An issue I feel we should adress.

[masumi5]

Since a lot of ppl are undermining the OT(and the NT), I think we should discuss this:

(regarding the OT)Which books are valid? Which laws are valid, and which aren't? How do we tell which ones are, or are not(disregard what society says)?

What parts of the OT are true, and what parts are false?

If parts are false, why are we even following it!?  

[freelance lover]

The OT is most definetly still valid- all of it. Regardless of if we still abide by certain portions of the OT it's important to understand it so you can see where we get many of our beliefs from.

Jesus said he came not to abolish the rules, but the fulfill them. As for exactly where I'm going with this, my brain is way to stupid at the moment to totally explain it. But basically I feel that the purpose many of the old rules served such as to set the chosen people apart or sanitary reasons are no long necessary. Everyone, no matter your background, can be saved by God so the rules to set us apart aren't necessary because Jesus has us covered on that one.  

[The Amazing Ryuu]

I think the idea behind the above post is that before the Jews were... the Jews, they were just another group of people on the planet. God selected them to be HIS, and gave them sets of rules to be seperate and obviously different than everyone around them. He wanted them to be clean (physically and spiritually). By the time Jesus came into the picture, they had themselves a fairly organized religion. Jesus took that basis, expanded on it, and asked Christians to essentially go back into all those places that the Jews were once held apart from and start telling everyone that this new club has open membership. The OT is a 'have to know where you've been to know where you're going' thing. On top of that, the OT has some hundred or so references to the coming of Jesus. So, while we might have decided that bacon and shellfish are okay today, knowing the why behind all the prohibitions will let you better understand the culture and times of that passage... leading to the culture of the time that Jesus came in, leading to better understanding of the message as a whole. xd  

[CrystalMind]

The way that it's always been explained to me is as follows.

The Old Testament is completely true and completely valid. However, we no longer have to make ritual sacrifices because their original purpose is no longer necessary. The original purpose of spilling the blood of various animals was as atonement for sin. Jesus represented the ultimate sacrificial lamb, and his blood paid (covered over) all sins past, present, and future for those who accepted him as Savior and Lord.

In regards to food laws, allow me to direct attention to the following passage.

I Corinthians 10:23-26 NIV

"Everything is permissible" -- but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible" -- but not everything is constructive. Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others. Eat anything sold in the meat market with good conscience, for, "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it."

Actually, I Corinthians alone could fuel Bible studies, sermons, and discussions for years... But that would belong in another topic, so let's move on.

In regard to deciding what is worth believing or not, I choose to take the Bible, the whole Bible, as truth. I'm not a theologian. I'm not an expert on the Bible. I know what I believe, and that is enough.

I have Faith in Jesus as the new law and the new covenant with God. I have faith in the Old Testament as a lexicon of what to trust and what not to trust, what to avoid and what to have faith in. If Christ is the axis of our faith, then the books of the Old Testament serve to flesh out who God is and what we can expect in response to our obedience and disobedience.

I've said my piece.  

[Fushigi na Butterfly]

Wow. I agree 100 percent, CrystalMind.

But I also wanted to add to what Liz was saying too. What I think she's trying to say, is that, while Jesus told us He came to fulfill the Law, we have no idea of understanding what that means until we know what the Law says. If someone asks you what a rainbow is, and you tell them that it's an arc made up of colors (the science isn't important in this example), they still aren't going to fully understand what the means until you tell them what colors a rainbow comprises, and in what order it comprises them. In order to understand what Jesus is really all about, we have to go back to the beginning.

So to answer the TO's question, all of the books are valid, all of the OT is true. But, as I've said somewhere else, relevance doesn't necessarily equate to application. It's necessary to understand the OT before you can understand the NT and follow Jesus and continue to grow, but the laws don't apply to us in the same way they do to Orthodox Jews. Jews are still trying to atone for their own sins, but we have Jesus to do it for us.  

[freelance lover]

Fushigi na Butterfly

Wow. I agree 100 percent, CrystalMind.

But I also wanted to add to what Liz was saying too. What I think she's trying to say, is that, while Jesus told us He came to fulfill the Law, we have no idea of understanding what that means until we know what the Law says. If someone asks you what a rainbow is, and you tell them that it's an arc made up of colors (the science isn't important in this example), they still aren't going to fully understand what the means until you tell them what colors a rainbow comprises, and in what order it comprises them. In order to understand what Jesus is really all about, we have to go back to the beginning.

So to answer the TO's question, all of the books are valid, all of the OT is true. But, as I've said somewhere else, relevance doesn't necessarily equate to application. It's necessary to understand the OT before you can understand the NT and follow Jesus and continue to grow, but the laws don't apply to us in the same way they do to Orthodox Jews. Jews are still trying to atone for their own sins, but we have Jesus to do it for us.

Thank you for being better at forming coherent sentances than me xD That's pretty much what I was trying to say.  

[Priestley]

masumi5

Since a lot of ppl are undermining the OT(and the NT), I think we should discuss this:

(regarding the OT)Which books are valid? Which laws are valid, and which aren't? How do we tell which ones are, or are not(disregard what society says)?

What parts of the OT are true, and what parts are false?

If parts are false, why are we even following it!?

I'll answer this as my faith permits, as rashly stating what is and isn't valid may bring myself and/or others under judgment when it's neither my right nor my wish to do so.

