Question for Christians?

[NancyBlackett]

I'm not going to go into it, because I'm done with religious debates and stuff but I just wanted to point out something about the old vs the new testament. I believe the old testament was to prove how man needed a saviour. The purification the dealing with sin in an imperfect way (cleansing rituals, stoning etc) was to show that no matter what, it was impossible for man to deal with sin and is the reason why we needed a saviour. God didn't change his mind, sin still needed to be dealt with...the wages of sin was STILL death. But he did do was he offered his own Son, who he loved to pay that wage....he died! Thus there is now no need for all the rituals the sacrifices and the stonings (killings) to deal with sin. Christ was made the sacrificial lamb that was slaughtered and bled to wash our sins away, he paid the price (death) so that we don't have to.

The old testament demonstrates to us how much man needed a saviour, how corrupt man could be, how little could be done by man to deal with the corruption. It also showed the faith of those who looked foward to the cross (that hadn't happened yet) like Abraham. Whereas we now look back at the cross in faith.

That's the way I see it anyway.

Completely random post from me - and this is literally the only post I have read in this thread as I accidentally clicked on it and that is where it opened.

This is a really interesting interpretation of the Old v New Testament and not one I can recall coming across for quite some time - if at all.

Thank you.

[JohnC]

The OP expressed the central question of this thread as follows*:

I really desperately want to believe but I cant bring myself to believe everything that is written in the bible.

This seems to me a valid concern on at least two counts, which have been discussed so far:
1) The Bible contradicts what are now known facts of science.
2) Theologically, the Bible contradicts itself and the beliefs of "bible-believing" Christians.

The second point arises with the wholly orthodox position stated above: that the sacrifice of Jesus essentially abolishes the law of the OT. But that is not what Jesus actually says in, for instance, Matthew 5:

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. (ESV)

So either Jesus is wrong, or Matthew is wrong in his report, or the OT Law still holds (except, arguably, where explicitly overriden by decisions of the early Church, specifically in regard to diet and circumcision).

_________________________________
* A restate for the benefit of those who think this thread has gone "off-topic".