The New Testament: Orthodoxy and Heresy

[Primula Baggins]

Lali, please don't bow out. You have so much to add, and everyone knows how good-hearted you are.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Lali, you certainly do not have to bow out. I didn't say that anything that anyone said was offensive, just that it was approaching sensitive territory. But if people are going to start talking about allegations that the "Jews sought Jesus' death" I'm afraid that they are going to have to prepared to have the subject of how that allegation has been used over history to justify extreme persecution of Jews be raised, because it is an important subject and should not be swept aside.

I agree that everyone has been respectful and that there is no need to end the discussion, so long as people realize that different perspectives could be raised that might bring up uncomfortable issues.

[Túrin Turambar]

I agree, but if there are going to be many more posts on the subject then I would prefer it if the thread were split.

[Cerin]

That leads to an interesting question - did things fundamentally change upon Jesus' death and resurrection?

That's a bit like asking, 'did things fundamentally change after the Ring went into the fire?'

There are three after effects of stunning import that come to mind:

1. After Jesus' death and resurrection, He sent the Holy Spirit to live inside every believer.
2. After Jesus' death, the veil of the temple, signifying our separation from God because of sin, was torn in two. We can now have fellowship with God because Jesus removed our sin from us by His death.
3. A believer is in Christ, as Christ is in him/her by the Holy Spirit.


1. Nevertheless I tell you the truth, It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you.
And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
of sin, because they do not believe in Me;
of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more;
of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
John 15:7-11

2. And Jesus cried out with a loud voice and breathed His last.
Then the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.
Mark 15:37,38

3. I have been crucified with Christ; It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.
Gal. 2:20

Anyway, what does everyone think of my 'Paul as an Annihilationist' theory?

I'm not sure the divisions are as clear as you make them in your post delineating the hell, death and universal salvation theories (going by my Strong's Hebrew/Greek dictionary)

In the Luke citation, the word translated 'hell' is the Greek for 'Hades', which was the translation of the Hebrew 'Sheol', which as I understand it meant the place where the dead temporarily rest until the resurrection; it is frequently used figuratively in the Psalms. On the other hand, the Mark citation uses the word for 'Gehenna', which denotes the place or state of everlasting punishment.

In the citations you use to support the concept of ceasing to be, there are various words used that appear to be open to some interpretation.

For the word 'destruction' 2 Thess. 1:9 uses 'olethris from a primary to destroy; ruin, i.e., death, punishment.'

Phil 3:18,19 uses 'apoleia ruin or loss (phys., spir. or eternal) - damnation, destruction, perdition, pernicious ways, waste'.

For 'death' the word 'thanatos death (lit. or fig.)' is used.

For 'destroy' I Cor. 3:17 uses 'phtheiro prop. to shrivel or wither, i.e., to spoil (by any means) or gen. to ruin'.

while 2 Cor. 2:15 and James 4 use 'appolumi to destroy fully, lit. or fig. - destroy, die, lose, mar, perish


I think what you see as the two competing strands in the New Testament is related to the question you asked about whether things fundamentally changed after Jesus' death and resurrection. I suppose it could be likened to someone trying to understand the sensation and pleasure of tasting something they've never tasted, compared to what they would be able to understand after tasting it; or perhaps a blind person trying to understand what it is like to see, compared to what they would understand and experience of sight upon actually seeing. The teaching in the Gospels is during a brief and extraordinary time in history where Jesus is present among us, preparing people for something unfathomable, the reality and profundity of which have not yet been realized because it has not yet happened. The mysteries of the cross are profound, and could only begin to be apprehended as they were experienced and revealed by the Holy Spirit. Yet the division you've delineated is not nearly as clear as it seems through your limited citations. This equilibrium between works and faith is a thread running through all of the letters, and in fact, through all of the Bible. They are inextricably intertwined, so an either-or discussion doesn't really serve terribly well to further understanding, imo. That's why I think it's so important to take the Bible as a whole. As with any written work, one could fabricate a case for just about any stance with selective reading.

[rwhen]

Cerin, I am afraid I have to disagree a bit. During the five years of my intense bible study, I was encouraged (and the bible encourages us to question as well) to question what I felt were incongruencies in scripture, especially in the NT. I was told that there was an answer, within the pages of the bible, for everything that I could come up with.

However, at one point I was told that "faith" would have to be the answer. That the bible would have to be accepted as a whole if I was going to be able to progress in my studies. From that point I kept my mouth shut and finished the courses. To make clear, this was a one on one, sometimes two on two study. Not a group study, that lasted five years.

I came away from that and in fact did get baptised in that church, but fell away eventually. The reason that I fell away was because this was something that constantly sat like a burr in my shoe. While I don't expect that every thing that I had questions on, this one person or that one person is supposed to answer me, or be able to automatically turn to the proper book and scripture to salve my desire, I also do not think it is okay to just explain it off as "you must take the bible as a whole". To me that is a bit dismissive.

For someone who is seriously questioning, studying and examining the bible, these issues are hugely important. Surrendering does not come as easy for some as it does for others. A persons whose belief is deeply structured in logic will need the answers to justify making a commitment.

This is just my viewpoint, I am not speaking for LordM or any other on this thread. Also I do not judge you for the way you framed your response, but it did hit a memory for me and I wanted to share that with you. Please do not take it as thinking you said something incorrectly, just that I do not agree totally with the statement. I think it is true for you. And TO you, that is the only important thing. Just as for me and anyone else following the thread.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To Lali. I don't know you, friend. But I have followed everything you have written and I do hope that you will not abandon the thread. I think all of us are able to distinguish differences and will have questions. But I don't think they are personal, meaning to attack. Please come back and join in this fascinating discussion, you added much and if I am not wrong, you have much more to add.

Frelga. If I haven't said so yet, you have a very acute thinking process. I have seen it before in Manwë. You pick up on nuance and turn it into logical assumptions and conclusions. I like that.

If my post is offensive in anyway, please correct me and I will amend the post. It is never my intention to cause injury, though a thoughtless word may do so and is easily repaired.

*crawls back to the rafter position*

[Cerin]

rwhen, I would never insist to someone that they must take the Bible as a whole. I say simply that that is the way I approach it, and I believe it is the best way to approach it for a unified understanding. As I mentioned to Lord_M earlier in the discussion, I can well understand why someone who is regarding various parts of the Bible as having different levels of legitimacy or importance would find these perceived inconsistencies or differences in emphasis to be problematic.

I am acutely aware of the difficulties a person faces, whose belief is deeply structured in logic. I'm sorry that in your personal study, you weren't able to find answers that satisfied you.

[MithLuin]

So, about salvation and the Law....

I think the key text to consider is the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5).

The chapter begins with the Beatitudes, defining attributes of blessedness. None of these are things you do, per se - it's an attitutude to have. Peacemakers, pure in heart, hunger and thirst for righteousness, meek, mourn, poor in spirit (whatever that means!), merciful, persecuted. The Beatitudes are very...interior. They are looking at the human heart, and go from there.

This is not the approach taken with the Mosaic law; there, you have a lot of prohibitions as well as specific actions to take. I don't mean that the Law is negative - it's not. Caring for orphans and widows in their distress is a very good thing to do! But it is also concrete. It's what to do, but there is not as much said about the why...about what is going on in your heart when you do these things. The Mosaic Law sets boundaries - beyond this line you do not go. So, the Ten Commandments. The ones that deal with how to treat your neighbor include: "Thou shall not kill. Thou shall not commit adultery. Thou shall not steal. Thou shall not bear false witness." Lying, cheating, killing and stealing are bad. Got it. But what internal pull towards holiness (ie, moral compass) would point you in such a direction that these things (admitedly bad, for both you and society) would not happen at all?

This is what Jesus has to say about it:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

So, what was wrong with the Pharisees? Why weren't they 'good enough?' As portrayed in the gospels, they are very 'letter of the law' types - technically, they're doing what they are supposed to be doing, but.... they're not very nice people. They've gotten the idea that they're good, and so they're kinda insufferably self-righteous and seem to make a nuisance of themselves. The righteousness Jesus is referring to goes beyond the letter of the Law. It isn't just about doing what the Law says - it is about being obedient to the spirit behind the Law. Obviously, he wasn't the first person to say that! ["Oh, how I love your law! I meditate on it all day long." ~ Psalm 119]

What Jesus does is to up the ante. He doesn't say what is acceptable behavior - he describes what your behaviour should look like if you took the Law to heart. He's not abolishing it - far from it, he's calling it a bare minimum, a starting point.

"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

What does the 'don't murder' law point at? It points to love of neighbor. If you love your neighbor, you will not bash his brains in. Good. But if you love him, what else will you do? Make him dinner when his wife is sick - there's not a commandment for that, but it's implicit. And if you respect someone enough not to even get angry at him or call him an idiot, do you really need a commandment that says "don't kill?" In other words, if you truly love your neighbor, you supercede the commandments. They're still there, just not...needed.

"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. ... It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

Jesus does not get rid of the law against adultery - he just adds to it. If marriage is a covenant between a man and woman in which the two become one flesh, then we shouldn't do anything to jeaopardize that. Not covet our neighbor's wife...not even think about what it would be like to be with someone else's spouse...and not divorce and remarry. Just as love of neighbor made anger and denigration unacceptable, love of one's spouse makes lust unacceptable.

Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

If these things are holy enough to swear on, then they are holy enough not to speak of them in such a cavalier way.

You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.

Again, he takes the law, accepts it for what it is...and then takes it further. There is nothing comfortable about Jesus' definition of righteousness. It does not have a basic, acceptable level of being 'basically a good person' - it demands a radical approach to loving other people. It goes beyond what is just or reasonable, and sets the bar very, very high. It is no wonder that this is also the chapter with the "salt of the earth" and "light of the world" comments - surely, these actions are revolutionary.

But the Law has not been overturned - it has been fulfilled. Moses was dealing with a different situation, and even just getting these basics down was a big deal - the people were very tempted by idols, and had a bad habit of annihilating another person's entire family if there was a dispute. So, "eye for an eye" introduces a level of justice and balance to people's interactions. It eliminates...excesses. Likewise, not breaking oaths means that people will be trustworthy, and do what they say. That is a good thing. Hey, at least you know someone is serious about being honest when he says it with an oath.... But the Law was never intended as a goal - it's not the paragon of virtue. Staying within the Law was important, but Jesus points to a new goal to aim for - the truth behind the law. It's an interior law he is describing, where we have the right attitudes towards one another.


The following expand these comments beyond me:

First, from the Orthodox tradition (since the world isn't really divided into Catholics, Protestants, and nonChristians ) This is an excerpt from a longer article dealing with the theological problems with the philosophy of Personalism from the perspective of the Church Fathers. This particular part focuses on the point of doing all those good deeds that Christians are clearly supposed to do.

Necessarily, then, leftist Personalism demands a secular "revolution." Advocating, as it does, "the daily works of mercy" (hence the building homes for the homeless, farming communes, discourses of love, etc.) as noble as it is, does not permit us to identify these acts of mercy with those prescribed in Christian revelation, for they are based in concepts of secularism. Christianity advocates the same thing but does not divorce them from the process of the regeneration of man. The twenty-fifth chapter of Matthew's Gospel makes it clear that entry into the joy of Christ, the Heavenly Kingdom, depends on the fulfilment of such care for others, motivated by unselfish love. Christian revelation does not, however, suggest that we can create a secular "people's paradise" on earth and lose sight of the Heavenly Kingdom and the age to come. When they collapse into ideology, neither utopian philosophies nor Christianity can sustain these high ideals in practice. But let us not denigrate the works of mercy just because they are fulfilled in the context of secularism and not mindful of the process of regeneration. They are still inspired by Christ. Perhaps one could rather use the injunction of Christ, " these you ought to have done, while not leaving the other undone" (Mt. 23:23). One cannot claim that being Christian guarantees the fulfilment of either one.

http://orthodoxy21.blogspot.com/2008/05 ... tique.html

I find this relevant, because he ties the idea of salvation to the motivation behind our actions. The question of what Jesus meant by the Kingdom of Heaven and what is expected of his followers is a pretty big one. An anthropological and ecumenical approach is taken by this Polish archbishop:

In order to know ourselves and the basic truth of our existence it is not enough to make a socio-cultural analysis of contemporary society. It is also necessary to confront the reality of our existence with the ideals of moral goodness that reach their full flowering in what the Bible calls “the Kingdom of God”. Such values are vital if we are to preserve human ecology, especially at a time when many contemporary nihilists proclaim both the death of God and the death of man. A Christian counterproposal to such declarations should be found in an ecumenical search for basic human values and unquestionable ethical principles, so as to reveal God’s image in Homo sapiens. It is probable that in this search the classical theological controversies will re-emerge; the role of divine grace and the fact of human sinfulness will be approached in different ways in various Christian traditions. However, this does not exclude our finding a common attitude in the axiological and ethical debates inspired by modern culture. This ecumenical search becomes necessary in the context of cultural pluralism in which the diversity of contemporary cultural traditions does not alter the fact that all humankind constitutes one family of God in which all of us can call God our Father.
...
Undoubtedly, when searching for an ecumenical system of ethics we have to remember that the Gospel hierarchy of values goes well beyond the pragmatism and the utilitarianism which tend to dominate contemporary Western culture. The axiology presented in the Sermon on the Mount expressing Christian moral radicalism has its own unique specificity. Both the contemporary dominance of relativism and the inevitable cultural pluralism of our times strengthen doubts about the possibility of working out a system of values and ethical norms which would be shared by all Christian denominations.

http://www.jan-pawel-2.pl/joomla/index. ... &Itemid=10

He finds it important to point out that Jesus' standards are neither useful nor practical - they aren't designed to create a merely functioning society, but to build a heavenly one. If people actually lived by the code he expounded on in the Sermon on the Mount...well, that would be pretty utopian! The Mosaic Laws dealt with a lot of practical issues of governance; Jesus did not. He just put that out there, and said...I am the Truth. I also thought what he was speaking of was relevant since he was focusing on a Christian interpretation that would be acceptable to all types of Christians.

And because I can quote in foreign languages too.... Scheler is a German philosopher, who is here pointing out the way in which the Sermon on the Mount is related to the Old Testament.

Ich kenne kein grandioseres Zeugnis für eine solche Neuerschliessung eines ganzen Werbereiches, die das ältere Ethos relativiert, als die Bergpredigt, die auch in ihrer Form als Zeugnis solcher Neuerschliessung und Relativierung der älteren "Gesetzes"-werte sich überall kundgibt: "Ich aber sage euch" (Max Scheler, Der Formalismus in der Ethik und die materiale Wertethik [Halle a.d.s., Verlag M. Niemeyer, 1921], p. 316, no. 1).

http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2tb23.htm

[Hopefully, that says something along the lines of:
"I know of no more grandiose evidence for such a discovery of a whole realm of values which relativizes an older ethos than the Sermon on the Mount, whose very form repeatedly announces evidence of the revitalizing of the old values of the Law: "But I say unto you..."
http://books.google.com/books?id=VCDwL_ ... frontcover (footnote on p.305)]

In other words, it is true that both "not a letter of the old law shall pass away" and "but I declare to you a new law." Christians follow a set of ethic principles (or, fail to follow them...) that are interiorly motivated, rather than focused on the external action. Thus, we are not to get angry at our brother, which should preclude killing him, and we are not to look at people with lust, which should keep adultery from happening. Jesus didn't change the rules...he raised the bar. Rather than morality being about what we shouldn't do, it's about an ethos of what should motivate us to do the right thing. Definitely not an opportunity to ask "what can I get away with?" There aren't legal loopholes in loving one's neighbor. Jesus speaks to the heart of the Law and says "Do this; the rest will follow." All you need is a correct understanding of what it means to love your neighbor.

I hope that was helpful and not too tangential.....

[Túrin Turambar]

Anyway, what does everyone think of my 'Paul as an Annihilationist' theory?

I'm not sure the divisions are as clear as you make them in your post delineating the hell, death and universal salvation theories (going by my Strong's Hebrew/Greek dictionary)

In the Luke citation, the word translated 'hell' is the Greek for 'Hades', which was the translation of the Hebrew 'Sheol', which as I understand it meant the place where the dead temporarily rest until the resurrection; it is frequently used figuratively in the Psalms. On the other hand, the Mark citation uses the word for 'Gehenna', which denotes the place or state of everlasting punishment.

Gehanna is certainly a physical hell (and I find it interesting that Paul doesn't use the term), but I have heard suggested that Hades is simply another word for death. What Sheol means is probably a whole new discussion.

In the citations you use to support the concept of ceasing to be, there are various words used that appear to be open to some interpretation.

For the word 'destruction' 2 Thess. 1:9 uses 'olethris from a primary to destroy; ruin, i.e., death, punishment.'

Phil 3:18,19 uses 'apoleia ruin or loss (phys., spir. or eternal) - damnation, destruction, perdition, pernicious ways, waste'.

For 'death' the word 'thanatos death (lit. or fig.)' is used.

For 'destroy' I Cor. 3:17 uses 'phtheiro prop. to shrivel or wither, i.e., to spoil (by any means) or gen. to ruin'.

while 2 Cor. 2:15 and James 4 use 'appolumi to destroy fully, lit. or fig. - destroy, die, lose, mar, perish.

What also needs to be mentioned here is the dispute over the authorship of some of the letters. Scholars today more or less universally accept that Paul of Tarsus was the author of Romans, First and Second Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, First Thessalonians and Philemon. These describe the alternative to salvation as ‘thantos’ (death) three times, ‘phtheiro’ (shrivel, wither, destroy, ruin) once, ‘appolumi’ (total destruction) once and ‘apoleia’ (which is usually translated as destruction) once. The Book of James is generally acknowledged to be the work of James the Just, uses ‘thantos’ (death) twice and ‘appolumi’ (total destruction) once.

As a side note, Colossians and Ephesians are disputed by some scholars, Second Thessalonians by a few more, First and Second Timothy and Titus by many (to the point where they are now widely considered to be forgeries) and Hebrews is now generally accepted to have been misattributed to Paul (the author never identifies himself, so he wasn’t trying to pass himself off as Paul – it seems to have been written between fifty and hundred years after he died). The references to universal salvation I noted above come from First Timothy and the Gospel of John (which we will get to soon).

Still, this doesn’t change much – the works of which Paul was the undisputed author refer to ‘death’ and ‘destruction’, and outside of 1 Timothy the author of the disputed letters (be he Paul or someone else) doesn’t contradict that too much. We will discuss the Pauline canon in more detail when we get on the Marcion Heresy.

There are three after effects of stunning import that come to mind:

1. After Jesus' death and resurrection, He sent the Holy Spirit to live inside every believer.
2. After Jesus' death, the veil of the temple, signifying our separation from God because of sin, was torn in two. We can now have fellowship with God because Jesus removed our sin from us by His death.
3. A believer is in Christ, as Christ is in him/her by the Holy Spirit.

Does this mean that the instructions Jesus gives in the Synoptic Gospels were entirely valid and complete at the time, but have since been added to/superseded following his death and resurrection?

In other words, it is true that both "not a letter of the old law shall pass away" and "but I declare to you a new law." Christians follow a set of ethic principles (or, fail to follow them...) that are interiorly motivated, rather than focused on the external action. Thus, we are not to get angry at our brother, which should preclude killing him, and we are not to look at people with lust, which should keep adultery from happening. Jesus didn't change the rules...he raised the bar.

That has been my impression, but it still raises two questions:

1) Simply raising the bar does not lead to salvation by substitutionary atonement. Cerin has sort of answered this one for me by pointing out that things changed following the death and resurrection, but it still isn’t enough, for me, to read salvation by substitutionary atonement into the Synoptic Gospels.

2) Does ‘not one letter of the old law shall pass away’ mean that all of the laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy need be followed by modern Christians?

[MithLuin]

2) Does ‘not one letter of the old law shall pass away’ mean that all of the laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy need be followed by modern Christians?

Clearly not. This was decided very early on, when Christianity realized that it was not a sect within Judaism, but a seperate religion entirely. New converts did not need to become Jewish prior to becoming Christian. This was one of the earliest theological questions dealt with by the Church.

Acts 10 recounts the vision/trance Peter had indicating that no animal was unclean. This was tied to the conversion of Cornelius and his household, who received the Holy Spirit even before they were baptized. The two ideas were tied together, and so from that point it was okay to baptize uncircumcised people.

Paul was obviously very enthusiastic about taking the message of the gospel to the Gentiles, but it is worth noting that he didn't start that - Peter did. Galatians 2 relates a confrontation the two of them had over this, and Paul's argument is, essentially "I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"

Acts 15 recounts the decision that was reached, and it basically listed four requirements of the law that should apply to Gentile converts, but no others: "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things."


So, yeah, Christians can eat shellfish and cheeseburgers, and circumcision is optional. Circumcision was a symbol of the covenant God made with his people - but Christians enter into a different covenant, so they have a different sign - baptism.

Keep in mind that the Jewish covenant was never meant to be universal. It was for the Jewish people, who had been chosen by God. That covenant is still recognized by Christians as being in effect - it's just not....ours. Does that make sense?

And yes, we still have to take care of orphans and widows. Nobody gets out of that one.


Oh, and if you think that Peter and Paul (and the Holy Spirit) were ignoring Jesus, keep in mind that there is a very important caveat included in his statement: "until everything is accomplished."

That is quite possibly a reference to the Crucifixion. At least, I read it that way. I see how it could also be taken very apocolyptically.

[Lalaith]

OT: Thanks for the kind words, everyone. I am in a rush at the moment, so I'm afraid I can't rejoin the conversation right now. But I wanted to say something.

Things rubbed me the wrong way yesterday. Typically, when that happens (which is really rather rare), I know that it's probably me and not the people posting, so I know I need to just cool it for a while.

I'm appalled that anyone would use any reason to persecute a people group, so I'm afraid I forget that some people would. I've never understood anti-Semitism, and I doubt I ever truly will.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

[Frelga]

Just to let folks know, I don't have the brainpower to deal with this thread at the moment. It's not that I'm offended or anything like that.

[Túrin Turambar]

Acts 15 recounts the decision that was reached, and it basically listed four requirements of the law that should apply to Gentile converts, but no others: "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things."

Out of curiosity, did they have a basis for that particular choice?

I'm assuming that those commandments were taken in addition to the ones that Jesus directly tells the young man to follow, so I find it odd that they decide to follow his specific commands but not his general one to uphold Mosaic Law in its entirety.

[MithLuin]

Yes. The basis was, "Hey, it's a surprise to us, but God says so."

Peter and Paul were both Jewish. So, the "default" position would have been to continue following the Mosaic law. Certainly, in the beginning, they preached the gospel to their fellow Jews, and all the earliest Christians were also Jewish. They continued to attend synagogues and follow the Mosaic Law. They didn't consider themselves not-Jewish just because they had become baptized. The word "Christian" hadn't been invented yet.

The story recounted in Acts 10-11 and 15 explains how that changed. (Acts of the Apostles was the sequel to the gospel of Luke, telling the story of the early Church after Jesus' ascension.) Obviously, the New Testament hadn't been written yet when all of this was happening . The deciding factor for everything was always...the guidance of the Holy Spirit. In the first 9 chapters of Acts, the message of the gospel is shared with the children of Abraham. Even Paul, when he converts, preaches to the Jews. The Ethiopian eunuch is still Jewish. But this changes in Acts 10, with the conversion of Cornelius. Peter went to him after being told in a vision: "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

Cornelius was a centurion. He was considered an upright man, but he was not a Jew. Peter's vision, the request to come to his house and the fact that the Holy Spirit fell on these people without the laying on of hands were all seen as signs that this was God's will. From that time onward, Gentiles could become followers of Jesus, too....and Peter stopped living as a Jew.

Antioch was the first place a substantial number of non-Jews became Christians - and it was the first time and place the word "Christian" was used for that very reason. This decision to go beyond Judaism is what made Christianity branch off as a seperate religion. Guess who was preaching in Antioch? That would be St. Paul . What was he doing there? While praying, the group decided to send him there. This is the theme of Acts - everything is done under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Jesus had promised his followers that he would not leave them alone, that he would send his Spirit to guide them. They took him at his word.

This transition was not seamless, though. Obviously, it caused some consternation among the Jewish disciples to have fellow believers who were not Jewish. While Peter's vision and the precedent of Cornelius made it clear that they could be brought into the fold, so to speak, some people wanted them to convert to Judaism as well, as part of that process. So, there were plenty of debates on whether or not Gentile converts to Christianity should be circumcised or not. Paul was very adamant about not - the message of Jesus was for all people, and while it began with the Jews, it was not (to him) about being Jewish.

Acts 15 is considered to be the Council of Jerusalem. Later Church councils (ie, Nicea, Constantinople, etc) were convened to answer questions that were troubling the Church - to straighten out doctrine, basically. This one was far less formal, but had the same purpose. The community in Antioch wanted clear instructions on requirements for Gentile converts, so they sent Paul and Barnabbas to Jerusalem to get an answer to the question.

The apostles and elders met to consider this question. After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."

The idea for what prohibitions to spell out was suggested by James. These were selected most likely as things that would cause scandal. The commandmants of the decalogue are not mentioned, not because no one needs to follow them, but because these instructions are meant to be practical guidelines, not a moral code. As Paul tries to explain to the Corinthians: "All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable All things are lawful, but not all things edify."

So, how did they reach that decision? Debate, prayer and the Holy Spirit. The Apostles had been with Jesus throughout his public ministry, so they were familiar with what he taught. They weren't ignoring him.

[Lalaith]

Mith, I'm not sure I ever paid attention to the prohibitions spelled out in this passage. It makes me wonder if we're still supposed to be following them? (Finding food sacrificed to idols is rather hard here in the US. Sexual immorality is a no-brainer. But strangled animals and no blood are two prohibitions I don't think most non-Jewish Christians ever think about.)

Just a quick thought as I head out the door... .

[MithLuin]

The "no blood" line is why the Jehovah's Witnesses will not accept blood transfusions. Since the purpose of spelling these things out was likely to avoid scandal, the question is - would doing these things currently cause scandal? I can't think of any butchering technique that involves strangulation - why was it done 2,000 years ago? The idols issue is not currently culturally relevant, though looking at why that was prohibited will likely still be worthwhile. In other words, it would perhaps be inappropriate for a Christian to participate in religious rites of a pagan nature.

1) Simply raising the bar does not lead to salvation by substitutionary atonement. Cerin has sort of answered this one for me by pointing out that things changed following the death and resurrection, but it still isn’t enough, for me, to read salvation by substitutionary atonement into the Synoptic Gospels.

Ah, but just how high is the bar raised? Is it humanly possible to live in the way proscribed by Jesus? The Christian answer is....no. Not a chance. Doesn't happen....unless you have a lot of grace from God. In other words, God's grace is a necessary prerequisite for following Jesus' teachings. And that grace is available to us....because of the death and resurrection of Jesus.

It is true that Jesus doesn't talk about grace in the synoptic gospels. But he does say this in all the synoptic gospels: "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." [Matthew 19:26, Mark 10:27, Luke 18:27] He was specifically talking about living according to the moral code he had just got done explaining in those cases.

He also specifically names faith as a prerequisite to healing, to being saved, to having ones sins forgiven, and prayers answered. Ie,

Then the disciples came to Jesus privately and said, "Why could we not drive it out?"

And He said to them, "Because of the littleness of your faith; for truly I say to you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you. Matthew 17:19-20

All throughout the gospels, Jesus talks about himself having to die and be raised. Luke 24 is a pretty good segway into the book of Acts. It's all there, just not spelled out - because the synoptic gospels are not theology texts.

[Lalaith]

The "no blood" line is why the Jehovah's Witnesses will not accept blood transfusions. Since the purpose of spelling these things out was likely to avoid scandal, the question is - would doing these things currently cause scandal? I can't think of any butchering technique that involves strangulation - why was it done 2,000 years ago? The idols issue is not currently culturally relevant, though looking at why that was prohibited will likely still be worthwhile. In other words, it would perhaps be inappropriate for a Christian to participate in religious rites of a pagan nature.

Good point, and I later thought of passages like:

Colossians 2:16-23

Romans 14

I Corinthians 8


(I just put in links to these, as some are whole chapters.)

Here would be a good passage to sum it up:

23"Everything is permissible"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"—but not everything is constructive. 24Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others.

25Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26for, "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it."

27If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. 28But if anyone says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience' sake— 29the other man's conscience, I mean, not yours. For why should my freedom be judged by another's conscience? 30If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?

31So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. 32Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— 33even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved. I Cor. 10:23-33 (NIV).

[Túrin Turambar]

Yes. The basis was, "Hey, it's a surprise to us, but God says so."

They say “it seemed good to us and the Holy Spirit...”. Question: Does this mean that a group of Christian leaders could today come to the conclusion through debate and prayer that ‘it seems good to them and the Holy Spirit’ that, say, homosexuality should no longer be considered a sin?

Also, this does seem to justify the Catholic position somewhat, in that a church with a divinely-guided leadership has a basis in the New Testament.

As a side note, I understand that the Ethiopian Church still largely upholds Jewish dietary restrictions and the like. That church is a fascinating study, btw, due to its long isolation from the rest of Christendom following the Islamic conquest of North Africa.

Anyway, so far I’ve given most of my focus to the Synoptic Gospels. I’d now like to take a look at the theology of the ‘odd Gospel out’ – John. Here is a little table I’ve tried to make comparing the Gospels and illustrating the key differences with John (note that I've gone with the scholarly consensus on issues like date and location):




In the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) Jesus primarily comes across as a teacher or prophet, focuses heavily on the Kingdom of God (or Kingdom of Heaven according to Matthew – he doesn’t want to offended his Jewish readers by writing the name of God), and his preaching has a strong eschatological, end-of-the-world flavour. He downplays his own role to a degree, and speaks in parables to obscure his message. His role as the fulfilment of Jewish prophecy as the messiah is often discussed.

In contrast, the Jesus of John is almost like a different character, rarely mentioning end times or the coming Kingdom and instead emphasising his own role in salvation (‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life...’). John does not have the same urgency as the Synoptics. It also makes the clear claim at the start that Jesus is both God and with God (one of the clearest endorsements of the trinity in scripture), unlike the Synoptics, which have on occasion been accused of promoting adoptionism (the belief that Jesus was a normal man who became divine when he was adopted as God’s son, generally at the point of baptism). John clearly endorses substitutionary atonement, and omits the Sermon on the Mount and Jesus’ pronouncements about following commandments there.

The Gospel of John is instrumental to modern Christianity. John 3:16 (‘for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son...’) is basically a summary of Christianity in one line, even though none of the other Gospels endorse the concept. This is doubly interesting when we consider that the Gospel of John is the canonical Gospel most commonly associated with heresy. It obviously had significance to Gnostics and dualists as it frequently shows up in collections of their scripture. I understand that it has come under criticism itself even into modern times, particularly over its different chronology to the other Gospels, which have led to allegations of historical inaccuracy.

It’s characterisation of Jesus as the word, or Logos, is also something I find extremely interesting.

[Túrin Turambar]

Now I suppose it’s time for the discussion on Gnosticism that we have to have.

Here’s my attempt to explain it – Gnosticism is a belief, or series of beliefs, originating in Persia and Middle East around the first or second century BC. It generally has the following elements (some particular sects make exceptions to some of these):

1. A dualist worldview – there is a physical world, and a separate spiritual one.

2. The spiritual world is perfect, inhabited by purely spiritual beings, and ruled over by a perfect, benevolent God, frequently called the Monad (‘the One’) or the Father.

3. The material world was created by a flawed God known as the Demiurge, and as such is flawed itself. The exact nature of the Demiurge varies from sect to sect – some Gnostics saw him as being essentially benevolent but limited in power, others saw him as being malevolent and actively opposed to the Monad/Father. Similarly, opinions varied as to whether he was equally powerful to the Monad/Father or created by and inferior to him.

4. The belief that humans are the union of a soul, somehow fallen from the spiritual realm into the physical, and matter from the physical world. Through the acquisition of secret knowledge, or gnosis, we can free ourselves from the physical world and return to the spiritual one when we die.

It was probably natural that Jesus’ life and ministry should have drawn Gnostic as well as conventional Jewish interpretation. Gnosticism provides some novel answers to these problems which have worried people reading the New Testament scriptures since they were first written:

Why did God need to send his son to the world to be tortured and killed to save people from himself?
Why did the Old Testament God, who is apparently so wrathful and vengeful, suddenly decide to try and save everyone out of love?
Why does God allow so much destruction and evil to happen?

Sometime during the early second century, a gentile Christian named Marcion of Sinope found himself unable to reconcile the character of the Old Testament God with that of the New. He wrote a treatise on the subject called the Antithesis, where he compared Old Testament verses with Jesus’ teachings and concluded that the God of the Hebrew Bible and the Father that Jesus referred to were two different beings. He naturally came to associate the Old Testament God with the Demiurge and the Father with the Father/Monad of the spiritual realm. This was further compounded by the fact that a separate, entirely spiritual life after death is only really a New Testament innovation (the shades in Sheol in the OT are implied to be mere shadows of the living, and some books, such as Ecclesiastes, imply that there is no life after death at all). Marcionism was not truly Gnostic as salvation was still through faith rather than gnosis, but it was still very close to it.

Marcion came to believe that Paul was the only one who had truly understood the teachings of Jesus, and quickly became his biggest fan. He argued that, in the event of conflict between Paul and any other authors, Paul should be given priority (keep in mind that there was no no New Testament in those days – various books, including many not found in the Bible today, were being used by different churches across the Roman Empire, and some had not yet been written). He assembled all of the extant writings of Paul (excluding 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus and Hebrews, which adds weight to the theory that they were not written by Paul), the Gospel of Luke (which he called the Gospel of the Lord and claimed was the only legitimate Gospel), and his own book, the Gospel of Marcion, into the first-ever New Testament. He then rejected the Old Testament as bloody glorification of the Demiurge. It is probably due to Marcion that the Old and New Testaments are separate today, rather than Matthew being tacked straight onto Malachi. I’d say that Marcion is also largely responsible for the writings of Paul being so instrumental to modern Christianity, and for those particular books and not the others that claim his authorship (such as the Epistle to the Alexandrians) being in the Bible.

It’s also possible that the canonical New Testament was formed to rebut Marcionism. There was no formal way of declaring a particular belief system heretical at the time, and individual churches used whatever scriptures seemed good to them. A few editions of the Bible still preserve Marcion’s introduction to the Pauline Epistles. He died in 144 and subsequently became considered to be a dangerous heretic and his works and church were suppressed.

Anyway, there's still some interesting points in the Gospel of John that I want to get to.

[Cerin]

Does this mean that the instructions Jesus gives in the Synoptic Gospels were entirely valid and complete at the time, but have since been added to/superseded following his death and resurrection?

Yes, I think that is basically the case. Jesus was in the position of having to teach about a new dynamic that would only come into effect after his death and resurrection. Keep in mind that Jesus was operating within the limitations of what it means to be human, which means that in His capacity as a man, His understanding was gained through study, prayer and revelation by the Holy Spirit. He was not exercising in His ministry the omniscience and omnipotence that was His as God. The guidance He gave therefore could only be in the context of the old covenant, which was still the active paradigm and the covenant under which He himself was operating.

1) Simply raising the bar does not lead to salvation by substitutionary atonement.

No, simply raising the bar does not in itself lead to salvation by substitutionary atonement. But it makes the need for it that much clearer. As we know, there were people who felt that they had lived a righteous life according to the law, but with Jesus' teaching it becomes clear that even following the law to the minutest degree would not result in the perfection that Jesus said was necessary.

2) Does ‘not one letter of the old law shall pass away’ mean that all of the laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy need be followed by modern Christians?

I would say no, because Christians are under the new covenant which came into being when Jesus fulfilled the law by becoming the perfect sacrifice for sin. Under the old covenant, one was made right with God by following the law and through the sacrifices repeatedly made under the law; under the new covenant, we are made right with God by the blood of Jesus when we identify with and accept His sacrifice on our behalf, who maintained His righteousness under the law and became the perfect sacrifice once for all.

They say “it seemed good to us and the Holy Spirit...”. Question: Does this mean that a group of Christian leaders could today come to the conclusion through debate and prayer that ‘it seems good to them and the Holy Spirit’ that, say, homosexuality should no longer be considered a sin?

First I want to correct your phrasing there. It isn't homosexuality (orientation), but sexual practices, not limited to homosexual practices, that are spoken of as sin.

I think there are a couple of important differences between the scenario that MithLuin laid out and the example you give. Firstly, the church then was being established. We have the New Testament to rely on, but they were the New Testament, being written, as it were, as they lived their faith. Secondly, this was an enormous, fundamental decision upon which the fate of the new church would hang. How would gentiles be incorporated into the faith? Would they move forward with the new covenant or go back to the old? A group of leaders today considering homosexuality are not confronting something new about which the church has never before received revelation and instruction, nor is the issue so fundamental doctrinally. My view is that no, principles that are clearly set forth in the Bible are not open for reconsideration. Or put another way, the Holy Spirit would not give guidance to Christians today that is contrary to the guidance given to the early church.

John does not have the same urgency as the Synoptics.

That seems quite subjective. Would you care to give some context to 'urgency'?

The Gospel of John is instrumental to modern Christianity. John 3:16 (‘for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son...’) is basically a summary of Christianity in one line, even though none of the other Gospels endorse the concept.

It seems to me that that verse is a basic summation of the events described in the other gospels. They don't 'endorse' the concept because they detail the events that taken together represent the concept.

It is probably due to Marcion that the Old and New Testaments are separate today, rather than Matthew being tacked straight onto Malachi.

I always thought it was simply a matter of the Old Testament being in Hebrew, and the new in Greek.