₦airaland Forum

https://www.bibleuniversity.com/images/CourseID1/lesson16-13.jpg

In A.D. 34, there remained 1,810 years of the 2,300-day prophecy. (Note dates in diagram above.) Adding 1,810 years to A.D. 34 brings us to the autumn of 1844. The angel said that at that time, the heavenly sanctuary would be cleansed. (The earthly sanctuary was destroyed in A.D. 70.) Jesus, our high priest in heaven (Hebrews 4:14-16; 8:1-5), began removing the records of sin from the heavenly sanctuary (Revelation 20:12; Acts 3:19-21) in 1844. This first phase of the judgment is called the pre-advent judgment because it takes place before Jesus' second coming.

If 'Babylon' includes 'professed christian churches', why did you not answer the question earlier as to if SDA was also a 'professed christian church'? Now who's the lair, Mr. SDA?? This is why when you read with small brains, you get yourself officially promoted as Nairaland's biggest liar yourself:

I see your technicality Shahan. The fact that I am even making such a statement means that I have excluded my denom from babylon. Can't your logical mind see that? Do I have to spell it out for you? Isn't it obvious that because I am apart of the SDA church that I would naturally think it is not apart of babylon? Hahaha, , You guys never fail to amuse me!

And the funny thing is, is that you think the same way. If you didn't think that your denom was representing all that Christ expected, would you be there now? The fact that you on this board have disagreements with others about the matter of Jesus being God means that you would certainly not be found in such denoms that uphold that Jesus wasn't God would you? In your heart you're saying that those movements are based on false teachings.

I understand. . . you were served your own syrup and you couldn't take it, no? If you had not labelled others as 'babylon' and refused to answer a simple question thereto with regards to your own 'denom', we all would have had a good exchange of ideas and understanding. To you, others' inputs are off the mark - as if you could read in the first place.

Anyway you choose to put it, the fact is there is a babylon as spoken by the prophet John. The term babylon constitutes, whether you desire to accept it or not, false worship. However, I am not labelling others in the sense that you and malik think I am doing it. The SDA church doesn't need to take that overly-righteous approach, nor do I.

All I am saying is that not all denoms out there are teaching the truth as it is in Jesus. Those denoms happen to have people in them that will one day leave and join with the true bible-beliving christians who are prepared to go with Jesus all the way. I am not excluding you or Malik, or anyone else here on this board who happens to profess Christ. That was never my objective when I raised the issue of babylon.

With regards to my denom the SDA church, I am apart of it because of my conviction that it represents what God intends for His end-time church to be representing. I am also aware that there is a lot to be desired, and that we have problems just like anyone else, because when the rubber touches the road, we are humans, right?

So when I use the term we are closest I mean that when I compare biblical teachings, the SDA church's teachings are bible-based. All our doctrines can be supported by scriptures.

Am I committing a crime when I think or express how I feel?

https://www.bibleuniversity.com/images/CourseID1/lesson16-09.jpg

The illustration above shows the time span from BC457 - AD34 which represents 490 literal years of bible prophecy. If we subtract 457 from 2300 years we end up in the year 1844 which starts the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary.

It is this cleansing that is called the judgment or the opening of the books.

@Bobbyaf,

When you set yourself as judge over others and dodge questions under the guise of "irrelevant" and "totally off the mark", it speaks volumes to the point already made that you really have no answers or simply can't read.

This proves how big a liar you really are. If you can show anything I have said in any of my posts to this thread that indicates that, then I stand to be corrected.

My questions should serve to the effect that I did not agree with your inferences; and I've offered informed reasons thereto.

I have no problem with one disagreeing, but when one begins to label persons as legalistic, as malik started doing, then one wonders who is judging who. Besides, your so-called informed reasons were off the mark comments that served to add more mis-understanding.

If you found them "unkind" and thought I was "smearing" you because questions were asked about your 'denom' SDA, then grow up and try not coming to a public forum to smear others first and be unkind to them. Otherwise, I find your whining irrelevant and totally off the mark.

In case you have missed what I said before, let me repeat for your hearing. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. Just don't go mis-representing what I say. If you do not understand the point I am making be simply ask me what I meant before trying to read my mind.

There seems to be a clique on this board that when ever their ideas are challenged they begin to get personal instead of addressing the real issues. They conduct a smear campaign trying to make persons appear bad.

I don't appreciate such nasty behaviour coming from professed christians.

, I see.

@ Opia

If Jesus isn't God what is He then? Another god? How would you respond to these texts?

1. Isaiah 45:5
5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

If Jesus is another God, or in the case of JW's who view Jesus as a less-than-omni-potent God , then wouldn't that create a contradiction of scriptures?

2. Micah 5:2, which speaks to the eternal attribute that only God can possess, and which seems to be talking about Jesus Christ: 2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

The "he" in the latter part of the sentence is no doubt Jesus Christ, and the "me" no doubt has to be the Father. The phrase "whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting" is definitely qualifying the "he" in the verse.

JWs believe that Jesus was created by the Father, which is the real motivation behind your posts, but how does a created being become a being that possesses eternal attributes?

3. Isaiah 9:6
6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

In the very text that JWs use to defend their view that Jesus is not as powerful as the Father, it says that Jesus is the everlasting Father. What is going on here? Once again can there be two Gods? Not according to the bible.

