The Messiness of History

don · 05-23-09 10:29 pm

The attempt to characterize the Adventist church as based exclusively on the OT fails. Is that any surprise? The movement of the Third Angel's Message recognizes both the Old and the New as having validity. To characterize Jesus as merely a good Jew ignores Jesus' statements about building His church and laying the axe to the roots and the nations taking the kingdom. I submit that the Gospel (according to the canonical writers) presents Jesus' message to His Church. The idea that Jesus' death, or the event of Pentecost, nullified all his prior statements does not make sense to me. I am a follower of Jesus as reported in the whole of the NT canon. To say that Adventists base their doctrines exclusively on the OT is clearly incorrect. Why present such a distortion of Adventist thinking? The Ten Commandments enjoy support by many, many Christians; people would not think of accusing of being Jewish. We share the Sabbath with Seventh-day Baptists. I have not read of them being accused of being Jewish and based on the OT. Tithing also enjoys the support of Christian communities who have avoided the accusation of being Jewish. The IJ, or PreAdvent Judgment, is a Biblical interpretation relying on both Old and New Testament passages. The State of the Dead doctrine rallies both passages from the Old and the New. We share this view with the Advent Christian Church, United Pentecostals, and others. They are not accused of being Jewish. The idea of Clean and Unclean foods is certainly a minority view among the Christian churches, but even the Adventist view of this can hardly be called Jewish. Adventists do not practice the regulations of Leviticus 11. They simply lift the notion of Clean and Unclean and adopt it as part of their health message. Kosher is not an Adventist doctrine. Admittedly, we have a ways to go before we show a sound logic regarding clean and unclean and the health message. .

elaine · 05-23-09 11:15 pm

I do not recall saying that Jesus' death, or the event of Pentecost, nullified all his prior statements. Paul's letters were written at least a generation PRIOR to the Gospels, and he took great liberty in changing ancient Jewish rituals: Circumcision, older than the Sabbath command; food laws originating at Sinai; separate eating for Jews and Gentiles. Nor did I say that Adventists base their doctrines exclusively on the OT. What I said was that the UNIQUE doctrines, not doctrines in common to the other Christian churches. Any Christian church that adopts Sabbath observance MUST base in on the OT, as there is nothing in the NT concerning how, who, or why it should be observed. This comes from the OT. Yes, other churches tithe and believe in the Ten Commandments, but those are based on the OT instructions, regardless of which churches use them. To repeat: the UNIQUE SDA doctrines are based on the OT; I did not say that no other churches did not also believe them. It still stands that they arrive at those beliefs from the OT. As for the Levitical laws, it cannot be denied that some are still considered relevant by Adventists, while others, also in the clean and unclean category are not. Kashrut, or Kosher, is a general term that Orthodox Jews live by. Having traveled in Israel, the Kosher laws are very strict there: no meat and milk products at the same table; no butter, only margarine with any meat. Also, their Sabbath rules in the Hasidic Quarter are very strict, but based on their Scriptures. What do SDAs base their Sabbath prohibitions on, since none were given in the NT? I agree that good logic is missing and demonstrates the inconsistency in application.

