Leaderboard

May they multiply

NOTE: this isn't to be a political thread. If we were to take the feelings of many people who honestly believe President-elect Donald Trump is racist, misogynistic, and just a terrible person in general, do you think Jesus would have "rubbed elbows" with him? We like to view Jesus as being the One who befriended the the unloved, the downtrodden, the "hated" of society — the ones who, by virtue of their words and actions, were considered to be the scum of the earth.... not just the poor and chastised of the land, but also the detested elites. It seems to me that Mr. Trump falls into the category of the "detested elites." Would Jesus have hobnobbed with him? Or would He have taken up with the protesting crowds? I'm really curious as to what folks here think about this. I've seen FB posts from Adventist friends who have demonized Mr. Trump, and who say Jesus would join in the protests. That really bothers me because it doesn't seem to mesh with how I see Jesus dealing with the "detested elites" in the Bible. What say you? (and remember, this is NOT to be hijacked into a political thread! I'm not interested in debating the worthiness of the protests, nor the persona of Mr. Trump.)

Well was not one of the accusations levelled at Jesus that he ate with tax collectors? Tax collectors being agents of the Roman government and despised by many for their inherant corruption and abuse of power. Jesus Christ would embrace Trump like he would any one else. Judging Trump because people believe he sins differently to them is a nonsense. The fact is that there is no one that is without sin and like Jesus said, "the one among you that is without sin. Let him cast the first stone".

wow, amazing, clear message. do you have a link to this graphic?

Are you holding up "Historic Adventists" as some sort of standard by which to determine doctrinal truth? I certainly respect the lifestyle of Historic Adventists and their desire to be faithful to what they hold to be truth. However, in their writings and meetings it seems like the writings of EGW are held as the ultimate truth, so they don't actively test those writings by Scripture as EGW instructed and as Scripture requires. Also, as you point out, their understanding of Historic Adventism seems to exclude certain aspects of history. If we are looking for a time period in Christian history when truth was "pure", I think we should look beyond the early 1900's clear back to the time of the apostles and the congregation of believers in Jerusalem depicted in the book of Acts.

hch....you are getting real good with the finger pointing when people don't agree with you. I seem to remember a text about 'pride goeth before a down fall'.......

I am reminded of the person who became a member of Club Adventist. That person grew tired of reading some of the epistles that some wrote. So, that person purchased a dictionary and in place of reading the posts in Club Adventist that person read the dictionary through from cover to cover. The justification for doing so was that every word posted in a CA post had now been read and it was no longer necessary to read any new posts.

Somehow I missed the Scripture passages you use to ascribe personality to the Holy Spirit. I can see how these verses would support your view of the trinity, if you start out assuming that the trinity doctrine is completely true. That seems to require circular logic. These verses don't seem to support your view of the trinity if we only believe about the nature of God those aspects that God has specifically revealed about himself. We can't just assume that the Spirit of God is a "person" of the Godhead or a personal being that acts and thinks separately from God the Father. Job 33:4 says, "The Spirit of God has made me, And the breath of the Almighty gives me life." This is Elihu speaking to Job. We should keep in mind that after Elihu finished speaking God asks, "Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?" But even if Elihu was speaking the truth, does his statement show that the Spirit of God is a personal being that creates? No. Scripture reveals that God has a spirit, just as it reveals that man has a spirit. Does anyone think that the spirit of a man is a personal being that acts separately from the man himself? No. Scripture also reveals that God has eyes, and God has a face, and God has a finger. If Elihu had said instead, "The finger of God has made me." would we assume that the Finger of God is a personal being with creative powers acting separately from God himself. No. So why would a person assume that the Spirit of God is a personal being with creative powers acting separately from God himself? Apparently because they are already assuming that the trinity doctrine is correct when it teaches that the spirit of God is a personal being that somehow acts separately from God himself. 1 Peter 3:18 says, "For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;" Is this verse saying that a personal being called "the spirit" raised Jesus from the dead? Or is it saying that Jesus was alive spiritually? Galatians 1:1 is explicitly clear that it was God the Father who raised Jesus from the dead: "Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead--" So if it was "the spirit" that resurrected Jesus, that would be evidence that "the spirit" is not a personal being but rather a power or characteristic of God the Father.

I refer to the trinity doctrine as a doctrine because it always contains man-made concepts about the Godhead that are not found in Scripture. It heavily depends on some "private personal interpretations" that became widely accepted, but still don't pass the test of Scripture. The harm of the trinity doctrine is that it gives people ideas about God's nature that God has not revealed about himself. Thus it becomes another avenue that can be used to deceive people about God or drive them away from the true God. The trinity doctrine causes division in the body of believers when it is used condemn, cast suspicion on, or break fellowship with anyone who chooses to believe only what God has actually revealed about himself.

I certainly find no fault with the women running to the tomb. However, I think their understanding of events was still lacking something, for it appears they were still expecting to find a dead man in the tomb when they got there. If we were to proclaim the same beliefs they had at the time, would we not be proclaiming a dead Christ who remained in a tomb? I don't understand what you disagree with when I said, . As far as I can tell, all your examples precede the New Testament book of Acts.

Thank you, Enabled, for the full quotation from M.L. Andreason. It makes a difference see the whole story in context. Apparently the issue for Andreason was not trinitarianism, but the deity of Jesus. Although the deity of Jesus is a belief of trinitarians, the context of the story shows that the story cannot be used to show that Andreasen embraced other aspects of trinitarianism, such as the personhood of the Holy Spirit. That's why I always prefer to see what the actual sources wrote themselves, rather than relying on what some scholar has interpreted or distilled from the original sources.

Does it really matter what EGW wrote regarding the Holy Spirit and the trinity? If SDA's believe their own Fundamental Beliefs, they would be testing everything EGW wrote by what is written in the Bible -- instead of interpreting the Bible in accordance with what EGW wrote. Fundamental Belief #18 is titled "The Gift of Prophecy". It concludes by stating correctly of EGW's writings, "They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested." According to that statement and according to Scripture, testing EGW's writings by the Bible is not optional. If the above story about M.L. Andreasen is true, then he apparently failed to go back to the Bible to test what EGW showed him, and the story would be a very poor example of how a real SDA and student of EGW should make decisions on matters of doctrine. I personally doubt the story above is true because EGW didn't encourage people to decide doctrinal issues based on her writings. At least in the early years, she always sent people back to the Bible to study things from Scripture, rather than seeking or giving a doctrinal position derived from her spiritual gifts. People should still be going back to the Scriptures to find the truth in what God's Word says. For that reason, the things that EGW wrote in regard to the trinity should carry hardly any weight at all in this discussion. What EGW wrote about the trinity is mainly of historical interest because it shows that 140 years ago many Christians were not trinitarian yet they were still considered to be good solid Christians. Editing her older writings to remove that historical evidence seems like tampering with the context in a way that will encourage people to rely on EGW's writings as a source of doctrine, which encourages people to neglect testing her writings by the Bible and to disregard the conclusion of Fundamental Belief #18.

thank you all. i am feeling relaxed but i am very jumpy with loud noises currently.but i have been like that for a while, its just currently in overdrive. and yes i do suffer from anxiety and this makes it worse- evenbeing on medication.

Will be praying Femster for God to resolve this.