Moderators Gregory Matthews Posted November 16, 2016 Moderators Share Posted November 16, 2016 Myron said below: 1) In context, the Myron was referring to a comment that suggested that in ancient Israel, prior to the time of Christ, there were female priests. 2) It is absolute nonsense to suggest, as Myron did, that something not found in either the Bible or the writings of EGW is an absolute falsehood. Neither the Bible nor EGW can be expected to say everything about ancient Israel that might be true. We know many things about Israel that are not found in either the Bible or the writings of EGW. NOTE: I am not saying that female priests existed in ancient Israel. I am simply responding to Myron. . . . if Ellen White does not say it, and if it also cannot be found in scripture, it is necessarily an absolute falsehood, so I am surprised to see the idea come out in SDA circles at all. CoAspen 1 Quote Gregory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myron Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 19 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said: Myron said below: 1) In context, the Myron was referring to a comment that suggested that in ancient Israel, prior to the time of Christ, there were female priests. 2) It is absolute nonsense to suggest, as Myron did, that something not found in either the Bible or the writings of EGW is an absolute falsehood. Neither the Bible nor EGW can be expected to say everything about ancient Israel that might be true. We know many things about Israel that are not found in either the Bible or the writings of EGW. NOTE: I am not saying that female priests existed in ancient Israel. I am simply responding to Myron. No you are not responding to what I said Gregory. I did not say that if it is not found in the Bible or Ellen White it cannot possibly be true; I said I see that attitude from Adventists all the time, even while they are ignoring biblical truths, such as the presence of the Asherah pole in the temple and the actual worship of of Asherah in the temple as God's wife. Note that Asherah worship, in an open form in her own temple often involved the ministry of female priests, but there is no biblical evidence that such female priests actually served in the temple. Jeremiah 3 tells us that various aspects of the worship of other gods was brought into the temple to be officiated by the male Levitical priesthood as the worship of the true God, and was therefore worse than the open idolatry being committed by Israel . Now, directly contrary to your point number 2, I had already given Kevin the information he was seeking regarding a legitimate use of female "priests" (anyone including women could take a Nazerite vow, and it could be as short as a month or for their entire lives and be made on their behalf by God (Samson) or their parents (Eli and probably John the Baptist); this only would apply to a lifelong vow; I can't vow that you will be a Nazerite for any length of time now, even if I were your parent.) I had told Kevin that this cannot be proven directly from the Bible because there is no direct statement anywhere in scripture that these are a priesthood or even that they can regularly serve in the Holy Place of the temple. You have to go to historical sources for that information, and I stated so very clearly. But then for that matter I had stated very clearly that the belief that something can only be true if it is found in scripture or EGW is something I find common from the most "conservative" Adventists (and I used the quotes because these people are not conservative at all, but are way out on the fringes of truth where only tiny bits of truth are mixed with great falsehoods easily proven as such -- and they include some of our "greatest" evangelists) and that this is NOT my opinion. I provided Kevin with material that while very biblical does not include a word of Ellen White; I stated that for full confirmation of this information you must also go to historical sources, then I said: 22 hours ago, Myron said: As I said, you have to go to historical documents, and among the most "conservative" (a serious misnomer) Adventists if Ellen White does not say it, and if it also cannot be found in scripture, it is necessarily an absolute falsehood, so I am surprised to see the idea come out in SDA circles at all. Greg, can you tell me where in this statement you can say this is my personal stated belief? What I see her is utter contempt for this belief when I say it is a serious misnomer for those holding it to call themselves conservative. Then I hint that not only do I think it is the belief of the "most conservative" SDAs, but that I actually believe it to be the majority belief among SDAs, which I do and with good reason. SDAs hold a very unbiblical view of Ellen White, and for that matter their view of her and our relationship to her and her gift, and for that matter her own writings show that this belief in her cannot be supported as we teach it and prove we believe it. I know all too many SDAs (again, very possibly a majority) who have no qualms against using Ellen White to disprove something in scripture. To those I say as I do to the Muslims I occasionally debate, you are not worshiping that which you call God but instead are worshiping your prophet, or at least your conception of what your prophet says, which in both cases is generally false. In this one sentence, in order for me to say what you claim I said "in context", you have to take the middle phrase out of the sentence and ignore both the first phrase, where I say you must go to other sources, and the last sentence in which I say I am surprised to see this point of view (which is truth) put forward by any Adventist. There is nothing in this context stating I believe something is only true if it comes from Ellen White or scripture though very little (but not nothing) in this immediate context to show my absolute contempt for this point of view which is so common in our denomination, even among the highly educated who should have much better critical thinking capabilities and at least some degree of spiritual discernment. That latter is generally lacking throughout the church, even this denomination. What we have her from you is open misrepresentation (false witness against your neighbor) and should not be tolerated by anyone. I can cause enough of my own problems without having you add to them. Truth will always meet with extreme resistance from those lost in falsehood, and takes time and deep study to be properly established. Even so, those lost in falsehood will usually not be convinced because the idols of their hearts are so strong and they love them so much (Ezekiel 14:1-11) You, yourself, have been among those who whine about the length of many of my posts. I am not here to speak to the children with spiritual ADHD who cannot tolerate even a one sentence answer. When getting into the actual meaning of something, especially where there are centuries of false teaching to be corrected and even the simplest of terms have to be redefined by actual scriptural study such answers of necessity cannot be short. The vomit of centuries of teaching by the unthinking clergy and prophets (Isaiah 28: 7-11) and the curse that has become cannot be corrected in short posts. If you don't want to get into deep study, whether on your own or guided by such as me, don't. If you don't want to read long posts, don't. In either case I am not addressing you and don't really care if you get anything from it or not. God will open your eyes at his appointed time and it is not my business. I am writing for those who are actually seeking truth and are willing to work for it. That is not to say everything I say is truth, but those who don't work for it generally can't correct me, because the vomit of years of thoughtless teaching is not something that gets my attention. Almost always it is something I have already studied in depth and have rejected because it is proven false by scripture or other sources. I welcome comments, especially those well thought out ones claiming I am wrong. I accept the challenge and do deeper study in those cases, and I am not telling you not to contradict me. Just do it with thought and actual truth to your claim of what I said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kevin H Posted November 18, 2016 Moderators Share Posted November 18, 2016 Thank you for that information Myron, but these professors were not discussing the Asherah pole . Granted that was a problem and an additional situation. What has been pointed out are that there are some Psalms written in the Famine tense indicating that they were to be lead out by women priests. And there are a few other places which I do not know how to present that supports women priests as a part of the Old Testament priesthood not counting the apostasies. Also, the apostasies ended in the post exile temple. Yet even with their super-strict rejection of other gods and goddesses they still had women priests and thought nothing about it until 200 years before Jesus, and the women priests ended when Herod's temple had a court of women where women could go no further. They still had female rabbis. In Jesus' day women rabbis were as hot a topic as women's ordination is today. And we find evidence that Jesus sided with the rabbis who supported having women rabbis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rudywoofs (Pam) Posted November 18, 2016 Members Share Posted November 18, 2016 On 11/16/2016 at 11:35 AM, Myron said: So we are worshiping God's wife too, even though we claim she does not exist. oh, Asherah exists, all right... But the goddess is not the wife of God. Never was. The only connection with God would be in her ability to co-mingle paganism with the worship of God. But that doesn't make her "God's wife" — it just makes her very dangerous. phkrause and Kevin H 2 Quote Pam Meddle Not In the Affairs of Dragons; for You Are Crunchy and Taste Good with Ketchup. If we all sang the same note in the choir, there'd never be any harmony. Funny, isn't it, how we accept Grace for ourselves and demand justice for others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myron Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 In further comment about Gregory's interpretation of my statement so that he could blame me for this absurdity of belief, which I constantly find among Adventists, that