Can I get some help with these questions

  • Thread starter Thread starter GaryLCoxJr
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
continue from last post
Based on your embracing of ellen White et als personal interpreation of Scripture -interpertations that, IIRC ,claimed the second comong of Christ would be in the mid 19th century. If they were wrong then why should we trust them now?
I hot you have notice that I have not used any of Ellen White writings in any of my post.
First of all it was not Ellen G. White that was preaching that. She and many thousans of people herd William miller preaching and studied the scriptures for their self and then found t to be true. They were mistaken in the event not the date. This is why is say we nned to study things for your self. They were disappointed because they relied on a common interpretation of the time that the earth was the sanctuary of God. Jesus moves from the holy to the most holly lace in heaven. If they had understand what the sanctuary ment they would have save them self a lot of grief but at the same time many would have procrastinated as well. But because they did not know that importand fact men and women cuased a world movement. It was not just in the united started that this happen, in deferent parts of the earth, wholly apart from Miller, there were other preachers who came to the same conclusions. And they never had heard miller message. In 1844 what the year that the world change for ever. If you think that the devil did not know about that prophecy and prepared for it, think again.
In 1844 was thebeginning of data communication. Tha was when Morse made the first transmetion over a wire from Washington to Baltimore with the message: “What hath God wrought!” God prepaird the way for the message to go out. Today the Adventist church has the worlds biggest telecommunication network I the world when you add them all up. Last I check.
What else happen in that year? Have you heard of the mormons: they rejact Jesus, the first scatch of charls darwin’s book came out, moderns spiritualism (the fox sisters) and the list goes on and on. There is only one church that came preaching and believing all that the bible says.
So a very, very inept god got it all wrong in the first place and waited 1800 years to sort it out?
The Inept God is the one you serve. Your God is the one that got it wrong and is still correcting, every now and then a new Catechism comes out saying something deferent. My God created one Bible and never had to change anything in it. You are the one that think you has the power to do that.
Barring any evidence that any Chrisitan kept the sabbath on any day but Sunday it is necessary to hatch a massive conspiracy theory to try and validate new improved reveleations-it is a great theory because the lack of evidence is shown as proof!
Well if you need evidence I can help you with that too:
The ancient Russian name of this people was Strigolniks. Dr. Murdock gives the following account of them:
"It is common to date the origin of sectarians in the Russian church, about the middle of the seventeenth century in the time of the patriarch Nikon. But according to the Russian annals, there existed schismatics in the Russian church two hundred years before the days of Nikon; and the disturbances which took place in his time, only proved the means of augmenting their numbers, and of bringing them forward into public view. The earliest of these schismatics first appeared in Novogorod, early in the fifteenth century, under the name of Strigolniks.
“A Jew named Horie preached a mixture of Judaism and Christianity; and proselyted two priests, Denis and Alexie, who gained a vast number of followers. This sect was so numerous, that a national council was called, towards the close of the fifteenth century, to oppose it. Soon afterwards, one Karp, an excommunicated deacon, joined the Strigolniks; and accused the higher clergy of selling the office of priesthood, and of so far corrupting the church, that the Holy Ghost was withdrawn from it. He was a very successful propagator of this sect.”
It is very customary with historians to speak of Sabbath-keeping Christians in one of the following ways: 1. To name their observance of the seventh day distinctly, but to represent them as turning from Christ to Moses and the ceremonial law; or, 2. To speak of their Sabbatarian principles in so vague a manner that the reader will not be likely to suspect them of being Sabbath-keepers. Pinkerton speaks of these Russian Sabbath-keepers after the first of these methods; Murdock, after the second. It is plain that Murdock did not regard these people as rejecting Christ, and it is certain from Pinkerton that the two writers are speaking of the same people.
What was the origin of these Russian Sabbath-keepers? Certainly it was not from the Reformation of the sixteenth century; for they were in existence at least one century before that event. We have seen that the Waldenses, during the Dark Ages, were dispersed through many of the countries of Europe. And so also were the people called Cathari, if, indeed, the two were not one people. In particular, we note the fact that they were scattered through Poland, Lithuania, Sclavonia, Bulgaria, Livonia, Albania, and Sarmatia

See the twenty-first chapter of this work
Murdock’s Mosheim, book iv. cent. xvii. sect. 2, part i. chap. ii. note 12

Mr. Utter makes the following statement respecting Sabbath-keepers in Germany and in Holland:
“Early in the sixteenth century there are traces of Sabbath-keepers in Germany. The Old Dutch Martyrology gives an account of a Baptist minister named Stephen Benedict, somewhat famous for baptizing during a severe persecution in Holland, who is supposed by good authorities to have kept the seventh day as the Sabbath. One of the persons baptized by him was Barbary von Thiers, wife of Hans Borzen, who was executed on the 16th of September, 1529. At her trial she declared her rejection of the idolatrous sacrament of the priest, and also the Mass.”
Manual of the Seventh-day Baptists, p. 16.

