Gustave Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 I don't know why you are asking Gerry, since it is the bible inspired by the Holy Spirit that made the statement, Mat 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil Not that Miz3 needs any help from me but this continues to jump out at me... ...Why do the majority of SDA's pretend there isn't the word "OF" directly prior to 'THE DEVIL'???? As in: Jesus was led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted OF the devil. For some reason the "OF" keeps being ignored so that Ellen White can be protected.... ....A person who is TEMPTED is either tempted WITHIN THEMSELF OR they are tempted OUTSIDE THEMSELVES. ....I.E. like when someone tempts you to do something you are NOT at all interested in. To protect Ellen it appears as if SDA's are feverish to have Christ yearning to fornicate, steal or any other sin... ...So that they can gloat Christ was tempted within Himself. ...This IS heretical!
Moderators Gerr Posted May 12, 2011 Moderators Posted May 12, 2011 Originally Posted By: Gerry There would be no point in saying - "yet without sin" if, as a MAN, there was not the slightest possibility that He could have chosen to do so Gerry, what does the word "BUT" mean to you in the text you quoted? ...Fabricate as many sentences as you like and place the word BUT in the same place. ...What does it mean in EACH & EVERY time? How does this effect your undertanding? What would be the point of putting "but" or "yet" following the statement that He was tempted if there had been no possibility whatsoever of giving in to temptation? If I say: I was in the bar all evening, but/yet I didn't touch a drop. What does that tell you? That I could have. There is no point in adding the last phrase if there is no possibility whatsoever that I would touch a drop. If I say: I was in LA, but/yet I did not see a traffic jam. What is that telling you? that I could have. No point in adding the last phrase if LA was the wide spaces like Montana. If I say: I was in NYC and I was tempted many times to see a Broadway show, but I didn't. What does that tell you? That I could have! No point for the last phrase if there was no way I was going to see one anyway.
ClubV12 Posted May 12, 2011 Posted May 12, 2011 miz3, you sure have a unique ability to misunderstand what someone says by twisting it into what you think they should be saying. Like you've done with my statement that concludes by "my own words" I have proved Jesus could not fail. That is exactly opposite of what I was saying and illustrating. Or your recent, and often repeated, accusation that Seventh Day Adventist's believe every word of Ellen White wrote is inspired. That is clearly NOT the position of the SDA church, it's just more of wishful thinking and accusations. It's no wonder you are incapable of understanding even the plainest of scripture. You cannot even understand someones position on an issue, no matter how plainly they state it, if it stands against your deeply ingrained strong delusional position. I don't know how you got to where you are, but seriously, you ARE operating under a strong delusion in that you do seem to sincerely believe what you are saying. As Ellen White said, inspired or not, some folks who are sincere, are sincerely mistaken! Frankly, your position looks quite desperate as you keep digging a deeper hole. Your NOT asking "deep questions" to stir up debate! Your attacking and accusing the brethren every chance you get. This is not the spirit of the Lord.
Gustave Posted May 12, 2011 Posted May 12, 2011 What would be the point of putting "but" or "yet" following the statement that He was tempted if there had been no possibility whatsoever of giving in to temptation?
miz3 Posted May 12, 2011 Posted May 12, 2011 ClubV12, By your own admission, you are saturated with Ellen White bias. It is obvious that your views of Scripture are influenced by what you have read in Ellen White. You do not stop to discern whether or not what Ellen White is saying is inspired or whether she is expressing an opinion. Your views on the temptation of Christ bear witness to your weakness and inability to understand Scripture.
ClubV12 Posted May 12, 2011 Posted May 12, 2011 I discern perfectly well what is and isn't inspired counsel from Ellen White. When Ellen White says some folks are sincere, but sincerely mistaken, it doesn't matter WHO said it or IF it was inspired. It doesn't matter if I think it was or wasn't inspired. Mark Twain could have said it for all the difference it makes. Some things are just "truth". You, are sincerely mistaken, by any reasonable standard.
miz3 Posted May 12, 2011 Posted May 12, 2011 ClubV12, It does make a difference if what you think is not supported by the Bible and the Bible only. And therein lies your problem. When you read Ellen White or Mark Twain something might sound true to you but when you take that same thought and apply it to the Bible you blaspheme the Word of God. The Bible is not some Book like other books where you compare back and forth to see where the Truth actually is. The Bible by itself needs no interpreter except the Holy Spirit. 1Corinthians 2:6-16. When you use your Ellen White bias to interpret the Bible, you insult and blaspheme, God, the Bible, and God's servant Ellen White. This is the same blasphemy I spoke to Keven H about because he believes the Bible is better understood when you seek other outside the Bible works. Those who use Ellen White even though she is God's servant, commit the same blasphemy because Ellen White herself said that we are not use her to interpret the Bible. I believe Woody spoke eloquently concerning this problem earlier and he spoke directly to you and John317.
ClubV12 Posted May 12, 2011 Posted May 12, 2011 I personally am making this statement. "You, are sincere, and sincerely mistaken in your views." One does not need a bible referrence or an Ellen White quote or a note from Mom to express an opinion. Some will see the opinion as truth, some will not. Your logic, miz3, is so contorted you cannot discern the difference between any of the sources.
miz3 Posted May 12, 2011 Posted May 12, 2011 Your logic, miz3, is so contorted you cannot discern the difference between any of the sources. You are accusing me of what I have already stated is your problem. That is rich, ClubV12
Woody Posted May 12, 2011 Posted May 12, 2011 Quote: "I believe Woody spoke eloquently" Good observation. Woody usually does speak eloquently from what I've noticed. :) May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology.
ClubV12 Posted May 12, 2011 Posted May 12, 2011 I am doing nothing more that expressing my opinion miz3. That opinion stands. You are one really confused person!
teresaq Posted May 12, 2011 Posted May 12, 2011 Originally Posted By: teresaq Matthew 4 1Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. 2And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 3And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. 4But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Would it have been sin for Christ to turn the stones into bread, solely for Himself? why, or why not? And what was Satan's challenge? Here is how I understand it. Verse 7 It is written AGAIN, thou shall not tempt the Lord thy God. facebook. /teresa.quintero.790
teresaq Posted May 12, 2011 Posted May 12, 2011 This was the original post and wasn't dealt with as I can see, Originally Posted By: miz3 Since you believe the chance that Jesus Christ could have sinned is NOT ZERO, then what percentage is it that Jesus Christ would have bowed down to Satan and worshiped him in exchange for the kingdoms. Is it 50%? Is it 75%? Is it 30%? I await your answer. I don't know why you are asking Gerry, since it is the bible inspired by the Holy Spirit that made the statement,Mat 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. In which case we would have to go to Jesus and ask Him what the odds had been... that's how it seems to me anyway. Originally Posted By: Gustave Not that Miz3 needs any help from me but this continues to jump out at me... ...Why do the majority of SDA's pretend there isn't the word "OF" directly prior to 'THE DEVIL'???? As in: Jesus was led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted OF the devil. For some reason the "OF" keeps being ignored so that Ellen White can be protected.... ....A person who is TEMPTED is either tempted WITHIN THEMSELF OR they are tempted OUTSIDE THEMSELVES. ....I.E. like when someone tempts you to do something you are NOT at all interested in. ... it appears as if SDA's are feverish to have Christ yearning to fornicate, steal or any other sin... ...So that they can gloat Christ was tempted within Himself. ...This IS heretical! [/quote']So this last statement is basically your issue. I have to agree that there are some among us who have given me that picture also. I can see Jesus hunger being so strong as to tempt Him to turn the stones into loaves... I can see the temptation to forego a life of suffering and death for ungrateful man to live a life of luxury at least a momentary temptation for Jesus.... And the temptation to cast Himself off the temple building to "prove" His divinity must surely also have been tempting for a moment. But that is, if I stop and think about how He must have felt after 40 days of not eating...I do agree that He was strengthened by the Holy Spirit to resist and so can we be. We can also be as full of the scripture as He was. facebook. /teresa.quintero.790
teresaq Posted May 12, 2011 Posted May 12, 2011 ClubV12, By your own admission, you are saturated with Ellen White bias. It is obvious that your views of Scripture are influenced by what you have read in Ellen White. You do not stop to discern whether or not what Ellen White is saying is inspired or whether she is expressing an opinion. Your views on the temptation of Christ bear witness to your weakness and inability to understand Scripture. If this were addressed to me I would accept the insult with joy, knowing that it is not true... but if you wish to believe it of me, so be it. :) facebook. /teresa.quintero.790
miz3 Posted May 13, 2011 Posted May 13, 2011 if this were addressed to me I would accept the insult with joy, knowing that it is not true... but if you wish to believe it of me, so be it. This is not an insult. Surely those who believe everything Ellen White communicated as being inspired would not take such a fact as an insult. I was stating fact, not insulting him. In fact I wish those who believe in the inspiration of Ellen White would stop denying that she influences them in all their views of Scripture. If she is inspired then her influence is logical and I don't understand SDA who when confronted shy away as if they are ashamed of her. That to me is the insult-----its the insult to God and to His Prophet Ellen White. When SDA say they are a Bible and Bible only people they are simply not being honest. I just want them to be honest. If SDA were honest instead of being ashamed by their connection to Ellen White then we could either agree or disagree. People may not agree that Ellen White is ALWAYS in the on, INSPIRED position but they cannot fault SDA if they disagree with their views on Doctrine. We then could agree to disagree. To me it is the height of insult and disrespect both to God and to Ellen White as God's inspired Prophet to hide behind her then claim that what you believe has no connection with her because you are a Bible and Bible only person or group. Thus it is hard for me to respect such cowardice. Thus, I believe I was only stating fact, and I was not shooting off insults to those addressed.
