Do scars remain in Jesus' feet and hands?

[John317]

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.

It sounds like the Lord has led you quite a ways into truth already. Do you believe that you know more truth now than you believed in those days? Or do you have doubts whether you know any truth at all in terms of Christianity?

Quote:

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?

No, I don't think that.

Quote:

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.

And those people are right about prayer-- so keep praying, studying God's word and discussing these things. Read widely. Especially study the Bible. God will lead you if you are sincere in your search for truth. God knows your heart. Trust Him. Trust His promises.

Quote:

There's nothing wrong with earnestly studying Revelation, and saying that there's something wrong with the explanation given.

Of course not, and I didn't intend to give the impression that there's necessarily something wrong with questioning an explanation. Everyone should have questions. The only way anyone learns the truth is by questioning. But it's essential, of course, to find the answers, and not always be questioning.

The problem is when one never ceases to have great doubts about virtually everything, including whether the Bible is God's word and whether it is the truth or not.

I am not saying you are doing this, however. I am merely explaining what I see as a problem with always questioning and never coming to conclusions. If I am still having the same questions years after I began my search for truth, there is something wrong. I should have answered those first questions and be on to other questions. I am sure this is what you are doing. It is what I am doing as well. I have questions, too, of course. Everyone is at a different stage in their spiritual growth and knowledge of truth, so it is only natural that everyone is going to have different questions.

Quote:

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 understand. You are probably referring to what it says in Matt. 24: 40, 41, etc. "One will be left." Are you referring to that verse in relation to what some people teach regarding the so-called "rapture"? The question, then, becomes whether the person left is left dead or alive after the Lord comes. If that is the question, what is the Bible answer?

Quote:

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? Filei dei christi????? I believe it to be true, only for major Adventist scholars to reject that claim.

I'm familiar with that issue, yes. You're talking about Vicarius Filii Dei making up the number 666 with reference to Rev. 13:18.

In any case, the identity of the sea beast, the antiChrist power, and the little horn are not dependent upon the number 666. If Rev. 13: 18 was the primary evidence we had to go on in identifying those powers, we would not have any idea who it is. Fortunately that is not the case.

Study Mervyn Maxwell's, Roy Allen Anderson's, Jacques B. Dukhan's, and Stephen N. Haskell's books on Daniel and Revelation. I would also recommend studying the SDA Bible Commentary on Daniel and Revelation. Recently Ranko Stefanovic has written books on Daniel and Revelation. And especially check out the books written by Steve Wohlberg, such as The AntiChrist Chronicles.

I study books written by numerous writers supporting the concept of the rapture as well, and I also ready many Roman Catholic commentaries and study Bibles. (The Catholic translation, the New American Bible, is one of the most accurate translations of the critical Greek text.)

Quote:

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.

You are right to take time to re-evaluate.

Quote:

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" ?

Satan in fact IS the antiChrist. He works through various earthly powers and individuals, just as he worked through Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, pagan Rome, and papal Rome.

Remember that the Bible teaches the antiChrist power comes out of the Roman Empire, is a religious institution, and continues from the time of the fall of pagan Rome until the Second Coming. There are about 10 identifying marks or characteristics. I know of only one power that fits these identifying marks.

So while it is true that Satan is able to create counterfeits, yet if a person compares them closely with all that the Bible teaches, he will see that God does not allow Satan to counterfeit every characteristic. For instance, Satan cannot raise the dead but he can make it appear that he is raising the dead. Satan can cause confusion over his counterfeit Sabbath, but if the honest, careful Bible student wants to know the truth, he will know it.

Jesus, who cannot lie, said, "If anyone wants to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on my own authority." I believe that has reference to doctrine in general. God will lead us in the way that He would have us go. Have faith in God. Don't give up. God is true.

[fccool]

John,

Thank you for you lengthy reply and encouragement. Don't get me wrong. By far these are not the issues that would cause me to drop my faith in God and veracity of His Word. You've mentioned that:

"I am not saying you are doing this, however. I am merely explaining what I see as a problem with always questioning and never coming to conclusions. If I am still having the same questions years after I began my search for truth, there is something wrong. I should have answered those first questions and be on to other questions. I am sure this is what you are doing. It is what I am doing as well. I have questions, too, of course. Everyone is at a different stage in their spiritual growth and knowledge of truth."

I don't think it's wrong to ask the same questions years after. Re-evaluation and constant re-learning is important, because we forget, or we learn more and we have to re-evaluate our previous knowledge in light of the new truth that we have learned. I don't have problem with Biblical support of a position. I do have problem with twisting things to fit a view... which is the case with Vicarius Filei Dei. Well, I guess I would not know either because Papacy could might as well try to cover up the title. If people are to teach truth, then why insert things that most likely is not? Would that undermine the credibility of the message? Nevertheless, I agree that hanging up on 666 issue is silly if we identify the beast and the horn powers. Yet, I think if we are to search for truth and to preach the truth, then we should present the facts accurately, don't you think... as in the case with Pope's tiara issue and Ostrogoth's. Telling half truth does create an impression of trickery.

But above all, you are right about this being individual issue, and this is something that I am sorting through... especially issue about all churches but SDA being fallen. What do you think about that? I always thought that Babylon refers to the group of people (some of which could be a part of SDA congregation) who reject the truth by action or belief (Mark of the beast extends beyond the Sabbath issue). I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.

[John317]

...I don't think it's wrong to ask the same questions years after. Re-evaluation and constant re-learning is important, because we forget, or we learn more and we have to re-evaluate our previous knowledge in light of the new truth that we have learned.

I may not have been clear. I am not saying we shouldn't re-evaluate and re-check things. I am talking about allowing questions to get us to the point where we are spiritually paralyzed so we are unable to take action for God because we are double-minded, as James calls it. James 1:6-8.

For instance, I shouldn't be going back and doubting God's very existence or questioning whether the Bible is God's word or whether Jesus died for me. How can I pray in faith if I am not sure in my heart if God exists or hears me? (See Hebrews 11:6.) That does not mean I never consider those issues. I read atheistic philosophers all the time, so it is not as if I do not think about those questions. But the point is that I am beyond that point. I have answered them over and over again to my complete satisfaction. I don't waste time on those any more. I have no doubt that God exists and that He hears and answers my prayers. I have witnessed dramatic, amazing answers to prayer.

These questions that you originally had when you were a baby Christian or even before ought to be looked at now from a slightly different perspective. In other words, the kinds of questions should show some growth or maturity on your part.

Let me give you an example of what I mean. One of my close childhood friends had mental problems. He was later diagnosed as having schizophrenia. This friend would ask me or other friends questions about all kinds of things, but in a week or so, he would be asking exactly the same question. He would do this every week maybe for years. When he was 30, he was asking the same questions that he did when he was 13. He never made any progress. It was as if his brain was stuck in a groove.

Quote:

I don't have problem with Biblical support of a position. I do have problem with twisting things to fit a view... which is the case with Vicarius Filei Dei. Well, I guess I would not know either because Papacy could might as well try to cover up the title. If people are to teach truth, then why insert things that most likely is not? Would that undermine the credibility of the message? Nevertheless, I agree that hanging up on 666 issue is silly if we identify the beast and the horn powers. Yet, I think if we are to search for truth and to preach the truth, then we should present the facts accurately, don't you think... as in the case with Pope's tiara issue and Ostrogoth's. Telling half truth does create an impression of trickery.

Completely agree here. We should only use the best evidence. Truth, if it is truth, deserves only the best evidence, and needs no phony props.

Where I would disagree with you as far as Vacarius Filei Dei goes, is that I seriously doubt that there was dishonesty on the part of writers like Uriah Smith. He was apparently merely going by the information that he had access to on that subject at the time he was working. I do not think for a moment that he was aware of passing on false information. The issue of the pope's title is not finished at any rate, but I don't want to get into that issue here. Perhaps it would be good to open a thread at some time about it in order to further explore it.

Quote:

But above all, you are right about this being individual issue, and this is something that I am sorting through... especially issue about all churches but SDA being fallen. What do you think about that? I always thought that Babylon refers to the group of people (some of which could be a part of SDA congregation) who reject the truth by action or belief (Mark of the beast extends beyond the Sabbath issue). I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.

I am somewhat involved in a positive way with a group who thinks that the SDA church is part of Babylon. So I am very familiar with that idea and belief. I have read a great deal about it and given it a lot of thought. That is another subject for a whole thread some time. Do I believe that the SDA church is Babylon? No, I don't. If I believed it, I would not be a member of the SDA church. We can discuss that subject further some time.

[fccool]

John, please don't misinterpret what I was trying to say. I definetly don't think that SDA church is Babylon. My question is that, could the MEMBERS of the SDA be a part of the Babylon, just lust as members of other churches who are seeking truth would be a part of the true church of God. I'm not talking about denominations here, but Christian identity... goats and sheep, wheat and tares. In both analogies these are growing together side by side, but it is only when He returns he will separate these. Therefore it is individual issue instead of groupthink denominational ism wouldn't you agree? Sure, individuals come together united in beliefs and purpose, but in the end belonging to something will not get you through. So in that respect... what is Babylon?

