Leaderboard

No one is asking you to take my word for it. It doesn't take a language scholar (which I am decidedly not) to look into an interlinear translation and a lexicon, and to make some of the more obvious observations. There is also Young's Literal Translation, that might prove very helpful here. Hebrews 9:3 makes an unmistakable reference to the Most Holy Place, and it uses language that translates literally as the "holy of holies." That same term does not appear again, in any of those other places (such as Hebrews 10:19) where some (most?) translators use "the Most Holy Place." Rather, the Greek behind those other places is a term that translates literally as "the holies," which to my mind obviously must be referring to the Sanctuary as a whole. With this correction, the whole passage starts to make a lot more sense, and we can see that SDA doctrine is biblical after all. I strongly suggest that you check out Young's Literal Translation for this.

Yes and no. No one is born a Christian. It is true that, at my initial conversion at 28 years of age, I had some basic background knowledge that may have been a far greater benefit than I realised. However, I am as dependent as anyone else on the Holy Spirit to teach me knowledge, and on the church community to be a check on my independence and a sounding board for my ideas. My understanding is that the historicist approach was always the Protestant one, and that preterism and futurism (neither of which makes any sense to me, as they tend to cut one loose from any objective means of testing ideas) were invented by the counter-reformation. I'm afraid that your perceptions of which religion is currently the biggest threat are just that -- perceptions. Isn't the Bible supposed to be our safeguard against deception? But how can it serve that function unless we stay with correct methods of interpretation? Separating the 70th week from the first 69 strikes me as entirely impossible and illegitimate. If your motive is to think better about our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters, I suppose that's laudable. However, I believe that a sincere Muslim might also be equally accepted by God. In fact, so-called Islamophobia seems to be presently doing more evil to humanity than Islam itself (here we go with perceptions again -- this time mine), even though the 7 trumpets prophecy is not at all kind to that false religion. I see no evidence of genuine repentance on the part of the papacy as such, so what makes you think it has really changed?

At first glance, this idea seems credible to me. Even though the New Testament teaches that Christians are now the "Israel of God," I do not consider it beyond the realm of possibility that God is still dealing with the nation of Israel in accordance with something prophesied long ago. It will be interesting to see how their place in the divine plan eventually plays out. As for applying the day/year principle to the 2,300 days of Daniel 8:14, I believe it all makes perfect sense. Daniel 9 is explicitly an explanation of the Daniel 8 prophecy, and in verse 25 of chapter 9 we have a 69-week time period from the command to restore Jerusalem to the coming of the Messiah. Ezra 7 gives us a copy of the decree, and a date of the 7th year of King Artaxerxes, which our best pioneer scholars pegged as coming in the fall of 457 BC. Luke 3 gives us the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar for the anointing of Jesus as the Messiah at His baptism, and the same scholars pegged this as the fall of AD 27, exactly 463 years later. Very shortly after that, Mark 1:14-15 has Jesus preaching, "The time is fulfilled." All of this is what convinces me that the day/year principle is sound in its application to Daniel 9, and by extension, to Daniel 8. The remaining 1817 "days" take us to the fall of 1844, when (coincidentally?) William Miller and many others around the world had already been preaching the need to be prepared for an imminent judgment. Apparently without even understanding the implications of a fulfillment of the Day of Atonement, Samuel Snow correctly concluded that this judgment should begin on the 10th day of the 7th month of the Jewish calendar (Yom Kippur), which that year fell on October 22 of the Gregorian calendar. When, after the Great Disappointment, our pioneers realised that the "cleansing of the sanctuary" was not the 2nd Coming, but the judgment scene depicted in Daniel 7, the date actually made more sense than ever! I must emphasize the fact that the persistence of those same pioneers in prayerfully finding a satisfactory explanation for their Great Disappointment was driven by their conviction that the Spirit of God had been manifestly behind the very movement that had led them up to that experience. So it was not only the Bible evidence for their position, but their own prior Christian experience that supported their eventual conclusions. Truth does not lose its lustre over time, if we really understand what happened, and how we are supposed to fit into the picture.

George Soros has been linked to a number of schemes to fund radical left ventures in American politics. Apparently not happy with the role of churches in the conservative side of the aisle, it seems he is in an effort to destabilize the Christian movements of America. https://mariomurilloministries.wordpress.com/2019/04/03/is-george-soros-funding-division/

I seem to remember Obama being the king of executive orders. Most of Trumps have been to undo the Obama activities.

It is interesting sometimes watching what social issues push different buttons. Weird how one can get all upset about school shootings (which are relatively low in number) and not seem to care about the far greater numbers of babies being murdered before they can even take their first breath. I guess we can OK the killing of the unborn because they might be a product of rape or incest, but never mind that is a very small number (2% by some sources) of the babies born. We have crossed 50,000,000 babies terminated since Roe v Wade.

And just like that, he gets riled up about a 5 month old post. But doesn't stop to remember that the tearing away of children from their parents was a holdover from the Obama regime. Thats right, it started under Obama! How can that be? Don't we all know there were no scandals in the Obama years?! ROFLMAO! Oh yeah, Trump ended that practice. Oh, kids? Seriously, some of them were near adults. Massive tax cuts to the rich? Just how much tax should the rich pay? Guaranteed they already pay much more than the rest of the country. Take a look at the percentage of taxes collected that are paid by the wealthy. I tend to think that envy of the wealth of the rich is a selfishness in itself. So, don't be calling them selfish, check out yourself.

Lou: I want to come back to a basic question that I’ve heard again and again, “Must one obey God’s law to be saved?” You said the law is not a threat to our freedom. But on the other hand, don’t I have to obey it? Graham: Maybe the safest way to approach that in […] The post Questions and Answers (12:11) appeared first on Jon Paulien's Blog. View the full article

As I understand it, a hypothesis is a working model until it is proven to be a theory. An example might be the evolution hypothesis that is mistakenly called a theory by its believers, though it has never been proven. And since it is opposed to the revelation from the word of God, it will never be proven.

See: https://atoday.org/funeral-held-today-for-slain-adventist-whose-baby-was-cut-from-womb/

Spirit is truth 1Jn 5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

Joe: This is another thing we disagree on. YAHWEH create not bangs, that is to me so unholy and unreverence to THE ALMIGHTIES! When we make something we may have to bang, but the Bible says HE Speak and things are done by THE HOLY SPIRIT! I have never read that they bang at all! I know what theories are and once one is proven it is no longer called a theory! If it cannot be proven it is an assumption and that's simple. We do not have the WISDOM of THE ALMIGHTY ONES! No ones know how the body is made, the brain runs on electricity call synapses that take messages can you explain it, I can't! We came from dirt shaped into a body and YAHWEH THE SON BREATHE HIS BREATH and we became a living soul! There a Tree that also has this LIFE and if we had continued to eat its fruit we would have lived forever! I would like someone to explain that! How do angels fly from a place that has no time to a place that is marked with time? Explain Black Matter, or even the Milky Way or other galaxies that are hanging out in Black Matter? What is gravity and how does it work. How does the blazing sun blow out all these enormous fire waves that cause radiation? Nothings collides, how is that possible? The moon controls the earth especially the tidal waves and more how? What makes the moon be at the right place to be between the sun and the earth to reflect the sunlight so that we can see it? How does a seed produce a plant, or where does lighting come from and why? How do the clouds stay afloat even when they are dark and heavy with water? How does sperm come into eqq and produce chromosomes that turn into a baby, how? I can go on and on and on and on of so many hows and human beings cannot explain these things with theories, they just don't know! Blessings!

That could be taken two ways. On one hand, you could be saying that everyone in the New Testament who has faith in Messiah is also faithfully obedient to God's Word as they follow the example of Messiah. I agree with that. When such people put on the garment of righteousness provided by Jesus, it fits. On the other hand, you could be saying that everyone in the New Testament who thinks certain thoughts in their head regarding Jesus is automatically considered obedient by God even if they don't care whether their own actions emulate the lifestyle of obedience lived by Jesus. The meaning of the word "faith" in Greek would be significantly abused by such a statement. Although in English the word "faith" is related primarily to one's thoughts, in Greek (and Hebrew) the word "faith" encompasses both one's thoughts and the faithful actions that result from those thoughts. This is amply demonstrated by the people of faith who are commended in Hebrews 11 for their actions rather than for their thoughts. James clarifies explicitly that "faith without works" is dead. In Scripture, the thoughts of faith and the actions of faithfulness are the two sides of the coin of faith, which cannot be separated. Without the actions of faithfulness, which in English might be called "faithing", faith that is comprised of only thoughts would be "dead" faith, which is not equivalent to obedience. Dead faith is of no value. The garment of righteousness provided by Jesus is not merely a "Jesus costume" to be warn by people living a lifestyle that mocks the teachings of Jesus and his own faithful obedience to God's Word.

Your statement puzzles me. I don't see anywhere in the Bible where the authors share your poor opinion of "proof texting legalists". The Bible verses that are often brought forward as evidence to condemn "legalism" do not mention legalism, but instead are concerned with disobedience or pride or self-sufficiency. The Bible doesn't provide a method for humans to correctly discern in others whether obedience is motivated by love, or motivated by legalism or fear. We know that children obey for different reasons depending on their level of moral development. Presumably, the God of the Bible is well aware of how humans develop as they mature. That's probably why the Bible encourages obedience regardless of the person's level of moral development or motivation. Where in the Bible do we see anyone rebuked or denigrated for obedience? Where does the Bible call into question a person's motivation for obedience? As far as I can find in the Bible, obedience is always superior to disobedience. In Scripture, it appears that obedience is always considered a good thing regardless of the motivation for obedience. An important part of the context of Jesus' teachings regarding the gospel is that the whole time that Jesus taught the gospel Jesus was living not only by the Decalogue, but also according to God's instructions given in the Books of Moses. So, when a person looks completely to Jesus and gladly carries the burden of Jesus, wouldn't that result in the same obedience that was demonstrated by Jesus? How can a follower or disciple of Jesus not actually follow and teach the religion and lifestyle that Jesus lived? In the Bible that existed at the time of Jesus (the OT), God revealed that loving God with one's whole heart and following God with one's whole heart are both directly correlated with obedience to the instructions that God gave in the Books of Moses. How could a follower of Jesus possibly separate Jesus from obedience to the teachings that Jesus gave to Moses which Jesus himself lived by?

Indeed. Defining sin is one thing. Finding how to get rid of it is another. Unless we believe in Jesus, in the fullest sense, there is no hope for us to do anything but to die in our sins, regardless of whether or not we manage to maintain an outward compliance with the Ten Words.

Yes, I am. We do generally understand that God and His angels have a physical existence of some kind, but there's a whole lot we have never pretended to know concerning how that works, or how their physical reality compares and contrasts with our own. Paul teaches in I Corinthians 15 that even we human beings are destined to scrap our present bodies of dust in favour of something called a "spiritual" or "heavenly" body. I certainly don't see any way of understanding what exactly that might mean (except for what little we know about Jesus' body after the resurrection), let alone the physical attributes of angels or even of God!

The Decalogue, correctly understood in all of its principles and ramifications, defines sin. The gospel, if it is to have any meaning at all, is about salvation from sin. Forgiveness is absolutely huge, but it would ultimately be of no use to us if the plan of salvation did not also envision our redemption from the pit of corruption into which we have sunk ourselves, and our restoration to the kind of holiness without which we'd be so unfit for heaven that just being there would for us be supreme torture. Jesus did indeed move way beyond the mere letter of the Decalogue. If that's your point, I'm all for it. Lowering the standard of righteousness to a mere forced outward compliance with the letter of the law is indeed rank legalism, and that kind of religion will never save anyone. Unless you have a problem with some one of the Ten Words in particular, or its implications, it's hard to see where we disagree, as a practical matter. Why should we be at swords' points over semantics?

Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Trevor. My perspective is not especially formed by the fact that I live on the Gold Coast. I've lived here for 7 years, but before that, in reverse chronological order: Brisbane, Australia - 6 years Edmonton, Canada - 5 years Perth, Australia - 6 years Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea - 2 years Sydney, Australia - 1 year Melbourne, Australia - 3 years Cooranbong, Australia - 20 years Sydney, Australia - 6 years Including the excluded is right everywhere, not just in the Gold Coast.

I am not familiar enough with the details of interpreting the prophecies of the 7 trumpets to see why those 5 months wouldn't be 150 years. I understand that Josiah Litch was using day-for-a-year when the 7 trumpets led him to predict the fall of the Ottoman Empire on August 11, 1840. So I see no need to question that. As for the Millennium, I think that Revelation 10:6 could reasonably be interpreted to mean that the end of the 2,300 days (i.e. October 22, 1844) marked the end of that prophetic time to which the day-for-a-year principle would apply. I believe that Ellen White understood it that way.

The 1844 movement was true. Earnest and genuine Christians who were involved in it prior to 1844 could not deny the leading and power of the Holy Spirit in the movement. They had delivered the 1st angel's message, almost accidentally. The application of the day-for-a-year principle to the books of Daniel and Revelation is sound, and the October 22, 1844 date is correct. Historicism is the right principle of interpretation, the only one that makes any common sense. Why does it matter? Every error has its consequence, no matter how good or sincere are those who fall for it. That's why I try to speak up for the truth, even when I myself do not fully understand its importance. I've read Hebrews 9 in the original Greek, and you are mistaken. Our mission, as a people, is to proclaim the 3rd angel's message, so it is essential that we see ourselves in historical context with our early pioneers.

There is an historical definition that I believe cannot be ignored, and I'm not talking about the errors, rantings, and blasphemies of so-called "historic" Seventh-day Adventism. Some may try to new-model the cause, but 1844 still matters. Jesus is still ministering in the Holy of Holies, carrying out the anti-typical Day of Atonement, and it is still essential that we follow Him there by faith. I may not fully understand the importance and significance of this, myself, but I do know that it matters to God.

Are you kidding? I'd like to know what constitutes "success" in your estimation. Maybe tearing children away from their parents at the border? Giving massive tax cuts to the super rich? Getting more people to vote because they are desperate to put a check on your power? For me, it's not aesthetic. It's moral. Selfishness is the core of evil in this world, and from an unselfish standpoint, this "presidency" is an almost unmitigated disaster.

https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2275166759172295&id=100000369804324

Many who have come to America, one way or another, do not embrace the oneness concept of America or that they are part of Western civilization. Western civilization is just a code word for white Europeans. So, yeah, it could indeed be a racist comment, except anytime you are dumping on whites, we know it can’t be racist!