Discernment and The Word

[ClubV12]

Good points all, I suspect that many of the people, including the Shepherds, committed to memory vast portions of the scriptures. Reciting them among themselves and counseling each other on "Oop's, ya missed a word".

Home schooling,,, good call!

It's not like they had TV's and such, and sitting around the campfire at night, what else you gonna do?

[Bravus]

That and literacy rates were pretty low among the general population - we tend to forget that.

[Gail]

Okay- let's stop here a minute and reason together:

The topic here is discernment. How did these commoners- the shepherds, Jesus and his folks, just everyday people- arrive at the conclusions they did? What made the difference between the beliefs of the teachers with all the benefits and those who for one, didn't have their own personal Bibles and 2) got the teachers' version of the story when they went to the synagogue?

[Bravus]

I've seen and heard about some references to Daniel being written in 164. My very first thought on that the first time I heard it was "impossible". That would mean Daniel was writing, at least partially, a "history book" not a prophetic book pointing to the future.

IF you believe Daniel was indeed an inspired writer, revealing visions, then the 164 date simply cannot work. No matter what the logic is. That's why it's nice to have some "absolute beliefs" in your life, it keeps you from spinning your wheels researching stuff you KNOW cannot be correct. While some call such a thinking process like that "closed minded", I call it the "express train" to understanding. It cuts out a lot of unnecessary research time because you can build on existing principle and truth.

The epitome of circular reasoning though. We're talking about Daniel in this thread because someone introduced the prophecies of Daniel as evidence for the inspiration of the Bible. But if your a priori belief is that Daniel is prophetic, no matter what the evidence says, then the prophecy does not prove the inspiration of the Bible, it proves that you have a certain belief. But the question was about *why* you have that belief... and it remains unanswered.

On the date:

Quote:

Brown, Raymond E.; Fitzmyer, Joseph A.; Murphy, Roland E., eds (1999). The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Prentice Hall. p. 448. ISBN 0138598363. "Until relatively recent years Jews and Christians have considered Dn to be true history, containing genuine prophecy. [...] There would be few modern biblical scholars, however, who would now seriously defend such an opinion. The arguments for a date shortly before the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 164 are overwhelming."

Here are a few scholarly articles on the topic:

http://www.theologie.uzh.ch/faecher/altes-testament/thomas-krueger/Krueger_2009_Developments.pdf (the relevant bit is on page 4)

http://cbi.sagepub.com/content/6/3/330.short (need to pay or have access through a university or library to the journal to get the full text)

There are more, but ironically one of the problems is that the question was essentially resolved in the 50s and so the writers of theological articles on Daniel now just assume it and don't make the argument.

I have no particular barrow to push on this issue, except the same one as always - truth and logic and following the evidence.

[Bravus]

From 1976: http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/content/XXVII/1/15.extract (only the first page is free but it's enough)

From 1898(!): http://www.jstor.org/pss/3268806

From that book:

"That it is a product of the Maccabean and not the exilic age has been so abundantly demonstrated by others that it may pass without further discussion."

[ClubV12]

Why I believe Daniel wrote the book WAY before 164 is because I accept on faith that it was in fact a "prophecy" not a "history" book. Where "faith" comes from is harder to nail down but there are many and good reasons for it. It may be accurate to call such reasoning "circular" and thus dismiss it, but I'm OK with that! What some may call "circular" I call "absolute". Which I admit is a concept many learned and scholary men can't quite get a handle on, so they dismiss/replace an immovable absolute belief with terms like, oh, maybe "circular".

But on to Gails excellent observation, how did these Shepards even know Christs coming was near? Or, DID they? If they DID know the time was near, they were studying and "doing the math" on Daniels 2,300 day prophecy! Were the Shepards that smart? I have a feeling they weren't, so, how or did they know the Messiah's coming was close at hand?

