Week 1 Bible Study is on Salvation

Originally posted by Cribs
Again, as in your first example, this is totally a stretch. It's like going
through the writings of Nostradamus and picking out verses that could
possibly be interpreted as true prophecies. You have to know what you
are looking for, otherwise you'll never find those hidden meanings.

Cribs

The Old Testament and the New Testament are in effect ONE. You cannot fully understand the one without the other. You cannot interprete the one without the other. You cannot understand God ignoring one or the other.
The Art of Interpreting is based among other things on the need for consistency. If you put aside one part of the revelation, be it the OT or the NT you will get flawed interpretations.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

Feivel,

If you have something to bring forward, please do, but please without giving me all sorts of tasks to perform.

To be honest I thought your faith was strong enough to be interested in finding out on your own. But if you prefer not to and go on believing your false ideas you are perfectly free to. Let me ask a question. Is faith supposed to be strong enough to be examined? If it isn't is it faith?

Feivel

Originally posted by ivanhoe

The Old Testament and the New Testament are in effect ONE. You cannot fully understand the one without the other. You cannot interprete the one without the other.

Consider the period of time between the completion of the Old and the beginning
of the New. During this period, is it your claim that the Jewish people could not
fully understand or interpret their own Bible?

At which point during the completion of the New did the Old become fully
understandable and interpretable? Not until John wrote the last word of
Revelation? Or somewhere in the middle?

Further, one often sees the New distributed as its own complete volume,
without the Old. Is this a waste, since one will not be able to fully
understand it without the Old?

One more question. How do we know that the Old and New is the
complete thing? How do we know that a third installment might
not need to be written in order to fully understand the first two?
Aren't we really no better off now than the old Jews were with just
the Old?

Cribs

Originally posted by ivanhoe

The Old Testament and the New Testament are in effect ONE. You cannot fully understand the one without the other. You cannot interprete the one without the other. You cannot understand God ignoring one or the other.
The Art of Interpreting is based among other things on the need for consistency. If you put aside one part of the revelation, be it the OT or the NT you will get flawed interpretations.

Wait a second. You are so far off you really ought to be remanded by your local church. The bible is a whole. That is fine but to say that an understanding of the old testament depends on the new is total foolishness. An understanding of the new could conceivably rely on an understanding of the old. Let me explain. You can say the bible is like a two story home. The old testament is like the first floor and the new is like the second floor. What happens to the second floor when you remove the first? Now ask what happens to the first floor when you remove the second? Preach your beliefs to people if you want but do NOT try to teach anything fale about the old testament or be prepared for questions which I know you can't and don't want to answer.

Feivel

PS now this is a debate which is totally off the topic of this bible study thread.

Originally posted by Feivel
To be honest I thought your faith was strong enough to be interested in finding out on your own. But if you prefer not to and go on believing your false ideas you are perfectly free to. Let me ask a question. Is faith supposed to be strong enough to be examined? If it isn't is it faith?

Feivel

"If it isn't, is it faith?"

I'm afraid the answer is yes. And I say that because I believe that there are differing levels of faith development, much like there are various stages of moral and ethical development. There are many Christians who live out what is called "mythic-literal faith". James Fowlwer coined this term in his book Stages of Faith. It is perfectly appropiate for a 6 year old to take images in story life as literal. This is their faith develpment stage. In the forums we see evidence of this kind of thinking. (that is an observation not a judgment). These people need concrete ideas and answers.

Originally posted by kirksey957
"If it isn't, is it faith?"

I'm afraid the answer is yes. And I say that because I believe that there are differing levels of faith development, much like there are various stages of moral and ethical development. There are many Christians who live out what is called "mythic-literal faith". James Fowlwer coined this term in his book Stages of ...[text shortened]... hinking. (that is an observation not a judgment). These people need concrete ideas and answers.

Kirksey,

You entirely missed the point of the question. There was the preceeding question before it for a reason. If faith is not strong enough to be examined AND it is not strong enough to change if and where change is needed then it is NOT faith.

Feivel

Originally posted by Feivel
Kirksey,

You entirely missed the point of the question. There was the preceeding question before it for a reason. If faith is not strong enough to be examined AND it is not strong enough to change if and where change is needed then it is NOT faith.

Feivel

You entirely missed the point of my answer. I am with you that faith should be examined and be congruent with the experience and time, but not everyone is there. It is still "bottle time" for many.

Originally posted by Cribs
Consider the period of time between the completion of the Old and the beginning
of the New. During this period, is it your claim that the Jewish people could not
fully understand or interpret their own Bible?

At which point during the ...[text shortened]... will not be able to fully
understand it without the Old?

Cribs

The only way we will fully know the Truth is when we can see God face to face. That will happen after we will be free from our sins after our deaths.
Yes indeed, the Jews refuse to accept Christ as the Way, the Truth and the Life. Therefore they do not accept the whole of revealed Truth. However we all know that there are Jews who dó accept Joshua (Jesus). These Jesus affirming Jews have of course entrance to the whole Truth by their own choice.

Originally posted by Feivel
To be honest I thought your faith was strong enough to be interested in finding out on your own. But if you prefer not to and go on believing your false ideas you are perfectly free to. Let me ask a question. Is faith supposed to be strong enough to be examined? If it isn't is it faith?

Feivel

Feivel: "Is faith supposed to be strong enough to be examined?"

My faith is regularly examined. I can assure you. The question is however whether you must be the examiner ......

Originally posted by kirksey957
You entirely missed the point of my answer. I am with you that faith should be examined and be congruent with the experience and time, but not everyone is there. It is still "bottle time" for many.

You saying Ivanhoe needs to be burped?

Feivel

Originally posted by ivanhoe
The question is however whether you must be the examinor ......

That has a nice ring to it. If you ever get tired of calling posters
like myself The Wolf Pack, I don't think any of us would mind being
called The Examinors.

Cribs

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Feivel: "Is faith supposed to be strong enough to be examined?"

My faith is regularly examined. I can assure you. The question is however whether you must be the examinor ......

I knokw there is a place for examination taking place in the form of meditation and prayer and the like, but isn't there a long tradition of examination coming from "the outside." So whether you like what he says or not, doesn't he at least ask you to examine your faith/belief system. I thought that was a good thing and a God thing.

Originally posted by Feivel
You saying Ivanhoe needs to be burped?

Feivel

Well, yes, that is a good way to put it. And when we are burped we can take more in. 🙂

Cribs:

"One more question. How do we know that the Old and New is the
complete thing? How do we know that a third installment might
not need to be written in order to fully understand the first two?
Aren't we really no better off now than the old Jews were with just
the Old?

Cribs[/b]

"The second covenant is the last one. It says so in the NT.

Originally posted by Feivel
To be honest I thought your faith was strong enough to be interested in finding out on your own. But if you prefer not to and go on believing your false ideas you are perfectly free to. Let me ask a question. Is faith supposed to be strong enough to be examined? If it isn't is it faith?

Feivel

If you think my ideas are false you can give proof of that. If you do not want to do this, then that's ok with me.