Can a Christian reject the Old Testament?

Hi Marcion.

And Christianity is essentially Jewish.

that was just to protect the hebrews who would later bring us jesus
it literally doesn't mean anything anymore, except that its unhealthy, but its not keeping anyone from salvation

NO, IT IS NOT.

YOU ARE IGNORANT.

Yes in part, could reject most books of it - ignore them entirely.

But Pentateuch ( first 5 books ) and some books of prophets ( especially Isaiah ) - were backed up by Jesus.

They have divine inspiration over them and are still important.

If for example the flood did not actually happen - Moses would've lied and then it would be implied that Jesus also lied - and obviously both Judaism and Christianity are a waste of time.

No.

A gnostic (i.e: a marconite) can.

To complete Moses wrote Pentateuch while having a dialogue with God as you would have a face to face dialogue with a human being.

The 10 commandments were literally imprinted on rock by God - so they're His formulations - His literal Words.

Also anything Jesus said is literal word of God, but obviously not kept in intact form - but hopefully keeping the original meaning - you have 4 different eyewitnesses to understand the meaning.

>The 10 commandments
You mean the 613 commandments.

Catholics use the OT, but only with an 'ancillar' role: you can pick what essentially confirms the NT and forget the rest.
American protestants are more literalists and tend to accept all the more hardline parts of OT

No only the 10 were literally written by God - the others which are not a list - but rather conclusions out of Moses text, were written by Moses hand.
So 613 interpretations rather.

If Adam and Eve are fictional, if Noah is fictional if Abraham is fictional and so on - Jesus was just delusional.

When God told Moses to write about the flood - was God just fucking around with Moses?

Are Christians allowed to ignore the 10 commandments because of the new covenant?

it's hard to follow the OT circumcision laws and jesus's overriding simultaneously

Except they were written in the same format, that 'thou shall not' style and they're not interpretations.

Is Jesus just a heretic?

Christianity is Greek with a surface-level Jewish veneer. Perhaps at one point the balance could have shifted in the opposite direction, as a fundamentally Jewish religion with some Greek elements mixed in, but the Judaizers lost.

Christians today ignore even the new covenant, instead they will debate who's the 'true' christian and decide what rules they feel like following.

By OT law, yes.

Jesus words Matthew 5:17
( contextually He talks about law of Moses )
Do not think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I did not come to destroy, but to fulfill!
( Here the verb has two meanings one to make a prophecy become true - used with this meaning in other places Matthew wrote: Mt 1, 22; 2, 15; 2, 17 and second meaning to bring to end, to complete. )
Amen, I tell you: until heaven and earth
pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroked shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished. Whoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments and teach others to do so shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whoever shall do and teach them shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.

By Talmudic rabbinic laws yes, by literal laws in Torah - no.

Can you explain to me how Jesus fulfilling shit means Christians get to eat bacon but not violate the 10 commandments?

That depends what you mean by "reject". The Old Testament contains a narrative of early Man and God's relationship with them. To ignore it is to throw away an immense storehouse of anecdotes and history regarding the relationship of Man and God. It involves ignoring actions that greatly assist the reader to understand the relationship God wants with Man, i.e. being a Christian, period. Would you be a Christian, and say "but I'm not allowed to pray"? That would be stupid - life is hard enough as it is. Why throw away a tool of inestimable value? The entire significance of Jesus' resurrection is lost without the Old Testament, and much of the New Testament draws on the Old.

Then there is reject as in "disbelieve" - the events in it never happened. That's intellectually unsustainable - the life of a Christian depends on a number of statements about the nature of reality found only in the Old Testament. You can't be saved without believing 1) There is a God 2) God created Man 3) God is perfect 4) Man has sinned, and therefore can't be with God. Ergo, 5) Man needs redemption and 6) Such redemption is only found in the blood of Jesus. Points 1-4 are only in the Old Testament. Disbelieving that kicks the props out from the whole thing.

Then there is a more nuanced view...can I, as a Christian, believe the Old Testament, not ignore it, yet not be bound by the 10 commandments as being obsolete? Well, freeing us from the FORCE of those laws (damnation) was the whole point of Jesus' resurrection! However, if we were not convicted under those laws, there would be nothing to atone for. I suppose the best answer is in Romans 6:1-14, particularly verses 1-2 and 14

Verse 1-2: 1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?

Verse 14: 14 For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.

Kill yourself dumb fuck

You have to respect the 10 laws but also more Laws which Jesus said - that's the thing.

We have this official text to tell us precisely what to do:

15:23-29 Acts of the Apostles:

Through their hands, they wrote:“The apostles, the presbyters, and the brethren; to the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: greetings! We have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words and unsettled your souls by saying: ‘You must be circumcised and keep the law,’ although they had no such commission from us. Having assembled with one accord, it has seemed good to us to select men and to send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, we have sent Judas and Silas, who will also tell you the same things by word of mouth. It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose no greater burden on you than what is necessary: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. If you abstain from these things, it will be well with you. Farewell!”

