Originally posted by kirksey957Thank you Kirksey...one rec coming your way for having the cahones to speak the truth 🙂
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.
Feivel
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoe"All my life's a Circle..."
"The second covenant is the last one. It says so in the NT.
Let's review. You said that the OT cannot be understood without the NT.
So, when people just had the OT, their interpretations of it could be
misleading, because there was a NT yet to come.
Now, I'm saying that we, having OT and NT, could be in the same boat.
Our interpretations could be wrong if there is a third installment coming.
You are not allowed to say "But the NT says..." Don't you see why?
Because under your very own model, it is possible for scripture to be
incomplete or misleading. So the NT may be wrong or misleading when
it claims it is the last, just like the OT is wrong or misleading on whatever
points make you claim that it is not understandable.
Don't you see how your answer is circular and arbitrary?
Cribs
Originally posted by kirksey957Man I just got a picture of Ivanhoe being held in your arms as you burp him...from the looks of things it was a really good thing that you had a "burp rag" draped over your shoulder....SCARY VISION
Well, yes, that is a good way to put it. And when we are burped we can take more in. 🙂
Feivel
Originally posted by CribsKind of reminds me of this joke I heard where an angel of the Lord comes down to earth to a Baptist pracher and says I've got good news and I've got bad news. The good news is that Jesus is coming soon. The bad news is that he is coming to Salt Lake City. 🙂
"All my life's a Circle..."
Let's review. You said that the OT cannot be understood without the NT.
So, when people just had the OT, their interpretations of it could be
misleading, because there was a NT yet to come.
Now, I'm saying that we, having OT and NT, could be in the same boat.
Our interpretations could be wrong if there is a third ins ...[text shortened]... it is not understandable.
Don't you see how your answer is circular and arbitrary?
Cribs
Originally posted by CribsThat brings up a different yet disturbing topic...anybody care to post what the old testament uses as a definition of the new covenant? It is in Jeremiah chapter 33 (Yirmeyahu)
"All my life's a Circle..."
Let's review. You said that the OT cannot be understood without the NT.
So, when people just had the OT, their interpretations of it could be
misleading, because there was a NT yet to come.
Now, I'm saying that we, having OT and NT, could be in the same boat.
Our interpretations could be wrong if there is a third ins ...[text shortened]... it is not understandable.
Don't you see how your answer is circular and arbitrary?
Cribs
Feivel
Originally posted by kirksey957It reminds me of audio feedback from a microphone pointing
Kind of reminds me of this joke I heard where an angel of the Lord comes down to earth to a Baptist pracher and says I've got good news and I've got bad news. The good news is that Jesus is coming soon. The bad news is that he is coming to Salt Lake City. 🙂
at a speaker. It makes my head feel like its going to burst.
Cribs
Originally posted by FeivelFeivel: "That is fine but to say that an understanding of the old testament depends on the new .... "
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 ho ...[text shortened]...
Feivel
PS now this is a debate which is totally off the topic of this bible study thread.
That's not what I said.
Originally posted by kirksey957
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.
Kirk,
I told Feivel I want to debate these issues, but without Feivel giving me all sorts of tasks to perform.
He interpretes my (one's) refusal to follow his requests as a refusal to let my (one's) faith be examined, usually followed by appropiate NT quotes.
If he or you want to interprete things this way that's all right with me.
Originally posted by ivanhoeYou cannot fully understand the one without the other.
Feivel: "That is fine but to say that an understanding of the old testament depends on the new .... "
That's not what I said.
oh yeah...I guess the hackers are into the RHP servers and posting in your name...give us a break.
Feivel
Originally posted by Cribs
"All my life's a Circle..."
Let's review. You said that the OT cannot be understood without the NT.
So, when people just had the OT, their interpretations of it could be
misleading, because there was a NT yet to come.
Now, I'm saying that we, having OT and NT, could be in the same boat.
Our interpretations could be wrong if there is a third ins ...[text shortened]... it is not understandable.
Don't you see how your answer is circular and arbitrary?
Cribs
You'd bettter sleep on this one Cribs.
Originally posted by ivanhoeOh, in that case, I'm sure Fievel will have no problem
Of course AN understanding of the OT is possible without the NT.
However to fully understand the whole revelation you need the OT ánd the NT. Thát's what I was trying to say.
with your claim. My apologies for calling you a liar then.
I didn't realize you had that distinction in mind.
Cribs