|
Forums118
Topics9,232
Posts196,214
Members1,326
| |
Most Online5,850
Feb 29th, 2020
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
|
8 registered members (Karen Y, dedication, Daryl, daylily, TheophilusOne, 3 invisible),
2,489
guests, and 13
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Two Institutions of Creation - The Sabbath and Marriage
[Re: Mountain Man]
#120411
10/12/09 06:13 PM
10/12/09 06:13 PM
|
Active Member 2011
3500+ Member
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,965
Sweden
|
|
It is the response acceptable by orthodoxy that you give Mike, but if the second part is to be read like Greenie and Rosangela read the first, then it is clearly inadequate. You see, such a literal reading does not allow for taking intentions into account. A literal reading of the text squarely puts it all in present time. No hints within the sentence of any applications to a future date.
Galatians 2
21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
It is so hazardous to take here a little and there a little. If you put the right little's together you can make the bible teach anything you wish. //Graham Maxwell
|
|
|
Re: Two Institutions of Creation - The Sabbath and Marriage
[Re: vastergotland]
#120417
10/12/09 07:54 PM
10/12/09 07:54 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
I disagree. Jesus used the same concept when He spoke about Jairus' daughter, "The girl is not dead, but sleeping."
Was the girl dead, Thomas?
|
|
|
Re: Two Institutions of Creation - The Sabbath and Marriage
[Re: Rosangela]
#120418
10/12/09 08:01 PM
10/12/09 08:01 PM
|
Active Member 2011
3500+ Member
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,965
Sweden
|
|
Ah, but then you cede that Jesus did use figurative language like every other normal person making speeches. Which also means that there is no particular reason why "be as angles" must be taken literally when the following sentence is recognised as figurative speech.
Galatians 2
21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
It is so hazardous to take here a little and there a little. If you put the right little's together you can make the bible teach anything you wish. //Graham Maxwell
|
|
|
Re: Two Institutions of Creation - The Sabbath and Marriage
[Re: vastergotland]
#120419
10/12/09 08:04 PM
10/12/09 08:04 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
Thomas,
Like I asked before, how can another meaning be given to the words, "they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in Heaven"?
|
|
|
Re: Two Institutions of Creation - The Sabbath and Marriage
[Re: Rosangela]
#120420
10/12/09 08:27 PM
10/12/09 08:27 PM
|
Active Member 2011
3500+ Member
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,965
Sweden
|
|
Rosangela, Like the second sentence cannot, aye, must not mean what it obviously says because it would go against everything else we believe, likewise this first sentence cannot and must not mean what it obviously says per your quote above.
Why, you will surely ask, cannot it mean what it seems to say per the now established practise? Because taking it at face value would mean that Gods first creation would be seen as not good enough. Because it would mean that Jesus did not come to earth to save us as humans but to make us into something which we were not originally designed to be. It leads to ludicrous ideas about an asexual paradise per Roman Catholic chastity, pagan and satanic delusions and at least one opinion shared before in this thread. It suggests that in Paul's argument in 1 Corinthians 15, the heavenly man upon whom our spiritual body to come is modelled is not Jesus but a created being, an angle. Simply put, in the beginning God created humans to be one man and one woman and proclaimed that creation was no longer merely good but now very good. Then He concluded His singular act of creation in the Sabbath. The suggestion that the purpose of our creation was not to be humans but to become angles cast a shade of scorn upon either Gods proclamation that earth was very good with man and woman together in Gods image upon it. Or upon the concept of singular creation as such, if God created man and woman with the intention that we evolve into a higher state, angles, when the time is ripe. Such a view is an open invitation to a core spiritualistic message of "we will all become gods when the age of aquarius dawns".
For a group of people whom in other circumstances have been such zealous for the sanctity of the genesis story, to surrender it here is rather surprising to say the least.
Galatians 2
21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
It is so hazardous to take here a little and there a little. If you put the right little's together you can make the bible teach anything you wish. //Graham Maxwell
|
|
|
Re: Two Institutions of Creation - The Sabbath and Marriage
[Re: vastergotland]
#120423
10/12/09 08:56 PM
10/12/09 08:56 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
So you mean you believe that the phrase "neither marry nor are given in marriage" means "they will marry and be given in marriage."
