Leaderboard

The image below makes me think of the "warring" factions within the church — on the issues of WO, signing a "pledge", church music, dress, jewelry, etc. Everyone sees things from their own perspectives, which appear "right" to them, and seem to look down on those whose opinions and heartfelt convictions differ from theirs. I've even seen people being called "satanic" for not agreeing with someone else's views. It's really all in how you relate to others.. Making a step closer to understand someone else's view, doesn't mean you change yours. If folks would just stop the bickering, and really listen to others, they might just discover that the *goal* of those folks is just the same as theirs — which really should be to share the gospel, and behave towards others as you'd like to be treated.

Where exactly do you stand? You have a lot of opinionated assertions but no evidence. I can't see what kind of stand that is. Where have you demonstrated that I have taken anyone out of context? Another generalized assertion with no backup. Time and again you argue against people citing references as if there is something somehow wrong with it. Why not just address the facts with counter evidence if you have it? Who exactly are you referring to? US-based lawyer? How could you know if I were cherry-picking or taken out of context if you didn't read the book - its not an article if you are referring to Saints and Sinners. One quick sentence? I don't know what you're referring to that was a quick sentence - I've quoted many sentences. By the way, the nature of quoting is selective according to the relevance of the point being made, but as long as it is not a distortion of what the author intended. Would you otherwise want me to quote pages and pages?

Hi hch, Good to hear from you. Some interesting points here and I appreciate you taking the time out to describe it. I understand why it is tempting to look for 1798 because the 538 date is seemingly established. I would suggest two things however. The first is to adopt a principle of independent verification for both dates, that is to say, investigate them independently of each other so as not to contaminate the objectivity of our investigation. In this way we don't force either date or distort events surrounding those dates to fit our prior belief in the 1260 years interpretation of prophecy. Following this independent line of thinking, even if we found that the 538 event had some significance to any claim that was being made (i.e. that it was the year in which Papal supremacy began) it doesn't automatically follow that 1798 is also related to that claim. In other words, the 1798 event has to still be independently verified, as opposed to automatically believed to be true, even if the 538 event were true. That's the first point. The second point I want to make is that the events surrounding 538 do not really fit what the traditional Adventist position alleges to have happened. The claim is that 538 marked "the establishment of the papacy” (Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, (1888, 1911), p. 266). The General Conference's Seventh-day Adventist Believe handbook on the 27 Fundamental Beliefs try to support this by saying that "the bishop of Rome was freed from the control of the Ostrogoths, whose Arianism had resulted in their restricting the developing Catholic Church.” (General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, Seventh-Day Adventists Believe… A Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines, (Review and Herald Publishing Assoc.: Maryland, 1988), p. 156). What I discovered was that the establishment of the papacy, described in the way just cited, did not happen. In fact, it was the complete opposite that is true - Pope Vigilius marked one of the lowest ebbs of papal prestige; and Rome was not freed from the Ostrogoths since they were to come again and subjugate the city. The Ostrogoths Return to Conquer Rome in 549/550 Under their new leader Totila the Ostrogoths returned to Rome to conquer it and reside in it permanently: “Rome itself changed hands three times in quick succession, ending up in 549 CE in the hands of Totila.” - Will Wyeth, "Justinian I," Ancient History Encyclopedia, (Ancient History Encyclopedia, 28 Sep 2012), <http://www.ancient.eu/Justinian_I/> [accessed 24 June 2017]. “On 16 January 550, history repeated itself and another group of disaffected Isaurians in the Roman garrison opened the gates to Totila’s men. Whereas in 546 the Goths had entered the city as raiders, they now showed every sign of staying. Many of them appropriated empty houses and settled in with their families; refugees were encouraged to return; damaged buildings were repaired and restored. The following summer Totila revived the games in the Circus Maximus, personally presiding over them from the imperial box.” – John Julius Norwich, A Short History of Byzantium, (London: Viking-Penguin Group, 1997), pp. 79-80. The ‘Three Chapters’ Episode - Submission, Excommunication and Brokenness of the Pope But what is more important is what happened to Pope Vigilius specifically at this time. Emperor Justinian had Vigilius kidnapped and brought to Constantinople. There he was pressed by the Emperor and Empress to put his support by condemning ‘The Three Chapters’ against his will (this was Emperor Justinian’s attempt to resolve a sectarian dispute between the Orthodox bishops and Monophysite bishops by condemning another group, the Nestorians, hoping that both Orthodox and Monophysites would unite against this common ‘enemy’). Vigilius eventually capitulated against his will and was cowed into submission: “Eighteen months later, however, Totila was at the gates of Rome. Were he to capture the city he might hold the Pope hostage, with disastrous consequences. Justinian acted quickly. On 22 Novemer 545 a company of the imperial guard arrived in Rome, seized Vigilius and carried him off to Constantionple. Once there, the constant pressure exerted by the Emperor and Empress began to wear him down. On 29 June he was officially reconciled with the [Monophysite] Patriarch, and on 11 April 548 he published his Judicatum, in which he solemnly anathematised the Three Chapters.” – John Julius Norwich, A Short History of Byzantium, (London: Viking-Penguin Group, 1997), p. 79. After subsequently retracting his support, Pope Vigilius was in the end excommunicated by the Emperor: “On 14 May, the Pope issued a so-called Constitutum, declaring the entire agitation [of the 'Three Chapters'] to be unfounded and unnecessary and forbidding any ecclesiastic to venture any further opinion on it… Now at last Justinian could treat Vigilius as he deserved. On receipt of the Constitutum he sent the Council three documents. The first was the text of a secret declaration by the Pope of June 547, anathematising the Three Chapters; the second was an oath to work for their general condemnation; and the third was a decree that his name should be struck from the diptychs – virtually a sentence of excommunication. On 26 May the Council formally endorsed the Emperor’s decree and condemned the Pope in its turn, ‘until he should repent his errors’. For Vigilius, it was the end of the road.” – John Julius Norwich, A Short History of Byzantium, (London: Viking-Penguin Group, 1997), p. 81. As a result of the Pope’s re-capitulation he was seen as a traitor by many, and was reviled throughout western Christendom: “The Pope was now generally reviled throughout Western Christendom as a turncoat and an apostate. In Carthage indeed, the bishops went further still and excommunicated him.” – John Julius Norwich, The Popes: A History, (London: Vintage Books, 2012), p. 31. Finally and pitifully he was disgraced, banished, broken in body and spirit, and died miserably of sickness on his journey home: “For Vigilius, it was the end of the road. Disgraced and banished to an island in the Marmara, he was told that until he accepted the findings of the Council he would never be permitted to return to Rome. Not for another six months – by which time he was suffering agonies from gallstones – did he capitulate; but when at last he did so, his surrender was absolute… By now too ill to travel, he remained for another year in Constantinople and only then, in a brief respite from pain, started for home. But the effort was too great. On the way his condition suddenly worsened. He was obliged to interrupt his journey at Syracuse; and there, broken alike in body and spirit, he died. For him there was to be no tomb in St Peter’s.” – John Julius Norwich, The Popes: A History, (London: Vintage Books, 2012), p. 35. Pope Vigilius Marks An All-Time Low for Papal Prestige Hardly being the age of the supremacy for the papacy it was actually the complete opposite - Pope Vigilius' legacy was an utter low point for papal prestige, and this legacy would continue on into Vigilius’ successor: “The story of Vigilius did untold harm to the papacy; and when his successor Pelagius I (556-61) on his accession instantly added his voice to the condemnation, papal prestige lay in tatters.” – John Julius Norwich, The Popes: A History, (London: Vintage Books, 2012), pp. 35-36. That is why I believe, and others do too, that both 538 and 1798 do not apply to the 1260-year interpretation of prophecy, because in Pope Vigilius (the pope involved in 538) Papal prestige descended hopelessly into universal disfavor, and in Pope Pius VII (the pope involved in after Pope Pius VI in 1798) Papal prestige ascended into one of its greatest high points, the inverse of what the traditional Adventist position claims. I hope that this at least gives you food for thought. God bless

Funny Cats Reaction To Smelling Durian https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ke7_1tPyjJs

My wife has some Durian ice cream in our freezer right now. However, she will never eat the stuff if I am at home! I tasted some once when it was frozen. I don't really want to describe the taste, but I am not tempted to try it again. However, it is not the worst thing I have ever tasted. I knew about the cashew nuts. I have also seen almond trees in the Dominican Republic. I learned they are related to peaches and apricots.

It seems to me, Brother Eastman, that we must hold fast our confidence in the great Adventist movement of 1844, and we should not be easily moved from the positions held by the leaders in that movement and by the pioneers of our own denomination. At the same time, I believe we should encourage our editors, our ministers, and the teachers in our schools, and the rank and file of our people, as far as they have time and opportunity, to be thorough Bible students and faithful students of history so that they may know for themselves and so that they can prove to people who do not accept our denominational books as authority, the points that we hold as a people. It is my conviction that those who write for our denominational papers regarding prophecy and its fulfillment ought to be encouraged to give deep and faithful study to the subjects about which they write, and to use in their arguments references and quotations from those historians which will be accepted by the readers as authority.W. C. White statement made to W. W. Eastman, [Publishing Department Secretary, Southwestern Union Conference.] November 4, 1912. I tend to see all the disbelief regarding long time Adventist interpretations to just be more of the becoming chronic pattern of kicking against (kicking against the pricks?) almost every belief of the church. So, I have seen nothing to make me change my viewpoints from pretty much what it has always been.

Behold the Lamb ?

I didn't know this. Very interesting.

It's weird how you can be so sensitive about people allegedly attacking you personally; yet you have no problem mocking others here.

I don't know if it is this thread or another, but someone said that the SDA Church does not teach that the papacy is the beast power. Wanderer made the point that this teaching appears nowhere in the 28 Fundies. If these are valid points, then I DON'T have to accept that the papacy is the sole candidate for the beast power or that 1798 has any meaning at all in prophecy to remain an SDA in good standing - is that fair? Therefore, we have no points of contention.

LESSON 1 THE GOSPEL FROM PATMOS Part I: Overview Key Text: Rev. 1:1. Study Focus: The Prologue (Rev. 1:1-8) and the Book of Revelation as a whole. Introduction: The Prologue to Rev. (Rev. 1:1-8) introduces the main themes of the book in relatively plain language. These verses contain no scary beasts, no heavenly journeys and […] The post Original Teacher’s Notes for Revelation 1:1-8 (Week 1) appeared first on Jon Paulien's Blog. View the full article

Thomas, Thanks for sharing that material. here is my thought: For the 1798 date to have any merit in relation to the prophecy as it relates to the papacy, something had to happen that fulfills the prophecy in 1798 if the start date is correct. History tells us that pope Vigilius was appointed by the Eastern Roman Emperor rather than the Roman Catholic Church (the church approved him after he was appointed because the Roman army was occupying Rome). They had a pope in 537 that had been chosen by the influence of the Arian Ostrogoths (they were the power in Rome at that time). When the Eastern Roman army returned from the African campaign against the Vandals, they ousted Pope S...and enthroned Pope Vigilius. Then Witigis the king of the Ostrogoths returned to Rome his army sieged Rome until 538 when the Eastern Roman Army broke out. So the beginning date for the changed papacy under Pope Vigilius fits 538 when the appointee of the Eastern emperor was free to govern the whole Church. The prophecy states that there will be a deadly wound in 1260-years. The math says that if this is the right beginning date (538), then the wound must come in 1798. In that year the French took Pope Pius VI prisoner. (that is interesting because the French under King Clovis had been instrumental in elevating the pope's status to be the head of all the churches). The French did not KILL the papacy, they wounded it with a DEADLY WOUND according to the prophecy. Christ received a deadly wound at Calvary. His friend (Judas) who had wanted Jesus to be King betrayed Him like the French betrayed the pope that they had supported in times past. Christ died; But he did not stay dead. (Adventists use a day for a year to explain some prophecies.) Christ received His deadly wound on Friday. Pope Pius VI received his deadly wound in 1798 when he was imprisoned in 1798 (he actually died early in 1799). Christ rested in His tomb on Sabbath, and there was no pope for most of 1799 (much like Christ's remaining in the tomb Sabbath). Christ arose on Sunday, and Pope Pius VII was installed in 1800 (like Christ rising from His deadly wound on Sunday...the first day of the new week, the papacy recovered from it's deadly wound on the first day of the new century). When the papacy's deadly wound is compared to Christ's deadly wound the 1260 years from 538 to 1798 are a mirror image of Christ's 1260 day ministry (3.5 years). Christ had been anointed by the King of the universe and Pope Vigilius had been appointed by the world's emperor. To understand if the 1798 deadly wound fulfilled prophecy we must understand 1) how it mirrored [counterfeited] the life of Christ, 2) what exactly the prophecy is calling a deadly wound, and 3) who the prophecy is talking about. God inspired His word and by faith, He will give us the understanding that we need at the right time. There is no promise in the Bible that everyone will understand or that everyone will believe the word of God. He will not remove every doubt, nor will God compel people to see that prophecy has been fulfilled when it happens. The best we can do is to reason together. That's my understanding of the dates: 538-1798; of the role of the papacy in fulfilling the prophecy; of the meaning of the deadly wound; and of the necessity to depend on God for the ability to understand His word Christian regards

B/W PHOTODUDE IT must smell bad if one of the cats was trying to bury like in litter box dgrimm60

All the understanding of prophecy in the world will not save you. Who knows prophecy better than Satan and God will take him to ashes. I still say there is something that people are not understanding that we need to know before the return of Jesus and correct interpretation of prophecy is not one of them. "scripture, prayer, faith, and obedience" are going in the right direction. (imho)

A quote from an article which discusses this idea: In Christ's Object Lessons, we find the oft-quoted statement "When the character of Christ shall be perfectly reproduced in His people, then He will come to claim them as His own. "It is the privilege of every Christian not only to look for but to hasten the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Peter 3:12, margin). Were all who profess His name bearing fruit to His glory, how quickly the whole world would be sown with the seed of the gospel. Quickly the last great harvest would be ripened, and Christ would come to gather the precious grain." https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1988/02/have-we-delayed-the-advent I have also heard some liken our still being on this earth to the 40 years Israel spent wandering in the desert. Perhaps it is the weariness of waiting or any number of reasons, but we have been waiting now some 174 years since the cleansing of the sanctuary began. Needless to say, it does raise some metaphysical quandries. Like if it had occurred long ago, many of us participating on these forums would never have been born! Now you can arrive at your own conclusions regarding this concept. A different topic would be cool!

I'm not gonna disagree with you; but I will say that none of them fit your read of the prophecies in Revelation. Rather than summarily dismiss those other possibilities you mentioned, I'd rather keep them filed away as possibilities, along with Islam. In the end, it probably isn't as important to know this stuff as it is to be ready for Jesus to come through study of scripture, prayer, faith, and obedience. That way, it won't matter how things unfold, we will be ready for the Kingdom.

I do not see this position to be of such a significance to be a fundamental belief. However, it is significant enough that I really believe that with the church leaders promoting this idea, if it were wrong, likely it would have been corrected. God did promise to show people great things. To take on the Roman church and promote them as being the beast, if it were not true, would have been a serious error for a remnant church. The fact that you think it may be islam seems strange since there is thought that God's people could have been in heaven more than a hundred years ago.

I think it might be Communist China, maybe it is the globalists, or perhaps the postmodern wannabe Christians! None of the make any since or fit the prophecies of Revelation. I think I will stick the the Roman church model of the interpretations of Revelation's prophecies.

I have heard of some of your strange prophecies and reportedly, they have not come true. If I had made a prophecy of serious importance and it did not come true, I don't think I would again prophesy. I am not sure you are one to rebuke. But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. 21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken? 22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him. Deut 18:20-22

Respectfully sometime things and quotes can be misunderstood. Thanks with all due respect and your wife finding a lady hiding under your bed was hillarious! ? Blessings!

Looking upon Jesus

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.