Leaderboard

"Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is LACKING IN CHRIST'S AFFLICTIONS for the sake of His body, that is, the Church". Colossians 1, 24 Catholics don't look at this as proof that Christ failed but as proof of how He set up the Church. It's the same way we look at Mary. Look forward to talking in depth about Mary for a long time now and I'm understanding I've been formally welcomed to do it now.

Here is a video I produced 13+ years ago..

Yes, thank you I am aware of this. I think there are 7 different catholic denominations, insofar as "Rites" are concerned.

I see you are finding it necessary to resort to materials on an anti-trinity web site in your last post. Makes one wonder if you will ever start to actually quote OFFICIAL denominational fundamental beliefs in order to "expose" what Adventists "really believe." The reason I used the RCC book called "The Glories Of Mary" above is just for that reason. Its offical RCC dogma that is salvational to RCCs. The RCC Bishop who wrote the book specifically draws people's attention to the fact that it contains a very inclusive sampling from ALL of the major RCC church "Fathers," about the subject. I think we could also note that the Church Fathers for the RCC collectively, would seem to say that authentic and orthodox interpretation of Scripture can only be obtained if one understands Scripture according to the "deposit of faith" of the Church. The "Fathers" never really wanted to be considered private exegetes nor would they usually try to be innovative in their approach to interpreting Scripture. (although that is changing with the advent of the internet). The "Fathers" appear to have just one, major priority in mind when "interpreting" Scripture -- to teach the apostolic doctrine as it was taught to them. This kind of monologue dogma formation doesn't sit well with people who believe they need to study for themselves. "Mary" is an exclusivist set of dogmas; seemingly to direct people's attention to a very specific set of doctrines that certainly do not follow "apostolic traditions." As I said earlier; when I quote "Mary" as such, I am referring to a collection, an array, or an assortment of beliefs that the we could call, collectively "Mary." If you are game; I'd be interested to discuss those specifics in future posts. "Mary" is not optional for RCCs. "Mary" is a mandatory dogma "cloud" of RCC "witnesses;" peculiar to their denomination, from the top on down. "Mary" is dictated to RCs by their various Popes. IMO, exclusivist dogmas like "Mary" have to take their place amongst the general pattern of corruption by the second church, not the first church. All that that stuff says to me is that Jesus isn't quite enough. Not even that Jesus "could have" failed, but that He did fail; else why would we need "Mary?" Another, prime example, from The Catholic Encyclopedia that is included with "The Faith Database" software (RCC) has for the first sentence under "Blessed Virgin Mary," the following, as an opening statement: This is a very misleading statement, at best. It confers things about Substance (of divinity) that no one knows or has a way of knowing. There is a reason that scripture talks about Jesus being "MADE of a woman," and it has nothing to do with "Mary" being the literal, physical mother of Divinity. THAT would give her a preeminence over God and Jesus; if she was GOD's physical mother. Mary was the mother of the incarnate Christ. Not the mother of God Himself. The Bible doesn't say that about Mary at all. Anywhere. Mary was all human - no divinity involved. Jesus, ("The fullness of the Godhead bodily."), who we know was incarnate under both natures; but choosing only one nature; that we might choose His nature, was a free moral agent. Thats why His death on Calvary is called "vicarious." According to The Word Web Dictionary, "vicarious" means "Suffered or done by one person as a substitute for another..." Jesus did CHOOSE to do that. That also means He could have chosen differently. In fact Jesus thought about trying to when He prayed "let this cup pass from me." (Mat 26:39). The beautiful part of this whole message in Jesus' prayer to "have this cup removed" is that Jesus accepted the Father's answer, which was revealed in what Jesus said in the 2nd half of this prayer: "nevertheless not as I will, but as thou..." To disagree with that has nothing to do with EGW because its all in the Bible. Ellen White wrote about it because its in the Bible. The sentence you keep "quoting" from EGW actually agrees with scriptures that tell us how Jesus made a choice so we could make a choice. It is interesting to note that Jesus asked for the "cup" to be removed three times in a row! He was definitely waffling there. Noticing that does not have to mean that we are saying Jesus "could have failed;" it means He had some choices by which to proceed. "Theoretically, (no EGW needed) there