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

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

ReChoired

Well-Known Member
Nov 26, 2019
2,679
633
113
Region
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
...are you frigging high or something tonight bro? ...
I am pretty sure brother brakelite is more advanced in years than yourself, and so, as Jesus commands in scripture, entreat him as a father. The language you are using is unbecoming toward this person. It is disrespectful.

1Ti_5:1 Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;

1Ti_5:19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.

1Pe_5:5 Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.

The question you ask is accusatory, uncouth and unevidenced.
 
B

brakelite

Guest
inferring that i am going to hell is nothing personal? go with that then, thats a good doctrine prolly.
First,I haven't believed in hell as being a literal fiery eternal abode for over 20 years, and my post was not directed at you personally, but was in reply to rechoired add a general observation that some on this forum have spiritualist tendencies in their philosophy. If you have not detected that I cannot help you.
are you frigging high or something tonight bro? Bc you cannot possibly have been following the same convo--ha, convo, as if; dont think i ever got a single response to a pertinent point?--that i was just attempting to participate in faithfully. I bet you i could quote twenty justifications from Scripture that were ignored in favor of some retard comment like "hell?"
Nor do I think that @ReChoired suggested anyone was going to "hell" either, at least not what I've seen. I know from his denominational viewpoint he doesn't accept hell in the commonly held perception of it any more than you do, or I for that matter. And btw, I don't think he believes km the Easter bunny or Easter eggs either add you seem to be supposing. Peace bro.
 

ReChoired

Well-Known Member
Nov 26, 2019
2,679
633
113
Region
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
...referring to ourselves in the plural, bc we are standing where we should not be, like most durdur SDAs do as a matter of course. ...
Examples:

Dan 2:36 This is the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king.

Heb_9:5 And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly.

Joh_3:11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

1Th_4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

1Th_4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

And others.
 
B

brakelite

Guest
gee, wonder why

Like most others, you confuse the terms of reference. Legalistic is not advocating obedience...otherwise you would have to cast aside the entire bible. Legalistic is being dependant upon obedience. One is not the same as the other. The Galatians were being obedient to the law...But that wasn't why they were being legalistic. They were trusting in their obedience to the law for salvation. Our church in times past were indeed accused of being legalistic..not because they advocated obedience, but because some in the church, did not elucidate clearly enough the place of obedience in the Christian walk. And many today outside of our church like to use the term against us to justify their reluctance to obey, our perhaps with some, their reluctance to study carefully enough whether they need to obey.
Pinning down people on doctrine is not legalistic. Suggesting people remain unsaved if they don't believe certain doctrines, or that their beliefs are wrongand therefore dangerous to their health, is not legalistic. Property's
Prophets and priests throughout all ages, as well as the Son Himself, taught that doctrine mattered and our acceptance or rejection of certain doctrines could affect our destiny. Who, how, why and when we worship certain entities matters. God is looking for those who worship in spirit and truth. You challenge all of us here on several issues...The second coming for example...based on your belief that there isn't any scriptural base for it. Thus you reject it. Which you Jane every right to do. And I don't think you will find one example of my consignng you to hell as a result. However,I think a correct understanding matters because the scripture says
KJV 2 Peter 3
Live Holy Lives
11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
I suppose the temptation is to search for a non literal meaning to the above...heaven on fire...elements melting...etc...not everything in the bible is a metaphor.
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You see, we are still seeing if your belief is valid or invalid, by asking questions and going to the scriptures. I have found that when people refuse to delve into their belief by the questions asked, there is an issue in the belief that doesn't desire to be exposed, or come into the light, and so I ask why is that? What is it about the belief that is so cherished it is unwilling to be given up? Truth is unashamed, truth always bears witness. It is the lie (I do not call you a liar, I am speaking of ideologies specifically, "the") that at first parades, but when seriously challenged reverses to skulking in shadows.

Well, I don't mind any one asking me questions. The point is, in post #(182) I answered all three of your questions, plus the fourth that you then asked.

The point of you asking is to show my answers prove a point you are trying to make, or disprove something I have said or believed. So, once I answered them, you need to show me how that proves the point you are trying to make. Or how my answers disprove something I have said. Instead of asking me more questions.

