Misconceptions about God?

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Honestly, I've been walking in faith for a couple years now and I'm still discovering how vast the power of the cross really is.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

What does Romans 3:25 mean to you?

It means that the "mercy seat", the thing that is associated in the Old Testament with the place where the manifestation of God was, now Jesus is that, being that Jesus is the intersection of God and Man, in his person.
The 'cleansing' of the mercy seat is what prepares the temple for another year's worth of service, so at the end of the annual ceremony, they had a virtual 'new' temple. Jesus is the New Temple, in that he is front and center in the New kingdom of God on Earth, with free access to all, by faith.

Romans 3:25 isn't saying anything about the mercy seat on the ark. It's talking about the remission of our sins through His (Jesus) blood.

Originally posted by DarkKnight21
What I meant was that serving others is a means to love God ("What you did for the least of these, you did for me" etc.)

The serving of others is not a direct MEANS to love God - as if you can find or love God by serving others. True service to others is an EXPRESSION of our already existing love for God. Your statement is putting the cart before the horse. In other words, Jesus always taught that the first commandment is primary, and the second commandment follows - not the other way around.

Originally posted by DarkKnight21
We are not asked to have warm fuzzy feelings for a magic man in the sky - that's the esoteric babble I'm talking about.

Yes, all of that babble is just that - babble! It is a bunch of "metaphysical" mumbo-jumbo cosmology-speak that is mind-based, not heart-full. The esotericism Jesus taught is founded in having already prepared the body-mind through living his two great commandments fully.

This preparation entails every aspect of life - physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual - being surrendered to God in love. This is a profound practice of surrender that is only possible when one heart-recognizes what Jesus was teaching - that no one is inherently separate from God.

Jesus also taught profound esoteric processes that involved Union with the Divine Light above the gross body-mind. Such practices also informed the esoterically-initiated followers that they are not just mortal body-minds, and so could live their lives more freely and fully, in love with God and all.

Originally posted by DarkKnight21
We are asked to help those in need who are placed into our life. God shows favor in our lives when we show favor to others. In this way, Jesus' first and second commandments are fulfilled together.

Yes, there is always an opportunity to serve others - and this service is very very good to do. But it is best if such service is already founded in one's self-transcending love of God. Again, this is why Jesus' first commandment is first, and the second commandment then becomes possible, as an expression of living his first commandment.

Originally posted by DarkKnight21
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

Honestly, I've been walking in faith for a couple years now and I'm still discovering how vast the power of the cross really is.

That Jesus, he really knew what he was doing and why.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Romans 3:25 isn't saying anything about the mercy seat on the ark. It's talking about the remission of our sins through His (Jesus) blood.

Is that what your cult leader told you?
What other mercy seat is there?
It does not mention "remission of sins".
What you are talking about is a philosophical theory about sins and forgiveness, and the proponents of this theory, when they come across a verse like the one you brought up, force it to fit into the theological mold that they had already created, rather than understanding what the verse is really talking about.
The problem Paul was dealing with was the question of "what about the sins that the 'gentiles' had been committing all this time and were not being dealt with in the manner as prescribed in the old Law, since they were not Israelites?"
Was God being unjust to account sins against the Jews while giving the gentiles a pass?
God demonstrates His justice by opening things up with a new system with Jesus as the center of it.(no need to be a Jew)
Having Faith makes you eligible to utilise this system of being cleansed of sins committed out of ignorance.

Your interpretation is just parroting the "Free Grace" cult heretical doctrine.
You may also be confused because you are reading a bad translation.
Try this one by NetBible:

God publicly displayed him at his death as the mercy seat accessible through faith. This was to demonstrate his righteousness, because God in his forbearance had passed over the sins previously committed.

If you have further questions on this, feel free to ask and I will be happy to expound upon it further, as much as you want.
I know people are busy and don't have time for things like reading books on Romans.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Why do cult members like to accuse others who are non cult members of being cult members?

It's quite ironic.

reply to post by godlover25

Why do cult members like to accuse others who are non cult members of being cult members?

I don't know, seeing how I am not a cult member.
I do know how to identify them because they believe in cult heretical doctrines.

reply to post by DarkKnight21

How do we know we are bad at creating if we didn't have some knowledge of a perfect creator to compare ourselves to?

Do you compare yourself to a perfect creator? Gawd, you must be miserable, seeing as we are so SO far from being perfect, with NO hope of ever achieving such perfection. Seriously, if I did that I'd have to hang myself.

No creator needed. All we have to do is look to the woodlands for our comparison. We have to wonder how billions of creatures can live in the forests without destroying them, while we, on the other hand, cut down those forests. We have to think, Hmmm, there's something wrong here.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Romans 3:25 isn't saying anything about the mercy seat on the ark. It's talking about the remission of our sins through His (Jesus) blood.

