Jump to content
Kingdom of Adventistan

Origin of Catholic Church


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Gustave

    25

  • stinsonmarri

    16

  • Gregory Matthews

    15

  • phkrause

    7

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This thread needs a cooling off period, so I am locking it.

I've heard many conspiracy theories as to how the Church was started, have to say I've never heard this one. I would agree with Gregory that your interpretation of Acts 8 fails to hold water or even m

"Fails to hold even moisture"  How interesting!  So as many other theories. Jesus did not build any church on Peter, either.  Jesus called Peter a pebble not rock. Also, I am not saying that

7 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Some people believe that there are seven (7) sacraments.  These are:

1)  Baptism

2)  Confirmation

3)  Penance

4)  Eucharist (Protestants: The Lords Supper)

5)  Anointing of the Sick:

6)  Marriage

7)  Holy Orders (Protestants:  Ordination)

SDAs teach that there are two sacraments.  I have bolded those two.  However, in actual practice, SDAs act like there are three (3) additional sacraments which I have underlined.  

As an example:  At my ordination one of the persons who had a major role introduced an element that was very Catholic in thought.  To have been told such would have angered him.  But, he simply did not know what he was doing.

On a personal basis, I provide numbers 1, 4, 5, 6, & 7 to people  because I believe that they are Biblical.   However, I do not often provide # 5, as I believe that it is often misused and I do not like the manner in which I believe it is often approached.

It should also be noted that SDAs typically provide # 4 & 6 to Christians who are not SDA members.  I have performed the marriage of more people who were not SDA than I have of SDA people.

 

  

 

Pastor Green:  I do not follow the world in any form. I have been in the Church since 1955 and we have never used that word. If the church is adopting the above it is not hard to see how we are accepting today what the pioneers stood against.

The Catholic rite of Holy Communion parallels pre-Christian Greco-Roman and Egyptian rituals that involved eating the body and blood of a god.

A number of Catholic holidays and myths, such as Christmas, Easter, and Mardi Gras, graph onto the timeline of pre-Christian fertility festivals.

The Catholic practice of praying to saints has been called "de-facto idolatry" and even a relic of goddess worship.

By the fourth century, the Christian Church had established itself as the official faith of the Roman Empire through a successful grassroots campaign to dominate, and almost exterminate, paganism. But did it?

In reality, the early Church had to merge itself with pagan practices and beliefs in order to blend into Roman society. In the rites and symbols of the Roman Catholic Church, we can find surviving, though rebranded, pre-Christian myths, deities, festivals, and rituals. Here are three Catholic practices that can be traced back to ancient pagan religions and cults.

One of the more fascinating elements of Catholicism is the ritual cannibalistic consumption of their "demigod" known as Holy Communion or Eucharist. During Catholic mass, bread and wine are transformed into the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, who is considered the son of God, in a rite called "transubstantiation." This isn't a symbolic transformation. A core teaching of the Catholic faith is the belief in literal transubstantiation. Practitioners eat the body and blood of Christ to become one with God.

Similar rituals were practiced in the underground "mystery religions" of the Greco-Roman world. In a few of those occult religions, celebrants shared a communal meal in which they symbolically feasted on the flesh and got drunk on the blood of their god. For example, the Mithraic Mysteries, or Mithraism, was a mystery cult practiced in the Roman Empire in 300 BC in which followers worshipped the Indo-Iranian deity Mithram, the god of friendship, contract, and order. Mirroring the Catholic Eucharistic rite, the idea of transubstantiation was a characteristic of Mithraic sacraments that included cake and Haoma drink. But the ritual probably wasn't original to Mithraism either. In Egypt around 3100 BC, priests would consecrate cakes which were to become the flesh of the god Osiris and eaten. The pagan origins of three Catholic practices; by MOLLY HANSON- 20 February, 2020

We were warned in both Daniel and Revelation that the Church would not stand through the time of darkness. I will not accept any false teachings. The Passover was to be taken to point to YAHSHUA and if you read that is what they eaten at first during the evening that begins the Week of Unleavened Bread.

