Christianity and science .. vs.. junk-science evolutionism

[BobRyan]

Sorry, I don't have the time or interest to give you an education in science. .

Science welcome.

But junk-science fiction about the belief that "an amoeba will sure enough turn into a rabbit over time given a talented enough amoeba and a long and talented enough period of time filled with just-so stories on mount-improbable that are easy enough to tell but they are not science" - can be left at home.

And without that level of junk-science -- no Bible-bending needed.

Evolution is based on overwhelming verifiable evidence.

It is pure junk-science.

you will never catch real scientists in math/physics/observable-biology saying "These are stories easy enough to tell but they are not science".

You will never catch real scientists in math/physcis/observable-biology saying that they accept their science as a matter of faith rather than science. Or that they are being propped up with "stories easy enough to tell - but they are not science".

 

[BobRyan]

Actually, there are countless articles being published all the time, utilizing verifiable research that has improved health and well being.

And none of the actual benefits require that anyone believe that amoebas will turn into rabbits over time, in order to understand or benefit from "Real results"

 

[Wunderlust]

================== we start with the obvious

What is so obvious about the text that even Atheists can see what the text is saying

There is nothing in his statement about atheists.

 

[BobRyan]

There is nothing in his statement about atheists.

Hint "professors of Hebrew and OT studies at all world class universities"

Take for example - Bart Ehrman at Chapel Hill -- interviewed consistently by various science and history programs, author of about 30 books

"James A. Gray Distinguished Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill..."completed his M.Div. and Ph.D. degrees at Princeton Seminary, where his 1985 doctoral dissertation was awarded magna cum laude. An expert on the New Testament and the history of Early Christianity, has written or edited thirty books, numerous scholarly articles, and dozens of book reviews. In addition to works of scholarship, Professor Ehrman has written several textbooks for undergraduate students and trade books for general audiences. Five of his books have been on the New York Times Bestseller list: Misquoting Jesus; God’s Problem; Jesus Interrupted; Forged; and How Jesus Became God. His books have been translated into twenty-seven languages."

 

[BobRyan]

Since you got me looking into this ...

The late - Will Provine -
"Provine is a historian of science specializing in population biology and the Modern Synthesis in evolutionary theory. He has published the definitive study of the distinguished geneticist, Sewall Wright. A Tennessee native educated at the Unviersity of Chicago, he is Distinguished University Professor at Cornell University, where he holds appointments in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, the Department of History, and the Department of Science and Technology Studies. Provine, who is a hard determinist as well as an atheist, rejects all forms of teleology in biology and claims that “evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.”

==========================
He is right on two counts.

1. It was invented - a story "made up".
2. It is an "engine for atheism" -- possibly the greatest engine for atheism. (Though clearly it does not work "instantaneously" to produce atheists)

Were we just "not supposed to notice"???

 

[Paul Yohannan]

================== we start with the obvious

What is so obvious about the text that even Atheists can see what the text is saying

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’


========================= obvious detail #2 -- legal code applied to humans at Sinai


In the Bible we have this "legal code" -

Ex 20:8-11 "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy - SIX days you shall labor... For in SIX days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

Gen 2:1-3
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made
=============================================

Continuity -

It is very clear that Christ, the Jews of Christ's day and those of today - followed that same Ex 20:8-11 command so much so that they continue to keep the Bible 7th day Sabbath and even Christians who claim that 2000 years ago Christ was raised on week-day-1 keep Sunday as week-day-1 affirming the same 7 day cycle with Saturday as the 7th day.

=================================================

So now then -- ignoring every detail posted so far -- we have



The idea proposed for us to imagine there is that James Barr and all professors of world class universities are people who " take a literal, Antiochene interpretation of the Old Testament to the point that they deny even the spherical nature of the world, while at the same time insisting on an interpretation of the New Testament, which is of immediate immanent relevance as the literal encounter of man with God incarnate"



It is never silly to start with -- the obvious when it comes to admitting to the Bible's 7 day creation week in Genesis 1-2:3.

But if your statement is that it is silly to imagine the wild fiction that James Barr and those other professors would need to deny a round earth if they admitted that the Genesis -1-2 describes a 7 day week -- well then ... that too is an obvious point.



Your distance from "the actual details" -- noted.

It has never been claimed that those atheist and agnostic professors "Believe Genesis" -- rather it is claimed that they "know what it says" and - as Hebrew literature can easily see the intent of the author.

Again... "The obvious".



Just not in real life.

In real life he is a diehard evolutionist. And is claim about his peers in all the world-class universities - is speaking about athiests and agnostics.

Very frequently, atheist professors do adhere to a literalist, Antiochene interpretation of the kind rejected by the Holy Church since the Council of Ephesus in 433 AD because such a caricature of Christianity Antiochene literalism engenders is easier to mock. Just look at the Christian Apologetics forum, wherein not one of our atheist interlocutors bothers to look up the prevailing and lawful, mystical and allegorical interpretation of the text following from the holy and god fearing catechtical school of Alexandria, but instead, resorts to such a literalism as would be chortled at even by the extremist Antiochene exegetes who fled and re-established themselves in Nisibis after the Third Ecumenical Council.

 

[BobRyan]

Very frequently, atheist professors do adhere to a literalist, Antiochene interpretation of the kind rejected by the Holy Church since the Council of Ephesus in 433 AD because such a caricature of Christianity Antiochene literalism engenders is easier to mock. .

Mocking the literal virgin birth, bodily resurrection of Christ, literal bodily ascension of Christ into heaven and the 7 day creation week of Genesis 1-2 was never favored by the NT church. And we all know it.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Mocking the literal virgin birth, bodily resurrection of Christ, literal bodily ascension of Christ into heaven and the 7 day creation week of Genesis 1-2 was never favored by the NT church. And we all know it.

The literal truth of the Virgin Birth, the perpetual virginity of St. Mary even after giving birth, the bodily death, resurrection and ascension of Christ, and the literal physical change of the bread and wine in the divine liturgy of the Eucharist into the actual body and blood of our Lord, were always believed in, as was the very Godhood of Christ himself (see: John).

However, the 7 day creation week was never an important doctrine of the early church; this was simply what the Jewish scriptures said, but from the start, with the clarity provided by Christianity, the holy fathers of the God-protected patriarchate of Alexandria, established by St. Mark the Evangelist and home to Sts. Athanasius and Cyril, the foremost defendera of the Church against Arianism and Nestorianism, were able to read into the Old Testament Christological interpretations and began to view it for what it was: prophecy, as opposed to the kernel of a vast, overarching law code which the Pharisees worshipped instead of God.

 

[BobRyan]

The literal truth of the Virgin Birth, the perpetual virginity of St. Mary even after giving birth, the bodily death, resurrection and ascension of Christ,

All in the Bible

and the literal physical change of the bread and wine in the divine liturgy of the Eucharist into the actual body and blood of our Lord,

No such thing as that in the actual Bible any more than "I am the door" was "the literal change of the body of Christ into a wooden door". As we all know.

were always believed in, as was the very Godhood of Christ himself (see: John).

Indeed - the NT writers were "Creation-ists, virgin-birth-ists, bodily-resurrection-ists, ..."

However, the 7 day creation week was never an important doctrine

Until you read the actual Bible and see that it is in "legal code" in Ex 20:11 it is in Hebrews 4 - " “And God rested on the seventh day from all His works” and we have Sabbath after Sabbath after Sabbath Gospel services in Acts 17:4 -- and "every Sabbath" Gospel preaching in Acts 18:4.

Rev 14:12 "The saints KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus"

Even the OT predicts post-cross NT keeping of the Sabbath by all mankind "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship" Is 66:23

While Christ himself says in the NT "the Sabbath was MADE for mankind and not mankind MADE for the Sabbath" speaking of the "making" of both in Genesis 1-2:3.

John begins his Gospel with the Genesis 1-2 fact of creation.



Is it your argument that if we ignore the actual Bible - we simply "will not notice this detail".

hint: the NT church IS the "early church"!!

 

[BobRyan]

The T.E. argument that the Bible is myth and fables - is denied by NT writers

False doctrine teaches that the Bible is myth in Genesis 1-2
False doctrine teaches that Bible legal code is myth in Ex 20:11
False doctrine teaches that there was no actual Adam and Eve created by God from the dust of the ground - sinless , perfect, adults.

2 Peter 1
16 For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17 For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” 18 And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.

1 Tim 1
3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia—remain in Ephesus that you may charge some that they teach no other doctrine, 4 nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith. 5 Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith, 6 from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk, 7 desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm.

Titus 1
13 This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, 14 not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth.

2 Tim 3:16 "ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God AND is to be used for doctrine"

2 Peter 1:21 " holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit"

===============================

Are you a literal "virgin-birth-ist"?
a literal "bodily resurrection-ist"?
a literal "ascension into heaven-ist"?
a literal "7 day creation-ist"?

or do you say that since none of that is reproduced by tiny mankind - in the lab -- then none of it happened "in real history"?

==========================================
2+2 = 4 ... is NOT "a matter of interpretation".

God can say something that is accurate, correct, and understandable - and so with "literal virgin birth" and "literal bodily resurrection of Christ" and "literal bodily ascension of Christ" and "literal 7 day creation week"

In the Bible we have this "legal code" -

Ex 20:8-11 "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy - SIX days you shall labor... For in SIX days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

Gen 2:1-3
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made

No such language found in even ONE of evolutionism's 'texts' to state that particular "belief".

As for "the obvious" it is not merely Bible believing Christians that notice it.

Turns out ---

Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject what it says. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

 

[BobRyan]

False doctrine teaches that the Bible is myth in Genesis 1-8
False doctrine teaches that Bible legal code is myth in Ex 20:11
False doctrine teaches that there was no actual Adam and Eve created by God from the dust of the ground - sinless , perfect, adults.


Luke 3:38
the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Romans 5:14
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

1 Corinthians 15:22
For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

1 Corinthians 15:45
So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

1 Timothy 2:13
For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.

1 Timothy 2:14
And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Jude 1:14
It was also about these men that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones,


Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

 

[BobRyan]

home to Sts. Athanasius and Cyril, the foremost defendera of the Church against Arianism and Nestorianism, were able to read into the Old Testament Christological interpretations and began to view it for what it was: prophecy, as opposed to the kernel of a vast, overarching law code which the Pharisees worshipped instead of God .

Read the actual Bible instead - starting with Mark 7:6-13

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Read the actual Bible instead - starting with Mark 7:6-13

What do you suppose I have been reading, if not the actual Bible? Do you suggest that I and my coreligionists extract our exegesis from thin air, or from pagan scripture?

I generally read the King James Version for the New Testament and use it or the Douay Rheims and a Septuagint for a comparative study of the old. I trust the Douay Rheims translation of the Vulgate translation of the Hebrew scriptures more than I trust the late Protestant translations of the Masoretic text, because I believe the Masoretes did in some cases suppress obvious Christological prophecy (for which I cannot fault them; I would expect a Christian translation on the other hand to emphasize).

I would rather start at John 1:1-17, which describes the incarnation of God, and then proceed to 1 Corinthians 11, in which our incarnate God, Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the only begotten son of the Father, begotten, not made, before all ages, instituted the Holy Eucharist, as described in John 6.

I might also like to read the Evangelical Camticles in Luke 1-2, such as the Magnificat, in which the virgin Mary expresses her joy that all generations will call her blessed.

Curiously I don't see you quote these vital passages of scripture much, nor do I see you quote "By their fruits ye shall know them," Galatians 1:8, or 2 Thessalonians 2:15, which specifically upholds the role of sacred tradition, or for that matter, Matthew 28:19, which defines the Great Commission.

Do you hold to the view that these verses somehow do not comprise the "actual Bible"?

It seems to me to be completely arbitrary to say that our Lord was speaking metaphorically when he said "This is my body" and "This is my blood" while at the same time insisting on a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 which is in fact anachronistic.

Consider, for example, that for the ancient and indeed contemporary practitioners of Judaism (and Orthodox Christianity), a day is not a 24 hour period, but rather, the eve of a day is reckoned to begin at the sunset of the previous day (vespers or evening prayer), there are the three watches of the night, and the day proper begins with the rising of the sun in the first hour, but strictly speaking, Saturday begins at sunset on Friday. If memory serves even the SDA acknowledges this.

This was also in general how most ancient cultures reckoned the concept of a day.

The Bible was written in that ancient culture. So how does the first day of creation fit in?

In fact, it doesn't; the true First Day is Pascha Sunday, the Eighth Day upon which our Lord rose from the Tomb having reposed following His crucifixion.

John 1:1-17 radically redefines the context of Genesis 1 and re-explains it. Genesis 1 describes, in simplified, allegorical terminology, the creation of the cosmos, whereas John 1 describes in precise terminology its recreation by the Son of God, our Saviour.

It is upon this re-creation that we must focus, because we will be raised incorruptible, but those of us who are unprepared through repentance will experience God's perfect love as a consuming fire. Staring through the uncreated light of Tabor and being able to perceive through the blindinf glare the face of Moses or the other saints so illumined, or our incarnate Word of God Himself, is no mean feat.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

All in the Bible



No such thing as that in the actual Bible any more than "I am the door" was "the literal change of the body of Christ into a wooden door". As we all know.

Our Lord is actually a doorway, but he did not describe himself as a door. On the other hand, He did explicitly say of the bread and wine that it was his body and blood, and in John 6 caused many of his disciples to desert him by saying that they must literally eat his flesh and drink his blood.

Likewise, we literally pass through our Lord as if he were a gateway when we partake of the Eucharist and enter into communion not just with Him but with the Father, the Spirit and all the saints.

But our Lord did not say "wooden" so this is a red herring.

The Church always believed in the Eucharist; we know this from the writings of St. Ignatius and St. Justin Martyr, whereas we find much less Patristic commentary on Genesis 1.

Indeed - the NT writers were "Creation-ists, virgin-birth-ists, bodily-resurrection-ists, ..."



Until you read the actual Bible and see that it is in "legal code" in Ex 20:11 it is in Hebrews 4 - " “And God rested on the seventh day from all His works” and we have Sabbath after Sabbath after Sabbath Gospel services in Acts 17:4 -- and "every Sabbath" Gospel preaching in Acts 18:4.

Rev 14:12 "The saints KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus"

Even the OT predicts post-cross NT keeping of the Sabbath by all mankind "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship" Is 66:23

While Christ himself says in the NT "the Sabbath was MADE for mankind and not mankind MADE for the Sabbath" speaking of the "making" of both in Genesis 1-2:3.

John begins his Gospel with the Genesis 1-2 fact of creation.



Is it your argument that if we ignore the actual Bible - we simply "will not notice this detail".

hint: the NT church IS the "early church"!!

No; there was no "great apostasy" and there is no distinction between the Church of the New Testament and the Church as it existed when St. Ignatius was fed to the lions; St. John the Apostle was either still alive or had only just reposed! Nor is there any distinction between that Church and the Orthodox.

Ellen G. White was simply unaware of our existence, which renders her 1260 years prophecy even more irrelevant (since as has been pointed out, if she had aligned it properly, she would have started the clock at either Chalcedon or Gregory the Great in 600 AD, and stopped it at either Trent or the fall of the Papal States in the 1860s).

But that the entire Eastern church existed during that time outside of Papal control renders the entire theory moot.

Now, I propose that if adventists really cared about Sola Scriptura, they would not continually seek to uphold the demonstrably fallible prophecies of Ellen White as infallible.

It seems somewhat hypocritical to attack us for adhering to the ancient traditions of the early Church, like the Eucharist (traditions can be justified on the basis of 2 Thessalonians 2:15), while demanding that every word in Ellen G White's oft-revised works be regarded as inspired prophecy.

 

[thecolorsblend]

No; there was no "great apostasy" and there is no distinction between the Church of the New Testament and the Church as it existed when St. Ignatius was fed to the lions; St. John the Apostle was either still alive or had only just reposed! Nor is there any distinction between that Church and the Orthodox.

There are five pages to this thread so forgive me if this has been tackled already.

However, one question I typically have with Protestants is that they seem to mostly believe the Early Church was mostly doctrinally right most of the time... mostly. This would appear to be BobRyan's estimation. And Bob, if I'm mistaken about that, please do correct me.

My one question then is precisely when did the Church descend into what I presume was error and heresy of so apparently great a magnitude that it required God's intervention vis a vis Ellen G. White's visions, prophecies and so forth?

Did it happen in 100AD? 250? 350? 800? When was it? What was the straw that broke the camel's back regarding error and heresy in the Church's doctrinal teachings?

And although you touched on this same in your post, in my opinion it bears repeating to ask why the Eastern Churches (which I use in a very general sense here to encompass "anything that isn't specifically Roman Catholic") were seemingly left out in the cold.

One could argue, I suppose, that Adventists were meant to evangelize "the true faith". But then that raises the question of why they have been so spectacularly unsuccessful in doing so. I would be the first to admit that evangelizing other parts of the world is no easy task. And yet the Early Church had begun that process by the middle of the first century.

Mind you, they were evangelizing abject pagans. This, I should imagine, would be the more difficult objective as one would think evangelizing those with something of a Christian worldview (as Adventists are presumably tasked with doing) to be a degree or two simpler in complexity.

And yet the task has eluded Adventists. Why?

I am always reluctant to identify winners and losers based on membership numbers. But the Adventists apparent lack of progress in the last century and a half surely raises eyebrows, does it not? By this equivalent point in history, the Early Church had reached into Europe and had made specific, measurable progress in converting Rome. True, that exact achievement was still another century and a half'ish away from completion. Not the point. The point is progress was being made.

So why haven't the Adventists had greater success (or at least made greater efforts) with respect to evangelization? For that matter, if their teachings are so manifestly true as to be indisputable, why aren't they a stronger force to be reckoned with even in their own home country? A lot of people have heard of Adventism but it's the one in 100 who knows what they believe and how Adventism differ from their own beliefs.

Again, we can't identify truth vs. heresy based upon a democratic majority. My only point is there's been an alarming lack of progress from the Adventists. Say whatever you want about the Moslems but they at least understood they had to pick up the sword when they started losing the argument.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

There are five pages to this thread so forgive me if this has been tackled already.

However, one question I typically have with Protestants is that they seem to mostly believe the Early Church was mostly doctrinally right most of the time... mostly. This would appear to be BobRyan's estimation. And Bob, if I'm mistaken about that, please do correct me.

My one question then is precisely when did the Church descend into what I presume was error and heresy of so apparently great a magnitude that it required God's intervention vis a vis Ellen G. White's visions, prophecies and so forth?

Did it happen in 100AD? 250? 350? 800? When was it? What was the straw that broke the camel's back regarding error and heresy in the Church's doctrinal teachings?

And although you touched on this same in your post, in my opinion it bears repeating to ask why the Eastern Churches (which I use in a very general sense here to encompass "anything that isn't specifically Roman Catholic") were seemingly left out in the cold.

One could argue, I suppose, that Adventists were meant to evangelize "the true faith". But then that raises the question of why they have been so spectacularly unsuccessful in doing so. I would be the first to admit that evangelizing other parts of the world is no easy task. And yet the Early Church had begun that process by the middle of the first century.

Mind you, they were evangelizing abject pagans. This, I should imagine, would be the more difficult objective as one would think evangelizing those with something of a Christian worldview (as Adventists are presumably tasked with doing) to be a degree or two simpler in complexity.

And yet the task has eluded Adventists. Why?

I am always reluctant to identify winners and losers based on membership numbers. But the Adventists apparent lack of progress in the last century and a half surely raises eyebrows, does it not? By this equivalent point in history, the Early Church had reached into Europe and had made specific, measurable progress in converting Rome. True, that exact achievement was still another century and a half'ish away from competition. Not the point. The point is progress was being made.

So why haven't the Adventists had greater success (or at least made greater efforts) with respect to evangelization? For that matter, if their teachings are so manifestly true as to be indisputable, why aren't they a stronger force to be reckoned with even in their own home country? A lot of people have heard of Adventism but it's the one in 100 who knows what they believe and how Adventism differ from their own beliefs.

Again, we can't identify truth vs. heresy based upon a democratic majority. My only point is there's been an alarming lack of progress from the Adventists. Say whatever you want about the Moslems but they at least understood they had to pick up the sword when they started losing the argument.

On this point by the way, one member of the Admiralty is acquainted with a Persian Armenian family who was converted to Adventism from the Armenian church in the 1940s by the use of a commercial stage magic trick available at the time "off the shelf" in the US but quite astonishing in the simpler, more credulous culture of Iran during the declining years of the western-backed monarchy. This family later had some unpleasant experiences which resulted in them leaving in part, I am told.

Now granted, this is hearsay, but its fairly shocking hearsay, because aside from so-called Gospel Magic, I have not heard of any other cases of missionaries using magic tricks to convert members from one Christian denomination to another. I don't know if it happened, but I would feel very much at ease if some SDA member could provide a detailed accounting of SDA missionary activity in Iran during that time, including who the major missionaries were, so that I could look into this to see if the story is credible or not. Its also possible the person in question was not part of the regular SDA church, but a member of one of the non-Trinitarian branches that broke away from the Ellen G. White movement, and I suspect and hope that was the case, with the family in question winding up in the Trinitarian, SDA Adventist church which is properly Christian in the chaos of their exile from Iran in the 1970s when the Ayatollah seized power.

Now, on this point, these days membership in the Armenian Orthodox church is largely an attribute of Armenian ethnicity per se, but at the time, the Armenian church in Persia was vulnerable because their clergy were not well educated in apologetics or homiletics; they were very good at liturgics, but then as now, the Armenian church does everything in Classical Armenian, which is very difficult for Iranian Armenians to understand. Nowadays there are programmes and so on like RC hand missals, but the Armenians, like the Ethiopians and the Ge'ez language, stuck it out with a pure liturgical language, whereas my church and the Copts used and continue to use our liturgical languages alongside Arabic, Malayalam, English and other vernacular languages as indicated. This did for a time expose Armenians amd Ethiopians to being easy targets for unscrupulous missionary activity by the JWs, Mormons and a range of other groups.

 

[thecolorsblend]

They used toy magic tricks to win converts? That's just sad. St. Patrick did his work by pointing to clovers as a metaphor of the Holy Trinity.

But Adventists have toys for children, which is nice, I guess.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

They used toy magic tricks to win converts? That's just sad. St. Patrick did his work by pointing to clovers as a metaphor of the Holy Trinity.

But Adventists have toys for children, which is nice, I guess.

Specifically what the other member of the Admiralty reported is that the matriarch of the family reported seeing the breath of the evangelist change in colour from red to green as he spoke as if by miracle, amd it happens there are several magic tricks that use phosphorus and other chemicals to achieve such an effect, which were well known in the 1940s.

But right now, its hearsay, and I doubt/hope/assume these were not SDA missionaries but were from one of the non-Trinitarian breakaway groups. Because I have met SDA missionaries and clergy and none of them would have engaged in such evil. Actually I have known several SDA clergymen and former clergymen (one became convinced it was absurd, became an atheist but remained a psychologist, alneit with quite a bad drinks problem, which perhaps contributed to his apostasy from the Christian faith and the SDA church, which is very much in line with what the Methodists used to be like in terms of its view on alcohol), and they all have been decent and honourable chaps.

So pending further updates, my thought is it was someone who either did not work for the SDA or was a bad apple, or perhaps the family member who reported the visual effect imagined it, and it merely coincidentally resembled stage magic.

 

[BobRyan]

The literal truth of the Virgin Birth, the perpetual virginity of St. Mary even after giving birth, the bodily death, resurrection and ascension of Christ,

All in the Bible

and the literal physical change of the bread and wine in the divine liturgy of the Eucharist into the actual body and blood of our Lord,

No such thing as that in the actual Bible any more than "I am the door" was "the literal change of the body of Christ into a wooden door". As we all know.

were always believed in, as was the very Godhood of Christ himself (see: John).

Indeed - the NT writers were "Creation-ists, virgin-birth-ists, bodily-resurrection-ists, ..."

However, the 7 day creation week was never an important doctrine

Until you read the actual Bible and see that it is in "legal code" in Ex 20:11 it is in Hebrews 4 - " “And God rested on the seventh day from all His works” and we have Sabbath after Sabbath after Sabbath Gospel services in Acts 17:4 -- and "every Sabbath" Gospel preaching in Acts 18:4.

Rev 14:12 "The saints KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus"

Even the OT predicts post-cross NT keeping of the Sabbath by all mankind "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship" Is 66:23

While Christ himself says in the NT "the Sabbath was MADE for mankind and not mankind MADE for the Sabbath" speaking of the "making" of both in Genesis 1-2:3.

John begins his Gospel with the Genesis 1-2 fact of creation.



Is it your argument that if we ignore the actual Bible - we simply "will not notice this detail".

hint: the NT church IS the "early church"!!

=======================

So then we begin with -

No such thing as that in the actual Bible any more than "I am the door" was "the literal change of the body of Christ into a wooden door". As we all know.

7 So Jesus said to them again, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. 8 All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. 9 I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. 10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.

Our Lord is actually a doorway, but he did not describe himself as a door.

He did not say "I am the doorway"

9 I am the door;

Yet symbolic

On the other hand, He did explicitly say of the bread and wine that it was his body and blood

1. He said in that same chapter that eating "literal flesh is worthless" when it comes to eternal life -

2. Nobody in John 6 "bites Christ" not even the faithFUL disciples.

3. He does not say that he "WILL some day in the future be bread coming down out of heaven" -- but rather He already WAS the bread that CAME down out of heaven.

Those who think this is not a symbol - but rather... that bread was floating down out of the sky called the Son of God - raise your hands.

The point remains.

Details matter.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Indeed - the NT writers were "Creation-ists, virgin-birth-ists, bodily-resurrection-ists, ..."
....

hint: the NT church IS the "early church"!!

No; there was no "great apostasy"

Until you read the actual Bible. 2Thess 2 comes to mind.

Ellen G. White was simply unaware of our existence
, which renders her 1260 years prophecy

1. Ellen White never made a 1260 year prophecy.
2. Daniel 7 was not written by Ellen White - neither was Rev 11, 12,13 written by Ellen White.

Blaming Ellen White for what you find in the Bible - is not reasonable.

the entire Eastern church existed during that time outside of Papal control

The schism between the east and west took place about 1000 A.D. -- in the middle of that 1260 years of dark ages persecution of the saints.

Speaking of apostasy - aren't you supposed to be discussion your faith in evolutionism on this thread??

in Christ,

Bob