Moderators Gerr Posted May 13, 2011 Moderators Posted May 13, 2011 Heb 4:15 still tells me the same thing. He was tempted like we are, yet without sin. Let me state it again: To say that there was no possibility whatsoever that Jesus could have chosen to sin, is to deny His humanity and that He had no freedom of choice. And according to the Apostle John, that is heresy.
Gustave Posted May 13, 2011 Posted May 13, 2011 Heb 4:15 still tells me the same thing. He was tempted like we are, yet without sin. Let me state it again: To say that there was no possibility whatsoever that Jesus could have chosen to sin, is to deny His humanity and that He had no freedom of choice. And according to the Apostle John, that is heresy. What you say only flys within the theology of Adventist groups... ...JW's, Christadelphians, WWCOG 7th Day & SDA's. ...The doctrine you affirm only works when you change established word meanings. ...And then deny 99% of Sacred Scripture in favor of one sentence in one text with an application of error. ...Because that's what the SDA guru said it meant. If you would have had an apologetic from the Bible to bring to this table.... ...We would have seen it already. ...wouldn't we have.
Moderators Gerr Posted May 13, 2011 Moderators Posted May 13, 2011 Either Jesus was human or He was not. My Bible says He was. And you can associate SDAs with JWs or Christadelphians or WWCOG all you want. Show me one church that takes what the Bible says more seriously than SDAs do. You want Bible apologetics? He was called, "Son of Man," "Son of David," "Seed of Abraham." He was human. And humans have free choice - to obey God or disobey Him.
miz3 Posted May 13, 2011 Posted May 13, 2011 Gerry Cabalo, I am glad that the sinful nature does not affect your "choice". The only way a humans can have free choice is if the sinful nature or any other entity would have absolutely no affect on them. Is that what you believe? If something influences your choice even in the slightest, its NOT "FREE"!
CoAspen Posted May 13, 2011 Posted May 13, 2011 Still waiting for someone to tell me why Christ was here on earth, if He was not able to have sinned!! Why is the question being ignored in all this twisted semantics about EGW and the Bible? Where is the substance of the discussion? A very twisted circle is being run without gaining ground with out the answer of Christ mission on this earth. All this flaming about peoples understanding and whose position is right accomplishes nothing!!
miz3 Posted May 13, 2011 Posted May 13, 2011 CoAspen, "“You are a king, then!” said Pilate. Jesus answered, “You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.” John 18:37. It looks like from this text that Jesus Christ came "to testify to the truth". What is the Truth? Didn't Jesus Christ say that He was "the way, THE TRUTH, and the life". Its your ball now.
Gustave Posted May 13, 2011 Posted May 13, 2011 Either Jesus was human or He was not. My Bible says He was.
