Jump to content

Bible Worship


WalkerW

Recommended Posts

In a recent presentation, Michael Heiser said the following:

"To the Jew, Wisdom was the Torah. Wisdom was the Law. They believed that the Law was eternal. That it was there when God was there. That Law given to people in scripture and put down in writing was the mind of God...They made the Law the focus of all that they were about...It was as though the Law had an existence and a personality all of its own. It was an extension of Yahweh...Now Paul and some of the other New Testament writers-what are they constantly talking about? That righteousness doesn't come by the Law. It comes by this person, Jesus. And Paul and the other writers are going to say that that person...is God. He is Wisdom. He is the Word. He is the Angel. He is all these things that we associate with embodied deity in the Old Testament. So, you can see that the conflict is just transparent. It's Christ and the Law. Which Wisdom is it? Which Word is it? Is it this person, Jesus of Nazareth, or is it the Torah? ...It really casts some of the New Testament confrontations that you read about in a little bit different way." ("Where Did the NT Writers Get the Idea of Jesus as Co-Creator?" Presentation given at Grace Church Bellingham, Dec. 6, 2009)

On another thread, I commented on this quote:

Paul is placing the proper focus, authority, and divinity on Christ rather than the Law. It is not loyalty to the Law that saves. It is loyalty to Christ. I find it rather interesting that the deification of the Law is very similar to the deification of the Bible we see today.

Another individual responded to me:

Christ is God ... the author of the Law. To place a dichotomy between the Law and the Lawgiver is to commit intellectual suicide. The Law of God is not antithetical to God. It represents His perfect nature and what He expects. We broke that law. As such, we're guilty and must pay the penalty. In His grace, God came in the person of Christ and lived a life that was in perfect harmony with the law that He Himself prescribed. He now offers His righteousness to those who come to Him in faith, taking their sinfulness upon Himself and bearing God's wrath in their stead.

This is the Gospel. This is the truth. Believe it. Live it. Love it. Share it.

To this, I said:

The law had been interpreted as the manifestation of Yahweh, the Word. This was incorrect. Christ was the manifestation of Yahweh, the Word. In a sense, the law was being given emphasis over the lawgiver.

Once again, they responded:

Regardless of how the law was viewed, there is no conflict between it and God. God created the law. It represents His will.

Me:

Not "regardless of how the law was viewed." Loyalty was to be shifted from the Pharisaic interpretations and views of the Law to Christ and His teachings.

When you basically confuse the Law (or any scripture) with deity it is a misstep and a big one at that.

Them:

No ... the misstep is when people think that Scripture and God are at odds since Scripture is God's very voice.

shok.gif

I was just baffled by this. I said again:

This is just theological rhetoric. Wannabe poetic descriptions of scripture (i.e. "God's very voice") are ill attempts to dismiss the fallibility of mortal record keeping.

It is nothing more than a presupposition that the Law was maintained in its pure form for centuries without ever receiving alterations or incorrect dogmatic interpretations. I do not share your presupposition nor do I have any reason to do so.

Apparently, you don't like the idea of deification of the Law being preached against because you deify the Bible in a similar fashion. I cannot believe a Christian (one who claims to follow Christ) would defend the deification of religious texts.

Why is it that deification of a religious text is seen as acceptable among some Christians? I understand scripture being viewed as sacred or divinely inspired. But it is another thing entirely to confuse scripture with Deity (or at least close to it). To me, such an attitude and view is dangerous. Christ and His apostles are examples of what happens when one rattles the cages of dogmatic interpretations. Why would anyone want to mirror the "Law only" groups of Christ's day?

Link to comment

It baffles me too since Paul never claims the written word is Gods voice.

2 Cor. 3: 6

6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the bspirit giveth life.

The written word kills but the Spirit gives life. Teaching with the Spirit IS the new testament.

Also Notice here how Christ goes WAY beyond Scripture....

Matt 7

24

Link to comment

Why is it that deification of a religious text is seen as acceptable among some Christians? I understand scripture being viewed as sacred or divinely inspired. But it is another thing entirely to confuse scripture with Deity (or at least close to it). To me, such an attitude and view is dangerous. Christ and His apostles are examples of what happens when one rattles the cages of dogmatic interpretations. Why would anyone want to mirror the "Law only" groups of Christ's day?

I think it's a character flaw. Some people are obsessive compulsive and focus on things that give them a feeling of control. They need an anchor and become dependent upon that anchor; in the case of the Bible worshiping Christian, they can't accept the fallibility of human language and interpretation, because their anchor, the Bible, would no longer be stable. Obviously, this is why Christ should be the anchor, because He is not subject to human fallibility.

Link to comment

For protestants, they are in a tough place when it comes to scripture. They have no prophets, no person to lead them. No one has more or less authority than the next guy or gal. That means that all they have when it comes to an authoritative source on God's will concerning them is the bible. It seems only natural that having put themselves in the position that they have, that the bible begins to become equal to God to some (many?) of them.

(I hope that doesn't sound as condescending as i think it does-i don't mean it that way.)

Link to comment

For protestants, they are in a tough place when it comes to scripture. They have no prophets, no person to lead them. No one has more or less authority than the next guy or gal. That means that all they have when it comes to an authoritative source on God's will concerning them is the bible. It seems only natural that having put themselves in the position that they have, that the bible begins to become equal to God to some (many?) of them.

(I hope that doesn't sound as condescending as i think it does-i don't mean it that way.)

But whats funny about that is it is only authoritative to them as long as it goes along with their preconcevied notions.

Take for example...

1 Cor 11

4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

Last time I checked Mormons follow the Bible here especially in Temple Worship. From my experience Protestant Groups do not.

IOW they pick and choose what parts of the Bible they want to follow.

Link to comment

For protestants, they are in a tough place when it comes to scripture. They have no prophets, no person to lead them. No one has more or less authority than the next guy or gal. That means that all they have when it comes to an authoritative source on God's will concerning them is the bible. It seems only natural that having put themselves in the position that they have, that the bible begins to become equal to God to some (many?) of them.

Exactly - any Christian church that can't claim to trace it's lineage back to Christ and his disciples has to find their claim to authority somewhere else, and scripture is the obvious choice.

Link to comment

But whats funny about that is it is only authoritative to them as long as it goes along with their preconcevied notions.

Take for example...

1 Cor 11

4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

Last time I checked Mormons follow the Bible here especially in Temple Worship. From my experience Protestant Groups do not.

IOW they pick and choose what parts of the Bible they want to follow.

Digging back into the Wayback Machine to see what was happening while I was ignoring MADB I find this.

Zakuska, you got the bolded text only half right. The part about men praying with their head covered, I mean.

Paul also talks about women not speaking in church, and of course the Protestants ignore that, as do we. Come on. I'm surprised no-one called you out on this before I went digging into ancient history.

Link to comment

For protestants, they are in a tough place when it comes to scripture. They have no prophets, no person to lead them. No one has more or less authority than the next guy or gal. That means that all they have when it comes to an authoritative source on God's will concerning them is the bible. It seems only natural that having put themselves in the position that they have, that the bible begins to become equal to God to some (many?) of them.

(I hope that doesn't sound as condescending as i think it does-i don't mean it that way.)

Hi Bluebell,

Thought I would add my two bits on your statement.

While it is quite true that us Protestants don't have prophets. At least in the sense of some human individual who has spiritual authority over us, like Moses over the Israelites.

I would say that, bold mine, I wouldn't be agreeable with the notion that Protestants are without leadership, in that we have no person to lead us. I would say we are led by Christ through the Holy Spirit.

Second bold mine, I disagree with the conclusion that all we are left in regards to authority is the Bible. The Bible is open to various interpretations and permutations of emphasis within the text. If that is all we were left with, well... I think we would be like those Paul spoke of in Ephesians, grasping at any wind of doctrine and so forth.

I wouldn't say that the Bible is equal God, it is his words given to us and passed onward and certainly deserves our respect, but there have been numerous people who have twisted its words to their own ends. Rather than look to sinful men for what is to be understood from it we look to the Holy Spirit to guide our interpretations.

You are correct we see ourselves as brothers and sisters in Christ. We don't believe a particular mortal person has more or less authority than we do. As brothers and sisters I do think we try to benefit from the knowledge given by God to us all in the variety of spiritual gifts available to the Christian.

God has imparted to us varying spiritual gifts and we do try to recognize them. Though the evangelist may have no more authority before God over others than the teacher, we adhere to following God as he moves through the church. By that I mean it would seem right to adhere to the exortations of the evangelists and the teachings of the teacher. But the truth of these things are confirmed to us by the Holy Spirit.

And no, I don't think you sounded condescending. LDS look to their Prophet, the 1stP and Q12 for temporal leadership and the mouth pieces of God.

The Protestants believe God leads us directly and speaks directly to each of us through the Holy Spirit and more often than not it seems the preferred means of such communication is the Bible, though I think we certainly recognize that the Holy Spirit speaks in and through a multitude of ways.

As I see it, LDS are adding an unnecessary step to the equation. Man has failed, can fail and will fail. To insert men between God and man seems like a situation that could lead to error. IMO, the CoJCoLDS leadership team are put upon a pedestal that doesn't seem quite right. I mean that if such leadership were in error, then who could gainsay them? Would a revelation from the Holy Spirit to the individual LDS actually be sufficient?

I imagine you would feel that I may skipping a step instead.

Regards,

Mudcat

Link to comment

Why is it that deification of a religious text is seen as acceptable among some Christians? I understand scripture being viewed as sacred or divinely inspired. But it is another thing entirely to confuse scripture with Deity (or at least close to it). To me, such an attitude and view is dangerous. Christ and His apostles are examples of what happens when one rattles the cages of dogmatic interpretations. Why would anyone want to mirror the "Law only" groups of Christ's day?

Because they don't accept the living word of God in Christ's Church which comes through prophets.

Christians don't see beyond salvation in the same way as Jews can't see beyond the Law. It has always been problematic to be limited by the text of a certain era. The good news is that each of these dispensations of the word of God are generational. The LDS Church is built upon that which came before just as Christian faith is built upon the Jewish religion that preceded it.

And the Jewish people are but a remnant of the descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob...while Abraham was the chosen of all the descendants of Noah...who was the only to survive from Adam's seed. From each of these are born a spiritual generation in God.

Likewise, the LDS give birth to a generation of priests which goes beyond Israel's generation. As is recorded in Genesis with the continuation of Jacob's birthright being passed on to Ephraim and Manasseh.

It is these in the LDS Church who receive the birthright and continue in Ephraim and Manasseh who will speak the word of God by the gift and power of the Holy Ghost for the generations to come.

The question remains: Will the Saints accept the fruits of their own generation?

Link to comment

Digging back into the Wayback Machine to see what was happening while I was ignoring MADB I find this.

Zakuska, you got the bolded text only half right. The part about men praying with their head covered, I mean.

Paul also talks about women not speaking in church, and of course the Protestants ignore that, as do we. Come on. I'm surprised no-one called you out on this before I went digging into ancient history.

You do realize that the particular verses were added sometime after the 10th century?

See my note below... I confused 1 Cor 14:34-35 with 1 Cor 11:4-5.

Link to comment

You do realize that the particular verses were added sometime after the 10th century?

That's news to me Zakuska.

Do you have any source material for that statement? I'd be curious to what support exists for such a notion.

Also if they were an addition, is there any good reason JS left them in the JST?

Regards,

Mudcat

Link to comment

That's news to me Zakuska.

Do you have any source material for that statement? I'd be curious to what support exists for such a notion.

Also if they were an addition, is there any good reason JS left them in the JST?

Regards,

Mudcat

Of course their is support Mudcat:

1 Cor 14

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Its a well known fact that the verses have been tampered with over the ages and represent a variant in the various manuscripts.

Try this Google:

http://www.google.co...on&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

More about various textual variants here:

http://en.wikipedia....e_New_Testament

PS. Please note, I confused two verses 1 Cor 11:4-5 with 1 Cor 14:34-35. The latter is a later addition

Link to comment

Of course their is support Mudcat:

Its a well known fact that the verses have been tampered with over the ages and represent a variant in the various manuscripts.

Why do you think the Bible has been tampered with. Do you have any proof of this?

Link to comment
Why do you think the Bible has been tampered with. Do you have any proof of this?

When the Most High divided their inheritance to the nations, When He separated the sons of Adam, He set the boundaries of the peoples According to the number of the children of Israel. (Deut. 32:8, NKJV)

When the Most High apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods. (NRSV)

Any other questions?

Link to comment

When the Most High divided their inheritance to the nations, When He separated the sons of Adam, He set the boundaries of the peoples According to the number of the children of Israel. (Deut. 32:8, NKJV)

When the Most High apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods. (NRSV)

Any other questions?

Those 2 versions are just saying the same thing but differently.

Link to comment

Those 2 versions are just saying the same thing but differently.

No, they're not. The earlier (which reads sons of god / angels of god in the LXX) is a reference to the ancient Israelite divine council and kingship theology. The later (children of Israel) is a later editorial attempt to force strict monotheism of a text that originally did not call for it and remove the kingship theology reference.

Link to comment

Of course their is support Mudcat:

<snip>

PS. Please note, I confused two verses 1 Cor 11:4-5 with 1 Cor 14:34-35. The latter is a later addition

Okay, well I think the fact that you were confused and weren't actualy referring to verses in 1 Cor 11 being a 10th+ century addition clears it up a bit.

Still, I think your case for 1 Cor 14:34-35 is a bit shaky. I haven't heard much discussion in the way of it in the past, but after reading your links and Googling a bit myself, at best I think it could be said that a copyist error could have been made placing the 2 verses after verse 40 instead of after verse 33. IMO, that is certainly a plausible mistake.. and could have been an intentional interpolation for some reason.

I suppose you could say moving the verse about makes it an addition, but shifting data may or may not be equivalent to an actual addition if it doesn't have significant interpretational impact.

What can doctrinally be determined as different from the following passage

1Co 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

<moved to follow verse 40>

1Co 14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

1Co 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

1Co 14:38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

1Co 14:39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.

1Co 14:40 Let all things be done decently and in order.

1Co 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

1Co 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

What impact does shifting the verses about have in your opinion?

Regards,

Mudcat

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...