The Omega: You're Soaking In It

[B/W Photodude]

The Omega: You're Soaking In It

This ad describes my growing conclusions about the Omega heresy.  I believe we have evidence that the Omega may not be a big bang event at the end of our church's history, but may instead be a train of events which we are in the midst of now.  Hence, we may be "soaking in it" already. 

http://www.fulcrum7.com/blog/2019/1/16/the-omega-youre-soaking-in-it

[B/W Photodude]

48 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

… it is easy to see how the war that has been declared on the Trinity doctrine is right at the top of their list.

List is about right. The things that have become points of contention are almost too many to count. And it seems that many cannot see that Satan is working at a feverish pace to accomplish his goals while he has time.

[JoeMo]

14 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Yet under one head--the papal power--the people will unite to oppose God in the person of His witnesses.

I thought you were against denigrating other religions.  I got an "eyeful" from you about denigrating Islam; yet you feel comfortable denigrating. the RCC?  By denigrating the papacy, you are denigrating the RCC.  

[B/W Photodude]

2 hours ago, JoeMo said:

By denigrating the papacy, you are denigrating the RCC.  

I think Revelation already did a pretty good job of that!

[JoeMo]

2 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

I think Revelation already did a pretty good job of that!

IMHO, Revelation does not specifically identify the pope as the beast any more than it specifically identifies Islam or America.  EGW does identify the papacy and does a pretty convincing job of doing so.  I'm not saying the pope is or is not the beast prophesied in Revelation; and I ain't saying Islam is or isn't.  They both make pretty good candidates to me.  I guess time will tell (and pretty soon!).

I appreciate the open dialog.

[B/W Photodude]

48 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

IMHO, Revelation does not specifically identify the pope as the beast any more than it specifically identifies Islam or America.

He that hath eyes, let him see!

[JoeMo]

16 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

May I ask what you think we should use as criteria to figure out this subject? It seems like you are saying the Bible presents an equal or close to equal case for both Islam or Roman Catholic. IMO its not really important to agree on this

My criteria is scripture; although I may interpret it differently than you.  The biggest example is in John's epistles where he describes the spirit of antichrist.  I'm not going to quote them again; I have done so on multiple occasions.  But if you want to look them up, they are 1 John 2:18, 1 John 2:22,  1 John 4:3, and 2 John 1:7.  IMHO, none of those apply to the papacy or RCC.  They all apply to Islam if one takes the verses literally.

Please understand that my concern is not with individual Muslims; it is with the religion of Islam as taught predominantly in the later writings of the Quran and the Hadiths..

[phkrause]

6 hours ago, JoeMo said:

My criteria is scripture; although I may interpret it differently than you.  The biggest example is in John's epistles where he describes the spirit of antichrist.  I'm not going to quote them again; I have done so on multiple occasions.  But if you want to look them up, they are 1 John 2:18, 1 John 2:22,  1 John 4:3, and 2 John 1:7.  IMHO, none of those apply to the papacy or RCC.  They all apply to Islam if one takes the verses literally.

Please understand that my concern is not with individual Muslims; it is with the religion of Islam as taught predominantly in the later writings of the Quran and the Hadiths..

But Islam was not yet on the scene?? Both John and Paul talk about the antichrist as being there already? But Pagan Rome was and would eventually become the Roman Church??

[B/W Photodude]

I have just received a copy of Herbert Douglass's book "God at Risk." A preliminary scanning of the book suggests that this is going to be one interesting book and explores the Sunday law issue, the Catholic-Islam relationship, and a number of other topics as they relate to the Great Controversey. I would suggest anyone wishing to pontificate (pun intended) on these topics to acquire a copy (seems easier found used on Amazon) and give it a read thru. It is well documented with tons of references. 

[JoeMo]

3 hours ago, phkrause said:

But Islam was not yet on the scene?? Both John and Paul talk about the antichrist as being there already? But Pagan Rome was and would eventually become the Roman Church??

I agree Islam was not on the scene; but neither was papal Rome.  Referring to the verses in John's epistles listed above, please tell me how these verses relate to the RCC.

