Seventh Day Adventists

[BobRyan]

You quote Christ's response to the resurrection , "I am not the God of the dead" but you ignore the positive statement "but of the living" and then "I AM THE GOD of Abraham....." demonstrating they were "living" still in spite of their bodies being in graves. Likewise, David.

Originally Posted by BobRyan

Your entire argument is lost in Matt 22 - because in Matt 22 Christ states that he is "proving the resurrection" you seek to bend the text as if he is "proving the living dead theory" -- and you seek a solution to the puzzle he gives to the Sadducees that would not need the resurrection at all to solve it. Christ states that the ONLY way that God could claim to be the "God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" while speaking to Moses at the burning bush - is if they are going to be resurrected in the future since God cannot be their God while they are dead.

You argue "oh yes God is their God while they are deceased" in effect - as if destroying Christ's entire proof of the future resurrection is the "only reading" -- here alone your entire argument is lost.

in Christ,

Bob

I notice you were careful not to rescue your argument from your response to the case in Matt 22. This is a "debate" that Christ had on the "state of the dead" on the "question of mortal vs immortal and the question of future resurrection" - his PROOf requires the mortal option to get to a force conclusion in favor of future resurrection.

How do you escape what even the Sadducees could not escape?? And in the Matt 22 text the Pharisees who DID accept the future resurrection freely admit that Christs "proof" shut down the Sadducees - they had no place to go but to admit to the future resurrection.

Your entire argument dies in Christ's debate point.

 

[The Biblicist]

Your inference vs mine?? That is your entire argument? fine.

So then take the "easy" and "simple" example in my response that you are so carefully avoiding.

Mine is no inference, but is based upon the clear and explicit term "CONTINUALLY" and its meaning. Yours is entirely inference.

I notice you were careful not to rescue your argument from your response to the case in Matt 22. This is a "debate" that Christ had on the "state of the dead" on the "question of mortal vs immortal and the question of future resurrection" - his PROOf requires the mortal option to get to a force conclusion in favor of future resurrection.



How do you escape what even the Sadducees could not escape?? And in the Matt 22 text the Pharisees who DID accept the future resurrection freely admit that Christs "proof" shut down the Sadducees - they had no place to go but to admit to the future resurrection.

Your entire argument dies in Christ's debate point.

Again, you don't understand the context. Jesus was repudiating the whole basis for the Sadducean position about death. They denied the existence of anything outside of a physical body. They denied existence of angels, spirits and thus the existence of the human spirit after physical death. This is the basis for their rejecting of a physical resurrection because they denied there was anything SPIRITUALLY EXISTENT for it to be resurrected and joined with.

Hence, Christ repudiated the very basis for their rejection of resurrection. He denied that He is the God of the dead, while claiming He is the God of the LIVING and then saying "I AM" the God of Abraham, Issac, Jacob thus proving the only thing "dead" about Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was their physical bodies still in their graves but asserting the SPIRITUAL EXISTENCE of the souls, proving the resurrection was essential to reunite spirit and body. The Pharisees heard and commended Christ's argument because it conincided with their own position of an eternal soul that survives the death of the body. Paul explicitly claimed the position of the Pharisee. In reality your position is more kin, but not exact, to that of the Sadducee.

 

[The Biblicist]

"The body returns to the DUST" Eccl 12 - it does not sleep.

No text says "the body sleeps in death".

And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. - Dan. 12:2

The soul does not sleep in the dust as the soul RETURNS TO GOD who gave it and Christ BRINGS WITH HIM such, and he comes FROM HEAVEN not from "the dust of the earth."

 

[BobRyan]

Still missing the response to this -- I think

Originally Posted by BobRyan
Gen 3: 4 Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die."

You are assuming too much! Satan also said they would be Like God which God confirmed was true. They did not PHYSICALLY DIE as Adam lived to a ripe old age of 930 years. So again Satan was correct in regard to ultimate death. However, they did SPIRITUALLY DIE just as the Ephesians were born into this world SPIRITUALLY DEAD while physicallly alive. Here is a thorn in your side as it proves that one may be BIOLOGICALLY alive while SPIRITUALLY dead.

