Do scars remain in Jesus' feet and hands?

[Woody]

Quote:

In short if you have any doctrine it must come clearly from the Bible, if it does not then you have to try and get people such as other Christians who already accept the Bible as their standard to accept your chosen prophet on top of the Bible. That is counter productive especially if one holds to the idea that EGW was used to point people to the Bible.

Well said. Something important for us to keep in mind.

Thank you Ron.

[fccool]

I personally for myself went over the subject of EGW many times. I think that the evangelicals outside of SDA do take offense at what she wrote, and thus they try to disprove the remote possibility of her being right, ignoring all of the wonderful guidance that she gives. I think when introducing EGW to somebody who is unfamiliar, I would begin with something like Adventist Home, instead of giving them GC and waiting for the explosive reaction. I know, because such was my experience. The problems that I've had with her were:

1) She stated some things that were not explicitly stated in the Bible

2) She went against many things that I believed at the time.

I think that with time and more reading I realized a couple of things. Number one and the main one, is that Bible does not layout the requirement to believe in a future prophet to be saved. Bible is complete and contains everything we need to know and understand. Requirement is relationship and mind transformation. God will judge the wrights and wrongs. No one will be able to use the "but my pastor said that" excuse. So, with that being said I learned to give people (and myself) freedom to grow in faith and have moments of doubt... through doubt we grow. If Israel, who had observed God's miracles first hands had rejected God... I would think that we would likewise have moments of doubt and disbelief.

One of the biggest things that I've learned from EGW experience, about myself and the religious experience in general... we simply don't know... That's what the faith is all about, we choose to believe based on some knowledge that we received. By faith we receive it as truth, and we believe it to be so... but we could be wrong. We have to understand that we could be wrong. God accommodates doubt, if doubt clears up... then our faith is made stronger. But either way, we have to diligently study out and check up the facts...

For example, my pastor has been putting up certain historical facts that I found questionable. One of such was claim that Ostrogoths were defeated and uprooted in 538 AD when papacy took power. Upon checking up reliable sources, all of them agreed that Ostrogoths did not vanish until 555 AD. My pastor did not have answer for my question... he simply followed the script provided for him before and failed to check the facts out. But I don't see it in any way being a stumbling block for my faith. We learn from our mistakes and move on... just like people did in 1848. When there's faith mixed with lack of understanding... there will be mistakes. That's why important and diligent unscripted (I.E. quarterly devotions) self studies are important. Don't get me wrong... guided devotions are great, but they leave you hanging in out in the dry when the rubber really meets the road. We can never live somebody else's faith, which at times I found myself doing.

[John317]

...My pastor has been putting up certain historical facts that I found questionable. One of such was claim that Ostrogoths were defeated and uprooted in 538 AD when papacy took power. Upon checking up reliable sources, all of them agreed that Ostrogoths did not vanish until 555 AD. My pastor did not have answer for my question...

Go back and check out what was going with the Ostrogoths about 538 AD. You will find that even though they did not entirely disappear until 555 AD, they were all but history before that time. The point is, as far as the prophecy is concerned that, the Ostrogoths were not standing in the way of the power of the Bishop of Rome after 538 AD. It is not a question of whether they completely disappeared in 538 AD. The fact is that they were "defeated and uprooted" as a power opposing the Bishop of Rome in 538 AD.

Here is the evidence which I wrote for a thread about a year ago:

Please kindly consider below what I believe is strong evidence that SDAs' are correct in their understanding of the significance of the year AD 538.

Will Durant, in his book, The Age of Faith, p. 110, describes the Ostrogoths after AD 538 "the defeated people". When you read the whole story of what happened at that time, it is obvious that the Ostrogoths were a dying, disorganized, and weak force, in the last throes of their existence as nation.

Think for a few moments about these well documented facts:

In AD 549, the only reason Totila and his army of 10,000 were finally able to take Rome for what historian Durant describes as a "brief success" was owing to the fact that Justinian considered the West was won and had called Belisarius to the East for the war against Persia. By AD 553, only 8 years after their failed siege against Rome, Narses had driven the Ostrogoths from Italy.

