The New Atheist Crusaders

elaine · 05-12-09 10:23 pm

Yes, Jesus accepted and quoted the Hebrew Scriptures. He lived as a good Jew, not as a god, so was a very observant one and well-versed in the Scripture. It should also be remembered, that his life, activities, sayings and all were reported by those who do not claim to be eyewitnesses, but reported what they had heard. That is why all four gospels are different. Conflating them results in improbabilities. Jesus upheld the Law; but Paul had a different take on it, even eliminating the legal requirements for Gentile Christians. Following Jesus would be following Judaism; Following the apostles, Peter and Paul leads to Christianity which was NOT duplicating Judaism. There were distinctions made to the new movement--Christianity. The Jewish Christians were not required to change their rituals and practices. But the Christians were not required to observe the Jewish practices and so the differences became more apparent to the Romans.

john8verse32 · 05-12-09 10:24 pm

How did Jesus "respect" the Hebrew Scriptures? 1) He used the ideas of Scripture to defend his choices. In facing specific temptations He used ideas from passages in Deuteronomy as authority in countering the Devil. Matthew 4 so here in Matt 4 we have another passage which raises more questions than it answers: Matt 4:8 the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world so apparently even Jesus was a product of His daze and times, apparently under the false impression that the earth was flat, and that from a tall enuf mountain one could see ALL the kingdoms of the world....which we know today, is NOT POSSIBLE on our round earth.... so if Jesus would let himself be duped by the devil, and or if He believed on his own that the earth was flat, doesn't that call into question many of the other things we were told about Jesus? or maybe it was only a campfire story that this happened, either heard by Matt and reused, or concocted by Matt as a parable to prove one of his points. potentially calling into question the accuracy of other stories we once believed literally. (Message edited by john8verse32 on May 12, 2009)

pilgrim99 · 05-12-09 10:38 pm

Elaine, Thanks for your response. No one knows how close they are to death, a very dear friend of ours died early on Monday morning, she was only 60. Like you, I have no fear of death, having placed my trust and fate squarely in the hands of Jesus, believing that He is who He claims to be. May God continue to bless you and your family.

bob_2 · 05-13-09 12:56 am

John, the concept is not the configuration of the earth, per se, but how their eye and simplistic description fit their "science" or observation. They are not post modern scientists, nor will they be wished into it. They were what they were. Discernment is knowing when to be literal and when someone is being discriptive based on the culture or societal way of talking and observing. Sort of like a child maturing, the ancients did not have even our simple microscope to see germs, bateria, etc. No telescope to see outside our world. Why did we need a Pasteur? John, to want to blame God for not instilling modern science in their ancient brains, is sort of silly isn't it?? You accept Pasteur's contribution but want the Bible to have all the modern day science in it????

don · 05-13-09 6:20 am

Following Jesus would be following Judaism; Christians believe that the whole of the New Testament was intended by God for them. So the writings of Peter, James, John, Paul, Matthew, Mark and Luke, all complete the Gospel understanding. I realize that some scholars have tried to establish Jesus simply as a Jew. Historically, it doesn't make sense to me. Also, as a believer in the Gospel accounts (the only record of what Jesus espoused) it doesn't make sense to me. Let's take Matthew. From your stance, "his life, activities, sayings and all were reported" in the Gospel of Matthew was recorded by those who do not claim to be eyewitnesses, but reported what they had heard. I think we can agree that the Gospel of Matthew was recorded for the edification of a Christian community. Maybe we can agree that this Christian community held Jesus in the highest possible regard. Also, Matthew could have been written to persuade Jewish people that Jesus was the Messiah. Add to this, those who treasured the book of Matthew most likely did not follow the Mosaic provisions of depending on the priest for problem solving and the administering of the levitical sacrifices. So, we probably can agree that Matthew's audience though most-likely Jewish did not practice Judaism with its Levitical ceremonies, priesthood, and extensive oral laws and "traditions of men." If any historian, using Matthew as a document of study, concludes that the Jesus described was merely a good Jew espousing Judaism in its entirety, is not very observant of the nuances in the text. Some have criticized people for picking and choosing when it comes to the Hebrew Bible. The historians who claim Jesus was just a good Jew have picked and chosen their way through the Gospels, ignoring any text which doesn't support their ideas. There must be a better way to do history. There certainly is a better way to assess the messages of Jesus. Matthew clearly portrays Jesus as sensitive to the written Law and strongly opposed to the oral Law. He predicted the demise of the Jewish "tree" saying that the axe is laid to the roots. He spoke of new people coming in and the original people being cast out. Historically, the records show that Jesus was both a reformer and the one who intentionally laid the ground work for the revolution led mainly by Paul. . (Message edited by Don on May 13, 2009)

