Real Bible Study

[Gerr]

how does your comment relate to my point? do you believe the pioneers started off their bible studies as you did?

Quote:

unrelated to your point, i have to admit that i had a very different picture of "bible study" than the first try. no offense meant gerry, but it seemed rather doomed, and prejudicial, from the start. in saying that my conscience is convicted of when i have done the very same thing

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

I don't know if you meant to address me unless Buster's name is also Gerry.

If meaningful collective Bible study is not possible, how did our pioneers hammer out our doctrines?

instead of being argumentative why not try to see my point?

Believe me I am trying to understand your point! But how can I understand you if I ask a you a question and you find it argumentative? How can we carry on a discussion with an attitude like that?

[Gerr]

Quote:

If meaningful collective Bible study is not possible

But no one suggested that. Only that it was unlikely.

You might want to go back and see Old Sailor's comment.

[there buster]

Quote:

You might want to go back and see Old Sailor's comment.

I stand corrected. And astonished. My apologies.

[Musicman1228]

I see the most important factor that precludes a unified Bible study as being 'faith'. Anyone that relies on faith as the center point of their experience will never be able to find truth that is singular and absolute. Faith allow a person to believe a lie as if it is the truth, without accountability. Any truth that relies primarily on faith cannot be true, because faith is always based on 'individual' belief and therefore cannot contribute to a unified corporate understanding, the kind that is needed by the Kingdom of Heaven before the beginning of the Great Tribulation.

Unless and until faith is put aside in favor of an accurate study method that includes logic, reason, accepting what is said by individual Bible writers as what they actually meant (not applying personal interpretation), and accepting the premise that the words of Jesus Christ as given by His eyewitness Disciples are the words of God and takes precedents over all else there can never be a unified result.

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: pkrause

Yes the Jews believe that Moses was a prophet and Jesus was a nobody. Sorry I should say most Jews not all. Which is very sad.

pk [/quote']

Well of course they do, but this is a Christian message board. If someone is really converted, they leave the past behind and follow Jesus.

I don't necessarily believe that oldsailor. These are messianic Jews. I don't buy that they need to be christians per say. If not for the Jewish religion we sould not have christianity!

pk

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I thought messianic Jews *were* Christian.. If not, what are they, then?

[oldsailor29]

I don't necessarily believe that oldsailor. These are messianic Jews. I don't buy that they need to be Christians per say. If not for the Jewish religion we would not have Christianity!

pk

I can understand why Messianic Jews are comfortable with SDAs. Much of our beliefs are the same. And there may be many SDAs who regard Moses more authoritative than Jesus. But our church is feeble and defective.

Christianity came from Christ. He was crucified because of His teachings. His followers, the Christian Jews, were ousted from the synagogues because they were teaching that Jesus was God in the flesh. While it is the Christian thing to do, to share our fellowship with Messianic Jews, they are not the same as the early Christian Jews. They do not believe Jesus is God, and they have not given up their former beliefs and followed Him. To those who have, I apologize for my ignorance.

[oldsailor29]

Originally Posted By: there buster

Quote:

If meaningful collective Bible study is not possible

But no one suggested that. Only that it was unlikely.

You might want to go back and see Old Sailor's comment.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

how does your comment relate to my point? do you believe the pioneers started off their bible studies as you did?

Quote:

unrelated to your point, i have to admit that i had a very different picture of "bible study" than the first try. no offense meant gerry, but it seemed rather doomed, and prejudicial, from the start. in saying that my conscience is convicted of when i have done the very same thing

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

If meaningful collective Bible study is not possible, how did our pioneers hammer out our doctrines?

instead of being argumentative why not try to see my point?

Believe me I am trying to understand your point! But how can I understand you if I ask a you a question and you find it argumentative? How can we carry on a discussion with an attitude like that?

how does your question, in green, relate to what i first said, in red?

