Were they right?

[David777]

Hello Brakelite.

I will use SDA as an abbreviation of Seventh Day Adventist.

SDA uses their own Bible it is called the "Clear Word Bible".

SDA believe justification is in Jesus Christ plus obedience to the Ten Commandments.

SDA believe justification is in Christ plus works, example "honoring the Sabbath Day".

Protestants believe justification is in Christ alone.

Protestants believe Ten Commandments (law of Moses) are part of the Old Covenant,
between God and Israel. Now superceded by the New Covenant.

We will examine how the SDAs can force the Ten Commandments
into the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is an interesting to follow just
how they pull the rabbit out of the hat.

Anyone who has read Exodus will realize that the Ten Commandments
were given to Moses on Mount Sinai. These Ten Commandments were
engraved in stone. This was the covenant that God established with Israel.
The covenant was between God and those who departed from Egypt.

So how do they do it, by producing their own Bible with the
necessary alterations, hence the Ten Commandments did not
originate with Moses. No silly, the Ten Commandments were in fact
given to Adam and Eve. At last, the SDA have Adam and Eve
obeying the Sabbath.

Here is an example of the kind of changes that are necessary
to say the KJV.

There is an interesting mistranslation in Deut 5:3.

KJV
Deut. 5:3 The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers,
but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.

Adventists teach that the Ten Commandments were not first given
at Sinai, but were given to Adam and Eve before the fall of man,
before sin began.

Now notice the same verse from the "Clear Word Bible".

CWB
Deut. 5:3 It wasn't only with our ancestors that He made a covenant ,
but with us and with all who are alive today.

See the difference, the KJV says clearly this covenant was not with our fathers.
The Clear Word Bible says it was with the fathers, that is Adam and Eve.

That's how you pull a theological rabbit out of the Biblical hat.

Just manufacture your own Bible, the Clear Word Bible.

There is only one true Church, the Seventh Day Adventist Church.

There is only one true Bible, the Clear Word Bible.

There is only one true eschatology, the SDA eschatology.

It is the Sabbath above all that seperates the heathen scum protestants
and the heathen decieved catholic church. What are you all blind.

I think I have seen this garbage before in the JWs, Mormans, and every
other religous cult.

I checked out how many alterations there were to the KJV, lots.

Blown here and there by every wind of doctine methinks.

Cunning and deceitful.

Continue on Brakelite with your CWB presentation, I cannot stop you.

 

[amanhumblinhart]

Beasts

you must read amos 9:1-4 in light of revelation 13:3 and what stephen said that got him killed to understand; yet you will not unless you seek the holy spirit and his teaching.

i heard rabbi chaim richman say, "judaism is the mother of all religions" as he was castigating obama.

you should consider what this means regarding a certain woman of scripture, specifically revelations 17:5.

 

[brakelite]

David 777

Hi David. You would be aware that I replied on another thread which has since been scuppered, so here I am, though sorry it has taken me so long to finally get here. I have been very busy of late and had little time to spare to come to the forum.

I am most happy to have a conversation with you over SDA doctrine or teaching, just not on this thread. And I promise to use only the KJV Bible, which is what I have used exclusively all my (Christian) life.
And which, incidentally, was the Bible of choice for all our pioneers, and the Bible used in the establishment of all our teachings, including everything discussed previously on this very thread.
This thread has been progressing along its merry way for some time now, and with very few discordant objections, not even from yourself. It seems to me then having not found any Biblical or historical reason to use as an objection to accepting my line of reasoning, you have resorted to using my church affiliation as your sole objection. Funny, I have seen that sort of thinking before...mmmmm....oh yes, of course! The establishment church rejected Jesus, not because He didn't teach the truth, but because He wasn't with the 'in' crowd. Mmmm, others spring to mind who have been rejected for the very same reason...John the Baptist....all the prophets of the OT....Noah....

Like I said, happy to discuss our teachings with you.....

So David, instead of asking me my church affiliation, perhaps you might have been better advised to answer the question..."Were they right?".....so, were they?

 

[Brother Mike]

Not SDA:

Brakelite Has a point here. Me being Part of the Word of faith, Blab it and grab it group, or name it and claim it.

I have also posted some things in the past right out of the KJV, which I use most the time, to only have others mention the evil prosperity wealth grabbing Brother Copeland to make a point against my post. (Brother Copeland is none of those things)

Nothing to do with what I posted, but an attack on those I listen to, and meetings I attend.

Now mostly you will see me post about believing God, trust in the Word.

Now if I made a statement that "The force of "OUR" faith came out of us this day and "WE" healed many, and many where "SLAIN" in the spirit. Now empty your pockets and give so you won't be under the curse of poverty!!!!!

Now this is just a misconception and I believe none of that, nor listen to those that preach that.

BUT:

I would suspect David777 would have a valid point to question my root belief system had I typed something like that.

Jesus Is Lord.

