If they love that verse to show an untruth then it just means they are ignoring the totality of scripture. The totality of scripture shows over and over that the Son and the Father are equally God. But even within this verse, the context is that Jesus is referring to His (then) current condition, that of a suffering servant. He is comparing that to His returning to His glory in Heaven, i.e. a greater condition. Jesus said and did plenty of things that we would think of as "un-God like". We have to put them in the context that He was fully God AND fully human.
The OT is what it is: foreshadowing of Christianity. It is not Christianity. Without the OT, you would still have Christianity if all you had were the NT.
False. Without the OT you would have New Testamentism, but NOT Christianity. Jesus certainly cared about the OT and quoted from it often. He also upheld the Law given in the OT. Jesus admonished those who did not know the OT, and so I want to follow Jesus by believing that the OT is important and has relevance to our Christianity today.
Without the NT you would never come to Christianity.
It's true we probably wouldn't come to Christianity as we know it, however, we could have still come to salvation as the OT righteous knew it.
The two Testaments are not equivalent ...
Of course they are not equivalent in content, but they ARE equivalent in truth.
No, FK, it's what the OT says God did, such as kill David's child. Now we have God doing what Jesus would not have done!
That's right and is my whole point. Christ said over and over that He came to do what? His own will? NO, but the will of His Father FOR Him. All of us, including Jesus have different paths in righteousness. The path for Jesus, and ultimately with most of the Apostles, was to die a martyr's death. However, for the vast majority of us that is not our path. That doesn't make us wrong! :)
Obviously, the authors of the OT did not see Christ in their visions; they saw something closer to Zeus or Allah.
Of course they saw Christ in their visions. Christ was all over the OT. You may not recognize it because you have already decided for yourself on what the parameters of Christ (God) are.
If they love that verse to show an untruth then it just means they are ignoring the totality of scripture. The totality of scripture shows over and over that the Son and the Father are equally God
Funny how standards change! When it's sutable, we stick to one-liners. When it doesn't then we appeal to the "totality of the scriptures."
Shall I remind you that we had a little discussion about Enoch (#5296), where I asked where does it say in OT that he died and you quote Heb 11:5.
When I remarked that it not only makes no other references to the OT (where the whole thing originated), but that the OT actually says that God took Enoch and he "was no more," you answered:
Well, John 14:28 is also scripture, standalone and is plain and easy to understand, and you don't believe it. Double standards? Pick and choose?
As far as the totality of the scriptures is concerned, Jesus is quoted as saying on another occasion that the Father is greater than all, so it corroborates John 14:28's statement.
Where does the Bible say that Jesus is equal to the Father?
So, the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament would lead us to believe what? In Zeus? The fact is the OT does not lead anyone to believe in a Christ-like God, otherwise the Jews would have accepted Christ as their Messiah.
Jesus certainly cared about the OT and quoted from it often. He also upheld the Law given in the OT. Jesus admonished those who did not know the OT, and so I want to follow Jesus by believing that the OT is important and has relevance to our Christianity today
It's important and has relevance but it is not defining. It is the ground prepared for the Church. But the truths quoted from the OT would have still been valid had they been stated as such in the Gospels. You seem to have no problem accepting the statement in Heb 11:5 even though it has no OT counterpart. So, here again we see man-made rules as to what is true and what isn't.
Then why was Christ necessary?
The path for Jesus, and ultimately with most of the Apostles, was to die a martyr's death. However, for the vast majority of us that is not our path. That doesn't make us wrong!
Of course not. Otherwise we would have but a handful in churches, and the clergy would be poor. Don't you now, the faith proclaimed in the NT is supposed to be "feel good" and "cozy!" But that's not what the Book you believe in says. Let's see what it does say:
In fact there are dozens of examples, especially in 1 Peter, where the suffering of Christ is the way we must follow, but of course this part of the Bible is overlooked for practical purposes...
"Therefore, since Christ has suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same purpose, because he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin" [1 Pet 4:1]
I have already told you that the example of Crist found in the OT (as per the link you provided) I disagree with, but it would take up too much bandwidth to discuss; perhaps that might be a good topic on another forum.
Let's just say that such comparisons are first of all few and far in between given the volume of the Bible, and secondly that they are not obvious, but must be "extracted" and implied throught rationalizations.
Even if the authors of the OT did come to know God as Chirst (more like a vague idea), that represents a few dozen people maximum compared to the whole nation of Israel. Doesn't seem very effictive to me. In fact, the whole Old Covenant failed on the ground becase, essentially, the Jews rejected it. They started going back to their faith after the Babylonian captivity, almost a millennium after Moses, and they still didnt get it.
Third, and most importantly, I didn't decide the parameters of Christ. The Gospels do. For some reason, the one part of the Bible where God is present among us your side seems to treat as less than what it is, and puts it on an equal footing with, say Samuel or Kings, or Jude, etc.