I have no problem with you wanting to reveal the Truth and expose any lie or mistake. There is a difference in making a mistake and propagating a lie.

Stranger
 
B

brakelite

Guest
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.
Correct. And I am a 67yo father. That obviously does not mean that I became a father 67 years ago. When we speak of eternal Father, does that necessitate an acceptance of eternal Son?
The question was not about "trinity", but about what you stated brother in regards the Son being not as 'old' as the Father.
So, God-head I do prefer

trinity" is a funny word with several definitions, some simple and basic and some complex, and most in error.
True. No one to my mind has convinced me they understand it, nor have they explained it in a manner that anyone else could understand. Yet they claim it salvational, and a required belief for membership to the church.
what you stated about the Son in relation to the Father, in regards 'old'-ness.
I liken it to Daniel 2 in the sense that the Rock, Christ, cut out from the mountain or coming forth from the Father is of the same substance of the Father...is as eternal in His essence as the Father being comprised of the same material...like Father like Son...express image of the Father...But yet a literal Son, not metaphorical and not a role He accepted as a co equal co eternal consubstantial member of the'trinity', or a tri unity within the God head.
 

hermeneutics

Active Member
Nov 29, 2019
104
51
28
western arkansas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Have you always been a 'dispensational'? Could that position be incorrect?

Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
Rom 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Rom 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Would you mind, if you consider the questions I had in regards Matthew 2:13-21 please. I am interested in your answers.

Hos 11:1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.
 

ReChoired

Well-Known Member
Nov 26, 2019
2,679
633
113
Region
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Correct. And I am a 67yo father. That obviously does not mean that I became a father 67 years ago. When we speak of eternal Father, does that necessitate an acceptance of eternal Son?
Thank you for the clarification brother. I do not desire to assume your position when speaking with you, as it makes things fuzzy, though I may still make an assumption or two (just let me know if I err in any of it).

In saying you are a 'father' (humanly speaking) it must mean that you had a child or children. Before that point, you would not be a 'father'. This is what I wanted pointed out in regards the Ancient of Days. Either He was always the Father in eternity, or He became the Father at some point in eternity (regarding the Son, Deity (not humanity, as that is a given)) before the earth was made. It cannot be both. Please keep in mind that when speaking of the Ancient of Days, we are not dealing with limited humanity, but eternal deity. The first would be an unchanging character, while the second would not be.

We would be speaking about several things.

[1] Character of Deity is unchanging (Malachi 3:6; Psalms 102:27; Hebrews 1:12, 13:5-8). This means that the Father, has always been (eternally) the Father, for that is His character. This means that the Son (eternally) has always been the Son, for that is His character. This relationship was renewed when the Son took upon Himself the flesh (likeness of sinful flesh) of mankind, and becomes the Son again to the Father through humanity Yet, notice that even in this, the Son already existed. In eternity, the Son was "in the form of God" (Philippians 2:6) and "equal" with God (person of the Father), and this nature, it is eternal, always existing. Would you suggest that the "form" of God can come into existence? Would you suggest the Person of God (such as the Son; Hebrews 1:9) can come into existence?

[2] The person of the Son is identified throughout scripture as "I AM" (Exodus 3:2,4,6,13,14; John 8:58 and so on; John 1:1-3) and this means eternal, without beginning or ending, it means from everlasting to everlasting, it means the self-existing Person of past, present and future, which is why the scripture can say of the Son, that He (Jesus JEHOVAH*) is the same yesterday (as far back in eternity one can humanly think), today (presently) and for ever (as far forward as eternity rolls). He could not be the "I AM" if His Person came into existence at some point in eternity past, but rather He would have to be called, "I came to be", as the name deals with character as we know. Yet, scripture says of the Son, that He was ever "with" the Father at His right hand, upon the eternal and everlasting throne, being the "fellow" (Zechariah 13:7) to the Father in/from all eternity.

