God expects us to live up to the light we have.

Selecting from the Posts steaver is fleeing --

Is this where your idea of "ignore posts that expose Steaver's argument as failed" would ignore texts such as James 4:17???

"To him that KNOWS to do right and does it not to HIM IT IS SIN"???

James 4:17
Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin.

And oh-- here is another great text to ignore and pretend is in the form "SDAs are wrong because we always say they are wrong when talking to ourselves" ...

It shows true accountability for what is KNOWN --

Luke 12
47"And that slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes,
48but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.

 

From dictionary.com
Synonyms 2. murder. 4–6. Slaughter, butcher, massacre all imply violent and bloody methods of killing. Slaughter and butcher, primarily referring to the killing of animals for food, are used also of the brutal or indiscriminate killing of human beings: to slaughter cattle; to butcher a hog. Massacre indicates a general slaughtering of helpless or unresisting victims: to massacre the peasants of a region.
Sounds like murder to me.
I don't know what EDOTNT is.

 

HP: It is the 'Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testement,' in three volumes originally published in German and translated into English by Eerdmans Publishing Company. It was edited by Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider. It is an excellent exegetical resource for anyones theological library.

 

HP: That 'could' be true in the case of young and falsely indoctrinated mothers who have believed the lies of others. God will certainly be the judge. When it comes to the doctors, I could believe nothing other than they are willingly and criminally committing murder for filthy lucre. Ultimately, God will be their judge.

One thing I can go on record believing is that none that commit murder will enter heaven apart from a change of heart, repenting before God, and trusting in faith for God’s atonement to cover for their sins.

 

HP: I reread the passage in Acts today concerning Paul and the stoning of Stephen. I appears tha I may not have been far off in saying that he was carrying out orders of the hierarchy of his day.

First, Stephen had been brought before the council. It was before the council that Stephen gave his defense. It appears as if though no order was given to kill Stephen, but rather that the men just rushed him and began to stone him to death. Certainly this mob felt that they were justified and protected by the council with one with a mandate from and authority granted to carry out such acts present and consenting to what they were doing. Still the same, Paul had received a letter from the council that gave him the authority to reign terror upon the Christians. Ac 9:1 ¶ “And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,
2 And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.”

It was noted that Paul had the authority to cast some into prison as well. This authority had to be granted to him by the council.

It would seem obvious to me by the text that Paul was indeed carrying out orders directly given to him by the council. This was again no personal vendetta, but acts as a direct emissary of the Jewish council and in line with orders granted to him by the council.

Thoughts?

 

HP: No need to be so animated with your comments. We are having a friendly discussion. I would agree that Paul was consenting of his own free will. A soldier consents of his own free will. Does that mean he murders?

HP: They obviously had authority to do what they were doing. They were casting men and or women into prison. Try that without authority. The mob had acted, according to the Scriptural account, on seeming impulse. Sure Paul was standing by voluntarily consenting to the death by his own admission, but according to the Scriptural account they did not wait on orders from anyone directly, they just ran upon him and began stoning him. Just the same, Paul did have a letter that commissioned him to wreck havoc upon the believers. It would appear that this action of the mob was within the guidelines sanctioned by the council and witnessed by Paul on that fateful day.

There is no indication whatsoever IMO that the mob received their orders directly by anyone including Paul. They acted seemingly on impulse. By Paul stating that he ‘consented’ to his death could have been no more than standing there, making himself available to hold the coats of those already involved, and inwardly feeling that they were destroying one opposed to the God of the Jews and guilty of blasphemy as Stephen was falsely charged. Remember, the testimony of his ‘consent’ was again a testimony given by Paul himself in retrospect, knowing full well that he was unified in his spirit with the act that he now in retrospect saw as heinous and opposed to God as revealed to him by God’s revelation on the road to Damascus. He did not say that he ordered this killing, or that he participated in it by casting stones, or that he hated Stephen in any way. He honestly must have thought that such actions were seemingly doing God a service as reprehensible at it might have seemed. In retrospect he saw how wrong that feeling was, and felt complete remorse and repentance for his former consent to such actions, although they were evidently done in ignorance.

 

That would be Acts 17:11

That would be Luke 24:25-27
25 And He said to them, "O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!
26 "Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?"
27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures. [/b][/B]

This has already been pointed out repeatedly - 1Tim 4 speaks of food that is "SANCTIFIED by the WORD" - which means APPROVED by the Word as being for food.

I.E not rats, cats, dogs or bats -- sadly for those who insist on eating such "abominations" as God calls them when used as food for humans.

The specific reason as to WHY those mentioned in 1Tim 4 were forbidding their followers from eating beef, lamb, salmon etc - is not "A doctrine" of the SDA church.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Of far more interest is Paul's Willing participation in Acts 21

 

1 Tim 4 is a prophetic statement about future abuses that would come. That much I know for certain.

Is the RCC an institution teaching error that came along after the time of Paul and Timothy? Yes!

I am sure there are many ways to find that the RCC fuflilled one of those predictions.

But I have not looked them up on that one.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Rumor has it - she was banned

 

GE:

I wish she would return!