Leaderboard

Is it really Gregory who is undermining a sound understanding of prophecy? Is the pot calling the kettle black here? Or are you saying that your understanding of prophecy is inerrant - which has been proven wrong many times? Are you claiming that 99.9% of believers are in error because you are right and they are wrong? Seems pretty vain and arrogant to me. Do not judge; lest ye be judged.

No; I think He was stating that He had successfully completed His mission of Salvation and redemption. He had completed the task of providing salvation, redemption, and eternal life for all who would believe in Him and follow Him. He had completed the task of paying the penalty for the sins of all mankind for all time. All we have to do is accept the gift He freely offers. If we don't accept it, we are "finished" in the sense which you state in your post.

thanks Joe & Gregory, In the end if I can convince just a couple of viewers that the Catholic Church harbors no ill will to SDA's and in the future will never hunt them down because of their honest convictions about the Sabbath that would be enough for me. Truth be told I'm a 200lb self serving lust machine constantly fighting the urges to not do what I want to do. Keeping my mind engaged in higher things (like discussing theology on the internet) helps me by reducing "idle time".

This is on the order of other questions. Like: Can God create a rock that He can't lift? If God the Father is "above all and through all and in all" then He is the omnipresent great holy Spirit. So why would He be "passing by" a star? He is everywhere. He exists outside this dimension He created. One tiny sun going super nova would not cause much of a shock wave - in godly terms. There are as many suns in our universe as there are grains of sand on all the beaches. If I stepped on a tiny grain of sand, and it exploded. It wouldn't do that much to my foot. If God the Father ceased to exist - everything else would die. Because He is the source of life, (and continued life) for every living thing.

It truly appears that he knows more then the prophets who gave the visions. Even more so YAHWEH who showed them the visions. YAHSHUA would not know about the lunar/solar calendar HE created. HE would not know about the division of water in the earth and above the earth. HE wouldn't know that the water above the earth came pouring down and the water in the earth broke a loose that was gather in one place and call "seas." You see YAHSHUA would not know that the earth was so full of water it move where it was originally placed to form ice. The ice, the and rocks and the water just so happen kept the earth from diseases from all the numerous dead tall intelligent wicked beings, animals on land and seas; also the creatures we call dinosaurs that YAHSHUA did not Speak and THE HOLY SPIRIT did not bring them forward. These abnormal creatures were produce by DNA splicing by flesh beings! The graveyard of death we cannot fathom but HCH knows right? Gen 1:7, 9,10,14 You see YAHWEH would not know the time the moon went around the earth was equal to the time that the earth went around the sun until after the flood. YAHWEH would not have given Moses and Ezekiel wisdom to know that YAHWEH'S original month which means moon, traveled around the earth before the flood every 30 days. So he not YAHWEH only left HCH before he was born to know more then the Millerites folks in the Movement that prove how GREAT YAHWEH IS! Nope all this time we do not know about the Investigated Judgement that fell exactly on the Day of Atonement YAHWEH'S HOLY Day not the Hebrews but THE MOST HIGH! So no one is intelligent but HCH and we do not gain knowledge from others. Yet he reads the Bible prophecies and only HCH can understand that even the prophets themselves cannot understand! WOW! We all learn from others, they have gifts of THE HOLY SPIRIT. However, HCH is the only one that receive all the gifts and no one else. Now someone is talking unwise don't you think? I leave it to others to make the choice; is one man greater than YAHWEH! Blessings! PS: I have truly learn from others including from all who I made contact with on this forum and I just want to say thank you!

Very hypothetial as God is the creator and far superior to a supernova. It would be less intense to him than if you or I were to crack open a pistachio to us. He is the all powerful self existant one. He is infinite (outside of time and space) who reveals himself within the realm of the finite through the trinity. The trinity exist in a righteousness by faith relationship with each other based on the law of self sacrificing love. The only thing that can affect this is if God had some selfishness inside of him. Would that be exposed when he became a creature? If Jesus failed it would have destroyed the known universe and except for the idea of it being a tragedy we don't know how it would have affected God.

