Are There Any Relationships Between The OT and The NT?

C_M_C_M_ Posts: 2,580

If not, why not? If so, what are some examples? Does the NT support, cites, contradicts, and/or supports the OT? Please give some examples. Is the OT subordinate to the NT? Are there any OT Books that parallels the NT? What doctrines transients both Testaments? Is Christianity or Christ different from the teachings of the OT? In short, is there a unity of the Christian Bible? CM

«1

Comments

  • GaoLuGaoLu Posts: 1,367
    Both are equally valid and tell ine continuing interwoven story. Neither trumps the other. Both add light to the other.
  • reformedreformed Posts: 1,983

    @GaoLu said:
    Both are equally valid and tell ine continuing interwoven story. Neither trumps the other. Both add light to the other.

    I agree with this statement.

  • GaoLuGaoLu Posts: 1,367

    It could be worded better if I wasn't thumbing my way on an iPhone keypad being jostled by a kajillion passengers thronging a mashed-full subway.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,260

    @C_M_ said:
    ... In short, is there a unity of the Christian Bible? CM

    In short, Yes there is unity in the books of OT and NT; one could say that the NT revelation is a continuation of the OT revelation

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,174

    Both are valid but it is impossible to uncover the spiritual truth in the OT apart from the NT. It remains locked for the most part except for history purposes.

    An example is: “When Israel was a child, then I loved him, And called my son out of Egypt.” (Hosea 11:1)

    “When he [Joseph] arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.” (Matthew 2:14–15)

    In this case Jesus is Israel, also confirmed by Paul as being Abraham's seed to the exclusion of the natural physical descendants.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,260

    Considering the relationship between passages in the OT scriptures and passages in the NT scriptures, one must be careful to note what kind of relationship indeed exists between passages (if there is any), and in particular note the direction in which the relationship exists so as to not interpret things "backwards".

  • reformedreformed Posts: 1,983

    @Dave_L said:
    Both are valid but it is impossible to uncover the spiritual truth in the OT apart from the NT. It remains locked for the most part except for history purposes.

    An example is: “When Israel was a child, then I loved him, And called my son out of Egypt.” (Hosea 11:1)

    “When he [Joseph] arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.” (Matthew 2:14–15)

    In this case Jesus is Israel, also confirmed by Paul as being Abraham's seed to the exclusion of the natural physical descendants.

    It is not impossible to uncover the spiritual truth in the OT apart from the NT. That is extreme hyperbole and nowhere near accurate.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,260
    edited October 8

    @reformed said:
    It is not impossible to uncover the spiritual truth in the OT apart from the NT. That is extreme hyperbole and nowhere near accurate.

    Here again an expression is used which makes me wonder what people are expecting or thinking => it's "SPIRITUAL truth". What is "SPIRITUAL truth"? Is that truth different from the truth revealed and stated in the text itself? Are there two or more kinds of truth (spiritual truth, natural truth, personal truth, textual truth, {some other} truth)?

    What Scripture states is truth ... in other words, what is stated in and conveyed by the text is true. It seems to me that those who believe that there is more than on truth in Scripture open a door to interpret own speculation into what Scripture actually reveals and states.

    Post edited by Wolfgang on
  • reformedreformed Posts: 1,983

    @Wolfgang said:

    @reformed said:
    It is not impossible to uncover the spiritual truth in the OT apart from the NT. That is extreme hyperbole and nowhere near accurate.

    Here again an expression is used which makes me wonder what people are expecting or thinking => it's "SPIRITUAL truth". What is "SPIRITUAL truth"? Is that truth different from the truth revealed and stated in the text itself? Are there two or more kinds of truth (spiritual truth, natural truth, personal truth, textual truth, {some other} truth)?

    What Scripture states is truth ... in other words, what is stated in and conveyed by the text is true. It seems to me that those who believe that there is more than on truth in Scripture open a door to interpret own speculation into what Scripture actually reveals and states.

    Do you believe it is possible for a non-believer to fully understand the Bible? I don't. I think there are things that we can only truly understand with the guidance of the Spirit.

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,174

    @reformed said:

    @Dave_L said:
    Both are valid but it is impossible to uncover the spiritual truth in the OT apart from the NT. It remains locked for the most part except for history purposes.