[jasd]

QR frame:

I think LifeHiscost puts the matter of premises and perspectives interestingly...

>>If Jesus allows this freedom on something so important as the day He has commanded to remember,<<

But then, Christ-as-Gd also declared that He would cause Israel’s Sabbaths to cease (Books Hosea and Lamentations) – by loss of OT calendrical calculations. The question following would be – when was this cessation to have occurred?

>>...it would seem to be logical, to think for one's self in other matters is a given.<<

One supposes so, yes? inasmuch as He remonstrates, “Come, let us reason together.” I take it that that is an exhortation to kick our lazy neurons into orbit...

>>And I would also suggest, to think for one's self does not mean that our thinking turns error into Truth just because we are free to think it does.<<

Ah yes, error most always remains error; however, how often one might encounter truths-as-truths with active neurons!

Example:

Given the direction this thread has taken – that is – beasty beasts with uprooted horns and all..., well,

my nickel observation:

The interpretation(s) advanced for the seventh chapter of Daniel, that is, the four beasts that “came up from the sea” – which – “one of them that stood by” interpreted as “four kings, [which] shall arise out of the earth.”

(Babylonia had ‘arisen’ several times over and was, at the time of Daniel 7, in the very last expiration of empire – in the process of reverting to its original religion, that is, the worship of the Moon god)

What’s THAT!? Sea? Earth? ...a place called Searth, mebbe?

As most commonly exposited, those beasts represent the kingdoms Babylonia, Medo-Persia, Greecia, and [ ]R_o_m_e[/sotto voce].

Gd is simply redundant upon this point...? or is Daniel 7 intended to lead in another direction, and, given the verb tense used, another time?

Does the most obvious error in past expositions upon Daniel 7, that is – verb tense (shall arise) – at least give pause? Not even, with Gd’s injunctive to “seal the book” until – such times as... ... ... (Daniel 12)?

Umm, were I one to disseminate prematurely developed doctrines from within the Book of Daniel, the question of “error” would definitely be considered. And, per the subject of questioning:

questions should precede conclusions and not conclusions precede questions. It remains for the HS to determine when sufficient questions have arisen within the questioner’s mind – not some arbitrary outside dterminant.

[Ron Corson]

John317 wrote:

Quote:

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.

[John317]

Quote:

John317 wrote:

Here is what happened of historical note in 538 AD:

You will find that even though Ostrogoths did not entirely disappear until 555 AD, they were all but history before that time. As far as the prophecy is concerned, 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.

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.

[Ron Corson]

Here is what Durant says. It really has no relation to 538, that is still just your speculation, not at all historical fact. Note also the war the "Gothic War" ended after 18 years in 553 which means it started in 535. Why not speculate that that date was the all important beginning point?

Italy. Using Tunisia as a base, Belisarius without much difficulty

took Sicily. In 536 he crossed to Italy, and captured Naples by having

some of his soldiers creep through the aqueduct into the town. The

Ostrogothic forces were meager and divided; the people of Rome

hailed Belisarius as a liberator, the clergy welcomed him as a

Trinitarian; he entered Rome unopposed. Theodahad had Amalasuntha

killed; the Ostrogoths deposed Theodahad, and chose Witigis as king.

Witigis raised an army of 150,000 men, and besieged Belisarius in

Rome. Forced to economize food and water, and to discontinue their

daily baths, the Romans began to grumble against Belisarius, who had

only 5000 men in arms. He defended the city with skill and courage,

and after a year's effort Witigis returned to Ravenna. For three years

Belisarius importuned Justinian for additional troops; they were sent,

but under generals hostile to Belisarius. The Ostrogoths in Ravenna,

besieged and starving, offered to surrender if Belisarius would become

their king. He pretended to consent, took the city, and presented it

to Justinian (540).

The Emperor was grateful and suspicious. Belisarius had rewarded

himself well out of the spoils of victory; he had won the too-personal

loyalty of his troops; he had been offered a kingdom; might he not

aspire to seize the throne from the nephew of a usurper? Justinian

recalled him, and noticed uneasily the splendor of the general's

retinue. The Byzantines, Procopius reports, "took delight in

watching Belisarius as he came forth from his home each day.... For

his progress resembled a crowded festival procession, since he was

always escorted by a large number of Vandals, Goths, and Moors.

