Statues: Biblical or Unbiblical?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cruxis117
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Also, one other point… If the Church really did take pagan statues and rename them as Christian Saints, then what does that even prove…? That we don’t actually know what Mary and baby Jesus really looked like…? …Because the Church doesn’t claim that the statues are exact images. In fact, the Church has no idea what Jesus Himself even actually looked like at any single point in his entire life. Nobody seems to think it’s a problem, because it really doesn’t make any difference.
 
We should call attention to it, don’tcha think?
I have my doubts: the position being espoused regarding some sort of pagan conspiracy behind the Vatican is, like conspiracy theories generally, not known for being amenable to any data from outside of its own sources. Once a “truth” is “known”, any contradictory datum is necessarily an error or a lie, and the “enlightened” need only search for even the most implausible means of casting doubt upon it. This is not too challenging, since, you and I both know, the whole of history is built upon guesswork, assumptions, and inferences from the sparse data available to us. Motivated Cognition is a fundamental human flaw.

Sorry, I’m feeling old, tired, and cynical just now. 😦
 
I have my doubts: the position being espoused regarding some sort of pagan conspiracy behind the Vatican is, like conspiracy theories generally, not known for being amenable to any data from outside of its own sources. Once a “truth” is “known”, any contradictory datum is necessarily an error or a lie, and the “enlightened” need only search for even the most implausible means of casting doubt upon it. This is not too challenging, since, you and I both know, the whole of history is built upon guesswork, assumptions, and inferences from the sparse data available to us. Motivated Cognition is a fundamental human flaw.

Sorry, I’m feeling old, tired, and cynical just now. 😦
You’re not the only one. :cool:

But no, even if not for her, I still think we should call attention for it for everyone’s sake. I believe this thread is public, ain’t it?

I have taken heed to the words of Truth Himself:–“The Lord thy God is one.” (Deut. 6.4) And “Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and shalt serve Him only, and thou shalt not have strange, gods.” (Deut. 6.13) Again, “Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath” (Ex. 20.4); and “Let them be all confounded that adore graven things.” (Ps. 97.7) Again, “The gods that have not made heaven and earth, let them perish.” (Jer. 10.11) In this way God spoke of old to the patriarchs through the prophets, and lastly, through His only-begotten Son, on whose account He made the ages. He says, “This is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou didst send.” (Jn 17.3) I believe in one God, the source of all things, without beginning, uncreated, immortal, everlasting, incomprehensible, bodiless, invisible, uncircumscribed,* without form. I believe in one supersubstantial being, one divine Godhead in three entities, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and I adore Him alone with the worship of latreia. I adore one God, one Godhead but three Persons, God the Father, God the Son made flesh, and God the Holy Ghost, one God. I do not adore creation more than the Creator, but I adore the creature created as I am, adopting creation freely and spontaneously that He might elevate our nature and make us partakers of His divine nature. Together with my Lord and King I worship Him clothed in the flesh, not as if it were a garment or He constituted a fourth person of the Trinity—God forbid. That flesh is divine, and endures after its assumption. Human nature was not lost in the Godhead, but just as the Word made flesh remained the Word, so flesh became the Word remaining flesh, becoming, rather, one with the Word through union (kath’ hypostasin). Therefore I venture to draw an image of the invisible God, not as invisible, but as having become visible for our sakes through flesh and blood. I do not draw an image of the immortal Godhead. I paint the visible flesh of God, for it is impossible to represent a spirit (psychē), how much more God who gives breath to the spirit.
 
Now adversaries say: God’s commands to Moses the law-giver were, “Thou shalt adore shalt worship him the Lord thy God, and thou alone, and thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath.”