neal · 05-13-09 9:01 am

Neal, since you seem to know all of the answers, maybe you can tell me how old Adam, the trees, plants and animals appeared to be on the first day of their creation. If they had been evaluated using modern dating methods on their respective first days, what would the results have shown. Apparently Adam would test out to be about 200,000 years minus 6,000, so say ~190,000 years old. Devon, the same story in the same chapter in the same book tells us God created a dome and put an ocean in the sky. Since we know for an undisputed fact that the claims about what God did on the second day of creation are false why would any rational person believe what the same story in the same chapter in the same book claims the same gods did on the sixth day? Add that gigantic problem to the fact that none of the claims made in that chapter correlate to any known evidence from nature. Now you are claiming that these gods are going to give some humans another life up in heaven on the nonexistent dome? And that you know I am "dead" wrong (I assume the pun was intended). As far as your hokey dirt idea? I was made from a sperm and an egg with added nutrition. I eat food and drink liquids to continue living. Maybe you were made out of dirt and eat dirt to continue living. I'm happy for your exceptional skill set. As for the flood, does it matter if it covered all of the inhabited earth or the entire earth? Yes. The ignorant people that wrote your book of beliefs thought the earth was flat with mountains around the edge supporting the dome. If you take a flat surface, put a barrier around the edge, and put buckets of water on it the total surface area will be covered. Now, you seem to wish to argue from the point of an apologist desperate to keep from admitting that what he believes is no different than what a goat herder in the mountains of Afghanistan STILL believes. People like you are the reason our country is falling behind in science. Half of our children are raised up ignorant of reality.

john8verse32 · 05-13-09 9:07 am

Discernment is knowing when to be literal and when someone is being discriptive based on the culture or societal way of talking and observing...Bob if we agree that one must take some things literally, and other things figuratively, how do we know when and which? potentially calling into question the accuracy of other stories we once believed literally...John Don brings up Matt 4 as evidence that Jesus musta believed the OT, because He used it in His arguments.... but the same chapter of Matt claims something that today we know is not possible..... so where is the seam between what is true, and what is potentially just Matt making a parable or simply showing the scientific ignorance of the day, or straining to prove something (like the straddling two donkey ride into Jerusalem). Once someone starts making up stories, talking in parables, exaggerating, trying desperately to prove something....doesnt this border on untruthing to you,? ....can you thereafter really believe all they say (or write?) especially when orher writers on the subject may not make the same claims...(eg: Jesus, mary and Josephs "flight" into Egypt to avoid Harods wrath)...or may actually claim something different? (eg: matt and Lukes differing geneologies of Jesus, with it appearing that Matt may have gerrymandered his lists deliberately to prove a point).... It has been claimed that we must believe the Bible to be saved... or we will be killed by the God of the Hebrews... It has also been claimed that this same God of theHebrews inspired those texts... and preserved them for us in a form acceptable for us to read, understand, and believe in order to be saved. This story is just another in a way too long line of questions which should have been better explained in Gods word if He had wanted His Biblical biopic to be both accurate and understandable AND believeable by mere humans. And the threat we constantly hear that this same allegedly loving God is going to burn us to death because of our inability to believe the not readily believeable is potentially unfair, unChristian!!! as well as against human laws designed to allow any defendant to have a fair trial based on verifiable evidence, and the ability to cross exam the accuser..... why do we have to use "discernment" to understand what God shudda/cudda made more clear, especially if He is going to use our unbelief as the excuse to BBQ us. Will we ever be able to obtain from God the reasons why He didn't make the message clearer, more consistant, more convincing, and completely confirmable??? and not needing superhuman "discernment"?

