Leaderboard

Any way, anyone is free to share here what they believe as long as there is a respectful listening and give and take. When someone stops by and says "There is no investigative judgment" and never shows up again. When someone posts large amounts pointing where Mrs. White copied and does not let us explain how and why she copied and they take a quote out of context that make it looks like she's denying the copying and say that she's a fraud and refuses to look at the evidence and demands us to give up belief in her work and demands us to give up the Investigative Judgment, they are a wolf in sheep's clothing. . For someone to come here and demands us to accept their understanding of the nature of Christ. Or tell us that unless we accept their understanding of the nature of Christ that we are simply Fordites and liberals. Then they are wolves in sheep's clothing. There are wolves in sheep's clothing here among the liberals and conservatives and if I was to just demand that you accept what I believe then I'd be one too. Open discussion and a equal marketplace of ideas is welcome. Those who come to either belittle us, or to demand the acceptance of their ideas and just want to keep harping in a one sided discussion are the wolves in sheep's clothing. When you say "Tradition has told me that the Bible is against women's ordination because of these texts, and you are not allowed to give any evidence that the tradition is wrong in interpreting this text, unless you find a clear proof texts that says that I should not believe what tradition says about this text" that is what we are complaining about. You are free to hold and defend what ever view of women's ordination that you understand. The problem is that there is something that you have added to the words to reach your interpretation and you don't want us to question your extra Biblical information.

Rossw. This forum tends to be more moderate than progressive. Most of us believe that Mrs. White is a prophet. Most of us are creationists. Most of us believe and love the Investigative Judgment. However not all of us are moderate, we have conservatives and progressives here. Not all of us believe that Mrs. White is a Prophet and some who believe she is a prophet believe that we should only interpret her via the ideas of people such as Elders Washburn and Wilkinson. Not all of us are creationists and among the creationists you have those who strongly believe in the 7 literal day creation week but not the 6,000 years, or are strongly under 10,000 years, or are very strict 6,000 years. Not everyone here believes or loves the Investigative Judgment. We all agree that we can listen and discuss. I share the reasons why I love Mrs. White (but also share that I read a number of letters she and Willie wrote to Washburn and Wilkinson and others in their group), how I understand her and the Bible's teaching of creation, and evidence that supports the Investigative Judgment. How much more conservative can I get? You seem to be demanding a "Proof Text" for the ordination of women. You don't realize that you are free to bring your extra Biblical ideas and force them on us, but don't want to listen to our ideas. We, all of us, when we read something the writer wrote something with his background and experience. We read it with our background and experience. None of us read the same thing exactly the same. That is why the trinity has to include God working with our subjective as well as the objective manifestations of God the Father and God the Son. You give us Bible verses with what you assume the verses mean from your background and things that you have heard and picked up here and there and you demand us to take YOUR assumptions about what the text says and we are not allowed to share how we came to our understanding of the text. Every understanding on the Bible is based on a higharchy of: tradition, hints, evidence and proof. Most of the Bible is evidence. There is a HUGE difference between looking at a text and bringing in "Tradition interprets this text this way. That church counsel said that the texts means, Luther said this and Calvin said that and I just read in the weekly world report while waiting in line at the supermarket..." And "Linguist have pointed out that this word has these shades of meaning." "The geographical, historical, culture where this text was written believed" and what have we learned more about the literary, historical, geographical and cultural contexts. It is not reading into the Bible to point out "There is a Chiasm in the text and the structure points out..." When you read and discuss scripture you have 2 choices. Read the words and have them submit to your imagination, or try to learn all you can about what those words mean and have them have authority over you.

It was my understanding that - in the Hellenized world, women were second class citizens. Women were married off very young, because their "husbands" wanted to be sure the offspring were their own. So ages of 9 or 10 or 12 were very common. Men used prostitutes for pleasure and conversation. They did not converse with their wives. They did not EDUCATE wives. They kept their wives locked up in family compounds. Then along comes the gospel - and they are supposed to actually love their wives and serve them. Radical thought!! Many of these prostitutes were converted to the gospel. These were educated women. They could lead. But Paul was concerned for the reputation of the fledgling church. You can understand the problem. Meeting places for "church" were usually houses. [They had been banned from the synagogues.] The women would be kept separate from the men - up in a balcony surrounding a courtyard, or a second story, or at least in the back, where they barely hear, much less interact with their husbands. Just imagine - wives who have been sequestered from other women for years, suddenly getting together. OF COURSE they are going to chatter!! We still see the problem today - mostly with teenage girls.

The right (freedom) to do something inherently allows for not doing it. To vote or not. To speak (complain) or not. But not speaking actually says something too. Not voting is a vote. But maybe we are just looking at those choices too narrowly. And confusing them as simply an "either/or" choice. And it is silly just to say if you vote or not you lose your right to speak (complain) or not. Really?!?! That said, I am more disturbed by the lack of involvement or complete apathy for either. Those who don't vote by not affirmative choice, but rather out of a complete lack of interest or sense of caring about even that there is something to vote about, oblivious to what is happening. Just drifting through life. No sense of others or community. Just stumbling blindly along unaware of what is going on around them. Terminally oblivious. Willfully ignorant. Sadly it seems that is the majority. Barely 30% of those with a right to vote actually do so. Ever. By most polls, the overwhelming majority lack even basic knowledge about current events, history, or much of anything, really. Ignorance and apathy abound. A lethal combination IMHO. Be passionate about something. Live fully. Get involved.

Here's my contribution to Daniel 11. I read this book by Marc Alden Swearingen a number of years ago and posted it! Very much in line as to what I learned many years ago from pastor J.M. Hoffman. If interested in what the writer has to say, you can read through the old thread!! https://clubadventist.com/forums/topic/30259-tidings-out-of-the-northeast/

O-Boy; where we do start, OK; 1st I am not an SDA, I wasn't born into that flock, God places us all right where he wants us, we are to stay our appointed rounds and be a faithful witness where he placed us, the SDA's are not the Bridesmaids; they were called to be the "" The Theophilus = friends of the Groom Ex.32:1 And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down out of the mount, Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept. Hab.2:3 For the vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie: though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry. 2Pet.3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down out of the mount, the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron, and said unto him, Up, make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him. And Aaron said unto them, Break off the golden earrings, which are in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring them unto me. give me all them Ear Rings of the Gods of Egypt you are wearing; bring them too me And all the people brake off the golden earrings which were in their ears, and brought them unto Aaron. And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. And when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, To morrow is a feast to the LORD. And they rose up early on the morrow, and offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play. When you wear the ""Ear Rings"" of the Gods of Egypt all you have is; """ears to hear """ the Voice of those that speak for the Egyptian Gods vs. 25 .. And when Moses saw that the people were naked; (for Aaron had made them naked unto their shame among their enemies) Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, ............................ At the time of Millers message, 1st it was the wrong message Miller tried to combine Two prophesies into one The Vision was not "WRITTEN on The Tablets The Milliliterites still had on the Ear Rings of Egypt and the Robes of Babylon

Thank you 8thdaypriest for your comments on my posts. One note though; Priscilla was NOT a student of Paul. She was a peer and a partner and already appears to be in power by the time he came around. She might have been among the 70 but we don't know for sure. Now Apollos was one of her students. So she taught and had authority over him. Getting to this verse from Timothy. I believe that Paul wrote it. There are 2 problems with this text. The first is that we find other places where Paul supports women's authority. the second is where it is written. It is written in 1 Timothy. It was NOT written in Romans, where he gives his huge thesis. Most of the rest of his epistles repeat ideas in Romans with local applications and dealing with local problems. We don't find this repeated over and over in Paul's works. We only have 2 major passages used against women ministry and one is in Corinthians in a section dealing with order and speaking in tongues etc. The other is in 1 Timothy. And it is with the section of problems that the church is dealing with. We now know that Corinth was an interesting city. It was a large city, but very few people who actually lived in the city. Most of the people were sailors, and people passing through for a couple of months or years of business and then moving on, from all over the world. It was a good church for Paul because it kept having a large turnover as people come and go and the newcomers are there long enough to learn and then leave and can bring their new faith home with them to teach their neighbors. Often these people would bring their family with them if they were to be there a few years. Unless the wife was educated she only spoke her local language and dialect. The educated women and the men who were doing the trade would know their home language, and Greek and maybe even Latin. But the poor wife would have to spend her time with friends who spoke the same language as she did. For them church and the teaching would be boring. The speaker could either say a line and wait for a long time for all the translations to be made, or they could speak in Greek or Latin which the men and the educated women could understand, but the uneducated woman just had to sit there not understanding and it would be very easy to get off in a conversation with her friend who speaks her language, and soon you get all these women in side conversations so that the message can't be heard. Thus the women need to keep quiet in church in CORINTH and ANY other church dealing with a similar problem in any part of history. That text make a big difference where it was written. It was not written to churches in cities that did not have this problem, and we find in Acts that this was not Paul's general practice. He would teach then leave the church usually in the care of the leading educated ladies of the community. Now about 1 Timothy, giving advice to a young pastor in the city of Ephesus during an interesting period of history. At the time 1 Timothy was written in Ephesus there was a movement going on. It was lead by 2 uneducated women. They were teaching the idea of female superiority and the superiority of uneducated people. They were causing havoc in the city. They were anti-education and anti-male. In public meetings and worship services the women involved with this movement would come in and take over the meetings. They required all the males, especially males in leadership position to kneel down before them and grovel and submit to them and to take over the meetings to teach their philosophy of women being superior to men, that men were worthless and that education was worthless. If you were Paul what advice would you give to a young pastor in the city dealing with this problem? Again we don't find this advice given to cities without this problem, and we don't find this being the common practice in Acts. Again in Acts when Paul would leave he's leave the church in the care of the leading educated women of a community. The church in Corinth had problems with women of different languages getting into discussions with their friends since they did not understand Greek and Latin, and in Timothy he was facing this woman's movement making all males submit to the authority of uneducated women who were pushing their views of female superiority. So what does the church of God 7th day do with the fact that we really don't know who wrote Hebrews, Luke and Acts. One possibility for Hebrews is Pricilla. Luke/Acts is easier because of the "We" verses in acts. We know it was a wealthy person from the "we" section. Which gives the named candidates as Luke or Lydia. From this we can argue over who had more time to research and work on the book, one of the busiest wealthiest business tycoons of the ancient world or a busy doctor. And do they have language experts to remove the Psalms written in the Feminine? As for Paul changing have you ever looked at Acts 18 and Acts 19? In Acts 18 Paul was in Corinth. He was teaching in the Synagogue. People opposed him and he made a big display with a grand exit with very sharp words. But many people from the Synagogue, including the Rabbi, people he had just insulted, despite his insult went over and continued to study with him. We can tell that Paul felt horrified because he wanted to give up and God had to give him a vision to continue. In Acts 19 Paul was in Ephesus. Again he was teaching in the Synagogue. Again he was opposed, but instead of storming out with sharp words, Paul said that he was not going to cause trouble. That if he was a liability for the Synagogue that he would teach else where and anyone who wanted to study with him were welcome. Then we find after a while the idol makers cause the riot. As the city official spoke he pointed out that Paul never once blasphemed their God. The Acts 19 Paul shared what he loved, if people wanted to hear him wonderful, but would not speak against another's views or beliefs. Often we are tempted and fall to the temptation to be an Acts 18 Paul. But let's keep as a goal to become an Acts 19 Paul.

you posted You first. Let's here your ideas and see where this takes us. so I figured you were afraid to stick your neck out to far; just testin the waters 1st, I did try to put a small Hee-Hee there so you would know it was in good fun Maybe shoud have just said ""Chicken""" to go 1st OK, so much for internet Humor -------------------------------++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jn.3:28 Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him. He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled. At the Marriage there are the Groom The Theophilus = somewhat like a Best Man, Best friend of the Groom The Bridesmaids The Bride The Father of the Groom The Mother of the Bride The Wedding Guest since the Bride is an orphan, she has no Father to give her awy, but she does have a lot of ""Friends" Song of Solomon I charge you, O daughters of Jerusalem, that ye stir not up, nor awake my love, until he please. The Bride Espoused Paul say But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. Not bound too, nor Yoked to men she is as Moses saith, free to come in and go out as she pleases she is No servant of Man nor bound to any men So; Who was this Apostle Paul ???? this --- Know it All --- Pharisee Gen. 24 :1 And Abraham was old, and well stricken in age: and the Lord had blessed Abraham in all things. And Abraham said unto his eldest servant of his house, that ruled over all that he had, Put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh: And I will make thee swear by the Lord, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell: But thou shalt go unto my country, and to my kindred, and take a wife unto my son Isaac. And the servant said unto him, Peradventure the woman will not be willing to follow me unto this land must I needs bring thy son again unto the land from whence thou camest? 6 And Abraham said unto him, Beware thou that thou bring not my son thither again. (Beware; you do not take my son to Babylon) The Lord God of heaven, which took me from my father's house, and from the land of my kindred, and which spake unto me, and that sware unto me, saying, Unto thy seed will I give this land; he shall send his angel before thee, and thou shalt take a wife unto my son from thence. And if the woman will not be willing to follow thee, then thou shalt be clear from this my oath: only bring not my son thither again. 9 And the servant put his hand under the thigh of Abraham his master, and sware to him concerning that matter. 10 And the servant took ten camels of the camels of his master, and departed; for all the goods of his master were in his hand: and he arose, and went to Mesopotamia, unto the city of Nahor. But; Abraham; what if the chosen Bride won't come ??? in the words of this Ole Babblin Fool Abraham replies: then you are free; to take a wife for my son from the daughters of the peoples among whom we dwell Abraham said 8 And if the woman will not be willing to follow thee, then thou shalt be clear from this my oath: only bring not my son thither again. (Beware; you do not take my son to Babylon) Paul; Hey Paul Yes Lord Go get a Bride for my son But Lord; what if the chosen Bride won't come then you are free; to take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Gentiles (Beware; you do not take my son to Babylon) 2 Cor.11:1 Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me. For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. Maybe that helps to Explain, why the Gospel of Paul, at 1st glance, seems to a different Gospel than the Apostles

In addition, I hardly think that you have enough background in a relationship with Club Adventist to be able to judge what we think.--Greg I've spectated for a while as a guest and have gotten a good idea on what you guys think even in the short time of participation. 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.--Greg Does your statement cause the inclusion of moderators and administrators? Forgive my forwardness but some of the comments to me in WO felt derogatory. Is it only because of my outspoken criticism of the evidence? 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.--Greg I love discussing theology with even those who dont agree with me but try and never get offended by what the other party thinks. It seems like the progressive topics are too sensitive to be discussed without the conservative side getting hammered. Greg, you may accept the more conservative beliefs here but when they venture out into sensitive issues the progressive side gets contentious. Do you think of me as a wolf? This forum is funded privately. If you cannot live with how it is run, establish your own forum and live by your rules.--Greg I'd normally completely agree with that statement in isolation but the issue is when a proclamation of "worldwide SDA forum" is made with an official member of the GC as an administrator, "unofficial" isn't really true anymore. How many more members from NAD and GC participate here?Seeing the unopposed progressiveness in this forum is cringe worthy. Yes, if I don't like it here I could leave but the SDA label is on the forum and think the beliefs promoted by administration are not a proper representation of the SDA denomination. It is obvious the progressiveness of this forum is threatened by Biblical conservativism because of the editing and removing of disagreeable, inconvenient posts.

