The Beast of Revelation 13

[John317]

Did you know the Adventists pioneers weren't Trinitarians?

They were growing and had lots to learn. The leaders such as Uriah Smith, James White, Ellen White, Joseph Bates, John Andrews, J.H. Waggoner, E.J. Waggoner, A.T. Jones, W.W. Prescott, etc., were not in complete harmony as regards the Godhead. Some believed Christ was created, while others believed Christ was "begotten" or "born" of the Father. Their theologies were fluid. James White was in the process of changing at the time of his death. Ellen White hadn't yet written the Desire of Ages and Patriarchs and Prophets. These books caused the church to take a closer look at what the Bible teaches on the subject.

Also, the fact is that virtually all of the leadership came out of churches which had been anti-Trinitarian. There were, however, some SDA ministers who believed in the Trinity, and they weren't required to change their views. James White wrote in the Review and Herald that the doctrine of the Godhead should not be a test of fellowship or Christian character. The church during those years had far more important doctrines to consider, such as the Second Coming, the Sabbath and the Law of God. These are the teachings that were studied at the Sabbath Bible Conferences of 1849. They didn't even consider the Godhead, or the Trinity.

See the following article on the history of the development of the doctrine of the Trinity in the SDA church:

http://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2009/February/the-trinity.html

[Michaeneu]

Thanks Michael--but you didn't answer my question. By the way, when you attempt to answer one of my questions by using the writer of Romans or Hebrews, it does not mean much--if anything--to me. And everyone knows God can't live with evil--that is why Satan got kicked out of heaven. John told us that when someone is born of the Holy Spirit they can't sin anymore. Isn't this correct?

So--again, do you believe that Christ was born with evil or sinful flesh? Yes or No. You don't have to write a book about your answer.

Rich, we’ve just been through a complete thread where I gave you and your company the opportunity to convict me of your paradigm strictly with the scriptures that you find acceptable but you guys failed miserably. You’ve certainly protested to such an assessment but when it came down to the nitty gritty your concept of conditional covenants was completely eviscerated by Christ’s pronouncement that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church and the church IS none other than Israel. Consequently the prophecies and promises to Israel are unconditional because it is the church—and those promises and prophecies have been and are being fulfilled since the first advent, not to exclude sanctions for disobedience and blessings for the converse. And the gist of the matter is that Romans and Hebrews conform to the aforementioned while your paradigm refuses to account for them.

Since you and your company could not preserve when it came down to the nitty gritty I feel no qualms about quoting Hebrews and Romans or any other NT text found in the contemporary Bible to support any doctrines that I’ve come to accept. If you can’t deal with them the onus falls on you not me, because I’ve done my homework and proven that they conform to the rest of scripture while your paradigm must make void great passages of Yahweh’s word.

That being said, I’ve already given my understanding that Christ came in the corruptible flesh of Adam after the fall, which you couldn’t address because you are still holding to the untenable concept of a conditional covenant with the church/Israel and this taints your grasp of Romans and Hebrews. What more is there to say?

I must say, with friends like you, who needs enemies!

Michael

[Guest]

He's right Rich.

[Dr. Rich]

I never said you didn't have to use the writer of Romans or Hebrews--I just said I myself don't value them like I do the words of Jesus given to us by eyewitnesses.

And yes Richard, I already knew you would agree with him. No problem!

[Guest]

No you didn't. He is right though.

[Dr. Rich]

Ok Richard, right about what? Jesus taking on sinful flesh and thereby being sinful?

[Guest]

He didn't say Jesus was sinful, neither does the Bible.

Heb 2:14 Since then the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

Heb 4:15 For we have not a high priest who cannot be touched with the feeling of our weaknesses; but was in all points tempted like we are, yet without sin.

Rev 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

[Dr. Rich]

How about: “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.” Rom. 8:3

Isn't this from the bible?

Did Lucifer have a body of flesh that could be corrupted? If no, then what caused him and the third of the other heavenly beings to sin?