* Jesus JEHOVAH

Genesis 49:18 HOT - לישׁועתך קויתי יהוה׃

Genesis 49:18 HOT Translit. - liyshûät'khä qiûiytiy y'hwäh

Exodus 14:13 HOT - ויאמר משׁה אל־העם אל־תיראו התיצבו וראו את־ישׁועת יהוה אשׁר־יעשׂה לכם היום כי אשׁר ראיתם את־מצרים היום לא תספו לראתם עוד עד־עולם׃

Exodus 14:13 HOT Translit. - waYomer mosheh el-hääm al-Tiyräû hit'yatz'vû ûr'û et-y'shûat y'hwäh ásher-yaáseh läkhem haYôm Kiy ásher r'iytem et-mitz'rayim haYôm lo tošiyfû lir'otäm ôd ad-ôläm

2 Chronicles 20:17 HOT - לא לכם להלחם בזאת התיצבו עמדו וראו את־ישׁועת יהוה עמכם יהודה וירושׁלם אל־תיראו ואל־תחתו מחר צאו לפניהם ויהוה עמכם׃

2 Chronicles 20:17 HOT Translit. - lo läkhem l'hiLächëm Bäzot hit'yaTZ'vû im'dû ûr'û et-y'shûat y'hwäh iMäkhem y'hûdäh wiyrûshälaim al-Tiyr'û w'al-TëchaTû mächär tz'û lif'nëyhem wayhwäh iMäkhem

Jonah 2:9 (2:10) HOT - ואני בקול תודה אזבחה־לך אשׁר נדרתי אשׁלמה ישׁועתה ליהוה׃

Jonah 2:9 HOT Translit. - waániy B'qôl Tôdäh ez'B'chäh-Läkh' ásher nädar'Tiy áshaLëmäh y'shûätäh layhwäh š

Psalms 119:174 HOT - תאבתי לישׁועתך יהוה ותורתך שׁעשׁעי׃

Psalms 119:174 HOT Translit. - Täav'Tiy liyshûät'khä y'hwäh w'tôrät'khä shaáshuäy​
 
Last edited:

ReChoired

Well-Known Member
Nov 26, 2019
2,679
633
113
Region
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Correct. And I am a 67yo father. That obviously does not mean that I became a father 67 years ago. When we speak of eternal Father, does that necessitate an acceptance of eternal Son?
[3] The spirit of prophecy (which is from Jesus, as we know, Revelation 19:10), states that the Son has no beginning, being "eternal", and would trump all pioneer writings which are not so inspired (yes? as per Isaiah 8:20), a few examples of many of which I may cite (for either sister White was dead on right, or she is a complete fraud (there is no middle ground, you agree, yes?):

"... The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, the eternal Godhead ..." - Ms 45, May 14, 1904, par. 16

[Please note, that the citation does not say that these three Persons/Beings are "the eternal God", but rather "the eternal Godhead". The word Godhead is used differently than the word God. Notice also that this citation states that "the Son", the Person/Being is "eternal", not merely the nature, as if somehow sloughed from the Father, and this context speaks of all three Persons/Beings together, so it means the same for each]
“... the eternal heavenly dignitariesGod, and Christ, and the Holy Spirit ...” - Ms 130, 1901 (November 27, 1901) par. 52

“... From eternity Christ has been man’s Redeemer. ...” - Ms 77, 1903 (August 2, 1903) par. 22

“... The Word of God is from everlasting to everlasting. ...” - Ms 12, 1901 (February 7, 1901) par. 11

[the Bible is a word picture of Jesus, He is from everlasting to everlasting, as He is the “Word of God”]
“... Christ is from everlasting to everlasting, a present help to all who seek Him diligently. ...” - Ms 20, 1913 (September 27, 1913) par. 10

“... Christ should be uplifted as the first Great Teacher, the only begotten Son of God, who was with the Father from eternal ages. The Son of God was the Great Teacher sent into the world as the Light of the world. “The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.” [John 1:14.] The Father was represented in Christ, and the attention in education must be of that character that they will look to Him and believe in Him as the likeness of God. ...” - Lt 67, 1895 (June 12, 1895) par. 4