Greg, you don't have to address me in the 3rd person, as I am right here waiting with baited breath for your interesting and well spoken comments. Thank you for pointing out that Samie is not an SDA pastor; he sounds very much like my experience with SDA pastor reflects. That being said, what Samie has expressed as his belief system is what many SDA's believe to be true about salvation. My reference to the 28 Fundamentals (used to be 27, and 13 when I was baptized in 1962) are the foundational beliefs of the SDA church; and today when someone is baptized into the church they must verbally declare, (and often sign on the dotted line of the baptismal certificate, as I did) that they will abide by these doctrines whole heartedly and without reservation. Your statement that SDA pastors have the freedom to believe what they will is patently NOT true. I have had much experience with certain SDA pastors that preached one thing on Sabbath because it was required for their continued employ, and expressed an opposing point of view when in the privacy of their own homes with trusted friends. I was in a board meeting at a large SDA church where a Conference pastor came to answer questions about why one of our beloved Associate Pastor's was being 'retired'. This Conference elder then proceeded to lie through his teeth by saying that the Associate was OK with how things had worked out. I knew this was a lie because that very Associate pastor was a close personal friend and told me he was upset with being dismissed on a bogus charge. I stood up in that meeting and said, "Elder _______, if you will lie about this, you will lie about other things. What else do we need to know that you have lied about." And this is not an isolated instance. In fact, it is quite common. I call your attention to the fact that I said that if a pastor goes against the 28 fundamentals he/she might RISK loosing their position, and THAT is a true statement, whether you choose to accept it or not. And yes, Greg, I have formulated many of my ideas about the SDA church and it's doctrine and function from having spent my life in that very church. In expressing my views I certainly was not (as you put it) generalizing. As you have see above I have very specific and reasonably current experiences to draw upon as to my concerns for the church and it's role in upcoming events. In fact, I will get even more specific in my criticism of 'our' church, based on the criticism of God Almighty in Revelation: Rev 3:1 "To the angel of the church in Sardis write: He who has the seven Spirits of God and the seven stars, says this: 'I know your deeds, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead. Rev 3:2 'Wake up, and strengthen the things that remain, which were about to die; for I have not found your deeds completed in the sight of My God. Our church DOES 'have a name that is alive' in that the Seventh-day Adventist church name indicates that we look to the 10 Commandments for our instructions, and that we believe as a church in the soon coming of Jesus. Our name is synonymous with high level education and training in the medical and healing arts, and nearly everyone in the world knows about the LLUMC Children's Hospital, and the Proton Therapy Center. (For crying out loud, protons helped cure me from malignant melanoma.) But the beliefs we were founded upon have 'died' on the alter of the gospel of Salvation by Grace through Faith, which does away with any idea that we must 'keep the Commandments of God', or even look forward to His return to this earth. We HAVE NOT completed the DEEDS that God HAD (in the past) assigned to us to accomplish before the end, which is why we are all still here on this earth. So far, we have NOT 'strengthen the things that remain', because we don't even know WHAT those things are anymore; so caught up are we in trying to be like every other Christian church in the world. And Greg, I am not the one that made this personal by making statements that cast aspersions on my competence due to 'bias and lack of openness', and being "simply wrong in his understanding of these issues." If this were a give and take discussion (as I was led to believe it was) then you would not be making these kinds of egregious comments that show you to be a smaller person than I believe you are. If my approach is 'wrong', then prove it by using only the words and teachings of God in the Law and the Prophets in the Old Testament, and of Jesus Christ that He gave His own eyewitness disciples in the New Testament. Because for me, THOSE words are the only words that carry the weight of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. All of the words of anyone else in the Bible (or anywhere else) must be compared to THOSE words, in order to be proven true. You can argue all day until you are blue in the face, but against those words there are no arguments that can be accepted.

Last Sunday, Musicman made the following statement to Kevin H. The statement below does reflect the beliefs of some Christians to include some SDAs. However, it is officially rejected by the SDA Church and by EGW. Neither teaches that God spoke the words of the Bible as Musicman has stated. Further, that is not a teaching of Sola Scriptura. It is not the teaching that Musicman states is the foundation of the belief that the Bible is Holy, inerrant and the Word of God. Musicman is simply wrong in his understanding of these issues.

Writing yesterday, Musicman said the following about Sammie. The problem with what he said is that every sentence in the quote below is false, at least in part. To start out, as is well known by people who post here, Sammie is NOT a SDA pastor. He is not employed by the SDA Church. I am uncertain as to what Musicman meant in his reference to the 28 fundamental beliefs. If his point of reference was all that is contained by the book of that name, the statement is deceptive as it should be remembered that the book allows a wide range of belief as opposed to one set formulation of that belief. If his reference is to the officially voted statement of belief Adventist pastors would be expected to maintain their teaching within a range of boundaries. And they would be allowed some variance in belief. The idea that pastors filter their beliefs through the formulated 28 is again false. Musicman simply seems to have a limited knowledge of SDA pastors and their ministry and beliefs. Yes, there is some truth in the idea that if a pastor goes against the 28 his/her employment may be called into question as there are boundaries. But, to say that will happen if the pastor goes against the 28 "in any way" is simply not true. In reading his posts, I get the idea that Musicman has formulated many of his ideas from personal experiences that he has had and from those of other family members who were SDA. I cannot deny his experience. But, it is inappropriate for one to take individual experiences and generalize them to apply them to the denomination as a whole today. I know a former SDA Woman who experienced spiritual abuse more than 50 years ago. I know another who experienced sexual abuse. Their experiences cannot be denied. What happened to them was real. But, it would not be fair to take their experiences and generalize them to the entire denomination today. All in all, the statement that Musicman made below reflects a bias and a lack of openness.