is nothing in scripture to tell us that Jesus could not have been an agent of free will. Jesus was able to choose. Jesus chose the Father's will; and this same choice is available for all today "who will hear His Voice." EGW says this over & over in everything she wrote. To ignore all that for one sentence is just taint. Prophecy does say Jesus would prevail; but it never denies that He had some choice, IF He wanted that He could have. Jesus wanted us to have the same choice as He did, and thats why He said: "Come; let us REASON together." (Isa 1:18). Jesus chose our nature, that we might choose His nature. IF Jesus had no choice in the matter, in order to "prove" that "He could not have failed," then we too would have no choice to make either. We would be forced into it. God does not operate that way. He wont force anyone to be saved; but that would be the only option if He had no choices there. Scripture talks about Jesus being "MADE under a woman" (Gal 4;4-5) and I believe this has direct implications re the RCC "Mary." The whole purpose of God in sending forth His Son "under a woman" was to redeem us from being "under the Law," that we might enjoy the liberty and joy that comes with "the Father’s house;" of which Jesus often spoke. (John 14:2). This is why Paul said Jesus was "MADE under a woman." When the angels joyously announced "Unto you this day a Savior is born," they were including this "under a woman" portion of scripture. Mary is/was also "under the law" or there would be no point in Christ's Incarnation. If "Mary" "could be", in her role of mother, in any way "divinity" then Jesus was not made "under a woman;" within the Biblical context intended for Gal 4: 4-5. Jesus could not make any choices, if He was not "MADE under a woman." And neither could we. After the sentence I wrote above from The Catholic Encyclopedia, about "Mary" being the "mother of God," we read in the next paragraph after that, still under the heading of "Blessed Virgin Mary" I am not sure what Bible version this Catholic Encyclopedia was using, but lets try a common one that most of us are likely to have available for reading. Adam & Eve made some choices. They "could have" chosen differently. Jesus was confronted "in the wilderness" by Satan with the very same temptations to undermine trust in God that he used against Adam and Eve; and even against the angels in heaven. "There was war in heaven" means that choices were made. It means that they "could have" chosen differently. There is no Biblical reason to suppose that Jesus was not "tempted in all points" like we are. Could it be that EGW was actually correct when she said Jesus "could have" made a different choice? And IF He did do that; what would have been the result? In every generation God had His agencies. It certainly wasn't the RCCs in OT times. Even among the heathen there are always people through whom Christ IS working to uplift others from their sin and degradation. As EGW liked to say it: Among the Jews there were always steadfast souls, descendants of that holy line through whom a knowledge of God had been preserved. These still looked for the hope of the promise made unto their fathers. They strengthened their faith by dwelling upon the assurance given through Moses, "A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; Him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever He shall say unto you." Acts 3:22. That lineage was and is "the first church." While many denominations over the years have tried to lay claim to that [perceived] status; only one church fits the descriptions. Its not the RCC. Jesus, in Scripture, was a Seventh-day Adventist Protestant. He kept the 7th day Sabbath and He was definitely a Protestant. So much so that the "church" authorities of the day wanted to kill Him. Could this be related to why the RCC is working furiously to kill erase the 7th day Sabbath by replacing it with "Sunday." I alsotend to use "Sunday" to denote a range of dogmas related to "keeping Sunday." It is well-known that "history" apart from scripture is activist in nature; and it often leans to whatever the bent of the author is. History books often call the RCCs "the first church;" but thats not based on Biblical facts when they do that. Because of some of the very distinctive, non-optional RCC dogmas, such as "Mary" there is no way to attach all that to scripture. Some of that is obviously on the [claimed] "authority" of the RCC. Seventh day Adventists are the only ones who can trace their lineage all the way down - and that is precisely because of that pesky little 7th day thing that others are trying so hard to get rid of. The beauty about Bible truth and the church is its NOT based on race, culture, or even denominations. Its based on Bible truth. Adventists are simply carrying that torch forward. Adventists are not alone in keeping the 7th day Sabbath. "In Christ there is no east or west."

