SDA Doctrines Questioned (for Ted)
Derrick Louw
The following quote is from Ted's website:
"Should the SDA Church allow its members to question its doctrines?
NO WAY!!"
Allow me to pose a question. Where did the SDA understanding of the 'state
of the dead' originate?
Once any SDA finds the basis for this SDA doctrine, he or she will question
it. I will post this information if anyone is interested.
DL
Ronald V. Obidos
As far as I am concerned the SDA church got this doctrine of "Soul Sleep" in
the Bible itself. In case you have more information about this kindly post
it asap.
Ronald V. Obidos
SDAnswers Ministry
"Derrick Louw" <d...@iafrica.com> wrote in message
news:B5A7A4CE.2BB%d...@iafrica.com...
Ted McMillan
Derrick Louw <d...@iafrica.com> wrote:
> Hello
>
> The following quote is from Ted's website:
>
> "Should the SDA Church allow its members to question its doctrines?
>
> NO WAY!!"
>
> Allow me to pose a question. Where did the SDA understanding of
the 'state
> of the dead' originate?
>
> Once any SDA finds the basis for this SDA doctrine, he or she will
question
> it. I will post this information if anyone is interested.
>
> DL
>
>
Dear Sir,
If you are not an SDA, there is no problem with you questioning its
doctrine. That article was talking about infiltration and subversion.
When the doctrine is questioned, it must be done with integrity and not
with unscrupulousness. I would not want to see wrong "FACTS" being
listed against Adventism, and then when I post a rebuttal, someone
yells "SPAM ALERT," others totally ignore the points, and others tell
me to seek "honest" sources first and then tells me that dialogue is
terminated because I was wicked enough to bring evidence and points.
But the article was saying that, just like any other church, they have
a right to make sure that their doctrines are not questioned. When
members violate that right, they should be provided a means to go where
their beliefs are welcome, and they should have their liberty.
Thanks,
Ted
--
The Truth of Adventism Defended Forum
http://www2.50megs.com/tmac1238/sealedinfo.html
The light around the deceptions of the Jesuits!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Stephen Korsman
>
> The following quote is from Ted's website:
>
> "Should the SDA Church allow its members to question its doctrines?
>
> NO WAY!!"
>
> Allow me to pose a question. Where did the SDA understanding of the
'state
> of the dead' originate?
>
> Once any SDA finds the basis for this SDA doctrine, he or she will
question
> it. I will post this information if anyone is interested.
>
> DL
Hi!
Yes, please ! Let us see the info you have to share !
God bless,
Stephen
--
--
Stephen Korsman
skor...@global.co.za
Sites against Adventism:
http://members.tripod.com/SDAdventist/index.htm
http://members.xoom.com/SDAdventist/index.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/nt/sda2rcc/index.html
http://www.homestead.com/adventist/files/index.htm
Church of God site:
http://home.global.co.za/~skorsman/cog/index.htm
Main site / Catholic sites
http://home.global.co.za/~skorsman/index.htm
Jesse Roberts
doctrines?
Jesse
Stephen Korsman
Jesse Roberts <tw...@ezlink.com> wrote in message
news:so91u3...@corp.supernews.com...
> "Should the Roman Catholic Church allow its members to question its
> doctrines?
Your point ?
I think that Catholics who question their beliefs and search with an open
mind will find that Catholicism is faithful to God and the Bible. It is
when they are "guided" by blind teachers such as the Adventist church, and
read the misinformation put out by antiCatholic sects and so-called
"ministries", that they get led astray. They trust people like Jesse, who
publishes inaccurate and misleading quotations that get them confused.
Jesse Roberts
Stephen Korsman <skor...@global.co.za> wrote in message
news:8m25cj$l0j$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>
> Jesse Roberts <tw...@ezlink.com> wrote in message
> news:so91u3...@corp.supernews.com...
> > "Should the Roman Catholic Church allow its members to question its
> > doctrines?
>
> Your point ?
A question, are you araid of it.?
Let me ask it again. Should the Roman Catholic Church allow its members to
question its doctrines?
>
Ted McMillan
"Stephen Korsman" <skor...@global.co.za> wrote:
> Your point ?
>
> I think that Catholics who question their beliefs and search with an
open
> mind will find that Catholicism is faithful to God and the Bible. It
is
> when they are "guided" by blind teachers such as the Adventist
church, and
> read the misinformation put out by antiCatholic sects and so-called
> "ministries", that they get led astray. They trust people like
Jesse, who
> publishes inaccurate and misleading quotations that get them confused.
>
> God bless,
> Stephen
>
AntiCatholic sects like Martin Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and the rest of
them? Those Protestants writings tell us that during those days, Rome
was nothing but deception and power-hungry despot ranting. Where
therefore is Mr. Korsman's proof for what he has spoken?
We are in the court now. Should we run this court just like how Foxe's
Book of Martyrs tells us that Korsman's Rome ran the Dark Ages? Or
should evidence be provided here in this arena?
As you can see, Korsman does not care what he does. He will not
provide the evidence to back up his statements. The questions were
asked whether or not Martin Luther hated Catholics. To this day we
have not received an answer. His very following proved that this is
not true. The same is true for the Adventist Church. The best of them
in membership were once Catholics. I at times saw them handing out
literature even about the 666 Beast being the Papacy, and I saw
Catholic priests even taking it to read. They were not angry.
Still, we are in a discussion arena right now, and Mr. Korsman has made
statements that he feels he has no obligation to prove. In order to
cover this up, he has and will spend his time ranting about how others
are despicable bigots and despots.
THIS IS ROME, ALL OVER AGAIN!! You saw my evidence to prove that
Martin Luther was not AntiCatholic. What is Korsman's proof that he
is, and how is the anology of hate to fit in with the deeds of those
Protestants in contrast with the deed of Rome JUSTIFIED BY HER VERY
UNCHANGING WRITINGS?
Let us see the dialogue terminated again and again when people do what
was done in history which even got them killed.
Ted McMillan
"Jesse Roberts" <tw...@ezlink.com> wrote:
>
> Stephen Korsman <skor...@global.co.za> wrote in message
> news:8m25cj$l0j$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> >
> > Jesse Roberts <tw...@ezlink.com> wrote in message
> > news:so91u3...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > "Should the Roman Catholic Church allow its members to question
its
> > > doctrines?
> >
> > Your point ?
>
> A question, are you araid of it.?
>
> Let me ask it again. Should the Roman Catholic Church allow its
members to
> question its doctrines?
Jesse,
Please understand.
NO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SHOULD -->NOT<-- ALLOW ITS MEMBERS TO QUESTION
ITS DOCTRINES. Please read the article on my website so that you can
understand why:
http://www2.50megs.com/tmac1238/sealedinfo/Authority.html
Neither should any other church do that. The problem essentially is
what happens when Rome does not allow members to question her
doctrines. What she should do is to ultimately, after listening to the
person who dissents and finding that person to be in error according to
Catholic doctrine, is to let that person go free, and disfellowship him
from their communion. The problem is the fact that history did not go
that way. Historically, if you disagreed, every indignity was heaped
upon you, and you were ultimately put to death, as is about to happen
again, but this time with a huge global uniting of the churches under
Rome which will dominate.
Please read the article and understand. The Adventist Church allows
people to think and question, but it is not supposed to retain those
who are dissidents after discussion and evidence is weighed and the
dissident is found to be in error.
Ted McMillan
> Allow me to pose a question. Where did the SDA understanding of
the 'state
> of the dead' originate?
>
>
> DL
>
>
DL,
Let me ask you a candid question:
Where is King David now?
pto...@attglobal.net
Try Ecclesiastics 9:5. As far as the doctrine of eternal life for the
wicked, whats with that? Wasn't it God who said, "The soul the sinneth, it
shall die".
Paul
Stephen Korsman
>
> Stephen Korsman <skor...@global.co.za> wrote in message
> news:8m25cj$l0j$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> >
> > Jesse Roberts <tw...@ezlink.com> wrote in message
> > news:so91u3...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > "Should the Roman Catholic Church allow its members to question its
> > > doctrines?
> >
> > Your point ?
>
> A question, are you araid of it.?
>
> Let me ask it again. Should the Roman Catholic Church allow its members
to
> question its doctrines?
No, I am not afraid of your questions. I just find them rather sinister and
calculated. They are not asked with the purpose of finding and answer, but
rather to trap and corner. Not very nice.
Furthermore, if you bothered to read what I wrote, you would have found that
I did answer your question. I explained some of the great benefits of
questioning one's faith. My problem is not with questioning one's faith,
but with the dishonesty that misleads many otherwise sincere Christians into
leaving or avoiding the Catholic Church.
Stephen Korsman
Ted McMillan <tmac...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8m2dvg$p56$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Let me ask you a candid question:
>
> Where is King David now?
King David is in heaven. The Bible tells us that during Jesus time, he had
not YET ascended into heaven. Acts 2:34. The original Greek does not
support the Adventist misinterpretation that David is not there NOW.
Jesse Roberts
> to
> > question its doctrines?
>
> No, I am not afraid of your questions. I just find them rather sinister
and
> calculated. They are not asked with the purpose of finding and answer,
but
> rather to trap and corner. Not very nice.
>
> Furthermore, if you bothered to read what I wrote, you would have found
that
> I did answer your question. I explained some of the great benefits of
> questioning one's faith. My problem is not with questioning one's faith,
> but with the dishonesty that misleads many otherwise sincere Christians
into
> leaving or avoiding the Catholic Church.
>
It must be terrible to live with constant fear. A simple question and yet
you are afraid to answer it.
I find your judgmentalism unfounded. I am sure there are others awaiting
for your answer to this simple question.
I read that material you requested I read and I did not find the answer to
my question.
Let me try again.-- "Should the Roman Catholic Church allow its members
to question its doctrines?"
Jesse
Ted McMillan
"Stephen Korsman" <skor...@global.co.za> wrote:
>
> Ted McMillan <tmac...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8m2dvg$p56$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > Let me ask you a candid question:
> >
> > Where is King David now?
