Are the three Angels' Messages Dead or Alive?

[Martn]

On 8/14/2016 at 2:11 PM, hch said:

singular preacher

 

The man himself was unique. The way he said things was unique. His message, the subject thereof, however was not.

[Martn]

18 hours ago, hch said:

the things that he emphatically asserts do not do well when the facts are checked

Depends on who's checking. How honest is the checker?

Most humans, being human, are not honest about the facts, even to themselves.

A few are, exceedingly, and have given excellent reviews.

The rule is not limited to the one text cited, but has many examples of application throughout the scriptures, most of them having nothing whatsoever to do with judicial matters. Yes, of course the rule applies in judicial matters, but not judicial matters only.

[Martn]

21 hours ago, Rick Sterling said:

Elohim and their prophet are two or more witnesses.

The three/four angels are future and I confirmed this with scriptural citations in my earlier post. Clearly a statement made that they are all past would necessitate scriptural citations to support it.  

In the ancient times, God and angels ministered openly to the people, and with extraordinary signs and wonders. This made them valid witnesses to whom they ministered. Unlike now when so many claim God has spoken, when we have nothing more than the sole claim of a lone witness to guess at.

But, there were additional human witnesses as well, in every (genuine) instance, of Noah, Lot, Elijah, Jonah, etc.

As for whether the four "angels" and their message are past or future, one can argue interpretations until one is blue in the face. But historical record speaks louder than any theoretical interpretation, if one dares look into it. Most folks won't even dare, of course.

Coming from a Mormon background, I was delighted to discover the very same teachings (and very same, exact words!), of Joseph Smith, in the writings of Sister White, just for starters. Not just in a few instances, but literally hundreds of times over. The exact same words even, hundreds and hundreds of times. I couldn't believe no one had ever seen this before!

So, I looked around, and I found a few others had. One, an SDA lady, had even written a huge book about it, but she didn't dare publish it, she said, because of the backlash she would experience.

No doubt, the argument will be made that Sister White copied from Joseph Smith. That Mary Eddy copied from Smith. That Edgar Cayce copied from Smith. Nonsense of course. They hardly even knew of one another, and even if they had, the oppositions between them made copying from one another totally out of the question.

No four prophets in history were ever more alike, and at the same time more independent of one another, than those four. Individually, none of them were without error, even in doctrinal matters, but when taken together, a single message emerges which all four had in common, some without even realizing it. And two of the witnesses actually recognized their ministry as part of the three angels' message.

 

 

[hch]

Quote

 

    On ‎8‎/‎14‎/‎2016 at 3:11 PM, hch said:

singular preacher

Martn replied

The man himself was unique. The way he said things was unique. His message, the subject thereof, however was not.

 

Martn,

You posted your opinion (it is duly noted), but there is no corroborating evidence from the Bible or even the Spirit of prophecy. Without evidence to support your statement, it is a private interpretation which is only of value to those who share it.

[hch]

Quote

 

Martn said

Calling another's interpretation "trash" isn't helpful.

Do you deny saying that?

 

Martn

please give the page and number of the post (x from the top of page y) in question. I'll be glad to read it in the context that it was written, but it may be a case of my words not being understood the way I intended them to be read when I wrote them.

I make it a habit not to write personal negative replies. I sometimes I do use "you" generically to refer to my audience or people in general but not to an individual is a negative comment.

Be that as it may, I do not remember saying that anything that you wrote was "trash." I am on record as saying that some trash has come into the church over the years and I call it (the trash that has entered the church) as I see it.

But my apology still stands. If I did it as you read it, I surely did not intend to, and I will be more mindful in the future.

[hch]

Quote

 

Martn,

You say "This is a scriptural test, stated repeatedly from Genesis to Revelation, that all things must be revealed by at least two or three independent prophetic witnesses."

Jesus said Mt 24:37  "But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." Noe was back in Genesis when you stated that this test of yours was in use. Please share with us the names of the "two or three independent prophetic witnesses" that revealed that God was going to destroy the world by a flood that confirm your statement.

It is sad how much trash has come into the teachings that some folks try to pass off as "Bible teaching" or "Something in the Spirit of Prophecy."

It is not my place to try to convince anyone of anything. I can only tell you what I have been blessed to learn from prayerful Bible study and it is the Holy Spirit's place to convict hearts of sin and of righteousness.

 

Martn,

After I posted my reply to your note that said that I was calling your views trash, I did a global search and found what appears to be the post that offended you.

This is the sentence: "It is sad how much trash has come into the teachings that some folks try to pass off as "Bible teaching" or "Something in the Spirit of Prophecy."

I certainly see how I failed to express myself clearly and how you could read it differently than I intended.

I was thinking along the lines that some folks can say that the Bible or Spirit of prophecy says this or that and argue that their view is biblical without giving evidence from the Bible or Spirit of prophecy to validate what they claim.

Certainly your view that God's word requiring 2 or 3 witnesses to confirm Bible prophecy must be based on Scripture and this aside that I expressed in this comparison of erroneous teachings to trash could not possibly refer to your teachings.

