Mary as new "Eve" a Model of Divine Incest...

[wicklunds]

It has been spoken of Mary, the mother of Jesus, by Roman Catholic dogmatists, that she is the new Eve. This coming from the NT concept of Jesus being the new Adam. If this were true, and I am not conceding this, this would make Eve both mother and spouse of Jesus. Therefore, it is my position that this cannot be true, but is, in fact, as close as anyone could come to blasphemy.

Dennis

[Gregory Matthews]

Dennis, you continually demonstrate that you do not understand Roman Catholic theology.

NOTE: Let all know that Roman Catholics do not believe that any kind of incest relationship occured between Mary and Jesus Christ. Yes, Dennis did not say that they believe such. But, I am placeing this here to be certain that no one thinks that they teach such.

Dennis, you have been asked to post such comments in another section, and not in Town Hall. You have been told that if you continue to place them here, or in places other than where you have been asked to place them, that they will be deleted.

[wicklunds]

That is not what I was told. I was told that any comments on the trinity would be deleted. They will now delete any comments I make about anything because they want to shut me up. I will not be corralled by SDA ecumenists and chaplains.

Dennis

[Stan]

No, you were told to have them in theology section, they are topics that belong to that. I do not get up in the every morning with the desire to move your threads where they belong. That does not want to be on my list of things-to-do when I wake up.

Please do not misunderstand me, I am not against you posting the comments. Just post them where they belong. AND not to have a lot of threads with the same topic.

FWIW 'Street' theology and '0fficial' theology about the RC Church seems to differ significantly.

[wicklunds]

Maybe you shouldnt get up in the morning. No, I was told to post any further comments about said topic in the theology section, which Gregory is the moderator, and which I will never do of my own free will again. Maybe you should move the QOD thread to there too??? We seem to be talking a lot about knowing the "true" RC theology but in actuality saying little to refute the truth about the RC theology. I have lost what little respect I have had for some people this very day.

Dennis

[Gregory Matthews]

Dennis, if you did not understand the first message, the one Stan has just posted should be understandable to you.

On another subject: I believe that Ed White left CA of his own free will, he was not banned, and he could return anytime that he wants to return.

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "I will not be corralled by SDA ecumenists and chaplains."

No one can corrall you. You have freedom to establsh your own web-site, and post whatever you want to there, with whomever reading that wants to read, and that you allow to read. [Eugene did exactly that, and so did at least one other that I can think of. Eugene's is still operating.]

But, while you are in Club Adventist, you will abide by the rules of CA whether you agree with them or not, if you want to continue posting.

The choice is yours.

All of us in Club Adventist are accountable to someone else. I am. Sometimes posts that I make are deleted, or moved. I don't complain because I consider that I am accountable, as is every body else.

Is Stan accountable? Yes, he is.

In life, everyone is held accountable, and you will also be held accountable here in Club Adventist if you continue to post here.

[Stan]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Maybe you should move the QOD thread to there too???

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Good idea.. thanks!!

[Clio]

Dennis -

Where in the world do you get some of these ideas? You really don't understand RC theology at all. If you did, you would understand that in a denomination that size, there are all kinds of splinter groups -crackpots-.

There is indeed, an entire Marian theology in the RC church, but your information generally is so skewed that few RC members would even recognize it. First you demonstrate it with your discussion on the Abba, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, now you try and do it with Mary, and all while not understanding their theological position.

If you're going to point something out as evil, it is generally best to be accurate so as to prevent your audience from dismissing your arguments out of hand based on inaccuracy, or outright falsehoods.

Sheesh.

Clio

[wicklunds]

Gregory was the one who posted about Mary being the new Eve. What do you think that(new Eve) means Clio? These are not my own ideas. If you believe that I am part of a "splinter group" it shows you how little you know about your own church history.

Dennis

[Gregory Matthews]

Dennis, listen to what people are telling you.

You are not dismissed because of the doctrines that you post. You are generally dismissed due to you. You misrepresent people who post here. You clearly misunderstand RC theology, the doctrine of the Trinity. You make sweeping generalizations and donot (can not) support them. Then you attack the very people whom you are attempting to win over to your position. In short, it is impossible for any of us to have a civil conversation.

Club Adventist is a congregation of people of very mixed backgrounds, beliefs, and life styles. Clio and I have some differences of opinion on some issues. Yet, each of us can engage in a civil discussion with the other person. One of the reasons that Clio and I can do so is that we do not personalize our differences. You seemingly do in just about every conversation. When people do that, the purpose of a typical conversation is destroyed.

[Clio]

Dennis -

You and no other started this thread, and chose to title as you did.

I do understand the concept of a new Eve. I also understand it to be false. What you are doing is very evil, Dennis. The scales are so thick on your eyes you cannot see the damage you are doing to the news of the Gospel and the SDA denomination.

You cannot see your own idolatry in elevating and venerating extra-Biblical writings to the same level of authority as the Bible. You cannot see your own false worship and lack of fruit of the spirit in nearly every post you write.

I am sorry for this, for your sake. I have struggled with this writing, and struggled with whether or not to write it at all. But any who read your threads need to know that there are silent witnesses who do NOT enter into agreement with your spurious arguments and legalistic theology.

Please note that I have not called you evil, only what you are doing. I believe you to be sincere, I truly do, and that is the saddest part of all. There are going to be many, indeed, who are sincerely shocked when Jesus says, "I never knew you."

I have great concern that I do not find myself in that group, and sufficient concern left over that neither do you. My issues with your posts are these:

1. You have elevated someone other than Abba and Jesus into first place in your life. This is idolatry, no matter how worthy that person might be from human standards.

2. In your posts there is evidenced no fruit of the spirit, love, joy, peace, harmony, etc. Instead there is anger, sarcasm, divisiveness, all clearly identified in the same passage as that which defines the fruit of the spirit.

3. You attempt to speak with great authority with just enough truth to be confusing, while the rest is secondary and tertiary references skewed so much as to be outright falsehood.

4. You personalize almost everything.

5. Your spirit is not teachable, not even when entire passages and texts are provided as a solid foundation for truth, if what is being taught conflicts with whatever notion you have entered into agreement with.

For new believers who may be reading these threads, please read with discernment, testing all against the Word of the Father, as written in Scripture. If you have questions, please ask, and test the answers you receive against the Word of the Lord, prayerfully and with an open heart.

Do not take anyone's word as Truth, no matter their credentials, until you have tested it with prayer, against the Word of Abba, and received Jesus' peace about it and know that you know that you know from Him. He promises that He will be found by all who truly and sincerely seek Him. And since He is the Word made flesh, you will find Him and His truth in the Word.

Clio

[Taylor]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

wicklunds said:

Maybe you shouldnt get up in the morning. No, I was told to post any further comments about said topic in the theology section, which Gregory is the moderator, and which I will never do of my own free will again. Maybe you should move the QOD thread to there too??? We seem to be talking a lot about knowing the "true" RC theology but in actuality saying little to refute the truth about the RC theology. I have lost what little respect I have had for some people this very day.

Dennis

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Dennis by this comment you are not only unkind but it shows you definately do not know Stan nor Gregory. Stan is a very kind and fair administrator, you just don't happen to appreciate his rules. Gregory has given you a lot of room to post things he doesn't agree with. That shows he is considerate and open minded. They have both bent over backwards to let you state your opinions or the truth as you understand it. However, you have consistently belitteled those who do not agree with you. People are not won over by anger.

[i have corrected a typo--GM.]

[Taylor]

Thanks for correcting the typo Gregory. I should spell check. <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />