The old testament

[MoreCoffee]

Jews of our era read the old testament as their bible because they reject the new testament and Muslims of our era read the old testament and new testament as corrupted revelation from God that Jews first and then Christians changed and corrupted to take away the true message of God which Muslims think is in the Quran. But Christians read the old testament as revelation from God given in types and shadows that is only properly understood when read through the knowledge given by Jesus Christ because he is the one that the types and shadows typify and foreshadow. So when you read the old testament what do you make of it? Is your perspective Jewish, Muslim, or Christian and if so then how ought you to use old testament passages when you quote them as proof of some doctrine that you think they support?

 

[psalms 91]

The whole bible is the inspired Word of God and as such should always be used. The Old compliments the New and if you allow the Holy Spirit to lead you you will see this

 

[MennoSota]

From Genesis to Revelation the message of grace rings out to the listener. Reconciliation with God by God's initiation is a constant theme.

 

[Josiah]

The whole bible is the inspired Word of God and as such should always be used. The Old compliments the New and if you allow the Holy Spirit to lead you you will see this

I agree.

It seems the OT is not used for a lot of theology (especially not as primary texts), but since it is equally Scripture and normative, what Christian theology is there is obviously true....

I'm not opposed to "types" when the NT uses it as such. But I think at times, people go WILD with the OT and it becomes just a target of eisegesis. For example, Noah being the Pope and the Ark being the RC Denomination (how absurd!), that sort of thing. I think often, from the perspective of the church, we can read things in the OT that cause US to think of things (for example, your reference to crossing the reed sea), but I would NOT impose that as eisegesis and I certainly would passionately reject any dogma imposed by eisegesis. I think we should RESPECT the Word of God and not simply make it a toy for our theories and ideas and dogmas.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Holy scripture contains these comments

• Luke 24:27 Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures.
• Hebrews 10:1 Since the law has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered year after year, make perfect those who approach.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Jews of our era read the old testament as their bible because they reject the new testament and Muslims of our era read the old testament and new testament as corrupted revelation from God that Jews first and then Christians changed and corrupted to take away the true message of God which Muslims think is in the Quran. But Christians read the old testament as revelation from God given in types and shadows that is only properly understood when read through the knowledge given by Jesus Christ because he is the one that the types and shadows typify and foreshadow. So when you read the old testament what do you make of it? Is your perspective Jewish, Muslim, or Christian and if so then how ought you to use old testament passages when you quote them as proof of some doctrine that you think they support?

What if one doesn't consider themselves of any single religion? What if one considers themselves to be faithfully(Jew), submissive to the will of GOD(Islam) through the revelation of Jesus Christ (Christian)?



Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[MoreCoffee]

What if one doesn't consider themselves of any single religion? What if one considers themselves to be faithfully(Jew), submissive to the will of GOD(Islam) through the revelation of Jesus Christ (Christian)?



Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

Some people give that a go. Interfaith is the name.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Some people give that a go. Interfaith is the name.

Good to know.

peace

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Pedrito]

Luke 24:27: And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.

Acts 8:34-35: 34 And the eunuch answered Philip and said, I beg you, of whom does the prophet speak this? Of himself or of some other man?
35 Then Philip opened his mouth and began at the same Scripture and preached the gospel of Jesus to him.

Acts 9:22: But Saul increased the more in strength and confounded the Jews who lived at Damascus, proving that this One is the Christ.
How else did he do it, but from their own Holy Scriptures (our Old Testament)?

Acts 18:28: For he mightily confuted the Jews publicly, proving by the Scriptures [our “Old Testament”] that Jesus was the Christ.


Demonstrably, the “Old Testament” is totally compatible with the original Apostolic Gospel.

It is also totally compatible with the Gospel that Jesus Himself preached while He walked the Earth.

Matthew 4:23; Matthew 9:35; Matthew 11:5; Matthew 24:14; Matthew 26:13
Mark 1:14; Mark 1:15; Mark 8:35; Mark 10:29; Mark 13:10; Mark 14:9; Mark 16:15
Luke 4:18; Luke 7:22; Luke 9:6; Luke 20:1

(One could of course ask, just what gospel Jesus and His disciples were preaching – He did say that it was the one that would be preached to the whole world, did He not?)

==============================================================================================

Would it be bold of me to suggest that if any particular set of beliefs does not recognise the compatibility of the Old Testament, Jesus’ Gospel, and the original Apostolic Gospel (i.e. if that belief set cannot stand up to the scrutiny of all three), then that set of beliefs needs a degree of scrutiny?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Would it be bold of me to suggest that if any particular set of beliefs does not recognise the compatibility of the Old Testament, Jesus’ Gospel, and the original Apostolic Gospel (i.e. if that belief set cannot stand up to the scrutiny of all three), then that set of beliefs needs a degree of scrutiny?

It's always bold to suggest a norm for around two billion professing Christians.

 

[Pedrito]

Post #9, me:

Would it be bold of me to suggest that if any particular set of beliefs does not recognise the compatibility of the Old Testament, Jesus’ Gospel, and the original Apostolic Gospel (i.e. if that belief set cannot stand up to the scrutiny of all three), then that set of beliefs needs a degree of scrutiny?

Post #10, MoreCoffee:

It's always bold to suggest a norm for around two billion professing Christians.

MoreCoffee has identified the problem clearly.

The “exploits” of “theologians” have muddied the water to such an extent, that the original Apostolic Gospel – the Gospel that ties in seamlessly with what we call the “Old Testament” – has been well and truly obscured.

Therefore, the “Old Testament” can be an invaluable aid in throwing light on, and classifying as true or false, individual beliefs (doctrines) that are cherished within the broad domain of Christendom.

==============================================================================================

But suggesting that that course of action should actually be undertaken, could itself be deemed bold.

No matter how effective it would be. (Or perhaps because that effectiveness is recognised and seen as dangerous.)

 

[NewCreation435]

Jews of our era read the old testament as their bible because they reject the new testament and Muslims of our era read the old testament and new testament as corrupted revelation from God that Jews first and then Christians changed and corrupted to take away the true message of God which Muslims think is in the Quran. But Christians read the old testament as revelation from God given in types and shadows that is only properly understood when read through the knowledge given by Jesus Christ because he is the one that the types and shadows typify and foreshadow. So when you read the old testament what do you make of it? Is your perspective Jewish, Muslim, or Christian and if so then how ought you to use old testament passages when you quote them as proof of some doctrine that you think they support?

I think it is important to read the passage in its context and remember who the writer was writing to. Some verses in the Old Testament i have heard people apply to themselves when it was not written for everyone It is an example perhaps of God's faithfulness or his character, but the actual promise isn't appropriate to apply to self. Since we understand that truth is consistent with other scriptures you also have to interpret the verse your looking at in light of the what the rest of scripture says

 

[MennoSota]

The most misapplied verse...
"I know the plans I have for you. Plans to prosper you..."
If people read it in context they would realize that God was telling them they were going to be exiled and spewed out of the land.

I think it is important to read the passage in its context and remember who the writer was writing to. Some verses in the Old Testament i have heard people apply to themselves when it was not written for everyone It is an example perhaps of God's faithfulness or his character, but the actual promise isn't appropriate to apply to self. Since we understand that truth is consistent with other scriptures you also have to interpret the verse your looking at in light of the what the rest of scripture says