Ye know that after two days is the passover, and THE SON of man is betrayed to be executed.  Now before the Unleavened Bread the disciples came to YAHSHUA, saying unto HIM, Where wilt THOU that we prepare for THEE to eat the passover? Mat 26:2, 17 WOY

 Now the feast of Unleavened Bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover. Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, when the passover must be killed. And HE sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat. Luk 22:1, 7, 8

The word feast is also a pagan word that has been adopted:

From Middle English feeste, feste, borrowed from Old French feste, from Late Latin festa, from the plural of Latin festum (“holiday, festival, feast”), ultimately from Proto-Indo-European *dʰéh₁s (“god, godhead, deity”); see also Ancient Greek θεός (theós, “god, goddess”). Etymology

YAHWEH made it very clear what these days were to be called: (I will removed the false English word and replace it with the correct Hebrew word, which is the KJV +)

 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, Concerning the Appointed Fix Time of YAHWEH, which ye shall proclaim to be Holy Convocations, even these are MY Appointed Fix Time. Lev 23:2 

This also included the Sabbath. Lev 23:3

Returning to the Holy Convocation of Unleavened Bread, that started that evening, YAHSHUA and the disciples first ate the passover meal. Afterward:

Now before the feast (the Holy Convocation) of the passover, when YAHSHUA knew that HIS hour was come that HE should depart out of this world unto THE FATHER, having loved HIS OWN which were in the world, HE loved them unto the end. And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray HIM; YAHSHUA knowing that THE FATHER had given all things into HIS HANDS and that HE was come from YAHWEH, and went to ELOHIYM;  HE riseth from supper, and laid aside HIS Garments; and took a towel, and girded HIMSELF.  After that HE poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith HE was girded. John 13:1-5  

Now, what separated the two suppers was the washing of the feet. Mat 26:26-29. I have never read any where this was a eunichrist or any sacrement.  

There are seven sacraments of the Catholic Church, which according to Catholic theology were instituted by Jesus and entrusted to the Church. Sacraments are visible rites seen as signs and efficacious channels of the grace of God to all those who receive them with the proper disposition. The sevenfold list of sacraments is often organized into three categories: the sacraments of initiation (into the Church, the body of Christ), consisting of Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist; the sacraments of healing, consisting of Penance and Anointing of the Sick; and the sacraments of service: Holy Orders and Matrimony. Sacraments of the Catholic Church From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am not a Catholic and I do not follow any of the Catholic belief system, it is not Biblical! I follow the Bible and take YAHSHUA'S Supper once year as it is a Appointed Fix Time that started Gen 1:14. It appears that the SDA church has united with Catholicism and I will have no part in it. I am a Seventh Day Adventist by faith according to the WORD of YAHWEH which I upheld. These verses make it clear we are not worship or learn the ways of the heathens. Deut 12:4, 30; Jeremiah 10:2

Happy Sabbath and May YAHWEH Add a Blessings to These Words!

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

Why is it that almost every discussion Marri gets in turns hostile?

Why is that JoeMo: Is an accuser and a person who looks to find fault because of the words I said. I comment just like you do and just like we alway have done in the past.

Hostile: warlike, aggressive: a hostile takeover; adverse, contrary, unsympathetic: a hostile response. Free Dictionary

Let me see, I saw warlike takeover when Trump had his followers to believe a lie and broke into the Capitol Building! They were aggressive and was trying to do a hostile takeover. They were adverse, contrary, and unsympathetic; they showed it by bringing in the confederate flag (the flag that lost the civil war). They sack the place and killed a police. Where have you seen me do any of those things dear Joe! Now, I reject anything that is not Biblical which is not hostile!

Peace!

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gustave said:

Stinson, how do you deal with Numbers 16 and the rebellion of Korah? Do you believe that Moses used witchcraft to get rid of Korah and his supporters OR do you believe Korah was on the wrong side of that issue and that it was actually God that was displeased with his failure to recognize the religious authority he should have?  

Do you believe Jesus was justified in ordering both the crowds and his Disciples to "do whatsoever the Scribes and Pharisees commanded" in Matthew 23,2 because they had that same religious authority given by God or do you believe if you were present when Jesus said that you would have corrected Christ by informing him that you would ONLY do what the Scribes and Pharisees said  pertaining to Judaism's faith  IF what they said aligned with your private interpretation of Scripture? 

How you answer the above two questions would inform your decision on how you would answer the following: 

Matthew 28,16: Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Why, before Jesus' death did He tell the crowds and His Disciples to follow the religious instruction of the Scribes and Pharisees? Why would Jesus care about "the seat of Moses"? Why would Jesus say the something after His resurrection that contradicted something He said prior to His death and resurrection? 

I'd like to how you demonstrate your logic chain in answering these questions. I realize that Nation of Islam and the Black Israelite movements are dependent on some conspiracy theories but lets set those aside for right now and focus on answering the questions I've posed without relying on conspiracy theories. 

 

3 hours ago, Gustave said:

Stinson, how do you deal with Numbers 16 and the rebellion of Korah? Do you believe that Moses used witchcraft to get rid of Korah and his supporters OR do you believe Korah was on the wrong side of that issue and that it was actually God that was displeased with his failure to recognize the religious authority he should have?  

