BibleOnly Posted December 11, 2011 Posted December 11, 2011 I'm not sure who could read the Bible and not believe in a millenium on earth, but for Jesus to return in the manner of the Bible would involve the raising of the dead and the changing of the people who are here, so I don't really see how that could be faked.
Guest arnie Posted December 12, 2011 Posted December 12, 2011 fccool, You are soooo right. For the Church to incorporate has everything to do with control as far as I'm concerned and to use tithe monies to fight litigations over such nonsense is ludicrous. Corporate laws are set up to protect business corporations, not churches. What happened to just preaching the gospel? For the GC to go after a few small Churches and spend thousands of dollars on legal fees, because of a "questionable" sign outside the door or on a web site,is the most stupid waste of money possible. No wonder the membership of the North American Division is shrinking. I think more people are informed and on to them. If this Church is growing it has to be in other world countries where no one is aware of their sh'nanigans. What a bunch of henchmen. Until they restrict our monies to spreading the gospel,they're through getting my 10%. It's going to charity where it belongs!
Windsor Posted December 12, 2011 Posted December 12, 2011 I'm not sure who could read the Bible and not believe in a millenium on earth, but for Jesus to return in the manner of the Bible would involve the raising of the dead and the changing of the people who are here, so I don't really see how that could be faked. About 18 million Bible reading Adventists believe the millennium will be in Heaven, that's who. "4 Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years." -Revelation 20 Combine the previous verse with the following. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a [m]shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive [n]and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord. You apparently believe that we ascend to meet God only to immediately return to Earth which seems pretty pointless as it would only take a few minutes for Him to land anyway. Adventists believe we meet God in the air so that He can return to Heaven and the New Jerusalem with us. The New Jerusalem does not descend from Heaven until after the 1000 years. It's clearly missing from the Thessalonians (pre-millennial) view of His return and it is mentioned in Revelation 21, right after Revelation 20 where it mentions us reigning with God during the millennium. \However as for your second statement, although Adventists and apparently yourself belief that Christ will raise the dead at the start of the millennium, that is not a universal Christian belief. There are numerous beliefs on the millennium within Christianity including a spiritual coming of Christ. Remember Adventists Online?
BibleOnly Posted December 12, 2011 Posted December 12, 2011 I am aware that there's all sorts of interpretations of Revelation, yes. There's 18 million Adventists ? I'll ignore the 'Bible reading' bit :-)
Gordon1 Posted December 12, 2011 Posted December 12, 2011 Stan, let's not forget that some of these *Davidians* - men, women and children - were similarly vilified in Waco Texas and then incinerated by the authorities. Burned alive in their home without reason. The media were kept several miles distant. These people had regular day jobs in the community. Sadly the Adventist GC missed an opportunity to stand up for religious freedom, instead quickly distancing themselves from the independent group when intervention could have saved many lives. It was a massacre which the *real SDA Church* could have averted. What's the purpose in a Religious Liberty Dept.? The video won't load for me but I hope it includes an apology for those deaths.
BibleOnly Posted December 12, 2011 Posted December 12, 2011 Oh, they were an SDA offshoot ? I feel like I might have known that. I know that the authorities handled that terribly, although, I'm not sure that it's a churches role to stand up for the 'religious freedom' of people who think they are Jesus reborn.
Lysimachus Posted December 12, 2011 Posted December 12, 2011 There is not one single passage that even hints the millennium will be one earth. I wrote an unfinished paper on this subject. It provides every imaginable verse from the Old and New Testament to prove that the earth will be void and desolate during the millennium, and that all scriptural texts referring to an "earthly reign" is pointing to the earth made new, postmillennially. Here it is: The True Nature of the Millennium: http://www.scribd.com/doc/75414093/The-True-Nature-of-the-Millennium-1-0 There is much more coming to this paper. Also take notice to the other links to other sites I provided regarding the millennium near the bottom of my paper. Lysimachus ~Lysimachus (Marcos S.) Author of article, Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation (see attachment for article) Currently writing a book, Vindicating the Historical School of Prophetic Interpretation Founder of the largest and fastest SDA Apologetics Group on Facebook, Seventh-Day Adventism - Defending the Pillars of the Faith Writer and apologetics contributor at Adventist Defense League Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation.pdf
Windsor Posted December 12, 2011 Posted December 12, 2011 Oh, they were an SDA offshoot ? I feel like I might have known that. I know that the authorities handled that terribly, although, I'm not sure that it's a churches role to stand up for the 'religious freedom' of people who think they are Jesus reborn. No, they were an offshoot of the Davidians (Shepherd's Rod) who were disfellowshipped from the Adventist church around 1930 because of heretical beliefs. Remember Adventists Online?
