Left Powerless Over Sin? No!

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: fccool

Historicity of Jesus is more unlikely than likely. Jesus seems to be a composite figure based on a rebel Jew of that era.

The historicity of Jesus has been established by outside historians alive in that era. The Jewish historian Josephus is very broadly held to be credible in the world's academic circles today. He includes not only the person of Jesus, but also the conflict between Jesus and the religious leaders of the day and the crucifixion/resurrection events which caused such a stir in Jerusalem.

Jesus is a more established figure in history whom more people can readily identify today, than the Roman Caesar ruling the Roman Empire when Jesus was born....of whom most people just don't have a clue.

I don't know where you get your information from.

Blessings,

[joeb]

Originally Posted By: Joeb

First, sorry I misread part of your post.

No problem. I've done that too many times myself.

BTW, I use color to distinguish my responses from those I'm responding to.

Quote:

Second, you are reading into what I say the idea of perfectionism. Plus, you are generalizing from your experience and throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Perhaps the best thing to do, Joeb, is for us to start over. It's too tedious work for me to go back and copy and paste what you had posted that led me to believe that you are of the persuasion that henceforth after conversion you can live a sinless life. What is your position, is that possible?

Quote:

The very fact that wanting to be like Christ was a drudgery, an impossibility, "no matter how hard I tried", to quote you, tells me we are talking about completely separate concepts. Read your own post.

It is quite possible we are talking about two different things and just talking past each other. That's why I say let's start over.

Originally Posted By: joeb

Does that fact that I believe in sanctification by faith somehow mean, in your eyes, that I cannot believe in justification by faith? That's what you seem to be saying. How does one exclude the other?

I'll say the same thing - never said it nor did I mean to imply any such thing. So why did I ask this question - If you fail to reach this sinless perfection (forget about the past, I'm talking about now), are you toast? Am I toast?

Because there SDAs who believe in both justification AND sanctification who also believe that unless you reach the stage of sinless perfection (discounting the past] now or at some future time, then you are toast/lost. I was trying to get a clearer understanding of what you believe. And forgive me if I come across as being accusative. If you are not of the persuasion that you can be totally obedient and therefore reach sinless perfection, then my apologies.

I think starting over is a good idea. I've been thinking the same thing myself. How about if I start another thread to do that? Maybe we should start at the beginning of the subject of righteousness by faith and slowly work our way through it so we can see if we have any differences in terminology and the like.

[Gerr]

I think starting over is a good idea. I've been thinking the same thing myself. How about if I start another thread to do that? Maybe we should start at the beginning of the subject of righteousness by faith and slowly work our way through it so we can see if we have any differences in terminology and the like.

Sounds good to me.

[JoeMo]

cardw,

you said:

Quote:

The agony of mind she describes in the preceding paragraphs is her low self esteem. This is all self-centered and extremely immature. This is what Christian beliefs do. They keep people thinking and acting in childish ways.

I don't think it's valid to put her "low self-esteem" thing on all believers. I kinda think that the fact that she was brain damaged and only had a 3rd grade education may have entered into the low self-esteem thing.

[joeb]

cardw,

you said:

Quote:

The agony of mind she describes in the preceding paragraphs is her low self esteem. This is all self-centered and extremely immature. This is what Christian beliefs do. They keep people thinking and acting in childish ways.

I don't think it's valid to put her "low self-esteem" thing on all believers. I kinda think that the fact that she was brain damaged and only had a 3rd grade education may have entered into the low self-esteem thing.

I have a really hard time understanding your acceptance of cardw's assertion.

The fact that Ellen White sees our sinful nature as something that needs to be discarded and replaced by the love of God and Christ's character doesn't mean she is self-centered. It doesn't mean anything anywhere close to that. It means just the opposite.

I'm also amazed by your assertions about her head injury and education. Just how much education did most of Christ's disciples have? Most had very little. Levi-Matthew was probably the most educated, outside of Judas and we know where his reliance on his education and his self-esteem led him.

What did the world take note of about the disciples after the resurrection? That they had been with Jesus. Spending time with Him is better than any education this world has to offer. He's the source of all knowledge and wisdom, and thus can teach us far more than any finite, fallible human being.

