The Discovery fo New Truth, Unseen by Others

[Gregory Matthews]

This thread seems to be populated by people who have arrived at truth and feel no need to seek council form others.

The following considers the idea of people coming to truth independently:

http://www.atoday.org/article/2509/opinion/gutman-mark/countering-irrational-exuberance

That article gives an example of the problems commonly associated with people who do this. That example may not be clear to some people reading it. To understand the example, click on the URL given under footnote # 2 in the article. There you will be able to get a better understanding of the example.

To save you time, here is that URL:

http://www.devpsy.org/teaching/method/confirmation_bias.html

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

EXCELLENT article!!!! "New truths" are only "theories" until they've been studied and proven...

[JoeMo]

Hey Gregory,

I confess that I resemble those people the article discusses. I throw some pretty off-beat stuff out here sometimes. I don't throw it out there as "new theology" because I am convinced of my powerful gifts of wisdom and discernment, I throw it out there for discussion and "peer review", so to speak. I am concerned about putting on blinders to all but one view of theology. I have "made "the rounds" so to speak of different Christian sects - Catholics, JW's, no religion at all, non-denominationals, Baptists, etc. I always come back to Adventism - not just cuz of its beliefs, but because of the culture.

But I refuse to put on blinders to all interpretation of - say - eschatology unless it it blessed by EGW. There are IMO many differing interpretations of Daniel and Revelation that in my limited thinking have just as much validity as the Adventist take on things. While I choose to keep my eye on the traditional SDA interpretation, I cannot close my mind to other alternatives; and possibly miss the signs of the times.

I don't mind people posting potential "new light" on here, as long as they don't try to shove it down my throat.

[Ron Amnsn]

EXCELLENT article!!!! "New truths" are only "theories" until they've been studied and proven...

Is it an excellent article because it confirms your own biases?

What happens if we go back in time and apply your maxim that "New truths are only theories until they've been studied and proven..." ?

Some modern Protestant (and SDA) beliefs were once "new truths" proposed by people who wanted to deviate from what the followers of Jesus had been formerly living and teaching. Those "new truths" which are now readily accepted by modern Christians (and theologians) were never put to the test of your maxim. So what you are proposing seems to boil down to "Test things according to the theologians who believe in the current status quo even though a lot of the status quo has never been tested."

It is well documented (both in Scripture and in historical sources) that the followers of Jesus continued to live according to existing Scripture (the Old Testament). The first Christians were a sect within Judaism. Now Christians are not a sect within Judaism. How did that change come about? Were those "new truths" that were invented to separate Christians from the Jews (and the Old Testament) thoroughly tested by reliable theologians? Or were they just adopted because it made life easier for Christians in the Roman Empire after the second Jewish revolt (135 AD)? The apostle Paul loved the Jewish people so much that he said he would willingly be separated from Christ if it would benefit the Jews (Romans 9:3-5). When you read the writings of the early "church fathers" from the 4th century and onward, it is evident that they had no such love for the Jews. How did that change come about? Who tested those "new truths" that were introduced into Christianity to allow Constantine and the "church fathers" to start despising Jews?

Christians assume that the Protestant Reformation (and the Adventist movement) removed all the false doctrines from church. But where is the evidence that this is so? Is the modern church living and teaching the same gospel that the first Christians did? Not yet. There is no possibility that a modern evangelist would be accused of being the ringleader of a sect within Judaism as the apostle Paul was accused in Acts 24:5, an accusation that Paul accepted as true in verse 14.

The author of the article linked above mentions "observing the feast days" as an example of a "new truth" presented with "irrational exuberance" that should be reviewed by theologians. But "observing the feast days" is not something new. It is something old. Observing the feast days is clearly taught in the Old Testament. Jesus observed the feast days. The first Christians observed the feast days in the New Testament. The "new truth" that should be thoroughly reviewed and tested by Scripture was introduced many centuries ago by self-proclaimed "theologians" of the apostate church-- men that very few Christians would listen to if they were preaching today. Those "theologians" invented convoluted excuses and rationalizations for not observing God's feast days. Because their "new truth" became old without ever being tested by reliable theologians, it is now assumed to be venerable truth.

[Gregory Matthews]

I expected valid questions to be raised about the article.

I will suggest that everyone read the article.

Personally, I believe that in the context that the author intended, the article is good. Outside of that context, I would have issues with it.

In any case, I suggested it in an attempt to stimulate thought.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Is it an excellent article because it confirms your own biases?

And what do you think my "biases" are? Care to list them?

Originally Posted By: Ron Amnsn

So what you are proposing seems to boil down to "Test things according to the theologians who believe in the current status quo even though a lot of the status quo has never been tested."

That's not what I stated. Here's what I wrote: "New truth" is only theory until it's been studied and proven.

I'm a researcher and investigator, by nature and by occupation. If someone came along and told me I needed to believe something that replaces or adds to a known and proven "truth," then I would need to see verifiable evidence of it superceding what I already know to be true.

Otherwise, anyone can come along, claiming to be the "voice of God," spout off new "truths" purportedly to be salvational issues, which, if one did not follow, would result in eternal damnation...according to the new "voice of God."

re: the feast days mentioned in the article... The author stated, "When I read material telling me that I should be 'using God’s sacred name' or 'observing the feast days'...," he is making the point that someone is trying to tell him that he MUST do those things. That's a command. Why should something that is not a salvational issue be a command?

If someone wishes to participate in any of the Jewish feasts, that is up to them. I think they can have a lot of meaning. But certainly, if one does *not* observe the feast days or does *not* use the "sacred name of God," one isn't going to end up in eternal damnation...

[Samie]

The article outlines the need for "peer review" of "new truths".

There are posters in this forum whose reason for starting a new thread is either to stimulate thought, or, to see whether what he currently knows is really biblically sound or not, or maybe both. Sadly, for whatever reason, the POSTER having been prejudged, his posts are ignored. It may be that those who ignore his thread have experienced that regardless what others have posted as valid biblical evidence against his position, the POSTER still insists he is right or MERELY perceived to be of such attitude. Others do not post anything for or against his thread because they have NOTHING against it, or just do not want to take part in the discussion of the topic.

But what is sad is when the POSTER is readily prejudged and because of his writing style, he is perceived as NOT seeking "peer review", but merely USING this forum as launching stage for his "new truth". And the sad fact is, those who simply CANNOT show from Scriptures the falsity of the "new truth" presented by the POSTER, tend to malign the POSTER and tag him as simply rigid and WILL NOT reconsider his position despite of what others show from Scriptures.

[JoeMo]

Samie,

I don't share your opinion. I think it's fine for people to propose "new truth". What I object to is the lack of any cohesive response to anyone else's questions or challenges. An example is AlienSactuary. I don't agree with everything he posts; but at least he usually responds to others' challenges and questions. When people respond to questions and challenges with increasingly obscure riddles, it's hard to relate.

Right or wrong, if people want to others to hear what they have to say, they should be willing to hear what others are saying as well. Communication is 2-way.

[LifeHiscost]

Perhaps some of the chaff of conversation might be seen for what it is if

Quote:

The Discovery of New Truth, Unseen by Others

could be substituted by

Quote:

Truth, newly discovered, missed by some.

, although there is such a thing as "present Truth" to any or all, which is not necessarily true at some other time and place.

Just sayin".

God cares! Jesus saves!

[JoeMo]

Quote:

although there is such a thing as "present Truth" to any or all, which is not necessarily true at some other time and place.

So true LHC. I also think God has different ways to reach each of us; and each way might be different.

Not saying all paths lead to Christ.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

although there is such a thing as "present Truth" to any or all, which is not necessarily true at some other time and place.

So true LHC. I also think God has different ways to reach each of us; and each way might be different.

Not saying all paths lead to Christ.

God cares! Jesus saves!

[Aliensanctuary]

I should have read this before my last post in "The Spirits" which the moderator shut down. I probably insulted him.

I have drifted farther and farther away from Adventism since I joined CA in 2005. I have learned so much from studying the scriptures on my own, trying to keep an open mind and avoiding other's opinions. I know I tend to repeat myself, but so often other's thoughts trigger my own. I do get extremely skeptical towards anyone who claims "an angel spoke to me" or "God told me to say...", past and present. I could say more here about that, but I've already said it elsewhere.

I've never been offended by anyone's comments here towards me, but I do need to work on consideration of others feelings, even if they are brainwashed...But I too, may be brainwashed, not even realizing it.

My wife has been great feedback in my daily life, which has helped improve my sociability, but unfortunately she isn't with me in the middle of the night to filter my posts.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

I also think God has different ways to reach each of us; . . .

We are different people. God, acting through the Holy Spirit choses the best manner in which to reach each of us. This may mean that God may present Joe with truth A followed by truth B and then truth C. But, God may present James with truth D followed by truth A and then followed by truth P. In either case the Holy Spirit is in charge of our spiritual nurture. It is not for any of us to say that because Joe has been convicted of truth B that he is a follower of Christ while James who has not been convicted of truth B is not.

[Tom Wetmore]

I should have read this before my last post in "The Spirits" which the moderator shut down. I probably insulted him...

No. It was shut down for other reasons having nothing to do with your comments.

[JoeMo]

Quote:

But I too, may be brainwashed, not even realizing it.

That is a profound confession, AS. I hope you don't mind if I join you in applying that possibility to my own experience. I think that is one reason we need to remain open-minded.

Gregory - I also really appreciate your explanation of of "truths" - especially the concept truths being revealed in different order to different people. That made a lot of sense to me.

[Aliensanctuary]

Quote:

But I too, may be brainwashed, not even realizing it.

Maybe that's the best place to start, by realizing that we could have all been brainwashed by our religions, scammed or misled by their founders. I have felt that I have been scammed by religion when I study the scriptures.

With all the conflicting religions that exist in the world today, the chances are quite good that none of them have it right. My take is that when YHVH founded the Kingdom of Israel and had them build him a Sanctuary, it was not about religion, but obedience to his Code of Ethics, laws of conduct to be obeyed by the whole world, someday.

All of the religions that exist today are either totally man-made, or, illegitimate stepchildren born out of wedlock, distortions of the message of the original Temple and YHVH's requirements of obedience to his laws. Our ultimate destiny, as scripture indicates, is to become YHVH's forever servants, or slaves, depending upon the version of the Bible we are reading.

Now, if someone claims that God told him/her this and an angel showed him/her that, my baloney detector starts making a shrill, unpleasant noise, meaning, that's baloney coming out of the claimant's mouth. Although my ideas about the Kingdom of YHVH do not reflect mainstream religion, but present, rather, more of an alternative reality, I at least have the honor and self-respect not to falsely claim that "God told me this..." and "the angel showed me that..."

The time will come once again when YHVH will speak to men via his Spirit, but not until the Last Days, which hasn't occurred yet, elsewise I would likely be in jail or dead for even mentioning the name of YHVH in public.

[CoAspen]

Quote:

Maybe that's the best place to start, by realizing that we could have all been brainwashed by our religions, scammed or misled by their founders.

...or, maybe....you have mislead your self? It is so easy to blame others first and then put it forward as a conspiracy, etc., thus laying all of our past efforts at the feet of someone else. This often times gives us a since of prideful effort in finding the 'real truth' or 'new truth'.

A quagmire of sinking sand....at best....eh?

[JoeMo]

I think most people are deceived out of ignorance rather than negligence. I look at some of the more "academic" threads on CA and that compare suble nuances between the meanings of certain Greek and Hebrew words or the acedemic works of esoteric scholars. It's over my head. I plead ignorance in the name of laziness (is that ignorance?). I have a hard time motivating myself to find some of the stuff discussed as sufficiently "salvational" to bother with.. There aren't enough hours in my day to research everything.

OTOH, I have posted some pretty "out there" stuff myself that others don't see as acceptable theology...

[joeb]

Quote:

Christians assume that the Protestant Reformation (and the Adventist movement) removed all the false doctrines from church. But where is the evidence that this is so? Is the modern church living and teaching the same gospel that the first Christians did? Not yet. There is no possibility that a modern evangelist would be accused of being the ringleader of a sect within Judaism as the apostle Paul was accused in Acts 24:5, an accusation that Paul accepted as true in verse 14.

Just as an aside.... I can't tell you how many times I've been asked if I'm a Jew when I've been studying the Bible with people of other faiths, as I don't tell them up front what church I belong to. 'Course I'm no "ringleader of a sect" nor an evangelist....

[joeb]

I should have read this before my last post in "The Spirits" which the moderator shut down. I probably insulted him.

I have drifted farther and farther away from Adventism since I joined CA in 2005. I have learned so much from studying the scriptures on my own, trying to keep an open mind and avoiding other's opinions. I know I tend to repeat myself, but so often other's thoughts trigger my own. I do get extremely skeptical towards anyone who claims "an angel spoke to me" or "God told me to say...", past and present. I could say more here about that, but I've already said it elsewhere.

I've never been offended by anyone's comments here towards me, but I do need to work on consideration of others feelings, even if they are brainwashed...But I too, may be brainwashed, not even realizing it.

My wife has been great feedback in my daily life, which has helped improve my sociability, but unfortunately she isn't with me in the middle of the night to filter my posts.

I can really relate to what I bolded above. I have to say I'm really glad God created the institution of marriage. It, and my wife, are both major blessings from God. My wife really tends to soften my sharper edges and gets me to look at people from a perspective that is much different than mine. She is a person of average intelligence, but of great wisdom. She's the best thing that ever happened to me, and I often have to admit to myself, and her, that I really don't deserve her.

[Ron Amnsn]

Just as an aside.... I can't tell you how many times I've been asked if I'm a Jew when I've been studying the Bible with people of other faiths, as I don't tell them up front what church I belong to. 'Course I'm no "ringleader of a sect" nor an evangelist....

Hi JoeB,

Yes, Christians sometimes casually mistake those who keep God's commandments for Jews. But that's not what was happening in the New Testament. It was religious Jewish people who knew Paul quite well that identified Paul as the ringleader of a Jewish sect. It would be very unusual for a religious Jew (either modern or 1st-century) to describe our Christian evangelists as the leaders of a Jewish sect. We just don't teach the same things Paul taught.

[joeb]

Hi JoeB,

Yes, Christians sometimes casually mistake those who keep God's commandments for Jews. But that's not what was happening in the New Testament. It was religious Jewish people who knew Paul quite well that identified Paul as the ringleader of a Jewish sect. It would be very unusual for a religious Jew (either modern or 1st-century) to describe our Christian evangelists as the leaders of a Jewish sect. We just don't teach the same things Paul taught.

I don't want to "argue" this here, but I do disagree with you on this. We do teach what Paul taught.

You've put a lot of study and thought into what you believe, and so have I. I respect the effort and ability that you have put into it, I just disagree with you.

[Samie]

Originally Posted By: Samie

The article outlines the need for "peer review" of "new truths".

There are posters in this forum whose reason for starting a new thread is either to stimulate thought, or, to see whether what he currently knows is really biblically sound or not, or maybe both. Sadly, for whatever reason, the POSTER having been prejudged, his posts are ignored. It may be that those who ignore his thread have experienced that regardless what others have posted as valid biblical evidence against his position, the POSTER still insists he is right or MERELY perceived to be of such attitude. Others do not post anything for or against his thread because they have NOTHING against it, or just do not want to take part in the discussion of the topic.

But what is sad is when the POSTER is readily prejudged and because of his writing style, he is perceived as NOT seeking "peer review", but merely USING this forum as launching stage for his "new truth". And the sad fact is, those who simply CANNOT show from Scriptures the falsity of the "new truth" presented by the POSTER, tend to malign the POSTER and tag him as simply rigid and WILL NOT reconsider his position despite of what others show from Scriptures.

Samie,

I don't share your opinion. I think it's fine for people to propose "new truth". What I object to is the lack of any cohesive response to anyone else's questions or challenges. An example is AlienSactuary. I don't agree with everything he posts; but at least he usually responds to others' challenges and questions. When people respond to questions and challenges with increasingly obscure riddles, it's hard to relate.

Right or wrong, if people want to others to hear what they have to say, they should be willing to hear what others are saying as well. Communication is 2-way.

JoeMo,

I don't see where in my post am I against your opinion in your reply to my post. Can you show where, brother? If none, then, that settles the issue.

[Samie]

Originally Posted By: Ron Amnsn

Hi JoeB,

Yes, Christians sometimes casually mistake those who keep God's commandments for Jews. But that's not what was happening in the New Testament. It was religious Jewish people who knew Paul quite well that identified Paul as the ringleader of a Jewish sect. It would be very unusual for a religious Jew (either modern or 1st-century) to describe our Christian evangelists as the leaders of a Jewish sect. We just don't teach the same things Paul taught.

I don't want to "argue" this here, but I do disagree with you on this. We do teach what Paul taught.

You've put a lot of study and thought into what you believe, and so have I. I respect the effort and ability that you have put into it, I just disagree with you.

Among those who say "We do teach what Paul taught.", are those who do not seem to or just cannot believe that Paul said God through our Lord Jesus Christ has forgiven us from ALL sins (Col 2:13). And that Paul also mentioned that God remembers our sins NO MORE (Heb 10:16, 17)...

I placed this in here, just to provoke thinking, that we have been forgiven from ALL sins, past, present, future, through the death of our Lord on the cross.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

. . . we have been forgiven from ALL sins, past, present, future, through the death of our Lord on the cross.

Samie: You need to sit down before you read my response to you.

Please have someone standing by ready to provide you with any medical assistance that you might need after you read my response.

Here is my response: This is one of the times in which I agree with you.

I trust that you are still breathing.

NOTE: I call it like I see it.