All Activity

This stream auto-updates   

  1. Last week
  2. Most of it is common sense but the infographic looks visual good and I some of the data figures are interesting https://www.pcc.edu/library/scripts/know-your-sources/index.html
  3. "Yet when he comes to Zechariah 3, he suddenly, and gratuitously, adds in the name “Michael.” Our usual interpretation of Jude 9 tends to turn a blind eye to this, but the trouble is that the more you ignore the name, the more it sticks out like a sore thumb." http://www.tidings.org/wp/?p=2047 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The third piece of evidence is that uncomfortable phrase “body of Moses.” The absence of any mention of “Joshua” in Jude’s version of the angelic dispute, shows that “body of Moses” is in some way a substitute for Joshua. Anyone who denies this has to explain why Jude deleted Joshua and introduced Moses’ corpse into a dispute where the other two parties (the angel and the devil) remain the same as in Zechariah 3:1. But the question for us is why Jude created a problem where none existed, by not simply writing “Joshua.”" What about Hebrews 2:14? Same two parties but different dispute? I would argue it is about the resurrection of Moses: Matthew 17:1–8, Mark 9:2–8, Luke 9:28–36 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "“turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ” (Jude 4)" with the objective of saving as many as possible (see Jude 22-23 in a modern translation) "For certain men have secretly slipped in among you—men who long ago were marked out for the condemnation I am about to describe—ungodly men who have turned the grace of our God into a license for evil and who deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ." Jude 4 (NET) Strange for Steven to use that first translation in his article while recommending a modern translation for the other verses? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The name Azazel in I Enoch is based on the word “scapegoat” in Lev. 16:8,10,26, and, as a result of this, the Good News and Jerusalem Bibles have “Azazel” in the O.T. text. I mention this only because modern Enochites, of whom there are plenty, delight in these verses. But it’s clearly an anachronism to translate Leviticus according to much later Rabbinic legends which says more about the translators than the text." Rotherham considers it to be Azazel ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "We know that Jude is primarily concerned with problems predicted earlier by Peter. In particular Jude was concerned with the growth of a belief in fallen angels within the church. The first half of Jude’s letter is largely requoting, emphasising and expanding upon what Peter had written (II Pet. 2) but which was apparently being ignored by the believers." I couldn't quite see what the bold part was based on?
  4. Flappie's post above is a good one. Steven Cox wrote a good series on this as well as other fables in the NT. Here's the link to the series on the Tidings website. http://www.tidings.org/wp//?s=Jewish+Fables Here is the series article specific to this thread: http://www.tidings.org/wp/?p=2027
  5. Earlier
  6. I thoroughly agree with you on all of the above.
  7. 24. That at the appearing of Christ prior to the establishment of the Kingdom, the responsible (namely, those who know the revealed will of God, and have been called upon to submit to it), dead and living -- obedient and disobedient -- will be summoned before his judgment seat "to be judged according to their works," and "receive in body according to what they have done, whether it be good or bad." "Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years" I've only just picked this up now that Christadelphians believe there will be resurrection of the obedient and disobedient at both resurrections. I always assumed they believed in a resurrection of the obedient in the first resurrection and resurrection of both at the second resurrection. My own interpretation is the the first resurrection is the obedient and the second resurrection is of the wicked (based on my understanding of the millennium). Just a new twist on the resurrection, I just discovered. Could someone explain to me how the resurrection verses are divided to make two resurrections for four groups instead of two resurrections for two groups?
  8. "Thomas E. Gaston BA (Hons) MPhil(b) DPhil (Oxon) Tom has completed a doctorate at University of Oxford, which focused on the doctrine of the Trinity in the second century" Does anybody know where I can find his thesis?
  9. Oh, I think the wider community is confusing me with all these prophetic interpretations, it would be alright if they just put it as speculations but because they teach prophecy as an apologetic tool it seems that unless you nail down everyone of the OT prophecies exactly then God is a liar or something. I think prophecy does show God knows the future but because it can be ambiguous at times, I'm abit wary of using it as apologetic tool currently. I see prophecy as painting the broad strokes/outlines and to read all these historical details into the text is sort of eisegesis, I don't think that level of prediction was placed in the text. I only currently feel safe with the prophecies of Daniel 2, 7, 9:24-27. TBH when I read major prophets of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel I have no clue what is going on and mainly rely on the interpreted chapter headings to get a clue.
  10. I don't. Most Christadelphians on this forum probably don't although it's likely the majority opinion in the wider Christadelphian community. It's based on little more than the fact that Daniel uses the terminology 'king of the north' and Ezekiel 38 references the 'uttermost parts of the north'.
  11. I'm not so certain that the first part is quotation of those parts, but it is the question of how the NT quotes the OT. I haven't read it but the best reference work on those issues is https://www.amazon.com/Commentary-New-Testament-Use-Old/dp/0801026938 From what I heard in CD discussions is that John the Baptist had the 'spirit of Elijah' but wasn't Elijah. Nothing wrong with that explanation from what I could tell. What I have questions about is that dispensationalists believe that Elijah will literally come back and preach the gospel to the Jews either before the second coming or during the millennium period, to covert them so that 'all Israel can be saved'.
  12. Could somebody explain to me why necroing threads is so bad? Like is it creating some unknown excessive amount of behind the scenes admin work when it happens? or OPs are complaining they are getting unnecessary notifications or It somehow annoys people to think there is a new thread when it is just an old thread that is necroed? Maybe I'm abit slow or something but I just don't understand why. I'm happy to stop posting in old threads but would just like to know why it seems so taboo
  13. I'm confused. Mark tells us John the Baptist fulfilled the prophecy given in Malachi Mark 1:2 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, “Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way, 3 the voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight,’” Malachi 3:1 “Behold, I send my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me. And the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, says the LORD of hosts. The Malachi prophecy says God will send Elijah: Malachi 4:5 “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the LORD comes. But John the Baptist denies he is Elijah John 1:21 And they asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not.” “Are you the Prophet?” And he answered, “No.” Also, I was told the verse "as it is written in the prophets" isn't found in the oldest and best Greek manuscripts, apparently they say "as it is written in Isaiah." Did scribes change this because the quotation is not from Isaiah, but from Ex.23: 20 and Mal.3: 1?
  14. Interesting interpretation that the rich man = Caiaphas and that the 5 brothers were high priests. "Some of the keys (purple and fine linen, the beggar covered in sores, the crumbs from the rich man’s table) can only be understood by comparison with other Old Testament and New Testament passages"
  15. http://www.christadelphia.org/pamphlet/p_lazarus.htm
  16. You're necroing threads from 5 years ago. You've already been told that this is not appreciated. Please don't do it. -- THREAD CLOSED --
  17. I will be interested what someone comments for the first part. For your related question my guess is that CD's will say devil is symbolic, fire is symbolic, so therefore torment is symbolic or something like that.
  18. He is talking about the appearance of age argument and some creationists use the water into fermented wine (time compression) miracle as an example. But he does raise the important issue of did Jesus create enough alcoholic wine to make people drunk many times over or did he create unfermented wine
  19. Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments p161-163 "Dunn finds that Jesus held to Jewish monotheism and that although he say himself as a prophet empowered with God's Spirit (see Holy Spirit) and as having a clsoe relationship with God, he did not understand himself as a divine figure. Dunn believes that in response to the resurrection and the emergence of a theology of exaltation, whereby Jesus was envisioned as seated in heaven at God's right hand, Jesus came increasingly to be viewed as sharing in divine functions. This christology in time grew into expressions of deification, which in non-Jewish Christian circles led to assertions of Jesus's equality, even identity, with God. Dunn's argument with respect to the land, election and Torah are well taken, but his arguements with respect to monotheism and christology require some qualifications. It can plausibly argued that the recognition of Jesus' divinity began during his ministry, not in the early church in response to the resurrection. Such an arguement would appeal to messianic traditions that imply a divine status for the Messiah...Of course this is not to say that the trinitarian monotheism and christology of the fourth and fifth centuries represent no significant advacncement of Jesus' teachings and activities. The contribution to the Jewish-Christian rift that the deification of Jesus made will be explored further in section 3 below. 3. The Divinization of Jesus The tendency of the Greco-Roman church to deify Jesus in the absolute sense, that is, to intensify Johannine and Pauline christology in terms of Jesus as God (in contrast to Ebionite christology), only made Christianity all the more unacceptable to Jews. The divinisation of Jesus stood in tension with strict Jewish mono-theism...As has been suggested above, the roots of deification are probably to be found in Jesus' teaching and activities. But at best the sense of divine identity is implicit and only hinted at. It is in the theologies of Paul and the Fourth Evangelist that the divinization of Jesus became explicit and then paved the way for the absolute deification that would later characterize Greco-Roman Christianity. [The italics part is what if I recall correctly the only part quoted in LOTE]
  20. Post deleted.
  21. Thanks Chris, I'll take a look at it.
  22. I wrote this a few years ago on the subject. Maybe it will be helpful for you. http://berea-portal.com/a-survey-of-schurers-challenges-to-the-lukan-census-1/
  23. Thanks SDA
  24. Yes something like that according to John Thomas Yes that is how I understand it What I was saying they would of ate from the tree of life already multiple times before eating from the tree of knowledge I based that on the tree being in the middle of the garden (Genesis 2:9) and they already had permission to eat it (Genesis 2:16) so I don't see why they would not of eaten it before the fall. to live; causatively to revive:--live, save life to live, have life, remain alive, sustain life, live prosperously, live for ever, be quickened, be alive, be restored to life or health
  25. I've got some issues with the census taken in and around the time of Jesus' birth. Luke 2: 1 In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. 2 This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria. 3 And all went to be registered, each to his own town. 4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, 5 to be registered with Mary, his betrothed,b who was with child. The Issues (1) There is no record nor apparent possibility of a census of the kind Luke describes (2) There is no record that Quirinius was governor of Syria at the time Luke describes Luke’s description of the census is difficult for three reasons: (a) no record of a singular, empire-wide census instituted by Augustus. (b) A Roman census would have required Joseph register not at his ancestral home in Bethlehem but in the principal city of his “taxation district,” presumably Galilee (not to mention, Mary would not have been obliged to go with him.) (c) Roman censuses were not administered in client kingdoms, such as Herod’s was. Also, Quirinius’ involvement with such a census is difficult for two more reasons. (d) Luke describes Jesus’ birth and the census as taking place during Herod the Great’s reign - a reign ended by Herod’s death in March/April of 4 B.C. (e) Luke describes both events as also taking place during the time when Quirinius was governor of Syria. --- I've researched online but to be honest, I'm just confused. Could someone please help me out or point me in the direction of a good online (layman's) source with which I might reconcile the above perceived issues, please, or could someone explain to me why the above isn't an issue? Thank you very much
  26. Ok so If they ate from the tree of life their eternal life would become immortality (a better form of living forever). If they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, their eternal life would cease and they would start to die from that day onward I have a few questions Does the bible tell us Adam and Eve had to continue eating of a certain tree for their eternal life? If so, which tree? it can't be the tree of life because once they ate from that tree they'd live forever
  27. Eternal life is a continuous process, not necessarily a state. For example, mortal life is continuous based on breathing. "Eternal life" in the garden was continuous based on eating the fruit of the tree. You could think of eternal = indefinite?
  1. Load more activity