James 2 - Feb 21st

So this week we all sat down after lots of food to think about James 2.



v1

'My brethren, do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with partiality'

It made us think of Acts 10:34,35:

'In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.'

Because if God doesn't show partiality to us - accepting us no matter what we are or where we come from, so long as we really believe in Him and are trying our best to follow Him - then who are we to discriminate between people because of the way they look or their background?! God and Jesus are the only two who can see someone's heart, and that's surely more important than good clothes.

Whilst looking at this, we agreed that if the shabby guy came to a lecture and then started kicking up a fuss and we had to ask him to leave, then that's obviously not discrimination, it's rational (so long as we would behave the same way towards the rich guy too).



v6,7

'Do not the rich oppress you and drag you into the courts? Do they not blaspheme that noble name by which you are called?'

Our instinctive reaction is 'well, it's not only the rich!' But really, it kinda is (remembering that, as always, there are exceptions to the 'rule'). In our country not many people want to know about God, our campaigns often seem to fall flat, or there's few responses. But at the Intercity we were looking at the CBM work in Africa, and the response they are getting there is immense! Their problem before (like in the olden days, they were known as the 'heathens' by Christian countries) was that they hadn't had the opportunity to hear the Truth.

The beatitudes, in Matt 5, seem also to be aimed at people in poorer situations (though there are deeper meanings too, if you keep digging for them).

'Blessed are the poor in spirit, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are those who mourn, For they shall be comforted.

Blessed are the meek, For they shall inherit the earth.

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, For they shall be filled...'

Also if look at James 1:9,10,

'Let the lowly brother glory in his exaltation, but the rich in his humiliation, because as a flower of the field he will pass away.'

A rich person has to realise that in the grand scheme of things, his riches are worthless, and they can't save him from death or any other thing. God is his only hope.

Proverbs 16:19

'Better to be of a humble spirit with the lowly, Than to divide the spoil with the proud.'

That kind of roughly equates rich with proud, poor with humble - which in reality is the natural progression of both - that's the way temptation leads us to.



We wandered off briefly onto how God has put everyone into a situation they are able to cope with (1 Cor 10:13, look it up =D ) so WOW for all the people we've been hearing about recently - Africa, Russia, etc...





v19

'You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe--and tremble!'



So who are the demons?

Strong's word is 'devil or god' and the same word as all the 'demons' Jesus cast out of people to heal them, during his ministry. But Exodus 4:11

'So the LORD said to him, "Who has made man's mouth? Or who makes the mute, the deaf, the seeing, or the blind? Have not I, the LORD?'

So it's God who causes/controls illnesses - not little mystical floaty demon things that live inside people. But it still says demon. So we looked at a few things.

• We took a peek at Harry Whittaker's 'The Very Devil', and to try and quickly summarise the two chapters he dedicated to demons, he reckons they're angels of evil (like the angel of death at the Passover - a messenger God uses to bring about bad things, not something that is actually evil in itself). Jesus spoke and had authority of the demons in his ministry, telling them to leave ill people, and they obeyed! So if the messengers of God obeyed Jesus, how much more should we?!


• Remember Felix? How he heard what Paul had to say, trembled, and then sent Paul out from his presence and forgot. (Acts 24:25). Perhaps James' point is that just believing isn't enough - we can't just hear, get a bit scared and believe, then do nothing to change yourself - we have to act on that belief. Which fits into the context of the verses around: '24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.'

Which brings us nicely onto that section about faith without works being dead - pointless, worthless and not faith. Romans 4 talks sort of the same subject (go read it for yourself) but doesn't talk so much about works. So why? Wouldn't it be a contradiction if one said all you need is faith and the other said you HAVE to have works? Well... no, because the whole point of what James is saying is that it isn't actually real faith if it doesn't drive you to doing something. So if we read the Bible, and believe it's true, that's not the whole story. BECAUSE you believe it's true, you should be reading all it says and thinking 'oo, that means I should be making changes to my life, and putting effort into doing the sorts of things that God wants me to do'. If you believe in God, the real God, then you know that He is the one with authority to not let you into the Kingdom, He's the one who says in the Bible all that He wants you to do with your life. And that doesn't involve sitting around doing nowt. We also have to remember at the same time, that it isn't ticky boxes - it's not ONLY the works God wants to see. You need to have the correct motive for doing the right things.

This took our wee thought train to 1 Corinthians 3, where it talks about all the different things 'built' by believers. And we reckon it ISN'T that the gold is better than the straw, but that we all have different levels of ability, and that what's important is that these 'buildings' are our best efforts. AND they're ALL built on the foundation of Christ, which is the most important thing of all.

There you go =) I'm not sure if I explained it all as well as I could've, so if there are confusing bits let me know in a comment =)

James chapter 1, 14th Feb 2010

Hello to the restart of GRG!

The previous week we looked at what we discussed last time GRG was on, and we put down ideas of what we'd like to look at. So, we decided to start with James, chapter by chapter. Let me go dig out my notebook...

Sorry if it's a bit of a jump around, but this is where our train of thought went.

Began looking at the crown of life, in James 1 verse 12.

12 Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him.

The crown of life is:

• everlasting life
• life in the Kingdom
• the head - talking about thinking. we'll think differently in the Kingdom. we will receive something that will change the way we think - for the better.

