Theology 1.0: How did Christianity come to Ethiopia?

 

After the ascension of Jesus, many early Christians decided to leave Jerusalem to spread the religion. Some Christians eventually came to Ethiopia, but the communities were not significant until the 4th century.

Frumentius and Aedesius, two Syrian Christians, were shipwrecked on the Red Sea coast and taken as slaves to the Aksumite court during the reign of King Ezana. Frumentius gained the trust of the royal family and was eventually freed, becoming a prominent advisor to the young King Ezana. By 330 AD, King Ezana of the Aksumite Empire converted to Christianity. About ten years later, Christianity became the official religion of the Aksumite Empire.

Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church itself claims to have been established in 330 AD.

The Nine Saints
During the late 5th century, nine Christians (often called the Syriac Nine Saints, even though most of them were not Syrian) decided to do missions across Ethiopia.  

Theses missions also served as permanent centers of Christian learning in which monks finally began to translate the Bible from Greek and Aramaic into Ethiopic so that Ethiopians could read Scripture for themselves. 

Thus Christianity was no longer a religion for the small percentage of Ethiopians who could read Greek or Aramaic/Syriac, but for all Ethiopians.

Theology 1.0: How did Christianity arrive in India?

 

An exhibit from the Indian Heritage Centre

India is one of the most populous countries in the world. Approximately 26 million of Indians profess the Christian faith (in 2011), which makes up about 2-3% of the population.

So how did Christianity first appear in India?

Earliest speculation
The first written record about Christians in India was in the 4th century document called Church History. Written by Eusebius of Caesarea (a Bishop), he stated that Saint Bartholomew (one of the twelve apostles) travelled to India for mission work after Jesus's death.

If true, then than Christianity might first arrived in India shortly after 30 AD. However, there is few supporting evidence that Saint Bartholomew did so.

In another tradition, St Thomas Christians of India claimed that Saint Thomas (another of the twelve apostles) came to the southwestern Indian state of Kerala in 52 AD and spread the gospel until his martyrdom in Chennai in 72 AD.

Stronger claims
Nevertheless, the first strong evidence of Christianity in India came as early in the 2nd Century. Saint Pantaenus (a Christian philosopher) travelled to India in about 180 AD, and found Christians in Kerala. The Indian Christians were using the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew letters. This hinted that Syriac-speaking Christians (who used a Hebrew script) had somehow evangelised to the Indians before Pantaenus's arrival.

Conclusion
It is hard to confirm when Christianity arrived in India. Nevertheless, Christians should continue to pray for growth of Christianity worldwide.

Theology 1.0: What is religious capital?

 

St. Stephen's Cathedral in Vienna, Austria, 2010

One trend that continues to interest sociologists is the persistence of religion, even in heavily secularised communities. One popular way to explain such a trend is the idea of "religious capital".

Religious capital is investment of time, effort and resources one puts in a faith. Popularised by sociologist Rodney Stark (in his 2007 book The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success), this idea is used to explain that people tend to behave in a way to reduce losses in religious capital.

For instance if a classical Protestant stops believing in his current system, he would tend to move towards Roman Catholicism, rather than atheism, Buddhism or Islam. This is because there are more shared practices and beliefs between Catholicism and Protestantism.

Origin
In the early 1960s, there was a persistent idea that as societies become more modern and educated, the number of religious people would drop. The reasons were manifold - many states became secular or explicitly atheistic (like communist regimes), rise of multicultural societies (leading to less unity of values) or that education who rid of old ideas of religion. In his 1999 book, Choice and Religion: A Critique of Rational Choice, Steve Bruce actually predicted that religion would disappear based on his observations in Western Europe.

However, there were many countries in that bucked the trend. South Korea went from 20.7% Christians in 1985 to 27.6% in 2015. The proportion of non-believers remained roughly steady from 57.3% to 56.9% during that same period. In the Eastern European country of Latvia, the percentage of non-religious people stayed relatively steady from 28% in 2000 to 29% in 2018. The number of Christians decreased slightly from 69% to 64% during the same time period.

Christian display at the Victoria and Albert Museum, London, 2017

Thus the idea of "religious capital" was proposed to explain why religious people do not simply give up their belief and practices to embrace atheism or irreligiosity, but would rather embrace another religion.

What is usually suggested is that the actual decline is in the nominally religious (such as the "cultural Christian"), i.e. people who profess a faith superficially. In other words, people who put in little religious capital either become even more religious or less religious as society progresses.

In this aspect, religious capital makes sense. Looking at the United States from 1990 to 2008, Christian denominations which focused more on articles of faith (such as profession of belief etc, and thus more investment in religious capital) experience increases or little change in numbers, (Catholics +24.3%, Presbyterians -5.3% and Evangelical +294.5%). On the flip side, Christian denominations which require less investments in religious capital experience more drops (eg: Methodism -19.8%, Episcopal -21.0%).

Alternative Culture: Christianity and the Legend of Zelda

Legend of Zelda: Breathe of the Wild (2017)

 The Legend of Zelda is one of the most popular gaming series in the world. The first game in the series, the Legend of Zelda, was released in Japan in 1985 and in North America in 1986. As the next game in the series, Tears of the Kingdom will be released within this month, I want to post about Christian influence in the series.

To clarify, I will only be covering the major aspects of the overall plot. There are obviously many aspects which are not inspired by Christianity. After all, the game is not intended to be an allegory for Christianity.  For instance, it is implied in Skyward Sword (2011) that the role of Link, Zelda and the Ganon are inherited via reincarnation. Christianity does not promote the idea of reincarnation. In addition, the world of Legend of Zelda is polytheistic with gods including Hylia, Din and Nayru.

Another aspect is the nature of the Triforce, the trinity of the Zelda series. One aspect of the Tri-force is evil (Ganon). In Christianity, all members of the Trinity are good exists as three distinct personhood of God.

Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword (2011)

The Chosen One
The first off is the idea of the "Chosen One". Despite the vast differences in settings in the multitude of games, the chosen one is always prophesized to be a boy named Link. This is most explicit in Breathe of the Wild (2017), as it implies that such events are cyclical. 

This evil has been turned back time and time again by a warrior wielding the soul of a hero, and a princess who carries the blood of the Goddess. With the passage of time, each conflict with Ganon faded into legend. -- Breathe of the Wild (2017)

To make things more obvious, any attempt to defeat Ganon without the chosen one would fail or at best, a partial victory. For instance in the Twilight Princess (2006), the attempt to defeat Ganon in the absence of Link resulted in high casualties and the temporal banishment of Ganon. He eventually returns to encase the Kingdom of Hyrule in Twilight.

This parallels the idea of Jesus as the predicted Messiah and Savior. In fact, any attempt to defeat sin and reconcile ourselves to God without trusting in Jesus is considered futile.

We all, like sheep, have gone astray, 
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
 the iniquity of us all. -- Isaiah 53:6

When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?” Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” -- Matthew 19: 25-26

Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess (2006)

Inherited conflict between good and evil

The other idea presented in Skyward Sword (2011) is that the battle between the good (Link and Zelda) and evil (Demise) will be inherited and continued till the generations.

My hate... never perishes. It is born anew in a cycle with no end! I will rise again. Those like you... Those who share the blood of the goddess and the spirit of the hero... They are eternally bound to this curse. An incarnation of my hatred shall ever follow your kind, dooming them to wander a blood-soaked sea of darkness for all time! -- Skyward Sword (2011)

This echoes the prolonged conflict between humanity and sin in Genesis:

And I will put enmity

    between you and the woman,

    and between your offspring and hers;

he will crush your head,

    and you will strike his heel. -- Genesis 3:15

Conclusion
It is interesting to see slight Christian themes in this Japanese game series. Of course, while the Legend of Zelda will keep up the battle between good and evil for the purpose of continuing the game series, in Christianity, the war is already won via Jesus Christ.

You might even say the demented Christian belief that not only is the salvation of the human species possible, but contrary to all we read in the newspapers, or see on Fox Television, it has in some sense already taken place. Not even the wildest utopian secularist will assert something as outrageous as that. -- Terry Eagleton

Alternative culture: I'm a committed atheist, but my child has become religious – and I'm proud of her for challenging my indoctrination

Recently, I saw an interesting article in the Independent. An atheist write on how she is proud to send her daughter to a Christian school. In fact, both her and her husband did not object to their daughter's conversion to Christianity.

I found it impressive that the couple recognised that belief and non-belief was a matter of choice, and allow their daughter to choose according to her conscience.

Being open-minded
What I admire about this couple is the willingness to accept that their daughter may have a different viewpoint from them, and allowed her to follow through.

Alternative Culture: Christianity in Asia exhibition at Asian Civilisation Museum

Japanese martyrs

Recently, I visited the Christianity in Asia exhibit at the Asian Civilisation Museum (in Singapore). My knowledge of Asian Christianity is limited: I do know of the Hudson Taylor's efforts in China and Francis Xavier's in Japan, but not too much beyond that.

I was quite pleasantly surprised by the evidence Chinese Christians in 800 AD, as shown by the tavlet below. The museum also displayed the sword hilts of the Christian samurai.

Tablet of Nestorian Christians in China dated around 800 AD

Displays of Christ and angels from India to Southeast Asia were always shown. All in all, it was a good attempt by the museum to show that Christians were not newcomers to Asia.

Ivory ornaments from India

With due respect: Nabeel Qureshi is not a good example of a convert

Recently, the Christian blog Pulpit and Pen criticised Christian convert Nabeel Qureshi, joining the chorus of several religious commenters. Their issues concerned the legitimacy of his conversion and whether he was truly Muslim in the first place.

While I do not know Nabeel personally, I have followed the news of his ministry from 2008. I feel compelled to write something in his defence before others continue to slander him. So let me deal with the unfair criticism.

1) Nabeel's contradictions in his conversion story

In Nabeel's conversion story, he had dreamt of a banquet hosted by Jesus that he was not allowed enter. This was one of his more potent dreams as his friend David stopped him from entering the banquet.

What was this major contradiction? In some of the stories, David was standing while in others, David was sitting.

Firstly, the whole point of the story was that Nabeel was disallowed from entering the banquet, rather than David's stance.

Secondly, a simple check of Nabeel's stories reveals that in most versions of the story, David was sitting. Nabeel's simple slip should not make us judge his character.

2) Nabeel was never really a Muslim

Nabeel never hid the fact that he was an Ahmadi Muslim. While Ahmadis are regarded as heretics by orthodox Muslims and are persecuted in some countries, Ahmadis do see themselves as Muslims. So naturally, Nabeel would introduce himself as an ex-Muslim, rather than an ex-Ahmadi as the differences would be too pedantic for most listeners.


So Nabeel was not being deceptive as introduce himself as an ex-Muslim, even if one feels that Ahmadis are not Muslims.

3) Nabeel should not participate at a conference (Together 2016)where "enemies of the cross" are also speaking

Well, I would also jump at a chance to preach the gospel even if someone invited me to speak at an atheist conference. At Together 2016, there were famous Christians like Francis Chan, Ravi Zacharias and Louie Giglio. They are hardly the sort one would call heretic Christians.

That said, we cannot expect everyone at a conference to agree with everything we are saying.


Conclusion
Pulpit and pen's editor Seth Dunn was being unfair in his judgement of Nabeel. He did apologise somewhat, but stuck to his general opinions.


For further references

With Due Respect: There are so many denominations in Christianity!

Often, my non-Christian friends object to Christianity as there seem to be so many sects within it. In fact, there is a claim that there are over 33, 000 denominations in Protestantism. If all of them make exclusive claims to the truth, then how can we be sure then we choose the "right" Christianity?

In this post, I will only be exploring the denominations in mainstream Protestantism. I will not be writing about Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy.

Let's explore this objection:

1) Nature of the differences

Let's be clear-- just because not all denominations consider each other heretics. Some of the differences between denominations are due to national interests, traditions or methodology, rather than genuine doctrinal differences.

For instance, the Church of Scotland and the Church of Tuvalu ascribed to Reformed theology, even though they are considered two different denominations (as they also serve a national role).

True, there may be genuine clashes of doctrines. For instance while I differ with many of my close Christian friends on the issue of child and infant baptism, I do not consider them heretics or having horrible ideas of God. 

2) Claims of Protestantism

The traditional claims of Protestantism include Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Christus and Sola Gloria. None of the claims ever give the idea that Protestants will agree on every issue all the way. 

