Old testament vs New testament God

[Dr. Rich]

Oldsailor29, I would agree with you about using only the words of Jesus to argue a point.

Our conversations are important on this blog and I am loath to stop them just because our perspectives are different. What we are trying to accomplish is not to solidify our own perspectives but to discover the perspective that God wants us to have. You occasionally intimate that what I am saying comes from me as I attempt to prove a point. If this is true then I wish to apologize, because all that I am attempting to do is show you what Jesus Christ (himself) said and not put my own spin on things. Admittedly, there is a fine line between relating a statement of Jesus and expressing an opinion. I will be more clear in defining when I am expressing an opinion as opposed to just showing what Jesus said.

These are the ground rules I believe in:

In order to find communion of thought we first must find communion of method. Jesus (in John 17) prayed for unity between ourselves as He has unity between Himself, the Father, and the Holy Spirit. Jesus prefaced this statement with something very interesting:

“I do not ask for these only (His own disciples), but also for those who will believe in me through their word, John 17:20.

Who is it that Jesus said that we should rely upon for the information that we need to accomplish our salvation and find truth?

. . . that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. John 17:21.

I appears to me that our unity (according the Jesus) should come from the words of the Father as given to and related by Jesus to His own disciples, who in turn gives it to His other disciples (us) who will then believe upon Him through their words. It is pretty clear to me that Jesus wants us to rely on those whom He personally taught for our information on salvation and truth.

In law enforcement there is a concept called "chain of evidence", whereby those that are investigating a crime scene "bag and tag" all evidence and maintain custody over that evidence so no one can later (in court) come along and say that the evidence was tainted by outside influence. In John 17:20-21 Jesus establishes the "chain of evidence" for the truth. If there is any hint that the "chain of evidence" has been broken with regard to anything related to salvation and truth that evidence must be considered to be tainted, of no value, hence inadmissible as part of proving the truth.

You steadfastly maintain that evidence that Paul supplies as to how mankind is to be saved is valid. I maintain that in the case of Paul the "chain of evidence" has been broken because Paul's conversion was personal, and what he wrote does not agree (in most cases) with what Jesus Christ taught through His disciples. People say that Paul is an apostle of Jesus Christ due to his Damascus road conversion and should be taken at face value. My statement is that a witness that cannot be verified through at least one (if not two) outside sources is not a reliable witness. Since we only have Paul's own words in testimony about what happened on the Damascus road I propose that he should be considered to be and in fact is an unreliable witness and his testimony should be "thrown out of court". A witness is never allowed to verify himself.

I have made the statement numerous times that the only witnesses that are valid are first hand witnesses; these would be the eyewitnesses of the life, ministry and teachings of Jesus Christ. Paul neither met or knew Jesus Christ in person, and (as just stated) we only have his own word as to how his conversion took place; there were NO eyewitnesses who saw or heard anything that could be used to confirm his account. Therefore, I cannot agree to use the writings of Paul, or any other writer (of Hebrews, 1st and 2nd Peter, the gospel of Luke and Acts) that did not have direct and personal contact with Jesus Christ.

Anyone should be able to prove their position they hold vis a vis salvation from the word of Jesus Christ even under these strictures, if He (in fact) said these things. Structurally, the burden of proof is always on the party that has been challenged. If Paul is who he says he is then you need to prove that to me; it is not incumbent upon me to prove to you that he isn't who he says he is (although I believe I have done this with sufficiency). The proof is in the comparison: If Paul agrees in every point concerning salvation with what Jesus Christ told His disciples, and with the O.T., then I will not only conceed the point I will embrace it. However, if this cannot be done then the only self honest thing you can do is reject Paul and embrace the words and teachings of Jesus Christ alone.

As to the gravitas of the witnesses: It seems to me that most people here are placing Paul, a fallible man, on the same plane as Jesus Christ, the infallible Son of God, when you equate by weight what Paul writes with what Jesus Christ said. Prima facia: even if Paul is validated how can anyone say that what he has said in any way compares with what Jesus Christ said and did. If we truly need what Paul said (or anyone else for that matter-including EGW) in confirmation as to what Jesus meant then Jesus Christ is not God, because He was insufficient to the task that God had sent Him to earth to accomplish. We know this not the case, e.g., we need no other source of truth than the very words that Jesus spoke and the deeds He did.

