Ellen White on the Sabbath

[bugkiller]

I wouldn't know. Seems more biblically correct than fat little babys with
wings and those horrible scenes depicting hell and those that teach purgatory. The bible does talk about the books being opened and judgement coming from what is wriiten in them

Rev 20:12-15 "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God, and the books were opened: and another book was opened which is the book of life--and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it: and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were caste into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was caste into the fire."
So he was depicting that--what's the big deal--John is looking up into heaven, so he drew some clouds--why do you have to try and tear him down for that? And the only High Priestly garments we have a description of were those of Aaron, and since all the earthly sanctuary items were patterned after the heavenly, He depicted those---no one knows for sure what it all is like, he was just going by what the bible says and trying to depict it--just like your artists do. Peace.

So what about being judged for one's works. From the passage quoted what seems to matter is if one's name is written in the book of life. One's name only gets placed there by one thing - accepting Jesus as one's Saviour which has nothing to do with works of the law.

bugkiller

 

[mmksparbud]

So what about being judged for one's works. From the passage quoted what seems to matter is if one's name is written in the book of life. One's name only gets placed there by one thing - accepting Jesus as one's Saviour which has nothing to do with works of the law.

bugkiller

I simply quoted a bible verse to see why the artist depicted what he did--I do not have the power to change the word of God. It says what it says.

 

[dollarsbill]

I simply quoted a bible verse to see why the artist depicted what he did--I do not have the power to change the word of God. It says what it says.

And it says that God's people are to throw stones at sinners until they die.

 

[mmksparbud]

And it says that God's people are to throw stones at sinners until they die.

Well, if you want to, go right ahead--but it could end you in jail for murder. But if you are convinced that that is what God wants, spending the rest of your life in jail should not matter--want me to be 1st in line?

 

[bugkiller]

The point of my reference was to dispute your claim that Romans 7 speaks to the law being made void or abolished. So that I am addressing Romans 7 only. Why did you not stick with that passage? So the question still stands, does Romans 7 really say that the law is abolished?
Now you have referred to Eze. 20 Jer. 31 and Hosea 2, but these do not speak to the removing of the law. God is in fact is speaking of removing the Jews because they had failed to obey the law. That is the context.
A new covenant is or was needed because they broke the first. Eze 22:
26Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them.
27 Her princes in the midst thereof are like wolves ravening the prey, to shed blood, and to destroy souls, to get dishonest gain.
28 And her prophets have daubed them with untempered morter, seeing vanity, and divining lies unto them, saying, Thus saith the Lord God, when the Lord hath not spoken.
(the same can be said of us today)
This is the law that is removed.
Heb. 10:8
8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
;

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.

 

[bugkiller]

Originally Posted by Elder 111

Originally Posted by Elder 111

Do we know that the Sabbath is a sign of sanctification? So all those who refuse to acknowledge God holy 7th day Sabbath are not sanctified.
​

Originally Posted by MoreCoffee

Nope.
​

We know that we ought not to let people sit in judgement of us regarding annual feasts, monthly new moons, and weekly sabbaths.
​

Eze. 20:12 Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I [am] the LORD that sanctify them.
Is it that only Israel can be sanctified?

​

You missed something here. In a very big way too. The law or the Sabbath does not sanctify nor does it say so in the passage or the entire bible. It says that it is a sign of sanctification, so that as you have said, Jesus sanctifies and the bible says that the Sabbath is a sign of that sanctification.

No it does not say the law or the sabbath is a sign of sanctification.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Do you know that fulfill means to carry out or perform and not remove?

Yes and once the contract is completed it has no further value except as material in the file cabinet. It is good reference material.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

I don't read that in my bibel.

That is not our probelm. Read the Bible and all of it.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

I don't read that in my bibel.

Deut 5:3 and even the verse you quoted Eze 20:12.

bugkiller

 

[MamaZ]

Yes and once the contract is completed it has no further value except as material in the file cabinet. It is good reference material.

bugkiller

Exactly..

 

[mmksparbud]

mmksparbud, I read your last post and still no mention in revelation of any ten commandments in heaven. Still no tablets of stone with the ten commandments inscribed thereon in heaven. But we do have a woman who is pregnant with the one who will rule the nations with a rod of Iron and we do have her seen immediately after the temple was opened and the ark seen within. We also have the knowledge from Paul that the Church is the temple of God and what would be more appropriate than that the ark in the heart of the church would be Jesus and his mother, representing the human nature (Mary being a woman and merely human) and the divine nature (Jesus being her son, incarnate of the virgin Mary, and God, the only Son of the Father, conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the virgin Mary). This seems to fit John's vision very well indeed and it is the way early church fathers saw this vision.

I quoted from Rev 20--by way of explaining what the artist was depicting---The whole chapter before Rev.20--which would be Rev 19, and in the whole chapter after it--Rev 21--The pregnant woman does not appear. Why do you say we see her "immediately after the temple was opened?" She appeared in Chapter 12 and the temple isn't even mentioned,
it says "and there appeared a great wonder in heaven..." no temple.
If I had written what you wrote, I would have been accused of missleading---What do you want me to do--rewrite the bible to suite your interpretation?--I suggest that next time you read what is written first.
Rev 12 is the chapter of the woman who gives birth, and of course, it's talking about Jesus. And it talks about the great red dragon who was wroth with the woman and the last verse reads--"And the dragon was wroth with the woman and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ."
And the woman does represent the church--a pure woman. The great harlot, in chapter 17, dressed in scarlet and purple, is a false church.
But neither woman is pictured immediately after the temple in heaven was opened. That is in Rev 11:19. That's where the ark of the testament is seen. As I said, this is an artists depiction of Jesus Christ as our high preist. The ark of the testament on earth was made after the pattern in heaven. On earth the ark contained the 10 commandments.
You guys have certainly made a big deal out of those pictures.
Rev 20:12-15 is where the artist is depicting the judgement of the dead as stated there---I didn't write it--the bible is talking about the books of the dead and the book of life. Sheesh-- I can hardly wait to see how the artist portrays the great harlot and the pure woman and how you're all going to go nuts with those.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I quoted from Rev 20--by way of explaining what the artist was depicting---The whole chapter before Rev.20--which would be Rev 19, and in the whole chapter after it--Rev 21--The pregnant woman does not appear. Why do you say we see her "immediately after the temple was opened?" She appeared in Chapter 12 and the temple isn't even mentioned,
it says "and there appeared a great wonder in heaven..." no temple. If I had written what you wrote, I would have been accused of misleading---What do you want me to do--rewrite the bible to suite your interpretation?--I suggest that next time you read what is written first.

Rev 12 is the chapter of the woman who gives birth, and of course, it's talking about Jesus. And it talks about the great red dragon who was wroth with the woman and the last verse reads--"And the dragon was wroth with the woman and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ."
And the woman does represent the church--a pure woman. The great harlot, in chapter 17, dressed in scarlet and purple, is a false church.

But neither woman is pictured immediately after the temple in heaven was opened. That is in Rev 11:19. That's where the ark of the testament is seen. As I said, this is an artists depiction of Jesus Christ as our high priest. The ark of the testament on earth was made after the pattern in heaven. On earth the ark contained the 10 commandments.

You guys have certainly made a big deal out of those pictures.
Rev 20:12-15 is where the artist is depicting the judgement of the dead as stated there---I didn't write it--the bible is talking about the books of the dead and the book of life. Sheesh-- I can hardly wait to see how the artist portrays the great harlot and the pure woman and how you're all going to go nuts with those.

mmksparbud,

You asked: "Why do you say we see her "immediately after the temple was opened?" ".

I reply: The passage says: And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail. And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. (Revelation 11:19-12:2)

You say: "The great harlot, in chapter 17, dressed in scarlet and purple, is a false church."

I reply: The woman in revelation 17 is pagan Rome, a city that sat on seven hills. Today the city of Rome is very large and includes many more than seven hills. So this woman on the scarlet beast with seven heads and ten horns is pagan Rome the persecutor of the brethren.

When John wrote Revelation he was in prison for his testimony to Jesus, "I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ."

And when John saw the woman on the scarlet beast he says, "And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus". Thus it appears that John was experiencing some of the persecution that pagan Rome inflicted upon the saints in his day. Many were martyred in those days, towards the end of the first century and the beginning of the second. Saint Ignatius of Antioch was one - he left us his final letters, written while on his journey to Rome to be executed. Saints Paul and Peter were also martyred in Rome, under Nero, a few decades earlier. It may be significant that the dragon from Revelation 12:3 is also red. I do not think that this woman or the beast represents the church or any christian church of any kind but it does fit well the descriptions given to pagan religions throughout the bible.

You say: "But neither woman is pictured immediately after the temple in heaven was opened. That is in Rev 11:19."

