Relevance of Old Testament in Modern World

[Heraclitus]

Brilliant troll or massive ignorance? We report, you decide.

[KrazyHorse]

I know the Mormons have magic underwear. I actually misread what Wezil was responding to. I thought he was deliberately/not deliberately confusing the Scientologists with the Mormons

[Imran Siddiqui]

Couldn't he, being God and all, have simply told the people what to write down since they are writing in his name to avoid any akwardness?

Could He have also just handed down perfectly written texts himself (ie, a "Gospel of Jesus")? That decision was not made, however. Perhaps because He feared that people, instead of knowing Him personally with their hearts, would simply follow rules and mandates.

[MrFun]

Or also accept, as has been stated earlier by someone else, that the Bible, while divinely inspired, was written by flawed humans and therefore is not perfect and is subject to the biases of those individuals.

As closeness to God is an individual thing (well, for Protestants, I guess), the rules to follow aren't necessarily set in stone. They are more the product of an individual relationship with God and He will indicate when you are failing in how you are supposed to act.

well put

[Wezil]

I know the Mormons have magic underwear. I actually misread what Wezil was responding to. I thought he was deliberately/not deliberately confusing the Scientologists with the Mormons

Damn! Does that mean the original choice is off?

[KrazyHorse]

Yes. I'm sorry.

I was leaning toward "brilliant troll" if it makes you feel any better...

[Wezil]

It was actually c) Desperate threadjack attempt

[Japher]

Or also accept, as has been stated earlier by someone else, that the Bible, while divinely inspired, was written by flawed humans and therefore is not perfect and is subject to the biases of those individuals.

As closeness to God is an individual thing (well, for Protestants, I guess), the rules to follow aren't necessarily set in stone. They are more the product of an individual relationship with God and He will indicate when you are failing in how you are supposed to act.

Jews like the Old Testament, I'm not a Jew. Here's my 2 cents:

Jesus is the light, meaning he shines one what we are suppose to see. He is the perfect son, the shinning example, blah blah blah. Basically, we are suppose to strive to be like him. So, if there are rules they would be what he said (i.e. the words in red). Typical WWJD type of things.

Thing is, today's society is not the same as it was 2000 years ago so we are left to extrapolate from his teachings for some of today's issues. And, some of us try to do that and fail, because we forget that the first "set in stone" rule is to love each other as He has loved us. According to Paul and Jesus this is the greatest of commandments, if we do anything that is not out of love than we have failed God. Personally, I think a lot/ton/most Christian fail at this.

God will show you when you fail, God will test you as we are to test Him. We generally go astray when we are not craving His Will, but the will of our own.

Is the Old Testament relevant? Only in so much that it shows us how horrible we are when we try to live by rules, rules that are easily overcome by human desires and sins. Instead of rituals and rites to cleanse and regain the righteousness we thought we once had we are to look towards Jesus. We accept that we are not perfect, but are made perfect through Jesus. Looking at it this way allows us to address and correct our sins, not repent for them through some silly sacrifice, but truly repent (which means to change, as in ones mind). We are to try and emulate Jesus, not to earn his love, but because we already have it.

[MrFun]

Thank you for your two cents, Japher - I will drop it in my piggy bank.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Those are some good 2 cents, Japher, and I think quite accurate.

[Ben Kenobi]

Could He have also just handed down perfectly written texts himself (ie, a "Gospel of Jesus")? That decision was not made, however. Perhaps because He feared that people, instead of knowing Him personally with their hearts, would simply follow rules and mandates.

Jesus did not say to abolish the law. He said that he was the fulfilment of the Law, and said that he wanted his teachings recorded and preached to all the nations. Matthew 26 I believe.

As for 'textual criticism', if we accept your premise, we are left with the question of how we can be sure that any text is accurate? The bible stands up very well when we answer this question from a neutral standpoint. We can be more sure that the bible is accurate than any other ancient text, in that what is in the text now, is the same as what was originally written back in 55 AD.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Isn't one of the definitions of fulfill to bring to an end; complete? Therefore Jesus did not abolish the law, he was merely the instrument to complete the law. The difference between destroying and being the natural succession.

[Ben Kenobi]

Isn't one of the definitions of fulfill to bring to an end; complete? Therefore Jesus did not abolish the law, he was merely the instrument to complete the law. The difference between destroying and being the natural succession.

Yes, this is why Christians teach that Moses was the precursor of Christ.

[MrFun]

Those are some good 2 cents, Japher, and I think quite accurate.

indeed

[MrFun]

You do realize that in the 1st century AD there where plenty of places in the mediteranean where you could roll in the hay with another guy and no punishment wuld befall you.



Homosexuality being a no no wasn't nesecary to maintain a civilization at that point.

Yeah, I know. When I referred to ancient, agrarian culture, I was referring specifically to the culture that DID make this a no-no during that time period, in contrast to those who had no problems with homosexual intimacy.