You are not logged in.
First Corinthians 15:28-29
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?
_______________________________
This thread is a continuation of the discussion of this verse which started on another thread:
http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus … 9#POST6749
The intent is to provide commentary on the meaning of this passage; personal or from others.
Offline
1957, Des Ford
Bible Question Service, by D. Ford
5. Latter Day Saints use 1 Cor. 15: 29 to prove the doctrine of baptism for the dead but no true doctrine rests on just one verse. Here are Paul's words. "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all?" He is merely saying that every occasion a believer is baptized he witnesses to his belief that one day all the dead will be resurrected by virtue of Christ's atoning death and resurrection. The Scriptures are clear that no man "can by any means redeem his brother." Ps. 49: 7.
http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/STAUS/STAUS1 9570325-V72-13__B/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=6
Offline
1890, Uriah Smith
The Bible Echo and Signs of the Times, July 1, 1890, page 11.
BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD.
U. SMITH.
A CORRESPONDENT writes : Please explain 1 Cor. 15 : 29. The text reads : " Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all ? why are they then baptized for the dead ?"
The word "else," which introduces this verse, shows the close connection of the passage with what precedes ; and its definition, " for else " (or, if this is not so), shows that Paul is asking a question based on a proposition the opposite of that which he has just stated.
In verse 28 he states that those who are Christ's will be made alive, or be raised from the dead, at his coming. Then down to the 29th verse are thrown in some explanatory verses, showing the great trans- action which takes place at the end, and the prophecy upon which that hope is based. So the connection is really between verse 23 and verse 29 ; and if we read these in connection, it will bring out more clearly the idea of verse 29.
Beginning with verse 22, we read : " For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. [23.] But every man in his own order : Christ the first-fruits ; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. [29.] Else [or, if this is not so] what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all ? why are they then baptized for the dead ? "
Thus we have the ideas which were in the mind of the apostle more immediately connected. The dead are to be raised when Christ comes; if this isn't so, if there is no resurrection of the dead, then what shall they do which are baptized for the dead ? or, of what account is it that any one is baptized for the dead ? and why is any one baptized for the dead ?
Paul here asserts that if any one did not believe in the resurrection of the dead, he would not be baptized for the dead. All hinges, therefore, on the resurrection ; but what connection has baptism with the resurrection ? Rom. 6 : 4,5 : " Therefore we are buried with him [Christ] by baptism into death ; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also [being raised up from the watery grave] should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also [finally raised up] in the likeness of his resurrection."
When, therefore, a person is baptized, he shows his faith, first, that Christ was buried and rose again; and, secondly, that all the righteous dead will be raised in him. But if there is to be no resurrection of the dead, why should any one be baptized to show his faith that Christ was raised from the dead, or to express his hope that any others will ever be raised from the dead ?
The expression, then, " baptized for the dead," as used by Paul in 1 Cor. 15 : 29, we understand to mean ordinary baptism performed in the belief that Christ was raised from the dead, and in the hope that he (the candidate) will, through Christ's resurrection, be himself also at last raised from the dead. So we could read the text, " Else what shall they do [what shall it profit them] which are baptized on account of, and in hope of, the resurrection of the dead ? "
http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/BEST/BEST189 0-V05-13/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=11
Offline
1963, Currier, Ministry Magazine
Ministry Magazine, January, 1963, page 39
How to Work for Mormons, Part I
J. B. CURRIER
Pastor, Garden Grove, California
(I find this article helpful for its quotes: Bible and Early Church authors)
...
Should We Do Work for the Dead?
The Mormon Church teaches that death is only a step to a higher degree of glory, and thus is a promotion. Their funeral services are virtually graduation exercises.
To present the truth on this subject a simple good, positive study on the true state of the dead is excellent. Since the Mormons believe in baptizing for the dead, marrying for time and eternity, and doing other work for the dead, a few additional points should be observed. These are as follows:
1. When a man dies, he returns to the dust and his evil nature cannot be changed (Gen. 3:19; John 5:28, 29).
2. Man's evil nature must be changed before he dies'if he is to obtain salvation (Isa. 38:18; Ps. 146:4; Heb. 9:27).
3. The dead are unconscious, know nothing, do not love or hate, and cannot hope for the truth of God, which shows it does no good to preach to them, be baptized for them, or do any other kind of work for them (Eccl. 9:5, 6; Ps. 115:17; 146:4; Isa. 38:18).
4. No one can redeem another individual, or give a ransom for him (Ps. 49:7).
5. The son cannot bear the iniquity of the father, neither can the father bear the iniquity of the son (Eze. 18:20).
6. One in life can deliver only his own soul
(Eze. 14:14).
7. The dead will be judged according to the works they did while alive as recorded in the books of heaven (Rev. 20:12).
Vicarious work for the dead started with the heathen, and not with God's people (see Lev. 19:28; Deut. 14:1; Jer. 47:1, 4, 5; Isa. 65:2-4; Ps. 106:28; Jer. 16:10-13).
Tertullian, prominent Church Father of the second century, tells that the Marcionites, a heretical sect of Christians who existed in his day, "were vainly baptized for the dead."— Against Marcion, bk. 5, chap. 10, trans. in ANF, vol. 3, p. 449. Notice that heretical or offshoot Christians practiced baptism for the dead, but not the true people of God.
Chrysostom, 345?- 407 A.D., tells how this was done by placing a liv- ing man "under the couch of the dead," when they would "approach the corpse and talk with him, and ask him if he wishes to receive bap- tism; then when he makes no answer, he that is concealed underneath saith in his stead that of course he should wish to be baptized; and so they baptize him instead of the departed, like men jesting upon the stage."—Homilies on First Corinthians, 1 Cor. 15:29, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, vol. 12, p. 244.
http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1963- 01/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=39
Offline
The church's official postion on the state of the dead is based on OT quotations, one of which is Ecclesiastes, which is a lamentable book for doctrine, and only states the individually depressed writer.
This was centuries before the Resurrection, when the Jewish position on the dead was that there WAS no afterlife and no resurrection.
It has been the practice of Adventism to garner many of its doctrines from the OT, while eschewing the notable differences written in the NT. Why is this.
Offline
It has been the practice of Adventism to garner many of its doctrines from the OT, while eschewing the notable differences written in the NT. Why is this?
Elaine, you were raised in a preacher's family. Certainly your father used all of Scripture to teach Adventist doctrines.
What you say of Adventists is not true, as I see it. Adventists, like many other Christian denominations, believe in making using of the whole of the Scriptures for their doctrine.
Here are three exhibits to demonstrate how Adventists think and what verses they use to present their beliefs.
EXHIBIT A - PAUL'S COUNSEL
Adventists adhere to Pauline tradition on their use of the Hebrew Scriptures. But, they by no means avoid the New Testament in their doctrinal formulations.
Note Paul's upholding the Hebrew Scriptures to Timothy as a source of doctrinal understanding.
2 Timothy 3:16,17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
EXHIBIT B - THE TEXTS CITED IN THE SDA's OFFICIAL FUNDAMENTAL BELIEF
26. Death and Resurrection
The wages of sin is death. But God, who alone is immortal, will grant eternal life to His redeemed. Until that day death is an unconscious state for all people. When Christ, who is our life, appears, the resurrected righteous and the living righteous will be glorified and caught up to meet their Lord. The second resurrection, the resurrection of the unrighteous, will take place a thousand years later.
(Rom. 6:23; 1 Tim. 6:15, 16; Eccl. 9:5, 6; Ps. 146:3, 4; John 11:11-14; Col. 3:4; 1 Cor. 15:51-54; 1 Thess. 4:13-17; John 5:28, 29; Rev. 20:1-10.)
