The Unadulterated Truth

[robbyyoung]

Hello everyone,

I would like to have a discussion regarding "The Unadulterated Truth" of today, verses, what our 1st Century Brethren had during the ministry of Yeshua and The Apostles. Here are the facts as I, a FP, see them:

1. We, post 70 A.D., DO NOT have ANY original Apostolic writings to their "original audiences".
1a. They, "The Original Audience", had "The Unadulterated Truth", straight from "The Source".
1c. We, CANNOT claim "The Unadulterated Truth" from copies known to have inconsistencies one from another.

As a Full Preterist, I see this question concerning "The Unadulterated Truth" as evidence of YAHWEH's modus operandi in the NT regarding the urgency, expectation, and surety of the entirety of the Gospel message. For we read, "Surely the Lord GOD does nothing unless He reveals His secret counsel To His servants the prophets. (Amos 3:7)", therefore we read in Matt 23:34-36, Yeshua says, "Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation."

Was not the 1st Century Church equipped with everything possible to fulfill it's mission? Post 70 A.D., what we have is confusion and a divided Church cut-off from some of the advantages our 1st Century Brethren had, such as:

Prophets
Inspired Writers
Charismata

We quibble over inconsistent copies of an ancient language describing the effects on how a 1st Century people's faithfulness impacts us today. So how do WE, post 70 A.D., obtain The Unadulterated Truth? From what I've read, without question, Amos 3:7 & Matt 23:34-36, amongst other passages, is consistent to the urgency and expectation of the message to an ancient audience.

Can we derive The Unadulterated Truth from copies, sure, I believe so. But which one, to include every jot and tittle? Can we go to the source, authors, to ascertain discrepancies in such letters, such as Paul, Peter, Luke, etc... obviously not! How about The Father Himself? Yes, absolutely. But don't all believers claim this for themselves and yet confusion remains pervasive in The Church?

YAHWEH clearly demonstrated His ability to communicate The Unadulterated Truth to a people, in the 1st Century, regarding the urgency of His message. From what we read, they received it and accomplished their mission.

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

I look forward to your insights, God Bless.

[dizerner]

[user account removed]

[robbyyoung]

Don't you notice Paul, John, Peter constantly fighting "all the confusion" of so many heresies and wrong beliefs already trying to make their way into the church, even at that very time? Is the devil idly sitting on his hands and letting the kingdom spread with no opposition?

Hi dizerner, thanks for the input. However, The Apostles were warned this would happen and THEY, being the conduit of "the unadulterated truth", matured to the inevitable realization of these prophecies directed towards them and their generation. Our confusion is post "The Source" with ancient writings and cultures that we cannot return to and question. It's not the same, therefore we quibble over their writings.

you can memorize the New Testament and every linguistic and historical data and still not have the revelation that Christ died for your sins to save you from this evil world. You can have the original documents and talk to the original apostles and still not have a revelation of Christ. Shoot, the apostles themselves saw his miracles and heard his words in the very context and language and culture he spoke them in, and almost never understood them. Even after they saw Christ raised, it is said some still doubted.

We really do have to trust the Spirit, all who are sons of God are led by the Spirit of God. This is not something fulfilled in 70 A.D. I'm thankful Paul and the apostles weren't some Old Testament preterists that thought the Old Testament was completely fulfilled and no longer relevant to their lives. They taught that every Scripture had some applicability to our present life. The Word of God is meant to be living and active, the very words spirit and life.

Remember what Paul said to the Galatians: "before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified." The Galatians probably didn't even have the knowledge that you or I have today. But they understood God sent Christ to die for their sins, and they were to live for the next life and not this one. "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever."

Your comment is more directed to the conditions before Pentecost. After Pentecost, The Apostles were taught by The Holy Spirit on Yeshua's teachings. Besides The Gentile "Wildcard", a brief moment of uncertainty, there was NO confusion on THEIR part. So your first paragraph is apples and oranges to the relevancy of competence concerning truth. Basically, truth was being revealed on YAHWEH's time-line.