It should be obvious that the weakened state of the Ostrogoths was such by that time that they had ceased to be a serious opposition to the Pope religiously or politically long before they were actually driven out of Italy. Here's why:

The ultimate defeat of the Ostrogoths was made a foregone conclusion by the Emperor's decision when he got news of Belisarius' victories against the Vandals. Says Gibbons, "Impatient to abolish the temporal and spiritual tyranny of the Vandals, [Justinian] proceeded without delay to the full establishment of the Catholic Church" (Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Ch. 41, paragraph 11). It was at that point that he called Belisarius to Italy in order to defeat the Ostrogoths and thus give the Pope the power to do what the law already said he should do, which was to force everyone to conform doctrinally to the Western Orthodox Church's teachings.

The Pope clearly was able to do this when the Ostrogoths were driven back from Rome, thus freeing the Bishop of Rome to peform the duties that the Emperor's new laws intended him to do. That much is obvious, and it is all we are concerned with at this point. It doesn't matter that a few years later, an admittedly weakened, disorganized, and even defeated people, came into a Rome that was virtually defenseless.

Totila's army of 10,000 was able to enter Rome because the Greek garrison was demoralized, its officers incompetant and cowards, and traiters opened the gates to the Goths. Totila then let Rome for Ravenna, at which point Belisarius recaptured the city of Rome. (See page 110 of Durant's The Age of Faith.)

Please notice that in AD 538, Witigis' Ostrogoths laid siege to Rome with 150,000, but in AD 549, Totila's Ostrogoths had only 10,000 men under arms. It's hard to believe that under those circumstances anyone is going to seriously deny that AD 538 was a very significant year in terms of the lessening of Ostrogothic power. Again, remember that in AD 538, Belisarius had only 5,000 men in arms, yet the Ostrogoths' 150,000 troops failed to take the city and after a year returned in defeat to Ravenna. The Ostrogoths lost 1/3 of their people in that slaughter. At that point, according to Durant, they were a "defeated people." I don't know about you, but to me it sounds as if AD 538 was rather a pivotal year in terms of the influence and power of the Ostrogoths. They came back to Rome with an army of a mere 10,000, and succeeded in taking a virtually defenseless city for what the historian calls a "brief success."

Therefore, I submit, SDA's have very good historical grounds for saying AD 538 was the year in which the 1260 year prophecy should begin because that was the year that the Ostrogothic kingdom lost whatever significant power and influence they had excercised before, and the year when the Bishop of Rome was free of serious Arian oppostion to his position as head of all the Christian churches. The Ostrogoths were afterwards a defeated and doomed people, and no "brief success" by a mere force of 10,000 in taking a defenseless Rome can change those all-important facts.

[Woody]

Quote:

I would begin with something like Adventist Home

Shudder Shudder. Oh Please.

Have you read that book recently?

Might I suggest Christ's Object Lessons or Steps to Christ?

[John317]

In AD 537/8, the Ostrogoths had 150,000 men under arms; but when they came back they had an army of only 10,000. Now, please, what sane and sober military officer would not call that a catastrophic defeat?

Totila's mere 10,000 took Rome only because Belisarius was called to the East to fight the war against Persia and Justinian considered the West already won. Also because the Greek garrison in Rome was demoralized, its officers incompentant cowards, and because traiters opened the gates to the Goths. That is when Totila took Rome again (AD 549). But it was a very brief success. Justinian sent Narses to Rome and he drove the Goths from Italy (AD 553). This clearly supports what Desmond Ford says in his commentary on Daniel, that the Ostrogoths were not a threat during this period to the Pope's power and influence.

An interesting insight into the Ostrogothic "success" and radically declining strength is that in AD 540, the Ostrogoths of Ravenna offered to surrender to Belisarius if he would become their King. He lied, they surrendered, and then he happily presented the city to Justinian. At that time, Belisarius was always escorted by a large number of Vandals, Goths and Moors. (See Durant's The Age Of Faith, p. 109.) Clearly the Goths and Vandals were subdued and defeated if they would escort the man who had destroyed them and ask him to become their king.

