What does Daniel 8:13,14 mean?

[barboza21]

Ok, consider these vs.

Matt.24
14And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Matt.24:14 says that the end will come after the Gospel is preached to the world Right?

But now look at
Rev14
6And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,
7Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

An angel flys in the midst of heaven. This heaven is obviosly the heaven where we live and he has the everlasting gospel to preach. Let me ask you, do you think this is talking about the same gospel that Matt24:14 is talking about. The answer of coarse is yes, well look at what the angel says is part of that end time gospel message “Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.” The hour of His judgement is come at the time the end time everlasting gospel is being preached to the world and that would be right now bar.

YES> that seems correct. I agree.
Question. What makes you think its now? are you 100 percent sure that the entire world knows God now… that the world has been preached? If so, then the world should have ended already. Also, there’s thousands of different beliefs out there… Catholics, Adventists, Baptists, Jehova’s Witnesses, science ppl, etc… Everyone has a God. yet everyone sees God differently. Its the same God, but people see him from different views. DO you think this verse means when the world as been preached about A GOD… or when the world has been preached about GOD (from ANY point of view) THEN will the world end…??

So like Jehova’s witnesses believe Jesus was an angel… Do you think that’s what God wants? When ppl know of God from ANY point of view-as wrong as it may be–THEN let them world end?
Like I said earlier, God wants one faith. Might the angel be referring to that particular faith?
Also, what does that have to do with the verse I mentioned before hand? about the Dan vision being interpreted wrong? you’re not exactly showing me why Adventists said: right date , wrong event… the event couldn’t have changed. the bible says that vision is about the end of times. not Jesus moving places in heaven. How can you interpret that verse to say sth else?

BTW. I apologize for my extra punctuation marks. I do it a lot. I tried to take them off but Im sure I mssed some (…) and will continue to write them.

The earthly sanctuary was after the pattern that God showed to Moses of the sanctuary that is in heaven.
Ex25
8And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them.
9According to all that I shew thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it.

This was comprised of the outer courtyard in which the altar of burnt offrings and the laver were. Inside were two compartments the holy place and the most holy place you can read about them in Heb.7-10
I’m sorry, where does it say that he saw it in heaven? Because he says as I will show it to you. granted. it says show. but it doesn;t say and then he saw it in heaven. a santuary. with 2 compartments and…
It doesn’t say he saw a vision either. when a person in the bible has a vision or even a dream, the bible states it. what the bible says is that God told him. 1 by 1. what he had to do and how to do it. God gave him the instructions… How do you know he saw it in heaven?? Why would there be a physical sanctuary in Heaven? with two compartments?

I’m not suure what you are driving at here
Well I am showing you that the bible says in Acts 1:7 that Jesus tels the appostles to not be concerned with time and its not for man to know… when things will happen. Man shouldn’t be trying to figure out when the world will end. what they have to do is be ready at all times. Forget the day. Remember to be ready. AGree?

Yes we do have a health message.

If you want me to comment on the scriptures you post her I can do that some other time. It’s getiing late and this post is too long already.

I understand. well I think its a bit much concentration on the health of the body. Theres nothing wrong with wanting to be healthy. I agree. but at times it really does seem a bit mch. Like having the sermon on sabbath be about cholesterol? and about how we don’t know how to breathe. How we should inhale profoundly at every breath that we take. I think the sermon should be about God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit and not so much about health.
Do you see where i’m coming from? It just seems a bit much to me. Of course that’s what I think. Do you think it’s perfectly fine? Also, have you had doctors preach about health at your churches?
Looking forward to your answers. God bless.

 

[barboza21]

hi barboza. not a problem. when speaking with nicodemus, he made the following statement in John 3:13 And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man who IS in heaven. and sorry, wrong apostle. it was Nathaniel in John 1:48, Nathaniel, saith to him; whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said to him; Before that Phillip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee. he was revealing his omni-presence, making a Claim to be God. i was simply pointing out to Richard, that Christ kept his promise to the thief on the cross, about seeing him that day in paradise. even though he had not gone to the father physically at that point, he was certainly there after his death, and proclaiming this victory at the same time in the nether world. by denying that Christ did not keep his promise to the thief, and changing the verse to meet a spurius doctrine,( that of soul sleep) there is a denial of Christ deity, and his Omni presence. Peace

My, my, my. What a light YOU have shed. i have never seen that before. You are so right. Thank you for your insight!

God bless.

 

[barboza21]

hi barboza. not a problem.

when speaking with nicodemus, he made the following statement in John 3:13 And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man who IS in heaven. and sorry, wrong apostle. it was Nathaniel in John 1:48, Nathaniel, saith to him; whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said to him; Before that Phillip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee. he was revealing his omni-presence, making a Claim to be God.

i was simply pointing out to Richard, that Christ kept his promise to the thief on the cross, about seeing him that day in paradise. even though he had not gone to the father physically at that point, he was certainly there after his death, and proclaiming this victory at the same time in the nether world. by denying that Christ did not keep his promise to the thief, and changing the verse to meet a spurius doctrine,( that of soul sleep) there is a denial of Christ deity, and his Omni presence. Peace

“Throught the whole world” is elsewhere used to denote the scope of Christianity’s presence in the Roman Empire.

**First, I give thanks to my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is heralded throughout the world. (Rom 1:8)

because of the hope reserved for you in heaven. Of this you have already heard through the word of truth, the gospel, that has come to you. Just as in the whole world it is bearing fruit and growing, so also among you, from the day you heard it and came to know the grace of God in truth (Col 1:5-6)

provided that you persevere in the faith, firmly grounded, stable, and not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, am a minister. (Col 1:23)**

Jesus also said in Mt 24:34 Amen, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place.