    An example is: “When Israel was a child, then I loved him, And called my son out of Egypt.” (Hosea 11:1)

    “When he [Joseph] arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.” (Matthew 2:14–15)

    In this case Jesus is Israel, also confirmed by Paul as being Abraham's seed to the exclusion of the natural physical descendants.

    It is not impossible to uncover the spiritual truth in the OT apart from the NT. That is extreme hyperbole and nowhere near accurate.

    How would you know Jesus is Israel based on the OT alone?

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,260
    edited October 8

    @reformed said:

    @Wolfgang said:

    @reformed said:
    It is not impossible to uncover the spiritual truth in the OT apart from the NT. That is extreme hyperbole and nowhere near accurate.

    Here again an expression is used which makes me wonder what people are expecting or thinking => it's "SPIRITUAL truth". What is "SPIRITUAL truth"? Is that truth different from the truth revealed and stated in the text itself? Are there two or more kinds of truth (spiritual truth, natural truth, personal truth, textual truth, {some other} truth)?
    What Scripture states is truth ... in other words, what is stated in and conveyed by the text is true. It seems to me that those who believe that there is more than on truth in Scripture open a door to interpret own speculation into what Scripture actually reveals and states.

    Do you believe it is possible for a non-believer to fully understand the Bible? I don't. I think there are things that we can only truly understand with the guidance of the Spirit.

    I believe that even believers will most likely never fully understand the Bible ... having been busy as a believer with reading, contemplating, praying, studying languages, etc for more than 4 decades, I know that I by far do not fully understand the Bible. But that is another point altogether ...

    Truth is that Scripture itself states that the things of God which have been revealed can and should be known in order to be obeyed and done (cp Deu 29:29). There is no mention in Scripture that believers can only understand Scripture when God personally reveals understanding to them by means of Spirit guidance, revelation. Eph 3:3-4 addresses how believers understand what has been revealed and written in the Scriptures ("Eph 3,3-4 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)"

    One of the major obstacles I have seen in those more than 4 decades is the delusion of "a personal revelation guidance by the Spirit to gain understanding of the Scriptures" some Christians are taught to believe ... which ends up that they start imagining and fantasizing in their minds and then boldly declare their "private interpretation" as "spiritual understanding" or "Spirit guided understanding" ... and of course the sheep in a congregation with such a leader, teacher, preacher dare not say anything against such teachings, because they have been programmed to believe that if they would do so they would be "doubting God the Holy Spirit", "disobeying the Holy Spirit" (when in truth, they would only be calling the preacher on the carpet for his false teaching

    Post edited by Wolfgang on
  • reformedreformed Posts: 1,983

    @Dave_L said:

    @reformed said:

    @Dave_L said:
    Both are valid but it is impossible to uncover the spiritual truth in the OT apart from the NT. It remains locked for the most part except for history purposes.

    An example is: “When Israel was a child, then I loved him, And called my son out of Egypt.” (Hosea 11:1)

    “When he [Joseph] arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.” (Matthew 2:14–15)

    In this case Jesus is Israel, also confirmed by Paul as being Abraham's seed to the exclusion of the natural physical descendants.

    It is not impossible to uncover the spiritual truth in the OT apart from the NT. That is extreme hyperbole and nowhere near accurate.

    How would you know Jesus is Israel based on the OT alone?

    Are you saying that is the only spiritual truth in the OT?

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,174

    Jesus is the Temple too according to the NT. And the church is the holy nation and royal priesthood. And David's Throne, where Jesus is seated presently is in heavenly Jerusalem above....

  • reformedreformed Posts: 1,983

    @Dave_L said:
    Jesus is the Temple too according to the NT. And the church is the holy nation and royal priesthood. And David's Throne, where Jesus is seated presently is in heavenly Jerusalem above....

    Jesus is the Temple?

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,174

    @reformed said:

    @Dave_L said:
    Jesus is the Temple too according to the NT. And the church is the holy nation and royal priesthood. And David's Throne, where Jesus is seated presently is in heavenly Jerusalem above....

    Jesus is the Temple?

    “Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body.” (John 2:19–21)

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,260

    I see a few examples of the very "backwards" interpretation which I pointed out in this post above

  • reformedreformed Posts: 1,983

    @Dave_L said:

    @reformed said:

    @Dave_L said:
    Jesus is the Temple too according to the NT. And the church is the holy nation and royal priesthood. And David's Throne, where Jesus is seated presently is in heavenly Jerusalem above....

    Jesus is the Temple?

    “Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body.” (John 2:19–21)

    That doesn't say He replaces THE temple. Scripture also says our bodies are a temple. Seems to me something is wrong with your interpretation here.

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,174

    @reformed said:

    @Dave_L said:

    @reformed said:

    @Dave_L said:
    Jesus is the Temple too according to the NT. And the church is the holy nation and royal priesthood. And David's Throne, where Jesus is seated presently is in heavenly Jerusalem above....

    Jesus is the Temple?

    “Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body.” (John 2:19–21)

    That doesn't say He replaces THE temple. Scripture also says our bodies are a temple. Seems to me something is wrong with your interpretation here.

    No, it means God does not dwell in temples made with hands.

  • reformedreformed Posts: 1,983

    @Dave_L said:

    @reformed said:

    @Dave_L said:

    @reformed said:

    @Dave_L said:
    Jesus is the Temple too according to the NT. And the church is the holy nation and royal priesthood. And David's Throne, where Jesus is seated presently is in heavenly Jerusalem above....

    Jesus is the Temple?

    “Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body.” (John 2:19–21)

    That doesn't say He replaces THE temple. Scripture also says our bodies are a temple. Seems to me something is wrong with your interpretation here.

    No, it means God does not dwell in temples made with hands.

    Yet where two or more are gathered in His name He is there. That can be a building. Do you honestly think God was only in the temple? God is everywhere. Your interpretation is falling apart.

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,174

    @reformed said:

    @Dave_L said:

    @reformed said:

    @Dave_L said:

    @reformed said:

    @Dave_L said:
    Jesus is the Temple too according to the NT. And the church is the holy nation and royal priesthood. And David's Throne, where Jesus is seated presently is in heavenly Jerusalem above....

    Jesus is the Temple?

    “Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body.” (John 2:19–21)

    That doesn't say He replaces THE temple. Scripture also says our bodies are a temple. Seems to me something is wrong with your interpretation here.

    No, it means God does not dwell in temples made with hands.

    Yet where two or more are gathered in His name He is there. That can be a building. Do you honestly think God was only in the temple? God is everywhere. Your interpretation is falling apart.

    There is no physical temple forecast in the NT.

  • GaoLuGaoLu Posts: 1,367

    Some good discussion above and it seems to me that we all agree that both NT and OT are valid and that they each add light to the other. We seem to agree that none of us fully understand everything we read there, and that we are on a journey of learning.

    Perhaps we do not agree on

    1. The role of the Holy Spirit in guiding discernment
    2. The meaning of "temple" as it used various places in the Bible

    I would like to see more discussion of #1.

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 2,580
    edited October 9

    @GaoLu said:
    Some good discussion above and it seems to me that we all agree that both NT and OT are valid and that they each add light to the other...
    Perhaps we do not agree on

    1. The role of the Holy Spirit in guiding discernment
    2. The meaning of "temple" as it used various places in the Bible

    I would like to see more discussion of #1.

    GaoLu,
    May I interest you to bridle your enthusiasm in your quest for knowledge? Consider with me the following:

    a. In light of your statements above, I think it would be advantageous for all to unpack the unearthed nuggets in the OP with examples and substantive verification of the concerns above. For example: What evidence is given by the writers in the books of the Bible from each of the divide (OT/NT)? Let's do more than say we all agree. What about the silent readers, first-time readers of the Bible and those inquiring from non-christian religions.
    b. I would appreciate if we would allow this thread to breathe before redirecting its exchanges without really providing substantive answers to all questions in the OP.
    c. If you and others insist on discussing "The role of the Holy Spirit in guiding discernment", you would do so in another or new thread.
    d. Whenever you do, hopefully elsewhere, may I suggest the following:

    1. Do we have a consensus and working knowledge of who the Holy Spirit is? Is the Holy Spirit a "He" or a "She", God, "wind", an "influence", a "figurative Holy Being", a "member of the Godhead" (Trinity-- A word not found in the Bible), etc.?
    2. When this is established, what is "His" (Holy Spirit) role in creation, salvation, redemption and/or the sustaining of man?
    3. What is the Holy Spirit's role in the inspiration of the Bible writers and the understanding of the student of the Word?
    4. Did the Holy Spirit had a role in the OT? What role he played in the NT and plays today?

