Basically we would need more information to really comment intelligently on this matter.

Like, what is the purpose of these studies?
What has triggered the decision to have them?

For example -- in our region there have been seminars on "Muslim Theology". I have not attended any of them (yet) not sure if I will in the future. As I'm not exactly comfortable with the idea, for the Moslem religion, at it's core, is purely a "works" theology (which to a large extent is also true of the Catholic religion).

But the idea behind those lessons, is to "find ways to reach the Moslem community".
In which case, for those serious about bringing the gospel to Muslims, finding some common stepping stones to lead them to salvation in Christ, would be a helpful and useful tool.

But of course, I do not know if this is the case of the "RC theology lessons" in you original church.

Too often, in these inter-faith "lessons" the goal is to promote the idea that all religions lead to God, just respect them all and don't agitate any "right" or "wrong" -- they are all good in their own way. Yet this is a key mindset which lies at the foundation of the ecumenical program. We need to be alert to its infiltration into our thinking. Revelation makes it clear that not all "worship" leads to God.

I suppose another possible reason for those lessons could be part of preparing for the merging factor in our health institutions, that seems to be occurring -- I don't know if the school you referenced is the Adventist Health University in Florida, nor have I heard anything of it considering joining the merging trend.
However, there have been several moves elsewhere of Adventist Health systems "yoking together" with the Catholic Health systems.
There is the AMITA (a joint venture of Catholic Ascension's Alexian Brothers Health System and Adventist Midwest Health) There is the Adventist Health and the Catholic St. Joseph Health are yoking together in several western states.
That, in my view, is apostasy -- a complete reverse of the purpose for which our health institutions were founded and our health message given -- they were to be the right arm to help proclaim the three angel's message!

Rick, here is a recent article from Fulcrum7 concerning a possible membership response to divisions, particularly NAD, abandoning Adventist teachings:
Time For The Nuclear Option? November 29, 2018
https://www.fulcrum7.com/blog/2018/11/27/time-for-the-nuclear-option

I read the article. Actually I've read several articles, both pro and con, from Spectrum and Fulcrum 7 and Atoday. What concerns me the most is the inflammatory language used by both parties.
A church should be able to work out their differences without resorting to name-calling, half-truths and misrepresentation of both their "side," the other "side," and indeed, the situation generally.
After all, one of the signs of discipleship is love evident towards our brothers and sisters. IMO, many of these articles lack that component.

It is clear from the article and the comments WHO is actually going to break up the church.

Rick, here is a recent article from Fulcrum7 concerning a possible membership response to divisions, particularly NAD, abandoning Adventist teachings:
Time For The Nuclear Option? November 29, 2018
https://www.fulcrum7.com/blog/2018/11/27/time-for-the-nuclear-option

What are your thoughts on the makeup of a church? That is to say, what is it that constitutes a denomination? If it is merely the purported belief in God, then there are no distinctions between denominations, and no SDAs.

We, with our imperfect understanding, created denominations. Do you think God, with His perfect understanding, recognizes any of our man-made divisions?

As in our lesson this quarter, repentance, reconciliation and unity are part of our Christian life. This is the way to go...

By supporting leadership that is normalizing practices such as baptism of lesbians, worship led by gays, forced participation in Jesuit meditation techniques, abandonment of the Sabbath, etc. Do we become partakers in those rebellious acts?

And supported the Nazis in WW2, and whose retirement fund is heavily invested in the arms trade.

Tell me JAK, do you attend church anymore? If so, what is your denomination?

We, with our imperfect understanding, created denominations. Do you think God, with His perfect understanding, recognizes any of our man-made divisions?

So the only real question to be asking is: "Am I part of the problem, or part of the solution?"
Then ask yourself if you like the answer.

Signed: JAK the Troll.

So, I must reluctantly agree with you, JAK. You are "part of the problem", and definitely not "part of the solution". And no, I do not "like the answer".

I just like to know who I’m talking to, but if you prefer to hide in the shadows that’s up to you. It’s easy to sling mud from a place of concealment; although, not terribly brave...

Well in the end, we can choose all ways. But I rather stick with what is tried and true...

