How to understand Paul

[Wingnut]

1 hour ago, Robert said:

 

2 Peter 3:15  Our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom God gave him— 16 speaking of these things in all of his letters. Some of his comments are hard to understand, and those who are ignorant and unstable have twisted his letters to mean something quite different, just as they do with other parts of Scripture. And this will result in their destruction.

And that is exactly what this thread is about - stopping the ignorant and unstable who twist Paul's letters to their pet theories.

[Robert]

38 minutes ago, Wingnut said:

And that is exactly what this thread is about - stopping the ignorant and unstable who twist Paul's letters to their pet theories.

Look in the mirror.  Who is saying "Paul is unbalanced", "Paul invents/bends the facts"?  That would be you!  Now who is twisting?

[Robert]

On 1/17/2016 at 2:16 AM, Wingnut said:

Animals died before and after Adam.  Did they sin?....Animals had been dying for millions of years before Adam, as the fossil record shows.

Not only do you attack Paul, but you attack the creation record.  Evolution is lie from the pits of hell. Those who push it are rejecting part of the Bible and soon they will reject all of it.  This is how Satan works through human nature, by insinuation and doubt.  

The 7th-day Sabbath marked a perfect and sinless creation.  That simply means that God's creation work was immortal and sinless at the end of the 6th-day.

 If we go with your falsehoods then the Sabbath becomes meaningless because Theistic Evolution teaches that sin (i.e., dog eat dog - the survival of the fittest)  was there from the beginning.  That places God not only responsible for sin, but the author of sin. Hence you have gone from attacking Paul to attacking God.  

I believe that you are a internet troll here to unsettled believers who have put their trust in the word of God.  That's what I believe....

Therefore, I'm finished with you.

Robert

[Wingnut]

12 minutes ago, Robert said:

Not only do you attack Paul, but you attack the creation record.  Evolution is lie from the pits of hell. Those who push it are rejecting part of the Bible and soon they will reject all of it.  This is how Satan works through human nature, by insinuation and doubt.  

The 7th-day Sabbath marked a perfect and sinless creation.  That simply means that God's creation work was immortal and sinless at the end of the 6th-day.

 If we go with your falsehoods then the Sabbath becomes meaningless because Theistic Evolution teaches that sin (i.e., dog eat dog - the survival of the fittest)  was there from the beginning.  That places God not only responsible for sin, but the author of sin. Hence you have gone from attacking Paul to attacking God.  

I believe that you are a internet troll here to unsettled believers who have put their trust in the word of God.  That's what I believe....

Therefore, I'm finished with you.

Robert

I knew this thread would flush out the ignorant and unstable Paul worshippers, who twist what he said.

I hope you will stay true to your word about being finished with me, because your contributions have added nothing to me.

I started this thread with you and others in mind who say we are born saved, thus twisting Paul's writings, focusing only on Paul, ignoring the rest of the Bible, and doing exactly what Peter said.  

BTW I do not believe in evolution if you took the trouble to read my thread on "A new perspective on Genesis".

You have twisted Paul to say that there was no death of even an ant which Adam  might have trodden on, before Eve sinned.  I plan to expose this heresy too.

Outside of Eden, the dog-eat-dog world which existed since creation, continued, even while Adam and Eve lived in their little bubble in Eden.

[8thdaypriest]

On 1/17/2016 at 1:16 AM, Wingnut said:

How to understand Paul

#1 Read Paul in context

#2 Don't create doctrines on Paul alone

#3 Paul likes complicated analogies

 

#4 To make his analogies work, Paul invents/bends the facts

In Gal 4:25-26 Paul invents "Jerusalem above" as the comparison with "Mt Sinai".

Paul is determined to have a comparison.

Paul is particularly fond of comparing Christ with Adam.  He does it in Rom 5, 1 Cor 15. 

