SDAs, USA and the End times.
- Thread starter Josho
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
amigo de christo
Well-Known Member
you mean not even the smallest lie is of the TRUTH .
And if you said YES , THEN RIGHT YOU ARE .
And what is TRUTH . GOD IS TRUTH , HIS WORD IS TRUTH , HIS SPIRIT IS TRUTH and thus HIS WORDS ARE TRUTH .
so thet key to what is a lie .
ITS real simple . IT will contradict HIS WORDS and do as satan did even using some of those words to imply
a lie .
You see man IS NOT TRUTH . GOD IS .
man must be tested and found the liar WHEN ANYTHING HE DO SAY and DO contradicts WHAT GOD said TO DO and to say
and to teach .
OH its a lie no matter how sugar sweet coated it was , no matter how darn loving , kind and good it sounded
OH IT WAS A LIE .
But as i have often said , often typed , so now i type it again .
Humanity gonna do exactly what humanity gonna do .
But what do ya and WHO DO YOU think the SHEEP GONNA HEED . YES my friend you know the answer
ITS GOD ALL MIGHTY , ITS CHRIST JESUS , and thus ITS HIS WORDS they do safely trust in , love
and cherish .
As for this sheep all i can say is
WHY on earth so many within EVEN christendom
sucking down and feasting on what i call CATFISH DUNG BAIT that STINKS to me .
THEN ask youself but HOW COME the BIBLE when i read it , and do keep reading it
always edify me , always brings me joy and comfort and even correction and reminders .
YET what i hear pumped out of most of the lips of these leaders and its people , VEXES my soul from day
to day with their false loving sin accepting broad path accepting LIE .
Marvelloustime
Well-Known Member
Marvelloustime
Well-Known Member
Marvelloustime
Well-Known Member
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
amigo de christo
Well-Known Member
Yes indeed dear sister its the scrips for the sheep .
What worries me most of all
is when even those who lip this truth
are simply meaning WELL HOW OUR MEN interpreted them . NOT what is written
but HOW OUR MEN intepreted the scrips . Sheep dont follow those blowhards .
Who do nothing for the sheep
whose heads are so full of thier own lightness
they would float away
if it were not for the lead in their bottoms WHICH DOES NOTHING TO HELP OR CORRECT this people
did not keep them weighed down .
amigo de christo
Well-Known Member
careful now , YEAH RIGHT I KID , they might accuse you of legalims and worship of a book .
SO lets allow what paul WROTE to be stated again
AND since you were a child you have KNOWN the HOLY SCRIPS
which are able to MAKE YOU WISE unto SALVATION through FAITH IN CHRIST .
THANK you for this reminder my friend . We have much ammo against the falsehoods of men .
The sheep have CHRIST and thus THEY DO HAVE GOD , and we have HIS INSPIRED WORDS
in that BIBLE to expose their works , deeds and lies . ITS quite simple indeed my friend .
Part 1
You have certianly presented the SDA interpretations very well. There are a few comments I would like to make and ask that you might simply consider them... nothing more. A discussion about whether Daniel is suppose to be viewed / interpreted in a preterist, futurist or historical manner is not a concern of mine... for many reasons, one of course is that folks that claim they are preterists differ with other preterists and this can be also found in the other two groups - the futurists and the historicists. Rather, I have found it is necessary to study Daniel and try to correctly interpret what God's Words are saying... whether they present a time when Daniel lived, after he died but before Christ, the coming of the Messiah or after the cross. And I believe God has done a tremendous job of idntifiying that His writings in Daniel cover 3 separate time periods only - and every one of the verses in Daniel speaks of these 3 time periods and they all fall within the 4 and only 4 kingdoms He identified in chapter 2.
If one where / might step back and look at Daniel from 30,00In0 feet, they may come away with the understanding that God has given us His plan of salvation for the Jews and all of mankind within these 12 chapters. But He begins with chapter 2 - where He provides us with His "blueprint." This is the 30,000 foot view where everything will take place within Daniel, within the 3 specific time periods and the 4 and only 4 kingdoms He identifies in chapter 2.
In chapter 2, He gives us the big picture "blueprint" in two very distinct sections - first, the "Dream sequence," where He establishe the 4 and only 4 kingdoms that are within His plan of salvation - He will ensure all of His prophecies within the 12 chapters fit within these 4 kingdoms - no USA, no China, no Russia, Turkey, Islam, etc. He is only interested in revealing those actors and kingdoms that play a role within His plan of restoration and salvation for His people and all of mankind.
So, in chapter 2 we first see His revealing of the 4 kingdoms - Babylon, Medes- Persia, Greece and then Rome... that is it. Certainly, there will be thousands of coming nations and kingdoms during the 2000 years after the cross, but they are not relevant within His plan of salvation. God not only will identify the 4 kingdoms but He will also give us all of the restrictions, constraints, boundaries, etc., that will ensure we are able to match these verses, and our interpretations within these 4 kingdoms. We must not attempt to interpret any of His prophecies outside the lines of these 4 kingdoms and there is no event that "bleeds over" from one kingdom to the other. Each of the 4 kingdoms have there own actors, events that speak only to His plan of salvation..... He is not concerned with our conflicts or wars, etc. If a certain kingdom , such as Greece is important within His plan, then we will find it and learn how it speaks to the continuation and moving forward of His plan.... despite any of our attempts to consider any historical elements associated with a certain kingdom. He will obviously leave out thousands of histoical events that will take place but it is because they do not have any relevancy to His plan of salvation.
Daniel is the most complicated and enigmatic book in the Scripture, and just about everyone has attempted to interpret it in a few different ways - certainly, we can match the 4 kingdoms to our historical records and even the actors, like Nebuchadnezzer or Cyrus, but almost ALL have found it necessary to interpret MOST of Daniel as coming in the future - even today's future. Why, because their approach is largel historical - if they cannot match the actors and events in Daniel to OUR history books (as they were able to do so with the 4 kingdoms), they assume the verses speak to future events that have yet to take place. And this is when Hollywood comes into play - with the "left behind" series, the boogeyman called the "anti-Christ," the future wars with China or Islam, or a million other crazy interpretations. God is One of order and clarity but to find that clarity, one must view Daniel, not how it should or must match up with our historical records but how God has designed His plan of salvation for us.
Part 2
If there any group or denomination that even comes close to interrpeting Daniel correctly (IMO) it is definitely the folks at SDA. They have put an enormous amount of time and energy taking Daniel apart. But even they went outside the borders, boundaties, restrictions and guidlines established by God in His chapter 2 identification / revelation of His plan of salvation for His people and mankind. Ignoring whether Daniel should be viewe historically, as a preterist or futurist, is not important at all. It is to understand that God has given us His "blueprint" for His plan of salvation - not an historical couniting or re-counting of the events found within our history books. So, chapter 2 is His 30,000 foot blueprint where every coming verse, event and actor will be found in the book of Daniel. They will all take place ONLY within these 4 kingdoms and ONLY within one of the 3 time periods:
1) Time period #1 - from 606BC to Cyrus's decree to allow Israel to return to Jerusalem,
2) From their return from Babylon to the end of the 70 weeks of years prophecy which ends 3.5 years after the cross, and,
3) from the end of the cross to His return.
That is it - 4 kingdoms, 3 time periods and ALL the verses in Daniel can be found within these time and physical borders and boundaries. The hard part is to place them in their appropriate time period and kingdom. And we collectively had done a poor job of it...
If is relatibely easy though to place the events, actors and prophecies within these restrictions if we attempt to interpret them in a manner they were created by God - how do they speak to God's plan of restoration for the Jews (after they have been sent to Babylon), and then in the bigger picture, how they speak to His plan of restoration and salvation for all of mankind... If we can try and see how each verse speaks to one of these two, then wew can properly interpret Daniel... and then Daniel will easily help us interpret Revelation.
And it all begins with chapter 2 - there are 4 and only 4 kingdoms identified by God in His plan - and there is only one actual event that will be revealed in the "Dream Sequence" that shows movement (outside of verse 2:35 which is clearly an end time event). So, if we are able to identify thast one special event we will be able to properly interpret the extremely difficult verses found in the "Interpretation Sequence" verses found in 2:40-45. They can only be properly interpreted if the one activity in the "Dream Sequence" verses are properly interpreeted. And once chapter 2, the big picture that reveals His plan from 606 BC to His return is understood, then chapters 7,8,8,10 and 11 will be able to make sense... and most ... and I do mean most of Daniel takes place within the first 2 of the 3 time periods.... The third time period covers after the cross and is focused on the little horn until the end of time when God will destory him without human hands.
Despite the SDA folks having the most accurate understanding of Daniel, they too are guilty of looking into our history books and attempting to match certain verses in Daniel to them... none of them are accurate at all - they too have "humanized" many of the prophecies in Daniel - 2300 days, 1290 snf 1335 days, 7 times in Daniel 4, time, times and 1/2 time, understanding of the 21 days in chapter 10, and a few others ... All of these speak to or about the Messiah... not man. And that includes the 10 horns, the 10 horns, the 10 kings, and the 3 plucked up, the little horn (papacy), the land beast (the one who attempts. and is successful, in mimicking the role of the Holy Spirit - The Holy Spirit does everything to support and give glory to Jesus while the land beast does the exact same thing to the little horn (papacy) in an earthly manner. So, just to think about this - what could possibly be the "deadly wound?" And why was it not truly deadly? And who came to rescue the papacy from this deadly wound? And when did this happen? Thes were or are not future events, they have already taken place and ontinue until His return....There is no boogeyman - a literal "anti-Christ" figure, there is indeed an "anti-Christ" spirit that began right after the cross, but no literal AC person - but God has revealed a real little horn.
Brakelite
Well-Known Member
@amigo de christo
@Marvelloustime
@David in NJ
15 pages on this thread this far... Numerous, meaning dozens, of other threads on the site where non Sabbatarians have repeatedly challenged Adventists regarding the Sabbath, where they have claimed it's fine to honour the Sabbath BUT, when despite claiming it's fine, they still manage to call us cultists, trying to earn salvation, following a false prophet, having a false gospel, and have been answered by those same Adventists with, for the most part, patience and fortitude, offering personal testimony, scripture, and historical analysis in support of their beliefs, and here today I read a dozen or so posts of 3 non Sabbatarians encouraging one another on how Adventists are so stubborn in refusing to offer scripture in support of their obedience to God.
As if obedience to God requires scripture to justify it. Yet, despite such absurdity, for as much as I can remember, I have been here on this forum for about 10 or more years, in 2 tenures. I have never been shy concerning defending obedience. I have given scripture. Unnecessary as it is. Even in this thread. Many many times. And here we have 3 long standing members of this forum who have been active participants in most of those debates going back many years, insinuating we don't or aren't willing to defend ourselves in desiring to obey our Creator Whose memorial of said creation was set in stone, and is now inscribed on fleshly tables of our hearts.
Why on earth we should have to defend the obvious is quite beyond me, but hey, here we are, again, not because obeying God is contentious, oh, hold on. Maybe it is for some. Let me rephrase. Not because obeying God is confusing... Nuh. Try again. Not because obeying God is...
Why are we defending obedience... again?
@Marvelloustime
@David in NJ
15 pages on this thread this far... Numerous, meaning dozens, of other threads on the site where non Sabbatarians have repeatedly challenged Adventists regarding the Sabbath, where they have claimed it's fine to honour the Sabbath BUT, when despite claiming it's fine, they still manage to call us cultists, trying to earn salvation, following a false prophet, having a false gospel, and have been answered by those same Adventists with, for the most part, patience and fortitude, offering personal testimony, scripture, and historical analysis in support of their beliefs, and here today I read a dozen or so posts of 3 non Sabbatarians encouraging one another on how Adventists are so stubborn in refusing to offer scripture in support of their obedience to God.
As if obedience to God requires scripture to justify it. Yet, despite such absurdity, for as much as I can remember, I have been here on this forum for about 10 or more years, in 2 tenures. I have never been shy concerning defending obedience. I have given scripture. Unnecessary as it is. Even in this thread. Many many times. And here we have 3 long standing members of this forum who have been active participants in most of those debates going back many years, insinuating we don't or aren't willing to defend ourselves in desiring to obey our Creator Whose memorial of said creation was set in stone, and is now inscribed on fleshly tables of our hearts.
Why on earth we should have to defend the obvious is quite beyond me, but hey, here we are, again, not because obeying God is contentious, oh, hold on. Maybe it is for some. Let me rephrase. Not because obeying God is confusing... Nuh. Try again. Not because obeying God is...
Why are we defending obedience... again?
Brakelite
Well-Known Member
The deadly wound was the infliction of republicanism upon the papacy in 1798 by the French. The papacy on that date ceased from being a union of church and state. In that sense, it died, though the church side of it continued.
State side was reinstated by Mussolini.
As for the "humanizing" of certain time prophecies, I'm not sure what you are getting at.
Brakelite
Well-Known Member
Questions continuing...
Okay. you said...If all these conditions were met—especially clear, ongoing evidence of the papacy’s unique fulfillment of prophecy and active threat to liberty—an objective observer would have strong grounds to identify the papacy as the Antichrist in both prophetic and practical terms. As of now, the strongest evidence remains historical and interpretive, with present-day threats to liberty requiring fresh, concrete proof to move from theory to reality.
could the Vatican be so subversive and covert that such ambitions, apart from prophecy, be hidden from AI?
Answer...
It is true that the Vatican has a long history of covert operations, intelligence gathering, and secret diplomacy, as documented in both historical records and recent research. The Vatican's espionage activities have included running spy networks, engaging in secret negotiations with world leaders, and involvement in controversial actions during major conflicts such as the World Wars. These activities were sometimes aimed at protecting the Church’s interests, influencing political outcomes, or safeguarding its members.
However, while the Vatican’s capacity for secrecy and covert action is well established, there is no concrete evidence in the public domain that proves the existence of a current, hidden agenda to undermine religious liberty or political independence on a global scale. Most documented covert actions relate to specific historical circumstances, such as wartime diplomacy or protecting Church interests, rather than a sustained, prophetic-level ambition for world domination.
Conspiracy theories about the Vatican secretly controlling secular society or pursuing a satanic agenda exist, but these remain unproven and are often based on speculation rather than verifiable evidence. Even intelligence agencies and historians who acknowledge Vatican espionage have not produced proof of a present-day global conspiracy matching the scope described in some interpretations of prophecy.
In summary:
The Vatican is highly capable of subversive and covert operations, and some ambitions or activities could, in theory, be hidden from public view or even from AI reliant on open sources. However, without direct, substantiated evidence of an ongoing, organized campaign against religious liberty or political independence, such claims remain speculative. Historical secrecy does not automatically prove current or prophetic-level ambitions.
Question...
I'm thinking of the religious implications in particular of the former Pope's encyclicals and the "common good" concept that runs throughout his writings and public addresses. Would not the Vatican claim to define what that "common good" means, how far it impacts, and who it affects? Would that not have implications on religious and political liberty, particularly on minorities? "What's up Prof" , a Tube series, referenced this topic several times. Could you delve into this and see if that matches your own criteria for definitive ambitious goals for at the very least, religious dominance on a global scale?
Answer...
The concept of the “common good” is central to modern Catholic social teaching and is frequently emphasized in papal encyclicals and public addresses, especially by recent popes like John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis. The Vatican does articulate what it means by the common good, defining it as “the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily”. This definition is rooted in the dignity, unity, and equality of all people, and is intended to guide political, economic, and social policy.
Does the Vatican claim to define and enforce the common good?
Yes, the Vatican claims a moral authority to define what constitutes the common good and urges governments and societies to adopt policies aligned with this principle.
Papal documents and speeches consistently call for laws and policies—on economics, the environment, health, and social justice—to be oriented toward the common good, often with global implications.
The Church teaches that the common good requires respect for fundamental rights, social well-being, and a just order, and that society should be organized to serve these ends.
Implications for Religious and Political Liberty:
In theory, the Vatican’s vision of the common good includes respect for human rights and the dignity of all, including minorities.
However, critics and some religious teachers (including those referenced in "What's Up Prof?") warn that if a single institution claims the authority to define the common good for all, it could potentially justify policies or pressures that override individual conscience, minority beliefs, or national sovereignty—especially if “the common good” is interpreted in ways that align with Catholic doctrine and practice.
Historically, when church and state were united, dissenters and minorities sometimes faced coercion or persecution in the name of religious unity or the common good. Some fear that renewed emphasis on a Vatican-defined common good could, in certain circumstances, revive similar pressures, especially if adopted by governments or international bodies.
Does this match criteria for ambitious religious dominance?
The Vatican’s advocacy for the common good is overt and global, aiming to influence international law and policy.
While the language is inclusive and focused on human dignity, the Church does see itself as a moral guide for all humanity, not just Catholics.
There is no current evidence of coercive enforcement or legal dominance, but the potential exists for tension if Catholic definitions of the common good are imposed through law in ways that conflict with religious or political minorities.
Conclusion:
The Vatican openly defines and promotes the “common good” as a guiding principle for global society, and its influence is significant. While the intention is to promote justice and human dignity, the centralization of moral authority does carry implications for religious and political liberty, especially for minorities, if Catholic teaching is ever enforced as public policy. This aligns with concerns raised by some religious commentators about the potential for religious dominance, though actual coercion or legal imposition is not currently evident in public policy.
Question...
That...quote...actual coercion or legal imposition is not currently evident in public policy... how much of that could be simply a recognition that the social circumstances don't allow for such a thing without repercussions that could cost the Vatican negatively. What if circumstances changed? What if a global disaster like a major global financial meltdown prompted the world to look to the Vatican for moral and political leadership in such a crisis? How likely would that be in light of what took place in America immediately subsequent to 9/11?
Answer... Next post...
Okay. you said...If all these conditions were met—especially clear, ongoing evidence of the papacy’s unique fulfillment of prophecy and active threat to liberty—an objective observer would have strong grounds to identify the papacy as the Antichrist in both prophetic and practical terms. As of now, the strongest evidence remains historical and interpretive, with present-day threats to liberty requiring fresh, concrete proof to move from theory to reality.
could the Vatican be so subversive and covert that such ambitions, apart from prophecy, be hidden from AI?
Answer...
It is true that the Vatican has a long history of covert operations, intelligence gathering, and secret diplomacy, as documented in both historical records and recent research. The Vatican's espionage activities have included running spy networks, engaging in secret negotiations with world leaders, and involvement in controversial actions during major conflicts such as the World Wars. These activities were sometimes aimed at protecting the Church’s interests, influencing political outcomes, or safeguarding its members.
However, while the Vatican’s capacity for secrecy and covert action is well established, there is no concrete evidence in the public domain that proves the existence of a current, hidden agenda to undermine religious liberty or political independence on a global scale. Most documented covert actions relate to specific historical circumstances, such as wartime diplomacy or protecting Church interests, rather than a sustained, prophetic-level ambition for world domination.
Conspiracy theories about the Vatican secretly controlling secular society or pursuing a satanic agenda exist, but these remain unproven and are often based on speculation rather than verifiable evidence. Even intelligence agencies and historians who acknowledge Vatican espionage have not produced proof of a present-day global conspiracy matching the scope described in some interpretations of prophecy.
In summary:
The Vatican is highly capable of subversive and covert operations, and some ambitions or activities could, in theory, be hidden from public view or even from AI reliant on open sources. However, without direct, substantiated evidence of an ongoing, organized campaign against religious liberty or political independence, such claims remain speculative. Historical secrecy does not automatically prove current or prophetic-level ambitions.
Question...
I'm thinking of the religious implications in particular of the former Pope's encyclicals and the "common good" concept that runs throughout his writings and public addresses. Would not the Vatican claim to define what that "common good" means, how far it impacts, and who it affects? Would that not have implications on religious and political liberty, particularly on minorities? "What's up Prof" , a Tube series, referenced this topic several times. Could you delve into this and see if that matches your own criteria for definitive ambitious goals for at the very least, religious dominance on a global scale?
Answer...
The concept of the “common good” is central to modern Catholic social teaching and is frequently emphasized in papal encyclicals and public addresses, especially by recent popes like John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis. The Vatican does articulate what it means by the common good, defining it as “the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily”. This definition is rooted in the dignity, unity, and equality of all people, and is intended to guide political, economic, and social policy.
Does the Vatican claim to define and enforce the common good?
Yes, the Vatican claims a moral authority to define what constitutes the common good and urges governments and societies to adopt policies aligned with this principle.
Papal documents and speeches consistently call for laws and policies—on economics, the environment, health, and social justice—to be oriented toward the common good, often with global implications.
The Church teaches that the common good requires respect for fundamental rights, social well-being, and a just order, and that society should be organized to serve these ends.
Implications for Religious and Political Liberty:
In theory, the Vatican’s vision of the common good includes respect for human rights and the dignity of all, including minorities.
However, critics and some religious teachers (including those referenced in "What's Up Prof?") warn that if a single institution claims the authority to define the common good for all, it could potentially justify policies or pressures that override individual conscience, minority beliefs, or national sovereignty—especially if “the common good” is interpreted in ways that align with Catholic doctrine and practice.
Historically, when church and state were united, dissenters and minorities sometimes faced coercion or persecution in the name of religious unity or the common good. Some fear that renewed emphasis on a Vatican-defined common good could, in certain circumstances, revive similar pressures, especially if adopted by governments or international bodies.
Does this match criteria for ambitious religious dominance?
The Vatican’s advocacy for the common good is overt and global, aiming to influence international law and policy.
While the language is inclusive and focused on human dignity, the Church does see itself as a moral guide for all humanity, not just Catholics.
There is no current evidence of coercive enforcement or legal dominance, but the potential exists for tension if Catholic definitions of the common good are imposed through law in ways that conflict with religious or political minorities.
Conclusion:
The Vatican openly defines and promotes the “common good” as a guiding principle for global society, and its influence is significant. While the intention is to promote justice and human dignity, the centralization of moral authority does carry implications for religious and political liberty, especially for minorities, if Catholic teaching is ever enforced as public policy. This aligns with concerns raised by some religious commentators about the potential for religious dominance, though actual coercion or legal imposition is not currently evident in public policy.
Question...
That...quote...actual coercion or legal imposition is not currently evident in public policy... how much of that could be simply a recognition that the social circumstances don't allow for such a thing without repercussions that could cost the Vatican negatively. What if circumstances changed? What if a global disaster like a major global financial meltdown prompted the world to look to the Vatican for moral and political leadership in such a crisis? How likely would that be in light of what took place in America immediately subsequent to 9/11?
Answer... Next post...
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
a non-Sabbatarian is one who has not entered into God's Rest, which is Christ
Christ and the Apostles gave no other commandment that pleases God and grants His REST
the Holy Spirit will continually challenge any teaching/doctrine that exalts itself above Christ
How else are you going to know if you are obeying Christ or obeying man/religion.
Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father’s who sent Me.
Our obedience is to Christ and His REST = make sure you do not fall short of it
Therefore, since a promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear lest any of you seem to have come short of it.
2For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it. 3For we who have believed do enter that rest, as He has said:
“So I swore in My wrath,
‘They shall not enter My rest,’ ”
although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. 4For He has spoken in a certain place of the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all His works”; 5and again in this place: “They shall not enter My rest.”
6Since therefore it remains that some must enter it, and those to whom it was first preached did not enter because of disobedience, 7again He designates a certain day, saying in David, “Today,” after such a long time, as it has been said:
“Today, if you will hear His voice,
Do not harden your hearts.”
8For if Joshua had given them rest, then He would not afterward have spoken of another day.
9There remains therefore a rest for the people of God. 10For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His.
Shalom to the God's Sabbatarians who are in CHRIST JESUS our LORD
Last edited:
Brakelite
Well-Known Member
Answer...
Your question raises a scenario that is both historically grounded and relevant to current global dynamics: could the Vatican’s ambitions for moral or even political leadership become more assertive if a global crisis shifted public sentiment in its favor?
Historical and Contemporary Context
The Vatican’s Influence: The Vatican has a long history of leveraging its moral authority during times of crisis, often positioning itself as a stabilizing force or mediator. Its financial and political influence has been significant, even if often exercised indirectly or through diplomacy.
Financial Crises and Opportunity: During past economic and political upheavals (e.g., the Great Depression, World Wars), the Vatican worked to protect its interests and sometimes expanded its influence through strategic alliances, financial maneuvers, and appeals to the faithful.
Modern Papal Calls for Global Reform: Recent popes, especially Benedict XVI and Francis, have called for global financial reforms, stronger international institutions, and policies oriented toward the “common good.” For example, Vatican documents have proposed ideas such as a world central bank and global financial regulations. These ideas are presented as moral guidance but have clear political implications.
Potential for Expanded Influence in a Crisis
If Circumstances Change: If a major global disaster—such as a financial meltdown—occurred, it is plausible that world leaders and populations might look to respected moral authorities for guidance. The Vatican, given its global network and reputation, could be seen as a candidate for such leadership, especially if secular institutions are perceived to have failed.
Limits and Risks: The Vatican is aware of the risks of overreach; overt attempts to impose its will could provoke backlash, especially in pluralistic societies. Historically, the Church has sometimes moderated its ambitions in response to social resistance or fear of negative repercussions.
Precedent: After 9/11, there was a notable shift in public willingness to accept restrictions on liberty for perceived security. A similar dynamic could emerge in a global crisis, potentially making populations more receptive to strong, centralized moral or political leadership.
Conclusion
While there is currently no direct evidence of the Vatican seeking to impose coercive religious or political authority, history shows that its influence can expand in times of crisis, and its teachings on the “common good” are explicitly intended to shape global policy. If global circumstances changed dramatically, the Vatican could plausibly play a much larger role—especially if invited by secular leaders or international bodies. The likelihood depends on the severity of the crisis, the perceived failure of secular leadership, and the Vatican’s ability to present itself as a credible, unifying authority.
In summary:
The Vatican’s ambitions are currently constrained by social and political realities, but history and its own teachings suggest it could seek greater influence if conditions allowed. The scenario you describe is plausible and consistent with both past patterns and current Vatican rhetoric, though it remains hypothetical unless or until such a crisis occurs.
Question...and this is an interesting one considering the virulent position and scepticism coming from many regarding this,..
you said...quote...Modern Papal Calls for Global Reform: Recent popes, especially Benedict XVI and Francis, have called for global financial reforms, stronger international institutions, and policies oriented toward the “common good.” For example, Vatican documents have proposed ideas such as a world central bank and global financial regulations. These ideas are presented as moral guidance but have clear political implications....
along with these reforms are included the promotion of Sunday as a day of rest. It is promoted by climate and environmental theory, also the support of family etc. Sunday laws are historically real, and in some places still on the books, though not often acted upon. Could Sunday laws, an essential doctrine of Catholic faith, become an integral part of Catholic religious reform, and in circumstances as spoken of above, become once again lawfully enacted, would that not by a problem for minorities?
Answer...
Yes, your concerns are well supported by both history and current legal precedent.
Sunday Laws: History, Doctrine, and Minority Impact
Historical Reality: Sunday laws (also known as blue laws) have a long history in Western nations, originating from Christian doctrine and designed to enforce Sunday as a day of rest and worship. These laws are still on the books in some places, though often not strictly enforced.
