Leaderboard

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacksaw_Ridge Hey Stan Jensen had a hand in this movie. under the section of Production, and then Development. The project was in development hell for 14 years.[4] Numerous producers had tried for decades to film Doss' story, including decorated war hero Audie Murphy and Hal B. Wallis (producer of Casablanca).[5] In 2001, after finally convincing Doss that making a movie on his remarkable life was the right thing to do, screenwriter/producer Gregory Crosby (grandson of Bing Crosby) wrote a treatment and brought the project to film producer David Permut through the efforts of Stan Jensen of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.[4] In 2004, director Terry Benedict won the rights to make a 2004 documentary about Doss and secured dramatic rights in the process. However, Doss died in 2006, after which producer Bill Mechanic acquired and then sold the rights to Walden Media, which developed the project along with producer David Permut of Permut Presentations.[6] Co-producers of the film are Gregory Crosby and Steve Longi. [7] Walden Media insisted on a PG-13 version of the battle, then Mechanic spent years working to buy the rights back.[5][8] After acquiring the rights, Mechanic approached Mel Gibson and wanted him to blend the concoction of violence and faith as he did with The Passion of the Christ (2004). But Gibson turned down the offer twice as he prevously did with Braveheart (1995).[9]Then almost a decade later, Gibson finally agreed to helm the film on November 2014. The same month Andrew Garfield was also confirmed to play the role of Desmond Doss.[6]

Okay, let's go back to the shema as Ron has quoted. The Lord our God (Elohim, plural) is one Lord. Why can't we leave it as is, strange and wonderful and unfathomable as it is to our mortal minds?

thanks... Am meeting with David Permut in three hours to discuss other Adventist Projects, and another producer tomorrow.. Meet with with one last Friday... Am excited, am scared...

EGW - Published in 1911: It is not essential for us to be able to define just what the Holy Spirit is. Christ tells us that the Spirit is the Comforter, "the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father." It is plainly declared regarding the Holy Spirit that, in His work of guiding men into all truth, "He shall not speak of Himself." John 15:26; John 16:13. {AA 51.3} The nature of the Holy Spirit is a mystery. Men cannot explain it, because the Lord has not revealed it to them. Men having fanciful views may bring together passages of Scripture and put a human construction on them, but the acceptance of these views will not strengthen the church. Regarding such mysteries, which are too deep for human understanding, silence is golden. {AA 52.1}

Answer: Born on November 6, 1861, James A. Naismith was a physical education teacher by profession, and the man who invented basketball in 1891. It was one day at his training school when he took a soccer ball and a basket and invented the game. He wrote the original basketball rulebook, founded the University of Kansas basketball program, and lived to see basketball adopted as an official event at the 1936 Summer Olympics in Berlin. Naismith is also often credited with introducing the first football helmet.

So - if I'm not born into Eastern culture, or if I'm not educated in the metaphysical, then I cannot understand my Bible. I cannot accept it - just as it reads. The LORD certainly knew that "Western" culture and mindset was coming. Don't you think He would leave the Bible in such a way, that it could be understood by anyone - from any culture?

Can be used in several ways, correct?

Mel did this movie right.. Andrew Garfield did Doss right... this had an awesome affect on him. Details later..

For an interesting comments on the issue of whether or not JWS worship Jesus, see: http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/worship-jesus.php http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=1481

Not sure why you highlighted that particular word. That seems not to be a particularly relevant issue. At the time that was the name of the organization that was the highest denominational body, the same as now. If the reason is to highlight it to emphasize its qualitative meaning, the GC always has been an association, that is a collection of persons or organizations associating themselves together for a common purpose under a common name. If you are dwelling on the precise legal structure or meaning as if it was somehow different regarding the key point under discussion, again that is a temporal matter, an artificial distinction for the essential fact that we are still talking about the same fundamental entity, regardless of the legal form by which it is defined or organized. It is along the lines of those that get preoccupied/sidetracked by the Church as a corporation vs. being an unincorporated entity. Not really a matter of ecclesiastical significance. It is a human construct. A temporal tool by which we function in a civil environment of laws.

