SDA - Beast of Revelation

[JohnMarsten]

You should really speak for yourself. Like honestly. Have you studied with me to know whether or not I study Revelation and Daniel by myself?

I apologize!

u know I tend to be a little provocative...

what I meant is that SDA's dont study the books as such but rather try to more fully understand what they have been told...

or do you even consider it possible that the SDA interpretations might be wrong and that you could come up with something else once you studied it...

 

[JohnMarsten]

Oh, I love this question! Great post!

The answer is: Its not the Pope or the RCC!

The beast that once was is: Lucifer -- he once was in heaven
now is not: he's not in heaven because he was cast into the abyss
and will come up out of the abyss: at the appointed time, he will be released and come up out of the spirit realm where he has been confined and will put on a great display of authority and power

The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the Book of Life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see him. He will astonish the wicked with incredible glory, counterfeit wonders, and miracles.

would kindly explain this one to me then, according to EGW satan is in heaven again or am I wrong, maybe it helps make your assumption fit../.

Now, in 1886, according to Ellen White's manuscript 6a (see above) Jesus was standing in the Most Holy Place. But two years later, in 1888, we find him back in the Holy Place before the altar of incense. Then a year later, in 1889, Jesus is back "within the veil where he ministers above the ark of God in the Most Holy Place." (Signs of the Times, Apr. 22, 1889). However, nine years later, in 1898 we find Jesus ministering by the altar of incense in the Holy Place! How could Jesus possibly be ministering in the Holy Place? Look what Ellen White wrote from one of her visions in Early Writings:

I saw the Father rise from the throne, and in a flaming chariot go into the holy of holies within the veil, and sit down. Then Jesus rose up from the throne, and the most of those who were bowed down arose with Him. I did not see one ray of light pass from Jesus to the careless multitude after He arose, and they were left in perfect darkness. ... Then a cloudy chariot, with wheels like flaming fire, surrounded by angels, came to where Jesus was. He stepped into the chariot and was borne to the holiest, where the Father sat. There I beheld Jesus, a great High Priest, standing before the Father. (p. 55)​

Here we have the Father and Jesus moving into the Most Holy Place in 1844. Now look what happens to those poor souls who did not realize that Jesus moved from the Holy Place to the Most Holy Place in 1844:

I turned to look at the company who were still bowed before the throne; they did not know that Jesus had left it. Satan appeared to be by the throne, trying to carry on the work of God. I saw them look up to the throne, and pray, "Father, give us Thy Spirit." Satan would then breathe upon them an unholy influence... (p. 56)​

Ellen White sees Satan in the Holy Place that Jesus has just recently vacated in 1844, trying to carry on the work of God! But in 1888, Jesus has apparently returned to the Holy Place. The question is, where is Satan? Is he still there in the Holy Place with Christ? Are they working together? Or did they swap places? Did Satan move into the Most Holy Place when Christ entered the Holy Place? Does it get any more confusing than this?

 

[LogosRhema]

I think most people didnt even realize the event...

If so many missed the event, how then did was scripture fulfilled at everyone being astonished at the beasts return?

 

[LogosRhema]

There's a danger either way... you think it's not near and fritter away time and opportunities to perfect character or you obsess about the signs and current events and miss oportunities to perfect character.

If we are not centered in Him, improving our relationship with Him, learning of His true character to apply to ourselves... we are in danger.

It is definitely profitable just to remain focused on Him that's for sure!

 

[JohnMarsten]

If so many missed the event, how then did was scripture fulfilled at everyone being astonished at the beasts return?

what I meant was that most people on earth didnt even realize that something was even going on at the time... didnt say anyone was astonished...

 

[Stryder06]

I apologize!

u know I tend to be a little provocative...

what I meant is that SDA's dont study the books as such but rather try to more fully understand what they have been told...

or do you even consider it possible that the SDA interpretations might be wrong and that you could come up with something else once you studied it...

I can't make something fit that doesn't fit. If we teach that the square goes in the circle hole then obviously we're wrong. I've been to the seminars and I've read the material, and then I read from the scriptures and it simply fits. I don't think it's wise to try to find something wrong when there's nothing wrong. That's how one ends up being deceived. That aside, nothing else makes any sense when it comes to Revelation and Daniel. From what I've seen, only the SDA teaches are consistent throughout both books.

 

[LogosRhema]

what I meant was that most people on earth didnt even realize that something was even going on at the time... didnt say anyone was astonished...

