Jump to content
Kingdom of Adventistan
aka

Facts of our Faith

Recommended Posts

JoeMo
2 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

 They will make the Temple a "house of prayer for all peoples", which means a very different "House" from the original.  Muslims could worship on Friday, Jews on Sabbath, and "Christians" on Sunday. 

I am currently of the opinion that Rachel is correct.  This will be part of a 7-year treaty between Israel and its Muslim neighbors imposed by the UN.  Halfway though this treaty, Islam will break the treaty and set up the Temple as a mosque exclusively for Muslims.  This 7 year treaty will be the last  of the 70 Weeks of Years spoken of in Daniel; and the last half of this period - when the treaty is broken, are the last 3-1/2 years - 1260 days -  of this age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wanderer
11 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

I am currently of the opinion that Rachel is correct.  This will be part of a 7-year treaty between Israel and its Muslim neighbors imposed by the UN.  Halfway though this treaty, Islam will break the treaty and set up the Temple as a mosque exclusively for Muslims.  This 7 year treaty will be the last  of the 70 Weeks of Years spoken of in Daniel; and the last half of this period - when the treaty is broken, are the last 3-1/2 years - 1260 days -  of this age.

well, it might all sound good this way, but I need solid evidence from the Bible before I can adopt it. In short, Bible prophecy does not depend upon such schemes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest
2 hours ago, JoeMo said:

I am currently of the opinion that Rachel is correct.  This will be part of a 7-year treaty between Israel and its Muslim neighbors imposed by the UN.  Halfway though this treaty, Islam will break the treaty and set up the Temple as a mosque exclusively for Muslims.  This 7 year treaty will be the last  of the 70 Weeks of Years spoken of in Daniel; and the last half of this period - when the treaty is broken, are the last 3-1/2 years - 1260 days -  of this age.

Prophecy is not given so that we can predict the future, only so that we can recognize the time and not be deceived.  The scenario of a Muslim anti-Christ is possible, but not certain.  The Evil One will set himself up in the Temple.  He will take away the daily sacrifices.  He will defile the Temple.  Those things ARE Biblical.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JoeMo
15 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

The scenario of a Muslim anti-Christ is possible, but not certain.  The Evil One will set himself up in the Temple.  He will take away the daily sacrifices.  He will defile the Temple.  Those things ARE Biblical.  

  •  

I agree.  In fact, I have not totally dismissed the idea that that papacy will somehow be a major player in end-time events.  None of the scenarios that have been attributed to eschatology are certain except those things you have stated.  The devil is in the details (literally).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JoeMo
17 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

well, it might all sound good this way, but I need solid evidence from the Bible before I can adopt it. In short, Bible prophecy does not depend upon such schemes.

Likewise, I would like some solid evidence from the Bible that the papacy (or any other specific group or person) is definitely the beast or the antichrist.

 

I'll make a feeble attempt to show that the RCC is NOT the beast.  Look at all the references to the antichrist spirit in John's epistles:

 "Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son. " (1 John 2:22)

Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,  but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world." (1 John 4:2-3)

"I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist." (2 John 1:7)

Who fits these descriptions of the antichrist better - Catholicism or Islam?  I was a good Catholic for many years before becoming as SDA; and believe me - Catholics truly believe that Jesus is God and Savior; and He was God made flesh.

  •  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wanderer
3 hours ago, JoeMo said:

I'll make a feeble attempt to show that the RCC is NOT the beast.  Look at all the references to the antichrist spirit in John's epistles:

It is quite possible for us to "deny that Christ came in the flesh;" by certain things we believe or certain ways that we choose to live. It is also possible that "The Beast" would present under the guise of religion, spirituality, or indeed, as the scriptures tell us: "as an angel of light." Therefore, it does not prove much in the lines of prophecy to distance any church from the possibilities before us. If I were going to "prove" anything about the RCC, I would find some much more reliable way of doing it. (NOTE: My comment in no way is saying anything for or against the RCC)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JoeMo
48 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

It is quite possible for us to "deny that Christ came in the flesh;" by certain things we believe or certain ways that we choose to live.

Do you have an example?

 

48 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

If I were going to "prove" anything about the RCC, I would find some much more reliable way of doing it.

More reliable than the Bible?  I know (but don't accept) the argument that since the pope considers himself the Vicar of Christ, that Catholics don't believe that Christ came in the flesh.  That argument doesn't make sense to me.  Jan Marcussen , in his book "National Sunday Law, tried to prove his point by saying an inscription inside the pope's mitre (triangle hat) "Vicar of the Son of God" added up to 666 - proving the pope is the antichrist.  Problem - there is no such inscription inside the pope's mitre.

I've said it before - no one truly "knows" how end-time prophecy will be fulfilled until it is fulfilled.  We can banter all we want about popes, Islam, Antiochus Epiphanes, Ronald Wilson Reagan (6 letters in each name), etc.; but we only speculate - none of us knows.  We'll know when things start fulfilling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wanderer
1 hour ago, JoeMo said:

More reliable than the Bible?

Please show where in my post I said this about the Bible. My intention was/is to say that the usual lines about "anti-Christ/s" simply do not prove one thing for, or against the RCC being or not being "the beast of Bible prophecy." The CONTEXT of "anti-Christ" as used in the Bible does not relate to a specific denomination or group of people; and especially NOT a single individual. Quoting Bible verses about "anti-Christ" does not mean that statements about the beast of Bible prophecy are "Biblical."

 

1 hour ago, JoeMo said:

Jan Marcussen , in his book "National Sunday Law

1 hour ago, JoeMo said:

I've said it before - no one truly "knows" how end-time prophecy will be fulfilled

Jan Marcussen is, in my view, not a reliable or cogent source of Biblical end-time truth. I believe there are things we CAN know. God would never leave us in a position where we would not know right from wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JoeMo
7 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

Please show where in my post I said this about the Bible.

In my post, I used the Bible (the epistles of John) to provide evidence - not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt - that the RCC is not the antichrist power; so I inferred that you were asking me for something more reliable than the Bible.  My apologies for misunderstanding you.

9 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

Jan Marcussen is, in my view, not a reliable or cogent source of Biblical end-time truth.

AMEN, Brother!

9 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

God would never leave us in a position where we would not know right from wrong.

I don't think speculation on eschatology is the same as knowing right from wrong.  Misinterpreting prophecy is not a sin, IMHO.  If it were, Paul and Peter would have sinned because they seemed to preach that Jesus would be coming with the lifetime of the apostolic church (See 1 Thes. 4: 13-19 and 2 Peter 3:10-14).  They were wrong.  So far, everyone in history who has set a date or a specific scenario whose time has passed has been wrong.  I am likely wrong; but in my opinion, so is EGW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wanderer
11 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

My apologies for misunderstanding you.

thank you, but you did not do anything wrong. Those texts about "anti-Christ" tell us what to look for, some of the sign posts, if you will, about the "many antichrists that are already in the world," but they dont prove that a particular church is, or is not "the beast." I am sure if we did a little digging, we would see some of those "sign posts" in most denominations.  But that does not prove one way or the other about "the beast of Bible prophecy." IMHO

PS, good point about how its "NOT a sin to misinterpret Bible prophecy."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×