Prospero

[jasd]

Quote:

Is not the "house of God" the central focal point of the entire spiritual existence of all of Jerusalem?

Whatever the "house of God" may or may not have been -- it is beyond the pale to juxtapose its rebuilding with the restoration and rebuilding of the city Jerusalem. The "house of Gd" is not the city Jerusalem, nor has it ever been. Daniel 9:25 is very clear upon that point. Gd does not deal in specifics to have them wrested into meaninglessness.

Quote:

Is not the setting of "magistrates and judges, which may judge all the people that are beyond the river, all such as know the laws of thy God; and teach ye them that know them not." (Ezra 7:25) including more than the beautification of the temple?

That was conjunctively included in the 'grant' provided Ezra; however, what Ezra may or may not have inferred -- bears no reality to the plain reading of the word of Gd -- that is, Holy Writ.

The quote dependent upon the text above, Ezra 7:25, is easily nullified by the fact that there was complete Administrative funcionality in the wilderness [of wandering] -- where there was no city built. There was only the dry desert, goat skin tents, and rocks...

Quote:

I do not find it expedient to continue harping on your tunnel vision,

Given the elliptical parsing of the subject matter -- "tunnel vision" must be considered a blessing.

Quote:

evidence I have presented in its totality.

One man's "evidence" is another man's fishwrap.

[jasd]

Quote:

The Spirit of Prophecy said so. I believe it. You don't believe it. This tribulation was split up into 3, although one. It began after Christ, and terminates at the Second Advent, divided into 3 parts.

So which of the 3 was the singularly GREAT TRIBULATION?

"For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world tothis time, no, nor ever shall be." --Jesus Christ, Matt 24:21.

"And except those days should be shortened, there whold no flesh be saved: but for the elect's ske those days shall be shortened." Jesus Christ, Matt 24:22.

Two thousand years is a loonnng time for the days to be 'shortening'.

Quote:

The Revelation of Jesus Christ came to John and gave him more details. If one takes the words of Daniel 2 alone, one would conclude there is no Little Horn, but only the Iron power and kingdoms mixed with iron and clay. But Daniel 7 elaborates and fills in more details of Daniel 2--it's called, repeat, and enlarge. [ed.jasd]

Umm, whew! "repeat, and enlarge", eh?--not willy-nilly? The verb tense in chapter 7 negates the "repeat, and enlarge" assertion. The vision was given in the very end stage/last 'king' -- of the Babylonian Empire; ipso facto, "These great beasts, which are four, [are] four kings, which shall arise out of the earth." (Dan 9:17) Note:

the tense -- "which shall arise". That means -- the vision is for a period/point beyond the existence of the Baylonian Empire, which same, cannot be a part of the "four beasts/kings" -- and indicatively, occurring in the latter times... Different vision, different foretelling...

For this reason of wresting -- we are imperatively informed that: the book of Daniel was SEALED -- until the time of the end -- the same, which was not five centuries ago nor was it a hundred and fifty years ago... as should be commonly understood.

Quote:

Never said [...] spiritual Rome. [,,,] deeper spiritual implications. [,,,] discern spiritual things.

Whole lotta spiritualizing goin' on here.

Quote:

Keep on rejecting that the Papacy is the Antichrist.

1 Jn 2:18 ...even now are there many antichrists;

Let's see, warn't there be some kind of time lag from St John until the Popes and Papacy?--like a loonnng time lag? What then him St John mean, "even now..."? Mebbe, we done got "antichrist" figured all wrong? Hey! here's a thought -- mebbe even Martin Luther done got it wrong too -- like he got Sunday sanctification all ways wrong, eh?

Ain it not grand when one can have his cake and eat it too?

Quote:

the Papacy as the Antichrist, as clearly delineated in scripture,

Oy vay! has nobody told St John 'bout this?

Yumpin' yiminy!

Quote:

The Spirit of Prophecy clearly revealed deeper principles that the scriptures do not elaborate upon.

Poor HS, couldn't dwell upon (or in?) the depths...

"Like, sez so in the Book." --First Principal

"No it don't." --Second Principal

"Like I sez, Then it's kosher." --First Principal

"Oh, I see... then again, no I don't see. I guess I see, but really... Hey! what's kosher? Does it mean, Fill in the blanks? or..., I did it my way?" --Second Principal

Quote:

She said the Papacy IS the Antichrist! She saw in many visions that it was this power that would be the persecuting power in the last days.

"These our actors,

As I foretold you, were all spirits, and

Are melted into air, into thin air:

...like the baseless fabric of this vision,"

--Prospero

Re Antichrist(s): Read the three little books of St John. It is only St John who can identify Antichrist(s), as it was only him, in all Holy Writ, who coined and used the term "Antichrist(s). All else is baseless and spurious.

