James.Quilty@comp.vuw.ac.nz (James William Quilty) (04/29/91)
In article <Apr.24.23.45.07.1991.11200@athos.rutgers.edu>, davidbu@loowit.wr.tek.com (David E. Buxton) writes: > Clearly the heros of the NT kept the Sabbath, even with the Gentiles. > There are texts that at first glance suggest Sunday, but on closer > examination they clearly point to Sabbath observance. [deleted stuff] > Examining history it is clear that Sunday came into practice after > the Apostles were dead in their graves. [deleted stuff] > Jesus clearly stated - "If you love me keep my Commandments". Please put this reference in context - Jesus said this more than once in the same passage, and each time stated EXACTLY what commandments (little 'c') they were: love God and love your neighbour !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm sorry, but the 'clear' statements are only 'clear' if one assumes and believes the writings of Ellen G. White... I don't. Otherwise, they simply aren't borne out by the facts. For an analysis of SDA doctrine on the nature of the soul and sabbath, I would refer readers to the following sources (posting them verbatim seems ancilliary): "The Four Major Cults" by A.A. Hoekema; and a booklet titled: "The Bible, the Christian and Seventh-Day-Adventists" the author of which temporarily escapes me (if anyone is REALLY interested, e-mail to me...). To forestall any protests of "out of context/inaccurate" I have checked every SDA reference to the original church/Ellen White text - they ARE accurate !!! Jim.
george@electro.com (George Reimer) (05/03/91)
In article <Apr.28.19.29.24.1991.20954@athos.rutgers.edu> James.Quilty@comp.vuw.ac.nz (James William Quilty) writes: >In article <Apr.24.23.45.07.1991.11200@athos.rutgers.edu>, >davidbu@loowit.wr.tek.com (David E. Buxton) writes: >> Clearly the heros of the NT kept the Sabbath, even with the Gentiles. >> There are texts that at first glance suggest Sunday, but on closer >> examination they clearly point to Sabbath observance. >[deleted stuff] >> Examining history it is clear that Sunday came into practice after >> the Apostles were dead in their graves. >[deleted stuff] >> Jesus clearly stated - "If you love me keep my Commandments". > >Please put this reference in context - Jesus said this more than >once in the same passage, and each time stated EXACTLY what commandments >(little 'c') they were: love God and love your neighbour !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > Jim, you seem to have missed the context of what Jesus was saying. "love God and love your neighbour" is a summary of the ten commandments! Commandments 1-4 give instruction on how to love God. Commandments 5-10 give instruction on how to love your neighbor. Jesus was not saying anything new, but rather giving the same message that Scripture had always given. -- "I almost think that in certain cases yes, and in others, no....." George egroeG Reimer remieR
davidbu@loowit.wr.tek.com (David E. Buxton) (05/03/91)
In article <Apr.28.19.29.24.1991.20954@athos.rutgers.edu>, James.Quilty@comp.vuw.ac.nz (James William Quilty) writes: > . . . > Please put this reference in context - Jesus said this more than > once in the same passage, and each time stated EXACTLY what commandments > (little 'c') they were: love God and love your neighbour !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Lev 19:18, for example. Love God and love your neighbor is nothing new to the NT. It is simply a summary of the purpose of the Decalogue. A surprisingly high percentage of NT (especially high in Revelation) is quoting from or referring to the OT. This is certainly true of saying "Love God and love your neighbor". For example, the question of "who is my neighbor" was a favorite question to ask a Rabbi and a favorite debate among the Rabbi, even today. The answer was often that your neighbor could only be a peer, someone like yourself, a nice decent person. But Jesus made it clear that your neighbor can even be your enemy, especially your enemy is the way Christianity puts it - and I agree. > I'm sorry, but the 'clear' statements are only 'clear' if one assumes > and believes the writings of Ellen G. White... I don't. Otherwise, they > simply aren't borne out by the facts. There are Seventh-Day-Baptists, Seventh-Day-Church-of-God, Seventh-Day-. . . . . Seems I remember a list about 20 names long in a book I glanced at in a book store. None of these churches turn to EGW for their clear answers on the Sabbath. History is clear. The change from Sabbath to Sunday came after the Apostles were in their graves. I use the Bible alone for my studies presented to s.r.c. and church history. Dave (David E. Buxton)
James.Quilty@comp.vuw.ac.nz (James William Quilty) (05/07/91)
In article <May.3.02.30.11.1991.23504@athos.rutgers.edu>, george@electro.com (George Reimer) writes: |> Jim, you seem to have missed the context of what Jesus was saying. |> |> "love God and love your neighbour" |> |> is a summary of the ten commandments! |> Bzztt, No, sorry, not quite true - rather (as Jesus and Paul, etc. said) the Ten Commandments (and any other commandments besides) are BASED ON "Love your neighbour and love God, etc." NOT "love God, etc." are BASED ON the commandments. You know that (as is pointed out in the Bible) that the Law of the old testament can be observed without loving God or your neighbour - saying that loving God and loving your neighbour MEANS keeping the Ten Commandments is non-scriptural. The above verse can in no way be used to justify a position of: "Jesus is saying here that we must keep the Ten Commandments" because when the context of the Bible verse is taken into account the Ten Commandments are not even mentioned ! IF we did HAVE to keep a set of rules to love God (and hence be saved - those who don't love God are on the 'questionable' list in my book [but not, in my opinion totally lost - that's God's job to judge, not mine, thankfully]) then salvation is no longer by faith, it is by keeping the 'set of rules'. The Bible has lots to say about working your way to salvation (I'm sure we all know the relevant verses) - by the ten commandments or any other means - which is why I will not accept that Jesus is saying: "keep the Ten Commandments" in the above verse. Rather Jesus says just what the verse says - nothing less, nothing more ! |> Jesus was not saying anything new, but rather giving the same |> message that Scripture had always given. Quite true - but I don't think that the Love that Jesus teaches in this verse is in any way connected with law-keeping (unlike the OT) so I would oppose that interpretation of the verse - like I said, It violates 'FAITH ALONE' and is not supported by the verse itself, just by phrases like: "now this means..." et hoc genus omne. Jim
James.Quilty@comp.vuw.ac.nz (James William Quilty) (05/08/91)
James Quilty writes: >Quite true - but I don't think that the Love that Jesus teaches in >this verse is in any way connected with law-keeping (unlike the OT) so >I would oppose that interpretation of the verse - like I said, It >violates 'FAITH ALONE' and is not supported by the verse itself, just >by phrases like: "now this means..." et hoc genus omne. He jumps over to his on-line KJV and types: drew@pollux% grep faith * |grep alone 59.james:JAM 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. drew@pollux% It seems that 'FAITH ALONE' is not supported by the Bible. Actually, this issue rather bemuses me (and this is not an attack on Jim or anyone else). There have always been Christians down through history who have observed 'the Law', save the sacrifices and those components specifically nationalistic or ritualistic (eg washings). And not as a means of 'earning salvation', but simply because they believed it was the right thing to do. Put another way, they had faith that God's Laws were good for them as a means of regulating human conduct and having a healthy relationship with God. Some Christians continue that tradition today. Ask any one of them whether they feel under a 'burden', and they will ask, 'What do you mean?' Anyone who has truely kept the Laws of God will know that they are an exhilarating joy to observe ... Drew Corrigan (drew@anucsd.anu.edu.au)
James.Quilty@comp.vuw.ac.nz (James William Quilty) (05/11/91)
In article <May.8.04.22.10.1991.11401@athos.rutgers.edu>, James.Quilty@comp.vuw.ac.nz (James William Quilty) writes: (Actually it seems tha Drew Corrigan wrotye this, but it came out under my name ??????????!!!!!!!!!) |> He jumps over to his on-line KJV and types: |> |> drew@pollux% grep faith * |grep alone |> 59.james:JAM 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, |> being alone. |> drew@pollux% |> |> It seems that 'FAITH ALONE' is not supported by the Bible. Place the verse in context, please... the whole point of what James (the apostle) was saying is that 'head knowlege' of God is not enough, that faith, rather than an intellectual belief, must be of the heart. I seem to recall that Martin Luther disliked this verse because it seemed to teach salvation by works - of course it doesn't, because of Romans 11:6 (or thereabouts): "Therefore we conclude that Man is saved by faith, apart from the works of the law, for if by faith, then no more by works, else faith is no more faith, and if by works, then no more by faith, else works is no more works" (It's not word perfect, just an approximation of the KJV rendering) faith & works can't be mixed as a way to salvation - you either have one or the other. (refer also to parallel verses) The Christian way is faith, therefore, James 2:17 can not possibly mean you must have 'faith and works' to be saved - within the context of the Bible such an interpretation is unsupported, as far as I can see. |> Actually, this issue rather bemuses me (and this is not an attack on Jim or |> anyone else). There have always been Christians down through history |> who have |> observed 'the Law', save the sacrifices and those components |> specifically |> nationalistic or ritualistic (eg washings). And not as a means of |> 'earning |> salvation', but simply because they believed it was the right thing |> to do. Good for these individual's IF they found it from their own personal studies and were not just following what some HUMAN said "God wants for his people". All too often, the issue of 'doing the right thing' is elevated to a salvation matter - if you don't do the 'right thing' according to the particular group then God will condemn you... I can't believe that God wants anyone to keep any laws, because that would violate 'faith alone'. The issue of keeping laws should be an individual choice, not a "Saved if you do, Damned if you don't" matter. Trying to keep 'the law' is futile, because you have failed before you even start - read Galatians, etc... |> Put another way, they had faith that God's Laws were good for them as |> a means |> of regulating human conduct and having a healthy relationship with |> God. Perhaps these people should have faith in God, rather than faith in a set of rules that some human extols ? Having a healthy relationship with God for Christians is not dependant on law-keeping - what has always mattered is faith in God. People can 'keep the laws' without loving God - loving God is not about law-keeping - it's about LOVE and FAITH - it's what the NT is all about, for me. The issue of social control has historically been one of the purposes of religion - and human made rules for this have all too often been presented as 'Gods rules' - just look at the effect of the so-called 'Gods rules' - it's the cause of what Judeo-Christian society is today (Patriachal power systems, Racism, Sexism, etc. all have their roots in people presenting their own rules as 'Gods rules' - you'll see it in the Bible, you'll see it 'fundamental' religion today.) |> Some Christians continue that tradition today. Ask any one of them whether |> they feel under a 'burden', and they will ask, 'What do you mean?' |> Anyone who |> has truely kept the Laws of God will know that they are an |> exhilarating joy to |> observe ... One wonders just how one finds out which of God's laws one is to keep. I really want to know. (the Bible is so full of laws, but not all of them seem to be kept by the people you refer to.) I don't think that I'll get more exhileration out of 'law keeping' than I do at the moment, being sure of my salvation by faith alone... Jim.