I reply: Revelation 11:19 is the verse before revelation 12:1 where the woman who gives birth to the Christ is described. It follows immediately after the words, "And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail." Notice how the passage appears once the chapter and verse numbers (inserted in the middle ages) are removed.

And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail. And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.
(Revelation 11:19-12:2)
​

You say: "The ark of the testament on earth was made after the pattern in heaven. On earth the ark contained the 10 commandments."

I reply: The ark of the covenant included not only the tablets of stone with the ten commandments inscribed thereon but also a container wherein was contained manna, and also Aaron's rod that blossomed was in the ark. The first item, the ten commandments, is, as you have often said, the word of God, his laws, as it were. The second item is the bread that came from heaven to feed the people of Israel in the wilderness. The third item was the rod of Aaron which blossomed to show that he was the priest of God most high, chosen by God. This is described for us in Hebrews, "For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary. And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all; Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant; And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly." (Hebrews 9:2-5) It would be instructive to explain what each of these items signified in the life and person of Christ but for now it is sufficient to note these things: (1) the commandments represent Christ as the Word of God, (2) the manna represents Christ as the bread of heaven, (3) the rod that blossomed represents Christ the high priest chosen by God. Thus we have in the heavenly temple Christ as priest and mercy seat and covenant and food for life. This is not how SDAs see the temple service in heaven, but it is how the Church sees it and has seen it for the best part of two thousand years.

 

[Elder 111]

You'll have to read your bible more then. Torah means law, the law is the Torah, and Torah means the five books of Moses. That is why Jesus spoke of the law (Torah) and the Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the 12 minor prophets). Take a look at Matthew 5:17-18.

While the law maybe a,s you put it, refer to the five books of Moses it also means the ten commandments or any individual law or set of laws. One must read the context to see what is being implied. It is not one size fit all!

 

[MoreCoffee]

While the law maybe a,s you put it, refer to the five books of Moses it also means the ten commandments or any individual law or set of laws. One must read the context to see what is being implied. It is not one size fit all!

In Matthew 5:17-18 it is explicit; "the Law and the Prophets" is without doubt a reference to the Mosaic books and the prophetic books. Context here establishes that "the law" is not a reference to the ten commandments apart from what I listed previously - "The law, which includes all the sacrificial laws and priestly laws and dietary laws and civil laws and commandments was given to Israel thus the sign of sanctification was given to Israel but not to the whole world. But now we have Christ who is saviour of the whole world and who sanctifies all of his people and whose sign is not the sabbath but the cross that we carry as his disciples."

 

[Elder 111]

In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
(Hebrews 8:13)

Again a process of one size fit all. Not the case here, look at what is the subject of the text.
8 For finding fault with them, (Who or what was at fault? Not the law but the Jews) he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. (they broke the covenant so it was void because of disobedience not because the law needed to be changed or was changed. The terms of the agreement was broken so there could be no valid covenant. A new must be made. Not a new law but a new agreement. In other words let start over.)

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: (Oops! The same law is now in the heart)

11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. ( I will forget what happen before and start over.)

13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Yes a new covenant but with the same old ten commandments including the Sabbath

 

[MoreCoffee]

Again a process of one size fit all. Not the case here, look at what is the subject of the text.
8 For finding fault with them, (Who or what was at fault? Not the law but the Jews) he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. (they broke the covenant so it was void because of disobedience not because the law needed to be changed or was changed. The terms of the agreement was broken so there could be no valid covenant. A new must be made. Not a new law but a new agreement. In other words let start over.)

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: (Oops! The same law is now in the heart)

11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. ( I will forget what happen before and start over.)

13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Yes a new covenant but with the same old ten commandments including the Sabbath

The above is a pretty piece of sophistry but not serious exegesis.

Albert Barnes writes:

Hebrews 8:13

In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old - That is, the use of the word “new” implies that the one which it was to supersede was “old.” New and old stand in contradistinction from each other. Thus, we speak of a new and old house, a new and old garment, etc. The object of the apostle is to show that by the very fact of the arrangement for a new dispensation differing so much from the old, it was implied of necessity that that was to be superseded, and would vanish away. This was one of the leading points at which he arrived.

Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away - This is a general truth which would be undisputed, and which Paul applies to the case under consideration. An old house, or garment; an ancient tree; an aged man, all have indications that they are soon to disappear. They cannot be expected to remain long. The very fact of their growing old is an indication that they will soon be gone. So Paul says it was with the dispensation that was represented as old. It had symptoms of decay. It had lost the vigour which it had when it was fresh and new; it had every mark of an antiquated and a declining system; and it had been expressly declared that a new and more perfect dispensation was to be given to the world. Paul concluded, therefore, that the Jewish system must soon disappear.
​

He goes on to make some remarks which are instructive reading, I do not know if you will read them but I will quote them for those who wish to.

