Does the Thief on the Cross bypass the Invesigative Judgement..

[tall73]

The Rev 14's Three angel message announced the judgment hour beginning in 1844 and exposed the Babylon and its distinguishing mark. These are the context of the little horn's activities in Daniel 8 as to stop its activities and bring it into judgment.

A. you never demonstrated 1844 in Revelation.

B. You never answered the issues with cutting off or the starting time or the complete vision in regards to Daniel 8 and 9.

C. If one connects the little horn and Babylon then you could well see similar descriptions of judgment in Daniel 8 and Rev. 14. However, it is executive judgment promised in Daniel 8 and played out in Revelation.

Nor is God's judgment on powers the same as the Adventist IJ which is on individual professed believers.

And Daniel 7 where you claim to see the judgment includes the Medes, Persians, etc. which were not professed people of God.

 

[tall73]

Hey, it made sense to me and I did not have the Adventist construct in my head. I was an atheist, then a pentecostal, non-denominational and Baptist.
I studied the prophecies and sanctuary myself, no one taught me. The SDA interpretation makes a lot more sense than the mainstream interpretation I learned prior to coming to the SDA church. Maybe it doesn't make sense to you. But it did for me. What can I tell you?

So to clarify, you came to the same conclusion as Adventists on 1844, Day of Atonement etc before becoming an Adventist?

 

[tall73]

The problem is clear for Adventists. The context is about the activities of the little horn. The question is about the activities of the little horn.

But then in vs. 14 Adventist try to throw out the context and answer a different question. The question of verse 13 was not "when will the confessed sins of the professed believers in God be removed on the anti-typical day of Atonement".

The Day of Atonement was not the context at all. The little horn was the context as even Adventist scholars were constrained to admit.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

I don't understand, Tall, why you are arguing against an established SDA belief? We get that you don't buy it and you have your reasons, why can't you respect the fact that we have ours, even if you don't agree with them?

 

[Pythons]

I think the question is one of "how" the belief was established E.C.R....
...Tall appears to be an advocate of "Bible Onlyism" so he is simply addressing the question.
...Of exactly how the SDA 1844 Rubrcs were established if one holds to the Bible Only teaching.

It would appear that the same methodology used to establish the 1844 schema...
...Would be equally valid for Harold Campings schema & that the only thing Harold has yet to do.
...Would be to later attribute his aforementioned date to an invisible event.
...Thus claiming that he got the date right but the event wrong.
...And that God had used the spectacle to "test" the Christians of the period.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

I think the question is one of "how" the belief was established E.C.R....
...Tall appears to be an advocate of "Bible Onlyism" so he is simply addressing the question.
...Of exactly how the SDA 1844 Rubrcs were established if one holds to the Bible Only teaching.

It would appear that the same methodology used to establish the 1844 schema...
...Would be equally valid for Harold Campings schema & that the only thing Harold has yet to do.
...Would be to later attribute his aforementioned date to an invisible event.
...Thus claiming that he got the date right but the event wrong.
...And that God had used the spectacle to "test" the Christians of the period.

Frame it how you want, it is still argueing against our faith is it not? It's like us trying to show Crib scripture that we believe proves the eternity of Sabbath observance... he doesn't see the scriptures we present the same as we do, which is his perogative, but it should end there. Does Tall, Crib, ChrisCarol or even yourself, think you are making a difference by continually posting your opposing opinion over and over? When do you let the Holy Spirit convict us? Or do you think that job is yours to do?

 

[JohnMarsten]

I think the question is one of "how" the belief was established E.C.R....
...Tall appears to be an advocate of "Bible Onlyism" so he is simply addressing the question.
...Of exactly how the SDA 1844 Rubrcs were established if one holds to the Bible Only teaching.

It would appear that the same methodology used to establish the 1844 schema...
...Would be equally valid for Harold Campings schema & that the only thing Harold has yet to do.
...Would be to later attribute his aforementioned date to an invisible event.
...Thus claiming that he got the date right but the event wrong.
...And that God had used the spectacle to "test" the Christians of the period.

just btw I thought today about Harold Camping in connection with the great disappointment of 1844.

both groups have on thing in common or maybe two, first of course they completely disregarded the fact that no one knows the hour. Some people claim that Jesus didnt know it when He was on earth and therefore he stated 'neither the Sun', but one thing is for certain they completely disregarded it.

OK, but what I came up with today, both groups must be/must have been complete illiterates in regard to the bible and its prophecies, especially revelation, so many things didnt happen, there was no mark of the beat, no image of the beast, probably no beast and no selling/buying consequence, no putting to death, IMHO this is a serious matter...

just btw Pythons as a catholic how do you interprete revelation 13? I once heard that catholics make a connection with nero? is that right? if yes, how do the things mentioned above fall into that scheme?

 

[tall73]

I don't understand, Tall, why you are arguing against an established SDA belief? We get that you don't buy it and you have your reasons, why can't you respect the fact that we have ours, even if you don't agree with them?

First of all, it is only an established SDA belief in the official sense. I would say the majority of Adventists either have no idea what it even is or do not accept it. In many ways the church has downplayed it as even folks like DL admit. That itself makes it an issue, if you have a fundamental belief that most of the church does not have a belief in.


Second, this is an ongoing discussion in the church and more people have left the church over this one teaching than any other. It started in Ellen White's own day and has continued ever since. That is an issue. It is also the issue I left the church over. So yes, I have a personal stake in it. It changed my entire life. And it is the issue some in my family and friends consider me a heretic over. So I have an ongoing interest for that reason. Yet those same folks will not even discuss the biblical evidence. Should that kind of a denial continue?

In this very thread the admission was made that it is not "spelled out" in the Bible. That is an ongoing issue for the Adventist church whether I still believe it or not.

Why do I talk about it? Because I still have an interest in it, and its impact on the church, and its impact on me personally.

Maybe the question should be asked of why Adventists don't talk about it.

 

[tall73]

Does Tall, Crib, ChrisCarol or even yourself, think you are making a difference by continually posting your opposing opinion over and over? When do you let the Holy Spirit convict us? Or do you think that job is yours to do?

With the regulars does it make a difference? Probably not. Though you never know. I was a regular here before I changed my mind.

However, it certainly makes a difference to those who wander by when they see Stryder admitting the doctrine is not "spelled out" in the Bible, and then see you saying you still believe it even if it is not spelled out.

Now I have seen Adventists argue for less discussion of Ellen White and say they go just by the Bible. But when push comes to shove, this doctrine doesn't work without Ellen White. The doctrine came about from Adventist EXPERIENCE. And that is its basis. And when it was questioned with Scripture that was the answer Ellen White gave.

 

[tall73]

I don't understand, Tall, why you are arguing against an established SDA belief? We get that you don't buy it and you have your reasons, why can't you respect the fact that we have ours, even if you don't agree with them?

Here is an Adventist, till the day he died, talking about the issue. He not only revised Bible Readings for the home but also was one of the main contributors to the Daniel portion of the Adventist Bible Commentary. He also spent years studying these passages to try and reconcile the issues, and could not do it.


While editing Bible Readings, and in counsel with Elder Nichol as chief editor of the revision, I wrote to 27 leading Adventist Bible scholars for their response to a series of six carefully formulated questions designed to bring the best contemporary Adventist biblical scholarship to bear on the question. All 27 responded, many at considerable length.A careful analysis and synthesis of their replies provided no additional help with respect to the problems arising from our interpretation of Daniel 8:14, and made evident that we had no satisfactory answer to the criticisms being directed against our interpretation of this key Adventist passage. Thirteen replied that they knew of no other valid basis for making such an application; seven based it on analogy; five, on the authority of Ellen White; two, on what they referred to as a “fortunate accident” in translation. Not one of the 27 believed that there was a linguistic or contextual basis for applying Daniel 8:14 to the heavenly sanctuary, an antitypical day of atonement, or 1844.


It is not just Tall73 raising this issue.

Are you familiar with the secret, closed, "Daniel Committee?".

Are you familiar with Glacierview?

Are you familiar with Crosier or Fletcher or Canright or Grieve, or Ballenger? And you could add many modern examples to the list. I am acquainted with a number of pastors who have left over this issue in our day, and a number of lay members as well.

But even more than that I am acquainted with many pastors I went to school with or was in the same conference as them who admit privately they do not believe it. They either think they should stay to change the church or just don't want to deal with it because it would mean leaving.

That is an issue whether I talk about it or not. This is the fundamental belief very few are believing.

 

[Pythons]

Frame it how you want, it is still argueing against our faith is it not? It's like us trying to show Crib scripture that we believe proves the eternity of Sabbath observance... he doesn't see the scriptures we present the same as we do, which is his perogative, but it should end there. Does Tall, Crib, ChrisCarol or even yourself, think you are making a difference by continually posting your opposing opinion over and over? When do you let the Holy Spirit convict us? Or do you think that job is yours to do?

I can't speak for the others but I'm here for fellowship and to increase my knowledge base of SDAism...
...In order to better understand the impact SDA sacred tradition has in the continuation of it's distinctive doctrines.

 

[Pythons]

just btw I thought today about Harold Camping in connection with the great disappointment of 1844.

both groups have on thing in common or maybe two, first of course they completely disregarded the fact that no one knows the hour. Some people claim that Jesus didnt know it when He was on earth and therefore he stated 'neither the Sun', but one thing is for certain they completely disregarded it.

OK, but what I came up with today, both groups must be/must have been complete illiterates in regard to the bible and its prophecies, especially revelation, so many things didnt happen, there was no mark of the beat, no image of the beast, probably no beast and no selling/buying consequence, no putting to death, IMHO this is a serious matter...

Without the proper education or instruction this is what Scripture says happens.

2 Peter 3,16
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which THEY that are unlearned and unstable WREST, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction

I forgot where but it was recently pointed out ( by a direct quote ) that what established the SDA distinctives...
...Was not educated people studying the Bible - but the unlearned's experience within the movement.
....The rise and fall of William Miller's false message of "definite time" .

From what I understand most of the SDA Pioneers, to be classified as clergy....
...Had to be able to memorize and promulgate the Adventist experience.
...They didn't have to go to "school" to learn Greek & Hebrew along with the established rules of interpretation.
...They simply needed to be able to promulgate the early SDA experience.

just btw Pythons as a catholic how do you interprete revelation 13? I once heard that catholics make a connection with nero? is that right? if yes, how do the things mentioned above fall into that scheme?

It's my understanding that the events of Rev will apply to the end of days....
....And that the Book is mainly a description of Christian Ligurgy and hope.
...For Christians living in such a time where communication of Christians were kept to code - insider words and concepts.

My guess is that eventually the world at large will get to a point where any religion is viewed as foolish....
....And that society will eventually mutate it to the point it that what it becomes.
...Would be unfamiliar to us alive now.

I'm not an E.O. but must admit that I tend to agree with Fr. Hopko's take on the end times...
...His view is my view.

Fr. Thomas Hopko speaks at St. Elijah about Christianity and Armageddon#

 

[tall73]

From what I understand most of the SDA Pioneers, to be classified as clergy....
...Had to be able to memorize and promulgate the Adventist experience.
...They didn't have to go to "school" to learn Greek & Hebrew along with the established rules of interpretation.
...They simply needed to be able to promulgate the early SDA experience.

Many of them knew the Bible well. However, their interpretive method came from Miller's proof style, which took quoting things out of context to a new level.

Most of Miller's proofs are an embarrassment to Adventists today. They only keep the 1844 one.

Since then Adventists have developed their views considerably, and their methods. Which is why 1844 is not overly talked about.

 

[Pythons]

Many of them knew the Bible well. However, their interpretive method came from Miller's proof style, which took quoting things out of context to a new level.

Most of Miller's proofs are an embarrassment to Adventists today. They only keep the 1844 one.

Since then Adventists have developed their views considerably, and their methods. Which is why 1844 is not overly talked about.

Have you read up on how the early SDA interpretive method claimed the Bible taught....
...That God the Father had a "body" with all the organs, members and parts of a perfect man?
...And how it was believed to be the great foundation upon which the 1844 teaching rested?

 

[tall73]

Have you read up on how the early SDA interpretive method claimed the Bible taught....
...That God the Father had a "body" with all the organs, members and parts of a perfect man?
...And how it was believed to be the great foundation upon which the 1844 teaching rested?

Lol, I have read some of their discussions about God having a body. Don't recall the latter point. I must say though that you do have an enthusiasm for the topic!

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

With the regulars does it make a difference? Probably not. Though you never know. I was a regular here before I changed my mind.

However, it certainly makes a difference to those who wander by when they see Stryder admitting the doctrine is not "spelled out" in the Bible, and then see you saying you still believe it even if it is not spelled out.

Now I have seen Adventists argue for less discussion of Ellen White and say they go just by the Bible. But when push comes to shove, this doctrine doesn't work without Ellen White. The doctrine came about from Adventist EXPERIENCE. And that is its basis. And when it was questioned with Scripture that was the answer Ellen White gave.

Ahhh, so your intention is to bring everyone to your understanding of truth, to have all SDA depart from their faith because it's a lie, is that it? If not, then what is your goal?

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Most of Miller's proofs are an embarrassment to Adventists today. They only keep the 1844 one.

Besides the disappointment of 1844, which you well know was advocated by many more than just Miller, what other aspects of his extensive study of scriptures is an 'embarrasment' to Adventsits today?

You also know that the disappointment was foretold in Rev 10...

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

I can't speak for the others but I'm here for fellowship and to increase my knowledge base of SDAism...
...In order to better understand the impact SDA sacred tradition has in the continuation of it's distinctive doctrines.

Ahahaha... as long as you believe that Pythons...

By understanding our beliefs, you mean to present disparaging, often erroneous views of SDA doctrine and then have us defend it, right? Thats an interestingly investigative method you've adopted.

 

[tall73]

Ahhh, so your intention is to bring everyone to your understanding of truth, to have all SDA depart from their faith because it's a lie, is that it? If not, then what is your goal?

I want Adventists to do what they claim--go by the Bible for their teachings.

And if they cannot find that the IJ is "spelled out" in the Bible then yes, they should reject it, just like they tell people to do with other teachings at their seminars.

 

[tall73]

Besides the disappointment of 1844, which you well know was advocated by many more than just Miller, what other aspects of his extensive study of scriptures is an 'embarrasment' to Adventsits today?

It was his proofs I was referring to. The ones folks supported before. But now they only support one of the several he used. I tell you what. I will post his proofs for around about 1843 and you tell me which ones you still agree with. We can make a new thread if you like.

Now before you answer consider whether you will actually do it or not.

Do you agree to that discussion?

(By the way, I like Miller. I think he was honestly convinced. And when it was wrong he admitted he was wrong.)