I realize not many people will be with me on that. I can't see using the word horrible as an adjective for the Bible in any context, myself. To string these words together, "Horrible Old Testament" as sarcastic mockery, as if to make them my words, simply to serve his manipulative purposes. That's what that behavior is, you know. I ask him questions he cannot answer, point out things he does not wish seen, so he's taken to sarcasm and mocking, not just in this instance. He frequently deflects from responding this way. I point it out.
Actually the early believers had the Apostles, who also went on to write the Scriptures. I'm thinking that as they were teaching from the OT, they were including Christ's teaching of the New Covenant as well.
Paul didn't tell us that rebirth was like when God changed Saul's heart. No where is that comparison made, and when I look to see how it fits with the Scriptures in general, I don't see that playing out as a valid type. Abraham is given as the example, for instance. So why not go there for an example? The NT clearly identifies Abraham as the example of the imputation of righteousness because he believed God. But then Saul later backslid. So that serves the purpose better. I ask the question, why pick one over the other?
We are not in Apostolic times, and we read their teachings. I have this idea that as I hear
@Ferris Bueller teaching New Covenant Theology but bypassing the New Testament in favor of the Old Testament teachings, and then ends up with ideas flatly contradicted in the New Testament, well, do you see where I'm going here?
I mean, at least either have a dialog, or just drop out, but these non-answers and deflections don't serve any meaningful purpose in my opinion.
Much love!