Who is the book of James written to? Was it to Gentile-only ecclesias, or passed around everyone?

In the book there are many mention of 'man'. Which James is this, is it the brother of Jesus? If so, it highlights the even greater contrast between James and Jesus.

take a peek at verse 5:

⁵ If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him

and 1 Thessalonians 5:

²³Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The only way you can be kept blameless is by God. If you think you've got everything you need, would you stop praying? Can you be completely content..? Waiting for Jesus though, you need to be patient and needing nothing - i mean, no worldly possessions.

A few of us at GRG go to study class, and we've been looking at the Kings for a little while. If you look at James 1:6:

⁶But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind.

You have to be aware of the influences around you (the sea [in the water cycle]) because it is very easy to be influenced - who you hang out with makes a difference to the way you're going to act. King Jeroboam or was it Rehoboam?.. i'll check later. Maybe Rehoboam. He first went to the elders for advice, but when he didn't like what they said, he went to the guys his own age for advice - who'd grown up in palaces all their lives and couldn't relate to those normal people living outside, and enforced worse taxes and tasks on them. That makes no sense... I'm off for some tea.

Right, second attempt. Yes, it was Rehoboam. He didn't like what the older and wiser ones advised him in... though they had been assisting with a fairly good kingdom with Solomon. But Rehoboam then went to his friends who had always grown up with royalty and couldn't relate to those out working, and laid much heavier tasks upon them and didn't seem to care - or just realise what it was like for them, because they knew no different.

Basically - this is about the influences around you. Rehoboam was influenced by his bad friends, and things just got worse.

We went on to look at the differences between tempting, and testing.

Tempting, there's a desire; whereas testing, its seeing how far someone will go, seeing if somethings good enough - see 1 Peter 1 and verse 7:

⁷so that the tested genuineness of your faith—more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire—may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

'tempt' only seems to occur in the New Testament, and its always in a bad context. However: tempting doesn't always have to be bad - you could be tempted to go to a fraternal!

God tests us, he doesn't tempt us, but when we are being tested we tempt ourselves.

Exodus 17 : 2 - why do you tempt the Lord your God? and in other versions, why do you put the Lord to the test? The people here are not trying to make God do something wrong, but they don't believe enough and are wanting to test him.

Next we looked at verse 23-

²³For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror. ²⁴For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like.

and in other versions, that last part is "immediately forgets what... (1) kind of man (2) manner of man (3) he looks like "

The mirror is examining yourself in the Law. But it is useless if you have some sort of checklist and say, oh, i've done that. Done that. Done that. Not done that yet, better go do it so I can tick it off. What use is all your knowledge if you don't put it into practise? It'll quickly disappear. If you have faith, aren't you doing the opposite of what God says if you don't go out and tell people what you believe? I'll probably be going to this passage in a minute, but you know the one "faith without works is dead"?

You have to look at yourselves regularly > you need to read regularly so you don't forget. Reading your Bible won't make you preach, but preaching will make you read your Bible.

Now we're back at temptation! Is it a sin or not a sin?

Isn't it what you do about it?

If you don't immediately get rid of the temptation, no matter how small it is in the beginning, it will grow and grow more into your life.

Jesus when he was tempted, he immediately got Scripture back up.

Jesus - tempted - he never sinned.

So temptation is not a sin!

and 'intent', that's from the moment you've decided to do something about the temptation.

desire - sin - death

¹⁵Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

Is the only thing we have control over - the desire? If we look at the word 'grown',.. growing, can we cut it off at any point? When it gets stronger, fiercer, you need more strength to cut it off, so the worse the sin gets, the more difficult it is to cut it our your life.

GOD and repentance.

and finally, a quick glance at verse 27 which talks about visiting widows and orphans in their affliction.

orphans - no parents

widow - no husband/wife

When we are baptised, we have God as our Father and we are the bride of Christ - so if orphans/widows, it is people without God. So we need to look after people in the world as well, eg preaching.

Hope you got something out of that, and look out for the following blogs about the rest of James. If something doesn't make sense, just add a comment :)

Holy Spirit

Heydiho everyone! The discussion we had on Sunday unveiled lots and lots of layers to God's spirit / Holy Spirit so hopefully what follows will make crystal sense!

The reason we decided to have a look at the Holy Spirit was because of a digression in a previous GRG where we wondered if the disciples only got the Holy Spirit after Jesus died? Before we went into this though we needed to go back to the basic basics and look at what actually is the Holy Spirit?

Simply put the Holy Spirit is God's power. Holy means set apart / sanctified / special and Spirit signifies power so the Holy Spirit is God's power used for a special purpose. The Holy Spirit comes from God and is used in various ways throughout scripture. A selection follows:

• Perform miracles (Romans 15 v 19 - “by the power of signs and miracles, through the power of the Spirit”)

• The Bible was written by inspiration through the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1 v 21 - “For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit”)

• Jesus healed people by the Holy Spirit (Acts 10 v 38 - “how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him”)

The first mention of Spirit appears in Genesis 1 v 2 - “Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.”

We then considered whether the Holy Spirit is a separate entity?

• The above passage in Gen 1 describes the spirit as hovering

• Matthew 3 v 16 - “As soon as Jesus was baptised, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him.” This shows that the Holy Spirit was given a bodily form for this vision.