Taking up Satan's side of the debate does not help your case.

Ezek 18:4 "the soul that sins it SHALL die"

Mat 10:23 "fear Him who is able to DESTROY BOTH body AND SOUL in fiery hell"

Romans 6:23 "the wages of sin is DEATH"

Satan's ultimate "you shall not surely die" is reflected in his doctrine that even in what the Bible calls the "second death" the wicked do not die.

 

[BobRyan]

You quote Christ's response to the resurrection , "I am not the God of the dead" but you ignore the positive statement "but of the living" and then "I AM THE GOD of Abraham....." demonstrating they were "living" still in spite of their bodies being in graves. Likewise, David.

Originally Posted by BobRyan

Your entire argument is lost in Matt 22 - because in Matt 22 Christ states that he is "proving the resurrection" you seek to bend the text as if he is "proving the living dead theory" -- and you seek a solution to the puzzle he gives to the Sadducees that would not need the resurrection at all to solve it. Christ states that the ONLY way that God could claim to be the "God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" while speaking to Moses at the burning bush - is if they are going to be resurrected in the future since God cannot be their God while they are dead.

You argue "oh yes God is their God while they are deceased" in effect - as if destroying Christ's entire proof of the future resurrection is the "only reading" -- here alone your entire argument is lost.

I notice you were careful not to rescue your argument from your response to the case in Matt 22. This is a "debate" that Christ had on the "state of the dead" on the "question of mortal vs immortal and the question of future resurrection" - his PROOf requires the mortal option to get to a force conclusion in favor of future resurrection.

How do you escape what even the Sadducees could not escape?? And in the Matt 22 text the Pharisees who DID accept the future resurrection freely admit that Christs "proof" shut down the Sadducees - they had no place to go but to admit to the future resurrection.

Your entire argument dies in Christ's debate point.

Again, you don't understand the context. Jesus was repudiating the whole basis for the Sadducean position about death. They denied the existence of anything outside of a physical body. They denied existence of angels,

That is true - and so also did the Pharisees have long debates with them -- denying their claims and doctrines on that point.

But Christ PROVED his argument starting with "But regarding the RESURRECTION have you not heard...".

He specifically PROVES this doctrine so decidedly they had no "nahhh we don't go for that" response - they were entirely shut down, put to silence by the logic used, steps and premise that they could NOT deny for they AGREED with the premise points and so found no ESCAPE from the forced conclusion. (As if you did not know how debate sequences work??)

spirits and thus the existence of the human spirit after physical death.

Indeed and IF they would allow for "spirits in communion with God DURING death" as you wildly speculate - there would be NO NEED at all for a resurrection to make the statement true as God spoke it to Moses.

Your only idea is to destroy Christ's entire argument. The Sadducees were not about to "ASSUME" they were wrong. It would need to be proven - and Christ said "But regarding the RESURRECTION have you not heard"...

Your entire argument relies on the point that NO RESURRECTION is NEEDED for the puzzle given to the Sadducees to be solved.

And thus your doctrine dies in Matt 22 alone.

This is the basis for their rejecting of a physical resurrection

That is utter nonsense since all those even to this day that deny the false doctrine of an immortal soul - still hold to a future resurrection.

because they denied there was anything SPIRITUALLY EXISTENT for it to be resurrected and joined with.

Hence, Christ repudiated the very basis for their rejection of resurrection.

Christ makes no such convoluted case in Matt 22 - Christ points to ONE doctrine being proven - and you in fact turn it into NOT PROVEN by claiming the Sadducees would leap over to "immortal soul that NEEDS NO RESURRECTION to be in communion with God while deceased". An entirely nonsensical spun-on-its-head injection into the text.

He denied that He is the God of the dead, while claiming He is the God of the LIVING and then saying "I AM" the God of Abraham, Issac, Jacob thus proving the only thing "dead" about Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was their physical bodies still in their graves but asserting the SPIRITUAL EXISTENCE of the souls,

which would only PROVE or support immortal soul - NOT future resurrection because by your own twist of the text - no resurrection was needed to make that statement to Moses true.