[JoeMo]

joeb,

1. I don't concur with cardw's assertion - maybe I wasn't clear. True, there are Christians with low self-esteem; but there are also many Christians with a very healthy self- esteem. If we believe we are part of the family of God which is greatly esteemed by the Father instead of a bunch of orphan sinners lead by an arbitrary overseer, what's not to like about ourselves?

2. Am I lying or mis-stating anything about EGW's situation? Sure, she may have been with Jesus; and she was also a brain-damaged person with a 3rd-grade education. She may well have had a better self-esteem than cardw represents (I don't know); but she did have legitimate reason for a low-self-esteem - but it wasn't because she was a Christian. She surely had to take a lot of flack (especially as a child) for her mental and physical limitations. But being brain-damaged or disturbed in some way was never an obstacle for God with any of the prophets.

[cardw]

cardw,

you said:

Quote:

The agony of mind she describes in the preceding paragraphs is her low self esteem. This is all self-centered and extremely immature. This is what Christian beliefs do. They keep people thinking and acting in childish ways.

I don't think it's valid to put her "low self-esteem" thing on all believers. I kinda think that the fact that she was brain damaged and only had a 3rd grade education may have entered into the low self-esteem thing.

[JoeMo]

Quote:

I didn't apply low self esteem to all believers. You are projecting this on what I posted.

I said that Christian beliefs keep people immature. This still does not say that all Christians are immature.

Fair enough. I was reading too much in your statements.

Quote:

Ellen White was a master manipulator.

I'm not so sure. I suspect that many of her writings have been edited and redacted extensively. Given her backround and the crowd she hung with, I suspect some of the stuff attributed to her is simply regurgitation of stff she heard or read from other sources (ref. all the implications of plagerism against her).

Quote:

My joy was dampened by this display of vanity in one who professed to be a follower of the meek and lowly Jesus.

Yeah - statements like this by her and others kinda nauseate me. We had a guy in our church choir that cried because people clapped and cheered for our performance. He calimed it turned the "blessing of our performance for Jesus" into a "curse". Please - this guy needs to get a grip.

I don't completely disagree with any of the points you make. My issue is that many of the issues you have are based on the imperfections and illogic of religion. Religion in general (IMO) has done a pretty lousy job of representing who God really is. best example is that the Bible say "God is love". I generally see among professing Christians what I consiser to be "love". But that is a shortcoming of religion and the individual; not of God.

EGW being brain-damaged is not an excuse for any perceived shortcomings or incomsistencies. Just my opinion; but I think several bible writers had issues, too; but they made it into the Book. Moses stammered; Jeremiah was a cerifiably depressed person; Jonah was a self-centered megalomaniac, John the Baptist was - well - wierd. God using these people as channels of communication to humanity just shows the power of God; and how He really doesn't "need" our intelligence to spread His message.

[Gerr]

Jesus Christ: Myth or Genuine History?

BY WAYNE JACKSON

A critic of the Bible has written the following in an attempt to cast a reflection upon the historicity of the Gospel records regarding Jesus:

Rome was one of the most bureaucratic civilizations in history. The Romans kept records about every detail of life—births, marriages, adoptions, taxes, olive production, and legal documents. Along with the Roman legions, the official government records were a means to control the lands and peoples they conquered. So why is there a total absence of official Roman records concerning Jesus? At the very least, should not there be a record of the trial and the crucifixion? All the historical references to Jesus are all many decades later.

The foregoing is a prime example of how skeptics speak “off the top of their heads,” with no earthly idea as to the actual facts. The implication is that sufficient data relating to Christ are unavailable.

Before we examine the record, we might whimsically respond with an ad hominem point. Could this critic supply, from the Roman records “about every detail of life,” information concerning “olive production” in Palestine for the year 4 B.C.?

Extant Historical Records

The late Dr. E.M. Blaiklock, a New Zealand scholar, taught Latin, Greek, and the ancient classics for more than forty years. He was recognized internationally for his scholarship. In a brilliant essay titled, “Surviving Literature from the First Century,” Professor Blaiklock has demonstrated that there are almost no primary documents that survey the period that embraces the life of Christ.

For instance, “parts of one unimportant historical work” have survived from the era that parallels the Lord’s earthly life. Velleius Paterculus (ca. 19 B.C. – A.D. 30), a retired army officer and “amateur historian,” produced a “badly written history of Rome” covering that age from the end of the Trojan War to the death of Livia (A.D. 29).

