|
Post by marysia on Mar 10, 2004 13:14:04 GMT -5
marysia, I have always been taught that Satan was very clever, but if he can not even teach us what gene claims he is trying to teach us (if he were to be the RCC, that is) he must not be very clever. Blessings, Ann
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Mar 11, 2004 5:55:53 GMT -5
gene, you just refuse to see the obvious! Does the SDA beliefs only talk about SDA people or am I to assume that everything that is said in it applies to all people no matter what their denomination? It is not riding the fence at all. It is describing the relationship between all of God's children. Talk about absurd!!!! Blessings, Ann The difference Ann, is that YOUR Rcc claims to speak for all people everywhere, not just Rc people. I've posted the words proving what I say and you seem to want to avoid them. Why does your leadership insist on taking all sides of an issue? It is plain that when "holy catholic church" is mentioned that the context is the Holy Roman Catholic Church, and doesn't mean Baptists, SDA's or any other denomination, but when pinned down, they will reverse themselves and say "all Christians whether they are of Rome or not? I reject the eucharist as taught by Rome. Your papacy has declared me "anathama" for that rejection saying that I'm not part of God's church. I claim the eucharist as taught by Rome is a false doctrine. Now, where do I stand according to YOU, knowing what your church claims?
[/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Mar 11, 2004 6:05:43 GMT -5
well gene, since i live in the year 2004 at the present time and have only been taught since let's just say the second half of the 60's i have NEVER been taught that and it is not what my church teachs. they do not teach that now as they have come to a brighter realization - people are generally more educated than in the first part of the 1900's and prior.O.K., so are you saying that the Rcc was teaching a false doctrine in the past? You can't have it both ways. The Rcc claims that it "has never erred and it will NEVER err", because the bible says the "gates of hell will never prevail against it".
It's time to stand for truth instead of standing for the Rcc, no matter what.
The SDA church mades errors in it's interpretation of scriptures in the beginning, and after closer study, found those errors and corrected them. See how easy that is? Then again, we have never claimed to be "infallable". We now have what we are sure is biblical truth on every subject. Does that mean SDA's all follow that truth, no, but it is available to anyone who wishes to be true a Christian.
[/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Mar 11, 2004 6:08:52 GMT -5
marysia, I have always been taught that Satan was very clever, but if he can not even teach us what gene claims he is trying to teach us (if he were to be the RCC, that is) he must not be very clever. Blessings, Ann Always remember, you can't be held accountable for that which you have no knowledge of, so Satan sees to it that the truth is available to anyone who seeks it. You have God's word. If you don't seek truth instead of confirmation for preconceived notions, you have no excuse and can be held accountable. Satan is the master deceiver.
[/color]
|
|
|
Post by HomeAtLast on Mar 11, 2004 10:19:12 GMT -5
gene, you just refuse to see the obvious! Does the SDA beliefs only talk about SDA people or am I to assume that everything that is said in it applies to all people no matter what their denomination? It is not riding the fence at all. It is describing the relationship between all of God's children. Talk about absurd!!!! Blessings, Ann The difference Ann, is that YOUR Rcc claims to speak for all people everywhere, not just Rc people. I've posted the words proving what I say and you seem to want to avoid them. Why does your leadership insist on taking all sides of an issue? It is plain that when "holy catholic church" is mentioned that the context is the Holy Roman Catholic Church, and doesn't mean Baptists, SDA's or any other denomination, but when pinned down, they will reverse themselves and say "all Christians whether they are of Rome or not? I reject the eucharist as taught by Rome. Your papacy has declared me "anathama" for that rejection saying that I'm not part of God's church. I claim the eucharist as taught by Rome is a false doctrine. Now, where do I stand according to YOU, knowing what your church claims?
[/color][/quote] gene, Depends on if you believe that Jesus is the savior, depends on many things like how you live your life. I do not know your heart, only God does. According to the RCC (which has been posted in the past many times by myself, marysia and Realist the ACTUAL teachings of the RCC has been posted). If you read the ACTUAK words that are there (without adding to it or preconcieving what it says) you will see for yourself. Blessings, Ann
|
|
|
Post by HomeAtLast on Mar 11, 2004 10:25:09 GMT -5
well gene, since i live in the year 2004 at the present time and have only been taught since let's just say the second half of the 60's i have NEVER been taught that and it is not what my church teachs. they do not teach that now as they have come to a brighter realization - people are generally more educated than in the first part of the 1900's and prior.O.K., so are you saying that the Rcc was teaching a false doctrine in the past? You can't have it both ways. The Rcc claims that it "has never erred and it will NEVER err", because the bible says the "gates of hell will never prevail against it".
