Want Some Answers ???


Hi Benaiah

>>Gday MP Salute You don't have to be Einstein or a ploughman or have the Holy Spirit to see why you think certain scriptures indicate you have the Holy Spirit. The point is can you prove you have it. Its all in your mind.<<

Yes I have Christ in my heart. But my faith doesn't come from my "mind" but trusting God's Word. God's promises are not a figment of my imagination. "The Helper will come - the Spirit who reveals the truth about God..." (Jn.15.26 GNB). Without which you won't know the truth about God. Numerous Christians testify to the Holy Spirit's power and have been transformed into new people. Christadelphians of course, are just trying to reform the old nature.

The Holy Spirit takes God's Word and wonderfully opens the understanding, guides and comforts and empowers. Why not believe what Jesus said? "How much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him? (Lk.11.13). You might not believe my claims, but you should believe the promises of God. No one needs to
"prove" the Holy Spirit, you need to invite Him into your heart. The Holy Spirit "proves" Himself to those who have Him, "The Spirit Himself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God" (Rom.8.16-7).

We all fill our minds with something - " For they that are after the flesh mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is hostile to God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. (Rom.8.5-8).

>>Like a placeba, an opiate but not an iota of proof can you muster exceptpious feelings and experiences. You can claim as much as you like. All the scriptures you call upon are capable of another understanding, and if construed as you do contradict apostolic teaching elsewhere.<<

Yes you reject any 'experience' and are close-minded. You won't even believe or obey God's Word. If 'the scriptures' have 'another understanding' what is it? They are the teaching of the apostles for the church age (Mk16.15 Phil.1.6 2 Thes.3.4). Paul says Christians are to 'hold fast' carefully to all he taught (Titus 1.9 1 Cor.11.2 15.2 2 Thes.2.15). You are not only saying the Holy Spirit is not for today, but many verses have no meaning today. Christadelphians make the bible sound very deceptive don't you think?

In my mind the only '
contradiction' to 'apostolic teaching' that can be 'proved' is that Thomas claimed to have rediscovered the early gospel. Yet ignored what the apostles wrote, had no Holy Spirit, or miracle signs to prove his claim.

>>I will deal specifically with you points after this intro. Orthodox teaching which is what you espouse is astray from Bible teaching. It is the great apostasy predicted in the Bible which Christ will destroy at his coming (2Thess.2).<<

What I 'espouse' is 'astray from bible teaching' only because it's contrary to what John Thomas taught. Anything contrary Thomas, (in your mind) is 'astray' and 'great apostasy'. According to Thomas everyone else are "damnable heretics".

>>If I had to choose between you pious understanding (and that of all the college bred theological quacks) and the expositions of John Thomas I would choose the latter. They make sense to me whereas your stuff I find contadictory, setting scripture against scripture, OT against NT, apostle against Christ, defying right reason and logic and based on trumped up claims to have the Holy Sprit<<

'Quack' is someone who claims to be a doctor but isn't. Thomas never qualified at bible 'college' yet claimed to be the only one who understood the bible. He was rejected by many; yet held a naïve opinion he alone understood the bible, so he rejected all other baptism but his own. You follow a 19th century medical doctor in order to understand the bible (this doesn't 'make sense to me'). I have offered many scriptures regarding the Holy Spirit - so which set 'scripture against scripture'?

>>which frankly I regard as the hallmark of an apostate, dead in trespasses and sins.<<

Amazing!! You 'regard as the hallmark of an apostate, dead in sins', any who 'claim' to have the Holy Spirit. The very opposite to what the bible teaches. It says the gift He brings when He comes is eternal life (Heb.9.14-15). Such people are no longer under guilt and condemnation but are washed clean by the blood of the Lamb.

The Bible determines who are
"dead in trespasses and sins", not you or what John Thomas said. He was 'dead in trespasses and sins' because he never repented of sin or received the Holy Spirit. But tell me, how can one be "dead" and not annihilated? The bible calls people 'dead' yet they have conscious existence, what do you say to that?

