Leaderboard

We were created. God created us. He could just let us all die (or get rid of us). He could then create another creation. Right? That thought must have gone through the minds of all "created" beings. If HE created us, then HE can just get rid of us. We are disposable. The flood of Noah didn't help. It certainly appeared that God was disposing of humans who were a disappointment to HIM. How was God to let HIS creation know they are NOT DISPOSABLE. HE gave HIS Son - to suffer with them and then to die by torture. This was HIS "I love you" message. "I love you so much, I would die rather than loose you." You are NOT disposable.

So, do you know what the issues are that are the focus of the strike? If you do, why did you not tell us? If you do not, why did you tell us they plan to strike. By the way, if it has been 27 years since they went on strike, that shows that they do not strike over minor issues. On another point: Do you think that they should earn a living wage? In the Bay Area of California, an annual wage of $72,000 is not enough for a family to purchase a home in the area in which to live. Perhaps a UPS driver, living in that area, might be justified in attempting to earn a higher wage.

Gustave, you seem to me to project a wooden, verbal inspiration of EGW that she rejected and is not SDA teaching.

Earlier, Gustave posted a series of quotes from EGW in response to a post made to The Wanderer. I, personally, have problems with what I believe is characteristic of the manner in which Gustave posts. * I am often confused as to whether Gustave is actually posting a quote, or whether he is stating a personal belief as to what someone said/wrote. There is a difference. Both may be done in writing and I do both when I write. But, Gustave often leaves me confused as to what he has done. * In one place Gustave wrote that Longacre got a position from EGW. It is true that EGW supported the position that Gustave stated Longacre held. That does not mean that Longacre got it from EGW. He may have gotten it from some other source. Gustave does not support his idea that Longacre actually got it from EGW. * In the statement above, Gustave does not provide a source to support what EGW is alleged to have believed. As a source is not provided, It becomes hard to locate a source for the alleged position of EGW. In actual fact, I was able to locate that statement.. It is also a fact that Gustave was accurate in quoting her. But, it would have been better if a source had been given. It seems to me that Gustave often fails to give a source, even though, he often does provide a source. * I also find that often when Gustave provides a source, that source is either incomplete, or it is not a source that is easily available, to be checked, by most people reading his post. I would suggest that any source be complete, and of a source that is easily available to most reading his post. As an example, Gustave cited a quote form EGW as found in Vol. 7, page 926, of the SDABC. That source was incomplete in a couple of aspects. The SDABC has been printed in two major editions--1957 & 1980. Both are easily available and are owned by SDAs. His source is actually from the 1980 edition. I seriously doubt that it was on that same page, in the 1957 edition, if it was in that edition at all. * You will note that in my listing, I have not challenged what Gustave actually posted, although I have challenged such in other cases. My point here was to specific frustrations that I have with his posts. * In general, due in part to what I have stated above, Gustave comes across to me as one who has often based his views upon what he has read in another Internet post and has not checked actual sources. Why? Due to the fact that the issues that I have stated here, I can sometimes (I have not checked all.) find to exist on other Internet websites. IOW when Gustave states a partial source, another Internet website may also partially state that same source.

A retired, major SDA leader raises some important qkuestions. https://spectrummagazine.org/article/2018/08/02/troubling-disconnect

