I'm not a theologist, but i would say that of course some parts of the old testament still apply but as for a list i have never seen or heard of such a list but would be interested to read it if there is one

Depends on who you ask. That might sound stupid, but I mean protestants, catholics apostolics, whatever. They all think differently, especially about this kind of thing I´m guessing. I also think there are probably enough Chrisians who don´t even live by the New Testament and still consider themselves Christians. Hell, some of them probably don´t live by any rule.

Besides, I don´t see why Mujus reading the Old Testament implies those rules still apply?

I´m not a theologist, not even very interested in the topic, just saying.

The short answers:

1. Yes
2. No

The longer answer: The general Christian consensus is that the sacrifice of Christ was a new covenant with the world. The old Law was fulfilled in the person of Jesus, who defeated sin and death. This is why it's called the Old Testament by Christians, after all -- there is a New Testament which replaces it. That said, some of the laws have moral imperative for everyone, though what those are is not always clear.

The even longer answer: Christians (and Jewish theologians although I'm not as familiar with them) tend to divide the Old Testament into a variety of different laws, some of which have long-term important. There's a few places that this is apparently obvious -- the laws about murder, for example, have a larger purview than laws about the lights burning at a particular temple. Some say that we can classify the whole Old Testament this way: moral laws that all people must follow, ceremonial laws intended only for the specific time and place of the Torah's writing, and civil laws intended for the ancient nation of Israel. Plus, there are questions about whether Jewish law is even intended for Gentiles in the first place (the Noahide law people are interesting in this regard).

Furthermore, many Christians would argue (and I would agree with this to an extent) that the laws of the New Testament are ultimately a restatement or simplification of the Old Testament. The original purpose of the Law was to have a holy people who knew God; the purest way to do this is to follow Christ's most important commands, to love God and to love your neighbor as yourself. Or, to put it another way, the Old Testament was getting toward a higher law: love, and the New Testament just jumps straight to it. The whole Bible, like the world, is big and complicated (if we ever get the Great Debates finished, you can see my thoughts on that in a little more detail), and there are parts of the Old Testament which seem to contradict itself. Hosea 6:6 ("For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.") has a very golden rule-y, New Testament feel to it. Just in Genesis, God tells Abraham that he will make his seed a great nation, but there's time and again when God picks the weak or the unexpected or unpromised (like the running theme of second or younger sons taking the best blessings and inheritances).

There's lots of other complicated ideas about it, like Scofieldian notions of covenants and God revealing truths in a series of steps called dispensations.

I should add that my own views of Christian theology, while not wildly original, are a little unorthodox, so doubtlessly you would get different answers from the other Christian visitors to this website.

There's no need for a cumbersome list, because there's a simple algorithm that always works.

Do I want to say this rule applies? If so, then it applies.

ckroberts has already covered a lot of ground, but I would add two things.

First, the Bible is, broadly, a story. I say broadly because there's a lot of bits of doctrine, law, poetry, and so on, that don't seem to immediately advance the plot - unless by plot you mean a very broad examination of human spiritual and philosophical experience.

Second, the Bible is a story about the relationship between God and humanity. Relationships are dynamic, and I wouldn't expect that in any story about a relationship that the relationship would remain static - not in an interesting story, at any rate.

So, in brief,
1. Yes - in the same way that the whole history of my relationship with my wife is *our story* and therefore precious, although we don't relate to one another in exactly the same way we did 20 years ago.
2. No.

Thanks for asking, fun topic!

+1 to ckroberts

@ steephie22:

"I don´t see why Mujus reading the Old Testament implies those rules still apply?"

Because the point of his thread is to spread the word of God and encourage us to lead better lives by heeding God's instructions. Why, therefore, would he use it to spread information about instructions which no longer apply?


@ gavrilop:

"There's no need for a cumbersome list, because there's a simple algorithm that always works. Do I want to say this rule applies? If so, then it applies."

If you have complete freedom to choose which rule applies to you, and which doesn't, and you won't be punished for ignoring the rules you don't want to follow - then those aren't actually rules, are they?


@ FlemGem:

I don't think this can be compared to your relationship with your wife. Did you ever tell your wife that if she disobeyed you in any way, you'd kill her?


@ ckroberts:

"The general Christian consensus is that the sacrifice of Christ was a new covenant with the world. The old Law was fulfilled in the person of Jesus, who defeated sin and death. This is why it's called the Old Testament by Christians, after all -- there is a New Testament which replaces it."

I'm confused by your answer. You say the New Testament "replaces" the Old Testament, but you also say that parts of the Old Testament still apply.

Which parts? Should I kill people who turn up for work on a Sunday, or not? The Old Testament says I should. If this rule is revoked by the New Testament, where in the New Testament does it say so?

I don't know how Protestants get around this problem with their sola scriptura nonsense, but Catholics and Orthodox churches give equal weight to sacred tradition in settling it. After all, Christians had to do without a set New Testament for hundreds of years after the Crucifixion, so something had to preserve the teachings of Christ in the absence of eve So since the teachings of these churches say what is and what isn't carried over from one Testament to another that settles the matter.

After all, Christians had to do without a set New Testament for hundreds of years after the Crucifixion, so something had to preserve the teachings of Christ in the absence of even written Gospels.

Something's going on with my mousepad.

@ Invictus:

"the teachings of these churches (Catholic and Orthodox) say what is and what isn't carried over from one Testament to another"

Do you have a link? Where does the Catholic church explicitly state which Old Testament rules still apply, and which don't? Thanks in advance!

Where did you get that quote from? I certainly didn't say it like that.

Anyway, it's not as if a list exists. Theology textbooks and other reams of paper from Rome produced over the last two thousand years are where these answers lie. It's not as if you're the first person to notice these problems. I'm sure there are whole websites online and videos on Youtube which can answer all your questions. But if you're looking for a neat, clean answer you will not find it any more than you'll find a neat, clean answer on a philosophy question.

But your best bet would be the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Here's a link to help you find it.

https://www.google.com/

@ Invictus: "Where did you get that quote from? I certainly didn't say it like that."

Yes you did. I shortened your sentence only very slightly, your full quote was:

"So since the teachings of these churches say what is and what isn't carried over from one Testament to another, that settles the matter."

Invictus, are you Catholic?

I know that's what you did, but if you alter a quote it's not a quote.

I am a Roman Catholic. A fairly bad one lately, but Catholic nonetheless.

Jamiet,

Thank you for the question. I appreciate people trying to understand the Christian belief system, rather than insisting on imposing misunderstandings.

Different denominations and theological systems do answer this question differently, so any "specific list" you find will probably differ from other specific lists. Here is one example (with which I do not personally agree in every particular):

http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_XIX.html

This one basically says that only the ten commandments still apply. It is held by most forms of Presbyterianism, among other reformed churches.

Anyway, to answer with some generality: before Jesus died to sacrifice for our sins, God could/would not indwell sinful people through the Holy Spirit in the way that He now can/does (since God cannot stand sin). In this time of history (post-Abraham), His relationship with the human race was through one special chosen people, the Jews; and He gave them laws (via Moses) for several distinct reasons. First, due to their not having the Holy Spirit indwelling them, external laws were more necessary to tell them exactly how to behave. Second, He wanted them to be set apart. It was deliberate that they should be visibly different from every other people, in behavior and customs, and sin was particularly intolerable for this reason, lest it spread. Hence, the punishments were, by today's standards, very severe in a lot of cases. In addition to maintaining the purity of the people, this served as an image to the world of how seriously God views sin. It is no longer our place (fortunately, to my taste) to execute (part of) God's judgments in the New Covenant, as it was in the Old; but God's commands were always expressions of His justice. Sin is no less abhorrent to Him now, and will not ultimately be less punished.

With the coming of Christ and the dawn of the New Covenant, God's relationship with man underwent quite a profound change. People of any race and location can now be God's people, and it is their behavior through the Spirit of God, not their identity as a separate nation, that is now the visible body of God's people on earth. Thus, there is no longer any need for a theocratic state to impose uniformity and morals through the arm of force.

One important thing to realize (which many Christians, even, do not) is that Israel of the old covenant was God's covenant people; thus, the correct modern analogy is to the church, not to the modern nation (i.e., not to America, the UK, or whatever). Thus, the correct analogy of the old laws to the new context would be to the church punishing Christians who have sinned, NOT to America punishing unbelievers who have sinned. As the covenant people (church) is now spread throughout all nations, and is not associated with any government, one can see that it would be impractical for it to carry out executions, even if it weren't also wrong (which it is, since God has removed that command, and there is no right to kill absent such a command).

There are many reasons still to study the Old Testament, even though the Mosaic laws no longer apply. For example, many of its prophecies still apply to our current time or to the future; it helps us understand the arc of God's relationship with man (as FlemGem said, the Bible is a story, and you'd be cutting off the crucial first two thirds if you discarded the OT). It is also crucially important for the proper understanding of the NT. The OT is much more than just a list of rules, and while those no longer apply, there are a lot of promises made that form the context for the New Testament, and are necessary background for understanding it. It also helps us understand the character and nature of God. For example, even though we are no longer commanded or even allowed to kill adulterers, the fact that God did order that at one point suggests how seriously He views sin. That in turn helps make sense of the New Testament.

I'll close with the promise, in the Old Testament book of Jeremiah, of the coming of the Holy Spirit and the New Covenant:

“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

Anyway, I hope this has been helpful at all.

Then you must know "check the Catechism" is Catholic for "let's go on a snipe hunt."

Here's something fascinating. I followed Invictus's advice and read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is available via the official Vatican website.

My question "Should I kill people who turn up for work on a Sunday, or not?" is now answered. According to the Catechism, it is the official position of the Catholic Church that anyone who works on a Sunday *should* be killed.

