Should SDA's be asking: What is the mark of the beast???

[wicklunds]

As I have said in another post, if God is going to send me to hell because I quoted sister White too often, then so be it...many pastors quote all sorts of OTHER authors, thinkers, philosophers, etc...yet we don't seem to get bound up about them do we...

[Robert]

No one is sending you to hell...I just think it is a mistake to make EGW (or anyone) the measuring stick of truth. You must arrive at truth for yourself (hopefully with the aid of the Holy Spirit).

And no EGW is not of the devil....She had insights that few have had...but ultimately she is not our advocate.

Now back to your post on "the mark of the beast"....Carry on, however try proving your point from the Bible.

As you know there are many sincere Christians who keep Sunday in celebration of Christ's resurrection....There's nothing wrong with that in and of itself. So the mark of the beast can't just be Sunday as celebrated now. Yes...of course the original roots of Sunday come from the Papacy, but most Sunday-keeping Protestants do not keep it in allegiance to Rome.

So maybe in the future Sunday will symbolize something other than Christ's resurrection...I don't absolutely know!

I know that the Sabbath [as tied to the NC] (see Heb 4:9,10) is sign of God's perfect redemptive work "in Christ Jesus". Hence the sign is offensive to Roman.

Since the Papacy teaches salvation by merit (works) it wouldn't surprise me if they attack the Sabbath by exulting Sunday as a means of salvation. That is future....

My opinion,

Robert

[wicklunds]

I respect your sense of consolation, but really, your words are a little condescending and unnecessary. My point above stands. Her work is more than reflective of Biblical principle. If you don't find her writings authoritative in spiritual matters I cannot help but wonder where you will get a better idea of end-time theology. Especially if you are SDA.

Dennis

[jasd]

QRWindow

Re: The matter of the extravagant use of EGW…

With 25,000,000 words attributed to the good woman, even the EGW website proves cumbersome in its indexing and compilation of the source materials, as many frustrating searches --bear out.

As an aside,

it may behoove those of the .Org to use caution, lest they establish within their doctrines and dogmas --iconolatry.

Re: The establishment of Sunday-keeping by the Papacy…

Didn’t Gd (Leviticus 23) establish a Feast to be kept as antitype, wherein, it was always to be celebrated upon the first day of the seven (Sunday), its centerpiece -- two loaves, always to contain leaven? What’s the TYPE? If the Spring Feasts (per certain dogmas) were done away with during Passion week, --What was its fulfillment? What does a parsed Matthew 28:1 yield?

Quote ROBERT, “Since the Papacy teaches salvation by merit (works)…”

Dissembling…

Re: End-time theology…

Holy Writ, primarily.

[wicklunds]

Because you don't equate the two...do you think that Jeremiah, Isaiah, or Amos for that matter, were any different from EW? Hardly!!! Step up to the plate with spiritual wisdom and figure it out that the canonization process is no more inspired than a prophet of God and his or her words. Why do you think God chose a black man and then a woman to bear His end-time message of warning to the world? It is because it will take more faith for the distinguished white men to believe! It will take more faith! Do you have it or not? Something to ponder while we are attempting to distinguish between mere spheres or degrees of inspiration.

[jasd]

>>Because you don't equate the two...<<

Speaking of equating ‘the two’… have you considered that Holy Writ contains less than 800,000 words in its canonized 66 books? yet, there is sufficiency contained within those 800,000 words to provide for schisms enough to give us more than 30,000 Protestor .Orgs --with additionally, that --to adequately sustain quite a few schisms within the RC .Org. What need then hast anyone for 25,000,000 more? That seems to me, to be…

‘laying burdens upon the brethren’; whereas, the Pauline determination consists of five words, “Jesus Christ and Him crucified”; or even, as our friend ROBERT would have it, --in two words, “Faith saves”.

>>…do you think that Jeremiah, Isaiah, or Amos for that matter, were any different from EW? Hardly!!!<<

Frankly, yes, --though it is not necessary, and I prefer not, --to elaborate. That being said,

I believe that should I find I’ve made heaven by the skinny of my teeth, I’ll be one of those in the furthest shadows, standing room only, sharing the feast of the righteous with plastic spoon and paper plate, whilst EGW would be away up there, close-by the Dais where the vessels of the Temple are set. No, I can do aught but give the woman credit; it is her due. But…,

>>…that the canonization process is no more inspired than a prophet of God and his or her words.<<

canonical? or near-canonical? I’m afraid not.

>>Why do you think God chose a black man and then a woman to bear His end-time message of warning to the world?<<

First, I’ve seen the influence of ‘fervency and enthusiasm’ in religious settings.

Second, it is my opinion that the “end-time message” needs revisiting. Although it served your fathers well, --it needs revisiting. It is, as I’ve said, that even EGW changed with the times --in moving from a Unitarian perspective to --accepting and putting forward the Triune Gd or Trinity; and, the 1844 posit

is scandalous… Further,

when listening to .Org televised seminars, there is a disturbing lack of distinction and utter confusion pertaining, --to the two houses of Israel (setting aside the houses of Jacob, David…) vis-à-vis prophetic passages in Writ.

