Knowing Your Enemy: Satan's Attacks On SDAs

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: John3:17

I asked before-- and I don't believe you've answered-- whether on your radio program you have had a panel of theologians or Bible teachers who are able to challenge your teachings. Have you ever recorded any such program? If not, why not? And if so, who were they and how can I listen to it?

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

You are welcome any Friday to come on our program and discuss with us any topic you wish. This is a standing invitation to anyone that would appreciate a CIVIL discussion of these topics. We never abuse the honor of having guests on our show by becoming contentious or rude. You can go to our web site and click on the RADIO page, and that will take you to the links for both our Friday "The Bible on Trial" program and our Sabbath morning program "Spirit of Truth". This invitation is extended to everyone. We will even get an toll free number for our Friday program to facilitate your calls. You can contact us either through our private emails or through our ministry email to make arrangements for a particular show date.

Thank you that invitation, MM. I will give it some serious thought.

But you did not answer my question:

Have you ever had a panel of theologians or Bible teachers, or even a single one, on your program before? What I'm asking is whether you've had guests on before who did not accept your understanding of Paul and the rest of the NT books that you reject? If so, do you have copies of that program?

We have had many callers who had questions. Several spent a good portion of the show with us. As to a panel of theologians or Bible teachers-what would be the point. The program is about our perspective not about Christian tradition or theology as usual. To be honest we ask ourselves tougher questions than any of our callers have asked us. Remember, all of us on the program have come from the same place as have you, and have been through the same emotional trauma as you as we discovered that we had been fooled.

What would be nice would be that you come over to my place on a Friday morning, have breakfast, and then do the program with us live. Now THAT would be fun. We could even have Richard call in and help you ask the tough questions of which I am sure you are capable. Give it some thought and email either me or Dr. Rich.

By the way, all of our programs are archived on Blog Talk Radio, so feel free to investigate our content to your hearts content. You can listen online or download our programs to your mp-3 player and listen at your leisure.

[Musicman1228]

John,

First, let me appologize to you for the remark about logic. Honestly, I don't know why I said that. You and I have had a meal together and we have here-to-fore behaved with mutual respect. I hope you will forgive me so we can get back to dealing with each other with that mutual respect.

Now back to the discussion:

I never once mentioned the word 'sex' when I was giving you my understanding about the Godhead. I used the words 'feminine' and 'masculine' characteristics not 'male' and 'female' which would relate to sex. God Themselves used the words 'male' and 'female' when telling us about who they created, which does indicate gender. But I know that God before Jesus was born as a human was without physical gender. Yet they do have individual masculine and feminine characteristics because they said that they created mankind with those same characteristics.

As to physical differences: Yes, of course, today males and females have for the most part very different physical characteristics. But this is a result is sin being in the world for thousands of years, with it's degenerative effects changing the ideal that God set in Eden to what we see today. It is my opinion that at that time there was much less physical differences than there are now. And it was never God's plan that one of the pair should physically dominate over the other, as we often see today. It was only when they sinned that God was forced to change the dynamic between the two. But this condition is not the ideal. So I aqree with you that men and women do have different roles, and these differences are seen in the Godhead.

The Father has a different role than the Holy Spirit. And Jesus has a different role than either of His parents. Yet all three have the same mind set and same goals, and the same way of operating in their Kingdom. The way they operate is the way that we should operate here on earth - 'Your will be done on earth as it is in Heaven'. To say that a woman is incapable of doing many of the same things as a man such as preach a sermon in church, or act in an official capacity for the church smacks of the worst kind of discrimination. This discrimination stems principally from the concepts defined by the words of Paul. These words create a permanent rift between men and women, husband and wife, both in the work place and in the home, because men use these words to subjugate women to their own wills using the words of Paul as their excuse.

When you compare the way Jesus treated women and the way Paul said we are to treat them you can see a big difference, which I won't go into right now. You can figure this out for yourself.

Suffice it to say that you will never find the Father treating His wife, the Holy Spirit, the way that many Christian men treat theirs. This is just one more reason why I KNOW that the God of Heaven did not commission Paul as an apostle.

[John317]

... As to a panel of theologians or Bible teachers-what would be the point.

The point would be to show you that you are in error to believe and teach that Paul was of Satan and that the many other books of the NT that you reject contain lies. As I've read your book, The Spirit of the Church, as well as your posts, it's become obvious to me that the reason you teach what you do is due to your lack of understanding of Paul. It would only be fair to allow your radio listeners to hear an opposing viewpoint. If your views are true, you would have nothing to fear. If they are false, I'm sure you would want to know.

