|
Post by RealistState on Mar 12, 2004 21:03:46 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?[/color][/quote] So it's the word papacy that gives you heartburn, not that Jesus expressed His desire for one shepard. Where is there a mention of a Rcc? [/color][/quote] Where is there a a mention of SDA? Where does the last sentence of your quote fit in with the scripture? [/color][/quote] Exactly what it says. That the Church must teach the truth even to those who do not accept it. 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. [/color][/quote] However, you do beleive that anyone who follows pagan/satanic practices such as worshipping on Sunday 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. [/color][/quote] Actually you present God's word as defined by SDA doctrine. And the SDA, in your opinion, is the remnant church mentioned in Scripture. 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. [/color][/quote] Of course you've presented these "claims" many times on this board. Unfortunately, as has also been shown many times, the the misquotes, mischaracterization, and out right fabrications. 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][/quote] Of couse this would make it awfully conveient to say that only the SDA is right, and everyone else will be doomed. I'm afraid you're way off on this. It is certainly not God's plan.
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Mar 15, 2004 7:17:18 GMT -5
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 Wrong concerning what? Are you talking about the Millerite predictions in 1843 and 44? Are you talking about discovering the sabbath again? There is no shame in admitting error. Mistakes were made by the early church. They have been admitted and changed to the biblical facts in matters. It is shameful to remain in error though.
Why feel sorry for me? I don't accept the Rcc doctrines. The SDA church is on soild biblical rock and I make no excuses for what we believe, of which none has been shown to be in error according to the scriptures.
[/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Mar 15, 2004 7:28:07 GMT -5
So it's the word papacy that gives you heartburn, not that Jesus expressed His desire for one shepard. Not at all. It's the whole false concept of the Rcc. [/color] Where is there a a mention of SDA? we claim no scriptural authority for being the "only true church" as rome does, so this question is really an excuse for something else. [/color] Exactly what it says. That the Church must teach the truth even to those who do not accept it. Right, and then burn them at the stake if they reject it, right? [/color] However, you do beleive that anyone who follows pagan/satanic practices such as worshipping on Sunday are doomed. Sunday worship is not pagan at all. Christians should worship everyday. Replacing the sabbath day with the Sunday is a pagan practice. It is up to God to judge those who reject His word, not me. [/color] Actually you present God's word as defined by SDA doctrine. And the SDA, in your opinion, is the remnant church mentioned in Scripture. I never present God's word according to the SDA church. When I present God's word, it is as He gave it to us.[/color] Of course you've presented these "claims" many times on this board. Unfortunately, as has also been shown many times, the the misquotes, mischaracterization, and out right fabrications. More excuses to hide the fact that you follow a false church. [/color] Of couse this would make it awfully conveient to say that only the SDA is right, and everyone else will be doomed. I'm afraid you're way off on this. It is certainly not God's plan. I've never said that. I've always maintained that God judges the heart, not me. If the verifiable truth is presented and rejected, then God is the judge. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by HomeAtLast on Mar 15, 2004 10:57:10 GMT -5
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 Wrong concerning what? Are you talking about the Millerite predictions in 1843 and 44? Are you talking about discovering the sabbath again? There is no shame in admitting error. Mistakes were made by the early church. They have been admitted and changed to the biblical facts in matters. It is shameful to remain in error though.
Why feel sorry for me? I don't accept the Rcc doctrines. The SDA church is on soild biblical rock and I make no excuses for what we believe, of which none has been shown to be in error according to the scriptures.
[/color][/quote] gene, The admissions of all of the dates that it was predicted that Jesus would return is what I was referring to. Has the SDA church put out a statement stating that they were in error or did they just say, oops meant a different date? No, gene, I feel sorry for your intolerance of people who do not agree with you and your solidly closed mind to opinions that do not agree with yours. Blessings, Ann
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Mar 16, 2004 5:50:10 GMT -5
gene, The admissions of all of the dates that it was predicted that Jesus would return is what I was referring to. Has the SDA church put out a statement stating that they were in error or did they just say, oops meant a different date? What do you mean by "all of the dates"? I'm only aware of two dates that Miller set, and the event was wrong, not the prophetical date. There was an event that started in 1844, but it wasn't the return of Jesus. [/color] No, gene, I feel sorry for your intolerance of people who do not agree with you and your solidly closed mind to opinions that do not agree with yours. Blessings, Ann Should I compromise with that which I know is wrong? Should I allow erro0r to mix with the truth as your Rcc did for centuries, in the name of "tolerance"? What would that make me, Ann?
