How much of Scripture is inspired?

[John317]

I will give you my answers on all your questions when you answer mine re: Paul saying Jesus was declared the Son of God at the resurrection, when He was acknowledged by His Father as the Son of God at His baptism. This is the third time I have asked for your comments and the third time you have purposely evaded the issue.

I did not know that you asked me this question, but I have posted a partial answer already, and I will be adding to it soon. :-)

[Guest]

I will answer after I eat supper.

[Guest]

I will give you my answers on all your questions when you answer mine re: Paul saying Jesus was declared the Son of God at the resurrection, when He was acknowledged by His Father as the Son of God at His baptism.

I see no problem with this at all, and this is why. You have either intentionally or haphazardly left out the text of what Paul really said. Thereby removing it from it's context.

Paul did not say that Jesus was delared the son of God as if it were the first time anybody knew who he was. Not at all. It was being declared in a different sense than before, in that when God said " This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased" he was acknowledging who he was, and he was blessing him with the Holy Spirit. But he still had his mission ahead of him to perform. This was the beginning of it not the end.

But when he came forth from the grave, he came forth victorious, with power. He had defeated Satan, and won the Great Controversy. And this is excactly what Paul was saying, that he was delared the Son of God WITH POWER. And when this happened it changed everything. The battle had been won. So Paul said:

And declared to be the Son of God WITH POWER, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead. Rom 1:4

Now I have answered your question, please answer mine. Mine is more of a declaration than a question, but what say you about it?

___________________________

If you are not born again, then you are not a true follower of Jesus Christ, and you are not part of the "Kingdom of Heaven" that you tell people they have to be part of first.

And if no one is born again, then there is no such thing as the KOH according to your definition of what the KOH is. You say it is God's church here on earth, but if no one is born again, then he dosn't even have a church here on earth.

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

You see, your idea that being born again comes last instead of first, cannot stand the test of scripture. Without even using Paul.

But Paul drives the point home, and is in perfect harmony with Jesus.

[Michaeneu]

Let’s make some sense here. If no one HAS BEEN born again then Christ was mistaken that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will sit in the KOH. Take note that these three shall sit in the KOH according to Christ and long before the promise of the Comforter. And I believe that MM said somewhere that if sanctification is not completed before the individual dies then he still sees the kingdom of heaven. There is a huge contradiction there to what he is saying now.

Now once someone has acknowledged their need of God they must willingly put themselves inside the process of Sanctification. During this process the Holy Spirit works with them in replacing the lies that make up their life with the truth, which will define their 'new' life in Jesus Christ. But there is a difference between having the Holy Spirit work with you and guiding you in the process of achieving the goal of Sanctification and believing that in spite of the fact that you still harbor lies, deceit and evil in your heart the Holy Spirit will come in and dwell in you just because you have asked for it.

God CANNOT dwell in anyone in whom there is sin. God and sin cannot co-exist in the same place. This is why God kicked Satan out of Heaven after the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Until that moment in time Satan had access to Heaven, and God legally could not prevent it. After the resurrection Truth triumphed over lies and God had the legal authority to remove Satan and his evil angels from the Heavens and restrict his presence to the earth.

In MM's doctrine Satan wasn't kicked out immediately but only at the first Advent. Why is it that on one have Satan is tolerated in paradise from at least the fall of man until the advent of Christ but on the other the HS cannot tolerate sin at all while dwelling in the individual?

Michael

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Either God or Satan Controls.--Satan takes control of every mind that is not decidedly under the control of the Spirit of God.--Lt 57, 1895 (TM 79). {1MCP 13.3}

This is very true, but there is a difference between "control" and "demon possession." Not all who are controlled by Satan are possessed by demons. However, all who are possessed by demons are under Satan's control.

There is also harassment. In other words, there are different levels of Satan's influence and power over people. It begins with temptation and may progress to harassment and then on to control and finally possession.

People who are under the control of the Spirit of God can be both tempted and harassed. But no person controlled by the Holy Spirit can be simultaneously controlled or possessed by demons.

But then the question is, are most Christians surrendered to the Holy Spirit?

I would say very few.

So, does that mean they can be possessed?

Mark :-)

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

We often consider the extreme cases of "possession" in the bible as the definition of "possession".

But there are varying forms of "possession" that evil spirits possess over Christians.

If I submit to temptation, and follow an evil spirits leading, then they would be in control of me, they "own" me and "possess" me.

So I am not defining a distinction, as any time the will is controlled by the enemy, we are "possessed" or "owned".

Your thoughts?

Check out the following links. The first two links are to some of a book online about the subject, written by a well-respected SDA minister who had about 20 years of experience working with many people who were harassed, controlled, and possessed. He wrote about 7 books on the topic, several of which were published by the Review and Herald Publishing and the Pacific Press.

http://www.lnfbooks.com/descpix/w/war2004te__va001_view%201st%20chapter.pdf

http://books.google.com/books?id=o4IjxRY...;q=&f=false

http://www.lnfbooks.com/descpix/w/war2004te__va001_view%201st%20chapter.pdf

Thank you John, I have printed off the first one on the list and will have a read. :-)

Mark

[Guest]

What happened Musicman? You said if I answered your question, you would answer mine. I haven't heard from you since. Where did you go?

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: Musicman

I will give you my answers on all your questions when you answer mine re: Paul saying Jesus was declared the Son of God at the resurrection, when He was acknowledged by His Father as the Son of God at His baptism.

I see no problem with this at all, and this is why. You have either intentionally or haphazardly left out the text of what Paul really said. Thereby removing it from it's context.

Paul did not say that Jesus was delared the son of God as if it were the first time anybody knew who he was. Not at all. It was being declared in a different sense than before, in that when God said " This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased" he was acknowledging who he was, and he was blessing him with the Holy Spirit. But he still had his mission ahead of him to perform. This was the beginning of it not the end.

But when he came forth from the grave, he came forth victorious, with power. He had defeated Satan, and won the Great Controversy. And this is excactly what Paul was saying, that he was delared the Son of God WITH POWER. And when this happened it changed everything. The battle had been won. So Paul said:

And declared to be the Son of God WITH POWER, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead. Rom 1:4

Now I have answered your question, please answer mine. Mine is more of a declaration than a question, but what say you about it?

___________________________

If you are not born again, then you are not a true follower of Jesus Christ, and you are not part of the "Kingdom of Heaven" that you tell people they have to be part of first.

And if no one is born again, then there is no such thing as the KOH according to your definition of what the KOH is. You say it is God's church here on earth, but if no one is born again, then he dosn't even have a church here on earth.

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

You see, your idea that being born again comes last instead of first, cannot stand the test of scripture. Without even using Paul.

But Paul drives the point home, and is in perfect harmony with Jesus.

Actually, for once It doesn't appear that we are talking at cross purposes. We are both using the same texts, and that is always encouraging.

John 3:3,5 says that we must be in the Kingdom of God. In order to enter the Kingdom of God one MUST be born again. On this we both agree. The only thing upon which we don't agree is when this happens. And in thinking about this I believe I have discovered the central issue of the disagreement.

Jesus speaks of both a Kingdom of Heaven and a Kingdom of God. Are they the same, or are they different? I believe they are different in this regard; when you are becoming righteous (see Dan.12:10) you are in the Kingdom of Heaven. When you are sealed in Righteousness (as in the 144,000) you are now graduated into the Kingdom of God.

Many times when Jesus is speaking in parables they are actually prophecies. In the following examples Jesus uses 'the Kingdom of Heaven' to identify to whom He is making the prophecy, and under what conditions they will be fulfilled; Matt.13:24-30, Matt.20:1-16, Matt.21:33-44, Matt.22:1-14, Matt.24, Matt. 25. These prophecies all have application on earth, future tense. When Jesus speaks of things that will occur 'when the Kingdom WILL come' He often uses 'Kingdom of Heaven'.

When Jesus uses phrases such as 'the Kingdom is here', or the 'Kingdom is with you' He uses the 'Kingdom of God' as the identifier. Examples;

But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. Matt.6:33.

But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. Matt.12:28.

Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits. Matt.21:43.

Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” John3:3.

Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. John 3:5.

The way in which I view the two phrases is that when you are actively in the process of Sanctification but you are not yet sanctified you are in the Kingdom of Heaven. When you have completed the process of Sanctification and become righteous you are now in the Kingdom of God.

In the case of John 3:3,5 entering the Kingdom of God is a future event based on being born again through the power of the Holy Spirit leading you during the process of Sanctification.

On Paul saying that Jesus was 'declared' the Son of God at the resurrection-the implication is clear to me. The word declared in this case means that someone made an announcement at the resurrection that Jesus had now become the Son of God. Let's look at the context:

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, Rom.1:1-4.

First notice that Paul says that Jesus was 'descended from David according to the flesh'. Now wait just a minute; if Jesus was born of God the Father and the Holy Spirit then how could He be a descendant of David. He was of the line of David through Joseph, but we KNOW Joseph had nothing to do with the conception of Jesus. Mary was a surrogate mother, providing the womb but provided no genetic component to the make up of Jesus. (Luke 1:35) Paul says Jesus was 'born of the flesh'. Rev.12 states that Jesus was born of the Woman who is in Heaven, not on earth. Born of the flesh means that there was a human man and human woman that had to be involved. This is what Rex Dies was established to accomplish.

So already there is a problem in the context. And then Paul states categorically that Jesus was 'declared to be the Son of God', and asserts that this happened because of the resurrection. I frankly don't know what to make of 'in power according to the Spirit of holiness' except that Paul is trying to show who actually made the 'declaration'. Now, Jesus either was the Son of God or He was not. He was identified as being the Son of God at His birth (Luke 1:35) and at His baptism (Matt.3:17). Why would the Holy Spirit need to make the pronouncement or assertion that Jesus was the Son of God when it was the Holy Spirit that was materially involved in His birth in the first place.

Your response is merely obfuscation in the face of this understanding. You are saying what is expected of you by Christianity, rather than looking at the facts as they are. If Paul is so smart and so connected with Jesus Christ through his visions then why would Jesus need Paul to convince anyone of the authority that Jesus Christ had as the Son of God. The true Jesus Christ would NEVER give Paul this kind of information. This is why I know that the being that gave Paul this information about Jesus being 'declared' the Son of God at the resurrection WAS NOT the real Jesus Christ. And if Paul made this up then he is truly does not know anything about who the Son of God is and has lost any credibility as an apostle.

Of course you will try to negate this understanding by continuing to say the I am taking Paul's words out of context, but that is a logical fallacy based only on your say so, not on evidence.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Check out the following links. The first two links are to some of a book online about the subject, written by a well-respected SDA minister who had about 20 years of experience working with many people who were harassed, controlled, and possessed. He wrote about 7 books on the topic, several of which were published by the Review and Herald Publishing and the Pacific Press.

http://www.lnfbooks.com/descpix/w/war2004te__va001_view%201st%20chapter.pdf

http://books.google.com/books?id=o4IjxRY...;q=&f=false

http://www.lnfbooks.com/descpix/w/war2004te__va001_view%201st%20chapter.pdf

Thank you John, I have printed off the first one on the list and will have a read. :-)

Mark

I knew the writer personally very well. "Vaughn Allen" was his middle name. Under his real name, he also wrote a biography of William Miller called, The Urgent Voice, originally published in 1975 by Review and Herald.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-Urgent-Voice/Pastor-Robert-Gale/e/9781572584471

Some of his books have been used a lot in the prison ministry by prisoners who want to be free from Satan's influences and power.

God bless your reading, Mark.

Picture of "Vaughn Allen":

[Woody]

According to your link ... this book was published by Publisher: TEACH Services, Inc. not the Review.

[John317]

But then the question is, are most Christians surrendered to the Holy Spirit?

I would say very few.

This is the danger and the problem.

Quote:

So, does that mean they can be possessed?

Yes, baptized Christians who fall away from Christ-- or intentionally persist in practicing sin-- can be possessed by demons.

[jasd]

>>It's our responsibility to tell what we honestly and sincerely believe to be the truth on the basis of God's revelation...<<

Indeed, one might focus upon sharing in a teaching manner - rather than, hopefully, contributing in a stimulative manner to

a lively forum.

>>...and let people study for themselves to find out if what we say is true.<<

Indeed, death and personal salvation are a very private affair – due the attention they deserve; including,

a basic understanding of Holy Writ intelligently arrived-at, rather than molded by another’s opinion.

[Guest]

Jesus speaks of both a Kingdom of Heaven and a Kingdom of God. Are they the same, or are they different? I believe they are different in this regard; when you are becoming righteous (see Dan.12:10) you are in the Kingdom of Heaven. When you are sealed in Righteousness (as in the 144,000) you are now graduated into the Kingdom of God.

When I look at your explanations of how everything is supposed to fit, I just have to scratch my head, because your explanation is not in the Bible. It came from somebody's head, so it is just one big speculation. Also it seems to change as it goes along. You used to believe the KOH and KOG were the same. Now that you see that dosn't work, you change it.

But instead of considering the fact that the whole idea is wrong, you think if you just tweak it a little, it will be right.

I have more to say on this, but first I'm going to do a little studying.

[jasd]

Jesus Christ kept the Law for us; by same, many shall be made righteous.

Rom 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ;

According to Saint James, sin/unrighteousness is the willful and the continuing practice of sin.

[John317]

According to your link ... this book was published by Publisher: TEACH Services, Inc. not the Review.

The book was originally published in 1975 by the Review and Herald.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Leaving aside that ruah/ruach denotes the feminine.

Was I punk'd? or did I just totally scrue-up my own post?

Following, is the correct post.

Re the HS is the "Queen of Heaven":

Leaving aside that ruah/ruach denotes the feminine,

isn’t it Mary, mother of Jesus Christ – who is purported to be Queen of Heaven?

[Guest]

According to Saint James, sin/unrighteousness is the willful and the continuing practice of sin.

I believe that's right jasd.

[John317]

According to Saint James, sin/unrighteousness is the willful and the continuing practice of sin.

What verse/s are you referring to?

All sin is not the "willful and continuing practice of sin." Just as all crime is not "willful." There is such a thing as unintentional sin. The Bible speaks of it. For instance, Lev. 4: 13. It also speaks of the kind of sin that is committed "with a high-hand," or in deliberate defiance and rebellion. See the story of the man who deliberately broke the Sabbath and was stoned for his high-handed, deliberate, willful sin.

The practice of sin is like the practice of a musical instrument or the practice of medicine. It's where a person studies how to get better at sinning. They intentionally and deliberately do it over and over again and have no intention of stopping. Other examples of deliberate, willful sins were the sin of Achan (Numbers 7) and the sin of David in having Uriah murdered (2 Sam. 11). All sin is not of this character.

[John317]

Leaving aside that ruah/ruach denotes the feminine,

Many words are feminine that are referring to males. The fact that a Hebrew or Greek word is feminine does not mean that they have reference to females. For instance, the word for male children is in the feminine gender.

[jasd]

>>All sin is not the "willful and continuing practice of sin." Just as all crime is not "willful." There is such a thing as unintentional sin. The Bible speaks of it.<<

Okaayyy... according to Saint James?

>>The practice of sin is like the practice of a musical instrument or the practice of medicine. It's where a person studies how to get better at sinning.<<

Okaayyy... are we at cross-purposes here? I didn’t have musical adeptness in mind.

>>They intentionally and deliberately do it over and over again and have no intention of stopping. All sin is not of this character.<<

Would your characterization otherwise exclude ‘willful and continuing’? I suppose it’s a matter of degree, yes?

[John317]

>>The practice of sin is like the practice of a musical instrument or the practice of medicine. It's where a person studies how to get better at sinning.<<

Okaayyy... are we at cross-purposes here? I didn’t have musical adeptness in mind.

Check out the definitions of "practice" and apply any of them to sinning. We can't practice an activity or behavior without doing it consciously and intentionally.

practice

noun

• the customary, habitual, or expected procedure of something : current nursing practice | modern child-rearing practices.

2 repeated exercise in or performance of an activity or skill so as to acquire or maintain proficiency in it : it must have taken a lot of practice to become so fluent.

1 perform (an activity) or exercise (a skill) repeatedly or regularly in order to improve or maintain one's proficiency : I need to practice my French | [ intrans. ] they were practicing for the Olympics.

2 carry out or perform (a particular activity, method, or custom) habitually or regularly : we still practice some of these rituals today.

PHRASES

currently proficient in a particular activity or skill as a result of repeated exercise or performance of it.

practice makes perfect used to convey that regular exercise of an activity or skill is the way to become proficient in it, esp. when encouraging someone to persist in it.

[Woody]

Personally ... when I sin ... I do it on purpose. No one is forcing me.

[John317]

>>All sin is not the "willful and continuing practice of sin." Just as all crime is not "willful." There is such a thing as unintentional sin. The Bible speaks of it.<<

Okaayyy... according to Saint James?

Not sure which verses in James you're referring to. Are you talking about the first and second chapters?

I believe all of the Bible to be in harmony it its teachings when we rightly understand what all of the verses are saying.

[Woody]

Accidentially doing something is not a sin.

[John317]

Personally ... when I sin ... I do it on purpose. No one is forcing me.

OK. But I think you would agree that there are sins that you may not be aware of at the time you do them or that there are sins that you did without planning. Those are different from sins that a person does due to willful planning. Just like some crimes are done with willful planning and other crimes are not.

Yet all sins-- whether willful or not-- are still sin. Even sins that we do without realizing we're doing them are sin; and when we become aware that we committed a sin, God expects us to confess it and seek His power to cease from doing it.