So 10 commandments + what Jesus said +
that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. If you abstain from these things, it will be well with you

that's the whole Christian law.

con't

From verses 1 and 2, we see that simply because Jesus saved us, doesn't mean we should continue to disobey God. In that sense, we are still called to the moral standard laid out for us by the 10 commandments - you can't abandon that moral standard without disobeying God. However, as a Christian you are still under God's grace (not subject to damnation), as specified in verse 14.

One last thought: Revelations 3:15-16 says "15 I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16 So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth."

The word for "spit" I have heard can be translated as "vomit" - to be a lukewarm Christian, saying "I am saved, what does it matter if I do anything? I shall live as I please." is to be an object of such revulsion to God that you would be vomited up, figuratively speaking. Read 2 Timothy 3:1-5 for God's word on people who live as they please, even if they profess God.

I recommend you find a good pastor for further discussion. Veeky Forums is not the place for any serious help at all.

You cant justify jesus without the old testament.

Also

II Tim 3:16
Every Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for instruction in righteousness

The passage is talking about old testament - so this is the official opinion.

Re: Bacon

I believe much of the Old Testament law - the "Law" referred to in the New Testament is found in the first five books of the bible. My understanding is that there are three main sections - civil (laws for cities, contracts, crimes and so forth), ceremonial (laws about the forms God was to be worshipped by - use this incense and so forth), and moral (these things are wrong to do. Do them and be damned. Basically the 10 commandments). Only the moral law holds any sway today, and the part about Bacon is in the civil law section. Obsolete.

One specific incident that directly relates to Bacon is found in Acts 10:9-15, ending with "Do not call anything impure which God has made clean." A second one is in Matthew 15:17-20, as shown below:

17 “Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.”

There you are. More simply, same book/chapter, verse 11: "What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.”

Mmmmm bacon.

>Hasn't read the Pentateuch - has an opinion about it.

Also cats 10:17 is not about food - have you even read the new testament?

+ look there's a prophecy in Isaiah which talks about end of times when God will come to judge people:

Jesus said that no prophecy will be lost.

Isiah 66

15For, behold, the LORD
will come as fire, and His chariots like a tempest, to render His vengeance with
wrath, and His rebuke with a flame of fire. 16For by the fire of the LORD shall all the
earth be judged, and all flesh with His sword; many shall be slain by the LORD.
17They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens, and eat
swine’s flesh in the porches, and the abominations and the mouse, shall be
consumed together,’ saith the LORD.

I have. "Acts" is an account of the acts (hence the name) of the early disciples - it is to be expected that after an account of one event, another account would be entered. Hence moving on to the men sent by Cornelius and so forth.

I notice you haven't mentioned at all the other two passages I cited. Nothing to say?

So if I eat so much bacon I hurl, I'm a sinner?

are all tripfags autistic faggots? i have yet to find one that isn't obnoxious or retarded in some way

You realize that baptizing pagans, and them having Holy Spirit - is what God meant with purifying them not that - there's the hidden meaning behind baptizing pagans and that meaning is Christian can eat pork.

Read what Jesus said:

Prophecy in Isaiah clearly says that God will punish pork eaters at the end of times.

Jesus said that He will come at end of times.

You have to be slightly off to be a tripfag

I think you may be misinterpreting Isaiah. That book has strong analogues to the Bible as a whole, but much of it refers specifically to prophecies regarding threats from Assyria and Babylon. One scholar, (link included: biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/isaiah/66.html) is of the opinion that the prophecy you cited, in its SPECIFIC form, may already have come to pass. The larger message about judgements against provoking sinners is there as well, but this is a weak thing to hang a "no bacon" flag on, especially in light of Jesus' more explicit statements.

rejecting the old testament means rejecting christ who fulfills it. any authentic christian can't reject christ because believing in christ is what makes a christian authentic

Jesus did not have any explicit sentence in recorded gospels about bacon - He only specified that until the end of times the Law will not pass, and w/e teaches someone to not respect the law will be punished.

Isaiah says the same. There are many scholars and many opinions - but they're just opinions.

According to scholars YHWH is just El - supreme god from Canaanite religion - he one day washed ashore and had sex with two women - he is also he father of cosmos, of man and represented as a bull.

And there's muuuch more proof for that - especially archeological rather than just someone opinion about a prophecy.

Scholars having opinions about prophecies is not very... academic. How could you have an opinion about an paranormal event? When association with mystical thinking is considered regression to infantile thinking

So you're telling me Jesus was fucking around when He said that we should respect Prophets and Moses.

Isaiah which other prophecies - pointed Jesus as messiah should be also ignored - he was fucking around...

1The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

1 tim

Yes.

Christianity is about the words and deeds of Jesus Christ, nothing else. It's unfortunate that the Jewish Bible was included as part of the Christian Bible as it has caused a great deal of confusion, but it was added in order to serve as context for understanding the language of Jesus, who was talking primarily to Jews using Jewish references. The Old Testament is only a translation grid, Christianity can be completely abstracted from it and put into any other language.

Here’s to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes.

The ones who see things differently. They’re not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, report, or filter them.

About the only thing you can’t do is ignore them. Because they change things. They invent. They imagine. They heal. They explore. They create. They inspire. They push the Veeky Forums culture forward.

Maybe they have to be crazy.

