Why believe in the Old Testament?

[Pericles]

What we call the OT is of course the sacred text of another completely distinct religion, Judaism. I understand from a Christian perspective the OT is a prelude to the NT but conversely from a Jewish perspective it clearly isn't. From a Jewish perpective Jesus was not the Messiah and certainly not God. It takes a quantum leap of the imagination to percieve any real continuity between the two testaments. Granted it would be difficult to contextualise the origin of Christianity without knowing what preceeded it but it certainly wouldnt be impossible without the OT.

I'm not advocating that Orthodox abandon the OT, that would be impossible, although it's worth noting that the canon has never been universally authorised by any ecumenical council. What I am suggesting is a difference of stress and importance place on each testament and the way we read the Holy Bible. On the basis that the Gospel was offered to the Greek world because it was rejected by the Jews and that the Gospel is the primary truth for Christians. The Old Testament could be seen as holding a secondary canonical status.

After all considered alone and as a complete and comprehensive revelation of God the Tanakh is the holy book of a false religion, Judaism.

[Theophilos78]

After all considered alone and as a complete and comprehensive revelation of God the Tanakh is the holy book of a false religion, Judaism.

Do you mean that Moses was also a false prophet then? He was the founder of Judaism. 

[Cyrillic]

It takes a quantum leap of the imagination to percieve any real continuity between the two testaments.

No, not really.

[Pericles]

Do you mean that Moses was also a false prophet then? He was the founder of Judaism. 

You mean if he he ever existed? Well if he did he was a murderer for a start and ultimately yes as a prophet of a religion that is false he certainly is a false prophet. Jews see God in the terms they understand Moses to have revealed himself to Moses, Christians understand God in the terms he revealed himself in Christ. They are two different notions of God one belongs to the realm of myth and fantasy and the other is the true and living God.

[Pericles]

No, not really.

Oh yes, really

[Cyrillic]

No, not really.

Oh yes, really

No, really.

[Theophilos78]

Do you mean that Moses was also a false prophet then? He was the founder of Judaism. 

You mean if he he ever existed? Well if he did he was a murderer for a start and ultimately yes as a prophet of a religion that is false he certainly is a false prophet. Jews see God in the terms they understand Moses to have revealed himself to Moses, Christians understand God in the terms he revealed himself in Christ. They are two different notions of God one belongs to the realm of myth and fantasy and the other is the true and living God.

Then why did Jesus talk of Moses? Did He want to deceive us by making us believe in a false prophet that did not actually exist? Why did Jesus converse with a false prophet on the mount when His appearance was transfigured?

[Pericles]

No, really.

Really

[Cyrillic]

No, really.

Really

Well no, not really 

[Pericles]

Then why did Jesus talk of Moses? Did He want to deceive us by making us believe in a false prophet that did not actually exist? Why did Jesus converse with a false prophet on the mount when His appearance was transfigured?

Surely the transfiguration is the real point to be made, that Christ is God and that the transfiguration occurred in the presence of prophets of the people that had rejected him and who wanted to kill him in the name of those prophets. No one reported any information on the conversation and John who was supposed to have been there according to Mathew, never saw fit to mention any of it in his Gospel!

[Pericles]

Well no, not really 

Oh yes yes yes

[Cyrillic]

Well no, not really 

Oh yes yes yes

But why then is the OT full of references to Christ?

[Theophilos78]

Surely the transfiguration is the real point to be made, that Christ is God and that the transfiguration occurred in the presence of prophets of the people that had rejected him and who wanted to kill him in the name of those prophets. No one reported any information on the conversation and John who was supposed to have been there according to Mathew, never saw fit to mention any of it in his Gospel!

Thus, God made an illusion to make a theological point! Interesting! 

What if John did not talk of the transfiguration? He was also the only Evangelist to state in the introduction to his Gospel that the Law was given by Moses. He endorsed Moses and his prophetic mission to prove that Jesus brought grace and truth. 

[Pericles]

But why then is the OT full of references to Christ?

