Is there life beyond Daniel and Revelation?

[Gustave]

Thanks Gustave - yes ... we as SDAs most certainly DO believe in 'predestination'. Thanks for the texts. And wonderful texts they are.

I would add I don't believe in it the way a Calvinist does...

...I believe God KNOWS exactly what each and everyone of our ultimate ends will be.

...But it is based on our OWN works in that do we or do we NOT co-operate with God's Grace.

God's grace is something we don't and didn't ever deserve...

...It's all down to if we co-operate with God's Grace.

Christ was the ONLY one after Adam that was predestined to die...

...There was no other outcome possible.

It is in this sense I believe in the word - all of us including Adam and Eve...

...Were pre-destined to live however we don't simply because of the sin of Adam.

Christ was the ONLY person every born who was destined to die on the cross.

[Guest DennisKean]

Hey, Woody... is that sarcasm there? SDAs believing in predestination?

And next you are going to tell me that we believe in drinking hard liquor... right?

Dennis

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Woody

Thanks Gustave - yes ... we as SDAs most certainly DO believe in 'predestination'. Thanks for the texts. And wonderful texts they are.

I would add I don't believe in it the way a Calvinist does...

...I believe God KNOWS exactly what each and everyone of our ultimate ends will be.

...But it is based on our OWN works in that do we or do we NOT co-operate with God's Grace.

God's grace is something we don't and didn't ever deserve...

...It's all down to if we co-operate with God's Grace.

Exactly

[Woody]

Hey, Woody... is that sarcasm there? SDAs believing in predestination?

And next you are going to tell me that we believe in drinking hard liquor... right?

Dennis

It's the basis for the Great Controversy friend. What part of the scriptures that he quoted do you personally disagree with brother?

[Guest DennisKean]

To realize that is to make God a liar!

Quote:

Deu 18:21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?

Deu 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Dennis

[Gustave]

To realize that is to make God a liar!

How could that be?

God said through the Books of Moses, the Prophets & Psalms...

...That the Christ would be without iniquity, born of a virgin, die and be raised again.

...And that all THAT was foreordained by God.

It would seem to me one questioning ANY of the above would be "making God out to be a liar"...

...Salvation was a work totally done by "God".

...To question this questions that God is really all He claims to be.

2 Timothy 1,8

Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God; Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which WAS given us IN CHRIST JESUS BEFORE the world began,But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:

A rejection of this requires also the belief that God could give something to someone....

...And fail HIMSELF to deliver it on account of His own failure.

...This IS the Trinity issue with the SDA rubric as I see it.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Lest we take hyperbole to a hyperstate, let's slow down; baby?--bathwater? ...and look at Writ:

Jn 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on [them], and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

Jn 20:23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; [and] whose soever [sins] ye retain, they are retained.

I believe that Writ attests that one ought believe the principle of coextensiveness in the instance of the above texts, as does one believe the coestensiveness of -- the Great Commission.

>>This is a trivial problem to solve my friend.<<

No "problem" here. No "solving" required. Text is explicit.

>>So, let's see what the Savior really said in that very instance according to other witnesses who had more experience.<<

Quote:

Quote:DennisKean

47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

48 And ye are witnesses of these things.

"Remit" in John 20:23 is an aorist active subjunctive -- which is completely contrary to the following:

Lu 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached...

...which is aorist passive infinitive. Jesus Christ, was speaking of an entirely different matter in Luke 24:47 from that which He spoke in John 20:23. One cannot conflate the two texts to derive a silk purse.

Quote:

Quote:DennisKean

John was a young man in those days. He did not understand this comment from the savior. [...] I do not say that John was crazy. But he was young and was not too swift to understand deep things. [...] John was not catching on like the rest and the disciples knew it clearly. [...] Only children could think this superficially. In fact he forgot what he said earlier. [...] So, John learned more as he grew up...

Blep,blep, blep..., you're saying that the reason Jesus Christ loved St John so much was because he was simple!?

Quote:

Quote:DennisKean

1Jn 5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

1Jn 5:19 And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

Quote:

Quote:Dennis Kean

1Jn 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

>>Am I crazy or is John changing his mind, suddenly!<<

No, St John is not changing his mind. In the one instance he speaks of "having no sin" (inherent), whereas, in the other instance he speaks of the act of "sinning" (acquired).

[jasd]

>>So, flaunting this silly verse before me, Jasd is rather ineffective. There is only one mediator between God and man.<<

Frankly speaking, it matters not whether the verse is effective with you or no -- you will be who you are. You are very unique and have an unusual way about you. My post was submitted as rebuttal for the benefit of others who may be of your mind, but more receptive to truths as properly exposited.

I don't know what kind of Bible you draw your references from, but in my Bible -- those words are in RED -- informing the reader that these are the very words of Jesus Christ -- used coextensively -- having no dependency upon whether Saint John was just past puberty or old, whether a mongoloid or brilliant, Black, White, Yellow, or Adamic, Jew or Gentile...

Again, These are the very words of Jesus Christ and a person errs most grievously to go on about the capacity of Saint John to receive them.

Saint John was the conduit, not the source.

>>You can't position your pope there. That office is a holy office reserved exclusively for the Savior. This is not up for debate, Jasd. So, for your church's view I am Anathema! But from our perspective, this violation is defined as an abomination. And that is not a hyperbole.<<

Superfluous arguments. Chintz and tea leaves. I remind, those are the very words of Jesus Christ having authority and spoken in authority. It is not for you to question the legitimacy of Jesus Christ's authority or to whom He assigns it. It is recorded in the most forthright language possible -- for anyone to receive who is not hopelessly kinked and condemnatory.

The text includes you, as well -- should you have been (in the implicit) baptized with the HS. Per that... it is not up to you, me, or any .org to determine whether or not anyone has or does not have the annointing of the HS. The presumption is that the practicing Xtian does. Be that as it may, Writ informs that the indwelling of the HS is the indwelling of Gd. Now, unrhetorically, can Gd forgive sins and trespasses?

Per "holy office reserved exclusively for the Savior" -- I addressed that by noting that ultimately it is the purview of Jesus Christ as Redeemer and Judge (For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. Matt 18:20). Where there is a confessor and one confessing -- there is also the HS and Jesus Christ -- two parts of the Gd-head. The remission of sins is not unattended and unshepherded...

In the end of the matter, one is left with His Red Letter Words enduing His vicars -- that is, those who serve as representatives, with authority for the remission of sins and trespasses.

John 20:21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace [be] unto you: as [my] Father hath sent me, even so send I you.

A follower of Jesus Christ has been invested with the power to remit sins, despite the protestations of the Reformer.

One must bear in mind that when Jesus Christ was on earth -- He forgave sins in His human capacity. Reformers err when they forget that when Jesus Christ walked this earth He did so in His human capacity and not in His Divine.

"Anathema", there is nothing proffered that should induce you to such an exclamatory. It is filled with tension. And per the designation "abomination", it testifies only that one proclaiming the words of Jesus Christ an abomination MUST get into Writ more intensively without prejudice.

[jasd]

>>As regards your "coextensiveness", let's remember that your pope has called himself as god on earth, something which is considered to be blasphemy, as per the Bible.<<

Jn 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

Jn 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

The above are also Red Letter Words of Jesus Christ quoting from Psalms; however, in John He does so in the positive, whereas the Psalms lends a negative connotation to the fact. Nevertheless, it is so that Jesus Christ said of those to whom the word of Gd came -- "Ye are gods."

>>But they not only consider themselves as equal to God. They assert that they are above God and that they can tell God what to do! Wanna see it???<<

Ex 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

>>Wanna see it???<<

Listen, I am not saying that a .org that has been around for nigh on two millennia has not had its share of lowriders and committed dastardly deeds. History attests. Fact of life, that anything that's been around that long is bound to have weird crapola in its nether halls and scareways. What ought to put halt and fright in one's harangue is something like the Branch Davidians emerging from such a young .org as yours, yes?

>>Alphonsus de Liguori, Dignity and Duties of the Priests, p. 34-36<<

Okay, you've scared up something by which you imagine you may indict others of the body of Jesus Christ. Tchah, on willful and savored indictments. 'Ware of him who scatters...

Rom 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

It does not behoove one to play fast and loose with narrow-mindedness, as one is surely to develop whiplash. Ouch!

>>So, what are the chances that such pomposity has a correct interpretation of Scriptures,<<

Perhaps, the same pomposity which has collated the Bible from which you draw your hypotheses... However, hey!--look who's questioning the veracity of another .org's reading of Writ, but one of a .org that hoo-ahs its particular wrestings as peculiar to themselves.

>>as they assure you that they have the right to absolve men of sin.<<

Don't take affront that I accept the definition of REMIT as to forgive/absolve -- for that is exactly what it means, by any definiton. Look to who said it in Holy Writ and who had the authority to say it. It wasn't you, I, or the RCC who said it -- it was Jesus Christ.

>>No more calling them Doctor for me! Mr. is good enough. Thanks for reminding me, Jasd! See, I knew there was something useful I could get from you! Now we are beginning to get along!<<

You missed the part where I noted that Mr is a variant upon master. Same context, same passage of Writ re "father".

Rom 13:7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute [is due]; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

Sometimes, one can only grab onto his fundament and just keep on truckin' besthow he knowed, 'cause he just gonna smackdab into a dichotomy enywez.

[jasd]

Hey, guy! Just havin' fun. Don't be takin' nuthin' personal or too serious like, okay?

[Guest DennisKean]

Quote:

Until you recognize that there are conditional & unconditional prophecies, you will have problems.

ESV Je 18:5 Then the word of the LORD came to me: 6 “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? declares the LORD. Behold, like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel.7 If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, 8 and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. 9 And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, 10 and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it.

Gerry,

Just one more point. A declaration is not a prophecy. Just because God uses a prophet to do more tasks than one, does not mean that a everything a prophet does is prophesying.

