| Author | Message | ||
| Andrew_adams |
Hello everyone, this is my first post. I didn't read every post on this topic but I have something to add. It may have been said already but here go's. Did anyone study the Adventist view on Dan. 8? In the book titled "1844 made simple" by Clifford Goldstein. In this book he says that the little horn of Dan. 8, is the Papacy and Rome. So I took a look at the Daniel. It says that out of one of the four Gen. under Alex. the great came a little horn, this (horn) man, would stop the daily sacrifices and stomp on the sanctuary, it says this three times. My question to Adventist pastors was, how could the little horn be the Papacy, didn't the daily sacrific stop at Jesus death? The Papacy didn't come in to being until 70 AD, says the Papacy, 532 AD, says the SDA's. What daily sacrifice was there to stop? And then, if you look at what the angle said to Daniel, He never said anything about Rome, as a matter of fact, Rome is not mentioned in the Old testiment. Plus, Rome didn't come out of one of the four Gen. under Alex. the great. And what sanctuary was there to stomp on in 70 AD, or 532 AD? The only answer I get from them is "daily was add." So I ask, when was is add? may be when the book was written, or translated. What do you think? | ||
| Maryann |
Welcome Andrew!:-)) Three new people in one day. That is great! The other guyz can talk about Daniel WAY better than I. Tell us more about you? ;-)) IBC.....Insured By Christ (Maryann) | ||
| Maryann |
Hmmmm;-)) I can't count! It's 4 new people!! | ||
| Max |
Daniel, I'm running on memory alone here, since I don't have time right now to check the references. But I'll give some of your items a go. When did the Papacy start? Most scholars of church history do not accept the Roman Catholic Church's (RCC's) version that Peter was the first pope or that the Papacy started in 70 AD. The bishop of Rome started fairly early, but he was not a pope. All the major cities of the Roman Empire had bishops. The Roman bishop was certainly a very important religio-political force. But the "see of Rome" was important for the SOLE reason that Rome was capitol of the Roman Empire. The Papacy as such did not begin for hundreds of later (532 AD may be correct), but even then the Eastern Orthodox branch of Christendom did not accept it. And the THEOLOGY of the Papacy wasn't even codified till the Reformation forced the Counter-Reformation culminating in the RCC Council of Trent. Clifford Goldstein, in my opinion, writes only nonsense. Again, in my opinion, the best primary source documents to go to for an account of the history of the Alexander's general Antiochus (Ephiphanes) IV are the historical books of the Maccabees. In briefest form: Gen. Antiochus trampled on the sanctuary in Jerusalem by sacrificing a pig on its altar. Daniel prophecied that the sanctuary would be restored. This restoration took place when the Maccabeans defeated Antiochus' garrison guarding Jerusalem and re-started the true Levitical sacrifices. The Jews still celebrate this victory with Hanakkuh (sp?) every year around Christmas time. When Rome trounced the Greeks and the Persians and began to rule Judea, they ALLOWED these sacrifices to continue. This remained the case during Jesus earthly ministry and lasted till 70 AD when Rome finally had enough and put its boot down. There is zero scriptural evidence that 1844 constituted the restoration of the sanctuary. Des Ford has proven that beyond any reasonable doubt. (He's still legalistically mired down in the erroneous and anti-new-covenant required Sabbath-keeping as the seal of God, though, and Sunday- worship as the mark of the beast.) SDAs thought the sanctuary was the earth and would be restored in 1844. When events proved them wrong (Jesus didn't come), they restated their position: We were mistaken, they said. God held his hand over the truth, said Ellen G. White. Now we see the truth. The sanctuary isn't the earth after all, triumphed Hirum Edson. The sanctuary is in heaven! Strictly speaking, even this is unscriptural. According to the New Testament the Old Testament Sanctuary is Jesus Christ Himself in the flesh, not a place as we think of places, but a Person. For example, the New Testament says God-in-Christ "tabernacled" or "sanctuaried" with us. It says Jesus was Immanuel or "God among us." Jesus said (speaking of his own Person), "Destroy this temple and I will rebuild it in three days." How could this saying be true unless Christ-in-Person IS and has always been the true sanctuary or temple. It's getting too late. Blessings and welcome, Max of the Cross | ||
