Seventh Day Adventist Prophecy Question

[JohnS1]

Hi all,

I have a friend who is a Seventh Day Adventist, and he is very interested in prophecy and I’m trying to get him off my back. Specifically he says that the Catholic Church is the woman riding the beast from Revelation and that the “deadly wound” was actually when the Pope lost Vatican City in 1798 (the Vatican is part of the “Beast” from Revelation - the church is the woman according to SDA).

I know that the Adventists have A LOT of problematic doctrine, which I don’t want to get into here (my friend won’t listen) - but I am trying to rebut the assertion that anything significant happened in 1798. This is the link he sent me biblelight.net/h-wound.htm

BERTHIER’S TROOPS ENTER ROME BY INVITATION. — The killing of General Duphot brought on the crisis. The ambassador left Rome in indignation. Reparations were refused, and the Directory, on January 1, 1798, ordered General Berthier,[11] then in Milan, to march upon Rome and conquer it, and to establish a Roman republic.[12]
General Berthier advanced, but stopped outside of Rome, awaiting an invitation to enter. Patriots invited him to do so. Thus the French troops entered Rome on February 10, 1798. Berthier immediately pledged by proclamation that the Catholic “cult” should remain untouched.[13]

He says that The Lateran Treaty February 11, 1929 was when the “mortal wound” was healed and the Pope was once again the ruler of a territory or a “beast”. So if this Lateran Treaty is legit, which it seems it is, then when did the Pope lose control over the Vatican?

Wikipedia says it was in 1870:

*The Papal States, officially the State of the Church, were territories in the Italian Peninsula under the sovereign direct rule of the pope, from the 8th century until 1870.

By 1861, much of the Papal States’ territory had been conquered by the Kingdom of Italy. Only Lazio, including Rome, remained under the Pope’s temporal control. In 1870, the pope lost Lazio and Rome and had no physical territory at all, not even the Vatican. Italian Fascist leader Benito Mussolini ended the crisis between unified Italy and the Holy See by signing the Lateran Treaty in 1929, thus granting the Vatican City State sovereignty.*

I’m just looking for the truth and trying to steer my friend right, any guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

 

[ajcstr]

Hi all,

I have a friend who is a Seventh Day Adventist, and he is very interested in prophecy and I’m trying to get him off my back. Specifically he says that the Catholic Church is the woman riding the beast from Revelation and that the “deadly wound” was actually when the Pope lost Vatican City in 1798 (the Vatican is part of the “Beast” from Revelation - the church is the woman according to SDA).

I know that the Adventists have A LOT of problematic doctrine, which I don’t want to get into here (my friend won’t listen) - but I am trying to rebut the assertion that anything significant happened in 1798. This is the link he sent me biblelight.net/h-wound.htm

BERTHIER’S TROOPS ENTER ROME BY INVITATION. — The killing of General Duphot brought on the crisis. The ambassador left Rome in indignation. Reparations were refused, and the Directory, on January 1, 1798, ordered General Berthier,[11] then in Milan, to march upon Rome and conquer it, and to establish a Roman republic.[12]
General Berthier advanced, but stopped outside of Rome, awaiting an invitation to enter. Patriots invited him to do so. Thus the French troops entered Rome on February 10, 1798. Berthier immediately pledged by proclamation that the Catholic “cult” should remain untouched.[13]

He says that The Lateran Treaty February 11, 1929 was when the “mortal wound” was healed and the Pope was once again the ruler of a territory or a “beast”. So if this Lateran Treaty is legit, which it seems it is, then when did the Pope lose control over the Vatican?

Wikipedia says it was in 1870:

*The Papal States, officially the State of the Church, were territories in the Italian Peninsula under the sovereign direct rule of the pope, from the 8th century until 1870.

