Leaderboard

Like it has been said regarding the black and white of online communication and the ease with which people misinterpret another's comments, I also tend to think we miss the non-verbal communication of Jesus when he did the things and said the things he did. When he called the Pharisees hypocrites we may believe that he was angry with them. But if you look at the totality of how he spoke of people, I suspect he was full of sorrow and yearning for the souls of these people. In fact, it even broke through when he wept over Jerusalem. His disciples, they would get morally outraged and Jesus would call them on it. So, I try and keep in mind when reading him calling the Pharisees "hypocrites" that inwardly he felt sorrow because he loved them also and would even die for them too. And don't you think he would even welcome Annias and Caiphas into Heaven if they had repented and become converted after Jesus had returned to heaven. All Heaven, undoubtedly, would have rejoiced. (It could happen!)

I wasn't too surprised to read that, as the Bible says: I would think that is possible, but I can't tell for another what their motives are. I can only examine myself, whether I am part of the problem or the solution.

If Christ is to be believed, there is only one, I guess. But there are SDA preachers who choose to believe otherwise. When I was once in their shoes, my only reason was: it was what I was taught. Until I simply believed in what Christ said: KJV Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place For me, "the" is definite. There is only one, and no other else beside. But, it had long been taught that the above verse already found fulfillment in 70 AD. Hence, if there is another fulfillment yet to occur before Christ comes, then "the abomination of desolation" becomes "an abomination of desolation". Is "an abomination of desolation" a translation faithful to the Greek text? BGT Matthew 24:15 {Otan ou=n i;dhte to. bde,lugma th/j evrhmw,sewj to. r`hqe.n dia. Danih.l tou/ profh,tou e`sto.j evn to,pw| a`gi,w|( o` avnaginw,skwn noei,tw

interesting research!

i think sorrow over moral failures may be less than self serving, but loudly lambasting evil doers, and proclaiming their moral failures with outrage is more likely is be something done to serve ones need to feel better. when your morality and your power to perform morally is from outside of yourself, you realize you have nothing to boast about. and then you have the opening to understand all the moral failings of others is an absence of the power of God in their lives, and nothing to attack them for. You may well know your attacks on others' failures will not bring them to Christ. The power of God in our life may give you distress over moral failures your own or of others.... Grief and repentance falls into line here.

Missing the point.....is it intentional or mearly because of a predisposition? The research said that 'sometimes'........ Sheesh!!!

You missed the point. Your sarcasm is evident. Or, shall I call it satire?

Gustave, God "sees" the future. OK. Does that mean our future is FIXED, and cannot be altered? Because God "saw" the future success of His Son, did that mean His Son COULD NOT FAIL? Does that mean Jesus the man, could not sin? I can think of many prophecies made concerning various Bible characters, and various peoples, which came to pass many years later. Do those prophecies mean those people had no chance to do anything different - that their future was LOCKED IN. That is the doctrine of predestination. If so, then those men did not have FREE WILL, to choose their own paths. You sited the many prophecies saying that the Christ would succeed in His mission. God sees the future. He "saw" the outcome. But that does NOT EQUAL God manipulating the future to the extent that man no longer has FREE WILL. Knowing how it will turn out, and making it turn out that way, are two different things. On the other hand - If Christ was somehow fundamentally different in nature from us, then He could NOT have been "tempted in all ways, just as we are". His TEST was not really a TEST, if the outcome was a "sure thing". It seems like you're saying that Christ had some "god power" (that we don't have) which allowed Him to control His human urges and tendencies. I can agree with that - partly. I believe that Jesus was indwelt by the Spirit of His Father, from the moment of His birth. We are only indwelt when we open the door to His "knocking". We must give God permission to "enter". Jesus had already given permission to His Father, before He incarnated. So in that sense, He did have an advantage. Did that make His victory a "sure thing"? I believe that God the Father allowed Satan to TEST His Son, to a much greater degree than any other human being will ever be tested. This degree of testing made up for the "advantage" at the start of His life. God turned His son over to the Evil One, who tormented Jesus with the thought that His sacrifice and horrific physical torment would be for nothing. I believe that Jesus could not see through the blackness. He could no longer sense His Father's presence with Him. That is WHY He cried out "My God. Why have you forsaken me?" The story of Job is a wonder TYPE. Job was accused by his "friends" of wrong. Job was physically tormented. But Job was not tortured - "unto death". God did not allow Satan to kill Job.

Al-Amira (Global) A two-piece veil that consists of a close-fitting cap and an accompanying tube-like scarf. Women around the world wear this style.

Not every opinion needs to be corrected or responded with a conflicting opinions.

Luke 9:52-55 Tells the story of Jesus disciples being outraged at the people of Samaria and Jesus said "You don't know what spirit you are!"

Houston....we have a problem........

It's interesting what "piques" a person... (Pique= poke, like with a needle)

Jesus could not "loose his salvation". He was never "saved". He could not "loose" what He never had.

A quote from the abstract that the article is referring to. Would have to pay to read the original online. Since I am a numbers person, would like to see the raw data. Based on the abstract, one should not be surprised at the conclusions. I think most people have some modicum of doubt about various persons or groups 'moral outrage'. But notice that article abstract is saying 'sometimes', a very important word as a quick view might lead some to the wrong conclusions.

In an earlier post, Gary K said below: 1) In an earlier post I have named every presenter at TOP San Diego Gathering. Every presenter, with no exception was a committed SDA--pastor, scholar or retired administrator. As I do not consider any human to be perfect, I am not going to say that I would agree with every aspect of any of their understanding of Biblical doctrine. But, all were solid Adventists, with no exceptions. 2) We are living in a time when non-SDA clergy and scholars are beginning to proclaim teachings on the State of the Dead and the Sabbath that, at least in part agree with SDA doctrine. Some of this on the Sabbath comes from Jewish sources. Just because these people may not be in full agreement with standard SDA doctrine does not mean that we should never hear them speak to us. At one TOP Gathering, I heard a non-SDA clergyperson give a presentation of about 20 minutes on devoting the Sabbath to getting to know God better and in building your spirituality. He was careful to say nothing that conflicted with SDA doctrine. Was it wrong for him to speak to us? You decide. I believe that there is often value to know what others are actually saying rather than to speculate based on conjecture. 3) To make your point you would need to demonstrate that the speakers introduced the teachings of Theosophy into their presentations at a TOP Gathering. 4) Further, it should be pointed out that your citations include 20 year-old statements of belief which have been denied to be current belief. My current spiritual beliefs are not the same as they were on the day that I graduated from college.

I am aware that some of you may think that Japhet has horns growing out of his head. Here is a link to photos of the four (4) members of the Boulder SDA church pastoral staff: https://boulder.church/about/team?tag=Pastors I can state without equivocation, that I have never seen any sign of horns on the heads of any of them. NOTE: Japhet has informed me that he really likes the above post. Posted by me 3/4/2017 at 8:15 hrs PST.

More background about Leonard Sweet, including online sources that quote his own materials: Sweet states in his book, Quantum Spirituality: “Mysticism, once cast to the sidelines of the Christian tradition, is now situated in postmodernist culture near the center.... In the words of one of the greatest theologians of the twentieth century, Jesuit philosopher of religion/dogmatist Karl Rahner, "The Christian of tomorrow will be a mystic, one who has experienced something, or he will be nothing." [Mysticism] is metaphysics arrived at through mindbody experiences. Mysticism begins in experience; it ends in theology.” Quantum Spirituality (Dayton, OH: Whaleprints, 1991), p. 76 In his book, Soul Tsunami, Leonard Sweet promotes spiritualism by promoting labyrinth walking. He writes: “Labyrinth walking is an ancient way of praying. Read Lauren Artress’s book Walking A Sacred Path: Rediscovering the Labyrinth as a Spiritual Tool (New York: Riverhead Books, 1995). Take an “audio tour” of the labyrinth or go on one of the “pilgrimages” at Grace Cathedral’s “Veriditas: The World-Wide Labyrinth Project.” Soul Tsunami, p. 432 How is Labyrinth walking spiritualism? If you will read Lauren Artress’s book that Sweet recommends you will readily see we are dealing with occult spiritualism in Christian garb. In the book Sweet is recommending Artress writes: “The labyrinth is a large, complex spiral circle which is an ancient symbol for the divine mother, the God within, the goddess, the holy in all creation." Walking A Sacred Path: Rediscovering the Labyrinth as a Spiritual Tool.” p. 67 Elder Satelmajer, the fact that this quotation not only tends to affirm the effort to re-fashion God in a manner He has not seen fit to reveal Himself, as feminine, but much more significantly, it is the panentheistic “god within” which is involved --which perpetuates the lie of the serpent, “ye shall be gods” (Elohim). The Labyrinth “Is truly a tool for transformation, a crucible for change, a blueprint for the sacred meeting of the psyche and the soul, a field of light, a cosmic dance, it is a center for empowering ritual.” Walking A Sacred Path: Rediscovering the Labyrinth as a Spiritual Tool.” p. 176 Artress says that “You walk to the center of the labyrinth and there at the center, you meet the Divine.” (Lauren Artress, “Q and A with Lauren,” Veriditas, Vol. 1, no. 2, Summer 1996, p. 18) Artress describes her discovery of the labyrinth as one of the “most astonishing events of my life.” For her, the labyrinth is a “spiritual tool meant to awaken us to the deep rhythm that unites us to ourselves and to the Light that calls from within.” An important fact to know is that geomancy and other occult arts are often incorporated in the building of labyrinths. Charles Gilchrist, a labyrinth promoter, states it has a direct connection to “Sacred Geometry,” a powerful potential as an oracle. And there are other “oracle systems” that are related to Sacred Geometry, Astrology, Numerology, I Ching, Rune Stones, and the Tarot. “Veriditas is the non-profit organization that has grown up around the labyrinths at Grace Cathedral. They are dedicated to teaching people the history, use and potential of this spiritual tool. Veriditas Project founder Lauren Artress promotes the labyrinth as a way to connect with the divine feminine, the god within.” (Penn, September 1999, The New Age movement in the Episcopal Church). Dr. Artress states, “The labyrinth provides a sacred space where the inner and outer world can commune, where the thinking mind and the imaginative heart flow together... a space to listen to our inner voice of wisdom”. Walking A Sacred Path: Rediscovering the Labyrinth as a Spiritual Tool.” p. 180 “The labyrinth is a shared esoteric tradition; in Native American culture it is called the Medicine Wheel and Man in the Maze. The Celts described it as the Never Ending Circle. It is also called the Kabala in mystical Judaism. One feature they all share is that they have one path which winds in a circuitous way to the center.” http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/05/teichrib/labyrinth.htm

Guilt by alleged association. I have attended two Gatherings. I have attended one mini-gathering. I am a member of the SDA church that has Japhet as the Sr. pastor (NOTE: A bit over a year ago, I moved out of that areas.) I personally know what Japhet preaches. The One Project was not founded upon spiritualistic teachings. Neither is the theology that Japhet promotes. The One Project does not teach spiritual formation. Neither does Japhet in his SDA congregation. Frankly, Green, you and others like you are doing a good work, but probably in a manner that you do not fully recognize at this time. I predict, that within the next 12 months, the organized SDA denomination will take a more active role in stating to its members that to its members that allegations such as some are making are simply false and that TOP is a valid supporting ministry of the SDA denomination. I predict that such statements will be made in the context of the denomination having made an exhaustive study of the TOP. To be clear, I believe that in part, the work that you and some others are doing will be one of the reasons that an agreement will be reached that unites TOP to the denomination in a stronger manner than now exists. To be clear, I believe that the motivation to accomplish this has already happened. So, it is do to the fact that I see positive outcomes of your work that I think you and express appreciation for what you are doing. It should be noted that I am not saying that TOP is perfect. No human organization is perfect, to include spiritual organizations such as the SDA denomination. I have made some very clear comments, at times, to founding leaders of TOP. Sometimes it has taken some passage of time for them to be convinced that my suggestions had merit. But, they have listened to them and considered what I have said to them. I am well aware of suggestions that have been made to TOP founders and know that some of these suggestions have been worked into the program as it now exists. I Personally believe that in that in the future, as TOP Becomes more clearly connected with the denomination there may be more suggestions that will be accepted. But, do not misunderstand me, in many respects TOP will remain with that solid central focus that it has today. In that aspect, I do not see it as changing and I do not see the denomination suggesting that it change.

