Can one exclude the OT and still be Christian?

[lak611]

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.

When Paul wrote this verse:

2Ti 3:16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice

, the New Testament had not yet been finished. The scripture that Paul is referring to is the Old Testament, not the New Testament.

 

[Pax_Tibi]

When Paul wrote this verse: , the New Testament had not yet been finished. The scripture that Paul is referring to is the Old Testament, not the New Testament.

What were the common OT scriptures that St. Paul would have been referring to? They could not have been as complete as what we know of them today. Could they?

Thanks.

 

[lak611]

What were the common OT scriptures that St. Paul would have been referring to? They could not have been as complete as what we know of them today. Could they?

Thanks.

He was referring to the same Old Testament that we have today. The Septuagint was the most common scripture of the Jewish people at the time Christ was on earth. From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

A. The Septuagint is the most ancient translation of the Old Testament and consequently is invaluable to critics for understanding and correcting the Hebrew text (Massorah), the latter, such as it has come down to us, being the text established by the Massoretes in the sixth century A.D. Many textual corruptions, additions, omissions, or transpositions must have crept into the Hebrew text between the third and second centuries B.C. and the sixth and seventh centuries of our era; the manuscripts therefore which the Seventy had at their disposal, may in places have been better than the Massoretic manuscripts.

B. The Septuagint Version accepted first by the Alexandrian Jews, and afterwards by all the Greek-speaking countries, helped to spread among the Gentiles the idea and the expectation of the Messias, and to introduce into Greek the theological terminology that made it a most suitable instrument for the propagation of the Gospel of Christ.

C. The Jews made use of it long before the Christian Era, and in the time of Christ it was recognised as a legitimate text, and was employed in Palestine even by the rabbis. The Apostles and Evangelists utilised it also and borrowed Old Testament citations from it, especially in regard to the prophecies. The Fathers and the other ecclesiastical writers of the early Church drew upon it, either directly, as in the case of the Greek Fathers, or indirectly, like the Latin Fathers and writers and others who employed Latin, Syriac, Ethiopian, Arabic and Gothic versions. It was held tin high esteem by all, some even believed it inspired. Consequently, a knowledge of the Septuagint helps to a perfect understanding of these literatures.

newadvent.org/cathen/13722a.htm

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Voco proTatiano

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.

Exacltly so!
Hence Our Lord ensured that such of the OT that was vital, was included in the NT.
This is the point I have been making all along.
Yes, it is just a taster, but it is all that you NEED.
If you wish to drink a deeper draught, then that is fine, but not necessary.

 

[NotWorthy]

What were the common OT scriptures that St. Paul would have been referring to? They could not have been as complete as what we know of them today. Could they?

Thanks.

They were generally considered the Septuagint (except by the Pharisees - only the Pentateuch), which is largely what we use today, plus about 4 or 5 books.

 

[Pax_Tibi]

Was Paul a Pharisee?

Not Worthy,“They were generally considered the Septuagint (except by the Pharisees - only the Pentateuch), which is largely what we use today, plus about 4 or 5 books.”

Would that mean that The Pentateuch were the only ones good for teaching, reprimanding?

Thanks.

 

[lak611]

Was Paul a Pharisee?

Not Worthy,“They were generally considered the Septuagint (except by the Pharisees - only the Pentateuch), which is largely what we use today, plus about 4 or 5 books.”

Would that mean that The Pentateuch were the only ones good for teaching, reprimanding?

Thanks.

Paul was a Pharisee, but yet he alludes to the Septuagint in his epistles.

Romans 2:11—“There is no partiality with God.”
Sirach 35:12—“For he is a God of justice, who knows no favorites.”

Romans 9:21—“Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for a noble purpose andanother fo an ignoble one?”
Wisdom 15:7—“For truly the potter, laboriously working the soft earth, molds for our service each several article: both the vessels that serve for clean purposes, and their opposites, all alike; as to what shall be the use of each vessel of eiother class, the worker in clay is the judge.”

