Why do Christians follow the old testament?

[RedDragon94]

Yep. Noachidism

Noachidism is an invention created by rabbis.

 

[Rival]

Noachidism is an invention created by rabbis.

Christianity is an invention created by Paul

 

[RedDragon94]

I politely suggest that you do a little more research on how the Jewish courts at the time worked and how difficult it was to convict a person.

The fact that it was difficult to convict a person doesn't detract from the fact that the penalty is ruthless.

 

[RedDragon94]

Christianity is an invention created by Paul

You forgot about the other epistles not written by Paul that agree with Paul.

 

[Rival]

The fact that it was difficult to convict a person doesn't detract from the fact that the penalty is ruthless.

Perhaps the difference is people. Some are alright with it, others no. Given that I have something of a low opinion of humanity, a 'ruthless' G-d is well-recieved by me.

 

[Rival]

You forgot about the other epistles not written by Paul that agree with Paul.

He invented it and others followed. It happens. He had arguments with the 12 though and I believe James' epistle is contra to Paul's. Paul says in one that everyone has abandoned him.

 

[RedDragon94]

Perhaps the difference is people. Some are alright with it, others no. Given that I have something of a low opinion of humanity, a 'ruthless' G-d is well-recieved by me.

*Shrugs* If you're a sado-masochist I understand. I just wish you and God valued the lives he created.

And honestly, I think God does. Why didn't God just annihilate Adam and Eve immediately after their sin? He has mercy on people because he is essentially loving.

 

[Rival]

*Shrugs* If you're a sado-masochist I understand. I just wish you and God valued the lives he created.

And honestly, I think God does. Why didn't God just annihilate Adam and Eve immediately after their sin? He has mercy on people because he is essentially loving.

Because they were supposed to eat it.

 

[RedDragon94]

He invented it and others followed. It happens. He had arguments with the 12 though and I believe James' epistle is contra to Paul's. Paul says in one that everyone has abandoned him.

If you read Acts you see Paul's the one that actually jumped on the bandwagon. You know, I've just finished reading Galatians and I'm reading James now. (It's funny we're talking about this.) What I notice about Galatians is that it seems to be written to those who are Christians and James seems to be written to Jews. One is under the law (Jews), the other is under grace (Christians). James even says "to the twelve tribes in the dispersion" in verse 1 of chapter 1. The message of James to the Jews so far is that you can reject Jesus, but when you see your works in their entirety and compare them with the perfection of the law you are condemned. Therefore, come to Christ.

 

[RedDragon94]

Because they were supposed to eat it.

Technically yes, technically no.

 

[Elliott]

What was the purpose of His death? You must understand that before you can understand His resurrection.

Most people die, few have been resurrected. Perhaps you'd care to answer both the purpose of his death and resurrection.

 

[Elliott]

Examples of things changed:

1. No longer is the circumcision of the flesh a requirement but rather a circumcision of the heart (although it was alluded to in the Tannakh. Jeremiah 4:4. Not that you can't circumcise the flesh... so it was changed.
2. Now both Jews and Gentiles can be God's chosen although the Jews still have a special place in God's heart and plans as before.
3. Of course the list can go on.

Examples of things kept:

1. You are to love your God with all of your heart, soul, body and strength
2. You are to love your neighbor as yourself.
3. The worship methods (Towdah, Shabach, Barach, Hallal etc)
4. The realities of the benefits of the sacrificial lamb
5. Of course the list can go on.

So we view the Tannakh within the light of the Messiah... it isn't that we ignore the books of the Prophets in as much as they are still the foundation. But the biggest difference is that there is much that is for the Jews within the context of The Law whereas we view it within the context of the faith of Abraham, which came before the law, and the fulfillment of the what the Prophets wrote concerning the Messiah.

