Have any Christian groups ever rejected the Bible's Old Testament?

[mestup]

I hope that's not a spectacularly stupid question. I'm new here, and certainly no Biblical scholar.

In light of the history of religious doctrines, with groups splitting, branching off, redefining their beliefs, I'm wondering if there's ever been an attempt to define Christianity as only Christ-centered. As in a belief in Jesus of Nazareth as Prophet/Savior and a movement designed around the concept. Especially considering excavations and interpretations of scrolls, etc.

I've seen "bibles" that are New Testament only, but I don't know if they're specific to any one group.

With the exposure of the Hard Right Wing of Christianity, I've wondered if non-right Christians will move toward a split?

[Az]

1. There are attempts to distance some sects from it

There are even bibles published with just the NT (I know this cuz I had 10 of them dumped on my car once).

But it is problematic. There is a lot of nasty things in the OT many would like to distance themself from. But there is also the reason for proclaiming Jesus necissary and devine contained in it. The very concept of original sin is spelled out in the first book. Can't really ditch that without creating problems.

[ozarkvet]

2. Not in any meaningful way.

The whole idea is that Jesus fulfilled a whole bunch of prophesies in the Old Testament.

The "new" doesn't make any sense without the "old."

[tibbiit]

7. This is a great question that I have wondered for years myself

If Jesus was going in a completely different direction from the OT, ie... Eye for Eye vs Turn the Other cheek... then to me the OT should be disregarded totaly except as history.
If one followed just the words and deeds of just Jesus and not all the other (truly nutty sounding crazy shit) from the OT then maybe the world would have been better off.

Imo using both bibles just splits Christianity and it cant be reconciled . (I was raised episcopal and am now agnostic at the very least)
I also dont see any evidence of the RW Xtians following the words of jesus... arent they supposed to give away all their stuff to the poor?
tib

[Az]

9. The problem

Jesus does not claim that any of the rules or definitions are wrong in the OT. In fact he even agrees that the appropriate response in many cases is to kill the offender. All he really changes is the notion that adherance is required. He acknowledges that the road is too hard and that instead a desire to be good and trust in him are what is required.

Thus the things described as evil and abhorant in the OT are still evil and abhorant. But recriminations for performing such actions are forgivable. If you are willing to acknowledge they are wrong and ask for forgiveness.

[ozarkvet]

13. Not correct.

He did not abrogate the Law.

Basically, he said you are still under the Law (and thereby screwed), unless you accept the free gift of grace, which is the big loophole.

This is far too complex a question for me to answer in a post. Plus, my theological background is OK, but not great.

There are some pretty good non-denominational Bible Studies that have no agenda. Look up "Community Bible Study" in your area. It's one has "homework" and you walk through a book at a time. Even for non-Christians, it's very educational.

These exact questions are dealt with in Matthew (he was the equivalent of an Orthodox Jew) and in Paul's Letters to the Romans.

If you bought a NIV Study Bible (one with the footnotes -- Sam's Club has them) --- you could slog through these questions by reading Matthew and Romans.

[China_cat]

3. The only time they reject the OT

is when you call them on saying everything in the bible is literal truth and to be taken that way but can't explain why they don't keep kosher and follow all the Levitican laws. THEN the OT doesn't apply.

[ozarkvet]

15. The bulk Leviticus

And all the Kosher purity laws were specifically rejected in the New Testament.

I believe Peter did this.

As an aside, a huge chunk of the Kosher laws are derived-by-interpretation and tradtion from the general concepts in Leviticus. Many self-proclaimed kosher Jews call "bunk" on what they see as man-generated additions to the kosher requirements.

[China_cat]

18. And all the Kosher purity laws were specifically rejected in the New Testa

No they aren't. Not if you go by the words of Jesus..."I come to fulfill the law, NOT TO CHANGE IT."

[Az]

19. Exactly, they are not changed

Everything that was wrong is still wrong. Its just that Jesus claimed that it was too much for humans to adhere to. Thus mercy had to be extended.