By 1861, much of the Papal States’ territory had been conquered by the Kingdom of Italy. Only Lazio, including Rome, remained under the Pope’s temporal control. In 1870, the pope lost Lazio and Rome and had no physical territory at all, not even the Vatican. Italian Fascist leader Benito Mussolini ended the crisis between unified Italy and the Holy See by signing the Lateran Treaty in 1929, thus granting the Vatican City State sovereignty.*

I’m just looking for the truth and trying to steer my friend right, any guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Unfortunately, this type of interpretation is difficult to refute. Its basically just an opinion trying to read scripture into world events. Can only counter with an alternative interpretation. Think about it - even if all the events are true as he stated them, in the years he stated, does that really have anything to do with the book of Revelation?

catholic.com/tract/the-whore-of-babylon

catholic.com/tract/hunting-the-whore-of-babylon

 

[JohnS1]

Thanks for the reply, I will read these over. I was hoping to get something more concrete to come back with, but are you saying they are correct when they use these dates?

 

[pablope]

Hi all,

I have a friend who is a Seventh Day Adventist, and he is very interested in prophecy and I’m trying to get him off my back. Specifically he says that the Catholic Church is the woman riding the beast from Revelation and that the “deadly wound” was actually when the Pope lost Vatican City in 1798 (the Vatican is part of the “Beast” from Revelation - the church is the woman according to SDA).

I know that the Adventists have A LOT of problematic doctrine, which I don’t want to get into here (my friend won’t listen) - but I am trying to rebut the assertion that anything significant happened in 1798. This is the link he sent me biblelight.net/h-wound.htm

BERTHIER’S TROOPS ENTER ROME BY INVITATION. — The killing of General Duphot brought on the crisis. The ambassador left Rome in indignation. Reparations were refused, and the Directory, on January 1, 1798, ordered General Berthier,[11] then in Milan, to march upon Rome and conquer it, and to establish a Roman republic.[12]
General Berthier advanced, but stopped outside of Rome, awaiting an invitation to enter. Patriots invited him to do so. Thus the French troops entered Rome on February 10, 1798. Berthier immediately pledged by proclamation that the Catholic “cult” should remain untouched.[13]

He says that The Lateran Treaty February 11, 1929 was when the “mortal wound” was healed and the Pope was once again the ruler of a territory or a “beast”. So if this Lateran Treaty is legit, which it seems it is, then when did the Pope lose control over the Vatican?

Wikipedia says it was in 1870:

*The Papal States, officially the State of the Church, were territories in the Italian Peninsula under the sovereign direct rule of the pope, from the 8th century until 1870.

By 1861, much of the Papal States’ territory had been conquered by the Kingdom of Italy. Only Lazio, including Rome, remained under the Pope’s temporal control. In 1870, the pope lost Lazio and Rome and had no physical territory at all, not even the Vatican. Italian Fascist leader Benito Mussolini ended the crisis between unified Italy and the Holy See by signing the Lateran Treaty in 1929, thus granting the Vatican City State sovereignty.*

I’m just looking for the truth and trying to steer my friend right, any guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

As usual with these kinds of claims, there are not telling the full side of the story…and expect their audience to take their word for it as you probably have not time to research for a counter…there is more behind or hidden that they care to show or reveal…

Example:

books.google.com/books?id=kPAsAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA555&lpg=PA555&dq=BERTHIER+TROOPS+ENTER+ROME+BY+INVITATION.&source=bl&ots=icN3MgSpxH&sig=UHAaF8ZX7N1w5low3CTquOKOn9c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjf7qTw2PLTAhUUTGMKHZe5AgwQ6AEIMTAC#v=onepage&q=BERTHIER%20TROOPS%20ENTER%20ROME%20BY%20INVITATION.&f=false

Berthier, however wa stoo much a man of honour to enter cordially into the revolutionary projects…it would appear that the roman people generally had no greater desire that he had to be involved in a revolution…My farther presenece here is useless…I beseech you to recall me…

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Thanks for the reply, I will read these over. I was hoping to get something more concrete to come back with, but are you saying they are correct when they use these dates?

Why do SDA pick 1798 as a key year? Because their religion was only founded in the mid-1800’s. The Catholic Church dates from Christ’s Gospel of the First Century AD, not to anything mere men did in recent times. That is the answer, but your SDA friend may not accept it.

 

[ajcstr]

Thanks for the reply, I will read these over. I was hoping to get something more concrete to come back with, but are you saying they are correct when they use these dates?

Sorry, I have no idea about the dates. What I an saying is if the dates are correct it still does not prove that its a fulfilled prophecy. Even if you show that the dates they use are wrong it really doesn’t affect anything.

