Leaderboard

I think it's mathematically insoluble, as set up. Adding three odd numbers together will never yield an even number. If it was possible to add a minus sign, it would be easy...

9,9 + 7 + 5 = 30 Is only one solution, it says you can fill the boxes and that you can repeat the numbers. So there are multiple solutions to this problem.

Fame!!!!! Fame!!!!! You actually believe that the Jews/Israelites/Hebrews wanted all the things that happen to them throughout the years????? I don't know 1 Jew in my family that ever talks about the fame that they have received from the Holocaust, etc.!!!!! I don't even understand what the statement above means?????

Great great grandma paid 2¢ to the priest every week to get great great grandpa out of purgatory. When she died in 1902, his big toe was still there. We've tried and tried to get that toe out of purgatory - we've sent an explanatory letter along with a check to the archdiocese, but they sent back the check with no explanation. Alas, great great grandpa's big toe is still in purgatory..

The trick must be in the wording of the question.

There is such a thing as being so heavenly minded you are no earthly good. (comes to mind) A similar problem came up about having a bowling night for a church social.

Some good comments by a Ray Hartwell: "Strange Fire" is accepted at face value as fact, by many conscientious individuals. but there are many questions that beg to be answered, which the authors do not address at all. In this concluding section, we will look at what a historic Adventist should ask and should be able to receive an answer. Part 11. Some of the exact same arguments used today to claim that women should not serve in the gospel ministry in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, were used by critics of Ellen White and the Adventist Church in the day of Ellen White. Why do the authors ignore these criticisms and the answers our early Adventist pioneers gave to answer the charge that God could not use a women as a prophet or a spiritual leader? What do they do with J.N. Andrews (Who Ellen White called our ablest man, and who was our first foreign missionary, and who had committed to entire New Testament to memory) when he answers these critics who had cited 1 Timothy 2:12 that women were not to teach? “This her colleagues consistently refuted, not by pleading that she as a prophet constituted a special category, but by arguing that the verse was wrongly applied to prohibiting women ministers in general (cf. Lt 17a, 1880, in 10 MR 70). J.N. Andrews cited Paul’s female coworkers (Philippians 4:3), Phoebe the deaconess (Romans 16:1), Priscilla’s role in ‘instructing Apollos’ and the leadership roles of other New Testament women to prove that Paul’s ‘general rule with regard to women as public teachers’ did not constitute a rigid or universal prohibition. Andrews argued that Romans 10:10 requires public confession of the faith as integral to salvation, and therefore ‘must apply to women equally with men’ (J.N. Andrews, “May Women Speak in Meeting?” Review and Herald, January 2, 1879) – quoted from The Ellen White Encyclopedia, page 1279, Review and Herald Publishing Association, copyrighted 2013. Other historical examples: 1857: D. Hewitt states that the force of Joel 2 supports women’s public ministry. Review and Herald, Oct. 15, 1857, p. 190. 1858: James White challenges Review and Herald readers. Urges that Joel 2 be viewed inclusively, noting that men and man in Scripture "generally means both male and female." Review and Herald, Jan. 7, 1858, p. 69. 1859: B. F. Robbins decries rules in any church that invoke 1 Cor. 14 and 1 Tim. 2 to silence women. Review and Herald, Dec. 8, 1859, pp. 21, 22. 1860: S. C. Welcome supported women’s equality, claiming the "authority of divine revelation that male and female are one in Christ Jesus." Review and Herald, Oct. 15, 1860, pp. 109, 110. 1861: J. A. Mowatt declared it "a woman’s right" to participate publicly in worship. Review and Herald, July 30, 1861, p. 65. 1861: Editor Uriah Smith supports women’s public ministry. He quoted with approval a long extract from the Portadown News, "Women as Preachers and Lecturers." Review and Herald, July 30, 1861. 1868: M. W. Howard said Bible women (like Priscilla) were viable role models for modem women. Review and Herald, Aug 18, 1868, p. 133. If today you are not in favor of women in the gospel ministry (it's not their role, only males could be priests, etc.), then can you even call yourself a historic Adventist, standing in agreement with the founders and pioneers of the church? If you have "moved away" from the founding pioneers of the church, then are you not indeed, yourself, proclaiming some kind of "New Theology?"