All we are arguing is that the Pope had been declared the head of all the churches, the corrector of heretics, and that the Emperor was prepared to defeat the Pope's unorthodox enemies, which he did in short order.

Pope Silverius was removed from Rome in AD 537 by Belisarius and was exiled to the Island of Palmeria where he soon died from harsh treatment. Vigilius was made Pope by the orders of the Emperor. (Durant's The Age Of Faith, p. 115)

What does that show? It shows that the emperor was concerned to make the Papacy, the Catholic Church and trinitarian, orthodox doctrine dominate and would do almost anything to see it happen. That is all that's important so far as the 1,260 day/year prophecy is concerned.

Justinian made the Pope head of all the churches in 533. What matters as far as the 1260 day/year prophecy is that event that led to the Pope's being able to be the head of the churches without serious opposition from the Arian nations, which, as we have pointed out, occurred in AD 538, when the Ostrogoths were reduced from a force of 150,000 men under arms to one of 10,000 and compelled to lift their siege against Rome.

It's important to remember that the growth of the Bishop's power did not come all at once. AD 538 was an important date in its development, but it was a gradual process before the Papacy would reach the zenith of its power and influence. The fifth century Leo the Great was the first pope under whom the new power of the bishop of Rome was clearly visible. ( J.M. Roberts, History of the World,1987, p. 301)

Consider these facts alone and then tell me that AD 538 was not a significant year for papal power: In AD 537/8, the Ostrogoths had 150,000 men under arms; but when they came back they had an army of only 10,000. Now, please, what sane and sober military officer would not call that a catastrophic defeat?

In studying this subject recently, I've been amazed at how many historians see Justinian's autocratic rule the precursor of the Pope's autocratic rule in the Church. Well, when do you think that all started? Around AD 538, when the Emperor sent his best general to destroy dissenters of the pope docrines. Guess who continued that policy when he had the power to do so? Yes, the bishop of Rome.

[John317]

Quote:

I would begin with something like Adventist Home

Shudder Shudder. Oh Please.

Have you read that book recently?

Might I suggest Christ's Object Lessons or Steps to Christ?

I love Adventist Home and have found it very helpful. And yes, I am reading now. My wife is reading it in Spanish and we have fun discussing it with your children.

What is it about that book that you do not like?

[fccool]

It's so applicable even by today's standards! I think in a way it became the lost art. Especially the warnings of the city influence and difficulties living in a city in the last days. That stroke me as providential. Thinking about what happened when the power went out for a day in the NYC... what would happen if both the water and the power is gone... like in New Orleans? I think that call to leave the Babylon is not only call to leave the spiritual one, but also the physical one as the last days draw near.

[fccool]

I would think that being a woman she emphasized gender equality, while it may not have been the popular belief during her days too. I'm surprised that she did not get much heat for that (or perhaps she did, I don't know..)

[fccool]

I understand what you are saying about the "beginning" of the defeat... but I would not call it the end of the nation... especially considering that the capital took another 2 years to conquer, and that unlikely comeback you have mentioned. I have no problem with the "beginning of the end", yet I don't see the "uprooted" title as appropriate. But again, I don't make a big deal out of it as my faith does not rest on our understanding of dates but on the person of God and His promices.

[LifeHiscost]

1) She stated some things that were not explicitly stated in the Bible

[John317]

I understand what you are saying about the "beginning" of the defeat... but I would not call it the end of the nation... especially considering that the capital took another 2 years to conquer, and that unlikely comeback you have mentioned. I have no problem with the "beginning of the end", yet I don't see the "uprooted" title as appropriate. But again, I don't make a big deal out of it as my faith does not rest on our understanding of dates but on the person of God and His promices.

The accuracy of prophecy is important because it gives evidence that God is trustworthy and is in ultimate control of history. See Isaiah 41, 43, 44, where He says that His ability to foretell the future accurately is one of the proofs that He is God. So God says that prophecy is something we should examine carefully to see if He is who He says He is. If the prophecies fail, according to the Bible's own testimony, then the prophecies cannot be used as evidence that He is God. Such prophecies are objective evidence of God's existence and power.