Though I have not seen the scriptures in question to affirm that they validate that view, when you graciously provide them, I will up-date my understanding accordingly.

The wheat and the tares are supposed to grow together until the harvest. God has not given any man the authority to pull up what that man might consider tares lest he harm the wheat also. I do not have the authority nor the intent to call your views trash.

I am very sorry that it came across that way and that my words offended you.

[hch]

As I was contemplating the testimony of witnesses in the third angel's message, I was impressed to consider the Apostle Paul's experience.

"And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying: the same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation. And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour" (Acts 16:16-18).

As Paul proclaimed the truth of Jesus, a damsel possessed of a spirit proclaimed, "These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation." But through the power of the Holy Spirit in the name of Jesus, Paul cast the spirit out of the damsel.

The damsel was saying "These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation" so on the surface it looks like she was agreeing with Paul and giving God the glory. But Paul cast the spirit out of her.

Satan often uses false messengers to give a message that sounds like the TRUTH to lead people astray.

Another example was Jeremiah and Hananiah. They both preached that God would overturn Babylon, but 70-years verses 2-years was more than the people could handle. In spite of their similarities, the messages were not the same. And those who were deceived by the false message from the false messenger died.

It is important to get it right.

[Martn]

16 hours ago, hch said:

You posted your opinion

Sister White says Noah (the preacher) was singular. The man was singular. She does not use the word singular in reference to his message.

[Martn]

16 hours ago, hch said:

I do not remember

I'm sure you do not.

Regardless who you were referring to, it is still an example of hate speech. One of many. Typical of fundamentalists in general, though not of all of course.

[Martn]

5 hours ago, hch said:

It is important to get it right.

It is also important not to label as evil that which comes from the Spirit of God. To sin against the Spirit is a dreadful offense.

Brother Smith's testimony came twenty years ahead of Sister White. He was the first. The others all came after him.

[hch]

Quote

 

EGW's exact words are:

"As he began to construct that immense boat on dry ground, multitudes came from every direction to see the strange sight and to hear the earnest, fervent words of the singular preacher...Noah stood like a rock amid the tempest. Surrounded by popular contempt and ridicule, he distinguished himself by his holy integrity and unwavering faithfulness. A power attended his words, for it was the voice of God to man through His servant. "

 

Martn,

Quote

Sister White says Noah (the preacher) was singular. The man was singular. She does not use the word singular in reference to his message.

I expanded Sister White's quote. Noah was THE singular preacher. God's voice was delivered to man through His servant (not servants).

If there were others preaching Noah's message who are they? And why were they not on the ark?

[Martn]

On 4/27/2016 at 4:11 PM, Buzzards said:

she said,  if the SDA's don't take the message and run with it;

he will give it to someone else

True.

In her own day, down near the end of her ministry, she said, We should have been in the Kingdom before this.

They had indeed failed to deliver it, at the time when it should have been done.

They did NOT run with it. In fact, out of fear, they turned against it.

And so it has been taken up by others, no longer strictly an SDA (or Mormon or CScientist) message.

The Adventists still can be very much part of it, if they dare, but it is no longer especially theirs.

 

 

[JoeMo]

3 hours ago, Martn said:

In her own day, down near the end of her ministry, she said, We should have been in the Kingdom before this.

This is another area where I question EGW.  The Lord has an appointed time for the return of Jesus, just like there was an appointed time for Him to come the first time.  Only the Father knows when that is; but it will occur on HIS timeline; not ours.  We can do nothing to either expedite or delay it.  God will determine when we are in the Kingdom and who will be there; and He will allow or arrange the events and circumstances that surround the establishment of the Kingdom.

[Martn]

1 hour ago, JoeMo said:

The Lord has an appointed time for the return of Jesus.

I agree there are appointed times for everything which happens. Just as there was an appointed time for the destruction of Nineveh. If we do nothing, then it will happen at the time appointed.

[Martn]

None of the terrible things foretold in Revelation have to happen. We can do things which will make none of those horrible things ever come to pass. Will we? Probably not. But it is possible.

 

[Martn]

On 8/16/2016 at 4:46 PM, hch said:

If there were others preaching Noah's message who are they? And why were they not on the ark?

Some of them were on the ark. Others had passed on before the event occurred, one of whom is still living, though not on earth.

[JoeMo]

On 8/19/2016 at 10:58 AM, Martn said:

None of the terrible things foretold in Revelation have to happen. We can do things which will make none of those horrible things ever come to pass. Will we? Probably not. But it is possible.

I have to respectfully disagree.  There is WAY too much unconditional eschatological prophecy to say it won't happen.  In my opinion, it is inevitable.  Maybe not in the way that we think, but an extinction level apocalypse will inevitably occur; and if God doesn't intervene, it will be the end of all life on earth.  The good news is that He promises to intervene.

[hch]

Recap in prep for the 4th angel to unite with the 3rd angel's message

Kerry gave the 8/1/16 ultimatum in May

On 8/1/16 Russian helicopter was shot down

And Aleppo had some success partially breaking the siege

2 news bits that you might have missed as the heat is getting turned up in Syria.

Friday 1) Syrian planes bombed near American positions (where we were training Kurds to fight ISIS)

We called Russia to tell them to back off and we would defend ourselves

Russia denied that it was their planes & Called Syria to have them stand down

US sent two fighters to the area & Syrian planes left.

Syria planes flew over our position again Saturday and we sent war planes there again.

2) Iran is boasting of its accomplishments in fight with ISIS in Syria

 a) Iran states that Russia just offered to sell it more advanced military aircraft

b ) Iran is now allowing Russia to use it military airfields to conduct operations in Syria.

The frog is nonchalantly swimming in the caldron as the heat is ever so slowly being increased

Mr. Obama has about 150-days left in office & as I read Daniel Iran will attack US fleet on his watch

The last events will be rapid ones

[Martn]

On 8/20/2016 at 7:03 PM, JoeMo said:

unconditional eschatological prophecy

Is there really any such thing as unconditional prophecy?

How could we ever know for sure? Unless we try.

Did Jonah even once hint to the Ninevites that their destruction was conditional?

No-- see Jonah 3:9.

But, still they tried. Only then did the prophecy prove to be conditional.

What was so unusual about Jonah which made Nineveh entirely change its ways?

Find out, and we'll have a dynamic demonstration which truly can save the world.

Hint-- see Jonah 2:2, 6, 7.

(In comparing himself to Jonah, what did Jesus tell us had actually happened to Jonah?)

 

[JoeMo]

One if the main differences that I see between Jonah and eschatology is that in Jonah, all of Nineveh was to be destroyed.  There is nothing in the book distinguishing between the good people (if there were any) and the bad people.  In eschatology, there is a sorting of the righteous and the wicked; and the righteous are unconditionally saved and the wicked are unconditionally destroyed.  The condition in eschatology is that you must believe in the Lord Jesus to be saved.  If you do not believe, you will not be saved.  Another difference is Jonah's prophecy foretold a single incident which was to take place on a short timeline (40 days).  Eschatology talks about a series of events that take place over 7 years (or 1260 years, or 2,300 years, depending on your viewpoint - not a topic for this thread).

After Noah started building the ark, do you think there were any conditions on whether or not the flood would occur?

The book of Jonah is a short story in a single book of scripture that may be there as an exception to the general rule.  Eschatology is scattered throughout scripture without a single instance of a condition being put on the end of this age.  With the general direction that  civilization is taking, I don't see much chance for going through a worldwide revival to postpone or cancel the violent end of this age.

Of course, I don't want to put God in a box.  He can do whatever He wants to do.

[hch]

Seventh Day,

I liked your post with the Bible and the Bible only. Will have to go back to study it in more detail later. It takes too much brain power right now to concentrate on it.

Thanks for sharing

[Martn]

7 hours ago, Seventh Day said:

I believe ... and no one can judge me in what I believe ... but I believe the third angel or "third message” / “third messenger" of Revelation 14 was the Reformation.

The three/four angels' message could have multiple applications. I won't say that it does, and I don't see that it does, but it could.

We have multiple choices, for sure. In a multiple choice exam, where more than one answer may fit the question, normally we choose the one answer --A, B, C,  or D-- which fits best.

Different people will come to different conclusions, either sincere or insincere, and of course we must let God be the judge.

Historically  --within the Adventist Movement-- exactly four messengers did appear, in close succession, the first three being contemporary and within 80 miles of one another, and the fourth enlarging upon each of the former three, all four of them having the exact same (Adventist) message, often in the exact same words, even though they were otherwise opposed to and mostly unaware of one another.

No four messengers in history were ever more alike, and yet more independent of one another, than those four. The first two in fact even recognized their ministries as being part of the three angels' message. To say the least, I am very hard pressed to find any better fulfillment of the prophecy.

 

[Martn]

20 hours ago, JoeMo said:

After Noah started building the ark, do you think there were any conditions on whether or not the flood would occur?

The Flood could have been averted, right up to the last moment even. Not likely, I admit, but possible.

Even after the Flood, when it is no longer possible to save the people from drowning, it is still possible to save their souls.

I am, if you recall, a universalist. Everyone, eventually, will be saved.

Not all at the same time, not all in the same way, and not all to the same degree.

I understand why you do not share this view, and I have no need for you to believe it. You will do just fine whether you believe it or not.

We don't see eye to eye on Jesus as the only way, and that's okay with me. A better way, he could be, and maybe even the best way, for now.

Salvation in that way is conditional, of course. But salvation itself is unconditional. That is unconditional promise, not unconditional prophecy.

 

 

[JoeMo]

3 hours ago, Martn said:

I am, if you recall, a universalist. Everyone, eventually, will be saved.

Oh yeah - I forgot about that.  Although I am not a universalist, I think God wants to save everyone who wants to be in the kingdom; but He's not gonna drag people into heaven kicking and screaming.  If we choose to be a part of the family of God, I believe He has provided a guaranteed path to heaven in the person of Jesus.

[joeb]

I have NOT read this entire thread.

I do have a single comment though.  How can righteousness by faith ever be considered to be a dead idea, for righteousness by faith is the entire third angel's message?