tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post1860392777543217209..comments2024-03-20T16:53:46.636-04:00Comments on AS BEREANS DID: Common Legalist Arguments - Part IVMarthahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12438486498450616814noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-31837002948901249292009-07-10T09:50:27.735-04:002009-07-10T09:50:27.735-04:00RKPDRMR,
I'm strapped for time, so I'll h...RKPDRMR,<br /><br />I'm strapped for time, so I'll have to make a quick comment.<br />I wanted to say thank you! I am so filled with joy that ABD has been a help to you. And to see you walking in faith.<br /><br />And I wanted to say that God deeply, deeply, and sincerely loves you. He loved you while you were in the UCG, and He loves you now. More than we as humans can comprehend.<br /><br />As an article of faith I am sure that the angels in heaven rejoice over seeing your faith. You've made the hard choice to leave the UCG. Awesome! <br />We'll be here with you and for you in whatever you need. Email me if you want and we'll talk.<br /><br />GOD BLESS YOU AND SPEED YOU ALONG WITHIN HIS NEW COVENANT!xHWAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01061716053302210598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-81153276636318415602009-07-09T20:30:59.386-04:002009-07-09T20:30:59.386-04:00RK,
This is so true!
There's nothing wrong wi...RK,<br /><br />This is <i>so</i> true!<br />There's nothing wrong with looking at what others offer up, we just need to make sure it's true.<br />People have a tendency to assume that a 'Minister' is teaching truth, or has it right. And we know that too many Ministers claim to have it straight from God.<br /><br />I don't know how many times I've read someones statement that when they get confused they go read HWA's literature! Wow! What happened to searching <i>God's</i> Word for the answers and asking Him to reveal it?<br /><br />It is up to us to do as the Bereans did and make sure that what we hear is true. We should never rely on the lone scriptures given us by one making a case for their argument. It is our responsibility to search out many more scriptures on the subject to verify what is and is not true.<br />I imagine people may be tired or getting tired of me repeating this a multitude of times, but it's a huge deal to me... hence the name of this blog. =)<br /><br />I strongly believe that if we ask God to reveal His truth to us and tell Him we have no preferences, that He <i>will</i> do so.<br /><br />After all... we want to please Him, and don't we need the truth to do that?Seeker Of Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05974355570014495622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-56072498196818641012009-07-09T16:33:44.997-04:002009-07-09T16:33:44.997-04:00xHWA and Seeker,
I just read the article "Co...xHWA and Seeker,<br /><br />I just read the article "Common Legalist Arguments, Part IV.<br /><br />And as I have left UCG not too long ago, and I am still trying to clear my mind from Armstrongism, I have a quick comment.<br /><br /> So many things you say in your article are exactly what I am thinking about all of this, although you have covered it in a much more comprehensive and detailed manner than I could.<br /><br />My point is this: I am amazed at how we can come to so many of the same conclusions, if we just read the Bible for ourselves, without the "aid" of the church literature booklets!RKPDRMRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-47102173031625696272009-06-04T13:51:54.086-04:002009-06-04T13:51:54.086-04:00One more thing that I see:
"GOD, as the auth...One more thing that I see:<br /><br />"GOD, as the author of it, the One who set out the conditions, can ALTER the covenant, if He so chooses."<br /><br />This would make sense from one perspective. However, what I see from many Armstrongists is the exact opposite argument. When challenged to study into meats or tithes or Sabbath or holy days, many Armstrongists tell me almost automatically:<br /><br />(MAL. 3: 6) For I am the LORD, I do not change<br /><br />-and-<br /><br />(MATT. 5: 18) For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.<br /><br />And in this they claim the law has not nor will it ever change.<br />Yet, at the very same time, they claim Jesus altered the law.<br /><br />I am confident that you recognize this example of what is referred to as "Cognitive Dissonance", (which for those who don't know is holding two opposing beliefs at the same time). One cannot claim that the law is eternal/unalterable AND claim that the law has been changed.<br /><br />So, then their solution to the uncomfortable feeling becomes "Jesus only changed part of the law". Which brings us again full circle again to MAL. 3: 6 & MATT. 5: 18... only now add GAL. 5: 3 and JAS. 2: 10!<br /><br />I would think it is simpler by far to just accept the Gospel, which says Jesus' death & resurrection to life is the end of the law for those who believe.xHWAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01061716053302210598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-38881566142549085132009-06-04T11:20:28.250-04:002009-06-04T11:20:28.250-04:00Quest,
First off, thanks for participating in our...Quest,<br /><br />First off, thanks for participating in our discussion and feeling comfortable enough to mention your thoughts. I hope you feel welcome.<br /><br />About altering covenants, I would say:<br /><br />(LUKE 16: 16-17) 16 The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it. 17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fail.<br /><br />It was easier for God to destroy all of physical creation than to alter the Covenant. His solution was from the beginning to annul the Covenant entirely in the death of the main party, Jesus Christ.<br /><br />II Corinthians 3: 7 & 13 lead me to believe that the Old Covenant was passing away from before Moses made it down the mountain.<br /><br />All that I read led me to the (at that time very uncomfortable) conclusion that God did not alter the covenant, but planned to discard it.<br /><br />Now, to me, that doesn't mean God discarded good and evil, He merely discarded the codification (and therefore the condemnation) of the Old Covenant law. He replaced that with what you might call the Royal Law, or the law of faith, which is love. Love and faith existed before the OC law, so when the law was removed the first principles were revealed again (you could say the law covered them up like a veil and is now taken out of the way by Christ). But the OC law was built from the same principle, therefore love will fulfill the righteous requirements of the OC law.xHWAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01061716053302210598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-75094335056628777702009-06-04T10:47:25.626-04:002009-06-04T10:47:25.626-04:00Here is a poignant quote from former SDA pastor, a...Here is a poignant quote from former SDA pastor, administrator,doctoral student at an SDA seminary and associate professor of theology at an SDA college, Richard Fredericks:<br /><br />"But I came to realize that, in practice, the true integrating center of Seventh-day Adventist theology is not Jesus Christ,but the Sabbath. It defines their identity and ecclesiology. Contrary to Romans 11:5, SDA’s are taught they are God’s true remnant church because they keep the 7th-day Sabbath. It defines their soteriology and their eschatology: for Adventists, the Sabbath is the great issue that ultimately decides who wears the mark of the Beast and receives God’s wrath (because of Sunday-worship); and those who are sealed by God for salvation (because of Sabbath-keeping)."<br /><br />He continues,<br /><br />"In Adventism, anyone may openly question Christ’s sinless nature or even the sufficiency of His atonement and still be accepted. But to deny the 7th-day Sabbath as a moral test is grounds for immediate disfellowship."<br /><br />Telling!<br />And quite applicable to Armstrongism - which is, as a matter of historical record, a branch of the same group that eventually became known as SDA.xHWAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01061716053302210598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-50809075181904939022009-05-31T22:37:20.292-04:002009-05-31T22:37:20.292-04:00There's a lot of good stuff to chew on here!
BILL...There's a lot of good stuff to chew on here!<br /><br />BILL: "All too often we read "the law" and assume it is referring to the legalities of the law. Paul establishes early on in Romans that righteousness comes through faith as established in the law, i.e. in the first 5 books and the narrative surrounding Abraham and his righteousness. When Paul then states that we establish the law, he again is not referring to the legalities of the law, but that which he was just writing about; righteousness through faith as so stated in the law. Also, the law is established as the standard by which God's justice was served, what with the sacrifice of Christ that paid the penalty for sins within and without that written standard."<br /><br />I'm open to that: establishing the law means affirming justification by faith in Genesis 15. I think Romans 8 refers more to the legal parts of the law, on the basis of that passage in Galatians which says love is the fulfillment of the law. I agree with something xHWA said here: when we love, we're fulfilling the purpose of the Old Testament law. I therefore see some continuity between the Old and New Testaments: it's not a matter of the law being "done away" and replaced with a "new law" that has some of the same stuff, but rather that our love fulfills the law in the Old Testament. And, yes, Jesus has added new requirements, or expanded on the old requirements--however you want to define it.<br /><br />LUC: "In the old covenant law, ‘love your neighbor as yourself’ meant Israelites must love Israelites. The similar New Covenant command has no such boundaries."<br /><br />There were certainly Israelites who interpreted it that way. And, granted, in the Torah, we see "love the stranger as yourself" along with requirements that an Israelite could charge usury on a foreigner but not a fellow Israelite, as well as exclusion of Ammonites and Moabites.<br /><br />But did Jesus interpret "love your neighbor as yourself" in that limited fashion? The context of the parable of the Good Samaritan, for example, does not say that Jesus is ditching the old law for something new. Rather, Jesus is quoting the old law, right before he explains what "neighbor" means (anyone, not just a Jew).<br /><br />I thought your insights on Israel being a light to the nations were helpful. What God gave to Israel is Scripture, since it's from God. I think Bill said something like that when I discussed this on Shadows: The New Testament treats the Torah as Scripture, but that doesn't mean Christians are bound to a covenant that wasn't made with them in the first place.James Patehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14247799389009268470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-71946484243314418032009-05-31T20:22:12.412-04:002009-05-31T20:22:12.412-04:00In the old covenant law, ‘love your neighbor as yo...In the old covenant law, ‘love your neighbor as yourself’ meant Israelites must love Israelites. The similar New Covenant command has no such boundaries. <br /><br />Romans 2 is targeting some Jews who consider themselves superior because they keep the OC law, and v13 admits that a law keeper will be judged as righteous, but Paul’s’ astute audience is probably aware that this level of perfection is impossible. Throughout I detect a slight sardonic tone. <br /><br />The Jews do have a choice in law since: Gal 3:28 says:"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus;" but it appears that there is only two choices. Can there be a vacuum of law? <br /><br />I see the Old and New Covenant as the two choices open to humanity: internal or external law. This Idea was my turning point when a sociology prof presented this idea and then added, “Wouldn’t it be wonderful if everyone’s law was in their hearts, no external forces of coercion would be necessary, no police forces and no armies. The light went on and suddenly the juxtaposition of the OC and NC made sense, and I thought: "that describes the kingdom of God, could a good God strive for anything else but what is best?"<br /><br />Israel was chosen to demonstrate one choice; a harsh external law where to strike your parent demanded death, I don’t think we want all the righteous requirements of the law, and that was probably Gods OC point, he would indeed prefer mercy to sacrifice. I’m sure the parent would rather forgive the child than to sacrifice him or her for the law.<br /><br />Those not of the circumcision are Gentile, so in the following verse, Paul is not speaking of specifics like Sabbath keeping or stoning delinquents, but of Gods goal of the law: Rom 2:26 “If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised?” What kind of circumcision? Rom 2:29 “ a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and<b> circumcision is circumcision of the heart</b>, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God.”<br /><br />Before the law was given (Gal 3:17 “The law, introduced 430 years later” after Abraham) there was sin, but nothing to use as a tangible reference point by which to define it (Rom 5:20 The law was added so that the trespass might increase). There is no trespass (in human understanding) if there is no line in which to cross. Although the law was given to Israel, the law has been a blessing to the nations who base their law upon it.<br /><br />The law of love doesn’t strike me as being a simple case of do as your conscience directs. Gal 5:13 "You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love."Luchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03711073897831398677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-41881586282687710282009-05-31T20:09:31.968-04:002009-05-31T20:09:31.968-04:00Exactly Bill. Just because we are engaged, but not...Exactly Bill. Just because we are engaged, but not yet married does not mean we are not bound to Him. We <b>are</b> in fact bound to Him. Engagement is an agreement. So if a person were to have fling while they were engaged to another, they would be guilty of adultery. Whether our culture sees it that way or not.. if you agree to marry someone and have a fling with someone else, how is that any less adultery that if you have already married? It's not! You've made an agreement!<br /><br />So yes, we are bound to Christ, who we are engaged to.Seeker Of Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05974355570014495622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-42369349828445391762009-05-31T19:16:26.390-04:002009-05-31T19:16:26.390-04:00"He is now engaged to marry His church.
We ma..."He is now engaged to marry His church.<br />We may not be married yet, but we have made an agreement to marry, we have entered a contract with Him (NC)."<br /><br />This is one of Armstrong's teachings, where he attempted to make the case that we are not a party to the new covenant until the second coming of Christ, with the conclusion being we therefore are still under the old covenant.<br /><br />But a Christian is indeed now bound to Christ.<br /><br />The new covenant began with the shedding of his blood, and when one receives the Holy Spirit, that is the born again experience.<br /><br />To say we are not a party to the new ignores the way both covenants/testaments worked. The Israelites were sprinkled with the blood of the substitutionary animals. The Chrisitan is covered by the blood of Christ. The Christian's "old man" was/is put to death through baptism and a new man arises. We are a new creation in Christ.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18122238110750804356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-22250658882401296712009-05-31T19:06:02.217-04:002009-05-31T19:06:02.217-04:00"Romans 8 that the righteous requirements of ..."Romans 8 that the righteous requirements of the law are fulfilled by those who walk after the Spirit, not after the letter."<br /><br />All too often we read "the law" and assume it is referring to the legalities of the law. Paul establishes early on in Romans that righteousness comes through faith as established in the law, i.e. in the first 5 books and the narrative surrounding Abraham and his righteousness.<br /><br />When Paul then states that we establish the law, he again is not referring to the legalities of the law, but that which he was just writing about; righteousness through faith as so stated in the law. Also, the law is established as the standard by which God's justice was served, what with the sacrifice of Christ that paid the penalty for sins within and without that written standard.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18122238110750804356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-25214435908566458772009-05-31T18:59:01.969-04:002009-05-31T18:59:01.969-04:00"I know your position is that the Old Covenan..."I know your position is that the Old Covenant was between God and Israel, not God and others. But, with that belief, can you do something with Paul's appeal to the Old Testament law as a moral authority?"<br /><br />Sure. Paul makes a distinction between such points of law and works of the law; those points of law that required performance on the part of the one under the law.<br /><br />Is it really enough though to just honor your parents? A Christian should have love even for an enemy, let alone a parent.<br /><br />Then there is the issue of what constitutes a "moral" law. I would define one as being a point of law where there is never a justification for breaking said law, such as murder. Can you say the same for points of law such as the sabbath commandment? No.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18122238110750804356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-22492642514014292572009-05-31T16:48:51.029-04:002009-05-31T16:48:51.029-04:00Luc, you said: "Once you grow up you don’t si...Luc, you said: "Once you grow up you don’t simply disregard the law you were under as you grew up; most likely, if you had fair and wise parents, you would hold their rules in high regard because of the responsible person they helped to make you. Now as an adult you don’t have to keep them per se, but you have developed a sense of responsibility, you no longer need a list of do’s and don’ts because it is part of your character to be responsible. To say the law is holy just and good is the same kind of reverence a child should have for a good upbringing."<br /><br />This is an excellent example and works well with the wife & husband situation of Ro. 7 also.<br />While she is married to her husband, she is bound to him. If he dies, she is no longer bound to him and she may marry another. Now that she is married to her new husband, she is bound to him.<br /><br />She may have learned some great things from her old marriage and may use them in her new marriage, but just because she does, doesn't mean she's still bound to her first husband, it just means she learned some good stuff and applies it in the new.<br />Just because the stuff she learned was good and applies it to her new, it does not mean that she's still bound to the first.<br /><br />The OC had it's glory, but the New is more glorious!<br />Jesus died. He's no longer married to Israel and Judah (OC).<br />He rose in the spirit. He is now engaged to marry His church.<br />We may not be married yet, but we have made an agreement to marry, we have entered a contract with Him (NC).<br /><br />(Had a typo or two, or three, I missed in my comment so I deleted it and re-posted the corrected comment.)Seeker Of Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05974355570014495622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-74521909920067033352009-05-31T16:25:54.182-04:002009-05-31T16:25:54.182-04:00So it's like God gave the law to Israel as part of...So it's like God gave the law to Israel as part of the old covenant, yet, because the law is from God, it contains good insights on how everyone should live. <br /><br />One thing that confuses me: in Romans 2, Paul says that the Jews are under the law, whereas the Gentiles are subject to the law of their conscience. That's pretty much what rabbinic Judaism taught: Jews have to keep the law, whereas Gentiles are subject to bare standards of morality. But, while Paul says Gentiles are not under the law, he still seems to go out of his way to show that Christians are obeying the Old Testament law in the new covenant. For example, he says in Romans 8 that the righteous requirements of the law are fulfilled by those who walk after the Spirit, not after the letter. xHWA cited Galatians in an earlier post--the passage where Paul says that love fulfills the law, which contains "Love your neighbor as yourself." There's also the passage you cite Luc--the law is to be regarded as holy, just, and good by Christians. <br /><br />There's a part of Paul that treats the law as particular for Israel, but he also sees something universal to it, otherwise he wouldn't be trying to show that Christians are fulfilling it in some way, shape, or form. Maybe its universality comes from it serving some role in God's revelatory history, which relates to all people. I don't know.James Patehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14247799389009268470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-6893725811198857272009-05-31T15:49:14.790-04:002009-05-31T15:49:14.790-04:00I am under the law of the USA which says murder is...I am under the law of the USA which says murder is a crime; I’m not under the law of Great Britain, however its law says that murder is a crime also. I might reference the law of Great Britain as a valid example of a law that is civilized and facilitates an orderly humane society without being subject to it (because I live in the USA). <br /><br />The apostle Paul in Rom 7 tells how we’re not under the law as a wife is not under the law of a husband who died, yet he says “we uphold the law” which sounds contradictory except that Paul tells us how the law is a teaching tool because (Rom 7:7) “I would not have known what sin is except through the law, and the law (Rom3:20) makes us conscious of sin.<br /> <br />Once you grow up you don’t simply disregard the law you were under as you grew up; most likely, if you had fair and wise parents, you would hold their rules in high regard because of the responsible person they helped to make you. Now as an adult you don’t have to keep them per se, but you have developed a sense of responsibility, you no longer need a list of do’s and don’ts because it is part of your character to be responsible. To say the law is holy just and good is the same kind of reverence a child should have for a good upbringing.<br /><br />Gal 4:1 What I am saying is that as long as the heir is a child, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate.v2 He is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father.v3 So also, when we were children, we were in slavery under the basic principles of the world (our own carnal nature) .v4 But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law,v5 to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons.Luchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03711073897831398677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-57245271497170305102009-05-31T14:18:49.385-04:002009-05-31T14:18:49.385-04:00You raise a valuable point, Bill, but Paul still a...You raise a valuable point, Bill, but Paul still appeals to Old Testament laws as authoritative--I Corinthians 9:9, Ephesians 6:1 (I think--Paul quotes "honor your father and mother").<br /><br />Last time you and I interacted on this issue (on the Shadows site), your answer was that Paul was a Jew. Can you offer something better than that? I know your position is that the Old Covenant was between God and Israel, not God and others. But, with that belief, can you do something with Paul's appeal to the Old Testament law as a moral authority?James Patehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14247799389009268470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-14873530087917757162009-05-30T17:54:17.319-04:002009-05-30T17:54:17.319-04:00"I guess the position I lean towards is that the O..."I guess the position I lean towards is that the Old Testament law is still valid for Christians, but we don't have to do parts of it literally because it's been fulfilled by Christ."<br /><br />Technically, the old testament laws were never valid for Christians as Christians, seeing as that covenant law ended before Christians existing; a Christian being defined as one who is in possession of the Holy Spirit.<br /><br />Both old and new are treated as both covenants and testaments.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18122238110750804356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-55301488891802030002009-05-30T17:49:51.199-04:002009-05-30T17:49:51.199-04:00The Holy Spirit is not an "it."
The Holy Spirit i...The Holy Spirit is not an "it."<br /><br />The Holy Spirit is indeed one with personage. "He" is quoted as speaking in Scripture.<br /><br />BillBillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18122238110750804356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-19106317676631800322009-05-30T17:03:18.212-04:002009-05-30T17:03:18.212-04:00I'm not offering up any scriptures, because AB...I'm not offering up any scriptures, because ABD has given them all, multiple times in many of the articles posted here. <br /><br />I'm going to repeat something else:<br /><br />Do you have a preference!?<br /><br />Ask yourself this question:<br />"What IF Holy Days & Sabbath are no longer law?" <br /><br />"How would I feel about that? Would it seem <B>wrong</B>? Would I be uncomfortable?"<br /><br />"If Holy Days & Sabbath are no longer law, would I be OK with that?"<br /><br />Go ahead, pause here a moment & ask yourself... "If the Holy Days & Sabbath are no longer law, am I OK with that? Am I OK either way, which ever one were true?"<br /><br />Because if your reaction is that "it's WRONG!" Then I have to tell you that you have a preference. You are more invested in those laws than you are in truth.<br /><br />As I've told you all before, I told God: "If we are to keep Holy Days & Sabbath... fine, no problem. If we are <I>not</I> to keep Holy Days & Sabbath... fine. I have <B>NO</B> preference. All I want is <B>YOUR</B> truth." And he gave it to me! He opened my eyes to <B>HIS</B> truth!<br /><br />I repeat this because despite all the excellent articles on this site & the excellent four articles that xHWA has written <B>so very clearly</B> and so well, you still cannot see the truth.Seeker Of Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05974355570014495622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-5579983574246358542009-05-28T19:40:06.044-04:002009-05-28T19:40:06.044-04:00Yeah, that's traditionally explained by saying tha...Yeah, that's traditionally explained by saying that the central sanctuary was sort of in limbo after Shilo got destroyed. Liberal biblical scholars might say that things were looser in Israelite religion at one point, but the Deuteronomist was big on the central sanctuary, and he came to impose his ideology on the Hebrew Bible. But we see examples in the stories of the freer approach.James Patehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14247799389009268470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-49584027957595593552009-05-28T19:28:41.470-04:002009-05-28T19:28:41.470-04:00For the most part, I’d say sacrifices were to be d...For the most part, I’d say sacrifices were to be done at the designated place, if anyone did a private offering, it wouldn’t be important enough to be recorded. There are at least three examples of other places where a sacrifice took place.<br /><br />1Sa 20:6 (David speaking) If your father misses me at all, tell him, 'David earnestly asked my permission to hurry to Bethlehem, his hometown, because an annual sacrifice is being made there for his whole clan.' <br /> <br />During Samuel's time, the tabernacle was at Shiloh, but here an altar to the Lord at Mt. Carmel was in disrepair indicating it had been there for a while, Samuel repairs it with stone and earth after which his challenge to the priests of Baal takes place.1Ki 18:30 "Then Elijah said to all the people, "Come here to me." They came to him, and he repaired the altar of the LORD, which was in ruins.31 Elijah took twelve stones, one for each of the tribes descended from Jacob, to whom the word of the LORD had come, saying, "Your name shall be Israel."<br /><br />Saul built an altar before he fell out of favor with God (1 Sam 14:35), God showed no disapprovalLuchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03711073897831398677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-62580791126396998722009-05-28T17:13:45.372-04:002009-05-28T17:13:45.372-04:00Deuteronomy 12:13-14 has:
"Take care that you do ...Deuteronomy 12:13-14 has:<br /><br />"Take care that you do not offer your burnt offerings at any place you happen to see. But only at the place that the LORD will choose in one of your tribes--there you shall offer your burnt offerings and there you shall do everything I command you" (NRSV).<br /><br />You may say that these are festival offerings, but something else to note is that Leviticus talks about non-festival offerings being brought to the bronze altar. For example, the early chapters of Leviticus discuss voluntary burnt offerings, or sin offerings people could offer whenever they sinned unintentionally. The priests of the central sanctuary had to be involved in these.<br /><br />Also, in Joshua 22, the two-and-a-half tribes in the Transjordan get in trouble for building an altar, so they assure Joshua and the other Israelites that the altar is for memorial purposes, not sacrifices. That seems to confirm that the central sanctuary could be the only place for sacrifice.<br /><br />As far as when centralization began, at least for Deuteronomy, it was to begin once the Israelites got control of the Promised Land (vv 8-12).<br /><br />That's not to say that God couldn't reach out to Israelites when they disobeyed this rule, however, since God still reached out to Samson's parents when they built their own altar.James Patehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14247799389009268470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-69441247011402517732009-05-28T14:26:53.107-04:002009-05-28T14:26:53.107-04:00The Torah commands festival sacrifices,where God p...The Torah commands festival sacrifices,where God placed his name; but no command from God ended personal sacrifices. Here's a excerpt from The Straight Dope.com<br /><br />Over time, however, sacrifice became centralized at the Temple in Jerusalem. Exactly when and how this happened is unclear. The Bible describes various kings and high priests being more or less insistent upon centralized worship. Certainly King Hezekiah, who ruled Judah from about 715 to 687 BC, enacted religious and political reforms (according to the books of Isaiah, 2 Kings, and 2 Chronicles) that included the elimination of the "high places" of local sacrifices and the centralization of sacrifices in the Temple in Jerusalem.<br /><br />With centralization of worship, the priests of Jerusalem gained enormous political power, and the priests outside of Jerusalem lost power. There was jealousy and rivalry and politics. Over the centuries, centralized worship sometimes led to corruption on the part of the priests who controlled the system (this is no surprise to anyone who has dealt with any organized, centralized religion). On the other hand, centralized worship created unity and national identity, whereas regionalization would likely have meant extinction.Luchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03711073897831398677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-30678537445228651102009-05-28T13:04:28.001-04:002009-05-28T13:04:28.001-04:00Luc said...
"The covenant is what is written from...Luc said... <br />"The covenant is what is written from Ex 19 through 24, nothing here was altered."<br /><br />If Exodus 19 to 24 is the Old Covenant, then this means that many of the Old Testament laws would not be part of the Old Covenant.<br /><br />One example would be clean and unclean food, which is not codified until later.Questerukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06659962107808147107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-78675832577256824052009-05-28T11:03:40.726-04:002009-05-28T11:03:40.726-04:00Hi Luc,
I think your example of the altar illustr...Hi Luc,<br /><br />I think your example of the altar illustrates what I'm talking about. At one point, God's people had altars for personal use. Later, however, they could only worship at the place where the LORD had chosen--the central sanctuary.James Patehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14247799389009268470noreply@blogger.com