>>Summary of your beliefs: 1.There are two gospels one for the Jews and the other for the gentiles. This reminds me of the JW's and is blaspemy (see Heb.11).<<

If you think my doctrine is closer to JW's, you have a comprehension problem. For a "summary of" my "beliefs" ask me, don't make up what you think. I'll go through your summary and clarify what I believe.

Re. "
Two gospels." What I said, was the 'gospel of the kingdom' preached only to Jews was only to Israel. The kingdom was God's promise to them, their hope. Read Matthew, note the emphasis on the coming kingdom. This good news of the kingdom was rejected by the Jews and they crucified their 'king'.

The message of the Christian Church however, is not the gospel of the Kingdom, but the message Christ's death, burial, resurrection, and forgiveness of sins in His name Act 2:36-39. How clear is Acts 4:12?

Its not a 'kingdom' message, but a salvation message through Christ's death and resurrection. When the Jew's rejected the king and His message the Kingdom could NOT be instituted (but will be in a coming day). The gospel was the message for all nations [Mt.28:19]. John Thomas focused on "the gospel of the Kingdom" ignoring "the Gospel of the Grace of God" [Ac.20:24]. He focused on one and missed the other.

>>3.The gospel for the Gentiles is salvation in Jesus and means a more elevated immortal status in heaven.<<

No what I wrote was, "The Good News of the new agreement is that all nations can enjoy God's unconditional love." See also, Mt.28.19. And "Except you are converted, and become as a little child, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven'. (Mt.18.2-3). Unless you "repent" and be 'born again' you will never be a “citizen of heaven” or a "partaker of the heavenly calling" [Eph.2:19 Phil.3:20.LB Heb.3.1, 10.34 11.16].

>>5.The Holy Spirit gives an unregenerate person if they pray for it understanding and salvation in Jesus.<<

The Holy Spirit is 'the gift of God' (Jn.4.10 Ac.8.19-20) received in the new birth. Jesus said, "Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit." So "You must be born again." [Jn.3:6-7]. "....he saved us, (past tense) by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost" (Tit.3.5). The renewal is a washing clean from sin not just a new understanding.

Jesus said people can have bible knowledge and eyes but not see and have ears, but not hear (Mk.8:18).Why? They lack spiritual discernment without God's Spirit; "The world seeth him not, neither knoweth him" (Jn.14:17) neither his person, office, as a sanctifier or comforter. Nicodemus, a master in Israel, could not conceive how a man should be born again of water and of the Spirit (Jn.3:8,9). Nor can a natural man receive or know the things of God's Spirit, because they are spiritually discerned, and lack a spiritual vision faculty to discern them(1 Co.2:14 Jn.5:39,40).

"We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the things freely given us by God" (1 Co. 2:12). "For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh," and take pleasure in them; "but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit" (Rom.8:5). The comforts of the Word are spiritual; and only the spiritual heart, as it is renewed by grace, can taste and relish them.

>>14. The Holy Spirit is not necessary for faith.<<

That is what Christadelphians believe, not me. I believe the Holy Spirit convicts of sin and points to Christ. Without His work faith is dead.

>>15. God left his throne and came and inhabited a human body. This is the incarnation. He had himself killed, even though he was God, to show how human he was but by the same token how obedient he was (to himself).<<

God became 'flesh and dwelt among' the Jewish people. So Zacharias could say, "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people" (Lk.1.67-68). "He came unto his own, and his own received him not" (Jn.1.11,14-15). But He didn't kill 'himself'. He was 'taken by wicked hands and crucified' (Ac.2.23). Though He was "God" (Phil.2.6-7) He was taken, not 'to show how human he was' or how 'obedient'. But He became "obedient unto death, even the death of the cross" for the "remission of sin". And all who "Repent" "…shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Ac.2.38).

>>18. Ecclesiastes was written by Soloman and can be generally ignored as a source of spirtual undestanding even though Paul says "all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." Must refer to OT since NT not compiled!<<

This is what you think I believe. What I said was, "Ecclesiastes portrays Solomon’s apostasy so is questionable for determining doctrine. It sketches life “under the sun” and reveals the emptiness of the soul apart from God. Whether death, labor, wisdom, instruction, etc., it views all things from a natural standpoint". “All is vanity”. Notice the pronoun "I" 40 times in the first 2 chapters. The verses you mentioned refer to the body. You 'ignore' where it's said the spirit survives death. God "formed the spirit of man within him" (Zech.12.1) and at death it "returns to God who gave it" (Ec.12.7).