I am proposing to you Opia despite what you've been taught, is that both Father and Son share the same title, the God-Head. Both recieve power and glory. Both recieve worship. Let us view more evidence.

Hebrews 1:6
6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

Rev. 5:11-13
11 And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands; 12 Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing. 13 And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

It is very clear that there is absolutely no difference between what praises the Father recieves from what the Son recieves.

This brings info sharp focus the integrity of God the Father if He should ever allow one of His creatures to recieve the same extensive worship as He alone deserves according to JWs. If Jehovah, a name attributed to the Father by the JWs, is the only true God, then why would He allow a creature in the form of an archangel to recieve glory and honour? I find that concept strange.

Isaiah 42:8
8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

Isaiah 48:11
, for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another.

But, didn't Jesus pray thus: 5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. John 17:5

This glory is unique to God in that He refuses to share it with anyone else. Idols and created things , including angels, have no right to receive this glory. In fact John attempted to worship one, and the angel forbad it. Hence, if Jesus is a created being then what right does He have to recieve worship or to share God's glory? Lucifer once tried to recieve worship in heaven, and still desperately seeks it today. If Jesus were a created angel as taught by you, then why would God favour Him over Lucifer?

And this is where Paul addresses the issue of Jesus not thinking it robbery to be equal with God His Father. He already knew that. It was no big deal, but Lucifer made it out to be a big deal. Because of his special place in heaven he thought that he should be given some special attention that included worship.

In summary, the word God is a title. It just happens that both Father and Son share it.

@ Shahan

@Bobbyaf,

I'm not here to fill in the gap for m4malik or anyone. But it come across to me that you have issues that you cannot bear yourself, and that's why you think people are 'aggressive' simply because you don't agree with them.

Really now professor Sigmund! The sole issue I have is people like you who get personal instead of dealing with the truth.

Hi shahan,

Please forbear, lest he thinks you're also angry and aggressive. The sad thing is, he who accuses others can't take the heat of his own accusations. If you can see that, point made.

@Bobbyaf,
Don't catch at straws, because you're not helping your own assumptions by supposing I'm Catholic or RCC. I only extend to you the warmth of seeing Christians in other churches as God sees them, instead of as SDA sees them. Shallom.

If you'd spend the time thinking before responding each time you read my post with such open bias you'd have been better able to make a more positive contribution, but alas your bias has blinded you.

@ shahan

I'm so sorry that you only lend credence to m4malik's rejoinders and weaken your own submissions. Where have you answered the questions he posed, or do I suspect that it's actually true you don't have answers after accusing others??

His questions were off the mark, and totally irrelevant, but if you take the time to read diligently you will see the responses, besides, anyone with a logical mind could easily see through the point I was making. I spoke of my personal reasons for accepting the beliefs of a particular denom for the reasons I gave above, and in keeping with the thread topic.

I don't see why that should be a problem for you, or your sympathisers. All you guys are capable of doing is smearing people instead of contributing to thread topics. If you disagree then by all means say so, but don't accuse persons of being legalistic, or unkind to other persons who believe otherwise, just for accusation sake.

This is for you:

Rev.18:4
4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

The sooner you come out of religious confusion the better for you. Move away from the influence of Catholicism and go back to pure worship that requires total truth as God continues to reveal it to you.

Bless and have a happy sabbath.

Ok sir, I hear you.

@ Agent0

Amen! I always find that the simpliest and most succinct responses hit the nail the hardest on the truth, This is what really distinguishes the Bible as valid, relevant and profound considering how long it has survived. Other religions and doctrines fail to offer as complete a book of origins, standards and wisdom as the Bible, while some (atheism) don't even have any standards,

For real indeed. The prophecies of the bible are my biggest help in seeing the bible as God's inspired words. Besides that the bible covers the whole aspect of life. There isn't anything in life it doesn't address, and that is why I find these athiests and their theories so empty and vain, and as a result their lives are also vain and empty.

@Bobbyaf,
Sir, thanks for this post,,,,,but I have a couple of worries which I will like you to clarify just for 'oneness' of our Gospel and for the edification of the saints reading!

I will try to answer as best I can using the scriptures of course. 

First, Are you saying we are being Judged from Heaven even as we are on earth and alive right now, according to the topic of your post?

Yes both the dead and those who are alive are being judged now, but according to Peter this judgement must begin first with God's people. You see, it wouldn't make sense for God to judge the saints after they go to heaven. He would have to judge us now before Jesus returns, so that our judgement will be out of the way.

Logically He would have had to start with the dead saints' records first before moving on to the living. That is why the bible says after death is the judgement, at least at first for the saints. So from Adam's time coming up to our time God would have had a record fo r every man.

Secondly, what exactly do you mean by the term "judgement" from your posts?

I mean an investigation of the deeds done in the flesh based on the texts I gave earlier in my opening post. The sanctuary in OT times pre-figured this judgement. It was a type of Christ's heavenly atonement ministry. The day of atonement that came once a year was God's way of cleansing it from the record of sins that were piled up during the year. Like wise God's heavenly sanctuary according to Daniel would have been cleansed some time into the future. He gave us the starting point of the 2300 day prophecy, which also co-incided with the start of the 70 weeks prophecy. Both had the same starting point, and in fact the 70 weeks period was cut out from that larger period of 2300 days.

