Author Topic: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?  (Read 13264 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2443
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #261 on: February 20, 2014, 04:29:37 AM »
SwordofGod

This unconventional interpretation of Daniel and Revelation was, I understand first invented in the mid 1800s.We have had over 150 years since that time. What has since been discovered that suggests that this interpretation has any validity at all. Talk of Christ doing things is heaven is, of course, entirely a matter of belief but the chart you linked to suggests that things happening on earth can be linked to the interpretation. So,

1. What events can you point to on earth that can be realistically said to have been predicted by the interpretation?

2. On this interpretation, when will the world end?
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Online jynnan tonnix

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1747
  • Darwins +83/-1
  • Gender: Female
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #262 on: February 20, 2014, 08:26:42 AM »

Skeptic-whatever-the-fuck.


SwordOfGod.




You are just asking to get banned with your Lando Calrissian avatar.


Poe's Law, Asshole.

Poe's Law.

Yeah, why do SwordofGod and Skeptic have the same avatars? It's confusing. Did I miss something? Does Lando Calrissian have some sort of Christian symbolism? It's been way too long since I saw any Star Wars movies, and I honestly don't remember much of anything about his character.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #263 on: February 20, 2014, 08:37:05 AM »
Yeah, why do SwordofGod and Skeptic have the same avatars? It's confusing. Did I miss something? Does Lando Calrissian have some sort of Christian symbolism? It's been way too long since I saw any Star Wars movies, and I honestly don't remember much of anything about his character.

"StarWars" is one of the default categories of avatar that new members can choose.  It could be that two believers with the same sort of ideas randomly chose the same one - but they ddn't independantly upload them, they are picked from limited choice on the server.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11817
  • Darwins +297/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #264 on: February 20, 2014, 08:39:15 AM »
Yeah, they're not inventive like those of us who choose off site avatars.

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1908
  • Darwins +339/-7
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #265 on: February 20, 2014, 09:11:23 AM »
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/208/hj7n.jpg/
http://imageshack.com/a/img691/1365/0jqz.jpg

So 'soon and very soon' isn't really a time estimate or anything.  It just means that we're in the Third Woe.  You guys might want to rethink the use of words like 'soon' and 'very soon' though.  Bit misleading.

What's the basis for establishing that the 9/11/2001 attacks mark the beginning of the Third Woe and 'Modern Islam'?

How old is the Earth?

Edit: forget to add the quip about not using 'soon' or 'very soon'
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."
- Eddie Izzard

Offline SwordOfGod

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
  • Darwins +4/-35
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm having a good laugh here ha ha ha ha!
    • Seventh-day Adventist Church
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #266 on: February 20, 2014, 09:14:51 AM »
Nam...

LOVE the avatar!  ha ha ha.

"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible"

- Stuart Chase (R.I.P 1985)

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12125
  • Darwins +645/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #267 on: February 20, 2014, 10:30:25 AM »
So yes, God does care what day we go to church.. He commanded the Sabbath to be the day of rest and all who obey the Antichrist will die.

Does that sound even remotely rational to you?  Nevermind.  Don't answer that.  I can be sure you will say "yes" because as I pointed out, your whole religious identity hinges on it. 

Sorry, S.O.G., your quotes not withstanding, I just cannot imagine an ominmax and benevolent god that would get torqued up over what day we worship, as long as we worship.  It strikes me as something petty and beneath him, like a rule a low level bureaucrat would enforce simply because they have the slightest bit of power to make people comply.  There is nothing majestic or inspiring about it. 

God alone is the one who speaks for Himself,

Actually, no.  God never speaks for himself.  If you notice, he only ever speaks through other people.  And he often did it through the most unlikely people.  So, you really should pay attention. I actually could be here doing the lord's work. 


you are but a worm to Him.

That is quite a benevolent and generous god you have there.  You should be careful to not confuse yourself with god.  Because it seems to me you are trying to say that I am but a worm to you.  Which is neither nice nor correct.  And it is, you know, kind of blasphemous.

Technically, though, we would be even less than that.  We would be to god less than bacteria is to us.  Which begs the question, since we don't generally consider bacteria to be much more than a nuissance, why would god care about us at all?  Do we care which day bacteria prays to us?  And if it's the wrong day, does that really bother you?

William Miller, a BAPTIST minister,

whoa now.  Once you break away from actual Baptist teaching, you don't really get to call yourself a Baptist.  Lutherans don't call themselves Catholics.  And you don't call yourself baptist either. So stop with the pretense and argument.  Miller was a cult leader and a kook.  Your little cult was just a spin off of a failed end of times cult and you still, obviously, retain a lot of those Millerite end of times beliefs.  Quit protesting and accept it.

Ellen G White, said it was the entering of the Most Holy Place  (sanctuary) in the heavenly temple as revealed in a vision by God

Sure, sure. Vision by god.  And what makes her vision any more valid than, say, Old Joe Smith's visions (which lead to mormonism)?  Or any other weirdo who claimed to have visions from god whom you and I would both agree were religious kooks?  How can you tell the bona fide visionaries from the charlatans and the mentally ill?

Sister White was the founder of Adventism, not Miller.

But it was all based on Miller's beliefs with just a twist of White.  Gin with twist of lime is still gin.  Only, with a twist of lime.  You are a Millerite, with a twist.

However, such a Great Disappointment brought great repentance and a new spiritual passion to be pure and holy, serving God in love and fear.

Oh sure, the Great Dis was a good thing.  Of course.  It was definitely not a humiliating excoriation of ridiculous beliefs.  It was a clarification and vindication of them

Just like when the hebrews were defeated by the Babylonians and the temple was destroyed, that was not proof positive that Marduk was greater than yhwh.  No.  That was proof Marduk was sent by yhwh.  And when the Nazis killed a few million jews in the mid 20th century, that was not proof that yhwh was not in anyway protecting the "chosen people".  No.  The fact that some of them survived because of the Allies was proof of the opposite.