"Here we find the mark of the beast. The very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, on the part of the Catholic church, without any authority from the Bible." (Ellen G. White, The Mark of the Beast, page 23)

"The Sunday Sabbath is purely a child of the Papacy. It is the mark of the beast." (Advent Review, Vol. I, No. 2, August, 1850.)

"The change of the Sabbath is the sign or mark of the authority of the Romish church." ... "The keeping of the counterfeit Sabbath is the reception of the mark." (Ellen G. White, Great Controversy, Vol. 4, page 281.

"Then I saw that the seven last plagues were soon to be poured out upon those who have no shelter; yet the world regarded them no more than they would so many drops of water that were about to fall. I was then made capable of enduring the awful sight of the seven last plagues, the wrath of God. I saw that His anger was dreadful and terrible, and if He should stretch forth His hand, or lift it in anger, the inhabitants of the world would be as though they had never been, or would suffer from incurable sores and withering [65] plagues that would come upon them, and they would find no deliverance, but be destroyed by them. Terror seized me, and I fell upon my face before the angel and begged of him to cause the sight to be removed, to hide it from me, for it was too dreadful. Then I realized, as never before, the importance of searching the Word of God carefully, to know how to escape the plagues which that Word declares shall come on all the ungodly who shall worship the beast and his image and receive his mark in their foreheads or in their hands. It was a great wonder for me that any could transgress the law of God and tread down His holy Sabbath, when such awful threatenings and denunciations were against them.

The pope has changed the day of rest from the seventh to the first day. He has thought to change the very commandment that was given to cause man to remember his Creator. He has thought to change the greatest commandment in the decalogue and thus make himself equal with God, or even exalt himself above God. The Lord is unchangeable, therefore His law is immutable; but the pope has exalted himself above God, in seeking to change His immutable precepts of holiness, justice, and goodness. He has trampled underfoot God's sanctified day, and, on his own authority, put in its place one of the six laboring days. The whole nation has followed after the beast, and every week they rob God of His holy time. The pope has made a breach in the holy law of God, but I saw that the time had fully come for this breach to be made up by the people of God and the waste places built up.

I pleaded before the angel for God to save His people who had gone astray, to save them for His mercy's sake. When the plagues begin to fall, those who continue to break the holy Sabbath will not open their mouths to plead those excuses that they now make [66] to get rid of keeping it. Their mouths will be closed while the plagues are falling, and the great Lawgiver is requiring justice of those who have had His holy law in derision and have called it "a curse to man," "miserable," and "rickety." When such feel the iron grasp of this law taking hold of them, these expressions will appear before them in living characters, and they will then realize the sin of having that law in derision which the Word of God calls "holy, just, and good."......Early Writings

And,

Never strive to keep the commandments because you will fail anyway so why try.

The now-banned poster "JAK" was no more part of the problem than you or HCH or APL or Alchemy or dedication or anyone else who posts here. IMO he was a lot more honest than most,

It is evident that the LAW OF LIBERTY is compassion and forgiveness with the assurance that compassion and forgiveness will be returned in kind. And where there is compassion and forgiveness, there is peace and happiness.[/color]

"Stop judging only by what you see. Judge correctly." John 7:24, NIrV

"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. John 7:24, KJV)

It would be interesting to hear how it is decided who here is "honest," and who is not??

WELL SAID! You are not far from the truth.

No one strives to not do something when he is actually enjoying doing something else. An idle mind is the devil's workshop. Jesus said so.

IMO means In My Opinion...

So, from that whole post this is the part you feel needs commenting on?

OK then.

Not all in this world have taken sides with the enemy against God. Not all have become disloyal. There are a faithful few who are true to God; for John writes: "Here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus." Revelation 14:12. Soon the battle will be waged fiercely between those who serve God and those who serve Him not. Soon everything that can be shaken will be shaken, that those things that cannot be shaken may remain. {CCh 39.4}

It would be interesting to hear how it is decided who here is "honest," and who is not??

I would ask, how did Christ discern who was 'honest' and true angel of God in the wilderness verses the 'tempter'. That discernment is available to us today...

Matthew 4:10-11 King James Version (KJV)

10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

11 Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.

You make it sound so easy.

As I reminded Green in another thread: God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. That was contrary to God's teaching. Abraham could have refused to obey because he knew that God would never tell him to do such a thing. But he knew the voice of God, because he had a close relationship with God.

