Absalom, Judas & The Pope

[jasd]

>>Martin Luther taught the papacy was the anti-christ.<<

Martin Luther also taught Sunday Worship and antiSemitism. Do you follow Martin Luther upon those points?—no?—pick and choose?

>>It is very Biblical.<<

I don’t think it at all difficult to understand the words of St John.

>>This is a message that rang throughout the Reformation.<<

As was Sunday Worship.

>>The reason Protestants are called Protestants is because we are protesting Rome.<<

Ahh, protestors.

>>Not everyone has to agree with us but it is a message based on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.<<

Martin Luther, again? Why are you not Lutheran?

[Dr. Shane]

I am well beyond debating the issue of who the anti-christ is. For Adventists, that is an elementary question. Of course there have been many anti-christs. An anti-christ is a person or system that opposes the true gospel of Christ. The whole premise of this thread was to compare anti-chirsts - not discuss who is or isn't one. When starting the thread, I did so with the basic assumption of Sola Sciptura and the historical record of the Reformation upon which Adventist teachings are based.

Those that do not believe the papacy is the end-time anti-christ really don't need to participate in this discussion. They may want to stay in the Adventist "kindergarten" threads. (I use the word kindergarten to characterize doctrines that are taught in on-line Bible studies or a typical evangelistic crusade.) The comparison of various anti-christs - like Absalom, Judas and the papacy - is a more advanced subject than simply identifying the little horn power of Daniel chapter 7:8 or the beast of Revelation 13:1. That identification is done in a basic set of Bible studies and during a typical series of evangelistic meetings.

[John317]

The pope-- or rather the papal system-- is the "man of sin."

Originally Posted By: jasd

I&#146;ve always thought the passage somewhat numinous. Please parse it for us &#150; in a manner showing the unequivocal nature of the purport.

I've done this many times on the Adventist Forum already, and I really don't think it would be a good idea to hijack this thread in order to begin concentrating on the prophecies. Also, I get tired of reinventing the wheel if you know what I mean. As Shane says, those things are pretty elementary.

[Guest]

Amen John!!!!

[Guest]

I am well beyond debating the issue of who the anti-christ is. For Adventists, that is an elementary question. Of course there have been many anti-christs. An anti-christ is a person or system that opposes the true gospel of Christ. The whole premise of this thread was to compare anti-chirsts - not discuss who is or isn't one. When starting the thread, I did so with the basic assumption of Sola Sciptura and the historical record of the Reformation upon which Adventist teachings are based.

Those that do not believe the papacy is the end-time anti-christ really don't need to participate in this discussion. They may want to stay in the Adventist "kindergarten" threads. (I use the word kindergarten to characterize doctrines that are taught in on-line Bible studies or a typical evangelistic crusade.) The comparison of various anti-christs - like Absalom, Judas and the papacy - is a more advanced subject than simply identifying the little horn power of Daniel chapter 7:8 or the beast of Revelation 13:1. That identification is done in a basic set of Bible studies and during a typical series of evangelistic meetings.

Amen Shane!!!

[jasd]

>>I am well beyond debating the issue of who the anti-christ is.<<

You’ve not begun – should you willfully choose to ignore the words of St John as inspired by the Holy Ghost Gd. St John could hardly have been more specific in providing us with the telltales of exactly who the ‘antiChrists’ are. Instead, what I’ve read on this thread are confabulations from whole cloth.

>>For Adventists, that is an elementary question.<<

Sad – should that be the position of those who bruit that they have The Truths.

>>Of course there have been many anti-christs.<<

Indeed – and, still are – with more to arrive.

>>An anti-christ is a person or system that opposes the true gospel of Christ.<<

Holy Mackerel, Sapphire! That didn’t come from Holy Writ!

>>The whole premise of this thread was to compare anti-chirsts - not discuss who is or isn't one.<<

Yet it was done with scurrility, slander, and false witness.

>>When starting the thread, I did so with the basic assumption of Sola Sciptura and the historical record of the Reformation upon which Adventist teachings are based.<<

Which are proved wrong on both accounts. Sola Scriptura is Lutheran, not Bible – and was the other true re “based” – you’d worship the Lord on Sundays.