Here is something that may help you - a book on the psychology of failed prophecy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails

that link has a lot of good information along with further links to more good information.  Like cognitive dissonance and disconfirmed expectations.   It is not a coincidence that under the heading of "see also" there is a link to the Great Dis.  It is the exact same situation.  This is going to make you uncomfortable, but you need to face it for your own good.

 
I'll just label you a stupid fool who is not only deceived by the devil, but on a road to hell with no chance at all.

Sure.  You're the one who thinks a god who considers us to be worms cares what day the worms pray, and the Great Dis was a good, clarifying, vindicating event.  And I'm the stupid fool.  You sure got me.

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)

1. Don't threaten me.  It isn't nice. 

2. Especially don't threaten me with imaginary after-death punishments from fictional characters.  They do not scare me and make you look ridiculous.

3. Don't quote bible at me.  I'm immune to it.  It is like shooting bullets at Superman.  Only, I quote back:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’  But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."
Matt 5:43-45

"Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil"
Luke 6:22

I guess I should say thank you for the blessing.  You should ask yourself, "am I really are making jesus H proud?"  If I were jesus H, and for all you know, I could be, I would have to say, no, you're not.


Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Andy S.

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 152
  • Darwins +35/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #268 on: February 20, 2014, 10:44:39 AM »
Hey SwordOfGod.  Thanks for the lengthy response.  I will return the favor. 

I disagree with just about everything you said but it was an interesting post. I can see why it is like "walking in on a war zone" for you.  One of the main reasons it may have seemed that way to you is because you started out "preaching" which is actually against the rules here.  However, I like the preaching.  But then again, I'm one of those agnostic atheists who listen to Christian preaching on the radio everyday.  Not because I have to but because I want to.  Don't ask why, I don't know. 

By the way, I don't know if you are really "Skeptic" who is posing to be "SwordOfGod" or not.  I don't think you are (maybe I'm gullible) but I just want to let you know that there is another Christian on this forum named "Skeptic" with your same avatar so you might want to change your avatar.  That's why people are calling you "Skeptic". 

Regarding the guilt/punishment thing...  The gospel is good news, and tough news. It brings supernatural ecstasy and rough times. Joy and sorrow run together throughout God’s salvation program. It is the joy of travail that lets Jesus know He will be satisfied (Isa. 53:11). Travail is pain, but giving birth is joy.

I take it this is your answer to my question, "Don't you think it is wrong of your god to have people today avoid the guilt of Adam and Eve's original sin but still have to bear their punishment?".  I don't think you, as a man, are in a position to say, "giving birth is a joy".  My wife says that giving birth was not a "joy" even with pain relievers.  Our baby boy was a joy but giving birth was definitely not a "joy".  I know her testimony is anecdotal but I'm going to have to accept her evidence, as a women, over your view, as a man. 

In addition, you can't say universally that giving birth is a "joy" because women and children have, and still do, die during the process of childbirth.  That's not a "joyful" experience.     

You gave me Isa. 53:11 as a verse.  The end of the verse states, "He will bear their iniquities".  If you think the "he" is Jesus and he bore the "iniquities" (sins) of people then why do women still endure the punishment for the sins that Jesus took upon himself.  The punishment should be taken away and there should be no more pain in childbirth.  After Jesus bore everybody's sins on the cross, the earthly punishment of a painful childbirth should have been taken away and the new punishment (eternal torture), should be the only punishment people have on earth.  The fact that the punishment is two-fold (earthly and eternally) really makes your god look like a jerk.  If Jesus saves certain Christian women from their sins here on earth then the pain of childbirth should at least go away for these select women because that is the earthly punishment brought all the way down from Eve's sin.

If you ask me, Isaiah 53 can't be talking about Jesus because the fact that the punishment did not go away makes me think that Jesus was not the Servant that was described in chapter 53.  The "Servant" could be (or could have been) "Jacob".  In fact, Isaiah specifically says the "Servant" is "Jacob" as explained in Isaiah 44:1.  Or the "Servant" could be Israel like Isaiah 41:8 says.  Ethically and logically, I would say the "Servant" cannot be Jesus in Isaiah 53 because if he bore the earthly sins of people then the earthly punishment should be taken away.  Jesus should have taken the pain of childbirth with him on the cross. 

For example, if my wife shoots someone intentionally and the cops knock on my door and I accept the blame (or bear her "iniquity") for her wrongdoing, I also have to bear the punishment of her wrongdoing.  For this whole thing to make sense, Jesus should have bore not only the "iniquities" of people, but he should have also bore the punishment.  Humans should be free of any earthly punishment just like my wife would be free from the punishment of murder because I bore her "iniquity".     

We are promised that there will be no more pain in the perfect world to come. "He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away" (Rev. 21:4). Jesus pointed out that the pain a woman endures in childbirth but soon forgets is like the suffering that humans endure while on this earth, but that it too is fleeting. "A woman giving birth to a child has pain because her time has come; but when her baby is born she forgets the anguish because of her joy that a child is born into the world. So with you: Now is your time of grief, but I will see you again and you will rejoice, and no one will take away your joy" (John 16:21, 22).

My wife just read this and she called Jesus a liar.  She still remembers her anguish during childbirth. 