if it cannot be found in the Bible or the writings of Ellen White it cannot be true, I feel there is more that must be said concerning my own belief.Absurdity is his word, not mine, but since I agree with that sentiment and may even feel more strongly about it than he does I can't fuss too much about his choice of words except that it's a bit more diplomatic than my choice, which would probably be idiocy. The doctrine of "only scripture" is not a scriptural doctrine and easily shown to be so. Adventists claim to have a great understanding of types and shadows, but study very few of them at all, much less in enough detail to really understand them. A short review of what qualifies as prophecy, and how much of it is symbolism is always necessary in such a discussion since SDAs have no real understanding of this either and it is so important to all biblical interpretation. Our most well known prophecy teachers have a working definition for determining when something in prophecy is to be seen as symbolism and when it is to be read absolutely literally. Unfortunately they don't quote a word of scripture to prove this definition, meaning it violates the rule of letting scripture define scripture and therefore has no value. It is not that scripture is silent on that subject. I have no idea why they don't search scripture to find what it does say; maybe it is that they already know scripture will not support their definition. Of course, we also do not properly define prophecy, and that is really where this starts. Prophets and prophecy are defined in Deuteronomy 18. Quote 14 The nations you will dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the Lord your God has not permitted you to do so. 15 The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him. 16 For this is what you asked of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said, “Let us not hear the voice of the Lord our God nor see this great fire anymore, or we will die.” 17 The Lord said to me: “What they say is good. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him. 19 I myself will call to account anyone who does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name. 20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death.” So a prophet is anyone who speaks the word of the Lord. On one level, if I read the Bible then tell you what I found there I am being a prophet on a minor level. As we can see from this prophecy is not about telling the future, it is about speaking God's word to someone. But there is more to the matter than just reading the Bible and passing on that word. This is defined in Numbers 12. Quote 5 Then the Lord came down in a pillar of cloud; he stood at the entrance to the tent and summoned Aaron and Miriam. When the two of them stepped forward, 6 he said, “Listen to my words: “When there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, reveal myself to them in visions, I speak to them in dreams. 7 But this is not true of my servant Moses; he is faithful in all my house. 8 With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the form of the Lord. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?” 9 The anger of the Lord burned against them, and he left them. When God speaks to a prophet it is always in dreams and visions, and it is always in "riddles" or "dark sayings" depending on how this is translated; in other words, it is all symbolism. This does not mean some or all of it cannot also be literal. The primary biblical example is given in Galatians 4 where Paul tells us that the relationship of Abraham's first two wives and first two sons is a spiritual allegory. No one, least of all Paul, is claiming that it was not also actual history. Add to this that Mrs White states over and over in various ways that the entire Hebrew (sometimes she says Jewish) economy and/or law is a prophecy of the plan of salvation. We will ignore the fact that in many of her writings she goes on to prove she does not know what the word entire means because she then tries to limit this prophecy to only the sacrificial system. We all of us suffer from the idols of our hearts doing their utmost to limit the word of God and it's meaning to us. I will simply acknowledge and move on. We did not need Ellen White to tell us this because Jesus told us this in John 5:45 - 47. The word entire means every one of these laws, and not just the laws dealing with temple rituals are in some way a prophecy of a portion of this plan, and are thus types/shadows of some spiritual reality. I can demonstrate a great many of these prophecies and how they apply, but not all of them. Most Adventists reject them entirely, and out of hand without examination because Ellen White was unfaithful concerning the command implicit in her statements and never studied these prophecies. There are a great many types and shadows to be found in them of which we remain entirely unaware for this reason, and even many that are known are not fully studied or understood. We will be introduced to the first of these shadows that concerns us in this matter by looking at Jesus response to Satan after his first temptation in the wilderness. There Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 8:3. I'm sorry Jackson, but this is yet another proof that the Law of Moses was not nailed to the cross and set aside. I don't know of a single Christian who claims this law no longer applies, although they don't know how to apply it correctly. Jesus told Satan, "It is written, 'man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.'" Christians ignore the fact that there are types and shadows throughout this story, not just in the law Jesus quoted. Most take an ultraliteral view of these events and words and Jesus was telling us we must live by the Bible too. That is an overly limiting interpretation. Is every word that proceeds from the mouth of God found in the Bible? Absolutely not. Is Jesus talking about physical bread here? Not really, although that is included, but we have to look at the types and shadows here to see that he is also speaking of our spiritual food and specifically defining spiritual bread. What did Satan point to as something to turn into bread? Stone. What has been a central theme in these discussions (more than one thread) that the same names keep showing up in and turning into discussions about whether, and which parts of the law are still valid, not matter the original subject matter? The stones are law. Of course the most well known of the proofs of this is the tables of stone containing the first ten laws God spoke from the mountaintop, the only ones most people are willing to hear. But there are other such biblical proofs as well. When Israel crossed the Jordan the leader of each tribe was instructed to bring a stone from the river bed. Later the law was engraved on these stones. Deuteronomy 27 gives the initial command for the building of this pillar of stones and there we are told that the entire law, and not just the 10 Commandments was to be written on it. I can assure you it was not the entire law, because the entire law was not yet revealed and through various prophets God continued to reveal additional statutes. Yet we know that all the law known up to that time was engraved on these stones, and later, if I remember correctly, during the kingdom era another such stone monument was erected containing the law. So the stones Satan pointed to are representative of the law. This tells us also that the bread is the word of God, and probably more specifically the law. The normal, unthinking regurgitative (Isaiah 28:8) style of teaching that is seen from Bible teachers, preachers and prophets says that "every word that proceeds from the mouth of God," means the Bible (and the Bible only.) If we bother putting on our thinking caps for even half a second and look at the word "every" we can immediately see huge problems with this standard teaching. God spoke a lot more words than those found written in scripture, and we do not even scratch the surface as to what those words might include. Day one of my American History class at College View Academy my teacher, George Gibson (later professor of history at Union College) told us that all history is prophecy fulfilled. Those are great words and absolutely true. Unfortunately Christians are best at lying to themselves. We talk a good game, and when we look at some individual statements we make we appear to have great faith; but when we examine complete larger samplings of the things Christians say, and more importantly what they do, which is the real test of what we believe, we find very little faith (or actual belief) there at all. I don't know very many Adventists who actually believe that all history is fulfilled prophecy or that God even interferes in the affairs of men very much. On actual examination it seems all too much that we are rather agnostic and have much more faith in Satan to take an interest and active hand in our lives that we have for God to do so. History is fulfilled prophecy and we have already established that prophecy is nothing more than the word of God spoken to us through an intermediary so we should be studying history for clues as to the word of God found there. Adventists do almost none of this, even our prophecy teachers who must rely on history to prove their lessons have only a very limited repertoire passed down as vomit from there prophecy teachers and passed on as vomit to their students, and almost no thought goes in to determining if the conclusions are true or can be applied in other ways to learn more of God. History is unfolding around us constantly, and it doesn't have to be the big, major political events to be history or the word of God. If it happened five seconds ago it is history and there is a lesson from God there for us. If we do not see God's hand in those things that are happening around us everyday we are not living by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. But let's look at other words of God. Scripture tells us that God created everything that was made (Acts 4:24, 14:15, 17:24) and that everything made was made by his word (John 1:1-5), (this does not necessarily mean spoken into existence as we are normally taught, but it does mean he commanded and authorized its manufacture.) The first recorded word of God is light. In studies of one of God's most important laws, double witness, many teachers