don · 05-24-09 10:26 am

The four unique and distinctive doctrines of the SDA church are found exclusively as doctrines only in the OT: they are: <blockquote>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). </blockquote>Actually, I use Genesis and the Gospel accounts to point out that the Sabbath has obvious intention for humanity. It was Jesus who said, "The Sabbath was made for man...". No matter how you may want to argue against my conclusions, I use the NT to update my doctrine of the Sabbath. Yes, it begins with Creation and the Exodus. It includes Isaiah, Jeremiah and Nehemiah, but it doesn't stop there. It includes Jesus, paramount of all. The balance of made for man not man for is an essential concept to my understanding of the Sabbath. Also, Jesus proclaiming Himself Lord of the Sabbath and that it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath day provides essential doctrinally guidance to my Sabbath-keeping. So, it is not an exclusively OT doctrine for me. If you want to decry anything with OT origins, (and I don't think you want to do that), then most of the concepts of Christianity have their origins in the OT. I have been thinking of the characterizing of unique Adventist doctrines as exclusively OT doctrines. The statement, apart from being untrue, hints of the anti-semitism of some Second and Third century post-apostolic writers. Ah, but then I remember that you have lumped Jesus into that category, too, calling Him merely a good Jew. If Adventists are Jewish-like in their doctrine and Jesus was a good Jew, it sounds like good company, doesn't it? Christians continue to worship a Jew in heaven, right? I submit, that it can be shown that Paul did not oppose the Ten Commandments, rather He opposed circumcision and more specifically, the Oral Law, encompassing the very spirit of Judaism as it had become and is. Paul considered the instilling of the "righteous requirements" of the Law (See Romans 8) into the Christian to be the purpose of the Gospel through the Holy Spirit. Christianity does not proclaim the Law done away. Rather, it proclaims the Law ineffective in bringing about forgiveness and obedience. Thus the NT focuses on Jesus because Jesus, through His Spirit enables the Christian to meet the "righteous requirements" of the Law. Adventist assert the importance of the Hebrew Scriptures in their quest for Scriptural truth, just as Paul instucted Christians to use them. Why is it any surprise that we have done so? But we also view the NT as the Word of God, again acknowledging Paul's assertions on this as well. What are the distinctive teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist Church? Are they founded exclusively in the Hebrew Scriptures?<ul><li>Jesus as our Savior. Distinctive? Yes, and considering 1888, hard won. <LI>The Sabbath <LI>Conditional Immortality <LI>Historicism <LI>Premillennialism <LI>The Sanctuary Message and the Investigative Judgment <LI>Remnant <LI>Three Angels' Messages <LI>The Great Controversy between Christ and Satan <LI>Eschatology <LI>Spiritual Gifts manifested in Ellen G. White. <LI>The Health Message.</li></ul>Adventism presents what it calls the "message" to the world. This message finds both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament Scriptures to be the foundation documents for their arrival at "truth". .

elaine · 05-24-09 2:30 pm

Where does Paul use the term "oral law"? Doesn't he refer to the law written in stone as being obsolete? What possible Law other than the Decalogue could he have been referring to? There was no distinction in Paul's or the Jewish mind of such separation as "oral," "moral," or "civil." All were called either "Moses' Law" sometimes "Moses" or Law of God. Didn't Christ say that the Law was contained in the command to love one's neighbor as ones self? Also, that the Gentiles lived by a natural law. How could a "natural" law possibly tell them not to worship idols, obey the feasts and festivals including the Sabbath, and have only one god? The only commonality in the Decalogue with all civil laws (Hammurabi predates Sinai by a millennium) were against killing, stealing, and lying. Covetousnes cannot be prosecuted, and only in a theocracy such as the Israelites or Saudi Arabia today, can enforce belief and worship in a god. For those who wish to return to the Decalogue: are you willing to live under a theocracy where some monarch demands that you worship a god; that you offer him sacrifices; that you observe a religious rest day; that you cease all coveting? Thank God we do not live under a theocratic law or ruler. Only in a theocracy can the Decalogue be properly observed, and only with the punishments directed toward those who ignore it.

don · 05-24-09 6:02 pm

Where does Paul use the term "oral law"? Paul uses the same phrase as Jesus, i.e. <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3862&t=KJV" target="_blank">the traditions of men</a>. This is the Oral Law; the extra-Biblical aspect of Jewish Law. There was no distinction in Paul's or the Jewish mind of such separation as "oral," "moral," or "civil." I realize it is a common idea that the Jewish Law cannot be parsed into different types of laws. Of course, for the Jew it can't. Jesus made a distinction: The Commandments of God vs the Traditions of Men; The Decalogue and its written Biblical management vs the Opinions of the Elders, the Oral Law. Paul made reference to the "Righteous Requirements of the Law". He referred to this as "holy and just and good." He even said that, as a Christian, he was "serving the law of God." See <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom%207:23-25;&version=49;" target="_blank">Romans 7</a>. However, we don't find him calling circumcision holy and just and good. When he serves the Law of God, he is not speaking of circumcision. Thus the Law is parsed. It has at least two components; i.e. a part kept by Christians and a part not kept. In contrast to the "righteous requirements of the law" Paul refers to the beggarly elements of the world; the rudiments of the world; <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3862&t=KJV" target="_blank">the traditions of men</a>, i.e. the Oral Law.<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, [so] walk ye in him: Col 2:7 Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3862&t=KJV" target="_blank">the traditions of men</a>, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>It should also be noted that neither the righteous requirements of the law nor the beggarly elements of the law can effect our salvation. For that we need Jesus apart from law. But, the righteous requirements of the law still are in effect whereas the beggarly elements have been let go now that we have Christ. .