>>20. The memorial is optional and need not be kept weekly. 21. Baptism is optional and not a fundamental doctrine. 22. Infant sprinkling washes away original sin. Some of the above I have added in to give a complete picture of your beliefs based on Orthodox doctrine. You may differ on some. The others I have gleaned from your disquisitions.<<

You have not 'gleaned' these from anything I wrote, but make it up. The words "memorial is optional and need not be kept weekly" are your words, not mine. And the words "Baptism is optional and not a fundamental doctrine… Infant sprinkling washes away original sin" are your words, not mine. I didn't comment on these side-track issues, do you want me to?

>> Now for a detailed reply to your points in last E-Mail (5//2/04)<<

I 'gleaned' your 'reply' you are not "detailed" at all. You over look much and promise to answer 'the rest later'!!.

I wrote that "Without the Holy Spirit you are unregenerate and spiritually discerned". This means you will be "unable to understand the deep things of God". And not even a 'child of God'. Does this not trouble you?" To this you replied,

>>I don't see any evidence for this assertion in Paul's exposition of justification by faith and the doctrine of the atonement in either Romans or Galations. Paul shows the first step in justification having pronounced all under sin (Jew and Gentile), is baptism (Rom.6.3) "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death."<<

This is a shockingly poor answer. How 'baptism' and 'justification' relate to spiritual discernment, is beyond me. You say you "don't see any evidence for this assertion in Paul's exposition…in …Romans…Galatians." Why not look in Corinthians, the verse is not found in Romans or Galatians.

Paul says, "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor 2:14). Obviously you (who boast not to have the Holy Spirit) cannot understand this verse. I suspect with you, its more likely you 'refuse to understand'. So let me explain it. Notice it says, "does not accept" that is, they clearly will "not accept", but refuse! And notice it says "they are foolishness to him", this is true of you. You regard the devil, Holy Spirit, soul, Trinity, as "foolishness". And notice the words "cannot understand them", no matter how hard you try, no matter how many verses, no one can make you "understand". This is why subjects about spiritual realities are confusing to those 'without the Spirit' like yourself.

>>This agrees with the Lord's own words "He that believeth an is baptized shall be saved" (Mk16.16) Mtt.28.19 Christ to the apostles "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." Rom.7 Paul shows the conflict between the passions of the flesh and the law of God (v.5,18,22,23,25) for a believer (himself being the exemplar).<<

This has no relation to the subject of spiritual discernment either. Looks like you are trying to say something about baptism. Not that baptism really matters to Christadelphians. They believe there are FAR more CONDITIONS vital for salvation than yours. Ie., a perfect life-long commitment to Christadelphian doctrines held perfectly as Thomas ordered.

>>Rom.8.1 He develops his argument a step further. "There is therfore no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." This refers to the godly walk in Christ. To walk after the flesh is to obey its lusts and affections. To walk after the Spirit is nothing to do with the Holy Spirit. It is to obey the law of God, to live a godly life. He uses the word Spirit through the rest of the chapter. e.g. v.9 "But ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."<<

Again nothing here about spiritual discernment. But, to 'walk in the Spirit' HAS everything to do with 'the Holy Spirit'. Proven by verse you mention. Those who 'walk' "after the Spirit", do so because "the Spirit of God" indwells them. Amazing how many times scripture says exactly the opposite to Christadelphianism. It's clear from Rom.8.1-16 without the Holy Spirit you are condemned (8.1) in bondage to 'the law of sin and death' (8.2) unrighteous (8.3) mind the things of the flesh (8.5) in enmity against God (8.7) cannot please God (8.8) don't belong to Christ (8.9) dead in sin (8.10) debtor to the flesh (8.12) are not His son (8.14) bondage to fear (8.15) cannot be His child (8.16).

