Christians Who Deny the Veracity of the Old Testament

[AJ113]

I know it's pointless debating Christians but sometimes I just can't help myself. One issue I often come across is the denial of the Old Testament's relevance and veracity on the basis that the New Testament replaced it, thus with a wave of the hand avoiding having to explain the lunacy of the Old Testament.

What would your reply be in such a situation?

Edit for clarification:
When I say 'veracity' I mean in the Christian sense. The actual veracity of the bible is not the intended discussion point.

 

[FwL]

If they didn't need it to validate the new testament, many would love to bury the old where nobody could find it. Instead you get a bunch of squirming and tap dancing around just how vile the whole thing actually is.

The "it was of the time it was written" excuse makes me want to bring back the lions.

 

[DBT]

Yet the foundation of the NT rests on the idea of original sin, blood sacrifice and consequently, the need for a redeemer, the Lamb of God.

 

[Bronzeage]

What are you trying to accomplish?

Do you want to convince them that it's unlikely a 900 year old man built a boat, loaded two of every kind of animal and then rode out a 40 day flood?

You probably need some kind of thesis statement which can be debated, but the Old Testament is fairly broad in scope.

 

[ideologyhunter]

The easiest tactic, assuming you're trying to tilt with them (always, always a fool's errand) is to say that the OT is, of course, Jesus' scripture. He quotes from about two dozen of the books, says that he has not come to remove one jot and tittle of the commandments (which obviously doesn't square with other aspects of his ministry), tells the apostles that they will be the reinstitution of the 12 tribes of Israel, tells them to preach only to Jews...in the words of the scholarly Tim LaHaye of Left Behind notoriety, Jesus has "credentialed" the OT.

 

[AJ113]

Do you want to convince them that it's unlikely a 900 year old man built a boat, loaded two of every kind of animal and then rode out a 40 day flood?

No, the other way around. Even Christians (at least the ones I talk to) agree that this kind of OT stuff is bizarre, so they get round the issue by saying that the OT was repudiated by Jesus (even though it wasn't) and is therefore not allowed to be brought to the debate.

The easiest tactic, assuming you're trying to tilt with them (always, always a fool's errand) is to say that the OT is, of course, Jesus' scripture. He quotes from about two dozen of the books, says that he has not come to remove one jot and tittle of the commandments (which obviously doesn't square with other aspects of his ministry), tells the apostles that they will be the reinstitution of the 12 tribes of Israel, tells them to preach only to Jews...in the words of the scholarly Tim LaHaye of Left Behind notoriety, Jesus has "credentialed" the OT.

Yes this is what I usually bring to the debate, I just wondered if there were arguments other than this one that would challenge their claim.

Yet the foundation of the NT rests on the idea of original sin, blood sacrifice and consequently, the need for a redeemer, the Lamb of God.

Yes this is pretty fundamental to the entire religion, a very good point.

I don't know the bible well enough (although I should, having been a practising catholic for the first forty years of my life) but I'm wondering if there are anomalies and in the NT that match those of the OT in terms of outlandishness.

 

[ronburgundy]

Jesus repeatedly and consistently stated that everything in the OT was the infallible word of God. And he explicitly rejected the excuse by modern Christians that the NT is a replacement for the OT. Matthew 5:17 claims that Jesus says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." That "Law" was the OT and "every stroke of pen" in it.

To treat anything in the OT as other than God's word and Jesus' own will is to reject the NT as well. So, it is logically impossible to be Christian and not fully accept the OT, and also any admission of problems with the OT is inherently a criticism of Jesus himself.

Here are some more quotes from Jesus regarding the divine truth of the OT:

‘The Scripture cannot be broken’ (John 10:35). He referred to Scripture as ‘the commandment of God’ (Matthew 15:3) and as the ‘Word of God’ (Mark 7:13). Then in countless places he refers to the stories of the OT (Cain and Abel, Moses, Lot, etc.) as unassailable truth as they were written and makes no revisions to them.

If anything, the NT was written after Jesus died, so he never said anything to verify the divinity of what is in the NT. So it is dishonest and self-contradictory for any "Christian" to even treat the NT as more important than the OT, let alone dismiss anything in the OT as not part of Jesus' teachings.

 

[Bronzeage]

No, the other way around. Even Christians (at least the ones I talk to) agree that this kind of OT stuff is bizarre, so they get round the issue by saying that the OT was repudiated by Jesus (even though it wasn't) and is therefore not allowed to be brought to the debate.

