Pope Decreed Sunday Rest on June 3, 2012

Fireinfolding · Jun 16, 2012

Yeah, the Sabbath keepers (even then) were always at odds with how the Lord of it kept it.

He wasnt doing it right (well, according to them) anyway

Lion King · Jun 16, 2012

PROPHECYKID said:
You are looking at the law like the pharisees did. Jesus asked the questions in Matthew 12:3 - 5, didn't David break the law by eating the bread meant only for the priest and didn't the priest profane the Sabbath by doing the work they had to do daily in the temple, yet are both BLAMELESS?

If they are both blameless, and the disciples were blameless, and Jesus was blameless for doing good on the Sabbath, it means that there is a principle that was present even in the OT as it pertains to the Sabbath that is not violated. The hardcore letter of the law says not to do any work, but the priests did work on the Sabbath and were innocent. Obviously, Jesus is teaching that the Sabbath is not about abstaining from work. Its not about what not to do but about what to do. It is lawful to do GOOD on the Sabbath day. Jesus healed, he ministered and did the work of God on the Sabbath day. The priests in the temple, every Sabbath were doing the work of God, making atonement to God for the people for their sins.

Jesus cares for his creation. The donkey that falls in the pit on the Sabbath should not be left to suffer because the law says not to work. The man who is hungry and suffering and has nothing to eat should not refuse to find food, because it is the Sabbath. The Sabbath commandment says to rest from your own work. If your neighbour's house in on fire, on the Sabbath, you should run over and help in any way you can. That is doing good on the Sabbath because Jesus said that what you do to the least of them, you have done it to him. Since the Sabbath is about doing what God desires and pleasing him instead of just doing what you want and pleasing yourself, the letter of the law must be seen in that light. The pharisees were just seeing the Sabbath as abstaining from work FULLSTOP, and that is wrong.

Is this not what I have been saying all along? Check post #480.

For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. Hosea 6:6

However, do you do what is pleasing to God only on a Saturday? Should we not do that EVERYDAY?

What good is humbling ourselves before God only for a day, then go do what pleases us for the next six days?

PROPHECYKID · Jun 16, 2012

Lion King said:
Is this not what I have been saying all along? Check post #480.

For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. Hosea 6:6

However, do you do what is pleasing to God only on a Saturday? Should we not do that EVERYDAY?

What good is humbling ourselves before God only for a day, then go do what pleases us for the next six days?

Sure we want to please God everyday but God set apart 1 day to leave your own work and focus on him. Realistically, you cannot do that everyday because we have out own things to do. God gave us 6 days for our work and the 7th for him.

If I was wrongfully and inaccurately representing your position my apologies. I did not read through every post in the thread.

Lion King · Jun 16, 2012

PROPHECYKID said:
Sure we want to please God everyday but God set apart 1 day to leave your own work and focus on him. Realistically, you cannot do that everyday because we have out own things to do. God gave us 6 days for our work and the 7th for him.

If I was wrongfully and inaccurately representing your position my apologies. I did not read through every post in the thread.

Who did the LORD give the Sabbath to? Was it not given to the children of Israel alive during the exodus from Egypt?

Are we still under the Covenant made to Israel at Mt Sinai?

Fireinfolding · Jun 16, 2012

Lion King said:
Is this not what I have been saying all along? Check post #480.

For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. Hosea 6:6

However, do you do what is pleasing to God only on a Saturday? Should we not do that EVERYDAY?

What good is humbling ourselves before God only for a day, then go do what pleases us for the next six days?

Only for a day reminds me of what he was speaking of in Isaiah 58:5 also where he says, "Is it such a fast that I have chosen? a day for a man to afflict his soul?

Whereas they were indignant for healing folks

Luke 13:14 And the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because thatJesus had healed on the sabbath day, and said unto the people, There are six days in which men ought to work:in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the sabbath day.

Luke 13:15 The Lord then answered him, and said, Thou hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to watering?

Luke 13:16 And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day?

Isaiah 58:6 Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke?

Mat 23:4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

Then in respects to circumcision (Jesus mentions) which they do on the Sabbath, it comes up here again..

Acts 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

Same similar wording is found in each (and various other places), but just clipped this part out of what I was looking at in your post.

PROPHECYKID · Jun 16, 2012

Who did the LORD give the Sabbath to? Was it not given to the children of Israel alive during the exodus from Egypt?

God gave the Sabbath to man. Mark 2:27,28 says that the Sabbath was made for man.

