What's good for the goose...

[timothyu]

Good cannot exist without evil. The Bible states that God created all, that includes evil.

True.. unless some believe something can exist outside of God. It is those within that have given God an autoimmune disease.

 

[Jesus is my Superhero]

So one has to take the ot with one
of those grains of salt.

The testimony of Jesus Christ is prophecy and many prophecies are found in the O.T.

 

[Hans Blaster]

God created everything including a limited shelf life and the culprits that bring about our demise. Everything is food for something else. And He prefers e chose the Kingdom rather than what man deems worthy.

What is the shelf life of diamonds? What being uses diamonds for food?

(Methinks you have overstated your case.)

 

[Estrid]

The testimony of Jesus Christ is prophecy and many prophecies are found in the O.T.

What does that have to do with what I said?

 

[Jesus is my Superhero]

What does that have to do with what I said?

You stated that the O.T. should be taken with a grain of salt in post #41. I posited that with all the prophecies attesting to Jesus Christ in the O.T., the O.T. is very necessary in understanding Christianity. ( In so many words).

 

[Estrid]

You stated that the O.T. should be taken with a grain of salt in post #41. I posited that with all the prophecies attesting to Jesus Christ in the O.T., the O.T. is very necessary in understanding Christianity. ( In so many words).

I know. Do you know that your response is
irrelevant?
Oysters are unclean, adulterors are to
be stoned, there really was a flood,
gods word never changes- grain of salt,
true, untrue, true once but not now?
What is it about the OT that I am to think?

The "prophecy" bit doesn't address that.

 

[Jesus is my Superhero]

The anger and rage shine through your writing. Jesus has a remedy for this. I hope you find peace and meaning to your life.

 

[Estrid]

Good cannot exist without evil. The Bible states that God created all, that includes evil.

Maybe some think there's another
God that creates stuff.

 

[Strong in Him]

So one has to take the ot with one
of those grains of salt.

No; there are a lot of good stories, prophecies and teachings about God in the OT. But they did not have the full revelation of God that Jesus brought us. God gave Moses animal sacrifices for sin; in Jesus, we are forgiven through his death on the cross. He was the Lamb of God who came to take away the sin of the world. The Holy Spirit was only given to some people for a while, or for special occasions - but at Pentecost the Spirit was poured out on all people.
We are not living under the Old Covenant, but the New. The Old covenant cannot save us - but that doesn't mean there is nothing good in it at all. We can still learn about God and his people.

 

[Strong in Him]

Good cannot exist without evil. The Bible states that God created all, that includes evil.

For God to create evil - the evil of war, suffering, shootings, stabbings, drunk drivers, rapists, paedophiles etc etc - for him to think up, and plan, that kind of wickedness, he would, himself, have to be evil or wicked. And he's not - he is love.
Love is patient, kind, not rude, does not delight in evil, 1 Corinthians 13:4-7.
God is also light and there is NO darkness in him at all.

 

[Estrid]

No; there are a lot of good stories, prophecies and teachings about God in the OT. But they did not have the full revelation of God that Jesus brought us. God gave Moses animal sacrifices for sin; in Jesus, we are forgiven through his death on the cross. He was the Lamb of God who came to take away the sin of the world. The Holy Spirit was only given to some people for a while, or for special occasions - but at Pentecost the Spirit was poured out on all people.
We are not living under the Old Covenant, but the New. The Old covenant cannot save us - but that doesn't mean there is nothing good in it at all. We can still learn about God and his people.

Kind of a long winded way of saying what
I said.

NT doesn't say it's ok to eat vultures.

 

[Strong in Him]

Kind of a long winded way of saying what
I said.

The phrase "to take something with a grain of salt" suggests, to me, that it's not entirely believable, and that we shouldn't take it too seriously.
That's not what I said.

NT doesn't say it's ok to eat vultures.

That's not it's purpose.
It doesn't say it ok to eat giraffes, speak Greek, wear jeans, use computers etc etc either. That doesn't mean that we should - or shouldn't.

 

[Estrid]

The phrase "to take something with a grain of salt" suggests, to me, that it's not entirely believable, and that we shouldn't take it too seriously.
That's not what I said.

That's not it's purpose.
It doesn't say it ok to eat giraffes, speak Greek, wear jeans, use computers etc etc either. That doesn't mean that we should - or shouldn't.

So where OT says not to eat vultures
( or ducks, oysters, clams or pork)
one should take it seriously?

The flood story is not remotely
believable. Didnt happen.

So what did you say about NT v OT
and a grain of salt regarding such
as stoning, vulture chomping, or
dubious / apocryphal events that the
OT does address. I dont know
why you go off on jeans and computers.


The purposes of NT authors and
compilers is open to debate of course.

 

[Strong in Him]

So where OT says not to eat vultures
( or ducks, oysters, clams or pork)
one should take it seriously?

Yes, if you're a Jew.
God made a covenant with the Israelites - whom he had rescued from slavery in Egypt - at Mt Sinai. He gave them his law to teach them how to live. They kept breaking this law, the prophets reminded them of it and said they needed to repent and keep it; they did for a while, then they forgot again. The Israelites broke the covenant again and again.
Eventually God said that he was going to make a new one with ALL people, which he did in Jesus.
If you have Jewish ancestry, your forefathers were rescued from Egypt and you don't accept that Jesus aid he had come to fulfil the law - go ahead and keep it.

The flood story is not remotely
believable. Didnt happen.

Have you reviewed the archaeological evidence for the flood, or are you just dismissing it because you don't believe it?

So what did you say about NT v OT
and a grain of salt regarding such
as stoning, vulture chomping, or
dubious / apocryphal events that the
OT does address.

Not eating unclean meat and stoning someone to death for adultery, or not keeping the Sabbath are part of the law that was given to the Israelites who were rescued from Egypt. Personally, I'm not that old; nor were any of my ancestors in that group of people.
I, and thousands of others, are living under the New Covenant that was sealed by Jesus, Matthew 26:28.

The purposes of NT authors and
compilers is open to debate of course.

In what way?

 

[Estrid]

Yes, if you're a Jew.
God made a covenant with the Israelites - whom he had rescued from slavery in Egypt - at Mt Sinai. He gave them his law to teach them how to live. They kept breaking this law, the prophets reminded them of it and said they needed to repent and keep it; they did for a while, then they forgot again. The Israelites broke the covenant again and again.
Eventually God said that he was going to make a new one with ALL people, which he did in Jesus.
If you have Jewish ancestry, your forefathers were rescued from Egypt and you don't accept that Jesus aid he had come to fulfil the law - go ahead and keep it.


Have you reviewed the archaeological evidence for the flood, or are you just dismissing it because you don't believe it?

Not eating unclean meat and stoning someone to death for adultery, or not keeping the Sabbath are part of the law that was given to the Israelites who were rescued from Egypt. Personally, I'm not that old; nor were any of my ancestors in that group of people.
I, and thousands of others, are living under the New Covenant that was sealed by Jesus, Matthew 26:28.

In what way?

Just responding to your q about
archeological evidence for the flood.

There is nothing to review. There is no
evidence of any kind for a world wide flood.

If you mean the whole story does not mean
what it says, thats my point about grain of salt.

If you think there is evidence for flood
rather than very extensive disproof
of the event, it's not I but thou who is
uneducated and dismissues facts for
reason of preconconveived ideas and
chosen belief - that latter being the very
definition of intellectual dishonesty.

You might specify if you havr chosen
to interpret " flood" literally ( world wide)
or more like local splash- splash, and, if
you are dismissing out of hand that which
disproces flood, or, simply are ignorant of
how wwf ( world wide flood) is disproved.