• Another example is when Christ is described as being full of the Spirit

• Similarly Acts 2 v 17 - “I will pour out my spirit on all people”

The Spirit sometimes appears in a bodily form (eg like a dove), sometimes as flames of fire, and sometimes people are described as being full of the spirit! It is not directly referred to as a person, although it is personified in some places. But this does not necessarily mean it is a person. For example, wisdom is personified in Proverbs – referred to as she, and so on – but we do not propose that wisdom is a separate being. Likewise, from the evidence in the Bible, it takes a giant leap to conclude that the Holy Spirit is a separate entity. Rather, it is the power that comes from God.

We then looked at the difference between the Spirit and the Holy Spirit.

In both cases “spirit” is a translation of one original word. In the latter there is an additional word, translated “holy”. We discussed lots of passages:

2 Kings 2 v 9 - Elisha speaking to Elijah said “Let me inherit a double portion of your spirit” - Elisha knew God was with Elijah and wanted to have the same spiritual mind as Elijah so that he too could carry out God's purpose.

Ecclesiastes 12 v 7 - “the Spirit returns to God who sent it” - In this case Spirit is breath. God uses his power to keep us alive and takes breath away when we die. The same spirit is also in animals to keep them alive and when they die, breath is taken from them too – Ecclesiastes 3 v 20 “All go to the same place, all comes from dust and to dust all return.” So we can take from this that every living being has been given a portion of the Spirit of God – it is God's power that created us and sustains us.

Spirit means more than this as can be seen in Mark 2 v 8 - “...Jesus knew in his spirit...” - this is referring to Jesus' thoughts. The key to remember is that the root power of everything is God's power and so when “Jesus knew in his spirit” it was ultimately God that gave Jesus the ability to think and so here the spirit was given for Jesus to make up his mind.

Romans 8 is a great chapter for explaining more about the spirit. The first few verses describe two ways that we can choose – the way of sin (which is the fleshly way) or the way of the spirit (which is God's way). So we saw earlier that everyone has the spirit of God in them because God breathed into man's nostrils and keeps us alive. This chapter adds another aspect to the spirit in that, as verse 14 says “those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.” Therefore we need to LIVE by the Spirit. Those who do not live by the Spirit are essentially just like the animals who have the spirit of God, in that they are alive and breathing, but they do not live by God's way or try to have the same mindset of God. And so they die, with absolutely no hope or future.

Another passage we looked at briefly was how to explain Rev 22 v 17 - “The Spirit and the bride say 'Come!'” Roy helpfully re-worded this to be God's power and God's people – God's purpose is that all people come to him to be his bride.

OK, so with all that, we tried to summarise the different layers of the Spirit

1. Spirit – is the power of God – everyone has this, from man down to mouses (as Rodge likes to say!) This is the spirit that gives us breath and keeps us alive.

2. We need to choose to live by the spirit to fulfil the purpose of God and that we might have

   life and peace (Rom 8 v 6)

3. The Holy Spirit which is used for a specific reason to advance God's purpose – it is special / separate.

We then had a look at specific examples of the Holy Spirit to find out what made these occasions separate.

The Holy Spirit occurs mainly in the New Testament but did exist in the Old Testament as Mark 12 v 36 says “David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared...”

A few examples of Holy Spirit

• Mary was with child by the Holy Spirit

• Jesus baptised with the Holy Spirit

• Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the unforgivable sin (that is denying God's power to save you, not acknowledging the need to repent – how can you be forgiven if you don't repent?)

• Apostles received Holy Spirit to be God's witnesses (Acts 1 v 8)

The Holy Spirit was given by God to the apostles in the New Testament so that they could preach effectively and spread God's word to all. The apostles also had the ability to pass on the Holy Spirit as can be seen in Acts 8 v 15-16 – Peter and John could pass on the Holy Spirit but Philip could not (Philip was one of the seven chosen to assist the widows in Acts 7 v 1-7 and not an “original” apostle, so to speak).

As a quick summary, the spirit is active today to keep us alive (James 2 v 26 says that the body without the spirit is dead). Everyone has the Spirit of God and can choose to live by it and seek to fulfil God's purpose. However not everyone has the Holy Spirit....

Next time we will be looking at the Holy Spirit gifts and also discussing the challenge which Graham set for us at the end of the evening:

Challenge

Harry Whittaker wrote a pamphlet entitled, “Why I am not a Pentecostal” and put forward an interesting suggestion in it. Pentecostals basically believe that they have the Holy Spirit, that they can cast out demons and they believe in faith healing. Here is the suggestion:

When Jonah went to Nineveh, God said that Nineveh would be destroyed in 40 days. However this did not happen. The people repented of their wickedness and so the destruction of Nineveh was deferred.

Using this pattern of thought, Harry's suggestion is that God's original plan was for Jesus to come back in AD70, using passages such as Matt 24 v 34 - “I tell you the truth, this generation shall not pass away until all these things have happened.” There was a sense of urgency about the return of Christ, so now 2000 years later, the question is asked was the return of Jesus deferred? Discuss...

Amanda (signed in as Rodge!)

More on paradise

Just to add to Phil's wonderful post, a couple of further points that help with the thief on the cross passage. First of all the context! The thief asked Jesus to remember him when He came in His kingdom - the thief's understanding and expectation was that the kingdom was to be established at a time future to him. This then helps with the next point. The thief asks Jesus to remember him at this future time. Allow me to paraphrase Jesus' reply: "Remember you when I come? I'll remember you NOW. You will be with me in paradise.