You said, "We really do have to trust the Spirit, all who are sons of God are led by the Spirit of God. This is not something fulfilled in 70 A.D." I disagree and would like to know how you came to this conclusion?

You said, "I'm thankful Paul and the apostles weren't some Old Testament preterists that thought the Old Testament was completely fulfilled and no longer relevant to their lives." This whole comment is nonsensical. This isn't a "what if" moment. We are discussing what is, was, and will be based on what we have now to draw from.

Your last paragraph is nonsensical as well. Paul is THE SOURCE, he's not confused nor is he confusing the Galatains. Kindly, what does your comment have to do with this post?

God Bless.

[TheEditor]

Hi Robby,

I appreciate your candor and passion. That being said, I am having trouble wrapping my mind around the total reasoning of your position.

On the one hand you say that we "CANNOT claim The Unadulterated Truth from copies known to have inconsistencies one from another", and yet you claim to have apprehended said "unadulterated truth" as handed to them, based upon a full-preterist paradigm, which paradigm (I might add) relies as heavily on understanding these same "flawed" texts as much as any other paradigm does. Its like saying, "No one can be expected to make heads or tails of this contract, but my opinion on it is the correct one."

Second, I believe you are looking at the 1st century congregation through sepia-colored glasses. Even the most casual perusal of Paul's, John's, and the others' writings betray a congregation rife with trouble, false teaching and at times confusion, and they had the benefit of supernatural gifts on a regular basis.

Regards, Brenden.

[Singalphile]

Hi robbyyoung,

My thoughts:

As mentioned, disagreements and unanswered questions are not new (Acts 1:7, Acts 15:39, Rom 14, Gal 2:11). People in the 1st through 21st centuries have argued, though Paul said to, "avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, ...." (Titus 3:9-11 NASB).

But the writings of the prophets and the apostles and the recorded words of Jesus give us the necessary training and instructions for righteousness and good works (2 Tim 3:16-17, John 14:22-24, Matt 28:18-20), which Christians are created in Christ Jesus to do (Eph 2:10).

If we want to know everything then we're out of luck, but if we want to know how to honor God and Jesus, then I think we have a perfectly adequate message containing all the necessary instructions, which are overwhelmingly not hard to understand, despite our different time and language. So I would focus on those instructions and try to put all our other "isms" in the background.

[robbyyoung]

Hi Robby,

I appreciate your candor and passion. That being said, I am having trouble wrapping my mind around the total reasoning of your position.

On the one hand you say that we "CANNOT claim The Unadulterated Truth from copies known to have inconsistencies one from another", and yet you claim to have apprehended said "unadulterated truth" as handed to them, based upon a full-preterist paradigm, which paradigm (I might add) relies as heavily on understanding these same "flawed" texts as much as any other paradigm does. Its like saying, "No one can be expected to make heads or tails of this contract, but my opinion on it is the correct one."

Second, I believe you are looking at the 1st century congregation through sepia-colored glasses. Even the most casual perusal of Paul's, John's, and the others' writings betray a congregation rife with trouble, false teaching and at times confusion, and they had the benefit of supernatural gifts on a regular basis.

Regards, Brenden.

Hi Brenden,

Thanks for the reply. Your first paragraph is astute in recognizing the disadvantage we have from the "original source". We CANNOT go to the writers and ask for clarification. Post 70 A.D., we have been guessing and in error on many things, cut-off from the ones who could easily give clarity. Paradigms are created based on the remnants of the past. But what we have from that past is inconsistent copies of a truth given to a people, place and time who had the advantage of "The Source" that we do not, to seek clarification. Therefore, The Preterist paradigm, I believe, is the most consistent to the context of the letters, from the authors, regarding it's audience.

Sepia-colored glasses? Brenden, I'm not deluded concerning the problems in the 1st Century Church. That's NOT the point. The point is, "The Source" of truth was present with them to set the record straight. Their writings and personal visits clarified error. Post 70 A.D., we DO NOT have that advantage.