They err truly, not knowing the Scriptures, for the letter kills whilst the spirit quickens—not finding in the letter the hidden meaning. I could say to these people, with justice, He who taught you this would teach you the following. Listen to the law-giver’s interpretation in Deuteronomy: “And the Lord spoke to you from the midst of the fire. You heard the voice of His words, but you saw not any form at all.” (Deut. 4.12) And shortly afterwards: “Keep your souls carefully. You saw not any similitude in the day that the Lord God spoke to you in Horeb from the midst of the fire, lest perhaps being deceived you might make you a graven similitude, or image of male and female, the similitude of any beasts that are upon the earth, or of birds that fly under heaven.” (Deut. 4.15-17) And again, “Lest, perhaps, lifting up thy eyes to heaven, thou see the sun and the moon, and all the stars of heaven, and being deceived by error thou adore and serve them.” (Deut. 4.19)

You see the one thing to be aimed at is not to adore a created thing more than the Creator, nor to give the worship of latreia except to Him alone. By worship, consequently, He always understands the worship of latreia. For, again, He says: “Thou shalt not have strange gods other than Me. Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor any similitude. Thou shalt not adore them, and thou shalt not serve them, for I am the Lord thy God.” (Deut. 5.7-9) And again, “Overthrow their altars, and break down their statues; burn their groves with fire, and break their idols in pieces. For thou shalt not adore a strange god.” (Deut. 12.3) And a little further on: “Thou shalt not make to thyself gods of metal.” (Ex. 34.17)

You see that He forbids image-making on account of idolatry, and that it is impossible to make an image of the immeasurable, uncircumscribed, invisible God. You have not seen the likeness of Him, the Scripture says, and this was St Paul’s testimony as he stood in the midst of the Areopagus: “Being, therefore, the offspring of God, we must not suppose the divinity to be like unto gold, or silver, or stone, the graving of art, and device of man.” (Acts 17.29)

These injunctions were given to the Jews on account of their proneness to idolatry. Now we, on the contrary, are no longer in leading strings. Speaking theologically, it is given to us to avoid superstitious error, to be with God in the knowledge of the truth, to worship God alone, to enjoy the fulness of His knowledge. We have passed the stage of infancy, and reached the perfection of manhood. We receive our habit of mind from God, and know what may be imaged and what may not. The Scripture says, “You have not seen the likeness of Him.” (Ex. 33.20) What wisdom in the law-giver. How depict the invisible? How picture the inconceivable? How give expression to the limitless, the immeasurable, the invisible? How give a form to immensity? How paint immortality? How localise mystery? It is clear that when you contemplate God, who is a pure spirit, becoming man for your sake, you will be able to clothe Him with the human form. When the Invisible One becomes visible to flesh, you may then draw a likeness of His form. When He who is a pure spirit, without form or limit, immeasurable in the boundlessness of His own nature, existing as God, takes upon Himself the form of a servant in substance and in stature, and a body of flesh, then you may draw His likeness, and show it to anyone willing to contemplate it. Depict His ineffable condescension, His virginal birth, His baptism in the Jordan, His transfiguration on Thabor, His all-powerful sufferings, His death and miracles, the proofs of His Godhead, the deeds which He worked in the flesh through divine power, His saving Cross, His Sepulchre, and resurrection, and ascent into heaven. Give to it all the endurance of engraving and colour. Have no fear or anxiety; worship is not all of the same kind. Abraham worshipped the sons of Emmor, impious men in ignorance of God, when he bought the double cave for a tomb. (Gen. 23.7; Acts 7.16) Jacob worshipped his brother Esau and Pharao, the Egyptian, but on the point of his staff. (Gen 33.3) He worshipped, he did not adore. Josue and Daniel worshipped an angel of God; (Jos. 5.14) they did not adore him. The worship of latreia is one thing, and the worship which is given to merit another.
 
