Walter Veith

[Gregory Matthews]

Resesrved for further use.

My comments below are based on the chapter "The Influence of Restorationism on Early Seventh-day Adventism and the Emergence of a Trinitarian Perspective," written by Kai Arasola (pages 165-179).

.*  Restorationism (aka Christian Primitivism)  contributed to the rise of Adventism, the Christian Connexionists, Unitarianism, Millerism,  the LDS and the JWs.  NOTE:  I think that Gustave is saying this, but not in the same language.  See pages 166 & 167.

*  The suggestion is made that those early SDA leaders often totally misunderstood the doctrine of the Trinity.  Page 174.

*  J. B. Frisbie, an early SDA minister, clearly taught that God had a face, hands and other body parts.  But, his understanding of the Trinity was severely flawed.  See pages 176 & 177.

*  Joseph Bates rejected the doctrine of the Trinity due to the fact that he belived it taught a monarchianist concept (the Father and the Son were one and the same person).  See page 177.

* John  Loughborough, rejected the Doctrine of the Trinity because he believed it taught Tritheism (page 177).

The above is just a couple of examples.  Further study should be given to this idea.  

 

 

  

[Gustave]

I can accept what you've said and what other S.D. Adventists have said about the SDA Pioneers misunderstanding the Trinity Doctrine. Moving forward to the current time I do have a question about the SDA Official teaching now.

I keep seeing SDA Theologians (many holding Doctorates) say that the SDA Church accepts / endorses "The Biblical Trinity". This seems to imply that the people saying it this way believe the Doctrine as stated in Nicaea & subsequent Church Councils is NOT BIBLICAL. i.e. they are defining the Trinity in such a way that their way isn't compatible with a definition of the Trinity that a Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Evangelical Christian or Greek Orthodox would give.

Can anyone shed any light on this? I've already collected several quotes from authoritative SDA's where they make a distinction between their "Biblically accurate Trinity Doctrine" Vs. "the Catholic Trinity". 

The reason I ask is because the Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Orthodox and every Evangelical non-Denomination Church I've looked at unequivocally endorse the Nicene Creed & subsequent Councils pertaining to the Trinity and even state those statements accurately systematize Scripture. I've been told that SDA's will not repeat the Apostles or Nicene Creeds in SDA Churches so I'm wondering about this. 

So, naturally I'm hoping someone could specify what's not Biblical about the Catholic Trinity when even the most Papacy hating Baptist or Greek Orthodox Christian are in full acceptance of it. 

Thanks

[GHansen]

Gustave's point about the commandments, laws, etc. that Abraham observed is a good one. Paul says in more than one place that there was no law until Moses.

 

[stinsonmarri]

On 4/5/2021 at 10:56 AM, Theophilus said:

Some of Veith's sermons are very good.  I loved watching him. Then later, all i saw was information on Jesuits, freemasons, and such. What happened for me was that he was no longer preaching Jesus or elaborating on the Bible. (His study on Zechariah is fantastic!)

Recently, I saw a short video on you tube stating that Veith was going to go back to evangelism. The next video I saw from him was on the Sabbath,think it was a Q&A( he was discussing why he speaks so much of the Sabbath) and it was very good. I think that one was 2 weeks ago.

That's what He and others in our denomination are caught up in. The Bible does not teach about the Jesuit. It teaches the whore and her daughters, the Protestant churches. We used to preach those things. But, we like IsraEL we want to be accepted. We refuse to understand the entire Chapter of Rev 17,that the beast will hate the whore. That is not discuss at all and that Babylon is Jerusalem, Chapter 18. IsraEL is the only one who killed both the prophets and the apostles-NOT ROME!

It has become another false delusion that causes many not to study the Bible but to twist it. They should read Gal 1:6-10.

Happy Sabbath and be bless!

[stinsonmarri]

1 hour ago, GHansen said:

Gustave's point about the commandments, laws, etc. that Abraham observed is a good one. Paul says in more than one place that there was no law until Moses.

