PDA

View Full Version : Discussion Where the New Testament Starts



JanH
Nov 18th 2008, 05:52 AM
I have heard from a couple of preachers that the New Testament starts only from the Book of Acts. I did not know how to explain this but reading through the book of Matthew I found that in Matthew Chapter 26 Verse 28: Jesus says: "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" When He died on the cross the New Testament came in fulfillment and throughout the Books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John the story of Jesus gets told of before he was crucified. So according to what Jesus said in Verse 28 mentioned above the New Testament does not start until He died on the cross which means that the New Testament only starts from the Book of Acts which was written after Jesus was crucified.

crossnote
Nov 18th 2008, 06:06 AM
The New testament starts with Jesus, hence with the Incarnation. It was ratified on the cross with His shed blood.

markedward
Nov 18th 2008, 06:10 AM
The New Testament only starts from the Book of Acts which was written after Jesus was crucified.You know that the gospels were written after Jesus was crucified, too, right?

The gospels give us a recap of the events surrounding the New Covenant's beginning. Acts simply records the events that took place after the New Covenant had already begun.

JanH
Nov 18th 2008, 06:19 AM
Well ok, so let me rephrase my earlier statement where I said "The New Testament only starts from the Book of Acts" and rather quote, "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins"

Back2Front
Nov 18th 2008, 06:23 AM
The new testament starts at Genesis 1:1

JanH
Nov 18th 2008, 06:38 AM
The new testament starts at Genesis 1:1
Usually an opinion is followed by scripture...

Literalist-Luke
Nov 18th 2008, 08:19 AM
Usually an opinion is followed by scripture...Oh, he's just saying that the Bible is all one unified whole, which is true, names aside.

But I would point out that naming the starting point of the "New Testament" as being at the book of Acts, while being admittedly based on the start of the so-called "Church Age" in that book, is still an arbitrary decision that the "Church Age" is the correct place for such a designation to be based on. It's all just in a name.

Unless one is going to argue that one part of the Bible is more worthy of our study than another, I don't see that it makes much difference, because most Christian theologians would describe the New Testament (where-ever it begins) as being simply the fulfillment of the Old Testament anyway.

And it is hard to escape the fact that the Jews will agree that everything up to Malachi is indeed Scriptural, but they don't include the Gospels. Considering that the "blinding in part they are experiencing" came directly from God, as described in Romans 9-11, and one result of that same God-sent blinding is the exclusion of the four Gospels as well as everything from Acts onward, it seems difficult to avoid concluding that Matthew would be God's designated start of the New Testament.

Just thinking "aloud" here....:hmm:

1of7000
Nov 18th 2008, 09:15 AM
sitting here being the dispensationalist that i am (by that i mean i see in scripture that God dealt with man in different ways at different times, this is not a point of arguement but background) it occurs to me that the Covenant was always sealed with blood, so the new Covenant would begin with the shed blood of the Savior at the Cross(or stake, but i digress), the Age of Grace would have begun with the recieving of holy spirit on the day of pentecost. interrupting the Christ administration begun in the gospels and to be continued after the gathering together (rapture).

testament's root word is testes which is latin for... in Gen 24 Abraham makes a testament with his servant to obtain a wife for isaac.

so testament is not the same as covenant. i guess that's where i was going with this. I'm thinkin too that it would make sense that the covenants transend but do not negate the dispensations. questions? i know i have a bunch.

Die Filadelfieer
Nov 18th 2008, 11:38 AM
I have heard from a couple of preachers that the New Testament starts only from the Book of Acts. I did not know how to explain this but reading through the book of Matthew I found that in Matthew Chapter 26 Verse 28: Jesus says: "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" When He died on the cross the New Testament came in fulfillment and throughout the Books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John the story of Jesus gets told of before he was crucified. So according to what Jesus said in Verse 28 mentioned above the New Testament does not start until He died on the cross which means that the New Testament only starts from the Book of Acts which was written after Jesus was crucified.

