The Unadulterated Truth

[Homer]

Their writings and personal visits clarified error. Post 70 A.D., we DO NOT have that advantage.

You can not prove that none of the apostles lived past 70AD.

[robbyyoung]

I am not getting what it is that you are referring to as the "unadulterated truth." To me, Jesus is the unadulterated truth, and we still have Him today, as the church did centuries ago. If you mean "comprehensive theological knowledge," or "unchanged manuscripts," or something else, perhaps you could clarify.

When you say that all we have today is "inconsistent copies," it sounds like you mean manuscripts that do not agree among themselves on every point. Yet this problem can easily be greatly exaggerated. There are few theological points in the originals that are totally obscured or obliterated in the manuscript evidence. I thought Brenden and Singalphile had addressed these points well, but if they missed your point, as you say, perhaps you could spell out your intentions more clearly.

Perhaps, since you were not saying what we thought you were saying, you might, rather, be making the following point:

If God still had something to say to us through the Bible, as He did to those who were its original readers, He would have preserved the texts without flaws for us. The fact that the texts have not come down to us without corruption should tell us that, after AD70, God had nothing in these texts relevant to the post-AD70 Church. Everything was fulfilled by AD70, and only those living before then needed to have uncorrupted texts, since those texts are not relevant to later generations. Thus, the failure of God to providentially preserve an unaltered New testament text testifies to the fact that AD70 was the end of all things.

Is this your point?

Hi Steve,

Thanks for the reply. Yes, you gleaned the point from my post. But let me clarify some things in your revision of my thoughts:

If God still had something to say to us, regarding future eschatological events, through the Bible, as He did to those who were its original readers, at a minimum, wouldn't He have preserved the texts without flaws and given us inspired writers? That fact that the texts have not come down to us without corruption might be an indication that, after AD70, God had finished His eschatological work, therefore, inspired writers and prophets were not relevant to the post-AD70 Church to correct error. If eschatological events was fulfilled by AD70, then only those living before then needed to have uncorrupted texts, The Prophets, and the fullness of the charismata, not later generations.

Did God ever perform a work of judgement or blessing without Amos 3:7 bearing witness? Didn't Yeshua confirm this with His generation in Matt 23:34-36? Thus, this apparent inconsistency of God to providentially preserve an unaltered New testament text, Prophet(s), and fulness of the charismata to the Church, post-AD70, testifies to the fact that AD70 might be the end of eschatological events.

Finally, NO, I don't think any of the Brethren are dull. As a FP, I'm asking questions, as we all should do, in order to see if an understanding flows consistently with reality. Again, I was very careful to say that God could very well have given us what we needed in the texts we have today. But did not God act consistently in the 1st Century if He had a work to perform? I believe He did and its recorded for us know.

Thanks Steve and everyone else for your patience.

God Bless.

[Paidion]

That fact that the texts have not come down to us without corruption might be an indication that, after AD70, God had finished His eschatological work, therefore, inspired writers and prophets were not relevant to the post-AD70 Church to correct error. If eschatological events was fulfilled by AD70, then only those living before then needed to have uncorrupted texts.

Does that mean then that the future relative to our time is completely unknown and cannot be known? Or do we have a future at all? And if so, is it just anybody's guess as to what it is?

What is the unadulterated truth concerning the future?

[steve]

If God still had something to say to us, regarding future eschatological events, through the Bible, as He did to those who were its original readers, at a minimum, wouldn't He have preserved the texts without flaws and given us inspired writers?

If this argument holds true concerning eschatological texts, would it not equally hold true for texts concerning all other obscure theological points? While it would be very helpful to have the original writers available to clarify some difficult passages about eschatology, I think it would be equally helpful if they were available to clarify other ambiguous matters, like Christian's participation in war or in politics, the doctrines of election, perseverance, and other contested points. In other words, if the lack of preserved perfect manuscripts argues for the irrelevance of eschatology to all post-AD70 Christians, would it not equally argue for the irrelevance of all biblical theology for the same?

Did God ever perform a work of judgement or blessing without Amos 3:7 bearing witness? Didn't Yeshua confirm this with His generation in Matt 23:34-36? Thus, this apparent inconsistency of God to providentially preserve an unaltered New testament text, Prophet(s), and fulness of the charismata to the Church, post-AD70, testifies to the fact that AD70 might be the end of eschatological events.

I guess I am not as convinced as you are that the authentic charismata have disappeared.

[Singalphile]

Thanks for your thoughts. However, I must kindly say, your post does not address this topic. Please re-read my OP again.

I didn't understand everything you wrote, but I share your apparent concern about division in the Church, and I wanted to address that without getting into the presuppositions in your op.

Do we, post 70 A.D., have the same mission with the same capabilities, urgency or expectation? If so, why all the confusion?

If the mission can be broadly defined as obeying the Lord and teaching others, then I guess so. I think that some of the less important matters are less clear for us but also more intriguing to us. That (plus our pride) may explain some of our division/confusion.

