Christianity: new testament vs old testament

why do the Christians i know believe that the old testament does not apply to them. it is in their holy book. i dont understand and would like some insight on why this is.

 

Not entirely true. What you're referring to is the old Mosaic law that applied to Israel and Israel alone. The law came to be because of their moral corruption, and again, this was Jewish law.

That is what does not apply, the legalism of the OT.

To say that the OT somehow doesn't apply is wrong, and some Christians would like to believe this somehow extends to the 10 Commandments or any other teaching of morality and depravity then being "okay" simply because Christ "fulfilled" all law in their mind.

In short, Christians are not under Mosaic/OT law, it would essentially go against everything that Christ came to fulfill. However, the entire OT is not some several hundred page list of laws, it's a small fraction. Some Christians like to entirely ignore the OT and they have that line of thinking. Ex: If you're one to believe the biblical prophecies that Jews would regather from the four corners of the Earth and Israel would be reestablished, you would have to believe in OT prophecy, although there are Christians who oppose Israel simply because "Jesus came and fulfilled the OT!" when that's a half-truth on their part.

Another way to look at it, Jesus came to usher in the new and toss out the old. As was said in Romans and Galatians,

Galatians

There's a litany of other passages, but that's the gist of it. There are specifics of what is/was fulfilled, but it does not negate the entire OT teachings that apply to any and all, not just Jews, unlike the Mosaic law, which was just for Israel.

E: What I should be asking though is what do you want addressed specifically? The bible is very complex, and even most Christians who go to church every Sunday to do their "Christian duty" sitting there for an hour (probably sleeping) get a lot of things wrong as well. If there's something specific you'd like to talk about feel free to ask.

E2: One thing I know is the most difficult to grasp is that everything shouldn't be taken literally. Ex: Jesus used the same example as was used in the OT, cutting off of the hand or gouging out of the eye, but that would be entirely false as Jesus never not once preached violence. Another example would be this, do you really think Elijah was taken up by a flying magic horse and chariot? This is where the topic of addressing the times in which things were written, and why most people fail to understand that the bible (a collection of books, bible = library) is more of a historical document that should be read with respects of the time in which it was written, rather than a modern fantasy novel written by J. K. Rowling.

 

What the above poster is referring to is what in most Christian theology is referred to as the Covenant. The sacrifice of Christ created a 'New Covenant' under which the Christians were to follow the teachings of Jesus. In many theological texts you'll see what is referred to as The Old Laws which were the laws that the Jewish people followed in the Old Testament that were handed down to the prophets by god Yaweh. It gets very complex is very open to theological debate. Essentially The Old Testament in a lot of mainstream theology is considered a history lesson that leads into the teachings of Christ, giving reference and backgrounds for the actions and philosophy of Christ.

For me personally the Old Testament is the more interesting part of the Bible. I mean God was a huge dick in the Old Testament and smote and smote and smote until there was nothing left to smite. It's pretty interesting his change of attitude.

 

The coming of Jesus Christ ushered in a new covenant by which salvation can be attained through faith in Jesus Christ and repentance of one's sins. This is because Christ came to "fulfill" the old testament (see Matthew 5:17) which in short means that under Christ, we are bound by a new "Christ law," and not by Old Testament Law.

(In case you are interested, Matthew 5:17-20 goes as follows. It's still a source of confusion for me, however, and is also one of the more widely debated Bible verses:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks 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 practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.")

There are also specific passages in the Bible that lay out how certain OT laws are no longer relevant (i.e. Peter's vision of unclean animals becoming clean, "fulfillment" of animal sacrifice through Christ's death, etc). That is not to say that all OT laws are moot; for example, many of the moral teachings such as the Ten Commandments, while not necessary per se for salvation, are still relevant as standards by which Christians should live in a way that is pleasing and glorifying to God (see 2 Timothy 3:15–16 : "and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness").

 

I understand all of this. my only question is if mosaic law doesnt apply to humanity now why dont Christians cut it out of the bible?

 

Read the verse in my post above, 2 Timothy 3:15-16. All scripture is divinely inspired and gives us more insight into God, thus allowing us to develop deeper relationships with Him.

 

It's still part of biblical history, that would be like cutting out slavery of our history books simply because slavery was abolished. There are still lessons to be learned in the OT books and it should be respected if you believe in the Bible.

However, people need to realize the Bible is just a collection of books. Bible = library, each book in the Bible is literally a separate book, the Bible is simply a collection.

What people should question is why were some books incorporated and others left out? Technically speaking, the Bible we have now came about because of The Council of Nicaea, led by Eusebius. It was an effort on behalf of Roman Emperor Constantine in an attempt to unify Christianity. There were books omitted by these 300+ bishops that were assembled, and I guess some manuscripts or whatever they were, were actually lost due to this council. The point i'm making is that the bible is simply a collection of books, technically speaking, yes, Christians don't really have to even read the OT, but it's there and should be read as a lot of it is applicable prophesy wise and whatnot.