The OT and NT have different topics.

[Kingfisher]

I can justify the context however I like. You're quoting single verses directly below this and ignoring the entire surrounding chapter. Where's your context?

There is no context here whatsoever.

I’m not ignoring the context. I clearly stated previously in post #29 that the context was deliverance from an enemy or adversary.

He knew the outcome of his actions were in God's hands and not his own. No place does the bible say that "he couldn't deliver himself".

That seems like a contradictory statement. Are you saying the outcome was in God's hands or that David could have delivered himself without God?

Again, just because it uses a word doesn't make it a topic of significance. I've been here a long, long time. Standard Christian theology as has been taught to me is that all our deeds are meaningless and only faith saves. In other words, the topic of the NT is "salvation". By way of contrast, the OT says that our actions are extremely consequential, and God expects us to abide by His covenant with us by sanctifying ourselves. I cited an entire chapter, above.

There’s a lot of nuance here that you’re not acknowledging.

James 2:17-18 says: In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds.

Of course everyone sins. God created us imperfectly. That doesn't mean that we need "salvation" in the Christian sense. God doesn't expect perfection from us. He expects us to reach our own individual potential, which is different for each person.

Yes, everyone sins, and that sin separates us from God.
Isaiah 59:2 But your wrongdoings have caused a separation between you and your God, And your sins have hidden His face from you so that He does not hear.

Because of sin we need God deliverance as we can’t deliver ourselves since all our righteous deeds are filthy rags.
Isaiah 64:6 For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; And all of us wither like a leaf, And our wrongdoings, like the wind, take us away.

In what way is it "flimsy"? The Jews at Sinai were only just receiving the bible. They didn't have the works of the prophets. How could they know and be guided by words they never heard and concepts they did not know?

It’s flimsy because you are trying to continue the conversation in limitation to only what they received at Sinai. God’s revelation to the nation was not complete and there was more to unfold. The more to unfold was Isaiah 53 as I bought up.

[journeyman]

The Jewish bible is about sanctification.

The Christian bible is about salvation.

Discuss.

Since salvation is to save life, there is no difference.

[IMINXTC]

If one cannot see the NT as the inspired, progressive outfolding of the OT, then one can neither see hell in it's  NT terms nor the desperate need for salvation which applies to all men, as no man remained sanctified under the Law.

The NT creates a "need for salvation", and then fills it. It is circular logic. I don't need "salvation", because my bible doesn't speak of it. It tells me that God wants us to sanctify ourselves though His commands. So this I must do. And that's it.

Your focus on the differing themes of the testaments draws my attention to Christ in all the scriptures, which I cannot help but see. 
While Your academic synopsis does highlight the over-arching differences in God's immediate purpose for the children of Israel in Old Testament periods and the New Testament's claim of Christ's messiahship and His calling all men into the Kingdom of God, it only serves to highlight the mutual dependence of the scriptures upon each other.
The NT is fullfilment of what has been repeatedly shown in the OT to be an innocent victim (a lamb) who's sacrifice would be sufficient and pleasing to God the Father for the forgiveness of sin.
Everything we need to know of this person is detailed in the OT.
To not apprehend this is likened to kicking against the pricks when reading both testaments.
The OT without the NT reads like a saga wherein Israel repeatedly strives yet ultimately fails to sanctify God while awaiting a messiah.

[Athanasius]

The OT without the NT reads like a saga wherein Israel repeatedly strives yet ultimately fails to sanctify God while awaiting a messiah.

That's not what Fenris is saying, but I think you've captured the distinction he's drawing. I think what needs to be argued is that sanctification is salvific, even if understood differently than the Christian understanding.

Sanctify yourself, or don't, and worship that calf, but then you'll die of the plague.

[IMINXTC]

The OT without the NT reads like a saga wherein Israel repeatedly strives yet ultimately fails to sanctify God while awaiting a messiah.

