Do the same laws and teachings that are in the Bible, which was written thousands of years ago, apply to us in the same way it applied to those living thousands of years before us when the Bible was written.
Page 2568
“What does it say about what the holy Three are doing, have done, and will do in God’s world, in his church, and in lives committed to him?”
Page 2571
“Communion with God is a staggering thought.”
“…fellowship is with each person in the Trinity.”
I feel as though communion and fellowship with God is an especially staggering thought when you do not understand. I thought I knew what the Trinity was, but reading these articles greatly confused me. Is the Trinity separate from God? The article says, “What the holy Three are doing… and will do in God’s world…” I know that the Trinity consists of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—but which “person” is the Holy Spirit? And is it really a “person” in the same way the Father and Son are? If the Holy Spirit is the one who intercedes for us, who is what we call “God”?
It says, “The Gospel accounts suggest that Jesus understood the OT from a Christocentric typological perspective….” What are other views of the OT centered around?
I don’t understand the belief Clement and Origen held, that the Bible has multiple levels of meaning. Is this belief completely without merit, and if not what are the different levels?
I still am struggling with how to apply OT stuff to myself today. LIke they first say you can apply a lot of things and then they say you cant in a lot of narratives and such. I see what they are saying, but do I just read the OT just so that I may know my spiritual history or do I read it so that I may apply some of the promises God made in the OT.
e.g “For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you a future and hope” Jeremiah 29:11
Somewhat along the lines of Liz’s question, I’m not sure when I’m supposed to see multiple applications or levels of meanings and when I should take a passage for face value, and not try to connect it with something else…Are both approaches appropriate? and if so when?
Ok, this wasnt in the reading, but it caught my eye as I was flipping through the surrounding pages…
Pg. 2556
The section “Is Lying Ever Permissible?”
Several well respected Christian scholars and theologens say that there is never an ok time to lie, even to “prevent rape or save a life.”
And yet in Joshua (chapter 2), Rahab lied to the guards and saved the lives of the Isrealite spies, and is spared from the destruction because of it. I know narratives just tell us what happenned, and not what is necessarily right or wrong, but this story seems to imply that what Rahab did was right.
In the words of Colin “What’s that all about?”
In the first paragrah under ‘Knowing the Context’ in our “Interpreting the Bible” article, it says that the reader should ask why a particular passage is *here* and not elsewhere, how it builds upon prior passages, and how it prepares for the next.
>> Aren’t the passages in the Bible place in their specific order on purpose? For instance, all of the letters to the seven churches are one right after another, so wouldn’t this have been done to help the reader?
How can it be that to many enlightenment thinkers thought of the bible as an untrustworthy book?
What does it mean when it says “Communion with God is the end for which we were created.”?
Do the same laws and teachings that are in the Bible, which was written thousands of years ago, apply to us in the same way it applied to those living thousands of years before us when the Bible was written.
Page 2568
“What does it say about what the holy Three are doing, have done, and will do in God’s world, in his church, and in lives committed to him?”
Page 2571
“Communion with God is a staggering thought.”
“…fellowship is with each person in the Trinity.”
I feel as though communion and fellowship with God is an especially staggering thought when you do not understand. I thought I knew what the Trinity was, but reading these articles greatly confused me. Is the Trinity separate from God? The article says, “What the holy Three are doing… and will do in God’s world…” I know that the Trinity consists of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—but which “person” is the Holy Spirit? And is it really a “person” in the same way the Father and Son are? If the Holy Spirit is the one who intercedes for us, who is what we call “God”?
It says, “The Gospel accounts suggest that Jesus understood the OT from a Christocentric typological perspective….” What are other views of the OT centered around?
I don’t understand the belief Clement and Origen held, that the Bible has multiple levels of meaning. Is this belief completely without merit, and if not what are the different levels?
I still am struggling with how to apply OT stuff to myself today. LIke they first say you can apply a lot of things and then they say you cant in a lot of narratives and such. I see what they are saying, but do I just read the OT just so that I may know my spiritual history or do I read it so that I may apply some of the promises God made in the OT.
e.g “For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you a future and hope” Jeremiah 29:11
Somewhat along the lines of Liz’s question, I’m not sure when I’m supposed to see multiple applications or levels of meanings and when I should take a passage for face value, and not try to connect it with something else…Are both approaches appropriate? and if so when?
Ok, this wasnt in the reading, but it caught my eye as I was flipping through the surrounding pages…
Pg. 2556
The section “Is Lying Ever Permissible?”
Several well respected Christian scholars and theologens say that there is never an ok time to lie, even to “prevent rape or save a life.”
And yet in Joshua (chapter 2), Rahab lied to the guards and saved the lives of the Isrealite spies, and is spared from the destruction because of it. I know narratives just tell us what happenned, and not what is necessarily right or wrong, but this story seems to imply that what Rahab did was right.
In the words of Colin “What’s that all about?”
In the first paragrah under ‘Knowing the Context’ in our “Interpreting the Bible” article, it says that the reader should ask why a particular passage is *here* and not elsewhere, how it builds upon prior passages, and how it prepares for the next.
>> Aren’t the passages in the Bible place in their specific order on purpose? For instance, all of the letters to the seven churches are one right after another, so wouldn’t this have been done to help the reader?
How can it be that to many enlightenment thinkers thought of the bible as an untrustworthy book?
What does it mean when it says “Communion with God is the end for which we were created.”?