The Criteria of Antichrist.

[Waiting on him]

First day of the week he was resurrected. And the next day he appears to them is on the first day of the week( Sunday). It became commonly referred to as the Lords day. Not certain will have to look at scripture but it may be every day he reappeared was First day of the week

May even be a good notion to worship Him every day of the week! The word in my understanding just means to adore him. Like when a dogs master comes home and the dog licks his feet.

 

[Naomi25]

I've laid out the problems with the SDA in many posts already.

The sanctuary investigative judgment violates what the Bible teaches about God knowing before creation who would be saved.

They completely rewrite prophecy.

The still uphold the false prophet Ellen G White.

They believe the Archangel Michael is Christ.

Most consider the SDA a cult.

I'm not saying you're wrong! Or even that I ultimately disagree theologically with what you've stated above. That was never my point. You have made it the point...or perhaps the justfication for it. My point was attitude. You want to tell brakelite you've been there with him before and can't see any sort of edification of going there again, fine. But if you're walking what you're talking, you should be able to do that in a manner that's not douchy. I'd think.
But hey, whatever. It's your life, I suppose, you can be dismissive to a person Jesus would probably rather you were trying to sway with truth if you want.

 

[CoreIssue]

I'm not saying you're wrong! Or even that I ultimately disagree theologically with what you've stated above. That was never my point. You have made it the point...or perhaps the justfication for it. My point was attitude. You want to tell brakelite you've been there with him before and can't see any sort of edification of going there again, fine. But if you're walking what you're talking, you should be able to do that in a manner that's not douchy. I'd think.
But hey, whatever. It's your life, I suppose, you can be dismissive to a person Jesus would probably rather you were trying to sway with truth if you want.

I remind you the Bible teaches when you reach an endpoint dust off your sandals and move on.

I've done this for decades and there is a point where you just half to move on.

 

[CoreIssue]

I remind you the Bible teaches when you reach an endpoint dust off your sandals and move on.

I've done this for decades and there is a point where you just half to move on.

Others reading everything said can profit from it. But once he said it is said.

 

[mjrhealth]

Thanks? Or "please can I go back to sleep?" I know some people are "early birds" but I cannot fathom anyone being pleased at being awake at 4am!!

nah but it pleased Jesus to know we are thinking of Him even at that time of teh morning....

 

[Naomi25]

nah but it pleased Jesus to know we are thinking of Him even at that time of teh morning....

And it most certainly is easier to do in those quiet moments when life isn't bombarding you!

 

[mjrhealth]

And it most certainly is easier to do in those quiet moments when life isn't bombarding you!

Amen, and before the enemy gets his ugly fingers in there.

 

[brakelite]

When you find something that I present that you can prove wrong, either Biblically or historically, or you see something I write about the RCC that is incorrect, by all means bring it up. But stating unproven generalities like the above contributes very little to the conversation, but merely reveals your determination to resist learning, and your unreasonable and blind bias against my church.

Repeatedly saying "that's wrong...that's not Biblical"...without bothering to see where another can prove it is Biblical, is wilful ignorance.

I told brakelite that because all he's doing is reciting SDA doctrine which I'm already familiar with and reject, as does the Bible.

Now writing this entire subject off because it is your judgement it is "SDA" doctrine, is somewhat misleading. Yes, Adventists are among the very few today who still believe that the Papacy is the Antichrist. But it wasn't always that way. Every reformer, from Wycliffe and Tyndale to John Knox and everyone else in between, taught the same. What futurists utterly fail to do is prove otherwise, because anything said of the future can never be proven, either from scripture or history. Our teaching regarding Antichrist is solidly founded. As this current thread absolutely proves.
You have shown several times in the past that you are not as familiar with SDA doctrine as you like to think. For example, you quoted a web site that explained fully how and why we believe Jesus was known as Michael in the OT, yet you showed later that you didn't even bother to read it yourself to find out what it actually was saying. You just presumed we had no Biblical basis for our belief, yet what you quoted had over 100 textual references (yes, I counted them) plus quotes from a variety of commentators including Henry and Calvin, as well as quotes from Jewish literature. And you wrote the entire thing off because it was 'adventist'.