Very similar to trying to identify a person as ‘666’, there have been many candidates and how do you PROVE any of them wrong?

 

[joeybaggz]

I’m just looking for the truth and trying to steer my friend right, any guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

The RCC is wherever the Pope is. History shows him in France for approx. 80 years or so. This period was called the Avignon Papacy. I believe it was St. Theresa who convined the Pope at the time to return to Rome.

Garibaldi, a man possessed of a great hatred for the Pope and Catholicism, and his followers united Italy,conquered Rome, and devastated the Vatican. Mussolini in 1929 formally reestablished the Vatican as its own entity with the Pope surrendering all other lands under his control. A fistful of money accompanied the resolution.

Jesus said that His church would last for all time; the gates of hell would not prevail against it. 2000 years later the Vatican still stands. Through all the trials and dark periods of history, the RCC is still going strong. That’s got to count for something.

The above poster who said it all comes down to faith in Jesus Christ is spot on.

Besides, never buy a product from a salesman whose only support for his offering is what is wrong with yours. You can’t win with people like that. I suggest you be charitable and move on. Personally, I don’t know if I need “friends” like that.

Shalom

 

[caringsoul1]

Hello. I have some experience with this and it is difficult to debate with an Adventist. However, there are some things you can say that will make them think. I will give you some of what I have said that has caused some pause for an Adventist I know.

I would first recommend this website of an ex-Adventist who is now Catholic. Her name is Teresa Beem. Here is some of the passages from that blog that counter the view of how Adventists see Revelation. arthurandteresabeem.blogspot.com/search?q=Revelation

You can also write Teresa questions in the comments.

Teresa has also written a book called, “It’s Ok Not To Be A Seventh-Day Adventist”. That might also give you some information.

For myself, what I have found as the best defense is pointing out how the judgement his church is making goes against showing love for believers. Seventh Day Adventists put a whole lot of emphasis on the Sabbath day commandment. So, it’s good to emphasize what Christ said was the greatest law and that is the law of love. The Sabbath commandment is only one part of that law, but not all.

Paul states clearly in Romans 13, “Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.” The commandments, including that of the Sabbath Day is fulfilled through love of others. So, how do Adventists show love by condemning the Pope or the Church? It doesn’t.

I explain to an Adventist what the Creed that is recited every week in the Catholic Church says,
"I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages…"

I point out Catholics every week show their belief in Jesus Christ by reciting this creed and then I will start quoting from the Bible what is said about loving believers.

1 Peter 2: “16 As servants of God, live as free people, yet do not use your freedom as a pretext for evil. 17 Honor everyone. Love the family of believers. Fear God. Honor the emperor.”

A follower of Christ loves other followers of Christ and does not condemn them. They also show love of their enemy. As you can see in the passage, Peter instructs Christians to honor everyone. This interpretation of Revelation by Adventists against the Pope and the Church shows no honor to everyone.

Also, 1 Peter 3: Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you; 16 yet do it with gentleness and reverence."

How is the condemnation of the Catholic Church with Rev 12 being gentle and reverent? Reading the original “Great Controversy” by Ellen White, the Adventist have never been gentle about Catholics. Ask your friend to read the history of what happened to the Catholic Irish in the mid-1800’s by Protestant Americans, at the time the Great Controversy was written. They were starving in Ireland, getting no help from the English government, so they came to America. And then were discriminated against by the Protestant sector, especially due to the numbers of Irish Catholics that came pouring into the US. historyplace.com/worldhistory/famine/begins.htm
The Great Controversy was written during this period of time. It was just one means to discriminate against the Irish Catholics who had poured into America looking for hope.

So, as I have pointed out to the Adventist I know, it continued the starvation of a people, including children. Many came over sick as well. I recite Matthew 25: "…the king will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? 38 And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? 39 And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?’ 40 And the king will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.’

So, how did Ellen White help others? She did it with derogatory and condemning passages against Catholics.

Going on with Bible verses about being loving to one another:

James 4: “11 Do not speak evil against one another, brothers and sisters. Whoever speaks evil against another or judges another, speaks evil against the law and judges the law; but if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. 12 There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save and to destroy. So who, then, are you to judge your neighbor?”

So, I would ask him why his church has the right to judge, especially when James specifically says that it only Christ who is able to be the lawgiver and to judge; to save and destroy. It doesn’t say the Adventist Church is to do that. So, how are they being doers of the law? Specifically the law of love?

These are a few of what I have used in defense of the passage in Revelation or anyone who uses that passage against the Church and claims to be Christian. It isn’t Christian. Hopefully, your friend will hear you out, but my experience is that he will remain firm. Adventists are tough. They know the Bible. However, I have found these defenses to bring great pause.

I hope it helps you. God Bless.

 

[Porknpie]

Thanks for the reply, I will read these over. I was hoping to get something more concrete to come back with, but are you saying they are correct when they use these dates?

Similar to the LDS, JW’s (and most protestants without saying it at least explicitly), the SDA’s believe that the Catholic Church error’d and error’d very early on, in the first couple of centuries, proclaiming among other things the Eucharist and Sunday Worship.

Couple of things to come back with, to plant seeds.

1. Ask him when in Christian history did anyone first interpret the Book of Revelation as he is interpreting it ? Ask him to be specific and cite a historical writing that can be verified. And if it happened only in the last couple, few, centuries, why authority does this person have to interpret this book different than anyone else in the proceeding 2000 years?
2. Ask him how is it that he knows and trust that ALL 27 books of the New Testament are God’s Written Word, and that no books have been left out that are?

And were these early Christians, 4th century ones, “infallible” (incapable of error) on this canon? This is a yes or no question.

The only way that fallible men can make infallible decisions, repeatedly, is if they were led by the Holy Spirit. These 4th century Christians were Catholic Bishops.

How can he trust this Church (woman on the beast) on the NT canon while believing it error’d on the Sabbath?

How were 300 Bishops all in error?

They ALL read the NT at Mass, on Sunday.

Perhaps Jesus was an awful teacher, or the apostles were awful listeners.

Every apostle heard Jesus incorrectly? For they taught their descendants all in error.

Or perhaps, Ellen Gould White taught a different gospel, and her teachings should be rejected.

 

[robert_ambrose]

Hi all,
The SDA rely heavily on the books of Ellen Gould White , who had problems with health issues and hated the catholic Church
I have a friend who is a Seventh Day Adventist, and he is very interested in prophecy and I’m trying to get him off my back. Specifically he says that the Catholic Church is the woman riding the beast from Revelation and that the “deadly wound” was actually when the Pope lost Vatican City in 1798 (the Vatican is part of the “Beast” from Revelation - the church is the woman according to SDA).

I know that the Adventists have A LOT of problematic doctrine, which I don’t want to get into here (my friend won’t listen) - but I am trying to rebut the assertion that anything significant happened in 1798. This is the link he sent me biblelight.net/h-wound.htm

BERTHIER’S TROOPS ENTER ROME BY INVITATION. — The killing of General Duphot brought on the crisis. The ambassador left Rome in indignation. Reparations were refused, and the Directory, on January 1, 1798, ordered General Berthier,[11] then in Milan, to march upon Rome and conquer it, and to establish a Roman republic.[12]
General Berthier advanced, but stopped outside of Rome, awaiting an invitation to enter. Patriots invited him to do so. Thus the French troops entered Rome on February 10, 1798. Berthier immediately pledged by proclamation that the Catholic “cult” should remain untouched.[13]

He says that The Lateran Treaty February 11, 1929 was when the “mortal wound” was healed and the Pope was once again the ruler of a territory or a “beast”. So if this Lateran Treaty is legit, which it seems it is, then when did the Pope lose control over the Vatican?

Wikipedia says it was in 1870:

*The Papal States, officially the State of the Church, were territories in the Italian Peninsula under the sovereign direct rule of the pope, from the 8th century until 1870.

By 1861, much of the Papal States’ territory had been conquered by the Kingdom of Italy. Only Lazio, including Rome, remained under the Pope’s temporal control. In 1870, the pope lost Lazio and Rome and had no physical territory at all, not even the Vatican. Italian Fascist leader Benito Mussolini ended the crisis between unified Italy and the Holy See by signing the Lateran Treaty in 1929, thus granting the Vatican City State sovereignty.*

I’m just looking for the truth and trying to steer my friend right, any guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!