Ellen White on the Sabbath

Lysimachus · Nov 4, 2012

MoreCoffee said:
Again you make an absurd claim. It is entirely possible for a city to "sit on" " peoples and multitudes and nations and languages." Rome was the seat of the Roman Empire and ruled over the many conquered nations, peoples, languages and so forth of the empire. She (Rome) sat enthroned in power on (over) those conquered peoples. That is the nature of empire. Empires impose themselves upon the conquered peoples that they rule.See my previous comments, in the above you are merely repeating the same absurd claims that you made before, the only new material is the mention of ancient Babylon and the Euphrates river. It is granted that "Babylon" is synonymous with "Rome" in the Revelation this is because Babylon was the ancient persecutor of Israel and Rome takes her place as the persecutor of God's people in the new testament. Furthermore, ancient Rome was built on the Tiber River - although I do not think that the physical river is in view in Revelation 17 nor do I think that the Euphrates river is in view in Revelation 17.The above is mere opinion without substance and without backing. Besides which, the woman who is the great city (Rome) is not merely the buildings and streets of Rome she is the Roman empire the Roman power that rules over the kings of the earth, notice how it is said in the explanation of the vision: "And the woman that you saw is the great city that has dominion over the kings of the earth." Thus she is the ruler of these peoples and multitudes and languages, she is mistress of the world.

I'm glad that you can see that the physical Euphrates River is not the river being spoken about. Adventists are in agreement with you on this. Therefore, it should not be so difficult for you to see that these are symbols here. It is very interesting to me how you make the Harlot Woman the Roman Empire, yet the Woman standing on the Moon is Mary, and not the Jewish Kingdom. I find this difficult to see how you are so inconsistent in your parallels. The average reader cannot make heads or tails out of this swapping back and forth in deciding when a Woman is symbolic and when she is literal. It violates principles of exegesis and hermeneutics. This is why Protestants broke away from Rome, because they actually read the scriptures and saw just how faulty the Vatican's interpretations were---and they saw that this Vatican Kingdom was a defection and "falling away" of the humble Apostolic Church established by Christ.

While Christ and the Apostles were poor and comely, you have the Pope sitting on a throne, and in cathedrals of some of the most costly array! Just the common person can see that there is definitely something wrong with this picture!

It is not difficult to see the transition between a Literal Kingdom and a Spiritual Kingdom.

We have a transition of Literal Rome against Literal Israel, to Spiritual Rome against Spiritual Israel (the Church). Literal Rome had a CITY (Rome), and Literal Israel had a CITY (Jerusalem). Spiritual Rome has a CITY (Rome still--namely the Vatican), and Spiritual Israel has a CITY (the New Jerusalem).

It is not difficult to see these parallels in the Holy Scriptures.

You also constantly accuse me of making "opinions....without substance or backing", but thus far, you have presented nothing more than your own opinions as well, and the opinions of Catholic commentators who simply quote texts thinking that what the text says actually backs up the statements, but I only see an opinion in the interpretation of those texts, not a comment based on what the text actually says. So that makes us "even" I guess.

Lysimachus · Nov 4, 2012

When you have a chance MoreCoffee, I would welcome your "overall assessment" of the following data in this link:

What does the word Vatican mean?

I kindly ask that you do not get distracted by the fact that it is put together by an SDA. Try to focus on the data itself. There is no way, of course, that you would be able to have the time to respond to every argument in that post, but at least take a look at it and I welcome your overall opinion. Also, what do you think of the "cup" and all the colors and symbols that fit the description of the Harlot Woman in the scriptures?

MoreCoffee · Nov 4, 2012

Lysimachus said:
When you have a chance MoreCoffee, I would welcome your "overall assessment" of the following data in this link:

What does the word Vatican mean?

...

My overall assessment is that it is very hostile to the Catholic Church. I lost interest after numerous comments about "apostate" Catholic teaching. Plus the attempt to link the red vestments worn for the days set aside to remember Martyrs seemed extremely distasteful when one considers that the red of the vestments is to recall the blood of the martyrs which was spilled in their executions. The work reflects rather deep antipathy towards everything to do with the Catholic Church. It is highly prejudicial.

MoreCoffee · Nov 5, 2012

Lysimachus said:
Scripture does not trump me. <removed a comment that was not relevant to the discussion>

One more time: "Thou [Nebuchadnezzar] art this head of gold. And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth." (Daniel 2:38,39)

Nebuchadnezzar is not the same as the City he sits in, correct?

Yet Daniel is identifying Nebuchadnezzar as the same as his kingdom of Babylon. While they are different, they are clearly two different objects as Nebuchadnezzar rules his empire. Nebuchadnezzar is not the kingdom, yet he stands for a figure of his kingdom, just like the Harlot Woman is the City because she represents the city, but it is a religious system that is in control of the city, thus the identities are exchangeable.

<removed a comment that was not relevant to the discussion>

The Harlot Woman is also "riding the beast" in 17:3. Are you suggesting that the Beast is carrying the City? How does a City man a Beast without there being a living entity behind it? Does a city exist without people, and especially people without a religion? Does not a city also represent its citizens? Are not its citizens what make up a religious entity? How can a barren city control a Beast?

Also, how does a city sit on top of "peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues" if you are truly thinking the woman only represents the Roman City? 17:15.

<removed a comment that was not relevant to the discussion>

I am returning to this post to examine what you wrote about Nebuchadnezzar, however, this is straying from the original post's theme.

Firstly I want to have a look at Daniel 2:36-45. The New American Bible (revised edition of 2011) says this in a footnote:

[2:36–45] The four successive kingdoms in this apocalyptic perspective are the Babylonian (gold), the Median (silver), the Persian (bronze), and the Hellenistic (iron). The last, after Alexander’s death, was divided among his generals (vv. 41–42). Of the kingdoms which emerged from this partitioning, the two that most affected the Jews were the dynasties of the Ptolemies in Egypt and the Seleucids in Syria. They tried in vain, by war and through intermarriage, to restore the unity of Alexander’s empire (v. 43). The stone hewn from the mountain is the kingdom of God awaited by the Jews (vv. 44–45). Compare the image of the stone applied to Jesus in Luke 20:17–18.

I image that this scheme of interpretation differs from the one you are used to.

You ask: "Nebuchadnezzar is not the same as the City he sits in, correct?"

I reply: As far as I am able to discern Nebuchadnezzar is a real person known to history and the stories about him in Daniel are reasonably credible accounts of what happened (or may have happened, since some of the details cannot be verified by any contemporary non-biblical sources). Clearly Nebuchadnezzar was a man, not a city.

