| Author | Message | ||
| Esther Registered user Username: Esther Post Number: 230 Registered: 5-2004 |
I have been doing some correspondence with a family member and it has reached a point now where all I have been saying has sunk in and they are in high disapproval and shock about what I believe. After our latest correspondence, it seems that the onus is on me to prove my new found faith from the old testament entirely because the new testament would not have been available directly after the death of Christ. I have been praying about this and will continue to defend my faith in Jesusí atonement, however I would love to glean any insights from you guys. I am specifically going to tackle the issue of the law not being separable and the fact that Jesus is the fulfillment of everything OT. Itís just that I know until the veil lifts, a person really canít see these truthsÖat least thatís how it was for me. It has been made expressly clear that I have allowed myself to be deceived and am following doctrines of demons. This particular member of my family will bear great influence on how the rest of my family perceives our walk with God. I am not so concerned about the revilement at their hands, but rather that they be willing to listen to what I say, and really look at it for themselves. Anyway, thanks for letting me vent a bit. Itís so hard to put so much emotion into this and then get back illogical responses. Like, well you canít make that point without the NT. Oh also, does anyone have thoughts or insights about 2 Kings 19 and Isaiah 37? They are word for word and so this was given to me as if well, can we really trust the Bible (and Iím sure by that it impliesÖEllenís just as trustworthy)? | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 249 Registered: 7-2004  |
My husband, Ric_b has had a similar discussion on CARM where he was in a discussion with an SDA who insists that since there is no spot in Scripture before Jesus' death, which specifically says the seventh-day Sabbath will be done away with, then it still has to be in force today. Rick pointed out that by that reasoning, one would have to still keep all the feast days, holy days, do circumcision, etc. Through that discussion, I realized that without the New Testament and especially Paul's writings, there is no clear-cut instruction about any of the Law of Moses being discontinued--except perhaps Hosea 2. So you might ask by that reasoning, why do they think even one of the 613 laws is not in force today? By what basis have they chosen to get rid of part of it? Paul only had the Old Testament as a written source of God's word when he came to his conclusions in Galatians and Colossians. Doesn't your family member believe Paul was inspired? I'm very thankful for Paul, because I would have a hard time proving the Christian faith from the Old Testament alone. If one ignores the New Testament, you'd almost have to be a Messianic Jew. I'll let someone else respond about 2 Kings 19 and Isaiah 37. | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 807 Registered: 7-2003  |
Esther, your relative is specifically asking you to throw the rules of proper hermeneutics out the window. This you cannot do. One of the very most basic rules of hermeneutics is that the NT interprets the OT. Jesus Christ is the greatest revlation of God to man. In Christ all of the "Law and the Prophets" is fulfilled. Jesus trained his disciples for the task they would do, the founding of the church. The apostles, and a few of their close associates, were inspired by the Holy Spirit to expand upon the teachings of Christ and to write instruction to the fledgling chruch. The young church was full of baby-Christians, many of which were gentiles Christians who had never been under the Law. In the instructions the NT writers wrote to them, we have been given everything thing we need for living the Christian life. Because Jesus is the ultimate revelation of God, and the Church is His body on earth, we must interpret the OT by the teachings of Christ and His apostles. To do otherwise is to deny Christ His proper place as the culmination of all the scripture, the Word made flesh. Esther, the onus is most definately not on you to try and defend the historic Christian faith by using faulty and uniformed hermeneutics. This is nothing more than a weak debating trick roughly akin to demanding that someone prove the sky is blue without mentioning color. Chris | ||
| Hrobinsonw Registered user Username: Hrobinsonw Post Number: 172 Registered: 7-2004 |
Esther, Without the New Testament SDA faithful no longer have an argument about ritual and moral law. Since they draw on parts of the NT to say how they are only required to keep some of the LAW. With that said, establish the entire Law before their eyes and let them see how they are falling way short of keeping it. If that doesn't work, establish a picture of jew and gentile presence surrounding the Law. Make them tell you whether Jews or Gentiles are supposed to keep the Law. Because if both Jews and Gentiles alike were to keep the Law then no one would be unclean. And the Caananites, Israelites, Islamic races, etc. should all be able to get along in harmony. Recently I have encountered alot of SDA discussions and none of them read the Bible enough to know that the Law only points to Jews. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 701 Registered: 10-2004  |
