A Question for Tall73...

[freeindeed2]

Huh? His point is that it is important. Just like it is important to me. He didn't (there) say that those beleifs were required or saved anyone. You and others say that the focal point of adventism is doctrines, rather than Jesus Christ. And I agree, adventists do tend to go that way (and it isn't good). But just because you say that a doctrine is good, or right, or even that it is important, doesn't mean that you are over emphasizing it.

The crux of the SDA gospel is the Sabbath. I can tell you, as a pastor, that even though someone may accept Jesus, they are not truly 'Adventist' until they accept the Sabbath. At that point they can be baptized.

The Sabbath is the 'testing truth' of Adventism. It is the 'key element' of the SDA message and what makes SDA's the 'supposed' 'remnant church'. It's not centered on Jesus Christ, rather their version of the Jewish Sabbath.

We can, as humans, hold more than one thing in our head at a time. We do it all the time. Now, I agree, these other doctrines shouldn't be so emphasized that Christ gets squeezed out (or is squeezed at all).

Jesus IS the point!

But it still doesn't mean that doctrines can't be taught. Everyone does so, even you. You just are spinning your doctrines.. just like the adventists who have EGW spin to all scripture.

There is a huge difference. I'm not defending a man-made denomination/sect, nor it's self-claimed prophet. I'm not defending a belief system shaped by anyone but Christ himself. I don't have to! Christianity is about Christ ALONE!

That is why I support Adventists practices in other parts of the world (preach the gospel, than after they join the church talk about doctrine), and don't see why Sophia has exception to it.

Because they're preaching 'another gospel'. It's not centered on Christ alone! It's the gospel of a sect.

Additionally, at least as far as soul death is concerned... all scientific evidence points to soul death occuring (since we are unable to detect a seperate 'soul'). The whole idea of the soul is much more obviously related to Plato's philosophy. The Adventists position on the soul is much more reasonable compared to the Christian communities, and the Biblical support for it is overwelming (and the only disagreement I can see is to ignore portions of the Bible).

Adventists have to ignore much of what the Bible says where the soul/spirit of man is concerned. Science doeosn't even come close to explaining what happens after death. It's not a salvic doctrine (although the SDA church says otherwise). Salvation is still in Christ alone (not the Sabbath or man's belief systems). Most SDA's have NO IDEA what the Bible says systematically about death. And even if they did, salvation is NOT dependant on our understanding of the death of our mortal bodies.

In Christ alone...

 

[woobadooba]

Could we please get back on topic here. I really wanted to keep this thread between me and Tall because I would like to clear things up in regard to some of the things that he has said.

That is why it is entitled a Question For Tall73

Thanks for your cooperation.

 

[LightWorker1967]

I don't think you will find non-adventists as Biblically astute generally as many are in the adventist church.

Jim, I suspect many people have very little idea how the Bible came together. I certainly didn't earlier in my life—and am not sure how much I know now, having studied it some.

For example, I didn't realize that parts of the New Testament have such a large number of translation/transcription differences—simply because it is based on copies, of copies, of copies, of original work. This is often a surprise to people who assume there is a single "source document." Scholars suspect many of these changes/differences happened because the people (sometimes servants) who copied the documents didn't have a full grasp of the language. Others may have come about because of the personal views, bias, or agenda of the scribe copying the scrolls. To some extent, we can use textual criticism to find out when things were changed and why.

Recently, more people have thought about this because of books like Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus." My point is not endorsing Ehrman, but that I have read it—along with other works that talk about how the scriptures were formed. I certainly have different questions than I did 10 years ago. I'm just not sure how it all fits together. Every writer has their own bias—of course.

Other interesting examples include conversations about the "increasing supernatural nature of Jesus" from Mark to John and the way it appears connected to the liturgical calendar. That's quite a conversation even if you completely disagree with the conclusion.

Or the evolving role of Judas Iscariot. That's had some attention this year.

Or the "Q" document—the postulated lost textual source for Matthew or Luke. Many people on this form probably know a bunch about this one—but do most people?

I'm certainly not in a position to debate any of these. But I do find them, and other issues, interesting and helpful in understanding a bit more about how the Bible came to be.