[JoeMo]

12 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Its my understanding that "anti-Christ" can and should be defined by any doctrine that does not have as the central anchor, Christ and Him crucified. There are certain doctrines that do not need the cross, one merely has to swallow hook, line, and sinker "to be saved."

What does this have to do with the verses about the anti-Christ in John's Epistles?  People can understand whatever bakes their biscuit; I'll choose to understand John's words in scripture.  These verses DO have Christ and Him crucified as their center.  They tell us who are the ones who will deny Christ and Him crucified.  Furthermore, no one said you had to swallow an Islamic beast hook, line, and sinker to be saved.

The Quran states:

"There is not one of the people of the Scripture [Christians and Jews] but will believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Resurrection, he will be a witness against them" (Sura 4:159).

Commenting on this verse, Muftis Muhammed Shafiand Muhammed Rafi Usmani said in their book ""Signs of the Qiyama [Arab for Final Judgement] and the Arrival of Maseeh" [Arab for Messiah] that "we believe in him before his death" means that Christians and Jew will:

..."confirm that he is alive and has not died and he is not God or the Son of God but merely His [Allah's} slave and Messenger and Isa [Jesus] will testify against those who had called him son of God, the Christians, and those who belied him, the Jews."

Sheik Kabbani, chairman of the Islamic Supreme Council of America, clearly articulates the Islamic perspective regarding Jesus' evangelistic role when He returns:

"Like all prophets, Prophet Jesus came with the divine message of surrender to God Almighty, which is Islam.  This verse shows that when Jesus returns, he will personally correct the misrepresentations and misinterpretations about himself.  He will affirm the true message that he brought is his time as a prophet, and that he never claimed to be the Son of God.  Furthermore, he will reaffirm what he prophesied in his first coming bearing witness to the seal of the Messenger, Prophet Muhammed.  In his second coming, many non-Muslis will accept Jesus as a servant of Allah Almighty, as a Muslim and a member of the community of Muhammed."

If this doesn't describe what John's Epistles define as the spirit of antichrist, I don't know what does.

"The Prophet said "There is no prophet between me and him, that is Jesus.  He will descent [sic] ... He will break the cross, kill swine [Jews and Christians] , and abolish "jizyah" [Islamic tax on non-Muslims].  Allah will perish all religions except Islam." (Suyuti, Durr al-Manthur as quoted in Kabbani "The Approach of Armageddon? "; p. 227).  Sounds to me like a page out of Revelation describing the antichrist and false prophet.  But I'm confident that some will have a different interpretation.

 

[JoeMo]

7 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

You are doing to "Islam" what you complain that certain people are supposedly doing to "Catholicism." 

At least I am not "smearing" a large portion of Christianity.  I don't claim that Islam is definitely the antichrist.  I AM claiming that there are other legitimate candidates for that distinction besides the RCC.

Another item of interest - Islam actually quotes Rev. 6:2 and attributes the Mahdi (Islamic Messiah) as the rider of the white horse. (Izzat and 'Arif, "Al Mahdi and The End of Time", 15, 19.

My previous post wasn't my personal smear on Islam any more than your posts about the papacy are your personal smear against Catholicism.  I simplky posted verses from Islamic writing to demonstrate (not prove) my premise.  If I had not quoted Some of the documentation for my assertions, I'm confident you would have asked for them.

As this conversation seems to be turning hostile, I am done here.

[pierrepaul]

The Pope=Anti-Christ interpretation in Adventism will not go away lightly. Like the 1844 sanctuary doctrine, too much emotional capital has been invested into it.

 

[B/W Photodude]

2 hours ago, pierrepaul said:

Like the 1844 sanctuary doctrine, too much emotional capital has been invested into it.

The desert sanctuary is a parable of the whole plan of salvation. Every part of the sanctuary service had meaning. God does not waste symbols. And there sanctuary message runs all the way thru the Bible including the book of Revelation. I talk to some Sunday people and when the subject of Revelation comes they share that the book of Revelation scares them. Sad, especially when it is full of hope and even answers much of the rest of the Bible.

A Murphy's addendum to "Every man did that which was right in his own eyes" would be "Every man chose to believe whatever he wanted to believe."

I believe that God promised to show us great and wonderful things (Jeremiah 33:3) and amazingly, Daniel was to seal up that prophecy of the 2300 days and we only began to understand when God "unsealed" it and began to show His secrets to his people.