How, exactly is your question relevant to the woman in John's vision? The woman seated on the scarlet beast is not a historical character. She is a fictional being. In Revelation it is said that "The woman whom you saw represents the great city that has sovereignty over the kings of the earth" (NAB)

If I were to compare the woman in revelation 17 with the elements in Nebuchadnezzar's dream then the nearest thing to her would be the statue or one of the part of the statue in the dream. I say this because both the woman and the statue are elements in a vision and a dream respectively, and are not real people known to history.

You say: "Daniel is identifying Nebuchadnezzar as the same as his kingdom of Babylon"

I reply: Daniel identifies the head of gold with Nebuchadnezzar. And since Nebuchadnezzar is a real person, the king of Babylon, it does not seem unreasonable to speak of the king and his kingdom in the same breath, so to speak.

If I were to compare Nebuchadnezzar with the explanation of the vision in Revelation 17 then the nearest corresponding thing in Revelation 17 would be the great city. That is to say, as the woman is to the great city so the golden head of the statue is to Nebuchadnezzar. As you can see, it is the woman that corresponds to the golden head of the statue since both are parts of the fictitious world of vision and dream while and the great city corresponds to Nebuchadnezzar since both are parts of the world of real places and people.

You say: "Nebuchadnezzar is not the kingdom, yet he stands for a figure of his kingdom, just like the Harlot Woman is the City because she represents the city, but it is a religious system that is in control of the city, thus the identities are exchangeable."

I respond: I am not exactly sure what your statement means, but I will hazard that you intend to say this:

Nebuchadnezzar represents his kingdom in a metaphor such as this "37 You, O king, are the king of kings; to you the God of heaven has given dominion and strength, power and glory; 38 human beings, wild beasts, and birds of the air, wherever they may dwell, he has handed over to you, making you ruler over them all; you are the head of gold. 39 Another kingdom shall take your place, inferior to yours, then a third kingdom, of bronze, which shall rule over the whole earth." (Daniel 2:37-39)

[Since the head of gold is followed by a short list of kingdoms corresponding to the silver, bronze, iron, and iron mixed with clay, you conclude that the gold is also a kingdom and thus that the bold text in the quote from Daniel means that Nebuchadnezzar represents a kingdom.]

You also want to equate the woman's relationship to the city with Nebuchadnezzar's relationship to Babylon the kingdom (not the city specifically, but the kingdom that went by the same name as the city).

I am not persuaded by this line of reasoning for these reasons:

The woman is not a person existing in the world of real people and places, she is an element in a vision, a character who sits on a fantastic beast drinking a fantastic brew from a golden chalice and so forth. Nebuchadnezzar is a real person in the world of real people and places. Thus the two are quite different ontologically speaking - one really exists the other is a mere fiction.
In Nebuchadnezzar's dream the head of gold is the element of the statue that represents the king while in John's vision the woman is the element in the vision that represents the great city. Thus the woman is like the golden head and the great city is like Nebuchadnezzar. In the dream it is not Nebuchadnezzar that represents the kingdom it is the golden head that represents Nebuchadnezzar and since Nebuchadnezzar is the king of the Babylonian empire he can be said to be (or to represent) the empire. In the vision the woman is (or represents) the great city and since the great city of the capitol of the empire the great city can be said to be (or to represent) the empire.
There is no mention of a religious system in the vision of John, just a city, a number of kings, and the wicked activities of the same. Take a look at the footnotes from the New American Bible here.

You say: "The Harlot Woman is also "riding the beast" in 17:3. Are you suggesting that the Beast is carrying the City? [1] How does a City man a Beast without there being a living entity behind it? [2] Does a city exist without people, and especially people without a religion? [3] Does not a city also represent its citizens? [4] Are not its citizens what make up a religious entity? [5] How can a barren city control a Beast?"

I respond: The beast appears to be a composite being; it includes the kings of the earth, 7 kings of the empire, and somehow the beast is itself one of the 7 kings of the empire, and there are another 10 kings who come afterwards and have a short period of rule.

In answer to your series of questions I say this: the woman is identified as the great city and no more need be said on that; [1] every city has people in it and in this case the city clearly has rulers; [2] the religions of the people of Rome were pagan idolatrous religions and there was, at the time that John was writing revelation, a cult of the emperor which was imposed upon all the citizens and all the conquered people of the empire; [3] a city can represent its citizens and it can represent the nation or kingdom or empire of which it is the capitol. [4] I am not sure what you mean by "Are not its citizens what make up a religious entity?" because most of the religions in ancient Rome had members from many places and in many places rather than just in the city of Rome - however if you want to take the city as representing the Roman empire then yes, the citizens and non-citizens of the empire would be members of the various religions of Rome; [5] I have no idea what you mean by "How can a barren city control a Beast?" However the city of Rome did control the Roman empire and it did control the conquered kingdoms of the earth.

Regarding the identity of the great city we do have these clues:

The seven heads represent seven hills upon which the woman sits. They also represent seven kings (17:9). Rome was famous for being the city built upon seven hills. The walled portion of the old city of Rome included seven hills.
The seven kings may represent seven Roman emperors or they may represent all the Roman emperors - seven being frequently used in scripture to denote completion.

You say: "Also, how does a city sit on top of "peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues" if you are truly thinking the woman only represents the Roman City? 17:15."

I respond: By ruling over them.

MoreCoffee · Nov 5, 2012

tzadik said:
The disciples did gather, at the end of the Sabbath (as they still do today to separate the day from the rest of the week), but as verse 11 clearly tells us, it wasn't a "worship service" by any means. Rather they gathered to eat a meal and fellowship. Paul just started talking and couldn't stop
There's no need to assume or add something to the text that isn't there.
Acts 20:7 does not talk about any worship service on the first day of the week.

Nowhere in the entire book of Revelation do we find any indication that this "Lord's day" was the first day of the week.
In fact there is only ONE day that both Yeshua and the Father claimed as their day, and that my friend is the Sabbath day. It could also be referring to the 'eschatological' "Day of the Lord" that is to come, but it absolutely does not refer to the first day of the week. (unless assumed out of thin air of course)

I think you are treading old ground here tzadik, and you do not deal with the early church father's understanding of the phrase "the Lord's day". I do not intend to enter into another cycle of discussion covering the same ideas expressed in many posts already present in this thread. However, if you want to discuss the Lord's day as understood by the early church then please let me know.

Elder 111 · Nov 5, 2012

bugkiller said:
In which case it is not new but renewed. But as presented it is also changed as in remodeled to fit your hearts desires. Thus the Scripture is not reliable. So all we really have is just another pagan religion with no hope.

bugkiller

The scriptures are very reliable, what is not is your interpretation of it. You ignore the plain statements to hold on to your view. Do you realize that you have not dealt directly with the passages looked at in both Romans and Hebrews? You did not show from the passages that the conclusions were incorrect. You just did not like what they said.