| Cindy |
Welcome Andrew! Glad you are here posting! Did Max call you "Daniel?" :-)) Hi Max! :-)) JESUS is our True Sanctuary, isn't He!?...Great news! Jesus, where our sins are atoned for completely! and therefore, we trust in HIM--our Continual Sabbath Rest! Grace always, cindy | ||
| Max |
Oops, sorry, Andrew. And thanks, Cindy, for pointing out my error. | ||
| Andrew_adams |
Thank God, this is so great, a place where one can post and not get ask to leave. Thank you Maryann, Max and Cindy, yes I have read the same thing, and also found in the ABC at the Conference Office SECC, in seven Bibles that had commentary. They all said the same thing, that Antiochus was the little horn, he fits perfectly. Just wanted to say a word to you good people. Going to bed now, God bless you all. AA | ||
| Denisegilmore |
God Bless you Andrew! Hope to see you here often. DtB, your sister in Christ Jesus | ||
| Valm |
Andrew, Why would you be asked to leave? Valerie | ||
| Jtree |
Valm, in some Adventist groups online especially, since one doesn't hold to the "message", we are "Satan" "Evil" and are always asked to leave their forums. I have been removed from 3 sites, but only to REJOIN under another name. They even SENSURE what you write. | ||
| Valm |
Wow, for a group that promotes religious liberty, sensuring is not consistent with their ideology. In otherwords, if your post doesn't go right along with their beliefs your outa there. Talk about not playing nice. Someone (the moderators) needs to find something better to do with their time. Valerie | ||
| Richardhardison |
I've been lurking, having recently been given my password and username, to see what the attitudes of the posters on this forum are. To that end I would like to know what the colloquial definiton of heresy is. Theologically it is a doctrine sincerely held which separates one from the grace of God. A good example is the Mormon belief on the created nature of God rather than the God who is "from everlasting to everlasting." I have to disagree with Max that the sanctuary of the OT is realized solely in Christ. It is true the NT Greek uses the word "tabernacled" in reference to the incarnation, but each of us is the temple of the Holy Spirit, as Paul so aptly expressed it, making each of us a sanctuary, or "holy of holies," if you will. I am a former poster from aToday (never was Adventist, however). I left when it got to the point that quoting scripture came to be regarded as a personal attack. Glad to see Bill Thompson here. Why didn't you tell me about this place, Bill? Richard L. Hardison | ||
| Maryann |
Hi Richard H, Welcome and better late than never;-)) Tell us more about you. You sound interesting especially since you are not a former SDA. I enjoy seeing non-formers here as it always brings variety to the conversation. I'll bet you know our buddy, Allenette too;-)) :):):).....Maryann | ||
| Max |
Hi, Richard L. Hardison, Glad to e-welcome another refugee from aToday! ^^I have to disagree with Max that the sanctuary of the OT is realized solely in Christ. It is true the NT Greek uses the word "tabernacled" in reference to the incarnation, but each of us is the temple of the Holy Spirit, as Paul so aptly expressed it, making each of us a sanctuary, or "holy of holies," if you will.^^ Not so sure you do disagree with me. Three points: 1. The sanctuary (temple) of the OT must FIRST be realized solely in Christ BEFORE it can be realized in you and me. 2. It is only BECAUSE it has been realized solely in Christ that it CAN be realized in you and me. 3. Our "holy of holies" status must RETAIN its eternal "solely in Christ" nature. Otherwise, the Holy Spirit is not One with the Son and the Father as He is within us. Agreed? Max Phillips | ||
| Andrew_adams |