Gustave Posted May 13, 2011 Posted May 13, 2011 Still waiting for someone to tell me why Christ was here on earth, if He was not able to have sinned!! Why is the question being ignored in all this twisted semantics about EGW and the Bible? Where is the substance of the discussion? A very twisted circle is being run without gaining ground with out the answer of Christ mission on this earth. All this flaming about peoples understanding and whose position is right accomplishes nothing!! You've been told many times if you've read this thread.... ...Or followed the other one under a similar name. Christ was ALWAYS the Christ - this was FORE - ORDAINED by God prior to the world being created.... ...This isn't a joke, it's a fact recorded in the Bible many times. ...Therefore the shibboleth that if Jesus couldn't be tempted within Himself than it all means nothing... ...Is simply a twisted heretical theology that is not based off Scripture. Here is the Sacred Scripture teaching WHY Jesus came. 1 John 3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin 1 John 3:8 For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Here is the SDA teaching as to the "purpose" Christ WAS manifested. Ellen White Representing the law of God in its true character arouses the enmity of Satan. Those who love God with all the heart, will love the law of his kingdom. They will not only profess to be guided by its principles, but they will actually live them out, even in a world that is no more favorable to the development of Christian principles than were the inhabitants of the world before the flood, of whom it is written that the thoughts and imaginations of their hearts were evil, and only evil continually. A similar condition of society exists in our world today, and if those who claim to be God's commandment-keeping people do not put in practice the principles of the law which Christ came to our world to vindicate, pronouncing it holy, just, and good, they misrepresent the character and mission of their professed Master Ellen White For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16). Christ did not come to change the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. He did not come to lessen the law of God in one particular. He came to express in His own person the love of God. He came to vindicate every precept of the holy law.--Ms 145, 1897, p. 4. ("Notes of Work," Dec. 30, 1897.) {11MR 345.3} Ellen White Satan will continue to bring in his erroneous theories and to claim that his sentiments are true. Seducing spirits are at work. I am to meet the danger positively, denying the right of anyone to use my writings to serve the devil's purpose to allure and deceive the people of God. God has spared my life that I may present the testimonies given me, to vindicate that which God vindicates, and to denounce every sophistry [intended] to deceive if possible the very elect.--Ms 126, 1905, pp. 3, 7. ("A Warning Against Present Dangers," typed December 29, 1905.) {5MR 144.1} Would you care to demonstrate where in Scripture it is taught that Christ was fore-ordained... ...To "VINDICATE GOD'S Law"????? I find plenty of places where the Bible says Christ came to vindicate humanity or "the world" because God loved us YET I find no place in Scripture which teaches God was a cosmic victim and Satan made God look bad by saying bad stuff about God's law then Jesus came to "vindicate God's law". Come-on! Let's not talk about twisted circles as if I'm the one doing it.... ...I came here for a serious "Bible talk" and I thought the Creed would be a good place to start. ...Let's keep it on track so please support, in favor of your position, that God could have mutated.
miz3 Posted May 13, 2011 Posted May 13, 2011 Therefore in keeping with the Scriptures God became man WITHOUT CEASING TO BE GOD. This statement is supported 100% by the Bible. Post incarnation: Jesus Christ was 100% God and 100% human. The two existed as a single entity. while at the same time remaining fully God and fully human. This is why the incarnation is a miracle that is beyond the understanding of the human brain. Genesis 3:15 is a promise: As such most Christians believe that ALL GOD'S PROMISES ARE TRUE AND WILL NEVER BE FALSE God could never make this be so if Christ could have sinned. Because a Christ that sinned would have made God a liar. And God can never lie.
Moderators Gerr Posted May 13, 2011 Moderators Posted May 13, 2011 Originally Posted By: Gerry Either Jesus was human or He was not. My Bible says He was. Jesus NEVER, not for a split second, ceased to be "God"... ...And the affirmation that He did is the ONLY mechanism which allows God to mutate. ...It happens to be foundational to the Adventist rubric. But it is written: ESV | Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. ESV | Ro 5:14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. ESV | 1 Co 15:45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. So was Jesus man or not? ESV | 1 Jn 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. Originally Posted By: gustave Here we go again - Jesus was also called "Son of God" AT THE SAME TIME... ...He was called 'Son of Man'. ...Therefore in keeping with the Scriptures God became man WITHOUT CEASING TO BE GOD. Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. That last part which is taught in the Bible was defalcated by the Advenist rubric... ...And unfortunately remains today eternally embedded in Adventist theology. ...Due to Ellen White making it a point of her prophetic utterance. The teaching that God can mutate or that God only conditionally exists is as horrific as it is blasphemous... ...Eventually the SDA Church will dump this part of it's culture. ...Or will eventually go the way of the Branch Davidians. You must like "mutate" & "rubric" a lot. But those are your inventions and won't find them in official SDA publication. Guilt by association with Branch Davidians won't get you anywhere. If I'm not in the right church, show me the right one so I can check out their beliefs. If it's anything like the views you have presented here. Sorry, you are just grasping at straws.
Recommended Posts