Remarks

1. The fact that we have a high priest, is suited to impart consolation to the pious mind; Heb_8:1-5. He ever lives, and is ever the same. He is a minister of the true sanctuary, and is ever before the mercy-seat. He enters there not once a year only, but has entered there to abide there for ever. We can never approach the throne of mercy without having a high priest there - for he at all times, day and night, appears before God. The merits of his sacrifice are never exhausted, and God is never wearied with hearing his pleadings in behalf of his people. He is the same that he was when he gave himself on the cross. He has the same love and the same compassion which he had then, and that love which led him to make the atonement, will lead him always to regard with tenderness those for whom he died.

2. It is a privilege to live under the blessings of the Christian system; Heb_8:6. We have a better covenant than the old one was - one less expensive and less burdensome, and one that is established upon better promises. Now the sacrifice is made, and we do not have to renew it every day. It was made once for all, and need never be repeated. Having now a high priest in heaven who has made the sacrifice, we may approach him in any part of the earth, and at all times, and feel that our offering will be acceptable to him. If there is any blessing for which we ought to be thankful, it is for the Christian religion; for we have only to look at any portion of the pagan world, or even to the condition of the people of God under the comparatively dark and obscure Jewish dispensation, to see abundant reasons for thanksgiving for what we enjoy.

3. Let us often contemplate the mercies of the new dispensation with which we are favored - the favors of that religion whose smiles and sunshine we are permitted to enjoy; Heb_8:10-12. It contains all that we want, and is exactly adapted to our condition. It has that for which every man should be thankful; and has not one thing which should lead a man to reject it. It furnishes all the security which we could desire for our salvation; lays upon us no oppressive burdens or charges; and accomplishes all which we ought to desire in our souls. Let us contemplate a moment the arrangements of that “covenant,” and see how suited it is to make man blessed and happy.

First, It writes the laws of God on the mind and the heart; Heb_8:10. It not only reveals them, but it secures their observance. It has made arrangements for disposing people to keep the laws a thing which has not been introduced into any other system. Legislators may enact good laws, but they cannot induce others to obey them; parents may utter good precepts, but they cannot engrave them on the hearts of their children; and sages may express sound maxims and just precepts in morals, but there is no security that they will be regarded. So in all the pagan world - there is no power to inscribe good maxims and rules of living on the heart. They may be written; recorded on tablets; hung up in temples; but still people will not regard them. They will still give indulgence to evil passions, and lead wicked lives. But it is not so with the arrangement which God has made in the plan of salvation. One of the very first provisions of that plan is, that the laws shall be inscribed on the heart, and that there shall be a disposition to obey. Such a systcm is what man wants, and such a system he can nowhere else find.

Secondly, This new arrangement “reveals to us” a God such as we need; Heb_8:10. It contains the promise that he will be “our God.” He will be to his people all that can be “desired in God;” all that man could wish. He is just such a God as the human mind, when it is pure, most loves; has all the attributes which it could be desired there should be in his character; has done all that we could desire a God to do; and is ready to do all that we could wish a God to perform. “Man wants a God;” a God in whom he can put confidence, and on whom he can rely. The ancient Greek philosopher wanted a God - and he would then have made a beautiful and efficient system of morals; the pagan want a God - to dwell in their empty temples, and in their corrupt hearts; the Atheist wants a God to make him calm, contented, and happy in this life - for he has no God now, and man everywhere, wretched, sinful, suffering, dying, wants a God. Such a God is revealed in the Bible - one whose character we may contemplate with ever-increasing admiration; one who has all the attributes which we can desire; one who will minister to us all the consolation which we need in this world; and one who will be to us the same God forever and ever.

Thirdly, The new covenant contemplates the diffusion of “knowledge;” Heb_8:11. This too was what man needed, for everywhere else he has been ignorant of God and of the way of salvation. The whole pagan world is sunk in ignorance, and indeed all people, except as they are enlightened by the gospel, are in profound darkness on the great questions which most nearly pertain to their welfare. But it is not so with the new arrangement which God has made with his people. It is a fact that they know the Lord, and a dispensation which would produce that is just what man needed. There are two things hinted at in Heb_8:11, which are worthy of more than a passing notice, illustrating the excellency of the Christian religion. The first is, that in the new dispensation “all would know the Lord.” The matter of fact is, that the obscurest and most unlettered Christian often has a knowledge of God which sages never had, and which is never obtained except by the teachings of the Spirit of God. However this may be accounted for, the fact cannot be denied.

There is a clear and elevating view of God; a knowledge of him which exerts a practical influence on the heart, and which transforms the soul; and a correctness of apprehension in regard to what truth is, possessed by the humble Christian, though a peasant, which philosophy never imparted to its votaries. Many a sage would be instructed in the truths of religion if he would sit down and converse with the comparatively unlearned Christian, who has no book but his Bible. The other thing hinted at here is, that all would know the Lord “from the least to the greatest.” Children and youth, as well as age and experience, would have an acquaintance with God. This promise is remarkably verified under the new dispensation. One of the most striking things of the system is, the attention which it pays to the young; one of its most wonderful effects is the knowledge which it is the means of imparting to those in early life. Many a child in the Sunday School has a knowledge of God which Grecian sages never had; many a youth in the Church has a more consistent acquaintance with God’s real plan of governing and saving people, than all the teachings which philosophy could ever furnish.

Fourthly, The new dispensation contemplates the pardon of sin, and is, therefore, suited to the condition of man; Heb_8:12. It is what man needs. The knowledge of some way of pardon is what human nature has been sighing for for ages; which has been sought in every system of religion, and by every bloody offering; but which has never been found elsewhere. The philosopher had no assurance that God would pardon, and indeed one of the chief aims of the philosopher has been to convince himself that he had no need of pardon. The pagan have had no assurance that their offerings have availed to put away the divine anger, and to obtain forgiveness. “The only assurance anywhere furnished that sin may be forgiven, is in the Bible.” This is the great uniqueness of the system recorded there, and this it is which renders it so valuable above all the other systems. It furnishes the assurance that sins may be pardoned, and shows how it may be done. This is what we must have, or perish. And why, since Christianity reveals a way of forgiveness - a way honorable to God and not degrading to man - why should any man reject it? Why should not the guilty embrace a system which proclaims pardon to the guilty, and which assures all that, if they will embrace him who is the “Mediator of the new covenant,” “God will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and will remember their iniquities no more.”
​

 

[mmksparbud]

Ok---finally, after a week, I got some sleep----Thank you Lord--my, what a difference that makes!

Now--where were we--Ahh-yes--Absolutely, you are right Rev 11:19 is the ark of the testament, and yes, Rev 12, right after that is the pure woman, that gives birth to Christ, which does represent Christs church. It is the Verse in Rev 19:13 that someone took offense to because it states that the wicked are judged from the books according to their works--they objected to the works part--but I can't help that, that is what it says. I going back and forth between the 2 posts, I was getting things twisted together---open mouth, insert foot---God's way of keeping me humble.
Back to the woman--the bride of Christ is also represented by a pure, woman.---The great harlot in scarlet would therefore, represent a false church, definately, not the bride of Christ. You say it is pagan Rome, well, ok, you can say that--but, a woman represents a church, not a pagan country. ---A country, or a power was represented by an animal--Lion=Babylon, Greece=leopard, and the terrible beast, with iron teeth was Rome. The woman on the beast is a false church in a country. The eagle is America--the bear is Russia in these modern times, we still represent a country with an animal--The american buffalo is unique to this country--and sounds an awful lot like the beast in Rev 13:11--it had 2 horns like a lamb but spoke as a dragon. Horns also represents powers. And we all agree that the Lamb is Jesus. At least we all agree on something.
Now maybe I can get back to the recent postings, if they don'[t give me a headache.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Ok---finally, after a week, I got some sleep----Thank you Lord--my, what a difference that makes!

Now--where were we--Ahh-yes--Absolutely, you are right Rev 11:19 is the ark of the testament, and yes, Rev 12, right after that is the pure woman, that gives birth to Christ, which does represent Christs church. It is the Verse in Rev 19:13 that someone took offense to because it states that the wicked are judged from the books according to their works--they objected to the works part--but I can't help that, that is what it says. I going back and forth between the 2 posts, I was getting things twisted together---open mouth, insert foot---God's way of keeping me humble.

Back to the woman--the bride of Christ is also represented by a pure, woman.---The great harlot in scarlet would therefore, represent a false church, definately, not the bride of Christ. You say it is pagan Rome, well, ok, you can say that--but, a woman represents a church, not a pagan country. ---A country, or a power was represented by an animal--Lion=Babylon, Greece=leopard, and the terrible beast, with iron teeth was Rome. The woman on the beast is a false church in a country. The eagle is America--the bear is Russia in these modern times, we still represent a country with an animal--The american buffalo is unique to this country--and sounds an awful lot like the beast in Rev 13:11--it had 2 horns like a lamb but spoke as a dragon. Horns also represents powers. And we all agree that the Lamb is Jesus. At least we all agree on something.

Now maybe I can get back to the recent postings, if they don'[t give me a headache.

mmksparbud, I read your post and have some things to answer.

You say: "a woman represents a church, not a pagan country"

I reply: Why do you think that? The passage in Revelation 17 says "And the woman that you saw is the great city that has dominion over the kings of the earth." (Revelation 17:18) That's pagan Rome, a city that was, in ancient times, built on seven hills. The hills are still there, I think, but the city is much bigger now than it was when John wrote the Revelation. Rome, pagan Rome, was the seat of empire and it was from Rome that the Emperors ruled and issued edicts to persecute the brethren. It is not a religion, it is a city and a quite wicked city when John was writing.

 

[Lysimachus]

mmksparbud, I read your post and have some things to answer.

You say: "a woman represents a church, not a pagan country"

I reply: Why do you think that? The passage in Revelation 17 says "And the woman that you saw is the great city that has dominion over the kings of the earth." (Revelation 17:18) That's pagan Rome, a city that was, in ancient times, built on seven hills. The hills are still there, I think, but the city is much bigger now than it was when John wrote the Revelation. Rome, pagan Rome, was the seat of empire and it was from Rome that the Emperors ruled and issued edicts to persecute the brethren. It is not a religion, it is a city and a quite wicked city when John was writing.

Wishful thinking my friend, wishful thinking. One can try to skip, hop, and dance between the raindrops all they want, but they will not get out of the irrefutable fact that a Woman represents not only a City, but a Religious System as well. One cannot pidgin hole a symbol to represent only one aspect of a certain entity. The fact is, she sits ON a city. She is the City simply because she represents the city, just like Nebuchadnezzar, the Head of Gold, was a single man, yet was a symbol for the entire Babylon, for which Daniel 2 says, "and after THEE shall arise ANOTHER kingdom".

Since the Papal Religious system is the heredity of the Babylonian System that goes all the way back to Nimrod and Sun Worship, it is fitting that a Religion and a City are symbolized by a Harlot Woman.

The subterfuge has thus far proven to not give you the favor you have been hoping for.

The fact is, it is understood amidst a number of theological circles that the Papal System is the continuation of the Roman Pontiffs. It is said that the Popes simply replaced the Caesars who gave place to the Roman Bishops. The Papacy, it is said, is nothing more than the Pagan Roman Empire cloaked in religious garb, pretending to be Christian, when they are really not.

Thus, it is said by man, that the Papacy is really a Pagan System. Why do they say this?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Wishful thinking my friend, wishful thinking. One can try to skip, hop, and dance between the raindrops all they want, but they will not get out of the irrefutable fact that a Woman represents not only a City, but a Religious System as well. One cannot pidgin hole a symbol to represent only one aspect of a certain entity. The fact is, she sits ON a city. She is the City simply because she represents the city, just like Nebuchadnezzar, the Head of Gold, was a single man, yet was a symbol for the entire Babylon, for which Daniel 2 says, "and after THEE shall arise ANOTHER kingdom".

Since the Papal Religious system is the heredity of the Babylonian System that goes all the way back to Nimrod and Sun Worship, it is fitting that a Religion and a City are symbolized by a Harlot Woman.

Your Catholic commentaries have proven themselves to be nothing but Theological Lore, that for all I care, can make up part of the Dunghill for which Martin Luther cast all the monstrous doctrines of decretals.

Your subterfuge has thus far proven to not give you the favor you have been hoping for.

The fact is, the Papal System is the continuation of the Roman Pontiffs. The Popes simply replaced the Caesars who gave place to the Roman Bishops. The Papacy is nothing more than the Pagan Roman Empire cloaked in religious garb, pretending to be Christian, when they are really not.

It is a Pagan System.

You say: "The fact is, she sits ON a city. She is the City simply because she represents the city"

Scripture says: And the woman that you saw is the great city that has dominion over the kings of the earth.

I say: scripture trumps you.