 

[David777]

Hello brakelite (the martyr)

If you would be kind enough to explain just who is the antichrist brakelite.

I remember something about the papacy?

Oh and if possible in 20 lines or less, thanks.

 

[jiggyfly]

Brakelite Has a point here. Me being Part of the Word of faith, Blab it and grab it group, or name it and claim it.

I have also posted some things in the past right out of the KJV, which I use most the time, to only have others mention the evil prosperity wealth grabbing Brother Copeland to make a point against my post. (Brother Copeland is none of those things)

Nothing to do with what I posted, but an attack on those I listen to, and meetings I attend.

Now mostly you will see me post about believing God, trust in the Word.

Now if I made a statement that "The force of "OUR" faith came out of us this day and "WE" healed many, and many where "SLAIN" in the spirit. Now empty your pockets and give so you won't be under the curse of poverty!!!!!

Now this is just a misconception and I believe none of that, nor listen to those that preach that.

BUT:

I would suspect David777 would have a valid point to question my root belief system had I typed something like that.

Jesus Is Lord.

Very thought provoking post Mike, bringing to light a very common issue on the forums.
Something worth considering here is the tendency to accept a meaning of certain scriptures because of someone's errant teaching. It then begins to build an errant paradigm and progresses from there to the point that now we see all scripture differently through this errant mindset, changing and twisting the scriptures to mean something other than their intended meaning.

A very effective way to help people out of these deceptions is by exposing the errors some of the iconic teachers of the SDA, JWS, Mormons and so on. Common examples of this are John Calvin and Jacobus Arminius, or back in Jesus' day the pharisees and saducees. Same as I have done with some other groups. I used to be a partner with KC, but now I recognize his teachings as errant interpretation because of his prosperity paradigm. While it may be that this is not true with everyone, it is true with some. I also understand exposing a person's errant teaching would be perceived as a personal attack by those who hold to the errant paradigm, but it is necessary.

And now I make one more appeal, my dear brothers and sisters. Watch out for people who cause divisions and upset people’s faith by teaching things contrary to what you have been taught. Stay away from them.18 Such people are not serving Christ our Lord; they are serving their own personal interests. By smooth talk and glowing words they deceive innocent people.
Romans 16:17-18 (NLT)

Being duped or deceived is something I think we are all guilty of at some point or another in our spiritual walk, but hopefully we are all growing spiritually and we grow up out of the errant thinking just as Paul said.

11 Now these are the gifts Christ gave to the church: the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, and the pastors and teachers.12 Their responsibility is to equip God’s people to do his work and build up the church, the body of Christ.13 This will continue until we all come to such unity in our faith and knowledge of God’s Son that we will be mature in the Lord, measuring up to the full and complete standard of Christ.
14 Then we will no longer be immature like children. We won’t be tossed and blown about by every wind of new teaching. We will not be influenced when people try to trick us with lies so clever they sound like the truth.15 Instead, we will speak the truth in love, growing in every way more and more like Christ, who is the head of his body, the church.
Eph 4:11-15 (NLT)

 

[Brother Mike]

more lite.

Jiggyfly:

A very effective way to help people out of these deceptions is by exposing the errors some of the iconic teachers of the SDA, JWS, Mormons and so on. Common examples of this are John Calvin and Jacobus Arminius, or back in Jesus' day the pharisees and saducees. Same as I have done with some other groups. I used to be a partner with KC, but now I recognize his teachings as errant interpretation because of his prosperity paradigm. While it may be that this is not true with everyone, it is true with some. I also understand exposing a person's errant teaching would be perceived as a personal attack by those who hold to the errant paradigm, but it is necessary.

Very interesting. The few I have given a month break, or we as a MOD team have discussed and banned are those who hold to the superior paradigm, everyone else being looked at as confused. You can attempt to be humble, but errant belief always has a spirit of being right over anyone else. It comes out despite ones attempt to hide it.

Jesus Is Lord.

 

[brakelite]

Paul was given a ministry that encompassed the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles. In this work he had much opposition. The Jewish establishment (to which Paul claimed previous allegiance) hated his exaltation of Jesus because it ran in direct contradiction to their own traditions.
I have read from some of our Catholic friends criticising Protestants because they, the Protestants, believe we are our own Pope when it comes to understanding truth from scripture. This is a misunderstanding on the part of the Catholics for it is not a true reflection of Protestant teaching with regards interpretation of scripture, although it is true of some individuals within Protestantism. When Paul went to Berea they were dignified with the remark that they were more noble than the Thessalonians because the Bereans searched the scriptures to find if Paul's teachings were scriptural. The scriptures were the authority upon which the Bereans based their religious practice, and followed Paul only because Paul agreed with the scripture.
Peter also stated that the prophetic word was more to be trusted in than even a vision or visitation from heaven itself. And Jesus, with the two companions on the road to Emmaus, revealed Himself only after they had a clear understanding of prophecy concerning the Messiah. God has thus made it clear that it is His word, and His word only that is the basis and foundation of all faith and practice. We are to compare scripture with scripture. Here a little, there a little, line upon line, precept upon precept.
Never mind trusting the 'heart', the 'conscience', or the 'spirit'. While the Holy Spirit guides us all into truth, that truth will only be revealed to us through the written word. The Holy Spirit giving us understanding and insight.
We run into trouble when we accept the church, the pastor, the priest, our own 'feelings' or intuition, or even long running traditions as authority in our lives.
We also run into trouble when we judge others as heretic or cultic without first establishing whether or not what they teach is Biblical or not, our judgement based solely on the fact that it runs contrary to all that we have been previously taught.

Bro. Mike said, but errant belief always has a spirit of being right over anyone else. That could be said of any belief Mike, whether errant or otherwise. We believe what we believe because we are convinced we are right. And believing one is right presupposes the belief that others are wrong. But not everyone is wrong in all things, nor is everyone right in all things.That said however, we must all admit that we all could be wrong in most things, every one of us! So it is incumbent upon each and every one of us, in searching for "Truth", to have a teachable spirit. To have the attitude that declares: I believe I am right and have the truth of God. (To not be able to claim that with confidence and without arrogance is bordering on charlatanism).However, if you can show me where I am wrong from the scriptures, I will change my life immediately, and join with you in declaring this 'new light'.

I of all people are well aware that Adventism is not the most popular kid on the block. The majority, well and truly, is convinced we are only centimetres short of full blown corruption and heresy. So I take any challenge to my faith seriously, my own life is at stake. It is my predominant desire in life to be living in full accord to God's truth as revealed in His word. I truly want to live forever. So I welcome criticism...I welcome discussion...I welcome debate even...if it forces me to go back to my Bible and restudy the reasons for my faith, that can only be a good thing. And if anyone can show me that they have more and better and greater insight and understanding of scripture than what has been revealed to me thus far, I will drop Adventism like a fly blown hat tomorrow.

 

[David777]

Further brakelite.

You claim Jesus returns before the tribulation and also
that the antichrist is the system of papacy.

Read the following verses from Daniel 7,

24 The ten horns are ten kings
Who shall arise from this kingdom.
And another shall rise after them;
He shall be different from the first ones,
And shall subdue three kings.

25 He shall speak pompous words against the Most High,
Shall persecute the saints of the Most High,
And shall intend to change times and law.
Then the saints shall be given into his hand
For a time and times and half a time.

26 But the court shall be seated,
And they shall take away his dominion,
To consume and destroy it forever.

27 Then the kingdom and dominion,
And the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven,
Shall be given to the people, the saints of the Most High.
His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom,
And all dominions shall serve and obey Him.

Sure appears that the antichrist is a ruler a king.

Not in fact a system of papacy.

This antichrist (the man of lawlessness) is persecuting
the saints during his reign. This persecution occurs during
the tribulation thus not pretrib.

Also, it says this antichrist INTENDS to change times and laws,
it does not say that he does change them.

 

[David777]

Hello Brakelite.

The definition of an antichrist is below,

1 John 2:22

Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ?
He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.

Brakelite the Catholic Papacy does not deny the Christ, they
do not fit the definition.

The Catholic Church is constructed by man, its doctrines are
the antithesis of Biblical doctrine. It has a demonic influence
and falsely represents Christ to the world.

I repeat the Catholic Church does not deny the Christ, hence
to label them antichrist is erroneous. It is misleading to say the
least.

My objections are aimed at your eschatology brakelite.

 

[brakelite]

You claim Jesus returns before the tribulation and also

No, I believe Christians must endure right to the second coming. This is also Adventist teaching. Has been for 150 years. Where are you getting your info from?

that the antichrist is the system of papacy.

Read the following verses from Daniel 7,

24 The ten horns are ten kings
Who shall arise from this kingdom.
And another shall rise after them;
He shall be different from the first ones,
And shall subdue three kings.

25 He shall speak pompous words against the Most High,
Shall persecute the saints of the Most High,
And shall intend to change times and law.
Then the saints shall be given into his hand
For a time and times and half a time.

26 But the court shall be seated,
And they shall take away his dominion,
To consume and destroy it forever.

27 Then the kingdom and dominion,
And the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven,
Shall be given to the people, the saints of the Most High.
His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom,
And all dominions shall serve and obey Him.

Sure appears that the antichrist is a ruler a king.

Not in fact a system of papacy.