I value what others think of this, and look forward to hearing from them.

Your friend in Jesus Christ, Dr. Rich

[Dr. Rich]

I can't find where Jesus ever changed the covenant. Jer. 31 states that the PLACE was changed, but the covenant itself was not changed. Is not the ten commandments the same covenant? Revelation shows us that the ark of this SAME covenant will come down from heaven---so again, just where did Jesus ever change it?

Blessings, Dr. Rich

[Dr. Rich]

Rob,

Did I read you right? What is wrong with the testimony given to us by Jesus ONLY eyewitnesses? Please read John 14:26 and John 17:20. If salvation can't be learned from the words of Jesus, then Jesus failed and He couldn't be God. What I present is what Jesus said and taught. If you have problems with this, then I will pray for you.

Blessings, Dr. Rich

[phkrause]

My understanding is that the only difference is the OC is of flesh and in the NC God puts it in our hearts.

pk

[Gerr]

the same old question of how do you reconcile the old testament "stern" God and the NT loving God?

any articles, sermons or opinions to share? thanks!

No difference at all. The discrepancy is in the eye of the beholder. Did not Jesus say:

"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me..." Jn 5:39 ESV.

[True-believer]

Originally Posted By: True-believer

Apostle Paul----being led by Satan-----garbage!!!

1 Timothy says all Bible writers are inspired by the Holy Spirit---including Paul.

2 Timothy 3:16 doesn't say that.    In that writing, Paul was speaking of the canon which was available in the synagogues at that time.    This was the "Law" and the "prophets."    None of the OT books which were categorized as "writings" were included, nor were any of the NT books included in Paul's statement.

However, I do agree that the idea of Paul being led by Satan is garbage.

Oldsailor and Dr Rich---you are both wrong-----sola scripture:

2 Timothy 3:16

ALL Scripture IS given by INSPIRATION of GOD, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Why?

Verse 17:

That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly equipped unto ALL good works.

Remember it says: ALL SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED OF GOD!!!

Please don't add to the word of God oldsailor and Dr Rich---you heard what happens to them that do...

[oldsailor29]

I can't believe you want to say all scripture is equally inspired.

[John317]

I can't believe you want to say all scripture is equally inspired.

Which Scripture would you say is inspired less and which is inspired the most?

Let me guess-- you would say Ecclestiastics is inspired less and Isaiah is inspired more, or something like that?

[oldsailor29]

Originally Posted By: oldsailor29

I can't believe you want to say all scripture is equally inspired.

Which Scripture would you say is inspired less and which is inspired the most?

Let me guess-- you would say Ecclestiastics is inspired less and Isaiah is inspired more, or something like that?

Probably, since I have never read Ecclestatistics.   lol

There is much written in the Bible which was not inspired by any communication from God at all.   That which was divinely inspired, was spoken and written by the prophets in their own words, in their language as it was used in their time, and for the people of their time.

There are two ways to read the Bible.   We can read it homiletically or exegetically.   Some people say analogically also, but I think that is a way we can use our reading as opposed to a way of reading.  

Anyone can read homiletically.   That's the way most of us read it.   We read a passage and ask ourselves, "What does it mean?"   Sometimes we can correctly interpret a passage that way, but it isn't always a reliable method, which is why we have so many different denominations who claim to base their beliefs on the Bible.  

Exegesis is the most reliable method of reading.   Instead of asking what does it mean, in exegesis we ask what did it mean.   What did it mean to the author, and what did it mean to his audience?   Unfortunately our bible scholars do not use this method because the process by which the correct answers to those two questions are found has been discredited in the past, and that process is the historical critical process.   And I say unfortunately because without that process and without exegesis, we have no dependable way to arrive at correct interpretation, except by the illumination given by the Holy Spirit.   Fortunately, The Holy Spirit has guided our scholars in the past on many important matters.

As we have it in our Bibles, I certainly do think Isaiah speaks with more authority than Ecclesiastes.   But if you just change the name of the book, and instead of "Ecclesiastes," white that out and name it, "Without God," then you have a book of truth, as opposed to what it is as it now stands.