On the other hand, if God is right about the prophecies we're discussing, then it shows that we can be absolutely confident and certain of the other events in the time prophecies, such as the Pre-Advent Judgment.

Let's suppose that upon close examination, the prophecies were proved to be non-existent. What effect would such proof have? Would we be able to say honestly that it doesn't matter and that we simply have faith in God, even though the evidence he asked us to look at proves that He doesn't know the future after all? If the events in the time prophecies did not occur, or if no one can be sure whether or not they occurred, how certain could we be of the Pre-Advent Judgment or of the Second Coming?

The prophecies, then, are indeed important and can't be swept aside as if nothing depends on them. They are evidence that our trust in God is not misplaced. The Messianic prophecies are the same: they prove that Jesus Christ is the Messiah. We cannot say that the prophecies about Him are unimportant. He Himself pointed to them as proof of who He was.

I find it a remarkable fulfillment of prophecy that the Pope was taken captive by Napoleon exactly 1,260 years following the defeat and virtual elimination of the Ostrogoths, which led to the rise in power of the papacy.

What matters in terms of the 1260 day/year prophecy is the event which led to the Pope's being able to be the head of the churches without serious opposition from the Arian nations. That event occurred in AD 538, when the Ostrogoths were reduced from a force of 150,000 men under arms to one of 10,000 and compelled to lift their siege against Rome.

We might have some disagreement over the exact process of the elimination of the Ostrogoths, but what we can be certain of is that 538 AD was a pivotal year for the rise of the papacy. This fact itself unquestionably dovetails quite well with the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation.

[LifeHiscost]

We might have some disagreement over the exact process of the elimination of the Ostrogoths, but what we can be certain of is that 538 AD was a pivotal year for the rise of the papacy. This fact itself unquestionably dovetails quite well with the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation.

One of the stated reasons in the Word revealing the need for prophecy, I believe is best described in the AMP bible.

"And now I have told you [this] before it occurs, so that when it does take place you may believe and have faith in and rely on Me." John 14:29 AMP

"And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe." John 14:29 KJV

When dealing with the prophecies we have at least a twofold purpose. If dealing with an unbeliever, maybe ourself, the ability to logically reveal that Jesus is truly Lord and Saviour.

Third, to allow we who already have had our faith established in Jesus, to prepare for events that could be important to our safety during trying times before us.

"Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution." 2 Timothy 3:12 KJV

Regards!

[fccool]

Could that mean that we were wrong... and not God who is wrong? I'm not saying that we are... but what if Pope is not the antichrist of the revelation? Have you considered this possibility, and the consequences of your locking into and believing that no matter what other say... he is because it's "prophetic".... and what if the Sunday observance will not be the mark of the beast? Don't you see the danger in locking on a echatological view dismissing any other possibilities? What are your thoughts on that?

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Could that mean that we were wrong... and not God who is wrong? I'm not saying that we are... but what if Pope is not the antichrist of the revelation? Have you considered this possibility, and the consequences of your locking into and believing that no matter what other say... he is because it's "prophetic".... and what if the Sunday observance will not be the mark of the beast? Don't you see the danger in locking on a echatological view dismissing any other possibilities? What are your thoughts on that?

Do you mean what if everything we believe is wrong, including the Sabbath, the nature of man in death, the Second Coming, the gift of prophecy, the sanctuary? What if the Bible is nothing but a bundle of contradictions and can't be understood?

My best friend of 37 years is an atheist and asks me questions such as how does anyone know what is truth. In fact, he doesn't think we can really know anything for sure. The other day he asked me if God likes having sex. My friend sees nothing wrong with people having sex with anything they want to. He has scarcely read a page of the Bible. He doesn't have the Holy Spirit guiding him and he has no respect for God. I expect such questions from him.

