All Activity

This stream auto-updates   

  1. Today
  2. The topic is Celibacy and Marriage "He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way." Matthew 19:8 "But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband ... and that the husband should not divorce his wife." 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 [What the Lord wants cannot always be achieved because we live in a fallen world.] "But because of immoralities" 1 Corinthians 7:2 [Paul needs to deal with the best solution to reduce sin in the sitatuation faced] [Thus Paul first gives his own life as an example] "But this I say by way of concession, not of command. Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that." 1 Corinthians 7:6-7 [Then Paul gives advice on how to follow what he taught, taking in account of the fallen world] "But to the rest I say, not the Lord," 1 Corinthians 7:12 "Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?" 2 Corinthians 6:2-14 Marriage and the Family is something The Devil (whoever that may be) attacks most because it has massive implications for the future generations. Sex is one of the biggest vices of the human family. There is no need for Paul to give his own personal advice on other matters or types of sin, that a God fearing person isn't able to resolve according to their own conscience. I.e. People should be able to know God's Will and the 'obvious/common sense' solution in other matters or times.
  3. And it is abit confusing when it seems like the only attribute that makes the Father divine, is his character? (I was supposed to include that in my previous post) I will take John 17 as yes? I'm not sure which verses you refer to in particular but I hazard a guess I might need an answer for this before I can answer
  4. Yeah I saw that and I agree with Dave's view, but that is the first time I heard a CD that tried not to make a mechanical explanation of the virgin birth in order to explain what 'son of God' means. I still haven't received any answer on how being 'son of God' makes him different for us apart from this miraculous birth. 'son of god' = 'son of man' with miraculous birth, is an equation that doesn't compute for me. They must be referring to different things If taken literally, The son must have been imputed something from the father (if he was not a demigod, meaning he was half human and half god) If taken figuratively, The son then is must have a metaphoric meaning e.g. Psalms 2:6-9 “But as for Me, I have installed My King Upon Zion, My holy mountain.” “I will surely tell of the decree of the Lord: He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You. ‘Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance, And the very ends of the earth as Your possession. ‘You shall break them with a rod of iron, You shall shatter them like earthenware.’” I want to know when exactly did he become 'son of God', I'm heard this used by CDs in the context of 3 chronologically different times. He can't become 'son of God' on three different occasions it is to be taken 'literally'
  5. John 17 Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk
  6. So we will all become divine after the second coming?
  7. He exhibited the character of God in perfection Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk
  8. Yesterday
  9. Here evidence that this view is held more widely that you expected if an ex-christadelphian feels the need to address it in her book.
  10. How is the Father different from the muslim Allah? [Note: I'm not asking how is Christianity different from Islam] "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." Isaiah 45:7 [quoted sometimes in CD literature, about the devil] "And He said, “I Myself will make all My goodness pass before you, and will proclaim the name of the Lord before you; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show compassion on whom I will show compassion.”" Exodus 33:19 Allah is called Ar-Rahman (The All-Merciful) [Side note: calvinists quote this verse to show predestination i.e. the read it not as showing God is merciful to all but rather God is only merciful to who he choose i.e. the elect] [As a side note: Muslims believe Jesus was only a man and that he was sinless]
  11. Divine nature or Human nature, has been the two Christology options. Btw, what do CDs mean when they say Jesus is divine but he isn't God?
  12. Ok, please do when convenient. What does "nature" mean in your citation?
  13. I guess that of the items you listed, they would certainly be some of the hardest to demonstrate. Tower of Babel would be difficult due to the unlikeliness of mud buildings surviving this long. Red sea crossing because there wouldn't be much evidence of it (as I understand it, the photos of chariot wheels that Wyatt pushed were dated to significantly more recently i.e. by thousands of years?). And the crucifixion because there wouldn't be much left over from it. The wood would rot and apart from that, there'd be not much more to go on. For all of them, I imagine you'd get better indications from uncovering written records (unlikely though they may be to find) rather than going out with a pick and shovel and hoping to dig up a crucifix etc.
  14. I will have to chase up the broad consensus individual references Note that nature here doesn't mean mortal and immortal, like how Christadelphians like to use the word.
