Why does the Bible include the Old Testament?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tuxedo_Mark
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tuxedo_Mark

Guest
This is more of a historical question than a philosophical question. Why is the Old Testament included in printings of the Bible? It’s largely irrelevant, and some of the atrocities committed in it would seem to be detrimental to non-Jews accepting Yahweh as THE actual god - and thus to accepting Jesus.

So whose idea was it, exactly, that the entire Old Testament - dry laws, accounts of infanticide committed by the Jews, census results, lists of sacrifices, and detailed instructions regarding various aspects of daily Jewish life - should be attached to the New Testament when it came to making copies of the Bible?
 
Tuxedo_Mark said:
This is more of a historical question than a philosophical question. Why is the Old Testament included in printings of the Bible? It’s largely irrelevant, and some of the atrocities committed in it would seem to be detrimental to non-Jews accepting Yahweh as THE actual god - and thus to accepting Jesus.

So whose idea was it, exactly, that the entire Old Testament - dry laws, accounts of infanticide committed by the Jews, census results, lists of sacrifices, and detailed instructions regarding various aspects of daily Jewish life - should be attached to the New Testament when it came to making copies of the Bible?
Click to expand...
Not only does the (Christian) Bible include the Old Testament but the latter constitutes the largest portion of the Bible. I think the Church must have debated long and hard on this issue. On the one hand, Christianity had to split from Judaism if it was going to establish itself as an independent religion and also since Judaism could not contain this variant of its religion, which veered too far from the mainstream in its view. So there must have been proponents among the Church Fathers or others to disavow the Old Testament. After all, there was now a New Testament rendering the Old no longer relevant. On the other hand, if the Church had decided to reject the Hebrew Bible (which is what Jews call it), could the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus stand on its own apart from the prophecies of the Old Testament? What proof that Jesus was the (Jewish) Messiah and G-d could be given to the world if the Old Testament was ignored? After all, Jesus and most of His Apostles were Jews and their cultural and religious roots were extremely important in understanding their thinking, including their revolutionary ideas. The rest of the story, which is not yet complete, is, as they say, history…
 
The way I see it, the inclusion of any book of the bible is definitely significant, but it doesn’t signify that it was written by God.

I also keep in mind that those who decided to include such and such book as Scripture, were deciding to include that book as a whole, I.e. they were not approving each verse individually.
 
truetofaith said:
It’s God’s Word!
Click to expand...
That’s certainly a matter of opinion. Personally, I wouldn’t call this God’s word or anything close to it:

“And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people. And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of yourselves unto the war, and let them go against the Midianites, and avenge the Lord of Midian. Of every tribe a thousand, throughout all the tribes of Israel, shall ye send to the war. So there were delivered out of the thousands of Israel, a thousand of every tribe, twelve thousand armed for war. And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe, them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with the holy instruments, and the trumpets to blow in his hand. And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses; and they slew all the males. And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword. And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire. And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts. And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho. And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp. And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle. And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”
 
You could have at least put the Bible citation for this quote. :rolleyes:
 
Tuxedo_Mark said:
“…
And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle. And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”
Click to expand...
Frankly, I have no way of actually knowing but I’d like to think that Moses did not actually say that.
 
Without the Old Testament, all we would have is Jesus’ arrival and ministry and what his apostles did. We’d have no explanation for why he came nor have any reason to believe that he was the Messiah. Why would we need one? We wouldn’t know our history to understand why one was necessary.

I think the most important point to make is that Jesus referenced it. Jesus was Jewish. He grew up going to the synagogue, hearing from the law and prophets, and he went to the Temple in Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover with his parents. Apparently it was all very important to him, and it should be important to us. Just because we’re uncomfortable with the dark passages of Scripture doesn’t mean we can (or should) forget about them. It would be intellectually dishonest, and the Bible just wouldn’t be complete without it.
 
