The Heresy of Dual-Covenant Theology

I have just finished reading “The Old Covenant: Revoked or Not Revoked?” by Dr. Robert Sungenis. It is a study debunking the notion, now regnant in liberal theological circles, that the Old Covenant still stands side-by-side with the New Covenant.

According to this novelty, in essence, God’s “A Plan” and God’s “B Plan” are both currently pleasing to Him and both fully in effect.

Opposed to this, the Catholic Faith teaches that the Old Law — itself good, holy, and of divine origin — was a preparation for the New, and that the New Law superceded and fulfilled the Old.

Indeed, as Dr. Sungenis shows, Pope John Paul II affirmed the traditional teaching in a not-much-quoted passage of Redemptoris Mater: “Christ fulfills the divine promise and supersedes the old law.”

Years ago, I made an effort at debunking this vogue theology in an article on the Epistle to the Hebrews: A Better Testament. Dr. Sungenis quotes from Hebrews, but he does not limit himself to this, as the pilfered quotations below adequately show.

The following is a series of scriptural, patristic, and magisterial citations from “The Old Covenant: Revoked or Not Revoked?“:

Hebrews 7:18: “On the one hand, a former commandment is annulled because of its weakness and uselessness…”;

Hebrews 10:9: “Then he says, ‘Behold, I come to do your will.’ He takes away the first [covenant] to establish the second [covenant]…”;

2 Corinthians 3:14: “For to this day when they [the Jews] read the Old Covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away”;

Hebrews 8:7: “For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another”;

Colossians 2:14: “Having canceled the written code, with its decrees, that was against us and stood opposed to us; He took it away nailing it to the cross”;

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, para. 29: “…the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished…but on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross”;

The Catechism of the Council of Trent: “…the people, aware of the abrogation of the Mosaic Law…”;

Council of Florence: “that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law…although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began”;

Council of Trent: “but not even the Jews by the very letter of the law of Moses were able to be liberated or to rise therefrom”;

Cardinal Ratzinger: “Thus the Sinai [Mosaic] Covenant is indeed superseded” (Many Religions – One Covenant, p. 70).

St. John Chrysostom: “Yet surely Paul’s object everywhere is to annul this Law….And with much reason; for it was through a fear and a horror of this that the Jews obstinately opposed grace” (Homily on Romans, 6:12); “And so while no one annuls a man’s covenant, the covenant of God after four hundred and thirty years is annulled; for if not that covenant but another instead of it bestows what is promised, then is it set aside, which is most unreasonable” (Homily on Galatians, Ch 3);

St. Augustine: “Instead of the grace of the law which has passed away, we have received the grace of the gospel which is abiding; and instead of the shadows and types of the old dispensation, the truth has come by Jesus Christ. Jeremiah also prophesied thus in God’s name: ‘Behold, the days come, says the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah…’ Observe what the prophet says, not to Gentiles, who had not been partakers in any former covenant, but to the Jewish nation. He who has given them the law by Moses, promises in place of it the New Covenant of the gospel, that they might no longer live in the oldness of the letter, but in the newness of the spirit” (Letters, 74, 4);

Justin Martyr: Now, law placed against law has abrogated that which is before it, and a covenant which comes after in like manner has put an end to the previous one; and an eternal and final law – namely, Christ – has been given to us, and the covenant is trustworthy…Have you not read…by Jeremiah, concerning this same new covenant, He thus speaks: ‘Behold, the days come,’ says the Lord, ‘that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah…’” (Dialogue with Trypho, Ch 11).

Phil, Prince of Dim Light, your Adventist insistence that Daniel 9’s 70-week prophecy “comes out of” the 2300-day/year vision from Daniel 8, bolstered by your smug taunt to “phone a friend,” is a desperate cling to Ellen G. White’s demonic distortions. You lean on Daniel 8:26-27 and 9:20-23 to claim Gabriel explains the 2300-day prophecy, forcing a year-long timeline to rule out Antiochus and prop up your 1844 Investigative Judgment. Pointing out the errors in this and the rest of Adventisms non Christian theology will thereby be exposing Seventh-day Adventism’s satanic cult.

