sacg1198@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Scott Cattanach) (01/21/91)
[usul@auc.UUCP (Ron McBay) asked where there needed to be a New Testament. Was the old one incomplete? He also wonders whether the NT applies to Jews and by implication whether the OT applies to Christians. --clh] Speaking only for myself ... The books of the OT were not delivered to the Jews at one time, they were written over a span of many years. IMHO, the books we separate into the NT are simply a continuation of the unfolding relevation of God that had been going on since Abraham or Moses. God's message was incomplete after the 5 books of Moses, it was incomplete after the Psalms were compiled, and it was incomplete after the last book (chronologically) of the OT was written. I believe Revelation was the close of this relevation; anything past that will have to be addresses by a Muslim. There are places in the OT where the Jews are said to have strayed from God's message, that is not something limited to the NT. (In the interest of fairness, I'm the first to admit that we Christians have strayed from the NT message several times ourselves; nobody's perfect.) Personally, I consider the entire Bible to apply to everyone. Even the God of the OT claimed to be the only true God and not just the God of the Jews. -- -catt (Scott Cattanach - catt@uiuc.edu) Psalm 37:21 The wicked borroweth, and payeth not again: but the righteous sheweth mercy, and giveth. - King David on the relations between Washington and us taxpayers
lshaw@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (logan shaw) (01/21/91)
[Ron McBay asked why it is necessary for there to be a New Testament, and also whether the OT applies to Christians and the NT to Jews. He comments that there should be one truth that applies to all people for all time. --clh] Well, I figured, since I've been thinking about this a little myself lately, I would throw in some of my thoughts. First of all, the New Testament is simply the completion of what was started with the Jews. It's not like the old way didn't work and thus God decided to come up with a new way; He was planning for Christ to come the whole time (see Isaiah). Also, I think it's interesting to note that somewhere in the New Testament portion of the Bible (I don't have a Bible with me right here, unfortunately), it says that Abraham had faith and it was counted for him as righteousness. So, it seems to me that the rules haven't really changed. Besides, how else would you have it? Christ couldn't have really appeared on the scene at the very beginning, because nobody would have even understood the need for forgiveness of sins at that point. I think the term 'New Testament' is kinda a misnomer. I really think of it more as a more complete revelation of a plan God has had since the beginning. I hope that answers the question... > Ron >-- >Ron McBay/Atlanta University Center| Early morning, April 4 >usul%auc.UUCP@mathcs.emory.edu | A shot rings out in the Memphis sky >UUCP: ...!{gatech,emory}!auc!usul | Free at last. They took your life >BITNET: USUL@EMORY | They could not take your pride. -- U2 -- =----------------Logan-Shaw---(lshaw@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu)----------------= "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not on thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge Him and he shall direct thy paths" - Proverbs 3:5-6
ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) (01/22/91)
In article <Jan.15.04.23.27.1991.12591@athos.rutgers.edu>, usul@auc.UUCP (Ron McBay) writes: > The following are some fundamental questions I have never been able to receive > a satisfactory answer to when I've asked them of people before. The answers > that people have provided me in the past don't make sense to me. Here goes: > > Why was it necessary for there to be a New Testament? For the same reasons that it was necessary to have the books of Deut., Num., Levt., etc. God's message was still not complete. Was the message that > God gave to the Jews incomplete? Did new times require a different message? Before Jesus Christ, all offerings for sin were simply inadequate for salvation. They were simply a symbol of the true salvation yet to come. Only with Christ's death and resurrection was there a fulfillment of God's promises for the cleansing of sin. New times did require a different message. Before Christ, man lived under the law. He/She was not indwelled by the Holy Spirit as we are today. Before Christ, people lived in the age of the Father, under the law, which meant that they were justified by faith. God related to man by speaking directly to his prophets, who then spoke to the people. After Christ's resurrection, we came into the age of grace. People who accept Jesus as Lord and Savior are indwelled by the Holy Spirit, which enables us to have a more direct link to God than we had in the age of the Father. Now, God speaks to man through the Holy Spirit. Now, God writes his laws upon our hearts, and we don't need to go through a prophet to understand what God wants us to do. > Do Christians believe that Christ's message in the New Testament applies to > the Jews also, or does it only apply to Gentiles? It applies to Jew and Gentile. If the New Testament also > applies to the Jews, then what did the Jews do wrong that required Christ to > come and deliver a new message? Like the Gentiles, all of the Jews had sinned. Thus, they also needed a covering for sin, which is Jesus Christ. Christ, who is God Himself, did "...not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it." Jesus Christ was God's promise to the Hebrews. From the time of Adam and Eve, God had been promising an Annointed One. God promised to bless Isaac, David, etc. by