Here is a helpful introductory discussion of how think about the Old Testament and how it may or may not apply to Christians. It touches on the understanding that is necessary to properly apply the Old Testament and avoid misunderstanding and/or abusing the Old Testament in order to make a point for or against the Christian. Misunderstanding and/or abuse is not limited to the non-Christians. Many professing Christians have such a superficial understanding of their own faith that they will even give inappropriate answers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JV44w7BUVEk

In His Grip,

christian_concern@yahoo.com

So does it apply or doesn't it? I mean in a canonical sense. This is a yes/no answer, btw.

Well, if you listened/watched the video, the point he was making is that there is no simple yes or no answer to the question. In fact, answering so simply when the answer is more complicated, often does violence to the text. So does it apply to the Christian, yes it can, but in what ways or in what sense the Old Testament applies has to be answered in more detail. And also, simply because it can doesn't mean that it always does.

In His Grip,

christian_concern@yahoo.com

Basically he says you need to work it out for yourself how it applies. Sounds like how I would read the NT.

But the problem is with Paul's statement that the older works aren't to be followed any more. Is that correct or not? If you believe what he said, then you're left with it being a bunch of fables and interesting side history and nothing more. If you don't believe him, then it all has to apply.

The only loophole is if you don't believe that the New Testament is valid all of the time and is open to interpretation. Now, that's a fine position to have as any other, but I wonder where Gom stands on this issue?

Some of the old Testament applies to Christianity and contains spiritual truth and and some of it does not--the same as the New Testament and anything created by men.

Christianity has no relevant connection with the (so-called) Old Testament. The (so-called) unauthorised (Greek/Roman) New Testament is purely derived from Saul/Paul's febrile imagination.

True, Saul/Paul dips into the 'Old Testament' but highly selectively to 'prove' his point of view and those dips are at best partial and at worst completely skewed - since he aimed his writings at the biblically illiterate Gentiles he had no nay sayers - apart from the Qumran community who described him as a clown and the spouter of lies. Once the Jewish people were extirpated there was no opposition to Saul/Paul's rabid nonsense.

There is no biblical (Old Testament) justification for any 'new' testament.

If one accepts the existence of Jesus as per the gospels then he taught his followers for 3 plus years - then along comes Saul/Paul with a self claimed 'vision' and a whole religion is spawned.

(An analogy might be drawn here: I spent 3 years studying literature for my first degree. Then someone who comes along and claims he 'saw' a book in a vision is ceded precedence over my long years of reading. If it was a genuine book or merely a book like thing cannot be verified and has to be taken on trust - since the claimant is a highly dubious character who it is claimed had a conversion experience mirroring exactly a scene from Euripides' "The Bacchae" one should treat his words with less than a pinch of salt)

It is fair to say that Saul/Paul is the forerunner of the thousands of false teachers and false prophets who claim all manner of heavenly visitations and curse those who fail to agree with them. Saul/Paul is arguably the first great cult leader of the common era.

So, Christians can keep their religion but they should not try to apply the 'Old testament' to it as the resulting tension can lead to nervous breakdowns, depression and worse.

There is a great deal of the Old Testament and the teachings of Paul that agree with the teachings of Jesus and the concept that God is a loving Creator that wants us to become loving beings. This can be recognized without nevous breakdowns, depression and worse.

Or so it would appear on the surface. But the second that you try to question that "view", Paul just goes off and starts essentially ranting. He's bigoted, dogmatic, and extremely driven. These are not exactly good qualities in a writer. He sounds more like a modern day radio show host than a wise man, at least to me.

He is a man and he made mistakes including his theology. Some of the writtings attributed to him may have been written by someone else by the way. We cannot be sure. We can be sure that some of his writtings are brilliant and divinely true. See 1 Cor 13 and tell me that is bigoted, dogmatic, and wrong or Rom 14 or his teaching that we are all one in Christ and there is no Jew nor Greek, slave or free or male or female or his teaching that all that matters is we love others..and we should maintain our freedom in Christ not submitting to the rules of men--Galatians 5.

I almost seems as if there are two "Paul"s. Or maybe several. I think this is more likely the case, that editors took a lot of license in the early years to change things to their liking.

There are two of everyman--two of me and two of you when it comes to our views and opinions. One moment we are brilliant and the next we are idiots. The best we can hope for or expect in ourselves and others is to have more of the former.

I've been loving your posts lately Elman