Absalom, Judas & The Pope

[John317]

Any time the subject comes up, we have to make sure it's clear that we're talking about Bible teachings, not about individuals.

Originally Posted By: SivartM

Except the pope?

Even when we talk about "popes," we're not discussing personalities and individuals but the papal system. We don't know the heart and mind of indviduals. That's a different issue.

Individual popes, like anyone who professes faith in Christ, are judged in the Investigative Judgment. It isn't up to humans to judge other humans with regard to their ultimate destiny. But it is up to people to judge doctrines and practices by the Bible.

[SivartM]

I said earlier that we should not be talking about specific individuals, but some of us are not.

[teresaq]

are?, or, are not?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I sure do wish everyone would get on the same page...

[John317]

But there's nothing wrong in discussing what individuals are doing and saying. Catholics themselves talk about that, of course, and not all positively. A lot of Catholics pay little or no attention to what the pope says. My wife's family are all Catholic and they rarely even mention him.

What's important or central to Mexican Catholics is the Virgin of Guadalupe and prayers, primarily to Mary and to the saints. They really don't get very far at all into the doctrines of their church or into the Bible. In fact, if you ask some Catholics for a Bible, they will usually give you their missal. They may have a Bible in their homes but they rarely study it. They are taught to pretty much rely on the priest to tell them what the Bible says, and this is in line with Catholic doctrine itself, which places emphasis on the teaching authority of the Church, i.e., priests, bishops, etc. It makes it very hard to get Catholics to study the Bible, because they simply don't know how and have never been taught to do anything but listen to others in authority expound on the word.

By the way, this is not to say that no Catholics study their Bible. I used to take my wife to Mass, and there I saw signs and newsletters inviting Catholics to Bible Study classes conducted by the priest. So Bible study is available, but most Catholics don't participate in those classes, and the Church doesn't stress it.

[Kevin H]

Shane: Whether Absalom is a good guy or a bad guy, saved or lost, the issue is that we tend to automatically make him a villain because David is our hero. While we can see in the story Judas' selfishness, and we can look at the events the history of the papacy and find points we can be critical of, we don't see anything as glaring in Absalom's story, and what is worst is that we see that his followers look like us, the Bible Studying faithful, those raised with the truth; while David had a few of the leadership of the church and the new converts from Paganism. This is what makes some question the tradition and are open to the possibility that this is a story when God wanted to teach us about conflict within the church. We find the church leadership split between David and Absalom and we find the long time layity following Absalom and the new converts following David. Could the text be wanting to teach us that if we are like David, someone who makes mistakes, very big mistakes, that as long as we are going after God's heart; God will not give up on us. And just because Absalom was killed in the war when he was making a horrible mistake does not mean that God would give up on him any more than he gave up on David.

On the other hand we find Joab. He could have been an even bigger problem to David if he choose. But he choose to be dedicated to David, choose to be subservient to David, and would do anything to advance the Kingdom of David and of YAHWEH. He was more the liberal; trusting in God's grace but not showing enough respect to God's law. Joab would do anything for David and Yahweh even if he had to break the 10 commandments to do it. When Solomon had him killed, he ran to the temple to hold the horns of the alter, representing the power of Christ and grace of Christ. When told that he will not be receiving sanctuary and that he could either die there or come out and die, he chooses to die continuing to cling to the symbol of the merits of Christ. He teaches us that no matter how much you are depending on the grace of Jesus, if you don't show respect and regard to the law which is a reflection of his character, you will find life here on earth a lot more miserable that it needs to be.

Could this story of church conflect be so scary for Satan that he wants us to simply make Absalom a villian so that we don't thnk about it and examine our hearts in light of this story?

[jasd]

>>so, jasd, perhaps you havent had time to respond,<<

Sorry, I must have missed a post requiring a response...

>>or perhaps my response to you didnt apply...<<

It probably did, and it would have been inconsiderate of me not to respond should one have been called-for.