 

When YAHSHUA spoke everything into existing is the Law. The moon and the sun still obey what was said at creation. The sun comes up in the east and goes down in the west. There only Seven days. The moon goes around the earth it did 30 days until the flood. But is still travels around the earth! The earth goes around the sun, not the same way since the flood. There is day and night and the Sabbath and the Holy days are mentioned in the first Chapter of Gen. The same ones mentioned in Leviticus Chapter 23. The word is mo'ed is in both places. Look it up for yourself! The Adam's were told not to eat the fruit from the tree of good and evil. Ms. Adam lied and they both stole. The Bible says if you break one you are guilty of them all.

Simply, they did not need them written it was very well understood. They had 100 percent of their brain, they did not need them written!

Happy Sabbath and Blessings!

[GHansen]

1 hour ago, stinsonmarri said:

When YAHSHUA spoke everything into existing is the Law. The moon and the sun still obey what was said at creation. The sun comes up in the east and goes down in the west. There only Seven days. The moon goes around the earth it did 30 days until the flood. But is still travels around the earth! The earth goes around the sun, not the same way since the flood. There is day and night and the Sabbath and the Holy days are mentioned in the first Chapter of Gen. The same ones mentioned in Leviticus Chapter 23. The word is mo'ed is in both places. Look it up for yourself! The Adam's were told not to eat the fruit from the tree of good and evil. Ms. Adam lied and they both stole. The Bible says if you break one you are guilty of them all.

Simply, they did not need them written it was very well understood. They had 100 percent of their brain, they did not need them written!

Happy Sabbath and Blessings!

 Paul plainly states that there was no law until Moses. Romans 5:12,13. The angel that guarded Eden was put there to keep the "way" of the tree of life, not protect the Decalogue. Genesis 18:19 said Abraham would keep the "way" of the Lord, not the Decalogue. The book of Job, hardly mentions commandments, laws, precepts or statutes because in his day, around Abraham's time the "laws" of Moses, including the Decalogue, didn't exist.

 

[GHansen]

On 5/10/2021 at 10:48 PM, Gregory Matthews said:

Resesrved for further use.

My comments below are based on the chapter "The Influence of Restorationism on Early Seventh-day Adventism and the Emergence of a Trinitarian Perspective," written by Kai Arasola (pages 165-179).

.*  Restorationism (aka Christian Primitivism)  contributed to the rise of Adventism, the Christian Connexionists, Unitarianism, Millerism,  the LDS and the JWs.  NOTE:  I think that Gustave is saying this, but not in the same language.  See pages 166 & 167.

*  The suggestion is made that those early SDA leaders often totally misunderstood the doctrine of the Trinity.  Page 174.

*  J. B. Frisbie, an early SDA minister, clearly taught that God had a face, hands and other body parts.  But, his understanding of the Trinity was severely flawed.  See pages 176 & 177.

*  Joseph Bates rejected the doctrine of the Trinity due to the fact that he belived it taught a monarchianist concept (the Father and the Son were one and the same person).  See page 177.

* John  Loughborough, rejected the Doctrine of the Trinity because he believed it taught Tritheism (page 177).

The above is just a couple of examples.  Further study should be given to this idea.  

 

 

  

When the Muslims ruled Hungary in the 1500s, they allowed much more freedom of religion than did the papacy. RC murderers went to the Muslim rulers and asked that they exterminate the Protestants. Instead, the Muslim governors told the RC to leave the Protestants alone. Protestantism, of the Reformed stripe, eschewed graven images and believed in 1 God, unlike the RC,

who impressed the Muslims as idol worshippers with many Gods e.g. the virgin mary, various saints, etc. 

[Gregory Matthews]

In every denomination there are people who do not understand the teachings of their church and they present it as teaching in a manner that is wrong.  In my life experience I have seen this in Baptists, Seventh-day Adventists, Roman Catholics and more.  The official teachings of any denomination should not be assumed to be the teaching of one of its members.  Rather they should be considered to be the official statements of that denomination.

The Roman Catholic Chruch does not teach that the virgin Mary and the saints are gods.  It does not teach that they should be worshiped.

