Kolo: "In great measure, FK, what Kosta is saying is in some measure +Athanasius’ point. God became man because men didn’t understand God. Burning bushes and speaking from clouds just wasn’t getting the job done!"
But doesn't this make a shambles of the text of the OT? Either several stories with specific names and specific places are total factual lies, or man was allowed to include a huge amount of error through misinterpretation. If I thought this I would know that there was no way to separate fact from fiction and I would be forced to toss the whole Testament. Of course, I don't think Jesus had this in mind. :)
I know the answer is going to be "read everything through the lens of the NT", but that will require completely discarding much of the OT because there simply is no reconciliation. I could never do that. God's Holy word is either God's Holy word or it isn't.
“I know the answer is going to be “read everything through the lens of the NT”, but that will require completely discarding much of the OT because there simply is no reconciliation. I could never do that. God’s Holy word is either God’s Holy word or it isn’t.”
That is indeed the answer, FK. If the answer were that the OT meant precisely what it seems to say, then +Athanasius was completely wrong and that would mean that Christian Incarnational theology is bunk. Now, that may in fact be precisely what Calvinism teaches. Is it?
God’s Holy Word is indeed God’s Holy Word. I submit, however, that pre-Incarnation, people, Chosen, elect or otherwise, couldn’t even come close to understanding it.