>
> King David is in heaven. The Bible tells us that during Jesus time,
he had
> not YET ascended into heaven. Acts 2:34. The original Greek does not
> support the Adventist misinterpretation that David is not there NOW.
>
> God bless,
> Stephen
>
That does not make any sense.
If David was not ascended into heaven at the time of the Apostles,
where in the universe was he and what was he doing all that time not
being in heaven, but being dead and buried? He died some thousand or
more years before the time of the Apostles. Why would God do that to
him to leave him in suspended animation or what for so long?
Ray & Terri Gilbert Sui Juris
> Hello
>
> The following quote is from Ted's website:
>
> "Should the SDA Church allow its members to question its doctrines?
>
Stop with the rediculous questions already. If you have subscribed to this
newsgroup long enough you should already know. Dont worry about theses silly
things like "Abortion" "When is the
Sabbath" "Murder" "Lies" "Coveting" "Stealing" "False gods" "It's all good! As
long as you
are a christian and invoke the name of Christ, you can do anything you want.
All the laws were "Nailed to the cross." It's sort of Christianarchy.
Adultry?....NO PROBLEM, were saved!
have sex with whom ever you want. Lies? HA! Don't worry about it, everybody
lies! Stealing?
take what you want, it's been paid for by the price of the cross. Murder? kill
'em all, Christ has already saved us. Don't remember the Sabbath, work seven
days a week if you want. Christ
did, right? Idol worship, worshipping other gods? worship them all, that way
your covered. Don't worry,take it easy, your saved. Coveting thy neighbors
belongings, wife, house? It's "Nailed to the cross." Covet away! IT'S ALL GOOD!
Love thy neighbor???? WHAT!?!? In the name
of Christ, kill him, sleep with his wife, sacrifice her to a god and take all
thier stuff when you leave. Furthermore, We are gods in christ! What??? you
say. Yes! I learned that here too. See, in order to
prove that Christ is God I read a posters reference to John 10:30 "I and the
Father are one." If you read further in John, you discover that through Christ
we become God too. John17:21 "That they all may be one; as thou Father, art in
me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us:..." So if you
think about it, we can do what ever we want, we make the rules, WE ARE
GODS! AMEN.
Stephen Korsman
> > > Let me ask it again. Should the Roman Catholic Church allow its
members
> > to
> > > question its doctrines?
> >
> and
> > calculated. They are not asked with the purpose of finding and answer,
> but
> > rather to trap and corner. Not very nice.
> >
> > Furthermore, if you bothered to read what I wrote, you would have found
> that
> > I did answer your question. I explained some of the great benefits of
> > questioning one's faith. My problem is not with questioning one's
faith,
> > but with the dishonesty that misleads many otherwise sincere Christians
> into
> > leaving or avoiding the Catholic Church.
> >
>
> It must be terrible to live with constant fear. A simple question and yet
> you are afraid to answer it.
> I find your judgmentalism unfounded. I am sure there are others awaiting
> for your answer to this simple question.
>
> I read that material you requested I read and I did not find the answer to
> my question.
Dear Jesse.
Why do you think I live in fear ? Catholics do not fear the Bible - the
Bible supports our beliefs 100%. We do not fear bigots and heretics, least
of all Sabbatarians. Why are you talking gibberish ?
Anyway, if you cannot or will not read, I am not going to repeat myself time
and time again. You have failed dismally to defend your beliefs both in
private conversation and on this forum. I don't see the point in wasting my
time any further on someone who clearly isn't honest enough to give me a
fair hearing, nor sincere enough to bother to read what I have said. You
never came back to me with that apology you promised, and if you do not
intend apologising you are obviously too cowardly to give a reason why. So
much for THIS dialogue ! Unless you can say something intelligent, this
conversation is terminated.
Stephen Korsman
> That does not make any sense.
Only because Adventists do not understand Catholic teaching on the state of
the dead.
> If David was not ascended into heaven at the time of the Apostles,
> where in the universe was he
He was in Sheol, also called Paradise. The dead did not go to heaven until
Jesus rose from the dead. Before that time they were in a place of
waiting - Sheol.
> and what was he doing all that time not
> being in heaven, but being dead and buried? He died some thousand or
> more years before the time of the Apostles. Why would God do that to
> him to leave him in suspended animation or what for so long?
Because Jesus had not yet come to open the gates to heaven.
tulipBee
>
> Only because Adventists do not understand Catholic teaching on the state of
> the dead.
>
>> If David was not ascended into heaven at the time of the Apostles,
>> where in the universe was he
>
> He was in Sheol, also called Paradise. The dead did not go to heaven until
> Jesus rose from the dead. Before that time they were in a place of
> waiting - Sheol.
>
>> and what was he doing all that time not
>> being in heaven, but being dead and buried? He died some thousand or
>> more years before the time of the Apostles. Why would God do that to
>> him to leave him in suspended animation or what for so long?
>
> Because Jesus had not yet come to open the gates to heaven.
Almost all of the protestants believe in what Steven is saying here except
for the cults like JW, Mormons, Christian Scientist and many others.
Millerism and Russelites are not the only ones who confused the folks here.
Soul sleep has been the idea to many cults for many centuries.
tulipBee
Jesse Roberts
your FAITH? Do you have such lack of faith in your abiblity to
intelligently discuss this simple question that you run from it?
You have not yet discussed anything. You have insulted, attacked,
pontificated, rambled, and in general avoided just about every question
asked of you. This does not speak well of your Christian character.
As to repeating yourself again and again -- You cannot repeat what you have
not said. You have not answered the question.
SHOULD THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CURCH ALLOW ITS MEMBERS TO QUESTION ITS DOCTRINES?
I shall continue to ask the question until I get a simple yes or no.
There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear
hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. 1 John 4:18.
May the Lord be merciful unto you.
Jesse
Jesse Roberts
>
die:
cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth
the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast
out with him.
originator of lies...Satan himself.
dies, their soul or some part of them which is able to "think" goes
straight to heaven or to hell. In other words, they don't completely die.
and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof
thou shalt surely die.
An act of disobedience, the fruit was not bad, God simply said of that
tree eat not. What is "sin" in these days? 1 John 3:4 Whosoever
committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of
the law.
of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
stealing) and the penalty is still death.
on living? One of their favorite texts is...Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then shall
the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God
who gave it.
translated from the Hebrew ruach which means "breath". The Greek
equivalent is pnewma from which we derive pneumonia, pneumatic etc,
not once are they indicating a separate consciousness. Genesis 2:7 And
the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into
his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. The Bible
does not teach that man has a soul but rather that he is a soul.
soul."
nostrils;
thoughts all in your nose? The margin explains it is just the breath "that
is the breath which God gave him."
7:21-22 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and
of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon
the earth, and every man: {22} All in whose nostrils was the breath of
life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
men. Ecclesiastes 3:19-20 For that which befalleth the sons of men
befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth
the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no
preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. {20} All go unto one place;
all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.
hell)? No! Beasts or men, they all go into one place. The grave.
John 11:11-14 These things said he: and after that he saith unto them,
Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.
{12} Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well. {13}
Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of
taking of rest in sleep. {14} Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus
is dead.
But man dieth, and wasteth away: yea, man giveth up the ghost, and
where is he? {11} As the waters fail from the sea, and the flood decayeth
and drieth up: {12} So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens
be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep. {13}
O that thou wouldest hide me in the grave, that thou wouldest keep me
secret, until thy wrath be past, that thou wouldest appoint me a set time,
and remember me! {14} If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of
my appointed time will I wait, till my change come. {15} Thou shalt call,
and I will answer thee: thou wilt have a desire to the work of thine
hands. 1 Thess. 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven
until Christ came and resurrected him.
For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing,
neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is
forgotten. {6} Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now
perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that
is done under the sun.
might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in
the grave, whither thou goest.
Praise ye the LORD. Praise the LORD, O my soul. {2} While I live will I
praise the LORD: I will sing praises unto my God while I have any
being. {3} Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in
whom there is no help. {4} His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his
earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.
a car, then your body obeys what your mind says to do. So, if the wages
of sin is death, what ought to die? The mind. That is the part that really
does the sin.
also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.
Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear
the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the
son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the
wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.
But the Bible says we are "mortal" which means we are subject to death.
Job 4:17 Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more
pure than his maker?
manurscrips known as the Majority Text or the Received Text.
seek and search for "immortality" since he does not now have it.
Romans 2:7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for
glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for
ever and ever. Amen.
shall show, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and
Lord of lords; {16} Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light
which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see:
to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.
David was still in the grave and had not ascended up to heaven. He
understood that death was a sleep until the resurrection at Christ's
Second Coming. Acts 2:29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto
you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his
sepulcher is with us unto this day. Acts 2:34 For David is not ascended
into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit
thou on my right hand,
1 Corinthians 15:19-23 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we
are of all men most miserable. {20} But now is Christ risen from the
dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. {21} For since by
man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. {22}
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made (future)
alive. {23} But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits;
afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
Christ comes again. 1 Corinthians 15:51-55 Behold, I show you a
mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, {52} In a
moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet
shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be
changed. {53} For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this
mortal must put on immortality. {54} So when this corruptible shall have
put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then
shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up
in victory. {55} O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy
victory?
Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of
the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall
rise first: {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.
death is a dreamless sleep until the resurrection at Christ's Second
Coming. If Able had gone straight to "heaven" he would have had 6000
years more of heaven than any of us, and Cain would have had 6000
years of burning (if there was such as fate) more than any criminal who
died today. That would not be just. And God is just. If you went to
heaven and could look back on earth and see dear ones suffering, than
heaven would not be heaven. God's way is always best. We all go up
together! Until then we sleep.
Jesse Roberts
Stephen Korsman <skor...@global.co.za> wrote in message
news:8mbc31$e1d$2...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> Only because Adventists do not understand Catholic teaching on the state
of
> the dead.
