Leaderboard

"How sure are you? That what you believe to be true is not actually false?" I'm not 100% sure, because I'm always open to new evidence. Most of the things I believe are supported by a lot of evidence... it would take a lot of evidence, or a massive re-interpretation of the existing evidence, to challenge those beliefs. I guess I'd say "I'm sure enough to be going on with". I'm sure enough to function. I believe that all the pieces of my motorbike that need to work to get me around this corner fast will do their job - if I didn't believe that, I couldn't ride around the corner. In the end, it's the same with most things: we just have to go ahead and live. We have to act. We have to act in the absence of certainty, so we do.

I've had some very vivid dreams and some fuzzy ones. There are also dreams I knew I had but could not remember. Last night I had a vivid one. I dreamed I did my first colonoscopy. Everything went well except that instead of looking through the scope or watching what the scope was showing on the screen, I was watching the x-ray video showing the advancing scope. So I had to do it over! I also had a vivid dream about the Second Coming once, in technicolor no less. I've only had one other dream in color. Does that qualify me as a problem solver?

Babylon is more than just the Papacy....Babylon includes apostate Protestantism. However, the anti-Christ is another subject. Sure "the anti-Christ" is part of Babylon, but SDA teach that the Papacy is the anti-Christ. That you can't get around. Here's Sequeira: "We as a church uphold what is known as the “Historicist” position. This is the position that was promoted by the Reformation; so we are of the Reformation line, in terms of interpreting Daniel and Revelation. The other two are “Preterist” and “Futurist,” and then there’s a third one called “Idealist.” Now let me explain each one of them quickly. Let’s start with the Historicist. The Reformers believed that both Daniel and Revelation were books that revealed the history of the world and the Christian church beginning at the time of the writers, i.e., with Daniel, about 600 years before Christ, and with John, about 100 years after Christ. They begin there and they give a continuous account of history, ending with the last day events. If you follow this school, this line of thought, it interprets the little horn of Daniel and the Antichrist of Revelation as being the Papacy and the fulfilment of these two symbols. Now you can imagine that the Roman Catholic church did not like this. So how did they counteract this interpretation? They came up with two different schools of thought. The Preterist teaches that all the prophecies of Revelation and Daniel were fulfilled within a short period of time of the writers. For example, by the second century B.C., all the prophecies of Daniel were fulfilled. By the third century A.D., all the prophecies of Revelation were fulfilled. Which means that the papacy was not included in the prophecies; so the Preterist view helped the Catholic Church to escape from being identified with the Little Horn and the Antichrist. The Futurist, which is also a Roman Catholic interpretation of the prophecies, says that some of the prophecies were fulfilled in Daniel’s and John’s time, and others will be fulfilled at the end of church history, and in between that time there is a gap. And, of course, that in-between period is the history of the Roman Catholic church; that is not included, they say. Now, I can understand the Roman Catholics trying to use these two schools of interpretation to defend themselves. But the tragedy is that gradually the Protestant churches have accepted these views, so that today there is no denomination that upholds the Historicist view except the Seventh-day Adventist Church. We are the only ones, as a denomination, that upholds the Historicist interpretation of Daniel and Revelation. Most Protestants now take the Futurist and Preterist interpretation. And this gap theory, which includes, for instance, the 70 weeks, they say 69 weeks were fulfilled in Daniel’s time, the 70th week will be fulfilled at the end of time, and there’s a gap. Those who believe in the rapture teach that, the Dispensationalists teach that. So we are kind of unique. But if you look at these two books, you will see that they are historical. The Historicist is a very clear approach.