Paradise and Stuff

Hey there! Please cast your minds back to when we last had getting ready group (VERY far back as this post is ridiculously late, sorry folks!) when we had a wee look at mentions of 'Paradise' in the bible - although, being naturally deviant and chaotic people, or discussions led elsewhere also!

Which is why we started with Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12 instead!

The verse reads:

"How art thou fallen from heavan, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!"

Now, with a little closer inspection, this 'Lucifer', which is only mentioned ONCE in the bible, can be seen to be something other than a supernatural devil. 'Son of the morning' implies that a metaphor is being made using nothing other than the morning star, Venus! In verse 16 the word 'man' is used - whereas the supernatural devil is not seen to be a man, but a fallen angel with close to god-like power. In fact, the context indicates that this 'Lucifer' is none other than the King of Babylon! Falling from 'heaven' can be more accurately translated as falling from a high place, i.e. falling from power. This is also the case in Luke 10:18 and Isaiah 34:4. So rather than this being a fallen angel, Isaiah is simply talking of the King of Babylon falling from power and metaphorically describing him as the morning star!



We then looked at Luke 10:15:

"And thou, Capernaum, which are exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell."

The idea of condemnation in the sense of heaven/hell after death is unlikely here, as we know that we are individually judged, and not as a city.



Then we had a little digression and discussed whether the disciples were given the Holy Spirit during Jesus's lifetime or only after he died. We resolved to discuss this next time along with the Holy Spirit and Spirit Gifts.



The next point we discussed was Luke 23:43.

"And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day thou shalt be with me in paradise."

There were a few possibilities here. One of them was that as there is no punctuation in the original Hebrew, the verse could have actually read:

"Verily I say unto thee today, thou shalt be with me in paradise."

Another point is that in Genesis 2:17, God tells Adam and Eve that they will die the same day that they eat the fruit - this does not happen, but when they eat the fruit, that day it becomes a reality and a certainty that they WILL die! Therefore the same could be argued in Luke: that Jesus was saying in that day it had become a certainty that the thief would be in 'paradise' with him! From Revelation 2:7, we can see that 'paradise' seems to mean 'Eden'. As we know the kingdom will be just like before the fall of man (i.e. Eden) then we can see that Jesus is telling the thief that today it has been decided that the thief will be in the kingdom with him! Another point is that once the thief had died, it would feel like the same day when he was resurrected, as we know nothing when we die.

Another point we looked at was the 'third heaven' in 2 Corinthians 12:2-4:

"I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one cought up to the third heaven."

Perhaps the third 'heaven' indicates the third order of things, or way in which the world works - i.e. before the flood, after the flood, and in the kingdom.

The next thing we looked at was on old favourite, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-21.
The first point we had was that neither 'heaven' nor immortal souls are mentioned in this parable. Souls are supposed to be insubstantial - yet Lazarus is 'carried', so it must be talking about an actual body. Also in v 26 we read that there is a big gulf between where the rich man is and where Lazarus is. Yet they speak to each other! Also Abraham is mentioned in Hebrews 11 - a chapter of people of faith who haven't yet received their reward. If he hasn't received his reward, he must be dead and in the ground - meaning he has no body and no bosom! We can conclude that this is a parable, and should not be read simply and taken literally - we don't take any of Jesus's other parables literally, why should we do that with this one? The lesson the parable conveys is far more important than the literal story. In this case, the lesson is that we should care for those around us in need, because we would want them to do that for us if our situations were reversed.

Lastly, we had an addendum to last week about eternal fire -

In Jude v7, Sodom and Gomorrha are said to be suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. But we know that they are under the salt sea and definitely not on fire! Therefore they are not everlastingly on fire, but were everlastingly DESTROYED by fire! Which ties in with the explanation we had for eternal fire we had last week!

Ta for reading folks! I may mave missed things out, so any additions, questions or general annoyance, please post on this very forum!

False Doctrines: Heaven Going and the Immortal Soul

Hiya guys

Well it's me, Sam, here to tell you people about false doctrines. Before I start I just want to tell you that if I start talking rubbish then feel free to change anything that you feel is incorrect. So let's begin!!!!!!

So last week at getting ready group we spent a lot of time talking about the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31. One of the first things we noticed was that in the NKJV bible it doesn't classify this passage as a parable as it doesn't follow the normal rules of other parables in the bible. Just for the sake of this blog I am going to refer to this passage as a parable because it is easier.

We all agreed that the meaning of this parable is to treat others as you would like to be treated yourselves. We also figured from this parable that if you don't believe in the Law of Moses then you won't believe in the "spirit" coming back from the dead. The "spirit" is the resurrection of the dead when Jesus comes back and God will set up his kingdom. Also, Christians would say it supports heaven and hell yet it mentions neither in this parable.

We also found that Jesus only gives the good person a name and not the rich man. We thought this could mean something. Jesus doesn't appreciate as much the rich man who only interests is himself as he does the the good person who's first interest is in God and Jesus. (I think that's right anyway)

Debbie had a list of references that have opinions from one of her friend's minister. We took a few and discussed them one at a time. The first passage we looked at was from John 5:39

"You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me"

This minister believes that the parable that this reference comes from is to emphasize heaven, hell and retribution after death. We can't argue that this parable is metaphorical and not just a parable.