[JoeMo]

For your consideration:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-f8zDeqy-k

 

[JoeMo]

11 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

I did watch the whole thing. I do have great respect for Pastor Mcarthur but this has got to be the most off-center message I have ever heard from him.

At least you watched the whole thing before you passed judgement.  I posted it for people's consideration.  They are free to look into it further  or reject it.  I have great respect for Pastor John as well.  I have listened to him for years.  I don't swallow everything he preaches either.  In his 2007 commentary on Revelation, he opined that the white horse "represents an unparalleled time of world peace - a false peace that will be short-lived.  This peace will be ushered in by a series of false messiahs, culminating with the Antichrist". (p. 44 , "Revelation - The Christian's Ultimate Victory") . He has obviously refined his views.  You considered his view, and don't accept it - fine.  At least you considered it.

Like I said, just because I respect him, doesn't mean I swallow everything he says.  For example, in the same book, he states that "the second resurrection, then, will be the resurrection on the unconverted, who will receive their final bodies suited for torment in hell"; and "All the places that have held the bodies of the unrighteous dead will yield up new bodies suited for hell."  He is speaking of eternal hell.  I don't believe this part of his commentary.

[JoeMo]

On 2/22/2019 at 3:57 PM, B/W Photodude said:

I talk to some Sunday people and when the subject of Revelation comes they share that the book of Revelation scares them. Sad, especially when it is full of hope and even answers much of the rest of the Bible.

Not only Sunday people are scared of Revelation.  So are many SDA's.  That's why we don't here many last-day messages from the pulpit in many churches.  I was cut off by the pastor in the middle of teaching a Sabbath School lesson on Daniel 7 - 9 because the pastor didn't want to scare the parents of small children; they wanted a message of Jesus' love and forgiveness.  I agree with you. I think the book is full of information that - when we see it happen, it will reinforce our faith because we will see how accurately God foresaw everything.  For those who don't study Revelation, they will be caught unaware and have no clue what will happen next, leading them into deception and destruction.  So sad.

[B/W Photodude]

6 hours ago, JoeMo said:

... because the pastor didn't want to scare the parents of small children; they wanted a message of Jesus' love and forgiveness.  I agree with you. 

There are a lot of things that people no longer want to hear anymore. Yep, it can be convicting, so don't trouble us any longer. Like the people who listened to God give the Ten commandments and asked Moses not to let him speak to them anymore. Can you imagine, hearing the voice of the Almighty and begging not to hear it again?

[JoeMo]

8 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

there sure is a lot of "white horse" stuff on the internet!

... and in books.  A lot of the stuff I post is from the internet because it's easier to copy and paste than it is to type pages out of a book; but most of my study comes from books.  I honestly try to take an unbiased look at all sides of an issue before I post stuff; but trying to be unbiased is different than truly being unbiased.  At my age, I doubt if I can even be totally objective and unbiased. All the stuff I've learned and experienced over the years surely plays into my world view of things.

[JoeMo]

4 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

Can you imagine, hearing the voice of the Almighty and begging not to hear it again?

Well, yeah, I can. I imagine hearing God's voice audibly for the first time while seeing how powerful (scary?) He is would be pretty overwhelming.  I have had a couple experiences while in deep prayer in which I was totally overwhelmed by the power of the spirit.  Towards the end of the first experience, I begged God to stop because I was afraid I would die.  After thinking it though and  praying about it, when it happened a second time, I was asking God to do it again; and he DID!  That time I was ecstatic.  That was several years ago; and it hasn't happened since; but you better believe I will never ever forget those experiences.

[phkrause]

Here's a sermon by DW which is very interesting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahEneeWxR4g

its about 27 min

[Gustave]

On ‎2‎/‎22‎/‎2019 at 2:57 PM, B/W Photodude said:

 I talk to some Sunday people and when the subject of Revelation comes they share that the book of Revelation scares them. Sad, especially when it is full of hope and even answers much of the rest of the Bible.

 

 

This individual doesn't appear to be scared of the Book of Revelation. 

 

Not intended to start an argument, just to show that there exist other reasonable speculations as to what or who the Book of Revelation is talking about.