[Gary K]

I disagree with the assumption that the common people could or where not allowed to read the scriptures. The main reason was most didn't have the money or means to have a copy, and mostly because there was only a very few copies to be had. It was the job of the spiritual leaders, the Rabbi's, to teach the people the word of God. As in OT times they had school's for the Prophets and these were the ones that learned the scripture. As the years went on only the male's were allowed to read the Torah or scriptures, and they also had schools, called Yeshiva's for them to learn it. That's one of the main reason's that most of the people were deceived by there leaders about Jesus, etc. There were very few that through oral tradition would not be deceived by these so called leaders.

I didn't say the common person couldn't read the Torah, but that they were forbidden to study it for themselves. All that was needed to stop an argument over spiritual things was for someone to say, I heard a rabbi say this, and the argument was over. No more discussion was allowed. If further discussion ensued that person, or persons, was reported to the scribes and Pharisees and was liable to be excommunicated for they had questioned the word of the rabbis.

Look up the phrase "fear of the Jews" and see how it is used in the stories being told. Also read the story of the healing at the pool of Bethesda and what the reaction of the man's parents was.

I know you accept Ellen White so read her comments on all of these instances. Read chapters 21, 27 and 44 of DofA. You will see how much weight was given to the Talmud over the Torah, and how much power the spiritual leaders of the nation over the common man. That means the rabbis controlled the discussion about everything, and everything was seen through their eyes. To them their traditions were the law, and thought independent of their traditions and decisions was not allowed. It was punished severely.

[ClubV12]

Whew, no wonder Jesus has to be home schooled, and those Shepherds made a wise choice in their career path.

Come to think of it, those Jewish scholars? They were asking the same question Gail was earlier. How is it this man knows so much and never even attended our schools? And how did those Shepherds get a clue? :)

[Dr. Rich]

Jesus was taught by His own Parents--the Father in Heaven and the Holy Spirit. Jesus said that everything He said and taught by Him was given to Him by His Father.

[cardw]

That's why it's nice to have some "absolute beliefs" in your life, it keeps you from spinning your wheels researching stuff you KNOW cannot be correct. While some call such a thinking process like that "closed minded", I call it the "express train" to understanding. It cuts out a lot of unnecessary research time because you can build on existing principle and truth.

This is called ignoring the evidence. It's way more effective than circular reasoning because you can bypass the reasoning all together.

To quote Harry Crumb, "I'm so thoroughly trained I don't even have to think before I speak."

[cardw]

The 490 year timeline given in Daniel 9 just-so-happens to exactly pin point the baptism of the Messiah and his subsequent ministry in 27 A.D.

The 1260 year timeline of Dan 7 just-so-happens to fit the persecution of the saints in the dark ages following the fall of the 4th empire from Babylon (which all historians know as pagan Rome).

Impossible for the objective unbiased reader to simply ignore.

in Christ,

Bob

This interpretation of Daniel and Revelation basically puts the Beast as the power that put the Bible together. If it were not for Rome we would not have the form of Christianity we have today. We would not have a Bible that contained a New Testament.

The problem is how could an evil power put together a Divine document?

When you study the system used to put the bible together you will find bribery, violence, torture, and corruption using the power of the Roman empire to install one form of Christianity while destroying all written evidence of any other form and killing and/or torturing those who resisted or taught other gospels. This began very early in the history of the Christian Church.

The earliest Christian books were gnostic, not orthodox. The gnostic Christians had the first books. It was the proto-orthodox writers and theologians who formed the competing canon later into what we call the New Testament today. Once that canon became established the power of Rome was used to destroy all other competing writings. We would not have any of these early gnostic writings except for some that were hidden and buried in tombs of early Christians.

[ClubV12]

If you don't have any absolute beliefs in your life, it must be terribly complicated going over the same things again again to re-prove them?

At some point, in science or in life, you just HAVE to accept a foundational principle developed before you. Like the properties of water, the existance of germs, many things we take for granted every moment of our life. You don't need "evidence", you just "know", the matter is settled once and for all, it's "absolute".

When it comes to the christian life if you DON'T have some absolutes you don't have a connection with God! I absolutely believe in God, no "evidence" will persaude me other wise. As you grow in life you add continually to your absolutes, and yet, remain open to a deeper understanding of each one.

The evidence suggests, or even shows, that corruption was rampant as it involved putting together the bible. Political favors excluded some and included other books for consideration. Thus, one might conclude the final work, the bible, is a suspect document. Here comes the absolute... Regardless of the evidence I "believe" God was in control of the process. THAT is FREEDOM! I don't need to worry or concern myself with the "evidence" any longer if I don't NEED to be. I could review the evidence, but I don't need to.

Absolutes, they are a thing of beauty! Bringing freedom, peace, understanding and a rock solid foundation. Build them very carefully, don't mistake an absolute for a bone headed decision!

OH, and there is no way Daniel was written in the 160's, don't care what "evidence" you got that says it was.

[BobRyan]

This interpretation of Daniel and Revelation basically puts the Beast as the power that put the Bible together. If it were not for Rome we would not have the form of Christianity we have today.

Turns out that is false.

1,400 BC: The first written Word of God: The Ten Commandments delivered to Moses.

500 BC: Completion of All Original Hebrew Manuscripts which make up The 39 Books of the Old Testament.

200 BC: Completion of the Septuagint Greek Manuscripts which contain The 39 Old Testament Books AND 14 Apocrypha Books.

1st Century AD: Completion of All Original Greek Manuscripts which make up The 27 Books of the New Testament.

NT Authors frequently reference the "scriptures" and quote the OT text so we know that their readers understood and accepted the OT text.

1. No need for first and second century Christians to wait 300 or 400 years for a Catholic to tell them what the Bible is.

2. No valid claim that a Catholic wrote any of the OT or NT text of scripture.

3. No indication at all that the NT waited 400 or 500 years to claim that scripture existed and was authorotative.

Acts 17:11 "They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul were so".

And of course Peter is famous for including the writings of Paul in with "the rest of scripture".

Paul states that his teaching was accepted "for what it is - the Word of God" - by the Christians of his day.

in Christ,

Bob

[cardw]

If you don't have any absolute beliefs in your life, it must be terribly complicated going over the same things again again to re-prove them?

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

This interpretation of Daniel and Revelation basically puts the Beast as the power that put the Bible together. If it were not for Rome we would not have the form of Christianity we have today.

Turns out that is false.

Your list of dates is hardly settled among scholars. From what I have studied there is a large body of evidence to the contrary.

And most of your references are circular.

Based on your criteria for determining what is true we will never come to any consensus.

[Gail]

I have a question. How could Daniel be written in 164 if Jesus quoted from it while He was on earth?

But... I think we're getting off topic, aren't we? Aren't we supposed to be talking about discernment?

I'd like to know if discernment plays a role in lives separate to Christiandom- Richard, any ideas? How do you screen what comes your way? I think you've probably informed us more or less through the years, but go ahead.

I'm fascinated in how people reach certain conclusions- same information, different persons, different conclusions.

[Dr. Rich]

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

The 490 year timeline given in Daniel 9 just-so-happens to exactly pin point the baptism of the Messiah and his subsequent ministry in 27 A.D.

The 1260 year timeline of Dan 7 just-so-happens to fit the persecution of the saints in the dark ages following the fall of the 4th empire from Babylon (which all historians know as pagan Rome).

Impossible for the objective unbiased reader to simply ignore.

in Christ,

Bob

This interpretation of Daniel and Revelation basically puts the Beast as the power that put the Bible together. If it were not for Rome we would not have the form of Christianity we have today. We would not have a Bible that contained a New Testament.

The problem is how could an evil power put together a Divine document?

When you study the system used to put the bible together you will find bribery, violence, torture, and corruption using the power of the Roman empire to install one form of Christianity while destroying all written evidence of any other form and killing and/or torturing those who resisted or taught other gospels. This began very early in the history of the Christian Church.

The earliest Christian books were gnostic, not orthodox. The gnostic Christians had the first books. It was the proto-orthodox writers and theologians who formed the competing canon later into what we call the New Testament today. Once that canon became established the power of Rome was used to destroy all other competing writings. We would not have any of these early gnostic writings except for some that were hidden and buried in tombs of early Christians.

EXACTLY! Well done Rich! So I ask, why believe that the whole NT is the inspired word of God? Hmmm?

[ClubV12]

Discernment, isn't another name for that intuition? Maybe that's a first cousin...

Often before outright "discernment" I get a hunch, a gutt feeling, an intuition that something aint right, the alert system goes up, the concentration intensifies. In the spiritual realm it happens with bible verses, EGW quotes, a story someone is sharing, a comment in Sabbath school class. It also works in a positive way, sometimes you can't put your finger on it, but it sounds like, feels like, might be, TRUTH.

Sometimes it's not discernment, it's the miraculous working out of God's will in our life, while we have no clue. Looking BACK we see it and marvel at it, thats when we discern it. Such was the case for me a few years before I became very serious about finding and following the Lord. Things started falling into place along that path that were SO "unexplainable" I was getting goose bumps over it. I didn't know WHAT exactly was happening, but I tell you, it was almost "scary" they were so profound. The timing of certain events left me with my mouth hanging open as I moved forward. Moved forward not in "faith" mind you, just shuffling along toward some mystic goal or something and things just kept falling into place. Weird, I thought, VERY weird. Looking back, I feel so foolish for not recognizing it was God leading me!

Well NOW, I discern that, when once I was clueless, even while it was happening.

[BobRyan]

.

1,400 BC: The first written Word of God: The Ten Commandments delivered to Moses.

500 BC: Completion of All Original Hebrew Manuscripts which make up The 39 Books of the Old Testament.

200 BC: Completion of the Septuagint Greek Manuscripts which contain The 39 Old Testament Books AND 14 Apocrypha Books.

1st Century AD: Completion of All Original Greek Manuscripts which make up The 27 Books of the New Testament.

NT Authors frequently reference the "scriptures" and quote the OT text so we know that their readers understood and accepted the OT text.

1. No need for first and second century Christians to wait 300 or 400 years for a Catholic to tell them what the Bible is.

2. No valid claim that a Catholic wrote any of the OT or NT text of scripture.

3. No indication at all that the NT waited 400 or 500 years to claim that scripture existed and was authorotative.

Acts 17:11 "They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul were so".

And of course Peter is famous for including the writings of Paul in with "the rest of scripture".

Paul states that his teaching was accepted "for what it is - the Word of God" - by the Christians of his day.

in Christ,

[BobRyan]

The 490 year timeline given in Daniel 9 just-so-happens to exactly pin point the baptism of the Messiah and his subsequent ministry in 27 A.D.

The 1260 year timeline of Dan 7 just-so-happens to fit the persecution of the saints in the dark ages following the fall of the 4th empire from Babylon (which all historians know as pagan Rome).

Impossible for the objective unbiased reader to simply ignore.

[ClubV12]

My apologies... but...

"It is not at all shocking that our resident agnostic/atheist and our resident Dr. Rich are in agreement when it comes to the Bible."

I had to literally laugh out loud at that, my bad. :)

[Dr. Rich]

Bob and Club, you can LOL all you want but when you say that Paul's writings were inspired by the Holy Spirit, then you are messing around with something serious called blaspheming the Holy Spirit, a sin that will not be forgiven. Calling the Holy Spirit a liar (saying SHE did something that SHE did not do) is not a laughing matter.

[ClubV12]

Dr. Rich, I would say the same applies for those who say Pauls writings are not inspired by the Holy Spirit. Paul is most certainly one of many of the Lords messengers! To deny his authority is serious indeed. Thats a double edge sword your carrying on that issue!

[phkrause]

Dr. Rich, I would say the same applies for those who say Pauls writings are not inspired by the Holy Spirit. Paul is most certainly one of many of the Lords messengers! To deny his authority is serious indeed. Thats a double edge sword your carrying on that issue!

[Dr. Rich]

If you actually believe that Paul was inspired, then please read what Paul wrote here: http://www.gnosis.org/library/visionpaul.htm

This is where the Catholic Church got their doctrine(s) from. It was in the first bibles the Universal church put together, but taken out at a later time. If you can't find anything wrong with this then so be it. I do!