elaine · 05-25-09 12:13 am

Don, how do you interpret Paul: "But now we are rid of the Law, freed by death from our imprisonment, free to serve in the new spiritual way and notthe old way of a written law." "But now the Law has come to an end with Christ and everyone who has faith may be justified." "....all our qualifications come from God. He is the one who has given us the qualifications to be the administrtors of this new covenant, which is not a covenant of written letters but of the Spirit; the written letters bring death but the Spirit giveds life...The written letters engraved on stones..." What law if not the Ten Commandments could Paul have been referring to? The oral law--the traditions of men was not written in stone, was it? How do you explain what "written in stone"

don · 05-25-09 11:38 am

"Now we are rid of the Law, freed by death from our imprisonment, free to serve in thenew spiritual way and not the old way of a written law." This is Romans 7:6 Other translations:<blockquote>New American Standard Bible But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter. King James Bible But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. American Standard Version But now we have been discharged from the law, having died to that wherein we were held; so that we serve in newness of the spirit, and not in oldness of the letter. Douay-Rheims Bible But now we are loosed from the law of death, wherein we were detained; so that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. New Living Translation 6 But now we have been released from the law, for we died to it and are no longer captive to its power. Now we can serve God, not in the old way of obeying the letter of the law, but in the new way of living in the Spirit. </blockquote>Now we are delivered from the law, we are discharged from the law. How did this happen? Has it happened for all who live? Notice Romans 7:4, "you became free from the law through the body of Christ." Of course, not all have taken on Christ, so I conclude that the law still has them. They have not yet been discharged from the law. They need Jesus. Even the eternal principles of God's kingdom without the work of Jesus Christ hold us prisoner until we can be freed by Jesus. For what purpose, to violate the written code? Of course not. But the principles of the Kingdom cannot be fully lived by the written code. We need the law written on our hearts. We are discharged from the law but the law is not discharged from its role. Romans 3:31, "So do we destroy the law by following the way of faith? No! Faith causes us to be what the law truly wants." The word "destroy" is the same Greek word translated "discharged" or "rid of" in the translations above. Let's use the same words for this Greek word: "So do we get rid of the law by following the way of faith. No! Faith causes us to be what the law truly wants." i.e. the righteous requirements. I repeat: The Law has been discharged as my judge; Jesus now is my judge. Whew! Good thing, too. But the unrepentant sinner has not been discharged from the Law, yet. The law is still his judge. .

elaine · 05-25-09 2:44 pm

Don, you have partially answered my question, but are continuing to evade my principal question: What do you believe about the Law written in letters of stone? How can it have validity today if it has been done away with?

don · 05-25-09 5:18 pm

What do you believe about the Law written in letters of stone? How can it have validity today if it has been done away with? The Law written in letters of stone stands in opposition to the Law written on the heart. Both Laws define the same "righteous requirements" of God. The Law written in stone can only condemn. It is powerless. The Law written on the heart got their because of Jesus Christ through His Holy Spirit. Thus, the Law on the heart is powerful. The Law written on stone is powerless. The Law written on the heart is powerful. The Law written on stone defines "righteous requirements" The Law written on the heart not only defines "righteous requirements" it lives them out in the life. The letter killeth; the spirit brings life. The "righteous requirements" are similar. The letter is limited as all letters are; the heart is unlimited as only the heart can be. <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:2 Corinthians 3:4 Such confidence as this is ours through Christ before God. 5 Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God. 6 He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 7 Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, 8 will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? 9 If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! 10 For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. 11 And if what was fading away came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts! <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> .

elaine · 05-25-09 6:54 pm

Thanks, Don. I'm beginning to understand your position better. Do you believe that we are now living under a new covenant? If so, what are its demands? And how does the law apply if spiritual? The written law only says: thou shalt not kill Christ's new commands: Love your neighbor as yourself. The written law says No lying. Christ's law repeats the golden rule. Neither love nor Golden Rule can be commanded, it must emanate from the heart.