neal · 05-13-09 9:10 am

John, the concept is not the configuration of the earth, per se, but how their eye and simplistic description fit their "science" or observation. They are not post modern scientists, nor will they be wished into it. They were what they were. I thought it was the WORD OF GOD. You seem to be arguing from my viewpoint- its just what they believed like their neighbors. Including spirits (good & evil), the need for sacrifices, things came into being by some magical creation, etc. Its their worldview. We know that their worldview is ridiculous (including magic sticks, wringing a birds neck over running water to get rid of mold in your house, etc.). How hard would it have been to say the world is not flat? I think all the concepts needed to express that idea was in their language. This weasel idea that they couldn't tell the truth as we know it because they wouldn't understand it is stupid. If a god had anything to do with that book it would have been the most brilliant piece of literature known to humanity. Instead, it appears no different than the Koran or the sayings of Confucius or the ramblings theories of the Aztecs.

john8verse32 · 05-13-09 9:24 am

Devon...what if Adam cannot be proven to be an historical figure? only 6000 yrs ago... instead merely the ancients way of representing what they believed was their history...people understood only what they understood in those daze.... just like Jesus allowed himself to be taken to a high mountop andmade to looklike Hebelieved theearth was flat and that He could see all the kingdoms of theworld? the very name itself ..ADAM...suggests the ancients believed their ancient myths that the first man was created out of red clay of the earth!!!! ADAM Gender: Masculine Pronounced: A-dəm (English), AH-dahm (German, Dutch, Polish), ah-DAHM (Russian) [key] This is the Hebrew word for "man". It could be ultimately derived from Hebrew ('adam) meaning "to be red", referring to the ruddy colour of human skin, or from Assyrian adamu meaning "to make". According to Genesis in the Old Testament Adam was created from the earth by God (there is a word play on Hebrew ('adamah) "earth"). He and Eve were supposedly the first humans, living happily in the Garden of Eden until Adam ate a forbidden fruit given to him by Eve. As an English Christian name, Adam has been common since the Middle Ages, and it received a boost after the Protestant Reformation. A famous bearer was Scottish economist Adam Smith (1723-1790). what if the story of Adam and Eve was the ancients way of telling their kids where they came from? and not a proveable, historical fact? what if the story of Cain and Abel was the ancients way of describing the range wars between herders and farmers? with herding (Abel and his animal sacrifice)being rewarded by nature (God), and in the process "killing" off farming (Cain's veggies sacrifice was unacceptable to nature/God) due to the desert environment? what if the story of a family that saved itself from a flood was the ancients way of explaining a real, historical event: the rise of oceans and flooding of inland estuaries due to global warming and glacial melting over the last 20,000 yrs? could you still be a Christian? even tho the Mosesianity from which it arose may today be seen as superstitious and genocidal? how can a Christian profess love, joy and peace, and still claim to believe in the Old Test? (Message edited by john8verse32 on May 13, 2009)

neal · 05-13-09 12:50 pm

As for the flood.... <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/120/1239.jpg" alt="">

elaine · 05-13-09 1:55 pm

Matthew's audience though most-likely Jewish did not practice Judaism with its Levitical ceremonies, priesthood, and extensive oral laws and "traditions of men. Well, certainly not by the time it was written as the Temple had been destroyed and as it was the only place where sacrifices could be made, there had to be modifications made. The temple's destruction, almost destroyed Judaism; the Jewish-Christians are no longer mentioned as such in history. From that period on, approximately 70-A.D., Christians were, for all practical matters, Gentile Christians, and as such, they had never followed the Jewish practices, leaving those Jewish laws to the Jews. There is no historical record of the Christians ever adopting the unique Jewish laws and rituals. There is also no evidence or requirement made that Gentiles observed either circumcision, Sabbath, or dietary laws: the hallmarks of Judaism. If so, where? Wasn't it the NT writers when describing the new Christian movement after Pentecost, who realized that Christianity embraced all ethnic groups and that Judaism was not to be inculcated into the new Christian's belief which was very simple: Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ; be baptized, and avoid fornication and food with blood and that had been offered to idols. Where is there any evidence that Gentile Christians accepted or adopted Jewish laws?}}

don · 05-13-09 5:02 pm

There is also no evidence or requirement made that Gentiles observed either circumcision, Sabbath, or dietary laws: the hallmarks of Judaism. Let's focus in on the Sabbath. I agree that after the destruction of Jerusalem the Jewish-dominated Church gave way to a Gentile-dominated Church. But there is considerable evidence that many of the Christian communities still observed the Sabbath. <a href="http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/kraft.html" target="_blank">Robert A. Kraft</a> of the University of Pennsylvania wrote: <a href="http://auss.info/auss_publication_file.php?pub_id=385&journal=1&type=pdf" target="_blank">SOME NOTES ON SABBATH OBSERVANCE IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY</a> (a pdf file) He summarizes his findings:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:... it seems that the following conclusions are in line with the evidence:<blockquote>(1) Sunday observance was being [Page 32] urged instead of Sabbath rest as early as the beginning of the 2d century(34); (2) at the same time, a considerable segment of the Christian population continued to observe the (Jewish) Sabbath in some form or other--apparently this continued to be a live issue on into the 4th century in some areas; (3) some Christian communities observed both Sabbath and Sunday at least from the 3d century, and probably earlier, but there was a widespread attempt to divorce Sabbath observance from the ideas of solemnity (fasting) and idleness by making it a day of meditation and rejoicing (like Sunday)--that is, Sabbath "rest" was interpreted in a much wider sense than Rabbinic Judaism would permit. In the 4th century, when the Church and the Roman Empire were rapidly moving towards alliance, thus allowing the "ecumenical" Church to emerge visibly (and vocally), the official observance of Sunday rest gained political as well as religious overtones. This is clear from Constantine's law of 321 which commanded all the urban population to "rest on the venerable day of the Sun" while allowing those who pursue agriculture to sow or plant on whatever day is suitable; and from the various Church Councils of the 4th century which spoke on this problem--of Elvira, Can. 21 [Page 33] (c. 306); of Laodicea, Can. 16, 29 (see above, n. 18). Here was a matter for Christian and Roman unity. Nevertheless, much of Eastern Christianity in the 4th and 5th centuries continued the older practice of observing both Sabbath and Sunday. Thus it was that Coptic Christianity inherited an older (Eastern) "Hellenistic" practice which had received only limited recognition in western Christianity, and it does not seem to be the case that the Council of Nicea (or related 4th-century councils) seriously modified the attitude of the Copts in the 4th century on this issue.</blockquote> <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> (Message edited by Don on May 13, 2009)

