Windsor Posted December 12, 2011 Posted December 12, 2011 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. No record, BibleOnly? The very first time speaking in tongues is ever mentioned and yet there's no record? "We hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God.” Acts 2:11 Remember Adventists Online?
BibleOnly Posted December 12, 2011 Posted December 12, 2011 Well, Windsor, anyone who reads Acts will note that although some people understood tongues, they also spoke the common language of the area, to report that they had understood, and they needed Peter to get up and preach to answer their question 'what must we do'. Clearly tongues was not used to answer them, or they would not have had to ask.
Windsor 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. How can you possibly say Jesus wanted us to be left in darkness as to the signs of His coming? The entirety of Matthew 24 is devoted to telling us EXACTLY that. I can tell you one person who doesn't lie and that's Jesus. 'As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”' ... 32 “Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; 33 so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that [v]He is near, right at the [w]door. ------ Notice the following in terms of the relationship in time between the tribulation and the return of Christ..... notice how it's IMMEDIATELY AFTER the tribulation. 29 “But immediately after the tribulation of those days THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL from [r]the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, Remember Adventists Online?
Windsor Posted December 12, 2011 Posted December 12, 2011 Well, Windsor, anyone who reads Acts will note that although some people understood tongues, they also spoke the common language of the area, to report that they had understood, and they needed Peter to get up and preach to answer their question 'what must we do'. Clearly tongues was not used to answer them, or they would not have had to ask. Clearly you have a problem with admitting your mistakes. Either the disciples were telling the great works of God in a non native tongue or they weren't. Remember Adventists Online?
BibleOnly Posted December 12, 2011 Posted December 12, 2011 Originally Posted By: BibleOnly 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. How can you possibly say Jesus wanted us to be left in darkness as to the signs of His coming? The entirety of Matthew 24 is devoted to telling us EXACTLY that. I can tell you one person who doesn't lie and that's Jesus. 'As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”' ... 32 “Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; 33 so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that [v]He is near, right at the [w]door. ------ Notice the following in terms of the relationship in time between the tribulation and the return of Christ..... notice how it's IMMEDIATELY AFTER the tribulation. 29 “But immediately after the tribulation of those days THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL from [r]the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, These things are figurative. The signs Jesus spoke of, have been increasing for some time. Yes, we know the times. No, there is no great and special end times tribulation period of 3 1/2 or 7 years.
BibleOnly Posted December 12, 2011 Posted December 12, 2011 Originally Posted By: BibleOnly Well, Windsor, anyone who reads Acts will note that although some people understood tongues, they also spoke the common language of the area, to report that they had understood, and they needed Peter to get up and preach to answer their question 'what must we do'. Clearly tongues was not used to answer them, or they would not have had to ask. Clearly you have a problem with admitting your mistakes. Either the disciples were telling the great works of God in a non native tongue or they weren't. I guess if that's how you deal with it, that's up to you. Did the people report that they had understood tongues in the common language, or not ? Did they still have to ask 'what must we do', or not ? Really, this is not the core question. The core question is, if I am wrong, and as Paul said tongues won't cease until Jesus returns, and should be present in the church as a sign to unbelievers, where are the people speaking in tongues and interpreting as you understand it, in every SDA church across the land ? If you're right, why was Paul wrong, or why is the SDA not obeying the Bible ?
Gordon1 Posted December 12, 2011 Posted December 12, 2011 Gordon says, Wow, thats a breath taking statement!!! Are you serious? You actually believe the church, or any church, could have intervened and stopped Waco? Of course you're free to ridicule Ernie. The SDA Church has a cadre of lawyers as well as significant influence in Washington - as with any large corporation which has set roots in the D.C. area. There is money, expertise and pull, just as with all well-funded organizations. In fact we are told the Church headquarters were moved to Takoma Park for the very purpose of exerting an awareness of religious liberty upon the legislators of the Capitol. While the Church is not General Motors or Pfizer, had she stepped in with her resources to publicly thwart the military campaign against the Branch Davidians, a moral victory could have been won. Legal actions filed, letters from SDA constituents across the U.S., etc. And Americans could have been taught a valuable lesson on Religious Liberty. In bringing light and public pressure, lives could have been spared. Instead the Church turned her back on this religious persecution. The same fate met the Jews, JWs, homosexuals and dissidents in Nazi Germany. And it will come again to the religious fringe. There was no trial, no due process. It was a massacre. In the words of Niemoller: First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Gordon1 Posted December 12, 2011 Posted December 12, 2011 Gordon says, Wow, thats a breath taking statement!!! Are you serious? You actually believe the church, or any church, could have intervened and stopped Waco? In short, the Church could have mobilized members, & other churches. All churches could have intervened.