I trust Jesus first and foremost as having always told the truth. His faith when he was on earth was grounded in his knowledge of the Law and the Prophets and in his direct relationship with God. He came to understand that he was the Messiah that God had always promised throughout the Old Testament and, as such, fulfilled the Law and prophecies regarding himself. Once he fulfilled the Law and those prophecies, he was able to establish a new covenant and, by his teachings, a new standard by which we are to measure ourselves. By the Law, those who are in Christ no longer pass/fail but are judged and are given their places in heaven accordingly.

I have little faith in people because people can lie and exaggerate, accounts of events in history can be blown out of proportion, gaps in knowledge are filled with assumptions, but I build my faith on Jesus and take him at his word.

Hm, that's all I have to say about that.  

[masumi5]

Alright, now what about the NT? Are all of the laws still valid? Is what they've said still valid?

And what does Him 'fulfilling the old laws' mean exactly?  

[Darkx_xAngelx_x237]

.. I always thought both of them were valid, the price for the OT was replaced though.

In the OT sacrifices had to be made and other offering to God, but in NT Jesus already paid our debts and people no longer had to do sacrifices or circumspection [[.. sp on the i think]] The commandments we still had to abide by as well as most everything else, such as the words of wisdom in proverbs etc.

...I might be wrong sweatdrop  

[freelance lover]

masumi5

Alright, now what about the NT? Are all of the laws still valid? Is what they've said still valid?

And what does Him 'fulfilling the old laws' mean exactly?

In general, there aren't a whole lot of "laws" set down in the NT. It's a lot more "you should do this, because it's pleasing to the Lord" and a lot less "do this or die."

I do think all over the NT is valid, though you have to consider the time period it was written in. You can't always take a document as old as the Bible at face value.

And as for Jesus fulfilling the old laws... see my and fushigi's previous posts.  

[Priestley]

masumi5

Alright, now what about the NT? Are all of the laws still valid? Is what they've said still valid?

And what does Him 'fulfilling the old laws' mean exactly?

I believe all the laws are still valid, especially the Ten Commandments, as they're hard enough to follow as it is without all the commandments given in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Coveting is a really difficult one for me, for example. However, as I said, the Law is no longer a pass/fail system but a grading system by which God will judge and assign places in heaven.

Jesus dismissed the traditions and inflexibility in the Law and was an advocate for doing good even if it meant going against the grain of the society of the day. Healing and picking corn on the Sabbath to eat, anyone?

I also believe that following a law that requires little sacrifice from oneself has very little meaning to God and is less rewarding for you than sacrificing something major, like marriage and/or sex, for the sake of God and devoting oneself to Him only. It ties in with Jesus' teachings about those who have much in this life having less in heaven than those who sacrificed much on earth.  

[Priestley]

Darkx_xAngelx_x237

circumspection

rofl

Aw, you've made my day! heart  

[mazuac]

masumi5

Since a lot of ppl are undermining the OT(and the NT), I think we should discuss this:

(regarding the OT)Which books are valid? Which laws are valid, and which aren't? How do we tell which ones are, or are not(disregard what society says)?

What parts of the OT are true, and what parts are false?

If parts are false, why are we even following it!?

Well, first off, none of the Old Testament is false. Seeing as it's Gods Word it can't be wrong or false. So... that's just what I beleive about the OT.

As for the Laws, I would assume you'd have to be a biblical scholar to know which laws we do not need to follow now that Christ has died for us. One such law I know of is circumcision. While most people get circumcised, we do not HAVE to, as the old law states, because we are brought into God's family by Christs death~

 

[CrystalMind]

masumi5

Alright, now what about the NT? Are all of the laws still valid? Is what they've said still valid?

And what does Him 'fulfilling the old laws' mean exactly?

I think... that there are people far more qualified than I-- or any of us, for that matter-- to answer those questions. However, they're not here, are they?

The New Testament is, in my opinion, entirely valid considering its origins. It contains the only records that we have of Jesus' life and thus contains examples for us to model our lives after. It is as essential to our faith as the Old Testament is. (See my previous post)

Are the laws/what the laws said still valid? In this respect, I think that my thoughts are similar to previous posters in that I believe that they are still valid, but in a differant sense than they were originally-- Yes, I'm aware that I border on heresy. My explanation of my reasoning ties in with your last question.

What does "fulfilling" the Old Laws mean, exactly?

Webster's Ninth New College Dictionary; Copyright 1988

ful-fill vt:

[1] (archaic) to make full

[2]a. to put into effect; b. To bring to an end; c. to measure up to: Satisfy

[3] a. to convert into reality; b. To develop the full potentialities of

Make of that what you will. I choose to define it with definition 2b. It makes the most sense in my mind.

By acting as the ultimate sacrifice, Jesus eliminated the need for the countless numbers of slain sheep, goats, pidgeons, etc. He 'satisfied' the requirements, ergo, 'fulfilling' the law, or bringing everything full circle to open the new covenent with us, his people.

We certainly should follow God's law, but it shouldn't be out of a sense of obligation. We should obey him because it is pleasing to him, not because we feel we need it for salvation. God shouldn't have to enforce the law, because we should love Him with all our hearts, souls, and minds.

But we're human, much to the shame of many, and we do slip up constantly. That's where forgivness comes in. Still, just because we are forgiven doesn't mean that we can go around sinning constantly. Christ has set the mark, we just need to get as close as we can.  

[Darkx_xAngelx_x237]

Priestley

Darkx_xAngelx_x237

circumspection

rofl

Aw, you've made my day! heart

xd ... Something tells me... that either I spelled it wrong.. or I completely said the wrong thing sweatdrop xp
Neh I'm glad I made your day 3nodding