Furthermore, he had a fine figure, and was tall and remarkably

handsome. But his conduct was so meek, and his manners so affable,

that he seemed like a very poor man, and one of no repute." `040516

The commanders appointed to replace him in Italy neglected the

discipline of their troops, quarreled with one another, and earned the

contempt of the Ostrogoths. A Goth of energy, judgment, and courage

was proclaimed king of the defeated people. Totila gathered

desperate recruits from the barbarians wandering homeless in Italy,

took Naples (543) and Tibur, and laid siege to Rome. He astonished all

by his clemency and good faith; treated captives so well that they

enlisted under his banner; kept so honorably the promises by which

he had secured the surrender of Naples that men began to wonder who

was the barbarian, and who the civilized Greek. The wives of some

senators fell into his hands; he treated them with gallant courtesy,

and set them free. He condemned one of his soldiers to death for

violating a Roman girl. The barbarians in the Emperor's service showed

no such delicacy; unpaid by the nearly bankrupt Justinian, they

ravaged the country till the population remembered with longing the

order and justice of Theodoric's rule. `040517

Belisarius was ordered to the rescue. Reaching Italy, he made his

way alone through Totila's lines into beleaguered Rome. He was too

late; the Greek garrison was demoralized; its officers were

incompetent cowards; traitors opened the gates, and Totila's army, ten

thousand strong, entered the capital (546). Belisarius, retreating,

sent a message asking him not to destroy the historic city; Totila

permitted plunder to his unpaid and hungry troops, but spared the

people, and protected the women from soldierly ardor. He made the

mistake of leaving Rome to besiege Ravenna; in his absence Belisarius

recaptured the city; and when Totila returned, his second siege failed

to dislodge the resourceful Greek. Justinian, thinking the West won,

declared war on Persia, and called Belisarius to the East. Totila took

Rome again (549), and Sicily, Corsica, Sardinia, almost the entire

peninsula. At last Justinian gave to his eunuch general Narses "an

exceedingly large sum of money," and ordered him to raise a new army

and drive the Goths from Italy. Narses accomplished his mission with

skill and dispatch; Totila was defeated and was killed in flight; the

surviving Goths were permitted to leave Italy safely, and after

eighteen years the "Gothic War" came to an end (553).

[melvin mccarty]

Could we absolutely guarantee that the antichrist does not include communism which is far more against Christ than the Papacy ever was. mel

[LifeHiscost]

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?

"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." John 5:39 KJV

"Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward." Hebrews 10:35 KJV

"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Hebrews 11:6 KJV

"So faith comes by hearing [what is told], and what is heard comes by the preaching [of the message that came from the lips] of Christ (the Messiah Himself)." Rom 10:17 AMP

Regards!

[John317]

Here is what Durant says. It really has no relation to 538, that is still just your speculation, not at all historical fact. Note also the war the "Gothic War" ended after 18 years in 553 which means it started in 535. Why not speculate that that date was the all important beginning point?

... The Ostrogoths in Ravenna,

besieged and starving, offered to surrender if Belisarius would become

their king. He pretended to consent, took the city, and presented it

to Justinian (540).

.....Belisarius was ordered to the rescue. Reaching Italy, he made his

way alone through Totila's lines into beleaguered Rome. He was too

late; the Greek garrison was demoralized; its officers were

incompetent cowards; traitors opened the gates, and Totila's army, ten

thousand strong, entered the capital (546). Belisarius, retreating,

sent a message asking him not to destroy the historic city; Totila

permitted plunder to his unpaid and hungry troops, but spared the

people, and protected the women from soldierly ardor. He made the

mistake of leaving Rome to besiege Ravenna; in his absence Belisarius

recaptured the city; and when Totila returned, his second siege failed

to dislodge the resourceful Greek. Justinian, thinking the West won,

declared war on Persia, and called Belisarius to the East. Totila took

Rome again (549), and Sicily, Corsica, Sardinia, almost the entire

peninsula. At last Justinian gave to his eunuch general Narses "an

exceedingly large sum of money," and ordered him to raise a new army

and drive the Goths from Italy. Narses accomplished his mission with

skill and dispatch; Totila was defeated and was killed in flight; the

surviving Goths were permitted to leave Italy safely, and after

eighteen years the "Gothic War" came to an end (553).

Notice a few important points:

1) The Ostrogoths in Ravenna,

besieged and starving, offered to surrender if Belisarius would become

their king. This would not have been the case except for the fact that the Ostrogoths recognized that they were a defeated people, just as Will Durant says.

2) Will Durant, on p. 110, specifically describes the Ostrogoths a defeated people as a result of their defeat by the Romans in 538 AD.