Jesus was saying his words would be accomplished within the lifetime of some of his hearers (about 40 years). Both Matthew and Revelation are refering to judgment at the end of the Old Covenant Age.

**You will be hated by all because of my name, but whoever endures to the end will be saved. When they persecute you in one town, flee to another. Amen, I say to you, you will not finish the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes. (Mt 10:22-23)

For the Son of Man will come with his angels in his Father’s glory, and then he will repay everyone according to his conduct. Amen, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." (Mt 16:27-28)**

Please realize these verses (including Rev 14) were fulfilled in the first century at the judgment of Jerusalem and the Temple (architectural symbols of heaven and earth). This of course prefigures final judgment and the end of time.

…

’
Just thought I would use their good answers to explain some of the things we have talked about. They sound they have more experience than i.
Didn’t know if you had read them. Probably yes. ’
Do you agree with what is being said here?
Again, I know its a lot of loong posts… Take your time.

until next time…

 

[barboza21]

A single point is considered to be the Zero Dimension. This point is regarded as being a void to the container of all things. The first dimension is where this point becomes self aware and multiplies into two. Thus 2 points. The second dimension is three points and the thrid dimension 4. These are the 4 winds.

The seed or the zero dimension being the great horn of the he goat. This is symbolized by the Vesica Piscis. The source of most all religious symbols including the Jesus fish as well as the Pentagram, Cross of Lorain, almond, among others.

There is a process created by these 4 points or dimension create a number of toroids, expressed as tribes, cluter of grapes, almonds, fig and various other things. This toroid is recognized in the world of chemestry as the Anu. This Anu gives light to the 7 gold coins (thrice) and the 5 animals (thrice) in Numbers, as thier are 3 and 7 levels in it’s roatation, thus the law of 3 and 7. This Anu is fashioned as a dimple sphere, due to the coriolis effect. When the slipknot, or the knot of creation is recognized, the toroids develope a path and have the ability to mulitiply. Thus the alternating descrepency of the tribes in Numbers.

When the seed, or as electromagentics has proven, when the loagaithmic spiral of Phi and Pi fall out the bottom and curl back up, and in turn create a vortex, or toroid/dimple sphere. Thus a sacrafice is made. For indeed it is now a living thing. This trampled host is beat up by the other remaining toroids surrounding it.

Think what you want but I know I’m right. You forget the Gnostic were the first. These are part of Gnostic teachings, along with many other areas of science. This is the foundation on which the bible was wrote. For it is a reflection of the universe and creation.

Im afraid I still didn’t understand most of what you said.
At the end, are you saying the bible was built on Gnostic teachings? So the bible is about an ‘imperfect’ God with ‘imperfect’ teachings? Really?

May the perfect God Almighty look upon you…

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Originally Posted by Richard Kastner
First, let me say barboza21 that you are like a breath of fresh air and I really enjoy our little dialogue. So many times I get jumped on by Catholics merely for telling them what I think the bible is saying. You don’t do that. You seem to be a true seeker and Jesus promises that if you ask you will recieve. If you seek you will find and if you knock the door will be opened to you. I will do my best to show you what the bible says

SOrry again for the delayed response. BUSY week with school… & I enjoy our talks too. No I’ve been jumped as well . ppl can be mean! but I know what it is like-- I hope I never do that…

Let me give you a little testimony. I have not told this to many on this forum because as I said I have been jumped on in this forum, but I don’t thik that you would do that. So, When I got married 20 years ago I decided to go back to the CC. I had fallen away from the church, but now that I was married and going to have children I believed that they needed a spiritual foundation. I was going to church fairly regularly, but I must say the conviction that the CC was the one true church was not there. Then I started to pray what became known as “My little prayer” It was simply Lord show me what it is you want me to do with my life. Well I had been praying this prayer for about a year and about 11 years ago I was at Mass and I can only say that I was visited by the Holy Spirit. It says in 1Cor.12 that the Holy Spirit gives gifts and one of those gifts is the gift of knowledge. I believe He gave me that gift that day and the knowledge that He gave me was twofold #1) I was in the wrong church and #2) I had to keep the Sabbath day. Now as a Catholic I always thought that the Sabbath was Sunday, yet when the Spirit gave me this knowledge I knew immediately that I had to keep the Seventh Day Sabbath of the bible and through a series of miracles He led me to the front door of the Seventh Day Adventist church. You ask am I sure that this church is the true church? If I am to believe the Spirit of God and the way He has opened the bible to me I can think nothing else.

Now, how are you so sure it was the Holy Spirit.

Believe me barboza21 when you have an experience like that you KNOW.

Because, as you know I believe that Jesus founded the Church with the apostles and said not even hell will prevail against it. He also said he would give them the Holy Spirit to guide them and let them know what to do . and Jesus said I will be with you until the end of time–how? Holy Spirit… Anyway, basically he founded the church said NOTHING can bring it down… and scripture says :
There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. I believe there is only one true church… DO you??

Yes, I believe that Jesus established one church. I just don’t believe that church is the CC.

Well the bible says yes… so I kinda doubt that Jesus would found his church when he was on earth and then about 1800 years later, the holy spirit inspires other people to build another church with different teachings and the holy spirit as well would go along to people in the catholic church or other places and say, hey… I got another church for ya… you’re in the wrong place… As if the Holy Spirit was going against Jesus! Do you kind of see what I am trying to say? How would you justify this? How would you explain your Church and all others that were born in the last 6 or so centuries?.. when the catholic church was born much more earlier than that…

At times I think its amazing that I see it so clear but people don’t see the same thing I do–I just don’t get WHY… I’d love to hear your insight on this. (I know the topic keeps on changing ang the posts get larger… but If you don;t mind… I’d appreciate it. Take your time…Thanks…)

God’s church has been with us from the fall of man.
Gen3
15And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

The impersonal pronoun in this v. “it” is applied to “thy seed” and designates that seed as being in the singular. The word “bruised” is translated from the Hebrew “shuph” which means crush. So what we have here is enmity between the seed (many) of Satan and the seed (singular, Jesus) of the woman (God’s church). Satan will bruise our Lord (crucify), but Jesus will crush Satan’s head (eliminate him forever).

No we don’t want to be UNCOOL. Our name says what we focus on. Seventh Day Adventist. The Seventh day Sabbath of the bible and the soon return of Jesus.

Well I can try to explain to you about why we celebrate Eucharist on Sunday.

Please do.

I know you say you know since you were catholic once. but the bible talks about the change… has a lot to do with what this conversation started out with…

Where does the bible talk about the change?

(by the way, when you’re baptized in the Catholic Church, you know that… ‘sign’ of the baptism doesn’t go away–even if you leave the church? ")

Baptism does not have the power to do anything to you. What baptism is is an outward sign of our faith in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and it is that sacrifice that saves us.

It is true that William Miller did focus on trying to predict the day of Jesus return and that as we all know was a mistake.

So since you know that… whats your thought on belonging to the church that was sort of built upon/around that mistake?

The church that I belong to is built upon Jesus Christ, not a mistake.

 

[benidict]

My, my, my. What a light YOU have shed. i have never seen that before. You are so right. Thank you for your insight!

God bless.

happy to help out. even the N.I.V. has a foot note on his convresation with Nicodemus. im far from the brightest bulb in the batch, but this passage jumped out at me one day, a long long time ago. now if you really want to talk to a couple of wonderful Catholic ladies, who show me how much more i need to learn… might i suggest Kathleen Gee, and Benedictus2. these ladies are incredibly well eductaed in the scriptures, and keep me in line, when i goof. lol! i am thankful for their guidance. anyhow, reguarding Richards testimony, i cant argue with him about that. He is doing as he believes the Holy Spirit is leading him to do. I have a such a similar testimony to his, its spooky. mine is in the reverse though. I was led to the Catholic Church. I also contemplated the S.D.A. at one point. but historically, and problems with their founders really caused me to have some serious reservations. and i also have a problem with their views on abortion, and their Christology. Peace

 

[Richard_Kastner]

’
Just thought I would use their good answers to explain some of the things we have talked about. They sound they have more experience than i.
Didn’t know if you had read them. Probably yes. ’
Do you agree with what is being said here?
Again, I know its a lot of loong posts… Take your time.

until next time…

Ok, let me take Ben’s post first.

Originally Posted by benidict
hi barboza. not a problem.

when speaking with nicodemus, he made the following statement in John 3:13 And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man who IS in heaven.

Here’s what my commentary says about v.13
Ascended up to heaven. That is, no human being has gone to heaven to learn of “heavenly things” (v. 12). Only the Son of man, who came from heaven, has ever been there, and He alone can reveal them. There is no reference here to Christ’s ascension to heaven following the resurrection.
Came down from heaven. Compare ch. 6:33, 38, 41, 42, 50, 51, 58; see on ch. 1:14.Son of man. Jesus’ characteristic title for Himself, use of which here is evidence that Jesus is still speaking. See on Mark. 2:10.
Which is in heaven. Important textual evidence may be cited (cf. p. 146) for the omission of this clause. If retained, it refers to the timeless existence of Jesus in heaven, His permanent abode. Possibly, however, the phrase was added by a later scribe, and thus at a time when Jesus was once more “in heaven.”

and sorry, wrong apostle. it was Nathaniel in John 1:48, Nathaniel, saith to him; whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said to him; Before that Phillip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee. he was revealing his omni-presence, making a Claim to be God.

Of coarse Jesus is God, but when you read this v. you see that Jesus nowhere claims that He was with Nathaniel in His physical body. What He does say is “I saw thee”. This attests to Jesus as a seer, a prophet. Heb.1:1God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

i was simply pointing out to Richard, that Christ kept his promise to the thief on the cross, about seeing him that day in paradise.

This might be ok if that was what Jesus said. Luke 23: 43And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise. Jesus says that He will be with him. Jn.19:17Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. But Jesus in Jn.19 says that He has not yet ascended to the Father. So you can believe the Gospel according to ben and say that Jesus was lying and that He really was with the Father three days before or you can believe that uninspired people that put the punctuation in the bible made a mistake. For me it’s a no brainer, but the choice is yours.

even though he had not gone to the father physically at that point, he was certainly there after his death, and proclaiming this victory at the same time in the nether world.

Again Ben says He was there Jesus says He wasn’t. Who do you believe?

by denying that Christ did not keep his promise to the thief, and changing the verse to meet a spurius doctrine,( that of soul sleep) there is a denial of Christ deity, and his Omni presence. Peace

Of coarse I’m not denying that Jesus will one day keep His promise, just not yet. As for this being a spurius doctrine. If it is then Jesus taught this spurius doctrine. Jn.11:11These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.
12Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well.
13Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep.
14Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

’
Just thought I would use their good answers to explain some of the things we have talked about. They sound they have more experience than i.
Didn’t know if you had read them. Probably yes. ’
Do you agree with what is being said here?
Again, I know its a lot of loong posts… Take your time.

until next time…

Ok. now for ryanoneil

Originally Posted by ryanoneil
“Throught the whole world” is elsewhere used to denote the scope of Christianity’s presence in the Roman Empire.

