The Messiness of History

elaine · 05-19-09 12:54 pm

Don, it shouldn't be surprising that the Christians did not all agree then, nor now. I support neither Sabbath nor Sunday observance, as there are too many conflicting NT as well as post-apostolic statements indicating that a day should be left to an individual and neither was given as a day exclusively on which Christians should worship. No one is disputing Jesus' statements and work on the Sabbath. If he "rested" where is that given significance? It was only because he flouted the Jewish laws that it was mentioned, because the Jews were very strict on Sabbath observance. Jesus' example should be followed. But where did he abide by the Judaic laws that were given in the OT about not working on the Sabbath? He re-interpreted them to include all good works: healing, getting an ox from a ditch, etc. That was considered sin by Jews at that time. Do you observe the feasts and festivals that Jesus did? Were there any changes given to the Gentile Christians? Isn't it true that they were told only to abstain from fornication, meat that had been strangled and blood? Where are all the other additions that Adventists claim today? the Gentile church in later centuries forced Jewish believers to abandon their practices, including the Sabbath. I am unaware of this fact from history. Were the Gentile Christians forcing JEWS, or Jewish Christians to abandon their practices? The Jews have always observed the Sabbath, and no where in the NT are they told to abandon that. It was the Jews who, early on, were trying to enforce Jewish rules on the Gentile Christians. This was because the Jews were the first to accept Jesus as the Messiah, and only later was it accepted by the Gentiles, which caused the dissent. That enforcement by the majority has always been practiced is not new. Paul's recommendation was persuasion not enforcement. Later, there was much more enforcement, even perseuctions.

don · 05-19-09 10:50 pm

Don wrote: the Gentile church in later centuries forced Jewish believers to abandon their practices, including the Sabbath. Elaine wrote: I am unaware of this fact from history. Were the Gentile Christians forcing JEWS, or Jewish Christians to abandon their practices? Those Jews who wanted to become Christians. Read this post again: <a href="http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=14&post=5141#POST5141" target=_top>http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?t pc=14&post=5141#POST5141</a> Notice Canon 29 (Laodicean Council, 363) and Canon VIII (The Second Council of Nice, 787). The facts seem pretty obvious. I will reassert: The Gentile church in later centuries forced Jewish believers to abandon their practices, including the Sabbath. (Message edited by Don on May 19, 2009)

elaine · 05-19-09 11:19 pm

I misunderstood and thought that we were discussing the beginning of Christianity, not centuries later. It is well known that the Christians persecuted both Jews and Muslims. The majority group traditionally revert from the persecuted to the persecutor.

elaine · 05-19-09 11:27 pm

We still use Jesus' counsel to instruct about how to keep the Sabbath. Is that how it was explained to you as an SDA growing up? He said that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. What did Jesus do on Sabbath that he did not do on all the other six? Did he ever direct anyone on rules to be observed on Sabbath?

don · 05-20-09 6:17 am

Is that how it was explained to you as an SDA growing up? No. Did he ever direct anyone on rules to be observed on Sabbath? Not that I am aware. However, to conclude from this that God is opposed to the idea of rest is incorrect. When Jesus presents the way of Sabbath observance, He establishes some sound and people-oriented principles. Jesus comes to the world as the Son of Man, that is, the head of the human race and as the Son of David, that is, the head of the Jewish nation. Christians often think that Jesus broke away from Judaism. As you have pointed out, He was a wonderful Jew. Paul, the great evangelist to the Gentiles, told those very Gentiles that they were being grafted into the organizational tree originally occupied by the Jews. The unbelieving Jews have been cut out, he said. One of the best examples of how the early Church was viewed as the new organizational entity is Acts 15. Here we have the Jewish Christians, rather than relying on the leaders of the Jewish nation to solve their problems, they turn to the leaders of the church, the apostles, to solve them. They abandon Deuteronomy 17 before they agree to abandon circumcision. Jesus opposed the oral law and upheld the written law. Matthew 15 is an example of this. It seems that, for the Christian, the "Oral Law" is the New Testament. i.e. The words of Jesus as Christianity's one and only Rabbi, or Teacher, and the words of the apostles, those who were instructed by that one and only Rabbi. Just as the "Oral Law" of Judaism does not deny the Law, but seeks to explain it; so Christianity does the same. Kugel points out that Judaism experienced major shifts in its understanding of their task. I submit, that Jesus provided such a major shift; a huge shift. So huge that most of the Jews rejected it, and Him. Acts 15 reports this change of the Oral Law, not an abandonment of the Hebrew Bible and the "righteous (moral) requirements" of the Torah. It can be easily demonstrated that the list of four prohibitions in Acts 15 was not intended as an all-inclusive list. .