First, Thomas, I don't think Jesus was speaking figuratively either in Matt. 22 or in the episode of Jairus' daughter. What I believe is that God's concept of "death" is "ceasing to exist for ever," that is, "not ever being raised to life again." What we call "death," He calls "sleep" (just read John 11).
Second, even if Jesus was speaking figuratively at some place, there is no such thing as "figurative" meaning "the complete opposite of what is said."
And third, the fact that reproduction was to exist just for a time doesn't mean that a being is not perfect if it does not reproduce - the Bible says angels were superior to man, even before man sinned. Lack of sex is neither pagan nor satanic - unless you believe holy angels are satanic. Besides, as far as I know, God does not have a sex. Is He imperfect?
|
|
|
Re: Two Institutions of Creation - The Sabbath and Marriage
[Re: Rosangela]
#120428
10/13/09 12:32 AM
10/13/09 12:32 AM
|
SDA
Active Member 2021
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,003
The Orient
|
|
God's concept of death is spiritual, i.e. death = separation from God. Man's concept of death is physical, i.e. death = discontinuation of earthly life.
When God sees His saints "die," their physical death has not separated them from God, only from the world. God knows that in the future, they will be raised to life again, and thus, in a very real sense, they have (present tense!) eternal life. Their eternal life is like money in the bank--it belongs to them, even though it is not presently in their hands.
However, when God sees someone living, alive, who has separated himself from God, God sees this same person as "dead," for they have no life in Heaven's bank. They have separated themselves from God, and this separation accounts as "death," even though physically they may yet be alive. Should they die while in this separated condition, their loss is eternally locked in.
When Jesus spoke of Lazarus in the tomb, He knew that physically Lazarus was dead. But He also knew that Lazarus had died with God. Therefore, in the spiritual sense, Lazarus was alive--but "sleeping" on account of that life being owed him not presently in his possession.
In other words, I do not believe that Jesus' words in saying Lazarus as alive were entirely meant as future application. It is present tense, and to be interpreted as such. In the same place where Jesus corrects the Jewish leaders regarding marriage in the afterlife, He says: "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." (Matthew 22:30-32)
Jesus told His hearers that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were/are alive. We know that they were in their tombs "sleeping" at that time--yet to Jesus, they were alive. This is not merely figurative, because one cannot belong to God merely figuratively. You either are His or you are not.
Blessings,
Green Cochoa.
We can receive of heaven's light only as we are willing to be emptied of self. We can discern the character of God, and accept Christ by faith, only as we consent to the bringing into captivity of every thought to the obedience of Christ. And to all who do this, the Holy Spirit is given without measure. In Christ "dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in Him." [Colossians 2:9, 10.] {GW 57.1} -- Ellen White.
|
|
|
Re: Two Institutions of Creation - The Sabbath and Marriage
[Re: Rosangela]
#120437
10/13/09 07:20 AM
10/13/09 07:20 AM
|
Active Member 2011
3500+ Member
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,965
Sweden
|
|
So you mean you believe that the phrase "neither marry nor are given in marriage" means "they will marry and be given in marriage."
First, Thomas, I don't think Jesus was speaking figuratively either in Matt. 22 or in the episode of Jairus' daughter. What I believe is that God's concept of "death" is "ceasing to exist for ever," that is, "not ever being raised to life again." What we call "death," He calls "sleep" (just read John 11).
I find it unlikely that Jesus would have used a private definition of words when speaking with people. He did after all not speak for the enjoyment of hearing his own voice but to communicate Truth to people. Therefore, do you have any evidence or support for this change in the definition of the word "dead" between our day and that of Jesus.
Second, even if Jesus was speaking figuratively at some place, there is no such thing as "figurative" meaning "the complete opposite of what is said."
Sure, so unless you have some good answer for my reply to point one, some revising might be in order. Right?
