Results 21 - 40 of 84
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Suede67 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | Suede67 | 115168 | ||
Hi Ischus, ""If you mean that the OT is more historical than theological I would disagree. None of the Old Testament is primarily meant to be history."" Well, this is where you and I differ then. I don't see any more outstanding doctrine in the OT. The overall message is that God is faithful, but a lot of the doctrine in the OT is the Law, legalistic in nature. But, we aren't under that, so I fail to see where the doctrine of the OT has much bearing on the present. The OT is in fact a lot of history, starting with Genesis and easily going to Psalms. Even then, books such as Daniel contain bits of history. One only need ask, what is quoted more or turned to more for guidance, the NT or the OT? Well, the NT of course, especially if we remove Psalms and Proverbs from the picture. I personally think statements such as "who God is, who his people are, how they are saved" are way too generalized. But, I agree that we shouldn't ignore the OT. That's my thoughts, take care, SUEDE |
||||||
22 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | Suede67 | 115233 | ||
Kalos, ""Suede, I am not against you. What I write is not intended as a personal attack.""" Understood, you and I disagree, but we can still act civil about it all. """Anyone who says that they "don't see any more outstanding doctrine in the OT" is in need of eye salve, "that you may see" (Revelation 3:18).""" How so? Did not Christ fulfill the things of the OT? """To say that the OT, the Word of God, is legalistic is absurd. To say that the Law is legalistic is to display a lack of knowledge and understanding of both the Law and legalism (two different things). Legalism is not obeying the written Law of God; it is the attempt to keep man-made rules and regulations, man-made interpretations of the Law. Jesus illustrated the difference in the Sermon on the Mount.""" Well, that's certianly one man's take on it all, I of course disagree with your take of Legalism and the Law and see it as a bit of semantics. The OT is legalistic in that it does in fact have written laws. And where there are written laws, there will be interpretations of them. Jesus and the Apostles did this; Christians still do this. """According to Paul, "All Scripture...is profitable for doctrine." To claim that the OT is NOT profitable for doctrine is to claim that it is not inspired Scripture."" Let me correct the above. The NT supercedes the OT. Also, saying that the OT is no longer valid in no way indicates that it is not inspired. That's a bad conclusion on your part. We can still draw things from the OT, but I don't put it on par with the NT. The bulk of the prophecies in the OT which make up the later half point to Jesus who fulfilled them. The first half of the OT is mainly historical and has little to do with doctrine aside from more generalized things like, God is faithful. All in all, Christians do need to know both the OT and the NT. That's my two cents, take care, SUEDE |
||||||
23 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | Suede67 | 115234 | ||
Ischus, """I do not deny that the bible contains history, but when it does, the point that the authors make is the way in which God works in history- the bible is not objective history (nor is any history, for that matter)- it is a theological interpretation of events that show God's divine work.""" You and I agree on this. But, let's say that the NT is more objective. """Each section of the OT demonstrates God's desire for a relationship with his people in spite of their failures; each book shows God's love, mercy, faithfulness, justice, holiness, grace, and his universal love for all people, including gentiles and pagans.""" Right. And the NT is the objective proof of that, John 3:16. Do you see what I mean? """These are not historical- they are Gospel! I am sorry to hear that you do not see the OT in this way.""" Well, historical none the less. I don't doubt the broad themes of the OT, of course the NT has those too. But I my point is that the NT IS the fruition of the OT. Things that were valid in the OT, the Law, aren't any longer. We as Christians don't go through laborious classes on the written law, why not? Because Christ was the fulfillment and freedom of the law. Take care, SUEDE |
||||||
24 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | Suede67 | 115238 | ||
Kalos, """What did Jesus and the NT writers quote -- the NT or the OT? I am more concerned with what Jesus and the NT writers quoted than with what is quoted more.""" Strawman arguement/holier than thou attitude. Are we really to believe that you are more concerned with what King Soloman said than Jesus? Come on. Why didn't Jesus quote the NT? Because it was about him and events after he ascended? """'The law cannot be altogether invalid since the New Testament affirms its abiding applicability. "All Scripture is … useful" (2 Tim 3:16-17), including Old Testament laws. Jesus came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (Matt 5:17-20).""" The second statement refutes the first. Besides, Romans 10:4 "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." Also, Paul quoting and/or referring to the Law is of no surprise, nor does it place any precident or authority in it. Paul