Should we follow the teachings of the Old Testament?
- Thread starter planksh
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I have studied the OT, and with each chapter I have followed it through to the NT to see how Christ fulfilled.
I don't think that God cancelled anything of Himself at all in any verse of the bible. I think the idea that we must cancel all that is taught in the OT in order to have a new religion is not truth, although I think God used this idea so we would accept Him.
In the first 500 years of the development of Christianity, if gentiles thought they had any connection with those strange acting people, the Jews, they would have had nothing to do with Christ. We owe our salvation to our ancestors accepting Christ. Christian Jews who combined their knowledge of all Christ is with those "strange" doings of the Jews were killed off by the year 132, few remained.
The bible is one unit, God is the same God from Genesis to Rev. Christ is the same Christ. There was a big difference when Christ lived with us in a body and was crucified, and we need both testaments to define that difference. Our church is just beginning to grow up enough we can know these things.
I don't think that God cancelled anything of Himself at all in any verse of the bible. I think the idea that we must cancel all that is taught in the OT in order to have a new religion is not truth, although I think God used this idea so we would accept Him.
In the first 500 years of the development of Christianity, if gentiles thought they had any connection with those strange acting people, the Jews, they would have had nothing to do with Christ. We owe our salvation to our ancestors accepting Christ. Christian Jews who combined their knowledge of all Christ is with those "strange" doings of the Jews were killed off by the year 132, few remained.
The bible is one unit, God is the same God from Genesis to Rev. Christ is the same Christ. There was a big difference when Christ lived with us in a body and was crucified, and we need both testaments to define that difference. Our church is just beginning to grow up enough we can know these things.
F
How can we say that the old testament is invalid. For it is a testament of what of who? 1 Cor 10 speaks of who it was that was with Israel in the wilderness. The scriptures says Christ is the word. If we throw out one part of the word are we not throwing away part of Christ. It is all about God the whole book. Christ came in the form of man but the word says to call him Emmanual. that is to say God with us. So the whole of scripture Old and N
ew are a part of God being revealed to us. When we read it look at for what it says about God.
ew are a part of God being revealed to us. When we read it look at for what it says about God.
Which part of the OT"
The Abrahamic Covenant?
This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void.
(Gal 3:17)
For the gifts and the calling of God (which come by promise) are irrevocable.
(Rom 11:29)
Or the Mosaic/Levitical Covenant?
Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.
(Heb 7:11-12)
For if what was being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory.
(2Co 3:11)
The Abrahamic Covenant?
This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void.
(Gal 3:17)
For the gifts and the calling of God (which come by promise) are irrevocable.
(Rom 11:29)
Or the Mosaic/Levitical Covenant?
Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.
(Heb 7:11-12)
For if what was being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory.
(2Co 3:11)
N
Yes. Without question. We should most definitely follow the teachings in the Old testament, for they are the Words of God. We naturally have to understand what we are reading also. Because people can get confused if your not careful in your reading, meaning, if you don't give enough time to study .
Last edited:
The Levitical priesthood was not the law of Moses, it was the priest in the temple administering atonement through the blood of animals. That was replaced by Christ, they had imperfect atonement through the priests, but that was made perfect in Christ. That law changed. That came to glory. That did not wipe out all God has said about love in the ten commandments. The temple is of no use any more, we are the temple.
P
And how about this one? 
Eph. 2:14-16
For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.
♥
Eph. 2:14-16
For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.
♥
Yes,
And he rose and went. And there was an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure. He had come to Jerusalem to worship and was returning, seated in his chariot, and he was reading the prophet Isaiah. And the Spirit said to Philip, "Go over and join this chariot." So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, "Do you understand what you are reading?" And he said, "How can I, unless someone guides me?" And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. Now the passage of the Scripture that he was reading was this: "Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter and like a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he opens not his mouth. In his humiliation justice was denied him. Who can describe his generation? For his life is taken away from the earth." And the eunuch said to Philip, "About whom, I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?" Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus. And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, "See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?" And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing.
(Act 8:27-39)
actually many christians haven't read the whole bible and yet they are saved.
And he rose and went. And there was an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure. He had come to Jerusalem to worship and was returning, seated in his chariot, and he was reading the prophet Isaiah. And the Spirit said to Philip, "Go over and join this chariot." So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, "Do you understand what you are reading?" And he said, "How can I, unless someone guides me?" And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. Now the passage of the Scripture that he was reading was this: "Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter and like a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he opens not his mouth. In his humiliation justice was denied him. Who can describe his generation? For his life is taken away from the earth." And the eunuch said to Philip, "About whom, I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?" Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus. And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, "See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?" And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing.
(Act 8:27-39)
actually many christians haven't read the whole bible and yet they are saved.