Carne Levare

Know Other People

3 Comments on the Word of God

Posted by Remy on April 23, 2009

1. It is not correct, Biblically speaking, to split the Bible into an Old Testament and a New Testament.

2. You could speak of the Four Testament’s of the Bible; the Testament of the Patriarchs, the Testament of the Kingdom Period, the Testament of the Prophets, and the Testament of Jesus.

3. Better to speak of the Word of God as a complete story, unbroken, from start to finish, Genesis to Revelation.

11 Responses to “3 Comments on the Word of God”

  1. joshgibbs said

    1. What do you mean “split the Bible”?

    3. Why stop with Revelation?

  2. Remy said

    1. Act like there’s a division between the Hebrew Scriptures and the Greek Scriptures. Speak of the “Old” as if it has passed away.

    3. Why did God stop at Revelation? I don’t know. Why do we stop at Revelation? Because God did. Nobody believes that God is continuing to expand His word. Though the Romanists believe in a whole slew of infallible writings they do not claim it is part of the Bible.

  3. Josh said

    1. It’s nice to claim on one hand that the Scriptures are infallible and on the other hand deny what St. Paul teaches about them. Jesus is the New Burger King. Have it your way!

    3. The Word of God has no end. Perhaps you’re confusing Jesus for the Bible, though.

  4. Remy said

    1. Josh, as one of the poorer Biblical scholars that I know I won’t believe you have any understanding of Scriptures on this point until you prove otherwise. What you’ve presented in the past is pretty close to Marcionism. You should google that sometime.

    3. I was speaking about the Bible. But perhaps I shouldn’t’ve capitalized “word”.

  5. Josh said

    1. Remy, as someone who defines words however they best serve him, regardless of how everyone else uses them, your claim that I am “one of the poorer Biblical scholars that [you] know” might be high praise. I’ll take it that way. So thanks, this Bud’s for you!

    I suspect word-splitting here, which is a particularly nasty form of intellectualism. You do know that some people, for some strange reason, sometimes refer to the Old Testament as the Old Covenant, yes? And the New Testament as the New Covenant? So if this post was some claptrap that aims to prove the Old Testament and the Old Covenant are different- we could have sorted that out in, like, ten seconds and peacefully.

    But maybe not, in which case I think it’s sad (hilarious?) that you keep waiting for me to bring up Hebrews so you can leap, greased shoehorn in hand, upon whatever pile of verses I cut and paste here, slipping them away and claiming, “Oh, that’s really what you think those verses are about? Ha!”

    But, oh well. Enjoy. You may want to peep the part in 7:22 where we read that the New Covenant is “better” than the first, but apart from that, here’s your verses, straught from Blow them away, happy word by happy word, like parachutes from a dandelion:

    8:1Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;

    2A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.

    3For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.

    4For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:

    5Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

    6But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

    7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

    8For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

    9Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

    10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

    11And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

    12For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

    13In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

  6. Remy said

    When it comes to the New Covenant stuff, I believe it more than you do. You still want to maintain the old covenant distinctions within the body of Christ and the gradations of access before the Most High.

    What I’m addressing is the attitude that because we have the Greek testament we don’t need the Hebrew testament. Identifying three fourths of God’s word as “decaying and waxing away”. This is Marcionism and opposes Christ’s own words that those scriptures “speak of Me”.

    It as though the Zed shows up and people abandon the rest of the alphabet because the Zed has “fulfilled” the old letters. But if you want to talk about newness and the New Covenant let’s do, because I have more of it than you want to hear.

  7. joshgibbs said

    You believe the New Covenant stuff more than I do? And you have more New Covenant than I want to hear? And I’m one of the poorer Biblical scholars you know?

    Aw, Remy, you’re just the coolest.

    You know, I don’t want to talk about newness and the New Covenant because I’d probably just say a bunch of stupid stuff. I just want to listen to you talk about newness and the New Covenant.

  8. Remy said

    We do have a tendency to be snarky, don’t we?

  9. Matt Yonke said

    Well, feel free to continue the mutual snarkfest, but I would like to hear what Remy has to say about the newness of the NC. Just my two cents.

  10. Remy said

    That wasn’t the point of this post, but sure, I’ll post some thoughts sometime.

  11. I’ve heard tell that at a worldview conference a few years back Steve Schlissel made the same point by ripping out the dividing pages between the OT and NT in his Bible. The room was loud for a few seconds with many of the kids doing likewise.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: