Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 69 (9101 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: sensei
Upcoming Birthdays: Tusko
Post Volume: Total: 904,369 Year: 1,250/14,231 Month: 174/1,076 Week: 283/234 Day: 49/86 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Jesus: Why I believe He was a failure.
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 991 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 421 of 427 (547574)
02-20-2010 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 420 by Peg
02-17-2010 8:46 PM


Re: The Throne
peg writes:
I do agree, he was placed in the highest position besides God, so yes
I am anxious to get back to your last post, been very busy will get to it as soon as poosible
EAM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 420 by Peg, posted 02-17-2010 8:46 PM Peg has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 991 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 422 of 427 (547958)
02-24-2010 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 420 by Peg
02-17-2010 8:46 PM


Re: The Throne
I do agree, he was placed in the highest position besides God, so yes
I think our slight differences are starting to surface. For christ to be anything but God, even living as a human is not in our theology or the New testaments.
All angles, prophets and Apostles rejected worship and deity designations, unlike Christ, who humbly accepted those actions by individuals, like Thomas, "My lord and my God".
the NT (especially the gospels)is simply to repleat, to desinate christ as anything but God. "In him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily". he si9mply was God here
But how did he excercise his authority and rule up until the time when the war in heaven broke out? Satan was obviously still in the heavens up until that time and revelation says that satan was "the accuser of our brothers . . . , who accuses them day and night before our God. Revelation 12:10. So he was obviously in heaveny and showing his opposition to God yet Jesus did not use his authority to stop him until the war.
I think you are falling to distinquish between position and obedience. In Job satan is clearly there after his expulsion. Here we see that even though he does not share that position any longer, he will STILL SHOW UP FOR STAFF MEETING, when directed to do so by God
But you may notice that Paul speaks of the 'hope'
a hope is not something that is here now...it is something off into the future. The hope that the apostles spoke of regularly was the resurrection.
Acts: 24:15 I have hope toward God, of which hope these men also entertain, that there is going to be a resurrection of the both the righteous and the unrighteous
Has that hope been realised yet? We cant say that it has because the resurrection has not occured yet. So the full scope of Jesus authority on earth has not been realised.
Jesus was also said to bring an end to 'the last enemy death' 1Cor15:26
Yet people are still dieing... so we cant say he has fully excersized his earthly authority yet.
this hope should be understood in OUR context, not Gods or Christs accomplishments
it certainly doesnt affect his success over the congregation... we can clearly see that.
But that isnt really about the destruction of the physical temple in Jerusalem. It has to do with 'the appointed times of the nations'
these began when the last king of Isreal was dethroned back in 607bce. The appointed times continued thru to, and beyond, Jesus day... so he wasnt talking about the destruction of physical jerusalem.
If all things are fulfilled in christ from a spiritual standpoint, what do you believe needs to be accomplished by the nations outside of a physical context that will affect any spiritual accomplishments already set in place.
The temple was destroyed, the Old system aboloished by Christs law and sacrifice, everythinjg was accomplished in Christ. What do you beileve is left to be accomplished, even if these are talking about some futre historical event?
But Jerusalem and its line of Davidic Kings was the physical earthly representation of Gods rulership. When that was gone, there was no physcial earthly representation anymore.
Gods authority was transfered to Jesus in his heavenly kingdom... it was active and excersized authority over the church only... Until the time that Jesus went into action against the kingdoms enemies.
Ouch. Im not seeing this, since the Gospel and the Church are universal in nature and purpose. We are to preach to all nations, the church is universal
Why do you believe Christ has some sort of battle witht he nations outside the Church. true he is God and ruler of all anyway, but how will any of this affect the Church, now or later?
IOW, what is the ultimate goal of this battle Christ is engaged in (in your opinion) with t he nations? certainlly there can be no way to God for these nations outside of Christ correct?
There are some very basic biblical doctrines that should form the basis of everyone's form of christianity
The would include things like knowing Gods identity and name as the very basis. Most church's know that Jehovah is Gods personal name, yet they wont use it. This is the name found at the tops of medieval churchs...its found in older versions of the KJV bible... yet they've removed it in more recent versions... .then modern translators refuse to use the name altogether.
Do you make his name usage a matter of fellowship, would you deny someone worship in your congregation if they used the word God instead of Jehovah?
So most chruch goers believe that Jesus IS God... they dont even know that God has a personal name.
What do you believe Jesus was?
Another fundamental bible teaching is that of the resurrection of the dead. Christians should know that this was the very hope that the apostles preached. They said, if the resurrection is not true, we might as well not even be christians. Yet how many christians actually know of this hope??? Not many at all. Their belief is that they will go to heaven when they die which is a falsehood.
Agreed on resurrection, but i believe you believe in soul sleep correct? One of my brethren in the very early 1900s debated Mr. Russell. The Russell-White debate, on these very issues
If your interested:
ROBERT HENRY BOLL
ON THE RUSSELL-WHITE DEBATE (23 - 28 February 1908)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
Robert Henry Boll's interest in apocalyptic eschatology led his opponents to associate him with the sectarian fringe among the apocalypticists, especially Charles Taze Russell, the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses. While Boll, like many of his contemporaries, may have shown an early interest in Russell since they shared common religious and cultural interests, there is no indication whatsoever that Boll was ever sympathetic to Russell's apocalyptic solutions. Gideon W. Riggs reports in a chronologically somewhat ambiguous passage, that the old German friend from Nashville Bible School days may have read Russell's writings early on with interest. He writes in a memorial article:
I had been in school with Brother Boll and admired him as a Christian and a preacher of the gospel. His "premillennial theory" was developing at that time. He was reading C.T. Russell's books, and they were mighty smooth he thought.
And, yet, Riggs continued: "But he did not advocate the theory at that time."(1) It is well possible that Riggs, who wrote this in 1935, harmonizes Boll's early preoccupation with apocalyptic thought with the prevalent charge by Boll's opponents from 1915 on, that the Louisville preacher and editor of Word and Work was a follower of Russell or at least a sympathizer. It is also not certain whether Riggs refers to Boll's alleged early interest in Russell as having taken place in the Nashville Bible School, where Boll was a student from 1895 to 1898, and a teacher of French and German from 1898 to 1900, or whether that alleged preoccupation occurred during Boll's and Riggs's preaching in Los Angeles in 1903. It is a fact, however, that even in Boll's earliest articles on the need for studying prophecy, such study is recommended as an antidote against contemporary apocalyptic speculations, including Russell's views. Boll writes in 1909 in the Gospel Advocate:
It is because of our great ignorance of things prophetical that often simple Christians (and, strange to say, Christians as often as or oftener than any sect or denomination) are fascinated and taken in by Mormons, Adventists, Russellites, and other isms that make great stock of prophecy. It is to many, when they first begin to see into those teachings, as if they were entering a new world. The prophecies which had lain there for years in their Bibles as a meaningless dead letter, now become alive and instinct with glorious meaning. If only the meaning were never perverted for them! But bewildered and enthused by the discovery of things they had never before dreamed, they fall easy prey to the false teacher, who uses not so much the word of God as the victim's ignorance of it to foist upon him a human theory.(2)
Boll's early acquaintance with Russell was well before the Russell and White debate, when Russell lectured in Louisville. In an autobiographical reflection of 1912 in the article "The Blindness of Russell's Followers," (Gospel Advocate 55/14[4 April 1912], 419), Boll recounts that first personal exposure and evalutes it thoroughly negatively. He writes:
A few years ago Mr. Russell delivered in Macauley's Theater, in Louisville, Ky., his famous lecture "To Hell and Back" (Imagine Paul or Christ lecturing on such a topic!). The house was full, for the lecture had been long and loudly advertised, and Mr. Russell was as yet practically unknown in Louisville. But after Mr. Russell had spoken about fifteen minutes an increasing stream of people began to go out. As he neared the close of his speech the audience was distressingly reduced; and to what its size was when he closed even I cannot testify, for I felt, like the many, that my time was being wasted and left before the end. It was the first time I had seen Mr. Russell and heard him, and I was thoroughly disenchanted of whatever good estimate I had ignorantly placed on him as a man of at least some power and sincerity. I saw and heard him again at the Russell-White debate, where my estimate of him was not in any wise restored, but, if possible, got another backset.
The debate of Russell with Charles L. White in Cincinnati led Robert Welch, the editor of Faith and Facts, to the conclusion:
Kurfees thought that White had upheld the truth in great fashion and had stripped Russell of his armor. Boll came away enamored of Russell's style and ready to proclaim boldly the doctrine of premillennialism: not Russell's model, but one of his own.(3)
Both men, Kurfees and Boll, had been consulted on the choice of Russell's opponent and recommended White.(4) There is no merit, however, in Welch's claim that the 1908 Cincinnati debate was a stimulus for Boll's own premillennialism. Boll's eyewitness account of the debate dispels the notion that--in contrast to Kurfees--he had come from the debate "enamored of Russell's style."
Nothing could be farther from the truth than the assertion that Boll was a sympathizer of Russell, as others have alleged. Boll, from his earliest engagement with Russell, objected from a non-creedal Restorationist standpoint to Russell's apocalyptic system and theory-building. At the same time, however, he defended the legitimacy of including the prophetic writings and their interpretation into the mandate of studying the entire Scripture. More specifically, he saw in the neglect of prophecy and eschatological imminence sadly missed pastoral opportunities for spiritual formation and mission. There are numerous articles by Boll in the Gospel Advocate and in Word and Work that take issue with Russell and his organization, Millennial Dawn, the later Jehovah's Witnesses. In all of his writings, there is no indication that C.T. Russell was a factor in the formation of Boll's own premillennial thought. Boll's own eschatology seems to have been shaped much more by the indigenous Church of Christ millennialism of Boll's teachers at the Nashville Bible School, especially James A. Harding, David Lipscomb, and T.W. Brents as well as the dispensationalism of Darby and Scofield, including William E. Blackstone's religious bestseller Jesus is Coming (1878).
In what follows I reprint from the Gospel Advocate two articles of Boll about the Russell-White debate. The first one is Boll's announcement of the debate, the second a critical estimate of the debate itself, including Russell's debating style and views.
Hans Rollmann
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE WHITE-RUSSELL DEBATE
by R.H. Boll
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gospel Advocate, 19 December 1907, 811
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the evening of February 23, 1908, there will begin in Cincinnati, O., one of the most important debates ever held in the history of the brotherhood. It is between L.S. White, now of Dallas, Texas, well known among the brotherhood as an able and powerful champion of the cause of the simple gospel, and Charles T. Russell, of Allegheny, Pa., the chief exponent of that particular form of Restorationism which is set forth in the Millennial Dawn, of which he is the author. In almost every place, by means of freely scattered literature, indefatigable efforts of the Millennial Dawn people, and also on account of the fascination and comfortableness of the doctrine itself, the teaching of Russell has taken root. That no less a man than Russell himself has agreed to discuss his doctrine, and that with one of our people (who, if any, are able to meet him), is extremely fortunate, and we may hope that this may be one of the great decisive encounters between truth and error, and may have far-reaching effects. Brother White's past work in the line of debates has proved him one of those who are worthy to be intrusted with such a grave task as this. His past successes have been due to the clearness and readiness with which he presents the word of God. He can be depended on to be always kind and gentlemanly toward his opponent, and to conduct the debate upon a high plane, so that no dishonor may come to the cause we love before the many strangers who will attend the debate. The following are the propositions to be discussed:
(1) "The Scriptures teach that all hope of salvation to-day is dependent upon accepting the gospel of Christ as revealed in the Scriptures, and that such acceptance is confined to this present life." White affirms; Russell denies.
(2) "The Scriptures clearly teach that the dead are unconscious between death and the resurrection -- at the second coming of Christ." Russell affirms; White denies.
(3) "The Scriptures clearly teach that the punishment of the (finally incorrigible) wicked will consist of conscious, painful suffering, eternal in duration." White affirms; Russell denies.
(4) "The Scriptures clearly teach that the first resurrection will occur at the second coming of Christ, and that only the saints of this gospel age will share in it, but that in the resurrection of the unjust (Acts 24:15) vast multitudes of them will be saved." Russell affirms; White denies.
(5) "The Scriptures clearly teach that immersion in water `in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit' of a believing penitent is for, or in order to, the remission of sins." White affirms; Russell denies.
(6) "The Scriptures clearly teach that the second coming of Christ will precede the millennium, and the effect of both the second coming and the millennium is the blessing of all the families of the earth." Russell affirms; White denies.
The debate will continue five nights. Brother F.L. Rowe, 422 Elm Street, Cincinnati, O., will furnish further particulars.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE RUSSELL-WHITE DEBATE
by R.H. Boll
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gospel Advocate, 12 March 1908, 173
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those who came expecting a sharply fought contest were largely disappointed. Mr. Russell did not debate much. His opponent's arguments and questions did not trouble him. He swept on serenely in his own chosen path, like the stars in their courses far above this little mean world and its strife. Only on a few occasions he stooped to actual encounter, on one of which he took up L.S. White's arguments pretty thoroughly, especially the point on the rich man and Lazarus; but that was in his (Russell's) final negative, when White had no chance for rebuttal. But the rebuttal was brought in the next night. It is due Mr. Russell, however, to state that, barring the fact that he did not consider his opponent's arguments (which is an unfairness in debate) and that he availed himself of the final negative as mentioned above about twice, he was otherwise fair, kind, respectful, and courteous throughout the entire debate. The old Latin motto, "Suaviter in modo, fortiter in re" ("Gentle in manner, strong in action"), was about equally divided between the two gentlemen. The "suaviter in modo" was mostly Russell's distinction; the "fortiter in re" was White's.
Russell did not debate, but White did. He made up for what Russell lacked. He presented one definite, clear-cut point after another. He asked questions which, if Russell had answered them, would have decided the issue to many minds. He read passages and passages; took up what Russell said and made provision for what he might have said, or could, should, or would say. He was always aggressive and interesting, making by far the stronger impression, both by his manner and his voice, which was stronger and clearer than Russell's, and could be heard in every part of the big building, and carrying the audience by his quickness and wit and a good-humored swagger. While Brother White spoke offhand a good part of the time, Russell read nearly all he said. This fact also went to make Brother White's speeches more impressive.
In regard to the subjects discussed, it is to be regretted that some of the more peculiar and repulsive features of Russell's, teaching could not be brought to light, and that in the matters actually under discussion Mr. Russell would not attempt to explain some of the difficulties of his view which were urged by the other side. In the discussion of the design of baptism, for example, Brother White put special stress on Acts 2:38. But instead of showing cause why this passage should not be taken at its plain meaning, the imperturbable gentleman waived the examination of it entirely and proceeded to unfold his theory on the meaning and purpose of baptism as it pleased him.
Nevertheless, it is fortunate that Russell could be induced to debate at all, and such things as were brought out will be helpful to all Christians who have to fight the Millennial Dawn doctrine. The debate was carefully, completely, and accurately reported, and will be ready for sale about March 25.
All the brethren expressed their satisfaction with Brother White's defense [sic] of the truth. He is now in a meeting with "the few" in Cincinnati.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. G.W. Riggs, "History of the Sichel Street Church," Firm Foundation 52(19 October 1935), 12. I'm grateful to Denise Inglis, ACU, for furnishing this item.
2. R.H. Boll, "The Study of the Prophecies," Gospel Advocate 51(21 October 1909), 1314.I am grateful to Erma Jean Lovelande and the library of ACU for the loan of relevant microfilm copies of the Gospel Advocate.
3. Robert C. Welch, "R.H. Boll: Premillennial Visionary," Faith and Facts 9(/2(April 1981), 21. I am grateful to Terry Gardner for a copy of this article.
4. See Russell-White Debate (Cincinnati: F.L. Rowe, 1925 [unchanged reprint of the 1908 edition]), unpaginated "Publisher's Announcement": "I immediately took the matter up with M.C. Kurfees and R.H. Boll, of Louisville, Ky., and they made selection of L.S. White, of the Pearl and Bryan Street Church of Christ, Dallas, Texas."
Sorry for the lateness
EAM
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 420 by Peg, posted 02-17-2010 8:46 PM Peg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 423 by AdminPD, posted 02-24-2010 1:20 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


