"The Old Testament Doesn't Count!"

[Lethkhar]

ryuu_chan

I did read all your posts. I don't, however, remember them all the next day or so when I reply. However, I also believe that the question of this post was whether or not the OT laws still apply. Since Jesus came, Christians don't have to apply every single little dot and tittle to their everyday lives. A lot of laws are still in effect. Don't murder, don't sleep with animals, and even the military still has rules like no sodomy (told to me by a Nay Seal buddy).

What does the military have to do with Christian values?

Of course there's no sodomy; homosexuals are not allowed in the U.S. military.

Quote:

Now Jesus has BECOME the law, the sacrifice and the judgement. That all has been taken out of our hands as Christians. Yes, we still need to know where this all originated, but we're not held under penalty of death anymore. Just because you believe that God doesn't exist, you're in a Christian guild. So I believe it fully when I said that if God still wanted us going "a eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" people wouldn't be getting kicked out of bars and put in jail for attempting such a thing because it's so against our culture. And not just ours, but almost everyone in the world's. In short, the OT is history. It's good to know where we came from, and how we got where we are today, but since the death and resurrection of Jesus, I don't think we're held to the absolute letter of the law. Be a good person. Don't do things that are obviously against the Spirit of God. And after Jesus was taken into heaven, the Holy Spirit came and stayed with all Christians. THAT'S our guiding light.

I'm going to be off for a few days, so y'all can argue this out without me. I'll be back when I can. Peace be with you.

It's really not worth debating with you, since you obviously ignore everything I say and respond with a hazy, unbacked statement that you've already repeated twice.

All I can say is that you have yet to post scripture to back your opinion, and I have posted plenty of it. You can ignore the Bible if you want, but we're in a Christian guild. I only found it appropriate to argue from your standards.  

[Hasmonean]

Quote:

literary styles found in the Buble

LOL, you made me laugh with that typo Lethkhar! =)

Well, the genres of the Old Testament are pretty obvious. Scripture doesn't have to break them down for them to be there just like it doesn't have to say the grass is green for it to be green or say that the Bible was written for it to have been written, its obvious. But to hopefully be an aid to you in seeing this I submit the following I compiled rather quickly before getting cleaned up for a gig, lol.

The most obvious example of non-prophetic writing is most of Psalms. The fact that it is called Psalms and refers to the contents as psalms within the text (like in Psalm 3:1) makes it blatantly clear that this is poetic writing intended to be sung, aka songs. A psalm is a song. Thus, not necessarily prophecy. Songs can be used as prophetic, but it is in err to say that songs = prophecy.

The "Song of Solomon" aka "Song of Songs" is the same way. The first verse identifies it as a song. (BTW, I realize that the titles are later additions, that is why I reference the first verse and not the title itself.) Like I said before, song does not by necessity equal prophecy.

Proverbs. Once again the first verse of the book references it as "proverbs" which are wisdom sayings, not prophecy.

Also, Jesus refers to, and thus validates, the literary divisions that the Jewish community put on what we call the "Old Testament" in the following text:

Quote:

Luke 24:44 He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."

In this text he references all three parts of what the Jewish people call the TaNaK, the law, the prophets and psalms (aka the "writings" in some texts). By Jesus referencing the writings of the "Prophets" and then referencing other writings in the Old Testament seperately, it is clear that there is more to the Old Testament than only the prophetic.

Also, just because a prophet wrote a specific piece of text doesn't necessitate that it is necessarily prophecy. I am a songwriter, but what I am writing here isn't songs just because I am a songwriter. In the books written by the prophets we see narrative, history and even a bit of poetry, like in Isaiah.

There are more examples, but I need to go so I leave you with this: So, I firmly believe that in the case of this over-arching argument of whether or not the OT is relevant, Peter's discussion of prophecy that was quoted does not rule out the ability to make personal application of the OT since it is not all prophecy, and thus it still can be relevant. I hope that helps, I pray the Lord bless you Lethkhar as you wade through all your questions. =)

BTW: Nice use of Galatians, Lady of Serenity, if Paul were here I'm sure he could have answered this question far better than any of us!  

[Lethkhar]

Hasmonean

Quote:

literary styles found in the Buble

LOL, you made me laugh with that typo Lethkhar! =)

Well, the genres of the Old Testament are pretty obvious. Scripture doesn't have to break them down for them to be there just like it doesn't have to say the grass is green for it to be green or say that the Bible was written for it to have been written, its obvious. But to hopefully be an aid to you in seeing this I submit the following I compiled rather quickly before getting cleaned up for a gig, lol.

Ah, so it is up to personal interpretation? How interesting...

Quote:

The most obvious example of non-prophetic writing is most of Psalms. The fact that it is called Psalms and refers to the contents as psalms within the text (like in Psalm 3:1) makes it blatantly clear that this is poetic writing intended to be sung, aka songs. A psalm is a song. Thus, not necessarily prophecy. Songs can be used as prophetic, but it is in err to say that songs = prophecy.

The "Song of Solomon" aka "Song of Songs" is the same way. The first verse identifies it as a song. (BTW, I realize that the titles are later additions, that is why I reference the first verse and not the title itself.) Like I said before, song does not by necessity equal prophecy.

I'm afraid I don't understand why you would be led to believe that the fact that it's in the form of a song would keep it from being part of prophecy and the law. confused

Quote:

Proverbs. Once again the first verse of the book references it as "proverbs" which are wisdom sayings, not prophecy.

Why can't it be both?

Quote:

Also, Jesus refers to, and thus validates, the literary divisions that the Jewish community put on what we call the "Old Testament" in the following text:

Quote:

Luke 24:44 He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."