The subject of the Trinity is a complex one. It is also of some debate within Adventism. To help us in our understanding, I have put together a short listing of Adventist references that will be of help in both understanding the doctrine and of its historical development with in Adventism. Trinity References R: 180904 1) Paul Petersen & Robert McIver, Editors. Biblical & Theological Studies on the Trinity, Avondale Academic Press, 2014, 251 pages. 2) Norman Guley. Systematic Theology: God as Trinity. Andrews University Press, 2011, 676 pages. 3) http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/gane-thesis/index.htm 4) http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/moon/moon-trinity1.htm or 5) http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/moon/moon-trinity2.htm 6) http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/index.htm Notes on the above: 11) This is a book that I believe would be of value to just about everybody who is interested in the development of the doctrine of the Trinity in Adventism. It may be obtained from many sources. While Amazon does sell it, one may purchase it directly from Avendale Press for less than Amazon charges. The following is the Table of Contents of the book. Introduction (pp. xi-xii) PART 1 Biblical Studies 1. Some Aspects of the Christology of the Fourth Gospel Relevant to Contemporary Christological Controversy (pp. 3-28) Robert K McIver 2. Jesus—the ʹOne and Onlyʹ, or ʹOnly Begottenʹ: The Meaning of Monogenes (pp. 29-34) Paul Petersen 3. Worshipping Jesus—the ʹEternally Blessed God!ʹ (Romans 9:5) (pp. 35-46) Paul Petersen 4. A Study of Paulʹs Concept of the Saving Act of 1 Corinthians 15:27–28 (pp. 47-64) Roland D Meyer 5. The Firstborn in Colossians 1:15 (pp. 65-86) Ekkehardt Mueller PART 2 Historical and Theological Studies 6. Trinity: Toward a (Somewhat) Postmodern Perspective (pp. 89-100) Ray CW Roennfeldt 7. The Trinitarian Basis of Christian Community (pp. 101-112) Richard Rice 8. Alexandrian School and the Trinitarian Problem (pp. 113-126) Darius Jankiewicz 9. The Holy Spirit: His Divinity and Personality (pp. 127-144) Frank M Hasel 10. Trinity and Tawhid in Islam—An Appraisal (pp. 145-162) Børge Schantz PART 3 Studies in Seventh-day Adventist History and Theology 11. The Influence of Restorationism on Early Seventh-day Adventism and the Emergence of a Trinitarian Perspective (pp. 165-180) Karl Arasola 12. The Trinitarian Issue in Seventh-day Adventism (pp. 181-192) Gunnar Pedersen 13. John Harvey Kelloggʹs Concept of the Godhead (pp. 193-218) John Skrzypaszek Appendix: Consensus Statement (pp. 219-220) Index of Persons and Authors (pp. 221-226) Index of Subjects (pp. 227-236) Index of Christian Scriptural References (pp. 237-250) Index of Islamic Scriptural References (pp. 251-252) At this point the above Table of Contents ends and the following are comments on other books and documents that I have listed. 2) This is a vaulable book for scholars. Probably most people will not want read a 675 page book on this one doctrine. However, for an in-depth study, this is the gold standard. 3) This is the work of Erwin Gane that established, contrary to what others had thought, that early SDA leaders were Arian at some level in their understanding of the Trinity. 4) This is the work of Jerry Moon that builds on the work of Erwin Gane and in this Part 1, develops a historicl overview of the SDA internal debate on the Trinity. 5) This is part 2 of the work of Jerry Moon. In this part, he loks at the role that Ellen White had in the Trinity debate in Adventism. 6) This reference contains links to articles written on the Trinity.

I was honored to be invited by the State Department to attend last week’s Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom. This event brought together foreign diplomats and government officials with US policymakers and nonprofits who work on international religious freedom to discuss the global religious freedom situation. https://thehumanist.com/voices/on_the_hill/on-the-hill-aha-attends-ministerial-to-advance-religious-freedom

I believe the "spirits of God" are "the seven Spirits who are before His throne,"(Rev 1:4 ). I believe these are 7 powerful angels who go throughout the earth, directing the other angels in the fight. They bring report back to Jesus, who "holds" them (holds sway over them). These things says He who holds the seven Spirits of God and the seven stars:" Rev 3:1 He - Christ - directs those angels. He is "commander of the LORD's hosts". Hebrews 1:7 And of the angels He says: "Who makes His angels spirits, His ministers a flame of fire."

LOL! I think he meant IF God's Spirit was also a person that would add up to two Person's for the Father....

8THDAYPRIEST this is a very good thought dgrimm60

5 Things You Didn't Know About Anne Frank_2 On this day in 1944, the Nazi Gestapo captured 15-year-old Jewish diarist Anne Frank and her family in a sealed-off area of an Amsterdam warehouse. nne spent much of her time in the “secret annex” working on her diary. Here are five interesting things you probably didn't know about Anne Frank... She Addressed Many of Her Entries to "Kitty." Scholars have long debated who exactly "Kitty" was to Anne. Some believe it's the nickname of her closest friend before going into hiding. Others think it relates to a character from Anne's favorite book. While we likely will never know the truth, one thing's for certain: Kitty isn't the only "person" Anne wrote to in her diary. There are letters addressed to Conny, Marianne, Emmy, and Pop, too. The Woman Who Found the Diary Said She Would Have Burned It if She Read It. Miep Gies, a secretary at the factory where the Franks hid for two years, was a supporter of the family and regularly visited with Anne. After the raid on August 4, 1944, Gies went up to the attic and found Anne's diary strewn across the floor. She collected the papers but never read them, instead storing them safely and returning them to Otto Frank after the war. It's a good thing she didn't read them, too: Gies later confessed that had she read the pages, she would have burned them because they implicated her and everyone else involved in a crime that could have cost them their lives. Otto Frank Possibly Saved the Arresting Officer Who Sent His Family to the Camps from Losing His Job. Karl Silberbauer was an SS officer in Amsterdam during the war who received the orders from his superior on August 4, 1944, to investigate an anonymous tip of hidden Jews in the top floor of Prinsengracht 263. Sillberbauer later said he vividly remembered the arrest and even complimented Otto Frank on his lovely daughters. In 1963, people made the connection between Sillberbauer—then a Viennese police officer—and Anne Frank. Austrian officials immediately suspended Sillberbauer without pay and set up a hearing. Otto Frank attended the hearing and testified that Sillberbauer had only done his duty and acted with civility throughout the process. He did not believe Sillberbauer needed to lose his job, but requested to never see the man again in his life. The Diary of Anne Frank has Regularly Been Banned from Schools. Despite being a prolific writer and deep thinker, Frank was still just a young girl, and therefore, some of the entries depict the natural thoughts and curiosities of a young girl discovering her own anatomy. Because of a brief passage where Frank wonders about her own body, the book has been regularly banned from school reading lists. But that's not even the dumbest reason for banning the book: schools in Alabama once banned it for being a "downer." Yikes. Some People Think Anne's Diary is a Fake. We've all heard of those crazy Holocaust deniers who don't think millions of Jews died during the Holocaust. Well, those same deniers have made ludicrous claims that Anne Frank's diary is a forgery and the events described never really happened. Not to worry—the documents have been thoroughly analyzed for handwriting, glue and binding methods, and the types of ink and paper. To no sane person's surprise, the document came back 100% authentic.

Your in my prayers everyday and so are all the others on this forum.

Peter wrote: "His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust." (2Pe 1:4 NKJ) God the Father IS divine, and we "partake of" HIS divinity. When we do - we become "one" with God the Father and with His Son. "We abide in the Son and in the Father" (2John 1:9). We must consent and ask for this "sharing" of HIS divinity. It is amazing that God our Father invites human beings to partake of HIS divinity. I believe the "holy Spirit" GIFT is this divinity of God, which HE shares with us. When we are "baptized with the holy Spirit", we are "filled with" the Spirit, and "partake of the divine" . 1 John 4:13 "By this we know that we abide in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit." "His Spirit" is His own divine nature - His divinity. We experience HIM. We "hear" HIM, in our mind. We "feel" HIS love. We may "feel" HIS divinity flowing through us when someone is healed. We experience just the right words coming out of our mouth at just the right moment. It is impossible to separate "God" from His divinity. Divine is what He is. Yes - the possessive "His" is used - "His divine nature", but how can you cannot separate "His nature" from "Him" any more than you can separate "my" humanity from "me". Which brings us to the incarnation. HOW did the Son of God - a divine being - become human. That one - is more a mystery to me, than the nature of the Holy Spirit.

I won't pretend to speak for Rachel, but I don't think anyone has said the HS is "not real". In my opinion, the HS is VERY real; and an integral part of God. God might not even be God without it. The HS (to me) is God's ability to be everywhere at once; know everything, and exert His power and influence anywhere in the universe instantaneously without being limited by the speed of light. The HS transmits God's commands and prophecies to individuals and nations, and collects our prayers and presents them to the Father and Son. But it is a Power - a Force; not a Person. It is beyond our understanding.

I can think of some bakers that were opressed.

from the latest Adventist Today "An Apology for Partisanship," by Lindsey Painter (https://atoday.org/an-apology-for-partisanship/ ) Oh, c'mon.......I'm all for WO, but the above comes across to me as a whiney, poor-me, in-your-face type of attitude, and bespeaks of individuals who can't cope with real-life situations — which really does nothing to compel someone who is anti-WO (or undecided) to come over to the pro-WO side of the hornets' nest.

5 Things You Didn't Know About Christopher Columbus On this day in 1492, Italian explorer Christopher Columbus set sail in command of three ships—the Santa Maria, the Pinta, and the Nina—on a journey to find a western sea route to China, India, and the fabled gold and spice islands of Asia. Here are five interesting facts about Christopher Columbus... The First Voyage Almost Never Happened. After Columbus's plan to find a western route to the Indies was rejected by Portugal, Italy, and England, the explorer turned to King Ferdinand II and Queen Isabella I of Spain. Isabella was naturally a bit hesitant to fund Columbus’s voyage. When Columbus first proposed the idea in 1486 (six years before Columbus would finally set sail), Isabella rejected him on the advice of her counsel. But, she clearly maintained interest—she opted to pay Columbus an annual stipend and give him free room and board across all the lands where she ruled. In January 1492, he got another chance to make his case in front of Isabella. She again rejected him, and Columbus fled. Ferdinand then stepped in and authorized the voyage. The Queen’s courier had to hustle to catch up with Columbus—who was already four miles outside town—and shared the good news. His Crew Didn't Love Him. Finding a crew wasn't the easiest task. In 1492, it wasn't just Kyrie Irving thinking the Earth was flat; many people though sailing across the ocean would lead to some massive waterfall where they'd fall of the face of the planet into the abyss. Alas, Columbus managed to convince 86 men to join his crew, but they didn't love their captain. Columbus maintained two separate logs so that he could deceive the crew about how far they'd traveled from home. On the brink of mutiny, Columbus agreed to head home if they didn't find land within two days. The next day, they came across San Salvador. He Wrecked the Santa Maria on Christmas Day, 1492. Columbus returned back to Spain without the gold and spices he had promised the King and Queen, and without the nicest ship they had loaned him. The Santa Maria ran aground on Christmas Day, forcing Columbus to leave 39 men behind at a settlement called La Navidad in present-day Haiti. Just one more reason the crew didn't love their captain. A Lunar Eclipse Saved Columbus's Life. During Columbus's final voyage in 1504, Columbus and his crew got stranded in Jamaica for a year. Columbus and a small crew took a Canoe over to Hispaniola in search of food, but the governor despised Columbus and refused to help him. Desperate and aware that a lunar eclipse was coming soon, Columbus warned the islanders that their refusal of food had upset his god and that the moon would turn red to show his wrath. When it turned the next night, the islanders were terrified and gave Columbus the provisions he needed to survive. Columbus Crossed the Atlantic Even in Death. Columbus died in 1506 and was buried in Valladolid, Spain, and then moved to Seville. The bodies of Columbus and his son Diego were later shipped across the Atlantic to Hispaniola where they were kept at a Santo Domingo cathedral. Then, in 1795, the French captured the island. Spanish locals dug up remains thought to be those of Columbus and quickly moved them to Cuba. They were then returned to Seville after the Spanish-American War in 1898. That's a lot of hopping around, but here's the twist: In 1877, a box with human remains and the explorer’s name was discovered inside the Santo Domingo cathedral. Though DNA testing has confirmed that at least some of the bones in Seville belong to Columbus, it's possible the explorer has remains on both sides of the Atlantic.

Lover of hospitality

Thanks, but I still don't want to give people something that has been altered or changed. It was not the truth and if I going to stand for truth, I can't present anything that has been changed. There are true pictures that do portray the sentiments of prejudice without using something falsely. I just want to say and do the right thing! Pray for me! Blessings!

Will praise Thee

Paleo Hebrew: What is it? It is a mistake to think of Paleo Hebrew as a language. Rather, it is an alphabetic script. As an alphabetic script, it was used by the Phoenicians, Canaanites, Moabites and Hebrews to write in their languages. It continued to be used by the Hebrews for a very long time. However, during the Babylonian Captivity, the Hebrews people began to write the Hebrew language in what is called today the Aramaic Square Script (ASS). This ASS became the alphabetic script used in the majority of Hebrew writings. While it might be said that some Biblical autographs were probably written in the Paleo Hebrews script in the autographs, none of those autographs exist today. All we have are copies which we believe to be of the autographs. In general, the Hebrew copies were written in the ASS. They were not written in Paleo Hebrew. As no autographs exist, anytime one states that in the Paleo Hebrew of the Bible, something is written, they are either using conjecture, speculation, or perhaps citing a copy. Again, my major point is that Paleo Hebrew is an alphabetic script that was used at one time to write the Hebrew language as well as that of several other languages.

I actually define "doctrine" a little differently. "Doctrine" is the teaching of the church/religious organization(s). As such it can be wrong. The teaching of Jesus is a different, although related, entity. As such it CANNOT be wrong. But sometimes we don't understand it. Which leads to "What the Bible SAYS is not as important as what WE THINK the Bible says.

Gustave, thank you for providing the source material for your comment. Your Watchman Ministries document is interesting. Certainly our early SDA leaders believed that God had materiality, as they would have said. If you read that document you would have noted that the reference to bones was to Jesus, in his human form, and not to God the Father. Yes, that cited article is implied as being written by James White. Your 2nd document to the Review article is also interesting. This article is so close to the one in the Watchman Ministries (WM) that I am wondering if the WM article is simply a repeat of what is published in the Review. If so, it raises the question as to whether James White actually wrote the article in the WM. The reason for that question is simple: The article you cited in the Review was NOT written by James White. It was published in a work titled Gospel Banner and Millennial Advocate (GBMA). The Review article was simply a quote from another publication and clearly was not written by James White. On this basis, I have to believe that James White did not write what MM has posted. Rather what WM posted was simply taken from either the Review of from the GBMA. NOTE: The GMA was a publication of the Christadelphians. It was not a SDA publication. So, I find your documentation to not be convincing. Yes, I would not challenge anyone who said that early SDA leaders believed that God had body parts. But, what were those parts. A reasonable person might say a head, arms and legs. O.K. There is nothing there to suggest that those leaders also believe that God had a digestive system. Again, that is reading what one wants to believe into their statements.