Leaderboard

The dialog with Ron, concerning whether animal sacrifices will again be offered in the Kingdom of Messiah, prompted me to read carefully over the prophecy concerning the coming Temple. If Ezekiel's Temple is indeed the Temple of the Millennium (or of the 8th Millennium), and if - as Ron says - sacrifice WILL continue at that time, This leaves me with several questions. 1. ONLY "sons of Zadok" Who will be the priests of this Temple? 43:19, and 44:15-16, say that ONLY the Sons of Zadok will be priests of this Temple 48:10 says that the "holy district" for the priests will be ONLY for the Sons of Zadok The "perpetual priesthood for Aaron and his sons", and the "forever" priesthood for Phinehas and his sons - seems to go to ONLY the "Sons of Zadok". So will Zadok himself be High Priest of this Temple - IF as Ron says, Christ CANNOT be a priest on the earth. There is NO MENTION of a High Priest in Ezekiel's Temple. There are no commands concerning him. What will happen to those faithful priests from Aaron and Phinehas down to Zadok? I guess they get relegated to a lower status of a Levite to "serve the Tabernacle." Since there is "no marriage" in the resurrection, that ENDs the line of succession. Priests would be drawn ONLY from men who once lived on earth, before the Second Coming. Right?? 2. MARRIAGE?? Ezekiel 44:21 No priest is to drink wine when he enters the inner court. 22 They must not marry widows or divorced women; they may marry only virgins of Israelite descent or widows of priests. (NIV) Question: I thought that "in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage" (Matt 22:30) 3. DEAD BODY ??? According to 44:25, the priests (sons of Zadok) are not to come near a DEAD BODY except father/mother/son/unmarried daughter After the defilement they must complete7 days of cleansing, finally offering a “sin offering” Question: So what is DEATH doing in this Kingdom of Messiah, especially for family members of priests ??? 4. 44:31 Priests are not to eat anything that DIED naturally ????? NOT to eat that which was “torn by WILD ANIMALS ????? Question: "wild animals" ??? I thought the wolf lies down with the lamb, and the lion with the calf, and a little child shall lead them. (Isa. Cpt 11) 5. The "sin offering" or "trespass offering" is mentioned at least 13 times, and if you add the "daily" (which WAS a sin offering) that is another mention. Question: I thought Jesus was and IS our "sin offering". Is this some sort of commemoration type offering???? Is this Temple vision: A. A prophecy of a coming Temple, which was never fulfilled BECAUSE the people did not return to the LORD ?? (It was only a "what if" prophecy.) or B. A prophecy of a coming Temple, to be built BEFORE Messiah returns ?? or C. A prophecy of the Temple of Messiah's reign - for 1000 years ?? Was this Temple vision a prophecy in symbols? I believe so......... The sacrifice, and the "Prince", and the "High Priest" will be Jesus Christ. The river flowing out - bringing everything back to life - will be the Spirit of Christ. The Sons of Zadok will be those who have been faithful to God's appointed King - Jesus Christ. The "blood of Christ" will continue to be provided (as the sin offering) for all of those who come to the LORD, during Messiah's reign.