EXHIBIT C - THE TEXTS CITED IN THE A BIBLE STUDY ON THE STATE OF THE DEAD
The Good News Bible Lessons
Lesson 15 - The Good News About Death
1. What reliable source do we have for information concerning the dead? (Isa. 8:19, 20)
2. By what standard are we to judge whether a teaching is true or false? (Isa. 8:20)
3. What does the Bible say happens when a man dies? (Eccl. 12:7)
4. What two elements did God combine to make man a living soul? (Gen. 2:7)
5. What statement by Job indicates that the terms "breath of life" and "spirit" are used interchangeably? (Job 27:3)
6. How does David describe man's death? (Ps. 146:3, 4)
7. What happens to a person's ability to think or participate in anything going on in the world after they die? (Eccl. 9:5, 6)
8. What does a person know after he dies? (Eccl. 9:10)
9. Where will everyone go at death? (Eccl. 9:10)
10. How did Jesus refer to the death of His friend Lazarus? (John 11:11-14)
11. When did Martha expect her brother, Lazarus, to live again? (John 11:23, 24)
12. If there were no resurrection, what would be the fate of all the dead? (1 Cor. 15:16-19)
13. Because Christ rose from the dead, when can we expect the resurrection of our righteous dead? (1 Cor. 15:20-23)
14. How many people will be resurrected according to the Bible? (John 5:28, 29)
15. What did Paul say will happen to the righteous dead at Christ's second coming? (1 Thess. 4:16, 17)
16. How will the resurrected body be changed? (Phil. 3:20, 21)
17. What gift will be given to the saved when Christ returns? (1 Cor. 15:51-55)
18. How can we be certain that we have eternal life? (1 John 5:11-13)
19. After studying this lesson, do you earnestly desire to accept the gift of eternal life that God so freely offers?
Offline
How can it be denied that the different world perspective about death in the Jewish belief, radically changed following Jesus' resurrection?
For nearly all of Jewish histories, as recorded, there was no belief in resurrection or even an afterlife. This was a NEW doctrine, first preached by Paul, and the NT texts given validate that.
There would be no Christian had there been no resurrection, that is the cornerstone; something that cannot be said about the Jewish belief as written in their own Scripture.
Offline
How can it be denied that the different world perspective about death in the Jewish belief, radically changed following Jesus' resurrection?
Elaine, you said:
It has been the practice of Adventism to garner many of its doctrines from the OT, while eschewing the notable differences written in the NT. Why is this.
My post responded to that.
Are there any references to the resurrection in the Hebrew Bible?
Consider these:
Daniel 12:1-3
1"Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people, will arise And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued.
2"Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt.
3"Those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.
Isaiah 26:19
19 Your dead will live;
Their corpses will rise
You who lie in the dust, awake and shout for joy,
For your dew is as the dew of the dawn,
And the earth will give birth to the departed spirits
Isaiah 25:8
8He will swallow up death for all time,
And the Lord GOD will wipe tears away from all faces,
And He will remove the reproach of His people from all the earth;
For the LORD has spoken.
Ezekiel 37:12-14
(This is part of the "dry bones" vision. The resurrection here is metaphorical, I think. The idea of "resurrection of the dead" was not foreign to Ezekiel.)
12 "Therefore prophesy and say to them, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I will open your graves and (R)cause you to come up out of your graves, My people; and I will bring you into the land of Israel.
13 "Then you will know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves and caused you to come up out of your graves, My people.
14 "I will put My Spirit within you and you will come to life, and I will place you on your own land. Then you will know that I, the LORD, have spoken and done it," declares the LORD.'"
Job 19:25-26
25 I know that my Redeemer lives,
and that in the end he will stand upon the earth.
26 And after my skin has been destroyed,
yet in my flesh I will see God;
Did the Hebrews originate a doctrine of the afterlife in the wake of the Christian church's focus on the resurrection? I doubt it. They certainly developed it further during the Christian era.
Offline
The idea of an afterlife was a DEVELOPING belief, and not original. Abraham and the early patriarchs never mentioned it.
These quotations are from a much later period, and around the time of the Exile where the influence of Zororastrianism had a mighty impact on their beliefs.
Job was written ca. 5th century B.C. The well-known statement was changed to make it say the opposite of what the author wrote. The correct and original: "Let him kill me if he will; I have no other hope than to justify my conduct in his eyes" Jerusalem Bible). "Though He slay me, I will hope in Him. Nevertheless I will argue my ways before Him" (NASB).
There is more than one "Isaiah" and the dates are
before and after the Exile.
Ezekiel was a prophet among the exiles in Babylon ca. 593-571.
Daniel was written between 167-164 B.C. during the persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes and before the Maccabean revolt.
Offline
Interpreter's Bible Commentary:
Job 19:23-29:
"The text is so corrupt that we can only conjecture what the original may have been, afford any help in determining the meaning of verses 25-26. Accordingly, we cannot infer from the passage tha Job hoped for a resurrection of the body.