Elder 111 · Nov 5, 2012

bugkiller said:
First I want to know why you seem to refuse or have such a hard time answering all my questions.

Next I certianly will admit that Romans 7 does not abolish or do away with the law. It plainly states - now we are delivered from the law.

The Greek word for delivered is katargeō and means -
1) to render idle, unemployed, inactivate, inoperative
a) to cause a person or thing to have no further efficiency
b) to deprive of force, influence, power
2) to cause to cease, put an end to, do away with, annul, abolish
a) to cease, to pass away, be done away
b) to be severed from, separated from, discharged from, loosed from any one
c) to terminate all intercourse with one

The word from is apo and means - of separation.

This really is a repeat and enforcement of delivered.

Please explain how my idea of the word and verse is wrong.

The first meaning is the correct one in context power, the efficiency. to be inactive is the relationship of the law with us. You cannot ignore the other things Paul said. The second meaning does not fit in context, he never said it was terminated.

MoreCoffee · Nov 5, 2012

Reply to post #822 from Lysimachus (some of what Lysimachus wrote is dealt with in post #828).

You say: "Since the woman represents the "city", and since the woman is also seen as "sitting" upon the "waters" which represent "peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues", then this "city" is a figure of an entire "system" that is "global", not merely in Local Rome."

I reply: Let's examine what the passage says about the woman.

First what does the vision say?

Then one of the seven angels who were holding the seven bowls came and said to me, Come here. I will show you the judgment on the great harlot who lives near the many waters. The kings of the earth have had intercourse with her, and the inhabitants of the earth became drunk on the wine of her harlotry. Then he carried me away in spirit to a deserted place where I saw a woman seated on a scarlet beast that was covered with blasphemous names, with seven heads and ten horns. The woman was wearing purple and scarlet and adorned with gold, precious stones, and pearls. She held in her hand a gold cup that was filled with the abominable and sordid deeds of her harlotry. On her forehead was written a name, which is a mystery, Babylon the great, the mother of harlots and of the abominations of the earth. I saw that the woman was drunk on the blood of the holy ones and on the blood of the witnesses to Jesus. (Revelation 17:1-6a)

Footnote for verses 1-6: Babylon, the symbolic name (Rev 17:5) of Rome, is graphically described as the great harlot.

Second what does a Catholic commentary say (from [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]1859 AD[/FONT])

Preliminary remarks

There are three ways of expounding all the visions of this revelation, from the end of chap. 3 to the end of 20:10 all of which seem grounded on the opinions of the ancient Fathers.

According to the first, all these visions are only to be fulfilled in antichrist's time, a little before the end of the world.
According to the second, the visions may be applied to particular events, which happened in the first three or four ages [centuries], under the persecuting heathens, till by Constantine, and the succeeding Christian emperors, idolatry by degrees was extirpated, and the faith of Christ triumphed over all its enemies, whether Jews or pagans.
According to the third, by the great city of Babylon, is mystically and metaphorically signified all wicked great cities in the world, all the multitude of the wicked dispersed in all nations, their short and vain happiness, their persecutions and oppressions of the good and faithful servants of God, who live piously in this world, and who are called to be citizens of the celestial Jerusalem in the kingdom of God, where he reigneth for ever with his Angels and saints, and where they all reign with him, happy in his sight and enjoyment.

I am more and more inclined to this third exposition, by reading this 17th chapter, with the contents of the 18th, 19th, and 20th chapters, till the 11th verse, and by reading what St. Jerome says in general terms, in his epistle to Marcella, tom. 4, part 1, p. 166, Nov. edit. "that all this book (of the Apocalypse) is either to be expounded spiritually, or if we follow a carnal interpretation, we must content ourselves with Jewish fables. And especially by reading what St. Augustine has delivered us upon the chief difficulties of the Apocalypse, in his 20th book de Civ. Dei [The City of God], from chap. vi. to chap. xvi. and from p. 578. to p. 594. tom. 7. Nov. edit. To expound then these chapters together according to this third interpretation. (Witham)

Of the great harlot. Nothing can be better applied than this epithet to ancient Rome, which had conquered almost all the kingdoms of the known world, as it is said in ver. 18. she is the great city, a kingdom, which hath dominion over the kings of the earth; ver. 9. it was built upon seven mountains; ver. 6. was watered with the blood of the saints and martyrs of Jesus Christ; and in fine, ver. 5. it was the great Babylon, as St. Peter, in his first epistle, pleases to call it. (Calmet)

Come, I will show thee the condemnation of the great harlot,...Babylon....the mother of the fornications. By this harlot, and this Babylon, is signified the multitude of all the wicked of all times and places, who have abandoned themselves to sensual pleasures, and sought for their happiness in riches and worldly grandeur; for this reason she is said to carry on her forehead this inscription, a mystery; that is, to be understood in a mystical sense of all the wicked, who make up as it were one city, as St. Augustine observes, which may be called Babylon, the city of confusion, the city of idolatry, and of all manner of vices.

The beast, that is, the devil, carries her, whose suggestions the wicked follow. He comes out from the bottomless pit.

He was, i.e. had a much greater and more extensive power over the wicked world before Christ's coming and incarnation; and he is not, i.e. according to St. Augustine, his power hath been much extenuated and lessened since that time. He is bound or chained up for a thousand years, as it is said, chap. 20:2. By which may be understood all the time from Christ's coming, and the establishing of his Christian Church, till the last and severest persecution under antichrist. See St. Augustine, lib. xx. de Civ. Dei. chap. vii.

And when he shall come again, and be let loose, as it were, in antichrist's time, he must continue a short while: for all the ancient fathers agree, by the interpretations they give to the Scripture, that antichrist, and consequently the devil with antichrist, must reign but a short time.

The scarlet coloured beast, the devil, called the prince of this world, on whom the harlot gilded with gold sat; that is, all the wicked, and particularly all wicked kings and princes, with their worldly greatness, who were drunk with the wine of her prostitution; that is, who abandoned themselves and indulged their passions with all sensual pleasures, and contented themselves with the vain and deceitful happiness of this life; to be convinced of which, the Angel is said to have taken St. John in spirit into a wilderness from the company of the wicked world, the better to see and contemplate the vanity of their short and false happiness.

This woman, the harlot, this Babylon, this multitude of the wicked, especially the heathen persecuting emperors at Rome, and in all other places, (and they who acted against the Christians under them) are said to be drunk with the blood of the saints, and the blood of the martyrs, by putting the Christians, the Catholics and the servants of God to death, from the foundation of the world to its consummation, by the instigation of the beast, the devil.