ahhhh; you saw that when Christ spake he contrasted the Two (2) Kingdoms coward, thats sounds like "Bait" on a Hook Hee-hee ----- but I'll bite, but there is nothing in Scripture that gives a complete example of the Marriage; just Tid-Bits here and there Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter. Lets go this route, The Scriptures speak / contrast us as a "Family" a Man has, lets say a Farm -- several fields, cattle, sheep and all such, equipment, and 4-5 employees The son will eventually heir it all, but not yet, he is still a child and under the Ranch Foreman's Tutoring The son, altho he eventually will inherit it, but; Dad is still in control, and the Son works for the Father, same as the other men but not as an "Employee" for a paycheck, --- but because it is the "Family's, Farm --- it belongs to him as much as it does the Father; But Dad is still the Boss The Son, now in early adulthood, -- time to find a Bride ---, but its not the responsibility for the Father nor the Son to Train nor Raise the Young Lady that' s her Mother's responsibility to Raise, and Train her Daughter to be fit for a Bride for the Masters Son far to many think the Church is Married to Christ, and they are not; The Church is """ESPOUSED"" not yet married the Wedding takes place, at the Time Appointed, as taught in the Parables of Christ, and John's Revelation Song of Solomon 6:9 My dove, my undefiled is but one; she is the only one of her mother, she is the choice one of her that bare her. The daughters saw her, and blessed her; yea, the queens and the concubines, and they praised her.

(Topic continued) So why were Adam and Eve NOT executed (Strongs #H4191:mooth, causatively to kill) as God told them that they would be, IF they ate from the forbidden Tree? To recap; God did not immediately kill Adam and Eve for their disobedience, because God needed a representative on earth with a message that would counter the lies with which Satan had deceived the nation (Isa. 14:12), that is, that Lucifer was the creator of the world, and that the nations of the earth must worship him. Satan was in possession of the earth based on the FACT that he had completely deceived and cause them to bow down to him. And since the Garden of Eden (the location of the Kingdom of the Heavens) was on the earth Satan had the RIGHT to have access that location in order to TRY to subvert Adam and Eve to his will. In order to abide by His own laws God allowed Satan this access, but God controlled the location, i.e., the Tree of the Learning of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. This is why God told Adam and Eve: Gen 2:16 The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; Gen 2:17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die." God commanded this in order to PROTECT Adam and Eve from the temptation and deception of Satan before they were ready to handle it. The were to have learned RIGHTEOUSNESS, and when this instruction was completed they would then be sealed in that righteousness, and would have been able to go into the world as fully righteous beings, who would be able to tell the truth about God without the fear of being deceived by Satan, who is the ruler of the earth. Alas, as we know, this did not happen. Adam could have stopped the process of deception before it degenerated into disobedience because he was 'right there with her' (Gen. 3:6), and heard everything Satan said to Eve. Eve may have been deceived, but the real disobedience came from Adam, who WAS NOT DECEIVED, and disobeyed with conscious intent. For this Adam and Eve should have undergone the eternal punishment of the Second Death, from which NO ONE that is not completely righteous in fact can awaken. So, because God needed a Kingdom of the Heavens on earth to teach the nations about Righteousness, Justice, and the Kingdom of Heaven; and because God created the nations (Gen. 1:26-27) SINLESS but not righteous (and they fell); and because God created Adam and Eve SINLESS but not righteous (If Adam and Eve had been righteous they would not have been deceived); and because of the demands of the Law of Righteousness God passed judgement on the nations and Adam and Eve; and because of God's great love for His human creation He POSTPONED the execution of the judgement He had passed on the nations and on Adam and Eve, thereby giving those that would eventually inhabit the Kingdom of the Heavens (the offspring of the Woman see in Gen. 3:15 and Rev. 12:17- the Holy Spirit) on earth the opportunity to LEARN and PRACTICE RIGHTEOUSNESS. The penalty for unrighteousness and disobedience is the Second Death. And this penalty MUST (BY LAW) be paid. Both Adam and Eve could have paid this penalty themselves, but then they would have died the Second death, and God would have had to start His creation all over again. This is not the outcome either Adam and Eve, or God desired for them or the nations. Therefore, Jesus said to His Father that HE would pay this penalty for the sins of the Kingdom of the Heavens and the world, at exactly the right time (ref. Passover in 30 C.E.) Therefore, the Gospel of the Kingdom (Matt. 24:14, Matt. 28:18-20) that Jesus taught to His own eyewitness disciples states that in order to be given the opportunity for eternal life a person must 'enter the Kingdom of Heaven' (John 3:3,5). This is accomplished by being 'born of the Spirit', which means being committed to become disciple of Jesus, to learn and practice righteousness and justice through HIS words (John 8:31), by demonstrating love for God and His Laws by keeping His Commandments (John 14:14), and by entering the process of sanctification by practicing the deeds of TRUTH, which will bring you to the Light (righteousness)(John 3:21), and them becoming Sanctified through HIS words, because His words are TRUTH (John 17:17); then, by keeping the Commandments of God and holding to the testimony of Jesus (Rev. 12:17) you become 'born of the Woman', and only then will your penalty of death be paid by the ONE that can pay it and NOT die eternally - Jesus Christ the Son of God. The penalty that Jesus paid was the penalty of the Passover Lamb (Ex. 12), and THAT penalty is ONLY for the first born, or first fruits of the Kingdom of Heaven. This penalty was ONLY for the camp of Israel, that at that time was the Kingdom of Heaven. Now that Kingdom has passed to another people, but THAT 'people' have no idea who they are, or what they have been set apart from the world to accomplish. They believe that they are the bride, when in fact they are the 'bridesmaids' as seen in Matt. 25:1-13, that are to get the bride ready. They believe that their job is to take the gospel of God (salvation by grace through faith-the wide gate) to the world, little knowing that they are preaching the WRONG gospel. They should be preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom to the world. This is why we are 'not in heaven err this'. Jesus DID NOT die for the sins of the world, except the world enter the Kingdom of Heaven through the narrow gate ((Matt. 7:13) which is the process described above. No one that practices lawlessness (Matt. 24:11-12), and believes that righteousness cannot be achieved through the power of the Holy Spirit (John 16:13-15) can enter the Kingdom of the Heavens.