“... Our part is, by believing His Word, to find rest in Christ Jesus. His words are spirit and life. In believing them there is rest and peace. “Knock, and it shall be opened unto you.” Our prayers will reach the ear of Christ, and He will open unto us the rich treasures of His grace. Through prayer we are brought into communion with the high and holy One who inhabiteth eternity. He opens the door to every one who will knock. Lt115-1905 (April 12, 1905) par. 14 ...” - Lt 115, 1905 (April 12, 1905) par. 14

“... Where Christ is even among the humble few, this is Christ’s church, for the presence of the high and holy One who inhabiteth eternity can alone constitute a church. Where two or three are present who love and obey the commandments of God, Jesus there presides; ...” - Lt 108, 1886 (October 23, 1886) par. 17

“... “His name shall be called Immanuel, ... God with us.” “The light of the knowledge of the glory of God” is seen “in the face of Jesus Christ.” From the days of eternity the Lord Jesus Christ was one with the Father; He was “the image of God,” the image of His greatness and majesty, “the outshining of His glory.” It was to manifest this glory that He came to our world. To this sin-darkened earth He came to reveal the light of God's love,—to be “God with us.” Therefore it was prophesied of Him, “His name shall be called Immanuel.” DA 19.1 ...” - The Desire of Ages, p. 19.1; 1898

“... But while God's Word speaks of the humanity of Christ when upon this earth, it also speaks decidedly regarding his pre-existence. The Word existed as a divine being, even as the eternal Son of God, in union and oneness with his Father. From everlasting he was the Mediator of the covenant, the one in whom all nations of the earth, both Jews and Gentiles, if they accepted him, were to be blessed. “The Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Before men or angels were created, the Word was with God, and was God. RH April 5, 1906, par. 5

The world was made by him, “and without him was not anything made that was made.” If Christ made all things, he existed before all things. The words spoken in regard to this are so decisive that no one need be left in doubt. Christ was God essentially, and in the highest sense. He was with God from all eternity, God over all, blessed forevermore. RH April 5, 1906, par. 6

The Lord Jesus Christ, the divine Son of God, existed from eternity, a distinct person, yet one with the Father. He was the surpassing glory of heaven. He was the commander of the heavenly intelligences, and the adoring homage of the angels was received by him as his right. This was no robbery of God. “The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way,” he declares, “before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth; while as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth.” RH April 5, 1906, par. 7

There are light and glory in the truth that Christ was one with the Father before the foundation of the world was laid. This is the light shining in a dark place, making it resplendent with divine, original glory. This truth, infinitely mysterious in itself, explains other mysterious and otherwise unexplainable truths, while it is enshrined in light, unapproachable and incomprehensible. RH April 5, 1906, par. 8

“Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.” “The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up.” Here the pre-existence of Christ and the purpose of his manifestation to our world are presented as living beams of light from the eternal throne. “Now gather thyself in troops, O daughter of troops: he hath laid siege against us: they shall smite the Judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek. But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” “We preach Christ crucified,” declares Paul, “unto the Jews a stumbling-block, and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.” RH April 5, 1906, par. 9 ...” - The Review and Herald April 5, 1906 paragraph 5- 9

“... That which in the councils of heaven the Father and the Son deemed essential for the salvation of man was defined from eternity by infinite truths which finite beings cannot fail to comprehend. ...” - Ms 8, 1896 (March 26, 1896) par. 10

Is it possible brother, that if you believe in the spirit of prophecy of sister White, that you might have misunderstood a few statements which are generally singular in contrast to the bulk?
 
Last edited:

ReChoired

Well-Known Member
Nov 26, 2019
2,679
633
113
Region
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
So, God-head I do prefer
I not only "prefer" it, it is the scriptural (King James, the common peoples Bible) word. Godhead, speaks of multiple Persons/Beings at work together with the same goal, such as OT and NT (all the prophets agree together, etc), or the Gospel (4 gospels that teach the same).