That's not what Fenris is saying, but I think you've captured the distinction he's drawing. I think what needs to be argued is that sanctification is salvific, even if understood differently than the Christian understanding.

Sanctify yourself, or don't, and worship that calf, but then you'll die of the plague.

Right. And eventually the question needs to be asked: Does sanctification in the OT system deliver from death, the penalty of sin?

 The NT does not invent this but does proclaim eternal life for the believer. Yes, salvation from death is essential and is what the NT offers freely.

Sanctification for the children of Israel was also essential as God prepares the world for Messiah, whose gift of salvation was preached to Israel first. Salvation for the non-Jew followed Israel's rejection of the Gospel through unbelief.

Salvation is eternal deliverance from death. Sanctification is the role that God's people fulfill in a lost world, and is salvific only in the sense of the coming Messiah, which the OT promises.

[Sojourner]

Eating the fruit was a violation of God's commandment, which is rebellion. And Eve clearly understood the prohibition, for she repeated to the serpent what God had said about it.

Not quite (emphasis my own):

Genesis 2:15 - 17

The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

Genesis 3:2 - 3

The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

Eve added the prohibition against touching the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, whereas the narrative in chapter 2 prohibits eating, but not touching. This is potentially a failure of Adam to teach Eve properly, which leads us to something interesting...

...If Eve thought that she'd die if she touched the fruit, and then doesn't, this error of knowledge lends credence to the lie of the serpent. She touched the fruit and didn't die, just like the serpent said. How did that error creep in such that the serpent could capitalise?

In any case, Adam who was with Eve failed to stop Eve from eating the fruit (ch. 3v6). And, if Eve understood the command to prohibit touching, and she touched, then to her, that is still an act of disobedience -- rebellion is something else, I think. But again, in that instance, if Eve believed that God didn't tell the truth, then how mitigating is that circumstance in terms of culpability?

(And then we circle back to my post above.)

I've always pondered a possible "test touch" prior to the eating of the fruit as well. It exemplifies the jeopardy we can place ourselves in when we add to or take away from what God actually said.

Not sure how Adam and Eve's willful disobedience to a commandment of God doesn't amount to a self-serving rebellion against His authority.

At any rate, regardless of motive, not taking God's word to heart can lead to harsh consequences. Consider the case of the hapless Uzzah.

[Athanasius]

Eating the fruit was a violation of God's commandment, which is rebellion. And Eve clearly understood the prohibition, for she repeated to the serpent what God had said about it.

Not quite (emphasis my own):

Genesis 2:15 - 17

The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

Genesis 3:2 - 3

The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

Eve added the prohibition against touching the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, whereas the narrative in chapter 2 prohibits eating, but not touching. This is potentially a failure of Adam to teach Eve properly, which leads us to something interesting...

...If Eve thought that she'd die if she touched the fruit, and then doesn't, this error of knowledge lends credence to the lie of the serpent. She touched the fruit and didn't die, just like the serpent said. How did that error creep in such that the serpent could capitalise?

In any case, Adam who was with Eve failed to stop Eve from eating the fruit (ch. 3v6). And, if Eve understood the command to prohibit touching, and she touched, then to her, that is still an act of disobedience -- rebellion is something else, I think. But again, in that instance, if Eve believed that God didn't tell the truth, then how mitigating is that circumstance in terms of culpability?

(And then we circle back to my post above.)

I've always pondered a possible "test touch" prior to the eating of the fruit as well. It exemplifies the jeopardy we can place ourselves in when we add to or take away from what God actually said.

Not sure how Adam and Eve's willful disobedience to a commandment of God doesn't amount to a self-serving rebellion against His authority.

At any rate, regardless of motive, not taking God's word to heart can lead to harsh consequences. Consider the case of the hapless Uzzah.