  15. Do you have some references for that?
  16. Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, [I was quoting the scripture that his 'this devil' quotation was referring to] We still haven't resolved anything about whether substitution is valid for Hebrews 2:14 yet, and still haven't got a clear answer for John 1:14 There can be a satan (an indefinite generic adversary) but that doesn't rule out there is the satan (an definite supernatural being). Ha-Satan with the definite article occurs 13 times in the Masoretic Text, in two books of the Hebrew Bible: Job ch.1–2 (10x) and Zechariah 3:1–2 (3x). [This principle can be applied to the NT study of The Devil] Would it be correct in saying that CDs believe there are 6 billion 'devils' around on earth currently?
  17. I would argue Jesus claimed to be God. But scholarly consensus is that while Jesus didn't make the claim for himself, the early Christians made it on his behalf. They only way I could see they would of got this idea would be from reading the scriptures for themselves or from the disciples.
  18. Yes, so it is explained that the term Messiah or Christ, isn't a term referring to Jesus as God. but 'son of Man' or 'son of God' aren't considered to be Messianic terms, I would argue they are terms used to indicated Jesus as God. One other thing I would add about being wary of using what the 'Jews' believed as a guide is the Sadducee's. They are Jews, and they were in control of the temple.
  19. Last week
  20. So we agree then that by "Messiah" the Jews were not referring to Jesus as God.
  21. The title? Captain obvious It is almost an unwritten law that your salvation is in peril if you don't do it once a week. Not force but by being the default option you can't share 'one cup' It is saving from sin not mortality, mortality is the consequence of sin. Jesus could of been translated to heaven like Enoch. I believe Jesus was a man (but also divine). I believe he died (just not annihlated). If I put a bullet-proof vest on you (covering) or I stand in front of you (substitution) then in both cases I'm block the bullet for you. There us a difference between tirosh(grapejuice) and yayin(wine), in the latter case it was [diluted] natural wine (like the JWs use) not fortified to increase the leaven (sin) in the blood. He taught it: Love God with all your heart - commandments 1-4 Love your neighbour as yourself - commandments 5-10 In your opinion, any view other than your own in nonsense. We have to look at the verses. Has Jesus been currently given the exact level of power as God has?
  22. The exploration was on scripture related to the statement of faith, I need an official interpretation of those verses. Most SDAs (whether by reading? or by a shared common hermaneutic?) can somehow give a standard reply to any controversial verse. Though same thing applies to scripture outside, but I give freedom here. (I personally would correct another SDAs interpretation of a verse if it was nonsense). What I want is just a verse by verse commentary, that is how beliefs need to be supported. (This forum is excellent for apologetics but not so much for first person interpretation). That is why started this thread, because I need to present the best case and so that it is not thought some caricature of christendoms beliefs has been refuted. Removing the straw man. There needs to be an annotated bibliography of CD works. Who are the first class writers? I could tell you for the SDAs because they are usually the lecturers at the adventist universities. There is no blurb on any CD books (unnecessary humility?) so I have no idea what expertise they bring or anything about the author.
  23. And behold, I even linked to a book to explain it. The one that was before. That is why in our community we don't mandate how often and don't force fortified wine. A ma who is mortal needs to be saved from mortality. A man who is actually dead needs to be saved from death. But since you don't believe Jesus was ever a man, and since you don't believe Jesus ever died, I can imagine this causes some problems for you. And that quotation says the same; "this devil", not "a devil". How can you possibly equate them? But it tells us it was the cup for the passover meal, which we know was wine. The fruit of the vine in those days was wine, not grape juice. It doesn't say that. Jesus seems to have missed that memo. But this is all just nonsense. The Bible never says this. God can do it, and so can men to whom God gives that power.