Romans 11:24—“For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counsellor?”
Wisdom 9:13—“For what man knows God’s counsel, or who can conceive what the Lord intends?”

1 Thessalonians 2:16—"(The enemies of Christ persecute us), trying to prevent us from speaking to the Gentiles that they may be saved, thus constantly filling up the measure of their sins. But the wrath of God has finally begun to come upon them."
2 Maccabees 6:14—“Thus, in dealing with other nations, the Lord patiently waits until they reach the full measure of their sins before he punishes them; but with us he has decided to deal differently”

 

[CSJ]

Trying to “exclude” the OT would be like trying to exclude one of the Persons of the Trinity. It cannot be done without putting oneself at risk of heresy.

Christ did not come to abolish the Law…He came to fulfull it. The Old Testament is inseparable from the New Testament. The New is simply the fulfillment of the Old and in order to better understand this New Covenant, we must understand the Old. Simple as that.

 

[NotWorthy]

Was Paul a Pharisee?

Not Worthy,“They were generally considered the Septuagint (except by the Pharisees - only the Pentateuch), which is largely what we use today, plus about 4 or 5 books.”

Would that mean that The Pentateuch were the only ones good for teaching, reprimanding?

Thanks.

I’m sorry, I mis-spoke. The **Pharisees **taught from the Septuagint. The Sadducee’s taught and believed only from the Pentateuch.

Yes, Paul was a Pharisee, but he would have been using the entire Septuagint in his teachings. You can see this of course in his numerous references to the Psalms. Incidentally, the Psalms only because “Scripture” somewhere around the 2nd century BC, if I remember correctly.

In answer to your question, when Paul tells Timothy “All Scripture is profitable for teaching…”, he would have been lumping all of what we know as the Old Testament into that category, certainly not just the Pentateuch.

I’m sorry about the error.

 

[Pax_Tibi]

You’re forgiven! Just don’t err again!

Thanks.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Was Paul a Pharisee?

Yes. He tells us himself that he studied under Gamaliel, who was the leading Pharasitical teacher of his time.

Not Worthy,“They were generally considered the Septuagint (except by the Pharisees - only the Pentateuch), which is largely what we use today, plus about 4 or 5 books.”

It was the Saducees, not the Pharasees, who accepted only the Pentateuch.

Would that mean that The Pentateuch were the only ones good for teaching, reprimanding?

Thanks.

No – both Paul and Christ Himself used many other books.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I’m sorry, I mis-spoke. The **Pharisees **taught from the Septuagint. The Sadducee’s taught and believed only from the Pentateuch.

The name Sadducee is derived from Zadoc the Priest. This Priest is also strongly referenced in the Dead Sea Scrolls. There is thus reason to believe that the DSS community was Saducee based. However, they were a fundamentalist grouping of that base, and it is possible that their concentration on the essence of the teaching caused some to call them ‘Essenes’.
This latter grouping was also strongly Messianistic, and they considered themselves to be in possession of a New Testament.
But look at this:
“And Azor begot Sadoc. And Sadoc begot Achim. And Achim begot Eliud.
And Eliud begot Eleazar. And Eleazar begot Mathan. And Mathan begot Jacob.
And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.”
This Sadoc, or Zadoc, mentioned in the genialogy is set at about the right generation to coincide with Zadoc the Priest.
It is Clear that Our Lord was also a fundamentalist, concentrating on the essence, rather than the letter of the law. Much has been found in the DSS which is clearly fore-running the Gospels, so that it is probable that Our Lord was associated in some way with the DSS grouping of the Zadocites, or Sadducees, which probably accounts for the Sadducees baiting Him. They would have considered Him to be appostate.

 

[NotWorthy]

The community of the DSS was most probably Essene. I understand there was an Essene community probably within eyesight of where John was baptizing at the Jordan. They preferred to hang out in the wilderness, for they were looking for the Messiah in the wilderness, according to the Isaiah prophecies. They certainly didn’t share the same Canon as the Sadducee’s, or else they could care less about Isaiah.