From the forties A.D., through the sixties, very little survives. Blaiklock described the dearth of material in this fashion:

Bookends set a foot apart on this desk where I write would enclose the works from those significant years. Curiously, much of it comes from Spanish emigrants in Rome (1974, 12-13).

It was during this time frame that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke—together with much of the balance of the New Testament—were being produced. These works provide far more information about the condition of Palestine in the first century than anything that issued from Rome. And there is a way to illustrate this in a most dramatic fashion.

Pontius Pilate

Pontius Pilate was the ruler of Judea from A.D. 26-36. His technical title was “prefect,” a term used with precision by the Gospel writers. Pilate is mentioned in the New Testament by name about twenty times. Aside from these references, there is very little historical information about the man.

Two Jewish writers—Philo (ca. 20 B.C. – A.D. 50) and Josephus (ca. A.D. 37-95)—mention him briefly, and describe the ineptness of his administration. Philo depicts the ruler as “inflexible and relentlessly severe,” noting that he dedicated shields with the emperor’s name in Herod’s temple (The Mission to Gaius 38).

Josephus records that Pilate marched Roman troops, with their pagan standards, into Jerusalem, and that he financed a water supply out of the temple treasury (Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.1-2). He further notes that the Roman governor attacked a group of Samaritans on Mt. Gerizim, killing and capturing a host of them. For this outburst he was called to Rome and relieved of his position (The Wars of the Jews 18.4.1-2). The manner of his death is not known for certain, though Eusebius, a fourth-century historian, asserted that he committed suicide (Ecclesiastical History 2.7).

Tacitus (ca. A.D. 60-120), a Roman historian, mentions Pilate only one time, and that incidentally. He contended that the “Christians” derived their name from “Christus,” who “was executed at the hands of Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius” (The Annals xv.44).

In 1961, a team of archaeologists from Milan, Italy were excavating at Caesarea, just north of modern Tel Aviv. They had been focused upon the huge amphitheater that initially was built by Herod the Great (ca. 73 – 4 B.C.). Among these ruins, archaeologists discovered a limestone slab. It was thirty-two inches high, twenty-seven inches wide, and eight inches thick. A partial inscription was clearly visible. It was not difficult to decipher the complete message. A free translation reads:

The Tiberieum [a temple dedicated to Tiberias] of the Caesareans Pontius Pilate Praefect of Judea has given.

Alan Millard, Professor of Hebrew and Ancient Semitic Languages at the University of Liverpool, has observed that this represents “the only known inscription from his lifetime naming Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor who ordered the crucifixion of Jesus” (1997, 327) (emphasis added).

Let the significance of this sink in—in light of the criticism mentioned at the beginning of this piece. Here was a man who served the Roman government for ten years in one of the political hotspots of the empire. He himself was embroiled repeatedly in controversy. And yet, there is not a solitary Roman archival document that so much as mentions his name!

How, then, could anyone possibly cast a shadow of suspicion upon the Gospel records, due to the fact that there is scant Roman testimony regarding a Galilean religious teacher who lived more than 1,500 hundred miles to the east?

The Gospel Narratives

Why is it that liberal scholars are anxious to bend over backwards in granting credibility to numerous events of ancient history (many of which are undergirded by the scantest of evidence) yet they obstinately resist granting virtually any audience to the New Testament writings? There can be but one answer: they are militantly biased against the biblical records, hence, reject their veracity—no matter how compelling the evidence!

A.N. Sherwin-White was one of Oxford’s premier historians on Roman culture. In his valuable work, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (1978, 186), the professor demonstrated that the Gospels and Acts are much more historically credible than the common works of the Roman world. For example, the New Testament narratives were written by men who were contemporary with the events they recorded. On the other hand, Plutarch’s Lives of the Noble Romans stands two centuries from the actual events, and Livy’s History of Rome is 500 years this side of its theme. Yet no one doubts the value of these works.

It is readily apparent that the New Testament is not given anything remotely resembling a fair, literary treatment; nevertheless, it passes the credibility test brilliantly.

[doug yowell]

Great article, Gerry.

[Igakusei]

Do you feel that Pilate is a fair comparison? According to the Gospel accounts, Jesus resurrected himself from the dead along with dozens of others. It seems like that should have turned a few heads in Rome.