say the Father said, "light," and Jesus, the Amen (let it be so) of God said, "So let it be." Yet we know there were words spoken by God before this. Isaiah 45:7 says, "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." In Genesis 1, before God speaks a word in that passage we see that darkness is already there over the face of the deep. If God is telling us the truth in Isaiah 45, (most Christians don't believe it; Adventists have some understanding of this but don't believe the entire verse) then something was created before we ever get to Genesis 1:1 and that creation is also God's word, to be studied as God's word. What this tells us is that scientist are as much prophets of God as any Bible teacher, pastor, priest or theologian. They are just as susceptible to idols of the heart as any of those other "godly" men who purport to teach us the ways of God, but insofar as they teach us truth, they are priests of God just as much as those church leaders, and God will hold us just as responsible to hearing and obeying his word from them as from any other prophet. The most "conservative" Christians are also those who lead the charge against the scientists and the truths they can prove, some of them being so extreme as to claim that if science says it, it cannot possibly be true. The fact of the matter is the biggest reason so many scientists are atheist or agnostic is because the god portrayed by these Christians is so obviously false. But scientists can be just as quick to ignore evidence as those theologians, pastors, priests, bible teachers, etc., and for most of the same reasons. This is why guidance from the Holy Spirit and discernment are so necessary. In my opinion the bread is the entire scripture, but the symbols point primarily to the law. Either way the entire scripture is not every word of God. Furthermore, it is a simple thing to prove that every word of God includes the so-called Law of Moses. God began dictating this law to Moses in Exodus 20:22. In Exodus 21:1 God said, "These are the laws you are to set before them." In Exodus 24 the priests and the 72 leaders of the people went up the mountain to complete the confirmation of the covenant ceremony that the people refused to complete when God spoke to them from the mountain. Before going up the mountain that morning Moses told the entire congregation all the law that had been revealed thus far, starting with the 10 Commandments and at least everything written in the remainder of Exodus 20 through Exodus 23. In verse 3 we are told the people responded, "All that the Lord has said we will do." Moses then wrote down all that God had said up to that time. This is the beginning of the so-called Law of Moses, and as we can see, it is God's word, part of the "every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." Jesus was speaking of this law in Matthew 5:19 when he said, "Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." He had just finished explaining how six laws were supposed to be understood according to the New Covenant. Contrary to common teaching, only three of these laws are from the 10 Commandments, so Jesus could not have been speaking only of the 10 Commandments when he said any who set aside these laws. Furthermore, one of these six was the divorce law. The church likes to teach that Jesus changed the law with this one and now divorce was to be seen as a sin. That what the Bible appears to say in the Latin Vulgate and all subsequent translations, but study of the Greek text shows this is not what Jesus did, and study of the history of these changes show that it was a matter of Jerome intentionally mistranslating the Greek text to support the doctrine preferred by a 4th Century Pope, and has been maintain church-wide ever since. Instead, we find Jesus once again telling us we must live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God and that those refusing to do so will hold only the lowest positions in the Kingdom of Heaven. Finally we find that the word of God comes through some very unconventional sources (according to church thinking.) Using the definition of prophet as found in Deuteronomy 18 and Numbers 12 we find that God's prophets included Pharaoh, before he met Joseph, and Nebuchadnezzar before he was converted. Pharaoh received two prophetic dreams in one night which Joseph told him was a single dream in two separate witnesses because both told exactly the same information (Genesis 41:25). Joseph went on to give us a very important rule concerning double witness. We are told in Deuteronomy 17 and 19 that one witness is not enough to establish any fact, but that two or three witnesses are required for the proof of everything. Joseph said in verse 32, "The reason the dream was given to Pharaoh in two forms is that the matter has been firmly decided by God, and God will do it soon." Here we learn that not only does the second witness firmly establish that God will do something, it also establishes the timing. Once that second witness is received the matter will happen soon. Nebuchadnezzar received two prophetic dreams, one about the nation he ruled and those that would succeed it in ruling as beasts systems to punish God's people for their refusal to obey his law (Leviticus 26:21, 22, 39; Deuteronomy 28:36, 43-44, 48-68). The second was both a personal prophecy and a long term prophecy regarding the beast system itself showing the regrowth of the tree as the rise of Mystery Babylon in our time after seven "times" of judgment in the form of insanity. Cyrus was not only a prophet, but God called him his anointed (Isaiah 47:1 [Heb: meshiach -- messiah]. The decree by Cyrus to rebuild Jerusalem was his earthly witness to the decree of God in heaven that the Babylonian captivity was over and God's people were to be returned to their land. This was the earthly, "Amen," (so let it be) to God's heavenly decree. Caiaphas was not a very godly man. In fact, he was the high priest that presided over the final rejection of Jesus, decreeing his death on the cross. John 11:51 tells us that he prophesied when he said it was expedient that Jesus die for the nation. He did not understand his prophecy; he probably did not recognize it as a prophecy, but nevertheless, God tells us through John that it was prophecy, which means God was speaking through him. The law of prophets in Deuteronomy 18 says the prophet must be raised up from among your brothers. This means under normal circumstances I cannot be a prophet to, say, Thailand. I am not Thai. There are exceptions made. We see Paul sent to Macedonia, indeed to the nations, not to Israel or Judah, and he then raised leaders among those people who could take over responsibility for the new church once he left. This is at least in part why the dreams were sent to Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar instead of Joseph and Daniel, but God was also making a point to the rest of us. He is able, and actually does speak through anyone he desires, whether they know him, or not, whether they consciously serve him or not. Amos 3:6, 7 says, Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it? Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets. Contrary to SDA teaching on the matter, there are prophets among us today, and there always will be. God still does nothing without revealing his plan to someone and getting an Amen in the earth. Those prophets may or may not know they are God's prophet; they may not even know God or acknowledge his existence. That does not make them any less a prophet of God when he uses them. Clearly, believing this I do not limit myself to the Bible or Ellen White as sources of truth. I even hear God's voice in places most of you would reject as having anything to do with God, and I try to hear his voice and obey no matter who he uses to speak to me. Almost anytime someone tells me I am wrong God is saying through them, "It is time to reexamine your beliefs and make sure they are properly founded in truth." The thing God is calling to my attention is most often not the reason that "enemy" has told me I am wrong, but there are errors in my thinking on that subject anyway and God is telling me I need to get my own idols of the heart in check and destroy them. Usually I can set my pride aside and hear God through these prophets. Scripture may not be the only source of God's truth, nor even every word that proceeds from his mouth, but it is to be the bread in our diet. Cereal grains are generally considered to be so important that they need to be included in every meal (if you aren't following a terrible aberration such as the Adkins carbohydrate free diet, but clearly we are very unhealthy if we eat only carbohydrates, especially highly refined carbs. The same applies to our spiritual diet. We need every word that proceeds from the mouth of God but all those words are to be checked against scripture to see if they are true. Quote 13 If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, “Let us follow other gods”(gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 It is the Lord your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. Deuteronomy 13 The only way to tell if you are following God or the word of some prophet with his own agenda is to compare all things to God's previously revealed word. If it is in agreement with God's law (the bread) it most likely is true and reliable. It does not matter if the source of this word is something other than the Bible or even a believer. Let's not forget Paul quoted several Greek philosophers in scripture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Gregory Matthews Posted November 20, 2016 Moderators Share Posted November 20, 2016 Jackson, some of us do not believe that the Unions are in rebellion. You surely know that if you have read up on the subject. Quote Gregory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kevin H Posted November 20, 2016 Moderators Share Posted November 20, 2016 9 hours ago, jackson said: Many others believe that it is those who rebel against the voice of the GC in session who are the real rebels here. Of course she would rebuke some individual Conference leaders and I say she would also rebuke many Union leaders who are in rebellion. To avoid "kingly authority" is why we have a vote on doctrinal matters by representatives from the entire world body of Adventists. The Unions by rejecting such votes set themselves up as "Kingly Authorities". If you truly believe Mrs. White's role in giving inspired counsel in the development of the Adventist Church then you should agree with her following counsel: At times, when a small group of men entrusted with the general management of the work have, in the name of the General Conference, sought to carry out unwise plans to restrict God's work, I have said that I could no longer regard the voice of the General Conference, represented by these few men, as the voice of God. But this is not saying that the decisions of a General Conference composed of an assembly of duly appointed, representative men from all parts of the field should not be respected. {LDE 55.4} God has ordained that the representatives of His church from all parts of the earth, when assembled in a General Conference, shall have authority. The error that some are in danger of committing is in giving to the mind and judgment of one man, or of a small group of men, the full measure of authority and influence that God has invested in His church in the judgment and voice of the General Conference assembled to plan for the prosperity and advancement of His work.