How relevant do you think the Old Testament of the Bible is?

[cheezerrox]

Well, it depends on how one view God's nature. for instance, any doctrine not supported by the O.T can not be true is only because any such doctrine would invalidate the concept of the same God that gave the two testaments. It is therefore not the O.T or N.T which bring consistency to the table but the nature of God. I agree that reading the N.T can result in misunderstandings but reading the O.T alone and as some have done it already reading the whole Bible and still reading it wrong can happen again, so I am not sure how this is very helping. But let not this point derail the point, I have already stated above that for a greater understanding of the scriptures the O.T is a must indeed, only that it doesn't serve any profit when it comes to salvation, which can occur regardless of studying or following it and in that sense it is not relevant, since the function of the gospel is to not assert the O.T but prove that Christ is the redeemer of all mankind. The focus is on Christ and Christ alone.

We agree here, my friend. The OT and NT do no bring consistency, but the Nature of the G-d who revealed both. You're correct in saying that, while the NT alone can result in misunderstandings, the same can be done with the OT, but that's my point, although I may not have communicated that well. My point is that you NEED both for an accurate understanding of Scripture. You can be saved without the OT, but you will not have a full knowledge of Who G-d is or even Who Christ is without it. Who Christ is isn't limited to the what the NT says, although His death and resurrection are the center piece of our faith. The focus of the Gospel IS on Christ and Him alone, but we can't know all there is to know about Christ simply through the NT.

You would also have to see that whatever is not supported by the N.T is also irrelevant now in the O.T. Circumcision, dietary laws and may other laws which form the bulk of the first 5 books of the Bible. Because the new supersedes the old, that much is clear in N.T and as much as someone would like to argue for the opposite it is just not there. The Old covenant was not perfect where the new one is, the old was not eternal the new one is, infact the only reason we have a new one is because the old one was just not enough.

I don't agree with the common assertion that whatever isn't supported by the NT is no longer relevant. When the NT explicitly states a change in Torah, such as at 1 Corinthians 7:17-20 and Colossians 2:16, then that's how it is. But, a new covenant does not negate a previous one (Galatians 3:17). The covenant with Noah wasn't invalidated by the covenant with Abraham, which wasn't invalidated by the covenant with Moses, which wasn't invalidated by the covenant with David, which wasn't invalidated by the covenant that Christ brought.
The New Covenant is perfect, while the Old Covenant isn't, but that's because of Christ, not because of the Torah. The Torah is nothing without Christ, and has no power at all to save. But, it's goal is to lead to Christ (Romans 10:4*), and through Him and His New Covenant, which "has been given as Law/Torah on the basis of better promises" according to Hebrews 8:6 (not enacted, as it says in the NASB**), G-d's Purposes have been worked out completely. All the previous covenants have been "of the Promise" (Ephesians 2:12), which is the Gospel, forgiveness of sins and reconciliation with G-d, and they find their consummation in Christ and His Covenant. This does not do away with the covenants of the past.

* The word often translated "end," "telos," means "aim, purpose, goal, consummation," as at 1 Timothy 1:5 and 1 Peter 1:9.
** The word "nenomothetetai" occurs only one other time in the NT, at Hebrews 7:11, where it means the Jewish people received the Law/Torah.

I agree, but I was only pointing out that even if the church in Romans had knowledge of the O.T, they were certainly not practicing it. In that sense it was not relevant, except for understanding.

I don't believe there's any reason to believe the Roman congregation wasn't practicing the OT found in the book of Romans or elsewhere.

Again, as I said before only for understanding the history and context is when the O.T is very handful. You seem to agree when you wrote the above. So you agree that when it came to salvation, the O.T was irrelevant, but only to get a higher understanding that you went in and studied it. My original point stays, the purpose and function of the gospel does not need the O.T at all, it is only when one needs to study its roots is when you got the O.T. So the context matters greatly, Jesus was among Jews and so he made them look to the scriptures but when he was with non-Jews he did not quote the O.T to them.

When it comes to salvation, all is irrelevant except for Christ and one's acceptance of Him and His death and resurrection as their Atonement. But, that in no way means that the OT is only meant for extra knowledge and has nothing to do with salvation. Paul said the OT is "able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus" (2 Timothy 3:15). The OT isn't just needed to be studied to study the "roots" of the Gospel, it's needed to be studied because without it one can't COMPLETELY understand the Gospel (Galatians 3:8), the Messiah (Luke 24:45-47), or G-d (2 Timothy 3:16).
Also, Jesus didn't just preach from the Scriptures to the Jews. He never preached to the Gentiles, so you can't say He didn't preach from them to them, because He never taught them. The reason Christ preached from the Scriptures is because they contained all there is to know about Who G-d is and Who the Messiah is, and without them there could be no Messiah to be prophesied about.

