Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I know very little about these things, EO, OO who's what and where. You know why? BECAUSE I WAS RAISED AN SDA!!! Pretty funny really... the irony of it all...Note that the Greek Orthodox are Eastern Orthodox.
EOs: Greek, Cypriot, Antiochian (Rum/Romiioi) Russian, Bulgarian, Romanian, Serbian, Czech/Slovak, Polish, Moldovan, Ukrainian, Baltic states, Finnish, Georgian, Albanian, Montenegrin, Macedonian (well, schismatic, but still EO)
OOs: Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopian, Eritrean, Syriac, Indian (Malankara/Jacobite Syriac)
I think the original post is quite right. I was brought up an SDA and soon realised that their view of Christian "history" as covered in prophecy left out the whole story of Orthodoxy - which is crazy if it is supposed to be God giving us the actual history of the church.
Regarding to the human nature of Jesus...
Last week I heard on the radio some Catholic announcements that they celebrate the Immaculate Conception on December 8th. It went on to say 'It is a common misunderstanding that the immaculate conception is that of Jesus'. But it actually is about Mary and how she was without the original sin.'
There you have it straight from the horse's mouth.
And This is how Jesus got his sinless human nature from his mother side because Mary was sinless...according to Catholics.
This is what I am trying to get at...
234 The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of Christian faith and life. It is the mystery of God in himself. It is therefore the source of all the other mysteries of faith, the light that enlightens them. It is the most fundamental and essential teaching in the "hierarchy of the truths of faith".---catholic catechism
In another word, all her other teachings including Mary's sinlessness, Jesus' sinless human nature and even Sunday(Lord's day) sanctity are based on or are derived from the trinity mystery.
Rev 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
So what's the greatest mystery of Babylon the 2nd angel message calls us to expose? The catechism tells us.
And what's the abomination written on her forehead?
Daniel 12:11-12
[11] And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. [12] Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days. …
We know 508AD is the starting point for both 1290 years and 1335 years when the trinitarians started their campaign to eradicate the non-trinitarians. This is when the abomination of desolation set up (EGW explained this to be the pagan standard is set up on the holy ground) ...until 1843.
What happened in 1843? That was when our pioneers preached the 1st angel's message without the pollution of the trinitarian mystery of Babylon.
Does this make sense?
But, consider, high church Anglicanism and Lutheranism are not greatly different from Orthodoxy and Catholicism.
Don't forget too that the Methodists were part of the Anglican church. I don't think it was ever intended that you'd end up with two separate denominations. It's just the way things happened.
Why was my post dragged outside of our sub forum? It wasn't intended to debate any Catholics or Orthodox.On the non-Trinitarian aspect, a user in the traditional Adventist forum posted something I would like to reply to:
This does not make sense because the doctrine of the Trinity is not proprietary to Roman Catholicism. The geographic region where most of the controversy regarding Arianism, Nicea and the Trinity was the Eastern empire, which fell on the Orthodox side of the Chalcedonian schism and the Great Schism of 1054.
The Orthodox furthermore do not believe in the Immaculate Conception; our concept of human nature relies on St. John Cassian rather than St. Augustine, and does not require our Lord or his human mother to have any discontinuity in terms of human nature from anyone else.
Now, there was no campaign started by Trinitarians to exterminate non-Trinitarians; had there been such a campaign it would have begun in the 380s under Emperor St. Theodosius I of Constantinople, who did eventually prohibit Arianism.
Rather, since the 320s, Arians tried repeatedly to exterminate Trinitarians, a process which continued after the majority of them converted to Islam in the 7th and 8th centuries.
This led to the extermination of Christianity in North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, and its suppression in much of the Iberian peninsula before the Reconquista.
No, my argument rather is that the Orthodox were never subject to the Papacy. If anything, the reverse was true until Chalcedon, in that the Roman church supported the decisions of the Orthodox at the first three ecumenical councils while not participating beyond sending a delegate (whereas the eastern Patriarchs were personally present).
You appear to be "careful" not to ask for a Biblical review of Adventists -- we both know you have a much better chance of success if you avoid that.
Let's do it!!!!
Not that you will listen to anything the Bible has to say except your own twisted view.....but let's do it anyway!
I believe the point is not to debate your post, overcomer, but to provide an example of how SDA arguments assume that Rome is defining this or that for all Christianity, so that defeating or seeming to defeat Rome's argument therefore defeats whatever principle or concept is under discussion. The point of the OP, if I understand him correctly, is that because SDAs or at least SDA doctrine doesn't seem to understand or take into account that Rome does not decide matters for the Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox (and never has), the arguments created by SDAs as in your post are built on faulty premises that do not actually address the theology of the early Christian Church in toto (meaning, the Greek and non-Greek churches of the Eastern Roman empire, and beyond in places like Ethiopia, India, and Persia), but only Rome in particular.