[JoeMo]

Quote:

Jesus resurrected himself from the dead along with dozens of others. It seems like that should have turned a few heads in Rome.

It may have turned a few heads in Rome in today's world of instant communication. In Jesus' day, Rome probably didn't recognize Jesus as anything more than another crazy preacher of the latest off-shoot of Judaism.

As far a local recognition. Jesus was likely ignored by the establishment. Just like the history of the U.S. is colored by who's in power (e.g., the history of the U.S and the holocaust would read much differently if the Germans had won WWII) so is ancient history. Jesus wasn't exactly a popular guy with the establishment religion of His day (Judaism); so they aren't likely to mention Him.

The fact that any secular historians even mention someone out of bible history (like Pilate)lends some indirect credibility to the Bible's history on the life and times of Jesus (at least it does to me).

[Igakusei]

The fact that any secular historians even mention someone out of bible history (like Pilate)lends some indirect credibility to the Bible's history on the life and times of Jesus (at least it does to me).

If I were to make the assertion that the existence of a Jewish teacher who was born in Palestine in the early first century and who managed to piss off the establishment enough to get himself crucified was unlikely because we have no historical reference to the trial or crucifixion, then Gerry's argument seems perfectly legitimate to me as a reason to discount my assertion given that an expectation of such detailed court records is probably unreasonable.

But we're not just talking about any ordinary rabble-rouser, we're talking about a miracle-working, water-walking superhero with thousands of followers directly responsible for solar eclipses and the first ever episode of 'Thriller.' Finding evidence that books already widely accepted to have been written in the first century might have depicted an ordinary mortal government official with some accuracy does not, to me, constitute reliable evidence that the very extraordinary claims within the same books are also just as likely to be true.

What if we discovered corroborating evidence that some historical tidbit in the Iliad previously considered to be fictional was actually probably true? Would that constitute historical evidence of the divine nature of Zeus, Apollo, and Athena? Or would it probably reflect little more than that ancient stories are likely to refer occasionally to actual people and places from the time and place where they were written?

[joeb]

Wow, thanks for this post joeb. I am by no means perfect but it is really exciting to see that there is a way out of the slavery of satan. It really gives one hope as we press toward the mark of the high calling of God as Paul puts it.

Sorry for not replying, but for some reason I hadn't seen this until right now. You're welcome, I've posted this stuff for exactly that reason. I want people to see that there is hope. That we don't have to live as slaves to sin.

Please read the Lessons from the Desire of Ages thread and the Righteousness by Faith thread for more into on this subject. The promises are sublime.

[JoeMo]

Igakusei,

Quote:

What if we discovered corroborating evidence that some historical tidbit in the Iliad previously considered to be fictional was actually probably true? Would that constitute historical evidence of the divine nature of Zeus, Apollo, and Athena?

What if we discovered experimentally verifiable, explicit evidence for evolution (theistic or otherwise)? Would that constitute evidence that evolution was a fact? Probably not for many people on this board.

What if people bore credible, consistent witness to the existence and power of deities like Apollo, Zeus, Odin, or Thor? Would that constitute evidence of the actual existence of these "myths"? Probably not for many people on this board.

What if people produced physical evidence that some of the prophecies of EGW were false, or that she copied other peoples' works and claimed them as her own (or the church claimed them as hers)? Would that constitute solid evidence that she was not a "true" prophet? Probably not for many people on this board.

There is little to no historical evidence of the glory of David's or Solomon's Kingdom (outside of scripture). Does that make these accounts fictional? There is slim to no evidence of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (outside of scripture) does that make this just a "story"?

I don't ask these questions to be condescending. I ask them in the philosophical sense that in some cases recorded history (or the lack thereof) cannot be used as a consistent measure of the reality or fiction of given events; especially if those events are extraordinary (supernatural).

Even people in Jesus' day said "if You are who You say You are, do a trick (miracle) for me." With thousands (if not millons) of eyewitnesses to UFO's, most people still deny their existence. People tend to believe what they want to believe; evidence is sometimes irrelevent. Not that that makes rational sense; just stating a fact.

[Igakusei]

I agree with just about everything you said, but I'm not entirely sure what your point is. I believe that there IS a reality out there that is objectively true, and that there are more and less reliable ways to go about learning about it as evidenced by their utility and ability to make successful predictions.