Thats the catch. All the stuff in the OT is still what god considers to be right and wrong. But he forgives people for not being able to follow it. We are not perfect.

Of course this creates some issues. When you look over the rules in the OT there are clearly some things in there that do not jive with out modern sensibilities. But the word of god is unalterable. They are definitively wrong. They are abhorant. That is unalterable.

So you have a range of reactions to this notion. There are those that accept our fallibility and embrace tolerance. And then you have those that try to cleave to as close an adherance to the definitions as they are able to interpret. Guess where the hatred comes from.

[ozarkvet]

24. You have to put that in context.

The Law applies to non-Christians not to Christians, to oversimplify greatly (massively, in fact). The theological key was that Jesus FULFILLED most of the sacrificial/purity requirements of the Law.

More importantly, the bigger issue was that the Jews, as the Chosen People, were to set themselves apart with odd dietary customs.

Christianity teaches us that the "seperation" period is over and God wants to adopt ALL PEOPLE as his children (making seperation-by-custom no longer needed).

Galations 3 explains this a lot better than I could. Here:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=galations%203&version=31

Here are some of the relevant passages from Paul and Peter directly regarding the Kosher issues.

It also helps if you remember Peter and Paul were Jewish and Paul was a complete badass Pharasee (read more-or-less today's ultra-Orthodox) hired by the government to kill all the Christians (but who converted).

This is from Acts 10, which was written by Luke:

"About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."

14"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."

15The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

16This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.



This is followed up by Paul (remember, expert on the Law and badass at heart).

Paul is writing Romans. The point of this passage is to agree with Peter that "all food is clean" (kosher), but if there is someone that wants to stay Kosher, keep it Kosher.

(This is why you don't drink beer around Baptists.)

14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

"Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall."

There's a lot more (especially regarding circumcision, a "hard" issue for adult gentile converts!) but you get the drift.

[TechBear_Seattle]

26. Technically speaking, no

Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsab'bas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, with the following letter:

"The brethren, both the apostles and the elders, to the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cili'cia, greeting.

Since we have heard that some persons from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth.

For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell."

Acts of the Apostles, 15:22-29

The first three prohibitions -- food that had been sacrificed, blood and animals that had been strangled -- were all derived directly from kashrut. The fourth prohibits prostitution (the Greek word is pornos, which specifically describes the sex trade.) They were directed specifically at Gentile Christians who lived outside of Jerusalem. Other Christians were presumed to be Jewish, and therefore were expected to keep the whole of the Law.

[Igel]

25. Not all.

Peter's conclusion of what he claimed to see in a vision was that he was told to call no man common or unclean; to apply what he said to food implies he was talking of cannibalism, and when he said he hadn't broken the food laws it wasn't like he was corrected or told it was pointless. Then again, a lot of preachers say just that.

Paul is more vague, and more justifiably in keeping with disposing of the food laws: if some food is considered unclean, so be it for that person, but Jesus taught him nothing was unclean of itself. I've heard this expounded in far, far too many ways, and personally it has to do with ambiguous things and matters of conscience (like eating food sacrificed to idols, part of Paul's context).

Many of the kashrut laws are inferences, you're right; some are explicit in the original text. Some people reject most of the inferences. Few reject all of them. While wapiti are covered (N. American elk) by an explicit rule, chickens aren't: birds are classed by list. Neither were known in the Middle East when Leviticus was written and codified. Rabbis deduced a rule to cover birds; chickens, by that rule, are clean.

[DoYouEverWonder]

4. From my POV

which is more gnostic then most, Jesus said that he was the fulfillment of the OT so therefore the old rules no longer applied.

I think the OT is interesting from a historical POV but when fundies quote the OT to me, I look at them funny and say, 'I didn't know you are Jewish'?

[ClassWarrior]

5. Yeah, Jesus and the 12 disciples.

Why do you think there's a New Testament?