  24. Thanks "In offering Bible-based answers to these questions, this present work is something of a companion to that previous one" what is the previous one? "This answer may sound a bit like: ‘How dare anyone even suggest that our venerated Statement of Faith, which has been handed down to us by our forefathers, which has withstood more than 100 years of assaults by the wicked, is not completely satisfactory!’" LOL "he does not attempt to describe any characteristics or give any evidence which would make a doctrine essential for salvation or fellowship, or to describe any process of differentiation between essentials and non-essentials. And, so far as can be determined, this task has never been properly undertaken in the 100 years since." Good observation "This was the Spirit of truth, or the Comforter, which came to the apostles, to teach them the words of Jesus" Interesting how he connects this to The Holy Spirit (God’s power unto salvation) which inspired the prophets "and the hope of Israel — that is, the kingdom of Israel restored" he seems to recognise Christ is the hope of Israel, but then fudges in a restored kingdom instead. "the pre-human existence ... (all being contrary to the “one God”)." Not contrary to that, just contrary to only a man theory. "A superhuman fallen angel “devil” or “Satan” (contrary to both the “one God” and the “one Lord”)." How so??? "breaking of bread" no biblical mandate on how often and also no reason to force it there to be a fortified wine (just needs to be 'fruit of the vine') especially if they aren't going to use unleaven bread. "Thus, it was not God’s person but rather His purpose (grace!) which was revealed in the flesh, for the salvation of all men who would believe in him." Not that convincing "The phrase “the first resurrection” is found nowhere in the apostolic proclamation contained in Acts, and nowhere else in the apostolic writings for that matter. Its meaning is not obvious; learned brothers have suggested quite varying interpretations. Such verses should never be cited as a matter of doctrine to be believed by converts before baptism." It is for SDAs there hasn't been any varying interpretations as far as I know, CDs either have no common hermaneutics or some other dotrine must be biasing it to mutiple interpretations. "The mature, seasoned understanding of the lifelong serious Bible student cannot be the criteria to test the validity of the faith of the new believer — even if that mature, seasoned understanding is totally correct (which is a big “if”!)." I think it can but that is my own opinion "He was put to death as a “sin offering”;" sounds like substitution? "“Hell” means the grave, or absolute destruction" only in the KJV, Hades is the Grave, Gehenna is hell. Gehenna doesn't mean the grave. Gehenna leads to absolute destruction but that isn't its meaning. "was the means by which he was saved" a sinless man needs no salvation! "Jesus will raise many of the dead" those who know Gods will are few not many. "Christ overcame this “devil” in himself by defeating the tendencies to sin in his own nature" the scripture says he destroyed 'the devil' not a devil. "The “devil” is another name for sin in human nature;" this definition doesn't explain the temptation in wilderness "Therefore he can provide us with a covering for our sins" how is covering us different from taking out place? Pragmatically the same? "The breaking of bread and drinking of wine" scripture never says it is wine "The Jews are God’s chosen people. ...they will be purified (after repentance and faith), ..., and made ready for the coming of the Messiah" what is this about being made ready and becoming Christians before the second coming? "All those who believe these teachings should strive also to live godly" this is what the ten commandments are for "It would be a pity for our community to allow itself to become enslaved to a particular statement of faith simply because it has become “traditional”, if a more Biblical alternative were available." Correct " consider an alternative to our most commonly used Statement of Faith? Some traditionalists will say that even to ask such a question is to invite charges of “heresy”." LOL
  25. The Jews don't even know what their own scripture teaches, for example Jesus parable of the rich man in hades. Are you saying they have the perfect interpretation on the OT? The Jews missed most of the OT prophecies about Jesus. If they can't even recognise that then how could the recognise the 'hidden' sacred secret about Jesus and the Godhead. "that their hearts may be encouraged, having been knit together in love, and attaining to all the wealth that comes from the full assurance of understanding, resulting in a true knowledge of God’s mystery, that is, Christ Himself," Colossians 2:2 "For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness of diety to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven. Colossians 1:19-20 The Jews were never expecting the spiritual gifts of the holy spirit either, that is why Jesus has to tell his disciples about their existence "Gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, “Which,” He said, “you heard of from Me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now" The 30 Statements, needs a book to explain it all. It is standard but not straight forward. The SDA 28 Fundamentals has an official book explaining them so it can be clear. Here are examples of unclear phrases: "Who was revealed" "Who manifested Himself" [is there a difference?] "the ONE FATHER" [not a scriptural term, just as God the Son isn't it] "His Spirit, which is a unity with His person" "That Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God" I believe this but the meaning of the