"The prince received his first religious impressions under his chaplain, Alexius, who was a Lutheran. On his removal he chose Francis Davidis to succeed him, and by him was further informed of the principles of the Reformation. Davidis was a native of that extremely populous and well-fortified town which is called Coloswar by the natives, Clausenberg by the Germans, and by others, Claudiopolis. He was a man of learning, address, and piety, and reasoned in this part of his life more justly on the principles of the Reformation than many of his contemporaries. In 1563 his highness invited several learned foreigners to come into Transylvania for the purpose of helping forward the Reformation.

Eccl. Researches, chap. xvi. p. 630

Here is a site to link to satisfy you question: sundaylaw.net/books/other/andrews/hos/hos24.htm#3

May God bless you and keep you.
 
I though I had already answered this question. Jesus did not founded this church, we have the popes and Constantine to thank for that.
Even if Constantine founded the Church, he died a hundred years before there was any such thing as a Bible. But Constantine didn’t found the Church - it was already very well established when he came on the scene. His mother was a Catholic for many years even before he was born, and during her single years before getting married and giving birth to Constantine, she founded the science of Archaeology with the Pope’s blessing, and discovered the true relics of the Cross - now if that’s not Catholic, I don’ t know what is. 👍
The very chuch tells you plainly and you also told me that the church s not founded on the bible.
It was not founded on the Bible because the Bible did not exist yet, for the first four hundred years of the Church, from 1 AD (birth of Christ) until 405 AD.

How do you found an organization on something that does not even exist yet? 🤷

Your church, by contrast, can be founded on the Bible because your church didn’t come into existence until many, many years after the Bible came to be. 🙂
 
continue from last post

I hot you have notice that I have not used any of Ellen White writings in any of my post.
First of all it was not Ellen G. White that was preaching that. She and many thousans of people herd William miller preaching and studied the scriptures for their self and then found t to be true. They were mistaken in the event not the date. This is why is say we nned to study things for your self. They were disappointed because they relied on a common interpretation of the time that the earth was the sanctuary of God. Jesus moves from the holy to the most holly lace in heaven. If they had understand what the sanctuary ment they would have save them self a lot of grief but at the same time many would have procrastinated as well. But because they did not know that importand fact men and women cuased a world movement. It was not just in the united started that this happen, in deferent parts of the earth, wholly apart from Miller, there were other preachers who came to the same conclusions. And they never had heard miller message. In 1844 what the year that the world change for ever. If you think that the devil did not know about that prophecy and prepared for it, think again.
In 1844 was thebeginning of data communication. Tha was when Morse made the first transmetion over a wire from Washington to Baltimore with the message: “What hath God wrought!” God prepaird the way for the message to go out. Today the Adventist church has the worlds biggest telecommunication network I the world when you add them all up. Last I check.
What else happen in that year? Have you heard of the mormons: they rejact Jesus, the first scatch of charls darwin’s book came out, moderns spiritualism (the fox sisters) and the list goes on and on. There is only one church that came preaching and believing all that the bible says.

The Inept God is the one you serve. Your God is the one that got it wrong and is still correcting, every now and then a new Catechism comes out saying something deferent. My God created one Bible and never had to change anything in it. You are the one that think you has the power to do that.

