| Subject: | [socialcredit] Re: Bible | | Date: | , September 6, 2005 22:13:58 (+0200) | | From: | cymric <cymric @.......nz>
|
| In reply to: | Message 2724 (written by Triumphofthepast) |
I read it as the contempt for what man has made it not that God created it.
Its extension is the philosophy behind the policy that rules the world. Which
was not its purpose. It was principly to be a teacher to bring them ( Israel)to
the expression made by Paul "Oh retched man man that I am who can save me from
this body of sin" and then waiting in the wings was the extension ( New Covenant)
for those who can appreciate what God really wanted.
What Douglas saw in Christianity which theologians couldnt was far less obvious
than the truth that the Law was only meant to be a teacher and inevitably lead to
a New Covenant once Jesus fulfilled the Law which no one else could, because only
God could save mankind from perpetual failure. I dont believe therefore that he
didnt see the easier part and rubblished God's
first Covenant.
The Law kills and the Spirit gives life and as at the begining Man is advised to
chose life. The New Covenant was to set us free (individual covereignty) and as
Jesus said he came that we might have life more abundant. S.C. as policy based
on the New Covenant philosophy is part of means to a more abundant life. But
what we struggle against is the extension of the Old T which has been corrupted
and used againt humanity to bring it into bongage of debt and want- perhaps it
can be symbolised by the irony that Jesus died on the work of a carpenter.
Peter H
Triumphofthepast@aol.com wrote:
>
> ". . . [Social Credit's] Christian origins. . . . The Bible is a library
of
> books written by many authors over thousands of years with a single
theme
> through out and the prophecies alone make it unique and evident of
divine origin."
> (Peter)
>
> How do you explain the fact that Douglas expresses nothing but contempt
for
> the Old Testament?
>
> Michael
>
>
|
Re: Bible
Reply to this message