All Activity

This stream auto-updates   

  1. Last week
  2. Sorry SDA, I don't understand
  3. Because it is conditional: step 1 "and now, he might stretch out his hand" already present step 2 "and take also from the tree of life" already present step 3 "and eat" already present step 4 "and live forever" already present? Without continual step 1-3 there is not step 4. (John Thomas believed that if Adam and Eve continued step 1-3 long enough then they could gain step 4 without having to eat of the fruit anymore.) I believe step 4 is a continual process not a state, thus if you break the cycle you break the 'state'. There seems to be two principles at work here. Eat ONCE of fruit of the wrong tree = death Eat CONTINUALLY of the fruit of the right tree = life "So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life." I believe that Step 4 might of been like an antidote to eating of the fruit from the wrong tree.
  4. Something still seems wrong to me because if they already had eternal life, this verse is redundant. "Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever" They had just eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and God was concerned they would eat from the tree of life "and live forever." But if they already had an eternal life as yo say, why did God say we need to stop them eating of the tree of life in case they 'live forever'?
  5. I wonder which greek source text JT was using then?
  6. I would say 'retain' instead of 'obtain'. "You shall surely die", implies Adam and Eve would lose (conditional) eternal life. "and live forever", implies Adam and Eve would keep(retain) eternal life. Remember that all eternal life is conditional on God providing it, whether that is by eating of the fruit of life or having his life giving spirit in you (pneumatic body).
  7. "Jerusalem is to become a free woman as Sarah was; and to take her stand in the midst of the earth, as "the city whose architect and builder is God." She will then "remember the reproach of her widowhood no more. For her Maker will be her husband; the Lord of hosts is His name; and her Redeemer the Holy One of Israel (even Jesus) the God of the whole earth shall he be called." She will then be the metropolis of the world; and her citizens, or children, will be more numerous than those she rejoiced in under the law, as a married wife. The period of her glory will have arrived; the twelve tribes be again the united, peaceful, and joyous, inhabitants of the land; the "greater than Solomon," their king; and his city, "the heavenly Jerusalem," which "is free, and the mother of us all."" Elpis Israel printed page 258 Logos Edition The above passage supports my belief that the New Jerusalem in Revelation 21 is literal
  8. modern Christadelphian Blasphemy???
  9. "And Abraham said, "My son, God will provide Himself a lamb for a burnt offering." Having arrived at the place, built an altar, and laid the wood in order, he bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood. He then stretched forth his hand, and took the knife, to slay his son. At this crisis, when Isaac was expecting instant death at the hand of his father, who loved him as his only son, the angel of the Lord called to him out of heaven, and commanded him to do the lad no harm. A ram caught in a thicket by the horns was appointed as a substitute for Isaac, who was therefore substitutionally slain;" Elpis Israel printed page 263 Logos Edition, bold emphasis added
  10. "They know, or rather ought to know, that the sign of circumcision and the Mosaic law, can give them no title to the everlasting occupancy of Canaan, either as individuals, or as a nation. It is circumcision of the heart, of which circumcision of the flesh is but the sign of the circumcised heart of Abraham, that confers a title to the land and all its attributes. Before Israel can inherit the land for ever, and so be no more expelled by "the Horns of the Gentiles," they must "circumcise the foreskin of their hearts, and be no more stiff-necked;" and "love the Lord (Jesus) their God with all their heart, and with all their soul, that they may live" (Deu. 10:16; 30:6)." Elpis Israel, printed page 252 Logos Edition, bold emphasis added
  11. I've just recently looked at the supposed prophecies of an identical event and have come to the conclusion Joel 3 and Zechariah 12 are probably about the same event. Ezekiel 38 is a separate event though similar. Daniel 11 is a totally separate event. Alternatively Joel 3 and Ezekiel 38 are the same event and Zechariah 12 is some previous event. Anyway my question is on what basis do Christadelphians think that Ezekiel 38 and Daniel 11 are referring to the same event/prophecy?
  12. I read recently in Elpis Israel that the promise of the land was only given to the co-heirs Abraham and Jesus? If that is the case, then why do Christadelphians believe any current occupation of the land by Jews counts as a fulfillment? "Here was a country, lying between the Euphrates and the Mediterranean, in which were Abram and all his house, with his flocks and herds, and which was in the actual possession of warlike tribes, living in cities walled up to heaven; concerning this country, the Lord, to whom heaven and earth belong, said to Abram, / will give it to thy Seed, when as yet he had no child. But it is particularly interesting to know, who is intended by Abraham's Seed in this promise? Is it the "great nation" spoken of in the former promise; or, is it some particular personage to whom the land of Canaan is here promised as an inheritance! I shall offer no opinion upon the subject, but let the apostle to the Gentiles answer the question. In writing to the disciples in Galatia about the inheritance, he says, "The promises were made to Abraham and to his Seed. God saith not, And to seeds as of many persons; but as of one person, as it is written, And unto thy Seed, which is Christ" (Gal. 3:16). The apostle here tells that the Land of Canaan was promised to the Christ when God said to Abram, "Unto thy Seed will I give this land." Let the reader, then, bear this in mind as one of the first principles of the gospel of the kingdom. Deny this, and there is an end to all understanding of the truth." Elpis Israel, printed page 234 Logos Edition, bold emphasis added