Esther, You may find the Dialogue of Justin, Philosopher and Martyr, with Trypho, a Jew (from the 100s AD) to be helpful, as Justin had to prove his Christian faith and the New Covenant to the Jew using only the Old Testament. He points out that circumcision, unclean meats, and Sabbath-keeping only originated with the Jews and were only for the Jews. But SDAs insist that is not true for two of those--so it may be easier to dialogue with a Jew!! One answer to their "charges of plagiarism" in the Bible could be that we don't even get after EGW for quoting the Bible--why should we be upset with Bible writers for doing such? We don't even accuse EGW of plagiarism when she uses the BIBLE (except for when she misuses/mutilates it)! That's what I don't get about that argument that they use--it just makes no sense. Jeremy (Message edited by jeremy on May 31, 2005) | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 702 Registered: 10-2004 |
By the way, what's really interesting about that dialogue between Justin and Trypho the Jew, was that Trypho said that basically the only problem the Jews had with Christians was that they didn't keep the Law (particularly the ceremonial aspects of it such as Sabbath, circumcision, etc.)! He said:
You can read the rest of Trypho's statement and Justin's response here: http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-48.htm#P4164_814116 Jeremy (Message edited by jeremy on May 31, 2005) | ||
| Heretic Registered user Username: Heretic Post Number: 114 Registered: 2-2005 |
Esther, I sympathize with what you are up against. It's truly sad when the only way to build up EGW as a prophet is to tear down the Bible itself. I wonder why they are Christians at all if the Bible is indeed untrustworthy? If Isaiah was a fraud, then how far does it reach? John? Paul? How can they be so sure that other writers got it right? I think it's somewhat a case of apples and oranges, though. I'm in no way a theologian, closer to a baby-Christian as a matter of fact, but comparing EGW with Isaiah seems a stretch. Let's say that worst case scenario Isaiah was plagiarizing with the intent to pass it off as his own prophecy. Who did he plagiarize, then? Another inspired prophet of God, that's who. Was he ever confronted with charges of plagiarism and if so what was his response? Was he including that portion only as a reiteration, as zero modifications were made? Was it included in a historical way? We'll never know this, I guess. But, there are probably theologians or even people here that have a suitable answer. We do know Ellen White's circumstances, however. Not only were all of her instances of plagiarism copying non-inspired, non-cannonized authors, but non-Christian and fiction writers as well. When she was confronted with these charges, she lied that all written words were her own. To jump right into bashing the Bible to defeat your biblical arguments and/or to defend their blessed church's prophet without knowing the background of Isaiah's passage seems like an act of desperation and puts them in an unenviable position. I know which side I'd rather be on. I don't know how much help this is to you, but it's my two cents. I'm sure there are more informed folks on this forum than myself who could shed much more light on this subject. Good luck with your relatives and God bless. He'll be with you as you face this. Heretic | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 1829 Registered: 11-2002 |
Esther, I can greatly emphasise with what you are going through. I do not want to sound crass, cold or mean but have you considered just leaving the discussion with the loved one alone? I only say this because I have only my own situtation to compare what you are dealing with. I have several near and deal family members who asked me to show them from the Bible how come I believe what I do. Barely after beginning to show these loved ones FROM THE BIBLE what I believe my mother started wailing that I have abnonded the truth that she raised me to know. When she accussingly yelled at me, "So now are you taking classes on how to persucate the commandment keepers in the last days?" I got so disgusted I walked out of her house. I cried for two days and didn't speek to her or go to her house for two weeks. That in itself shows how intense it was as we live next door to each other! Nonetheless, it is very stressful. I will pray for your situtation. However, if I was to offer advice I'd say to just not deal with it at all. And, folks this is the rerason I believe the SDA denomination should be considered a cult. Not because of their loony doctrines but because of its hold on people and its ability to tear apart families. Jesus said father will trun against son and mother against daughter for His sake. It happens continusely in the Adventist denomination. Jesus did not say father would turn from son and mother from daughter because of the weekly Sabbath, pork and other food rules, dancing, booze, cigerettes, denying the Investigative Judgement doctrine, denying Ellen White and on and on. He said because of HIM! So, Ester, stay strong. Stay prayful and don't let yourself be munipulated by your SDA loved ones. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 2061 Registered: 12-2003  |