Well if you need evidence I can help you with that too:
The ancient Russian name of this people was Strigolniks. Dr. Murdock gives the following account of them:
"It is common to date the origin of sectarians in the Russian church, about the middle of the seventeenth century in the time of the patriarch Nikon. But according to the Russian annals, there existed schismatics in the Russian church two hundred years before the days of Nikon; and the disturbances which took place in his time, only proved the means of augmenting their numbers, and of bringing them forward into public view. The earliest of these schismatics first appeared in Novogorod, early in the fifteenth century, under the name of Strigolniks.
“A Jew named Horie preached a mixture of Judaism and Christianity; and proselyted two priests, Denis and Alexie, who gained a vast number of followers. This sect was so numerous, that a national council was called, towards the close of the fifteenth century, to oppose it. Soon afterwards, one Karp, an excommunicated deacon, joined the Strigolniks; and accused the higher clergy of selling the office of priesthood, and of so far corrupting the church, that the Holy Ghost was withdrawn from it. He was a very successful propagator of this sect.”
It is very customary with historians to speak of Sabbath-keeping Christians in one of the following ways: 1. To name their observance of the seventh day distinctly, but to represent them as turning from Christ to Moses and the ceremonial law; or, 2. To speak of their Sabbatarian principles in so vague a manner that the reader will not be likely to suspect them of being Sabbath-keepers. Pinkerton speaks of these Russian Sabbath-keepers after the first of these methods; Murdock, after the second. It is plain that Murdock did not regard these people as rejecting Christ, and it is certain from Pinkerton that the two writers are speaking of the same people.
What was the origin of these Russian Sabbath-keepers? Certainly it was not from the Reformation of the sixteenth century; for they were in existence at least one century before that event. We have seen that the Waldenses, during the Dark Ages, were dispersed through many of the countries of Europe. And so also were the people called Cathari, if, indeed, the two were not one people. In particular, we note the fact that they were scattered through Poland, Lithuania, Sclavonia, Bulgaria, Livonia, Albania, and Sarmatia

See the twenty-first chapter of this work
Murdock’s Mosheim, book iv. cent. xvii. sect. 2, part i. chap. ii. note 12

Mr. Utter makes the following statement respecting Sabbath-keepers in Germany and in Holland:
“Early in the sixteenth century there are traces of Sabbath-keepers in Germany. The Old Dutch Martyrology gives an account of a Baptist minister named Stephen Benedict, somewhat famous for baptizing during a severe persecution in Holland, who is supposed by good authorities to have kept the seventh day as the Sabbath. One of the persons baptized by him was Barbary von Thiers, wife of Hans Borzen, who was executed on the 16th of September, 1529. At her trial she declared her rejection of the idolatrous sacrament of the priest, and also the Mass.”
Manual of the Seventh-day Baptists, p. 16.

"The prince received his first religious impressions under his chaplain, Alexius, who was a Lutheran. On his removal he chose Francis Davidis to succeed him, and by him was further informed of the principles of the Reformation. Davidis was a native of that extremely populous and well-fortified town which is called Coloswar by the natives, Clausenberg by the Germans, and by others, Claudiopolis. He was a man of learning, address, and piety, and reasoned in this part of his life more justly on the principles of the Reformation than many of his contemporaries. In 1563 his highness invited several learned foreigners to come into Transylvania for the purpose of helping forward the Reformation.

Eccl. Researches, chap. xvi. p. 630

Here is a site to link to satisfy you question: sundaylaw.net/books/other/andrews/hos/hos24.htm#3

May God bless you and keep you.
You clam that the Church was in error for 1260 years. How does that translate with God gettng it right in the first place?

How do you reconcile Ellen Whites Contention that biblically a day equals a year with:

Psalm 90:4 (New International Version)

4 For a thousand years in your sight
are like a day that has just gone by,
or like a watch in the night.

** Peter 3:8 (New International Version)**

8But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years
 
If God got it right the first time why did the gates of hell prevail for 1260 years?
because the bible said it was going to. what more do you want? that is why i always try to put the intire verse in the post, if you dont read the post i dont think you will read the verse i give. so i try to put the verse in there and we still manage to ask why.
THE BIBLE SAID IT WOULD BE SO. THATS WHY.
 
because the bible said it was going to. what more do you want? that is why i always try to put the intire verse in the post, if you dont read the post i dont think you will read the verse i give. so i try to put the verse in there and we still manage to ask why.
More rabbit trails based on personal interpretations!
dnelson:
THE BIBLE SAID IT WOULD BE SO. THATS WHY.
Now HERE’s something worth discussing! ** You said you would be getting back with your research on where - exactly **- the canon(ie table of contents) of the bible came from; when - exactly - it was revealed, and who -exactly - revealed it to you. It is really should be a simple question for someone who has studied and read and evaluated as much as you have, no? How can you not know the answers to these questions when you claim that the Bible is the word of God??? How embarassing…I mean the Koran makes the same claim…Im starting to wonder if you never stopped to think about why you believe the Bible to be the word of God instead of, say, the book of Eurantia. :confused:

Still patiently waiting! 👍 Just let us know! :yup: Stop wasting your time interpreting prophecies from a book you dont know contains the word of God!!!

