brakelite

5 hours ago, Cobalt1959 said:

You still support the position of your church by attending it.  You have no end-run around that.  You are here in a thread condemning the Catholic church, but for all their doctrinal faults, they still strongly condemn abortion.  Your church does not.  They actual perform abortions in their hospitals, and as a member of that church, you are a party to that, or you would not be there.  That logic is not difficult to figure out.  Double standard in play.

The IJ doctrine implies that Jesus, who is omnipotent, since He is also God, isn't smart enough to know, as God, who does and does not belong to Him.  That is a bad doctrinal position to be it.  All based on a feint because of failed prophecies by a false prophet.

I'm not claiming it is something you do personally to be saved.  I am saying that is what your church actually teaches, whether you like it or not, and whether you will admit it or not.  The emphasis your church places on the Sabbath means it is something that has to be done to be saved and the Sabbath-keepers enforce that rational every time they tell others they are doomed if they don't "keep" it.  If they are doomed, that means it's required for salvation.  You can try and split hairs, but the outcome is still the same.  As long as it's importance is stressed above all else, you've got yourself a works-based salvation.  So until you can correct your own doctrinal errors, you have no base on which to operate to call out others for false doctrine.  Both SDA's and the Catholic church operate in doctrinal error.  So you are both sitting in the same boat.  You are just sitting at opposite ends with each trying to pretend like the other one isn't there.

Perhaps Elijah should have joined the Canaanites because Israel had in its midst prophets of Baal?

I suggested you study the IJ. You need to. Why open books if God "knows everything". Why have books?

No-one in the church has ever taught, not E White or any other leaders of the faith, nor anyone I know of today, nor is it written in any of the books or pamphlets detailing our beliefs, that Sabbath keeping justifies anyone. What we DO teach is that if one desires to be fully sanctified, their lives ought to be in harmony with the laws of God. SDAs are not the only ones who teach this. The sticking point is the Sabbath...you reject the Sabbath but your only defense is to charge us with legalism. Good try but it doesn't work.

2 hours ago, Cobalt1959 said:

Seventh Day Adventists Hospitals have been performing elective abortions on demand since 1970.  SDA hospitals were so forward-thinking and cutting edge on this issue that they started offering elective abortions three years before Roe v. Wade was adjudicated.  That is not my opinion, that is fact.  You can't claim to be giving your tithe to an SDA church and then claim you are not supporting abortion.  That claim leaves you with no credibility at all, on any moral issue and the claim is also false.  Your tithe money goes to the SDA church and then a portion of it goes to support the SDA hospitals.  The only way your money could go to an SDA hospital supporting abortion faster was if you just carried the check down to the front office yourself and cut out the middle man at the church.  You don't like dealing with that fact, because you've never actually dealt with it yet.  You make excuses as to why it's OK.  Instead of actually dealing with the issue, you try and turn it back on other people.  I can't control where my tax money goes.  No American can, and we have no way to control that money because we have no choice when it comes to paying taxes.  You make a conscious decision to attend an SDA church.  You are not forced to do so.  You are not forced to tithe there.  These are personal choices that you make, and continue to make despite the fact that you know SDA hospitals routinely murder unborn children.  There is no excuse you could give that would justify that choice.  So I am amazed that you would even attempt to float the last sentence that I highlighted since you are attending a church that funds hospitals that murder people.  Part of your tithe check that you gave last Saturday went towards making sure an innocent, unborn child never sees the light of day but ends up in a dumpster instead and you are telling me that I need to come out of whatever it is you think I'm in?  Really?  That is a textbook illustration of cognitive dissonance.

You have misunderstood me. When I said I don't pay tithe to a church that supports abortion, I meant precisely that. I don't pay tithe to a church that supports abortion. I don't pay tithe to the SDA church at all.

As to the investigative judgement being works based, I disagree, but can fully understand your perspective. I came to the SDA church from a Pentecostal background...it was not without much investigation, prayer, and Bible study that I finally accepted and saw what the IJ meant to Adventists, and how Biblical it is. In fact, so Biblical, the second coming cannot take place until it's finished. Not only is that evident in prophecy, but in the types and symbolism of the OT sanctuary services and annual feast days. If you haven't done a complete study of it from an Adventist perspective, then it is inevitable that you end up with an incorrect notion of what it means. It is not a 'get out of jail free card' that many believe E White dreamed up to save the church from embarrassment in 1844. 

As to the law in general, and the Sabbath being a part of that, to claim just because we keep Sabbath it is therefore by default something we are doing in order to be saved, is somewhat disingenuous. You say this in the face of direct testimony that contradicts your opinion, thus judging the motives and practices of 20 million individuals (and that's just SDAs) all across the globe who honor what they know is still a day sanctified and blessed of God. The reason we promote it, is not because we believe we are saved by it, or that you will be lost without it, but because we know from prophecy the time is coming when our opposers will use a counterfeit as a a test of orthodoxy. SDAs have long been strong advocates for religious freedom, and it is in this context that we believe we should defend our right to observe Sabbath, and that our defense is both ethical in context of religious freedom, and Biblical in the context of what we know will come when having to face our accusers with their charges of heresy and civil disobedience. The loss of salvation comes when our enemies choose to persecute Sabbath keepers on the basis of civil legislation over-riding what we see as a commandment of God. Whether you disagree theologically with that is a side issue. What is the more important is the coercion and force (to the point of a death sentence) that will come that contravenes our rights to conscience. 