In this text he references all three parts of what the Jewish people call the TaNaK, the law, the prophets and psalms (aka the "writings" in some texts). By Jesus referencing the writings of the "Prophets" and then referencing other writings in the Old Testament seperately, it is clear that there is more to the Old Testament than only the prophetic.

But there is no reason to believe that those could not overlap.

Quote:

Also, just because a prophet wrote a specific piece of text doesn't necessitate that it is necessarily prophecy. I am a songwriter, but what I am writing here isn't songs just because I am a songwriter. In the books written by the prophets we see narrative, history and even a bit of poetry, like in Isaiah.

Again, tell me why.

Quote:

There are more examples, but I need to go so I leave you with this: So, I firmly believe that in the case of this over-arching argument of whether or not the OT is relevant, Peter's discussion of prophecy that was quoted does not rule out the ability to make personal application of the OT since it is not all prophecy, and thus it still can be relevant. I hope that helps, I pray the Lord bless you Lethkhar as you wade through all your questions. =)

Now all that remains is some sort of system to determine what is prophecy and what is not, which in itself is up to personal interpretation. Thus, it's impossible to follow Peter's order without a set system to determine such a thing as determined by scripture.

Quote:

BTW: Nice use of Galatians, Lady of Serenity, if Paul were here I'm sure he could have answered this question far better than any of us!

Well, he couldn't speak English so I kind of doubt that...But I see your point. wink  

[Hasmonean]

Before I write another response I need to explain two things.

- First, in regards to this topic, I do believe that the Old Testament is just as important to the life of a Christian as the NT. So I think on that level we are in agreement.

- Second, responses like "Again, tell me why." will be ignored because statements like that don’t present a legitimate counterpoint. Why should I tell you again if I just told you? If you want a response, tell me why what I said is wrong, and support it with evidence. No offense intended because I respect you as a logical person who has generally thought through what you say, but I'm not going to waste time restating a clear point. It's just a waste of everyone's time and is idle, fruitless chatter.

So, in response to your legitimate questions and responses:

Quote:

Ah, so it is up to personal interpretation? How interesting...

Sure, to some extent. The definition if interpret is, "to explain or tell the meaning of or present in understandable terms" I'm sure there was a time that your parent or guardian had to "interpret" for you the meaning of the word garage. Just because it had to be interpreted to you doesn't change what it means. The same is true with scripture to an extent. I'm sure most of the people in here can read neither Greek, Hebrew, nor Aramaic. And I am certain that none of us (myself included) know the languages well enough to write a lexicon and expound on the full breadth of every term. Thus it has to be interpreted. So how does one do this?

At the first level we trust the language masters who have studied the languages for years to write the lexicons. Second, we trust the translators, who put it in our language, to understand how to put it in idiomatic English. We also trust that they choose the best English word to represent the Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic, and that they are not swayed by their own personal beliefs. As far as interpretation goes, that is it. It's not up to personal interpretation beyond that point.

Beyond that it is no longer interpretation, it is up to personal application. First, to the individual reader to decide how the teachings of scripture apply to their lives. Second, the individual listens judiciously to other's opinions to broaden his or her perspective on how they can apply it to their lives. Thirdly, the individual listens to the Spirit of God and how He speaks to them to apply it personally. It's not interpretation at this level, its application. It is no longer about meaning, it is about how you are going to put the words on the page into action. When someone says "Scripture X means such and such" that is great for him or her, but unless I concur, it doesn't mean jack to me. That is their personal application of the text to their respective life and not necessarily for me. It is Paul's "working out your own salvation with fear and trembling." Christianity is not a one size fits all religion; it is a living breathing entity that affects anyone that wants to be a part at his or her own level. So is it open to interpretation? At one level yes, but not at the level that I think you are talking about, but I do admit to not being a mind reader, lol.

Quote:

I'm afraid I don't understand why you would be led to believe that the fact that it's in the form of a song would keep it from being part of prophecy and the law.

I didn't say that it necessarily did. I just said that songs are not by necessity all prophecy. I think before we can go any further into this we better make sure we are working from the same definitions of prophecy. So I submit the following definitions of prophecy from Webster because I know you like the dictionary, lol:
1 : an inspired utterance of a prophet
2 : the function or vocation of a prophet
3 : a prediction of something to come
Now, from those definitions I'm going to work the rest of what I have to say. It is pretty common knowledge that some people believe that some of Psalms could have been prophetic toward Christ. I never denied this and that is why I said, "Songs can be used as prophetic," but I guess you missed that when you asked why I thought the form of a song would keep it from being prophetic. That's ok though. Let's look at the passage I already referenced for you:
"Psalms 3:1 A psalm of David. When he fled from his son Absalom. O LORD, how many are my foes! How many rise up against me!"
This passage starts out by saying "A psalm of David. When he fled from his son Absalom." This is simply a stating of historical background for what follows. It is a basic historical background of what is about to be said, who wrote it, and when it was written. Is it an "inspired utterance of a prophet?" Does it have anything to do with "the function or vocation of a prophet?" Is it "a prediction of something to come?" I think it is quite clear that the words "A psalm of David." is nothing more than text telling us it is a psalm and who wrote it, and is the farthest thing from prophecy since it fits none of the definitions.

Quote:

Why can't it be both?

Because Solomon never claimed to be a prophet, worked in a prophetic way, or ever even had anyone call him a prophet. If he isn't a prophet or being used as one or telling the future, he isn't prophesying. That is why the Song of Solomon can't be both, because neither the author nor the words fit the definition of prophecy.

Quote:

But there is no reason to believe that those could not overlap.

I am in absolute agreement with you that they can overlap. There is prophecy in the Psalms and in the Torah. But, the sheer existence of three categories necessitates that there are parts that DO NOT overlap. If all the Old Testament were prophecy, then it would be stupid for Jesus to say anything more than just prophecy, but He did. Jesus clearly recognizes three. And since there are three, there logically has to be some parts that do not overlap and thus cannot be contained into one category. Then, if there are parts of the Old Testament that do not fit into the single category of prophecy, the text you used in Peter is not applicable to ALL the Old Testament, but only portions. So to use it as a proof that none of the Old Testament is up for interpretation is just clearly wrong.

Quote:

Now all that remains is some sort of system to determine what is prophecy and what is not, which in itself is up to personal interpretation.

Nah, its not personal interpretation. It's pretty easy to see what is prophecy and what is not if you're reasonable and can use the restrictions that the dictionary puts on it. If you want to decide if something is prophecy ask yourself, is there any indication if the person who said it is a prophet, or is the speaker telling something to come. Simple and easy, no need for personal interpretation if you understand what it means.

So in conclusion I submit some genealogy and ask “Is this prophecy?”:
1 Chronicles 1:1-9 "Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared,
Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah. The sons of Noah: Shem, Ham and Japheth. The sons of Japheth: Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech and Tiras. The sons of Gomer: Ashkenaz, Riphath and Togarmah. The sons of Javan: Elishah, Tarshish, the Kittim and the Rodanim. The sons of Ham: Cush, Mizraim, Put and Canaan. The sons of Cush: Seba, Havilah, Sabta, Raamah and Sabteca. The sons of Raamah: Sheba and Dedan."
No way! LOL  

[Lethkhar]

Hasmonean

Before I write another response I need to explain two things.

- First, in regards to this topic, I do believe that the Old Testament is just as important to the life of a Christian as the NT. So I think on that level we are in agreement.

- Second, responses like "Again, tell me why." will be ignored because statements like that don’t present a legitimate counterpoint. Why should I tell you again if I just told you? If you want a response, tell me why what I said is wrong, and support it with evidence. No offense intended because I respect you as a logical person who has generally thought through what you say, but I'm not going to waste time restating a clear point. It's just a waste of everyone's time and is idle, fruitless chatter.

Did it occur to you that when I ask you to explain yourself that I perhaps am not arguing with you? How on earth am I supposed to present a legitimate counterpoint to something that I don't understand and therefore neither support nor oppose? I have no opinion on what you said. I'm merely asking you to clarify what you have said because I am not following it.

Quote:

So, in response to your legitimate questions and responses:

Quote:

Ah, so it is up to personal interpretation? How interesting...

Sure, to some extent. The definition if interpret is, "to explain or tell the meaning of or present in understandable terms" I'm sure there was a time that your parent or guardian had to "interpret" for you the meaning of the word garage. Just because it had to be interpreted to you doesn't change what it means. The same is true with scripture to an extent. I'm sure most of the people in here can read neither Greek, Hebrew, nor Aramaic. And I am certain that none of us (myself included) know the languages well enough to write a lexicon and expound on the full breadth of every term. Thus it has to be interpreted. So how does one do this?

At the first level we trust the language masters who have studied the languages for years to write the lexicons. Second, we trust the translators, who put it in our language, to understand how to put it in idiomatic English. We also trust that they choose the best English word to represent the Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic, and that they are not swayed by their own personal beliefs. As far as interpretation goes, that is it. It's not up to personal interpretation beyond that point.

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary

Main Entry: in·ter·pret
Pronunciation: in-'t&r-pr&t, -p&t
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French & Latin; Anglo-French interpreter, from Latin interpretari, from interpret-, interpres agent, negotiator, interpreter
transitive verb
1 : to explain or tell the meaning of : present in understandable terms
2 : to conceive in the light of individual belief, judgment, or circumstance : CONSTRUE
3 : to represent by means of art : bring to realization by performance or direction
intransitive verb : to act as an interpreter between speakers of different languages

Please don't go that route.

Quote:

Beyond that it is no longer interpretation, it is up to personal application. First, to the individual reader to decide how the teachings of scripture apply to their lives. Second, the individual listens judiciously to other's opinions to broaden his or her perspective on how they can apply it to their lives. Thirdly, the individual listens to the Spirit of God and how He speaks to them to apply it personally. It's not interpretation at this level, its application. It is no longer about meaning, it is about how you are going to put the words on the page into action. When someone says "Scripture X means such and such" that is great for him or her, but unless I concur, it doesn't mean jack to me. That is their personal application of the text to their respective life and not necessarily for me.

What you have described is personal interpretation of scripture. People see the work "in the light of individual...circumstance", and implement it in their lives through this application that you are describing.

Quote:

I'm afraid I don't understand why you would be led to believe that the fact that it's in the form of a song would keep it from being part of prophecy and the law.

Quote:

I didn't say that it necessarily did. I just said that songs are not by necessity all prophecy. I think before we can go any further into this we better make sure we are working from the same definitions of prophecy. So I submit the following definitions of prophecy from Webster because I know you like the dictionary, lol:
1 : an inspired utterance of a prophet
2 : the function or vocation of a prophet
3 : a prediction of something to come
Now, from those definitions I'm going to work the rest of what I have to say. It is pretty common knowledge that some people believe that some of Psalms could have been prophetic toward Christ. I never denied this and that is why I said, "Songs can be used as prophetic," but I guess you missed that when you asked why I thought the form of a song would keep it from being prophetic. That's ok though. Let's look at the passage I already referenced for you:
"Psalms 3:1 A psalm of David. When he fled from his son Absalom. O LORD, how many are my foes! How many rise up against me!"
This passage starts out by saying "A psalm of David. When he fled from his son Absalom." This is simply a stating of historical background for what follows. It is a basic historical background of what is about to be said, who wrote it, and when it was written. Is it an "inspired utterance of a prophet?" Does it have anything to do with "the function or vocation of a prophet?" Is it "a prediction of something to come?" I think it is quite clear that the words "A psalm of David." is nothing more than text telling us it is a psalm and who wrote it, and is the farthest thing from prophecy since it fits none of the definitions.