don · 05-20-09 10:16 am

Arnold of Brescia, 1090-1155 I just recently came across this name as I was studying the various Church Councils. One dealt with him.<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Second Lateran Council (1139) held at Rome under Pope Innocent II with an attendance of about 1000 prelates and the Emperor Conrad. Its object was to put an end to the errors of Arnold of Brescia. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>Who was he? Never heard of him before. Thus far, I have learned that he believed that the leadership of the church should relinquish all property and worldly goods and practice what is called "apostolic poverty". He was a really popular person in his day. At one point, Rome was taken over and a republic was established called the Commune of Rome. Brescia had something to do with that. Apparently later, reformers consider him to be one of theirs. Gibbons reports favorably about him; Roman Catholic historians not so much so. He was hung for political sedition and his bones burned and sent down some river. This practice of burning and shipping heretic remains is intended to reduce the likelihood that their death and body would become enshrined somehow. The people of Brescia still like him. They have <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Monumento_ad_Arnaldo_da_Brescia0.JPG" target="_blank">a statue in his honor</a>. Anyway, a fascinating fellow. Perhaps, more on him later. .

elaine · 05-20-09 6:31 pm

Don, you surely know that all SDAs were not taught the same about the Sabbath and its proper observance. This is what colors the whole notion of "proper" Sabbath observance. Since Jesus did ONLY good things, how could any day make them holier? If he was holy, doesn't it follow that all of his actions would likewise be holy 24/7? Humans are not holy, and can try to follow his example, but it is impossible to do so. If the Sabbath was created for man, then isn't it left to man to enjoy it? And who decides what form of enjoyment is good for each individual? While I make no claim to holiness, yet I try to do nothing that is not good (that is all any of us are able to accomplish), so for me, the enjoyment of all days should be my decision, and if I aim to make all of my actions as good, then no one day is different from another. Trying to make a distinction in days, something that Paul explicitly spoke against, should remind us that no days were significant or special and whatever one chose, if based on his conviction, was right and proper. If Paul had the authority to abrogate ancient Jewish practices (circumcision was ordered long before the Sabbath), did he not also have the authority to make changes from the other Jewish practices of his day? To say that the Genesis mention of Sabbath was the first command, is not validated by the text: God rested, no mention of man, because it was God who had finished his work, man had done no work in which to rest. The story was not written until long after Sinai (at least no earlier than 1000 B.C.) and was never given to "mankind" but only to the Israelites. The older Creation story makes no mention of a Sabbath. Most Bible scholars believe that it was the Priests who aided or wrote the story of the separate days' activities in order to emphasize the Sabbath, something that had been nearly forgotten and led to their Babylonian captivity. If you are convinced otherwise, how can you demonstrate from the Bible the validity of your position?

elaine · 05-20-09 6:56 pm

Elaine, I thought of you. (My apologies.) For, you consistently espouse the idea that Paul founded Christianity rather than Jesus, whom you assert happened to be just a good Jew. People who say this claim to be scientific about it. IMO, it is a secular ideology laying claim to science and stating matters dogmatically. Thus, secular theology. Don, if by "secular theology" you mean studying religion via historical sources, that is how I follow it. Would you explain how you understand Paul's relationship to Christianity. IOW, had there been only the Gospels, how might things have been the same or different? We do know that Paul was the first writer of the NT, so his writing had tremendous influence on the new Jesus movement and reports on the emergence of a new form of religion beginning with the Jews. He preached "Christ and Him crucified" something that Jesus spoke about only prior to his resurrection. The Gospels are considered to have been written after the destruction of the temple, which was a major upheaval to the Jews and destroyed their only proper place for their sacrifices. Wasn't it at Pentecost where the first evidence of the Holy Spirit was given? Wasn't this after the Resurrection? What evidence do you find that Jesus founded a new movement that was later called Christianity? Isn't it that often the death of a great person becomes a heroic figure before a following becomes recognized? IOW, many became followers of Jesus after his death and resurrection, much more so than during his life? And that all of his followers while he was alive were faithful, practicing Jews? Did he plan or claim to have initiated Christianity, or was his message that of the kingdom, both here and in the future? Would Jesus have had such a distinction had his resurrection not been reported?

