Archive through July 22, 2014 Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Former Adventist Fellowship Forum » DISCUSSION » A letter to a "half-in, half-out" Adventist » Archive through July 22, 2014 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 14869
Registered: 12-2003

Posted on Monday, July 07, 2014 - 12:55 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Res, thank you. The false history we learned is unbelievable. One of the great surprises I have encountered is the discovery of heroes of the faith who have always stood for truth and held onto God's word. We simply were denied any knowledge of many of these great men and women...and those we inevitably heard of were distorted.

And just by the know the ubiquitous SDA teaching that in the "Time of Trouble" the righteous (Sabbath-keepers) will flee to the hills and mountains to hide from the Protestants and former Adventists who are hunting to kill them?

Read Isaiah 2:19-22 for starters. It is the WICKED who will run to the hills and hide in caves and holes underground to escape God's judgment. Scripture NEVER shows God's people hiding out in caves and holes. That is what the wicked will do. God will protect His own.

It's so interesting to me that EGW's angelic vision-giver gave her the information that the "SDA remnant" would behave the way Scripture describes the wicked.

Registered user
Username: Resjudicata

Post Number: 146
Registered: 4-2014
Posted on Monday, July 07, 2014 - 1:57 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I hate to say it, but the "Great Controversy" really teaches a "black and white" view of human nature. Although I prefer a "Comic Book" description, complete with Super-Heroes relentlessly-defending a Super-Day against absolutely evil and villainous anti-Heroes. None of this resembles any actual human being I have ever encountered.

I'll tell you one thing: For a person like me to come out defending the Papacy is strong proof of the Great Controversy's incredible dishonesty. In reality, when it comes to the Sabbath, the Papacy had and has almost nothing to do with Christianity's adoption of the Lord's Day tradition, for better or worse. I am of the abiding conviction that Easter celebration is FAR more important to Roman Catholicism than is Sunday mass. Nearly all Catholic Churches now ironically offer Saturday Mass. You won't find them offering two Easter celebrations though. And it seems highly-unlikely the Papacy is suddenly going to repudiate its 2,000 years of sloth and torpor on the issue any time soon. The Papacy has and had almost no influence on whether people choose to accept or reject Sabbath Keeping. Nor does history offer any evidence that the Papacy much cared, one way or another. Rome cannot even convince its membership to hew the Church line on abortion and Gay rights, which are issues it actually cares about.

What I see in real history is some pretty extraordinary people - Luther, Zwingly, Calvin, Tyndale - giving the Sabbath some pretty intense intellectually-unimpeded thought before freely making conclusions all by themselves. And almost unanimously, it was to reject Sabbath Keeping. I can find NO evidence that the Papacy - for better or worse - entered into the thinking of the Reformers at all on the Sabbath question. You would think you could find matter how obscure, of one of the Reformers thinking "Wow, I wonder if we have Church on Sunday because of the Pope? Maybe we ought to rethink that question."

I could find nothing of the sort.
Registered user
Username: Resjudicata

Post Number: 149
Registered: 4-2014
Posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2014 - 6:34 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


Yes, 1844 was a real fiasco, on many different levels. First and foremost, William Miller repeatedly claimed that he closely studied the Bible Commentaries available at the time, and claimed they supported his absurd time-setting. I call "BS" on that. The four most popular Protestant Bible Commentaries available during the 1844 era ALL strongly argued that the fulfillment of Daniel 8:14's "2300 Days" prophecy happened literally during the reign of Antioch Epiphanes. The "cleansing of the Temple" actually occurred as a result of a Jewish Rebellion against their Greek overlords led by a Judas Maccabees, which is outlined in great detail in the Apocryphal book of 1 Maccabees. Miller couldn't have possibly overlooked this prevailing interpretation of Daniel 8:14, since it is unanimously laid out in ALL of the Bible Commentaries available in the years leading up to 1844. Don't take my word for it, they are all online now. Look up the date the commentaries were published and then look up their take on Daniel 8:14. Particularly-disturbing is the fact that Miller obviously ignored the venerable commentary of John Gill, which was published prior to 1800. Miller was a Baptist minister. Gill's Commentary was "THE" standard desk reference for Baptist ministers in the years leading up to 1844. Miller could not have simply overlooked Gill's unequivocal-interpretation of Daniel 8:14. Yet there is no record that he disclosed this impressively-pedigreed interpretation to the Adventists, many of whom were Baptists. In my opinion, he had a clear ethical responsibility to disclose this dissenting opionion, knowing that so many of his followers were making draconian changes in their finances and occupations to prepare for the Second Advent of Christ. And the commentaries were unanimous: The 2300 Days prophecy was fulfilled 100s of years before Christ.

The celebration of this historical "Cleansing of the Temple" is the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah, which has been celebrated for more 2,000 years. Jesus Christ observed Hanukkah as noted in John 10:22. A so-called "Prophet" who didn't know the roots of this Jewish holiday renders indisputable proof that she was undeniably a false prophet. Or she read John 10:22 and elected not to address that verse with the gullible Adventist membership. In which case she is just an exploitative liar, who perpetuated the 1844/Investigative Judgment scams for personal financial gain. Or, she and Miller were lazy and incompetent Bible students who overlooked an obvious act by Jesus himself that shed light on the Daniel 8:14 "mystery."

Take your pick. None of the options are palatable.

Additionally, White's "Prophets and Kings" book is massively-deceptive about the period of time when Antioch Epiphanes ruled Judaea, found here:

I will list her assertions in brackets and discuss each one in light of actual history:

["Century after century passed away; finally the voices of the prophets ceased."]
But the prophets were certainly not disregarded, according to every historical account I can find about the heroics of Judas Maccabees. His followers were strongly inspired by the Book of Daniel, given its absolutely-certain prediction that they would prevail against the numerically-superior Greeks.

["The hand of the oppressor was heavy upon Israel. As the Jews departed from God, faith grew dim, and hope well-nigh ceased to illuminate the future."]

EVERY history I have found on the Maccabeans flatly-refutes every single assertion in the preceding statement. The Maccabean rebels had extraordinarily-strong faith that God would lead them and protect them. And they remained hopeful in the unambiguously-certain outcome predicted by Daniel.

["The words of the prophets were uncomprehended by many; and those whose faith should have continued strong were ready to exclaim, "The days are prolonged, and every vision faileth." Ezekiel 12:22."]