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: pkrause

I don't necessarily believe that oldsailor. These are messianic Jews. I don't buy that they need to be Christians per say. If not for the Jewish religion we would not have Christianity!

pk

I can understand why Messianic Jews are comfortable with SDAs. Much of our beliefs are the same. And there may be many SDAs who regard Moses more authoritative than Jesus. But our church is feeble and defective.

Christianity came from Christ. He was crucified because of His teachings. His followers, the Christian Jews, were ousted from the synagogues because they were teaching that Jesus was God in the flesh. While it is the Christian thing to do, to share our fellowship with Messianic Jews, they are not the same as the early Christian Jews. They do not believe Jesus is God, and they have not given up their former beliefs and followed Him. To those who have, I apologize for my ignorance.

There is a Jewish Adventist pastor who has a messianic church down in Florida. And you are not ignoriate at all oldsailor. I don't believe that Jesus started Christianity. It started as people started calling the followers of Jesus christians I believe.

pk

[phkrause]

I thought messianic Jews *were* Christian.. If not, what are they, then?

There's a Pastor down in Florida that has 2 SDA churches, one is a regular SDA church the other is a messianic one. Here is a link to it. Check it out. http://www.btvfl.org/index.php?PHPSESSID=4781aeadb3a4fd81ffdfb794fe32ad31

pk

[Gerr]

I see the most important factor that precludes a unified Bible study as being 'faith'. Anyone that relies on faith as the center point of their experience will never be able to find truth that is singular and absolute. Faith allow a person to believe a lie as if it is the truth, without accountability. Any truth that relies primarily on faith cannot be true, because faith is always based on 'individual' belief and therefore cannot contribute to a unified corporate understanding, the kind that is needed by the Kingdom of Heaven before the beginning of the Great Tribulation.

Unless and until faith is put aside in favor of an accurate study method that includes logic, reason, accepting what is said by individual Bible writers as what they actually meant (not applying personal interpretation), and accepting the premise that the words of Jesus Christ as given by His eyewitness Disciples are the words of God and takes precedents over all else there can never be a unified result.

Genuine faith is not believing something that's ain't so. It is based on evidence.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

Believe me I am trying to understand your point! But how can I understand you if I ask a you a question and you find it argumentative? How can we carry on a discussion with an attitude like that? [/quote']how does your question, in green, relate to what i first said, in red?

That the attempt at a real Biblble Study "seemed rather doomed, and prejudicial, from the start."

[Kevin H]

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

I thought messianic Jews *were* Christian.. If not, what are they, then?

There's a Pastor down in Florida that has 2 SDA churches, one is a regular SDA church the other is a messianic one. Here is a link to it. Check it out. http://www.btvfl.org/index.php?PHPSESSID=4781aeadb3a4fd81ffdfb794fe32ad31

pk

In the early days of our mission work our missionaries were use to bringing Adventism to Christians and in Europe ran into the Jewish gettos and ws not sure how to make Christians out of a non-Christian culture, so they offered the Jews a Jewish version of Adventism. We did this until around the 1940s when the church decided that we would be a Chrsitian religion and that while Adventist Jews were allowed to stay in good standing without becomeing Christians; that any Jew who wanted to become an Adventist after that time had to become a Christian. In the 1980s there were Seventh-day Adventist Jews still alive, they were in their late 80s and 90s. Also at that time there was a farly large number of Jews in the Tel Avi church who would attend faithfully week after week, loved Adventism, but refused to join because they would not become Christians.

By the way, Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heshel ended up falling in love with Adventism. He use to call Adventist friends and ask "How are we doing" with the "we" meaning the Seventh-day Adventist church. He also use to say "Adventists have the best theology, however it is not going to go anyplace until it is presented in a more credible and sophiticated manner."

I find this interesting as I find Heshel one of the most Christ centered preachers of the 20th century. While he did not use the word J-E-S-U-S much, he has the character of Jesus stampped on page after page in his works. He does not mearly show you Jesus, but he takes Jesus and smashes him across the forehead as if you were hit in the head by a baseball bat swung by Babe Ruth. You can't read Heshel's words without having a tremendous encounter with Jesus.