--9T 260, 261 (1909). {LDE 56.1} God has invested His church with special authority and power which no one can be justified in disregarding and despising, for he who does this despises the voice of God.--AA 164 (1911). {LDE 56.2} Please, let us all abide by the above counsel . We do not want to be despising the voice of God and be counted as rebels. Jackson, can't you understand that we are accusing you of rebelling against the General Conference in session. Or do you think that the decisions of the General Conference in session are like a milk container with an expiration date. Just because the General Conference made some choices over 100 years ago do you see them as no longer binding? That they somehow expired? No other decision that the General Conference in session has made in the years since have overthrown the past decisions. While the current General Conference President does not like the fact the unions are working with what the General Conference in session has voted and approved. And unless you can show me a quote that says that the decision of the General Conference in session has an expiration date, or that the General Conference in session has realized some more information about the Bible to make it update an earlier decision you cannot accuse us of going against the General Conference in session. Granted this was prior to the actual formation of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, but the idea of General Conferences have been used for a long time. And there was a time where some members wanted the church to discourage the eating of pork. The General Conference that they had at the time met and decided to reject that motion. Once the General Conference meets the decisions are not irreversible, otherwise we would still be eating Pork. What that General Conference decided was that it would not be a test of fellowship to discourage pork eating. James White told that to know which side of the issue he and his family was on the just butchered a hog. But the anti-pork people did not just leave it there, they kept working and as health became important the discouraging the eating of pork became part of our beliefs. The vote in San Antonio cannot be used the way you are using it for two reasons. First of all it was NOT a consensus decision reached by our people meeting in session and discussing and studying the issue and coming to a solution that the vast majority of the church was able to live with. It was a narrow vote forced on us. That is NOT how the General conference in session is supposed to work. Second it was a "Heads I win, tails you loose" motion. If the "Yes" vote was the winner it would have changed what the General Conference in session decided in 1902. It would have moved the decisions on who can be ordained out of the union (as voted in 1902) to the division. If that was done then then the unions would have been in rebellion. But the "No" vote keeps the 1902 vote in as authoritative decision of the General Conference in session. The unions are working with in what was given to them in 1902. The 1902 General Conference in session granted to the unions the authority to ordain whoever they wanted to. Elder A. G. Daniels the General Conference President saw himself as unable to change this. He could not say that they could not ordain women. He said that they can and have every right to and that they should ordain women. All he could do was simply request them to wait until members that thought that the ordination of women was not Biblical could be educated to the fact that women's ordination is Biblical. Therefore it is YOU dear Jackson who is in rebellion to the General Conference in session. It is you who needs to read those Ellen White quotes and apply them to yourself. Despite his whining you can see that even President Wilson and the other anti-women's ordination people sees that they are in rebellion to the General Conference in session decision, other wise they would not have put up a vote to change what the General Conference in session decided in 1902. Like I said they pushed a "a heads we win tails you loose proposition. " If the vote came out "Yes" then the General Conference has offered to recognize women's ordination but change the 1902 vote to move the authority to ordain from the union to the division where the General Conference could have it easier to just put in a few Division leaders to decide that women can't be ordained. Now those leaders are trying to make a word play over women's ordination but in reality the "No" vote keeps us with the 1902 vote. According to the 1902 vote the General Conference President can request the unions to wait a little bit before ordaining women like Elder Daniels did. But the Unions are not bound to grant the request. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Gregory Matthews Posted November 20, 2016 Moderators Share Posted November 20, 2016 1) The Unions were established due to the fact that EGW called for local areas to have more authority and not have to ask permission of the General Conference. 2) When the Unions were established they were in the U.S. organized as legal bodies under the respective State laws and governed by the Constitutions and Bylaws that existed at the time that they were established. 3) The Unions, with their respective Constitutions and Bylaws were approved by the General Conference. Included in these documents were, among other things, the procedures that must be used to amend those documents. 4) With the passage of time, the Union Constitutions and Bylaws have been amended in accord with the procedures then in effect in their documents. 5) The result of this is that at the present time there are differences that exist between the various Union Constitutions and Bylaws. IOW, they have not all been amended in the same manner and at the same time. 6) As a result of these differences that currently exist, while it may be argued that some Unions might be required to abide by a GC decisions as to the ordination of women, it is clear that in order to make such a GC decision apply to some Unions the GC must abide by the procedures outlined in their Constitut9oins and Bylaws. Absent the application of those procedures, such a GC decision would not apply to those Unions. 7) In such a case, any attempt to apply such a GC decision without following the procedures outlined in their Constitutions and Bylaws would place the GC in rebellion. 8) In general, the GC would have to go to an appropriately called Constituency meeting of that Union and have the delegates to that meeting pass specific amendments to their Constitution and Bylaws. This is how the denomination is organized. These are the procedures that were placed in effect with the approval of the GC. It is what the GC has agreed to do. At least in some cases, it can not truthfully be said that a Union is in rebellion against the GC. Rather, it is the GC that is in rebellion. Quote Gregory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myron Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 On 11/18/2016 at 0:59 AM, rudywoofs (Pam) said: oh, Asherah exists, all right... But the goddess is not the wife of God. Never was. The only connection with God would be in her ability to co-mingle paganism with the worship of God. But that doesn't make her "God's wife" — it just makes her very dangerous. I didn't say Asherah does not exist, and by my normal writing style the God's wife thing should have been in quotes because what they called Asherah does not mean it is true. I am well aware that Asherah exists, that "she" is worshiped in Catholicism as Mary the virgin mother of God, that she is symbolized in scripture by Jezebel and is called the Queen of Heaven in Jeremiah. In Israel she was worshiped openly, as in Catholicism. In Judah she was not worshiped quite as openly, although her pole was beside the altar of burnt offering in the temple and her doctrines were taught in the temple as the proper worship of Yahveh. The only place in scripture that actually mentions the presence of the Asherah pole in the temple is 2 Kings 21, speaking of Manasseh's reign and his sins; but it is generally thought the Asherah pole was located there long before this. Whether that is the case or not, her doctrine were taught in the temple (and probably the tabernacle) long before that. In Deuteronomy 16:21 God warned the people never to set up the Asherah pole beside the altar of burnt offering. After God sold the nation to Midian. "Sold" is the language of other captivities in the book of Judges. Judges 6:1 simply says, "The Israelites did evil in the eyes of the Lord, and for seven years he delivered them into the hands of the Midianites." A few verses later we are given broad hits as to what that evil was when God told Gideon to destroy the idol of Ba'al and the Asherah pole in his father's house. The reason God sold them to Midian or any of the other nations he sold them to is that they were already worshiping the God's of those nations. Gideon could not throw off the yoke of that nation from Israel's neck until he first removed the doctrines of those God's from his own life and that of his entire household. After that it was necessary to remove those doctrines from the rest of his tribe. Gideon