There were some 120 people in the upper room. Women were among them. The spirit was poured out on everyone there - not just on the males who were present. The prophecy of Joel said, "I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh" - not "on your male flesh". "Your daughters will prophesy." To prophesy is to "speak for another". To be a prophet of God, is to speak for God. If a women can speak for God, then why can she not preach, or teach, or baptize?

I read a good book awhile back, titled "Priscilla's Letter" by Ruth Hoppin. The author presents the evidence for Priscilla (Paul's student) being the author of the Book of Hebrews. I can certainly agree there were woman Rabbis. But the priests dressed the animal sacrifices for the alter. Would it not have been difficult for a female to dress a large animal? And there was the issue of child care. The women who became Rabbis and leaders in the church, most often seem to be older - past child bearing age. Also the priests (not just the High Priest) were types of Christ - who was male. Then again - Queen Esther (a female) was a TYPE of Christ. She went in to the King, and was accepted on the day which later was celebrated as The Feast of Firstfruits. Revelation 20 says all of those from the "first resurrection" will become "priests of God and of Christ". There is no mention that only males are resurrected at that time. And Paul says "there is no distinction". So it seems obvious that females will become priests at the Second Coming. Jesus said, "The first will be last." Makes me wonder if He will reverse the current order of things. LOL

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.

With a nod to the July/August issue of READERS DIGEST: A priest, a pastor and a rabbi were discussing who performed the best at their job. So, they each went into the woods to see if they could find a bear. Upon their return they each reported. The priest reported that he had read to the bear from the catechism and that bear would attend services the following Sunday. The pastor also reported that the bear, upon hearing the pastor read to him, had promised to attend church the next Sunday also. The Rabbi responded form the stretcher where he was lying in a body cast: I probably should not have begun my visit with the bear with a circumcision.

Ok, now we are back on where we can discuss our differences and our understandings. Just did not know why you had said that you disagreed with a point that is fairly well agreed upon by the different parties.

