Moderators John317 Posted July 3, 2011 Moderators Posted July 3, 2011 I believe that if we all put the red books aside and studied the scriptures free of other's interpretations, we might come closer to the truth than we are now. EGW created a self-fulfilling prophecy that her writings would be discarded at some point in time. It will come true, but not mainly by infidels or apostates, but by those who realize that she made mistakes, especially concerning events of the Last Days, and that her "visions" and communications with heavenly messengers were not exactly what she led people to believe. Seventh-day Adventism will ultimately be discarded on the rubbish pile of human history, along with all of the other man-made religions of the world. You apparently think we'd be better off believing your opinions over the writings of Ellen White. That seems strange to me in light of the fact that her writings have proven to be so dependable. I take it that you are definitely not a Seventh-day Adventist NOW but that you once were. I don't know about you but I love the Seventh-day Adventist message. I'd hate to tell you where I'd almost certainly be tonight without it. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Dr. Rich Posted July 3, 2011 Posted July 3, 2011 John317, you just admitted that you are prejudiced and do not make a good jury member. What you wrote is exactly what the Jew in the days of Jesus would write and say. There is none so blind as those who say they can see, but refuse to have an open mind in order to allow the real truth to enter. Quote
Gustave Posted July 3, 2011 Author Posted July 3, 2011 Originally Posted By: Aliensanctuary ... the fourth beast that destroys the world, precipitating the return of the Messiah. Where does the Bible teach the fourth beast will destroy the world and precipitate the return of the Messiah? What power do you believe is the fourth beast? Who is the little horn power of Daniel 7 & 8? John, do you believe that IF God sent Elijah back to earth today.... ...That Elijah would "attend" a Catholic Mass OR Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy? Quote
Members phkrause Posted July 3, 2011 Members Posted July 3, 2011 He'd probably go to the first Jewish Temple and ask them what the heck there doing. Quote phkrause When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan. Proverbs 29;2
Gustave Posted July 3, 2011 Author Posted July 3, 2011 He'd probably go to the first Jewish Temple and ask them what the heck there doing. If Christ wouldn't attend a Catholic Mass or E.O. Divine Liturgy.... ...What would be the reason in your mind He wouldn't? Quote
Members phkrause Posted July 3, 2011 Members Posted July 3, 2011 If Christ wouldn't attend a Catholic Mass or E.O. Divine Liturgy.......What would be the reason in your mind He wouldn't? Who said he wouldn't?? All I said is that, being a Jew, he would go to temple first. Or did I really have to spell that out? Quote phkrause When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan. Proverbs 29;2
Gustave Posted July 4, 2011 Author Posted July 4, 2011 Originally Posted By: Gustave If Christ wouldn't attend a Catholic Mass or E.O. Divine Liturgy.......What would be the reason in your mind He wouldn't? Who said he wouldn't?? All I said is that, being a Jew, he would go to temple first. Or did I really have to spell that out? Ok, so it would be correct to say SDA's would not have a problem with... ...A person mentioned in the Bible going to and participating in a Catholic or E.O service. ...Do I have that right? Quote
jasd Posted July 4, 2011 Posted July 4, 2011 >>Such a claim has as much authority as the mere claim that it "is." Unless the claim is supported by valid and solid biblical evidence, the claim is nothing. Therefore, show your evidence.<< I simply posted a ‘reality check’ for those who are excessively engaged in ‘pushback’ against Catholicism – kinda like the sort of ‘pushback’ engaged in by the early pioneers of Adventism – who allowed their antipathy of Catholicism to even deny Trinitarianism... Perhaps, some evening soon – after a nice T-bone and Merlot – I’ll be mellow enough to address a few of the misconceptions of ‘pushback’. ...like, for instance, the question of the 1260-day prophecy and how it’s been so mangled. Quote
Moderators John317 Posted July 4, 2011 Moderators Posted July 4, 2011 John317, you just admitted that you are prejudiced and do not make a good jury member. I plead to being prejudiced in favor of the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy, absolutely. I don't claim to be on the fence about Christ or about His prophets. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
