Who is Gog?

[Truth Files]

How did this post move from "gog" .... to "gay"?

[John317]

Your post here is a mixture of truth and error.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church is definitely the Remnant church that the Bible is referring to in Rev. 12: 17; 14: 12. However, that doesn't mean SDAs are the only true Christians in the world, nor does it mean that SDAs alone will be saved. Actually we believe that most of the people saved in God's kingdom will be Sunday keepers and many will never have so much as heard of the Sabbath.

[John317]

I hope not. Go ahead and keep posting about Gog. Don't let miz3's little detour about whether all pacticing gays will be lost bother you.

[Lysimachus]

See: http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/165910/12.html

Also: http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthread...s.html#comments

I was active as a gay person for most of my adult life. I'm no longer living that way as of about 2004.

Powerful powerful testimony brother. I know some who are very close to me who are not willing to bear this cross. Can only keep them in your prayers.

Even heterosexuals have to fight and flee fornication. We all must bear the cross in one way or another, depending on where the devil targets us.

[miz3]

Your post here is a mixture of truth and error.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church is definitely the Remnant church that the Bible is referring to in Rev. 12: 17; 14: 12. However, that doesn't mean SDAs are the only true Christians in the world, nor does it mean that SDAs alone will be saved. Actually we believe that most of the people saved in God's kingdom will be Sunday keepers and many will never have so much as heard of the Sabbath.

"Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring—those who obey God’s commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.

Revelation 12:17.

I don't see SDA Church here. The text does not say "SDA Church".

It is clear from the context that this is in reference to "seed of God" mentioned in Genesis 3:15. That means ALL OF GOD'S PEOPLE THROUGHOUT HUMAN HISTORY! That means it includes "righteous Abel" and all those like him! Abel was not an SDA.

This text is not singling out the SDA Church! Such an interpretation is one enormous giant leap from any semblance of reality!

"This calls for patient endurance on the part of the saints who obey God’s commandments and remain faithful to Jesus."

Revelation 14:12.

I don't see SDA Church here either. Even the whole context of the "Three Angels Message" which is part of Revelation chapter fourteen there is not even a smidgin of inference that the SDA Church is the one referenced.

NO! neither of the texts reference the SDA Church in any way shape or form. Such assertions are pure fantasy!

[Lysimachus]

Originally Posted By: John317

Your post here is a mixture of truth and error.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church is definitely the Remnant church that the Bible is referring to in Rev. 12: 17; 14: 12. However, that doesn't mean SDAs are the only true Christians in the world, nor does it mean that SDAs alone will be saved. Actually we believe that most of the people saved in God's kingdom will be Sunday keepers and many will never have so much as heard of the Sabbath.

"Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring—those who obey God’s commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.

Revelation 12:17.

I don't see SDA Church here. The text does not say "SDA Church".

It is clear from the context that this is in reference to "seed of God" mentioned in Genesis 3:15. That means ALL OF GOD'S PEOPLE THROUGHOUT HUMAN HISTORY! That means it includes "righteous Abel" and all those like him! Abel was not an SDA.

This text is not singling out the SDA Church! Such an interpretation is one enormous giant leap from any semblance of reality!

"This calls for patient endurance on the part of the saints who obey God’s commandments and remain faithful to Jesus."

Revelation 14:12.

I don't see SDA Church here either. Even the whole context of the "Three Angels Message" which is part of Revelation chapter fourteen there is not even a smidgin of inference that the SDA Church is the one referenced.

NO! neither of the texts reference the SDA Church in any way shape or form. Such assertions are pure fantasy!

Regardless, they will keep all 10 commandments, they will keep His Sabbath, they will recognize the Sabbath as the Sign of His Creatorship and Redemptive Glory, they will see that the Papacy is the Antichrist, and they will see that Sunday is their mark.

It's what the Bible says!

Maybe not written in those words, but its in code. And only the wise can crack that code.

[Aliensanctuary]

Quote:

It sounds like you're saying that it'd be better if we would forget all about 1844 and what our church's Founding Fathers taught us and forget what Ellen White wrote. If that's the case, why not quit being SDA altogether?

We would be better off if we could discard our religions and their accompanying dogmas and instead form smaller, neighborhood groups where we can read the scriptures, especially the words of Christ, and take them to heart. Jesus didn't create a denomination, neither was his Church in the Woods a part of any organization. By creating strong, centralized organizations, we allow ourselves to be manipulated and fed whatever those in control want to give us, be it garbage or not.

We all have brains and are capable of thinking independently. We should read the scriptures with open minds, and not allow our denominations do our thinking for us (aka, "brainwashing"). We should never forget that the Kingdom of God is not a religion.