3) The inevitability of differences

As with any idea, there is going to be a difference in doctrine. Even among my Muslim friends, there are some who are Sunni and Shia. Some of my Buddhist friends are Zen Buddhists and Shinto Buddhists.

Even atheistic ideas like Communism have its variants such as Maoism, Stalinism and Marxism.

The point is this-- just because an idea has many variants, it does not mean that it is somehow false. It means that as we live out the ideas, they are worth refining. 

Conclusion

If anything, variants in ideas does not diminish the truth behind it. Every theological idea must be examined on its own merit.

Alternative culture: 5 Big Ideas All Christians Must Agree On review

Recently, Relevant Magazine has produced an article called 5 Big Ideas All Christians Must Agree On.

The five ideas presented are
I: God created the universe
II: Christ is the light in the darkness
III: Communion brings unity
IV: We are called to make disciples
V: Jesus is coming back

While they are ideas I agree with, I would think these ideas are insufficient in on itself. Mainly because it does not address who Jesus is, the conviction of sin or what Jesus's death means to us. Even on point III, it fails to explain the significance on the Lord's supper.

 I would stick to the Apostle's creed.

Creed? What's that?
A creed is a statement that summarises core tenants of a belief. The earliest Christian creed we know about comes from 1 Corinthains 15: 3-7,

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,

In this creed, dated about five to twenty-four years after Jesus's death showed the following statements about Jesus -- that he lived, died for our sins and came back to life (which was witnessed by many).

Why would I want a creed?
Creeds seem unnecessarily divisive -- would it not be better if we define things as vaguely as possible so that we can be as inclusive as possible. It would be so much easier for Christians to accept all religions or even suggest non-believers go to heaven. Yet that is not how God has revealed his judgement and mercy.

In saying creeds, we affirm that God has spoken, and we are defined according to God's will, rather than the will of the world. For instance in saying the Nicene creed, we argee that God has revealed Himself as triune, and this excludes any Unitarian (people who reject the trinity) from the church.

So what should Christians agree on?
I would start with definitely start with this:

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
      creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
      who was conceived by the Holy Spirit
      and born of the virgin Mary.
      He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
      was crucified, died, and was buried;
      he descended to hell.
      The third day he rose again from the dead.
      He ascended to heaven
      and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty.
      From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
      the holy catholic* church,
      the communion of saints,
      the forgiveness of sins,
      the resurrection of the body,
      and the life everlasting. Amen.

*that is, the true Christian church of all times and all places

For further reading
The importance of doctrinal basis

Theology 1.0: What is the importance of miracles in Christianity?

Victoria and Albert Museum, London 2013

I do not know why Thomas Jefferson, one of the founding fathers of the removed all mention of miracles and the supernatural from his version of the Bible. Maybe like some modern Christians, he was uncomfortable with the idea of God violating of the laws of nature.

I would like to make a bold statement-- unlike other religions and worldviews, miracles are essential to Christianity.

1.) Miracles make Christianity what it is.

Although the Bible contains accounts of many miracles such as the parting of the Red Sea and the prophet Elijah summoning fire, I want to focus on the main miracle of Christianity-- the resurrection of Christ.

As the apostle Paul says in the 1 Corinthians 15:17-19,

17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

The basis of Christianity is based on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus-- to deny any of these beliefs is to undo Christianity entirely (Lewis, 1945).

2.) Miracles presupposes reason

Many people seem to think believing miracles requires to people to suspend their intellect. In order to recognise a miracle, one needs to be reasonable.

For instance, in order to recognise the Virgin birth of Jesus Christ as a miracle, one has to understand that sex is needed before birth (Lewis, 1904).

In other words, to recognise a violation of the laws of nature, one has to know the laws of nature.

Conclusion

Miracles are important in Christianity. However, it is not the most important issue. The more pressing issue is this: is it true?

As journalist GK Chesterton (1904) writes,

"What matters about a religion is not whether it can work marvels like any ragged Indian conjurer, but whether it has a true philosophy of the Universe. The Romans were quite willing to admit that Christ was a God. What they denied was the He was the God – the highest truth of the cosmos. And this is the only point worth discussing about Christianity." 