don · 05-20-09 8:39 pm

All we have are the Gospels with respect to Jesus and his life here on earth. If we accept the accounts as accurate, and I do, then we can build information from there. Jesus chose 12 disciples. These twelve later became active in the organization of the Church. In the Gospels Jesus gives clear indication that He is beginning the church. He sends out his followers instructing them to make disciples of all nations. Surely you know these things. .

elaine · 05-20-09 10:09 pm

All we have are the Gospels with respect to Jesus and his life here on earth. If we accept the accounts as accurate, and I do, How can they all be accurate when they all disagree on many points? How do you define accurate? Also, as they were written to convince their audience that Jesus was the Messiah, and not literal and accurate historically, where is there a single secular record of Jesus' life? No other secular accounts claim to be eyewitnesses, but amazingly, none of the Gospels or NT writers claim that, either. They all say they are reporting what they heard, not themselves observed. Which is why there are so many discrepancies. Among some: did Jesus' family take him to Egypt after his birth, or did they return to Nazareth? Why is there no secular account of Herod's order to kill newborn males? Surely, such a terrible order would have been written somewhere, wouldn't it? And the discrepancies between the trial cannot both be correct, can they?

don · 05-21-09 2:55 am

they were written to convince their audience that Jesus was the Messiah, and not literal and accurate historically, where is there a single secular record of Jesus' life? I agree that the Gospel writers had an agenda prompting them to record the events as they did. Thus, I believe that they record the Sabbath ideas of Jesus to help the nascent church view the Sabbath of the Christian era correctly. But, I also believe that the Gospel authors wrote their accounts intending them to be literal and accurate history. You may be acquainted with the Tatian's Diatessaron dating from about 150 A.D. He melds the four Gospels into one sequence. (Side notes: several interesting benefits to Tatian's work include: <ol><li>an earlier manuscript record for the Gospel Story than the separate Gospels preserved; <LI>a separate translation of the Hebrew as opposed to the Septuagint translation. <LI>an early witness to the already established authority of the four Gospels.)</li></ol>The attempt to reconcile the four Gospels is old indeed. One interesting attempt involves the story of the woman who anoints Jesus. The anointing of Jesus shows up in all four Gospels. Sometimes His head is anointed; sometimes His feet. One Gospel records indignation about Jesus allowing such a sinner to anoint Him whereas the other Gospels report the voiced concern about the expense and the poor. Most, if not all, say that the woman anointed Jesus for His future burial. In a recent harmony of the Gospels, John's account is treated separately, as another anointing. Interesting to Adventists, in Desire of Ages, Ellen White melds all four accounts into one. It can be shown that the various accounts support and embellish each other. There are very few unresolvable difficulties. I don't believe that it is necessary to go on such a quest to reconcile the four. My concept of inspiration allows for such discrepancies. Also, it is a mind challenging task, thus a good educational tool, to seek to explain how they can all be true. They all say they are reporting what they heard, not themselves observed. I don't think this is correct. Only Luke says this. The rest don't reveal the viewpoint of the author outright, do they? They do come with their titles, "The Gospel According to...". I believe these writings truly reflect The Gospel According to... the disciples Matthew and John and the NT characters of Mark and Luke. (Message edited by Don on May 21, 2009)

neal · 05-21-09 9:29 am

All we have are the Gospels with respect to Jesus and his life here on earth. That is an extremely misleading statement. We know of many Gospels besides the 4 that the Catholics decided to canonize. There are many other deeds and sayings of Jesus which are never discussed by preachers because the Catholics didn't include them in the christian Bible.

don · 05-21-09 10:37 am

That is an extremely misleading statement. We know of many Gospels besides the 4 that the Catholics decided to canonize. You are correct. I was thinking very well. Thanks. Here is a modification of what I have said: All we have are the written records with respect to Jesus and his life here on earth. An interesting study would be to list all the actions of Jesus reported in any writing dated before 200 A.D. These non-canonical accounts, how much did they add to the stories? I am aware of a few:<blockquote>The Infancy Gospel of Thomas describes a very severe youth killing others for annoying Him. The Gospel of Philip tells of Jesus kissing Mary and the disciples getting jealous of the attention.</blockquote>Those are the only two extra-biblical accounts I can recall at the moment. Can anyone else contribute to the list? .

elaine · 05-21-09 6:41 pm

There are literally more than a dozen different "Gospels" that were used as such by the early church. Some, 1 Enoch, greatly influenced the church. There are records of many of the early church fathers quoting from these "Scriptures." So, yes, there were writings used by the early church and the Four Gospels we have were certainly not exclusive. Your statement that the names of the Gospels are the same individuals borne by the disciples, is without evidence, excepting Luke. In fact, it was a common form of writing used for many centuries of attributing a recognized name to give it more "umph," if you will. We do know that Luke was the writer of Luke-Acts and was intended to be one Gospel, but was later separated. Because it is very questionable that any of Jesus' disciples were literate in Greek (poor fishermen?) that they wrote anything. Some of the early writings that were initially used by the church: The Epistle of Barnabas was considered genuine from the time of Clement of Alexandira (ca. 200 C.E.) and was included in the NT canon in Codex Sinaicticus (early fifth century). The Didache was mentioned during the second to fourth centuries and was probaby composed in the early to mid-second century in Syria. It seems to quote most directly from Matthew and may reflect the development of an early form of Jewish Christianity. Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians: First Letter of Clement ca. 100-120 C.E. He writes to the church on the virtues of obedience, faith and hospitality. Of interest is that 1 Clement shows no awareness of the New Testament as a collection or source of authority unto itself. The letters of Paul are cited as authority, but this is done because Paul was an "apostle" and his apostolic authority was passed on in the church by the appointment of bishops and deacons. For 1 Clement "scriptures" still refers to the Jewish scriptures, the Septuagint. A treatise called the Shepherd was attributed to a certain Hermas, a member of the church at Rome. In Alexandria, the Shepherd was considered part of the New Testament. Both Clement and Tertullian treat it as scripture. It was also contained in the NT in Codex Sinaiticus and early versions of the Latin Vulgate Bible; it was known as early as the time of Irenaeus (ca. 177 C.E.) There were seven Letters of Ignatius (ca, 113-117 CE) to the seven churches, much like the seven churches in John's Revelation. He writes about heresy in the churches and about being deceived about attitudes toward the Jewish scriptures and particularly whether the Jewish laws are still binding, He sets "Christianism" in oppostion to Judaism, just as the observance of the Sabbath is opposed to the "Lord Day." He is far more concerned with Christians who hold the view that Jesus was divine but never a flesh-and-blood human. He also shows little awareness of those writings from the NT that would have existed in his day, and also shows limited awareness of Paul and may paraphrase at times from l Corinthians, but does not seem to know the other letters. Polycap wrote a Letter to the Philippians (ca. 117-118) warning against false teaching, and calling for vituous living in the members. Other apologists are: Quadratus }(120-38 CE) fragments of which are preserved in Eusebius Church History; Aristides of Athens (}120-47 CE) written to the emperor Hadrian preserved in in a Syriac manuscript; Tatian, the Syrian (a student of Justin, Rome, ca. 170) Address to the Greeks, fragments preserved; Melito, bishop of Sardis, ca. 175), an apology addressed to the emporor Marcus Aurelius; Claudius Apollinaris, bishop of Hierapolis, ca. 175 CE) an apology also addressed to the emperor Marcus Aurelius; Athenagoras, Athens, ca. 177; Supplication for the Christians; Theolipus, bishop of Antioch (attack on idolatry and defense of basic Christian beliefs); Tertullian, To the Nations, Apology, (ca. 180) Minucius Felix, Ostia or North Africa, ca. 200, Octavius }a dialogue between a Christian and a pagan friend, Caecilus; Anonymous, ca. 161-203 To Diognetus.} Perhaps addressed to the tutor of Marcus Aurelius (ca. 161-180). The work is sometimes called the Epistle to Diognetus. Then there is 1 Enoch }, the story of how a band of unruly angels under his leadership rebelled against the authority and order of God, raped human women, and were cast out of heaven. From this innovative story the adversary of God was known by many different names and became one of the mainstays of Jewish apocalyptic. While it will not be found in anyone's Bible, yet it is one of the most influential stories in early Judaism and had an even greater impact on Christian tradition. The story of the fallen angels was also known to pagans as a basic belief of Jews and Christians. In second century Christianity there is a work known as the Life of Adam and Eve, and several different manuscripts and versions in Greek, Latin, Slavonic, Armenian, and Georgia. A shorter version is known as the Apocalypse of Moses, presumably dated between the second and first centuries BCE. It is an expansion on Genesis 3, the temptation and fall. The Gospel of Thomas (ca., 115 CE) is thought to have originated in Syria. The earliest Syrian Christian author is Tatian (ca, 130-200 CE). He traveled to Antioch and finally to Rome, where he studied under Justin Martyr, Returning to Syria in the 170s, it was there he wrote hisAddress to the Greeks. He also compiled a version of the four Gospels harmonized into ("through the four"). It has long been suggested that Tatian's mode of quotation from the Gospels is related to that found in theGospel of Thomas. There is also The Acts of Thomas and the Book of Thomas, as well as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas which tells of Jesus' early years growing up in Nazareth. This is only a partial list of the many writings that were extant in the early three centuries. (Taken "From Jesus to Christianity" by L. Michael White.)

don · 05-21-09 10:06 pm

If we are going to examine the Gospel accounts then we should keep to the writings which tell the story. Probably the writings which are identified with the word "Gospel" are the ones of interest. It should be noted that the dating of these writings is an inexact science. Scholars debate and redebate their conclusions on such. Some reasons for later dates are obvious. For example, if the work quotes from another work. How many "Gospels" are on record, thus far?<blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><ol><li>Gospel of Thomas <LI>Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel <LI>Sophia of Jesus Christ <LI>Gospel of Mark <LI>Egerton Gospel <LI>Gospel of Peter <LI>Secret Mark <LI>Gospel of Matthew <LI>Gospel of Luke <LI>Gospel of the Egyptians <LI>Gospel of the Hebrews <LI>Gospel of John <LI>Gospel of the Ebionites <LI>Gospel of the Nazoreans <LI>Oxyrhynchus 840 Gospel <LI>Gospel of Mary <LI>Dialogue of the Savior <LI>Gospel of the Savior <LI>Gospel of Judas <LI>Infancy Gospel of James <LI>Infancy Gospel of Thomas <LI>Gospel of Truth <LI>Diatessaron <LI>Dura-Europos Gospel Harmony <LI>Treatise on the Resurrection <LI>Gospel of Philip</li></ol></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote>

elaine · 05-22-09 5:39 pm

It was left to the early chuch to decide which of many Gospels and Letters to include in the NT canon. If one decides which stories, and only those chosen, are the truthful story, then one's faith is, inevitably, in those humans who made such decisions. One cannot claim to believe that everything in the Bible is the Word of God, without also claiming that all the men who decided what would be incorporated in it were also men of God. The Christian's faith rests entirely on their judgment. Yet their judgment on other matters such as: which day should be observed, which doctrines are dogma, was also pre-decided upon also. Faith is marvelous when it extends to the infallibility or inerrancy of humans, which is what one must declare who takes the Bible as "God's Word."

elaine · 05-22-09 5:42 pm

Is "God's Word" limited to what is written in the Bible? Is everything in the Bible inspired by God? Did inspired men write the Bible? Did inspiration end when the Bible was completed? By what criteria were the many Gospels and other letters chosen for inclusion or elimination? If we are not sure how all those decisions were made, how we be so assured that everything is accurate, truthful and God's Word? Is it really faith in God, or faith in humans?

don · 05-22-09 10:27 pm

One cannot claim to believe that everything in the Bible is the Word of God, without also claiming that all the men who decided what would be incorporated in it were also men of God. Actually, my confidence is in the writer of the Book included. Those who included the book did so because their local congregations believed these writings were reliable. We can either allow these early Christians a priority of say regarding the book included or we will have to assess the book ourselves. I suggest that both actually occurs. Luther's dislike of the book of James is an example of rethinking the canon. Once I decide that the book should be included, then I use the book to measure those very church leaders who decided to include the book. Regarding inspired writings, I believe that every generation had its inspired writers. I also believe that the closing of the canon was a wise thing for the 4th century church to do. It allowed for an understanding of truth to develop. The canonical writings could be studied and truth systematized from them. The whole of the Christian world have common ground on which to share "spiritual notes". The Christian's faith rests entirely on their judgment. Yes, but once their judgment re: the canon is accepted, then their own assertions come under canonical judgment. So the deciders are not canonical in their written words. Their writers now are scrutinized by the very writings they reported (asserted) to be canonical. Yet their judgment on other matters such as: which day should be observed, which doctrines are dogma, was also pre-decided upon also. We have the canon. We now judge those who voted the canon by that very collection. If they assert a doctrine unsupported by the canon their very doctrine is rejected. Faith is marvelous when it extends to the infallibility or inerrancy of humans, which is what one must declare who takes the Bible as "God's Word." Not necessarily. The writers were erring humans reporting divine truth with the help of the Holy Spirit. Out of this we have "God's Word" useful for moral guidance and worship. .