Bruce, May I offer a few thoughts on this too? These are indirect, but they do seem to be quite clear. Jude teaches that there had been a fall and a rebellion in heaven prior to the days of Moses. (RonP has already referred to this, but at the risk of repetition, I would like to comment too.) "...Michael the archangel, when contending with the Devil he disputed about the body of Moses..." (Jude 1:9) Obviously then, the Devil (literally "Diabolos", a false accuser,) was present during the days of Moses, and there was a contention between the Archangel and the Devil. But it is interesting that Jude has already made the point that a mass falling away /rebellion against God, has occurred : "... the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, He hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." (Jude 1:6) A definite division has taken place -- a group of angels have "left" (KJV), "abandoned" (Moffatt), or "deserted" (Weymouth) their first estate. (And this abandonment must, I think, have included the abandonment of their "first love".) Two "camps" were formed, and there was no communion [i.e. there could be no communion] between the two camps. Light and darkness had no fellowship. It was simply impossible (2Cor 6:14), because their hearts were in a different 'place'. This was set [at least] in the days of Moses. Now if it is accepted that the events depicted in the Book of Job predates those involving Moses, then of course it is clear that Satan (literally, the Adversary) already existed. (Job 1.) And if the Serpent that beguiled Eve (2Cor 11:3) is the same "old Serpent, which is the Devil and Satan" (Rev 20:2), then of course the rebellion in heaven predates the creation of life on this planet. I would go back to my opening thought in the thread, basically, that rebellion necessitated separation. The purity, together with the genuine care, and the non-striving, non-arguing, non-abusing spirit of heaven, was torture to those that wanted to fight. Michael, I believe, led His angels in the "good fight". They literally overcame evil with good.

You ask for the source of this sort of nonsense. In my experience that often tracks back to independent "ministries". Now in the Internet age that is simply multiplied by a legion of rumor mongers, independent websites, bloggers and itinerant "preachers" that have little or no accountability to anyone but themselves. At least in the old days they had to drum up the means to buy paper and ink and postage and spend time and resources handing out person to person their photocopied pamphlets. But now with a click of a button they spam the world. And also in the old days you could quietly dump the paper in the garbage and help prevent its spread. But it now finds a permanent home accessible to all the search engines for uncritical minds to suck up as if it is reliable information.

What about the texts in Isaiah and Ezekiel? Not to mention Revelation? Those were the main ones the pioneers of our church used to come to their conclusions.

I was watching a religious program on TV in a hotel once and the speaker was making a strong case for following the clean vs. unclean foods laws of Leviticus, etc. I didn't recognize him as one our own and waited until the credits and the program was affiliated with some denomination I wasn't familiar with.

Loma Linda University Church Hosts "Women's Ordination: The Road to San Antonio" - http://spectrummagazine.org/article/2015/01/20/weekend-loma-linda-university-church-hosts-womens-ordination-road-san-antonio To get the live streaming this weekend and the archived programming later go to http://www.lluc.org

Yes, I had seen that a while back on TV (when we still had TV). Gotta give credit where credit's due!

Thank you Ted. I appreciate the thoughts you've shared on this. Satan's "insane choice"... what an eloquent expression ! And yes, "...The fool rages and is confident." (Prov 14:16) But could I run something by you? When God manifested Himself in the Sanctuary, the "death zone" for deliberate, conscious, sin was relatively small. Fire flashed out upon Nadab and Abihu while they were in the Courtyard. When God manifested Himself to a greater extent upon Mt. Sinia, the "death zone" was correspondingly larger. It took in the whole mountain. When God manifests Himself in the eternal City, I believe the "death zone" will be larger again. Now I do not know how far out this could be extrapolated... Do you know what I mean? But if His glory fills the entire universe (which must be possible, and which, I believe, was the original design), then sin would not be capable of surviving anywhere.

I can see that perspective harmonizing with Scripture. God doesn't cast consuming fire upon sin - He IS a consuming fire with respect to sin. Sin simply cannot endure the presence of a Holy God - sin brings with it death by fire should it approach God close enough. Such is Satan's current "hell" - always wanting the throne of God for himself, yet never being able to come close enough to God to fight and live. Such unsatisfied coveting and yearning will drive him to make the insane choice - to try to approach God directly and survive the fight. Sin, and those identifying with it, find only a fiery consumption awaiting them...not because God sends it, but because that is the natural consequence occurring when sin comes in close proximity to God. Blessings,