Everyone except for the Maccabeans, of course. They "comprehended" the prophecies of Daniel. And they certainly did NOT believe his vision "failed." Only if you resolutely ignore the history of the Maccabeans, and elect instead to peddle the false-prophecy of 1844 can you hold such views. All of which represents an abysmal understanding of John 10:22: Nobody in Adventism ever wondered what event Jesus was commemorating in that verse? And Adventists completely ignore the history of the Maccabeans and Antioch Epiphanes, even though their history is expounded in the four major Bible Commentaries available to both William Miller and Ellen White. To be fair, the 1919 General Conference transcript is replete with references from attendees, who suggested that the "2300 days" prophecy was literally fulfilled during the reign of Antioch Epiphanes. But these views were never disclosed to the Adventist membership, so that they could make an informed decision on whether to continue supporting the denomination with their attendance and money.

That is simply an outrage.
Registered user
Username: Philharris

Post Number: 3050
Registered: 5-2007

Posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2014 - 8:42 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yes, "an outrage" indeed!

I was raised in 'the shadows of Elmshaven' so I'm aware that Ellen White's last home is located next to Glass Mountain on Glass Mountain Road in the Upper Napa Valley. Glass Mountain contains obsidian which is the source material the native Indians used to make their arrowheads. It is my understanding the place was demonic (and still would be) which I learned from an old native Indian who ironically lived across the road from my grandparents in Angwin.

While less important I am also outraged that through lack of care the Native Indian artifact, The Window Tree, was destroyed which was located behind the Pacific Union College.

Fearless Phil

(Message edited by philharris on July 08, 2014)
Registered user
Username: Resjudicata

Post Number: 150
Registered: 4-2014
Posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2014 - 9:39 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


When Adventists think about the Jewish celebration of Hanukkah (assuming that they DO think about it, which might indeed be a stretch, but bear with me) I wonder if it sparks any curiosity? This page is typical of one that ties together Daniel 8:14, Hanukkah, and Jesus celebrating the holiday in John 10:22. There are scores more out there like this one:

How on earth could anybody possibly miss the connection that Jesus was celebrating the clear historical fulfillment of Daniel 8:14's prophecy? And while doing so, the Son of God failed to utter one single word about 1844? Or the Investigative Judgment? You would think, with everything else he had to say that day in John 10:22 - and he had plenty to say; he could have at least given SOME hint of the future? Not one cryptic hint even: "Oh yeah, this Hanukkah business of the'll understand one day what I REALLY mean, if only you can hold out to 1844."

Would somebody please explain to me how the Jews initiated a holiday over an event in their relatively recent past, which was celebrated by Jesus Christ himself, but everyone involved was just dead wrong? And the Son of God himself never corrected the record?

(Message edited by Resjudicata on July 08, 2014)
Registered user
Username: Resjudicata

Post Number: 151
Registered: 4-2014
Posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2014 - 10:11 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


Here is the horrifying "smoking gun," which occurred in 1919 at the infamous General Conference, and where Adventist leaders conclusively describe that 1844 was an utter unbiblical fiasco of the First Order. After these extraordinarily-damaging statements by Adventist Church leaders, the Church simply had and has no business teaching the Investigative Judgment, that Ellen White was a prophet of God, that Adventism was the "Remnant Church," or the Sabbath is "God's Seal:"

"WIRTH: It seems to me that Antiochus Epiphanes is really the great figure in this chapter.
H.C. LACEY: Paraphrase of Daniel Eleven
Verse 21. And in his (Seleucus Philopater's) estate shall stand up (reign) a vile person (Antiochus Epiphanes 176-l64) to whom they shall not give (offer) the honor of the kingdom (the sovereignty, for Theliostarns was plotting for it; also Demetrius; another party favored Ptolemy Philometor) but he obtained the kingdom (gained the throne of Syria over those others) by flatteries (Eumenes, King of Pergamus and Attalus, the Syrians, the Romans): thus he (Antiochus Epiphanes) came in peaceably (BC 176) and obtained the kingdom by flatteries.
Verse 22. And with the arms of a flood shall they (Heliodorus, Ptolemy, Philometor) be overthrown from before him (Antiochus Epiphanes) and shall be broken (defeated) yea also, the prince of the covenant (Onias III, deposed from high priesthood in 176 BC, later murdered). And after the league (between Antiochus Epiphanes and Jason, the new High Priest) made with him (Jason) he (Antiochus) shall work deceitfully (deposing Jason and elevating his brother Menelaus, to the high Priesthood). And he (Antiochus) shall come up (to the sovereignty) and shall become strong with a small people (his few attendants).
Verse 24. He (Antiochus Epiphanes) shall enter into the peaceable and fat places of the province (the upper provinces, also Coele-Syria and Palestine) and he (Antiochus Epiphanes) shall do that which his father have not done, nor his father's father (despoil shrines and temples): he (Antiochus Epiphanes) shall scatter among them (his subjects) the prey (of his enemies) the spoil (of temples) and the riches (of his friends), etc.
Verse 25. And he (Antiochus Epiphanes) shall stir up (BC 171) his power and his courage against the king of the south (Ptolemy Philometor) with a great army ("a great multitude"); and the king of the south (Ptolemy Philometor) shall be stirred up with a very great and mighty army ("very many and exceeding strong" Newton) but he (Ptolemy Philometor) shall not stand ("was afraid and fled"): for they shall forecast devices against him Eulacus, his minister, Macron, a premier, the Mexandrians).
Verse 26. Yea, they that feed of his (Ptolemy's) meat (his ministers, Eulacus, Macron) shall destroy (by betraying) him, and his (Ptolemy's) army shall overflow and many shall fall down slain.

A. G. DANIELLS: What does it mean by overflowing?

H. C. LACEY: They dispersed and were defeated. Here is the language in I Maccabees 1:16-19. (He reads it.) The language in Daniel and in Maccabees is much the same. (Continues reading Daniel:-)
Verse 27: And both these kings' heart shall be to do mischief and they shall speak lies at one table: but it shall not prosper: for yet the end shall be at the time appointed.

Upon his arrival at Memphis, Antiochus Epiphanes and Ptolemy Philopator ate and conversed together "at one table," Antiochus pretending he would favor the cause of Ptolemy against the usurpation of his brother Physson. Thus Antiochus pretends to espouse the case of this older nephew against his brother, Ptolemy laying the blame of the whole campaign upon Eulasus, who betrayed him and professing great obligations to his uncle Antiochus. But these protestations of friendship were "lies." As soon as Antiochus had withdrawn, the two brothers, Ptolemy and Physson, made peace and agreed to reign conjointly.

Now let us read into the Scripture the names of these kings: And both these kings' hearts (Antiochus Epiphanes and Ptolemy Philopator) shall be to do mischief (each hoping to circumvent the other), and they shall speak lies at one table (in apparent friendliness), but it (this patched up peace between them) shall not prosper...

Verse 28: Then shall he return into his own land with great riches; and his heart shall be against the holy covenant; and he shall do exploits, and return to his own land. That is the prophecy.