Son of God if read by any evangelical wouldn't reflect how a CD would understand it. "wearing their condemned nature" "obtain a title to resurrection" "by dying, abrogate the law of condemnation for himself" "inhabited and used by God" "God with us" [God's character shown to us?] "from all the effects that came by Adam's transgression" "God would restore their kingdom" [His kindgom is not of this world?] "condemnation of sin in the flesh" "offering of the body" "as a propitiation to declare the righteousness of God" "by a figure" "does not intercede for the world" "the metropolis of the whole earth" "the revealed will" "sin and death will continue among the earth's subject inhabitants, though in a much milder degree than now" "opening up the way of life to the nations" "a general resurrection and judgment" "those who shall have established their title" "Who will manifest Himself as the "All-in-All" SDAs believe that Jesus was specifically given the role of creating the universe. I will discuss scriptures for Jesus the creator another time. Trinitarians also believe this. Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” ...He was speaking of the temple of His body. John 2:19,21 "But he said to me, “My grace is enough for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” So then, I will boast most gladly about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may reside in me." 2 Corinthians 12:9 "Jesus Himself was in the stern, asleep on the cushion; and they woke Him and said to Him, “Teacher, do You not care that we are perishing?” And He got up and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, “Hush, be still.” And the wind died down and it became perfectly calm. And He said to them, “Why are you afraid? Do you still have no faith?” They became very much afraid and said to one another, “Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey Him?”" Mark 4:38-41 He wasn't omniscient on earth but he could still read the hearts of men, which only God can do. He knows the future of Himself now, as indicated by the book of Revelation
  26. I'm just telling you a first hand account. You cannot shoot the messenger. It wasn't for arguement (evidence) purposes, just off the cuff remarks, so on topic but fair enough not revelant. They aren't supposed to be 'baseless attacks', I'm telling you an outsiders perspective. (Okay I will keep all future observations to myself, and just discuss the scriptures). You can't ask a CD to know what a non-CD perspective is. If this is what I gathered as someone who has some interaction with the community, what is someone who has even less going to think? I have only my conversations with local CDs to get these skewed impressions. No one is going to travel the world to compare beliefs. If I made a mistake, then correct me. How else am I going to be corrected as to mainstream CD views? How can I know what is a deviation? In South Australia, the temple and two other similar ecclesias are in the minority, how is any non-CD expected to know that the minority group in SA is the majority in the world? I can only go by the resources in the ecclesia library (bookshop) as to what is 'official'. Unless the brotherhood formally releases a statement saying we repudiate such works then I must taken them as official as no ecclesia would sell false books? Who are the 'true' Christadelphians? I personally welcome that gratuitous information, I would want to know how he can remain an SDA while not believing in the great controversy. I would want to know what are his reasons for not believing in a devil. Incidentally, I think CDs focus too much of the temptation side of the devil. Apart from the scriptural evidemc (I can see CDs have some merit on their comments about satan, but not when it comes to the devil). There appears to be a behind-the-scenes power of evil, the devil explanation makes sense of all the evil in this world, in the same way God makes sense of all the beauty in the world. "Nor does higher education appear to quash belief in the devil" "With the advent of evolutionary theory and modern psychology, these days we're more likely to think of people who do terrible things as broken human beings, rather than agents of the netherworld. Furthermore, religion has ceded its civil authority, and religiosity has declined somewhat in American society. So we might expect belief in the devil to have largely evaporated. It hasn't. Regardless of political belief, religious inclination, education, or region, most Americans believe that the devil exists" Most people don't believe in the devil because they want someone to blame their own actions on. The general populatiom are humanists, they believe humans are neutral. I believe humans are neutral with an evil bent. Jeremiah 17:9, does not explain the whole theodicy problem. The first CD I met was in primary school, nice guy but didn't know anything about his beliefs. I'm always interested in fringe SDAs because they have a much deeper knowledge of historic adventism then I do and stuff I would never learn elsewhere. Surely, you appreciated something like Stephen Genusa archiving of CD view changes? I think because of human nature, any SDA would want to hear SDA scandals? I don't think I mentioned any CD scandals? I only mentioned deviations from doctrine?
  27. You don't even know what this is talking about. This criticism only applies to one specific area of Ehrman's work. The general agreement of professional scholars in a field. No it is nothing like that, because mainstream confessional scholarship agrees with Ehrman on the point under dispute. You missed out these parts of the article. In fact you didn't even quote the footnote properly. Here's what it says.
  1. Load more activity