3) No one is saying that the Ostrogoths disappeared in 538 AD, nor that "the Gothic War" came to an end that year. What is being said is that the Ostrogoths were a defeated people when they left Rome at the end of their unsuccessful and disastrous campaign against that city. They started the campaign with 150,000 men and left in 537 AD with only a fraction of that number. They were no longer a serious threat to the religious unity under the bishop of Rome. Shortly thereafter the Ostrogoths, "besieged and starving, offered to surrender if Belisarius would become their king."

So while it is true that the Gothic war came to an complete end in 553 AD, their power to seriously oppose the pope was broken in 538 at the end of their failed attack against Rome. The prophecy which we are discussing doesn't have to do with the end of the Gothic war but with the beginning of the power of the bishop of Rome. The date 538 is chosen because after that, with the 3 Arian nations defeated, there was no serious challenge to the Pope's power to rule in a religiously unified Western Rome.

And this is precisely what the prophecy of Daniel 7: 8 predicted would happen.

[John317]

Could we absolutely guarantee that the antichrist does not include communism which is far more against Christ than the Papacy ever was. mel

There is no doubt that communism is an antiChrist. Satan is really THE antiChrist. There are other powers and individuals that the Bible shows Satan uses, and all of these are antiChrist in spirit and attitude. See 1 John 2: 22; 2 John 7.

The primary meaning of "antiChrist" is "in place of Christ," but secondarily it also can mean "against Christ." The antiChrist does not always say he is against Christ. The essence of Satan and of antiChrist is that of seeking to take the place of Christ.

If the antiChrist power were to come right out in the open and announce to the whole world, "I am against Christ," no one would be fooled into accepting him. The antiChrist, remember, is also a liar. Satan is the father of lies. So neither he nor those he uses usually tell how they really feel about God and Christ. But the antiChrist power described in Revelation does not necessarily hate Jesus Christ. The Bible says that it causes people to get spiritually drunk on the wine of false beliefs so they are disoriented. He suppresses the truth about God's law and about Christ's plan of salvation. Daniel 8. He has a counterfeit gospel which he tries to substitute for the true gospel.

But as for communism being "the antiChrist" of prophecy, no, that could not be, although communism is also a false gospel and is in opposition to Christ. It also attempts to take the place of Christ in people's hearts and lives. Yet the important point about communism is that it doesn't fulfill the prophetic characteristics of the antiChrist power which prophecy warns us about.

Not all people or systems who are "antiChrists," or opposed to Christ, are the antiChrist power described in Daniel and Revelation. That power is also referred as the little horn power of Daniel 7 and 8, the man of sin, and the sea-beast power of Rev. 13. Also see Daniel 11 and the king of the North.

I believe the characteristics that the Bible gives of the antiChrist power have been discussed at some length on other threads devoted to the subject. Maybe you took part in them. It's a fascinating subject for sure and one definitely worth studying.

[Ron Corson]

"3) No one is saying that the Ostrogoths disappeared in 538 AD, nor that "the Gothic War" came to an end that year. What is being said is that the Ostrogoths were a defeated people when they left Rome at the end of their unsuccessful and disastrous campaign against that city. They started the campaign with 150,000 men and left in 537 AD with only a fraction of that number. They were no longer a serious threat to the religious unity under the bishop of Rome. Shortly thereafter the Ostrogoths, "besieged and starving, offered to surrender if Belisarius would become their king."

Well yes that is actually what they were saying, it is the redefinition that says they were still around but they were declining. Second why don't you take the starting date as you said above, 537. Of course the reason is that this is a prophecy interpretation based upon the assumption that it was fullfilled with the pope's capture in 1798. They worked backwards and counted upon poor historicial accuracy to create something to be the start date. Which is what you are doing by saying the start date is a particular point during the Gothic War, even though just as with any war there are defeats and victories, a war is never over till it is over. In this case you merely focus on the problems of the ostrogoths and ignore the problems and defeats of the Eastern Roman Empire. Which is interestingly absent from most Adventist historicism. They forget that the Eastern Roman Empire,aka Byzantine Empire lasted to the 1400's and it was not about clearly the way for Rome and the Papacy, they had abandoned Rome.

There is a site which takes good issue with the Adventist interpretation:

http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/adventism/1260justinian.html

But really when there is actually no Historian's who make the claim that 538 was of any real historical importance how can we expect to convince people of something history based yet without any consensus by historians that the event had any historical significance let alone prophetic significance. All we are doing now is trying to uphold an incorrect prophetic time period. Not even redefining it like we did with the 1844 event. It does not make us look to good at all.