Is that what your cult leader told you?
What other mercy seat is there?
It does not mention "remission of sins".
What you are talking about is a philosophical theory about sins and forgiveness, and the proponents of this theory, when they come across a verse like the one you brought up, force it to fit into the theological mold that they had already created, rather than understanding what the verse is really talking about.
The problem Paul was dealing with was the question of "what about the sins that the 'gentiles' had been committing all this time and were not being dealt with in the manner as prescribed in the old Law, since they were not Israelites?"
Was God being unjust to account sins against the Jews while giving the gentiles a pass?
God demonstrates His justice by opening things up with a new system with Jesus as the center of it.(no need to be a Jew)
Having Faith makes you eligible to utilise this system of being cleansed of sins committed out of ignorance.

Your interpretation is just parroting the "Free Grace" cult heretical doctrine.
You may also be confused because you are reading a bad translation.
Try this one by NetBible:

God publicly displayed him at his death as the mercy seat accessible through faith. This was to demonstrate his righteousness, because God in his forbearance had passed over the sins previously committed.

If you have further questions on this, feel free to ask and I will be happy to expound upon it further, as much as you want.
I know people are busy and don't have time for things like reading books on Romans.

edit on 10-4-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

I have no idea what verse you're looking at, but here is a copy/paste of Romans 3:25:

25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Romans 3:25.


Now, please address this verse since you claim it's not Biblical. (And yes it says exactly "remission of sins")

reply to post by NOTurTypical

I have no idea what verse you're looking at, but here is a copy/paste of Romans 3:25:

You do realize there are different versions of the Bible, right?
The one you are quoting is a bad interpretation that was doctrinally driven back in 1500 and something.
The better version is the one I quoted.

God publicly displayed him at his death as the mercy seat accessible through faith. This was to demonstrate his righteousness, because God in his forbearance had passed over the sins previously committed.

Now, please address this verse since you claim it's not Biblical. (And yes it says exactly "remission of sins")

See my comment above.

Here is your earlier comment:

Romans 3:25 isn't saying anything about the mercy seat on the ark. It's talking about the remission of our sins through His (Jesus) blood.

If you look at the proper translation, you see that it is talking about the sins that God ignored in the past.
What is not "biblical" is that it is talking about the future, or to us, the present.
God demonstrated His own righteousness.
What you are doing is taking the parts and ignoring what they say, and compiling a new sentence from those parts, to say whatever you want it to.
That is sorcery and not anything to do with the point that Paul was making.
Do you understand, yet? Let me know if you don't. I realize cult deprogramming is difficult but I am willing to proceed.

reply to post by jmdewey60


I only use the Received Text translations.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

I only use the Received Text translations.

That was the text "received" in 1500 and something because it was the only Greek text of the New Testament available in print at that time.
Today, it is not the "received" text.
We have others, such as the SBL, which is the one most people use.
Still, regardless of what the Greek text that was used as the basis for the translation, yours is still hugely inferior.
A lot of thorough research has gone into studying the text since the fifteen hundreds and it is accepted among the biblical scholars that in fact it was the mercy seat of the Old Testament tabernacle that Paul was referring to, and not a "propitiation" as rendered in the KJV.
There is a thread of argument and proof that Paul is engaged in with Romans, from the very beginning, and culminating in those verses in chapter 3, of the righteousness of God, where taken in context it is clear that this one particular snippet that you are quoting is talking about that, and not whatever it is that you are implying, that it somehow is how we become righteous. It should be evident from the verse itself that is what is meant, if you were not looking at it with your cult blinders on forcing it to say something else.
Can you explain word for word what the verse is saying, in any translation?
Please do that. Write a post where you walk us all through the verse, explaining what it is saying, rather than you standing way back and giving this grand pronouncement of what it "means" when on the face of it, it isn't saying anything of the kind?
If you can't do that, then the only explanation available to me is that your cult has completely brainwashed you to the point of being incapable of rational thought.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Well, I don't know what to tell you. My preference is the Antioch, Syria originated Bible. It says there at Antioch were believer's first called Christians. I don't care much at all for the Alexandrian versions, that was the central base of the Gnostics and their MSS have known expurgations.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

. . . the Gnostics and their MSS . . .

I'll take that as a No, then.
Seems you really don't have a rational explanation for the verse and can only parrot cult doctrine, trusting in the god-like infallibility of your cult leader.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Again with the cult accusations.

Your cult really has you brainwashed....

Although I think your stance is heretical, even to your own cult....

This is what happens when you replace True Belief with false belief, and when you base your doctrines are fiction rather than Truth

reply to post by godlover25

Again with the cult accusations.

I have no other explanation. The person exhibits no actual knowledge of the text that you would know if you had actually studied it. So how is it he is able to rattle off a pat interpretation? Answer: he is in a cult that hands out pat answers, and they are accepted because that is the definition of a cult, unquestioning obedience to the cult leader.

Your cult really has you brainwashed....

Oh! that hurts! (just kidding)

Although I think your stance is heretical, even to your own cult....

I don't belong to a cult. The stuff that the other person here was quoting is off a website that is designed to give non-Adventists a general idea of what Adventists believe. It is to satisfy other people's curiosity, and not a creed. The Adventist church does not believe in creeds and does not have one itself, so there is no such thing as "heretics" in the Adventist church. That is a Catholic term that they use to persecute people who disagree with the hierarchy.

This is what happens when you replace True Belief with false belief, and when you base your doctrines are fiction rather than Truth

People using a term like "True Belief", I would immediately suspect as being cult members because that is one of the hallmarks of cults, to convince the members that only they know the "truth" which happens to be everything the cult leader believes, or at least pretends to believe, for the sake of handing it out to the masses for consumption.

reply to post by jmdewey60


An Adventist are you?

Two questions:

!. Is it true, as an old Adventist friend told me, that an early SDA conference voted down "salvation by grace through faith"?

2. I have read the whole series of books of which The Great Controversy is part. I know that E. G. White depicts an Eternal Destruction (ED) end for the wicked. I also know that the Bible says that Death and Hell are cast into the Lake of Fire. After those things are cast into the LoF (we assume for destruction) how then can anyone, wicked or not, be dead, either in Hell, or reduced to ashes?

Questions like these are why I am an ex-Adventist.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

. . . the Gnostics and their MSS . . .

I'll take that as a No, then.
Seems you really don't have a rational explanation for the verse and can only parrot cult doctrine, trusting in the god-like infallibility of your cult leader.

I already gave my rational explanation. That's exactly what the verse says in my Bible.

You have to resort to an obscure version to deny the traditional Christian text, that doesn't make a particularly strong argument in your case. Then you refer to modern scholarship, (not conservative traditional scholarship), and a large portion of modern scholars are quite liberal in their theology these days.

Save the pity personal attacks, they're meaningless.

reply to post by Lazarus Short

An Adventist are you?

Fourth generation Seventh Day Adventist, which means my great grandmother was, then my grandmother, then my parents. I was baptized back when I was 15 years old, if I remember right, and have been a member of the church ever since. I was at church 6 days ago participating in communion with the emblems of Christ's body and blood.

!. Is it true, as an old Adventist friend told me, that an early SDA conference voted down "salvation by grace through faith"?

That is the almost mythical 1888 general conference of the SDA church, where it was discussed, some questions of a version of an interpretation of Luther's thoughts on justification. The problem being that the version not accepted would have done away with the need to recognize any law being obligatory to keep, that we all had "free Grace". Of course the people promoting that theory were wrong, and the church did the right thing to not make any moves to promote the dissemination of such bad theology which is not supported by the Bible.

2. I have read the whole series of books of which The Great Controversy is part. I know that E. G. White depicts an Eternal Destruction (ED) end for the wicked. I also know that the Bible says that Death and Hell are cast into the Lake of Fire. After those things are cast into the LoF (we assume for destruction) how then can anyone, wicked or not, be dead, either in Hell, or reduced to ashes?

I don't think you understood it correctly. According to the book you mentioned, the people not on the list of the book of life, get thrown into the lake of fire, too.
I don't necessarily go along 100% on all of that, and the SDA does not require anyone to, either.
There is no test, where you stand before a committee and they lay a copy of Great Controversy on the table before you and ask if you believe in this book, in order to be admitted as a member of the church.
There are lots of Adventist church members who have never even heard of Ellen White.

Questions like these are why I am an ex-Adventist.

Lots of people say they were Adventists who never were. A lot of people become interested in it at some point and will go to classes and even attend church, and imagine they are now Adventists, but never actually go through the ritual of becoming Baptized into the church. That is the catching point for a lot of people, and understandably so, as if whatever baptism they may have had in another church somehow is not good enough and they have to be baptized by an Adventist minister, in the prescribed way.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Unlike so many here, your answers are straightforward and non-evasive. I'm surprised to hear that many SDA church members never heard of Ellen White, as I so often heard the phrase "Sister White said..." among Adventists I knew.

Another question, if I may: It came to my attention in the recent past (since I left Adventism) that the SDA organization has sponsored its own translation, called The Clear Word. From what I have read, it was translated with an eye toward supporting SDA doctrine. I think that puts the cart before the horse, as doctrine should follow from a good (read, doctrinally neutral) translation. In view of the similar case of the Jehovah's Witnesses and their New World Translation, does this not warp the Word of God and make the SDA a definable cult? I mean no disrespect in asking...