Christian Interpretation of the OT

[lunamoth]

Re: Christians: Do you accept the supernatural and the miracles of the NT?

To get back to whether Christians should apply the OT, if I may quote some scripture at you:

It is interesting that you use the phrase: quoting scripture at me. Yes, if you are not using the same hermeneutic to interpret scripture you might as well be quoting scripture, or Winnie the Pooh for that matter, at me.

Rather than trying to understand how I might see my own religion.

 

[Netti-Netti]

Re: Christians: Do you accept the supernatural and the miracles of the NT?

It is interesting that you use the phrase: quoting scripture at me. Yes, if you are not using the same hermeneutic to interpret scripture you might as well be quoting scripture, or Winnie the Pooh for that matter, at me.

Rather than trying to understand how I might see my own religion.

Hi Lunamoth,

I was just kidding when I said "quoting at." I was quoting Thomas' clever turn of the phrase - just a friendly pun at Thomas is all. It's in the other thread about belief in miracles, I think.

But you're right all Biblical interpretation could be considered meaningless unless we agree on the hermeneutic criteria up front. Which of course rarely happens

In order to avoid interpretive problems The Catholic Church resolves all ambiguities by referencing previous interpretations. They decide a new interpretation based on the old. This is in the interest of coherence, I can see that. But it's very tricky: what if the prior interpretations were wrong? All the later predicated views come tumbling down if the foundation is unsound.

Btw, I have nor offered a personal view on any of these issues; I have only raised questions about the applicability of Hebraic principles - which we have seen are hard to resolve.

 

[lunamoth]

Re: Christians: Do you accept the supernatural and the miracles of the NT?

Btw, I have nor offered a personal view on any of these issues; I have only raised questions about the applicability of Hebraic principles - which we have seen are hard to resolve.

Well no, not really hard to resolve from a Christian perspective, as more than one poster above has pointed out. Different sects of Christianity may come to different conclusions, but then, that's why they consider themselves different sects. :shrug:

Why have you not offered your personal view? Do you have one?

 

[17th Angel]

Are there any groups that do not even use the OT? Cause like... I clearly see two different books, and fail to see harmony, there is a different pace, attitude feel and agenda on the books... And the majority of the OT seems pointless for christians... Apart from (for some) Genesis.

 

[lunamoth]

Are there any groups that do not even use the OT? Cause like... I clearly see two different books, and fail to see harmony, there is a different pace, attitude feel and agenda on the books... And the majority of the OT seems pointless for christians... Apart from (for some) Genesis.

I think there are Gnostic groups that do not use the OT, not sure about any others.

I'd say that the Christian paradigm would not make sense without being based in the OT. It is all about God fulfilling His promise to the Jews and to the whole world through his relationship with Abraham. It is the same paradigm of creation, sin, judgement, redemption.

I would suggest that what you see as a different attitude is an evolution in human understanding of God.

 

[Netti-Netti]

Re: Christians: Do you accept the supernatural and the miracles of the NT?

Well no, not really hard to resolve from a Christian perspective, as more than one poster above has pointed out.

Well, maybe they resolved it for themselves. But I don't think anyone presumes to have make any final determination about "Christian" doctrine ... especially when the hermeneutic model has not been specified.

Different sects of Christianity may come to different conclusions, but then, that's why they consider themselves different sects. :shrug:

I don't know how to respond to this. I was raised a Catholic and as far as I know the Church is the last word on these kinds of things. It does not endorse sectarian relativism. As I noted previously, the Church's positions are predicated on positions it has taken previously. In other words, at some point it established the hermeneutic standard that it still treats as the only one to guide Biblical interpretation and doctrinal formulations.

Why have you not offered your personal view? Do you have one?

Yes, I do, but they may not add much in this context. (My personal beliefs at this point are Hindu and Buddhist panentheism, but I like some aspects of Christianity.)

 

[lunamoth]

Re: Christians: Do you accept the supernatural and the miracles of the NT?

Well, maybe they resolved it for themselves. But I don't think anyone presumes to have make any final determination about "Christian" doctrine ... especially when the hermeneutic model has not been specified.

Are you aware of any Christian hermeneutic that says all the 613 Hebrew laws should be retained by Christians?

Yes, I do, but they may not add much in this context. (My personal beliefs at this point are Hindu and Buddhist panentheism, but I like some aspects of Christianity.)

OK, I guess you understand then that it would not make much sense to ask a Buddhist why what he believes is not the same as Hinduism, even though Buddhism blossomed out of Hinduism.

 

[seattlegal]

I don't know about Christian doctrine, but we do have the words of Jesus regarding who his disciples are:

John 13:34-35
34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35 By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”​

If you are fighting over doctrine to the point of losing love for one another, you've missed the mark...

 

[lunamoth]

If you are fighting over doctrine to the point of losing love for one another, you've missed the boat...

Agreed SG. Frankly I usually avoid such discussions because it is too easy to dismiss one another, fail to listen, and fall into arguing.

I should have just let the whole thing drop.

 

[seattlegal]

Agreed SG. Frankly I usually avoid such discussions because it is too easy to dismiss one another, fail to listen, and fall into arguing.

I should have just let the whole thing drop.

You need a balance of being able to have a heated discussion without getting upset and hateful of the other person. Without heated discussion, no progress is made. If you become hateful because of heated debate, you might want to question your own spiritual progress....

 

[lunamoth]

You need a balance of being able to have a heated discussion without getting upset and hateful of the other person. Without heated discussion, no progress is made. If you become hateful because of heated debate, you might want to question your own spiritual progress....

I don't see that netti or myself was hateful or even upset. For my part it seemed like a pretty neutral conversation.

 

[Netti-Netti]

Re: Christians: Do you accept the supernatural and the miracles of the NT?

I don't see that netti or myself was hateful or even upset. For my part it seemed like a pretty neutral conversation.

It was. No need to fear conflict or negative emotion here.

Are you aware of any Christian hermeneutic that says all the 613 Hebrew laws should be retained by Christians?

I'm aware of this:

"Do not think that I came to void the Law or the Prophets. I didn't come to destroy them, but to fulfill them."
​

~Mathew 5:17

Why wouldn't "the Law" include ritual laws and food rules?

What about animals sacrifices, the Sabbath, being with a woman having her period (the Niddah rule), etc.

I'm perfectly ok with not having a full understanding of it at this point. Maybe we are at the end of the conversation. And that's fine, too. No problem.

 

[Dream]

But I think there are alternatives other than 'a literal reading of all the Bible' and 'pick n choose what suits me.' We can't read the Bible without interpreting it. The question then is, how do we interpret it. Muslims and Baha'is interpret the NT in manner very different from Christians, sects within Christianity have different interpretations.

But, I have to agree with Thomas that if you strip away most of the main doctrines you just don't have full Christianity.

Even Jesus himself only prayed for unity. Perhaps the attempts to produce human standards can easily disregard that only God could provide a unification? In that case, unification might easily become an attempt to build a tower to the sky, in which case the angels always stop its construction.

 

[lunamoth]

Re: Christians: Do you accept the supernatural and the miracles of the NT?

I
I'm aware of this:

"Do not think that I came to void the Law or the Prophets. I didn't come to destroy them, but to fulfill them."
​

~Mathew 5:17

Right, to fulfill them, and then he goes on to show us exactly what it means to have the law written on our hearts. To fulfill them by God breaking through into history and doing something new. To fulfill them by extending his light & grace to the whole world through what he started with Abraham.

He goes on to show that the law was made for man, not man for the law. The God prefers mercy, not sacrifice.

He goes on to show that it is the spirit of the law, to heal on the Sabbath, not the letter of law that is paramount, and it is not what goes into a man's body that makes him unclean, but what comes out.

He goes on to criticize those who get their priorities mixed up and put the law before loving one another, making their ritutal observance of the law meaningless.

IOW, he gives his own hermenuetic for the law, one that was not out of touch with at least some of the rabbis of his day (Hillel, I think it was).

And not out of line with the OT prophets themselves who had to keep reminding people that it is to "learn to do good, avoid evil, and walk humbly with your Lord," that is important.

Why wouldn't "the Law" include ritual laws and food rules?

What about animals sacrifices, the Sabbath, being with a woman having her period (the Niddah rule), etc.

I'm perfectly ok with not having a full understanding of it at this point. Maybe we are at the end of the conversation. And that's fine, too. No problem.

Again, Paul and James hammered this one out and it has stuck ever since for Christians.

 

[Netti-Netti]

I think this is what I was looking for:

And there came a voice to him: "Rise, Peter; kill and eat." But Peter said, "By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or And the voice came to him again a second time, unclean, "What God has made clean, do not call common." This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.

~From Acts 13-16

​

In effect, this repeals a pre-existing law.

Thanks for your patience!

 

[lunamoth]

I think this is what I was looking for:

And there came a voice to him: "Rise, Peter; kill and eat." But Peter said, "By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or And the voice came to him again a second time, unclean, "What God has made clean, do not call common." This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.

~From Acts 13-16

​

In effect, this repeals a pre-existing law.

Thanks for your patience!

I think that the point is that Christianity is out of the mindset of 'the law' and into the mindset of love one another.

 

[Marsh]

Are there any groups that do not even use the OT? Cause like... I clearly see two different books, and fail to see harmony, there is a different pace, attitude feel and agenda on the books... And the majority of the OT seems pointless for christians... Apart from (for some) Genesis.

Yes Alex, I saw a sign outside of a building once that said The New Testament Church. I never got a chance to venture in, but I assume they called it that for a reason.


But to the point: When I first came back to Christ and began reading the Bible, I assumed that the New Testament was all that I needed, and didn't see much of a point to the Old Testament. Then I actually read it.

See, in my mind the whole thing harmonizes completely, but I can see where others would see grave inconsistencies-- just like Netti-Netti with the passage from Matthew about the importance of keeping the law. But do you remember that there was a time before the law? Abraham was not under the law, was he? Nor was Noah-- and God dished out punishment during his time like he's never done since. How is it that there could be punishment before there was law?

It is not the law that is important; it is the human being-- our motives, our thoughts, our attitude. God sent down laws to Moses during Moses' time to help bring the Israelites under control. Take good note that the Israelites were not some sort of utopian society; they were a bunch of hooligans who reverted to Baal-worship about five minutes after God saved them from the Egyptians! The law that was given was given specifically to them; all those obscure regulations about clothing and ox-muzzling and nailing your servant's ear to the door was meant for another time. BUT THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW is meant for all time, and that spirit can be summed up in two simple points:

Love God as best as you can.

Love your neighbours as you love yourself.

Ever notice that the 10 commandments were written on 2 tablets? Not one or three, but two? One would have been a lot easier for Moses to carry down from the mountain, yeah? God could have given the Israelites the two commandments that Jesus left us with, but for some reason he wanted to be more specific. That's God for you. But is there any law in the Old Testament that does not fall into one category or the other?

This is why there is harmony in the Bible. This is also why Christians do not follow Mosaic Law per se, and yet are not lawless. We follow it, but in the way Jesus gave us.

 

[Marsh]

[/COLOR][/INDENT][/INDENT]In effect, this repeals a pre-existing law.

It doesn't repeal the law, actually. It's still not good to eat unclean things; it's just that there's been a change to which things are unclean.

 

[Joedjr]

Hi Netti-Netti,

I think this is what I was looking for:

And there came a voice to him: "Rise, Peter; kill and eat." But Peter said, "By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or And the voice came to him again a second time, unclean, "What God has made clean, do not call common." This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.

~From Acts 13-16

​

In effect, this repeals a pre-existing law.

Thanks for your patience!

Doesn't this have everything to do with the blessing of the Holy Spirit on the gentiles ( which occurs within the next few paragraphs) and nothing to do with food? Well, that's the way it appears to me anyway.

 

[Netti-Netti]

It doesn't repeal the law, actually. It's still not good to eat unclean things; it's just that there's been a change to which things are unclean.

Apparently it was just a dream. So if we go along with your view - that the law was not suspended - then we'd conclude that Christians should observe all the Jewish Kashrut and Kosher laws? Is that right?

Doesn't this have everything to do with the blessing of the Holy Spirit on the gentiles ( which occurs within the next few paragraphs) and nothing to do with food?

It probability doesn't have much to do with how close the food is to being spoiled. I think the issue is that ritual cleanliness doesn't have implications for spiritual cleanliness. One's food intake does not modify the state of one's soul (but one's outgoing expression potentially does).