Leaderboard

I would treat a member of the Shepherd’s Rod the same way I would treat a catholic, baptist, a Jehovah’s witness or an adventist; with respect and kindness. It is easy to discover if a person truly is receptive to the truth, and you will also soon learn if a person merely wants a platform for his own ideas. In my experience outsiders tend to rapidly destroy their own influence if they are unwilling to listen to others.

An SDA unbeliever - sounds like an oxymoron to me. How can one be an SDA and an unbeliever at the same time? Or was he/she an "unbeliever" because he/she doesn't accept your version of the truth? If that's the case, you're being a little judgmental and condemning, don't you think?

As many of you know, I spent 20 years working in a Federal Hospital. During most of that time I was a member of the Ethics Committee of that hospital. During parts of that time, I also worked for a private (non-SDA) hospital. During that period of time, I also served on its Ethics Committee. In the post below, I am going to describe an actual case that came before the Ethics Committed of that private hospital and ask what you would do. In considering the case that I will mention, keep in mind that a fundamental rule of clinical ethics is that a competent adult who understands the consequences of their choice has a right to refuse clinical care. Even if that refusal will result in their death.

In the absence of a written directive from the patient, I would err on the side of continuing the treatment, until such time (if ever) that the patient's private physician could be found and consulted. The fact that treatment would most likely be restorative to the patient's previous level of living seems like the issue was a "no-brainer" — and if the family members were informed of that likely outcome, it's very suspicious that they would fight the treatment. What'd they do?.... put antifreeze in his brownies?

Enjoyed, agreed! However, I wouldn't go so far as to say that they are delaying. Perhaps, leading into a wilderness where some may be lost due to becoming unbelivers. My belief is that the 2nd Coming takes place when God sees no future in delaying.

Aubrey: My response to your numbered comments: 1) Correct, it might not hold up in court. However, there is a potential for some clinical providers to be convicted of Battery if the Court was to believe that the family was correct in asserting that the man would not want such aggressive treatment. Keep in mind that a competent adult, who understands the consequences of their decision, has the right to refuse clinical care, even if such would result in death. 3) An assumption has to be made. An assumption that it was voluntary does not require a high standard of proof, absent evidence to the contrary. An assumption that it was not voluntary would require some level of reasonable basis for that assumption with referral to police for investigation. 4) Perhaps you did not understand my comment: If knowledge existed that family members would greatly profit by the death of a person, that would cast doubt on their assertion that he would not want aggressive treatment. 5) Exactly. NOTE: I would be interested to see if any of our physician members of CA would contribute to this discussion.

Since when does Mrs. White have the authority to issue "commandments"? I'm comfortable with sending my tithe to whomever is spreading/sustaining the gospel; whether it is the conference or a worthy ministry.

What change? Actually, I believe many changes. For instance; the sacrifice is the blood of the Son of God, not animal. The location; In the Heavenly Sanctuary, not on this earth. Just to name a couple. So, what change are you wanting to get at?

Yes, these are in God's Law of Moses. It's interesting that there is no passage in Scripture that has the same purpose as your post seems to have -- highlighting God's laws that seem difficult or bothersome or unreasonable. The Bible authors apparently had a different attitude toward God's laws. It wasn't too many decades ago that physicians and surgeons thought it was too bothersome and unreasonable to wash their hands between patients, yet today that is considered to be part of very basic hygiene. It wouldn't be too surprising if God's laws of family purity that you listed will someday be considered part of basic hygiene in civilized countries. When you live in a society that respects God's laws, none of these laws would be too much of a problem. Some of them are more challenging when you live outside of Israel. I've noticed that those who don't want to follow God's laws very often view God's laws more legalistically than those who do want to follow God's laws, so they construe God's commands to be more difficult than God intended. Christians often speak of "giving their lives to Jesus". And some commit to a life of hardship in some faraway mission field. Yet if Jesus asked a Christian to follow God's Law of Moses, would that be too much to do for Jesus? Would that infringe on some part of life that hasn't been surrendered to Jesus? Would it be a hardship? It's not that the Law of Moses needs to be followed to earn salvation -- Jesus took care of that -- all we need to do is accept him as Lord of our lives. When Jesus was following the Law of Moses every day, he said "My yoke is easy and my burden is light."

Extremely well thought through experience. How I wish most of my experience with those I should have loved the most, were handled as well. God is Love!~Jesus saves!

the article is here: http://www.adventistreview.org/church-news/story4317-praying-for-a-mans-husband

Listening to all the fuss about Hillary's emails I had a vague recollection about Bush and emails. I googled it and wow! From Wikipedia: ......Over 5 million emails may have been lost.[2][3]Greg Palast claims to have come up with 500 of the Karl Rove emails, leading to damaging allegations.[4] In 2009, it was announced that as many as 22 million emails may have been lost.[5] The administration officials had been using a private Internet domain, called gwb43.com, owned by and hosted on an email server run by the Republican National Committee,[6] for various communications of unknown content or purpose. White House officials were using nongovernmental accounts specifically to avoid creating a record of the communications."[13] The Republican National Committee claims to have erased the emails, supposedly making them unavailable for Congressional investigators.[1 White House deputy Jennifer Farley told Jack Abramoff not to use the official White House system "because it might actually limit what they can do to help us, especially since there could be lawsuits, etc."[7] Abramoff responded, "Dammit. It was sent to Susan on her RNC pager and was not supposed to go into the WH system."[19]

This is a fine passage for some future fulfillment. But it is evident that this passage was not fulfilled when the veil was torn, so it does nothing to support the idea that the Melchezidekian priesthood replaced the Levitical priesthood when Messiah died.

There are several issues here: Is the metaphor of God's marriage to Israel supposed to be extended to the point the of death God? I don't recall any Bible authors extending the marriage metaphor to the point of death and resurrection of God. You keep trying to insert that metaphor into Paul's illustration in Romans 7, but that evidently wasn't Paul's intent in Romans 7 because he is clearly speaking of individuals and he gives absolutely no clues that he is referring to the metaphorical marriage of the nation to God. And Paul also does not say in the Romans 7 illustration anything about the husband being resurrected, which he would have needed to do if he intended the illustration to be used the way you use it because all of the Jews would have been asking the same questions I asked earlier (and more) about how the law of marriage works when a temporarily dead husband is resurrected. If the resurrected Messiah is a "new husband" who has lost his responsibility to his former wife, and lost all responsibility for his former promises and covenants with the Israelites, why does his death not also free him from his covenants and promises to Abraham, David, Jacob, Noah, and Daniel? The apostle Paul obviously does not believe that the death and resurrection of Messiah has invalidated the previous covenants and promises with Israel, because in Romans 9:4-5 Paul declares regarding his non-believing kinsmen, "who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, ... " Paul wrote that in the present tense describing the situation that existed several decades after the veil of the temple had been torn. I've heard people try to argue that Paul didn't really mean the present situation when he wrote that, but that argument would only turn Paul's paragraph into meaningless nonsense. Are God's covenants mutually exclusive? In other words, does a former covenant have to be invalidated when a new covenant is given? Paul says in Galatians 3:17 , "What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise." Although he is speaking in this case of the Abrahamic covenant and the Sinai covenant, he does not limit the principle to just those two covenants, and he does not contrast those two covenants with any covenants that do invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God. And of course, if Paul taught that the Sinai covenant had become obsolete at the death and resurrection of Messiah, then Paul could have used that very obsolescence to absolutely and conclusively prove the main point he was trying to make in Galatians. Also, If we look at all the promises and covenants God gave in the Bible, we find that each of them adds to the ones previously given. What God promised to Noah adds to what God previously promised to Adam and Eve, the same with what God promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Each new covenant and promise adds to those that came before. We find that God's promises and covenants are cumulative rather than sequential or mutually exclusive. Even the promise of the new covenant as quoted in Hebrews 8 assumes that several things will be brought forward from earlier covenants -- Judah, Israel, sin, righteousness, torah, and the Lord. That last one seems to defeat your theory of the marriage metaphor all by itself. The wording of the new covenant promise in Jeremiah and in Hebrews both say that the new covenant will be made by the same Lord that made the original covenant, rather than saying that it will be a "new husband" instead. As you well know, the Bible does not say that the Sinai covenant is obsolete. I think you acknowledged earlier that the "ark of His covenant" that appears in the temple in heaven at the time of the seventh trumpet in Revelation 11 still contains the covenant document with the same words that God spoke from Sinai. If the sinless Messiah was conquered by death and was resurrected as a different "husband" instead of as the same man he was before, then it seems that Paul got it backwards in 1Tim 1:10 -- instead of Messiah abolishing death, your theory of the marriage metaphor has death abolishing Messiah as the "first husband". Jesus came intending to die to redeem Israel. God intended for the Jewish leaders to kill Messiah. That had been foretold centuries earlier by the prophets. Peter preached, "And now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers. But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled." (Acts 3:17-18) Since Peter's attitude is also the Bible's attitude toward the role of the Jewish leaders, why is that role spoken of as if there were some extraordinary level of blame involved in what happened? Don't people realize that the blame that has been needlessly directed toward the Jews over the centuries has driven the Jews further from Christianity and further from Messiah? The plan of salvation did not allow for Messiah to die in an accident or in some random act -- it apparently needed to be done in a purposeful way, either by his enemies or by his friends.

Some very different issues are being muddled together here: God putting a temporary stop to sacrifices and temple services in AD 70 because of disobedience. God putting a permanent stop to sacrifices and temple services in AD 70 and rejecting Israel as a nation because of disobedience. God putting a permanent stop to the sacrifices and temple services at the death of Messiah because God had planned all along to make that system of worship and that priesthood obsolete when Messiah died. God may have allowed the Romans to destroy Jerusalem and the temple because of disobedience "as promised" in his covenant with Israel. I don't see a conflict between that destruction and God's covenant with Israel or God's covenant with the descendants of Aaron. I don't think anyone thought that the priesthood was somehow granted some sort of immunity from the consequences of disobedience under God's covenant. If we're talking about issue number 1, then God is faithfully keeping his word with the Israelites and Levitical priests. If we're talking about issue number 2, then God is not being faithful to the confirmation of his covenant with the Levitical priests that God gave in Jeremiah 33. This would also seriously call into question God's faithfulness to his promises to Abraham, the Israelites, David, and to the 12 disciples. If we're talking about issue number 3, then even at the moment while God was speaking the promises to Aaron and the covenant to Aaron's descendants, God was already planning to not honor his own word.

I think you missed something in the verse you quoted. The Lord said, "just as you have ... so ... you must bear witness ..." Ever since Paul had arrived in Jerusalem he had borne witness by making a point of letting people know that he was living according to God's Law of Moses (as Jesus did). In Cenchrea Paul cut his hair because he was under a vow (Acts 18:18), which the scholars tell us was a Nazarene vow (Numbers 6), which would require him to offer sacrifices at the temple to complete the vow. Paul "went up to Jerusalem to worship" (Acts 24:11) during the feast of Pentecost. The elders of the congregation in Jerusalem told Paul to publicly join with four other believers who were also under a vow, so that "all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law". (Acts 21:24) Paul went up publicly to the temple to give notice that he would be purified (according to the Law of Moses) and ready to offer the necessary sacrifices. Paul was prevented from completing the sacrifices by men who broke the Law of Moses by making false accusations and trying to kill Paul without a trial. It's no wonder those men didn't show up before the council the next day -- according to the Law of Moses they should have gotten what they tried to do to Paul. Paul publicly addressed the angry mob of Jewish worshipers telling them that he was "educated under Gamaliel, strictly according to the law of our fathers, being zealous for God just as you all are today." Paul related to the mob that he had been healed and commissioned as an apostle by "a devout man according to the law, well spoken of by all the Jews." (Acts 22:12) Paul publicly told the Jewish council, "I have lived my life with a perfectly good conscience before God up to this