sending the Messiah through their linage. If the New Testament does not apply to the > Jews, how do you reconcile the same God requiring two different modes of > behavior from two separate groups? This is an excellent deduction which simply proves the fact that God measures all of us by the same standards. Why aren't Christians required to keep > kosher if the same God (i.e., the God of Abraham), told the Jews to do so? Part of the old law died with Christ and we are no longer bound to it. Modern-day Jews may think that they have to be Kosher, but God does not require them to be kosher. > I have never been able to understand how Christians (and Moslems) can believe > that the same God delivers separate messages to the Jews, Christians > and Moslems. It seems to me that there should be one truth that applies to > all people for all time. > First, Christians believe that God delivers one message to all of us. We do not believe that anyone will get to Heaven simply on the virtues of Islam or what we know as modern-day Judaism. You are correct in deducing that there is one truth that applies to all people for all time. Now, for the heading. Let's define "Jew." There are many places in the Bible that tell us that we become a Jew by following Christ. In Romans (ch 8 or 9 ?) Paul tells us that , "...it is not the physical descendents of Abraham that are regarded as Abraham's offspring, but rather the children of the promise are counted for the seed." The promise is the promise of Jesus Christ, who is also called the Seed. In Genesis, God told Abraham that ALL NATIONS would be blessed through him. In a later book (which slips my mind at the moment), God even said that he would raise up his own crop of Israelites. There are other references in Galatians and Ephesians. In all, I have understood that one who is a physical descendent of Abraham but does not believe in Christ is not cosidered to be Abraham's child. Yet, one who is not Abraham's physical descendent but does have faith in Christ is regarded by God to be Abraham's child. > Ron McBay/Atlanta University Center| Early morning, April 4 > usul%auc.UUCP@mathcs.emory.edu | A shot rings out in the Memphis sky > UUCP: ...!{gatech,emory}!auc!usul | Free at last. They took your life > BITNET: USUL@EMORY | They could not take your pride. -- U2 > > of the rules involved in the covenant were not general > moral principles, but specific rites or signs associated > with the covenant (e.g. circumcision, which was the big > isssue in Acts). Christians don't agree about exactly > where the line is or how it should be drawn. In Romans, Paul is very clear that one who is circumcized in the flesh but not in the heart by the Holy Spirit ( and keep in mind that you have to accept to Christ to be indwelled by the Holy Spirit) is not counted as circumcized. On the other hand, one who is not circumcized in the flesh but is circumcized by the Holy Spirit is counted by God as being circumcized. Examples such as this say to me that there is no line to be drawn, especially since, as stated above, Christians are regarded as Abraham's offspring and are therefore, spiritual Jews. E.g. some > binding on Christians. But generally Christians do accept > that some portions of the OT are part of a specific > covenant with the Jews and do not apply to Gentile Christians. How do you understand this, and what is your scriptural backing for this belief? > was written, (2) the NT tends to be directed at Gentiles, to whom some > aspects of the covenant with the Jews do not apply. Again, what is your scriptural backing for this belief? We are told that Peter was a witness to the Jews and Paul was a witness to the Gentiles. Both contributed to the New Testament. Further, Jesus Christ came for both Jew and Gentile, and I am unaware of a single passage in which Jesus ever addressed any different treatment for Jews or Gentiles. Elizabeth > --clh] [My comments were meant to describe the reason that Christians generally do not keep the kosher laws or specific feasts, sacrificial practices, etc., described in the OT. Most Christians say that these things were associated with a covenant specific to the Jews, and do not apply to us. Common terminology distinguishes between a "moral law" which applies to all, and a "ceremonial law" which applied only to the Jews. There are of course other ways to deal with this issue, but I think the one I described is the most common. Biblical justification is in Acts 15 and a number of Paul's letters. --clh]
Herberg_David@tandem.com (David Herberg) (01/22/91)
In article <Jan.15.04.23.27.1991.12591@athos.rutgers.edu> usul@auc.UUCP (Ron McBay) writes: [Several good questions, which follow] These questions reveal a common misunderstanding among non-Christians about the purpose of Christ's earthly life. That is, they acknowledge Him as a *message* bearer rather than as a *sin* bearer and savior. > Why was it necessary for there to be a New Testament? Was the message > that God gave to the Jews incomplete? Did new times require a different > message? The New Testament is really a misnomer. It is the continuing revelation of God to His creation, which is separated from His immediate presence by sin. The Old Testament spans 3500 years of interaction between God and humans. The New Testament is simply the final chapter in the Old Testament, the denouement, if you will, in the great epic called existence. The message actually preached by Jesus is no different from that in the Old Scriptures. So much is it the same that many of Jesus' detractors, both contemporary and modern, have claimed that He merely reiterated the past, and brought nothing new. What *is* new, however, is the fulfillment or completion of hundreds of prophecies throughout