Hallo Jan,
I understand completely what you mean by the NT only starting where we pick up the story in Acts. Personally I think that the New Testament, or New Covenant if you will, only started at Pentacost.
Yes, at His death on the cross the ultimate dept was paid, and yes, when He rose from the dead He showed the Jews and the Gentiles alike that He was trully Master of all, but it was at Pentacost, when each of the diciples had his own flame over there heads, and received his own personalised part of the Holly Spirit, that the Lord finally sealed His new Covenant with all that was to become His children.

Anyways, there will be lots of folks who would disagree with me, but this is how I see it. We should also remember, in light of what Back2Front said ( al be it a bit too criptically for my own taste) , that we read the books of the Old Testament differently because of what happened in the New Testament. Although the New Testament stands on the very solid foundation of the OT, the New Testament sheds a very special and very specific light on the Old Testament, lighting up that golden thread of the promise an prophesy upon prophesy of the Mesiah that we find troughout the ancient texts.

Rufus_1611
Nov 18th 2008, 11:42 AM
sitting here being the dispensationalist that i am (by that i mean i see in scripture that God dealt with man in different ways at different times, this is not a point of arguement but background) it occurs to me that the Covenant was always sealed with blood, so the new Covenant would begin with the shed blood of the Savior at the Cross(or stake, but i digress), the Age of Grace would have begun with the recieving of holy spirit on the day of pentecost. interrupting the Christ administration begun in the gospels and to be continued after the gathering together (rapture).

testament's root word is testes which is latin for... in Gen 24 Abraham makes a testament with his servant to obtain a wife for isaac.

so testament is not the same as covenant. i guess that's where i was going with this. I'm thinkin too that it would make sense that the covenants transend but do not negate the dispensations. questions? i know i have a bunch. Could not an argument be made that the gospels are about the obtaining of a wife?

VerticalReality
Nov 18th 2008, 01:53 PM
I believe the Word declares that the New Covenant was brought to pass when our Lord Jesus Christ shed His blood on the cross.

It is finished . . .



Hebrews 9:16-17
For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.


When Jesus Christ died on the cross that brought an end to the old covenant and brought about the new covenant. Just like when a person has a last will and testament . . . the family does not receive of this last will and testament until the death of the one administering it.

So technically, if we're going by an order of the Scriptures, the new testament began toward the end of the four gospels.

1of7000
Nov 18th 2008, 05:46 PM
Could not an argument be made that the gospels are about the obtaining of a wife?


it could but it won't be me making it. the fundamental premise would assume that the latin interjections, into a greek manuscript that was a multi-generational copy of the aramaic originals, by a commitee of englishman had validity. since i don't i won't :P :D

Amos_with_goats
Nov 18th 2008, 06:05 PM
The new testament starts at Genesis 1:1

I like the way you think... ;)

If one wanted to make a distinction though, I believe that would only be found at Matthew 1. The new covenant began with the account of the Birth of Christ.

RabbiKnife
Nov 18th 2008, 06:30 PM
Don't confuse "New Testament" being a collection of writing with "New Covenant".

The "New Testament" begins with the Gospel of Matthew, at least as it has been historically defined and arranged.

The "New Covenant," which completely and forever replaced the Old Covenant, began with the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross, at the moment of his death.

VerticalReality
Nov 18th 2008, 06:41 PM
Don't confuse "New Testament" being a collection of writing with "New Covenant".

The "New Testament" begins with the Gospel of Matthew, at least as it has been historically defined and arranged.

The "New Covenant," which completely and forever replaced the Old Covenant, began with the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross, at the moment of his death.

The Scripture I referred you all to above in Hebrews refers to it as a testament, and it also declares that it did not come to pass until Jesus died.

RabbiKnife
Nov 18th 2008, 07:37 PM
Covenant and testament, when used in Scripture, are generally interchangeable.

Emanate
Nov 18th 2008, 07:58 PM
The "New Covenant," which completely and forever replaced the Old Covenant, began with the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross, at the moment of his death.