Yes this is what I usually bring to the debate, I just wondered if there were arguments other than this one that would challenge their claim.

What Jesus said in Scripture was "For verily I say unto you, Till. heaven and earth pass, one jot or one. tittle shall in no wise pass from. the law, till all be fulfilled". I don't know of any other quotes which expand this to all the Hebrew texts which existed at that time.

There is a distinct difference between "The Law" and the narrative histories told in other books of the Old Testament.

 

[AJ113]

Jesus repeatedly and consistently stated that everything in the OT was the infallible word of God. And he explicitly rejected the excuse by modern Christians that the NT is a replacement for the OT. Matthew 5:17 claims that Jesus says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." That "Law" was the OT and "every stroke of pen" in it.

To treat anything in the OT as other than God's word and Jesus' own will is to reject the NT as well. So, it is logically impossible to be Christian and not fully accept the OT, and also any admission of problems with the OT is inherently a criticism of Jesus himself.

Here are some more quotes from Jesus regarding the divine truth of the OT:

‘The Scripture cannot be broken’ (John 10:35). He referred to Scripture as ‘the commandment of God’ (Matthew 15:3) and as the ‘Word of God’ (Mark 7:13). Then in countless places he refers to the stories of the OT (Cain and Abel, Moses, Lot, etc.) as unassailable truth as they were written and makes no revisions to them.

If anything, the NT was written after Jesus died, so he never said anything to verify the divinity of what is in the NT. So it is dishonest and self-contradictory for any "Christian" to even treat the NT as more important than the OT, let alone dismiss anything in the OT as not part of Jesus' teachings.

Most excellent post Ron, very powerful, thank you.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Every single Christian cherry picks parts of the Bible here and there to view as accurate which conform to whatever they view as moral and brushes off the rest as being metaphorical or something that only applied to ancient societies or something that they just straight up ignore.

Having a larger section of it which they completely ignore doesn't make them fundamentally different from any other Christians who cherry pick a little bit here and there out of those ignored sections.

 

[ronburgundy]

Every single Christian cherry picks parts of the Bible here and there to view as accurate which conform to whatever they view as moral and brushes off the rest as being metaphorical or something that only applied to ancient societies or something that they just straight up ignore.

Having a larger section of it which they completely ignore doesn't make them fundamentally different from any other Christians who cherry pick a little bit here and there out of those ignored sections.

True, all Christians are dishonest, self-contradicting hypocrites, for whom the label "Christian" means "I make up whatever is convenient for me and pretend that is "Christian". Those who disregard the OT are just one manifestation of this.

 

[AJ113]

Having a larger section of it which they completely ignore doesn't make them fundamentally different from any other Christians who cherry pick a little bit here and there out of those ignored sections.

Agreed of course. But the purpose of the thread was to get down to specifics - i.e. Christians' denial of the OT.

 

[Politesse]

I know it's pointless debating Christians but sometimes I just can't help myself. One issue I often come across is the denial of the Old Testament's relevance and veracity on the basis that the New Testament replaced it, thus with a wave of the hand avoiding having to explain the lunacy of the Old Testament.

What would your reply be in such a situation?

Edit for clarification:
When I say 'veracity' I mean in the Christian sense. The actual veracity of the bible is not the intended discussion point.

I tend to agree, though I think everyone ought to be familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures, even if they aren't trying to enforce them as some kind of theocracy. It is, to my mind, a basic matter of responsible citizenship to know and understand the major religious texts that your fellow-citizens hold in reverence.

I also do not believe that the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures necessarily contradict one another; it is obvious that the writers of the New Testament were aware of and revered the "Old" one. If your reading of the meaning of the NT involves erasing the HS, you are applying a very questionable hermeneutic in my opinion. Even calling the HS the "Old Testament" is more than a little bit antisemitic in my opinion, so I do so only when necessary for clarification. Christianity began as a Jewish sect, and should respect those roots as well as their siblings in faith who are now living.

 

[Politesse]

Every single Christian cherry picks parts of the Bible here and there to view as accurate which conform to whatever they view as moral and brushes off the rest as being metaphorical or something that only applied to ancient societies or something that they just straight up ignore.

I've never understood why this would be seen as a moral failing by any thinking person. What sort of a world would we live in if no one employed their individual conscience in deciding what moral rules to follow and which to disregard? Blind obedience is only called a virtue by those who are weak of will or politically ambitious.