It wouldn’t be a stretch to consider John the Baptist as a member of this community.

I know it brings us further off-topic, but James, the brother of our Lord, who was the first bishop of Jerusalem, may have also come from this community.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

The community of the DSS was most probably Essene. I understand there was an Essene community probably within eyesight of where John was baptizing at the Jordan. They preferred to hang out in the wilderness, for they were looking for the Messiah in the wilderness, according to the Isaiah prophecies. They certainly didn’t share the same Canon as the Sadducee’s, or else they could care less about Isaiah.

It wouldn’t be a stretch to consider John the Baptist as a member of this community.

I know it brings us further off-topic, but James, the brother of our Lord, who was the first bishop of Jerusalem, may have also come from this community.

Hi,
Here is a grab of an apparently Jewish site:
forum.mg.co.za/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1801859791&Main=1801859189

Offline
true-believers
**

Reged: 04/12/03
Posts: 7524
Loc: Johannesburg
Re: Neturei Karta “Rabbi” excommunicated in Vienna new [Re: neanderthal]
#1801859752 - 17/01/07 04:02 PM
Edit post Edit Reply to this post Reply Reply to this post Quote Quick Reply: Quick Reply

Nope- they are not Essenes. Their are no real inheritors of the Essene/Sadducee creed nowadays. The closest is a small Karaite movement mostly within a portion of the Ethiopian Jews that had no access to the oral law and tus follow little of it- sticking to strict interpretations of the written torah much as the Essenes and Sadduccees did. But they do not oppose the oral law, they just didn’t have access to it and most have moved to normative Judaism leaving the Karaite sect very depleted.

It seems to imply that that Both Sadducees and Essenes shared the same scripture basis, which was not limited to the Pentateuch, but was limited to the Written Torah.
This is also the position apparently of Our Lord, who valued the Written Torah, but dismissed the Oral Torah as ‘the tradition of men’, which ‘set aside the commandment of G_d’.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Hi,
Here is a grab of an apparently Jewish site:
forum.mg.co.za/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1801859791&Main=1801859189

It seems to imply that that Both Sadducees and Essenes shared the same scripture basis, which was not limited to the Pentateuch, but was limited to the Written Torah.
This is also the position apparently of Our Lord, who valued the Written Torah, but dismissed the Oral Torah as ‘the tradition of men’, which ‘set aside the commandment of G_d’.

The Torah and the Pentateuch are the same thing – the first five books of the Old Testament. “Torah” is Hebrew, “Pentateuch” is Greek.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

The Torah and the Pentateuch are the same thing – the first five books of the Old Testament. “Torah” is Hebrew, “Pentateuch” is Greek.

Thankyou Vern,
Now I understand.
Our Lord referred to:
The LAW, and
The PROPHETS frequently.
Now I understand that this is the code for LXX.
LAW is Torah or Pentateuch, (G.E.L.N.D.).
PROPHETS is the remainder, or is it, for some of the other books purport, or seem only to be a history, and only have the message of example, not deliberate teaching.
We know that it was the tradition of oral torah which separated the Essenes, Sadducees and Our Lord from the Pharisees.
We know the Essenes and Our Lord respected the PROPHETS, and I believe we have no reason to believe that the Sadducees and Pharisses did not.
So then the only stumbling block is ‘tradition’.

OK, this is way off track, but I think this is essential foundation for understanding just what is essential.
I still believe that only those parts of the OT referred to, or quoted in the NT are necessary, and being present thereby in the NT, the OT references are optional.
ps.
I know of no OT reference in the NT which is not quoted, so there are not references that need to be looked up.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Jesus frequently quoted from the Old Testament, and not just the Torah and the Prophets. For example, when He said “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?” (Mark, 15,34) he was quoting the 22nd Psalm.