Could not David have been a prophet? And according to most Christians I have talked to, the Bible was written by people "inspired by the Holy Ghost". So why could this not be "an inspired utterance of a prophet"?

Quote:

Quote:

Why can't it be both?

Because Solomon never claimed to be a prophet, worked in a prophetic way, or ever even had anyone call him a prophet. If he isn't a prophet or being used as one or telling the future, he isn't prophesying. That is why the Song of Solomon can't be both, because neither the author nor the words fit the definition of prophecy.

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary

Main Entry: proph·et
Pronunciation: 'prä-f&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English prophete, from Anglo-French, from Latin propheta, from Greek prophEtEs, from pro for + phanai to speak -- more at FOR, BAN
1 : one who utters divinely inspired revelations: as a often capitalized : the writer of one of the prophetic books of the Bible b capitalized : one regarded by a group of followers as the final authoritative revealer of God's will
2 : one gifted with more than ordinary spiritual and moral insight; especially : an inspired poet
3 : one who foretells future events : PREDICTOR
4 : an effective or leading spokesman for a cause, doctrine, or group
5 Christian Science a : a spiritual seer b : disappearance of material sense before the conscious facts of spiritual Truth

Take you're pick. I think Solomon qualified as a prophet.

Quote:

Quote:

But there is no reason to believe that those could not overlap.

I am in absolute agreement with you that they can overlap. There is prophecy in the Psalms and in the Torah. But, the sheer existence of three categories necessitates that there are parts that DO NOT overlap. If all the Old Testament were prophecy, then it would be stupid for Jesus to say anything more than just prophecy, but He did. Jesus clearly recognizes three. And since there are three, there logically has to be some parts that do not overlap and thus cannot be contained into one category. Then, if there are parts of the Old Testament that do not fit into the single category of prophecy, the text you used in Peter is not applicable to ALL the Old Testament, but only portions. So to use it as a proof that none of the Old Testament is up for interpretation is just clearly wrong.

I agree with you.

My argument now is how you determine what is prophecy and what is not. There are no clear guidelines. There are no books that are labeled as prophecies. How do you know what to interpret on your own or not?

Quote:

Quote:

Now all that remains is some sort of system to determine what is prophecy and what is not, which in itself is up to personal interpretation.

Nah, its not personal interpretation. It's pretty easy to see what is prophecy and what is not if you're reasonable and can use the restrictions that the dictionary puts on it. If you want to decide if something is prophecy ask yourself, is there any indication if the person who said it is a prophet, or is the speaker telling something to come. Simple and easy, no need for personal interpretation if you understand what it means.

And by the dictionary's definition, each and every one of the writers of the Bible were prophets.

Quote:

So in conclusion I submit some genealogy and ask “Is this prophecy?”:
1 Chronicles 1:1-9 "Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared,
Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah. The sons of Noah: Shem, Ham and Japheth. The sons of Japheth: Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech and Tiras. The sons of Gomer: Ashkenaz, Riphath and Togarmah. The sons of Javan: Elishah, Tarshish, the Kittim and the Rodanim. The sons of Ham: Cush, Mizraim, Put and Canaan. The sons of Cush: Seba, Havilah, Sabta, Raamah and Sabteca. The sons of Raamah: Sheba and Dedan."
No way! LOL

It depends on who wrote it, doesn't it?

And it's pretty hard to come up with a personal interpretation of that anyway.  

[Hasmonean]

Heya, sorry I hadn't responded sooner, I've been busy out the wazoo. So . . .

There are only parts of your last response I am going to respond to because it is becoming clear that parts of this discussion are nothing more than futile time sinks. Obviously we both have different opinions of what level the scripture can be interpreted to. Obviously we both have different opinions of which biblical writers are prophets and which are not, I.E. it is clear to me that Solomon is not, to you it is clear that he is. There is nothing wrong with this though, I just think its a waste of time to fire back the same points over and over and get back the same responses over and over. =P

So, here we go on another feeble attempt to help you understand . . .

Quote:

Could not David have been a prophet? And according to most Christians I have talked to, the Bible was written by people "inspired by the Holy Ghost". So why could this not be "an inspired utterance of a prophet"?

I never said David wasn't used as a prophet, only that every word he wrote wasn't necessarily prophecy. As a matter of fact I even said that some of his psalms were used prophetically.

Quote:

And by the dictionary's definition, each and every one of the writers of the Bible were prophets.

Here is where I stand on this general issue though, prove to me that all the Old Testament writers are prophets. Thus far you've only provided questions regarding their position, but not evidence. In any logical argument you have to assume something is NOT, until you have PROOF that it is. Otherwise, I could say (using your phrasing) "Could not David have been an alien?" Of course it would be absurd for me to say that because there is no proof that he is, and I would be stupid to claim it unless I had evidence that he is. Thus, your claim that all the OT writers are prophets needs evidence before we can continue anymore on this topic.

I also found the following quote of your dictionary definition of choice very interesting (BTW, I do admire that you were honest and didn't cut it because it really kills your argument).

Quote:

writer of one of the prophetic books of the Bible

This part of the definition is acknowledging the "category" of a prophetic book. There is no need to have a definition that qualifies a person as a prophet based on a specific category of book unless that category does indeed exist. Thus, by the existence of such a category it is only naturally consequential that there are books that do NOT fall in that category or there would be no need for a category. (I personally don't think my use of scripture is ever going to compel you because I don't think you have faith in its validity anyway, but surely the very dictionary you quoted acknowledging the category of a prophetic book will compel you to believe that not all of the scripture is prophecy.)

Now, to go back to the thought of the writers being prophets, I do believe that there is evidence that SOME of the writers are prophets, but I am confident you don't have evidence that ALL are. There is no blanket statement that qualifies all the writers as prophets because they aren't all prophets. You have clearly stated your personally acceptable definition of what constitues a prophet, but what you haven't supplied is sufficient evidence that all the Old Testament writers fall into that category. The burden of proof is in your court since you are claiming that all the writers are all prophets even though they neither all claimed to be prophets, nor were all called prophets in the biblical text.

Now, I would assume that you probably are thinking about your above statement in regards to the biblical writers being inspired by the Holy Spirit. The reason this doesn't qualify all the biblical writers as prophets is because the Holy Spirit moved on lots of people for different reasons, but that movement did not necessarily make them prophets. He moved on Samson (Judges 14:5-6) to kick the butt of a lion and later to kick the butts of people. Does this make Samson a prophet just because the Holy Spirit moved on him? No way. In Exodus 35:30ff we can see that the Holy Spirit moved on the builders of the tabernacle to give them skill to perform the craft that was needed. Were they prophets just because the Holy Spirit moved on them? Nah. So, I think it is clear that just because the Holy Spirit moves on you to do a task doesn't mean that you are a prophet. Thus, just because the Holy Spirit may have moved on the biblical writers doesn't make them prophets any more than the Holy Spirit moving on Samson to rip a lion in half made him one.

Quote:

My argument now is how you determine what is prophecy and what is not. There are no clear guidelines.

Yeah, I think you did hit the nail on the head here. The issue is that to me it seems very clear, and to you it doesn't. The crazy thing is that Judaism and Christianity have existed for thousands of years without the kind of guidelines you are asking for and have easily "deciphered" what was prophecy and what wasn't.

Like I already told you, the Jews made divisions of the Old Testament based on being able to obviously tell that some parts were prophecy and some were not, thus they labled some as "The Prophets" and some not. Once again, Jesus even recognized these divisions, thus validating them in the context of scripture. If the entire Jewish religion recognized that some parts were prophecy and some weren't, and Jesus confirms their division, then it is clear biblically that some of the Old Testament is prophecy and some isn't.

Now, This doesn't tell us which parts of scripture are prophecy and which parts are not though. But, if it clearly tells us that some parts are NOT, then we can't assume something is prophecy until we have evidence that it is.

Quote:

There are no books that are labeled as prophecies.

Unfortunately you don't know the scriptures that well I guess. John labels his book as prophecy clearly when he says in Revelation 22:18, "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book"

Quote:

How do you know what to interpret on your own or not?

This is why I called my attempts feeble earlier in this post. You probably aren't going to ever get it unless you become a Christian. We rely on the Holy Spirit inside of us to tell you how to apply those ancient words to our lives for specific situations. I think the best way I can explain you not understand this is to quote Paul in 1 Corinthians 2:6-16:

¶ We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.
No, we speak of God’s secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. However, as it is written: “No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him”—but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. ¶ The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us.
This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man’s judgment: “For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ."

I can only guess that this is why this whole discussion is incredibly, painfully obvious to me and the other Christians in here. Prophecy is a message from God, born of His Spirit. Through our faith in Jesus we have received Spirit of God so that we can "understand what God has freely given to us." I'm not sure at this point if any logical argument I can give you will help you understand.

Honestly I feel really sad for you because I understand how frustrating it probably is because it isn't evident to you, but I'll keep praying for you that one day Jesus will become real to you and what is evident to us will become evident to you.  

[The Amazing Ryuu]

Lethkhar

What does the military have to do with Christian values?

Of course there's no sodomy; homosexuals are not allowed in the U.S. military.

Eh... that goes for women too, man. Anyway, the military was based on, and still uses, Christian values. It's part of WHY homosexuals aren't allowed, even if they won't officially admit it. Again, this from my navy buddy.

Lethkhar

It's really not worth debating with you, since you obviously ignore everything I say and respond with a hazy, unbacked statement that you've already repeated twice.

All I can say is that you have yet to post scripture to back your opinion, and I have posted plenty of it. You can ignore the Bible if you want, but we're in a Christian guild. I only found it appropriate to argue from your standards.

I ignore nothing. I keep trying to rephrase it so you'll understand. You ask if Christians need to use the OT in their everyday lives. I say no. I say it's a history book because all the rituals and regulations have changed both with society and the death of Jesus.

Matthew 5:17-18

“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God’s law will disappear until its purpose is achieved.

Note: Jesus accomplished their purpose. At least in my eyes. Debate over this one if you like, that's the last I personally will say about this one.

Matthew 19:17-20

“Why ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. But to answer your question—if you want to receive eternal life, keep the commandments.”
“Which ones?” the man asked.
And Jesus replied: “‘You must not murder. You must not commit adultery. You must not steal. You must not testify falsely."

Sounds pretty cut and dry to me.

Matthew 22:36-40

“Teacher, which is the most important commandment in the law of Moses?”
Jesus replied, “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.’ [ Deut 6:5.] The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments.”

If you love God the way you're supposed to, the way you're supposed to live will come naturally to you, leading back to the passage above. You won't WANT to do those things anymore.

2 Peter 1:19

Because of that experience, we have even greater confidence in the message proclaimed by the prophets. You must pay close attention to what they wrote, for their words are like a lamp shining in a dark place—until the Day dawns, and Christ the Morning Star shines in your hearts.

UNTIL you accept Christ into your heart, you're bound by the old laws. After, you're no longer held to sacrificing sheep. HE is your atonement. And then Jesus speaks to you through the Holy Spirit, not only through a book.

Acts 10:9-16

About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."
"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."
The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."
This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

This goes both for food AND people... so all that stuff that Leviticus said you weren't allowed to eat just went out the window here.


If you desire more Scripture, I'll be sure to find some. But I think I have a workable amount here.  

[The Amazing Ryuu]

Hasmonean

I can only guess that this is why this whole discussion is incredibly, painfully obvious to me and the other Christians in here. Prophecy is a message from God, born of His Spirit. Through our faith in Jesus we have received Spirit of God so that we can "understand what God has freely given to us." I'm not sure at this point if any logical argument I can give you will help you understand.

Yeah, and there's always that. If everything in Christianity could be thought out and understood logically, then there's be no real need for faith, and no need for the religion at all. But, as always, you're in my prayers as well. Who knows? Maybe one day you'll be the person who can logically explain the faith to someone who doesn't believe.  

[Lethkhar]

Hasmonean

Heya, sorry I hadn't responded sooner, I've been busy out the wazoo. So . . .

There are only parts of your last response I am going to respond to because it is becoming clear that parts of this discussion are nothing more than futile time sinks. Obviously we both have different opinions of what level the scripture can be interpreted to. Obviously we both have different opinions of which biblical writers are prophets and which are not, I.E. it is clear to me that Solomon is not, to you it is clear that he is. There is nothing wrong with this though, I just think its a waste of time to fire back the same points over and over and get back the same responses over and over. =P

So, here we go on another feeble attempt to help you understand . . .

Quote:

Could not David have been a prophet? And according to most Christians I have talked to, the Bible was written by people "inspired by the Holy Ghost". So why could this not be "an inspired utterance of a prophet"?

I never said David wasn't used as a prophet, only that every word he wrote wasn't necessarily prophecy. As a matter of fact I even said that some of his psalms were used prophetically.

So then my only question is how do you know which parts were prophecy and which parts weren't? It seems risky to draw lines anywhere yourself.

Quote:

Quote:

And by the dictionary's definition, each and every one of the writers of the Bible were prophets.

Here is where I stand on this general issue though, prove to me that all the Old Testament writers are prophets. Thus far you've only provided questions regarding their position, but not evidence. In any logical argument you have to assume something is NOT, until you have PROOF that it is. Otherwise, I could say (using your phrasing) "Could not David have been an alien?" Of course it would be absurd for me to say that because there is no proof that he is, and I would be stupid to claim it unless I had evidence that he is. Thus, your claim that all the OT writers are prophets needs evidence before we can continue anymore on this topic.

"All scipture is given by inspiration of God":

2 Timothy 3:16:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

All scripture was also written and given by all of the writers of the Bible. God could only give this inspiration through them, unless He wrote it Himself. Therefore, all of the writers of the Bible were inspired by God. As I have already shown with Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, anyone inspired by a divine influence such as God is a prophet:

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary

Main Entry: proph·et
Pronunciation: 'prä-f&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English prophete, from Anglo-French, from Latin propheta, from Greek prophEtEs, from pro for + phanai to speak -- more at FOR, BAN
1 : one who utters divinely inspired revelations: as a often capitalized : the writer of one of the prophetic books of the Bible b capitalized : one regarded by a group of followers as the final authoritative revealer of God's will
2 : one gifted with more than ordinary spiritual and moral insight; especially : an inspired poet
3 : one who foretells future events : PREDICTOR
4 : an effective or leading spokesman for a cause, doctrine, or group
5 Christian Science a : a spiritual seer b : disappearance of material sense before the conscious facts of spiritual Truth

Therefore, all the writers of the Bible were prophets.

Quote:

I also found the following quote of your dictionary definition of choice very interesting (BTW, I do admire that you were honest and didn't cut it because it really kills your argument).

Quote:

writer of one of the prophetic books of the Bible

This part of the definition is acknowledging the "category" of a prophetic book. There is no need to have a definition that qualifies a person as a prophet based on a specific category of book unless that category does indeed exist. Thus, by the existence of such a category it is only naturally consequential that there are books that do NOT fall in that category or there would be no need for a category. (I personally don't think my use of scripture is ever going to compel you because I don't think you have faith in its validity anyway, but surely the very dictionary you quoted acknowledging the category of a prophetic book will compel you to believe that not all of the scripture is prophecy.)

I've already conceded to you being correct on this point. I don't understand why you're still arguing it.

Once again, now my argument is that because you cannot find a clear definition for which parts are prophetic, you cannot be absolutely sure as to which parts can be up to personal interpreation or not. Because of this, the only safe thing to do is to not take any of it through your personal interpretations.

Quote:

Now, to go back to the thought of the writers being prophets, I do believe that there is evidence that SOME of the writers are prophets, but I am confident you don't have evidence that ALL are. There is no blanket statement that qualifies all the writers as prophets because they aren't all prophets. You have clearly stated your personally acceptable definition of what constitues a prophet, but what you haven't supplied is sufficient evidence that all the Old Testament writers fall into that category. The burden of proof is in your court since you are claiming that all the writers are all prophets even though they neither all claimed to be prophets, nor were all called prophets in the biblical text.

That's been taken care of, I believe.

Quote:

Now, I would assume that you probably are thinking about your above statement in regards to the biblical writers being inspired by the Holy Spirit. The reason this doesn't qualify all the biblical writers as prophets is because the Holy Spirit moved on lots of people for different reasons, but that movement did not necessarily make them prophets. He moved on Samson (Judges 14:5-6) to kick the butt of a lion and later to kick the butts of people. Does this make Samson a prophet just because the Holy Spirit moved on him? No way. In Exodus 35:30ff we can see that the Holy Spirit moved on the builders of the tabernacle to give them skill to perform the craft that was needed. Were they prophets just because the Holy Spirit moved on them? Nah. So, I think it is clear that just because the Holy Spirit moves on you to do a task doesn't mean that you are a prophet. Thus, just because the Holy Spirit may have moved on the biblical writers doesn't make them prophets any more than the Holy Spirit moving on Samson to rip a lion in half made him one.