And third, the fact that reproduction was to exist just for a time doesn't mean that a being is not perfect if it does not reproduce - the Bible says angels were superior to man, even before man sinned. Lack of sex is neither pagan nor satanic - unless you believe holy angels are satanic. Besides, as far as I know, God does not have a sex. Is He imperfect?
First, it has not yet been established that it is a "fact". Further, what makes up the perfect crow cannot possibly be used as a standard of perfection for cows. Similarly angels are not a standard for what a perfect human should be, except in regards to their obedience and allegiance to God. That is in character. But even here we have a better measure. I fail to see the reason for this enthusiasm for replacing Jesus as our perfect point of reference with angels, perfect as they may be. For your last point, God is God and not a man. Likewise man is man and not God. God made us in this particular way and what is satanic is our desire to be something which God neither made us to be nor intends us to become. God made lucifer to be an angel but he was not content but desired to be more. Then he became satan, the accuser. God made man, but again man is not content but desires to be, well first an angel and then a god. What does that make man? Certainly not a good son or daughter of God anyhow...
Galatians 2
21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
It is so hazardous to take here a little and there a little. If you put the right little's together you can make the bible teach anything you wish. //Graham Maxwell
|
|
|
Re: Two Institutions of Creation - The Sabbath and Marriage
[Re: Green Cochoa]
#120438
10/13/09 07:27 AM
10/13/09 07:27 AM
|
Active Member 2011
3500+ Member
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,965
Sweden
|
|
God's concept of death is spiritual, i.e. death = separation from God. Man's concept of death is physical, i.e. death = discontinuation of earthly life.
When God sees His saints "die," their physical death has not separated them from God, only from the world. God knows that in the future, they will be raised to life again, and thus, in a very real sense, they have (present tense!) eternal life. Their eternal life is like money in the bank--it belongs to them, even though it is not presently in their hands.
However, when God sees someone living, alive, who has separated himself from God, God sees this same person as "dead," for they have no life in Heaven's bank. They have separated themselves from God, and this separation accounts as "death," even though physically they may yet be alive. Should they die while in this separated condition, their loss is eternally locked in.
When Jesus spoke of Lazarus in the tomb, He knew that physically Lazarus was dead. But He also knew that Lazarus had died with God. Therefore, in the spiritual sense, Lazarus was alive--but "sleeping" on account of that life being owed him not presently in his possession.
In other words, I do not believe that Jesus' words in saying Lazarus as alive were entirely meant as future application. It is present tense, and to be interpreted as such. In the same place where Jesus corrects the Jewish leaders regarding marriage in the afterlife, He says: "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." (Matthew 22:30-32)
Jesus told His hearers that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were/are alive. We know that they were in their tombs "sleeping" at that time--yet to Jesus, they were alive. This is not merely figurative, because one cannot belong to God merely figuratively. You either are His or you are not.
Blessings,
Green Cochoa. Jesus began his answer by pointing to the scriptures. Therefore, can you support this case in its entierity from the books referred to by Jesus?
Galatians 2
21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
It is so hazardous to take here a little and there a little. If you put the right little's together you can make the bible teach anything you wish. //Graham Maxwell
|
|
|
Re: Two Institutions of Creation - The Sabbath and Marriage
[Re: vastergotland]
#120439
10/13/09 07:40 AM
10/13/09 07:40 AM
|
SDA
Active Member 2021
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,003
The Orient
|
|
Jesus began his answer by pointing to the scriptures. Therefore, can you support this case in its entierity from the books referred to by Jesus? Certainly. However, it's a lengthy study better fit for a separate thread. If you can be more precise as to a specific question, perhaps I can provide a quick answer here. Otherwise, the larger study will have to wait. It should be significant to all, however, that Jesus tied the death/life definition into the leaders' question of marriage in the afterlife--and this following a statement to them that they erred, not knowing the scriptures. Blessings, Green Cochoa.
We can receive of heaven's light only as we are willing to be emptied of self. We can discern the character of God, and accept Christ by faith, only as we consent to the bringing into captivity of every thought to the obedience of Christ. And to all who do this, the Holy Spirit is given without measure. In Christ "dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in Him." [Colossians 2:9, 10.] {GW 57.1} -- Ellen White.
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