don · 05-25-09 9:01 pm

"SPIRIT" & "LETTER" by Martin Luther (Elaine, in my further study of the "letter and the spirit", I have run across this piece by Martin Luther.)<blockquote>21. Paul employs the word "letter" in such contemptuous sense in reference to the Law--though the Law is, nevertheless, the Word of God--when he compares it with the ministry of the Gospel. The letter is to him the doctrine of the Ten Commandments, which teach how we should obey God, honor parents, love our neighbor, and so on--the very best doctrine to be found in all books, sermons and schools. The word "letter" is to the apostle Paul everything which may take the form of doctrine, of literary arrangement, of record, so long as it remains something spoken or written. Also thoughts which may be pictured or expressed by word or writing, but it is not that which is written in the heart, to become its life. "Letter" is the whole Law of Moses, or the Ten Commandments, though the supreme authority of such teaching is not denied. It matters not whether you hear them, read them, or reproduce them mentally. For instance, when I sit down to meditate upon the first commandment: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me," or the second, or the third, and so forth, I have something which I can read, write, discuss, and aim to fulfil with all my might. The process is quite similar when the emperor or prince gives a command and says: "This you shall do, that you shall eschew." This is what the apostle calls "the letter," or, as we have called it on another occasion, the written sense. 22. Now, as opposed to "the letter," there is another doctrine or message, which he terms the "ministration of a New Covenant" and "of the Spirit." This doctrine does not teach what works are required of man, for that man has already heard; but it makes known to him what God would do for him and bestow upon him, indeed what he has already done: he has given his Son Christ for us; because, for our disobedience to the Law, which no man fulfils, we were under God's wrath and condemnation. Christ made satisfaction for our sins, effected a reconciliation with God and gave to us his own righteousness. Nothing is said in this ministration of man's deeds; it tells rather of the works of Christ, who is unique in that he was born of a virgin, died for sin and rose from the dead, something no other man has been able to do. This doctrine is revealed through none but the Holy Spirit, and none other confers the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit works in the hearts of them who hear and accept the doctrine. Therefore, this ministration is termed a ministration "of the Spirit." 23. The apostle employs the words "letter" and "spirit," to contrast the two doctrines; to emphasize his office and show its advantage over all others, however eminent the teachers whom they boast, and however great the spiritual unction which they vaunt. It is of design that he does not term the two dispensations "Law" and "Gospel," but names them according to the respective effects produced. He honors the Gospel with a superior term--"ministration of the spirit." Of the Law, on the contrary, he speaks almost contemptuously, as if he would not honor it with the title of God's commandment, which in reality it is, according to his own admission later on that its deliverance to Moses and its injunction upon the children of Israel was an occasion of surpassing glory. 24. Why does Paul choose this method? Is it right for one to despise or dishonor God's Law? Is not a chaste and honorable life a matter of beauty and godliness? Such facts, it may be contended, are implanted by God in reason itself, and all books teach them; they are the governing force in the world. I reply: Paul's chief concern is to defeat the vainglory and pretensions of false preachers, and to teach them the right conception and appreciation of the Gospel which he proclaimed. What Paul means is this: When the Jews vaunt their Law of Moses, which was received as Law from God and recorded upon two tables of stone; when they vaunt their learned and saintly preachers of the Law and its exponents, and hold their deeds and manner of life up to admiration, what is all that compared to the Gospel message? The claim may be well made: a fine sermon, a splendid exposition; but, after all, nothing more comes of it than precepts, expositions, written comments. The precept, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and thy neighbor as thyself," remains a mere array of words. When much time and effort have been spent in conforming one's life to it, nothing has been accomplished. You have pods without peas, husks without kernels. 25. For it is impossible to keep the Law without Christ, though man may, for the sake of honor or property, or from fear of punishment, feign outward holiness. The heart which does not discern God's grace in Christ cannot turn to God nor trust in him; it cannot love his commandments and delight in them, but rather resists them. For nature rebels at compulsion. No man likes to be a captive in chains. One does not voluntarily bow to the rod of punishment or submit to the executioner's sword; rather, because of these things, his anger against the Law is but increased, and he ever thinks: "Would that I might unhindered steal, rob, hoard, gratify my lust, and so on!" And when restrained by force, he would there were no Law and no God. And this is the case where conduct shows some effects of discipline, in that the outer man has been subjected to the teaching of the Law. 26. But in a far more appalling degree does inward rebellion ensue when the heart feels the full force of the Law; when, standing before God's judgment, it feels the sentence of condemnation; as we shall presently hear, for the apostle says "the letter killeth." Then the truly hard knots appear. Human nature fumes and rages against the Law; offenses appear in the heart, the fruit of hate and enmity against the Law; and presently human nature flees before God and is incensed at God's judgment. It begins to question the equity of his dealings, to ask if he is a just God. Influenced by such thoughts, it falls ever deeper into doubt, it murmurs and chafes, until finally, unless the Gospel comes to the rescue, it utterly despairs, as did Judas, and Saul, and perhaps pass out of this life with God and creation. This is what Paul means when he says (Rom 7:8-9) that the Law works sin in the heart of man, and sin works death, or kills. 