If it's unbiblical, sure, call it what it is.

I agree. But let's be honest. There's a difference between searching scripture to discover truth, and searching scripture to prove a misconception. Both can, and are done on a regular basis. With the appropriate reference one could almost justify murder.

I've laid out the problems with the SDA in many posts already.

Your shotgun generalities cannot be classified as discussion or a counter-argument. Shaking the dust off your feet is appropriate for folk who have presented specific truths pertaining to the gospel, but entirely inappropriate for those who run out of arguments against truth already presented. These posts of mine in this thread are factual...both Biblically and historically. You have not presented anything whatsoever that specifically speaks to any single thing I have presented. @Naomi25 is at least trying to do so with her rebuttal against Sabbath keeping, but which on this thread I am reluctant to discuss because as you are well aware, Sabbath discussions are all over the place and if there is one topic to derail any discussion, it is the Sabbath. I can and will answer Naomi, but not here.

The sanctuary investigative judgment violates what the Bible teaches about God knowing before creation who would be saved.

This is another topic that has the potential for derailing this thread. Perhaps you would like to begin a thread specifically related to the sanctuary investigative judgement, with your specific objections? I have nothing to hide nor to run away from. Would welcome a discussion on that.

 

[brakelite]

So far we have seen 8 specific criteria pertaining to the little horn of Daniel 7, and have discovered that every single one directly identifies the Papacy as fulfilling the role perfectly. However, I promised 10, so here is number 9. This has more to do with the word Antichrist itself...what it means...and see if that pertains to the Papacy or not.
Before we look at the antichrist, I want to look at the real Christ. Who is He? Let us go to the scriptures to find out what and Who He claimed to be.

Mathew 12:6 But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple...

The temple, the priesthood, and the religious system including all the ceremonies, the sacrifices, and the law of the Jewish nation go hand in hand. It was the mainstay and focal point of the life of Israel. Yet Jesus claimed to be greater. Greater even than the very High priest who no doubt would take great interest in hearing a report of these words. Greater even than the law itself, because He was the lawgiver.

….38 ¶ Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.
39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
41 The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here…

Jonah was the most powerful and successful of all OT prophets. In all 40 odd chapters of Jeremiah, there is no record of anyone at anytime taking the slightest bit of notice of anything Jeremiah said. Yet Jonah, on the strength of just one or two sermons, converted the entire city of Nineveh of the children of Ishmael totaling maybe 60,000 people. By any standards, that has got to be recorded as a very successful evangelistic campaign. Yet Jesus claimed to be greater than Jonah.

…42 The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.

Solomon was the wisest and wealthiest and most successful of any ruler of the ancient world. Yet Jesus claimed to be greater even than Solomon.

He claimed to be a greater priest than the current high priest of Israel, He claimed to be a greater prophet than Jonah, and He claimed to be a greater King than Solomon. In these three startling claims, we have before us the threefold ministry of Jesus. Priest, prophet, and King.

It has been said, and I think wisely, that the Bible must be understood grammatically before it can be understood theologically. Anti– as in antichrist, according to Strong’s concordance, and like other words having the prefix ‘anti’, means at it’s most basic form “in the room of”, “instead of”, or “in the place of”.
In other words, ‘antichrist’ stands as a substitute. We all know that Satan works by deception. Yet many claim the ‘antichrist’ will be one who will charge in on a black horse guns blazing with fury and hatred directed at all things Christian and opposing with great force the church. Pray tell me, how will the world be deceived by such a tactic as this?
In 2 Thess. 2:1 we are told that there was to be a falling away first, which will reveal the antichrist, or as Paul describes him, the man of sin or son of perdition. Now falling away in this instance is a falling into apostasy; divorce.
Any divorce necessitates a prior favourable relationship. The only other example of a ‘son of perdition’ is Judas Iscariot. Did Judas openly and with force oppose Christ? Did he attack His teachings and disagree with Jesus claims to divinity? Did he argue and debate everything Jesus stood for and seek the destruction of His followers? No. Not by any means. Judas betrayed Jesus with a kiss. He betrayed Him with an act of apparent love, fellowship, and friendship. He undermined and betrayed Jesus at the same time as claiming Him to be his friend!! This squares perfectly with the meaning of antichrist. He is not an opposer, but a subtle impostor. A counterfeit. And in the case of the Antichrist itself, an impostor of Jesus Christ. A false copy, or forgery of the true.
Antichrist is therefore a person or power who impersonates the offices of Priesthood, the Prophet or spokesmanship, and the Kingly rule of Christ. The office that ministers for God, speaks for God, and rules for God.