Now, as we are talking of images and worship, let us analyse the exact meaning of each. An image is a likeness of the original with a certain difference, for it is not an exact reproduction of the original. Thus, the Son is the living, substantial, unchangeable Image of the invisible God (Col. 1.15), bearing in Himself the whole Father, being in all things equal to Him, differing only in being begotten by the Father, who is the Begetter; the Son is begotten. The Father does not proceed from the Son, but the Son from the Father. It is through the Son, though not after Him, that He is what He is, the Father who generates. In God, too, there are representations and images of His future acts,–that is to say, His counsel from all eternity, which is ever unchangeable. That which is divine is immutable; there is no change in Him, nor shadow of change. (James 1.17) Blessed Denis, (the Carthusian *) who has made divine things in God’s presence his study, says that these representations and images are marked out beforehand. In His counsels, God has noted and settled all that He would do, the unchanging future events before they came to pass. In the same way, a man who wished to build a house would first make and think out a plan. Again, visible things are images of invisible and intangible things, on which they throw a faint light. Holy Scripture clothes in figure God and the angels, and the same holy man (Blessed Denis) explains why. When sensible things sufficiently render what is beyond sense, and give a form to what is intangible, a medium would be reckoned imperfect according to our standard, if it did not fully represent material vision, or if it required effort of mind. If, therefore, Holy Scripture, providing for our need, ever putting before us what is intangible, clothes it in flesh, does it not make an image of what is thus invested with our nature, and brought to the level of our desires, yet invisible? A certain conception through the senses thus takes place in the brain, which was not there before, and is transmitted to the judicial faculty, and added to the mental store. Gregory, who is so eloquent about God, says that the mind, which is set upon getting beyond corporeal things, is incapable of doing it. For the invisible things of God since the creation of the world are made visible through images. (Rom. 1.20) We see images in creation which remind us faintly of God, as when, for instance, we speak of the holy and adorable Trinity, imaged by the sun, or light, or burning rays, or by a running fountain, or a full river, or by the mind, speech, or the spirit within us, or by a rose tree, or a sprouting flower, or a sweet fragrance.

Again, an image is expressive of something in the future, mystically shadowing forth what is to happen. For instance, the ark represents the image of Our Lady, Mother of God, so does the staff and the earthen jar. The serpent brings before us Him who vanquished on the Cross the bite of the original serpent; the sea, water, and the cloud the grace of baptism. (1 Cor. 10.1)

Again, things which have taken place are expressed by images for the remembrance either of a wonder, or an honour, or dishonour, or good or evil, to help those who look upon it in after times that we may avoid evils and imitate goodness. It is of two kinds, the written image in books, as when God had the law inscribed on tablets, and when He enjoined that the lives of holy men should be recorded and sensible memorials be preserved in remembrance; as, for instance, the earthen jar and the staff in the ark. (Ex. 34.28; Heb. 9.4) So now we preserve in writing the images and the good deeds of the past. Either, therefore, take away images altogether and be out of harmony with God, who made these regulations, or receive them with the language and in the manner which befits them. In speaking of the manner let us go into the question of worship.

Worship is the symbol of veneration and of honour. Let us understand that there are different degrees of worship. First of all the worship of latreia, which we show to God, who alone by nature is worthy of worship. When, for the sake of God who is worshipful by nature, we honour His saints and servants, as Josue and Daniel worshipped an angel, and David His holy places, when be says, “Let us go to the place where His feet have stood.” (Ps. 132.7) Again, in His tabernacles, as when all the people of Israel adored in the tent, and standing round the temple in Jerusalem, fixing their gaze upon it from all sides, and worshipping from that day to this, or in the rulers established by Him, as Jacob rendered homage to Esau, his elder brother, (Gen. 33.3) and to Pharaoh, the divinely established ruler. (Gen. 47.7) Joseph was worshipped by his brothers. (Gen. 50.18) I am aware that worship was based on honour, as in the case of Abraham and the sons of Emmor. (Gen. 23.7) Either, then, do away with worship, or receive it altogether according to its proper measure.*
 
Answer me this question. Is there only one God? You answer, “Yes, there is only one Law-giver.” Why, then, does He command contrary things? The cherubim are not outside of creation; why, then, does He allow cherubim carved by the hand of man to overshadow the mercy-seat? Is it not evident that as it is impossible to make an image of God, who is uncircumscribed and impassible, or of one like to God, creation should not be worshipped as God. He allows the image of the cherubim who are circumscribed, and prostrate in adoration before the divine throne, to be made, and thus prostrate to overshadow the mercy-seat. It was fitting that the image of the heavenly choirs should overshadow the divine mysteries. Would you say that the ark and staff and mercy-seat were not made? Are they not produced by the hand of man? Are they not due to what you call contemptible matter? What was the tabernacle itself? Was it not an image? Was it not a type and a figure? Hence the holy Apostle’s words concerning the observances of the law, “Who serve unto the example and shadow, of heavenly things.” As it was answered to Moses, when he was to finish the tabernacle: “See” (He says), “that thou make all things according to the pattern which was shown thee on the Mount.” (Heb. 8.5; Ex. 25.40) But the law was not an image. It shrouded the image. In the words of the same Apostle, “the law contains the shadow of the goods to come, not the image of those things.” (Heb. 10.1) For if the law should forbid images, and yet be itself a forerunner of images, what should we say? If the tabernacle was a figure, and the type of a type, why does the law not prohibit image-making? But this is not in the least the case. There is a time for everything. (Eccl. 3.1)