References

Chesterton, GK (1904). The Religious Doubt of Democracy.

Lewis, CS (1942, October). St Jude's Gazette, 73, 4-7.

Lewis, CS (1945, 27 April). The Grand Miracle.  The Guardian, 161-165

With Due Respect: Don't all religions lead to God?

In pluralistic, sensitive and secular Singapore, it is often regarded taboo to talk about religions, much less the exclusitvity of a certain religion. To even say in public that "Jesus is the Way, the truth and the life" (according to John 14:6) can be frown upon and considered to be disruptive in society.

After all, given the huge number of religions in the world, isn't it bigoted to say that Christianity is the only way to God?

Think about it first:

The statement that all religions lead to God presupposes a few assumptions, and I will handle some of them.

1) It is arrogant to say that any one religion has exclusivity to God
 The statement firstly assumes that anybody who claims to have monopoly on the truth is standoffish and unnecessarily divisive.

However, this statement is unconcerned about the nature of truth (i.e. whether something is true or not) and is more concerned about sensitivity (whether people will be offended or not). It has no bearing on truth claims.

Furthermore, the statement by its own rules is also arrogant. This statement is also exclusive in stating that no one religion can be exclusive.

2) All religions talk about the same God
The statement also assumes the God that all religions talk about is the same. However, there are many irreconcilable differences between the differing religions.

For instance, in Hinduism there are many gods. In Christianity, Judaism and Islam, there is only one God. To cite another example, Christianity claims that Jesus is God, while Judaism and Islam rejects that notion.

Hence, to be completely logical and coherent, only one of the following is possible:
A) All religions are wrong OR
B) Only one religion is right

The idea that all of them lead to the same God, or rather the same conclusion is logically inconsistent.

Conclusion
Instead of engagning in senstivity mud-slinging and accuse each other of arrogance, I encourage all readers to come and explore this site and others like it. Come and see if Jesus is truly God or not!


For further reading

Bethinking

With Due Respect: Isn't Christianity for comfort purposes only?

WELLS (Dairy Nature Farm), Singapore, 2012

A just a way to get through the night?

Often religion is portrayed only as a form of comfort. The philosopher Karl Marx described religion as the "opium for the masses"-- it was only meant to give the peasants some comfort from hardships of their daily routine.

The father of psychology, Sigmund Freud (1927) best summs up this position by this:
"They (religious beliefs) are illusions, fulfilments of the oldest, strongest, and most urgent wishes of mankind... As we already know; the terrifying impression of helplessness in childhood aroused the need for protection – for protection through love – which was provided by the father.... Thus the benevolent rule of divine providence allays our fear of the dangers of life."

 His stand is clear-- religious beliefs (in Freud's case, Christianity) are due to a deep-seated desire for protection from a father. Hence such beliefs are merely a psychological crutch-- stronger people do not need them.

But this argument cuts both ways
One thing Freud and Marx fail to realise is that whether a belief is comforting has no bearing on whether it is true. In other words, just because some belief gives us comfort does not mean it is false.

If Freud's argument held water, then it is also true for what he believes or not believes. If Freud's disbelief in Christianity gives him comfort, then his disbelief cannot be true either.

A deep-seated desire?
Even if Freud's argument from desire (that Christians desire a heavenly father to match their earthly fathers) is true, it can also also cut the other way. Freud had a terrible relationship with his biological father, and I guessed it can be argued that he rejected Christianity because of that. Personally, it is not an argument I would used for or against Christianity.

Works for you, but not for me!
If Christianity provides purely just comfort, then the old argument that "Christianity works for some but not others" is valid. Truth become secondary.

However we all know the dangers of such reasons. In the field of medicine, this is known as the "placebo effect". A false remedy might make you feel better, but does nothing to cure the illness.

For instance, a cancer patient might take morphine to relieve his agony, but will not stop his cancer from being worse. A placebo could be fatal in the end, but I submit to you Christianity is the cure for our human condition.

Conclusion
I invite you readers to see that Chrisitainity is not a placebo or a mere comfort tool, but something is intellectually credible and existentially satisfying. It is not something that is a mere crutch for weak people, but a cross for everyone to bear.


References
Freud, S. (1927) The Future of An Illusion.


