Pacific Union Officials Decline Inclusion in SDA Yearbook; Stand in Solidarity with President Sandra Roberts


(George Tichy) #269

Tim is just being funny with the “she.”

But, the way he hides himself leaves room for that.


(George Tichy) #270

He can believe whatever hew wants. But he went on Tom’s face and really dropped the ball badly.
I believe it deserved an apology.


(Tim Teichman) #271

deserved -> deserves


(Kim Green) #272

Can’t argue with that, however, it’s also his “attitude” that needs some re-alignment. :smile:


(Greg Cox) #273

then why did you even ask me in the first place? Brother, let us reason and be reasonable. We cannot agree on every thing but we can discuss in the Christian spirit of learning and exchange. You initially asked your question with your own soliloquy answering it. That confused me as it “sounded” like you had no need of my opinion on the matter. Nothing more.


(Greg Cox) #274

yup - you pretty much nailed it straight up!


(Greg Cox) #275

YOU WROTE: "How about faith and grace?"
RESPONSE: yet you deny that stating I’m not your brother.

YOU:" "Why do you think that? (church lacks knowledge)Because you’re sure you have a special knowledge that eludes the rest of us? I think there are some other reasons."
RESPONSE: Funny, you never asked me, yet had to answer for me. Where’s the grace, Brother?

YOU: "[Hom many know what Yom Kippur is] It’s not a big secret: https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/177886/jewish/What-Is-Yom-Kippur.htm1
RESPONSE: and I can guarantee that you cannot describe the steps thereof, what they mean, and why the IJ and Sanctuary Doctrine are so important as a pillar of our faith, nor had you an inkling about the textural confusion Ford had - THAT was my point.

YOU: "Still, Adventists and most Christians ignore most of the Jewish holy days. And most of the Law. And even some of the detail in even the 10 commandments. Nothing new there!"
RESPONSE: It’s important to recognize that YOU do not answer for Adventism. Blanket, grossly inaccurate statements based on your bias exude a GRACELESS demeanor.

YOU: "[Several here think that mixing the Holy with the Most Holy is insignificant and inconsequential.]
You keep bringing that up over and over. I still haven’t found your post where you actually define the issue. Seems like splitting hairs to me."
RESPONSE: see Lev 16:16-17 using the KJV and the NIV. Do your homework before writing movie reviews please.


(Greg Cox) #276

I thought you refused to dialogue with me? I guess only when you had to interrupt Elmer? Your post has lot’s of projection, a few redirects, and attempts to infantilize coming from a “licensed phycologist” which has me confused. George, I recommend restraint instead of finger waging, it’s pretty obvious you are desperate for attention. Most settled souls who have no interest in my posts simply proceed to the next (his, hint), so If you have a question for me then please feel free to ask and I will dialogue with you. If not, peace to you.


#277

Psst…Greg…want some advice? If you don’t, that’s okay.


(Greg Cox) #278

yes, I know where you are going with this…and yes, you are more experienced dealing with these people. Please share.


#279

Yes, I know it’s mega-frustrating at times.

One can respond or react.

Reacting to personalities takes you off-task, dilutes your influence, keeps you off-balance, takes the bait, wastes your time, and, worst, unfocuses your spiritual mind and message. Tails, you lose. :frowning:

Once a chicken in a chicken yard starts getting pecked, it never escapes that role.

Don’t be that bird.

You have access to Spirit. Let your speech flow through that channel.

Channel your frustrated energy in to clarity of thought and communication. It’s good fuel!

People may disagree, but then there will be nothing to peck.

I want to see you succeed here. But take me with the requisite grain of salt, of course. You are your own man.

Best.


(Tim Teichman) #280

There’s no connection between these two bits of this thread.

That is asking you that you think. There’s a quesiton mark after the sentence. That’s how you can tell.

The steps thereof? You’re right in that I don’t know what you mean. And you still haven’t explained any of what you’re referring to. I can’t tell what confusion you’re asserting unless you describe it.

I never stated that I “answered” for the church. It is still true that we ignore most of the law and even some of the 10 commandments. A plain reading is all it takes to figure that out.

Everyone has a bias on many things, but I just read the 10 commandments and it is clear we do not follow them, or even teach that we should.

Movie reviews? Is that a derogatory comment? I can’t tell.