elaine · 05-13-09 5:53 pm

Don, yes. Because in the NT a special day of observance was made optional and no one was to be judged on it, it is likely that both days were given special significance. Adventist theologians: Maxwell, Damsteegt, Strand and others have written extensively on the practice of the early church in the first several centuries, and they all acknowledge that many of the early Christian writers of the early second and third centuries noted that the first day did not replace Sabbath but was being regularly observed in honor of the resurrection and to distinguish themselves from the Jews. These same writers also acknowledge that there is no directive in the NT canon for any one day to be observed as a worship day comparable to the Jewish Sabbath. In Seventh-day Adventists Believe...: A Biblical Exposition of 2 Fundamental Doctrines is stated: "By the middle of the [second] century some Christians were voluntarily observing Sunday as a day of worship, not a day of rest. The church of Rome, largely made up of Gentile believers (Rom. ll:13), led in the trend toward Sunday worship. In Rome, the capital of the empire, strong anti-Jewish sentiments arose....Reacting to these sentiments, the Christians in that city attempted to distinguish themselves from the Jews. They dropped some practices held in common with the Jews and initiated a trend away from the veneration of the Sabbath, moving toward the exclusive observance of the Sunday." In the early second century some Christians were obsrving Sunday, and this was in Antioch and Asia Minor as well as at Rome and Alexandria. Rome did not initiate this trend....Morever, second-century Christians were not observing two days, but only one. There is no evidence that anyone (other than Ebionites) kept the Sabbath in the second century,} as Maxwell concluded. Maxwell concludes that second and early third century writers had basically the same negative attitudes toward the Sabbath: These writers taught that the new covenant had put an end to the old law - and that now the new spiritual Israel, with its new covenant and its new spiritual law, no longer needed the literal circumcision, literal sacrifices, and literal Sabbath. Barnabas observed that God "has circumcised our hearts." Justin referred triumphantly to the spiritual circumcision in Christ. Irenaeus taught that circumcision, sacrifices, sacrifices and Sabbaths were given of old as signs of better things to come; the new sacrifice, for example, is now a contrite heart, Tertullian, too, had a new spiritual sacrifice and a new spiritual circumcision. Each of these writers also taught that a new spiritual concept of the Sabbath had replaced the old literal one...

cadge · 05-13-09 6:46 pm

(1) "Sunday observance was being [Page 32] urged instead of Sabbath rest as early as the beginning of the 2d century." Some may have still observed the Sabbath, however, I'm sure that Paul was no longer alive when the second century started and he preached the following message, he preached it much earlier: Rom.14:4 "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. 5One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. 6He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it." Now if these Christians were baptized into the church, why were they not instructed then to keep the Sabbath? Why did Paul claim, supposedly under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that we are not to judge anyone by which day they kept? Why did not Paul tell them that they were breaking the law; that they were in disobediance and sinning against the Holy Spirit? I am more apt to believe that those of the Circumcision were still trying to hold the Gentiles under the law and Paul had to correct them again. Cadge

elaine · 05-13-09 8:30 pm

Cadge, that is how it seems to most who read Paul. Wouldn't he have informed and taught the Gentile Christians that they must worship on the Jewish Sabbath? By his warning not to judge others, neither should we--letting each person be convinced in his own mind if a holy day should be observed. How did SDAs, reading these scriptures, decide that they should depart from nearly two millennia of Christian practice and return to the Jewish Sabbath? Where is the Scripture authorizing any Christians to designate one day as holy?

