Author Topic: New Testament before Old Testament  (Read 458 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jetavan

  • Argumentum ad australopithecum
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,580
  • Barlaam and Josaphat
    • The Mystical Theology
New Testament before Old Testament
« on: September 25, 2012, 09:02:19 AM »
Since the order in which the books occur in the Scripture has not been defined via ecumenical council (at least, not that I know of), why not publish Scripture that begins with the New Testament and ends with the Old Testament -- since the Old can only be understood by the New?
If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.

Offline JamesR

  • Virginal Chicano Blood
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,640
  • 1951-2015 Memory Eternal Uncle Roy--40 Days of Mourning.
  • Faith: Misotheistic Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Re: New Testament before Old Testament
« Reply #1 on: September 25, 2012, 04:24:06 PM »
Why not include the writings of Origen of Alexandria with the Old Testament? To be honest, he is the only person who has ever truly helped me to understand the Old Testament and see it for what it is really worth opposed to just seeing it as this boring account of an angry God who is always punishing everyone.
...Or it's just possible he's a mouthy young man on an internet forum.
In the infinite wisdom of God, James can be all three.

Offline HabteSelassie

  • Ises and I-ity
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,332
Re: New Testament before Old Testament
« Reply #2 on: September 25, 2012, 04:31:20 PM »
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Since the order in which the books occur in the Scripture has not been defined via ecumenical council (at least, not that I know of), why not publish Scripture that begins with the New Testament and ends with the Old Testament -- since the Old can only be understood by the New?

When talking with folks who are  not familiar with the Bible, I generally tell them to read the Gospels first as an introduction, and later to get into the Laws.  After all, most peoples complaints about Christianity aren't even from the New Testament, they are disputes about the law, which as my signature quote suggests, "are without benefit and vain."

I will tell you the truth, there must be several BILLION Bibles out there in the world, and in many places people are upwards of 90% literate, and yet has the Bible changed the world in this regard? No.  So I am all the more coming to understand the Bible is a tool best reserved for the context of the experts.  I am increasingly starting to believe the Bible should come with a Spiritual Parental Advisory warning people not to read it with out the expert counsel of their spiritual fathers in the Church :)


stay blessed,
habte selassie
"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

Offline Rufus

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,337
  • Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.
Re: New Testament before Old Testament
« Reply #3 on: September 25, 2012, 08:13:10 PM »
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Since the order in which the books occur in the Scripture has not been defined via ecumenical council (at least, not that I know of), why not publish Scripture that begins with the New Testament and ends with the Old Testament -- since the Old can only be understood by the New?

When talking with folks who are  not familiar with the Bible, I generally tell them to read the Gospels first as an introduction, and later to get into the Laws.  After all, most peoples complaints about Christianity aren't even from the New Testament, they are disputes about the law, which as my signature quote suggests, "are without benefit and vain."

I will tell you the truth, there must be several BILLION Bibles out there in the world, and in many places people are upwards of 90% literate, and yet has the Bible changed the world in this regard? No.  So I am all the more coming to understand the Bible is a tool best reserved for the context of the experts.  I am increasingly starting to believe the Bible should come with a Spiritual Parental Advisory warning people not to read it with out the expert counsel of their spiritual fathers in the Church :)


stay blessed,
habte selassie

Although I tend to agree about the importance of context, I feel sad every time I meet another young person who has no Biblical literacy whateoever. It's the most foundational book of Western culture.

Offline Rufus

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,337
  • Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.
Re: New Testament before Old Testament
« Reply #4 on: September 25, 2012, 08:16:11 PM »
Why not include the writings of Origen of Alexandria with the Old Testament? To be honest, he is the only person who has ever truly helped me to understand the Old Testament and see it for what it is really worth opposed to just seeing it as this boring account of an angry God who is always punishing everyone.

James, ever since you've gone over to the Dark Side, I've suddenly started gleaning the most wonderful insights from your posts. Not being facetious. I really mean it.