I have also looked into the teachings of some of the speakers TOP brings in. Among them are people like Leonard Sweet who teach theosophy and emergent church lack of Biblical theology. He says he has recanted his early writings on these subjects but that is not true. I have read what he has had to say at Fox University about the emergent church teachings and he is anything but negative. He praises it. He is involved in the Doctor of Divinity program there and some of the doctoral theses he signs off on, and he is the mentor of the author's of those papers, are anything but Biblical. I waded all the way through one of them and there were all of two or three verses of scripture in it. Imagine that. I doctoral thesis in a Divinity program and it mentions scripture hardly at all. There were, however, entire pages dedicated to the thinking of men such as Hal Tussig who is the leader of a group who came up with a new version of the New Testament in which a political agenda was the main driver for what was put into the new version of the Bible they put out. Hal Tussig is also a co-founder of the Jesus Seminar and associated with people such as John Dominic Crossan who says Jesus was an "exploited peasant with an attitude" and that is about the best thing he says about Jesus. The Jesus Seminar itself is absolutely blasphemous. So, when speakers of this sort are brought into TOP we can know it is not one of God's movements. The Holy Spirit would have nothing to do with such men, and the writings of Ellen White warn us explicitly away from reading or even listening to theosophy because of the decptiveness of it. It is one of the devil's final deceptions and it is so deadly that if it is accepted it will sweep Christianity away completely. It is exceedingly dangerous. It makes pantheism look like child's play, and pantheism is so dangerous that we are warned to stay as far away from it as possible. Theosophy is the Omega of deceptions. That TOP would bring in speakers who teach and have taught such things says nothing good about it.

What you write sounds right to me. Do you know what the correct answer is? Are you trying to lure us into a trap? For me, "the" abomination of desolation is also definite. It's baked in the cake. It's the one that can be measured by 1290 days until the end of these wonders when the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give it's light.. And leaves no room to wiggle out from. I wrote a long reply to your note in the other thread Samie. But then I lost the draft and decided to give it a rest for awhile. It's tough to tell. Just look at that bottom half of Luke 17. Look at all the specifics that take place before we are told to run for it: the days of Noah, eating and drinking marrying and being given in marriage, the days of Lot eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed. "On that day, let the one who is on the housetop, with his goods in the house, not come down to take them away, and likewise let the one who is in the field not turn back. But Luke 17 isn't worried about pregnant women or the ones nursing infants in those days! How come? Matthew might have used old people, invalids, the morbidly obese or those confined to a hospital. From the time of conception until the child's first word is spoken and then his first steps are taken, reliable time frames have been established. "Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time. A short: "time". Time, times and half a time? Where a "time" equals a year? I found additional confirmation, a guy from Ohio figured out almost the same thing. And this "time" appears to have been marked out by the Revelation 12 sign. This thing that Jesus is calling "great tribulation", I think is going to be extremely fast, about a year in duration. I think that it's already being shortened from the front end. It was probably meant to be the last "third", 420 days, of the 1260 day span. But it's being cut short by seven "sevens" or 49 days. And that will leave us with a 371 day great tribulation which will be just EXACTLY like it was in the days of Noah. The five months of Revelation 9 should take us right up to the "last day". "For the LORD has a day of vengeance, a YEAR of recompense for the cause of Zion. "Great changes are soon to take place in our world, and the final movements will be rapid ones. - EGW. Peaceful Sabbath.

Wanderer: Green and I have had private conversations (e-mail) that have remained private, as have a number of other people in this forum. As to Green's personal view in regard to TOP, so far no one, as far as I know, no one has threatened him n any way in regard to those views. No one has challenged his posting them, as far as I know. However, by posting them he is inviting others to challenge them as to accuracy, and that has been done. However, Green has gone beyond the mere posting of his views in regard to TOP. He stated that Japhet lied. That, in accord with a basic definition of the word, is a statement that Japhet was not merely wrong, which he could have said, but that Japhet intended to deceive. That is an attack on motive. Further, as it was a public statement, it must be challenged publicly. In such cases private statements should not be made. If Green believes that Japhet lied to him, he should go to Japhet and tell him so directly. There is a clear Biblical procedure that should be followed in such cases. According to that Biblical procedure, if Green has not gone to Japhet and directly informed him that he believes Japhet lied to him Green should not be posting such here. I do not expect Green to be perfect, no human, to include you and I are perfect. But, Green's personal attack on Japhet is so far from basic Christian standards that in this case, I am convinced that it was not God who approved of Green posting that about Japhet. If you think that I am out of bounds on this issue, fine, you at entitled to think as you believe is best. Aa to The One Project: There are issues on which honest and sincere people can disagree. God has not brought His Church to the point where they agree on every issue and doctrine. Frankly, I do not expect that in this life. There are some who have personally experienced TOP in a number of ways, who have decided that they disagree with it. So be it. I do not have nearly as much of a problem with these people as I do with those who solely rely on 2nd and 3rd had information and/or make false statements about TOP. In another thread I mentioned Sam, a founder of TOP. He told of his spending two years attempting to engage a major cretic in a conversation. For two years, that critic refused to dialogue with him. Finally Sam happened ot meet the critic in person. At first the critic refused to discuss his issues in any way. Finally a conversation did begin. It ended at the point when the critic explained that he was beginning to like Sam and therefore could not discuss with him any more. NOTE: Sam did not identify the critic in any manner.

