Phoenix is Resurrected

[Lone Ranger]

10 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

May I ask why you say this? Do you have any references to prove or at least describe why you say this?

Galatians 3:6-9

⁶ So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”^[a]

⁷ Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. ⁸ Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”^{[b] 9} So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

 

[Lone Ranger]

14 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

Often times, it was after they had developed the position from their study of Scripture that EGW would confirm it as correct

So by this I conclude that Ellen White is the judge or arbiter of correct doctrine. Just for the record, I do not accept that, as I see no difference between allowing EGW to decide correct doctrine for you and letting Jorge Mario Bergoglio decide correct doctrine for you.

 

[Lone Ranger]

14 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

So, calling the students who intensively studied Scriptures as being "eisegets" is wrong. 

I did not call "the students who intensively studied Scripture" eisegets. I said that, IMO, Andreasen tended toward eisegesis. I have this OPINION from...….reading Andreasen. I make no statement regarding "other students."

[B/W Photodude]

14 minutes ago, Lone Ranger said:

So by this I conclude that Ellen White is the judge or arbiter of correct doctrine. Just for the record, I do not accept that, as I see no difference between allowing EGW to decide correct doctrine for you and letting Jorge Mario Bergoglio decide correct doctrine for you.

If you know the details of Andreasen, then you likely know the details of how EGW confirmed the conclusions of the study groups. It was not her personal approval, but that as given to her thru visions.

[Lone Ranger]

14 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

Given that it is believed that the beliefs of the church are the will of God, to disregard that will is to set yourself up as a god or being more important than God because you can pick and chose what to believe.

 

10 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Its called "Buffet Prophecy!"

Point #1. The beliefs of the church ARE NOT the will of God.

Point #2. No, it's not called "Buffet Prophecy." It's called using your God-given discernment and free will to decide for yourself what you believe. This does not "set yourself up as a god" because God himself gave us this ability.

For those who recall their history, one of the tenets the Protestant Reformation was the priesthood of all believers, and the rejection of the idea that Rome establishes doctrine. This meant that everyone could choose for themselves what to believe. So in condemning those who choose, one goes against both God, who gave free will, and the PR, which fought for the right of individuals to interpret Scripture. Incidentally, one of the changes from Vatican II is that the RCC recognizes the right of all people to believe according to their conscience, and those of other Christian faiths are no longer referred to as "heretics"  but as "separated brethren."

So to reject the authority of Rome, but replace it with your understanding, then call out all who deviate from your understanding, is extreme hypocrisy.

[Lone Ranger]

12 minutes ago, B/W Photodude said:

If you know the details of Andreasen, then you likely know the details of how EGW confirmed the conclusions of the study groups. It was not her personal approval, but that as given to her thru visions.

I know that some people think EGW had visions (presumably from God.) I am not among them.

A discussion of EGW and my views on her would require another thread to be started.

[Lone Ranger]

On ‎2‎/‎27‎/‎2019 at 8:42 PM, B/W Photodude said:

I will tell you, if you tell me why you were so quick to put down Andreasen!

So I told you why I do not accept Andreasen as an authority. Which is not a put down; I have the God-given right to evaluate the evidence and make up my own mind.

It's time for you to lay out your argument against me.

[Lone Ranger]

On 2/27/2019 at 3:12 PM, B/W Photodude said:

That is funny right there! Andreasen was considered to be one of the foremost theologians in the SDA church thru the 30s & 40s. He wrote a number of books, taught in seminary, and was president of SDA colleges. He also was one who knew Ellen White and studied her works during visits to her home. He rates very high to me, although I realize many do not approve of his contributions to the SDA church. 

After an endorsement like that (and justifiably correct,  by the way) one wonders that anyone would think he is an unbiased authority. If he was all those things (WHICH HE WAS, don't get me wrong) then you cannot avoid the conclusion that he toed the party line. As such, any Scriptural interpretations he made or understandings he had were in line (read: heavily influenced by) with SDA theology and Ellen White, since she was (by your own assertion) the final arbiter of correct doctrine. 