True. No one to my mind has convinced me they understand it, nor have they explained it in a manner that anyone else could understand. Yet they claim it salvational, and a required belief for membership to the church.
As I said, it depends on the definition, for instance:

Wikipedia [quick source]:


“... The word "trinity" is derived from Latin trinitas, meaning "the number three, a triad, tri". This abstract noun is formed from the adjective trinus (three each, threefold, triple),[21] as the word unitas is the abstract noun formed from unus (one).

The corresponding word in Greek is tριάς, meaning "a set of three" or "the number three".[22] The first recorded use of this Greek word in Christian theology was by Theophilus of Antioch in about the year of 170. He wrote:[23][24]

In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity [Τριάδος], of God, and His Word, and His wisdom. And the fourth is the type of man, who needs light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man.[25]​

Tertullian, a Latin theologian who wrote in the early 3rd century, is credited as being the first to use the Latin words "Trinity"
,[26] "person" and "substance"[27] to explain that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are "tres personae, una substantia".[28] While "personae" is often translated as "persons," the Latin word personae is better understood as referring to roles as opposed to individual centers of consciousness. ...” - Trinity - Wikipedia

Already we can see 2 varying definitions, [1] between Ignatius of Antioch [which is were they were first called “Christians” [Acts 11:26 KJB]], and [2] the later Latin Tertullian, which included “una substantia”. Yet, throughout history there are further definitions of the word.

So in a simple definition, "trinity" can simply mean three working together, not that they are of an "una substantia". That simple definition of "trinity" can then be the same as Godhead in scripture. So, as I said, it is all in the definition, not the word itself. The Roman Catholic definition is in error, and that is what the pioneers primarily fought against, speaking out against an aethereal "god" without body or parts. This definition is indeed incoherent, no matter the babble that comes of its theology, of which I may cite as necessary.

What I have found through intimate and prolonged dialogue of those who teach the Person of the Son (such a A.D. and D.M. (both officially, and rightfully so, disfellowshipped from their congregations, and, rightly so, relieved from their ministerial positions (A.F. (quit), W.I. and S.U.) and their 'ministry' (P.H.&M. or J.orB.) and others before them, came into existence in the eternity past, or that the Holy Ghost/Spirit is just another "personality", rather than His own Person/Being, make their theology 'salvational', and attempt to place it at the heart of the three angels messages and the mark of the beast and the alpha and omega of heresies (just as the so-called lunar sabbatarians do, the 2520 group, the flat earth groups, 1844 chart groups and so on).

If you take issue with the so-called 1st 'fundamental' and its wording, I understand how you feel on that. Really, but that is not what I desire to get into, as it is merely distraction from what scripture and the testimonies say.

I liken it to Daniel 2 in the sense that the Rock, Christ, cut out from the mountain or coming forth from the Father is of the same substance of the Father
Brother, I know that you got/received this idea from said 'ministry' I mentioned just before. I know the origin of it, and spoke to the person when they first came up with it. They refused to answer my questions about that teaching.

There is no Bible verse (or anything in the testimonies for that matter) that states that the "Mountain" represents the person of the Father. Anywhere (and that makes it "private interpretation"). That should tell you something brother. It is merely an idea of a man. It is human fallible thinking. It is self refuting, notice. The "Mountain" is identified by scripture as the Kingdom of Heaven. In that same chapter, Daniel 2, the "Stone" "becomes" a "Mountain" (Daniel 2:35). Brother, do you realize what that would mean using the definition you have provided? Look again please, consider the theology all the way through all of the text, not just the one text.

...is as eternal in His essence as the Father being comprised of the same material...like Father like Son...express image of the Father...But yet a literal Son, not metaphorical and not a role He accepted as a co equal co eternal consubstantial member of the'trinity', or a tri unity within the God head.
Brother, that is an attempt to say that the Son is eternal, but yet not in His existence as a "Person"/"Being". Reducing the theology to merely 'nature' is a sleight of hand. It (theology) is actually deceptive.

Again, I am not speaking of "trinity" in the general understanding. It is a red-herring, a distraction, from the real point, and I know you do not mean to do this purposefully. Tri-unity (a word I had not mentioned heretofore until you brought it up), in a simple definition, simple means three working in unity, or toward the same goal, etc, such as a musical "chord" (three individual notes, that when working together, produce a harmony). However, if we could put away, in our discussion the word "trinity" and "tri-unity", and simply refer to the scriptures and the testimonies, this would make our discussion that much easier.
 
Last edited:

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
accused of being legalistic
"rechoired"

yknow bl, aside from the obv cognitive dissonance and avoiding @ questions and whatnot that Stranger mentions--which i always assumed i do some of myself, as ruthless as i try to be with myself there--i never had a prob with you until last night, around another sda? Just an observation. You were always at least decent.

I'm now going to use a term i dont think i have ever used in a forum, but wadr seems like yall make each other more stupid, some kinda way? More judgmental? But like "dur" judgmental, cant even hold up your end of a convo? I gotta example right here in the last page or two but i don't want to go there if yall don't; and i guess it dont take a genius to figure out neither of you will be asking either huh

anyway, good to hear yall reject literal hell, as i recall i have always thought sda s got quite a bit right; funny thing though, tried to attend more than once and Yah always stopped me at the door, dunno why. Never heard the easter thing, dunno if thats held in common or not, maybe thats why?

So, fwiw, i recog that im swimming in it too yall, i dont judge you for rejecting Passover at all, heck, i been "saved" 45 years and earnestly seeking for 20 of them and thats still mostly just a term to me, maybe just now starting to form a decent def, dunno. Anyway best of luck to yall, honest, ok, and sorry if i hurt your feelings, guess i still do that a lot. All i got is opinions/beliefs ok, i dont know anything

Man, beliefs sure make ppl sick, i tell ya what
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: amadeus and Helen

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
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.
its like a stupid party. No offense but "pity" is really the first emotion that comes to mind, which i hate and apologize for, i know how it sounds, way overused by believers imo, but yikes guys. Seriously? Yall just get beaten too much as kids or something? i know every sda cong i walked into felt just like a morgue for whatever reason. Cant you just run?
 
Last edited:

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
Who is the "child" in that verse, and what is the name thereof (child/him/son (singular))?
youve got like the Directing possession in spades, huh, not in the least interested in hearing a thing are ya. You actually think ppl are eager to hear the puke that comes out of your mouth, doncha.

I mean i can put you on ignore easy enough but imo you put a pall on the whole room, and i'm particularly sorry youre here bc now i have to put a friend, bl, on ignore too. I wont make any appeals as youve made it abundantly plain where your hearing is at. i mean i recognize that i'm still too bald with my opinions too, and thats the lesson ima try to take from this. ok bye
 
Last edited:

ReChoired

Well-Known Member
Nov 26, 2019
2,679
633
113
Region
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
its like a stupid party. No offense but "pity" is really the first emotion that comes to mind, which i hate and apologize for, i know how it sounds, but yikes guys. Seriously? Yall just get beaten too much as kids or something? i know every sda cong i walked into felt just like a morgue for whatever reason. Cant you just run?
Ecc_7:2 It is better to go to the house of mourning, than to go to the house of feasting: for that is the end of all men; and the living will lay it to his heart.

Ecc_7:4 The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning; but the heart of fools is in the house of mirth.
 

ReChoired

Well-Known Member
Nov 26, 2019
2,679
633
113
Region
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
wow, do sda s not own any mirrors or something?
Yes, it is called the Bible and the Law of God:

Jas_1:23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass:
 

ReChoired

Well-Known Member
Nov 26, 2019
2,679
633
113
Region
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
...anyway, good to hear yall reject literal hell ...
Actually we teach literal hell, and it will consume the wicked until they become nothing (annihilated). So we do not reject 'literal hell'.
 

hermeneutics

Active Member
Nov 29, 2019
104
51
28
western arkansas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Who is the "child" in that verse, and what is the name thereof (child/him/son (singular))?
Jesus - In Hebrew -
yiśrâ'êl
yis-raw-ale'
From H8280 and H410; he will rule as God; Jisrael, a symbolical name of Jacob; also (typically) of his posterity: - Israel.
Jesus would rule as God, a symbolical name of Jacob
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helen