Leaderboard

Some like to use 'logic' as a reason for not voting....however I find that illogical! I go with Pam. We all have our own opinions, so do what you wish.....but not doing anything because we don't like either candidate and then to continue complaining from the sidelines....really? As I said, who is perfect? Christianity should stay out of it all? Yup, sit on the sidelines, look pious and then tell God, its not my fault! Christ picked all types of person for his 12. Were any of them ever perfect at any time? (my opinion, works for me)

lol.... not voting, then complaining about the people who were voted in, is illogical. As a voter, you can complain about the candidates, but not voting for any candidate makes you just... a complainer. If you don't like the candidates on the ballot, then write one in. Not voting is to give up a hard-fought fight on the part of many who have gone before us.

He has ONLY a heart for serving Jesus, and ministry. That is why I will do anything that I can, to let my world know about him. :-)

Rossw: You say: " . . . even those who identify as conservative SDA are considered wolves in sheep's clothing here." That is a generalized statement that as written lumps all conservative SDA who post here as wolves in sheep's clothing. Your statement is clearly false on its face. In addition, I hardly think that you have enough background in a relationship with Club Adventist to be able to judge what we think. People who post here and are considered wolves in sheep's clothing are so judged on the basis of their individual conduct, their apparent motivation for posting here and the manner in which the participate in discussions. They are not judged on the basis of their theology. People who have the apparent sole motivation of promoting an agenda and/or converting others to their specific doctrinal belief may be considered wolves in sheep's clothing. But, even then the decision will be made on an individual basis. Some people may act close to the line, but they do not pass over that line and they continue here. Some of these people may even become considered to add value to our forum. I am thinking right now of a person with whom I and many others disagree. You might even say that our disagreement is also with some of our early denominational leaders. You might say that our disagreement stems from the fact that this person disagrees with a major SDA doctrine. Well, in my thinking and that of others, that person makes a contribution to this forum. None of us considers that person to be a wolf in sheep's clothing and that person is welcomed here. The bottom line is that whether you or anyone else is considered a wolf in sheep's clothing will be made on an individual basis as to how you and/or others relate here on this forum. This forum is funded privately. If you cannot live with how it is run, establish your own forum and live by your rules.

A statement.... And yet we have these same statements.... From the persons own mouth, I have to wonder what is blocking their ears to what they are saying!!!

I will vote for HC. Has the experience. Understands the world of politics. Emails.....really...just side tracking. Benghazi, everyone is a Monday morning quarterback. Making money with speeches.....jealousy by others for the money she made, thats what politicians do. It takes obscene amounts of money to run for office these days and she obviously had a plan in place for a long time. She is strong headed, not someone who will act like a rug, but will make compromises as needed because this country is not alone in the world. To me, its not about 'liking' someone, but can they do the job. If you try to run a business just based on having people you 'like', it is limited in its success. Everyone has their definition of 'honesty', and not always wanting it applied to themselves. To say I would agree with everything she may or may not do, past, present or future, really? Anyone else running have any experience, please standup and lets compare. Is the Donald a comparison? (my opinion, works for me)

Again, you seem to be repeating things that are generally repeated in this context. People didn't fight so we can merely vote. There was voting in Sadam's Iraq and there was voting in the former USSR. Voting doesn't mean much if the candidates are unacceptable when it comes to the ideals that this country is built on, or the individual ideals that a person may hold. What would you vote for... a rape or a murder :). The correct answer is... neither. It's a fairly simple concept.

First of all, complaining is not necessarily a negative concept when it exist in proper context. You present it as "just a complainer", when complaint is defined as a statement that a situation is unsatisfactory or unacceptable. That's a complaint is. If you find something unacceptable or unsatisfactory... then you are a complainer. Complaining can be valid or invalid. With that out of the way, you seem to imply that people who don't find either of the candidates unsatisfactory have no right to continue to find them unsatisfactory. Hence it's a terrible logic.

Nah, that's just poor logic. If you choose, then you have no right to complain because your choice is responsible for whatever screw-up that's behind the complain. If you don't vote because you disagree, then you have every right to complain, because the complaint is about the person you didn't choose or voted in. If you don't see as either as good candidates, then you have right to abstain from voting and complain about both. For example, if I say "vote between guy X or guy Y making the rules", and someone would say "I don't think either of them should be doing this, because they lack qualification". People who vote for either person have no right to complain about their screw ups. So, let's stop repeating this meaningless phrase, because it's only made to stop people from thinking that there are more choices than voting.

Impressive!!!

She also "judged" Israel. She led the army of Israel.

I like this idea Kevin - that Christ ENTERED "through the veil" to inaugurate His Heavenly Tabernacle ministry. Thank you for posting all of that scholarly work. I do believe that the "veil" which represented "his flesh" was the ENTRANCE veil into the Temple (which represented ALL of Heaven) - NOT the two overlapping veils hanging between the HP and the MHP. There's a LOT of scholarship on that one also. I especially like Joseph Good's work. Solomon's Temple and Herod's Temple were two storied, and there were matching apartments above the first floor HP and MHP. That is where the priests hid the child king Joash and his nurse for six years (2 KIngs 11:3).

Your question is interesting: The question as to rabbinical rules and traditions clearly requires an answer that rests on extra-Biblical sources. The part related to ordained spiritual leaders suggests, perhaps this is wrong, that you have a view of ordination that developed during the early years of Christianity and primarily within what became the Catholic Church. In any case, as you continue to argue your positon, you relay more on extra-Biblical elements of your argument. I am not suggesting that you are wrong in doing so. You may even be correct. I simply find it interesting that you do so in view of your objections to others whom you perceive of doing so. As a non-SDA Commander of mine once said to those he commanded: "If you talk the talk, you must walk the walk."

The language, culture and much more is helpful in understanding what the Bible teaches and taking this into consideration does not minimize the fact that the Bible is the determinative authority. E.G. Understanding the phrase "three days and three nights" is helped by understanding the language and culture of the time of Christ.

How you and your wife relate is beyond my knowledge. Yes, it might be that you were the head of the church, and your wife was simply the one who washed the dishes after the potluck. But, the text that I cited did not clearly state that either person was a priest. This could be understood that in the NT times the priesthood had been done away with by the ministry of Christ. In any case, the Biblical text that I cited presented both she and her husband on the same spiritual level.

If you read closely what I posted, you would see that I never referenced her as an "ordained female priestess." In your post you came across to me as dismissing her as simply a "tentmaker." My purpose was to show you that she was presented in the Bible as an active leader in the spiritual life of others, much more than just a tentmaker. So, you have suggested that she may have been simply a "Bible Worker." Would you say the same for how that Biblical verse presents her husband? The Biblical verse that I cited presents both she and her husband on the same level of spiritual leadership. You might (?) have some rational basis for saying that both of them were simply "Bible Workers" as presented in the Biblical text. But to suggest, if you do, that the text presents her as a Bible worker and her husband something else is to read into the text our present organizational theology as it pertains to Bible Workers. You and I need to take the text as it reads. That text presents them both on the same level.

Rossw: Let us look at Priscila, in Acts 18: Read verses 24 - 16. Here we see a Jew, Apollos, who was converted to Christianity (vs 25). He is described as a mighty preacher (vs. 24). He worked very hard to convert others to Christianity (vs 25 & 26). But, Apollos had not advanced in his understanding of Christianity beyond what John the Baptist had taught (vs 25). So, two people took him under their wing and began to instruct him in the advanced learning that he needed (vs. 26). Those two people were Aquila and Priscilla (vs 26). As a result of his advanced learning he went forth to proclaim more advanced teachings of the work and ministry of Christ (vs. 28). In this passage Priscilla is presented as much more than a tentmaker. See also Romans 16:3 where Priscilla and Aquila mentioned in their ministry to the Gentiles (vs 4). See also I Cor. 16;19 where Priscila and Aquila are presented as being leaders of a house church. NOTE: The names Prisca and Priscila are the same person as Prisca is a shortened form of the word Priscila.

Christ's death on the the cross ended the OT priestly role. Recall the NT statement regarding the "priesthood of ALL believers" ? The role of pastors/ministers is one of servant leadership and not as priestly intercessors. Recall Jesus' statement about leadership, not to lord it over others as the pagan rulers do. But the most compelling NT statement about women in leadership is Paul's endorsement of Phoebe. He instructs the believers in Rome to follower her direction, as one who he was appointing to lead them. And he specifically states that she was a leader of many, including himself. The key Greek word is prostatis, a word that without question means leader, a "governess". In its verb form it is consistently throughout Scripture translated as "to rule, lead or govern". In its masculine noun form in reference to men, it is translated as "ruler".

Didn't Huldah advise King Josiah on spiritual matters?

No one would EVER try to say that Samuel, Elisha, Elijah or Jeremiah were not in leadership positions. Yet Deborah couldn't be because she was a woman? She was a prophetess just the same as the men.

Dennis, not one here in CA believes what you have stated below, unless you believe it. If you do believe it, you are alone in your belief. Pam, certainly does not believe it. Neither do I.

Dennis: When I use the term Holy Spirit, I use it in reference to Christ's comment I use it in the Biblical context of John 14: 26. In that passage, at least in some translations, the Words Holy & Sp0irit are capitalized. You reference to 1 John 4:1-6, never uses the term Holy Spirit. Rather it simply uses the word "spirit" and does not capitalize it, at least in some translations. Further, the test in your passage states that the acknowledgement of Jesus Christ having come in the flesh is the test. It does not say complete (total) agreement. You have clearly mis-represented what the Bible actually says. You well may ask me if I am saying that God would send someone who is in disagreement with Jesus Christ on some points. Well, look at the context. The context is also that of a human prophet. No human prophet can ever be attributed to having reached 100% knowledge of God. God may not send error. But that does not make God's messengers to be totally without error in every aspect of their lives.

When the metal idol in Daniel 2 is compared to Jeremiah prophecy that Nebuchadnezzar would rule, his son, and then his grandson; it is interesting to notice that the grandson was in the third generation that lost the kingdom. When the idol is compared to Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome, Rome is the 4th generation that ended the global kingdoms in the prophecy. And when my understanding of the kings from the earth (Daniel 7:17) is applied to that prophecy: Presidents Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and with GW & Obama as though they are one like pagan and papal Rome were viewed as though they were one; it confirms to me that we have reached the end of the line: God is ready to visit "the iniquity of the fathers upon [H5921] the children unto [upon H5921] the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate Me." Thanks for asking, it stirred up my grey matter.

Yaaawwwwnnnn..........

Two things: 1) Please do not use all caps when writing. It's considered to be poor internet etiquette. 2) Your statement was snide, and utterly out of place, no matter what your opinion is of women's ordination.