Subject: why don't people study the old testmant |
Bible Note: 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 Also, saying that the OT is no longer valid in no way indicates that it is not inspired.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 |