Greetings Robert, Many of this forum would be more spiritual, but the following is my assessment. Galatians teaches the same lesson as Romans and the following expresses that the balance will be tipped in the favour of walking a holy life, a life that is not completely governed by the lusts of the flesh. Galatians 5:16-18 (KJV): 16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. 17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. 18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. Galatians 5:24-25 (KJV): 24 And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. 25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. The phrase “so that ye cannot do the things that ye would” could at first reading be understood in two ways, that the flesh is triumphant over the Spirit, or the Spirit is triumphant over the flesh. But in the context of the encouragement of v16, then it is the Spirit that will be the victor. Could I suggest that the following is a very sensitive and important part of this process and each part needs to be personally appreciated and made a heart-felt conviction and understanding. Romans 8:2-3 (KJV): 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: It is only when the full realisation of what was accomplished in Jesus, and this is espoused also by following Jesus’ example that the balance between the flesh and the Spirit will start to be tipped in the Spirit’s favour. Paul gives some indication of his walk, or the life that he led after his conversion and identification with Christ crucified and resurrected. Galatians 2:20 (KJV): I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. It is easy to fall into the situation of Romans 7 where a knowledge of the Law, or law in general, does not empower a person to overcome the basic lusts of the flesh. Romans 8 moves into the area of the realisation of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, where Jesus was victorious over sin and its effects within himself. We can partake of this in measure when we identify with him and allow all of this to transform our hearts and mind. Yes there will be many and even continuous lapses in some areas, but the balance will be tipped and there will be a gradual transformation if the power of the gospel is allowed to work. Kind regards Trevor

Hey Brotherly, Like AlienSanctuary, I am no scholar on the biblical languages. I am also a subject/victim of my own study and experience. In going with the preponderance of evidence and opinions of the majority of biblical scholars, I goota go with the theory that Daniel is in deed about the time just preceding the second coming. Daniel 12:1-4 says : “At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distresssuch as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who are wise[a] will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever.4 But you, Daniel, roll up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge.” Who was resurrected at the end of the Babylonian captivity? When was the increase in knowledge? Daniel 12:13 says: “As for you, go your way till the end. You will rest, and then at the end of the days you will rise to receive your allotted inheritance.” Daniel didn't rise at the end of the Babylonian captivity. He is still in his grave. The time of the end spoken of in his prophecies has not yet occurred.

yes yes it bears repeating yes to all of it

Personally, I doubt that there will be a 'general' resurrection of the animals when Jesus returns. Bur Lazarus makes a good point, I think, when he talks about God making provision for the animals in the time of the flood. There is no shadow of turning [i.e. no inconsistency] with God, and so I do expect that there will be some provision made for them again. My suggestion is that there may be a selective resurrection of specific animals beloved by members of the Redeemed. Nothing is impossible with Him, and of course He encourages His children to ask for the fulfilment of their heart's desire. Those that ASK for a beloved animal to be restored to them, may have their desire met... (either in the city of God , during the 1000 years, or afterwards in the new earth)... I see no problem with this.

I wonder about the saying that flowers will never die. It has some biological implications. If the flower doesn't fade away, how will the plant be able to make seeds? Personally, I would like to create new strains of plants. And could you imagine the conversation Maude and Mabel could have over the hedges between the yards of their country homes: Maude: Mabel, would you like to have this bouquet of flowers? Mabel: Oh, Maude! I couldn't. It has been at least two hundred years since I had any room to put anymore flowers! I wouldn't know what to do with them! Maude: OK, Mabel. I will go see if Matilda would like to have these. I have too many! As far as not bringing the Bible into the discussion, why would you try? I mean, if the Bible is not involved, how do you know all the animals outside the ark died at the flood? How would you even know there is a heaven?!

We get a similar problem here from time to time "I have arrived, now I am going to run this, and take no advice from any one. After all, I have arrived." Yet I feel for the person, when I first came to the Adventist Church, I found it rather irritating that the Childrens' story was often more about having so much fun, but learned my lesson, and then became a Christian, and boy did I have a good time 'before I became a Christian' I was hoping and expecting to tell some Bible stories or Bible lessons. Just one opinion... others may differ. I have since heard some great children stories that were relevant life stories..

I think the story was very appropriate. Relationships between friends – and arguments that can injure the relationships – are very important to God. Not everyone is going to be touched in the same manner by the same story. Sometimes new [and old] members can be overzealous and critical. Probably the best way to deal with them is to thank them for their input.... smile, and continue with the guidelines that are in place for the children's stories..

It is good to keep a spiritual emphasis on the children's story, but I am concerned when people want to cut down the time for children in the church service. I feel that children get pitifully little time in the service and we wonder why they find church such a drag. I hated church when little, no matter how much I liked the Bible, hearing Bible stories, and everything that went with it as it was definitely something to endure every week. Children are part of the church family and should be valued. As it is, children hear their short story and then are told to go back to their seat (with the implied message to shut up!). I would also fear for a church that would let newcomers come in and upset the order of church because they weren't happy with the way things are. I say this because I have seen in other religions are marked different manner of dealing with children in their worship service. For many years I attend a conservative synagogue. There, the children are a very important part of the worship service. Torah reading, of course, is done every Sabbath. If a child is being Bar/Bat Mitzvad, they read the Torah portion. During the chanting of the prayer, the children were up/down from the bimah frequently. When the Torah was taken thru the congregation, the children followed. When the challah was eaten, the children were there. When not on the bimah for a part in the service, they played in the aisles. Amazingly, they were quiet and did not intrude into the service. So many times I wished the church would be as kind to children as the synagogue was. And we also see how the religion has survived so well since the return from Babylon before Jesus came. And ponder it when you are wondering why so many children leave the church. Oh! BTW, the story detailed was great. How could you have a problem with it?

And it should also be remembered that she also said far to much importance was place on the ritual of laying on of hands. I have often challenged the effort of anyone discrediting her ordination credentials because that ritual supposedly never happened to her, as if it magically passed some divine power through the hands of those doing the ordination. To invalidate the official,action of the GC in giving her that recognition with these credentials for the want of any record of the ritual of magic hands, is to put an inordinate level of importance on the ritual. It is as if that trumps the action of the GC. We are not a ritualistic religion.

Your local congregation can have Communion whenever they wish. The 4X per year came from the early days of our denomination and from the fact that on the frontier Protestant congregations were in many cases only visited 4 times per year by clergy.

Daryl, probably there is fault on both sides.

I feel that those who are for it are the ones who do not treat very nicely those who are against it.

I would like you to show me from the Bible where this was done by Jesus in reference to Mary. From my study of this and watching the various symposiums and forum and group email discussions on the subject of women's ordination, as well as the personal testimony of two locally ordained women as elders, who both believed it wasn't biblical, one of the two who renounced her ordination as being unbiblical, I am presently believing that the Bible doesn't teach that the ordination of women is biblical. I must say that I do find it interesting that there is such a division over the issue of women's ordination from the General Conference President, who I believe is against women's ordination, to the other leaders of our church, some of who are somewhat divided over this issue to an extent, even to the level of a few being rebellious to the previous GC session decisions of the General Conference, which I believe is clearly wrong, to the lay people, some of who are also somewhat divided over this issue in a few of our Divisions. Did you watch the video of a response of the lay people of a NAD congregation over the Q&A Mailing that was sent to all the NAD churches? In case you didn't, you can watch it here:

Have you watched this? And this?