tore down these doctrines at night because he was afraid of the people. When the people of the town that was his father's household heard of this they called on Gideon's father to hand Gideon to them. Joash told them not to defend these gods but that if they were gods they must defend themselves (v. 31). We spend a lot of time and effort defending the doctrines of Ba'al and Asherah in this denomination. The father's advice to us is, "Be quiet and let them defend themselves if they are true." It can be very hard to identify and root out the doctrines of Asherah because scripture never tells us what they are, whether it calls her Asherah, the Queen of Heaven, or Jezebel. We are simply told not to tolerate her; we are not told what she teaches. The closest there is to such a statement in scripture is Jezebel's advice to Ahab in the matter of Naboth's vineyard. Here we see her acting in the king's name, thus usurping his authority (this is a type of usurping God's authority -- See Roman 13:1, 2; Deuteronomy 18:20-22.) We see her giving duplicitous commands and conspiring with local leadership, who were included in the plot, and helped her by supplying false witnesses against Naboth. So we know from biblical example that Asherah will mostly be hidden in the church and use church authority to propagate her teachings. To determine what those teachings are we really need to know God's law backward and forward, but we can learn much by examination of known examples of her worship. As I stated in another post, when God first put this on me, after a year of not getting very far I learned much from a lesson given by Ty Gibson on 3ABN in late winter of 2006 or possibly 2007. In this he studied Queen of Heaven doctrine in Marian worship, but seemed almost entirely oblivious to the possibility that those same doctrines could be found in Protestant theology as characteristics of the Father or Jesus. (He may have given a quick nod to the idea that some of these doctrines are assigned to Jesus by Protestants, but he made no effort to actually cast down those idols as he did with the worship of the virgin mother.) Pam, on this forum you should be the most prominent teacher seeking to cast down Queen of Heaven doctrine. Your background makes you the one person most competent to do so here. You acknowledge her reality and danger. Why aren't you doing this? Are you so drawn in by the way she has hidden herself in Protestant teaching? For that matter, Harmon L. Taylor, a teacher I study occasionally learned from one of his teachers as few years ago an identification that is fully true of the church, but which few will admit. All Christianity is Catholic of one of two varieties: 1) The professing variety and 2) the protesting variety. The Protestant Reformation has done very little to remove any Pagan influence at all from Christianity. The vast majority of it remains and is fully embraced in some way by every Protestant denomination, including this one. Each of the protesting Catholic denominations have corrected a few of the doctrines to eliminate at least a little bit of the Pagan influence in those doctrines, but have retained the vast majority of those paganisms. This is why the entire church, all Protestant denominations included, is still under judgment today. The two most common Queen of Heaven doctrines in this denomination, indeed, the entire church. deals with God's sovereignty and man's choice, which most twist into an unbiblical freewill doctrine. The doctrine of freewill is Queen of Heaven through and through. It is not at all biblical; choice is not the same thing as freewill, and few people are willing to examine this issue very closely because they prefer the idea that "I am sovereign over God." They spend thousands of word telling us that scripture does not really mean what it says when God says, "I will harden Pharaoh's heart." Quote 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. 19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use? 22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, There is so much in there and no time to look at most of it because it does not apply to the lesson at hand, but there are two points we must look at; the first because it is the direct point being made here, and the second, because if it is properly understood, makes the rest of this a bit more paletable to those raised on the Queen of Heaven doctrine and the other Pagan doctrines that make it so difficult for us to accept God's word here. First, God created Pharaoh for this very purpose and left him no choice in the matter. Period. God hardened him, God hardens others as he sees fit. Period. Adventist regularly display the lie of their claimed belief in taking the Bible exactly as is reads when they come up against this doctrine. The book of Exodus tells us 11 times that God would or did harden Pharaoh's heart. Adventists point to the four times when it says Pharaoh hardened his own heart and say, "See, God didn't really do it at all." Unfortunately, by doing so and wasting all the other words they spout on this matter they are telling me one of two things: 1) "God is a liar, or 2) My god is too stupid to correctly use language and to properly say what he really means, therefore, I must translate his actual thoughts for the rest of you who are stupid enough to believe that a god should be smart enough to properly express himself." Ok. You may have your god; I'm not interested in worshiping a god that is stupider than the rest of us. My God is wise enough to create an entire universe; to rule it wisely, and to say precisely what he means, even if he also generally hides the meaning behind symbol, types, shadows (Numbers 12:8), allegory and metaphore (Galatians 4:24) parable (Isaiah 6:9:10, Matthew 13:13-15), and other picturesque methods to find out who really loves him, and who will twist these interpretive mechanisms to say what they want them to. When the Queen of Heaven and her followers refuse to take God at his clearest words that are not hiding anything, why should I listen to anything they want to teach me? This brings us to the second major Queen of Heaven doctrine. Good and evil are not necessarily polar opposites, and God is not so good that it is impossible for him to use evil. Of course, part of the problem is that we use the Queen of Heaven's definition of evil instead of God's. Just because sin is evil does not mean that evil is sin. The equating of the two is a major part of the problem, and by this twist of logic the Queen of Heaven can once again get us to call God a liar when he says, "I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I, the Lord, do all these things," Isaiah 45:7, or when he says, "Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? Shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it? Surely the Lord God will do nothing, unless He revealeth His secret unto His servants the prophets," Amos 3:6, 7. I included verse 7 here because I suspect the SDA doctrine that Ellen White is the final prophet is probably a Queen of Heaven doctrine. When you are able to so thoroughly subvert a prophet God sent as was Ellen White, who was a movement and then denominational prophet first, a Queen of Heaven prophet second and a prophet of God third in most matters you don't want to risk allowing anyone else to hear God's voice for themselves and teach that word to the people. It may be acceptable in the context of Amos 3:6 to limit evil to physical rather than moral evil, but there is nothing in the context of Isaiah 45:7 to justify this all too common act that conforms with the Queen of Heaven doctrine. Even so, the Queen of Heaven doctrine prefers to consign all the judgments for disobedience promised by God in the law of tribulation (Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28) as being acts of Satan designed to separate us from God rather disciplines of God designed to bring us closer to him and cause us to repent. Because the Queen of Heaven is so successful in getting us to shift the blame to Satan we are actually emboldened in our sin. We call on God to save us from Satan's acts rather than repent to him for our own rebellion, which we insist is the proper service of him. Yes, Asherah exists; yes, she is extremely dangerous; no, she is not God's wife as she has convinced many to believe, and yes, we worship her whether we admit it or not. It is time for us to stop lying to ourselves about ourselves, about Asherah and about God. It is time for us to actually take the Bible as God's clear word as we claim, and not prove the lie of that claim every time we come up against one of Asherah's doctrines. It is time for those among us who know her and her worship best to be taking the lead in tearing down the idols to the Ba'als and the Asherah pole we have erected next the to altar of burn offering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myron Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 On 11/17/2016 at 9:28 PM, Kevin H said: Thank you for that information Myron, but these professors were not discussing the Asherah pole . Granted that was a problem and an additional situation. What has been pointed out are that there are some Psalms written in the Famine tense indicating that they were to be lead out by women priests. And there are a few other places which I do not know how to present that supports women priests as a part of the Old Testament priesthood not counting the apostasies. Also, the apostasies ended in the post exile temple. Yet even with their super-strict rejection of other gods and goddesses they still had women priests and thought nothing about it until 200 years before Jesus, and the women priests ended when Herod's temple had a court of women where women could go no further. They still had female rabbis. In Jesus' day women rabbis were as hot a topic as women's ordination is today. And we find evidence that Jesus sided with the rabbis who supported having women rabbis. Kevin, Read it again. The information I gave you regarding the female priesthood was primarily about the Nazerite vow. Since I included that long, detailed study from Stephen in the attached audio file and the link to its source I saw no need to add much more comment of my own about this. The Nazerite law would be the biblical justification by the Old Covenant for female priests. The other information regarding Asherah and her worship was