Jesus had a relationship with the Father and He discerned error when it was presented to Him.

Nadi's discernment is impressive.

I would ask, how did Christ discern who was 'honest' and true angel of God in the wilderness verses the 'tempter'. That discernment is available to us today...
Matthew 4:10-11 King James Version (KJV)
10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
11 Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.

You make it sound so easy.

As I reminded Green in another thread: God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. That was contrary to God's teaching. Abraham could have refused to obey because he knew that God would never tell him to do such a thing. But he knew the voice of God, because he had a close relationship with God.

Was it "contrary to God's teaching" that His own Son was killed on the cross? God does not tell us to do anything "contrary to His teaching." Not sure how you would prove otherwise

God did NOT kill His own Son. Sin killed His Son.

Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. (Isa 53:12)
For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.(Heb 9:26)

He who knew no sin became sin for us, He died for us on Calvary. His death shows the wonderful love of God for man, and the immutability of His law. . . . {AG 80.3}

The Son of God stepped down from his royal throne, and for our sakes became poor, that we through his poverty might be rich. He became "a Man of sorrows," that we might be made partakers of everlasting joy. "He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed" God permitted his beloved Son, full of grace and truth, to come from a world of indescribable glory to a world marred and blighted with sin, shadowed with the shadow of death and the curse. He permitted him to leave the bosom of his love, the adoration of the angels, to suffer shame, insult, humiliation, hatred, and death. And Jesus bore all this untold sorrow, that we might be changed to his divine image, and become the sons of God. John exclaims, "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us." Is there not a response of gratitude in your hearts? Are you not lost in wonder and adoration as you contemplate the theme of redemption? {RH, February 28, 1888 par. 2}

What scripture would you recommend to prove that?

Just to clarify, in my comment re Jesus being "killed" I did NOT say that God killed Him. I simply said that "Jesus was killed." And my question was simply, was THAT "contrary to God's teaching?"

ProdigalOne, I really think what JAK was intending with this was that EACH PERSON should ASK THEMSELVES if they are part of the problem or solution.

So to hypocritically claim that JAK is part of the problem immediately makes you......part of the problem.

The now-banned poster "JAK" was no more part of the problem than you or HCH or APL or Alchemy or dedication or anyone else who posts here. IMO he was a lot more honest than most, although he didn't use the best language to express it.


So...I don't see YOUR name anywhere.

Everyone has their reasons for participating on this (and other) forums and many times those reasons include inquiry in a safe environment. And by "safe" I mean "anonymous," because the SDA church really does not tolerate questioning The Prophet or The Doctrines.

So as part of the solution everyone, Nadi included, should let their responses sit for a bit and come back and read them and then ASK THEMSELVES:

Does this response address the post or the poster?
Is the tone of the response polite and inquiring or inflammatory and sarcastic?
Is this a response that will help others see the beauty of Jesus?
Does this response show the joy and character of being an SDA?

Just sayin'

The sacrificial offerings were ordained by God to be to man a perpetual reminder and a penitential acknowledgment of his sin and a confession of his faith in the promised Redeemer. They were intended to impress upon the fallen race the solemn truth that it was sin that caused death. {PP 68.1}
 
If to save the body from death, the foot or the hand should be cut off, or even the eye plucked out, how much more earnest should the Christian be to put away sin, which brings death to the soul! {AA 312.2}
 
Expel sin from your hearts, for sin caused the death of the Son of God. {RH, July 22, 1884 par. 9}
 
Cease to cherish and excuse sin; for sin caused the death of the Son of God. {GW92 466.2}
 
Keep before the people the cross of Calvary. Show what caused the death of Christ--the transgression of the law. Let not sin be cloaked or treated as a matter of little consequence. It is to be presented as guilt against the Son of God. Then point the people to Christ, telling them that immortality comes only through receiving Him as their personal Saviour. {6T 54.1}
 
He will see that it was the transgression of the law that caused the death of the Son of the infinite God, and he will hate the sins that wounded Jesus. As he looks upon Christ as a compassionate, tender High Priest, his heart will be preserved in contrition. {TM 220.1}
 
"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." While it is a disgrace to sin, it is no disgrace to confess sin, and to forsake it, as the hateful thing it is,--that which caused the death of the only begotten Son of God. {RH, December 9, 1890 par. 4}
 
Satan, the author of sin and all its results, had led men to look upon disease and death as proceeding from God,--as punishment arbitrarily inflicted on account of sin. Hence one upon whom some great affliction or calamity had fallen had the additional burden of being regarded as a great sinner. {DA 471.1}

I use ProdigalOne to avoid confusion, since I have the same name as another member.