A better question is, why won't you accept the bible over the Rcc instead of the other way around? [/color]
|
|
|
Post by HomeAtLast on Mar 16, 2004 12:14:07 GMT -5
gene, The admissions of all of the dates that it was predicted that Jesus would return is what I was referring to. Has the SDA church put out a statement stating that they were in error or did they just say, oops meant a different date? What do you mean by "all of the dates"? I'm only aware of two dates that Miller set, and the event was wrong, not the prophetical date. There was an event that started in 1844, but it wasn't the return of Jesus. [/color] No, gene, I feel sorry for your intolerance of people who do not agree with you and your solidly closed mind to opinions that do not agree with yours. Blessings, Ann Should I compromise with that which I know is wrong? Should I allow erro0r to mix with the truth as your Rcc did for centuries, in the name of "tolerance"? What would that make me, Ann?
A better question is, why won't you accept the bible over the Rcc instead of the other way around? [/color][/quote] gene, I have seen many other dates listed, but the point is has there been a statement refuting past mistakes? So you think that you should close your mind to all of God's other children if they do not agree with you? Blessings, Ann
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Mar 16, 2004 20:52:13 GMT -5
So it's the word papacy that gives you heartburn, not that Jesus expressed His desire for one shepard. Not at all. It's the whole false concept of the Rcc. [/color][/quote] It's the concept of One flock and One shephard that you have issue with? Perhaps you have different thoughts on what Our Lord meant with this 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. Where is there a a mention of SDA? we claim no scriptural authority for being the "only true church" as rome does, so this question is really an excuse for something else. [/color][/quote] No, but you do claim to be only one's who really know the truth. Exactly what it says. That the Church must teach the truth even to those who do not accept it. Right, and then burn them at the stake if they reject it, right? [/color][/quote] Of course that has not happened in a very long time, now we just try to "kill them" with love, compkmtyolpion and forgiveness. However, you do beleive that anyone who follows pagan/satanic practices such as worshipping on Sunday are doomed. Sunday worship is not pagan at all. Christians should worship everyday. Replacing the sabbath day with the Sunday is a pagan practice. It is up to God to judge those who reject His word, not me. [/color] What happens to those who do not worship on Saturday? Actually you present God's word as defined by SDA doctrine. And the SDA, in your opinion, is the remnant church mentioned in Scripture. I never present God's word according to the SDA church. When I present God's word, it is as He gave it to us.[/color][/quote] Yes, He gave it to ALL of us. It seems to be only the SDA church that seems to interprept the Word to be exclusionary now. (BTW, the operative word in my last sentence is now ) Of course you've presented these "claims" many times on this board. Unfortunately, as has also been shown many times, the the misquotes, mischaracterization, and out right fabrications. More excuses to hide the fact that you follow a false church. [/color][/quote] No, I follow the true church (the Body of Christ) as He instituted so long ago. I even follow His commandment to "...love my enemies". And despite our differences, my beliefs allow me to accept you as a Brother in Christ who I will see in the next life. As Jesus said, "there are many rooms in My Fathers house." Of couse this would make it awfully conveient to say that only the SDA is right, and everyone else will be doomed. I'm afraid you're way off on this. It is certainly not God's plan. I've never said that. I've always maintained that God judges the heart, not me. If the verifiable truth is presented and rejected, then God is the judge. [/color][/quote] Yes, but the perception here is that you seem to be very judgemental,
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Mar 17, 2004 6:56:26 GMT -5
gene, I have seen many other dates listed, but the point is has there been a statement refuting past mistakes? How can I refute what I don't know? I asked you for those dates and who set them, but all you say is "Ive' seen many other dates". [/color] So you think that you should close your mind to all of God's other children if they do not agree with you? No Ann, this is what your Rcc did for centuries, and claim they've never "erred". Not only did the Rcc close their minds, but killed those who disagreed with Rome. [/color] Blessings, Ann [/color]
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Mar 17, 2004 7:24:22 GMT -5
No Ann, this is what your Rcc did for centuries, and claim they've never "erred". Not only did the Rcc close their minds, but killed those who disagreed with Rome. [/color] [/color][/quote] So, do also feel the same about the Calvinist? Or how about the Israelites of the Old Testament who "killed' the non believers? Who do you "blame" for the plague? God? Your Inquisition arguement is weak at best and getting tiresome. While the Church has acknowledged the errors in the past associated with the inquisition, no apology is necessary for the false and unhistorical caricature that remains part of the popular consciousness. To paraphrase Lenny Bruce, "OK, I did it. I'm sorry!! I was having a bad day!". So let's move onto to the 21st Century and let's see if we can do the work of God instead of tearing each other down.
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Mar 18, 2004 6:34:57 GMT -5
So, do also feel the same about the Calvinist? Or how about the Israelites of the Old Testament who "killed' the non believers? Who do you "blame" for the plague? God? Your Inquisition arguement is weak at best and getting tiresome. While the Church has acknowledged the errors in the past associated with the inquisition, no apology is necessary for the false and unhistorical caricature that remains part of the popular consciousness. To paraphrase Lenny Bruce, "OK, I did it. I'm sorry!! I was having a bad day!". So let's move onto to the 21st Century and let's see if we can do the work of God instead of tearing each other down. So, you say just accept what happened and move on. Fine, if you wish to hide from the truth. The fact is that Rome didn't say mistakes were made, but upholds the past by saying they're sorry IT WAS NECESSARY. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Mar 18, 2004 22:10:33 GMT -5
So, do also feel the same about the Calvinist? Or how about the Israelites of the Old Testament who "killed' the non believers? Who do you "blame" for the plague? God? Your Inquisition arguement is weak at best and getting tiresome. While the Church has acknowledged the errors in the past associated with the inquisition, no apology is necessary for the false and unhistorical caricature that remains part of the popular consciousness. To paraphrase Lenny Bruce, "OK, I did it. I'm sorry!! I was having a bad day!". So let's move onto to the 21st Century and let's see if we can do the work of God instead of tearing each other down. So, you say just accept what happened and move on. Fine, if you wish to hide from the truth. The fact is that Rome didn't say mistakes were made, but upholds the past by saying they're sorry IT WAS NECESSARY. [/color][/quote] Hide? Not likely! What I don't accept is historical inaccuracies perpetuated by those who have an agenda to support their false doctrines.
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Mar 19, 2004 6:45:33 GMT -5
Hide? Not likely! What I don't accept is historical inaccuracies perpetuated by those who have an agenda to support their false doctrines. Which doctrines would that be? [/color]
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Aug 30, 2004 12:36:51 GMT -5
Somewhere on this thread there was mention of the assumption of Moses. I came across this interesting little article by P. Crisolit:
All legends and speculations about the death of Moses, in Jewish tradition, stem from one text (Deut. 34:6), which says that the Lord buried the great prophet “in the land of Moab.” In order to avoid the anthropomorphism that would make God His servant’s gravedigger, the Septuagint Books have translated “he buried” by “he was buried.” During the first century A.D., Philo, in his biography of Moses, chose a middle course, attributing the act to the angels. Finally, the unknown author of “The Assumption of Moses,” who also wrote during the first years of the Christian era, declared that it was Michael who buried Moses.
The pkmtyolpage concerning the death of Israel’s lawgiver and the argument with the devil has been lost. But citations by several ancient authors permit us to reconstruct the scene.
As Michael was about to carry out the mission he has received from God, the devil tried to stop him. First, the devil argued that this corpse did not deserve any such honor, since it was that of a murderer. For had not Moses killed the Egyptian? And in any case, Moses body belonged to the devil, who is the master of material things. But the archangel reminded the devil that he had been the cause of the fall of Adam and Eve, and hence of all the world’s misfortunes. Michael declared that it was through the Spirit of God that all things were created, and that hence God is the master of all. He closed the argument with the retort transcribed by Jude: “Mat the Lord punish you” (Jude 9)
Let us not forget that this is an apocryphal work. It is not included in the sacred books. But Jude found in it an example that contrasted with that of the false teachers who he was condemning. Whereas that “reviled angelic beings”, the archangel gave proof of great restraint even during an altercation with the prince of demons, leaving judgment of him to God.
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Sept 23, 2005 10:24:57 GMT -5
A guy at another forum came up with this description that I thought was very good.
Human nature comprises two elements: the soul and the body. The soul is pure spirit which is simple (indivisible) and incorruptible. It cannot die. The body is complex and corruptible. It can become sick, die and disintegrate. The soul has intelligence and will.
In its present state, the soul can express its intelligence and will through the body, namely using a pkmtyolm of tissues called the brain. The quality and development of this pkmtyolm of tissues determines the quality of the soul's expression ...
What we call the mind is the combined function of the soul's intelligence with our brain and the intelligent capacities that we have developped through our life.
|
|
|
Post by Shirley on Sept 23, 2005 16:06:41 GMT -5
What an excellent example!
The soul uses the tools at its disposal..in this case, the body and brain, much as a builder's finished product will only be as good as the supplies and tools he/she has..
|
|