Adventist Claim	Christian Refutation
Claim: Daniel 9’s 70-week prophecy “comes out of” the 2300-day/year prophecy vision. Evidence: “Daniel makes that very clear” with Daniel 8:26-27 and 9:20-23.	Biblical Refutation: No verse links Daniel 9:24-27’s 70 weeks to Daniel 8:14’s 2300 days. Daniel 9:2 shows Daniel praying about Jeremiah’s 70-year exile (Jeremiah 25:11-12), not reflecting on 8:14. Gabriel’s message (9:23) gives “insight and understanding” for the 70 weeks—490 years tied to the Messiah (9:26, c. 33 AD) and Jerusalem’s fall (70 AD)—not an explanation of the 2300 days. The texts are structurally distinct: 8:26 seals the first vision, 9:23 initiates the second. Historical Context: Early Jewish exegesis (e.g., Rashi) and Church Fathers (e.g., Jerome) treat 8:14 and 9:24 as separate, with 8:14 linked to Antiochus and 9:24 to Christ, not a 2300-year span. Logical Reasoning: If 9:24 explained 8:14, why no mention of the 2300 days in chapter 9? Your assumption is a forced leap, driven by White’s 1844 narrative.
Claim: Daniel didn’t understand the 2300-day/year prophecy, and Gabriel explains it in Daniel 9. Evidence: Daniel 8:27 (“it was beyond understanding”) and 9:22-23 (“give you insight and understanding”).	Biblical Refutation: Daniel 8:27 reflects exhaustion from the vision’s symbolic complexity (ram, goat, Little Horn), not a lack of understanding needing 9:24’s explanation. Daniel 9:22-23’s “insight and understanding” (Hebrew: bin and sakal) targets the 70 weeks, addressing Daniel’s prayer for Jerusalem (9:20), not the 2300 days. No verse suggests 9:24 clarifies 8:14. Linguistic Analysis: The Hebrew chazon (“vision”) in 8:26 and 9:23 refers to distinct revelations—8:14’s sanctuary focus, 9:24’s Messianic timeline. The Septuagint separates their contexts, refuting a single vision narrative. Logical Reasoning: If Gabriel explained 8:14 in 9:24, why omit the 2300-day detail? Your interpretation imposes a connection absent in the text.
Claim: The vision in Daniel 8:26 concerns the “distant future,” implying 2300 years to 1844. Evidence: “Seal up the vision, for it concerns the distant future” (8:26).	Biblical Refutation: The Hebrew acharit hayyamim (“distant future”) in 8:26 denotes events beyond Daniel’s time, like Antiochus’ persecution (167-164 BC) or a later figure, not a specific 1844 date. Daniel 12:4 uses similar language for end-times, but 8:14’s context is Hellenistic (8:21-22), not eschatological. Historical Context: Jewish tradition (e.g., 1 Maccabees 4:52-56) and early Christian exegesis (e.g., Hippolytus) link 8:14 to Antiochus, not 1844. White’s 2300-year timeline is a 19th-century invention. Linguistic Analysis: Ereb boqer (“evenings and mornings”) mirrors Genesis 1:5’s daily cycle, suggesting literal days, not years, as the Septuagint confirms.
Claim: Since the 70 weeks are 490 literal years, the 2300 days must be years, ruling out Antiochus. Evidence: Daniel 9’s 70 weeks as 490 years.	Biblical Refutation: The 70 weeks (Daniel 9:25-26) are prophetic years (360 days each), totaling 490 years from 457 BC to 33 AD (Christ’s ministry), a context-specific calculation. Daniel 8:14’s “2300 evenings and mornings” denotes literal days, fitting Antiochus’ 2300-day reign (167-164 BC, 1 Maccabees 1:41-54). No verse mandates both be years—your assumption is arbitrary. Linguistic Analysis: The Hebrew yom (day) in Daniel often means literal days (e.g., 10:13), and ereb boqer reinforces this, unlike the prophetic years of 9:24. The Septuagint’s “days” for 8:14 contradicts your year-long leap. Logical Reasoning: If 2300 days were years, why no 2300-year mention in Daniel 9? Your logic is circular, forcing a timeline to fit White’s 1844 fantasy.
Claim: Antiochus cannot be the Little Horn due to the 2300-year timeline. Evidence: The “distant future” and year-long interpretation.	Biblical Refutation: Daniel 8:21-22 ties the Little Horn to Greece, fitting Antiochus’ persecution and Temple desecration (1 Maccabees 4:52-56). The 2300-day timeframe aligns with his 167-164 BC reign. Daniel 7’s Little Horn, from Rome, suits Nero (64-68 AD), not the papacy. Historical Context: Antiochus’ actions (1 Maccabees 1:41-49) match 8:11’s “taking away the daily sacrifice,” unlike the papacy’s orthodoxy (e.g., Nicaea, 325 AD). Logical Reasoning: Your 2300-year rejection of Antiochus presupposes the 1844 date, a circular argument lacking evidence. The text’s Hellenistic focus fits Antiochus, not a distant papacy.
Claim: The Catholic Church is the “whore of Babylon,” Little Horn, Antichrist, etc., known by Reformers, deflected by Jesuit Preterism and Futurism. Evidence: Reformation history and Jesuit eschatology.	Biblical Refutation: Revelation 17:9’s “seven hills” and 17:6’s “blood of saints” fit first-century Rome (Tacitus, Annals, 15.44), not the Catholic Church, founded by Christ (Matthew 16:18-19). No verse names the papacy as Antichrist—1 John 2:18 defines it as denying Christ’s incarnation, which Catholicism upholds (CCC 464-469). Historical Context: Reformers’ “Antichrist” label was polemical (e.g., Luther vs. indulgences), not prophetic, and they rejected Adventism’s Sabbath and 1844. Jesuits’ Preterism/Futurism (e.g., Ribera, 1590) countered Protestant historicism, but Preterism predates them (e.g., Irenaeus, c. 180 AD). Logical Reasoning: If Reformers “knew” this, why no Sabbath mandate or 1844 judgment in their writings? Your claim relies on White’s revisionism, not history.
Claim: “Phone a friend” taunt, implying I need Evangelical help. Evidence: Sarcastic dismissal of my argument.	Logical Reasoning: My refutation stands on Scripture (Daniel 9:23, Hebrews 9:12) and history (1 Maccabees, Early Fathers), not Jesuit trickery. Your taunt dodges the issue—produce a verse linking 8:14 to 9:24. Evangelicals like R.C. Sproul reject your 1844 timeline, aligning with my Antiochus view. Your sarcasm exposes your weakness, Phil, not my argument.

Adventism’s Satanic Evils: A Cult of Lies

Your argument stems from Seventh-day Adventism’s demonic core, built on White’s lies:

Adventist Error	Details	Biblical Refutation
False Prophecies	White’s 1856, 1844, 1845 failures (Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 1, p. 131-132).	Deuteronomy 18:22
Investigative Judgment	Denies Christ’s atonement (The Great Controversy, p. 421-422).	Hebrews 9:12
Sabbath Idolatry	Salvific Sabbath lacks support (The Great Controversy, p. 605-612).	Colossians 2:16-17

Adventism is a satanic cult, chaining you to White’s lies.

THEREFORE, CONSIDER THE WORD AND UNDERSTAND THE VISION:

There are no Jesuit lies that can explain away the fact that Daniel’s 70 week prophecy revelation by Gabriel comes out of the longer 2300 YEAR prophecy time period (distant future). Daniel didn’t understand the 2300 day/YEAR prophecy from Daniel 8. Gabriel shows up in Daniel 9, as Daniel is praying, to EXPLAIN it and help him to understand.

Dan 8:26“The vision of the evenings and mornings that has been given you is true, but seal up the vision, for it concerns the distant future.” 27I, Daniel, was worn out. I lay exhausted for several days. Then I got up and went about the king’s business. I was appalled by the vision; it was beyond understanding.

Daniel 9:20While I was speaking and praying, confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel and making my request to the Lord my God for his holy hill— 21while I was still in prayer, Gabriel, the man I had seen in the earlier vision, came to me in swift flight about the time of the evening sacrifice. 22He instructed me and said to me, “Daniel, I have now come to give you insight and understanding. 23As soon as you began to pray, a word went out, which I have come to tell you, for you are highly esteemed. THEREFORE, CONSIDER THE WORD AND UNDERSTAND THE VISION:

The vision Gabriel is referring to is the 2300 day/year vision. None of your Jesuit linguistic trickery can explain that truth away. Daniel’s 70 weeks is 490 literal years. Since that is the case, the 2300 days MUST BE YEARS AS WELL.

Therefore, Antiochus cannot be the Little Horn.

The Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon, Little Horn, Antichrist power, Son of Perdition, Man of Sin, and the first beast of Revelation 13. Every Protestant Reformer knew it, from the bible, backed by history. Jesuits came up with Preterism and Futurism to deflect these true Reformation accusations.

And you try to convince people that Daniel’s 70 week prophecy (490 literal years) was delivered to Daniel, by Gabriel, IN A SECOND, LINGUISTIC VISION, so your Jesuit 2300 literal day/Antiochus is the Little horn of Daniel HOAX seems plausible.

NO SALE, JESUIT.

Phil, as usual, the Adventist answer is non-Christian and non Biblical

Adventist Claim	Catholic Refutation
Claim: Daniel 9’s 70-week prophecy “comes out of” the 2300-day/year prophecy vision. Evidence: “Daniel makes that very clear” with Daniel 8:26-27 and 9:20-23.	Biblical Refutation: Daniel 9:2 shows Daniel praying about Jeremiah’s 70-year exile (Jeremiah 25:11-12), not 8:14’s 2300 days. Gabriel’s “insight and understanding” (9:23) targets the 70 weeks (490 years, 457 BC-33 AD, 9:26), not an explanation of 8:14. No verse links them. Historical Context: Jewish exegesis (e.g., Rashi) and Fathers (e.g., Jerome) treat 8:14 and 9:24 separately, with 8:14 as Antiochus, 9:24 as Christ. Logical Reasoning: If 9:24 explained 8:14, why no 2300-day mention? Your link is White’s invention.
Claim: Daniel didn’t understand the 2300-day/year prophecy, and Gabriel explains it in Daniel 9. Evidence: Daniel 8:27 (“beyond understanding”) and 9:22-23 (“give you insight”).	Biblical Refutation: Daniel 8:27 reflects exhaustion from symbolic visions (ram, goat), not a need for 9:24’s explanation. 9:22-23’s focus is the 70 weeks, tied to Daniel’s prayer (9:20), not 8:14. Linguistic Analysis: Hebrew chazon (“vision”) in 8:26 and 9:23 denotes distinct revelations. Septuagint separates their contexts. Logical Reasoning: No 2300-day detail in 9:24 undermines your “explanation” claim.
Claim: The vision in Daniel 8:26 concerns the “distant future,” implying 2300 years to 1844. Evidence: “Seal up the vision, for it concerns the distant future” (8:26).	Biblical Refutation: Hebrew acharit hayyamim (“distant future”) fits Antiochus (167-164 BC, 1 Maccabees 4:52-56) or a later figure, not 1844. Daniel 12:4 uses similar language for end-times. Historical Context: Early tradition links 8:14 to Antiochus, not 1844 (Hippolytus, Treatise on Christ). Linguistic Analysis: Ereb boqer (“evenings and mornings”) means days (Genesis 1:5), not years.
Claim: Since the 70 weeks are 490 literal years, the 2300 days must be years. Evidence: Daniel 9’s 70 weeks as 490 years.	Biblical Refutation: The 70 weeks are prophetic years (360 days, 457 BC-33 AD, 9:26), context-specific. 8:14’s “2300 evenings and mornings” are literal days (167-164 BC, 1 Maccabees 1:41-54). No verse mandates both be years. Linguistic Analysis: Hebrew yom (day) in Daniel often means literal days (10:13); Septuagint confirms “days” for 8:14. Logical Reasoning: Your year-long leap lacks textual basis—why no 2300-year mention in 9:24?
Claim: Antiochus cannot be the Little Horn due to the 2300-year timeline. Evidence: The “distant future” and year-long interpretation.	Biblical Refutation: Daniel 8:21-22 ties the Little Horn to Greece, fitting Antiochus’ Temple act (1 Maccabees 4:52-56). The 2300 days match his reign. Historical Context: Antiochus’ persecution (167-164 BC) fulfills 8:11’s “daily sacrifice” removal. Logical Reasoning: Your 2300-year rejection presupposes 1844, a circular argument with no evidence.
Claim: The Catholic Church is the “whore of Babylon,” Little Horn, etc., known by Reformers, deflected by Jesuit Preterism/Futurism. Evidence: Reformation history and Jesuit eschatology.	Biblical Refutation: Revelation 17:9’s “seven hills” and 17:6’s “blood of saints” fit Rome (Tacitus, Annals, 15.44), not the Church (Matthew 16:18-19). No verse names the papacy Antichrist. Historical Context: Reformers’ “Antichrist” was polemical, not prophetic—they rejected your Sabbath and 1844. Jesuits’ Preterism/Futurism (Ribera, 1590) countered this, but Irenaeus (c. 180 AD) predates them. Logical Reasoning: If Reformers “knew” this, why no Adventist doctrines in their writings? Your claim is White’s revisionism.
Claim: “Linguistic vision” is a Jesuit hoax to make the 2300-day/Antiochus view plausible. Evidence: Sarcastic dismissal of a “second, linguistic vision.”	Biblical Refutation: Daniel 9:21-23 is a verbal revelation from Gabriel, not a symbolic vision like 8:1-14. 9:22’s “instructed me” supports this. Linguistic Analysis: Hebrew dabar (“word”) in 9:23 indicates a spoken message, not a vision rehash. Logical Reasoning: Your mockery avoids the text’s clarity—your 1844 link is the real hoax.
Claim: “No sale, Jesuit” taunt. Evidence: Dismissive sarcasm.	Logical Reasoning: My refutation stands on Scripture (Daniel 9:23, Hebrews 9:12) and history (1 Maccabees), not Jesuit tricks. Your taunt dodges evidence—produce a verse linking 8:14 to 9:24. Your cult’s collapse is your “no sale,” Phil.