I think rebellion requires intention that Adam and Eve didn't necessarily possess. They weren't in the garden intending to rebel against God, but they were disobedient. I suppose I'm saying that all rebellion involves disobedience, but not all disobedience is rebellion. Maybe it's a hair-splitting technical distinction, but I think if anything I'd consider Adam and Eve to have acted unwisely, foolishly, and disobediently, but not out of malice, spite, hatred, etc. Like, Eve wanting to be like God isn't necessarily that she wanted to be equal to God, but that she knew how God was and wanted to be like that very good creator.

[Sojourner]

Eating the fruit was a violation of God's commandment, which is rebellion. And Eve clearly understood the prohibition, for she repeated to the serpent what God had said about it.

Not quite (emphasis my own):

Genesis 2:15 - 17

The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

Genesis 3:2 - 3

The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

Eve added the prohibition against touching the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, whereas the narrative in chapter 2 prohibits eating, but not touching. This is potentially a failure of Adam to teach Eve properly, which leads us to something interesting...

...If Eve thought that she'd die if she touched the fruit, and then doesn't, this error of knowledge lends credence to the lie of the serpent. She touched the fruit and didn't die, just like the serpent said. How did that error creep in such that the serpent could capitalise?

In any case, Adam who was with Eve failed to stop Eve from eating the fruit (ch. 3v6). And, if Eve understood the command to prohibit touching, and she touched, then to her, that is still an act of disobedience -- rebellion is something else, I think. But again, in that instance, if Eve believed that God didn't tell the truth, then how mitigating is that circumstance in terms of culpability?

(And then we circle back to my post above.)

I've always pondered a possible "test touch" prior to the eating of the fruit as well. It exemplifies the jeopardy we can place ourselves in when we add to or take away from what God actually said.

Not sure how Adam and Eve's willful disobedience to a commandment of God doesn't amount to a self-serving rebellion against His authority.

At any rate, regardless of motive, not taking God's word to heart can lead to harsh consequences. Consider the case of the hapless Uzzah.

I think rebellion requires intention that Adam and Eve didn't necessarily possess. They weren't in the garden intending to rebel against God, but they were disobedient. I suppose I'm saying that all rebellion involves disobedience, but not all disobedience is rebellion. Maybe it's a hair-splitting technical distinction, but I think if anything I'd consider Adam and Eve to have acted unwisely, foolishly, and disobediently, but not out of malice, spite, hatred, etc. Like, Eve wanting to be like God isn't necessarily that she wanted to be equal to God, but that she knew how God was and wanted to be like that very good creator.

Yeah, I believe there can be a fine line between disobedience and outright rebellion, (using Uzziah again as an example). And I agree there was no malice involved on Adam and Eve's part. But God considered the offense egregious enough to warrant expulsion from the garden, followed by a life of toil, pain, sickness, misery, and ultimately death. I believe there was spiritual death immediately after eating the fruit.

I have wondered if the forbidden fruit scenario was a test instigated by Satan, similar to the way Job was put to the test. Eve's temptation involved lust of the flesh, (good for food), lust of the eyes (pleasant to look at), and the pride of life (desirable for imparting wisdom), the same three-prong strategy Satan later tried on Jesus. Studying man, the Devil developed an effective formula that generally exploits the weaknesses of human nature. I've even wondered if successfully corrupting man in the garden facilitated forfeiture of Adam's dominion over the earth to Satan. After all, Jesus did not dispute him when he claimed it had been handed over to him, and was his to give away.

At any rate, if what transpired in the garden was a test, they failed miserably, and suffered dire consequences that impacted us all. Still, the sin that caused mankind's fall facilitated an opportunity for God to fully demonstrate His mercy and grace by means of a plan to redeem us through a Savior.   

[ProDeo]

Matt 5:48 - You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Lev 19:2 - You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy.

Does it mean the same or not?

I understand both verses as to be sinless as God is without sin.

Since no one is without sin it can be reasoned that we remain under the curse (punishment) of the fall in the garden and remain separated from God, even after death. Unless....