Shades of this exist everywhere. In Europe where the Catholic church is in the process of demanding Sunday laws (and succeeding)in respect of trade and commerce ...the current Sunday movement in the US which seeks to implement Sunday laws restricting trade and commerce...the former blue laws in the US (some of which, while not enforced, are still on the books)...even a suburb in my current city of Melbourne outlaws any tradesmen from doing business within that vicinity on Sundays. While these do not represent a direct threat to Sabbath keepers...and do not constitute a direct violation of my rights to worship, they do violate my rights to work. In a crisis situation, such as 9/11 but perhaps on a global scale, and in fear of the judgements of God, a Christian community could, and shall I believe, very easily increase the ante and forbid anyone to worship on any day other than Sunday. That will affect even those of you who have regard to no particular day. But the institutional churches who for centuries have regarded Sunday as a sacred day and essential to salvation, as does Catholicism, then your objections to SDAs keeping Sabbath takes on a whole new meaning. I think you need to look at things from our perspective...you may not agree with it, but you could at least come to a greater understanding to where we are coming from.

6 hours ago, Yowm said:

<shrugs also> you should know, the difference between hers and the Apostles and Prophets in the Bible is that hers were false like this one..

..the Apostles did not have ONE false prophecy like this one for example...

"Mrs. White and the Day of Atonement

When Christ failed to return as predicted in 1844, Adventists devised a teaching to try and explain that something had actually happened in 1844. According to this teaching, the heavenly Day of Atonement began in 1844 and Jesus moved from one room of the sanctuary to another room, shutting the door behind Him:

"This door was not opened until the mediation of Jesus was finished in the holy place of the sanctuary in 1844. Then Jesus rose up and shut the door of the holy place, and opened the door into the most holy, and passed within the second veil, where He now stands by the ark, and where the faith of Israel now reaches. I saw that Jesus had shut the door of the holy place, and no man can open it; and that He had opened the door into the most holy, and no man can shut it (Rev. 3:7,8)."¹

"So when Christ entered the holy of holies to perform the closing work of the atonement, He ceased His ministration in the first apartment." (see link for more)

http://www.nonegw.org/egw12.shtml

I suggest you do a study on that date, October 22, 1844. The date is correct. The event was wrong. Personally, I believe Jesus would have returned a long time ago if His church/bride was ready. His bride, even to this day, has trouble deciding if she really wants to go, and persists in wearing her own fashionable wedding garment rather than the one provided. All prophecy is conditional.

Also take a look at the history of those events that led up to 1844. It wasn't just in the US that the second coming was being proclaimed. South America, Europe, and Africa had their share of evangelists who were unconnected, yet annointed and inspired to preach a message never before heard in Christendom...the fulfilling of prophecy. These messages brought about a revival in many paces among churches that had grown stagnant and lifeless, and which grew even more dead as they rejected the massage. This was a work of the Holy Spirit. It was for the express purpose to alert the church of the soon coming of Christ. That these preachers of righteousness got the event wrong, does not make them false prophets, particularly when it was God allowing them to be misled for His purposes.

The imminence of the second coming was preached by Paul. It was taught by many of my own forbears who were not Adventists. It was taught by pentecostal churches 60 years ago.Many then would swear that Jesus was coming in their lifetime. I thought He would come by 1988, as did many evangelicals of the time. I still think He will come in my lifetime. Yet again, He may not. But imminence is a character of expectation that is desirable among God's people. That way we are all ready, whether it is for death or translation.

I

7 hours ago, Yowm said:

I am aware of the different approaches to prophecy but false predictions are not one of them.

http://1timothy4-13.com/files/bible/sda_morefailed.html

"For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be CAUGHT UP TOGETHER WITH THEM in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord."
1 Thess. 4:15-17 (emphasis supplied)

Does the above make Paul a false prophet because he declared he would be alive when Jesus returns?

Not that anyone is obliged to, but I am wondering if anyone is reading my posts? What exactly is wrong with the concept, which fulfils in every detail the prophecy, of pagan Rome being the restrainer, which after having been removed elsewhere, was the catalyst for the falling away creating the Papacy? History doesn't lie. Even the early church fathers recognised what was going on in front of their eyes, and the reformers recognised it as having happened in their own forbears' lifetimes and communities. And millions of true Christians lost their lives, their properties, and families as a result. This same scenario will be repeated with the same players, only on a global scale in our lifetime...in fact, we are eye-witnesses to these events as we write on this forum. But alas, all are blinded by Jesuit sophistry and are looking for a future bogey man who doesn't exist. All the while you are being cuckolded by the whore sitting in Rome.

2 minutes ago, Yowm said:

Am I mistaken, but didn’t Ellen G. White look to the future for her Church with her many prophecies?

There are 3 methods of interpreting prophecy. Preterism, Futurism, and Historicism.Adventists are historicists. That is, they consider prophecy a continuing unravelling of the vision or prophecy from the time it was given, unless clearly indicated otherwise. Take the subject of the antichrist as a prime example. Daniel was given several visions starting from the statue, then in Daniel 7 the 4 beasts, and the horns that grew from them, then in Daniel 8 the two beasts, Daniel 9 gives us a remarkably accurate Messianic prophecy giving us valuable clues to the time periods involved, then in 11 a documented picture of the entire period from his time to the second coming. Each prophecy covered  pretty much the same time period. From Babylon to the Kingdom of God. Starting from the skeleton of the prophetic picture in Daniel 2, the subsequent [prophecies fill in the details. Adventists do not find any evidence nor reason to take a portion of them and place them into a future time spot oi ts own with a gap of a couple of thousand years in between. We believe that as we study history, we find the fulfilment of prophecy, and can with reasonable confidence discern what is yet to come, as history does repeat, and there is nothing new under the sun.

From the historicist perspective, there is no gap of 2000 years where God failed to document the reign of the papacy. Futurism and preterism, both invented by Jesuits, hide the true Antichrist within that 2000 years period, deceiving the entire Christian world. It wasn't Ellen White who first taught the historicist hermeneutic. The reformers were historicists, as were the early church fathers, such as Justin Martyr, Cyril of Jerusalem, Jerome, and others.