john8verse32 · 05-22-09 11:52 pm

speaking about "messiness".... we have "God's Word" useful for moral guidance can you help us with what "moral guidance" you are blessed with from these texts in Ex 12-13? 23 During that night the LORD will go through the country of Egypt and kill the first-born son in every Egyptian family. He will see where you have put the blood, and he will not come into your house. His angel that brings death will pass over and not kill your first-born sons. 24 25 After you have entered the country promised to you by the LORD, you and your children must continue to celebrate Passover each year. 26 Your children will ask you, "What are we celebrating?" 27 And you will answer, "The Passover animal is killed to honor the LORD. We do these things because on that night long ago ...the LORD passed over the homes of our people in Egypt.... He killed the first-born sons of the Egyptians you must explain to your children that you do this because the LORD brought you out of Egypt. 9 This celebration will be like wearing a sign on your hand or on your forehead, because then you will pass on to others the teaching of the LORD, whose mighty power brought you out of Egypt. 10 Celebrate this festival each year at the same time. 11 The LORD will give you the land of the Canaanites, just as he promised you and your ancestors. 12 From then on, you must give him every first-born son from your families and every first-born male from your animals, because these belong to him. omg!!! whatdoes "GIVE" mean????? 13 You can save the life of a first-born donkey by sacrificing a lamb; if you don't, you must break the donkey's neck. wow!!!! if you must kill your donkey unless you kill a lamb, what do you have to do in order not to have to kill your first born son???? You must save every first-born son. 14 In the future your children will ask what this ceremony means. Explain it to them by saying, "The LORD used his mighty power to rescue us from slavery in Egypt. 15 The king stubbornly refused to set us free, ... ...so the LORD killed the first-born male of every animal and the first-born son of every Egyptian family. This is why we sacrifice to the LORD what is the morality in killing the animals? and what is the purpose and philosophical morality of massacring the first born sons of EVERY family when it was the Pharoah who needed waterboarding??? and where is the justice in telling the HEbrews that God will give theland of Caanan to them? and in the process, will help them massacre all those people too? remember in the story, theHebrews left Caanan for Ebypt due to a drought which they could not take, and which either their God couldnot or would not stop.... nevertheless, some people, the Caananites, stayed behind in the Land of Caanan, and made a go of it. Now the Hebrews come out of Egypt, and want the land back..after they had left it in the first place.... and the moral of the story is that they claim their God not only commands them, but helps them to kill all the inhabitants who had stayed behind during the drought, and made a go if it in Caanan. where is the justice? where is the morality? do you spose that is one of the reasons we are at war with Allahs people today? because today WE are helping the Hebrews to take back their land (after the British started it with "partition"), and we are helping the Hebrews to slaughter their neighbors even today!!! at least, lasttime the Israelis shelled Gaza it appeared they were using banned, magnesium fire shells.... designed to burn their victims....painfully....just like God said he is going to do.... and we are supposed to worship this ? (Message edited by john8verse32 on May 23, 2009)

don · 05-23-09 7:44 am

and what is the purpose and philosophical morality of massacring the first born sons of EVERY family when it was the Pharoah who needed waterboarding??? John, you have suggested that the Biblical accounts of God should be viewed as campfire stories intended for edutainment purposes. What could those purposes be? The account seems to be saying of God, "Don't mess with my people. Bad things happen to those who do so." The "sins" of a nation's leader effects the whole nation in its consequence not just that leader. Eg. Hitler drew in his people to support his expansionist plans. When the Allies fought back and carpet-bombed the major cities of Germany the people suffered for the sins of Hitler. In Biblical fashion, a modern writer could call the death of all those innocent people as an action of God. The Bible not only presents a God who slaughters the innocent along with guilty, but it also presents a God who sends rain down on both. Politically and scientifically we can explain the actions of God without talking about Him at all. Indian religions teach Karma, i.e. that cause and effect are determined by one's previous actions. The Bible depicts God as responsible for such effects. In worshipping the God of the Bible, we are not to try to be like Him in his capacity to destroy. Christians see this clearly. "Be like Jesus, this my song." Compare that to "Vengeance is Mine (not ours), saith the Lord." The Christian recognizes that eternal judgment is a divine, not human, responsibility. This Christian, yours truly, also recognizes the duality of the report of God. Most of the Biblical account of God can be explained historically, politically, and scientifically without Him. When one speaks of the actions of God, any resemblance to me, as a human, is an anthropomorphic attempt to place God in the human experience. Any reported revelation of God apart from the report of Jesus is shrouded in this need to be culturally anthropomorphic. .