my acknowledgement that this may have existed in the Temple in Jerusalem, although it has always been my understanding that while open worship of the Ba'als and Asherahs in their own temples was done in the northern kingdom.it was only the various teachings of the these gods and goddesses which were brought into the temple and officiated by the male priest of Levi. It didn't matter to God what priests officiated these beliefs and practice; they were still counter to God's teachings and in too many cases, did not add to them but actually replaced them. It is entirely possible that if there were female priests in Jerusalem they were not all Nazerites, but that some of them could possibly have been justified through those apostasies. We do not have enough information (that I am aware of) to know if that was the case. As for the apostasies ending with the post exile temple, don't you believe it. Some apostasies ended with the onset of the exile itself but not all of them. Many others were learned or perfected in exile, and Ezra and Nehemiah found it necessary to institute many reforms. I you knew the law of Moses, which contains some seemingly contradictory laws, and knew that a proper understanding of the law accounts for both of those statutes and reconciles the apparent difference you would find yourself questioning the rational for some of those reforms. The ones dealing with marriage and family were certainly one-sided and ignored a great many of the Laws Moses set down for them. Perhaps this was not a time for balancing these seemingly contradictory statutes, or perhaps Ezra and Nehemiah simply did not include the details of their investigations to determine which, if any, foreign wives were in full compliance with the Law of God and thus qualified to remain in Judah and married to the men of Judah according to God's law. Even if these actions were fully justified and not an apostasy in and of themselves they were certainly used in later generations to justify the middle wall of partition which was never a commandment of God and was itself an apostasy built into the post exile temple along with all the doctrines that wall involved. During his time on earth Jesus had a lot to say about incorrect practices by the Priests and teachers of the law in his day. This is also apostasy. If there had been no apostasy there would have been no need for Jesus to tell these people that they had set aside God's law in favor of their traditions. You may not be willing to admit that it was apostasy. That does not change the fact that it was, nor the fact that much of this same apostasy found its way into Christian teaching very early. Apostasy has always been there and always will be on this side of the Second Coming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Gregory Matthews Posted November 21, 2016 Moderators Share Posted November 21, 2016 Two posts up, Myron authored statements about the his view of an alleged relationship[ between the Roman Catholic Church and pagan religions that worshipa Asherah. In brief, his thesis was this: 1) Pagan religion X does a, b and c in the worship of Asherah. 2) The Roman Catholic Church also does a, b and c. 3) Therefore, the Roman Catholic Church worships Asherah, in a more modern form. Now let us apply his thinking to the SDA Church: 1) Both Roman Catholics may be baptized by immersion (this is true). 2) Pagan religion X initiates people into membership by a baptism by immersion. 3) The SDA Church initiates people into membership by a baptism by immersion (this is true). 4) Therefore the SDA church is following the doctriones of both the Roman Catholic church and pagan religion X. NOTE: What Myron has said is fully explained in numerous Internet posts. Kevin H 1 Quote Gregory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myron Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 On 11/17/2016 at 2:08 PM, The Wanderer said: Myron. Its not "our denomination," its Gods. Your post only would have been a quarter of the current length had you made that your starting point Wanderer, Here is where a bit more honesty and Bible study is necessary. I have already shown how one of the biblical patterns for us is King Saul, who lost his right to rule in his 18th year. Yes, I know God allowed him to remain in the throne for another 22 years following that loss, but that was because his successor had to be trained. The scepter had been promised to Judah. Saul was of the Tribe of Benjamin and few people can explain why this was. From a certain perspective Saul was never meant to rule, and God did nothing to prepare him for the office to which he was so suddenly thrust when he went to ask Samuel where his donkey were. David, on the other hand, had to be trained to be a Godly king, a man after God's own heart, which meant training directly at the hand of God, not an apostate priesthood and monarchy. And most importantly, he could not be anointed King while Saul's house still had a right to rule. So God left Saul in place until such time as David was properly trained. Another biblical type that applies here is Israel in the wilderness. Until the Kindom of Heaven is set up and we enter in we are supposed to be the church in the wilderness. You don't build a house in the wilderness or if you do, you start building a city and villages around that house, you start cultivating fields and pastures, and you no longer have a wilderness, but you certainly also do not have the Kingdom of Heaven; you have kingdoms of men. Israel was not supposed to build houses in the wilderness -- not even at any of the oases God led them to for rest and refreshment. Israel was supposed to be ready to rise up and follow any movement of the Holy Spirit (Pillar of Cloud and Fire). If you build a house in the wilderness you are not very likely to rise up and follow when the Spirit says it is time to move. Every oasis or other major stop on the journey from Egypt to the Promised Land represents some revival that has happened since the protestant reformation, as they were listed by a man I know who has studied this in some detail (I have not) it seems most or all of them have occurred since 1844, and except for the missionary movement represented by the 12 springs and 70 palms of Elim, SDAs missed out on pretty much all of them. Houses, villages and cities are biblical symbols of denominations, as I showed in a previous post. As I said there, denominations have their place in the body of Christ, but during the time of the wilderness they are not to be built. In the society of the beast systems that have been judging God's people for the last 2620 years there are certain advantages to denominationalizing, primarily centralized control over doctrine. That is what the Popes sought from the first Bishop of Rome who claimed the right to rule over the bishops of the other cities until that right was finally firmly established under Boniface III in 603 AD. After the reformation began, each time the Holy Spirit rose up and moved a reformer and a few of the people followed, but once the reformer died, the movement build a house in the wilderness around the revelation of that move, and once denominationalized, missed out on the majority of the next moves of the spirit. Sure they do some catching up over time, but they missed out on the blessings that were available at the time and always in some way faced judgment for their disobedience. In short, according to biblical pattern as soon as we denominationalized we stopped being God's movement and became a movement of the men in charge who ruled as King Saul, no less certainly than Pope Boniface III and his successors. Matters are actually worse in denominations ruled by General Conferences. Look at the examples in the Bible and in history. When has the majority ever been right about anything? The one thing you can be certain of is that if the majority has voted for it, it is a very bad idea. When you get things reduced to two options both are very bad. If this is not enough to convince you, there is one more biblical shadow we must examine. When Israel went to battle to try to throw off the yoke of the Philistines in the days of Eli they lost miserably in the first day of battle. They said, When the soldiers returned to camp, the elders of Israel asked, “Why did the Lord bring defeat on us today before the Philistines? Let us bring the ark of the Lord’s covenant from Shiloh, so that he may go with us and save us from the hand of our enemies.” 1 Samuel 4:3. They remembered the passage in Numbers 10:35 and 36 that says, Quote 35 Whenever the ark set out, Moses said, “Rise up, Lord! May your enemies be scattered; may your foes flee before you.” 36 Whenever it came to rest, he said, “Return, Lord, to the countless thousands of Israel.” No doubt they went into battle actually praying the prayer, "Rise up, Lord! May your enemies be scattered; may your foes flee before you." So, let's see what happened. Quote 10 So the Philistines fought, and the Israelites were defeated and every man fled to his tent. The slaughter was very great; Israel lost thirty thousand foot soldiers. 