It's time to stand for truth instead of standing for the Rcc, no matter what.
What you do not get is that we as well as many others understand and see the doctrines that are taught, in the Bible. Just because you do not does not change the facts.
The SDA church mades errors in it's interpretation of scriptures in the beginning, and after closer study, found those errors and corrected them.
Sure hope that there is an official statement to the world recanting those mistakes, as you emphatically expect from the RCC, and not just the corrections! Of course, they had to admit them as being wrong since the Jesus did not return of the multiple dates they came up with.
See how easy that is? Then again, we have never claimed to be "infallable". We now have what we are sure is biblical truth on every subject. Does that mean SDA's all follow that truth, no, but it is available to anyone who wishes to be true a Christian.
correct me if I am wrong (and I am sure that you will) but you seem to be saying here that only SDA's are true Christians?
[/color][/quote] Blessings, Ann
|
|
|
Post by HomeAtLast on Mar 11, 2004 10:31:23 GMT -5
marysia, I have always been taught that Satan was very clever, but if he can not even teach us what gene claims he is trying to teach us (if he were to be the RCC, that is) he must not be very clever. Blessings, Ann Always remember, you can't be held accountable for that which you have no knowledge of, so Satan sees to it that the truth is available to anyone who seeks it. You have God's word. If you don't seek truth instead of confirmation for preconceived notions, you have no excuse and can be held accountable. Satan is the master deceiver.
[/color][/quote] gene, I actually agree with (( can't believe it!). Anyway, I do not think that Satan would lead people to God and leave them there. That is what the RCC does. They profess that Jesus is our saviour and that Satan is evil. I see Satan in the world telling people that they can be God, that Jesus did not really die on the cross. That he escaped and did not ascend to His Father but went to France and had kids. I see him telling people that they are gods. The RCC does none of these things. If you would actually look at the RCC and what it teaches without YOUR preconceived notions you would see that. You refuse to see what the teachings of the RCC are and you continue to condemn something you know nothing about. Blessings, Ann
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Mar 11, 2004 11:30:32 GMT -5
gene, Depends on if you believe that Jesus is the savior, depends on many things like how you live your life. I do not know your heart, only God does. According to the RCC (which has been posted in the past many times by myself, marysia and Realist the ACTUAL teachings of the RCC has been posted). If you read the ACTUAK words that are there (without adding to it or preconcieving what it says) you will see for yourself. Blessings, Ann One more time. I posted the words from the first vatican council. You posted words from a current catechisim. They are opposed. The meanings of what was said isn't being manipulated so which one is correct ?[/color]
|
|
|
Post by HomeAtLast on Mar 11, 2004 12:46:55 GMT -5
gene, Depends on if you believe that Jesus is the savior, depends on many things like how you live your life. I do not know your heart, only God does. According to the RCC (which has been posted in the past many times by myself, marysia and Realist the ACTUAL teachings of the RCC has been posted). If you read the ACTUAK words that are there (without adding to it or preconcieving what it says) you will see for yourself. Blessings, Ann One more time. I posted the words from the first vatican council. You posted words from a current catechisim. They are opposed. The meanings of what was said isn't being manipulated so which one is correct ?[/color][/quote] gene, That is the point. Vatican II is in effect, not Vatican I. Get it?!!!?? Blessings, Ann
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Mar 11, 2004 20:04:23 GMT -5
As you have said many times before, yourself, If you start on a bad premise the whole argument will be wrong. The Title of the cathechism means that it is the beliefs and doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. In the paragraph it is stating the beliefs of the RCC. But, that does not mean that it only refers to Roman Catholic people in it. It only means it is their beliefs about nonRCC people in that certain paragraph of the catechism. If they remembered to put it in the title, why would they forget to put it in the text, as are seeming to claim? Blessings, Ann so that the Church of Christ may be one flock under one supreme pastor through the preservation of unity both of communion and of profession of the same faith with the Roman Pontiff. This is the teaching of Catholic truth, from which no one can deviate without loss of faith and salvation." [/b](session 4, chapter 3) Ann. Are you just in denial? Reread the last portion that is underlined in red. That is very plain to me and I don't see why you're having such a hard time accepting what it says. There is no room for any other denomination as you say, and would like to believe. It states no one can deviate. No one means no one, not some of other denominations. This is just like wanting "death" to mean "life somewhere else", instead of just the "absence of life" which is what death is. [/color][/quote] Here's a link to the entire Vatican 1 council document: www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM#4Here is the actual quote from Session 4:Chapter 3: The footnote reference a line of Scripture: John 10:18 - And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Mar 12, 2004 6:35:06 GMT -5
gene, That is the point. Vatican II is in effect, not Vatican I. Get it?!!!?? Blessings, Ann So, which one is or was correct? You wish to see a difference where there is none. Where are the admissions of error in Vat 1 if you're claiming a difference? What about, " has not erred nor will it ever err"? You refuse to answerr the hard questions Ann, and it's obvious why you don't. You'd have to admit error by the Rcc.