Of old, God the incorporeal and uncircumscribed was never depicted. Now, however, when God is seen clothed in flesh, and conversing with men, (Bar. 3.38) I make an image of the God whom I see. I do not worship matter, I worship the God of matter, who became matter for my sake, and deigned to inhabit matter, who worked out my salvation through matter. I will not cease from honouring that matter which works my salvation. I venerate it, though not as God. How could God be born out of lifeless things? And if God’s body is God by union (kath’ hypostasin), it is immutable. The nature of God remains the same as before, the flesh created in time is quickened by a logical and reasoning soul. I honour all matter besides, and venerate it. Through it, filled, as it were, with a divine power and grace, my salvation has come to me. Was not the thrice happy and thrice blessed wood of the Cross matter? Was not the sacred and holy mountain of Calvary matter? What of the life-giving rock, the Holy Sepulchre, the source of our resurrection: was it not matter? Is not the most holy book of the Gospels matter? Is not the blessed table matter which gives us the Bread of Life? Are not the gold and silver matter, out of which crosses and altar-plate and chalices are made? And before all these things, is not the body and blood of our Lord matter? Either do away with the veneration and worship due to all these things, or submit to the tradition of the Church in the worship of images, honouring God and His friends, and following in this the grace of the Holy Spirit. Do not despise matter, for it is not despicable. Nothing is that which God has made. This is the Manichean heresy. That alone is despicable which does not come from God, but is our own invention, the spontaneous choice of will to disregard the natural law.—that is to say, sin. If, therefore, you dishonour and give up images, because they are produced by matter, consider what the Scripture says: And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Behold I have called by name Beseleel, the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Juda. And I have filled him with the spirit of God, with wisdom and understanding, and knowledge in all manner of work. To devise whatsoever may be artificially made of gold, and silver, and brass, of marble and precious stones, and variety of wood. And I have given him for his companion, Ooliab, the son of Achisamech, of the tribe of Dan. And I have put wisdom in the heart of every skilful man, that they may make all things which I have commanded thee.” (Ex. 31.1-6) And again: “Moses said to all the assembly of the children of Israel: This is the word the Lord hath commanded, saying: Set aside with you first fruits to the Lord. Let every one that is willing and hath a ready heart, offer them to the Lord, gold, and silver, and brass, violet, and purple, and scarlet twice dyed, and fine linen, goat’s hair, and ram’s skins died red and violet, coloured skins, selim-wood, and oil to maintain lights and to make ointment, and most sweet incense, onyx stones, and precious stones for the adorning of the ephod and the rational. Whosoever of you is wise, let him come, and make that which the Lord hath commanded.” (Ex. 35.4-10) See you here the glorification of matter which you make inglorious. What is more insignificant than goat’s hair or colours? Are not scarlet and purple and hyacinth colours? Now, consider the handiwork of man becoming the likeness of the cherubim. How, then, can you make the law a pretence for giving up what it orders? If you invoke it against images, you should keep the Sabbath, and practise circumcision. It is certain that “if you observe the law, Christ will not profit you. You who are justified in the law, you are fallen from grace.” (Gal. 5.2-4) Israel of old did not see God, but “we see the Lord’s glory face to face.” (2 Cor. 3.18)
 
We proclaim Him also by our senses on all sides, and we sanctify the noblest sense, which is that of sight. The image is a memorial, just what words are to a listening ear. What a book is to the literate, that an image is to the illiterate. The image speaks to the sight as words to the ear; it brings us understanding. Hence God ordered the ark to be made of imperishable wood, and to be gilded outside and in, and the tablets to be put in it, and the staff and the golden urn containing the manna, for a remembrance of the past and a type of the future. Who can say these were not images and far-sounding heralds? And they did not hang on the walls of the tabernacle; but in sight of all the people who looked towards them, they were brought forward for the worship and adoration of God, who made use of them. It is evident that they were not worshipped for themselves, but that the people were led through them to remember past signs, and to worship the God of wonders. They were images to serve as recollections, not divine, but leading to divine things by divine power.