"The umpire for whom Job appeals is not to be connected with the Jewish Messiah nor taken as a prophetic signpost pointing to Jesus Christ. Rather there probably lies behind Job's appeal, an idea of a personal god on whom each man relied to present his cause to the greater gods in the divine assembly. So also it is a mistake to see in the ally or witness of 16:19 or in the Redeemer of 19:25 the figure of Christ. In fact the word translated Redeemer is better rendered as vindicator. The Hebrew word refers to the next of kin who has the duty of avenging the blood of a brother or protecting his title to property after his death."
The setting and the protoganist are never identified as Hebrew and the story does not emanate from a purely Hebrew environment.
"There is in fact one feature of the prose prologue, the prominent part played by Satan, that may be as late as the 6th or 5th century, a time when Persian influences were infiltrating Hebrew religious thinking."
Offline
Thus, we seem to agree that the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead can be found in the Scriptures prior to Christ.
Offline
I think the dialogue above is a classic example of the basic differences, present here, in how the Bible is understood and used.
On the one hand, it's important to know the background of the various Bible passages and even books; on the other hand, it doesn't matter how the texts and books found their way into the Bible, the mere fact that they are there, and can be interpreted within one's preconceived ideologies makes them beyond questioning.
The Blue Parakeet - Rethinking How You Read the Bible by Scot McKnight lists five mistakes that are made in how most people (denominations) read the Bible. Among the five he lists SHORTCUT #4 - PUZZLING TOGETHER THE PIECES TO MAP GOD'S MIND. His opening statement for this method: For some people the Bible is like a big puzzle. Once you've got the puzzle solved, you no longer have to work with the pieces. ....these people know what the Bible says before they open it up because they've already puzzled it together. This way of reading the Bible "ignores the parts of the puzzle that don't fit". Of course, every denomination does this, but Adventists have the puzzle worked out in an extra-biblical source. Someone has been given the authority to present the puzzle picture, in tact, sort of like the picture on the puzzle box at the toy department. All we have to do is find the pieces that fit the picture. The rest can be ditched. McKinght calls these leftover pieces "blue parakeets", coming from an illustration he uses as he has watched his bird feeder when a stranger to the feeder dares to join the old timers.
There are out-and-out contradictions in the Bible. We can either ignore them and stick to our story, or we can read each book as a separate, individual book, written by a single author, within a single context; or we can try to weave a cohesive story, picking and choosing and discarding in the name of Bible unity.
It's all about what our faith is based on. Is it based on the validity of the "puzzle picture" we have been given; or is it on the leading of the HS painting the picture for us as we grapple with it.
Offline
There may be a very few so-called "blue parakeets" in the bible but for most of the so-called "contradictions" there are usually very logical and reasonable explanations. The bible in fact contains a remarkably cohesive message, much more cohesive than those who reject its message are willing to admit. The divine plan for the salvation of mankind is revealed in progressively advancing stages and the term for this is "progressive revelation". God very gradually revealed His plan to redeem the world through shadows and types and recurring themes. His final and full revelation was revealed in the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Christ himself in his discourses tells us that many of the Old Testament writers desired to see and understand the things that were being revealed in Christ ministry and declaration the "Kingdom of God" had arrived in the person of Himself. Peter and Paul also make comments about the shadowy nature of the Old Testament revelation which is now fully and openly disclosed in Christ.
In the Old Testament the angel Gabriel told Daniel that the meaning of the symbolism of the visions he had been given would be "sealed up" til the time of the end. This unsealling was fulfilled when the angel Gabriel announced the "time was fulfilled" in the announcement of birth of Christ the Lord to the virgin Mary.
Mr. McKnight disparagingly labels the progressive nature of revelation a vain attempt to unify a very (in his mind at least) ununified bible. I think that Mr. McKnight is being very narrow minded in his statement that we cannot know ("map") the mind of God through reading the various authors of the bible. Christ and the apostles would certainly disagree with him. They all understood that the "mystery of God" was progressively revealed through the ages and finally fully unveiled in Christ.
Regarding the specific subject at hand "the resurrection of the dead", it is certainly clear that the characters of the New Testament believed in the bodily resurrection of both the saved and the lost on the final day of judgment.
