Now if
we could look at Genesis 15 alone and in a box, there would/could be complete
agreement between Terry (for example) and I. However, I cannot glimpse Genesis
15 in a sole bubble and neither can Terry. We see the covenant with Avraham
in light of Messiah, the Law, the [Re]Newed Covenant, Last-Days
interpretation.
Terry
and I would agree on many points, but we also disagree on many. For the most
part, he and I disagree and it's fine. On the topic of Torah relevance, however,
he is rock tight and so am I we use the same Scripture and we see different
things. I have accepted this. What can't you? Terry has partially accepted it,
though he is hoping [I think] that further dialog will make me more like him.
This is rather funny, because I once considered his perspective and that very
perspective almost made me throw my Messianic faith
away.
--
slade
P.S.
If Terry and I are not getting along, then it is quite clearly my fault. I
simply did not want to waste his nor my time.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 07 December, 2004 12.42
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Unilateral covenantinterestg comment, but nosimply, Slade, on the front burner here is how to get along better--it's possible, and, i suspect we'd tend to agree more, conversely disagree/argue less, with more emphasis on accurate analysis of texts such as Gen 15, which is one source of legitimate disagreement in the 'vacuum' (postd bible study per se lackg)e.g., wouldn't you and (e.g) Terry agree to agree on an accurate conclusion from the exegesis of Gen 15? e.g., are your hybrid presuppositions totally non-negotiable--why not integrate some othr hybrid thinkg? (nobodies presupps are pure are they?)anyway, it's easier and more pleasant to argue about that kinda stuff than it is to argue at, agnst each othr, partic whr ppl post conclusions like 'look at lifetime tile roof' while their bamboo walls're swayin' in twistrs of exegetical myth :)
