Daniel 7 Pre-advent, Investigated out of books, Judgment affirmed by Adventist

[Jipsah]

BobRyan said:

How "instructive" for the unbiased objective readers - when they see they were told by you that such a sola-scriptura case could not exist.

Quote, please.

The case would have to be made from some other source according to your claims.

In context, please. The unbiased objective reader may not be that easy to gull.

I think we are all seeing the same thing then.

I'd say so.

 

[BobRyan]

Nah, he nailed it.

Clumsy redirection there. Five yards and loss of down.

Then what need has our Lord to investigate anything? The concept is ridiculous. God is omnipotent or He isn't. Pick one asnd run with it.

Then the investigation is for...? And just out of curiousity, isn't it interesting that y'all believe that God created the universe in 6 24 hour days, but it's take Him 180 years so far to investigate stuff that He already knows?

We never claim that God is trying to figure something out.

hint. read page one.

read the posts

No statement I have made says "God does not know something" and no statement I have posted says the details in the thread (that you are still ignoring) are saying that God is trying to understand or figure something out.

look at "the details " for Dan 7 and Rom 2 instead of ignoring them. As 2 Cor 5:10 points out each work of each person is brought in review and as Dan 7:9-10 states it is "books opened" and an entire court of NON-God beings that are seeing the evidence and reaching conclusions. It is not the all-knowing God who is trying to figure something out . Rather He is presiding over the court.

Why do these NON-God beings have a dog in that fight?

...

Consider making a point of scripture or showing a given scripture to have some other meaning or "something" ... make a case.

 

[BobRyan]

Quote, please.

your words can be found on this thread -- Historicity of Mary vs significant inference -- ie not in the Bible?

saying that this sola scriptura case for the IJ does not exist

 

[Jipsah]

We can all read Jipsah

And some of us, having no doctrinal ax to grind, actually pay attention what's being said.

we can all see on this thread that neither you nor he addressed a single text of scripture, a single detail, a single point raise in the text. This is not has hard for us "to read" as you seem to imagine.

Well you know, you may be right. I'll just waiting for your legions of unbiased objective readers to rally to your support.

(The very thing you claim cannot happen since you imagine this is not a sola scriptura discussion).

Quote, Bob. You seem to be putting lots of words in lots of mouths here lately.

IT is another thing to ignore every single detail and "wish away" the texts.

You mean like,"See right here? It says books will be opened!" Right.

BTW, how do you "support" the 1844 part?

But even in that extreme case - the only thing being discussed is scripture

As it pertains to Investigative Judgement, which is a pretty sketchy concept however you slice it.

-- which you claim is not possible for a doctrine that does not come from scripture at all.

<ROFL> Quote it, Bob.

The texts refute that wild speclation.

Whaty wild speculation? Your unbiased objective readers will want to know.

Your pattern of avoiding the texts on page 1 entirely - undermine your own claims.

Which claims?

It is you arguing anything-but-the-Bible post after post, as we can all read on this thread.
basically you keep making my point in that regard.

Your original point in the original thread was "them bad Catholics ain't sola scriptura, repeated 92.37 times. And yiuy're right, anyone with time and patience can read the entire ridiculous thing.

well it is not like I don't appreciate your efforts

Of course you don't. You apparently had a lot of emotional capital invested in that particular bit of Catholc baiting, and the unkindest cut of all was when everyone replied "of course they aren't!", and weren't filed with outrage at the idea.

to soft-ball lob these easy no-text-posts in when you can.

Your original post in th original thread was entirely no-text.

If you have the skill to look at the posts on the thread

I posted about half of them! 8)

- read the texts and make your case ... do it.

Did. Again and again. You didn't like it much.

All this anything-but-scripture posting you are doing in your "wish it all away" efforts only makes my case

Good! Declare a victory and move on.

that your claims

For instance?

so far are mere fluff.

The fluffier the better.

No substance as of yet

Hard to see why you're so upset, then? Oh, I fotgot. You set out to thump the Catholics and got thumped yourself. Hey, in the words of the Prophet Mohammed, "It's like that sometimes."

. Read the actual Bible texts... make a point.

I did. You didn't like it. Too bad.

 

[Jipsah]

I don't see how this concept is so difficult "for some".

Not difficult for me at all. IJ is a made-up doctrine of the sort commonly contrived by failed date setters. Your lot believes it because you need to believe those failed date setters. They're your burden, not mine. We (Anglo)Catholics are content to point at them and laugh.

 

[Jipsah]

We never claim that God is trying to figure something out.

Then why is He investigating, and poring over books?

hint. read page one.

Hint: Nobody home there.

Consider making a point of scripture or showing a given scripture to have some other meaning or "something" ... make a case.

Fairly transparent version of "prove it ain't". Burden's on you, matey. You want folks to believe a contention, support it.

 

[Jipsah]

your words can be found on this thread -- Historicity of Mary vs significant inference -- ie not in the Bible?

That's what I thought.

saying that this sola scriptura case for the IJ does not exist

It doesn't. It came from some bloke who needed to try and justify, if only in his own mind, having made a wholly bogus Second Coming prediction, and being quite justly hoorawed by his neighbors for it. So he did the SDA thing, he declared a victory, and invented an "explanation" for the failure of his "prophecy" (which is Standard Operating Procedure for failed date setters.)

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

saying that this sola scriptura case for the IJ does not exist

It doesn't.

Well then we can all read page one and "see" that your case is hopeless at that point.
It is one thing not to agree with my POV as found in those texts --

IT is quite another to claim that the entire presentation from scripture alone "does not exist" and to ignore every scripture detail presented. That falls far below anything like a compelling well reasoned response and reduces to "wishing away" the existence of a presentation simply because the conclusion does not agree with your preferences.

"wishing away" presentations simply because they do not agree with your bias -- is not a form of compelling discussion (as we all know)

It came from some bloke

turns out - scripture is not "from some bloke"

feel free to respond to an actual scripture or point on page one, or make an actual point.

Why is this concept so difficult? It is a rather basic skill needed for threads on General Theology as it turns out.

 

[Jipsah]

your words can be found on this thread -- Historicity of Mary vs significant inference -- ie not in the Bible?

saying that this sola scriptura case for the IJ does not exist

I only said it about 50 times. Blue smoke and mirrors.

 

[Jipsah]

BobRyan said:

saying that this sola scriptura case for the IJ does not exist


Well then we can all read page one and "see" that your case is hopeless at that point.
It is one thing not to agree with my POV as found in those texts --

Well, maybe not.

Where in Scripture did the years 457 BC and 1844 AD come from? I don't see them in Scripture anywhere.

Put your sola scriptura to work on that one and get back to me.

IT is quite another to claim that the entire presentation from scripture alone "does not exist"

Show me where those dates exist in Scripture.

and to ignore every scripture detail presented.

Your word search results?

That falls far below anything like a compelling well reasoned response and reduces to "wishing away" the existence

Gimme the evidence of where those dates come from in Scripture.

of a presentation simply because the conclusion does not agree with your preferences.

The original conclusion of Miller's little exercise in date setting. Which, BTW, ignored the explicit words of our Lord in Matthew 24:36-39 (didn't need no sola scriptura there, huh?).

turns out - scripture is not "from some bloke"

The bloke in question is Hiram Edson, and I don't remember a Book of Edson in my Bible. <Laugh>

feel free to respond to an actual scripture

Gimme the Scriptural source of those dates first, por favor.

Why is this concept so difficult? It is a rather basic

maybe because I lack the imagination, credulity, or both, to pile into such a contrived load of rubbish.

skill needed for threads on General Theology as it turns out.

Fear not, some day you may earn some degree of credibilty. Until then, your hordes of unbiased objective readers will cheer you on.

 

[Jipsah]

As long as we're talking about SS, here's one for you to chomp on: there is no decree or commandment in the New Testament for Christians to keep Sunday as a religious day of meeting, It is also true that, while all the other 9 Commandments are enjoined in the New Testament, the commandment about keeping the Sabbath of Moses is not mentioned! Looks like y'all are harkening back to the OT on the basis of tradition, and not New Testament Scripture. Oh, but the OT is still in the Bible!" Yeah it is, and so...

Acts 15
5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

Note that the Command to keep the Sabbath is part of the Law of Moses, right?

6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Except, of course, keeping the Sabbath, right? Thus saith your tradition, but not holy writ!

And here, of course, the Apostolic Decree:

Acts 15
23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.
24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

No commandment to keep the Law! Oh, except, of course, keeping the Sabbath, right? Well,
Thus saith your tradition, but not holy writ! No exceptions offered.

Oh, but they were taught to keep the Law later, right? I don't see that in Scripture, and y'all are rigidly SS, ain'tcha?

Looks like sola scriptura doesn't apply here, either. Looks like y'all may be rather better at accusing those you don't like of ignoring SS than of keeping it yourselves. Looks like a matter of convenience, you keep SS when it doesn't interfere with some dogma that you have embraced where a strict observance of Scripture would be problematic.
.
We'll just let your unbiased, objective readers decide.

 

[Jipsah]

And here's one I've mentioned but not really followed up: why would almighty all-knowing God need to do a centuries-long "investigation" to determine who's to be saved and who isn't?

From a sola scriptura standpoint:

Psalm 147:5 Great is our Lord and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite.

1 John 3:20 God is greater than our heart and knows all things.

Psalm 139:4 Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold, O Lord, You know it all.

Matthew 10:30 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.

Psalm 147:4 He counts the number of the stars; He gives names to all of them.

Hebrews 4:13 And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.

Psalm 139:1-4
O Lord, You have searched me and known me.
You know when I sit down and when I rise up;
You understand my thought from afar.
You scrutinize my path and my lying down,
And are intimately acquainted with all my ways.

Psalm 44:21 Would not God find this out? For He knows the secrets of the heart.

1 Chronicles 28:9 “As for you, my son Solomon, know the God of your father, and serve Him with a whole heart and a willing mind; for If you seek Him, He will let you find Him; but if you forsake Him, He will reject you forever.

Isaiah 46:9-10
“Remember the former things long past,
For I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is no one like Me,
Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things which have not been done,
Saying, ‘My purpose will be established,
And I will accomplish all My good pleasure’;

Psalm 139:1-3
O Lord, You have searched me and known me.
You know when I sit down and when I rise up;
You understand my thought from afar.
You scrutinize my path and my lying down,
And are intimately acquainted with all my ways.

1 Kings 8:39
then hear in heaven Your dwelling place, and forgive and act and render to each according to all his ways, whose heart You know, for You alone know the hearts of all the sons of men,

Acts 1:24
Verse Concepts
And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen

Get the drift? Whatever it is, God already knows. Yeah, you can glom some figures of speech from the OT to make it look like God has to put on a green eyeshade and pore through dusty tomes to figure out who's to be saved and who isn't, but that isn't a real Scriptural basis for a dogma, or even an honest basis for claiming to have come up with that dogma "sola scriptura". God, who spoke the universe into being in, at least as you believe, 144 hours, has to take centuries studying books for information that, according to Scripture, He already knows! How goofy is that? IJ is no more a product of "sola scriptura" than is the Book of Mormon.