It isn't, at least not Christ as we understand him. Firstly the true Jews (Sadducees) wern't expecting a messiah and rejected the prophets only the fringe theology of the Separatists (Pharisees) looked for a messiah and he was to come as a political liberator and overthrow the Romans. They got it wrong and they missed him when he came, consequently the messiah as seen by the Pharisees does not exist and is not Christ.

[alanscott]

I am neither Orthodox nor a theologian of any sort. Thus my reply is as much a question as an answer perhaps...

I have been taught to see the OT and the NT as one book if you will. Isn’t that necessary for theology as a whole? I would think the connection between the OT and NT begins with Genesis and the fall of mankind. Obviously that establishes the need for God to take the form of flesh and blood and the coming atonement. The book of Isaiah comes to mind as the most obvious connection in the form of prophecy but certainly there are other examples as well.
 
Another thought for a direct connection might be in the words of Christ our Lord: “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill."

[TheMathematician]

What we call the OT is of course the sacred text of another completely distinct religion, Judaism. I understand from a Christian perspective the OT is a prelude to the NT but conversely from a Jewish perspective it clearly isn't. From a Jewish perpective Jesus was not the Messiah and certainly not God. It takes a quantum leap of the imagination to percieve any real continuity between the two testaments. Granted it would be difficult to contextualise the origin of Christianity without knowing what preceeded it but it certainly wouldnt be impossible without the OT.

I'm not advocating that Orthodox abandon the OT, that would be impossible, although it's worth noting that the canon has never been universally authorised by any ecumenical council. What I am suggesting is a difference of stress and importance place on each testament and the way we read the Holy Bible. On the basis that the Gospel was offered to the Greek world because it was rejected by the Jews and that the Gospel is the primary truth for Christians. The Old Testament could be seen as holding a secondary canonical status.

After all considered alone and as a complete and comprehensive revelation of God the Tanakh is the holy book of a false religion, Judaism.

Except we are the Jews of the OT, and these Scriptures are our own, both the OT and the NT. This "Jewish perspective of modern Judaism" is meaningless, since it started after Christ came into the world. It also can be argued that it takes a quantum leap to assume that the references are not about Christ

[Cyrillic]

But why then is the OT full of references to Christ?

It isn't

It is. Read psalm 2.

[Karaleighmum]

I am neither Orthodox nor a theologian of any sort. Thus my reply is as much a question as an answer perhaps...

I have been taught to see the OT and the NT as one book if you will. Isn’t that necessary for theology as a whole? I would think the connection between the OT and NT begins with Genesis and the fall of mankind. Obviously that establishes the need for God to take the form of flesh and blood and the coming atonement. The book of Isaiah comes to mind as the most obvious connection in the form of prophecy but certainly there are other examples as well.
 
Another thought for a direct connection might be in the words of Christ our Lord: “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill."

these are things that also come to mind when I read this thread(funny eh Scott?) Anyhow I would love if someone with more education on the subject matter would reply as this seems very relevant to our Faith in my opinion which is but a fools.

[Pericles]

I have been taught to see the OT and the NT as one book if you will. Isn’t that necessary for theology as a whole? I would think the connection between the OT and NT begins with Genesis and the fall of mankind. Obviously that establishes the need for God to take the form of flesh and blood and the coming atonement. The book of Isaiah comes to mind as the most obvious connection in the form of prophecy but certainly there are other examples as well.

Well they are distinct and separated for a reason, the relative emphasis people put on each and the relationship between the two determines the overall picture of revelation held by any individual Christian. One example of this would be Gnosticism which held that the Jewish God was a flawed creator ignorant of the true God. Marcionites on the other hand totally rejected the OT and it's God. Again Ebionites rejected the divininity of Christ and only used the Gospel of Mathew. Within mainstream Christianity you get Christians that are almost Jewish in their regard for the OT and see Christ in light of the OT and conversely you get Christians that see the OT as myth and fable but a useful tool for background information.
 

Another thought for a direct connection might be in the words of Christ our Lord: “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill."

The effects are the same, we don't keep the law anymore, regardless of whether its destroyed or fulfilled

[Pericles]

It is. Read psalm 2.

Nothing there...