don · 05-14-09 7:33 pm

<a href="http://www.bibleexplained.com/revelation/r-seg01-3/rev01h-evr-da-alike.htm" target="_blank">Romans 14 and "Regarding All Days Alike" - An explanation</a> This author asserts that the context of Romans 14 has nothing to do with the Seventh-day Sabbath. He writes: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote: Many of my friends whom I have known ever since I first became a Sabbath keeping Christian have given up the observance of the fourth commandment. When I ask my friends who have given up the observance of the Sabbath why they feel that the observance of the fourth commandment is not enjoined upon Christians, nearly every one quotes me the same text from Paul's epistle to the Romans. Romans 14:5-6 "One person thinks that a certain day is more important than other days, while someone else thinks that all days are the same. Each one should firmly make up his own mind." What is Paul saying here? Is the fourth commandment a matter of personal choice for the Christian while the other nine commandments are still to be considered as God's will for our ethical guide in Christian living? Only if one ignores the context of chapter 14 can one reach this mistaken conclusion. Chapter 14 records Paul's counsel on how to deal with new Christian converts who are offended by eating food offered to Pagan gods as if this would be an abomination and an act of participating in idol worship should they partake of this meat. Some of these "weaker brethren" even believe that to observe certain fast days wherein meat is entirely left out of the diet is pleasing to Christ and a "way to honor the Lord" To show that this is really what "days" Paul had in mind, look at verse 6. Here Paul places the observance of a certain day in opposition to the freedom to "eat anything". "Whoever thinks highly of a certain day does so in honor of the Lord: whoever will eat anything does so in honor of the Lord, because he gives thanks to God for the food. Whoever refuses to eat certain things does so in honor of the Lord and he gives thanks to God." So we see that some will not eat the food and do "observe the day", while on the other hand some will eat the food and do "not observe the day" Thus if we keep these "days" in their context (days of eating or not eating: fasting or not fasting) we see that the Apostle is not referring at all to the seventh day of the week as being optional or a matter of choice but rather he is referring to optional fast days. This practice of not eating meat on certain days of the week eventually manifested itself in the early church in the tradition of not eating meat on Fridays. Only recently has this practice been relaxed by the Roman Catholic Church in our day. With the proper understanding of Paul's counsel in Romans 14, we are able to see that the integrity of all of God's commandments is maintained. As Paul tells us in Romans 7:12 "So then, the Law itself is holy, and the commandment is holy, right, and good." <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

elaine · 05-14-09 9:05 pm

Don, you didn't supply the "author" of the quotation. Please give us the author's name.

don · 05-14-09 9:27 pm

Please give us the author's name. Follow the link... <IMG SRC="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":-)" BORDER=0> .

elaine · 05-14-09 9:58 pm

Paul's comments in Romans are not the only ones he has made concerning days to be observed. 2 Cor. 3:6-17 describes this "new covenant, which is NOT a convenant of written letters but of the Spirit: the written letters bring death...the written letters engraved on stones..." leaves no doubt about what is being referred to. Galatians 3 explains the purpose of the Law, showing that the Law is now obsolete; and the 4th chapter asks "how can you want to go back to elemental things like these....You and your special days and months and seasons and years." The analogy compares the son of Hagar with the child of promise and "we are the children, not of the slave-girl, but of the free-born wife." He continues in the 5th chapter: "When Christ freed us, he meant us to remain free...Everyone who accepts circumcision is obliged to keep the whole Law. But if you do look to the Law to make you justified, then you have separated yourselves from Christ, and have fallen from grace. Christians are told by the Spirit to look to faith for those rewards...since in Christ Jesus whether you are circimcised or not makes no difference--what matters is faith that makes its power felt through love....The whole of the Law is summarised in a single command: Love your neighbour as yourself.."} In Ephesians he writes that "in Christ Jesus (the majority of the Jews did not accept Christ) he is the peace between us, and has made the two into one and broken down the barrier which used to keep them apart...caused by the rules and decrees of the Law." In his letter to the Colossians he wrote: "From now onwards, never let anyone else decide what you should eat or drink or whether you are to observe annual festivals, New Moons or Sabbaths. These are only pale reflections of what was coming: the reality is Christ."} Because the Jews had made Sabbath of such importance, and so many accretions had gradually developed through the years (this is very apparent in many of the OT prophets reprimanding the Israelites for breaking the Sabbath, and worshiping idols), it had become the one law that was easily known when broken, and became a barrier, together with circumcision and the dietary rules that was initially given to separate them from their pagan neighbors. A very effective practice that the Jews had never forgotten. Paul, introducing Christianity to the Gentiles, was very upset when the Jews tried to intimidate these new Christians by demanding they become Jews (adopting the rules of Judaism) if they were to worship and break bread together. These were the barriers that had separated them throughout their history, and now in Christ, it was to be removed. If the Jews had been successful in their demands to force the Gentiles to observe the Jewish laws, there would be no Christian church today, it would have become only a branch of Judaism, of which there were many, even then: Essenses, Pharisees, Gnostics, and history illustrates these groups as being contemporary with Christ and Paul. There has never been any text in the NT instructing the Christians to observe the Jewish laws; in fact, there are many that were recorded showing just the opposite. What is the reason you can give for the obedience of the Jewish Law and how do you correlate that with the NT record declaring the opposite: that Christians are no longer to be obedient to those law and rules?

