Let's get something straight, the old testament is considered a part of the bible only because through the prophecies in it can Christians claim that Jesus was or is the Messiah. Otherwise the old testament is only a recopilation of Jewish stories which are the basis of their religion.
Without the old testament their is no new testament because there would be nothing to back the theory of Jesus' divinity.
And face it, the old testament is a depraved book, I don't remember where but it says if you have a rebel child take him to the elders of the town and then have him stoned to death. Would the God of the new testament really ask for this or are we talking about 2 different Gods?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I think the Gospel of John can stand on its own. I think if someone only read that 1 book, a new & better Christianity would become clear.
The Old Testament is a deprived story because it took place in a deprived barbaric time... its not a how-to book.
Then why use it? And another thing what we know as the new testament was a recopilation of a lot of manuscripts which were decided on by at least three synods of the church centuries after they were written, a church which by this time and according to protestants was already corrupted by satan, so I think we are in trouble if we think about this. Remember many manuscripts were left out solely on the decisipns of fallible human beings, so even if we are dealing with divine words, how can we be sure what we have now is what God wanted us to have? By believing in corrupt clerics?
Hey, great points!
In one aspect, we don't need it. The first church did not have a Bible until 150 years after the death of Jesus. That was also the largest time at church growth. They truly live by the Spirit. Even after the Bible was put together, most people were illiterate anyway…
This is a quick reply more later…