[Kevin H]

As for deep Bible study here; we don't need to agreee on consensious or method. Just be clear what your method is and allow others to evaluate, and present your view fairly, be willing to debate, but let's stop some of the petty fighting here. Be willing to criticize, but be honest in your criticizism and if your target says that they don't see their view in your attempted criticizism, be willing to see that you are barking up the wrong tree and quite trying to insist to the other person that this is indeed what they believe. Also be willing to think about what others are saying instead of just pileing up a bunch of quotes that you think might support your side to in print shout down the other view.

All we can do is offer information, it is up each of us to read the information, ask questions to clearify or point out weaknesses you see in them and what to do with the information.

The Old Testament has the theology of the priesthood of Aaron and the priesthood of Moses, who got along as well as we tend to do. There was the priestly partys, the prophetic partys, and the royal parties, and they did not always get along. However all their views were collected into the Old Testament. The Bible sometimes shows their strong points and weak points.

The point is that we need to respect. We don't need to agree. We just need to be aware of and if we wish think about the information.

[oldsailor29]

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

I thought messianic Jews *were* Christian.. If not, what are they, then?

There's a Pastor down in Florida that has 2 SDA churches, one is a regular SDA church the other is a messianic one. Here is a link to it. Check it out. http://www.btvfl.org/index.php?PHPSESSID=4781aeadb3a4fd81ffdfb794fe32ad31

pk

As it turns out, I was ignorant concerning the beliefs of the Messianic Jews. I have read their beliefs from the web site provided, and found they do indeed believe Yeshua is one with the Father, i.e. God. Therefore they are Christians. So my remaining complaint is the same with them as with the rest of SDAs. Our church is not following Jesus.

[Gerr]

Quote:

Excuse me gentlemen. What did I say that could be taken to mean that collective Bible study is not possible?

Here it is:

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

I would like to see a new thread/section where REAL meaningful Bible study can take place, where there is no name-calling, where there is no brow-beating, where everyone's opinion is respected, where people actually try to come to some kind of consensus since God is not a God of confusion. This would be like an online Bible Conference?

I believe this is impossible. We are all different, coming from different backgrounds and experiences. And that is the way the Holy Spirit speaks to each of us, through our own personal perspectives. From my experience I have discovered that things which are clear to me may be hidden from everybody else. And in this statement I am only referring to those who are earnestly seeking the truth. I'm sure everybody else must have a similar experience. I'm also sure that these differences in understanding are not determining factors in anyone's salvation. As long as we have faith that Jesus is God, I think our salvation is assured.

[oldsailor29]

Quote:

Excuse me gentlemen. What did I say that could be taken to mean that collective Bible study is not possible?

Here it is:

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

I would like to see a new thread/section where REAL meaningful Bible study can take place, where there is no name-calling, where there is no brow-beating, where everyone's opinion is respected, where people actually try to come to some kind of consensus since God is not a God of confusion. This would be like an online Bible Conference?

I believe this is impossible. We are all different, coming from different backgrounds and experiences. And that is the way the Holy Spirit speaks to each of us, through our own personal perspectives. From my experience I have discovered that things which are clear to me may be hidden from everybody else. And in this statement I am only referring to those who are earnestly seeking the truth. I'm sure everybody else must have a similar experience. I'm also sure that these differences in understanding are not determining factors in anyone's salvation. As long as we have faith that Jesus is God, I think our salvation is assured.

Oh that. Well, the teachings of Jesus can be consumed by the group without the ideal for a perfect study group being reached. But thank you for pointing that statement out. I had forgotten about it.

[there buster]

Quote:

Well, the teachings of Jesus can be consumed by the group without the ideal for a perfect study group being reached.

But therein lies the problem. Exactly what "the teachings of Jesus" consist of will depend upon the method used to discover/uncover/explicate them.

[Ron Amnsn]

One of the advantages that the founders of the SDA church had in their early method of Bible study was that they met face to face. They shared more of real life with each other and could therefore care about each other as people. Then when they studied together, they respected each other enough to listen and clarify.