And we have a perfect example of that. The story of Jonah was one of those! Jonah knew this better than many and when God sent him to PREACH to that city, (Sermons are meant to DECLARE this and that) he was not thrilled to do that. Why? He much prefered the idea of God using him to prophesy! Prophecies cannot be taken back. So, Jonah fled in a ship! Well, low and behold, Jonah spends 3days and three nights in the belly of the whale and God uses Jonah to both convert the people on that ship and help us understand that the Savior did the very same thing in Jerusalem. The Savior preached for 3.5 days in Jerusalem, but that city did not repent as Nineveh! So, we now have a nice lesson in two examples of PREACHING or DECLARING, tasks which are meant to warn the people. Prophecies are another thing.

But to be sure, let's see what God actually asked Jonah to do. Maybe that will clear things up for you!

Quote:

Jon 3:1 And the word of the LORD came unto Jonah the second time, saying,

Jon 3:2 Arise, go unto Nineveh, that great city, and preach unto it the preaching that I bid thee.

Jon 3:3 So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city of three days' journey.

Jon 3:4 And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.

Oh, now it makes perfect sense. It take pride to assume that you are competent enough to understand all that God says. Humility would serve us well if we really want to understand some things. I have waited 40 years of studying to crack some prophecies I did not understand before.

If we are intent on understanding something, we can pray and God is ever willing to help us. Do you really want to understand a prophecy correctly??? Pray and pray again and again and God will reveal His secrets to you. But, let's not settle for half pay and make God into a liar! Prophecies are not meant to be warnings! And declarations of what God is about to do are not prophecies. If they were, God would call them prophecies. They are warnings.

Most importantly, if these were one and the same idea, then God could not say this:

Quote:

Deu 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Can you see that? Is that clear enough or shall we go into denials and rationalizations? There are no such things as CONDITIONAL Prophecies. Prophecies are God's plans. Otherwise we would see Daniel's prophecies to be rather spotty, some things fulfilled and others NOT! I hope that is clear enough, Gerry.

[Guest DennisKean]

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted By: Denniskean

To realize that is to make God a liar!

How could that be?

God said through the Books of Moses, the Prophets & Psalms...

...That the Christ would be without iniquity, born of a virgin, die and be raised again.

...And that all THAT was foreordained by God.

It would seem to me one questioning ANY of the above would be "making God out to be a liar"...

...Salvation was a work totally done by "God".

...To question this questions that God is really all He claims to be.

2 Timothy 1,8

Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God; Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which WAS given us IN CHRIST JESUS BEFORE the world began,But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:

A rejection of this requires also the belief that God could give something to someone....

...And fail HIMSELF to deliver it on account of His own failure.

...This IS the Trinity issue with the SDA rubric as I see it.

Earlier you were adamant about SDAs mangling and making God's prophecies uncertain. And you complain against them.

Quote:

All I'm asking for here is a little consideration to the point I've made in several threads here....

...Points that you Denniskean said you were in affirmation of.

Jesus prior to His death on the Cross said that everything said about Him in the Books of Moses, Psalms and Prophets...

..."Had to be fulfilled" / after Jesus' Resurrection He told the Apostles again.

...That everything that was said about Him HAD TO BE FULFILLED & even reminded them He had already told them this.

Seriously Dennis, what point is there in spending hundreds of hours pouring over the meaning of prophecy....

...When you pick and choose which prophecy is valid based off Ellen White's interpretation of it?

...God coming AND saving humanity is the PRIMARY prophecy of Scirpture.

I'm frankly shocked SDA's couldn't get that concept with the time they spend in the Book of Daniel.....

...Daniel is about as explicit as it gets.

Daniel 2,44

And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall NEVER be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and IT SHALL STAND FOR EVER

Might stand for ever Daniel should-a said....

...Because according to James & Ellen White.

...Jesus could have sinned and the world would have been a write - off.

You can apply the same to each and every positive affirming about God saving us Dennis....

And now you contradict me when I oppose the uncertainty of prophecy fufillment.

So what are you trying to say here??? This is an oxymoron you have presented here. I cannot and will not do your job of clarifying your comments. Make up your mind, work it out in your own mind and then get back to me when you have enough clarity in your mind on this.

[Gustave]

Earlier you were adamant about SDAs mangling and making God's prophecies uncertain. And you complain against them.

[Windsor]

Originally Posted By: Denniskean

Earlier you were adamant about SDAs mangling and making God's prophecies uncertain. And you complain against them.

Yes, that's correct.

Originally Posted By: Denniskean

And now you contradict me when I oppose the uncertainty of prophecy fufillment.

So what are you trying to say here??? This is an oxymoron you have presented here. I cannot and will not do your job of clarifying your comments. Make up your mind, work it out in your own mind and then get back to me when you have enough clarity in your mind on this.

In your O.P. you said;

Originally Posted By: Denniskean

Daniel and Revelation have been beaten to death and masticated beyond recognition. The problem with referencing only Daniel and Revelation is that there is only so much resolution in it. Wouldn't it be nice if we could find other prophets who could help us resolve some dilemmas or fill in more details?

Ah, why didn't God give us more prophets to expand our view and not have to fight over uncertain comments of Daniel and Revelation?

Wait a minute! What am I saying? There are other prophets in the Bible! Oh, yes, I remember this one prophet or maybe two! Yeah... Yeah, man I think I'm going to try reading a little from those prophets! Yes...

Yes, but the SDABC tells us that most of those prophecies have never been fulfilled! In fact it asserts that those are predictions, not prophecies???

You then quote the SDA biblical commentary which says...

....The majority of Old Testament prophecy has NOT been fulfilled.

You take issue with that ( rightly I would add ) and say;

Originally Posted By: Denniskean

The question which comes to mind is this. What is the point of being an Adventist, if our God makes predictions, instead of prophecies and most of them have not been fulfilled? The SDABC clearly said, "IT IS UNDENIABLE!" Right?

&

Originally Posted By: Denniskean

God does not predict things, nor does He fail to carry out His plans. Nostradamus predicts things. God plans and carries out His plans faithfully!

Well, PROPHECY in Scripture PROMISED ( not predicted ) that God would come & WOULD save us...

...PROPHECY in Scripture PROMISED that God would not fail & even states there would be no iniquity in Him.

...The same PROPHECY that said Christ would be born of a virgin SAID Christ WOULD SAVE.

You agree that the Christ "HAD TO" be born of a virgin.

You agree that the Christ "HAD TO" be called out of Egypt.

You agree that the Christ "HAD TO" die for man and be Resurrected 3 days later.

You agree that the Christ "HAD TO" not have any of His bones broken.

You agree with all these things yet when it's brought to your attention that the Bible, in PROPHECY....

...Explicitly says that the Christ would be without sin you remove this part from the prophecy.

...And claim it was a prediction - claiming God was a free moral agent & could have messed the bed.

SDA's really like the Book of Daniel, right....

...I mean as you said in your O.P. Daniel and Revelation are like mother's milk to SDA's.

...Listen to what Daniel says;

Daniel 2 describes that the King of Babylon had a dream that REALLY stressed him out...

...He called his 'wise men' which were a collection of witches & demanded.

...That they tell him not only the meaning of his dream but WHAT he dreamed.

...They couldn't do that & the King put out an order that ALL wise men wer to be executed.

When the Police came to collect Daniel he begged for a little time and talked to God...

...God told Daniel what the King dreamed & exactly what it meant.

...Daniel goes to the King and tells the King what his dream was and WHAT it meant.

Originally Posted By: Denniskean

And now you contradict me when I oppose the uncertainty of prophecy fufillment.

So what are you trying to say here??? This is an oxymoron you have presented here. I cannot and will not do your job of clarifying your comments. Make up your mind, work it out in your own mind and then get back to me when you have enough clarity in your mind on this.

What I'm saying is that Christ saving humanity was specifically mentioned in Daniel 2...

....As in THAT is part of the Prophecy!

Daniel 2,43

And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, WHICH SHALL NEVER BE DESTROYED: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and IT SHALL STAND FOR EVER. Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what SHALL come to pass hereafter: and the dream is CERTAIN, and the interpretation thereof SURE. Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and worshipped Daniel, and commanded that they should offer an oblation and sweet odours unto him. The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret. Then the king made Daniel a great man, and gave him many great gifts, and made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon, and chief of the governors over all the wise men of Babylon.

Jesus said this PROPHECY was written about Him.

Luke 20,17

And he beheld them, and said, What is this then that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner? Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder

If I'm not mistaken you are still maintaining that Ellen White's rubric was valid...

...That Christ COULD HAVE sinned, lost His salvation, etc.

...I'm still maintaining that is a HERETICAL position.

I'm saying the same thing I have since I came here....

...And if you are seriously trying to oppose the uncertainty of Prohecy fulfillment.

...Then realize that Ellen White repudiated the Prophet Daniel.

...And all the other Prophets in Scripture as well.

Read Daniel 2 a couple of times & ask yoursel a could of questions...

...Who does Daniel 2 say provided the vision?

...Who ONLY is going to "set up the Kingdom"?

...Were the elements of this Prophecy unsure or SURE according to "God"?

Answer this then we can move on to all the other Prophets and what Jesus / & His Apostles said those Prophets meant.

The dead horse has been beaten enough. We don't need your tangent on the Trinity in every thread.

[Gerr]

Gerry,

Just one more point. A declaration is not a prophecy. Just because God uses a prophet to do more tasks than one, does not mean that a everything a prophet does is prophesying.

Me thinks you are playing with semantics!

4394. &#960;&#961;&#959;&#966;&#951;&#964;&#949;&#943;&#945; proph&#275;teía; gen. proph&#275;teías, fem. noun from proph&#275;teú&#333; (4395), to prophesy. A prophesying or prophecy.

(I) Particularly prediction, the foretelling of future events, including the declarations, exhortations, and warnings uttered by the prophets while acting under divine influence; of the prophecies of the OT (Matt. 13:14; 2 Pet. 1:20, 21); the revelations and warnings of the Book of Revelation (Rev. 1:3; 22:7, 10, 18, 19, equal to marturía [3141], witness, as in Rev. 19:10. See also Sept.: 2 Chr. 15:8). In 1 Tim. 1:18; 4:14, proph&#275;teía refers either to the prophetic revelations or directions of the Holy Spirit by which persons were designated as officers and teachers in the primitive church (cf. Acts 13:2; 20:28; 1 Cor. 12:4–8ff.; 14:24, 30, 31), or to the authoritative declaration made by the presbytery of the fitness for ministry of one whom they are ordaining.

