Leaderboard

Christmas in the early to mid SDA church https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yf6EXbldFCw

HEY ALL ONLY 4 more days until JAN 1 2019 dgrimm60

Moreover, this fact has been known for some time. The late Samuele Bacchiocchi, retired distinguished professor of Andrews University, was/is probably the best-known Adventist scholar outside of Adventism. In 2002 in his popular End Time Issues Newsletters he was humble enough to admit that, “The death of Pius VI [1798] can hardly be seen as the "abolishment" or "the downfall of the Papacy." It was simply a temporary humiliation of the prestige of the Papacy… The following years marked, not the downfall, but the resurgence of papal authority…” – Samuele Bacchiocchi, ‘A Reply To Criticism: Part I “The Use of E. G. White’s Writing in Interpreting Scripture,”’ End-Times Issues Newsletter, No. 87, (1 August 2002), <http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/endtimeissues/eti_87.html> [accessed 24 June 2017]. When will historical fact be accepted?

I am totally with JoMo on this, as well as what JoMo described accurately as the thrust of the anonymous Atoday article, namely the non-relevance of the 1798 date. For the sake of conciseness I'm only going to hone in on this key point. All of the proponents of the 1798 date simply presume that what Adventists have said about it is true. But have any bothered to verify it historically? If we do a quick survey of the historical facts we find that the traditional Adventist understanding of 1798 – namely, that it marked the end of papal supremacy – is utterly false. Here is a summary (as concise as I can) of some of the significant historical facts about thus period of the French Revolution and the Papacy: 1. The Criterion of Papal Spiritual Sovereignty is Temporal Power At the time, what gave foundation, sustenance and validity to Papal religious authority and supremacy was temporal power – that is to say, possessing territory in which it alone was sovereign, having centralized governing power as well as the power to coerce within that territory through its own military force. Therefore to lose temporal power was to end de facto Papal supremacy. The Papacy possessed such power over the Papal States: “Henry Edward Manning, future Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, declared that the temporal power of the Pope was the sign of ‘the freedom, the independence, the sovereignty of the kingdom of God upon earth’… In a sermon… identifying the cause of the temporal power with ‘the independence of the Universal Church’, he denounced the attack on it as a ‘falling away from the supernatural order, and a return to (merely) natural society’, the end of Christendom.” - Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes, (London: Yale University Press, 1997), p. 225. 2. The Coronation of the Next Papal Temporal Sovereign after 1798 The death of Pope Pius VI at this time was not the end of the papacy's temporal authority at all, since the subsequent coronation of a new sovereign over the Papal States, Pope Pius VII, was a clear indication of this: “The coronation of the Pope was a symbol of his temporal sovereignty. To co-operate in the coronation would be to recognise the integrity of the Papal States, including the Legations.” - Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes, (London: Yale University Press, 1997), p. 204. 3. Emperor Napoleon’s Continued Annexation of Papal Territory After 1798 Emperor Napoleon’s continual attempt to annex Papal territory after 1798 proves that Pope Pius VII was still sovereign over these territories, thus retaining temporal sovereignty (one can only annex something that someone has not what they do not have): “To secure the papal port of Ancona against British and Austrian forces, Napoleon annexed it in October 1805, a move which the Pope bitterly resented… In February 1806, using Ancona as a base, Napoleon annexed the kingdom of Naples and placed his brother Joseph on the throne. This was yet another insult to the Pope, for Naples was a papal fief, and the Pope had a right to be consulted about any transfer of rule. Finally, Napoleon wrote to the Pope demanding that he close all papal ports to the allies.” - Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes, (London: Yale University Press, 1997), p. 211. 4. The Pope’s Abdication of Temporal Power in 1813 (Retracted Later) ‘On 6 July [1808] a French general presented himself before the Pope and demanded his abdication as sovereign of the Papal States’ (Duffy, Saints and Sinners, p. 212) to which Pope Pius VII refused and was subsequently arrested. Napoleon continued on in his aggrandisement of territory and in 1810 he had ‘annexed Rome, declaring it the second city of the empire’ (Ibid.). Eventually, the Pope caved in to Napoleon’s harassments and signed away the Papal States: “When the Emperor finally came to Fontainebleau on 19 January 1813… for six days the Emperor alternately wheedled and stormed at the Pope… Eventually the Pope gave in, and signed a draft agreement on a scrap of paper for the concordat which totally surrendered the temporal power. The Pope would be sovereign of Rome no longer… Pius immediately regretted this surrender…” - Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes, (London: Yale University Press, 1997), p. 213. All of this demonstrates that even though the Papacy suffered a setback in 1798 it was not totally divested of its sovereignty or its political power, since both continued to exist, albeit diminished, up until 1813. 1813 was not the end however since Pope Pius VII retracted his agreement and therefore continued to be in possession of temporal power. 5. The Papal States Restored to the Papacy at the Congress of Vienna in 1814 After the defeat of Napoleon, European powers assembled at the Congress of Vienna in 1814 to discuss the redistribution of territory and ‘redraw the map of Europe’ (John Julius Norwich, The Popes: History, (London: Vintage Books, 2012), p. 375). In the process, ‘the papal representative… Cardinal Consalvi… recovered almost all the former papal territories’ (Ibid.). ‘This restoration of the Papal States is the single most important fact’ regarding the existential reality of the Papacy: “This restoration of the Papal States is the single most important fact about the nineteenth-century papacy… On the lips of Napoleon the call for the Pope to lay down his temporal sovereignty and to rely solely on spiritual authority had been blatant code for the enslavement of the papacy to French imperial ambitions… If the Pope did not remain a temporal king, then it seemed he could no longer be the Church’s chief bishop.” - Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes, (London: Yale University Press, 1997), p. 214. 6. 1798 Marked the Beginning of a Renewed and Enlarged Supremacy of the Papacy, Not the End Lastly, what is absolutely damming to the traditional Adventist claim is that the Papacy, having suffered the worst excesses in all papal history under the Revolution and Napoleon, emerged victorious as the personification of resistance receiving untold acclaim, respect, and adoration, and was recognised widely as the supreme religious authority: “The Pope was now seventy-two, and respected in Europe more than he had ever been. The cruelties and excesses of the Revolution and the megalomaniac ambitions of Napoleon had brought about a vigorous spirit of reaction of which the Church, which had endured persecution from the one and consistently harsh treatment from the other, had emerged as the leading symbol; and Pius, whose pontificate had been one of the most troubled in all history and whose own personal suffering had been acute, was now seen as the personification of resistance, which had ultimately led to the destruction of both. No longer was the Pope looked upon – as he had been in the previous century – as a fairly insignficant anachronism; he was once again back on the map of Europe, recognised by the Catholic princes as a temporal ruler as well as the supreme spiritual authority… The prospects for the papacy looked brighter than they had for half a century.” – John Julius Norwich, The Popes: A History, (London: Vingtage Books, 2012), p. 376. Rather than bringing the Papacy to a halt, the French Revolution only served to revive its image, garner widespread recognition of its spiritual authority, and restore its supremacy, more than what it had prior to the Revolution. 1798 marked not the end but the beginning of the road to redemption for the Papacy and a renewed and enlarged spiritual hegemony. The Wanderer alleged that JoMo’s post was ‘a reflection of History Revisionism at best’. But in truth, it has been and continues to be Adventism’s founders and subsequent propagators who are historical revisionists. What history says is the utter opposite of what they have said and continue to say. It is no wonder that the Atoday article’s authors said of Adventism’s prophetic relevance, “Prophecy is to us Seventh-day Adventists an old rusty tool, a tool that we proudly display in our museum, but we are no longer capable of using”. Will Adventists continue to propound such falsehoods in the face of historical facts? Or is loyalty to a false belief much too painful to admit.