From this parable Protestants believe that Jesus will come back and have a final judgement but we noticed that if you are in heaven and hell then you are already being judged but does the bible say we go to heaven and hell when we die?????????

In this passage Jesus sort of mocks the fact that the Pharisees believed in everlasting torment so it it was a tradition.

Quite a few people use passages like this to prove that heaven and hell are true but we as Christadelphians can counter argue this theory however we can't use it as proof anymore as we don't get anywhere just tangled up in a big arguement.

Heaven isn't mentioned at all in Luke 16 but some people put heaven in it which is probably why they misinterpret what the bible is really saying.

The next passage we looked at was from Ecclesiastes 12:5-7,14.

Also they are afraid of height,
And of terrors in the way;
When the almond tree blossoms
The grasshopper is a burden,
And desire fails.
For man goes to his eternal home,
And the mourners go about the streets
Remember your creator before the silver cord is loosed
Or the golden bowl is broken,
Or the pitcher shattered at the fountain,
Or the wheel broken at the well.
Then the dust will return to the earth as it was,
And the spirit will return to God who gave it.

For God will bring every work into judgement,
Including every secret thing,
Whether good or evil.

These verses doesn't mention heaven or hell either but it only mentions spirit as the breath of life. The idea of the breath of life was also written in Genesis 6:17.

"And behold, I myself am bringing floodwaters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die"

It also doesn't say that the "spirit" is good or bad so we really can't be sure. It also suggests we were a spirit to God before we were alive as the passage says "return" and you can't return to somewhere unless you've been before.

This passage also explains how when we die our breath returns to God, where we got it in the first place, and our bodies return to the ground and turn to dust which is back in the form we first originated in the very beginning, says nothing about our souls going to heaven and hell. Genesis 2:7 tells us how humans came to be in existence.

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

We also brought up other points from other places in the Bible. Acts 2:34 says:

"For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself:
The LORD said to my Lord,
Sit in my right hand

The people that believe that our souls go to heaven when we die we as Christaelphians can argue that and say well why didn't David go to heaven????

One of the last passages we talked about last week was from Mark 9:42,43,46,48

"But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea.
If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that will never be quenched....
Their worm does not die,
And the fire is not quenched"

These verses are very often misinterpreted as many people think Jesus is talking about going to hell but Jesus is using hell as Gahena (I think that is how you spell it, I hope you guys know what I'm talking about though). The hell Jesus is referring to is symbolic for Gahena but many people take it literally, probably why they come to the conclusion that the Bible talks about what ell is like.

The minister that was mentioned earlier claims that hell is is for everlasting punishment however "hell" is for the unrighteousness so he jumps to conclusions too quickly.

Some facts about Gahena- it's history, none of the passages say the people will suffer so there is no such thing as everlasting torment, the whole hell theory has been misjudged, misinterpreted and twisted to suit myths and legends. The fire stays but the body doesn't.

The last set of verses we referred to was Jeremiah 7:31-32.

"And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I do not command, nor did it come into My heart.
'Therefore, behold, the days are coming' says the Lord, 'when it will no more be called Tophet, or the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter; for they will bury in Tophet until there is no room' "

These verses talk about the Valley of Betalim and what happens to the people when they die there.

Overall, the people that say that the good people go to heaven and the bad people go to hell are totally mistaken, they have no prove to back up that theory, yet we have God and Jesus to prove that this believe is not true.

Famous quote of night:

"God has got his breath back" says Graham (sorry Graham just had to do it, funny times!!!)

Thank you for reading this and watch the blog space for any changes.

Week 5: Conscientious Objection Part 2

Oh well. Since the last one was such a long, rambling affair, I intend to make this one slightly more succinct.

As far as I can remember, I sort of volunteered to do the blog again (not really) but I never actually got around to writing anything down. So, this week, we had a look through all the examples of tribunal questions in the back of the book we were given copies of at an Intercity ages ago. It was at Glasgow South, can't remember when. Anyway, the book is called 'The Captive Conscience' if you want to have a read for yourself. It's very well written and extremely handy for getting your head round the topic and finding out a bit about the history of Christadelphians who conscientiously objected.

So, since I didn't write anything down, I can't remember any of our answers well enough to post them up here. If anyone can, feel free to put up a great big long comment...

Happy Tuesday. Next blog will be on the subject of False Doctrines: Heaven Going and the Immortal Soul. I think. At least, that's what it's supposed to be. Provisional date of Sunday the 11th May.

Week 4: Conscientious Objection Part 1

Right. This week's topic was Conscientious Objection, but since we tend to get fairly involved in our discussions and rarely finish what we started, it's next week's topic too.

To start with, we listed the three main questions we needed to look at, but for the sake of headings, I'm going to mash two of them together and add another one. So, the resulting questions are:

• What is conscientious objection?
• Why do we, as Christadelphians, conscientiously object, and how do we explain this?
• How far should we take this objection?

The first question is relatively simple, but the second question is a bit more in depth, and number three can cause serious brain-pain. Let's start at the start. Get comfy.