john8verse32 · 05-23-09 9:47 am

the Biblical accounts of God should be viewed as campfire stories intended for edutainment purposes. What could those purposes be? as proof that the God of the Hebrews, as they claimed and wrote, is bigger, badder, and stronger than everybody elses gods... as when moses rods turned snakes ate the other snakes!!! I've read a number of reasonable explanations for the first 9 plagues.... if they happened over a prolonged period of time.... the annual flood doesn't happen in the Nile???muddy river looks red like blood, stagnates and the fish and frogs die, which brings flies and lice, which transmit plague to the cattle....anthrax...which spread as boils to people.... The 10thplague is harder to fathom, both from a philosophical justification, if you take the Hebrew autobiography literally, or from a natural event.... current archeological digs purporting to show that Ramses had a number of kids, younger than him, buried in his tomb, might, repeat, might suggest a source for the myth of the 10th plague.... possibly inbreeding in the royal line could have diminished their life forces? and many of Ramses kids died off? which the hebrews noted in their family history and claimed that their God was responsible for this???? in an effort to allow them to leave?

elaine · 05-23-09 4:09 pm

Those who included the book did so because their local congregations believed these writings were reliable. There were many separate congregations and often, each had their own favorite "Scriptures." So there was a final consensus in the fourth century which ones would eventually be in the canon, which also meant some of the "favorites" would be eliminated. Luther not only did not think James should be in the NT, but also did not like Revelation (I can understand why). Wouldn't Christians be much more honest and consistent if they viewed the OT as the Hebrews' account of their origins, religious beliefs, and to be informed of how it affected Jesus and his different proclamations? If used in this way, it would be much less confusing than trying to combine the two, but yet on a selective basis. Few Christians today accept that all the rules and laws in the OT are applicable to Christians today, Adventists being the major exception. As one SDA pastor has written: The four unique and distinctive doctrines of the SDA church are found exclusively as commands only in the OT: they are: Sabbath (given exclusively to the Israelites). Tithing--never commanded in the NT. Investigative Judgment (Daniel, an OT prophet). State of the Dead (using Ecclesiastes for support). None of these four that are unique to Adventism, and which few other Christian denominations accept, or derived solely from the Hebrew Bible.

elaine · 05-23-09 6:39 pm

The Letter of James is not cited by early Christian authors prior to the middle of the third century C.E. and it seems to have bee associated with Palestine, It was not generally regarded as part of the New Testament until the mid-fourth century and afterward. Nor is James, the brother of Jesus ever mentioned among the disciples in the Gospels. In the early centuries the book of Revelation was quite controversial and not uniformly considered scripture, It was not received into the Western canon until 393-94 C.E., and then only after a symbolic reading because the authoritative interpretation through Augustine. Prior to that there was an ongoing debate in the early church whether the "John" named as author was the apostle John or another person. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons (ca. 180 CE), thought it was the apostle John who also wrote the Gospel, while Gaius, bishop of Rome, and Dionysis, bishop of Alexandria (both early third century), denounced it as a work of the heretic Cerinthus (a notorious opponent of John in later legends). Ultimately Eusebius, following a tradition from Papias (ca. 130), attributed it to a differen John "the Elder" and denied it scripturalo status. These ancient debates over authorship were really concerned with the book's canonical status and interpretation of its radical apocalyptic imagery. Several notable Christian writers of the second century (including Papias and Tatian, a disciple of Justin Martyr) took it as a literal prediction that a thousand-year kingdom was coming during their lifetime. As more time passed these predictions were given up as false. On the basis of style, vocabulary, and tone, however, it is most unlikely that it was written by the same author who wrote the Gospel of John. It was typical in apocalyptic literature to claim apostolic authority. The description in Revelations 13:1-18, with the infamous "mark of the beast" is deciphered as follows: The five kings who "have fallen" (died) are the Julio-Claudian emperors: Augustus (28 BCE-14 CE), Tiberius (14-37 CE, Gaius, or Caligula (37-41), Claudius 41-54), Nero (54-68). The next two--the "one [who] is living" and the one who will arise but "remain only a little while" --refer respectively to Vespasian (69-79) and his son Titus, who only ruled as emperor for two years (79-81). The "eighth" beast refers to the emperior Domitian, the younger son of Vespasian, who would rule from 81 to 96 C.E.) Domitian, like Nero, was infamous for his brutality and megalomiania, even getting the Senate to confer the title Dominus et Deus ("Lord and God") on him during his lifetime. In the self-proclaimed Domitian, it was thought of as Nero come back to life. (Taken from L. Michael White's From Jesus to Christianity.

