BrightCandle,
++Time and time again on Christian Forums other members have tried to marginalize comments by SDA members by saying that they are just repeating what their church says, while the same thing could be said about your posts, as well as the other member's posts++
No offense meant, but it is true that often people will adopt their churches view over what the Bible says. As far as repeating what my church says, no. I didnt grow up nor attend a Preteristic church.
++Why not look at the facts of History and the Bible and let them speak for themselves?++
I 100% agree with you, thats why Im a Preterist.
++ I agree that certain Protestant Reformers sanctioned the persecution of Catholics at times, but the number was minute compared to the several million martrys that historians attribute to Papal Rome.++
Though the RCC is certainly guilty, we must truly ask, one did they kill saints and two how many? There is a lot of presupposition in claiming that the RCC is Babylon. A lot.
++And what adds to its significance is the fact that Rome was built on seven hills, professed to be Christian, infallible, and directly descendent from Peter, with a highly organized religio-political structure that systematicly persecuted thousands of Christians (Waldenses, Huegonots, ect) over a period of many centuries, which cannot be said of the Protestant movement.++
The problem is this, no of those things can concretely state that the RCC is Babylon. This is still Protestant demonizing from the Middle Ages, it is not Biblical. Especially when one includes strict time indicators as found in the Bible.
++I agree that the Jews did persecute the prophets,++
Yes. And that Jesus said that that specific generation would be responsible for all the righteous blood spilled.
++but Preterists loose perspective when they limit the application of prophesy to the past, while SDAs and almost all of the Protestant Reformers, were historists which takes a look a long view of history to get a better perspective, by not trying to make all things prophetic being fullfilled in past, or as the futurist trying to make all things prophetic being fullfilled in the future.++
I dont think Preterists make all things prophetic being fulfilled in the past, the Bible just demands that they be lest the Bible be wrong. Prophecy is a major area of attack by non believers, and rightfully so. The Bible clearly demands 1st Century fulfillment. If one doesnt put things in the past, they are a futurist. Even the made up title of Partial Preterist is still just a futurist in Preteristic clothes.
++SDAs just built on the foundation that was laid by the majority of the Protestant Reformers (Luther, Wesley, etc.), and was that the "harlot of Bablylon" arose out of Pagan Rome, when Papal Rome became the dominant religio-political force in the West.++
I know, but dont you see, thats the problem!! The overwhelming bulk of Protestant faiths get their understanding of Revelation and the End from the Protestant Fathers, not from the Bible.
++Here is the reference that you wanted regarding the Roman Church being called the "Mistress of the West", it is from the article "Latin Church" taken from the online Catholic Encyclpedia, you can view the whole article online.
"The expression "Church of Rome", it should be noted, though commonly applied by non-Catholics to the whole Catholic body, can only be used correctly in this secondary sense for the local diocese (or possibly the province) of Rome, mother and mistress of all Churches."++
Thank you. Not an exact quote as we can see and it still doesnt make the RCC to be Babylon.
++Note, that I didn't say that Sunday worship originated with the Roman Catholic Church, I said that with the Church of Rome, meaning with the early Christian church that was in Rome in the early part of the second century. Yes, there were other regions of Christendom where Sunday worship was being celebrated, but what set Rome apart was its early abandonment of Sabbath worship, and the enactment of laws against Sabbath worship, that were further promoted in later centuries by Papal Rome. In the fifth century the historian Socrates Scholasticus wrote: "For although almost all the churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries [the Lord's Supper] on the sabbath of the every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this". Ecclesiastical History book 5, chap. 22, p. 289++
The above problem is that Ive given much earlier sources that verify that Christians were not worshipping on the Sabbath, sources that are hundreds of years before Socrates Scholasticus. Also, the subject of Chapter 22 of Scholasticus Ecclesiastical History goes back to the subject of Chapter 21 which is Easter. Let me give you another Scholasticus quote, incidently from Ecclesiastical History book 5, chap. 22 as well. It reads,
For they have not taken into consideration the fact that when Judaism was changed into Christianity, the obligation to observe the Mosaic law and the ceremonial types ceased. And the proof of the matter is plain; for no law of Christ permits Christians to imitate the Jews.
Scholasticus, echoing Colossians, later writes in the same book,
for the Jews are more solicitous about outward solemnities than the obedience of the heart; and therefore are they under the curse, because they do not discern the spiritual bearing of the Mosaic law, but rest in its types and shadows.
You must be careful to quote something not researched. Quoting Scholasticus here for SDA defense of the Sabbath and their view on Christian history is a great abuse of his work and is pulled out of context. Read it for yourself.
Lastly, only Israel was ever under the Sabbath law, Gentiles never, ever were. In the OT nor the NT. In fact in accordance with the council of Jerusalem in Acts, new Gentile converts were to only hold two laws. One was to abstain from sexual immorality and the other from the meat of strangled animals.
++History is clear that Rome's way of keeping the "Sabbath" become the norm over the passage of time, not because it was Biblical, but because of the political power that Rome used to enforce her doctrine over powered the other churches of Christendom.++
History is clear on just the opposite, as Ive demonstrated earlier. By the close of the 1st Century, Christians were worshipping on Sunday in honor of our Lord, well before the church in Rome had any real power at all.
++ Note, too, that not one of the quotes from the early church fathers regarding Sunday worship quote from the words of Jesus or the apostles as a reason for doing so, because there are none. ++
Yes, there were no quotes on Saturday worship for Gentiles because they werent under the Law. Jesus knew this as did the apostles. Thats why at the Council of Jerusalem, Sabbath worship wasnt instituted on them. Only Jews under the Old Covenant were ever under the Sabbath law.
++Worshipping Jesus on Sunday is not the "Mark of the Beast", what is the "Mark of the Beast" is when a Christian living at the end of time depicted in Revelation 14, chooses to ignore the Sabbath commandment, and chooses to obey a commandment of men (Sunday) in its place, by that person's choice they mark themselves by their loyalty. That is why the saints of Revelation 14 are described as "those who keep the commandments of God and their faith in++
Youre sort of splitting hairs arent you? Either worshipping on Sunday IS the Mark of the Beast, or it isnt. I dont see how living at the end of time can alter that. If so, one would have to establish just when the end of time was, so one could revert back to Old Covenant, Jewish standards of worship.The fact is that the Mark of the Beast being Sunday only stems from E Whites personal view. It is never verified Biblically to be the case.
BrightCandle, youre a good person and Im sure you mean well. Me too, I mean no offense. But you must make sure you can match things up accurately with the Bible and with History. SDAs view on both leave much to be desired as we have seen. I urge you to study more, take care,
SUEDE
Upvote
0
