New Testament abandoning the Old.

Spirko · Mar 3, 2011

elman said:
Sounds like a failed plan to me.

That's because you don't know the Bible.

God is loving meaning God created us to have someone to love and who could respond to His love with love.

And that's an heretical understanding of the nature of God. God didn't create us because He had an emotional need for companionship. Both the book of Romans and 1 Corinthians say that He created us to show His communicable attri...why am I wasting my time with this? You're not going to listen.

elman · Mar 3, 2011

=Spirko;56889686]That's because you don't know the Bible.

I probably know it better than you. I did notice this allowed you to avoid responding to the question of God regreting He made man sounding like a failed plan.

And that's an heretical understanding of the nature of God. God didn't create us because He had an emotional need for companionship. Both the book of Romans and 1 Corinthians say that He created us to show His communicable attri...why am I wasting my time with this? You're not going to listen.

When you say something worth listening to, I will listen. I said nothing anywhere about God having emotional needs. If you are going to respond to what I write, do so. Don't create things I did not say and respond to them.

Spirko · Mar 3, 2011

elman said:
I probably know it better than you...

...When you say something worth listening to, I will listen.

Pride and rudeness usually go hand in hand.

elman · Mar 3, 2011

Spirko said:
Pride and rudeness usually go hand in hand.

Still avoiding meaningful response. You don't see calling someone ignorant and heretical as rude, do you?

solarwave · Mar 3, 2011

Spirko said:
No, I don't wish to call that progressive revelation because it isn't. Don't churches teach doctrine anymore?

Why did you call it progressive revelation before then? I'm confused about what point you are trying to make now.

Spirko · Mar 3, 2011

solarwave said:
Why did you call it progressive revelation before then?

I didn't. I said that it is different than progressive revelation.

Saying something is different from something is not calling it that thing.

Vesi9000 · Mar 3, 2011

Ah, pride. . . Keep the ad hominems out of the thread please.

@ Mr Dave
I must say that your quote from page 116 left me in terrible suspense. But the material seems perfect for my paper.
I have the book on order. Thanks for your reply.

@ Spirko
I managed to find a copy of the Craig Evans book you listed. I'm not sure if it's entirely appropriate, but it seems interesting if nothing else.

@ solarwave
Keith Ward's book is also on order. Any book on modernism deserves a place in my collection.

@ salida
I'll look into your links more extensively this afternoon, but the sources seem questionable in a "what does your youth pastor say" sense.

@ The odd debate on your God's plan.
I'm really not interested. Had any of you cited even a single relevant philosopher on the subject, I might be entertained, or moved to comment. But, as it stands, you're trolling the thread. It's like watching a debate between barristers.

This is exactly why Christian Fundamentalism bothers me, though. It's about Biblical inerrancy, and yet I have never in my life met two Christians of any kind who interpret the entire Bible in the same way. Was the Bible ever a work in progress given the omnipresent nature of its God? From Anselm's definition of God, we can assume that such a "perfection" operates outside and inside of all semantic arguments simultaneously (even his own), so the question itself is invalid. Furthermore, all revelations from "that which there can be no greater than" on scriptural knowledge are absolute, subjective, and absorbed by imperfect participants.

There are Biblical passages which carefully meander around this concept, but they leave it intact, or so I would argue. Regardless of your position on the matter, the difficulty remains for Fundamentalist Christians and casual ones to find some way to justify that their revelations are more "perfect" than those of the other intermediaries. And that entire business is disturbing to me. Debate on scriptures may be necessary, but it certainly seems extrinsic to the concept of a god's revealing processes. (And this is coming from someone who knows the debate is necessary, why else would I ask about one of them?)

Spirko · Mar 3, 2011

Vesi9000 said:
I managed to find a copy of the Craig Evans book you listed. I'm not sure if it's entirely appropriate, but it seems interesting if nothing else.

Based on your question, I think you'd find it very helpful, but it's up to you.

This is exactly why Christian Fundamentalism bothers me, though. It's about Biblical inerrancy, and yet I have never in my life met two Christians of any kind who interpret the entire Bible in the same way.

Most people actually don't interpret the Bible. Very few people are sufficiently trained in Biblical languages or exegesis to interpret it.

Perhaps you're thinking of something else.

Vesi9000 · Mar 3, 2011

Spirko said:
Most people actually don't interpret the Bible. Very few people are sufficiently trained in Biblical languages or exegesis to interpret it.

Perhaps you're thinking of something else.

This claim is a redefinition of the terms of that argument, and not a valid response to it. Experts remain "imperfect". Nice try though.

And I further challenge you to demonstrate that any Christian does not "interpret" the Bible in the colloquial sense of the word.

Spirko · Mar 3, 2011

Vesi9000 said:
This claim is a redefinition of the terms of that argument, and not a valid response to it. Experts remain "imperfect". Nice try though.

No, actually, it's not. You said they interpret it and the fact is that the vast, vast majority do not.

And I further challenge you to demonstrate that any Christian does not "interpret" the Bible in the colloquial sense of the word.

As it is against the rules for you to "challenge" anyone in this forum (ie. "no debating") and as I stopped taking such challenges around the time I was ten years old, and as I've answered the question in your OP (both politely and respectfully, I might add), I think I'm done here.

Vesi9000 · Mar 3, 2011

Spirko said:
No, actually, it's not. You said they interpret it and the fact is that the vast, vast majority do not.

I'll restate the problem with your claim. You have taken an argument and attempted to use switch-referencing to answer it. This is a logical fallacy.

Perhaps it'd be best to define "interpret", because equivocation is clearly playing a role here. I think you're defining the word as "to translate"; that is not what I mean. In the argument, I would define my use of the word "interpret" as "to understand or construe a particular meaning". Perhaps I should have phrased it that way in the first place. But, I actually used "interpret", because the word implies two things at once--the speaker has taken in knowledge and the speaker may divulge that knowledge. As many Christians not only gain some understanding of the Bible, but also speak openly about that understanding, I felt the term was well suited to my argument. But I do come very close to using the word figuratively, and I can understand the confusion.

Spirko said:
As it is against the rules for you to "challenge" anyone in this forum (ie. "no debating") and as I stopped taking such challenges around the time I was ten years old, and as I've answered the question in your OP (both politely and respectfully, I might add), I think I'm done here.

I feel like a dictionary is wrestling with me. Everything seems to be about semantics. The "challenge" was merely rhetorical. All Christians interpret (understand) the Bible in some way, otherwise they would not be Christians (first hand witnesses to Christ are exempt from this statement). I was driving home a point. If you had taken the challenge as a literal one and gone out in search of such a Christian, you would never return.

Now, I picked this forum primarily because it has a lot of restrictions on how a question is addressed, and I believe I have a good grasp on what those are. If you weren't aware, Christians are also restricted from debating with one another in this forum, which is what I noticed when I first commented on my own thread. Your debate with another user seemed curious to me, so I expanded on my initial question, which is allowed.

Furthermore, and I'm saying this to avoid another potential semantic disagreement, clarification can imply a type of debate, whether over terminology, meaning, or validity. I sincerely doubt the moderators of this forum expect every Christian's response to be completely accurate and coherent, which is why clarification is allowed. You could say, for instance, that there are no children in the Bible, and I could respond by saying that I didn't know what you meant, or that I disagreed. It's a form of debate, but it's inevitable in some discussions, which are not necessarily debates.

Now, the type of debate which I expect isn't allowed in these forums is exactly what we've dropped into. I could be wrong, of course. We could merely be talking semantics. But your parenthetical "both politely and respectfully, I might add" makes me think that this has turned into either a debate or a trading of zingers.

Feel free to continue addressing the argument on Christian interpretations, if you'd like to, but I'd really prefer it if my thread didn't get shut down, so don't continue this particular debate, if that's what it has become.

MattRose · Mar 4, 2011

Spirko said:
As it is against the rules for you to "challenge" anyone in this forum (ie. "no debating") and as I stopped taking such challenges around the time I was ten years old, and as I've answered the question in your OP (both politely and respectfully, I might add), I think I'm done here.

From what I've seen in your reponses here, I gather that it's been a full year since you've stopped taking challenges?

Spirko · Mar 8, 2011

MattRose said:
From what I've seen in your reponses here, I gather that it's been a full year since you've stopped taking challenges?

Matt, there's no reason for you to be rude.

MattRose · Mar 8, 2011

Spirko said:
Matt, there's no reason for you to be rude.

Oh, come on. If you guys are being rude to one another I get to have a go.

Spirko · Mar 9, 2011

MattRose said:
Oh, come on. If you guys are being rude to one another I get to have a go.

So far, Matt, the only one being rude here is you.

MattRose · Mar 10, 2011

I think Vesi9000 took his ball and went home.

ebia · Mar 11, 2011

Have you read "Social Justice in the Hebrew Bible" (Bruce V Malchow)?

Harry3142 · Mar 11, 2011

Vesi9000-

The New Covenant is best decribed as such in Hebrews 8:1 to 10:14. There it decribes in detail the Old Covenant as having been replaced by the New Covenant as a result of Christ's death.

The reason for a new set of laws was due to the Old Testament laws not being orginally designed for the purpose of being a 'roadmap to heaven'. In fact, the agreement which God entered into with the Hebrew nation was a very pragmatic, here-and-now contract. They obeyed the Mosaic Law in this life; they were rewarded in this life. You can read exactly what God promised the Hebrews in Deuteronomy 7:12-15. Notice that there is no mention of there being an afterlife, much less the Hebrews' attaining it through observing these laws.

King Solomon himself wrote down what the attitude of the Hebrews was (and in many cases still is) toward there being an afterlife. You can read it in Ecclesiastes 3:18-22.

Sometime prior to the arrival of Jesus Christ some Jews accepted the belief that this life was followed by another one. Certain teachers taught that if the people obeyed the Mosaic Law they could earn their passage to this afterlife. But Jesus Christ himself 'shot down' that theory by telling the people that what they did was nothing more than what they were supposed to do, and therefore was not worthy of any reward. You can read this in Luke 17:7-10.

But we Christians hold to the belief that there is no such thing as being 'good enough'. Either we are perfect, or we are doomed, or there is an alternative way. God himself laid out the plans and then carried out to its completion this alternative way. You can read about it in Romans 3:19 to 5:10.

I hope this helps. Good luck with your paper.

New Testament abandoning the Old.

Spirko

Guest

elman

elman

Spirko

Guest

elman

elman

solarwave

Guest

Spirko

Guest

Vesi9000

Newbie

Spirko

Guest

Vesi9000

Newbie

Spirko

Guest

Vesi9000

Newbie

MattRose

Guest

Spirko

Guest

MattRose

Guest

Spirko

Guest

MattRose

Guest

ebia

Senior Contributor

Harry3142

Regular Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency