Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!apple!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Why a New Testament? Message-ID: Date: 22 Jan 91 06:57:45 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of NC at Charlotte Lines: 159 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , usul@auc.UUCP (Ron McBay) writes: > The following are some fundamental questions I have never been able to receive > a satisfactory answer to when I've asked them of people before. The answers > that people have provided me in the past don't make sense to me. Here goes: > > Why was it necessary for there to be a New Testament? For the same reasons that it was necessary to have the books of Deut., Num., Levt., etc. God's message was still not complete. Was the message that > God gave to the Jews incomplete? Did new times require a different message? Before Jesus Christ, all offerings for sin were simply inadequate for salvation. They were simply a symbol of the true salvation yet to come. Only with Christ's death and resurrection was there a fulfillment of God's promises for the cleansing of sin. New times did require a different message. Before Christ, man lived under the law. He/She was not indwelled by the Holy Spirit as we are today. Before Christ, people lived in the age of the Father, under the law, which meant that they were justified by faith. God related to man by speaking directly to his prophets, who then spoke to the people. After Christ's resurrection, we came into the age of grace. People who accept Jesus as Lord and Savior are indwelled by the Holy Spirit, which enables us to have a more direct link to God than we had in the age of the Father. Now, God speaks to man through the Holy Spirit. Now, God writes his laws upon our hearts, and we don't need to go through a prophet to understand what God wants us to do. > Do Christians believe that Christ's message in the New Testament applies to > the Jews also, or does it only apply to Gentiles? It applies to Jew and Gentile. If the New Testament also > applies to the Jews, then what did the Jews do wrong that required Christ to > come and deliver a new message? Like the Gentiles, all of the Jews had sinned. Thus, they also needed a covering for sin, which is Jesus Christ. Christ, who is God Himself, did "...not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it." Jesus Christ was God's promise to the Hebrews. From the time of Adam and Eve, God had been promising an Annointed One. God promised to bless Isaac, David, etc. by sending the Messiah through their linage. If the New Testament does not apply to the > Jews, how do you reconcile the same God requiring two different modes of > behavior from two separate groups? This is an excellent deduction which simply proves the fact that God measures all of us by the same standards. Why aren't Christians required to keep > kosher if the same God (i.e., the God of Abraham), told the Jews to do so? Part of the old law died with Christ and we are no longer bound to it. Modern-day Jews may think that they have to be Kosher, but God does not require them to be kosher. > I have never been able to understand how Christians (and Moslems) can believe > that the same God delivers separate messages to the Jews, Christians > and Moslems. It seems to me that there should be one truth that applies to > all people for all time. > First, Christians believe that God delivers one message to all of us. We do not believe that anyone will get to Heaven simply on the virtues of Islam or what we know as modern-day Judaism. You are correct in deducing that there is one truth that applies to all people for all time. Now, for the heading. Let's define "Jew." There are many places in the Bible that tell us that we become a Jew by following Christ. In Romans (ch 8 or 9 ?) Paul tells us that , "...it is not the physical descendents of Abraham that are regarded as Abraham's offspring, but rather the children of the promise are counted for the seed." The promise is the promise of Jesus Christ, who is also called the Seed. In Genesis, God told Abraham that ALL NATIONS would be blessed through him. In a later book (which slips my mind at the moment), God even said that he would raise up his own crop of Israelites. There are other references in Galatians and Ephesians. In all, I have understood that one who is a physical descendent of Abraham but does not believe in Christ is not cosidered to be Abraham's child. Yet, one who is not Abraham's physical descendent but does have faith in Christ is regarded by God to be Abraham's child. > Ron McBay/Atlanta University Center| Early morning, April 4 > usul%auc.UUCP@mathcs.emory.edu | A shot rings out in the Memphis sky > UUCP: ...!{gatech,emory}!auc!usul | Free at last. They took your life > BITNET: USUL@EMORY | They could not take your pride. -- U2 > > of the rules involved in the covenant were not general > moral principles, but specific rites or signs associated > with the covenant (e.g. circumcision, which was the big > isssue in Acts). Christians don't agree about exactly > where the line is or how it should be drawn. In Romans, Paul is very clear that one who is circumcized in the flesh but not in the heart by the Holy Spirit ( and keep in mind that you have to accept to Christ to be indwelled by the Holy Spirit) is not counted as circumcized. On the other hand, one who is not circumcized in the flesh but is circumcized by the Holy Spirit is counted by God as being circumcized. Examples such as this say to me that there is no line to be drawn, especially since, as stated above, Christians are regarded as Abraham's offspring and are therefore, spiritual Jews. E.g. some > binding on Christians. But generally Christians do accept > that some portions of the OT are part of a specific > covenant with the Jews and do not apply to Gentile Christians. How do you understand this, and what is your scriptural backing for this belief? > was written, (2) the NT tends to be directed at Gentiles, to whom some > aspects of the covenant with the Jews do not apply. Again, what is your scriptural backing for this belief? We are told that Peter was a witness to the Jews and Paul was a witness to the Gentiles. Both contributed to the New Testament. Further, Jesus Christ came for both Jew and Gentile, and I am unaware of a single passage in which Jesus ever addressed any different treatment for Jews or Gentiles. Elizabeth > --clh] [My comments were meant to describe the reason that Christians generally do not keep the kosher laws or specific feasts, sacrificial practices, etc., described in the OT. Most Christians say that these things were associated with a covenant specific to the Jews, and do not apply to us. Common terminology distinguishes between a "moral law" which applies to all, and a "ceremonial law" which applied only to the Jews. There are of course other ways to deal with this issue, but I think the one I described is the most common. Biblical justification is in Acts 15 and a number of Paul's letters. --clh]