The apparent contradiction between Old & New Testament is one often declared by those ignorantly or intentionally attempting to refute Christianity and or by those attempting to further some agenda that contradicts some portion of Sacred Scripture...
I hope I present something that may help others argue against the apparent contradiction and something that may as well help others understand more legitimately the totality of what God has divinely revealed -- how both old law and new covenant are not contradictory and both still quite valid....
Since we are on the topic of homosexuality I will use homosexuality as example:
Most homosexual agenda apologetics and or homosexual agenda activists that reference Christianity and even those that claim to be Christians yet argue in support of homosexuality tend to be cafeteria Christians ignoring some stuff and embracing other stuff and in essence attempting to twist truth to fit the version of reality they promote -- They suggest homosexuality is okay, that homosexual sex is 'love' and point to nothing except their own morally relative derived interpretation of what is clearly written or not written in Sacred Scripture. Some ignore the general and point to the lack of specific, some ignore the old and point to the new, some attempt to compare and contrast the old against the new illegitimately, some want only certain 'specifics' and only New Testament stuff -some go one step further than most and only specifically want quotes from Christ...
[They] have one thing in common and that is [they] all want only that which supports their particular agenda and wish to ignore or turn on its head that which affronts it...
The truth however is simple -it does not contradict itself -it can not. Apparent contradiction signals one thing and one thing only only -a lack of understanding which subseqently can result in a denial and or compromise of truth. Only by accepting all truth is any single truth authentically derived and elaborated upon...
Again, contradiction does not impinge upon truth -[it] signals but a lack of understanding that must be reconciled but not reconciled at the expense of truth...
Some may know some or all of what I post; however, I post it anyway just in case there are some genuinely seeking answers and also in case there are those that may not know and would benefit by simply being exposed to it.
Old Testament law is still quite valid -Christ did not do away with the law (see New Testament Matthew 5:17-19 below). Old Testament ceremony, ritual and penalties of man may have been done away with; however, the 'old law' is still in effect, mortal sin is still mortal sin and still damages the soul and can condemn one to damnation.
Accepting that Old Testament Laws regarding moral guidance are still valid should be easier to reconcile if one understands that the new covenant fulfilled the law rather than did away with the law.
New Testament: NAB:
- Matthew 5:17-19
17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.
18 Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.
19 Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
Excellent points. Part of the 'arithmetic' lesson.
Answering most of those types of questions ends up in a long discussion of the divinity of Christ and his fulfillment of law and takes a huge amount of time. Most posters of that ilk don't really care about that, they just want to win an argument.
For those who show real interest in learning the truth I'm more than happy to teach, but the others I just send to their local pastors to learn.
Thanks for your informative response, DBeers.
Trust me in that I have no agenda, nor am I trying to nefarious towards Christianity.
I just don't understand how some Biblical literalists can claim (for example) that Genesis is to be believed word for word...but then ignore the old laws and their punishments for breaking them. I mean, if you take one part of the Bible as literal word-for-word Truth, why not take ALL of it that way and conform yourself to its laws and punishments? Why the dichotomy? Why the (apparent) picking and choosing of what is to be interpreted literally and what can be interpreted subjectively?
I've also been told (from several of the literalist people) that there was a 'covenant' in the NT that basically said the laws (not the morality behind them, but the punishment for breaking them) no longer apply since the birth,life,death,and Resurrection of Christ. If you'd heard some of these discussions (which I'm probably not doing a good job of repeating here- sorry!), you'd understand my questions! Heck, maybe you do already.
Regardless, thanks to the both of you for your response and apologies to John O for anything I said that was offensive.