In additon, this doesn't answer the question as to why women still have pain in childbirth.  Why do women avoid carrying the guilt of Eve but still have to bear her punishment.  This is not a very powerful Savior if he can't relieve women of their pain here on earth.  God had the power to give women this pain on earth so why doesn't he have the power to take this pain away?  Your savior can save women from sin on earth but can't SAVE them from the punishment of sin on earth???  This makes no sense to me.  To play off of Epicurus' quote a bit:   

“Is God willing to take away the pain during childbirth, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then why do women still have pain during childbirth?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

 

The concept of salvation is so deep and complex that we will never fully understand the plan until God reveals it to us face-to-face after the Second Coming.

I see this as a huge red flag.  As a human who tries everyday to use logic and reason, I try not to accept things until I fully understand them.  Salvation should not be "deep and complex" to humans especially when eternal torment could be a consequence for not accepting this plan.  The concept of salvation should be one of the easiest things for humans to understand.  Since it is not one of the easiest things to understand, I think your god is malevolent.  God's plan of salvation should be easy for humans to understand if this god wants to be viewed as a god worthy of worship.

However, each baby that is born is a reminder of how Jesus fulfilled prophecy to save us from pain forever.

I'm confused.  I have never heard this before.  "Each baby that is born is a reminder of how Jesus fulfilled prophecy to save us from pain forever"???  Christians don't KNOW that they don't have pain forever so how can you say that Jesus FULFILLED PROPHECY to save humans from pain forever?  Christians have faith that they might not have pain in heaven but you can't say this is fulfilled prophecy.  I might not be understanding you correctly.  Can you clarify?

Maybe you might be saying that god did not take the pain of childbirth away after he sacrificed himself to himself because he wanted this pain of childbirth to be a reminder of how he fulfilled prophecy.  If so, your god is a jerk.  I see no other way around this.  This is not a description of a loving god.


In terms of Christianity, those labelled a 'cult' are victims of forced doctrinal conformity who have rejected calls for ecumenicalism. Those who do not conform to the majority view are deemed a 'cult' in a futile attempt to delegitimize faith and practice.  However, we are not a cult.  Cults all have one thing in common; they deviate from historical Christianity. 

The problem with your definition of "cult" is that nobody really knows for sure what "historical Christianity" really was.  The bible is written so ambiguously that no denomination can claim they have "sound doctrine".  For instance, I could say that most all Christian denominations "deviate from historical Christianity" because the Christians who wrote the New Testament were not Trinitarians.  I could pretend I am a Christian apologist and you could pretend you are a Christian apologist and we could shoot verses back and forth to one another that defend our positions but in the end, if we were honest with ourselves, both of us would have to remain agnostic on this topic because the bible is written too ambiguously to come to a conclusion. 

You don't KNOW if the writers were Trinitarian.  You don't KNOW that the writers of the NT believed that the father, son, and holy spirit were con-substantial (one being), co-equal, and co-eternal like the doctrine of the Trinity suggests.  Therefore, you don't KNOW if your denomination is deviating from "historical Christianity" because the nature of the godhead is unclear in the bible.

Conclusion:  There is no such thing as a "cult expert" so don't pretend to be one!   

What makes SDA's not a cult?  What is it that other Christian denominations have deviated from?  We keep the Sabbath and dont eat pork, just as Jesus and ALL his disciples did.  The other churches do deviate as they eat pork and keep Sunday, a day never commanded once in the bible.

Proof.

''The [Roman Catholic] Church changed the observance of the Sabbath to Sunday by right of the divine, infallible authority given to her by her founder, Jesus Christ. The Protestant claiming the Bible to be the only guide of faith, has no warrant for observing Sunday. In this matter the Seventh-day Adventist is the only consistent Protestant.'' The Catholic Universe Bulletin, August 14, 1942, p. 4

Sooooooo....the SDA's are not a cult because the Roman Catholic church says, "the Seventh-day Adventist is the only consistent Protestant"??? 

Soooooo.....the Roman Catholic church does not have the authority to change the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday but they do have the authority to name your denomination "the only consistent Protestant"???

Soooooo......you call this "proof" that the SDA's are not a cult???  You might want to look up the logical fallacy called "non-sequitur".

In addition, I am going to make an argument that the other churches do NOT deviate from historical Christianity because they eat pork and keep Sunday.  It is a matter of interpretation but I think "other churches" have every right to eat pork and worship on Sunday.  I hope I don't get "disciplined" by a moderator but I give you Paul's "preaching" in Romans chapter 14 (emphasis on bold):

     "1 Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. 2 One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. 3 The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

5 One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God. 7 For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; 8 for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. 9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

10 But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. 11 For it is written,

“As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to Me,
And every tongue shall give praise to God.”

12 So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God.

13 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this—not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother’s way. 14 I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil; 17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 For he who in this way serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. 19 So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another. 20 Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense. 21 It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles. 22 The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. 23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.




"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race, have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion."
~Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

Offline SwordOfGod

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
  • Darwins +4/-35
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm having a good laugh here ha ha ha ha!
    • Seventh-day Adventist Church
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #269 on: February 20, 2014, 11:23:33 AM »
SwordofGod

This unconventional interpretation of Daniel and Revelation was, I understand first invented in the mid 1800s.We have had over 150 years since that time. What has since been discovered that suggests that this interpretation has any validity at all. Talk of Christ doing things is heaven is, of course, entirely a matter of belief but the chart you linked to suggests that things happening on earth can be linked to the interpretation. So,

1. What events can you point to on earth that can be realistically said to have been predicted by the interpretation?

2. On this interpretation, when will the world end?

Wheels..

You are certainly right when you say 'Christ doing things in heaven is a matter of belief'.  Other denominations have different views on it.  However, personally, I regard the Adventist position to make most sense. I was in the Pentecostal church for many years when I took an interest in end time prophecy (eschatology).  This led me to change my views and adopt the Adventist interpretation, since as you'll see below, it is based on the Antiochene school of thought, the first people called Christians in the Bible.