[John317]

....Could that mean that we were wrong... and not God who is wrong? I'm not saying that we are... but what if Pope is not the antichrist of the revelation? Have you considered this possibility, and the consequences of your locking into and believing that no matter what other say... he is because it's "prophetic".... and what if the Sunday observance will not be the mark of the beast? Don't you see the danger in locking on a echatological view dismissing any other possibilities? What are your thoughts on that?

Of course I have considered that possibility. Each person has to study these things out and find out for himself what he believes about them. If you have studied them seriously and looked at the questions and the Bible teachings on these topics, there can only be one answer to the identity of the antichrist and little horn power. The same with the Sabbath and the Mark of beast. All I can say to you is that if you are not certain of these things, you really need to go back and study them until you are certain one way or the other. No one can do that for anyone else.

[fccool]

Do you think it would be wrong to keep the open mind about things and let the history reveal itself? I am certain that people who love God would do what He says. I have no question in my mind about Sabbath being the commandment that we should keep. Do you think God will judge people based on their understanding of eschatology... or their love and care for each other and for God? What is more important? How can you ever be certain about things on the outside of the door that you can not possibly open up? Can we ever be? Not to say that faith is based on uncertainty, but my point is... the people in 1884 got their second chance for being wrong. If you get the mark of the beast wrong... you won't have any second chances... you will be waiting for the Sunday laws and these may never come... Have you considered what you'd do then? Would your faith be somehow nullified then?

[John317]

...Could that mean that we were wrong... and not God who is wrong? I'm not saying that we are... but what if Pope is not the antichrist of the revelation? Have you considered this possibility, and the consequences of your locking into and believing that no matter what other say... he is because it's "prophetic".... and what if the Sunday observance will not be the mark of the beast? Don't you see the danger in locking on a echatological view dismissing any other possibilities? What are your thoughts on that?

What do you see as the dangers?

Have you ever given people Bible studies on the truth about the Sabbath, the mark of the Beast, and end-time events?

Did you believe what you were saying? Were you convinced that it is the truth?

[fccool]

I have given sever once and I was convinced that it is the truth, yet there is always the question about the eschatology part being missed... just like the people in 1848 totally missed it. That's why I don't bank my faith on it. God has promised to put his seal on those who love Him, and of that I'm convinced that I love God. You see, I see that many people base their faith on this issue. But what would you do if Papacy would fall apart a couple years from now? Now saying that this is going to happen... just wondering would that undermine your faith in any way?

[John317]

Do you think it would be wrong to keep the open mind about things and let the history reveal itself?

Do you mean that we should tell people we are really not sure of the identity of the antiChrist and of Babylon? You say let history reveal itself. But history up to this point has already revealed who the antiChrist and Babylon are. There is no question that we will learn more details and see things fulfilled that will surprise us, but the identity of the antiChrist and little-horn power and Babylon is not something we need to be ignorant of. If we are, it is our own fault.

Quote:

I am certain that people who love God would do what He says.

Yes, if they truly love God. But the Bible says there are many liars who claim to love God but who do not really love Him. The Investigative Judgment separates those who really love God from those who have only made empty claims. That is also one reason that God allows the church to go through the persecution during the time of trouble just before Jesus returns.

Quote:

I have no question in my mind about Sabbath being the commandment that we should keep.

Good. Me neither. May I ask how you came to such certainty and conviction?

Quote:

Do you think God will judge people based on their understanding of eschatology... or their love and care for each other and for God? What is more important?

Yes, when the issues are made clear for them; they have studied the Bible for themselves and they are under conviction of the Holy Spirit.

Give me an example of what you mean by "their understanding of eschatology".

Fundamentally we are all going to be judged not only on what we know of the Bible's teachings but on what we could have known if we had wanted to know the truth. Some people do not want to know the truth because they believe that if they knew it, then they would be responsible for it. They do not realize that we are responsible for what we refuse to learn and know. Many of the Jews of Jesus' time could have known about the coming of the Messiah but they refused to study and learn. They did not want to know. They will be held responsible for their rejection of truth. They refused to study and know the prophecies. Some did not. Some, such as Andrew, knew the Messianic prophecies and therefore, by the Holy Spirit, recognized the Messiah. Everyone might have done as Andrew did, but only a few were ready.