ALL THIS can be deduced by the common thinking man WITHOUT READING A SINGLE SENTENCE of his writings. 

[Lone Ranger]

6 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

I am not sure how one could possibly make judgment on a person or their writing without having read the writings! Unless, of course, one was a mind-reader? (not calling you that).

In the first place, I actually HAVE read Andreasen.

Second, if I said "the prominent Mormon theologian _______________ says thus." what presuppositions would you have regarding agenda, bias, and preconceived ideas about their theology?

And if I said "the prominent Watchtower theologian _______________ says thus." what presuppositions would you have regarding agenda, bias, and preconceived ideas about their theology?

Or if I said "the prominent Catholic theologian _______________ says thus." what presuppositions would you have regarding agenda, bias, and preconceived ideas about their theology?

Why is the same not true regarding a prominent Adventist theologian?

[Lone Ranger]

14 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

But to be fair, I consider this only a very partial understanding.

All understandings are partial.

[Lone Ranger]

15 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

Roman Catholic theologians and apologists would definitely call you out for trying to say they "believe" in "independent thinking" and choice."

This may come as a shock and complete surprise. You should maybe sit down.

I CAME TO THAT CONCLUSION BY TALKING TO CATHOLIC THEOLOGIANS!

And I was very surprised.

Just for the record, when was your last dialog with a Catholic theologian? Just askin'.

[Lone Ranger]

1 minute ago, The Wanderer said:

for the record, I didnt say I thought you hadnt read Andreason. I did address the IDEA you posted about how it is possible to make said conclusions "without even reading his book." Your words, not mine.

Yes those are my words and I stand by them.

I did not say one could know WHAT someone wrote, but I did say you could have an idea about their presuppositions, biases and agendas by knowing their denominational bent.

[Lone Ranger]

3 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

lol, it is! People have and are calling him out.

So why am I being harassed about my ideas re MLA?

This conversation is really starting to go nowhere...

[Lone Ranger]

6 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

AND>>>>>>>you did say one could miraculously do all that

???

I sort of live by the motto "When arguing with a fool be sure they're not doing the same thing."

Have a nice day.

[B/W Photodude]

Speaking of never reading someone, I listened to this guy go on a lengthly rant about Rush Limbaugh.

So when he finally came up for air I asked, "Have you ever listened to him?" 

He said, "no."

[B/W Photodude]

11 hours ago, Lone Ranger said:

It's time for you to lay out your argument against me.

Sorry, ... it became GAME OVER when you posted this:

On 2/28/2019 at 11:11 AM, Lone Ranger said:

Shall I use smaller words?

3. Andreasen, though a capable (means able to do the job) Biblical scholar (or student) in Adventism, relied too heavily on EGW for a world view, (a world view is how you understand the world)  and as such was (as most SDA scholars) an eiseget  (one who interprets a text in such a way that it supports their presuppositions, agendas, and biases) rather than an exegete (one who seeks to understand what the text is actually saying)

It is one thing to disagree but to get insulting is unacceptable. 

And if you don't care for Ellen White, or any of the other theologians of the SDA church, your loss. I grew up listening to stories of Ellen White and the other Adventist pioneers, I have come to be more and more impressed all the time with what they write, and I will not give them up because of someone else's theories or theological foolishness.

I have never said that Ellen White was above the Bible, that she was the author of our faith, or that any other writer is above the Bible. All I can do is read what they write, compare it to the Bible as the Bible instructs us to do with anyone, and go from there.

We are to come together to mutually exhort one another and comfort one another in Christian thought, but not to tear down or insult each other.  So, this text from Matthew is becoming very relevant to this discussion, "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." Matthew 7:6

[Lone Ranger]

25 minutes ago, B/W Photodude said:

We are to come together to mutually exhort one another and comfort one another in Christian thought, but not to tear down or insult each other.