Now that she's now been cleared I think that little scare did its job. Minds were concentrated, early voting is up in some places and the campaign pulled out all the stops. We will see tomorrow night.

Anger: Anger is a normal human emotion that has been given to us by God in the same manner that every other emotion has been given to us. Is is not sinful to be angry. What may be sinful is what we do with our anger. The root cause of anger, in my perspective is either a real loss which one has incurred, or it is a perceived potential loss. E.G. The death of a spouse is a real loss. It is O.K. to be angry over that loss. What one does with that anger may not be O.K. To be passed over for a promotion in one's employment may be perceived as a loss of status. "I am not as good as I thought I was." "I am now perceived as a marginal employee." As a very personal statement: I have found it helpful in dealing with my anger. Once I have identified that actual/perceived loss that I have encountered I can develop an appropriate response to that loss. E.G. I might develop a plan of action to address the issue of being a marginal employee. Once I have done this I lose my anger.

I would use God's Word: Mark 12:29 "The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one." (Jesus quoted from Deut. 6:4) John 10:30 "I and the Father are one.” (If Jesus had believed in the trinity, this would have been a good place for him to say, "I and the Father are two-thirds of a trinity".)

I have seen Jewish sources that speak of multiple emanations of Adonai -- the burning bush, the man Abraham bargained with about Sodom, the voice from Mt. Sinai, the Shekinah glory, the seven spirits of God, etc. I've not yet seen a Jewish source that limits the emanations of Adonai to precisely three. You seem to expect us to contentedly accept your assertions without any citing any sources and without any evidence to back up your claims. That suggests that you also would have been content to accept those same "facts" from somewhere without seeing any real evidence and without examining the sources. Can we do better than that? After all, a person could support any cherished non-Scriptural doctrine with unsubstantiated assertions as you have done. Which ancient Jews are you talking about? What are your sources of information? Where could I examine the source documents that might support your assertions? There seem to be a lot of Jewish scholars today that are somehow ignorant of the knowledge that you claim to have of ancient Jews. Are all Jewish sources to be treated as equal? We know from the Bible that there were Jews and Israelites that freely mixed paganism with the worship of God. And we also know from history that there were Christians who anachronistically projected their man-made doctrines back into earlier centuries in an attempt to give those doctrines validity. How can we verify that your assertions are not based on such sources?

I have thought this, too, that our ideas are too small, that we are trying to make him into something we can grasp in our brains

Most people who visit Club Adventist are aquainted with our ABCs (Adventist Book Centers) where materials are sold that are considered to be helpful spiritual nuture. What most will now know is that there are other sources of such material that is generally not sold in the ABC, but is produced by the Adventist Church: These sources will include the following: 1) Andrews University Press: http://universitypress.andrews.edu/catalog.php Some of the material published will primarily be of interest to scholars. However, I believe that much of it will be of interest to informed laypersons. In addition to the Andrews Study Bible it publishes material related to Biblical & Theological studies, SDA history, science, education & psychology and archaeology. 2) Biblical Research Institute (BRI): For larger documents that are for sale see: http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/shop For shorter documents that are free to download see: http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/materials 3) Signs Publishing, Victoria, Australia: Unfortunately they apparently do not stock and sell their publications. Rather they seem to do contract publishing, somewhat like Amazon, in which they assist in publication and the bulk printing of material that the customer then has to sell and/or distribute. I consider some of their material to be stimulating of thought. Some of this may be available in our ABCs. NOTE: You may obtain their materials by directly contacting the above, or you can ask your local ABC to obtain what you want for you. In addition, the ABCs may stock some items published by the above, but probably very few of them. This will depend upon the individual ABC.

It's interesting to note that there are 15 or so verses in Scripture that use the term "God the Father", while there are zero verses that use the terms "God the Son" or "God the Holy Spirit". At one time I was being pressured to affirm the doctrine of the trinity in order to keep my job as an administrator at a Christian school. It came up because it was a new school and I wanted to keep the non-Scriptural trinitarian terminology out of the school's new Statement of Faith. I found that the trinitarians could not explain or talk about their doctrine without using terminology that is not found in Scripture. They let it drop after I explained to the Board that I would easily affirm every passage of Scripture they might bring forward regarding the nature of God, and Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, but that after I had done that they still wouldn't know if I believed "properly" because what they really wanted me to affirm was terminology that was not found in the Bible, and that I was not willing to affirm their non-Scriptural terminology precisely because it added concepts that are not found in Scripture. Scripture emphasizes only the unity or oneness of God. Why do Christians need to emphasize the "three-ness" of God? The trinity doctrine is one of the major things that prevents religious Jews from accepting Jesus as the Messiah. It seems if Christians were really interested in preaching the gospel "to the Jew first", they would abandon the unScriptural trinitarian terminology and stick to what is actually stated in Scripture.

I was brought up SDA and simply took the "three living beings of the heavenly trio" for granted. I did NOT change my view on this casually. I struggled and prayed for several years. I read through the entire NT - slowly and verse by verse - looking for evidence on this specific issue. I was forced to conclude their are only TWO divine beings - God our Father and His Son.

"God so loved the world the HE gave HIS only begotten Son." (John 3:16) So WHO sent His Son? 1 John 4:14 “And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world.” John 5:30 [Christ] “I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me” (John 5:23, John 5:37). John 5:37 [Christ] “And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form.” John 6:39 [Christ] “This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.” John 6:44 [Christ] “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.” John 6:57 [Christ] “As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me.” John 8:16 [Christ] “And yet if I do judge, My judgment is true; for I am not alone, but I am with the Father who sent Me.” John 8:29 [Christ] “And He who sent Me is with Me. The Father has not left Me alone, for I always do those things that please Him.” John 8:42 “Jesus said to them, ‘If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me.’” John 10:36 [Christ] “Do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God?’” John 12:49 “For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak.” John 17:21 [Jesus last prayer to His Father] “ ... that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.” John 17:25 “O righteous Father! The world has not known You, but I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me.” John 20:21 “So Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” How many times does He have to say something, before we believe Him??? Never once does Jesus say He was begotten from the Holy Spirit, or was sent by the Holy Spirit, or did the will of the Holy Spirit.

Interesting that Lucifer was called by E G White "third power in the Kingdom" Daniel was also "third power in the Kingdom" a good example of her intended meaning as Nebuchadnezzar was not the first power but ruled under his Fathers authority over a city and the armies of his Father. No coincidence here. Christ rules until there is victory for his Fathers throne.

It is significant to consider what is LEFT OUT of NT Scripture passages. Ephesians 4:6 “... one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” (No other spirit mentioned) This is why I say the "spirit" is the spirit OF God our Father, which flows through Christ to us. We are supposed to PRAY to the Father, in the name of Christ His Son. (No mention of another being.) Luke 11:2 “So He said to them, ‘When you pray, say: Our Father in heaven, Hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done On earth as it is in heaven’” (Matt. 6:10). So - the Father's will is supreme, and the coming kingdom will be the kingdom of "Our Father". No mention of a third being. In the Gospels, "God" is "our Father". John 20:17 "I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.’”

The "Arian nations" were those who had accepted the doctrine of Arius - that Christ was begotten from God (who thus became "the Father"). It is worth noting that "the head of Christ is God" (I Cor 11:3). God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ are NOT co-equal. When "the end" comes, Jesus will "be subject to" God His Father - for eternity. That is hierarchy. 1 Corinthians 15:24 "Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For "God has put all things in subjection under his feet." But when it says, "All things are put in subjection," it is plain that this does not include the one who put all things in subjection under him. 28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him, so that God may be all in all." PS: There is NO MENTION of a third divine being in this hierarchy.

Hmmmm......right on point! One thought occurred to me about this whole debate, 'the Bible/theology doesn't forbid or give women......', did God die and only the Bible is left? Do we not believe in the HS anymore or Gods presence in guiding/leadiing His church/people? All of the studies concentrate on the Bible for the 'okay' one way or the other. Nothing is studied on the abilities and results of the person who have been chosen by the HS or the individuals themselves. The Bible I understand talks about the results of peoples lives not a long prerequisite list. My conclusion, for a long time, has been humans not wanting to give up their control over others and letting God be in control. Do we teach that as individuals it is all about a battle to put the control of our lives in Gods hands and not our own? Should not the corporate church be doing the same?

JWs teach that Jesus Christ is NOT DIVINE and should NOT be worshiped. In Scripture Jesus IS worshiped. He is worthy of worship. He was begotten a divine being, because He "came forth from the Father" BEFORE He incarnated into human flesh. So - No! What I believe is not the same as what JW teaching.

This is a time to deal with Stan's warning. As I recall in the past when this topic came up, there were people who hijacked the thread and did not leave it in the thread where the issue was discussed, but started hijacking several other threads so that no matter where we turned their they were with their arguments and all other discussion stopped. If you started a thread saying "Good morning" they would soon be writing "Yes, and this is only one morning, not three just as you think there are three gods so you better stop that and accept our view and give up your Trinitarian view..." I think that if we are civil, share what we believe and try to clarify our understandings and limit it to this thread and not have some people hijack this and spread it like an epidemic going through other threads then this time it can end better than before.

I do NOT "deny the deity of the Spirit". "God IS spirit" (John Chapt 4). OF course the spirit is divine. I deny the separate 3rd divine personhood of the Spirit.

The nature of God has been debated since Arius and Athanasius duked it out some 1800 years ago. It is doubtful our "conversation" will devolve into murder. It is also very probable that all parties will never agree. Doesn't mean we are wasting our time, by conversing. The disciples of Christ, scattered by persecution, spread the gospel of the kingdom. In Egypt, these missionaries found a ready acceptance of the new religion and as usually happens, the growing numbers of believers began to gravitate toward certain charismatic leaders. The two most famous of these men were Arius and Athanasius, both of Alexandria. Arius (c.250-336) held that Christ is the Son of God, and that because He is the Son He therefore had a beginning. “It is a necessary condition of the filial relation,” He wrote, “that the Father must be older than his Son.” The Father and the Son are of “like substance” (or nature) and therefore Christ is divine and worthy of worship. (A century before Arius, another believer named Novation of Rome held a similar view.) Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, headed the opposing party which held that the Father and the Son are of “one substance,” and are coeternal. They asserted that the doctrine of Arius lowered the Son making Him less worthy of worship than the Father. It is worth noting here that the Egyptians had worshiped a triune God (Isis-Horus-Set, otherwise known as Amum-Maut-Khonso) for thirty centuries. Such heated debates took place between these two factions that the citizens of Alexandria amused themselves with theatrical satires and plays depicting the protagonists, and not many years went by before it could be said that nearly every Christian man or woman had an opinion concerning the nature of Christ. The Jews and Pagans freely insulted Christianity with their mocking derision. The emperor Constantine was at first very amused by all the squabbling. It kept the people occupied. But as the controversy dragged on and on, he finally called a council of nearly 300 bishops to settle the matter. The first ecumenical council of the Christian church took place in Nicaea (now in modern Turkey) c.325 - 294 years after the death of Christ. The presence of the emperor added to the vehemence of the arguments. He would listen to all sides and then rule. His verdict would decide truth. As to the main point, the Son was declared to be of the “same substance” with the Father. Arius was branded a heretic and banished to one of the remote provinces of Illyricum. “I am persecuted,” He cried, “because I have taught that the Son had a beginning and the Father had not.” The ruling of the Emperor was clear. He quickly issued letters denouncing Arius and ordered that anyone found with a copy of his writings must burn it or be put to death. Concerning the nature of Christ, the first Nicene Creed reads: “The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes those who say that there was a time when the Son of God was not; and that before he was begotten he was not, and that he was made out of nothing, or out of another substance or essence, and is created, or changeable, or alterable.” At the Council of Nicaea, the debate was over the nature of Christ (begotten vs unbegotten). The nature of the Spirit was not an issue. It would be another fifty-six years before the church would decree worship of the Holy Spirit. Now the Emperor Constantine was a base and vile criminal. He had murdered his son Crispus, his nephew Licenius, and suffocated in a steam bath his wife of twenty years - Fausta, mother of three of his sons. The public abhorrence of his deeds could not be concealed. A plaque comparing his reign to that of Nero was affixed to the palace gate. Constantine threatened to massacre the Roman populace who had insulted him. This is the same Constantine who feigned a “conversion” to Christ, but not wanting to antagonize the pagan element, waited until he lay on his death bed to be “baptized” (just in case there is indeed a judgment). He is the same who decreed that Christians and pagans should “rest” on the same day - Sunday. The favorite sister of Constantine, a supporter of the disrepute teacher, prevailed upon her brother and barely three years after the date of the council Arius was restored to favor. He was treated by the whole court with the respect which would have been due to an innocent and oppressed man. His faith was approved by the synod of Jerusalem; and the emperor seemed impatient to repair his injustice. He issued a royal command that Arius should receive the holy communion in the cathedral of Constantinople, but on the same day which had been fixed for His triumph, Arius died very suddenly and under strange circumstances. The opponents of Arius said that God had answered their prayers and saved the church from the worst of her enemies. The three principle leaders of the Catholics - Athanasius of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, and Paul of Constantinople were deposed, accused by numerous councils; and were afterwards banished to distant provinces. The believers were left to choose what they would believe with regard to the death of Arius - be it miracle or poisoning. The council which took place in Nicaea (c.325) was only the first of nine “world” councils in early church history. Creed followed creed. The seventh ecumenical council, the second to take place in Nicaea (c.787) was convened by the Byzantine empress Irene to rule on the use of saints’ images and icons in religious devotions. The council declared that the veneration of images was “legitimate” and the intercession of saints “efficacious,” yet their veneration must be distinguished from the worship due to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Kevin, I disagree wholeheartedly. 1 John 4:9 "In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him." (NKJ) Jesus the Christ is NOT simply another manifestation of God. He is God's only begotten Son. Either God beget a Son or He did not. Both the SDA current teaching (3 co-equal, co-eternal divine beings) and the Catholic/Baptist teaching (3 manifestations of one divine being) DENY that God ever literally beget another divine being - in His "express image". An "image" is a copy. An "express image" is an exact COPY. Why call Jesus the "only begotten Son of God", if He was not really God's Son. Why use those terms? Why call Him "God our Father" is He is not really the source of all life? And by the way, the "Holy, Holy, Holy" is for the past, present, and future. [ "who is and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty" (Rev. 1:8) ]. It is not one "Holy" for each of 3 beings.

The deadly wound was inflicted in 1798 and the martyrdom of God's people ended, now we are coming to the time the deadly wound is just being healed and martyrdom will again be with the true ones of God. Some hold to the theory that prophecy is all history, well that is your choice but this one knows better. The 42 mos. of Rev 13: are literal time and has not happened yet but must and will shortly come to pass. I am a follower of no man on prophecy, the Bible only is my guide. The verses there make it clear those 42 mos. don't happen until that deadly wound is healed. You need to notice also the the king power, crowns are now on the horns in Rev. 13 but in chap. 12 before the wound they were on the heads. Satan changed it from the old world order in 1798 to starting the NWO. The change of the king power must be dealt with and very few have and I'm telling you it is very few. You need to study it a little and understanding should come clearly. People you need to understand it for yourself and not stand on someone else's explanation when you don't really see it. Prophecy is like a thought problem, if part of the equation is left out the answer will not be right. A lot of prophecy does require thought problem math and not many are good at that. I presented a view and we will soon see what is the right answer, we travel on and the journey isn't far now but will get very rocky now very soon. 1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.