Paragraph 823 in the official teaching of the Roman Catholic church states that all of the members of the Chruch established by Christ are rightfully called saints.  This is actually a teaching of the Bible.  If you are a member of the Chruch established by Christ, you are a saint.  Nowhere does the Roman Catholic Chruch teach that all members of the Chruch   should be worshiped.

Paragraph 2096 of the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church forbids the worship of anything other than God and cites Deuteronomy 6:13 as governing in this.  See also paragraph 2111, 2112, and 2113.

Paragraph 2132 clearly states that people may be respected and honored in regard to their images.  But, that respect and honor, which Roman Catholics often call veneration is never to be the adoration or worship that is due God alone.

 

 

  

[Gregory Matthews]

On a slightly different subject:

Some have posted much about the Biblical Greek and Hebrew languages and in doing so they have relied on Strong to define the meanings of those ancient words.

Strong is good for telling us how those ancient words have been translated in the KJV.  That can be helpful to our study.  However, Strong should never be used to define the meanings of those ancient words.   Anyone who uses Strong to define their meanings simply demonstrates taht they have a basic ignorance of the ancient Biblical Greek and Hebrew.

*  In some cases those words may have meanings that have not been translated in the KJV.

*  In other cases,the KJV translation may not reflect the current, current, understanding of the meaning of that word. 

To determine the actual meaning of either an ancient Biblical Greek or Hebrew word, one must use a Lexicon, not either Strong or Young.  even is Strong is sometimes said to have written a Lexicon, his work never rises to that of a Lexicon.  It is simply a statement as to how those words have been translated in the KJV.

 

NOTE:  I consider both Strong and Young to be of value and I have both in my library.

[GHansen]

20 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

On a slightly different subject:

Some have posted much about the Biblical Greek and Hebrew languages and in doing so they have relied on Strong to define the meanings of those ancient words.

Strong is good for telling us how those ancient words have been translated in the KJV.  That can be helpful to our study.  However, Strong should never be used to define the meanings of those ancient words.   Anyone who uses Strong to define their meanings simply demonstrates taht they have a basic ignorance of the ancient Biblical Greek and Hebrew.

*  In some cases those words may have meanings that have not been translated in the KJV.

*  In other cases,the KJV translation may not reflect the current, current, understanding of the meaning of that word. 

To determine the actual meaning of either an ancient Biblical Greek or Hebrew word, one must use a Lexicon, not either Strong or Young.  even is Strong is sometimes said to have written a Lexicon, his work never rises to that of a Lexicon.  It is simply a statement as to how those words have been translated in the KJV.

 

NOTE:  I consider both strong and Young to be of value and I have both in my library.

Lexicons are certainly useful but only because the authors are  presumably familiar enough with the way the word is used in various places to define it. In significant cases, words can only be defined by the immediate context. One example is the word  δικαιωμα, translated as "righteousness" in Romans 8:4.  The exact expression δικαιωμα του νομου is used in Numbers 31:21. it has nothing to do with the Decalogue in that passage; consequently, the typical SDA understanding that the righteousness of the law being fulfilled in us refers to obedience to the Decalogue is a mistake. A better translation of the word translated as "righteousness" in Romans 8:4 would be "requirement" as in the requirement of the law will be fulfilled in us. The requirement of the law is explained in Romans 8:7. It is that we submit to the law of God. In context, it is referencing life in the spirit rather than the flesh.

[Theophilus]

11 hours ago, GHansen said:

 Paul plainly states that there was no law until Moses. Romans 5:12,13. The angel that guarded Eden was put there to keep the "way" of the tree of life, not protect the Decalogue. Genesis 18:19 said Abraham would keep the "way" of the Lord, not the Decalogue. The book of Job, hardly mentions commandments, laws, precepts or statutes because in his day, around Abraham's time the "laws" of Moses, including the Decalogue, didn't exist.

 

.......Then do you believe that all men before Moses were sinless because there was no law?Why was satan cast down from Heaven? Why were Adam and Eve removed from the garden? And God destroyed the entire world except for 8 people just for grins?The dietary laws are not written in Genesis either, but  Noah knew the difference between clean and unclean animals.I'm sure he was told, as were the others, by the Lord. God spoke to man much more during those days. The antediluvian world knew what sin was.

I'd bet Paul is speaking of the ceremonial laws.

[GHansen]

11 minutes ago, Theophilus said:

.......Then do you believe that all men before Moses were sinless because there was no law?Why was satan cast down from Heaven? Why were Adam and Eve removed from the garden? And God destroyed the entire world except for 8 people just for grins?The dietary laws are not written in Genesis either, but  Noah knew the difference between clean and unclean animals.I'm sure he was told, as were the others, by the Lord. God spoke to man much more during those days. The antediluvian world knew what sin was.

I'd bet Paul is speaking of the ceremonial laws.

Lot of questions you ask but provide no answers. It's highly unlikely Paul is referring to the ceremonial law in Romans 5, as the context indicates. Paul doesn't make distinctions between the ceremonial law and the Decalogue, unless the context indicates that he is specifically referring to one or the other. Paul specifically says that sin was not imputed when there was no law. "12  Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:  13  (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14  Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come."

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Certainly Lexicons have their limitations.  My issue is that they are better than Strong/Young who should not be used to define the meaning of a word.

Yes, there are lexicons of limited value.  For Biblical Greek, I use the so-called Arndt & Gingrich by the University of Chicago.

 

 

[GHansen]

22 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Certainly Lexicons have their limitations.  My issue is that they are better than Strong/Young who should not be used to define the meaning of a word.

Yes, there are lexicons of limited value.  For Biblical Greek, I use the so-called Arndt & Gingrich by the University of Chicago.

 

 

A better way is to determine the meaning of the word by looking at the places it is used. That's what lexicographers do. Lexicons are certainly helpful but in difficult passages, the lexicographers themselves may not understand how the word is  being used. The Englishman's Greek and Hebrew Concordances provide every appearance of a word under a single heading. Their usefulness has now been replaced by computer searches which use a numbering system based on Strong's. Type in a number and see every appearance of a word, then decide what it means based on how it is used. Some words have different meanings in different contexts. That's where the art of interpretation comes into play. One must decide the meaning of a word in specific context. This is especially evident in different translations. 

[stinsonmarri]

14 hours ago, GHansen said:

 Paul plainly states that there was no law until Moses. Romans 5:12,13. The angel that guarded Eden was put there to keep the "way" of the tree of life, not protect the Decalogue. Genesis 18:19 said Abraham would keep the "way" of the Lord, not the Decalogue. The book of Job, hardly mentions commandments, laws, precepts or statutes because in his day, around Abraham's time the "laws" of Moses, including the Decalogue, didn't exist.

 

My dear GHansen: Where in these Text does it states: "Paul plainly states that there was no law until Moses." I do not see it and neither any who can read.

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: For until the Law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no Law. Rom 5:12, 13

Let's see if you can read this my friend:

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the Law: for sin is the transgression of the Law.

"The angel that guarded Eden was put there to keep the "way" of the tree of life, not protect the Decalogue." Where on earth did anyone say that the two cherubims guarding Eden and the Tree of LIFE have to do with protecting the Commandments/Testimony of YAHWEH? The reason that the Garden and the Tree of LIFE had to be protected is because the two pairs had sinned and this Holy Place had to be protected from them. What they did was they broke the Law and lost their original home, power and rulership of the earth! What a great lost and not be able to eat of the Tree of LIFE and to live forever. That's what happen when you break the Commandments of YAHWEH. Satan broke them too they were to govern the Universe and all the created beings kept them. You like so many others are limited to only this earth. THE ALMIGHTY Govern the Universe that THEY MADE!

ELOHIYM, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets. Hath in these last days spoken unto us by HIS SON, whom HE hath appointed HEIR of all things, by whom also HE Made the worlds; Heb 1:1-2  

You are so wrong about Abraham you need to read the following:

Because that Abraham obeyed MY VOICE, and kept MY Charge, MY Commandments, MY Statutes, and MY Laws. Gen 26:5  

All need to understand what the word ten means. There are no 10 Commandments as we you this word as a digit. You will not find anywhere in the Scriptures that YAHSHUA or THE FATHER Saying 10 Commandments if so give the Text! As I stated the moon and the sun is a part of THEIR Commandments. Most do not understand that the Statutes dealt with all of the mo'ed which also includes the Sabbath. His Law was also the sacrificial system giving to the Adams after they sin. It was extended when they were giving to Moses to write down. Ex 24:4, 12 Deut 31:9, 24-26

This false concept that Moses made any laws is beyond the Word of YAHWEH. YAHWEH told Moses to write what HE wanted Moses to know and to teach the Children of IsraEL. HIS Covenant was written in the 5 Books that Moses wrote down from YAHWEH. HE first gave to Moses what HE WROTE with HIS FINGERS. Ex 31:18 While up on the Mount reciving the Commandments, IsraEL was sinning already and Moses threw the Commandments that was written on Table of Stone by YAHWEH. After, Moses was Commanded to return to the Mountain but he had to hew out the tables of stones himself. Moses stood before YAHWEH who came down. This was THE SON that Moses stood with Him. THE SON WROTE again the Testimony.This time Moses as a scribe, wrote the meaning of the Covenant that was more detail. If you look up the Hebrew word ten which is "‛eśer," it means accumulation ("that which is heaped up."). Ex 34:1, 4, 27, 28  Note, that THE SON had already given Moses the instruction or laws to extend the sacrifices to a service with the Tabernacle. Read Chapters 25-31. It is so important that we know the Scriptures before we speak. Let's make it clear once and for all Moses never had any laws, he gave the Laws given him by THE SON of THE MOST HIGH!

Happy Sabbath and Blessings!

[stinsonmarri]

16 hours ago, GHansen said:

When the Muslims ruled Hungary in the 1500s, they allowed much more freedom of religion than did the papacy. RC murderers went to the Muslim rulers and asked that they exterminate the Protestants. Instead, the Muslim governors told the RC to leave the Protestants alone. Protestantism, of the Reformed stripe, eschewed graven images and believed in 1 God, unlike the RC,

who impressed the Muslims as idol worshippers with many Gods e.g. the virgin mary, various saints, etc. 

You truly need to study up on the Islamic religion. When it first spread into Afrika it was accepted due to its equality of both men and women. Fatimah Islam was totally different and the Shiites sect was formed from her. A lot is hidden about her because of the change in the religion and again men rulership came in the forefront. Like all religions and I meant all will divide into sects or fractions. When this take place they become extremist. That is why I do not believe in religions. I believe only in the worship of THE ALMOST ONES and with YAHSHUA that not one jot or tittle will or can be taken from the Commandments until all is fulfilled. My faith and belief is in the worship, celebration, praise and obedience to the Commandments. Isa 66:23

Even though Fatimah Islam have the best written books of the time. It is during this time that many of the Islam messengers went to Africa and won them over. This is the age of Timbuctoo one of the greatest University's. European of the time travel to this University and they at that time invited the great scholars of Afrika to come to Europe. This was a century before slavery begin. The problem with Fatimah, she believed like her father that you have to take by force if necessary that your belief system is right no matter what! This thought made the new sects so forceful and it became worsts as the centuries past. The Catholic and the Protestants were no different. They are still forcing their belief through the Supreme court today!

Happy Sabbath

[Theophilus]

4 hours ago, GHansen said:

Lot of questions you ask but provide no answers. It's highly unlikely Paul is referring to the ceremonial law in Romans 5, as the context indicates. Paul doesn't make distinctions between the ceremonial law and the Decalogue, unless the context indicates that he is specifically referring to one or the other. Paul specifically says that sin was not imputed when there was no law. "12  Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:  13  (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14  Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come."

 

I didn't think i needed to provide answers. Pretty evident those folks were sinners.

How did sin enter the world? Through Adam.

What is the definition of sin? Transgression of the law.

Why were the antediluvians in the Flood? Because sin was everywhere-all of them were sinning. Can you tell me why a flood was necessary?

How did Noah know about the difference between clean and unclean? He knew because everyone knew. There was no need to write anything down.  There was nothing written down until Moses, but the knowledge was there before. Israel went into bondage for 400 years, and were not familiar with alot of the things before. God had to reteach them ( like the manna falling and to collect a double portion because of the Sabbath) 

 

 

 

[GHansen]

1 hour ago, Theophilus said:

I didn't think i needed to provide answers. Pretty evident those folks were sinners.

How did sin enter the world? Through Adam.

What is the definition of sin? Transgression of the law.

Why were the antediluvians in the Flood? Because sin was everywhere-all of them were sinning. Can you tell me why a flood was necessary?

How did Noah know about the difference between clean and unclean? He knew because everyone knew. There was no need to write anything down.  There was nothing written down until Moses, but the knowledge was there before. Israel went into bondage for 400 years, and were not familiar with alot of the things before. God had to reteach them ( like the manna falling and to collect a double portion because of the Sabbath) 

 

 

 

Theo, The book of Romans says that sin was not counted against people prior to the law, even though, death reigned over them.  That's what Paul said. Reading the context of that remark, it sounds as though mankind died because of Adam's sin, even if they did not sin in the same manner Adam did. Verse 18 says all men were condemned because of Adam's sin. People died in Noah's time because they thought evil all the time. God was not in their thoughts. It wasn't because they violated the Decalogue, although they most certainly did. The Sodomites died not because they broke the Decalogue. They died because they were lawless i.e., without law .  Genesis 19:15 in the LXX says Sodom was destroyed because it was a lawless place.   

[GHansen]

4 hours ago, stinsonmarri said:

My dear GHansen: Where in these Text does it states: "Paul plainly states that there was no law until Moses." I do not see it and neither any who can read.

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: For until the Law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no Law. Rom 5:12, 13

 

"Sin is not imputed when there is no law." "Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come." Paul is there plainly saying that there was no law prior to Moses. 

"13 For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith.
14  For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void.
15  For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.
16  That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring —  not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,

The reason Abraham was justified by faith was because there was no law which could justify him in those times. Even James says that Abraham was justified by his work offering Issac, not obeying the Decalogue. Galatians 3:17 also plainly states that the law did not arrive until 430 years after Abraham:  " And this I say, [that] the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect."

 

[GHansen]

2 hours ago, stinsonmarri said:

You truly need to study up on the Islamic religion. When it first spread into Afrika it was accepted due to its equality of both men and women. Fatimah Islam was totally different and the Shiites sect was formed from her. A lot is hidden about her because of the change in the religion and again men rulership came in the forefront. Like all religions and I meant all will divide into sects or fractions. When this take place they become extremist. That is why I do not believe in religions. I believe only in the worship of THE ALMOST ONES and with YAHSHUA that not one jot or tittle will or can be taken from the Commandments until all is fulfilled. My faith and belief is in the worship, celebration, praise and obedience to the Commandments. Isa 66:23

Even though Fatimah Islam have the best written books of the time. It is during this time that many of the Islam messengers went to Africa and won them over. This is the age of Timbuctoo one of the greatest University's. European of the time travel to this University and they at that time invited the great scholars of Afrika to come to Europe. This was a century before slavery begin. The problem with Fatimah, she believed like her father that you have to take by force if necessary that your belief system is right no matter what! This thought made the new sects so forceful and it became worsts as the centuries past. The Catholic and the Protestants were no different. They are still forcing their belief through the Supreme court today!

Happy Sabbath

All very interesting but irrelevant to what happened in Hungary after Suleyman of Turkey entered Hungary in the 1500s.

[stinsonmarri]

9 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Paragraph 2132 clearly states that people may be respected and honored in regard to their images.  But, that respect and honor, which Roman Catholics often call veneration is never to be the adoration or worship that is due God alone.

Pastor Matthews: What book is that quoted from? It must be something new today. The reason I state this when I studied ancient Roman Catholic it was stated: 

Veneration for Mary is based on the reference in the Gospel of Luke to Mary as the selected handmaid of the Lord who is greeted and praised by both Elizabeth and the angel Gabriel. God's work is further illuminated in the Marian dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church such as the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, and are, in the Roman Catholic view, part of the apostolic tradition and divine revelation. What Every Catholic Should Know about Mary.  p. 132; Bäumer, 597

Mary was also including in salvation and redemption. Mary in the Redemption p. 2-7 It was Ambrose who sanctioned her and adopted her with title Theotokos at the Council of Ephesus in 431.

1745, St. Alphonsus de Liguori wrote these prayers and worship to Mary. The Glories of Mary Then Pius XII in 1946 stated this concerning Mary worship:

He, the Son of God, reflects on His heavenly Mother the glory, the majesty and the dominion of His kingship, for, having been associated to the King of Martyrs in the ... work of human Redemption as Mother and cooperator, she remains forever associated to Him, with a practically unlimited power, in the distribution of the graces which flow from the Redemption. Jesus is King throughout all eternity by nature and by right of conquest: through Him, with Him, and subordinate to Him, Mary is Queen by grace, by divine relationship, by right of conquest, and by singular choice [of the Father]. 1954 encyclical Ad caeli reginam ("To the Queen of Heaven")

The fact Mary was worshipped and icons and statues of Isis was used and was replaced for the worship of suppose Jesus Christ mother. This is what I studied in the Universities and ancient books of my early life. Today because many don't listen or accept many of the religions of their faith and this has cause a change in the way the new generation believe.

Happy Sabbath and Blessings!

[stinsonmarri]

14 minutes ago, GHansen said:

All very interesting but irrelevant to what happened in Hungary after Suleyman of Turkey entered Hungary in the 1500s.

It is the very reason, the breaking down the religion into various sect who became extremist. This is what I stated!

Happy Sabbath!

[stinsonmarri]

48 minutes ago, GHansen said:

"Sin is not imputed when there is no law." "Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come." Paul is there plainly saying that there was no law prior to Moses. 

"13 For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith.
14  For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void.
15  For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.
16  That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring —  not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,

The reason Abraham was justified by faith was because there was no law which could justify him in those times. Even James says that Abraham was justified by his work offering Issac, not obeying the Decalogue. Galatians 3:17 also plainly states that the law did not arrive until 430 years after Abraham:  " And this I say, [that] the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect."

 

You are making something up that Paul did not say. I just will give you Scriptures Rom 3:20, 31; 7:1, 7, 8, 12; 8:3, 7. 

I usually continue with others. You on the other hand did not accept what is actually written in the Bible as plain as day. Abraham kept YAHWEH'S Commandments it was stated. In this case the Bible said that ELOHIYM will cause a delusion that you will believe a lie. You have I am done. My prayers that your eyes be open. Take Care!

[GHansen]

1 hour ago, stinsonmarri said:

You are making something up that Paul did not say. I just will give you Scriptures Rom 3:20, 31; 7:1, 7, 8, 12; 8:3, 7. 

I usually continue with others. You on the other hand did not accept what is actually written in the Bible as plain as day. Abraham kept YAHWEH'S Commandments it was stated. In this case the Bible said that ELOHIYM will cause a delusion that you will believe a lie. You have I am done. My prayers that your eyes be open. Take Care!

Stinsonmarri, I can read. When I was in elementary school, grade 3, we had 3 reading groups learning the Dick and Jane reader. There was a green group, a blue group, and a red group. The red group was the  highest level group. I was in that group. So obviously, I can read. 

[GHansen]

2 hours ago, stinsonmarri said:

It is the very reason, the breaking down the religion into various sect who became extremist. This is what I stated!

Happy Sabbath!

Not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that the Muslims, who would not murder Evangelicals at the behest of the papacy were extremists? Perhaps you are saying that the papacy, who wanted to murder evengelicals for reading the Bible, etc., were extremists. Probably you don't mean that the Evangelicals who wanted to read the Bible, reject the worship/intercession of Mary, purgatory and other Roman Catholic rites were extremists, even though Rome wanted to murder them for doing those things.