day". (Acts 23:1) Paul quoted from the Law of Moses (Exodus 22:28) before the council (Acts 23:5) Paul publicly testified "I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee" (Acts 23:6). Some of the Pharisees testified of Paul "We find nothing wrong with this man" (Acts 23:9), which they probably wouldn't have done if there had been any evidence that Paul was not currently living like a Pharisee. Just two verses later comes the verse you quoted above where the Lord tells Paul the night after he testified before the Council, "Take courage! For just as you have borne a faithful witness to me in Yerushalayim, so [in like manner] now you must bear witness in Rome." (Acts 23:11 CJB) That certainly sounds like a commendation to me. It's true that the commendation wasn't specifically for going up to the temple to offer sacrifices. That was just one event in a whole string of events where Paul publicly bore witness for Jesus as a Torah-observant follower of the Torah-observant Messiah. Many Christians have criticized Paul for how he behaved in Jerusalem, but the criticism is groundless because Paul bore witness for Jesus in Jerusalem by publicly living according to God's Law of Moses, which is the same way that Jesus himself lived. What is there to criticize in that? If you were going to accuse Paul of wrongdoing for going up to the temple to sacrifice, which passage of Scripture would you quote as an "It is written" in order to rebuke or correct Paul? Really. On what grounds would you call his actions into question at all?

Acts 23:11 The following night, the Lord stood by him and said, "Take courage! For just as you have borne a faithful witness to me in Yerushalayim, so now you must bear witness in Rome." (CJB) Paul "bore witness" of Jesus as the Messiah. The verse does not say he was commended FOR presenting sacrifices at the Temple. THAT was something he was warned NOT to do, several times. He went anyway, and the LORD allowed Paul to be taken into custody, and finally executed. 1 Corinthians 9:20 and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law (NKJ) Galatians 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. (NKJ) Here's the same verse from the Complete Jewish Bible Galatians 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, then you are not in subjection to the system that results from perverting the Torah into legalism. (CJB) Talk about ADDING WORDS to the text.

What is LEFT if the Sinai Covenant really is OBSOLETE, along with it's Levite priesthood? The Melchizedek priesthood (It preceded the Levite) - And it WAS on this earth. The true Tabernacle - Heaven itself (It also preceded the Sinai Tabernacle - which was a copy) Serve no other God than Yahweh, Who created the heavens and the earth Principles of love and unselfishness towards others. Tithe paying (Abraham understood and paid tithes to the Melchizedek priesthood. So did Levi in the lions of Abraham.) Clean foods (Noah understood clean vs unclean foods) One man - one woman marriage (instituted in Eden) Work (six days out of seven - the weekly cycle) The 7th day is holy. It belongs to the LORD. Rest on the 7th day. Thee LORD's appointed times (they preceded the Sinai Covenant) What is GONE? Answer: The exclusive Levite priesthood