[/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Mar 12, 2004 6:40:12 GMT -5
Here's a link to the entire Vatican 1 council document: www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM#4Here is the actual quote from Session 4:Chapter 3: The footnote reference a line of Scripture: John 10:18 - And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.Rome speaks out of both sides of it's mouth and you wish to believe it doesn't. If you can't be honest enough to admit what is in black and white, what's the use? Are you just here making excuses or are you really so blind that you cannot recognize facts?[/color]
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Mar 12, 2004 6:50:09 GMT -5
Here's a link to the entire Vatican 1 council document: www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM#4Here is the actual quote from Session 4:Chapter 3: The footnote reference a line of Scripture: John 10:18 - And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.Rome speaks out of both sides of it's mouth and you wish to believe it doesn't. If you can't be honest enough to admit what is in black and white, what's the use? Are you just here making excuses or are you really so blind that you cannot recognize facts?[/color][/quote] So you disagree with this line from Scripture? As far as "black and white", I do post exactly what was written, not what I'd like to be seen written.
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Mar 12, 2004 7:17:57 GMT -5
So you disagree with this line from Scripture? As far as "black and white", I do post exactly what was written, not what I'd like to be seen written. No, I don't, but where is there a mention of a papacy in the scripture? Where is there a mention of a Rcc? Where does the last sentence of your quote fit in with the scripture?
Adding a word of truth doesn't make all of the error before it, valid. I've never said only SDA's are heaven bound or that anyone who believes differently than we do are doomed. I do present what God says on subjects debated here and let the readers draw their own conclusions from what I write. For instance. Revelation 12:17 says that there will be a remnant of God's people at the end and that remnant will be those who keep God's commandments.
These are God's words and what He says qualifies as His remnant, not mine.
The issue is God's commandments. It is a known fact that the Rcc has attempted to change the sabbath commandment to the Sunday. The Rcc brags that they've done this without any biblical command from God to do so. The claim is that they have the authority to change God's commandments.
Now to get back to Rev. 12:17, The commandment of God is that the sabbath is the 7th day of the week, not the first, and your Rcc acknowledges this, so the Rcc proclaims that the Sunday is a new sabbath day by their authority alone. The only problem is that the sunday is not the commandment of God.
What conclusion do you draw as to who the "remnant" is according to the commandment?
[/color]
|
|
|
Post by HomeAtLast on Mar 12, 2004 9:30:13 GMT -5
gene, That is the point. Vatican II is in effect, not Vatican I. Get it?!!!?? Blessings, Ann So, which one is or was correct? You wish to see a difference where there is none. Where are the admissions of error in Vat 1 if you're claiming a difference? What about, " has not erred nor will it ever err"? You refuse to answerr the hard questions Ann, and it's obvious why you don't. You'd have to admit error by the Rcc.
[/color][/quote] I geuss you only read what you want to since I did just answer your question and you still ask it. Where are the admissions of the SDA being wrong, btw? or did they just come up with new ones? I feel very sorry for you and pray for you. Blessings, Ann
|
|