You "NEEDED" Christ to say "But regarding the IMMORTAL soul have you not heard" and THEN you needed Christ to say "GOD IS the God of the dead because they ARE immortal - and so God said to Moses ...".

Your entire argument dies in Christ's debate points.

Your confession that your own POV could ONLY argue for "immortal soul" and thereby "NEGATES" the need for future resurrection to make the "I am the God of Abraham..." statement true - is the final nail in the coffin of your immortal soul idea.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[The Biblicist]

Still missing the response to this -- I think

Why are you so unreasonable? You are assuming that Satan NEVER tells the truth about anything when deception is always a mixture of TRUTH with ERROR. He told the truth that they would be "as God" and even God confirmed that as true - "Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:"

Even the scriptures you quote to defend yourself expose your false reasoning. For example:


Ezek 18:4 "the soul that sins it SHALL die"


In context, God is rebuking the judicial actions of Israel in condemning to physical death the children for the Father's deeds. Adam did indeed PHYSICALLY die at 930 years of age, but he ALREADY DIED spiritually "in the day" he sinned. Why don't you believe God's Word that he did in fact die in the day he sinned, JUST AS the Ephesians were "dead" while they were physically alive and then that which was "dead" was also QUICKENED while they were physically alive and thus both "dead" and "quickened" HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR BIOLOGICAL LIFE! Your position simply deteriorates and falls to peices here because you have no explanation of how a biological living person can exist at the same time as "dead" and what is "dead" can be "quickened" without EITHER affecting the biological LIFE!!!

Mat 10:23 "fear Him who is able to DESTROY BOTH body AND SOUL in fiery hell"

The term "destroy" translates the Greek term "apollumi" which as far as its root meaning is "apo" = away from and "luo" to loose and it always refers to something that EXISTS outside or away from its original intent or design. For example, the wine skin that bursts (apollumi) still exists but apart from its original design. For example, "the lost (apollumi) house of Israel" still EXIST but outside or apart from their original design - the people of God. The term NEVER means annihilation.

 

[The Biblicist]

Most of your comments prior to those below are unintelligble as they make no sense. You might want to spell out exactly what you are trying to prove because what you say makes no sense. However, to the following points:

Indeed and IF they would allow for "spirits in communion with God DURING death" as you wildly speculate - there would be NO NEED at all for a resurrection to make the statement true as God spoke it to Moses.

Again, you don't understand the text. You admit the soul does not cease to exist at the physical death of the body. Hence, the soul continues to exist when the body returns to dust. The soul is explicitly said to "return to God" while the body is explicitly said to return to the earth or to dust.

The argument by Jesus is that if death of the body was final, then Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. CEASED FOREVER TO BE - thus "dead" would mean complete annhiliation of both spirit and body. Jesus responds that God is not the God of the "dead" and admittedly the bodies of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were "dead" and if "dead" in the sense that the Sadducees claim then they were NON-EXISTENT when Jesus spoke to them. However, God is not the God of THE DEAD, but he is the God of the LIVING and the assertion that "I AM" present tense the God of Abraham declares Abraham is NOT DEAD in the sense that the sadducees believed - NON-EXISTENCE or as you believe, the soul is IN THE DUST with the Body (Dan. 12:2). He is the God of a LIVING ABRAHAM, Isaac, Jacob, etc. Hence, the resurrection is necessary an is the hope of victory over what did go to dust. God is not in fellowship with the dust but he is in fellowship with what IS LIVING - Abraham, thus he cannot be referring to Abraham's body as it is NOT LIVING. The resurrection is the reunion of the LIVING spirit with the previously NONE LIVING materialistic body.

The Sadducees claimed the cessation of the body was the cessation of the soul of man, and therefore there could be no resurrection because there is nothing to reunite the body with. Jesus dismantled their whole doctrine by declaring Abraham STILL LIVES at the time Jesus spoke AFTER his body did not live. This fact, denied the whole argument of the Sadducess and supported the doctrine of the Pharisees which believed in the conscious existence of the soul at physical death and both Jesus and Paul sided with the Pharisees and Paul explicitly tells you he did.