NGU.

[willing dwarf]

6. Not a rejection but understood in a historical context

A lot of Christians see the life of Jesus as the fullfilment of the Old Testament. God moves from intimate, knowable and scarey in the early books of Old Testament and becomes more remote over the course of the history of the Israeli people.

Jesus comes "not to rejct the law but to fulfill it." As the "suffering servant" the understanding is that God has stopped being harsh and destructive, and has become intimate, but ineffable. Loving his people to the point of self-sacrifice.

So... many people who call themselves CHristian see Bible, Old T. & New as a historic document, not needing to be weighed as "true."

This is how American Quakers and Catholics, Episcopalians and Lutherans seem to understand it.

[Extend a Hand]

8. reject it? no

believe that everything in it is literally true? no.

I believe the old testament is a collection of stories telling the history of the Jewish people.

[murielm99]

10. I went to a rather conservative church as a child.

We studied the Bible thoroughly.

We learned that the Old Testament was important because it taught the history of the promise of the Messiah. We learned about all the promises contained there, and how things that Jesus said and did fulfilled that promise. We were taught that He was the NEW COVENANT, and that Old Testament law no longer applied, because He said so. He included Gentiles and Jews among the saved. The dietary rules, the exclusions, were all over with.

Christians always concentrate on the New Testament. The fulfillment of the promise, the Gospels, is the important part. Knowing one's history is not a bad thing. But living in the past is wrong. If fundies are trying to base everything on Old Testament teachings, they are missing the point of their religion.

I don't know that your question is stupid, but Christianity is always Christ-centered. Any group that puts something or someone ahead of Christ should not call itself Christian. There are fundie groups that do that. I think the fundies who emphasize politics or put all their energy into hating gays and abortion are putting something ahead of Christ. They are not following his teachings. They need to go out and feed the poor, and work for peace.

[Rabrrrrrr]

11. The Marcionites did

Though they were eventually labeled heretical about the year 144, especially by Tertullian.

He claimed only the writings of Paul and the Gospel of Luke as authoritative.

It was, quite likely, his very reduced set of acceptable writings (entirely rejecting the OT as well) that caused the early church fathers to start considering that they need to establish a canon, which they finally did about 200 years later.

[undergroundpanther]

12. The Nazis rejected the OT,and they mixed in germanic stuff

They twisted the cross. To serve their ends.And the bible is such a mass of contradictions and propaganda it is easy to twist it to ones own designs. This is something too many Christians refuse to face up to.

[ozarkvet]

16. Nazis

Correct.

They were replacing Christianity with old tyme German paganism --- in no small part because of the "Chosen People" issue.

[mestup]

14. THANKS ALL for the input. So many intelligent people on DU! n/t

[On the Road]

17. The Answer is YES

but the rejection takes different forms and the groups who did it often deny it or may not be considered Christian.

The Gnostic movement, primarily in the 2d and 3d century, took the view that the god of the Old Testament was a lesser, evil God (the demiurge), and not the God Jesus talked about. (I actually think the Old Testament reads better that way.) Today the Gnostics are looked on as a heresy, but many Gnostics such as Valentinus were prominent Christians in the early Church.

Historically, the Catholic Church has used the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Bible, which includes more books than the Hebrew Bible, such as Tobit and 1st and 2nd Maccabees. Martin Luther adopted the Hebrew Bible, and since then the 13 books of the Apocrypha have been rejected by Protestants. So all Protestants reject part of the Old Testament as defined up to the 16th century.

William Ellery Channing founded the Unitarian movement by focusing on Jesus' teachings. He was not particularly fond of much of the material in the Old Testament (or the New Testament for that matter). But because he rejected the ideas of the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Atonement, he's often considered not to be a "real Christian."