Quote:

You refuse to acknowledge the day-for-year principle in the 1260 years during the Dark Ages.

Daniel was sealed until the time of the end. Revelation was always an open book. Revelation supercedes and trumps Daniel re 'times'. 'Times', except where they literally cannot be gainsaid, is established in Revelation 9:5,6, as both precedent and principle, "And in those days shall men seek death, and shal not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them."

The direct reading of Revelation promises blessings, among which, one assumes, an understanding of 'times' prophecies. Those cannot be developed as truths until overturned by the 'latter times' unsealing of the book of Daniel. Revelation trumps Daniel re 'times'.

The 'time' element in Revelation 9:5,6 is five months. Should those 150 days be transposed as 150 years -- the text would have men living for more than a 150-year lifespan, thus confuting the threescore and ten of Bible principle.

All 'times' after Revelation 9:5,6 can only be taken as literal time -- else one devolves to willful eisegesis and cornpone.

[Lysimachus]

You actually had to go out of your way to create a separate thread to respond to my quotes?

JASD, when will you let it rest? lol.

If we start here, you can bet it will go on forever. I totally disagree with your conclusions overall, and feel that most of your arguments are built on semantics. So we will get little to nothing accomplished here, as it misses the "big picture" of the great plan of salvation, and gets "hung up" on numerous irrelevancies. Since the arguments in here completely ignore the "core" of my arguments concerning the command to build the city by Cyrus, whether the above arguments I raised are right or not, what merit does it have on the conclusion? None.

Anyway, I'm done in here. I'm exhausted. I'm debating in about 5 other forums simultaneously. Let it rest of r a change JASD. Thomas locked the thread. So by you creating this thread to continue to respond to my arguments is actually defeating the purpose of locking the thread.

[jasd]

>>You actually had to go out of your way to create a separate thread to respond to my quotes?<<

Indeed, I was just ready to post and the thread was locked. Shame to waste -- so, the "Prospero" thread -- just to post my work-up.

>>JASD, when will you let it rest? lol.<<

You mean, let error lie? Ain not that like, sin?

>>If we start here, you can bet it will go on forever.<<

Nah, just wanted to post my answers to blatant error. Don't post error and the thread dies...

>>I totally disagree with your conclusions overall, and feel that most of your arguments are built on semantics.<<

"Semantics" -- ain not that like, a big time electrical manufacturing company?--chips, breakers, and whatnot. However, I think you spelled it incorrectly.

>>So we will get little to nothing accomplished here, as it misses the "big picture" of the great plan of salvation, and gets "hung up" on numerous irrelevancies.<<

From its many frames the story is told, as there ain not a "big picture" without its "numerous" parts -- no matter how they may be perceived.

>>Since the arguments in here completely ignore the "core" of my arguments concerning the command to build the city by Cyrus,<<

Is 45:12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, [even] my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

Is 45:13 I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives, not for price nor reward, saith the LORD of hosts.

Did you notice that the prior verses re Cyrus speaks in the first person?--whereas, the two verses 12 and 13 speak in the second person?--and its antecedent is "man" of verse 12?--and not Cyrus. (read my below re the written Hebrew...)

Is 44:22 I have blotted out, as a thick cloud, thy transgressions, and, as a cloud, thy sins: return unto me; for I have redeemed thee.

...that the chapter has definite Messianic overtones?

Is 44:28 That saith of Cyrus, [He is] my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.

And that the book of Isaiah is written in Hebrew and that the 'translated' Cyrus is actually Kow Resh in Hebrew; meaning; ‘pierced head’ (Kaf-Vav – pierced and Rosh-Shin meaning head)... Who in Writ comes to mind when ‘pierced head’ is mentioned?--umm, 'a crown of thorns' comes to mind? Moreover,

is it not the one whose head was pierced who is the Shephard? Messianic, yes? Kinda like some of the Psalms with their interposed Messianic themes, yes?

>>whether the above arguments I raised are right or not, what merit does it have on the conclusion? None.<<

Everything! Wrong is the fog which conceals -- and Right is the wind that cleanses... However, have it as it pleases you.

>>Anyway, I'm done in here.<<

Like I said, I had these posts that I felt deserved posting...

>>I'm exhausted. I'm debating in about 5 other forums simultaneously.<<

Don't let logicum et logica get fading thin. Anyway, the way you post those book-length posts -- I thought you had most of your submissions already prepared and needed only to 'cut and paste' -- as it were. If not, you deserve credit for being quick on your keyboard. Takes me forever to collate a post.

