Apostles' Creed

 

I've been thinking about the “Apostles' Creed.” 

I think a few things could be reworded or shortened, 

and a few things should have been included...

click image to enlarge

NT Reliability

 

The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
by Craig L. Blomberg

I recently made it through this book of 725 pages.
I suppose it at least briefly dealt with
about every criticism of the New Testament.
I doubt few would want to read it,
but it could be a resource for answers
to questions about apparent inconsistencies
of a given text.

There is a subject index and a Scripture index.
Skeptics will never be satisfied,
for every answer has an argument against it.
I will give Scripture the benefit of the doubt.

Some quotes from the book...

“Growing up in a preInternet, pre-desktop-publishing world,
I never dreamed that if I ever got to write
real-live, peer-reviewed published books,
some of the perspectives I would have to rebut
would be those introduced in fictitious novels
or by self-published authors.

No one had conceived of the notion of a blog,
much less imagined that some people would think
that reading it was necessarily a means
of gaining accurate information.

Today, however, thanks to all these developments,
countless people around the world,
including some university professors,
believe that Constantine's calling
for the Council of Nicea in AD 325
led to the establishment of the canon of the New Testament.

That was a piece of fiction Dan Brown made up
in The Da Vinci Code and duped millions into believing.

The Council of Nicea was actually a gathering
of Christian bishops to debate Trinitarian doctrine;
its outgrowth, the Nicene Creed, is still recited regularly
in Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic,
and more liturgically minded Protestant churches,
enunciating what the vast majority of all Christians
through the centuries have believed
about the roles of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Constantine did commission Eusebius
to produce fifty new copies of the New Testament
to be distributed around the empire,
but that had nothing to do with any discussion
about which books should be included.
Eusebius, in fact, had already come to agree
with the twenty-seven that have remained
a part of the canon.

The councils that formally ratified these twenty-seven
were held in North Africa at Hippo (393) and Carthage (397)
at the end of the fourth century.

But Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria,
in 367 in his Easter-time encyclical
already compiled the same list of twenty-seven books,
officially endorsing them as uniquely worthy
of inclusion in the New Testament.”


“Despite frequent claims to the contrary,
the books of the New Testament
were copied with extraordinary care.

Because of the sheer volume of manuscripts,
both in Greek and in various other ancient languages
into which the Scriptures were translated,
there are an enormous number of textual variants.

But the vast majority of these are extremely minor,
and the size of the manuscript tradition
also makes it possible to determine
beyond any reasonable doubt
what the original reading would have been
in upwards of 99 percent of the text of the New Testament.

Where there still is uncertainty,
we can at least know that the original text
is represented by one of the variant readings
of a given passage.

We do not have to worry that some new discovery
could overthrow the testimony
of so many thousands of manuscripts
and their consistent usage
throughout the history of the church.

Certainly no theological doctrine
or ethical practice of the Christian faith
relies solely or even primarily
on any textually disputed passage or passages.”

Israel's distress

Click to enlarge 

AntiDispy

I’m in a Facebook discussion group called “I left dispensationalism behind.”

Dispensationalists—I’ll call them “Dispys”—understand certain prophecies to be unfulfilled while those who are called “Preterists” and “Historicists”--two major anti-Dispys in the group--believe have been fulfilled in the past or through history.

The Group gives criticisms of and answers for their anti-Dispy views.

Some of the big differences between Dispys and anti-Dispys (primarily the 2 major anti-Dispys) are the belief about the “70th Week of Daniel” (Daniel 9:24-27) and the future salvation of Israel as a people and nation of God for the 1000 year reign of Christ—the “Millenium”—after his Second Coming to earth.

Dispys believe the 70th Week of Daniel—a 7 year period—is the last 7 years before Christ returns during which the Antichrist will appear and reign, while anti-Dispys believe it was fulfilled during the ministry and death of Christ and the early advance of the gospel. The one group believe the 70^th Week is about Antichrist, while the other says it is about Christ.

Anti-Dispys don’t believe Israel as a nation will be saved and restored as the people of God at the coming of Christ, for the “Church” is the Israel of God.

Preterists believe most prophecy was fulfilled in the events of AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem, while Historicists would believe, in addition to the AD70 destruction of Jerusalem, that some prophecies were fulfilled later, such as the “lawless one” in Second Thessalonians 2:1-12, being the office of the pope—Preterists would say the lawless one was the Roman Emperor Nero. Dispys believe he is the final Antichrist.

Interestingly, Historicists believe that both Dispensationalism and Preterism was created by Jesuit Priests to take attention off the Pope as the “Lawless One” in Second Thessalonians 2:1-12.

The text of Second Thessalonians 2: 1-12 speaks of the revealing of the Lawless One when the Restrainer is removed. The revealing results in the Lawless One sitting in the Temple of God and showing himself as God. Historicists say it was the Roman Empire that restrained such an act of the papacy, but after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the Pope could openly make such a claim in the Church (which they believe is the “Temple of God” in the text). Preterists believe the Lawless One was the Roman Emperor Nero, but the “abomination of desolation” spoken by Daniel and Jesus was the destruction of the temple by the Romans. Dispys say the Lawless One is the future Antichrist, and he is the same person as the “little horn” of Daniel 7 and “Beast” of Revelation 13 and 17. The act is in a future 3^rd Jewish Temple and is that abomination of desolation. After the act in the temple, in the middle of the 7 years, great tribulation will follow for 3 ½ years.

Dispys believe that the things Jesus spoke concerning—in the Olivet Discourse, being the time of the end of the age--were descriptive of how bad things will get on earth leading up to the Second Coming of Christ. Jesus said there would be wars and rumors of wars, famines, earthquakes, pestilence, persecution, and deception. Preterists and Historicists would identify these things with the period of AD70 and the destruction of Jerusalem.

Anti-Dispys would label Dispys as being doom and gloom, because Dispys see things getting worse as the age comes to a close, particularly those last 7 years.

Dispys believe Jesus will come the second time and end the time of great tribulation. Afterwards, Jesus will set up the 1000 year reign of the Millennial Kingdom (MK). Anti-Dispys believe Jesus comes after the MK, believing it is his authority exercised now on earth through the Church and the advance of the Gospel into the world.

Dispys believe with the return of Christ and the setting up of the MK that Israel will be restored as a people and nation as the people of God under the terms of the new Covenant. Christ will rule over the nations in a manifested way with the Law of God going forth from Jerusalem. Anti-Dispys say that the Church is Israel, and that national Israel has no future purpose as the people of God: there is no future MK after the return of Christ, for the MK is the reign of Christ now, of unspecified length—the 1000 years is not literal—or for a 1000 years yet to come through the advance of the Gospel before Christ Returns.

Time will tell.

Futurist Timeline

 click image to enlarge

Israel Again

 ²⁵ For I do not desire, brethren,
that you [gentiles] should be ignorant of this mystery,
lest you [gentiles] should be wise in your own opinion,
that blindness in part has happened to Israel
until the fullness of the Gentiles
has come in.

… if they [Israelites] do not continue in unbelief,
will be grafted in,
for God is able
to graft them in **again.**

²⁴ For if you [gentiles] were cut out of the olive tree
which is wild by nature,
and were grafted contrary to nature
into a cultivated olive tree,
how much more will these,
who are natural branches [Israelites],
be grafted into their own olive tree?
Romans 11:23-25

What does he mean by “graft them in again?”

Since there were already natural branches
still attached to the tree as believing Jews,
does this only apply to Jews living at the time of Paul,
who were broken off due to unbelief,
but if they would believe later, they could be reattached?

Because how could the word “again” apply?

Unless something more than individual salvation is in view,
a salvation that involves a people or nation...

²⁶ And so all Israel will be saved,
as it is written:
"The Deliverer will come out of Zion,
And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
²⁷ For this is My covenant with them [Israel],
When I take away their sins."
²⁸ Concerning the gospel they [Israel] are enemies
for your [believing gentiles] sake,
but concerning the election
they are beloved for the sake of the fathers.
²⁹ For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
Romans 11:26-29

Charles Hodge from his Romans Commentary:

"Israel here must mean the Jewish people,
and 'all Israel' the whole nation. 
The Jews, as a people, are now rejected;
as a people they are to be restored. 
As their rejection, although national,
did not include the rejection of every individual,
so their restoration though national,
need not include the salvation of every Jew. 
All Israel does not mean all the true people of God,
as Augustine, Calvin, and others explain it;
nor all the elect Jews -- i.e., all that part of the nation
which constitute 'the remnant according to the election of grace'
--but the whole nation, as a nation.”

Charles Hodge, was a Presbyterian theologian of reformed theology
and was principal of Princeton Theological Seminary 
between 1851 and 1878.

Time of gentiles

Couldn't the "time of the gentiles"

be the time of their distress,

being the "Day of the Lord”?

The DOL is the Second Coming of Christ. Read 2Peter3.

See the use in Ezekiel:

"Wail, 'Woe to the day!'
For the day is near,
Even the day of the LORD is near;
It will be a day of clouds,

the time of the Gentiles.

Ezekiel 30:2-3

...Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles

until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

²⁵ "And there will be signs in the sun, in the moon, and in the stars;

and on the earth distress of nations,

with perplexity, the sea and the waves roaring;

²⁶ men's hearts failing them from fear

and the expectation of those things which are coming on the earth,

for the powers of the heavens will be shaken.

²⁷ Then they will see the Son of Man coming

in a cloud with power and great glory.

²⁸ Now when these things begin to happen,

look up and lift up your heads,

because your redemption draws near."

Luke 21:24-28