Leaderboard

Many Evangelical Christians will argue that there is no such thing as “Christian antisemitism.” For them, it is a contradiction of terms—an oxymoron. They do not believe a “true” Christian can be antisemitic. Unfortunately, history has proven otherwise. https://www.crosswalk.com/sponsored-content/why-christian-antisemitism-is-making-a-dangerous-comeback.html?

Do you have a verifiable reference for that assertion?

🌴 Parting shot: Southwest bliss Photo: Rick Battson Finish Liner Rick Battson of Washington State traveled to Sun City, Ariz., earlier this month for spring training. His team: the San Francisco Giants, who train at nearby Scottsdale Stadium!

According to Catholic tradition there was a pope. If there was a Pope, it would have been Pope James - Jesus' brother as he appeared to make many of the decisions. and He was in Jerusalem - not Rome. There is no biblical record of Peter ever being in Rome. If he were, why didn't Paul tell Peter "hello" in his epistle to the Romans? He extends greetings to about 20 people in Romans 16; and Pope Peter I is not among them. Seems pretty rude for an apostle not to extend a greeting to his boss.

His Father did "save" Him - from death. He would not have "saved" Him from sin. IF Christ had sinned, the Father would have left His Son dead in the grave. We've gone over it a dozen times. "Could" He sin, is not the same as "would" He sin. Of course He "would not". The Father sees the future and knew He would not. Therefore the prophecies all said He "will not". Is there one that says "He cannot?" One who believes that "God" IS "the Father", "the Son", and "the Holy Spirit" - three divine persons, cannot help but believe that "God the Son" cannot act any differently from "God the Father" or "God the Holy Spirit". The "three" are one, and are not separate. One who believes as I do - that "God" is not a Trinity, but IS rather "our Father", who beget a Son, can believe that Son could act differently from His Father - could even act against His Father if He chose to do so. He had a separate will and mind. Because Church "councils" - under the control of Roman Emperors - later decided points of doctrine, does not constrain me to agree always with their conclusions. Neither do later decrees of Popes, or Lutheran councils, or Episcopal councils, or SDA councils. The majority is not always right. Those in power, with authority over members of the congregation, are not always right - as Old Testament prophets right up to Christ clearly showed, and Christ Himself so clearly pointed out. Acts 17:11 "Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." (NIV) We should respect authorities, and should not try to overthrow authorities by violent means, but we must search the Scriptures for ourselves - to find what is truth. For a thousand years Church "authorities" kept the Scriptures away from the common people. (Lest they search and understand?) Just that action, would make me doubt those "authorities" and any doctrinal teachings they pushed. In rare places, even Bible translations themselves have been altered to facilitate a certain view or teaching. Thank God those instances were very rare. Sometimes - we must simply agree to disagree, with casting moral dispersion s. One is not immoral, because he/she holds a certain doctrinal view.

Mark 13:11 "But when they arrest you and deliver you up, do not worry beforehand, or premeditate what you will speak. But whatever is given you in that hour, speak that; for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit." Matthew 10:19 "But when they deliver you up, do not worry about how or what you should speak. For it will be given to you in that hour what you should speak; 20 "for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you." The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God the Father.

People who quote John 14:16 to prove a third divine person, quote only the one verse. They don't quote the entire passage. John 14:16 "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever-- 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you." (NIV) The other Advocate would be Christ Himself, as spirit, who would come to be "with" and "in" His sheep. The key is in the last words. "I will come to you." Paul spoke of "Christ in me, the hope of glory." God sent forth the spirit of His Son "into your hearts". Jesus said that both He and His Father would come "into" those who loved Him. How? As spirit. "The last Adam has been made a life giving spirit." (1Cor 15:45). Christ has been made the Spirit with us and in us, to comfort us, to bring everything to our minds that He once said, to take of what is the Father's and show it to us. I believe Jesus is here speaking of His future glorified SELF - His future glorified self as "spirit". He spoke of Himself in third person on other occasions too. Called Himself "the Son of Man", and used pronouns "he" and "him", when He was clearly speaking of Himself. The "other" Paraclete would be "the spirit of His Son" which God the Father would send forth. God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, "Abba, Father!" (Gal 4:6 NKJ) As for lying to the Holy Spirit, if "God" IS the Holy Spirit, then one has "lied to God". You say "the Holy Spirit is God". I say God is the Holy Spirit. Is there a difference? If you touch my arm, you touch me. You can't separate my arm, from me - except surgically. My arm is part of me. Same with the Spirit of God. His Spirit is Him. You can't separate God and His Spirit. His spirit is His presence. Consider the "unpardonable sin". Matthew 12:32 "Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come." There is no mention of speaking a word against the Father. He is missing in this warning. Or is He? If the Holy Spirit IS the presence of God the Father with us and in us, then a word against the Holy Spirit is a word against God the Father. Is "the Spirit of Christ" different somehow from "the Spirit of the Father" ? I don't think so. To have One, is to have the Other. My own theory of how this works: Jesus came as the physical presence of His Father, so that men could "see" His Father. Now the Father comes to us "as" His Son. To experience the presence of the Father "in" the heart, is to experience Christ. Jesus said the "other" would come "in my name". Jesus came in His Father's name. After Christ was glorified, His Father "came" in Christ's name - representing His Son's presence with us/in us. This is how we have BOTH the Father and His Son, "with" us and "in" us. John 14:23 Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him." (NKJ) I see no third being here. Only God our Father and Christ His Son.

Gustave, You and I have different views concerning the Scripture's "definition" of God. You believe the Scripture's "define" God as a Trinity. I do not.

Gustave: I will understand what Ellen White believed on this subject. I do not have a problem with people saying that Ellen whit was wrong in a specific doctrinal position as she was not intended to fill the role in the developing SDA denomination of a final arbitrator of doctrine. Some may attempt to fit her into that role. But, that was not how she saw herself. That was not what she claimed to be. You have stimulated me to expand my thinking on this subject. for that I commend you. As JoMo essentially stated: regardless of whether or not we (I) agree with you, you are welcome here in this forum. Open communication, as it taking place here is healthy.

I think we talked awhile back about "would not" vs "could not". One has to do with God's all-knowledge (including the future), and the other has to do with Christ's nature (human, divine, combination, fully both). Because the LORD prophesies a thing concerning a human subject, does not mean that person has no choice. Choice is not removed because the LORD has prophesied a future action. On the other point: I believe that Jesus Christ "emptied himself" to take the form and the nature "of a servant". Of what did He empty himself? The Greek word means "void" or "empty". Jesus said, "The Father who dwells in me, does the works" (John 14:10). Why would Jesus need His Father to do the works? If He was equal in power, why not just do the works Himself? More still, if Jesus was the same divine being/person (God), then He would have no need to be indwelt by His Father (a second being). Without the indwelling of His Father - the "fullness of the God" would Jesus have been able to do the works? "The works" to include not just miracles, but also perfect conformity to the will of His Father. Did Jesus have the choice - to receive or reject the indwelling of His Father, or was Jesus (because of His existence as God) simply part of "God" with no separate identity or existence? I personally believe that Father and Son are two separate persons/beings - each with individual will. Therefore Christ could have resisted/rejected His Father's will. One does not need to suffer from "violent cognitive dissonance", to believe that God (defined as "the Father") beget a second divine being out of Himself (in His exact image), and that He "sent" His begotten "Son" into this world.

EGW: Angels were expelled from heaven because they would not work in harmony with God. They fell from their high estate because they wanted to be exalted. They had come to exalt themselves, and they forgot that their beauty of person and of character came from the Lord Jesus. This fact the angels would obscure, that Christ was the only begotten Son of God, and they came to consider that they were not to consult Christ. One angel began the controversy and carried it on until there was rebellion in the heavenly courts among the angels. They were lifted up because of their beauty. {Lt42-1910}

I agree 100%. Don't see any reason why he would not have known who he was!!

