Results 1 - 9 of 9
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | ischus | 115176 | ||
SUEDE, We cetainly do disagree here. 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. 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. These are not historical- they are Gospel! I am sorry to hear that you do not see the OT in this way. ischus |
||||||
2 | 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 |
||||||
3 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | ischus | 115241 | ||
SUEDE "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? Why did he say that Loving God and your neighbor are the foundations of the Law? I am not saying that we need to run away to a safe city when we kill someone on accident, or that we can take some food from the corners of a farmers field; 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. The OT is not intended to give us information about the past, it God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness. ischus |
||||||
4 | 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 |
||||||
5 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | ischus | 115250 | ||
Ok, looking through our notes from the beginning, I think that we are saying the same thing in different ways, and with different points of emphasis. I am willing to leave it at this. I don't think we are going to agree on terminology, and that is what we are stuck on. We both have our own opinion here, and that is ok with me for the time being. Is there another aspect that we can discuss? ischus |
||||||
6 | 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 |
||||||
7 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | ischus | 115325 | ||
SUEDE, 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. To get to the point, I have already stated that the Law was given as a revelation of God's nature, and that those principles apply to us today. I have also stated that the Law was also, on a different level, a very civil-social-cultural law that was meant for the Hebrews/Israelites/Jews to follow, since God was their Suzerain, and they were the vassals. The sacrificial component of the Law was fulfilled in Jesus, so it was no longer valid. The same can be said of the social-cultural aspects as well. However, it was obviously fine with God that they continue in these systems (excluding sacrifices for atonement) since it was central to who they were as a people and a culture. They were no longer bound to the written code, but were still required to follow its principles (as are we). Paul demonstrates this by following the Law when with the Jews, but not following it while with the Gentiles. ischus |
||||||
8 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | flinkywood | 115332 | ||
Ischus, Romans 14 expands on Paul's view of feast days and other Levitical legal remants (good cross refernces in Colossians and Ephesians). Colin |
||||||
9 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | ischus | 115334 | ||
Thanks, Colin. I know the verses are there somewhere, it's just that when I'm in the moment its hard to stop writing and look them up. :) I really should do a better job of that. Thanks, for the Romans 14, and the others as well! ischus |
||||||