Timeout: “1,260 DAYS” and the Smoke Signals in Flyover Country


(David) #41

I think you may have been confused because I only mentioned the Roman Catholic church in my timeline. The Eastern Orthodox Church is obviously included. Anyone who observes the so called “holy week” has made a covenant with the wicked prince. That includes RCC, EOC, Lutherans, Anglicans, episcopalians, Methodists, Pentecostals, Adventist, etc., etc., etc… The RCC is the primary actor and offender because they are the ones who declared war against God’s Temple in Heaven. The cherished “Sunday” that the RCC has sprinkled throughout their catechism had become “Earthday” based on the scheme of the planetary week wherein the planet that rules over the first hour of the day gives its name to that day and is lord of that day. That’s why the RCC hated Galileo. The planetary week is a stench in God’s nostrils and that is why He overturned it through the work of Galileo, Tycho Brahe, Keppler, Huygen’s, and Newton.

I hope that clears things up a little bit.


#42

At the time Constantine converted to christianity, apart from Rome the centers of christianity included Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch. The Coptic Orthodox trace their origin to the Alexandria churches and the Eastern Orthodox churches trace their origins to the early christian churches in modern day Turkey. The first end time prediction made from Revelation was made in the eastern churches .

I think you might be mistaken Steve2. Constantine built his new capital at Constantinople which became the seat of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Nicea was held in the midst of the locale of the 7 churches of Asia (the east) that you refer to

Its true, Constantine built Constantinople and it was once the main center of the eastern orthodox churches. However, such simple facts are not included in our interpretation of Revelation. If you look at the history of the eastern churches, you’ll realize that they’ve gone through a longer period of persecution and destruction of its churches than the western churches. Miraculously the Eastern Orthodox church survived the islamic invasion and persecution, and its now the 2nd largest christian denomination, after the catholic.


#43

Are you implying that the lunar sabbath, is the truth sabbath?


(Cfowler) #44

Not Galiman, but yes, it is.


(David) #45

Steve2: Are you implying that the lunar sabbath, is the true sabbath?

How did you ever come with that conclusion? I never implied any such thing! That’s one of the biggest hoaxes on the Internet! The true sabbath is the seventh day of the week, period.


(David) #46

Steve2: Are you implying that the lunar sabbath, is the true sabbath?

I think you must have come to that conclusion because some of the Internet sites refer to the planetary week (from what I recall) when they try to make their case that the week in the Old Testament is based on a lunar cycle. The whole idea is repugnant. What I am saying is that the planetary week carries a meaning and that meaning is that heaven, (God’s Throne) revolves around the earth (do a study on the premise of the planetary week).

To meet your criteria that an interpretation of revelation must apply to the 7 churches in Asia I will apply it to the first one, the Chuch of Ephesus.

Rev. 2:4,5 Nevertheless I have this against you, that you have left your first love. "Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or I will come to you quickly and remove your lamp stand from its place–unless you repent.

What Jesus is saying here is that in the early church (Ephesus) the people were beginning to call the first day of the week Sunday in line with the Roman pagans (we have documented evidence). They were losing their seasoning. The first day of the week was their first love as that is the day Christ rose from the grave. Jesus was saying that if they continued to refer to it as Sunday he would remove their lamp stand from its place. That’s what Constantine did. Constantine was the man who Christ used to remove the lamp stand from the church. When reading the New Testament you find no reference to the pagan Roman planetary names of the days of the week. Why do you suppose that is?


(Steve Mga) #47

The “Roman” calendar does not coincide with the Jewish calendar.
Changed the days of the week to some extent. and changed how the Months
begin.
Jews follow the Roman calendar for business reasons. But still keep tract of
when the Moon phases are and when the “months” begin and still recall them
by name, and note them in their services.


(Frankmer7) #48

Ephesus was the largest city in Asia Minor and was home to the temple of Diana, the largest idol cult in the region. Revelation 2:4-5 was addressed to the church there, in that city. The whole prophecy was read as a circular letter to them and to all the seven churches, as they were contemporaneous entities. To impose the idea that the Ephesian church represented the entire age of the early church is historicist eisegesis, and ignores the plain meaning of the text, and to whom it is addressed.