How else can you stare at an empty text-box and type up a work of art? Or sit in silence and fabricate a new meme that nobody has seen before? Or elevate an inane discussion to sublime heights and meaningful depths?

We provide a mirror for this kind of people. They gives us light.

While some see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the WWW, are the ones who do.

B e D i f f e r e n t .

– t. user

Might as well be a follower of Marcionism

Or, you know, an actual authentic Christian.

damn that made me tear up

I don't understand. Are you saying a christfag that rejects OT is an actual follower of Christianity than an potential follower of Marcionism?

How are you today , gnosticbro' ?

>NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI
>ANYONE WHO DISAGREE WITH IS A NAZI !!!!

wtf

Marcion pls, I said:
>Positive Christianity, if that's the case

"Positive Christianity" is literally, and without question, Nazism.

It's part of the Wikipedia article series on Nazism. The term was coined by Adolf Hitler. They use symbols like this.

You kind of have to, or at least large chunks like how you aren't supposed to listen to guys like Jesus.

I mean, most Christians already ignore it entirely, so I don't see why you wouldn't be able to just declare it non-canon.

Most Rabbinic Jews, (i.e. most Jews,) today actually don't think Jesus was really a heretic and that he himself might not have said/done anything to contradict Rabbinic Judaism. It's when people started deifying him that it started becoming blasphemous from a Jewish standpoint.

Honestly, I believe the standard non-Christian/non-Muslim view of what happened was that Christianity was originally just people who believed in Judaism and just happened to believe that the messiah, a Jewish concept, was Jesus. Think about it: I'm a Jew, right? If I meet some random guy and start claiming he's the messiah, without changing any of my other beliefs, including what the title of, "messiah," entails in Judaism, am I suddenly not a believer in Judaism anymore? It's when it all started growing into a sect with ritualistic/scriptural differences that Christianity started going down the path of becoming, well, Christianity, IMO.

Kind of this.

Depends upon who you consider a christian to be, but I kind of find accepting New testament and acception redemption of Jesus Christ without original sin kind of dubious.

But, I guess the point I'm trying to make is that, while it may have becoming more Greek than Jewish, it wasn't always that way.

>Matthew 5:18

No

No you don't have to believe in the Jewish testament. All you have to do is to believe in Jesus and you're set. Only catholikikes and orthokikes like to larp as le shitskin high priest.

No that's heresy

O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
Matthew 12:34-37
Go away blasphemer kike

>reducing God's word
Enjoy hell

Wouldn't rejecting the old testament mean rejecting that Jesus Christ fulfilled the prophecies?

>Go away blasphemer kike
I suggest you read the two verse just before the ones you quoted.

Yes, it would.

What's your point?

That even if we pretend your allegations of me blaspheming the son of man have any truth to them, they will be forgiven, so says the son of man. Listen to him.

Devil quoting scripture
Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.
1 John 2:23

No. Jesus fulfilled the OT SO we didn't have to live as slaves under the law.

People don't realize that """Judaism""" wasn't fully Israelite even before Jesus was born.

go on /daily/ at /mu/. Best tripfags ever

>Devil quoting scripture
Scripture is the Hebrew Bible. That's where the Law, and the words of the prophets such as Isaiah are.

>Whosoever denieth the Son
Hey, we're all sons of God here.

I'm beginning to wonder how dumb people can truly be considering Christianity was originally a fringe cult of Judaism

see Marcion

Have fun in Hell Schlomo

>They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. (Rom 9:4-5)
Reminder that if you reject the "Old Testament" you have to reject the New.

see Judaism already was a syncretic religion

go back to murdering children, Jephthah

We're just arguing semantics, what's the fucking point? Either way, Christianity is based on the religion of the Jewish people. Yes, Europeans added their own shit to it but to deny any connections to Jews is just so fucking retarded I can't possibly think about it

>Babylon and Persia
>Europeans

Only with acrobatic apologetics.

Christ was clear several times throughout the NT that the OT was not to be done away with. His own words repeatedly contradicted the notion that his sacrifice made the OT obsolete.

Yeah man, you definitely sound like a true disciple. I'll absolutely listen to you.

This one.

Can a Star Wars fan reject the first trilogy in favor of the prequels?

Anyone can do anything.

No because then the New Testament wouldn't make sense

That's what I do

Reading the New Testament (and particularly the Sermon on the Mount) without the Old is basically how liberalism happened.

Hahaha true

Fringe Jewish cult turned into syncretic Hellenistic mystery religion by Paul turned into worldly European powerhouse by clerics in Rome and Constantinople. Both pagan in foundation. What a world we live in.

So god was wrong the first time around?

Why exactly was Marcion wrong again? The only examples I can find are just the Church going "REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" for many pages, especially in Adversus Marcionem.

>Why exactly was Marcion wrong again? The only examples I can find are just the Church going "REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" for many pages, especially in Adversus Marcionem.

Because of the autism of Marcion's sentiment, it was a valid response.

Jesus consistently associates himself with the old testament. It makes no sense whatsoever to ditch textual analysis and just flat out say something to the effect of:

>"yhwh seems mean, so he must be a demiurge!!!"