Ellen White on the Sabbath

MoreCoffee,

You would do well to read the book, "The Two Babylons" by Alexander Hislop. And yes, I'm well aware of the so called "refutations" of this book that exist. It has been amusing to watch the extremely weak and futile attempts that have been made to discredit the sound scholarship that has gone into that book.

MoreCoffee said:

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.

Click to expand...

Scripture does not trump me. Your interpretation of what that text says trumps you.

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.

You do not perceive this because you do not want to.

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.

Nice try MoreCoffee, but thus far, I remain unimpressed.

I agree with most of what More Coffee and that other strange dude is stating. But such poppycock over inconsequential "stuff". Tell me about the kingdom of Christ , and, about the Holy Spirit.

MoreCoffee said:

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.

Click to expand...

She is identified as a city, to be more precise, Babylon--and that name is written on her forehead-Rev 17:5. Obviously, that is not the same Babylon that was at the time of Daniel--that city died and God said she would be left desolate and never be rebuilt--which it hasn't. And in this new Babylon has been found the blood of the prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.--again, can't be the old Babylon. Rev 18:4 "And I heard another voice from heaven saying, come out of her my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues."
It will burn, and never be inhabited again--and be found no more at all. And goes on to say that there will be no music coming from her, a candle shall not shine no more at all in thee--and no craftsman, and no bride or groom, and no sound of millstone. And no man buyeth her merchandise anymore.
Well--I don't think that has happened yet. Rome has lots of music, craftsmen, brides and grooms and there is a lot of buying going on over there. It is not desolate. And in Rev 19 it goes on about the voice of a great multitude praising God for judging her. And then right after that the voice of a great multitude saying rejoice and give honor to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb is come.
Doesn't sound like it could be pagan Rome, as right after her permanent destruction, comes the marriage supper of the Lamb.

mmksparbud said:

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?

Click to expand...

If someone is afraid to obey the Law then he shouldn't be preaching it.

Holy Ghost Poster said:

I agree with most of what More Coffee and that other strange dude is stating. But such poppycock over inconsequential "stuff". Tell me about the kingdom of Christ , and, about the Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

Rev 1:3--BLESSED IS HE THAT READETH, AND THEY THAT HEAR THE WORDS OF THIS PROPHECY, AND KEEP THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE WRITTEN THEREIN, FOR THE TIME IS AT HAND.

Not poppycock over inconsequential stuff--I would be very leary of saying that the things that are written here are inconsequential stuff. It is the Word of God, and the final Chapter not only of the bible, but of this world.

MoreCoffee said:

My question for readers is this, who would know more about what the apostles did and what example they set regarding the day or days on which to gather for worship; would it be Ellen White writing in the latter part of the 19th century or would it be the early church fathers writing in the first and second centuries?

Let's see what the evidence from the early centuries says:

1. 1st Century A.D. Saint Luke the evangelist: “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them.” Acts 20:7.

Click to expand...

1. 
   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.
   
   

   MoreCoffee said:

   [*]1st Century A.D. saint John the evangelist: “I was in the spirit on the Lord’s Day.” Rev. 1:10.

   Click to expand...

   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)

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)

Click to expand...

I have yet to see anyone showing a reason John the Revelator switches from sabbath to Lord's Day. He used sabbath in his Gospel. Why does a natural born Jew refrain from saying sabbath if they are referring to it?

Please give a valid plausable defense for such a position.

bugkiller

mmksparbud said:

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.

Click to expand...

But were they denied life and sent to the warm place because of their works or because their name was not written in the Book of Life? It must be obvious that their works did not get their name in the Book of Life.

bugkiller

Lysimachus said:

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?

Click to expand...

subterfuge? Really give him a break. Is he really employing deception or is he attempting to discuss the truth? Do you know anything besides condemnation? Can you make your points without tearing someone else down? It does not make you look good. Bet I am not the only who has picked this up.

bugkiller

Elder 111 said:

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!