For instance, why not have several NT scholars on your program to discuss the canon and the letters of Paul and ask you questions about your teaching on this subject? You also, of course, would be able to ask them questions.

If people in that group are really asking tough questions, they should see the errors in your book and in the teachings you present about the NT. For instance, your teaching that God allowed Satan to contribute quite a bit to the New Testament.

Your books contains a lot of errors, which anyone with even one year of Greek would be able to see. For instance, on page 122, you talk about the Greek NT and say that "the Greek language is anarthoris, which means that the language contains no articles such as 'them,' 'they,' and 'it.' All articles are supplied by the translators and must needs reflect their bias with respect to doctine or theology."

Did you write those sentences? If so, where did you get this information? Did you have anyone trained in Greek read your book before it was published? You've given false information there and it can be easily proved with any text book for teaching NT Greek. "They," "them" and "it" are definitely in the Greek language, and anarthoris has nothing to do with those pronouns. They are not articles. The word "they" in Greek is autoi (masc), autai (fem), and auta (neuter). "Them" is autous (masc), autas (fem), and auta (neuter).

"It" is auto.

(See pp. 42, 43 of the standard Greek textbook by Ray Summers, Essentials of New Testament Greek, which is used in many colleges and universities where Greek is taught.)

The way you use the word anarthoris is proof that you don't understand the meaning of the word. Has anyone in your group or on the radio program ever pointed this out to you?

This has great importance because in your book, page 123, you make the following statement: "Therefore, a more credible translation of this verse (Acts 2: 3) could be: 'And there appeared unto them a cloven tongue like as a fire, and it rested upon each of them in turn.'"

That's completely false. There is not a single reputable translation that reads this way, and for good reason: because any translation that did read that way would be a invalid and inaccurate translation. The word "tongue" is plural and so is the participle "cloven" or "separated." The verb is third singular and therefore can only be translated as "it came to rest."

In your book, page 123, you claim that this was a deception of Satan-- that the Holy Spirit that descended on the people on the day of Pentecost was really a false miracle of Satan. And you make this claim at least partially because of a gross misunderstanding of the Greek. Or at least you support it with a gross misunderstanding.

Is your radio audiance aware of these kinds of errors in your book? I wonder if anyone has ever taken the time to talk to you about these things. They really should have told you about them before your book went to press.

These are the kinds of things I'm talking about when I ask you if you have had a panel of Bible scholars take part in a discussion about your beliefs and the book on the radio program. If those things are examples of the careless scholarship and reasoning that went into your book--- and I believe they are--- I think you can see why anyone who is knowledgeable in those areas are skeptical of what you've written.

I think you deserve to know these things. I would have hoped you would know them before you wrote your book and not put things in it that you were not sure of.

[Dr. Rich]

Hey, what a great Sabbath day today! Nice weather we are having here in S CA. Ok, I just got on the computer and see that lots of replies have been made. This one, that states I don't look at everything--I will admit that I treat most of what Richard writes as junk, so I would probably agree.

But there is one important issue I want to make clear--and that is about creation itself. What I believe is a theory--NOT doctrine. And we do NOT teach it, we just provide the evidence for the reason we believe the way we do. As I have said many times before, it will only make sense to those who have insight. What you believe is ONLY theory too. It's ok to debate the issue with this in mind, but making fun or saying that I am following Satan is off base-and you should know this. I have been sincere and so has MM. We provided what we believe and why, and if you don't want to TRY to understand WHY we believe what we do, then so be it. Like I said before, I have found it much easier and more fun to communicate and debate with an atheist then an Adventist. They have not had any 'mind control' placed on them yet.

Now, let's talk about 'scripture'. To make sure we are talking about the same thing, you need to let me know what you believe the word "scripture" means. Here is why: One of the SDA 28 Fundamental beliefs is fatally flawed because they have placed the bible on par with what Jesus called scripture. Every verse they give for reference is about the OT. There was nothing called a 'bible' when those verses were written. The flaw is deadly serious which I believe blasphemy because they are calling God and the Holy Spirit liars. And this is just one of the main reasons why I believe the SDA Corporate church (as the 5 foolish virgins), right now is the Synagogue of Satan as found in Revelation 2 and 3.

So please give me your definition of the word “Scripture”.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Hey, what a great Sabbath day today! Nice weather we are having here in S CA. Ok, I just got on the computer and see that lots of replies have been made. This one, that states I don't look at everything--I will admit that I treat most of what Richard writes as junk, so I would probably agree.

LOLOL Dr. Rich, you're funny!

[John317]

...I never once mentioned the word 'sex' when I was giving you my understanding about the Godhead. I used the words 'feminine' and 'masculine' characteristics not 'male' and 'female' which would relate to sex. God Themselves used the words 'male' and 'female' when telling us about who they created, which does indicate gender. But I know that God before Jesus was born as a human was without physical gender. Yet they do have individual masculine and feminine characteristics because they said that they created mankind with those same characteristics.

But you do refer to the Holy Spirit as "woman" and "she," while the Bible does not do so (although I realize you believe "woman" in Rev. 12: 1 is referring to the Holy Spirit.)

As you imply here, they all do have masculine and feminine characterisics. Why not use biblical language when referring to the Godhead? Why do you feel the need of calling the Holy Spirit "she" and "her" and "woman." It seems to me that if God wanted us to think of the Holy Spirit that way, He would have talked that way when He was with us and He would also have inspired the Bible writers to us that kind of language with respect to the Holy Spirit.

I find it peculiar that at times you appear so concerned with using Bible language, but then at other times, it seems you cast off the language of Holy Scripture as if it doesn't matter at all. For instance, yesterday you indicated that you thought it possible that perhaps Moses lied about Eve being the first human to commit sin.

[John317]

John,

First, let me appologize to you for the remark about logic. Honestly, I don't know why I said that. You and I have had a meal together and we have here-to-fore behaved with mutual respect. I hope you will forgive me so we can get back to dealing with each other with that mutual respect.

Thank you, MM. I do appreciate that. If one of us is saying something that is illogical or unreasonable, there's no problem expressing it directly, but that would be talking about a specific statement or argument and not the person. I'm sure you can see that difference.

I would be happy to get together with you some time for a meal again, maybe at a Mexican or Chinese or Indian restaraunt. We'll have to set aside about 3 or 4 hours. I'd like sometime to sit and go over your book with you. I have a lot of questions, as you can imagine, I'm sure.

You won't have any more careful reader of your book than I am, let me assure you. Was your book ever reviewed by scholars, and if so, what was their general view of it?

[John317]

Hey, what a great Sabbath day today! Nice weather we are having here in S CA. Ok, I just got on the computer and see that lots of replies have been made. This one, that states I don't look at everything--I will admit that I treat most of what Richard writes as junk, so I would probably agree.

Would you like people to say they treat your posts as junk and not pay attention to it or read it?

I don't have to agree with someone in order to give their writing a serious examination. I would do that with anyone, including yours and MM's and Wayfinder's. I do it out of respect for God who made people in His image and sacrificed His life for all of us-- each and every one.

[John317]

.... It's ok to debate the issue with this in mind, but making fun or saying that I am following Satan is off base-and you should know this. I have been sincere and so has MM. We provided what we believe and why, and if you don't want to TRY to understand WHY we believe what we do, then so be it.

I do try to understand why you believe what you do, and that is why I am reading your posts so carefully and telling you what I believe. It is because I am attempting to understand why you have those beliefs that you do.

Go back to all of your posts on this and other threads, and I beleive you will see evidence that I understand what you believe and why. If I have misconceptions of those things, be sure to point them out.

But remember that just because someone undertands what you are saying and why you believe what you do, doesn't mean he will necessarily agree with you. So if someone doesn't agree with you, don't assume that he doesn't understand your belief or why you beleive the way you do. I study philosophy and religions all the time, but that doesn't mean I agree with them. For instance, Neitzsche and Marx are two of my favorite philosophers, yet I hardly ever agree with them, even though I understand what they are saying and why they say it.

[John317]

... To say that a woman is incapable of doing many of the same things as a man such as preach a sermon in church, or act in an official capacity for the church smacks of the worst kind of discrimination. This discrimination stems principally from the concepts defined by the words of Paul. These words create a permanent rift between men and women, husband and wife, both in the work place and in the home, because men use these words to subjugate women to their own wills using the words of Paul as their excuse.

Considering your attitude toward the apostle, I should not be surprised at what you are saying about him here.

Quote:

When you compare the way Jesus treated women and the way Paul said we are to treat them you can see a big difference, which I won't go into right now. You can figure this out for yourself.

This is an example of your not understanding Paul or Jesus. That's why you reject Paul. You think he's contradicting Jesus when he isn't.