BibleOnly Posted December 12, 2011 Posted December 12, 2011 Well, I don't see how to respond to this. You claim that Paul wrote a letter where he expected his readers to know every second line was a lie, something the SDA can work out, but no Greek scholar who did any Bible translation ever picked up on. In the process, you claim an important piece of doctrine that is never stated in the bible, but which you deduce from your assumptions. But, you criticise me for referring to a number of Bible verses to prove that I'm not just taking one verse out of context, which I did in response to that accusation. What this means to me is that people like you will always find an excuse to disregard what the Bible says.
Lysimachus Posted December 12, 2011 Posted December 12, 2011 Well, I don't see how to respond to this. You claim that Paul wrote a letter where he expected his readers to know every second line was a lie, something the SDA can work out, but no Greek scholar who did any Bible translation ever picked up on. In the process, you claim an important piece of doctrine that is never stated in the bible, but which you deduce from your assumptions. But, you criticise me for referring to a number of Bible verses to prove that I'm not just taking one verse out of context, which I did in response to that accusation. What this means to me is that people like you will always find an excuse to disregard what the Bible says. It is the only way to read it if the Bible is to be in full harmony with itself, otherwise we find contradiction with Acts which mentions only tongues in context of international languages. We do not find one shred of evidence that the version of tongues being derived in 1 Cor. 14 ever took place at Pentecost. Pentecostals believe that this is when the gift of tongues was manifested, at Pentecost, and they run around the Church like mad-men, bopping up and down, all over the floor, flopping on the floor like a fish on dry land, and swinging their arms like maniacs (go to youtube if you want some examples, there are literally thousands of videos on this demonic behavior). The only place that the Pentecostal version of tongues can possibly be extracted from is from 1 Corinthians 14. It cannot be extracted from Acts, when the true Pentecost and outpouring of the Holy Spirit took place. 1 Corinthians 14 reveals no such Divine work of the Holy Spirit on believers. Paul is writing a CONCERNED letter to the "problem Church". Sound scholarship leads us to these conclusions. I'm not sure why you feel so burdened to try and push tongues, especially when you know very well that one does not have to speak in tongues to be saved. ~Lysimachus (Marcos S.) Author of article, Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation (see attachment for article) Currently writing a book, Vindicating the Historical School of Prophetic Interpretation Founder of the largest and fastest SDA Apologetics Group on Facebook, Seventh-Day Adventism - Defending the Pillars of the Faith Writer and apologetics contributor at Adventist Defense League Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation.pdf
jasd Posted December 12, 2011 Posted December 12, 2011 >>Oh, they were an SDA offshoot ?<< Twice removed – and further than that from the concerns of supposed ‘good’ Xtians. >>I know that the authorities handled that terribly,<< As they will when it is your and my turn to find ourselves on the other side of the line from those same authorities... It’s the nature of the beast. Mebbe, we’ll also soon come to know the same agony of seeing our children burned alive by order of those to whom we gave our votes during past elections. >>I'm not sure that it's a churches role to stand up for the 'religious freedom' of people who think they are Jesus reborn.<< Pardon m-moi!—but I think the ‘charge’ was laid only to Koresh, but then lots of bulldust flying around Texas and further parts, yes?—as for me, I could give a rat’s fundament what any of them believed, especially the women and children. They didn’t, under any circumstances, deserve to die in the manner prepared by the Gov’t. I can’t think of anything more Xtian than to defend women and children – even and including men falsely accused. If the Davidians were Americans then they were our own, the same, which Writ has in mind when it admonishes, “But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” (1 Tim 5:8) Buy kneepads from the Box store – because we’re going to be doing a lot of praying soon. (They’s be comin’ for yous and for me’ums – sure’n begora the sun will be comin’ up on the morrow)
BibleOnly Posted December 12, 2011 Posted December 12, 2011 I'm not sure why you want to argue about this still. "It is the only way to read it if the Bible is to be in full harmony with itself, otherwise we find contradiction with Acts which mentions only tongues in context of international languages" It is true that Acts 2 specifically states that some tongues were understood. Yet, you invent things like 'hearing in ears' to explain something you've never experienced. As I posted elsewhere, your interpretation falls over the moment you ignore 1 Cor 13, and act as if tongues is not something that is operated in the church today. "We do not find one shred of evidence that the version of tongues being derived in 1 Cor. 14 ever took place at Pentecost" That's actually not true. But, it is clear that in Acts 2, some tongues were understood. Yet there's no record of tongues ever being used as a tool for preaching, and lots of evidence from the Bible that it was in general something only God understood, not least from 1 Cor 14, and from Romans. "Pentecostals believe that this is when the gift of tongues was manifested, at Pentecost, and they run around the Church like mad-men, bopping up and down, all over the floor, flopping on the floor like a fish on dry land, and swinging their arms like maniacs (go to youtube if you want some examples, there are literally thousands of videos on this demonic behavior). " It's interesting to me that you argue with me by telling me what people other than me do. Yes, this is true. And some people started out as SDA and decided their follower was Jesus reincarnated, until the FBI shot them all. Does that mean that I should assume all SDA's act this way ? I disown those people the same way the SDA disowned the Branch Davidians. Neither the Branch Davidians or the out of control people in mainstream Pentecost can change the Bible by their actions. "The only place that the Pentecostal version of tongues can possibly be extracted from is from 1 Corinthians 14. It cannot be extracted from Acts, when the true Pentecost and outpouring of the Holy Spirit took place. " That is not true, although it is true that 1 Cor 12-14 gives us the most detailed account of tongues in the church we have. Why does your church not obey these scriptures ? Acts 2, 8, 10 and 19 all show that when people become saved, they speak in tongues. Acts 8 and 19 show that a baptised believer can know they don't have the Holy Spirit. These are things the Bible says that are not consistent with your reading or your beliefs. "1 Corinthians 14 reveals no such Divine work of the Holy Spirit on believers. Paul is writing a CONCERNED letter to the "problem Church"" Yes, they were misusing the gift of tongues, but Paul no-where indicates that they did not have this gift, or were using a counterfeit. He doesn't come close to saying that, he identifies his use of the gift with what they were using. He wrote to instil order in the gift they were using, not to tell them they needed a different one. "Sound scholarship leads us to these conclusions." No, as I've pointed out 1 Cor 12-14 is specific enough that everyone, those who think tongues are for preaching, those who think tongues have simply ended, and those who think that tongues is a prayer language given to all Christians, all find what they want in these verses, as they cannot read them without superimposing their views. I'm the only one to have the integrity to admit this is true for everyone. You've never responded to this point. Yet, the point is, one reading MUST be true, and it must be the one that is simple, logical and in tandem with the rest of the Bible. 'Paul assumed we knew that every second line he wrote was a lie' is none of these things, and falls over on the simple fact that, if this is all true, it's odd that no Bible verse actually says there's such a thing as 'fake tongues' and the people making this claim don't have what they consider to be 'real tongues' in their church, even though Paul says that the Christian church will have these things operating, until Jesus returns. "I'm not sure why you feel so burdened to try and push tongues, especially when you know very well that one does not have to speak in tongues to be saved." You're right, in the sense that all we need to do is trust Jesus. You're wrong in the sense that every Christian DOES speak in tongues, for reasons the Bible makes clear. If you think 1 Cor 12 proves otherwise, then you also think James was wrong to say every Christian can ask God for wisdom, and that Paul was wrong to say we're saved by faith, as these verses must also say that faith and wisdom are gifts given only to some Christians. You still need to explain why none of the Christians who speak in tongues, interpret and prophecy are in your church, especially given that Paul is most specific in 1 Cor 14 and says that everyone in the church can prophecy, if they seek to.
jasd Posted December 12, 2011 Posted December 12, 2011 >>but with a lot of fluff, like weaving around and around and around trying to make the verse say something else than it really is.<< Hoo-yah!—I knows, I knows the type! It’s the doobie-doodie guy who can’t wrap his cogitatus cerumbellitis around Daniel 12:4 and exposits the same-o’, same-o stuff the Early Church Fathers did with re the book of Daniel. Sheesh, that’s stuff near-on a coupla thousand years ago! Redubbed and redone – with hardly a twitch of Holy Book legitimacy. There ain not nuthin’ blinder than him who won’t see. “Where the ditch my bruther, where the ditch...?”
BibleOnly Posted December 12, 2011 Posted December 12, 2011 As they will when it is your and my turn to find ourselves on the other side of the line from those same authorities... It’s the nature of the beast. Mebbe, we’ll also soon come to know the same agony of seeing our children burned alive by order of those to whom we gave our votes during past elections.
ClubV12 Posted December 12, 2011 Posted December 12, 2011 Gordon says, "It was a massacre which the *real SDA Church* could have averted." Wow, thats a breath taking statement!!! Are you serious? You actually believe the church, or any church, could have intervened and stopped Waco? Puhhlease, even on the internet people aren't THAT gullible to believe such a false statement.
Moderators John317 Posted December 12, 2011 Moderators Posted December 12, 2011 John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted December 12, 2011 Moderators Posted December 12, 2011 ... Waco Texas ....It was a massacre which the *real SDA Church* could have averted. Show your strongest argument and evidence for this position. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
jasd Posted December 12, 2011 Posted December 12, 2011 >>And some people started out...<< Falling down and raising a ruckus? Heared tell of some muckity-mucks of the early assemblies eluding the police responding to complaints – by slippy-slidin’ away in the nick o’ time. Now, afore ya git your britches all wadded up, that is only a “heared tell”. >>...not obey these scriptures ?<< Rotsa ruck, some whats cain’t even find texts to allow for the raising of holy hands. Imagine!—them somes might be caught on a smart phone and sent to youtube. : Ain not that www.youtube?-as in 666.youtube? [/yumpin' yiminy]
BibleOnly Posted December 12, 2011 Posted December 12, 2011 >>...not obey these scriptures ?<< Rotsa ruck, some whats cain’t even find texts to allow for the raising of holy hands. Imagine!—them somes might be caught on a smart phone and sent to youtube. : Ain not that www.youtube?-as in 666.youtube? [/yumpin' yiminy] I'm not sure how this answers my question. Why does the SDA not obey these scriptures, only explain them away to mean nothing ?
jasd Posted December 12, 2011 Posted December 12, 2011 >>No, that's never going to happen. Jesus is coming back for us, there's no end times cataclysm we can wait for before we need to be ready.<< Indeedy it will. Sure nuff. Ummm, Jn 15:20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also. >>*grin* no....<< Would like to agree, but history repeats and Writ confirms.
BibleOnly Posted December 12, 2011 Posted December 12, 2011 You don't think Christians have ever been persecuted ? You think Jesus was not talking about the last 2000 years, but just a short period of time before His return ?
jasd Posted December 12, 2011 Posted December 12, 2011 Quote: Quote: Quote:BibleOnly...not obey these scriptures ? Quote:jasd Rotsa ruck, some whats cain’t even find texts to allow for the raising of holy hands. Imagine!—them somes might be caught on a smart phone and sent to youtube. : Ain not that www.youtube?-as in 666.youtube? [/yumpin' yiminy] >>I'm not sure how this answers my question. Why does the SDA not obey these scriptures, only explain them away to mean nothing ?<< They ignore that which does not suit. They’ve treated your proffers re tongues in the same manner as they do texts re raising holy hands... The last line was a sideswipe at the accusation re ‘domons’. I’m just pesticating and having a jolly time. Am in a ripping good mood today.
jasd Posted December 12, 2011 Posted December 12, 2011 >>You don't think Christians have ever been persecuted ?<< But of course!-persecuted on the left and on the right - wherever found. >>You think Jesus was not talking about the last 2000 years, but just a short period of time before His return ?<< I think He spoke of persecution in its entirety, the horrible persecutions of the past, and the upcoming unimaginable persecution soon coming. It is my understanding that the persecutions against Xtians will only end when Gd begins to pour out His wrath. At that time He will provide shelter for those who are His.
Windsor Posted December 12, 2011 Posted December 12, 2011 You don't think Christians have ever been persecuted ? You think Jesus was not talking about the last 2000 years, but just a short period of time before His return ? "At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people--everyone whose name is found written in the book--will be delivered." Daniel 12:1 Remember Adventists Online?
BibleOnly Posted December 12, 2011 Posted December 12, 2011 It's a common mistake to take verses that spoke of the future and assume they always refer to the future. Jesus said to watch for His coming, without warning, but you're saying we can tell when it is, we can wait for the great calamity. I don't think Jesus lied.
Recommended Posts