tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post272112864848793350..comments2024-03-16T02:12:38.325-07:00Comments on God cannot be contained!: Sabbatarian Christians vs Sunday ChristiansMiller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrixhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02865316200703641028noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post-50988712660386061912021-07-03T12:42:13.361-07:002021-07-03T12:42:13.361-07:00For more extensive commentary on this post, see ht...For more extensive commentary on this post, see https://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/2021/06/the-irreconcilable-breach-between.htmlMiller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02865316200703641028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post-15815510156044601362021-06-27T22:40:35.648-07:002021-06-27T22:40:35.648-07:00Fundamentalists demand an inerrant text without an...Fundamentalists demand an inerrant text without any inconsistencies. We want a more comprehensive and systematic Christian theology. We have what we have.<br /><br />Of course, Luke and Acts were penned for someone named Theophilus (not us), and I'm quite certain that Paul never imagined that his various epistles would end up in a New Testament canon. My favorite NT book is Hebrews - anonymous. We have no idea who wrote it, but it is an excellent First Century Christian perspective on the Torah. The Didache is our earliest summary of Christian teachings.<br /><br />As for what happens when we die, I think James Tabor does a pretty good job outlining Paul's views on the resurrection, and how they compared to those of First Century Judaism (he even dabbles in making some differentiations in the sects you mentioned in your above comment). Moreover, Clement's epistle gives us some insight into early Christian notions about the resurrection (citing the Phoenix as an emblem of the resurrection). Of course, it's all made even more complex because we know that the Jews absorbed some of the notions of the Greeks (and others) regarding the afterlife.<br /><br />Once again, I enjoyed your piece over at Banned by HWA. I think you're asking the right questions, and your presentations are always plausible (and very often compatible with my own views).<br /><br />LonnieMiller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02865316200703641028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post-91941398836880086692021-06-27T18:34:10.949-07:002021-06-27T18:34:10.949-07:00Miller:
There is something mysterious to me in th...Miller:<br /><br />There is something mysterious to me in the historical content of the New Testament. And it may involve Late Second Temple Judaism. The NT is not a comprehensive presentation of the Christian faith. It is silent on many topics that one would find in a standard systematic theology. <br /><br />For instance, what do we know about life after death? This seems like it would be a fundamental topic to be addressed. Why didn't the Twelve ask Jesus any questions about it? Why does Paul only hint at it? The Twelve were with Jesus throughout his ministry and they believed he was God. Yet they asked him no questions about a topic that directly connects to our salvific outcome, our personal eschatology. <br /><br />I have two theories. One is that the Twelve had a baseline of theological understanding that came from Late Second Temple Judaism. Therefore, they understood what heaven was about, they assumed, and did not query Jesus on the topic. They just believed that heaven was what Late Second Temple Judaism said it was. And Jesus was fine with letting them believe that.<br /><br />The second is that kenosis, Jesus emptying himself, was more extensive than we might think. He actually didn't know what heaven was about in his incarnate state. The Twelve may have asked him all about heaven many times, but if he just said "I don't really know," it is unlikely that they would have recorded this kind of answer for posterity. <br /><br />The first theory has lots of problems with it. What it would suggest is that somehow Judaism evolved in the Intertestamental Period into a pretty close approximation of reality even on esoteric topics. So much so that there were a whole range of topics that Jesus did not need to address because his disciples already had that knowledge from the synagogue. But what is that body of knowledge? There were many Jewish factions such as the Sadducees, Pharisees and Essenes. Which body of knowledge was assumed as the foundation on which Christ built? Apparently, at that time, Judaism was inflenced by such writings as the Book of Enoch. The Book claims that heaven consists of ten levels. Was that acceptable to Jesus? Why wouldn't Jesus just state that the Book of Enoch is malarkey and have this recorded. Instead we find Enoch cited in the Epistle of Jude. So for this theory we have an unknown body of theological knowldge. And we don't know what it includes and excludes. A conundrum. <br /><br />The first theory is so difficult to subscribe to I am left to believe that the second theory, the kenosis theory, makes more sense. Jesus lost a lot when he stepped into a human body. Including knowledge about some fundamental concepts that everyone would be avidly interested in. This would account for the many blank spaces in the NT. In this rendition, the Twelve and other disciples would just come to the recognition that these questions would be unanswered this side of the afterlife. They might know that Late Second Temple Judaism could not be trusted but they would not know what was right because Jesus could not tell them. Paul said they saw through a glass darkly and you wonder why when they had been in the presence of the Great Light. <br /><br />Both theories are audacious - not a comforting condition. But the actual phenomenon these theories seek to explain is real. Silence needs to be exegeted as much as text.<br /><br />When I was writing my opinion piece on Armstrongism's connection to the Jerusalem Church, I would have included a link to your cognate work, but it slipped by me. <br /><br />NeoAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08487906691943831671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post-14617899258167566252021-06-27T14:46:52.638-07:002021-06-27T14:46:52.638-07:00Thanks for commenting - it may help others to arri...Thanks for commenting - it may help others to arrive at their own conclusions about this topic. While Genesis does tell us that the Sabbath was sanctified at creation, it does not say that anyone observed it until it was introduced to the Israelites and included as a tenet of God's covenant with them (As far as we know, the patriarchs didn't even observe it). The Jerusalem Council didn't change the Sabbath (or any other tenets of the Torah), but it did clearly exempt Gentiles from any obligation to observe it. I continue to observe the Sabbath (I also have Ashkenazi DNA), but I'm not under any illusion that physical Sabbath observance is a requirement for folks who are part of the New Covenant. Anyway, that's my perspective. I do understand where you are coming from though, and I respect your opinion.<br /><br />--LonnieMiller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02865316200703641028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post-61973516521120218872021-06-27T12:13:29.488-07:002021-06-27T12:13:29.488-07:00Lonnie,
I agree with some of what you say, but not...Lonnie,<br />I agree with some of what you say, but not all. The Sabbath was sanctified at creation for all of mankind, not the Jews. Israel became the chosen people, and carried it on. It was never changed by God, just traditions of men.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08572743055750555581noreply@blogger.com