[John317]

"3) No one is saying that the Ostrogoths disappeared in 538 AD, nor that "the Gothic War" came to an end that year. What is being said is that the Ostrogoths were a defeated people when they left Rome at the end of their unsuccessful and disastrous campaign against that city. They started the campaign with 150,000 men and left in 537 AD with only a fraction of that number. They were no longer a serious threat to the religious unity under the bishop of Rome. Shortly thereafter the Ostrogoths, "besieged and starving, offered to surrender if Belisarius would become their king."

Well yes that is actually what they were saying, it is the redefinition that says they were still around but they were declining.

It's important and good to restudy these questions. If these things are not true, we certainly want to know it.

Adventist writers are as capable as anyone else of making mistakes in their writings, of course. It goes without saying that people can repeat things simply because they are written by other people they trust. It doesn't mean they're not trustworthy or good people if they make a mistake. It just shows how important it is to do our own research and study of these things and verify what we hear or read.

So let us take another close look at some of these things.

Have you read any Adventist document or important Adventist writer or theologian who has said that 538 AD is the year in which the Ostrogoths totally disappeared?

The SDA Bible Commentary (p. 827) says clearly in its comments on Daniel 7:8 that the Ostrogoths did not disappear in 538 AD. It says that they survived "some years" after 538 AD.

Quote:

Second why don't you take the starting date as you said above, 537.

Because 538 AD was the year in which the Ostrogoths retreated in defeat from Rome. I should have written 538 AD, not 537 AD. The retreat from Rome occurred early in the year 538 AD.

All of the history books have 538 as the year in which the Ostrogoths left Rome after their failed siege of that city.

This event was very important in the history of the papacy for the following reason: exactly 1,260 years after this key date in the rise of the Pope's power and authority, his power took a dramatic downturn when the French took the Pope captive in 1798. I find these undeniable facts of history rather significant and amazing. Napoleon had called for the abolition of the papacy, and many of that day believed it was at an end.

Therefore, the 1,260 day prophecy was accurate in its prediction about the length of the pope's reign. It did receive an apparently deadly wound; yet, as prophecy predicted, its wound was healed, until today, the Pope is back very much in power and one of the world's greatest and most influential leaders. He is without all question the world's most powerful church leader.

This is all the more remarkable considering the fact that when Ellen White received her vision about these events (March 1852), and when she wrote the first edition of The Great Controversy (1884), the pope was a shadow of his former power and did not appear to have a great future ahead of him. Yet on the basis of Bible prophecy and her versions, Ellen White predicted the papacy would again become once again a great world power and religious leader.

[John317]

....But really when there is actually no Historian's who make the claim that 538 was of any real historical importance how can we expect to convince people of something history based yet without any consensus by historians that the event had any historical significance let alone prophetic significance. All we are doing now is trying to uphold an incorrect prophetic time period. Not even redefining it like we did with the 1844 event. It does not make us look to good at all.

This is what the Wikipedia has on the year 538 AD---

"Europe

March 12 — Witiges, king of the Ostrogoths, ends his siege of Rome and retreats to Ravenna, leaving the city in the hands of the victorious Byzantine general, Belisarius. The last Arian power in the West is thus defeated, leaving Western Christendom completely under the rule of the Pope."

I believe the above statement is what Adventists have been saying. I don't find that particular information wrong at all.

[Ron Corson]

Wikipedia also says:

"1260 day prophecy

In recent years, few others besides Adventists have attempted to substantiate the interpretation that the 1260 days represent 1260 years spanning AD 538 and 1798 (the Christadelphians are an exception). The majority of historians do not consider this a period of papal supremacy, and it is disputed whether the events which Adventists allege took place in AD 538 did in fact occur in that year. Preterists interpret the 1260 days as a literal 3½ year period that was relevant to the original recipients of the prophecies, while futurists believe it is a literal 3½ year period in the Great Tribulation at the end of time (corresponding to the final "week" of Daniel 9 that is divided in half). Idealists note that 3½ is half of 7, the symbolic number for completeness, and therefore regard the prophecy as meaning that the powers of evil will operate for a limited time."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-year_principle

[John317]

This is an interesting, good discussion but it seems to me that it really needs to be moved to the theology section. Then we can continue the exchange on this subject, which has changed to interpretation of prophecy and other related matters.

