• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


SDA last won the day on August 28 2016

SDA had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

28 Excellent

About SDA

  • Rank
    Expert Poster
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

516 profile views
  1. While it has no prophetic relevance scripturally, the 'young lion' has moved its embassy to Jerusalem
  2. Let's assume that is all that is required by Christians, how would that distinguish Christianity from other religions? I believe they would all argue they teach others to love their neighbour?
  3. Taking predictions for: -Trump's future -Brexit's probability from Teresa May's poor election result
  4. Is it true that Canada is even more conservative than Adelaide? at least for its study camps?
  5. In Christendom Astray, Robert Roberts calculating the the smaller area of Israel and using a calculation of people per area calculates the amount of people who will ever be saved to be ~5 million Do people here consider that to be too low, too high, about right? or totally wrong methodology?
  6. In Elpis Israel near the end John Thomas interprets this verse to mean something like the fire of wars and people will die by the sword
  7. Most of it is common sense but the infographic looks visual good and I some of the data figures are interesting
  8. "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." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "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?
  9. 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?
  10. "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?
  11. 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.
  12. 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 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'.
  13. 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
  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. 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.