God uses mediators to interact with His creation. God has spoken to His creation in many different ways throughout the Old Testament (Hebrews 1:1-2). Michael, as the Archangel or chief messenger of God, is one of those ways. The term, Archangel, defines Michael as the chief way God interacted with His creation in times past but this is no longer the case. In these last days God is speaking to us through His Son, Jesus (Hebrews 1:1-2). In other words, Michael was used more than any other in times past but now God is speaking to us through His Son. The same word/logos that came through Michael, as God's chief messenger in times past, is now, in these last days, coming through Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5). When Jesus returns, Michael will be accompanying Him (Matthew 16:27 & Matthew 25:31 & 1 Thessalonians 4:16). The word/logos of God is eternal because God is eternal. Angels are created and Jesus was born making Him the beginning of God's new creation (Revelation 3:14) but the word of God/logos is eternal. Both Michael and Jesus had to obey the eternal logos of God. The logos of God is God in that it carries the power and authority of God Himself (John 1:1). If you resist the logos of God, you resist God. Anyone who speaks the logos of God is given the title, God, because he represents God and speaks for God (John 10:34-35). Jesus was 100% man with the fullness of God dwelling in Him (Colossians 2:9). The Spirit of God carries the logos of God and the power of God (Proverbs 1:23). Jesus speaks the logos of God because He was given God's Spirit without limit (John 3:34). Jesus had within Himself God's word, as well as, His own words. God's word is eternal, Jesus' words were temporal. Jesus had to resist His temporal words in order to speak God's eternal words (John 7:16 & John 14:24). Jesus had to learn to obey the words of God, His Father, lest He be disqualified as the unblemished sacrifice (Hebrews 5:8-9). Conclusion: God, in times past, spoke and interacted with His creation in many different ways but in these last days He is speaking to us through His Son, Jesus Christ, through whom He created the new creation, the age to come, the kingdom of God. Hebrews 1:1-2 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also *He made the world to come. *Hebrews 2:5 For He has not put the world to come, of which we speak, in subjection to angels.

Years ago when my two girls were small, they were taught how to say their blessing before eating their meal. One night as I was busy scurrying around the kitchen, I told them both to stay their blessings without me. I took a moment to watch them as they both squeezed their eyes tightly shut over folded hands. As my 4-year-old finished, her 3-year-old sister kept on praying. Another minute or two passed before she lifted her head, looked at her plate, and in an indignant voice said, “Hey! My peas are still here!”

Anthony Mason, Former New York Knicks Player, Dies at 48 https://tv.yahoo.com/news/anthony-mason-former-york-knicks-player-dies-48-155941769.html

Boris Nemtsov, Putin Foe, Is Shot Dead in Shadow of Kremlin http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/28/world/europe/boris-nemtsov-russian-opposition-leader-is-shot-dead.html?_r=0 ps:From watching 3ABN today. I understand his sister just got baptized?? Not sure if I got that correctly, but he was also a friend of Danny Shelton

What exactly should people know about a denomination before they join? Should they know the general history of the church, as well as the beliefs? In talking with some people who have been members of the Adventist church for 50+ years, I found that they have absolutely no clue about the history of the denomination. I found that to be incredibly naive. When I asked why they joined the SDA church, the answer was that they had determined that Saturday was the Sabbath. When I asked if they had looked at other Sabbath-keeping denominations to compare the beliefs, they said they didn't do that. Does this sound odd to anyone else?

I am sorry Rachel, I am feeling like the Eli, and you to me are the Hannah at the gate. I hope you understand what I mean. Again, I am sorry for casting doubt upon your expression, but I did try to be careful not to pronounce a verdict, as a judge pronounces a verdict. Stewart.

Don't judge Stewart. Every person who comes to this forum (except the occasional atheist) believes he/she will answer to God. We don't need to be reminded. You have not read many of my posts, or you would know that I have walked with the LORD for some 36 years (since I was 30). I was VERY serious. I believe the Michael who contended for the body of Moses WAS the pre-incarnate Son of God. He is known as "the messenger of the Covenant" (Malachi 3:1) - "The angel of the Covenant". He is the "Angel of the LORD" all thru the OT. There is a study at my website titled "The Mediator". In that study I go back thru all the places where "the LORD" appeared to human beings, in the form of a man. Since "no man has seen the Father", that means "the LORD" who "appeared to" men of old, must have been God's Son.

Article written by Dwayne Leslie, Director of Legislative Affairs for the General Conference. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dwayne-leslie/abercrombie-fitch-the-supreme-court_b_6750602.html

Continuing a series on the Bible, ordination, and the upcoming General Conference in San Antonio. Let me share some examples of how the principle of “circumstances alter cases” can be seen in the Bible. In Genesis 17 God offers Abraham an “everlasting covenant” (Gen 17:7). That sounds pretty permanent. This everlasting covenant would be for […] The post Circumstances and the Bible appeared first on Jon Paulien's Blog. View the full article

