Leaderboard

The following is an official statement from the Pacific Union Conference, and the author of the article: https://www.adventistfaith.com/news/a-message-to-our-community-regarding-honoring-god-through-science-and-scripture/

⛲ Parting shot: Pittsburgh rainbow Point State Park Fountain in full glory. GIF: Chrissy Suttles/Axios As Pittsburgh prepares to show off for NFL Draft crowds later this month, Point State Park's iconic fountain is flowing — fresh off the park's multimillion-dollar makeover, Axios Pittsburgh's Chrissy Suttles reports. The facelift is part of Gov. Josh Shapiro's broader 10-year, $600 million plan to revitalize the city's downtown.

🎢 Parting shot: Lunar incline Photo: Michael Probst/AP For fairgoers in Frankfurt, one ride offered two thrills for the price of one: riding a rollercoaster alongside a full moon.

Many Evangelical Christians will argue that there is no such thing as “Christian antisemitism.” For them, it is a contradiction of terms—an oxymoron. They do not believe a “true” Christian can be antisemitic. Unfortunately, history has proven otherwise. https://www.crosswalk.com/sponsored-content/why-christian-antisemitism-is-making-a-dangerous-comeback.html?

God offered the Hebrews two different paths for sharing the gosple. We can call the one "Land Theology" or "Land Eschatology" the other we can call "Exile Theology" or "Exile Eschatology". The "land of Israel" is called a land flowing with milk and honey. In our modern western culture that term has come to mean everything wonderful. However, to the ancient world, these terms were descriptions of geography. I've gone into details, but lands of "honey" or "preserved foods" indicated good agricultural land, a life generally predictable, fairly easy, and exciting. Lands of "milk" came from herd animals moving around deserts, a life generally unpredictable, a lot of hard work and lonely. Biblical Canaan/Israel is about 150 miles long by 50 miles wide. In most of the world you find great streaches of the same type of geography. In this land Europe, Africa, Asia, and Arabia all meet. The elements of these lands meet and compete here, and especially the weather generalized in each of these areas are fighting each other over this small piece of land. The geography changes quickly in fairly short areas. Trying to life with the idiosyncrasies of this piece of property, the Canaanites developed some horrible superstitions, that was harmful to themselves, and even more so people passing through the land. This piece of property also happened to be the major intersection for the great trade routes between Europe, Africa, Asia and Arabia. The Canaanite superstitions, trying to gain control over the elements of milk and honey, ended up making this land one of, if not the most dangerous place on earth. The Hebrews were to first of all make this most important intersection safe. They were to replace the complicated Canaanite religion with it's dangerous superstitions, to a simple religion worshiping the one God who is the God of the whole world, and all the aspects of our lifes, all the milk and honey that life throws at us. The caravans will notice the change, and bring stories of these people, the new found safety in the land, and their simple religion to the world. God would bless them, nations will come and learn about their God, and either join in the worship of this God or reject it. The world would end in a great eschatological war. (Actually, by a wonderful king that they had, but rejected and killed would raise up and the wicked seeing this king in all his glory will have their hearts fail them and they die.) If unfaithful, God would allow curses (allowing more of the milky aspects of the land) to encourage them to change. If nothing else works, they would go into exile. In exile they were to share with their neighbors their unfaithfulness and God's faithfulness and thus share the gospel with their neighbors in the lands they were scattered to. The exile would end in a second great exodus lead by the messiah. In summary: In the land, being quite litterally in the center of the ancient world, they would make the land safe, they would deal with what ever aspects of milk or honey life threw at them and trust in their one God of milk and honey. The caravans would carry stories about these people to the world and the world would come to them. In exile they were to go inton all the world and spread the gospel. The exile would give the same picture to the Hebrews in the ancient world as the idea of Sunday Law does to the typical Adventist. But all is focused on spreading the gospel. We had the Assyrian then Babylonian exile. Then instead of returning in the second great exodus lead by the messiah, but a lack luster return with another 70 weeks of years (and longer) to follow the plan for living in the land. Then came the exile of 70 AD, all of God's children were