Perhaps, you might refresh...

>>but if it did, i would like to sincerely apologize for our insensitivity.<<

There is no need to apologize; however, I appreciate the sentiment and Thank-you.

We best engage when it is done vigorously with intent to sort out the chaff; besides, Writ tells us that it is Truths which save – sensitivity being too much bruited – that too often it separates substance from dialog.

>>i have seen what some of us have done on general christian boards and i do understand the bad feelings it has generated,<<

“Bad feelings” are part of the genetic makeup of life. It’s OK to have them – if we, at some point, are able to get past them to our own benefit.

>>which, quite understandably, can make any mention of the papal/babylon/antichrist subject very touchy.<<

It may be – to one who is either a RC or have close friends or family who are; otherwise, per myself, I am so hornswoggled by the nincompoopery of some of these unfounded ideas – that I have to respond – to vent my amazement and to introduce other factors into the mix, as to – perhaps, prove beneficial to

one or another who really cares when parsing text(s).

>>i firmly believe our understanding of these issues,<<

Believing is better than not; though it better serves to hold correct understandings.

>>but i also believe they should be presented with much more sensitivity<<

How can you do so with more sensitivity, as concerns the very fabric of another’s self and beliefs? It’s like shouting “Your Mama!” at another – thinking that he or she would not be insulted. That is absolute and pure idiocy.

All Xtians are bothers and sisters in Jesus Christ. That may be why He stated, “For he that is not against us is on our part.”

Were one truly concerned – he or she would preach only Jesus Christ and Him crucified – per Holy Writ.

However, upon a discussion board – most anything goes – and is accepted in that context, as rightly, it should.

>>-and a humble recognition that we ourselves, individually, are far from perfect ....<<

Especially in matters pertaining to sound doctrine!

[John317]

Shane: Whether Absalom is a good guy or a bad guy, saved or lost, the issue is that we tend to automatically make him a villain because David is our hero.

Why is it important that people see Absalom NOT as a villain? Isn't he a villain? Or should we see him as someone to admire and imitate? I definitely do see David as a hero, because that's how the Bible protrays him. Of course heroes are not all good, just as villains are not all bad (as any serious student of Shakespeare will attest), but that doesn't mean the villain becomes a hero or a good guy. It just means there is complexity (as always) in a good narrative or story.

This reminds me of the books that have come out fairly recently depicting Judas as a good guy, an idea based on an early gnostic text claiming to tell the "real truth" about Judas.

[John317]

....This is what makes some question the tradition and are open to the possibility ....

Could you expand on this aspect of your previous post? What is "the tradition"? Is this distinct from the inspired Scriptures that tell the story? Is the narrative as given in the Scriptures reliable or do you suspect that the author had an "agenda" that hid important facts? In other words, do we have to uncover the "real truth" as we might in the profane histories?

[Dr. Shane]

did you agree or disagree with the paragraph i put here from that chapter?

[Dr. Shane]

We find the church leadership split between David and Absalom and we find the long time layity following Absalom and the new converts following David.

Absalom is a type of pope. We see the traditionalists following him. They are the old guard.

David is a type of Adventist. While he is not perfect, he has a love for the truth.

That is the parallel for our time. It is misleading to use terms like liberal and conservative because people of that time did not think like people of our time do so the labels do not hold true.

It was the endorsement of Ahithophel that helped Absalom win the loyalty of so many and Ahithophel's endorsement was the result of a resentment he held against David due to Bathsheba. Absalom's thirst for power was so great he could not wait to inherit the throne but desired the blood of his father in order to get it. The papacy achieved its power and rule through by the blood of the saints.

[Kevin H]

Originally Posted By: Kevin H

....This is what makes some question the tradition and are open to the possibility ....

Could you expand on this aspect of your previous post? What is "the tradition"? Is this distinct from the inspired Scriptures that tell the story? Is the narrative as given in the Scriptures reliable or do you suspect that the author had an "agenda" that hid important facts? In other words, do we have to uncover the "real truth" as we might in the profane histories?