It may be that Gd moved the prophet Joel to address this matter of “end-time message”, and it may be that development and dissemination of the real “end-time message” falls to you and others…, sons and daughters, old men, young men, servants and handmaids. At the least, you might want to put unsustainable issues having loose threads --on the table…

>>It is because it will take more faith for the distinguished white men to believe! It will take more faith!<<

Yes, some tenets held by various .Orgs take, indeed, more than mere faith.

>>Do you have it or not?<<

I don’t believe in faith for faith’s sake. Jesus did not indoctrinate His disciples, He taught them; and teaching implies reason and cognition, in my humble opinion. It is like a very fine musical composition… there must be harmony, even where there appears that none exists.

>>…mere spheres or degrees of inspiration.<<

I like that, translucent with a charmingly evanescent shade…

[jasd]

Other than those found in the book of Revelation, there are only three NT texts where ‘mark’ is used; they are..

Rom 16:17 (#4648)

Ph’p 3:14 (#4649) and verse17 (#4648)

At all other times --New Testamental, throughout the book of Revelation, Strong’s #5480 is utilized.

Strong’s #5480 charagma, khar'-ag-mah; from the same as 5482; a scratch or etching, i.e. stamp (as a badge of servitude), or sculptured figure (statue):--graven, mark.

Strong’s #5481. charakter, from the same as 5482; a graver ( the tool or the person), i.e (by impl.) engraving ([“character”], the figure stamped, i.e. an exact copy or [fig.] representation):--express image.

Strong's #5482 charax, khar'-ax; from charasso (to sharpen to a point; akin to 1125 through the idea of scratching); a stake, i.e. (by impl.) a palisade or rampant (military mound for circumvallation in a siege):--trench.

Strong’s #1125 grapho, graf’-o; a prim. verb; to “grave”, espec. to write; fig. to describe:--describe, write (-ing, -ten).

There does not emerge in the above --an emphasis upon the sublime; rather, its emphasis is upon the physical. I perceive scant provision for a construct appealing to the aesthetic or the spiritual. Matter of fact,

its military aspect puts one to mind of St Paul’s mention of a ‘falling away’, which has its root in military terminology, that is, revolt, or revolution; as does his use of tagma, that is, [military] order; or, as does that of his figurative --armor of Gd;

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

jasd said:

Speaking of equating ‘the two’… have you considered that Holy Writ contains less than 800,000 words in its canonized 66 books? yet, there is sufficiency contained within those 800,000 words to provide for schisms enough to give us more than 30,000 Protestor .Orgs --with additionally, that --to adequately sustain quite a few schisms within the RC .Org. What need then hast anyone for 25,000,000 more? That seems to me, to be…

‘laying burdens upon the brethren’; whereas, the Pauline determination consists of five words, “Jesus Christ and Him crucified”; or even, as our friend ROBERT would have it, --in two words, “Faith saves”.

---

It is typical of People who only quote oversimplified Pauline snippets of a verse to argue against even a semi-canonized EW volume. If you are implying that we have enough information already, then you surely look past the texts that mention God not moving forward without first revealing it to His servants the prophets. We are on dangerous ground when we allow church members to reject key historical prophetic literature and then allow them to preach from our pulpits and teach at our schools.

Quote:

---

jasd said:

Frankly, yes, --though it is not necessary, and I prefer not, --to elaborate. That being said,

I believe that should I find I’ve made heaven by the skinny of my teeth, I’ll be one of those in the furthest shadows, standing room only, sharing the feast of the righteous with plastic spoon and paper plate, whilst EGW would be away up there, close-by the Dais where the vessels of the Temple are set. No, I can do aught but give the woman credit; it is her due. But…,

---

But clearly we don't give the Lord credit when we say that EW is a sub-inspired prophet not due the attention a "schismatic" few are willing to render. Do we trust the Lord or not? I have my doubts about particular ones here.

You seem humble enough, but will humility count when light is rejected?

Quote:

---

jasd said:

First, I’ve seen the influence of ‘fervency and enthusiasm’ in religious settings.

Second, it is my opinion that the “end-time message” needs revisiting. Although it served your fathers well, --it needs revisiting. It is, as I’ve said, that even EGW changed with the times --in moving from a Unitarian perspective to --accepting and putting forward the Triune Gd or Trinity; and, the 1844 posit

is scandalous… Further,

when listening to .Org televised seminars, there is a disturbing

lack of distinction

and utter confusion pertaining, --to the two houses of Israel (setting aside the houses of Jacob, David…) vis-à-vis prophetic passages in Writ.

It may be that Gd moved the prophet Joel to address this matter of “end-time message”, and it may be that development and dissemination of the real “end-time message” falls to you and others…, sons and daughters, old men, young men, servants and handmaids. At the least, you might want to put unsustainable issues having loose threads --on the table…

---

First, fervency and enthusiasm are part of the zeal that Christ would have us to exhibit after having trusted us enough to bear a prophetic end-time, three angels, remnant message of warning and call to repentance.

