ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Old Testament Followed Today

Is the Old Testament "profitable" for Christians today?

Join Our Christian Singles and Take The Ten Commandments Bible Quiz
 ---jerry6593 on 8/11/10
     Helpful Blog Vote (3)

Post a New Blog



--leej on 8/20/10

two things
bible first:

Revelation 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Revelation 19:10 .. for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

SDA did NOT make this up. It is BIBLE

Second: There have been MANY prophets who are NOT published in the bible and who did not write books. Are you saying that their work is unimportant?
Or are you saying that only prophets who have books in the bible are true prophets?

Can you find the books of Agabus or Deborah?
---francis on 8/20/10


leej:

The notion that a prophet's teachings can overturn earlier teachings is cultic. In Islam, where many of Muhammed's teachings conflict the Bible (and his later teachings conflict with his own earlier ones). In Mormonism, later prophets often overrode teachings of earlier ones (note their repudiation of "required" polygamy so Utah could get statehood).

The idea that old laws can be replaced by new ones is important in jurisprudence - it acknowledges lawmakers are imperfect. But the Bible teaches the opposite for divine law, because God IS perfect.

Galatians 1:8
"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!"
---StrongAxe on 8/20/10


Francis- to see that many SDA beliefs are unique from Biblical Christianity is to read their 'Fundamental Beliefs'. You can find that on the Internet.

#18 One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the Remnant church (the SDA considers itself as being just that), and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen G. White. As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a CONTINUING and AUTHORITATIVE source of truth which provide for the (SDA) church comfort guidance, instruction & correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching & experience must be tested.

the Bible alone is not sufficient as her writings are essential to understanding the Bible.
---leej on 8/20/10


Most of their stuff comes from Ellen G. White whose writings are on the same shelf as the Bible itself.

Their is a salvation by religion type of thing.

They fail miserably in defending their unique beliefs with those who know the Bible as well as church history.
---leej on 8/19/10

Nice words
NOW PROVE THEM!!

What SDA doctrines have you ever heard which are UNIQUE ( not biblical)?
What SDA comes from EG white?
Prove it or appoligize
---francis on 8/20/10


Steveng:

We are not explicitly bound by those things because they are laws given to Moses. However, we do them implicitly because they are all covered by "love God" and "love your neighbor" (Deutronomy 6:5, Matthew 22:37, Mark 12:30, etc.)
---StrongAxe on 8/19/10




Steveng, you bear false witness, and fabricate much falsehood.
---Eloy on 8/20/10


Lee: Why did you change your name to leej? You quote the scripture that answers the blog question, and then go all out to refute what the Bible plainly teaches.

2 Tim. 3:16f All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Then, of course, you treat us to your canned rant of anti-SDA falsehoods. Does your hatred of your fellow Christians help you sleep at night? If you want to convince us that the OT is now made void, show us where Christ taught this concept, rather than descend into childish fibs.
---jerry6593 on 8/20/10


Eloy: "Steveng, Please read the Holy Bible, for you continue to speak falsehood: For it is very clear that the o.t. laws and the N.T. Laws are complete opposites, contrary one to each other."

So, what you are saying is that "Thou shalt not kill" means that we can kill whomever we please? Can we now lie, steal, dishonor our parents, commit adultry, covet everything that doesn't belong to us, have more gods before us, make images of everything under the earth, on the earth and above the earth, and even take the Lord God's name in vain? God forbid.
---Steveng on 8/19/10


StrongAxe - yes it is easy to see that the SDA cherry picks from the OT what they wish to believe in.

Most of their stuff comes from Ellen G. White whose writings are on the same shelf as the Bible itself.

Their is a salvation by religion type of thing.

They fail miserably in defending their unique beliefs with those who know the Bible as well as church history.
---leej on 8/19/10


Steveng, Please read the Holy Bible, for you continue to speak falsehood: For it is very clear that the o.t. laws and the N.T. Laws are complete opposites, contrary one to each other. The o.t. was the ministry of death: an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, and a life for life. But the N.T. is the ministry of life: forgive the repentant, turn the other cheek when struck, and love your enemies. Now it is not possible to kill your enemy and also to turn the other cheek and love them.
---Eloy on 8/19/10




Eloy: "The o.t. has a treasure of knowledge, but the N.T. Commandments supercede the o.t. commandments."

