If not, which parts should be kept?
For example:
Deut 25:11-12
11 If men get into a fight with one another, and the wife of one intervenes to rescue her husband from the grip of his opponent by reaching out and seizing his genitals, 12you shall cut off her hand; show no pity.
2006-09-21 14:24:06 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Parepedimos_00: There are 2 things I've noticed...1. You christians can't seem to agree on this subject (just look at the answers) 2. For a christian, you sure aren't "loving your neighbor", "turning the other cheek", or following the "judge not" part of your bible.
Are you an "idiot" that doesn't understand your bible or one of the "Luke warm" followers???? DOUCHE.
2006-09-21 16:20:34 · update #1
Oh and mr. "luke warm". I asked two different questions. The 1st was "do you agree with this verse". I rephrased the second because of all the people who said to disregard the O/T. Are you so arrogant that you think YOUR wise & holy answer was the only answer that counted?...Douche.
2006-09-21 16:29:55 · update #2
This was already answered the last time you posted it. Read my response again. It is obvious you didn't the first time but of course you are not looking for answers but are bent on looking like the idiot you are. :)
2006-09-21 14:36:41 · answer #1 · answered by parepidemos_00 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. Knowledge of the OT should be increased.
Strict justice was enforced by the law of talion or retaliation, like for like, where injuries were deliberately inflicted. (De 19:21) There is at least one recorded instance of the execution of this penalty. (Jg 1:6, 7) But the judges had to determine on the basis of the evidence whether the crime was deliberate or was due to negligence or accident, and so forth. An exception to the law of retaliation was the law dealing with a situation in which a woman tried to help her husband in a fight by grabbing hold of the privates of the other man. In this case, instead of her reproductive organs being destroyed, her hand was to be amputated. (De 25:11, 12) This law demonstrates God's regard for the reproductive organs. Also, since the woman was owned by a husband, this law mercifully took into consideration the right of the husband to have children by his wife.
2006-09-21 21:32:08 · answer #2 · answered by rangedog 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"Disregarded" no, don't disregard it.
"Kept" no, don't keep it, it is no longer in effect.
Ephesians 2:15 Through his body on the cross, Christ put an end to the law with all its commands and rules. He wanted to create one new group of people out of the two. He wanted to make peace between them.
Colossians 2:14 He wiped out the written Law with its rules. The Law was against us. It opposed us. He took it away and nailed it to the cross.
Galatians 2:16 ...No one can be made right with God by obeying the law.
Galatians 2:21 ...What if a person could become right with God by obeying the law? Then Christ died for nothing!
Galatians 5:4 Some of you are trying to be made right with God by obeying the law. You have been separated from Christ. You have fallen away from God’s grace... The ONLY verse that talks about falling from grace, and they did it by trying to follow the law!
Jesus said he didn’t come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. (Matt 5:17) The effect was the same. Once fulfilled it was no longer in effect. The very next verse, Matthew 5:18, looks forward to the time when the law would be set aside. "...Not even the smallest stroke of a pen will disappear from the Law UNTIL EVERYTHING IS COMPLETED."
On the cross, Jesus' last recorded saying, "It is finished," is an important milestone. Because of Jesus life, Satan had been defeated. The law was finished and would no longer stand between God and mankind.
The 10 commandments along with the rest of the law ("commands and rules" from Ephesians 2:15) were "set aside" when they were fulfilled or completed at Jesus' resurrection. We are no longer bound by that law.
... Back to your question:
The Old Testament teaches us about God, truth, and mankind. It is NOT something Christians need to follow, but it does have value. Paul wrote in Romans 15:4 "Everything that was written in the past was written to teach us. The Scriptures give us strength to go on. They cheer us up and give us hope." and 2Timothy 3:16 God has breathed life into all of Scripture. It is useful for teaching us what is true. It is useful for correcting our mistakes. It is useful for making our lives whole again. It is useful for training us to do what is right.
2006-09-21 21:35:45 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
2 Timothy 2:15 Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
verse refers to eye for eye-tooth for tooth
Since there is no form of punishment in the Torah that calls for the maiming of an offender (excepting in the case of a slave that refuses to go free at the Sabbatical year, where the court requires that his earlobe be pierced [Exodus 21:6]), there is no case where a conspiratorial false witness could possibly be punished by the court injuring to his eye, tooth, hand, or foot. (There is one case where the Torah states "...and you shall cut off her hand..." [Deut. 25:11-12]. The sages of the Talmud understood the literal meaning of this verse as referring to a case where the woman is attacking a man in potentially lethal manner. This verse teaches that, although one must intervene to save the victim, one may not kill a lethal attacker if it is possible to neutralize that attacker through non-lethal injury {Sifrei; Maimonides' Yad, Nezikin, Hil. Rotze'ach u'Sh'mirat Nefesh 1:7}. Regardless, there is no verse that even appears to mandate injury to the eye, tooth, or foot.) Thus, it is impossible to read "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" literally in the context of a conspiratorial witness, indicating that the phrase is never meant literally in the Torah.
Without the Old Testament we cannot understand the New Testament.
Almost two thirds of New Testament is in referenced to Old Testament.
The Old points to the Cross (new Testament Covenant) and the New points back to the Old (old covenant)
2006-09-21 21:37:18 · answer #4 · answered by cork 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The old testament is harsh it shouldn't be disregarded but it should definitely looked at with a grain of salt. Because the new testament is supposed to be our more current guide to life. We don't stone adulterers, we excommunicate them. And we wouldn't cut off any hands we through the above three mentioned in prison for assault. And so on.
2006-09-21 21:36:14 · answer #5 · answered by Victoria W 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absoluetly Not! How would we have the foundation of the New, How would we know why we needed a Savior and to what extent. The Old Testament is the basis of the New! Without the Old the New is not as strong, weak, the Old without the New is not fulfilled.
2006-09-21 21:27:15 · answer #6 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What about this one:
"If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Deut.13:7-12
Or this one:
28: If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 29: Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Or this one:
"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." Exodus 21:20-21
Or this one:
"The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die." Samuel 12:11-14
2006-09-21 21:27:26 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
NO!!!!!
It is part of the Bible and should be regarded; however in the times we live in, we go by the laws of the land; but NO, the Old Testament shouldn't be disregarded.
2006-09-21 21:26:23 · answer #8 · answered by savvyladydiamond 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and alot of the stuff and promises he made in the old testament are very good to know, but the only thing that has changed is the practices of how to worship God and stuff like that, (burnt offerings, animal sacrifices, stoning, so and and so forth)
2006-09-21 21:29:33 · answer #9 · answered by ixfriendlyxi 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If people are going to go by it, I say they should try living like it says to live because I don't get how it applies to today. People like to toss around the Quran but see nothing wrong with the OT.
2006-09-21 21:38:47 · answer #10 · answered by Justsyd 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