OT vs NT

This is the place to discuss anything to do with scriptural doctrine. It is the primary purpose of this site, and most discussions will be here.
Forum rules
Matt 18:6; Eccl 7:9; 1 Pet 4:8 (If you're not sure what they say then please hover over them with your mouse or look them up in your own Bible before posting)
User avatar
Posts: 1909
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: OT vs NT

#21 Post by menrov » 1 month ago

If you do not believe that the bible contains spiritual assets or truth that can be found.
If you do not believe that these truths can be further found, refined and shared by discussing spiritual matters with spiritual people.

Then you are self satisfied and unconcerned with spiritual things, totally unaware of the danger and deficiencies that such a disposition brings.
As I said. it remains surprising that if one does not agree with the entire contents of the bible or has valid questions about the validity of (parts of) the bible, that person is considered complacent, compared to Pontius Pilate or worse.
Some in times past developed a similar complacent attitude towards spiritual things, forsaking opportunities to gathering together to discuss spiritual matters, maybe even using such occasions to discourage rather than encourage
So, now you compare me with those that, in your view, did not pay attention to the "spiritual words" Jesus spoke about destruction of (temple in) Jerusalem.

I rest my case.

Posts: 1246
Joined: 7 years ago
Location: Qld. Australia

Re: OT vs NT

#22 Post by AmosAU » 1 month ago

Hi Kerry,

Another encouraging post.

Complacancy can take on several differing identities. If we can't believe the bible, where else can we go?

I personally believe that some of the bible has been tampered with by the opposition.
I also believe that the Spirit will give us the understanding and conviction about this.

There's nothing to fear where our Father is concerned. He has called us out of darkness into the light of His Kingdom.
It's about a personal relationship with our Creator and Father!

Regards, Amos.

Posts: 200
Joined: 5 years ago

Re: OT vs NT

#23 Post by simplyme » 1 month ago

It still amazes me that a people that purport to follow the supreme principle of love towards their fellow human can be so cutting and judgmental toward others on a personal level. To ones who are asking legitimate and sincere questions. To ones who are trying to help.

And they use their most sacred instrument, the Bible, to justify their unloving actions. The word blasphemy comes to my mind here.

Yes I know, I’ve done it as much as anyone. We are a sad lot but not beyond hope 🙂

Posts: 2507
Joined: 6 years ago

Re: OT vs NT

#24 Post by Marina » 1 month ago

(John 10:7-9) . . .Therefore Jesus said again: “Most truly I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All those that have come in place of me are thieves and plunderers; but the sheep have not listened to them. I am the door; whoever enters through me will be saved, and he will go in and out and find pasturage. . .

(1 John 4:9-11) . . .By this the love of God was made manifest in our case, because God sent forth his only-begotten Son into the world that we might gain life through him. The love is in this respect, not that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent forth his Son as a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins. Beloved ones, if this is how God loved us, then we are ourselves under obligation to love one another. . .

(1 John 4:20) If anyone makes the statement: “I love God,” and yet is hating his brother, he is a liar. . . .

(Matthew 23:34-36) . . .Some of them you will kill and impale, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city; that there may come upon you all the righteous blood spilled on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Truly I say to you, All these things will come upon this generation. . .

(Genesis 4:9-11) Later on Jehovah said to Cain: “Where is Abel your brother?” and he said: “I do not know. Am I my brother’s guardian?” At this he said: “What have you done? Listen! Your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground. And now you are cursed in banishment from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood at your hand. . .

Posts: 18
Joined: 4 months ago

Re: OT vs NT

#25 Post by ctron » 1 month ago

Here is another view and feel free to correct me.

What is meant by finding the truth? To understand the whole Bible and get the truth about all scriptures? That's not possible and we are not meant to find the truth about every scripture: 1 Corinthians 13:9

There are points in the Bible that are stated in such a way that simply cannot be pinned down to one possible explanation. There could be many different explanations where one or none is actually right. We don't know. If there is more than one explanation that harmonizes with the Bible, we should not fall into the trap to insist on one explanation. If we argue about such points, what good has been accomplished?

The first century Christians didn't have computers nor all the scriptures readily available for researching things as we do today. They also had a busy life. And they still were able to find the truth.

So what is meant by finding the truth? You can't find the truthful explanation to every scripture in the Bible. So there is a line or boundary where within those boundaries everyone should be able to find the one and only truthful explanation. But where are those boundaries? Which core teachings are included?

Also, many of the earlier first century Christians were able to find the truth without the book of Revelations since it was written much later. So do you need to know and understand the book of Revelations or any piece of it to find the truth? I'm not trying to downplay it. I think it will enrich your Bible knowledge and strengthen your face. But for finding the truth, do you need it? The first century Christians found the truth without it. And it's one of those books where we get many different opinions and explanations. And when we disagree about things in the book of Revelation then I think it should not cause us to lose faith in the truth we found.

