Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The four gospels are clearly OT.......Jesus was born under the law taught under the same law in effect since 1,500BC and He was the author of the law. He came only to the house of Israel fulfilling the promise to the fathers. He taught at the Temple and prayed at the Temple. He only ministered to non-Jews twice that we know of.
The transition to the church age began in Acts and came to fruition in the books of Paul, who received the mysteries and new teaching of grace from the risen Jesus........and who was sent out into the Gentiles. Everything changed as we moved into 2,000 years of grace where believers were no longer under the yoke of the law.
I am not sure I understand the purpose of the question. What difference does it make? "OT" and "NT" are merely categories set up by some long-dead men.
The post above this one just seems like over-thinking.
Actually, while the four Gospels are the first four books of the New Testament, and while they were written after the Church-age began, their content deals with the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus, all of which took place during the age of Israel prior to the beginning of the Church-age. In that sense then, the four Gospels are Old Testament.
The gospels are NOT old testament.
I personally prefer the term covenant to testament because covenant is more in agreement with the context of God's plan of redemption. A covenant is indicative of a legal contract while a testament is a document written for a dead guy.
God isn't dead.
God's covenant is alive and well and operating today.
That being said, the following is an explanation of WHY the gospels are part of the New covenant, not the old.
That which Christians call the Old Covenant is also known by its original name - TANAKH.
The Hebrew Bible, also called the Tanakh or Mikra, is the canonical collection of Jewish texts. These texts are composed mainly in Biblical Hebrew, with some passages in Biblical Aramaic (in the books of Daniel, Ezra and a few others). The original text of the New Covenant is written mostly in Greek by Jews (with the exception of Luke and Acts). Therefore it is said that Jews are the oracle of God - YHWH - or Hashem - 'the Name' - as He is commonly referred to in Hebrew prayers and among Jews everywhere.
The traditional Hebrew text is known as the Masoretic Text.
The Tanakh consists of twenty-four books.
Tanakh is an acronym of the first Hebrew letter of each of the Masoretic Text's three traditional subdivisions:
TORAH
("Teaching", also known as the Five Books of Moses or The Law), also called Pentateuch by Christians - [the first 5 books of the Bible]
NEVIIM
("Prophets" - or the books of the major and minor prophets) and
KETUVIM
("Writings" consisting of history poetry words of wisdom etc.)
hence TaNaKh. (*)
The name Mikra means "that which is read", another Hebrew word for the Tanakh.
When Jesus spoke of the Law and the Prophets, He was referring to TORAH and NEVIIM.
The four gospels are rightfully placed at the beginning of the canon of the New Covenant because they chronicle the life and message of the Son of God -
Jesus Christ
also known as Yeshuah ha-mashiach, His Hebrew name and office.
Hope this clears up misunderstanding and enlightens those who didn't know WHY the Bible is organized the way its organized.
that's me, hollering from the choir loft...
(*) There are no vowels in the Hebrew language, so the letter A is inserted to make the acronym pronounceable in English.
Last edited by Choir Loft; 09-24-2018 at 06:54 AM..
I am not sure I understand the purpose of the question. What difference does it make? "OT" and "NT" are merely categories set up by some long-dead men.
The post above this one just seems like over-thinking.
The Bible is the inspired WORD of the living GOD.
It's organization makes a great deal of difference.
Your opinion is based on ignorance and subjective bias. This isn't a personal insult. Most Christians and almost all secular persons have no idea what the Bible is about or where it came from. As a result they rely upon their own bias and limited understanding and thereby fall into error.
The fact that those who wrote the words are dead doesn't detract from the legitimacy of the Bible.
The US constitution was written and approved of by a bunch of dead guys too.
Your appraisal of old documents would have to apply to the law of the United States as well as God's Word. Do you agree that the constitution is a meaningless collection of rubbish and that it's words mean nothing?
You are entitled to your opinion however misguided it may be, but it wouldn't hold water in a court of law in America.
Likewise your limited understanding of the Bible will not suffice to lift most of your prayers higher than the ceiling above your head.