We are told that Abraham had faith to believe that if he obeyed God and sacrificed his son Isaac, God would raise him from the dead.
When Christ told Mary that her brother Lazarus would rise again, she said that she knew that he would rise on the last day.
Daniel as has been already mentioned by other posters understood that there would be a general resurrection at the end.
The Pharisees were noted for their belief in the bodily resurrection of the elect.
So our faith is based on the "puzzle picture" which the Holy Spirit has revealed over the ages through "holy men of God" as the spoke God's message. Many of those who "grapple" with the word of God are in fact "wresting" the scriptures in order to raise doubt and confusion in a quite amazingly cohesive and unified revelation of the mind of God in the bible.
Bill Diehl
Bill Diehl, editor
Present Truth Magazine Online
www.PresentTruthMag.org
Offline
Regarding 1Cor 15, there were certain false teachers among the Corinthian believers who claimed that the resurrection had ALREADY taken place and that there was no further resurrection that was going to take place at the end of the world. Paul was rebutting this fallacy by assuring the Corinthian believers that there most certainly will be a future resurrection and that all who believe, including those who had died in the faith, would be in this yet future blessed resurrection.
This phrase in 1 Corinthians 15:29,
"Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?", can be paraphrased "or else what will happen to the dead believers who have been baptized? (If the dead raise not in the resurrection). Why (concerning the dead believers) have they been baptized?"
The point Paul is making is that if the dead rise not, then those dead Christians who were baptized while they were alive were baptized in vain and have no hope. The fact that this is the point that Paul is making becomes very evident when one considers the entire context of the verse by reading the entire chapter 15 from verse 12 and onward.
Point #1. 1 Cor 15:12
"Now if Christ be preached that He rose from the dead, HOW SAY SOME AMONG YOU THAT THERE IS NO RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD? 13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:"
From this verse we see Paul make his opening point of the discussion. Paul is calling attention to the FALSE TEACHERS who are teaching that the resurrection is past already.
Point #2. 1 Cor 15:14
"And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. 15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ: whom He raised not up, if so be that the DEAD rise not. 16 For if the DEAD rise not, then is not Christ raised: 17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. 18 Then they also which are FALLEN ASLEEP in Christ are perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable."
Here Paul assures the believers that because Christ has in fact arisen those who have fallen asleep have not perished and their hope is NOT in this life only.
Point #3. 1 Cor 15:20
"But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at His coming. 24 Then cometh the end, when He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when He shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign, till He hath put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is DEATH. 27 For He hath put all things under His feet. But when He saith all things are put under Him, it is manifest that He is excepted, which did put all things under Him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him, that God may be all in all."
Paul is stating here that at Christ's coming all believers in Christ who have died as the result of Adam's sin will partake of the gift of eternal life when they are raised up on the last day and the last enemy, death, shall be destroyed and all things in nature will be put once again under the subjection of God's will, including Christ Himself.
Point #4. 1 Cor 15:29
"Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead? 30 And why stand we in jeopardy every hour? 31 I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. 32 If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, IF THE DEAD RISE NOT? Let us eat and drink; for tomorrow we die. 33 Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners. 34 Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame."
Paul here rebukes the Corinthians for sinning by listening to these false teachings and falling away from the hope and assurance of the resurrection for ALL who believe, both the living and the dead. Thus the phrase, "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?"
Meaning: In light of all that Paul has stated, he asks, "Or else, concerning the dead (Greek:hyper ton necron), what shall they do which have been baptized. If the dead rise not at all?" These false teachers were teaching that only those who are alive at the coming of Christ will be saved and given eternal life and that those baptized believers who have died will not be raised and not have eternal life because the resurrection has already passed.
These verses take on very clear meaning once one translates "hyper" as "concerning" rather than "for" as the KJV does. Paul's discussion is "concerning those baptized who have died". To translate it as "baptized for the dead" adds needless confusion and some wish to infer from this poor translation that the apostles were baptizing living people in behalf of those dead relatives and friends who were never baptized while they were alive. This is what the Mormons are attempting to practice, but once one understands the context and then translates Paul correctly, this practice is easily recognized as ridiculous.
