Leviticus: Seedbed of NT Theology

[angellous_evangellous]

angellous evangellous says:
But I personally don't think that Jesus understood himself as the Messiah...

standardbearer asks:
do you believe Jesus was without sin?

I just hope that where-ever smokydot is, that he's in a better place.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Just for reference, back on page 26:

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.

 

[standardbearer]

Thanks, I've not followed the entire thread. I was just a little surprised by your response to the presentation by smoky dot on Leviticus, which I found informative. I’m an ordained minister and am just confused as to your belief regarding the atoning / redemptive work of Jesus Christ. Since your profile presents yourself as a scholar, I assume you have a doctrinal view to my above question. Do you believe Jesus Christ was without sin?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Thanks, I've not followed the entire thread. I was just a little surprised by your response to the presentation by smoky dot on Leviticus, which I found informative. I’m an ordained minister and am just confused as to your belief regarding the atoning / redemptive work of Jesus Christ. Since your profile presents yourself as a scholar, I assume you have a doctrinal view to my above question. Do you believe Jesus Christ was without sin?

You can't be serious. :biglaugh:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Thanks, I've not followed the entire thread. I was just a little surprised by your response to the presentation by smoky dot on Leviticus, which I found informative. I’m an ordained minister and am just confused as to your belief regarding the atoning / redemptive work of Jesus Christ. Since your profile presents yourself as a scholar, I assume you have a doctrinal view to my above question. Do you believe Jesus Christ was without sin?

Now where on earth do you see that?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Thanks, I've not followed the entire thread. I was just a little surprised by your response to the presentation by smoky dot on Leviticus, which I found informative. I’m an ordained minister and am just confused as to your belief regarding the atoning / redemptive work of Jesus Christ. Since your profile presents yourself as a scholar, I assume you have a doctrinal view to my above question. Do you believe Jesus Christ was without sin?

I apologize for not answering your questions earlier. I was a little taken aback with your compliment to smokydot, whose plaigarized spam cannot be helpful to anyone - until now, I suppose, if somehow it is informative to you. I just can't imagine how, especially being an ordained minister who (I assume) has access to Strong's, which is all one needs to reconstruct smoky's exceptionally confused list (wherever he stole it from).

As for me, I've looked over my profile many times and can't see where it indicates that I'm a scholar.

As for Jesus, he became sin for us, so I don't see why it's critical that he sinned during his life -- because he was sin on the cross. God was perfectly able to make Jesus a perfect lamb at any time. A lot of people insist on this or that theology - but it's not theology that saves, it is the power of God through Christ. The details parting from this focus of faith get less and less important as we move farther from it.

 

[standardbearer]

Thanks, but no offense taken. I saw your information in the About Me from your Home page listed in the Religious Forum Contact Info. It says:

“I’m not a pastor, I am a scholar, but my tradition affirms scholarship as a ministry….. most of my time is devoted to the study of our sacred Scriptures and producing scholarly work for the academy and the church.”

As a scholar (not a layman), I think you understand the doctrinal necessity of Jesus Christ being without sin if He died for the sins of others. Otherwise, He would have to die for His own sin.

So, do you believe Jesus Christ was without sin?

(P.S. Yes my resume includes ordained minister and pastor)

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Thanks, but no offense taken. I saw your information in the About Me from your Home page listed in the Religious Forum Contact Info. It says:

“I’m not a pastor, I am a scholar, but my tradition affirms scholarship as a ministry….. most of my time is devoted to the study of our sacred Scriptures and producing scholarly work for the academy and the church.”

As a scholar (not a layman), I think you understand the doctrinal necessity of Jesus Christ being without sin if He died for the sins of others. Otherwise, He would have to die for His own sin.

So, do you believe Jesus Christ was without sin?

(P.S. Yes my resume includes ordained minister and pastor)

Ah, I see... you were quoting from my website. That clears up my confusion.

Yes, I do understand the docrinal importance of Jesus being sinless, at least to Protestants and other Christians to varying degrees of emphasis. Some people can't live with it, others could care less. I'm somewhere in the middle. I see Jesus's atonement as cosmological - it repairs everything, all the damage that has been done by humanity and God and the rift that it has brought to the whole existence of everything. God will clean it all up through the power of the death and resurrection of Christ. A historical Jesus being sinless means nothing to me.

 

[standardbearer]

Thanks. Now I understand your doctrinal view on both Jesus and the Bible. I assume you do not accept it as the inspired / preserved/ inerrant Word of God. Which is why you take exception to the literal intrepretation / application of Leviticus. Did I get it right?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Thanks. Now I understand your doctrinal view on both Jesus and the Bible. I assume you do not accept it as the inspired / preserved/ inerrant Word of God. Which is why you take exception to the literal intrepretation / application of Leviticus. Did I get it right?

I think that it's inspired but by no means perfectly preserved or inerrant. It's a record of God's words but not God's Word itself. Because of the imperfections in the preservation and translation and all the other processess by which the Bible gets to our hands, I take a sort of incarnational view of Scripture: it's fully human and fully divine. Because it always has and always will have our handprint on it, the Bible will forever be reflective of that print and lose any notion of inerrancy or perfection.

I take exception to a literal interpretation / application of Leveticus (and that is absolutely NOT what smoky is doing here) because I don't think that has ever happened in the interpretation of the text - with the possible exception of zealots like the Maccabeas.

 

[TalAbrams]

Classic example of shooting the arrow into a tree and painting the target around it.
This was the tactics of the Nicene fathers.

 

[outhouse]

I cant believe this thread was ressurected

 

[outhouse]

I think that it's inspired but by no means perfectly preserved or inerrant.

I have to agree

was god wispering into the scribes ear???? well its obvious he was not.

did god tell the same story to each of the unknown authors??? well its obvious he was not.

did some of the unknown gospel authors copy each other??? its obvious they did. and why copy if its divine???

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I cant believe this thread was ressurected

You and me both.