Leaderboard

Greetings again The Wanderer, Possibly paradox is more correct, but the various accounts were not written in such a way as to simply present a paradox. Each has its own simple message. Perhaps we are at fault if we try to too closely harmonise all the accounts. Concerning the last question that I raised, there has been some discussion amongst my brethren whether John simply sent his disciples to Jesus so that they would finally leave John the Baptist and join with Jesus. Others have suggested that John, even though he still believed that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, in the extremity of his trial could not understand why Jesus would not act and establish his Kingdom then and there and thus have him released. Others suggest that John was human, and that in the extremity of his trial he started to doubt, and despite all of his experience at the baptism of Jesus, he started to imagine that the true Messiah had not yet appeared. At least he needed further comfort and assurance in the hour of his greatest trial. Jesus answers all three possibilities by demonstrating the miracles that marked out Jesus as the true Messiah who would fulfil Isaiah 35 and other prophecies, but in God's good time, and there is a hint in Jesus' reply that the Messiah would have yet to suffer. Concerning Kevin H’s statement I suggest that the following indicates that the Apostle John is speaking about baptism by water, and that Jesus had been baptised in water at least 40 days previously. John certainly did not suggest that Jesus was not baptised in water. John 1:29-34 (KJV): 29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. 30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me. 31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. 32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. 33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Spirit. 34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God. I am concerned that many colleges still teach higher criticism, or are affected by it. Kind regards Trevor

what a colossal waste of time, money, and energy for all involved.... What was so urgent that the kid felt she needed immediate hormone treatment when she'd turn 18 in less than a year, and could then make her own decisions??

There seems to be some difficulty in understanding when John the Baptist first recognised that Jesus was the Messiah, the Christ and thus the Lamb of God who would take away the sin of the world. The first is the testimony of John, that he did not know the identity of the Christ, the Son of God, until he saw the Spirit descending and abiding on him: John 1:29-34 (KJV): 29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. 30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me. 31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. 32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. 33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Spirit. 34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God. Please also note that John the Baptist states this after Jesus returns from the 40 days in the wilderness. Now how do we reconcile this with the following which occurred before Jesus’ baptism in the water, and before the Spirit descended in the form of a dove? Matthew 3:13-17 (KJV): 13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. 14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? 15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. 16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Now why would John the Baptist initially refuse to baptise Jesus, and acknowledge that Jesus was greater than he was, if he did not know that Jesus was the Christ? One possibility is what Jesus said to John when asked as to what sins he had to confess. Jesus would have answered that he had no sins to confess, or that he had lived in perfect conscience until that day. Now I believe that John would have been given the Holy Spirit to discern the hearts of those that came to him for baptism, and this is one reason why he rejected the Pharisees, in their pride and non-repentance. John would have discerned what Jesus had said was the truth, and this is the reason for John’s response, that Jesus was greater than he was, not that he immediately fully recognised Jesus as the Messiah. Then after the baptism when the Spirit descended visibly upon him as a Dove, John was fully persuaded that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, the Lamb of God who would take away the sin of the world. Kind regards Trevor

It is the government/judge that took custody away from the parents. A teenager is not considered mature enough to legally do many things.Yet a judge in his "wisdom" ruled this teenager is mature enough to make such a life altering decision

Baptism without joining a congregation: * Such is generally considered to be against policy in the SDA Church. * Some SDA clergy do such. * I have never done such. * I once stated that I was going to do such if. . . . . [No need to give the details.] * I can think of rare occasions to include there not being an available congregation for one to join, when I might do so. * I am aware of an Islamic who accepted Christ, who was sentenced to death by public stoning, which was carried out, due to his conversion to Christianity. [NOTE: the stones that the people threw at him failed to kill him. Finally the Imman (sp) stopped the execution with a statement that Allah had spared this persons life.] Later a SDA clergy person baptized him under conditions where he knew nothing about Adventism and there was no opportunity for him to learn about Adventism. The SDA clergyperson has not been disciplined by the SDA Church for doing so. There is more that cannot be told. It is clear that God not only saved his life during the stoning, but also placed the SDA clergyperson in a position to baptize him.

I don't buy his argument. He addresses one small issue and ignores all the parts of Easter that have pagan origins. To listen to this guy the Roman church never accepted anything pagan into it's theology and rites. Funny how the birth of Christ is supposedly on the winter equinox and His death and resurrection on the spring equinox. Ironic that the fertility celebration of paganism on the spring equinox is now the celebration of the resurrection. Both tied to the regeneration of life. Both on the same date, and no connection possible although the Roman church most definitely incorporated paganism into it. No possible pagan connections there..... NOT!!!! That a retired SDA minister would buy that argument is pretty much unbelievable.