jasd Posted July 4, 2011 Posted July 4, 2011 Sometimes, a bit of caution is in order when selecting the varied version(s) of translated Holy Writ by which we endeavour to parse Writ. The King James is not copyrighted. Big deal? Mebbe... But what of the other translations? I believe I am right in saying that almost all other, if not all, of the new Bible translations are copyrighted. So...?—one asks... The derivative copyright law insists that: “To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a ‘new work’ or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes.” Are the differences notable – as to argue in their favor? It’s questionable, as ‘sufficient deviance’ seems to be the driving force behind the varied and newer translations. What I consider most egregious is the practice of omission in the copyrighted versions – that they might create the sufficient differences from the original to qualify as a copyrightable new version. "They will make merchandise of you." Quote
Moderators John317 Posted July 4, 2011 Moderators Posted July 4, 2011 If Christ wouldn't attend a Catholic Mass or E.O. Divine Liturgy.......What would be the reason in your mind He wouldn't? Christ wouldn't attend a Catholic Mass because it is false worship, the Roman Catholic Church claiming that the body and blood of Christ is literally created and sacrificed on the table. It is said to be an "unbloody sacrifice." It is one of the false doctrines found in the cup of the Great Whore of Babylon, which cup causes people to be spiritually drunk. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted July 4, 2011 Moderators Posted July 4, 2011 John, do you believe that IF God sent Elijah back to earth today.... ...That Elijah would "attend" a Catholic Mass OR Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy? Absolutely NOT. He would stay out of the Fallen churches of Babylon. He would obey the call of God to "come out of her and touch not the unclean thing." Where do the plagues of God fall, according to Revelation 16, 18? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Gustave Posted July 4, 2011 Author Posted July 4, 2011 Originally Posted By: Gustave If Christ wouldn't attend a Catholic Mass or E.O. Divine Liturgy.......What would be the reason in your mind He wouldn't? Christ wouldn't attend a Catholic Mass because it is false worship, the Roman Catholic Church claiming that the body and blood of Christ is literally created and sacrificed on the table. It is said to be an "unbloody sacrifice." It is one of the false doctrines found in the cup of the Great Whore of Babylon, which cup causes people to be spiritually drunk. Than Christ attending the feast of the dedication demonstrated that THAT ceremonial was NOT false... ...It therefore demonstrates A.E. was the little horn of Daniel. ...Because Jesus attended THAT feast - so by default it couldn't be false - because Jesus would never participate. ...In a false ceremony. Thank you John317 Quote
Aliensanctuary Posted July 4, 2011 Posted July 4, 2011 Quote: Christ wouldn't attend a Catholic Mass because it is false worship... Wouldn't it be a great surprise if Christ did show up at mass, reading scripture and teaching the truth about the Kingdom of God? Now, wouldn't the Pharisees jump on his case for mingling with sinners and idolaters? In the Last Days, post resurrection, the Four Super-Kingdoms will arise, led by those who ruled them in their previous lives. I suspect they will receive support, maybe weapons, too, from the forces of Satan. Nebuchadnezzar will rule Super-Babylon, as his dreams indicated. During the Last Days, the most faithful congregations will ultimately meet secretly in small groups, not in large church buildings. The messages to the Seven Churches in Rev will be given during the Last Days. Remember, this time period occurs after the resurrection, meaning there will be millions and billions of people from the past, many who still believe in idols and false religions, who are more than willing to corrupt or hinder the true worship of God. Church attendance today may not be so important as watching out for our neighbors, the poor, the sick, the elderly, and others who may need our help. This is true religion, not the special music, public prayers, the stand-up/sit-down exercises, the public money collections, etc., that we encounter in all churches. In the future Kingdom of God, everyone will watch out for their neighbors, not by ignoring them while thinking that they are serving God merely by attending church on the right day. True worship is the demonstration of our subservience to the LORD, and, treating