Why does God choose to remain invisible and undetectable?

[bhsmte]

Matthew 5:17
Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.

Fulfill meaning to accomplish with His death and a new covenant. Prophets prophesied His coming, He fulfilled it, with His death he called us all to die with Him and be reborn into the new covenant, we now possess the Holy Spirit. It's easy to recognize, it's an extreme sensitivity to sin.

By your interpretation then, by fulfilling as you claim, the OT laws are basically abolished?

 

[ChristCameBackFromTheDead]

My lack of knowledge of the bible? how laughable. Don't mistake non-acceptance of the way people cherry pick their doctrines as not understanding what the bible says.

You clearly told me there is no New Testament Christians.

 

[ChristCameBackFromTheDead]

By your interpretation then, by fulfilling as you claim, the OT laws are basically abolished?

Hebrews 8:13
In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

It's not an interpretation, it's what the bible says.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Matthew 5:17
Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.

Fulfill meaning to accomplish with His death and a new covenant. Prophets prophesied His coming, He fulfilled it, with His death he called us all to die with Him and be reborn into the new covenant, we now possess the Holy Spirit. It's easy to recognize, it's an extreme sensitivity to sin.

CCBFTD,

I think some of the problem with communication between Christians and Atheist/Ex-Christians is that some of the latter group come from churches and past experiences that were heavily couched in a strict, legalistic theology. So, when they encounter Christians who hail from a different theological environment (eg. Church of Christ vs. Disciples of Christ, or Hard-line Presbyterian vs. General Congregationalist, etc. ) they assume that you must be a Christian who is ignorant of the Bible and its principles.

 

[bhsmte]

CCBFTD,

I think some of the problem with communication between Christians and Atheist/Ex-Christians is that some of the latter group come from churches and past experiences that were heavily couched in a strict, legalistic theology. So, when they encounter Christians who hail from a different theological environment (eg. Church of Christ vs. Disciples of Christ, or Hard-line Presbyterian vs. General Congregationalist, etc. ) they assume that you must be a Christian who is ignorant of the Bible and its principles.

I think the real issue is; so many Christians, have so many different interpretations of scripture and hence, so many denominations of Christianity.

I have always found, the most aggressive debates on this board, are from Christians debating other Christians on the interpretation of scripture.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

By your interpretation then, by fulfilling as you claim, the OT laws are basically abolished?

No, the penalties are abolished and the intent is FULFILLED in, and by, Christ.

You might want to check out the book, Five Views on Law and Gospel (CounterPoint Series) to see that there is a wide spread on the understanding between scholars/theologians as to just what the relationship between the OT Law and the NT Gospel is or could be. There is no contemporary consensus. In relation to the book I've cited, my view most closely approximates that of Douglas J. Moo and for the reasons he gives.

 

[ChristCameBackFromTheDead]

I think the real issue is; so many Christians, have so many different interpretations of scripture and hence, so many denominations of Christianity.

I have always found, the most aggressive debates on this board, are from Christians debating other Christians on the interpretation of scripture.

I've seen these debates and every single one of them is based off opinion. Very rarely does anyone go to scripture to look for the answer. The answers to everything needs to end at scripture, I was just in a thread debating if water baptism was vital to salvation, so many people waving their baptism in front of those who haven't been like a hundred dollar bill.

I simply went to scripture, pulled out verses and explained them in context. Do you know what happened? The conversation ended.

Yes, Christians love to debate, they love to fight over frivolous things. It is petty and it's because modern Christianity needs a revival. Our work should be about spreading the gospel, not debating things when the answer is clearly in scripture.

I'm one of "those" Christians that uses the Word of God as my SWORD. You'd be surprised at how many Christians have never read the bible at length. I guess saying "I'm a Christian" rolls off the tongue or something. Maybe it's nice to say. Who knows.

 

[bhsmte]

No, the penalties are abolished and the intent if FULFILLED in, and by, Christ.

You might want to check out the book, Five Views on Law and Gospel (CounterPoint Series) to see that there is a wide spread on the understanding between scholars/theologians as to just what the relationship between the OT Law and the NT Gospel is or could be. There is no contemporary consensus.

Yes, I am well aware, that opinions are all over the board on this and many other issues.

 

[bhsmte]

I've seen these debates and every single one of them is based off opinion. Very rarely does anyone go to scripture to look for the answer. The answers to everything needs to end at scripture, I was just in a thread debating if water baptism was vital to salvation, so many people waving their baptism in front of those who haven't been like a hundred dollar bill.

I simply went to scripture, pulled out verses and explained them in context. Do you know what happened? The conversation ended.

Yes, Christians love to debate, they love to fight over frivolous things. It is petty and it's because modern Christianity needs a revival. Our work should be about spreading the gospel, not debating things when the answer is clearly in scripture.

