Info on SDA (continued)

[CatholicLover]

If you’re not talking past each other, then perhaps we’re not understanding what you’re trying to say, because I really don’t see any pertinent reasons given by you. Can you elaborate? Because I’m starting to get confused.

I’ll try to explain in another way:

Me again is attempting to use the same argument used by the Archbishp of Reggio at the Council of Trent against the adopting sola scriptura. The debate was at a standstill until the Archbishop stood up and presented this argument:

“The Protestants claim to stand upon the written word only; they profess to hold the Scriptures alone as the standard of faith. They justify their revolt by the plea that the Church has apostatized from the written word and follows tradition. Now the Protestant’s claim that they stand upon the written word alone is not true.
Their profession of holding the Scriptures alone as the standard of faith is false. Proof: The written word explicitly enjoins the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath. They do not observe the seventh day, but reject it. If they truly hold the Scriptures alone as the standard, they would be observing the seventh day as it is enjoined in the Scripture throughout. Yet they not only reject the observance of the Sabbath as enjoined in the written word, but they have adopted, and do practice, the observance of Sunday, for which they have only the tradition of the (Catholic) Church.
Consequently, the claim of Scripture alone as the standard fails and the doctrine of ‘Scripture and tradition as essential’ is fully established, the Protestants themselves being Judges.”

Sound familiar? And the Archbishop was exactly right! But me again’s application of this same argument fall short because Catholic tradition in this case is not inconsistent with the Bible. Since it is not inconsistent with the Bible, Protestants are free to hold the same belief and still be in agreement with sola scriptura.

Now, if the Bible told us that Jesus had a wife but the Catholic Church for some reason said that he didn’t have a wife and Adventists in turn professed to believe that Jesus didn’t have a wife, me again would be correct in saying we do not follow sola scriptura but the tradition of the Catholic Church. But that’s not the case. We have made an assumption based on our understanding of the Jesus and the Bible. There is nothing in the Bible that contradicts our assumption, therefore we are safe in our claim to follow sola scriptura.

As Martin Luther said, “Whatever is not against the Scripture is for it.”

 

[CatholicLover]

Mr. SDA CatholicLover said that since the word “unicorns” isn’t in the bible, there aren’t any. His comparative analogy is that since the bible doesn’t specify if Jesus had a wife and children, then He didn’t.

No, my comparative analogy is that since the bible doesn’t specify if Jesus had a wife and children we are free to believe one way or the other and still be in harmony with sola scriptura.

 

[adrift]

I looked it up in strongs concordance.

Edit: Here is a link to the definition. blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G988&t=KJV

Thank you for the link. It is very interesting. Did you notice that the word was generally defined as railing, reviling exactly what I wrote.

Did you read the translation further down on the page of the verse we are discussing? It translates it as railing judgement. Just like I mentioned.

 

[CatholicLover]

Thank you for the link. It is very interesting. Did you notice that the word was generally defined as railing, reviling exactly what I wrote.

Did you read the translation further down on the page of the verse we are discussing? It translates it as railing judgement. Just like I mentioned.

Yes, that’s the KJV that translates it as railing. The NIV translates it as slanderous, but both translations come from the greek noun blasphemia which means “slander, detraction, speech injurious, to another’s good name”.

 

[adrift]

Yes, that’s the KJV that translates it as railing. The NIV translates it as slanderous, but both translations come from the greek noun blasphemia which means “slander, detraction, speech injurious, to another’s good name”.

That is not what your web site said. It says first that blasphemia is a transliteration second that the bible uses were slander, detraction, speech injourios, to another’s good name AND impious and reproachful speech injurious to divine majesty and third the definition it gives is railing reveling.

So it isn’t as simple as you convey.

I looked the word up in a Greek dictionary and it meant blasphemous. Now as interesting as this is, I don’t think it leads anywhere.

 

[benidict]

I think the Ninja Turtles were named after artistic masters. Raphael, Leonardo, Michelangelo and Donatelo (Yes, it’s sad that I remember that so clearly)

thank you for the correction i never could get into that cartoon anyway. lol! just didnt appeal to me. ahh well. when it comes to entertainers, actors. cartoons or anything else in the movies, and on tv. i reserve the right to be wrong…id rather read. just a preference. although when im with a friend of mine. her and i like to watch those reality cooking shows. hells kitchen and such. sometimes she even has let me loose in her kitchen…yes believe it or not, i know how to cook. my best friend is also a female, and she taught me how to survive after my divorce. although i still have to grab a housewife when i go shopping. you would be amazed at how many will drop what their doing, and help you out, when they find out your divorced and ignorant as to where the baking soda is… wow rambling. ah well, im feeling like going light with you guys today. not sleeping too good. Peace