after conversion pushed salvation by grace and justification by faith, not by the law. Paul was a Jew. He was a Jewish thinker. Not only that, Paul was a Pharisee and many believe he was a Shammaite Phariesee, which means he was a Phariesee's Pharisee. He is drawing on information that he grew up with and studied, he's incorporating that information in his teachings. Look at what you wrote, "Paul derives a principle" "originally limited to courts, is applied more broadly to a church conference"; "derived from a law"; "Paul maintains the law's moral principle, yet in view of the changed redemptive setting, makes no attempt to apply the law's original sanction." We can see that we aren't exactly under the law here. This to me doesn't stand up to scrutiny. We can see that we aren't under the law as in the day of the OT. I understand the broad picture being painted here, don't get me wrong, but I also see the details. Take care, SUEDE |
||||||
25 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | Suede67 | 115239 | ||
Colin, ""Suede, have you read the bible?"" A fair question. I have. Take care, SUEDE |
||||||
26 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | Suede67 | 115248 | ||
Ischus, """Things that were valid in the OT, the Law, aren't any longer." This is absolutely false. The Law, apart from its cultural components, is completely valid. Where do you think Jesus got his priciples from? I am saying that God's principles and His nature are represented in the OT in a very unique way, and the NT cannot be a sufficient substitute for this."" Well, having 'prinicples' is very different from having 'practices', that's my point that's been missed this whole time due to semantics. The NT is sufficent, different, but sufficent none the less. Granted it would be better to have both, if a case arises where one can't, then go with the NT. ""The OT is not intended to give us information about the past,"" Of course it was, it's a very, very valid historical record. ""(It is) God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness."" Yes, I agree. But once again, we aren't under it in practice. Jesus and the writers of the NT were the fulfillment and application of the Law. Take care, SUEDE |
||||||
27 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | Suede67 | 115254 | ||
ischus, ""I think that we are saying the same thing in different ways, and with different points of emphasis."" I agree. I sort of got 'jumped' here and I feel it's based on people's assumptions of what I was saying, not an actual, critical look at what I was saying. Thank you for going back over the posts. ""Is there another aspect that we can discuss?"" Perhaps there is, let me see how you react to this. It's interesting to find in the NT that the Jewish followers of Christ do actually remain under a rigid practice of the Law, well beyond mere principle, but Gentiles really are not aside from a handful of 'courtesy' laws. This seems to be odd to many as this is post ascension. Though there's different explanations to this, there's only one that I find truly valid and that's the Preteristic view. As far as "end times" go, I'm a Preterist and believe the Second Coming and all that goes with it happened in 70 AD. This means that until final completion of all things, the Law was still very much to be practiced by Jewish believers, that is until completion. This explains why the Law was still practiced by Jewish believers in the NT, and why practice of it trails off greatly. I'll let you sleep on that one, take care, SUEDE |
||||||
28 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | Suede67 | 115306 | ||
Colin, I too still think the OT is huge, just like you do. I don't count it out, or try and discount it. But, I see God dealing with mankind in a progressive way. There is a difference between pre Messiah times, and Post Messiah times. As far as Christianity goes, I believe the NT has more of a DIRECT bearing on us the OT does. We see the fruition and correct application of the OT. We see it very much in principle, as opposed to strict legalistic practice. Again, this doesn't count the OT out, it's just that the two volumes are different and we can't approach them in the exact same way. I think people that do head down the road of Error. That's me though. Take care, SUEDE |
||||||
29 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | Suede67 | 115338 | ||
ischus, "You post a fair question. I respect your Preteristic view, and I'm sure that you are aware of the other views, so I won't discuss them with you." Thanks for respecting it, that's much more than I usually get. I am very familiar with other views, I like most Christians was raised a Futurist until deep study showed me that that view was incorrect. You have an interesting take, but believing Jews kept on with blood sacrifices post the cross. The question is why, since you correctly stated that "The sacrificial component of the Law was fulfilled in Jesus, so it was no longer valid." A good look at Acts and Hebrews can help clear this up, Take care, SUEDE |
||||||
30 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | Suede67 | 115340 | ||
colin, "...the OT faith-giants were as non-legalistic as you could get." They sure were. "I think of David eating the "shewbread" (1 Sam 21.6) as cited also by Jesus (Matt 12.4), in His idictment of Pharisitic legalism." Yes, excellent, aside from Jesus out right scolding of them. "For David the Moral Law (not the Levitical laws) was "...a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path." (Psalm 119:105)" Yes, Moral is fine, Levitical law, no. Take care, SUEDE |
||||||
31 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | Suede67 | 115342 | ||
ischus, Very good, but it still to me doesn't quite cover why the Law in practice was still applicable. But, Jesus did say that "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." Matthew 5:18 So...does this mean that we are under written law? No, it doesn't, but why not? SUEDE |
||||||
32 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | Suede67 | 115380 | ||
ischus, Pretty good illustration, but it's a bit off. I guess the point I'm making is that the Law was still valid for a time after Christ's death and ascension. Why? Paul knew this best and noted that the law was only a shadow of things to COME. Col 2:17 "things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ." Interesting line there. Paul is saying in essence that even though the law is around, it is but a shadow of a coming reality. Hebrews 10:1 says the same. What people are missing is that it's a coming reality, not a present one. So, did Christ leave us in a state of 'limbo', or did he fulfill all things. It's clear that Christ's work was not entirely finished at the cross. This is noted in black and white in Hebrews 8:13 "When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear." See? The Old Covenant was still valid even post ascension. Something else had to happen, what was it? Hebrews 9:28 "so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him." See, the period from roughly 30 AD to 70 AD was similar to the wandering of the Israelites in the desert in Exodus. There was a 40 year transition period there, to rid the "Kingdom of God" of the wicked. This would be capped off by the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. This is the way to harminize the Bible as a whole. This is why Futurism can not work, it's missing both the broad picture, and the details. Take care, SUEDE |
||||||
33 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | Suede67 | 115381 | ||
Colin, No, and certianly not Paul. Christians are to keep these moral laws, but we are humans, sinners by nature and many will slip. Are they unsaved? No. Is God's grace so weak that he can not save a murderer, or a adulteress? SUEDE |
||||||
34 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | Suede67 | 115388 | ||
Colin, Well, they certianly wouldn't recommend it! But chances are we will all die with unrepentanted sins. God knows though. We in no way can limit God's grace. Take care, SUEDE |
||||||
35 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | Suede67 | 115392 | ||
ischus, Not me my friend, but the Holy Spirit, I'm just a vessel. I was blessed greatly and equally hit in the heart when God revealed his mystery to me. Let me just say, that you are not alone. There is much to learn, but are ready. Please feel free to contact me with any other questions you may have. Consult the Greek, look at the Bible in the original languages, that's what I did. Look at Young's Literal Translation too. I don't want you to accept this without searching the scriptures. Look at them through the eyes of the 1st Century populace and what is being told to THEM. You see, the last and greatest lie the Devil ever told was that Christ did NOT come again. Thoughts and prayers go out to you. SUEDE |
||||||
36 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | Suede67 | 115400 | ||
Hey Colin, Excellent questions! 1) Was the destruction of the Temple part of God's ridding "the 'Kingdom of God' of the wicked"? Yes. The faithful living in Jerusalem were told to flee the city before it's destruction, the Olivet Discourse and Revelation cover these warnings. You probably aren't aware of this, but the Harlot of Revelation is Jerusalem. John the Baptist, Jesus and the Disciples explictly warned the wicked Jews (namely the Pharisees) that the wrath of God was coming for them. Matt. 3:7 John and the pharisees; Matt. 21-vineyard parable; Matt. 26:64-warning to Caiaphas, the chief priests, the scribes, the elders, the whole Sanhedrin; Lk. 23:28-30 Jesus warns the women of Jerusalem compare with Rev. 6:14-17; Acts 2:17 Peter warns a crowd that the Last Days were upon them just like Joel prophesized; and those are just a few. 2) Was the Holocaust a 20th Century analog of this? You know, a lot of people say that the Jews still suffer today for killing Jesus. I personally believe that hardships are more apt to fall on non believers then believers (though the sun shines on both) and do not feel that this has anything to do with the Holocaust. Most people believe that Matthew 27:25 means that ALL the Jews forever will be under a 'blood curse' for killing Jesus. I do not. I believe that when "And all the people said, 'His blood shall be on us and on our children!" they were signing off on a punishment that would be realized in full in 70 AD. 3) How does the destruction of the Temple Harmonize the Bible as a whole? Well, that has to do with the New Covenant coming in, which of course the Jews had known about for quite some time due to the prophets. If you'll notice, espeically in the NT, there's usually a earthly event that symbolizes a divine reality. Look at the Temple veil on earth that was torn when Christ was killed. (Mt 27:51) Why? That symbolized that Jesus was the link between God and man, that was a earthly symbol of a divine reality, Heb 9:24 "For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;" The temple being destroyed was God's way of letting us know that he was here with us, that our bodies were his temple. See the tabernacle, the temple, the veil; God did away with all those things, those shadows of the divine reality which is Jesus the Christ. This harminizes the Bible by allowing us to see that God dwells among men once more like he did in Genesis. No longer do we need Temples and Tabernacles and altars; God made good on his promise! Take care, SUEDE |
