SDA Papacy 1260 claim

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fatima-Crusader
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Fatima-Crusader

Guest
The SDA claim in 453 for the first time the Pope was recongized as a the ruler of the entire Church by Justian
( Cod. Justin., lib. 1, title 1, Baronii “Annales Ecckesiastici,” Tom. VII, an. 533, sec. 12. )

And exaclty 1260 years the church was “wounded” by the the French taking over the Vatican

And all of this plays into the Church being hidden for 1260 days (years) (rev 7) and then the beast being wounded

Any refutes to this?
 
No refutation will do any good. There are a million possible permutations of Bible quotes, historical dates, etc.

Even if you conclusively disprove one supposed connection, there are endless others. Instead try to affirm the catechism, a little bit at a time, to as many people as possible.
 
Fatima-Crusader said:
The SDA claim in 453 for the first time the Pope was recongized as a the ruler of the entire Church by Justian
Click to expand...
Where is the proof that Justinian speaks for the entire church and that before that time no one recognized the primacy of Peter? Or even that 453 is accurate?

What reason do we have to believe that 1260 is to be taken literally?

What reason do we have to believe that this random assortment and arbitrary dates is more reasonable than any other idea?
 
Justinian wasn’t emperor until 527.

The Pope in 1260 was an Italian from the province of Rome (Alexander IV, formerly Ronaldo Conti).
 
Last edited:
Ah, well Justinian and Pope John II did exchange a couple famous letters at that time (which are clear evidence of the Catholic doctrine on the primacy), but they do not establish anything new, but merely acknowledge an existing fact.

See here (Pope John’s letter is first, then Justinian’s)


(you may need to click the little “page” link after clicking the link above)
 
Last edited:
To the sda the decree from him made it “offical” due to the state being involved
 
It refutes itself. It is nonsensical. The Church fathers unanimously contradict this false accusation. The burden is on the SDA for proof - not simply wild allegations.

Rather, ask them about SDA foundress Ellen Gould White, who received an organic brain injury by being struck in the head with a rock, was in a coma for three weeks, and who later worked in the family hat-making business which exposed her to an unknown quantity of mercury. She became bedridden and at some point began receiving what she termed “visions” which formed the core beliefs of the SDA.

Ask them about that.
 
Well the them the whole theory thing is that the Decree from him gave him “real” papal supremacy in the world
 
Fatima-Crusader said:
The SDA claim in 453 for the first time the Pope was recongized as a the ruler of the entire Church by Justian
( Cod. Justin., lib. 1, title 1, Baronii “Annales Ecckesiastici,” Tom. VII, an. 533, sec. 12. )

And exaclty 1260 years the church was “wounded” by the the French taking over the Vatican

And all of this plays into the Church being hidden for 1260 days (years) (rev 7) and then the beast being wounded

Any refutes to this?
Click to expand...
That’s all SDA foolishness. They like to identify 1798 as the “deathblow” to the papacy and so they have to work back 1260 years to 538 where nothing really significant happened. They like to point to the defeat of the Ostrogoths by Belisarius, but all that did where the papacy was concerned was depose Pope Silverius. But ultimately, it was a victory for the Byzantine Empire, not the papacy. The Papacy did grow in influence and power, and that carried its own benefits and issues, but 538 was hardly the significant date marking the beginning of that progress.

As for 1798, yeah, it was a serious crisis, but hardly a “deathblow”. The papacy’s power was hardly “over”. A more serious blow, and was in fact a deathblow to the Papal States, was 1870, the capture of Rome by the Kingdom of Italy, and the end of the Papal States. But count back 1260 years, and you get AD 610, during which happened…nothing of significance.

And although the Papacy has no more temporal holdings out of Vatican City and its small properties, it still exists.
 
Last edited:
Yeah they claim 538 is when they drove goths out and that was there start to “ulitmate power”, they igonre that the goths came back and claimed back rome about 7 years later
 
*during the period of 541 through 548 the Ostrogoths regained the upper hand, went on the offensive and recaptured a good part of their former territory including Rome. The war continued until 561 when the last Ostrogoth leader was captured and put to death
 
Are you in a debate with someone? If so, they have tricked you into believing that you have the burden of proof. It’s not good enough to just put forward wild ideas. One must prove them.
 
Full refution
Those who claim the “1260 theory” state two “facts”. One is that in 538(due to the effect of the 533 decree by Justinian) the Ostragoths attacked Rome and allowed the Pope to express his power for the first time and from there it just increased and increased. But that is just simply false during the period of 541 through 548 the Ostrogoths regained the upper hand, went on the offensive and recaptured a good part of their former territory including Rome. The war continued until 561 when the last Ostrogoth leader was captured and put to death. The next claim they state is the beast of revlation (Rome) was wounded but survived. But once more this is false. This was more of a small setback then a wound that would cripple the beast. After the death of the Pope in france, The Vaticans adviosers got most of the land back and still had Papal supermacy in goverment, though less as powerfull. The wound (if Rome was the beast) would be the collapse of the papal states. In summary the SDA memebers who put this together just connected a bunch of random points together to get the year 1260.
 
The SDA is cult like with its propaganda, they would claim that a few Christians had hidden a cave for 1500 years while the rest of the Church fathers where corrupted by satan, if you bring up the early Church fathers views on dogmas
 
Just point out that the Roman numerals in the name Ellen Gould White, the founder of SDAism, add up to 666:

Ellen=LL=100
Gould=DLV=555
White=VVI=11
 
Last edited:
Also, this whole 1798 nonsense is based on what was available to Ellen G. White when she wrote “The Great Controversy”, which came out in 1858, over a decade before the capture of Rome in 1870. That is really when the Papacy’s temporal power ended, and makes 1798 look like a dinner party.

So they’re really just grasping at straws, trying to find a “prophecy” in a non-event in 538 to a non-event in 1798 where the papacy’s temporal power was concerned. Papal power continued well past 1798 to 1870, despite White’s claims that “…the papal hierarchy has never since been able to wield the power which it before possessed.” That happened definitively in 1870, not in 1798, but 1870 minus 1260 marks no significant event in AD 610. So it’s not interesting as a “prophecy.”
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top