Quote:

How can you ever be certain about things on the outside of the door that you can not possibly open up? Can we ever be?

Could you be specific?

Quote:

Not to say that faith is based on uncertainty, but my point is... the people in 1884 got their second chance for being wrong.

Do you mean 1844? Or 1888? I assume you mean the latter. Not sure what you mean, though, by getting a second chance for being wrong. Please explain. Certainly they were able to repent of their wrong, if that is what you mean.

Quote:

If you get the mark of the beast wrong... you won't have any second chances... you will be waiting for the Sunday laws and these may never come...

I think you have the wrong idea. We shouldn't be waiting for anything but be always ready. It doesn't matter if Sunday laws come or not. I may not even live to that time anyway. I am not "waiting" for Sunday laws.

Maybe you could explain further what you see as the danger in believing that the Sunday worship is the mark of the beast and Sabbath the seal of God. (Actually the mark of the beast is more complex than that.)

Quote:

Have you considered what you'd do then? Would your faith be somehow nullified then?

My faith is something I practice every day and is not waiting for the Sunday laws or for anything else.

Actually these are all very good questions that people need to ask themselves and resolve in their own hearts and minds. But I am not sure that this is the best thread to do this on. It would be best if separate threads were made for each of the individual questions, regarding the Sabbath, the end-time events, etc. There have been many discussions already on ClubAdventist about these same topics.

[John317]

I have given sever once and I was convinced that it is the truth, yet there is always the question about the eschatology part being missed... just like the people in 1848 totally missed it. That's why I don't bank my faith on it. God has promised to put his seal on those who love Him, and of that I'm convinced that I love God. You see, I see that many people base their faith on this issue. But what would you do if Papacy would fall apart a couple years from now? Now saying that this is going to happen... just wondering would that undermine your faith in any way?

I have no idea of the amount of time and effort you've put into Bible study, and particularly into studying the prophecies. So I don't know what you know.

You say "1848" but I am going to assume that you mean 1844.

Have you studied in depth what happened in 1843 and 1844? I presume you've read and reread several times the chapters in the Great Controversy on that topic. Do you believe what that book says? Do you have doubts about what it says happened in 1844?

Yes, God will place his seal on those who love, trust, and obey Him. Nowhere does the Bible say God will place his seal on those who merely say they love him. If we love Him, what does the Bible say we will do?

Even if the Papacy were to "fall apart," as you put it, that would not mean that the papal system was not the little horn power and the antichrist. The king of the north and the king of the south did not have the same identity all of the time. What is important are the characteristics of those powers. When you apply this to the papacy, it means that the "man of sin" is the power that attempted to change God's law and take its seat in the temple (church) of God. It is Satan working within the church to change God's law and to throw truth to the ground, especially the truth regarding Christ's mediation in the heavenly sanctuary. It was the papal system that did these things and continues to do them today, but if the papal system were to fall apart, you would still have the Roman Catholic system which is fundamentally the same.

However, I have no doubt from my study of the prophecies that the papal system is not going to fall apart. It has not only existed for almost 2,000 but it has done exactly what the prophecies say it would.

Remember that Martin Luther and other Bible students identified it as the antichrist power long before he saw many of the prophecies about it fulfilled. Since then, we have seen more prophecies fulfilled, and therefore we should have no question who this power is. God has made these things plain to us so that we will avoid associating with the antichrist power and his false day of worship, as well as many other false teachings connected to this same power.

[fccool]

I'm not going to dispute things I don't know. I know about these things enough to honestly say that I don't know. I don't want to base my faith on things that I don't know... I'm glad that you are so certain, but once again... from Adventist history... and I'm talking about 1884 people being so certain that it was the date of Jesus return, and they were disappointed. They were so certain, yet their eschatology (study of the end times) was very much off. I choose not to trust people with that, and I pray that when the time comes God will make it absolutely clear to me about the mark. Sure, it could be Sunday... I don't deny the possibility. But possibility is the key, and keeping open mind on this issue is important enough so you are not responsible setting a false sense of security for those who think that all it takes is keeping a date. There's much more than that to seal of God... hint... Holy Spirit may have something to do with that

[John317]

... But what would you do if Papacy would fall apart a couple years from now? Now saying that this is going to happen... just wondering would that undermine your faith in any way?

I would like to hear why you don't believe that the Papal system is the antichrist power referred to in the prophecies. What is your biggest problem with it?

[John317]

... 1884 people being so certain that it was the date of Jesus return, and they were disappointed.

What happened in 1884?

[John317]

I'm not going to dispute things I don't know. I know about these things enough to honestly say that I don't know. I don't want to base my faith on things that I don't know... I'm glad that you are so certain,

I would like to strongly suggest that you begin studying diligently and praying earnestly and sincerely for the Holy Spirit to guide your thinking and convict you of the truth.

We can't transfer our trust in God or our study and knowledge of the Bible to other people. These are things each person must gain and experience for himself. We can make suggestions but ultimately it is up to each person to study and come to his own conclusions and make his own decisions. Like the old proverbial saying goes, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

Ellen White says that the Latter Rain will be falling all around on others and there will be people totally unaware of it.

Remember the story Jesus told of the foolish virgins in Matt. 25.

Quote:

but once again... from Adventist history... and I'm talking about 1884 people being so certain that it was the date of Jesus return, and they were disappointed. They were so certain, yet their eschatology (study of the end times) was very much off.

Do you know what was off? Do you know what happened? Your writing the date wrong several times makes me wonder.

Their dating of Daniel 8: 14 was not off. What was off was their understanding of what the sanctuary was. They believed the sanctuary referred to was the earth, but there is nothing in the Bible that refers to the earth as the sanctuary. At the time when it happened, there was only one sanctuary in existence. Where was that?

Quote:

I choose not to trust people with that, and I pray that when the time comes God will make it absolutely clear to me about the mark. Sure, it could be Sunday... I don't deny the possibility. But possibility is the key, and keeping open mind on this issue is important enough so you are not responsible setting a false sense of security for those who think that all it takes is keeping a date. There's much more than that to seal of God... hint... Holy Spirit may have something to do with that

Well, yes, you're right, of course the Holy Spirit has something to do with that. We can't obey and do what's right without the Holy Spirit. We won't even be able to distinguish Bible truth from error apart from the work of the Holy Spirit. It's the Holy Spirit that gives us the desire and thirst for truth.

[fccool]

Again, you are talking from a "i'm sure of it" perspective... and you know how many times I've had this perspective? I was so sure some time ago that communism was the only way to go, and that there is no God. Then I was absolutely sure that God exists and that all you have to do to be saved is to recite a couple magic prayers.

Of course I have prayed and I am praying... what do you think, that anyone outside of what you know to be sure are not praying earnestly and not asking God for help? People on the other side of the argument are telling me the same thing... basically... you should pray more, and God will show you that you are "wrong". They don't say that, but they mean it.

There's nothing wrong with earnestly studying Revelation, and saying that there's something wrong with the explanation given. For example, a year ago we've had prophecy seminar, and the speaker gave explanation of the "two were working and one was taken away and one was left" passage. He deduced that the wicked will be taken away, and he deduced it based on wording of the " and the flood came and took them away". That kind of "reaching eschatology" that rings a red light in my head. I clearly see that roman system is Antichrist, yet at the same time... the number of the Beast is the number of his name. So what explanation was I given? Vicarius Filii dei????? I believe it to be true, only for major Adventist scholars to reject that claim. This is one of the nick names which is hardly used at all, and you have to dig it up in single instances in archives... not a name, you see! So what else is "reaching argument"? That's why I take time to re-evaluate. This is the one that personally I don't want to get wrong.

Don't you think that Satan knows and understands who the Antichrist is? Don't you think that he would make a worthy substitutes too... the substitutes, which are so "clearly" fitting that "there could not be anyone else" ?