Never did Jesus say the Old Testament was obsolete, or no longer valid. Not one of the Apostles** ever** said it. The early Christians accepted the whole of the Old Testament as inspired – and cast out Marcion, who held the contrary.

When Pope Damasus proclaimed the canon of the Bible, he proclaimed both Old and New Testaments. And the Council of Trent reaffirmed this.

No Catholic can claim the Old Testament is somehow invalid, or can be excluded.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Dear Vern,
Please don’t get me wrong.
I am not saying that the OT is somehow invalid.
What I am saying is that Our Lord distilled from the OT that which was necessary for His message.
These distillations, the evangelists faithfully transcribed into the NT.
What I suggest is that if you want to produce a right angle, you can draw a 3 - 4 - 5 triangle. To do this, you do not need to know who Pythagoras was, nor how to prove his theorem.
Likewise, Our Lord extracted the essence of the OT, and made memorable epithets thereof, and illustrative tales to fix the memory.
Thus He did not destroy, (solvere), the Law, but fulfilled, (adimplere), it.
The OT is there for people who need to view the proofs, and possibly to explain them to others who doubt the veracity.
But to those who have faith, and accept the words of Gospel, they are useful, but not necessary.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Dear Vern,
Please don’t get me wrong.
I am not saying that the OT is somehow invalid.
What I am saying is that Our Lord distilled from the OT that which was necessary for His message.
These distillations, the evangelists faithfully transcribed into the NT.
What I suggest is that if you want to produce a right angle, you can draw a 3 - 4 - 5 triangle. To do this, you do not need to know who Pythagoras was, nor how to prove his theorem.
Likewise, Our Lord extracted the essence of the OT, and made memorable epithets thereof, and illustrative tales to fix the memory.
Thus He did not destroy, (solvere), the Law, but fulfilled, (adimplere), it.
The OT is there for people who need to view the proofs, and possibly to explain them to others who doubt the veracity.
But to those who have faith, and accept the words of Gospel, they are useful, but not necessary.

But that’s not Catholic doctrine. The Church accepts the Old Testament as valid and as necessary as the New Testament.

Remember, for some 350 years after the Crucifixion, there was no New Testament. But the Church preserved and taught the Old Testament in all those centuries. It is possible for Christianity to thrive without the New Testament, but not without the Old.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

But that’s not Catholic doctrine. The Church accepts the Old Testament as valid and as necessary as the New Testament.

I accept that for the purpose of evangelism, the evangelist must be able to answer questions concerning Our Lord’s OT references. Thus for that purpose, the OT is necessary.
If you are about to say that ALL Christians should be prepared to be evangelists, then, of course your claim is indeed correct. However, the OT is there as a reference book, not as evangelical text.

Remember, for some 350 years after the Crucifixion, there was no New Testament. But the Church preserved and taught the Old Testament in all those centuries. It is possible for Christianity to thrive without the New Testament, but not without the Old.

No Vern, your History here is wrong. The Pauline epistles can be dated to around AD 60, and Gospels, at least in the form of Story Tellers’ traditions existed as early as AD 170, tor Tatian witnessed these tales,as witnessed by Ephrem Syrus.
Yes there was LXX from the beginning, but this was reference material.
If the standard claim is true, what business did St Victor, Bishop of Capua, have in publishing a New Testament Vulgate?
Devotional and evangelical texts have been in circulation since ca AD 60. You might not want to call these texts NT scripture, but they certainly were what became accepted as that.
So we seem to have two classes of scripture:
1/ Devotional and evangelical texts, which comprise almost exclusively NT scripture, and
2/ Reference texts, which comprise almost exclusively OT scripture.
For a simple Christian, who for the cares of this life, is never going to be an evangelist, but will struggle, just to follow Our Lord’s commands of Love, the devotional texts will suffice.
For a Christian, determined to share the Gospel, he must be prepared to answer critical claims from the Gospels, so he must have, and be familiar with the reference material.
In this sense, then both NT and OT are necessary, but they serve different, but complementary purposes.