According to the Bible, the only prayer that God will hear from the lips of the unsaved is the prayer of repentance. This is why so much emphasis is placed upon repentance in the Bible. It's not talked about much in church because church leaders are only interested in donations, not the spiritual welfare of the cash cows that attend their dog and pony show every Sunday.
God is interested in saving the lost. The first prayer we are all privileged to utter is one of repentance.
Thus the time to repent is now. God is waiting and eager to hear.....
I personally prefer the term covenant to testament because covenant is more in agreement with the context of God's plan of redemption. A covenant is indicative of a legal contract while a testament is a document written for a dead guy.
God isn't dead.
God's covenant is alive and well and operating today.
That being said, the following is an explanation of WHY the gospels are part of the New covenant, not the old.
That which Christians call the Old Covenant is also known by its original name - TANAKH.
The Hebrew Bible, also called the Tanakh or Mikra, is the canonical collection of Jewish texts. These texts are composed mainly in Biblical Hebrew, with some passages in Biblical Aramaic (in the books of Daniel, Ezra and a few others). The original text of the New Covenant is written mostly in Greek by Jews (with the exception of Luke and Acts). Therefore it is said that Jews are the oracle of God - YHWH - or Hashem - 'the Name' - as He is commonly referred to in Hebrew prayers and among Jews everywhere.
The traditional Hebrew text is known as the Masoretic Text.
The Tanakh consists of twenty-four books.
Tanakh is an acronym of the first Hebrew letter of each of the Masoretic Text's three traditional subdivisions:
TORAH
("Teaching", also known as the Five Books of Moses or The Law), also called Pentateuch by Christians - [the first 5 books of the Bible]
NEVIIM
("Prophets" - or the books of the major and minor prophets) and
KETUVIM
("Writings" consisting of history poetry words of wisdom etc.)
hence TaNaKh. (*)
The name Mikra means "that which is read", another Hebrew word for the Tanakh.
When Jesus spoke of the Law and the Prophets, He was referring to TORAH and NEVIIM.
The four gospels are rightfully placed at the beginning of the canon of the New Covenant because they chronicle the life and message of the Son of God -
Jesus Christ
also known as Yeshuah ha-mashiach, His Hebrew name and office.
Hope this clears up misunderstanding and enlightens those who didn't know WHY the Bible is organized the way its organized.
that's me, hollering from the choir loft...
(*) There are no vowels in the Hebrew language, so the letter A is inserted to make the acronym pronounceable in English.
The Gospels are Old Testament in the sense that I've already explained in posts #3 and 9. In another sense, the Gospels, especially the Gospel of Matthew, are a bridge between the Old and New Testament. A sort of transition period.
Last edited by Michael Way; 09-24-2018 at 08:54 AM..
The time between the writing of the last of the OT books and the NT has been loosely called 'the 400 silent years'. That time of course was anything but silent in terms of the important historical events which took place during that period, but refers to the silence of the prophets.
Those weren't silent years. A prophet was sent. Islam claims him.
The Gospels are Old Testament in the sense that I've already explained in posts #3 and 9. In another sense, the Gospels, especially the Gospel of Matthew, are a bridge between the Old and New Testament. A sort of transition period.
Incorrect.
The four hundred year transition period (*) was covered in part by the non-canonical books commonly called The Apocrypha. The bridge you are looking for begins in the Apocrypha and is completed in the historic record - not the gospels.
Neither Jewish rabbinical scholars nor Christian theologians accept this document as divinely inspired. That being said, the Apocrypha serves as a historic conveance of important information especially with regard to the Jewish festival of Hanukkah, the festival of the miracle of the lights.
The Maccabees
During the inter-testamental period, Israel was a province of the Seleucid and Greek Empires. A band of freedom fighters arose under the leadership of a fellow by the name of Judah ben Mattahias. They became known as the Maccabees. Some of this information appears in the books of the Apocrypha.
The gospels record the appearance of the Son of God during the early period of Roman occupation of Judea. At that time much discontent still infected the attitude of Jews and their leaders, who were actively looking for another Judah ben Mattahias to lead them to freedom from Roman rule - who were looking for another messiah or ha-mashiach as such a figure is called in Hebrew.