Regarding the interpretation you mentioned, we have a Historicist view of eschatology.  Seventh-day Adventists believe the Christian church is the historical continuation of the Old Testament Israel as God's people, centered around Jesus, and that Old Testament end-time prophecies about Israel will be fulfilled more broadly. This stands in contrast to dispensationalism, a popular conservative / fundamentalist Christian view, which sees a prominent place for the nation of Israel in the end-times, hence their blind support of the modern state of Israel. Adventist hermeneutics categorically rejects preterism, futurism and idealism as proper hermeneutical systems of interpretation of Bible prophecy. Our use of biblical typology follows the ancient Antiochene school of interpretation in contrast to the Alexandrian school of thought. Interpretation of prophecy is better understood in light of the past. Adventists believe revelation is progressive. Pieces of the jigsaw are revealed over time which gives us understanding and builds up the overall picture of end time events. 

To answer your points specifically:

1. a) Emperor Justinians Decree was made in 538 AD 
http://www.thethirdangelsmessage.com/justinian_code.php this is the official document

    b)  in 538 A.D., Belisarius, one of Justinian's generals routed the Ostrogoths, the last of the barbarian kingdoms, from the city of Rome and the bishop of Rome could begin establishing his universal civil authority. So, by the military intervention of the Eastern Roman Empire, the bishop of Rome became all-powerful throughout the area of the old Roman Empire.  This marked the rise of the 'little horn power' in Daniel 7 which ruled for exactly 1260 years as the bible foretold.

c)  The little horn power is identified as:

                                                 A Little horn      -      The Vatican is a little country

It comes up among the other horns  Dan 7:8    -      The Catholic Church came to power among the ten split kingdoms of Europe

It plucks up 3 of the other horns     Dan 7:8       -      The Catholic Church destroyed 3 kingdoms, Heruli, Vandals + Ostrogoths. (7 left of ten toes of Daniel 2 Dream / kingdoms)

It is diverse from the other 10 horns   Dan 7:24   -    The Papacy (Catholic Church) is a religio-political power

It speaks great things against God     Dan 7:25 -     The Catholic Church speaks blasphemies against God

It wears out the saints      Dan 7:25                -       The Catholic Church persecuted and killed millions of Christians

It thinks to change times and law   Dan 7:25   -      The Catholic church thinks it can change the laws of God, Sabbath to Sunday etc

It thinks to change times and law   Dan 7:25   -      The Catholic Church reigned between 538AD - 1798AD

It ruled for 1260 years  Dan 7:25                     -       The Catholic Church reigned between 538AD - 1798AD



2.  Since we are near the climax of world history, which all denominations agree on at least, this gives us strong indication that the time prophecies are coming to a close. 

We know from the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, that was In Daniel 11:40 the Soviet Union is the king of the south, the Papacy is the king of the north, and the United States is the chariots, ships and horsemen. Verse 40 says that at the time of the end, in 1798, the king of the south, atheism, was going to begin a war against the Papacy, the king of the north. As Seventh-day Adventists we know that in 1798 atheistic France delivered the deadly wound to the Papacy. That’s Daniel 11:40. But it continues on in the verse to say, that in time, in a period of time, the king of the north would return and retaliate against atheism, the king of the south. The verse also says, that when the king of the north, the Papacy, retaliates against atheism, the king of the south, when that takes place, that the king of the north, the Papacy, would have the ally of the United States – the chariots, ships and horsemen. This demonstrates how in the Ronald Reagan years, Ronald Reagan formed a secret alliance with the antichrist of Bible prophecy (Rome / Pope) for the purpose of sweeping away the king of the south, the Soviet Union. That was fulfilled in 1989. That is the history of Daniel 11:40.

The Antichrist (Pope) actually takes credit for the fall of communism. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28398-2005Apr5.html


Source: http://www.little-book.org/
"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible"

- Stuart Chase (R.I.P 1985)

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11817
  • Darwins +297/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #270 on: February 20, 2014, 11:37:37 AM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventist_eschatology -- a lot of what is posted above comes directly, word-for-word from this link.

That's called plagiarism when you don't source.

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously.

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6269
  • Darwins +722/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #271 on: February 20, 2014, 11:40:51 AM »


c)  The little horn power is identified as:

                                                 A Little horn      -      The Vatican is a little country
<snip>
It ruled for 1260 years  Dan 7:25                     -       The Catholic Church reigned between 538AD - 1798AD

I am in no academic position too enter into this discussion, but I have a quick question, Sword.  How does your recently formed religion and this specific look at Catholicism excuse away the statement that the Catholic Church ruled between 538 and 1798, but it did not (the Vatican) become a country until 1929. Wouldn't their failure to overlap chronologically kind of put a crimp in at leafs one of those claims?

Or is it just a case that as long as all those prophecies happen, it doesn't matter in what order?

Edit: Fixed bad edit in the original.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2014, 11:42:35 AM by ParkingPlaces »
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline SwordOfGod

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
  • Darwins +4/-35
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm having a good laugh here ha ha ha ha!
    • Seventh-day Adventist Church
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #272 on: February 20, 2014, 11:48:55 AM »
So yes, God does care what day we go to church.. He commanded the Sabbath to be the day of rest and all who obey the Antichrist will die.

Does that sound even remotely rational to you?  Nevermind.  Don't answer that.  I can be sure you will say "yes" because as I pointed out, your whole religious identity hinges on it. 

Sorry, S.O.G., your quotes not withstanding, I just cannot imagine an ominmax and benevolent god that would get torqued up over what day we worship, as long as we worship.  It strikes me as something petty and beneath him, like a rule a low level bureaucrat would enforce simply because they have the slightest bit of power to make people comply.  There is nothing majestic or inspiring about it. 

