Did God Die on the Cross? Part 1

[JoeMo]

3 hours ago, Gustave said:

You are simply wrong. 

Sorry folks; I'm with Rachel on this one.

[Gustave]

28 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

Sorry folks; I'm with Rachel on this one.

Which defaults into being with the Jehovah’s Wittinesses,  Christadelphians and Pioneers of the SDA Church.

 

[JoeMo]

10 hours ago, Gustave said:

Which defaults into being with the Jehovah’s Wittinesses,  Christadelphians and Pioneers of the SDA Church.

 

Not really.  For example, JW's do not believe Christ is God.  SDA's do. Christadelphians do not believe in the pre-existence of the Son before He was incarnated as Jesus. SDA's do.  Concerning the Trinity, I think early SDA's had a better grasp of it than the church does today. I think that one of the reasons they became Trinitarian was to better conform to prevailing Christianity. I have to admit that there are some robust scriptural arguments for the HS being a Person of the Godhead.; or the issue would not have been argued for centuries.  IMHO, the arguments against it are stronger.

If - when I get to heaven -  Jesus tells me He disagrees with my views of the Godhead, I will become a Trinitarian in the blink of an eye. Who knows the nature of the Godhead better than God Himself?

[8thdaypriest]

17 hours ago, Gustave said:

You are simply wrong. 

What?  Not even an "I believe" before "You are wrong" ? 

[8thdaypriest]

13 hours ago, Gustave said:

Which defaults into being with the Jehovah’s Wittinesses,  Christadelphians and Pioneers of the SDA Church.

 

I study for myself.  I am not a member of any church.  I may hold a single point in common with another person or even denomination, but that does not put me "into" that group or denomination.  I agree with the SDAs on some things, the JW on a couple points, even the Baptists on some things. 

And don't start using the "cult" label.  That is just a ball of mud that religious people throw at people they disagree with to label them, so other folks feel free to reject them.  Any time someone starts using the "cult" word, I immediately know they cannot defend their viewpoint from Scripture, so they have to use "mud". 

[8thdaypriest]

2 hours ago, JoeMo said:

Not really.  For example, JW's do not believe Christ is God.  SDA's do. Christadelphians do not believe in the pre-existence of the Son before He was incarnated as Jesus. SDA's do.  Concerning the Trinity, I think early SDA's had a better grasp of it than the church does today. I think that one of the reasons they became Trinitarian was to better conform to prevailing Christianity. I have to admit that there are some robust scriptural arguments for the HS being a Person of the Godhead.; or the issue would not have been argued for centuries.  IMHO, the arguments against it are stronger.

If - when I get to heaven -  Jesus tells me He disagrees with my views of the Godhead, I will become a Trinitarian in the blink of an eye. Who knows the nature of the Godhead better than God Himself?

I've never been one to say that a view I hold to is absolutely correct.  I've always been a "weight of the evidence" believer/teacher.  I also believe that very few beliefs are salvational - saved vs lost.  It might be interesting to discuss what things are saved vs lost issues.

[JoeMo]

4 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

It might be interesting to discuss what things are saved vs lost issues.

It would be interesting; but I think it would also be subjective, depending on one's relationship with a denomination or a culture.  I know as my theology has evolved over the years, things I thought were absolutely salvational when I was a legalist, I don't believe are salvational any more.  And vice-versa - things I eschewed as a legalist beating up others with little red books I find very important now.  Some examples are how I feel about EGW, how I feel about the Trinity, and how I feel about grace vs. works, who is saved vs. who is not saved, and who is the antichrist.

[JoeMo]

22 hours ago, Gustave said:

You are simply wrong. 

To say someone is "wrong" implies that you KNOW differently.  From the general tenor of your posts, I would say you BELIEVE.  None of us KNOWS about the spiritual realm unless they have had an existential experience with it - and even with that, was it real - or a dream or a seizure?  It's all a matter of faith.

There is another word for people who KNOW spiritual things - it's called a persecutor.

[Gustave]

7 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

What?  Not even an "I believe" before "You are wrong" ? 

I’m swamped currently with some other pressing matters - rest assured I’ll be back with an “I believe you are wrong” followed with some points that are salient to this issue.

[Gustave]

On 8/20/2019 at 10:53 AM, 8thdaypriest said:

In Matthew 28:20 Jesus says,  "And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."  (NIV)  "I am with you", not another different third being.

        The Emperor Constantine commissioned and paid for a copying and compilation of the Scriptures known today as the “New Testament”.  The resulting Greek text is known as the “Byzantine”.  New scholarly work by those familiar with the ancient manuscripts, has revealed no Greek manuscript (or fragment) older than the time of Constantine, which contains the text of Matthew 28:19.  One Aramaic manuscript survives.  In that manuscript, Matthew 28:19 reads, “baptizing them in my name.”  In other words, Christ commanded the disciples to baptize in HIS name.  And many other passages confirm the disciples did just that.

    Acts 2:38  “Then Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’”

    Acts 8:16  “For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”

Acts 19:5  “When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”

    Romans 6:3 “Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?”

Galatians 3:27 “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

1 Corinthians 6:11  “But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.”

        Eusebius of Caesarea wrote during the 4th century.  He was a “friend” of Constantine.  In his work “Ecclesiastical History, Book III, Cpt 5, Section 2", he quotes Matthew 28:19 as “make disciples of all the nations in my name”.  

        Eusebius quotes the passage in the same way in “Oration in Praise of Emperor Constantine, Cpt 16, Sect. 8".  He quotes the passage in the same way some 18 times.  Finally, near the end of his life, he quotes the passage just once, as “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”.  He may have been influenced by his loyalty to the Emperor, or by fear of the Emperor. We just do not know.  It is also possible, that someone altered that one quotation.

So, you're asserting that because you don't read new Christians were Baptized "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" - that there must have been something fishy going on with the final few sentences of the Gospel of Matthew? In any event the command of Christ was that His Disciples TEACH people, not write letters and have people copy the letters. This is the part you appear to be missing. 

[Gustave]

On 8/21/2019 at 10:49 AM, 8thdaypriest said:

I study for myself.  I am not a member of any church.  I may hold a single point in common with another person or even denomination, but that does not put me "into" that group or denomination.  I agree with the SDAs on some things, the JW on a couple points, even the Baptists on some things. 

And don't start using the "cult" label.  That is just a ball of mud that religious people throw at people they disagree with to label them, so other folks feel free to reject them.  Any time someone starts using the "cult" word, I immediately know they cannot defend their viewpoint from Scripture, so they have to use "mud". 

I seriously doubt that - that you know if someone uses the word "cult" you immediately know they cannot defend their position. To be candid I don't think you'd last 5 minutes with Walter Martin if he was still alive. You may last 10 with James White. 

I tend to not throw the charge of cult around very often but would readily state that any group that advocates a departure from the central doctrine of the Christian Faith such as the Trinity while claiming they are Christian is indeed a non Christian religious organization.

The term cult is used somewhat differently in Catholic circles. A devotion to something good, could be rightly called a cult in Catholicism and for that reason you generally won't see Catholic's throwing the cult word around like an Evangelical would. 

 

 

 

[JoeMo]

9 hours ago, Gustave said:

I tend to not throw the charge of cult around very often but would readily state that any group that advocates a departure from the central doctrine of the Christian Faith such as the Trinity while claiming they are Christian is indeed a non Christian religious organization.

That's pretty harsh, Gustave - out of character for you. There are some peculiar doctrines among Catholics that in no way can be supported by scripture that could cause some to characterize Roman Catholicism as a cult as well.  I won't get into details because I don't want to start an online feud.  People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

[Gustave]

25 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

That's pretty harsh, Gustave - out of character for you. There are some peculiar doctrines among Catholics that in no way can be supported by scripture that could cause some to characterize Roman Catholicism as a cult as well.  I won't get into details because I don't want to start an online feud.  People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

I didn’t mean for it to be. 

Do you consider the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses to be within the pale of Christianity? Or do you understand those two groups to be outside the fold? I didn't call her beliefs "cultic" - I simply said her beliefs are apart from the doctrine that's central to Christianity. 

By this I'm not implying I go to heaven and she doesn't - not at all. She may make it and I may not. This isn't what this is about. 

[8thdaypriest]

12 hours ago, Gustave said:

The term cult is used somewhat differently in Catholic circles. A devotion to something good, could be rightly called a cult in Catholicism and for that reason you generally won't see Catholic's throwing the cult word around like an Evangelical would. 

Good to know.

[8thdaypriest]

14 hours ago, Gustave said:

In any event the command of Christ was that His Disciples TEACH people, not write letters and have people copy the letters. This is the part you appear to be missing. 

Are you in favor or an Oral New Testament, something similar to the Oral Torah? 

[Gustave]

5 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Good to know.

Devotion to Mary is considered to be a "cult" - so too would devotion to the Sabbath. 

[8thdaypriest]

On 8/20/2019 at 10:58 PM, Gustave said:

Which defaults into being with the Jehovah’s Wittinesses,  Christadelphians and Pioneers of the SDA Church.

 

The JWs don't worship Christ - far as I know.   I do worship Christ BECAUSE God the Father has commanded us to.   The Son of God sits with His Father, on His Father's throne.  One cannot bow before that throne, without bowing before both of them.  The Holy Spirit has no throne, and no name, and so far as I know, is never described as receiving worship, praise, or thanks. 

The pioneers of the SDA church worshiped both the Father and His Son.  They did not worship the Holy Spirit - as a third divine being/person.   Only after Mrs White had written/published for some 50 years, did she endorse the idea of a "third being of the heavenly trio".

I would have to study into the doctrines/teachings of the Christadelphians, before I could agree or disagree with them. 

[Gustave]

5 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Are you in favor or an Oral New Testament, something similar to the Oral Torah? 

Scripture is simply tradition that has been written down - so yes.

The Sadducees rejected Tradition whereas the Pharisees / Jesus and the Apostles accepted it. 

The Jewish Tradition of observing the Sabbath starting on the evening of the 6th day is an example of this.

[Gustave]

3 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

The JWs don't worship Christ - far as I know.   I do worship Christ BECAUSE God the Father has commanded us to.   The Son of God sits with His Father, on His Father's throne.  One cannot bow before that throne, without bowing before both of them.  The Holy Spirit has no throne, and no name, and so far as I know, is never described as receiving worship, praise, or thanks. 

The pioneers of the SDA church worshiped both the Father and His Son.  They did not worship the Holy Spirit - as a third divine being/person.   Only after Mrs White had written/published for some 50 years, did she endorse the idea of a "third being of the heavenly trio".

I would have to study into the doctrines/teachings of the Christadelphians, before I could agree or disagree with them. 

JW's don't worship Christ - appealing to the Watchtower which asserts Christ is an angel. 

Yes, I concur, the SDA Pioneers had no issue worshiping Christ because they understood that act to be commanded by Father God. 

 

[8thdaypriest]

3 hours ago, Gustave said:

within the pale of Christianity

Who defines "the pale of Christianity"?   The majority of those claiming the title? 

3 hours ago, Gustave said:

apart from the doctrine that's central to Christianity

Such words imply a central authority which defines "the pale of Christianity" and identifies certain doctrines as "central" and others as heresy.  For you that central authority seems to be the Catholic Church as it has existed back to the Council of Nicaea (or somewhat before). 

But how can we know for certain that the central authority, was not corrupted - that it did not depart significantly from "the truth".  How can we know the interpretation of Scripture passages, put forth by the central authority, is correct. 