I'm one of "those" Christians that uses the Word of God as my SWORD. You'd be surprised at how many Christians have never read the bible at length. I guess saying "I'm a Christian" rolls off the tongue or something. Maybe it's nice to say. Who knows.

Well, the fact we have so many varying interpretations from Christians (and even scholars who study the stuff for a living) supports the notion that it is opinion and clear objective support is lacking.

I guess that is one reason it is called; faith.

 

[ChristCameBackFromTheDead]

Yes, I am well aware, that opinions are all over the board on this and many other issues.

Opinions aren't all over the board on this. Maybe if you google it, it is. But so is aliens and reptilians.

The church doctrine of almost every denomination agrees on this. This is a nice, civil, respectful conversation we are having. Let's all try to educate each other on things and remember that Everything is awesome, everything is cool when you're part of the team.

 

[ChristCameBackFromTheDead]

Well, the fact we have so many varying interpretations from Christians (and even scholars who study the stuff for a living) supports the notion that it is opinion and clear objective support is lacking.

I guess that is one reason it is called; faith.

Can you give me some names of scholars who believe the Old Testament is standing law? Some believe to keep the Sabbath and some of the festivals, but that's fine.

Romans 14:5-6: "One person esteems one day above another, another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord . . .

We do not call people wrong for celebrating the Sabbath. If they feel it in their heart to do so, then praise God and let them do it.

I would love some names though, because if one is to keep the ten commandments they are saying they keep the entirety of the mosaic laws. They don't, which means that everyone is agreed upon the new covenant. I think you maybe thinking of Jewish scholars?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think the real issue is; so many Christians, have so many different interpretations of scripture and hence, so many denominations of Christianity.

I have always found, the most aggressive debates on this board, are from Christians debating other Christians on the interpretation of scripture.

Yes, quite true. But, there is also a wide range as to WHY Christians disagree with one another. For instance, I disagreed on some 'sticking points' with a former pastor of mine. Although I'd say he is really a good fellow who has good intentions, we could not see eye to eye on some aspects of the OT vs. NT.

One reason for this we eventually realized and admitted to each other--he was raised in the Church of Christ, a very legalistic denomination, and I, on the other hand, was raised in a family that rarely went to church, and when they did so, it was always to the liberal segment of the Presbyterian church. On top of this, we each had a cross-current of development from our respective early years; he went from ultra-legal to a more moderate (and charismatic) theology, while I moved from a mostly Liberal to historically main-line viewpoint in the Christian faith. So, my former Pastor and I had a difficult time communicating because we not only brought different assumptions to the 'table,' we also brought divergent development to the table as well. But, we both 'based' our ideas in Christianity and the Bible, both thinking we had the 'best' viewpoint.

 

[ChristCameBackFromTheDead]

Sorry bhsmte, I posted my last post and I think I quoted wrong from you.

Yes, many have several interpretations of the bible, but regarding Christ coming back from the dead, upon faith is what receives salvation, just about all of the core foundations that really matter everyone agrees on.

But it's always fun and interesting to have an in depth debate with a old creationist or a gap theory etc. It doesn't hurt the credibility of our faith at all.

 

[bhsmte]

Can you give me some names of scholars who believe the Old Testament is standing law? Some believe to keep the Sabbath and some of the festivals, but that's fine.

Romans 14:5-6: "One person esteems one day above another, another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord . . .

We do not call people wrong for celebrating the Sabbath. If they feel it in their heart to do so, then praise God and let them do it.

I would love some names though, because if one is to keep the ten commandments they are saying they keep the entirety of the mosaic laws. They don't, which means that everyone is agreed upon the new covenant. I think you maybe thinking of Jewish scholars?

Changes in Christian Scholars' Perspective on God's Law | United Church of God

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, the fact we have so many varying interpretations from Christians (and even scholars who study the stuff for a living) supports the notion that it is opinion and clear objective support is lacking.

I guess that is one reason it is called; faith.

Bhsmte,

It is simply that there is a spread on viewpoints in dealing with theology, similar to other fields of inquiry. (Let's not pretend to assume that science isn't plagued by varying views that are subjected likewise to discussion and debate...)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, the fact we have so many varying interpretations from Christians (and even scholars who study the stuff for a living) supports the notion that it is opinion and clear objective support is lacking.

I guess that is one reason it is called; faith.

...It's also not as if Christians disagree on everything. Some Christians disagree simply because they haven't read the Bible and don't know its contents and feel they have the freedom to reach their own 'democratically' inferred conclusions. I have lots of family members just like that.

Another reason is that sometimes Christians get caught in a cult like environment, in a church that does not permit questioning or exploring.l

Yet another reason is that some Christians have certain agendas and want to 'fit' the bible into that agenda--in fact, I had one Christian tell me the Bible was just a 'guide'--meaning that he thought the Spirit allowed him to make his own truth and decide his own life plan via "God's direct voice."

And sometimes, some Christian individuals are simply individuals who wake up in the morning, battling depression and mental illness, decide to go to church and try to assimilate something of the faith...but not very well.

We can go on with the 'why' of Christians differences.

 

[bhsmte]

Bhsmte,

It is simply that there is a spread on viewpoints in dealing with theology, similar to other fields of inquiry. (Let's not pretend to assume that science isn't plagued by varying views that are subjected likewise to discussion and debate...)

Sure science has debate, especially when objective evidence is lacking. On my fronts, objective evidence is abundant and there is little debate on certain topics. As additional objective evidence accumulates, views adapt to the new evidence and that is why science may get things wrong in the short term, but is self correcting over time.

Theology, is a different animal in regards to the type of evidence available to determine which theology one will choose, which is why most call it faith. And, let me add, there is nothing wrong with that, because it is the nature of theological beliefs.

 

[bhsmte]

...It's also not as if Christians disagree on everything. Some Christians disagree simply because they haven't read the Bible and don't know its contents and feel they have the freedom to reach their own 'democratically' inferred conclusions. I have lots of family members just like that.

Another reason is that sometimes Christians get caught in a cult like environment, in a church that does not permit questioning or exploring.l

Yet another reason is that some Christians have certain agendas and want to 'fit' the bible into that agenda--in fact, I had one Christian tell me the Bible was just a 'guide'--meaning that he thought the Spirit allowed him to make his own truth and decide his own life plan via "God's direct voice."

And sometimes, some Christian individuals are simply individuals who wake up in the morning, battling depression and mental illness, decide to go to church and try to assimilate something of the faith...but not very well.

We can go on with the 'why' of Christians differences.

Agree on all of that.

 

[ChristCameBackFromTheDead]

Changes in Christian Scholars' Perspective on God's Law | United Church of God

That is literally the most biased unaccredited source I've seen in quite some time. Not only do they distort what scholars are saying, they don't back up anything they say with scripture. This lies the problem, they are trying to convince us of something without scripture or proper citing.

The claimed total opposition to Torah [Old Testament teachings] which theologians, especially in the Protestant churches, frequently made the basis for their theological contrast between Christianity and Judaism (freedom/grace vs. Law) now appears to rest on something less than solid ground" (p. 32). Also: "It is now becoming increasingly apparent to biblical scholars that the lack of a deep immersion into the spirit and content of the Hebrew Scriptures leaves the contemporary Christian with a truncated version of Jesus' message. In effect, what remains is an emasculated version of biblical spirituality"

That is taken out of context and they are trying to use it for their own agenda. That quote doesn't even specifically talk about laws? I honestly wouldn't use these type of sites to get your sources, I would personally recommend using timelines of Christian dogma and comparing it.

Also, in that same article, they said Martin Luther was wrong? What? Have they not read anything on Martin Luther? He was against the Catholic indulgences and simply said that we are saved through our faith. Through our faith will come works out of love for Christ. Which is the fruit we bare.

Calvin believed Christians should keep the Ten Commandments, even though he bowed to tradition by substituting the first day of the week for the seventh day in the Fourth Commandment. Calvin's view, though popular in past centuries, steadily lost ground during the 20th century.

So he believed in the 9 laws that fell under the new two commands of Christ and sacrificed firmness of the Sabbath? This site is ridiculous and whoever wrote this does not know their history or scripture.

You back up what you say with scripture, period. That is how we define what is right or wrong. So many people have their "own" scripture now.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sure science has debate, especially when objective evidence is lacking. On my fronts, objective evidence is abundant and there is little debate on certain topics. As additional objective evidence accumulates, views adapt to the new evidence and that is why science may get things wrong in the short term, but is self correcting over time.

Theology, is a different animal in regards to the type of evidence available to determine which theology one will choose, which is why most call it faith. And, let me add, there is nothing wrong with that, because it is the nature of theological beliefs.

Sure, I agree to some extent. However, don't you think that if you were to ask two Christians what they thought about the meaning of a biblical passage it would be perhaps wiser to ask the one who has a degree and developed thinking through a score of hermeneutics books VERSUS a Christian who has barely read a book of the New Testament and doesn't know the first thing about hermeneutics (or languages and linguistics, etc, etc.)? Wouldn't this also apply in science?

I for one would not ask the latter Christian. And if I did ask, I would 'ask' (research) via a score of scholars, not just one, and by doing so, I would feel that I could get a more solid answer (interpretation), even if that interpretation is not yet conclusive.