> He was in Sheol, also called Paradise. The dead did not go to heaven
until
> Jesus rose from the dead. Before that time they were in a place of
> waiting - Sheol.
>
For those who for whatever reason have difficulty with long responses I
submit
the following summary of my long post.
The Bible teaches that mortal man is subject to death and that
death is a dreamless sleep until the resurrection at Christ's Second
Coming. If Able had gone straight to "heaven" he would have had 6000
years more of heaven than any of us, and Cain would have had 6000
years of burning (if there was such as fate) more than any criminal who
died today. That would not be just. And God is just. If you went to
heaven and could look back on earth and see dear ones suffering, than
heaven would not be heaven. God's way is always best. We all go up
together! Until then we sleep.
Jesse
Ted McMillan
tulipBee <thompso...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Almost all of the protestants believe in what Steven is saying here
except
> for the cults like JW, Mormons, Christian Scientist and many others.
>
> Millerism and Russelites are not the only ones who confused the
folks here.
> Soul sleep has been the idea to many cults for many centuries.
>
> tulipBee
>
>
First understand that the great rise in the word "CULTS" came about
after the Branch Davidians were murdered at WACO. Their murderers then
very much popularized the term, and murderers also today very much like
to overuse the term.
Notice however that tulipbee did not seek the scriptures in order to
confirm or deny a belief. He is telling us that because most
Protestants believe in consciousness after death, it must be true. I
have already left a question and everyone seems to be dancing around it.
WHAT'S THE PROBLEM??
Since the Lord told us that when He comes the last days will be as the
days of Noah, and only 8 people were saved back then, how that relates
to the idea that universalism confirms doctrine in a biblical sense.
How often in history did that happen?
So you all remember the point and the question that I raised? Isn't it
proper to address the question and point instead of being sane as you
all claim?
Ted McMillan
"Stephen Korsman" <skor...@global.co.za> wrote:
>
> Ted McMillan <tmac...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8m4l3a$cqi$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
state of
> the dead.
>
> > where in the universe was he
>
until
> Jesus rose from the dead. Before that time they were in a place of
> waiting - Sheol.
>
> > and what was he doing all that time not
> > being in heaven, but being dead and buried? He died some thousand
or
> > more years before the time of the Apostles. Why would God do that
to
> > him to leave him in suspended animation or what for so long?
>
> Because Jesus had not yet come to open the gates to heaven.
>
> God bless,
> Stephen
That again does not make any sense. Even at the ressurrection of
Jesus, many saints arose with him. By the time of the Apostles, they
told us that David did not ascend into the heavens. Somehow David did
not join those saints. You now tell us that at death the saints
immediately go to heaven. What therefore is the problem with David
since God already told us that he was a man after His own heart??
You are not making any sense. Please close up the holes in your
reasoning and explain to us what is going on here. If the saints
before the death of Christ went to Sheol, where did the wicked go? And
what about Elijah who was translated to heaven without tasting death?
Ted McMillan
Stephen Korsman
Jesse, I answered your question, and you are refusing to read my answer. I
am therefore going to ignore your idiocy from now on. In my mind you are
simply a dishonest person who makes empty promises, and a coward. The Bible
tells me not to bother with people like you. You are playing Ted's childish
game, and now that he has repented, I guess the HONEST members of this
newsgroup can turn to praying for YOU.
Don't expect a reply from me unless you change your attitude, which at
present really sucks - it is not a Christian one.
Stephen Korsman
Ted McMillan
"Stephen Korsman" <skor...@global.co.za> wrote:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_0049_01BFFD7A.E1809100
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> As I said, Jesse, I don't debate with people who cannot hold an
> conversation.
>
> God bless,
> Stephen
>
As we have said, God help us from the ridicule we would receive if we
copped out also to questions we cannot answer because we believe in
lies.
Jesse, sometimes don't you wish you could have the ability to not have
conscience also? MAN! Torturous guilt would be a thing of the past!
We do prefer God's grace to handle that however.
Others do know that Mr. Korsman has a habit of abruptly ending
conversations when the heat gets tough, and then goes into accusing
mode telling those who disagree with him that they must seek "honest"
sources for their information and subscribe to "honest" conversations
ALL WHICH ARE SO DELINEATED BY HIMSELF.
Ted McMillan
Ted McMillan
Ted McMillan
"Stephen Korsman" <skor...@global.co.za> wrote:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_0049_01BFFD7A.E1809100
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> As I said, Jesse, I don't debate with people who cannot hold an
honest =
> conversation.
>
> God bless,
> Stephen
>
As we have said, God help us from the ridicule we would receive if we
copped out also to questions we cannot answer because we believe in
lies.
Jesse, sometimes don't you wish you could have the ability to not have
conscience also? MAN! Torturous guilt would be a thing of the past!
We do prefer God's grace to handle that however.
Others do know that Mr. Korsman has a habit of abruptly ending
conversations when the heat gets tough, and then goes into accusing
mode telling those who disagree with him that they must seek "honest"
sources for their information and subscribe to "honest" conversations
ALL WHICH ARE SO DELINEATED BY HIMSELF.
Stephen Korsman
> Others do know that Mr. Korsman has a habit of abruptly ending
> conversations when the heat gets tough
No, Ted, NOT when the heat gets tough, but when the other party turns out to
be a liar whose heart and mind cannot be changed by my words alone. You and
Jesse for example.
ernli...@my-deja.com
"Jesse Roberts" <tw...@ezlink.com> wrote:
>
> For those who for whatever reason have difficulty with long responses
I
> submit
> the following summary of my long post.
>
> The Bible teaches that mortal man is subject to death and that
> death is a dreamless sleep until the resurrection at Christ's Second
Jesse,
Ah, I applaud your short and concise reply!
Anyway, not wanting to sound disagreeable, I therefore ask in reply to
your message above: What about what Jesus said to the one hanging with
Him, "This day you will be with me in paradise."
I just KNOW you're going to have an answer that supports your original
premise: that he just went to sleep. But I'd like to see how!
EW
Jesse Roberts
plague for all to see. WHY?
I'M AFRAID IT "MIGHT" BE A TRAP.
Really, what foolishness. The example you profess to follow never avoided a
question. Come on Stephen you can do it, a simple yes or no, surely it is
not that difficult. You may even be surprised at the response.
Should the Roman Catholic Church allow its members to question its
doctrines?
Jesse
Stephen Korsman <skor...@global.co.za> wrote in message
news:8mcbbf$37j$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>
> Jesse Roberts <tw...@ezlink.com> wrote in message
> news:soisbn...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Jesse, I answered your question, and you are refusing to read my answer.
I
> am therefore going to ignore your idiocy from now on. In my mind you are
> simply a dishonest person who makes empty promises, and a coward. The
Bible
> tells me not to bother with people like you. You are playing Ted's
childish
> game, and now that he has repented, I guess the HONEST members of this
> newsgroup can turn to praying for YOU.
>
> Don't expect a reply from me unless you change your attitude, which at
> present really sucks - it is not a Christian one.
>
Jesse Roberts
Stephen Korsman <skor...@global.co.za> wrote in message news:8mcbfc$39f$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...As I said, Jesse, I don't debate with people who cannot hold an honest conversation.
Jesse Roberts
> "Stephen Korsman" <skor...@global.co.za> wrote:
> > This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> >
> > ------=_NextPart_000_0049_01BFFD7A.E1809100
> > Content-Type: text/plain;
> > charset="iso-8859-1"
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> >
> > conversation.
> >
> > God bless,
> > Stephen
> >
>
> As we have said, God help us from the ridicule we would receive if we
> copped out also to questions we cannot answer because we believe in
> lies.
>
> Jesse, sometimes don't you wish you could have the ability to not have
> conscience also? MAN! Torturous guilt would be a thing of the past!
> We do prefer God's grace to handle that however.
>
way that would justify his remarks. I really do pray for him. I am
reminded of a verse found in Psalms. It reads "Great peace have they which
love thy law: and nothing shall offend them." I pray that Stephen will find
this peace.
> Others do know that Mr. Korsman has a habit of abruptly ending
> conversations when the heat gets tough, and then goes into accusing
> mode telling those who disagree with him that they must seek "honest"
> sources for their information and subscribe to "honest" conversations
> ALL WHICH ARE SO DELINEATED BY HIMSELF.
>
>
> Ted
>
> --
> The Truth of Adventism Defended Forum
> http://www2.50megs.com/tmac1238/sealedinfo.html
>
> The light around the deceptions of the Jesuits!
>
>
Jesse Roberts
And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with
me in paradise.
Luke 23:43.
It is my contention that the grammer is incorrect for the following reasons:
1. Punctation was added to Bible text centuries later, it is not inspired
by God but added by man for the sake of making it easier to read.
2. this is not the only verse where there is a comma in the wrong place.
See Acts 19:12 "So that from his body were brought unto the sick
handkerchiefs
or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went
out
of them." No one really believes that we are talking about sick
handkerchiefs or aprons.
3. If Luke 23:43 stood as it reads it would accuse Jesus of not telling the
truth. If He told the thief on the cross that "TODAY", "Friday", he would
be with Him in heaven then Jesus did not show up until "Sunday" then the
satatement Jesus made would not be true. See John 20:17 "Jesus saith unto
her, Touch me not; FOR I AM NOT YET ASSENDED to my Father: but go to my
brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and
to my God, and your God."
4. John 19:31-33 "The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that
the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that
sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be
broken, and that they might be taken away. Then came the soldiers, and
brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him.
But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake
not his legs: The thief did not die on Friday.
In order for this verse to be consistant with the rest of the Bible the
comma needs to be moved so as to read: And Jesus said unto him, Verily I
say unto thee To day, shalt thou be with me in paradise.
Jesus did in fact tell the thief today that he shall be with Him in paradise
but as we saw that was not Friday. Futher study of this subject of the
resurrection will show that the thief still awaits this event just as does
Job. The dead in Christ have not yet been called forth unto the first
resurrection.
Jesse
<ernli...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8mcm8e$d6j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Ted McMillan
being such an idiot. A BOOF also. Your right, and I'm wrong. Today, I am a
foolish person, tomorrow is a new day. I hope we both can sit together and
study.
Stephen Korsman wrote:
> Ted McMillan <tmac...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8m2dvg$p56$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > Let me ask you a candid question:
> >
> > Where is King David now?
>
> King David is in heaven. The Bible tells us that during Jesus time, he had
> not YET ascended into heaven. Acts 2:34. The original Greek does not
> support the Adventist misinterpretation that David is not there NOW.
>
Ted McMillan
Ted McMillan <tmac...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Stephen, I apologize to you..I will not be like I was before. Forgive
me for
> being such an idiot. A BOOF also. Your right, and I'm wrong. Today,
I am a
> foolish person, tomorrow is a new day. I hope we both can sit
together and
> study.
Since Vatican Korsmans very ISP agrees with him, since he must be the
president, it appears more and more obvious that he not only is good at
spamming email accounts and telling people they should act their age,
but he is good at spamming the newsgroups also.
Ted
--
The Truth of Adventism Defended Forum
http://www2.50megs.com/tmac1238/sealedinfo.html
The light around the deceptions of the Jesuits!
Ted McMillan
all these are courtesy of the unchanging Rome as has been described by
Foxe's Book of Martyrs and the other Protestant writings. Yes, those
are honest sources of information. Keep reading and learning just how
honest those sources are:
In article <3989E196...@my-deja.com>,
Ted McMillan <tmac...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Stephen, I apologize to you..I will not be like I was before. Forgive
me for
> being such an idiot. A BOOF also. Your right, and I'm wrong. Today,
I am a
> foolish person, tomorrow is a new day. I hope we both can sit
together and
> study.
>
> Stephen Korsman wrote:
>
> > Ted McMillan <tmac...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:8m2dvg$p56$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > Let me ask you a candid question:
> > >
> > > Where is King David now?
> >
> > King David is in heaven. The Bible tells us that during Jesus
time, he had
> > not YET ascended into heaven. Acts 2:34. The original Greek does
not
> > support the Adventist misinterpretation that David is not there NOW.
> >
> > God bless,
> > Stephen
> >
Ted
tulipBee
> confirm or deny a belief. He is telling us that because most
> Protestants believe in consciousness after death, it must be true. I
Consciousness is part of the human body, a electrical dances among brain
matter supplied with salts and good earthy foods. Of course your body and
consciousness dies and returned to earth. "Consciousness" is a man made
word.
Something else is going on.
tulipBee
tulipBee
going to get you a big ice creame cone!" Can you imagine the little boy
dancing around all excited. Look forward in getting that ice creame to the
boy that day or you won't be trusted anymore. I don't think this is the kind
of meaning they had in Jesus day. If your talking today, anyone who hears
him speak that day will know that. You don't need to tell me you're talking
to me today because I know I'm hearing you the same day.
tulipBee
Ted McMillan
Ted
--
I want to apologize to all those I have called "Pope" and said unloving
things to. There
are too many to list here. I was very unscrupulous type person. And
I promise I wll
never do such a thing. I thank God that I am now born again, and that
I do not have any
defense for a false religion such as I have been defending. From now
I invite you to my
website, it's different than before. Just forgive me for my stupid
mistakes, and let God's
love flow on you as it has for me...Thank you Jesus for saving me and
letting me be born
again yesterday. I will serve Him in truth and in Spirit, without this
emotional out break I
have been having lately. I really apologize to this newsgroup..and
to the rest of this
community...again I'm sorry. Please visit my web site, things are changed.
Ted
--
The Truth of Adventism
http://www2.50megs.com/tmac1238/sealedinfo.html
The light around the deception of the Adventists!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
You havent debated anything yet. You have made a lot of noise but no discussion. JesseStephen Korsman <skor...@global.co.za> wrote in message news:8mcbfc$39f$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...As I said, Jesse, I don't debate with people who cannot hold an honest conversation. God bless,Stephen
Ted McMillan
Ted McMillan wrote:
Stephen, I apologize to you..I will not be like I was before. Forgive me for
being such an idiot. A BOOF also. Your right, and I'm wrong. Today, I am a
foolish person, tomorrow is a new day. I hope we both can sit together and
study.
Since I'm a Vatican now, my ISP agrees with me,
since I must be the
president, it appears more and more obvious that I'm not only
is good at
spamming email accounts and telling people they should act their age,
but I'm good at spamming the newsgroups also.
I could not correct my last message quickly enough, I made many grammerical mistakes. Forgive me, remember I was just born again this week, and I have learned more about Biblical truth in one week, than I have all my entired life. Are you also born again? Tell me about how you were born again, and I will tell you about how God touched me like He never did before. I want to touch Dolf someday. I will wait for him!
Ted
--
The Truth of Adventism
http://www2.50megs.com/tmac1238/sealedinfo.html
The light around the deception of the Adventists!
Stephen Korsman wrote:
> Ted McMillan <tmac...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8m2dvg$p56$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > Let me ask you a candid question:
> >
> > Where is King David now?
>
> King David is in heaven. The Bible tells us that during Jesus time, he had
> not YET ascended into heaven. Acts 2:34. The original Greek does not
> support the Adventist misinterpretation that David is not there NOW.
>
> God bless,
> Stephen
>
Ted McMillan
all these are courtesy of the unchanging Rome as has been described by
Foxe's Book of Martyrs and the other Protestant writings. Yes, those
are honest sources of information. Keep reading and learning just how
honest those sources are:
As honest as a wooden nickle!
Ted McMillan wrote:
> Stephen, I apologize to you..I will not be like I was before. Forgive me for
> being such an idiot. A BOOF also. Your right, and I'm wrong. Today, I am a
> foolish person, tomorrow is a new day. I hope we both can sit together and
> study.
>
Stephen Korsman
> You have not yet answered the question. You have avoided it like the
> plague for all to see. WHY?
Go back and read my previous postings. You either missed it, or you ignored
it.
I also sent you a fair bit of info (in reply to your private e-mails) in
answer to previous questions which YOU are avoiding. It seems like, while I
answer your questions, you chop and change the subject every time it gets
too hot for you.
Quite frankly I have better things to do with my time than repeat myself
endlessly and hold fruitless discussions with deceitful and spineless wimps
like I see here.
Jesus said not to cast pearls to the swine. My continuing this discussion
with you is a prime example of how that piece of wisdom our Lord shared does
not work too well for me. I will try harder.
Stephen Korsman
> You havent debated anything yet. You have made a lot of noise but no
discussion.
Based on your deceitful attitude both in private e-mail and on this group, I
don't think it would be worth my while spending time talking to someone who
is clearly not interested in what I have to say. If I had the slightest
notion that you WERE interested, I would be more than happy to discuss
things with you. But since you have not responded to my initial supply of
information to you, I must assume you are either uninterested or unable and
just too dishonest to acknowledge that fact.
I will not be wasting my time on this discussion.
Stephen Korsman
The soul-sleeper position is not possible because it twists scriptures and
recreates Hebrew idiomatic expressions that did not exist. Tulipbee is
quite right in his/her (I forget) post about the ice-cream. Here is a piece
from my essay on my website:
Today you will be with me in Paradise !!!
Finally, we get to Jesus' words on the Cross. He said to the criminal next
to him - "Truly, truly, I say unto you, today you will be with me in
paradise."
Adventists and others will immediately jump in here to say that the
punctuation here is in error. In the original Greek there was no
punctuation, and it always had to be supplied by the translators. Thus, they
tell us, this verse can also be translated like this: "Truly, truly, I say
unto you today, you will be with me in paradise." If that is what Jesus is
saying, then he is saying today that the person will be in paradise with him
at some point in the future.
But can this verse really be translated this way, or is it a ploy to try to
make us accept this false doctrine ?
If we take a concordance, and look up every instance where Jesus (or anyone)
says "Truly, truly, I say unto you" or "Amen, Amen, I say unto you" or any
of the various translations of this phrase, we will notice that in none of
them do we ever find anyone saying, "Amen, Amen, I say unto you TODAY." The
expression is ALWAYS "Amen, amen, I say unto you, [and then the promise or
statement of fact]." Go and look this up for yourself, and go and look up
the phrase involved - you will notice that it does not have a time clause in
it. Because of the definite consistency in the way this phrase is used, and
especially the way in which Jesus uses this phrase, we can be 100% sure that
the "today" in the statement in question must belong to the second part of
the statement, the promise to the thief on the cross. It cannot belong to
the "Amen, Amen" or "Truly, truly" clause because it is never used that way.
Therefore the promise to the thief on the cross is everything following the
"Amen, amen, I say unto you" - in other words, "Today you will be with me in
paradise." We must accept the grammar of this verse, and accept that that
very day, the thief was with Jesus in paradise.
Ted McMillan
That is the problem with being a sicko in the minds of the murderers of
the saints. Being a "sicko" according to their interpretation, I come
to the conclusion here that tulipbee did not answer the question or
address the point. If you think that he has, tell me what the answer
was so that I can know.
It is just as much biblical reasoning to tell us that most all the
Protestant Churches believe in consciousness after death, as it is to
tell me that the whole world minus eight people believed that no flood
was going to come in Noah's day.
Tulipbee knows that, but you are the prey for deception.
Ted
--
The Truth of Adventism Defended Forum
http://www2.50megs.com/tmac1238/sealedinfo.html
The light around the deceptions of the Jesuits!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Ted McMillan
Ted McMillan <tmac...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> I did send the post below, but I just want you to understand that
> all these are courtesy of the unchanging Rome as has been described by
> Foxe's Book of Martyrs and the other Protestant writings. Yes, those
> are honest sources of information. Keep reading and learning just how
> honest those sources are:
>
> As honest as a wooden nickle!