What I mean about the tradition is that we 1. Do a superficial reading of the text 2. No not look up to see just who the text is saying is following David and who the text is saying followed Absalom, as well as not studying the other details of the text 3. We jump to the conclusion that since Absalom attacked our hero David that therefore he is a villain and evil and lost.

This is all I meant when I said tradition, We read the words of the Bible, but don't study the details the text gives us, it is just looking at the words and mixing the words with our assumptions and imagination and we call this sola scriptoria, but where our assumptions about what the Bible should be saying is our actual foundation of our faith, and the actual words of scripture we put to an inferior role. Our habit of reading the words of the Bible but jumping to conclusions based on our presuppositions, assumed premises and the fact that since we already "know" what the Bible is teaching so we read what we already know into the text.

[Kevin H]

Originally Posted By: Kevin H

Shane: Whether Absalom is a good guy or a bad guy, saved or lost, the issue is that we tend to automatically make him a villain because David is our hero.

Why is it important that people see Absalom NOT as a villain? Isn't he a villain? Or should we see him as someone to admire and imitate? I definitely do see David as a hero, because that's how the Bible protrays him. Of course heroes are not all good, just as villains are not all bad (as any serious student of Shakespeare will attest), but that doesn't mean the villain becomes a hero or a good guy. It just means there is complexity (as always) in a good narrative or story.

This reminds me of the books that have come out fairly recently depicting Judas as a good guy, an idea based on an early gnostic text claiming to tell the "real truth" about Judas.

Sorry John, there is no gnostic texts or anything like that; only the details of that pesky little book called the Bible, which keeps spoiling our comfort.

Yes, we should imitate and admire Absalom's desire to make the king's office less like the pagan nations and more like the Samuel model. We should admire his willingness to see that they were departing from the words of scripture and wanting to return to the words of scripture. We should admire his willingness to call sin by it's proper name. We should imitate and admire his desire to bring about a revival and return to the Bible.

What we should not imitate and admire is his jumping to the conclusion that his dad had fully apostasizied and making judgement against his father as a lost sinner. We should not admire how he wanted to use force to push his understanding of the scriptures on to the nation faster than the Lord would lead. David always gave Saul the benefit of the doubt, it would have been wise for Absalom to show the same attitude towards his father.

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Kevin H

....This is what makes some question the tradition and are open to the possibility ....

Could you expand on this aspect of your previous post? What is "the tradition"? Is this distinct from the inspired Scriptures that tell the story? Is the narrative as given in the Scriptures reliable or do you suspect that the author had an "agenda" that hid important facts? In other words, do we have to uncover the "real truth" as we might in the profane histories?

Sounds like modern seminary training.

[John317]

....This is what makes some question the tradition and are open to the possibility ....

Originally Posted By: John3;17

... Is the narrative as given in the Scriptures reliable or do you suspect that the author had an "agenda" that hid important facts? In other words, do we have to uncover the "real truth" as we might in the profane histories?

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

Sounds like modern seminary training.

Don't it, though.

The idea seems to be to obscure the Scriptures so that everything is covered in mystery and nothing is what it appears to be. It's all smoke and mirrors and nothing can be known for sure-- everything is opinion and perspective.

It's what many scholars thrive on because being able to play with language that way proves that they are necessary to a true evaluation of the texts. The papal system thrives on it, and many in our own church have swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.

I remember reading about F. Scott Fitzgerald in his days at Princeton University. He slept a lot in his classes, but he always seemed to have a good answer for any question the professors might ask when they woke him up from his nap. His stock answer was, "It depends on how you look at it." No absolute truth and nothing anyone can be certain of-- just depends on point of view.

[Guest]

Exactly...

[SivartM]

So, if we're talking about the Investigative Judgment, careful scrutiny of the text is important, and we should not be bound to traditional interpretations of atonement, et cetera... but if we're talking about the story of Absalom, we mustn't tamper with the Scriptures (like those liberal atheists at Andrews want to do).