Click to expand...

Maybe you should edit this to reflect more like what you historically post here.

bugkiller

Elder 111 said:

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

Click to expand...

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

MoreCoffee said:

Your comments regarding Nebuchadnezzar are irrelevant and inaccurate; Nebuchadnezzar is never said to be a city in Daniel's writings however the woman who, by the way, is not a person but an element of a vision, is said to be the city identified in the vision. That city is Rome. Thus the woman is Rome. The woman is not, I repeat, not a person, while Nebuchadnezzar was, I repeat was, a person.

The vision in Revelation is explicit. The explanation of the vision is given in revelation 17 in these words:

When I saw her, I marveled greatly. But the angel said to me, "Why do you marvel? I will tell you the mystery of the woman, and of the beast with seven heads and ten horns that carries her. The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to rise from the bottomless pit and go to destruction. And the dwellers on earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world will marvel to see the beast, because it was and is not and is to come. This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated; they are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come, and when he does come he must remain only a little while. As for the beast that was and is not, it is an eighth but it belongs to the seven, and it goes to destruction. And the ten horns that you saw are ten kings who have not yet received royal power, but they are to receive authority as kings for one hour, together with the beast. These are of one mind, and they hand over their power and authority to the beast. They will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those with him are called and chosen and faithful."

And the angel said to me, "The waters that you saw, where the prostitute is seated, are peoples and multitudes and nations and languages. And the ten horns that you saw, they and the beast will hate the prostitute. They will make her desolate and naked, and devour her flesh and burn her up with fire, for God has put it into their hearts to carry out his purpose by being of one mind and handing over their royal power to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled. And the woman that you saw is the great city that has dominion over the kings of the earth."
(Revelation 17:6b-18)
​

There really is no room for inserting "the woman is a religious organisation" or "the woman is a church" when we are explicitly told that the woman is the great city. The great city is Rome as it was when John wrote the Revelation; Rome, the centre of empire, the seat of power, the home of the Emperor, and the persecutor of the saints from Nero to Maxentius.

Click to expand...

No. Your assessment is inaccurate as well as false. I repeat: 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.

It is impossible for a city to sit on many nations, thus, the symbolism reveals that this city is a symbol for a system that encompasses the globe.

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".


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.


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?


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.

The Papacy has made Biblical symbolism out to look very foolish.

The Catholic teachings are unbibiblical, and devoid all reason and logic as has just been revealed.

Yikes, I just cannot get over how none of your logic ever seems to add up MoreCoffee. It's like everything that I say, you stretch so far to try and make it look absurd, but everyone reading can see the plain parallels, even though you cannot.

It is beyond human comprehension how you cannot see that this "city" sits on "water", which represents "peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues". Therefore, you cannot limit this woman (city) to the Pagan Roman City of Antiquity.

It is not difficult to see why this "Harlot Woman" was seen as in existence in the days of John.

While the Papacy was not fully able to exercise power until the removal of the Roman Empire, it is evident that the elements of the Papacy already began to brew beginning in the days of Paul, through the "apostasia" that was creeping into the Church. Such apostasy was the fusion between Church craft and State craft, the co-mingling of Church and State, and Paganism and Christianity. This "fusing" that began as early as the first century eventually "matured" or "evolved" into the monumental Apostasy known as the Papal See. This "Harlot Woman" began in the days of Paul, but is seen as eventually taking over the world. Also, the Beast and the Harlot Woman are one and the same.

Vatican City it was---Rome. Nonetheless, this "literal City" symbolizes the entire Papal System on a global basis....

...just like the New Jerusalem represents God's Church on the whole earth. The Literal City is a "symbol" of a spiritual entity.

Thus, the Woman and the City are interchangeable.

One more time: I will not keep arguing with you this point MoreCoffee, because you have already been proven wrong. Your theology is Wrong. Catholic Theology is unbiblical. It is false. It is wrong teaching.