For further reading
Bethinking

With Due Respect: Christianity is like atheism, just one God less!

It is often touted that Christians are actually atheists. The author of The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins has said that Christians are actually atheists with respect to Greek gods (such as Zeus) and the Norse gods (such as Thor and Odin).

But it makes no sense!

However, what defines an atheist is the lack of belief in ALL gods, not just simply one god. To make the statement that "Christianity is like atheism, just one god less" is like saying "marriage is like singlehood, just one relationship less".

If you allow me to extend the analogy, suppose Gentleman A is married to Lady B. Would it be right to say that Gentleman A is single with respect to unmarried Lady C? Of course not! Gentleman A would still be married to Lady B with (or without) respect to Lady C.

Similarly, a Christian is still as Christian in the light of Zeus or Odin.

Isn't the atheism the default state?

I'm not too sure about this assumption either. Recent research (Barrett, 2004; Foster, 2010*) has revealed that if anything, children are born religious. They seem to start a belief that some supernatural agent is responsible for the workings of the world. In other words, atheism was seen to be something to be learnt, rather than a default state to maintain.

While this observation certainity does not prove Christianity or atheism true, one must not be to hasty to conclude atheism is the default state.

Conclusion

While it may sound cool, sweeping statements like "Christianity is atheism with one less god" does not hold water. The Christian must be wary in engaging in such word games-- while it may be fun, Christians are dealing with people's eternal destinies.


References

Barrett, J. (2004) Why Would Anyone Believe in God?

Foster, C.A. (2010) Wired for God?

* Foster is not a scientist, but rather a lawyer. However, he wrote a review about the biology of religion in Wired for God? which is interesting to read.

Alternative Culture: Gutters-- the New Testament, a new reboot?

Recently, the webcomic Gutters portrayed the New Testament as a reboot of the Old Testament, parodying the 2011 DC comics reboot.

Wait... what is a reboot?
In the comic industry, a reboot is to discard all or much of previous continuity of the series to accomodate new ideas. An example of this in the film industry is the 2005 movie Batman Begins, which discards canon in the previous canon.

So is this portrayal of the New Testament accurate? Does it discard the canon of the Old Testament?

What did Jesus say?
When we look at Christainity, we first have to look at Christ, and in this case on how he treated the Old Testament. Jesus treated the Old Testament as something he came to fulfil (Matthew 5:17-21). Jesus also had a high regard for Scripture (John 10:35), and referred to events that happened in the Old Testament (eg: Mark 12:26).

What did his followers say?
The followers of Jesus also made frequent reference. It would make little sense if the disciples intended to discard the Old Testament and yet frequently referred to it (eg: Romans 2:24; 1 Peter 1:16).

So did Jesus disregard anything from the Old Testament?
If he made anything new, Jesus gave a new convenant- one of his blood (Luke 22:20-23). The writer of Hebrews makes this even clearer, especially in Hebrews 8 (and at the same time, alluding to events in the Old Testament.

Wait, but reboots do make references to the past too, right?
That is true. For instance, the Iron Man comic book series received a reboot, which updated his origin from Vietnam to Afghanistan. However, that reboot did not dicard any of his previous stories. However, the New Testament cannot be loosely compared like that as the Old Testament does alludes to events in the New Testament (specifically the life of Jesus), while older story lines in the Iron Man stories do not intentionally allude to the future retcons.

Allusions to the New Testament went as far back as Genesis (eg: Genesis 3:14-15) and found in many of the prophets (eg: Isaiah 53, Isaiah 9:1-2, Micah 5:2). In fact Micah 5:2 was the verse that the wisemen quoted in finding Jesus (which frightened Herod) (Matthew 2: 1-12).

Conclusion
Hence, we see that the New Testament is not a reboot (in the literature sense) because
a) Frequent reference to Old Testament from the New Testament (including Jesus)
b) Future allusions from the Old Testament to the New Testament.

If the New Testament brings anything new, it is the fact that God came down in Jesus, so that we can look at Him for our righteousness and forgiveness.

For further reading

Alpha-- do prophecies about Jesus Matter?
Bethinking-- how did Jesus view the Old Testament?


PS: Gutters is a great parody site for comic book fans!