11 The ark of God was captured, and Eli’s two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, died. God raised up, the greater of his two enemies on that battlefield were scattered with 30,000 of them killed and the Philistines took the ark and placed it in the temple of their primary God. The priests of Israel had for years been teaching the people to sin. This was no longer God's tabernacle, his priests or his nation and he would not fight on their behalf. Greg told Jackson that many of us believe it is the General Conference that is in rebellion against God. Personally I think there is enough rebellion to go around and what I have seen from many on the WO side there is not enough understanding of the biblical truth from many of them but there is next to none from the other side. I am not going to shorten my answer by starting with your pat little theory that this is God's denomination when it so clearly is not. I am not going to call something God's when it is so openly in rebellion against him and so unwilling to follow him when he rises up and moves on in the journey of revelation. Instead, we prefer to perpetuate the sins of the fathers. I always wondered about that generational sin thing, just how a just God could visit the sins of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation. It becomes easy to understand when you see how this denomination deals with change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rudywoofs (Pam) Posted November 21, 2016 Members Share Posted November 21, 2016 4 hours ago, Myron said: I am well aware that Asherah exists, that "she" is worshiped in Catholicism as Mary the virgin mother of God, that she is symbolized in scripture by Jezebel and is called the Queen of Heaven in Jeremiah. In Israel she was worshiped openly, as in Catholicism. In Judah she was not worshiped quite as openly, although her pole was beside the altar of burnt offering in the temple and her doctrines were taught in the temple as the proper worship of Yahveh. Myron — Asherah is not worshipped in Christianity. And to be even more specific, she is not worshipped in the SDA church. If Asherah was worshipped in the Adventist church, she would not have tried so hard to keep me from becoming a member. She tried bringing back witchcraft items into my home that I had thrown out. She caused lightening to strike a 40 ft tree, the top 15-20 ft of which was sent hurling like a burning javelin straight towards my car. Anything she could do to cause me to continue my worship of her, she did. I don't see her in the Adventist church at all. And I think I'd know her or her deceptions if I saw them. I was rather close to her, as one of her high priestesses. I will say, though, that Asherah and other goddesses and gods are more than happy when someone gives them a "nod" as being worshipped in Christian churches. It's a move towards hysteria and confusion, which well serves their oneupmanship of the God of Heaven. Gregory Matthews, phkrause and LifeHiscost 3 Quote Pam Meddle Not In the Affairs of Dragons; for You Are Crunchy and Taste Good with Ketchup. If we all sang the same note in the choir, there'd never be any harmony. Funny, isn't it, how we accept Grace for ourselves and demand justice for others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myron Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 3 minutes ago, rudywoofs (Pam) said: I will say, though, that Asherah and other goddesses and gods are more than happy when someone gives them a "nod" as being worshipped in Christian churches. It's a move towards hysteria and confusion, which well serves their oneupmanship of the God of Heaven. Quote Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. Revelation 2:20 Then Asherah must have really loved the risen Jesus and John, the apostle who quoted him in this message. Asherah is here. Her doctrines are hidden throughout Christianity, and I am not the only Adventist to see them, although I have not heard other Adventists admit they can be found here. I was taught in my academy days, a bit less in the college days, that this denomination is far from perfect and the majority would be shaken out in the end. There seems no admission of that at all these days from most of our membership and any of our leadership. The priests are still teaching the people to sin; that is not to say that all the sins are Asherah doctrine, but to say it is not present is just more willful blindness. Our leadership is failing us and for the most part we are quite willing to let them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rudywoofs (Pam) Posted November 21, 2016 Members Share Posted November 21, 2016 Of course, the SDA church is not perfect. I have yet to see anyone state that it is. But the idea that the goddess Asherah is actively working within the church is utter nonsense. I see *Satan's* tactics on display in the church occasionally. But Satan is *not* Asherah. They are two separate entities. phkrause and Gregory Matthews 2 Quote Pam Meddle Not In the Affairs of Dragons; for You Are Crunchy and Taste Good with Ketchup. If we all sang the same note in the choir, there'd never be any harmony. Funny, isn't it, how we accept Grace for ourselves and demand justice for others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LifeHiscost Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 1 hour ago, rudywoofs (Pam) said: Myron — Asherah is not worshipped in Christianity. And to be even more specific, she is not worshipped in the SDA church. If Asherah was worshipped in the Adventist church, she would not have tried so hard to keep me from becoming a member. She tried bringing back witchcraft items into my home that I had thrown out. She caused lightening to strike a 40 ft tree, the top 15-20 ft of which was sent hurling like a burning javelin straight towards my car. Anything she could do to cause me to continue my worship of her, she did. I don't see her in the Adventist church at all. And I think I'd know her or her deceptions if I saw them. I was rather close to her, as one of her high priestesses. I will say, though, that Asherah and other goddesses and gods are more than happy when someone gives them a "nod" as being worshipped in Christian churches. It's a move towards hysteria and confusion, which well serves their oneupmanship of the God of Heaven. 3This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.1 Timothy 2 There are many demons masquerading as gods (somewhere in the billions in India I believe. There is One Who is Love and the only one who loves His created subjects. 330 million There are 33 Gods. It is mentioned many times in Vedas . This transition from 33 to 330 million came after Upanishadic Age. Upanishads taught that Ultimate reality is a single supreme soul Brahman. Where does the count of 330 million Hindu Gods come from? - Quora https://www.quora.com/Where-does-the-count-of-330-million-Hindu-Gods-come-from God is Love!~Jesus is love! Quote Lift Jesus up!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoAspen Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 I always find it interesting when someone goes down the path of calling the church to be in 'apostasy'......because it, the word, is used anytime someone comes up with some 'new' information or finds 'hidden' meanings everywhere or makes uncorallated conclusions about 'whatever',......when the poster would be more honest to say "you don't agree with me and I can't take it"!! phkrause 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kevin H Posted November 21, 2016 Moderators Share Posted November 21, 2016 14 hours ago, The Wanderer said: Kevin. H. How would you go about proving that no other past decision of a GC in session has ever been over thrown by subsequent ones as your post seems to indicate is the case? I would not even try to prove that because that is absolutely nonsense and I'm sorry that my writing was so bad that you thought I was saying something so stupid. Just what I said about the issue with Pork goes against that thought. Some of our members wanted the church to discourage pork eating. the leaders in their equivalent to what eventually became the General Conference studied and discussed and decided not to make a stand on eating pork. Eventually as more knowledge and evidence came we changed and today the decision to not make an issue out of eating pork has been over thrown and we today discourage the eating of pork. And I was also my concern (and the concern of others) about the vote last year in San Antonio was that a "Yes" vote would have overthrown the 1902 decision. In 1902 the power to ordain was given to the unions. Very soon thereafter they decided to start ordaining women. General Conference President A. G. Daniels recognized that the decisions at the General Conference of 1902 gave this right to the unions. Elder Daniels, who worked on the development of the 1902 decision and who was in contact with Mrs. White in dealing with these issues and the application of the 1902 decision. He understood that he did not have to right to demand the unions not ordain women. He felt that all he could do was let the unions know that there were members who would be very confused over the ordination of women and that he could only make a request to them to wait before ordaining women so that the membership could be educated that ordaining women was Biblical. It was only supposed to be a temporary wait then the unions were to be free to start to ordain women. Sadly the events of Kellogg, World War 1 and the questions about inspiration that lead to the 1919 Bible Conference and the horrible apostasy of the 1922 General Conference pushed women's ordination and that fact that the unions were given the power to ordain women into the back burner. Now that right has been noticed again. The General Conference is not keeping it's end of the agreement of teaching members that women's ordination is indeed Biblical. thus the unions have no reason to continue to follow the request of Elder Daniels to postpone it for a short period so that our members can learn that it is indeed Biblical. In fact those who oppose women's ordination want the church to institutionalize the ideas that Elder Daniels wanted to change. So right now we are living in the situation where Elder Daniels found himself, where the unions has a right to ordain whoever they wished and all he could do was make a request to wait. Had the vote in San Antonio been a "Yes" then on the one hand, yes it would be that the church would have given lip service to seeing how women's ordination could be implemented. But the right to ordain who the wished would have been moved from the union level to the division level where the General Conference would have had more power. A "Yes" on the San Antonio vote would have been an over throwing of the 1902 vote. That is why I call the San Antonio proposition a "Heads I win, tales you loose" proposition. a If we voted "No" then the General Conference could say "Ok, the church must not be interested in ordaining women." and a "Yes" vote would have over thrown the 1902 vote and the unions would have to give up the rights and powers granted to them in 1902, transferring these rights to a higher level where it would have given Elder Wilson the power to just say "No" to the ordination of women, rather than the power that Elder Daniels had to only make a request. The unions in "rebellion" are simply following the 1902 vote and that it has not yet been overthrown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myron Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 On 11/3/2016 at 11:35 PM, jackson said: Now I suppose one could be both a prophet and an ordained minister, but the point is that a prophet is independent of church authority. That Mrs Wite is a prophet, then, has nothing to do with the ordination of women. Jackson, Exactly, but scripture gives the reason for that. Read 1 Samuel 2 where the sins of the priesthood were enumerated and the curse placed on the house of Eli (which still served for at least 120 years to the time of Solomon, even though the sign of its removal, the deaths of Hophni and Phineas proved that God had removed the house of Eli from office at the time of their deaths.) Read Ezekiel 34 which once again enumerates the sins of the priesthood and condemns them for it. I have read somewhere in scripture somthing to the effect that the Priests were teaching the people to sin. Pastors do not have the option of rejecting the word of God through the prophet (read Deuteronomy 18 again. I have quoted the law of the prophets many times in this thread); If they reject the word of God given through that prophet they are sinning and teaching the people to sin. God will hold them accountable for that. Or are you calling God a liar again? Quote 17 The Lord said to me: “What they say is good. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him. 19 I myself will call to account anyone who does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name. 20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death.” See? No choice for the pastor or other church official, or even lay person to disregard anything the prophet says, but there is a command to test every word the prophet says to make certain it comes from God. Adventists seldom do the latter, and some even use her writings to "prove" scriptures changed or wrong, and this includes pastors. Yes, prophets are independent of church authority and that is because of the sins of the church in rebellion against God which made it necessary for him to send the prophet to the church in the first place. The prophet is in authority over the church. This is why (s)he is independent of church authority. Once again your argument falls flat on its face. As far as this having nothing to do with women, well if a woman has authority over the entire church why can't a woman also have authority over a single congregation? You are backpedaling rather fast when caught in one problem, but that just tends to make your entire house of cards fall down faster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kevin H Posted November 21, 2016 Moderators Share Posted November 21, 2016 6 minutes ago, The Wanderer said: Dont you think that something as old as 1902 might be ready for an update? Understanding of Bible truths do change over time as one studies. Thanks for that reply and the effort you put into it. What update would you suggest? In San Antonio Elder Wilson suggested that the unions give up their right to ordain and to turn that over to the Divisions where Elder Wilson would have more direct power. Is that the change you'd suggest? Also, while should it change? Over the years the studies have gone to either suggest that the Bible is neutral on the topic, to evidence about the debate over women rabbis in Jesus' day and that Jesus supported women rabbis. That as a ministerial team Priscilla was the head elder and her husband was the assistant pastor. So that shows that Elder Daniels was right in wanting to have our members know that women's ordination is indeed Biblical. But also just because something is old does not mean that it needs an update. We have a very old institution, the 7th day Sabbath, is that so old that we need to update it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kevin H Posted November 21, 2016 Moderators Share Posted November 21, 2016 29 minutes ago, Myron said: Jackson, Exactly, but scripture gives the reason for that. Read 1 Samuel 2 where the sins of the priesthood were enumerated and the curse placed on the house of Eli (which still served for at least 120 years to the time of Solomon, even though the sign of its removal, the deaths of Hophni and Phineas proved that God had removed the house of Eli from office at the time of their deaths.) Some interesting ideas in other parts of your post that I need to think about Myron. But a couple of comments on the curse of the house of Eli. This priest hood were decedents of Moses. David had two high priests, one from the line of Aaron and one from the line of Moses/Eli. Of course the Aaronite priests supported Solomon and became central in the temple and the southern tribes. The Moshite/Eli priesthood became the major religion for the Northern Kingdom. The prophet being upset at what Jeroboam did with the golden calf has a problem that it was also paying more respect to the Aaronite priests trying to keep people in Israel who was more attracted to the Aaronite type of worship as opposed to the Moshite/Eil denomination. The Deuteronimic history is full of stories of people doing good things and God blessing them, but then those people or their families turning that blessing into a curse. And it is full of people doing horrible things and God cursing them, but then turning the curse into a blessing. The Moshite/Eli house of cursed priests who were not to have an old man among them ended up producing an unusual proportion of prophets, and prophets, especially in Bible days tend not to make it to be old men. Also, if you study the curses in the Deuteronimic history you will find that most if not ALL of them eventually landed on one man, the high priest of the curse Moshite/Eli house, who if he had lived about 100 years before would have been the high priest of the cursed Northern Kingdom's cursed high places, the prophet Jeremiah. The Deuteronomic history is full of the curses on Jeremiah's family and how he was thus the bearer of most if not all these curses. So the cursed house of Eli went longer than the 120 years to Solomon, but lasted at least until Jeremiah, but then again Daniel and his 3 friends were students of Jeremiah carrying it into and through the exile. So it probably lasted until the Yahwehist religion which had the 2 denominations based on the 2 priesthoods, until Ezra or Neamihah and the rise of the religion of Judaism which tried (often unsuccessfully) at making a oneness of the two denominations. of Yahwehism. (Judaism came out of Yahwehism similar to how Christianity later came out of Judaism.) But then again, since Elijah was translated and thus still alive, we still have a living priest of this cursed family. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Gregory Matthews Posted November 21, 2016 Moderators Share Posted November 21, 2016 I do not like hiding seven (7) posts. But, some people need to cool down a bit and stop making inappropriate personal attacks. Once I have hidden a post, in fairness I should hide any post that cites the post that I have removed from view. If people can not discuss issues without the personal attacks, it is likely that an Administrator will lock this thread so that no one can post here until some people cool down. Or, people who fail to cool down may be banned from posting. Quote Gregory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rudywoofs (Pam) Posted November 22, 2016 Members Share Posted November 22, 2016 8 hours ago, The Wanderer said: Those who threaten that "it will never go away," dont realize what they are saying. It will likely be them that go out from amongst us. When people threaten the church like that, there is always a split of some kind. "It will never go away" isn't necessarily a threat. Try reading the statement as, "the issue will never 'go away'" — with the emphasis on the phrase "go away", rather than on the "never." What people are saying is that the issue of Women's Ordination in the Adventist church will not simply "disappear." Quote Pam Meddle Not In the Affairs of Dragons; for You Are Crunchy and Taste Good with Ketchup. If we all sang the same note in the choir, there'd never be any harmony. Funny, isn't it, how we accept Grace for ourselves and demand justice for others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Gregory Matthews Posted November 22, 2016 Moderators Share Posted November 22, 2016 The Wandereer said below: I do not challenge what you say is your personal experience. However, this is the opposite from what I have generally (there are exceptions) observed, to include otherwise conservative congregations. Its gotten impossible to keep in many Adventist churches I have been to...one slip, even a little slip, on what to do or not to do on Sabbath, and you are toast there, I am sick of trying to keep up with all the "Sabbath Potentates," Quote Gregory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kevin H Posted November 22, 2016 Moderators Share Posted November 22, 2016 15 hours ago, The Wanderer said: I am kinda slow tonight. May I ask, please, to know where you got this thing re Priscilla and her husband? In Greek when teams are given the senior partner's name is given first. The book of Acts is very active in this. For example you have Barnabas and Saul, but then when they switch it becomes Paul and Barnabas. Later Paul and Silas as well as Barnabas and Mark. When we look at a certain married couple, when you look up verses that describe them as a married couple (and you can take your concordance and look it up) in all but one place they are given as Aquilla and Priscilla. And that one time where it is not in that order was probably just a scribble error. However when you look them up in another context, that as a ministerial team, then 100% of the time, each and every verse in this context has them listed as Priscilla and Aquilla. As a married couple the husband's name comes first. As a ministerial team the head of the team's name comes first. And so we find that when they are talked about as a couple it's in all but one spot Aquilla and Priscilla, and when talked about as a ministerial team it is always Priscilla and Aquilla. Even in Paul's writings it is the same. When he refers to them as a married couple he refers to them as Aquilla and Priscilla. But as a ministerial team he refers to them as Priscilla and Aquilla. How dare Paul do something like that? Better read our favorite verses against women's ordination to Paul and tell him to shape up and quit being in rebellion. Remind Paul that he should always write Aquilla and Priscilla 100% of the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.