27. You see, then, why the Law is called "the letter": though noble doctrine, it remains on the surface; it does not enter the heart as a vital force which begets obedience. Such is the baseness of human nature, it will not and cannot conform to the Law; and so corrupt is mankind, there is no individual who does not violate all God's commandments in spite of daily hearing the preached Word and having held up to view God's wrath and eternal condemnation. Indeed, the harder pressed man is, the more furiously he storms against the Law. 28. The substance of the matter is this: When all the commandments have been put together, when their message receives every particle of praise to which it is entitled, it is still a mere letter. That is, teaching not put into practice. By "letter" is signified all manner of law, doctrine and message, which goes no farther than the oral or written word, which consists only of the powerless letter. To illustrate: A law promulgated by a prince or the authorities of a city, if not enforced, remains merely an open letter, which makes a demand indeed, but ineffectually. Similarly, God's Law, although a teaching of supreme authority and the eternal will of God, must suffer itself to become a mere empty letter or husk. Without a quickening heart, and devoid of fruit, the Law is powerless to effect life and salvation. It may well be called a veritable table of omissions (Lass-tafel); that is, it is a written enumeration, not of duties performed but of duties cast aside. In the languages of the world, it is a royal edict which remains unobserved and unperformed. In this light St. Augustine understood the Law. He says, commenting on Psalm 17, "What is Law without grace but a letter without spirit?" Human nature, without the aid of Christ and his grace, cannot keep it. 29. Again, Paul in terming the Gospel a "ministration of the spirit" would call attention to its power to produce in the hearts of men an effect wholly different from that of the Law: it is accompanied by the Holy Spirit and it creates a new heart. Man, driven into fear and anxiety by the preaching of the Law, hears this Gospel message, which, instead of reminding him of God's demands, tells him what God has done for him. It points not to man's works, but to the works of Christ, and bids him confidently believe that for the sake of his Son God will forgive his sins and accept him as his child. And this message, when received in faith, immediately cheers and comforts the heart. The heart will no longer flee from God; rather it turns to him. Finding grace with God and experiencing his mercy, the heart feels drawn to him. It commences to call upon him and to treat and revere him as its beloved God. In proportion as such faith and solace grow, also love for the commandments will grow and obedience to them will be man's delight. Therefore, God would have his Gospel message urged unceasingly as the means of awakening man's heart to discern his state and recall the great grace and lovingkindness of God, with the result that the power of the Holy Spirit is increased constantly. Note, no influence of the Law, no work of man is present here. The force is a new and heavenly one--the power of the Holy Spirit. He impresses upon the heart Christ and his works, making of it a true book which does not consist in the tracery of mere letters and words, but in true life and action. 30. God promised of old, in Joel 2:28 and other passages, to give the Spirit through the new message, the Gospel. And he has verified his promise by public manifestations in connection with the preaching of that Gospel, as on the day of Pentecost and again later. When the apostles, Peter and others, began to preach, the Holy Spirit descended visibly from heaven upon their hearts. Acts 8:17; 10:44. Up to that time, throughout the period the Law was preached, no one had heard or seen such manifestation. The fact could not but be grasped that this was a vastly different message from that of the Law when such mighty results followed in its train. And yet its substance was no more than what Paul declared (Acts 13:38-39): "Through this man is proclaimed unto you remission of sins: and by him every one that believeth is justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses." 31. In this teaching you see no more the empty letters, the valueless husks or shells of the Law, which unceasingly enjoins., "This thou shalt do and observe," and ever in vain. You see instead the true kernel and power which confers Christ and the fullness of His Spirit. In consequence, men heartily believe the message of the Gospel and enjoy its riches. They are accounted as having fulfilled the Ten Commandments. John says (Jn 1:16-17): "Of his fullness we all received, and grace for grace. For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." John's thought is: The Law has indeed been given by Moses, but what avails that fact? To be sure, it is a noble doctrine and portrays a beautiful and instructive picture of man's duty to God and all mankind; it is really excellent as to the letter. Yet it remains empty; it does not enter into the heart. Therefore it is called "law," nor can it become aught else, so long as nothing more is given. <a href="http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/mlspiritletter.htm" target=_top>http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformation ink/mlspiritletter.htm</a> </blockquote>

