The 1260 Year Interpretation of Protestantism

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

That is not what Daniel chapter nine says.

You want it to be "Messiah" but it is clearly not "Messiah" and it is also clearly not talking about Jesus Christ.

Daniel nine does not translate into "Messiah" but translates into "Anointed One" or "an anointed one". You are mishandling the translation in order to fit your view. This is called "stretching".

The words "an anointed one" is NOT "the" One.

Also CONTEXTUALLY DANIEL CHAPTER NINE DOES NOT REFER TO JESUS CHRIST BECAUSE THE "ANOINTED ONE" COMES DURING THE REBUILDING OF JERUSALEM AFTER THE "DECREE" IS GIVEN TO REBUILD.

So who do you think the Anointed One is, if not the Messiah/Jesus?

The Jews even accept this to be talking about the Messiah! They just don't believe that the Messiah is Jesus, that's the only difference between Jews and Messianic Jews & most Christians.

I wrote about this in a previous post. The fact is Daniel chapter nine does NOT SAY specifically who this "anointed one" is.

If God does not want to reveal specifically who this "anointed one" is, that is OK with me. It apparently irritates others (present company was excluded in that statement).

That fact that the Jews accept this text as talking about the "Messiah" should be little comfort to you. The Jews do not believe that Jesus Christ was the Messiah. In fact they are still looking for the Messiah.

So much for Jewish credibility.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

You keep referring to the "brethren" as if they were God. The "brethren" are not God. In fact through out the history of the SDA Church and in my own life-time I have seen how the "brethren" have not been "God's Servants" but in fact have been the servants of the "evil one".

Their lust for power, greed for money, and manipulative spirit makes them clearly not God's Servants.

So much for the "brethren"!

What you said is also false in that my interpretations have been and do have the support of the Bible (God's Word). It is in fact your spurious theories that are the ones built on sand and off the wall imaginations.

Nope. Sorry miz3, that's not how it works. You can dream all day, but your hopes will be dashed to pieces, and in the end, you will be overwhelmingly disappointed.

The "brethren" are not God. But God speaks to us through the brethren. There may be brethren today who have lust for power, greed for money, and have a manipulative spirit. But the only reason such brethren have the truth is because they inherited these truths from HUMBLE brethren who have gone before them!

So when I say "unanimous" counsel of the brethren, I am specifically referring to the unanimous voice of those HUMBLE brethren who have gone before us, and the few that still exist today.

It is THESE that you have rejected, closed the door to, and therefore, are sealing your own fate for tragic disappointment and eternal sorrow. It is the rejection of these brethren which is the same as rejecting the Bible, Jesus, and Eternal Truth.

There's no getting out of this miz3. We have spoken. We have told you the absolute, cutting, living, Biblical, and painful truth. It's now for you to accept it, or reject it. To think that there will be no consequences for rejecting these counsels is to live in a fantasy world headed for eternal ruin and sorrow in your life.

But the good news is, there is still hope for you miz3. The door is still open. Do not procrastinate. Do not postpone. Accept Jesus into your life now. And to accept Jesus is to accept the truth that comes with Him. Though you may think you have already, I can assure you, this you have not done.

Am I supposed to thank you "most on high spiritual one" that you are giving me more chance(s)?

Does your directive of the "open door" come from you alone or did you have to clear this with the "gods"?

I like the part where you say, in the second to last paragraph, "we have spoken". It sounds so arrogant and presumptuous and therefore is actually not funny at all, but extremely sad.

On a more serious note. You said that you were referring to the "brethren" from the past rather than from the "present". I would remind you that the "brethren" from the past were no better than the greedy, lust for power, manipulative group that exists today. Do the names James White, AG Daniels, et all come to mind.

You should also be aware that these "same old brethren" had so many wild theological differences that if it were not for Ellen White they would have destroyed the fledgling SDA Church.

Lysimachus, once again you are the one living in a "dream world". The "brethren", as you put them and are trying to use them as, do not actually exist as you fantasize they exist. They were/are greedy, lust for money, manipulative power hungry men just as human leaders have been since Adam sinned. Your "fantasy brethren" I repeat just don't and never have existed. They don't exist theologically, nor character wise.

Only God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the Bible have existed, and I told before they are on my side and agree with me.

[Lysimachus]

*whew*. Keep on trying to justify yourself miz3. Keep it up. You'll sooner or later see which direction it takes you. You're obsessed with defending yourself instead of being open to what we're trying to tell you.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

That is not what Daniel chapter nine says.

You want it to be "Messiah" but it is clearly not "Messiah" and it is also clearly not talking about Jesus Christ.

Oh but it IS speaking of "THE Messiah". You just choose not to accept it as such. We take it just for what it says.

Quote:

Daniel nine does not translate into "Messiah" but translates into "Anointed One" or "an anointed one". You are mishandling the translation in order to fit your view. This is called "stretching"

That's what Messiah means, silly. "Anointed One". Jesus is the one and only true "THE Anointed One". You wish to ignore the definite article "the".

Quote:

The words "an anointed one" is NOT "the" One.

Even the NIV recognizes the definite article "THE": " From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until THE Anointed One". But re-enforces it even more is, it says "the Messiah THE Prince". Not A PRINCE.

Quote:

Also CONTEXTUALLY DANIEL CHAPTER NINE DOES NOT REFER TO JESUS CHRIST BECAUSE THE "ANOINTED ONE" COMES DURING THE REBUILDING OF JERUSALEM AFTER THE "DECREE" IS GIVEN TO REBUILD.

Contextually Daniel chapter 9 does not say this. It says that the Messiah will arrive at the END of the 7 and 62 weeks. That's 69 weeks. The contextual evaluation establishes that the building of Jerusalem occurs BEFORE the end of the 7 and 62 weeks! Once again, you are reading it wrong.

As I have pointed out to you before, Saul, David, Aaron were also "anointed ones". The reference in Daniel is no different than the "anointed ones" like Saul, Aaron, David etc.

There is nothing linguistically or contextually that makes the "anointed one" of Daniel nine any more "special" than were Saul, David, and Aaron.

Sorry you but you missed it again.

[miz3]

*whew*. Keep on trying to justify yourself miz3. Keep it up. You'll sooner or later see which direction it takes you. You're obsessed with defending yourself instead of being open to what we're trying to tell you.

"whew". I think the same could be said of you. In fact I do the say the same toward you. You are "soooo closed" Lysimachus.

[Lysimachus]

Originally Posted By: Lysimachus

*whew*. Keep on trying to justify yourself miz3. Keep it up. You'll sooner or later see which direction it takes you. You're obsessed with defending yourself instead of being open to what we're trying to tell you.

"whew". I think the same could be said of you. In fact I do the say the same toward you. You are "soooo closed" Lysimachus.

That would make all of us on this board "closed" except you.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: Lysimachus

*whew*. Keep on trying to justify yourself miz3. Keep it up. You'll sooner or later see which direction it takes you. You're obsessed with defending yourself instead of being open to what we're trying to tell you.

"whew". I think the same could be said of you. In fact I do the say the same toward you. You are "soooo closed" Lysimachus.

[John317]

...Translating Daniel nine verse twenty-five as "Messiah" is clearly a mistranslation (mistake). NO MESSIAH!

Originally Posted By: John3:17

Isaiah 45 also refers to Cyrus as God's messiah, or anointed one. Those various anointed ones were types of the REAL anointed One, Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ IS the Messiah-- the Anointed Leader of God. That is what the word Messiah means, an anointed one. It certainly refers to "Christ," which is the Greek word for Messiah, or Anointed. Jesus Christ=Jesus the Anointed One.

And actually the word "Messiah" is a transliteration of the Hebrew word used in Daniel 9: 25.

David, Saul, Cyrus were all "anointed ones," but there is only one "THE Anointed One," and that is Jesus Christ. The others are dead whereas Jesus Christ is still alive and still Anointed, continuously doing God's work FOR US in the heavenly sanctuary. Hebrews 8: 1, 2.

Originally Posted By: miz3

That is not what Daniel chapter nine says.

You want it to be "Messiah" but it is clearly not "Messiah" and it is also clearly not talking about Jesus Christ.

The Hebrew word is Strong's #4899, mawsheeakh, one of the accepted translations of which is "Messiah." See the Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary and the Complete Wordstudy Old Testament. Also see The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, page 603c. It says Daniel 9: 25 refers to "Messianic Prince."

Originally Posted By: miz3

Daniel nine does not translate into "Messiah" but translates into "Anointed One" or "an anointed one". You are mishandling the translation in order to fit your view. This is called "stretching".

But whether you realize it or not "Messiah" means "Anointed."

What you are saying would be the same as if I told you that Jesus is not the Christ, but He's the Messiah. Would that make sense to you?

Christ is the Messiah and the Messiah is the Christ.

Christ=Messiah=Anointed.

By the way, many good translations read "Messiah," including the Christian Standard Bible. They are correct.

You appear to me to be expecting, or asking, people to take your opinion over the authoritative sources and the knowledge of people who have been studying the Biblical languages for decades and are professional translators.

Originally Posted By: miz3

The words "an anointed one" is NOT "the" One.

Yes, it can be legitimately translated as "an anointed one." But it doesn't matter. There are pefectly good translations and Bible commentaries which give it both ways, and all understand it to be a reference to Jesus of Nazareth, otherwise known as Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the anointed one, the Messiah.

In the New Testament, Jesus is "the Christ" or "the Messiah".

Originally Posted By: miz3

Also CONTEXTUALLY DANIEL CHAPTER NINE DOES NOT REFER TO JESUS CHRIST BECAUSE THE "ANOINTED ONE" COMES DURING THE REBUILDING OF JERUSALEM AFTER THE "DECREE" IS GIVEN TO REBUILD.

Absolutely not. It says that the Messiah will come at the end of the 69 weeks, or after 483 years. Jesus Christ came in 27 AD, exactly 483 years after the command was given to rebuild Jerusalem, in BC 457. Christ died 3.5 years later, and was executed at the very hour that the Bible prophecies He would. He died at the very time that the High Priest was slaughtering the evening sacrifice, the Passover lamb. At that time Jesus Christ died, the Bible testimony is that the veil in the Most Holy was torn from top to bottom, obviously showing that God's angel had ripped the veil. Why? Because Christ's death did away with the necessity of animals sacrifices and the need of the earthly sanctuary. That is a precise fulfillment of the prophecy of Daniel 9: 27 that the Messiah would put an end to sacrifice and offering.

If you are claiming that the Messiah referred to in Daniel 9: 25 came during the rebuilding of Jerusalem, who do you believe this "anointed one" was?

In my opinion, what you are saying shows how confused a person can get when they refuse and suppress the truth that God has revealed.

[phkrause]

I wrote about this in a previous post. The fact is Daniel chapter nine does NOT SAY specifically who this "anointed one" is.

If God does not want to reveal specifically who this "anointed one" is, that is OK with me. It apparently irritates others (present company was excluded in that statement).

That fact that the Jews accept this text as talking about the "Messiah" should be little comfort to you. The Jews do not believe that Jesus Christ was the Messiah. In fact they are still looking for the Messiah.

So much for Jewish credibility.

Does it have to say the exact name? And if it does, why? And again who do you think its referring to if not the Messiah? And just because the Jews don't except Jesus as the Messiah should have nothing to do with there credibility. They have there reasons for not excepting him. I don't throw your credibility out just because you don't except that the anointed one is referring to Jesus. If not for the Jews we would not have the Bible or Christianity.

[John317]

There is nothing linguistically or contextually that makes the "anointed one" of Daniel nine any more "special" than were Saul, David, and Aaron.

Sorry you but you missed it again.

You have to be kidding, miz3. The entire prophecy shows that the Messiah it refers to is the long-awaited Messiah, even the Son of God, who had been predicted since Gen. 3: 15. He was the one that God promised both Abraham and David. David wrote of the Messiah in the Psalms, and virtually all the prophets had spoken of Him.

[Lysimachus]

Originally Posted By: miz3

...Translating Daniel nine verse twenty-five as "Messiah" is clearly a mistranslation (mistake). NO MESSIAH!

Originally Posted By: John3:17

Isaiah 45 also refers to Cyrus as God's messiah, or anointed one. Those various anointed ones were types of the REAL anointed One, Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ IS the Messiah-- the Anointed Leader of God. That is what the word Messiah means, an anointed one. It certainly refers to "Christ," which is the Greek word for Messiah, or Anointed. Jesus Christ=Jesus the Anointed One.

And actually the word "Messiah" is a transliteration of the Hebrew word used in Daniel 9: 25.

David, Saul, Cyrus were all "anointed ones," but there is only one "THE Anointed One," and that is Jesus Christ. The others are dead whereas Jesus Christ is still alive and still Anointed, continuously doing God's work FOR US in the heavenly sanctuary. Hebrews 8: 1, 2.

Originally Posted By: miz3

That is not what Daniel chapter nine says.

You want it to be "Messiah" but it is clearly not "Messiah" and it is also clearly not talking about Jesus Christ.

The Hebrew word is Strong's #4899, mawsheeakh, one of the accepted translations of which is "Messiah." See the Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary and the Complete Wordstudy Old Testament. Also see The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, page 603c. It says Daniel 9: 25 refers to "Messianic Prince."

Originally Posted By: miz3

Daniel nine does not translate into "Messiah" but translates into "Anointed One" or "an anointed one". You are mishandling the translation in order to fit your view. This is called "stretching".

But whether you realize it or not "Messiah" means "Anointed."

What you are saying would be the same as if I told you that Jesus is not the Christ, but He's the Messiah. Would that make sense to you?

Christ is the Messiah and the Messiah is the Christ.

Christ=Messiah=Anointed.

By the way, many good translations read "Messiah," including the Christian Standard Bible. They are correct.

You appear to me to be expecting, or asking, people to take your opinion over the authoritative sources and the knowledge of people who have been studying the Biblical languages for decades and are professional translators.

Originally Posted By: miz3

The words "an anointed one" is NOT "the" One.

Yes, it can be legitimately translated as "an anointed one." But it doesn't matter. There are pefectly good translations and Bible commentaries which give it both ways, and all understand it to be a reference to Jesus of Nazareth, otherwise known as Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the anointed one, the Messiah.

In the New Testament, Jesus is "the Christ" or "the Messiah".

Originally Posted By: miz3

Also CONTEXTUALLY DANIEL CHAPTER NINE DOES NOT REFER TO JESUS CHRIST BECAUSE THE "ANOINTED ONE" COMES DURING THE REBUILDING OF JERUSALEM AFTER THE "DECREE" IS GIVEN TO REBUILD.

Absolutely not. It says that the Messiah will come at the end of the 69 weeks, or after 483 years. Jesus Christ came in 27 AD, exactly 483 years after the command was given to rebuild Jerusalem, in BC 457. Christ died 3.5 years later, and was executed at the very hour that the Bible prophecies He would. He died at the very time that the High Priest was slaughtering the evening sacrifice, the Passover lamb. At that time Jesus Christ died, the Bible testimony is that the veil in the Most Holy was torn from top to bottom, obviously showing that God's angel had ripped the veil. Why? Because Christ's death did away with the necessity of animals sacrifices and the need of the earthly sanctuary. That is a precise fulfillment of the prophecy of Daniel 9: 27 that the Messiah would put an end to sacrifice and offering.

If you are claiming that the Messiah referred to in Daniel 9: 25 came during the rebuilding of Jerusalem, who do you believe this "anointed one" was?

In my opinion, what you are saying shows how confused a person can get when they refuse and suppress the truth that God has revealed.

Tell it like it is John317. These things only solidify in stone that Miz3 refuses to accept those who are more learned concerning the original languages and what the authors intended. ALL the translators unanimously recognize and understand that the Messiah in Daniel 9 is pointing toward the coming "Meshiak", the expected One. The one to deliver Israel from its Oppressors. Jews for centuries had recognized this passage to refer to the coming Messiah, and Christians see this prophecy is realized in Jesus Christ.

But one might as well bang their head against a brick-wall, because miz3 persistently and obstinately chooses to accept his own unprofessional and desired interpretation of this passage than to accept the interpretation of ALL those (Adventists, Protestants, Jews, etc. etc.) who have categorically been able to ascertain and GRASP Who this passage (Daniel 9) is talking about.

But you can let off 100,000 tons of TNT, and it STILL won't make a dent. He's like a steam roller train traveling at high speed headed for a massive and catastrophic train wreck.

[fccool]

Marcos,

I think a bit of humility would be appropriate in this discussion. It's easy to get lost in pride of your own understanding. It's great that you can hold a debate, but I think you are terrible from refraining from personal attacks and making degrading remarks. Something that all of us should learn, especially Christians.

[ClubV12]

miz3,

I think a bit of humility would be appropriate in this discussion. It's easy to get lost in pride of your own understanding. It's great that you can hold a debate, but I think you are terrible from refraining from personal attacks and making degrading remarks. Something that all of us should learn, especially Christians.

[fccool]

Should work for all of us. I simply read the last comment, which I found a bit trenchant and rude. [Words here deleted by the moderator.]

[ClubV12]

I have no idea WHAT view some folks take on any given subject. I know a LOT about what some DON'T believe, we hear a lot of, "your wrong", "thats not biblical". But virtually nothing about what some DO believe!

If you belive someone is wrong, the generally accepted dialog routine would be to suggest an alternative, an alternate point of view based on a reasonable argument. "It doesn't say that" is not reasonable, it's arguing. Without a defined position, or something close to a positiont, there is no discussion. There is only "your wrong", "it doesn't say that", "it's not biblical", "I don't believe it". Fine, well WHAT do you believe??? Do you even HAVE a reason for your faith, on ANY issue? Getting a commitment to those beliefs, or something close to some kind of belief, is like trying to nail jello to the wall. All you get is a mess followed by an argument, not "dialog". Not even "debate", it barely qualifies as a "discussion", it's just childish arguing.

[fccool]

My belief is that prophecy is not for us to know and understand all of the events completely and thoroughly. It is given to certain groups of people for certain purpose. Generally it relates to people that it's given to.

Prophetic interpretation is not a "sure thing" that Adventist and other theologians would like you to believe. Prophecy is largely symbolic, and thus confined to a certain understanding that is rather of of the recognizing from the past occurrence, than that of seeing into the future of the world.

If prophecies of Christ were specific enough that they were beyond the shadow of the doubt clear... then the Jews would know. They would celebrate the birth. They would follow Christ through his upbringing, and they would make him the king. It was meant to be a hidden and obscure event to prevent that from happening. God did not want to be seen as a king. He wanted to relate to people as a poor and homeless carpenter who understands them.

He did not reveal the birth to the chief priest and the whole theological shebang of the day. He revealed it to simple people... the shepherds, the commoners. Those shepherd likely were not theologically schooled, but they knew, because it was revealed to them. Yet the people with "masters in theology" and with all of the prophetic knowledge on their hands... they laughed and said "what good ever came from Bethlehem".

The point being is that Adventist understanding comes from composite theological camps that seeks to reconcile certain timelines with established doctrine. It does not seek the truth. It seeks self-validation.

I see it as a history repeating itself in many ways.

[ClubV12]

Thank you fccool, it really is a pleasure to know what your beliefs are on this issue. I don't agree with them, I accept the Seventh-day Adventist view point, but I understand where your coming from.

[Lysimachus]

Marcos,

I think a bit of humility would be appropriate in this discussion. It's easy to get lost in pride of your own understanding. It's great that you can hold a debate, but I think you are terrible from refraining from personal attacks and making degrading remarks. Something that all of us should learn, especially Christians.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention fccool. I definitely see I have a weakness in this area. I will be praying earnestly that I will allow God to calm me down. It doesn't take much for me to want to overstep that righteous indignation for defending what I am so passionate about. Thank you again.

[miz3]

Tell it like it is John317. These things only solidify in stone that Miz3 refuses to accept those who are more learned concerning the original languages and what the authors intended. ALL the translators unanimously recognize and understand that the Messiah in Daniel 9 is pointing toward the coming "Meshiak", the expected One. The one to deliver Israel from its Oppressors. Jews for centuries had recognized this passage to refer to the coming Messiah, and Christians see this prophecy is realized in Jesus Christ.

But one might as well bang their head against a brick-wall, because miz3 persistently and obstinately chooses to accept his own unprofessional and desired interpretation of this passage than to accept the interpretation of ALL those (Adventists, Protestants, Jews, etc. etc.) who have categorically been able to ascertain and GRASP Who this passage (Daniel 9) is talking about.

But you can let off 100,000 tons of TNT, and it STILL won't make a dent. He's like a steam roller train traveling at high speed headed for a massive and catastrophic train wreck.

Once again Lysimachus you think TRUTH is decided by MAJORITY!

Not even John317 thinks is true.

[miz3]

miz3,

I think a bit of humility would be appropriate in this discussion. It's easy to get lost in pride of your own understanding. It's great that you can hold a debate, but I think you are terrible from refraining from personal attacks and making degrading remarks. Something that all of us should learn, especially Christians.

I offer my DITTOS DIRECTED TOWARD YOU!

[ClubV12]

Truth is not decided by a majority, but it is clearly not defined my one man's opinion either. If you stand alone on any given issue, with zero support from the brethren (how ever you want to define that) you can bet there is more work to be done. More soul searching to take place, more enlightment to be prayed for.

[miz3]

My belief is that prophecy is not for us to know and understand all of the events completely and thoroughly. It is given to certain groups of people for certain purpose. Generally it relates to people that it's given to.

Prophetic interpretation is not a "sure thing" that Adventist and other theologians would like you to believe. Prophecy is largely symbolic, and thus confined to a certain understanding that is rather of of the recognizing from the past occurrence, than that of seeing into the future of the world.

If prophecies of Christ were specific enough that they were beyond the shadow of the doubt clear... then the Jews would know. They would celebrate the birth. They would follow Christ through his upbringing, and they would make him the king. It was meant to be a hidden and obscure event to prevent that from happening. God did not want to be seen as a king. He wanted to relate to people as a poor and homeless carpenter who understands them.

He did not reveal the birth to the chief priest and the whole theological shebang of the day. He revealed it to simple people... the shepherds, the commoners. Those shepherd likely were not theologically schooled, but they knew, because it was revealed to them. Yet the people with "masters in theology" and with all of the prophetic knowledge on their hands... they laughed and said "what good ever came from Bethlehem".

The point being is that Adventist understanding comes from composite theological camps that seeks to reconcile certain timelines with established doctrine. It does not seek the truth. It seeks self-validation.

I see it as a history repeating itself in many ways.

Boy do I agree with this!

[John317]

[ClubV12]

fccool, yeah, it sounds terrific and contains much truth, but it's a mixture of truth and error. The best lies always contain some truth, but when you see the error, however small, you know the message cannot be from God.

Here's the problem, your last paragraph:

"The point being is that Adventist understanding comes from composite theological camps that seeks to reconcile certain timelines with established doctrine. It does not seek the truth. It seeks self-validation."

I totally reject that position. Adventist understanding comes from a careful comparison of scripture to scripture. The timelines are not difficult to establish, they are reasonable and logical, they simply fit. Not a force fit, the 2,300 day prophecy is solid as a rock. It was not revealed to one man, it was revealed over time to many. It was carefully considered by many men of faith. The conclusions were verified by the Lords inspired messenger, Ellen White. Now Ellen White may not mean much to you, not being a Seventh-day Adventist, but it shows me the excellent work of this "composite" of men who studied the issue and came to the correct conclusion.

This inspired source of counsel, Ellen White, is what sets apart the 100's of other denominations comprising "babylon". Each one with their own distinct views on any given bible text or bible theory. Where there is no vision, the people perish.

[miz3]

Truth is not decided by a majority, but it is clearly not defined my one man's opinion either. If you stand alone on any given issue, with zero support from the brethren (how ever you want to define that) you can bet there is more work to be done. More soul searching to take place, more enlightment to be prayed for.

I believe that Jesus Christ does NOT fit the mold you are creating here.

Jesus Christ and John the Baptist did not line up with the "brethren" of their day.

In fact that is why we talk about John the Baptist as that "lone voice in the wilderness". In his day he was "one man's opinion".

Could the same be said of Elijah? Surely Elijah did not follow the "brethren" or the "consensus" of his day. Even though Elijah was basically alone (he was unaware there were actually a very small minority) Elijah "stubbornly" clung to the TRUTH.

Shall we then assert that because Elijah was a "lone voice" that Elijah did not have the TRUTH? Of course not!

Did John the Baptist then "not have the Truth"?

Did Jesus Christ then "not have the Truth"?

Don't SDA believe they will be a very small minority in the "last days". Because SDA do not heed the "counsel of the brethren" will that mean they do not have the truth?

And then there is the example of Noah.......

There are many "lone voices" that had the Truth!

I think your model of how TRUTH is known has many pitfalls and fallacies.