Results 1 - 16 of 16
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | jct | 115017 | ||
why do people pay more attention too the new testmant instead of the old ?isn't the old the only way too know what the new is talking about? jim |
||||||
2 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | Suede67 | 115018 | ||
That's a good question indeed, here's my thoughts. One, the OT is a larger volume and covers thousands of years and several individuals and groups. The NT is a slimer volume, covers roughly 70 years and has much fewer people in it. I think people start off with Genesis, but then once they hit the later chapters, they sort of trail off. Exodus is the same. A lot of the OT is history, not doctrine, and a lot of people aren't into that. I for one would recommend people read the Psalms, Proverbs and the works of the Prophets and Daniel in the OT. That's a good 'starting point' and those tend to have more immediate bearing on the NT. That's my thoughts anyways, take care, SUEDE |
||||||
3 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | ischus | 115075 | ||
Suede, I am wondering what you mean by "a lot of the OT is history, not doctrine." If you mean that the OT is more historical than theological I would disagree. None of the Old Testament is primarily meant to be history. It is about doctrine- who God is, who his people are, how they are saved, etc. I would encourage you to check out the other repsonses to jct's question under #115012 in the quick search box. I apologize if you were only sharing the common opinion of the OT and not your own. I may have misinterpreted your comments. I would be happy to have been wrong in this case! ischus |
||||||
4 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | Suede67 | 115168 | ||
Hi Ischus, ""If you mean that the OT is more historical than theological I would disagree. None of the Old Testament is primarily meant to be history."" Well, this is where you and I differ then. I don't see any more outstanding doctrine in the OT. The overall message is that God is faithful, but a lot of the doctrine in the OT is the Law, legalistic in nature. But, we aren't under that, so I fail to see where the doctrine of the OT has much bearing on the present. The OT is in fact a lot of history, starting with Genesis and easily going to Psalms. Even then, books such as Daniel contain bits of history. One only need ask, what is quoted more or turned to more for guidance, the NT or the OT? Well, the NT of course, especially if we remove Psalms and Proverbs from the picture. I personally think statements such as "who God is, who his people are, how they are saved" are way too generalized. But, I agree that we shouldn't ignore the OT. That's my thoughts, take care, SUEDE |
||||||
5 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | kalos | 115175 | ||
Anyone who says that they "don't see any more outstanding doctrine in the OT" is in need of eye salve, "that you may see" (Revelation 3:18). To say that the OT, the Word of God, is legalistic is absurd. To say that the Law is legalistic is to display a lack of knowledge and understanding of both the Law and legalism (two different things). Legalism is not obeying the written Law of God; it is the attempt to keep man-made rules and regulations, man-made interpretations of the Law. Jesus illustrated the difference in the Sermon on the Mount. According to Paul, "All Scripture...is profitable for doctrine." To claim that the OT is NOT profitable for doctrine is to claim that it is not inspired Scripture. Suede, I am not against you. What I write is not intended as a personal attack. Grace to you, kalos |
||||||
6 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | Suede67 | 115233 | ||
Kalos, ""Suede, I am not against you. What I write is not intended as a personal attack.""" Understood, you and I disagree, but we can still act civil about it all. """Anyone who says that they "don't see any more outstanding doctrine in the OT" is in need of eye salve, "that you may see" (Revelation 3:18).""" How so? Did not Christ fulfill the things of the OT? """To say that the OT, the Word of God, is legalistic is absurd. To say that the Law is legalistic is to display a lack of knowledge and understanding of both the Law and legalism (two different things). Legalism is not obeying the written Law of God; it is the attempt to keep man-made rules and regulations, man-made interpretations of the Law. Jesus illustrated the difference in the Sermon on the Mount.""" Well, that's certianly one man's take on it all, I of course disagree with your take of Legalism and the Law and see it as a bit of semantics. The OT is legalistic in that it does in fact have