Y do U believe what U believe, and do U have good reasons 4 those beliefs? - let's find out.

brakelite · Nov 29, 2019

Helen said:
Yep, you got it!! Very true ...but you are a good guy and I am sure God is big enough to love you anyway. You just need those blinkers removed.
xx

I wouldn't describe them as blinkers...more transparent blinds. Allows me to see clearly enough what is going on around me, while keeping the dust out.

ReChoired · Nov 29, 2019

bbyrd009 said:
oh hell no ...

Please do not swear at me again, and I would like for you to 'check' your language for someone claiming to be "christian" on their public profile.

ReChoired · Nov 29, 2019

brakelite said:
I wouldn't describe them as blinkers...more transparent blinds. Allows me to see clearly enough what is going on around me, while keeping the dust out.

Brother brakelite, have you seen my response to your post earlier? Y do U believe what U believe, and do U have good reasons 4 those beliefs? - let's find out.

brakelite said:
Incorrect beliefs once held now ditched.... ...
5. The Son of God is as old(sic) as the Father.
6. Sunday is the Lord's day. ...

Interested in discussing these two, would you?

As for point 5, you are saying that the Person of the Son is not eternal, but came into existence at some point in eternity past? If so, would you provide 3 texts that are your primary texts that you draw this conclusion from? I am most curious, as I do not see this taught in scripture. Wouldn't that automatically mean that the Person of the Father, was not always 'Father' but became such the moment of the coming into existence of the Son (if that is what you mean)?

As for point 6, what day is the "Lord's day", and would you mind if we look at scripture to see what it says on it?

ReChoired · Nov 29, 2019

bbyrd009 said:
...see the original lang if you know whats good for you...

Tell you what, if you can read and translate these two documents for me in the next 2 hours, I will take you seriously (time begins now ... tick tock). They are not very long, and they are very legible.

As for other languages, I may test you yet to see if you can even identify languages let alone translate any of it.

As for Lexicons, you ought to beware, of their authors beliefs which have painted their work. - It may just be Hazardous to you.

bbyrd009 · Nov 29, 2019

ReChoired said:
Please do not swear at me again, and I would like for you to 'check' your language for someone claiming to be "christian" on their public profile.

yeh, thats the most important subject in that post to respond to eh?

dunno if youve noticed, but there is an invisible scrollback button next to every quote banner that you produce when you click "quote" or reply, just to the right of "_____ said:"
and if you click that, it takes you back to the post that you replied to, which was hopefully not you, at least for the purposes of this post, which is that--like this and like that; and like this--and uh, you can then click on that one's avatar, and a little windowbox thingy pops up, and you get some options, one of them being "ignore" which i highly recommend in my case--esp if "hell" is a place that you believe other ppl who dont share your beliefs might someday go after they have literally died (which is complete crap btw, available only in xlations, via scribes; right up your alley iow i guess), but you nonetheless hold it to be a "swear" word.
Bc i am not a pc guy, ok, the outside of my cup has some grease on it.
ok peace

ReChoired said:
Tell you what, if you can read and translate these two documents for me in the next 2 hours, I will take you seriously (time begins now ... tick tock). They are not very long, and they are very legible.

now why would i do that, when i know Lex and he has access to the finest minds on the erets on that subject? Catch me in the interlinear, >3

k gotta run, again, and i wish you the best of luck ok
i mean with oestre and etc, the clean outside cup dealy

ReChoired · Nov 29, 2019

bbyrd009 said:
yeh, thats the most important subject in that post to respond to eh?...

Yes, as it reveals one's true character, for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh and the fingers typeth (see Pro. 6:13).

bbyrd009 · Nov 29, 2019

ReChoired said:
Yes, as it reveals one's true character, for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh and the fingers typeth.

word

barketh, barketh

but you will assert out the other side that hell is indeed waiting for some other, right?

bbyrd009 · Nov 29, 2019

so, hopefully i am now known as i know

too late for me, save yourself! HA!

ReChoired · Nov 29, 2019

bbyrd009 said:
but you will assert out the other side that hell is indeed waiting for some other, right?

I knew you would attempt this approach. The definition of the word and proper use, does not sanctify your use of said word in the context in which you stated it.

bbyrd009 · Nov 29, 2019

ReChoired said:
As for Lexicons, you ought to beware, of their authors beliefs which have painted their work

i def agree, strong's is really poor now imo, all i use Lex for is the root word, and i meta the authors for the etymology. The Abarim are a current, comprehensive fave, but i (and they, apparently) meta all the other scholars etys anyway. Ergo individual beliefs/opinions are regarded, but not exclusively

ReChoired said:
I knew you would attempt this approach. The definition of the word and proper use, does not sanctify your use of said word in the context in which you stated it.

so you say, yes. And fwiw i would never intentionally be as offensive anyway.
As those who would intentionally dig a pit for others to fall into i mean.
Have a good one, Required

09cc0534-32e4-11e7-8928-05b245c57f03_image_hires_132410.jpg

ReChoired · Nov 29, 2019

bbyrd009 said:
...
too late for me, save yourself! HA!

False gospel.

ReChoired · Nov 29, 2019

bbyrd009 said:
...barketh, barketh ...

Better to 'bark' and give you warning, than to be a 'dumb dog' and not love you and not tell you of the enemy's foothold upon you:

Isa_56:10 His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber.

ReChoired · Nov 29, 2019

bbyrd009 said:
...just as lightning flashes from east to west... ...

You do not even understand what you refer to:

Mat 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

The "lightning" refers to brightly shining, to en-lighten (go from dark to light) (see Luke 11:36, the "bright shining of a candle doth give thee light"), as the Sun in this context, which arises in the east (Numbers 2:3) and passes into the west. The coming of Jesus Christ (beginning from the east side of the sanctuary in type, the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ, ending in the west at the Ark of God, the throne of God in the Most Holy, God's will, His Law written completely upon the heart in fulfillment of His everlasting covenant) will be first seen as shining out from His own people, as His perfect character is seen perfectly reflected in them, the harvest brought to full ripeness:

2Pe_1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

Just as the sky is lit by the light of the sun and is seen before the sun may be seen, which cometh just after.

brakelite · Nov 29, 2019

ReChoired said:
Brother brakelite, have you seen my response to your post earlier? Y do U believe what U believe, and do U have good reasons 4 those beliefs? - let's find out.

Interested in discussing these two, would you?

As for point 5, you are saying that the Person of the Son is not eternal, but came into existence at some point in eternity past? If so, would you provide 3 texts that are your primary texts that you draw this conclusion from? I am most curious, as I do not see this taught in scripture. Wouldn't that automatically mean that the Person of the Father, was not always 'Father' but became such the moment of the coming into existence of the Son (if that is what you mean)?

As for point 6, what day is the "Lord's day", and would you mind if we look at scripture to see what it says on it?

Re the trinity...
God Himself placed in mankind at creation an understanding and mindset regarding procreation...being made in His image... that mindset had an inherent understanding that children...sons and daughters...come forth from their parents. When the Son of God spoke of Himself as having come forth from the Father, I see this in the same manner of understanding and mindset as I view all creation. I do not however view Christ add having been created...But certainly begotten...before creation as He had an active role in creation...let us make man in our image.
I do however hold this present understanding lightly. At the present time I cannot accept the logic or sense in God giving us a particular line reasonng with regards procreation...begetting etc...without it being a type of His own relationship with His Son. Eternally begotten, as taught by most churches, seems to me a complete contradiction in terms. Begotten means just that. In the words of one of our own pioneers, Lougbourough, I think, if God loved the world so much that He gave His only begotten Son, then He had a Son to give.

The Lord's day...Sabbath...Friday sunset to Saturday sunset. I am the Lord of the Sabbath day .

brakelite · Nov 29, 2019

@ReChoired Your challenge as laid out in this thread , in challenging people to justify from scripture what they believe, has uncovered what is so predominant in modern Christianity., and what I discovered on this and many other forums several years ago...that there is a powerful influence of spiritualism in modern Christian thought. Your citing scripture and asking questions cuts deep and I hope the people here do not react with anger, cynicism, or animosity just because you challenge them to think.

brakelite · Nov 29, 2019

brakelite said:
@ReChoired Your challenge as laid out in this thread , in challenging people to justify from scripture what they believe, has uncovered what is so predominant in modern Christianity., and what I discovered on this and many other forums several years ago...that there is a powerful influence of spiritualism in modern Christian thought. Your citing scripture and asking questions cuts deep and I hope the people here do not react with anger, cynicism, or animosity just because you challenge them to think.

And regardless of your motives for being here as judged by some, I agree with you that there is something intrinsically wrong if people aren't willing to justify their doctrine from scripture. That tree that Eve ate from, wasn't both good and evil, it was a tree of knowledge. Eve was desiring knowledge...become like God...thinking God was holding something back which she thought she deserved to know, thus not willing to trust God's word. In the day that thou eat thereof thou shalt die. There are some here who claim they have eaten of that tree, that they have special spiritual insight given to them that transcends the written word of God, which finds a distinct antagonism to your scriptures...while charging you with arrogance just for asking questions, they themselves claim you are wrong because the spirit has revealed to them greater understanding. Mmmm. I haven't noticed you offering any interpretation of your own, simply scripture explaining itself. But then I'm biased. I think the same way.

brakelite · Nov 29, 2019

bbyrd009 said:
you srsly must be kidding bro
would you like to warn me of "the enemy's foothold upon me" too?
regardless of the fact that this is even against forum policy?

nothing personal. But there are many here who do have spiritualist leanings...
PHILOSOPHY
the doctrine that the spirit exists as distinct from matter, or that spirit is the only reality.

bbyrd009 · Nov 29, 2019

ReChoired said:
I knew you wo

yeh, i already knew you knew that...somehow
narf

ReChoired · Nov 29, 2019

brakelite said:
Re the trinity...