bob_2 · 05-14-09 11:42 pm

Surprise, surprise, Elaine and Don: Write or send donations to Theodore Wade 11560 Red Bud Trail Berrien Springs, MI 49103. You may send by personal check on a US bank (be sure you have funds in your account) or use Western Union. Thank you very much. <a href="http://www.bibleexplained.com/#FreeOffer" target=_top>http://www.bibleexplained.com/#FreeOffer</a> Also referred to: <a href="mailto:tedw@andrews.edu">tedw@andrews.edu</a> So who are William Diehl and Theodore Wade????

bob_2 · 05-14-09 11:44 pm

Not anybody with a bias??? With a Berrien Springs address??? I went to school there, it is an Adventist haven. So SDAs defending their "god", their worship day??

bob_2 · 05-14-09 11:58 pm

Who is William Diehl, follow the trail: <a href="http://www.presenttruthmag.com/7dayadventist/index.html" target=_top>http://www.presenttruthmag.com/7dayadventist/index .html</a> <a href="mailto:BillDLJr@Hughes.net">BillDLJr@Hughes.net</a> AND right here on our own ATomorrow.net <a href="http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/board-profile.cgi?action=view_profile&profile=billdljr-users" target=_top>http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/board-prof ile.cgi?action=view_profile&profile=billdljr-users</a> Are the authors starting to look familiar????? One of our very own posters, profiled above, eh.

don · 05-15-09 10:17 am

William Diehl I had decided not to bring William Diehl's name into the discussion. However, his explanation represents the Sabbatarian view of Romans 14. Further, I have grown to respect William Diehl's work, not because I always agree with him, but because his writings almost always are carefully considered. I was disappointed that his interaction on this forum was so brief. .