And God ordered twelve stones to be taken out of the Jordan, and specified why. For he says: “When your son asks you the meaning of these stones, tell him how the water left the Jordan by the divine command, and how the ark was saved and the whole people.” (Jos. 4.21-22) How, then, shall we not record on image the saving pains and wonders of Christ our Lord, so that when my child asks me, “What is this?” I may say, that God the Word became man, and that for His sake not Israel alone passed through the Jordan, but all the human race gained their original happiness. Through Him human nature rose from the lowest depths of the earth higher than the skies, and in His Person sat down on the throne His Father had prepared for Him.
 
Brother patrick, jupiter wasnt mislabeled. it was done on purpose. Constantine mixed pagan things with christian things to keep the people happy. Everybody knows this. The sabbath is saturday but the CC made their devotees think its sunday, the day of the sun worshipers. Thats why you see so many sun images all over the CC. the woman with child is pagan in origin. Now its called baby Jesus and Mary. None of that matters. Being born again is all that matters
boy, have you swallowed a bunch of junk anti-Catholic history. Unless you are just a troll having a bit of fun.

I’m still waiting for your comments on how a statue of St. Peter made in the middle ages is supposed to be a statue of Jupiter. I’m sure it is a whole lot easier to make the statement than to back it up with facts and evidence.
 
Thank you brotherpatrick., we do agree on most points. truth is thruth, no matter what side of the fence one is on. I forget, who told me Jupiter didnt look like Jupiter(peter). Then someone came in and said that its because the statue didnt have things attributed to Jupiter, like a lightening bolt. We all make mistakes. I am here to testify. I make more mistakes than anyone. But Zeus is the one with the lightening bolt.To my friend who says Jupiters idol was made in medieval times, guess again. It originally was in the Pantheon, BC. Rome and Greece were littered with idols(statues). And to suggest that not one of them were incorporated into Constantines new church state religion is just simply beyond belief.As requested, im posting a site that has a large amount of info backed up with photos.Ill find more after i have breakfast. im starving.
 
Thank you brotherpatrick., we do agree on most points. truth is thruth, no matter what side of the fence one is on. I forget, who told me Jupiter didnt look like Jupiter(peter). Then someone came in and said that its because the statue didnt have things attributed to Jupiter, like a lightening bolt. We all make mistakes. I am here to testify. I make more mistakes than anyone. But Zeus is the one with the lightening bolt.To my friend who says Jupiters idol was made in medieval times, guess again. It originally was in the Pantheon, BC. Rome and Greece were littered with idols(statues). And to suggest that not one of them were incorporated into Constantines new church state religion is just simply beyond belief.As requested, im posting a site that has a large amount of info backed up with photos.Ill find more after i have breakfast. im starving.
It is strange that you say that we all make mistakes, and yet you have not admitted to making a single one yet, despite the fact that we have provided you with the complete history of the statue, all the way down to the name of the artist who made it. I don’t understand what is so hard to grasp about it being a myth.

And as for backing up with photos - proving that the statue is really Jupiter cannot be done with photos. It must be done with historical documentation from the Roman era in which you claim it was built. Which we all know you can’t do, because, as has already been explained in detail, we know for a fact that it was made in the middle ages.

As for suggesting that not one of them was incorporated into Constantine’s new church state religion - this is a reasonable statement because Constantine, contrary to anti-Catholic myth, did not actually start a state religion. He legalized Christianity, nothing more. It did not become a state religion until after his death. Hence it is not possible that he incorporated statues into his state religion because there was no state religion to incorporate them into.
 
