Lysimachus Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 .... and that your posts are nothing more than a pent up shear angry rant. Nothing like the pot calling the kettle black! ~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
miz3 Posted March 1, 2012 Posted March 1, 2012 Originally Posted By: miz3 .... and that your posts are nothing more than a pent up shear angry rant. Nothing like the pot calling the kettle black! Can you show me from the Bible and Bible only without any outside stuff or human reasoning or historical data etc. etc. that the Bible and the Bible only in the clearest of language predicts what the RCC/Pope is going to do in the present and in the future and that it is the RCC/Pope actually doing these things? I doubt you can do this. Now we will see how black your pot/kettle is.
Dr. Rich Posted March 1, 2012 Posted March 1, 2012 Miz3, no, Marcos can't and no one can either as I have done an exhaustive search and it's not there anyplace. Here is what really happened: When the Protestants broke off from their Mother church (Catholic), they had to come up with something to show how wrong they were, so they simply invented the theory that the Catholics and the Pope were the beast with the fatal wounded head. EGW did not make this up, as she simply repeated what she heard or read and said the same thing. It did NOT come from God at all. It came from Satan as a 'red herring' to keep people from knowing who the wounded head really is. It is the Jewish religion with the Zionests now working on re-establishing their right and way of worship.
miz3 Posted March 1, 2012 Posted March 1, 2012 Miz3, no, Marcos can't and no one can either as I have done an exhaustive search and it's not there anyplace. Here is what really happened: When the Protestants broke off from their Mother church (Catholic), they had to come up with something to show how wrong they were, so they simply invented the theory that the Catholics and the Pope were the beast with the fatal wounded head. EGW did not make this up, as she simply repeated what she heard or read and said the same thing. It did NOT come from God at all. It came from Satan as a 'red herring' to keep people from knowing who the wounded head really is. It is the Jewish religion with the Zionests now working on re-establishing their right and way of worship. Thank you Dr. Rich. I was certain that such a doctrine was not in the Bible. I was also certain that such a doctrine came out of the Protestant Reformation. I was also certain that Ellen White held such a view because she was a good Protestant and this theory had been taught to her since she was a little girl. This is why her views on the subject would have come naturally. The rest of what you said about the Zionists etc. I will not comment on.
skyblue888 Posted March 1, 2012 Posted March 1, 2012 miz, if I understand what Doug posted, we must be careful to discern between stating the facts of history in the light of the Biblical account and the attitude Christians ought to have toward these. Mrs. White wrote: "God has jewels in all the churches, and it is not for us to make sweeping denunciation of the professed religious world, but in humility and love, present to all the truth as it is in Jesus. Let men see piety and devotion, let them see Christlikeness of character, and they will be drawn to the truth." 4 B.C.1184. At the same time she would write: "The so-called intercession of the saints is the greatest falsehood that can be invented. Priests and rulers have no right to interpose between Christ and the souls for whom He has died, as though invested with the Saviour's attributes, and able to pardon transgression and sin. They themselves are sinners. They are only human. One day they will see that their deceptive doctrines have led to crimes of every stripe and type, to adultery, robbery, falsehood. They are responsible for many terrible wrongs which men have perpetrated upon their fellow men. For all of this the Judge of the whole earth will call them to account at His bar." 7 B.C.913. "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." S.C.36.
ClubV12 Posted March 1, 2012 Posted March 1, 2012 miz says, "2. I am not making stuff up. I am citing true FACTS." No you are not citing facts miz, you are spamming your opinions, which are anything BUT factual. In your delusions and dreams you think they are fact. Fact is, your making this stuff up.