john8verse32 · 05-15-09 10:25 am

I think I went to school with Ted Wade and Bill Diehl at AUC......of course, being indoctrinated in traditional SDAism... including sunset beginning at precisely on friday evening when the Gleaner said it did.... I think I remember Ted as a very fundy ministerial student, and his web site shows he continues this. I do wonder how Diehl could have wandered so far from reality tho.... quote, (maybe not his ??) from the e-tract he represents: The Collapse of 2008 The world-wide economic collapse is the direct result of the Lord withdrawing His blessings from those unrepentant agnostics and atheists who delight in mocking His warnings. Woe! Woe! Woe to the inhabitants of the earth!!! This is just the beginning of the final plagues of God's wrath which are coming upon all those who are conspiring to make void the true gospel of Jesus Christ and God's holy Law, the Ten Commandments. Those unrepentant nations which permit legalized homosexual marriage, abortion of the unborn, pornography, and nudity to be culturally accepted and even displayed on their television stations will feel the full wrath of God's judgments. Secular Darwinian Humanists will tremble as they witness those things coming upon the world. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of an angry God!!! I'm sure Wall Street and all those selfish bankers will be pleased to know that the enonomic collapse is not their fault!!! it'd God deliberate attempt to punish sinners!!!! more of this at <a href="http://www.presenttruthmag.com/7dayadventist/index.html" target=_top>http://www.presenttruthmag.com/7dayadventist/index .html</a> Flee from the wrath to come!! Flee to Jesus Christ! Call upon Him now while He may be found!!! It is now time for all who are trusting in the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ for their acceptance with God and keep His commandments to leave the large cities of the world. God's judgments of warfare, earthquakes, famine, floods, diseases, economic ruin, and pestilence will be allowed to fall on all who receive—"The Mark of the Beast" Regarding the very near future... Woe! Woe! Woe to the unrepentant inhabitants of the world! Our Lord Jesus Christ is withdrawing His protection which He has been providing to the ungrateful despisers of His word and He is now allowing Satan to have complete control of all who have rejected His word. God has been patient and long-suffering with those who have thought that He does not see the willful sin in the high and low places of this world. His Spirit has been gently calling every son and daughter of Adam to faith in Christ and repentance of sin, but He has been grieved by the hard-hearted despisers and resisters of His mercy. Now the measure of the world's iniquity has reached its limits and He is about to withdraw His protecting Spirit from the world. God's patience and mercy have come to an end and now all who are indifferent to His mercy will perish in their sins. The December 26, 2004 tsunami in Sri Lanka and the August 28, 2005 hurricane in New Orleans were only the beginning of sorrows coming upon the earth. The present world-wide economic collapse is the direct result of the Lord withdrawing His blessings from those who delight in mocking His warnings. Soon many more of the largest of this world's modern cities will be struck by natural and man-made disasters. Those who are living without regard to God's Law and living only to please themselves will perish without mercy. Lying Wonders! Satanic lying wonders are coming upon all the world to deceive all who reject God's Law, the Ten Commandments, and refuse to repent of their sins and believe the everlasting gospel of Jesus Christ. Because of the sins of—pride, lawlessness, neglect of the poor, hardness of heart, corrupt government leaders and judges, religious persecution, murder and genocide, human rights violations, spiritualism, black and white magic, slavery, sexual perversion, prostitution, homosexuality, legalized gay marriages, pornography, immodesty, nudity, radical feminism, indiscriminate abortion of the unborn, drug abuse, drunkenness, child abuse, wife abuse, bowing down to idols, praying to the dead, worship of demons, disrespect of parents, the love of money, materialism, unthankfulness, and Darwinism—God is now releasing His protective hand and the winds of strife are descending upon the modern Sodom and Gomorrahs of today. Hollywood and the movie/television industry which are corrupting the entire world with immorality, spiritualism, and violence will especially feel the fierce anger of the Lord. The laughter of the world will be turned into mourning.

elaine · 05-15-09 12:43 pm

Bill Diehl regularly posts to Spectrum, so I have learned over time to evaluate his opinions based on what I have read there. I do not consider him comparable to the SDA theologians which I have posted here. To quote someone merely because one agrees with him is to limit one's search for truth. The history of the Christian church is not to be found in any one church's assessment. It is not at all difficult to prove the Sabbath as a commandment from the OT, as it was the Hebrews' story of their rules, laws and relationship to their god as they described them. The Christian's final guide should be the NT which is the "Good News" and which most of the Jews rejected. If someone can read all the NT and still believe that the OT is the final guide for the Christian's life today, then that is their choice. However, it is not truly the Christian's message, as it ignores the differences given by the apostles after the resurrection. There WERE changes made from the Hebrew laws and rules and the Christian's guide to living. It is difficult for the Christian world to see how they can be ignored and why some who call themselves Christian prefer to return to living like a Jew.

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#76 05-12-09 10:23 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#77 05-12-09 10:24 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#78 05-12-09 10:38 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#79 05-13-09 12:56 am

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#80 05-13-09 6:20 am

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#81 05-13-09 9:01 am

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#82 05-13-09 9:07 am

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#83 05-13-09 9:10 am

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#84 05-13-09 9:24 am

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#85 05-13-09 12:50 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#86 05-13-09 1:55 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#87 05-13-09 5:02 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#88 05-13-09 5:53 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#89 05-13-09 6:46 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#90 05-13-09 8:30 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#91 05-14-09 7:33 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#92 05-14-09 9:05 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#93 05-14-09 9:27 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#94 05-14-09 9:58 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#95 05-14-09 11:42 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#96 05-14-09 11:44 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#97 05-14-09 11:58 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#98 05-15-09 10:17 am

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#99 05-15-09 10:25 am

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#100 05-15-09 12:43 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

Board footer