[Pericles]

Except we are the Jews of the OT, and these Scriptures are our own, both the OT and the NT. This "Jewish perspective of modern Judaism" is meaningless, since it started after Christ came into the world.

In the real world we're actually the Greeks not the Jews, you can only say we're 'spiritual Israel' in a poetic and allegorical sense.

It also can be argued that it takes a quantum leap to assume that the references are not about Christ

It isn't argued very well though is it.

[Cyrillic]

It is. Read psalm 2.

Nothing there...

You mean that the page between psalm 1 and 3 is missing?

[Iconodule]

Either the OT is all about Christ or the NT is full of lies.

[Karaleighmum]

"Luke 24:44
Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.”"

thats what Christ said, how can it be denied?

[Iconodule]

"Luke 24:44
Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.”"

thats what Christ said, how can it be denied?

I guess Pericles hasn't bothered reading either testament.

[Pericles]

You mean that the page between psalm 1 and 3 is missing?

Its missing any prophecy conclusive about Christ, just a vague poem about a King that people interprete variously because of that.

[Pericles]

I guess Pericles hasn't bothered reading either testament.

you wish 

[Theophilos78]

Its missing any prophecy conclusive about Christ, just a vague poem about a King that people interprete variously because of that.

Despite your anti-Jewish sentiments (hatred), you sound very much like the followers of Rabbinical Judaism when you make this statement about Psalm 2. 

[sheenj]

You mean that the page between psalm 1 and 3 is missing?

Its missing any prophecy conclusive about Christ, just a vague poem about a King that people interprete variously because of that.

This doesn't ring any bells?

Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

What do you think about Psalm 22 then?

[Iconodule]

I guess Pericles hasn't bothered reading either testament.

you wish 

Yes, I do wish you would read them. Give it a try please.

[Cyrillic]

You mean that the page between psalm 1 and 3 is missing?

Its missing any prophecy conclusive about Christ, just a vague poem about a King that people interprete variously because of that.

Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee...

[Theophilos78]

I guess Pericles hasn't bothered reading either testament.

you wish 

Yes, I do wish you would read them. Give it a try please.

He should read Acts 4:25-26 first. The apostles considered Psalm 2 Messianic and taught that it was fulfilled through Christ's death. If Pericles denies Psalm 2, he must deny Acts 4:25-26 too. 

[Pericles]

Despite your anti-Jewish sentiments (hatred), you sound very much like the followers of Rabbinical Judaism when you make this statement about Psalm 2. 

Anti-Judaic not anti-Jewish, shame on you for playing the race card, foul Anyway they have a point and also Muslims see it as a prophecy about Muhammed. I note your implicit agreement that its inconclusive.

[Cyrillic]

Anyway they have a point and also Muslims see it as a prophecy about Muhammed. I note your implicit agreement that its inconclusive.

Why should we care what Jews and Mohammedans think? Why should we prefer them to the Apostles?

[Iconodule]

Despite your anti-Jewish sentiments (hatred), you sound very much like the followers of Rabbinical Judaism when you make this statement about Psalm 2. 

Anti-Judaic not anti-Jewish, shame on you for playing the race card, foul Anyway they have a point and also Muslims see it as a prophecy about Muhammed. I note your implicit agreement that its inconclusive.

So you believe the writers of the New Testament misinterpreted the passage. So your real question is, "Why believe in either the Old or New Testaments?"

[Theophilos78]

Anti-Judaic not anti-Jewish, shame on you for playing the race card, foul Anyway they have a point and also Muslims see it as a prophecy about Muhammed. I note your implicit agreement that its inconclusive.

Jewish primarily denotes religious affiliation. I did not say anti-Israeli or anti-Hebrew. 

No sane Muslim claims that this is a prophecy about Muhammad. Muhammad is never called the anointed or al-Masih in the Qur'an and Islamic tradition.

[Theophilos78]

Despite your anti-Jewish sentiments (hatred), you sound very much like the followers of Rabbinical Judaism when you make this statement about Psalm 2. 

Anti-Judaic not anti-Jewish, shame on you for playing the race card, foul Anyway they have a point and also Muslims see it as a prophecy about Muhammed. I note your implicit agreement that its inconclusive.

So you believe the writers of the New Testament misinterpreted the passage. So your real question is, "Why believe in either the Old or New Testaments?"

He thinks the Jews are right to blame the apostles and the Church for misinterpreting the Tanakh. 

[Pericles]

The apostles considered Psalm 2 Messianic and taught that it was fulfilled through Christ's death. If Pericles denies Psalm 2, he must deny Acts 4:25-26 too. 

Well I do regard the Pauline Epistles as the primary source of Christian teaching and only they hold absolute authority. Acts is not an eyewitness account and was written well after the events described and with an agenda. Granted Acts and the Gospels are much more valuable to Christians than the Tanakh but they need to be read in the historical context of their composition. With that in mind the quote in question is a nice piece of anti-Judaic rhetoric.

[Cyrillic]

The apostles considered Psalm 2 Messianic and taught that it was fulfilled through Christ's death. If Pericles denies Psalm 2, he must deny Acts 4:25-26 too. 

Well I do regard the Pauline Epistles as the primary source of Christian teaching and only they hold absolute authority. Acts is not an eyewitness account and was written well after the events described and with an agenda. Granted Acts and the Gospels are much more valuable to Christians than the Tanakh but they need to be read in the historical context of their composition. With that in mind the quote in question is a nice piece of anti-Judaic rhetoric.

 

[Pericles]

So you believe the writers of the New Testament misinterpreted the passage. So your real question is, "Why believe in either the Old or New Testaments?"

They're sacred texts of the Christian faith and the written source of authority but a literal reading is fatal. Christ is the Word of God first and foremost.

[Iconodule]

So you believe the writers of the New Testament misinterpreted the passage. So your real question is, "Why believe in either the Old or New Testaments?"

They're sacred texts of the Christian faith and the written source of authority but a literal reading is fatal.

It seems you're the one with the literalist mindset since it is the typological reading that reveals Christ in the Old Testament.

[Jonathan]

Read "Search for the Messiah" ISBN 9367285078. You'll be surprised. Very helpful book on this topic.

Orthodoxy is the same religion as Abarahm's. The Fathers didn't view Christianity as a new religion. When we go to heaven ,we will understand much more than we understand here. That doesn't mean we'll have converted to a new religion, it just means we'll have moved to the next phase of it. But we'll be in the same relationship with the same God, just knowing Him more fully. Likewise, when Christ was incarnate and completed revelation, He did not start a new religion, but revealed more of the truth to those who follow Him. The fact that some rejected the truth and kept on worshipping the old way doesn't mean they're the old religion... the old religion was preparing them for His coming, and if they rejected Him when He came, they apostated and left the religion of their fathers which was anticipating Him. Those who remained faithful are the true Israel.

You won't accept this concept though because you don't see the unity of the two testaments. In part this is because we are lazy and don't know the Bible, in part this is because the MT that the KJV we all read came from was watered down centuries after Christ came to decrease the references to Him.

If you take the time to read Search for the Messiah, you will be surprised. He does a great job of showing simply how the OT did point to Him, and how the people were expecting Him. Expectation of the coming of the Messiah was at an all-time high when Christ came, because they knew when he would come, from Daniel. The whole OT prepares the way for Him and speaks of Him, if we will study diligently and open our eyes, we'll see it.

[Pericles]

It seems you're the one with the literalist mindset since it is the typological reading that reveals Christ in the Old Testament.

Nice one  but you know 

[Theophilos78]

Well I do regard the Pauline Epistles as the primary source of Christian teaching and only they hold absolute authority. Acts is not an eyewitness account and was written well after the events described and with an agenda. Granted Acts and the Gospels are much more valuable to Christians than the Tanakh but they need to be read in the historical context of their composition. With that in mind the quote in question is a nice piece of anti-Judaic rhetoric.

Pauline epistles are not an eyewitness account either. Paul met Jesus and the apostles after the Resurrection, not before. 

[NicholasMyra]

It takes a quantum leap of the imagination to percieve any real continuity between the two testaments.

That's why it's so important to have both.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics (Moderator: minasoliman) > Topic: Why believe in the Old Testament?