our neighbors as if they were ourselves. SDA's are not the only ones who think their denomination is the true church. Some even have "prophets" or "miracles" or scriptures to prove that they are, but there is no true church until the Last Days. It will be composed of those who are willing to die for the LORD by accepting his mark, thus making themselves easy targets for the forces of evil to destroy. Perhaps we can picture Elijah trying to prove he is a prophet of God by holding up the heavy Torah scroll with one hand while in vision. During this impressive feat of weight-lifting, someone holds a mirror close to his nostrils to prove that he wasn't breathing...a good way to collect a few coins from the gullible... Dan 7:23 Quote: This is what he said:"The fourth beast is to be a fourth kingdom on earth, different from all other kingdoms. It will devour the whole world, trample it underfoot and crush it." Isaiah 14 Quote: 12. "How you are fallen from heaven, O shining star, son of the morning! You have been thrown down to the earth, you who destroyed the nations of the world. 13. For you said to yourself, 'I will ascend to heaven and set my throne above God's stars. I will preside on the mountain of the gods far away in the north. 14. I will climb to the highest heavens and be like the Most High.' 15. But instead, you will be brought down to the place of the dead, down to its lowest depths. 16. Everyone there will stare at you and ask, 'Can this be the one who shook the earth and the kingdoms of the world? 17. Is this the one who destroyed the world and made it into a wilderness? Is this the king who demolished the world's greatest cities and had no mercy on his prisoners?' Dan 7: Quote: 21. As I watched, this horn was waging war against the holy people and was defeating them, 22. until the Ancient One came and judged in favor of the holy people of the Most High. As I see it, the Fourth Beast of the Last Days is responsible, with the help of the Little/Big Horn, for destroying the world and defeating God's people until the LORD arrives to save them. Quote The Parable of the Lamb and the Pigpen https://www.createspace.com/3401451
Moderators John317 Posted July 4, 2011 Moderators Posted July 4, 2011 ...Than Christ attending the feast of the dedication demonstrated that THAT ceremonial was NOT false......It therefore demonstrates A.E. was the little horn of Daniel. The fact that Christ attended the feast of dedication doesn't in any way show that the little horn of Daniel 7 and 8 was Antiochus IV. All it shows is that they rededicated the temple. Antiochus IV was definitely NOT the fulfillment of the prophecy of Daniel 8: 14. He doesn't fit the prophecy at all. For one thing he was never greater than Alexander the Great, and for another 2300 days doesn't fit anything that Antichous IV ever did. Neither does 1150 literal days. There are many other things in the prophecy that simply does not fit the history of Antichus IV. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted July 4, 2011 Moderators Posted July 4, 2011 Quote: Christ wouldn't attend a Catholic Mass because it is false worship... Wouldn't it be a great surprise if Christ did show up at mass, reading scripture and teaching the truth about the Kingdom of God? By the way, I am not suggesting that Christ's Holy Spirit doesn't work on the minds and hearts of Christ's followers in the Catholic Church. I know that the Holy Spirit seeks to impress Catholics with the truth as they attend Church and read the Bible, etc. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Gustave Posted July 4, 2011 Author Posted July 4, 2011 Originally Posted By: Gustave ...Than Christ attending the feast of the dedication demonstrated that THAT ceremonial was NOT false......It therefore demonstrates A.E. was the little horn of Daniel. The fact that Christ attended the feast of dedication doesn't in any way show that the little horn of Daniel 7 and 8 was Antiochus IV. All it shows is that they rededicated the temple. Quote
Aliensanctuary Posted July 4, 2011 Posted July 4, 2011 If we read in Isa. 14, Lucifer is referred to as the 'king of Babylon'. Ancient Babylon is a type of the kingdom of Babylon spoken of in Revelation. -Nebuchadnezzar was king of Babylon -> Satan is king of the final Babylon -Nebuchadnezzar set up a golden image and commanded everyone to worship it -> Satan will set up an image to the beast and command the world to worship it -Nebuchadnezzar tried to kill anyone who didn't worship the image -> Satan will also kill all who don't worship the image and receive the mark great thoughts, cheddar There are some elements of Daniel's prophecies common to the past, but to believe that the Last Days have been going on for thousands of years is a bit of a stretch. Especially the unrealistic 1290 years (days in Dan 12) between the abolishment of the perpetual sacrifice and the abomination of desolation. Why would Jesus warn everyone to escape to the mountains when the abomination is set up? Is it a powerful weapon capable of destroying the world, or does the object trigger some other event? Quote The Parable of the Lamb and the Pigpen https://www.createspace.com/3401451
Moderators John317 Posted July 4, 2011 Moderators Posted July 4, 2011 ...Than Christ attending the feast of the dedication demonstrated that THAT ceremonial was NOT false......It therefore demonstrates A.E. was the little horn of Daniel. Originally Posted By: John3:17 The fact that Christ attended the feast of dedication doesn't in any way show that the little horn of Daniel 7 and 8 was Antiochus IV. All it shows is that they rededicated the temple. Originally Posted By: Gustave From what John? Why would the temple require a 'rededication'? Obviously because Antiochus IV profaned the temple. The historical events aren't not in dispute. But the fact that Antiochus IV profaned the temple doesn't mean that he was the fulfillment of the prophecy of Daniel 8. Just because the Jews had the Feast of Dedication is no proof that Antiochus IV is the Little-Horn power. You claim that the mere fact of the Dedication "demonstrates A.E. was the little horn of Daniel." But the truth is that in order to be the little horn power, Antiochus IV must fulfill ALL the prophetic specifications of Daniel 7 and 8. It is not enough merely for him to have profaned the temple and for the Jews to have the Feast of Dedication. So, what are all the specifications of the prophecy concerning the little-horn power? Which ones did A.E. fulfill, and which did A.E. NOT fulfill? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Gustave Posted July 4, 2011 Author Posted July 4, 2011 Originally Posted By: Gustave ...Than Christ attending the feast of the dedication demonstrated that THAT ceremonial was NOT false......It therefore demonstrates A.E. was the little horn of Daniel. Originally Posted By: John3:17 The fact that Christ attended the feast of dedication doesn't in any way show that the little horn of Daniel 7 and 8 was Antiochus IV. All it shows is that they rededicated the temple. Originally Posted By: Gustave From what John? Why would the temple require a 'rededication'? Obviously because Antiochus IV profaned the temple. The historical events aren't not in dispute. But the fact that Antiochus IV profaned the temple doesn't mean that he was the fulfillment of the prophecy of Daniel 8. Just because the Jews had the Feast of Dedication is no proof that Antiochus IV is the Little-Horn power. You claim that the mere fact of the Dedication "demonstrates A.E. was the little horn of Daniel." But the truth is that in order to be the little horn power, Antiochus IV must fulfill ALL the prophetic specifications of Daniel 7 and 8. It is not enough merely for him to have profaned the temple and for the Jews to have the Feast of Dedication. So, what are all the specifications of the prophecy concerning the little-horn power? Which ones did A.E. fulfill, and which did A.E. NOT fulfill? Antiochus was never the fulfillment of the prophecy of Daniel 8... ...The re-dedication of the temple WAS. ...And we read in the New Testament Christ Himself ATTENDED it's ceremonial. Question HOW LONG shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? Answer Unto two thousand and three hundred days; THEN shall the sanctuary be cleansed The "little horn" caused the evening and morning sacrifices to cease... ..."Little horn" = insignificant, small, diminutiveness, petty. ...Perfectly describes A.E. A.E. waxed great ONLY toward the South and toward the east, and toward Jerusalem... ...Unlike Alexander who lusted after the world and had the abilityt to conquer it. ...A.E. bullied who and what he could. ...I.E. A.E. was petty, insignificant, small - he made it a point to attack what he could. I notice you didn't care to repudiate any of the points previously made... ...Perhaps you should so we could explore the history of the time hack. ...And each learn from the other. Quote