Jesus said, "Even the Spirit of truth; whom (Christadelphians) cannot receive, because (they) see Him not, neither know Him: but ye know Him; for he dwells with you, and shall be in you. (Jn.14.17).

>>The word is pneuma = wind, breathe (Vine), mental disposition (Strong). Paul is teaching God manifestation, having the mental (and moral) disposition of Christ which he refers to as "spiritual mindedness" as opposed tothe carnal mind (thinking of the flesh) in v.6).<<

I doubt you would be a Christadelphian if you really read Strong's or Vines dictionaries. Notice what they say about - death, soul, devil, Holy Spirit, hell etc. It's TOTALLY contrary to Christadelphianism. So why misquote them? Christadelphians always dishonestly quote these scholars, giving the impression they offer doctrinal support. In reality, they don't. Let me quote what you ignore. Strong says under 'pneuma', "a human soul that has left the body…..the third person of the trinity, the God the Holy Spirit" (Strong, J. (1996). The exhaustive concordance of the Bible : Showing every word of the test of the common English version of the canonical books, and every occurrence of each word in regular order. (electronic ed).

Vine says under 'pneuma', "the immaterial, invisible part of man, Luke 8:55; Acts 7:59; 1 Cor. 5:5; Jas. 2:26; cf. Eccl. 12:7…… the sentient element in man, that by which he perceives, reflects, feels, desires, Matt. 5:3; 26:41; Mark 2:8; Luke 1:47, 80; Acts 17:16; 20:22; 1 Cor. 2:11; 5:3, 4; 14:4, 15; 2 Cor. 7:1; cf. Gen. 26:35; Isa. 26:9; Ezek. 13:3; Dan. 7:15…..As a general rule the article is present where the subject of the teaching is the Personality of the Holy Spirit, e.g., John 14:26, where He is spoken of in distinction from the Father and the Son. See also 15:26 and cf. Luke 3:22". (Vine, W. E., Unger, M. F., & White, W. (1996). Vine's complete expository dict., Old / N.T words (Vol. 2, Page 593). Nashville: T. Nelson.)

By the way. The personality of the Spirit is proved from attributes of personality, as intelligence and volition, ascribed to him (Jn.14:17, 6. 15:26 1 Cor.2:10, 11; 12:11). He reproves, helps, glorifies, intercedes (Jn.16:7-13 Rom.8:26). He executes the offices peculiar only to a person. The very nature of these offices involves personal distinction (Lk.12:12 Acts 5:32 15:28 16:6 28:25 1 Cor.2:13 Heb.2:4 3:7 2 Pe.1:21). Worship is required and ascribed to him (Isa.6:3 Acts 28:25 Rom.9:1 Rev.1:4 Mt.28:19).

>>Child of God. A. This is a person regenerated by the Word agreeing with Paul "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible by the Word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1Pet.1.23). The Word (Logos) is the regenerative power, not the Holy Spirit, a doctrine clearly set forth by the apostles, and denied at a person's peril. So, no I am not troubled by your assertion.<<

Peter says the Word of God is the medium of the new birth. It's by means of the word a man receives the incorruptible seed of the Holy Spirit and so becomes born again (Jn.3.3-5). Christians are born again of the Spirit, yet not without the use of the Word. The Word is not the begetting principle itself but only that by which the Holy Spirit works. "He saved us through the bath of rebirth and renewal by the holy Spirit, whom he richly poured out on us" (Titus 3.5). The Holy Spirit is the Agent in regeneration and the word of God is the instrument. So you should be troubled without a new birth.

Peter refers the new birth and the young babies growing, "crave pure spiritual milk so that you can grow into the fullness of your salvation. Cry out for this nourishment as a baby cries for milk". (2:1–3). You said the scripture I quoted about the new birth, was all my ideas. Yet I quoted the plain teaching of Christ and the apostles. To this you reply,

>>Yes you quoted it but misunderstood it because you are intoxicated with Orthodox heresy.<<

I base my understanding on the Bible, not churches. I have used the bible, and your problem is trying to answer and explain those verses. You determine heresy by anything John Thomas says. He had his own "private interpretation" contrary to 1 Pe.1.20 and called it the long-lost discovered gospel.