Esther, I completely empahtize with you. What an untenable position they're trying to put you into! Chris stated very clearly that you can't have a discussion with them based on the faulty hermaneutic they're proposing. He's right. If you are to prove your point using the OT alone, then you have to eliminate Jesus and His teachings completely. You have to ignore statements such as Matthew 11:13-14: "For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come," and Hebrews 1:1-2: "In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by His Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe." The people alive immediately after the death of Christ HAD the knowledge of Christ, after all! They also HAD the apostles, as Chris pointed out, who had been gifted and taught to spread the good news. Further, if you must ignore the NT, you also have to ignore statments such as Ephesians 3:8-9 where Paul clearly states that God had given him the responsibility of preaching the unsearchable riches of Christ to the Gentiles and also of explaining the new covenant and how it works: "and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God who created all things." God clearly kept the mystery of Christ and the church and the new birth hidden in God; and He appointed Paul and the other apostles to explain those things to the world. Jesus is the final revelation of God to us, and without the NT and the inspired writings of Paul and the other authors, we would have no knowledge of what Jesus did or said. Perhpas they should attempt to show from the Bible only, both OT and NT, the clear outline of Seventh-day Adventism without any use of EGW. Further, their insistence that you not use the NT tips their hand: their beliefs are founded in the OT, and whatever the NT may say is secondary or irrelevant. They do not consider the NT writers to be inspired in the same way as the OT writers. Regarding 2 Kings 19 and Isaiah: I don't have a complete answer, but I looked up some background. Isaiah lived until at least 631 BC. Scholars believe that chapter 1-39 occurred during Isaiah's ministry. 1 and 2 Kings were written by an unknown author who had intimate knowledge of Deuteronomy. He also used a variety of sources, three of which are named in these books: "the book of the annals of Solomon", "the book of the annals of the kings of Judah," and "the book of the annals of the kings of Israel". Scholars consider it likely that the author used several other sources as well, perhaps some of the same ones named in 1 and 2 Chronicles. While these sources are not available today, many believe that these records of the reigns of the kings if Israel and Judah are writings compiled by the succession of prophets that spanned the kingdom period of Israel's history. The Chronicles, for example, name some of these: the records of Samuel the Seer, of Nathan the prophet, of Gad the seer, etc. There is disagreement about when the book was written. Some scholars believe it was written after Jehoiachin's release from prison in 562 BC but prior to the end of the Babylonian exile in 538; others say (because of the use of the phrase "to this day" which may have been added by the author or may have occurred in the original source material) that the book was written before the exile to Babylon. Either way, the book was written after Isaiah. It is entirely possible that the author used Isaiah's record of the event. The purpose of the books of Kings is simply to state history, and the author was not giving prophetic revelations. There is no mystery about the fact that the authors of 1,2 Kings and Chronicles were simply compiling historical information from sources extant at the time. As others have said so well, the attitude of presumption in making the barely veiled accusation that the Bible writers plagiarized in order to justify EGW's blatant paraphrasing and borrowing begs the question. Ellen claimed her knoweldge and "views" came from God. Her function was never supposed to be that of a scribe or historian. If one does not believe the truly inspired nature of Scripture, then one cannot put much stock in 2 Timothy 3:16: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." If a person believes the Bible's inspiration is merely relative, this text will be rationalized in some way (ie: Paul is hard to understand, or the health message hadn't yet been revealed, etc.) Besides, these words are in the NT, a fact which, by your relative's hermaneutic, makes them mostly invalid. Esther, I'm praying for you. You really can't have a logical discussion with a person of this mindset, and I don't believe we are called to be drawn into such arguments. We are asked to speak well of Jesus and to proclaim the gospel. Colleen | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 1831 Registered: 11-2002 |
I remember being asked what Esther has been asked. I showed my SDA kin in the OT several places where it says stuff like, "I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt", and places where God says his laws are for his people, in reference to the Isrealites. Then I tell those Adventists that I am not an Isrealite nor have I ever even been in Egypt let alone been brought out from Egypt. I then tell the that Bibicalli I am a Gentile and I switch tothe NT and read them passages from Corthintheins that say things like "the Gentiles knew not the law" and so on. Frankly, I think I do a pretty good job of presenting myself and with only Bible back-up. Then I hear how if we are not under the law then why can't we just go out and commit adukltry, steal and murder, etc. It just ends up with them yelling at me that I've sold my soul to the beast and me thinking they are just way stupid. Neither which is emotionally healthy for any of us to think about the other. My best to you, my friend. | ||
| Sabra Registered user Username: Sabra Post Number: 361 Registered: 10-2001 |
Jeremy, That quote is perfect. Esther, It IS there in the OT, but the Jews knew it frontwards and backwards and they couldn't see it either. NO ONE can see it unless they are born again. I don't know if that means every SDA is not born again or what exactly, but I just remember how clear it became to me when God opened my eyes and the same can happen for them, if they are willing to give up ALL of their own ways and follow Jesus. It is frustrating, I feel for you, just be the light God has called you to be and witness through your relationship with Jesus. Sabra | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 704 Registered: 10-2004 |