Right... But scripture clearly predicts that those outside the faith will be astonished at the beasts return. If they were unaware of it even happening.... How then was this fulfilled?

 

[JohnMarsten]

Right... But scripture clearly predicts that those outside the faith will be astonished at the beasts return. If they were unaware of it even happening.... How then was this fulfilled?

Logos!!!

As a matter of fact I never claimed that it was fulfilled in any way...

 

[JohnMarsten]

I can't make something fit that doesn't fit. If we teach that the square goes in the circle hole then obviously we're wrong. I've been to the seminars and I've read the material, and then I read from the scriptures and it simply fits. I don't think it's wise to try to find something wrong when there's nothing wrong. That's how one ends up being deceived. That aside, nothing else makes any sense when it comes to Revelation and Daniel. From what I've seen, only the SDA teaches are consistent throughout both books.

thats what I meant with that SDA dont study the scriptures, they just try to make it fit with what they learned...

 

[LogosRhema]

I'm looking to see how the SDA specifically claim, now, how the astonishment was fulfilled in history according to their belief

 

[Stan Tei]

would kindly explain this one to me then, according to EGW satan is in heaven again or am I wrong, maybe it helps make your assumption fit../.

Now, in 1886, according to Ellen White's manuscript 6a (see above) Jesus was standing in the Most Holy Place. But two years later, in 1888, we find him back in the Holy Place before the altar of incense. Then a year later, in 1889, Jesus is back "within the veil where he ministers above the ark of God in the Most Holy Place." (Signs of the Times, Apr. 22, 1889). However, nine years later, in 1898 we find Jesus ministering by the altar of incense in the Holy Place! How could Jesus possibly be ministering in the Holy Place? Look what Ellen White wrote from one of her visions in Early Writings:

I saw the Father rise from the throne, and in a flaming chariot go into the holy of holies within the veil, and sit down. Then Jesus rose up from the throne, and the most of those who were bowed down arose with Him. I did not see one ray of light pass from Jesus to the careless multitude after He arose, and they were left in perfect darkness. ... Then a cloudy chariot, with wheels like flaming fire, surrounded by angels, came to where Jesus was. He stepped into the chariot and was borne to the holiest, where the Father sat. There I beheld Jesus, a great High Priest, standing before the Father. (p. 55)
​

Here we have the Father and Jesus moving into the Most Holy Place in 1844. Now look what happens to those poor souls who did not realize that Jesus moved from the Holy Place to the Most Holy Place in 1844:

I turned to look at the company who were still bowed before the throne; they did not know that Jesus had left it. Satan appeared to be by the throne, trying to carry on the work of God. I saw them look up to the throne, and pray, "Father, give us Thy Spirit." Satan would then breathe upon them an unholy influence... (p. 56)
​

Ellen White sees Satan in the Holy Place that Jesus has just recently vacated in 1844, trying to carry on the work of God! But in 1888, Jesus has apparently returned to the Holy Place. The question is, where is Satan? Is he still there in the Holy Place with Christ? Are they working together? Or did they swap places? Did Satan move into the Most Holy Place when Christ entered the Holy Place? Does it get any more confusing than this?

All these things that Ellen White saw were things in her visions. They do not pertain to the time in which she wrote them. Some are of future events and others are events that have already been fulfilled. From pg 56, it is still a future event to us today. There is no dating of any of these events which she wrote about.

 

[Stryder06]

thats what I meant with that SDA dont study the scriptures, they just try to make it fit with what they learned...

I disagree. I think SDA's study the bible just as much as anyone else. I feel like others try to make the bible fit what they've learned. This comes in when you toss out scripture A to hold to an understanding of what you may believe scripture B says. And since you can't keep em both, you explain one away. That's not what Adventist's do.

 

[JohnMarsten]

I disagree. I think SDA's study the bible just as much as anyone else. I feel like others try to make the bible fit what they've learned. This comes in when you toss out scripture A to hold to an understanding of what you may believe scripture B says. And since you can't keep em both, you explain one away. That's not what Adventist's do.

no, no, thats not how it works in the sda...

let me put is this way... because maybe I wasnt clear on what I said...

when I said SDAs dont study scripture, I didnt mean they dont read it... or they dont interpret it...

what I meant is, that SDAs have one interpretation which they pass on to their sheep, the sheep will listen to what the man in the front has to say, open their bibles when a verse is given to double check if this is really so and then jump a couple of books further in the bible to double check another verse which helps understand the previous one... so in the end, studying in the sda is just proving to yourself what you have been taught. You are given one way of thinking and now you have to study the bible in order to be fluent in this one way of thinking or interpreting... and in case you would come up with something different better not tell anyone isnt that how it goes? be honest!

