• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Isn't Chiristianity actually of TWO Bibles?

E

e2ekiel

Member
Dena said:
I've wondered the same.
Click to expand...


"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." Matthew 5:17

To understand what is fulfilled by Jesus' death and ressurection in the NT you need to understand what was written in the OT. And you will only understand why things happened in the OT in light of what Jesus did in the NT.

Both Testaments are vitally important to Christians. You cannot have one without the other. If anyone says otherwise, they are trying to dupe you.
 
Shermana

Shermana

Heretic
The word "Fulfilled" is actually "Filled up" and he specifically said "I have not come to abolish". The "Fulfilling" was not in doing away with, and when he said "Prophets" he was also talking about the prophecies which he was "fulfilling". It also says that every man must "fulfill" the Law. It simply means "follow" in that case. He says "Anyone who teaches to not follow the least of the commandments shall be called the least in Heaven" for further clarification. He was basically saying "I'm not here to denounce a single one of the Laws or say you don't have to follow them, and if you say you do, you'll be counted as among the lowliest among the Denizens of Heaven". So if Christians want to trade their place in Heaven for a false interpretation of the word "Fulfilled', let them be the least where they belong.
 
Spirited

Spirited

Bring about world peace
charles brough said:
We all know there is a vast difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament. The older one is the Judaic Bible. It recounts the history of an historically obscure, monotheistic tribe which, in Numbers, Deuteronomy and other parts describes their invasions and slaughtering of the men women and children of the lands they stole.

In comparison to the brutal Judaic Bible, the New Testament is generally a beacon of pragrance and light---even though, of course, there are exceptions. Being only half as ancient and hence that much less out-of-date, the offensive parts are much less in number: such as the admonitions to hate your family (Luke 14:26), Kill Jesus's enemies (Luke 19:27 and Math. 10:34), regarding dealing with slaves (Eph 6:5) and the subjection of women (1Tim 2:11-12).

Since there is this vast difference between the two Bibles, why is the Jewish Bible considered part of the Christian Scripture?
Click to expand...

As Christianity is named after Christ, it concerns itself with all things Christ. There are many prophecies telling of his coming in the OT, as well as a nice explanation of beginnings of human existence. Also, as the Jews in the New Testament are considered to be the chosen people prepared for Christ, it's only natural that the text of the father faith would be absorbed into the new one.

As offensive as it may be to Jews, Christianity doesn't presume to be an alternative to Judaism, but rather the natural evolution of it after the coming of the Messiah. Had Jesus not come, most Christians would still be Jewish (or Buddhist etc...). I'm not arguing that this position is right, only that it is the reason that the OT is still in the Bible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top