Leaderboard

True; and it is another way of saying that Jesus is the central doctrine. I don't mean "doctrine" in the sense of a rule or specific belief, I mean it in the sense that Jesus should be the central basis or theme for anything we believe. If anything I believe tends to lead me away from Christ, I need to rethink it.

I think it is funny and the country is base on religious freedom. Both statutes should come down. It is by the way you live and not by a statute! Blessings!

We search and search for just the right words to explain the nature of Jesus. Can't say that I've read a perfect explanation - yet. While doing a study recently into Paul's phrase "under the law", I read the verse in Galatians where Paul wrote that God's Son was "born of a woman, born under the law". I had progressed in my study to the point where I now understand "under the law" to mean: subject to "the law of sin and death". Essentially that law said, "you sin - you die". This was the law for Adam/Eve. "If you eat of that forbidden tree - you will die." Paul says, "the law of the spirit of life in Jesus Christ has set us free from the law of sin and death". If we are "set from from" that law, we are NOT "under" it. That would be my conclusion. Anyway - if JESUS was "born under" that "law of sin and death" - that means IF He had sinned, He would have died eternally. Does it also mean that He could have sinned. I believe so. There's no point in saying that Jesus was "born under the law (of sin and death)", if He was really not capable of sinning or dying. He did die. He died BECAUSE He was "made" "to be sin". ALL of Him - not just the human part. 2 Corinthians 5:21 "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." (NIV) I can agree with Gustave, that the nature of Jesus was not "drawn" to sin. I believe that such will be our nature, once we are fully indwelt by God's Spirit in the kingdom to come. And by then we also have new "spiritual bodies". Without the tired, hungry, sexually stimulated physical bodies we now occupy, a whopping LOT of temptations would have no pulling power. Jesus was born with the spiritual nature of Adam before the Fall, and the physical nature of Abraham/Mary - 4000 years after the Fall. Adam was fully indwelt. So was Christ. Adam sinned. Christ did not. Jesus was "tempted in every way, just as we are" (Heb 4:15 NIV). His temptations were not of a different KIND, they were of a different intensity, and they were suited to fit His identity, nature, and situation. Jesus was tempted to prove Himself - to Satan. A really dumb temptation - unless the human had gone without food for 40 days, and was starving. He was tempted to use His position/status as "commander" of angels, or perhaps also His divine power - to benefit only Himself, by turning stones to bread for His own consumption, something that His covenant with His Father had strictly forbidden. He was tempted to put Himself (His flesh) in harm's way, presuming that His Father would rescue Him - again just to prove (to Satan and his angels) that He was indeed the Sonof God. He was tempted to avoid all the suffering - to take the easy way to power - by bowing down to Satan -- To give up His mission to save mankind. Satan's implication was "they're not worth it."

So ... One state several years ago is forced to remove the 10 Commandments from City Hall (I think that was in Alabama), and now Arkansas allows a memorial to the one who threw the 10 Commandments out the window and crucified the author of the 10 Commandments. Interesting. The child at the demon's knee is perverted.

If there was no possibility of Christ failing - if salvation was a "slam dunk", satan could very well be justified in crying "foul!" It could have also resulted in heavenly beings who may have still been "on the fence" concerning the justice of God's rule to go to the dark side to protest God "rigging" the game.

5 Things You Didn't Know About Genghis Khan On August 18, 1227, after years of conquering enemies, Genghis Khan died. Genghis Khan was the founder of the Mongol Empire, which became the largest contiguous empire in history after his death. Here are five things you didn't know about Genghis Khan... His Name Wasn't Actually a Name. "Genghis Khan" is really a title and honorific meaning something akin to "supreme ruler." He was actually named Temujin, which was the name of an enemy slain by his father; the naming was meant to be a celebration of the victory. "Khan" itself means "leader," and he gained that title in 1206. "Genghis" is also sometimes romanized as "Chinggis." He Was Known for Conquering, but He Also Brought New Types of Freedom. Other cultures were understandably alarmed and terrified of being taken over by the Mongols under Khan's reign because of the large numbers of deaths that often occurred. However, Khan was not keen on treating conquered people that badly after the fighting was over because he knew that would only exacerbate tribal warfare in the region. Khan abolished slavery and torture, allowed moderate religious freedom (he may not have been as tolerant toward Muslims and Jews as he was other religions), abolished the kidnapping and selling of women, and created an international postal scheme, among many other accomplishments. He also avoided a lot of nepotism, placing allies, rather than family, in governmental positions. His Own Clan Wanted Nothing to Do With Him as a Child, Except Through Slavery. The Mongols before Khan were a tough group to live with. Lots of warfare and kidnapping, as well as rivalries that ended in poisoning, were par for the course. And there wasn't a lot of sympathy. When Khan's father was killed, Khan's mother and siblings were tossed out of their clan simply because the clan wasn't interested in feeding a woman and a bunch of kids. Khan himself ended up back in the fold as a slave after a miscalculated military move, but he managed to get out. Had he not, history could have turned out very, very differently. No One Today Knows What He Really Looked Like. Khan didn't allow portraits of himself to be made while he was alive, so every picture or painting we have of him was something created after his death—in other words, from the memory of someone who was either happy he was gone, sad that he was gone, or had no idea what he was like and was just kind of guessing. In all of those cases, it's a safe bet that the artist was influenced by either emotions or a lack of knowledge of what Khan really looked like. He Gave Mongols Their First Written Script Mongols didn't have a writing system until Khan conquered the Uyghurs. He had the Uyghurs' scribe create a writing system for the Mongolian language that was based on the Uyghur script; it was clunky, and it was replaced by several other writing systems over the years, but it was the first time anyone had officially put down Mongolian language in a written form.

I would need to see a Scriptural argument on this point.

In responding to you, I will post from what you wrote and then I will place my comments in brackets [ ]s. 1: the multiple x-union workers I have worked with in the construction business were some of the laziest guys I’ve seen. Small anadotal experience, but still influences me. [And you are telling us that such does not exist outside of Union membership? All employees should be expected to do a reasonalble amount of word. But, not slave labor--GM.] 2: Ellen White says they were, are, and will be bad I choose to believe her. Her advice about bicycles was the fact they cost a huge percentage of a year’s wages. I accept this advise and limit how much I spend on bicycles. I’m ok with a $300-$500 Trek. [How recently have you read what EGW actually wrote? Ellen White gives specific reasons as to her objections to labor union membership. If you were to find a Union today in which none of those objections existed, would you still say that she would object to membership in such. By the way, such labor unions do exist. To be specific, the thread mentioned a labor union that was supporting the right of a SDA to have Sabbath free from work. Do you think that Ellen White would object to membership in that Union--GM?] 3: My sense of fairness. If workers can strike at will, why can’t employers strike at will? IE, if the workers aren’t getting the job done, send them home (without pay) until they agree to the employers demands? [O.K. Are you not aware of a so-called "lock-out?" That is when employers send the employees home without pay. Are you aware of the labor unions who do not strike, have never called for a strike and have it in their Constitutions that they will never strike--GM?] 4: As someone who does hire people, why can I not choose who I hire and for how much with my money? I move Right to Work. [You can hire whomever you wish, but only if you can find a person willing to work for you. If a person does not want to work for you, you can not force them to do so. I am uncertain as to how you can "move" Right to Work. Do you want to lock it up in a garage? In any case, Right to work does not relate to your ability to hire whomever you wish. Right to Work is the right of that person whom you hired to decide not to join a labor union. By the way, I support Right to Work--GM.] Narcah, I (GM) will now propose a situation to you and ask you how you think that Ellen White would respond: Let us say that you are a SDA member in good standing and that you have been a SDA pastor. You have a friend who is the current president of a labor union. That friend comes to you and says to you: I believe that our labor union members need pastoral care. I am impressed with you. Would you be willing to provide pastoral care to our members. You will have to join the labor union. But, we will pay you X amount of money as a salary and we will expect you to be available full time to provide pastoral care to our members. This will include you developing a pastoral care program that will actively seek out members who need your pastoral care. What do you think that Ellen White would say?

Who said it is at the same time? Perhaps it is over a 24 hour period as the Earth rotates?

NARCAH one possible answer is===AS the earth spins on its axis all people will see this event people in most parts of the earth can see eclipse at the same time so the answer seem very possible dgrimm60

The more I think about this - that Jesus is the central salvational doctrine - the more I agree with you. If we truly believe in our heart (not just our mind) that Jesus is who He says He is (i.e., the Way the Truth, and the Light) and did what He said He would do (give eternal life in all who believed in Him), the more I think we will automatically respond in love and obedience learning as much about the Lover of our souls as we can. Through His Word and the leading of His spirit, he can have His law and character (iow - doctrine) written on our hearts.

Yes this has got out of hand, but it is the day and time we live in. YAHSHUA said these type of things will happen. I feel that he has his right to choose as well as they do. There are so many other bakeries why pick on him? Let's all pray for him and allow THE HOLY SPIRIT to lead. Every man had right to serve his or her faith. I know some of you will not like what I am going to say but when you allow a hateful, prejudice, immoral, selfish, person to act the way he is acting then it tells you the time we are living in!!!! Telling people to believe him and not the news, strip people of their security because they are against his actions, humiliate his Attorney General (who I personally do no like what he done also) because he did the right thing recusing himself. Children still without their parents because of hatred. All are immigrants here except the native Indians! He has divided this country and uplift sinful and shameful acts with no remorse, now we can see how this country is become a dark place. If you are not guilty of anything you should be humble and allow the law to prove that you are innocent. So lawless is from the top on down and it has reach us all! Pray people, pray because the Time of Trouble is close by! Happy Sabbath, pray and be bless!

Cleanse the sanctuary

The book of Enoch speaks of the hybrids you referenced, I read the book several years ago and found it interesting to say the least. If I remember correctly the Ethiopian Orthodox consider the book of Enoch Scripture / but I am rusty on that tradition.

A personal statement: During my life as a Federal chaplain, there were times when part of my duties included providing administrative support to the Catholic services and the priest who conducted them. This support did differ in some respects from time to time. In one period of time it involved a priest, not a part of the institution that I represented, who regularly conducted Mass. I will give an example of one issue I discussed with him: On occasion he was not able to conduct the Mass himself. He would telephone his volunteers and ask them to provide a service that in Catholic theology was not a Mass, but could be conducted by lay people. I discovered that they were asking a devout Baptist to present a talk! NOT ACCEPTABLE. I informed him, stated that I would take care of the Baptist, and it was up to him to educate his volunteers. I probably should explain a bit: Neither the Catholic volunteers nor the Catholic members attending the service were fully informed as to the religious beliefs of the Baptist who spoke at their service. However I was so informed. Anyway, I would sometimes attend the Mass myself. No, I did not ask to receive the elements, and the priest would not have given them to me if I had asked. I simply believed that if I was to work with the Catholics, it was important for me to be personally informed as to what was going on and as to what they might need. Well, as this is late Friday afternoon, in a few hours a special time to share with God will begin. We welcome all to our services. You do not have to be a SDA to attend. So, Gustave, if you would like to join a SDA congregation in worshiping tomorrow, feel free to do so. Yes, I say such with the knowledge SDA congregations differ and our services differ. But, you already know that. If you were to attend, you would be welcomed and no idea would be attached to your attendance to suggest that you were thinking about converting to Adventism. I simply extend a welcome invitation to you in the same spirit that I have been welcomed at a Roman Catholic Mass.

Rachel is correct in stating that there is no explicit command in the Bible for people to worship the Holy Spirit. I do not challenge that. I do find Romans 8:26 & 27 to be of interest. Here the Holy Spirit is clearly presented as interceding for us before God.

Me a credit to the SDA denomination: You are gracious. I simply call it as I see it. If I see the denomination as wrong, I will say so. I and we as a denomination have nothing to gain by a refusal to admit our human error. We are not perfect. We can be confusing at times. That is often our fault. The thinking that Christ could have sinned, as I understand it, was that Jesus in his human nature could have sinned. It was not that Jesus in His God nature could have sinned. God can not sin. As to the development of SDA doctrine: I commend you for picking up on the idea that it developed first from Bible study. That is a point that is often missed. The so-called "Sabbath-Conferences: support the idea that SDA doctrine came from Bible Study. You are correct that on some points of doctrine EGW did state that she had recieved a confirmation vision. You may give that more significance than do I. That did not always happen. In addition, I will suggest that SDA acceptance was based upon the understood Biblical teaching rather than on a vision. As to my personal position: * I agree that there are elements of this doctrine that are critical. One such critical element is that Christ our Saviour was fully God and fully human. * I do not fully understand the nature of God. Aspects of the Trinitiy lie outside of my human experience. Therefore, notwithstanding what I have stated just above, there are aspects okf the Trinity with which I can not fully explain and/or debate. * I do believe, as EGW stated, that there is a point where it is not helpful to debate points of doctrine that are not explained in Scripture in a explicit, clear manner. My eplaination may actually be no better than that of the person with whom I am debating. * God, in the person of the Holy Spirit, is ultimately responsive for the spiritual nurture of both you and I. Fhen God decides that eithe you or I need further enlightenment on a doctrinal issue, God will see that it takes place. * As you know how to contqct me privately, I will remain available to you, either publicly in this forum (continue on), or for private discussions. * In many ways I beleive that the discussions that you have engendered in this forum have been helpful of others reading them. * I am neither a scholar or an academic in this area. Although, I have formally taught other clergy (non-SDA) in an academic setting outside of the SDA Church. (I taught clergy how to work effectively as Army chaplains in a formal academic setting--that typically lasted for three (3) months, with some, on a few occasions who were there for six (6) months.) It is from this perspective that my ideas as an educator sometimes come through in my posts.

On some more personal notes: I appreciate the conversation that we are having here in this forum. Early on I had wondered who he might be. The Roman Catholic church has three (3) levels of clerics, or as they might say, those who receive Holy Orders. These are Bishops, Priests and Deacons. I sometimes wondered if Gustave might be a Deacon. Well, he has explained himself as an Apologist. These are very well trained people within the Catholic Church who defend the Church against attacks and errors in understanding by other people. In addition to being very well trained, they have available to them a wealth of source material to use in responding to people. Frankly, the SDA Church might do well to have such trained people. I appreciate Gustave, in part because I have seen honesty and integrity in him and his posts. No, we do not agree in many areas, probably. We probably will not come to an agreement if everything. But, if we can come to a better, more accurate understanding as to where we each are, we will have accomplished something of value. Just as others may not understand some things well about SDAs, so also we may not understand well some aspects of the Roman Catholic religion that Gustave represents. But, my purpose is not to convert him to Adventism. God converts. God leads in spiritual nurture. God leads all of us, to include both SDAs and Catholics. In the challenges that Gustave has brought to us, he has forced us to better examine the basis for what we believe. That is good.

Satan tempted Christ to "command that these stones be made bread". Commanding that something be done, and doing it yourself, are two different things. I do not believe that Christ "used that power" - His own divine power - to work any miracles. Christ acted only as the channel for His Father's power. Jesus said, "The Father who dwells in Me, does the works" (John 14:10). This verse says that God the Father - not Christ by any divine power of His own - performed the miracles.

A beautiful voice silenced.

Sick, isn't it?

Again: This is an individual decision. There are labor unions today that are unlike what EGW experienced. The context of her advice is found in the statements where she states why she said what she said. To quote a single sentence of hers with no relation to the total body of what she said on the subject, is to elevate her writings to a rigidity that is not appropriate.