? God will come ? Isa 35:4 Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you. going to be gone for a while during the posting of the promises.... would you prefer that I try and keep them up or would you prefer that I stop until I get back? what is your wish

Those "multiple posts" are all saying the same thought. "Multiple posts" are only useful if they each divest some new information. What you are constantly quoting is just repetition, not new facts. Its just common sense that we cant make one sentence/thought out to mean what any person teaches on anything. Additionally, That one sentence does not constitute either now or then any official belief of the Adventist Church. To ignore this and still say "thats what Adventists "really" believe" is just plain poor scholarship. Your stated desire to bruit that one sentence into the sum of official Adventist teaching is not based on any identifiable facts. Making one sentence find confluence into a vast body of writing is impossible, unless one doesn't have an interest in finding the truth of the matter. I have provided just a few quotes above re Mary. I am not clear why you have not addressed those. I have many more. Ill be happy to post some, as the ones I already have above are addressed, as I am sure you are more than capable of. For my own personal purpose here; it doesnt matter a hill of beans to me what you think one sentence means from any Adventist writer. so I wont likely devote much energy to that kind of repetitious allegation. I agree with you that Jesus doesnt need EGW to say anything right now. I think that EGW, along with many christian writers often wrote in the figural sense; exploring doubts and questions, or fears; but it is almost never to make a statement of doctrinal clarity, but to make one particular point. Her point was always "Jesus is enough." Thats almost impossible to miss in her writings. Unless, of course one chooses to only read one sentence. My statements about "Mary" are not done for any personal reasons. I have done my homework; I know what the RCC teaches about it. My statements are strictly an invitation to compare & contrast a little in order to show that Adventists have never claimed for EGW even the half of what the RCC teaches re Mary. I think it needs to be an essential part of the discussion. My point is simple. There is no logical, Biblical reason for looking to Mary for anything. She was a sinner, saved by grace, just like any of us, and dare I say, just like EGW. Mary was called "blessed," but so were many other people in scripture. It is not Biblical to claim she is a mediatrix or "co-redemptress," for me that is the immaculate deception. IF RCCs say we need Mary to "intercede" or help in any way to relate to Jesus; then how is that any different than saying "Jesus isnt good enough?" When I read all that stuff about "Mary" I read: "Jesus failed." The typical apologetic will usually try to say that "that poor, deceived Protestant just doesnt' understand correctly what we teach." Its always a problem with "the other guy." But I will post what I do understand. "Mary" when I put it in quotes like that is intended to refer to a family or array of dogmas held as "mandatory" by the RCC. "Mary" is not a part of "apostolic tradition," and I am unclear as to how anyone could prove otherwise by scripture. When the second church (not first church) came up with "Mary" the apostles were all, long gone without breathing a word of it to us. The second church, IMO, was the first off-shoot.

I've provided multiple quotes from Ellen White where she says Jesus could have sinned and fallen - I've also provided multiple Scriptures that unequivocally demonstrate Ellen was simply wrong in saying / teaching this. Where in any Catholic Teaching do you read that Mary helps Christ mediating because Christ failed in anything?

ONLY a failed Christ would need help in "mediating" from Mary, according to the RCC.

The Trinity had already said it. God the Father said it in Daniel 2, 44 & 45. God the Father again, according to the Shepherds in Luke 2,15, was the originator of the Information ( the Lord hath made known to us ). God the Son was explicit in Matthew 11, 2-5 when He identified Himself as "God" by referring John's disciples to Isaiah 35,4 - ..... God the Holy Spirit was explicit that Jesus would not fail when Simeon was promised he would not die until he had seen "The Lord's Christ" with his own eyes (Luke 2, 25-38). A failed Christ is not THE Christ spoken of in Sacred Scripture. If Christ had the "potential" to fail (sin and loose His Salvation) and it wasn't absolutely revealed the Baby Jesus was the real deal and would succeed Simeon would not have said the following. Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people;A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel. Simeon WOULDN'T have been allowed to die because Jesus might of "slipped up" right up until the day of Crucifixion. It should be noted that Mary marveled and pondered the incredible things she had been told about Jesus I suppose the next thing I will be told is that Simeon was a young whipper snapper of about 15 years of age and thus to protect what Ellen White said about Jesus having the potential of committing VICE Simeon died of natural causes after Jesus died on the cross.