The difference between the old and new convenants is like a home mortagage, the laws are the same, but the terms are different.

There is only one word that all the laws of the old testament hangs upon - love. The two commandments Jesus spoke of is the abbreviated form of the ten commandments. The ten commandments are a abbreviated form of the 613 laws.

Besides, what commandments was being taught during Jesus' time when there wasn't a new testament?
---Steveng on 8/18/10


leej:

Yet it's curious that (excluding Jews) most Sabbatarians come from the Seventh Day Adventists - and as much as they may insist on keeping of Old Testament laws, they gloss over all of those that deal with proper (and lawful) ways of preparing and eating meat - including those that COMMAND eating meat (for example, during the passover).
---StrongAxe on 8/18/10


//The o.t. has a treasure of knowledge, but the N.T. Commandments supercede the o.t. commandments. To see the differences between the o.t. and the N.T., Please Read- Matthew 5:20-48.

Bullseye there eloy? you finally got something right.

But you will find that no Sabbaterian will ever agree with you as they believe OT laws are still applicable to the New Covenant church, especially observance of the Jewish Sabbath and the Levitical food laws.

We can see that from the literature created by their founder which they regard as on the same shelf with Holy Writ.
---leej on 8/18/10


The o.t. has a treasure of knowledge, but the N.T. Commandments supercede the o.t. commandments. To see the differences between the o.t. and the N.T., Please Read- Matthew 5:20-48.
---Eloy on 8/18/10


However, some believe Christains became Jews upon their conversion and thus subject to laws given only to the nation of Israel. ---leej on 8/17/10

Still have two components confused or missing by your post.
1.The laws/Covenants were given "only" to Israel composed of 13 distinct relatives. The "Book" is about Israel, written by Israel concerning Israel.
2. Jews/Judeans only represent one 1/12th of Israel.
Broken off/Divorced Israel to be grafted EZE/Heb 8:8/Jer 31:31 etc,etc,etc again making a completed house.

You place yourself. under the covering of Israels blessings/curses, so you claim what you exclude above....ironically. -Heb8:10 laws.
---Trav on 8/18/10


Eloy:

You said whenever Jesus did anything, eyewitnesses immediately wrote it down. The Bible clearly says otherwise:

John 21:25:
"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."

Seeing how small the Bible is and how large the world is, this means most of the things Jesus did were not written down.

You said: Cluny, you speak falsehood because there is no light in you, but after you become Christianed then you will speak truth as we Christians also speak.

I don't know any other Christians who speak as you do.
---StrongAxe on 8/17/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Life Insurance


Cluny, you speak falsehood because there is no light in you, but after you become Christianed then you will speak truth as we Christians also speak.
---Eloy on 8/17/10


//And you have YET to say Christ's works.
You've said nothing but your own.
---

Maybe that is why he is still translating his own version of the Bible.
---leej on 8/17/10


\\Cluny, every real born-again Christian is speaks Christ's words because Christ's word dwells in us: \\

And you have YET to say Christ's works.

You've said nothing but your own.
---Cluny on 8/17/10


Ken 3: The question itself is a rediculous question. What is a Christian to do? Throw away most of Scripture because he is a Christian? It's a question for the purpose of bringing the agenda of the SDA's (the law). And if someone answers that the Old Testament does not mean anything anymore, the question of sinning against the law comes out. If someone answers the Old T. is for Christians, the question again is of sinning against the law. No matter what anyone answers the agenda of the question brings meaning to those who follow the law and want to be under the law. Nothing changes with Jerry. It is the same old methods to bring to question those who do not believe in the SDA's doctrines. Using Scripture for their own personal agenda.
---MarkV. on 8/17/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Make Money


Ken, not that I want to take anyone's side on this matter since Eloy has stated some things I do not like that come from him, but I disagree more in the arguments of others. First, what is discussed against what Eloy says, brings Scripture to be questioned and doubted. It undermines Scripture as inspired by God. Which means if some of it is wrong or not true, then other sections of Scripture might not be true. Someone is always questioning the Word of God. If a Christian does not believe the Word of God, then he is not save, for faith comes from hearing, hearing the Word of God, and shows a lack of true faith. Sometimes the wisdom of man keep him from becoming save. In arguing against Eloy, the Word of God is compromise for the sake of argument.
---MarkV. on 8/17/10


