[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.

[Love'n Honey]

[Love'n Honey]

That 538 marks the end of Ostrogoths.

[fromtheotherside]

genny wrote:

fromtheotherside wrote:

Of course they would have Pros about them, or people wouldn't be fooled to believe in them and they wouldn't be able to lead people astray.  So your only argument is they don't have a date correct?  As I said all things can be debated, but the qualities of that Catholic Church fit perfectly, 

Change god's laws and time, persecute his saints, speak against God, above many waters, leads the whole world astray, red and purple golden cup….. this is undisputable. 

I could make a point that the wmscog changes God's laws and times, persecutes His saints, speaks against God, sits above many waters, leads the whole world astray…  I haven't seen the red and purple and golden cup, but I bet I could turn that into a spiritual interpretation that fits the wmscog…  Those things are more debateable and disputable than the historical record I'm bringing to your attention here.

Would it matter to you if the date was incorrect?  And the 10 kingdoms not being as claimed?  Or would you still accept the teaching even with these errors?

Genny You can't fit those charateristic with just anyone. Persecute his saints? There is no other history like the inquisition and it also is in line with revelations and the seven churches and the persecution they will recieve. You just can't fit anyone else into those descriptions.  

[Jay]

renita.payno wrote:

That 538 marks the end of Ostrogoths.

 In that case I agree.  Destruction apprantly is a  WWMCOG issue.  538 is significant because it was the turning point in the war.  Papal Rome achieved the upper hand and so began their tyrany as a power unmatched  by any real opposition. Fits prophecy perfectly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Rome_(537-538)#Aftermath

[genny]

fromtheotherside wrote:

small and again the same with Alexander and the 4 way split.  the main picture is the qualities and they fit. Also the countries that lead up to it they fit too. 

I see it as significant, not small.  What do you mean about the countries that lead up to it fit too?  Do you mean the 10 kingdoms?  What do you think of the problem with those 10 kingdoms?  (Have you seen it, or should I repeat it here?)

I'll ask again, because I'm not sure if you answered it… Would it matter to you if the 538 date was not correct and if the 10 kingdoms were not as claimed?  Or would you believe even if there were these errors?

Also, doesn't it bother you about that quote you had from Ridpath–the one that was taken so dreadfully out of context?

Simon wrote:

yes the evidence book has mention of 538 I don't remember it saying ostrogoths were defeated maybe it did/does and I don't remember

It's in the evidence book.  I have pictures of the pages here: http://encountering-ahnsahnghong.blogspot.com/2011/11/daniels-prophecy.html

It's also in this video, start at minute 2:48: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34Rb9hhrExY

Jay wrote:

The 538  did not originate with WMMCOG (as you may know) but I believe to be correct but misapplied by WMMCOG.  It was understood that in 533, the justinean decree was given and then was enforced in 538 when the enemies of the Catholics in Rome were subjugated by Belisarius, a general of Justinian.  It was at this time that it is said that Dan 7:8 was fulfilled. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belisarius#Against_the_Ostrogoths

Yes, this antichrist teaching is not unique or original to the wmscog.

Jay, I've gathered that you are Adventist, is that right?  Would you mind sharing which particular branch of adventism?  I'm just curious, because I know of several adventist denominations.

What Justinian decree are you referring to in 533?  And when you say that it was "enforced in 538" what do you mean by that?  Also, what do you mean by Dan. 7:8 being fulfilled?  Can you be more specific please?

The seige of Rome was just one part of a long war between the Romans (Byzantines) and the Goths.  Your link about Belisarius says that although he was successful in defending Rome against the Goths in 538, but it goes on to tell about how the situation "changed greatly" after that, and the Gothic king Totila "mounted a vigorous campaign against the Byzantines, recapturing all of northern Italy and even driving the Byzantines out of Rome" before the final end of the war.

Jay wrote:

 In that case I agree.  Destruction apprantly is a  WWMCOG issue.  538 is significant because it was the turning point in the war.  Papal Rome achieved the upper hand and so began their tyrany as a power unmatched  by any real opposition. Fits prophecy perfectly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Rome_(537-538)#Aftermath

Again, your link shows that this year did not mark the beginning of a "tyrany as a power unmatched by any real opposition" lead by the church.  The Byzantines did have severe opposition and almost did not win that war after 538.  Here's a quote from your link about the aftermath of the seige of Rome 538:

After their victory over a numerically much superior enemy, the Romans gained the upper hand. Reinforcements under Narses arrived, which enabled Belisarius to take several Gothic strongholds and control most of Italy south of the River Po by the end of 539. Eventually, Ravenna itself was taken by deceit in May 540, and the war seemed to be effectively over. However, very soon, the Goths, under the capable leadership of their new king Totila, managed to reverse the situation, until the Empire's position in Italy almost collapsed. In 546, Rome was again besieged by Totila, and this time Belisarius was unable to prevent its fall. The city was reoccupied by the Imperials soon after, and Totila had to besiege it again in 549. Despite the city's fall, Totila's triumph was to be brief. The arrival of Narses in 551 spelled the beginning of the end for the Goths, and in the Battle of Taginae in 552 the Goths were routed and Totila was killed. In 553 the last Ostrogothic king, Teia, was defeated. Although several cities in the north continued resistance up to the early 560s, the Gothic power was broken for good.

I'll tell you what I think happened when this teaching was first put together however long ago it was.  I think they sat down with a bunch of dates and tried desperately to come up with two dates that would give a spread of 1260 years, and the best ones they could match up were 538 and 1798.  I think this because if you study the history books, there are many years that could have been considered the beginning of the Catholic Church in some way (538 having no significance other than one of the sieges of Rome) and many years that could be considered a fatal wound later healed.