So does the Catholic Church claim the above prerogatives? Absolutely. In every detail. And we all know why. I don't think it necessary to go into detail, as they have been discussed often on other threads, often leading to quite vigorous debates. But in summary, I think I can safely say that the Papal authority as the replacement of Christ as Mediator...replacement of the Spirit of Christ as teacher of the Word...and the claim by Popes from long ago to have power and authority over all earthy kings, meets the above criteria very well, don't you think? Do you think a future individual be it Muslim, Jew, or whatever, possibly do as well in fulfilling these requirements? Thus concludes criteria #9.

Now criteria #10
In Revelation 13:1-3 we have a vision of a beast rising up out of the sea, a composite beast of all the beasts previously described in Daniel 7. What is fascinating is that this Revelation 13 beast, actually counterfeits the true Christ...thus is appropriately identified as another manifestation of the little horn we have been previously discussing. Note....

The sea-beast or antichrist.

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

Now compare with the real Christ....

Jesus Christ

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

Any questions?

 

[Naomi25]

I agree. But let's be honest. There's a difference between searching scripture to discover truth, and searching scripture to prove a misconception. Both can, and are done on a regular basis. With the appropriate reference one could almost justify murder.

I wouldn't be surprised if people have done just that.
I wasn't actually making a comment on whether what you were saying was 'unbiblical'...just that it's not really unacceptable to say somethings unbiblical if, let's face it, something is! But I just think that if you're going to come out and slap that down on someone, you should at least come with bible verses and reasons and a willingness to discuss the topic back and forth a bit.
I sort of think the only one who gets the right to declare "I...have spoken!" And walk away is God...you know...cause he's legit, and has the credentials!
The rest of us, we're feeling around in the dark, more or less. And sure, we've obviously all come to places we believe to be truth. And that's what we're supposed to do; we're supposed to be convicted of it and stand for it. But I don't think we should loose the humilty that says we're not God, we're not perfect and sometimes we don't get everything right. And...well...you know, sometimes God uses the strangest of things to teach us. Often...I'm not persuaded to change my mind, after reaching the conclusions I have. But sometimes someone will say something, and it's like a wonderful discovery. 'Oh! That verse could be read like that! How interesting!' It's like a whole new way of considering something. Maybe that changes how I see it, ultimately, maybe it doesn't...I trust in God to show me in the end. But it's still neat.

 

[mjrhealth]

This is just a game, so men can boast and say" hey look I figured it out" bit like snakes and ladders, good thing God didnt tell anyone... some also use it to justify tearing down a religion when in reality theirs is no better. Teh world is filled with "antichrists" and a lot of them call themselves christians.