Adventism’s Satanic Evils: A Cult of Lies

Your argument stems from Seventh-day Adventism’s demonic core, built on White’s lies:

Adventist Error	Details	Biblical Refutation
False Prophecies	White’s 1856, 1844, 1845 failures (Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 1, p. 131-132).	Deuteronomy 18:22
Investigative Judgment	Denies Christ’s atonement (The Great Controversy, p. 421-422).	Hebrews 9:12
Sabbath Idolatry	Salvific Sabbath lacks support (The Great Controversy, p. 605-612).	Colossians 2:16-17
Anti-Catholic Hatred	White’s Babylon claim (The Great Controversy, p. 50).	Matthew 16:18-19

Adventism is a satanic cult, chaining you to White’s lies.

The Catholic Church, founded by Christ (Matthew 16:18-19), is His bride (Ephesians 5:25-27), not the Antichrist. We worship Christ through the Eucharist (John 6:53-56, CCC 1324-1327), fulfilling the Sabbath on Sunday (Acts 20:7, CCC 2174-2176). Your doctrine is White’s 1844 myth, not God’s truth.

You really seem to regurgitate Adventist lies and how no idea what you mean by “Jesuit”. Hint: you think it an insult which it ain't

What do you actually mean by “Jesuit”? Do you think it’s a secret cabal of liars, or do you even know Jesuits are Catholic priests founded by Ignatius Loyola in 1540 to defend the faith through education and missionary work? Your vague smear suggests you’re parroting White’s anti-Catholic venom without understanding.
Can you name a single Jesuit document or teaching that supports your claim of “linguistic trickery” in Daniel 8-9? Your accusation lacks evidence—Jesuits like Francisco Ribera (1590) focused on Futurism to counter Protestant historicism, not to invent Antiochus as the Little Horn. Where’s your proof?
How do you reconcile your “Jesuit lie” label with the fact that Jesuit scholars, trained in Scripture and languages, reject White’s 1844 Investigative Judgment as unbiblical? Your ignorance of their rigorous exegesis exposes your blind spot.

Jesuits Exposing Adventism’s Falsehoods

Jesuits, as Catholic intellectuals, have long challenged Adventism’s satanic deception, rooted in White’s lies:

Biblicaln: Jesuit exegetes, like Luis de Alcazar (Preterist, 1614), linked Daniel’s Little Horn to Antiochus or Nero, aligning with 1 Maccabees 1:41-54 and Tacitus (*Annals*, 15.44), not the papacy. They refute White’s 2300-year timeline (Daniel 8:14) with Hebrews 9:12’s “once for all” atonement, exposing her 1844 myth.
Historical Exposure: Jesuits documented the Great Disappointment (1844) as a Millerite failure, adopted by White (*Early Writings*, p. 54-56) to invent the Investigative Judgment. Their historical analyses (e.g., *Catholic Encyclopedia*) show no early Christian support for this, contradicting Adventism’s revisionism.
Linguistic Critique: Jesuit linguists, trained in Hebrew and Greek, argue *ereb boqer* (“evenings and mornings,” Daniel 8:14) means literal days (Septuagint: “days”), fitting Antiochus’ 2300-day reign (167-164 BC), not White’s 2300-year leap. This dismantles her day-year principle.
Logical Dismantling: Jesuit theologians, like Roberto Bellarmine, highlight the logical absurdity of a 1844 judgment duplicating Christ’s return judgment (Revelation 20:11-15), exposing White’s post-hoc theology as a satanic fabrication to save face.

Jesuits, far from liars, reveal Adventism’s satanic core—White’s false prophecies (1856, 1844, 1845; *Testimonies*, Vol. 1, p. 131-132), Investigative Judgment heresy, Sabbath idolatry, and anti-Catholic hatred—as a cult built on lies (Deuteronomy 18:22).