On 2/18/2018 at 1:38 AM, OneLight said:

Read these verses and then take a close look at the society you live in and measure how close we are.

2 Timothy 3:1-5a

But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power.

Dont need to look to society to see this...this is a description of the church. I see some of these characteristics among us on this forum.

On 20/01/2018 at 10:02 AM, HAZARD said:

 The word Trinity is not mentioned in Scripture one time in the entire Bible. The Word Godhead is mentioned three times;

 

 Acts 17:29, Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

    Romans 1:20, For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

    Colossians 2:9, For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

 

God the Father, The Word, who was with God the Father, and was God,  who became flesh, John 1:1; 1:14, and the Holy Spirit are three separate beings who are "ONE" in unity in all things and not inside each other in one body as many are taught and believe.

Fairly much with you there. It is dangerous, even insulting, to create analogies from nature (such as the clover) to describe the Godhead. Or from mathematics. However we describe it, we are denigrating Him. Like you, I would rather just cleave to what scripture says. 

"But to us there is but one God, the Father...."  ...."thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God...."  .....and of course the holy Spirit is described as the Spirit of Christ and of God. It is their Spirit.

I don't understand God's love for me. I don't understand why, and the older I get, the less I understand. A momentary time of insanity may envelop me, and I think I have it all sussed, then my eyes are opened, sanity prevails, and I realise my recognition and acceptance of my mortality and ignorance is in fact an expression of clarity. 

Sure, I know He created me, and therefore He loves me. However, to be honest, I am a long way from the image of God I am intended to be. I thank God however that I have come a long way from where I was...a warped, selfish, perverted, hopeless, helpless, rebellious, evilly inclined moral virus. And yet God loved me even then! I don't understand that. 

If I come to a point in my life wherein is perplexity and uncertainty, I tend to think about what God's will would be for me  in that situation, and then pray that such and such should happen, please, and the sooner the better. After having suggested to God the best way He ought to be handling this particular difficulty, and pointing out to HIm that His best laid plans don't seem to be working out, I wonder how it was that the devil got the better of HIm. Yet despite such stupid reasoning on my part, He still loves me. I don't understand that.

Why does God love me? I have no idea. Calvary proves He does, but doesn't tell me why. It certainly isn't because I've earned it. The Bible informs me that my own heart can at times deceive me into believing that when I pray for something, I can expect to receive it because I deserve it. I because I have some inherent right to expect favours. But no, I have no rights. What I do have are promises. But not rights. And the most outrageous promise is the one God is most determined to keep. That promise is to recreate me in His own image! After 6000 years of hereditary failure, slandering of His reputation, desecrating all that He has called holy, abusing all the people He loans us to cherish and love, poisoning myself and others through my addictions, lusts, and pride, corrupting the very place He has given me for a home, and He still wants to recreate me in His image? Why not throw me away and start again? What manner of love is this? I don't understand it.

 What am I that God is mindful of me? What is this man that God would ever give any consideration to? I do not have any more light on that than did David when He wrote it 3000 odd years ago. So why? Honestly, I don't think it matters. All He asks of us is that we believe it. Maybe it will always be a mystery, just to make eternity all the more interesting. So, where do I go from here? 

I have discovered that God loves me regardless of circumstance, regardless of my behaviour, regardless of motives, habitat, purpose, past, present, or future. God's love is constant, infinite, complete, self-sacrificial, all-encompassing, immovable. In the words of Paul, love bears all things,believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. God does not decide or choose to love. Love is who He is. He can't help Himself. He IS love. Everything He does is motivated ny love. Even the destruction of the wicked is for their own good! 

So when I read that all things work together for good for those that love Him and are called according to His purpose, I believe it. When I read that He so loved me that He gave His only begotten Son to die for me, I believe it. When I read that along with Jesus, He will freely give me all things, I believe it. 

Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him. The whys...I will leave that for later. Much later. It is enough that He does. Thank you Lord.

33 minutes ago, Wayne222 said:

       There are true Christians in the Catholic church. I know a lot of what they do is not biblical. But the SDA Is not biblical as well. When the true Antichrist appears he will not be a pope but a Muslim more then likely.

I agree there are Christians in the Catholic church. I will be happy to discuss SDA doctrine with you on another thread so long as everyone keeps it civil. I also agree that the pope, as an individual, is not the Antichrist. It is the system that is the Antichrist. It is the system, the papacy itself, which answers to every single criteria demanded of the man of sin/beast/little horn/antichrist. With no exceptions. Looking to the future for someone else is in fact a 17th century deception perpetrated by Jesuits to divert the accusations of the reformers. 

7 minutes ago, Cobalt1959 said:

  Your denomination follows the same works-based salvation system as the Catholic church.  

"If the heart has been renewed by the Spirit of God, the life will bear witness to the fact. While we cannot do anything to change our hearts or to bring ourselves into harmony with God; while we must not trust at all to ourselves or our good works, our lives will reveal whether the grace of God is dwelling within us"....."there are two errors against which the children of God-particularly those who have just come to trust in His grace-especially need to guard. The first, already dwelt upon, is that of looking to their own works, trusting to anything they can do, to bring themselves into harmony with God. He who is trying to become holy by his own works in keeping the law, is attempting an impossibility. All that man can do without Christ is polluted with selfishness and sin.  It is the grace of Christ alone, through faith, that can make us holy." E White 'Steps to Christ'.

Read the church's fundamental beliefs on justification and sanctification. Do yourself a favour and lose the bigotry.

23 minutes ago, Cobalt1959 said:

You also cannot condemn the Catholic church as long as you are attending a church that supports abortion.

