Please forgive if this comes off as a foolish question.

[Pythons]

Sent, I let that one slip by me and was preparing a statement about how later in the same book Ellen was clear that God was a bright light contrasted with Jesus' "human" face. To me, 100% of the voilation is rejection of the Trinity. Dumping new meanings into old Establshed terms is something I'm getting used to dealing with certain people.



I had some questions answered about, 'the dead know not anything' answered from this as well.

What get's me serp is why would the SDA Church offically state they accepted the Eternal Sonship of Christ?

 

[RND]

Nope?

Yep, nope.

You don't believe He always existed?

Sure I do. Just not in "human bodily form" prior to the incarnation.

The body in which He ascended was a glorified body.

Yep.

How do you determine Biblically what the limitations of a glorified body are?

I haven't nor don't. As far as I know, there are no "physical" limitations of a glorified body.

Does your understanding of your mortal earthly body influence what you believe a glorified body is?

No. The two aren't the same thing. One is mortal, made of flesh and corruptable, the other isn't.

When you say He descended to Earth as a spirit what exactly are you referring to?

That He didn't come to Earth in the form of man, He was "born," "made," and "fashioned" like a man.

1 Jo 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

God in flesh.

Luk 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

God came to earth in the most supernatural way imaginable.

 

[Eila]

Yep, nope.



Sure I do. Just not in "human bodily form" prior to the incarnation.



Yep.



I haven't nor don't. As far as I know, there are no "physical" limitations of a glorified body.



No. The two aren't the same thing. One is mortal, made of flesh and corruptable, the other isn't.



That He didn't come to Earth in the form of man, He was "born," "made," and "fashioned" like a man.

1 Jo 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

God in flesh.

Luk 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

God came to earth in the most supernatural way imaginable.

Sorry, I'm a little confused. What about my original statement are you disagreeing with? What are you saying "nope" to? For reference this is what I had said "His Earthly body was born on Earth, but He pre-existed that body. He was not born in Heaven, but has always existed."

 

[RND]

Sorry, I'm a little confused. What about my original statement are you disagreeing with? What are you saying "nope" to?

He pre-existed that body.

I believe Jesus came to earth in "God form" i.e. spirtually but was "born" physically as a man. Do you see the difference?

For reference this is what I had said "His Earthly body was born on Earth, but He pre-existed that body. He was not born in Heaven, but has always existed."

Yep, you said that and for the most part I agree. I just don't believe Jesus "pre-existed" in an earthly body. I guess when you say "...He pre-existed that body..." it would be fair to ask if you are referring to it being "earthly" in Heaven?

If so then I would disagree. I certainly that Jesus pre-existed. Always has been, always was, always will be. But just not in a "human" or "earthly" bodily form.

Hope that's a little clearer ella.

 

[Eila]

I believe Jesus came to earth in "God form" i.e. spirtually but was "born" physically as a man. Do you see the difference?



Yep, you said that and for the most part I agree. I just don't believe Jesus "pre-existed" in an earthly body. I guess when you say "...He pre-existed that body..." it would be fair to ask if you are referring to it being "earthly" in Heaven?

If so then I would disagree. I certainly that Jesus pre-existed. Always has been, always was, always will be. But just not in a "human" or "earthly" bodily form.

Hope that's a little clearer ella.

I think we agree on that point then. He pre-existed, but not in an earthly body.

 

[RND]

I think we agree on that point then. He pre-existed, but not in an earthly body.

I agree!

Also, I wanted to add that I think the "spiritual" body that Jesus came to earth with, that allowed Him to be born as a man, is different than His glorified body that He ascended back to Heaven with. And that is what's so cool about God. Jesus has and returned to heaven in what we are promised to have one day, a glorified body!

 

[JohnT]

Nope. He ascended in bodily form, but decended to earth as spirit. When Christ came to earth it forever changed the nature of of God's bodily form.

This can not be proved by using Scripture alone!

You must have another, greater source? could it be _____? Nah, I won't try to taunt you or run down someone, but if it ain't in Scripture, or directly supported by Scripture, it ain't true,

I have been upgrading my 'puter, so I have been off the site, and not responding.

 

[sentipente]

Nope. He ascended in bodily form, but decended to earth as spirit. When Christ came to earth it forever changed the nature of of God's bodily form.

Where did you get this piece of inside information?

 

[RND]

This can not be proved by using Scripture alone!

Sure it can John. Common sense plays a huge part as well.

You must have another, greater source? could it be _____? Nah, I won't try to taunt you or run down someone, but if it ain't in Scripture, or directly supported by Scripture, it ain't true,

Well, taunting would be a rules viloation so it's a good thing you choose not to go there. In respect to something being untrue if it isn't supported by scripture I agree.

BTW John you should have alot of experience with that being a huge defender of Catholicism and all. Maybe you'd care to elaborate of some of these things not found in scripture:

1) The kissing of the Pope's feet

It had been a pagan custom to kiss the feet of emperors. The Word of God forbids such practices. (Read Acts 10:25-26; Revelation 19:10; 22:9).

2) Worship of the cross, images and relics was authorized

This was by order of Dowager Empress Irene of Constantinople, who first caused to pluck the eyes of her own son, Constantine VI, and then called a church council at the request of Hadrian I, pope of Rome at that time.

Such practice is called simply IDOLATRY in the Bible, and is severely condemned. (Read Exodus 20:4; 3:17; Deuteronomy 27:15; Psalm 115).

3) The baptism of bells was instituted by Pope John XIV

4) The Rosary, or prayer beads was introduced by Peter the Hermit, in the year 1090. Copied from Hindus and Mohammedans

The counting of prayers is a pagan practice and is expressly condemned by Christ. (Matthew 6:5-13).

5) The sale of Indulgences, commonly regarded as a purchase of forgiveness and a permit to indulge in sin.

Christianity, as taught in the Bible, condemns such a traffic and it was the protest against this traffic that brought on the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century.

6) The adoration of the wafer (Host), was decreed by Pope Honorius

So the Roman Church worships a God made by human hands. This is plain idolatry and absolutely contrary to the spirit of the Gospel. (Read John 4:24).

7) The doctrine of Purgatory was proclaimed as a dogma of faith by Council of Florence

There is not one word in the Bible that would teach the purgatory of priests. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sins. (Read 1st John 1:7-9; 2:1-2; John 5:24; Romans 8:1).

8) The Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary was proclaimed by Pope Pius IX

The Bible states that all men, with the sole exception of Christ, are sinners. Mary herself had need of a Savior. (Read Romans 3:23; 5:12; Psalm 51:5; Luke 1:30,46,47).

9) Holy Water, mixed with a pinch of salt and blessed by the priest.

10) The baptism of bells was instituted by Pope John XIV

 

[reddogs]

Sure it can John. Common sense plays a huge part as well.



Well, taunting would be a rules viloation so it's a good thing you choose not to go there. In respect to something being untrue if it isn't supported by scripture I agree.

BTW John you should have alot of experience with that being a huge defender of Catholicism and all. Maybe you'd care to elaborate of some of these things not found in scripture:

1) The kissing of the Pope's feet

It had been a pagan custom to kiss the feet of emperors. The Word of God forbids such practices. (Read Acts 10:25-26; Revelation 19:10; 22:9).

2) Worship of the cross, images and relics was authorized

This was by order of Dowager Empress Irene of Constantinople, who first caused to pluck the eyes of her own son, Constantine VI, and then called a church council at the request of Hadrian I, pope of Rome at that time.

Such practice is called simply IDOLATRY in the Bible, and is severely condemned. (Read Exodus 20:4; 3:17; Deuteronomy 27:15; Psalm 115).

3) The baptism of bells was instituted by Pope John XIV

4) The Rosary, or prayer beads was introduced by Peter the Hermit, in the year 1090. Copied from Hindus and Mohammedans

The counting of prayers is a pagan practice and is expressly condemned by Christ. (Matthew 6:5-13).

5) The sale of Indulgences, commonly regarded as a purchase of forgiveness and a permit to indulge in sin.

Christianity, as taught in the Bible, condemns such a traffic and it was the protest against this traffic that brought on the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century.

6) The adoration of the wafer (Host), was decreed by Pope Honorius

So the Roman Church worships a God made by human hands. This is plain idolatry and absolutely contrary to the spirit of the Gospel. (Read John 4:24).

7) The doctrine of Purgatory was proclaimed as a dogma of faith by Council of Florence

There is not one word in the Bible that would teach the purgatory of priests. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sins. (Read 1st John 1:7-9; 2:1-2; John 5:24; Romans 8:1).

8) The Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary was proclaimed by Pope Pius IX

The Bible states that all men, with the sole exception of Christ, are sinners. Mary herself had need of a Savior. (Read Romans 3:23; 5:12; Psalm 51:5; Luke 1:30,46,47).

9) Holy Water, mixed with a pinch of salt and blessed by the priest.

10) The baptism of bells was instituted by Pope John XIV

People have to study the history of where these things came from and then its clear its not from scripture.....

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Sure it can John. Common sense plays a huge part as well.

Should we base doctrinal positions on "common sense?" What happens if my common sense and your common sense leads us to different conclusions? Should we then determine that your common sense is superior to mine?

I'm with John. If it ain't in Scripture, we should NOT base a system of theology on it.

Let's start with the claim made by many SDAs that man started observing a sabbath before sin entered the world. Is this conclusion based on "common sense" or Scripture? Is common sense a sound basis for a theological position?

BFA

 

[RND]

Should we base doctrinal positions on "common sense?"

Yep.

Isa 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

What happens if my common sense and your common sense leads us to different conclusions?

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, [it is] because [there is] no light in them.

Should we then determine that your common sense is superior to mine?

OK.

I'm with John. If it ain't in Scripture, we should NOT base a system of theology on it.

Let's start with the claim made by many SDAs that man started observing a sabbath before sin entered the world.

This isn't just an SDA claim. In an article I posted on the main board "Dwight L. Moody, one of America's great Protestant evangelists of the 19th century, noted the omission in his book, "Weighed and Wanting."

"The Sabbath was binding in Eden, and it has been in force ever since," he wrote. "The fourth commandment begins with the word 'remember,' showing that the Sabbath already existed when God wrote the law on the tablets of stone at Sinai. How can men claim that this one commandment has been done away with when they will admit that the other nine are still binding?"

Is this conclusion based on "common sense" or Scripture?

Both.

Is common sense a sound basis for a theological position?

Well, God did give us minds and heads to hold those minds. We should use those heads for more than holding our favorite ball caps.

 

[RND]

People have to study the history of where these things came from and then its clear its not from scripture.....

Agreed.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Isa 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, [it is] because [there is] no light in them.

If one were to apply these texts, one would have to conclude that any "common sense" that contradicts Scripture isn't really "common sense" at all. Therefore, we should not base theology on "common sense," but rather on the word of God.

In an article I posted on the main board "Dwight L. Moody, one of America's great Protestant evangelists of the 19th century, noted the omission in his book, "Weighed and Wanting."

Do you conclude that Dwight L. Moody is inspired? Should his writings be canonized?

"The fourth commandment begins with the word 'remember,' showing that the Sabbath already existed when God wrote the law on the tablets of stone at Sinai."

This is a documented fact. The sabbath was given to Israelites in Exodus 16.

How can men claim that this one commandment has been done away with when they will admit that the other nine are still binding?

How can men claim that certain laws have been fulfilled and others have not when Christ Himself taught that not one jot or tittle shall pass until ALL has been fulfilled.

BFA

 

[Eila]

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, [it is] because [there is] no light in them.

I've heard SDA's quote this verse often and I wonder why. Do they realize the Hebrew word for law here is "torah" and not 10 commandments? Does SDA theology agree that all the commands of the torah are binding on them today?

 

[RND]

I've heard SDA's quote this verse often and I wonder why. Do they realize the Hebrew word for law here is "torah" and not 10 commandments?

I do. But we need to keep in mind Ella the general nature of the term "torah." It mean quite a few things not simply referring to the Mosaic covenant.

Does SDA theology agree that all the commands of the torah are binding on them today?

Just the one's not nailed to the cross.

 

[sentipente]

"To the law and to the testimony" is simply an ancient way of saying "I give you my word." Nothing in the text suggest what people teach must be in line with "the law and the testimony." The focus was on "this word."

 

[Eila]

I do. But we need to keep in mind Ella the general nature of the term "torah." It mean quite a few things not simply referring to the Mosaic covenant.

Where do you get your understanding of what the torah is?

Just the one's not nailed to the cross.

I understand this the SDA position. However, quoting the "to the torah...." text makes no sense to me in light of the SDA position that some of the laws were nailed to the cross..

 

[RND]

If one were to apply these texts, one would have to conclude that any "common sense" that contradicts Scripture isn't really "common sense" at all. Therefore, we should not base theology on "common sense," but rather on the word of God.

Hey, suit yourself. But I don't think God is looking for the blind leading the blind.

Do you conclude that Dwight L. Moody is inspired?

Did I say or suggest such a thing? Nope. Just let you know that Adventists aren't the only one's who believed the sabbath was binding in Eden.

Should his writings be canonized?

You're kidding right?

This is a documented fact. The sabbath was given to Israelites in Exodus 16.

Really? Then why were the gentiles with them required to follow it as well?

How can men claim that certain laws have been fulfilled and others have not when Christ Himself taught that not one jot or tittle shall pass until ALL has been fulfilled.

By not ignoring the totality of the Gospels.

Luke 24:44 ¶ And he (Jesus) said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me.

What was fulfilled again? Did "all" the law in the law of Moses concern Jesus? What about the prophecies? The Psalms?

 

[RND]

Where do you get your understanding of what the torah is?

Scripture and translation.

I understand this the SDA position.

You do.

However, quoting the "to the torah...." text makes no sense to me in light of the SDA position that some of the laws were nailed to the cross..

Sure, I get that. Now we just have to determine what was nailed to the cross.