 

[James Brown]

Every single Christian cherry picks parts of the Bible here and there to view as accurate which conform to whatever they view as moral and brushes off the rest as being metaphorical or something that only applied to ancient societies or something that they just straight up ignore.

I've never understood why this would be seen as a moral failing by any thinking person. What sort of a world would we live in if no one employed their individual conscience in deciding what moral rules to follow and which to disregard? Blind obedience is only called a virtue by those who are weak of will or politically ambitious.

I totally agree.

But the Bible praises those who practiced blind obedience.

 

[AJ113]

Every single Christian cherry picks parts of the Bible here and there to view as accurate which conform to whatever they view as moral and brushes off the rest as being metaphorical or something that only applied to ancient societies or something that they just straight up ignore.

I've never understood why this would be seen as a moral failing by any thinking person. What sort of a world would we live in if no one employed their individual conscience in deciding what moral rules to follow and which to disregard?

If you decide to follow your own moral values instead of those prescribed by your religion, aren't you rejecting that religion?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Every single Christian cherry picks parts of the Bible here and there to view as accurate which conform to whatever they view as moral and brushes off the rest as being metaphorical or something that only applied to ancient societies or something that they just straight up ignore.

I've never understood why this would be seen as a moral failing by any thinking person. What sort of a world would we live in if no one employed their individual conscience in deciding what moral rules to follow and which to disregard? Blind obedience is only called a virtue by those who are weak of will or politically ambitious.

It’s not a moral failing by a thinking person and nobody has ever characterized it as such.

What it is is a comment on the lie told by Christians that the Bible is a source of morality for them. It’s not. They get their morality from the society around them just like the rest of us and cherry pick out individual passages in the Bible which reinforce that and ignore the passages which do not.

 

[Politesse]

Every single Christian cherry picks parts of the Bible here and there to view as accurate which conform to whatever they view as moral and brushes off the rest as being metaphorical or something that only applied to ancient societies or something that they just straight up ignore.

I've never understood why this would be seen as a moral failing by any thinking person. What sort of a world would we live in if no one employed their individual conscience in deciding what moral rules to follow and which to disregard?

If you decide to follow your own moral values instead of those prescribed by your religion, aren't you rejecting that religion?

If a religion indeed promotes such behavior, then it is rightly to be rejected.

I don't think most Christians give the matter a lot of thought, but their actions in public life suggest that most do not make any attempt to "religiously" follow every passage of either the Christian or Hebrew Scriptures.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I know it's pointless debating Christians but sometimes I just can't help myself. One issue I often come across is the denial of the Old Testament's relevance and veracity on the basis that the New Testament replaced it, thus with a wave of the hand avoiding having to explain the lunacy of the Old Testament.

What would your reply be in such a situation?

Edit for clarification:
When I say 'veracity' I mean in the Christian sense. The actual veracity of the bible is not the intended discussion point.

That depends on whether they believe the events depicted actually happened, that the OT law was actually given by the biblical creator to the ancient Israelites, etc. As long as they believe that, then I would argue on that basis that the biblical creator is not God (i.e., not omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect, on account of not being morally perfect), but rather, supervillain - he's a Thanos, or Dr. Doom, or someone like that (details in my moral case against Christianity).

If they have no stance as to whether that is the law given by the biblical creator, etc., then for the same reasons given above, I would argue they should not have the belief that the biblical creator is good - at least, they should remain agnostic on the subject.

Finally, if they deny that that is the law of the biblical creator, deny that the events happen, etc., then I would probably leave it aside and just target another part of Christianity - one they accept. If they accept a part that links back to the OT, then I would still target the OT, but only after showing them that some of their beliefs do imply that OT law was in fact given to the ancient Israelites,l or that Jesus approved of it, etc. Else, I would just use whatever they accept to make my argument against their particular brand of Christianity.

 

[Learner]

To be a Christian you need "only" to, adhere to the NT i.e. as according to Jesus, which doesn't actually deny the veracity of the OT at all - depending on the individual. Of course this means there are Christians who may not be able to explain or understand those parts of the OT that sound a little conflicting with what they understand of the N.T.. I'd say also, that its not neccessary to "know" every detail of the O.T. although Christians may not have the required answer when they're asked certain questions of the type, similar to the OP. They'll lose points in a debate but should be "No big-deal" really, if they follow according to the NT (in time perhaps - they'll learn more, which does happen to quite a few believers).



*Edit: As long as they remember: Jesus validates the OT.

I'm sure and agree, that there are some who do "deny" the veracity of the OT to some degree as the OP points out.