Summing it up

Phil, your “Jesuit” slur shows your ignorance—Jesuits defend truth, not trickery, and shred White’s 1844 fantasy with Scripture and reason. Your Daniel 8-9 link is a White-driven delusion, refuted by Daniel 9:23’s distinct 70 weeks and 8:14’s literal days. Adventism’s evils—White’s failures, heretical judgment, and anti-Catholic venom—mark it as satanic. Produce one verse tying 8:14 to 9:24 or naming the papacy Antichrist. You can’t. Repent, ditch White’s trash, and flee to Christ’s Church (Matthew 16:18-19). Stay in your cult, and face judgment.

The Jesuits were formed to counter the accusations of the Protestant Reformers. Their sole task was to discredit those biblically founded claims by any means necessary...lies, torture, murder. Coming up with Preterism and Futurism was the Jesuit attempt to deflect the truth that the Papacy is the Little Horn/Antichrist power foretold in prophecy.

“A new “interpretation” would have to be found that deflected attention away from the twelve century papal rule of the middle ages. This would fulfill the prophecy of Dan 7:25, that the little horn power would think to change the prophetic set times of the most High, just like king Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon thought to change the prophetic vision of the statue man in Daniel chapter 2, by building an all gold statue in chapter 3. The little horn, Mystery Babylon, would in like manner, try to deny and obscure the meaning of prophecy.”

https://www.biblelightinfo.com/antichrist.htm

Preterism, and anything that comes out of it, is a Jesuit lie. That includes trying to convince people that Daniel had a second vision in chapter nine that revealed to him the 70 weeks prophecy. And even dumber is that they call it a LINGUISTIC VISION. Yes, they try to cover manufactured lies with idiotic statements like that.

God specifically tells us that the Daniel 9 prophecy of 70 weeks comes out the 2300 days vision in Daniel 8. It’s as clear as it gets. Straight up fact.

If the 70 weeks prophecy is 490 literal years, the vision it comes out of must also be in LITERAL YEARS. That can’t be changed, even by Jesuits, even though they think they can.

Therefore, Preterism is shown to be a fraud. And the Jesuit crown jewel that Antiochus is the Little Horn instead of the Papacy, goes into the dumpster, along with the rest of Papal abominations.

It has been shown since the middle-ages that Jesuits cannot be reasoned with. They’re all in for the Papacy. Lie, steal, cheat, and murder, no matter what the consequences. Jesuits will not, and cannot, tell the truth. The Papacy will not allow it. Nothing has changed.

....just like king Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon thought to change the prophetic vision of the statue man in Daniel chapter 2, by building an all gold statue in chapter 3. The little horn, Mystery Babylon, would in like manner, try to deny and obscure the meaning of prophecy.”

King Cronos, Son of Uranus, thinks he can try to deny and obscure the meaning of prophecy.

Phil, Prince of Dim Light, your Adventist tirade, dripping with Ellen G. White’s anti-Catholic venom, is a pitiful attempt to prop up your 1844 Investigative Judgment fantasy by slandering Jesuits and the Catholic Church as the “Little Horn” and “Mystery Babylon.” You rant about Preterism and Futurism as Jesuit logic, so let me show the errors of Seventh-day Adventism’s satanic cult.