The love of a holy God is an amazing principle, which can stir the universe in our behalf during the hours of our probation and trial. But after the season of our probation, if we are found transgressors of God's law, the God of love will be found a minister of vengeance. God makes no compromise with sin. The disobedient will be punished. The wrath of God fell upon His beloved Son as Christ hung upon the cross of Calvary in the transgressor's place. The love of God now reaches out to embrace the lowest, vilest sinner that will come to Christ with contrition. It reaches out to transform the sinner into an obedient, faithful child of God; but not a soul can be saved if he continues in sin. {1SM 313.1}

Sin is the transgression of the law, and the arm that is now mighty to save will be strong to punish when the transgressor passes the bounds that limit divine forbearance. He who refuses to seek for life, who will not search the Scriptures to see what is truth, lest he should be condemned in his practices, will be left to blindness of mind and to the deceptions of Satan. To the same degree that the penitent and obedient are shielded by God's love, the impenitent and disobedient will be left to the result of their own ignorance and hardness of heart, because they receive not the love of the truth that they may be saved. {1SM 313.2}

Those who deliberately choose to see a one-sided picture will, in the end, learn that their view must be adjusted. When we choose to look at just one edge of the spectrum, not only are we imbalanced, but we risk an entire misinterpretation. Scholars must be prepared to consider all of the relevant passages on a topic collectively, lest they be found to wrest the meaning of those which they have favored.

I think that this idea is so important and often overlooked in Biblical scholarship. This is why it is so important to have one's ideas critiqued by other competent Bible students.

When others disagree (in a Christian manner) this reveals flaws and misunderstandings in ones ideas, and ultimately, if you are willing to learn, strengthens your position.

Was it "contrary to God's teaching" that His own Son was killed on the cross? God does not tell us to do anything "contrary to His teaching." Not sure how you would prove otherwise.

Those who deliberately choose to see a one-sided picture will, in the end, learn that their view must be adjusted. When we choose to look at just one edge of the spectrum, not only are we imbalanced, but we risk an entire misinterpretation. Scholars must be prepared to consider all of the relevant passages on a topic collectively, lest they be found to wrest the meaning of those which they have favored.

There are, naturally, passages that seem nearly opposite those which APL likes to quote relative to Christ's atonement. Here is one of them.



Balance is so important. Truth wrested becomes error. Earth has not yet seen what God will do.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

And Green refuses to take all that is written to come to the truth.

Everyone does; there is no need to single out Green. He sees things different than you. Just state your position without attacking other forum members. It takes effort to create a safe environment for discussion.

Shall we delve into that a little bit?

Upon what basis can you make the claim that God's instruction to Abraham "was contrary to God's teaching"?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Was it "contrary to God's teaching" that His own Son was killed on the cross? God does not tell us to do anything "contrary to His teaching." Not sure how you would prove otherwise.

Jeremiah 19:5 They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire [for] burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake [it], neither came [it] into my mind:

His Child,

Could you next explain to me how Abraham was able to read Jeremiah's writings?

For all we know, the practice of offering sons to Baal came from Abraham's example. Can you show that it pre-existed Abraham's story?

If not, we are back to the same question: Upon what basis can you make the claim that God's instruction to Abraham "was contrary to God's teaching"?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Everyone does; there is no need to single out Green. He sees things different than you. Just state your position without attacking other forum members. It takes effort to create a safe environment for discussion.

APL; I am still interested to hear from you about scripture that supports what you said about how "sin killed Jesus." I did enclose several texts which reflect varied perspectives on the death of Christ. Just wondering how you see it.

Maybe you have not been here long enough. I won't pull out my greenisms now.