In a blog, two (2) people have posted on the Internet that President Ted Wilson stated in an interview with 3-ABN that he would not serve a 2nd term as President and that the General Conference, in July, would elect an new President. The nature of the reports was such that I suspected that they were false. I checked with a knowledgeable contact of mine and he mentioned other reasons as to why the report was probably false. So, yesterday I sent a request to 3-ABN asking if the report was true. Today Mollie Steenson sent me a reply: She was very clear that President Wilson did not make any such statement in an interview with 3-ABN. Don't believe everything that you read on the Internet, even if someone says it is true.

John Acton went to to Rome hoping to persuade the Pope against the doctrine. As noted in history, the Pope decided not to even enter into discourse with John. That, in and of itself, is not corruption. Man has been endowed by God with the right to think and express thought through communication. Man has also been endowed with the free will to choose. Among those choices is the choice to receive another's communication, for whatever reason. God grants us the right to choose not give audience to any communication, as well as to express it. Just because someone has something to say does not obligate anyone to hear what has to be said. Refusal to listen does not equate to suppression of that right to communicate. This is something a great many Americans today need reminding of...continually. Just because John wanted to discuss in the First Vatican Council did not obligate his prospective audience to hear what he wanted to say, even if John was arguably justified in his cause. Their turf, their rules. Even though John was 100% justified, that justification in and of itself does not include the obligation to be heard if the intended audience does not wish to hear it. Likewise anywhere else - I may well want give to voice to a point that is justified (at least, to me). I am free to find those willing to give audience to my persuasion and arguments, but that does not obligate them to be forced to give audience on their turf should they decide not to. That the RCC decided not to hear John Acton at the Council was not, in and of itself, corruption. It was an exercise in a God-given right not to hear something they did not wish to hear. God extends that to mankind and includes Himself in that - He does not force others to hear His enlightened perspective on anything, even though He is God and very much desires His Gospel to be heard by all. Man, and his institutions, are free to listen, or not. Consistently, God in both Testaments declares His messages are for those "with ears to hear". He does not obligate people to listen, although He is 100% justified in what He has to say, even though it is to eternal peril for those choosing not to hear. As this thread is a spin-off of your other thread (with your current spat with Greg and Stan noted), it goes well to note that just because you have a point of view to express, and those moderating this site declare such manner of communication outside the boundaries of the image they wish to project, does not constitute an obligation on their part to entertain your discourse. Refusal does not constitute corruption, nor is it suppression of your right to voice your opinion. Like me, your are a guest here. Like me, you are a very long-time guest here at ClubAdventist. Like any guest, if my deportment in communication consistently and/or flagrantly goes beyond the standards set here I would expect to be shown the door. I have no right to call that corruption or suppression, however justified I might be. As for John's ending point - great men are not always bad men. John the Baptist (by Christ's declaration, the greatest of the prophets), Paul (arguably, the greatest of the Apostles), Enoch (pre-Flood great), Elijah (great prophet), and Moses were all great men. All were sinners made good by God, and in the same process were made great men. Blessings,

I don't think the author of the article was correct that the apparent change in the translation occurred "in the Middle Ages, apparently before the ninth century"... Here's my reason: It was not only the Archbishop of Constantinople, John Chrysotum (345-407), who wrote of Junia as a woman, but that fact was also written into the 12th century and beyond. The writings of Theophylact of Ohrid (1055-1107), Greek Archbishop of Bulgaria, noted for the appositeness, sobriety, accuracy and judiciousness of his scriptural commentaries, also stated that Junia was a female apostle. Furthermore, as late at 1611, in the Hexapla of Romans, written by Andrew Willet, influential Church of England theologian, (whose son, Thomas, was the 1st mayor of New York City), it is also noted that Junia was considered to be a female.

and then there are some here who are sheep in wolves' clothing... I kinda have an affinity for them... :)

Sheep good. Wolves bad. G