>>Yes he certainly did. Read Elpis Israel.<<

Are you saying the gospel can't be understood unless one read 'Elpis Israel"? Why didn't God include that in the bible? Anyone who wants to come to God must go through John Thomas? Is he a saviour next to the Saviour? Did Thomas do miracles and prove he was from God? He predicted the end of the Roman Catholic Church and other events that never happened. Without the Holy Spirit he contradicted the Bible.

>>Not on my investigations. Rather is it Orthodoxy that contradicts the Bible at very turn.<<

Your 'investigations' are nothing but a blind acceptance and allegiance to John Thomas. The only books you would read are written by clones of the sect. The promise of the Holy Spirit today is biblical. "How much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him? (Lk.11.13).

Thomas contradicted the bible at every turn. He was influenced by Darwinism, which rejected supernatural beings, miracles, spiritual realities, no the trinity, no God in the flesh, soul, devil etc. So he argued man was just an animal body, with no soul or spirit, this was regarded compatible with 'science'. You reply,

>>Garbled trash. John Thomas wrote an article in the Lancet 1829 rejecting immortal soulism. This was long before Darwin spouted any of his claptrap. No he didn't reject supernatural beings. Read Elpis Israel "Dissertation on the Elohim". Also Phanerosis. No he didn't reject miracles.<<

He was "influenced by Darwinism, which rejected supernatural beings…." Not 'trash" he rejected the person of the devil and Holy Spirit.

Thomas (1805-71) mixed religion with naturalism and primitive science. Many don't realise even young Darwin (1809-82) and others were greatly influenced Charles Lyell's claim of millions of years. Naturalism was already taught and accepted and medicine was primitive with controversial theories. In 1830 Prof. McDermontt published, "The Materiality of the Mind, the Immortality of the Soul, and the Vital Principle". Thomas as a surgeon was influenced. The term "Vital Principle" or unseen spiritual energy was considered to permeate all nature without which nothing would exist. This relates to the evolutionary theory of Spontaneous Regeneration (or Biogenesis) which they once believed was true.

The "Vital Principle" theory also implied that the brain was the one and same thing as the mind. See where Thomas cynically mocks the idea of a soul (p6 para.4 "Dr Thomas His Life and Work" Roberts. 1925 Edn). This was before the days of electrical research. Thomas erroneously argued electricity would be found to be the basic ingredient of life. And would be found to be the creative and sustaining powers equating to the Holy Spirit, he then wrongly taught it was the Spirit of God (p.35 "Elpis Israel". Thomas. 1917 10th Edn.)

So John 'liberal' Thomas rejected the devil, the miracle of the incarnation, the new birth, and the indwelling Holy Spirit and that God can do miracles today. By doing this, he made scripture appear deceptive and unreliable. Just what atheistic naturalism and liberalism does. Darwin and liberalism are bed-fellows of the same birth. With Darwin and Thomas man becomes just an animal without soul or spirit and dies like an animal. Man's soul, the devil and the Deity of Christ/Spirit/Trinity were all rejected in 'scientific' theory. Just as the liberalist, Thomas also never had a spiritual birth or repented, never met Jesus as Saviour.

>>Yes he did reject the Trinity, an absurd paganised invention of gnostics. The Bible is a glorious testimony to the Oneness of God, a fundamental Bible doctrine. "There is One God , the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." (!Cor.8.6). This was the clear teaching of the apostle and of Christ.<<

Many Christadelphians have their own ideas on how the trinity doctrine originated. But the very verse you mentioned indicates Christ is the Creator and Upholder of the universe ("all things") and no one can come to God but by Him. In Tit 2:12-13 Paul says, "great God and Savior Jesus Christ". This is one of the strongest statements of the deity of Christ in the NT.

>>He nowhere claims equality with God.<<

"But said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God". (Jn.5.18). Paul says, "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God" (Phil.2.6). Why not believe the bible?

>>He was born of a woman, begotten of God. i.e. God was literally his Father. Christ was begotten by divine power operating on Mary.<<

I agree. So John says, "No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made Him known" (Jn.1.18 NIV).