As concerns that particular post, for instance, the Immaculate Conception is not believed by Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox; it is strictly a Roman Catholic idea, built on Roman Catholic presuppositions and ideas of original sin inherited from Augustine of Hippo
So arguing against the immaculate conception does not argue against the sinless human nature of Jesus Christ, because that's not how Jesus "got" His sinless human nature
The point is that SDA apologetics are so narrowly focused against Rome in particular as to ignore the historical and present reality of other churches outside of her
Hint: The Protestant Reformation has been "Characterized" as an "extreme opposition to Roman Catholicism" and they were Roman Catholics who were the "protesting Protestants".
"Characterizing" is merely a tool -- it does not define or create right vs wrong. I think you are on to something though with the title of your thread because Jesus Himself did not survive the scathing criticism of the "Orthodoxy of His day".
Neither did Paul.
Neither did the Protestant Reformers.
You appear to be "careful" not to ask for a Biblical review of Adventists -- we both know you have a much better chance of success if you avoid that.
Oh No wait! Now your just "making stuff up".
That did not take long.
You should have tried to hold out for at least 2 paragraphs -- or at the least - 4 sentences.
Note that the Greek Orthodox are Eastern Orthodox.
EOs: Greek, Cypriot, Antiochian (Rum/Romiioi) Russian, Bulgarian, Romanian, Serbian, Czech/Slovak, Polish, Moldovan, Ukrainian, Baltic states, Finnish, Georgian, Albanian, Montenegrin, Macedonian (well, schismatic, but still EO)
OOs: Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopian, Eritrean, Syriac, Indian (Malankara/Jacobite Syriac)
Bob Ryan says that the notion that the SDA or their founder said that the Papacy or one of the early Popes is an antichrist or the antichrist is “making stuff up.” Let's take a look.
.
I guess I don't know enough about SDAs in particular to know why this blindspot would be any more characteristic of them than it would be of any other Protestant group. Protestantism in any of its forms developed out of a reform movement within the Roman Catholic Church to deal with its own unique issues/abuses, after all. It didn't develop out of the Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox of any other church. Protestants didn't even come to Egypt until around the 1850s.
The SDA faith is characterized by an extreme opposition to Roman Catholicism. The Pope is considered to be or to have been the Beast, almost all aspects of doctrine held by Rome are rejected, even including basics such as the date of Pascha, and so on.
Now, all of this is predicated upon a false dichotomy wherein on the one hand you have Adventism and various Protestant churches of the radical reformed / Puritan Calvinist orientation, and on the other you have the Catholic church.
Setting aside the fact that this model ignores Anglicanism, it spectacularly fails to consider the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox.
I propose that if one regards the Catholic Church as bad, the Orthodox must be regarded as infinitely worse. Whereas the Roman mass ends with "Ite, missa est," which simply means "Go, it is the dismissal," the Eastern Orthodox liturgy ends with petitions for the intercession of several saints. Whereas the Roman mass implies transubstantiation, a real change of the elements into the body and blood of our Lord is explicitly described in the epiclesis of all of the Eastern and Oriental liturgies, indeed, it is described twice in the Coptic liturgy, and furthermore there are congregational prayers which confess a belief in this change.
Whereas since Vatican II, Catholic bishops typically wear less elaborate vestments, Orthodox bishops have not changed their attire. Every Byzantine, Armenian and Coptic bishop wears a mitre more ornate than the disused tiaras of the Roman pontiff. These mitres can cost tens of thousands of dollars depending on the jewells included. Whereas most Roman Catholic parishes in the Latin Rite, especially those built or refurbished since Vatican II, feature sparse iconography, an intense level of iconography is considered mandatory in the Orthodox church. Whereas since the council of Trent, the Rood Screen dividing the chancel from the nave has been removed as a standard element of Catholic parishes, Orthodox parishes tend to feature an iconostasis or curtain which can conceal the altar entirely from the laity.
Now, what is interesting is that these Orthodox churches are not under the Roman Pope, and never have been. In adhering dogmatically to these principles, the Orthodox are pursuing a faith more extreme in its opposition to Adventist ideals without influence from the alleged "beast."
This, in my opinion, exposes a false dichotomy at the heart of Adventism and the prophecies of Ellen G. White, which suggests that she and other Adventists were either unaware of the Orthodox, or else did not care, owing to a desire to criticize a figure more well known and reviled among Protestants than the Orthodox patriarchs.
All criticisms in this thread can also be applied to Protestant churches that avidly dislike Catholicism while ignoring the Orthodox.
If on the other hand - your argument is that all the Protestant Churches were actually protesting the Eastern Orthodox church and not the Roman Catholic church -- well here is your place to make your alternate history known to us.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?