• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Leviticus: Seedbed of NT Theology

A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
smokydot said:
I also think you either do not know the NT. . .or you do not believe it. . .or both. . .which automatically excludes you from truly understanding it.

I think you traffic in latter-day heretical novel speculations 2,000 years after the fact.

I think you are grossly Biblically and theologically inept.

Jesus said: "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God." (Mk 12:24)

Jesus said: "Go and learn what they mean." (Mt 9:13)

And I say: "Stop darkening the counsel of God with your lack of Biblical knowledge, gross theological ineptitude, and heretical novel speculations."
Click to expand...

Just because I don't read the bible like a thoughtless moron is not evidence for your personal attacks.
 
S

smokydot

Well-Known Member
Leviticus can be called the seedbed and plumbline of NT theology, because in it are so many "patterns (prefigures) of things to come" (Heb 10:1) in Christ.
But the seeds are buried in the details. . .and are given to store up your heart, not just your head.
These OT prefigures fill out the picture of Christ's nature and work, as well as the nature of sin, the nature of holiness, and the nature of grace.
It is helpful to read the chapter in Leviticus first, then review the posts.

The first 15 chapters of Leviticus answer the question: How does sinful man approach a holy God so as to have fellowship with him? First, sin must be dealt with.
These chapters give the "three-legged stool" of God's remedy for sin. Note that a three-legged stool cannot be effective if one leg is missing.
The details of these chapters prefigure the Gospel, and are presented in the posts below:

PART I: God must be approached by sacrifice of substitutionary atonement.

---http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2339676-post1.html ----------------------------- Chp 1, part 1 -Whole Burnt (Holocaust) Offering

---http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2340121-post14.html -- Chp 1 (con't) - Symbols of Chp 1

---http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2340178-post16.html -- Chp 2 - Grain (Flour) Offering

---http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2340869-post28.html -- Chp 3 - Fellowship Offering (Prefigure: Lord's Supper)

---http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2342797-post65.html -- Chp 4 - Sin Offering

---http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2346756-post140.html -- Chps 5-7 - Guilt Offering

PART II: God must be approached through the mediation of the High Priest.

---http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2346759-post141.html -- Chp 8 - Establishment of Priesthood

---http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2346781-post142.html -- Chp 9-10 - Ministry of Priesthood (God's Wrath on their Sin)

PART III: God must be approached in cleanness (holiness).

---http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2350565-post215.html -- Chp 11 - Personal Defilement (Bodies, Food)

---http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2350567-post216.html -- Chp 12 - Personal Defilement (Childbirth)

---http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2352377-post246.html -- Chp 13 - Personal Defilement (Skin Diseases), Garments

---http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2352381-post247.html -- Chp 14 - Personal Defilement (Cleansing), Houses

---http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2353700-post251.html -- Chp 15 - Personal Defilement (Bodily Discharges)
----- Prefigure: Biblical Doctrine of the Total Corruption of Man's Nature (Ro 3:9-11)
-
 
Last edited:
Songbird

Songbird

She rules her life like a bird in flight
smokydot said:
1) Possibly true statement, with absolutely no relevance or bearing on the issue of the words of Jesus below, and your assertion that he was "unaware" he was Messiah.

2) Perhaps you could show "thoughtlessness" in the following NT reports regarding him being Messiah and Savior.

3) Or perhaps you could show how Jesus didn't really know or mean what he said, and that it's all just "interpretation."

4) Keeping in mind, however, that Scripture is verbal. Words signify and safeguard meaning; the wrong word distorts the intended sense.
Because God breathed (2Tim 3:16) the Biblical text in order to communicate his Word, it was necessary for him to ensure that the words written were such
as did in fact convey it.
The verbal character of God-breathed Scripture is, therefore, the sense of Scripture.
Click to expand...

I'm goin with Angellous's interpretation here.

Please be respectful.
 
fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
smokydot said:
I'm as respectful as he is of the NT reports.
Click to expand...
No you're not. Because everything you disagree with you either dismiss outright without any logical explanation, or you claim it is heretical, novel speculation 2,000 years after the fact. Which is really what you're doing as well, but don't let that stop you.