Really??

Maybe you should review YOUR actions before jumping on someone else.

You challenged me to produce reasons why I "put down" MLA, which I did. Now, when it is your turn to produce your reasons why you "put down" me, you waffle.

Don't start something you can't finish.

[JoeMo]

I posted something about love trumping doctrine, good deeds, miracles, etc on the Theological Town Hall a while back. after upsetting a good friend of mine on this forum, I reviewed some of our exchange and realized I was being somewhat argumentative, as was he/she.  After praying about it, I decided that the relationship was more important than the subject we were arguing about; and have dropped the argument.  It is much more important to me that we can all feel safe about discussing our diverse viewpoints without having the conversation degrade into personal insults.  Without being "preachy", I pray we can all do the same.  We can disagree with one another, but we should be able to do it in an agreeable fashion.

[JoeMo]

8 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

I have talked to different ones, and some do have opposing views on this. The Catechism is available online for everyone to examine, and would support what I have said.

The same can be said about talking to different SDA theologians.  Just the the Catholic ones, they have diverse views on just about everything.  Just cuz it's in the Catechism doesn't mean all theologians agree with it.  Just because it's in the writings of EGW doesn't mean all SDA theologians believe it.  It's called independent thought.

[hch]

1 hour ago, JoeMo said:

The same can be said about talking to different SDA theologians.  Just the the Catholic ones, they have diverse views on just about everything.  Just cuz it's in the Catechism doesn't mean all theologians agree with it.  Just because it's in the writings of EGW doesn't mean all SDA theologians believe it.  It's called independent thought.

Independent thought?  Private interpretation?

[Gregory Matthews]

Let us talk about a Catholic  catechism, for a moment:

*  Bishops, and to be specific, the "College of Bishops determine what is Catholic doctrine.  Priests do not.  

*  Like the SDA Church, the Roman Catholic Church teaches doctrine that is not belief required either for membership or for salvation.  Therefore, some doctrinal differences do exist within the Catholic community.  In my former life, I used to regularly read Saint Anthony Messenger.   In it a priest answered questions about Catholic belief and practice.  At times he would say that a specific belief was taught, but not required and therefore some did not accept it. 

*  Catechisms exist in various forums, dependent upon their purpose.  A catechism designed for elementary school children will differ in some ways from one designed as a comprehensive statement, for adults, of Catholic belief.

*  My library contains the following catechism, which I consider to be authoritative:

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd edition, LIbreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997, 904 pages.

*  NOTE:  I have a 1997 edition.  I suspect, but do not know, that there are newer editions.  In addition, note that this book contains 904 pages.  I   doubt that this is the text book that is used by elementary school children.

*  NOTE:  I use the above as a reference.  But, I have not read all 904 pages.  In addition, on a personal basis, I use my copy of Canon Law more than I use this book.

 

 

 

 

[JoeMo]

9 hours ago, hch said:

Independent thought?  Private interpretation?

That is a question for all of us who post our thoughts here on AS.

[Lone Ranger]

12 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Pictures help.

[B/W Photodude]

16 hours ago, Lone Ranger said:

Don't start something you can't finish.

Didn't start nuthin'.

I already finished it.

[Kevin H]

On ‎2‎/‎28‎/‎2019 at 7:23 PM, B/W Photodude said:

I tend to believe that they had an even greater knowledge of everything "Christian" than we do today. As I recall, Enoch reported knowledge of heavenly things, the people of that time still had angels to talk with in person, and they still had a mental capability that dwarfs anything we are today. We have been in decline for thousands of years and very soon all traces of the image of God will be removed from the people of this earth except those who follow God completely. Ignoring God and/or claiming faith will save us when we do not the will of God is the same as being wicked. 