Whoever among us appears the most confident is the most likely candidate to have been deceived. If we depend on Jesus, and look to Him for our source of wisdom and strength, and trust His messengers, and follow them, and do not trust our own wisdom, we are safe. I cannot depend on my own knowledge; in these last days, the deceptions will so closely parallel the track of truth as to make it nearly impossible to discern between them. Once God has helped us to see, however, that distinction, we are not to attend the meetings of those who would lead us into deception and error. I was shown the necessity of those who believe that we are having the last message of mercy, being separate from those who are daily imbibing new errors. I saw that neither young nor old should attend their meetings; for it is wrong to thus encourage them while they teach error that is a deadly poison to the soul and teach for doctrines the commandments of men. The influence of such gatherings is not good. If God has delivered us from such darkness and error, we should stand fast in the liberty wherewith He has set us free and rejoice in the truth. God is displeased with us when we go to listen to error, without being obliged to go; for unless He sends us to those meetings where error is forced home to the people by the power of the will, He will not keep us. The angels cease their watchful care over us, and we are left to the buffetings of the enemy, to be darkened and weakened by him and the power of his evil angels; and the light around us becomes contaminated with the darkness. {EW 124.3} . . . The track of truth lies close beside the track of error, and both tracks may seem to be one to minds which are not worked by the Holy Spirit, and which, therefore, are not quick to discern the difference between truth and error. {1SM 202.2} From the above, two salient points emerge: 1) Only the Holy Spirit can help us discern between truth and error; and 2) God will not protect us if we choose to go where we know error is being promoted, unless He has sent us. God has already helped me to see that TOP is promoting error. It would be a sin, therefore, for me to attend their meetings unless I knew God was sending me to them.

I believe you purposely fail to understand what I posted and then fail to give the context when you respond. I do believe you understand that I was suggesting you don't know a person by listening to others and then making a judgement. It has been asked if you have had a personal contact with any of the leaders of TOP and thus far the answer is, no! Yet you continue to judge their methods, theology and beliefs based on hearsay. That method is not how we are to draw conclusions in any setting, personal or spiritual. I asked also how we learn and know God, yet you avoided that also with some comment about 'Christ impersonation', which is not the subject.

While I was looking at these faceless images it struck me that the actual women who wear some of these actually become faceless when wearing them. Think that is intentional or just an unconscious oversight on the part of whoever created the images?

to all of the above:

Niqab (Yemen) A veil for the face that exposes only the eyes, sometimes obscured by a separate eye veil. It is worn with a headscarf, such as a khimar. Displayed only in black.

Hijab (Global) The type most commonly worn in the West is a square scarf that covers the head and neck but leaves the face clear.

Khimar (Saudi Arabia) A long, cape-like veil that hangs down to just above the waist. It covers the hair, neck and shoulders completely, but leaves the face clear.

Chador (Iran) A full-body cloak worn by Iranian women outside the house. It is often accompanied by a smaller headscarf underneath. Displayed only in black.

Burqa (Afghanistan) The most concealing veils, they come in blue or black. The blue burqa is one piece and light- weight. The black burqa is made of a thicker material in three pieces.

Gregory, Feel free to edit my posts, remove them, or ban me from this forum--knowing that God sees and will judge all that you do. No Christian should seek to muzzle the free expression of another who speaks convicted of conscience on a matter. I cannot in good conscience support TOP, and the speciousness of error entering the church through channels like this is of such a nature as makes me willing to stand up and be counted against it, regardless the stakes. If you should out me here, and my work be jeopardized, you will stand one day at the bar of judgment with God for it--but I will not be badgered into silence in speaking for the right when it is my duty to do so. If you would like facts to support what I have said, I have them. My name is actually irrelevant, and knowing it should be immaterial to those facts. Others post here who have not identified themselves, and to single me out seems rather arbitrary. Having seen others who were removed from this forum for what seemed of no greater offense than what I have said, I know, and have always known, that the truths I present may not be welcomed here and that my posting privileges might at any time be revoked. So be it. To my perception, your communications with the administrators here have significant weight, and while you may claim you do not have the power to ban me (I believe you speak truly in that regard), you do have the power of your influence toward that end. Thus, I know I am at your mercy. But I do not fear you. I fear only that I might dishonor God in either remaining silent when I should speak, or in speaking in such a way as would bring the truth into disrepute. None of us should rest easy knowing that errors are creeping into our church. We know, however, that they will. It is prophesied. I appreciate what CherylG just posted a bit ago regarding the Omega. Everyone should read it and ponder. Just because many will be deceived does not mean it must be us. Each of us has the privilege of studying these things carefully for ourselves, and putting our sights fast on Jesus, the Author and the Finisher of our faith.

Pastor Steve Wohlberg, whom I know personally and with whom I have communicated regarding TOP, spoke against it as well as against the dangers of the so-called "emerging church" movement in a sermon at Southern Adventist University. Pr. Wohlberg is the president and founder of White Horse Ministries, and has an extensive audience through both radio and television. An interview with him regarding the Emerging Church movement, including The One Project, is available here. Japhet de Oliveira, one of TOP's founders, lied concerning Pr. Wohlberg's supposed change of mind regarding TOP. I communicated with him directly and learned the truth. That conversation is documented in another forum for other members to read. I have read some of what the TOP founders have written. I would compare some of it to the Book of Mormon which I have also tried to read. They both give me a headache. The logic is somewhat unusual, almost diabolical. I have watched some of the TOP founders' sermons online. I was quite disappointed in their use of cynicism and sarcasm for a laugh, and the hints they would make that the church was in the wrong and needed to change, such as on the issue of women's ordination. Gregory, I think you know why I must remain anonymous here, and your reference to my anonymity I take as a direct attack against me and my ministry. Perhaps, because I have spoken against TOP, you will have me excommunicated from this community. So be it. I will not jeopardize my work by revealing my identity, and I would far rather have my account here deleted than to do so. If circumstances were otherwise and my work were not in danger, I can assure you I have no shame in what I am saying and I would never require anonymity. Forty-five minutes' drive from my home lies a church whose members are not permitted to meet on Sabbath--by the government. Negotiations with government officials have failed to reopen it. In the other direction, about half an hour distant, the director of a major ministry and arm of our church who I will not name here was deported for doing Bible studies in his home. The one who replaced him is now also being forced to leave next month for political reasons. I do not reside in a land friendly to Christians. Pastors are sometimes jailed for distributing literature. Bibles must be smuggled in. God watches over this work, and I trust He will take care of it. But in a land where internet usage is monitored, and from which I must use an encrypted tunnel to post this message safely, to demand that I be outed is simply unthinkable for a military chaplain who ought to know better. Did you not know my situation? If you want to know the truth about TOP, do some research into its background and the background of its founders. I did. I did not simply accept the reports I had heard without checking things out for myself. Instead of looking to "the arm of flesh" we should be looking to Jesus and following Him. And what did Jesus say? "If ye love me, keep my commandments." Mrs. White warned us of those who would teach only about Jesus' love, and avoid instruction on His commandments. I take her warning to heart. There is certainly nothing wrong with teaching that God loves us. But God is particular, and requires obedience. The Third Angel's Message speaks directly to this, and that is the message we are to be sounding to the world at this time. Unfortunately, that message is not TOP's priority.

Joe, The Bible asks the probing question "Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?" (James 3:11) Jesus has told us that "by their fruits ye shall know them." I have seen quite enough of The One Project to know it. It mixes truth with error, making it more dangerous by far than if it were all error. But I have faith that God will see His church through to the end, and return for a virtuous bride, undefiled and unspotted by the world. Nevertheless, these abominations in the church will cost the souls of many, and for that I sigh and cry.

So, here is a question. Given that you believe you would have rebelled out of a perfect environment with no sin, are you safe to save for the future universe free of sin? (No answer required.)

image |ˈimij| noun1 a representation of the external form • a mental representation or idea• a visible impression• an optical appearance or counterpart likeness |ˈlīknəs| nounthe fact or quality of being alike; resemblance • the semblance, guise, or outward appearance of Am not arguing, just presenting the definitions, which to me leave open the possibility of not having the physical body as we know. But, what ever one chooses to believe is okay with me