don · 05-23-09 7:13 pm

The four unique and distinctive doctrines of the SDA church are found exclusively as commands only in the OT: they are: Sabbath (given exclusively to the Israelites). Tithing--never commanded in the NT. Investigative Judgment (Daniel, an OT prophet). State of the Dead (using Ecclesiastes for support). Notice the need to consider these four "commands". Why? Is it possible that the NT provides guidance on the Sabbath but because the author does not want that guidance he insists that it must be a command to be valid. But, where is the State of the Dead a command? When Jesus called death a sleep, what did He mean? Jesus even tacitly endorsed tithing in Matthew 23:23. This is ignored to support the thesis that Adventists are OT people. There are NT passages which can be explained as part of the Investigative Judgment not just the impressive Daniel 7. The souls under the altar (the fifth seal) are given white robes and told to wait a little longer. A point is announced where the holy stay holy and the wicked stay wicked. During the plagues no one is allowed to enter the temple until the plagues are completed. This is hardly an exclusive dependence on the Hebrew Bible. Whoever contends what you have written need to rethink the literary evidence showing them to be incorrect. .

elaine · 05-23-09 9:02 pm

Instead of "commands" it should have been the unique doctrines' source was the OT. What "guidance" do you find inthe NT for the Sabbath other than Jesus' statement that it was made for man, and his healing? This would have been expected of a good Jew and villified even in what he did. "Sleep" as a euphemism for death--you can explain its meaning, as in other NT writings doesn't Paul speak of either staying or "going to be with the Lord"? Doesn't Jesus tell the parable of the poor man man died and was carried away by the angels to the bosom of Abraham. A rich man also died and was buried. In his torment in Hades the poor man saw Abraham a long way off with Lazarus in his bosom, and cried out, "Father Abraham, pity me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in agony in these flames. Abraham replied "remember that during your life good things came your way, just as bad things came the way of Lazarus....Now he is being comforted here while you are in agony. But that is not all: between us and you a great gulf has been fixed, to stop anyone, if he wanted to, crossing from our side to yours, and to stop any crossing from your side to ours." This was surely a common belief, else it would have had no meaning. While parables are not literal, they certain tell a story of concepts that are known to the audience, so whether Jesus believed it (why did he use it?) the listeners understood its meaning. Tithing: Paul in the second letter to Corinthians writes: "A man is acceptable with whatever he can afford; never mind what is beyond his means. This does not mean that to give relief to others you ought to make things difficult for yourselves. It is a question of balancing what happens to be your surplus now against their present need." Even in the Hebrew Bible tithing was based on an agrarian economy and was to be based only on the "increase" which would infer that after one's needs were met, tithe should then be paid. And as John Alfke has shown, the first born of all males was also to be given to the Lord, and additionally, other animal offerings. We "pick" certain things as tithe, but inconsistently forget about the other rules given when tithe was instituted. If tithe is to be based on the "increase" a businessman would deduct all the expenses in operating a business and only tithe on what was remaining. For an employee, it would also be that after the costs of being employed, housed, fed, and clothed were cared for, then, and only then tithe should be paid on the "Increase." That is NOT how it has been taught. Rather, tithe should be paid FIRST, then what is leftover is for food, clothes, shelter, etc. That is not the Bible pattern. Nor, is the changing designation of the "storehouse" which varies according to what needs the church decides.

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#26 05-19-09 12:54 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#27 05-19-09 10:50 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#28 05-19-09 11:19 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#29 05-19-09 11:27 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#30 05-20-09 6:17 am

Re: The Messiness of History

#31 05-20-09 10:16 am

Re: The Messiness of History

#32 05-20-09 6:31 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#33 05-20-09 6:56 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#34 05-20-09 8:39 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#35 05-20-09 10:09 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#36 05-21-09 2:55 am

Re: The Messiness of History

#37 05-21-09 9:29 am

Re: The Messiness of History

#38 05-21-09 10:37 am

Re: The Messiness of History

#39 05-21-09 6:41 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#40 05-21-09 10:06 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#41 05-22-09 5:39 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#42 05-22-09 5:42 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#43 05-22-09 10:27 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#44 05-22-09 11:52 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#45 05-23-09 7:44 am

Re: The Messiness of History

#46 05-23-09 9:47 am

Re: The Messiness of History

#47 05-23-09 4:09 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#48 05-23-09 6:39 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#49 05-23-09 7:13 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#50 05-23-09 9:02 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

Board footer