Does God desire to save Israel or to save the entire world? Here is why I ask this question. God's laws, his ideology, his principles are for all men. God's objective is to save all mankind. God wanted to use Israel as a people who could win the entire world. In OT times, when you won a battle, it was a testament to your God and it showed that your God was stronger than the opponent's God.

When God commanded Israel to rest on the Sabbath, its not to say that he doesn't care what other people do on the Sabbath, he wants all to keep it, but he is using Israel to reach them and thus Israel must first be up to mark.

When an Assyrian joined the camp of Israel, they would keep the Sabbath and follow God's laws because his law is not for people of a physical nature but of a spiritual nature. So God's laws was never meant to be restricted to people of a certain nationality but to everybody.

Now concerning when the Sabbath was given. The Sabbath was created, and sanctified at creation. After Israel came from Egypt they had to be retaught the way of God. Killing did not automatically become wrong when the law was given. It was wrong since the beginning. There is no record in the bible of God commandments anyone not to make a graven image and worshipping it, but that was wrong from the beginning. The 4th commandment is not recorded as being given before Sinai just like most of the other commandments, but just like all of them, they were wrong from the beginning. In the case of the Sabbath, from the time it was created at creation, made holy and sanctified it follows that treating something that is set apart for holy purpose and holy as normal is sin. In the absence of a recorded command, common sense tells me that breaking the Sabbath would be wrong from the time the Sabbath was instituted.

Are we still under the Covenant made to Israel at Mt Sinai?

The 10 commandments were apart of the Covenant but there is much more to it. I look at Hebrews 8 - 10 where it talks about the difference between the new and old covenant. The overwhelming focus is on the levitical priesthood and the sacrificial system. Yet everyone seems to just place the focus on the law. In Jeremiah and in Hebrews 10 it says that in the New Covenant he would place his laws in our hearts.

In the New Covenant, the law is not gotten rid of. While we are not under the old covenant, the law is in our hearts in the New Covenant.

Lion King · Jun 16, 2012

PROPHECYKID said:
God gave the Sabbath to man. Mark 2:27,28 says that the Sabbath was made for man.

Does God desire to save Israel or to save the entire world? Here is why I ask this question. God's laws, his ideology, his principles are for all men. God's objective is to save all mankind. God wanted to use Israel as a people who could win the entire world. In OT times, when you won a battle, it was a testament to your God and it showed that your God was stronger than the opponent's God.

When God commanded Israel to rest on the Sabbath, its not to say that he doesn't care what other people do on the Sabbath, he wants all to keep it, but he is using Israel to reach them and thus Israel must first be up to mark.

When an Assyrian joined the camp of Israel, they would keep the Sabbath and follow God's laws because his law is not for people of a physical nature but of a spiritual nature. So God's laws was never meant to be restricted to people of a certain nationality but to everybody.

Now concerning when the Sabbath was given. The Sabbath was created, and sanctified at creation. After Israel came from Egypt they had to be retaught the way of God. Killing did not automatically become wrong when the law was given. It was wrong since the beginning. There is no record in the bible of God commandments anyone not to make a graven image and worshipping it, but that was wrong from the beginning. The 4th commandment is not recorded as being given before Sinai just like most of the other commandments, but just like all of them, they were wrong from the beginning. In the case of the Sabbath, from the time it was created at creation, made holy and sanctified it follows that treating something that is set apart for holy purpose and holy as normal is sin. In the absence of a recorded command, common sense tells me that breaking the Sabbath would be wrong from the time the Sabbath was instituted.

I respectfully disagree. The Holy-Sabbath was only given to the people of Israel alive during the exodus from Egypt. It was, however, not given to their ancestors (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) as the Scriptures clearly say:

And Moses called all Israel, and said to them: “Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your hearing today, that you may learn them and be careful to observe them. The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, those who are here today, all of us who are alive. Deuteronomy 5:1-3

continued..

‘Observe the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your ox, nor your donkey, nor any of your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you. Deuteronomy 5:12-14

The Sabbath was given as a sign between God and Israel, so that they would never forget it was the LORD who delivered them from bondage in Egypt [where the children of Israel had no rest] and sanctified them as a people for His possession. It was to separate Israel as God's holy-nation, from the Gentile nations.

Now, to claim that Abraham also kept the LAW given to Israel would be incorrect, since the Covenant on Mt Sinai was made only with those alive during that time, and their children there-after.

The 10 commandments were apart of the Covenant but there is much more to it. I look at Hebrews 8 - 10 where it talks about the difference between the new and old covenant. The overwhelming focus is on the levitical priesthood and the sacrificial system. Yet everyone seems to just place the focus on the law. In Jeremiah and in Hebrews 10 it says that in the New Covenant he would place his laws in our hearts.

In the New Covenant, the law is not gotten rid of. While we are not under the old covenant, the law is in our hearts in the New Covenant.

No.

The 10 commandments were indeed part of the Old Covenant:

And he declared to you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them on two tables of stone. Deuteronomy 4:13

However, the LORD said He would give us a Covenant DIFFERENT from the one He gave to Israel on Mt Sinai, as stated by the prophet Jeremiah:

Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Jeremiah 31:31-33

What is the Law that the LORD has written on each of His children's hearts? The answer is simple; LOVE.

Bear you one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. Galatians 6:2

Love fulfils the LAW of God.

squint · Jun 16, 2012

Lion King said:
And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

26 He said to him, What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?

27 So he answered and said,  You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.

28 And He said to him, You have answered rightly; do this and you will live. Luke 10:25-28

That's the LAW, the LORD wrote in my heart.

The Living Law is shown in your sight and in truthful reflection.

s

Keachian · Jun 16, 2012

PROPHECYKID said:
How?

By continuing on with the trumpet of Sunday worship is the Mark of the Beast.

Revelation 13 talks about the deadly wound suffered by the beast which would cause it to lose its power. Lack of power means you cannot talk the same way. It is the second beast that will rise to power and give its power over to the first beast who will against speak like the old times.

If there was ever a wound that would fit this description for Rome it would be the Reformation, not Vatican II, however Rome continued to preach its extraecclesiam nulla salus, indulgences and other contentious points of the pre-reformation.

Well from what I understand the UN has 10 main member countries. Also I understand that the UN has divided the world in 10 zones. I can be corrected on this if its wrong. If this is true, it will fit into the description in Revelation 17 or 18 which says that the 10 kings shall rule 1 hour with the beast.

I can see no reference to this, could you please give me a reference for these 10 main member countries and 10 zones.

Not irrelevant at all.

You have yet to adequately give reference as to the identification of the Beast as the Church at Rome, till then those quotes remain irrelevant.

You actually mean to tell me that somebody responded to that question by telling you that that is what EGW said? You weren't talking to an Adventist.

Well somebody told me to stop quoting EGW and quote scripture.

Anyways if I have to prove what the mark of the beast is, I must prove who the beast is. Then when I prove from the bible who the beast is, I can show you from the bible what the seal of God is. Then once this is proven, its very easy to see what the mark of the beast is.

First the beast/Antichrist.

I'll recap Daniel 2 (you saw my post about Daniel 2 from another thread). I shall take your 5 kingdoms.

1. Head of gold - Babylon
2. Breast and arms of silver- Medo-Persia
3. Belly and thighs of brass- Hellenistic Greece
4. Legs of iron - Rome
5. Feet partly of iron and partly of molded clay - The divided Roman Empire

Like I said this is totally correct. The period of the iron and clay is built upon in Daniel 7.

Connection unwarranted. Daniel 2 is dealing with the setting up of God's Kingdom, which happened firmly in 33AD when Christ was crowned King (John 19:19) Daniel 7 as you correctly point out is dealing with endtimes

<snip>
As the rest of your post relies on this unwarranted connection I'm not going to bother with it.

3 Angels Messages · Jun 16, 2012

progmonk said:
...Connection unwarranted. Daniel 2 is dealing with the setting up of God's Kingdom, which happened firmly in 33AD when Christ was crowned King (John 19:19) Daniel 7 as you correctly point out is dealing with endtimes

<snip>
As the rest of your post relies on this unwarranted connection I'm not going to bother with it.

Daniel 2 is speaking of God's Kingdom in Power and Glory, not speaking of the Kingdom of Grace which began in the Legs of Iron which is the Pagan Roman Kingdom, and this we may know from the very text itself and of the whole context and chiastic structure of Daniel along with the various visions:

And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all [things]: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise. Daniel 2:40

...and we know from Daniel 7 comparisons that the 4th Beast with the "Iron Teeth" is the Pagan Roman Empire, being the 4th Kingdom.