Yes, and we allow you to post along with the wheat in this forum.

HCH: Be careful for which you ask. You post what many would call "heresy." If we closed all such threads down, you would be out of here as we allow you to post a lot of heresy. The actual article that you cited did not propose any doctrinal view, as you would know if you had actually read the article. It simply was a statement as to what the editors were thinking about when they published the article below. So, as your cited article did not propose doctrine, it could not be properly called heresy. https://atoday.org/a-new-interpretation-of-the-little-horn-of-daniel-7/ As to the article above: If you want to call that article heresy, go ahead and do so. In this forum, we are fine with you doing that with the above article. I would not use that term. There are other terms that I would use to relate to that article. That does not mean that I am saying that it is not heresy. It s imply means that I would use other terms. To be clear, the terms that I would use are the same terms that I would use to describe some of the posts that we allow you to post in this forum. But, I do not use them to describe your posts. So, like I say: Be careful of what you ask. It just might apply to you. HCH, if you do not like how this forum is run, you do not have to come here and post. You may establish your own forum and post what ever you wish.

I find it shocking that Gregory (a moderator on this form) has used his authority to close down threads that I have started that promote Bible study [that were examining the role of the papacy in Bible prophecy]. When people were really getting into Bible study, the threads that I mentioned vanished at Gregory's doing. Then he has the "authority" to start this thread based on an article that does not encourage Bible study, but that focuses on mocking the studies of the Adventist pioneers. If that article had solid biblical substance to bring the pioneers studies into question or to point to Jesus while reexamining Adventist positions, that would be a different matter. I rest on the word of God, "The Lord rebuke thee."

https://www.adventistreview.org/a-kite-a-string-and-a-bridge

If two SDA members who are on opposing sides of these [in my opinion] ridiculous denominational battles, and demonize each other for their heartfelt beliefs, and one found out that s/he could save the life of his/her opponent with, say, a bone marrow transplant, do you suppose the person would do so? Or do you think s/he would thumb his/her nose, and say "good riddance" (because that would be one less opponent, you know)? It's like we've got the Adventist version of the Civil War going on. With no Abraham Lincoln...and it seems like we're in the midst of the hornet's nest of the Battle of the Adventist Shiloh. In all this bickering, don't people realize that they're participating in the denunciation and annihilation of their own friends and families? Shameful. Makes me sick.