Bill Diehl
Bill Diehl, editor
Present Truth Magazine Online
www.PresentTruthMag.org
Offline
for MOST of the so-called "contradictions" there are usually very logical and reasonable explanations"
but apparently not...ALL of them...???
I'm betting we can explain...
...ALL of the contradictions to some of the people some of the time...
or
...Some of the contradictions to all of the people some of the time
or
...some of the contradictions to some of the people all of the time,
but how could it be possible to explain ALL of the contradictions to ALL of the people ALL of the time....
which is what a loving God should require before killing all of the people who don't understand why the problem even exists....
(Message edited by john8verse32 on September 17, 2009)
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
Offline
It's the old argument: "Here a little, there a little" and put them all together and they spell...nothing much!
Adventists have excelled at this: quoting a text from the OT, jumping to the NT, and attempting to "explain" the same belief.
Why not combine The Iliad and the Odyssey and the Aneid into one book and try to make it all true. Impossible, as they tell entirely different version of some of the same events.
Trying to force the Bible, composed of 66 books, written over a period approximately a millennia, and claim that essentially, they all agree, is to abuse the Scriptures and try to force a round peg into a square hole. Each book should be judged on its own merits, as it is patently certain that there was no collusion between writers, that they all had their own perspectives and agenda for writing, and we should accept it as was intended.
The Bible never reached us as "one book" but was compiled over hundreds of years, extending far after Christ, and in the choosing and eliminating of the books, we claim that it was not only written by inspiration, but of necessity, those compiling it must have also had to be inspired, wouldn't they?
Or, is it just possible that the Bible was written by humans, in their own language and time, telling of their trials and joys and successes as well as their patriarchal ancestral lineage which was most important. They were no more inspired than any other human today. We give them that appellation because we so much want to claim that it is "God's Word" and that it cannot contain error, falsity, or contradiction: IOW, inerrant and infallible. If not that, then it becomes of no less value than any other ancient literature to give us insight into how the people lived, thought, and perceived their lives in relation to the gods (yes, plural, as for most of this world and Hebrew history, there were many gods worshiped).
Offline
Trying to force the Bible, composed of 66 books, written over a period approximately a millennia, and claim that essentially, they all agree, is to abuse the Scriptures and try to force a round peg into a square hole. Each book should be judged on its own merits, as it is patently certain that there was no collusion between writers, that they all had their own perspectives and agenda for writing, and we should accept it as was intended.
What do Adventists claim regarding the agreement of Scripture?
Fundamental Belief #1
The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God's acts in history.
(2 Peter 1:20, 21; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Ps. 119:105; Prov. 30:5, 6; Isa. 8:20; John 17:17; 1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 4:12.)
Must they all agree in essence to be inspired? I don't think so. Do I believe that God is reaching out to us through the Biblical writers? Yes. Would the writings have been preserved if they were not considered "sacred"? Probably not.
There is a God............................... One God, Elaine. :-)
He has revealed Himself.
Was this solely through the Scriptures? No. The Scriptures became established as a defined canon to rule out what was judged to be spurious writings.
Do I believe that there are other inspired writings? Yes. But the whole church has determined the Biblical writings to be canonical.
Do all the writings have to agree? I don't think so. Do I believe that God's Spirit inspired all the Canonical writers? Yes. Thus, we have common ground on which to seek God.
How do I manage the Scriptural information coming to me? Respectfully, thoughtfully, acknowledging their divine value.
Offline
The Scriptures became established as a defined canon to rule out what was judged to be spurious writings. }}
By recognizing that The Scriptures "became established" by the one catholic church it recognizes that the church has the authority to define the canon.
Why are their authoritative decisions on this and the others also accepted without question: their decisions on the Trinity, human/divine nature of Christ, but reject the other contributions such as the first day's celebration in honor of the Resurrection?
No one would know about the Resurrection had the catholic church not preserved Scripture for us. What gave the SDA church the omniscience to reverse Christian belief and teachings more than 1700 years, and dismiss them?
Offline
By recognizing that The Scriptures "became established" by the one catholic church it recognizes that the church has the authority to define the canon.
Keep in mind that the Jewish faith community defined the OT canon. The Protestant church recognized the authority of the Jewish community.
I have no problem acknowledging the role of the believers in establishing the canon.