By the way, that site isnt just about catholic use of pagan symbols. protestant churches have used them to. To be fair, recent proddy churches dont use them. Their services are held in a room with four walls and nothing else
 
Sheesh, i forgot to post the link. i just woke up.
mindserpent.com/American_History/religion/pope/rc_images.html
More than likely, you all know about this site already. im finding out that nothing i say is news in here, you guys have all the bases covered. my hat is off to you.
You know this is not evidence, right? It is a random website that could be run by anyone that this person could make it say anything, true or not. It says the statue is Jupiter. What evidence does it provide that it is Jupiter? None at all. So why believe it? We have provided evidence that says otherwise. When it comes down to it, you have chosen to believe that it is a statue of Jupiter when there is evidence against this idea and absolutely none to support the idea. Why in the world would anyone do that? This is why you are labeled anti-Catholic - because the only real reason that you could possibly have for resisting contradicting evidence so willingly is because you have a bias against the Church.
 
kimberly87, please show us exactly how the word “bow” in the Ten Commandments isn’t the same as worshiping, since your claim is that we’re misconstruing the use of the word “bow” as you keep using it.
 
Thank you brotherpatrick., we do agree on most points. truth is thruth, no matter what side of the fence one is on. I forget, who told me Jupiter didnt look like Jupiter(peter). Then someone came in and said that its because the statue didnt have things attributed to Jupiter, like a lightening bolt. We all make mistakes. I am here to testify. I make more mistakes than anyone. But Zeus is the one with the lightening bolt.To my friend who says Jupiters idol was made in medieval times, guess again. It originally was in the Pantheon, BC. Rome and Greece were littered with idols(statues).
to quote "Roman Art from the Louvre, an exhibition organized by the American Federation of Arts and the Musée du Louvre:

Jupiter is usually thought to have originated as a sky god. His identifying implement is the thunderbolt, and his primary sacred animal is the eagle,

and

The Romans regarded Jupiter as the equivalent of Greek Zeus, and in Latin literature and Roman art, the myths and iconography of Zeus are adapted under the name Iuppiter.

Can you name your respected and educated sources that say otherwise?

So Kim, I guess you are wrong. Also Jupiter or Zeus are not associated with keys.

So tell me again how early Christians would take a statue of Jupiter to use as a statue of St. Peter? Especially since this is a ‘cast’ statue which means you can’t just take pieces off and add pieces. In fact if you had you would easily be able to see where the repairs were made to the bronze. So sorry Kim this is and always has been a statue of St. Peter.
And to suggest that not one of them were incorporated into Constantines new church state religion is just simply beyond belief.As requested, im posting a site that has a large amount of info backed up with photos.Ill find more after i have breakfast. im starving.
yes, a site full of nonsense. You might as well post a website on area 51. Perhaps you should read some real history books on Constantine.
 
the reason im here is cause i was invited here by a catholic guy i met in a catholic newsletter on the new indulgeces decreed by the Holy Father(Joseph). Theres a catholic in there that has tried to show me why my ideas on graven images are wrong. He says that they are not really my ideas but Luthers ideas and that i blindly follow them. While my hash browns are browning, let me post here what he says.
+" As for the King James Version of the bible it is in fact an abomination to God. The errors were in fact deliberate, adding and taking away from God’s Holy Words."

“The King James version of the bible is a sinful book and we Catholics are not allowed to use it. We can use it for reference only, like looking at the errors it contains. Oh! and by the way I think your are very nice, in a namby pamby way of course. oops did I hurt your tender protestant feelings? Also you actualy believe your going to heaven? My Catholic Bible says no blasphemers can enter heaven. If your lucky you could still have a shot at purgatory, but I doubt it.”

This is my new friend Angelo. Yes , he is talking to me.
 
Sheesh, i forgot to post the link. i just woke up.
mindserpent.com/American_History/religion/pope/rc_images.html
More than likely, you all know about this site already. im finding out that nothing i say is news in here, you guys have all the bases covered. my hat is off to you.
Kimberly…are you really serious this is your source?

Did you look at the bottom of your link? This is what is says…Source: “The Great Controversy,” by Ellen G. White, 1888, republished by Laymen for Religious Liberty, Inc., P.O. Box 908, DeLand, Florida 32721, 1990.

So you believe in the writings and prophesy of Ellen G White? Are you aware of her claims? Do you believe in the private revelations of Ellen G White?