First, I give thanks to my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is heralded throughout the world. (Rom 1:8)

because of the hope reserved for you in heaven. Of this you have already heard through the word of truth, the gospel, that has come to you. Just as in the whole world it is bearing fruit and growing, so also among you, from the day you heard it and came to know the grace of God in truth (Col 1:5-6)

provided that you persevere in the faith, firmly grounded, stable, and not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, am a minister. (Col 1:23)

Ok, there is a difference in the vs. cited and what Paul is talking about.
In the vs. cited Paul is talking about the progress of the Gospel message in his day

Matt.24:14And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. is a prophecy, and is a sign of the time just prior to the return of Jesus. Jesus has not returned therefore this prophecy has not as yet been fullfilled.

Jesus also said in Mt 24:34 Amen, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place.

Jesus was saying his words would be accomplished within the lifetime of some of his hearers (about 40 years). Both Matthew and Revelation are refering to judgment at the end of the Old Covenant Age.

Ok, this completely bogus exegesis is a good reason to read very carefully and keep the context intact. Matt.24:3And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? Matt.24, the whole chapter is Jesus’ answer to His disciples question in Matt.24:3. So, if they asked about the signs of His comming and the end of the world, what is v.34 all about? Well let’s go back and see.

Matt.24
32Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:
33So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
34Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Jesus tells His disciples a parable of the fig tree. He says “When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.” So what are “all these things” in v. 33. Well, it’s all the signs of His comming that Jesus gave them up untill v. 32. So when Jesus says in v.34 “this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place.” He is talking about the fig tree generation or the ones at the end of time. The ones who are alive to see the signs of His comming.

You will be hated by all because of my name, but whoever endures to the end will be saved. When they persecute you in one town, flee to another. Amen, I say to you, you will not finish the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes. (Mt 10:22-23)

For the Son of Man will come with his angels in his Father’s glory, and then he will repay everyone according to his conduct. Amen, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." (Mt 16:27-28)

Please realize these verses (including Rev 14) were fulfilled in the first century at the judgment of Jerusalem and the Temple (architectural symbols of heaven and earth). This of course prefigures final judgment and the end of time.

Notice the embolden parts of your quoted vs. Jesus has NOT returned yet so these vs. have not been fulfilled. Likewise the Gospel has not yet been preached to the whole world, but the time is getting closer as we type.

 

[benedictus2]

Yes, I believe that Jesus established one church. I just don’t believe that church is the CC.

There’s a thread where are a currently discussing that. And the way it is going it tends to prove your wrong.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=530357&page=25

God’s church has been with us from the fall of man.

Well not according to Scripture. Jesus said He WILL build His Church upon Peter. So therefore even at that time in Ceasaria Philipi the Church was not established yet. The Church will be born at Pentecost.

However, the promise of God’s Church is already hinted at from the fall of man.

Gen3
15And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

The impersonal pronoun in this v. “it” is applied to “thy seed” and designates that seed as being in the singular. The word “bruised” is translated from the Hebrew “shuph” which means crush. So what we have here is enmity between the seed (many) of Satan and the seed (singular, Jesus) of the woman (God’s church). Satan will bruise our Lord (crucify), but Jesus will crush Satan’s head (eliminate him forever).

Well no. The woman here is not God’s Church. God’s Church did not give birth to Jesus in a manger in Bethlehem. When God became Incarnate, the Church was still a promise.

This verse promises the Incarnation by which God will “crush” Satan. But the Church is not the one that incarnated Jesus although we are all called to incarnate Him in our lives.

Before this (the Incarnation of God in our very own lives) can take place, the very real Incarnation of God (the Word being made Flesh) at a point in time in history has to take place first.

And this point in time in history, when the Word Became Flesh was to happen through a woman, Mary. Any denial of that is a denial of the Gospel, and this you have somehow done.

This is a common error that all protestants fall into because of rather selective reading of the Bible.

No we don’t want to be UNCOOL. Our name says what we focus on. Seventh Day Adventist. The Seventh day Sabbath of the bible and the soon return of Jesus.

Quite wrong. The seventh day which is when the Lord rested after Creation is indeed Saturday.

But remember, God began His creation on the first day.

Christ Church being the New Israel, has to be born once again. So if we are to be made a New Creation, therefore creation begins again. And it is interesting that when Jesus rose from the dead (to bring about the new creation) He does so on the First Day of the Week.

If we are true followers of Jesus, then we must follow the Church He very clearly established on earth. Or else we deny the Gospels, we deny that Jesus is God.

But of course that is understandable because I am not sure if the Seventh Day Adventist believes that Jesus is God.

Baptism does not have the power to do anything to you. What baptism is is an outward sign of our faith in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and it is that sacrifice that saves us.

Then you are saying that the Bible lies.

1 Peter 3:18-22 For Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the sake of the unrighteous, that he might lead you to God. Put to death in the flesh, he was brought to life in the spirit.
In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison, who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Chris,who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.

It is true that William Miller did focus on trying to predict the day of Jesus return and that as we all know was a mistake.

Which therefore attests to the fact that the SDA belief is rather bogus don’t you think.

The church that I belong to is built upon Jesus Christ, not a mistake.

Sorry because there again you are proved wrong.

The Church that Jesus started (He did not start many, only One) was started around about the year 30 AD.

Your church sprang up about one thousand eight hundred years later. A little bit too late.

 

[benedictus2]

Let me give you a little testimony. I have not told this to many on this forum because as I said I have been jumped on in this forum, but I don’t thik that you would do that. So, When I got married 20 years ago I decided to go back to the CC. I had fallen away from the church, but now that I was married and going to have children I believed that they needed a spiritual foundation. I was going to church fairly regularly, but I must say the conviction that the CC was the one true church was not there. Then I started to pray what became known as “My little prayer” It was simply Lord show me what it is you want me to do with my life. Well I had been praying this prayer for about a year and about 11 years ago I was at Mass and I can only say that I was visited by the Holy Spirit. It says in 1Cor.12 that the Holy Spirit gives gifts and one of those gifts is the gift of knowledge. I believe He gave me that gift that day and the knowledge that He gave me was twofold #1) I was in the wrong church and #2) I had to keep the Sabbath day. Now as a Catholic I always thought that the Sabbath was Sunday, yet when the Spirit gave me this knowledge I knew immediately that I had to keep the Seventh Day Sabbath of the bible and through a series of miracles He led me to the front door of the Seventh Day Adventist church. You ask am I sure that this church is the true church? If I am to believe the Spirit of God and the way He has opened the bible to me I can think nothing else.

There is such a thing called discernment of the spirits i.e. discernment between good and bad spirit. The devil masquerades as the angel of light.

And if he can draw you away from Christ’s Church he will for that is the only way he can lure you, by giving you so called “lights”.

Because the angel is the father of lies, he draws people away from the Truth of Christ’s Church through lies coated with a thin film of truth so that people will not perceive the hideous lie underneath. And this lie is enticing because it panders to our ego, to the self. And this is just par for the course considering that the devil’s temptation to Adam and Eve was not to make them sin but rather to present to them a lie and with this lie, their ego (their desire to be God) was stoked. And this is what led to the fall.

The only way to expose it for the lie that it is is to shed the light of reason upon it. Once exposed to this, it very quickly crumbles.

 

[benidict]

Ok, let me take Ben’s post first.

Here’s what my commentary says about v.13
Ascended up to heaven. That is, no human being has gone to heaven to learn of “heavenly things” (v. 12). Only the Son of man, who came from heaven, has ever been there, and He alone can reveal them. There is no reference here to Christ’s ascension to heaven following the resurrection.
Came down from heaven. Compare ch. 6:33, 38, 41, 42, 50, 51, 58; see on ch. 1:14.Son of man. Jesus’ characteristic title for Himself, use of which here is evidence that Jesus is still speaking. See on Mark. 2:10.
Which is in heaven. Important textual evidence may be cited (cf. p. 146) for the omission of this clause. If retained, it refers to the timeless existence of Jesus in heaven, His permanent abode. Possibly, however, the phrase was added by a later scribe, and thus at a time when Jesus was once more “in heaven.”

Of coarse Jesus is God, but when you read this v. you see that Jesus nowhere claims that He was with Nathaniel in His physical body. What He does say is “I saw thee”. This attests to Jesus as a seer, a prophet. Heb.1:1God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

This might be ok if that was what Jesus said. Luke 23: 43And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise. Jesus says that He will be with him. Jn.19:17Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. But Jesus in Jn.19 says that He has not yet ascended to the Father. So you can believe the Gospel according to ben and say that Jesus was lying and that He really was with the Father three days before or you can believe that uninspired people that put the punctuation in the bible made a mistake. For me it’s a no brainer, but the choice is yours.

Again Ben says He was there Jesus says He wasn’t. Who do you believe?

Of coarse I’m not denying that Jesus will one day keep His promise, just not yet. As for this being a spurius doctrine. If it is then Jesus taught this spurius doctrine. Jn.11:11These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.
12Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well.
13Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep.
14Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.

Richard. are you stating that Jesus did not mean what he said to Nicodemus? are you denying that he, being God, can be in all places at one time? i know you are denying what he stated to the thief on the cross. and you once again show us, that Adventist do not worship the same Jesus, that has been preached for 2000 years. our Jesus, is fully human and fully divine. omniprescence is one of the attributes of the divine. do you need some more proof my friend? ok. when the devil took Jesus onto a mountain top, he showed Him ALL the kingdoms of the world. Jesus could see all the kingdoms of the world in a glance. i do not believe he told the thief that someday he would be with him in paradise. i believe the scriptures are quite clear that we go somewhere when we die, and that Jesus is omnipresent. if you deny Jesus was omnipresent, then again, you deny his deity. there are a number of ways i can go from here. such as, where do you think Christ was, during the 3 days in the tomb? sleeping? if that were so, creation would have ceased to exist. because, as the Jewish scholars teach, if God were to forget us for one instant, all of creation would cease to be. we are, because He is. who are we to believe. the Church that Christ gave authority too? or a prophetess who could not even follow the teachings she imposed on her own adherents? who could not give up her addiction to meat, butter, shell fish, etc. for 25 years, after the commandment by the angel to give up such. whos writings are littered with masonic terminology. i think the answer is obvious. Peace

 

[benedictus2]

This is what I’ve read on many websites. Is this what Seventh Day Adventists really believe?

The prediction of the year 1843 was based in large part on Daniel 8:14: “And he said onto me, unto 2,300 days, then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.” Miller believed the “2,300 days” referred to 2,300 years and that the countdown began in 457 BC. He concluded that the “cleansing of the sanctuary” (interpreted as the Second Coming) would occur sometime between March 21, 1843 and March 21, 1844.

When these dates passed, Samuel Snow, a follower of Miller, interpreted the “tarrying time” referred to in Habakkuk 2:3 as equal to 7 months and 10 days, thus delaying the end time to October 22, 1844. When this date also passed uneventfully, many followers left the movement in what is now termed “The Great Disappointment.”

Miller’s followers who remained in the movement called themselves Adventists, and taught that the expectation had been fulfilled in a way that had not previously been understood. Further Bible study led to the belief that Jesus in that year had entered into the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary, and began an “investigative judgment” of the world: a process through which there is an examination of the heavenly records to “determine who, through repentance of sin and faith in Christ, are entitled to the benefits of His atonement” after which time Jesus will return to earth. According to the church’s teaching, the return of Christ may occur very soon, though nobody knows the exact date of that event (Matthew 24:36).