Secondly, where does it ever say in the text that the first day was their first love? How can one exegete this from the passage? It’s simply not there, and a reading into the passage of Adventist concerns. If anything, they would have been in danger of compromising there worship and love with the prevailing idol worship of the city, which was centered in the Diana cult…having nothing to do with which day of the week it was.

Again, where does it ever say this in the text or even in the rest of the NT? “Repent and do the deeds you did at first, or I will come and remove your lampstand out of its place,” is what the text says, nothing more or less. First, the text speaks of plural/multiple deeds, not the singular issue of Sabbath vs. Sunday observance.

Secondly, for wider context from the NT, the letter to the Ephesians, a Jewish/Gentile faith community, emphasizes the unifying love of Christ and his Spirit, and the growth of the church in love and unity as a reflection of the image of Christ. This is the most significant NT reference to the church there. Do you think that maybe this might have more pertinence to what the issues were that John was addressing, and Jesus himself was speaking to in that church, considering it was in the same city, and had that history from its founding by Paul?

Maybe the idol culture of the city became an encroaching influence, and had dampened the type of love that had ignited and given fire to their fellowship and unity? Maybe it was this that caused their first love, not only for Christ, but for one another to grow cold? Maybe it was the multiple deeds and expressions of self giving, Christ-like love to which Jesus was calling them back.

I’m proposing this from trying to read what’s there, and from what we know about the Ephesian church from Paul’s letter. It is what one needs to do to responsibly interpret, not read into the text one’s theological concerns or biases.

Thanks…

Frank


(Steve Mga) #49

Frank, George–
I don’t really see where the New Testament ACTUALLY addresses any
“Sabbath Issues” as such.
It DOES address “Worship” issues.
ARE we going to Worship God OR the Empire? Whether the Secular
Empire or the Religious Empire.
But don’t see it REALLY address a “Day” as Galiman seems to imply.


(David) #50

Frankmer7: Ephesus was the largest city in Asia Minor and was home to the temple of Diana, the largest idol cult in the region. Revelation 2:4-5 was addressed to the church there, in that city. The whole prophecy was read as a circular letter to them and to all the seven churches, as they were contemporaneous entities. To impose the idea that the Ephesian church represented the entire age of the early church is historicist eisegesis, and ignores the plain meaning of the text, and to whom it is addressed.

First I think I need to prove that the historicist view of prophecy is the gold standard for interpreting Revelation. It is the preterist and futuristic views of prophecy that are the fake views (EGW’s Sunday law interpretation is a futuristic interpretation by definition). Exhibit A in my proof is the book of Daniel. Christ gave His official seal of approval on the historicist view of Daniel by referring to the prophecy in Daniel about the abomination of desolation (why do you suppose nobody ever talks about it, including Adventists?).

Matt. 24:15: “Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand), (it’s also in Mark and BTW He was referring to the heavenly Temple - the one that the wicked prince and his followers would make war against). Why else would the scripture say that the beast blasphemes the Temple of God in heaven.

Daniel’s prophecies in ch. 2 and 7 give a view of historical (historicist!) events that are to take place in the future down to the end of time (time of the end). I don’t see it any other way.

Now because the book of Revelation covers much of the same ground as Daniel (time, times, and half a time, the beast, the little horn, the 1290 days, the 2300 evenings and mornings, along with many other topics), we can, by extension, say that the historicist view also applies to the book of Revelation; that the preterist and futuristic views belong in the garbage.

My second point that I need to make is that the plain meaning of the text in most cases doesn’t cut it. Our Lord Jesus was never in the habit of speaking plainly (destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up) except on rare occasions. Even His disciples admitted that!

John 16:29,30: His disciples said to Him, “See, now You are speaking plainly, and using no figure of speech! Now we are sure that You know all things, and have no need that anyone should question You."

Galileo, in his letter to the Grand Duchess said,

“With regard to this argument, I think in the first place that it is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the holy Bible can never speak untruth-whenever its true meaning is understood. But I believe nobody will deny that it is often very abstruse, and may say things which are quite different from what its bare words signify. Hence in expounding the Bible if one were always to confine oneself to the unadorned grammatical meaning, one might; fall into error.”

I would suggest that even Asia itself has a deeper meaning than what is on the surface. There is much that lies beneath the surface that a casual reading will miss entirely. Much of the Gospels have a deeper and hidden meaning behind the simple record; the woman at the well, the anointing of Christ at Bethany, not one stone upon another that will not be thrown down, etc., etc.

Here’s an interesting link about the planetary week FYI.

https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/calendars-ancient-medieval-project/2015/07/08/the-origins-of-the-seven-day-week/

My third point is that the things we read in the letters to the seven churches provide another completely different view of the same time periods and events that are covered in the rest of the book. They provide another lens through which we can focus in on what is being said in the rest of the book. The letters to the churches are extra puzzle pieces that enable us to see the total picture. Take away the letters as a way to understand the rest of the book and you cripple your ability to do so.

Frankmer7: Secondly, where does it ever say in the text that the first day was their first love?

It doesn’t.

Frankmer7: How can one exegete this from the passage? It’s simply not there, and a reading into the passage of Adventist concerns.

It has to be inferred.

Frankmer7: Again, where does it ever say this in the text or even in the rest of the NT? “Repent and do the deeds you did at first, or I will come and remove your lampstand out of its place,” is what the text says, nothing more or less.

If the word “first” was only used once you would have a much stronger case. The fact that He used it twice (in two contexts- love and works) indicates that there is something He is trying to tell us regarding the word “first” (IMO).

“Nevertheless I have this against you, that you have left your first love. Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent.”

Acts 20:7 Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight.

The lampstand has to do with light. It has to do with the week.

Isaiah 30:26: And the light of the sun will be sevenfold, as the light of seven days, in the day that the Lord binds up the bruise of His people and heals the stroke of their wound.

Frankmer7: First, the text speaks of plural/multiple deeds, not the singular issue of Sabbath vs. Sunday observance.

This isn’t about sabbath vs. 1st day of the week observance. It’s about how we refer to the first day of the week or any other day for that matter. I’ve used “the first day of the week” in my speech multiple times. Why isn’t speech considered a deed or a work?

Rom. 10:10: For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Even Peter was told by the servant girl that his speech betrayed him. Perhaps he happened to refer to the numbered days of the Christian week rather than the planetary days of the Mithraic Pagan astrological week as they were known at that time.

Frankmer7: Secondly, for wider context from the NT, the letter to the Ephesians, a Jewish/Gentile faith community, emphasizes the unifying love of Christ and his Spirit, and the growth of the church in love and unity as a reflection of the image of Christ. This is the most significant NT reference to the church there. Do you think that maybe this might have more pertinence to what the issues were that John was addressing, and Jesus himself was speaking to in that church, considering it was in the same city, and had that history from its founding by Paul?

You would have a stronger case if the other six cities were also given epistles by Paul but they weren’t. I have to conclude that such an argument is based on an eisegesis interpretation.

Frankmer7: I’m proposing this from trying to read what’s there, and from what we know about the Ephesian church from Paul’s letter. It is what one needs to do to responsibly interpret, not read into the text one’s theological concerns or biases.

what can I say?

John 7: 27: My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.


(Frankmer7) #51

What you are saying is that you can take words, such as the word first, from all over the Scriptures, link them together, and get meaning totally devoid of immediate literary context. This is called a fallacy of linguistic equivalence. It is one of the first things one is told to avoid in doing exegesis. You use it to make your case for first day in the passage. It is simply not there.

Whether there are letters for other churches or not, we have one to the Ephesians. Although it is outside of the text of Revelation, it can still provide some measure of insight into the culture of the churches in Ephesus. This can be viewed as something to take advantage of from within the NT, not to be totally avoided because it doesn’t fit with your premise.

Additionally, good exegesis always seeks for the plainest and simplest reading of a text, before it seeks symbolic meaning underneath, or because of its nature, or genre. This is also a simple principle that is generally accepted as part of sound interpretation. The examples you bring up from John’s gospel do have layers of meaning. John sometimes gives explicit clues as to those symbolic layers within the gospel. However, in Revelation, he is very clear at the outset as to who is being addressed, the seven churches in Asia. (Rev. 1:4) They all were in cities and towns on the same postal /commercial road in Asia Minor in the 1st c. Roman empire. This is simple historical fact.

What is also fact is that Revelation was a prophetic communication, but in the form of a circular letter that was meant to be read aloud in its entirety to all seven congregations. It says it in its opening. It also says that the one who reads aloud, and those who understand and take its contents to heart will be blessed. The expectation was that the message, which was intended for its immediate audience, was to be listened to and acted upon it, and if so it would be well with them.

This is all in the opening of the book. This opening is also in ancient letter form. To try to say that Asia meant something deeper than what it meant at the opening of the letter, while the book itself specified its addressees and where they were, is simply ludicrous…to put it bluntly. It makes the letter’s address nonsensical. It becomes a communication to an audience that didn’t really mean what it said. Such a way of reading Revelation betrays an interpretive assumption and bias into the contents that are simply just not there.

In the end, I care more about accurate, close reading of a text and sound exegetical methods, more than labels affixed to interpretive schools. What you are doing violates so much of this discipline. You, and Adventism in general, are so busy defending a particular interpretive grid, that you have a hard time reading the Scriptures for what they are saying.

Finally, I would never imply that you aren’t one of his sheep, and that you don’t hear his voice because we happen to disagree, even markedly, on interpretive approach…as you have just implied to me. You have a talent for doing such, and passing such judgments. This isn’t the first time you’ve labeled me. I don’t appreciate it.

I would say that his sheep can hear his voice less clearly, or more, depending upon how one handles the Scriptures. Not that they aren’t his sheep.

Frank

@TonyMazz1 @areis74 @steve2 @stevensiciliano


(David) #52

Frankmer: What you are saying is that you can take words, such as the word first, from all over the Scriptures, link them together, and get meaning totally devoid of immediate literary context.

Not all over the scriptures. I think you exaggerate a little.

Frankmer7: This is called a fallacy of linguistic equivalence. It is one of the first things one is told to avoid in doing exegesis. You use it make your case for first day in the passage. It is simply not there.

I think you mean the fallacy of false equivalence. Either way, I don’t think I did whatever it is you said I did.

Frankmer7: You, and Adventism in general, are so busy defending a particular interpretive grid, that you have a hard time reading the Scriptures for what they are saying.

Is there anything in Adventism that you hold to be true? I haven’t seen you promote or defend any Adventist beliefs to date. I’ve been defending the elementary principles of Christ such as faith, grace, justification, and the law, that Adventists and I both hold to be true. Instead of arguing against Adventist (or any other historicist) interpretation of Daniel and Revelation why don’t you present your own interpretation and defend it. What exactly is your preterist or futuristic interpretation of Revelation if you have any?

Frankmer7: Additionally, good exegesis always seeks for the plainest and simplest reading of a text, before it seeks symbolic meaning underneath, or because of its nature, or genre. This is also a simple principle that is generally accepted as part of sound exegesis…In the end, I care more about accurate, close reading of a text and sound exegetical methods, more than labels affixed to interpretive schools. What you are doing violates so much of this discipline.

I find your enthusiasm for sound exegesis a little disingenuous. Your display of unsound exegesis (more like deliberate misrepresentation) when discussing Paul’s epistle to the Galatians is telling. Revelation 12: Don’t Rush at Ground Zero

I think you have difficulty understanding the basic concepts in Paul’s epistles. If you can mangle the clear sentences of Paul, how can you ever hope to be a guide to understanding the book of Revelation?

Frankmer7: This is all in the opening of the book. This opening is also in ancient letter form. To try to say that Asia meant something deeper than what it meant at the opening of the letter, while the book itself specified its addressees and where they were, is simply ludicrous…to put it bluntly. It makes the letter’s address nonsensical. It becomes a communication to an audience that didn’t really mean what it said. Such a way of reading Revelation betrays an interpretive assumption and bias into the contents that are simply just not there.

