Are New Testament passages necessary to establish doctrine???

[Provoker]

I have noticed that many Christian bible scholars have a tendancy to dismiss pre-first century scripture, and put more faith in post first century BC scripture.
Pre-first century scripture obviously has seniority, and was obviously the only scripture that Jesus and his apostles used to preach the gospel.
Post first century BC scripture was under the complete control of Romans, virtually from the time it was written, while pre-first century scriptures were well established, well known, and well travelled, long before Jesus and the apostles used them to preach the gospel, and long before Romans even had an interest in scripture.
Why is there an obvious Christian bias against pre-first century scripture?

[Mountain Man]

I have noticed that many Christian bible scholars have a tendancy to dismiss pre-first century scripture, and put more faith in post first century BC scripture.

And which Bible scholars are these?

[Jedidiah]

And which Bible scholars are these?

I think the reference is to the little boy down the street. I don't know of any Christian scholars who, "dismiss pre-first century scripture," or "put more faith in post first century" writings. Do you?

[Provoker]

Hello Mountain man and Jedidiah:
Are you guys playing dumb, or is this the first conversation you have had since you left a monastry? Denial is not just a river in Egypt you know...LOL

Let me ask you this guys:
If we could only have either the old testament, or the new testament, but not both, would your choice be the scriptures that Jesus and his apostles used to preach the gospel, or would you choose the scriptures that were written later?

[Jedidiah]

Hello Mountain man and Jedidiah:
Are you guys playing dumb, or is this the first conversation you have had since you left a monastry? Denial is not just a river in Egypt you know...LOL

The fact is I do not know any real Bible Scholars personally. It is, however, a fact that all inerrantists consider the OT to be background to the NT and fully inerrant. None, I repeat "none" dismiss it. How about a Bible believing scholar who dismisses the OT, if you have one?

[Provoker]

The fact is I do not know any real Bible Scholars personally. It is, however, a fact that all inerrantists consider the OT to be background to the NT and fully inerrant. None, I repeat "none" dismiss it. How about a Bible believing scholar who dismisses the OT, if you have one?

Hello Jedidiah:
Maybe you are thrown off by the word "scholar", since you add the qualifying adjective; "real".
I'm not sure what the difference is between a scholar, and a "real" scholar, but I use the word "scholar", meaning anyone who reads with the intention of learning.
Have you never heard anyone say that the old testament is for the Jews, and the new testament is for Christians? Never heard a debator reject another's scriptural arguement because his references are from the old testament?
I suggest that you are living in some kind of Christian Utopia that is only found in a Walgreen's commercial...LOL

[Jedidiah]

Have you never heard anyone say that the old testament is for the Jews, and the new testament is for Christians? Never heard a debator reject another's scriptural arguement because his references are from the old testament?

The only qualifier I used that makes any difference is limiting my comments to Bible believers. Anyone who denies the significance of the OT to Christians is no Bible believer. What was it that the NT said about "all scripture . . ."?

[Provoker]

The only qualifier I used that makes any difference is limiting my comments to Bible believers. Anyone who denies the significance of the OT to Christians is no Bible believer. What was it that the NT said about "all scripture . . ."?

Hello Jedidiah:
Who is a bible believer, is as debatable as who is a Christian. A bible scholar does not have to be a bible believer, in fact, a bible scholar who has a preconceived belief in the bible, is not an honest bible scholar...LOL I would assume however, that most Christians who study the bible, are probably bible believers...LOL
The meaning of "All scripture" is also debatable...LOL

[Jedidiah]

. . . I use the word "scholar", meaning anyone who reads with the intention of learning. . . .

We have a failure to be consistent here.

[Provoker]

We have a failure to be consistent here.

Hello Jedidiah:
What is inconsistent here? Scholars were around long before colleges were, and people with scholarly qualifications are not necessarily scholars, but are more likely to be memorizers of some scholars opinions...LOL

[Mountain Man]

Hello Mountain man and Jedidiah:
Are you guys playing dumb, or is this the first conversation you have had since you left a monastry? Denial is not just a river in Egypt you know...LOL

I just assumed you had specific scholars in mind, but apparently not.

Personally, if I knew of a Bible scholar who dismissed the Old Testament then I wouldn't consider him much of a scholar.

Let me ask you this guys:
If we could only have either the old testament, or the new testament, but not both, would your choice be the scriptures that Jesus and his apostles used to preach the gospel, or would you choose the scriptures that were written later?

That's a rather pointless question. One is the fulfillment of the other. The Bible without both the Old and New Testament is an incomplete book.

[Provoker]

That's a rather pointless question. One is the fulfillment of the other. The Bible without both the Old and New Testament is an incomplete book.

Hello Mountain Man:
I am refering to specific scholars, but they are unknown by name to me or you. Everyone who is a bible scholar is not a nationally known figure...LOL
I agree that the bible is only complete with the old and new testaments, however, the pre-first century scriptures used by Jesus and his apostles, were a complete "book" in themselves, even though they were not the bible.
I hardly think that Jesus would have called the only scriptures he found necessary in his ministry, incomplete...LOL
If anything, it is the bible which is incomplete, because several books which are endorsed as scripture by their "mention" in the bible, are not actually in the bible, and one of the quoted books was actually rejected by the canonizers. The point is, that the bible is not "All scripture".

Let me ask another "pointless" question: If you had to choose one or the other, would you use the old testament, or the new testament, to lead someone to the Lord?
It's a rhetorical question of course, because I already know the answer you would give, if you would give an answer...LOL

Why wouldn't you choose the old testament, over the new, to lead someone to the Lord. If it was good enough for Jesus and the apostles to lead people to the Lord, than it should be good enough for any Christian...right?

[Mountain Man]

I hardly think that Jesus would have called the only scriptures he found necessary in his ministry, incomplete...LOL

I say it would be incomplete because the Old Testament points the way to the Messiah, and the New Testament is about the fulfillment of the prophecy.

Why wouldn't you choose the old testament, over the new, to lead someone to the Lord. If it was good enough for Jesus and the apostles to lead people to the Lord, than it should be good enough for any Christian...right?

Not exactly. Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old Testament, but he also introduced a lot of new theology in his ministry, much of which the Jews of the day found very difficult to understand.

As for why I might (but wouldn't necessarily) choose the New Testament when witnessing to someone, it's because it's the new convenant, but when I used to teach kids in my church's youth group, I taught the Bible front to back because it's all equally important.

[Jedidiah]

Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old Testament, but he also introduced a lot of new theology in his ministry, much of which the Jews of the day found very difficult to understand.

There is only one really new thing revealed in Jesus teaching. Ephesians 3:6 "This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. "

[bandecoot]

Jed I have been around this board for a while and these kinds of boards for quite a few years now. What was Provoker trying to prove Gramps?


I'm confused.