They that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

[Neto]

"The only people on earth who do not see Christ and his teachings as nonviolent are Christians," - Gandhi

Exactly, only be clever biblical and tricky theology can one escape the clear teachings and example of Jesus. If his witness and teachings are assumed authoritative it becomes clear..

"... Christian scholarship is the Church’s prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we can continue to be good Christians without the Bible coming too close. Oh, priceless scholarship, what would we do without you? Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of the living God. Yes it is even dreadful to be alone with the New Testament." - Soren Kierkegaard

I don't know who SK is, but I suspect he is also speaking in very general terms, to provoke thought where necessary. What, if not "Christian scholarship", was the Bereans' careful study of the Scripture, to 'check out' Paul's teaching - study that garnered his own commendation.

[R7ehr]

Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of the living God. Yes it is even dreadful to be alone with the New Testament.

I guess it’s rhetorical. But if not, what would be one’s mindset to view the NT with a higher fear than the living God?

[ohio jones]

I don't know who SK is

Kierkegaard was a 19th-century Danish philosopher and the father of Christian existentialism. He specialized in irony, so read his quote with that in mind.

[PeterG]

Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of the living God. Yes it is even dreadful to be alone with the New Testament.

I guess it’s rhetorical. But if not, what would be one’s mindset to view the NT with a higher fear than the living God?

I don't think that's Kierkegaard's mindset. He's saying something like, "It's bad enough to be alone with the New Testament, so think how dreadful it must be to fall into the hands of God Himself."

[R7ehr]

Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of the living God. Yes it is even dreadful to be alone with the New Testament.

I guess it’s rhetorical. But if not, what would be one’s mindset to view the NT with a higher fear than the living God?

I don't think that's Kierkegaard's mindset. He's saying something like, "It's bad enough to be alone with the New Testament, so think how dreadful it must be to fall into the hands of God Himself."

I see now. Somehow I misread that.

[barnhart]

I don't know who SK is, but I suspect he is also speaking in very general terms, to provoke thought where necessary. What, if not "Christian scholarship", was the Bereans' careful study of the Scripture, to 'check out' Paul's teaching - study that garnered his own commendation.

I clipped the quote a little, maybe the full version would be clearer.

The matter is quite simple. The bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand, we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. My God, you will say, if I do that my whole life will be ruined. How would I ever get on in the world? Herein lies the real place of Christian scholarship. Christian scholarship is the Church’s prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we can continue to be good Christians without the Bible coming too close. Oh, priceless scholarship, what would we do without you? Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of the living God. Yes it is even dreadful to be alone with the New Testament.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

Barnhart's trying to summon me by quoting my signature.

[MattY]

"The only people on earth who do not see Christ and his teachings as nonviolent are Christians," - Gandhi

I wonder if Gandhi believed this verse to be true about Jesus:

“I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.” He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.”

The Bible is easier to understand when you pick and choose which verses you want to believe are true. If you believe it is all true and infallible - as Jesus did - then you have to have a framework for understanding it without saying that some parts of it are wrong. "That was for that time and it is a good and true revelation of God, but this is the new/fuller revelation of God for this era, and the future era of reward/triumph/consummation will be a different dispensation as well" is a valid framework, but it needs fleshing out and would need more discussion, and there would certainly be challenges to it. Another way of understanding it is that there is more continuity between the Old and New Testaments, flattening things out so that the Christ of the Old Testament is the same as the Christ of the New Testament (certainly true) and therefore the church of the New Testament is a continuation of the church of the Old Testament...which is a much more questionable conclusion. But anyway, these things need a lot of discussion.

[Neto]

"The only people on earth who do not see Christ and his teachings as nonviolent are Christians," - Gandhi

I wonder if Gandhi believed this verse to be true about Jesus:

“I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.” He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.”

The Bible is easier to understand when you pick and choose which verses you want to believe are true. If you believe it is all true and infallible - as Jesus did - then you have to have a framework for understanding it without saying that some parts of it are wrong. "That was for that time and it is a good and true revelation of God, but this is the new/fuller revelation of God for this era, and the future era of reward/triumph/consummation will be a different dispensation as well" is a valid framework, but it needs fleshing out and would need more discussion, and there would certainly be challenges to it. Another way of understanding it is that there is more continuity between the Old and New Testaments, flattening things out so that the Christ of the Old Testament is the same as the Christ of the New Testament (certainly true) and therefore the church of the New Testament is a continuation of the church of the Old Testament...which is a much more questionable conclusion. But anyway, these things need a lot of discussion.

I take an understanding which is much like the "much more questionable conclusion" you mention above. Jesus DID say to the disciples that he has other sheep that are "not of this (Jewish) fold", and that he would bring them, so that there would be a single fold, under one shepherd (He himself). Those who were "looking for the redemption of Israel" (like Simeon and Ana, in the temple the day Jesus was brought there for his redemption as a first born male) do not seem to be zealots. They appear to me to be people with a spiritual vision of the Savior. This is the OT "Congregation of God" coming into the New Testament era and faith. I don't think they left the OT 'church' in order to become a part of the NT 'church'. In my understanding, they are one and the same.

[Nomad]

"The only people on earth who do not see Christ and his teachings as nonviolent are Christians," - Gandhi

I wonder if Gandhi believed this verse to be true about Jesus:

“I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.” He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.”

The Bible is easier to understand when you pick and choose which verses you want to believe are true. If you believe it is all true and infallible - as Jesus did - then you have to have a framework for understanding it without saying that some parts of it are wrong. "That was for that time and it is a good and true revelation of God, but this is the new/fuller revelation of God for this era, and the future era of reward/triumph/consummation will be a different dispensation as well" is a valid framework, but it needs fleshing out and would need more discussion, and there would certainly be challenges to it. Another way of understanding it is that there is more continuity between the Old and New Testaments, flattening things out so that the Christ of the Old Testament is the same as the Christ of the New Testament (certainly true) and therefore the church of the New Testament is a continuation of the church of the Old Testament...which is a much more questionable conclusion. But anyway, these things need a lot of discussion.

I take an understanding which is much like the "much more questionable conclusion" you mention above. Jesus DID say to the disciples that he has other sheep that are "not of this (Jewish) fold", and that he would bring them, so that there would be a single fold, under one shepherd (He himself). Those who were "looking for the redemption of Israel" (like Simeon and Ana, in the temple the day Jesus was brought there for his redemption as a first born male) do not seem to be zealots. They appear to me to be people with a spiritual vision of the Savior. This is the OT "Congregation of God" coming into the New Testament era and faith. I don't think they left the OT 'church' in order to become a part of the NT 'church'. In my understanding, they are one and the same.

Ephesians 1:20-23 and 4:8 seem to imply that the "church", or New Testament assembly as we know it, began AFTER Jesus ascension.

This doesn't mean that OT saints were saved differently than NT saints. But, it does show a difference in God's plan through history.