Antiochus, hoping that the Egyptian brothers would ruin each other in civil war, returned to Syria. He took with him immense treasures from the captured towns of Egypt. Daniel says: "he shall return.. . with great riches." History says he took immense spoils from the captured towns of Egypt. In 1 Maccabees 1:19 and 20 it is stated, "Thus they got the strong cities in the land of Egypt, and he took the spoils thereof." That is the history.

Notice Daniel says "his heart shall be against the holy covenant." The next verse in Maccabees says: "And after Antiochus had smitten Egypt, he returned again in the hundred forty and third year (which is BC 169) and went up against Israel and Jerusalem with a great multitude, and took away the golden altar, and the candlestick of light and all the vessels thereof and the table of the shewbread, and the pouring vessels, and the vials, and the censers of gold, and the veil, and the crowns, and the golden ornaments that were before the temple, all which he pulled off. He took also the silver and the gold, and the precious vessels: also he took the hidden treasures which he found. And when he had taken all away, he went into his own land, having made a great massacre, and spoke very proudly."

That is the history. The prophecy reads; "and his heart shall be against the holy covenant." When he was in Egypt a false report had been circulated of his death. Thereupon Jason, the ex-high priest--whom Antiochus had deposed--returned to Jerusalem, drove his brother Menelaus out of office.

Antiochus, thinking the nation had revolted, and hearing that they were rejoicing at the report of his death, besieged Jerusalem with a great army, took the city by storm, and vented his anger upon the Jews. He slew 40,000 of them, and sold 40,000 more, polluted the temple, offered swine's flesh on the altar of God, restored Menelaus to the priesthood, and made Philip, a barbarian, governor of Judea. "He shall do exploits," and then "return to his own land," just as was here foretold.

PROF. ANDERSON: What verse in the chapter do you allude to when you speak of the pollution of the temple, as you read in the history?

PROF. LACEY: In the 11th chapter. Verse 30 speaks of the defiling of the temple. But we will come to that a little later. The career of Antiochus Epiphanes is very like what is predicted of the Little Horn. Just to illustrate: The things said about the little horn can apply to Antiochus Epiphanes. He is the eleventh down the line, three were plucked up, he wore out the saints of the Most High, he changed the law of the Most High; things were given into his hand for just a time, times, and a half which was three and one-half years. So, suppose you and I had been living in that day. We would have thought that prophecy was meeting its fulfillment. ... Later, Antiochus further vented his spite upon the unfortunate Jews, dispatching Apollonius with 20,000 men to Jerusalem, who slew great multitudes, plundered the city, pulled down houses and walls, slew those who attended the temple, defiled the Holy Place so that the whole service was discontinued, the city was forsaken of the Jews and only strangers remained. On his arrival at Antioch he published a decree obliging all upon pain of death to conform to the Greek religion. So the Jewish law was abrogated, and in the temple itself heathen worship was set up.

QUESTION: What was the date of that?


PROF. LACEY: "They set up the abomination of desolation upon the altar. They did sacrifice upon the idol altar, which was upon the altar of God." 1 Maccabees 1:54,59. You see that they placed the abomination of desolation in the Holy Place. The very language of the Bible, "the abomination of desolation," is placed in the temple; and this is history.

For almost 100 years, the Adventist Church has been knowingly perpetuating a massive fraud by teaching the doctrine of the Investigative Judgment; Ellen White was a prophet; the Adventist Church as the Remnant Church; and the Sabbath as the Seal of end Times. Worst of all, the Church took this transcript and hid it in the Church Vault for more than 50 years, and never disclosed its existence to Church membership.

You can't get much guiltier than this.
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 14873
Registered: 12-2003

Posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2014 - 10:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Sigh. You are completely right, Res. The falseness is unquestionable.

It's astonishing to me that the organization has managed to keep its members so deceived all this time. The deception, the veil, is truly spiritual power.

Registered user
Username: Resjudicata

Post Number: 152
Registered: 4-2014
Posted on Wednesday, July 09, 2014 - 6:36 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It is astonishing the hold those deceptions have on the unfortunate "host," once they take root. I am convinced the "The Great Controversy" is nothing more than a primitive analog, "Trojan Horse" virus. Once the thinking patterns it causes in "the host" become ingrained, they are all but impossible to dislodge. Virtually anywhere you look on the internet, the white-hot intensity of the Sabbath meme far surpasses in importance the combined Resurrection, the Trinity, and the Divinity of Christ doctrines. It is simply historically-unprecedented. No Sabbath Keepers in history - especially the Pharisees - come even remotely close to Adventism's fantastically-fanatical rabid mono-focus on the Sabbath.

The Pharisees took a realistic approach: It was a mere law that with enough defining regulations could be "kept" without being irrationally onerous, and violations of it could be punished humanely. To Adventists, the Sabbath is the reason the Bible exists and is the primary revelation of God's character and His plan of Salvation.

I have an abiding conviction that the Pharisees when they condemned Jesus's Sabbath-Breaking - and make no mistake, they were absolutely-correct that Jesus willfully broke the Sabbath - were motivated solely by their clear reluctance for imposing the Death Penalty for Sabbath Breaking. (Adventists laughably announce that this Death Penalty was a "man-made tradition." It is not. It is an explicit scriptural requirement) Jesus was demonstrating that the Sabbath was NOT a moral law and breaking it was NOT a sin, anymore than refusing to light fireworks on the 4th of July is a crime. The analogy is perfect: 4th of July fireworks and the Sabbath are both symbols of National Unity and Independence for their respective nations.

Logically, you simply cannot avoid the conclusion that Jesus was a willful Sabbath-Breaker and yet remained perfectly sinless. Especially in light of how fast the Apostles abandoned the Sabbath - virtually instantaneously - and their disciples (St. Ignatius, Justin Martyr and Polycarp) had established that Sabbath Keeping was a heresy no later than 150 AD! Not only that Gentile Christians should not be required to keep it, mind you as per Acts 15. But a full-blown heresy! I just cannot accept any contrary argument that St. Ignatius - a direct disciple of Apostles John, Peter, and Paul - didn't have it right in AD 108 in his Letter to the Magnesiums. That Sabbath Keeping was a virulent heresy and was evidence of a lack of Grace. Only by Christ's deliberate Sabbath Breaking, and on the direct commands of the Apostles, can you get to St. Ignatius's argument a mere 70 years later.

Simply put, Christianity's universal repudiation of the Sabbath and adoption of the Lord's Day tradition is based on an accurate interpretation of Jesus's willful violation of the Sabbath.

(Message edited by Resjudicata on July 09, 2014)
Registered user
Username: Resjudicata

Post Number: 154
Registered: 4-2014
Posted on Wednesday, July 09, 2014 - 12:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


Yeah, I know. I cite too much. It is extreme. It is boring. It is anal. It is.............................what you learn in law school! So bear with this next portion, since citing will be, promiscuously.

I won't spend much time on the EGW plagiarism debacle, since it has been worked to death in many other instances. Plus, it is boring to me. Theft bores me. Law interests me. So I am presenting a law primer of the Old Testament, that hopefully, will NOT be boring to you.

I will note on a cursory basis that "Patriarchs and Prophets" was heavily plagiarized from Edersheim's "Old Testament." That is well-proven. If you are interested in a closer look (which I am not) you can look here for an adequate presentation of EGW'S literary theft from this venerable historian:

Additionally, the Christian "Old Testament" was never intended to be a full-scale exposition of the Mosaic Law. The written Torah (our first five books of the Old Testament) constitutes about 5 percent of the complete Torah. The other 95 percent is the Mishnah Torah. The Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds are around 20 times the size of the complete Torah. You cannot even begin to understand the Mosaic Law using the Christian Old Testament. At best, our OT Law is a Cliff-Notes summary of the Law, including just enough law and history to place Jesus Christ in his prophecied cultural "incubator."

And here, in my opinion are the problematic arguments in P&P, which discuss in general terms the "Law of God" that was enforced before and after the Flood. It is a fair statement that EGW was fairly obsessed with "God's Law," but curiously NEVER spells out exactly what that law actually was. One is left with the abiding impression that the pre- and post-flood "law" was identical to the "Law" that seems to have been merely restated to Moses at Sinai. Here are EGW's cleverly ambiguous statements (in brackets) of "God's Law" at around the time of Noah:

["These judgments are sent that those who lightly regard God's law and trample upon His authority may be led to tremble before His power and to confess His just sovereignty. As men have beheld burning mountains pouring forth fire and flames and torrents of melted ore, drying up rivers, overwhelming populous cities, and everywhere spreading ruin and desolation, the stoutest heart has been filled with terror and infidels and blasphemers have been constrained to acknowledge the infinite power of God."]

When you compare this vivid statement with my later exposition of "God's Law" from both Edersheim and the Mishnah Torah, you will be astonished how much the actual humdrum "God's Law" given to Noah was so similar to everyday run-of-the-mill Western Law.

[The very fact that Christ bore the penalty of man's transgression is a mighty argument to all created intelligences that the law is changeless……]

Except history says otherwise. From Adam through Moses, the Law of God went through several additions. How can she make this argument when it is clear on the face of the Old Testament that circumcision was unheard of until Abraham? That is a HUGE change!

["If the law could be changed, man might have been saved without the sacrifice of Christ; but the fact that it was necessary for Christ to give His life for the fallen race, proves that the law of God will not release the sinner from its claims upon him."]

Which law, though, is the $64,000 question? Additionally, Paul makes it clear that Abraham was saved WITHOUT Christ and WITHOUT the Mosaic Law. How can this be?

["From the first the great controversy had been upon the law of God. Satan had sought to prove that God was unjust, that His law was faulty, and that the good of the universe required it to be changed. In attacking the law he aimed to overthrow the authority of its Author. In the controversy it was to be shown whether the divine statutes were defective and subject to change, or perfect and immutable."]

Except the law indeed did change. That is clear from both the Bible AND extraneous history.

["They were told that since the law of Jehovah is the foundation of His government in heaven as well as upon the earth, even the life of an angel could not be accepted as a sacrifice for its transgression. Not one of its precepts could be abrogated or changed to meet man in his fallen condition; but the Son of God, who had created man, could make an atonement for him."]

Clearly, the law WAS "changed" to "meet man in his fallen condition" least a number of times until finally, it was turned inside out by Christ himself.

["The broken law of God demanded the life of the sinner. In all the universe there was but one who could, in behalf of man, satisfy its claims. Since the divine law is as sacred as God Himself, only one equal with God could make atonement for its transgression. None but Christ could redeem fallen man from the curse of the law and bring him again into harmony with Heaven."
["but it was no less a violation of the law of God"]

At the very least I would note that EGW's obsession with the law and her insistence that it "never changes" is without Biblical or historical support. Plainly, it changed DRAMATICALLY given the reality of the Cross and Resurrection. How could it not.

And here is the nub of the problem with EGW's quite hysterical rants about the unchanging law. Here is what she elected to withhold from Adventist membership, while she was merrily-plagiarizing other choice morsels of Edersheim:

"Perhaps we ought also to notice in this connection that, whatever may have been the common practice before, now for the first time the use of animal food was expressly permitted, with the exception of the blood, and that probably for the reason afterwards mentioned in the case of sacrifices, that the blood was the seat of life. (Leviticus 17:11, 14) Another and most important change is marked by the solemn prohibition of murder, with this addition, that "whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." Such crimes were no longer to be avenged directly by God Himself, but He delegated His authority to man. (Romans 8:1, 2) As Luther rightly says, "In these words the civil magistracy is instituted, and the Divine right of bearing the sword." For when it is added, as a reason why murder should be punished with death, that God made man in His own image, it seems to convey that vengeance might not be taken by any one at his own will, but that this belonged to those who on earth represented the authority of God, or were His delegates; whence also they are called in Psalm 82:6, "gods," or rather "Elohim."* And, as Luther rightly argues, "If God concedes to man the power over life and death, assuredly this carries with it authority over that which is less than life, such as goods, family, wife, children, servants, and land." Thus the words spoken by the Lord to Noah contain the warrant and authority of those who are appointed rulers and judges over us. In later times the Jews have been wont to speak of what they called the seven Noachic commandments, which, according to them, were binding upon all Gentile proselytes. These were a prohibition (1) of idolatry, (2) of blasphemy, (3) of murder,
(4) of incest, (5) of robbery and theft, (6) of eating blood and strangled animals, and (7) an injunction of obedience to magistrates. (Comp. also Acts 15:20)"

Reading Edersheim, one is impressed by the extensive and comprehensive coverage of the law and legal system that was given to Noah. I will provide you with some of the details of that law later in quotes from the Mishnah Torah (the Oral Law that was given to Moses simultaneously with the written Torah). And here there is an extremely dramatic change in the way that murder would no longer be punished by God directly, but through a human court system. EGW could not have possibly missed this history, which completely refutes her "unchanging" and very-vague law theory. It also directly refutes her contention that without the Ten Commandments, we are free to "kill, commit adultery, steal and murder." Plainly, the "Noahide Law" prohibits ALL of those things. It is obvious that EGW made a command decision to withhold discussing this law from Adventists, in support of her unfounded theory of Sabbath as a Creation Ordinance that continues to bind humankind. Since it is very clear that Noah in no way was given the Sabbath. And as shown later, neither was Adam according to the Mishnah Torah.

Here following are the Adamic, Noahide and Abrahamic laws as spelled out in great specificity in the Mishnah Torah, and which were vigorously enforced against Gentile residents of the lands of the Children of Israel from the outset of their era in Canaan. History is crystal clear on this. There was NO ambiguity in the law that was enforced against Gentiles by the Jewish Court system. The extensive case law on these statutes is spelled out in great detail in both the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds. Plainly, the Sanhedrin enforced a dual legal system that strongly resembles apartheid, in the way that separate legal duties and rights were enforced against Gentiles and Jewish citizens of Judea.

Without further ado, here is the laws that were enforced against Gentiles by the Sanhedrin and other Jewish High Courts:

"9.1 Adam, the first man, was commanded with six commandments: 1) idolatry, 2) “blessing” (euphemistically) the Name (of G-d), 3) murder, 4) illicit sexual relations, 5) thievery and, 6) establishing a system of justice.

9.2 Even though all of these have been received as a Tradition from Moses our Teacher and we can understand the rationale for them, nevertheless, from (verses in) the Torah (we learn that) it was these that they were commanded. A seventh commandment forbidding the eating of a limb torn from a live animal was added for Noah, as it says, “Even flesh, life is in the blood, do not eat of it” (Genesis 9:4).

9.3 These commandments were universally applicable - until Abraham. With Abraham, circumcision was also commanded and he prayed Shacharis (the Morning Prayer). Isaac separated out a tithe and added another prayer in the afternoon and, with Jacob, the prohibition against eating the sciatic nerve was added, as was the Maariv (Evening) Prayer. In Egypt, Amram [Moses's father] was commanded with other precepts and, with Moses our Teacher, the Torah was completed.

9.17 What must they do to fulfill their requirement regarding the Law of Justice? They have to set up magistrates and judges in each district to judge the people with regard to these Six Commandments; and they must issue warnings (about them) to the people. A non-Jew who violates one of the Seven Commandments is executed by means of the sword.

10.11 A non-Jew who busied himself with Torah is liable with his life. He must involve himself in their Seven Commandments only. Similarly, a non-Jew who “rested” as one would on Sabbath, even on a weekday, is liable with the death penalty. There is no reason to mention (that he is culpable) if he invented his own holiday.

10.12 The principle here is that we do not permit them to make a new religion and create new commandments for themselves based on their own reasoning. They may only become Righteous Converts and accept upon themselves all the Commandments, or they must observe their own (Seven) Laws only, and not add or detract from them. If a non-Jew busied himself with Torah or kept the Sabbath or made up something new, we give him lashes and punish him and tell him that he is liable with the death penalty for doing this. But he is not executed.

EGW advances a bizarre and convoluted, centuries' long Papal Conspiracy theory of Sabbath Abandonment in "The Great Controversy." "Patriarchs and Prophets" sets up the alleged "history" of the Old Testament in this so-called "Conflict of the Ages Series." From what I just discussed, several things are obvious:

Adam, Noah, Abraham and Isaac were never given a Sabbath Commandment. It simply was not part of their laws and legal system. "God's Law" that was given to each Patriarch were spelled out in great specificity, and later enforced with a rod of iron against Gentile residents living in the Lands of the Children of Israel. Gentiles faced severe punishment for attempting to keep the Sabbath. Jewish Law was clear that a Gentile could not keep the Sabbath and the rest of the law without circumcision and full-scale conversion to Judaism. And the laws covering Gentile Residents were simply reaffirmed as a short form in Acts 15. There is an incredible and detailed consistency in the law of Gentiles and the legal systems that enforced them, from well before and after Sinai and that was simply reaffirmed in Acts 15. They were entirely distinct and separate laws and legal systems than those covering the Jews.

This is why EGW never spelled out or discussed these very specific "Noahide Laws" and the Court systems that enforced them ANYWHERE in her frenzied Sabbath-obsessed writings. The existence of these Laws were deliberately withheld from Adventist membership. They powerfully refute her insistence that the Sabbath is history's leading and guiding principle. They completely refute her insinuation that the Sabbath was observed by Gentiles. And since the vast majority of early Christian converts were Gentiles, the existence of these laws powerfully-refutes EGW's weird Papal Conspiracy Theory of Sabbath Abandonment.
Registered user
Username: Mjcmcook

Post Number: 1504
Registered: 2-2011

Posted on Wednesday, July 09, 2014 - 12:35 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


I, do Not think you are acting in a "promiscuous" manner with your "anal extreme" posts!!
Quoting from your post # 154~ !

I am grateful you have time to research and share what you are learning!

I have always respected a fine legal mind~

From my perspective, your posts are neither "anal" or "extreme"~

~mj~ (^_^)
Registered user
Username: Resjudicata

Post Number: 155
Registered: 4-2014
Posted on Wednesday, July 09, 2014 - 12:43 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


Perhaps "promiscuous" was an overly-pungent and judgmental adjective. Perhaps "polygamous" is more fitting in a family-oriented website. As in:

"He cited five authorities in that last post. Which is nearing polygamous in its flagrancy."


I am simply hoping that Colleen Tinker will not order me to cut a hole in that last long diatribe and require me to wear it around my neck.
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 14875
Registered: 12-2003

Posted on Wednesday, July 09, 2014 - 4:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Res, "Cut and Wear," I say!

This quote you cited above is also in this week's Sabbath School quarterly:


"The broken law of God demanded the life of the sinner. In all the universe there was but one who could, in behalf of man, satisfy its claims. Since the divine law is as sacred as God Himself, only one equal with God could make atonement for its transgression. None but Christ could redeem fallen man from the curse of the law and bring him again into harmony with Heaven."

This quote is horrific on many levels. It declares the law to be "as sacred as God Himself," thus demanding the death of God the Son. The subtle way she presents this idea makes the law seem to be an independent entity that equals God. Using the argument of Romans 7 as a foundation, I would say that EGW's comparison of the Law with God is like saying my Last Will and Testament is a weighty, as important, as "sacred" as I myself.

Moreover, she states that it is this broken law that demands the life of the sinner. No. The Bible shows that it is our human spiritual death, our broken oneness with God Himself, that is the sin which condemns us to death. It was not trusting God in the Garden of Eden that cast Adam and Eve into spiritual death.

Moreover, EGW never makes the point that Jesus had to be human in order to pay for human sin. She says, rather, that only the death of the Son of God could atone for the transgression against the law. But this relationship with the law is not what Scripture says defines our sin and condemnation.

Moreover, Hebrews 2 is very clear that Jesus took a human body because, in order to help us (because he did not come to help angels), he had to be made like us in every way. Hebrews also makes the point that God gave Jesus a body...He had to be a human sacrifice in order to atone for human sin.

He had to be God (our Creator, in fact) in order to carry the weight of the sin of the entire human race, but He had to be Human to be an acceptable sacrifice for human sin, and He had to be human in order to die and rise from the dead. Of course, He had to be God the Son in order to break death's curse, too.

Ellen COMPLETELY misses the necessity of Jesus' humanity in order to be the acceptable sacrifice. Rather, she makes His humanity out to be simply a point of identification with us, a way He becomes credible to us. This is all nonsense.

He is man, and He is God. This singularity is a mystery we cannot explain, but it is clearly taught in Scripture as the essential fact that qualified Jesus to be our Substitute.

Jesus did not die to exonerate the law or to "fix" its broken state. He did not live and die to exonerate the law as an eternal weight we would wear. Rather, He lived and died to fulfill it so we can be RELEASED from it. We now have a new Authority: the Lord Jesus. The law is for the realm of the domain of darkness. It reveals sin and limits sinful people. Jesus, however, is the Authority in the kingdom of the Beloved Son.

We worship and honor and obey Him when we are born again. The law is "old news". It has been completely set aside by the presence of the Living Law who fulfilled all the requirements of the stone tablets. He not only lived righteously (because He was perfectly Righteous), but He became the Sacrifice the law demanded and paid the price the law demanded.

He is who we honor!

Registered user
Username: Resjudicata

Post Number: 157
Registered: 4-2014
Posted on Wednesday, July 09, 2014 - 5:35 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Not only did Jesus not "die to exonerate the law or to 'fix' its broken state;" in my strong opinion he deliberately violated the Sabbath multiple times in order to prove who he was. Willfully breaking the Sabbath was exactly like his healing the sick: It proved that he was who he said he was. I.E. "The Lord of the Sabbath," which indicates the Sabbath was a mere created formality compared to its Creator: Him.

Not only did he repeatedly violate it himself, he encouraged his disciples to break it too. Under the plain meaning of the 4th Commandment, telling the man to take up his bed and walk was "work" under ANY the most lenient interpretation. And so was picking grain to eat on the Sabbath, which was clearly a matter of convenience, not a necessity. How hard could it have been to pick the grain on Friday and set it aside? Did not the Son of God have the wherewithal to plan one-day ahead? Would they have starved without harvesting that grain that very minute? The withered hand could not wait to be healed until Sunday? None of his healings, aside from arguably Lazarus, were medical emergencies that were excusable under the 4th Commandment. Many of his healings were akin to Plastic Surgery: No medical emergency there. His actions had nothing to do with violating the "picky" Pharisaic "man made traditions." Work is work. And make no mistake, Jesus and his disciples "worked on the Sabbath" by any reasonable interpretation of the word.

Obviously, the Sabbath was neither a moral nor a permanent law. It was a mere commemoration of National independence for the Israilite captives newly-freed from Egyptian bondage. The Sabbath is no more "moral" than our tradition of lighting fireworks on the 4th of July.

The Mosaic Law was designed to self-destruct when Jesus appeared. It had an explicit "sunset clause:" Him.
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 14877
Registered: 12-2003

Posted on Wednesday, July 09, 2014 - 8:26 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Exactly. I love the "sunset clause"!
Registered user
Username: Resjudicata

Post Number: 158
Registered: 4-2014
Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2014 - 6:22 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


In order to argue that Jesus did NOT willfully break the Sabbath, and that he did not publicly-announce the expiration of the Sabbath by doing so; you have to perform some or all of the following startling and strenuous mental gymnastics:

A). You must believe the most brilliant and careful experts on the Sabbath Law in history were sadly mistaken when they unanimously declared him guilty of not just Sabbath-breaking, but openly flaunting it and encouraging others to follow his example. And the “crime” happened right in front of them! No witness credibility problems! And you must disregard that those same experts had a clear and compassionate history of lenient interpretation of the Sabbath Law, and had a pronounced bias AGAINST detecting Sabbath Breaking. And ignore their stated goal of making accusations of Sabbath Breaking extremely difficult to prove, and extremely onerous to impose the disfavored and unpalatable Death Penalty once the act was proven.

B). It must be explained why the “suspect” never actually denied committing the crime, which ultimately led to his brutally-tortuous execution;

C). You must argue the Apostles drew precisely the wrong (but nonetheless the most obvious) conclusions from “A” and “B.” And therefore could not have possibly meant what they said in Acts 15, Colossians 2:13-18, the overwhelming theme of the Book of Galatians and much of the Book of Romans;

D). You must believe the eyewitnesses to the Resurrection; which occurred on Sunday, and who personally participated in the Day of Pentecost (also on a Sunday); could not have drawn the obvious logical parallels from the day those world-shattering events occurred, and Christ’s flagrant Sabbath-breaking. And therefore, could not have quickly adopted Sunday as the "Lord's Day." This argument is similar to us disregarding September 11 as a day of no inherent importance, with no connection to Osama bin Laden;

E). You must believe that the First three centuries of millions of ordinary Early Christians – who eagerly went to horrific and grizzly deaths and endured the most jaw-dropping torture in history rather than renounce Christ – were 180 degrees wrong and committed apostasy when they argued that Sabbath Keeping was an anti-Christian heresy. And who frequently asserted that their evolving view on this heresy was solidly and logically based on Christ’s flagrant Sabbath Breaking.

F). Rather than accepting the obvious logical connection between “B,” “C,” “D” and “E;” and Christ’s willful Sabbath Breaking, you instead must advance a bizarre and convoluted Conspiracy Theory of the Papacy being the Grassy Knoll Sabbath Assassin;

G). But then you must explain how the sworn enemies of the Papacy: Eastern Orthodoxy, Waldensians, Luther, Tyndale, Zwingli, Calvin and nearly all of the other Protestant Reformers; could have closely and carefully studied the 7th Day Sabbath issue and Christ’s flagrant Sabbath-Breaking, and unanimously renounced Sabbath Keeping for Christians;

H). You must explain how a near-unanimity of the world’s most breathtakingly-brilliant and respected post-Reformation theologians – Barth, Kierkegaard, Kuung, Tillich – closely studied the stories of Christ’s obvious Sabbath Breaking and reaffirmed Sunday celebration of his Resurrection and vigorously-rejected Christian Sabbatarianism.

It is theoretically-possible to deny Christ’s willful Sabbath Breaking in order to make the proceeding dubious and convoluted attempts to save the Sabbath from the ash heap of history. But you have to ask yourself why anyone would bother.

(Message edited by Resjudicata on July 10, 2014)
Registered user
Username: Resjudicata

Post Number: 179
Registered: 4-2014
Posted on Friday, July 18, 2014 - 4:32 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


I am just in the middle of analyzing the false statements and anti-historical claims of Chapter 15 of the Great Controversy. The amount of obvious fabrication and outright falsehoods in just that one chapter on the French Revolution is breathtaking and stomach-churning:

-She claims that the Papacy was behind, and supported the Revolution. Yet the Papacy fought it tooth and nail and hundreds of Priests were murdered in anti-clerical rampages. The Catholic Church lost immense amounts of property, money and had its priestly ranks decimated by murders and imprisonments. Yet simultaneously, White claims that the prophetic "mortal blow" of the Papacy was via the pope's capture by ANTI-revolutionary forces in 1798, which she also claims was the end of the 1260 Days prophecy. These are completely contradictory claims. This is a case where Adventists hold two contradictory claims at once: And BOTH of them are demonstrably false.

- She claims 70,000 Huegenots were murdered during the St. Bartholomew Massacre. Don't get me wrong, it was a horrible massacre. But modern scholarship suggests as few as 2,000 and as many as 10,000 were murdered. So she exaggerated the extent of the massacre by at minimum factor of 7.

- She claims that the French Revolution will go down in history as the most intense anti-Christian atheistic government. White died in 1915. The Russian Revolution was finished by 1917, which was officially atheistic and murdered some 60 million Christians in 70 some years of existence. The French Revolution's tally was laughable by comparison: Maybe 500,000 Catholics and their priests were murdered, with one Pope dying in captivity.

- In fact, the way that chapter reads, it frequently refers to "anti-Christian" persecutions and "Bible burnings" but NEVER suggests the vast majority of these atrocities occurred against Catholics.

How can a "Prophet" declare that the French Revolution will go down in history as the worst anti-Christian, atheistic rampage? When two years after her death, the Russian Revolution ushered in a monstrous atheistic killing system that murdered 60 million Christians versus the French Revolution's 500,000 or so.

Shouldn't any reasonably-accurate prophet have predicted the Russian Revolution two years after her death?
Registered user
Username: Resjudicata

Post Number: 180
Registered: 4-2014
Posted on Monday, July 21, 2014 - 4:06 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I have just finished doing over 100 Google search strings with various combinations of "Ellen White" and "Russian Revolution" or "soviet communism" or "Soviet Union." I cannot find any result that suggested that Ellen White predicted in any way the Russian Revolution.

Secondly, I have ran an exhaustive number of search strings with "Ellen White" and "Karl Mark" and cannot find a single piece of evidence that Ellen White was either aware of, or predicted the effect of Karl Marx.

It seems that after the Civil War debacle; with EGW breathlessly predicting disaster for the Union and the anti-Slavery movement; that she may have given up on the prediction business.

But Wow! A so-called "Prophet" that did not foresee either the effect of Karl Marx (who wrote simultaneously with EGW and his books were easily available to her); or the Russian Revolution is just......WOW! Here's how the White Estate attempts to grapple with this disaster:

"For many years, some faulted Ellen White for overlooking Communism. They declared her eschatology outmoded. But now it is apparent that in following the Biblical outline, she was true to fact."

"Overlook?" That seems to be a rather tepid verb to describe the complete failure to comprehend that Russian Revolution, which was well-underway at the time of her death. Prophets don't "overlook" something like the Russian Revolution.

"But now it is apparent that in following the Biblical outline, she was true to fact." REALLY?What about the 1 billion Chinese continuing to live in an abjectly totalitarian, vigorously atheistic, religiously-intolerant society that White never predicted? Whatever else that might be, that is far from "true to fact."

But still.....

(Message edited by Resjudicata on July 21, 2014)
Registered user
Username: Resjudicata

Post Number: 181
Registered: 4-2014
Posted on Monday, July 21, 2014 - 7:04 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


Ellen White was also strangely quiet about any specific prophetic urges she may have had about World War 1. Here are some extremely generalized statements she made about future wars, carefully articulated without specifying any details of which countries may have been involved or where and when these future war(s) would be fought:
“Ellen White had warned the Seventh Day Adventist people of impending war:
“The tempest is coming, and we must get ready for its fury, by having repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. The Lord will arise to shake terribly the earth. We shall see troubles on all sides. Thousands of ships will be hurled into the depths of the sea. Navies will go down, and human lives will be sacrificed by millions….The end is near, probation is closing.” (ST, April 21 1890)

First and foremost, that sounds a LOT like another failed prediction of Christ’s return! And as we know, nothing of the sort occurred between 1890 and the end of World War 1, the rough time period of her prediction. Here, White mis-predicted “Thousands of ships will be hurled into the depths of the sea. Navies will go down…..” However it is generally-recognized that naval warfare played at best an inconclusive and insignificant role in World War 1. The Battle of Jutland was the largest naval battle and the only full-scale clash of battleships in the war, involving dozens of ships, with a mere handful being sunk, not “thousands” as White predicted. And losses from the Battle of Somme (a disastrous land-battle) quickly overshadowed the losses of Jutland:

“In July, bad news from the Somme campaign swept concern over Jutland from the British consciousness…..”

As best as I can tell, there were only 350 total warships lost in World War 1 by ALL of the combatant nations, and I have been able to find ANY evidence that ANY country lost an entire navy. Here’s the best page I found on actual losses:

Assuming that “thousands” means at least 1,000 ships being “hurled to the depths of the sea,” it appears White overwhelmingly-exaggerated the naval losses by approximately a factor of 3! And no entire Navy came anywhere near being lost. Maybe White wisely refrained from “play by play” comments on World War 1, as she must have been still smarting from the overwhelming impact of the number of blatantly-false prophecies she made during the Civil War.

But here is one whopper of a false prophecy that was very much related to World War 1: She stated emphatically and unequivocally in the “Great Controversy” that the Ottoman Empire collapsed in 1840 and that it was a clear fulfillment of Biblical Prophecy:

Ellen White died on July 16, 1915. Meanwhile, directly under her nose, a thoroughly non-extinct and very much alive-and-well Ottoman Empire was resoundingly-winning a massive land and naval battle, handing the combined armies and navies of Britain, France and Russia an overwhelming defeat:

“The campaign (Gallipolli: 25 April 1915 and 9 January 1916) was one of the greatest Ottoman victories during the war and a major Allied failure. In Turkey, it is regarded as a defining moment in the nation's history: a final surge in the defense of the motherland as the Ottoman Empire crumbled.”

I was unable to find ANY historian that mentioned the events of 1840 as in any way particularly significant to the ongoing collapse of the Ottoman Empire. That year is not even mentioned in the Wikipedia article on the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, which happened with finality in 1922 or so. Almost 100 years after Ellen White claimed that it had happened:

Here is a reasoned description of what actually DID occur in 1840 (Strangely, White never mentions the actual name of what DID occur in 1840. Was that to make it more difficult for Adventists to check her “facts?”):

So not only did White completely “overlook” the Russian Revolution, but she either reframed from commenting on World War 1 (which was going on right under her nose), or she badly botched predicting the extent of Naval losses during that war. Finally, she predicted the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in 1840, and never recanted that false prediction even as the temporarily-revitalized Ottomans were handing the British, French and Russians a massive and overwhelming defeat during the last few months of her life. Could she have possibly missed this extraordinary ironic outcome and ironclad proof of her demonstrably-false 1840 prediction?

And yet she said nothing?
Registered user
Username: Resjudicata

Post Number: 182
Registered: 4-2014
Posted on Monday, July 21, 2014 - 10:26 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


A central theme of the panic-inducing “Great Controversy” is that “soon,” the Roman Catholic Church will succeed in instituting a National Sunday Law in the United States, which will be enforced with the Death Penalty against recalcitrant Adventists. Here are some of the better overall objections to the Adventist conspiracy theory of a National Sunday Law that I unfortunately neglected to include in my prior legal analysis of the impossibility of a National Sunday Law:

And most devastating for the hopes of Adventists that the Catholic Church will “soon” fulfill its “prophetic” role in this baseless and paranoid conspiracy theory; the Catholic Church has adopted a clear policy over the last 40 years of being unequivocally, 100 percent opposed to the Death Penalty in ANY case, with NO exceptions whatsoever. The Church “puts its money where its mouth is:” It funds initiatives to abolish the Death Penalty; funds defenses and the appeals for persons condemned of Capital Crimes; and publishes numerous documents and maintains webs sites in opposition to the Death Penalty:

And the United States is coming under increasing pressure from the International Community – which has been fiercely-lobbied by the Catholic Church in this effort; to abolish the Death Penalty altogether:

And recent Supreme Court Cases have drastically limited the application of the Death Penalty: The Death Penalty no longer can be imposed on the Mentally Ill, the insane, those under the age of 18, for Rape, or for anything but the most heinous murders. Additionally, the Supreme Court has forced states to comply with extremely prohibitive procedures in applying the Death Penalty, and several more states have either abolished the Death Penalty Entirely, or have instituted moratoriums against it recently. The trend towards a complete abolition of the Death Penalty is clear. For every case at the US Supreme Court level, there is now always an Amicus Brief funded by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops supporting abolition of the Death Penalty:

Could or would Roman Catholicism suddenly abandon or reverse its unequivocal opposition to the Death Penalty to enforce their alleged desire for a National Sunday Law? To even ask such a question seems bizarre. I have yet to read a single Adventist article analyzing Rome’s unequivocal opposition to the Death Penalty in light of Adventism’s insane claims of a fearful lNational Sunday Law. Why do you suppose that is?

The next serious omission I made in my prior analysis of a National Sunday Law is that the Vatican now allows Catholics to comply with their mass obligation on Saturday, many of which I found defy the Vatican to conduct mass on early Saturday mornings:

And finally, Catholicism has always celebrated the day before Easter as “Holy Saturday,” many of the parishes I found hold services throughout that day:

All of these points raise a multitude of interlocking issues that are extremely harmful to the prospect of a Death Penalty-enforced National Sunday Law. Would Catholics who attend Saturday morning mass be subject to the Death Penalty? What about those who call “Holy Saturday” by its rightful name and insist on beginning their Easter Celebration on Saturday morning, the day before Easter Sunday? Would the pope and the thousands of Catholic Bishops around the world suddenly relent from their unequivocal-opposition to the Death Penalty in order to make an exception for National Sunday Law scofflaws? And about Protestantism, which EGW calls the “Harlot Daughters of the Whore of Babylon;” many of them SUPPORT the Death Penalty in certain cases. So will Protestants be able to persuade Catholics to carve out a narrow exception to Rome's opposition to the Death Penalty to effectively-punish Sunday Law scofflaws? When Rome has unequivocally-opposed the imposition of the Death Penalty in a case where two nuns were raped and beheaded? Rome adamantly opposes abortion, whereas Adventism tends to be "pro-choice." Would Catholics be amenable to requiring abortions for pregnant Seventh Day Adventist mothers? Would Adventism suddenly perform an about-face on the abortion issue, if Catholicism also reversed itself in light of a National Sunday Law?

I have personally defended death penalty cases before Catholic judges. Even in cases where the Death Penalty is probably warranted by the facts, those Catholic Judges made their opposition to the Death Penalty clear, and pulled all sorts of legal maneuvers to get the Death Penalty "off the table." Would these same judges now change their mind if the Pope did?

(Message edited by Resjudicata on July 21, 2014)
Registered user
Username: Resjudicata

Post Number: 183
Registered: 4-2014
Posted on Tuesday, July 22, 2014 - 11:40 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


Are Adventists aware of the recent Catholic political blitz that makes it increasingly incredible and utterly-impossible that a National Sunday Law could ever be passed in the United States? The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops on July 1, 2014; in close cooperation with Seventh Day Adventists and many other denominations; just issued a formal letter to Congressional leadership strongly reaffirming the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

Catholics and Adventists united together (!!!!) to lecture Congress on the fact that "for over two decades, RFRA has protected Americans of all faiths from government coercion. Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs, and others all benefit when powerful government officials know that, as President Bill Clinton stated when he signed RFRA, government must meet ‘a very high level of proof before it interferes with someone’s free exercise of religion.’” See also Pope Francis's resounding call for an end to religious persecution at

In other words, RFRA makes it utterly impossible and illegal for the enforcement of any National Sunday Law. And Catholic Bishops want to keep it that way. If there ever was a time and place when a National Sunday Law was a completely dead issue, it is surely now. And Catholics are at the vanguard of publicly-insisting that Congress never, ever weaken that law.

Not only does RFRA make it impossible to pass or enforce a National Sunday Law, but now those same pesky Catholic Bishops have established an unequivocal and unbroken 40-year history of staunchly advocating for the outright abolition of the Death Penalty in the United States. Which means that even IF a Sunday law could, by some freak occurrence survive the buzz saw of RFRA, those Catholic Bishops would be at the forefront of tirelessly-preventing anyone from being executed for violations of that law. And probably urging their parishioners to conduct civil disobedience AGAINST the Death Penalty being applied to any unlucky Adventist Sunday Law scofflaw.

In light of EGW's weirdly-hysterical prediction of an imminent National Sunday Law brought about by Roman Catholicism and enforced with the Death Penalty, it seems we have entered into a strange new parallel universe.

(Message edited by Resjudicata on July 22, 2014)

(Message edited by Resjudicata on July 22, 2014)

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration