Leaderboard

Some of the old timers here, like me, can remember a time when their grandparents were alive. Mine lived with our family when I was about 6-10 years old for my mother's side, and from around 19-23 for my father's side. My mother's parents were amazing by today's standard. He was a former supervisor at GM, throughout the great depression. He taught me things and was very smart. His vocabulary was extensive. Using words I never heard of. He was born around 1890 I believe. He was alert right up to his death in his 80's. I never saw him drink or smoke. My fathers, father, was interested in baseball. Every week he would receive a small publication of the game from the previous weeks. He knew the statistics of every player. His children would test him, and he always had the answer. He knew the "at bats", RBI's, everything. On hundreds of players. This was in the 60's and 70's. This was before television. He lived to be 94. Smoked occasional cigars until in his eighty's. I never saw him drink. I don't remember any of them taking any medicine. There was no Alzheimer's then. But today, we have videos converted from film, of life in the 1960's and 1970's . There are not many candid interviews of ordinary people back then, but enough that we can understand the culture. Ordinary people from this time were smarter and more knowledgeable than people in their age group today. Few ordinary people went to college in the 60's and 70's . Yet they had a great understanding of social dynamic, life skills and very different values. People were thin back then. The people have changed so much in my lifetime. They have changed so much in the last 50 years. There is even a big change in the last 10 years.

In July 2025, a General Conference Session will be held in which a person will be elected to serve the next five years a President of the General Conference. Spectrum Magazine has begun a series of articles in which Reinder Bruinsma will discuss the qualification, or lack of them, of various people who might be elected. In this series, he begins by discussing the potential re-election of the current President, Ted Wilson. https://spectrummagazine.org/views/analysis/gc-presidential-candidates-ted-wilson/

Have you ever wondered how Seventh-day Adventists consider Easter. Well, I invite your to attend/view the Easter services (April 18, 2025) at the Gracepoint SDA Church. Their services are televised live and posted on the Internet for viewing at your pleasure later. The following link will inform you as to their services and provide a link to view the service live. All people are welcomed at their services. The main worship service begins at 11:10 AM. Individual classes, like the Sunday School you may be used to, precede the main worship service. You would be welcomed at any of those services. NOTE: This service is on Saturday morning, not on Sunday. https://graceisthepoint.org/ Gracepoint SDA Chur Wech 3500 Sunset Blvd. Rocklin, CA 95677 916-624-4877

Beautiful!

The following is a second comment that I have posted in respons to the Slpectrum article>

I have posted the following comment to the article on Ted Wilson:

I fail to understand your comment above. My comment was focused on what in Adventism is commonly called the Investigative Judgment, which is thought to be happening currently, and not prior to the time when Satin was caste out of heven.

* The word of God is always true. Sometime, it is partial and incomplete. In addition, we may not correctly understand it. * God used Ellen White in the development of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination. * God used Ellene White to urge people to turn to what we commonly call the Bible as the source of ultimate authority as to what God wanted us to know. * Ellen White, in her humanity was imperfect. Her spirituality grew, and changed, over the years of her life. She probably never fully understood what God was communicating to her. * It is clear to me that that modern Adventists of today, often misunderstand what she said, and often mis-use her writings. * Her writings were often sensitive to the time, culture and the circumstances of the person to whom she was writing. With that in mind, one cannot always apply what she said to one person in that same manner to someone today. None of this detracts from her leadership and the value of her ministry to us in our development.

What if: * We have nothing to fear related to the judgment, as our salvation is assured, and we may trust in that? * The judgment is actually related to God, and His justice in granting we sinners salvation? * In this judgment, so to speak, Saten says Ralph is a sinner, you have the record, and you cannot fairly grant salvation to Ralph, and condemn me. * God says yes, here is the record. through the ministry of the Holy Spirit, and the ministry of Christ, all sin has been removed from Ralph. He is free from rebellion and rebellion will never rise again in Ralph. * Therefore, I am fair in granting eternal life to Ralph and to admit him into that life in close association with me/

Jesus Himself said that everything said about Him in the Law & the Prophets (The Old Testament) "HAD TO BE FULFILLED" Luke 22, 37 / Luke 24, 44 & many other places & all those things said about Jesus exclude the possibility of failure - this isn't my taking indecent liberty with those texts - the texts explicitly say this in the most blunt terms available in language. In addition to the mass of Old Testament Scripture which rebuts the argument of a hypothetical case of Jesus sinning is the teaching of the New Testament itself - what the Gospel is and what the primary AKA most important truth of the Gospel is. 1st Corinthians 15: Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: What St. Paul is here saying is that Jesus died for our sins AND THAT HIS DEATH WAS, ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES (aka -absolutely was going to / would happen and did happen). Many, if not most Christians, when asked what the Gospel is, will readily say 'Jesus died for our sins' but omit by ignorance that this act was "according to the Scriptures" - that there was zero possibility of any of it not happening. I shouldn't have to remind anyone what instructions Paul left for Christians when someone tried to share with them a gospel which differed from the one he preached - affirming Jesus could have sinned is a significantly different gospel. This is why what St. Paul said in 1st Corinthians is embedded in the Nicene Creed word for word & why its affirmed at each and every Mass. The Eastern Orthodox Church says the Nicene at every Divine Liturgy - it really is of 1st importance according to the Bible. I'd say its important to note that the primary reason for holding the Council of Nicaea was to combat Arianism - and Arius was adamant that Christ COULD HAVE SINNED AND LOST HIS SALVATION. It's right there in the Canons. I wanted to dig into the question phkrause asked of me about why would God would have allowed Jesus to be tempted if Jesus could not sin? The answer to this is very simple - because Scripture is explicit that Jesus couldn't sin and this sinlessness was one of the things said about The Christ, it's right in there with the virgin birth, being of the line of David, being called out of Egypt, raising the dead, healing the sick and making the deaf hear and lame walk. The Christ had to fulfill all of those things (and all the others) - had Jesus failed on 1 thing it would have simply meant HE WASN'T THE CHRIST to begin with. Imagine having a Doctrine where a hypothetical situation existed that it was possible that The Christ would have been called out of China instead of Egypt or perhaps a hypothetical of Christ being born of a Roman or Greek prostitute who had slept with thousands of men. Imagine claiming that if when Jesus was walking between towns if it wasn't possible for Him to be killed and eaten by a bear or lion, maybe be bitten by a cobra and being killed than Jesus' ministry would be a farce and a mockery - does this pass the logic test? Of course not. There are literally 160 plus explicit references of the impossibility of Jesus sinning in the Scriptures - if SDA's are Sola Scriptura, they must accept this as a Biblical fact.

The Clear Word is a translation of the Bible that was intended to be read to children in a language that they would understand. It is a translation by a Seventh-day Adventist scholar. In no way did he intend for it to become a SDA Bible. However, the SDA publishers gave it the title: The Clear Word Bible. The translator was greatly offended by that, and he required that future printings have the word "Bible" removed, and solely listed as The Clear Word, with the word, Bible removed. Bible translators classify Bibles into either two or three types: * Formal translations are intended for preaching and scholarly study. They give priority to being faithful to the original text and the language in which it was written. * Dynamic translations are intended as devotional readings. They give a priority to communicating the meaning of the original language to the language in which the Bible is translated. * a Paraphrase, is sometimes a part of the Dynamic translation, and sometimes is considered to be a separate category. It is much freer in sticking to the original text. It is much more subject to the translator's idea as to what the writer intended. The Clear Word is not a Formal translation and should not be used for either study, doctrinal preaching, or doctrinal understanding. It falls into the Paraphrase category. It has a place when used with children and people with limited English language skills. But, in no way should it be considered a SDA Bible.

Acts 2, verses 30-31 Luke states (in the KJV) that David was speaking of Christ NRSVCE: Foreseeing this, David spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, saying... The Voice: Here’s what David was seeing in advance; here’s what David was talking about—the Anointed One would be resurrected... Clear Word SDA Bible: he was not only a King but also a prophet. So he knew what God had promised to do and that God had confirmed it by an oath. The promise God made was that one of David's descendants would come and take the throne and occupy it forever. This King would be the Messiah who would come, die and be raised from the dead; He would not stay in the grave, either would decay touch his body". Note how the CWB phrases it: "one of David's descendants would come" & "This King WOULD BE the Messiah"..... As in would be if He didn't sin & loose His salvation. Christ is described in Scripture as the Lamb slain from the foundations of the world, God the Son was eternally the Christ - He is never spoken of as "would be" - as if He needed to meet qualifications prior to being able to use the title. The transitive property in Acts 2, 30-31 is definitely Christ. I've never looked this text up in the Clear Word Bible before but I'm glad that I did.

For the same reason that every other prophecy Christ fulfilled is detailed in the Gospels - from being born from a virgin to being called out of Egypt. Scripture said The Christ had to be blameless, without fault and perfectly holy - what better way to demonstrate that than have the Holy Spirit drive Jesus into the wild to be tempted by the father and founder of lies himself? Jesus was forthright when He said that His Words would never pass away Matthew 24, 35 - Apostolic Christianity really banked on Jesus' words and literally took Him at His word when He said things such as these: Matthew 7, 22 - Many will say to me on that day. Matthew 19, 28 - Promises to His Apostles Matthew 24, 30 - Jesus will come in the clouds Matthew 25, 31 - When the Son of Man comes in His glory & scores upon scores of other words from Jesus about what will happen - all of which would have been a mockery if He had sinned, lost His salvation and been eternally smitten by Father God for messing up. When Jesus says what He did in Matthew 24, 35 this would have been a jaw dropping thing for a devout Jew to hear - they would have immediately recalled Isaiah 55, 11 which unequivocally says that God's word does not return to Him void and here Jesus is saying He is God Almighty. The other thing here that should be mentioned about Jesus' words NOT passing away are the words He spoke prior to His being tempted by or of Lucifer in john 14, 30. Jesus told His Apostles that they were not to worry because Lucifer had NOTHING in Him. If Jesus' words will not return void what does this mean in the hypothetical that Jesus "could have sinned", "could have lost His salvation" and 'rotted in the tomb'? I have now collected 160 explicit references that assert the impossibility of Christ failing to do what the Law & the Prophets said He would do and how this truth is embedded in the Council of Nicaea and is repeated each and every day at Catholic Mass and all Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox Church. I appreciate the question phkrause, I hope to explore this matter much deeper with you or any Seventh-day Adventist that would be willing to discuss it. "