don · 05-25-09 9:11 pm

Do you believe that we are now living under a new covenant? If so, what are its demands? And how does the law apply if spiritual? Yes, the person who believes in Jesus has entered into a new covenant. A person who has not accepted Jesus is still under the Law, God's righteous requirements. The demands of the New Covenant? It is probably better to refer to the demands of God's Law, His righteous requirements; requirements applicable to all eras. God's righteous requirements remain the same for all humanity. Sometimes, regulations and ritual are added to accomplish divine goals but even these reflect eternal principles. As I accept Jesus and His provisions, I also avail myself of His Spirit and thus I can delight in the Righteous Requirements of the Law and find heartfelt motivation to conform to them. . (Message edited by Don on May 25, 2009)

elaine · 05-25-09 9:39 pm

I don't see anything in Luther's comment to disagree with.

don · 05-26-09 2:55 am

I don't see anything in Luther's comment to disagree with. Then, we find common ground with this analysis by Luther. .

elaine · 05-26-09 12:15 pm

Then why are you not a Lutheran? While I don't disagree with him, nevertheless, I do not take all the Bible for my life guide. It is far too contradictory. What part is timeless and relevant today and what was only for a particular audience and did not apply universally for all time?

neal · 05-26-09 2:48 pm

As for the Law on a christian's heart... Seems to me that Paul liked the statement from Ezekiel better than Jeremiah. Jeremiah's definitely precludes any non-jews from being recipients of the New Covenant. IMO, of course, as I am certain after 2000 years christians have figured out a way to explain away the fact that God supposedly said Israel would be His people till the earth ceased to exist. <blockquote>Jeremiah 31:31 "Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD. 33"But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 "They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more." 35 Thus says the LORD, Who gives the sun for light by day And the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, Who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar; The LORD of hosts is His name: 36 "If this fixed order departs From before Me," declares the LORD, "Then the offspring of Israel also will cease</blockquote> From being a nation before Me forever." <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=JER%2031" target=_top>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=JER%20 31</a> This is the position of a humanist- you follow your own heart, not what a guy in a robe tells you.

don · 05-26-09 5:23 pm

I do not take all the Bible for my life guide. It is far too contradictory. What part is timeless and relevant today and what was only for a particular audience and did not apply universally for all time? I understand what you say. For me, the Bible remains the best collection of documents from which to organize my value system. Within the Scriptures, I have developed a hierarchy of thoughts. Jesus' life and ideas make up the core of my value system. God is Love; God is fair; God is just are a few of my presuppositions. The Scriptures provide the accepted raw data for my theology. But, I mold it based on principles; as stated above. I like the ancient heritage of the scriptures. I like the stories and find them useful to my life. I like the Psalms and Proverbes and I find the ideas of Jesus paramount and moving; shaping my world view. .

elaine · 05-26-09 5:49 pm

I find the ancient myths of classical Greece and Rome as well as the plays by their great writers all to be inspiring as they address the human condition. Shakespeare was probably the greatest English writer who ever lived who was able to understand human emotions and feelings like no one before or since.