Ken 2:
The Word of God is the Word of God. As each event was happening it was becoming the Word of God. No writer or Church made it the Word of God, God did. As the new age of the Church was unfolding it was the Word of God. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with the Word of God, but everything wrong with sinful man who try to interpret it. The lack of fundamental hermeneutics is what is wrong. Many times when the writers spoke and wrote, they spoke either from God's perspective (Noumenologically) or from the writers perspective (phenomenologically). And it is the duty of every interpreter to find out which one was use, because there is nothing wrong with the Word of God itself. Many things wrong with man.
---MarkV. on 8/17/10


Is the Old Testament 'profitable' for Chrisitans today?

I am surprised that anyone would ask such a question.

2 Tim. 3:16f All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

However, some believe Christains became Jews upon their conversion and thus subject to laws given only to the nation of Israel. Among those that refuse to rightfully divide the word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15) are the Sabbaterians.
---leej on 8/17/10


Cluny, every real born-again Christian is speaks Christ's words because Christ's word dwells in us: this truth is proven in comparing the words we Christians speak with the words that our Christ also speaks. And every sinner whom disses and blasphemes the Christians of Christ is proven to speak the words not from Christ, but from the spirit of antiChrist. "Remember the word that I said to you, The servant is not greater than his Lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you, if they have kept my saying, they will keep your's also. We the saints from Christ are of God: he that knows God hears us, he that is not of God hears not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error."
---Eloy on 8/16/10


Shop For Christian Home Business Opportunities


Steveng, You have freewill to stand either for or against the gospel, and you manifest where you stand. And my response is strong in opposing your falsehood.
---Eloy on 8/16/10


\\strongax, you dis my word, because my word has no place in you.\\

Of course, not, Eloy, because you don't speak for Jesus.

Are you so deluded you think you do?
---Cluny on 8/16/10


Eloy: "Steveng, the gospel may be "past tense" to you, but to those of us with Christ he is "very present tense"."

Your response is very weak and your heart is becoming hateful as I read your replies. The gospels as written is an eyewitness account of the time of Jesus as he spread the word about the Kingdom of God and how to get there. Any eyewitness account is always in past tense. Just read the gospels again and find out for yourself. There is a huge difference between the gospels as written at that time in history and Christ living in a person today. Even my younger students know the tenses of certain written material.
---Steveng on 8/16/10


Ken, In regards to scripture, "testament" from the testator, or "covenant" from the coventor mean the same. And it is falsehood to say that the disciples did not have the New Testament as Jesus was ministering until hundreds of years later, because Jesus was indeed the New Testament alive with them in the flesh. For as Jesus ministered his words with signs following, the scribes of the day were documenting every detail.
---Eloy on 8/16/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Rehab Treatments


jerry, Yes the o.t. has many things contained in it that can be useful to the Christian today.
---Eloy on 8/16/10


Eloy:

1) "Now the birth of Jesus Christ being this:..." does not say that Matthew was a personal witness
2) How does Jesus personally calling Matthew make any difference? He also personally called Simon and Andrew and James and John (Mt 4:18-21) and later Paul.
3) If he was of the same age as Jesus, then if Matthew was even alive at all, he would have been in diapers, and not in any position to write anything down.

So none of these three arguments "prove" that Matthew witnessed Jesus's birth, and you have no other witnesses who can corroborate that any other Christians have ever believed this theory in the past 2000 years.
---StrongAxe on 8/16/10


It might help with some folk's understanding if you simply ridded yourself of the word "testament." Does God write wills, or does he makes covenants? The issue with the word is "b'rit" (a covenant cut with blood) does not translate into Greek exactly, and diatheke is as close as Greek can come to that concept... hence "testament" comes into play.

Also, when 2 Tim 3:16-17 was written, there was no NT. It would be a couple of hundred years before there would be. So is the NT inspired? I say yes... but that doesn't change the fact that Paul was not referencing the NT in those verses. Only the Torah and Prophets existed as "scripture" in that day.
Peace.
Ken
---Ken_Rank on 8/16/10


atrongax, I have already shown my word to be true, but you dis my word because my word has no place in you: 1) Matthew records, "Now the birth of Jesus Christ being this:..." Matthew 1:18, and Matthew records the very explicit details of Jesus' birth. 2) Jesus personally calls Matthew to be one of his twelve disciples to be with him in his ministry. 3) Jesus calls Matthew a "brother" signifying Matthew is his contemporary of about the same age, and not an old man.
---Eloy on 8/16/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Stocks


Eloy:

Why should "your word have place in me" when you have not shown it to be true? I accept God's word, but why should I accept yours? You are not God.