>>Those that do not believe the papacy is the end-time anti-christ really don't need to participate in this discussion.<<

Yiminy crickets!—are you mewling? The Xtian eschews base accusations against the brother or sister in faith.

>>They may want to stay in the Adventist "kindergarten" threads. (I use the word kindergarten to characterize doctrines that are taught in on-line Bible studies or a typical evangelistic crusade.)<<

EXACTLY!!! I adjure the trifling to mature in their understanding and to adhere to Holy Writ for that understanding!—not to simply become another parrot upon the Orinoco.

>>The comparison of various anti-christs - like Absalom, Judas and the papacy - is a more advanced subject than simply identifying the little horn power of Daniel chapter 7:8 or the beast of Revelation 13:1. That identification is done in a basic set of Bible studies and during a typical series of evangelistic meetings.<< [ed.jasd]

There it is again!—the complete sloughing of St John’s words!—preferring constructs! How dreadfully woeful!

[Guest]

What is an Orinoco?

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:John3:17

The pope-- or rather the papal system-- is the "man of sin."

Quote:jasd

I&#146;ve always thought the passage somewhat numinous. Please parse it for us &#150; in a manner showing the unequivocal nature of the purport.

>>I've done this many times on the Adventist Forum already,<<

Then please, direct me to those threads wherein you’ve shown the “unequivocal nature” of what you purport. (Do it on another thread if you must)

>>...and I really don't think it would be a good idea to hijack this thread<<

In light of the completely unBiblical accusation advanced – is that what you call rebuttals?—that is, hijack?—sounds awful like B’rer Weasel to me.

I believe one meets error where error is laid down – and dink the man who cries foul.

>>...in order to begin concentrating on the prophecies.<<

It’s so much easier to indulge in scurrilities, eh?

>>Also, I get tired of reinventing the wheel if you know what I mean.<<

I guess you’ve not considered newcomers and lurkers. Okay, par for the course. Anyway, I must grant that I do take your point – as I see a lot of invention in what you purport – with wheel or text – manufactured rote, if you will.

>>As Shane says, those things are pretty elementary.<<

Is that why they’re so fervently clung-to?—because they’re so, what?—elementary? Okaayyy...

That explains a lot!

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I am well beyond debating the issue of who the anti-christ is. For Adventists, that is an elementary question. Of course there have been many anti-christs. An anti-christ is a person or system that opposes the true gospel of Christ. The whole premise of this thread was to compare anti-chirsts - not discuss who is or isn't one. When starting the thread, I did so with the basic assumption of Sola Sciptura and the historical record of the Reformation upon which Adventist teachings are based.

Those that do not believe the papacy is the end-time anti-christ really don't need to participate in this discussion. They may want to stay in the Adventist "kindergarten" threads. (I use the word kindergarten to characterize doctrines that are taught in on-line Bible studies or a typical evangelistic crusade.) The comparison of various anti-christs - like Absalom, Judas and the papacy - is a more advanced subject than simply identifying the little horn power of Daniel chapter 7:8 or the beast of Revelation 13:1. That identification is done in a basic set of Bible studies and during a typical series of evangelistic meetings.

Shane, were you directing your comment to me? Because I was not directing my comment to you.

Your comments here come across as very egotistical....as if you are on a higher plane than the rest of us low-lifes.

(if there really is one)

[Dr. Shane]

Shane, were you directing your comment to me? Because I was not directing my comment to you.

Your comments here come across as very egotistical....as if you are on a higher plane than the rest of us low-lifes.

My comments were not directed at any individual.

I see this topic as being on a higher plane. I, as a person, am not against discussing Adventist fundamentals. However this discussion is beyond that. It is like a discussion about *how* to keep the Sabbath. A discussion about how to keep the Sabbath starts out with the premise that the Sabbath is a day that should be kept holy. Those that do not agree with the Sabbath doctrine probably should not be participating in a thread about how to honor the day. In the same respect, this thread is about a comparison of three different anti-christs. If someone is not convinced the papacy is an anti-christ, they probably shouldn't be participating in the thread.