>
These very illegal postings more demonstrates the truth of what Foxe's
Book of Martyrs has revealed to us about Korsman's Rome. Actions and
evidence speak louder than despot rants. These children of the
Antichrist worked for centuries to make it the other way around and
succeeded in that endeavor everywhere in the world, but not in heaven.
tmac1238
Don't play ignorant here. You have read Foxe's Book of
Martyrs? Then don't play dumb. You know what you are dealing
with in Mr. Korsman and the rest here.
There are so many points and questions they have to treat like
the Dark Ages. You must understand that that was the reason why
they made false posts in my name, and didn't do that to Dolf.
The points and questions were just too hot!
We should go on the Catholic newsgroup also and present this
revealing evidence to the Catholics. Remember, the greatest
champions of truth in just the near future, are going to come
from those who are presently Catholic. The bible tells us that
the first shall be last and the last shall be first.
AMEN!!
Ted
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Jesse Roberts
From: Stephen Korsman <skor...@global.co.za>
To: <tw...@ezlink.com>
Subject: Re: Catholic Doctrines Questioned (for Stephen)
Date: Friday, August 04, 2000 9:41 AM
Jesse Roberts <tw...@ezlink.com> wrote in message
news:sokb5r...@corp.supernews.com...
> You have not yet answered the question. You have avoided it like the
> plague for all to see. WHY?
Go back and read my previous postings. You either missed it, or you ignored
it.
I also sent you a fair bit of info (in reply to your private e-mails) in
answer to previous questions which YOU are avoiding. It seems like, while I
answer your questions, you chop and change the subject every time it gets
too hot for you.
Quite frankly I have better things to do with my time than repeat myself
endlessly and hold fruitless discussions with deceitful and spineless wimps
like I see here.
Jesus said not to cast pearls to the swine. My continuing this discussion
with you is a prime example of how that piece of wisdom our Lord shared does
not work too well for me. I will try harder.
God bless,
Stephen
--
--
Stephen Korsman
skor...@global.co.za
Sites against Adventism:
http://members.tripod.com/SDAdventist/index.htm
http://members.xoom.com/SDAdventist/index.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/nt/sda2rcc/index.html
http://www.homestead.com/adventist/files/index.htm
Church of God site:
http://home.global.co.za/~skorsman/cog/index.htm
Main site / Catholic sites
http://home.global.co.za/~skorsman/index.htm
Jesse
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Stephen Korsman <skor...@global.co.za> wrote in message
news:8meo6j$kfe$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>
> Jesse Roberts <tw...@ezlink.com> wrote in message
> news:sokb5r...@corp.supernews.com...
> > You have not yet answered the question. You have avoided it like the
> > plague for all to see. WHY?
>
> Go back and read my previous postings. You either missed it, or you
ignored
> it.
>
> I also sent you a fair bit of info (in reply to your private e-mails) in
> answer to previous questions which YOU are avoiding. It seems like, while
I
> answer your questions, you chop and change the subject every time it gets
> too hot for you.
>
> Quite frankly I have better things to do with my time than repeat myself
> endlessly and hold fruitless discussions with deceitful and spineless
wimps
> like I see here.
>
> Jesus said not to cast pearls to the swine. My continuing this discussion
> with you is a prime example of how that piece of wisdom our Lord shared
does
> not work too well for me. I will try harder.
>
Jesse Roberts
Catholics relate to their faith but you have not told me whether or not the
Catholic Church, An entity seperate from its Catholic members, relates to
individuals questioning its doctrins. The Catholic members do not make up
the doctrines of the Church, this comes out of Rome.
SHOULD THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH ALLOW ITS MEMBERS TO QUESTION ITS
DOCTRINES?
Since I have just posted your last private e-mail to me I would suggest you
also post the ones I sent you so all can see the truthfulness of your
accusations.
Jesse
Jesse Roberts
its history from both Catholic and Protestant sources. The problem is that
all my knowledge is relative to the history of this group and my
experiential knowledge ceases effectively in 1963 at which time I stopped my
studies with this group after going to Catholic schools and boarding schools
for a number of years. I am trying to update my information. Quite
honestly I am was hoping that there were changes for the better. If I
judged the Catholic people according to the actions of Stephen then it would
be easy to hate them however I realize that he is not a good example.
Even as a protestant attending these Catholic schools I was treated with
much more respect than Stephen knows how to display but this does not bother
me. Stephen has to answer to our Lord just as I will. We will all be held
accountable for our actions.
Jesse
tmac1238 <tmac1238...@my-deja.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:049ff026...@usw-ex0104-028.remarq.com...
Stephen Korsman
You don't deserve the respect you got from those you claim respected you.
Not from what I've seen here. I repeat, I DID answer your question, you are
just too bloody minded to accept that, and I doubt you know Catholicism from
the rear end of a donkey because your posts about it are pretty clueless !
Oh, why do I waste my time conversing with those who do not have basic
reading skills ???
Bye,
Stephen Korsman
> He doesn't have time to reply in public but he has time to send me this:
If you bothered to read - which you clearly DO NOT DO - you would see it is
a copy of the newsgroup posting which I sent direct to get your attention.
Why have you chickened out of our initial private dialogue ? Could you not
handle the truth ?
God bless,
Stephen Korsman
Teddy, Teddy, Teddy, you really need to lighten up ... stop your harassment
and whoever is doing this will not be able to turn it against you !
Bye,
tmac1238
Have you learned yet that you cannot talk to nor reason with
these people? Their mission is to conquer us and the world.
How can they do that by spueing out their real true beliefs and
intentions? They therefore have to pretend that they think like
us while infiltrating our society. Now you also get accused of
possessing their attributes. They have to do this! They have
to throw this in the air to cover over their mission, and it is
at the expense of God's people.
Can you reason with a communist about Capitalist principles?
Communism was created by the Vatican. One of its purposes was
to curtail and destroy Protestantism, without leaving tracks as
to its creator. It therefore killed many Catholics, since many
Catholics would not go for such plans either.
It is like trying to reason with them. I should say that you
and we need a wider audience in order to demonstrate what is
here. Mr. Korsman banks on the idea that not many important
people view these forums, but it would be interesting if we
carried these issues to the Catholic forums, and then include
many more in the process.
tmac1238
>> From: Ted McMillan <tmac...@my-deja.com>
>> That is the problem with being a sicko in the minds of the
murderers of
>> the saints. Being a "sicko" according to their
interpretation, I come
>
christian. I
>questioned this one and had someone to show me and read that. I
think its
>another Paul at the time the other Paul lived. Can someone find
that verse?
>
Since St. Paul was a murderer, as is claimed by tulipbee, what
is his quarrel against me? He could have left things alone and
ignored this post, but something is always wrong with him as he
teaches us things he cannot accept himself.
>
>> to the conclusion here that tulipbee did not answer the
question or
>> address the point. If you think that he has, tell me what
the answer
>> was so that I can know.
>
> You drag things on and on and on and on and on and on and on
and on and on
>and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on
and on and on
>and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on
and on and on
>and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on
and on.
When tulipbee is outwitted, to even demand answers is to meet
first with him ignoring you, and when you document his
unscrupulousness in this point, he talks about how we drag
things on and on, so that he can prepare to do the same thing
again. These are the Dark Ages people. Reason is not allowed
here. Talking is mere formality as they prepare to destroy our
liberties.
> Lets move on. I told you, I forgot what you're bitching about.
I don't care
>what you're wining about. Do you understand the concept
of "now"? Perhaps a
>"real time" conversation. We're all trying to have a
conversation here.
Again, the man brings profanity on this system. He talks about
moving on, when he is still the same person. Ask him then what
problem he appears to have with me since Paul was a murderer.
If he can tell us to move on, couldn't he have thought of that
before he submitted this post?
>
>>
>> It is just as much biblical reasoning to tell us that most
all the
>> Protestant Churches believe in consciousness after death, as
it is to
>> tell me that the whole world minus eight people believed that
no flood
>> was going to come in Noah's day.
>>
>> Tulipbee knows that, but you are the prey for deception.
>
That was the point, but Tulipbee wants us to "move on" without
acquiring an answer as is so common with the cult religion. If
we are here to discuss, then what is the answer to this as one
of many unanswered questions which would demonstrate where the
cult actually is?
> I know what? Never mind. I believe that we are with Christ at
~ALL~ times.
>If He is with us , then we are with Him. He will ~NEVER~ leave
you. You're
>interpretation of "consciousness" is different from what the
Bible states.
>There are no deception here. Its in your head.
>
>tu;ipBee
Therefore, according to what the man said, and with not one iota
of scripture for proof, the question has been answered.
What is the answer to the question? Simple:
ITS IN YOUR HEAD!
Who can show me that the Dark Ages were not run in the very very
same way?
Jesse Roberts
A very interesting reply but it ignores the fact that Jesus did not go to
paradice that day if I understand what you are saying. This presents a
conflict between two verses which would be making statements that cannot
both be true. Either Jesus was in paradise Friday or he was not. Either
the thief died Friday or not (debatable). If Jesus was in paradise Friday
then John 20:17 is in error and Jesus did not tell the truth. If the thief
did not die Friday, and I dont believe he did then he could not have been in
paradise with Jesus. The time element of you comment has no bearing with
this conflict.
Also I notice that the word "verily" is not repeated. The verse reads
"...Verily, I say unto you..."
I despirately want to continue this conversation and I will however I must
take about a week break so as to get moved across country. I very much wish
to continue this discussion prticularly regarding the language issue.
Jesse
Jesse Roberts
certainly have nothing to hide. This is your opportunity to prove your
statements regarding me. I will publish all our private e-mails in the
future just so there can be no more of this foolishness. I fully believe in
honesty. The Bible tells us that not being honest is grounds for not being
found in heaven. I can assure you that there is NOTHING in this whole world
worth loosing my salvation over and that especially includes our
conversations.