Here's the link: "http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7N.HTM#$29B"

As you'll note, the very first line of that section of the Catechism refers directly to Exodus 13:15, which says:

"Six days there are for doing work, but the seventh day is the sabbath of complete rest, sacred to the LORD. Anyone who does work on the sabbath day shall be put to death."

It's interesting to know that this is still official Catholic policy.

The following sections of the RCCC is a good place to start for getting RC perspective on these things:

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/OEBPS/11-chapter2.xhtml#subchapter7

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/OEBPS/34-chapter15.xhtml#subchapter250

Not too surprisingly, as a good Protestant I take various issue with these, but now is not the time or the place to get into them; what was requested was merely a source stating Christian belief.

Actually, jamie, that verse is cited only for the content of the Third commandment. The part of the catechism you linked to does not say that the commandment still applies now in the same way. See the links I shared for the RCC's beliefs on our relationship to the old law.

This too would be relevant:

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/OEBPS/34-chapter15.xhtml#subchapter251

Yes, and it's a very enlightening source. I had no idea that the Catholic church still officially calls for the death of anyone who works on a Sunday.

It does not, as I pointed out.

I don't understand what you mean, Smeck. Invictus told me that the Catechism sets out what parts of the Old Testament are carried over into current practice. The part of the Catechism concered with the Sabbath specifically refers one to Exodus 13:15. Exodus 13:15 specifically calls for those who work on the Sabbath to be "put to death".

Jamie,

The part of the catechism concerned with the Sabbath does have a footnote to Exodus 31:15. Now, I don't know how y'all use footnotes over in England, but here, they are used to suggest support for the point that was just made -- NOT context-free incorporation of the entire text of the footnote into the main text.

The footnote in question follows this text:

"The third commandment of the Decalogue recalls the holiness of the sabbath: 'The seventh day is a sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD.'" [92]

The text of the verse cited in the footnote is:

"Six days there are for doing work, but the seventh day is the sabbath of complete rest, sacred to the LORD. Anyone who does work on the sabbath day shall be put to death."

This does indeed support the point asserted in the text. It does, in a particular context, also say that sabbath-breakers should be put to death. But it was not cited for support of that point, so it is not a justified inference that the text of the catechism is, at this point, saying anything one way or the other about that part of the verse. (That the verse number break was put where it was, and not one sentence before, is essentially arbitrary).

You don't strike me as somebody with no reading skills whatsoever; so if you persist in this footnote point, I will have to conclude you are trolling, and withdraw my earlier-expressed gratitude.

But surely if one of the points of the Catechism is to establish which elements of the Old Testament still apply, and which don't, then it ought to explicity state that the killing part no longer applies? It does not do this.

By way of analogy: suppose you read a history book, and it said, "Founding father Eddy Algernon arrived in Philadelphia on July 1, 1776. [3]."

Suppose that footnote 3 was to a letter of Mr. Algernon, containing the following text:

"July 2, 1776.

Dear Wife:

I just arrived in Philadelphia this morning. There sure are a lot of stinking Irishmen in this place.

Best,
Eddy."

It would not be a correct inference that the writer of the history book you were reading had a problem with Irishmen.

I have already linked you to the passages where, unlike the passage you linked, the Catholic Catechism *does* deal with the modern status of Old Testament laws like the one you are pointing to. Continuing to ignore them for a misapplied footnote is not excusable argumentation.

Then you should read the next part, "II. The Lord's Day," as well as the parts I linked on "The Old Law" to better understand that relationship, jamie.

Invictus pointed you broadly to the CoRCC. He did not say there was a list somewhere in it of what is and isn't still binding. There is not. Rather, there is a theology that helps determine those things that are and are not.

(Personally, I do find the RCC Catechism a little vague on a lot of points, so it's true that it's not always very helpful for getting any point nailed down well. It uses more open-textured language than I have seen perhaps anywhere else).

I've gone back to being confused. The Catechism's waffling on about the Old Law and the New Law is far from clear. It seems to say that the New Law completely replaces the Old Law. But other Christians (including in this thread) have told me that parts of the Old Testament law do still apply, for example the ten commandments.

I said it was your best bet. If you would just look at what the Church actually says about the sabbath instead of wildly extrapolating based on a footnote then you'll find that the Catholic Church does NOT officially call for sabbath breakers to be put to death, and if you look at church history I'm willing to bet that it never did.

As semck83 points out, only an idiot with an ax to grind can look at the link to the part of the catechism you provided and say that the Catholic Church supports killing people who work on the sabbath. Verses are arbitrary medieval inventions to make citation easier, not God-given divisions which necessarily mean certain clauses or sentences ought to be looked at together in isolation.

"I followed Invictus's advice and read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is available via the official Vatican website."

You didn't read the whole thing, liar. It's freaking huge, as this link shows, and would take hours. Probably even longer for a non-believer like you since you're unfamiliar with the vocabulary and background (this is not an insult).
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

Any way, this has become a troll thread after all. Good bye.