Zodhiates, S. (2000). The complete word study dictionary : New Testament (electronic ed.). Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers.

proph•e•cy also proph•e•sy \&#712;prä-f&#601;-s&#275;\ noun

plural -cies also -sies [Middle English prophecie, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin prophetia, from Greek proph&#275;teia, from proph&#275;t&#275;s prophet] 13th century

1 : an inspired utterance of a prophet

2 : the function or vocation of a prophet specifically : the inspired declaration of divine will and purpose

3 : a prediction of something to come

Merriam-Webster, I. (2003). Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary. (Eleventh ed.). Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Inc.

[Guest DennisKean]

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted By: Denniskean

The Savior being the active Creator was charged with the suspicions against His character and that is how the Great Controversy took place. So He was not PREDESTINED. He was charged and He answered His charges by demonstrations of His character.

I'm not seeing where God was charged thus making a requirement God had to fuflill to prove He was really God...

...I've got to be honest when I say that's absolutely alien.

It is alien because you mangled my comments. Where did I assert this?

Quote:

making a requirement God had to fuflill to prove He was really God...

I did not, so you seem to be trying to distract by redirecting the meaning of my comments. Show where I said what you allege.

Quote:

1 Tim 3,16

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory

There is NO CONTROVERSY here, as finite creations of an Almighty God...

...We simply can't know WHY God saved us other than He loved us that much.

...Scripture is clear that other than God's love for us it IS A MYSTERY without CONTROVERSY.

Okay, I see where you are going with this. You looked up in the Bible for the word "Controversy" and found Paul's comment and without even looking up the context of this word in Paul's comments you decided that He was talking about the Great Controversy.

So once again you really had nothing to say, but this might buy you time and make it appear as if you had an objection. Right, Gustave?

This is not looking good. I am beginning to believe that you actually were taken aback with my replies and you do not know how to reply, but you are intent on your agenda and now reply to me with inanities. I mean, what sort of a response is this, Gustave??? If you keep this up I will not continue to respond to your inanities. It is up to you. But I will respond this one time to the rest of this post of yours assuming that you will correct your posture on the next pass.

Quote:

Where is this of what you speak in Habakkuk?

Israel is being spoiled by evil people.

...God raises up the Chaldeans and this evil nation will put an end to the problems of which Habakkuk complains.

...God then tells Habakkuk the rule of the Chaldeans WILL END.

...And to write this down and send the information out.

I'm not seeing at all where you claim Lucifer and God have entered into a great controversy...

...In which Lucifer has charged God so God has to prove Himself as God.

...In such a way that people will love and worship God.

You have really went on a wild goose chase here.

Here it is:

Quote:

Hab 2:4 Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.

Hab 2:5 Yea also, because he transgresseth by wine, he is a proud man, neither keepeth at home, who enlargeth his desire as hell, and is as death, and cannot be satisfied, but gathereth unto him all nations, and heapeth unto him all people:

Hab 2:6 Shall not all these take up a parable against him, and a taunting proverb against him, and say, Woe to him that increaseth that which is not his! how long? and to him that ladeth himself with thick clay!

Hab 2:7 Shall they not rise up suddenly that shall bite thee, and awake that shall vex thee, and thou shalt be for booties unto them?

Hab 2:8 Because thou hast spoiled many nations, all the remnant of the people shall spoil thee; because of men's blood, and for the violence of the land, of the city, and of all that dwell therein.

Hab 2:9 Woe to him that coveteth an evil covetousness to his house, that he may set his nest on high, that he may be delivered from the power of evil!

Compare that with Isaiah 14:

Quote:

Isa 14:15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

Isa 14:16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;

Isa 14:17 That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?

No record of that is found about the King of Babylon. Both of these prophets use Babylon as the basis for discussing long term prophecies. If this was a local discussion, Habbakkuk dies before He could see the fulfillment of God’s literal address to him! Therefore God made a mistake. Right? He told him to wait… Literalist interpretation always bites back. The Savior always spoke with a parabolic style and the prophets did the same.

Nevertheless, you might disagree with me on the interpretation on Habbakkuk but a simple dismissal should suffice, rather than your little scuttle dance. There is more evidence in the Bible, but I’m not expanding this discussion any more. What you are doing is tackling.

What predestination does for you, Gustave, is to cover up a lot of points which your faith does not address. And that exposes the lack of knowledge and rationale about God, the Great Controversy and so much more. The RC doctrines have traditions which replace what the Bible says and that is not good enough for the Adventist. We study the Bible to harvest the many details given and why God is doing this and that. You assert that all you need to know is about salvation and don’t want to waste time studying prophecies of Daniel etc. But God offers those details, not the Adventist people! You failed to realize that! So it is clear that you are running away from elaboration because it reveals something you don't want to face.

And the silly thing is that you seem to embrace the Grace version of salvation, which does not guarantee you that you will be saved. Gracers talk about the assurance of salvation, but since there is nothing which you can do to be saved, your doings do not matter and salvation is not assured. It is wholly the Lord’s doing. No guarantee, Gustave. So, that mind bending conundrum is so self-contradictory that I will not dignify it with more than these passing comments. And after all. a Catholic talking Gracer theology…??? What is that, another incarnation of the RC church??? How much morphing can you guys take? Do you stand still, ever. Do you have a foundation at all? Are you sure that you are a Catholic? Man you have me confused about you guys.

By asserting predestination you hope to avoid having to answer why God is doing this and that and expose the incompetence of the Catholic doctrines. You shroud it in mystery because you have no answers, not because you have a theological point. And I see your friend Jasd who is taking the same route. Ha ha ha… So, instead of addressing the core of the discussion, now you guys have shifted to battling over details hoping to obfuscate the fact that you are outside of your element when it comes to the real foundation of this dialog. Step back and look at your replies, for a moment.

Adventists have some excellent answers, Gustave. Not all are really well aware of these issues, or can argue them well, but your political escapism here has revealed that you went into this debate leading me to believe that we are not going to do gladiatorial battles. But you sounded sincere, so I wanted to give you a chance to see how you debate.

Finally, more points about Predestination deserve attention, but I will address them in your reply to Woody concerning predestination.

Dennis

[Guest DennisKean]

Quote:

Well, PROPHECY in Scripture PROMISED ( not predicted ) that God would come & WOULD save us...

...PROPHECY in Scripture PROMISED that God would not fail & even states there would be no iniquity in Him.

...The same PROPHECY that said Christ would be born of a virgin SAID Christ WOULD SAVE.

You agree that the Christ "HAD TO" be born of a virgin.

You agree that the Christ "HAD TO" be called out of Egypt.

You agree that the Christ "HAD TO" die for man and be Resurrected 3 days later.

You agree that the Christ "HAD TO" not have any of His bones broken.

You agree with all these things yet when it's brought to your attention that the Bible, in PROPHECY....

...Explicitly says that the Christ would be without sin you remove this part from the prophecy.

...And claim it was a prediction - claiming God was a free moral agent & could have messed the bed.

SDA's really like the Book of Daniel, right....

...I mean as you said in your O.P. Daniel and Revelation are like mother's milk to SDA's.

...Listen to what Daniel says;

Daniel 2 describes that the King of Babylon had a dream that REALLY stressed him out...

...He called his 'wise men' which were a collection of witches & demanded.

...That they tell him not only the meaning of his dream but WHAT he dreamed.

...They couldn't do that & the King put out an order that ALL wise men wer to be executed.

When the Police came to collect Daniel he begged for a little time and talked to God...

...God told Daniel what the King dreamed & exactly what it meant.

...Daniel goes to the King and tells the King what his dream was and WHAT it meant.

Gustave, dear friend, you are in denial and you have one ear and one eye closed. I gave you the handle to my reasoning and you skipped it without batting an eyelash. And now you are progressing onward as if that rationale did not come up. So, I will gladly repeat it for you, but in a short version and without the Bible quotations which you will find all in the first reply post.

God can promise to perform all these prophecies because he has the power to perform them, not because he uses a crystal ball. The power to perform all these things according to His plans is required, however. But that power was in jeopardy should the Savior fail! And it was not available to the Savior while being tested in character. We know that because The Savior told peter that He could ask the Father for 12 legions... etc... That means it was not available to Him at His own discretion.

However, since He was victorious, as the plan required him to be, the Savior received His almighty power back. Therefore He can go on and fulfill all which He planned to accomplish. But the fact remains that God was on trial, something which you deny pointlessly. What makes your assertion pointless is that when the Savior was victorious a NEW SONG was sung! That song speaks of the realization of the singers of that song to attest of the Savior becoming WORTHY, something which could not have been ascertained before that time. See why it was called a NEW SONG??? Very astute of God to make that point there... What do you think?

Therefore it is referred to as a NEW SONG, Gustave. If this was not the case, there would have been no reason for the Savior to come down and suffer, being tested for some lame reason and tortured for nothing more than a Chatholic mystery.

But this is exactly that which you are trying to avoid confirming. You feel that you are secure if you stick to your guns, ignore this devastating counterpoint and keep insisting that it was written in FATE! Well you could have a half point were it not for the scroll which could not be opened. That is the snafu in your perspective and the lamb of God was the only one who could open it. If it had been written in FATE, as you assert, though you use the term PREDESTINED, (take your pick) then this story would not have been told about the scroll. Can you grasp that? Then that story would have conveyed NOTHING VALUABLE! But God included it in order to say that THERE WAS RISK! The prophecies WERE in JEOPARDY of NOT BEING FULFILLED! So, if FATE was at play, then this would have been a charade, Gustave! It would be something like kids sitting around a campfire telling horror stories to scare the living daylights out of the others. Can you see it? Did God do that???

That's not hard to grasp, my friend! This is that anvil which sits on the foot of your supposed mysteries/predestination, which really are not mysteries at all. You just need a vehicle to get you over that bridge. But there is none.

So, stop running away and drawing attention to PREDESTINATION as if I had not addressed your concerns. I addressed them and left you hanging to supply a better rationalization to all the verses AS A SET, which I quoted you. You made no effort to address them as a set because there is no way out of this explanation which fits so well that it requires sober thinking and reflection.

And furthermore, the Savior was so sad and apprehensive in the garden, before His death that He sought relief from His Father. You would like to render that as a Hollywood production and assert that He was just playing the part. Well go ahead and assert it, Gustave, but do so at the cost of your own credibility. I know this argument in tinny detail and you are not running away from it.

When you can give us a more comprehensive explanation of all these critical verses AS A COMPLETE SET, you will be able to take command of this point. Until then, you can only grab the handles of ASSERTIONS, but not the handles of REASON, Gustave.

Am I making myself clear? And I do not say this to disrespect you. I hope that you will be man enough to realize the honor and insight in this view, so that you will not revert back to your Roman pagan mysteries and escapism, the shifting views and repositioning which the RC church must do continually in order to persuade the Protestant denominations into subjugation.

We are not about to go back into slavery, Gustave. The Bible is the friend of the free, filled with delicate details designed to give magnitude to those who seek for truth. Your abrogation of the need to understand the details of Biblical prophecies, as you say SDAs are too manic about Daniel, is an assault on the very highest evidences of adroitness of the Adventist views. Not all SDAs have a correct understanding, but we most certainly are very advanced in prophecy research and have become a blister on the RC heel.

I wish that this was not so. Your attempt to reason is very appreciated, but your reason to do so is not clear. And it becomes less and less clear as you dodge the bullets of that which makes more sense. Why duck at all? I look forward to being found in the wrong. It is a happy day in my life when someone successfully dismantles my rationale. From that day onward I have a better idea to hang on to. Can you see the irony in resistance?

But seeking to defend a position at all cost is a problem, Gustave. That is analogous to going into battle with both eyes closed. And that is how the Crusades were conducted, though the eyes were spiritual eyes in those instances.

Best regards,

Dennis

[cheddar]

Can you see that? Is that clear enough or shall we go into denials and rationalizations? There are no such things as CONDITIONAL Prophecies. Prophecies are God's plans. Otherwise we would see Daniel's prophecies to be rather spotty, some things fulfilled and others NOT! I hope that is clear enough, Gerry.

I have to agree with dennis on this. I don’t see prophecy as being conditional either. That’s like saying that God’s word is conditional on the actions of man. Man is dependent upon God not the other way around. How could we ever put our faith and trust in God’s word if there’s a chance it might not happen or come true. He either knows the end form the beginning or he doesn’t and that includes all the actions of man in between.

The bible says at the end of all things every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord including Satan. I’m fairly sure that in his mind he has no intention of ever doing that but when the time comes it will happen. We can never say that a prophecy went unfulfilled until the history of earth is over. The final chapter of this world is coming and it’s going to be a doozy.

[cheddar]

It seems that Psalms, and Isaiah through Malachi, but for a few exceptions, contain a number of references to End Times Events. These prophecies may or may not fall within mainstream SDA beliefs.

For example, the SDA denomination does not believe there will ever again be a Temple of the Lord on the Earth, but Ezekiel describes one in detail. This particular temple I do not believe is man made, but comes from the stars, just as the New Jerusalem city will.

Prophecies, as in dreams and visions, are messages sent to Earth by a being/beings from the future. These messages are to teach and warn us so that we can prepare for what lies ahead.

You mentioned Tyre in another post as having a similar description to the prophecies about Babylon and I definitely agree with that. Tyre is often used to discredit prophecy and the bible because the verses say clearly that Tyre will never be built again and we know that Tyre in Lebanon is a thriving city today.

In Revelation the great city of Babylon is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt and I think it’s spiritually called Tyre as well. Babylon is a merchant city and a seafaring city so the description is accurate. I think that Babylon will be so big and powerful in the last days that it will share many of the same characteristics of the ancient enemies of Israel.

In Isa. 14 Satan is referred to as the ‘king of Babylon’ and in Eze. 28 he is referred to as the ‘prince of Tyrus’. Here is another connection of Babylon with Tyre and no matter how you look at it Babylon is a city not a church. The religious powers are represented by the heads of the beast not the woman. There are two great cities mentioned in Revelation – one is old Jerusalem and one is the new Jerusalem. Babylon will be the city that rules the world in the last days and I’m sorry but Vatican city does not have the prestige, influence or history that Jerusalem possesses.

[Guest DennisKean]

Woody,

I will get to you soon enough! For now, please be patient. Predestination may be asserted in the SDABC, but you need to consider it's consequences. The SDABC has a flawed rationale, though their goal is mostly noble. They just need to review the oxymorons they left behind and clean them up. I would be careful, in the meanwhile to assert that SDAs believe in predestination.

Dennis

[Woody]

Woody,

I will get to you soon enough! For now, please be patient. Predestination may be asserted in the SDABC, but you need to consider it's consequences. The SDABC has a flawed rationale, though their goal is mostly noble. They just need to review the oxymorons they left behind and clean them up. I would be careful, in the meanwhile to assert that SDAs believe in predestination. Dennis

I am simply referring to scripture stating a belief in predestination. Since the Bible states we have been preordained - I have no other option but to take God's word for what it is. And as I read our prophet's work of The Great Controversy - I have no other option but to take God's word and our prophet's word for it.

[Gustave]

It is alien because you mangled my comments. Where did I assert this?

[Woody]

Personally - I've noticed a lot of maggoty around as of late.

We all need to take a cold shower and wake up to smell the roses.

[phkrause]

I am simply referring to scripture stating a belief in predestination. Since the Bible states we have been preordained - I have no other option but to take God's word for what it is. And as I read our prophet's work of The Great Controversy - I have no other option but to take God's word and our prophet's word for it.

I'm not sure I agree that being preordained means the same as predestination, at least the way you seem to be implying.

[Guest DennisKean]

Cheddar,

I think that you are replying to me, not Alienware... I mean AlienSanctuary... I spoke about Tyre and noticed your post only today.

Well, you are right about Tyre. The trouble with Tyre is that the 70 years do not fit too well as a literal nor as a "day for a year" principle. My belief is that God does not play pranks with prophecies. So, this had to be a real prophecy.

Well, here is how I see that one. A prophetic year is implied for each Jubilee. So, take the 30 Jubilees from the Exodus to the year 34AD and the 40 Jubilees from the time that the message went to the Gentiles up to ... well the end of the 40 Jubilees which comes to 1994. That sums up to 70 Jubilees.

So, we turn to the prophecy to see what happens at the end of the 70Jubilees.

Quote:

Isa 23:15 And it shall come to pass in that day, that Tyre shall be forgotten seventy years, according to the days of one king: after the end of seventy years shall Tyre sing as an harlot.

Hmmm... What could that mean? Let's keep reading some more.

Quote:

Isa 23:16 Take an harp, go about the city, thou harlot that hast been forgotten; make sweet melody, sing many songs, that thou mayest be remembered.

Wow! I think I know some other prophecy which talks about that!

Quote:

Rev 18:1 And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory.

Rev 18:2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.

Rev 18:3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.

Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

Rev 18:5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.

Could this be??? Oh no! That just can't be... But as we inspect this from closer we see that it is not the very end of time. God says to her in Isaiah

Quote:

"Isa 23:16 Take an harp, go about the city, thou harlot that hast been forgotten; make sweet melody, sing many songs, that thou mayest be remembered."

Whereas verse Revelation, talking about the fall of Babylon

Quote:

Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

Rev 18:5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.

So, we are not in the 7th plague yet! Think it through.

But what everyone is asking is who is this woman, and what is this going to all the kings of the world about? Well it is the same pagan whore the Bible has been talking about all along.

However, since 1995 until today, the papacy has been traveling abroad and visiting various countries of the world more than the sum total of all the popes have done since the day that their order has been instituted. And not only have those visits increased abroad from the Vatican, but leaders of all countries are going to visit the Vatican in unprecedented frequency.

I understand that our friends the Catholics on this forum may be offended, and I feel for their sensitivities. But they have the right and opportunity to offer alternative explanations which may distract and focus on something else. This is not me or the many many other Christians who have realized this. I am just one of myriad. Even Evangelicals have realized this, though they make no connections to Biblical references. Since 1995, the end of the Jubilee of 1994 this phenomenon has exploded. I heard this on the news one day, maybe ABC. Is it coincidental... is it a direct fulfillment? I believe it is the latter, a fulfillment, because the prophecy continues to show what happens next, when God remembers her finally and it is consistent with all the other prophecies which talk about the fall of Babylon.

So, here is what follows next in Isaiah 23...

Quote:

Isa 23:18 And her merchandise and her hire shall be holiness to the LORD: it shall not be treasured nor laid up; for her merchandise shall be for them that dwell before the LORD, to eat sufficiently, and for durable clothing.

All the great wealth will be taken away and distributed to the people who remain.

There is so much more to be said on this topic, but if we want to test the validity of Daniel and the Revelation we need to explore the other prophets who tell us far more details about the future than Daniel and Revelation combined. We just need to reject the SDABC's folly of dismissing the rest of the prophets of God. Daniel and Revelation make references to other prophets and are given like an introductory course into the great Prophets of God.

The Savior held Israel accountable for killing His prophets but the SDABC dismisses them as ineffective predictors whose prophecies for the most part have been irrelevant to date. Could it be possible that we are repeating the sins of Israel, in dismissing the prophets of God and ignoring their messages?

If I get a chance to, I will gladly share many more of these prophecies and show how history backs up every single prophecy of God. And I am not alone. Others beside me are familiar with the greatness of the prophets of God. Nothing is left unfulfilled save those prophecies future to our time. And that context of the division between past and future is so clear that it is not hard to be recognize by the simple mind. We just need to trust in God and the Word which He has given us via the prophets. God's words were not vain or tentative. They were given to us as showers from heaven to feed the hungry soul...

Quote:

Isa 55:10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:

Isa 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

God's words unfulfilled, dear SDABC??? Really?

Dennis