 

[Nancy]

Repeatedly saying "that's wrong...that's not Biblical"...without bothering to see where another can prove it is Biblical, is wilful ignorance.
Now writing this entire subject off because it is your judgement it is "SDA" doctrine, is somewhat misleading. Yes, Adventists are among the very few today who still believe that the Papacy is the Antichrist. But it wasn't always that way. Every reformer, from Wycliffe and Tyndale to John Knox and everyone else in between, taught the same. What futurists utterly fail to do is prove otherwise, because anything said of the future can never be proven, either from scripture or history. Our teaching regarding Antichrist is solidly founded. As this current thread absolutely proves.
You have shown several times in the past that you are not as familiar with SDA doctrine as you like to think. For example, you quoted a web site that explained fully how and why we believe Jesus was known as Michael in the OT, yet you showed later that you didn't even bother to read it yourself to find out what it actually was saying. You just presumed we had no Biblical basis for our belief, yet what you quoted had over 100 textual references (yes, I counted them) plus quotes from a variety of commentators including Henry and Calvin, as well as quotes from Jewish literature. And you wrote the entire thing off because it was 'adventist'.

I agree. But let's be honest. There's a difference between searching scripture to discover truth, and searching scripture to prove a misconception. Both can, and are done on a regular basis. With the appropriate reference one could almost justify murder.

Your shotgun generalities cannot be classified as discussion or a counter-argument. Shaking the dust off your feet is appropriate for folk who have presented specific truths pertaining to the gospel, but entirely inappropriate for those who run out of arguments against truth already presented. These posts of mine in this thread are factual...both Biblically and historically. You have not presented anything whatsoever that specifically speaks to any single thing I have presented. @Naomi25 is at least trying to do so with her rebuttal against Sabbath keeping, but which on this thread I am reluctant to discuss because as you are well aware, Sabbath discussions are all over the place and if there is one topic to derail any discussion, it is the Sabbath. I can and will answer Naomi, but not here.

This is another topic that has the potential for derailing this thread. Perhaps you would like to begin a thread specifically related to the sanctuary investigative judgement, with your specific objections? I have nothing to hide nor to run away from. Would welcome a discussion on that.

"Now writing this entire subject off because it is your judgement it is "SDA" doctrine, is somewhat misleading. Yes, Adventists are among the very few today who still believe that the Papacy is the Antichrist."

Yes, silly to disregard all of this good teaching just because of your personal beliefs.
I believe the AC is the Papacy, and have believed that for many many years and...I am not SDA.
Eschatology got quite a hold of me back in 1992, when still sucking my thumb as a baby Christian. I found it and still do, so very interesting. I read the book of Revelations back then, understanding not a thing...I thought, lol. All I could think of was Rome, the Pope and all those fine colors of linen they wear. I hardly mentioned that to anyone as they looked at me horrified that I would even THINK that much less say it, lol. Now, I have been finding others who believe this and they (Brakelight) are able to present MUCH better than I. so...keep writing, this is like a bible study.

 

[Dave L]

"Now writing this entire subject off because it is your judgement it is "SDA" doctrine, is somewhat misleading. Yes, Adventists are among the very few today who still believe that the Papacy is the Antichrist."

Yes, silly to disregard all of this good teaching just because of your personal beliefs.
I believe the AC is the Papacy, and have believed that for many many years and...I am not SDA.
Eschatology got quite a hold of me back in 1992, when still sucking my thumb as a baby Christian. I found it and still do, so very interesting. I read the book of Revelations back then, understanding not a thing...I thought, lol. All I could think of was Rome, the Pope and all those fine colors of linen they wear. I hardly mentioned that to anyone as they looked at me horrified that I would even THINK that much less say it, lol. Now, I have been finding others who believe this and they (Brakelight) are able to present MUCH better than I. so...keep writing, this is like a bible study.

I hold the same views as you. SDAs hold basically the same views as the Reformed Churches. But the Lutherans, Reformed, Presbyterians, English Baptists, and Methodists among others have excellent teaching of the same. I'm Amillennial so I break off with SDAs at that point and don't look for a physical kingdom on earth. But believe the end of the world is next and looming.

 

[Nancy]

I hold the same views as you. SDAs hold basically the same views as the Reformed Churches. But the Lutherans, Reformed, Presbyterians, English Baptists, and Methodists among others have excellent teaching of the same. I'm A millennial so I break off with SDAs at that point and don't look for a physical kingdom on earth. But believe the end of the world is next and looming.