I repeatedly ask you for proofs from scripture (or at least some respected authority), but you call such requests disrespect. You yourself refuse to respect the Bible's own repeated admonitions that all truth shall be established by 2-3 witnesses, instead relying only on your own uncorroborated opinions.

You sometimes quote scriptures, but they often say nothing to the issue at hand (for example, Matthew never once claims to be present when Jesus is born, and I challenge you to find any verse that explicitly says he was).
---Strongaxe on 8/16/10


Eloy:

Matthew does not claim that he was an eyewitness to the birth of Jesus - why do you? You are the only one I have ever heard who believes this. There is no scriptural proof for this.

If I write "John F. Kennedy was elected president in 1960", you cannot conclude from this whether or not I was present at the time - there is nothing in what I wrote that indicates one way or other. It is the same way with Matthew's gospel. He indicates what happens in the past, but he does not indicate whether he himself was present at the time.
---StrongAxe on 8/15/10


strongax, you dis my word, because my word has no place in you. The person that is of God hears God's words, and the person that is not of God hears not me...next disser please.
---Eloy on 8/16/10


Steveng, Matthew's witness is his eye-witness, and Christ also called Matthew to be one of his disciples.
---Eloy on 8/15/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Diabetes


Steveng, the gospel may be "past tense" to you, but to those of us with Christ he is "very present tense".
---Eloy on 8/15/10


Any words that I write will already be past tense because I am not in the middle of writing a word, but the words have already been written on the page. But does this mean that what I have written is "in the past tense" as though years have gone by, as dissers wrongly say of the eye-witness account by Matthew did not eye-witness the gospel but instead have wrongly gotten the gospel from some other person in the past? No, by no means. For that what you witness that will you declare what you have both seen and heard: and "seen and heard" is also "seeing and hearing" that what you have "seen and heard".
---Eloy on 8/15/10


Eloy:

You said "I commonly present many fine details from the scriptures that many natural folk never note when the read the Bible"

Despite your multiple assertions that Matthew was an eyewitness to Jesus's birth, and my repeated requests that you show some proof of this, you don't give any. All you do is keep saying I can't see what is plainly visible. Well, if it's so plainly visible, why are you the only person on the planet that can see them?

I don't diss you. I just ask you to corroborate your claims with another witness (as the Bible often demands), but you never do.

Matthew 1-2 are in the PAST tense - from the perspective of a historian or archivist. It does not imply Matthew was an eyewitness.
---StrongAxe on 8/15/10


Eloy: "...and he describes Jesus' birth in detail, which private details he would not know nor could he record them unless he was witness to his birth."

Have you forgotten the purpose of the Holy Ghost? The gospels were written decades after the birth of Jesus. The Holy Spirit brought to rememberance any details of all events that happened in their lives or what was important to the events. Just as the Holy Spirit brings to rememberance any biblical studies you have done.

Besides, much of the gospels are written in past tense. If they were written as they occured, they would be written in present tense.

John 14:26
John 16:4
Acts 11:16
---Steveng on 8/15/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Depression


strongax, I can lead a horse to water, but I cannot make you drink the water. I commonly present many fine details from the scriptures that many natural folk never note when the read the Bible. And those choosing to dis the truth and remain in their darkness can never know the truth. Instead of dissing, I encourage you that if and when you read the scriptures to pay some attention to the details that are written therein, rather than just reading over them and reading through the words without thinking about the details that are manifested.
---Eloy on 8/15/10


Matthew records, "Now the birth of Jesus Christ being this:..." Matthew 1:18, and Matthew records the very explicit details of Jesus' birth.
---Eloy on 8/15/10


Eloy:

Once again, you are making assertions, but not providing any corroborating witnesses. Do you have ANY corroboration, other than just your own speculations and conclusions? If so, please share them.

How do you know Matthew was an eyewitness to Jesus's birth, and not just recording events witnessed by others? The Bible does not make any kind of assertion one way or the other.

