Is It Fair To Use The O.t. In An Argument Against Christianity?

[duderonomy]

Were there Christians in the old testament of the Bible? 

[Thurisaz]

A case can probably made both ways; however, as long as morontheists babble about their ten commandments (in almost every single case displaying that they don't know them but that's another reason for them to feel like idiots), they accept the OT as valid for their cult and thus have to answer when we ask about all the atrocities in it. Well either that or admit to being both defeated and, again, idiots.

[bornagainathiest]

Does Jesus himself count, duderonomy?

 

Check out Joshua 5:13-15 and see what you think.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Vendredie]

It depends on the Christian in question.  Some put a lot of faith in the OT; most either ignore it other than the Ten Commandments, or realize that it's... erm... deeply flawed.

 

I wouldn't use the OT in an argument with a moderate or liberal Christian, but I totally would in an argument with a fundie or a creationist. 

[Ravenstar]

ayup... all's fair.

 

Without the original sin by Adam and Eve the NT doesn't make any sense. What need is there for a savior? If it's all just, "stop being a dick, be more like me"... what's the point of the crucifixion and resurrection?

 

It would be a philosophy.. more like Confucionism, not a religion.

[HymenaeusAlexander]

Yes. It's the same god. The NT writers clearly considered it authoritative, given how much they cite it and how they regard it. The typical arguments about different types of laws being abrogated or fulfilled, contrived divisions between moral, civil and ceremonial laws that Covenant theologians like to conjure up and all the "rightly dividing" Dispensationalists can muster can't overcome those facts. Unless they're full blown Marcionites, the OT is fair game.

[mymistake]

Of course it's fair.  If a real Old Testament community had seen a real Christian community the Old Testament worshipers would have viewed the Christians as Idol worshipers and worthy of being exterminated, except for the little girls who had never known a man who would be saved for personal use.

[ExCBooster]

Sure it's fair: they still count the OT as part of the Bible, don't they? Besides, the New Testament is an extension of the same belief structure - same God, etc. So, of course it is. I'd tailor any argument against an actual person to what they seem to believe and all, but yes, the OT is fair play. Besides, it's great for the kind of logicbomb where you try to get the liberal Christian types to explain WHY they ignore the OT if it's in the bible, and they believe the rest, and see where that leads. It's rare to have a real argument with these kinds of people, though, since they're a lot more laid back about what other people believe. You know the kind: the sort that believe that if you're good person (whatever that means) you're getting into heaven, anyway, so why sweat it. Not so likely to get in your face about it.

[par4dcourse]

As long as it's included in the wholly babble they insist on thumping, it's fair game for ridicule.

[RipVanWinkle]

If christians contend that their god is the same as the OT god, then they have to live with OT. Also, how can they deny that it's the same god and at the same time contend that OT prophesies were fulfilled? bill

[3DollarBill]

Well these days I think perhaps the only real reason it is included is to add length...in your average bible the OT takes up about 75% of the volume, and we obviously can't have a legit holy book that can fit in your pocket in its entirety, right?

 

But that's only because nobody has actually thought about it.  In reality the whole story of the NT (well, as it is interpreted with a Pauline perspective) is centered around substitutional atonement for sins.  The only way that doctrine makes any sense at all is to include the notion of "original sin" in some fashion.  We can either look at it from the OT perspective that we are all actually guilty of the specific sin of eating from the Tree of Knowledge, or we can take a more modern approach and say that Adam eating from the tree imparted a "sin nature" in the rest of humanity.  Neither outlook can do away with the need for a literal Adam and Eve in a literal Garden of Eden, hence the need for the OT.

 

Isn't it amazing how christians today can take a belief that they consider allegorical, and base upon it another belief that they consider literal?  

[florduh]

They use it when convenient, so shall I.

[Eugene39]

Were there Christians in the old testament of the Bible? 

 

No. Christianity hadn't been invented yet.

 

As far as your topic question, I say "yes", it is fair to use the OT in arguments. Christianity claims to be founded on messianic claims from the OT. Anyone who even pretends to understand the Jewish theory of the messiah will find Christianity's claims about Jesus being the fulfillment of messianic prophecy to be false.

[centauri]

Using the "Old Testament" is vital to exposing Christianity.

Christianity is revisionist theology that uses the Hebrew scriptures (aka Old Testament) to validate itself as being the product of the Hebrew god.

In doing this, Christianity manages to contradict the basic tenets put forth in the Hebrew scriptures regarding the nature of salvation, the status of the law, the role of Satan, the definition of a valid king messiah, and the rules on atoning for sin.

Naturally, Christians will claim that through "progressive revelation", God changed his prior rules and planned all along to initiate a new system that contradicts his old one.

Using that apologetic ploy would also validate Mormonism as being another progressive revelation from God.

Christianity is stuck with trying to explain why God, who is defined as unchanging and one that does not contradict himself, decided to do exactly that.

Their apologetic antics may satisfy the gullible, but not those that value reason and objective thought over dogmas rooted in expediency and convenience.

[kolaida]

It really depends on what point you're wanting to make and what point you're arguing.  I know I always viewed and was taught the Old Testament was basically a history lesson about God and what his chosen people went through and also showing the prophecies Jesus fulfilled. That BECAUSE Jesus came and died and rose again, he created a way for us to have a personal relationship with God.  Before, we couldn't and this is why God was so harsh in the Old Testament~ also, we were taught God actually spoke to people in the OT, but after the NT used his son for this matter (even though it WAS him in human form).  I KNOW that's a lot of mental gymnastics, but I once believed them and saw people that used the OT to argue points as unaware and misinformed of what the OT was for.  Not saying you CAN'T use it, but you are more than likely to make a person REALLY rethink their beliefs if you use the NT (especially if the person is a fundamentalist). 

 

However, it really depends on the point being made. But is IS fair, I do think that.  They probably won't listen or take it as seriously as you hope, though. 

[RipVanWinkle]

Xtians can object if they want to. They've never bothered worrying about inconsistencies before. Indeed, inconsistency is their stock and trade.    billl

[Bhim]

So I'm actually going to come out in favor of the Old Testament.  But if you're worried that I'll be making favorable statements about Christianity, rest assured that I have no such comments in store.

 

Since freeing myself from evangelical Christianity, I've been able to start reading the Old Testament from the Jewish perspective (so if you prefer you can refer to it as the "Tanakh").  I happen to know a bit more about Judaism than an average evangelical, and for a couple of reasons.  First, I know a lot of Jews.  I grew up hanging out with a Jewish friend, and one of my colleagues at work, with whom I talk about religion pretty frequently, is Jewish.  Second, and more significantly, when I was an evangelical it bothered me to no end that Jews rejected the Christian interpretation of the Old Testament.  To this end, I looked up a plethora of information on Judaism and endlessly debated Jews, and I picked up a fair bit of knowledge in the process.

 

Oh yes, I knew all about Paul's claim in the latter half of Romans that Jewish rejection of the gospel was by God's design, "so that God may have mercy on all."  But Jews didn't even recognize the messianic nature of various proof-texts that Christians used to prove the messiahship of Jesus.  An example is Isaiah 7:14, "Behold, the virgin shall concieve..." which you all know is cited by the gospel-writer Matthew as a proof that Jesus had to be born of a virgin.  And I'm sure you all also know that in the original Hebrew the word "virgin" is a mistranslation perpetuated by the Septuagint.  Funny thing is, this issue was debated even in ancient times.  In the second century, the Christian apologist Justin Martyr recorded one of his debates in "Dialog with Trypho the Jew," and his Jewish opponent raised this very point.  Justin Martyr's rebuttal is about as non-convincing as anything you'll find today.  In fact, when I read apologetic explanations about this verse, even one apologist admitted that this probably wasn't a convincing proof-text to present to an unbeliever.  Everywhere I looked I found New Testament misapplications of Old Testament passages.  In a way I hated the Old Testament, which is why I love it so much now.  Marcionism (an early Christian heresy denying the OT) is not a viable alternative for anyone who accepts the New Testament canon.  The New Testament authors believed the Old Testament was authoritative, and lifted text from it to prove that Jesus was the messiah.  But if you read the proof texts, they rarely if ever make sense.  Even in my Bible study, people (smart people!) admitted that the New Testament authors ripped Old Testament passages out of context, but suggested that as divinely inspired writers they had that right.  The Old Testament is the enemy of Christianity, it proves that Jesus is not the Jewish messiah.  We as ex-Christians should embrace every word of it.

 

So the Old Testament is great for invalidating Christianity.  But does it have any intrinsic worth?  I'd say yes.  The most common objection to this scripture is that it depicts divinely ordained genocides.  True enough, but bear in mind that Jews do not impose a literalist view of their scripture the way Christians do.  If you accept that most of the genocides didn't really happen, the problem is ameliorated somewhat.  But even a God who symbolically ordered such deeds still has to be viewed with scrutiny, right?  Well, I'd submit that unlike Christians, Jews allow for debate and dissent on matters of theology.  I once read a post by a Jewish blogger in which he detailed his discussion of the book of Joshua with his 7 and 5 year old kids.  When they got to the genocides, the kids argued that God was wrong to do this.  God was wrong?  An evangelical parent would swiftly correct this theological error, probably with corporal punishment.  This guy didn't seem to express any concern.  Indeed, a Jew can even be an atheist and remain in perfectly good standing with his religious community.