God alone is the one who speaks for Himself,

Actually, no.  God never speaks for himself.  If you notice, he only ever speaks through other people.  And he often did it through the most unlikely people.  So, you really should pay attention. I actually could be here doing the lord's work. 


you are but a worm to Him.

That is quite a benevolent and generous god you have there.  You should be careful to not confuse yourself with god.  Because it seems to me you are trying to say that I am but a worm to you.  Which is neither nice nor correct.  And it is, you know, kind of blasphemous.

Technically, though, we would be even less than that.  We would be to god less than bacteria is to us.  Which begs the question, since we don't generally consider bacteria to be much more than a nuissance, why would god care about us at all?  Do we care which day bacteria prays to us?  And if it's the wrong day, does that really bother you?

William Miller, a BAPTIST minister,

whoa now.  Once you break away from actual Baptist teaching, you don't really get to call yourself a Baptist.  Lutherans don't call themselves Catholics.  And you don't call yourself baptist either. So stop with the pretense and argument.  Miller was a cult leader and a kook.  Your little cult was just a spin off of a failed end of times cult and you still, obviously, retain a lot of those Millerite end of times beliefs.  Quit protesting and accept it.

Ellen G White, said it was the entering of the Most Holy Place  (sanctuary) in the heavenly temple as revealed in a vision by God

Sure, sure. Vision by god.  And what makes her vision any more valid than, say, Old Joe Smith's visions (which lead to mormonism)?  Or any other weirdo who claimed to have visions from god whom you and I would both agree were religious kooks?  How can you tell the bona fide visionaries from the charlatans and the mentally ill?

Sister White was the founder of Adventism, not Miller.

But it was all based on Miller's beliefs with just a twist of White.  Gin with twist of lime is still gin.  Only, with a twist of lime.  You are a Millerite, with a twist.

However, such a Great Disappointment brought great repentance and a new spiritual passion to be pure and holy, serving God in love and fear.

Oh sure, the Great Dis was a good thing.  Of course.  It was definitely not a humiliating excoriation of ridiculous beliefs.  It was a clarification and vindication of them

Just like when the hebrews were defeated by the Babylonians and the temple was destroyed, that was not proof positive that Marduk was greater than yhwh.  No.  That was proof Marduk was sent by yhwh.  And when the Nazis killed a few million jews in the mid 20th century, that was not proof that yhwh was not in anyway protecting the "chosen people".  No.  The fact that some of them survived because of the Allies was proof of the opposite.

Here is something that may help you - a book on the psychology of failed prophecy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails

that link has a lot of good information along with further links to more good information.  Like cognitive dissonance and disconfirmed expectations.   It is not a coincidence that under the heading of "see also" there is a link to the Great Dis.  It is the exact same situation.  This is going to make you uncomfortable, but you need to face it for your own good.

 
I'll just label you a stupid fool who is not only deceived by the devil, but on a road to hell with no chance at all.

Sure.  You're the one who thinks a god who considers us to be worms cares what day the worms pray, and the Great Dis was a good, clarifying, vindicating event.  And I'm the stupid fool.  You sure got me.

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)

1. Don't threaten me.  It isn't nice. 

2. Especially don't threaten me with imaginary after-death punishments from fictional characters.  They do not scare me and make you look ridiculous.

3. Don't quote bible at me.  I'm immune to it.  It is like shooting bullets at Superman.  Only, I quote back:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’  But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."
Matt 5:43-45

"Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil"
Luke 6:22

I guess I should say thank you for the blessing.  You should ask yourself, "am I really are making jesus H proud?"  If I were jesus H, and for all you know, I could be, I would have to say, no, you're not.

Exposing error (Eph 5:11) and pointing out facts is not hate, for truth is no respecter of persons.  It is true whether you like it or not. We live in an age of relative truth and in a politically correct society where views that upset others are incorrectly seen by the opposing side as 'hate'. Such a world would have football games where there was never any winner or loser.  That's the sort of truth you promote.

Worm Theology was more acceptable by Christians of previous generations, but it is a way of emphasizing mans sorry state. St. Paul writes "What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?" (Romans 7:24, NIV).

You should read 1 Philippians 15-18:

15 It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. 16 The latter do so out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17 The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. 18 But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice

Insinuating I hate you is very negative, and quite untrue.  However, I quote the verse for your viewing pleasure since you are so immune to it.
"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible"

- Stuart Chase (R.I.P 1985)

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2443
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #273 on: February 20, 2014, 11:53:58 AM »
Needless to say, I don't subscribe to this view of the text of Daniel. There appears not reason to apply it to any particular period later that the period to which it naturally fits. Let's start by dating the writing. The historical detail is such that by th time the text gets to Antiochus Epiphanes it is at its greatest detail - especially the desecration of the Temple. This would lead us to date it a little after the cleansing of the Temple so maybe around 160BCE. Now the Canon of the Prophets was closed at about 200BCE and Daniel failed to make it (see the Septuagint which dates from then). The only explanations available were either that it wasn't thought suitable or that it wasn't written. In made it into the Hebrews scriptures so likely the latter is more accurate.

So, if we are working with a date of around 160BCE we can see that the figure you reckon covers modern history has already passed. The kings were the king  with the final one being Antiochus himself.There's nothing prophetic about it at all - it merely recounts events that have already happened. I'm sorry that people like Miller tried some rather dodgy ideas out on such a text - especially as he made quite a few assumptions that have no place but to fit his decided pattern. We ought to be reminded of Harold Camping who also made calculations from bible books only to find it was wrong. It would probably have been better if his ideas had been discarded when his calculations failed. As it is it is pure speculation that anything at all happened in 1844 or indeed later.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline SwordOfGod

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
  • Darwins +4/-35
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm having a good laugh here ha ha ha ha!
    • Seventh-day Adventist Church
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #274 on: February 20, 2014, 12:04:55 PM »


c)  The little horn power is identified as:

                                                 A Little horn      -      The Vatican is a little country
<snip>
It ruled for 1260 years  Dan 7:25                     -       The Catholic Church reigned between 538AD - 1798AD


I am in no academic position too enter into this discussion, but I have a quick question, Sword.  How does your recently formed religion and this specific look at Catholicism excuse away the statement that the Catholic Church ruled between 538 and 1798, but it did not (the Vatican) become a country until 1929. Wouldn't their failure to overlap chronologically kind of put a crimp in at leafs one of those claims?

Or is it just a case that as long as all those prophecies happen, it doesn't matter in what order?

Edit: Fixed bad edit in the original.

Glad you asked that question! Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventist_eschatology] states that SDAs teach that
Quote
in 1798, the French General Berthier exiled the Pope and took away all his authority, which was later restored in 1929. This is the fulfillment of the prophecy that the Beast (RCC) of Revelation would receive a deadly wound (1798)  but that the wound would be healed. The wounding (1798) and healing (1929) in Revelation 13:3 is referring to the papacy, when General Louis Berthier's captured Pope Pius VI in 1798 and then the state of the Vatican coming into existence in 1929 was the healing of the deadly wound.

So, the 1260 days happened first as predicted according to Daniel 7, then in Revelation 13:3, the 'Mortal Wound' of the beast was 'healed' until the time of the end.

Attribution added.

SwordOfGod, missing out an attribution is an easy mistake to make: please watch out for it.
GB Mod

« Last Edit: February 20, 2014, 01:13:04 PM by Graybeard »
"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible"

- Stuart Chase (R.I.P 1985)

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11817
  • Darwins +297/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #275 on: February 20, 2014, 12:10:10 PM »


c)  The little horn power is identified as:

                                                 A Little horn      -      The Vatican is a little country
<snip>
It ruled for 1260 years  Dan 7:25                     -       The Catholic Church reigned between 538AD - 1798AD


I am in no academic position too enter into this discussion, but I have a quick question, Sword.  How does your recently formed religion and this specific look at Catholicism excuse away the statement that the Catholic Church ruled between 538 and 1798, but it did not (the Vatican) become a country until 1929. Wouldn't their failure to overlap chronologically kind of put a crimp in at leafs one of those claims?

Or is it just a case that as long as all those prophecies happen, it doesn't matter in what order?

Edit: Fixed bad edit in the original.

Glad you asked that question! SDAs teach that in 1798, the French General Berthier exiled the Pope and took away all his authority, which was later restored in 1929. This is the fulfillment of the prophecy that the Beast (RCC) of Revelation would receive a deadly wound (1798)  but that the wound would be healed. The wounding (1798) and healing (1929) in Revelation 13:3 is referring to the papacy, when General Louis Berthier's captured Pope Pius VI in 1798 and then the state of the Vatican coming into existence in 1929 was the healing of the deadly wound.

So, the 1260 days happened first as predicted according to Daniel 7, then in Revelation 13:3, the 'Mortal Wound' of the beast was 'healed' until the time of the end.

Stop copy/pasting from wikipedia as if these are your words. How difficult is it to source and use the quote function? Hell, there's a wiki function, use that. Stop plagiarizing!

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously.

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2443
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #276 on: February 20, 2014, 12:10:33 PM »


c)  The little horn power is identified as:

                                                 A Little horn      -      The Vatican is a little country
<snip>
It ruled for 1260 years  Dan 7:25                     -       The Catholic Church reigned between 538AD - 1798AD


I am in no academic position too enter into this discussion, but I have a quick question, Sword.  How does your recently formed religion and this specific look at Catholicism excuse away the statement that the Catholic Church ruled between 538 and 1798, but it did not (the Vatican) become a country until 1929. Wouldn't their failure to overlap chronologically kind of put a crimp in at leafs one of those claims?

Or is it just a case that as long as all those prophecies happen, it doesn't matter in what order?

Edit: Fixed bad edit in the original.

Glad you asked that question! SDAs teach that in 1798, the French General Berthier exiled the Pope and took away all his authority, which was later restored in 1929. This is the fulfillment of the prophecy that the Beast (RCC) of Revelation would receive a deadly wound (1798)  but that the wound would be healed. The wounding (1798) and healing (1929) in Revelation 13:3 is referring to the papacy, when General Louis Berthier's captured Pope Pius VI in 1798 and then the state of the Vatican coming into existence in 1929 was the healing of the deadly wound.

So, the 1260 days happened first as predicted according to Daniel 7, then in Revelation 13:3, the 'Mortal Wound' of the beast was 'healed' until the time of the end.

I'm sorry but once again, you have no reason to assume that the Apocalypse is telling the future. The author is busy trying to help fellow Christians caught up in persecutions from Rome - maybe under Nero or possible Domitian. He writes in code that is easily understood by those who know the OT to avoid problems of the literature being found by the Romans. There is nothing in there that links anything to present history except the imagination of modern people - and then its more a matter of finding events and looking back to get the bible to agree with them.

Remember, if this system was right, Jesus would be back on earth in 1844. The fact that he did not ought to raise serious questions as to the whole validity of these calculations yet, somehow,   that problem is ignored.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline SwordOfGod

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
  • Darwins +4/-35
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm having a good laugh here ha ha ha ha!
    • Seventh-day Adventist Church
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #277 on: February 20, 2014, 12:12:11 PM »
Needless to say, I don't subscribe to this view of the text of Daniel. There appears not reason to apply it to any particular period later that the period to which it naturally fits. Let's start by dating the writing. The historical detail is such that by th time the text gets to Antiochus Epiphanes it is at its greatest detail - especially the desecration of the Temple. This would lead us to date it a little after the cleansing of the Temple so maybe around 160BCE. Now the Canon of the Prophets was closed at about 200BCE and Daniel failed to make it (see the Septuagint which dates from then). The only explanations available were either that it wasn't thought suitable or that it wasn't written. In made it into the Hebrews scriptures so likely the latter is more accurate.

So, if we are working with a date of around 160BCE we can see that the figure you reckon covers modern history has already passed. The kings were the king  with the final one being Antiochus himself.There's nothing prophetic about it at all - it merely recounts events that have already happened. I'm sorry that people like Miller tried some rather dodgy ideas out on such a text - especially as he made quite a few assumptions that have no place but to fit his decided pattern. We ought to be reminded of Harold Camping who also made calculations from bible books only to find it was wrong. It would probably have been better if his ideas had been discarded when his calculations failed. As it is it is pure speculation that anything at all happened in 1844 or indeed later.

Careful, careful!  You'd have more chance of starting up your own cultic church denomination with views like that!  Joking aside, such views are like holding paper to a fiery furnace.. they just go up in smoke when touched by the reality of the facts. But well done for trying.

"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible"

- Stuart Chase (R.I.P 1985)

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11817
  • Darwins +297/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #278 on: February 20, 2014, 12:12:33 PM »
Wheels,

You can read all his responses at wiki. He copy/pastes them from there. You're not arguing with him, you're arguing with an article.

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1908
  • Darwins +339/-7
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #279 on: February 20, 2014, 12:13:41 PM »
Glad you asked that question! SDAs teach that in 1798, the French General Berthier exiled the Pope and took away all his authority, which was later restored in 1929. This is the fulfillment of the prophecy that the Beast (RCC) of Revelation would receive a deadly wound (1798)  but that the wound would be healed. The wounding (1798) and healing (1929) in Revelation 13:3 is referring to the papacy, when General Louis Berthier's captured Pope Pius VI in 1798 and then the state of the Vatican coming into existence in 1929 was the healing of the deadly wound.

So, the 1260 days happened first as predicted according to Daniel 7, then in Revelation 13:3, the 'Mortal Wound' of the beast was 'healed' until the time of the end.

Why doesn't god tell the laity of the Catholic church that they are a part of The Beast of Revelation and should consider rethinking their support of the organization?  I mean, at the very least, that's like...many millions of people[1] who earnestly wish to follow god but are unintentionally part of a very disingenuous club.

Seems pretty unfair to me.
 1. I tend to take numbers showing the number of practicing Catholics with a grain of salt, so I'll just low-ball to be on the safe side
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."
- Eddie Izzard

Offline SwordOfGod

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
  • Darwins +4/-35
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm having a good laugh here ha ha ha ha!
    • Seventh-day Adventist Church
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #280 on: February 20, 2014, 12:14:18 PM »


c)  The little horn power is identified as:

                                                 A Little horn      -      The Vatican is a little country
<snip>
It ruled for 1260 years  Dan 7:25                     -       The Catholic Church reigned between 538AD - 1798AD


I am in no academic position too enter into this discussion, but I have a quick question, Sword.  How does your recently formed religion and this specific look at Catholicism excuse away the statement that the Catholic Church ruled between 538 and 1798, but it did not (the Vatican) become a country until 1929. Wouldn't their failure to overlap chronologically kind of put a crimp in at leafs one of those claims?

Or is it just a case that as long as all those prophecies happen, it doesn't matter in what order?

Edit: Fixed bad edit in the original.

Glad you asked that question! SDAs teach that in 1798, the French General Berthier exiled the Pope and took away all his authority, which was later restored in 1929. This is the fulfillment of the prophecy that the Beast (RCC) of Revelation would receive a deadly wound (1798)  but that the wound would be healed. The wounding (1798) and healing (1929) in Revelation 13:3 is referring to the papacy, when General Louis Berthier's captured Pope Pius VI in 1798 and then the state of the Vatican coming into existence in 1929 was the healing of the deadly wound.

So, the 1260 days happened first as predicted according to Daniel 7, then in Revelation 13:3, the 'Mortal Wound' of the beast was 'healed' until the time of the end.

Stop copy/pasting from wikipedia as if these are your words. How difficult is it to source and use the quote function? Hell, there's a wiki function, use that. Stop plagiarizing!

-Nam

Its not a copy and paste. 
"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible"

- Stuart Chase (R.I.P 1985)

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11817
  • Darwins +297/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #281 on: February 20, 2014, 12:16:30 PM »
Yes it is: 1798, the French General Berthier exiled the Pope and took away all his authority, which was later restored in 1929: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventist_eschatology

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously.

Offline Mrjason

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1192
  • Darwins +89/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #282 on: February 20, 2014, 12:17:06 PM »
    b)  in 538 A.D., Belisarius, one of Justinian's generals routed the Ostrogoths, the last of the barbarian kingdoms, from the city of Rome and the bishop of Rome could begin establishing his universal civil authority. So, by the military intervention of the Eastern Roman Empire, the bishop of Rome became all-powerful throughout the area of the old Roman Empire.  This marked the rise of the 'little horn power' in Daniel 7 which ruled for exactly 1260 years as the bible foretold.


True, except you missed the part where the pagan LombardsWiki invaded in 568 C.E. Granted one of their later kings, AdaloaldWiki, was a Christian but he didn't get onto the throne until 616. I make that exactly 1182 years or 1212 depending on whether you're counting total time or consecutive time for the rise of the little horn.
Of course even the two estimates of number of years given above are total bollocks as rome has been sacked more that once after 616 and popes have been murdered and replaced by puppets on several occasions due to European political intrigue

Offline SwordOfGod

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
  • Darwins +4/-35
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm having a good laugh here ha ha ha ha!
    • Seventh-day Adventist Church
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #283 on: February 20, 2014, 12:18:48 PM »
Wheels,

You can read all his responses at wiki. He copy/pastes them from there. You're not arguing with him, you're arguing with an article.

-Nam

All facts have to be verified before i confirm in my own words. Sources are given.  See my previous posts.
"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible"

- Stuart Chase (R.I.P 1985)

Offline SwordOfGod

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
  • Darwins +4/-35
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm having a good laugh here ha ha ha ha!
    • Seventh-day Adventist Church
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #284 on: February 20, 2014, 12:22:20 PM »
Nam, just putting a link next to my work is no proof at all. All my work is sourced and links provided.  Anyone can google my responses by copying mine and googling it.. there will be source links on my posts.

"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible"

- Stuart Chase (R.I.P 1985)

Offline SwordOfGod

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
  • Darwins +4/-35
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm having a good laugh here ha ha ha ha!
    • Seventh-day Adventist Church
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #285 on: February 20, 2014, 12:25:20 PM »


c)  The little horn power is identified as:

                                                 A Little horn      -      The Vatican is a little country
<snip>
It ruled for 1260 years  Dan 7:25                     -       The Catholic Church reigned between 538AD - 1798AD


I am in no academic position too enter into this discussion, but I have a quick question, Sword.  How does your recently formed religion and this specific look at Catholicism excuse away the statement that the Catholic Church ruled between 538 and 1798, but it did not (the Vatican) become a country until 1929. Wouldn't their failure to overlap chronologically kind of put a crimp in at leafs one of those claims?

Or is it just a case that as long as all those prophecies happen, it doesn't matter in what order?

Edit: Fixed bad edit in the original.

Glad you asked that question! SDAs teach that in 1798, the French General Berthier exiled the Pope and took away all his authority, which was later restored in 1929. This is the fulfillment of the prophecy that the Beast (RCC) of Revelation would receive a deadly wound (1798)  but that the wound would be healed. The wounding (1798) and healing (1929) in Revelation 13:3 is referring to the papacy, when General Louis Berthier's captured Pope Pius VI in 1798 and then the state of the Vatican coming into existence in 1929 was the healing of the deadly wound.

So, the 1260 days happened first as predicted according to Daniel 7, then in Revelation 13:3, the 'Mortal Wound' of the beast was 'healed' until the time of the end.

Stop copy/pasting from wikipedia as if these are your words. How difficult is it to source and use the quote function? Hell, there's a wiki function, use that. Stop plagiarizing!

-Nam


Go back and see the source link in my post and open your eyes instead of flapping about like a blind bat.  Stop being such a moron.
"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible"

- Stuart Chase (R.I.P 1985)

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11817
  • Darwins +297/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #286 on: February 20, 2014, 12:26:53 PM »
Nam, just putting a link next to my work is no proof at all. All my work is sourced and links provided.  Anyone can google my responses by copying mine and googling it.. there will be source links on my posts.



Oh, so after you wrote that here in response to someone, someone grabbed it up, and placed it at Wikipedia, and other websites where I found it? Let's say it's true: how do we know they are your words? Because you say so?

Please...you're like others here: you don't think for yourself, you don't know how. Your religion speaks for you so you use their words, not your own.

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously.

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11817
  • Darwins +297/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #287 on: February 20, 2014, 12:34:39 PM »
Go back and see the source link in my post and open your eyes instead of flapping about like a blind bat.  Stop being such a moron.

Your reply #274 has no links, nor sources. Copy/pasted from wiki, the link I provide above, it's under "Antichrist" of the article.

Glad you asked that question! SDAs teach that in 1798, the French General Berthier exiled the Pope and took away all his authority, which was later restored in 1929. This is the fulfillment of the prophecy that the Beast (RCC) of Revelation would receive a deadly wound (1798)  but that the wound would be healed. The wounding (1798) and healing (1929) in Revelation 13:3 is referring to the papacy, when General Louis Berthier's captured Pope Pius VI in 1798 and then the state of the Vatican coming into existence in 1929 was the healing of the deadly wound.

So, the 1260 days happened first as predicted according to Daniel 7, then in Revelation 13:3, the 'Mortal Wound' of the beast was 'healed' until the time of the end.

Where is the link, source, huh?

And I checked your other links to the other comment the first half is from wiki, the rest is to the link is you provided.

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously.

Offline SwordOfGod

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
  • Darwins +4/-35
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm having a good laugh here ha ha ha ha!
    • Seventh-day Adventist Church
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #288 on: February 20, 2014, 12:37:07 PM »
I have got facts checked and they are sourced.  I am not the inventor of Adventism, so I do not speak something new, but about something which has been said millions of times before, so its very probable that millions of other people have written about it online and we might actually say the same thing word for word in places. 

However, I can assure you, my posts ARE sourced as can be seen previously by all here. My writings are NOT 100% plagiarized as you make out and I say that as an honest person defending the faith.

 
"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible"

- Stuart Chase (R.I.P 1985)

Offline SwordOfGod

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
  • Darwins +4/-35
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm having a good laugh here ha ha ha ha!
    • Seventh-day Adventist Church
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #289 on: February 20, 2014, 12:40:10 PM »
As stated, that is not a copy and paste as you claim. 
"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible"

- Stuart Chase (R.I.P 1985)