That people have biases is not a matter of debate, but I would argue that biases are best viewed as things to overcome, and not as excuses that any historical fact is as likely to be true as any other because most people are using less reliable epistemological frameworks.

Related: http://goddoesnt.blogspot.com/2012/12/loftuss-outsider-test-for-faith-viewed.html

I am willing to accept at face value that there was a teacher named Jesus who developed a following that blossomed into Christianity after his death, but I need substantially more evidence than that provided to accept the many fantastic supernatural claims that tend to ride along.

Like you said, there are eyewitnesses today that testify for things like faith healers and UFOs, but we also know that every time such a claim has been investigated it has been debunked. If you're going to posit the existence of a divine miracle-worker 2,000 years ago, you're going to need to do better than eyewitness testimony since we know from experience that eyewitness testimony for such things is unreliable every time it's been investigated. But you don't even have eyewitness testimony, the best you can do is argue that we shouldn't even expect that much. So why should I believe it again?

[JoeMo]

Quote:

That people have biases is not a matter of debate, but I would argue that biases are best viewed as things to overcome

I couldn't agree more. any time we cling to biases, we are limiting our capacity to learn.

Quote:

I'm not entirely sure what your point is.

My point is what you said - people have biases. Those biases, if left unchecked cause people to rely on less reliable epistemological frameworks. Many end up believing whatever bakes their biscuit because that's what they are comfortable with, in spite of empirical fact.

I had a similar discussion with my wife last night about a point of SDA doctrine (not saying which one - that's a topic for a different thread). I asked her why she had such a strong belief in this particular concept. She said cuz our prophet EGW says so. I asked her who said EGW was a prophet; and she answered "the Spirit of Prophecy". And so it goes ...

[phkrause]

Not only is there legit documentation that Jesus was here on earth, we have the whole Jewish race, who most of them would love to believe he never was here, all believe he was here and walked this earth. The only thing most of them agree on, is that he was not the Messiah they were taught would deliver them.

[doug yowell]

Do you feel that Pilate is a fair comparison? According to the Gospel accounts, Jesus resurrected himself from the dead along with dozens of others. It seems like that should have turned a few heads in Rome.

The official storyline was that Jesus' body was stolen by His disciples, not resurrected,with or without anyone else, and certainly not by Himself (Matt.28:11-15)Given that the Greco-Roman (along with contemporary skeptics)world thought that very concept of the resurrection of the dead was absolutely nonsensical, why would the few historians and official public recorders even bother to take note of a story about some Jewish no-name that lived and died in Palestine? Luke's subsequent record of Paul's arrival in Rome decades later revealed that few of the Jews living there knew anything about the "sect" much less the Man. Isn't there ample Jewish history that acknowledges the existence of Jesus while disavowing anything Supernatural about His mission or being?

[doug yowell]

Not only is there legit documentation that Jesus was here on earth, we have the whole Jewish race, who most of them would love to believe he never was here, all believe he was here and walked this earth. The only thing most of them agree on, is that he was not the Messiah they were taught would deliver them.

Beat me to it,pk!

[doug yowell]

Like you said, there are eyewitnesses today that testify for things like faith healers and UFOs, but we also know that every time such a claim has been investigated it has been debunked.

[cardw]

I don't completely disagree with any of the points you make. My issue is that many of the issues you have are based on the imperfections and illogic of religion. Religion in general (IMO) has done a pretty lousy job of representing who God really is. best example is that the Bible say "God is love". I generally see among professing Christians what I consiser to be "love". But that is a shortcoming of religion and the individual; not of God.

[cardw]

Isn't there ample Jewish history that acknowledges the existence of Jesus while disavowing anything Supernatural about His mission or being?

So we are going to take their word for the existence of Jesus, but we now discount this same word for the Supernatural aspect of his mission.

Seems rather inconsistent to me.

[doug yowell]

If Christianity simply taught that God is Love we would not be having this conversation.

Sure we would.Some one would have to define what "love" constituted. One man's love is another man's hatred.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

If Christianity simply taught that God is Love we would not be having this conversation.

Sure we would.Some one would have to define what "love" constituted. One man's love is another man's hatred.

And there's the rub. Christianity defines God's Love as slavery.