In Daniel 2 Daniel proclaimed to Nebuchadnezzar, "Thou art this head of gold". Yet the head of gold did not just represent Nebuchadnezzar, but the kingdom of which he was head! There were 5 more kings of Babylon after Nebuchadnezzar before the head of gold was overrun by the chest of silver, Medo/Persia. Remember how in a previous post I made the point several times that Daniel 2 sets the stage and forms the parameters of understanding all the following prophecies? This is an example of sticking to the rules. The first vision reveals God is speaking of nations and kingdoms. Daniel 2 sets this foundation, Daniel 7 that you quoted from continues in the same fashion. It must or else as you have amply demonstrated, confusion reigns. The ten horns are not just single kings, but kingdoms which were ruled by a succession of kings. The little horn is no different. The papacy arose and subdued 3 of the first ten horns, (or kings). But they were not subdued by the same pope or leader of the papacy, but were subdued by the papact itself.
I am not writing these posts to pick on just one individual, but a system.

This antichrist (the man of lawlessness) is persecuting
the saints during his reign. This persecution occurs during
the tribulation thus not pretrib.

The papacy did persecute the saints during her reign, in fact was responsible, according to many historians, for the deaths of possibly 100 to 150 million people over matters of conscience. If this was not a time of tribulation for the people of God, then what is? When Rome once again ascends to the global throne and once again is given dominion over all peoples, she will once again persecute as she has in times past. When the head (Rome) is fully healed, and Protestantism assists her in regaining her lost ascendancy, an even worse time of tribulation will come, after which Jesus returns.

Also, it says this antichrist INTENDS to change times and laws,
it does not say that he does change them.

I agree. And the commandments that the papacy has sought to change, the second and fourth, cannot really be changed, she only thinks she has changed them. Such is the true nature of Antichrist...presuming to have the authority of God Himself in matters of religion....in place of Christ!

 

[brakelite]

The definition of an antichrist is below,

1 John 2:22

Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ?
He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.

Brakelite the Catholic Papacy does not deny the Christ, they
do not fit the definition.

The Catholic Church is constructed by man, its doctrines are
the antithesis of Biblical doctrine. It has a demonic influence
and falsely represents Christ to the world.

I repeat the Catholic Church does not deny the Christ, hence
to label them antichrist is erroneous. It is misleading to say the
least.

My objections are aimed at your eschatology brakelite.

Allow me to quote from the Roman church herself:

Rome The Only Infallible Interpreter of Scripture:

10. ... God Himself has set up a living authority to establish and teach the true and legitimate meaning of His heavenly revelation. This authority judges infallibly all disputes which concern matters of faith and morals, lest the faithful be swirled around by every wind of doctrine which springs from the evilness of men in encompassing error. And this living infallible authority is active only in that Church which was built by Christ the Lord upon Peter, the head of the entire Church, leader and shepherd, whose faith He promised would never fail. This Church has had an unbroken line of succession from Peter himself; these legitimate pontiffs are the heirs and defenders of the same teaching, rank, office and power. And the Church is where Peter is,[5] and Peter speaks in the Roman Pontiff,[6] living at all times in his successors and making judgment,[7] providing the truth of the faith to those who seek it.[8] The divine words therefore mean what this Roman See of the most blessed Peter holds and has held.
​

(On Faith And Religion), Encyclical of Pope Pius IX, November 9, 1846.

14. ... Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; for, seeing that the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church, it is clearly impossible that any teaching can by legitimate means be extracted from the former, which shall in any respect be at variance with the latter. Hence it follows that all interpretation is foolish and false which either makes the sacred writers disagree one with another, or is opposed to the doctrine of the Church.
​

(On the Study of Holy Scripture), Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII dated November 18th, 1893.


The following is an explanation of indulgences:


In Catholic teaching, there are three distinct groups that comprise the Church:
The Church Militant is the body of believers still living on this earth and "fighting" for their salvation.
The Church Triumphant are the angels and those believers who have previously lived on this earth and are now in rejoicing in their heavenly home. Because their good works while on earth exceeded the requirement, the Church Triumphant have an "excess" treasury of merits of God's grace, which can then be re-distributed via Mary the Mediatrix of all Grace, and via the Church in the form of indulgences.
The Church Suffering are those believers who have died, but because of remaining unsatisfied temporal punishment due because of their sin, they must spend time in the cleansing fires of Purgatory. They will remain there until they have been completely purged of sin, and the temporal punishment they are due is completely satisfied. They are then acceptable to enter heaven.



The above two lines of reasoning, that of the magisterium having sole rights to interpret scripture, and the granting of indulgences, along with a multitude of other doctrines and beliefs within Catholicism, effectively and actively deny the Father and the Son.

When you place yourself as being in authority over and above God, that is denial of God. When you take upon yourself the prerogatives that belong only to God, you are denying God. Regardless of your confession, regardless of what you claim to believe as spiritual truth, regardless of your many prayers and statements and pronouncements that sound religious and claim spiritual authority, if the practices and teachings of the church place themselves in the place of Christ in the minds and hearts of her adherents, then that my friend is Antichrist. It is a pure open denial of everything God stands for, everything He is, and a denial of all that Christ accomplished for man.