 

When reading ancient literature we have to remember that the ancient world was a harsh place.  Take a college course on Classics and you'll see the Greeks weren't that much better.  Yes, the Old Testament God is tribal, but people back then were tribal.  Here you've got a God who claims one tribe for himself, says that he'll be their God in perpetuity (sort of negates the claims of Christians, huh?), and who promises that he's on your tribe's side to such an extent that he'll utterly wipe out your enemies and give you their land.  If we want to dive into more ancient literature, I can think of a few gods worse that Yahweh.

 

Let me end with my most important point.  A lot of people think that the Old Testament God is cruel and the New Testament God is loving.  After all, Jesus taught people to love each other, to not utter careless words, and to obey the law.  It's easy to embrace Jesus, if not as the "only begotten Son of God" ™, then at least as a good moral teacher.  I'm Hindu, I run into this a lot.  You've even got people who do pujas to Jesus in Hindu temples and think he's an avatar of Vishnu.  Yes, Jesus says he loves you and that he'll forgive you of all your sins if you believe in him.  He also promises to send your entire family to eternal hell.  The Old Testament makes absolutely no mention of eternal punishment.  The idea of a place of fire where eternally damned souls weep and gnash their teeth in hopeless grief is entirely a Christian invention.  Say what you will, but exterminating everyone in a city doesn't hold a candle to torturing someone for all eternity.  The very idea should strike fear into the heart of someone who actually believes the place exists.  In the Old Testament it's recognized that there are other people who believe in other religions, and while these religions are looked down upon there is still no mention of proselytism, because no one needs their soul to be saved from hell.  Along comes Jesus and says that he'll torment you forever if you don't believe in him.  There are many Old Testament statements about God's goodness and his love.  Of what value is that when God has prepared a place such as hell for those who fail to adopt Christian culture?

 

The Old Testament isn't bad, but it's got a lot of value.  You can see this by noting the immense wisdom and benevolence of the Jewish religion.  The New Testament robs the Old of all its value.

[Kris]

Wow Bhim, I never really thought about the fact that Yahweh swore to be god only to the Hebrews in the OT and then turned around and became god of everyone-- even the awful Gentiles in the NT-- what an epiphany for me, and yet another way the bible can be proved invalid!!

[Eugene39]

 

 Well, I'd submit that unlike Christians, Jews allow for debate and dissent on matters of theology.  I once read a post by a Jewish blogger in which he detailed his discussion of the book of Joshua with his 7 and 5 year old kids.  When they got to the genocides, the kids argued that God was wrong to do this.  God was wrong?  An evangelical parent would swiftly correct this theological error, probably with corporal punishment.  This guy didn't seem to express any concern.  Indeed, a Jew can even be an atheist and remain in perfectly good standing with his religious community.

 

 

Thanks, Bhim. I have read some Jewish literature and had drawn the same conclusions. Abraham's near sacrifice of Isaac is another interesting story once seen from their perspective that God was stopping human sacrifice. This also jives with Jeremiah's perspective that God had never asked anyone to sacrifice their child. 

[Ravenstar]

Except Japhtheth...

 

oh... and these guys

 

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.ca/2009/07/excerpt-from-my-book-on-child-sacrifice.html

 

just saying...

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

The new testament requires the old testament as a means of validating itself. Hence, why it has Jesus quoting the old testament so much. Without the old testament, you don't have a new testament theology, you don't know what much of the theology is based off.

 

Just like you can't have a New Testament without Genesis. It just doesn't work. You need original sin and Abraham's tests of his faith, as it was a backbone behind why you must believe to be saved, because you're a sinful bag of shit because of what your greatest grandpa and greatest grandma did. (eat from the forbidden tree)

[Lilith666]

See, Xians take the OT, or most of it, as fact. And Xianity is derived from Judaism. So yes, it is most definitely fair.

[Lilith666]

Of course it's fair. If a real Old Testament community had seen a real Christian community the Old Testament worshipers would have viewed the Christians as Idol worshipers and worthy of being exterminated, except for the little girls who had never known a man who would be saved for personal use.

See Numbers 31:1-18, 35. Boy oh boy, do I love those verses.

[Onyx]

Yes, it is fair game. OT is an excellent weapon because of its extreme political incorrectness.

 

I agree with Bhim on the thought that Hell is excessively cruel. I'd like to add that Hell was probably a ripoff of the Greeks whereby they had Tartarus which were reserved for the Titans and the like, if my memory serves.

[JadedAtheist]

It matters not whether or not it is logically or rationally relevant; only if they consider it relevant, which they do not. So ultimately there is no point bringing it up because they'll reject it immediately and any discussion trying to justify your use of it will be ignored. In general, discussions with Christians are futile but even more so when you try and use the OT on them.