Jesse
Stephen Korsman <skor...@global.co.za> wrote in message
news:8mfcmq$8qb$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>
> Jesse Roberts <tw...@ezlink.com> wrote in message
> news:som2ib...@corp.supernews.com...
> > He doesn't have time to reply in public but he has time to send me this:
>
> If you bothered to read - which you clearly DO NOT DO - you would see it
is
> a copy of the newsgroup posting which I sent direct to get your attention.
> Why have you chickened out of our initial private dialogue ? Could you
not
> handle the truth ?
>
Jesse Roberts
If this question gets you so excited I would really hate to do something to
make you unhappy with me. Perhaps there is a Catholic individual who would
be willing to answer this question for me. I can assure you that your
answer will be treated respectfully. Stephen has convinced himself that I
am less than honest along with a list of other adjectives desrcibing my
character. I will not treat you in kind.
I have a follow-up question depending upon the answer I receive and it is
not as Stephen fears.
I will be off the net for about a week while I move across this wonderful
country. I will respond but not as soon as I wish.
Jesse
Stephen Korsman <skor...@global.co.za> wrote in message
news:8mfc9o$8hp$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>
> Jesse Roberts <tw...@ezlink.com> wrote in message
> news:som45ed...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> You don't deserve the respect you got from those you claim respected you.
> Not from what I've seen here. I repeat, I DID answer your question, you
are
> just too bloody minded to accept that, and I doubt you know Catholicism
from
> the rear end of a donkey because your posts about it are pretty clueless !
>
> Oh, why do I waste my time conversing with those who do not have basic
> reading skills ???
>
> Bye,
tulipBee
> That is the problem with being a sicko in the minds of the murderers of
> the saints. Being a "sicko" according to their interpretation, I come
Saint Paul was a murderer. He kill a few before he become a christian. I
questioned this one and had someone to show me and read that. I think its
another Paul at the time the other Paul lived. Can someone find that verse?
> to the conclusion here that tulipbee did not answer the question or
> address the point. If you think that he has, tell me what the answer
> was so that I can know.
You drag things on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on
and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on
and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on
and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.
Lets move on. I told you, I forgot what you're bitching about. I don't care
what you're wining about. Do you understand the concept of "now"? Perhaps a
"real time" conversation. We're all trying to have a conversation here.
>
> It is just as much biblical reasoning to tell us that most all the
> Protestant Churches believe in consciousness after death, as it is to
> tell me that the whole world minus eight people believed that no flood
> was going to come in Noah's day.
>
> Tulipbee knows that, but you are the prey for deception.
I know what? Never mind. I believe that we are with Christ at ~ALL~ times.
Stephen Korsman
> Would you like to post our private conversations or do you want me to? I
> certainly have nothing to hide. This is your opportunity to prove your
> statements regarding me. I will publish all our private e-mails in the
> future just so there can be no more of this foolishness. I fully believe
in
> honesty. The Bible tells us that not being honest is grounds for not
being
> found in heaven. I can assure you that there is NOTHING in this whole
world
> worth loosing my salvation over and that especially includes our
> conversations.
Great. Then your false religions should not stand in the way either. But
try to be more honest.
God bless,
Stephen Korsman
Stephen Korsman
Hi !
> A very interesting reply but it ignores the fact that Jesus did not go to
> paradice that day if I understand what you are saying.
Later in the Bible Peter tells us he DID go to Paradise.
> This presents a
> conflict between two verses which would be making statements that cannot
> both be true. Either Jesus was in paradise Friday or he was not.
He was. I forget the verse but it's in one of Peters epistles.
> Either
> the thief died Friday or not (debatable).
Not really. Taking into account Jesus' promise, and the fact that the
Romans broke the legs of the other two to kill them faster, we must assume
they both died with Jesus on that Friday.
> If Jesus was in paradise Friday
> then John 20:17 is in error and Jesus did not tell the truth.
Jesus was in Paradise, but not in Heaven. These were two different places.
Heaven was the abode of God and the angels. Paradise was the place of the
dead.
> Also I notice that the word "verily" is not repeated. The verse reads
> "...Verily, I say unto you..."
This is irrelevant. Whether the statement says "Verily, verily, I say unto
you, X" or "Verily, I say unto you, X" the expression remains the same - the
construction requires that we read the "I say unto you" as an emphasis to
the "X" which follows. Why do you want to change the entire way the Bible
writes just to defend your doctrine ? Is it not better to rewrite your
church's doctrine so that it agrees with the Bible ?
tulipBee
> A very interesting reply but it ignores the fact that Jesus did not go to
> paradice that day if I understand what you are saying. This presents a
> conflict between two verses which would be making statements that cannot
> both be true. Either Jesus was in paradise Friday or he was not. Either
> the thief died Friday or not (debatable). If Jesus was in paradise Friday
> then John 20:17 is in error and Jesus did not tell the truth. If the thief
> did not die Friday, and I dont believe he did then he could not have been in
> paradise with Jesus. The time element of you comment has no bearing with
> this conflict.
>
> Also I notice that the word "verily" is not repeated. The verse reads
> "...Verily, I say unto you..."
>
> I despirately want to continue this conversation and I will however I must
> take about a week break so as to get moved across country. I very much wish
> to continue this discussion prticularly regarding the language issue.
My SDA boss went to lunch with us a few times a week. Most of us rather
smile and listen than get into an argument. The paycheck man. (He quit due
to not getting anywhere with true Bible believers) We were talking about How
Jesus went to hell, Grave or Hades to preach and change the rules of "death"
while His body is "asleep". My former boss brought up that the Bible were
only talking about an example. The example went on like this: The preaching
was talking about the days of Noah. The Bible was referring to Noah at his
time.
One belief is that Jesus gave up "h"is "s"pirit to God and "h"is "s"pirit
went to a place to preach to the old test believers (or is it to all). The
other belief is that Jesus was asleep as if He didn't have a spirit that God
gave Him at all. I believe that Jesus had a spirit like everyone else while
He was alive on earth. I believe that The Spirit He gave up never died, only
His body.
tulipBee
ernli...@my-deja.com
"Stephen Korsman" <skor...@global.co.za> wrote:
>
>
> This is irrelevant. Whether the statement says "Verily, verily, I
say unto
> you, X" or "Verily, I say unto you, X" the expression remains the
same - the
> construction requires that we read the "I say unto you" as an
emphasis to
> the "X" which follows. Why do you want to change the entire way the
Bible
> writes just to defend your doctrine ? Is it not better to rewrite
your
> church's doctrine so that it agrees with the Bible ?
>
> God bless,
> Stephen
Good points, Stephen,
The whole soul-sleep argument lacks basis, as is shown by the "thief-on-
the-cross" scenario, despite the far-fetched contention of
punctuation. My God! -- virtually anything could be arrived at using
the "grammar" counterpoint.
Also, Luke 16 says: And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments,
and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom...... This
likewise points to anything other than soul-sleep. I respect Jesse,
but there are times...
EW
Stephen Korsman
<ernli...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8mhnm7$tl7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I respect Jesse,
> but there are times...
I am considering changing my mind about Jesse and agreeing with you there
... first impressions (and he made a BAD one with me) are not always right.
I DID answer his question, and I DID provide data in our debate (in response
to a private e-mail) and he doesn't seem to want to acknowledge this,
perhaps it is too strong an argument, I cannot tell. But he certainly does
not act like Ted or Radek or Dolf.
Lamarr Edwards
parable illustrating a a certain point. If everything CHRISt said is to
be seen as literal,then he is a door! LE
Lamarr Edwards
soon,however, I find that you and I disagree on the concept of the
immortal soul. It would appear as though the ultimate enemy of mankind
has been death. Every religion has defined an immortal soul,which to me
contrasts with the Christian concept of immortality being a gift of
God,and not an inherent part of humanity. Christ virtually always spoke
of his victory over death as opposed to a victory over a negative form
of immortality.
As to the thief on the cross,if Christ said three days later he had not
ascended to his father,how could the thief have been with he and the
father on the same day?
Along these lines,and having bearing on this issue,do you believe in
an antitheses of God,that is a being of pure concentrated evil in the
spiritual realm,capable of counterfeiting for evil purposes some
attributes of God? LE
Stephen Korsman
Lamarr Edwards <shmo...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:16510-39...@storefull-298.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> My friend EW- I certainly didn"t expect us to be at cross purposes so
> soon,however, I find that you and I disagree on the concept of the
> immortal soul. It would appear as though the ultimate enemy of mankind
> has been death. Every religion has defined an immortal soul,which to me
> contrasts with the Christian concept of immortality being a gift of
> God,and not an inherent part of humanity. Christ virtually always spoke
> of his victory over death as opposed to a victory over a negative form
> of immortality.
> As to the thief on the cross,if Christ said three days later he had not
> ascended to his father,how could the thief have been with he and the
> father on the same day?
Because Jesus and the theif went to Paradise, but the Father was in Heaven -
they never went to Heaven that day.
Lamarr Edwards
LE
Stephen Korsman
> Stephen- Please cite Biblical references that define paradise,heaven.
It's a bit more complex than simply that. It takes understanding. It takes
reading of what the early Christians understood too. I think it is clear to
you that Sheol/Hades in the Bible is not heaven, because your church teaches
that Sheol/Hades is not heaven. So I don't think I need to go through that.
But if you need to debate that, rather go to a dictionary of the New
Testament. Then go to Peter's epistles and read what he says there - there
is a place where the dead are, which isn't heaven. There are plenty of
similar references in Revelation, if you care to read those too. One needs
to understand the terms given; one cannot just point to a verse and expect a
definition - the Bible is not a glossary of terms.
So, there you have your verses - Peter, in context, and Revelation, in
context. If I thought you were the since type I might go a bit deeper into
the explanation, but I know I am probably wasting my time talking to you, as
was the case with our previous dialogues. Please contact me privately if
this is not the case and I can supply you with detailed studies.
