[Vision2020] Old and New Covenant

[Ralph Nielsen]

RN: Since Nick Gier is out to town for a few days, I'd like to reply  
to some of this.
************************************************************************ 
*************

Sushitushi: I'm going to go through Herr Doktor Professor's  
assertions line by line.
Let's see whether we find some fertile thought, or only fertilizer . . .

RN: A typical insulting statement from a fundamentalist Christian.

nickgier at adelphia.net wrote:

NG: [[ The problem is that the Trinity has the least scriptural  
support of any
Christian doctrine. ]]

This is great news, because as the Trinity has solid scriptural  
support, it
means all the other Christian doctrines are in great shape too.

RN "The doctrine of the Trinity is not revealed in either the Old  
Testament or the New Testament." (The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of  
Catholicism, p. 1270)

NG: [[ There are no verses in the Hebrew Bible that support it, and  
there are
only five in the New Testament. ]]

Well, even if it were the case that there are no verses in Hebrew that
support it -- but there are, as we shall see -- "only" five verses in  
Greek
would be plenty. The Bible says that everything is to be established  
by two
or three witnesses.

RN: Where does the Bible say that? It refers only to legal matters,  
not Scripture.

The most powerful direct scriptural evidences for the
deity of Christ -- they are either that or they are evidences for the
blasphemous insanity of Christ -- are his repeated references to  
Himself as
YHWH.

RN: The Hebrew name Yahweh appears nowhere in the NT, which was  
written in Greek. Words ascribed to Jesus in the gospels were written  
many years later by anonymous authors. What Jesus "said" in the  
gospel called John differs markedly from what he was supposed to have  
said in Mark, Matthew and Luke, the Synoptic Gospels.

The Greek scriptures quote, with reference to Jesus of Nazareth,
passages from the Hebrew scriptures that actually use the word YHWH, so
there can be no mistake about this point whatsoever. No doubt Nick would
like to try to dismiss the famous passage from the Genesis creation  
account
where God says "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our  
likeness . . . God
created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him;  
male and
female created He them " as something other than a reference to the
plurality of the Persons of the godhead, [snip--RN]

RN: The plural "We/Us" in Genesis might be a reference to plural gods  
in heaven, a common idea in the Ancient Near East of the time, or  
God's wife Asherah--an idea that was eliminated by priests when later  
parts of the Hebrew Bible were written. But the idea that the NT  
Jesus was included is pure Christian fantasy.

RN: The name YHWH is not used in Gen. 1:1-thru 2:4a. The Hebrew says  
Elohim--the ending ...im is plural. "The plural construction in vv.  
26-28 (Let us...) most likely reflects a setting in the divine  
council (cf. 1 Kings 22:19-22; Isa. ch. 6; Job chs. 1-2): God the  
King announces the proposed course of action to His cabinet of  
subordinate deities, though He alone retains the power of  
decision." (Jewish Study Bible. Oxford University Press, c2004. p. 14)


[Irrelevant statements snipped for brevity--RN]


...revealing the Trinity, but the apostolic Jews Peter and Paul,  
living in the
era of the resurrected and ascended Jesus Christ and having witnessed  
the
outpouring of the Holy Spirit, certainly were able to understand the  
Genesis
creation account as a clear reference to the Trinity.

RN: Where? And only Luke/Acts has an ascension of Jesus.

Other passages that
subsequent revelation identifies as references to multiple Persons  
within
the godhead include the second psalm, "Thou art my Son; this day have I
begotten Thee. Ask of Me, and I shall give Thee the heathen for Thine
inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy  
possession . . .
Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, and ye perish from the way, when His  
wrath
is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in  
Him."
And likewise Psalm 110, "YHWH said unto my Lord, 'Sit Thou at My  
right hand,
until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.'" And so forth.

RN: Irrelevant passages ripped out of their Hebrew context. Get an  
honest Jewish translation of their own scriptures. The "son" here is  
not capitalized and refers to the kings of Israel. Jesus was never  
king of Israel, was he?

NG: [[ Bible Scholar Robert M. Grant states: "The doctrine of the  
Trinity in
unity is not a product of the earliest Christian period, and we do  
not find
it carefully expressed before the end of the 2nd Century." ]]

The first half of Grant's assertion is simply wrong. (Ever hear of the
trinitarian "Apostles' Creed"? Ever hear of the New Testament? Those are
both from the earliest Christian period.)

RN: "The earliest text of the Apostles' Creed appears in a MS written  
by a monk who died in 753." (HarperCollins Encyclopedia of  
Catholicism, p. 75). The article goes on to agree with Grant, whom  
Gier quoted.

[Snip--RN]

NG: [[ a common mistake among Christians in identifying the serpent  
in the
Garden as Satan. ]]

Common? That's the understatement of the millennium. Christians make  
such an
identification because the Bible itself does. "And YHWH God said unto  
the
serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all  
cattle, and
above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and  
dust shalt
thou eat all the days of thy life: and I will put enmity between thee  
and
the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy  
head, and
thou shalt bruise his heel . . . and the God of peace shall bruise Satan
under your feet shortly . . . and he laid hold on the dragon, that old
serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years."
(Concatenation of verses from Genesis, Romans, and Revelation.)

RN: The snake in Gen. 3 was the shrewdest or craftiest of all the  
animals that God has just finished making out of the dust of the  
ground. It was not Satan, who was a member of the heavenly council.  
This is the first and the last time in the entire Bible that this  
snake appears. John J. Collins, a well-known OT scholar, provides  
this helpful information: "Talking animals are a standard device in  
the literary genre of the fable, which was developed most famously by  
the Greek writer Aesop. The appearance of a talking snake should  
alert even the most  unsophisticated reader to the fictional nature  
of the story." (Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, p. 70).

NG: [[ A related misconception is that the Hebrew Bible believes that  
Satan is
the enemy of God. ]]

Nonsense. Zechariah 3:2 "And YHWH said unto Satan, YHWH rebuke thee, O
Satan; even YHWH that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee."

RN: An honest Jewish translation reads: But [the angel of] the LORD  
said to the Accuser, "The LORD rebuke you, O Accuser, may the LORD  
who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you." (Jewish Study Bible, p. 1253).  
A note explains: NJPS correctly translates the Hebrew "ha-satan" as  
the Accuser instead of the common, but erroneous "Satan."

[Snipped]

NG: [[ The best example of this is the Book of Job, where God  
empowers Satan
(among the "sons of God") to destroy Job's flocks and family. Please  
note a
crucial verse at the end where God is identified as the source of  
"the evil
.. . . brought upon" Job (42:11). ]]

Yes, Satan is God's tool, performing God's will in spite of himself.  
So what
else is new? Maybe modern evangelicals who are wishy-washy in this area,
like Phil Yancey (http://amazon.com/gp/product/031021436X/), need  
Nick to
hold their hands in this area, but I have never struggled in the  
least with
the many passages in the Bible where God describes Himself as causing  
(in a
certain sense, because many things have multiple levels and senses of
causation) evil. In a certain sense it is true to say that  
(obviously: the
Bible itself says it), but God is NEVER the cause of (an) absolute  
evil. (As
an aside, "absolute" evil does not even exist, period.) In other  
words, even
when God causes something to occur that can be described, in a certain
sense, as evil, that is ALWAYS in the context of accomplishing some  
ultimate
good purpose. The only reason why such actions of God are referred to is
"evil" is because, from a very narrow, limited time perspective, they  
cause
someone to experience suffering. But as the chronological camera  
pulls back
to show a longer time perspective, it turns out that God was actually  
doing
good. Job provides an excellent case in point.

RN: You have completely missed the point of the book of Job. I  
haven't time or space to explain it here.

NG: [[ The Princess also misleads us into thinking that the Hebrew  
Bible teaches
Original Sin. For example, Job's dilemma would have been solved  
immediately
by this doctrine, but Job is declared a righteous man untouched by  
any other
person's sin. Original Sin is a New Testament doctrine, because the  
amazing
fact is that, as far as I know, the Fall of Adam and Eve, is not  
mentioned
again in the Hebrew Bible. ]]

Even coming from an unbelieving ax-grinder, the above statement is  
amazing,
and ought to be a shame to anyone who appends "PhD" to his name. Job  
said,
"I know that my redeemer liveth, and that He shall stand at the  
latter day
upon the earth: and though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet  
in my
flesh shall I see God: Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall
behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me."

RN: Dishonest translation again. "But I know that my Vindicator  
lives; in the end He will testify on earth--this, after my skin will  
have been peeled off. But I would behold God while still in my flesh,  
I myself, not another, would behold Him; would see with my own eyes:  
my heart pines within me."  A note says, "Job is not speaking about  
God but rather about a future kinsman who will vindicate him, who  
will take revenge on God for what God has done to Job." (Jewish Study  
Bible, p. 1529-30).

If Job had
been free from any sin whatsoever, then he would have not had to face  
death,
for the Genesis creation account makes it plain that men only die on  
account
of sin. Thus he would not need a redeemer and would not be resurrected
following the physical decomposition of his body, which he clearly
anticipates. He has no delusions of sinlessness; the Book of Job  
opens with
him offering sacrifices up to God and sinless men do not need to make
sacrifices. Later in the book, when God rebukes "sinless" Job (do  
sinless
men get rebuked?), Job replies, "I abhor myself, and repent in dust and
ashes." That does not sound like the utterance of a sinless man.

RN: A complete misunderstanding of the great drama of Job.

Going back to Genesis 5:3, we see that Adam "begat a son in his own
likeness, after his image." This is Seth, Adam's third son; we have  
already
been told that Adam's first son murdered his second son. Especially  
coming
after Cain's murder of Abel, it is very clear from this verse that man's
sinful nature is being inherited through natural generation. Seth is in
Adam's image, and Adam's image has already been shown to be tainted  
by sin.
Remember too that Abel was murdered because he offered up to God blood
sacrifices that were found acceptable, whilst Cain's offerings, which
involved no blood sacrifice, were rejected. Any careful and honest  
reading
of the earliest biblical narrative makes it clear that from Adam's fall
onward, all men are faced with the issue of their indwelling sin, some
dealing with the issue as God commanded (men like Abel and Job) and some
refusing to do so (Cain and Nick Gier, among others).

Psalm 51:5 says, "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my  
mother
conceive me." David is not saying his mother was a harlot -- from the
context he is clearly acknowledging that he was a sinner from the  
moment of
conception. A man does not need to do anything to be a sinner; he merely
needs to exist. That is part of the covenantal nature of existence:  
when our
covenantal head does something, we all also do it "in him." This is  
both bad
news and good news for us; the bad news is that like it or not we are  
all,
by birth, bound to the first covenantal head, Adam, and the good news is
that Jesus the Messiah has become the covenantal head of a new race of
mankind that we can be joined to through faith.

RN: "The idea of the inherent sinfulness of humans is rarely  
expressed in the [Hebrew] Bible... Christianity developed the notion  
of original sin." (Jewish Study Bible, note, p.1339).

[[ Nowhere is it written that the Hebrew Messiah will pay a "penalty of
death." ]]

Try Genesis 2:17 for starters. [rest snipped--RN]

RB: "but as for the tree of knowledge of good and bad, you [the man  
whom the LORD God had just molded from the dust of the earth] must  
not eat of it; for as soon as you eat of it, you shall die" (Gen. 2:17).

[[ The Ancient Jews did not recognize the Suffering Servant of Isaiah  
as the
Messiah. The Jewish Messiah would come in glory, defeat the enemies of
Israel, and set up God's kingdom on earth. ]]

So there's progress in God's special revelation over time -- what's  
the big
deal? God didn't reveal everything to Adam that He revealed to  
Abraham, and
He didn't reveal to Abraham everything that He revealed to Moses, and He
didn't reveal to Moses everything that He revealed to Daniel, and He  
didn't
reveal to Daniel everything that He revealed to the Apostle John.  
I've got
news for Nick, what Nick claims above was true not only of the  
Ancient Jews
but even Jesus' own disciples -- they refused to believe Him when He  
told
them in no uncertain terms that He must die. After the resurrection they
realized that they had been very wrong in their understanding of  
scripture.

RN: And when did Jesus defeat the enemies of Israel and set up God's  
kingdom on earth? Just a few years later the Romans destroyed God's  
Temple in Jerusalem and dragged many Jews off into slavery. Where was  
Jesus the Messiah when they needed him?

[[ Please note that Christianity had to invent the Second Coming of  
Christ
in order to make good on Hebrew prophecies. ]]

Never heard of postmillennialism? The Messiah reigns on His throne  
even now.
The Hebrew prophecies have indeed been fulfilled.

RN: This is a preposterous, unbiblical claim.

[[ Please note that I always use the term "Hebrew Bible" and not "Old
Testament," and this is the final and most important point that I  
want to
make. By saying that the Old Covenant failed, the Princess is saying  
that
Judaism is a false religion. The Gospels are openly anti-Semitic . . .
blaming the death of Jesus on the Jews. ]]

This is a brazen distortion. To start with the closing sentence, the  
gospels
do blame the death of Jesus on the Jews, and also on the gentiles. That
covers all the bases, Nick. The gospels are anti-everybody. To state  
that
"the gospels are openly anti-semitic" is a grave slander.


[[ I'm especially troubled by the Princess' implication that the Jewish
temple was destroyed by God in 70 CE as a sign that the Old Covenant was
dead. Millions of Jews have died because of religious and political  
leaders
acting out the implications of these ideas. ]]

Wrong, stupid, and slanderous. Remember, the old covenant died in  
Adam, who
preceded the earliest Jews by millennia. And even if one was to say
otherwise, it still does not follow, by any stretch of the  
imagination, that
by implication somebody ought to go out and harass, much less kill,  
any Jew.

RN: Completely false. John, the "gospel of love," has Jesus saying to  
the Jews (although Jesus was supposed to have been a Jew himself),  
"You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your  
father's desires" (John 8:44). "Then the [Jewish] people as a whole  
answered, 'His blood be upon us and on our children'" (Matthew  
27:25). The gospels have plenty more of such sickening stuff. It is  
indeed the origin of the Holocaust.

Princess Tushi's further ravings deleted.