The real question - for me - is: Are believers today, betrothed to Jesus Christ under a NEW Covenant? My answer is YES! The Sinai Covenant was a Covenant of Marriage. Israel was betrothed in Marriage to the pre-incarnate Son of God. Jeremiah 2:1-3 “Thus says the LORD: I remember you, the kindness of your youth, the love of your betrothal, when you went after Me in the wilderness . . .” Isaiah 54:5 “For your Maker is your husband, The LORD of hosts is His name; And your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel; He is called the God of the whole earth.” Jeremiah 3:14 “Return, O backsliding children,’ says the LORD; ‘for I am married to you.” Jeremiah 31:32 “‘the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD.’” The LORD gave Israel (the Ten Northern tribes) a "bill of divorcement" for the cause of adultery. He can re-marry them only IF He first cleanses them of "defilement". True forgiveness through Jesus does THAT. Jeremiah 3:8 “Then I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but went and played the harlot also.” Isaiah 50:1 “Thus says the LORD: ‘Where is the certificate of your mother's divorce, whom I have put away? . . . And for your transgressions your mother has been put away.’” Judah was worse than Israel. Ezekiel 16:32 “You are an adulterous wife, who takes strangers instead of her husband.” (Ezekiel was writing to Judah.) Jeremiah 3:8 “Then I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but went and played the harlot also.” Rather than divorce Judah (which would have ended the Sinai Covenant) the LORD preserved Judah and brought her back from Babylon. Finally - the rulers of Judah executed the Son of God - her "husband". The "husband" DIED. Romans 7:1 “Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives? 2 For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. 3 So then if, while her husband is living, she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress, though she is joined to another man. 4 Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead” (NAS). The Sinai Covenant is therefore "obsolete". We are betrothed to Jesus Christ by a NEW Covenant. 2 Corinthians 11:2 For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. (2Co 11:2 NKJ) The LORD had promised that He would make a NEW Covenant - of marriage - with Israel and Judah (reunited forever) Jeremiah Chapter 31, Ezekiel Chapter 36, Hebrews 10:16, 2 Corinthians 3:6 "who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." The congregation is Christ's body. Christ is "head" of the church, as a man is "head" of his own wife. The New Jerusalem is the bride of the Lamb. The Sinai Covenant was NOT "nailed to the cross", but it is finished, BECAUSE the "husband" of Israel DIED. Israel redeemed is now BETROTHED to "another" man - the One who rose from the dead.

Okay. Let's consider this. The Levitical priests, like all of us, do indeed need the sacrifice of Messiah to take away sins. That is all part of what the duties of the Levitical priests illustrate. Their need for Messiah in no way disqualified them to carry on as Levitical priests, nor does that need for Messiah's sacrifice disqualify them from receiving the inheritance that God promised them in lieu of tribal lands -- an ongoing role of religious leadership, with duties as judges and public health workers in Israel, and a livelihood and pension provided by a share of the offerings brought to the sanctuary/temple. Your interpretation of a few disputable verses in the New Testament epistles would strip the descendants of Aaron of the promises and covenant that God gave to Aaron and Phinehas and their descendants and confirmed through the prophet Jeremiah. When Aaron is resurrected, will he find that God has been faithful to the promises he received from God? Is God's Word reliable? You seem to be assuming that the prophetic aspect of the priestly role and sacrifices was the only valid aspect of the whole priesthood and sacrificial system that God set up. Are there any Bible passages that teach that? Can we read the mind of God to know that there were no other reasons why he gave the instructions that he gave to Moses for the only form of whole-congregation worship God has ever given to humans? Besides being a prophecy of Jesus "the lamb of God", every sacrifice was also an act of worship and obedience to the instructions of God and it provided "a pleasing aroma" to God and food in God's temple. The Bible contains no record that God ever told anyone to stop obeying those instructions. When God originally gave the Levites the instructions for their priestly role, God commanded them to continue doing various things "forever" and "throughout your generations", rather than telling them to continue only until the veil of the temple was torn. Is God's Word reliable? Jesus taught that not a stroke of the Law would pass from the Law until after some events that are still future, and that whoever relaxes one of the least instructions in the Law "will be called least in the kingdom of heaven", while whoever does them and teaches those instructions "will be called great in the kingdom of heaven". (Matt 5:17-19) Then in the next paragraph Jesus gave instructions that pertained to offering a gift at the altar (v. 23). Even the apostle Paul himself went up to the temple during his last visit to Jerusalem intending to offer animal sacrifices. Paul was subsequently commended by the Lord for his actions in Jerusalem (Acts 23:11). I realize that men who did not live according to the example of Jesus have contrived a whole system of theology that disagrees with what I find in Scripture. That would be fine if people could provide evidence from Scripture that actually says what that man-made system of theology teaches. Instead people make non-Scriptural assumptions and then offer Bible verses (often out of context) that only support that man-made system of theology if you have already internalized the non-Scriptural assumptions that those beliefs depend on.

Correct. Zechariah and Elizabeth were living the Old Testament as it was supposed to be lived. This isn't something new that changed when Messiah came.

This also was not a new truth that came into existence at the death of Messiah. God's Law of Moses never taught that people were justified by their own deeds. The term "works of the law" appears several times in the Dead Sea Scrolls referring specifically to the man-made requirements that the community had set up for new members, and for members who had fallen out of favor, before they would be accepted as full members. Paul was dealing with a very similar situation in Galatia where the Gentiles were being taught they needed to comply with the traditional requirements of oral law by completing the man-made proselyte training program before they could be "saved" and be full members of the community.

Yes. The blood of bulls and goats and sheep never took away sins. They didn't take away sins when God first taught Adam and his family to offer sacrifices. They didn't take away sins when God first directed Aaron to offer sin offerings or the sacrifices for the Day of Atonement. It appears that God never intended the blood of animals to take away sins -- that was something that required a better sacrifice, the blood of Messiah. However, God did forgive the sins of the people who brought sin offerings to the temple in obedience. But that forgiveness came with a price that the blood of animals did not cover. God provided his forgiveness then because he had a plan to pay the full price at the appointed time. I think the regular sin offerings and the Day of Atonement offering illustrate the concept that forgiveness and the taking away of sins were not the same thing. God's forgiveness was offered when in obedience the sin offerings were sacrificed -- that restored the relationship with God -- it was a tangible illustration of God's grace. The people weren't left wondering if they had really been forgiven or if there was something more they needed to do (as many sinners wonder today, even after they have confessed a sin many times). However, there was more to the process, which I think the Day of Atonement illustrated once each year. Yet that illustration done with bulls and goats was just an illustration -- of what Messiah would actually do to take away sins at the appointed time. Hebrews 10:4 is not declaring something that changed after the temple veil was torn -- it is declaring what had always been true about the blood of animal sacrifices.

That's true -- all have sinned, except Jesus. It would still be true even if the priests never sinned after becoming adults or after being anointed as priests, because we have all sinned during our childhoods. God apparently expected the Levitical priests to sin, repent, offer sacrifices, be forgiven and carry on. He made provision for that in the Law of Moses. Such sins of a priest did not cause them to be rejected as priests.

Femster, I understand that you have had a knee replacement: In my working with such patients in the hospital where I worked, I found that their recovery was pretty rough. But, once they had gotten through that period of time it became one of the most successful surgeries that they did. How are you doing now with your knee replacement surgery?

The local conference isn't the only "storehouse" out there for God's tithe. If the tithe is supposed to be for the ministry of spreading the gospel and supporting gospel workers, there are plenty of mission organizations out there who are as deserving as the conference to receive tithe. I'd rather donate to a mission that is taking the gospel to people who have never heard of Christ than to a mission whose main purpose is to convert other already dedicated believers to a different denomination. People need Jesus more than they need a denomination. Unfortunately, a majority of tithe collected goes to support work in places where the majority of people are already Christians. I think this is a spiritual injustice to those who have never had the opportunity to even hear the name of Jesus.

Instead of tithing to the GC, I spend lots of money on DVD blanks, copier paper, printer toner, address labels, etc. This is for a mass mailing of the Three Angel's Message to whole zip codes around the USA. And some members of the church would rather help me with this where they know exactly how their money will be spent: for direct literature evangelism rather than air-condition bills for huge SDA church buildings, etc. I've been told this is wrong, just to send tithe & offerings to the GC and leave it up to God. I can't decide, so I go ahead and help with the mailings.