On the other hand you are among the enemies of Jesus and Paul in this matter.

 

[The Biblicist]

Most of your comments prior to those below are unintelligble as they make no sense. You might want to spell out exactly what you are trying to prove because what you say makes no sense. However, to the following points:





Again, you don't understand the text. You admit the soul does not cease to exist at the physical death of the body. Hence, the soul continues to exist when the body returns to dust. The soul is explicitly said to "return to God" while the body is explicitly said to return to the earth or to dust.

The argument by Jesus is that if death of the body was final, then Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. CEASED FOREVER TO BE - thus "dead" would mean complete annhiliation of both spirit and body. Jesus responds that God is not the God of the "dead" and admittedly the bodies of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were "dead" and if "dead" in the sense that the Sadducees claim then they were NON-EXISTENT when Jesus spoke to them. However, God is not the God of THE DEAD, but he is the God of the LIVING and the assertion that "I AM" present tense the God of Abraham declares Abraham is NOT DEAD in the sense that the sadducees believed - NON-EXISTENCE or as you believe, the soul is IN THE DUST with the Body (Dan. 12:2). He is the God of a LIVING ABRAHAM, Isaac, Jacob, etc. Hence, the resurrection is necessary an is the hope of victory over what did go to dust. God is not in fellowship with the dust but he is in fellowship with what IS LIVING - Abraham, thus he cannot be referring to Abraham's body as it is NOT LIVING. The resurrection is the reunion of the LIVING spirit with the previously NONE LIVING materialistic body.

The Sadducees claimed the cessation of the body was the cessation of the soul of man, and therefore there could be no resurrection because there is nothing to reunite the body with. Jesus dismantled their whole doctrine by declaring Abraham STILL LIVES at the time Jesus spoke AFTER his body did not live. This fact, denied the whole argument of the Sadducess and supported the doctrine of the Pharisees which believed in the conscious existence of the soul at physical death and both Jesus and Paul sided with the Pharisees and Paul explicitly tells you he did.

On the other hand you are among the enemies of Jesus and Paul in this matter.

I will have to pick up this discussion with you later, as it is the "Lord's Day" and I have other things to address.

 

[BobRyan]

Most of your comments prior to those below are unintelligble as they make no sense.

31 But concerning the resurrection of the DEAD, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? God is not the God of the DEAD, but of the living.” 33 And when the multitudes heard this, they were astonished at His teaching.


I was having a 1+1=2 discussion with you. Not sure why you think this to be so challenging.

1. Christ said "regarding the RESURRECTION of the DEAD" have you not read..." just when you 'needed' to imagine that he said "regarding the immortal soul have you not read..." (Obviously).

2. Christ said "God is not the God of the Dead" and then points to a specific scenario concerning the DEAD - to which the Sadducees agree because they accept all the scriptures about what does not happen for "the DEAD" -- those that are deceased.

3. Christ points to a time when Abraham, Isaac and Jacob "ARE DEAD" - and yet God said "I AM the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" when in fact he should have said "I AM NO LONGER the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob" since they were DEAD (as all agree in that case) AND God is "not the God of the DEAD" and IF there is NO future "resurrection of the DEAD"

Conclusion? There MUST be a future resurrection "of the DEAD" because that is the only way that God who is "NOT the God of the dead" can STILL claim to be the God of Abraham when he is among the DEAD.

That is the obvious scenario in Matt 22 - it is the ONLY way that Christ's debate point "requires" a future resurrection to hold true.

Obviously.

=================================================

The self-conflicted solution you offer is

1. Christ says "God is not the God of the dead" and then proceeds with an argument where one must "imagine" that Abraham "is not dead" in any sort of "God is NOT the God of the DEAD" fashion.
2. Christ proves immortal soul - instead of resurrection
3. Without ever mentioning immortal soul - the Sadducees merely "assume it is truth" and then "go on from there" to "self-imagine" that a future resurrection would "be nice" even though not at all needed to solve the issue mentioned by Christ???!!!