-Question One: What is Conscientious Objection?-

In this context, or at least in the context we started off talking about, conscientious objection refers to refusing to join the Armed Forces. The phrase literally means objecting to something because your conscience tells you it is not right, for whatever reason, and could really apply to a huge range of issues and situations. But more of that later.

The 'problem' of people objecting to military service really stems from the First and Second World Wars, when the British Government introduced conscription - they were short of cannon fodder, so they pressured the public to enlist and fight. Those who objected on religious, moral or ethical grounds were usually sent to a tribunal, where they would be given the chance to put forward their reasons for objection to a panel who would decide what to do with them.

According to Debbie's Standard Grade History jotter, most conscientious objectors were sent to the front on non-combat duties, such as driving ambulances or providing medical care. Those who refused outright to have anything to do with the military were usually sent to work on the land, and weren't very popular - they were despised by everybody around them and were treated very harshly by those they lived and worked with. Others were sent to prison, where some died from the poor treatment they received. Apparently, though, many soldiers returning from the Front both during and after the war, having seen the atrocities committed and the horrific things that humans can do to one another, admired their courage in refusing to take part, and respected them for what they did.

-Short Interval-

• 8:21pm - Eilidh discovers a Used Tissue invading her Personal Space.
• 8:22pm - Used Tissue forcefully apprehended and safely deactivated.

-Question Two: Why do Christadelphians conscientiously object?-

There are two main lines of reasoning to look at when asking this question, and both are equally valid. The first is that we are told quite clearly in the bible that killing (and any sort of violence) is wrong.

The obvious passage that springs to mind is in the Ten Commandments - "Thou shall not kill." This sets it down in black and white, and is a good place to start, but we have to be careful not to rely too heavily on this verse. A critic will quickly jump in and ask about all the killing that happened throughout the Old Testament, much of it at God's command, so we have to be able to demonstrate this principle elsewhere in the Bible.

Since Christ lived without sin and fulfilled the law, we aren't under the Law of Moses, although the principles still stand. We follow Christ's examples and Christ's teachings from the New Testament, and it is even clearer here that it is wrong to kill. We looked at quite a few relevant passages:

• Matt 5:38 - "You have heard it said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,' but I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also."
• 1 John 3:15 - "No murderer has eternal life abiding in him."
• 1 Pet 2:23 - Jesus did not retaliate.
• 1 Thess 5:15 - "See that no one renders evil for evil to anyone."
• Matt 19:19 - "Love your neighbour as yourself."

So, God makes it pretty obvious that killing is wrong, and that we are to treat others as we would want to be treated. But it is also very important to note that we are NOT pacifists. A pacifist disagrees with violence, which is fair enough, but as followers of Christ we have to be prepared to fight for Jesus when He returns.

• Rev 19:11-19 - "And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to make war against Him that sat on the horse, and against His army."

So, why are we prepared to fight for Jesus but not for the Government? This is closely related to our second line of reasoning. From Jesus' teachings, and from the various epistles in the NT, we know that as believers in Christ we can become heirs of the Promises to Abraham, and that this makes us as 'strangers and pilgrims' - we look to a citizenship in God's Kingdom on Earth, and so our allegiance is to God and Jesus, not to the Government.

• Heb 13:14 - "For here we have no continuing city, but we seek one to come."
• Heb 11:10 - "He looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God."
• 1 Pet 2:11 - "Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims..."

And Jesus sums it up quite nicely:

• John 18:36 - "My kingdom is not of this world; if it were of this world, then would my servants fight."

So, Christadelphians object to military service based on the commands given in God's Word and the teachings of Jesus Christ - it is wrong in God's eyes to kill or inflict harm on another human, and besides, our allegiance should be to God rather than 'our' country. This isn't to say we should disregard the laws of the place we live in - Paul is quite clear about that:

• Romans 13:1 - "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, the the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God."

However, it is also made perfectly clear that God's will comes before Man's will, and when the two conflict, God's will takes ultimate priority.

• Acts 5:29 - "We ought to obey God rather than men."
• Acts 4:19 - "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge."

Rodge also had a handy analogy - the Bible teaches us that we should be as foreigners, as citizens of another kingdom. If, for example, Britain went to war with Poland, would all the Polish people living in the UK be allowed to enlist in the British Army? So, why would we, as 'strangers and pilgrims,' sign up?

-Question Three: Where is the line?-

This question is the one that really had us talking for ages, I think partly because it has so much to do with our lives today. Up to this point the discussion was mainly to do with military service, but this is where the subject of 'conscientious objection' opens right up.

As we said at the start, conscientious objection is when our conscience tells us that something is wrong, hopefully, in our cases, guided by the principles in the Scriptures, and our conscience can object to an awful lot of things.

If we go back to the Christadelphians in the two World Wars, they all applied for complete exemption from any form of military service, including non-combatant roles which pacifists would be happy with, such as ambulance driving. Again, the reasons for this are that these jobs were still part of the 'war effort' and came under military control. At any point, the military could hand you a gun and tell you to use it to defend a patient or something, and you would have no choice.

One thing is pretty clear-cut, though. If (by baptism) you have vowed to serve God, you can't then take an oath of allegiance to the Queen or your country. Common sense, really. Jesus tells us this unequivocally (!):

• Luke 16:13 - "No servant can serve two masters.... you cannot serve God and mammon."