 

[Stan Tei]

Allow me to interject. I came to this forum to bring new light to many different topics, all of which are of an interpretation that the mainstream SDA either does not know, or flat out rejects, because they commonly hold to a false interpretation. There are however among the "common" SDAs, those who study for themselves. It is this class that you have offended.

 

[JohnMarsten]

Allow me to interject. I came to this forum to bring new light to many different topics, all of which are of an interpretation that the mainstream SDA either does not know, or flat out rejects, because they commonly hold to a false interpretation. There are however among the "common" SDAs, those who study for themselves. It is this class that you have offended.

I apologize!

but generally speaking I think I was right, and if, in effect, those who study for themselves come up with different conclusions and try to share these... they might face some serious repercussions... so I know which techniques are used by SDAs.... in order to preserve the unity of thought

 

[JohnMarsten]

All these things that Ellen White saw were things in her visions. They do not pertain to the time in which she wrote them. Some are of future events and others are events that have already been fulfilled. From pg 56, it is still a future event to us today. There is no dating of any of these events which she wrote about.

what makes you think its a future event? the fact that it didnt happen as of yet?

 

[Stan Tei]

what makes you think its a future event? the fact that it didnt happen as of yet?

I know the quote and the point of reference. The only time in which Christ leaves His ministration in the most holy place, is when His work of mediation is finished and man's probation is ended and the announcement of Revelation 22:11 is made: "He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still."

This is still future.

 

[Stan Tei]

I apologize!

but generally speaking I think I was right, and if, in effect, those who study for themselves come up with different conclusions and try to share these... they might face some serious repercussions... so I know which techniques are used by SDAs.... in order to preserve the unity of thought

Yes, the art of repercussions is there, and has been since before 1884. Yes, generally you are correct about the belief structure you described. But there are among us those who follow a Higher authority, and will have the power of the Holy Spirit to attend our efforts.

Very shortly, there will be major changes with the SDA church. Many of which wear the label of Laodicean as though it were a badge of honor. These will find out too late to change their fate.

 

[Stryder06]

no, no, thats not how it works in the sda...

let me put is this way... because maybe I wasnt clear on what I said...

when I said SDAs dont study scripture, I didnt mean they dont read it... or they dont interpret it...

what I meant is, that SDAs have one interpretation which they pass on to their sheep, the sheep will listen to what the man in the front has to say, open their bibles when a verse is given to double check if this is really so and then jump a couple of books further in the bible to double check another verse which helps understand the previous one... so in the end, studying in the sda is just proving to yourself what you have been taught. You are given one way of thinking and now you have to study the bible in order to be fluent in this one way of thinking or interpreting... and in case you would come up with something different better not tell anyone isnt that how it goes? be honest!

No, that's not how it is. Just to be fair, I can levy the same complaint against any Christian group. Were it not so, than I wouldn't be hearing the EXACT same arguments in regards to particular issues every time they come up. Like I said, I've determined that what I believe is true because the way I've been taught to understand scripture was "line upon line, precept upon precept". I've weighed what others have taught, and every time, I've found myself saying "If I'm going to believe that to be true, that means I have to completely disregard XYZ verse." If the bible is the word of God, then no text should be accepted at the cost of excluding another.

I have no problem with my understanding being the same as those who have come before me, and more than I would have a problem with my understanding in areas of technology or math being the same as those who instructed me in those areas. If it's right it's right. And the simple fact that just about every denomination, outside of Catholicism, thinks along the lines of "No one is wrong, but no one is totally right either", gives me reason to pause and say "Why should I believe you're right, when you truly aren't convicted that you're right yourself".

Two differing opinions about a single subject, that has a single truth, cannot be right simultaneously.

 

[Stryder06]

I apologize!

but generally speaking I think I was right, and if, in effect, those who study for themselves come up with different conclusions and try to share these... they might face some serious repercussions... so I know which techniques are used by SDAs.... in order to preserve the unity of thought

This is what I need to know:

How do you know, that your interpretation of what you've studied on your own is correct? You've stated yourself that people come up with different interpretations. How can you be sure 100% that your understanding is the correct one?