elaine · 05-26-09 5:56 pm

Its perhaps a way of saying that a person remains adamant about something of (social) science without looking at other points of view. 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. An assumption without merit, Don. I have read and studied a wide variety of views and just like you, I must choose which makes more sense. Do you not also decide on that basis, or another? What is your template or paradigm used when considering various perspectives? While admittedly, I reject supernatural explanations, nevertheless I can discuss them as part of the accepted biblical perspectives and its writers. Discussing a subject does not confer belief, but only accepted as a subject currently being discussed; i,e. it could be a discussion of Little Red Riding Hood: did she wear a red cape, or not? Did her mother or grandmother make it, etc. Just so, it is possible to discuss the STORY of Jesus' raising Lazarus from the dead without accepting it as an actual fact.

elaine · 05-26-09 5:59 pm

Claiming Paul as the founder of Christianity is most widely believed by the majority of Bible scholars. Their opinions are based on the stories told in the Bible, and the historical evidence that Jesus never established a new church and never ministered outside Judea, but limited his teachings and followers to Jews. Where is the evidence that Jesus established Christianity?

pilgrim99 · 05-26-09 7:25 pm

For some, the answer to the question Jesus posed remains unanswered, and so is prone to speculation, limited only by imagination.<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:When Jesus came to the area of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” They answered, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “You are blessed, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven! And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. Matthew 16:13-18 NET<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>One could infer from this exchange that Jesus did in fact intend to build His church. Or one could speculate. We are all free to choose who and what we believe.

john8verse32 · 05-26-09 7:48 pm

<a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=how+many+did+god+kill&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=" target="_blank">...Within the Scriptures, I have developed a hierarchy of thoughts...... God is Love; God is fair...</a>

elaine · 05-26-09 8:19 pm

Who wrote Matthew? And when? So many quotations are found in the NT, but since there were no recorders then, it was the memory of people that was plumbed. There has been speculation that Peter's answer was written so as to as form the later belief that Peter was the founder of the Christian church--which prevailed in Rome.

pilgrim99 · 05-26-09 8:45 pm

Elaine, you might find <a href="http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=5850" target=_top>Did Some Disciples Take Notes During Jesus’ Ministry?</a> to be of interest, or maybe not.

don · 05-26-09 8:50 pm

Claiming Paul as the founder of Christianity is most widely believed by the majority of Bible scholars; the historical evidence that Jesus never established a new church and never ministered outside Judea I disagree with the scholars who say this if they exclude Jesus and the apostles in Jerusalem. Jesus gave instructions regarding His church. If by founder, we mean the one who initiated the concept, then Jesus was founder. If by founder, we mean those who actually set up structures to deal with the faithful, then the apostles in Jerusalem were founders. If by founder, we mean the one who spread Christianity far and wide and appointed local leadership in various cities and defined the nature of the Gospel in theological terms, then Paul was founder. Do these scholars refer to the specific verses in the Gospel writings where Jesus speaks of the new organization; the church? Do they deny the role of the apostles in founding the church in Jerusalem and Antioch before Paul came on the scene? Do these scholars say why they give Paul this exclusive historical standing? .

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#51 05-23-09 10:29 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#52 05-23-09 11:15 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#53 05-24-09 10:26 am

Re: The Messiness of History

#54 05-24-09 2:30 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#55 05-24-09 6:02 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#56 05-25-09 12:13 am

Re: The Messiness of History

#57 05-25-09 11:38 am

Re: The Messiness of History

#58 05-25-09 2:44 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#59 05-25-09 5:18 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#60 05-25-09 6:54 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#61 05-25-09 9:01 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#62 05-25-09 9:11 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#63 05-25-09 9:39 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#64 05-26-09 2:55 am

Re: The Messiness of History

#65 05-26-09 12:15 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#66 05-26-09 2:48 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#67 05-26-09 5:23 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#68 05-26-09 5:49 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#69 05-26-09 5:56 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#70 05-26-09 5:59 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#71 05-26-09 7:25 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#72 05-26-09 7:48 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#73 05-26-09 8:19 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#74 05-26-09 8:45 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#75 05-26-09 8:50 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

Board footer