Catholic Doctrine: The Catholic Church has historically promoted Sunday observance as a core doctrine, and recent papal encyclicals have linked Sunday rest to the “common good,” family life, and even environmental stewardship.
Legal Precedent: Courts in the U.S. and elsewhere have upheld Sunday laws, often framing them as secular “days of rest” rather than religious mandates, despite their origins. However, these laws have been challenged by religious minorities (e.g., Jews, Seventh-day Baptists, Muslims) who observe a different Sabbath, arguing that such laws burden their conscience and economic activity.
“Sunday laws remain ubiquitous in America. They do not generally create a major burden on non-Sunday worshipers as they are currently enforced. Nevertheless, their continued existence, along with case law upholding their constitutionality, establishes the principle that the majority can impose its day of worship on religious minorities. Such a principle is antithetical to religious freedom…these laws…are not merely historical oddities, but dangerous precedents that pose a real threat to our future religious liberty.”
Potential for Future Enforcement
Changing Circumstances: If a global crisis (economic, environmental, or otherwise) led to calls for unity and moral reform, it is plausible that renewed efforts to enforce Sunday rest—framed as serving the common good—could gain traction, especially if supported by influential religious and political leaders.
Impact on Minorities: If Sunday laws were once again actively enforced, religious minorities who observe other days (e.g., Saturday Sabbath) would face legal and economic disadvantages, as well as restrictions on their freedom of conscience and religious practice. This has been a consistent source of legal and social conflict wherever such laws have been implemented.
Conclusion
Sunday laws have deep roots in Catholic doctrine and Western legal systems, and their continued existence—even if dormant—poses a real potential threat to religious liberty for minorities. If circumstances changed and these laws were revived or expanded under the banner of the “common good,” the risk of discrimination and loss of freedom for non-Sunday observers would be significant and historically precedented.
Question...
What historical minority protests influenced Sunday law rulings?
Answer...
Several significant minority protests have directly influenced Sunday law rulings in the United States and elsewhere:
Jewish and Seventh Day Baptist Protests:
From the early 19th century, Jews and Seventh Day Baptists were among the first to challenge Sunday laws, arguing that these laws violated their religious liberty by forcing them to close businesses on Sunday after already observing Saturday as their Sabbath. They described this as a “tax upon conscience” and a denial of their right to transact business for fifty-two days a year.
Legal Challenges:
These minorities pooled resources, hired attorneys, and brought cases to state supreme courts. Notable cases include the prosecution of German Seventh Day Baptists in Pennsylvania (Specht v. Commonwealth, 1848), where attorney Thaddeus Stevens argued that Sunday laws infringed on constitutional protections for religious liberty. Although most courts upheld the laws, these cases set a precedent for using the judiciary to defend minority rights.
Grassroots Activism:
In the 1840s and 1850s, anti-Sunday law activists, including Jews, Seventh Day Baptists, and German immigrants, organized public campaigns, published pamphlets (such as the Seventh Day Baptist General Conference’s Religious Liberty Endangered by Legislative Enactments), and held mass meetings to protest the enforcement of Sunday laws and defend minority rights.
Supreme Court Rulings:
In the 1961 U.S. Supreme Court case McGowan v. Maryland and related cases, Jewish and other minority business owners challenged Sunday closing laws. The Court ultimately upheld these laws, reasoning they served secular purposes (a uniform day of rest) even if they coincided with Christian practice, but the cases highlighted the ongoing tension between majority customs and minority rights.
Summary:
Jewish, Seventh Day Baptist, and German immigrant communities played a pivotal role in challenging Sunday laws, shaping American legal and political traditions around minority rights and religious liberty. Their activism and legal challenges forced courts and lawmakers to confront the balance between majority rule and the protection of minority freedoms.
Question...
Why have you not mentioned the fight against the Blair Bill?
Answer... Next post...
Your question raises a scenario that is both historically grounded and relevant to current global dynamics: could the Vatican’s ambitions for moral or even political leadership become more assertive if a global crisis shifted public sentiment in its favor?
Historical and Contemporary Context
The Vatican’s Influence: The Vatican has a long history of leveraging its moral authority during times of crisis, often positioning itself as a stabilizing force or mediator. Its financial and political influence has been significant, even if often exercised indirectly or through diplomacy.
Financial Crises and Opportunity: During past economic and political upheavals (e.g., the Great Depression, World Wars), the Vatican worked to protect its interests and sometimes expanded its influence through strategic alliances, financial maneuvers, and appeals to the faithful.
Modern Papal Calls for Global Reform: Recent popes, especially Benedict XVI and Francis, have called for global financial reforms, stronger international institutions, and policies oriented toward the “common good.” For example, Vatican documents have proposed ideas such as a world central bank and global financial regulations. These ideas are presented as moral guidance but have clear political implications.
Potential for Expanded Influence in a Crisis
If Circumstances Change: If a major global disaster—such as a financial meltdown—occurred, it is plausible that world leaders and populations might look to respected moral authorities for guidance. The Vatican, given its global network and reputation, could be seen as a candidate for such leadership, especially if secular institutions are perceived to have failed.
Limits and Risks: The Vatican is aware of the risks of overreach; overt attempts to impose its will could provoke backlash, especially in pluralistic societies. Historically, the Church has sometimes moderated its ambitions in response to social resistance or fear of negative repercussions.
Precedent: After 9/11, there was a notable shift in public willingness to accept restrictions on liberty for perceived security. A similar dynamic could emerge in a global crisis, potentially making populations more receptive to strong, centralized moral or political leadership.