What I'm discussing challenges all paradigms, as it relates to the massive confusion we have today, to ascertain how to obtain the unadulterated truth. How can we emphatically claim we have it with inconsistent copies far removed from the original source? Therefore, we do the best we can as we read WHAT WAS ADDRESSED TO THE RECIPIENTS OF THE LETTERS. YAHWEH blessed the 1st Century Church with The Source and what do we have? Inconsistent copies! Why?

Please re-read my original post again to catch the significance of what I'm asking. Again, IMHO, the mission was accomplished, that's why.

God Bless.

[robbyyoung]

Hi robbyyoung,

My thoughts:

As mentioned, disagreements and unanswered questions are not new (Acts 1:7, Acts 15:39, Rom 14, Gal 2:11). People in the 1st through 21st centuries have argued, though Paul said to, "avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, ...." (Titus 3:9-11 NASB).

But the writings of the prophets and the apostles and the recorded words of Jesus give us the necessary training and instructions for righteousness and good works (2 Tim 3:16-17, John 14:22-24, Matt 28:18-20), which Christians are created in Christ Jesus to do (Eph 2:10).

If we want to know everything then we're out of luck, but if we want to know how to honor God and Jesus, then I think we have a perfectly adequate message containing all the necessary instructions, which are overwhelmingly not hard to understand, despite our different time and language. So I would focus on those instructions and try to put all our other "isms" in the background.

Hi Singalphile,

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

God Bless.

[Michelle]

Hi robbyyoung,

My thoughts:

As mentioned, disagreements and unanswered questions are not new (Acts 1:7, Acts 15:39, Rom 14, Gal 2:11). People in the 1st through 21st centuries have argued, though Paul said to, "avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, ...." (Titus 3:9-11 NASB).

But the writings of the prophets and the apostles and the recorded words of Jesus give us the necessary training and instructions for righteousness and good works (2 Tim 3:16-17, John 14:22-24, Matt 28:18-20), which Christians are created in Christ Jesus to do (Eph 2:10).

If we want to know everything then we're out of luck, but if we want to know how to honor God and Jesus, then I think we have a perfectly adequate message containing all the necessary instructions, which are overwhelmingly not hard to understand, despite our different time and language. So I would focus on those instructions and try to put all our other "isms" in the background.

Hi Singalphile,

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

God Bless.

Hmm. I thought singalphile addressed the topic pretty well. Robbyyoung, I must be missing the gist of your topic too. (I re-read your OP twice, by the way.)

[Paidion]

Hi Robby,

I appreciate your candor and passion. That being said, I am having trouble wrapping my mind around the total reasoning of your position.

On the one hand you say that we "CANNOT claim The Unadulterated Truth from copies known to have inconsistencies one from another", and yet you claim to have apprehended said "unadulterated truth" as handed to them, based upon a full-preterist paradigm, which paradigm (I might add) relies as heavily on understanding these same "flawed" texts as much as any other paradigm does. Its like saying, "No one can be expected to make heads or tails of this contract, but my opinion on it is the correct one."

Second, I believe you are looking at the 1st century congregation through sepia-colored glasses. Even the most casual perusal of Paul's, John's, and the others' writings betray a congregation rife with trouble, false teaching and at times confusion, and they had the benefit of supernatural gifts on a regular basis.

Regards, Brenden.

[steve]

Brenden…That's NOT the point….Please re-read my original post again to catch the significance of what I'm asking.

Hi Singalphile…Thanks…I must kindly say, your post does not address this topic. Please re-read my OP again.

Robby, maybe it would be good for you to rewrite the post, since our re-reading it doesn't seem to be getting us to the point of understanding what you are seeking to get across. I thought that both Brenden and singalphile had addressed what appeared to be your point. It may be that we are all dull, but it may help for you to reword or explain yourself in order that we can understand and evaluate your message.

What I'm discussing challenges all paradigms, as it relates to the massive confusion we have today, to ascertain how to obtain the unadulterated truth. How can we emphatically claim we have it with inconsistent copies far removed from the original source? Therefore, we do the best we can as we read WHAT WAS ADDRESSED TO THE RECIPIENTS OF THE LETTERS. YAHWEH blessed the 1st Century Church with The Source and what do we have? Inconsistent copies! Why?

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?