And no one answered wayfinders question about when Jesus became the Son of God either/ can anyone do this?

[Michaeneu]

How about: “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.” Rom. 8:3

Isn't this from the bible?

Did Lucifer have a body of flesh that could be corrupted? If no, then what caused him and the third of the other heavenly beings to sin?

And no one answered wayfinders question about when Jesus became the Son of God either/ can anyone do this?

[Musicman1228]

Was Jesus the Passover Lamb? Your answer to this, Michael and Richard, will indicate whether you believe Jesus Christ is/was in fact the 'perfect' sacrifice.

[Michaeneu]

I never said you didn't have to use the writer of Romans or Hebrews--I just said I myself don't value them like I do the words of Jesus given to us by eyewitnesses.

And yes Richard, I already knew you would agree with him. No problem!

But you and your company weren't eye witnesses either, so why should I value your words above those who directly walked and talked with the people who did have first hand knowledge of Christ? Why should I value your words above those who history confirms had no major conflict with those who had first hand knowledge of Christ? The scriptures are replete with the fellowship of Paul, Luke, Peter, John and etc. and etc.--not the condemnation of each other for teaching different Gospel's. Certainly they had controversy to correct mistaken notions but nothing that would suggest any lack of fellowship or divergent gospels.

Michael

[Michaeneu]

Was Jesus the Passover Lamb? Your answer to this, Michael and Richard, will indicate whether you believe Jesus Christ is/was in fact the 'perfect' sacrifice.

The supposed discrepancy between the Synoptic and John on the Passover has led to a controversy over the years as to whether Yahshua kept his last Passover. To begin, the controversy over the day of the Passover came about because of the use of the Chaldean calendar by the deportees. This is when they commenced to reckon Rosh Chodesh or the new month by the sunset, as opposed to the Exodus calendar that reckoned the new month at sunrise. It was these two methods of reckoning the calendar that led to disagreements of the feast days. By the time of the return the Exodus calendar had just about been abandoned and it was not until the end of the 5th century BCE that there was an attempt at reform to reassert the Exodus calendar reckoning.

Ultimately it was the conservative Sadducees that championed the return to the Exodus calendar reckoning while the liberal Pharisees attempted to impose the Chaldee solar-lunar reckoning with the people. Compromise ultimately prevailed and the recognition of the different reckonings was accommodated and this would explains the Synoptic and John’s impasse.

"The Sadducees strictly followed the five books of Moses, and believed that evil was due to man's own folly. They continued the use of the Second Temple calendar that was a reflection of the Exodus calendar described in the Pentateuch… The Pharisees followed Scripture and the oral traditions of the elders; they believed that God sometimes intervened in world events. They used the Diaspora calendar." (Kenneh F. Doig, New Testament Chronology, Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1990)

The Essene’s came about much later and was based upon the book of Enoch, which was termed the Jubilee calendar. They had a fixed calendar of 364 days, as you know, but there is no evidence that they calculated for the missing day. Quite the contrary, the book of Enoch opposes any such calculation for that would put the feasts on different consecutive days of the week, which conforms to the Exodus calendar. They were definitely opposed to the idea of observance on consecutive days and upheld the 15th as always falling on a Wednesday.

"…the year is completed scrupulously in 364 fixed stations of the cosmos." (1 Enoch 75:2-3)

"The Essene feast days were always on a Wednesday." (Copyright ©1999-2001 Congregation of YHWH, Irving, TX.)

"Even the Essene calendar was different. The Temple authorities maintained a lunar calendar; the Essenes followed a solar calendar, which consisted of exactly 52 weeks per year, that is, 364 days. According to this calendar, festivals always fell on the same day of the week. Thus, Rosh Hashanah (the Feast of Trumpets), Passover and the first day of Sukkot (the Feast of Tabernacles) always occurred on a Wednesday." (BARGIL PIXNER Copyright ©1997 Biblical Archaeology Society)

"In the Jubilee calendar of the Essenes the Passover always fell on Wednesday…" (Kenneh F. Doig, New Testament Chronology, Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1990)

It has been posited that the Essenes assumed the priesthood during the 2nd century BCE and imposed their calendar. Since their calendar didn’t work they must have ultimately fell from favor and this is most likely when they imposed self-exile at the Qumran community. It is specious at best that Yahshua was sectarian as is suggested. He was neither Sadducee, Pharisee nor Essene; Yahweh is not a respecter of persons and each sect had its shortcomings. The zealousness, sectarian and conspicuous righteousness by works of the Essenes does nothing for those who attempt to imply they were the "church" at any time then or since, quite the contrary.

It was Passover of the Sadducees’ Exodus calendar that Yahshua observed in the Synoptic, while the Pharisees observed the Passover on the next day according to the solar-lunar reckoning of the Chaldeans.

The actual Passover was early on the 14th according to the Exodus reckoning. The term "first day of unleavened bread" (Mark 14:12) had become idiomatic because the Exodus instructions do not allow for the killing of the Passover lamb on any day other that the 14th. The instructions in Exodus was that they were to eat the Passover on the night of the 14th or just as the 13th ended and the 14th commenced. They were commanded to stay indoors that night and not to come out until morning because the angel of death passed over that night.

"And ye shall keep IT up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening…. And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire…. For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord…. And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dip it in the blood that is in the bason, and strike the lintel and the two side posts with the blood that is in the bason; and none of you shall go out at the door of his house until the morning." Exodus 12:6, 10, 12, 22

If the Passover was at the end of the 14th leading to the 15th then there would be remains of the lamb still on the 15th, which conflicts with, "and ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month." There was to be no remains of the lamb by the 15th. Consequently, the Passover that Yahshua kept was that of the Exodus calendar, while the Pharisees observed theirs the next night, which they perceived as early 14th by the solar-lunar reckoning. This allows for Yahshua to keep the Passover and die on the actual day of the 14th to fulfill the shadow.

The gist of the disagreement lies in the view that the Passover is conjoined with the seven days of the Feast of the Unleavened Bread. Those who hold to the view that the sacrifice is conjoined with the Feast misinterpret texts such as:

"In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even. Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses…" Exodus 12:18-19

It would appear that the Passover is conjoined to the seven days of the FUB (Feast of the Unleavened Bread) that commences on the 15th in the text above. After all they were to eat the unleavened bread from the evening of the 14th until the evening of the 21st and commanded to eat unleavened bread with the Passover meal also. But this is poor exegesis and let me explain why!

First, the word translated "even" above in verse eighteen is not the same word we find in verse six.

"And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening." Exodus 12:6

This is a temporally transitional form of the word used in verse eighteen. The word in verse eighteen is "ba-ereb" and the word in verse six is "ben ha arbayim." Now come let us reason, if these prepositions were to mean the same time why were they not expressed in the exact form of the root word? "Fortnight" does not denote the same temporal time as "night"; there is a temporal distinction between these prepositions and the Hebrew language follows the same rules. Prefixes and Suffixes attached to the Hebrew prepositions denote a change in time or temporal relations as they do in English or language in general. This is how temporal transitions are expressed or defined in language. Consequently, to interpret "ba-ereb" as the same time as "ben ha arbayim", six hours from (mid-day) until evening, is poor exegesis and grammatically unsound. Besides, Yahweh’s days are construed from sunset to sunset, which is truly what the preponderance of lexicons reveal concerning the use of "ba-ereb" in verse eighteen. In essence the FUB commenced as one day ended, sunset, and ended as the close of the 21st, sun set. It simply chafes against how Yahweh discerned His days by interpreting the FUB beginning in the afternoon of the previous day and ending on the afternoon of the last, cutting short that day!

And what is the temporal relation between "ba-ereb" and "ben ha arbayim" according to the scriptures? We find exactly how they relate in the incident where the Israelites complained about starving in the wilderness and at the same time Yahweh instructed them to keep the Sabbath, only a month after they left Egypt.

"I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel: speak unto them, saying, At even (ben ha arbayim) ye shall eat flesh, and in the morning ye shall be filled with bread; and ye shall know that I am the Lord your God. And it came to pass, that at even (ba-ereb) the quails came up, and covered the camp: and in the morning the dew lay round about the host." Exodus 16:12-13

Since they could not eat the quail until they arrived the texts above reveal that "ben ha arbayim" comes after "ba-ereb" which is how twilight follows sunset. At sunset (ba-ereb) the quail arrived and at twilight (ben ha arbayim) they ate them. Ben ha arbayim is the temporal transition from when the sun sets, betwixt, and when it becomes completely dark, as the Karaites, Samaritans and Sadducees defined it. To reiterate, Yahweh promised they would eat flesh at twilight "ben ha arbayim" and the quail arrived at sun set, "ba-ereb." The temporal relation is that ben ha arbayim follows ba-ereb and this is exactly the temporal relation between sunset and twilight.

Then it follows that the seven days of the FUB follow the Passover of the 14th. This is why Yahweh, through Moses, also had to specify that they eat the lamb with unleavened bread for the reason that the two are separate events and the additional stipulation is added because the Passover meal falls outside of the seven days. And as ben ha arbayim follows the sunset or represents the beginning of the day if the sacrifice of the lamb were at the end of the 14th then no part of the Passover took place on the 14th but fell completely on the 15th, which would render Yahweh’s word moot and the appointed day superfluous. As the minorities of the Jews proclaim, the Talmud, the oral traditions added to Yahweh’s word, have, "obscured and then eliminated the distinction so that matzot [days of unleavened bread] came to be eaten in conjunction with the sacrifice. At first the sacrifice was brought privately by each family, but later on Jerusalem became the center of the celebration." (Torah A Modern Commentary edited by W.Gunther Plaut, "Union of American Hebrew Congregations" that includes original Hebrew text and the Jewish Publication Society English translation of the Pentateuch. Emphasis mine.)

One final point here, the idiom employed in Matthew 26:17 is like the Gentiles that employ the idiom "holidays" to include Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Years. They include all of these man made days by simply saying "holidays" and is the not unlike the use of "first day of the FUB" in Matthew. By the time of Yahshua’s first advent the Jews were used to informally addressing the Passover and the FUB inclusively in the expressions "the Passover" or the "First day of the FUB." This still does not preclude that:

"In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the Lord's passover. And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the Lord: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread." Leviticus 23:5-6

[phkrause]

you know dr. rich, are you an eye witness? but yet you want us to give credence to what you have to say. no? I can tell from the words of Paul and Luke that they loved the Lord with more than just words, they loved him with there lives. If I'm not mistaken they died for him. Can that be said of us when that time comes?

pk

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich

I never said you didn't have to use the writer of Romans or Hebrews--I just said I myself don't value them like I do the words of Jesus given to us by eyewitnesses.

And yes Richard, I already knew you would agree with him. No problem!

But you and your company weren't eye witnesses either, so why should I value your words above those who directly walked and talked with the people who did have first hand knowledge of Christ? Why should I value your words above those who history confirms had no major conflict with those who had first hand knowledge of Christ? The scriptures are replete with the fellowship of Paul, Luke, Peter, John and etc. and etc.--not the condemnation of each other for teaching different Gospel's. Certainly they had controversy to correct mistaken notions but nothing that would suggest any lack of fellowship or divergent gospels.

Michael

Michael,

Who are you to speak of eyewitnesses as if they mean anything to you? You place the words of someone WHO NEVER MET JESUS CHRIST IN THE FLESH over those that did, and then say that those same people that 'walked and talked' with the eyewitnesses have the SAME authority as those very eyewitnesses. The information that Paul gives in his gospels (epistles) and that he gave to Luke from which he (Luke) wrote his gospel DID NOT come from the eye witnesses, but from 'visions' that Paul claims came from a being that 'claimed' to be Jesus. Where are the eyewitnesses in all of this. They are silent. Paul even says that he does not hold those 'so called pillars' of the church (the actual eyewitnesses; Peter and John) with any regard, and says that he is just as qualified to be an apostle as are they; this based only on his own testimony that is not corroborated by any other outside source.

You read what you want to read, and see what you want to see, selectively choosing evidence that supports your position while rejecting evidence that indicates something else.

This shows me that you are not really interested in FINDING the truth of these things, but that you are only interested in DETERMINING and confirming the truth that satisfies your own already established paradigms.

God gives us evidence from which we can FIND Truth if we are honest with ourselves. Those that use selected evidence to determine truth are inherently not acting in self-honesty, because they cannot face the prospect of being found in error in their understanding.

[Guest]

MM, all he said basically was that he would take someone who had actually talked to, and been around the eyewitnesses, over you and your band of merry marauders anyday. So would I. Who wouldn't.

And for you of all people to say something about the use of selected evidence, is simply amazing. Give me a break!

[Michaeneu]

Michael,

Who are you to speak of eyewitnesses as if they mean anything to you? You place the words of someone WHO NEVER MET JESUS CHRIST IN THE FLESH over those that did, and then say that those same people that 'walked and talked' with the eyewitnesses have the SAME authority as those very eyewitnesses. The information that Paul gives in his gospels (epistles) and that he gave to Luke from which he (Luke) wrote his gospel DID NOT come from the eye witnesses, but from 'visions' that Paul claims came from a being that 'claimed' to be Jesus. Where are the eyewitnesses in all of this. They are silent. Paul even says that he does not hold those 'so called pillars' of the church (the actual eyewitnesses; Peter and John) with any regard, and says that he is just as qualified to be an apostle as are they; this based only on his own testimony that is not corroborated by any other outside source.

[wayfinder]

Michael, I read with interest your post on the Passover and (FUB) it was excellent work and good research, I for one appreciated it. I do wish you would be as thorough and unbiased in everything, but I imagine that will come.

As far as Paul’s conversion, the assumption that Satan would have been better served if Paul had continued killing the followers of the Way, may not be as obvious as one might think. Take Communism for example, when a nation such as Russia is attacked by armed forces the people respond to the threat in kind. But if the people are infiltrated by the party members clandestinely and certain wrongs are brought up and through a process of becoming accepted and trusted and support an uprising against the oppressors the communists take over the country with the full support of the people. Satan understands this ploy and has used it and continues to use it. Tell the people what they want to hear, make them feel safe and secure and then "pull the rug out from under them". Satan is not called the great deceiver because he is not good at it. Michael, research the Bolshevik revolution with the same thoroughness that you did the Passover and you will see what I mean.

[Guest]

But Satan never did pull the rug out from under Paul. Paul went on to do a mighty work for the Lord. Thousands were led to Jesus because of him. Was that part of Satan's plan too? He even died for Jesus as pkrause pointed out, is that something a phony would do?

[wayfinder]

Satan didn't pull the rug out from under Paul, he pulled it out from under Christ, or His message. Jesus teaching and testimony are to lead His followers to Him. Paul believed with all his heart that he was working for Christ the Lord, but Satan is the great deceiver and he is very good at deception.

Most biblical scholars believe that Paul is not the author of 1 and 2 Timothy, but here it is anyway.

2 Timothy 1:12

For this reason I also suffer these things, but I am not ashamed; for I know whom I have believed and I am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day.

The words of a true believer, but in ?

[Guest]

If there was a point in there somewhere, I have failed to grasp it.

The bottom line for me is this: Paul's writings have drawn me closer to the LORD. Without a doubt.

I don't think Satan speaking to me by proxy would do that. And, I don't believe for one minute that God allowed Satan inspired writings to end up being the largest part of the New Testament.

God had to protect his word down through the ages, or it would have been destroyed long, long before we ever got to see it. You can look at history and see where Satan tried his best to stamp it out, but couldn't.

So the idea that Paul and some of the other NT writers were inspired by the devil is just a non starter with me. That's like saying: (and I know you believe this) the Desire of Ages was inspired by the devil. C'mon.

[wayfinder]

Richard, I think that is great and I am glad that you found the Lord and came closer to Him, because of Paul's message. I know that you love God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit and you have a heart that is true. I also know that you will be among those who love the truth when Bridegroom comes for His kingdom.

[Musicman1228]

Michael,

I also commend you on your treatise on the Passover. Well done. This confirms my own understanding that the Passover in the year of the crucifixion of Jesus occurred in 30 CE and occurred on a Wednesday. (Confirmed by what you wrote and by data available from the U.S. Naval Observatory, for that year.)

My original question still stands; was Jesus Christ the Passover Lamb? If He was then He would have already been dead and could not have eaten a Passover Sader with His disciples. It also means that in order to be the 'type' of Passover lamb He must have been completely righteous and sinless, which means that He could not have had the sins of the world placed on Him. If He had sin either on Him or in Him he would not have been the PERFECT Passover Lamb, and would not have fulfilled the requirement of the law of the Passover.

I would appreciate your thoughts on this.

[Michaeneu]

Michael, I read with interest your post on the Passover and (FUB) it was excellent work and good research, I for one appreciated it. I do wish you would be as thorough and unbiased in everything, but I imagine that will come.

As far as Paul’s conversion, the assumption that Satan would have been better served if Paul had continued killing the followers of the Way, may not be as obvious as one might think. Take Communism for example, when a nation such as Russia is attacked by armed forces the people respond to the threat in kind. But if the people are infiltrated by the party members clandestinely and certain wrongs are brought up and through a process of becoming accepted and trusted and support an uprising against the oppressors the communists take over the country with the full support of the people. Satan understands this ploy and has used it and continues to use it. Tell the people what they want to hear, make them feel safe and secure and then "pull the rug out from under them". Satan is not called the great deceiver because he is not good at it. Michael, research the Bolshevik revolution with the same thoroughness that you did the Passover and you will see what I mean.

Please Wayfinder, I know a back handed complement when I hear one, but thanks anyway.

Bottom line to your assertions is that you give Satan more credit than Yahweh! It goes back to first principles. Clearly Paul’s conversion served Yahweh’s purpose more than it served Satan’s. If you guys were founded properly on Israel’s covenant you would see this! But that will come in time.

Michael

[wayfinder]

Paul's conversion served Satan's purpose, if he readily and willingly proclaimed something which looked spiritual, sounded truthful and was wrapped in love, why would anyone want to argue with that. What I find interesting is the fact that every time I say something about Paul that you disagree with you confirm you position with a text from Paul or Luke. And my compliment was not intended to be backhanded. I know you are inteligent and studied, I appreciate that (not backhanded).

[Michaeneu]

Michael,

I also commend you on your treatise on the Passover. Well done. This confirms my own understanding that the Passover in the year of the crucifixion of Jesus occurred in 30 CE and occurred on a Wednesday. (Confirmed by what you wrote and by data available from the U.S. Naval Observatory, for that year.)

My original question still stands; was Jesus Christ the Passover Lamb? If He was then He would have already been dead and could not have eaten a Passover Sader with His disciples. It also means that in order to be the 'type' of Passover lamb He must have been completely righteous and sinless, which means that He could not have had the sins of the world placed on Him. If He had sin either on Him or in Him he would not have been the PERFECT Passover Lamb, and would not have fulfilled the requirement of the law of the Passover.

I would appreciate your thoughts on this.

Then explain to me why the Mosaic Law required the sins of the people to be placed upon the sacrifices?

“And if any one of the common people sin through ignorance, while he doeth somewhat against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which out not to be done, and be guilty or if his sin, which he hath sinned come to his knowledge: then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned.” Lev. 4:27-28

Michael