Much discussion has taken place related to the doctrine of the Trinity, SDA belief in the early days and SDA belief today. In this post I will mention some major study on this issue and hoe one can read it. In my 2nd post, I will mentions some early SDA leaders by name and the beliefs that they held. Erwin Gane has done well documented work in a MA thesis written some years ago. In may be accessed at: http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/gane-thesis/index.htm The following link is to multiple sources of value for study. http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/index.htm

Rachel: I may attempt later to explain the actual doctrine of the Trinity. It is a valid question that I will pass on for the moment. My comment was to the effect that at least some of the early leaders in the developing SDA Church misunderstood what that doctrine actually taught and therefor rightly rejected a doctrinal position that was not taught in the doctrine. One of the examples that I gave was that of a man who understood the Trinity doctrine a teaching Tritheism. Well he was correct in rejecting Tritheism. He simply did not understand that the trinity doctrine did not teach such. While I may respond later to what the Trinity doctrine actually teaches, for now, I suggest that we look at what it does not teach. The following website will provide much information as to what it does not teach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_movements_declared_heretical_by_the_Catholic_Church NOTE: I have listed the above due to the fact that it has a lot to say about the Trinity and the Godhead, as that is what we are discussing. That website also has more on other subjects, which I am not considering here.

The verse says He WILL NOT do iniquity; it doesn't say He CANNOT do iniquity. Jesus as God has always been a Being with a free will. He is a much higher order Being than I am. I have a free will and am capable of sin, Jesus has at least as much (probably much more) power of choice than we mere mortals have. Jesus CHOSE to be a gracious and merciful God. He didn't HAVE to be. He could have "uncreated" us in less than microsecond and started over. Had He wanted to, He could have said "to hell with you all" and not died for us. How many times in the OT did He turn back from the terminating what He intended to do to His Chosen people? Jesus CHOSE to be obedient - even unto death on a cross. Obedience involves a choice; and Jesus always "chose" right. But He didn't have to. If it were impossible for Him to sin, satan would have every right to call "foul". When God said He WILL NOT sin, that was foreknowledge - not predestination. There's a big difference.

The arguments get so very complicated. The Catholic "Trinity" is not the same as the SDA "trio". I'm not sure I understand either one, not clearly. I just know I believe the Bible does not teach a Trinity, or a "trio" - either one. The Bible teaches Father and Son. The Father sends His own spirit, through His Son.

I agree with Joe, when he said that Jesus had completed His assigned mission. God the Father "sent" Him to do something. He did it. It was as if Jesus said, "Mission complete" or "Job done". I do not share the almost universal belief that Jesus died as a substitute, a sort of "whipping boy", because God needed to punish someone for the violations of His law. I believe that Jesus came to recover dominion of the earth for mankind, and to cause Satan to reveal himself totally, as a murder and liar, who would even murder the completely innocent Son of God the Father, in his struggle to hang on to power, and to cause pain to God. The only way to recover dominion of the earth for mankind, was to live as the perfect man (perfectly obedient to the will of God). In doing so, Christ could claim all the promises made to Israel IF they would obey His law. He could recover the dominion that Adam lost.

To be "alive in the Spirit" means that the Spirit of God (the Father) "lives in you". The Spirit of God His Father "lived in" Christ. How many times did He say "the Father who dwells in Me" (John 14:10). Only those who are indwelt by that Spirit can be raised to eternal life, with the "spiritual body". "the spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead" Who raised Jesus from the dead? Answer: the Father Galatians 1:1 "Paul, an apostle (not sent from men, nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead)," (NAS) It is the spirit OF God the Father, flowing through Christ, that will raise the dead to immortality. "He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you." God the Father will raise the righteous dead to eternal life, because His own spirit lives in them. "his Spirit who lives in you" The word translated as the personal "who", is a Greek word that can also be translated as the non-personal "which". These few words can be understood in at least three ways. "his Spirit" could be a third divine person "who" acts as the Father's omnipresence. "his Spirit" could be the omnipresence of the Father Himself "who is above all, and through all, and in all". "his Spirit" could be the glorified Christ who "was made a life giving spirit". Hence the debate for the last couple thousand years.

Consider the Roman Catholic position & weigh it against your current understanding. God Himself said "in the Prophets" that He would come and He would save us. Isaiah 35,4 Say to the fainthearted: Take courage, and fear not: behold your God WILL bring the revenge of recompense: God himself WILL come and WILL save you.Then shall the eyes of the blind be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped.Then shall the lame man leap as a hart, and the tongue of the dumb shall be free: for waters are broken out in the desert, and streams in the wilderness Jesus said that the above Scripture was speaking Specifically of "HIM" which defaults into Jesus being "God Himself" "Now when John had heard in prison the works of Christ: sending two of his disciples he said to him: Art thou he that art to come, or look we for another? And Jesus making answer said to them: Go and relate to John what you have heard and seen. The blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead rise again, the poor have the gospel preached to them. And blessed is he that shall not be scandalized in me". Matthew 11, 2 The Apostles who saw 1st hand the Miracles of Jesus, His Execution and Resurrected affirmed Jesus was God. John 20, 28: "Thomas answered, and said unto Him: MY LORD AND MY GOD." 1 Timothy 3, 16: Great Indeed is the mystery of our religion "GOD was manifest in THE FLESH" If Jesus is God Himself what does Sacred Scripture specifically say about the possibility of God being guilty of sin? Zeph 3,4 The just Lord is in the midst thereof; he will NOT do iniquity: every morning doth he bring his judgment to light, he faileth not; but the unjust knoweth no shame 2nd Chron 19,7 Wherefore now let the fear of the Lord be upon you; take heed and do it: for there is NO iniquity with the Lord our God We know God doesn't "change" . "Remember your prelates who have spoken the word of God to you; whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation, Jesus Christ, yesterday, and to day; and the same for ever. Be not led away with various and strange doctrines. For it is best that the heart be established with grace, not with meats; which have not profited those that walk in them." These above Scriptures are merely representative of other additioal Scriptures that remove the possibility of God sinning from the realm of possibility. Jesus was EXPLICIT with the chronological order of events that he had to go through - because the Scriptures "HAD TO BE" ( not should be ) fulfilled. Luke 24,22 Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre; And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive. And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not. Then he said unto them, O fools, AND slow of heart to believe ALL that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. Matthew 16,21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, AND suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, AND be killed, AND be raised again the third day. Mark 8,31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man MUST suffer many things, AND be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, AND scribes, AND be killed, AND after three days rise again Mark 9,31 For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day This is a high level overview of what I believe ( or better said understand to be ) are some elements of acceptable Catholic reasons why we don't believe that Jesus "could have sinned & lost His salvation". These are some of the reasons the Creed Documents of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches say what they do. This is just to give you a better understanding of where I'm coming from as we dig deeper into this subject.

50 years as a vegan/vegetarian convinced me that B12 should be supplemented in a vegan diet. Based on my own experience and that of a few other acquaintances, a person can go about 5-6 years on a vegan diet without supplements before developing symptoms such as peripheral neuropathy and/or anemia. I include brewer's yeast in my diet. Not sure about the condition of my bones but nothing broken so far. Medical science, when it comes to diet, is improving in the States and other Western countries but it is still pathetic i.e., misleading, deceptive, incompetent, ignorant . Pritikin formulated his program based on research in existing medical literature in the 60s/70s. The health program recorded in EGW's writings, just like her knowledge of the evil of tobacco was, is and will remain state of the art. Medical science is now "enlightening" us regarding homosexuality, yet EGW correctly denounced secret vice as a soul destructive evil.

Something different which is explained in both the chapters that I recommended from Sanctuary and the Atonement as well as from the works of A. Graham Maxwell.

Gustave: I really appreciate much of what you say and you do stretch my thinking and I'm glad that you are here. I STRONGLY disagree with you when you say that Mrs. White's view, especially her view that Jesus could have sinned and that God took a very real risk is incompatible with the trinity. I'm sorry but for her to have this view is based on trinity. She may not have seen it as clear earlier in her ministry as later, but it is there. When we get information we filter it through our values filter and our knowledge filter. I understand that from your background that you are unable to see how this fits with the trinity. May I please encourage you to read together the chapters of Mrs. White: The origin of evil, Why was sin permitted, Gethsemane and her greatest writing the chapter "It is Finished". May I also invite you to get the chapters from the original, unabridged printing of "Sanctuary and the Atonement" and read the chapters "The Mighty Opposites: The Atonement in the writings of Ellen G. White" parts 1 and 2 and "We must all appear: the investigative judgement in the writings of Ellen G. White." These chapters include the growth into the trinity in the Seventh-day Adventist church and how central the trinity became in her writings. I'd like to see if I can get you a copy of a DVD on the Great Controversy from the South Lancaster MA village church. It also deals with the way Mrs. White's great controversy theme is centered on the trinity. This is by a Harvard University PhD. candidate who has studied this. And may I remind you that there are different views that fit under the general umbrella that is labeled "Trinitarian" For some non=Adventist sources for the view of trinity that Mrs. White's view developed into may I recommend some work by Methodist Archaeologist Dr. Jim Fleming; Acts: New Discoveries of the Early Church. http://www.biblicalresources.net/product.cfm?product=37 Biblical Imagery in the Prophets and Jesus http://www.biblicalresources.net/product.cfm?product=32 And from a bit of a different perspective from the above resources I'd also like to recommend to you the two books by A. Graham Maxwell titled "Can God be Trusted" and "Servants or friends"

The following are names of some early SDA leaders and their possible views on the Trinity: J B Frisbie (1816-1882) Possible (?) Docetism. He taught that God had body parts. As to him, Gustave is correct in what he has said. Frisbie understood the doctrine of the Trinity to teach that God was a spirit only and he rejected that. Joseph Bates (1791-1872) His understanding of the Trinity was faulty (Modalistic Monarchianism). He rejected a version of the Trinity that is not an accepted verson. He condemned what had already been condemned. John Loughborough (1832-1924) He rejected the doctrine of the Trinity, as he thought it taught theat there were three Gods (Tritheism). J. M. Stephenson: He taught that Christ was a created being, based upon what he said was the Biblical evidence. John H. Kellogg: HIs actual views are in debate. Some have said that he was "Pantheistic." Others have argued against this. In any case, this short space is not enough to properly present his view. What I find of interest is that some of the Anti-Trinitarian views expressed by our early leaders was due to a misunderstanding of the actual doctrine of the Trinity. I suspect that might be true today, to include, in part, some who post here. NOTE: My source for the above is below, but the wording is mine. Biblical & Theological Studies on the Trinity, pages 165 - 217, with major emphasis to pages 176 - 179.

He strengthened me ✨ Dan 10:18 Then there came again and touched me one like the appearance of a man, and he strengthened me,

When Jesus said "it is finished" on the cross do you understand He was referencing His current status, i.e. He was all washed up & finished? I'm not being sarcastic here, I've heard many SDA's say that's what Jesus meant and they appeal to Jesus' prior words about 'why God had forsaken Him', attributing those words to their assertion that Jesus was depressed and heart broken that the Father "had turned His back to Him" because He [Jesus] was so heavily laden with the sins of humanity the Father, in disgust looked away. Are you coming from this perspective OR do you believe something else was going on when Jesus said it was finished?

Agreed, God can do anything (except not be or cease to be God). However, Romans 8,11 is speaking of spirit in a different context than does, Hebrews 12, 22 - 24 Acts 7, 59 Acts 23, 8 Acts 23,9 Which affirm aside from Angels and Evil Spirits there exist a spirit inside of a person that departs at the death of the body. If one concedes that Paul refers the people alive on earth that they are actually being (at that time) joined with a "festive gathering" in heaven where present are Father, Son, Holy Ghost, countless angels and "the spirits of just men who have been made perfect". If one can concede that the next logical step to take would be to confirm that they [the spirits of people who had been made perfect] are conscious because they are in the immediate proximity of God & the Angels [who are conscious]. This is just my take on it.

You have to be kidding me? First God gave those instructions to Noah, way before there was a nation of Israel!!!!! Secondly nowhere in the NT does Jesus say its now OK to eat unclean food.

I appreciate Gustave He is a Roman Catholic Apologisr who has specialized in Adnentism on a wider basis than the SDA Church. He is welcome here.

Here's how I see it: The pre-incarnate Christ always had the power to "put on flesh" (or at least the illusion of flesh). He is God - He has the power to do whatever He wishes. In His incarnation, He received the DNA for His physical body from Mary; and His "God" DNA from the Father. He was 100% human and 100% divine. Don't ask me how that works - I don't have a clue. When Jesus died, I believe He was just as dead as anyone else. Romans 8:11 talks about believers being alive in the Spirit as well: "And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you." When he rose from the dead, He had a glorified body - the same kind we will have when we are resurrected. I believe He will be in that glorified immortal body when He returns to earth to set up His Kingdom.

5 Things You Didn't Know About The Medal of Honor On July 12, 1862, Congress authorized the Medal of Honor to award members of the armed services who had committed acts of courage. Here are 5 things you didn't know about this prestigious medal presented in the name of the U.S. Congress. The Youngest Winner of the Medal of Honor Was 11 Willie Johnston was a drummer boy for the Union Army, serving in the 3rd Vermont Infantry during the Civil War, along with his father. He was the youngest to be awarded the medal at age 13 after he held onto his drum during the Seven Days Battles as others dropped their weapons and fled. Johnston later worked in Baltimore as a nurse and then entered the Veteran Reserve Corps, where he was the band’s drum major. ps:So is it 11 or 13?? (I looked it up and 13 is correct not 11) Only One Woman Was Ever Awarded this Medal Mary Edwards Walker was a U.S. Army surgeon who was the only woman awarded a Medal of Honor for her actions during the Civil War in treating the wounded. Crossing over Confederate lines to treat wounded civilians, she was held by the rebels as a prisoner of war until she was ultimately exchanged. The Army took away her Medal of Honor in 1917. However, it was restored after 60 years by President Jimmy Carter. Medal of Honor Recipients Receive a Few Extra Benefits While having a medal hung around your neck by the president is an enormous honor, other perks come with it. Those awarded a Medal of Honor can be interred at Arlington National Cemetery, and if they are enlisted, they receive an additional uniform bonus. Added to their earned military benefits, they receive more than $1,300 in additional monies each month as well as a 10 percent increase in their retirement pay. Only One Coast Guard Member Has Received the Medal of Honor The Coast Guard transported Marines to battle during World War II, although they patrol the shores of America today. The only member of the Coast Guard to be awarded a Medal of Honor was Douglas Munro, a Signalman 1st Class, who exhibited extreme heroism during the Battle of Guadalcanal. By using his boat to shield others from the Japanese at the beach, he saved many Marines but was shot and killed, receiving the medal posthumously. President Teddy Roosevelt Was Awarded the Medal of Honor Roosevelt is the only U.S. president to be awarded the Medal of Honor, and it stems from his actions during the Spanish-American War. At the time the war broke out, Roosevelt was serving as the Assistant Secretary of the Navy. In 1916, he was passed over by the nominating committee and finally received his Medal of Honor in 2001 from President Bill Clinton.

I paused in the study to review the material that I have been sharing. This post from GM that I quote below did not get a response from me at the time, but it is so erroneous that it should have raised concern by someone. Ignorance was GM's choice of words not mine. The evidence published widely is man's opinion rather than the testimony of EGW. In the post to which he was replying it was proved that 1843 and 1844 were both the ACTUAL DATES. The same evidence that proved 1844 was the evidence that had proved 1843. The adjustment that is required proves that 1843 was the date that began the TARRYING TIME and 1844 was the date that marked the end of the tarrying time. But the SDA tendency that GM is actually advocating is to focus on 1844 (perhaps that is because it downplays that the early pioneers got prophecy wrong twice). Anyone glancing at the facts would be tempted to make that assumption. But BOTH dates were right. The event was wrong. When the event was properly understood the tarrying time comes into focus. The unfortunate consequence of ignoring and downplaying 1843 is to hide the fact that the 2300-year prophecy ended twice in long time (a day for a year). The 2300-years ended in 1843 when the tarrying time began. The 2300-years ended in 1844 when the tarrying time ended. And Christ stood for His people in 1844 when the 2300 years ended to confess their names before God and His angels. Thus, the entire prophecy in 11th chapter of Daniel was fulfilled. It began with the three kings in Persia (11:2) that issued their decrees (Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes) and it ended 12:1 when Michael stood to confess His people in 1844. (remember that chapters and verses were not added by Daniel, but by "scholars" who came much later.) Because the 2300-year prophecy had a dual fulfillment (one start date with 2 end dates...1843 & 1844), the 2300 years were fulfilled twice as they ran concurrently. That powerful fact shows that Christ standing for His people in 1844 at the end of the 2300 years was a partial fulfillment of prophecy (Daniel 12:1), with a dual fulfillment indicated. In the future, Christ is to stand again when it is declared "It is done." It is unfortunate that GM continues to undermine a sound understanding of Bible prophecy. It is even more unfortunate that folks approve of his misrepresentations.