Did Jesus ever give any indication that women were to be leaders of men in the church? If so, where and how?

Paul is not saying that women have no role or work to do in the church. Women did have an important work to do in the early church, but they weren't the pastors or the elders or chief officers in the church, and this doesn't contradict the teachings of Jesus anywhere.

[John317]

....Now, let's talk about 'scripture'. To make sure we are talking about the same thing, you need to let me know what you believe the word "scripture" means. Here is why: One of the SDA 28 Fundamental beliefs is fatally flawed because they have placed the bible on par with what Jesus called scripture. Every verse they give for reference is about the OT. There was nothing called a 'bible' when those verses were written. The flaw is deadly serious which I believe blasphemy because they are calling God and the Holy Spirit liars. And this is just one of the main reasons why I believe the SDA Corporate church (as the 5 foolish virgins), right now is the Synagogue of Satan as found in Revelation 2 and 3.

So please give me your definition of the word “Scripture”.

The word "Scripture" is a translation of the Greek noun, grafee, which, in the context of the Bible, means "holy writing" or "the Holy Scriptures." In much of the New Testament, such as the Gospels, it refers to the Jewish Scriptures, known to us as the Old Testament. As the early church developed, within the first century, the congregations were already understanding certain writings by Christians as belonging in the category of "holy writings." They had to decide which books they could turn over to their persecutors and which books they would hide or attempt to save at the cost of their lives. That was one way in which the Christians were brought to a decision as to which books were Scripture and which books were merely good to read.

For me and virtually all Christians, the "Holy Scriptures" include the 27 books of the New Testament. With few exceptions, this has been the case since the third and fourth centuries AD. It took a while for the church to understand which books consituted Holy Scripture, just as it took a while for the Hebrews to have a clear view of which books were to be considered Hebrew Scriptures.

[Twilight]

Dr R and MM, you are confused because you have stepped off of the one fundamental rule of biblical exposition.

The bible interprets itself.

Which you have replaced with:

Dr R and MM interpret the Bible.

You have now come to the point where you are attacking nearly every doctrine of the SDA church as far as I can tell.

Yet you still claim to be SDA....

Wow...

[Dr. Rich]

John, my answer is that I have invited most everyone of the GC, and leaders of the Adventiste church to be on our show--and not ONE has agreed to do it. Like Davidsons, Goldstein, everyone at Andrews, Loma Linda church, our pastors, our Academy religion teachers, J Paulin, Ted Wilson, Doug B., those at 3abn, those at bible research and the list is a long one. Why? Could it be that they can't answer the question on 'scripture'? Could it be that they don't want to take the stand for their belief?

If someone can't earn salvation by doing what Jesus said to do, then He lied. Since I know He did NOT lie, then I believe Him. Keeping all of the ten commandments and the words of Jesus means that one trusts ONLY in God that He will do what He said He would do.

By the way, is one of our foundamental beliefs to being a SDA that of we don't have a right to choose to interpert what the bible states? Didn't think so.

[Dr. Rich]

John, thankyou for your questions on error. It may be of some help to you that we have had members of our class that were actually Greek but our reliance on them alone was not the case--as the making and writing of the book took longer than 3 years. We have found that just as one would take a bus load of pastors and ask them a question about the bible-or greek, that you can get a bus load of answers.

But this is the most important thing to remember--IF the Holy Spirit will lead us into ALL truth, then what is it about the word ALL that most do not understand? The simple truth of the matter is that Jesus breathed upon His disciples the Holy Spirit as found in John. You can dance, tiptoe and do the two-step around this truth but it will never change things and it will not go away. Whether it was one or many cloven tongues of fire (liken to), who cares? You were not there and neither was MM. Arguing about this is nonsense.

This was not in the book: 2nd Tim. 1:15 states that it was a FACT that ALL of those in Asia left Paul's teachings and verse 18 shows that Ephesus was a key player in this.

Acts 21 shows us that those of Asia (Ehpesus too) called out to those men of Israel and pointed out that Paul had been teaching them NOT to obey the law.

Keep in mind that Paul and Luke wrote about this earlier than when John wrote the book of Revelation. The first message found in Rev. 2 was to Ephesus and verse two shows that they put those who called themselves apostles to a test and found them to be false AND GOD SAID THAT THIS WAS GOOD!

Can you add two plus two? Here we have God saying that it was good for them to put these guys (probably Salis or Luke or Timothy as the other one), to a test and found them to be false apostles. Well, so now we have the words of Paul and Luke confirming that it HAD to be Paul for ALL of them rejected Paul's gospel!