If you were respectful of the NT reports, you would be willing to, without bias, study them, and logically look at them. Yet, your blinders are so big it is sometimes amazing you can even see the keyboard in front of you.
 
fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
I swear, looking over this thread gives me a headache. For instance, how do I quote something from Smoky that was posted after I commented? Edit, edit, edit. It simply is a mess.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
fallingblood said:
I swear, looking over this thread gives me a headache. For instance, how do I quote something from Smoky that was posted after I commented? Edit, edit, edit. It simply is a mess.
Click to expand...

For Pete's sake, don't look over the thread.

Smoky will post everything again in case you missed it.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
I wonder how many posts smoky has on this thread that aren't spam.

I suspect that he has under 10.
 
Songbird

Songbird

She rules her life like a bird in flight
smokydot said:
His interpretation of what?

I'm as respectful as he is of the NT reports.
Click to expand...

His interpretation of Jesus' view of himself.

As for me, I'm not sure Jesus existed, and I don't think it matters.

Being respectful toward others is possible while disputing NT text meaning. Treating others with respect is far more important to me than respecting writings. It seems like you can't process disagreement with your view of scriptures, which is fine. But I hope you can find a way to disagree without alienating others. I'm sure you have a lot to add here.
 
S

smokydot

Well-Known Member
Songbird said:
His interpretation of Jesus' view of himself.
As for me, I'm not sure Jesus existed, and I don't think it matters.
Click to expand...
He says he's Christian, so it should matter to the utmost to him.
Being respectful toward others is possible while disputing NT text meaning. Treating others with respect is far more important to me than respecting writings. It seems like you can't process disagreement with your view of scriptures, which is fine. But I hope you can find a way to disagree without alienating others. I'm sure you have a lot to add here.
Click to expand...
Thanks, Songbird. . .I appreciate your concern. . .but if he's honest, he knows I'm way behind him in "dishing out the disrespect" dept.
You're rather new on this scene so there's a lot you've missed in that regard.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
smokydot said:
No doubt. . .
Click to expand...

A great existentialist theologian once said something like (in German), "Even if the name of Jesus were not on the citizen-rolls of Nazareth, it would not shake my faith."

That is, if there were undisputable proof that Jesus never existed, the Christian faith is still a viable and constructive religion.

This view completely focuses on the Christ of faith to the exclusion of the Jesus of history, and possibly even the Christ of myth.

Others combine the Jesus of history, Christ of faith, and Christ of myth.

As theologians and churches fabricate their Jesus and Christ - some more constructively than others - they pick and choose from elements of history, faith, and myth in the Christian traditions.
 
S

smokydot

Well-Known Member
angellous_evangellous said:
Here's what I think:

IF Jesus and the apostles taught that he was prophesied in the OT, Jesus and early believers interpreted the prophets in such a radical way that no one who came before them could have come to the same conclusion.

But I personally don't think that Jesus understood himself as the Messiah, and early believers went back to the OT for justification that they were an extension of Judaism when they lost Jewish support before the NT Gospels were even written. It's not bogus per se, but it's apologetic. Christians were trying to justify themselves by using the OT to do so, but they did it completely divorced from Jewish tradition.
Click to expand...
More sophomoric novel speculation contrary to the NT reports. . .

Well, here's your IF. . .and I'll raise you one what the NT "thinks". . .

Lk 24:25-27: "He said to them, 'How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?' And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning him."

Lk 24:44-48: "He said to them, 'This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.'
Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, 'This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things.' "

NT understanding of the OT prophecies concerning Messiah has nothing to do with the sophomoric speculation that "Christians were trying to justify (prove the justice of) themselves by using the OT to do so". . .anymore than the Messiah was trying to "justify" himself when he explained the meaning of all the Scriptures concerning himself.

And of course the Messiah's explanation was "completely divorced from Jewish tradition," because Jewish tradition has been set aside with the setting aside of the Levitical High Priesthood according to the order of Aaron (Heb 7:12), in favor of the eternal High Priesthood of Jesus the Christ, according to the order of Melchizedek (Heb 7:11-24).

That's what the NT "thinks."

And, "It's not bogus per se, but it's apologetic." So if it's "apologetic," it's some kind of bogus. . .although not per se bogus?"

This kind of "scholarship" would not pass muster with you if you knew the NT record. As it is, you don't really have anything by which to evaluate such nonsense.

con't in post #294, also here ---> http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2357755-post294.html
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top