First a question: Why do you not believe that the 70 weeks started in 457 BC? Back when Miller (and the scholars he read) picked that date, they were lucky to pick dates in the correct century. Yet the decree of 457 BC has since become one of the best established dates of ancient history attested to in both the Elephantine and (If I recall correctly) Samaritan papyri. In fact it was implemented on the day of Atonement. Many religions have come to believe this. The dispensationalists have it up to the start of the 70th week, the start of the ministry of Jesus and then cut off the 70th week until the very end of time. (Granted there were things for the 70th week where some was fulfilled when Jesus was on earth and some were not able to be fulfilled due to Jesus not being accepted and that it could have ended in the setting up of God's kingdom. While we can look for analogies of these things, I believe they are wrong for cutting off the 70th week and making it THE 70th week for things we will find in the end with all the extras they hang on this.) There were around the time of Jesus (and in the years following) who would somehow connect the 70 years in one way or another to things related to themselves, but based on 457 BC. In John we find Jesus' ministry beginning with "Behold the lamb of God who scapegoats the sins of the world" indicating that Jesus' ministry began on Yom Kippur 69 weeks of years from the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem that started in 457 BC. Friend or foe of Adventism tends to concede this point. What do you have to say to prove all of these wrong? Second: (and I'm going to post some evidence in response to an earlier post here) that when you compare Hebrews with the Septuagint it uses language that is used for the inauguration of the sanctuary, (Exodus 40: 9-15 among other texts) Third: Had Jesus been accepted it would have ended with the end of the world. Daniel (and Ezekiel) predicts what could have happened having it as a goal for the Hebrews to reach for. Fourth: Why would it need Jesus over 175 years to go over the books; We need to remember that God is working with the entire universe. What is happening in heaven is reflected on what is happening on earth. As God told Job that yes he is all-powerful, but he is dealing with the behemoth (the beast that represents the history of humanity) and the Leviathan (the beast that represents the accusations of Satan) Mere power is not the issue here. The mere speed that God can judge is not the issue. There is an event going on in heaven and reflected on earth. The angels and unfallen worlds are evaluating the lives of those who have made profession of following God. Did they really follow him or was it only mouth service without allowing God's spirit to work on their hearts. And if they did allow God to work on their hearts just what happened and how did God do it. This helps them understand the Great Controversy clearer and helps them understand their own salvation clearer. They closed their probation at the cross. But they have had a time for deeper understanding, and thus this is a review. This is reflected on earth through the rediscovery of the ancient world that began in the middle of the 1800s with Robinson exploring the holy hand and making Biblical Geography a serious science leading to archaeology. And around this time the Rosetta stone was translated opening up ancient writings, and the two events uniting in many more ancient records and writings being discovered in archaeology. We are living at a time where we get to INVESTIGATE the pages of scripture in a way that Luther, Tyndale, and Wesley and any of them would long to live in our time and investigate the scriptures with what we have. Jesus is taking the same time to judge that we require to study and learn more about the Bible.

We are all born in sin. Rom 5:12 "so death passed upon all men,for that all have sinned". God first has to bring His Spirit of truth to the mind. John 16:13 "when He the Spirit of truth, is come he will guide you into all truth" .then conviction takes place Acts 2:37 "Now when they heard this" (the truth that was preached), conviction Acts 2:37"they were pricked in their hearts", Then Peter tells them Acts 2:38 " repent and be baptized" "for the remission of sins" so God places the truth in the persons mind for conviction. when the person sees the beauty of God and the horribleness of sin, the person repents (turn away from sin) and believe the truth, God then in his own mind makes him righteous at that very moment. thus the man is indeed righteous! Any answer answer would be irrelevant to the merits of my argument since God's word is the standard. In order to get a proper understanding of 1John 1:8 you need to have the historical context and the grammar of the text clear. John wrote this epistle to deal with the Gnostic teaching. They taught that there was nothing called sin, they believe there was only ignorance which is darkness, but they have light, they would say that they have not sinned in the past or they have never sinned. So, John is addressing this idea of the Gnostics. If we read 1John 1:7,8 "Jesus Christ His son cleanseth us from all sin" " If we say that we have no ( have not is in the original) sin" further proof on the verb tense."have not" Interlinear Greek English N.T. by George Ricker Berry .so if we say we have not sinned we deceive ourselves he is not saying that if you say you have no sin......