In the discussion of issues related to the role of women in pastoral care and their ordination, much has been said about church doctrines, teachings, policies and more. Dr. Calvin B. Rock published a seminal article on this in the November 28, 1991 edition of the Adventist Review, page 20. You may find that article at the following URL. http://docs.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH19911128-V168-48__C.pdf#view=fit Using a mixture of my words and those of Dr. Rock, I will summarize his thinking as follows: 1) Doctrines: These are authoritative theological beliefs that have been voted in a formal General Conference session and may only be changed by that process. Some doctrines are tests of fellowship. 2)Standards are rules that guide us in the application of doctrines. 3) Teachings have never been so voted but are generally believed. They are not tests of fellowship. Two examples are vegetarianism and membership in secret organizations. 4) Policies consist of operating rules. General Conference policy is voted at a General Conference and is expected to apply world wide. Division policy adjusts and/or modifies GC policy to apply in the specific area of the Division. Institutional policy guides schools, hospitals, etc. 5) Guidelines suggest how policies should be applied. If you look closely at this, you will note that Divisions may adjust or modify GC policy. In the same sense, so also may Unions and local Conferences, although Dr. Rock did not directly say so. As my statements above are a mixture of Dr. Rock's words and mine which was done to sum up what he said, it would be well for all to go to the actual article and read it as Dr. Rock wrote it.

Dr. Glenn Reynolds passed to his rest on February 22, 2015. He was a renowned physician and activist for the disabled. He had had polio in his youth but continued to practice medicine and conduct his activities from a wheelchair. He was honored by the American Medical Association as physician of the year. He served on the presidential commission for the disabled.

This question was probably answered on another thread, and if so perhaps someone could just give me that link. NIV John 3:13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven-- the Son of Man.1 (Joh 3:13 NIV) Also “No one has seen God at any time (John 1:18). and Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father” (Jn 6:46). God the Father dwells in "unapproachable light whom no one has seen or can see" (I Tim 6:14). Enoch, Elijah, and Moses could have been translated to "heaven" but still not have entered that light, or have "seen God". How do we answer folks who say that Enoch, Moses and Elijah did not go to heaven? Who say that Enoch and Elijah were just transported to another location on the earth, and later died like everyone else. Like Philip was transported in the NT. If "no one has ascended" - at least at the time Jesus spoke those words, that would mean that those three men were/are still sleeping in death. There is a clue in Romans where Paul said, "death reigned from Adam to Moses" (Rom 5:14). Something involving death changed with Moses. If death no longer reigned supreme and unchallenged that sounds like a resurrection to me. Of course, I've always had a question concerning just who buried Moses. Why would Michael bury him, if he planned to resurrect him right away? I think I understand why only Moses and Elijah came to speak with Christ prior to His ordeal. According to the law, only two witnesses were required. Thanks - in advance - for any input Rachel

Notice in Hebrews 1:1-2 how God spoke in various ways in times past but it wasn't through a Son. Hebrews 1:1-2 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds. Jesus Himself bears witness to the fact that He has become a witness with His Father. John 8:17-18 It is also written in your law that the testimony of two men is true. I am One who bears witness of Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness of Me.” Prior to Jesus, the Father had no other witness. Hebrews 6:13-14 For instance, there was God’s promise to Abraham: God took an oath in his own name, since there was no one greater to swear by, that he would bless Abraham again and again, and give him a son and make him the father of a great nation of people. Many people say that it was Jesus who created us but Jesus Himself tells us that it wasn't He who created us. Mark 10:5-6 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ Matthew 19:4 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female.'

Phoebe is indeed compelling! But equally compelling is how as a married couple it's Aquilla and Priscilla however as a ministerial team it is Priscilla and Aquilla. And even more compelling is understanding the debate in first century Judaism about the ordination of women and Jesus allowing Mary to sit at his feet and what this implied in it's culture. Now most of those who oppose women's ordination tend to also be influenced by views represented by a fair number of our pastors in the past but especially Elders Washburn and Wilkinson. These and others of this camp received some sharp letters from Mrs. White and Willie White on how they liked to use massive quotes Mrs. White, she and Willie saw them as not understanding her message but used her words to spread their message. While I don't know how Washburn responded, I know that several from the camp tended to see Mrs. White as having apostatized and getting her messages from Willie or W. W. Prescott rather than from God and that they needed to pick and use the messages from the time she was faithful and got messages from God. Wilkinson would compare Willie with the sons of Samuel (which by the way appears to have been more politically exaggeration than fact on their spiritual life as they lived among the northern tribes and their father was a great leader in the Moses Priesthood, but they aligned themselves to the south and the Aaronite priesthood). This was from the faction who argued against Jones and Wagner. Of course as the years went by their followers pushed the blame farther into our history and have made saints of All of Mrs. White, Jones, Wagner, Willie and Prescott saying that they were actually believing what this version believes. Now according to Dr. Maxwell, when Wilkinson saw that his views caused his children to not only want nothing to do with the church but wanted nothing to do with God, he recanted near his death. However his views are very popular among a number of Adventists. And while they like Mrs. White, they only like her filtered through those like Washburn and Wilkinson rather than her directly.

Bumping this thread up about Phoebe...

It is interesting that our Adventist Church founders were aware of this understanding about Phoebe having republished an article about this in the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald (now the Adventist Review). The Editor, Uriah Smith at the time as I recall, noted that it gave support for the sisters in ministry in the Adventist Church. The article proposed the idea that those two verses about Phoebe suggest that Paul had appointed her to be the leader of the Church in Rome, the first bishop of Rome, actually using the word first "pope" of Rome. ( Understand that the article was republished from another source and not authored by an Adventist.) The whole of those two verses really do support the idea that Paul was introducing Phoebe to the believers in Rome to be their pastor. He gives her a very strong recommendation to them of her qualifications, a highly regarded saintly woman that had been the diakonos and prostatis in Cenchrea. He specifically directs the believers in Rome to follow her directions, hardly what one would say of a mere servant sent to them. For me, Phoebe stands as the most compelling Bibical evidence for the ordination of women.

I got a chance to visit your website today and all I can say is, WOW! You spent a lot of time and prayer I'm sure building that website. It's packed with information that provokes thinking and searching. Thank you for the time you put into being a faithful servant of the Lord.

EGW is an inconvenient fact for those opposed to WO. Ron, in addition to the designation by Paul of Phoebe as diakonos, he also identifies her as prostatis. That Greek word quite clearly means one who is a leader. In its masculine form it is consistently used to identify those who rule or govern. And in its verb form it consistently means to rule or govern. Paul even goes so far as to say he regarded her as a leader of himself. I would also note that Phoebe, a woman as a deacon would have had met the qualifications outlined by Paul. Tha included the criteria much trumpeted by those opposed to WO - "husband of one wife". This throws serious doubt on that clause as being a gender specifc phrase. A better interpretation of the Greek "one woman man" is that it was an idiom that simply meant monogamy.

Last night I was reading in Numbers 22 the account of Balak and Balaam. There Scripture freely interchanges, "the Lord," with, "Angel of the Lord". Does this mean that God was an angel? Not at all. The term, "angel" is used metaphorically when Jesus comes with an important message, such as in this case or when speaking with the wife of Manoah regarding the birth of Samson who would deliver the Israelites from the Philistines. Myself, I have no problem with the name Michael used the same way. Jesus is not an angel even though angelic terms are sometimes applied to him. He is not a branch, vine, water or bread, even though sometimes in Scripture He is called by those names.

Students, teachers, parents and administrators of schools operated by the Seventh-day Adventist Church in East Jamaica Conference celebrated Education Rally under the theme 'Because of them .... we shall prevail', at the North Street SDA Church on February 21, 2015. View the full article

The article's summation... Quote: A careful reading of Romans 16:1, 2, thus, offers us a new glance at this remarkable woman who appears to be a close associate of Paul in spread­ing the gospel of Christ; who served as a leader of her house church in Cenchreae; who, despite all the dangers associated with travel on Roman roads, accepted the task of carrying the mes­sage of salvation to the Roman church; and who was recognized by Paul and others as a Christian leader in her own right.

Phoebe - one of the NT female church leaders...