As such, we should not be involved in things which require an oath of allegiance, such as the military or police, as we should always put God first. But this doesn't solve every conscience-related problem - the boundaries between right and wrong become a bit blurred when you look a bit closer. During the war, although a large number of Christadelphians were granted exemption from military service, they were sent to work on the land, providing food for everybody... including soldiers. Was this right or wrong?

I don't think we reached any definite conclusions, but I think it's one of these things that comes down to individual consciences. Rodge was saying that since farming is an ordinary peacetime job, providing food for people to eat, not like making munitions or anything, he personally wouldn't see a problem with working on the land during a war. Yet some Christadelphians were sent to prison for refusing to help the war effort in any way. It really comes down to how far each person feels it is right to take it.

One thing we discussed, but again didn't really reach any conclusions, was what soldiers who are converted should do. Paul tells us in Corinthians:

• Cor 7:17 - Let each one remain in the same calling as he was called."

What about soldiers? Jesus gives an answer in Luke:

• Luke 3:14 - "The soldiers asked him, saying, 'What shall we do?' He answered them, 'Do not intimidate anyone or accuse falsely, and be content with your wages.'"

But could you still take part in warfare, and be under oath to the Queen? Anyone any thoughts? Again, I suppose it would come down to individual consciences, but it'd be extremely interesting to see what folk think.

Right. Moving away from just military service, we had a talk about some other issues we might 'conscientiously object' to. We mentioned things like euthanasia, and other 'moral dilemmas' we hear about today, but the one we really spent some time thinking about was abortion. We've all heard the pros and cons, the for and againsts, but where should we stand as Christadelphians?

For the majority of situations, it isn't difficult to see the right choice. Using abortions as a means of getting out of 'inconvenient' pregnancies is obviously completely wrong. But what about situations where the health of the mother is at risk? What is 'right?' Again, thoughts please. As far as we could see, the best thing is to pray and have faith that God will not put us in the position of having to make such a decision.

The next place we went in our collective train of thought was right back to that citizenship thing again, and how we should behave as 'strangers and pilgrims.' If we put this forward as a reason for objecting to military service, we can expect, as Christadelphians in the World Wars found, to have people accusing us of hypocrisy, of being perfectly happy to take the benefits of living in Britain but using this as an excuse to get out of fighting. The only way to answer this is to show that we don't try to get involved in the running of the country and so on, and although, yes, we benefit from the NHS and road network and so on, it isn't free - we pay taxes just like anyone else. Actually, this raised another of those interesting questions - a sizeable chunk of tax money goes towards funding the Armed Forces. Does this mean we should withhold however much percent of the tax we pay? Personally, I reckon that's a bit daft, and liable to get you locked up, and I think most of us agreed on that, but again, any comments are welcome...

This naturally led us on to voting, and whether or not it is the right thing to do. Most, if not all, Christadelphians do not vote, because, as we have said, we don't want to get involved in politics, and also because we could be voting against what God wants to happen. Yes, you could say, but God is guiding the votes anyway, so it doesn't matter what we vote. But it does. If you ask all the Christians you know who they voted for in the last election, you can be fairly sure they weren't all rooting for the SNP, which means that some of them voted against what God wanted to happen, and we can't put ourselves in that position.

However, this refusal to be involved in politics might well come under fire as well. What about Daniel and Joseph? They were second-in-command in their respective governments. The answer to this is that neither of them were elected, nor did they get there out of ambition and a desire to be powerful. They were put in those positions by God, to do God's will, which shows how strong both of these characters were - I doubt many of us could be the second most powerful person in the known world and still serve God as well as they did.

So, finally, that's pretty much all of what we talked about (it took quite a while). Since this is a bit of a whopper of a post, it would be nice to end it with a couple of interesting and relevant rhetorical questions, one courtesy of Rodge and the other courtesy of Wikipedia.

Going back to military service, and with our religious reasons for objecting to joining up being closely cross-examined, it's useful to think of this: during WWI and WWII, there were Christadelphians in both Britain and Germany. If they had enlisted, they would have been fighting on opposite sides of the battlefield, and killing their own brothers in Christ. Is there really any question about what God wants us to do?

Finally, slightly tongue-in-cheek but with a totally serious message, one Christian was summoned before a tribunal in WWII to explain his reasons for requesting exemption from military service. Once he had put his case to them, and explained his beliefs, he asked the panel whether any of them were Christians. They all said yes. 'Tell me,' said the man, 'can any of you picture Christ in khaki running out into no-man's land?' He was granted full exemption.

So, conscientious objection. Provided we read the Bible regularly and do our best to understand and seek guidance from it, we can usually (not always) rely on our conscience to tell us, deep down, what is the right course of action to take. The real difficulty lies in being able to act accordingly, and apply the principles that we know to be right to what we do every day.

I'm afraid that turned into a bit of an epic blog post, but I think it's (mostly) relevant, and hopefully I haven't missed anything much out. If I have, post it as a comment. I'm not going to make this post any longer.

PS. Coming soon: Part Two! The GRG Crew are faced with a few tricky tribunal questions... will they survive to see Monday? Stay tuned!

The History of the Christadelphians

Session 3



This week we were looking at the history of Christadelphians.

The founder of the Christadelphians, John Thomas, had to come up with a name when the American Civil War broke out in 1861. They had to make a stand to what they believed in as conscientious objectors. So to avoid military service, it was required that believers had to belong to a recognised religious group that didn't agree with participation in war. So Thomas came up with 'Christadelphian' which means bretheren in Christ.
So it came from making a stand for our beliefs, to obey God rather than man.

We came up with a few passages that were relevent to this
Hebrews 11v13-16
Hebrews 13v14
1 Peter 2v11

Another influential figure we discussed for a short while was Robert Roberts. He was the man
generally considered to have continued the work of organising and establishing the Christadelphian movement. Mainly Britain, especially Aberdeen!
So that was the first thing we discussed in the evening.

We then went onto talking about Unamended Christadelphians. They believe the same things as Amended Christadelphians but the Unamended group believe that only the deceased who are "in Christ" will be raised from the dead and have eternal life; the rest will simply remain dead, without conscious existence. The Amended group believe that all who are responsible will be raised from the dead at the time of the Final Judgment. The "responsible" are those that have heard of the Gospel. The righteous among the responsible ones will be judged according to their works and given everlasting life. The wicked will be destroyed and cease to exist. Those who are not responsible, since they had never heard the Gospel, will not be raised.

We ended the evening drawing up a list of passages where it talks about brothers and sisters being "in Christ." We did this to show exactly what "in Christ" means.
Acts 24v24 - involves having faith in him
Rom 8v38 -39 - we have the love of God
Rom 12v4-5 - being in Christ is being in one
1 Cor 1v2 - sanctification, being made seperate
1 Cor 15v22 - made alive in Christ
2 Cor 5v17 - born again
Gal 2v4 - freedom from the law, set free from sin
Gal 3v26-28 - all one in Christ
Eph 2v12-16 - brings us near to God
Eph 3v6 - in Christ, the promise
Phi 3v3 - rejoice in Christ Jesus
Phi 3v14 - the reward in heaven
1 Thes 4 v16 - those dead in Christ shall rise
2 Tim 2v1 - grace in Christ Jesus
2 Tim 2v10 - salvation and glory
1 Pet 3v16 - in Christ has a direct effect on the way we live

So that was this weeks one, next post will be done by Big Hairy Daniel!

Week 2: Actually, there's this book I'm reading called the Bible...

This time round, we tried to work out why we base our faith on the Bible, and whether or not it can really support our beliefs. The beans made a welcome return, and Jamie ate all the grapes. We came up with loads and loads of stuff, which I will now proceed to mangle.



Surprisingly enough, the fact that there are boring bits in the Bible (genealogies, lists of numbers, bits we don't immediately understand, and bits that might not seem all that relevant to our salvation) ranked high on our list of reasons for why we trust its authority. The main message of the Bible is clear - God's way is the way of life, and any other way leads to pointless death - but the detail is what ultimately convinces. We thought about the little bits of information that tie up in books that were written years apart and by different writers; two people might notice different things about the same event, and their comments might explain each other, for example. Matthew (27:37), Mark (15:26) and John (19:19) give three different accounts of the notice above Jesus' head on the cross, but we are told that it was written in three different languages. Coincidence? Nah. Rodge backed this up with some examples from J.J. Blunt's Undesigned Scriptural Coincidences, which can be found online here: http://dandenongbec.org.au/blunt/index.html



But I'll start at the start. First, we thought of all the people who were witness to Jesus' death and resurrection. Paul lists them in 1 Cor 15:3-8, urging the Corinthians to remain faithful awaiting the resurrection of the dead because some of them were saying it would never happen. This is an example of a typical device used in scripture - solid evidence for belief is given, and then we are asked to base our faith on it and believe in something we can't see (Heb 11:1).



Here are a few of the peices of evidence we came up with:

• There is a tremendous amount of historical data in the Bible. Archaeology has never contradicted what the Bible says, and miny finds have backed it up. In contrast, the Book of Mormon has been shattered by New World findings.


• Evolution just doesn't work, whichever way you look at it. It is scientifically unverifiable, and that leaves intelligent design. The resposibilities of created beings to their creator are for the individual to decide, but the Bible gives the most comprehensive answer on this subject.


• Prophecy continues to be fulfilled. The Jews have been back in Israel since 1948, as prophecied in Isaiah 1:24-8, but Jerusalem has not yet been 'redeemed with judgement' (v.27) so we know we have something else to wait for.
• Many other religious writings concentrate on the actions of their gods, whereas the Bible is wholly concerned with the separation and reconciliation of God and Mankind. We should respect other people, but we do not have to respect their beliefs. By the way, that is a statement that can be misunderstood very easily, so don't for a moment imagine that you can go about ridiculing other religions and denominations. It's just that we shouldn't view them as holding sacred beliefs, because they are man-made, and for the gratification of man.
• The Bible has many authors, but only one message. It's as simple as that. And the authors quote each other so we know who wrote God's word - Jesus alone quotes almost every book in the Old Testament.
• There is no doctrinal inconsistency in the Bible - if it teaches a particular lesson, it will never contradict itself. God's principles have remained the same since the creation of the world.
• And lastly, the subject of Biblical transmission, or how the Bible reached us. We spent a bit of time on this, and reached the conclusion that the Bible couldn't have survived for us as it did had it been a book written by men. God was in control the whole time.

Right, so that was last week, March 30. I'd better phone Jamie, who had finished his blog for April 5 before I was halfway through this one...