(1)
Message 423 of 427 (547977)
02-24-2010 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 422 by Dawn Bertot
02-24-2010 9:49 AM


Off Topic
EMA,
This thread is about why Jesus is considered a failure by Brian and others. It isn't about how you and Peg differ in your beliefs. I suggest you start a new thread if you wish to continue discussing your belief differences.
Please direct any comments concerning this Administrative msg to the Report discussion problems here: No.2 thread.
Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour suspension.
Thank you Purple

This message is a reply to:
 Message 422 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-24-2010 9:49 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 424 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-25-2010 9:14 AM AdminPD has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 991 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 424 of 427 (548057)
02-25-2010 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 423 by AdminPD
02-24-2010 1:20 PM


Re: Off Topic
Admin offices write:
EMA.
This thread is about why Jesus is considered a failure by Brian and others. It isn't about how you and Peg differ in your beliefs. I suggest you start a new thread if you wish to continue discussing your belief differences.
Please direct any comments concerning this Administrative msg to the Report discussion problems here: No.2 thread.
I understand. If Peg from down under is up for this how do we accomplish this task, given the rules of your society here
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 423 by AdminPD, posted 02-24-2010 1:20 PM AdminPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 425 by AdminPD, posted 02-25-2010 9:38 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


(1)
Message 425 of 427 (548058)
02-25-2010 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 424 by Dawn Bertot
02-25-2010 9:14 AM


Re: Off Topic
Peg has already taken care of it and you're suspended for 24 hours.
Please direct any comments concerning this Administrative msg to the Report discussion problems here: No.2 thread.
Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour suspension.
Thank you Purple

This message is a reply to:
 Message 424 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-25-2010 9:14 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Hawkins
Member (Idle past 865 days)
Posts: 150
From: Hong Kong
Joined: 08-25-2005


Message 426 of 427 (558735)
05-04-2010 4:54 AM


As a matter of fact, all forms of human history requires human faith to interpret.
While truth itself is evidence independent. Evidence is for a human brain/belief system to recognise a "truth". To a certain extent, to ask for evidence makes no difference to say that 'would you please give me something which can fool my mind'.
You need faith in the end. Welcome to planet earth.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.
Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

  
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2486 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 427 of 427 (567463)
07-01-2010 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Nuggin
01-28-2010 11:35 AM


Why I know Jesus was a success
I will give you one more prophesy concerning Jesus in Acts 3. When you see the Jewish people turning as nation to Jesus as their Messiah, then you can be assured the Lord's 2nd coming is very near.
Here's the problem. 2nd Jesus ALREADY came and went.
Messiah Jesus who entered into the world He created 2000 years ago, provided the way of salvation for all that He is drawing to Himself (Acts 2:39), then ascended to His throne in heaven (Acts 2:33), this Lord Jesus will come again as He said He would (John 14:3).
When you see the Jewish people turning as nation to Jesus as their Messiah, then you can be assured the Lord's 2nd coming is very near.
Edited by John 10:10, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Nuggin, posted 01-28-2010 11:35 AM Nuggin has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2023