The story of the Maccabean rebellion IS an important period in that it prepared Israel for a leader endowed by God with powers and abilities far beyond that of mortal man. But Jewish leadership was expecting a soldier, a general, on the order of Judah ben Mattahias or King David. THIS IS WHY Jesus (or Yeshuah as He is called in Hebrew) was called the Son of David BY MISTAKE. THIS IS WHY the inter-testimental historic record serves as an important division in the Bible. THIS IS WHY Jewish leaders rejected the Prince of Peace. They wanted war, not liberation of the spirit. THIS IS WHY even Pontius Pilate was confused about Jews wanting to trade Barabbas, a dangerous rebel leader, for Jesus - a man who preached peace even with Rome.
Prophetically speaking Yeshuah actually held the office of Son of Jacob rather than Son of David. But that is the subject of another long story.....
The inter-testimental period was a preparation of Judea for the arrival of Yeshuah ha-mashiach, Jesus the messiah (messiah means anointed one). The gospels aren't a bridge. They tell a different story altogether. They begin a new story.
Gospel period
The gospels are the beginning of a whole new story of the Son of God and His work of redemption. This is why the New Covenant begins with the gospels. The four books aren't a transition work at all. They record the BEGINNING of a New Promise or New Covenant. They record the birth of a New Hope for mankind. This is why so much space is devoted to the birth of the baby Jesus - a New Beginning. No better illustration can be provided to prove this point than the narrative image of God lying in a manger.
A baby signifies a new beginning - always - and none more clearly and obviously than Yeshuah ha-mashiach. Jesus, the anointed Son of God.
Hope this helps.
I suggest further reading and study of the historic inter-testimental period. My post here is very very rudimentary and I've skipped over a lot of important points. My apologies for the brevity of it. I hope it serves to illustrate the reasons why the gospels begin the New Covenant.
that's me, hollering from the choir loft...
(*) The transition period is not exclusively a division in the Biblical narrative. It is historic.
Last edited by Choir Loft; 09-25-2018 at 08:19 AM..
I am not sure I understand the purpose of the question. What difference does it make? "OT" and "NT" are merely categories set up by some long-dead men.
The post above this one just seems like over-thinking.
I agree with your assessment to a point.
this is how I see it. the old testament is the new testament hidden, and the new testament is the old testament revealed. it's just the gospels that bind them both.
this is how I see it. the old testament is the new testament hidden, and the new testament is the old testament revealed. it's just the gospels that bind them both.
just my opinion.
PICYJAG.
The bridge you seek between the gospels and epistles/church age is the Book of Acts.
Nothing is hidden that is not revealed in both sections of the Bible. Each plays remarkably against the other. Each reveals truth and fulfillment the other does not describe fully. For example, the Law is fulfilled in the New Covenant not replaced or reduced (Matt 5:17).
Understanding of the meaning of fulfillment cannot adequately be described without a complete understanding of the Law. Even the words "New Covenant" cannot be appreciated without knowing what the Law says in the first place.
I suppose I'm just reiterating your post in different words, but I prefer to stay away from buzz words and slogans to make a point. Much abuse of the Bible is born of commonly accepted phrases that are incorrect or simply false.(*) I believe the time for study on the part of one and all has arrived. Alas there are too few who are interested in it.
Hope this helps.
that's me, hollering from the choir loft...
(*) Sadly, there are those among us who believe the entire Old Covenant/Testament ought to be completely expunged from the Bible. We live in dangerous times, my friend.
Last edited by Choir Loft; 09-25-2018 at 08:30 AM..
The bridge you seek between the gospels and epistles/church age is the Book of Acts.
Hope this helps.
that's me, hollering from the choir loft...
thanks Choir Loft, but is it not in the book of Act where it is recorded that the Church was being "ADDED" to?, but was it not the Holy Spirit given in the Gospels? let's check the record, John 20:21 "Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
John 20:22 "And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
John 20:23 "Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained".
PICYJAG.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
