'not really a Christian'

[John317]

I know these dates and how to work them together to get the charts. They are contrived and evidence of nothing.

Show what is contrived about the prophecies of Daniel 9: 24-27 and Daniel 8.

What's the evidence that Daniel 9 is part of the longer period of time given in Daniel 8?

[John317]

At the time of Christ, there was a small group of uneducated men and women who apparently had absolutely no hope of ever seeing their message spread all over the world. Yet Jesus said that the gospel of the Kingdom would be proclaimed throughout the world. Also He told the story of a particular woman which He said would be heard throughout the world.

Is it? Yes. Today that story is told in hundreds of languages and in virtually every country, and the gospel is being preached in all the world as a witness to Christ.

Originally Posted By: cardw

...

Jesus coming was obviously a big draw, but it didn't happen

I'd like you to speak to the above facts. What do you think of them?

[John317]

Remember that the Millerites were flat WRONG. Basically the SDA church exists as an apologetic for that fact.

Now if something would have happened here on earth, instead of an invisible sanctuary above, it might be more credible. All I can say is how convenient that what really happened was in heaven. Why have this complicated prophecy at all unless something visible is going to happen on the earth?

Something visible did happen-- and is happening-- on the earth that coincides with what is happening in heaven.

The Bible teaches clearly that there is a sanctuary in heaven. It taught that long before 1844. So the Millerites didn't make anything up about it.

They made a simple mistake that no one saw at that time, not even the critics who opposed Miller. Before Oct. 23, 1844, no one said that the sanctuary referred to was not the earth but the sanctuary in heaven. Miller thought the sanctuary must be the earth.

Would Miller have got the attention of the world as he did if he had taught that the sanctuary to be cleansed was in heaven? No. What got the attention of people was the teaching that the world would end on that date.

But most of those people were motivated by fear. That is why when Christ didn't come, they went back to living like they had before, and then they ridiculed what they had before claimed to believe. The situation proved that they hadn't really believed at all but that their motive had been fear rather than love for Christ and a sincere desire to meet Him.

Miller himself didn't give up his belief in Christ's return, but most of his followers did, with the exception of a small number of people who included Bates, Edson, and the Whites. She was given a vision not long afterwards that James should publish a paper which would be small at first but which would eventually becomes as stream of light circling the globe. This is precisely what happened. That paper today is read all around the world, spreading the same message that the early Adventists were preaching in those early years.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

Remember that the Millerites were flat WRONG. Basically the SDA church exists as an apologetic for that fact.

Now if something would have happened here on earth, instead of an invisible sanctuary above, it might be more credible. All I can say is how convenient that what really happened was in heaven. Why have this complicated prophecy at all unless something visible is going to happen on the earth?

Something visible did happen-- and is happening-- on the earth that coincides with what is happening in heaven.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: John317

At the time of Christ, there was a small group of uneducated men and women who apparently had absolutely no hope of ever seeing their message spread all over the world. Yet Jesus said that the gospel of the Kingdom would be proclaimed throughout the world. Also He told the story of a particular woman which He said would be heard throughout the world.

Is it? Yes. Today that story is told in hundreds of languages and in virtually every country, and the gospel is being preached in all the world as a witness to Christ.

Originally Posted By: cardw

...

Jesus coming was obviously a big draw, but it didn't happen

I'd like you to speak to the above facts. What do you think of them?

You are arguing numbers here. That is not proof since other religious beliefs and myths have even greater numbers of these same types of penetrations with similar "predictions."

Plus most of Christianity's penetration has been from the brute force of the Holy Roman Empire. This is hardly the spiritual explosion you would seem to indicate.

[John317]

At the time of Christ, there was a small group of uneducated men and women who apparently had absolutely no hope of ever seeing their message spread all over the world. Yet Jesus said that the gospel of the Kingdom would be proclaimed throughout the world. Also He told the story of a particular woman which He said would be heard throughout the world.

Is it? Yes. Today that story is told in hundreds of languages and in virtually every country, and the gospel is being preached in all the world as a witness to Christ.

Originally Posted By: cardw

...

Jesus coming was obviously a big draw, but it didn't happen

Originally Posted By: John3:17

I'd like you to speak to the above facts. What do you think of them?

Originally Posted By: cardw

You are arguing numbers here.

Please explain this and give illustrations of how this is the case. How do "numbers" invalidate the evidence and the argument I'm making? Show your reasoning.

Originally Posted By: cardw

That is not proof since other religious beliefs and myths have even greater numbers of these same types of penetrations with similar "predictions."

Give some good, specific examples, showing documentation.

Originally Posted By: cardw

Plus most of Christianity's penetration has been from the brute force of the Holy Roman Empire.

You are neglecting much, if not all, of the early history of the Chrisitian Church. The fact is that it was a persectuted church until it was recongized by Constantine. It was already spreading for four hundred years depite people being killed for believing and teaching it. In fact, its success in spreading was the reason Constantine adopted it.

Let's give a close study to this question because I believe it's very important.

Read the following from the wikipedia on those early centuries:

Quote:

Christianity began in the 1st century AD as a Jewish sect but quickly spread throughout the Greco-Roman world. Although it was originally persecuted under the Roman Empire, it became the state religion in the end. In the Middle Ages it spread into Northern Europe and Russia. During the Age of Exploration, Christianity expanded throughout the world; it is the largest religion of the world.

....Persecutions.

Until the late fourth century, when they became the dominant political force of the Roman Empire (and by consequence the entire Mediterranean), Christians were subject to various persecutions. This meant even death. That was the case with Stephen (Acts 7:59) and James, son of Zebedee (Acts 12:2). Persecutions in lager scale by the authorities of the Roman Empire, began with the year 64, when the Emperor Nero blamed them for the great Fire of Rome as the Roman historian Tacitus reported.

According to Church tradition, it was under Nero's persecution that the saints Peter and Paul became martyrs in Rome. Similarly, several of the New Testament writings mention persecutions and that they had very difficult times. For 250 years there were times when Christians suffered from persecutions, because they refused to worship the Roman emperor. That was seen as treason and punished by execution. But the Christian religion continued to spread throughout the Mediterranean region.

Christianity legalized

Galerius issued an edict permitting the practice of the Christian religion under his rule in April of 311.[4] In 313 Constantine I and Licinius announced toleration of Christianity in the Edict of Milan. Constantine became the first Christian emperor. By 391, under the reign of Theodosius I, Christianity had become the state religion of Rome.

Originally Posted By: cardw

This is hardly the spiritual explosion you would seem to indicate.

And you are hardly describing the truth about the growth and spread of Christianity in its four hundred years. Moreover, your citing the brute force of the Holy Romans Empire doesn't address the remarkable spread of Christianity over the last two hundred years.

Let's take a close look at this topic and see if your viewpoint of it stands up under scrutiny.

[John317]

They made a simple mistake that no one saw at that time, not even the critics who opposed Miller. Before Oct. 23, 1844, no one said that the sanctuary referred to was not the earth but the sanctuary in heaven. Miller thought the sanctuary must be the earth.

Originally Posted By: cardw

Actually his critics quoted the Bible that no man would know the hour of his coming. So they got it right from the beginning.

Did William Miller preach that he knew, or that people could know, the "hour" of Christ's coming?

In fact, did Miller himself preach that Christ would return on Oct.22, 1844?

If you believe he did, please quote Miller saying this.

The Bible teaches that Christ's followers will know when He is about to come, doesn't it?

[John317]

Would Miller have got the attention of the world as he did if he had taught that the sanctuary to be cleansed was in heaven? No. What got the attention of people was the teaching that the world would end on that date.

Quote:

You have god playing a bait and switch here. It would be better god's reputation for William Miller to simply be wrong. You have god manipulating people in a dishonest way. Thanks for proving my point.

Compare what happened at the first coming of Christ.

Quote:

Luke 24:16

But their eyes were kept from recognizing him.

Luke 24:28-31

So they drew near to the village to which they were going. He acted as if he were going farther, [29] but they urged him strongly, saying, "Stay with us, for it is toward evening and the day is now far spent." So he went in to stay with them. [30] When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to them. [31] And their eyes were opened, and they recognized him. And he vanished from their sight.

Do you believe God was wrong to do this? Was this "dishonest" or "manipulative" of God?

What reasons did God have for doing what it says He did here?

[John317]

And if you read an account of some of the sermons you can understand why these people would be motivated by fear. There were vivid imaginary trips to hell. I have actually done quite a bit of research on this.

What sermons by Miller or Millerite preachers created vivid imaginary trips to hell?

Can you quote the sermons and give the author, title and date?

Or are you talking about such sermons as "Sinners in the hands of an angry God"? This wasn't preached by a Millerite preacher, of course, but by Jonathan Edwards who was active about 100 years before Miller preached his message.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

You are arguing numbers here.

Please explain this and give illustrations of how this is the case. How do "numbers" invalidate the evidence and the argument I'm making? Show your reasoning.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: John317

They made a simple mistake that no one saw at that time, not even the critics who opposed Miller. Before Oct. 23, 1844, no one said that the sanctuary referred to was not the earth but the sanctuary in heaven. Miller thought the sanctuary must be the earth.

Originally Posted By: cardw

Actually his critics quoted the Bible that no man would know the hour of his coming. So they got it right from the beginning.

Did William Miller preach that he knew, or that people could know, the "hour" of Christ's coming?

In fact, did Miller himself preach that Christ would return on Oct.22, 1844?

If you believe he did, please quote Miller saying this.

The Bible teaches that Christ's followers will know when He is about to come, doesn't it?

Are you saying Miller himself wasn't waiting for Jesus to come on Oct. 22, 1984?

[John317]

In fact, did Miller himself preach that Christ would return on Oct.22, 1844?

Originally Posted By: cardw

Are you saying Miller himself wasn't waiting for Jesus to come on Oct. 22, 1984?

No, he wasn't. (Why would you mention 1984?)

Nor was Miller teaching that Christ would come on Oct. 22, 1844. For most of the time, Miller taught that Jesus would come "about 1843."

He believed Christ would come some time in 1843, 1844.

He didn't accept the Oct. 22 date until Oct. 21.

Study Miller's own writings and sermons, and also read a good biography, called, The Urgent Voice: The Story of William Miller.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

And if you read an account of some of the sermons you can understand why these people would be motivated by fear. There were vivid imaginary trips to hell. I have actually done quite a bit of research on this.

What sermons by Miller or Millerite preachers created vivid imaginary trips to hell?

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: John3:17

In fact, did Miller himself preach that Christ would return on Oct.22, 1844?

Originally Posted By: cardw

Are you saying Miller himself wasn't waiting for Jesus to come on Oct. 22, 1984?

No, he wasn't. (Why would you mention 1984?)

[John317]

It's irrelevant what details he presented at what time. It's what he concluded to be true. This ignores the wider views of the movement in general.

There is no way in which anyone would consider what they were teaching in general as right. The plain fact is JESUS DIDN'T COME.

It is very relevant because your objection was that Miller was teaching contrary to the Bible. You said that Miller was preaching the "hour" of Christ's coming, but this is not true.

Are you saying that it doesn't matter whether your objection is based on truth or not? Your premises are wrong and therefore your conclusions about this are also wrong.

What do you mean by saying "there is no way in which anyone would consider what they were teaching in general as right"?

Obviously there are millions of people today who believe that Miller was right in much that he preached in regard to Christ's return in 1843 and '44. He wasn't entirely wrong. He was wrong about Christ coming to the earth, yes, but that doesn't prove that there was a mistake in the dating. It proves they were wrong about what would happen at the end of that period. But to say that the whole thing is false simply because Christ didn't come as expected is to ignore what should be obvious: that there was no biblical basis for believing the earth was the sanctuary that would be cleansed. In other words, Miller had no Bible reason to conclude Christ would come to the earth at that time.

He drew the wrong conclusion for the same reason that the disciples concluded Christ would set up His kingdom instead of being put to death as a criminal on the cross.

[Bravus]

*cough*unfalsifiable*cough*

[Twilight]

Cardw: I'm interested in what is true based on evidence.

T: How did the universe form?

Cardw: Looking for evidence is not a claim to know everything. It is a position where one doesn't claim to know things one can't possibly know.

As far as the question of how the universe was formed I would point you to the various theories available based on evidence.

--------------

T: If they were mere theories based on "evidence", then they would be fact, not theory, the fact that they are theories means they draw supposition from certain facts, but the facts do not prove the theory.

---------------

So it seems you hold the Christian Worldview up to a standard that you do not hold the "agnostic worldview" up to?

You need absolutely solid incontrovertible evidence for Christianity.

But for your own beliefs you need a few good theories only, without incontrovertible evidence?

Hmmmm....

Seems to me, that you believe what you want to believe, and this idea you build your worldview on "evidence" only, is not actually true, when examined in detail.

You take the theory of the formation of the universe at the word of a few men, then challenge a differing world view because they are taking (in your view), the word of a few men.

You actually practice what you preach against it seems?

Have you considered that?

Have you considered that you condemn the very thing you do.

You have no evidence for instance that the universe was formed when "nothing exploded".

You have no evidence for instance, that this universe is born from a "multiverse".

You have no evidence for any of the current popular "theories" out there.

Which current theory of the birth of the universe do you hold to?

Which one has "incontrovertible evidence" to support it?

There are many theories, which is the one that is true based on "evidence"?

Or are you merely setting a standard that you cannot meet yourself with your own worldview?

Mark :-)

PS.

I have solid incontrovertible evidence for my beliefs...

[LifeHiscost]

No one has a choice whether to believe 2 + 2= 4, because the evidence for it is overwhelming. Belief in God and in the Bible will never be that way-- not until the very end, after the second resurrection, but then it will be too late to change. People will already have made up their minds and their characters will be set forever.

Now is the day to choose. "Choose ye this day whom you will serve."

Jesus said, "If any man will obey my Father in heaven, he will know whether the doctrine is of God or not."

for the whole post.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

It's irrelevant what details he presented at what time. It's what he concluded to be true. This ignores the wider views of the movement in general.

There is no way in which anyone would consider what they were teaching in general as right. The plain fact is JESUS DIDN'T COME.

It is very relevant because your objection was that Miller was teaching contrary to the Bible. You said that Miller was preaching the "hour" of Christ's coming, but this is not true.

[LifeHiscost]

I've asked the question here before - who has seen a real, supernatural miracle such as is continuously claimed God can do. And *no-one* has been able to produce a single one that is clear and objective. Lots of matters of interpretation that naturalistic explanations explain fully as well.

If God did it, even once, it would be visible. Until then, claiming that he does just makes no sense. And the logical twist above - that he can't because that would get rid of the requirement for faith - also makes no sense. If that's true, then it's his will that a majority of all people die... and that's not what the Bible says. If he could prove his existence and let us live, and chooses not to, then 'not willing that any should perish' is a lie.

"A wicked and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign shall be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.” And He left them and departed."Matthew 16:4 NKJV

Regards!

[cardw]

Which current theory of the birth of the universe do you hold to?

Which one has "incontrovertible evidence" to support it?

There are many theories, which is the one that is true based on "evidence"?

[LifeHiscost]

As an agnostic I don't make the declaration that there is no god in general. So I would fully agree that this god, if god exists, does not behave as advertised. That's the whole point of being agnostic.

So as far as I'm concerned, until a particular god chooses to reveal themselves to me in some manner, I remain neutral on the idea of a god.

"But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him."Hebrews 11:6 NKJV

"Then the disciples having come to Jesus by himself, said, `Wherefore were we not able to cast him out?'

And Jesus said to them, `Through your want of faith; for verily I say to you, if ye may have faith as a grain of mustard, ye shall say to this mount, Remove hence to yonder place, and it shall remove, and nothing shall be impossible to you"Matthew 17:19-21 YLT

Regards!

[Twilight]

As far as saying he was right about the time of some imaginary event in heaven has no basis in anything we can verify.

You verify the veracity of the bible by the prophetic reality it contains.

The old testament is a prophetic module that establishes Christ as God.

Upon that basis, the rest of the bible is verifiable.

Upon that basis, absolute truth is determined.

Upon that basis only can true logical thought arise.

Any other form of "logical thought", is merely mans imagination manipulated by satan...

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Which current theory of the birth of the universe do you hold to?

Which one has "incontrovertible evidence" to support it?

There are many theories, which is the one that is true based on "evidence"?

I am simply admitting the limitations of the human ability to solve certain mysteries. I have no beliefs about the origin of the universe. It is simply one of many unanswered questions.

So you do not have "incontrovertible evidence" how the universe was formed, but a few opinions of men that have some general observations pinned to them like a rabid badge collector?

I am pleased you have admitted that.

So the very basis for the existance of the universe has no rational explanation for you.

Next question:

Do you have incontrovertible evidence for how life was formed?

Please remember, that you demand incontrovertible evidence for anothers viewpoint.

So do you have that for the formation of life?

[LifeHiscost]

I can't prove it,no one can,but having lived thru this and more I do not have the slightest doubt

Thank you much for that testimony, Bonnie. And just like the trillions of atoms of our bodies that work together to keep us alive, both you and I are walking miracles, evidenced every day for those who won't take no when it comes to trusting in Jesus. Praise God!!!!

Blessings!