skyblue888 Posted December 12, 2011 Posted December 12, 2011 The SDA Church has a cadre of lawyers as well as significant influence in Washington - as with any large corporation which has set roots in the D.C. area. There is money, expertise and pull, just as with all well-funded organizations. In fact we are told the Church headquarters were moved to Takoma Park for the very purpose of exerting an awareness of religious liberty upon the legislators of the Capitol. While the Church is not General Motors or Pfizer, had she stepped in with her resources to publicly thwart the military campaign against the Branch Davidians, a moral victory could have been won. Legal actions filed, letters from SDA constituents across the U.S., etc. And Americans could have been taught a valuable lesson on Religious Liberty. In bringing light and public pressure, lives could have been spared. Instead the Church turned her back on this religious persecution. The same fate met the Jews, JWs, homosexuals and dissidents in Nazi Germany. And it will come again to the religious fringe. There was no trial, no due process. It was a massacre. Gordon1 _____________________ I would wholeheartedly agree with you Gordon if David Koresh had not defied the powers that be. He barricaded himself with his followers in defiance of the authorities. Did they not have a stock-pile of weapons ready to fight for themselves? The responsibility for what happened rests solely upon David Koresh. According to the Word of God he was to surrender to the authorities and have his day in court. If he had nothing to hide, why did he not let God be His defense? Was there not evidence that he was having sex with under-aged girls? Had he not appropriated to himself the wives of all his followers? I believe David Koresh was of the frame of mind that he did not have to answer to the powers that be because, you see, he was above them, seeing himself as the special "prophet" of God. How deluded he was! This time I do not believe that we can lay the guilt at the door of any church for what happened in Waco, Texas. What happened there is a warning to all who in the name of God think they can defy the powers instituted of God. Rom.13. sky *Indirectly though the church is responsible, having delayed the finishing of the work of God on the earth, hence she is responsible for all the different offshoots that have arisen in the last century. "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." S.C.36.
Gibs Posted December 13, 2011 Posted December 13, 2011 The SDA "church" is registered as a corporation and the name is her corporate name. 1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. A Freeman In Jesus Christ
Dr. Rich Posted December 13, 2011 Posted December 13, 2011 There are a lot of people who like to leech off of the Adventist Church. The Davidians are a good example, they take and take, use our buildings, the resources that have been provided to build a building, and the evangelism expenses WITHOUT giving anything back. Sounds harsh, but that is how I view them, am not alone, watch this video I uploaded. http://vimeo.com/31386872 Hmmm? And I thought the REAL church belonged to God--not to people??? Stan, the largest percent of members of the SDA never pay anything--as they are the kids in school. Besides, what is it about not being able to trust in God that makes the GC the big bad police?
Members phkrause Posted December 13, 2011 Members Posted December 13, 2011 Where does this say that Jesus' return will be impersonated ? What it is saying in that verse is that Jesus will never place his foot on the earth at his second coming. But Satan who will be impersonating Christ at the end time, will be on earth, here is a statement from EGW to that effect: As the crowning act in the great drama of deception, Satan himself will personate Christ. The … great deceiver will make it appear that Christ has come. In different parts of the earth, Satan will manifest himself among men as a majestic being of dazzling brightness, resembling the description of the Son of God given by John in the Revelation … and then, in his assumed character of Christ, he claims to have changed the Sabbath to Sunday, and commands all to hallow the day which he has blessed. He declares that those who persist in keeping holy the seventh day are blaspheming his name by refusing to listen to his angels sent to them with light and truth. This is the strong, almost overmastering delusion. Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1950), 624. phkrause When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan. Proverbs 29;2
BibleOnly Posted December 13, 2011 Posted December 13, 2011 Well, I think we all know that I think EGW was a hack, and that I'm more interested in what the Bible says. "he claims to have changed the Sabbath to Sunday, and commands all to hallow the day which he has blessed" This is both tragic and hilarious. You guys just don't stop with the Sabbath thing. It's almost like you worship the sun. I love how her statement is predicated on people knowing that Saturday is the Sabbath, or that there is a one day Sabbath to keep at all, and predicated on the idea that everyone keeps it in some way ( which was surely her world view, but plainly not true ).
Members phkrause Posted December 14, 2011 Members Posted December 14, 2011 But we should take your word for everything? How is that any different? Because.......what? You've shown us that you are more reliable???? I don't think so. phkrause When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan. Proverbs 29;2
BibleOnly Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 What is my nickname here ? BibleOnly. I never expect anyone to care about anything I say, because I said it. The bible is the only judge, of me, you and EGW. 1Cr 14:29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. 1Cr 14:30 If [any thing] be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. 1Cr 14:31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. 1Cr 14:32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. Prophecy is something that happens in God's church whenever it meets, and no-one is a special prophet or one whose words are to always be followed. When someone uses this gift, those listening should judge ( hence gifts of discernment ). EGW may well have said some things that are true. Even if everything she said was true, for her to be quoted after her death as if she was a SPECIAL prophet, and God only sends those from time to time, is a contradiction to how the Bible works. Her words have no authority, they are only right when they agree with the Bible, and the church always has people who can expound the Bible, there's no need to follow or revere the dead.