Conclusion
While there is currently no direct evidence of the Vatican seeking to impose coercive religious or political authority, history shows that its influence can expand in times of crisis, and its teachings on the “common good” are explicitly intended to shape global policy. If global circumstances changed dramatically, the Vatican could plausibly play a much larger role—especially if invited by secular leaders or international bodies. The likelihood depends on the severity of the crisis, the perceived failure of secular leadership, and the Vatican’s ability to present itself as a credible, unifying authority.
In summary:
The Vatican’s ambitions are currently constrained by social and political realities, but history and its own teachings suggest it could seek greater influence if conditions allowed. The scenario you describe is plausible and consistent with both past patterns and current Vatican rhetoric, though it remains hypothetical unless or until such a crisis occurs.
Question...and this is an interesting one considering the virulent position and scepticism coming from many regarding this,..
you said...quote...Modern Papal Calls for Global Reform: Recent popes, especially Benedict XVI and Francis, have called for global financial reforms, stronger international institutions, and policies oriented toward the “common good.” For example, Vatican documents have proposed ideas such as a world central bank and global financial regulations. These ideas are presented as moral guidance but have clear political implications....
along with these reforms are included the promotion of Sunday as a day of rest. It is promoted by climate and environmental theory, also the support of family etc. Sunday laws are historically real, and in some places still on the books, though not often acted upon. Could Sunday laws, an essential doctrine of Catholic faith, become an integral part of Catholic religious reform, and in circumstances as spoken of above, become once again lawfully enacted, would that not by a problem for minorities?
Answer...
Yes, your concerns are well supported by both history and current legal precedent.
Sunday Laws: History, Doctrine, and Minority Impact
Historical Reality: Sunday laws (also known as blue laws) have a long history in Western nations, originating from Christian doctrine and designed to enforce Sunday as a day of rest and worship. These laws are still on the books in some places, though often not strictly enforced.
Catholic Doctrine: The Catholic Church has historically promoted Sunday observance as a core doctrine, and recent papal encyclicals have linked Sunday rest to the “common good,” family life, and even environmental stewardship.
Legal Precedent: Courts in the U.S. and elsewhere have upheld Sunday laws, often framing them as secular “days of rest” rather than religious mandates, despite their origins. However, these laws have been challenged by religious minorities (e.g., Jews, Seventh-day Baptists, Muslims) who observe a different Sabbath, arguing that such laws burden their conscience and economic activity.
“Sunday laws remain ubiquitous in America. They do not generally create a major burden on non-Sunday worshipers as they are currently enforced. Nevertheless, their continued existence, along with case law upholding their constitutionality, establishes the principle that the majority can impose its day of worship on religious minorities. Such a principle is antithetical to religious freedom…these laws…are not merely historical oddities, but dangerous precedents that pose a real threat to our future religious liberty.”
Potential for Future Enforcement
Changing Circumstances: If a global crisis (economic, environmental, or otherwise) led to calls for unity and moral reform, it is plausible that renewed efforts to enforce Sunday rest—framed as serving the common good—could gain traction, especially if supported by influential religious and political leaders.
Impact on Minorities: If Sunday laws were once again actively enforced, religious minorities who observe other days (e.g., Saturday Sabbath) would face legal and economic disadvantages, as well as restrictions on their freedom of conscience and religious practice. This has been a consistent source of legal and social conflict wherever such laws have been implemented.
Conclusion
Sunday laws have deep roots in Catholic doctrine and Western legal systems, and their continued existence—even if dormant—poses a real potential threat to religious liberty for minorities. If circumstances changed and these laws were revived or expanded under the banner of the “common good,” the risk of discrimination and loss of freedom for non-Sunday observers would be significant and historically precedented.
Question...
What historical minority protests influenced Sunday law rulings?
Answer...
Several significant minority protests have directly influenced Sunday law rulings in the United States and elsewhere:
Jewish and Seventh Day Baptist Protests:
From the early 19th century, Jews and Seventh Day Baptists were among the first to challenge Sunday laws, arguing that these laws violated their religious liberty by forcing them to close businesses on Sunday after already observing Saturday as their Sabbath. They described this as a “tax upon conscience” and a denial of their right to transact business for fifty-two days a year.
Legal Challenges:
These minorities pooled resources, hired attorneys, and brought cases to state supreme courts. Notable cases include the prosecution of German Seventh Day Baptists in Pennsylvania (Specht v. Commonwealth, 1848), where attorney Thaddeus Stevens argued that Sunday laws infringed on constitutional protections for religious liberty. Although most courts upheld the laws, these cases set a precedent for using the judiciary to defend minority rights.
Grassroots Activism:
In the 1840s and 1850s, anti-Sunday law activists, including Jews, Seventh Day Baptists, and German immigrants, organized public campaigns, published pamphlets (such as the Seventh Day Baptist General Conference’s Religious Liberty Endangered by Legislative Enactments), and held mass meetings to protest the enforcement of Sunday laws and defend minority rights.
Supreme Court Rulings:
In the 1961 U.S. Supreme Court case McGowan v. Maryland and related cases, Jewish and other minority business owners challenged Sunday closing laws. The Court ultimately upheld these laws, reasoning they served secular purposes (a uniform day of rest) even if they coincided with Christian practice, but the cases highlighted the ongoing tension between majority customs and minority rights.
Summary:
Jewish, Seventh Day Baptist, and German immigrant communities played a pivotal role in challenging Sunday laws, shaping American legal and political traditions around minority rights and religious liberty. Their activism and legal challenges forced courts and lawmakers to confront the balance between majority rule and the protection of minority freedoms.
Question...
Why have you not mentioned the fight against the Blair Bill?
Answer... Next post...
Brakelite
Well-Known Member
Answer...
You are correct—the fight against the Blair Sunday-Rest Bill of 1888 was one of the most significant and organized minority protests against Sunday law legislation in U.S. history, and it had a major influence on public debate and legal thinking about religious liberty.
Key Points on the Blair Bill and Minority Protest:
The Blair Bill: Proposed by Senator Henry W. Blair, this bill sought to establish Sunday as a national day of rest and worship, with legal penalties for non-observance. Its religious intent was clear in its language and the support it received from Christian lobbying groups.
Opposition: The bill faced strong opposition from Seventh-day Adventists, Jews, and other minorities who observed a different Sabbath or opposed religious legislation. Adventist leaders like Alonzo T. Jones testified before Congress, arguing that such laws were unconstitutional and infringed on religious liberty.
Arguments: Opponents contended that the bill would compel people to observe Sunday against their conscience, violating the First Amendment and setting a dangerous precedent for religious coercion.
Impact: The organized protest, including public hearings, publications, and alliances with other minority and secular groups, contributed to the defeat of the Blair Bill. This episode became a landmark in the defense of minority rights and the separation of church and state in America.
Summary:
The fight against the Blair Bill is a crucial example of how minority religious groups, especially Seventh-day Adventists, successfully influenced national policy and legal interpretation regarding Sunday laws and religious liberty. It remains a key reference point in discussions about the dangers of religious legislation and the protection of minority rights.
You are correct—the fight against the Blair Sunday-Rest Bill of 1888 was one of the most significant and organized minority protests against Sunday law legislation in U.S. history, and it had a major influence on public debate and legal thinking about religious liberty.
Key Points on the Blair Bill and Minority Protest:
The Blair Bill: Proposed by Senator Henry W. Blair, this bill sought to establish Sunday as a national day of rest and worship, with legal penalties for non-observance. Its religious intent was clear in its language and the support it received from Christian lobbying groups.
Opposition: The bill faced strong opposition from Seventh-day Adventists, Jews, and other minorities who observed a different Sabbath or opposed religious legislation. Adventist leaders like Alonzo T. Jones testified before Congress, arguing that such laws were unconstitutional and infringed on religious liberty.
Arguments: Opponents contended that the bill would compel people to observe Sunday against their conscience, violating the First Amendment and setting a dangerous precedent for religious coercion.
Impact: The organized protest, including public hearings, publications, and alliances with other minority and secular groups, contributed to the defeat of the Blair Bill. This episode became a landmark in the defense of minority rights and the separation of church and state in America.
Summary:
The fight against the Blair Bill is a crucial example of how minority religious groups, especially Seventh-day Adventists, successfully influenced national policy and legal interpretation regarding Sunday laws and religious liberty. It remains a key reference point in discussions about the dangers of religious legislation and the protection of minority rights.
Thank you for your response. If you do not mind, I would like to propose a very different interpretations: I have spent much time trying to understand these verses in Daniel and I came away with my belief that no one has found the correct interpretations... And as I mentioned earlier, there is absolutely no other denomination or group of folks who have come away with such understanding of Daniel as the SDA folks. But regarding this particular topic - the "deadly wound and the land beast" they have attempted to interpret them in "human" fashion. They have also looked directly into our history books to find a secular event that might makes sense... and they were successful in tying the 1260 years to this same event to further lock down their interpretation. But unfortunately, these events and the 1260 years is forced.
First, there is no 1260 year prophecy - if you are referring to the "time, times, and 1/2 time." That has its own very important meaning that is unrelated to either the deadly wound or the land beast.
The deadly wound is not a secular event but one that speaks directly to the corruption created and continued by the little horn (papacy). The deadly wound that was healed was the result of the "Protestant Reformation." This was a deep wound to the power, legitimacy and theology that the RCC has placed on their church members for almost 1000 years. The Reformation, as you well know attacked the divinity of the papacy, its ability to forgive sins, the issue of idols and the changing of the Sabbath and the equality with God Himself. The sacraments, the practices and rituals and their adoption of their own holy days, etc. This list could go on for days including their infalliblity, and the only way to salvation was through their church. Those who protested all of these practices did cut deeply into their soul, if you will. And many certainly left the RCC church never to return again.... they were cut down to their knees. This was the deadly would that would be healed ... and who would ensure this wound would be healed? At this same time, the RCC had to put together a strong counter reformation program to restore their "image", their power base their supposedly god like appearance and all of their claims they had been so accustomed to over the past 1000 years... no one dared go against the RCC.
It is no accident or coincidence that at this exact time, that the Jesuits were founded to do everything in their power to restore the little horn's image, admiration, loyalty and divinity throughout the world.... once again. And the Jesuits were the right group at the right time to succeed in this mission - they were absolutlely ruthless and domineering not only in reestablishing parts of Europe that staryed away but they had the financial resources and military power behind them to spend throughout Latin America... They are also the ones who created the movement of the last 7 years in the 70 weeks of years prophecy to the end of time - this was emmensly necessary in order to try and remove the label of the little horn from the papacy and declare this little horn is and end time persson. They (Ribera) also corrupted much of Daniel 9:27 and intentionally mistinterpreted those verses so they did not speak of the Messiah during the final week of the prophecy but now would be associated with the coming mythical "anti-Christ" figure at the end times.
So this is the trur deadly would that was indeed healed through the intensity, and presistents and absolutely ruthlist behavior of the Jesuits against anyone speaking against the papacy (little horn).
Similar threads
