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

[tall73]

Jesus doesn't need a judgment to know who's saved and who's lost. Yet there will still be a judgment. I think ECR's point is that judgment for the righteous will be complete at the second coming.

He used it as an evidence of the judgment, but that does not follow if a judgment is not required for him to know.

 

[tall73]

That notwithstanding, the word judgment is used to mean many a thing. For the most part, we see judgment in the bible as an act of punishment from God. That's not what we're talking about here though. I do believe Peter was alluding to the words of the prophet Ezekiel. I believe though that in Ezekiel's vision, the call for the servants of God to be sealed, was a revelation of what was to happen at the end of time.

The Scriptures certainly indicate a sealing, and its counterfeit, the mark of the beast.

However, again, Peter's words are referenced as happening in his own time, so he is not talking about the IJ.

 

[tall73]

I'm convinced by the explanations regarding prophecies. As I told Tall already, I'm not going to argue that point. He used to believe that point. Now he doesn't. If you disagree with the prophetic explanations, and can't see the correlation between the earthly and heavenly sanctuary, then there's nothing more I can really say, that hasn't been said already.

You haven't referenced what prophecies you think establish the specifics of the IJ.

You keep saying you won't debate it ,but yet you keep responding. And in your response you don't provide the scriptures that actually have what is needed.

So if you do not plan on debating, and you don't plan on giving the necessary texts, what is your reason for continued posting that you will not engage in the conversation?

 

[tall73]

How many of whoever see's what we see is irrelevant. The bible teaches it, and I see it plainly now. It's the only explanation that makes any sense. I for the life of me can't even understand why this is a problem for most people (I mean I can as the adversary will do all he can to distract people from seeing Christ in the heavenly sanctuary). Not everything in scripture is spelled out. Some messages are given cryptically, so that only those who truly are seeking them, may find them.

Stryder, that is non-sense.

You indicate it doesn't matter that very few people, all from the same church, with the same extra biblical source, are the ones who see it.

You really think that is a coincidence, that the only ones who see it are those who also hold to a prophet who says it is there?


Then you indicate that it is not "spelled out". Well I would agree with that. We haven't seen a text in this thread yet that gives the criteria Ellen White assigns.


Then you indicate that it is a secret that only you and those who are really seeking it can find.


I agree with that. Only those who REALLY WANT to see the IJ (which they already have a concept of) in the Bible will find it there.

Most people who go only by the Bible would not KNOW to seek for it at all. They don't read the Bible in order to seek for something they already hope to find. They pick up the Bible to find what is there.

So perhaps what you mean is that those who have been told it is there and are REALLY seeking for it are going to find it one way or another.

In any case, now that you found it, by all means show us how you got there. Or if you can't be bothered, then just let someone else do it.

 

[tall73]

Either you've started a new tradition of speaking in 1st person, or your account has been HaX0r3D

I was speaking in the third person in this case to echoe your words:

You said to Cribstyle:

Like I was saying to Tall. I was using that text to simply say that judgment for the righteous begins before the 2nd coming.

Emphasis supplied.


I pointed out that what you said to tall was that various judgments were seen.


After all that confusing back and forth, the point remains, Peter was talking about his day, not 1844.

Your text did not establish an Adventist IJ.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Tall, what do you see as the fulfillment of the day of atonement if not the IJ? Why would the 2300 day prophesy be closed with the cleansing of the sanctuary if it didn't have to do with the cleasing of the sanctuary which was the day of atonement?

If you think the 2300 day prophesy has another time fulfillment other than 1844, please enlighten us with it.

 

[Stryder06]

Your text did not establish an Adventist IJ.

I'm pretty sure that I said I was only showing Peter's text because I thought you were saying that the only judgment that was going to happen, was going to happen at the second coming. I also believe that Peter wasn't stating that the judgment was happening right then, but rather, that it was about to begin.

 

[Stryder06]

You haven't referenced what prophecies you think establish the specifics of the IJ.

You keep saying you won't debate it ,but yet you keep responding. And in your response you don't provide the scriptures that actually have what is needed.

So if you do not plan on debating, and you don't plan on giving the necessary texts, what is your reason for continued posting that you will not engage in the conversation?

I keep responding because I want to You keep asking me questions and I'm trying to make sure you understand the purpose of my initial response. I can respond with out debating. Or maybe I just don't want to let you have the last word. Who knows

 

[Stryder06]

Stryder, that is non-sense.
I don't think it is

You indicate it doesn't matter that very few people, all from the same church, with the same extra biblical source, are the ones who see it.

You really think that is a coincidence, that the only ones who see it are those who also hold to a prophet who says it is there?

First, I don't think it's "very few". And second, I don't think it's a coincidence. I think it's a testament to the very words of that woman who was a messenger of God. Third, I've never been one to think that numbers indicate truth. Were that the case I'd be Catholic.

Then you indicate that it is not "spelled out". Well I would agree with that. We haven't seen a text in this thread yet that gives the criteria Ellen White assigns.

Because you wouldn't receive anything we'd show you. I don't understand why you even bother responding. It's not like we'd have something different to show you, and I don't think we'd need to. You used to believe/teach this yourself.

Then you indicate that it is a secret that only you and those who are really seeking it can find

I agree with that. Only those who REALLY WANT to see the IJ (which they already have a concept of) in the Bible will find it there.

Funny. I see it the other way. Only those who REALLY DON'T WANT to see the IJ (which they don't want to have a concept of) won't find it in the bible.

Most people who go only by the Bible would not KNOW to seek for it at all. They don't read the Bible in order to seek for something they already hope to find. They pick up the Bible to find what is there.

It's there. The name may not be, but the process is. Judgment of the righteous occurring before the 2nd coming? Check. An established timeline for said judgment? Check. A judgment for the wicked? Check. Final judgment against Satan? Check. We simply connect the dots.

So perhaps what you mean is that those who have been told it is there and are REALLY seeking for it are going to find it one way or another.

No. What I really mean is what I said.

In any case, now that you found it, by all means show us how you got there. Or if you can't be bothered, then just let someone else do it.

Why are you even asking? Again, it really boggles my mind why you bother coming here. Unless, like Crib, you consider this to be some call from God to show us the error of our ways.

 

[Cribstyl]

Yes Peter is saying be wise, but he is also saying that the time for judgment of the house of God is to begin. Like I was saying to Tall. I was using that text to simply say that judgment for the righteous begins before the 2nd coming.

By your response your purpose for stringing this text with others was to present the judgment of the righteous.
You're exposing your misunderstanding of this scripture........ (You're ignoring Tall in this matter aslo.)

17 For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?

Peter is not talking about the final judgment of the righteous, you are.

I dont expect your bretheren to correct you, they drop mutiple soundbites and run from context all the time.
When you string scriptures to excentuate a "keywords" (judgment), this only appears to confuse facts and reenforce a false understanding about judgment.

 

[tall73]

Tall, what do you see as the fulfillment of the day of atonement if not the IJ? Why would the 2300 day prophesy be closed with the cleansing of the sanctuary if it didn't have to do with the cleasing of the sanctuary which was the day of atonement?

If you think the 2300 day prophesy has another time fulfillment other than 1844, please enlighten us with it.

I have some thoughts on this.

But is it fair to say that you are then proposing Lev. 16 on the Day of Atonement, and Daniel 8 as texts which show the Adventist particulars of the IJ?

If so, please spell it out.

There is no point in me describing why I think differently if you haven't demonstrated that they have the particulars in the first place.

 

[tall73]

I'm pretty sure that I said I was only showing Peter's text because I thought you were saying that the only judgment that was going to happen, was going to happen at the second coming. I also believe that Peter wasn't stating that the judgment was happening right then, but rather, that it was about to begin.

A. Since I never said the only judgment was at the second coming you were arguing against a straw man.

B. What I did note is that there is no question about God's righteousness because all confess and bow the knee.

C. I also noted the following:

I don't think it is possible to rule out a judgment before Jesus coming. On the other hand I don't see the specific IJ of Adventist doctrine spelled out in Scripture. The following elements are part of that IJ:

a. Beginning in 1844
b. only on the professed people of God
c. in fulfillment of the Day of Atonement cleansing.

I have found no scripture that has all those elements.

I am still waiting for the scripture that has those elements.

As for Peter's text, the entire context is about what they were going through then. If you want to say he meant something else, spell out why, not just say that you believe it.

 

[tall73]

I keep responding because I want to You keep asking me questions and I'm trying to make sure you understand the purpose of my initial response. I can respond with out debating. Or maybe I just don't want to let you have the last word. Who knows

So you intend to add nothing to the conversation but keep telling us your opinion.

Ok.

 

[tall73]

First, I don't think it's "very few". And second, I don't think it's a coincidence. I think it's a testament to the very words of that woman who was a messenger of God. Third, I've never been one to think that numbers indicate truth. Were that the case I'd be Catholic.

Stryder, the number of people within Christianity who hold the the IJ is amazingly few.

And you just admitted those who do believe it do so because of Ellen White. Congratulations.

Now as to numbers, if no other folks are seeing your interpretation of a Scripture, you admit it is not spelled out, and you then admit that the only way to see it is to get it from Ellen White then look REALLY HARD, what are you saying?

You only see it if Ellen White tells you to.

So much for Adventist doctrine all coming from the Bible.

 

[tall73]

Because you wouldn't receive anything we'd show you. I don't understand why you even bother responding. It's not like we'd have something different to show you, and I don't think we'd need to. You used to believe/teach this yourself.

So far you have not even shown a text that YOU admit "spells it out" and you admit it is not spelled out.

Can you show the text you presented that has the elements?

The whole reason I stopped teaching it is I realized I didn't have texts that said it.

 

[tall73]

Funny. I see it the other way. Only those who REALLY DON'T WANT to see the IJ (which they don't want to have a concept of) won't find it in the bible.

That is the exact opposite of what you said before.


And Stryder, people are not born with a concept of the IJ. If it is not spelled out, and you can only get it from Ellen and then try to see it in the Bible, then you are admitting it is not in the Bible.

 

[tall73]

It's there. The name may not be, but the process is. Judgment of the righteous occurring before the 2nd coming? Check. An established timeline for said judgment? Check. A judgment for the wicked? Check. Final judgment against Satan? Check. We simply connect the dots.

You haven't demonstrated the text that says there is a timeline of 1844. You haven't demonstrated a text that says a particular judgment on only the professed people of God before the second coming. You haven't demonstrated it is the fulfillment of the Day of Atonement type.

There are lots of judgments before the second coming. You seem to not grasp that you are to be demonstrating a particular one. And you haven't done it.

You pointed out Peter's text which dealt with his own time, not 1844.


And you pointed out Revelation 14, the context of which is judgment on Babylon, and says nothing about investigation, 1844, day of atonement, only on the saints, etc.

 

[Stryder06]

A. Since I never said the only judgment was at the second coming you were arguing against a straw man.

Obviously I was mistaken. All you had to do was say so. I wasn't arguing against a straw man since I wasn't arguing, only asking.

As for Peter's text, the entire context is about what they were going through then. If you want to say he meant something else, spell out why, not just say that you believe it.

I simply believe it's applicable to our time. That's all.

So you intend to add nothing to the conversation but keep telling us your opinion.

Ok.

Glad that's ok with you

Stryder, the number of people within Christianity who hold the the IJ is amazingly few.

I thought you meant Adventism, not Christianity as a whole. To that you are correct.

And you just admitted those who do believe it do so because of Ellen White. Congratulations.

Tall, you're the one with a problem with Sr White. Not me. I have no problem stating that I believe she did a great job in helping to explain this doctrine.

Now as to numbers, if no other folks are seeing your interpretation of a Scripture, you admit it is not spelled out, and you then admit that the only way to see it is to get it from Ellen White then look REALLY HARD, what are you saying?

I didn't say I only see it because of Ellen White. I believe she was of great use explaining it, but she is not the source. I made the connection, after getting older, simply by looking at the earthly sanctuary, which is a pattern of the heavenly one. You'd be surprised at just how little of Ellen I've actually read. But I guess that's neither here, nor there. I can't help that you don't see it in the scripture, but I do.

You only see it if Ellen White tells you to.

Right right. Blind...brainwashed....etc, etc. I get it.

So much for Adventist doctrine all coming from the Bible.

Right. False prophet...no scriptural support...we're wrong...etc, etc...

So far you have not even shown a text that YOU admit "spells it out" and you admit it is not spelled out.

Tall, I've said I'm not going through this with you because WE'VE DONE THAT ALREADY... I've had this conversation with you in the GT area. You've analyzed every scripture that I've shown you previously and explained where I was in error. I'm not a big fan of being redundant.

The whole reason I stopped teaching it is I realized I didn't have texts that said it.

The whole reason why I teach it is because I see the texts that say it. Not sure how you got to that conclusion.

That is the exact opposite of what you said before.

A play on words in response to your remark.

And Stryder, people are not born with a concept of the IJ. If it is not spelled out, and you can only get it from Ellen and then try to see it in the Bible, then you are admitting it is not in the Bible.

People aren't born with a concept of many a thing that is in the bible, which has to be explained. Some things are spelled out. Some things are presented cryptically. The IJ is just a name associated with an understanding of the judgment that is taking place in heaven. The title is not in scripture but the elements are:

The Judgment of the righteous before the second coming
The Judgment of the wicked after the 1000 years
The destruction of the Devil/end of sin

That's all in the scripture. 1844 is the time established after looking at the 2300 days given in the book of Daniel (which is not exclusive to the Milerites btw). You know that already and simply disagree, so why ask?

 

[OntheDL]

Tall,

I believe you have read quite a few books on the topic from both sides of the argument and for many months this was the subjects of discussion in this forum until you left the SDA church. And I think now you no longer hold your previous belief on the Sabbath either (I have not gotten an answer on that).

I don't see the point of you asking the same questions here again. Did I miss something? Did you ask anything new that hasn't been discussed multiple times in the past?

 

[Pythons]

The real shocker with all of this is that according to Ellen White there was the real possibility of no I.J. at all....
...If Jesus would have sinned & lost His Salvation then Father God would have eternally annihilated Him.
...& what Adventists currently call "God The Son" would have forever ceased to exist.

It reads similar to an episode of Star-Trek where Captain Picard and crew went "back in time"....
...And had to prevent the Borg ( who followed them back ) from altering "1st contact".
...So as to maintain the time continuum to insure that everything in the future would continue to exist.