Leaderboard

Welcome back! You have been missed here.

Praying for you daily, Gregory! ?

Surgery went better than we thought it might go. 3-pins in finger. Major issue remains, swelling & its potential side effect which includes infection.

Proselytism Vs Evangelism I would be interested to read/discuss other opinions and experiences, with the two terms used in the title of this topic. Are both evangelism & prosyletism OK under certain circumstances, or no? Its a subject I have been researching for a while now, and I thought that some here might be interested to further explore this too. Earlier today, I read an article about the current Pope, and it seemed that the article was decrying a criticism that the Pope had made about what he called "proselytism." According to the article; the Pope allegedly stated that "proselytism" takes away our "freedom" and that "evangelism" is by God, as a "witness," to others. Many churches today struggle with their sinking numbers. Could this be related to confusion between being a "witness," or being a proselytising "expert?" I have not heard very many individuals or churches make the distinction such an affronted manner as what it appears the Pope has done. How do we (by scripture) make a distinction between "witnessing" and "proselytism?" Or, do we even need to? When we look at HOW Adventism does their "evangelism," do we sport it about online as "trophy baptisms," or is it "wrong" to view this as "prosyletism?" How do we decide which is "witnessing/evengelism," and which is "proselytism?" The Bible does say that "ye are my witnesses," (Isa 43:12), so in the light of "modern culture" how do we make a distinction between these two terms? Or, do we need to? More succinctly, in Acts 11:19-20, are we looking at "witnessing" (evangelism), or are we looking at some of the disciples caught up in "proselytizing?" This might turn into an "Adventist Hot Potato."

The following article provides on view as to the efforts of the General Conference to control lower level organizations. https://atoday.org/roll-over-and-play-dead-general-conference-to-the-conferences/ NOTE: As a personal opinion, I believe that the above is an example of a rejection of the administrative advice that Ellen White gave the developing SDA denomination. To be clear: I believe that if Ellen White were alive today, her voice would be raised to call for a rejection of the attempts that some are making to centralize authority in this denomination.

Gregory will be going into surgery this coming Thursday for injuries he recently (and briefly spoke about). This was not an insignificant accident or insignificant injuries but Gregory was upbeat and openly acknowledged he feels Blessed because this could have been MUCH, MUCH worse than it was. He spent quite a bit of time at the hospital today getting ready for Thursday. He asked me to save him the pain of pecking one key at a time & I was absolutely honored to do this for him.

Welcome back!

"Let them put a clean turban on his head." (Zech 3:5, NKJV)

When you mentioned eastern Canada, my mind went right to Southern & Northern New England where the Millerites first started! So I would imagine that it spread up from there! Not really having any proof though, I can only guess?

I'd say that to me it means that right now we have the freedom to witness for Christ! But at some point we will not have that opportunity any longer! Right now in this country and a few others people can go to church, but there are many countries that are starting to close that door for Christians to worship, preach, etc.!! That's my take of that passage!

We agree that they have no gender which is what asexual means. I do not understand your next paragraph because it does not have substance. If the Flesh being almost were wiped out, then you stated; "the asexual fallen angels would have to incarnate into human flesh - as adults (not babies), in order to be of the same "kind". In this creation "kind" can reproduce only "after their kind." Partly, I agree with the asexual and kind reproduce the same kind. That was excellent! But the incarnate into human flesh angels are not capable of doing because they were created. THE HOLY SPIRIT place THE SON in Mary's womb but the Bible said that YAHWEH THE FATHER prepared a body for HIS SON. Heb 10:5 THESE THREE ALMIGHTY BEINGS all work together and THEY only can created. I have a problem with the Catholic word incarnate period. FATHER prepared the body for THE SON and THE HOLY SPIRIT placed it in the womb! Angels do had that power or we would be in a worst mess then we are now and probably we would be completely destroyed along with the angels much earlier! Blessings and Happy Sabbath!

Joe: Let's look at the common accepted version Bible, that I have use on some occasion. It is the Contemporary English Version of the Bible. I use at various times when the meanings of the English language is more simplified. Now when you quoted a word that does not simplified not only the English language but is not at all a part of the ancient Hebrew language at all. Supernatural (adj.) Early 15c. "of or given by God," from Medieval Latin supernaturalis "above or beyond nature, divine," from Latin super "above" (see super-) + natura "nature" (see nature (n.)). Originally with more of a religious sense, "of or given by God, divine; heavenly;" association with ghosts, etc., has predominated since 19c. Supernatural (Noun) 1729, "a supernatural being," from supernatural (adj.). From 1830 as "that which is above or beyond the established course of nature." Super-word-forming element meaning "above, over, beyond," from Latin super (adverb and preposition) "above, over, on the top (of), beyond, besides, in addition to," from *(s)uper-, variant form of PIE root *uper "over." In English words from Old French, it appears as sur-. The primary sense seems to have shifted over time from usually meaning "beyond" to usually meaning "very much," which can be contradictory. E.g. supersexual, which is attested from 1895 as "transcending sexuality," from 1968 as "very sexual." Nature (n.) Late 13c., "restorative powers of the body, bodily processes; powers of growth;" from Old French nature "nature, being, principle of life; character, essence," from Latin natura "course of things; natural character, constitution, quality; the universe," literally "birth," from natus "born," past participle of nasci "to be born," from PIE root *gene- "give birth, beget." Etymology Online Dictionary Joe; the word supernatural was formed as indicated during the middle ages. Remember I also told you that these people became Catholic but kept their pagan beliefs. Look at supernatural it is a believe in their god and ghost. That’s even why because THE HOLY SPIRIT is A SPIRITUAL BEING also THE FATHER and THE SON. The word ghost was attached to THE HOLY SPIRIT and then here comes the Hindu similarity concept of a three persons one body trinity being. Why because fallen angels want to distort the truth in every way that they can from the true creation that is clearly seen; Paul said. Now if look at the word nature it deals with life, but life must give birth or beget. Where do you read that angels give birth anywhere? Only this particular Scripture that clearly states that YAHWEH sorry that HE made flesh, did not say anything about angels only to destroy flesh! You first want to state the Hebrew word “bên,” in which I have said it means the following: From H1129; a son (as a builder of the family name), in the widest sense (of literal and figurative relationship, including grandson, subject, nation, quality or condition, etc., (like H1, H251, etc.): - + afflicted, age, [Ahoh-] [Ammon-] [Hachmon-] [Lev-]ite, [anoint-]ed one, appointed to, (+) arrow, [Assyr-] [Babylon-] [Egypt-] [Grec-]ian, one born, bough, branch, breed, + (young) bullock, + (young) calf, X came up in, child, colt, X common, X corn, daughter, X of first, + firstborn, foal, + very fruitful, + postage, X in, + kid, + lamb, (+) man, meet, + mighty, + nephew, old, (+) people, + rebel, + robber, X servant born, X soldier, son, + spark, + steward, + stranger, X surely, them of, + tumultuous one, + valiant[-est], whelp, worthy, young (one), youth. Bânâh (H1129): A primitive root; to build (literally and figuratively): - (begin to) build (-er), obtain children, make, repair, set (up), X surely. Strong Hebrew Dictionary When the Hebrew word is given one thing Strong does is present the root word which is extremely important. As I have explained to you earlier the Hebrew words are consistent in their meaning and thought. Even though Paul could speak many different languages when he wrote to the Hebrews, he portrayed in this book what they should have known from the beginning. He told them that the prophet in ancient times spoke to their fathers through the prophets. They knew in Gen Chapter 2:1 that this verse meant YAHWEH’S SON had completed the Universe and the earth was the very last world created and made and HE was finish! They also knew that the other worlds had created beings and Moses proved that clearly. Moses made it clear that when the sons of YAHWEH can to present themselves before THE FATHER, the Adams at one time came also! We do not know how long our fore parents lived in the Garden of Eden before they sin, and Moses knew the true story after sin. Moses knew that only these unfallen beings would come together to worship YAHWEH and to give a report about their individual world. Satan disguised himself and tried to sneak into Heaven, but YAHSHUA stopped him! The point is these unfallen beings also generated children and were made like us in the IMAGE and LIKENESS of THE ALMIGHTY ONES! Angels do not regenerate or produce and the Paul say only to the Hebrews who knew that no time did THE FATHER ever call an angel his son. It is not in the meaning and YAHSHUA said angels do not marry! Marriage is for the production of children and this is stated clearly even in the English language “male,” and “female,” which mean their production organs! Hebraic thought differs from our own process of thinking in that the Hebrews were concrete thinkers in contrast to our own abstract way of thinking. Concrete thought relates all words, concepts and ideas to something that can be sensed by the five senses. At times you are going to come across a word in this translation that seems to make absolutely no sense. This is mostly due to the differences between our modern Greco-Roman perspective of thought and the ancient Hebrew’s perspective of thought. Also keep in mind that each Hebrew word is translated exactly the same way every time, so there will be instances when the word seems out of context. What you will need to do is study that word and the context which it is used in, so you can better understand its Hebraic meaning. The Ancient Hebrew Language By Jeff A. Benner The Nephilim were on the earth at that time (and also immediately afterward), when those divine beings were having sexual relations with those human women, who gave birth to children for them. These children became the heroes and legendary figures of ancient times.(ISV) Now Joe if this does not sound like ancient Greek and Latin mythology, truly I do not know what does! Why did YAHWEH allow the Adams to be tested? For their loyalty because this world was created after Satan and 1/3 of the angels had sinned. The other worlds remain loyal but they knew Satan before he fail, the Adams didn’t but they were made perfect just like the beings on the other worlds. They knew about Satan and we want to make their failure something pitiful. They chose to listen to the serpent, both Adams were at the tree and they both felt that YAHWEH was keeping them from being equal with THEM. The same exact problem perfect angels felt in Heaven. They chose along with Satan to rebel. Finally, how do you know even if they are male because that word is English, and it means: Of or denoting the sex that produces small, typically motile gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring. From Oxford Dictionary “Zâkâr,” states it means the same for animals and men sex organs. Now, you have read in the Bible of only two Cherubim Lucifer, and Gabriel and we know 1/3 fail along with Lucifer. Now the Hebrew word “gabrı̂y'EL and hêylêl ” need to be discuss. GabriyEL in Dan 8:15 actually does not used the Hebrew word (adam), instead what is used is the Hebrew word H1397 “geber,” and here Strong like all men do, they think they are above the female when they both were call Adam! This word means person and does not indicate male or female. Neither does “hêylêl, ” Lucifer that Strong actually states it stands for morning star and Isa. 14:12 does say "son of the morning," and not ELOHIYM! Now wouldn’t you think he would be call HIS son here. No because Isaiah new exactly what Moses and Paul knew that angels were morning stars with their brightness and son’s of ELOHIYM were all beings on all the worlds that were created in THEIR IMAGE and LIKENESS who could procreate! Blessings and Happy Sabbath!

I can understand his confusion. I get confused about the church sometimes myself. I currently belong to a very small, rather unconventional SDA congregation. We have no pastor, no Board, no elders, deacons, or deaconesses. The men take turns on Sabbath bringing the message, and the women take turns making a full nutritious breakfast for the congregation. Some of us take turns leading out is music. We have service at linen-covered tables instead of pews. We meet in a banquet room at the local Comedy Club on Sabbath mornings; so the whole restaurant is witness to our service. (we call it a funny place to go to church) Sometimes restaurant employees or patrons join us for part of the service. It's great! We have found that we don't "need" all the bureaucratic overhead to be a unified, cohesive and safe congregation. I have also been a member of a large congregation of very conservative (maybe "taliban" is a better term) SDA's where everyone watched everyone else and perfectly towed the Conference line. Women who wore even a little pin on their jackets or wore slacks to church could not serve as greeters or deaconesses. Men who didn't wear suits could not serve as elders or deacons. Quotes from the SoP outnumbered quotes from scripture by about 5 to 1. A teenage girl who got pregnant was dragged through a public "church trial" and publicly disfellowshipped much to the disgrace of her whole family. That family never came back to church. I myself was on the verge of being disfellowshipped because of my association with "rebellious" independent ministries. I left the church because I was not going to be bullied by the denomination. In looking for another church, I found none. I reluctantly and covertly started going back to the SDA church because of the truth being preached there. After a few years, I rejoined the church; but as a member of the conference church rather a than a specific congregation. I may dislike the ever-increasingly top-heavy bureaucracy and centralization taking place in the denomination; but I cannot turn my back on the ever unfolding truths found in what we as SDA's believe. So I might be tempted to leave the denomination; but I don't think I could ever leave the spiritual truths it teaches or the beautiful people in the church. So I stay. I sense a little cognitive dissonance in my statement above; but I'm okay with that.

I would agree, the article is "relevant." But as to the specifics of said relevance, I have a feeling that we are likely miles apart. (which isnt "wrong"), I see you chose to focus more narrowly on this "centralizing power" drama that some are generating online, others too, are following...My comment had nothing to do with did I "like" the article or not. It was more an expression of surprise, because the title specifically said "10 reasons why I stay in the church; yet the first thing out of the author's mouth is a list of conspiracy type allegations, splayed in rhetorical fashion; with an anecdotal approach to the "10 reasons." So to me, when I read the article; all I saw, or, most of what I thought I was seeing, simply didnt add up. I think that the "centralizing power" thing has been far-fetched, and way over the top. Even though I was in church "leadership" I experienced mostly drama-ship; (not by the leaders) and I still feel that the "centralizing of power" thing is the "click-bait" of modernity's Big Religion, and mostly by ones who are themselves interested in taking the very "control" they criticize in their rhetorics. THAT certainly doesnt make said criticism "valid," but it does come across as quite unproven. The author of the article in question, to me, gave a confusing message.

I "liked" the article because it is relevant. Actually, it is a disturbing article. As I read the NT, I don't think Christ ever intended the church to be "centralized". I'm sure church leadership wants us to believe they want centralization under the auspices of "unity"; but what they really want is conformity and uniformity. I read an article in the news today (and watched a 2-hour documentary) on the fastest growing Christian Church in the world. They have no membership rolls, no buildings, no assets, no organization, no bishops, no elders. Just disciples. What church is this? It is the underground church in Iran. Average people, are coming in droves; and the vast majority of organizers are women. People interviewed in the documentary said the greatest evangelists for the church in Iran are the mullahs and ayatollahs. Through their strict and savage application of the Q'ran, the average Iranian sees what an evil god they serve; and they turn to Jesus. They say their secret is discipling people for conversion, rather than the traditional Western church method of converting people to disciple. They also say that the intense persecution in Iran forces them to lean entirely on God for protection and safety - indeed their very lives. Having to live your faith under persecution really makes them feel alive rather than fearful. Everyone is directed by the Spirit rather than a Pope or General Conference President (it's getting hard to tell the difference). "Sheep Among Wolves": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SAPOLKF59U

well, the opening paragraph sets a miserable tone of stigma and onery presumption: I only have one reason to want to stay an Adventist: Its the church that taught me about Jesus, and how I could actually have a personal relationship with Him, and actually have something to tell people that I have 100% and personally experienced. (1 John 1:1-3, )

Praying for a very speedy recovery and a big thanks to the Big Guy upstairs it wasn't worse.

Of interest would be how the church in Canada has progressed/regressed differently than the rest of the church. Given that a couple of the movements in the church in the US came out of Australia, was Canada affected as much as the US? How has Canada as part of the NAD been softened in any events in the Canadian churches?

Who gave Himself ✨ Titus 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

5 Things We Learned From The Warren Commission On September 27, 1964, the Warren Commission issued the final controversial report from its investigation into the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Here are 5 things reported by the commission regarding the president’s assassination on that fateful day in Dallas... The Commission Concluded that More Than One Shot Was Fired It was agreed that three shots were aimed at the presidential motorcade, but the commission reached no conclusion on which ones struck the president. Governor Connally, who was struck by one of the bullets, believed that the first shot hit the president in the neck and the third shot caused the president’s head wound. Connally believed he himself had been struck by the second bullet. Lee Harvey Oswald, the Assassin, Acted Alone It was reported by the Commission that no evidence was found of anyone assisting Lee Harvey Oswald in the plot to kill the president. The report indicated that no evidence existed that Oswald was a foreign agent, and he had not been encouraged or persuaded by a foreign government. However, several government agencies kept files on Oswald that carried questionable activities committed by him, including correspondence with Russia and some of his domestic activities, but this information was downplayed to the members of the Warren Commission. Neither Oswald nor Ruby Was Involved in a Conspiracy The commission reported that it had discovered no evidence implicating either Oswald or nightclub owner Jack Ruby in any type of conspiracy to kill the president. The report stated that if such evidence existed, it had not been brought to the attention of the Commission. However, information related to Oswald’s trip to Cuba had been blocked by Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Earl Warren, and evidence by the FBI and CIA was downplayed and not given to the Commission. There Was no Relationship Between Oswald and Ruby No relationship, either indirect or direct, was found by the Commission with regard to Oswald and Ruby. The Commission concluded that there was no evidence that Ruby had an accomplice in killing Oswald in the basement of the Dallas police headquarters. However, records released by the FBI state that an informant on the day of the assassination said that Ruby called him, asking him if he wanted to “see the fireworks” and that both of them were at the corner across from the book depository when the assassination occurred. Group Involvement With the Assassination Dismissed A number of conspiracy theories arose that might have been connected with the assassination, including different governments, mobsters, and right-wing supporters. These theories were dismissed by the Commission. In a 1979 report issued by the House Select Committee on Assassinations, the investigation concluded that it was probably a conspiracy that led to the president’s death. However, after ruling out the Mob, Soviet and Cuban governments and others, it did not rule out that individuals within groups might have been involved.

Return unto Me ↪️ Isa 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. ?

I've been following Michael for years now. I fear he's more often right than wrong.