>>Let it rest of r a change JASD.<<

If I have time and energy -- I withstand egregious error.

>>Thomas locked the thread. So by you creating this thread to continue to respond to my arguments is actually defeating the purpose of locking the thread.<<

If I remember, he locked the thread for its slide to the intemperate. I'm thinking that should you respond to my posits, you'd do so measurably.

[Naomi]

jasd you have very long post which are often to read. If you would use quotes rather than <<>> i would make it much easier to read

[Lysimachus]

Rarely do I read JASD's posts. I haven't even read them in this thread yet, and don't plan to. They are cumbersome, and 95% of the time, I don't even understand what he's saying.

[phkrause]

jasd you have very long post which are often to read. If you would use quotes rather than <<>> i would make it much easier to read

I don't have a problem with <<>> I can usually figure it out. I do agree some posts are rather long, but so are some from others.

[phkrause]

Rarely do I read JASD's posts. I haven't even read them in this thread yet, and don't plan to. They are cumbersome, and 95% of the time, I don't even understand what he's saying.

I don't have a problem reading his posts,but unfortunately I have to agree most of the time I have a hard time as to what's being said.

[jasd]

>>Rarely do I read JASD's posts. I haven't even read them in this thread yet, and don't plan to.<<

You're not into self-deprivation, are you?--ain not that like, masochistic? I ask, as it's truly sad that for whatever reason -- your not reading what I proffer -- surely leaves you less rounded than you may otherwise be -- in your expositional capability. :-(

>>They are cumbersome, and 95% of the time, I don't even understand what he's saying.<<

Quote:

I'm thinking that should you respond to my posits, you'd do so measurably.

I guess that I expected too much of you?--old dog, new tricks, and all that stuff, eh? Ah well, however, you do come across as a bit touchy. You know, you don't have to be -- I recognize and allow for classical traits and am overall quite forgiving. That said,

I do believe you when you say that you don't read my posts, as I would have expected a slight turn by now from some of the truly elliptical nature of your posts. I, however, do attempt to read whatever I can of your posts -- fanciful though they may sometimes be; however, I find that you cut and paste way too much -- much too tiresome for the less than rigorously deligent. Otherwise,

I do appreciate your viewpoints, as I recognize them as those which my mother sought to instill in me -- she was truly an EGW fan -- and adhered to all the shibboleths; and for that, today she is truly with the Lord, singing and dancing in the fields of glory, as promised in Writ...

Though I'd assured her that I would be a 'star' in her crown -- I believe that I'm falling short and that some time future she will have to apply to be my 'solicitor' for my atoning.

Read my posts Lysimachus, you'll see where some of your dialogic shortfalls are located, and that has to be good, as you surely do not want to either seem naive or to mislead the innocent, yes? ;-)

[jasd]

>>jasd you have very long post which are often to read. If you would use quotes rather than <<>> i would make it much easier to read<<

I don't pay no nevermind to the length of my posts, as I see that for the most part -- they are exceedingly shorter than many. But thank-you for the observation. ;-)

I continue to use for the most part, >><< as I've done so for 'bout seven years now and haven't really the need to do as everyone else. Old dog -- you know.

I've posted for many years and have had too few observations re my writing style, so, you know... 'old dog', comfortable chewing on the same shoe.

Perhaps, one day.

I find it pleasant to run across your posts. Keep it up.

[Lysimachus]

And therrree...he goes again. lol

JASD. I enjoy reading some of your posts, but the moment you start getting really nit-picky with semantics, and the moment you start raising up old arguments that I dealt with a long time ago as though we never discussed them, that's the moment I start skimming through it. Such as, the sealing of the book of Daniel, you obviously did not pay attention to my responses to that, so I really have no relish to read the same stuff over again. Sorry.

[jasd]

>>I don't have a problem reading his posts,but unfortunately I have to agree most of the time I have a hard time as to what's being said.<<

Well, one must be thankful for even the small things. I am gratified that my posts aren't easily ascertained, as there are many who visit here who have not been well-grounded in things Bible.

As I've stated before, I don't write for everyone -- only the few who are consumed with the gist of a matter to read, read again, and again -- if need be. There are plenty of others who write well enough to be understood readily. It is as Lysimachus said,

it is easier to stay with the easily read. The foregoing is not you, as I see you holding your own whenever you've the notion to comment upon this or that.

However, I understand what you're saying, as I have the same difficulty whenever attempting to read something I have little interest in -- my mind will simply not engage.

I suppose that there are those also who would rather not read that which may cut his or her favorite bromide to the quick.

[jasd]

>>And therrree...he goes again. lol<<

What!?--you read something on this thread? Nah... you didn't, after you said that you didn't! That goes to credibility, yes?

