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 am not interested in discussing with some who is an amature, who lacks the skills necessary to deal with the subject. you want to claim a doctrinal discussion when you really what a history lesson, sorry won't play by those rules. you don't even know how bad you are.Your not sharing the truth are you? According to the scriptures God's Word is the only definition of what truth is *see John 17:17; Romans 3:4. I provided you with both the scriptures (Gods' Word) and the Greek word meanings. You are seeking to provide sources from the Roman Catholic Church outside of the scriptures and the Apostles teachings. Who did you say is not interested in finding the truth?
At the end of the day it depends on if one believes God's Word over the teachings and traditions of men that break the commandments of God. This is what Jesus is talking about in Matthew 15-3-9 by the way and why I asked you what you thought it means. For me only God's Word is true according to the scriptures and we should believe and follow them *Romans 3:4; Acts of the Apostles 5:29. What we think and our opinions do not really matter in Gods eyes.Not in minds of most Christians it isn't easily refuted. I'm sorry to say this, but this is basically the same kind of conversation I would expect to be having with someone LDS or JW. As for Matthew 15:3-9, I think it can just as easily be applied to SDA theology the way you seem to be applying it. And I bet other fringe groups do just that.
You need to get your facts right not only in scripture but in History. The Roman Catholic Church did not start in 600 AD. Here are some useful links that might be helpful (see here; here; here; here; linked). I do agree however that the Roman Catholic Church did come out of the Roman Empire and that Constantine's civil Sunday law in March 7, 321 AD did a lot to promote it's development. Sorry it is not me that is wrong here. It seems you are wrong in not only in scripture but in history as well.you did not actually say that the early church history was Catholic writings. what absoloute foolishness. What you consider Catholic did not even exist until the 6th century. the earliest you can make a claim is at Constantine. 300 years later. the first 300 years are just general Christianity. so you are with out merit on your objection. we quote the Early Church History as the authority of History. in other words you cannot get past what they said and did, we have record. this puts a limit on what people like yourself can say and claim. Now it is not doctrinal authority, we use the scripture for that, but on a subject like the historical use of the term the Lord's Day and the Sabbath, It is very normal and appropriate to use the Church History. You claim the Lord's day and the Sabbath are the same thing, History tells us other wise. Sorry you are wrong. try again.
Ok lets agree to disagree.i am not interested in discussing with some who is an amature, who lacks the skills necessary to deal with the subject. you want to claim a doctrinal discussion when you really what a history lesson, sorry won't play by those rules. you don't even know how bad you are.
At the end of the day it depends on if one believes God's Word over the teachings and traditions of men that break the commandments of God.
This what Jesus is talking about in Matthew 15-3-9 by the way and why I asked you what you thought it means. For me only God's Word is true according to the scriptures and we should believe and follow them *Romans 3:4; Acts of the Apostles 5:29. What we think and our opinions do not really matter in Gods eyes.
Really Brian? What commandments are we now free to brake that you claim SDA's only keep a few commandments? Let's talk specifics please otherwise it is only misinformation. I would not think you would would to say things that are not true or that you may have a misunderstanding over. That is the reason for my questions. At the very least you will know exactly what I believe or do not believe rather then reading someone else's opinion that is not truthful.That would be the SDA, who think it's okay to keep a few commandments and break the rest because of the doctrinal stew Ellen White and whoever else came up with to condone it.
Really? I did not know I was presenting EGW theology? I thought I was presenting what the bible says. What is it that I have posted from the scriptures that you disagree with? What does Matthew 15:3-9 mean?I know what most or all the verses you put up mean according to orthodox Christian theology. What they mean according to Ellen White's theology is another matter. I've been though this sort of thing, talking to members of fringe groups, going back at least 40 years.
that is exactly what i was referring, except there is some debate as to the conversion of Clovis SDA's usually start it at 508 AD, so looks like you are over confident again. swing and a miss. you're really bad at this.You need to get your facts right not only in scripture but in History. The Roman Catholic Church did not start in 600 AD. Here are some useful links that might be helpful (see here; here; here; here; linked). I do agree however that the Roman Catholic Church did come out of the Roman Empire and that Constantine's civil Sunday law in March 7, 321 AD did a lot to promote it's development. Sorry it is not me that is wrong here. It seems you are wrong in not only in scripture but in history as well.
