|
Post by Traffic Demon on Jul 20, 2004 11:44:43 GMT -5
HomeAtLast - "I call Jesus my Saviour, not; bread, my saviour."
One time my roommate left a ham sandwich in the fridge for so long that it sprouted legs, so I called it Bob.
--BDT Go too far
|
|
|
Post by HomeAtLast on Jul 20, 2004 21:56:42 GMT -5
HomeAtLast - "I call Jesus my Saviour, not; bread, my saviour."One time my roommate left a ham sandwich in the fridge for so long that it sprouted legs, so I called it Bob. --BDT Go too far LOLOL Traffic!!!! Now that IS scary!!!! Blessings and thanx for the smile, Ann
|
|
|
Post by HomeAtLast on Jul 20, 2004 22:00:13 GMT -5
Congratulations, LauraJean!!! You now have a firm grasp of SDA doctrine. Sorry, but you don't have a clue to SDA theology or the truth of the scriptures. [/color][/quote] gene, No offense, but as many times as you have explained your interpretation of scripture pkmtyolpages I still do not understand the SDA theology. Do not say that is because I am refusing to, because I have actually tried and I think that you know that I have and I am obviously not the only one. Blessings, Ann
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Jul 21, 2004 6:18:07 GMT -5
gene, No offense, but as many times as you have explained your interpretation of scripture pkmtyolpages I still do not understand the SDA theology. Do not say that is because I am refusing to, because I have actually tried and I think that you know that I have and I am obviously not the only one. Blessings, Ann Ann, I don't supply a lot of detail with my posts, but they are true. The "little horn" proof has been posted before along with web sites that give much more detail =on this matter. You've refused to look for the truth because you believe you already have the truth, even after many of your beliefs have been refuted. There are things your Rcc has taught as truth that you refuse to see because those teachings aren't in your "catechisim" even though they were taught for centuries. Just because your church leaders change some teachings without admitting others were wrong so the air of "infallibility" wouldn'tr have to be admitted is a falacy, is why you refuse to see where the Rcc taught error in the past. The truth is that the Rcc still teaches error and that's what you accept. Maybe that's why you don't seem to be able to understand what I write. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by HomeAtLast on Jul 21, 2004 10:24:57 GMT -5
gene, No offense, but as many times as you have explained your interpretation of scripture pkmtyolpages I still do not understand the SDA theology. Do not say that is because I am refusing to, because I have actually tried and I think that you know that I have and I am obviously not the only one. Blessings, Ann Ann, I don't supply a lot of detail with my posts, but they are true. The "little horn" proof has been posted before along with web sites that give much more detail =on this matter. You've refused to look for the truth because you believe you already have the truth, even after many of your beliefs have been refuted. There are things your Rcc has taught as truth that you refuse to see because those teachings aren't in your "catechisim" even though they were taught for centuries. Just because your church leaders change some teachings without admitting others were wrong so the air of "infallibility" wouldn'tr have to be admitted is a falacy, is why you refuse to see where the Rcc taught error in the past. The truth is that the Rcc still teaches error and that's what you accept. Maybe that's why you don't seem to be able to understand what I write. [/color][/quote] gene, No, I read the Bible and read Jesus' and the Apostle's words. I have read the websites you have referred me to with an open mind and do not see a connection between the Bible teachings and your interpretations. You say that I do not look at your "proof" (when I have) yet refuse to learn what the RCC really teaches (sites that we have referred you to) and you continue to rely on the misconceptions you have heard from non-Catholics and reject what we have actually been taught by the RCC. Blessings, Ann
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Jul 21, 2004 11:02:07 GMT -5
gene, No, I read the Bible and read Jesus' and the Apostle's words. I have read the websites you have referred me to with an open mind and do not see a connection between the Bible teachings and your interpretations. You never will either. You still deny the sabbath as the 7th day for Christians to observe according to the commandment because your "church" leaders give you an acceptable reason to deny it and do as they say.
You have never read from the bible or Jesus or any apostle where the sabbath has been changed to the Sunday, yet that's what you profess. It's obvious that your mind isn't open to the scriptures and can only see what your leadership tells you. [/color] You say that I do not look at your "proof" (when I have) yet refuse to learn what the RCC really teaches (sites that we have referred you to) and you continue to rely on the misconceptions you have heard from non-Catholics and reject what we have actually been taught by the RCC. Blessings, Ann First, I don't talk about the Rcc to non Rc's except here.
Secondly, I have official Rc documents from popes that state things which you deny. Should I believe you or your popes?
You keep saying "catechisim", while you deny other Rc catechisims if the words are not what you wish to hear.
You deny publications that are for priests such as "duties and dignities of the priest" which has many quotes that shows the attitude of the Rcc in the past and which has never been recanted.
Your current pope stated that No one can receive forgivness directly from God and one must go to a priest for forgivness, yet you deny his words here also. Then you will offer what he must have meant, must have said, or I must have left something out or misinterpreted what he said, when he said exactly what I claim.
Sorry, but your mind is not open as you claim, except to what comes from the Rcc leadership, if you agree with those words.
[/color]
|
|
|
Post by HomeAtLast on Jul 21, 2004 16:08:01 GMT -5
gene, No, I read the Bible and read Jesus' and the Apostle's words. I have read the websites you have referred me to with an open mind and do not see a connection between the Bible teachings and your interpretations. You never will either. You still deny the sabbath as the 7th day for Christians to observe according to the commandment because your "church" leaders give you an acceptable reason to deny it and do as they say.
You have never read from the bible or Jesus or any apostle where the sabbath has been changed to the Sunday, yet that's what you profess. It's obvious that your mind isn't open to the scriptures and can only see what your leadership tells you. [/color] You say that I do not look at your "proof" (when I have) yet refuse to learn what the RCC really teaches (sites that we have referred you to) and you continue to rely on the misconceptions you have heard from non-Catholics and reject what we have actually been taught by the RCC. Blessings, Ann First, I don't talk about the Rcc to non Rc's except here.
Secondly, I have official Rc documents from popes that state things which you deny. Should I believe you or your popes?
You keep saying "catechisim", while you deny other Rc catechisims if the words are not what you wish to hear.
You deny publications that are for priests such as "duties and dignities of the priest" which has many quotes that shows the attitude of the Rcc in the past and which has never been recanted.
Your current pope stated that No one can receive forgivness directly from God and one must go to a priest for forgivness, yet you deny his words here also. Then you will offer what he must have meant, must have said, or I must have left something out or misinterpreted what he said, when he said exactly what I claim.
Sorry, but your mind is not open as you claim, except to what comes from the Rcc leadership, if you agree with those words.
[/color][/quote] LOL gene, You have stated on a number of occasions that you refuse to read the catechism!!! BTW, there is only one catechism, so I do no know what you mean by there being more than one catechism. So your statement about denying other catechisms does not make sense. The statement about forgiveness has been explained many times, yet you refuse to see it. Your judgments about catholics are just your perception of what you see, which is the only way you can judge since your refuse to actually learn the truth of what the RCC teaches. Repeating misconception over and over again does not make them truth. Blessings, Ann
|
|
|
Post by PhilipDC78 on Jul 21, 2004 18:12:42 GMT -5
LOL gene, You have stated on a number of occasions that you refuse to read the catechism!!! BTW, there is only one catechism, so I do no know what you mean by there being more than one catechism. So your statement about denying other catechisms does not make sense. The statement about forgiveness has been explained many times, yet you refuse to see it. Your judgments about catholics are just your perception of what you see, which is the only way you can judge since your refuse to actually learn the truth of what the RCC teaches. Repeating misconception over and over again does not make them truth. Blessings, Ann Why even bother going over this again and again? Genesda and Protestant have both proven that they do not have the truth of God in them.
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Jul 22, 2004 7:08:41 GMT -5
LOL gene, You have stated on a number of occasions that you refuse to read the catechism!!! BTW, there is only one catechism, so I do no know what you mean by there being more than one catechism. So your statement about denying other catechisms does not make sense. The statement about forgiveness has been explained many times, yet you refuse to see it. Your judgments about catholics are just your perception of what you see, which is the only way you can judge since your refuse to actually learn the truth of what the RCC teaches. Repeating misconception over and over again does not make them truth. Blessings, Ann The Baltimore catechisim states quite clearly that the sabbath was changed to the Sunday by the Rcc and not any teaching from scripture, but you deny that fact in order to hang onto some "new" teachings by your church today. Who's really in denial? [/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Jul 22, 2004 7:10:00 GMT -5
Why even bother going over this again and again? Genesda and Protestant have both proven that they do not have the truth of God in them. What you really mean is that we refuse to accept man's traditions over the scriptures and that is what upsets you. The truth is a sharp sword and it cuts you deeply, but you still resist. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by AuntRonda on Jul 22, 2004 8:40:59 GMT -5
Why even bother going over this again and again? Genesda and Protestant have both proven that they do not have the truth of God in them. What you really mean is that we refuse to accept man's traditions over the scriptures and that is what upsets you. The truth is a sharp sword and it cuts you deeply, but you still resist. [/color][/quote] No, what he means is you're blinded by the lies of SDA. The ramblings of a woman who suffered a head injury. Ronda
|
|
|
Post by PhilipDC78 on Jul 22, 2004 9:25:06 GMT -5
No, what he means is you're blinded by the lies of SDA. The ramblings of a woman who suffered a head injury. Ronda Ronda, Would you please stop using that argument that she had a head injury. You don't agree with them, and neither do I, but stating this even though you don't know if it affected anything that she did is just stooping down to a level that you don't want to go to. How about just state that they believe in the teachings of a woman which contradicted the Bible? That is enough there.
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Jul 22, 2004 9:25:49 GMT -5
No, what he means is you're blinded by the lies of SDA. The ramblings of a woman who suffered a head injury. Ronda Since I don't quote E. White, I don't understand what her name has to do with this and what lies are you referring to?
I believe it is you who is blinded by lies. How else would someone claim changes were made to God's commandments without any teaching from the bible at all on the subject. Someone lied to you and you profess those same lies. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Jul 22, 2004 9:39:51 GMT -5
Ronda, Would you please stop using that argument that she had a head injury. You don't agree with them, and neither do I, but stating this even though you don't know if it affected anything that she did is just stooping down to a level that you don't want to go to. How about just state that they believe in the teachings of a woman which contradicted the Bible? That is enough there. Thank you. The problems come in when misunderstandings of the biblical teachings come into view.
I really hate to keep coming back to the same example, but I will because it's the easiest to see. God wrote the commandments on stone tablets HIMSELF. He didn't instruct Moses to do so because it was important enough that God wanted to show an example of how they were to be eternal.
Man came along under the influence of Satan and attempted to make changes and some accept the changes as truth. The fact is that there have been no changes to the commandments especially the sabbath command. God said the very first 7th day of the very first week of time was HIS holy day and commanded all mankind to keep it holy. Some believe there was no sabbath command because it wasn't commanded in Genesis, but many things weren't written until Sinai and that doesn't mean they weren't in effect. There was no inkling of a change before Jesus was crucified when He sealed the covenant with His blood, so there can't be any changes afterwards, but it was afterwards that many claim the change was made. This is nothing more than a manmade tradition and has nothing to do with God's word. Since you claim there is a change, it is up to you to show such a change. Otherwise, you are the one believing a false teaching, not I. Many people see contradictions in E. White's writings. I won't waste my time defending her because what I believe comes from the scriptures, not her writings. Many people also believe there are contradictions in the bible too, but upon proper study, the contradictions are in the mind of the one who lacks understanding of the scriptures because there are no contradictions that come from God, and the bible is God's word to man.
[/color]
|
|
|
Post by Protestant on Jul 22, 2004 15:36:35 GMT -5
Ronda, Because if she did she'd be lying. How many times must you truth haters be told that no SDA doctrine comes from EGW.
|
|