  13. What does that mean?
  14. Earlier
  15. Considering Elpis Israel was written in 1848 and the Diaglott in 1864, I doubt it. However, JT did have some contact with Benjamin Wilson.
  16. Once you're talking about the oral tradition Mark used, you are no longer talking about the gospel of Mark, and you are agreeing that Mark's gospel is not the earliest historical account of the resurrection. Because his letter is high context.
  17. Fair enough, but would Mark's oral tradition make it the first historical account? or does it only count when written? What would be your reply to why Paul makes no mention of the empty tomb, the guards, Mary Magdalene, the two at Emmaus?
  18. Paul's. Irrelevant, that's not addressing the topic under discussion. The topic under discussion is whether or not Mark's is the first historical account of the resurrection, and whether all others are later interpolations and fabrications subsequent to Mark. Whether or not we believe Paul's accounts, they are indisputably earlier than Mark's, and therefore destroy the argument under discussion.
  19. Been thinking about this In Genesis 2:17 God tells Adam and Eve they will die: Genesis 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” In Genesis 3:22 God is concerned Adam might obtain eternal life (implying he does not already have it): Genesis 3:22 Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever (a) “You shall surely die” Implies Adam and Eve did not have eternal life (b) “and live forever” Implies Adam and Eve did not already possess eternal life If (b) tells us they did not already have eternal life, then (a) cannot be a reference to eternal life being taken away. That being the case, if God did not mean they would literally die that day, what was meant? What am I missing?
  20. Finally finished reading part 1 of Elpis Israel and I noticed Bro. Thomas cites "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city". I know in my own faith community the preferred bible version is NKJV since it preserves this rendering. I know textual criticism favours wash their robes, so my question is was Bro. Thomas aware of the Diaglott rendering when he wrote Elpis Israel? I'm also wondering if this has any impact on what one must do to "have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city". I.e. are keeping commandments only a sign or our love for God/Christ or are they necessary for salvation?
  21. Israel = [people] who struggle with God. That is why I see "the church is in continuity with the people of God in Old Testament times" "A mixed multitude also went up with them" Exodus 12:38 [There is no later distinction between them and Israel] Zipporah, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba etc. are case in points "And all who will behave in accordance with this rule, peace and mercy be on them, and on the Israel of God" Galatians 6:11 "For not all those who are descended from Israel are truly Israel" Romans 9:6 "and don’t think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you that God can raise up children for Abraham from these stones" Matthew 3:9 "so then, understand that those who believe are the sons of Abraham" Galatians 3:7 "I now truly understand that God does not show favoritism in dealing with people but in every nation the person who fears him and does what is right is welcomed before him. You know the message he sent to the people of Israel" Acts 10:34 "When Jesus heard this he was amazed and said to those who followed him, “I tell you the truth, I have not found such faith in anyone in Israel! I tell you, many will come from the east and west to share the banquet with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, but the sons of the kingdom will be thrown out into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Matthew 8:11 Thus "And so all Israel will be saved" means all [people] who prevail with God, i.e. spiritual Israel will be saved. Jewish = literal descendants of Abraham The only thing that I can find in the Bible as exclusively Jewish is circumcision Genesis 17:10-14
  22. This is interesting because you would assume that if two people both believed in the second coming they would believe the same thing happens at the second coming. That is why I like to probe each belief to a deeper level because I think it took me about 3 months of attending ecclesial meetings until I found out about the secret second coming belief and then about 2 years of attending ecclesial meetings until I found out the wicked on earth aren't destroyed at the second coming. Because the second coming talks were only focused on the resurrection and not about the event itself. Because Christadelphia doesn't interact with mainstream protestant beliefs they don't know these variants. I've studied ~3-4 different denominations just to make sure my own views aren't insulated. It is abit hard to have interdenominational scholarly interactions if you don't know what others believe.. Apart from the return of Jews to Palestine, what do Christadelphian's see as the signs of Christ's soon return? I'm interested in any sign that isn't political.