I have the same question for Adventists who look to Ellen White for interpretation of Scripture passages.  She made mistakes.  Her view of some things changed over time.  

There are two main branches of Islam.  One branch looks to the earlier writings of The Prophet.  The other looks to the later writings (which were more violent).  They have fought for centuries.      

I look to the Bible.  I do study many versions.  I search to see how many ancient manuscripts, and which manuscripts were used as original sources.  I do the word studies.  I consider the textual context, and the cultural context.  All in a search for meaning.  And of course, I pray constantly.  "Spiritual things are spiritually discerned."  I believe that one cannot discern "the truth" without the help and guidance of Jesus and the angels who serve Him. 

 

[Gustave]

29 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Who defines "the pale of Christianity"?   The majority of those claiming the title? 

Such words imply a central authority which defines "the pale of Christianity" and identifies certain doctrines as "central" and others as heresy.  For you that central authority seems to be the Catholic Church as it has existed back to the Council of Nicaea (or somewhat before). 

But how can we know for certain that the central authority, was not corrupted - that it did not depart significantly from "the truth".  How can we know the interpretation of Scripture passages, put forth by the central authority, is correct. 

I have the same question for Adventists who look to Ellen White for interpretation of Scripture passages.  She made mistakes.  Her view of some things changed over time.  

There are two main branches of Islam.  One branch looks to the earlier writings of The Prophet.  The other looks to the later writings (which were more violent).  They have fought for centuries.      

I look to the Bible.  I do study many versions.  I search to see how many ancient manuscripts, and which manuscripts were used as original sources.  I do the word studies.  I consider the textual context, and the cultural context.  All in a search for meaning.  And of course, I pray constantly.  "Spiritual things are spiritually discerned."  I believe that one cannot discern "the truth" without the help and guidance of Jesus and the angels who serve Him. 

 

You asked "Who defines Christianity? The majority of those claiming the title?"

Yes, in particular those who have the authority to claim it. 

"Let a man so account of US, as of the ministers of Christ, and STEWARDS of the mysteries of God". I Corinthians 4,1

If you check Strong's #G3623 it says; 

the manager of household or of household affairs

1. esp. a steward, manager, superintendent (whether free-born or as was usually the case, a freed-man or a slave) to whom the head of the house or proprietor has intrusted the management of his affairs, the care of receipts and expenditures, and the duty of dealing out the proper portion to every servant and even to the children not yet of age

Christ didn't set up a "free-for-all" so just anyone who could read or perhaps heard His teachings could disagree with the Apostles Christ selected and ordained Himself. 1 Corinthians 4,1 speaks to the Biblical command to follow the Hierarchy established by Christ. It was Christ Himself who stated that Pharisees and Scribes HAD THAT position (not the Sadducees) under the Old Covenant. When Jesus ushered in the New Covenant the Seat of Moses terminated and this authority was passed to Christ who used the same language to describe the religious Authority of the Apostles that was previously used to describe the Authority of the Scribes and Pharisees.

The question you have to ask yourself is IF Scripture teaches that the New Testament Christian Church had a hierarchy AND Scripture describes this power as being the same as formally possessed by those who sat on Moses seat what would you deduct this means?  

 

 

 

 

[JoeMo]

7 hours ago, Gustave said:

Do you consider the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses to be within the pale of Christianity?

I know it sounds judgmental, but no, I don't.  Neither of them consider Jesus to be God; so how can they be Christian. In addition,  I don't consider any religion (or individual) that puts someone else's musings on an equal or or higher basis than the Scriptures to be a true Christian religion.

Anticipating your next question - no; Ido not consider Adventism to be outside the pale of Christianity because of EGW.  I will admit that certain SDA's who do put EGW's writings on par with scripture may be outside the pale.

You seem to take issue with people who are not traditional Trinitarians. I'm one of those people - kinda.  I don't believe that the Holy Spirit is a Person like the Father or Jesus; but I do believe that the Holy Spirit is an integral part of God (i.e., God would not be who He is without the power of the Holy Spirit.)  Does that make sense; or does that put me outside of the pale of traditional Christianity in your opinion?

[JoeMo]

3 hours ago, Gustave said:

When Jesus ushered in the New Covenant the Seat of Moses terminated and this authority was passed to Christ who used the same language to describe the religious Authority of the Apostles that was previously used to describe the Authority of the Scribes and Pharisees.

So who has the authority to delegate Christ's authority?  Christ or some man?  Both Catholic and Adventist leaders have been corrupted.

For me, the authority for Christian standards is Christ.  If any "authority" preaches anything contrary to the Bible ( as far as salvational issues are concerned), then in my opinion, they are not "in authority".  But hey, I'm pretty much of a rebel.

I very much appreciated your candid comment about devotion to Mary.  Thank you for being honest and open.

I didn't agree with you equating it to keeping the 7th day Sabbath. At least there is biblical justification (like a commandment) for keeping the Sabbath.  Where it gets "iffy" is when people think it is the only commandment worth keeping.

 

[8thdaypriest]

4 hours ago, Gustave said:

The Jewish Tradition of observing the Sabbath starting on the evening of the 6th day is an example of this.

I think it comes from Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31.  "The evening and the morning were the first day", second day, third day etc. etc. Essentially "night and day" with the day - sun lighted hours, following the night - without sunlight. 

Then there's Leviticus 23:32, which in context is speaking about the Day of Atonement, but it fits the evening start. 

Leviticus 23:32 "It is a day of sabbath rest for you, and you must deny yourselves. From the evening of the ninth day of the month until the following evening you are to observe your sabbath." (NIV) 

[8thdaypriest]

3 hours ago, Gustave said:

You asked "Who defines Christianity? The majority of those claiming the title?"

Yes, in particular those who have the authority to claim it. 

"Let a man so account of US, as of the ministers of Christ, and STEWARDS of the mysteries of God". I Corinthians 4,1

If you check Strong's #G3623 it says; 

the manager of household or of household affairs

1. esp. a steward, manager, superintendent (whether free-born or as was usually the case, a freed-man or a slave) to whom the head of the house or proprietor has intrusted the management of his affairs, the care of receipts and expenditures, and the duty of dealing out the proper portion to every servant and even to the children not yet of age

Christ didn't set up a "free-for-all" so just anyone who could read or perhaps heard His teachings could disagree with the Apostles Christ selected and ordained Himself. 1 Corinthians 4,1 speaks to the Biblical command to follow the Hierarchy established by Christ. It was Christ Himself who stated that Pharisees and Scribes HAD THAT position (not the Sadducees) under the Old Covenant. When Jesus ushered in the New Covenant the Seat of Moses terminated and this authority was passed to Christ who used the same language to describe the religious Authority of the Apostles that was previously used to describe the Authority of the Scribes and Pharisees.

The question you have to ask yourself is IF Scripture teaches that the New Testament Christian Church had a hierarchy AND Scripture describes this power as being the same as formally possessed by those who sat on Moses seat what would you deduct this means? 

Speaking of the religious "authorities" of His day, Christ said:

Matthew 15:3  He answered, 'And why do you break away from the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, "Honour your father and your mother" and "Anyone who curses his father or mother will be put to death." 5 But you say, "If anyone says to his father or mother: Anything I might have used to help you is dedicated to God, 6 he is rid of his duty to father or mother." In this way you have made God's word ineffective by means of your tradition.' (NJB)

Mark 7:9 And he said to them, 'How ingeniously you get round the commandment of God in order to preserve your own tradition! (NJB)

Mark 7:13 In this way you make God's word ineffective for the sake of your tradition which you have handed down. And you do many other things like this.' (NJB)

So much for traditional interpretations

If the religious authorities of Christ's day were corrupt, why not later religious authorities?