this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2025
361 points (92.1% liked)
Data is Beautiful
2823 readers
96 users here now
Be respectful
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Not to mention that the old and new testament are generally viewed as distinct collections of scripture where the new testament is meant to replace the old testament. Any contradictions between the two are easily dismissed as just that, new replacing old.
That's not to say bigots won't use the old testament to push their dogma's though.
So, this is an interesting tidbit. Although they are two distinct collections, in the Christian mythos they are, generally, taken equally. Or at least, they are supposed to be. Different sects in the church have varying degrees of equality, so to speak. However, they are both part of the doctrine. To say that new replaces old is a sweeping generalization that cannot, and should not, be made, when discussing the Christian mythos.
Matthew 5:17-18 NRSVUE [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] For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.
Checks out. I'll allow it.
You're right, I used the term replace where scholars might use fulfil. I was told in many instances where old vs new contradictions come up, that the old testament was fulfilled and that the new testament took precedent in most cases of contradiction. So I shouldn't have used the word replace. But my understanding hasn't particularly changed. It may have been colored by the positions of Professors I had spoken to in the past. They tended to be from the Church of the Nazarene Universities.