| Author |
Message |
Emr
Registered user
Username: Emr
Post Number: 27
Registered: 7-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 1:18 am: |     |
All you say, friends, is true. I treasure every word in your highly reasonable recommendation, and it's precisely the road I wanted to follow twenty years ago when I came to the conclusion that SDAism is a hoax.
Even though I shared all my theological conclusions with my wife, and despite the fact she was able to understand most of it (she doesn't like it when I tell her of this or that Hebrew or Greek word, though), she was adamant she wanted to keep attending the SDA church. Her reasoning is like this: We were both former Catholics. She was even a practising Catholic, something rare to find in this country. We were sucked out of Catholicism, so to speak, by Adventists who presumed they could add something to our religious walk. Since it is now confirmed they couldn't live up to such high expectations, and she doesn't want to swap churches again, she'll stay where she is now until Jesus comes back and takes her into Eternity. All my attempts to make her see things from a different perspective have failed.
I recently attended a funeral service in a little Catholic church. There were several images inside and 99% of what the priest said and sang came from a book in front of him, words that had been repeated over and over for decades or centuries (in Latin before Vatican II, of course). Despite such unpromising setting, I felt peace while inside, and I don't think the priest misrepresented the Christian hope one bit. I don't suppose he knew much about theology, but he knew just enough to know that Jesus saves anyone who goes to him, and that's plenty already.
Eduardo |
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos
Post Number: 967
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 1:20 am: | |
Aaargh, it's really hard to stop! But I just noticed this and had to drop in an extra comment, which I really ought not to do.
quote:The apostles were setting out to disabuse the Gentiles from the Pharisaic claim that they had to become circumcised if they wanted to become believers. Very intelligently, the apostles, and not just in Acts 15, set out to establish that certain things in the Pentateuch were binding for Gentiles, whereas many others weren’t.
By this logic, Eduardo, you have just stated that the apostles did not teach Sabbath-keeping to the Gentiles, because nowhere did they say it was binding for Gentiles and it was not included in the Acts 15 letter, nor was it included in any other epistle (rather, as Colossians and Hebrews show, it was a shadow, and the reality may be entered 'Today'). If the apostles were showing which parts of the Torah were applicable, their omission of Sabbath-keeping (according to your argument here) shows that they did not consider it binding on Gentiles.
However, as I stated earlier, this interpretation of the Acts 15 letter ignores the context and ignores the numerous places in Acts and the epistles which show that Gentiles were converted anywhere and everywhere, and not simply at the synagogue, and that Christians met together primarily at homes; synagogues were visited so that the message could be spoken to the Jews before it was carried to the Gentiles---not merely to the Gentiles who were already interested in the synagogue, but also to the Gentiles outside the synagogue (as is mentioned throughout Acts and the epistles). |
Jorgfe
Registered user
Username: Jorgfe
Post Number: 566
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 12:19 pm: | |
Edurado, my heart weeps for you. May the Holy Spirit guide you gently as you work through the issues you have shared with us. You will be a part of each of our prayers. He who is sure will not fail us.
Gilbert Jorgensen |
Emr
Registered user
Username: Emr
Post Number: 28
Registered: 7-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 2:50 pm: | |
Thank you for your words and prayers, Gilbert.
I've got to get to bed now. Good night. |
Emr
Registered user
Username: Emr
Post Number: 29
Registered: 7-2007
| | Posted on Monday, August 13, 2007 - 3:30 am: | |
Ramone, I completely disagree with your assessment. Quite certainly, the apostolic letter did not teach Sabbath-keeping to the Gentiles. By the same token, it didn't teach they should honour their parents either. Where does that lead us? Now, you will say that honouring their parents and other 'universal' principles was somehow implicit. That would be a very good answer. Now, tell me, why wouldn't a Sabbatarian use your own argument about implicitness? Your foreseeable answer will consist in jumping to some other text, like Col. 2:16f, and ignore the damaging evidence of the conjunction gar in Acts 15:21, so I'm not the one ignoring context, unless you can demonstrate that gar can have a word or phrase following it as its antecedent, an untenable position in my opinion.
As for house-meetings, you are right that, early on in the existence of the church, when about one hundred per cent of its members were Jews, they used to meet in houses. But, as you know, there was extreme prejudice against having a Gentile in a Jew's house and viceversa, and even the apostle Peter, despite having been shown by God himself that he should let go of those irrational, racial prejudices, did not fully follow a straight path for a considerable time after the preaching to the Gentiles began (Gal. 2:11, 12). So, no, Gentiles wouldn't have automatically joined Jewish Christians in anybody's home. The natural, even neutral place to meet for prayer would have been either the synagogue or some quiet place outdoors (just like in Acts 16:13, which, according to Young's Literal Translation, reads 'on the sabbath-day also we went forth outside of the city, by a river, where there used to be prayer').
Naturally, you could then turn to your understanding of Col. 2:16f and this could go on ad infinitum.
I wonder, would it be admissible for me to present a mostly linguistic discussion of the Greek of Col. 2:16f so that a few things could be settled to everybody's satisfaction? I think you, Ramone, know at least as much Greek as I used to know (there's much I've forgotten in twenty years), and maybe other forum members could assist as well. We could try and make this discussion as didactic for others who are not very familiar with certain linguistic concepts, such as declensions, participles, adversative conjunctions, apposition or the possible implications of the absence of the verb eimi. What do you think?
Eduardo |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 6542
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 13, 2007 - 10:19 am: | |
Eduardo, a linguistic discussion of the Greek of Col. 2:16 will likely not settle things to everyone's satisfaction.
First, most people will read just the Bible and must be able to find truth from their own vernacular translations. Those who read the vernalcular translations must be able to "come up with" the same essential conclusions as those who dig deeper. If they cannot, the Word of God is not reliable, and God has not protected His communication with us over these millennia. Context and inductive comparison, of course, are essential—but those things should be able to be done by all of us, whether we have Greek/Hebrews at our disposal or not.
Further, linguistic dissection cannot replace the big picture of the whole sweep of Biblical history. The reality of Jesus as a living Person who was and is and is to come is the last word in Biblical interpretation, not linguistic dissection. Of course, linguistic dissection is important, and if we read the words wrong, we do need to be corrected. (Hey, I'm an "old school" English teacher who taught my high school students to diagram sentences!) But linguistic dissection can lead us to a place very different from interpreting ALL of the Bible through the reality of Jesus.
The Bible is the living word of God—and we really can limit its revelatory power by making our grammatical explications preeminent over the revelation of the Living Christ. If we are searching the Scriptures to find doctrine instead of to find Jesus, we will end up with falsehood. Doctrine is shaped through the revelation of Jesus, not the other way around.
Colleen
(Message edited by Colleentinker on August 13, 2007) |
Larry
Registered user
Username: Larry
Post Number: 83
Registered: 5-2007
| | Posted on Monday, August 13, 2007 - 10:35 am: | |
EMR, I know a little old lady that lives in a senior trailer park that could not possibly follow your convoluted writings. For her to believe you she would have to have faith that you are correct. I think the Gospel is much simpler than her having faith in the contorted musings of a human.
As far as sabbath being required of humans from creation forward we have evidences that the Jewish law was terminated, thus not eternal:
Deuteronomy 5:2-3
The LORD our God made a COVENANT with us at Horeb. It was NOT with our fathers that the LORD made this COVENANT, but with US, with all of us who are alive here today
Exodus 34:28
Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the COVENANT - the Ten Commandments.
Galatians 3:19
What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions UNTIL the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator.
Galatians 4:24,30
These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One COVENANT is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar.
But what does the Scripture say? "Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son."
Galatians 5:1
It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of SLAVERY.
Hebrews 8:13
By calling this COVENANT "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
The physical sabbath was in the covenant EMR, and the Bible says it is to be gotten rid of. Hardly eternal. |
Emr
Registered user
Username: Emr
Post Number: 30
Registered: 7-2007
| | Posted on Monday, August 13, 2007 - 10:56 am: | |
Larry, sorry to say this, but you are way out of line. What possible reason have I given you to say my writings are convoluted? I can understand you disagree with some of them, but even then perhaps what you could do was show me a better way, or show the excellece of your own writings. After all, I guess English is your mother tongue, while it isn't mine.
Your arguments are pointless, because, even though the law (which includes, but is more comprehensive than the ten commandments and is, to a large extent equivalent to the OT itself) was nailed to the cross, the orthodox Christian faith never jettisoned the OT. Only heretics like Marcion did that.
Language is very important. And, in the context of Colossians 2:17, I feel that the final phrase, soma tou Christou, which lacks a verb and which in the NT, and in the Pauline epistles in particular, has one of two highly specialised meanings (the Eucharist, the Church), among other pointers, definitely signals in an altogether different direction than some people think. But, hey, no problem. I can also understand that some people don't want to learn new things. There's nothing new under the sun.