Again you have not defined the issue. Firing off a proof text is not describing what it is you’re referring to. The passage describes atonement through animal sacrifice. Something we no longer do anymore, nor do the Jews. It does that in both versions and one uses “holy place” and one indicates “most holy place”. And I still don’t know why you are hung up on that, if for no other reason that it does not seem to be the point of the passage.


(George Tichy) #281

Ditto!!!
(20 characters)


(Elmer Cupino) #282

Very telling for the simple reason that you would engage in conversation only if your opinion were needed. I do not need your opinion, I want to understand your opinion.

Nonetheless, it is best if we were to stick to an advice someone gave me a while back, “Bother me no longer please - your banterings are not fruitful or uplifting to the Body of Christ.”


(George Tichy) #283

Elmer, this is the only thing we can do in defense against those fake “teachers & saviors” that land here occasionally and from their pulpit of spiritual arrogance expect us to convert to their retrograde ideas just because they are saying so.

As if we had so much time to waste …

I am glad though that there are sites like Fulcrum7 and Advindicate, perfect places for those individuals to share their futilities (and be heard!). How do we ship them out to those sites with a one-way ticket?.. :wink:


(Greg Cox) #286

I’ll just focus on the last of your post as you seem impossible to reason with as you can’t even follow your own thought train:
YOU; “Again you have not defined the issue. Firing off a proof text is not describing what it is you’re referring to. The passage describes atonement through animal sacrifice. Something we no longer do anymore, nor do the Jews. It does that in both versions and one uses “holy place” and one indicates “most holy place”. And I still don’t know why you are hung up on that, if for no other reason that it does not seem to be the point of the passage.”

RESPONSE: Herein lies your confusion. As I stated CLEARLY, SEE LV 16:16-17 comparing the CHANGE in the LXX from “holy place” to “Most Holy place”. If you cannot understand that, you cannot understand Ford’s argument AS HE BASES HIS ARGUMENT ON THAT. If you cannot understand that - they why are your critiquing it.

Plainly:

  • you cannot atone for the Most Holy, it’s un-atoneable because it’s WHERE atonement takes place.
  • you atone for the HOLY place only, and this is one of Ford’s fallacies / misunderstandings.
  • Holy place atonement was called “cleansing”, and that means in the Daniel 2300 prophecy “and then the Sanctuary will be cleansed” takes place at the end of the 2300. When is that? 1844. Something Ford could not grasp.
  • EGW’s vision, writings, commentary ALL detail this process and revolve around the Masoric. They all fit, they are all clear. Ford’s commentary revolved around the LXX where there is no detail and the process is confused and the don’t fit.
  • you either believe EGW or Ford.

Does that help?


(Tim Teichman) #287

You have not tried to reason with me on this point. I have stated repeatedly that I have not been able to find out why you think this is a big issue and asked for your explanation. I have not seen one.

Well, perhaps you can’t follow my thought train, but I can. I’m very clear on my train of thought.

I am not confused by this and have seen you post this before, but you don’t explain why it’s an issue. I do not know what your hang up with this tiny little change is. For all I know the best translation is Most Holy Place based on context within the source language.

I’m not critiquing anything. I have repeatedly asked you why this is important and, once again, you don’t answer. Saying “Ford’s argument is based on this change” means nothing to me. What argument?

No, it doesn’t help at all. You are so far down in the weeds it makes no sense at all to me. None of this is familiar. I have no idea why you think it is important nor why you keep bringing it up in various posts.


(George Tichy) #288

Tim, it seems that you and the whole world are confused. Totally confused, to a point that you cannot even follow your own thoughts! You see it, right? …:upside_down_face:


(Tim Teichman) #289

Yes I do not have the real truth. Which of course is paramount. I continue to fail to see how some highly respected translations of the bible, considered some of the best and most accurate translations, are morally corrupt.

I foolishly consult experts in the field of science for scientific matters, even though these experts are clearly in league with the devil.

I continue to not understand bizarre references to the Jewish temple in heaven (why would one need a temple in heaven, when temples are the dwelling places, tabernacles, for gods on earth?)

I continue to think it strange that an all-knowing God has to ponder each person in order to seal their fate, and how it would take more than any time at all for a supreme being, much less 180 years.

I am just sooo confused.

…What was I talking about?


(reliquum) #290

For most of us, he knows, already.

Then there are those who knows it all.

He waits for those who knows too much to know less.

Patience; they deserve every chance as well.