This in itself is most damaging and it was NOT in the book.

And remember John, I am not saying that Paul did not write what he wrote, I am just saying that Pauls words are not the same gaspel as is Jesus' gospel.

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

... As to a panel of theologians or Bible teachers-what would be the point.

The point would be to show you that you are in error to believe and teach that Paul was of Satan and that the many other books of the NT that you reject contain lies. As I've read your book, The Spirit of the Church, as well as your posts, it's become obvious to me that the reason you teach what you do is due to your lack of understanding of Paul. It would only be fair to allow your radio listeners to hear an opposing viewpoint. If your views are true, you would have nothing to fear. If they are false, I'm sure you would want to know.

For instance, why not have several NT scholars on your program to discuss the canon and the letters of Paul and ask you questions about your teaching on this subject? You also, of course, would be able to ask them questions.

If people in that group are really asking tough questions, they should see the errors in your book and in the teachings you present about the NT. For instance, your teaching that God allowed Satan to contribute quite a bit to the New Testament.

Your books contains a lot of errors, which anyone with even one year of Greek would be able to see. For instance, on page 122, you talk about the Greek NT and say that "the Greek language is anarthoris, which means that the language contains no articles such as 'them,' 'they,' and 'it.' All articles are supplied by the translators and must needs reflect their bias with respect to doctine or theology."

Did you write those sentences? If so, where did you get this information? Did you have anyone trained in Greek read your book before it was published? You've given false information there and it can be easily proved with any text book for teaching NT Greek. "They," "them" and "it" are definitely in the Greek language, and anarthoris has nothing to do with those pronouns. They are not articles. The word "they" in Greek is autoi (masc), autai (fem), and auta (neuter). "Them" is autous (masc), autas (fem), and auta (neuter).

"It" is auto.

(See pp. 42, 43 of the standard Greek textbook by Ray Summers, Essentials of New Testament Greek, which is used in many colleges and universities where Greek is taught.)

The way you use the word anarthoris is proof that you don't understand the meaning of the word. Has anyone in your group or on the radio program ever pointed this out to you?

This has great importance because in your book, page 123, you make the following statement: "Therefore, a more credible translation of this verse (Acts 2: 3) could be: 'And there appeared unto them a cloven tongue like as a fire, and it rested upon each of them in turn.'"

That's completely false. There is not a single reputable translation that reads this way, and for good reason: because any translation that did read that way would be a invalid and inaccurate translation. The word "tongue" is plural and so is the participle "cloven" or "separated." The verb is third singular and therefore can only be translated as "it came to rest."

In your book, page 123, you claim that this was a deception of Satan-- that the Holy Spirit that descended on the people on the day of Pentecost was really a false miracle of Satan. And you make this claim at least partially because of a gross misunderstanding of the Greek. Or at least you support it with a gross misunderstanding.

Is your radio audiance aware of these kinds of errors in your book? I wonder if anyone has ever taken the time to talk to you about these things. They really should have told you about them before your book went to press.

These are the kinds of things I'm talking about when I ask you if you have had a panel of Bible scholars take part in a discussion about your beliefs and the book on the radio program. If those things are examples of the careless scholarship and reasoning that went into your book--- and I believe they are--- I think you can see why anyone who is knowledgeable in those areas are skeptical of what you've written.

I think you deserve to know these things. I would have hoped you would know them before you wrote your book and not put things in it that you were not sure of.

John,

Why don't you come on our show and set us straight? I think it would be educational and fun for our audience to hear a decidedly antagonistic point of view.

Yes, we did check sources for the use of 'anarthoris' in the Greek language. That source is Robert Eisenman who is a professor of religion at Long Beach State University, and author of "James, the Brother of Jesus". There are other source listed in the back of our book.

John, I am not going to argue with you about this. I have stated my positions and reasons for those positions. I have investigated the texts in question using 17 different translations (not transliterations), including the Septuigent-a much overlooked source. You disagree, which is your prerogative, and I respect you in your disagreement. As I said before, all I am interested in doing from now on is reading and giving opinions on the various different topics , without the long, protracted and boring wrangling that happens when two parties are on opposite sides of an issue.

My stand (which I am willing to die for) is that both Paul and EGW teach lies as if they are truth. This has not been done without considerable study (over 16 years) and anguish on my part for going against the teachings of my church, and knowing what the consequences would be for taking that stand.