    These and other questions need to be asked and answered for a fuller understanding for the Christian, the silent readers of CD, and those of non-christian religions. What says ye? CM

    Post edited by C_M_ on
  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,260

    and off from the original post regarding relationship between OT and NT we go again ... I am amazed how impossible it seems to just simply stay on topic ...

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 2,580

    Wolfgang, if you're referring my recent post, you can see, I am trying to stay on topic here. I hope my message got through. If not, boil my words down, this what I meant. Thanks. CM

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,260
    edited October 9

    @C_M_ said:
    Wolfgang, if you're referring my recent post, you can see, I am trying to stay on topic here. I hope my message got through. If not, boil my words down, this what I meant. Thanks. CM

    I was referring more in general to Dave_L and what followed in replies to his posts. Even in your recent post, it seemed to then go in the direction of a discussion about the Holy Spirit, etc rather than what the original topic was about ... relationship between OT and NT scriptures

    Post edited by Wolfgang on
  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,260
    edited October 9

    @Dave_L said:
    An example is: “When Israel was a child, then I loved him, And called my son out of Egypt.” (Hosea 11:1)

    “When he [Joseph] arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.” (Matthew 2:14–15)

    In this case Jesus is Israel, also confirmed by Paul as being Abraham's seed to the exclusion of the natural physical descendants.

    Hos 11 and the reference there to "Israel" is NOT speaking about Jesus ... or does anyone want to claim that Jesus "... sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images" (cp Hos 11:2, still speaking of "Israel") ???

    This above claim of "in this case [that is, in the case of Hos 11] Jesus is Israel" is plainly a false idea based on a "backwards interpretation".

    A more careful consideration of how the expression "so that it was fulfilled" or "that it might be fulfilled" is used in NT passages in relation to OT passages would be helpful to arrive at a correct understanding rather than a false one as in the above idea of "Jesus is Israel"

    Post edited by Wolfgang on
  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,260

    It also looks like a correct understanding of types and anti-types as seen in OT passages and NT passages would be helpful to avoid false correlations.

    When comparing OT passages about the tabernacle/temple and its priesthood and services with NT passages (e.g. in Hebrews) one can see how the OT physical earthly type pointed as sort of a foreshadow to the NT spiritual heavenly anti-type reality.
    However, that something in OT was a foreshadow of some reality in the NT does not mean that the NT reality was the OT foreshadow.

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,174

    @Wolfgang said:

    @Dave_L said:
    An example is: “When Israel was a child, then I loved him, And called my son out of Egypt.” (Hosea 11:1)

    “When he [Joseph] arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.” (Matthew 2:14–15)

    In this case Jesus is Israel, also confirmed by Paul as being Abraham's seed to the exclusion of the natural physical descendants.

    Hos 11 and the reference there to "Israel" is NOT speaking about Jesus ... or does anyone want to claim that Jesus "... sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images" (cp Hos 11:2, still speaking of "Israel") ???

    This above claim of "in this case [that is, in the case of Hos 11] Jesus is Israel" is plainly a false idea based on a "backwards interpretation".

    A more careful consideration of how the expression "so that it was fulfilled" or "that it might be fulfilled" is used in NT passages in relation to OT passages would be helpful to arrive at a correct understanding rather than a false one as in the above idea of "Jesus is Israel"

    Matthew says Jesus is Israel. So does Paul saying he is Abraham's seed, excluding the physical seed altogether.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,260

    @Dave_L said:
    Matthew says Jesus is Israel. So does Paul saying he is Abraham's seed, excluding the physical seed altogether.

    Keep repeating your incorrect interpretation ... by the way, so you are actually saying that Jesus sacrificed to Balaam and burned incense to graven images ... hmn

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,174

    @Wolfgang said:

    @Dave_L said:
    Matthew says Jesus is Israel. So does Paul saying he is Abraham's seed, excluding the physical seed altogether.

    Keep repeating your incorrect interpretation ... by the way, so you are actually saying that Jesus sacrificed to Balaam and burned incense to graven images ... hmn

    No, physical Israel was his progenitor.

Sign In or Register to comment.