The question was not about "trinity", but about what you stated brother in regards the Son being not as 'old' as the Father. I took this to mean (and correct me if I am not understanding you) that you presently believe the person of the Son to have come into existence at some point in eternity past, and this also speaks to the word "Father" in regards the Ancient of Days.

"trinity" is a funny word with several definitions, some simple and basic and some complex, and most in error. I know what the testimonies says and do not say here, and if you choose not to use the word, that is fine, but I am not so much interested in the word, but rather what you stated about the Son in relation to the Father, in regards 'old'-ness.

brakelite said:
God Himself placed in mankind at creation an understanding and mindset regarding procreation...being made in His image... that mindset had an inherent understanding that children...sons and daughters...come forth from their parents. When the Son of God spoke of Himself as having come forth from the Father, I see this in the same manner of understanding and mindset as I view all creation. I do not however view Christ add having been created...But certainly begotten...before creation as He had an active role in creation...let us make man in our image.

Can you be specific in the texts you cite, otherwise we might 'dance', and this I do not do.

So, can you cite the verse you are referring to when you say "come forth" in regards the Son so we can look at it, and how the Bible uses the same words elsewhere?

I would suggest looking at the Tree of Life first, as an example, since it existed before mankind.

brakelite said:
I do however hold this present understanding lightly.

Ok.

brakelite said:
At the present time I cannot accept the logic or sense in God giving us a particular line reasonng with regards procreation...begetting etc...without it being a type of His own relationship with His Son. Eternally begotten, as taught by most churches, seems to me a complete contradiction in terms.

I would not suggest eternally begotten either. I would say the Son is eternal and begotten (which deals with His nature as Deity, being the express image).

brakelite said:
Begotten means just that.

Actually no. This is where a lot of confusion is.

brakelite said:
In the words of one of our own pioneers, Lougbourough, I think, if God loved the world so much that He gave His only begotten Son, then He had a Son to give.

Well Loughborough is correct in that statement, but that statement doesn't add weight to what you stated in regards the Son not being as 'old' as the Father. It simply states what scripture states in that there existed the Son to be given. Loughborough in that statement said nothing about generation, or coming into existence, he merely spoke of that which existed to give, the person of the Son from the person of the Father.

I assume (tell me if I am right or wrong please) that you have studied the same phrase and scripture ("come forth") in the testimonies? I have.

brakelite said:
The Lord's day...Sabbath...Friday sunset to Saturday sunset. I am the Lord of the Sabbath day .

I agree, but we ought provide texts, yes?

The "Lord's day" according to scripture, is the 7th day, the sabbath day of the Lord.

Genesis 2:1-3 - 'the seventh day', 'God'

Exodus 16:3 - "to morrow [the seventh day] is the rest of the holy sabbath unto the LORD'

Exodus 16:25 - 'to day [the seventh day]; for to day is a sabbath unto the LORD: to day'

Exodus 20:8-11 - 'the sabbath day', 'the LORD', 'the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God'

Exodus 31:15 - 'the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD ... the sabbath day'

Exodus 35:2 - 'the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD'

Leviticus 23:3 - 'the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of the LORD'

Deuteronomy 5:14 - 'the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God'

Psalms 92:1 - 'A Psalm or Song for the sabbath day. It is a good thing to give thanks unto the LORD'

Isaiah 56:6 - 'Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant' (context new covenant)

Isaiah 58:13 - 'the sabbath ... my [the LORD's] holy day ... the holy [day] of the Lord'

Isaiah 66:23 - 'one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD'

Jeremiah 17:21 - 'saith the LORD... on the sabbath day'

Matthew 12:8 - 'the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day'

Mark 2:28 - 'the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day'

Luke 6:5 - 'the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath [day]'

Revelation 1:10 - 'the Lord's day'

bbyrd009 · Nov 29, 2019

Stranger said:
What does it matter. You ask questions and I answered. What is your point. You just want to ask questions?

Stranger

just wants to jerk your chain i guess

ReChoired said:
You see, we are

referring to ourselves in the plural, bc we are standing where we should not be, like most SDAs seem to do as a matter of course.

Well just so you two special snowflakes know, most of us were up around sunrise, and believe it or not it did not rise from anywhere near where you think it did, ok

Y do U believe what U believe, and do U have good reasons 4 those beliefs? - let's find out.

brakelite

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Groper

Well-Known Member

Groper

Groper

Well-Known Member

Groper

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

brakelite

Guest

brakelite

Guest

brakelite

Guest

brakelite

Guest

Groper

Well-Known Member

Groper

Similar threads