My tithe does not go to a church that supports abortion. You pay taxes to a government that supports abortion. What's your excuse? And BTW, I am fully entitled to expose the lies and deceit of a system that leads millions to idolatry...that has murdered millions for their faith...and plans to involve millions more, including yourself, in its soon coming global ecumenical enterprise. So long as you believe in her doctrines and refuse to come out of her; so long as you seek to bind others in her deceit by refusing me to expose their lies, then you support murder, heresy, and deception. 

All the statues, dogmas, doctrines and traditions of Rome are the symptoms of a far greater disease within that communion. They are fruits of the nature of the beast. Look up the word 'anti' (christ) in Strongs concordance. #473. Everything the Vatican does is in the room of, or instead of Christ. It's sanctuary replaces the heavenly sanctuary...the priesthood replaces Christ's ministry in heaven...the priest himself (as also does the saints, Mary, Joseph etc) replaces the mediatorial role of Christ...the sacraments replace grace...the popes (or magisterium)word replaces scripture...images replace the real...traditions replace truth...the confessional and penance replaces Christ as Redeemer and His sole prerogative to forgive sin...her invention of Sunday replaced the Sabbath...her version of the ten commandments replaced the true..the list is endless. The entire facade is Antichrist, in the true meaning of that word. 

."..and it cast the truth to the ground; and it practiced, and prospered." Daniel 8:12

19 minutes ago, Blood Bought 1953 said:

 

 

Unbelief is is the only thing that keeps one out.Faith alone is the only thing that gets you in.Most of the Bible was written by murderers.....all saved by their faith.

They didn't stay murderers. See Revel. 21:8;22:15

On 21/08/2015 at 3:33 AM, missmuffet said:

Being "good" is not going to get you to heaven.

Correct. But not being good keeps people out.

8 hours ago, simplejeff said:

Good fruit may often in Scripture and among ekklesia be meaning "true teaching",  accurate and perfectly in line with all Scripture, proceeding from YHVH.

This is uncommon on earth, even in most churches in the world,  and 'naturally' is not found in heathen or pagan religions nor in society outside of Christ Jesus.

Good fruit is good character. The fruit contains the seed of the gospel; if the fruit is rotten, the seed will be. Evangelism and witness is wholly dependant on Christ's work in the life which results in us being transformed into His image...this must be first, the sowing and disbursement of the seed is the more effective as the fruit ripens and is "eaten" by others. As others witness our good characters, then they become open to the gospel. 

It has been said in this thread that Christians are like children and because they fall, they have not been perfected yet...but I would suggest that even a baby is perfect. And so is the toddler...the older child...the teenager (even). What I am saying is that at whatever stage we are at in our Christian walk, so long as we are growing...so long as we are surrendered and laying before our heavenly Father all our life and all that pertains to it, then we are perfect. Perhaps not sinless...but perfect in living up to all the light and providence that our Father has graciously granted us. Not yet fully matured, but even rosebuds are no less perfect than a fully developed bloom at that stage of growth they are at. At whatever stage of our walk, we can indeed be perfect as we are being transformed by the Spirit into whatever He makes of us.

History is the key to tomorrow. There is nothing new under the sun. The passage in Thessalonians met its first fulfilment in the first centuries. The restrainer, pagan Rome, was removed to Constantinople which in conjunction with the reduction in persecution and a political vacuum in Rome, led to the 'falling away' through the bishops of Rome becoming political figures and those who came after them becoming more and more ambitious which finally resulted in a church/state union that began the persecutions again against those Christians such as the Waldenses and Celtic churches who refused to submit to Papal authority.

Now fast forward to today. Left wing pagan socialist/communist agendas are being swept aside in favour of more conservative politics. Right wing conservatism is becoming more radicalised in the face of Islamic fundamentalism. The two extremes, left/right...democrat/republican....conservative/liberal....are growing further and further apart due to continuing violence and provocation...the antithesis/thesis effect which will soon synthesise into whatever the powers behind the scenes envision, that is their NWO. Not a political NWO, but religious, led by Rome, finally becoming Babylon the Great. Again, to repeat history, a woman (church) riding the beast (state)...a church/state union. Once again, particularly in the US, we have clerics becoming ambitious for political power. We have a global ecumenical network, again led by Rome, that seeks to use political leverage to solve the problems of society they view as dangerous to their religious identity. Those who refuse to go along with their ideas and receive their mark/stamp of approval,  will be persecuted. 

We can expect the world to become more evil, that indeed is an important sign..."as in the days of Noah etc"...however, the opposite will also be true, that the church, or at least those who are faithful and looking for His coming (not beating their servants etc) will be becoming more Christlike. Thus the divide between the sheep and goats will continue to widen. This will be evident even within our churches. Within families. It will climax in war between the two. "Ye shall be hated of all nations for My name's sake".  However,  you will see the global political landscape developing into a paradigm of two opposing camps both claiming God's blessing and approval, a war between brothers (as Cain and Abel did) , and the ONLY way of knowing what is true and what is false is by the Word of God, the religious differences between them, Babylon the Great and God's true people, will be subtle but our eternal destiny will depend on our ultimate choice.  The mark of the beast and the seal of God are opposites, but Satan has made sure they will be of a similar nature, discernible only by Biblical truth. 

We are approaching those times now.

Now we beseech you brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto Him, that ye be not troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of the Lord is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what with-holdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way, and then shall that wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the Spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming: even him whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

2 Thessalonians 2:1-10

And the Dragon gave him his power, his SEAT, and much authority." Revel. 13:2

The above verses are perhaps, alongside Daniel 7 and Revelation 13, the most significant texts in the entire word of God as to revealing the identity of the Antichrist of scripture. When reading Daniel 7 and Revelation 13, and in contemplating the above, the reader cannot help but be impressed with the detail and amount of information given regarding the nature, the thoughts, beliefs and practices of this entity who from the beginnings of the Christian faith to the present time, has shed such a dark forbidding cloud over the true church. In these few short verses the apostle Paul has given his readers a clear and unambiguous signpost pointing directly to the rise of the man of sin, the son perdition. A signpost that he first revealed to the Thessalonian church in person, and reaffirmed in this letter. Bible scholars for centuries have agreed that the reason Paul was less than forthcoming in his letter in naming the ‘restrainer’ directly as he is commonly known, was because there was a very real danger involved in so doing. That danger coming from the restrainer himself, the Roman pagan empire who ruled the then known world at that time, and who, if upon reading this letter and realizing that Paul was here saying that their power was about to be swept away to make way for another, Paul would have been immediately arrested and charged, tried, and executed for sedition. Also, because the Thessalonians already knew who Paul was talking about, it was not necessary for Paul to risk naming Rome again.

Practically all the early commentators and church fathers were unanimous in their belief that Paul was referring to the empire of Rome in general, and to the emperors in particular. Let me provide a few quotes from those early church statesmen from their comments on this matter.

Let me start with Tertullian (160-240 A. D.):

“‘For the mystery of iniquity doth already work; only he who now hinders must hinder,

until he be taken out of the way.’ What obstacle is there but the Roman state, the falling

away of which, by being scattered into ten kingdoms, shall introduce Antichrist upon (its

own ruins)? ‘And then shall be revealed the wicked one.” “On the Resurrection of the

Flesh,” chapter 24; Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. III, p. 563

(Author: There is some debate as to whether the ‘falling away’ referred to here is in reference to the empire, or the church. Some say one, some the other, while some would contend that it can apply equally to both. Either way, Tertullian was certain in his belief that the restrainer was the Roman Empire. That it was Rome itself that inhibited in some way the rise of the antichrist. This was generally accepted throughout the church at that time, and it was common for the church to pray to God that He would keep the Roman power intact in order to keep the antichrist to coming to power in their time. Interesting also is Tertullian’s reference to the ten kingdoms that would result from the break up of Rome. This is a direct reference to Daniel 7 and the ten horns that would grow from the 4th beast, Rome. The Antichrist, according to Bible scholars, was the 11th horn. Tertullian was using the historicist method of prophetic interpretation, that method which viewed prophecy as an historical unfolding throughout history from the time the prophecy was first given, and culminating at the second coming. This is significant when understanding Paul’s letter, because Paul is clear that the Antichrist would appear as soon as Rome moves aside, and that very same Antichrist would still be there to be judged at the second coming. Not futurist, not preterist, but a historicist approach, just like Tertullian.)

In yet another comment, Tertullian states: “The very end of all things threatening dreadful woes is only retarded by the continued existence of the Roman Empire.”

(“Apology,” chapter 32; Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. III, p. 43).

A little later Lactantius,. in the early fourth century wrote: “The subject itself declares that the fall and ruin of the world will shortly take place; except that while the city of Rome remains, it appears that nothing of this kind is to be feared. But when that capital of the world shall have fallen, and shall have begun to be a street, which the Sibyls say shall come to pass, who can doubt that the end has now arrived to the affairs of men and the whole world? It is that city, that only, which still sustains all things.” (“The DivineInstitutes,” book 7, chapter 25; Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. VII, p. 220).

Also early in the fourth century Cyril of Jerusalem (318-386 A. D.)had this to say: “But this aforesaid Antichrist is to come when the times of the Roman Empire shall have been fulfilled, and the end of the world is drawing near. There shall rise up together ten kings of the Romans, reigning in different parts perhaps, but all about the same time; and after those an eleventh, the Antichrist, who by his magical craft shall seize upon the Roman power; and of the kings who reigned before him, ‘three he shall humble,’ and the remaining seven he shall keep in subjection to himself.” (Catechetical Lectures,” section 15, on II Thessalonians 2:4; Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. VII, p. 108 [New York: The Christian Literature Company, 1895]).

(Author: Much could be said about this quote; he also is clearly linking  the prophecy of Daniel to the text of Paul’s, agreeing with other eminent writers of his time that out of Rome would evolve ten kings, 3 of whom the antichrist would subdue. When the restrainer, Rome, was to be taken out of the way, and the horns of Daniel 7 arise, the antichrist would be revealed.)

Now I would present the testimony of Ambrose (died in 398): “After the falling or decay of the Roman Empire, Antichrist shall appear.” (Quoted in, Bishop Thomas Newton,

Dissertations on the Prophecies, p. 463)……

….and Chrysostom (died in 407): “When the Roman Empire is taken out of the way, then he [the Antichrist] shall come. And naturally. For as long as the fear of this empire lasts, no one will willingly exalt himself, but when that is dissolved, he will attack the anarchy, and endeavor to seize upon the government both of man and of God.”

“Homily IV on 2 Thessalonians 2:6-9,” Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. XIII, p. 389

[New York: Charles Scribner’s and Sons, 1905]…..

…and finally Jerome (died 420): “He that letteth is taken out of the way, and yet we do not realize that Antichrist is near.”

(Letter to Ageruchia, written about 409A. D. Letter 123, section 16; Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. VI, p. 236

Jerome’s testimony is interesting. He admits and agrees with other early church fathers of his era that Rome was the restrainer, and had been removed in his (Jerome’s) lifetime. Yet it had not yet been made apparent who the power was that could definitively be called the Antichrist. Why? Because from Jerome’s perspective, he could not see all the signs of the Antichrist’s coming, as they had yet to be revealed in history. The capital of the empire had been removed to Constantinople, (thus Rome effectually removed from the scene thus no longer restraining whatever was to come) and the Gothic barbarian kings* were already well entrenched in ongoing battles and wars to decide who would rule over the territories not long since vacated by Rome, but the three horns to be subdued were still in power. When they were subdued, it would then be known by whose power they were done away, and the identity of Antichrist would be revealed.

I think it would be very helpful if I here provided a quote from the eminent Catholic historian, Cardinal Manning.

“Now the abandonment of Rome was the liberation of the pontiffs. Whatsoever claims to obedience the emperors may have made, and whatsoever compliance the Pontiff may have yielded, the whole previous relation, anomalous, and annulled again and again by the vices and outrages of the emperors, was finally dissolved by a higher power. The providence  of God permitted a succession of irruptions, Gothic, Lombard, and Hungarian, to desolate Italy, and to efface from it every remnant of the empire.

The pontiffs found themselves alone, the sole fountains of order, peace, law, and safety. And from the hour of this providential liberation, when, by a divine intervention, the chains fell off from the hands of the successor of St. Peter, as once before from his own, no sovereign has ever reigned in Rome except the Vicar of Jesus Christ.”

(Henry Edward Manning, The Temporal Power of The Vicar of Jesus Christ, Preface, pp. xxviii, xxix. London: Burns and Lambert, 1862).

Manning has clearly given an excellent summary of history which directly correlates with the prophecies of Daniel and Paul. While attributing the fall of Rome to God and the rise of the papacy to Him also, Manning seems oblivious to the fact that he is revealing the perfect fulfillment of the prophecy of Paul and Daniel. That when Rome fell, the ten nations arose, three were subdued, and the ultimate victor was the papacy! It was the papacy itself that the empire of Rome was restraining. It was the papacy that arose after  the establishment of the ten horns. It was the papacy that had a major role in the subjugation of the 3 horns because being Arian in belief they were directly opposed to the rule of the pontiffs. It will be the papacy that will still be here at the second coming. Therefore it is the papacy which perfectly fulfils the criteria demanded of it in order to be identified as the Antichrist. And that my friends are precisely the reasons all non-Roman Bible commentators from the time of the 6th century on were almost unanimous in identifying the papacy as the man of sin. The power who entered the church (the temple of God) and by claiming the power to forgive sin, and shut out of heaven whom he will, and claiming universal spiritual and temporal authority over all the earth, thus claiming the prerogatives of God,  “opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.”

* The ten kings who vied for power as the Roman Empire disintegrated before them and from which 7 nations of modern Europe can trace their descent are known by most historians as being the Anglo-Saxons (Britain), the Allamanni (Germany), the Franks (France), the Lombards (first around the Danube then Italy), Visigoths (Spain), Burgundians (Burgundy/Switzerland)) and the Suevi (Portugal).

These seven of the ten Barbarian kingdoms were converted to Christianity and submitted to the authority of the Bishop of Rome. However, three of the kingdoms converted to Christianity but embraced the heretical teachings of Arius. Arius (who was presbyter in Alexandria around the year 320 A. D.) taught that ‘Christ was created out of nothing as the first and greatest of all creatures’, (at least we are led to understand this through the little of what remains of his writings. The Goths were converted through the missionary endeavours of Ulfilas, who also rejected the trinity, but by no means was 'Arian', as charged by his enemies.) very similar to Jehovah Witness teachings of today. The teachings of Arius were condemned in two great church councils, Nicea (325 A. D.) and Constantinople (381 A. D.). These three Arian kingdoms were a threat to the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome [later called the Pope]. To make a long story short, these three kingdoms eventually were uprooted by the imperial power acting under the influence of the Bishop of Rome. The Ostrogoths (originally from Yugoslavia), by order of the emperor, dealt the heretical Heruli a devastating defeat in 493 A. D.

It happened like this: The Pope requested the emperor to do something about the unorthodox Heruli. In response, the emperor sent Theodoric, king of the Ostrogoths to do battle with Odoacer, king of the Heruli. Odoacer was slain by Theodoric and the Heruli disappeared from history. Then the Vandals were crushed (in 534 A. D.) by Belisarius, general of emperor Justinian’s armies. But there was one remaining horn which needed to be uprooted, and it was the most formidable of all: the Ostrogoths. After the Ostrogoths conquered the Heruli, they became extremely powerful. They were also Arians, or at least so said Rome, so the Bishop of Rome [the Pope] implored Justinian to uproot the Ostrogoths. There were several battles between Belisarius and the Ostrogoths. The decisive battle, however, was in February of the year 538. The armies of Justinian, as well as the ravages of disease, decimated the armies of the Ostrogoths, they were expelled from Rome and in short order, disappeared from the historical scene in Europe.

There is some debate as to why the operations of the little horn should be restricted to the western hemisphere of the old Roman territories. The eastern portion of that empire was eventually taken by Islam, so the question is often asked, why cannot Islam be the Antichrist? I think that the following quote from the eminent Bible scholar and historian Sir Isaac Newton asa quoted by Thomas Newton, gives the answer.

“Antichrist, then (as the Fathers delight to call him), or the little horn, is to be sought among the ten kingdoms of the western Roman Empire. I say of the western Roman Empire, because that was properly the body of the fourth beast; Greece, and the countries which lay eastward of Italy belonged to the third beast; for the former beasts were still subsisting, though their dominion was taken away. ‘As concerning the rest of the beasts,’ saith Daniel, ‘they had their dominion taken away; yet their lives were prolonged for a season and a time.’ Daniel 7:12. ‘And therefore,’ as Sir Isaac Newton rightly infers, ‘all four beasts are still alive, though the dominion of the three first be taken away. The nations of Chaldea and Assyria are still the first beast. Those of Media and Persia are still the second beast. Those of Macedon, Greece and Thrace, Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt, are still the third. And those of Europe, on this side of Greece, are still the fourth. Seeing therefore the body of the third beast is confined to the nations on this side the river Euphrates, and the body of the fourth beast is confined to the nations on this side of Greece; we are to look for all the four heads of the third beast among the nations on this side the river Euphrates; and for all the eleven horns of the fourth beast, among the nations on this side of Greece.” (Thomas Newton, Dissertations on the Prophecies, pp. 239, 240).

What is fascinating is if we take Newtons study as viable, then in Revelations 13 we have that composite beast of all the preceding empires with their locales centered in western Europe. If however we continue the progression in a westerly direction, beginning from the near east (Babylon) with the first beast, and finishing with the second beast of Revelation 13, the lamb-like beast that speaks as a dragon, what nation lies immediately west of Europe? 

Oh, btw. As to the title of the thread, why does God require faith? In the beginning Lucifer began a revolution based on lies concerning the character of God. Jesus came to refute those lies, and reveal the love of the Father. Eve believed the serpent above the declaration of God,...that if they disobeyed they would surely not die. Today, most Christians prefer to believe the serpent still. They believe man is immortal, and cannot die. A pagan lie born in Eden. 

But God requires us to have faith because He wants us to believe Him...that what He says is truth. You have opened a can of worms with this thread because many posters here have revealed their lack of trust and belief in the plain words of God. They spiritualise "death" and pretend that separation from the only source of life makes no difference. That men are inherently immortal despite scripture stating clearly that only God has immortality. 

First @spiderman1917 that 'humble nice' man in North Korea that you reference is still a sinner, and except he repents will be judged. However, we can trust God that his judgement will be just. Jesus said some will be judged with many stripes' some with few stripes. 

Second, ignore those self-righteous arrogant blow-hards on here who think that they can assess your standing before a merciful gracious God from the other side of a key-board. I am surprised the moderators allow them such licence. 

Third. I happen to agree with you on the matter of eternal torment. The scripture says that the punishment of the wicked is eternal' not the punishing of the wicked. Jesus paid the full price of our redemption. That price was death. For those who do not repent and seek forgiveness' they shall have to suffer that death which could have been Christ's....that death for many, depending on their works, will be slow and painful, for others, not so much...but be assured it will be fair and just. 

You can also be assured that it is eternal torment and the stubborn acceptance of that concept which denigrates the character of God far more than you're questioning of those who misunderstand what it is that Jesus saved us from....and deny the most fundamental and clearest Biblical teachings in the process..."that the wages of sin is death". 

The very first occult sermon was preached by the serpent in the Garden of Eden. 

"Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? ......ye shall not surely die, For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

(Genesis 3:1,4,5) 

Satan, the serpent, has here suggested that God is deliberately holding something back from Adam and Eve. Something that would benefit them, but bring competition to God, which He is seeking to avoid. And for 6000 years, the lying serpent has repeated this even from Christian pulpits. Knowledge is power he says. Science has all the answers. Philosophy brings understanding and wisdom. Magic meets the needs. In other words, God is unable to meet the needs of mankind. He cannot be trusted. Because He doesn't want competition, He is being selfish and arbitrary. He is therefore a tyrant not willing to love you unconditionally nor does He desire for you those things that are for your good. 

These mischaracterisations of God abound all around us. Yet despite the depravity, selfishness, violence, and greed that believing these sentiments regarding God has brought to mankind, He still sent His only begotten Son to reveal His true nature, His true character. A nature of unconditional pure unselfish self-sacrificing love. Calvary and the death of Jesus proved for all eternity that the serpent was a liar. And so also is every promise inherent in the occult. Fame...popularity...wealth...happiness...all an illusion presented for one purpose and one purpose only. To bring you down to hell and ruin. The promises of the serpent are like ropes of sand. God is a God of truth...love...and power. His ways are eternal...rewarding...and empowering. You can trust HIm.

On 2/7/2018 at 3:43 PM, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, everyone.

I know that this will be unpopular and some will say downright alarming, but we are NOT told that we go to heaven when we die. As I've said in other threads, the "soul" is NOT independent from the "body." Genesis 2:7 bears repeating:

Genesis 2:7 (KJV)

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

In Hebrew (transliterated), this is...

B'reeshiyt 2:7 (JPS Tanakh)

7 Vayiytser YHWH Elohiym et-haa'aadaam `aafaar min-haa'adaamaah vayipach b'apaayv nishmat chayiym vayhiy haa'aadaam l-nefesh chayaah:

7 Vayiytser = And-formed
YHWH = YHWH; the-LORD; ADONAI
Elohiym = God
et- = (the next word is the direct object)
haa'aadaam = the-man
`aafaar = of-the-dust
min-= from
haa'adaamaah = the-ground
vayipach = and-he-breathed
b'apaayv = in-his-nostrils
nishmat = a-puff
chayiym = of-living-things
vayhiy = and-became
haa'aadaam = the-man
l-nefesh = to-an-air-breather
chayaah: = living:

Therefore, God FORMED the MAN, NOT the BODY of the man! And, the MAN became a living air-breather once air was puffed into his nostrils. Furthermore, the term "soul" IS this "air-breather."

Strong's dictionary say it like this:

5315 nefesh (NEH-fesh). From naafash; properly, a breathing creature, i.e. Animal of (abstractly) vitality; used very widely in a literal, accommodated or figurative sense (bodily or mental) -- any, appetite, beast, body, breath, creature, X dead(-ly), desire, X (dis-)contented, X fish, ghost, + greedy, he, heart(-y), (hath, X jeopardy of) life (X in jeopardy), lust, man, me, mind, mortally, one, own, person, pleasure, (her-, him-, my-, thy-)self, them (your)-selves, + slay, soul, + tablet, they, thing, (X she) will, X would have it.

Which comes from the root word, the verb form,...

5314 naafash (naw-FAHSH). A primitive root; to breathe; passively, to be breathed upon, i.e. (figuratively) refreshed (as if by a current of air) -- (be) refresh selves (-ed).

