Story of Hank

[fccool]

John, I'm talking about MAJOR prophets, not minor ones. Major prophets, because they wrote the majority of the OT were sent to Israel. But I don't say that prophets is for Jews only. My point was that its purpose was because of the lack of written and available word of God. It's still the case today in many parts of the world. I don't deny the possibility. , quite the opposite.

I've made a misstatement, for which I apologize...

http://www.ucg.org/sermons/transcripts/200204sabbath.htm

It's United Church of God... not United Church of Christ. The beliefs are identical for the most part.

[John317]

[John317]

John, I'm talking about MAJOR prophets, not minor ones. Major prophets, because they wrote the majority of the OT were sent to Israel.

I didn't know you meant the "major prophets" only. Of course, as you may know, the minor prophets are referred as minor not because they are less important but simply because their books are shorter. This has nothing to do with their significance, so why would you only want to limit your comparison to the "major prophets"? It seems to me that in understanding prophecy, we would want to look at all the Bible prophets, not just select a limited number.

But besides that, don't we want to look at the tests of a true prophet? What are the tests the Bible gives us?

Quote:

It's United Church of God... not United Church of Christ. The beliefs are identical for the most part.

What beliefs do you have in mind? Compare their doctrines and ours as given in the 28 Fundamental Beliefs of SDAs and show what doctrines agree with ours. I think you will find that the majority of our doctrines are quite different from theirs. One of their main commonalities with us was their Sabbath keeping, but that is no longer the case.

It is interesting to look at why they gave up the Sabbath. Could we do the same? Yes, if we forget the reason that the Sabbath is important. They did not understand why the Sabbath was important. They did not see it in the light of the Great Controversy theme and as it relates to the Three Angels' Messages and last-day events. That is why they gave it up and now keep Sunday. I know SDAs who did the same thing, and they first lost their belief in Ellen White as a true prophet.

[fccool]

There are several branches, and some do not follow this unitarian God view and recognize that HGW made the above described mistakes. As far as the history though... they claim to be split from SDAs themselves. They never gave up the sabbath, but merely split into sabath keeping COG and the Sunday keeping one.

The Church of God (Seventh Day) grew from the efforts of dedicated advent believers living in Michigan and Iowa in the late 1850's. In 1863, the Michigan church began to extend its influence into the eastern and central U.S. through a publication called The Hope of Israel. This magazine invited fellow Christians to assemble at conferences and campmeetings, and created interest in their distinctive doctrines: the second advent of Christ and the seventh-day Sabbath. Through these means, the General Conference of the Church of God (Seventh Day) was organized in 1884 and incorporated in Missouri in 1899. Its offices were located in Stanberry, Missouri, until 1950, when they were transferred to Denver, Colorado. Over the years, The Hope of Israel also moved from Michigan to Iowa, then to Missouri. After several name changes, it is now known as the Bible Advocate. More than 100 years later, this flagship publication of the Church continues to be published and mailed ten times a year from the Denver offices (http://www.cog7.org/Intro.English.html, 02/14/06).

One important item that CG7 neglected to mention above is that nearly all of its founding members broke away from those that became the Seventh-day Adventists (SDAs) when certain leaders had infiltrated the Church of God, took over, proposed the name Seventh-day Adventist, and came up with prophecies and other views which were never held by the true Church of God. This did appeal to some who were disappointed in 1844 as well as those who did not have the "love of the truth" (2 Thessalonians 2:10) as well as to many SDBs (Randolph, pp. 202,228).

And those in the true Church of God rejected Ellen White as a prophetess then, and still do now (this does not mean that all her "prophecies" were false--even Roman Catholic "prophets" have made statements that came to pass--it simply means that we in the COGs do not believe that Ellen White was a prophetess sent by God, nor do we refer to her writings as "inspiration" as many SDAs do).

I'm not here to argue which Church is wright or wrong, I am simply pointing out that Sabbath as Mark of the Beast is not unique teaching that belongs sololy to SDA Adventists, which was my original point. If you say that that radio guy was never an SDA (which he was not)... then where do you think he came up with the idea of Sabbath being the Mark? Is he a prophet of God then? Of course not!

[John317]

There are several branches, and some do not follow this unitarian God view and recognize that HGW made the above described mistakes. As far as the history though... they claim to be split from SDAs themselves. They never gave up the sabbath, but merely split into sabath keeping COG and the Sunday keeping one.

Who specifically is claiming they split from SDAs?

Who is supposed to have split? Where are you getting this information? Do you have references or a source?

The main body of the Radio Church of God quit keeping the Sabbath. That is well known and easily documented as I showed you.

How many are keeping the Sabbath and what is the name of the organization?

[John317]

.... I'm not here to argue which Church is wright or wrong, I am simply pointing out that Sabbath as Mark of the Beast is not unique teaching that belongs sololy to SDA Adventists, which was my original point.

Does the United Church of God believe "that Sabbath [is] the Mark of the Beast"? Do you mean Sunday?

I know that Herbert Armstrong and the Radio Church of God believed that Sunday keeping was the Mark of the Beast, but does the United Church of God believe this today?

Of course there are very few main beliefs we have that are totally unique to SDAs. One of those unique beliefs, however, is our view of the heavenly sanctuary and the Investigative Judgment. Most of the others are held by at least one or two other denominations. What really distinguishes us is our connecting all of the doctrines to the great controversy theme and to our understanding of the sanctuary.

As you know, there are many in our church who are attempting to lay aside the sanctuary truth, that is, the Investigative Judgment. But they cannot do this unless those who do so first lay aside Ellen White as a prophet of God or reinterpret her role and mission. That is happening now.

Quote:

If you say that that radio guy was never an SDA (which he was not)... then where do you think he came up with the idea of Sabbath being the Mark?

You keep referring to the "Sabbath being the Mark," and I am hoping that you mean "Sunday being the Mark." There's a big difference. Don't you mean the Sabbath being the Seal of God? He got the idea from a number of sources, among them the Church of God (Seventh day) and from studying the Bible. He was also familiar with SDA literature. The Bible itself is clear about the identity of the Beast power and of the seal of God, so if anyone really studies the topic with an open mind, I believe they would see that the Mark of the Beast has something to do with obeying man's tradition, which requires people to violate God's commandments. That is crystal clear.

Quote:

Is he a prophet of God then? Of course not!

You don't have to be a prophet to know what the Bible teaches on this. All you have to do with study with an open mind and have the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

[fccool]

John, I meant the Sabbath to be the Mark(seal) of God... which I interpret it a bit differently, as I think that Bible is clear that we are sealed by the Holy Spirit. Following God's law is a RESULT of such seal and not the other way around. I think that Bible can not be any more clear on that.

Eph. 1:13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession --to the praise of his glory.

Eph. 4:29 Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. 30And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

I do believe that Sabbath will be the test of faithfulness in the last days... yet it is no more a seal of God than other 9. If you break one you break them all. All are important. Seal of ownership is not just keeping Sabbath, and I know that we don't believe it to be such.

2Cor. 1:21 Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, 22set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.

So in that respect, I don't hold that Sunday observance alone as the Mark of the Beast. If that's the case, then all of the Sunday keepers already received the mark. Whether it is enforced or it is a voluntary I think is not the case here. "Causes" does not always mean "forces". Some people argue that for people to receive Mark of the Beast it will have to be enforced, yet I don't think this is the case. People who went to church on Sunday will still do that. No one will force them to do it... so do you think they have the mark now? I think that the issue will be deeper than that, yet will revolve around SUN day worship.

PS. I do believe that Christmas and Easter (Ishtar) as they are celebrated today ... have pagan origins.

[fccool]

I think that the that investigative judgment has alway been under scrutiny for several reasons I certainly think that this view of God is quite naive... and for the following reason.

John 10:14 I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me...

God knew from the very beginning who is worthy and who is not. There is no need for God to investigate anything for extended periods of the time. The judgment that transpires during the 1000 years is for our understanding and affirmation. God already knows who will make it and who wont. He knew it from the very end.

Secondly, maybe I have been explained it wrong, so please let me know if I misrepresent the view... but in Mrs. White's own words from GC:

In 1844 Christ then entered the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary, to perform the closing work of atonement, preparatory to His coming. To make an atonement for all who are shown to be entitled to its benefits...

All looks good and shiny until you read:

Heb 9:12 (NIV) 12He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption.

Of course this is talking about in the past tense... way before 1844. Not only that, but it also states that the atonement at the cross is not complete! What else is he sacrificing?

I certainly think that Investigative Judgment doctrine is under fire because it does not have a solid Biblical ground to stand on. Please correct me if I'm wrong and if you can demonstrate it to me clearly from the Bible.

"'I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ who shall judge the quick and the dead at (not before) his Appearing and his kingdom.' — 2 Tim. 4:1.

[John317]

Heb 9:12 (NIV) 12He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption.

Of course this is talking about in the past tense... way before 1844...

Hebrews 9: 12 should read "the sanctuary," not "the Most Holy Place." The Greek is ta hagia. Many good translations read "the sanctuary" or "the holy place" at 9:12. For instance, the American Standard Version: "nor yet through the blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption." The New American Standard Version: "and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption." The Christian Community Bible and The New American Bible both read "sanctuary." Rotherham reads, "the holy place."

In 9: 3, where it is referring to the second apartment, the Greek is hagia hagiwn. Therefore if 9:12 was referring to the second apartment, it would also read higia hagiwn.

Hebrews 9: 24 has hagia and is referring to the entire sanctuary. The NIV translated 9: 12 as "the Most Holy Place" because of theological considerations, not on the basis of the underlying Greek.

Compare a literal translation of Hebrews 9: 12:

Robert Young's Literal:

"neither through blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, did enter in once into the holy places, age-during redemption having obtained... "

Compare this with Hebrews 9: 24:

Robert Young's Literal:

"for not into holy places made with hands did the Christ enter -- figures of the true -- but into the heaven itself, now to be manifested in the presence of God for us"

Now here is Robert Young's Literal at Hebrews 9:2-- "and after the second vail a tabernacle that is called `Holy of holies.'"

All of this proves that the NIV and the NKJV do not have linguistic grounds for translating ta hagia at Hebrews 9: 12 as "the Most Holy Place."

This is proven also by a comparison of the way these words are used in the Greek translation of the Old Testament. For instance, compare carefully the LXX at Lev. 16: 16, 17, 27 and 33. Here the sanctuary and the holy place are referred to as "hagia," whereas "the most holy place" is translated from the Greek words "to hagion tou hagiwn."