  23. ""No man," says Jesus, "hath seen God at any time Γ but Adam, Abra ham, Jacob, and Moses, saw the Elohim and their Lord; therefore Elohim and the Everlasting Father are not the same" Elpis Israel logos edition printed page 186 Who is their Lord? "In short, it is credible that none of the Elohim of the only Potentate's dominion were created immortal; but earthly, or animal, like Adam. The eternal King is the only being who is originally immortal in any sense, hence it is written, that He "only hath immortality." The immortality of all other intelligences is derived from Him as a reward for the "obedience of faith." [Don't have access to my True Immortality thread to update it with this quotation] But fits in with my theology that the reward can be removed at God's prerogative. This is quite interesting, mainstream Christianity thinks angels were created 'immortal'. @Fortigurn http://berea-portal.com/forums/topic/2325-method-of-interpretation-substitution/?do=findComment&comment=50417 Why did you insert the word "Jesus", when the text says "Yahweh"? And again, how can Yahweh be one, if you say He is actually a group of people? "The Lord," Jesus, "shall be king over all the earth; in that day shall there be one Lord, and His Name one" (Zech. 14:9). "The Lord of Hosts," Jesus, "shall reign on Mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before his ancients gloriously" (Isa. 24:23). Elpis Israel logos edition printed page 176 Direct quotation
  24. Some being the keyword, but thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_theology I have a fair idea of what Christadelphians believe but I think they should make a systematic theology book one day that can reflect Christadelphian perspectives in a positive way (rather than what they don't believe). I think this is the way to become more scholarly and get wider acknowledgement. Theology proper – The study of the character of God Christadelphians are big on the character of God, but would they agree with "law of God is a transcript of His character"? and if not, then how do you work out the character of God? Angelology – The study of angels I don't know much except that angels can't sin because they are immortal. I've heard Christadelphians say there is more than one archangel with no biblical substantiation. I know that Yahweh Elohim can either mean 'Yahweh the God' or 'Yahweh's Angels' but no known methodology to distinguish the two to know who is the referent. Biblical theology – The study of the bible Not really sure about what this is but I would like to see a Christadelphian work like this https://www.amazon.com/New-International-Encyclopedia-Bible-Difficulties/dp/0310241464 Fort does excellent work in D&C on atheistic objections to Biblical events but I think needs to be a book for the lay person to understand alleged internal discrepancies. Christadelphian's are very good at trying to solve these (see Hyndman's Biograph) but I haven't seen any published book on it. Christology – The study of Christ As you can see above there is such a massive range even in Unitarian Christologies, so I would like a deeper exploration of the Christadelphian version Ecclesiology – The study of the church Totally lacking in the BASF, not sure even how the church relates to Israel Eschatology – The study of the end times Alot of speculation but presented like fact because obviously prophecies can't be 'unclear' and can only have one interpretation. Alot of assumptions that haven't been critically challenged, I haven't look into all these OT prophecies that find no corresponding quotation in the NT (as I think there absence means they became conditionally obsolete) but I have recently looked into at least the most famous prophecy Ezekiel 38 here http://berea-portal.com/forums/topic/2294-state-of-israel/?do=findComment&comment=51179 Since I claim near total ignorance on the minor prophets I'm happy to learn about the prophecies but I need them to be all harmonised together, I see Christadelphian's selectively focusing on some and remaining silent on others. Hamartiology – The study of sin I think alot of work needs to be done here. I want to know the difference between Sin and Sins Pneumatology – The study of the Holy Spirit Haven't gotten any answers here except a link to a book to buy, and also how it is related pragmatically in the life of the believer Soteriology – The study of salvation The atonement issue is too convoluted in the community, can't get any clear answers because of the uneasy tension. Theological anthropology – The study of the nature of humanity. Good work here, but this have been used as a replacement for Hamartiology. I don't think Personified Sin is a Tempter, i.e. the main role of The Devil is not the tempt us but to slander God's character. Christadelphian's have borrowed mainstream Christianities purpose of the devil while replacing who it is, but I think they need to re-evaluate what it does before working out who it is.
  25. I assuming it on this basis http://berea-portal.com/forums/topic/2289-the-third-rome/?do=findComment&comment=50611 It might not be necessarily the case, but to argue Ezekiel 38 happens chronologically before Ezekiel 36 and 37 requires some good evidence? The rest of the Biblical substantiation is found on page 8 of the attachment "in the day of the Lord’s angry judgment. The whole earth will be consumed by his fiery wrath. Indeed, he will bring terrifying destruction on all who live on the earth.” The Second Coming of Christ.pdf
  26. I daresay some Christadelphians could live with your views as expressed here.
  27. What's your Biblical substantiation for this?
  1. Load more activity