If we allow it to be, we all can learn from each other. Doctrinal issues have splintered the Church since day one. As long as we know Who to keep our focus on, I think things on here could be so much more pleasant. ♥
As far as A, or Pre Millennial...nothing set in stone fully here with me...I do tend towards Pre though but, there are also good arguments for the other.

 

[farouk]

I wouldn't be surprised if people have done just that.
I wasn't actually making a comment on whether what you were saying was 'unbiblical'...just that it's not really unacceptable to say somethings unbiblical if, let's face it, something is! But I just think that if you're going to come out and slap that down on someone, you should at least come with bible verses and reasons and a willingness to discuss the topic back and forth a bit.
I sort of think the only one who gets the right to declare "I...have spoken!" And walk away is God...you know...cause he's legit, and has the credentials!
The rest of us, we're feeling around in the dark, more or less. And sure, we've obviously all come to places we believe to be truth. And that's what we're supposed to do; we're supposed to be convicted of it and stand for it. But I don't think we should loose the humilty that says we're not God, we're not perfect and sometimes we don't get everything right. And...well...you know, sometimes God uses the strangest of things to teach us. Often...I'm not persuaded to change my mind, after reaching the conclusions I have. But sometimes someone will say something, and it's like a wonderful discovery. 'Oh! That verse could be read like that! How interesting!' It's like a whole new way of considering something. Maybe that changes how I see it, ultimately, maybe it doesn't...I trust in God to show me in the end. But it's still neat.

Searching the Scriptures prayerfully is in any case healthy...

 

[quietthinker]

See the beginning of the post I just posted to brakelite. Several bible passages list believers and Disciples gathering together on "the first day of the week", which also happened to be the day Christ rose from the grave. I suppose people call it "the Lords Day" from the Revelation, where John says "I was in the spirit on the Lords Day". If it had been on Sabbath, he would have said that. If it had been on any other day...well...no other special connotations. But if the Church was already gathering together on the Sunday by that point, it's a rather obvious conclusion to make.

Yes, I read your reply to brakelite. Give it more consideration Naomi....If Jesus said he was Lord of the Sabbath and he was referring to the seventh day there is no justifiable reason to call the first day of the week 'The Lord's Day'

Meeting on the first day of the week also does not constitute 'The Lords Day' any more than meeting on any other day of the week whether that is to break bread, speak in tongues, do miracles, walk on the water or even rise from the dead, noteworthy though these events may be.

John mentioning being in the spirit on the Lords Day for him was clearly the 7th Day. To use this scripture as John referring to the Ist Day of the week by him not mentioning the word 'Sabbath' is an attempt to force the language to say something that it is not, particularly given the context of their experience in the grain field and the ensuing conversation.

Gathering on the first day does also not constitute a justifiable position in saying that the fourth Commandment has now been altered for a change of days any more than a polygamous arrangement does not constitute adultery or greed does not not constitute coveting or 'borrowing' does not constitute stealing or parental neglect does not constitute dishonouring ones parents the which Jesus drew attention to in Mark 7:11-13

Approving what is acceptable to men by making the language mean that which suits their fancy because of tradition or fashion or popular opinion is not a justifiable reason to change what God has commanded all the while attempting to make it appear as if God himself has changed the matter including his mind. This a grievous error.

 

[CoreIssue]

="brakelite, post: 489946, member: 6216"]Repeatedly saying "that's wrong...that's not Biblical"...without bothering to see where another can prove it is Biblical, is wilful ignorance.

I said a lot more than it is wrong. I proved it wrong.

Now writing this entire subject off because it is your judgement it is "SDA" doctrine, is somewhat misleading. Yes, Adventists are among the very few today who still believe that the Papacy is the Antichrist. But it wasn't always that way. Every reformer, from Wycliffe and Tyndale to John Knox and everyone else in between, taught the same.[/QUOTE

]

As well you are calling them liars because what they said is future you're saying is past.

Our teaching regarding Antichrist is solidly founded. As this current thread absolutely proves.

No you have not.

You have shown several times in the past that you are not as familiar with SDA doctrine as you like to think. For example, you quoted a web site that explained fully how and why we believe Jesus was known as Michael in the OT, yet you showed later that you didn't even bother to read it yourself to find out what it actually was saying.

You have convoluted arguments to try to say he is and he isn't.

You just presumed we had no Biblical basis for our belief, yet what you quoted had over 100 textual references (yes, I counted them) plus quotes from a variety of commentators including Henry and Calvin, as well as quotes from Jewish literature. And you wrote the entire thing off because it was 'adventist'.

I don't care how many textual references you give. When they are wrong they are wrong. Quantity doesn't equal proof.

Jewish literature? You mean Judaism that God divorced for being untrue to him?

And Calvin, who says God created people to go to hell?

I agree. But let's be honest. There's a difference between searching scripture to discover truth, and searching scripture to prove a misconception. Both can, and are done on a regular basis. With the appropriate reference one could almost justify murder.

Cannot argue with that statement. But it does not help your argument.

Your shotgun generalities cannot be classified as discussion or a counter-argument.

Shaking the dust off your feet is appropriate for folk who have presented specific truths pertaining to the gospel, but entirely inappropriate for those who run out of arguments against truth already presented. These posts of mine in this thread are factual...both Biblically and historically. You have not presented anything whatsoever that specifically speaks to any single thing I have presented.

Only your opinion based on your doctrine.

@Naomi25 is at least trying to do so with her rebuttal against Sabbath keeping, but which on this thread I am reluctant to discuss because as you are well aware, Sabbath discussions are all over the place and if there is one topic to derail any discussion, it is the Sabbath. I can and will answer Naomi, but not here.

This is another topic that has the potential for derailing this thread. Perhaps you would like to begin a thread specifically related to the sanctuary investigative judgement, with your specific objections? I have nothing to hide nor to run away from. Would welcome a discussion on that.

In my 15+ years of running a website a very common tactic is to trying to remove a person from open conversation and take them private so they can control the presentation.

You started this thread which is solidly rooted in SDA doctrine. So expect feeder roots to be included.

In other words, the topic here is not and cannot be considered standalone.

Ellen G White, in example, is a key component to the formulation of this thinking.

Just like Catholicism cannot be discussed independent of paganism.

Nor can end times will answers to prophecy be found in history.

I gave you firm Bible teachings concerning the AC. As well as historical and biblical prophecy for the false prophet being the Pope.

Your response to every point I made was to quote SDA doctrine loaded with historical notations that simply did not fit.

 

[brakelite]

Ellen G White, in example, is a key component to the formulation of this thinking.

Not once have I, nor needed to, quote E G White. Most of my sources for are in fact Catholic, in order to better present the historical and cotrinal validity of my arguments. It is easily seen that you aren't actually reading any of the posts, at all . Thus you have no clue where my discussion with others has been coming from, thus your conclusions are totally irrelevant.

Nor can end times will answers to prophecy be found in history.

Oh? So when did the "end-times" start? Most futurists point to 1948 as being the beginning of the end. Is that not history? We believe 1798 was the beginning with the conclusion of the 1260 years of papal rule in Europe. Some prophecy came before, some after. There is no logical, Biblical, or eschatological reason to rip portions of prophecy from their natural setting and cast them all off as a lump unknown material into the distant future. BY doing so you have effectively hidden the true Antichrist from view, by taking on board the teachings of Antichrist. You are aware are you not that futurism was inventied by a Jesuit in the 16th century for the sole purpose of diverting Protestant attention away from Rome? And gullible people such as yourself have taken the bait and swallowed the lies.

I gave you firm Bible teachings concerning the AC. As well as historical and biblical prophecy for the false prophet being the Pope.

Right. You said the Antichrist is Greek. I guess other readers will have to weigh up the evidence and decide for themselves. Unlike yourself who refuses to look at any other evidence.

Your response to every point I made was to quote SDA doctrine loaded with historical notations that simply did not fit.