Jim, it does seem like a lot of people skip the fundamental question about how the Bible was put together.

 

[NightEternal]

Sounds to me like someone feels guilty about not agreeing with all of the 28 and is trying to convince Tall he made the wrong choice in order to soothe thier conscience.

Tall did what he had to. He does not have to justify his choice to anyone nor does he have to tell anyone which church he is now attending.

The Trads got thier pound of apostate pastor flesh and blood. Now they should just leave him be.

Just my opinion.

 

[Sophia7]

Could we please get back on topic here. I really wanted to keep this thread between me and Tall because I would like to clear things up in regard to some of the things that he has said.

That is why it is entitled a Question For Tall73

Thanks for your cooperation.

Tall is out trying to get a job right now. He has an interview that looks pretty hopeful, and we should know more soon.

 

[JonMiller]

Adventists have to ignore much of what the Bible says where the soul/spirit of man is concerned. Science doeosn't even come close to explaining what happens after death. It's not a salvic doctrine (although the SDA church says otherwise). Salvation is still in Christ alone (not the Sabbath or man's belief systems). Most SDA's have NO IDEA what the Bible says systematically about death. And even if they did, salvation is NOT dependant on our understanding of the death of our mortal bodies.

In Christ alone...

What the Bible says about the spirit/soul of a man is contradictory. You have some verses that clearly support the adventist (or something similar) position. And you have some others (generally newer) that support the existence of a seperate soul version. Considering the hellenizing influence that happened later, I am inclined to think that that part was added in later.

Also, science sees nothing that suggests the existence of a soul. We have been able to suggests tests and experiments, and all of these hvae proven false. Additionally, the standard beleifs of those who beleive in a soul about the soul have been shown to be false. Finally, the whole philosophy that served as a basis of the idea of the soul is no longer in favor (aristotle over plato).

And you keep saying in Christ alone. But really what you mean is that without the doctrine of the Sabbath and without the doctrine of the state of the dead and in Christ (He isn't really alone then, is he?).

JM

 

[NightEternal]

Tall is out trying to get a job right now. He has an interview that looks pretty hopeful, and we should know more soon.

Really? That's great!

What's he going to be doing? Ministry related?

 

[JonMiller]

I agree that the SDA church doesn't put the emphasis it should (at times) on Christ.

But your standpoint of (Christ) and not(State of the Dead) and not(Sabbath) is just as not(Christ alone) as (Christ) and (State of the Dead) and (Sabbath).

JM

 

[freeindeed2]

What the Bible says about the spirit/soul of a man is contradictory.

It seems that way at times.

You have some verses that clearly support the adventist (or something similar) position. And you have some others (generally newer)

I don't believe there are 'newer' additions of verses to the Bible.

that support the existence of a seperate soul version. Considering the hellenizing influence that happened later, I am inclined to think that that part was added in later.

???

Which part of the Bible was 'added later'?

Also, science sees nothing that suggests the existence of a soul. We have been able to suggests tests and experiments, and all of these hvae proven false. Additionally, the standard beleifs of those who beleive in a soul about the soul have been shown to be false. Finally, the whole philosophy that served as a basis of the idea of the soul is no longer in favor (aristotle over plato).

Have you studied into Quantum Physics at all? The interconnectivity of all matter? It's amazing, and I'm NO expert! But I believe we have NO IDEA what exists beyond finite human consciousness (mind of body-mind-spirit).

And you keep saying in Christ alone. But really what you mean is that without the doctrine of the Sabbath and without the doctrine of the state of the dead and in Christ (He isn't really alone then, is he?).

Oh, he really IS! He is the way, truth, and life. There IS NO salvation apart from him. Holding the SDA version of the Jewish Sabbath or the SDA view of Soul Death does NOT bring about salvation. Sorry!

In Christ alone...(and I mean in Christ ALONE!)

 

[JonMiller]

Have you studied into Quantum Physics at all?

For 8 years. I am completing my PhD in a subfield (one could refer to it as so).

Oh, he really IS! He is the way, truth, and life. There IS NO salvation apart from him. Holding the SDA version of the Jewish Sabbath or the SDA view of Soul Death does NOT bring about salvation. Sorry!