Moderators John317 Posted July 4, 2011 Moderators Posted July 4, 2011 Antiochus was never the fulfillment of the prophecy of Daniel 8......The re-dedication of the temple WAS. ...And we read in the New Testament Christ Himself ATTENDED it's ceremonial. Since Antiochus IV was not the fuflillment of prophecy of Daniel 8 (which I agree he was not), then he wasn't the little-horn of Daniel 8, and therefore, the Dedication of the temple had nothing to do with that prophecy. The fact that Christ attended the Dedication celebration is no proof that the profanation and dedication of the temple was a fulfillment of the prophecy of Daniel 8. You need to show a connection, not merely make the assumption that there is a connection. Without such a connection being shown, all we have is your mere claim. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted July 4, 2011 Moderators Posted July 4, 2011 Question HOW LONG shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? Answer Unto two thousand and three hundred days; THEN shall the sanctuary be cleansed But Antiochus IV never fulfilled this prophecy. 2300 days don't fit anywhere in the events that occurred. When did the profanation occur? When was the temple re-dedicated? How many days was between the profanation and the rededication? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted July 4, 2011 Moderators Posted July 4, 2011 ...The "little horn" caused the evening and morning sacrifices to cease... ..."Little horn" = insignificant, small, diminutiveness, petty. ...Perfectly describes A.E. A.E. waxed great ONLY toward the South and toward the east, and toward Jerusalem... ...Unlike Alexander who lusted after the world and had the abilityt to conquer it. ...A.E. bullied who and what he could. ...I.E. A.E. was petty, insignificant, small - he made it a point to attack what he could. The NKJV says that the little horn of Daniel 8: 9 "grew exceedingly great." He started out small but he didn't remain small but "grew exceedingly great." Compare this with the male goat which "grew very great." This male goat symbolizes Alexander the Great. So if we say that the little horn of Daniel 8:9 symbolized Antiochus IV, we would have to say that the Bible predicted that Antiochus IV would grow greater than Alexander the Great. A major problem with seeing Antiochus IV as "the little horn" is that he was actually a fairly minor fulfillment of the four notable ones which came out of the "large horn" described in Daniel 8: 8. That is to say, Antiochus IV came out of the empire of Alexander the Great. Specifically, we know from history that Antiochus IV was in the middle of the Seleucid division of the Greek empire. Antiochuys IV, then, ruled over Syria, Babylon, and the rest of Alexander's dominions in the east. History records that Antiochus IV was a small footnote, certainly not any power that can be compared to Alexander the Great. As you admit yourself, "A.E. was petty, insignificant, small." That being the case, it is difficult to see how you can believe that Antiochus IV was a fulfillment of the prophecy concerning the "little horn" of Daniel 7 and 8. Can you name the marks of identity that the Bible gives us about the little-horn power? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Kountzer Posted July 4, 2011 Posted July 4, 2011 I haven't read all of this thread. So, I don't know if this has been mentioned or not, but seventh day adventists did not originate the interpretation that the catholic church is the great whore of babylon. SDA maybe one of the few, if not the only, institution that still holds to this belief, but they are not the first. All the reformers believed this. Luther, all of them. Interpretations of dan 7, 8, 9 regarding the RCC is what launched the protestant reformation. A Pope was the 1st person to refer to the catholic church as the anti christ. The only doctrine that is unique to the SDA church is the sanctuary. The whole 'great whore of babylon' deal is old news, true, but old. Quote I prayed for twenty years but received no answer until I prayed with my legs. Frederick Douglass
Members phkrause Posted July 4, 2011 Members Posted July 4, 2011 I haven't read all of this thread. So, I don't know if this has been mentioned or not, but seventh day adventists did not originate the interpretation that the catholic church is the great whore of babylon.SDA maybe one of the few, if not the only, institution that still holds to this belief, but they are not the first. All the reformers believed this. Luther, all of them. Interpretations of dan 7, 8, 9 regarding the RCC is what launched the protestant reformation. A Pope was the 1st person to refer to the catholic church as the anti christ. The only doctrine that is unique to the SDA church is the sanctuary. The whole 'great whore of babylon' deal is old news, true, but old. Quote phkrause When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan. Proverbs 29;2
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.