And a future Antichrist fits....what? You have no evidence ...you can't have any because nothing has happened yet...so how can you be so certain of your hermeneutic when historicism absolutely fits? Futurists are so determined that they won't be here when the mark of the beast is imposed, that when it does come they will accept it blindly because they won't recognise it. It is still future they proclaim...this cannot be it. "Thankyou, I'll take it".

 

[brakelite]

May even be a good notion to worship Him every day of the week! The word in my understanding just means to adore him. Like when a dogs master comes home and the dog licks his feet.

The 4th commandment doesn't say "worship Me on this day, and only this day". And those who observe the 7th day Sabbath do worship on other days. That isn't the issue. It doesn't actually say 'worship' at all. It says, "remember to keep the Sabbath holy". That is something you cannot do just "any day", and nor is it something you can replace with another day. Jesus Himself blessed one particular day, sanctified, making it holy. The 7th day. No where in scripture does it say that situation has been changed. Regardless of what the apostles may have done on the first day, regardless of what even Jesus did on the first day...the 7th day is still holy, and will continue to be throughout eternity, as Isa 66:23 testifies.
It is therefore still a holy day, regardless of what you do on any other day. Jesus said He was Lord of that day, which only makes sense considering its origins. It is His day. He owns it. The Sabbath, the 7th day, is the true Lord's Day. And He said it was made for man. He made a day of rest for man. For you and me. Its a gift. Why do so many make it out to be a burden? What He asks us to do is to not take that holiness away from it by working on that day. So simple. So easy. Yet people resist it with such fervour and determination.

 

[CoreIssue]

="brakelite, post: 490361, member: 6216"]Not once have I, nor needed to, quote E G White. Most of my sources for are in fact Catholic, in order to better present the historical and cotrinal validity of my arguments. It is easily seen that you aren't actually reading any of the posts, at all . Thus you have no clue where my discussion with others has been coming from, thus your conclusions are totally irrelevant.

Does not change the fact your doctrine is built upon her teachings and so-called prophecies.

Oh? So when did the "end-times" start? Most futurists point to 1948 as being the beginning of the end. Is that not history? We believe 1798 was the beginning with the conclusion of the 1260 years of papal rule in Europe. Some prophecy came before, some after. There is no logical, Biblical, or eschatological reason to rip portions of prophecy from their natural setting and cast them all off as a lump unknown material into the distant future. BY doing so you have effectively hidden the true Antichrist from view, by taking on board the teachings of Antichrist. You are aware are you not that futurism was inventied by a Jesuit in the 16th century for the sole purpose of diverting Protestant attention away from Rome? And gullible people such as yourself have taken the bait and swallowed the lies.

By my reading of the Bible the in time started at the death Christ.

1948 is an important date that starts a countdown clock for when the second coming will occur.

1260 days is absolutely future. The events of the seals in mid trib have most assuredly not occurred yet.

As for the identity the AC, that cannot occur until the restrainer is removed. Most assuredly has not happened yet.

No, futurism was not invented by Jesuits. It began with the prophets of the Old Testament.

Right. You said the Antichrist is Greek. I guess other readers will have to weigh up the evidence and decide for themselves. Unlike yourself who refuses to look at any other evidence.

I have been studying for 57 years. I rejected your thinking decades ago.

And a future Antichrist fits....what? You have no evidence ...you can't have any because nothing has happened yet...

Read what is said about the AC in the Old Testament and about the life of Alexander the great. Both, homosexuals, both mainly conquering with peace treaties, both riding white horses and more.

You don't even assign the AC as being one individual.

so how can you be so certain of your hermeneutic when historicism absolutely fits?

Because the simple fact what hasn't occurred yet cannot be history.

Futurists are so determined that they won't be here when the mark of the beast is imposed, that when it does come they will accept it blindly because they won't recognise it. It is still future they proclaim...this cannot be it. "Thankyou, I'll take it".

You can have it. When it does you somehow will find something in your SDA doctrines to explain it.