Thus we have of Daniel 2 and 7:

[1] Head of Gold = Lion with Eagles Wings = Babylon
[2] Chest + Arms of Silver = Bear raised one side with 3 ribs = Medo-Persia
[3] Waist + Thighs of Brass = 4 Headed/Winged Leopard = Greece
[4] Legs of Iron = Terrible Beast with Iron Teeth = Pagan Rome

...

...thus also even further detail in Daniel 8-12, and other scriptures etc.

I would ask all to please follow this link and read thoroughly, as prophecy and history are clearly given, further details to come if necessary:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7562877/

And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay. Daniel 2:41

And [as] the toes of the feet [were] part of iron, and part of clay, [so] the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken. Daniel 2:42

Pagan Rome was not divided during the Time of Christ Jesus, but was in the very height of its power, even as Daniel 11:20 gives... "...the glory of the kingdom..."

And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. Daniel 2:43

And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, [but] it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. Daniel 2:44

All of the Kingdoms mentioned so far are tangible Kingdoms which ruled upon the Earth, and Jesus Kingdom in Power and Glory is not yet come...even as he Himself said, "...my Kingdom is not of this world..." [John 18:36], and it is not fulfilled in accomplishing the breaking of those Kingdoms, but the history of the people of God, is that they were scattered and broken and in hiding for 1,260 years...

Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream [is] certain, and the interpretation thereof sure. Daniel 2:45

The idea that Daniel 2 speaks of the first coming of Christ Jesus as the Rock which destroys the image is founded in Rome's counter-reformation ideologies, and is really needful to teach the aberrant theology of preterism, futurism, and amillenialism [which scripture nowhere teaches]. This is in grievous error. - http://biblelight.net/antichrist.htm

Daniel 2, reveals from the time of Babylon until the very end and the Second Advent [coming in Power and Glory] of Christ Jesus. For notice:

Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth. Daniel 2:35

...the Kingdom of Grace has not done such, for there are still earthly kings and kingdoms which even dominate over the people of God still..., but the Kingdom of God coming with Power and Glory will end all such earthly kingdoms forever...

...and so also compare that statement of Daniel 2:35 with:

And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. Revelation 20:11

squint · Jun 17, 2012

The SDA construct on end times and their own special views to themselves over practice of an 'external measure' of Law is so carnal it's not even worth digging into.
'
Here is the quick check for all such 'external views'

Luke 17:20
- The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

The made up construct of the SDA is almost entirely based on EXTERNAL sight.

Jesus said it ain't gonna be that way boyz

s

LittleLambofJesus · Jun 17, 2012

squint said:
The SDA construct on end times and their own special views to themselves over practice of an 'external measure' of Law is so carnal it's not even worth digging into.
'
Here is the quick check for all such 'external views'

Luke 17:20
- The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

The made up construct of the SDA is almost entirely based on EXTERNAL sight.

Jesus said it ain't gonna be that way boyz

I agree with thee on that. The Jews of today are probably still confounded on that...IMHO
http://www.christianforums.com/t7357375/
Luke 21:31 Kingdom of God comes

Luke 21:31 "Thus also ye, whenever ye may be seeing these-things becoming,
ye are knowing that nigh is the Kingdom of the God."

Kindgdom Bible Studies Kingdom of God Part 1

It is significant to note that the phrases “Kingdom of God” and “Kingdom of Heaven” are not to be found in the Old Testament. They are strictly New Testament terms beginning with John the Baptist and Jesus.

When Jesus came He did not preach a message called grace, or salvation, or justification, or sanctification, or regeneration, or even the Church. Could there be any more glorious message than the one that fell from His lips as He began His sonship ministry declaring, “The KINGDOM OF GOD IS AT HAND!” From that time forward the great teaching of the Lord centered in the truth of THE KINGDOM. His gospel was the gospel (good news) of the Kingdom of God. He only lightly touched on the other subjects which today are considered the great doctrines of the Church and then only as they related to the Kingdom.

All of these things are included within the Kingdom, but the Kingdom is none of them. The Kingdom is THE RULE OF GOD. It is the DOMINION OF GOD. That is exactly what it is. And Jesus came with just that message — the revelation of the RULE OF GOD within the hearts of men, and through men, over the earth, yea, over the whole vast universe! First He must reign completely in our lives. The Kingdom of God is God in Christ in the saints governing the creation of God. The rule of God begins in the hearts of His elect.

Strong in Him · Jun 17, 2012

Strong in Him said:
He most certainly has.

Jesus has forgiven my sins - disobedience to God, failing to honour him, put him first and trust in him, and failure to love my neighbour as myself.
The wages of sin is death - eternal seperation from him after the body has died. I have eternal life through Jesus.

Jesus said that there are two great commandments - love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and love your neighbour as yourself. He then gave his disciples a new commandment; not just to love, but to love as he loved us. In Jesus we have the definition of love - he willingly offered his perfect life for us so that we, who were sinners and didn't deserve it, could be reconciled to God and made clean, righteous and holy. That is true love - sacrificing your life so that people who hate God, don't deserve anything from him and may throw your sacrifice back in his face - could be reconciled to him and become his precious children.

No one can earn this love, nothing can separate us from this love. There is nothing we can do to make God love us more; nothing we can do to make him love us less.

Or are you suggesting that if we sit around all day on a Saturday, singing hymns and thinking about God, it is this which makes us MORE holy,MORE right with God and achieves more than Jesus' saving death on the cross?

PS Am going away for a week; if this thread is still going when I get back, I may say more - (though there's nothing more to say.).

I don't currently have the time to trawl through the 35+ posts that have been made here while I've been away. So unless there is anything in the above which anyone would like to comment on; I may bow out of this thread.

You're all coping without me anyhow.

3 Angels Messages · Jun 17, 2012

squint said:
The SDA construct on end times and their own special views ...

Luke 17:20
- The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

The made up construct of the SDA is almost entirely based on EXTERNAL sight. ...

Let us not be brought into confusion on the matter, for there is the Kingdom of Grace set up in the throne of the Heart, and then comes the Kingdom in Power in Glory, "the throne of His Glory" [Matthew 25:32] at the end, in which "every eye shall see him" [Revelation 1:7].

They are not our 'own' special views, but rather the views of historic protestantism, and even before the official reformation took place, and even most especially of Scripture, from the words of Daniel, Christ Jesus, Paul and Peter and John, etc...

Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.2 Thessalonians 2:4

Paul is here borrowing from Ezekiel and Daniel:

Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thine heart [is] lifted up, and thou hast said, I [am] a God, I sit [in] the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou [art] a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God. Ezekiel 28:2

This speaks to the earthly power of Tyre, but also to that which was behind it, Satan himself, and how he has ever since said in his heart, "I will be like the Most High", and so each ruler has done the same, especially in this "little horn" power.

I considered the horns , and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn [were] eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things. Daniel 7:8

I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld [even] till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame. Daniel 7:11

Notice the timing of the event, for this "beast", in which is this "little horn", is to be "slain", 'his body destroyed" and then finally "given to the burning flame" which is not yet come, for that comes at the end of the world, at the last day. [Matthew 24:3,14; John 6, etc]

And of the ten horns that [were] in his head, and [of] the other which came up, and before whom three fell; even [of] that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things, whose look [was] more stout than his fellows. Daniel 7:20

And he shall speak [great] words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. Daniel 7:25

Yea, he magnified [himself] even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily [sacrifice] was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. Daniel 8:11

And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify [himself] in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand. Daniel 8:25

Again recompare that passage to Daniel 2:34,45, "without hands"

And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done. Daniel 11:36

Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god : for he shall magnify himself above all. Daniel 11:37

And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him. Daniel 11:45

Therefore:

Babylon, Medo/Persia, Greece, Rome... and that which came after...as Paul so warned to look forward to in 2 Thessalonians, etc.

Therefore Daniel 2 is clearly speaking of the Second Advent and coming in "power and glory", even as others have so earlier come to:

"...At another time [He [*that is Christ Jesus] is represented as] a stone cut out of the mountain without hands, Daniel 7:13-14 and as smiting all temporal kingdoms, and as blowing them away (ventilans ea), and as Himself filling all the earth. ..." - [Against Heresies (Book IV, Chapter 20) Irenaus; *added] - CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, IV.20 (St. Irenaeus)