Sorry I have no idea what your talking about again.that is exactly what i was referring, except there is some debate as to the conversion of Clovis SDA's usually start it at 508 AD, so looks like you are over confident again. swing and a miss.
You do know that Clovis I was the first king of the Franks right? What has this got to do with when the Roman Catholic Church started? Your way out on your historical facts here. Did you read the linked post from Wiki? If Clovis converted to Catholicism in AD 496 how can he have started Catholicism in 600 AD if he was converted to Catholicism in 496 AD? As posted earlier here are some useful links that might be helpful (see here; here; here; here; linked). As posted earlier, I agree that the Roman Catholic Church did come out of the Roman Empire and that Constantine's civil Sunday law in March 7, 321 AD did a lot to promote it's development. Though it already existed well before this time according to History (see linked posts above).clovis 1 Clovis I - Wikipedia.
what you concsider the papacy did not occur until the time of Clovis I. He was the champion of the church, the alliance of Church and State. this lead to the middle ages and the Dominance of the Papal institutions. without Clovis it was not possible. 508 marks the beginning of the 1260 years of Papal authority, 1290 ends the alliance of the Church state relationship and 1335 marks the restoration of the Temple or Sanctuary through the SDA movement.Sorry I have no idea what your talking about again.
You have your facts wrong again we were talking about the origin of the Romans Catholic Church.what you concsider the papacy did not occur until the time of Clovis I. He was the champion of the church, the alliance of Church and State. this lead to the middle ages and the Dominance of the Papal institutions. without Clovis it was not possible. 508 marks the beginning of the 1260 years of Papal authority, 1290 ends the alliance of the Church state relationship and 1335 marks the restoration of the Temple or Sanctuary through the SDA movement.
not the roman catholic chruch, what became the beast.You have your facts wrong again we were talking about the origin of the Romans Catholic Church.
Really Brian? What commandments are we now free to brake that you claim SDA's only keep a few commandments? Let's talk specifics please otherwise it is only misinformation. I would not think you would would to say things that are not true or that you may have a misunderstanding over. That is the reason for my questions. At the very least you will know exactly what I believe or do not believe rather then reading someone else's opinion that is not truthful.
Really? I did not know I was presenting EGW theology? I thought I was presenting what the bible says. What is it that I have posted from the scriptures that you disagree with? What does Matthew 15:3-9 mean?
Not at all Brian, Everything I have posted is the result of my own prayerful bible study of Gods' Word. What is it you do not agree with and why? For me I work best with detail and facts as I LoveGodsWord (excuse the pun)No you're presenting Ellen White's / SDAs interpretation of what the Bible says. One way I see this manifested is the extreme similarly in what you present to what I've seen other SDAs present. It all comes off as scripted. You'll have to forgive me for not going deeper, which I could do, but a lot of the time I'm on CF, I'm at work on my phone typing with one thumb. So for now I can only keep this going at a casual conversational level.
The Romans Empire represents the 4th beast. The Catholic Church grew out of the 4th beast and was the little horn speaking great things (Daniel 7:7-27). I can send you some good references if your interested just pm me.not the roman catholic chruch, what became the beast.
That strikes me as theatrics. The latter half of the 19th century was full of mediums displaying fantastic abilities. I believe that's where the term "parlor tricks" originated.
What do you term as theatrics? Scripture says to try all the all the spirits.
1Jn_4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
So obviously there will be true and false prophets. We are to test them---if they are of God they will agree with the bible.
Is that an argument not to believe Gods' Word and that there is no pure truth of the Word of God? Or is it an argument that there is no truth and no error? I do not think so. Does that mean that when Jesus says many will be called but only the few will be chosen is not true? Or does that mean when Jesus says those who follow man-made teachings and traditions that break the commandments of God they are not worshiping God is not true? - Once again, I do not think so. It is God's Word and we should believe and follow it according to the scriptures. Nothing else really matters according to the scriptures.Random rambling here. when it comes to fringe group members and fringe individuals. there often seems to be a very similar pattern among them. They go on quite a bit about everything they say is the pure Word of God. That everyone else is going by man-made teaching. Everyone else is wrong to the point where either their salvation is in dangrer or they're not really saved. That most Christians mistakenly think it's okay to sin by breaking God's commandments and still be saved. And so on. And interestingly, a lot of them believe in annihilation of the damned rather than there being a hell of eternal torment.
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?