Here are a few: Matthew 5:17; Luke 16:17; Revelation 12:17; Revelation 14:12; Isaiah 41:10; Ephesians 2:15; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Romans 8:3; 1 Peter 2:24; Hebrews 2:14; Philippians 2:5-7; Galatians 4:4-5; Matthew 8:17; Hebrews 4:15; Philippians 2:7; Isaiah 53:12; Romans 6:23; 1 Corinthians 15:56; James 1:15; Isaiah 53:6 and particularly, John 14:9. If my view of God does not fit the last one, they quite simply, I'd be wrong.

I appreciate the effort you went to to post this. I have looked at the first couple so far, nothing that says "sin killed Jesus." Or dod I not get the point?

There are, naturally, passages that seem nearly opposite those which APL likes to quote relative to Christ's atonement. Here is one of them.

In fact I have been here substantially longer than you have; that point means nothing.

APL: Registered: 01/31/11
Nadi: Registered: 07/16/16

Yes, well the name "Nadi" has been posting since 07/16/16.
The person who posts as "Nadi" had been posting since 2002.

Yep.

And God murdered Saul for talking to a woman.

1 Chronicles 10:13,14

Yes, well the name "Nadi" has been posting since 07/16/16.
The person who posts as "Nadi" had been posting since 2002.

Well then, you should then know of what I was speaking. Good.

I freely admit, I am mixed up now. lol Are there 2 Nadis?

2. (1Ch_10:3-6) Saul dies in battle.
The battle became fierce against Saul. The archers hit him, and he was wounded by the archers. Then Saul said to his armorbearer, “Draw your sword, and thrust me through with it, lest these uncircumcised men come and abuse me.” But his armorbearer would not, for he was greatly afraid. Therefore Saul took a sword and fell on it. And when his armorbearer saw that Saul was dead, he also fell on his sword and died. So Saul and his three sons died, and all his house died together.

I believe Nadi is admitting he is in violation of having multiple registrations.

Of course you are correct. Students of the Bible would readily understand that. The Bible verse directly and distinctly says God killed Saul. However the Bible, when one sets out to understand it, says differently than what one may attempt to make it say. The comment was to Green, and if you knew the background of past conversations, you would see it hit on two (or more) issues dealing with him.

I have contacted several of the posters who used to post here to see if they could return and help build a positive environment. Everyone who responded said the same thing: "Maritime is too dark and negative for me."

...what your take is on the "most startling nature" phrase?

A church with a woman prophet at its inception, won't let women in leadership roles is of a "most startling nature"

Well guess what she found in the calendar:

Roman Catholic Theology
September 12, 2018 7:00 PM

So after the introduction of the din they call music and "Spiritual Formation" training they are now starting classes on Roman Catholic Theology, and its every week much like the other classes.

1/ As soon as Satan can separate the soul from God, the only Source of strength, he will seek to arouse the unholy desires of man's carnal nature. The work of the enemy is not abrupt; it is not, at the outset, sudden and startling; it is a secret undermining of the strongholds of principle. {CC 177.5}

2/ Jesus Studied Natural Train of Thought.--The beneficent operations of nature are not accomplished by abrupt and startling interpositions; men are not permitted to take her work into their own hands. God works through the calm, regular operation of His appointed laws. So it is in spiritual things. Satan is constantly seeking to produce effects by rude and violent thrusts; but Jesus found access to minds by the pathway of their most familiar associations. He disturbed as little as possible their accustomed train of thought, by abrupt actions or prescribed rules. He honored man with His confidence, and thus placed him on his honor. He introduced old truths in a new and precious light. Thus, when only twelve years old, He astonished the doctors of the law by His questions in the temple. {Ev 139.5}

"The final movements will be rapid ones..." (9T, pg 11)

Does the Bible contradict itself? Is there a reason for this "paradox" that we are seeing? Or, would you call it something else? I agree, the text says that. But when it says that, what does it mean?

Yeah, that would be General Forum Rule #12.
However, it is hardly as nefarious as one would hope. Truth is that I get frustrated by the un-Christian atmosphere and stupidity and arrogance of some of the posters here and take a break from participation. After I calm down I return to the forum, but by that time I have forgotten my username and password, so I make a new one.

No big deal.

Especially in light of the fact that General Rule #7, and Conduct Rules #2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are violated on a regular basis, often by the moderators themselves, and violent and abusive posters are allowed to carry on much longer than they should. JAK and James Son of Thunder come to mind, for example.

So no one really gives a rat's _ _ _ about rules or Christian conduct, which is why I am trying again, as "Nadi" (which, by the way ProdigalOne, was taken from the Spanish for "nobody" or "nothing") and exhorting all participants (including Nadi) to examine their posts and attitudes to ensure a safe and Christian environment for all posters.

It is up to us, as ADULT, CHRISTIAN posters, to create the environment that we want and that reflects our Christian values, since Daryl and his moderators cannot or will not enforce the rules of conduct.

I have contacted several of the posters who used to post here to see if they could return and help build a positive environment. Everyone who responded said the same thing: "Maritime is too dark and negative for me."

I'm sure I'll get flamed for this post, and everyone will get their hackles up and be all offended and defensive, but you know I'm right on both points: 1-The forum is dark and un-Christian and 2-it is up to the participants to change that.

Nadi, you gave, "the SDA church really does not tolerate questioning The Prophet or The Doctrines" as a reason for anonymity, so perhaps you are a disgruntled employee of an SDA Division? If so, we could discuss what has led you to become so disillusioned with Seventh Day Adventism? I have no quarrel with pen names, only with hidden affiliations and the shady motives that so often accompany them.


I suppose it is easier to criticize the faith of others without allowing them an equal opportunity to examine yours? Since, you haven’t replied to my question on pages 2 or 5 of this thread, I will ask it again. In the interest of fair, open, and honest discussion, will you do us the curtesy of sharing your denominational affiliation?

Nadi, you gave, "the SDA church really does not tolerate questioning The Prophet or The Doctrines" as a reason for anonymity, ...

SDA, generally speaking, indeed do not tolerate any skepticism about Ellen White. Desmond Ford tried to show that the EGW doctrine of an IJ was not Biblical and he was excommunicated from the pulpit.

///

and HOW would you prove this "James?"

By "this" do you mean:
1. SDA, generally speaking, indeed do not tolerate any skepticism about Ellen White.

or

2.the EGW doctrine of an IJ was not Biblical

Perhaps This should be posted in a thread called Nadi. Unless your point is that Nadi is bringing the "Apostasy of a most startling nature."

ProdigalOne is probably not a real name either

SDA, generally speaking, indeed do not tolerate any skepticism about Ellen White. Desmond Ford tried to show that the EGW doctrine of an IJ was not Biblical and he was excommunicated from the pulpit.

///

By "this" do you mean:
1. SDA, generally speaking, indeed do not tolerate any skepticism about Ellen White.

or

2.the EGW doctrine of an IJ was not Biblical

"Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." Acts 20: 30

He did not agree with the beliefs of the majority of Adventists.
Why would any church employ a preacher who does not agree with its tenets?
The logical course is for that person to find a church that he agrees with or start his own group.

By the way, what is your church denomination?

As it was never Christ's intent that His Church would break off into countless denominations, I would say that Christ belonged to no denomination of Judaism and no denomination of Christianity.

I can also say that there will not be any denominations of any sort after the Second Coming.

I will answer you, if you answer me concerning Jesus Christ, "To what denomination of Judaism did He belong: Pharisee, Sadducee, Essene or Zealot?"

Mat. 21:24-25

///

What are you so afraid of?
A one sided conversation, where you maintain an artificial advantage by hiding, is not the act of a child of the Light, but that of a troll!
If you are unable to defend your beliefs, perhaps they are wrong?
If you are ashamed of your denomination, perhaps it is time for a change?

As it was never Christ's intent that His Church would break off into countless denominations, I would say that Christ belonged to no denomination of Judaism and no denomination of Christianity.

I can also say that there will not be any denominations of any sort after the Second Coming.

Well, some of our members made contact with our old church, and it was not good. They talked with the pastor over at the old church, and even invited him to the VOP series we were having The Appearing with Shawn Boonstra of Christs coming and they were shocked at the response. He told them not to invited them to the series as they 'no longer were giving that message'. I don't know what to say...

I guess then this is ok for a Sabbath morning,....

http://adventmessenger.org/motown-musical-madness-at-mt-rubidoux-seventh-day-adventist-church/

....?

So then what I understand you to be saying is that this music and this type of worship in an SDA church is OK.