[John317]

Wikipedia also says:

"1260 day prophecy

In recent years, few others besides Adventists have attempted to substantiate the interpretation that the 1260 days represent 1260 years spanning AD 538 and 1798 (the Christadelphians are an exception). The majority of historians do not consider this a period of papal supremacy, and it is disputed whether the events which Adventists allege took place in AD 538 did in fact occur in that year. Preterists interpret the 1260 days as a literal 3½ year period that was relevant to the original recipients of the prophecies, while futurists believe it is a literal 3½ year period in the Great Tribulation at the end of time (corresponding to the final "week" of Daniel 9 that is divided in half). Idealists note that 3½ is half of 7, the symbolic number for completeness, and therefore regard the prophecy as meaning that the powers of evil will operate for a limited time."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-year_principle

The statement about "papal supremacy" appears to assume Adventists teach something that we don't. I have never read any Adventist material that gives the impression the pope was already a great power in 538 AD.

The important point that Adventists make is that in the sixth century, the papacy became firmly established (GC 54). That was during the period we are discussing here. According to the Wikipedia, "Theodoric [the Great, king of the Ostrogoths] ...saw the pope as an authority not only in the church but also over Rome." This was before 520 AD.

Therefore, the fact is that the developments during the period we are considering were crucial in the rise of papal power. That the year 538 AD was of great importance is proved by the following statement taken from the Wikipedia:

Europe

March 12 [538 AD] — Witiges, king of the Ostrogoths, ends his siege of Rome and retreats to Ravenna, leaving the city in the hands of the victorious Byzantine general, Belisarius. The last Arian power in the West is thus defeated, leaving Western Christendom completely under the rule of the Pope."

As for the Preterist interpretation of Bible prophecy, the following from the Wikipedia is undisputed, common knowledge among those who take a serious interest in Bible prophecy. It shows that the Preterist method of interpretation comes out of the Counter Reformation with the intention of getting people's attention off the subject of the papacy as the antiChrist power:

There has historically been general agreement that the first systematic Preterist exposition of prophecy was written by the Jesuit Luis De Alcasar during the Counter Reformation. Preterist Moses Stuart noted that Alcasar's Preterist interpretation was of considerable benefit to the Roman Catholic Church during its arguments with Protestants, and Preterism has been described in modern eschatological commentary as a Catholic defense against the Protestant Historicist view which identified the Roman Catholic Church as a persecuting apostasy.

Due to resistance by Protestant Historicists, the Preterist view was slow to gain acceptance outside the Roman Catholic Church. Among Protestants it was first accepted by Hugo Grotius, a Dutch Protestant eager to establish common ground between Protestants and the Roman Catholic Church. His first attempt to do this was entitled ‘Commentary on Certain Texts Which Deal with Antichrist’ (1640), in which he attempted to argue that the texts relating to ‘Antichrist’ had their fulfillment in the 1st century AD. This was not well received by Protestants, but Grotius was undeterred and in his next work ‘Commentaries On The New Testament' (1641-1650), he expanded his Preterist views to include the Olivet prophecy and Revelation.

Preterism still struggled to gain credibility within other Protestant countries, especially England. The English commentator Thomas Hayne claimed that the prophecies of Daniel had all been fulfilled by the 1st century (‘Christs Kingdom on Earth’, 1645), and Joseph Hall expressed the same conclusion concerning Daniel’s prophecies (‘The Revelation Unrevealed’, 1650), but neither of them applied their Preterist views to Revelation. However, the exposition of Grotius convinced the Englishman Henry Hammond. Hammond sympathized with Grotius’ desire for unity among Christians, and found his Preterist exposition useful to this end. Hammond wrote his own Preterist exposition in 1653, borrowing extensively from Grotius. In his introduction to Revelation he claimed that others had independently arrived at similar conclusions as himself, though he gives pride of place to Grotius. Hammond was Grotius’ only notable Protestant convert, and despite his reputation and influence, Grotius’ interpretation of Revelation was overwhelmingly rejected by Protestants and gained no ground for at least 100 years.

By the end of the 18th century Paeterist exposition had gradually become more widespread. The first Full Preterist exposition was finally written in 1730 by the Swiss Protestant and Arian, Firmin Abauzit (‘Essai sur l'Apocalypse’). This was the beginning of a series of Full Preterist expositions of Revelation, all of them deriving ultimately from Abauzit....

[John317]

If it wasn't for the 2300 day prophecy and the 1844 message, I am positive I would not be a Seventh-day Adventist today. I might be a Baptist or even perhaps a Catholic. It's those Bible teachings that make me realize God wants me to stay away from following the false things that those other groups teach, such as the Mass, "once saved always saved, " Sunday worship, the immortality of the soul, oracular confession, etc. So I would say that the 2300 prophecy and the 1844 message influences every day of my life. I know what Jesus is doing right now and I know what He is waiting for. Without those teachings, I would have no idea what He is waiting for except maybe a certain time to arrive. But those teachings tell us that He is waiting for us to become more like Him. He is waiting for His church-- for me-- to allow Him not only to forgive sins but to help us overcome them.