||||||
37 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | Suede67 | 115402 | ||
ischus, First, "Thanks for putting me on the road to growth" Absolutely! I'm so glad you were receptive to it. "What I am suggesting is that perhaps they both saw those still living under the Law as "living in the past" so to speak." Well, not necessarily living in the past, but living in a present that would have no future. Another thing we need to bear in mind is the people that are being addressed, Paul is addressing Gentiles, Hebrews is to Jews. In Col 2:17 Paul shows us that he knows the reality is coming and that the shadow is dissipating and very soon will be gone. Now, with this knowledge, for the Gentiles he's writing to there is no need to go under the law, only to come out of it a few years later. This is sort of a lost understanding to why Paul was so insistent on not putting the Gentiles under the Law in Acts 15. In Hebrews though, the author let's the Jews know that the Old Covenant is still valid, but that it is going away. So, not so much like you are currently 'living in the past', but that you will be very, very soon. "There are several references in each book to the past actions of the completion, fufillment, and nullification of the Law on the cross." Jesus did do much with the cross, note the veil of the temple being torn down. BUT, there was still more to do. The resurrection, the judgements, the wrath and the dwelling with mankind. So yes, let us not discount the cross by any means for it is certainly a key focual point. "I am working this out with fear and trembling," Good. I did too. I still remember when this information came pouring down on me, I thought I was going to throw up. LOL Lastly, Colin aka flinkywood asked me asome more good questions, you may look at my response given at 1:28 in this section. Take care, SUEDE |
||||||
38 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | Suede67 | 115408 | ||
Colin, "Are you saying the organizing principle of the entire Bible can be expressed from the Temple destruction?" I wouldn't necessarily say it's the organizing principle, but I do believe it's a symbolic conclusion. Let's ask, was it God's intent to be seperated from man? Was it his intent for us to have to do blood sacrifices? Was it his intent to dwell in an earthly man built temple? No. The Bible is the story of how man and God had a relationship and how man fell and how God restored the relationship. The Temple destruction is a symbol, and finale of God's promised work to restore mankind in his eyes. "Is this particular tragedy a touchstone for all the essential doctrines of the Christian faith?' I wouldn't say for ALL essential doctrines. Eschatology has never been consider essential as far as salvation goes. However, I do believe it is very important to understand and literally paramount to understanding the Bible as a whole correctly. "Also, can you be more specific on how you know that God was deliberately de-wickeding His kingdom with the Temple destruction? Many Christians also perished at that time." Well, first it's actually incorrect to assume that Christians died in Jerusalem. Jewish historian Jospheus records ZERO deaths of Christians. Why? Because they all fled the city before it was fully laid to siege. Israel was God's people, his country, his kingdom. But she had grown very, very wicked. Jerusalem was basically God's city, but it too had become just as wicked, and the Temple was ground zero. To understand all this, one needs to study the Olivet Discourse and Revelation and understand that it is Jerusalem that is the focal point. Once one grasps that, her destruction becomes self evident. I would recommend looking into the Olivet Discourse for starters, namely Luke's account, chapter 21 starting at verse 5. Take care, good questions again. SUEDE |
||||||
39 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | Suede67 | 115410 | ||