And depending on how you look at it, the first person could be considered the Apostle Paul. Paul basically repudiated the Law of Moses, which to Jews is central to the Old Testament. It is true that the Law was considered primarily for Jews, but Paul went way beyond that attitude in many of his statements. For example, he says that the Law's glory was fading, and that Moses veiled his face on coming down from Mt Sinai in order to hide its fading glory. He says "the letter (meaning the Law) kills, but the spirit gives life." He says "all things are allowable, but not all things are useful." These are the types of things that infuriated Jewish believers in Jesus to the point of violence. Christians, of course, have had to reconcile some of Paul's more inflammatory statements with Jesus' saying that "not a jot, not a tittle" will be changed in the Law, and that whoever teaches men to disobey its commandments would be considered least in the kingdom of heaven.

Basically it depends on your point of view. I don't know of any large, organized church that says "we don't believe in the Old Testament." But in practice, all or part of it has been widely rejected quite often.

[TechBear_Seattle]

21. The irony about William Ellery Channing is...

The Protestant Movement itself came very close to being Unitarian.

Michael Servetus was a physician and scholar in the 16th century best known for writing two books: De Trinitatis Erroribus (Of the Errors of the Trinity) and Christianismi Restitutio (Restoration of Christianity.) (He authored numerous other books during his life, including one of the first atlases and a medical text that predates the discovery of the heart's function by two centuries.)

His attacks on trinitarian dogma were so vociferous, so vitriolic, that even Protestant leaders were forced to defend the doctrine, even leaders who had previously expressed doubt about it. He was eventually put to death in Geneva on October 27, 1553, burned at the stake as a heretic by none other than John Calvin.

A great book to read, if you are interested, is "Out of the Flames: The Remarkable Story of a Fearless Scholar, a Fatal Heresy, and One of the Rarest Books in the World" by Lawrence and Nancy Goldstone.

[On the Road]

23. I Didn't Know About Servetus

Will have to check up on him.

I'm actually surprised the Trinity could be so openly attacked in the 16th century. That has been pretty much anathema since Constantine forced the Church to choose one side or the other.

[TechBear_Seattle]

20. With very few exceptions, none since the Christian canon was formalized

However, there has been some lively discussion as to exactly what is included in the Old Testament. For example, the Roman and Orthodox churches have accepted as part of the Old Testament various additions to the books of Esther and Daniel that were part of the Septuagent (a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures widely used during the 1st century CE) but not part of the Masoretic Text (the Hebrew version of the same scriptures, canonized in the 7th century CE but essentially identical to the text known in Jerusalem during the time of Jesus.)

Much more interesting, historically, is the "deuterocanon", or "second canon", consisting of books that are not a part of the Old Testament but are nonetheless considered by some churches to be the Divinely Revealed Word of God. The Roman Catholic collection includes Tobit, Sirach, Wisdom, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees and Baruch. Most of the Orthodox churches have the same books in their deuterocanon, along with 3 Maccabees, Psalm 151 and a few others. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church includes the Book of Enoch, mentioned in the New Testament "Letter to the Hebrews." The Anglican Church accepts the Catholic Deuterocanon as "worthy of study" but not fit for deriving doctrine. All other Protestant churches have rejected the Deuterocanon. I believe that the Catholic Church now places the additions to Esther and Daniel in the Deuterocanon; the Greek Orthodox (and a few others, I think) still class those texts as part of the Old Testament.

Lastly, did you know that Martin Luther tried to drop Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelations from the New Testament? Apparently, they disagreed with his beliefs in "only by faith"; therefore they had to be false Scriptures inserted by the Devil. While this attempt was foiled by his followers, German Lutheran Bibles still put these books at the very end of the New Testament, out of the traditional order.

Wikipedia: Biblical Canon

[mestup]

22. Fascinating info - thank you very much.

Plus, I didn't know that about Luther and the books he tried to drop.

A friend suggested I read a book, "Beyond Belief, The Secret Gospel of Thomas" (Pagels). It's what got me interested in the question of why modern Christians haven't attempted to distance themselves from the militant right wing.

Thanks again.