W.E. Vine wrote, "The glory was that of a unique relationship and the word 'begotten' does not imply a beginning of His Sonship. It suggests relationship, but must be distinguished from generation as applied to man. We can only rightly understand the term 'the only begotten' when used of the Son, in the sense of unoriginated relationship. Another reading is monogenes Theos 'God only begotten'." (VINE, W. E. An Expository Dictionary at New Testament Words. p.140. Moody Press 1985 Edn.)

Liddell and Scott (Reformed Theologians) say 'begotten' of God means, 'monogenes only begotten… one and the same blood'. (LIDDELL, H. G. & SCOTT, R. Greek-English Lexicon p919. 5th Edn. Revised & Augmented. Oxford Uni. Press, 1861).

>>He did not preexist prior to this. (Lk..1.35).This accords with simple logic, scripture and reason<<

He would need to 'pre-exist' to be Creator so must have pre-existed (Heb.1.2). He claimed to have come 'down from heaven' and would return, "up where he was before" (Jn.6.58, 62). He refers to the glory He had with the Father "before the world was" (Jn.17.5). He said, "Before Abraham was, I am" (Jn.8.58). They took up stones to kill him because He made "himself equal with God" (see Jn.5.18). He "was with God" in the beginning (Jn.1.1-2).

>>Yes he rejected the Incarnation (God in the flesh) but not God manifestation (God manifest in the flesh), phanerosis. Phanerosis is a fundamental bible doctrine which Is expounded by Paul and the apostles. especially John. Christ manifested the thinking of his Father "the Logos made flesh" "the volume of the book", "the exact likeness" (Gk. characteribus) (Heb1. 3) A.V. express image.<<

Yes Thomas rejected the bible which says Christ was God who "was made flesh". "He was in the world and the world was made by Him and the world knew Him not" (Jn.1.10,14). To Create the world He had to exist before the world,this accords with simple logic, scripture and reason. "Phanerosis" is what you believe when the truth is too plain and simple to understand.

>>Yes he rejected the devil as a supernatural being out to entrap a person and entice him to sin complete with horns, hoofs and pitch fork (His sooty majesty). This is pagan supserstition.<<

Those words are used by those who deny or mock the idea of the devils existence to remove any fear one might have. The arch-enemy of man would wish to remain secret and keep his plans hidden. He works better with those who don't know he exists. When Roberts wrote about the gospel account of Legion he said, "The narrative is necessarily tinged with the notion universal in the world at that time, that madness was due to the presence of malignant beings" (p.155 Nazareth Revisited. Roberts). What he confirmed, was that the people of Jesus day DID believe there were devils or demons - evil spirits. And they did believe there was a devil and demons and the bible expressed that belief. In fact, right up to the 19th century people believed that. To give any other meaning to scripture makes scripture into folklore.

>>But he didn't reject the diabolos that is human nature. This is the source of all the evil in the world. Read Heb.2.14.paul equates human nature with the Diabolos. Christ partook of the flesh. Why? To render powerless, that which hath the power of death, the Diabolos. Therefore Diabolos equals human nature. The word simply means a false accuser, a calumniator and has no supernatural connotation.<<

Why not quote Liddell's dictionary, oh that's right, he believes in a devil. Go have a look, quote me a page of Liddell's book. Most Christadelphians half-quote old, hard to find, 'Greek Lexicons' and think they are clever. Few can check ancient lexicons to verify their claims about word meanings. Yet a PROPER reading of lexicons (which Christadelphians do not give) proves the opposite to what they claim. Why? Because no scholar of the Greek NT agrees with Christadelphian doctrine. What does Strong say about Diabolos?

"Satan the prince of the demons, the author of evil, persecuting good men, estranging mankind from God and enticing them to sin, afflicting them with diseases by means of demons who take possession of their bodies at his bidding." (Strong, J. (1996). The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible : Showing every word of the test of the common English version of the canonical books, and every occurrence of each word in regular order. (electronic ed.) And Vine –

An accuser, a slanderer” (from diaballo, “to accuse, to malign”), is one of the names of Satan. From it the English word “Devil” is derived, and should be applied only to Satan, as a proper name." (Vine, W. E., Unger, M. F., & White, W. (1996). Vine's Complete Expository Dic., of Old / NT Words (Vol. 2, P.166).