Heretic wrote:
Well, the Jews had Scripture memorized very well. They knew what Isaiah had written. If the author of 2 Kings comes along and includes a quotation of Isaiah in his book--everyone would know exactly where he was quoting from and no one would have ever thought that he was trying to "pass it off as his own words." And like I said, we don't even get upset with EGW for using the words of the Bible (unless she is misusing them of course!) in her writings--and she even does this without using quotation marks sometimes. And in Bible times, there were no quotation marks. Jeremy | ||
| Windmotion Registered user Username: Windmotion Post Number: 143 Registered: 6-2001 |
What Raven said reminded me of a few Scriptures. Unfortunately I can't look them up right now since I'm at work. But in Matt. 5 Jesus said NO PART of the law would pass away until Scripture was fulfilled. After that, we can assume it was open season! New law!! And Jesus did say when he was on the cross that all had been fulfilled. I wish I had the reference for you. Read the crucifxion accounts. Helpfully, Hannah | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 705 Registered: 10-2004 |
Hannah, are these the passages that you had in mind? "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished." (Matthew 5:17-18 NASB.) "After this, Jesus, knowing that all things had already been accomplished, to fulfill the Scripture, said, 'I am thirsty.'" (John 19:28 NASB.) Also, in John 19:30 when Jesus says, "It is finished," it is the exact same Greek as "had already been accomplished" in verse 28.  Also, Jesus says in Luke 24:44: "Now He said to them, 'These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.'" (NASB.) Jeremy (Message edited by jeremy on May 31, 2005) | ||
| Heretic Registered user Username: Heretic Post Number: 115 Registered: 2-2005 |
Jeremy, I agree with everything in your above post. Just to clarify, in no way do I actually think Isaiah was trying to get away with anything. In my own meager way I was just trying to illustrate that even under the worst presumptions, the verses were still the truth as given by an inspired author which is diametrically opposed to the writings of Ellen White. But you make great points. Colleen, Thanks for such a clear explanation of those passages and the historical background surrounding them. What you say makes complete sense. Great post...I knew someone would come through! I still can't believe how so many people are so quick to trash the Bible, the "God-breathed" Word of God, in an attempt to make a supposed prophet more credible. It speaks volumes about just how blinded some folks are when they are more than willing to compromise the Bible first and give the benefit of the doubt to a proven plagiarist. It's hard to wrap the brain around that one. Man, is that veil powerful or what?! Heretic | ||
| Windmotion Registered user Username: Windmotion Post Number: 145 Registered: 6-2001 |
Thanks for doing my research Jeremy! | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 1832 Registered: 11-2002 |
Jesus said as He was on the cross, "It is finished". Unfortunatelly the SDA's I know just don't acknowledge that text. BTW, Colleen or Jeremy or anyone else who can answer my question-just what do the SDA's say those words of Jesus mean? | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 2066 Registered: 12-2003 |
You know, I don't remember that passage ever being directly addressed. What I remember "getting" was that His life was finished, and the work He came to do was done. There was certainly no tie-in with the law except for the ceremonies of sacrifices. They DIDN'T say his death fulfilled the law or that His death was the culmination of all being fulfilled. In fact, actual SDA teaching (which many of us were really foggy about) was that by His death the SACRIFICE for sin was completed, but the ATONEMENT' was not completed. The atonement, they say, is happening in heaven right now when people's names come up in the investigative judgment. I think I have a headache... Praise God that It Is Finished! Colleen | ||
| Weimarred Registered user Username: Weimarred Post Number: 66 Registered: 1-2005 |
I'm curious about something. Many Christians outsie of Adventism put great store in the 10 commandments, to the point of insisting that they are the eternal expression of God's law, and not part of the other laws listed in the OT. It seems to me that SDAs have a point in saying that if you're going to view the 10 commandments as sacrosant, you can't ignore the 4th (or whichever it is, depending on the denomination). I think I understand the basic concepts of NC theology, but it appears as though not all Christians fully espouse the NC, at least to the extent of not using the 10 commandments as a barometer of holiness. I say this becuase I find it interesting that SDAs pick and choose what they want to keep and what they want to throw out of the OT, but it also seems that other Christian denominations do the same. Am I all wet here, or does this make sense? | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 706 Registered: 10-2004 |
It makes sense. A lot of Christians are unclear about the Law/the covenants. That is one huge reason why people join the SDA. A lot of Christians who are unclear about the Ten Commandments do at least understand that the Sabbath was fulfilled in Christ, though--they just aren't quite clear on the covenants. Jeremy (Message edited by jeremy on May 31, 2005) |
