Harold Camping

[Overaged]

If William Miller could have seen the light of the third message, many things which looked dark and mysterious to him would have been explained. But his brethren professed so deep love and interest for him, that he thought he could not tear away from them. His heart would incline toward the truth, and then he looked at his brethren; they opposed it. Could he tear away from those who had stood side by side with him in proclaiming the coming of Jesus? He thought they surely would not lead him astray. {EW 258.1}

God suffered him to fall under the power of Satan, the dominion of death, and hid him in the grave from those who were constantly drawing him from the truth. Moses erred as he was about to enter the Promised Land. So also, I saw that William Miller erred as he was soon to enter the heavenly Canaan, in suffering his influence to go against the truth. Others led him to this; others must account for it. But angels watch the precious dust of this servant of God, and he will come forth at the sound of the last trump. {EW 258.2}

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

Here is the point you continue to ignore over and over.

What do you do with the problem of William Miller completely rejecting the message and Ellen White making an exception for him?

As long as you continue to ignore this problem you are deflecting.

You haven't yet grasped the essential fact that William Miller never denied that God was in the 1844 Movement. His rejection of the idea that it was a fulfillment of prophecy is not the same as a rejection that God had led Miller in the preaching of the prophecies.

You are still ignoring the point. Deflection and appeal to authority. Con.

Where is your evidence? You present none.

If William Miller did not reject the message of the 1844 movement, why did Ellen White have to explain why he did?

And please don't ask me to post the quotes again. They are in my previous post.

[John317]

If William Miller did not reject the message of the 1844 movement, why did Ellen White have to explain why he did?

Go study the history for yourself. There are many books which have the answer to your questions. Read them if you are really interested in learning the truth about the 1844 Movement.

I have followed your posts for years, Richard. They are not written by anyone who is sincerely interested in learning the truth about things such as the Millerite Movement.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

If William Miller did not reject the message of the 1844 movement, why did Ellen White have to explain why he did?

Go study the history for yourself. There are many books which have the answer to your questions. Read them if you are really interested in learning the truth about the 1844 Movement.

I have followed your posts for years, Richard. They are not written by anyone who is sincerely interesting in learning the truth about things such as the Millerite Movement.

Your opinion of my motives has no bearing on the fact that Ellen White believed that William Miller rejected the message contrary to your claims that he didn't.

[Overaged]

Your opinion of my motives has no bearing on the fact that Ellen White believed that William Miller rejected the message contrary to your claims that he didn't.

Not true; your motives here reflect on the quality of so called "evidence;" which you keep distorting to your own ends.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

Your opinion of my motives has no bearing on the fact that Ellen White believed that William Miller rejected the message contrary to your claims that he didn't.

Not true; your motives here reflect on the quality of so called "evidence;" which you keep distorting to your own ends.

How could my motives alter William Miller's own words? My evidence has been direct quotes by both Ellen White and William Miller.

Your debate is with them, not me.

[Overaged]

Your opinion of my motives has no bearing on the fact that Ellen White believed that William Miller rejected the message contrary to your claims that he didn't./quote]Not true; your motives here reflect on the quality of so called "evidence;" which you keep distorting to your own ends.

/quote]

How could my motives alter William Miller's own words? My evidence has been direct quotes by both Ellen White and William Miller.

Your debate is with them, not me.

You have altered them by ignoring the evidence I presented.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

Your opinion of my motives has no bearing on the fact that Ellen White believed that William Miller rejected the message contrary to your claims that he didn't./quote]Not true; your motives here reflect on the quality of so called "evidence;" which you keep distorting to your own ends.

/quote]

How could my motives alter William Miller's own words? My evidence has been direct quotes by both Ellen White and William Miller.

Your debate is with them, not me.

You have altered them by ignoring the evidence I presented.

Ok, after reading what you posted I still have the same question.

Ellen White obviously thought that William Miller rejected the advent message because he was influenced by his friends. That is exactly the same thing I posted.

And since we have Ellen White's admission that William Miller rejected the message and we have Ellen White's admission that she believed that the door was shut for all those who rejected the original message, why does William Miller get a pass?

This is exactly the same evidence that I posted. I don't get it.

I was mistaken. You are actually arguing with yourself.

[John317]

Your opinion of my motives has no bearing on the fact that Ellen White believed that William Miller rejected the message contrary to your claims that he didn't.

I'm only going by your posts over the last several years. I'm not attempting to read your motives. I can't do that, but I can read what you write, and that's enough to show me that you aren't a student of SDA history or a reader of Ellen White's writings.

If you're really interested in finding answers to your questions, the best thing you could do is read F.D.Nichols' outstanding book, The Midnight Cry, and a recently published book by George Knight about William Miller. I think the title is simply William Miller, although I believe it has a subtitle as well.

My father wrote a biography of Willam Miller in 1975. It is also available, entitled, The Urgent Voice: the Story of William Miller.

When I see evidence that you're taking the initiative to study this subject, then I'll be much more inclined to discuss it with you.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

GP

I'm tired of seeing the topic "Harold Camping"....it sounds like a bad movie..

**back to topic, I guess**

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

Your opinion of my motives has no bearing on the fact that Ellen White believed that William Miller rejected the message contrary to your claims that he didn't.

I'm only going by your posts over the last several years. I'm not attempting to read your motives. I can't do that, but I can read what you write, and that's enough to show me that you aren't a student of SDA history or a reader of Ellen White's writings.

[JawgeFromJawja]

Originally Posted By: cardw

Your opinion of my motives has no bearing on the fact that Ellen White believed that William Miller rejected the message contrary to your claims that he didn't.

I'm only going by your posts over the last several years. I'm not attempting to read your motives. I can't do that, but I can read what you write, and that's enough to show me that you aren't a student of SDA history or a reader of Ellen White's writings.

If you're really interested in finding answers to your questions, the best thing you could do is read F.D.Nichols' outstanding book, The Midnight Cry, and a recently published book by George Knight about William Miller. I think the title is simply William Miller, although I believe it has a subtitle as well.

My father wrote a biography of Willam Miller in 1975. It is also available, entitled, The Urgent Voice: the Story of William Miller.

When I see evidence that you're taking the initiative to study this subject, then I'll be much more inclined to discuss it with you.

Guys!

Tone it down!

In page after page of butting heads, what have you accomplished? Nothing, except to again show by other Adventists' postings that this is a very controversial, emotionally charged doctrine.

Agape. Christian love. Do you have it for each other? Do you each even admit that the other is Christian saved by the grace of Christ's blood?

[cardw]

Guys!

Tone it down!

In page after page of butting heads, what have you accomplished? Nothing, except to again show by other Adventists' postings that this is a very controversial, emotionally charged doctrine.

Agape. Christian love. Do you have it for each other? Do you each even admit that the other is Christian saved by the grace of Christ's blood?

I think you are under the false impression that I'm a Seventh-Day-Adventist or a Christian.

I'm agnostic and from growing up a SDA I have found that it can be quite harmful to one's quality of life.

I have no personal dislike for John himself. In fact John is a pretty nice guy, but being a nice guy doesn't really inoculate someone from believing harmful ideas. From what I can tell Harold Camping is a pretty nice guy, but it obviously doesn't prevent him from having some pretty crazy ideas.

So I'm more interested in what is true than in being nice. And that is in the spirit of treating others as I would like to be treated. I happen to have people in my life that are more interested in telling me the truth than in being nice and I have learned to recognize them as my true friends that really love me.

They are more interested in my well being than in being nice.

[Stan]

John317 this should be moved from town hall.

Jawge, I agree with it needs to be toned down.

[LifeHiscost]

I happen to have people in my life that are more interested in telling me the truth than in being nice and I have learned to recognize them as my true friends that really love me.

They are more interested in my well being than in being nice.

And do you and your friends believe this below. True Christians do. Just because someone claims to be Christian does not make it so.

Have you lived the life that would be a good example for the "Christians" you know, that you hold responsible for your leaving the Christian community"?

"“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust."

Matthew 5:43-45 NKJV

It is good not to lay at Jesus' feet, the sins of His flawed followers, and remove yourself from His presence.

"For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”"Matt 18:19 NKJV

BTW, this number. "666", came up on the post I just offered. You suppose that has any significance right at this post?

God blesses!

[BobRyan]

Guys!

Tone it down!

In page after page of butting heads, what have you accomplished? Nothing, except to again show by other Adventists' postings that this is a very controversial, emotionally charged doctrine.

Agape. Christian love. Do you have it for each other? Do you each even admit that the other is Christian saved by the grace of Christ's blood?

While I do not condone name calling - I have to wonder if during the 20 years or so that you were an atheist railing against your former Baptist friends and against your wife's family views on God - did you ever come across as less than Christian? Less than loving?

If someone mistook you for a diehard baptist instead of the real atheist you now say you were at the time - wouldn't that have reflected bad on baptists?

in Christ,

Bob.

[JawgeFromJawja]

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

Guys!

Tone it down!

In page after page of butting heads, what have you accomplished? Nothing, except to again show by other Adventists' postings that this is a very controversial, emotionally charged doctrine.

Agape. Christian love. Do you have it for each other? Do you each even admit that the other is Christian saved by the grace of Christ's blood?

While I do not condone name calling - I have to wonder if during the 20 years or so that you were an atheist railing against your former Baptist friends and against your wife's family views on God - did you ever come across as less than Christian? Less than loving?

If someone mistook you for a diehard baptist instead of the real atheist you now say you were at the time - wouldn't that have reflected bad on baptists?

in Christ,

Bob.

Bob,

As far as I know, I never railed against my former Baptist friends. There were never diatribes. Perhaps you should begin to learn now that there is at least a spark of God's love in most people of all persuasions, even if that spark remains only as respect for the right of the other to have a contrary viewpoint. I know that sounds hard to believe, but you will find people of good will within all belief systems. Or lack of belief systems.

Rail against my wife's family? Never happened. Never will. My mother, a staunch Baptist, died 17 years ago. My mother in law, a quintessential Adventist, has ever since been my Mom. Even during my doldrums as a professing atheist my wife's older brother, a devout Adventist, had become and remains my best friend.

Did you totally misunderstand me? Did I completely misunderstand you?

Agape - unconditional good will, Bob.

[teresaq]

Hi Jawge, What do you think of,

Rom 10:2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

Rom 10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

[ClubV12]

I do wish people would post a comment or two about a bible verse(s) they are posting. Some posts are nothing but bible verses. It's sometimes difficult to understand the context and what meaning your trying to make.

At least Ellen White quotes are a little easier to understand, written more or less in our modern language and applicable more or less to our day. But even then, a comment or two wouldn't hurt.

...just a thought...

[teresaq]

I think it has more to do with comprehending what the text is saying. I just "got it" when reading comments from certain personalities on this board.

There is a lot of "zeal" goin' 'round from a few. :)

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

I happen to have people in my life that are more interested in telling me the truth than in being nice and I have learned to recognize them as my true friends that really love me.

They are more interested in my well being than in being nice.

And do you and your friends believe this below. True Christians do. Just because someone claims to be Christian does not make it so.

Are you saying that John isn't a true Christian?

[LifeHiscost]

Are you saying that John isn't a true Christian?

The Scripture that was left out seems to me to be self explanatory and would apply to anyone who did not believe in what Jesus asks of His followers.

"“ If you love Me, you will keep My commandments."John 14:15 NASB

"He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.”"

John 14:21 NKJV

God blesses!

[John317]

I don't understand what the problem is in telling someone to study the topic for themselves. Sometimes it becomes obvious that that's what people need to do, and now is such a time.

Miller himself answered the question that is being asked here. In Dec 3. 1844, he wrote that he could see God's hand in the movement. Then, again, in his article in the Advent Herald, Feb. 12, 1845, Miller said that he couldn't account for the seventh-month movement in any other way than that God's hand and wisdom were in the movement.

For those who are interested in what Miller thought about the Great Disappointment, I can give no better reference than Miller's Apology and Defense, dated July 1845. In it he says that he believed that his work had been to God's glory in spite of what he considered to be an error in computing the time. This pamphlet was the last important work to come from Miller's pen.

Miller believed that there had been an error in the calculation of the date rather than in the event. He seems never to have given up the idea that the earth was the sanctuary. But the point here is that Miller never rejected the view that God's hand was in the proclamation that Christ was coming "about 1843, 1844."

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

Are you saying that John isn't a true Christian?

The Scripture that was left out seems to me to be self explanatory and would apply to anyone who did not believe in what Jesus asks of His followers.

"“ If you love Me, you will keep My commandments."John 14:15 NASB

"He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.”"

John 14:21 NKJV

God blesses!

So are you saying that John doesn't keep the commandments?

[cardw]

I don't understand what the problem is in telling someone to study the topic for themselves. Sometimes it becomes obvious that that's what people need to do, and now is such a time.

Miller himself answered the question that is being asked here. In Dec 3. 1844, he wrote that he could see God's hand in the movement. Then, again, in his article in the Advent Herald, Feb. 12, 1845, Miller said that he couldn't account for the seventh-month movement in any other way than that God's hand and wisdom were in the movement.

For those who are interested in what Miller thought about the Great Disappointment, I can give no better reference than Miller's Apology and Defense, dated July 1845. In it he says that he believed that his work had been to God's glory in spite of what he considered to be an error in computing the time. This pamphlet was the last important work to come from Miller's pen.

Miller believed that there had been an error in the calculation of the date rather than in the event. He seems never to have given up the idea that the earth was the sanctuary. But the point here is that Miller never rejected the view that God's hand was in the proclamation that Christ was coming "about 1843, 1844."