miz3 Posted March 1, 2012 Posted March 1, 2012 miz, if I understand what Doug posted, we must be careful to discern between stating the facts of history in the light of the Biblical account and the attitude Christians ought to have toward these. Mrs. White wrote: "God has jewels in all the churches, and it is not for us to make sweeping denunciation of the professed religious world, but in humility and love, present to all the truth as it is in Jesus. Let men see piety and devotion, let them see Christlikeness of character, and they will be drawn to the truth." 4 B.C.1184. At the same time she would write: "The so-called intercession of the saints is the greatest falsehood that can be invented. Priests and rulers have no right to interpose between Christ and the souls for whom He has died, as though invested with the Saviour's attributes, and able to pardon transgression and sin. They themselves are sinners. They are only human. One day they will see that their deceptive doctrines have led to crimes of every stripe and type, to adultery, robbery, falsehood. They are responsible for many terrible wrongs which men have perpetrated upon their fellow men. For all of this the Judge of the whole earth will call them to account at His bar." 7 B.C.913. Sky I respectfully disagree that the Bible can be/is interpreted by history. As we have seen all kinds of "historicists" come up with all kinds of theories about the Bible and what the Bible predicts. We have recently as last year had two dates calculated based on historical data for the Second Coming. None of the historical data that has ever been used to determine the Second Coming has ever panned out correctly. That includes our own SDA experience in 1844 (twice). Our embarrassment on that 1844 occasion spawned a "cornfield excuse" that is not supported by the Bible and the Bible only. The farther in time we get from that "Disappointment" the less tenable our 1844 cornfield excuse becomes. Second, I don't believe that Ellen White was inspired in all that she wrote. That is not new news. Everyone knows here on the forum knows that. However, your first quote from 4 B.C.1184 citing her words is indeed dead on correct. As to the second quote from 7 B.C.913, I also agree with as being true. However, because the RCC/Pope did despicable things in the past and holds to even today unBiblical doctrines as your quote points out, does not mean that SDA Church .org doctrine of "future" atrocities is also correct. SDA Church .org definitely has the RCC/Pope pegged correctly as to their past and also to the unBiblicalness of many of the RCC/Pope doctrines. The SDA Church .org is not Biblical when it comes to the future predictions of the RCC/Pope. If the SDA Church .org were correct about such predictions they could show: without any additional resources like human logic, historical data, etc. etc. etc. from the Bible and the Bible only that the RCC/Pope will engage in such behavior. It is a matter of record so far that no SDA Church .org faithful has stepped forth to show this from the Bible and the Bible only. It can only be done by relying on past behavior guarantees the same future behavior logic, and the assumed historical data view of prophecy, and many many assumptions, as well as using Ellen White as if everything she wrote was inspired. Until shown from the Bible and the Bible only without any human trappings I am forced to reject the future SDA Church .org predictions concerning the RCC/Pope.
Dr. Rich Posted March 1, 2012 Posted March 1, 2012 There is no "www.SDAChurch.org" Did you mean the corporate SDA (GC)?
doug yowell Posted March 2, 2012 Posted March 2, 2012 Sky I respectfully disagree that the Bible can be/is interpreted by history.
miz3 Posted March 2, 2012 Posted March 2, 2012 There is no "www.SDAChurch.org" Did you mean the corporate SDA (GC)? Yes. To me it is all the same which is why I use SDA Church .org because it is a Corporate Organization different from other Organizations (.orgs)
ClubV12 Posted March 2, 2012 Posted March 2, 2012 "2. I am not making stuff up. I am citing true FACTS." Book, chapter and verse miz3, thats all we need to hear from you, nothing more. Can't do it? Then you got nothing to offer.
miz3 Posted March 2, 2012 Posted March 2, 2012 Originally Posted By: miz3 Sky I respectfully disagree that the Bible can be/is interpreted by history. How then is it interpreted if not by history? There are simply no direct ID's in prophesy. And even non-SDA's admit that if we don't learn the lessons of history we're bound to repeat it's failures. Quote: However, because the RCC/Pope did despicable things in the past and holds to even today unBiblical doctrines as your quote points out, does not mean that SDA Church .org doctrine of "future" atrocities is also correct. SDA Church .org definitely has the RCC/Pope pegged correctly as to their past and also to the unBiblicalness of many of the RCC/Pope doctrines. The SDA Church .org is not Biblical when it comes to the future predictions of the RCC/Pope. If the SDA Church .org were correct about such predictions they could show: without any additional resources like human logic, historical data, etc. etc. etc. from the Bible and the Bible only that the RCC/Pope will engage in such behavior. Your criteria disallows not only the SDA predictions but also any prediction including any that disagree with the SDA prediction. Quote: It is a matter of record so far that no SDA Church .org faithful has stepped forth to show this from the Bible and the Bible only. Until shown from the Bible and the Bible only without any human trappings I am forced to reject the future SDA Church .org predictions concerning the RCC/Pope. And can you predict from the Bible and the Bible only that the SDA predictions WILL not be true? 1. You interpret it by what the Bible itself actually says. In Daniel for instance the heavenly interpreter interpreted the visions for Daniel. Thus, we know what they mean. We must use only what the heavenly interpreter actually says and neither subtract and/or add to it. If there are no ID's then you might have some difficulty knowing until God sees fit to make it clear to you. What is your hurry. If and when God sees fit to make things clear to you then it will happen in God's way and method. You have no reason to "force" the issue unless you feel that you are more important than God in knowing when to know and when not to know. What arrogance makes you so desperate to have to know this very instant everything in the Bible? Is it because you have an inflated view of yourself as a member of an inflated view of a .org which views itself as a .org of destiny and that everything points them? I have news for you nothing points to the human in importance. Everything of importance points to God/Jesus Christ. Maybe understanding that will help you understand the Bible better. Next I don't care what other religious .orgs believe. They are entitled to believe as they choose but that does not make them correct. The FACT that other .orgs agree with us (SDA Church .org) or even if they agree with "miz .org" does not make them correct. Miz3, SDA Church .org, other .orgs, and/or any other "entities" are not the STANDARD. God/Jesus Christ/Word (the Bible) are the only STANDARD that counts. 