try putting one’s own words into God’s mouth.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Yes, NW. Further, with the Incarnation and the New Testament accounts of Our Lord and His life among us and the living Tradition of the Church the pieces are seen as a whole, OT and NT. Now we can look back into the OT to see the deeper meaning behind the context of the earlier sacred texts. In the Holy Father’s new book, Jesus of Nazareth, (I’m just starting to read it), he writes something apropos:

pg. xx.

It seems to me, then, that one sets aside God’s inspired words of the OT at the peril of losing consciousness of - and membership in - that “living historical movement” that impels the Church ever deeper into Christ.

Another quote to the point: pg. xvi.

Dear Frances,
What can I say?
No, I do not think the OT should be discarded, but I do think that for beginners on the way, much of it might be set to one side, to be looked at later.
The first evangelists were travelling story-tellers, reciting from memory. Later evangelists worked from notes, and eventually, scribes compiled Gospels from the collected tales. The New Testament as we know it did not exist prior to the work of Tatian. It was compiled in response to his excellent compilation of all the tales we now have in the four Gospels, as the Diatessaron, but it was still only a Gospel.
Paul’s letters were circulated from the earliest times, but were seen as seperate. The complete NT was not in existance as a whole much before AD 300!
Of course in the Diaspora, preaching to Jews, the OT was implicit, but in the lands beyond, into Galacia and beyond, it was not.
So from the earliest of times, Christians had only word of mouth tales from the travelling story-tellers, and that had to be enough.
Since it could be enough then, it can be enough now.
The evangelists always included in their tales sufficient OT context to explain, and Our Lord was always ready to give a relevant quote. It was these distillations which made the incipient NT sufficient, for a basic understanding. Now for advanced wayfarers, the OT is vital. Other windows onto G_d can also be useful, even if only to show where they err.
The OT though is not for ‘children’, it should be studied under instruction, for it contains much that can be a stumbling block to anyone trying to follow Our Lord’s command to love one-another, and to love one’s enemies.

 

[Pax_Tibi]

2Ti,3:16.
“All scripture is inspired of God and is useful for teaching – for reproof, correction and training in holiness so that the man of God may be fully competent and equipped for every good work”.

Which books of scripture was Paul familiar with and thought worthy for teaching?

Did Paul ever think that his letters would or should be considered “scripture”?

Thanks.

 

[NotWorthy]

2Ti,3:16.
“All scripture is inspired of God and is useful for teaching – for reproof, correction and training in holiness so that the man of God may be fully competent and equipped for every good work”.

Which books of scripture was Paul familiar with and thought worthy for teaching?

Did Paul ever think that his letters would or should be considered “scripture”?

Thanks.

At the time of his writing to Timothy, there were little or no NT manuscripts penned yet. I don’t think Matthew was written til 57AD, and it most likely is the first Gospel.

Paul certainly doesn’t indicate that his Epistles should be considered Scripture. He just sees them (those he wrote to various churches, except for Romans) as a way of correcting a child who has erred in his ways.

 

[NoelFitz]

NotWorthy

Did Paul write to Timothy? If so when?

I had thought that the Pastoral Epistles were not written by Paul.

 

[vern_humphrey]

2Ti,3:16.
“All scripture is inspired of God and is useful for teaching – for reproof, correction and training in holiness so that the man of God may be fully competent and equipped for every good work”.

Which books of scripture was Paul familiar with and thought worthy for teaching?

Did Paul ever think that his letters would or should be considered “scripture”?

Thanks.

we can’ t read Paul’s mind at this great distance in time, but the weight of evidence is that he did not consider his letters scripture. Compare his epistles to the four canonical gospels and Acts.

1. Paul’s epistles are written to specific audiences. They address problems those audiences are troubled with. The Canonical Gospels and Acts are addressed to the whole Christian community (despite Luke addressing his to “Thelphilus” – which simply means “God Lover.”)
2. Paul never writes a coherent account of his gospel, from start to finish – we have to deduce his gospel from what he wrote at various times. The Canonical Gospels and Acts are complete, chronological accounts.
3. Paul’s epistles were written piece-meal, over a decade or more, as the occasion arose. The The Canonical Gospels and Acts were written straight through, with a single purpose.

 

[NotWorthy]

Here’s what the NAB says:

The three letters, First and Second Timothy and Titus, form a distinct group within the Pauline corpus. In the collection of letters by the Apostle to the Gentiles, they differ from the others in form and contents. All three suggest they were written late in Paul’s career. The opponents are not “Judaizers” as in Galatians but false teachers stressing “knowledge” (gnosis; see the note on 1 Tim 6:20-21). Attention is given especially to correct doctrine and church organization. Jesus’ second coming recedes into the background compared to references in Paul’s earlier letters (though not Colossians and Ephesians).****

 

[NoelFitz]

Did Paul write the Pastoral Epistles?

Jerome H Neyrey in the Collegeville Bible Commentary wrote:

*Modern biblical criticism has seriously challenged the claim that Paul wrote the socalled pastoral Epistles — 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus. The vocabulary in the Pastorals differs from that in the undisputed Pauline letters. … Their value for us as Christians comes from the fact that they are inspired by God and important for the church’s self-understanding… Since it is unlikely that Paul wrote the Pastorals, an early date for their composition is unwarranted. It is generally agreed that they stem from the last decades of the first century.
*

 

[Mintaka]

The OT and the NT are one. They are both the Word of God. You have to read them as a whole, as the early Christian Fathers did. The OT explains the NT, the NT explains the OT, they both explain each other.

And remember, “Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of God.”

So yeah, the OT is a little more than just “useful”. It is Truth Himself speaking to you. Shut your ears at your peril.

 

[Pax_Tibi]

Mintaka;

Who said, “Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of God”? Who was he/she talking to and what was the occasion for your quote?

If one bases his faith on the NT and the NT only, is that sufficient to know how God wants us to live our lives? If one believes that the OT was God’s way to prepare us for the coming of His Son and the NT is the story of the New Covenant, why would the NT not suffice?

Who, in any of these posts, denied that the
OT was not useful? What is the meaning of your dire threat?

In your mind does the NT take precedence or not?

Are those who go to Mass every Sunday, pray the Rosary, are regular penitents at confession, but do not read or study either testament, ignorant of God and become subject to your warning?
What about prayer and forming a personal relationship with God?

The OT and the NT are one. They are both the Word of God. You have to read them as a whole, as the early Christian Fathers did. The OT explains the NT, the NT explains the OT, they both explain each other.

And remember, “Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of God.”

So yeah, the OT is a little more than just “useful”. It is Truth Himself speaking to you. Shut your ears at your peril.

Thanks,

 

[NotWorthy]

“Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of God” - Saint Jerome

 

[NoelFitz]

Pax Tibi

You wrote:
Are those who go to Mass every Sunday, pray the Rosary, are regular penitents at confession, but do not read or study either testament, ignorant of God and become subject to your warning?

One cannot participate at Mass, without hearing both the old and the new testament.

 

[Pax_Tibi]

Pax Tibi

You wrote:
Are those who go to Mass every Sunday, pray the Rosary, are regular penitents at confession, but do not read or study either testament, ignorant of God and become subject to your warning?

One cannot participate at Mass, without hearing both the old and the new testament.

You are right.
Thanks.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

The OT and the NT are one. They are both the Word of God. You have to read them as a whole, as the early Christian Fathers did. The OT explains the NT, the NT explains the OT, they both explain each other.

And remember, “Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of God.”

So yeah, the OT is a little more than just “useful”. It is Truth Himself speaking to you. Shut your ears at your peril.

Ohaio Gozaimasu Mintaka san,
You forget that St Victor, Bishop of Capua, when he commissioned his pocket Vulgate, not only chose to use an Old Latin Harmonized Gospel text, which he believed, dated back to Tatian, (AD ~200), but chose to omit the entirety of the Old Testament.
Here is one Church Father who believed that there was in the NT, sufficient of the essence of the OT. If you want more, yes, there is more in the OT, but the essence Our Lord provided is sufficient for purpose.
Remember how Our Lord condensed the whole of the Law into the Sheema, and to love thy neighbour.
He then went on to show that if an act of kindness, even to a beast, cause an infringement of the Law, then that was a misinterpretation of the Law. You could water your horse on the Sabbath, or haul a fallen beast out of a pit.
He, Himself performed many cures on the Sabbath!

 

[NoelFitz]

Voco proTatiano

Remember how Our Lord condensed the whole of the Law into the Sheema, and to love thy neighbour.

From your study of the OT you know that Our Lord was quoting the OT:

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might. (Deu 6:5)

and

you shall love your neighbor as yourself (Lev 19:18).

These verses also summarize much of the NT.

However they do show the importance of the OT.