Why did NT authors (Saints) read scripture

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by BobRyan, Jun 20, 2006.

  1. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    In the many references we see in the NT to "Scripture" it appears that the NT saints "think" that scripture has value.

    Why is that? If they really did not need anything in God's Word unless it was speaking to saints after the cross (and even AFTER 70 AD for some who slice the Bible down to that small snippet) why do they keep pointing their readers to "Scripture" as if it has value and authority?

    How many books does "your Bible" have?
     
  2. Jarthur001

    Jarthur001
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,701
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Bob,

    I'm not sure what you have in mind here, but I think you maybe addressing others post. So this maybe out of line...but i want to address this in the light that I 1st read your post. I for one place great value in Gods Word. This is both the OT and the NT. The OT has so many types of Christ it is rich in the truth.

    Jacob's Ladder

    Jesus presents himself as the reality to which the stairway pointed. The patriarch saw in a dream the reunion of heaven and earth through the One Mediator, Jesus Christ, which is now brought to reality both for Jacob and for all believers.

    Moses

    Moses was the deliverer from Egypt, Christ is now the greater Deliverer from this present evil world (Galatians 1:5), from the devil and from our sin.

    The Temple

    The OT tells of the "tent outside the camp"...A picture of Gods Holiness
    The the tent was moved to the middle of the camp..A picture of Christ coming to earth and living with us.
    In the NT the temple is the body of the believer.

    Boaz

    I have no doubt that Boaz is a type of Christ, who became incarnate, springing from Judah too, in order to acquire for himself a bride from the Gentile nations. He was willing to do so (as Boaz was willing to redeem and marry Ruth)....He has to power to do so, .....and He is our Kinsman, with the right to do so.

    The Cleansing with Hyssop

    The covenant was ratified by the blood of sprinkling, applied by dipping the hyssop into it. This sprinkling of the blood finds its antitype in Jesus Christ and his shed blood on Calvary. Sprinkling of blood was part of the Old Testament ritual service. In general, the appearance of blood advertises the death of a victim. Christ's shed blood cries for forgiveness.

    The Two Turtledoves or Young Pigeons

    The need for Mary's purification arose from her being ceremonially unclean for seven days after the birth of a son. For another thirty-three days she was to keep away from holy things. The mother was then to offer a lamb plus a dove or pigeon. If she was poor her offering was two doves or two young pigeons (Leviticus 12:6-8). Mary gave the offering of the poor. "For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might become rich" (2 Corinthians 8:9).

    At the same time the first male child of every mother was presented to the Lord (Exodus 13:2). As he was "redeemed" by the sacrifice of two turtledoves, He was to be the true Redeemer of God's children who were scattered abroad. He was "sanctified" that He might sanctify others.

    Manna

    1) The bread provided through Moses as much as it proved God's care and provision, was only material and temporary...... Christ and his sacrifice satisfies the soul eternally.

    2)Just as manna came down from heaven, even so the Son came down from heaven

    Jonah

    Jesus mentions Jonah's three-day experience in the belly of the fish as indicative of what would happen to Him.... his death and resurrection the third day

    Melchizedek

    Melchizedek is a type of Christ as a royal-priest: King of Salem (righteousness) and king of peace. His priesthood is eternal, and it is non-transferable.


    others....
    http://www.bible-topics.com/Types-of-Christ.html

    In Christ..James
     
  3. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    I personally have no problem at all with those who find that the infallible Word of God has 66 books and should be read, accepted, believed and preached. I like starting with Genesis chapter 1 verse one and just enjoying the infallible truths as they come -- in the text!
     
  4. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    The claim IN scripture ABOUT scripture is that the Bible is something that is authored by God Himself and not the mere product of mortal man's "best ideas".




    So that means that those who revise the text as if it is “merely the word of Man” or the Word of “Moses” whereas the NT is “the Word of God” are simply not reading the NT!

    Paul says "it is GOD's not MAN's"

    For a specific example of scripture labeling itself as the very WORDS of God rather than
    the words of man we see Hebrews 3 quoting the Pslams. -

     
  5. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    So in Hebrews even the Psalms are attributed to God "The Holy Spirit"
     
  6. Jarthur001

    Jarthur001
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,701
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are you saying some would claim other wise?
     
  7. Joseph M. Smith

    Joseph M. Smith
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,041
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think I understand your question. It seems self-evident to me that the NT writers would depend on OT Scripture (and in a few cases some apocyphal items) to support what they are saying. The Pauline corpus and Hebrews are replete with OT references in order to support their arguments; why not? That was their thought-world and that of their audience as well.

    So maybe I am not hearing your question.

    Isn't it interesting, by the way, how II Peter refers to the writings of Paul, even at that early date, as "Scripture"? I surely do agree with the writer of II Peter that "there are some things in them difficult to understand." If he didn't understand them, how much more am I going to have a hard time with them <grin>!
     
  8. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    The Church of Christ is well known for saying that only the NT (specifically that which is AFTER the 4 Gospels) is actually applicable to Christians.

    Others here have made similar statements.

    Matt and others think it is horrible that in Acts 17:11 "They study the scripture daily to SEE IF those things told to them by Paul were so" -- because the "scriptures" they were studying was just the OT and "of course we can't go by that".

    Others think that Christ came to "Destroy" the OT system, teaching, religion, view-of-God, Gospel etc.

    So if you are going to have 66 books in your Bible - what do you do with the OT?
     
  9. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    typcially - when someone is not happy with what the bible is saying - they don't want to see much of what contradicts them in scripture "posted" and they need to find ways to abolish parts of the text.
     
  10. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    While I appreciate JArthur's endorsement of all 66 books - I though that others might also agree with him as well.

    Anyone?

    I know that the Church of Christ does not take this view of the OT as "applicable" to NT saints such that NT saints would read it and be instructed from it as though it is "authorotative scripture" -- but does everyone else here reject it as well?
     
  11. mima

    mima
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2006
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    0
    I once had the experience of living in a "hot.bed" of Church of Christ followers. And as a denomination they believe in the New Testament selectively. They believe only in that part of the New Testament that they want to believe in.
    As a group, Church of Christ people are a little standoffish, and very pleasing to themselves In their own eyes.
     
  12. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    The OT is as much God's word as the NT. Jesus referred to the OT over and over again, calling it scripture and recognizing its authority.

    We are, however, to read the OT in light of the NT - that's a principal of biblical hermeneutics. We are also to read the OT in context - who was God talking to and how to apply that.

    But I'm not getting into a discussion of the Sabbath, if that is what this is leading to. Count me out. I've already read and posted on those threads before.
     

Share This Page

Loading...