• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

What's new about the New Testament?

O

Old Paths Gardener

Member
Female
A question I often pondered when I was still atheist (and then a lot more when I actually started seeking truth) was: "What's new about the New Testament?"

I have my beliefs about this, but I'd much rather hear what others have to say; hoping for a peaceful discussion. Thanks.
 
Old Paths Gardener said:
A question I often pondered when I was still atheist (and then a lot more when I actually started seeking truth) was: "What's new about the New Testament?"

I have my beliefs about this, but I'd much rather hear what others have to say; hoping for a peaceful discussion. Thanks.
Click to expand...
In my experience, this topic of discussion never ends up peaceful
 
Asforme&myhouse said:
I just grabbed my pork rinds....

JK, does anybody even eat those disgusting things? They must or they wouldn’t sell them I guess.
Click to expand...
I used to. They were great when I was pregnant, really helped with morning sickness. Salty crunchy protein was perfect.
 
Old Paths Gardener said:
A question I often pondered when I was still atheist (and then a lot more when I actually started seeking truth) was: "What's new about the New Testament?"

I have my beliefs about this, but I'd much rather hear what others have to say; hoping for a peaceful discussion. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Since Scripture never refers to 'old' or 'new' in regards to the writings, I suppose we shouldn't. Per Jeremiah 31, both 'old' and 'new' covenants affect the same thing: Torah in/on the heart.
 
Old Paths Gardener said:
A question I often pondered when I was still atheist (and then a lot more when I actually started seeking truth) was: "What's new about the New Testament?"

I have my beliefs about this, but I'd much rather hear what others have to say; hoping for a peaceful discussion. Thanks.
Click to expand...
The good news that the prophesies had been fulfilled and the promise of redemption for Israel kept.

Because only Israel was in transgression of the covenant, only Israel needed to be redeemed. This is why the disciples were sent to the "lost sheep of the house of Israel," to let them know that the time of their chastisement had been fulfilled and that they had been reconciled back to YHWH.
Those were the "Other sheep....not of this fold" that He said needed to hear so there would be one fold and one shepherd. These also fulfilled the prophesy in Ezekiel about the two houses (two sticks) being reunited.

YHWH said though that He would gather others, besides those that were already gathered, and called them strangers, so those of faith are the bride in Revelation inviting all to come and partake of the water of life freely.
 
The thing that separates the OT from the NT is the page that has the title The New Testament on it.
Otherwise it is a continuation of the story that started in Genesis.
 
Old Paths Gardener said:
A question I often pondered when I was still atheist (and then a lot more when I actually started seeking truth) was: "What's new about the New Testament?"
Click to expand...
Several good answers in here. The references to prophecies fulfilled (like "the Torah Made Flesh" and of course Moses' in Deuteronomy 18:15 about a "prophet like unto me" (ironic, isn't it, that much of the 'church' STILL won't "hearken" unto Him) are key, as is the observation in Acts 17:11 that would STILL be, whether it was called "new" or not.

So, I, too, reject the misnomer "new" (almost as much since it implies "old" - meaning 'done away with'). While the Hebrew moniker "Brit Chadasha" is better rendered "RE-Newed Covenant" (since it's "My covenant," He said in YermeYahu 31, "which ya'll broke") I tend to refer to those Books after the artificial page divider as "Apostolic Writings".
 
FollowingHim said:
If you put the Apocrypha back in to flesh out the 400-year gap between the "old" and "new" testaments that has been artificially created in Protestant bibles by dropping out the relevant books, then the whole Bible is even more clearly a single continuous narrative.
Click to expand...
I like to think of the Old and New Testaments in terms of "Promise and Fulfillment". In Genesis, God promised the Saviour. The Law and Prophets keep pointing to the coming King. In the Gospel of Matthew, He arrives.

The Apocryphal books contain some helpful material, but do not seem to be the breathed out Word of God like the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament or the Twenty-Six of the New. I believe the Protestants were quite correct to remove these extra non-authoritative books. The Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles do not seem to regard them as Scripture.
 
Bartato said:
I like to think of the Old and New Testaments in terms of "Promise and Fulfillment". In Genesis, God promised the Saviour. The Law and Prophets keep pointing to the coming King. In the Gospel of Matthew, He arrives.

The Apocryphal books contain some helpful material, but do not seem to be the breathed out Word of God like the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament or the Twenty-Six of the New. I believe the Protestants were quite correct to remove these extra non-authoritative books. The Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles do not seem to regard them as Scripture.
Click to expand...
27 New Testament books. Ha! What a Dummy I can be. ☺️

Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure the Apocrypha isn't Scripture.
 
Bartato said:
The Apocryphal books contain some helpful material, but do not seem to be the breathed out Word of God like the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament or the Twenty-Six of the New. I believe the Protestants were quite correct to remove these extra non-authoritative books. The Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles do not seem to regard them as Scripture.
Click to expand...

I don't see how the apocryphal books are any more or less "inspired" then say the book of Esther. Let alone the idea that a bunch of pastoral letters are on the same authority level as God's direct instructions to Moses.

The entirety of the "new" testament isn't recognized as scripture by Jesus while he walked the earth. I don't think that means none of it can be regarded as such. But, I do think there is a pretty clear difference between a prophetic vision given to John and a personal letter from Luke detailing the Acts of the Apostles.
 
StudentofHim said:
I don't see how the apocryphal books are any more or less "inspired" then say the book of Esther. Let alone the idea that a bunch of pastoral letters are on the same authority level as God's direct instructions to Moses.

The entirety of the "new" testament isn't recognized as scripture by Jesus while he walked the earth. I don't think that means none of it can be regarded as such. But, I do think there is a pretty clear difference between a prophetic vision given to John and a personal letter from Luke detailing the Acts of the Apostles.
Click to expand...
That’s a slippery slope.
 
The Revolting Man said:
That’s a slippery slope.
Click to expand...
Perhaps it is slippery in terms of sliding away from the protestant tradition. The new and old testaments are man made divisions. The chapters and verses (and even some of the books) are man made divisions. Is it really that slippery to say that perhaps "apocryphal" is just another man made division?

My understanding: Torah is the authority. Nothing else is on the same level. I prefer to test all scripture against Torah than to rely on some council 500 odd years ago having made the right decisions on what books to keep or remove (especially when those same men started so many of the heinous doctrines we see today).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top