When you look at paganism there is a surprisingly amount of truth, especially in the Baal religion and apparently even more so in what is reconstructed in the El religion that preceded the Baal religion. The pagans start out with basic truths but build corruptions on to the truth to get away from the truths.

The pagan gods ended up being the forces of nature and seen as impersonal. That people benefited or  suffered only as a biproduct as to whether the gods of honey and life were victorious or the gods of milk and death were victorious.

Milk and Honey were ancient geographical terms: Honey was both what the bees made but also any preserved foods (preserved fruits tended to taste sweet and sticky like the stuff bees made). It indicated a permanent home growing foods and having good crops, plenty to eat and plenty of left overs to preserve or make into honey. The landowners could afford to hire workers so class distinction develops, including leisure time for the wealthy and developing excitement to fill leisure time. So it indicated a life predictable, easy and exciting.  But of course in the lands of honey you can end up trusting in your goods rather than in God. And this is where the major highways would be located and while that meant riches from trade (both tolls and things to buy) but also it meant that the invading armies would also travel those roads. the question is not will destruction come but when will it come.

Milk came from mostly goats, but animals that was mostly kept out in the desert, no permanent home as you move around. You don't know if your garden will give a fairly good, fair, poor or simply plowed under with hopes for a better garden next year. Everyone is equally poor. You are daily reminded on your dependency on God. And while there may be some bandits (but you are too poor to be worth their time) you are safe from the invading armies.

Some parts of the world were known as lands of honey others lands of milk. Egypt was seen as both milk and honey but it was predictable: you had the desert or milk, then a strip of honey with the Nile running through the middle of it, and then again desert or milk. Canaan/Israel a small strip of land about 150 miles long by 50 miles wide, is where Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Arabian desert all met. The geography and weather patterns of these 4 areas all met here. This brought about a land flowing with milk and honey. Besides being the intersection of the geography and weather patterns, this strip of land also was the major intersection of the trade routes for the world.

The Canaanites probably made a fortune in the tolls from the caravans. But this did not prove enough for them. First in dealing with living in a land flowing with milk and honey, they thought that they could help out the gods of honey and life gain victory over the gods of milk and death. Their worship services in their temples would at certain key points in the agricultural cycle of the land unite their life forces. That meant that they would make breads out of mixed grains (Ezekiel 4:9 bread), wear clothing of mixed textiles, and everyone had sex with each other, adults, children, animals. These were seen as works of righteousness by works to help out the gods of honey and life so that they could benefit the biproduct of their victory and live.

They also felt that they could get more benefits of the gods of honey from better honey lands by stealing the life forces of people from the more honey lands, through rape. They believed that in raping and thus stealing the life forces that some of the food that would have grown in their victim's garden back home will now grow in their garden, that some of the animals that would have been born in their flocks back home would now be born to their flocks, that some of the children that would have been born to their victim's wives would now be born to their wives. This idea of stealing the lifeforces of the travelers through the land made this major intersection of trade routes one of the most if not the most dangerous place on earth. (Note: God's use of the land and giving the Hebrews this land was based on it's role in the ancient world. It was both the making the world safe for commerce and changing the major intersection from one of the most dangerous places to the safest and where the merchants could bring to the world stories about these kind and loving people, where everyone was priests, and their simple religion and their God of milk and honey. to the whole world. Today with shipping and aircraft this piece of land can no longer be used in this way, thus the way we see speculation of the dispensationalists who are expecting a return to the theology of the land is wrong. Just as today it is different to eat Ezekiel 4:9 bread and wearing clothes of different textiles. Big sins in the Bible due to the cultural implications.)

The problems with the Canaanites was not so much their basic theology which was built on the truths given to Adam and Eve and which came through Noah; but the theories, superstitions and speculations that they built upon and these theories, and over time the truths took a back burner as these theories and speculations came t the forefront.

Turning to Adventism and even Christianity as a whole, we are not that different. We have more refined works that we use instead of the orgies and rapes that the Canaanites used, but the same spirit of works are there.