2. Yes, it does disallow SDA Church .org predictions and also other predictions as well. Unless unfettered by human tools a prediction cannot be supported by the Bible and the Bible only just as it is then the said prediction is suspect at best. I am not going to support any nonSDA predictions just because they are nonSDA. I expect any and all predictions to meet the Bible and the Bible only STANDARD as I have already stated. If I were just simply anti-SDA your statement might have some validity. The FACT is in many ways I am pro-SDA and in only some "select" areas do I have problems with SDA Church .org theology. Most SDA theology I can with great relish support. Many erroneously on this forum think my only objective is bring down Ellen White and the SDA Church .org. NOTHING BUT NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. Only in those select areas do I have big problems with Ellen White and the SDA Church .org. In FACT I think the SDA Church .org comes closer to having the most true Biblical Light from God than any other .org I know. 3. No but God knows the future. However, whether I have a substitute is not relevant. What is relevant, is can you demonstrate from the Authority Itself (the Bible and the Bible only) that your "theory" is actual FACT. I don't have to prove that the number "three" doesn't exist. It is however incumbent on you to prove that the number does exist. If you cannot prove that the number does exist then you can claim that it does exist until someone shows it doesn't. Surely you see the horrid and foolish assertion you are making with such a species argument. Just because I cannot predict that the SDA Church .org predictions will not come true does not of itself make the SDA Church .org predictions true. Come on if all you got is prove that "three" does not exist you and your position and the position of SDA Church .org is indeed in desperate trouble. You have to do much better than that for your position to be accepted.
ClubV12 Posted March 2, 2012 Posted March 2, 2012 Miz3, I respectfully disagree, here's the problem with your methodology of thinking... "You must quote the whole thing not just the parts that you like and assert that it is truth when in fact it is not because your methodology is wrong. You taint the Truth when you do this kind of sloppy thinking." Now this "sloppy thinking", as you call it, is that some kind of code for calling people idiots? Just curious, how you get away with your back handed insults... Kind sir, I completly disagree with your brash statement: miz3 says, "Many erroneously on this forum think my only objective is bring down Ellen White and the SDA Church .org. NOTHING BUT NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH." It is my opinion that is the ONLY reason you post on this forum.
ClubV12 Posted March 2, 2012 Posted March 2, 2012 miz3 says, "You interpret it by what the Bible itself actually says. In Daniel for instance the heavenly interpreter interpreted the visions for Daniel. Thus, we know what they mean. We must use only what the heavenly interpreter actually says and neither subtract and/or add to it." Due to your inconsistent methodology of interpreting scripture I think this is an impossible goal for you, "brother". May I suggest you purchase some eye salve before attempting to read Daniel.
ClubV12 Posted March 2, 2012 Posted March 2, 2012 miz3 says, "Only in those select areas do I have big problems with Ellen White and the SDA Church .org." That is your opinion of course and certainly welcome. My opinion differs significantly, as you reject Ellen White as an inspired prophet it is impossible for you to comprehend her statements or discern truth.
Woody Posted March 2, 2012 Posted March 2, 2012 [quote Quote: ]]"Many erroneously on this forum think my only objective is bring down Ellen White and the SDA Church .org. NOTHING BUT NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH." It is my opinion that is the ONLY reason you post on this forum. I suspect you may be right about that Club. But, I praise God that miz3 is here. Like Bravus' post states - all theories are welcome here. While I don't agree with miz3 all the time - I appreciate his posts that require me to think deeply. I feel that Truth will always come to the surface. So, questions are good. As is questioning. May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology.
ClubV12 Posted March 2, 2012 Posted March 2, 2012 miz3, respectfully, Surely you see the horrid and foolish assertion you are making with such a species argument as you continually use?
ClubV12 Posted March 2, 2012 Posted March 2, 2012 Kind Woody, I must reassert my position,,, Woody says, "But, I praise God that miz3 is here." I don't praise God for those who with a great show of piety hurl insult after insult at the members of this forum, dear Sir. Your concepts of welcome are entirely out of place.
Woody Posted March 2, 2012 Posted March 2, 2012 Kind Woody, I must reassert my position,,, Woody says, "But, I praise God that miz3 is here." I don't praise God for those who with a great show of piety hurl insult after insult at the members of this forum, dear Sir. Your concepts of welcome are entirely out of place. They might be - But then they are mine. That is all I can speak for. And I suppose I just have thick skin when it comes to insults hurled at me. Since they don't fit - I don't wear them. May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology.
ClubV12 Posted March 2, 2012 Posted March 2, 2012 This concept that "all are welcome here" is an outrageous lie. It's like that guy who came to the door saying, "Honey, I'm home". With an ax in his hand. I'm not that stupid, I know an insult when I see one, we all do.
Recommended Posts