history, beginning in the Garden of Eden after the first sin. That God Himself took on the punishment (death) decreed for sin from the beginning of time. Because Jesus was without sin, his undeserved death is held as a substitutionary price to be paid for our sin. Even this was prophesied 600 years earlier (Isaiah ch. 53, among others). So the "new" part of the New Testament was that not only did God tell the truth throughout history, He actually came through on his ancient promise of reconciliation and salvation. And the actual details of that salvation became much clearer. > Do Christians believe that Christ's message in the New Testament applies > to the Jews also, or does it only apply to Gentiles? Absolutely. The Bible says, "to the Jew *first*, and also the Gentile." [emphasis mine] It's just sad that so many Jews don't believe that the God that carried them out of bondage in Egypt has also carried them out of bondage to sin. But the Bible also predicts that there will be a believing remnant even in the last days. We see this in the form of _Jews_for_Jesus_ and other Messianic Jewish congregations throughout the world. Christianity is not contrary to Judaism; it is the completion of it. > If the New Testament also applies to the Jews, > then what did the Jews do wrong that required Christ to > come and deliver a new message? The Jews, like everybody else, "have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Sin is the hardest concept for non-Christians to accept, because it runs against our pride and the Satanic lies we all have believed ever since the Garden: "You can be [like] God." This is the basis for all the cults and false "self-help" religions. But getting back to your question, Christ was not required to deliver a new message. He was required to die in subtitution for us. There was 1,300 years (at least; maybe 4000) of animal sacrifices as a substitutionary payment for the sins of the people. This scapegoat was but a model for the ultimate sacrifice God paid on our behalf by coming to earth in human flesh and dying on the cross. > Why aren't Christians required to keep kosher > if the same God (i.e., the God of Abraham), told the Jews to do so? This is just one aspect of Old Testament life that was not destroyed by Christ, but fulfilled. All prophecy throughout history points to Him. Once He came, the need for much of the Levitical practices went away. Even more important to the ancient Jews than the dietary laws was the system of Temple sacrifices. To underscore Christ's words on the cross, "It [His work on earth] is finished," God simultaneously rent the curtain to the Holy of Holies inside the Temple, and even allowed its utter destruction a few years later. Although the Temple was absolutely necessary for many of the Levitical rites, there hasn't been a Temple for 1,920 years. Read the book of Hebrews for a complete explanation of how these laws were fulfilled, and not destroyed, and the book of Acts to understand the 1st century controversy over this issue, and the book of Romans for the definitive pronouncement on Christian liberty. > I have never been able to understand how Christians (and Moslems) can > believe that the same God delivers separate messages to the Jews, > Christians and Moslems. It seems to me that there should be one truth > that applies to all people for all time. You are absolutely right. Christians know there is one truth only. It's just that many, out of fear of offending somebody, refuse to share the good news. I hate to think that some people remain unsaved because I was afraid to share the good news. I am only thankful to God that His provision for redemption can cover even these sins of mine. I pray for your success, Ron, in finding the truth. David Herberg, Herberg_David@tandem.com
tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) (01/24/91)
In article <Jan.20.14.22.45.1991.14042@athos.rutgers.edu> sacg1198@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Scott Cattanach) writes: > >Speaking only for myself ... > >The books of the OT were not delivered to the Jews at one time, they were >written over a span of many years. IMHO, the books we separate into the NT >are simply a continuation of the unfolding relevation of God that had been >going on since Abraham or Moses. God's message was incomplete after >the 5 books of Moses, it was incomplete after the Psalms were compiled, >and it was incomplete after the last book (chronologically) of the OT was >written. I believe Revelation was the close of this relevation; anything >past that will have to be addresses by a Muslim. > Is it your understanding that because "The Revelation of John" is listed as the "last book" in the NT that it is the "last book (chronologically)"? It is my understanding that several of the episiles were written after revelation. I remember a lecture in which the speaker maintained that the Gospel of St. John was different from the other gosples because John had a vision and then understood that Jesus (his friend and companion) was in fact God. John then wrote his gosple to teach from that point of view. At the time, it seemed to me, to be reaching to grab that point of view. Would it be of any real value to know why each book in this Testament of Christ was placed in the canon or why other books are denied? I don't think so. -- Kermit Tensmeyer | Intergraph Corporation UUCP: ...uunet!ingr!tensmekl | One Madison Industrial Park INTERNET: tensmekl@ingr.com | Mail Stop LR23A2 AT&T: (205)730-8127 | Huntsville, AL 35807-4201
mib@geech.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) (01/24/91)
In article <Jan.15.04.23.27.1991.12591@athos.rutgers.edu> usul@auc.UUCP (Ron McBay) writes:
Why was it necessary for there to be a New Testament?