Do you believe Jesus was justified in ordering both the crowds and his Disciples to "do whatsoever the Scribes and Pharisees commanded" in Matthew 23,2 because they had that same religious authority given by God or do you believe if you were present when Jesus said that you would have corrected Christ by informing him that you would ONLY do what the Scribes and Pharisees said  pertaining to Judaism's faith  IF what they said aligned with your private interpretation of Scripture? 

How you answer the above two questions would inform your decision on how you would answer the following: 

Matthew 28,16: Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Why, before Jesus' death did He tell the crowds and His Disciples to follow the religious instruction of the Scribes and Pharisees? Why would Jesus care about "the seat of Moses"? Why would Jesus say the something after His resurrection that contradicted something He said prior to His death and resurrection? 

I'd like to how you demonstrate your logic chain in answering these questions. I realize that Nation of Islam and the Black Israelite movements are dependent on some conspiracy theories but lets set those aside for right now and focus on answering the questions I've posed without relying on conspiracy theories. 

You started with Korah and then mention some ridiculous witcraft that made no sense. Korah and his followers; wanted oppose who YAHWEH had anointed and chosen.

And YAHWEH spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying, Separate yourselves from among this  congregation, that I may consume them in a moment. Num 16:20, 21

If you took the time and read it YAHWEH that destroyed Korah and his followers.

Here goes something else that makes no sense. YAHSHUA was showing that they thought they were ordained or appointed to take Moses place. Yet, they were not following the teachings of Moses at all. Moses obeyed and listen to YAHWEH accept when Aaron and him stood before the people. YAHWEH told him to speak to the rock, instead he struck it twice. Moses did not listen to THE VOICE of YAHWEH! Both brothers did not go over to the land of Canaan. What you fail to see that it was YAHWEH through HIS SON THE ANGEL that instructed  Moses, gave him the Commandments.

Behold, I send an ANGEL before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared.  Beware of HIM, and obey HIS VOICE, provoke HIM not; for HE WILL not pardon your transgressions: for MY NAME is in HIM. Exo 23:20, 21  

You do not appear to understand that it was YAHSHUA who came to Abraham, with two messengers who were destroy Sodom of their sins. These people knew the truth, were captured and brought back whole but they became worst. This lesson of Everlasting Fire was to show what will happen to all who reject the true principles of YAHWEH! THE SON said HE came in THE NAME OF HIS FATHER and will return to bring vengeance on all who will not follow in THEIR PRECEPTS. The Pharisees and Scribes were not appointed, nor were they following the truth. If they had, they would have known who YAHSHUA WAS!

Then as you do, you jump on a subject that is so ridiculous and prejudice. Why because I am Black and make truthful statements that come from the Bible about Blacks who worship YAHWEH! You are full of conspiracy theories. First, Elijah Mohammed Islam was a made up lie about White people being devils and were created by men. It was stupid! However, It gave Blacks a since of pride and respect for who they were at the time. Nowhere in the Bible did IsraEL come from a Black person. Jacob was a Hebrew, but did Blacks join with the Hebrews yes they did. The Bible tells us that YAHWEH Said HIS House was for all people. So, please get that straight! Canaanite woman, who were Black followed down the line of ancestry of YAHSHUA. You need to deal with it because it is Biblical. The Hebrews and the Blacks were intimate during the Bible times. Get over it!

Peace!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stinsonmarri said:

Pastor Green:  I do not follow the world in any form. I have been in the Church since 1955 and we have never used that word. If the church is adopting the above it is not hard to see how we are accepting today what the pioneers stood against.

The Catholic rite of Holy Communion parallels pre-Christian Greco-Roman and Egyptian rituals that involved eating the body and blood of a god.

A number of Catholic holidays and myths, such as Christmas, Easter, and Mardi Gras, graph onto the timeline of pre-Christian fertility festivals.

The Catholic practice of praying to saints has been called "de-facto idolatry" and even a relic of goddess worship.

By the fourth century, the Christian Church had established itself as the official faith of the Roman Empire through a successful grassroots campaign to dominate, and almost exterminate, paganism. But did it?

In reality, the early Church had to merge itself with pagan practices and beliefs in order to blend into Roman society. In the rites and symbols of the Roman Catholic Church, we can find surviving, though rebranded, pre-Christian myths, deities, festivals, and rituals. Here are three Catholic practices that can be traced back to ancient pagan religions and cults.

 

Practitioners eat the body and blood of Christ to become one with God.