Matthew 1 covers thousands of years - if he witnessed that he would be 4000+ years old. And if not, why insist he witnessed Matthew 2+ but not Matthew 1?

Also, if Matthew was a contemporary of Jesus, it is just as likely that he was around the same age - so if he was even alive when Jesus was born, he was probably still in diapers.
---StrongAxe on 8/15/10


strongax, As Jesus ministered his words with signs following, the scribes of the day were documenting every detail. Matthew began writing his gospel in 5 B.C, and finished it in 28 A.D. He was witness to Jesus' noble nativity and recorded it in the first two chapters when he was 12, and then after 30 years when he was 42 years old, and during the time of John the Baptist in 26 A.D. he started documenting again and recorded the beginning of Jesuss ministry. And Jesus called Matthew a brother signifying he was a contemporary of about the same age. Matthew finished his witness in 28 A.D. when he was 44.
---Eloy on 8/15/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Study


Eloy:

You keep claiming that Matthew was an eyewitness to Jesus's birth, but HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS? Matthew never claims this in his gospel at all. Neither does any other Bible author, nor did any of the leaders of the early church. Where did you get this theory?

You keep claiming that this is "truth" but you cannot provide anyone else who proclaims it other than yourself. By rejecting this so-called "truth", I am not "dissing" you. I am merely calling you to the standard (i.e. two or three witnesses) that the Bible itself demands for all truth. If you don't respect that standard, then it is YOU who is dissing the Bible itself.
---StrongAxe on 8/14/10


I know details about Christ from witnesses and those that wrote from witness accounts.
I believe Matthew to be the latter in regards to His birth and early years before He met the tax collector.
---micha9344 on 8/14/10


strongax, why stumble only at the truth that Matthew recorded the minute details of Jesus' birth because he indeed was witness to his Jesus' birth just as he recorded it, and instead move on further into your diising and say, as many lost souls do, "There is no proof that Matthew wrote his witness, nor proof that there was a Matthew nor proof that there was a Jesus nor proof that any word came from God nor proof that there is a God at all? and perhaps there is no Eloy either, for we have no proof that Eloy is Eloy, or even how do we know that there is a strongax? Next disser please...
---Eloy on 8/14/10


To illustrate the truth it is recorded: Eloy replies to this blog when he is in his house and it is dark outside, on Saturday morning August 14, 2010 A.D., at 3:00 a.m. when it is 66 degrees farenheit from a city in Pennsylvania in North America. And at this time there is a great effort to stop a very massive oil leak off the coast and the gigantic clean up of the waters and the coasts is in progress. Now consider this, did Eloy write this witness on this blog decades after Saturday morning August 14, 2010 A.D.? So in like manner, in truth was the detailed witness by Matthew written at the chronicled time that I have posted.
---Eloy on 8/14/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Verses


Eloy:

The Holy Spirit has not revealed this "truth" to anyone else (at least not anyone else who has ever talked about it). Thus, you remain the single and only witness.

The fact that Matthew wrote about what happened in 5 B.C. does not "prove" he wrote it down at that same time, any more than the fact that Genesis talks about the 6 days of creation "proves" it was written before Adam was created.

You yourself are writing about this, but I don't think for a moment that you or I or anyone else on this blog believes that your blog posts are dated 5 B.C. It IS possible to write about things AFTER they happen.
---StrongAxe on 8/13/10


strongax, The holy Word from God and his manifested Spirit along with myself are my proven witnesses which bear witness to the truth: hear this witness, rather than searching on the net which is full of worldly false witness. The witness of Matthew writes revealing Jesus' prophesied heirship has come, and after listing his genealogy from his earthly father Joseph, he writes: "Now the birth of Jesus Christ being this:..." Matthew 1:18. and he describes Jesus' birth in detail, which private details he would not know nor could he record them unless he was witness to his birth.
---Eloy on 8/13/10


Eloy:

Sorry, it was a typo. You wrote 5 B.C. rather than 5 A.D. Nevertheless, you didn't address the rest of my questions. What evidence do you have that Matthew himself was an eyewitness to Jesus's birth? Do you also make the same claim about Mark, Luke, and John as well? If so, why not? I have never heard such claims from anyone else but you (and I just looked for other references online and couldn't find any either). So, if you have any evidence of this, please share it with us.