written laws. And where there are written laws, there will be interpretations of them. Jesus and the Apostles did this; Christians still do this. """According to Paul, "All Scripture...is profitable for doctrine." To claim that the OT is NOT profitable for doctrine is to claim that it is not inspired Scripture."" Let me correct the above. The NT supercedes the OT. Also, saying that the OT is no longer valid in no way indicates that it is not inspired. That's a bad conclusion on your part. We can still draw things from the OT, but I don't put it on par with the NT. The bulk of the prophecies in the OT which make up the later half point to Jesus who fulfilled them. The first half of the OT is mainly historical and has little to do with doctrine aside from more generalized things like, God is faithful. All in all, Christians do need to know both the OT and the NT. That's my two cents, take care, SUEDE |
||||||
7 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | flinkywood | 115235 | ||
Suede, have you read the bible? Colin |
||||||
8 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | Suede67 | 115239 | ||
Colin, ""Suede, have you read the bible?"" A fair question. I have. Take care, SUEDE |
||||||
9 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | flinkywood | 115291 | ||
Suede, In the begining I felt a bit the way you do about the OT, but now I see it is huge. Paul sure thought that way (Romans makes that clear). Also, though in Christ we are not under the Law but under grace, nevertheless Christ's being the fulfilment of the Moral Law does not exempt us from adhering to that Law any more than we are exempted from adhering to Christ. "Let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall," is a good maxim in this case. Colin |
||||||
10 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | Suede67 | 115306 | ||
Colin, I too still think the OT is huge, just like you do. I don't count it out, or try and discount it. But, I see God dealing with mankind in a progressive way. There is a difference between pre Messiah times, and Post Messiah times. As far as Christianity goes, I believe the NT has more of a DIRECT bearing on us the OT does. We see the fruition and correct application of the OT. We see it very much in principle, as opposed to strict legalistic practice. Again, this doesn't count the OT out, it's just that the two volumes are different and we can't approach them in the exact same way. I think people that do head down the road of Error. That's me though. Take care, SUEDE |
||||||
11 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | flinkywood | 115331 | ||
Suede, Legalism is a form of fetishism, but the OT faith-giants were as non-legalistic as you could get. I think of David eating the "shewbread" (1 Sam 21.6) as cited also by Jesus (Matt 12.4), in His idictment of Pharisitic legalism. For David the Moral Law (not the Levitical laws) was "...a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path." (Psalm 119:105) Colin |
||||||
12 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | Suede67 | 115340 | ||
colin, "...the OT faith-giants were as non-legalistic as you could get." They sure were. "I think of David eating the "shewbread" (1 Sam 21.6) as cited also by Jesus (Matt 12.4), in His idictment of Pharisitic legalism." Yes, excellent, aside from Jesus out right scolding of them. "For David the Moral Law (not the Levitical laws) was "...a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path." (Psalm 119:105)" Yes, Moral is fine, Levitical law, no. Take care, SUEDE |
||||||
13 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | flinkywood | 115348 | ||
Suede, If a Christian commits murder or adultery or theft or idolatry or violates any of the Moral Laws, would Peter, Paul or James view these acts as a threat to his salvation? Colin |
||||||
14 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | Suede67 | 115381 | ||
Colin, No, and certianly not Paul. Christians are to keep these moral laws, but we are humans, sinners by nature and many will slip. Are they unsaved? No. Is God's grace so weak that he can not save a murderer, or a adulteress? SUEDE |
||||||
15 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | flinkywood | 115383 | ||
Suede, God's grace saves, you bet (it saved Saul of Tarsus); but would Paul, James, John or Peter say that a lying, thieving, murderous Christian can enter heaven unrepentant? Colin |
||||||
16 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | Suede67 | 115388 | ||
Colin, Well, they certianly wouldn't recommend it! But chances are we will all die with unrepentanted sins. God knows though. We in no way can limit God's grace. Take care, SUEDE |
||||||