[blindpig]

27. The Cathars of Provence

They were of course exterminated in a horrendous Crusade.

[Disturbed]

28. The Old Testament.

Old Testament


Slave Quotes

Psalm 123:2
As the eyes of slaves look to the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maid look to the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look to the LORD our God, till he shows us his mercy.

Ephesians 6:5
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

Ephesians 6:9
And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

Colossians 3:22
Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.

Colossians 4:1
Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.

1 Timothy 6:1
All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered.

Titus 2:9
Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,

1 Peter 2:18
Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

[blindpig]

30. ?

Sorry, I don't get you drift. My reading informs me that the Cathars of Provence were effectively Manichaeans, considering the god of the Old Testament to be evil and opposed to that of The Nazarene. That would constitute a rejection of the Old Testament.

[More Than A Feeling]

29. Tough to understand Jesus Christ as savior without the OT, IMHO

The Old Testament is the story of a people searching for a saviour and struggling with their relationship with God, and the New Testament proclaims itself the answer to that question and that struggle. Seen in that way, its easy to understand why the two were bound together. Talking about Jesus without talking about the Jewish heritage he was born into and what that says about him makes the story incomplete.

[bobbieinok]

31. the 'German Christians' did...they wanted to dump the OT and replace it

with Norse mythology

they said the OT was Jewish, not German

the above is a simplistic description; below is a link to a review about the group

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/reviewstr17.htm



Doris L. Bergen. Twisted Cross: The German Christian Movement in the Third Reich. Chapel Hill and London: The University of North Carolina Press, 1996. Cloth $39.95 ISBN 0-8078-2253-1; Paper $16.95 ISBN 0-8078-4560-4. Published by H-German 27 September 1996

The German Christians were a relatively small but highly disruptive element within German Protestantism which pursued the goal of harmonizing Christianity (or what they understood Christianity to be) with National Socialism. Their project was to "arianise" both Holy Scripture and the person of Jesus Christ; in short, to rid traditional Christianity of all putatively Jewish components. The German Christians were thus committed to a cult of the Volk, to the idea of racial purity and to adulation of the Führer. All these things, so they argued, were inherent in the being of the true unadulterated Germanic people. Their religious practice consisted in preaching a manly, anti-effeminate, essentially Germanic gospel, and the singing of patriotic songs and hymns of praise to the Fuehrer who was equated with the Saviour. It was a movement without serious theology, which refused to countenance any intellectual debate or dogma. Its only binding principle was a sentimental feeling of belonging together.

There are many reasons to welcome Doris Bergen's diligently researched and clearly written investigation of this curious movement. First, it shows that even in the country where theological studies had been developed to their most sophisticated level, there could emerge a totally unscientific, irrational and essentially anti-Christian movement which claimed that there was no essential difference between National Socialism and the Gospel of Christ. This raises the problem of how academic theology is received at the grass roots, indeed, how people, including pastors, appropriate "twisted" ideas, regard them as normative, and actually base their lives on them.

more....

[MemphisTiger]

32. I think Catholics see it as a collection of stories rather than law

I'm not sure, someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but they don't outright reject it. They just don't hold it as literal as evangelicals.

[T_i_B]

33. It's not a stupid question

I shall reply with the ancient example of the Marcionites, who rejected all but a few of St Paul's Epistles. From the catholic Encyclopedia;

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09645c.htm

Heretical sect founded in A.D. 144 at Rome by Marcion and continuing in the West for 300 years, but in the East some centuries longer, especially outside the Byzantine Empire. They rejected the writings of the Old Testament and taught that Christ was not the Son of the God of the Jews, but the Son of the good God, who was different from the God of the Ancient Covenant. They anticipated the more consistent dualism of Manichaeism and were finally absorbed by it. As they arose in the very infancy of Christianity and adopted from the beginning a strong ecclesiastical organization, parallel to that of the Catholic Church, they were perhaps the most dangerous foe Christianity has ever known. The subject will be treated under the following heads: