Leaderboard

I don't understand your issue. We are not Catholics believing that our church is the final authority. We support freedom of religion/liberty of conscience. It is our (sadly too often neglected) responsibility to help people find a place to worship at their current level of growth.

In my opinion, the requirements to join and to remain a SDA member are few in number--certainly less than the 28. But, we are living in a time where in our society at large people are attempting to draw boundaries that exclude as many people as possible and this has carried over in the Church and to its business and we see the same happeing today. I once pastored a congregation in which we decided that we would disfellowship a person only if the vote was 100% in favor of doing so. I would first ask for a vote against doing so and if their was even one (1) vote against doing so, I would immediately table the action and the process would stop.

I have found that my computer provides the best concordance. It can do it for any translation, and I have over a dozen in my Logos software.

In the above post, I am giving my understanding of the differences between a lexicon and a dictionary. In actual fact, the Internet contains a number of description of the differences which may not coincide with what I have stated above and with each other. The following may be of some help:

This thread seems to assume that all the wedding/marriage metaphors in the Bible are part of a single metaphor. That may be the case. However, it may also not be the case. Metaphors that get over-extended often teach weird theology.

It is likely that Jesus and those who first heard the parable thought of the King as Jewish King, and the wedding as a Jewish wedding. Both the original guests and the replacement guests would have been Jewish in their minds because that's who gets invited to a Jewish wedding. The only person who probably would have been thought of as Gentile would have been the man who didn't want to wear the Jewish wedding garment. However, if the point of the parable had been racial (Jews vs Gentiles) there probably would have been specific clues to that effect. The point doesn't seem to be Jewishness vs Gentileness, but rather self-sufficiency vs obedience. The people who thought they deserved to be invited to the wedding at the King's house turned out to be unworthy. The common people who never would have imagined that they would be invited to a wedding feast at the King's house are the one's who actually participated in the feast. The man who thought he didn't need the provided wedding garment got cast out of the festivities.

Part 2 of this series may be seen at: http://spectrummagazine.org/article/2017/05/19/drop-mic-reincarnating-adventist-faith-part-2 NOTE: This 2nd part is not going to satisfy, probably anyone. I will suggest that one will need to wait for Part 3, which may provide some appropriate answers.

Revelation 19:7 "Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready." 8 And to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright, for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints. 9 Then he said to me, "Write:`Blessed are those who are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb!'" And he said to me, "These are the true sayings of God." (NKJ) The New Jerusalem, appears to be the Lamb's "wife". "Come, I will show you the bride, the Lamb's wife." 10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God" (Rev 21:9 NKJ) She is glorified BY "the righteous acts of the saints". Are the citizens OF the City part of "her" and therefore also "the bride"? 2 Corinthians 11:2 "I feel a divine jealousy for you, for I promised you in marriage to one husband, to present you as a chaste virgin to Christ." (NRS) So Paul understood faithful believers to be part of "the bride", which is why He called "the church", "the body of Christ". Christ is HEAD of all things to the church, as a husband is HEAD of his own wife, and she is like his own body. I guess the parable about the wedding "guests" was just a different way of describing "the kingdom".

Do we trust God enough to let our reactions rest.... from every side and direction?

The primary, standard concordances, all based upon the KJV, which are most commonly used are the following three (3): 1) Cruden's Complete Concordance to the Old & New Testaments, by Alexander Cruden. This one was first published in 1737. Any edition that you might purchase today will have been edited and revised by other scholars. Zondervan is one that publishes this book. This concordance is probably most popular with lay Christians. It is the one that I have used most often in my study of the Bible. The version that I have has slightly over 800 pages. I consider it to be of value to the Bible student. However, those with more of an interest in the Biblical languages generally go to one of the two others that I will list. 2) Young's Analytical Concordanace to the Bible, by Robert Young. Like Cruden, this book was first published many years ago. It differs a bit from the work of Strong in that it places a greater emphasis on the original Hebrew or Greek, Further, Dr. Young believed that Strong has a bias, in his concordance, to reflect his own specific view of religious truth. Dr. Young attempted not to do this and to more accurately reflect the word as used by the Biblical writer. This is the concordance that I prefer for in-depth study the includes the Biblical languages. The edition that I have consists of almost 1,000 very large pages and additional material of a couple of hundred pages. 3) Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, by James Strong. Like Young and Cruden, this concordance was first published many years ago. The strength of this book lies in the attempt of Dr. Strong to list every word in the Bible. So, it lists more than Young. The main body of the one that I have, consists of some 1,340 very large pages and additional material of about 300 pages. All three of these books, in their current edition have been edited and revised by other scholars in attempts to make them more current. Here you have in brief statements of the three that are most commonly used with their strengths. Strong's strength lies in the attempt to include every Biblical word. Young's strength lies in its background in the original Biblical languages. Cruden is best for taking with you when you are away from your desk and is good for most every Christian. All three are useful and of value.