Otherwise, we must treat it merely as unsubstantiated opinion. The Bible repeatedly requires that truth be established by two or three witnesses, not based on the testimony of one witness alone.
---StrongAxe on 8/13/10


strongax, 5 A.D.? Please re-read my words of truth that I posted below. I have written 5 B.C., and not 5 A.D. Matthew recorded the details of the birth of Yeshuah ha Meshiach in 5 B.C.
---Eloy on 8/13/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Arthritis


Eloy:

You keep claiming the gospels were written starting in 5 A.D. Do you have any evidence to substantiate this other than your own opinions? Do you seriously believe Paul wrote letters to the churches in Asia before they were established, or Jesus chastised and praised churches that didn't exist yet? I have never heard such theories from anyone else, ever. Again, I remind you of the "two or three witnesses" standard the Bible requires.

Luke 24:44 happened around 30 AD, but Luke could have written it at any time after that. Revelation 1:1,2,19 give similarly little to no clue to when they were written (expecially 19, which talks about things in the past, present, and future - so it could be ANY time).
---StrongAxe on 8/12/10


Rom. 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime(O.T.) were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.
---michael_e on 8/12/10


The OT is still profitable. It is like an Operating-System on which the new testament works. Though some things in the OT are accomplished and or changed, but a lot of the instructions and prophecies are still useful for ALL today and some of the prophecies are not yet fulfilled. All the written word(s) quoted by the Lord Jesus Christ to the devil were from the OT, the greatest commandment and the 2nd which is like it were from God's word in the OT and they are still relevant and VERY PROFITABLE.
---Adetunji on 8/12/10


About the earliest Christian writings were Paul's letters to various churches these could be as early is 40 - 50 CE. Little to no mission activity was coming out of the Jerusalem church they were totally introverted about taking care of just their own members. The church at little Antioch was the seat of mission activity and they sponsored Paul and Barnabas the best guess is the Gospels were penned between 65 and 90 CE. There is some evidence of recording of saying of Jesus were recorded but the did not actively circulate and dating is difficult at best. About the only accounts we know of that were recorded during Christ life time were spy reports to Pontius Pilate as recorded in his letters to Seneca.
---Friendly_Blogger on 8/12/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Asthma


Cluny, Obtain a copy of the New Testament scriptures, it is not any vague generalizations written long after the fact, but instead very minute details are recorded from the exact time of the day up to the private conversations that Jesus had with the writers. But come on now, if you want to keep dissing the detailed record, then why continue to come to this Christian website where I frequently post the record? Could it be that you know that the New Testament is the true eye-witness account recorded by the disciples of our Lord, and that you are drawn to the gospel record of truth?
---Eloy on 8/12/10


strongax, The N.T. began to be recorded by Matthew in 5 B.C., and finished by John around the 3rd decade A.D. (Lk.24:44+ Rev.1:1,2,19).
---Eloy on 8/12/10


The Bible says the OT is good for doctrine.

2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.


2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:


2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Many add manmade traditions started centuries after the early church and say these are also equal to the Bible.
---Samuel on 8/12/10


\\Steven, the New Testament most certainly did exist for the early church, for as Jesus was ministering, every detail of his words and works were being recorded.
---Eloy on 8/12/10\\

Oh, come on, Eloy.

You don't really think that everything Jesus said and did was being written down as it was happening, do you?

The Gospels themselves refute that idea.

Are not these verses in your Bible?

Luke 1:1-3

John 21:25, which clearly says that all the things Jesus said and did were NOT written down.
---Cluny on 8/12/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Cholesterol


Eloy:

Most of the New Testament was not yet available to New Testament churches. For example, the 1st letter to the Corinthians did not exist when the church in Corinth was founded - only much later, when Paul felt it necessary to write to them. And the second letter was written later still. And if both of these letters were available to other churches, they would not have been available until even later than they were to Corinth. The same also applies to the other epistles. The Revelation was only written after John was imprisoned on Patmos for many years - at which point most of the New Testament churches had been going strong for many years (enough for Jesus to have something useful to critique them about).
---StrongAxe on 8/12/10


Steven, the New Testament most certainly did exist for the early church, for as Jesus was ministering, every detail of his words and works were being recorded.
---Eloy on 8/12/10


Because I am smart and the living God, well, He lives in me, strongax, that is how I know that EVERY SINGLE WORD IN GOD'S WORD IS TRUE. God has made me very intelligent. So, therefore, I know.
---catherine on 8/12/10


catherine:

I'm curious - how could you possibly know every single word of the Bible if you've never read it from cover to cover?
---StrongAxe on 8/11/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Lasik Surgery


\\Abraham lied twice about Sarah being his sister.\\

Actually, Abraham was telling the truth, Sarah was his half-sister, as he explains.
---Cluny on 8/11/10


The new testament did not exist in the early church. What scriptures did the Bereans and others search to prove that the apostles were telling the truth?

God's laws are the same from the beginning, today and will continue into the future. Many christians are confused about the difference between to old convenant and the new. Simply put, the covenants are like a home mortgage, the laws are the same, but the terms are different. In fact, the terms are more difficult to obey (for instance, in the OT, it was a sin to actually murder someone. In the NT, even if you think about it).

In the OT, people dealt directly with God, in the NT we have a mediator - Jesus the Christ.
---Steveng on 8/11/10


"The Ten Commandments", and God, says, "yes". Any person who claims to be a Christian, and these people do not believe the Old as well as the New Testament, then these people have never truly been SAVED. I know that the whole Bible every single word in the Bible is true. I am so proud of it, and I haven't even read the Bible through from cover to cover. Yet, I know it's true, because I am truly saved. I have God's Blood in me and on me. All the proof I need. That God is real and so is His word. Ahh. Hallelujah!
---catherine on 8/11/10


The Old Testament Law is history, but the New Testament Law is currently in force.
---Eloy on 8/11/10

So die our fathers and grandfathers,remembered in honor. But, produced the man of today.
Bereans knew where to look for proof, and the apostles referred often....for proof.

The doctrinal product that the new and improved denoms sell today, is low calorie, with false man-u-factored ingredients.
Yuk.
Psalm 119:118
Thou hast trodden down all them that err from thy statutes: for their deceit is falsehood.
---Trav on 8/11/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Bullion


Yes it is profitable. From it we can learn that God can use people who make mistakes.

Moses killed before he became the mighty deliverer.

Noah got drunk and God chose him to save from the flood and build an ark.

Abraham lied twice about Sarah being his sister.

It has wonderful history/stories that we can all learn from. I love Isaiah, the Psalms, Proverbs, Jeremiah, Deuteronomy. I love the Old Testament as well as the New. How could you not? It's all God's word.
---Donna5535 on 8/11/10


The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.

And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations

Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.



I guess you have to believe it for yourself!

Repent ye, and believe the gospel.

For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

GodBless
---TheSeg on 8/11/10


Yes, the Old Testament is profitable for Christians today. The Bible says in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 that ALL scripture (O.T. & N.T.) is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that Christians may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
---Leslie on 8/11/10


YES
As the Gospel began to spread, and the church began to grow, problems, and issues came up. The apostles dealt with the problems by sending ministers, making personal visits, and writing letters to the churches. The NT letters were written to encourage the saints, and to correct doctrines and negative behavours. The apostles did not introduce any new materials, but rely strickly on what was written in the OT, especially thebooks of moses and Isaiah. In the Book of revelation 80% of the verses are found in the OT.

The word " scripture" in the NT refers to what is writen in the OT.

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines.
---francis on 8/11/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Menopause


The Old Testament Law is history, but the New Testament Law is currently in force.
---Eloy on 8/11/10


jerry, The o.t. contains some teachings that coorespond to the N.T. teachings, and there are prophesies in the o.t. that have not happened yet. Be careful, leaven-binding is sin. There are 2 Testaments, 2 Covenants, the old and The New: the old dispensation was the Levitical-Mosaic Law of B.C. before Christ, and the New Dispensation is the Judaic-Messianic Law of A.D. in the annual of the Lord. The old testament is the ministry of death, and the New Testament is the ministry of life. Jesus did not come to reestablish the old testament which was already being practiced at the time that he came to earth, but instead he came to establish his New Laws and his New Commandments which supercedes his old laws and old commandments which are abolished.
---Eloy on 8/11/10


Don't forget, there are very good examples of how not to act, too, especially in the OT.

Remember, the Bible simply shows people how they are, warts and all.
---Cluny on 8/11/10


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.