Second, usually, the ones who have problems with our eschatological message are the ones that have let their eyes wander off into the controversial, self-styled, messages of Ford, Canright, and, dare I mention, Dale Ratzlaff in the same breath. Then the only options left are to attack from within or without the ark of salvation of the Lord handed to us through EW and the pioneers. EW may have used the term "trinity" but once or twice, and even then it was only as a light passing over. Never did she become a champion of the Trinity. Change with the times...I don't see it like Alden Thompson does, and certainly not like most he teaches. The real reason she seemed to morph as many have charged, is because of the overly-right-brained and wishful-thinking editors. I don't see any need to argue with you about 1844 or whatever you mean about going from unitarian...seems utterly ludicrous to me though, and a dangerous, condensed version of the type of ideas Adventist liberal arts college professors are peddling these days.

Of course it needs revisiting, but with the way we treat the light we already have, we would not be able to receive what God would show us. You must realize this. There are many things left to learn.

Lastly, As to the confusion in prophecy seminars about the distinction between the two houses of Israel, you would have to be more concise here if you wanted any commentary from me. I don't know what you mean here.

Quote:

---

jasd said:

Yes, some tenets held by various .Orgs take, indeed, more than mere faith.

---

Yet the things they have to say are true a lot of times. The problem is, that noone will listen because they are not on the cutting edge of modern scholarship. The attitude is, if you don't have a seminary degree or an abbreviated title after your name, get lost creep! But I think you are being sarcastic on this one.

Quote:

---

jasd said:

I don’t believe in faith for faith’s sake. Jesus did not indoctrinate His disciples, He taught them; and teaching implies reason and cognition, in my humble opinion. It is like a very fine musical composition… there must be harmony, even where there appears that none exists.

---

yeah, a very fine musical composition but without the use of contemporary philosophy and historical criticism. Thank you Lord. At least He used the phrase, it is written, and really believed His Bible was accurate, rather than attack it as an "inspiring booklet".

Quote:

---

jasd said:

I like that, translucent with a charmingly evanescent shade…

---

If evanescent is how you categorize EW's writings, it is keeping with tradition these days. Dont know what is Adventist about your Adventism. Do you appreciate your church history, or hate it?

Dennis

[Clio]

Quote:

---

that of his figurative --

armor

of Gd;

---

It's not figurative... it's literal.

Clio

[jasd]

>>…oversimplified Pauline snippets of a verse to argue…<<

I try not to become over-enamored with St Paul. It seems too many follow after the 2nd century Marcion, heretic, who elevated the Pauline epistles over that of almost the entirety of Writ.

>>…against even a semi-canonized EW volume.<<

My mother, blessed saint, left a bunch of EGW and asst other material for me when she went to be with the Lord. I also search the EGW material through an SDA Academy website. I will not say Gd did not use EGW, as I believe that He did -- however, “canonized? or semi-canonized?” I can’t say that I’m ready to get in that little red wagon.

>>If you are implying that we have enough information already,…<<

I’m stating outright that meaningful study of Writ is greatly hampered if inundated with anybody’s 25,000,000-word contribution. EGW needs seriously to be edited and condensed, …my humble opinion. Studying her 25,000,000 words as integral to Writ cannot do other than detract from the earnest study of Writ itself. Moreover, the average person,

given a text of 25,788,000 words (Writ plus EGW) will find the gospel of Christ nigh impossible to extricate from such a superabundance. However, that said,

if your prophet epitomized and endeavoured to instill love for the brethren in Christ, rather than as other .Orgs, impugning upon every given occasion, …then surely indeed, you have a prophet that none might gainsay.

>>…then you surely look past the texts that mention God not moving forward without first revealing it to His servants the prophets.<<

I believe I proffered Joel as foretelling that even you and I might dream… that said however,

that would not nullify the admonition to try the ‘spirits’.

[jasd]

>>We are on dangerous ground when we allow church members to reject key historical prophetic literature…<<

Who developed your Daniel and Revelation understanding? Was it Anderson? Was it Uriah Smith? How disposed are you towards Uriah Smith knowing that he developed much of the .Org’s doctrines? some say that the greater portion is his… Were his contributions the result of night seasons? or can one look back with better perspective than was available to him in the mid-nineteenth century? Do you subscribe to his putting forward premature withstandings of Daniel 12:4,9? What of Crosier? how was it established that his exposition was of the HS? and not that of expositional expediency? …etc?

>>…and then allow them to preach from our pulpits and teach at our schools.<<

I understand your concern. If it is that your pastors and teachers were obliged to adhere to certain principles of distinct SDA character when hired, and are afterwards found bruiting subversion of those very principles..., they should be held accountable --without abridgement of any implied or inherent rights pertaining.

>>But clearly we don't give the Lord credit when we say that EW is a sub-inspired prophet…<<

I put it that the fault may very well lie with her. The quotes following…

“… Others have called me a prophetess, but I have never assumed that title. I have not felt that it was my duty thus to designate myself. Those who boldly assume that they are prophets in this our day are often a reproach to the cause of Christ.

My work includes much more than this name signifies. I regard myself as a messenger, entrusted by the Lord with messages for His people.” --Letter 55, 1905.

“I regard myself as a messenger, entrusted by the Lord with messages for His people. I am now instructed that I am not to be hindered in my work by those who engage in suppositions regarding its nature, whose minds are struggling with so many intricate problems connected with the supposed work of a prophet. My commission embraces the work of a prophet, but it does not end there. It embraces much more than the minds of those who have been sowing the seeds of unbelief can comprehend.” --Letter 244, 1906. (Addressed to elders of Battle Creek church.)

testify to ‘I’ve not assumed the title prophet’; ‘I regard myself as a messenger’; ‘embraces the work of a prophet’; embraces much more than the minds … can comprehend’. [/paraphrased]

[jasd]

>>…not due the attention a "schismatic" few are willing to render.<<

You will always have the “schismatic” with you. First, the ‘schism’ of the Reformation; second, the Millerite excitement; third, the après Miller marginalization; fourth, the current schism deveoping…

>>Do we trust the Lord or not? I have my doubts about particular ones here.<<

Indeed, we trust the Lord. Do we trust self-attestations? Re: “Particular ones”, …is the Lord’s hand short, that it cannot save? Perhaps, it is not necessary that one look to this crier of the word or to that one proclaiming… Perhaps, it is that we must look to ourselves.

>>You seem humble enough, but will humility count when light is rejected?<<

I am an arrogant proverbial so and so, but I will concede the obvious. Wouldn’t you agree that “light” is very subjective? very much in need of more specificity and narrowness of definition… otherwise, we might say that even the Apostles entertained fundamental disagreements. If the Apostles…, how much more we might disagree over issues, such as, what do you mean when you say “light”? For example:

How about that posited on another thread of a Wednesday crucifixion? That would harmonize with Jesus’ statement regards the sign of Jonah without the disgraceful rending of texts. But would it really? Wouldn’t that exposition have the Jews selecting their sacrifices and carrying them home upon the preceding Sabbath? Wouldn’t that profane the Sabbath? Might that not argue for an intercalary in Passion week? No? How do we know that? After all, Hillel II

demonstrated, unhappily, that the Jewish calendar had been lost… Had the calendar introduced to the Jewish economy from the Babylon captivity so disrupted the Jewish calendar? How often had the calendars of the COI been changed? Or, diverging…

does the .Org still hold that the sins of the congregation in the wilderness were laid upon the Azazel goat and that that goat represented Satan? …and not Christ?

[jasd]

Quote:

---

jasd said:

First, I’ve seen the influence of ‘fervency and enthusiasm’ in religious settings.

---

>>First, fervency and enthusiasm are part of the zeal that Christ would have us to exhibit…<<

Granted, however, ‘fervency and enthusiasm’ as influenced in some religious settings can be and often are clamorous, --exhibiting questionable spirits.

>>…after having trusted us enough to bear a prophetic end-time, three angels, remnant message of warning and call to repentance.<<

So, I can see where one might take an absolute reading as imagery or symbol and say that the angels spoken of in the message of the three angels are, in fact, church members…, but flying in the midst of heaven! really? Then there is the cachet of the purport other .Orgs make, --saying that those particular angels of Revelation are referencing, in symbol, their satellites which fly in the midst of heaven.

>>Second, usually, the ones who have problems with our eschatological message are the ones that have let their eyes wander off into the controversial, self-styled, messages of Ford, Canright, and, dare I mention, Dale Ratzlaff in the same breath.<<

I confess that I’ve read only Canright and found his testimony startling. I did not encounter anything eschatological, that I remember.

Do you recommend a reading of Ford or Ratzlaff?

>>EW may have used the term "trinity" but once or twice, and even then it was only as a light passing over. Never did she become a champion of the Trinity.<<

Oh, I suppose I might ask, how much is a little pregnant? or, which trumps, that first laid down or that which supersedes? or, capriciously,

the Trinitarian:

To believe or no, that is the question. Whether ‘tis nobler in mind to endure quietus and suffer the slings and arrows of conscience, or to take up the noble cause of truth and in doing, not offend with maiden’s sweet demur but by heaven’s decretive, --offend with substance… I say, that should we forfeit breath --that gives utterance to right, when we’d go along to get along:-- ‘tis better we give flesh to consummation and die, --to sleep; perchance, truth, then bidden might abide --a mantle for our bones, and five smooth stones

to mark our graves. Leave insolence to office and let spurn remain the merit, --the unworthy takes. --apologies to The Earl of Lancashire

[jasd]

>>Change with the times...I don't see it like Alden Thompson does, and certainly not like most he teaches. The real reason she seemed to morph as many have charged, is because of the overly-right-brained and wishful-thinking editors.<<

“A movement is not a settlement; a movement is not a theological point of view. A movement, in the strictest sense, is not a denomination. A movement is a pilgrimage, a people on a journey, an expedition.” --C. E. Bradford; Senior statesman in Adventism

>>I don't see any need to argue with you about 1844…<<

I was not referring to that, which is the currently held 1844 doctrine of Atonement and Judgement. I referred to the requisites laid down, as establishing parameters, that…

Dan 9:25 Know therefore and understand, [that] from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince [shall be] seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks; the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

cannot be said to have found its fulfillment with the 457 BC commission given to Ezra. None of the conditions in Daniel 9:25 were met in the ‘Ezra chronicle’.

>>…or whatever you mean about going from unitarian...seems utterly ludicrous to me though,<<

Unitarian: One who denies the doctrine of the Trinity, believing that God exists only in one person.

“We believed a long time that Christ was a created being,...” —Prescott [ed.]

“…that ‘old Trinitarian absurdity’…” —James White [ed.]

“The Father then made known that it was ordained by Himself that Christ His Son, should be equal with Himself; so that wherever was the presence of His Son, it was as His own presence. The word of the Son was to be obeyed as readily as the word of the Father. His Son He had invested with authority to command the heavenly host." --E.G. White, the Story of Redemption, p.13. [ed.]

…

“The first positive reference to the Trinity in Adventist literature appeared in the Bible Students' Library series in 1892.” To facilitate the transition to that of a Trinitarian position the .Org availed to themselves the use of

“The Bible Doctrine of the Trinity." What is significant is the fact that the author, Samuel Spear, was not an Adventist. The pamphlet was a reprint of an article from the New York Independent of November 14,1889.” (and published by the Pacific Press: 1892)

“The breakthrough came with the publication of Ellen White's article "Christ the Life giver" in Signs of the Times in 1897, and the book The Desire of Ages in 1898.”

[jasd]

>>Of course it needs revisiting, but with the way we treat the light we already have, we would not be able to receive what God would show us.<<

How about that which has already been shown us? I mean, mebbe, some of the twists and turns that have been applied to Writ don’t deserve to be viewed as recursive infinity loops.

>>You must realize this. There are many things left to learn.<<

Ping!

>>Lastly, As to the confusion in prophecy seminars about the distinction between the two houses of Israel, you would have to be more concise here if you wanted any commentary from me. I don't know what you mean here.<<

“Abraham was the first Jew. … After 430 years of slavery in Egypt, Gd brought all twelve tribes of Jews out of Egypt that they might serve Him in the wilderness according to laws He gave at Sinai.”

Do you see anything wrong with the content in the above? The entire epistemological catalog of the .Org goes on in like manner, irreparably aborting that which ‘holy men of Gd spake as they were moved by the HS’.

Quote:

---

jasd said:

Yes, some tenets held by various .Orgs take, indeed, more than mere faith.

---

>>The attitude is, if you don't have a seminary degree or an abbreviated title after your name, get lost creep!<<

Ping! Wescott and Hort, eminent ‘lettered’ Cambridge alumni who gave us the edited/critical New Greek text (which Eberhard Nestle followed, and {after that, the Nestle-Aland text}) upon which our ‘Modern Translations’ are based (.Org’s {un-named} very own NIV, yet!) were flagrant ghost-bustin’ spiritualists. Well, mebbe not ghost-busters but definitely ghost chasers… is that gut-bustin’? or no?

>>But I think you are being sarcastic on this one.<<

Only just a little :-)

Quote:

---

jasd said:

I like that, translucent with a charmingly evanescent shade…

---

>>If evanescent is how you categorize EW's writings,…<<

It was a reference to your neatly turned phrase. I appreciated it and described it as I would one of the stones I cut and facet, or carve. The terminology sometimes spills over.

>>Dont know what is Adventist about your Adventism.<<

My Adventism is that I believe Christ will return in the clouds of earth's heavens as an Advent. (There is nothing, which proscribes asking. [/chide] ;-)

>>Do you appreciate your church history, or hate it?<<

I don’t have a church.

[jasd]

Quote:

---

that of his figurative –

armor

of Gd;

---

>>It's not figurative... it's literal.<<

Agreed. I believe there is an effectual armor of Gd; it is only that St Paul used figurative language in his passage, which dealt with it. I should have worded it better.

Thanks, I’m with you on this.

[jasd]

charagma

(hmm, graven, etchings, scratchings…) uhh, three-dimensional-physical-thingees, eh? hmm-m, would an engraved chip be a three-dimensional-physical-thingee? and would an implantation of it be ‘causeth...to receive’? (or would I be more correct in stating that is the action of something-or-t’other [terrorists, mebbe?] that ‘causeth’ that I must receive… )

Chips (photographic etchings) -- Digital Angel chips, VeriChip, as well others, -- even a few from the red dragon and it’s seven tigers…, I’ll bet, Moon on Placid Lake chip, Red Lady Smiling chip… [sorry, I have relatives that love superlative language]); given the FDA fast track OK, --chip [etchings/mark] implantation has already begun.

Hmmm, this terrorist activity is shor-nuf convenient, say what? Additionally,

were I an ‘insider’, privy to the machinations of the Banking Houses (read: Incorporated Consortiums, Syndicates, Trusts, et Cies, et als), I would offer to form a steering committee to initiate a money and/or ID system (especially for purposes of tax collecting); its primary purpose being, to incorporate the numbers 666 by some fashion into the ‘legal tender’. The purpose being,

so’s to initiate and maximize the expectant increase in ‘properties in default’ by those phobic Xtians who will refuse to pay taxes, license renewals, fees, etc, for fear of the designate 666; further, I would suggest an intensifying of John Q Public’s awareness of the Biblical implications. With that in mind,

I would employ Hollywood, Madison Ave, TV Evangelists, etc, to get behind, oh..., a few motion pictures with that theme, maybe put everyone onto the ‘Left Behind’ series, foment about Jerusalem, 666, etc. You know, …fer maximization of public hysteria. [/gulp, mea culpa]

Moreover, wouldn’t it be a hoot if it were let slip that the new legal tender was first offered to …oh, let’s say, the god papa Pan -- of joy, and the earth mother -- mama Gaia! together with propitiatory incantations of course!

For good measure I would have our friends at Treasury declare a nullification date for the legal tender of all present monies and then staaallll in the issuance of the new tender/chip(?). Debt obligations would still have to be met, but without the means to meet them, …aw shucks, --foreclosure! on the rest of John Q Public! Our ad hoc consortium of Corporate and Banking Houses (whose nexus is “The City” -- [which is in the city, London]) would call in all loans. Ipso…, world-wide deflationary depression.

With promissory warrants and friends in high places, …

why, our very selves could end up owning almost the entirety (together, with what we already own) of the Western world, as well, perhaps, that of most of the rest of the world, --what with, all those madcap Xtians and their primitive superstitions about the numbers 666. And if our very selves owned the properties, wouldn’t we then own the people? What in the world should be done with all those slav…, oops, pooples? (Hmmm, sounds good, --slooples)

We then provide a loaf of bread (correction, grain for a loaf of bread) for a day’s wages, re-industrialize the Western world, and bring in the New Millennium Age (of course, it goes without saying …don’t trust them Asiatic types and third-worlders nohow [no offense guys, just part of the hokum].

Would this ‘thing’ be too good to let slip by?

(…you didn’t hear this from me, you only think you did; and if said that I was connected in any manner, way, shape, or form to this harum scarum, ahem, …why, I would just up and deny it whilst slippy-slidin’ away… oh, in the hand or in the forehead, of course, …like the soldiers of Rome who marked their foreheads to honour Mithras)

Don’t take offense anybody, …just poking fun at mese’f, it’s me theraporific regimen, necessitated by too many fifths of 110-proof lobotomal. Besides,

I might just believe what I wrote…

(And, the above is with technology that still employs blue-laser ‘graving/etching’… what then of --etchings done with the much faster x-ray --using electromagnetic ‘lenses’ for focusing? That method should give us chips small enough to pass subdermally with applied patches --using a carrying agent [such as dmso?])

[wicklunds]

Since you say you don't have a church, I cannot help but wonder about your interest in being here on this forum chatting away with SDA's (and some not so SDA). Maybe you might better serve your own ends on a secular website where you would feel more free to move about the cabin??? Your posts seem to skirt and flit around on a whim without purpose or presence, bringing up Greek terms and using swerving grammatical undulations only a vocabulite would enjoy. Maybe you should write for an exciting creative writing newspaper or something. Just a thought.

Dennis

[jasd]

Oh, wicklunds… [/smilin’], don’t fall into the quasiTheologic dialectics of ‘context, huff, and ad hoc-ing the person’... It’s been found to be the refuge of scoundrels.

The issues themselves [:"red"]are[/] the foci.

>>Since you say you don't have a church, I cannot help but wonder about your interest in being here on this forum chatting away with SDA's (and some not so SDA).<<

Actually, I figure that where two or three gather together (is that Biblical?), there -- is the kingdom of Gd and there is Gd. What further need is there to incorporate the ‘gather’ that it might be rendered unto Ceasar? THEREIN LIES SIN! for the ekklesia belongs to Gd and no man/woman ought to instead, render what belongeth to Gd, --unto the State/Caesar. To multiply error

to their worldliness, the .Orgs then apply for IRC Section 501©(3), further submitting to the State/Caesar.

>>Since you say you don't have a church, I cannot help but wonder…<<

What does the two have to do with one another?

>>…about your interest in being here on this forum chatting away with SDA's (and some not so SDA).<<

I ought to leave you wondering, but instead, let me try to wean you from that, which I made mention to another ‘concerned citizen’ of the .Org, that is, THAT sort of animus written on scraps in phylacteries upon the heart.

I’ve already told you in an oblique sort of way --that I am Gestalting. As my mother, bless her soul, …devout SDA and EGW adherent, lay dying, --she fretted about that, which EGW had passed-on as an imperative derived from ‘night seasons’ or some such other… “You must have won souls for Jesus! the true Xtian will have stars in their crowns!” Yikes! enough to raise the willies on the nape… agreed? Yet, it is falsity, multiplied and unBiblical. WDYT?

Why should my mother slip from these mortal coils in a fret? My mother knew of none that she had personally brought to the Lord, so, --was lacking the peace she deserved. What heresy will not bat an eyelash whilst laying this burden upon another soul resting upon the Saviour’s breast?

The Biblical passage, which finally provided her peace was that, found in

1 Sam 30:24 For who will hearken unto you in this matter? but as his part [is] that goeth down to the battle, so [shall] his part [be] that tarrieth by the stuff; they shall part alike.

The chook in the back pew shares equally through his or her tithes and offerings --those whom the Lord elects to save --through the efforts of those actually in ‘the fields’ of the Lord. (I couldn’t find substantiating texts pertaining to ‘stars in your crown’ --help me out)

I’m here because I promised my mother I’d be her ‘star in her crown’. That is why I spend my time on these Gd-forums. I am a dispassionate and dissociative (I am the sociopathic sort -- lacking empathy) sort of a bloke; it’s very difficult for me to understand what this ‘relationship’ with Gd is all about. But,

I’m beginning to think you’re right…, it is time I search elsewhere more meaningful. (a reminder, one needs take care how one passes off hokum-as-Gd-speak)

[jasd]

>>Maybe you might better serve your own ends on a secular website where you would feel more free to move about the cabin???<<

I’ve spent 35-40 years of my life in clubs and bars, drunk and with drunks, yet never, have I encountered the mean-mouthedness I run across so consistently on these Gd-forums. I wonder at the dogmas that inculcate such smallness in the person.

>>Your posts seem to skirt and flit around on a whim…<<

Et tu, wicklunds? Sheesh, methinks you skirt the issue(s) by engaging in the tangential. So, tell me, who provided the sublime (…regards the ‘mark, number, name’) to the .Org, rather than checking Strong’s or a lexicon --for clarity?

>>…without purpose or presence,<<

They are deliberately vague, as I’ve already mentioned “I am not qualified to assert that I am doctrinally correct.” My posts are meant to be mulled-upon, by whoever has the interest to do so --for whatever might contribute to an understanding that can be, rightfully, purported to be correct. It seems to me to be more advisable, --than to shill that orthodoxy which needs --rather to be expurgated. Besides,

it is for intent to print multi-folded pamphlets of mine that I post, --that I might have material to print. I am developing that, which I will distribute by handout and by inclusion with items I sell.

>>…bringing up Greek terms…<<

What!? is it only Walla Walla students who are allowed a Hebrew-Greek concordance or a lexicon? Isn’t that supposed to be a Catholic identifier, you know, censorship of the mind? Besides, those Greek words were only the principals… the rest being in English.

>>…and using swerving grammatical undulations only a vocabulite would enjoy.<<

You’re a University student, are you not? and you have difficulty with my vernacularism? Let me share with you…, I have ‘bout three-four thousand books in my library (having sold the best of my library) with only a paltry few unread. When I read, I list the words I am unfamiliar with -- and pull out my dictionaries after finishing text, passage, or book. (I’ve tried it piecemeal before and just seem to lose the flow of the text) That is not to say that I’ve paid much attention to linguistics; however, I enjoy words and I don’t mind sharing -- with those who might benefit. You might give thought to the fact that Reader’s Digest does the same… only in a condensed manner. (uhh, qualifier: Bear in mind that I admit to having imbibed convivially to the point of forgetful discombobulation ;-)

>>Maybe you should write for an exciting creative writing newspaper or something. Just a thought.<<

May I be frank with you? Permit me. Rather than massaging any debilitating predilections you may or may not have in the way of character defects, why don’t you address the issues before you in a Gdly fashion after having asked Gd for wisdom in dealing with the issues. Or is it

that you just don’t care to provide a ready answer for those who, perhaps, haven’t had the opportunity to have matriculated in a place of higher learning, as it seems you have. In Gd’s name SHARE! there are enough --denigrating another’s person, --sufficient unto the day, already.

So, then, the ‘mark’ of the beast having been put on the table, would you like to contribute to an understanding of its name? an understanding of its number?

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

jasd said:

So, then, the ‘mark’ of the beast having been put on the table, would you like to contribute to an understanding of its name? an understanding of its number?

---

Exactly what I am talking about...use plain English so everyone clearly understands what on earth you are talking about, then we might not be having this conversation.. If you have something to add that I can understand, well that is good news. Otherwise it would be courteous to not sully up the thread with confounding messages. Thanks!

[jasd]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

jasd said:

So, then, the ‘mark’ of the beast having been put on the table, would you like to contribute to an understanding of its name? an understanding of its number?

---

Exactly what I am talking about...use plain English so everyone clearly understands what on earth you are talking about, then we might not be having this conversation.. If you have something to add that I can understand, well that is good news. Otherwise it would be courteous to not sully up the thread with confounding messages. Thanks!

---

What is there not to understand? I am of a perplex; however,

Rev 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

I’ve put forward in a previous post that the ‘mark/charagma’ of the beast may not indeed, be the sublimity of a ‘thought’ --represented by the forehead; that it may not either be ‘working’ on any particular day of the week, as signaled by ‘hand’; but rather, I’ve put forward that the ‘mark’ of the beast may indeed, be best translated --

an etching,

a charagma; in parlance, a photographic etching,

--a microchip.

So, dispensing with ‘mark/charagma’ --as having been put on the table for thought, for discussion, for whatever…

Rev 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

what then must one do with

secondly, ‘the name of the beast’ or

thirdly, ‘the number of his name’?

[:"blue"]”…it would be courteous to not sully up the thread…” --wicklunds[/]

"Truth hath a quiet breast." --William Shakespeare

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

jasd said:

I’m beginning to think you’re right…, it is time I search elsewhere more meaningful. (a reminder, one needs take care how one passes off hokum-as-Gd-speak)

---

Jasd,

Please believe me, as a practicing Seventh-day Adventist second, and a Christian disciple of Christ first, the desire to have you on other forums instead of this one, is probably only voicing a personal preference by

limited opinion. However let me encourage you, that if it is your desire to help others understand and come to know Jesus better, by your presence, we have no other choice than that given to us by our Lord, to welcome you among His body of believers.

[:"red"] "And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us." [/] Luke 9:50 KJV

It does seem though, that just as Jesus made Himself very clear in His love for all, and His wishes to see them accept His plans for them, He never entered into debate with His detractors with a desire to make them appear small and insignificant. And more often than not, though He could have put many to shame with words of eloquence, He gave advice that helped them make up their own mind as to whether they would wish to serve Him as Lord and Savior. I hope that you might also see that the majority of Christians

of the Adventist persuasion feel the same way.

[:"red"] "Whoever will humble himself therefore and become like this little child [trusting, lowly, loving, forgiving] is greatest in the kingdom of heaven." [/] Matthew 18:4 AMP

[:"red"] "And we know that the Son of God has come, and he has given us understanding so that we can know the true God. And now we are in God because we are in his Son, Jesus Christ. He is the only true God, and he is eternal life." [/] 1 John 5:20 NLT

May I suggest, most of us know that as individuals we don't have, nor do we know all the answers. But we also know that if one presents themself as searching for answers in order to know Jesus better, our Father will give us of His Spirit to help another, better find the way to the throne in heaven.

[:"red"] "Jesus told him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me." [/] John 14:6 NLT

[:"red"] "The Lord isn't really being slow about his promise to return, as some people think. No, he is being patient for your sake. He does not want anyone to perish, so he is giving more time for everyone to repent." [/]

2 Pet 3:9 NLT

Blessings!

[wicklunds]

thanks Life,

JASD, Thanks again for the wonderful long exposition showcasing your verbal skills. Please, if you are going to post, speak in more twenty-first century English and then we should be just fine here. College or not, we have plenty of simple-minded folk on here who have not a clue what you are trying to say. Much appreciated.

[jasd]

First off, assuredly, your suggestions and opinions are taken under advisement. That said,

help me resolve whether it is you or I that is conflicted, per…

>>However let me encourage you, … by your presence, we have no other choice than that given to us by our Lord, to welcome you among His body of believers.<< [ed.]

One would think that that aside, other reasons manifest...; common courtesy or graciousness, of themselves (not mentioning the Biblical ensample of hospitality) would suffice to welcome. Nevertheless,

if, as I suppose, the underlined in the quote above is an unfortunate choice of words such as I am often wont to make, and that the above is genuinely expressed, it behooves me to thank-you.

Thanks, much, LifeHiscost, sincerely appreciated.

>>He never entered into debate with His detractors with a desire to make them appear small and insignificant.<<

Supposedly, that is an inflection towards me, so… without appearing to quibble upon the matter, let me remind… that the reference fails. However,

commenting upon the expressed “a desire to make them appear small and insignificant”, -- if I am the intended recipient of that remark, let me develop that further: Evidently, you’ve missed the initiating post. However, that said, it is not necessarily allowed that I should have responded as vigorously as I might have been perceived to have done. So, with the allowance that I genuinely, as mentioned before, like and respect wicklunds’ diligence (and I suspect, if, knowing the man, him also); and with the acknowledgement that I react very strongly to sibilance; let the following be seen for what it is, that is,

an apology, “Apologies, wicklunds.”

I shall attempt, in future instances, to temper my responses to ill projected pejoratives.

>>And more often than not, though He could have put many to shame with words of eloquence,…<<

An indictment? … “eloquence”? forsooth! ;-)

>>He gave advice that helped them make up their own mind as to whether they would wish to serve Him as Lord and Savior.<<

Heaven should wish that I were one to give advice. For lack of sufficiency of caveats, I forbear.

>>I hope that you might also see that the majority of Christians of the Adventist persuasion feel the same way.<<

Kindly, will you expand…?

>>[:"red"]"Whoever will humble himself therefore and become like this little child [trusting, lowly, loving, forgiving] is greatest in the kingdom of heaven."[/] Matthew 18:4 AMP<<

Being too lazy at this moment to search out the AMP, --is the bracketed in the AMP? or is it your commentary? The reason I ask is, --the question of just what, exactly, Jesus meant by those words have been puzzling to me.

I’ve raised four children and have found that children, by and large, are readily as representative (if not as admirable) of adult behaviour, as not (that is not to say that my children were not exemplary kids). So, I am persuaded that Jesus was endorsing the natural inclination of a child to learn, to ‘know’, its curiosity -- if you will; that, being the recommended and exemplary nature, always seeking to expand... making adjustments. WDYT?

>>May I suggest, most of us know that as individuals we don't have, nor do we know all the answers.<<

Then why? I might ask, is it that some few take umbrage at anything perceived as untoward --being placed upon the table for examination, or simply, discussion?

>>But we also know that if one presents themself as searching for answers in order to know Jesus better, our Father will give us of His Spirit to help another, better find the way to the throne in heaven.<<

I take issue. Why are there, without mention of the 30+ thousand other Xtian .Orgs, so many doctrinal variances within your very own .Org? It seems that the HS is concerned only --that one finds his or her own way --a la the Buddha prescriptive, “I don’t know the way, you must find your own path.” Perhaps, it is that we concur with the

observation that one’s way is the “better find…”

>>[:"red"]"Jesus told him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me."[/] John 14:6 NLT<<

“Behold, I stand at the door and knock…” Upon the first instance of one’s ‘journey’ -- it is said that he or she encounters Jesus, n’cest pas? from thence, to the throne of the Father, there are yet twelve gates through which one might enter, yes, no? Perhaps? twelve is symbolically --more?