The beast, the devil, is represented with seven heads and ten horns; that is, with many heads and many horns, signified by the numbers seven and ten. See St. Augustine, chap. xxiii. p. 606.

The seven heads, as it is said, ver. 9, are seven mountains and seven kings, i.e. a great many. And also the ten horns, (ver. 12.) are ten kings. (Witham)

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif]Verses 4 to 15 have comments. If you have any interest in reading it I will post it for you but in this reply I will leave it out because of its length.
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

A much more recent commentary from The Christian Community Bible says:

17.1 I will show you the judgment God reveals the true value of the prosperous and powerful persecuting city.

To people living in the empire, Rome personified everything in the empire and its culture. When they came to the capital, they were dazzled by its buildings, its movement, theaters, lights, the life of its countless population. Thus it was not difficult for them to venerate Rome as a goddess.

The duration of the empire, with its reputation of being invincible and divine, is pure illusion, for the Beast, the evil one who supports it, passes away, unlike God who is and will come. Rome is described as a possessed woman. The purple, color of the emperors, and the gold, sign of their wealth, cover up its impurity and cruelty. At the same time it brings people to serve false gods and to murder martyrs.

To describe the near future of Rome, John uses symbols: some of them are easy to interpret. The seven hills point to Rome without a doubt. The seven kings are a figure symbolic of the emperors.

The ten horns are the kings of the barbarian people allied with Rome. These satellites will be Gods instruments in destroying it. Nevertheless, they will continue as forces hostile to the Church.

The Lamb and his followers will conquer them (v. 14). From now on, every believer is associated with Christs victory, as long as she remains constant in her faith.

Lysimachus said:
<deleted comments that were irrelevant to the discussion> Since the woman represents the "city", and since the woman is also seen as "sitting" upon the "waters" which represent "peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues", then this "city" is a figure of an entire "system" that is "global", not merely in Local Rome.

<deleted comments that are already delt with in post #828>

In New Testament times, John picks up Old Testament terminology, and redefines them on a global scale. It now revolves around Spiritual Babylon. The Harlot Woman which represents the City of Babylon (Rev 17:17). This Harlot Woman (the city) SITS on "many waters" (v.1). In the Old Testament, Babylon literally sat on the Euphrates River which was "dried up". Revelation 17:15 spiritually applies this, and says that these "waters" (the Euphrates River) where the woman sits "are PEOPLES, and MULTITUDES, and NATIONS, and TONGUES".

A Woman represents a Religious System: PERIOD! Catholics are wrong.

Israel and Jerusalem [A city] are interchanged constantly, and represented as a "WOMAN".
"For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called. For the LORD hath called thee as a WOMAN forsaken and grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth, when thou wast refused, saith thy God." (Isaiah 54:5,6).
Note: It would be inconsistent of John to pull this symbolism from the book of Revelation, and then reapply this symbolism and attribute it to Mary in Revelation 12. With all due respect, this attribution is ludicrous.
"Surely as a wife treacherously departeth from her husband, so have ye dealt treacherously with me, O house of Israel, saith the LORD." (Jeremiah 3:20)

"In that thou buildest thine eminent place in the head of every way, and makest thine high place in every street; and hast not been as an harlot, in that thou scornest hire; But as a wife that committeth adultery, which taketh strangers instead of her husband!" (Ezekiel 16:31,32)

"The LORD said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen [that] which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot. And I said after she had done all these [things], Turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it. And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also." (Jeremiah 3:6-8)
Thus far, the Scriptures teach that the symbol of a "Woman" represents either an apostate religious kingdom, or a pure religious kingdom. Since Israel was a kingdom established by God, and was "religious", therefore, the symbolism is fitting in the New Testament concerning "two opposing religious systems".

Does a "city" also symbolize a nation or a system?
"when the LORD carried away Judah and Jerusalem by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar" (1 Chron. 6:15)
Zion and Jerusalem are also used interchangeably (see Isaiah 24:23; 30:19; 37:32; Isa 52:1,2; etc. etc.)

A Woman is used as a Symbol of God's Church (see Ephesians 5:22-25; 2 Cor 11:2; Rev. 19:8, and 8).

The New Jerusalem is used as Symbol of God's Church. (see Hebrews 12:22, 23; Revelation 21:2, 9).

Thus we see how the symbolism is interchangeable.

God's people are symbolized as a City, Jerusalem, the New Jerusalem, His Church.

Satan's people are symbolized as a City, a Named City, and a False Church.

<deleted comments that were irrelevant to the discussion>

bugkiller · Nov 5, 2012

Elder 111 said:
The first meaning is the correct one in context power, the efficiency. to be inactive is the relationship of the law with us. You cannot ignore the other things Paul said. The second meaning does not fit in context, he never said it was terminated.

Do you really mean this - to render idle, unemployed, inactivate, inoperative?

bugkiller

Dale · Nov 5, 2012

Truthwave in post #701:
Hebrews 9:23-24

"It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in Gods presence."

You quote and misconstrue Hebrews. When you look at the whole passage another view emerges.

23 It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in Gods presence. 25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.
--Hebrews 9:23-28 NIV

Hebrews Nine doesn't say that there is a structural Temple in Heaven or that Christ entered a heavenly Temple. It says that Christ entered Heaven and that he entered God's presence. Ellen White clearly believes that Christ is doing some kind of work in the Heavenly Temple. Hebrews Nine denies this. In Hebrews, Christ holds the title of High Priest but he does not offer himself again and again nor does he go through the act of sacrifice, completed on the cross, more than once.

Try reading the whole passage.

*

*

Dale · Nov 5, 2012

Truthwave in post #701:
Revelation 11:19

9 "Then Gods temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a severe hailstorm."

I have already pointed out that another verse in Revelation denies that there is any temple in New Jerusalem. Only an SDA could read Revelation without realizing that it is full of symbolism.

Revelation 21:22
I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple.

What does seeing the ark in a heavenly temple mean?