Ischus, "Can you explain to me then, in light of everything that you have said, what exactly Jesus has done already, has yet to do, and where he is at this moment?" Well, Jesus has done EVERYTHING! There's nothing left for him to do, he is here with us. "Also, can you tell me how you interpret Rev.20?" Yes, I'll sort of skim over it, baring time, it's late. Revelation is not written in exact chronological order, it's very close, but not quite. In Rev 20, John is going to do a bit of a recap until verse 7. The question is, when was Satan bound? Well Jesus actually stated this, we just often over look it. Look at Matt 12 starting at vs 22. Jesus is accused of using Satan to drive out demons. Jesus tells them this is impossible since Satan is in charge of demons. But here's what he says, "29 Or how can one enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house." Who is the strong man? Satan. What has happened to him? He's bound. Isn't this what John was talking about in Rev 20? Yes. See being in a chain is symbolic, this doesn't mean that Satan was totally powerless, just that he was limited. Paul too was bound with a chain, but we was still very active. (Acts 28:20, 2 Tim 1:16) Satan could not deceive large masses, or nations because he was bound, and since he was bound, demons could be driven out. On the thrones starting in verse 4 are the Christians that have died after the cross, namely the martyrs that were killed by Rome. The Beast is noted as Roman emperors, usually Nero whose evils against Christendom are legendary. Verse 7 we have Satan released and he is going to get Rome to attack Jerusalem, noted as Gog and Magog. They surround the city and here's where I introduce a different view of verse 9. Most people believe that an army will surround Jerusalem, but that she will be saved when fire comes down and devours the army. This is incorrect. Fire is noted as judgement or wrath, but who is God projecting his wrath at? It's Jerusalem. So when we read verse 9 we need to understand that Jerusalem is surrounded and then God's wrath is unleashed on HER, not on the army. The army is the means and method of God's wrath. Here's why I say all this. Look at the Olivet Discourse in Luke 21. Jesus is going to tell the disciples about 'end times' and note what he says in verse 20 "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near." See Jerusalem was not going to be saved when she was surrounded by armies, but destroyed. Verse 10, Satan is overthrown finally, yes he's no longer around in any sort of real capacity, as disturbing as that sounds. Note, Hebrews 2:5 "For He has not put the world to come, of which we speak, in subjection to angels." We are currently in that 'world to come', the next age. And Romans 16:20 “The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.” Under whose feet? The Christians of the 1st Century. Lastly is judgement which I will hit, well later today! It's late, I'm going to call it a night. Keep questions coming though, they're all good. Take care, SUEDE |
||||||
40 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | Suede67 | 115476 | ||
ischus 1) what is your definition of the Kingdom that Jesus spoke about (and is it phys. or Spiritual) Spiritual, though we as believers make up a physical reality of it. I find it interesting, not in a good way, that a lot of Christian theology downplays the Spiritual side of Christianity. God to me is just not overly concerned with the flesh, those are manly things, not Godly things. The resurrected body is a big one I have problems with, but that’s another topic. Luke 17:20,21 “Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, "The kingdom of God does not come with observation; nor will they say, 'See here!' or 'See there!' For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you." 2) What was Jesus' ministry about? What was his goal? That's pretty broad. We could go with to teach, and live a perfect life, but in short to redeem mankind. Hebrews 9:26 “He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.” 3) What did the cross accomplish, and what did it not accomplish? The Cross provided atonement for sins. Eph 1:7 "In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace." Christians that died right after the cross could also skip Sheol or 'the grave' and go directly to heaven. What it did not directly accomplish was, the resurrection of the dead from Sheol, the Wrath, the Judgement, the consummation of the Ages, the fulfillment of the New Covenant; the things happened at the Second Coming. 4)What is God's view of the Jews and the Law today? Probably not good. Allow me to speak bluntly. It's upsetting that many Christians accept a pluralistic 'faith' with the Jews, as in Judaism is still valid in the eyes of God. I agree that we should be cordial and polite to all, but we need to in the same respect stand firm in our faith. To say that Judaism is equally valid smacks Christ and everything he did for us. In short, it is blasphemous. It's terrible that some theologies like Dispensationalism actually have Israel restarting atonement sacrifices and that those would be acceptable to God! That's blasphemous. It bothers me too that many Jews just accept out of hand that the Messiah will come one day, he's only taking his time, despite the fact that in Daniel we are told when he would appear. Even the Talmud notes that the time for the Messiah has passed. It bugs me that they cannot give an honest evaluation of their own 'faith'. Too much pride, they are Jews for the love of being Jewish, not for the glory of God. In all seriousness, I really, really fear what will happen if a third temple is built in Jerusalem. God knocked the temple down twice, he'll do it again. The nation of Israel has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Bible or "God's Plan". Christians often turn a blind or very biased eye to the events in Israel simply because it involves Jews. But as we can see with Preterism, being 'Jewish' is a moot point now. Take care, SUEDE |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Next > Last [5] >> |