So, it's not some "immaterial part" of a person; it's talking about the fact that this body - this PERSON - is alive and breathing!

The word "spirit," translated from the Hebrew word "ruwach," means a "wind," or by resemblance, the "breath":

7307 ruwach (ROO-akh). From ruwach; wind; by resemblance breath, i.e. A sensible [palpable] (or even violent) exhalation; figuratively, life, anger, unsubstantiality; by extension, a region of the sky; by resemblance spirit, but only of a rational being (including its expression and functions) -- air, anger, blast, breath, X cool, courage, mind, X quarter, X side, spirit((-ual)), tempest, X vain, ((whirl-))wind(-y).

Which comes from its root word, the verb form,...

7306 ruwach (roo-AKH). A primitive root; properly, to blow, i.e. Breathe; only (literally) to smell or (by implication) perceive (figuratively, to anticipate, enjoy) -- accept, smell, X touch, make of quick understanding.

When a person ceases to breathe, when he or she "breathes his/her last (which thankfully may not really be his or her last because of the Resurrection)" - "gives up the ghost" - "gives up the spirit" - "gives up the breath" - then he or she ceases to be an "air-breather." He or she ceases to be a "soul," and he/she awaits the Resurrection. Therefore, "soul" ("air-breather") = "body" + "spirit" ("breath").

Now, let me quickly add that I DO believe in an afterlife of blessing for the believer, but that doesn't begin until the Resurrection and culminates in that which many CALL "Heaven" because of its description, the New Jerusalem, descending to the New Earth THROUGH the "heavens" and landing upon this New Earth. It is THERE - within this New Jerusalem - that one will find the descriptions that many assign to "Heaven," namely (1) the streets of gold, (2) the golden city, (3) the gates of pearl, (4) the river of the water of life, (5) the tree of life, (6) the jasper walls, (7) the foundations consisting of several precious gems, and of course, (8) the throne of God and of the Lamb.

This brings us to one more definition: "Heaven" itself:

The Hebrew word translated as "heaven" or "heavens," depending upon the English version of the Bible one uses, is "shaamayim":

8064 shaamayim (shaw-MAH-yeem). Dual of an unused singular shaameh {shaw-meh'}; from an unused root meaning to be lofty; the sky (as aloft; the dual perhaps alluding to the visible arch in which the clouds move, as well as to the higher ether where the celestial bodies revolve) -- air, X astrologer, heaven(-s).

As noted, this is a DUAL word, neither singular nor plural in the multiple sense. The dual number is most often used for things that come in pairs, particularly body parts, such as the eyes, for instance. The author of this Strong's entry suggests that it refers to the atmosphere and to space visible beyond it, and in a sense, that's true. However, it really refers to the fact that the sky itself comes in a pair - the day sky and the night sky.

Some make the mistake of thinking that Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 have a gap of time between them, but that is NOT how Hebrew literature works. The first verse is a SYNOPSIS of what is to follow. They frequently "telegraph their punches" in literature. If one is honest with himself or herself, he or she will realize that the words "et hashaamayim v'et haa'aarets" ("the heavens and the earth") in Genesis 1:1, the direct objects of God's creative power, are GIVEN those names by God in the following verses! Verse 8 in context says,

Genesis 1:6-8 (KJV)

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven (Hebrew: shaamaayim). And the evening and the morning were the second day.

God named this expanse of air between the waters above and the waters below, "shaamayim!" Adding the definite article "ha-" to this word gives one the word in Genesis 1:1, "hashaamayim."

Verse 10 in context says,

Genesis 1:9-13 (KJV)

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth (Hebrew: erets); and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. 11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it wasgood. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

God named this dry ground "erets!" Adding the definite article (which also changes the vowel pointing) gives one the word in Genesis 1:1, "haa'aarets." There were no previous "skies and earth" because God hadn't created the expanse-between-waters and the dry-ground, yet! That wasn't accomplished until days 2 and 3 of the Creation week!

Regarding this "shaamayim," this is where the birds are said to fly:

Genesis 1:20-23 (KJV)

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament [expanse] of heaven (Hebrew: hashaamaayim = "of-the-[2]-skies"). 21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

That basically limits this expanse to the atmosphere. One might wonder about the fourth day:

Genesis 1:14-19 (KJV)

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

However, one should notice that this passage always uses the word "lights," never the "sun" or the "moon."

 

Without getting into all the detail of your post, I do agree that not until the resurrection can we expect to see glory. That said, there are some in heaven that by the simple fact that they are seen by the apostle John before the throne of God singing songs of praise and gratitude for their salvation, we must assume they are a part of the redeemed from the earth. I would assume also that these are some of those who were raised at the time of Christ's resurrection and were the first-fruits of His offering when He appeared before His Father . (Revelation 4:4; 5:8-10)

4 hours ago, Daniel 11:36 said:

"Matthew 24:37-41  But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.  For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,  And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.  Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.  Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left."

 

Here is your problem

You think that this passage age of scripture is written for all rather than it's specific application

It is applied to Israel alone during the 70th week decreed for the nation

The Lord is speaking to Israel in the coming tribulation period

Jesus was ministering to Israel during the 70th week. through the first 3 and 1/2 years in person...then at Calvary He made the sacrifice and oblation to cease....the final 3 and 1/2 years through the apostles. Between the time of pagan Rome (the iron of the legs Daniel 2) and the mix of iron and clay ('Christian' church and state apostasy) there is no gap of 2000 years...just as there is no gap between the 69th and 70th weeks. The entire prophecy of Danial 9 refers to Messiah. It is a Messianic prophecy, and the greatest of them. A Messianic prophecy that if recognised by Israel would convert the entire nation.How ironic that the church wants it to be about the antichrist.