 

Rom 5

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

Rachel comments in RED:

Now let's see how Paul tweaks the facts to suit his analogy…

as by one man sin entered into the world - WRONG it was by one woman (unless women do not count)

through the offence of one - WRONG.  Two sinned (unless women do not count)

death reigned from Adam to Moses - WRONG.  Death started with Abel (or the lamb killed to cover them)

Death was first reversed (conquered) by resurrection, when the LORD resurrected Moses.  Moses later appeared with Elijah to Christ and three disciples (Mt of transfiguration).  Unless of course Jesus was talking to the dead, which would have disqualified Him from offering perfect obedience to the Law. 

not as it was by one that sinned - WRONG. It was Eve who sinned first then Adam = two (unless women do not count)

for the judgment was by one to condemnation - WRONG.  Which one sinned? (unless women do not count)

For if by one man's offence death reigned by one - WRONG.  That one was Eve (unless women do not count)

as by the offence of one judgment came - WRONG. Both sinned, why pick on Adam? (unless women do not count)

as by one man's disobedience - WRONG.  Both sinned, why pick on Adam? (unless women do not count)

"The husband is HEAD of the wife".  The husband represents the couple, or family, before God.  Eve's sin would therefore be counted as Adam's.

sin hath reigned unto death - WRONG.  This is not technically correct.  Adam and Eve were doomed to die whether they sinned or not UNLESS they ate of the Tree of Life.

True - God expelled them from the Garden, and blocked further access to the Tree, but sin was the REASON why God refused to prolong their lives immortally.    

The idea that sin causes death is exaggerated by Paul. 

Animals died before and after Adam.  Did they sin?   Totally disagree with this one.

Many, steeped in Paul will insist that the fall of man spread to animals so that they die due to Adam's sin.

Animals had been dying for millions of years before Adam, as the fossil record shows.

Yet I expect a storm of protest by those seeped in Paul insisting that death ONLY follows sin.

Did no fish eat another fish before Adam sinned?

Those steeped in Paul will say that lions lay down with lambs before Adam (who cares about Eve?) sinned.

Guys - wake up and smell the coffee.

Paul chooses complicated analogies and tries to make many comparisons in that analogy fit the facts.  If necessary, Paul will "modify" the facts to fit the analogy.  Admit this and we can all stop making crazy doctrines using Paul alone.

So  Wingnut, do you discount and nullify all the writings of Paul, or just those which do not fit your theories?

 

 

 

[Wingnut]

I would like to see all who defend Paul, defend his "I suffer not a woman to teach" wrt Ellen White.

I don't nullify anything that Paul says, only say one should realise that Paul was a human, bringing to his epistles a bit of his crazy.

And because he wrote so much, his crazy adds up.

[Wingnut]

Sorry Rachel, being colour blind red looks like black.  Please use blue if you must use colour.

"The husband is HEAD of the wife".  The husband represents the couple, or family, before God.  Eve's sin would therefore be counted as Adam's."

This statement shows a typical Christian culture steeped in Paul.

Would the woman caught in adultery's sins be counted as her husbands?

 

 

 

[Ron Amnsn]

On 1/16/2016 at 8:32 PM, Wingnut said:

Paul circumcised Timothy so that Timothy could be acceptable in the Jewish circles where Paul preached the Gospel.

1 Corinthians 9:20

And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

Paul knew that Timothy did not have to be circumcised to be saved, neither was Timothy under any bondage because his motive for circumcision was to not give offence while preaching the Gospel.

Are you promoting a double-standard here?  It seems that you're okay with Timothy becoming circumcised so as to become acceptable in Jewish circles.  That seems very, very close to what the Gentiles in Galatia had wanted to do-- be acceptable in Jewish circles.  Paul performed Timothy's circumcision himself, yet seems to condemn the circumcision that the Galatians were contemplating.  Do you think Paul had some supernatural gift of discerning the Galatian's motive for desiring circumcision from a great distance?  In my experience, Christians living in the same community can't correctly discern the motive of someone who aims to follow all of God's instructions, apparently because in their own mind the only reason to follow God's instructions is to "earn salvation".  We actually are not told anything about Timothy's motive for becoming circumcised-- we are only given hints about Paul's motive for circumcising Timothy, and the translators don't seem to be very consistent about what that part of the verse actually means. 

The timing of Timothy's circumcision was really very awkward, if the decision of Acts 15 was actually a decision against simple circumcision, the sign of God's covenant with Abraham.  When Paul circumcised Timothy, Paul was just headed out to visit the other congregations to deliver the decision of Acts 15.  If Paul had taken the half-Gentile Timothy around with him uncircumcised, it would have made it abundantly clear that Gentiles didn't need to be circumcised.  But Paul circumcised Timothy instead.  That really muddled things regarding the decision of Acts 15. Does that mean it's okay to become circumcised if you're part Israelite, but not okay if you have no Israelite genes?  According to the record in Acts, it wasn't his mother's Jewishness that mattered, but rather it was everyone knowing about the Gentile-ness of Timothy's father that was a factor in Timothy's circumcision.  So, if there are Jews around and everyone knows your father is a Gentile, does that make circumcision okay for you?

At what point in time precisely did getting circumcised, as Abraham and his servants were circumcised, suddenly change from being a good thing to being a negative thing?  Is God's Word really that fickle?  According to Abraham's covenant all the slaves/servants purchased by a descendant of Abraham were to be circumcised.  Jesus is a descendant of Abraham who has purchased with his blood all who call him "Lord".  Paul says Abraham's covenant is still valid, and that Gentiles are heirs of Abraham.  So why shouldn't they be circumcised?   In Colossians 2:11-12 Paul tells us that believers in Christ share in both the circumcision and baptism of Christ, yet we still encourage people to actually be baptized bodily (but not to be circumcised bodily).

I believe the real difference between Timothy's circumcision and the Circumcision rituals that the Galatians were contemplating was that Timothy's circumcision was done according to Abraham's covenant because Timothy was already an heir of Abraham through Christ, but the Circumcision that was being contemplated by the Galatians was being done to comply with the man-made traditions of Oral Law in order to become a son of Abraham and as an "entrance requirement" into the community of believers.  Also the Galatian Gentiles may have already been circumcised but not according to the requirements of the man-made Oral Law.  If the Galatian Jews were like modern Jews, they would want Gentile converts to be circumcised even if they had already been circumcised but it had been done without the proper training, vow, and ritual requirements.  (Re-circumcision sounds like mutilation of the flesh to me.)

[Wingnut]

Ron

Circumcision predated the OC and was a separate covenant God gave to Abraham's descendants.

This covenant never ended, and Ab's descendants should be circumcised today still.

Circumcision was never given to Genitles unless they wanted to join the nation of Israel, including marry an Israelite woman and enter the tabernacle.

A Corinthian wishing to become a Christian believer had absolutely no use to be circumcised.  God never intended it for Gentiles not wishing to become part of the nation of Israel.

 

The circumcision of Timothy had nothing to do with his half-Israelite status imo.

It was purely done so that Timothy could go into synagogues with Paul.  Paul's tactic when going to a new Gentile area was to go to the local synagogue and try to turn Jews and converts to Judaism, to Christianity first.  Then he might go to a public square and try to cold canvass raw gentiles.  This was much harder.  So having Timothy circumcised allowed him to go with Paul into the synagogue.  It was pure expediency. 

[Ron Amnsn]

On 1/17/2016 at 5:10 PM, Robert said:

Be careful not to take Matt chapter five out it's context.  Jesus is not teaching salvation by works.

Neither am I teaching salvation by works.  The Law was never given for the purpose of earning salvation. It was given to teach us what holy living and worship look like, and it will be used as the standard of judgement for those who refuse the salvation provided by God. Both of these two purposes or "ministries" of the Law are excellent and good.

[Ron Amnsn]

On 1/16/2016 at 6:59 AM, Robert said:

Actually, in context, Paul and Christ agree:

Christ:  "if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments"

Paul: "all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. (Why?)  For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous."

Robert, be careful about building your theology on English prepositions because Greek prepositions are translated rather freely by the translators depending on their own theological biases. The phrase "under the law" isn't translated consistently from the same Greek words in the various places it appears in our English Bibles.  In this verse (Romans 2:12) the word "under" is translated from the Greek word en, which means primarily "in", "on", "at", "by", or "with".  It is often translated "among" (125 time in the NASB) and rarely translated as "under" (6 times).  You are understanding the phrase "under the law" to describe the people's relationship to the law, but if the translators had chosen instead to translate en into English as "by"  or "according to" we would have "by the law" or "according to the law" which would explain how the "sin" is determined to be sin.

[Robert]

25 minutes ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Robert, be careful about building your theology on English prepositions because Greek prepositions are translated rather freely by the translators depending on their own theological biases.

Really?  And of course your translation is better because you have no theological biases?

Quote

 You are understanding the phrase "under the law" to describe the people's relationship to the law, but if the translators had chosen instead to translate en into English as "by"  or "according to" we would have "by the law" or "according to the law" which would explain how the "sin" is determined to be sin.

Okay, let's put your idea into action:

Paul: "all who sin by the law will be judged by the law. (Why?)  For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous."

Sinning by knowing the law is still sin and the law will still be your judge.  In fact, the law doesn't care if you hear it read, it demands perfect performance.  Hence only those who obey the law will be declared righteous. 

 

[Kevin H]

On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 0:18 AM, Wingnut said:

If one does a concordance search of "the law" as used by the Bible, this phrase means...

1)  The 10 commandments.

2) The writings of Moses or the Pentateuch. (when used as "the law and the prophets")

3) The whole OT

I cannot think of a scripture which even considers the oral Jewish traditions as part of "the law".

If you can find such a scripture, I would like to see it.

Scholars have learned additional information (see the book I recommended above). Saul belonged to a synagogue called "The Synagogue of the Freedmen" This was not your typical Jewish synagogue. The members were people who either themselves or their parents were taken into slavery and after working 7 days a week for something like 19 years give or take got their freedom and full Roman citizenship for themselves and their children.

However the members of this particular synagogue ended up being a far right wing hate group. They wanted to prove that they were more religious and more faithful Jews than even the Pharisees.

The persecution of Paul did not disturb Peter or John or anyone else who was good Jews. His targets were the Greek speaking believers in Jesus. Gamaliel gave his protection to the followers of Jesus. In the stoning of  Stephen, the laying of the robes at Saul's feet meant that Gamaliel's protection only applied to good Jewish believers and that the Hellenistic Jews were not under the protection.

Gamael's protection lasted about 14 years until either he died or was too old to be effective.  The Church of the Freedmen were upset over the bilingual ministry of Christians. They felt that the Hellenistic Jews were too liberal. They were a right wing hate group who were very opposed to Hellenistic Jews in general whether they believed in Jesus or not. Their donkeys probably had bumper stickers reading "Welcome to Jerusalem, now learn Hebrew (or at least Aramaic)." They saw the Hellenistic Jews as too liberal and saw the Pharicees as not really conservative enough. The way they wanted to show that they were better Jews than the Pharicees was called "The Works of the Law." This had nothing to do with God's law, but the things to show that they were better Jews than others.

[Ron Amnsn]

1 hour ago, Robert said:

Really?  And of course your translation is better because you have no theological biases?

Okay, let's put your idea into action:

Paul: "all who sin by the law will be judged by the law. (Why?)  For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous."

Sinning by knowing the law is still sin and the law will still be your judge.  In fact, the law doesn't care if you hear it read, it demands perfect performance.  Hence only those who obey the law will be declared righteous.

I don't think my translation is better.  Looking at the way Paul has built his argument, in the previous thought he dealt with those who sin without the law, so a better translation might be "with the law".  My point was that prepositions can easily be substituted by translators, and the "under the law" translation would appeal to those who think God's Law is onerous because that translation suggests that those who honor God's Law have somehow put themselves into a worse position than they would be in otherwise.

You are wrong about the law demanding perfect performance from us, probably because you're still looking at God's Law as if it were a tool designed to earn salvation. That it never was.  If the Law had been the device that God gave us to use to earn salvation, then absolutely, it would require perfect performance, and we're hooped before we even get started.  But God never gave the Law for that purpose.

God gave us something better to provide salvation-- the promise of a Messiah, and then later the Messiah himself and his successful sacrifice to provide our redemption. (Just as the Law illustrates.)  The Law does demand a perfect performance from the Messiah.

God gave the Law for a different purpose, and it has built-in provisions for when people fail to attain to the high standard God sets for us.  The Law teaches how to maintain a relationship with God who has invited us to be His people.  After a person sinned, and repented, and did what the Law requires such sinners to do, that person was still following God's Law, just as it was designed.  The Law is more like a road map to righteous living, rather than a tightrope from here to heaven.  When we miss a turn while driving, a road map shows us where to go to get back on track to continue toward our goal.  Granted, the Law also has penalties for those who are no longer interested in going toward God, and to provide justice for fellow men who have been harmed.

Edited January 19, 2016 by Ron Amnsn

[Wingnut]

Jackson

Suppose a Baptist or Catholic claimed to know all about the Sabbath, and they had every bit of esoteric knowledge about the Sabbath, but did not keep it -  what would you say to them?

[Wingnut]

If one takes Paul literally, his views on women are extreme.

Joyce Meyer teaches.  Should she be silenced?

Can women lead praise and worship?  Not according to Paul who told them to be silent.  You are ignoring/stretching Paul if you allow a woman to open her mouth.  And it would be wrong to think Paul only forbade women from teaching.  Twice Paul tells women to "be in silence' and "learn in silence".  Thus most SDA churches are already joining me in ignoring Paul wrt women.

1 Tim 2
8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.

9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Certainly Ellen White saw that Paul's views were culturally influenced.  She rightly ignored Paul by teaching and she certainly had authority over men.

[Robert]

7 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

You are wrong about the law demanding perfect performance from us, probably because you're still looking at God's Law as if it were a tool designed to earn salvation. That it never was.  If the Law had been the device that God gave us to use to earn salvation, then absolutely, it would require perfect performance, and we're hooped before we even get started.  But God never gave the Law for that purpose.

The primary purpose the law was given to turn sin into transgression, i.e, to turn ignorant sin into blatant transgression  (See Romans 5:20/Gal 3:19)

Why? Let's go to Gal 3:19,22-23

19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions (compare to Romans 5:20)....22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin (i.e., under the power of iniquity - our bent-to-self), that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

So the main purpose of the law was to expose that we are bunch of sinners who need the righteousness of Christ received by faith.  Hence "justification by faith". The law's function for the unbeliever is a tutor or teacher. The law was to teach us the fact that "there is none righteous, no, not even one."  To accept this fact is to see one's need of Christ's righteousness.  To reject the law's view of fallen humanity is to remain under law.  To remain under law means condemnation and death.  See Gal 3:10

 

[Robert]

2 hours ago, Robert said:

The primary [reason] the law was given to turn sin into transgression, i.e, to turn ignorant sin into blatant transgression  (See Romans 5:20/Gal 3:19)

Why? Let's go to Gal 3:19,22-23

19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions (compare to Romans 5:20)....22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin (i.e., under the power of iniquity - our bent-to-self), that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

Then what's the secondary reason for the law? Answer: As a standard for Christians living under grace.

Here we must be careful.  We must remember that the believer has accepted his/her deliverance from under law.  If you say the believer was  just delivered from the condemnation aspect then what happens when you sin under law?  You go back to being condemned.

So the believer is not under law, yet the law is a standard or something the believer aims for as he rests in Christ's finished work.

Hence: Rom 13:11 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 12 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love (agape) is the fulfillment of the law....13 Let us walk properly, as in the day, not in revelry and drunkenness, not in lewdness and lust, not in strife and envy.14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts.

[8thdaypriest]

On 1/18/2016 at 11:18 PM, Wingnut said:

The earthly sanctuary is modelled on a heavenly one.  Like Rachel, I do not believe Christ moved there.  We are told that Christ sits at the right hand of the Father till his enemies are made His footstool.  That is still now.  Christ sits at the right hand of the Father, not in the sanctuary.

Since my name was mentioned: 

Heaven itself - all of it - IS the "true Sanctuary".  Which means that the Father's throne IS within that Sanctuary.  I DO believe that Jesus ascended to the Most Holy Place of "heaven itself".  The Father's presence is what makes it "most holy".  Obviously Jesus is seated within the Father's presence.  "He has entered the presence behind the veil" (Hebrews 6:19 and 9:24).  Having said this, I also believe the two apartments represent successive activities - carried out by Jesus.

When the text says that Jesus ascended to the "right hand of the Father" and "sits at the right hand of God" - it is telling us about Christ's authority, NOT necessarily where He is stationed at all times.  Jesus authority - prior to His incarnation as a human being, was SECOND to His Father's.  This authority was returned to Him after He returned to Heaven.

The Tabernacle tent represents "heaven itself".  The courtyard represents this earth.  Jesus died on this earth.  Sinners will finally die - on this earth. 

Heaven is one "place".  It is not divided into two separate apartments.  Jesus WAS "the veil".  The two apartments - in my opinion - represent successive activities - carried out by Jesus - our High Priest.  John "saw" Jesus walking among the 7 golden candlesticks.  That's first apartment.  And that's years after Jesus ascended back to Heaven. 

The activities of the "first apartment" include offering our prayers, intercession, filling us with His spirit - being with us and in us, feeding us (both temporally and spiritually)

The activity of the Most Holy Place is the judgment of Daniel 7.  Jesus will come before the Heavenly court (and the throne of God) and will be judged "worthy" to receive dominion and the kingdom.  NOTICE:  Only Jesus and Satan are judged here.  Jesus is proclaimed worthy to receive dominion (of earth). Therefore Satan's kingdom will be taken from him, and destroyed forever.

I do NOT BELIEVE this final judgment scene has taken place YET.  I certainly do NOT believe it took place back in 1844.  Daniel 7:1-2 says "the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; UNTIL until the ancient of days came, AND judgment was given in favor of the saints of the Most High, and [UNTIL] the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom." (ASV) 

The saints did NOT possess the kingdom back in 1844.  The saints will be given the kingdom - through the person of Christ - WHEN the judgment sits.  The little horn on the Beast makes war with the saints for 3.5 years leading up to the judgment in Heaven.  Jesus will be given the kingdom, and it is understood by the Court that He will share His kingdom with those He claims for His own.  

Adventist believe this judgment BEGAN back in 1844, and the saints will be given the kingdom at the conclusion of this judgment.  I can't agree.  The events of the DAY of Atonement all took place on ONE DAY.  Just like Passover and Pentecost.  Why should be believe this judgment will be strung out over 175+ years?  Jesus knows His own sheep.  He knows His friends and His enemies.  He doesn't need 175+ years to determine which humans will share His dominion.  When Jesus receives the kingdom, He will IMMEDIATELY return for His own. 

[8thdaypriest]

On 1/18/2016 at 0:44 PM, Wingnut said:

I would like to see all who defend Paul, defend his "I suffer not a woman to teach" wrt Ellen White.

I don't nullify anything that Paul says, only say one should realise that Paul was a human, bringing to his epistles a bit of his crazy.

And because he wrote so much, his crazy adds up.

I don't blame Paul.  He wanted to get a fledgling church started.  Greek culture was VERY much against women having authority equal to, or (forbid!) over a man.  Giving any kind of leadership role to a woman would have repulsed Greek men.  It would have handicapped the church. 

[8thdaypriest]

On 1/18/2016 at 0:56 PM, Wingnut said:

Sorry Rachel, being colour blind red looks like black.  Please use blue if you must use colour.

"The husband is HEAD of the wife".  The husband represents the couple, or family, before God.  Eve's sin would therefore be counted as Adam's."

This statement shows a typical Christian culture steeped in Paul.

Would the woman caught in adultery's sins be counted as her husbands?

 

 

 

In the OT, the male leader of the family brought the "sin offering" to the alter, and killed it FOR the females within his family.  Only males could be priests.  Females could inherit only if there was no male heir.  The census counted only males. 

Paul was actually quite radical in his treatment of women.  When he wrote that in Christ "there is no male or female"  THAT was radical.  When he said, "Husbands love your wives" and that the husband's body belongs to the wife.  Yikes!!  THAT was radical. 

If I could recommend a book...  "What Paul Really Said About Women" by John Temple Bristow

 

[8thdaypriest]

Wingnut said:  "Nothing in Heaven needs to be cleansed"

I would disagree there Wingnut.  God's reputation needed to be restored in the eyes of His created sentient beings.  Satan fomented a war against God, by spewing LIES about Him.  God had to convince created beings that He is just, and His way is the only way - to life eternal.  He allowed us to learn these things through experience.   Allowing Satan to play out his hand, was the only way to reveal his character as a liar and murderer.  At the judgment scene of Daniel 7:9-10, the court will finally declare that all the evidence is in.  Christ will be declared "worthy" and God will be absolved of any "wrong".  His reputation will be declared CLEAN. 

"For two thousand three hundred days; then the sanctuary shall be cleansed."  

The word translated "cleansed" can just as correctly be translated "justified" or "declared righteous".  I personally think those words get closer to the meaning.  God was accused of wrong, by Satan.  At the judgment of Daniel 7:9-10, Jesus will be declared worthy of the kingdom.  He will be "declared righteous". 

Romans 3:4 "Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written: "That You may be justified in Your words, And may overcome when You are judged."   In this verse God is judged. 

The judgment of Daniel 7:9-10 is ABOUT God's reputation.  It is NOT about our individual sins.  Christ is JUDGED worthy.  He receives the dominion.  THEN Jesus will return as judge of human beings.  Jesus does not judge UNTIL He receives the dominion.   

[Wingnut]

34 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

In the OT, the male leader of the family brought the "sin offering" to the alter, and killed it FOR the females within his family.  Only males could be priests.  Females could inherit only if there was no male heir.  The census counted only males. 

Paul was actually quite radical in his treatment of women.  When he wrote that in Christ "there is no male or female"  THAT was radical.  When he said, "Husbands love your wives" and that the husband's body belongs to the wife.  Yikes!!  THAT was radical. 

If I could recommend a book...  "What Paul Really Said About Women" by John Temple Bristow

 

We are not under the OT.

Paul said there was neither male nor female, then tells females to be silent and learn with all subjection, like they were little, stupid children.

And you find it "radical" for husbands and wives to love each other and share their bodies with each other.

This is how sad Christian culture has come to.

 

[Wingnut]

14 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Wingnut said:  "Nothing in Heaven needs to be cleansed"

I would disagree there Wingnut.  God's reputation needed to be restored in the eyes of His created sentient beings. 

All heaven has watched as Satan decayed and degenerated and became perverted before their eyes.

They are not needing any convincing as to God's power and righteousness.

And what humans think of God is irrelevant.

We who love God and have faith in Him have no doubt as to what a low-life Satan is, and how great God is.

[Robert]

26 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Wingnut said:  "Nothing in Heaven needs to be cleansed"

I would disagree there Wingnut.  God's reputation needed to be restored in the eyes of His created sentient beings.  Satan fomented a war against God, by spewing LIES about Him. 

Bingo!