Allow me to add one more quote for good measure:

But our wonder should be far greater when we find that in obedience to the words of his priests - HOC EST CORPUS MEUM - God himself descends on the altar, that he comes wherever they call him and as often as they call him, and places [pg. 27] himself in their hands, even though they should be be his enemies. And after having come, he remains, entirely at their disposal they move him as they please, from one place to another, they may, if they wish, shut him up in the tabernacle, expose him on the altar, or carry him outside the church; they may, if they choose, eat his flesh, and give him for the food of others. "Oh, how very great is their power," says St. Lawrence Justinian, speaking of priests. "A word falls from their lips and the body of Christ is there substantially formed from the matter of bread, and the Incarnate Word descended from heaven, is found really present on the table of the altar! Never did divine goodness give such power to the angels. The angels abide by the order of God, but the priests take him in their hands, distribute him to the faithful, and partake of him as food for themselves."
​

Source: The Dignity and Duties of the Priest or Selva, by St. Alphonsus de Liguori, translated from the Italian, edited by Eugene Grimm, copyright 1927 by Very Rev. James Barron, C.SS.R, pgs. 26-27.


Enough said.

​

 

[David777]

In reply brakelite.

Hello Brakelite, nice to receive a reply.

My initial question was regarding the RCC papacy and the antichrist,
I felt that you did not address the initial question adequately.

So I will repeat the initial statement and question concerning the antichrist.

Then I will highlight the error in your response, or should I say what I perceive to be the error in your reply.

The definition of an antichrist is below,

1 John 2:22

Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ?
He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.

Brakelite the Catholic papacy does not deny the Christ, they
do not fit the definition.

This was the initial assertion that I made regarding
your assumption of the RCC papacy being the antichrist.

Now here are the scriptures that clearly demonstrate the
difference between the harlot and the antichrist.

A description of the harlot is found in Revelations 17.

Revelations 17

3 So he carried me away in the Spirit into the wilderness. And I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast which was full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. 4 The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the filthiness of her fornication

Revelations 17

15 Then he said to me, “The waters which you saw, where the harlot sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues. 16 And the ten horns which you saw on the beast, these will hate the harlot, make her desolate and naked, eat her flesh and burn her with fire. 17 For God has put it into their hearts to fulfill His purpose, to be of one mind, and to give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled. 18 And the woman whom you saw is that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth.”

What is clear in the two passages above brakelite is that
the harlot is sitting on the beast. She is not the beast brakelite,
the ten horns hate the harlot and make her naked and desolate.

There will be no revival of the RCC brakelite, its days of
power are long gone.

Now I will address your reply brakelite.

The line below was contained in your post.

"And this living infallible authority is active only in that Church which was built by Christ the Lord upon Peter"

Your reply affirms that the RCC does believe that Jesus is the Christ.
Is this not the refutation of your own belief from your own tongue brakelite.

Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ?

You must prove that the RCC denies that Jesus is the Christ.

Brakelite, the onus is on you to support your belief.

The antichrist must "deny", and again "deny" that Jesus is the Christ brakelite.

Indulgences have nothing to do with the denial of the Christ.

Any authority the RCC claims in the interpretation of scripture
is not related to the antichrist.

Islam denies the Christ, are they the antichrist?

Judism denies the Christ, are they the antichrist?

They both killed the saints, both have erroneous doctrine
are they both antichrist brakelite?

Does not the World itself qualify as the antichrist brakelite?

Methinks yea are barking up the wrong tree.

 

[brakelite]

Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.

David, if you read your quoted text carefully you will see that it does not say that the antichrist denies that Jesus is the Christ. It says that he who denies that Jesus is the Christ is a liar. It also says that he who denies the Father and the Son is antichrist.

Now, with that out of the way, let me discuss that word 'deny'. Strongs concordance tells us that its principle meaning is to contradict. The papacy assumes infallibility, which belongs only to God. The papacy claims the authority to forgive sin, which belongs only to God. The papacy claims the authority to deny entrance to heaven, and the authority to allow entrance to heaven, which belongs only to God. The claim to be of greater authority than all the secular rulers on earth, which belongs only to God. They in fact go beyond God in claiming the authority to loose people from their allegiance to kings, queens, presidents etc. when such rulers do not please them. And finally, the papacy works directly against God when it gives indulgences for sin.

In all these things the papacy places herself in the place of God, by claiming greater or equal authority to Him. In all these things therefore, she denies the Father and the Son, by contradicting them in both word, creed, and practice. You are welcome to disagree of course, but I believe the above is a denial of the Father and the Son.

If that were not enough, she also places herself as the sole mediator between God and man. This is in direct contradiction to the word of God which clearly states that Jesus is the sole Mediator. In this they place themselves again in the place of Christ, which is a direct fulfilment of the foundational meaning of the word 'antichrist'. He who places himself in the room of Christ. A counterfeit Christ. And just like a counterfeit $20 note denies the true, so does the counterfeit Christian faith deny the true.