to go ye into all the world to share the gospel. With the age of navagation, and even more so the age of aviation, this piece of property no longer was the center of the world. This destroys the framework of how God offered to use them in the land. Sadly, too many Charistians grab on to either the heresy of "replacement theology" or "Dispensationalism". "Replacement theology" says that the church has replaced Israel. However, all of us who love the Lord, are living under God's plan for using his people in the framework of exile: Go ye into all the world and share the gospel, and the exile will end in a second great exodus lead by the Messiah when our Lord comes in the clouds and takes us to the true promised land of heaven. God can use all, Jews, Gentiles in this framework. "Dispensationalism" says that the Jews need to be back in the land and fulfill the framework of how God offered to use them in the land, and then the "Christians" can be raptured away while the Jews go through the great tribulation. But the Jews cannot fill this mission any more since the age of navigation and aviation and mass communication does not make the process of living in the land safe for the caravans and them bringing messages of these people and their God to the whole world. Sadly, the Jews suffered much by antisemitism over the centuries. This breaks God's heart. In 1844 the Edict of Toleration allowed the Jews to return to this land. Around the same time the world got the telegraph that improved communication. Charlie Goodyear got patened his new form of rubber that improved the industural revolution and transportation. A few years before the Rosetta Stone was deciphered which opened the door to understanding ancient languages. And in the 1830s Edward Robinson had his first visit to the Holy Land and had just published his findings. His visit was the first serious, scientific study of Bible Geography which has lead to Bible Archaeology. We entered an age of being able to investigate the pages of scripture as never before. In 1844, while still serving under the framework of the exile, and NOT the framework of what God offered to do in the land. But the modern Jew has a new job of protecting the geography and history of the land so that we can freely study the context of the Bible. Therefore, I do see the return to the location as having covanant significance. But it is NOT what the Dispensationalists are looking for. And the people living in the land do not follow the horrible choices of the Canaanites. Many are faithful Christians. They need to be treated with respect and learn how to share the land. Dispensationalism does not allow for the proper treatment of how those in the land should relate to their neighbors. They also have neighbors who want to forget the history and what happened. Jews today do protect this, allows us to study the Bible better in context and as we learn more about the Bible, the more we learn about the God of the Bible. This can deepen our love for God and improve our sharing the gospel with our nieghbor so that this exile can end in the promised second great exodus lead by the Messiah to the true promised home. 1844 is an amazing year. Above I mentioned three events that actually happened that year as well as two others that were recent and were starting to have an effect on the world. Also, that year the world was also introduced to evolution as the source of life, and growing out of the French Revolution and it's restults, communism with it's lessening of religion and encouraging atheism (and evolution as the source of life does away with the need for God.) The Jews have had members who have stood firm over the hardships of history. Many have trusted God to deal with the milk and honey aspects that life has thrown to them. Many faced gas chanbers singing the Psalms. And they felt a special connection to the land that protects the land for us to use the land in getting a deeper understanding of the Bible. No wonder Satan wants to attack them with increased antisemitism from both the right and the left.

David was NOT worshiping the sun. He was worshiping the Lord. However, you cannot try to explain away what the text says because you don't like it. David, in his worship of the Lord, brought the ark into Jerusalem in the same ritual that the Pagans used to bring their gods into the temples on Easter Sunday morning.

Do you have a verifiable reference for that assertion?

As the people looked upon [Jesus], they saw a face where divine compassion was blended with conscious power. Every glance of the eye, every feature of the countenance, was marked with humility, and expressive of unutterable love. He seemed to be surrounded by an atmosphere of spiritual influence. While His manners were gentle and unassuming, He impressed men with a sense of power that was hidden, yet could not be wholly concealed. Desire of Ages, pp. 137, 138.

