Clouseau

Really.

Cege

Really.

Clouseau

Wow.

Cege

You betcha wow.

Note that I don't offer a defense but only an attempted explanation. It seems to me that most people who become Christians do so based on an emotional appeal that includes a story of personal sacrifice by Jesus for the individuals who emotionally come to believe the story. After that, the assertions about Christianity and both OT and NT contents are accepted as gospel, pardon the pun, because they are part of the Christianity package.

Clouseau

That's noted alright.

Mike PSS

So the OT is accepted in full? Even though Jesus only quoted/referenced parts? Is there some accounting for what parts of the OT Jesus thought directly pertinent to his gospel?

With the documentary hypothesis about the OT authors.
The OT as an ancient text even in Jesus time.
The OT historical inconsistencies (I'm being gentle/neutral with this statement) that are brought up by critics but never adequatly answered.

I would think that the NT would hold precedence over anything claimed in the OT.

Being an agnostic who's never done theologic study, I'm grasping a bit on the facts around this issue.

Doug Shaver

I used to be one. Will that do?

I don't know anyone authoritative who claims that Christianity is based exclusively on the New Testament. And, it would be a difficult position for anyone to defend, since the New Testament authors clearly affirmed the authority of "scripture," which in their day meant Jewish scripture, which is what Christians of a later time referred to as the Old Testament.

It is a case of today's Christians wanting to conform their beliefs with the beliefs of the first Christians. The first Christians believed that what we call the Old Testament was the word of God, and none of them said that the day would come when it would be OK for Christians to believe otherwise.

Because the founders of Christianity said it was the truth, and Bible-believing Christians today believe that their founders knew what they talking about.

Because the founders said not to do that. In the founders' day, the NT didn't even exist.

James Brown

Don't forget all the Messianic prophecies in the OT that were "fulfilled" by Jesus. If we throw out the OT as unimportant, or outdated, or too Jewish, or not Christian enough, then we cut away the support for Jesus fulfilling the Messianic prophecies. It would severely weaken a Christian apologist's case if he said that we must believe in Jesus on account this one man single-handedly fulfilled umptety-ump number of OT prophecies, but at the same time he said that the OT really isn't all that relevant or reliable. The OT has to be more than just a scrapbook of one group's history, warts and all, embellishments and all. It has to be a magical book, Act One of a seamless three-act play ghostwritten by the celestial being who created the entire universe.

Ergo, the OT has to be inerrant, and relevant, and absolutely trustworthy, no matter who might claim otherwise.

Clouseau

But not literally true.

Mike PSS

Thanks Doug Shaver and JamesABrown (I feel good...) for the reply.

But it's this all-or-nothing stance that really confuses me.

If Jesus used old scripture (the OT) then is the present OT the same as what existed 2000 years ago?

If Jesus fulfilled "some" prophesies, are there "other" prophesies that remain unfulfilled? Thus not as important for Jesus to address (and thus maybe not relevent to the gospel)?

You are correct to state that the NT did not exist, but the NT is the documentation of teachings of Jesus and his disciples. Is there some teachings that state the infallability of the OT?

I know I'm just restating my case w.r.t. JamesABrowns points, but maybe you can read this as...
Are there only parts of the OT that are infallable (the aformentioned prophesies)?