From Matthew Henry's Commentary on Revelation 11:

Another consequence was the opening of the temple of God in heaven. By this may be meant that here is now a more free communication between heaven and earth, prayer and praises more freely and frequently ascending and graces and blessings plentifully descending. But it rather seems to intend the church of God on earth, a heavenly temple. It is an allusion to the various circumstances of things in the time of the first temple. Under idolatrous and wicked princes, it was shut up and neglected; but, under religious and reforming princes, it was opened and frequented. So, during the power of antichrist, the temple of God seemed to be shut up, and was so in a great degree; but now it was opened again. At this opening of it observe, 1. What was seen there: the ark of Gods testament. This was in the holy of holies; in this ark the tables of the law were kept. As before Josiahs time the law of God had been lost, but was then found, so in the reign of antichrist Gods law was laid aside, and made void by their traditions and decrees; the scriptures were locked up from the people, and they must not look into these divine oracles; now they are opened, now they are brought to the view of all. This was an unspeakable and invaluable privilege; and this, like the ark of the testament, was a token of the presence of God returned to his people, and his favour towards them in Jesus Christ the propitiation.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/revelation/11.html?p=3

*

*

Dale · Nov 5, 2012

Lysimachus in post #708:
We must remember that the very reason why the "Ark of the Testament" is called the "Ark of the Testament" is because the "Testimony" is inside the Ark! Otherwise it would be the "Ark of Nothing", or the "Ark of THIN AIR".

Ark of Nothing? I don't think so. In the Hebrew conception, God sat on top of the Ark. The Cherubim on the Ark are positioned in adoration of God seated on his throne on the Ark. The Ark clearly has great significance and there is more than one reason for the holiness of the Ark.

*

*

Dale · Nov 5, 2012

Elder111 in post #703:
It is stated that the earthly sanctuary was a pattern of the heavenly. Ex 25:9 According to all that I shew thee, [after] the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make [it]
...
The earthly was a copy of the original.

I added the bold to Elder's post.

Elder, what translation are you using? Exodus 25:9 says nothing about there being a heavenly tabernacle. It says that God gave directions, which does not necessarily mean that there has ever before been such a tabernacle or that there will ever be one again.

By the way, when we get to heaven, will there be a Heavenly Tabernacle and a Heavenly Temple? Will Christ serve in both as a priest???

Take a look at the following translations. There is no sign of any pre-existing heavenly Tabernacle, only directions for the Israelite Tabernacle.

Exodus 25:9 (KJ21)

9 According to all that I show thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it.
Exodus 25:9 (ASV) |

9 According to all that I show thee, the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the furniture thereof, even so shall ye make it.
Exodus 25:9 (AMP) |

9 And you shall make it according to all that I show you, the pattern of the tabernacle or dwelling and the pattern of all the furniture of it.
Exodus 25:9 (CEB) |

9 You should follow the blueprints that I will show you for the dwelling and for all its equipment.
Exodus 25:9 (CJB) |

9 You are to make it according to everything I show you the design of the tabernacle and the design of its furnishings. This is how you are to make it.
Exodus 25:9 (CEV) |

9 Make it and its furnishings exactly like the pattern I will show you.
Exodus 25:9 (DARBY) |

9 According to all that I shall shew thee, the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the utensils thereof, even so shall ye make [it].
Exodus 25:9 (DRA) |

9 According to all the likeness of the tabernacle which I will shew thee, and of all the vessels for the service thereof: and thus you shall make it:
Exodus 25:9 (ERV) |

9 I will show you what the Holy Tent and everything in it should look like. Build everything exactly as I show you.
Exodus 25:9 (ESV) |

9 Exactly as I show you concerning the pattern of the tabernacle, and of all its furniture, so you shall make it.
Exodus 25:9 (ESVUK) |

9 Exactly as I show you concerning the pattern of the tabernacle, and of all its furniture, so you shall make it.
Exodus 25:9 (GW) |

9 Make the tent and all its furnishings exactly like the plans I am showing you.
Exodus 25:9 (GNT) |

9 Make it and all its furnishings according to the plan that I will show you.
Exodus 25:9 (HCSB) |

9 You must make it according to all that I show youthe pattern of the tabernacle as well as the pattern of all its furnishings.
Exodus 25:9 (KJV) |

9 According to all that I shew thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it.
Exodus 25:9 (KNOX) |

9 this tabernacle-dwelling itself and the appurtenances to be used in it must be of the pattern which I will now shew thee. Listen, then, to the fashion of it.
Exodus 25:9 (LEB) |

9 according to all that I show youthe pattern of the tabernacle and the pattern of all its equipmentand so you will do.

*

*

Lysimachus · Nov 5, 2012

Dale said:
Truthwave in post #701:
“Revelation 11:19

9 "Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a severe hailstorm." ”

I have already pointed out that another verse in Revelation denies that there is any temple in New Jerusalem. Only an SDA could read Revelation without realizing that it is full of symbolism.

Revelation 21:22
I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple.

What does seeing the “ark” in a heavenly temple mean?

From Matthew Henry's Commentary on Revelation 11:

Another consequence was the opening of the temple of God in heaven. By this may be meant that here is now a more free communication between heaven and earth, prayer and praises more freely and frequently ascending and graces and blessings plentifully descending. But it rather seems to intend the church of God on earth, a heavenly temple. It is an allusion to the various circumstances of things in the time of the first temple. Under idolatrous and wicked princes, it was shut up and neglected; but, under religious and reforming princes, it was opened and frequented. So, during the power of antichrist, the temple of God seemed to be shut up, and was so in a great degree; but now it was opened again. At this opening of it observe, 1. What was seen there: the ark of God’s testament. This was in the holy of holies; in this ark the tables of the law were kept. As before Josiah’s time the law of God had been lost, but was then found, so in the reign of antichrist God’s law was laid aside, and made void by their traditions and decrees; the scriptures were locked up from the people, and they must not look into these divine oracles; now they are opened, now they are brought to the view of all. This was an unspeakable and invaluable privilege; and this, like the ark of the testament, was a token of the presence of God returned to his people, and his favour towards them in Jesus Christ the propitiation.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/revelation/11.html?p=3

*

*

Dale, your above study is bereft of Scriptural knowledge.

Hebrews 9 does not contradict Ellen White, nor does it contradict the Adventist Sanctuary Doctrine.

It confirms it.

It is apparent that you have barely scratched the surface in your studies.

If you would like a thorough comprehensive study of what Adventists TRULY believe on the Sanctuary Doctrine in relation to the book of Hebrews, I suggest you go back to our pioneers and read what they had to say on this matter, namely J.N. Andrews:

http://sdapillars.org/media/download_gallery/jna_2300Days_.pdf

In my Father's house are many permanent dwellings: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. (John 14:2)

We immediately see from this verse that 1. Jesus is not building permanent dwellings, for they are already there. 2. Jesus is "preparing a place" for us.

Thus we see that Christ is doing something for us in heaven, contrary to Evangelical theology.

1. Hebrews 9 is not saying that Christ is not doing anything for us in heaven. It is simply saying that all Christ had to do was enter into the sanctuary ONCE, not many times. Christ did not need to offer Himself over and over and over again.

2. That ONE-TIME-SACRIFICE and ONE-TIME-ENTRANCE is available for humanity as long as there is pardon for sin. This means that that the blood, of that one-time-sacrifice is available.

"Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them." (Hebrews 7:25)

Thus, Christ is currently "making intercession for us". The scriptures deny your false interpretation.

"And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel." (Hebrews 12:24)

Thus we see that the "blood of Christ" presently "speaks" on behalf of sinners, and is presently activated.

"It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these." (Hebrews 9:23)

"But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased." (Hebrews 13:16)

We thus see that, while Christ did not have to offer Himself over and over again, that one-time sacrifice acts as a plural to the believer---that Christ's work in heaven acts as sacrifices of the believer--thus, Christ acts as the High Priest that intercedes on our behalf as we make sacrifices--presently:

"Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." (1 Peter 2:5)

"For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins." (Hebrews 10:26)

As we can see therefore, the notion that Christ is not interceding on our behalf as a High Priest is foolish theology, and unscriptural.

The reason why Evangelicals keep making the same blunders in their accusations against Adventists, is because they refuse to become acquainted with exegetical Adventist theology on this matter--and as long as they continue to refuse, they will constantly be left aloof as to what is really going on in this great controversy. I call it willful ignorance.

Lysimachus · Nov 5, 2012

Dale said:
Truthwave in post #701:
“Revelation 11:19

9 "Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a severe hailstorm." ”

I have already pointed out that another verse in Revelation denies that there is any temple in New Jerusalem. Only an SDA could read Revelation without realizing that it is full of symbolism.

Revelation 21:22
I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple.

What does seeing the “ark” in a heavenly temple mean?

From Matthew Henry's Commentary on Revelation 11:

Another consequence was the opening of the temple of God in heaven. By this may be meant that here is now a more free communication between heaven and earth, prayer and praises more freely and frequently ascending and graces and blessings plentifully descending. But it rather seems to intend the church of God on earth, a heavenly temple. It is an allusion to the various circumstances of things in the time of the first temple. Under idolatrous and wicked princes, it was shut up and neglected; but, under religious and reforming princes, it was opened and frequented. So, during the power of antichrist, the temple of God seemed to be shut up, and was so in a great degree; but now it was opened again. At this opening of it observe, 1. What was seen there: the ark of God’s testament. This was in the holy of holies; in this ark the tables of the law were kept. As before Josiah’s time the law of God had been lost, but was then found, so in the reign of antichrist God’s law was laid aside, and made void by their traditions and decrees; the scriptures were locked up from the people, and they must not look into these divine oracles; now they are opened, now they are brought to the view of all. This was an unspeakable and invaluable privilege; and this, like the ark of the testament, was a token of the presence of God returned to his people, and his favour towards them in Jesus Christ the propitiation.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/revelation/11.html?p=3

*

*

1. The Temple in Heaven is currently available, because there is sin.

2. Revelation 21:22 is talking about AFTER THE MILLLENNIUM.

Obviously there will be no more sin, so what will there be a need for the Temple? It will be removed after sin and sinners are no more.

3. Revelation 21:22 does not say a Temple does not exist, it actually says there is no temple "therein"--meaning, inside the New Jerusalem.

4. Ezekiel places the Temple outside of the City on a mountain. Whether this will be true or not, it is irrelevant, as we know that presently, the Temple is in the New Jerusalem, and it will not be seen anymore in the city after the millennium. Whether we are presently living in the Millennium or not, is also of no avail, as either way, John saw no Temple in the New Jerusalem only in the earth made new--and this clearly future.

Thus, your theology is devoid of Biblical exegesis. It must be rejected. So let it be written, so let it be done.

Lysimachus · Nov 5, 2012

Dale said:
Elder111 in post #703:
“It is stated that the earthly sanctuary was a pattern of the heavenly. Ex 25:9 According to all that I shew thee, [after] the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make [it]
...
The earthly was a copy of the original.”

I added the bold to Elder's post.

Elder, what translation are you using? Exodus 25:9 says nothing about there being a heavenly tabernacle. It says that God gave directions, which does not necessarily mean that there has ever before been such a tabernacle or that there will ever be one again.

By the way, when we get to heaven, will there be a Heavenly Tabernacle and a Heavenly Temple? Will Christ serve in both as a priest???

Take a look at the following translations. There is no sign of any pre-existing heavenly Tabernacle, only directions for the Israelite Tabernacle.

Exodus 25:9 (KJ21)

9 According to all that I show thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it.
Exodus 25:9 (ASV) |

9 According to all that I show thee, the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the furniture thereof, even so shall ye make it.
Exodus 25:9 (AMP) |

9 And you shall make it according to all that I show you, the pattern of the tabernacle or dwelling and the pattern of all the furniture of it.
Exodus 25:9 (CEB) |

9 You should follow the blueprints that I will show you for the dwelling and for all its equipment.
Exodus 25:9 (CJB) |

9 You are to make it according to everything I show you — the design of the tabernacle and the design of its furnishings. This is how you are to make it.
Exodus 25:9 (CEV) |

9 Make it and its furnishings exactly like the pattern I will show you.
Exodus 25:9 (DARBY) |

9 According to all that I shall shew thee, the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the utensils thereof, even so shall ye make [it].
Exodus 25:9 (DRA) |

9 According to all the likeness of the tabernacle which I will shew thee, and of all the vessels for the service thereof: and thus you shall make it:
Exodus 25:9 (ERV) |

9 I will show you what the Holy Tent and everything in it should look like. Build everything exactly as I show you.
Exodus 25:9 (ESV) |

9 Exactly as I show you concerning the pattern of the tabernacle, and of all its furniture, so you shall make it.
Exodus 25:9 (ESVUK) |

9 Exactly as I show you concerning the pattern of the tabernacle, and of all its furniture, so you shall make it.
Exodus 25:9 (GW) |

9 Make the tent and all its furnishings exactly like the plans I am showing you.
Exodus 25:9 (GNT) |

9 Make it and all its furnishings according to the plan that I will show you.
Exodus 25:9 (HCSB) |

9 You must make it according to all that I show you—the pattern of the tabernacle as well as the pattern of all its furnishings.
Exodus 25:9 (KJV) |

9 According to all that I shew thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it.
Exodus 25:9 (KNOX) |

9 this tabernacle-dwelling itself and the appurtenances to be used in it must be of the pattern which I will now shew thee. Listen, then, to the fashion of it.
Exodus 25:9 (LEB) |

9 according to all that I show you—the pattern of the tabernacle and the pattern of all its equipment—and so you will do.

*

*

Once again, more false exegesis.

No matter which version you utilize, it does not detract from the simple fact:

"Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern showed to thee in the mount. But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises." (Hebrews 8:5,6)

The author of Hebrews is plainly alluding to Exodus 25:9 as "proof" that the earthly was copied from the heavenly.

Further proof that this expression "pattern" is being employed to mean a copy of the heavenly model is as follows:

"It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:" (Hebrews 9:23,24)

We also find that there was a "first" tabernacle, and it means that the heavenly is the "second":

"The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: Which [was] a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience." (Hebrews 9:8,9)

Your arguments, thus far, have proven to bear no relevance whatsoever to the correct understanding of Adventist Theology in relation to the Heavenly Sanctuary, or Heavenly Temple.

According to Exodus 25:9, God showed Moses a "Pattern". The argument is that this "pattern" was simply nothing more than a drawing on a piece of paper that Moses followed. Foolishness. The drawing on this paper was more than just a drawing--rather, it was a drawing of the heavenly---as clearly alluded to by the author of Hebrews---"patterns of the things in the heavens". It also does not say "patterns of the heavens", but "patterns of the THINGS in the heavens". According to scriptural exegesis, those "things" were the sanctuary and its items--"all things" (Heb. 8:5) in direct reference to the "things" of the "tabernacle". It is also proof positive that the expressions "tabernacle", "sanctuary", and "temple" are used interchangeably--but practically all meaning the same thing with slightly different intended meanings based on how the expression is being used--"sanctuary" meaning more-so the Holy and Most Holy Place, "tabernacle" meaning the entire thing including the court, and "temple" more-so meaning to either the "inner-shrine" or Most Holy Place or simply to the artifice structure of the sanctuary building.

Blessings.

Lysimachus · Nov 5, 2012

MoreCoffee said:
I think you are treading old ground here tzadik, and you do not deal with the early church father's understanding of the phrase "the Lord's day". I do not intend to enter into another cycle of discussion covering the same ideas expressed in many posts already present in this thread. However, if you want to discuss the Lord's day as understood by the early church then please let me know.

How shall we search the Scriptures in order to understand what they teach? We should come to the investigation of God's word with a contrite heart, a teachable and prayerful spirit. We are not to think, as did the Jews, that our own ideas and opinions are infallible; nor with the papists, that certain individuals are the sole guardians of truth and knowledge, that men have no right to search the Scriptures for themselves, but must accept the explanations given by the Fathers of the church. We should not study the Bible for the purpose of sustaining our preconceived opinions, but with the single object of learning what God has said. {GW92 125.1}

Those who believed that the Advent movement was of God, went forth as did Luther and his co-laborers, with their Bibles in their hands, and with fearless firmness met the opposition of the world's great teachers. Many to whom the people had looked for instruction in divine things were proved to be ignorant both of the Scriptures and of the power of God. Yet their very ignorance rendered them more determined; they could not maintain their position by the Scriptures, and they were driven to resort to the sayings and doctrines of men, to the traditions of the Fathers. {4SP 212.2}

As the attention of the people was called to the subject of Sabbath reform, popular ministers perverted the word of God, placing such interpretations upon its testimony as would best quiet inquiring minds. And those who did not search the Scriptures for themselves were content to accept the ministers' conclusions. By argument, sophistry, the traditions of the Fathers, and the authority of the church, opposers endeavored to overthrow the truth. Its advocates were driven to their Bibles to defend the validity of the fourth commandment. {4SP 288.2}

"Search the scriptures." This is the word which comes to us from Christ. If it had been essential for us to search the [church] Fathers, Christ would have told us so. But the Fathers do not all speak the same thing. Which of them shall we choose as a guide? There is no need for us to trust to uncertainty. We pass by the Fathers to learn of God out of His Word. This is life eternal, to know God. Oh, how thankful we should be that the Bible is the inspired word of God. Holy men of old wrote this Word as they were moved by the Spirit. God did not leave His Word to be preserved in the memories of men and handed down from generation to generation by oral transmission and traditional unfolding. Had He done this, the Word would gradually have been added to by men. We would have been asked to receive that which is not inspired. Let us thank God for His written word. {UL 52.2}

Our eternal well-being has not been left in uncertainty. We need not depend upon the writings of "the Fathers," or upon commentators, for explanations regarding the law of God. When these men have told us all that they in their human intelligence can, we find that they do not agree. We see such a diversity of opinions that were we to follow them in deciding what is truth, we should be left in confusion and uncertainty. The Lord has told us not to follow these human guides, but to take everything claiming to be Bible doctrine to the Scriptures. "Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples. And I will wait upon the Lord, that hideth His face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for Him. Behold, I and the children whom the Lord hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the Lord of hosts, which dwelleth in Mount Zion. And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." {RH, May 28, 1901 par. 3}

Lysimachus · Nov 5, 2012

MoreCoffee said:
I am returning to this post to examine what you wrote about Nebuchadnezzar, however, this is straying from the original post's theme.

Firstly I want to have a look at Daniel 2:36-45. The New American Bible (revised edition of 2011) says this in a footnote:
[2:36–45] The four successive kingdoms in this apocalyptic perspective are the Babylonian (gold), the Median (silver), the Persian (bronze), and the Hellenistic (iron). The last, after Alexander’s death, was divided among his generals (vv. 41–42). Of the kingdoms which emerged from this partitioning, the two that most affected the Jews were the dynasties of the Ptolemies in Egypt and the Seleucids in Syria. They tried in vain, by war and through intermarriage, to restore the unity of Alexander’s empire (v. 43). The stone hewn from the mountain is the kingdom of God awaited by the Jews (vv. 44–45). Compare the image of the stone applied to Jesus in Luke 20:17–18.

I image that this scheme of interpretation differs from the one you are used to.

I'm well aware of this interpretation, and numerous solidly written exegetical papers have been written by our Expositors proving it to be categorically false.

The first obvious thing that sticks out is that Media and Persia co-ruled simultaneously, and not in successive order. The majority of scholars reject this interpretation, even the noted Albert Barnes whom you profusely cite.

"The ram which thou sawest having [two] horns [are] the kings of Media and Persia." (Daniel 8:20)

Note that the two horns rule "simultaneously", as both exist together, one horn higher than the other (8:3). They both exist simultaneously on the Ram, as "one kingdom". (8:20).

Since the metals in Daniel 2 are "successive" ("and after thee shall arise ANOTHER kingdom"---"and ANOTHER third kingdom of brass" (2:39), we thus see that the Silver and the Brass do not co-rule as in these two same powers do in Daniel 8. Thus, the exegesis is devoid of logic.

MoreCoffee said:
You ask: "Nebuchadnezzar is not the same as the City he sits in, correct?"

I reply: As far as I am able to discern Nebuchadnezzar is a real person known to history and the stories about him in Daniel are reasonably credible accounts of what happened (or may have happened, since some of the details cannot be verified by any contemporary non-biblical sources). Clearly Nebuchadnezzar was a man, not a city.

It is good that we agree. The point being discussed here is that Nebuchadnezzar was being used as a symbol of the Kingdom of Babylon.

MoreCoffee said:
How, exactly is your question relevant to the woman in John's vision? The woman seated on the scarlet beast is not a historical character. She is a fictional being. In Revelation it is said that "The woman whom you saw represents the great city that has sovereignty over the kings of the earth" (NAB)

It does not matter. You miss the point. The point is that a symbol of a woman can mean more than one thing. It can mean the headship of a kingdom, but also the kingdom itself, or even the capital city. The expression "Babylon" was used both for the empire, and for the capital city of Babylon.

MoreCoffee said:
In answer to your series of questions I say this: the woman is identified as the great city and no more need be said on that; [1] every city has people in it and in this case the city clearly has rulers; [2] the religions of the people of Rome were pagan idolatrous religions and there was, at the time that John was writing revelation, a cult of the emperor which was imposed upon all the citizens and all the conquered people of the empire; [3] a city can represent its citizens and it can represent the nation or kingdom or empire of which it is the capitol. [4] I am not sure what you mean by "Are not its citizens what make up a religious entity?" because most of the religions in ancient Rome had members from many places and in many places rather than just in the city of Rome - however if you want to take the city as representing the Roman empire then yes, the citizens and non-citizens of the empire would be members of the various religions of Rome; [5] I have no idea what you mean by "How can a barren city control a Beast?" However the city of Rome did control the Roman empire and it did control the conquered kingdoms of the earth.

Regarding the identity of the great city we do have these clues:

The seven heads represent seven hills upon which the woman sits. They also represent seven kings (17:9). Rome was famous for being the city built upon seven hills. The walled portion of the old city of Rome included seven hills.

The seven kings may represent seven Roman emperors or they may represent all the Roman emperors - seven being frequently used in scripture to denote completion.

You say: "Also, how does a city sit on top of "peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues" if you are truly thinking the woman only represents the Roman City? 17:15."

I respond: By ruling over them.

You appear to be saying that I or Adventists do not believe the Woman to represent Rome, the Capital City sitting on 7 hills.

By all means, we do. Your problem appears to be that you are "locking" the interpretation to be constricted within the confines of 7 hills--the point being nothing more than the fact that this harlot power's capital sits on these 7 hills. She also sits on waters. Thus one cannot "pidgin hole" the symbolism, as there are various interlocking facets and attributes to this composite Antichrist system.

Keep in mind that Adventists do not believe that the Harlot Woman sitting on the Beast only represents the Papacy, but a combination of both Pagan and Papal Rome throughout history. Pagan Rome was also a religious system, but governed primary by political attributes. The Woman at this stage of the game did not control the Beast.

You may be interested to read my paper in how I see the relation of the Beast and the Harlot Woman in this link here:
The harlot of Babylon & Antichrist

On a number of coins, as has been pictorally demonstrated in this link here, we see that during Ancient Rome there was a Woman riding the Beast. It is seen as almost a prefigure of what was already developing at that time, as well well know that Constantine became a Christian--and Constantine was the emperor of Ancient Rome, for Ancient Rome did not cease to exist according to scholars until 476 A.D. Yet the evolution of this Christian ascendency continued through the Papal Line, taking on the title "Pontifix Maximus" for "bridge-builder". According to the link given, exhaustive exegesis has been supplied, with clear maps, to show how the Vatican also sits upon these very same 7 hills---and thus it does not take a rocket-scientists to see the continued evolution of this Woman sitting on a Beast.

We do not rule out either or. The symbol of the Woman sitting on the Beast encompasses both the times of Pagan and Papal Rome---in two different phases, but practically the same.

Concerning the seven kings, I refer you to the various possible applications according to Seventh-Day Adventists here:
http://biblelight.net/satan.htm

Lysimachus · Nov 5, 2012

MoreCoffee said:
My overall assessment is that it is very hostile to the Catholic Church. I lost interest after numerous comments about "apostate" Catholic teaching. Plus the attempt to link the red vestments worn for the days set aside to remember Martyrs seemed extremely distasteful when one considers that the red of the vestments is to recall the blood of the martyrs which was spilled in their executions. The work reflects rather deep antipathy towards everything to do with the Catholic Church. It is highly prejudicial.

It does not matter how "hostile" the link may appear to be. Data is data, and chips must fall where they fall. Truth is truth, but truth is not always comfortable. The Bible was not designed to adapt according to people's traditions, customs, or personal feelings. The Bible is a hostile book against everyone's personal lifestyle, thus, we must face the fact that the Bible is hostile against all that is wrong, no matter how right we think it is. The Bible is even hostile toward the Adventist denomination, exposing many of its worldliness, corrupts, and deceptions. Regardless, there are good people in it, just like there are good people in the Catholic denomination.

I could link you numerous of Catholic Websites that appear "hostile" toward Protestants and Adventists as well.

The purpose of the link is to provide exegetical arguments revealing that the characteristics of the Vatican meet the Biblical description of the Harlot Woman sitting on 7 hills. We are dealing with interpretations here, not hostility. Hostile or not, the facts must be discussed.

MoreCoffee · Nov 6, 2012

Lysimachus said:
It does not matter how "hostile" the link may appear to be. Data is data, and chips must fall where they fall. Truth is truth, but truth is not always comfortable. The Bible was not designed to adapt according to people's traditions, customs, or personal feelings. The Bible is a hostile book against everyone's personal lifestyle, thus, we must face the fact that the Bible is hostile against all that is wrong, no matter how right we think it is. The Bible is even hostile toward the Adventist denomination, exposing many of its worldliness, corrupts, and deceptions. Regardless, there are good people in it, just like there are good people in the Catholic denomination.

I could link you numerous of Catholic Websites that appear "hostile" toward Protestants and Adventists as well.

The purpose of the link is to provide exegetical arguments revealing that the characteristics of the Vatican meet the Biblical description of the Harlot Woman sitting on 7 hills. We are dealing with interpretations here, not hostility. Hostile or not, the facts must be discussed.

The article was not accurate.

Ellen White on the Sabbath

Vindicating our Historic Biblical Foundations

Vindicating our Historic Biblical Foundations

Repentance works.

Repentance works.

Repentance works.

Member

Member

Repentance works.

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Vindicating our Historic Biblical Foundations

Vindicating our Historic Biblical Foundations

Vindicating our Historic Biblical Foundations

Vindicating our Historic Biblical Foundations

Vindicating our Historic Biblical Foundations

Vindicating our Historic Biblical Foundations

Repentance works.

Similar threads