The Fall Of Man?

[kyredneck]

The teachers of Israel knew not, nor believed in the total corruption of man-Jew as well as Gentile-and therefore, felt not the need of a Savior. They could not understand it, how 'Except a man'-at least a Jew-were 'born again; and, 'from above; he could not enter, nor even see, the Kingdom of God.

7.....It behoveth you to be born from above;
8 the Spirit where he willeth doth blow, and his voice thou dost hear, but thou hast not known whence he cometh, and whither he goeth; thus is every one who hath been born of the Spirit.`
9 Nicodemus answered and said to him, `How are these things able to happen?`
10 Jesus answered and said to him, `Thou art the teacher of Israel -- and these things thou dost not know! Jn 3 YLT

 

[asterisktom]

Perhaps a review of Romans 11 is in order?
...
And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer [Jesus], and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob (ie: Israel).
their sins.
For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sin

God is able to graft them in again!

Rather than derail this thread I would like to do just that, review Romans 11 - especially the false notion that all Israel will be saved. There is hardly a more unbiblical doctrine than that one. It, at least in the way explained by many, quite contrary to many of our key soteriological tenets.

I would like to start a new thread on this topic of all Israel being saved.

 

[Van]

Apparently the purpose of the thread is to claim if you do not accept that the Fall of Adam resulted in all mankind being made sinners, the agony of the [being kicked out of] the first garden, you will be unable to understand Christ's agony in Gethsemane, where He accepts the cup of going to the cross as the Lamb of God for all mankind.

Certainly some Christians do not believe Christ died for all mankind even though all mankind was made sinners. And certainly some Christians do not believe the Fall made all men sinners (only predisposed to sin.) Lots of folks on this board pick and choose which parts of scripture can be said to not mean what it says.

 

[beameup]

I would like to start a new thread on this topic of all Israel being saved.

The scriptures speak for themselves. Antisemitism began shortly after the destruction of the Temple. Every effort was made under Constantine to completely disassociate "Christianity" from Judaism in every aspect (calendar, "holy days", "feasts", etc.). However, we are now, once again, since 1948, faced with Israel in these "last days"... and those obvious unfulfilled prophecies concerning Israel.

for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable

 

[asterisktom]

The scriptures speak for themselves. Antisemitism began shortly after the destruction of the Temple. Every effort was made under Constantine to completely disassociate "Christianity" from Judaism in every aspect (calendar, "holy days", "feasts", etc.). However, we are now, once again, since 1948, faced with Israel in these "last days"... and those obvious unfulfilled prophecies concerning Israel.

for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable

Non sequiturs abound. Antisemitism and Constantine? Come on.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The scriptures speak for themselves. Antisemitism began shortly after the destruction of the Temple. Every effort was made under Constantine to completely disassociate "Christianity" from Judaism in every aspect (calendar, "holy days", "feasts", etc.). However, we are now, once again, since 1948, faced with Israel in these "last days"... and those obvious unfulfilled prophecies concerning Israel.

for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable

This is not quite accurate. Real anti-Semitism began around the time of the Bar Kochba revolt in AD 132 , after which Jews were forbidden to go within 50 miles of Jerusalem, circumcision was forbidden and the city itself was renamed Aelius Hadrianus.

In Constantine's day, 200 years later, Jerusalem received its name back and his mother went about looking for 'Christian relics.'

 

[beameup]

This is not quite accurate. Real anti-Semitism began around the time of the Bar Kochba revolt in AD 132 , after which Jews were forbidden to go within 50 miles of Jerusalem, circumcision was forbidden and the city itself was renamed Aelius Hadrianus.

In Constantine's day, 200 years later, Jerusalem received its name back and his mother went about looking for 'Christian relics.'

Yes, I was being brief. Constantine "paganized" everything associated with "Christianity", going even so far as to assure that "Easter" would never fall on "Passover" and totally abandoning the Lunar Calendar.