As for Asia, in a ludicrous nutshell; for what it’s worth (and you are certainly free to disagree): The beast looks like a leopard (Greece) with the mouth of a lion (Babylon) and the feet of a bear (Persia). I see in the description a resemblance (in a crude way for sure) to Alexander of Macedon. Alexander was a Greek King who trampled Persia and set up the headquarters of his Kingdom in Babylon. If you read the histories of Alexander you will find that he believed himself to be the son of God and the ancestor of Heracles. He was constantly looking for affirmation of this belief (oracle of Delphi). He was obsessed with the Iliad and he was obsessed with Asia. He declared that he would be the king of all Asia after he subjugated India. He died mysteriously in Babylon at the age of 32 the approximate age of Christ when He was crucified. The religion of Mithras appeared suddenly in the the Roman Empire during the first century. Most of the reliefs and statues of Mithras bear an uncanny resemblance to Alexander. I don’t believe it was just a coincidence.
image1.jpegimage2.jpeg

The fact that the Roman army was zealous for Mithras leads me to believe that they linked the two together. As a Roman soldier, what better god to have on your side than Alexander the “Great”? Many of the statues of Mithras depict him with seven rays or horns that radiate from his head, representing the seven planetary deities. Constantine was a Mithras lover and worshipper and was so until the day he died. He built his new Capitol city at the border of Asia Minor (Golden Horn). When drawing out the lines of his new Capitol he claimed to have been led by his god (Mithras). He called for the council of Nicaea to be held in the province of Asia Minor (Anatolia-land of the sunrise) where the seven churches were. Essentially, Constantine pitched Alexander under the guise of Mithras (granted, that’s how I see it and like I said, you are free to disagree) in a battle against Christ for rulership. The planetary week was a Hellenistic (leopard/bear/lion) invention (and soon to be dinosaur bone). We’ve seen in the unprecedented revolutions of the 17th century that Christ defeated Mithras/Alexander with his ancient geocentric world view and planetary week. Hence He is King of kings and Lord of lords.

Frankmer7: Finally, I would never imply that you aren’t one of his sheep, and that you don’t hear his voice because we happen to disagree, even markedly, on interpretive approach…as you have just implied to me. You have a talent for doing such, and passing such judgments. This isn’t the first time you’ve labeled me. I don’t appreciate it.

Time to take a deep breath.

I implied know such thing Frank. We are all being drawn by the Holy Spirit in one way or another. What I say doesn’t mean a thing if it can’t be supported by a verse in scripture. You challenged all of my arguments and I had nothing left in my quiver. My last resort was to say I believe I heard the Lord’s voice. If I told you I heard the Lord’s voice when reading Rev. 2:4,5 without providing a verse to back it up I’d never hear the end of it (galiman’s hearing voices).


(David) #53

Steve2: Its true, Constantine built Constantinople and it was once the main center of the eastern orthodox churches. However, such simple facts are not included in our interpretation of Revelation.

A good rule of thumb for maintaining a pet interpretation of Revelation is to ignore the facts, especially simple ones.

Steve2: If you look at the history of the eastern churches, you’ll realize that they’ve gone through a longer period of persecution and destruction of its churches than the western churches. Miraculously the Eastern Orthodox church survived the islamic invasion and persecution, and its now the 2nd largest christian denomination, after the catholic.

Numbers have never been the measure of truth. In fact, according to Christ, few are they who find the narrow road. The simple fact that the RCC and the EOC are the two largest denominations leads me to believe that they are more than likely in error (according to what Christ said, “many are those who…”).


#54

It is. And I’ve been wanting to respond, but am only just getting the chance. I’m not sure if Galileo actually believed his unwavering affirmation of the Bible coupled with his appeal to the church’s theological authority, or if he was essentially pandering to the duchess in his his own defense—a brilliant defense, by the way. He contends that the Bible’s primitive scientific perspective doesn’t in any way diminish its absolute truth, as science was not its purpose, and that the believer should have no problem adjusting the Bible’s unscientific references to scientific discovery. His claim that any departure from the contemporary understanding would have been disruptive and would have cast shadows over the Bible’s credibility at the time, especially with the unwashed masses, is not an unfamiliar one in current apologetics.