The bigger question for me is which important teachings am I supposed know and have the correct view and interpretation, so that I can say that I have found the truth? Everything beyond that will enrich my knowledge but I can't expect everyone to have the same view or interpretation. However, those views and interpretations should not contradict the truth of the core teachings.


Posts: 2507
Joined: 6 years ago

Re: OT vs NT

#26 Post by Marina » 1 month ago

Why not just read the Bible? It has the answers to all the FAQs.

Posts: 654
Joined: 5 years ago

Re: OT vs NT

#27 Post by Orchid61 » 1 month ago

Hi Ctron,

You can start with this also:

Johannes 14:6 (ESV): 6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Love Maria 🌷

Posts: 3394
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: OT vs NT

#28 Post by apollos0fAlexandria » 1 month ago

Maria beat me to it, but as well as asking what (or who) is Truth?", we can also ask what (or who) is The Word?

"so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it." (Isa 55:11)

For a believer it's certainly true in a literal sense that whatever God speaks is fulfilled, but the phrasing is a bit odd when we talk of one "sending" it and having it "return".

On the other hand ...

"In the beginning the Word was ..." (John 1:1)

If Jesus is the Word of God (and I think an argument could be made for a double meaning in Heb 4:12 if you read in context) then per my earlier post in this thread, we "see" the Word of God through scripture, but that does not mean that every scripture is the Word of God even though it may have inspiration behind it.


Posts: 2507
Joined: 6 years ago

Re: OT vs NT

#29 Post by Marina » 1 month ago

(1 Samuel 28:6) . . .Although Saul would inquire of Jehovah, Jehovah never answered him. . .

(Ecclesiastes 3:1-7) 3 For everything there is an appointed time... a time to keep quiet . . .

(Revelation 8:1) . . .And when he opened the seventh seal, a silence occurred in heaven for about a half hour. . .

Even silence can be inspired. It's saying something.

Proselytiser of Jah
Posts: 179
Joined: 1 month ago

Re: OT vs NT

#30 Post by Proselytiser of Jah » 1 month ago

It's interesting to note that nowhere in the NT, are Christians seen to be practicing anything from the OT after Jesus' death, with exception to the mention of fasting, but even that wasn't listed as a "must do" law, it seems to be mentioned as a "side note", when Jesus and the Apostles were speaking of life and worship in general, in regards to "whatever we do, do it for God" (Matthew 6:16, Acts 13:2-3), whilst other mentions of fasting appear to be symbolic (Acts 14:22-23), but overall no direct commandment, rather we are told "food does not bring us closer to God" (1 Corinthians 8:8). The only time Sabbath is mentioned is in reference to "dates and times" and when the Christians took advantage of the Sabbath to preach to the unbelieving Jews in the synagogs.

There are no passages where any of the Apostles or Jesus commands anyone to celebrate the Sabbath, even when a man asked Jesus "what must I do to be saved" he said "you know the commandments" and he began to list them: Mark 10:19, but you'll notice he never said "and obey the Sabbath, and the x/y/z laws", instead he said "and come be my follower", that is to obey the Christian laws of Christ, none of which verbatim mention celebration of the Sabbath as one of them.

But there 'are' verses which could be said to be advocating the opposite.

Colossians 2:16


Some translations even write this verse as "So don’t let anyone condemn you for what you eat or drink, or for not celebrating certain holy days or new moon ceremonies or Sabbaths". Notice as well he throws in all those celebrations with "eating and drinking", which could be in regards to the food laws which were also done away with (Acts 10:13-16).

Some argue regardless that the Sabbath was said to be "everlasting" between God and his people, though this was with the nation of Israel, and the context there is if Israel kept up their side of the bargain, which they didn't and so that Covenant was ended. Another thing to note is that the other laws also were said to be "everlasting", including foods and circumcising (Genesis 17:7,10,9), and yet we know these were also done away with as we are not circumcised in "heart".

The old laws were a shadow of the new laws (Hebrews 8:13, Hebrews 10:1,Colossians 2:17), and according to the OT, this includes the 10 commandments, as they are listed as being a "part" of the old covenant of which was done away with, not seperated from it (Deuteronomy 4:13, Deuteronomy 5:2-3m Deuteronomy 9:9, Deuteronomy 29:1,3). Thus all of it is done away with, and that is also why Christ is the "Lord of the Sabbath", as the Sabbath is in him now. You could say the 10 commandments are still with us, but they evolved into a Christian format, and the Sabbath which signified the old Covenant and God's completed creative works became the Lords Evening Meal instead, which signified the completion of the old law through Christ's death (John 19:30), (though it is not specified that it should be done every weekend).
"The fruitage of the Spirit is; love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control..." Galatians 5:22-23

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests