By Request: Why the Catholic is NOT the Great Whore of Babylon.

[Gustave]

I am pretty sure Gus is copying some "apologetics" materials. This is why I have questioned him about what his own church teaches about our church. Even they would not *officially* support what he is trying to say here.

Than pick a "phrase" and warm up your Google fingers and find it Overaged....

...I discovered this angle myself and the apologetics are MINE.

...The only place you will find them is on other apologetics sites where I've posted them.

It's really not that difficult - everything I've demonstrated is simply from the Bible....

...Which is why you and others here are having such a hard time answer the question.

OF HOW the pre-Incarnate Christ risked His future eternal existence YET it's impossible for Diety to die!

As far as support I've already got support for my assertions from "my Church".....

...Something you will no doubt realize in the not distant future.

[teresaq]

As far as support I've already got support for my assertions from "my Church".....

...Something you will no doubt realize in the not distant future.

I don't doubt that for a second! I suggest we all get on our knees and pray for wisdom and understanding.

Right now we are on an SDA board. When hauled into court to answer for our beliefs-and it won't just be on the Sabbath-it is going to be a whole different picture.

My own personal view is that if Deity chose to sin it would die because sin kills. Otherwise, "Deity cannot sink and die".

[BobRyan]

Now pay close attention to this next one John....

...It's the terminus of your rebellion.

Ellen White

“Though Christ humbled Himself to become man, the Godhead was still His own. His Deity could not be lost WHILE He stood faithful and true to His loyalty. Surrounded with sorrow, suffering, and moral pollution, despised and rejected by the people to whom had been intrusted the oracles of heaven, Jesus could yet speak of Himself as the Son of man in heaven. He was ready to take once more His divine glory when His work on earth was done'Signs of the Times 10 May 1899

I want you and every other devout Seventh-day Adventist to read that slowly about 20 times....

...And just accept the FACT that someone CAN'T loosing something INTRINSIC to themself!!!

...Dude! Ellen comes right out and said had Christ NOT been faithful He would have LOST His DIETY!

...And had that happened God's dear Son would have ETERNALLY CEASED TO EXIST

Your storytelling may work for fellow Catholics but you will need something like actual facts if you want it to fly here.

1. James 1:13 - "God cannot be tempted" -- Matt 4 Jesus was "tempted" by Satan.

Your problem is that you entirely ignore the Phil 2 text that Christ was "in the very form of God" prior to the incarnation but at the incarnation "he emptied himself...being found in the very form of man".

You overlook the scripture as your anchor and source of doctrine and thus you miss key points.

2. In the quote you gave from Ellen White there was no "cease to exist" -- for that language we would need to quote "you" and it is clear that in that case you are only quoting "your imagination" - which may work just fine inside Catholic circles - but would not fly so well here.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Bob, "private doctrine" means exactly that - it's not De fide.....

...And provided the "private interpretation" does not violate something De fide.

...An individual is perfectly within their Christian freedom to believe it.

Perhaps prior to trying to harvest a truckload of straw on the video you posted....

...You would be better served to admit that your prophet Ellen also affirmed that E.T.'s exist.

...And said she communicated with them and they with her.

1. We do not object to individuals having their own POV - I simply point out where the RCC defrocks a priest for having a view that differs with the Pope. Then I point out that a well known member of the Curia as well as the official Vatican Astronomer (head of that group) have come out making statements in recent years that are not disavowed and that are unnusual for senior Vatican officials - going before the press and making statements on that subject.

2. You are right that Ellen White and SDAs in general all believe that God created other worlds and that sinless beings live there. You are also correct to say that Ellen White claimed to have been taken to several of those planets in vision and to have spoken with the people who lived there. And you are correct to conclude that they are more advanced than we are.

What you are missing is that SDAs are unified in stating that just as ghosts are either a case of fakes or of demons depending on the circumstance - so also the UFO storytelling is either fake or demons depending on the circumstance.

We do not say that about the alien-UFO stuff because we do not believe in live on other planets - but rather we say it because we do believe that such life is sinless, has remote access to view events on earth as both the Bible and Ellen White state without hopping in a spaceship to have a look-see, and that this world is currently the domain of the Devil as "The god of this world" 2Cor 4:4 - so they are not about to step foot out here.

Paul said in Eph 3:10 that intelligences in the heavenly realm view the Gospel through the Church on earth - as being "displayed" before them. They can see us just fine from where they are.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

All this difficulty with the SDA rejection of the Creed can be boiled down to a simple fact...

...And that's SDA's don't view Christ as Diety in and of Himself.

several posts back ( in the creed thread )I quoted your prophet Ellen White - where she explicitly said....

...That God risked loosing His Son ETERNALLY and that this risk was realized PRIOR to Christ coming to earth ( Incarnation ).

...If Christ - PRIOR to Incarnation - risked His "FUTURE" eternal existence by accepting the 'assignment' to try and save humanity.

...That means had Christ failed "HE" ( Christ ) would CEASE TO EXIST from the point of failure into ETERNITY.

[Gustave]

I don't doubt that for a second! I suggest we all get on our knees and pray for wisdom and understanding.

Right now we are on an SDA board. When hauled into court to answer for our beliefs-and it won't just be on the Sabbath-it is going to be a whole different picture.

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: Bobryan

My own personal view is that if Deity chose to sin it would die because sin kills. Otherwise, "Deity cannot sink and die".

Zeph 3:5

The just LORD is in the midst thereof; he will NOT do iniquity.

UNLESS DIETY CHOOSES TO DO INIQUITY???

Also,

Zeph 3:5

he faileth not;...

...Unless DIETY chooses to do iniquity then Diety Fails, Dies and ceases to exist.

I think you need a new personal view.

hehe - that is pretty funny!

I think you need a better "quote finder" because I never said that.

In any case your answer to whoever posted that point is wrong because once again you fail to allow for the scripture of Phil 2 and Hebrews 5 to actually be true.

I think it goes something like this --

Phil 2

6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

While we are at it - let's include a little something from the book of Hebrews

Heb 57 In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His piety.

8 Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered.

Heb 4

14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.

15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.

That is the easy part of the discussion.

next --

in Christ,

Bob

[Overaged]

As far as support I've already got support for my assertions from "my Church".....

...Something you will no doubt realize in the not distant future.

Maybe you could explain this a little further?

[Overaged]

1. James 1:13 - "God cannot be tempted" -- Matt 4 Jesus was "tempted" by Satan.

Bob

Indeed; and Who was it that led Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted?

[BobRyan]

James 1:

13 Let no one say when he is tempted, "" I am being tempted by God''; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.

14 But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.

15 Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.

16 Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren.

And Matt 4 we have the fact that Jesus "was tempted by the devil" in the Wilderness

This can be so since in the incarnation - Christ voluntarily lays aside His God privileges to live and suffer as man. Thus "the temptation" in Matt 4 is to take up that God mantle by turning a rock into bread.

Phil 2

6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

While we are at it - let's include a little something from the book of Hebrews

Heb 5:

7 In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His piety.

8 Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered.

Heb 4

14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.

15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.

And I've been through both of those Scriptures enough you shouldn't even ask about them.....

...Here you go again.

James 1 states that God cannot be tempted with evil and clearly describes what that means....

...That Scripture says that there is NOTHING in God that responds to or generates an URGE.

...Whereas it could be said God resisted His own urge to participate in sin.

Verse 14

But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

God can't be tempted BUT man CAN...

...That's exactly what that text says.

[BobRyan]

2. You are right that Ellen White and SDAs in general all believe that God created other worlds and that sinless beings live there. You are also correct to say that Ellen White claimed to have been taken to several of those planets in vision and to have spoken with the people who lived there. And you are correct to conclude that they are more advanced than we are.

[BobRyan]

There is not even one "cease to exist" statement in our 28 fundamental beliefs or in the published works of Ellen White when it comes to the future of Christ.

For that argument we only have you for a source. And while that may work just fine inside Catholic circles - we would not expect it to be that compelling here. Surely you can see that.

[Overaged]

What kind of strategy is that??

Gus will tell us soon

[BobRyan]

There is not one "Christ's divinity on loan" statement in our 28 Fundamental beliefs NOR is there one such statement in the published works of Ellen White.

For that argument we only have you for a source. And while that may work just fine inside Catholic circles - we would not expect it to be that compelling here. Surely you can see that.

[Gustave]

hehe - that is pretty funny!

I think you need a better "quote finder" because I never said that.

In any case your answer to whoever posted that point is wrong because once again you fail to allow for the scripture of Phil 2 and Hebrews 5 to actually be true.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

What she said was that "in Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived." DA 530. It's a statement that no anti-Trinitarian would utter with understanding.

Since Christ's life is original with Himself, and since His life is not derived from anyone outside of Himself-- including the Father-- it is absolutely impossible for the life of the pre-existent Christ to have come from the Father.

If this wasn't so serious - what you just said would be laughable John...

...Would you PLEASE deal with this direct question?

You just said Christ is "DIETY" in and of Himself....

...And you already KNOW Ellen explicitly said it was IMPOSSIBLE for Diety to die.

...Why did Ellen spend so much of her time gloating that Christ could have forever died, cease to exist, etc?

First of all, Ellen White is not "gloating."

Second, Col. 2: 9 does tell us that Christ is the fullness of the Godhead.

Do you honestly believe that Deity can die? The Bible doesn't teach that Deity died.

Humanity can die, of course, but not Deity. Why? Because by definition Deity is not subject to death. God cannot will Himself into non-existence.

But Jesus Christ, unlike the pre-existent Christ, was both God and man. Humanity died but Deity did not. If you believe the Bible teaches that the divine nature of Christ died, or ceased to exist, please quote the verse. This idea is contradicted by Col. 2: 9; 1: 17; and Hebrews 1: 3. Even during His death, the divine nature and power of Christ continued to uphold the universe. Christ, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, raised Himself out of the grave. John 2:19, 21.

[Overaged]

What would be some Bible texts that we could mention to Gus to show what we are talking about re Christ having BOTH natures? I would actually be interested to go over those again myself.

[BobRyan]

hehe - that is pretty funny!

I think you need a better "quote finder" because I never said that.

In any case your answer to whoever posted that point is wrong because once again you fail to allow for the scripture of Phil 2 and Hebrews 5 to actually be true.

[BobRyan]

I think it goes something like this --

Phil 2

6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: Adventist Review and Herald, April 17, 1883

... They hold to the distinct personality of the Father and Son, *rejecting as absurd that feature of Trinitarianisna which insists that God, and Christ, and the Holy Spirit are three persons, and yet but one person. S. D Adventists hold that God and Christ are one in the sense that Christ prayed that his disciples might be one *; i. e.,* one in spirit, purpose, and labor*. See " Fundamental Principles of S. D.Adventists," published at this Office. Price, 4 cts.

You still have not responded as to how you see the bolded part possible...unless I overlooked your response. In which case would you respond to this again.

Thank you. :)

[teresaq]

Hi Qinael,

this is absolutely amazing and worth keeping!! Thank you so much for your tact which is a great example and encouragement to me!

Hi Gus,

Thanks for agreeing to start this topic. I was the one who requested it, incidentally.

This list is a little bit different from the one I originally saw you post (and a bit longer), but I think most of the content is the same. I'm going to try and streamline your points, and let me know if I leave any out or misconstrue your meanings.

1. "And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:" (Revelation 17:4)

Your view on this is that because the Jewish liturgical robes contain these colors, therefore it applies to Judaism, and Jerusalem as the city representative of that. While I concede that these colors do make up a portion of certain Jewish vestments, it also is true that these colors appear prominently in Catholic vestments as well. While identifying Jerusalem as having "pearls, precious stones, and a golden cup" is questionable, I can consider this to be a "non-distinct" portion - that is, it is possible to apply this passage to either Jerusalam or Rome with no damage to the text.

So, moving on to the next:

2. "And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration." (Rev. 17:6)

Much like the last, this could very well be applied to either city. It is undeniable that Jerusalem persecuted the apostles and saints. It is likewise undeniable that Rome did the same, and was in fact the greatest persecutor of Christians in the early ages. Nero and Diocletian are names we both should be familiar with, whether you would consider the persecutions during the dark ages to be counted under this tally or not.

While Jerusalem did persecute, it never did such to the extent of Rome. Nonetheless, persecution did happen in Jerusalem, and one might well say Jerusalem was "drunk" on that blood as they did indeed slay many over the years. Much like the last, then, I consider this a "non-distinct" passage - it can be applied to Jeruslam as well as Rome. Neither is ruled out entirely.