Your Claim	Catholic Refutation
Claim: Jesuits were formed to counter Reformers’ accusations, using lies, torture, and murder, inventing Preterism and Futurism to deflect the papacy as the Little Horn/Antichrist. Evidence: Alleged Jesuit intent and historical narrative from biblelightinfo.com.	Biblical Refutation: No Scripture names the papacy as Antichrist—1 John 2:18 defines it as denying Christ’s incarnation, which Catholicism upholds (John 1:14, CCC 464-469). Your claim relies on White’s fiction (The Great Controversy, p. 50). Historical Refutation: Jesuits, founded by Ignatius Loyola (1540), aimed to educate and evangelize, not lie or torture. Preterism (e.g., Nero as Antichrist) predates Jesuits (Irenaeus, c. 180 AD), and Futurism (Ribera, 1590) countered Protestant historicism, not invented it. Your source is Adventist propaganda, not history. Logical Reasoning: If Jesuits “lied” to protect the papacy, why did Reformers like Luther keep Sunday worship, rejecting your Sabbath? Your conspiracy is a baseless smear.
Claim: The papacy changed “prophetic set times” like Nebuchadnezzar, obscuring prophecy’s meaning. Evidence: Comparison to Daniel 3 and anti-Catholic narrative.	Biblical Refutation: Daniel 7:25’s “times and laws” fits Antiochus’ festival disruptions (1 Maccabees 1:41-49), not Sunday worship. No verse ties the papacy to this. Nebuchadnezzar’s statue (Daniel 3) was idolatry, unlike the Church’s apostolic Sunday (Acts 20:7). Historical Context: Sunday worship began with the apostles (Ignatius, Magnesians, c. 110 AD), not a papal plot. Your “change” myth is White’s lie. Logical Reasoning: If the papacy obscured prophecy, why preserve Daniel in the canon? Your analogy is incoherent.
Claim: Daniel 9’s 70-week prophecy comes from the 2300-day/year vision in Daniel 8, explained by Gabriel. Evidence: Daniel 8:26-27 and 9:20-23.	Biblical Refutation: Daniel 9:2 shows prayer about Jeremiah’s 70 years (Jeremiah 25:11-12), not 8:14. Gabriel’s “insight and understanding” (9:23) targets the 70 weeks (490 years, 457 BC-33 AD, 9:26), not 8:14’s 2300 days. No link exists. Linguistic Analysis: Hebrew chazon (“vision”) in 8:26 and 9:23 denotes separate revelations. Septuagint separates their contexts. Logical Reasoning: If 9:24 explained 8:14, why no 2300-day mention? Your connection is White’s fabrication.
Claim: The 2300 days must be years since the 70 weeks are 490 years, ruling out Antiochus. Evidence: Daniel 9’s 70 weeks as 490 years.	Biblical Refutation: The 70 weeks are prophetic years (360 days, 457 BC-33 AD), context-specific. 8:14’s “2300 evenings and mornings” (Hebrew: ereb boqer) are literal days (167-164 BC, 1 Maccabees 1:41-54). No verse mandates both be years. Linguistic Analysis: Ereb boqer mirrors Genesis 1:5’s days; Septuagint confirms “days” for 8:14. Ezekiel 4:6 is symbolic, not universal. Logical Reasoning: Your year-long leap lacks textual basis—why no 2300-year detail in 9:24? It’s a White-driven stretch.
Claim: Preterism, including a “linguistic vision” for Daniel 9, is a Jesuit hoax to make Antiochus the Little Horn plausible. Evidence: Sarcastic dismissal and Jesuit conspiracy.	Biblical Refutation: Daniel 9:21-23 is a verbal revelation from Gabriel, not a “second vision”—9:22’s “instructed me” supports this. Antiochus fits 8:21-22’s Greece (1 Maccabees 4:52-56). Historical Context: Preterism predates Jesuits (Irenaeus, c. 180 AD); Ribera (1590) was a response, not an origin. Early Fathers (Hippolytus) support Antiochus. Logical Reasoning: Your “linguistic” mockery ignores 9:23’s clear message. Your 1844 hoax relies on White’s lie.
Claim: The Catholic Church is the Little Horn, Antichrist, etc., known by Reformers, deflected by Jesuits. Evidence: Reformation history and anti-Catholic narrative.	Biblical Refutation: Revelation 17:9’s “seven hills” and 17:6’s persecution fit Rome (Tacitus, Annals, 15.44), not the Church (Matthew 16:18-19). No verse names the papacy Antichrist. Historical Context: Reformers’ “Antichrist” was polemical (e.g., Luther vs. indulgences), not prophetic—they rejected your Sabbath and 1844. Jesuits countered, but Irenaeus predates them. Logical Reasoning: If Reformers “knew” this, why no Adventist doctrines? Your claim is White’s revisionism.

6. Adventism’s Satanic Evils: A Cult of Lies

Your argument stems from Seventh-day Adventism’s demonic core, built on White’s lies:

Adventist Error	Details	Biblical Refutation
False Prophecies	White’s 1856, 1844, 1845 failures (Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 1, p. 131-132).	Deuteronomy 18:22
Investigative Judgment	Denies Christ’s atonement (The Great Controversy, p. 421-422).	Hebrews 9:12
Sabbath Idolatry	Salvific Sabbath lacks support (The Great Controversy, p. 605-612).	Colossians 2:16-17

Adventism is a satanic cult, chaining you to White’s lies.

Phil, your Daniel 8-9 link and papal Antichrist claim are White’s demonic lies, not Scripture. Biblical evidence (Daniel 9:23, 8:14) refutes your 2300-year timeline; historical context (Reformation, Early Church) debunks your Jesuit conspiracy; linguistic analysis (Hebrew *ereb boqer*) disproves your day-year leap; and logic (timeline inconsistency) exposes your absurdity. Your “no sale” bravado is a hollow cry from a cult drowning in White’s falsehoods. Adventism’s evils—White’s false prophecies, Investigative Judgment heresy, Sabbath idolatry, and anti-Catholic venom—mark it as a satanic trap. Produce one verse linking Daniel 8:14 to 9:24 or naming the papacy as Antichrist. You can’t, because your theology is White’s trash. >

Adventism's false Claim	Christian Refutation
Claim: Jesuits were formed to counter Reformers’ accusations, using lies, torture, and murder, inventing Preterism and Futurism to deflect the papacy as the Little Horn/Antichrist. Evidence: Alleged Jesuit intent and historical narrative from biblelightinfo.com.	Biblical Refutation: No Scripture names the papacy as Antichrist—1 John 2:18 defines it as denying Christ’s incarnation, which Catholicism upholds (John 1:14, CCC 464-469). Your claim relies on White’s fiction (The Great Controversy, p. 50). Historical Refutation: Jesuits, founded by Ignatius Loyola (1540), aimed to educate and evangelize, not lie or torture. Preterism (e.g., Nero as Antichrist) predates Jesuits (Irenaeus, c. 180 AD), and Futurism (Ribera, 1590) countered Protestant historicism, not invented it. Your source is Adventist propaganda, not history. Logical Reasoning: If Jesuits “lied” to protect the papacy, why did Reformers like Luther keep Sunday worship, rejecting your Sabbath? Your conspiracy is a baseless smear.
Claim: The papacy changed “prophetic set times” like Nebuchadnezzar, obscuring prophecy’s meaning. Evidence: Comparison to Daniel 3 and anti-Catholic narrative.	Biblical Refutation: Daniel 7:25’s “times and laws” fits Antiochus’ festival disruptions (1 Maccabees 1:41-49), not Sunday worship. No verse ties the papacy to this. Nebuchadnezzar’s statue (Daniel 3) was idolatry, unlike the Church’s apostolic Sunday (Acts 20:7). Historical Context: Sunday worship began with the apostles (Ignatius, Magnesians, c. 110 AD), not a papal plot. Your “change” myth is White’s lie. Logical Reasoning: If the papacy obscured prophecy, why preserve Daniel in the canon? Your analogy is incoherent.
Claim: Daniel 9’s 70-week prophecy comes from the 2300-day/year vision in Daniel 8, explained by Gabriel. Evidence: Daniel 8:26-27 and 9:20-23.	Biblical Refutation: Daniel 9:2 shows prayer about Jeremiah’s 70 years (Jeremiah 25:11-12), not 8:14. Gabriel’s “insight and understanding” (9:23) targets the 70 weeks (490 years, 457 BC-33 AD, 9:26), not 8:14’s 2300 days. No link exists. Linguistic Analysis: Hebrew chazon (“vision”) in 8:26 and 9:23 denotes separate revelations. Septuagint separates their contexts. Logical Reasoning: If 9:24 explained 8:14, why no 2300-day mention? Your connection is White’s fabrication.
Claim: The 2300 days must be years since the 70 weeks are 490 years, ruling out Antiochus. Evidence: Daniel 9’s 70 weeks as 490 years.	Biblical Refutation: The 70 weeks are prophetic years (360 days, 457 BC-33 AD), context-specific. 8:14’s “2300 evenings and mornings” (Hebrew: ereb boqer) are literal days (167-164 BC, 1 Maccabees 1:41-54). No verse mandates both be years. Linguistic Analysis: Ereb boqer mirrors Genesis 1:5’s days; Septuagint confirms “days” for 8:14. Ezekiel 4:6 is symbolic, not universal. Logical Reasoning: Your year-long leap lacks textual basis—why no 2300-year detail in 9:24? It’s a White-driven stretch.
Claim: Preterism, including a “linguistic vision” for Daniel 9, is a Jesuit hoax to make Antiochus the Little Horn plausible. Evidence: Sarcastic dismissal and Jesuit conspiracy.	Biblical Refutation: Daniel 9:21-23 is a verbal revelation from Gabriel, not a “second vision”—9:22’s “instructed me” supports this. Antiochus fits 8:21-22’s Greece (1 Maccabees 4:52-56). Historical Context: Preterism predates Jesuits (Irenaeus, c. 180 AD); Ribera (1590) was a response, not an origin. Early Fathers (Hippolytus) support Antiochus. Logical Reasoning: Your “linguistic” mockery ignores 9:23’s clear message. Your 1844 hoax relies on White’s lie.
Claim: The Catholic Church is the Little Horn, Antichrist, etc., known by Reformers, deflected by Jesuits. Evidence: Reformation history and anti-Catholic narrative.	Biblical Refutation: Revelation 17:9’s “seven hills” and 17:6’s persecution fit Rome (Tacitus, Annals, 15.44), not the Church (Matthew 16:18-19). No verse names the papacy Antichrist. Historical Context: Reformers’ “Antichrist” was polemical (e.g., Luther vs. indulgences), not prophetic—they rejected your Sabbath and 1844. Jesuits countered, but Irenaeus predates them. Logical Reasoning: If Reformers “knew” this, why no Adventist doctrines? Your claim is White’s revisionism.
Claim: “King Cronos” denies and obscures prophecy’s meaning. Evidence: Sarcastic taunt.	Logical Reasoning: I uphold Scripture (Daniel 9:23, Hebrews 9:12)—you obscure it with White’s 1844 myth. Your taunt dodges evidence. Produce a verse linking 8:14 to 9:24. You can’t.

Adventism’s Satanic Evils: A Cult of Lies

Your argument stems from Seventh-day Adventism’s demonic core, built on White’s lies:

Adventist Error	Details	Biblical Refutation
False Prophecies	White’s 1856, 1844, 1845 failures (Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 1, p. 131-132).	Deuteronomy 18:22
Investigative Judgment	Denies Christ’s atonement (The Great Controversy, p. 421-422).	Hebrews 9:12
Sabbath Idolatry	Salvific Sabbath lacks support (The Great Controversy, p. 605-612).	Colossians 2:16-17

Adventism is a satanic cult, chaining you to White’s lies.

No answers from you, phil about the demonic origins of your Adventist belief called the Investigative Judgment which contradicts Scripture’s clear teaching on Christ’s completed atonement and judgment:

Hebrews 9:12: “He entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption.” This states Christ’s sacrifice at Calvary (c. 33 AD) fully atoned for sins, entering the heavenly sanctuary at His ascension, not 1844. White’s claim that Christ began this work in 1844 (*The Great Controversy*, p. 421-422) denies His finished work (John 19:30: “It is finished”), a satanic lie.
Hebrews 10:10-14: “We have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all… by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.” This refutes a 1844 investigative process, affirming Christ’s single, perfect sacrifice. White’s ongoing judgment undermines this, suggesting His work was incomplete.
John 5:24: “Whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged.” Believers are judged at conversion, not in a 1844 review. Adventism’s delay contradicts Christ’s promise.
1 John 2:1-2: “If anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One… He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins.” Christ’s advocacy is immediate, not contingent on a 1844 investigation. White’s doctrine adds a human works element, violating Galatians 2:16.
Daniel 8:14 Misuse: White ties the Investigative Judgment to Daniel 8:14’s “2300 evenings and mornings,” interpreted as 2300 years ending in 1844. This is baseless. The text refers to Antiochus IV’s Temple desecration (167-164 BC, 1 Maccabees 1:41-54, 4:52-56), a literal 2300 days, not years. Ezekiel 4:6’s day-for-year principle is symbolic, not universal, and Daniel 8:26 calls it a “vision,” not a prophetic timeline.

Your doctrine is unbiblical, Phil, denying Christ’s completed redemption for White’s 1844 fantasy.

Historical: The Investigative Judgment’s origins expose its fraudulent roots

1844 Great Disappointment: White’s doctrine emerged after William Miller’s failed prediction of Christ’s return on October 22, 1844. To salvage this flop, Hiram Edson claimed a vision of Christ entering the heavenly sanctuary, which White later adopted (*Early Writings*, p. 54-56). This is a post-hoc invention, not divine revelation, born of human error.
Early Christian Silence: No early Church Father (e.g., Augustine, Chrysostom) or Reformation theologian (e.g., Luther, Calvin) taught a 1844 investigative judgment. The concept is absent from Christian tradition until Adventism’s 19th-century desperation, contrasting with the Church’s consistent view of Christ’s immediate intercession (Hebrews 7:25).
Adventist Revisionism: White’s writings, revered as divine (SDA Belief #18), contradict historical Christian eschatology. The Council of Nicaea (325 AD) and later councils focused on Christ’s divinity and resurrection, not a 1844 judgment. Your doctrine is a modern cultic aberration, Phil, not apostolic truth.

Your historical claim is a lie, forged to prop up White’s failed prophecy, not God’s Word.

3. Linguistic basis for the Investigative Judgment collapses under scrutiny

“2300 Evenings and Mornings” (Daniel 8:14): The Hebrew term *ereb boqer* (“evenings and mornings”) typically denotes literal days (e.g., Genesis 1:5). The Septuagint and Theodotion translate it as “days,” aligning with Antiochus’ 2300-day Temple desecration (167-164 BC). Adventism’s day-for-year interpretation, based on Ezekiel 4:6, is a forced analogy, not a linguistic norm. Daniel 8:26’s “vision” (Hebrew: *chazon*) suggests a symbolic timeframe, not a prophetic era.
“Cleansing of the Sanctuary”: The Hebrew *taher* (“to cleanse”) in Daniel 8:14 refers to the Temple’s purification after Antiochus’ defilement (1 Maccabees 4:36-59). Adventism reinterprets this as a heavenly judgment, but no linguistic evidence in Daniel supports a shift from earthly to celestial context. The Greek *katharismos* in the Septuagint reinforces a physical cleansing, not a 1844 audit.
Daniel 9:24-27 Link: You imply the 70 weeks (490 years) connect to the 2300 days, but Daniel 9:23 specifies Gabriel’s message as “insight and understanding” for the 70 weeks, not an explanation of Daniel 8. The Aramaic and Hebrew lack any textual bridge, making your 1844 timeline a linguistic fabrication.

Your linguistic gymnastics, Phil, are a desperate stretch to justify White’s 1844 lie, not biblical exegesis.

the Investigative Judgment’s logic is riddled with contradictions and absurdities:

Redundant Judgment: If Christ judges believers’ works from 1844 to determine salvation, why judge again at the Second Coming (Matthew 25:31-46, Revelation 20:11-15)? This duplicates judgment, implying God’s omniscience is flawed—logically absurd.
Delayed Atonement: White’s claim that Christ’s atonement began in 1844 contradicts His immediate intercession (Hebrews 7:25). If sins weren’t atoned until 1844, how were Old Testament saints saved (Hebrews 9:15)? Your doctrine delays redemption, defying Christ’s finished work (John 19:30).
1844 Date Fabrication: The 2300-year timeline (457 BC to 1844 AD) relies on Artaxerxes’ decree (Ezra 7:11-26), but historical dates vary (e.g., 458 or 445 BC). Adjusting for zero-year transition, 1844 lacks precision, exposing White’s post-hoc adjustment after the Great Disappointment as a logical fudge.
Human Works Salvation: The Investigative Judgment bases salvation on post-1844 obedience, adding works to faith (Galatians 2:16). This contradicts Scripture’s grace-alone doctrine (Ephesians 2:8-9), making God’s judgment arbitrary and human effort decisive—logically incoherent.

Your logic, Phil, is a house of cards, built on White’s desperation, not divine reason.

Adventism’s Satanic Evils: A Cult of Lies

Phil, your Investigative Judgment obsession stems from Seventh-day Adventism’s demonic core, built on Ellen G. White’s lies. Let’s expose your cult’s evils:

Adventist Error	Details	Biblical Refutation
False Prophecies	White’s 1856, 1844, 1845 failures (Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 1, p. 131-132).	Deuteronomy 18:22
Investigative Judgment	Denies Christ’s atonement (The Great Controversy, p. 421-422).	Hebrews 9:12
Sabbath Idolatry	Salvific Sabbath lacks support (The Great Controversy, p. 605-612).	Colossians 2:16-17
Plagiarism	White stole from authors (The White Lie by Walter Rea).	Revelation 22:18-19

Adventism is a satanic cult, chaining you to White’s lies and a works-based gospel.

Phil, your Investigative Judgment is a demonic lie, born of White’s 1844 failure. Biblical evidence (Hebrews 9:12, John 5:24) refutes a 1844 judgment; historical context (Great Disappointment) exposes its fraud; linguistic analysis (Daniel 8:14) debunks the 2300-year timeline; and logic (redundant judgment) reveals its absurdity. Adventism’s evils—White’s false prophecies, Investigative Judgment heresy, Sabbath idolatry, and anti-Catholic venom—mark it as a satanic cult. Produce one verse mandating a 1844 judgment or tying it to Daniel 8:14. You can’t, because your theology is White’s trash.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.