Stephen Korsman
Lamarr Edwards <shmo...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:21423-39...@storefull-298.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> Stephen- Please cite Biblical references that define paradise,heaven.
I suggest you start with the following website:
http://ic.net/~erasmus/ERASMUS6.HTM
It is a page on Purgatory and will explain where/what Paradise is/was and
its relationship to heaven.
Stephen Korsman
Lamarr Edwards <shmo...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:21423-39...@storefull-298.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> Stephen- Please cite Biblical references that define paradise,heaven.
Try also http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm - the Catholic
Encyclopedia's essay on Limbo, the relevant text of which I will post below.
Limbo
(Late Lat. limbus) a word of Teutonic derivation, meaning literally "hem" or
"border," as of a garment, or anything joined on (cf. Italian lembo or
English limb).
In theological usage the name is applied to (a) the temporary place or state
of the souls of the just who, although purified from sin, were excluded from
the beatific vision until Christ's triumphant ascension into Heaven (the
"limbus patrum"); or (b) to the permanent place or state of those unbaptized
children and others who, dying without grievous personal sin, are excluded
from the beatific vision on account of original sin alone (the "limbus
infantium" or "puerorum").
In literary usage the name is sometimes applied in a wider and more general
sense to any place or state of restraint, confinement, or exclusion, and is
practically equivalent to "prison" (see, e.g., Milton, "Paradise Lost," III,
495; Butler, "Hudibras," part II, canto i, and other English classics). The
not unnatural transition from the theological to the literary usage is
exemplified in Shakespeare, "Henry VIII," act v, sc. 3. In this article we
shall deal only with the theological meaning and connotation of the word.
I. LIMBUS PATRUM
Though it can hardly be claimed, on the evidence of extant literature, that
a definite and consistent belief in the limbus patrum of Christian tradition
was universal among the Jews, it cannot on the other hand be denied that,
more especially in the extra-canonical writings of the second or first
centuries B.C., some such belief finds repeated expression; and New
Testament references to the subject remove all doubt as to the current
Jewish belief in the time of Christ. Whatever name may be used in apocryphal
Jewish literature to designate the abode of the departed just, the
implication generally is
- that their condition is one of happiness,
- that it is temporary, and
- that it is to be replaced by a condition of final and permanent bliss when
the Messianic Kingdom is established.
In the New Testament, Christ refers by various names and figures to the
place or state which Catholic tradition has agreed to call the limbus
patrum. In Matt. 8:11, it is spoken of under the figure of a banquet "with
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of Heaven" (cf. Luke 8:29; 14:15),
and in Matt. 25:10 under the figure of a marriage feast to which the prudent
virgins are admitted, while in the parable of Lazarus and Dives it is called
"Abraham's bosom" (Luke 16:22) and in Christ's words to the penitent thief
on Calvary the name paradise is used (Luke 23:43). St. Paul teaches (Eph.
4:9) that before ascending into Heaven Christ "also descended first into the
lower parts of the earth," and St. Peter still more explicitly teaches that
"being put to death indeed, in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit,"
Christ went and "preached to those souls that were in prison, which had been
some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days
of Noah" (I Pet 3:18-20).
It is principally on the strength of these Scriptural texts, harmonized with
the general doctrine of the Fall and Redemption of mankind, that Catholic
tradition has defended the existence of the limbus patrum as a temporary
state or place of happiness distinct from Purgatory. As a result of the
Fall, Heaven was closed against men. Actual possession of the beatific
vision was postponed, even for those already purified from sin, until the
Redemption should have been historically completed by Christ's visible
ascendancy into Heaven. Consequently, the just who had lived under the Old
Dispensation, and who, either at death or after a course of purgatorial
discipline, had attained the perfect holiness required for entrance into
glory, were obliged to await the coming of the Incarnate Son of God and the
full accomplishment of His visible earthly mission. Meanwhile they were "in
prison," as St. Peter says; but, as Christ's own words to the penitent thief
and in the parable of Lazarus clearly imply, their condition was one of
happiness, notwithstanding the postponement of the higher bliss to which
they looked forward. And this, substantially, is all that Catholic tradition
teaches regarding the limbus patrum.
God blesss,
ernli...@my-deja.com
shmo...@webtv.net (Lamarr Edwards) wrote:
> My friend EW- I certainly didn"t expect us to be at cross purposes so
> soon,however,
No prob... Good for the mind, good for typing practice!
>I find that you and I disagree on the concept of the
> immortal soul. It would appear as though the ultimate enemy of
mankind
> has been death. Every religion has defined an immortal soul,which to
me
> contrasts with the Christian concept of immortality being a gift of
> God,and not an inherent part of humanity. Christ virtually always
spoke
> of his victory over death as opposed to a victory over a negative form
> of immortality.
I don't know what I said that resulted in the above. Don't know what
to say... I do believe in an immortal (gifted) soul, and gifted body,
and its eventual fate one way or another. Regarding "inherent",
nothing is such, as it was given from God. Sorry, but I don't fathom
the majority of your statement.
> As to the thief on the cross,if Christ said three days later he had
not
> ascended to his father,how could the thief have been with he and the
> father on the same day?
Just going by the verse that says "...this day you will be with
me...." I've heard the "translation" of this that denotes quite the
opposite, but what else is new! But as a stretch, Jesus (God) is/was
always in heaven (notwithstanding his physical presence on Earth), thus
his statement is possible. Buy that?
> Along these lines,and having bearing on this issue,do you believe in
> an antitheses of God,that is a being of pure concentrated evil in the
> spiritual realm,capable of counterfeiting for evil purposes some
> attributes of God? LE
>
>
As in the "devil?" I really don't know, as I've been considering that
for some time. My faith says Yes, but my intuition says No Way. Would
God really "allow" a HIGHLY powerful entity like that to have power
over us and our events, then blame US for being rotten? I sometimes
think that "evil" is born in our unscrupulous minds, resulting in our
malevolant actions. Consider the "seven deadly sins." These are not a
result of an evil power, just a weakness on our part. Hitler was a
horror, but his actions were carefully thought out with a twisted
intellect. I don't think there was a horned spirit with pitchforks
clouding over his head and giving him ideas. Good for a story, but I
think God put us in a bad enough predicament, as it were, by giving us
our human weaknesses without upping the antie by giving us a devil to
deal with too! And isn't it true that only Christianity owns
a "devil"? Other religions, I think -- don't know for sure -- put the
blame where it belongs, on us.
Later...
ernli...@my-deja.com
shmo...@webtv.net (Lamarr Edwards) wrote:
LE,
Quick reply. I can truly see how confusion and discomfort exists among
the differing Christian religions due to the many biblical "rules of
engagement" that must be followed. Some are literalists, pure and
simple -- they live by that. (Don't know how they counter the Christ
being a door thing!) Some use the argument of "knowing the Hebrew
meaning" and judge others' statements on a subject with that criteria.
Others (sorry!) call verses parables when logic fails with the literal
text. Some use numbers in the bible to answer all questions. Some use
the "it was only true for those times" argument. My SDA mom-in-law is
a literalist who denies the biblical text that says that women are to
be modest, quiet, etc., in church because it only meant prostitutes.
But everything else is OK because it's "from the bible." And on and
on... What's a plain ole ordinary person like me supposed to do!!
Finally, most everyone else uses a combination of all the above to
spout their "truth". Consequently, there is more confusion than ever.
Waaaa, Waaaaa!
ernli...@my-deja.com
shmo...@webtv.net (Lamarr Edwards) wrote:
> EW - regarding Abraham and the sinner,I see no problem believing this
a
> parable illustrating a a certain point. If everything CHRISt said is
to
> be seen as literal,then he is a door! LE
>
>
****SNICKER****
Assuming you're an SDA, WHAT ARE YOU DOING WORKING ON THE COMPUTER ON
THE SABBATH!!
I'm outa here...
tmac1238
ernli...@my-deja.com wrote:
Makes you wonder! Yes, what are you doing on a computer on the Sabbath. You
are not resting, and you should be stoned to death. Jesuit infiltrators do
this sort of thing.
Lamarr Edwards
believe that God did not create evil,but created an enviroment where
evil could occur to verify free will,and have love and service from his
created beings by choice,the concept of satan is easy for me to believe.
After all,Christ called him the "god " of this
world. I accept the Adventist view that there are other inhabited
worlds in the universe,and that evil in our world is an object lesson in
what making sinful choices can do ,for all creation. God has made
a "loophole" if you will,to make the ultimate right choice.
I personally believe that satan is a powerful being,and that describing
him with a pitchfork and pointy tail truly underestimates his powerful
and evil nature. God could have destroyed him at any time,or maybe even
refused to create him( although I am not at all sure that God is
perfectly omniscient),but in a free universe the issue would have to be
faced sooner or later. "Acts of God",are truly acts of satan,and
will disappear when he ceases to exist. LE
Lamarr Edwards
discuss,any other authority. Paradise is mentioned three times in the
Bible, once on the cross by Jesus,once by Paul referring to a man"caught
up" to paradise who heard unspeakable words,and once by John in
Revelation speaking of the earth made new,and the paradise where the
tree of life will be. The word is never used in the OT. Therefore ,the
logical conclusion is that paradise is where God is. There is no
Biblical reference to any holding place where dead souls go. The word
'limbo" is never used in the Bible. LE
Lamarr Edwards
time,well........I have studied the unitarian view of the
trinity....so..........lets say that it is possible,but doesn"t make
sense,but of course much of Christianity doesn"t make sense,depending on
your perspective. So lets say this is a mystery of the Godhead,that I
have not been given the ability to understand! However,Christ did say
three days after his death he had not ascended to the (his) father.
Hum.......how do we deal with this conumdrum?
LE P.S.- Although no longer an Adventist I am
obviously influenced by their heritage. Just for interest,Adventists
accept the trinity,but some of the most prominent early Adventists
originally did not.
Lamarr Edwards
that death(eternal oblivion) is our enemy,not immortality in hell.
Christ himself made it clear that he had come to overcome death. If one
can never die(and after all,the common belief is that we go from one
conscious state to another,which is not death) then Christ was truly
confused. LE
Stephen Korsman
> Stephan- I asked for Biblical references,I do not recognise,nor will
> discuss,any other authority.
Then you don't follow the Bible, because the Bible says the CHURCH is the
authority to follow.
As it is, I DID give you biblical references. Apparently they were too
tough to swallow.
> Paradise is mentioned three times in the
> Bible, once on the cross by Jesus,once by Paul referring to a man"caught
> up" to paradise who heard unspeakable words,and once by John in
> Revelation speaking of the earth made new,and the paradise where the
> tree of life will be. The word is never used in the OT. Therefore ,the
> logical conclusion is that paradise is where God is. There is no
> Biblical reference to any holding place where dead souls go. The word
> 'limbo" is never used in the Bible. LE
That doesn't mean it's not biblical. You have yet to prove that. I have
provided proof that it IS biblical, now you must provide proof that it's
not.
God bless,
Lamarr Edwards
I use the rules of evidence when looking at verses like this. If all of
the evidence leads to an irrefutable conclusion,and one piece of
evidence is not clear,but can be interpreted in a manner consistent with
all of the other evidence,then that interpretation must be correct. LE
ernli...@my-deja.com
Yes indeed, or the unclear evidence can (should) simply be excluded,
unless it directly contradicts with the other(s). Anyway...
ernli...@my-deja.com
LE,
I should let this slide, but I must touch on a couple things:
In article <6557-398...@storefull-294.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
shmo...@webtv.net (Lamarr Edwards) wrote:
> EW_ Since I ascribe to many of the teachings of Arminus, and truly
> believe that God did not create evil,but created an enviroment where
> evil could occur to verify free will,and have love and service from
his
> created beings by choice,the concept of satan is easy for me to
believe.
This I don't understand. If God (your words) did not create evil
(Satan?) but simply created US with the ability to do harm, then how
does the existence of Satan come into play? If you mean that Once Upon
A Time some "good angels" became bad, it would have been in God's power
to eliminate them. If he decided not to, then he allows evil to exist
in this world, in addition to our human weaknesses. This I find
incomprehensible in a "just and merciful" God.
>"Acts of God",are truly acts of satan,and
> will disappear when he ceases to exist. LE
My simplistic comment: if all the tragedies of this world are Satan's
fault, then some will probably ascribe all the good to be God's work.
However, keeping a very clear perspective, the "good" things attributed
to God are status quo events -- things which God simply allows. Seems
like there's nothing he's done miraculously to exceed the natural
bounds that I can document. It makes no sense that Satan would have to
power to control natural events and does, while God looks on.
Meanwhile we seem to be the pawns in this game; yet we're told that WE
are responsible for our everlasting condition! Yikes.
And do I believe any of this??? Only on the keyboard!
ernli...@my-deja.com
shmo...@webtv.net (Lamarr Edwards) wrote:
> EW_ As to Christ being on earth and in heaven at the same
> time,well........
>However,Christ did say
> three days after his death he had not ascended to the (his) father.
> Hum.......how do we deal with this conumdrum?
>
Assuming the reality of the Trinity (which I do) and since God cannot
be "limited" to a physical location ever, I can easily understand the
possibility Jesus, the God, being in heaven while his physical
manifestation was on Earth. <<sweating>>
ernli...@my-deja.com
Or more likely, the authors and editors and translators and compilers
of the bible were the confused party!
Lamarr Edwards
Specifically,I try and show the errors of Calvinism. You appear to have
adopted by chance or design,some of Calvins views.
I guess in the final analysis the issue can be clarified by the answers
to some simple questions. Is evil,as defined by God,part of his
creation,as designed by him? Is the freedom to make choices a gift of
God to his created beings? If no negative choices are ever
possible,then positive choices are illusory. Can God by his
own definition of himself be good and evil at the same time?
My final question you may view as rhetorical,but it is one I had answer
for myself,and it has been 16 years since it arose in a most personal
way,and I still struggle with the answer.
Is God responsible directly or indirectly for striking down in most
painful ways,good caring people for no other purpose than they can
die,so they should? If I
still believed as I once did,after a very traumatic loss,that God is no
more than a petulant child who plays with us like a boy with a
magnifying glass does with ants,I would post haste return to
agnosticism. Either these things are contrary to Gods character,and
intent,and he allows them for a time,for a purpose or we are grist for
the mill of an evil diety. I cannot see it any other way.LE
Lamarr Edwards
anything,then they could be confused on everything,or just some things
but we don"t know which! If that were the case,then God would just
become a detached esoteric idea. Since I have never seen him,or heard
him, and can have no reliable knowledge of him I would become a true
agnostic,never knowing one way or the other. One speck of dust,on
another,in a universe of specks of dust swirling about with no
meaning,no purpose,wondering till I die if there truly is,or isn"t
something other than what appears to be. LE
Tony Valentino
wrote:
>Allow me to pose a question. Where did the SDA understanding of the 'state
>of the dead' originate?
Death is a sleep until the resurrection day, an unconscious, dreamless
sleep. This is very clearly taught in the Bible.
Psa 13:3 Consider and hear me, O LORD my God: lighten mine eyes, lest
I sleep the sleep of death;
Job 14:12 So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no
more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep.
The Bible teaches that death is but a sleep that lasts until Christ's
second coming. More than fifty times, Bible writers consistently
describe death as a sleep. Writing under inspiration, the Psalmist
David prayed to God lest he "sleep the sleep of death." Psalm 13:3.
Later, 1 Kings 2:1 and 10 say: "Now the days of David drew nigh that
he should die...So David slept with his fathers, and was buried."
Jesus Himself spoke of death as a sleep. The Master said, in John
11:11-14 (RSV), when His beloved friend Lazarus grew very sick in a
nearby town, "'Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I go to awake
him out of sleep.' The disciples, said to Him, 'Lord, if he has fallen
asleep, he will recover.' Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they
thought that He meant taking rest in sleep. Then Jesus told them
plainly, 'Lazarus is dead.", When Stephen was stoned to death in Acts
7:60, his spirit went back to God and he fell asleep into the sleep of
death awaiting the resurrection.
When a person dies, his body goes to the earth and his spirit (or
breath) goes back to God who gave it. [Ecc 12:7] Then he awaits
Christ's return in a perfectly restful, dreamless sleep. There's no
more pain, no more suffering, no more heartache, no more sorrow. It's
as if we rest in Jesus' arms till He taps us on the shoulder and says,
"Wake up, My child it's time to go home!". :)
With warm Christian love,
Tony Valentino
Email: hopes...@hotmail.com
Web: www.hopesearch.cjb.net
ELW...
Lamarr Edwards <shmo...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:13562-39...@storefull-297.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> EW- I spend time discussing the nature of God with the Presbyterians.
> Specifically,I try and show the errors of Calvinism. You appear to have
> adopted by chance or design,some of Calvins views.
Must've been by chance, since I don't subscribe to denominational-specific
views.
> I guess in the final analysis the issue can be clarified by the answers
> to some simple questions. Is evil,as defined by God,part of his
> creation,as designed by him?
"Part of creation" ...No. But by sustaining it later (read the murders of
the occupied peoples by the roaming Israelites, etc.) it shows a form of
sanction. I hate to do this to you but read some of this from the Book of
Numbers:
31:7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses;
and they slew all the males.
31:8 And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were
slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of
Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.
31:9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and
their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their
flocks, and all their goods.
31:10 And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their
goodly castles, with fire.
31:11 And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of
beasts.
31:12 And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto
Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of
Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near
Jericho.
31:13 And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the
congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.
31:14 And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains
over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.
31:15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of
Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there
was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every
woman that hath known man by lying with him.
31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with
him, keep alive for yourselves. ETC........
If this isn't evil, called for by God, then what is. There's a lot more...
I REALLY wonder what you think about this...
>Is the freedom to make choices a gift of
> God to his created beings?
Yes, as part of our intellectual humanity -- if one considers this a "gift."
>Can God by his
> own definition of himself be good and evil at the same time?
No, he cannot be evil, per se. Nevertheless, he allows it. One who has the
power to change a situation, but doesn't, sanctions it, right?
> My final question you may view as rhetorical,but it is one I had answer
> for myself,and it has been 16 years since it arose in a most personal
> way,and I still struggle with the answer.
> Is God responsible directly or indirectly for striking down in most
> painful ways,good caring people for no other purpose than they can
> die,so they should?
No, I believe God is not responsible, since what you mention is a part of
our natural life. Nevertheless, I feel he is somehow responsible (to what
extent I don't know) if he refuses to hear our prayers, our many prayers, to
alleviate those situations. This makes me extremely frustrated at times,
and I cannot resolve this is my mind. Another example: how can he allow the
horrible death of little children in a van returning from a bible vacation
school, yet allow the pimp driving recklessly from the police to escape and
live a long, comfortable life.
>If I
> still believed as I once did,after a very traumatic loss,that God is no
> more than a petulant child who plays with us like a boy with a
> magnifying glass does with ants,I would post haste return to
> agnosticism. Either these things are contrary to Gods character,and
> intent,and he allows them for a time,for a purpose or we are grist for
> the mill of an evil diety. I cannot see it any other way.LE
>
God, by definition, cannot be evil. And if I had the answer to your
queries, I'd be the happiest person alive. But I know one thing, the bible
has no answer for any of this. IF God had indeed "inspired" the bible to
give us the answers, he didn't. That's why I maintain only very limited use
for the bible and those who continuously spout it for their own purposes.
Long message... sorry. And I didn't accomplish a thing!
EW
ELW...
LE,
The only consolation is that there MUST be a God, since logic demands it.
But he could very well be as you once hypothesized, a creator who simply
lets "nature take it course" and who will provide eternal salvation to those
who persist in their faith in him inspite of it all.
EW