Why are their authoritative decisions on this and the others also accepted without question: their decisions on the Trinity, human/divine nature of Christ, but reject the other contributions such as the first day's celebration in honor of the Resurrection?
For the Protestant churches, the answer to this is simple, IMO. Once the "universal" church had established the canon, then the concepts advocated by the church had to be measured by that canon. Sunday-sacredness does not measure up, whereas the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are Scriptural distinctions. Also, the human/divine nature of Christ is soundly established within the canon. The first day's celebration in honor of the Resurrection is not evident in the canon.
No one would know about the Resurrection had the catholic church not preserved Scripture for us.
There is no doubt that the "universal" church preserved the Scriptures. Praise the LORD. This was happening long before the Roman Catholic Church rose to prominence.
What gave the SDA church the omniscience to reverse Christian belief and teachings more than 1700 years, and dismiss them?
It was not the SDA church who reversed Christian belief. The Seventh-day Baptists date back to the 1600's at least. Other groups kept the Sabbath. No, the SDA church can lay no such claim as you have stated.
All the Seventh-day Adventist church does is to state that the Bible does not support Sunday-sacredness; but it does support the Sabbath.
Offline
"Once the "universal" church had established the canon, then the concepts advocated by the church had to be measured by that canon".
Why don't we trust the rest of the books that were chosen to be in that canon?
How many books are in the Catholic Canon?
Ans: More than are in the Protestant Canon: Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch. Additionally, there are also extra/deutero-canonical additions to Esther and Daniel in the Catholic canon.
The 7 books plus the additions to Daniel and Esther, though part of the Catholic Old Testament are not part of the Hebrew/Jewish Canon either. The Eastern Orthodox, however, include the same 7 books plus 3 more (3 Maccabees, 1 Esdras, & Odes) plus an extra psalm in Psalms.
The Oriental Orthodox also place high value on Jubilees and 1 Enoch--while not exactly canonizing either.
These books were seemingly written originally in Greek, not Hebrew, and were incorporated into the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Tanach (the OT) and 15 other apocryphal works, 7 of which were canonized at the Council of Trent, in 1545, though rejected by the Rabbinical council of Jamnia around 85 AD.
Offline
Why don't we trust the rest of the books that were chosen to be in that canon?
I think the Protestant churches don't accept the Deuterocanon because the Council of Jamnia didn't.
I wonder if the early Christian writings listed these Greek books as part of an accepted canon. The Council of Laodicea lists the NT as we have it now.
We have two choices, individually and as the corporate church. Accept what has been decided for us or decide for ourselves. The Hebrew Scriptures have a certain dignity to them. For example, I read the Book of Tobit and was quite impressed with the story up until the angel told Tobit to use the entrails of a fish as charms for healing, or something like that. Thus, the Book of Tobit has failed my personal canonical test. This is easy to do, because the Protestant church I belong to does not consider Tobit canonical.
Just because a book is not in the canon does not mean it is not inspired or useful to the church. I think a good example of non-canonical usefulness is the Didache. Its simple directives provide insight into the life of a Christian in the second century church.
We know that the NT writers were not opposed to using some of the non-Jamnian writings in their work.
Offline
Reading List Re: The Canon
Biblical Canon Links
http://www.bible-researcher.com/links04.html
"The Old Testament of the Early Church" Revisited
http://department.monm.edu/classics/Spe … bergJr.htm
Offline
I think the Protestant churches don't accept the Deuterocanon because the Council of Jamnia didn't.
After posting this, I read further on the "Council of Jamnia". There is no identifiable record of this "council". It is hypothetical. Development of the canon seems to have culminated in the first century C.E. After the destruction of Jerusalem, Jamnia became an important Rabbical center. I have looked and looked for a record of the Council of Jamnia. Apparently, there is no record. Did it happen?
Offline
It seems that this thread is no longer dealing with an exegesis of 1Cor 15 and "baptism for the dead". Now the discussion has shifted to the formation of the New Testament canon. Perhaps a new thread should have been started if the discussion the original topic has ended?
Bill Diehl, editor
Present Truth Magazine Online
www.PresentTruthMag.org
Offline
Now the discussion has shifted to the formation of the New Testament canon. Perhaps a new thread should have been started
Bill, I have started such a thread at:
Offline