Ahh, "rarely" is the qualifier.

Hellloooo, Lysimachus ;-)

[Lysimachus]

I suppose that there are those also who would rather not read that which may cut his or her favorite bromide to the quick.

No, that is not the reason whatsoever. Guaranteed. The reason is that your arguments are not even arguments used by most critics of our doctrines, so it doesn't really bother me. I've debated many critics of our doctrines for a long time, and I must say, the criticisms most raise are actually worth bringing up, and worth refuting. The criticisms you raise, from what I have observed, are not very serious arguments worth considering. This is what I have found so far. This is why I don't feel it is profitable to refute them, as refuting your arguments will not prove worthwhile in my quest to spread the 3 Angel's Messages.

[jasd]

>>JASD. I enjoy reading some of your posts, but the moment you start getting really nit-picky with semantics,<<

What?--one ought just slough through the fact that the first person pronoun differing from a second person pronoun ought mean nothing to the expositor?

>>and the moment you start raising up old arguments that I dealt with a long time ago as though we never discussed them,<<

Lots of innocents abroad. Since the last time of the brouhaha over the tone of the list's posts -- we've added 10% more members to the list. Don't think that a response is simply a repeat or a response addressing a point for the sake of it. It may be for the lurker and for the new members of the list. So, when you ignore adversarial arguments to repost the same-o' same-o' -- the concerned is drawn in to post to the matter yet again -- for the record.

>>that's the moment I start skimming through it. Such as, the sealing of the book of Daniel, you obviously did not pay attention to my responses to that, so I really have no relish to read the same stuff over again.<<

...every indication of either the closed mind or the preconceived notion. How many ways must Gd inform you that He'd sealed the book. It was sealed. Period. Full Stop. Ignore me, fine -- I'm writing that I may one day collate some of that which I write -- that I might dodder about pamphleteering. However, to ignore Gd is incomprehensible and perverse. Therefore, who can give a rat's fundament about what has been wrested and developed to spite Gd's sealing of the book -- the entire book!?

>>Sorry.<<

Indeed, for yourself -- for obstinacy and spitefulness to Gd.

[Lysimachus]

>.<

[cheddar]

...in my quest to spread the 3 Angel's Messages.

I would really be interested in knowing your position on the 3rd angel’s message!

Since you brought it up – Do you believe in the 1888 message?

You’ve been an adventist long enough that you must have a position.

That happens to be my favorite message and I know it like the back of my hand.

Please be honest, because if you say that you believe that message I’m going to want to know when you first began to understand it and what you’ve done since then to share it with all your adventist friends.

And just so we’re on the same page - there’s no ten commandments in the 1888 message. EJ Waggoner made that abundantly clear.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

I suppose that there are those also who would rather not read that which may cut his or her favorite bromide to the quick.

>>No, that is not the reason whatsoever. Guaranteed.<<

Goes to perception, I suppose.

>>The reason is that your arguments are not even arguments used by most critics of our doctrines,<<

So, you seek the last parrot on the Orinoco! That ain not me, as I don't allow much for the "critics of your doctrines". Check them out, almost to a person they echo that which was developed in error re the book of Daniel centuries ago. Where's the credibility in that? None, whatsoever. It is simple .orgist narcissism with nothing worth proselytizing in honesty.

>>so it doesn't really bother me.<<

I've noticed. It really ought to bother you that you've fallen into the same overweening hubris against the word of Gd.

>>I've debated many critics of our doctrines for a long time, and I must say, the criticisms most raise are actually worth bringing up, and worth refuting.<<

Were I to encounter some of the stuff re your .Org's doctrines in a debate -- I'd be so hornswoggled that I would only manage a blep, blep, blep-blep-blep sort of speechlessness for astonishment!--at the naivete.

>>The criticisms you raise, from what I have observed, are not very serious arguments worth considering.<<

You mean the Hebrew Kow Resh in the mentioned text ought properly be translated and interpreted as the Persian Kiros/Cyrus?--instead of yielding the Hebrew meaning of 'pierced head'?

That is preposterous, as you would then have Isaiah in dichotomy with the three 'decrees' being bruited by yourself.

My "criticisms or arguments" notwithstanding -- THAT is not exegesis.

>>This is what I have found so far. This is why I don't feel it is profitable to refute them, as refuting your arguments will not prove worthwhile in my quest to spread the 3 Angel's Messages.<<

Of course, it is not profitable to refute what I've proffered from Writ when you dwell/shill upon this, that, or the other purveyor's notions much too much, to the neglect of your own studies in Holy Writ.

Revelation plainly states the it is called the three angel's messages because the three angels will message them -- not I, not you, not a .Orgist. That is overtly fanciful.

[Lysimachus]

Originally Posted By: Lysimachus

...in my quest to spread the 3 Angel's Messages.

I would really be interested in knowing your position on the 3rd angel’s message!

Since you brought it up – Do you believe in the 1888 message?

You’ve been an adventist long enough that you must have a position.

That happens to be my favorite message and I know it like the back of my hand.

Please be honest, because if you say that you believe that message I’m going to want to know when you first began to understand it and what you’ve done since then to share it with all your adventist friends.

And just so we’re on the same page - there’s no ten commandments in the 1888 message. EJ Waggoner made that abundantly clear.

My position of the 1888 Message is pretty much summed up in Ron Duffield's book, "The Return of the Latter Rain"--and most (not all) of Wieland and Short's work, as per Waggoner and Jones taught. Yes, I'm a firm believer in the 1888 message. Christ and Him crucified was central, but the Ten Commandments are intrinsically tied to it, not limited to. I believe the ransom was done on the cross for all men. Every man was purchased, and set free, "in Christ", legally speaking. But those who are in their old man of sin cannot partake of this free gift that is already theirs until they accept it, and respond to it. The whole human family was bought with an infinite price. His purchased possession. The whole human race--when God said, "this is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased", He was referring not only to His Son, but to the whole human family. This is the Third Angel's Message in verity, and was a central note in the sermons of Waggoner and Jones.

[cheddar]

My position of the 1888 Message is pretty much summed up in Ron Duffield's book, "The Return of the Latter Rain"--and most (not all) of Wieland and Short's work, as per Waggoner and Jones taught. Yes, I'm a firm believer in the 1888 message. Christ and Him crucified was central, but the Ten Commandments are intrinsically tied to it, not limited to. I believe the ransom was done on the cross for all men. Every man was purchased, and set free, "in Christ", legally speaking. But those who are in their old man of sin cannot partake of this free gift that is already theirs until they accept it, and respond to it. The whole human family was bought with an infinite price. His purchased possession. The whole human race--when God said, "this is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased", He was referring not only to His Son, but to the whole human family. This is the Third Angel's Message in verity, and was a central note in the sermons of Waggoner and Jones.

Well I have a very simply question to that tap dancing of an answer.

How are we saved? The most simple and basic question of Christianity.

Do I need to keep the ten commandments in order to be saved or just have faith or some combination of the two?

And just what of parts of Weiland and Short do you disagree with. You do know that the main controversy over the 1888 message was Waggoner’s position on the law in Galatians. He said that the law or schoolmaster was the moral law and once we are justified by faith we are no longer under the law any more. Is that what you disagree with?

[Tom Wetmore]

You actually had to go out of your way to create a separate thread to respond to my quotes?

JASD, when will you let it rest? lol.

If we start here, you can bet it will go on forever. I totally disagree with your conclusions overall, and feel that most of your arguments are built on semantics. So we will get little to nothing accomplished here, as it misses the "big picture" of the great plan of salvation, and gets "hung up" on numerous irrelevancies. Since the arguments in here completely ignore the "core" of my arguments concerning the command to build the city by Cyrus, whether the above arguments I raised are right or not, what merit does it have on the conclusion? None.

Anyway, I'm done in here. I'm exhausted. I'm debating in about 5 other forums simultaneously. Let it rest of r a change JASD. Thomas locked the thread. So by you creating this thread to continue to respond to my arguments is actually defeating the purpose of locking the thread.

Moderator Note:

Quite obviously there is a misunderstanding of why the thread, or any thread for that matter gets locked. It was because people had ceased actually going round and round on the topic and started going round and round beating on one another. The course of this new thread has almost immediately done likewise, thanks to your opening salvo, Marcos. That opened the door and basically gave the posters that followed permission to pile on. JASD has become the topic of discussion. He is now defending himself rather than his ideas. I have let this go to show how quickly a topic can get derailed by just one person attack.

Now if jasd likes being the center of this discussion and wants to continue defending himself, we can keep it open. Otherwise, I would say it is ripe to get locked.

If you are tired of the previous topic, nobody is forcing you to rehash anything. No response at all may be a perfect response to a worn out topic.

But attacking the messenger is always bad form.

[Guest DennisKean]

Marcos,

I get a different impression from Jones and Waggoner. I got the picture that our salvation was achieved by Grace in their perspective. They did not rely on the former tenets of the pioneers. They claimed to have a better understanding, hence 1888 and all the clamor.

It has been a while since I read documents on all which transpired there. Maybe you could refresh my memory.

Dennis