🌴 Parting shot: Southwest bliss Photo: Rick Battson Finish Liner Rick Battson of Washington State traveled to Sun City, Ariz., earlier this month for spring training. His team: the San Francisco Giants, who train at nearby Scottsdale Stadium!

According to Catholic tradition there was a pope. If there was a Pope, it would have been Pope James - Jesus' brother as he appeared to make many of the decisions. and He was in Jerusalem - not Rome. There is no biblical record of Peter ever being in Rome. If he were, why didn't Paul tell Peter "hello" in his epistle to the Romans? He extends greetings to about 20 people in Romans 16; and Pope Peter I is not among them. Seems pretty rude for an apostle not to extend a greeting to his boss.

His Father did "save" Him - from death. He would not have "saved" Him from sin. IF Christ had sinned, the Father would have left His Son dead in the grave. We've gone over it a dozen times. "Could" He sin, is not the same as "would" He sin. Of course He "would not". The Father sees the future and knew He would not. Therefore the prophecies all said He "will not". Is there one that says "He cannot?" One who believes that "God" IS "the Father", "the Son", and "the Holy Spirit" - three divine persons, cannot help but believe that "God the Son" cannot act any differently from "God the Father" or "God the Holy Spirit". The "three" are one, and are not separate. One who believes as I do - that "God" is not a Trinity, but IS rather "our Father", who beget a Son, can believe that Son could act differently from His Father - could even act against His Father if He chose to do so. He had a separate will and mind. Because Church "councils" - under the control of Roman Emperors - later decided points of doctrine, does not constrain me to agree always with their conclusions. Neither do later decrees of Popes, or Lutheran councils, or Episcopal councils, or SDA councils. The majority is not always right. Those in power, with authority over members of the congregation, are not always right - as Old Testament prophets right up to Christ clearly showed, and Christ Himself so clearly pointed out. Acts 17:11 "Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." (NIV) We should respect authorities, and should not try to overthrow authorities by violent means, but we must search the Scriptures for ourselves - to find what is truth. For a thousand years Church "authorities" kept the Scriptures away from the common people. (Lest they search and understand?) Just that action, would make me doubt those "authorities" and any doctrinal teachings they pushed. In rare places, even Bible translations themselves have been altered to facilitate a certain view or teaching. Thank God those instances were very rare. Sometimes - we must simply agree to disagree, with casting moral dispersion s. One is not immoral, because he/she holds a certain doctrinal view.

Mark 13:11 "But when they arrest you and deliver you up, do not worry beforehand, or premeditate what you will speak. But whatever is given you in that hour, speak that; for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit." Matthew 10:19 "But when they deliver you up, do not worry about how or what you should speak. For it will be given to you in that hour what you should speak; 20 "for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you." The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God the Father.

People who quote John 14:16 to prove a third divine person, quote only the one verse. They don't quote the entire passage. John 14:16 "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever-- 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you." (NIV) The other Advocate would be Christ Himself, as spirit, who would come to be "with" and "in" His sheep. The key is in the last words. "I will come to you." Paul spoke of "Christ in me, the hope of glory." God sent forth the spirit of His Son "into your hearts". Jesus said that both He and His Father would come "into" those who loved Him. How? As spirit. "The last Adam has been made a life giving spirit." (1Cor 15:45). Christ has been made the Spirit with us and in us, to comfort us, to bring everything to our minds that He once said, to take of what is the Father's and show it to us. I believe Jesus is here speaking of His future glorified SELF - His future glorified self as "spirit". He spoke of Himself in third person on other occasions too. Called Himself "the Son of Man", and used pronouns "he" and "him", when He was clearly speaking of Himself. The "other" Paraclete would be "the spirit of His Son" which God the Father would send forth. God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, "Abba, Father!" (Gal 4:6 NKJ) As for lying to the Holy Spirit, if "God" IS the Holy Spirit, then one has "lied to God". You say "the Holy Spirit is God". I say God is the Holy Spirit. Is there a difference? If you touch my arm, you touch me. You can't separate my arm, from me - except surgically. My arm is part of me. Same with the Spirit of God. His Spirit is Him. You can't separate God and His Spirit. His spirit is His presence. Consider the "unpardonable sin". Matthew 12:32 "Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come." There is no mention of speaking a word against the Father. He is missing in this warning. Or is He? If the Holy Spirit IS the presence of God the Father with us and in us, then a word against the Holy Spirit is a word against God the Father. Is "the Spirit of Christ" different somehow from "the Spirit of the Father" ? I don't think so. To have One, is to have the Other. My own theory of how this works: Jesus came as the physical presence of His Father, so that men could "see" His Father. Now the Father comes to us "as" His Son. To experience the presence of the Father "in" the heart, is to experience Christ. Jesus said the "other" would come "in my name". Jesus came in His Father's name. After Christ was glorified, His Father "came" in Christ's name - representing His Son's presence with us/in us. This is how we have BOTH the Father and His Son, "with" us and "in" us. John 14:23 Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him." (NKJ) I see no third being here. Only God our Father and Christ His Son.

Gustave, You and I have different views concerning the Scripture's "definition" of God. You believe the Scripture's "define" God as a Trinity. I do not.

Gustave: I will understand what Ellen White believed on this subject. I do not have a problem with people saying that Ellen whit was wrong in a specific doctrinal position as she was not intended to fill the role in the developing SDA denomination of a final arbitrator of doctrine. Some may attempt to fit her into that role. But, that was not how she saw herself. That was not what she claimed to be. You have stimulated me to expand my thinking on this subject. for that I commend you. As JoMo essentially stated: regardless of whether or not we (I) agree with you, you are welcome here in this forum. Open communication, as it taking place here is healthy.

I think we talked awhile back about "would not" vs "could not". One has to do with God's all-knowledge (including the future), and the other has to do with Christ's nature (human, divine, combination, fully both). Because the LORD prophesies a thing concerning a human subject, does not mean that person has no choice. Choice is not removed because the LORD has prophesied a future action. On the other point: I believe that Jesus Christ "emptied himself" to take the form and the nature "of a servant". Of what did He empty himself? The Greek word means "void" or "empty". Jesus said, "The Father who dwells in me, does the works" (John 14:10). Why would Jesus need His Father to do the works? If He was equal in power, why not just do the works Himself? More still, if Jesus was the same divine being/person (God), then He would have no need to be indwelt by His Father (a second being). Without the indwelling of His Father - the "fullness of the God" would Jesus have been able to do the works? "The works" to include not just miracles, but also perfect conformity to the will of His Father. Did Jesus have the choice - to receive or reject the indwelling of His Father, or was Jesus (because of His existence as God) simply part of "God" with no separate identity or existence? I personally believe that Father and Son are two separate persons/beings - each with individual will. Therefore Christ could have resisted/rejected His Father's will. One does not need to suffer from "violent cognitive dissonance", to believe that God (defined as "the Father") beget a second divine being out of Himself (in His exact image), and that He "sent" His begotten "Son" into this world.

EGW: Angels were expelled from heaven because they would not work in harmony with God. They fell from their high estate because they wanted to be exalted. They had come to exalt themselves, and they forgot that their beauty of person and of character came from the Lord Jesus. This fact the angels would obscure, that Christ was the only begotten Son of God, and they came to consider that they were not to consult Christ. One angel began the controversy and carried it on until there was rebellion in the heavenly courts among the angels. They were lifted up because of their beauty. {Lt42-1910}

I agree 100%. Don't see any reason why he would not have known who he was!!