Guest Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 But we should take your word for everything? How is that any different? Because.......what? You've shown us that you are more reliable???? I don't think so. Exactly...
Members phkrause Posted December 14, 2011 Members Posted December 14, 2011 What is my nickname here ? BibleOnly. I never expect anyone to care about anything I say, because I said it. The bible is the only judge, of me, you and EGW. 1Cr 14:29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. 1Cr 14:30 If [any thing] be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. 1Cr 14:31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. 1Cr 14:32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. Prophecy is something that happens in God's church whenever it meets, and no-one is a special prophet or one whose words are to always be followed. When someone uses this gift, those listening should judge ( hence gifts of discernment ). EGW may well have said some things that are true. Even if everything she said was true, for her to be quoted after her death as if she was a SPECIAL prophet, and God only sends those from time to time, is a contradiction to how the Bible works. Her words have no authority, they are only right when they agree with the Bible, and the church always has people who can expound the Bible, there's no need to follow or revere the dead. My point exactly!!! Your saying we should take your interpretation over one that was actually a prophet. phkrause When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan. Proverbs 29;2
BibleOnly Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 I'm saying you should read the Bible and know that everyone is a prophet, and that you should read the Bible for yourself, not assume someone's word is equal to or greater than scripture.
Guest Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 What is my nickname here ? BibleOnly. Then you should follow the Bible. Here is what the Catholics have to say about the change of the Sabbath. ROMAN CATHOLIC LEADERS SPEAK "Sunday is a Catholic institution, and its claim to observance can be defended only on Catholic principles . . From beginning to end of Scripture there is not a single passage that warrants the transfer of weekly public worship from the last day of the week to the first."—Catholic Press, Sydney, Australia, August, 1900. "Protestantism, in discarding the authority of the [Roman Catholic] Church, has no good reason for its Sunday theory, and ought logically to keep Saturday as the Sabbath."—John Gilmary Shea, in the American Catholic Quarterly Review, January 1883. "It is well to remind the Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, and all other Christians that the Bible does not support them anywhere in their observance of Sunday. Sunday is an institution of the Roman Catholic Church, and those who observe the day observe a commandment of the Catholic Church."—Priest Brady, in an address, reported in the Elizabeth, N.J. News of March 18, 1903. "Ques.—Have you any other way of proving that the [Catholic] Church has power to institute festivals of precept [to command holy days]? "Ans.—Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her: She could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority."—Stephen Keenan, Doctrinal Catechism, p. 176. "Reason and common sense demand the acceptance of one or the other of these two alternatives: either Protestantism and the keeping holy of Saturday or Catholicity and the keeping holy of Sunday. Compromise is impossible."—The Catholic Mirror, December 23, 1893. "God simply gave His [Catholic] Church the power to set aside whatever day or days she would deem suitable as Holy Days. The Church chose Sunday, the first day of the week, and in the course of time added other days, as holy days."—Vincent J. Kelly, Forbidden Sunday and Feast-Day Occupations, p. 2. "Protestants . . accept Sunday rather than Saturday as the day for public worship after the Catholic Church made the change . . But the Protestant mind does not seem to realize that in accepting the Bible, in observing the Sunday, they are accepting the authority of the spokesman for the church, the Pope."—Our Sunday Visitor, February 5, 1950.
BibleOnly Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 I guess you just got here. I've never claimed the Sabbath was changed to sunday.
Dr. Rich Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 The SDA Church has a cadre of lawyers as well as significant influence in Washington - as with any large corporation which has set roots in the D.C. area. There is money, expertise and pull, just as with all well-funded organizations. In fact we are told the Church headquarters were moved to Takoma Park for the very purpose of exerting an awareness of religious liberty upon the legislators of the Capitol. While the Church is not General Motors or Pfizer, had she stepped in with her resources to publicly thwart the military campaign against the Branch Davidians, a moral victory could have been won. Legal actions filed, letters from SDA constituents across the U.S., etc. And Americans could have been taught a valuable lesson on Religious Liberty. In bringing light and public pressure, lives could have been spared. Instead the Church turned her back on this religious persecution. The same fate met the Jews, JWs, homosexuals and dissidents in Nazi Germany. And it will come again to the religious fringe. There was no trial, no due process. It was a massacre. Gordon1 _____________________ I would wholeheartedly agree with you Gordon if David Koresh had not defied the powers that be. He barricaded himself with his followers in defiance of the authorities. Did they not have a stock-pile of weapons ready to fight for themselves? The responsibility for what happened rests solely upon David Koresh. According to the Word of God he was to surrender to the authorities and have his day in court. If he had nothing to hide, why did he not let God be His defense? Was there not evidence that he was having sex with under-aged girls? Had he not appropriated to himself the wives of all his followers? I believe David Koresh was of the frame of mind that he did not have to answer to the powers that be because, you see, he was above them, seeing himself as the special "prophet" of God. How deluded he was! This time I do not believe that we can lay the guilt at the door of any church for what happened in Waco, Texas. What happened there is a warning to all who in the name of God think they can defy the powers instituted of God. Rom.13. sky *Indirectly though the church is responsible, having delayed the finishing of the work of God on the earth, hence she is responsible for all the different offshoots that have arisen in the last century. Gorden was totally correct. Sky--you have NO idea what you are saying here... Everyone has a right to have a trial and judgment--and that is what is going to happenn to everyone evil.
ClubV12 Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 Gordon1 was totally wrong on his analysis of what happened at Waco. NO ONE could stop it, and a LOT of people tried. The man was determined to go down as a "martyr". In the same way a suicide bomber thinks he is a martyr. In the same way anyone who "delivers their body to be burned, but has not love", the sacrifice has no meaning. There is no one to blame beyond David Koresh himself.
jasd Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 QR frame: “The state of Europe at or after the dismemberment of the Roman Empire has been appealed to as a fulfillment of it, ignoring the fact that the territory which Augustus ruled included a considerable district both of Asia and Africa. Nor is this all. There is no presumption against finding in past times a partial accomplishment of such a prophecy, but the fact that twenty-eight different lists, including sixty-five "kingdoms," have been put forward in the controversy, is a proof how worthless is the evidence of any such fulfillment. In truth the historical school of interpreters have here, as on many other points, brought discredit upon their entire system, containing, as it does, so much that claims attention.” --Sir Robert Anderson [/bolded:mine] What a muddle, eh? Why, even the noted authors Smith, Maxwell, and Anderson of SDA affiliation and noted ‘Early Pioneers’ – could not agree upon the Ten Nations that they thought ought to comprise the Ten Toes of the Image. (Rome failed to conquer the Germans. Additionally, the Holy Roman Empire was not Roman, but German) Why must ten toes be relegated to Europe?—and that, without consideration of the nations of Eastern Europe, Asia, and Africa, which were part of the Roman Empire? Is it because the desired hermeneutic centers upon the Pope” (don’t forget that St James was also Pope, in fact, the first Pope) The UN has divided Earth into Ten Sectors or Regions – and it is now the prevailing condition. Were these the Ten Toes, it may prove troubling to the expositor, as it is a relatively recent thing, not a thing of centuries ago. What may prove interesting is that one ‘Sector/Region’ consists of three Nations – those being the State of Israel, South Africa, and Australia (none of the other Sectors/Regions are compromised by separation into non-contiguous blocs). One may further find of interest the fact that South Africa and Australia contain the two deepest holes drilled by man. (rumor has it that Russia is currently drilling what may become the deepest hole) I think that the interpretation of Daniel more closely correlates to facts as they now exist and as they develop. I think it is a mistake to simply repeat that which was developed re the book of Daniel as far removed from relevant events as the Early Church Fathers. One can only accept their ‘facts’ by dismissing the relevant texts, which prohibit such expositions. Why would a .org be so adamant re certain texts, Exodus 20:8, for instance?—and so dismissive re others, like Daniel 12:4? Therein lies dichotomy.
Administrators Tom Wetmore Posted December 15, 2011 Administrators Posted December 15, 2011 Moderator Note --- This topic needed to be worked on to eradicate the personal sniping. Please stick to the topic and to each other. "Absurdity reigns and confusion makes it look good." "Sinless perfection is such a shallow goal." "I love God only as much as the person I love the least." *Forgiveness is always good news. And that is the gospel truth. (And finally, the ideas expressed above are solely my person views and not that of any organization with which I am associated.)
jasd Posted December 18, 2011 Posted December 18, 2011 And, one might bear in mind that Nixon divided the USofA into Ten Sectors/Regions to be ruled by appointed Governors having powers that exceeded that of State Governors. That is an existential fact. Moreover, there are those who advance the idea that America is the New Rome – something to do with the type of its rule of govern and the symbolism of the Roman Eagle and the American Eagle. Mebbe, mebbe not – but mebbe worth considering.
Recommended Posts