Hello again, Andrew is back. I would like to give you a little of my history in the SDA church. Baptized in 1960, served in the church in the past, Deacon, Head Deacon, Choir mem, Choir Leader, Sabbath School Teacher, SS Sup, Treasure, ASS. Treasure, Pathfinder Leader, Deputy Director, PA and coordinator for an Evangelist, (nine years), and many other jobs. I have heard the SDA beliefs at least five times a year for the nine years. So I should know what we stand for. Now, in 1996, I ask one question, the answer that I received made me ask another, and from that I ask my questions on the adventist forum and there is where I was told to leave the church, if I don't agree with what SDA's stand for. First question; (Rev 13:17 KJV) And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. The text ask for the number of his name, not the number of his title. Second question; (Mat 24:21 KJV) For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. This is what Jesus said, so He knows what He is talking about. The wording says, none before, none after, so one time time-of-trouble. Third question; (Mat 13:38 KJV) The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; (Mat 13:29 KJV) But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn. If the tares can stay in the church till the harvest, when we disfellowship someone, who are we putting out? AA | ||
| Valm |
Great questions Andrew. Probably great conversation stoppers in the traditional sabbath School class! Have you read the stories posted here? Have you thought about writing yours? It sounds like it would be a helpful contribution. My story is pretty mundane but I sure like hearing other peoples. It is so good to have you and all the other newcomers to FAF. Valerie | ||
| Violet |
I have just started reading "A Theologian's Journey, from Seventh-day Adventism to Mainstream Christianity" I had never heard about Antiochus rule and the sacrifices in the temple. That the 2300 days was 2300 morning and evenings. It probably would of never dawned on me if Dale Razlaff had not of reccommended this book to me. What makes me so mad is all of this information has been around since the 80's (I was about 13 at the time) and it seems to of been burried. If the SDA orginization has no fear that they are right why worry about it coming to light to the general population. Only when you have something to hide do you bury the other side. (at least in my experiance) The funny thing is my indepth study all stated over the church board not wanting to do a proper budget, the conference treasurer backing them up and a determined CPA and his wife trying to discover why they felt they could cover up information and get away with it. The more we searched and took it higher up we found that is the way the orginization is. I call it the "Sit down, shut up, oh and by the way you're paying for the ride." syndrom. | ||
| Valm |
It is so exciting to here you "newcomers" stories. Thank you all so much for comig here and sharing. Valerie | ||
| Richardhardison |
Don't think so Max. The Sanctuary was the place where God dwelled, where his physical presence was manifest by the "shekinah" over the mercy seat. How this transfers to Christ, or God with us, is something I don't see. You'll have to expound further on point 3 before I see what you mean. Richard L. Hardison | ||
| Richardhardison |
Maryann- In response to your request for more about me, I respond forthwith... I am a Professional Engineer, grad of Tennessee Tech currently working as the County Engineer of Morgan County,Ohio. I grew up in a Classical Pentecostal Denomination, The Church of God (Cleveland, TN), before Charismania started infiltrating. I've remained a Wesleyan in soteriology. I met a number of SDA people in Marietta, Ohio when I went to one of their prophecy seminars because I was curious about SDA eschatology (I remain good firends with the congregation there). I had read Anthony Hoekema's booklet on Adventism, which is the Adventism section of "Four Cults." Being able to look beyond what the man was saying to see where he is coming from (Hoekema is a staunch Calvinist which regards even Southern Baptist types as "assured Arminians" and, therefore heretics), it was easy to see a good bit didn't add up. Walter Martin pointed out a number of problems with Hoekema's criticism. Suffice it to say, I have learned to look at individuals rather than denominations to detemine if a person is a cultist (many Calvinists are cultists while many SDAers aren't). What determines a cultist is the object of his/her faith. If it's Calvin's Institutes, the Roman Catholic Church, or the Spirit of Prophecy, if your faith is not in Christ, you are a cultist. More later, if you aren't totally bored by now. I figure this will probably cause enough questions as it is. Richard L. Hardison |