Best regards.
Eduardo |
Jorgfe
Registered user
Username: Jorgfe
Post Number: 575
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Monday, August 13, 2007 - 11:45 am: | |
Eduardo,
I have something that has puzzled me that perhaps you can help me with.
Supposing that the 4th Commandment is treated as a moral law that is still binding:
1. Have you ever known anyone who was disciplined out of a congregation that you attended for Sabbath breaking?
2. Specifically and categorically, what must a person do, or not do, in order to disobey God's holy Sabbath law in such a way that he will be, as a result of his clear disobedience, disciplined out of the church that you have in mind?
Your friend,
Gilbert Jorgensen |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 6543
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 13, 2007 - 11:47 am: | |
Hey, the tone of this thread has become distinctly debating.
Remember the purpose of the forum: "To be a safe, supportive, and healing environment for questioning, transitioning, and former Adventists, and those associated with them."
Forum Rules:
8. Discussion, but not debate, of differing viewpoints is welcome.
This forum isn't the place to defend Adventist doctrines. Most of us already know them intimately—and we know how distorted and wrong they are. That's why we are questioning and leaving. There are other venues such as CARM where this sort of debate would be welcomed.
Colleen |
Helovesme2
Registered user
Username: Helovesme2
Post Number: 1005
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 13, 2007 - 11:47 am: | |
Emr,
Someone finding your writings convoluted is a statement of how they see them. It has nothing to do with you you intend them. A child would likely find a scientific thesis paper convoluted. A sober judge might fine a drunk defendant's testimony convoluted, and their reasons would be very different from each other with little to do with whether the discourse is actually convoluted or not.
You speak as if you expect to be taken as an authority, and make statements as if your stating them makes them fact. Is this what you intend? Are you an authority? What are your credentials? What is your purpose here? Most of us are here for fellowship, support, encouragement, and discussion.
You remark, "I can also understand that some people don't want to learn new things." That's true, however most of us are here because we have learned new things and are continuing to learn as we grow in the precious freedom of God's loving grace, and in the deepening grasp of just how comprehensive that grace is. It is my prayer that you are here for the same reason.
Mary |
Emr
Registered user
Username: Emr
Post Number: 31
Registered: 7-2007
| | Posted on Monday, August 13, 2007 - 12:29 pm: | |
Gilbert, in answer to your kind, considerate questions, I don't honestly recall anyone being disciplined in the SDA congregations I attended for 'Sabbath-breaking. ' I might have forgotten, though. It's a long time since I last attended one of those meetings. I guess a legalistic person would equate working on the Sabbath (as in for a living) Sabbath-breaking and a serious offence. As for discipline to a supposed Sabbath-breaker, in my view, it should be at least as loving as Jesus' treatment of the woman caught in adultery. I recently saw an SDA book which was something like a basic -very basic- introduction to theology. One of its chapters dealt with Christian behaviour and marriage. I found it appalling when I read that, though not advocating abortion, the SDA Church 'lovingly understood' the decision of mothers who eventually made the tragic decision of 'terminating' their pregnancy. Fine and good (I am totally against abortion), but, why don't they 'lovingly understand' the situation of people whose livelihood may depend on working on the seventh-day. I can't understand what makes them think that the fourth commandment is more important than any others.
Mary, I don't claim to be an authority. My words have no more weight than their own merit, or lack thereof. I like to do my own thinking and when I reach some conclusion, even though I ackonwledge the possibility that I could be mistaken, I don't feel insecure. Like others here, I have studied theology professionally and have learnt the methods of systematic Bible study used by scholars. Does that make me an authority? I guess not. I am a human being, and, therefore, could very well be mistaken, as most others. As for my words, they have a meaning, and they can be scrutinised as for their value. Take for instance, the discussion above about 'moral laws.' Were my words authoritative enough? Well, I happen to know some Latin, and, therefore, unless someone can find fault in my exposition, I have the distinct impression that those words in particular were devastatingly accurate. But it's a free world. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and to their own errors, and that includes me.
Colleen, since you seem to be implicitly speaking about me, I'm not aware to be defending SDA doctrines on this forum. Although much of Adventism is tainted by heresy, not everything Adventist espouse is a monstrosity. For instance, Adventists believe God is our Creator, and I suppose most of us would readily agree with that position. Therefore, saying something that may be partially in agreement with some Adventist position doesn't automatically mean that Adventism is being promoted. Not at all, by a long stretch.
In any case, seeing that my intervention has been so disruptive for so many people, it will be my pleasure not to say anything further about the Sabbath and/or Colossians 2:16f, unless someone else begins a new thread about that very subject and I feel my mostly linguistic comments are welcome.
All the best.
Eduardo
(Message edited by EMR on August 13, 2007) |
Jorgfe
Registered user
Username: Jorgfe
Post Number: 576
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Monday, August 13, 2007 - 1:11 pm: | |
Colleen,
I really appreciate you letting us know when we venture into questionable conversation. I too am guilty of that, and I apologize.
I especially value the codial atmosphere that you have fostered here, as well as the friendship and support of all my dear brothers and sisters. Each one of you are precious.
Your brother in Christ,
Gilbert Jorgensen |
Busymom
Registered user
Username: Busymom
Post Number: 59
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 13, 2007 - 1:37 pm: | |
Colleen, Thank you for your post in which you stated "If we are searching the scriptures to find doctrine instead of Jesus we will end up with falsehoold. Doctrine is shaped through the revelation of Jesus, not the other way around."
I really needed to hear that today. My brother left Adventism and is now an atheist. One thing he has mentioned to me is that if I search the Bible and look at it critically I will find errors in it just like we both did with EGW. The pastor where I am attending now pointed out to me the importance of context when reading the Bible. I.e. the parable of the mustard seed. There are seeds that are smaller than the mustard seed, but Jesus was not giving a botany lesson when he gave that illustration, as far as the Jews knew at that time it was the smallest seed. Anyways, it has crossed my mind several times since leaving Adventism that the only way I might understand things is if I studied Hebrew and Greek. So anyways thanks again for posting that insight as it is not likely that I will have the time or the money in the near future to learn Greek and Hebrew. |
Larry
Registered user
Username: Larry
Post Number: 84
Registered: 5-2007
| | Posted on Monday, August 13, 2007 - 3:48 pm: | |
I apologize to all if I seem like a tenacious pitbull about this.
I listed those Scripture verses in the order given because there are interconnected ideas from one to the next that paint an accurate picture. They seemed to be totally overlooked in the ensuing 'discussion'!
The verses were not posted for filler content.
Get rid of the slave woman and her son! Or can we not trust the Bible now?
For me to have to point this out really grates on my logical nature. There are genius's, theologans, saints, and priests on this forum compared to me.
Colleen, please delete this post if it seems inappropriate. |
Larry
Registered user
Username: Larry
Post Number: 86
Registered: 5-2007
| | Posted on Monday, August 13, 2007 - 6:41 pm: | |
These verses are also appropriate:
2 Corinthians 4:3,4
If the Good News we preach is hidden behind a veil, it is hidden only from people who are on the road to eternal death.
Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don’t believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They don’t understand this message about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God. |
Qweary
Registered user
Username: Qweary
Post Number: 30
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 13, 2007 - 8:19 pm: | |
Larry, Thank you for scriptures you wrote out and emphasized in red. I'm a little old lady in tennis shoes you're helping. I might have a BA and several hours beyond the MA, but my six generations of SDA family brainwashing and close to 80 years being steeped in Egg White has mushed my weary brain into stagnancy. It is so refreshing to see how wonderfully simple the true GOSPEL is! Thank You, JESUS!! and Thank you, Larry, for the RED ink!!! I used a lot of it in my day trying to teach elementary students how important English was to their future.
In my last years of teaching I quietly ignored the references to extra-biblical material and tried to use only the Bible in my teaching of Bible and in worship periods. When the curriculum included SDA history, we tried to do "just the facts, Ma'am!" We flew through the textbook and progressed with the children's version of "Pilgrim's Progress".
Do you realize how many wrong impressions one can learn from Uncle Arthur's Bible Stories, et al? Since I've been reading the BIBLE, I learned that Eve was WITH Adam when she was tempted -- for instance. Why didn't he speak up??? (Maybe Paul didn't read Genesis too well, either, or maybe he wouldn't have been so hard on women in his letter to Timothy!!)
Anyway, Thank you ALL for your fascinating and even convoluted discussions! Larry's blessed red ink and Emr's "authoritative LINQUISTICISMS" ALL are a part of the FAFF feast! You are such a precious family to this WEARY Query-er!! Am almost to the end of my journey, But you help me to "leap on HIND's feet" these last few miles!!
GOD bless y'all and keep you sweet!!
Love you, Colleen!!!
Qweary |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 6547
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 13, 2007 - 8:30 pm: | |
Love you back, Qweary! Keep kicken' up those HIND's feet, Dearie!
Colleen |
Emr
Registered user
Username: Emr
Post Number: 32
Registered: 7-2007
| | Posted on Monday, August 13, 2007 - 10:58 pm: | |
No, Queary, EMR's 'linguisticisms' are no longer a part of this 'feast.'
Best regards.
Eduardo |
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos
Post Number: 972
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 14, 2007 - 2:41 am: | |
Bro. Eduardo,
I don't know what to say. Honestly, I think that in this case, the linguistics are focusing on the bark while missing the trees and the forest. I should explain why I hope things can be simplified and why I have an aversion to overly-academicizing things.
I've read things written by scholars that lifted up Jesus Christ, and when "revelation" turns on, you can see the Holy Spirit using knowledge to lift up the Glorified One. Everything falls together neatly, and one witness after another opens up within the Scriptures just as it is written, "All is from Him and through Him and to Him."
But at other times I've seen things by scholars --particularly in Adventism-- that made things more confusing. It was impressive and educated, but it seemed as if the knowledge and great learning were expended on saying that Scripture didn't mean what it said. For example, in Adventist university I knew professors in Adventism who explained what was wrong with the early Adventist ideas about Daniel 8:14 yet they still supported Adventism and felt other denominations were missing something. It became clear that they had learned a kind of hermeneutic which taught them to read alternate explanations to what was clearly written in Scripture. If what was clearly written could not be accepted (because of the pre-decided allegiances to Sabbath and Adventist doctrines), then hermeneutics and even linguistics were used in order to prove that Scripture didn't mean what it said. Perhaps the difficult part was when students objected using a clear belief in what Scripture said... (objections came both from students who accepted simple Adventist faith and students who did not). With their great learning, professors could easily shut down the objectors. Both simple-Adventist believers and those who weren't so into Adventism (but relied on the Bible) would emerge shaken, their faith in the Word rocked by the authoritativeness of linguistic language and hermeneutics which showed that the Bible didn't mean what it seemed to say.
Thank God, He has not spoken in secret nor in the dark, nor in a way that is difficult to understand. What is important for us is clearly revealed.
If someone comes with an interpretation or hermeneutic that disagrees with what is clearly written, the burden of proving it lies with that person. What is clearly written stands since it is clearly written. If a contrasting belief (which makes Scripture say different than what it says cleary) can only be explained using academic terms, then it is understandable if the academic argument is set aside.
This is why I personally have an aversion to arguments that rely on obscure academic reasoning in order to make a Scripture say something different than what it clearly says.
I don't mean to put you or what you've written in the same boat as the Adventist "elite" that I've referred to, but instead I want to express why I am leery of things that seem academically wise but in effect are used to make Scripture say something different from what it says. Forgive me for the bluntness of this next sentend: What you've written about Colossians (etc.) does seem to basically attempt to refute what Scripture says clearly, using linguistic hair-splitting in order to do so. And the result is seems to be effectively arguing "Jesus plus Sabbath" (as opposed to agreeing with Colossians that we have all God's fullness in Jesus and are not to be judged by food, drink, holy days, etc., because we lack nothing in the Son).
*****
Anyhow, I hope that explains my desire to simplify things, as well as my belief that Scripture means what it says, and that proper linguistic investigation will support (not contradict) what is clearly expressed within verses and within the broader context of Scripture. For that reason, I believe we can generally work with the context of Scripture and do not need to resort to linguistic battles, because as has already been said, God has not spoken in the dark, but He has shouted His good news from the mountaintop: Christ, the Alpha and Omega, from whom and through whom and to whom are all things in Him.
*****
Perhaps we can re-start on more simple terms. I know it's a little discourteous to suddenly ask some questions without completely addressing previous posts, but nonetheless I'll ask in the hope of clearing some things up:
1) Is there a Scriptural command to keep Sabbath apart from those given through Moses and the prophets urging people to be faithful to the Sinaitic covenant?
2) Are not the Ten Commandments (the Ten Words) the tablets/words of the Old Covenant?
3) Using Scripture, can it be shown that Sabbath-keeping is necessary but keeping the Sabbath Year or the Year of Jubilee is not?
4) Can the Sabbatismos be entered into "Today" or only on the seventh day?
Blessings to you today in the heart of Jesus Christ,
Ramone |
|