 

[benidict]

No, my comparative analogy is that since the bible doesn’t specify if Jesus had a wife and children we are free to believe one way or the other and still be in harmony with sola scriptura.

you know, the strange thing is, i somewhat agree with you. i have thought about this issue many times. although i do accept what the Church teaches on the matter as authoritative, i dont see how his being married would have made him any less the Messiah. like us in every way but sin. i dont think marriage is a sin. and children most certainly are not. just musing. but you are right. if you are sola scriptura, you could hold one or the other view. Peace

 

[benidict]

Mr. SDA CatholicLover said that since the word “unicorns” isn’t in the bible, there aren’t any. His comparative analogy is that since the bible doesn’t specify if Jesus had a wife and children, then He didn’t.

The bible alone (sola scripture) is completely silent on the issue. However, *sacred tradition *(in Catholicism) specifies that Jesus had no wife or children. Sacred tradition is equivalent to the Word of God, which the SDAs reject.

On the one hand, the SDAs claim sola scripture, but on the other hand, SDAs claim that Ellen White is God’s last day prophetess who provides written inspiration from God. Each SDA must make this profession in the SDA baptismal vow.

ahhh. brother me? i may be wrong on this, and i promise i will attempt to find the verse, but i believe in one of the prophetic books “unicorns” are in the bible. i think they may have been some kind of one horn antelope deer type of creature. Peace

 

[CatholicLover]

That is not what your web site said. It says first that blasphemia is a transliteration second that the bible uses were slander, detraction, speech injourios, to another’s good name AND impious and reproachful speech injurious to divine majesty and third the definition it gives is railing reveling.

So it isn’t as simple as you convey.

I looked the word up in a Greek dictionary and it meant blasphemous. Now as interesting as this is, I don’t think it leads anywhere.

You are probably right, it probably doesn’t lead anywhere. I only directed you to the site as a point of interest.
I will point out though that below the two possible definitions on the site where it says “Thayer’s Lexicon”, the use of blasphemia in Jude 9 is identified as being the first definition “slander, detraction, speech injurious, to another’s good name”. It wasn’t my intent to hide the second definition, I didn’t include it in my posts because according to the resource it didn’t apply to the text.

 

[Javl]

Originally Posted by CatholicLover
No, my comparative analogy is that since the bible doesn’t specify if Jesus had a wife and children we are free to believe one way or the other and still be in harmony with sola scriptura.

benidict;6975693]you know, the strange thing is, i somewhat agree with you. i have thought about this issue many times. although i do accept what the Church teaches on the matter as authoritative, i dont see how his being married would have made him any less the Messiah. like us in every way but sin. i dont think marriage is a sin. and children most certainly are not. just musing. but you are right. if you are sola scriptura, you could hold one or the other view. Peace

I also agree. All scripture, Church Fathers, etc., are silent on this. Anyway, it’s really a non-issue and has nothing to do with our salvation. Shalom ha Meshiach.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[me_again]

This is from an Adventist who shall remain anonymous. Nothing is added, except for what’s in the brackets ] to give it more clarity**:**

SDA:

The Lord would have you come into a fellowship with His true end time people – His [SDA] church on earth. According to scripture, this is clearly where the Lord always wants us to start ministry… this is where we come as new born babies in Christ; we learn and grow from the influence of other [SDA] Christians that are not faultless, but who are battling the same battles against sin and evil. We uplift one another. We learn and we grow. We are a body and you are a missing part of that body (as plainly stated in I Corinthians 12).

You have so many genuine friends who fondly remember you. Please consider coming back and also to start really keeping sacred the Lord’s true Holy [Saturday] Sabbath day which He sanctified and blessed. In return, the Lord Jesus will begin to bless you, in the way you are seeking, if you will walk humbly, apply the word to your life and do these things.

All of us must put aside the filthiness of our mistakes of the past and believe those mistakes are covered by the blood of Jesus and forgotten by the Lord. This is just the beginning of total faith in Jesus. Faith and works born out real faith allows a transformation from Christ who comes to you and will abide in you. He alone will empower those good works. Nothing good comes from us in any other way. Our works are as filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6). Then you will find that total joy comes from completeness in cherishing the Laws of God and desiring true obedience with all of the heart. These Laws give real freedom. Without them we remain in bondage… the bondage of sin; and with sin will come the legality of the Law and separation from God. None of us can escape the totality of the Law of God. The Law is so immutable in that it could only be satisfied by the blood of God’s only Son; otherwise redeeming mankind was a hopeless impossibility. There was no other way. Only the Creator could redeem the creation from the bondage of sin which comes from the disobedience of God’s perfect Laws.

You have knowledge about what is true. Wholly surrender yourself in this way but in complete truth. Your future in the Lord’s work starts in His [SDA] house and with His people (who are not perfect) and it grows from that starting point. Determine no matter what to be a part of that remnant [SDA] group spoken of in Revelation 12:7.

There is no doubt that God has a distinct plan for your life. He has called you out of very deep darkness. God has been gracious to you in so many ways which even I could enumerate. Your very life has been spared from the darkest places and from certain death. You have accomplished your goals and the Lord has been merciful to you even though His precepts were set aside for a time. Now as the clock approaches midnight, it is imperative to surrender all to the Lord and join His end time people who are not committing fornication with the Beast of Revelation 13 [the Catholic Church] and are not in league with the daughters of the Beast either [the Protestant Churches who keep Sunday]. God calls all of His people, “My people” to come out of Babylon (Revelation 18:4) lest they be partakers of her sins and receive her plagues.

Come and walk again with us [SDAs]. I’d love to study one on one with you-so that you can be certain of what I am saying. I offer this even if you are unsure about what I am asking you to reflect on and determine to do. Make time and come.

There will unequivocally be SDAs in heaven.

And Jehovah Witnesses too.

And even some Mormons! :yup:

It was the Lord who created division at the Tower of Babel when He “confused the languages” to accomplish His purpose e.g. it caused mankind to leave that region and to spread throughout the earth after the flood.

Similarly…

It’s interesting to note the various denominational and sectarian divisions that developed within Christianity after the resurrection of Christ. The Lord must have a purpose in all this division i.e. how do we treat other believers, despite doctrinal differences that creates division?

Just thinking out loud.

 

[SDA2RC]

I want to put to rest the idea that the “Clear Word Bible” is and Adventist Bible. It certainly is not!

Catholic Lover,
This is not exactly true among the populace of the Church… many Adventist do use it in Sabbath school etc. In fact if one goes to the Adventist Book Center, and into the Bible section, the ClearWord Bible (and Clearword Bible for Kids) is listed right there on the front page of the Bibles section.

adventistbookcenter.com/Browse.tpl?category=BIBL

While it is true that the Clear Word Bible is not used in any of the churches official publications etc. it is still sold as a Bible in their bookstores and printed as the “Clear Word BIBLE” by their publishing houses is it not?

 

[benidict]

Catholic Lover,
This is not exactly true among the populace of the Church… many Adventist do use it in Sabbath school etc. In fact if one goes to the Adventist Book Center, and into the Bible section, the ClearWord Bible (and Clearword Bible for Kids) is listed right there on the front page of the Bibles section.

adventistbookcenter.com/Browse.tpl?category=BIBL

While it is true that the Clear Word Bible is not used in any of the churches official publications etc. it is still sold as a Bible in their bookstores and printed as the “Clear Word BIBLE” by their publishing houses is it not?

thank you SDA2RC. i do believe i cannot be called anything other than a Bible. in fact, i am going to order it. and what is nice, it comes in black leather. naawww couldnt pass for a BIBLE. Peace

 

[SDA2RC]

thank you SDA2RC. i do believe i cannot be called anything other than a Bible. in fact, i am going to order it. and what is nice, it comes in black leather. naawww couldnt pass for a BIBLE. Peace

Na… black leather, the word Bible in the Title, sold in the Bible section of the Church website…

How could anyone claim it is a Bible? LOL… Strange isnt it?

 

[benidict]

Na… black leather, the word Bible in the Title, sold in the Bible section of the Church website…

How could anyone claim it is a Bible? LOL… Strange isnt it?

yes it is. but hey, this thread appears to be dead. i would love for you and loneviking to meet up with me on the commandments thread. you 2 and your expertise and inside view, would prove to be invaluable. God bless you both. Peace and Grace to you.

 

[Protestant101]

yes it is. but hey, this thread appears to be dead. i would love for you and loneviking to meet up with me on the commandments thread. you 2 and your expertise and inside view, would prove to be invaluable. God bless you both. Peace and Grace to you.

I see this thread is a year old already! I just noticed it on my list of Subscribed topics; and now that I look at it, I have a question: "where is all the ‘information about Adventists’ in this thread?