Again what is relevance, if it means, study, understand and obey than I disagree brother. I think understanding and studying it alone is what is a good measure, nothing beyond that is what a Christian is required off (though once can still follow it as an extra). It is not terrible theology, it could result in a less understanding of scriptures but believing Christ to be the son of God and your savior, through the N.T alone is theology enough to be called good.

We disagree about obedience, but that's okay. We both agree that it's not a salvation issue, and I can respect your position. What I was saying here was directed towards those whom the OP mentioned, the ones who want to get rid of or deny the relevancy (when it comes to studying, understanding, or anything) of the OT at all. I wasn't saying that you or anyone who believes that Scripture says that the laws of the Torah are not meant to be followed completely anymore have bad theology or are antisemtic, and I apologize for my lack of clarity.

I still do not get the anti-Semitic part, I am not saying this because I hate Jews only that I do not find the definition of relevance to be the same.

Again, I'm sorry for the confusion, I was not labeling you as antisemitic. I was saying that those who wish to deny the OT's relevancy in ANY way are often-times antisemitic (sometimes they're just ignorant). To do away completely with only the specifically Hebrew/Jewish part of the Bible (although the NT is just as Jewish, whether people admit it or not), and by implication denying G-d's further concern with the Jewish people as a whole, is certainly antisemitic, especially considering He's the G-d of Isra'el.

I do not think there is a conspiracy going on around here to do so. I am not trying to get rid of the Jewish scriptures only saying that they are for understanding alone, in that sense they are relevant. For salvation and the function of the gospel, they are irrelevant.

While I disagree that the OT is irrelevant to the Gospel, I again want to say that I wasn't directing that at you.

It was not the O.T that granted Ruth to be a part of what she became but the eternal grace of God which preceded the O.T, through which by faith alone she came into Israel. Because the O.T is not for everyone, sure anyone can decide to follow it doesn't mean it was for everyone, the audience was Israel and it was specifically for them that they should be separate from the people around them. Anyone can see you doing something good and follow it but that doesn't mean the teaching or action was intended for that person in the first place, you were doing it for some reason other than to show people how good you are. So if someone follows the Torah it was not that it was given for them, it is just that they find it nice to follow.

It is true that it is because of G-d's Grace that transcends and precedes the Torah that Ruth was given the right to become a part of G-d's people because of her faith. But that's not my point. My point is that she was a Gentile who become a follower of the G-d of Isra'el. In those days, the Gentiles were "separate from Christ (note, they were separate from Him in the times of the OT, not the NT!), excluded from the commonwealth of Isra'el, and strangers to the Covenants of the Promise, having no hope and without G-d in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the Blood of Christ. For He Himself is our Peace, Who made both groups into one and broke down the dividing wall.." (Ephesians 2:12-14). So how have Gentiles been joined to Isra'el? They are "grafted in among them and become partakers with them of the rich root of the olive tree" (Romans 11:17). So now Gentiles have been joined to Isra'el. Gentiles remain Gentiles, and Jews remain Jews, but G-d's people are ONE, and if He has a Torah for the one, then that Torah is for the other as well (although what is REQUIRED by the Torah is different for Jews and Gentiles, but not in its entirety).

Christ is the complete revelation of God. As you said in another post, a spirit filled life, does not demand a walk in the O.T style. The O.T was not perfect, neither it was eternal, with Christ we have the new covenant which is eternal.

Indeed, the things of the Old Covenant "are a shadow of what is to come; while the substance belongs to Christ" (Colossians 2:17). But that doesn't demean the OT/Torah, it simply means that they are NOTHING without Christ, and that all of G-d's Revelation and Work has been based around the Messiah, the cornerstone. A Spirit-filled life indeed does NOT DEMAND a Torah pursuant lifestyle. But, I do believe that the Old Covenant of the Torah is eternal, as are all of G-d's Five Covenants of the Promise. But, what matters is Christ and one's faith placed in Him. G-d's Spirit will take care of the rest, and whether that includes the Torah or not is between Him and the individual believer.

I am not trying to convert you or accuse of you anything bad. I understand that at some point our opinions will clash, but lets not mis-read each other. Have a good day.

I totally understand, my friend. Again I apologize for my unclear words, and no matter what we disagree on, I'm glad we can remain peaceful as brothers in Christ. Hope all is well with you.