All about Seventh Day Adventists and Catholics

  • Thread starter Thread starter barboza21
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
BTTG said:
I think we are getting off topic.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

But it is food for thought for you. For I doubt it’s anything you’d ever considered before.

Remember, you need an OUTSIDE AUTHORITY to tell you that Thessalonians is inspired but that the Shepherd of Hermas is not. There is no other way for you to know this, except through another authority. (That is, through the Catholic Church.)
 
BTTG said:
We find a reference in the NT that Jesus pointed to the OT as being of great value in faith and doctrine. Jesus recommends to those listening that the OT is a safe guide to salvation.

(Luk 16:29) Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

also,

(Mat 5:17) Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

(Luk 24:27) And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

written with love
Click to expand...
Catholics respond with a hearty AMEN! to the above verses, however, they are a non-sequitur and do not address the question.

Isaiah was clearly talking about the OT. The OT ONLY. So if you want to use that verse as a support that all your teachings have to come from Scripture, you have to say that all your teachings must come from the OT ONLY.
 
BTTG said:
With respect, your catechism’s definition reads like the Pope is Jesus on earth.
Click to expand...
Well, unless it says that the pope is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, I don’t think anyone would mistake him for Jesus.

Except for very poorly catechized folks.
 
BTTG said:
With respect, your catechism’s definition reads like the Pope is Jesus on earth.

“For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.” Pg. 234, #882

“The Roman Pontiff… as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful…” Pg. 235, #891

“The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls” Pg. 246, #937

Yes , we are all priests, not one man having the authority of our souls. In saying there were Pope’s who did wonderful things, just as many Catholics have done tremendous things for the Lord.

written with love
Click to expand...
Just curious, BTTG–and I don’t know how you will respond to this query–but would you object to the above if instead of “pope” it was “apostles” in the quotes?

For example: “The Apostles…as supreme pastors and teachers of all the faithful.”
or “The Apostles enjoyed, by divine institution, supreme, full, immediate and universal poser in the care of souls.”
 
KathleenGee said:
Hmmmm…did I post this before on this thread?

The Great Harlot resides on the City with 7 Hills…that could be Jerusalem, Rome, or Athens.

The Vatican is on flat land, across the river…

Forget history. Look at geography. The harlot can’t be us?!!
Click to expand...
I was going back to previous postings and I missed a whole page.

This is really for another day. At the time of John’s vision the great Harlot was Pagan Rome, not the Vatican. The key here is in Rev. 17:8-11. The woman is represented by “Babylon the great” - Rev 14:8).
 
barboza21 said:
Now for the whore nd the beast.

The woman known as the whore of Babylon is said to be the great city (17:18), a title given earlier to the city where Jesus was crucified (11:8). The beast, havng 7 heads and 10 horns, was earlier described as the beast of the sea (13:1) and appears to be the Roman Empire, with its capital city Rome represented by 7 hills (17:9).
Sinful cities are sometimes described as harlots in the bible. On two occasions, this is said of a pagan metropolis, one being Tyre (Is 23:17) and the other Nineveh (Nahum 3:4). However, the chrge is proverbially made against Jerusalem for her spiritual promiscuity with pagan nations (Is 1:21; Jer 2:20; Ezek 16:1-25; 3:1-4, 11, 30).

Do we agree?
Click to expand...
Yes I agree,
 
PRmerger said:
Catholics respond with a hearty AMEN! to the above verses, however, they are a non-sequitur and do not address the question.

Isaiah was clearly talking about the OT. The OT ONLY. So if you want to use that verse as a support that all your teachings have to come from Scripture, you have to say that all your teachings must come from the OT ONLY.
Click to expand...
That is your interpretation of the verse. And if that is what your heart tells you I cannot disagree with that. You know where I stand with the verse.

written with love
 
Hey PRmerger

Nice talking to you, have a great night. I am off to sleep. May the Holy spirit give us light to His truth.

God Bless

written with love
 
BTTG said:
That is your interpretation of the verse. And if that is what your heart tells you I cannot disagree with that. You know where I stand with the verse.

written with love
Click to expand...
Exactly. *You *cannot tell anyone that their interpretation of any verse is incorrect, if that’s “what their heart tells them.”

Thus, if someone sincerely reads the Bible and asks for the HS’s direction, and comes to the conclusion that there are many gods, or that God is a Mother, or that Jesus is the reincarnation of the archangel Michael, or that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married…then you cannot tell him he is incorrect.

Catholics, OTOH, can. For we don’t profess that you and the Holy Spirit are able to interpret the Scriptures apart from the Faith which gave you these Scriptures–which is, of course, the Catholic faith.
 
I woke this morning and decided not to deal with all the loaded questions laced with ‘love’…too many issues…and I don’t think any body would make any leeway…too many puns, etc…
 
And you are dealing with someone who believes Christ is not God…
…Like The Father is God.
…Yet has zero problems calling Jesus God.
 
BTTG said:
I do not believe that the vision reads about mother Mary, and that Mary is in heaven. But that is another topic for another day. The “church” as we agree is God’s people, then Mary cannot be the “women” for thus Mary in this verse would mean the “mother of God”, which we know too that this could not be. As a side note, the Pagans had goddesses which were called " queen of heaven".
Click to expand...
This portion of your post caught my eye and it is quite possible that I do not understand what you said here. Are you rejecting the title of Mary as “Mother of God”? If so, do you not believe that Jesus was God and that Mary is His mother?

Thanks.
 
Before Steve were to answer one thread…s/he would begin to ask another one…

Some how I think this thread was a passive-aggressive whipping post.
 
I missed it as well…
…In any event he didn’t seem to want to answer my questions at all.
 
Sometimes, right away I get a sense that they just come on to vent…afterall, they have been taught alot of things about our faith that isn’t true.

If they can stay with one or two issues, it may be possible to continue…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top