As thoughtfully as Galileo presents this supposed paradox, I don’t know what to make of it. It looks more like a dogged insistence on the assumption that the Bible has to be right, no matter what. As for his deference to the church Fathers in the face of the value he places on proof over opinion, I suppose, it could be argued that they represent the religious equivalent to peer review and consensus. Against that deference, I love this bold, courageous limitation on Pontifical authority toward the end:

“With regard to this opinion, and others which are not directly matters of faith, certainly no one doubts that the Supreme Pontiff has always an absolute power to approve or condemn; but it is not in the power of any created being to make things true or false, for this belongs to their own nature and to the fact.”


(Steve Mga) #55

Beres –
Like that –
Approve OR Condemn, DOES NOT make something TRUE or FALSE.
An ECCLESTICAL MODEL for ANY Denomination.
Perhaps this had a good perspective as to what happened at Glacier View
with Pastor Desmond Ford. Liberties were taken.


(David) #56

Beres: I’m not sure if Galileo actually believed his unwavering affirmation of the Bible coupled with his appeal to the church’s theological authority, or if he was essentially pandering to the duchess in his his own defense—a brilliant defense, by the way. He contends that the Bible’s primitive scientific perspective doesn’t in any way diminish its absolute truth, as science was not its purpose, and that the believer should have no problem adjusting the Bible’s unscientific references to scientific discovery. His claim that any departure from the contemporary understanding would have been disruptive and would have cast shadows over the Bible’s credibility at the time, especially with the unwashed masses, is not an unfamiliar one in current apologetics.

Good summary Beres.

Beres: As thoughtfully as Galileo presents this supposed paradox, I don’t know what to make of it. It looks more like a dogged insistence on the assumption that the Bible has to be right, no matter what. As for his deference to the church Fathers in the face of the value he places on proof over opinion, I suppose, it could be argued that they represent the religious equivalent to peer review and consensus.

His letter to the Grand Dutchess is actually a very carefully worded rewrite of a previous letter he wrote to his friend Castelli. That letter was apprehended by a Dominican (Lorini) who copied it and presented it to the Roman Inquisition. Galileo was essentially trying to clarify his position as best he could and I think his appeal to the “fathers” was his way of strengthening his case. Galileo seemed to also be concerned for the reputation of the church if it turned out that they were found to be wrong after passing judgement on the copernican view. Stillman Drake goes into great detail on the drama that led up to what is now known as “The Galileo Affair”.

Beres: Against that deference, I love this bold, courageous limitation on Pontifical authority toward the end:
“With regard to this opinion, and others which are not directly matters of faith, certainly no one doubts that the Supreme Pontiff has always an absolute power to approve or condemn; but it is not in the power of any created being to make things true or false, for this belongs to their own nature and to the fact.”

I like that one too. Galileo is my hero. Another historical tidbit that I think you would enjoy is a sermon that was preached from a Catholic pulpit by a Dominican priest. It starts out like this: Oh ye men of Galilei, why look ye up into heaven? as he began to go into a tirade denouncing all astronomers and mathematicians as trouble makers.


#57

Love it. Yet as brilliantly witty as this is, it prefaces the typical religious resistance to scientific progress, that persists throughout the ages. Sadly, I don’t expect that ethos—that infects Adventism as it does elsewhere—to ever go away.


(David) #58

Robelle: In general most historicist interpretations consist of an anchor event (begining or end). Then the search begins for an event to attach to other end of the time frame. It is entirely feasible to find two other events to tether the 1260 days or the 2300 days. If we believe we already have the answer we will stop looking, not just on prophecy but on other ideas also.

I have the answer to that Robelle, as well as the identity of the two witnesses. Unfortunately I don’t believe the SDA church wants to hear it. They would have to admit that maybe Ellen G. White was wrong and I can guarantee you they aren’t willing to do that.


(Cfowler) #59

Maybe the SDA church doesn’t want to hear it…but plenty of people here have no problem admitting that EGW was wrong. Who do you think that the two witnesses are?