It was through Bible study and prayer, as well as reading the things that Ellen White and others have written about the sanctuary message, that I decided to give my whole life to Christ. It was a matter of deciding that I had to die; that is, I had to give up everything which up to that point I had found made my life worth living. I had to come to the point where I saw Christ as more important than my own life. That was at a time when I was living as a gay man. For over 30 years I struggled against that life-style and came right up to the edge of giving up, believing that God could not do anything to change me.

During that time a gay Christian friend of mine, who was an elder in his non-Adventist church, came to me and asked me about what to do since he was dying and didn't want to face God as a practicing gay person. He asked if the Bible really shows that God opposes homosexuality. The only answer I had at the time was the Bible certainly says homosexuality is wrong, but I did not know the answer to his question about what he should do about it. I simply said he should ask God for forgiveness, but I didn't understand that God could also heal him and empower him so that he didn't need to continue living that way.

But since studying the 2300 days prophecy and the 1844 message (together with the message of 1888), I know that God empowers us to over-come all known sin in our lives. We don't need to simply keep asking God to forgive us for the same sin day in and day out all of our lives. That is a perversion of the truth, the real truth being that the Holy Spirit in our lives enables us to live righteous lives for God. The 2300 day prophecy and the message of 1844 are the very ones that bring this assurance into clearest focus.

The effect on my own life of understanding and putting into practice the 2300 day prophecy and the 1844 Message convinces me beyond any doubt that it is the truth. But my personal experience would be of no importance if I did not find that it is also supported by valid Biblical, objective evidence. It is not simply a matter of head-knowledge but a belief that has the most practical influence on day-to-day experience.

[Woody]

Quote:

If it wasn't for the 2300 day prophecy and the 1844 message, I am positive I would not be a Seventh-day Adventist today. I might be a Baptist or even perhaps a Catholic.

How sad. I'm sorry to hear this. There is so much more to being a Seventh-day Adventist than to be a one doctrine Adventist.

[John317]

Quote:

If it wasn't for the 2300 day prophecy and the 1844 message, I am positive I would not be a Seventh-day Adventist today. I might be a Baptist or even perhaps a Catholic.

How sad. I'm sorry to hear this. There is so much more to being a Seventh-day Adventist than to be a one doctrine Adventist.

Yes, of course Adventists do have many other wonderful doctrines. What I said is by no means a denial of the other 27 doctrines. I am saying that the 2300 day prophecy and 1844 is central and is like the hub of the wheel. Ellen White herself said that "the subject of the sanctuary was the key which unlocked the mystery of the disappointment of 1844. It opened to view a complete system of truth, connected and harmonious..." GC 523. Christ's ministration in the heavenly sanctuary reveals "new duties" that are required of us (GC 425, 431). It is all Christ-- who He is, what He did, what He is doing now, and what He will do in the future.

[Woody]

Quote:

"the subject of the sanctuary was the key which unlocked the mystery of the disappointment of 1844"

I think you're right. It would provide a possible calm after the disappointment of 1844.

[John317]

The subject of Christ's ministration was the impetus that led to the formation of the Seventh-day Adventist movement and the proclamation of the Three Angels message. It showed the interconnectedness of the Second Coming, Sabbath, the non-immortality of the wicked, the three angels messages of Rev. 14, the health message, and all of the other fundamental beliefs of the church.

[Ron Corson]

The statement about "papal supremacy" appears to assume Adventists teach something that we don't. I have never read any Adventist material that gives the impression the pope was already a great power in 538 AD.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

The statement about "papal supremacy" appears to assume Adventists teach something that we don't. I have never read any Adventist material that gives the impression the pope was already a great power in 538 AD.

I frankly don't know where you have been that you don't realize the SDA position was that the 1260 day (supposed years) was Roman Catholicism under their respective Popes. But that is what the belief is.

Quote:

C.Mervyn Maxwell in God Cares vol. 1 page 130 says:

The 1260 "days" or years (538-1798) of rising and then declining influence of Roman Catholicism over the minds of men exactly fulfill the "time, two times, and half a time" of Daniel 7 and further confirm our understanding that the Roman Catholic Church is the fulfillment of the little horn."

Yes, there is a rather obvious connection between the papal system and Roman Catholicism.