[Woody]

Quote:

They may want to stay in the Adventist "kindergarten" threads.

Off to kindergarten ....

[teresaq]

Quote:

Remember, Judas' concern regarding the poor.

perhaps your thought did not come across very well, but judas had no concern for the poor, he was a thief. he used the poor as an excuse to want more money-for himself.

[teresaq]

i remind some, and point out to others, that the title of this topic was about the pope-not papacy-and started off as such. Absalom, Judas & The Pope

i suggest the "error" should have been acknowledged, instead of getting defensive, insulting, and acting as if one had been speaking of the papacy all along, when a discussion of popes came up.

you know it really does not hurt--and can even raise ourselves in the esteem of some.

[Dr. Shane]

judas had no concern for the poor, he was a thief. he used the poor as an excuse to want more money-for himself.

Nor is the pope's agenda what he says it is. Judas, the pope, Absalom... they are all the same package just wrapped with different paper.

[Dr. Shane]

i remind some, and point out to others, that the title of this topic was about the pope-not papacy-and started off as such. Absalom, Judas & The Pope

Those that play with semantics to make a point normally do so because their argument is too weak. The difference between saying pope and papacy is the same difference as saying the President and the presidency. Anyone familiar with Adventist teaching and still wanting to make an issue out of such semantics needs to mature a bit.

[teresaq]

or you could have just said you meant the papacy....instead of again accusing. it doesnt really take too much trouble to try to understand what another might be trying to say instead of getting all defensive about the sda doctrines.

shane, in both these posts you are not addressing the points i brought up, but responding as if i had said something else...why is that?

[Dr. Shane]

It is simply childish to tell someone they should have said papacy instead of pope. It makes no difference. The pope is an anti-chirst. The papacy is the anti-christ. Both statements are true. An anti-christ is a person or institution that opposes the true gospel. Every pope that has ever held the office has been *an* anti-christ. The institution of the papacy is *the* anti-christ. We are talking about English grammar of an definite and indefinite article.

There have been some participation in this thread by people who do not believe the papacy is the anti-christ. This thread is not about whether or not the papacy is the anti-christ. This thread starts out by assuming it is the anti-christ.

Judas is a fine example of an anti-christ. Much like the pope, Judas pretended to have good motives when in reality he was a tool of Satan. Absalom too, pretended to have good motives and in so doing raised up an army to overthrow his father and take the throne.

[teresaq]

the point remains, since you later started using "papacy" instead of "pope"...

as does this point,

"shane, in both these posts you are not addressing the points i brought up, but responding as if i had said something else...why is that?"

from now on please address what i do say instead of making it look like i said something else, especially by cutting off my real point.

[Dr. Shane]

the point remains, since you later started using "papacy" instead of "pope"...

In terms of this discussion, the terms pope and papacy are interchangeable. The pope, Joseph Alois Ratzinger, is *an* anti-christ. He pretends to have good motives while in reality he is a tool of Satan. The papacy, is *the* anti-christ. It pretends to have good motives while in reality it is a tool of Satan. That is the topic of this thread.

Let's talk about Judas and similarities the pope or papacy has with Judas. Let's do the same with Absalom. That is the topic of this thread. This is an advanced topic.

[teresaq]

i repeat, i am asking you, shane, from now on please address what i do say instead of making it look like i said something else, especially by cutting off my real point.

will you do that?

[jasd]

>>I see this topic as being on a higher plane.<<

Good grief!—slander, scurrility, and plain wrongheadedness?—a higher plane?

>>In the same respect, this thread is about a comparison of three different anti-christs.<<

Munge, munge, munge! In the entirety of Holy Writ, only St John used the term “antichrist(s)”; therefore, should one wish to discuss the issue – one has to rely upon how St John defined the term. One, drawing from outside sources willy-nilly, no matter how religiously one proclaims his or her knowledge, is to munge! the entire concept of antichrist – and should decently acknowledge his or her error – in repeating such nonsense.