We can see then, even upon further historical evidence, even apart from scripture itself, that which was withholding was the Roman Empire [the 4th Kingdom] itself under the rule of Caesars. Others anciently also reveal this:[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][/FONT]...Again, in the second epistle he addresses them with even greater earnestness: ... 2 Thessalonians 2:1-7 What obstacle is there but the Roman state, the falling away of which, by being scattered into ten kingdoms, shall introduce Antichrist ...[Roman Catholic Online Fathers Of The Church; On The Resurrection Of The Flesh (Tertullian);...] - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0316.htm[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
"... One may naturally enquire, what is that which withholds, and after that would know, why Paul expresses it so obscurely. What then is it that withholds, that is, hinders him from being revealed? Some indeed say, the grace of the Spirit, but others the Roman empire, to whom I most of all accede. ... But because he said this of the Roman empire, he naturally glanced at it, and speaks covertly and darkly. For he did not wish to bring upon himself superfluous enmities, and useless dangers. For if he had said that after a little while the Roman empire would be dissolved, they would immediately have even overwhelmed him, as a pestilent person, and all the faithful, as living and warring to this end. And he did not say that it will be quickly, although he is always saying it but what? that he may be revealed in his own season,... But he did not also wish to point him out plainly: and this not from cowardice, but instructing us not to bring upon ourselves unnecessary enmities, when there is nothing to call for it. So indeed he also says here. Only there is one that restrains now, until he be taken out of the way, that is, when the Roman empire is taken out of the way, then he shall come. And naturally. For as long as the fear of this empire lasts, no one will willingly exalt himself, but when that is dissolved, he will attack the anarchy, and endeavor to seize upon the government both of man and of God. For as the kingdoms before this were destroyed, for example, that of the Medes by the Babylonians, that of the Babylonians by the Persians, that of the Persians by the Macedonians, that of the Macedonians by the Romans: And these things Daniel delivered to us with great clearness. ...[Roman Catholic Online Fathers Of The Church; Homilies On Second Thessalonians (Chrysostom); Homily 4] - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/23054.htm[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][/FONT]...The impediment is the Roman Empire; the main event impeded is the "man of sin" (most Latin Fathers and later interpreters) ...[Roman Catholic Online Encyclopedia; A; Antichrist; In The Pauline Epistles; [second option of 4 listed]] - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01559a.htm[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][/FONT]...I will nevertheless mention such conjectures as I have heard or read.
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]
[/FONT]Some think that the Apostle Paul referred to the Roman empire, and that he was unwilling to use language more explicit, lest he should incur the calumnious charge of wishing ill to the empire which it was hoped would be eternal; However, it is not absurd to believe that these words of the apostle, Only he who now holds, let him hold until he be taken out of the way, refer to the Roman empire, as if it were said, Only he who now reigns, let him reign until he be taken out of the way. And then shall the wicked be revealed: no one doubts that this means Antichrist. ...[Roman Catholic Online Fathers Of The Church; The City of God (Book XX); (St. Agustine); ...] - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120120.htm[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
"5. The Fathers held that the Roman empire was the "let," or hindrance, referred to by Paul in 2 Thessalonians, which kept back the manifestation of the "man of sin." This point is of great importance. Paul distinctly tells us that he knew, and that the Thessalonians knew, what that hindrance was, and that it was then in existence. The early Church, through the writings of the Fathers, tells us what it knew upon the subject, and with remarkable unanimity affirms that this "let," or hindrance, was the Roman empire as governed by the Caesars; that while the Caesars held imperial power, it was impossible for the predicted antichrist to arise, and that on the fall of the Caesars he would arise. Here we have a point on which Paul affirms the existence of knowledge in the Christian Church. The early Church knew, he says, what this hindrance was. The early Church tells us what it did know upon the subject, and no one in these days can be in a position to contradict its testimony as to what Paul had, by word of mouth only, told the Thessalonians. It is a point on which ancient tradition alone can have any authority.Modern speculation is positively impertinent on such a subject.4 From Irenaeus, who lived close to apostolic times, down to Chrysostom and Jerome, the Fathers taught that the power withholding the manifestation of the "man of sin" was the Roman empire as governed by the Caesars. The Fathers therefore belong to the historic, and not to the futurist school of interpretation; for futurists imagine that the hindrance to the manifestation of the man of sin is still in existence, though the Caesars have long since passed away. ... [Romanism and the Reformation; H. Grattan Guiness; Pg 52-53] - http://www.whitehorsemedia.com/docs/ROMANISM_AND_THE_REFORMATION.pdf

squint · Jun 17, 2012

3 Angels Messages said:
Let us not be brought into confusion on the matter, for there is the Kingdom of Grace set up in the throne of the Heart, and then comes the Kingdom in Power in Glory, "the throne of His Glory" [Matthew 25:32] at the end, in which "every eye shall see him" [Revelation 1:7].

They are not our 'own' special views,

Uh, yes, they are the SDAist specially constructed view to justify themselves over SATURDAY and nothing more than that.

They do have some similarities to SOME early Protestant views against the RCC which many other protestants also see as quite ridiculous. Eschatology is vastly more interesting than what the SDA proposes.

The entirety of same SDA views revolves around their 'external Saturday' rules and the claim that the world will rise up against them solely on that basis.

You might wake up some day and realize that nobody is stopping you from doing that and have not for several hundreds of years. I doubt very much that anybody is going to do the throw down with your sect on that basis.

Religious 'tolerance' is becoming moreso a fact in this present world.

The world itself could care less about your version of Saturday and will remain AMBIGUOUS to the matter.

If there is any political religious persecution it will be broad spectrum, broad based just as it has been demonstrated in other countries where there has been religious persecutions. And few if any of them have been over the matter of Saturday. That claim was a joke, is a joke and will remain A JOKE.

s

3 Angels Messages · Jun 17, 2012

squint said:
Uh, yes, they are the SDAist specially constructed view to justify themselves over SATURDAY and nothing more than that.

They do have some similarities to SOME early Protestant views against the RCC which many other protestants also see as quite ridiculous. Eschatology is vastly more interesting than what the SDA proposes.

The entirety of same SDA views revolves around their 'external Saturday' rules and the claim that the world will rise up against them solely on that basis.

You might wake up some day and realize that nobody is stopping you from doing that and have not for several hundreds of years. I doubt very much that anybody is going to do the throw down with your sect on that basis.

Religious 'tolerance' is becoming moreso a fact in this present world.

The world itself could care less about your version of Saturday and will remain AMBIGUOUS to the matter.

If there is any political religious persecution it will be broad spectrum, broad based just as it has been demonstrated in other countries where there has been religious persecutions. And few if any of them have been over the matter of Saturday. That claim was a joke, is a joke and will remain A JOKE.

s

squint · Jun 17, 2012

Listen to anything long enough and one may be led to believe it.

Politicians use that tool continuously too.

After sitting under that kind of teaching, never questioning, only accepting brings? uh huh. Acceptance.

No critical eye whatsoever.

s

LittleLambofJesus · Jun 17, 2012

squint said:
Listen to anything long enough and one may be led to believe it.

Politicians use that tool continuously too.

After sitting under that kind of teaching, never questioning, only accepting brings? uh huh. Acceptance.

No critical eye whatsoever.

s

My bro Paul had to appeal to a politician in Acts in order to get a fair trial

Young) Acts 25:11 for if indeed I am unrighteous, and anything worthy of death have done, I deprecate not to die;
and if there is none of the things of which these accuse me, no one is able to make a favour of me to them; to Caesar I appeal!'

Young) Acts 26:32 and Agrippa said to Festus, `This man might have been released if he had not appealed to Caesar.'

Rick Otto · Jun 17, 2012

Paul chose 'Protective Custody'.

TruthWave7 · Jun 17, 2012

squint said:
Listen to anything long enough and one may be led to believe it.

Politicians use that tool continuously too.

After sitting under that kind of teaching, never questioning, only accepting brings? uh huh. Acceptance.

No critical eye whatsoever.

s

Modern Evangelicalism is the reason so many CF members are ignorant of the holiness of the 4th Commandment. SDAs base our faith on the plain texts of Scripture. How could God be more clear when he wrote the 10 Commandments? It is the devising of churchmen that has confused and obscured the authority of Scripture. That is the basis of the massive bloodletting of membership that we have witnessed in the Methodist, Lutheran, and Presbyterian churches of North America, when the choose to be culturally relevant to the world at large, at the cost of discarding the Scriptures as their basis of faith. How it has played out in the evangelical churches is confusion and lack of understanding of the law of God in general, with the basic idea that most hold, that the Law of God was only for the Jews, and it is generally viewed in a negative light, and looked at as a legalistic relic of ancient history, hence the flagrant disregard of the Law of God by those who profess to be followers of Jesus, the One who kept the Law of God perfectly and never sinned, and who asks that we should follow in His foot steps.

Pope Decreed Sunday Rest on June 3, 2012

Well-Known Member

Veni, vidi, vici

Veteran

Veni, vidi, vici

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Veni, vidi, vici

Well-Known Member

On Sabbatical

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Great is thy faithfulness

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

The Dude Abides

Well-Known Member

Similar threads