5 Surprising Facts You Didn't Know About AOL In 2011, AOL, Inc., announced that it would buy the Huffington Post for a whopping $315 million. AOL's fortunes have changed over the years, but the company continues to new ways to stay visible. Here are 5 surprising facts you probably didn't know about AOL... The Man Who Recorded the Iconic "You've Got Mail" Was Paid Only $200. Elwood Edwards is the man behind one of the most famous second-and-a-half voice snippets ever recorded: the "You've Got Mail!" notification that millions of AOL users heard for years. What's interesting is that not only did Edwards' wife volunteer his voice to then-CEO Steve Case, but Edwards recorded the line on a cassette deck. The folks at AOL digitized it to add to their software. He was paid only $200, and not given any royalties. In fact, as of 2016, he was working as an Uber driver. They Were Originally Named "Quantum Computer Services" AOL was founded in 1985 as Quantum Computer Services, an online services company by Jim Kimsey from the remnants of Control Video Corporation. In 1991, Quantum was renamed America Online. AOL became one of the early pioneers of the Internet, providing dial-up service to over 30 million members worldwide. In 2001, at the height of its popularity, it purchased the media conglomerate Time Warner in the largest merger in U.S. history. AOL rapidly declined thereafter, partly due to the decline of dial-up and rise of broadband. AOL Still Has Millions of Dial-Up Users Despite all its issues, AOL is still alive and kicking. A couple of million people still use the company's dial-up services and many more have aol.com email addresses. Dial-up allows people with limited broadband/DSL/wireless access to get online because all they need is a working phone line, and dial-up services are much cheaper, too. As for the email users, while the address is seen as a sign of refusing to keep up with the times, the reality is that, after 20 or 30 years with the same email address, switching to a new one can be a major hassle. At One Point AOL Made Half of All CDs Produced During the 1990s, it seemed like a signup CD for AOL came in the mail every other day. Ever wonder exactly how many discs the company produced? TechCrunch, acquired by AOL in 2010, wanted to know, and tried to get quotes from Case and other execs from that era. The most shocking piece of info was given to TechCrunch by a former AOL marketing chief: "At one point, 50 percent of the CDs produced worldwide had an AOL logo on it. We were logging in new subscribers at the rate of one every six seconds." AOL CDs Were Tested for the Effects of Freezing and Thawing -- Because They Were Packaged With Meat. AOL CDs showed up frequently in the mail, in magazine inserts, attached to cereal boxes, and more. They were also, at one point, included with frozen Omaha steaks, which meant that the CDs had to be tested for resilience after freezing and thawing. AOL CDs were created to give people a way to connect to the internet at a time when not many people were online as much as they are now, and many AOL CDs are now collector's items.

Pam; I appreciate what you said, not trying to add or subtract from it; but the part I disagreed with is the first paragraph, before the "problems list" The following list is meant to simply remind us from where we have fallen and to encourage us to renew our commitment to the culture of heaven. IF the succeeding list is actually "from where we have fallen" then Ill eat my skullcap. For me, this is a poor "interpretation" of Rev 2:5 I cannot wear a tie around my neck because of burn scar contractures. I literally feel like I am suffocating if I try to wear a tie. YET, there are churches where I could never stand up front and even just read a Bible verse, let alone preach, and why? Because I don't want to wear something that makes me feel like that. I tried to appease the "leaders" in one church and wore a tie to preach there. I saw stars and passed out. Its a good thing two elders were sitting behind me watching for mistakes, because they caught me before my head hit the floor. I asked for a glass of water, took my tie off and preached the sermon...it was something to do with "be sure your sins will find you out..."

One big problem I have with the article is that no footnotes were given to point to the source of allegations. The end result makes the whole article come across as rather histrionic, and reminds me of how anyone can proffer any sort of accusations about anyone (or any institution), and get away with it in communities of readers who subscribe to the same beliefs.... much like the Salem Witch Trials. Bottom line (for me): give extant proof of the allegations — otherwise, don't bother me with insinuations and innuendos.

? Alive unto God Romans 6:11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

yes, I know. Some Adventists do this with "the Pope." Maybe now we are even?

Hey prophet HCH, didn't you prophesied that Pence was going to be president? Tell us great prophet what happen? Don't you think it is time for you to retire and leave the prophecies to THE ALMIGHTY ONES, like what the Bible says. Like the Pastor said and I changing your theme somewhat; who's really fooling YOU! Peace!