Blessings -
 
But if I ask you why do you believe that you have the right church you will point to Jesus telling peter he is the rock. It does not mater that in that verse he used 2 deferent words for Rock. He said to Peter you are a rock (the Hebrew word used is a small rock) and then he says on this Rock (it is a deferent word, this time it means a Rock that cannot be move) will I build my church.
St Matthew wrote the Gospel in Greek. The two different words for rock you refer to are Greek. When Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter he used the masculine form of the noun. Jesus and the people of his time spoke in the Hebrew language . The Hebrew language of Aramaic has only one word for rock. Rock. You either believe our Lord or you choose not to. He built HIS Church upon the rock of St Peter like he said, and no amount of heresy, and false prophesy will ever prevail against it.
 
You clam that the Church was in error for 1260 years. How does that translate with God gettng it right in the first place?

How do you reconcile Ellen Whites Contention that biblically a day equals a year with:

Psalm 90:4 (New International Version)

4 For a thousand years in your sight
are like a day that has just gone by,
or like a watch in the night.

** Peter 3:8 (New International Version)**

8But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years
who said that God had any hting to do with the Catholic church? God church kept the Sabbath just like Jesus do. not Sunday, like i said we have the popes to blaim for that change, not God.

what i write must realy be confusing to you. that text say it is like, not it is. my text say it is. that is the deference.
and another thing, i dont read that version of the bible. that is almost a Catholic bible in my sight.

that bible has intire veres deleted and in one but it had just as much changes as the boot had verses. it is not called internation for nothing. that bible they would advice you to read, because it is almost the same thing you have.

i dont need anyone to make it simple for me with there own words. they can keep it.

but that is just my openion.
 
who said that God had any hting to do with the Catholic church? God church kept the Sabbath just like Jesus do. not Sunday, like i said we have the popes to blaim for that change, not God.

what i write must realy be confusing to you. that text say it is like, not it is. my text say it is. that is the deference.
and another thing, i dont read that version of the bible. that is almost a Catholic bible in my sight.

that bible has intire veres deleted and in one but it had just as much changes as the boot had verses. it is not called internation for nothing. that bible they would advice you to read, because it is almost the same thing you have.

i dont need anyone to make it simple for me with there own words. they can keep it.

but that is just my openion.
I am waiting for you to address the conflict between Edith Whites prophecies based on a metaphorical day being a year when Scripture is clear it is a thousand years.

I would also like you to show where the catholic Bible has deleted verses. When you claimed that the catholic Bible had deleted the Second Commandment I showed you it had not.
 
Dnelsen:

In the original Greek 2 Peter 3:1 is neither remembrance or admonishment. The literal translation is “hupomnEsis ho eilikrinEs dianoia” under-reminding the sincere thru-mind. Sincere is translated in the KJV as pure and stuck in after stir up which in the original is “I am thru rousing of you.”

So let’s re-cap. You have very poor English using pease instead of piece and you have no New Testament Greek. Therefore everything you have in terms of understanding the Bible you have gotten third hand from somebody else. That doesn’t put you in a very good position for trying to tell us what the Bible means or where it came from.
Thank you Marsha, I appreciate your point but I don’t think He will understand all that is involved in this. It might be advantageous and he would have to recognize that the Greek form in reference to the codex versions in existence can offer slightly different combinations of wording suggesting in some cases a specific emphasis where others may lack emphasis based on the usage intended at that time. As some are aware but many others not, the Latin Vulgate translation into Latin was initiated to clear up many translation problems which existed in the Vetus Itala, the first combined set of books of OT and NT writings. The various languages involved and the intent of the writer would often determine the translated words included in the final interpretation. Because the Latin Vulgate was the first recognized singularly translated Bible with canonized texts, all others from its introduction through to today have been derived from that version…. Although many have been altered by various belief systems over the last 500 years or so. As we see below, one word can have several intended references so it is to our benefit to avoid restricting ourselves to more modern translations of one source without the consideration for the earliest translations as well. It is also recognized that the Codex Vaticanus is recognized as the purist of the codex and the Vulgate OT has been reaffirmed by the Dead Sea Scrolls.

variation Example;

hupomnesis > remembrance //// ho - > that after ///// eilikrines > pure, sincere /////

hupomnesis from hupó = under + mimnesko = to remind

dianoia → by way

dianoia {dee-an’-oy-ah}; deep thought

dianoia : – imagination, mind, understanding

dianoia from dianoéomai = to agitate in mind in turn from
 
St Matthew wrote the Gospel in Greek. The two different words for rock you refer to are Greek. When Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter he used the masculine form of the noun. Jesus and the people of his time spoke in the Hebrew language . The Hebrew language of Aramaic has only one word for rock. Rock. You either believe our Lord or you choose not to. He built HIS Church upon the rock of St Peter like he said, and no amount of heresy, and false prophesy will ever prevail against it.
so what you are telling me is that the bible writer did not know what jesus ment when he said that? but you know what he meant and the bible writer did not. Interesting .

let me tell you why you are mistaken on your asumption and in the way they interpret this text for you.

the text say and the gates of hell will not privail afaints it.
so lets just say that the you are right and i am wrong. i will give you the benefit of a dout.
it say that the church is founded on the rock right.
now lets just put this clear as to what this means.
What it is saying is that the Peter is the foundation right? The church rest upon his shoulders.
Another point to take into account is that you say the church is infallible right.
Now just after Jesus said that to him, Jesus turn around and called him Satan. This is point number one.

Now we may say that Jesus did not put the church on him jet. Ok that is a possibility too. Because it is obvious the gates of hell prevail over him at that time. That is of course if you want to say that jesus did not know what he was doing or saying. Point number two.

When Peter went to visit the believers that Paul had converted, Paul had to talk down to him for being 2 faced with the converted gentile believers. He was still holding on to the circumcision of the Jews, when that was no longer required. Jesus had fulfilled all of those ceremonial requirements. Point number 3

Paul was arrested because peter did not want to upset the Christian Jews that was in Jerusalem. to he made Paul expose himself in the temple with the purification of the ceremonial law. This is the same law that requires circumcision. Something that Paul knew was not necessary for salvation or the new church that Jesus founded. So Paul did the purification because Peter asked him to do so. Paul knew that he did not have to do that but he did it anyway. When he went to the temple they took him and put him in prison and he never came back out. He went to prison because Peter did not want to upset the believing Jews. Point number 4.
Peter did not even want to go into a person house that was uncircumcised; God had to give him a vision before he could understand that God does not make any deference between men. Jesus came to save every one. But Peter did not same to understand that yet. In his mind everyone that was not a Jew did not merit Salvation. They were uncircumcised and did not have any right to hear the gospel. Point number 5.

Now getting back to what the foundation represents:
The foundation of the church is the Rock. If the Rock falls what will happen to the church that is on the Rock?
Lets just say you bill a house on the and big rock. The foundation is secure of the hous is the rock. But one day the rock breaks and fall. Tell me what will happen to the house that is on the rock.

Some on this site told me that he hopes that John Paul 2 went to confession every week. Now what does that tell you about the rock that the gates of hell will not prevail against?

The Rock on witch the Church is founded is not Peter. There is only one person that the gates of hell did not and will not prevail against and that is Jesus Christ. He is the only rock we can put our hopes and trust in. none else.
why are you so resolute on putting your faith in a man just like you? that sin just like you? that makes mistakes just like you?

God bless and keep ypu.
 
soThe Rock on witch the Church is founded is not Peter. There is only one person that the gates of hell did not and will not prevail against and that is Jesus Christ. He is the only rock we can put our hopes and trust in. none else.
why are you so resolute on putting your faith in a man just like you? that sin just like you? that makes mistakes just like you?

God bless and keep ypu.
I would have a hard time puting faith in someone who abandoned us for 1260 years.
 
I am waiting for you to address the conflict between Edith Whites prophecies based on a metaphorical day being a year when Scripture is clear it is a thousand years.

I would also like you to show where the catholic Bible has deleted verses. When you claimed that the catholic Bible had deleted the Second Commandment I showed you it had not.
I dont know why Mrs. Ellen White keeps on coming up and though she made the bible we use or something. it looks like that is where you are trying to go with it.
If you put away your contecmp for the scriptures and be willing to be teach by the holy spirit then you will understand it.

tell me my friend, what does that verse say? does it say the a day is a year or a day is AS a year?
did my text say a day is AS a year? or did it say a da FOR a year.
another thing. is that text you are refering to in a prophetic settings? no
is the tex a day FOR a year in a year in a prophetic setting? yes
is revelation 12 in a prophetic setings? yes
so now tell me how clear your text is? it is clear is that you are taking it out of context and trying to aply it to soemthing that it was not intended.

can you please copy Exodus 20 here from your catholic bible please?
beter yet. do you have a electronic for of the catholic bible?

i have been looking but have not found one yet. when i find an electronic version i will get back t you.
i asked you for the version and the year of your bible but for soemreason you declain to give it to me. but no waries, i will find one tonight.
 
Thank you Marsha, I appreciate your point but I don’t think He will understand all that is involved in this.

It doesn’t matter, Dnelson would never attempt to respond to my points or yours on this issue.
 
Now we may say that Jesus did not put the church on him jet. Ok that is a possibility too. Because it is obvious the gates of hell prevail over him at that time. That is of course if you want to say that Jesus did not know what he was doing or saying. Point number two.
Jesus knew what He was doing. The Church was born on the Day of Pentecost. This was before that day.
When Peter went to visit the believers that Paul had converted, Paul had to talk down to him for being 2 faced with the converted gentile believers. He was still holding on to the circumcision of the Jews, when that was no longer required. Jesus had fulfilled all of those ceremonial requirements. Point number 3
Peter made the decision infallibly that they were all equal. So Paul was actually using Peter’s teaching as a way to show he was doing wrong. But acting and preaching are two different things or your Apostles who all sinned could not write without error through the Holy Spirit correct? Not if you believe sinning prevents teaching without error.

And Paul, turned around and did the same thing. He had Timothy who was not a Jew, circumcised. Can you explain that? Why Paul wanted Timothy to look like a Jew when he knew they were all equal? Seems Paul is ‘afraid’ Timothy won’t be heard if He looked like a Gentile doesn’t it. It’s no difference than what Peter did.

I made up my mind not to discuss this anymore with you cause you’re just too misinformed and brainwashed in anti Catholic doctrine in my opinion. I’m not trying to be mean here either. I seriously believe this.
 
More rabbit trails based on personal interpretations!
at least i can think and reason with God for my questions. your teaches you that you are simple and should not read the bible much less try to interpre it.
Now HERE’s something worth discussing! ** You said you would be getting back with your research on where - exactly **- the canon(ie table of contents) of the bible came from; when - exactly - it was revealed, and who -exactly - revealed it to you. It is really should be a simple question for someone who has studied and read and evaluated as much as you have, no? How can you not know the answers to these questions when you claim that the Bible is the word of God??? How embarassing…I mean the Koran makes the same claim…Im starting to wonder if you never stopped to think about why you believe the Bible to be the word of God instead of, say, the book of Eurantia. :confused:
if i present something i will at least try to verify whay i’m presenting. i know yo dont understand that, for you every thing is put it right here in my mouth.
i know the bible to be the truth because it reviels the future in detail. buy the prophecies.
did you know that the church fits every possible discription if the (name removed by moderator)ure woman? i mean evry single one. just pul one out ogf the box for me. an i will show you wee it fulfills it.
frighning isnt it? you care to pul one out for me?
Still patiently waiting! 👍 Just let us know! :yup: Stop wasting your time interpreting prophecies from a book you dont know contains the word of God!!!
Blessings -
and you speak as though you have looked it up for your self. what a joke. you would belive anything any one tells you. i feel sory for you. i really do.

Oh well, i can only try.
May God bless and keep you friend
 
Hi Gottle of Geer!

Here is a link to the SDA official website, but more specifically, in the Offiical Statements section, their official position regarding the Catholic Church. Now keep in mind, when this official statement is talking about their prophetic interpretation and understanding, that they believe the Catholic Church is the beast in Revelation and the Pope is the anti-christ, and both are given their power by the dragon, satan. You don’t get all that in the official statment even though that is what they are alluding to…to get that you need to go to their prophecy seminars or take Bible studies from one of their members. But here is their official statement regarding the Catholic Church.

adventist.org/beliefs/statements/main_stat42.html

God bless all!!!

Thanks 🙂 As they don’t include those interpretations in their officialstatements, what is the basis for those interpretations ? Are these of lesser authority than the statements, but held all the same ? Maybe these questions should be taken to PMs…​

The odd thing is, that in England & Wales at least the SDA Church is treated as an ecumenical partner, by Protestants & Catholics alike. Which is not inconsiderably confusing 🙂

Thanks for the link as well 🙂
 
And Paul, turned around and did the same thing. He had Timothy who was not a Jew, circumcised. Can you explain that? Why Paul wanted Timothy to look like a Jew when he knew they were all equal? Seems Paul is ‘afraid’ Timothy won’t be heard if He looked like a Gentile doesn’t it. It’s no difference than what Peter did.
if you read your bible and try to understand what you read and not try to understand what they told you it means you will get it after a while.
the same text told you why paul made that discision, and for good reasons. the text is very clear on what paul’s convictions were.
Paul knew that the jews would make a big thing out of thimoty. and he also knew that peter was going to be little help. and he was right. you claim you read the text so you should know what happend. that is if you read the chapter. judging by your question i dout it.
I made up my mind not to discuss this anymore with you cause you’re just too misinformed and brainwashed in anti Catholic doctrine in my opinion. I’m not trying to be mean here either. I seriously believe this.
I know your not trying to be mean, i honestly believe you belive that. there is nothing else i can say to you.

May God bless you fliend in your jorney with him is my prayer for you
 
I dont know why Mrs. Ellen White keeps on coming up and though she made the bible we use or something. it looks like that is where you are trying to go with it.
If you put away your contecmp for the scriptures and be willing to be teach by the holy spirit then you will understand it.

tell me my friend, what does that verse say? does it say the a day is a year or a day is AS a year?
did my text say a day is AS a year? or did it say a da FOR a year.
another thing. is that text you are refering to in a prophetic settings? no
is the tex a day FOR a year in a year in a prophetic setting? yes
is revelation 12 in a prophetic setings? yes
so now tell me how clear your text is? it is clear is that you are taking it out of context and trying to aply it to soemthing that it was not intended.

can you please copy Exodus 20 here from your catholic bible please?
beter yet. do you have a electronic for of the catholic bible?

i have been looking but have not found one yet. when i find an electronic version i will get back t you.
i asked you for the version and the year of your bible but for soemreason you declain to give it to me. but no waries, i will find one tonight.
I already gave you this once. here it is again-from the New Amercian Bible:

1 Then God delivered all these commandments: 2 "I, the LORD, am your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. 3 You shall not have other gods besides me. 4 You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth; 5 2 you shall not bow down before them or worship them. For I, the LORD, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishment for their fathers’ wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation; 6 but bestowing mercy down to the thousandth generation, on the children of those who love me and keep my commandments. 7 "You shall not take the name of the LORD, your God, in vain. For the LORD will not leave unpunished him who takes his name in vain. 8 "Remember to keep holy the sabbath day. 9 Six days you may labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD, your God. No work may be done then either by you, or your son or daughter, or your male or female slave, or your beast, or by the alien who lives with you. 11 In six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them; but on the seventh day he rested. That is why the LORD has blessed the sabbath day and made it holy. 12 "Honor your father and your mother, that you may have a long life in the land which the LORD, your God, is giving you. 13 "You shall not kill. 14 "You shall not commit adultery. 15 "You shall not steal. 16 "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. 17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male or female slave, nor his ox or ***, nor anything else that belongs to him.”

 
I dont know why Mrs. Ellen White keeps on coming up and though she made the bible we use or something. it looks like that is where you are trying to go with it.
Becuase she is the source of the 1260 ywear prophecy
If you put away your contecmp for the scriptures and be willing to be teach by the holy spirit then you will understand it.
tell me my friend, what does that verse say? does it say the a day is a year or a day is AS a year?
did my text say a day is AS a year? or did it say a da FOR a year.
another thing. is that text you are refering to in a prophetic settings? no
is the tex a day FOR a year in a year in a prophetic setting? yes
is revelation 12 in a prophetic setings? yes
so now tell me how clear your text is? it is clear is that you are taking it out of context and trying to aply it to soemthing that it was not intended.
Seems preety clear to me that it says a 1000 years for the Lord is like a day.

i]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top