Leaderboard

Thoughts?

Thanks for the hat tip, Stan. I think things like the sacrificial system have a clear reason for not being carried on once the Sacrifice they were designed to point to had happened. Perhaps similarly, things like not making clothes from blended fibres were symbols of Israel's 'chosen people' status and the necessity to avoid mixing with other nations, but once the Gospel was extended to all of humanity these requirements are no longer needed. I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is a rational basis for sticking with some of the OT rules and not others. I think both fundamentalists and atheists often over-simplify this. Other things, such as the dietary laws, have a scientific basis. My view is that eating a prawn is no longer a salvation matter, but may be advisable to avoid as it avoids filter feeders that can concentrate impurities. Not a requirement, but a rational choice. Some of the laws around menstruation may have been essential in a desert with little water for reasons of health and sanitation, but aren't required today in terms of women not attending church (unless they need to stay home with a hot water bottle and some Midol). Many of the laws were created in a theocracy for the protection and continuation of the nation, not so much for specifically religious/divine reasons... but in a culture in which those two things were much less differentiated than they are now anyway. The underlying principles - of life and health and social cohesion and mutual protection - are eternal, but their application in specific rules may change as society and the physical environment changes.

To give an idea as to the ugliness of sin, to hopefully repulse us from it.

About a month ago, I sort of pooh-poohed this idea. This week in Sabbath School, we were studying Jesus birth. As Rachel stated, there was one other day in history when the heavens took this configuration - for 80 minutes on Rosh Hashanah (Sept. 11), 3 BC. Could that have been the sign of Jesus' birth? Could the repeat of this sign signify the beginning of the tribulation? Is it a coincidence that Rosh Hashanah occurs on Sept. 22, 2017 - the day before the Rev. 12 sign? I retract my previous post.

Lake Maracaibo in Venezuela: Yes. And you did not cheat and look it up?

Of course not. What I'm worried about is that we are reading the words of the Bible but too many read their own ideas and traditions. For example the idea that Paul saw the law as done away with that is so popular in churches who call their interpretation "Plain reading" But over the last couple of decades scholars realized that their "plain reading of Paul" was reading into Paul's words the ideas of the church/synagogue split of 135 AD, St. Augustine and the Reformation theologians. When they try to strip that away and read Paul in the context of his day and what the words he used was used in other contexts in his day they come to see him as keeping God's law, see Paul as keeping the Sabbath and eating Kosher. Yes, they debate whether he expected Gentile to keep these, but that he clearly expected Jews, even when accepting Christ to remain Sabbath keepers and to keep Kosher. And while they debate whether he expected gentiles to keep them, they clearly see him as seeing the Sabbath as special and Paul at least inviting Gentiles to enjoy the Sabbath, but for them to realize that the Sabbath is the Sabbath, and that the arguments that the popular churches use against the Sabbath are incorrect. They also recognize that Paul did not see an immortal soul but that the dead sleep in schoal until the resurrection. People don't realize how much they are reading into the words of the Bible rather than reading what the Bible is trying to teach us. My complaint about the anti women's ordination people is that they are reading ideas into the words of Paul and their other proof texts, just as much as the "Paul said the law was done away with thus keeping Sabbath is a work, and Paul said that when we are absent from the body we are present with the Lord." The are not in adherence to the scriptures and I am pushing for adherence to the scriptures, not to traditions that we read into the scriptures. Our church is based on scholarly study of the scriptures. While I need to study this more, apparently most of our doctrines and understandings of the Bible started with Athanasius of Alexandria. But then the church got away from that as St. Augustine's views, especially of Revelation became popular. Then came Joachim of Fiore. Many Christians believed that Joachim of Fiore was a true prophet of God. This was especially true of the Franciscans who would study the Bible in light of what the leaned from Joachim of Fiore. While the Reformers followed Joachim of Fiore, they tended to read him through the eyes of Augustine. But the Franciscans went a different direction which entered Protestantism in the Adventist movement of the 1700s (Sir. Isaac Newton belonged to this group.) and lead to a series of Bible conferences by the leading scholars of this evolution of thought in the end of the 1700s and early 1800s, the powers court conferences. There was an infidel in New England who was using his "Plain reading" of the Bible to be an unbeliever. He use to embarrass religious people with his arguments. But then a minister challenged him that his "plain reading" was not what the Bible was really teaching. So he began to read the Bible but with the information that evolved through the Franciscans' study of Joachim of Fiore, the advent movement of the 1700s and the great scholars of this movement meeting and discussing at the Powers court conferences. This completely changed this infidel into a believer. His name was William Miller. And we have to remember that when the Powers court conferences took place, Robinson had not yet explored the holy land to open the door to Archaeology and the rediscovery of the ancient world. What I am advocating is to not follow the approach of the Jehovah's Witnesses, hyperfundamentalist evangelicals and William Miller before he decided to challenge his "plain reading" with the information presented in the Powers court conferences. Since the mid 1800s (interesting time period) we have more information available to us. I believe that we are doing the same METHOD as the Franciscans and the Powers court conferences and of course William Miller, only with more information than they had available. The methodology does not change. It is NOT " interpreted through the lens of a new enlightened hermeneutics" No no, it is the same OLD hermeneutics. Exegesis is only trying to be even more fair to these same old hermeneutics. It is to see where we are reading tradition or other ideas into the words of scripture so that we can remove from our eyes the glasses that we filter the words of scripture through, into back to the words of scripture and getting to the meaning of those words instead of reading them through filters that filer out their meaning and filter into the words of scripture other ideas that we end up thinking that the Bible is teaching.

Rachel, I have read the Quran and the explaination of it. I agree with your comment related to the two (2) sentences that you quoted. However, I believe that the two sentences are a poorly worded section that does not faithfully represent what the author was attempting to say. I will suggest that one ought to take those two sentences within the context of a much larger explaination in which he gave very specific examples where he believed the Quran is faithful to what we believe the Bible teaches. The fact of the matter is that while it is very difficult to convert a person from Islam to Christianity, some of the most successful people who are working to do such, use the Quran to teach Muslims doctrines taught by the Bible and Christianity. I have read the literature of Arabic SDAs, who are fluent in Arabic, who use the Quran to teach fundamental Biblical truths of which most Muslims are not aware. Further, the author makes a very important point when he mentions the Hadith. Please do not confuse a teaching that actually comes from the Hadith with comming from the Quran. Much of Islamic teaching today comes from the Hadith and not from the Quran.

Currently my Sabbath reading includes a book titled Sacred Time unRemembered; how the original Sabbath was lost - and why it matters. It goes through the history of the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath of Scripture and how that observance was lost for most Christians. It also gives the reasons why the seventh-day Sabbath is still supposed to be a moral force in a Christian's life. It's a good book not suited for speed reading. I ran across some interesting historical items, including the fact that the Council of Trent had a group of people who wanted the Roman Catholic Church to commit to following nothing but what the Bible taught. One of the archbishops managed to get rid of that notion by a very powerful (in an evil way) sermon. I bought the book at the Collegedale (TN) ABC, but it is published by Torchlight Intelligence Publishing, not one of the regular Adventist publishing houses or university presses. The book certainly sheds new light on an interesting subject.

OF course!! We should pray for each other. And yes - my very good friend of 30 years was just at my home for the week of the Feast of Tabernacles. We live in different states now, but still keep in touch. We are on the "same page" concerning God our Father and Christ HIS Son, and she also believes (with me) that the resurrection at the 8th millennium will NOT be the resurrection of all the wicked from this 6000 years.

Hosea 6:3 "Let us know, Let us pursue the knowledge of the LORD. His going forth is established as the morning; He will come to us like the rain, Like the latter and former rain to the earth." (NKJ) This is a very familiar verse to most of us. The words "going forth" (Strongs 04161) means to go out of, or forth from a specific place. Jesus goes forth FROM HEAVEN. HE will come to us as the latter and the former rain. HE was the former rain, and HE is the latter rain. HE is the Son of God. HE was the spirit with mankind before His incarnation, and HE is the spirit with mankind, since He ascended and was glorified. Because "the last Adam became a life-giving SPIRIT" (I Cor 15:45). Those who believe in God as THREE divine persons, seem absolutely FIXATED on the word "another" - "and He (the Father) will send you another comforter", as if it has to be another divine being. For me, the FATHER did send them "another comforter" when He glorified His own Son, giving Him the power to be in all places once again. We know the FATHER poured His own self (His spirit) INTO His Son, and the Son then "poured out this which you now see and hear" (Acts 2:33). The Father gave Jesus another FORM, by which He could be WITH His disciples. John under inspiration said, "This is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit" (John John 1:33). He said this OF Jesus, at His baptism. There are few doctrines about which I feel so strongly. I think the only other doctrine about which I feel so strongly, is the doctrine which says that Jesus Christ was and is the Son of God, and the only name under Heaven by which we can be saved.

What comes to mind in response to reading this interesting point of view is, "my ways are not your ways, and my thoughts are not your thoughts as high as the heavens are above the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." We are small, and this smallness leads us to talk and walk in ways that hinder the work of the Holy Spirit. It is for us to have hearts and minds enlarged by the greatness and goodness and wisdom of the God who saved us. This is not comfortable or easy for any of us. Some are bolder than others to reach for this higher and ever higher. We do have a few Joshua's and Caleb's in our midst. The Lord does not lead us to bicker and complain, and attempt to control one another. This we can be sure of. As a human being, to be completely honest, I find it most natural and easy to get caught in this snare. God help us all.