Here's where I've collected some of those dates, for anyone interested:

http://encountering-ahnsahnghong.blogspot.com/2011/08/is-666-pope-part-5-1260-days.html

http://encountering-ahnsahnghong.blogspot.com/2011/08/is-666-pope-part-4.html

[emil]

Lets get simple here and look at Daniel once more.

The little horn emerges in Dn 7:8. SDA, and as a consequence WMSCOG, claim this is the papacy that emerged out of Rome. Then the court convenes in verses 9 and 10. In verse 11, the little horn is still misbehaving. Then comes the Son of man in verse 13.

So we see the son of man has entered the scene after the little horn of verse 8 and 11. Did the papacy come before Jesus? Our wmscog brethren would now like to tell us that this refers to Jesus' second coming. Sadly they have already closed the door to that argument.

Here I quote what they say in their teaching Cloud and Flesh taken from their website.

The Bible prophesies that Jesus will come on a cloud, for a second time, in order to restore the lost truth and to lead the children of God into the kingdom of heaven. When Jesus came two thousand years ago, He fulfilled the prophecy of the book of Daniel by "coming with the clouds of heaven" (Dan. 7:13-14). Actually, Jesus came as a man, in the flesh. Jesus is prophesied to come a second time on the clouds of heaven, meaning that He will come as a man, in the flesh, again.

Over to you FTOS

[Love'n Honey]

Jay wrote:

renita.payno wrote:

That 538 marks the end of Ostrogoths.

 In that case I agree.  Destruction apprantly is a  WWMCOG issue.  538 is significant because it was the turning point in the war.  Papal Rome achieved the upper hand and so began their tyrany as a power unmatched  by any real opposition. Fits prophecy perfectly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Rome_(537-538)#Aftermath

 I agree it was a turning point but Ostrogoths, no matter how weak it was, was not destroyed in 538. 538 was not the end of Ostrogoths. The end wasn't until 554. Forget Wiki. I'm going to talk to real live history teacher and see what he/she says. Because if Ostrogoths still had a king and their own kingdom, then they are still in the running even if they're in last place just barely crossing the start line.

[Simon]

That debunks WMSCOG reasoning not SDA

[Simon]

but that does make WMSCOG wrong which is the purpose examining WMSCOG if we were examingthewsda then I guess that would matter but  you responded to an SDA that's why I mentioned it.

[fromtheotherside]

Genny, the ten kingdoms has arguable facts that's correct, I even pointed out that Alexander and the four kingdoms have arguable facts.  But those points are small within the whole picture.  There is not interpretion of Dan 7 that is perfect, not even your view.  but I believe out of all of them, actaully of all that I've heard because I don't know all of them, the historic view makes the most sense.

[Love'n Honey]

FTOS, should there be a perfect interpretation of Dan 7? It's not rhetorical and I think your answer is yes, but I don't want to assume.

[fromtheotherside]

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.  

[emil]

fromtheotherside wrote:

Genny, the ten kingdoms has arguable facts that's correct, I even pointed out that Alexander and the four kingdoms have arguable facts.  But those points are small within the whole picture.  There is not interpretion of Dan 7 that is perfect, not even your view.  but I believe out of all of them, actaully of all that I've heard because I don't know all of them, the historic view makes the most sense.

True. For that you have to get history right. You haven't answered my point about the sequence of Dn 7 verses 8-14

[genny]

One thing that stood out to me about the teaching regaring Daniel and the Antichrist was the emphasis on how precisely the Catholic Church fit the historical evidence.  But it doesn't.  Fromtheotherside, you even said the 10 kingdoms also is arguable.  Why does the wmscog present it as fitting history perfectly when it doesn't?

[fromtheotherside]

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.  

[genny]

fromtheotherside wrote:

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.  

Facts are different that interpretation.  Facts are objective, not subjective like interpretations.

If I said to you that the sun was a ball of yellow cheese, and you want to dispute with me because you don't believe me, what would you say when I told you that I didn't care what you think because my view is 100% true?

Facts are different, you see.

[fromtheotherside]

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!

[fromtheotherside]

 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

[genny]

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

Thank you for saying so.

What do you say about the 10 kingdoms part?  Do you have any objections that:

–There were more than 10 kingdoms in the western Roman area during this time period.

–Two of the kingdoms in the wmscog list (Alemanni and Burgundians) were conquered before 538, bringing the total to 5, not 3 conquered kingdoms.

–Some kingdoms were not destroyed even though they did not convert to Catholicism, while others were conquered after they accepted Catholicsm.

–One of the kingdoms (Lombards) on the wmscog list didn't even enter Roman territory until the 540s and did not set up their kingdom in Italy until 568.

[fromtheotherside]

538 is not a point where all the countries exist or not exist together, it is a point for the papacy.  So it wouldn't matter.  kingdoms be catholocism at somepoint or not does not matter also.  because as long as the Papacy had power and no objections that does not matter. 

[genny]

fromtheotherside wrote:

538 is not a point where all the countries exist or not exist together, it is a point for the papacy.  So it wouldn't matter.  kingdoms be catholocism at somepoint or not does not matter also.  because as long as the Papacy had power and no objections that does not matter. 

In the Evidence Book, the wmscog wrote,

"Rome exercised its power politically and religiously.  It was divided into ten countries until 476 A.D.

Lombards (Italy)

Franks (France)

Burgundians (Switzerland)

Visigoths (Spain)

Suevi (Portugal)

Alemanni (Germany)

Anglo-Saxons (England)

Vandals, Heruli, and Ostrogoths"

and

"The seven kingdoms accepted Catholicism to be authorized by the Pope and swore allegiance to him.  The three kingdoms were destroyed by the Pope.  No one could face against the Pope."

The point I got in studying this was that the Pope destroyed any kingdom that would not convert to Catholicism, and that the other kingdoms converted so as not to be conquered.