Is the place of the heavenly sanctuary the seat at the right hand of the father?

Thanks!

Even Christ said He did not know. Only the Father knows.

So whoever does the predicting must think he/she is better than the Second Person of the Trinity.

 

[benidict]

Even Christ said He did not know. Only the Father knows.

So whoever does the predicting must think he/she is better than the Second Person of the Trinity.

It is also interesting to note, E.G. Whites frequent use of the term, WATCHERS. most people do not know, that watchers are demonic spirits, who had fallen from heaven, before the flood and mated with human women. you can read about them in the book of enoch. this is frightening stuff indeed. for if these were the ones she was in contact with, and thought they were angelic beings…:bigyikes: also, there is evidence she may have been involved in seaces, and seeking out the dead, to tell her future. which is why she refused to move to battle creek. the spirits told her not to. she disobeyed them in this also…

 

[ryanoneil]

Ok, there is a difference in the vs. cited and what Paul is talking about.
In the vs. cited Paul is talking about the progress of the Gospel message in his day

Matt.24:14And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. is a prophecy, and is a sign of the time just prior to the return of Jesus. Jesus has not returned therefore this prophecy has not as yet been fullfilled.

You assume this only refers to Christ’s Second coming in glory. First and foremost it refers Christ’s coming judgment upon Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

Ok, this completely bogus exegesis is a good reason to read very carefully and keep the context intact. Matt.24:3And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

The disciples where actually asking when the Temple would be destroyed. They did not say at the end of the world. They said at the close of the age. This was the coming judgment at the end of the Old Covenant age, not Christ’s Second coming in glory. The Old Covenant and biblical Judaism ended with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.

Matt.24, the whole chapter is Jesus’ answer to His disciples question in Matt.24:3. So, if they asked about the signs of His comming and the end of the world, what is v.34 all about? Well let’s go back and see.

Jesus left the temple area and was going away, when his disciples approached him to point out the temple buildings. He said to them in reply, “You see all these things, do you not? Amen, I say to you, there will not be left here a stone upon another stone that will not be thrown down.” (Mt 24:1-2)

The disciples are asking when the Temple will be destroyed and the Old Covenant age will end. Try reading Luke 21. This and Mt 24 is refering to a single event. The destruction of the Temple.

"All that you see here–the days will come when there will not be left a stone upon another stone that will not be thrown down." Then they asked him, “Teacher, when will this happen? And what sign will there be when all these things are about to happen?” (Lk 21:6-7)

"When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, know that its desolation is at hand. Then those in Judea must flee to the mountains. Let those within the city escape from it, and let those in the countryside not enter the city, for these days are the time of punishment when all the scriptures are fulfilled. Woe to pregnant women and nursing mothers in those days, for a terrible calamity will come upon the earth and a wrathful judgment upon this people. They will fall by the edge of the sword and be taken as captives to all the Gentiles; and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. (Lk 21:20-24)

Matt.24Jesus tells His disciples a parable of the fig tree. He says “When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.” So what are “all these things” in v. 33. Well, it’s all the signs of His comming that Jesus gave them up untill v. 32. So when Jesus says in v.34 “this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place.” He is talking about the fig tree generation or the ones at the end of time. The ones who are alive to see the signs of His comming.

Your reinterpretation of “this generation” is inconsistent with the Greek word’s meaning. It is used twenty times in the NT and without exception it always refers to the people who were alive, listening to the speaker.

Notice the embolden parts of your quoted vs. Jesus has NOT returned yet so these vs. have not been fulfilled. Likewise the Gospel has not yet been preached to the whole world, but the time is getting closer as we type.

Notice Jesus said there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. What you are entirely missing is the initial fulfillement. People desperately try to push Dan 7:13-14 into the future. The son of man coming on the clouds of heaven is Jesus ascending to the Father. He is going to God, not coming to earth. This is the time when Jesus is recognized as the victor in heaven. The earthly evidence in the first century is when his enemies were made his footstool.

Finally two came forward who stated, “This man said, ‘I can destroy the temple of God and within three days rebuild it.’” The high priest rose and addressed him, “Have you no answer? What are these men testifying against you?” But Jesus was silent. Then the high priest said to him, “I order you to tell us under oath before the living God whether you are the Messiah, the Son of God.” Jesus said to him in reply, “You have said so. But I tell you: From now on you will see ‘the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power’ and ‘coming on the clouds of heaven.’” (Mt 26:60-64)

The Temple, architectural symbol of the Old Covenant, would be judged and destroyed making way for Israel’s faithful remnant in the Church, the new Temple of God. Jesus is talking to those who are listening to him. Just as the Lord rode a swift cloud to Egypt in the form of the Assyrian army (Isa 19:1), which wasn’t a physical coming, Jesus judgment came on the cloud of the Roman army. These verses point to Christ’s second coming but they first refer to judgment at the end of the Old Covenant.

 

[PJM]

=barboza21;7410901]Hi,
I know that the Adventist movement was kind of first funded through Miller. However, he had false profecies. I am not sure what really happened. I would like to know what Daniel 8:13-14 really means.

Thanks to all!

The verses have been posted on a previous post: Here according to Haydock’s Catholic Commentary **is there meaning:

Ver. 7. Hand. He routed all the forces of his enemy (Haydock) at the Granicus, at Issus; and at Gaugamela, (Calmet) or Arbela, Darius escaped, but was slain by his own servants. (Haydock) — The clemency of the conqueror towards the fallen royal family is not here specified. (Calmet)

Ver. 8. Broken, by death. Usher, in the year 3681 [319 B.C.] — Four. Seleucus, Antigonus, Philip, and Ptolemeus, the successors of Alexander, who divided his empire among them. (Challoner) — Other generals held out for some time. Philip was only a nominal king; Antipater governed Macedon and Greece. Syria, Asia, and Egypt, formed three other kingdoms. All four marked out by the four heads of the leopard. (Chap. vii. 6.) But the prophet is intent upon Syria and Egypt, which had most to do with the Jews. (Calmet)

Ver. 9. A little horn. Antiochus Epiphanes, a descendant of Seleucus. He grew against the south and the east, by his victories over the kings of Egypt and Armenia; and against the strength, that is, against Jerusalem and the people of God. (Challoner) — He persecuted God’s people, and set up the idol of Jupiter Olympius in the very temple. (Worthington)

God Bless,
Pat

 

[Richard_Kastner]

You assume this only refers to Christ’s Second coming in glory. First and foremost it refers Christ’s coming judgment upon Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

The disciples where actually asking when the Temple would be destroyed. They did not say at the end of the world. They said at the close of the age. This was the coming judgment at the end of the Old Covenant age, not Christ’s Second coming in glory. The Old Covenant and biblical Judaism ended with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.

Jesus left the temple area and was going away, when his disciples approached him to point out the temple buildings. He said to them in reply, “You see all these things, do you not? Amen, I say to you, there will not be left here a stone upon another stone that will not be thrown down.” (Mt 24:1-2)

The disciples are asking when the Temple will be destroyed and the Old Covenant age will end. Try reading Luke 21. This and Mt 24 is refering to a single event. The destruction of the Temple.

"All that you see here–the days will come when there will not be left a stone upon another stone that will not be thrown down." Then they asked him, “Teacher, when will this happen? And what sign will there be when all these things are about to happen?” (Lk 21:6-7)

"When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, know that its desolation is at hand. Then those in Judea must flee to the mountains. Let those within the city escape from it, and let those in the countryside not enter the city, for these days are the time of punishment when all the scriptures are fulfilled. Woe to pregnant women and nursing mothers in those days, for a terrible calamity will come upon the earth and a wrathful judgment upon this people. They will fall by the edge of the sword and be taken as captives to all the Gentiles; and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. (Lk 21:20-24)

While it is true that Jesus disciples did think that Jesus would disappear and then return to bring His kingdom to this earth. We know that that interpretation was wrong. Jesus knew that His disciples could not handle the knowledge of what would really happen to God’s people in the many years to His second comming. So He mixed the destruction of the temple in with language of His second comming and left it to their own devices to figure out His meaning. Up until v. 21 Jesus is talking pretty much exclusively about the destruction of the temple. From v.21 on He is talking pretty much exclusively about His second comming. Can there be any mistake what Jesus is talking about in these vs.

Matt.24
27For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
28For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.
29Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Compare with 1 Thess.4

14For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
15For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
18Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

Or this

1Cor 15
52In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
54So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
55O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
56The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.
57But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
58Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

Can there be any doubt that Jesus is talking about His return in Matt.24:27-31 and Paul is talking of the same event in 1Thess 4 and 1Cor15

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Your reinterpretation of “this generation” is inconsistent with the Greek word’s meaning. It is used twenty times in the NT and without exception it always refers to the people who were alive, listening to the speaker.

In the nineteen other times it probably is talking about the people listening to the speaker. This time it is referring to the people of the fig tree generation. Look at the passage

Matt24
32Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:
33So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
34Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Jesus is saying here that when the sequence of events start that will herald His return that it will happen within the lifetime of the people observing them. In otherwards in a relatively short period of time. If v.34 is not talking about the fig tree generation it would render the parable as useless.

Notice Jesus said there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

My commentary has this to say.

1. Verily. See on ch. 5:18.
   Till they see. It is significant that all three Synoptic Gospels record the narrative of the Transfiguration immediately following this prediction. There is no break in the narrative—no chapter or verse division in the Greek original—and furthermore all three mention the fact that the Transfiguration occurred about a week after this statement, implying that the event was the fulfillment of the prediction. The connection between the two sections of narrative seems to preclude the possibility that Jesus here referred to anything but the Transfiguration, which was a miniature demonstration of the kingdom of glory. Undoubtedly Peter so understood it (see 2 Peter 1:16–18).

What you are entirely missing is the initial fulfillement. People desperately try to push Dan 7:13-14 into the future. The son of man coming on the clouds of heaven is Jesus ascending to the Father. He is going to God, not coming to earth. This is the time when Jesus is recognized as the victor in heaven. The earthly evidence in the first century is when his enemies were made his footstool.

What do you mean I’m “entirely missing” the initial fullfillment.

I totally agree with your assesment of Dan.7:13,14

Dan7
13I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
14And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

I believe this is a representation of Jesus entering the holy of holies in heaven where He is awarded His people which He so dearly won.

Finally two came forward who stated, “This man said, ‘I can destroy the temple of God and within three days rebuild it.’” The high priest rose and addressed him, “Have you no answer? What are these men testifying against you?” But Jesus was silent. Then the high priest said to him, “I order you to tell us under oath before the living God whether you are the Messiah, the Son of God.” Jesus said to him in reply, “You have said so. But I tell you: From now on you will see ‘the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power’ and ‘coming on the clouds of heaven.’” (Mt 26:60-64)

The Temple, architectural symbol of the Old Covenant, would be judged and destroyed making way for Israel’s faithful remnant in the Church, the new Temple of God. Jesus is talking to those who are listening to him. Just as the Lord rode a swift cloud to Egypt in the form of the Assyrian army (Isa 19:1), which wasn’t a physical coming, Jesus judgment came on the cloud of the Roman army. These verses point to Christ’s second coming but they first refer to judgment at the end of the Old Covenant.

I’m not quite sure I get what you are saying here. Are you saying that Jesus already came the second time in the form of the Roman general Titus, who lead the attack on Jerusalem? If this is what you are saying I think you better turn around and take another look.

 

[barboza21]

Believe me barboza21 when you have an experience like that you KNOW.

The thing I say though is that many people can say that. Do you agree that it can’t be true for everyone??

Yes, I believe that Jesus established one church. I just don’t believe that church is the CC.

How come? Do you thinks its your church? and if so, how would you go about proving that? ((this is going to take us in a another direction I know. haha))

God’s church has been with us from the fall of man.
Gen3
15And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

The impersonal pronoun in this v. “it” is applied to “thy seed” and designates that seed as being in the singular. The word “bruised” is translated from the Hebrew “shuph” which means crush. So what we have here is enmity between the seed (many) of Satan and the seed (singular, Jesus) of the woman (God’s church). Satan will bruise our Lord (crucify), but Jesus will crush Satan’s head (eliminate him forever).

No we don’t want to be UNCOOL. Our name says what we focus on. Seventh Day Adventist. The Seventh day Sabbath of the bible and the soon return of Jesus.

((I don’t see how that verse says that God’s Church–the one and only-- has been here since adam and eve. and I’m also not sure if that’s the correct way to interpret that verse. you provide a very different view from what I would say about it. ))

Please do.

Where does the bible talk about the change?

In Hebrews. revelation. acts. corinthians. isaiah. col. DO you want to go into this topic completely? I know there are many things to talk about… I think we need to choose one though, because we just run around in circles without coming to a conclusion of some kind…

Baptism does not have the power to do anything to you. What baptism is is an outward sign of our faith in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and it is that sacrifice that saves us.

Im not saying it keeps you catholic. But when you are baptized, well with a valid holy spirit baptism I should say better, you have the Holy spirit … ‘imprint’ on your soul? Im trying to say that the sign of the baptism doesn’t go away–even ifyou leave the church. Does that kind of make sense?

It is true that William Miller did focus on trying to predict the day of Jesus return and that as we all know was a mistake.

The church that I belong to is built upon Jesus Christ, not a mistake.

Okay, so the person that founded your church focused on doing something that is prohibited by the bible, and from there came your church but its not founded on his mistake. I understand you say your church is built upon Jesus, but your church was founded on a human. correct?

So sorry for taking long to reply. School madness. Please accept my apology. I really do enjoy our long conversations.

 

[barboza21]

Ok, let me take Ben’s post first.
Here’s what my commentary says about v.13
Ascended up to heaven. That is, no human being has gone to heaven to learn of “heavenly things” (v. 12). Only the Son of man, who came from heaven, has ever been there, and He alone can reveal them. There is no reference here to Christ’s ascension to heaven following the resurrection.
Came down from heaven. Compare ch. 6:33, 38, 41, 42, 50, 51, 58; see on ch. 1:14.Son of man. Jesus’ characteristic title for Himself, use of which here is evidence that Jesus is still speaking. See on Mark. 2:10.
Which is in heaven. Important textual evidence may be cited (cf. p. 146) for the omission of this clause. If retained, it refers to the timeless existence of Jesus in heaven, His permanent abode. Possibly, however, the phrase was added by a later scribe, and thus at a time when Jesus was once more “in heaven.”

Like you say in the next paragraph, Of course Jesus is God. Do you truly mean it Richard? Because when Jesus tells the thief he will be with him in Heaven, he means with me, God. Jesus is God. Jesus wasn’t lying. Jesus’ physical body wasn’t yet ascended. But Jesus is God. and God is in Heaven. Yeah??

Of coarse Jesus is God, but when you read this v. you see that Jesus nowhere claims that He was with Nathaniel in His physical body. What He does say is “I saw thee”. This attests to Jesus as a seer, a prophet. Heb.1:1God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Why would Jesus need to say he was there with him physically? I dont understand… Jesus saw him when he was under the fig tree. Like benedict said, he was revealing his omni-presence.

This might be ok if that was what Jesus said. Luke 23: 43And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise. Jesus says that He will be with him. Jn.19:17Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. But Jesus in Jn.19 says that He has not yet ascended to the Father. So you can believe the Gospel according to ben and say that Jesus was lying and that He really was with the Father three days before or you can believe that uninspired people that put the punctuation in the bible made a mistake. For me it’s a no brainer, but the choice is yours.

Well we need to clarify: like above. Physical Jesus, human Jesus wasnt yet in Heaven. But Divine Jesus, God Jesus was in Heaven–he has been since the begginng of time… since always and forever. Thats why this makes sense. Yes?

Again Ben says He was there Jesus says He wasn’t. Who do you believe?

Ben and Jesus aren’t disagreeing with each other, if you believe Jesus is true God.

Of coarse I’m not denying that Jesus will one day keep His promise, just not yet. As for this being a spurius doctrine. If it is then Jesus taught this spurius doctrine. Jn.11:11These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.
12Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well.
13Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep.
14Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.

? I don’t know what you mean here…

 

[barboza21]

RICHARD

I agree with what benedict and benedictus2.

I think their points are valid and… correct. This is what Catholics believe, obviously. Do you mind letting us know, how we are wrong? Or if you think we’re right…

Again, we have ‘covered’ so many diff topics, but don’t come to any one conclusion at all. we don’t even agree to disagree, we just kind of continue to go on to the next topic. Maybe we should focus on one…? What do you think?

Best,
Barboza