3. "And here [is] the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth." (Revelation 17:9)

Now, you have pointed out that Jerusalem has seven hills. Rome is known commonly as the city of seven hills. Again, you've presented a valid consideration for Jerusalem being the city. Again, it is not exclusive to either Jerusalem or Rome. So again we are at the position of a possible case for Jerusalem and Rome equally. We must then continue.

4. "And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth." (Rev. 17:18)

This is where you begin to lose me. You seem to be saying that Jerusalem is "the great city that reigneth over the kings of the earth" because God promised them in the Old Testament that if they were faithful, they would reign and not be reigned over.

But that wasn't the case, was it? In fact, Jerusalem reigned over no one at the time of the Apocalypse being written. The author, John, was banished to Patmos by a Roman ruler, not a Jewish one. One of the most persistent narratives of the Gospels is the fact that Rome ruled over Jerusalem to the point that the Jews required Roman permission and soldiers to crucify Christ. The very reasoning for this action was "If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation." (John 11:14)

To say that Jerusalem was "the great city that reigneth over the kings of the earth" at the time of John, or any subsequent time, is absurd. On this point, I cannot follow you, and interestingly, this is the most plain part of the passage for identifying the woman.

5. "And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast...And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire." (Rev. 17:12-16)

This was not quoted in your post, but I feel the need to insert it. What ten kings received power with the beast? What was the beast that Jerusalem was riding in your view? And finally, what ten kings made war with Jerusalem?

While I am interested in seeing if you have an application of this to Jerusalem, one certainly exists for Rome, in the eventual ten divisions of the Gothic tribes that made war with the Roman Empire for centuries.

6. "The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son." (1 Peter 5:13)

It appears that you are saying that Peter was in Jerusalem for the authoring of this epistle, because he was in Jerusalem at one point. Here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on St. Peter has to say on the matter:

Originally Posted By: Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 11; "St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles"

St. Peter's First Epistle was written almost undoubtedly from Rome, since the salutation at the end reads: "The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark" (5:13). Babylon must here be identified with the Roman capital; since Babylon on the Euphrates, which lay in ruins, or New Babylon (Seleucia) on the Tigris, or the Egyptian Babylon near Memphis, or Jerusalem cannot be meant, the reference must be to Rome, the only city which is called Babylon elsewhere in ancient Christian literature (Revelation 17:5; 18:10; "Oracula Sibyl.", V, verses 143 and 159, ed. Geffcken, Leipzig, 1902, 111).

I don't feel the need to add any additional scholarship to that cited, though I find it interesting that the book in question considers some of the passages you are applying to Jerusalem (viz. Revelation 17:5, 18:10) to be early Christian references to Rome.

At the present, then here is where I am:

I believe you've made some interesting cases for Jerusalem as a fulfillment of a few of the passages describing Babylon. I do not see where you've attempted to show it could not be Rome, but at best presented Jerusalem as a viable candidate along with Rome. On further examination, it appears Jerusalem does not fulfill all criteria, while Rome does, and Catholic historical sources seem to agree on this point.

What are your thoughts on this?

[Gustave]

First of all, Ellen White is not "gloating."

Second, Col. 2: 9 does tell us that Christ is the fullness of the Godhead.

Do you honestly believe that Deity can die? The Bible doesn't teach that Deity died.

Humanity can die, of course, but not Deity. Why? Because by definition Deity is not subject to death. God cannot will Himself into non-existence.

[Sonny]

Ellen White, this, and Ellen White that....Who cares? She's not the Pope of SDA! Christ is their Pope. Adventists go directly through Christ. They don't go through a sinner like the Pope - a man that allows Himself to be called "Holy Father" or Vicar of Christ.

[Gustave]

Ellen White, this, and Ellen White that....Who cares? She's not the Pope of SDA! Christ is their Pope. Adventists go directly through Christ. They don't go through a sinner like the Pope - a man that allows Himself to be called "Holy Father" or Vicar of Christ.

After the hard facts are established that was exactly the answer I was expecting Sonny....

...Thanks for trying.

[Sonny]

How can a sinner, like the Pope, call Himself "Holy Father"?

Matt 19:16 And behold, one came to him [jesus] and said, Teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17 And he said unto him, Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? There is only one good, that is , God.

Righteousness = goodness = Holiness

To claim to be righteous is delusional. To claim to be Christ's substitute on earth (the Job of the Holy Spirit) is anti-Christ.