You might want to spell out exactly what you are trying to prove because what you say makes no sense.

I believe the 1+1 = 2 scenario I have explained twice so far - is much easier to follow for the objective unbiased reader than you may have at first imagined.

So far all you have done is confess that your own creative solution to the problem Christ presented - is all solved by "Immortal soul" ALONE - no need at all for resurrection to make the statement "I AM the God of Abraham" true in your scenario.

Were we simply "not supposed to notice" that flaw in your alternative???

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

However, to the following points:

Again, you don't understand the text. You admit the soul does not cease to exist at the physical death of the body. Hence, the soul continues to exist when the body returns to dust. The soul is explicitly said to "return to God" while the body is explicitly said to return to the earth or to dust.

The argument by Jesus is that if death of the body was final, then Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. CEASED FOREVER TO BE - thus "dead" would mean complete annhiliation of both spirit and body. Jesus responds that God is not the God of the "dead"

Which leaves only ONE WAY for God to be the God of Abraham while speaking to MOSES - and that is IF there is a FUTURE resurrection.

Without that FUTURE Resurrection there is no way God's statement to Moses is true -- Christ forces the conclusion for the truth of the resurrection as the only way out.

But WAIT!! Some here will "IMAGINE" to themselves that the Sadducees desperate to sidestep Christ's PROOF of the future resurrection would gladly "IMAGINE to Themselves" that the doctrine of IMMORTAL SOUL must be true and THIS is the way that God could be the "God of Abraham" -- thus thwarting Christ's PROOF of the future resurrection.

The Sadducees were not at all inclined to conjure up such a false doctrine just to get around the PROOF of the future resurrection -- someone would need to force them into it.

Jesus was NOT trying to get them to imagine to themselves some OTHER way to "Solve the problem" outside of the resurrection "But regarding the resurrection of the DEAD have you not read.."

His debate point - only works one way.

And thus ends your entire doctrine.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

=============================================

"But regarding the resurrection of the DEAD have you not read.."

1. Jesus does not say "God is not the God of dead bodies". Obviously.
2. Jesus speaks of the "DEAD" as in 1Thess 4 "the DEAD in Christ will rise first".

3. Jesus does not speak of this in the form "Abraham was NOT DEAD so God was His God" -- and this is the only solution your argument accepts. Nothing in the text says "Abraham was NOT dead"

and admittedly the bodies of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were "dead"

Indeed this is why Jesus selects them to PROVE his point -

"But regarding the resurrection of the DEAD have you not read.."

His point is that the ONLY Way God statement to Moses COULD be true is for there to be a future "resurrection of the DEAD" since all agree "God is NOT the God of the DEAD" in that debate!!

irrefutable!

and if "dead" in the sense that the Sadducees claim then they were NON-EXISTENT when Jesus spoke to them. However, God is not the God of THE DEAD, but he is the God of the LIVING and the assertion that "I AM" present tense the God of Abraham declares Abraham is NOT DEAD... God is not in fellowship with the dust but he is in fellowship with what IS LIVING

1. You confess again to a self-conflicted POV where NO future resurrection is needed, is given as the PROOF of a future resurrection!!

2. You confess again to a self-conflicted idea that Abraham who you now claim is NOT dead - is an example of the PROOF of the "resurrection of the DEAD".

Your argument goes out of its way to contradict both yourself and the point Christ is trying to prove.

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"???

He is the God of a LIVING ABRAHAM, Isaac, Jacob, etc. Hence, the resurrection is necessary

How so?

You already claimed that WITHOUT the resurrection "Abraham is NOT DEAD" and so the statement "God is not the God of the DEAD" does not apply to him.

What in Christ's statement requires more than that solution for "God is NOT the God of the DEAD"??

Answer: "Nothing more"

All the problem that is setup in Christ's example you claim to solve with your injected eisegeted "immortal soul will solve it" idea.

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"???

The Sadducees claimed the cessation of the body was the cessation of the soul of man, and therefore there could be no resurrection because there is nothing to reunite the body with. Jesus dismantled their whole doctrine by declaring Abraham STILL LIVES at the time Jesus spoke AFTER his body did not live.

Thus you set about destroying the argument CHRIST gives for the "resurrection of the DEAD"

By contrast - Christ said that it is ONLY because God COULD NOT be the God of Abraham while dead -- really dead - fully dead - that the statement "I am the God of Abraham" can ONLY be solved by the future 'resurrection of the DEAD"

He is talking about the future resurrection of Abraham who IS "The DEAD" in this case.

So "regarding the resurrection of the DEAD" is a reference to Abraham and proving that Abraham MUST be resurrected to make God's statement to Moses -- true

A point incredibly obvious to BOTH the Sadducees and Pharisees in Matt 22.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Rebel]

I have dealt with Trevor for a long long time. When he is trapped in a corner with no way out, and he has been put in that corner many times, he simply hardens his heart and comes out asserting his position instead of dealing with the evidence before him. The Bible has a term to describe that kind of person. I just called a spade a spade.

In addition, Trevor does not even worship or recognize the same God of the Bible we do. He is an anti-Trinitarian.

Have you ever thought that you might get further with him, or anybody, by responding differently?

Can we not differ with others, even significantly, without being unkind to them? I know some of my responses have not been generous, but these have come as a result of an initiatory insult or attack from someone else. That is no excuse, I realize, but can we not initially respond or post in a humble and kind spirit instead of an antagonistic and hostile one? We are all in different places on our journeys. I think we would do well to remember that.

 

[The Biblicist]

Which leaves only ONE WAY for God to be the God of Abraham while speaking to MOSES - and that is IF there is a FUTURE resurrection.

Your reasoning is absurd. That is not the only way that God can be the God of Abraham when talking to Moses. In addition, the God who said that was standing in front of the Sadducees and ADDED that God is the God "of the living" and Abraham was certainly not living PHYSICALLY at the time He said this to Moses or at the time He said this to the Sadducees, but they were certainly "living" in regard to their spirit. The Sadducees rejected the resurrection because they rejected the present existence of spirit existing outside of the dead body.

 

[Eliyahu]

Indeed this is why Jesus selects them to PROVE his point -

"But regarding the resurrection of the DEAD have you not read.."

His point is that the ONLY Way God statement to Moses COULD be true is for there to be a future "resurrection of the DEAD" since all agree "God is NOT the God of the DEAD" in that debate!!

irrefutable!



Bob

The Problems with SDA are :

1) Investigative Judgment

2) Leavens by Freemason Ellen G White

http://www.fmh-child.org/SDA.html

3) Soul Extinction because Soul Sleep of SDA becomes eventually Soul Extinction for the unbelievers.

4) SDA leaders praise RCC POpe as the defender of the Truth.

5) They ignore the Law and the 7 Feasts of LORD.


This man was ex-SDA and explains very well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fs_vZW__6eA&feature=youtu.be


I support the day of worship still remains to be Sabbath. It wasn't changed inside the Bible.

Except that, SDA went astray.


Eliyahu

 

[BobRyan]

=============================================

"But regarding the resurrection of the DEAD have you not read.."

1. Jesus does not say "God is not the God of dead bodies". Obviously.
2. Jesus speaks of the "DEAD" as in 1Thess 4 "the DEAD in Christ will rise first".

3. Jesus does not speak of this in the form "Abraham was NOT DEAD so God was His God" -- and this is the only solution your argument accepts. Nothing in the text says "Abraham was NOT dead"




Indeed this is why Jesus selects them to PROVE his point -

"But regarding the resurrection of the DEAD have you not read.."

His point is that the ONLY Way God statement to Moses COULD be true is for there to be a future "resurrection of the DEAD" since all agree "God is NOT the God of the DEAD" in that debate!!

irrefutable!


====================================================


1. You confess again to a self-conflicted POV where NO future resurrection is needed, is given as the PROOF of a future resurrection!!

2. You confess again to a self-conflicted idea that Abraham who you now claim is NOT dead - is an example of the PROOF of the "resurrection of the DEAD".

Your argument goes out of its way to contradict both yourself and the point Christ is trying to prove.

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"???



==================================================

You already claimed that WITHOUT the resurrection "Abraham is NOT DEAD" and so the statement "God is not the God of the DEAD" does not apply to him.

What in Christ's statement requires more than that solution for "God is NOT the God of the DEAD"??

Answer: "Nothing more"

All the problem that is setup in Christ's example you claim to solve with your injected eisegeted "immortal soul will solve it" idea.

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"???

==================================================



Thus you set about destroying the argument CHRIST gives for the "resurrection of the DEAD"

By contrast - Christ said that it is ONLY because God COULD NOT be the God of Abraham while dead -- really dead - fully dead - that the statement "I am the God of Abraham" can ONLY be solved by the future 'resurrection of the DEAD"

He is talking about the future resurrection of Abraham who IS "The DEAD" in this case.

So "regarding the resurrection of the DEAD" is a reference to Abraham and proving that Abraham MUST be resurrected to make God's statement to Moses -- true

A point incredibly obvious to BOTH the Sadducees and Pharisees in Matt 22.

Christ makes the case with the Sadducees that the ONLY solution to the puzzle that he presents to them is the future resurrection. And it is air tight - no escape!

Because the Sadducees are not about to "invent" a novel solution AROUND the problem thinking-up "immortal soul" as a way to solve the problem so that no resurrection is needed at all.

Your reasoning is absurd.

Clearly we differ and the point that you pretend not to get - was soooo incredibly obvious to Sadducees that ... "they got it".

That is not the only way that God can be the God of Abraham when talking to Moses.

For you it is not - but for the Sadducees and Christ it IS the only way because they BOTH agree one two foundational truths.

1. God is NOT the God of the dead.
2. Abraham WAS DEAD at the time God spoke to Moses.

As a result they had only ONE solution for "the DEAD" -which is the resurrection. "The DEAD in Christ shall rise first" 1Thess 4. They counted Abraham as being among "the DEAD".

Obviously.

In addition, the God who said that was standing in front of the Sadducees and ADDED that God is the God "of the living" and Abraham was certainly not living PHYSICALLY at the time He said this to Moses or at the time He said this to the Sadducees,

Which means that it becomes a matter of bringing the DEAD back to life again -- at a time when "the DEAD in Christ rise first" 1Thess 4.

It gets to the POINT "but regarding the resurrection of the DEAD have you not read..." ..

Clearly the burning bush story is NOT a story about 'the resurrection' ... so then it is a story about the DEAD - and the conclusion that the story demands is "the Resurrection of the DEAD"

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The Problems with SDA are :

1) Investigative Judgment

2) Leavens by Freemason Ellen G White

http://www.fmh-child.org/SDA.html

As already stated on this thread - the "investigative" term merely refers to facts recorded in books in Dan 7 used in judgment "the court sat and the BOOKs were opened" Dan 7

And as for "Leavens by freemason Ellen G. White" -- making stuff up is not allowed. I have no intention of defending a position that someone else dreams up. Whoever dreamed it will have to defend it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[The Biblicist]

Christ makes the case with the Sadducees that the ONLY solution to the puzzle that he presents to them is the future resurrection. And it is air tight - no escape!

Wrong! Christ did NOT say "He is the God of those that SHALL live" and that is what would be required to support your nonsense. He used the PRESENT TENSE demanding they were LIVING at that precise point and it is obvious they were not PHYSICALLY living but the only other possible option is they are EXISTING SPIRITUALLY! That undermined and destroyed the whole Sadducean doctrine.

Your view and argument is as false as their view and arguments.

 

[The Biblicist]

Have you ever thought that you might get further with him, or anybody, by responding differently?

Can we not differ with others, even significantly, without being unkind to them? I know some of my responses have not been generous, but these have come as a result of an initiatory insult or attack from someone else. That is no excuse, I realize, but can we not initially respond or post in a humble and kind spirit instead of an antagonistic and hostile one? We are all in different places on our journeys. I think we would do well to remember that.

[offensive language edited] The Bible commands us to "mark" such (Rom. 16 :17) and that means expose such false teachers. He is talking about those hardened in their errors in contrast to those who are simply led astray and still can be reasoned with. Such are false teachers that are seeking converts rather than seeking truth. Such deny the deity of Christ, the Trinune God, salvation by grace, the eternal state of the soul of man. These are damnable errors, as those who preach another gospel are expressed said to be "accursed." Those who deny either the humanity or divinity of Christ are called Antichrist, those who deny the true God of the Bible are questionable they have eternal life (Jn. 17:3). We are not talking about those who simply are in error sincerely seeking truth, but we are talking about those hardened in their heresies and seeking new blood.

Neither Jesus, Paul or John followed your advice in dealing with such and more than that they left us commands precisely how to deal with such. Paul called such "dogs" and "accursed", while John said such had the spirit of "antichrist." Jesus said they were two-fold more children of hell, and vipers. Perhaps you might rebuke them for setting forth such a bad unloving example for those who would read and follow their example.

It is one thing to err, it is quite another thing to "sit in the seat of the scorner" and be on the forum to intentionally promote damnable heresies. I am not speaking of those in error and simply need better instruction, but those HARDENED in their error and are vultures seeking prey.

 

[The Biblicist]

=============================================

"But regarding the resurrection of the DEAD have you not read.."

1. Jesus does not say "God is not the God of dead bodies". Obviously.
2. Jesus speaks of the "DEAD" as in 1Thess 4 "the DEAD in Christ will rise first".

Half-truth! You know very well he says much more than that in 1 Thessalonians 4 but you don't want to admit it. He says the dead are brought back WITH HIM and that cannot refer to their bodies which never left the earth nor with souls as you contend that rest "in the dust" on earth:

For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

3. Jesus does not speak of this in the form "Abraham was NOT DEAD so God was His God" -- and this is the only solution your argument accepts. Nothing in the text says "Abraham was NOT dead"

Ridiculous! That is not my argument at all! You keep emphasizing the negative He is not the God of the dead, while ignoring the positive "but the God of the living." HE DID NOT SAY that God "SHALL BE" the God of the living or the God of those that SHALL live! However, that is the essence of your lame argument! He said that God is the God "OF THE LIVING" meaning PRESENT EXISTENCE of some aspect of their being other than their body and that statement destroyed the whole Sadducean heresy as it does yours.

 

[Rebel]

You are naive and ignorant of the scriptures and what you are promoting is sloppy agape! The Bible commands us to "mark" such (Rom. 16 :17) and that means expose such false teachers. He is talking about those hardened in their errors in contrast to those who are simply led astray and still can be reasoned with. Such are false teachers that are seeking converts rather than seeking truth. Such deny the deity of Christ, the Trinune God, salvation by grace, the eternal state of the soul of man. These are damnable errors, as those who preach another gospel are expressed said to be "accursed." Those who deny either the humanity or divinity of Christ are called Antichrist, those who deny the true God of the Bible are questionable they have eternal life (Jn. 17:3). We are not talking about those who simply are in error sincerely seeking truth, but we are talking about those hardened in their heresies and seeking new blood.

Neither Jesus, Paul or John followed your advice in dealing with such and more than that they left us commands precisely how to deal with such. Paul called such "dogs" and "accursed", while John said such had the spirit of "antichrist." Jesus said they were two-fold more children of hell, and vipers. Perhaps you might rebuke them for setting forth such a bad unloving example for those who would read and follow their example.

It is one thing to err, it is quite another thing to "sit in the seat of the scorner" and be on the forum to intentionally promote damnable heresies. I am not speaking of those in error and simply need better instruction, but those HARDENED in their error and are vultures seeking prey.

I am neither naïve nor ignorant of the scriptures, I just don't think I'm god like you do.