In Christ alone...(and I mean in Christ ALONE!)

My point: NOT holding the SDA version of the Sabbath
and NOT the SDA view of the soul death does NOT bring about salvation. Yet you seem to focused on that being necessary for your version of Christ alone (and salvation).

Salvation is about Christ alone. Whether one holds that the Sabbath is true or that the soul death is true doesn't make one saved or not. That means both that holding the Sabbath as being CORRECT doesn't matter and that holding the Sabbath as being INCORRECT doesn't matter (as far as salvation).

JM

 

[Jimlarmore]

post deleted for being off topic by Jim Larmore

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[freeindeed2]

Could we please get back on topic here. I really wanted to keep this thread between me and Tall because I would like to clear things up in regard to some of the things that he has said.

That is why it is entitled a Question For Tall73

Thanks for your cooperation.

If you want to keep it between just YOU and TALL, then maybe you shouldn't have put it on a public DISCUSSION board.

 

[Sophia7]

Really? That's great!

What's he going to be doing? Ministry related?

No, just something to pay the bills. But whatever he ends up doing long-term for a job, we'll still be looking for opportunities to minister to others. And who knows? Maybe someday God will call him into pastoral ministry again.

 

[Jimlarmore]

post deleted for being off topic by Jim Larmore

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[freeindeed2]

For 8 years. I am completing my PhD in a subfield (one could refer to it as so).

Congrats! I've considered going on for mine. (only 'considered' it so far LOL!)

My point: NOT holding the SDA version of the Sabbath
and NOT the SDA view of the soul death does NOT bring about salvation.

Correct. It is NOT about that AT ALL!

Yet you seem to focused on that being necessary for your version of Christ alone (and salvation).

Absolutely not. It's in Christ alone (and my 'version' is literally 'CHRIST ALONE'.)

Salvation is about Christ alone.

Exactly.

Whether one holds that the Sabbath is true or that the soul death is true doesn't make one saved or not.

Correct. The Bible makes it clear what the Sabbath was, and it's a little hazy (systematically) about the spirit of man. But neither of these has ANYTHING to do with salvation in Christ.

That means both that holding the Sabbath as being CORRECT doesn't matter and that holding the Sabbath as being INCORRECT doesn't matter (as far as salvation).

The Sabbath is neither 'CORRECT' or 'INCORRECT'. It was the Sabbath, the sign of the old covenant. The Bible makes it crystal clear that it was the 7th day (reflective of when God rested after he finished creating, and reflective of him rescuing Israel from slavery in Egypt). There's no doubt about that. So let's not make that a point of contention.

The problem arises when some try to claim that the Christian church is bound by the sign of the old covenant, even though they are not under that covenant. And some of those who make this claim do NOT keep the Sabbath holy as it was commanded to Israel. They have their own version of it and yet call it the 'final test of loyalty to God', despite the fact that they don't keep it as it was commanded.

If you wish to consider the 7th day more 'holy' than any other day, Paul says you should be convinced in your own mind and that nobody can say otherwise. Just don't let it be a stumbling block for others.

In Christ (literally) alone (ONLY)...

 

[woobadooba]

If you want to keep it between just YOU and TALL, then maybe you shouldn't have put it on a public DISCUSSION board.

I posted it this way for the sake of anyone else that may want to follow along.

I am not the only one that has questions about this.

 

[freeindeed2]

I posted it this way for the sake of anyone else that may want to follow along.

I am not the only one that has questions about this.

It's a public forum, woob. If you don't want any other comments, then don't put it on a public forum.

 

[woobadooba]

It's a public forum, woob. If you don't want any other comments, then don't put it on a public forum.

In that case from this point on I will report all off-topic posts.

 

[NightEternal]

Aaaaaand here we go.

 

[freeindeed2]

In that case from this point on I will report all off-topic posts.

This is ON TOPIC, since you've declared you're going to make more reports in this thread!!!!!!!

You've already reported 5 of my posts in the past 24 hours, plus all of the others you've reported. Why don't you discuss, rather than make reports!???

In Christ alone...