Christianity without the Old Testament?

[swamplizard]

Try this site:

Start Here - Red Letter Christians

 

[ChristineES]

Since Jesus quoted extensively from the Tanakh, I would say that it's important.

 

[roger1440]

Any proof that the Jewish Christians interpreted the Gospels as purely symbolic? This seems absurd, keeping in mind that the Apostles were preaching Jesus' Resurrection as an actual event.

In Mathews Gospel Jesus is represented as the nation of Israel collectively. The difference being Jesus is the Israel that never went astray. Jesus is God’s son, just as the nation of Israel is God’s son. “where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son."” (Mat 2:15) This fulfillment explains the first fulfillment, the virgin birth. All of the Gospel of Mathew is allegory. The temptation of Jesus in chapter four of Mathew is a retelling of the Jews journey through the desert for forty years. Please note, before Jesus is tempted he is first baptized. Before the Jews go on their forty year journey they pass through the Red Sea. In chapter fourteen Jesus feeds four thousand people. In chapter fifteen Jesus feeds five thousand people. In chapter sixteen the author of Mathew explains the feeding, "Be careful," Jesus said to them. "Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees." . (Mat 16:6). The Jesus of Mathews’ Gospel is telling his audience the teaching of the Pharisees has no weight. It’s full of air. Jesus’s teaching has substance, therefore it is filling. This teaching is the word of God, the true bread that comes from Heaven. The same bread that had sustained the Jews for forty years in the desert. This is the same bread that is mentioned in the Lord’s Prayer in chapter six. Jesus is born in Bethlehem because Bethlehem literally means “house of bread”.

The following is something I had posted on another thread:
Mathew takes Isaiah Chapter 7 way out of context
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3489093-post973.html
“The Jesus of Mathew’s Gospel represents the true Israelite or the Israel without blemish. This Jesus is a metaphor. This Gospel was never intended to be taken literal. This Jesus is not “…about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children.” (Exo. 12:37) Obviously this Jesus is not hundreds of thousands people squeezed into one. This metaphor is an example set as a model, a paradigm. This metaphor is constructed using existing metaphors the Jews in the first century were familiar with from the Jewish scriptures. Its original aim wasn’t to have people worship some executed Jew. Its sole purpose was to point to the meaning of the Torah. “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” (Mat. 5:17) This is not a prophesy. What Mathew is saying, “You wanna know what the Torah is about, just look at this Jesus dude.” All of the Gospel of Mathew is allegory. Jesus was born of the flesh and united with God. This is where the virgin birth comes in. The key word is “united”. The concept is mentioned in the book of Exodus. First the Jews are held in bondage with Egypt. Once freed they are told to, “Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.” (Deu. 6:5) and “Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads.” (Deu. 6:8). The root of the word bondage is bond. The words bond, bind and unite are all synonymous. The Jews are to be one with God just as the allegorical Jesus is. The author of the Gospel of Philip would probably agree with me. “…the Lord (Jesus Christ) would not have said, “My Father Who is in Heaven,” if He had not had another father. He would have said simply: “My father”.” Philip also writes, “The Truth is not given to this world in clear form, but in symbols and images. It is not possible to give It in other forms.” (Gospel of Philip). It doesn’t surprise me in the least why the early church wanted this Gospel destroyed. As I said before, the Gospel of Mathew wasn’t intended for Gentiles. It is a Jewish allegorical writing.”

 

[roger1440]

Any proof that the Jewish Christians interpreted the Gospels as purely symbolic? This seems absurd, keeping in mind that the Apostles were preaching Jesus' Resurrection as an actual event.

According to the canonical gospels (Mathew, Mark, Luke and John) there were no eye witnesses to the resurrection. In all four accounts the Apostles come onto the scene after the resurrection had already happened. The only eyewitness account comes from the Gospel of Peter. This Gospel was written about three hundred years later. It was discovered in the late eighteen hundreds.