Gustave is correct that "God" would not/could not act contrary to Himself. Jesus was divine/human. Some assume that the divine part of His nature would always dominate His human nature, to such a degree that the human nature hardly mattered. As if the human was just a sort of shell - for appearance. I don't believe that was the case. I believe Jesus human nature was just as strong within Him, as His "divine nature". They were in balance. Which means that Jesus' mind had to keep that balance. He could have allowed His human nature to dominate, with it's appetites and weaknesses. We know He was fearful and full of dread in anticipation of His execution by torture. We know He was mocked and ridiculed because His mother was pregnant before the wedding feast, and because His family was poor and from the "wrong side of the tracks". We know that Jesus got thirsty and hungry and tired. Satan thought those things were possible weak points. He tempted Jesus to skip the torture. He tempted Him to prove His divine son-ship. He tempted Jesus to test His Father. Why was Satan tempting Jesus. Didn't Satan know that Jesus could not sin? I think the obvious fact that Satan tempted Him, shows that Satan thought Jesus capable of a sin against His Father's will.

I spent more time in public schools than in SDA schools. Doubt I spent a lot of time thinking about God as a Trinity. My Mom read us the Bible Stories by Maxwell. But my parents were in turmoil. My Dad was a depressed drunk, and my Mom bi-polar. She ended up hospitalized with a nervous breakdown when I was 12. I had a supernatural experience that confirmed the existence of God to me. I began to read the Bible voraciously. I discovered the 7th Day Sabbath, and ended up at the local SDA church, because they were the only ones honoring the Sabbath, while recognizing Jesus as God's Son. I began reading Ellen White. Her books like PP and GC, present Father and Son. Not much about the "third person of the godhead" in there. Only as I continued to attend did I become more and more uncomfortable with worship of three divine persons. EGW did confirm it, so I accepted it because I accepted her "gift". That's a brief on my belief in God as "three persons". I came to believe in the "one God" as "God our Father" back in 1986. Have never doubted since then. God's Son IS in one sense "our Father". He created mankind. The Hebrew has no word for "grandfather" - meaning our father's father. If it did, the Being we call "God our Father" would be called "God our Grandfather".

The United States, as of 2020, is the country with the world’s second-largest number of religiously unaffiliated people (after China), surpassing Japan. The U.S. had roughly 101 million religious “nones” in 2020 (up 97% from a decade earlier), while Japan had 73 million (up 8%). However, the unaffiliated category continues to account for a much larger share of the total population in Japan – 57% of all Japanese are religiously unaffiliated – than in the U.S., where 30% identify as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular.” In both 2010 and 2020, China had more religiously unaffiliated people than any other country. China’s 1.3 billion unaffiliated people made up 90% of its total population in 2020.6 Most countries still have Christian majorities Due to disaffiliation from Christianity, there now are fewer Christian-majority countries and more countries with a religiously unaffiliated majority than there were in 2010. As of 2020, Christians were a majority in 120 countries and territories, down from 124 a decade earlier. Christians dropped below 50% of the population in the United Kingdom (49%), Australia (47%), France (46%) and Uruguay (44%). In each of these places, religiously unaffiliated people now account for 40% or more of the population, and smaller religious groups such as Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews or adherents of other religions (combined) account for 11% or less. Over the same period, religiously unaffiliated people became a majority in the Netherlands (54%), Uruguay (52%) and New Zealand (51%), raising the number of places with an unaffiliated majority from seven to 10. (These countries joined China, North Korea, the Czech Republic, Hong Kong, Vietnam, Macao and Japan, which already had religiously unaffiliated majorities in 2010.) There was no change in the number of places in which the majority of the population are Muslim (53), Buddhist (7), Jewish (1) or followers of other religions (1).7 These are among the key findings of a Pew Research Center of more than 2,700 censuses and surveys, including census data releases that were delayed due to the coronavirus pandemic. The study is part of the Pew-Templeton Global Religious Futures project, which seeks to understand global religious change and its impact on societies.

I agree! So am I, but with a leader that also thinks he's above the law I believe it will just get worse!