Gustave is correct that "God" would not/could not act contrary to Himself. Jesus was divine/human. Some assume that the divine part of His nature would always dominate His human nature, to such a degree that the human nature hardly mattered. As if the human was just a sort of shell - for appearance. I don't believe that was the case. I believe Jesus human nature was just as strong within Him, as His "divine nature". They were in balance. Which means that Jesus' mind had to keep that balance. He could have allowed His human nature to dominate, with it's appetites and weaknesses. We know He was fearful and full of dread in anticipation of His execution by torture. We know He was mocked and ridiculed because His mother was pregnant before the wedding feast, and because His family was poor and from the "wrong side of the tracks". We know that Jesus got thirsty and hungry and tired. Satan thought those things were possible weak points. He tempted Jesus to skip the torture. He tempted Him to prove His divine son-ship. He tempted Jesus to test His Father. Why was Satan tempting Jesus. Didn't Satan know that Jesus could not sin? I think the obvious fact that Satan tempted Him, shows that Satan thought Jesus capable of a sin against His Father's will.

I spent more time in public schools than in SDA schools. Doubt I spent a lot of time thinking about God as a Trinity. My Mom read us the Bible Stories by Maxwell. But my parents were in turmoil. My Dad was a depressed drunk, and my Mom bi-polar. She ended up hospitalized with a nervous breakdown when I was 12. I had a supernatural experience that confirmed the existence of God to me. I began to read the Bible voraciously. I discovered the 7th Day Sabbath, and ended up at the local SDA church, because they were the only ones honoring the Sabbath, while recognizing Jesus as God's Son. I began reading Ellen White. Her books like PP and GC, present Father and Son. Not much about the "third person of the godhead" in there. Only as I continued to attend did I become more and more uncomfortable with worship of three divine persons. EGW did confirm it, so I accepted it because I accepted her "gift". That's a brief on my belief in God as "three persons". I came to believe in the "one God" as "God our Father" back in 1986. Have never doubted since then. God's Son IS in one sense "our Father". He created mankind. The Hebrew has no word for "grandfather" - meaning our father's father. If it did, the Being we call "God our Father" would be called "God our Grandfather".

The United States, as of 2020, is the country with the world’s second-largest number of religiously unaffiliated people (after China), surpassing Japan. The U.S. had roughly 101 million religious “nones” in 2020 (up 97% from a decade earlier), while Japan had 73 million (up 8%). However, the unaffiliated category continues to account for a much larger share of the total population in Japan – 57% of all Japanese are religiously unaffiliated – than in the U.S., where 30% identify as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular.” In both 2010 and 2020, China had more religiously unaffiliated people than any other country. China’s 1.3 billion unaffiliated people made up 90% of its total population in 2020.6 Most countries still have Christian majorities Due to disaffiliation from Christianity, there now are fewer Christian-majority countries and more countries with a religiously unaffiliated majority than there were in 2010. As of 2020, Christians were a majority in 120 countries and territories, down from 124 a decade earlier. Christians dropped below 50% of the population in the United Kingdom (49%), Australia (47%), France (46%) and Uruguay (44%). In each of these places, religiously unaffiliated people now account for 40% or more of the population, and smaller religious groups such as Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews or adherents of other religions (combined) account for 11% or less. Over the same period, religiously unaffiliated people became a majority in the Netherlands (54%), Uruguay (52%) and New Zealand (51%), raising the number of places with an unaffiliated majority from seven to 10. (These countries joined China, North Korea, the Czech Republic, Hong Kong, Vietnam, Macao and Japan, which already had religiously unaffiliated majorities in 2010.) There was no change in the number of places in which the majority of the population are Muslim (53), Buddhist (7), Jewish (1) or followers of other religions (1).7 These are among the key findings of a Pew Research Center of more than 2,700 censuses and surveys, including census data releases that were delayed due to the coronavirus pandemic. The study is part of the Pew-Templeton Global Religious Futures project, which seeks to understand global religious change and its impact on societies.

I agree! So am I, but with a leader that also thinks he's above the law I believe it will just get worse!