Cruden's concordance refers to Satan as "the supreme evil spirit" [Cruden's Complete Concordance to the Old / N.T p.146 Lutterworth Press London, 1930].

In order to be a 'false accuser' one must have a personality. Sin in itself is dead or arbitrary, for it is a transgression of the law (Deut.26:13 1 Sam.15:24 Isa.24:5 Mt.15:3 Rom.2:27). But, to falsely accuse, a living intelligence must unjustly claim against another, or it cannot be titled a 'false accuser'. No matter how many times I hear the Christadelphian argument that there is no devil, it never seems plausible or convincing. It must be because of the massive scholarship today which understands the original biblical languages as never before.

>>This is sheer twaddle. Gesenius is still the best Hebrew scholar and was available. Schrivellius, Liddell aand Scott Greek Lexicon are still the best were available.<<

If Christadelphians have told you this, then they are lying to you. You have no idea of the advances and improvement in scholarship from the days of Liddell and Thomas that are available today. Henry George Liddell (1811-1898)and Robert Scott, (1811-1887) compiled their 'Greek-English Lexicon' without the light of the new knowledge, which came to us by the discovery of the papyri. For they based their work on the Lexicon of F. Passow published in 1812. He in turn had based his work upon that of J.G. Schneider whose work first appeared in 1797-8. (Preface. LIDDELL H & SCOTT R. A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford Clarendon Press 1925).

Modern day scholars believe with the discovery of the papyri 'during the last fifty years this light has brought to bear upon the New Testament with priceless results'. (VINE, W. E. Expository Dictionary of NT Words. Forward.) It is well known that these papyri have 'illuminated every aspect of the life of the Greek-speaking people of the ancient world in which the New Testament was written' (p27. KUBO S. & SPECHT W. F. So Many Versions? Academie Books, Grand Rapids 1983). They have shown that the NT was not written in the Attic of the classics. The Preface to the 5th edition of Liddell and Scott's Dictionary (1861) refers to the old Attic language and certain difficulties and vagueness with understanding Greek literature which Liddell and Scott experienced. Another edition (1925) mentions, 'the large mass of new material awaiting incorporation' and that Liddell and Scott's Dictionary must be 'largely rewritten' (Preface. LIDDELL, H. 0. & SCOTT, R. Ibid). It was further revised in 1940 by H.S.Jones. In 1600 there were over 700 NT Greek words with unknown meaning, today only a hand-full.

The massive consensus in scholarship today destroys any creditability Christadelphianism has. The doctrines we have been discussing are never in question.

>>All these doctrines you spout have been around at least since the third centtury AD. Athanasian Creed dates from the Council of Nicea 325AD chaired by the apostate Consstantine and hisapostate Catholic bishops. Read Mosheim, its all in there.<<

"These doctrines' were not dreamed-up by Councils and put into Creeds, but already held by Early Church Fathers passed on from the apostles. They are clearly taught in God's Word. I quoted a number of verses, but there are numerous more. Don't confuse the apostasy of the Catholic church in the period from 900 to 1600's with the early church fathers and their defence of the faith against heresy. Having studied the early Councils I can assure you there is no unscriptural doctrines from the Nicea 325, Constantinople 381, Ephesus 431 or Chalcedon 451, Councils.

In the early history of the church those who attacked the doctrine of the trinity (ie., Sabellius, Arius, Macedonius) didn't argue it was "
pagan" Greek philosophy, Platonism or "apostate", but they differed only in Scriptural interpretation. You wrote,

>>This is the first page of you E-Mail The rest later.<<

I have been waiting all this time for 'the rest'. Shall I keep waiting? Ensuring you of my on-going interest in any further correspondence.


" I do not wait to be attacked. If no one will go with me to the assault, I go alone, with the determination to scatter them, or be demolished in the attempt" John Thomas (p.185 Thomas His Life and Work. Roberts.)