Just add whiskey, and the night is complete.
love a deep cello
The idea that the OT should be called the Hebrew Scriptures and the NT should be called the Christian Scriptures leaves a foul taste in my mouth.
First off, it implies using the term “Old” in Old Testament is bad. The NT could not exist without the OT.
But, here’s the kicker for me. Calling the OT the “Hebrew Scriptures” implies that they somehow aren’t Christian, nor do they belong in Christian hands. The very early church had an OT canon and took some time to develop the canon that we would know as the New Testament. Considering that Judaism is the cradle that bore Christianity, I must confess that I believe that the OT as exclusively a Hebrew book is erroneous, for indeed the Old Testament is also the Christian Scriptures, and furthermore, the OT is where our earliest siblings in Christ found Christ, for they are Christ’s cradle just as much as the New Testament is.
This being said, I don’t think it is automatically erroneous to use the terms “Hebrew Scriptures” and “Christian Scriptures” in reference to the OT and NT. Rather, I think it depends on the intentions behind why the terms are used. I certainly recommend against using the terms exclusively and give strong preference to the traditional “Old Testament” and “New Testament.”
Rant over.
I got paid today, and impulse bought The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament.
This was a wise decision in keeping up with my Biblical Hebrew studies and Old Testament exegesis.
Financially, this may not have been the most wise decision at this time.
Our old human should be understood to refer to our previous life which we led in sins and whose end and destruction, so to speak, we fashioned when we received the faith of the cross of Christ, through which the body of sin is destroyed in such a way that our members which were enslaved to sin should no longer serve it but God.
This is something I actually want.
This is he whom seers in old time chanted of with one accord, whom the voices of the prophets promised in their faithful word; now he shines, the long-expected; let creation praise its Lord evermore and evermore.
I highly recommend any Christian include the Apocrypha in their Bible reading.
The following is my standard Bible reading regimen: Daily I will read one chapter of the Old Testament, one psalm, and a half chapter of the New Testament a day.The Apocrypha is generally placed inbetween the OT and the NT in most bibles. I’ve read the Apocrypha before, but this time round I want to integrate the various apocryphal books where they are most appropriate in the OT canon, as opposed to a separate section. The following ordering of the OT with the Apocrypha within uses the general ordering of the Protestant canon–integrating the Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Slavonic, and Anglican apocryphal books. As I read through the OT I plan on treating the Apocrypha just like any other OT book. I hope this can be a resource for you. Let me know if you have any suggestions or questions on book placements. The apocryphal books are in italics:
A mighty fortress is our God, a sword and shield victorious; he breaks the cruel oppressors rod and wins salvation glorious. The old evil foe, sworn to work us woe, with dread craft and might he arms himself to fight. On earth he has no equal.
When the Old Testament speaks of “instruction” or the New Testament about “the doctrine,” this includes teaching about both confession and conduct, both theology and ethics. A separation between them is fatal, a distinction unavoidable, just as in the New Testament itself “faith” and “works” are distinguished without being separated. ~Jaroslav Pelikan, “The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine,” Volume 1: “The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600)”, pg. 2