In a little while Dr. Rich and I will supply you with further information right from those that you trust that will show conclusively that Paul was not who you believe he is. This is going to take a few days, and we will post it on our web site and supply you with a link so you can get to it easily.

I am aware that you believe about your positions as I believe about mine, and right now that is appropriate. I have been right where you are today, and I made the same arguments against these controversial positions as have you. I firmly believe that the Holy Spirit has led me to take a look at these things and come to the conclusions that I have; I am sure you believe the same about what you believe.

But since there is only ONE truth there are only three possibilities; 1) we are both wrong and will have to relearn the truth, 2) I am wrong and you are right, or 3) I am right and you are wrong. Both of us cannot be correct in our beliefs, so one or both of us are going to be disappointed. Because of this I will always read what you write, because the may be something that I have missed, or not looked at correctly. On the other hand, I am not going to believe what you say just because you say I am wrong, because I view Scripture in a different light than do you.

I will continue to pray for unity as we go through this process.

[Musicman1228]

John,

Did Jesus ask for a review of His understanding and theology by a panel of theologians in His day? (And yes I know that I am not Jesus.)

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I find it ironic regarding the turn in discussion this thread has taken.

[phkrause]

Hey, what a great Sabbath day today! Nice weather we are having here in S CA. Ok, I just got on the computer and see that lots of replies have been made. This one, that states I don't look at everything--I will admit that I treat most of what Richard writes as junk, so I would probably agree.

Well that's just not right, everyone has something to contribute. I might not agree with most of what you write, but I read it anyway and don't treat it as junk. Why even have a discussion or better yet the forum itself if we treated all the way you just said that you treat Richard's posts.

[Guest]

Thank you pk...I agree.

[Guest]

John,

Did Jesus ask for a review of His understanding and theology by a panel of theologians in His day? (And yes I know that I am not Jesus.)

Then why make the comparison?

[phkrause]

Thank you pk...I agree.

No problem, your welcome

[Dr. Rich]

PK, Richard and I are friends, but we don't see things the same and since he keeps jabbing me, I tend to ignore what he says. I have read all of John's replies but they are so long, I loose track of what he has written about. Anyone who writes something very long and or gives quotes what EGW has written I also tend to ignor. Hit me with ONE question and I will answer it. I am not here to take a test.

John, your understanding of what "scripture" is not the same as was any of the verses given for references for fundamental belief number one:

"The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God's acts in history. (2 Peter 1:20, 21; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Ps. 119:105; Prov. 30:5, 6; Isa. 8:20; John 17:17; 1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 4:12.)"

As you can see, when these were written, the ONLY thing that was called "Scripture" was the OT. Therefore, if you can, please provide the necessary scripture to prove the NT as a whole is the Word of God? If the GC can't do it, then why have it in here? The ONLY way anyone can believe this is in blind faith.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Richard and I are friends, but we don't see things the same and since he keeps jabbing me, I tend to ignore what he says.

That's why I thought what you said was humorous...I thought you were jesting with Richard.

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

John,

Did Jesus ask for a review of His understanding and theology by a panel of theologians in His day? (And yes I know that I am not Jesus.)

Then why make the comparison?

Because, Richard, while I am not as completely sure of my theology as was Jesus, the Pharisees were completely sure of theirs. Their theology was what had been taught in the synagogues for hundreds of years, and they were not about to change it just because some upstart, no name teacher from an obscure little town told them where they were wrong in their understanding. Except for a few they were unwilling to consider that they might not have all the understanding they needed to be saved.

Could history be repeating itself today? Did Jesus ever tell the Pharisees from whom He received His authority after they asked?

I am NOT saying I am correct in my understanding, but I am open to looking at NEW understanding, and I am willing to give up OLD understanding when the situations warrants.

[jasd]

>>IF the Holy Spirit will lead us into ALL truth, then what is it about the word ALL that most do not understand?<<

Most approach "truth" as a singularity; whereas, "truth" - though perhaps being a singlarity may be one having many aspects, as a cut and faceted jewel has many aspects - including those hidden within - else, we must arrive at the fact that throughout the Xtian history - the Holy Spirit was on an extended absence ... There are those who

say "in truth" - that the Holy Spirit is male because the NT utilizes the masculine determiner pronoun when referring to it. Let us not be so unequivocal. The term defining the Holy Spirit in the OT is feminine, and the term in the NT is nueter - governed by grammatical rules - rather than an inherency of itself.