Why separate the OT from the NT?

[trumpet_guy]

I've been going through various threads and debates and their seems to be a discrepancy between whether or not the OT should be included with the NT. I feel many Christians today do not realize the value or necessity of the OT. I can see why a Jew or a follower of Judaism if you will would discredit the NT, but from a Christian standpoint their is no separating the OT from the NT.

The New Testament is riddled with Old Testament understanding, quotes, allusions, and is basically a continuation of the theology from the Old Testament. Due to the nature in which Jesus taught, and later Paul wrote, the NT is intertwined with the OT to the point their is no separating the two. Jesus would make a point by alluding to a passage in the OT to make a point and to ensure the crowd he understood the laws and Torah and Talmud. For example, when Jesus was cleansing the temple, Jesus says the temple is a "den of thieves". You do not fully understand why the Pharisees and Saduccees, and Scribes were mad (it wasn't completely dealing with anything about money), until you read Jeremiah 7:1-11 from which it is quoted. Romans and Hebrews are also filled with these same types of allusions or references.

Also, their are several references to OT people in the NT, that you only fully understand them if you've read the OT. The OT also gives the basis or set-up for anything Christ would've did or said. If not for the fall of man, why would he have come?

I can write on Old Covanent - New Covanent stuff later but I feel like this is an already long enough intro. Thoughts on the above?

 

[Shiranui117]

I guess the distinction between OT and NT denotes a certain demarcation line, if you will. It's like taking the history of the US. Really, it's all one big thing. But the history of the US, from the time of colonization to the American Revolution, is markedly different from US history after the adoption of the Constitution. The two are certainly different epochs with their own unique trends, concepts, players and stories. There is a clear point where we can say, "This is where things change; this is where a new page is turned." But despite this, can you understand the history of the US post-Constitution without first understanding the pre-Revolution period? Not really; themes, concepts and trends of vital importance would fly right over your head.

You can certainly see the point I'm making; the OT would be the US pre-Revolution, and the NT is the US post-Constitution. (The era of the Articles of Confederation would be the Deuterocanon; that's important too! ) The coming of Christ is the demarcation line between OT and NT. Can the two Testaments be separated from one another? No; the OT is important to understand the NT, and the NT is needed to show what the OT was setting up for.

 

[Clarity]

I've been going through various threads and debates and their seems to be a discrepancy between whether or not the OT should be included with the NT. I feel many Christians today do not realize the value or necessity of the OT. I can see why a Jew or a follower of Judaism if you will would discredit the NT, but from a Christian standpoint their is no separating the OT from the NT.

The New Testament is riddled with Old Testament understanding, quotes, allusions, and is basically a continuation of the theology from the Old Testament. Due to the nature in which Jesus taught, and later Paul wrote, the NT is intertwined with the OT to the point their is no separating the two. Jesus would make a point by alluding to a passage in the OT to make a point and to ensure the crowd he understood the laws and Torah and Talmud. For example, when Jesus was cleansing the temple, Jesus says the temple is a "den of thieves". You do not fully understand why the Pharisees and Saduccees, and Scribes were mad (it wasn't completely dealing with anything about money), until you read Jeremiah 7:1-11 from which it is quoted. Romans and Hebrews are also filled with these same types of allusions or references.

Also, their are several references to OT people in the NT, that you only fully understand them if you've read the OT. The OT also gives the basis or set-up for anything Christ would've did or said. If not for the fall of man, why would he have come?

I can write on Old Covanent - New Covanent stuff later but I feel like this is an already long enough intro. Thoughts on the above?

From my own non-Jewish perspective (and that of an avid OT reader), I see the same divergence in rabbinic Judaism. Jews prefer Talmudic renderings over their source.