I will address the other issues you raised with regards the ***** and the beast in a future post as I find the time. I am very busy of late and can afford little time to spare in here, so sorry, I am not dodging, but will answer when I can. Those later chapters of Revelation were in line to be discussed some time anyway. You do raise some interesting points, it is a fascinating subject, and looking forward to discussing it with you.
Cheers.

 

[brakelite]

I have a few moments to offer a quick reply re the beast.
You have forgotten David the first fundamental rule when understanding prophecy. Once a symbol is established, it doesn't change. God is consistent, and doesn't alter the rules half way through the game so to confuse us. The whole purpose of prophecy is that we might understand precisely the nature of the controversy we are involved in. God makes it as simple as possible that we may be enlightened and ultimately warned and saved. The point being, that right throughout the prophecies, the beast clearly represents a kingdom, empire, nation, with a succession of kings or rulers at its head. The beast does not suddenly become an individual because modern Christianity is too politically correct and /or eschatologically ignorant to proclaim the truth.
The beast is presented to us at different stages of his formation, beginning in Daniel 7 where he is described ....
verse 7: After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.
Here was Satan's first presentation to the world of his master-plan to oppose and destroy God's people. It would be through a state/religio system first born in ancient history at the tower of Babel. Rome, which this beast with the ten horns represents, was a composite of those empires gone before it. Rome inherited many of the characteristics and much of the nature of Babylon, Media/Persia, and Greece.
In Revelation 12, the same beast is presented to us revealing his true nature and identity, principally Satan, the devil.

3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.
The heads are increased in number because God desires to reveal to us further information regarding its history and identity...this is not a different beast.

Revelation 13 continues the custom. More information...more detail...but still the same beast.
1 ¶ And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.

And finally, the beast of Revelation 17 ...more information...more detail...but still the same beast.
7 ¶ And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.
8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.
9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.
11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.
12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.
13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.

Not an individual, but a political/religious union which oppose God's people.

And the ***** riding the beast is the perfect symbol for this church/state union...the final fully developed Antichrist.

I will follow up some time with more detail on each of the various developments and life stages of the beast...Revelation 13 however will, more than any other chapter, reveal a great deal if you read it from the kingdom/political entity/ church/state paradigm rather than from the futurist/individual viewpoint which to be honest cannot fulfil all the conditions of the prophecies at all.

 

[David777]

Hello brakelite.

Brakelite, you made a number of statements in post # 134,
this is the first statement I would like to address.

Regarding the definition of 'deny', you stated that 'Strong's concordance tells us that its principle meaning is to contradict.'

I provided the scriptural passage for context.

Young's Literal Translation

Who is the liar, except he who is denying that Jesus is the Christ? this one is the antichrist who is denying the Father and the Son;

Now checking the dictionary definition.

Websters Revised Dictionary

deny

1. (v. t.) To declare not to be true; to gainsay; to contradict; -- opposed to affirm, allow, or admit.

2. (v. t.) To refuse (to do something or to accept something); to reject; to decline; to renounce.

3. (v. t.) To refuse to grant; to withhold; to refuse to gratify or yield to; as, to deny a request.

4. (v. t.) To disclaim connection with, responsibility for, and the like; to refuse to acknowledge; to disown; to abjure; to disavow.

5. (v. i.) To answer in the negative; to declare an assertion not to be true.

So on checking your statement, alas, 'contradict' is in fact not the principle meaning of 'deny'. Rather to 'refuse' or 'reject' would be a more appropriate definition brakelite.

Now I must ask you to quote the Strong's definition to support your claim that the principle definition of 'deny' is 'contradict'.

 

[brakelite]

Brakelite, you made a number of statements in post # 134,
this is the first statement I would like to address.

Regarding the definition of 'deny', you stated that 'Strong's concordance tells us that its principle meaning is to contradict.'

I provided the scriptural passage for context.

Young's Literal Translation

Who is the liar, except he who is denying that Jesus is the Christ? this one is the antichrist who is denying the Father and the Son;

Now checking the dictionary definition.

Websters Revised Dictionary

deny

1. (v. t.) To declare not to be true; to gainsay; to [RED]contradict;[/RED] -- opposed to affirm, allow, or admit.

2. (v. t.) To refuse (to do something or to accept something); to reject; to decline; to renounce.

3. (v. t.) To refuse to grant; to withhold; to refuse to gratify or yield to; as, to deny a request.

4. (v. t.) To disclaim connection with, responsibility for, and the like; to refuse to acknowledge; to disown; to abjure; to disavow.

5. (v. i.) To answer in the negative; to declare an assertion not to be true.

So on checking your statement, alas, 'contradict' is in fact not the principle meaning of 'deny'. Rather to 'refuse' or 'reject' would be a more appropriate definition brakelite.

Now I must ask you to quote the Strong's definition to support your claim that the principle definition of 'deny' is 'contradict'.

720 arneomai, ar-neh-om-ahee; perh. from 1 (as a neg. particle) and the mid. voice of 4483; to contradict, i.e. to disavow, reject, abrogate- deny, refuse.

I am not sure what your problem is. Your own quote from Websters above which I highlighted says contradict.
Besides that, the Youngs literal translation doesn't negate the papacy as denying the Father and the Son. The following applies to them as well as those who were challenging Jesus...

7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

The above applies to the papacy perfectly. It is a clear denial of the Father and the Son. If it weren't, Jesus would accept them.

 

[David777]

Hello brakelite.

Contradict is one of a number of meanings, it is not the principle meaning brakelite.

If you look at the word "antichrist", "anti" means against or opposition.

Now if we look at the Websters Revised again, we have "opposed to"
which is a much more suitable definition.

The antichrist will oppose Christ brakelite, hence the papacy will not qualify as the antichrist.

This is the main problem in your eschatology brakelite.

 

[brakelite]

Hi David

Contradict is one of a number of meanings, it is not the principle meaning brakelite.

If you look at the word "antichrist", "anti" means against or opposition.

Now if we look at the Websters Revised again, we have "opposed to"
which is a much more suitable definition.

The antichrist will oppose Christ brakelite, hence the papacy will not qualify as the antichrist.

This is the main problem in your eschatology brakelite.

It is true that in certain cases 'anti' does mean opposition, as in the word 'antidikos', the Greek word for adversary, in reference to Satan, particularly in the setting or context of the court room, which echoes the angels description of him as the accuser of the brethren.

However, there are also cases where 'anti' can mean instead of, or in the room of. One such example is antilutron which means ransom, the redemption price for our salvation.
'Anti' is a primary particle which does mean opposite, but the opposition comes by way of substitution.

The entire system of the future manifestation of Babylon the Great of which the Antichrist is a part, lies in the principle of being a counterfeit. A counterfeit which in practice opposes truth and the kingdom of God, but not by direct confrontation, but through deception, by establishing itself in the place of the true Christ.Not only is this so in life as we view the papacy, but prophecy also reveals this.
Dragon/Satan.

1. His place in heaven (Rev 12:3,7,8.)
2. He has a throne. (Rev 13:2, 2:13)
3. Gives throne, power, and authority to sea-beast. (13:2,4.)
4. He is worshipped. (13:4a)
5. Destroyed forever. (20:9,10)

Now compare:
God the Father

1. Dwelling in heaven (Rev 4,5)
2. He has a throne. (4:5; 7:9-15; 19:4)
3. Gives throne, power and authority to Jesus. (Math 28:18 Rev 2:27; 3:21; chapters 4,5.)
4. Is worshipped. (Rev 4:10; 15:4)
5. Lives and reign forever. (4:9; 5:13; 11:15)

The Land-beast or false prophet.

1. Called the false prophet because he decieves people with regards to religious matters. (16:13; 19:20; 20:10)
2. Lamb-like. (13:11)
3. Exercises all authority of sea-beast. (13:12a)
4. Directs worship to sea-beast. (13:12b,15)
5. Performs signs. (13:13; 19:20)
6. Brings fire down from heaven (13:13)
7. Gives breath/life to beasts image (13:15)
8. Applies mark of beast. (13:16)

Now compare:
The Holy Spirit

1. Called the Spirit of truth guiding people. (Jn 16:13 Rev 22:17)
2. Christ-like. (Jn 1426; 16:14)
3. Exercises authority of Christ (Jn 16:13,14)
4. Directs worship to Christ (Acts 5:29-32)
5. Grants gifts..gift of miracles eg.(1 Cor. 12:8-11)
6. Fire from heaven at Pentecost (Acts 2)
7. Instills life to us, the image of Christ. (Romans8:11,29)
8. Applies seal of God. (2 Cor 1:22 Eph 1:13 4:30 Rev 7:3,4.)

The sea-beast or antichrist.

1. Comes from water to begin activity. (13:1)
2. Resembles dragon. (12:13 13:1)
3. Ten diadems. (13:1)
4. Ten horns (13:1)
5. Receives power throne and authority from dragon/Satan. (13:2,4)
6. 42 months of activity in first phase. (13:5)
7. Was slain (13:3)
8. Resurrected (13:3)
9. Receives worship after healing (13:3,4,8)

Now compare:
Jesus Christ

1. Comes from water to begin ministry (Luke 3:21-23)
2. Resembles Father (Jn 14:19)
3. Many diadems (Rev 19:12)
4. Lamb has 7 horns (5:6)
5. Receives power throne and authority from His Father (Math 28:18 Rev 2:27 Chapters 4,5)
6. 42 months of ministry in initial phase. (Gospel of John)
7. Was slain (Rev 5:6)
8. Was resurrected (Rev1:18)
9. Received worship after resurrection (Math 28:17)

 

[brakelite]

The following post was added to the thread some time ago but was lost in the midst of denominational issues; issues which were to be honest irrelevant and distracting. This points made in this post I believe are very important, and would like some comment and opinion if you feel so inclined, as a means if possible to resurrect this discusion.

