[genny]

In another thread, fromtheotherside, speaking of the materials presented againt the wmscog, said "none of your evidences speak for itself.  if you have such evidence present it without your explanation."

I presented several 'evidences without explanation' there, but I think it would be a good idea to take each one separately into its own thread.  Here's the first one:

Regarding the teaching of the Catholic Church being the Antichrist: the Ostrogoths were not destroyed in 538, the '10 kingdoms' from the Roman empire were not as the WMSCOG presents, 5 were destroyed not 3, and the destruction or survival of these 'kingdoms' did not depend on their following the Catholic Church.  These are historical, textbook facts.

I originally did not link to my research about it, because fromtheotherside did not want explanation, but if you'd like to see the research, I've collected it here:

http://encountering-ahnsahnghong.blogspot.com/2011/11/daniels-prophecy.html

http://encountering-ahnsahnghong.blogspot.com/2011/08/is-666-pope-part-3.html

fromtheotherside tried to answer this point but so far was unsuccessful.  I'll copy those pieces of the conversation here from the other thread, just to keep everything together.

[fromtheotherside]

[fromtheotherside]

Emil your replies make no sense.  

let's make this easy for you then, explain and show in the bible where the son of man will come after satan is throne in the lake of fire. If you show this then I'll let you win. 

[Sarah2013]

Not good enough.

[emil]

fromtheotherside wrote:

Emil your replies make no sense.  

let's make this easy for you then, explain and show in the bible where the son of man will come after satan is throne in the lake of fire. If you show this then I'll let you win. 

You are not the judge of who wins. This is not a game with you as the referee. You are taking your interpretation and telling me to prove it from the bible. I have just proved to you the sequence of events in Dan 7 do not fit your interpretation.

As long as you continue to hold on to your interpretation and try to make the bible fit it, you will have a problem. When you find it does not fit, you cannot question the bible. You have to question your interpretation of it. If you cannot understand this much, I'm sorry for your soul.

Navy intelligence did you say?

[fromtheotherside]

so your saying you can't, because the bible doesn't back you up, ok I'll take that.  

[emil]

If you want to act dumb that is your prerogative. I am saying I can't back up YOUR claim from the bible. You will have to do it yourself. I already backed up MY claim that your interpretation is wrong.

I really hope angelwings is reading the dialog that is going on here.

[angelwings]

emil wrote:

fromtheotherside wrote:

 

I am not saying anything of the sort. All I am saying is that your interpretation is patently false. Probably so because it is a mere copy/paste from the SDA, used without application of mind by your leaders.

Yes that is what you are saying becuase you believe them to be events that are to be in order.  11 and 12 are clearly about the judgement and punishment of the beast in the lake of fire, but then how can christ come after that when the earth is already judged.  

Exactly my point. That is your error.

I believe the events are in order. Verses 11 and 12 are clearly about the judgement of the beast. So I agree about that. However, your next sentence is the question that shows you that your interpretation is wrong. The judgement of the beast is not the same as the judgement of the earth. Because you interpreted it to be so, you are unable to accept that the events are described in sequence. Once you understand that, you will realize your whole interpretation is wrong. You have a preconceived notion and then you try to wrestle the facts to fit in with your notions.

I was reading all the comments emil, I understand what both are saying.

You are saying it is in sequence, because of the wording and the events. 

Fromtheotherside is saying that insince the beast is judged and sent to the lake of fire in verse 11 and 12 it would contradict with the events in revelations, where the beast isn't judged or sent to the lake of fire untill after the saints of God are taken up to heaven, by God, without tasting death being transformed into spiritual beings and reigns in heaven for a thousand years, and then the beast is released for a short time and then is thrown into the lake of fire. 

I see both points, and they both sound reasonable, I know where Fromtheotherside is getting his information from the bible in revelations, but can you show me where it says that the beast is sent to the lake of fire and then christ will come to the earth to save us?  Can you give me those verses for my own learning?

[emil]

Angelwings that (where it says that the beast is sent to the lake of fire and then christ will come to the earth) is exactly what is happening in Daniel chapter 7. I have already explained it. I have proved that the verses are a sequential narrative. There is no question of that. So what is the problem?

 

The problem is simply this. The interpretation assumes that Daniel 7 and Revelation are prophecies of the same events. As long as you insist on that, you will have to say that either Daniel is a mistake or Revelation is. Now we all agree that the word of God cannot be a mistake. So the only logical conclusion is that the interpretation is wrong. They are not the same events. Since the little horn of Daniel 7 appears in verse 8 and Jesus comes to earth in verse 14, the little horn cannot be the papacy, which came into existence after Jesus' first coming. The wmscog is falsely teaching this.

[fromtheotherside]

So what are you saying? You're saying the beast in Dan is different from the beast in REV.  and then Jesus comes to the earth is the 1st or the 2nd? Untill you tell us exactly what you are saying and explain it, you aren't making your point.     Why don't you explain and tell us about this beast and why it's different from the beast in REV         Also we don't believe that dan is sequencial order, so we don't see how dan and rev contradict each other.  but anyhow please explain. or your view will just not sound correct.      if not for me, do it for angelwings because I think she doesn't get what you're saying either. 

[emil]

I have made my point.

1. I have proved logically that the Daniel narrative is sequential. You refuse to accept that because it does not fit in with your interpretation. You have a right to refuse. It is your choice. I cannot force you. It goes to show that you prefer to hold fast to your interpretation than to hold fast to the word of God.

2. I am not offering you any interpretation of Daniel 7 at this point in time. I am simply telling you that Daniel 7 narrative does not fit with your interpretation.