5 Things You Didn't Know About the Pledge of Allegiance On December 28, 1945, Congress formally recognized the Pledge of Allegiance in its almost-current form (everything but "under God"). Here are 5 things you didn't know about the Pledge of Allegiance.... Who Wrote the Pledge of Allegiance? In 1892, as part of a national patriotic school program, a 37-year-old minister named Francis Bellamy composed the Pledge of Allegiance. It was originally written and published in, the magazine The Youth's Companion and it was to be an integral part of the Columbus Day festivities. The original version was a bit different than what we know today. It read: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." In 1923 the American Legion and Daughters of the American Revolution made a change to the pledge. They removed the word "my" and inserted the words "the Flag of the United States of America." This change was made so that immigrant children would know they were saluting the United States flag, and not one from their native country. With the national fear of communism in 1954, President Dwight D. Eisenhower urged Congress to add the words "under God" to the pledge. Eisenhower stated this change would "reaffirm the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future" and "strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war." The Original Pledge Included a Very Different Salute But that salute was eliminated for a very good reason. Nowadays people put their right hand over their heart, but before 1942, the salute used with the Pledge was a straight right arm raised at a diagonal angle, palm down, fingers extended together and out. Picture that for a moment and you'll likely get why it fell out of favor starting in the 1930s—it's now better known as the salute used by the Nazis. The straight-arm salute was known in the U.S. as the Bellamy salute, after Francis Bellamy, who believed the salute would be a good non-military gesture, even though some sources still call it a military salute. The current hand-over-heart salute is included in the U.S. Flag Code. It Was Not the First Pledge to the U.S. and U.S. Flag Bellamy's Pledge was first used in 1892, but in 1885, a colonel named George Balch penned a very short oath to the flag that was actually used in some schools before Bellamy's version was created. Balch's version promoted the idea of one language along with one country, and it also included mention of God, which Bellamy's version did not (until "under God" was added in 1954). The Pledge Was in Use Long Before Congress Recognized It The Pledge was originally written for the anniversary of Columbus landing in North America but gradually worked its way into everyday life, including recitation in schools. Congress' recognition in 1945 merely made the words of the Pledge official and added them to a flag code law from 1942. Interestingly, the addition notes that civilians should place their hands over their hearts when reciting the Pledge, but that just standing at attention (with men removing their hats) would be enough to show respect. It Used to Be Legal to Expel Students for Not Saying the Pledge And it's not now, though that hasn't stopped some schools. Basically, until 1943, schools could kick you out for not saying the Pledge. The law was changed in 1943 after a Supreme Court decision that said not speaking during the Pledge was considered free speech. Unfortunately, some schools still prefer to kick students out, such as happened to a high school senior in Houston, Texas, in 2017, who merely refused to stand during the Pledge. As of September 2018, a District Court judge in Texas has refused to dismiss the case, but the Texas Attorney General has intervened and told the student she must stand. Her attorney has said he'd be willing to go before the Supreme Court.

✴️ Glorify your Father ❇️

While the love of God is infinite and so is His love, He also is perfect and has a perfect sense of justice also. Jesus told how one day He would say to people, "Depart from me. I do not know you." His justice is that the universe will one day be free of sin forever, and that also means the vast majority of those who have ever lived will be destroyed in the last great judgement. They will be so completely annihilated that those saved will not even remember them anymore.

Each week this coming quarter I plan to post three things (God willing); my “Teacher’s Edition” comments on the main lesson in pre-edited form, my analysis of the changes in my TE comments introduced in the editorial process and their theological significance (if any), and Ranko Stefanovic’s analysis of the changes introduced into the main […] The post Sabbath School Series on Revelation Begins Next Week appeared first on Jon Paulien's Blog. View the full article

I stand corrected. At any rate, I appreciate the light that you, Gregory, and Kevin have shined on this subject.

Kevin, I appreciate very much the insight that you regularly bring to discussions in this forum.

if someone thinks Christmas (Christ's Mass) is pagan and refuses to celebrate the holiday for that reason, that's okay. But the truth is, most pagans (and I'm thinking of the witches and other neopagans, along with Druidic and Celtic factions, rather than centuries old-established non-christian religions) aren't particularly impressed with Christmas. The day has no relevance in their sacred calendar (and never has), contrary to what many Christian writers have tried to espouse. The Winter Solstice (Yule) was the important day... and it's *never* on Dec 25th. So many Christians get so worked up and fearful of "touching" anything that could possibly be conceived as "pagan" — and end up sounding the false alarm. Let's be thankful for a day when most of the Christian world remembers the Christ Child's birth, and stops for a bit to think good thoughts. But as I wrote first, if someone doesn't want to celebrate Christmas, fine. But don't steal the joy from others who truly get a blessing from the day...