Sorry for the long absence...had a busy month. Though I would recap on a most important aspect of this thread...something which very early on I said was important to remember...so I'll quote from one of my earlier posts...
With this thought in mind, I will now turn to Daniel. The prophecies of Daniel are incredibly revealing. They are intricately detailed, providing specific information and points of character and events regarding the history of nations, beginning from Daniels time and unfolding throughout history and progressing throughout all generations right down to the close of time and the second coming. And the Antichrist is a prominent feature throughout. This is not an accident. God desires that we are thoroughly informed of the nature and character of the Antichrist. Let us take heed. I will begin with Daniel 2.

All of Daniels visions are built on the one previous. Each one is a magnification, or an enlargement of the one before. The vision of Nebuchadnezzar and Daniels explanation regarding the statue forms the foundation for all the subsequent visions. Once we establish the foundation, we must take care that our understanding of later visions are built on that foundation. Our conclusions and interpretations must not deviate nor contradict or we shall soon lose our way, and our understanding become darkened.

Over recent decades we have witnessed a number of things in this not so wonderful world of ours, apart from the huge increase in crime and disasters etc. We have seen within the Protestant churches a decided move away from the beliefs of the reformers, many now even disclaiming the title Protestant, undoubtedly because they see nothing more to protest about. The other thing we have witnessed is a decided move toward Rome. The signing of the document Evangelicals and Catholics Together in the mid-nineties was a massive shift toward ecumenical unity. Pretending to agree on theological points which in times past were the cause of division between Rome and Protestantism, for the sake of political expediency the signers have compromised doctrinal foundations inimical to their very identity. But which signers? The Catholic or the Protestant? I will tell you now, that without equivocation, Rome has not budged on any principle, doctrine, or belief that sparked Luther's door decorations. Not one. Yet here today we have Protestants claiming unity in doctrine, (justification by faith alone), on the very point which makes antichrist antichrist.

Protestants have forgotten the principles that I laid down at the beginning of this thread, and quoted above. Rather than look to history for the fulfillment of prophecy, they now peek like clairvoyants into the future, even to the extent of making movies, writing long fictional novels, propounding eloquent on television, numerous unbiblical prognostications about the future appearing of an antichrist which has been living in their back garden for 1500 years.

However much the prophecies logically, historically, and precisely pinpoint papal Rome as the Antichrist, the almost unanimous Protestant identification of Rome as the Antichrist for the previous 4 to 500 years has been abandoned (with the very helpful development of ecumenism) in favour of a future individual (as opposed to a system), even though the texts themselves demand an historicist approach to eschatological exegesis.

In Daniel, the chronological sequence of Babylon, Madia/Persia, Greece and Rome (of which 3 are mentioned by name!) prove beyond any shadow of doubt, (it doesn't even take faith to accept it it is so in your face) that the prophecies reveal a successive progression of world history, which is why historicism has been so long used by both Jewish and Christian scholars.
For example, the statue of Daniel 2 reveals 4 metals representing as we all know, Babylon, Meda/Persia, Greece, with the 4th kingdom of iron following immediately after Greece and carrying on all the way down to the toes (albeit in another form) to be destroyed by Christ at the second coming. This iron power can only be, Rome, and no other.
In Daniel 7 the fourth beast, in the form of the little horn which grows out of it, endures to the end also to be destroyed. That little horn can once again be only Rome, and no other.
In Daniel 8 the power after Greece, Rome, arises and remains until destroyed 'without hand'. Again, only Rome, and no other. Solely, totally, and only Rome. And because the scripture often depicts pagan Rome and papal Rome as a single power, and because the pagan phase has long gone, papal Rome only remains....that entity which is unmistakeably depicted, clearly and irrefutably revealed, and condemned in scripture.

Why should we be surprised then that the reformers, and many scholars before and after them, for many centuries were virtually unanimous in the collective finger pointing to Rome when the question arose, "who is Antichrist?"

Because the identification of this entity is so important, (as I said previously there is no other entity in scripture with as many detailed prophecies apart from Jesus Himself), and the fact that God has revealed it so clearly, it is frankly astonishing and quite dramatically prophetic in itself that Protestantism has shifted the way it has.
And this prophetic shift is detailed for us in Revelation 13; with the false prophet, (American Protestantism) cosying up to the beast and enforcing submission to the beast first in their own nation, then to the world.

Those of you who live in America, can you deny that this scenario is taking place before your very eyes?
Read More: Were they right? - Page 12
Follow us: @talkjesus on Twitter | talkjesus on Facebook