Passover>Unleavened Bread>First Fruits>>>>>Pentecost = all fulfilled
Trumpets>>Atonement>>>>>>>>>>Tabernacles = yet future fulfillment
___________________________________________________________________________
Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: Ephesians 2:11-12

 

[Greektim]

So once again, why don't you tell us where exactly Edersheim is wrong in the OP quote, instead of this broad brush criticism of his work.

My post was never meant to be a critique of his statement in the OP. It was meant to be of his work at large. In other words, don't put too much stock into it.

Funny how you ask for an example, any example, I give you one, and then you backtrack saying you wanted an example of the OP quote. I feel like you haven't understood my points from the start.

 

[kyredneck]

My post was never meant to be a critique of his statement in the OP. It was meant to be of his work at large. In other words, don't put too much stock into it.

Funny how you ask for an example, any example, I give you one, and then you backtrack saying you wanted an example of the OP quote. I feel like you haven't understood my points from the start.

From my first post:

Why don't you tell us where exactly Edersheim is wrong here instead of this knee jerk put down of such a great work by a great man of God.

But here's one just skimming through. (I have a 2 volume edition, btw). In volume 1 ch. VI (p. 80 for me), Edersheim says of the book of Jubilees that it was written during the time of Jesus and that it was "Rabbinic in its cast rather than Apocalyptic." However, current research holds to Jubilees being written 100+ years before Jesus. But the main issue is what I have been raising all along. Rabbinical Judaism is post 70CE/post temple Judaism! It did not exist before the destruction of the temple. To use it as a way of thinking for pre 70 Judaism will not work b/c Judaism was not so unified, not in the slightest. And all we know about Rabbinical Judaism comes from post70 documents!!! The hard part is to figure out what, if any, of the traditions before the temple's destruction were carried over. But to assert that pre 70 and post 70 Judaism looked the same is flat wrong.

I don't know that he ever asserted that pre 70 and post 70 Judaism looked the same. He implies the Traditionalism of Christ's day was the seed of Rabbinical Judaism but puts emphasis on the influence of Babylonian Jewry in this area, especially after the destruction of Jerusalem.

Put aside his views on justification, and you can read great scholarship.

I've stated before more than once, there's nothing 'new' about the New Perspective on Paul when it comes to Wright's views on justification. The Primitive Baptists have preached it from the beginning.

 

[Greektim]

From my first post:





I don't know that he ever asserted that pre 70 and post 70 Judaism looked the same. He implies the Traditionalism of Christ's day was the seed of Rabbinical Judaism but puts emphasis on the influence of Babylonian Jewry in this area, especially after the destruction of Jerusalem.



I've stated before more than once, there's nothing 'new' about the New Perspective on Paul when it comes to Wright's views on justification. The Primitive Baptists have preached it from the beginning.

All that aside, cause it really doesn't matter, why'd you give me a red mark for bad spelling? I didn't see any spelling error. Were you just mad at me?

PS-I said Wrights view on justification aside, but you brought it back to the forefront. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. His work, especially on Jesus, is by far better than most anything else out there.

 

[Internet Theologian]

NOT up to date! Modern day Israel is 50% atheist and 65% secular as polled.

But can't (some of) those atheists really be born from above and just not know it?

 

[beameup]

How was Paul saved?

And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn. In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon. And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart; The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of Shimei apart, and their wives apart; All the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart. Zech 12:10-14

 

[kyredneck]

... why'd you give me a red mark for bad spelling?.....

I didn't.

 

[Greektim]

I didn't.

Post #4

 

[kyredneck]

Post #4

Undone. It wasn't intentional. Fat fingers on a cell phone.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I am reading and studying a book by Alfred Edersheim titled The Life and times of Jesus The Messiah complete and unabridged in one volume

I just want to say, carry on reading. I'm sure you will find much that is helpful. Scholarship on this sort of stuff ebbs and flows, and what is considered old-fashioned today may be right on target tomorrow.

N.T. Wright is wrong on the Gospel, and I'm afraid that doesn't dispose me to trust him on anything else.

 

[Greektim]

I just want to say, carry on reading. I'm sure you will find much that is helpful. Scholarship on this sort of stuff ebbs and flows, and what is considered old-fashioned today may be right on target tomorrow.

N.T. Wright is wrong on the Gospel, and I'm afraid that doesn't dispose me to trust him on anything else.

He is actually quite good on the gospel. It is his view of justification that you don't like. And the gospel is more than justification.

But I find most people who make statements such as that have neither read his stuff on the gospel or really his Christian Origins and the Question of God. The first 3 volumes are a tour de force on all matters NT and the historical Jesus and the reliability of the gospels.

 

[Greektim]

So once again, why don't you tell us where exactly Edersheim is wrong in the OP quote, instead of this broad brush criticism of his work.

I found this while reading for something else. But I wanted to document it for you so you can see what scholars are saying. I highly recommend this book if you are wanting to read through the history of NT scholarship starting in the 1800s. Stephen Neill does an amazing job of making a topic that is probably boring for most and into something that is quite well written and interesting. Check out the book The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861-1986 (the newest edition has an extra chapter at the end by N. T. Wright to bring the book up to date... at that time).

I should preface that Neill had high praises for Edersheim. I'm not going to list all of it b/c I don't want to type it all. But he is not biased against him. He likes him. But he says of the book Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah:

His pages breathe a profound evangelical piety and devotion to the person of our Lord; but his book is far more than an edifying tract--he has brought together an immense amount of authentic material from the treasure-house of Rabbinic Judaism. His work has, however, one fatal defect; he pays little or no attention to the chronology of the Rabbinic literature, and evidences from many different centuries are quoted as though they had equal relevance to the period of the life of Christ. [bold added]

He doesn't give any specific examples either b/c the book is filled with them. Any time he uses Rabbinic literature, he is using post-NT literature to refer to NT times. And that is the problem, as I was saying.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

He is actually quite good on the gospel. It is his view of justification that you don't like. And the gospel is more than justification.

For me, justification is the very heart of the Gospel. If you rip the heart out of the Gospel, to be sure, something is left, but I'm not sure it will be the Gospel.

But I find most people who make statements such as that have neither read his stuff on the gospel or really his Christian Origins and the Question of God. The first 3 volumes are a tour de force on all matters NT and the historical Jesus and the reliability of the gospels.

I read two books by Wright some years ago. One of them was What St. Paul really said which I still possess. I forget the name of the other. I found them both to be deeply flawed, and all the more dangerous because they are very well written and contain a certain amount of truth.
If I were a professional theologian, doubtless I would feel obliged to read Wright's whole vast corpus, but I'm not and I don't. I strongly advise people who don't possess your obvious qualities of discrimination to steer a very wide berth of the man.

An excellent critique of Wright's theology is The Great Exchange by Philip Eveson. It is quite an old book, but I believe it has been updated recently to take account of Wright's later work. The Future Of Justification by John Piper is another critique, but I think Piper is unduly respectful of Wright.

 

[Greektim]

For me, justification is the very heart of the Gospel. If you rip the heart out of the Gospel, to be sure, something is left, but I'm not sure it will be the Gospel.

I read two books by Wright some years ago. One of them was What St. Paul really said which I still possess. I forget the name of the other. I found them both to be deeply flawed, and all the more dangerous because they are very well written and contain a certain amount of truth.
If I were a professional theologian, doubtless I would feel obliged to read Wright's whole vast corpus, but I'm not and I don't. I strongly advise people who don't possess your obvious qualities of discrimination to steer a very wide berth of the man.

An excellent critique of Wright's theology is The Great Exchange by Philip Eveson. It is quite an old book, but I believe it has been updated recently to take account of Wright's later work. The Future Of Justification by John Piper is another critique, but I think Piper is unduly respectful of Wright.

You raise good points. But I think there are some works of his you would like and encourage you. For example, his How God Became King is a great popular level work on the theology of the gospel accounts.

I just downloaded a pdf version of Piper's book (free at his website). When I get a chance, I look forward to reading it. I have read Wright's response book. He was quite amiable and presents a good "big picture" case. Piper is better with the closer examination exegesis.