So if we count from BC 457 and subtract that from 2300 years we will get the starting point of the judgement. 1844 to be exact.

Thirdly, Do you know and agree that there are actually 4 (four) Judgements scripturally?; each occuring at different times. (In fact, one has occured on the cross i.e. Judgement of Sin;

In a sense yes, in that we were spared that condemnation or judgement that Christ suffered.

second is Judgement of saints/men at death or rapture

Well that is the one of which I speak now. It has to take place before Christ returns. Not quite sure what you mean by the judgement at rapture. Kindly expound.

3rd is Jugement of Nations; and fourth is the Great White throne Judgement or the second death of Revelations 20:12 and not John 20:12)

Well, the white throne judgement is for the wicked after the 1000 years. These wicked who would have been resurrected after the 1000 years, were the ones who didn't take part in the 1st resurrection. The bible says blessed are those who take part in the 1st resurrection.

The white throne judgement will reveal to the wicked their deeds done in the flesh. They will have no excuse.

You're still denying what you try to teach. First, you stated earlier that He could not have been both God and Human; now you come back denying your own premise.

Why didn't you ask me to explain what I meant without having to accuse me all the time? Why must you be so negative and aggressive all the time? Didn't I qualify what I meant to you in my second response?

Now it is queer that you could acknowledge His deity and Humanity but see only the latter without the former. The Bible reveals that He manifested His deity in His Humanity - not one without the other. While on earth as Man, here are a few text that show Him manifesting His power and glory as Divine:

The bible said nothingof the sort. Its your false interpretation you're putting forward. I gave you ample texts to explain my position, but becauase you possess the spirit of agression, everything I say will always be wrong for you.

The bible distinctly said Christ became obedient unto death, which means that while He was alive He could not use His divinity. After His death however, He regained all that He lay aside. He had to pass the test first as the 2nd Adam before all power was given unto Him again.

John 1:14 - "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

Exactly! Only that glory came from the Father. Not a good text to support your argument. many times Christ said that He could do nothing except the father who sent Him worked through Him. So in essence Christ's life on earth was meant to glorify His Father, but it still doesn't gainsay what I said about Christ laying aside His deity, for the sole purpose of being submissive. What would be the point of Christ saying to His father "Thy will be done, not my will" if He had the freedom to do as He pleased?

John 11:25 - "Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live."

Only after He Himself passed the test of obedience. Only after He was resurrected could He once again call upon His divine powers to resurrect others. The fact that Christ was under a test means that He was not allowed to use His divine power as an advantage. In other words how could Christ be considered our example if he were allowed to use His powers? He had to be subjected to the same conditions that we're subjected to in order to claim back that power He once had before. That is why He prayed thus:

1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: 2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. 3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. 4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. 5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Going back to the text you used about Christ's glory. The glory mentioned by John had nothing to do with physical glory, or omni-potence, but the way that Christ's lie would bring honour to His father's name while living on earth. In John 17 it is saying that Christ's life was what really glorified His Father. The real power lay in His obedient life and death. If He didn't live perfectly then His death would be in vain, and He Himself would have been a cast away. That power over all flesh only came through His willingness to live a life of obedience. We too can get that power over the flesh as we submitt to God on a daily basis.

Matt. 9:6 - "But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house."

So do we! How else can you forgive without the power? Jesus said "forgive those who trespass against you", and He pointed us to His Father who art in heaven.

The fact that the divine Son sought the will of the Father did not take away from the Divinity of the Son. This does not mean that Jesus died as "God": He died as Man as the Scriptures testify. However, even while He was on earth, He was still the very One in whom all things subsist - Heb. 1:3.

I am not questioning the Son's divinity, I am simply saying He was not allowed to use it. That's been my argument from day one. Having access to it and beng allowed to use it are quite different. You see He couldn't have His cake and eat all at once. Its either He would be obedient unto death, or not. That was the real test, and that is why it must have hurt Jesus when His own people jeered Him on to use His power.

He could have come down from that cross by calling upon the cast-aside divinity, but He didn't preferring to obey His Father's will.

Every one of you, including me, will be judged by our life's record. Did you know that that judgement began in heaven and was predicted by Daniel the prophet. This judgement is actually the atonement process that started some time after Christ went to heaven.

Daniel 8:14
14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

The sanctuary is the control tower of the universe where God dwells. Inside that Sanctuary lies the heavenly temple that John saw and in which Christ our High Priest is making intercession for us in the judgement hour.

This first phase of judgment considers only those who claim to be God's children. Everyone who professes to be God's will be judged first. Listen to Peter's saying:

1 Peter 4:17
17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?

Listen to John's saying

John 20:12
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Some people believe that people will stand literally before God to give an account, but here the bible is saying that even those who were dead their lifes' record will come up for review.

Ecclesiastes 12:14
14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

Psalms 56:8
8 Thou tellest my wanderings: put thou my tears into thy bottle: are they not in thy book?


A. Jesus is our advocate (1 John 2:1).
B. Jesus is our judge (John 5:22).
C. Jesus is our faithful and true witness (Revelation 3:14).

Every man has a probationary time in which to make things right with God. This judgement was designed to assist us in getting it right, because Jesus is our advocate we have nothing to lose, be cause He is on our side. Listen to what Jesus said:

Revelation 22:11,12
11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. 12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

After the judgement whatever condition in which you find yourself will remain. The righhteous will remain so, and like wise the wicked. Both sets of people will recieve thier reward after the heavenly verdict is passed.

So when Jesus returns thats it. There will be no more chances for those who didn't make it right. Now if you hear His "voice harden not your hearts"

@ m4malik

While not denying the deity of Christ, you actually have missed the whole point. Christ was fully Human and fully God

That we agree on, so I cannot see how I missed the point.

- and he certainly was both at the same time.

Yes he was both God and human, but what you need to highlight is that Christ could not have acted out His divinity while on earth, that is why He totally depended on His Father for everything, including the very miracles He wrought. He became a servant of His Father.

Phil. 2:7,8
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

John 6:38
38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

John 8:28
, I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

John 12:49
49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

@mrpataki,

I am of the same belief as you, and your explanations are on par.

Most christians are unable to see that the role of Christ as a man witnesed Him praying to His father, and even calling Him God at one point.

Christ was fully human, and fully God. He couldn't be both at the same time when He was here as a man, and that is why He had to be completely submitted to His Father. His being submissive didn't mean that He wasn't equal to His Father.

Isn't it enough that God the Father called His Son God as recorded in Hebrews 1? Listen as Paul reminds us:

8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

The bible says that there is one God. What does the expression God mean? Does it mean one person, or does it mean one government? That is where the problem lies. People are attributing the term God only to the Father, without realizing that the same title belongs to the Son. Both are diety.

So even though the Son while on earth at one point in time prayed to God His Father, and even referred to His Father as God doesn't make Jesus a lesser God, because that would mean that there are more than one Gods.

@ m4malik

I did not loosely use any term - in exactly the way you communicated your ideas was the same I highlighted them.

Yes you did use the term loosely, because I certainly didn't give the impression you were trying to give.

No one needs to try half as hard as you have labelled others, and it shows from your inconsistencies that "all" and "every" denom is used conveniently about how others are wrong except the SDA.

If anything you are the inconistent one, because my idea about there being one true flock is biblical. Even your use of the term "conviniently" suggest how you think of finding every occasion to accuse and label. I have already qualified my beliefs by saying that although there are christians in various denoms, there can only be one true flock in which there is a greater measure of truth.

Okay, yours included. At least, you're beginning to sound so unsure about your previous premise.

If you go and read carefully what I said from day one you wouldn't have to be showing your own uncertainties. My premise has always been the same, both in thought and expression.

And what is the meaning of "closest" as used for your SDA denom if not categorically introducing what you're denying?

There you go again, anyway closest means exactly that, closest.

Concoction or not, you've been classic in "concocting" several other things about others - and others have been bold to have said it, as again I am doing.

The only boldness you possess is to get people upset with your nagging and whining.

That is indeed the sad thing, that you're a part of the SDA denom which "comes closest" to what is taught in the Bible - or else you wouldn't be congregating there. Keep introducing quantitative degrees and denying you ever did so.

I am trying to make sense of the above.

Don't make me laugh. Who is "opposing"? Have you not been "opposing" others and promoting your own as coming "closest" to the apostles? Right, we're all guilty - incuding you, since you admit you're doing the same thing. So, let's just say that every denom "comes closest" to the teachings in the Bible - and I'm sure you'll come back with another long epistle to show how guilty other denoms are, except SDA.

Oh, now I know. Note the hypocracy people! He happens to believe the same thing, but was always afraid to express it, but now that I have expressed it he is angry.

Stop being silly. You know as well as I do that not all denoms will come closest to what is being taught in the bible. Notice again how you use words loosely. According to you you are sure that I "will come back with another long epistle to show how guilty other denoms are, "

You're always trying hard to make me look as if I am in judgement against others. Not only is your "inconsistency theory" ridiculous, but your ability to be honest becomes suspect. Instead of simply asking me what I mean, you pretend to be a mind reader. , you're comical.

At least I have a head to think with and not wait for SDA to do the thinking for me, thank you. And what do you suppose others have been using to "measure" (quantitative degree again) their denom? Have they been using a magazine or newspaper?

Did I say I waited on the SDA church to think for me? When I was 9 years old my diet changed by reading the bible without ever being taught by the SDAs. God was my teacher long before I found the SDA church. Pork, crabs, lobsters, etc; were no longer apart of my diet because God through His word taught me not to consume unclean flesh.

At least now your own words are coming back to haunt you. At least try to do justice to one's quote. Besides, if other denoms are using the bible then let them defend their beliefs, just as I am doing now. Its also obvious, that you were never trained enough to defend what you believe.

And what have you implied that is any different from what I've stated before? So, God can reach "others" in all denoms - but SDA, not so?

He is also reaching SDAs too, but it doesn't change the fact that I believe that the SDA denom comes clostest to what is required by Christ, just as much as you believe likewise but are afraid to confess it.

Or, what are you meaning by: "more can be accomplished by those people when they are where they aught to be in terms of sound biblical teachings"?? So, where do others ought to be??

Exactly that! My english is clear.

@Bobbyaf,

It doesn't seem that you're consistent in your persuasions. Here:

I am not so sure why you're saying that.

So, on the one hand, you do believe that God's people will eventually come out from every denom; but on the other hand, it is obvious that God's people could not have come out from all denominations. Quaint.

What this sounds like is as Shahan has put it: some men are persuaded that everyone else is wrong except them.

Wrong only in terms of doctrines, and teachings. So when you loosly use the term "everyone else is wrong" you are not expounding on my major point of doctrines. I hope you see the point I am making.

This is all the more evident in the way you have been made to see Christians in other denominations, though you little realise it yourself. Here are a few lines to that:

I see you're trying hard to put a label of legalism on me. As I have said before thats not my objective. I am simply saying that I believe that the SDA denom is the closest in doctrinal teachings when compared to apostolic christian tradition. Making that claim does not make me legalistic. It may come over as a bold statement, but so be it.

Okay, there are Christians in all denoms - and that includes your own, yes?

Furthermore, not all denoms have the truth in entirety - including yours again, abi?

Mine included. In other words the church that continues in the teachings of Christ and the apostles is still open to learning from further understanding of the word. No where did I imply that the denom to which I belong was perfect. I simply said that I believe it has come the closest to what I believe is in keeping with what Christ and the apostles have expected.

It's so easy to see others as being so far from the truth while claiming that the "the SDA church comes closest" to what the apostles and Jesus taught and believed.

Not once did I introduce a quantitative degree as to how far other denoms may be in their doctrinall position. Your use of the term "so far from the truth" is your concoction, not mine. Besides, it is easy for me to make that claim unlike those who would very much want to say what I was bold enough to have said. The sad thing is, is that those of you who are apart of a denom believes that that denom comes closest to what is taught in the bible, or else you all wouldn't be congregating there. All of us wants to be sure that where we congregate is where all truth is being taught. All of you who are opposing are guilty of the same thing you think I am doing.

If other churches do not bend to the rules and doctrines of the SDA, then they are far away from Jesus Christ, hmm??

Thats only in your head. I wouldn't be where I am if I weren't using the bible to measure the SDA denom. I have always used the bible to measure a denom, and thats how I became involved with the SDA church. Remember my friend that my denom believes that light has the potential to get brighter. The scripture says that "the path of the just is as a shining light, that shines more and more unto the perfect day"

You may think SDA says it all. It would rather help our faith to rejoice in what God in His sovereignty is doing in many non-SDA churches.

I am not implying that at all, but no doubt you would like others to see me in that light. I am not surprised. I believe that God can reach others in all denoms, because His people are still found everyhere, but more can be accomplished by those people when they are where they aught to be in terms of sound biblical teachings.

This is how I see the situation. The first step would be to define what God is from a biblical perspective. If Jesus fits the biblical definition also, then He is God.

Another point to look at is whether we are dealing with Jesus in His pre-existing form, or His post-incarnate form. We knew that Jesus existed before he incarnated, and that He is the Co-Creator of the universe. The book of Collosians describes Jesus as follows:


15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

If Jesus weren't God then He couldn't create. The scrptures even say that "by Him all things consist" which means that Jesus holds the universe together. The laws of the universe that ensure it doesn't implode on itself, were intiated by Jesus during creation.

One of the names that was given to Jesus, was Emanuel, which means "God with us"

The part that often confuses many as to the deity of Jesus has to do with the role He assumed as man. In His life of humility some take that to mean that He was a lesser God, whatever that means.  because He prayed to His Father, and the fact that He called His Father "my God"

You guys are killing me, I am in stitches.

@ nferyn

If that's really how you perceive things, I just feel so sorry for all these poor children that have to pass through the sorry excuse for an educational system you were exposed to

Is that why you're trying so hard to brainwash others with your false notions? Its no wonder Solomon says too much studying makes one mad.

Use lots of vitamin C and omega 3 supplements. Try to use the natural ones.

Two things: (a) If in every denom God's people will come out and be a part of "God's bible-believing followers, will they come out of your own 'denom' as well? (b) Search out the meaning of 'christendom' and you will see that your idea is not substantiated by God's Word.

Put it this way you wouldn't be where you are today if you had reasons to believe that your denom was holding back on truth. I will have to give you the benefit of the doubt. The same applies to me. It is for the same reason that I am a Seventh-day Adventist christian. I honestly believe to date that what it teaches as doctrines can be supported by scriptures. It is for the same reason you are where you are also.

Besides, it is obvious that God's people could not have come out from all denominations, because that would include the one that is truly His chosen. God already has His true believers here on earth who have continued from the traditions of the apostles. All you need to ask for is proof, and I am more than prepared to give you such.

If I am to take you seriously here, then I pressume that the "professed christian churches" includes the one you currently attend, yes? Else, it doesn't make any sense to be so broad as to miss the point and just about lumping up every church the way you did.

I wouldn't be arguing the point if I thought that was the case would I? Its because I am prepared to defend what I believe why I am able to state the case with an open mind. Everyone who belongs to a denomination has already assumed that it represents God's truth. That assumption which is quite reasonable would have been based on what they were led to believe as truth. As to whether a denom's teachings are supported by the bible or not is quite a different matter. That same principle would also apply to me also.

When I talk about professed christian churches that is exactly what I mean. The scriptures make it clear that many will be decieved. The many of course are found in those denominations, and hence false churches, that fit the description of holding false doctrines. You see if there is a false christ, then there will be followers who are false too. Those who are decieved by false teachers are themselves false also, and will in their attempt to witness to others definitely spread erroneous doctrines too.

It seems to me that you really have a hard time getting to grips with the authentic gifts of God - especially the gift of tongues and miracles. Tell me, does your church believe God enough for the miraculous, or they are quite content with academic search of the Scriptures alone?

That would depend on what you use to define what you consider authentic gifts. So far you've only given your personal views on one, being that of tongues, albeit not from a biblical point of view.

Don't forget I am a christian who happens to believe in both the use of tongues and miracles. The only difference is that I am aware that Satan can work miracles too. How else would these false prophets be able to decieve many if they couldn't counterfeit miracles? It is for this precise reason why I am taking the position I have taken for 30 years now as a SDA christian.

To begin with, there's no such thing as a "false church" in the Word of God. There are definitely "false christs" aided by "false apostles" and "false teachers" doing the work of "false prophets" - and texts abound in Scripture to the fact. Not one time did we read of "false churches" - and this is a coinage by legalistic and rigid men who see themselves alone as "bible-believing" Christians. All other groups are wrong but theirs alone.

As I said above if there are false christs then their followers will be false, hence false churches. The point I was making though isn't dependent on whether technically false churches aren't found in scriptures. This by the way wasn't meant to be legalistic. I am not comparing who is more righteous. As I have said before there are christiasn in all denoms, but not all denoms have truth in its entirety. It so happens that I believe that my being a SDA christian is in keeping with the belief that of all denoms so far, the SDA church comes closest to what the apostles believe, and what Jesus expects of His followers. If anyone is prepared to do a doctrinal comparison, including you, then feel free to pose whatever questions that come to mind. I am all ears.

My response was always in keeping with the topic, and more so in the light of bible passages in which Christ Himself says that there is one fold and one shephard. He has other scattered sheep outside the fold that He must bring in.

You can't get it any clearer than from the Master Himself, can you?

Please my brother, I've been in that kind of movement before; and in the true spirit of love may I offer you to see things as God sees them. If you happen to be in one of these accusers of the brethren, please reconsider your persuasions - you might be more in need of God's grace than those we used to call "false churches."

Thanks for the advice, but that is not my approach, so rest assured. My job is to tell it as it is without being too offensive.

@ TayoD

@Bobbyaf,

How did you connect babylon to the RCC? Please do not go beyond that which is written. Backing up your pre-conceived notion with scriptures does not make it right.

Pre-concieved notions you say? How do you know it is pre-concieved? Why not simply ask me to back up my beliefs without being so pre-sumptious.

The Roman Catholic church , and its very name reveals such, that it is the beast of Revelation 13, and the Little horn of Daniel 7:25. Historically, and characteristically, the RCC fulfils exactly what both prophets have predicted about that religio-political power. Not only is this a well documented fact, but even our early reformers and founders of most of the protestant churches have always believed and accepted such an obvious reality. All it requires is an ardent search of history, and especially european history to see the obvious.

I am assuming you appreciate the term babylon, and all that it stands for, but you desire to know about how the RCC is connected with it. Let me explain.

A little history and bible study will help. You're aware that daniel had predicted that 4 world kingdoms would rule one after the other in succession. I am not here to debate that there were more kingdoms that ruled. I am simply showing how God's word stands accurate in its prediction.

Daniel recieved a follow-up revelation in chapter 7 which covered more details than that which was covered in Daniel 2 about the same 4 world kingdoms. In Daniel 7 instaed of just focussing on what would follow these kingdoms, being the everlasting kingdom of God, God went on to show him what kinds of powers would arise after the 4th kingdom. If you read Daniel 7, you will notice that Daniel somehow was transfixed on the 4th beast, and the little horn that rose from the 10 other horns. Listen to what he said:

7 After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.

8 I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.

No doubt these 10 horns represented the 10 early european kingdoms that rose up after the 4th kingdom being Rome was destroyed. But Daniel saw an 11th horn that while it was rising it rooted up three horns, being three of the early european kingdoms that had come up. I will go into more details later.

After Daniel was troubled in his mind about the whole vision he was given an explanation by the angel of prophecy Gabriel. But Daniel's concerns grew more as seen in these verses:

19 Then I would know the truth of the fourth beast, which was diverse from all the others, exceeding dreadful, whose teeth were of iron, and his nails of brass; which devoured, brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with his feet;

20 And of the ten horns that were in his head, and of the other which came up, and before whom three fell; even of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows.

So lets summarise what daniel desired to know more keenly:

1. He wanted to know more about the 4th beast

2. He desired to knw about the 10 horns

3. He desired to know about the 11th or little horn that had a man's eyes and mouth, and that which spoke bold words against God.

History and biblical scholarship, through God's leading, has confirmed that these 4 beasts all represent Babylon, Media-Persia, Greece, and Rome.

History also reveals that the first early kingdoms of europe that started out as 10 are represented by the 10 horns of the 4th beast. No one dares dispute that.

Most if not all early reformers believed that the "little horn" represented the Roman Catholic Church. It is this religio-political power of which I speak. There were some basic things that were said by daniel that point to the RCC fulfilling the predictions, and these are:

Daniel 7:25
21 I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; History revealed that millions of bible-believing christiasn suffered under the hands of the RCC, when she influenced the states that she controled to murder all those who opposed her religious dogmas. Between AD538 to AD1798 as brought out in Revelation 12, God's people suffered, but a remnant was always spared. (Rev. 12:17)


24And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.

The RCC through its crusades completey destroyed the Herulean, vandals, and the Astrogoths who were part of the original 10 early kingdoms. Why? becasue they disagreed with her about the nature of Christ. They believed that Christ was not as equal to the Father, among other things they didn't have in common. It costs them dearly.


25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

Who is as bold as the RCC in its religious claims? Its popes are infallible and are god on earth. Popes have even said that they have the power to forgive angels if they sin. There was a Time magazine report once that highlighted that Mary was now the 4th member of the God-Head. They have denounced the heavenly and priestly ministry of Jesus Christ through their earthly priestly ministry. Unless one's sins are forgiven by them they are not forgiven. Listen to what John says about the beast in Revelation 13:

6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.

By taking on perogatives that only pertain to God they have blasphemed. When a RCC priest can even think to literally convert the bread into the literal body of Christ at their mass services, what do you call that if not heights of blasphemy? Jesus Christ is our High Priest through whom alone we recieve atomement of the forgiveness of sins. Christ once said "call no man on earth Father", yet they persist in resisting the word of God.

The RCC has taught to change God's times and laws, but thank God its only a thought, because no one can change God's eternal laws. They have chipped out the 2nd commandments s as to bow down to the statues of Mary and the saints. The 1st and 2nd commandments forbid idol worship.

They have influenced the other protestant churches to keep the 1st day of the week instaed of the Lord's seventh day sabbath which is holy unto the Lord.

The 31/2 times that they would rule for before God slowed them down was fulkfilled between AD538 - AD1798 where it ruled for 1260 literal years.

Listen to John in Revelation 13:
5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.

Daniel's 31/2 years = John's 42 months = 1260 years.

No other power fits the biblical and historical description other than the RCC. Today christendome is uniting with the RCC by keeping Sunday as the Lord's day. God is using His people to call all those who are in religious confusion to get out before the 7 last plagues begin to fall on babylon. (see Rev. 16)

Get out while you can. Time is running out.

Only time will tell, My advice is let the Spirit of God lead into all truth and things will be just fine.

Bless.

@ Kumbi

Please ladies or docs in d hse, Bn havin recurrent thrush 4 a while now, I have used like 4 packs of canesten, nystatin, i have done 2 swab tests and it proved i had yeast. Every time i use the canesten, it goes then it later comes back after a week, Its not severe but i just know its back because i feel discharges all day, Iv even tried ironing my under wear, Still its stil there, Maybe its just a phase that will pass with time, I don't know. Please if u guys know anything else i can do, U cld please tell me. Cos im almost frustrated, Thanks

I used to help persons with your condidtion some years ago, but my approach was never one of conventional medicine. My approach was always the natural way, and I have had over 99% success.

Listen carefully. Be it yeast ifection or infestation it doesn't matter. Yeasts tend to line the small and large intestines where they thrive better in an alkaline environment. If there is a normal habitat of friendly bacteria called lacto-bacillus, and more specifically lactobacillus acidophilus, the Yeasts, and more particularly Candida albicans, cannot thrive because of the lactic acid production by these friendly bacteria. Modern anti-biotics tend to lower the numbers of these friendly bacteria which line the intestines for a good reason. When these good bacteria decrease then it opens up the flood gates for yeasts to take over the body, and once they do your life will become miserable.

In addition try to get access to a natural product called Garlic Allium Complex. If you combine both the Acidoliphus Plus with the Garlic Allium Complex, your life of normalcy will be restored. Guaranteed!!!!

Get in touch with a company called GNLD International who manufactures these two wonderful products. I knw there are some wonderful distributors in Nigeria who might be able to assist you. If you were in Jamaica then I would certainly do that, but since you're there try to get hold of those who do business with GNLD.

If not contact me at:

bobbyaf@msn.com

Sorry I will not be decieved by your frivolous theories, and their apparantly logical explanations. I have moved beyond the 3rd grade years ago.

Well, in a sense there can only be one true set of beliefs, and I think that is what oghos2k might be appealing to. The scripture says there is one Lord, faith, and baptism.

Christ is coming back for a people who will not be decieved by false teachers. So obviously there has to be a body of believers who would have preserved the teachings of Christ and His apostles. I don't believe that Christ is coming to find His people scattered throughout different denominations, becasue that would mean that those christians would have had a difference in opinion about doctrines or truth.

What I do believe though is that in every denom there are God's people who will eventually come out and be apart of God's bible-believing followers. Christendom today is referred to as "Babylon" or religious confusion, of which the RCC is head. (See Revealtion 17)

Before Christ returns all of those people who are scattered in religious confusion will one day join God's true followers and would be in readiness and waiting for His second advent. This is what Revelation 18:2-4 says:

2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. 3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies. 4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

The "her" is qualifying "babylon"

Ancient babylon as most would know was in opposition to God's will and ways. Symbolical babylon is doing the same thing today, but this time it represents all false teachings, including professed christian churches. Every false prophet, the chief of which is the RCC is lumped under the general term babylon.

If you profess to be a true bible-believing christian then its your duty and obligation to search the scriptures so that you can fortify your minds against that day when miracles will be used by Satan working through these false churches to decieve those who didn't take the time out to study to show themselves approved of God.

The cement that will be used to hold these people in deception, sad to say, will be the false notion and manifestation of tongues, and miracles. Satan is already using these gifts in a counterfeit way to decieve, but unless we stand by God's "it is written" , we will be lost.

@ Shahan

What you don't know, you cannot expound on.

Well, if my knowledge isn't based on God's words then I stand to be corrected.

The gift of tongues and indeed every other gift of the Spirit (you name them) can be, and have been, faked.

I have to agree with you that other gifts can be faked, just as how people are now faking the true gifts, but that wasn't the main point of my discussion. My emphasis is that, the gift of tongues as its expressed today by certain denominations, isn't the same as when it was first practised back then.

In Acts 2 there is a marked difference in its central motif, and how the gift was manifested. Let us see the point I am making.

In Acts 2 the visiting diasporic jews to Jerusalem all heard the disciples speak in their own language. What they heard spoken was a literal language that they could easily identify with. The gift itself was recognised in both the speaking and the hearing. The disciples recognised the gift as well as those who listened.

God in His mercy gave the gift to His disciples in order to facilitate the gospel commission being carried out. That was the central motif. The central motif was not for me to hear in the 20th century that unless I speak in tongues its an indication that I have not recieved the fulness of God's Spirit.

So, using one sad occurence of a fanatical display to negate and lump all other tongue-speaking Christians is even sadder. Just one sad incident does not negate the authentic. That scores of people leave one congregation for what they faked is exactly to the point - they were fakes - and one cannot use the fake to cross out the genuine. In just the same way, we all know that many dupes have tried to fake the Christian life - do you connect the dot?

One sad occurence you say? Thats a joke!

Well, if people weren't pressured into something that isn't biblical from day one, chances are they would still be in the church today. Not everyone is that easily hypnotised, and when they are not responding the way these congregations would like them to, they are told all sorts of rubbish, including resisting the Spirit.

Dare I say that there are many sad incidences even among non-tongue speakers. Would it make sense therefore to lump all other non-tongue speakers as fanatical or extremely legalistic?

That may be true, but the way that tongue speaking is manifested today its bordering on fanaticism. All you have to do is simply visit one of their tarry services. I recall once when a friend invited me to attend a special weekly service that emphasised the Anti-Christ. They had all these loud systems in place with loud-blasting music. After giving the main presentation a short clip was shown about the secret rapture showing a preacher facing a congregation.

Then all of a sudden I heard this explosion coming from the speaker boxes. It dawned on me afterward that it was one of the series of "Left behind" movies featuring the rapture. The noise that came from the speaker boxes somehow represented the disappearance of the church. What struck me next was even more frightening. The entire congregation went into a frenzy. People started screaming on top of their voices without any control. People hitting over stuff. The benches in which I was seated was being moved because of their movements.

All I am saying is that this typical church format is not what the gift of tongues is all about. That is why Paul made this statement:

I Cor. 12
28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? 30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? 31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.

The answer to that rhetorical question is an unqualified no. No one can take the place of the Holy Spirit in assigning what gifts they think people should have. Its the Spirit of God who assigns the various gifts, not its members. No amount of emotional mind-influencing tactics will convert people.

Listen once again as to Paul's position on tongues as a gift:

1 Cor. 14
6 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine? 7 And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? 8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? 9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.

What have you gathered from these verses, especially verse 9? Verse 9 qualifies verse 2 that seems to baffle those who choose to isolate one verse in order to build an entire false theology around it. The gift of tongues according to Paul here is not some special prayer tool for the sole purpose of swaying in the Spirit. The gift when it is manifested should be easily understood, otherwise all one is doing is speaking in the air.

Remember that in Acts 16:16-17 a false spirit encouraged the preaching of the Gospel. What does that say - that in just one incident, every missionary work be lumped up with false spirits?

Thats a different topic for another time.

The point is simply this: the gift of tongues is a genuine charismata as every other gift of the Spirit; otherwise none of them is a charisma at all. Thus, if God has given someone any genuine gift, I rejoice all the more; for though I'm well aware there are fakes, it does not stop the genuine from being used for God's glory.

Which biblical reference can you give in support of any gift being a charismata?

Amen Wonderer. The whole bible is about Christ for He is the centre of the plan of salvation. Only God in Christ could have saved the world from sin.

Bless.

Let me share an experience with you all.

Some time ago in one of our church services a lady from one of those tongue-speaking congregations decided that she would speak. At first she started out singing praises to which we had no objections, but when it reached the point where she started erupting church services, and the pastor's presentation, with her dancing rituals, she was asked to desist.

For awhile she did, but soon she started all over again, and was asked nicely to desist, but refused. Finally the deacons had to lift her physically from the building.

What happened after the church services was a shock to one and all present. That same lady who uttered some semblance of a language a few hours ago came back with a knife and was using the worst kinds of expletives possible.

My question to those christians who are rallying for something they do not fully understand, is this. How different are her utterances from those in other churches? I recall referring to a young lady who became a friend of mine, who told me that while she was in church she faked the gift. She would do the body jerks as everyone else in order to avoid the pressure from over-bearing members. When I had met her she was back in the world, and she expressed to me, how free she felt.

She is not the only one who has left their congregations. I have met scores of them.

My concern is that these charismatic denominations have carried this tongue-speaking notion too far. They have become highly fanatical, and have literally built a church around a passage of scripture that they have given their private interpretation to, in order to serve their own desires. What faster way to build a church than through working on the emotions of ignorant/uneducated people. This may sound a bit harsh, but it is the truth.