>>If someone is not convinced the papacy is an anti-christ,<<

The only aspect of the above that might otherwise contain an element of truth would lie in the application of a

future verb tense, to wit: “...the papacy may yet be headed by one who denies both Father and Son – whilst also denying that Jesus Christ came in the flesh.”

That Pope, that papacy – may then qualify as antichrist.

Until then – get back into your Bibles Seventh-day Adventists!—and cease promulgating falsehoods...

>>...they probably shouldn't be participating in the thread.<<

You are mewling!

>>Nor is the pope's agenda what he says it is. Judas, the pope, Absalom... they are all the same package just wrapped with different paper.<<

Which would, of course, make not an iota of difference. St John lays down only the negative condition of “denying” or “confessing not” to identify an antichrist or antichrists – which involves verbalization. Commonsensically viewed, the Pope, in constant manner, has not only not denied Father and Son, but moreover, avowed Jesus Christ and Him come in the flesh.

>>This thread is not about whether or not the papacy is the anti-christ. This thread starts out by assuming it is the anti-christ.<<

More to the point: this thread began with the assertion that the Pope is the antichrist.

>>The papacy, is *the* anti-christ. It pretends to have good motives while in reality it is a tool of Satan. That is the topic of this thread.

[...] This is an advanced topic.<< [ed.jasd]

I propose that the above reinforces the axiom that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing..., especially when tandem Peat and Repeat. Moreover, one who bears false witness is, undeniably,

a tool of Satan.

[teresaq]

i agree that we cannot judge individual popes, as to which ones were the antichrist or not.

i dont know when this started, but i have a book put out that addressed what needed to be looked for when electing the next pope.

i firmly believe, at the risk of some heat, that john paul was voted in to do just exactly what he did do. present a loving, kind personality that would bring the papacy into a good standing worldwide. he did just that.

again, at the risk of serious heat, opposition, i use him, and such, as examples of how satan will persent himself when he appears.

but that certainly does not justify our obnoxious, hateful traits we exhibit all too often on this board. those also are just as antichrist, papal and satanic, as anything any particular pope, or the papacy in general, has done.

[Dr. Shane]

Discussing the pope's role as an anti-christ on an Adventist board is not hateful. Now, if I visited a local Catholic church and stood outside with a bull horn announcing that the papacy is the anti-christ, I think that would be a hateful thing to do.

John Paul was certainly a nice and gentle pope. Judas had his nice and gentle moments too. The enemy is within. There are leaders within the Protestant community that are dangerous too. David Barton and Ralph Reed would do terrible things if given a chance. Just as Absalom was part of the inner circle, and Judas was part of the inner circle, that is where our greatest enemies are today and will continue to be in the future.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

"ask not for whom the bell tolls,..."

[John317]

More to the point: this thread began with the assertion that the Pope is the antichrist.

>>The papacy, is *the* anti-christ. It pretends to have good motives while in reality it is a tool of Satan. That is the topic of this thread.

[...] This is an advanced topic.<< [ed.jasd]

I propose that the above reinforces the axiom that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing..., especially when tandem Peat and Repeat. Moreover, one who bears false witness is, undeniably,

a tool of Satan.

If one doesn't want to see anyone presenting the papal system or the pope at antichrist or the man of sin or the little-horn power, or the sea-beast of Rev. 13, it makes no sense to go to Adventist forums. That would be like my going to a Mormon forum and say that I don't like to see anyone talking about Joseph Smith as a prophet. Or like going ot a Catholic forum and complaining about hearing about Mass being an unbloody sacrifice of Christ.

You just have to face the fact that SDAs are convinced that the papacy is antiChrist and the little-horn power of Daniel 8.

To expect SDAs never to talk about it is unreasonable and will be accepted about like JWs will accept a request that they not talk about 1914.

As for your claim that it's merely an "assertion" that the papacy is antichrist and the little-horn power, etc., the evidence has been shown many times on the threads, and many books are published with overwelming evidence of it. The present discussion is not an appropriate place to rehash all this evidence. If you like, you could start a thread with that as the main topic. Or better yet, search for those old threads and continue the discussions there.