- Topic
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.
Rome was divided in to how many kingdoms??? 10, out of those ten kingdoms is there a beast that speaks against God, that means blasphemeing god,? Rome, is there a beast that killed and murder saints,? Rome, Is there a beast that changed teh set times and laws of God? Rome, Is there a beast that wears scarlet? Rome , is there beast with so many riches it is uncompared in the world and that dones themselves in it ? ROme. Is there a beast that sits onmany water, who mixes religion and politics? ROme………………….. These points lets go over one by one I will show you how rome does all these things.
Oh and leads the whole world astray, so they worship teh beast? Don't get offended with this but it is Rome Babylon, because they are lead astary and the protestants also were lead astray through the teachings of Rome. It just all fits.
which is?
fromtheotherside wrote:
Even in interpretation of the bible there is Fact! Jesus set up a day sabbath or Jesus whispered to his deciples change it sunday, or Jesus taught his disiples any day. Some where in those "interpretations" there is Fact!
None of those 3 is fact. At least none is recorded in scripture.
fromtheotherside wrote:
538 it is technical not something dead on that crumbles the whole building, all I know is even though you dispute it and I saw your evidence which I am not saying is wrong, every point about dan and rev hits home 538 is one technical foul
538 is not technical as you say. It is central to the interpretation that wants the 1260 years to fit. You have still not explained how the little horn enters the scene before Jesus.
FTOS, you have made up your mind and you are not willing to see the points that Genny is presenting. She tells you the point about division into more than 10 kingdoms and you ask "which is?"
fromtheotherside wrote:
My answer is Yes, renita. But how do you know God does not consider 538 as a point of no return for the ostrogoths. Some of you may argue that there can't be any fault with the truth and it can't be disputed.
But look at our conversation of Sabbath and sunday. I preached sabbath, to tell you the truth you guys did a darn good job of disputing it. Did I make myself 100% clear and un disputable? no.. But it was the same with sunday argument also. It shouldn't be though. then again its because people can have arguments that some poeple do not believe.
The truth is 100% undisputable but when someone wants to look at it with non belief they can and then dispute, but in the eyes of the one who does believe, to him it's 100% indisputable. So for me the historic view is 100% true.
I don't know what God considers the point of no return. It could be the date of when that particular battle started.
I don't see any good standing arguement as far as Sunday worship but I do understand what you're saying. If we don't have the same beliefs then we can make either of our arguements appear to be concrete and undisputable.
554 + 1260 = 1804
FTOS,<font face=”Trebuchet MS, Lucida Grande, Verdana, Tahoma, Arial”> you still haven't answered how you can reconcile the sequence of Dn 7 verses 8 and 13 with that SDA interpretation. Try to do that honestly. Your eyes will be opened. Doesn't require history scholarship.</font>
FTOS, I am still waiting. There are many things I can say about this wild interpretation of Daniel but I am keeping it simple.
1. You claimed that the Catholics changed the bible and added things like "hail marry" (sic) in it. I am still waiting for you to show me where it has been done.
2. I am also waiting to see what is your explanation about the little horn appearing in Dn 7:8 and the son of man appearing in verse 13.
I think what has happened is that all these things you say here are not of your own knowledge but things you have been told at the wmscog. Since you believe in the "truth" of the wmscog, you believe what you have been told.
You seem to be an intelligent man. Are you the one who said you were in naval intelligence? A little independent study on your part will prove to you that you have been lied to. What you do with that knowledge is upto you. Perhaps you feel that lies are justified if it means slandering your enemy.
Emil, The extra books in the Catholic Bible are called The Apocrypha. They were written after the Canon of the Hebrew Bible was complete – about 425 B.C. The word apocrypha means “hidden, or secret”. Due to their doubtful authenticity the word has come to mean “fraudulent, or forged” by some scholars. This is why they are not in the regular Bible.
I actually have a Catholic Bible since I’m a former Catholic. I can assure you, I am yet to see Hail Mary in it. Lol. Those 7 extra books is the only difference between regular Bible and Catholic Bible.
Sarah there are osme errors in your post. The books are called Deuterocanonical. Apocrypha refers to the books of Revelation and Daniel. The books are authentic and belong to old testament times. They were not written after the compilation of the canon.
The main dispute is not so much about their authenticity but about whether they should actually be part of the canon and when they were added. That is a topic for another forum.
Here I would like FTOS to show where catholics added "hail marry" as he likes to call it. My insistence on this is because it shows that FTOS is dependent on spoonfed pseudo knowledge.
Look up Deuterocanonical. Same thing.
Emil, I got your point the first time on the Hail Mary question to FTOS. My post are not what I made up. It is what has been said about those books. Here are a few links also.
http://www.gotquestions.org/apocrypha-deuterocanonical.html
I get you. Sorry I misread your previous post. You mentioned 425 BC and I overlooked the BC part. Regarding whether the books belong or when they came in, it depends on who you read and who you want to believe. See for instance: Catholic and Protestant bibles and many other sources I could offer have a different viewpoint.
However, let us keep that aside here and stick to my question to FTOS.
Ok.
emil wrote:
Sarah there are osme errors in your post. The books are called Deuterocanonical. Apocrypha refers to the books of Revelation and Daniel. The books are authentic and belong to old testament times. They were not written after the compilation of the canon.
The main dispute is not so much about their authenticity but about whether they should actually be part of the canon and when they were added. That is a topic for another forum.
Here I would like FTOS to show where catholics added "hail marry" as he likes to call it. My insistence on this is because it shows that FTOS is dependent on spoonfed pseudo knowledge.
No Revelation and Daniel are Apocolyptical not Apocryphal
Yes Simon, you are right. I realized my error but I did not want to fill up this thread with too many more posts since I want FTOS to see my question and answer it.
FTOS – I am still waiting to hear what you have to say about the sequence of events described in Daniel 7 verses 8 and 13.
And don't forget to show me where exactly catholics added "hail marry" to the bible.
Is not "hail marry" a catholic thing? do they do it or not? If they do then it's adding, even if they didn't actually write it in the bible, it's adding. So if it's not a catholic thing then I'm mistaken. So you tell me. Do catholics do it or not?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.