Here in this thread, you had bewailed the Marian apparitions…yet you post something of the same from EGW?

bible.ca/7-WhiteInspire.htm

Discussion:
Younger, newer, recently converted, Seventh-day Adventists often notify us by email saying that we, at the Interactive Bible Website (www.bible.ca) have misrepresented the official position of the SDA church regarding Ellen White’s inspiration. They are in fact being deceived by their own church! The truth is that this is still the official position, but they are sending out mixed signals. Prior to 1980, (when news of White’s plagiarism was first published by Walter Rea) ALL ADVENTISTS viewed White as an inspired prophet. However, now that is it an absolute proven fact that White plagiarized 80-90% of her "inspired writings, including almost all her visions, modern SDA leaders, are quickly watering down the churches historic stand on White’s inspiration. The current official is actually identical to what it has always been, as you will see below in the 1997 baptismal vows and church doctrines. But they are now making statements like:

“White’s writings are not a replacement of the Bible. Our standard for doctrine is the Bible only!”

Such statements are: lies, deception and a radical departure from both the current official position of the SDA church AND the historical foundation of the very denomination itself. Don’t be deceived new convert! Such changes are also occurring in the Mormon church who are watering down the long standing claims of Joseph Smith’s inspired translation of the Book of Mormon and the Jehovah’s Witnesses 100 year old claim that the Watchtower magazine is inspired. These three groups, the Adventists, Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses share these qualities:

were born at the same time in history (1800’s)
all claimed to have direct inspiration from God at the time they were founded
all had the “spirit of prophecy”
all have watered down their inspiration claims in modern times
 
No, i didnt know the site was Ellen Whites site. i didnt scroll to the bottom, and that is not where i get all of my info from.I found it today, but i believe i saw it yrs ago. Ellen has been dead for a long time so she didnt have anything to do with the site. The photographic evidence is there. You really cant make that go away. The site was to big for me to even get to the bottom. I got half way to the bottom and had to run downstairs to flip my hash browns.
 
Seventh Day Adventist are good, really good. They even had me fooled for about almost a yr.i would watch their show on TV. Then, one day i heard their hook. I didnt even know they were the SDA. They never mention it. But one day they said that they were gods church and that they had it right and everyone else was, well, wrong, but they put it nicely. Thats when you can be sure its a hunk of baloney when someone claim they they are gods organization.
 
the reason im here is cause i was invited here by a catholic guy i met in a catholic newsletter on the new indulgeces decreed by the Holy Father(Joseph). Theres a catholic in there that has tried to show me why my ideas on graven images are wrong. He says that they are not really my ideas but Luthers ideas and that i blindly follow them. While my hash browns are browning, let me post here what he says.
+" As for the King James Version of the bible it is in fact an abomination to God. The errors were in fact deliberate, adding and taking away from God’s Holy Words."

“The King James version of the bible is a sinful book and we Catholics are not allowed to use it. We can use it for reference only, like looking at the errors it contains. Oh! and by the way I think your are very nice, in a namby pamby way of course. oops did I hurt your tender protestant feelings? Also you actualy believe your going to heaven? My Catholic Bible says no blasphemers can enter heaven. If your lucky you could still have a shot at purgatory, but I doubt it.”

This is my new friend Angelo. Yes , he is talking to me.
OK. This friend of yours…Are you sure he’s Catholic? Because *we all know *that, though Luther supposedly (may have-I haven’t looked this up yet) “penned” the word “alone” into the margin of his German translation of Rom 3:28, that never actually made it into print, as anyone who has a King James Version of the bible can tell you. And many-dare I say MOST?-of us indeed haven a KJV, along with many other versions of the bible. We like to study…A LOT. It is not a sin to own a KJV of the bible. However, it is an incomplete version as Luther didn’t see fit to include the deuterocanonical books, which had been in the canon of scripture for 1100 years.

The “Catholic” bible (as does the King James Version and other Protestant bibles) says many things about entering heaven. ONE of the things it says is that nothing unclean can enter heaven, (Rev 21:27) and Jesus says that one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven.

As for entering Purgatory, That merely means that you have already been accepted into heaven. It is a cleansing process, purging us of our impurities, because, “nothing unclean can enter heaven”. Purgatory is not a place you go INSTEAD OF heaven.

Are you sure this “friend” is Catholic? Or maybe you are misrepresenting the comments he/she made?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top