Another advantage was that they had no Fundamental Belief statements to limit their study or conclusions. They could study to find out what the Scriptures taught, and if they found out that their long-held beliefs were not in agreement with Scripture, they were free to abandon those beliefs and accept what the Bible actually taught, without being accused of heresy and without fear of reprisal or losing denominational employment.

Another advantage was that the opinion of Ellen White was usually not a factor during the study of the Bible. Today people often turn to the writings of Ellen White before studying Scripture (or instead of studying Scripture) to see what conclusion their Bible study must reach. There were times when Ellen White's initial opinion on a topic was shaped by the religious traditions of her family and her childhood church experience, but further Bible study revealed that her first statement on a topic was not in agreement with Scripture. For example, her initial position about eating clean and unclean meat was not in agreement with the conclusion later reached by the brethren after studying what the Bible said on the subject. If the brethren had limited their Bible study to only reach conclusions that agreed with previous statements of Ellen White, SDA's might be a pork-eating people today. The founders of the church were wise enough to realize that EGW's gift did not result in inerrancy, and they had not placed Ellen White on the pedestal on which later generations placed her after her death.

[teresaq]

One of the advantages that the founders of the SDA church had in their early method of Bible study was that they met face to face. They shared more of real life with each other and could therefore care about each other as people. Then when they studied together, they respected each other enough to listen and clarify.

Another advantage was that they had no Fundamental Belief statements to limit their study or conclusions. They could study to find out what the Scriptures taught, and if they found out that their long-held beliefs were not in agreement with Scripture, they were free to abandon those beliefs and accept what the Bible actually taught, without being accused of heresy and without fear of reprisal or losing denominational employment.

[aldona]

One of the advantages that the founders of the SDA church had in their early method of Bible study was that they met face to face. They shared more of real life with each other and could therefore care about each other as people. Then when they studied together, they respected each other enough to listen and clarify.

Another advantage was that they had no Fundamental Belief statements to limit their study or conclusions. They could study to find out what the Scriptures taught, and if they found out that their long-held beliefs were not in agreement with Scripture, they were free to abandon those beliefs and accept what the Bible actually taught, without being accused of heresy and without fear of reprisal or losing denominational employment.

Another advantage was that the opinion of Ellen White was usually not a factor during the study of the Bible. Today people often turn to the writings of Ellen White before studying Scripture (or instead of studying Scripture) to see what conclusion their Bible study must reach. There were times when Ellen White's initial opinion on a topic was shaped by the religious traditions of her family and her childhood church experience, but further Bible study revealed that her first statement on a topic was not in agreement with Scripture. For example, her initial position about eating clean and unclean meat was not in agreement with the conclusion later reached by the brethren after studying what the Bible said on the subject. If the brethren had limited their Bible study to only reach conclusions that agreed with previous statements of Ellen White, SDA's might be a pork-eating people today. The founders of the church were wise enough to realize that EGW's gift did not result in inerrancy, and they had not placed Ellen White on the pedestal on which later generations placed her after her death.

Amen - there is much wisdom in this post.

aldona

[Gerr]

I don't think for a moment that the fundamental beliefs were ever intended to stop investigation of the subjects.

We are now a world-wide church. Meeting face to face is not practical, but we do have the web and can literally

have people all over the world participate. But as you can see in the discussions, it seems more like a case of

one-upmanship.

[Robert]

Quote:

They could study to find out what the Scriptures taught, and if they found out that their long-held beliefs were not in agreement with Scripture, they were free to abandon those beliefs.....

Bingo!

[Robert]

No opinions? Think not. We all have opinions and so did she.

Here's what EGW said concerning children & God in 1892:

“Do not teach your children that God does not love them when they do wrong….Do not terrify your children by telling them of the wrath of God, but rather seek to impress them with his unspeakable love and goodness….” [bible Echo and Signs of the Times, 02-01-1892]