3. If you believe that Dan 7 and Rev are prophecies of the same event, YOU have to concede one of them is wrong. I don't believe any of them is.

4. Since Dan 7 and Rev do not match on such a significant point, if we agree that the bible does not lie, we have to conclude that they are different events and hence the teaching of the wmscog is in error.

[Love'n Honey]

emil wrote:

I believe that it is best if I can worship the right God every day.

If everyday is the right day. The right day is what God says and if God says everyday then you've got the right day =)

How are the events different?

[Sarah2013]

I’m starting to think that due to the intensity and on going of this debate, maybe the debate should now be. What is more important? The day of worship or who you worship? I feel these are just side tracks from the main focus

[emil]

Bear with me a while. Lets take it as it comes. First let us accept that Dn 7 does not agree with the interpretation of the sda/wmscog.

I have conclusively proved that the narrative is sequential by 3 indicators in the text. Agree?

If that is so, then Dn 7 can't be about the papacy since that did not come after Jesus. Agree?

I have yet to study Rev from this perspective so I do not want to assert that it is the same or different. I brought it up only because ftos brought it up as proof that Dn 7 is not in sequence because the sequence does not agree with Rev. I am taking him at his word for what it is worth.

My point is that Dan and Rev don't have to agree with each other. FTOS says it must because it is the same event. But that is an interpretation and demands us to force the bible to say something it isn't saying. We should read the bible and understand what it is saying. Not start by imagining what it is saying and then trying to force it to fit your preconceived idea.

I hope I am being clear.

[emil]

Sarah2013 wrote:

I'm starting to think that due to the intensity and on going of this debate, maybe the debate should now be. What is more important? The day of worship or who you worship? I feel these are just side tracks from the main focus

Not this thread. That is the sabbath thread you must be meaning. This thread is a debate about the antichrist interpretation. I have more to say about it but I want us to agree on Dn 7 first.

[Sarah2013]

Ok. Emil. Too many threads. Trying to catch up.

[emil]

Is everyone clear that Dan 7 is in sequence and does not fit the SDA/WMSCOG interpretation? FTOS, angelwings?

[genny]

fromtheotherside wrote:

but sorry to say he never said worship continuesly, or even anytime you want

I think we've got some Sabbath debate here that could move to another thread, but I just want to point out a few people who worshipped God on days not specified as Sabbaths (or feasts):

Gideon, Judges 7:15

David, 2 Sam 12:20; 1 Kings 1:47

Jehosaphat, 2 Chron. 20:18

Hezekiah and the Levites, 2 Chron. 29:30

A blind man healed, John 9:38

men from the church in Antioch, Acts 13:2

[genny]

fromtheotherside wrote:

a point in time as for the work of god doesn't have to match the thought of man,  to god 538 can certainly become a point in time, with that one arguable point you cannot dismiss tht all the other points add up perfectly and sensably

Do you see what you are doing?  You say that 538 must be a point in time to God, even though man can't see it.  That is an excuse to make the year 538 work for you.  The wmscog teaches that man can see this point, using it as a big "you see!  The Catholic Church matches!" when their information does not line up.

(sorry I'm so late responding to this post.  It's been a rough week.)

[emil]

That is exactly what ftos (actually the wmscog) seems to be doing. Start with a hypothesis. Check out what can be used from the bible that matches the hypothesis. Discard the parts that don't match and Voila! you have an interpretation.

When I showed how the Dn chapter 7 story does not match with their hypothesis, they throw a red herring and ask me how do I explain the difference. Obviously tghe difference is because the hypothesis is wrong to begin with.

In the same way, they start with the 1260 years in their hypothesis to fit. Since they have a convenient point in 1798, they need to have a starting point in 538 for their hypothesis to fit. It is another matter that even the 1260 years part of their hypothesis is debatable.

[emil]

fromtheotherside wrote:

I know but worship is like actually sitting down and singing and praying and listening to a sermon, as for praying it's praying. and my comment was for sarah and emil not simon

Ok so singing and praying and listening to a sermon is worship. Praying is not worship unless singing and listening to a sermon is included. Do I understand you correctly?

Do you admit deaf and mute people into the wmscog? What do they do on the sabbath?

And God does not want us to worship continuously. Only pray continuously.

I'm beginning to feel sad for ftos. Anyone else feels the same?

[Anonymous]

I am looking over Dn 7: 1-28, It mentions historically that this prophecy already happened, the catholic Church can be seen as the the Anti-christ..not exactly the physical guy in red pajamas with a pitchfork I originally imagined. but in Dn7:8 "…This horn had eyes like the eyes of a man and a mouth that spoke boastfully. 9 "As I looked, "thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat. His clothing was as white as snow; the hair of his head was white like wool. His throne was flaming with fire, and its wheels were all ablaze. 10 A river of fire was flowing, coming out from before him. Thousands upon thousands attended him; ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him. The court was seated, and the books were opened." …

When I read this, it just screamed the obvious answer of the Catholic church and the Pope….in Dn 7:23 Daniel actually expalined the vision.. "…The fourth beast is a fourth kingdom that will appear on earth. It will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth, trampling it down and crushing it. 24 The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom. After them another king will arise, different from the earlier ones; he will subdue three kings. 25 He will speak against the Most High and oppress his saints and try to change the set times and the laws. The saints will be handed over to him for a time, times and half a time"….. What did the catholic church do/ change involving God's laws? … well they changed the ten commandments, to allow the pope to be given rank as a false Idol/ "someone who is most Holy" and also teaching of salvation without the original day of the passover.

… Maybe I am over analyzing this, or missing something when I read these verses but… It kind of makes sense that the Catholic Church and heirarchy of Popes is the Antichrist.