[miz3]

Regardless, they will keep all 10 commandments, they will keep His Sabbath, they will recognize the Sabbath as the Sign of His Creatorship and Redemptive Glory, they will see that the Papacy is the Antichrist, and they will see that Sunday is their mark.

It's what the Bible says!

Maybe not written in those words, but its in code. And only the wise can crack that code.

1. Who is the "they" you are speaking of?

2. Where in the Bible does it say that the "Papacy" is the antichrist?

3. Where in the Bible does it say the "Mark of the Beast" is Sunday?

4. Are you saying that only the "educated, the biblical scholars, the historical phd's, the linguistic magicians, etc. etc. can unlock this "code".

Sounds to me like you are saying what those RCC (the Beast Power people) said in the Dark Ages when Bibles were kept from the people and locked to Monastery walls and floors, and ONLY the elite Priests and Bishops could have access to God's Word.

That is exactly what you are saying! Could it be that you belong to the "Beast" or the entity that makes the "Mark of the Beast" you so often talk about? Maybe just maybe it is not the RCC or the Pope after all.

After all we can all see that you indeed are acting just like those who you claim are the "evil ones" designated by "the code".

References like "the code" sounds a lot like what you are accusing the RCC of! What are you trying to hide?

Very curious!

[John317]

:-)

[Lysimachus]

1. Who is the "they" you are speaking of?

2. Where in the Bible does it say that the "Papacy" is the antichrist?

3. Where in the Bible does it say the "Mark of the Beast" is Sunday?

4. Are you saying that only the "educated, the biblical scholars, the historical phd's, the linguistic magicians, etc. etc. can unlock this "code".

Sounds to me like you are saying what those RCC (the Beast Power people) said in the Dark Ages when Bibles were kept from the people and locked to Monastery walls and floors, and ONLY the elite Priests and Bishops could have access to God's Word.

That is exactly what you are saying! Could it be that you belong to the "Beast" or the entity that makes the "Mark of the Beast" you so often talk about? Maybe just maybe it is not the RCC or the Pope after all.

After all we can all see that you indeed are acting just like those who you claim are the "evil ones" designated by "the code".

References like "the code" sounds a lot like what you are accusing the RCC of! What are you trying to hide?

Very curious!

[miz3]

Quote:

It sounds like you're saying that it'd be better if we would forget all about 1844 and what our church's Founding Fathers taught us and forget what Ellen White wrote. If that's the case, why not quit being SDA altogether?

We would be better off if we could discard our religions and their accompanying dogmas and instead form smaller, neighborhood groups where we can read the scriptures, especially the words of Christ, and take them to heart. Jesus didn't create a denomination, neither was his Church in the Woods a part of any organization. By creating strong, centralized organizations, we allow ourselves to be manipulated and fed whatever those in control want to give us, be it garbage or not.

We all have brains and are capable of thinking independently. We should read the scriptures with open minds, and not allow our denominations do our thinking for us (aka, "brainwashing"). We should never forget that the Kingdom of God is not a religion.

I cannot agree with everything you wrote, however there is some truth in what you say!

[Words edited by the moderator.]

[Lysimachus]

I cannot agree with everything you wrote, however there is some truth in what you say!

See, the truth comes out now. Only YOU "have the TRUTH!"

[John317]

2. Where in the Bible does it say that the "Papacy" is the antichrist?

Is it necessary for the Bible to use the words "Papacy" in order for us to legitimately understand it to identify the papacy as the "man of sin" & the little horn power?

If the Bible must use the name "papacy," then another question could be where in the prophecies does it say "Jesus of Nazareth" would be the Messiah? The prophecies do not give his personal name, do they? But they do give us a clear, unmistakable description of him.

So God's way of helping us to identify this power is not by giving a direct name. For one thing, anyone can change his name. But changing the name doesn't change the fundamental characteristics.

The Bible identifies this power by giving us many characteristics so we can recognize him for who he is if we really want to.

It would be like if I described a man who you should watch out for. I wouldn't give you the man's name but I would give you information about him that would distinguish him from everyone else. Only one person would fit the description, so there would be no mistaking him.

This is exactly what God has done in the pages of His word. The key is to study them and be willing to accept the evidence.

[miz3]

Lysimachus,

Stumped again, huh!

Of course you cannot show me where in the Bible it states that the Papacy is the antichrist because such an assertion does not exist in the Bible!

Of course you cannot show me where in the Bible that Sunday is the "Mark of the Beast" because such an assertion does not exist!

Just like the "investigative judgment" does not exist because such assertions are human made assumptions that do not exist in Scripture. So we hide behind "code". How transparently phony!

Just like the phony "year/day" principle.

Your phony gospel does NOT stand up to the Scripture Truth! Why? Because it is "human made code".

Your silence speaks volumes about your inability to deliver the message!

Your Doctrine has been challenged and "found wanting"! NO BIBLICAL TRUTH!

[John317]

Stumped again, huh!

Of course you cannot show me where in the Bible it states that the Papacy is the antichrist because such an assertion does not exist in the Bible!

You wrote prematurely. No one is "stumped." See below:

Quote:

Is it necessary for the Bible to use the words "Papacy" in order for us to legitimately understand it to identify the papacy as the "man of sin" & the little horn power?

If the Bible must use the name "papacy," then another question could be where in the prophecies does it say "Jesus of Nazareth" would be the Messiah? The prophecies do not give his personal name, do they? But they do give us a clear, unmistakable description of him.

So God's way of helping us to identify this power is not by giving a direct name. For one thing, anyone can change his name. But changing the name doesn't change the fundamental characteristics.

The Bible identifies this power by giving us many characteristics so we can recognize him for who he is if we really want to.

It would be like if I described a man who you should watch out for. I wouldn't give you the man's name but I would give you information about him that would distinguish him from everyone else. Only one person would fit the description, so there would be no mistaking him.

This is exactly what God has done in the pages of His word. The key is to study them and be willing to accept the evidence.

[John317]

Of course you cannot show me where in the Bible that Sunday is the "Mark of the Beast" because such an assertion does not exist!

No, it doesn't use the word "Sunday". But then who would expect it to? Do you believe it is reasonable to believe the Bible would use the word "Sunday" in speaking of the mark of the beast?

However, the Bible does describe the events in such a way that it leaves no doubt about what it is talking about.

But first you have to know the identity of the sea-beast. What is the mark of the authority of this sea-beast?

The mark of its authority will be in opposition to the commandments and seal of God. If people keep the commandments of God, they won't receive the mark of the beast.

Again, the mark of the beast is in contrast to the seal of God. No one who receives the seal of God will be subject to the seven last plagues. Those plagues will only fall on those who have received the mark of the beast.

And what does God send to the world in order to prevent His people from receiving the mark of the beast and the plagues?

[John317]

Just like the "investigative judgment" does not exist because such assertions are human made assumptions that do not exist in Scripture. So we hide behind "code". How transparently phony!

Of course the Bible does not use the phrase "investigative judgment" but then it also does not contain the words "Incarnation" or "Second Coming," nor does it contain the words "Omniscient" or "Omnipresent," etc. But that is nothing. What the Bible does contain are the concepts of these teachings. That is really all that matters.

And yes the Bible does certainly contain the concept of the Investigative Judgment.

A clear piece of evidence is Jesus' parable in Matt. 22: 1ff, which teaches that before the Second Coming, there will be an investigation to see who does not have on the wedding garment.

I can tell from the way you write that you don't even understand the Investigatige Judgment and that you have not studied it except in books and articles that attack it. When was the last time you read a book that supports the Investigative Judgment?

I've told you several times already about the book by Marvin Moore, The Case For the Investigative Judgment. There's also the very fine book by Bradley Williams, The Silencing of Satan. These two books show the Bible evidence for the pre-Advent judgment. Check them out and study them if you are sincerely interested in learning the truth about whether the Bible supports the Investigative Judgment. You may be amazed at what you learn.

[John317]

Just like the phony "year/day" principle.

We've been over this many times before and given a great deal of evidence and reasons for the validity of the year/day principle. There are both contextual and historical reasons for believing in the principle. One of the two main reasons is that (1) the periods of time in the prophecy are long and can't possibly be referring to literal years, because such a period would not even reach beyond the prophet's lifetime; and (2) the year/day principle results in the fulfillment of the prophecies, just as we would expect if the prophecies were true.

However, we'll have to discuss the subject at greater length at another time. Perhaps we shall even have to agree to disagree.

[Lysimachus]

Miz3 doesn't seam to understand the following:

1. If the "Papacy" was named in the prophetic declarations, the prophecy would "FAIL". Everyone would read it and say, "oh, well, we can't call ourselves the Papacy then!"

2. If the "Mark of the Beast" as called "Sunday", it would be so obvious, nobody would keep Sunday!

and the list goes on....

miz3, I know you are more intelligent than this!

[John317]

Quote:

It sounds like you're saying that it'd be better if we would forget all about 1844 and what our church's Founding Fathers taught us and forget what Ellen White wrote. If that's the case, why not quit being SDA altogether?

We would be better off if we could discard our religions and their accompanying dogmas and instead form smaller, neighborhood groups where we can read the scriptures, especially the words of Christ, and take them to heart.

I don't consider it a "religion." A "dogma" is simply a teaching. In and of themselves, there's nothing wrong with a teaching, is there? The Bible itself contains many teachings.

My being a member of the SDA church does not prevent me from reading the Scriptures and taking them to heart.

Originally Posted By: Aliensanctuary

Jesus didn't create a denomination, neither was his Church in the Woods a part of any organization.

Wasn't Jesus a part of Israel? Wasn't Israel the church of that time? Did Christ ever encourage His followers to break off from church of that day? He went to the synagogue every week and told people to go to the priests, etc. He encouraged people to give their tithes to the Jewish church of that time.

Originally Posted By: Aliensanctuary

By creating strong, centralized organizations, we allow ourselves to be manipulated and fed whatever those in control want to give us, be it garbage or not.

I don't see it this way. I like my church and I don't see garbage being taught by it, but I do see lots of garbage on the Internet and on the forums. I do see some truth, too, but I think the majority of it is garbage. It is kind of like the radio and TV that way.

I don't think I am being manipulated by the SDA church. In fact, I know I am not. But each person must study and make up his own mind.

Originally Posted By: Aliensanctuary

We all have brains and are capable of thinking independently. We should read the scriptures with open minds, and not allow our denominations do our thinking for us (aka, "brainwashing").

I agree with you here. This also agrees with what Ellen White wrote. Do you ever read her?

Originally Posted By: Aliensanctuary

We should never forget that the Kingdom of God is not a religion.

True.

[miz3]

Is it necessary for the Bible to use the words "Papacy" in order for us to legitimately understand it to identify the papacy as the "man of sin" & the little horn power?

If the Bible must use the name "papacy," then another question could be where in the prophecies does it say "Jesus of Nazareth" would be the Messiah? The prophecies do not give his personal name, do they? But they do give us a clear, unmistakable description of him.

So God's way of helping us to identify this power is not by giving a direct name. For one thing, anyone can change his name. But changing the name doesn't change the fundamental characteristics.

The Bible identifies this power by giving us many characteristics so we can recognize him for who he is if we really want to.

It would be like if I described a man who you should watch out for. I wouldn't give you the man's name but I would give you information about him that would distinguish him from everyone else. Only one person would fit the description, so there would be no mistaking him.

This is exactly what God has done in the pages of His word. The key is to study them and be willing to accept the evidence.

Ok! So the word "Papacy" is not in the Bible. Can you show me from the Bible unmistakeable evidence that the Bible is talking about the "Papacy" and ONLY the "Papacy"?

Can you also show me from the Bible unmistakeable evidence that the Bible states that the "Pope" is the antichrist?

Your turn!

[miz3]

Miz3 doesn't seam to understand the following:

1. If the "Papacy" was named in the prophetic declarations, the prophecy would "FAIL". Everyone would read it and say, "oh, well, we can't call ourselves the Papacy then!"

2. If the "Mark of the Beast" as called "Sunday", it would be so obvious, nobody would keep Sunday!

and the list goes on....

miz3, I know you are more intelligent than this!

I see this a good thing. If nobody would keep Sunday isn't that a good thing. Then they would not keep the wrong day.

God is clear about what the right day is "Saturday" the "Seventh Day"!

Now that is quite simple and everybody would be able to avoid the wrong and keep the right!

Are you accusing God of disguise in order to "trap humans" because of ignorance!

The same would go for the Papacy and the characteristics that the Bible does make plane.

Wouldn't it be a good thing for them to avoid being like those characteristics.

It seems a little convoluted to do it as you say!

[John317]

Can you also show me from the Bible unmistakeable evidence that the Bible states that the "Pope" is the antichrist?

What do you mean "the Bible states" this? Are you talking about evidence that shows the papacy, or papal system, is the antichrist/man of sin/little-horn? If that is your question, then the answer is yes. But if you are asking if the Bible "states that the 'Pope' is the antichrist," then of course not.

But then this has been done many times before. Perhaps you are ignoring it or aren't really studying the evidence.

Have you noticed that the Bible says almost the whole world will follow and obey the beast? So, obviously many people will not be able to see the evidence.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

Can you also show me from the Bible unmistakeable evidence that the Bible states that the "Pope" is the antichrist?

What do you mean "the Bible states" this? Are you talking about evidence that shows the papacy, or papal system, is the antichrist/man of sin/little-horn? If that is your question, then the answer is yes. But if you are asking if the Bible "states that the 'Pope' is the antichrist," then of course not.

But then this has been done many times before. Perhaps you are ignoring it or aren't really studying the evidence.

Have you noticed that the Bible says almost the whole world will follow and obey the beast? So, obviously many people will not be able to see the evidence.

I see in order to understand who and what it is requires a lot of inference, complex steps, historical mumbojumbo, etc. etc.

And even after all that God has it so hidden you might still miss it! In fact God might even make sure that some people will definitely not see the Truth!

My! MY!

[miz3]

Sounds to me like SDA are like the Jewish Nation of Christ's day who made things so complex and so burdensome that only a few elitists could follow it.