[Dr. Shane]

I find the investigative judgment pretty straight forward. The Scripture doesn't seem to obscure on it. It seems pretty straight forward to me.

[John317]

Sorry John, there is no gnostic texts or anything like that; only the details of that pesky little book called the Bible, which keeps spoiling our comfort.

Yes, there are recently translated gnostic texts that turn the NT view of Judas on its head.

I didn't say that you are influenced by those gnostic texts. I'm just pointing out that the gnosic texts portray Judas in a positive light.

Nor am I saying that the "villains" are all bad. Satan himself has some positive characteristics if you look hard enough for them.

And, no, I don't view the Bible as at all a "pesky little book," and it doesn't spoil anything. Interpreters of the Bible don't spoil anything, either. They just are either wrong or right; but like heroes and villains, interpreters are almost never purely right or wrong. But then, except for Christ, who is? :-)

[Kevin H]

Originally Posted By: Kevin H

....This is what makes some question the tradition and are open to the possibility ....

John, you know better than this! The context of this quote is an encouragement to read the Bible closer, to read it carefully, and it is unfair for you to rip it out of context.

[John317]

....This is what makes some question the tradition and are open to the possibility ....

Originally Posted By: Kevin H

John, you know better than this! The context of this quote is an encouragement to read the Bible closer, to read it carefully, and it is unfair for you to rip it out of context.

Kevin, here is my original post:

Quote:

Could you expand on this aspect of your previous post? What is "the tradition"? Is this distinct from the inspired Scriptures that tell the story? Is the narrative as given in the Scriptures reliable or do you suspect that the author had an "agenda" that hid important facts? In other words, do we have to uncover the "real truth" as we might in the profane histories?

Notice it is a question asking you to explain what you meant by "questioning the tradition."

How is it unfair to ask the question?

In much literature on the Bible, "the tradition" has a particular meaning, and therefore I asked the question to understand your meaning.

I noticed you answered the question without suggesting that I had done something amiss by asking it.

[Kevin H]

I was calling the Bible "That pesky little book" because it's job is to make us uncomfortable and to re examine our hearts in the light of learning it better. However, now that you mention it, I guess that if you already know what the Bible is going to say, that it does not become a pesky little book if we already believe we know what it is going to say. It reminds me of a statement by Felix Loranz Jr. He said that one of his seminary professors in the 1940s (He did not say which one, maybe Lynn Wood his major professor) said "If you believe exactly thee same 7 years from now as you do today, you do not have the Holy Spirit in your life, because the Holy Spirit's job to lead us into truth and if we have it all then there is either nothing else for the Holy Spirit to do, or else you are not following the leadings of the Holy Spirit."

[Kevin H]

But I did answer, did you not read it?

I said that our traditon is to

1. Read the words on a superficial level

2. Not study the details of the text

3. Jump to the conclusion that since Absalom attacked our hero David that he must be a villain and lost.

Or that our tradition is to not let the words of scripture speak for themselves. We don't look at the geograpy, the history, the cultural and historical backgrounds, the litearary structure.

We only use our imagination, our presupostions, our assumptions that "I know what the Bible is suposed to say" and we filter the words of the Bible through our assumptions and set our assumptions as the final authority over the actual words of the text.

What I mean to question the tradition is to see if we are honestly being fair to the words or scripture or are we wanting to defend our assumptions about the scriptures.

[John317]

Seventh-day Adventists wouldn't disagree with that, except when people make claims, for instance, that the Holy Spirit has led them to give up the Sabbath, believe Ellen White was a false prophet, or join the Roman Catholic Church. All of which happens more than some might imagine.

[John317]

But I did answer, did you not read it?

If this question is for me (and not Shane), yes, I did read it.

I said, "I noticed you answered the question..."

Thanks for answering it. :-)