Thom18 said:
Without the Old Testament, all we would have is Jesus’ arrival and ministry and what his apostles did. We’d have no explanation for why he came nor have any reason to believe that he was the Messiah. Why would we need one? We wouldn’t know our history to understand why one was necessary.

I think the most important point to make is that Jesus referenced it. Jesus was Jewish. He grew up going to the synagogue, hearing from the law and prophets, and he went to the Temple in Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover with his parents. Apparently it was all very important to him, and it should be important to us. Just because we’re uncomfortable with the dark passages of Scripture doesn’t mean we can (or should) forget about them. It would be intellectually dishonest, and the Bible just wouldn’t be complete without it.
Click to expand...
👍 excellent!

The roots of Christianity are in Judaism. Jesus celebrated Passover. Would the New Testament even make sense without the history and background knowledge of the Old
Testament? I don’t think it would.
 
TheAmazingGrace said:
…because it’s the history of the Jewish faith?
Click to expand...
Thom18 said:
Without the Old Testament, all we would have is Jesus’ arrival and ministry and what his apostles did. We’d have no explanation for why he came nor have any reason to believe that he was the Messiah. Why would we need one? We wouldn’t know our history to understand why one was necessary.
Click to expand...
7_Sorrows said:
👍 excellent!

The roots of Christianity are in Judaism. Jesus celebrated Passover. Would the New Testament even make sense without the history and background knowledge of the Old
Testament? I don’t think it would.
Click to expand...
jediliz said:
Because the ten commandments are still relevant.
Click to expand...
Not meaning to be a “back seat driver”, but reading these comments it seems that the consensus is that it’s because of the good that’s in the books of the Old Testament.
 
The New Testament fulfills the Old.
Christ is foretold in the OT.
Studied correctly, you can find Him everywhere in it.

It is not irrelevant, or unrelated. It is ALL God’s plan for this world,
and His creation.
 
TC2 said:
The New Testament fulfills the Old.
Christ is foretold in the OT.
Studied correctly, you can find Him everywhere in it.

It is not irrelevant, or unrelated. It is ALL God’s plan for this world,
and His creation.
Click to expand...
True!
 
Peter_J said:
Not meaning to be a “back seat driver”, but reading these comments it seems that the consensus is that it’s because of the good that’s in the books of the Old Testament.
Click to expand...
I’m not quite sure I understand what you’re trying to say by “good”. Still, I guess we could say something similar about those who “don’t like” the Old Testament. It seems that the consensus is that it’s because of the bad that’s in the OT canon that we should remove it, put less emphasis on it, or whatever’s being suggested.
 
John 5:39-47 (RSVCE)
39 You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; 40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. 41 I do not receive glory from men. 42 But I know that you have not the love of God within you. 43 I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not receive me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive. 44 How can you believe, who receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God? 45 Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; it is Moses who accuses you, on whom you set your hope. 46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”

Here Jesus is referring to the scriptures, it would be the Old Testament, since the New one had not yet been written. Below, Paul is writing to Timothy, of the importance of the scriptures, again, the Old Testament.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (RSVCE)
16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
 
Tuxedo_Mark said:
This is more of a historical question than a philosophical question. Why is the Old Testament included in printings of the Bible? It’s largely irrelevant, and some of the atrocities committed in it would seem to be detrimental to non-Jews accepting Yahweh as THE actual god - and thus to accepting Jesus.

So whose idea was it, exactly, that the entire Old Testament - dry laws, accounts of infanticide committed by the Jews, census results, lists of sacrifices, and detailed instructions regarding various aspects of daily Jewish life - should be attached to the New Testament when it came to making copies of the Bible?
Click to expand...
It is the Word of God. Not an iota can be removed etc Mat 5:18.
 
Because the old foreshadowed the new. It’s a gistory of God with humanity. Because it’s the story that Jesus is the culmination and fulfillment of.

The OT isn’t irrelevant in the slightest, it’s the foundation of the New Testament faith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top