[journeyman]

Unless they're truly repentant. Every believer will be tried, because he was tried, even though he's not the One who needed it. 😀

[Athanasius]

I dunno, if Jesus died for the sins of the world then:

(1) We need to limit what 'the world' is so that it's not everybody, or
(2) We need to predicate the payment of sin on accepting Jesus' death/sacrifice, or
(3) We need to accept that the sins of the world were paid for, and so salvation/damnation now rests on something else, e.g., entering into a relationship with Jesus/rejecting Jesus

On (3) the salient idea is that a relationship cannot be forced, so even if your sins are paid for, if you don't want to be in a relationship then you don't want to be in a relationship, and that's not going to be forced on you. Hell for humanity isn't thus "you go here because of all those weighty sins" but "you go here because you rejected a relationship".

Or, 'being tried' and 'being accountable' are two different things.

[ProDeo]

It's how I understand (the much discussed) Eph 2:8 and I am not even sure but it certainly is in line with my previous post.

8 - For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Without grace [Jesus] no one is saved [John 14:6].

Not even by faith.

And he/she remains under the curse of the garden, separation from God.

As such I read the rest of the passage and is in context with v1-v7.

But because of God's gift (Jesus) by faith we are saved (John 3:16) from the curse of the garden.

It's maybe a bit farfetched to put so much emphasis on the curse of the garden but it is the point when things went wrong and maybe restoration starts where things went wrong.

[Athanasius]

It's how I understand (the much discussed) Eph 2:8 and I am not even sure but it certainly is in line with my previous post.

8 - For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Without grace [Jesus] no one is saved [John 14:6].

Not even by faith.

And he/she remains under the curse of the garden, separation from God.

As such I read the rest of the passage and is in context with v1-v7.

But because of God's gift (Jesus) by faith we are saved (John 3:16) from the curse of the garden.

It's maybe a bit farfetched to put so much emphasis on the curse of the garden but it is the point when things went wrong and maybe restoration starts where things went wrong.

Sure, but this doesn't exclude (3). Faith is still salvific, and Jesus is still the object. What others lack is faith, not the payment of their debt (I suppose).

[ProDeo]

It's how I understand (the much discussed) Eph 2:8 and I am not even sure but it certainly is in line with my previous post.

8 - For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Without grace [Jesus] no one is saved [John 14:6].

Not even by faith.

And he/she remains under the curse of the garden, separation from God.

As such I read the rest of the passage and is in context with v1-v7.

But because of God's gift (Jesus) by faith we are saved (John 3:16) from the curse of the garden.

It's maybe a bit farfetched to put so much emphasis on the curse of the garden but it is the point when things went wrong and maybe restoration starts where things went wrong.

Sure, but this doesn't exclude (3). Faith is still salvific, and Jesus is still the object. What others lack is faith, not the payment of their debt (I suppose).

Isn't faith a sign (or even proof) of a relationship?

[Athanasius]

It's how I understand (the much discussed) Eph 2:8 and I am not even sure but it certainly is in line with my previous post.

8 - For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Without grace [Jesus] no one is saved [John 14:6].

Not even by faith.

And he/she remains under the curse of the garden, separation from God.

As such I read the rest of the passage and is in context with v1-v7.

But because of God's gift (Jesus) by faith we are saved (John 3:16) from the curse of the garden.

It's maybe a bit farfetched to put so much emphasis on the curse of the garden but it is the point when things went wrong and maybe restoration starts where things went wrong.

Sure, but this doesn't exclude (3). Faith is still salvific, and Jesus is still the object. What others lack is faith, not the payment of their debt (I suppose).

Isn't faith a sign (or even proof) of a relationship?

Yes, and (3) relies on the relationship for salvation, but not the act of forgiveness of sin. I'm suggesting the possibility that damnation is possible even where sin has been paid for, because what would matter is the relationship, not this-or-that sin. I'm not saying I believe that, it's just something to think about.