> Then, since your chr*stianity isn’t based on the teachings of the Bible but rather because you assume it a priori, how do you know it is true?
Two can play that game. Since you make the same assumption of the validity of the Pentateuch, how do you know *it* is true?
BTW Christians do believe in the Bible, in its entirety, and that the parts of the Bible most important for us today are found in the New Testament. This does not invalidate the Old Testament — the one flows naturally on from the other.
Belief in the New Testament without the old is to lose much of the context. Such as “Where did the Pharisees come from?” and “Why would Jesus be upset with them?” And “Why was it important for the Jews to recognize Jesus as their Messiah?”, and “Why was the rejection of Jesus by the Jews as their Messiah both a tragic fatal mistake AND a fulfillment of prophecy?”
These answers are all found in the Old Testament. You can certainly get by without knowing any of these answers, but it makes for a much rougher ride.
Belief in the Old Testament without belief in the New Testament is like watching a great movie only half-way thru. You can get some value from it, I guess, but all the important bits — like the climax — will be found at the end.
And you won’t know that there’s an important twist to the plot that might have changed your opinions on the movie, if only you had watched the second half.
You obviously missed an earlier post in which I confessed that I am not sure how I could convince a non-believer of the Divine authority of the Torah. There are arguments, but that is not what my questions on this thread are about.
I am not conversing with unbelievers who reject the Torah but with people who claim to accept it. Given the fact that chr*stians acknowledge the Torah as authentic prior Revelation, how does one prove from that Revelation that the "new testament" is what it says it is without simply assuming this? In the terms of classical argumentation, the "old testament" is the antecedent and the "new testament" is the consequent. I am not asking how you "prove" that the events of the "new testament" are historically true. I am not asking how you prove that J*sus rose from the dead. I am asking one simple thing: given the antecedent (the "old testament"), how does one arrive at the consequent without merely affirming the consequent on its own authority--a logical fallacy committed by evolutionists among many other people?
Do you understand what I am asking now? If you don't please let me know, because by answering questions I am not asking you're not satisfying my curiosity at all.
BTW Christians do believe in the Bible, in its entirety, and that the parts of the Bible most important for us today are found in the New Testament. This does not invalidate the Old Testament — the one flows naturally on from the other.
No it does not--no more than "the book of mormon" flows naturally from the "new testament"--UNLESS one reads the latter (the "new testament," the "book of mormon") first, accepts it a priori, and quotes its own claims on the matter.
BTW, Catholics/Orthodox accept their bible because it was canonized by their church. Jews accept the Torah because it was written and revealed directly by G-d Himself (the only holy book in the world about which this claim can be made) and the Prophets and Writings because they were canonized by the Men of the Great Assembly. Protestants don't really have a reason for accepting their bible--they just do.
Belief in the New Testament without the old is to lose much of the context. Such as “Where did the Pharisees come from?” and “Why would Jesus be upset with them?” And “Why was it important for the Jews to recognize Jesus as their Messiah?”, and “Why was the rejection of Jesus by the Jews as their Messiah both a tragic fatal mistake AND a fulfillment of prophecy?”
Yes, I can see this. But you're still operating from the assumption that the "new testament" is actually the "word of G-d." The Torah came first, as you acknowledge. Therefore the Torah sits in judgment on all later claimants to being "divine revelation." Given the Torah and reading the bible from the beginning without chr*stian assumptions, how does one prove from the Torah/Hebrew Bible itself that the "new testament" is the word of G-d? And please note, I didn't ask about the apostles. I said how do you prove from the "old testament" itself. Otherwise the apostles are just claiming authority for themselves.
These answers are all found in the Old Testament. You can certainly get by without knowing any of these answers, but it makes for a much rougher ride.
You're completely missing my point. If one reads the "old testament" first (and believes it is Divinely inspired) without ever having heard of the "new testament," and then reads the "new testament," will that person believe that the "new testament" is what it claims to be? I say the answer is no.
Belief in the Old Testament without belief in the New Testament is like watching a great movie only half-way thru. You can get some value from it, I guess, but all the important bits — like the climax — will be found at the end.
That's like saying belief in the Protestant bible without belief in the koran or "book of mormon" is watching two thirds of a movie and missing the end. I'm asking how you can be sure that the "new testament" is the genuine "end of the book" without merely accepting its claims about itself? Does the Torah authorize the "new testament" in a way that is absolutely undeniable? I say no.
And you won’t know that there’s an important twist to the plot that might have changed your opinions on the movie, if only you had watched the second half.
You're assuming it's "the second half." How do you prove this without merely holding up a Thomas Nelson King James Version and saying "this claims to be the word of G-d and I believe it?" BTW, did you know that the KJV originally contained what Protestants call the "Apocrypha" but that these books were dropped after many years? How do you know they aren't "the word of G-d" too other than they aren't in the book you're holding in your hand?