Your two examples are not prophets because they did not "utter divinely inspired revelations".

All of the writers of the Bible, as I have shown, did.

Quote:

Quote:

My argument now is how you determine what is prophecy and what is not. There are no clear guidelines.

Yeah, I think you did hit the nail on the head here. The issue is that to me it seems very clear, and to you it doesn't. The crazy thing is that Judaism and Christianity have existed for thousands of years without the kind of guidelines you are asking for and have easily "deciphered" what was prophecy and what wasn't.

Like I already told you, the Jews made divisions of the Old Testament based on being able to obviously tell that some parts were prophecy and some were not, thus they labled some as "The Prophets" and some not. Once again, Jesus even recognized these divisions, thus validating them in the context of scripture. If the entire Jewish religion recognized that some parts were prophecy and some weren't, and Jesus confirms their division, then it is clear biblically that some of the Old Testament is prophecy and some isn't.

Now, This doesn't tell us which parts of scripture are prophecy and which parts are not though. But, if it clearly tells us that some parts are NOT, then we can't assume something is prophecy until we have evidence that it is.

See, I'm a fairly safe person. If I actually believed in this stuff, I wouldn't make any assumptions. Just because you haven't been told that it was prophecy it doesn't mean that it isn't. (Wow that was a lot of negatives... sweatdrop ) I would play it safe and consider whatever has not been clearly labeled as prophecy so as to avoid the possibility, no matter how slim, of disobeying.

Quote:

Quote:

There are no books that are labeled as prophecies.

Unfortunately you don't know the scriptures that well I guess. John labels his book as prophecy clearly when he says in Revelation 22:18, "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book"

*shrugs*

I guess I don't. So none of that book is up to personal interpretation. Ok, then.

Quote:

Quote:

How do you know what to interpret on your own or not?

This is why I called my attempts feeble earlier in this post. You probably aren't going to ever get it unless you become a Christian. We rely on the Holy Spirit inside of us to tell you how to apply those ancient words to our lives for specific situations. I think the best way I can explain you not understand this is to quote Paul in 1 Corinthians 2:6-16:

¶ We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.
No, we speak of God’s secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. However, as it is written: “No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him”—but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. ¶ The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us.
This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man’s judgment: “For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ."

I can only guess that this is why this whole discussion is incredibly, painfully obvious to me and the other Christians in here. Prophecy is a message from God, born of His Spirit. Through our faith in Jesus we have received Spirit of God so that we can "understand what God has freely given to us." I'm not sure at this point if any logical argument I can give you will help you understand.

It's your personal interpretation of God's influence, not God's influence itself, that helps you determine what is and what is not prophecy. Do you really trust yourself that much? Does God want you to trust yourself that much?

Quote:

Honestly I feel really sad for you because I understand how frustrating it probably is because it isn't evident to you, but I'll keep praying for you that one day Jesus will become real to you and what is evident to us will become evident to you.

I sincerely hope the same for you.  

[Arachibutyrophobic]

Lethkhar

It has come to my attention that many Christians feel that the Old Testament's laws are outdated and have been swept aside by their saviour Jesus. I personally believe the Old Testament holds just as much wieght as the New Testament. For simplicity, I have a compiled a list of scripture to prove this point.

First of all. let it be known what exactly Jesus is referring to when He refers to "the law":
“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John7:19)

“For the law was given by Moses,..." (John 1:17).


So yes, Jesus is referring to the Old Testament.

1. “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)

2. "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)

3. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

3b. "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)

3c. "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)

4. "Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10 NAB)

5. “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7)

Note: #4 and #5 are accounts of Jesus defending himself for not washing his hands by telling the Pharisees that they should kill their children like the Old Testament tells them to.

6. “...the scripture cannot be broken.” --Jesus Christ, John 10:35

blueprints for the black market...

♥
"It has come to my attention that many Christians feel that the Old Testament's laws are outdated and have been swept aside by their saviour Jesus."

Honestly, that's all I read out of your post.
Heheh, forgive me.
Look, my opinion on that matter is for Pete's sake, don't skip over the old testament.
And, my other opinion, at the ripe old age of fifteen,
Is that there are no contradictions in the bible.
It's the word of God.
God is perfect,
Jesus is perfect,
The Spirit is perfect.
Most of these problems with the word are from we the people overcomplicating what he wants us to hear.
Don't skip out on the old testament,
Don't ignore something Jesus said because you see it as a contradiction,
Pray about it,
Look into it more,
Read it over and over and consider all the possible interpritations, etc etc etc.
Don't take anyone but Jesus as fact. smile

...anberlin

Donate your extra tickets? Them's mighty appretiated!

 

[Lethkhar]

ryuu_chan

Lethkhar

What does the military have to do with Christian values?

Of course there's no sodomy; homosexuals are not allowed in the U.S. military.

Eh... that goes for women too, man. Anyway, the military was based on, and still uses, Christian values. It's part of WHY homosexuals aren't allowed, even if they won't officially admit it. Again, this from my navy buddy.

You are wrong. The military is strictly secular, as all government-run facilities are by law.

Quote:

Matthew 19:17-20

“Why ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. But to answer your question—if you want to receive eternal life, keep the commandments.”
“Which ones?” the man asked.
And Jesus replied: “‘You must not murder. You must not commit adultery. You must not steal. You must not testify falsely."

Sounds pretty cut and dry to me.

And yet Jesus contradicts himself in other accounts. Strange, huh?

Quote:

Matthew 22:36-40

“Teacher, which is the most important commandment in the law of Moses?”
Jesus replied, “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.’ [ Deut 6:5.] The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments.”

If you love God the way you're supposed to, the way you're supposed to live will come naturally to you, leading back to the passage above. You won't WANT to do those things anymore.

Like eat shellfish?

That's sort of strange, isn't it?

"Clams?"
"Oh, no thanks. I love God."

Quote:

2 Peter 1:19

Because of that experience, we have even greater confidence in the message proclaimed by the prophets. You must pay close attention to what they wrote, for their words are like a lamp shining in a dark place—until the Day dawns, and Christ the Morning Star shines in your hearts.

UNTIL you accept Christ into your heart, you're bound by the old laws. After, you're no longer held to sacrificing sheep. HE is your atonement. And then Jesus speaks to you through the Holy Spirit, not only through a book.

Yet that's not what he says in other accounts. He contradicts himself. He supports the old testaments despite love.

Quote:

Acts 10:9-16

About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."
"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."
The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."
This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

This goes both for food AND people... so all that stuff that Leviticus said you weren't allowed to eat just went out the window here.


If you desire more Scripture, I'll be sure to find some. But I think I have a workable amount here.

So God changed his mind?

Now, taking a Deist point of view, why would an infallible being have to fix his system?  

[Fushigi na Butterfly]

I totally forgot about this thread. eek It's very weird cuz I was actually thinking about this very thing today.

I had an idea. I think it's all in the timing. In the Old Testament God had a certain way of doing things, because of what He wanted to accomplish. After a certain point, He wanted to do things differently. He planned it all out from the beginning of course. The thing with God being very authoritative in the Old Testament and then kindler and gentler in the New Testament is like this (as far as I see it): the more forgiving parts of His nature weren't made clear until the opportunity presented itself. When Jesus was born, that was the point when God's character began to show the forgiveness which was always there, it just hadn't been tangibly manifested yet. Like, some people might be really brave, but if the opportunity to show bravery never comes how is anyone to ever know it?

I think I'm arguing in a circle though ... cuz I'm really tired. It made sense this morning. sweatdrop  

[Silver Wingling]

thelovelyLIZ

Jesus tells us that "I came not to abolish the old laws, but to fulfill them." I think people who completely disregard the old laws and all of the OT are ridiculous. Whether or not you still recognize them, you need to understand and study the OT to understand our history as Christians.

I don't believe we are bound to the OT rules, however. Jesus' death and resurrection gives us the forgiveness without having to sacrifice goats and such. Also, you have to consider that a lot of the rules, especially dietary rules and such, were put into place for sanitary reasons. However, we now have better sanitation methods, so we don't really need to abide by such rules.

Does the Torah SAY they were for sanitary reasons???? The answer is NO. The Torah says the laws are to be kept to make the people holy. Holy, Hebrew Kadosh, means "Set apart." The Torah was given to make us set apart form the Nations. As for the argument that "The Torah was given to the Jews, not the Go'iim(Nations)," what ARE the Jews anyway? Answer - We are Elohim's chosen. And the Tanankh clearly states, I believe it's in Daniel, "I will say to those who were not my people, "You are my people", and they shall cry, "You are our G-d!"

So there goes that argument.

LASTLY, and most important, YESHUA DID NOT COME TO ABOLISH THE LAW, BUT TO FUFILL IT!!!

Let me point this out. G-d DOES NOT change his mind. The Law was given for a reason. Read Romans 3. I won't post it for you, read it yourself.

The only Laws I believe are useless are the sacrifices. They and they alone of the Law, were replaced by Yeshua's sacrifice. The rest of the Laws, well, they are hard to keep, but...

I can do it. I have 4 tzitzit on my garment all the time, I have the Shema and V'ahavta on my doorpost, I eat only Kashrot. I keep Shabbat, I keep my sideburns trimmed even (The commandment is not to let them grow, but to not let them be asymmetrical).

I'm not saying you have to keep Torah to be saved. You don't. But you should keep it. It's G-d's plan for us.

All the "Christian" holidays are NOT in the Bible, they are in fact PAGAN FESTIVALS AND YOU STILL KEEP THE TRADITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THEM. The tunes of many hymns are actually bar room ballads from Germany that were put with different lyrics. And worst of all - Passover, one of the great feasts, the day Yeshua died for you, has been replaced on your calendar, by a festival to a goddess of sex and war! I don't care if you change the theme to be "Yeshua rose from the dead", you still keep the traditions of Ishtar! And what's worse, the "Holiday" of "Easter" was DELIBERATLY separated form Passover because of anti-Semitism.

My rant is now over. Hope you learned something, ands I didn't type in vain. I hope I at least made you think.  

[Lethkhar]

Fushigi na Butterfly

I totally forgot about this thread. eek It's very weird cuz I was actually thinking about this very thing today.

I had an idea. I think it's all in the timing. In the Old Testament God had a certain way of doing things, because of what He wanted to accomplish. After a certain point, He wanted to do things differently. He planned it all out from the beginning of course. The thing with God being very authoritative in the Old Testament and then kindler and gentler in the New Testament is like this (as far as I see it): the more forgiving parts of His nature weren't made clear until the opportunity presented itself. When Jesus was born, that was the point when God's character began to show the forgiveness which was always there, it just hadn't been tangibly manifested yet. Like, some people might be really brave, but if the opportunity to show bravery never comes how is anyone to ever know it?

I think I'm arguing in a circle though ... cuz I'm really tired. It made sense this morning. sweatdrop

I think God had plenty of opportunities to display His forgiveness in the Old Testament. confused What about Sodom and Gemorra?  

[GuardianAngel44]

I'm guessing that this is another argument made to find flaws in the bible, and therefore, "disprove" it.

Some of the laws within the OT were made specifically for Israel, such as the unclean foods. Most of the rules were made for sanitation. The other ones, such as the laws that require you to stone you're wife, I think God wouldn't want us to do. Those rules were made for the society at that time.