According to scripture this is not the case at all. Scripture says the New (or more properly tranlated renewed) Covenant confirms the old covenant by writing it on our hearts.

RabbiKnife
Nov 18th 2008, 08:03 PM
Not according to the writer of Hebrews.

Emanate
Nov 18th 2008, 08:19 PM
Not according to the writer of Hebrews.


The writer of Hebrews contradicted the prophecy in Jeremiah?

(Hebrews is speaking of the priesthood and the sacrificial system - one aspect of the old covenant, not the entirety)

mizzdy
Nov 18th 2008, 08:41 PM
I thought it was when Christ was baptized though the case about his death and resurrection is a great case also. Wasn't John the babtise foretold of as being in the spirit of Elijah? If so would John baptizing Christ put an end to the OT prophecies of Christ? thus putting the ending on the OT? Not real sure myself if this is the case. :hmm:

JanH
Nov 19th 2008, 05:54 AM
I like the way you think... ;)

If one wanted to make a distinction though, I believe that would only be found at Matthew 1. The new covenant began with the account of the Birth of Christ.

Well, tell me something. For there New Testament/Covenant to begin, there must have been an old one which ended? This is just logical thinking...

Amos_with_goats
Nov 19th 2008, 06:08 AM
Well, tell me something. For there New Testament/Covenant to begin, there must have been an old one which ended? This is just logical thinking...

If I write a contract that says I am going to build you a house, and you can pay me for it... and then I build the house and give it to you and tell you that live in it forever I have not invalidated the original contract... I have fulfilled it, and added to it.

New / old can be understood the old was replaced, that the old has become invalid. Scripture is built on scripture... promises made in are later fufulled... seamless.

JanH
Nov 19th 2008, 06:18 AM
I like the way you think... ;)

If one wanted to make a distinction though, I believe that would only be found at Matthew 1. The new covenant began with the account of the Birth of Christ.

Well, in order for an New Testament/Covenant to begin there must have been an Old one which ended.

Amos_with_goats
Nov 19th 2008, 06:24 AM
Well, in order for an New Testament/Covenant to begin there must have been an Old one which ended.

I thought my example above was pretty clear, I guess not, I will try to be more clear. The 'new' covenant was the fulfillment of the 'old'. It did not have to replace it.... Through out His ministry Christ often quoted from the scriptures that He Himself was fulfilling. Does this make sense?

parker
Nov 19th 2008, 08:38 AM
It is sometimes dangerous to bring up the history of Bible study because many believers turn from "the intellect" and "the world" but even N.T. Wright and William Lane Craig believe that Mark was written first and Matthew and Luke pretty much use his gospel in the same order.

Maybe I have gone too far on this board. If I have, please have a moderator speak with me. I actually mean no harm and don't want to be seen as "attacking those whose faith is strong." Are we allowed to bring up history and stuff here? I am really interested in some of the parables of Jesus in this way. Such a study has deepend my own faith but I can understand the feeling of panic and fear that might come up here because of this.

Please reply to his. Thanks in advance!;)

kenrank
Nov 20th 2008, 01:41 PM
The new testament starts at Genesis 1:1

I couldn't agree with this more. Let me share why:

Joh 2:22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

In the above verse, the scripture being refered to wasn't the book of John or any other Apostolic writing, it was the Tanach, The Torah-Prophets-Writings, what we call the OT.

Now, how about these(?):

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

1Ti 4:5 For it is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer.

2Co 4:2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the Word of God deceitfully;

Here is my point, what we call the New Testament was not compiled for MANY years after these letters were written. In some cases, not until long after the authors were dead and gone. These are letters that were sent to particular places for particular people addressing particular issues and weren't available to everyone "at that time." While I see them as inspired, and rightfully a part of scripture...when they said "the Scriptures," or "The Word of God," they were refering to the Tanach. (OT) Our faith has it's foundations on the Tanach, it was the Tanach that pointed to Messiah and gave his followers an understanding of God's will for their everyday lives.

So where do the NT start, Genesis 1, and it ends at Revelation 22:21.

Peace.
Ken