Because, with the Incarnation, there was "new knowledge" posessed by
the world about God and the way God works. As the first Christians
thought about what they had seen, they wrote down their thoughts,
which became normative for the church as a whole.
Was the message that God gave to the Jews incomplete?
In a sense, yes, and in another sense, no. The New Testament explains
some things on which the Old Testament is silent, and modifies
understanding of others. The Bible cannot contain all possible true
statements no matter how big it is, for truth is infinite. As a
result, any book will be incomplete. Protestants generally believe
that the Bible contains all that is necessary for salvation, Catholics
would add the magisterium of the church to that, and Eastern Orthodox
believers would add the traditions of the universal church. In the
sense that more had yet to be said, the message to the Jews was
incomplete. In the sense that it was the appropriate revelation at
the time, it was complete.
For example, a Jew could be asked why the revelations through the
prophets were necessary. Was not the revelation to Moses complete?
The situation is analogous.
Did new times require a different message?
The New Testament is not fundamentally understood as a revelation, or
as a message from God. Rather, it is Christ that is the message, the
revelation, and the New Testament is our standard for interpreting and
understanding that event. (Again, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox
believers would modify that sentence approriately.) Christ is
typically seen as a message to all times, not just the time to come
after Jesus died. Christians usually affirm that the reality of
Christ lay behind the rituals of the temple cult and the statements
and promises of the prophets.
Do Christians believe that Christ's message in the New Testament
applies to the Jews also, or does it only apply to Gentiles?
Actually, we usually believe that it was addressed to the Jews and
made available to the Gentiles. The Epiphany is the unveiling of God
for the entire world, and this became possible through the
incarnation.
If the New Testament also applies to the Jews, then what did the
Jews do wrong that required Christ to come and deliver a new
message?
Nothing more than that which led to Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the rest of
the prophets. At the same time, Jesus is the fulfilment of the
prophetic tradition, and the precursor to it. His message is the same
as that as the prophets, radicalized and clarified.
If the New Testament does not apply to the Jews, how do you
reconcile the same God requiring two different modes of behavior
from two separate groups?
First, note that the New Testament was written by people who called
themselves Jews. Acts claims that the apostles worshipped daily in
the Temple. The New Testament is not about rules for behavior, nor
about which rules apply to which people. It applies to all people in
the sense that Christians hold it to be universally true, but the
moral "commands" in the New Testament are not to be understood as
permanently binding rules. They are explications of the gospel in
particular circumstances.
Why aren't Christians required to keep kosher if the same God
(i.e., the God of Abraham), told the Jews to do so?
Our Jewish friends would be happy to point out here that the Law of
Moses was given to the Jews, and not to all humanity. The Christian
message is of liberation from law, not a different law. Jewish
Christians in the early church, however, did largely keep the law.
(Paul is the only notable exception.) They did not consider
themselves free from being Jewish, and considered themselves Jewish.
I have never been able to understand how Christians (and Moslems)
can believe that the same God delivers separate messages to the
Jews, Christians and Moslems. It seems to me that there should be
one truth that applies to all people for all time.
Christians believe, generally, that the message given to the Jews was
from God, and intended for the Jews, but is informative to all of us
about the nature of God and the history of divine interaction with
people.
Islam, as I understand it, holds that the revelations to the Jews and
through Jesus are equally valid today, but that Jews and Christians
have modified ("perverted" is the word in my translation of the
Qu'ran) the original message, so that it is barely recognizable in the
Pentateuch and the gospels.
-mibsacg1198@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Scott Cattanach) (01/26/91)
tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes: > Is it your understanding that because "The Revelation of John" is > listed as the "last book" in the NT that it is the > "last book (chronologically)"? It is my understanding that several > of the episiles were written after revelation. I remember a lecture I said "stop at Revelation" because it was at the back of my Bible. I have heard claims that the Gospel According to John was written later. Fine, I wasn't making documentary claims, just stating by belief that our current NT is the close of the relevation from God that I mentioned earlier. -- -catt (Scott Cattanach - catt@uiuc.edu) Psalm 37:21 The wicked borroweth, and payeth not again: but the righteous sheweth mercy, and giveth. - King David on the relations between Washington and us taxpayers