I think we can resolve this by focusing more on Jesus and His commands, rather than trying to get everyone to agree with us about everything.

P.S. Don't feel obligated to respond to my posts (anyone). I like the little "Thanks for your post" button that some forums have.

[robbyyoung]

Hi Paidion, My response is a "RED".

That fact that the texts have not come down to us without corruption might be an indication that, after AD70, God had finished His eschatological work, therefore, inspired writers and prophets were not relevant to the post-AD70 Church to correct error. If eschatological events was fulfilled by AD70, then only those living before then needed to have uncorrupted texts.

Does that mean then that the future relative to our time is completely unknown and cannot be known? (I believe so. Beside the growth of Yeshua's Kingdom, as a FP, I see no biblical support for suggesting otherwise). Or do we have a future at all? (Of course we have a future.) And if so, is it just anybody's guess as to what it is? (Besides living out our lives on earth as Christians and upon physical death, going to Heaven - Yes; it's anybody's guess as to what lies ahead in the ages come.)

What is the unadulterated truth concerning the future? (We were told, the growth of Yeshua's Kingdom on earth.)

God Bless.

[robbyyoung]

Hi Steve, my response is in "RED".

If God still had something to say to us, regarding future eschatological events, through the Bible, as He did to those who were its original readers, at a minimum, wouldn't He have preserved the texts without flaws and given us inspired writers?

If this argument holds true concerning eschatological texts, would it not equally hold true for texts concerning all other obscure theological points? (Yes, for some obscure points are joined with eschatological dogma.) While it would be very helpful to have the original writers available to clarify some difficult passages about eschatology, I think it would be equally helpful if they were available to clarify other ambiguous matters, like Christian's participation in war or in politics, the doctrines of election, perseverance, and other contested points. In other words, if the lack of preserved perfect manuscripts argues for the irrelevance of eschatology to all post-AD70 Christians, would it not equally argue for the irrelevance of all biblical theology for the same? No. That would suggest that what God has left US is inadequate for our life in the Kingdom on earth. What I'm suggesting is what was adequate for THEM, is not necessarily adequate for US. It's not only the manuscripts, but the entirety of what the 1st Century Church had - to accomplish their task or mission under the urgency of the prophetic utterances. In other words, I believe THEIR mission, and how THEY were equipped to complete it DOES NOT flow past AD70. Therefore, post AD70, God chose to deliver this historical account, to the generations that follows, through copies absent from any inspired person(s) to correct error. God, apparently, has given US what we needed. To argue what is relevant or not, to US, would have to be gleaned from the historical account left, for US, as we appreciate YAHWEH's work. I like the principle in Romans 14:1-8 in regards to how Christians decided how best to given honor to God.

Did God ever perform a work of judgement or blessing without Amos 3:7 bearing witness? Didn't Yeshua confirm this with His generation in Matt 23:34-36? Thus, this apparent inconsistency of God to providentially preserve an unaltered New testament text, Prophet(s), and fulness of the charismata to the Church, post-AD70, testifies to the fact that AD70 might be the end of eschatological events.

I guess I am not as convinced as you are that the authentic charismata have disappeared. Ok, fair enough .

On a side-note, I would like to thank you once again Steve, as our gracious host, for directing your attention to this post. Your comments are very much appreciated along with your tireless work for our Lord. This forum continues to show me the difference between disagreeing and "How-to" disagree with others. I will continue to learn and ask hard questions of my own thoughts and ideas, to be as consistent as all possible. This post is thought provoking, and me holding to the FP position makes it even more agitating. Thanks again Steve and many blessings to you and the ministry.

God Bless.

[robbyyoung]

Hi Singalphile, my response is in "RED".

Thanks for your thoughts. However, I must kindly say, your post does not address this topic. Please re-read my OP again.

I didn't understand everything you wrote, but I share your apparent concern about division in the Church, and I wanted to address that without getting into the presuppositions in your op. (Thanks, but its a distraction from the topic. Far too often the OP gets diverted, unintentionally, and it's up to the originator to keep it on topic.)

Do we, post 70 A.D., have the same mission with the same capabilities, urgency or expectation? If so, why all the confusion?

If the mission can be broadly defined as obeying the Lord and teaching others, then I guess so. (No. We are talking about the specificity of the 1st Century Church's mission and how they were equipped to discern the unadulterated truth verses the post AD70 Church with its wherewithal. Our belief in this matter affects the Christian today.) I think that some of the less important matters are less clear for us but also more intriguing to us. That (plus our pride) may explain some of our division/confusion. (I don't believe in any "less important matters". Many people have been ruined over this mindset. For if we get it wrong, it becomes someones major doctrine for explaining components of Christianity, such as; Futurism, Preterism, Historicism, etc...)

I think we can resolve this by focusing more on Jesus and His commands, rather than trying to get everyone to agree with us about everything. (Yes, I agree. This includes eschatology, I believe He made some commands in there as well.)

Thanks again Singalphile, but I really like to stay on topic. Steve did a great job helping me restate my intent, hopefully the interaction will be blessed for it.

God Bless.