Perhaps more Christians spend time in the NT because of its realities. The was the Old (will and) Testament and the New (will and) Testament which now supersedes the last will. The New (will and ) Testament went into effect when the death of the Testator was evident and has better promises (though includes much of the old as do most new wills and testaments)

How does one circumcise their heart? Is that done through certain beliefs or practices?

Circumcision was a commandment given to Abraham, shouldn't it be included in the christian practice since it would be considered part of "the faith of Abraham"?

 

[Elliott]

To show them that could not live up to his expectations.

You really think stoning people for cursing their parents isn't merciless?

Why would that be necessary, who said that such proof was needed? What did the jews say or do that G-D needed to make this point?

 

[Elliott]

Yes and yes. It's part of the OT and it's in the text of the NT.

i don't understand the need for the old then if everything needed is in the new already.

 

[Elliott]

What are the Russians, Irish, British, German?

Instead of Israel, the one with the genetic inheritance, being God's people, we now have as Paul said:

Ephesians 2:14:For he is our peace, who made both one, and brake down the middle wall of partition,​

the situation in which anyone from any national groups on earth may become one of God's people. God is not a God for a small nation in the Middle East, he is God of all mankind, and all people may if they desire become part of that Israel (the spiritual one)

Acts 17:26 and he made of one every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed seasons, and the bounds of their habitation; 27 that they should seek God, if haply they might feel after him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us:​

God is no longer fighting the war against the Philistines or the Egyptians for a fleshly Israel. Though, it is clear that fleshly Israel is being used in some manner to make the end prophesies come true.

Since the death of Christ, God is a God of all mankind, should each one of these national groups search for him and desire to serve him obediently.

Jewish teachings teach that G-D has always been for all man kind just the rules for jews and everyone else is different. They teach that one does not have to have anything to do with Israel spiritually or physically for that matter. Take Noah for example.

 

[RedDragon94]

Why would that be necessary, who said that such proof was needed? What did the jews say or do that G-D needed to make this point?

Because it contrasts the sinless perfection of Messiah vs. the corruptness of the average human.

 

[Elliott]

Because it contrasts the sinless perfection of Messiah vs. the corruptness of the average human.

Do you mean to say that the point is that the jews could not live up to those expectations and the messiah could and therefore is meant to show just how great the messiah truly is compared to the jews?

 

[Kenny]

How does one circumcise their heart? Is that done through certain beliefs or practices?

Good questions.

I don't think it is either/or but rather both.

If you practice it, but your heart doesn't believe, it becomes religious and lifeless IMO. Like giving anniversary roses without love but just out of duty. It's plastic, its ritualistic, its hypocritical and there is no life in it. People get turned off.

But if you love someone (circumcision of the heart), anniversary flowers (practice) comes naturally and is full of life.

So if you believe it, practice comes naturally.

Circumcision was a commandment given to Abraham, shouldn't it be included in the christian practice since it would be considered part of "the faith of Abraham"?

Not in Christian understanding as it was an outward sign of a faith that was already activated by his heart of love. As Christians, if you circumcise your heart, then the outward sign is your lifestyle.

If you think about it, Abraham did it because he believed. But an 8 days old child, did he really believe? So we end up with having done something that the child had no heart decision in it and still has no life for him personally.

But, again, this is one of those things that "changed" and can be done if the parent so desires. My wife and I did it out of tradition to our son and what limited knowledge I had about it being healthier. (Had no knowledge of Abraham or its origins). My parents did it to me, so I had it done to my son.

Great question.

 

[MonkeyFire]

The forbidden Apple coincides with non-resistance.

 

[rosends]

It is a complex issue and the Christian way of categorising the laws differ slightly from the Jewish way iirc. I remember reading in the back of my Common Prayer book the XXXIX Articles of Faith that one need only follow 'the laws which are called moral'. Still, it's not an issue I'm particularly knowledgeable about and Christianity is far too fragmented to appear to give a unified/coherent answer at this point.

See number VII
Anglicans Online | The Thirty-Nine Articles

Who decides what is "called moral"?