Similar rituals were practiced in the underground "mystery religions" of the Greco-Roman world. In a few of those occult religions, celebrants shared a communal meal in which they symbolically feasted on the flesh and got drunk on the blood of their god. For example, the Mithraic Mysteries, or Mithraism, was a mystery cult practiced in the Roman Empire in 300 BC in which followers worshipped the Indo-Iranian deity Mithram, the god of friendship, contract, and order. Mirroring the Catholic Eucharistic rite, the idea of transubstantiation was a characteristic of Mithraic sacraments that included cake and Haoma drink. But the ritual probably wasn't original to Mithraism either. In Egypt around 3100 BC, priests would consecrate cakes which were to become the flesh of the god Osiris and eaten. The pagan origins of three Catholic practices; by MOLLY HANSON- 20 February, 2020

We were warned in both Daniel and Revelation that the Church would not stand through the time of darkness. I will not accept any false teachings. The Passover was to be taken to point to YAHSHUA and if you read that is what they eaten at first during the evening that begins the Week of Unleavened Bread.

Ye know that after two days is the passover, and THE SON of man is betrayed to be executed.  Now before the Unleavened Bread the disciples came to YAHSHUA, saying unto HIM, Where wilt THOU that we prepare for THEE to eat the passover? Mat 26:2, 17 WOY

 Now the feast of Unleavened Bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover. Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, when the passover must be killed. And HE sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat. Luk 22:1, 7, 8

The word feast is also a pagan word that has been adopted:

From Middle English feeste, feste, borrowed from Old French feste, from Late Latin festa, from the plural of Latin festum (“holiday, festival, feast”), ultimately from Proto-Indo-European *dʰéh₁s (“god, godhead, deity”); see also Ancient Greek θεός (theós, “god, goddess”). Etymology

YAHWEH made it very clear what these days were to be called: (I will removed the false English word and replace it with the correct Hebrew word, which is the KJV +)

 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, Concerning the Appointed Fix Time of YAHWEH, which ye shall proclaim to be Holy Convocations, even these are MY Appointed Fix Time. Lev 23:2 

This also included the Sabbath. Lev 23:3

Returning to the Holy Convocation of Unleavened Bread, that started that evening, YAHSHUA and the disciples first ate the passover meal. Afterward:

Now before the feast (the Holy Convocation) of the passover, when YAHSHUA knew that HIS hour was come that HE should depart out of this world unto THE FATHER, having loved HIS OWN which were in the world, HE loved them unto the end. And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray HIM; YAHSHUA knowing that THE FATHER had given all things into HIS HANDS and that HE was come from YAHWEH, and went to ELOHIYM;  HE riseth from supper, and laid aside HIS Garments; and took a towel, and girded HIMSELF.  After that HE poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith HE was girded. John 13:1-5  

Now, what separated the two suppers was the washing of the feet. Mat 26:26-29. I have never read any where this was a eunichrist or any sacrement.  

 

I am not a Catholic and I do not follow any of the Catholic belief system, it is not Biblical! I follow the Bible and take YAHSHUA'S Supper once year as it is a Appointed Fix Time that started Gen 1:14. It appears that the SDA church has united with Catholicism and I will have no part in it. I am a Seventh Day Adventist by faith according to the WORD of YAHWEH which I upheld. These verses make it clear we are not worship or learn the ways of the heathens. Deut 12:4, 30; Jeremiah 10:2

Happy Sabbath and May YAHWEH Add a Blessings to These Words!

Stinson, "The Pioneers" you just appealed to as the litmus test for correct Doctrine were heretics who taught heresy - your own Church scholars have been forthright and blunt about this - fact.  Therefore, predicating what you will or will not believe today based on the teaching of heretics of live in the 19th century is an odd logic chain to be sure. 

Isn't Molly Hanson (the author you quoted from) affiliated with the group Freedom from Religion, an ashiest group that believe all religion is poison and should be done away with? Given your copious quotes from what appears to be Molly Hanson. Perhaps Molly Hanson changed her views and accepted the interpretation of Stinson while continuing to slander and misrepresent Catholic beliefs? I don't know, is that what happened? Or, are you simply bottom fishing from any source you can find on the internet and simply quoting statements as if they were your own intellectual property? 

Looking forward to reading your answers 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, stinsonmarri said:

 

You started with Korah and then mention some ridiculous witcraft that made no sense. Korah and his followers; wanted oppose who YAHWEH had anointed and chosen.

And YAHWEH spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying, Separate yourselves from among this  congregation, that I may consume them in a moment. Num 16:20, 21

If you took the time and read it YAHWEH that destroyed Korah and his followers.

Here goes something else that makes no sense. YAHSHUA was showing that they thought they were ordained or appointed to take Moses place. Yet, they were not following the teachings of Moses at all. Moses obeyed and listen to YAHWEH accept when Aaron and him stood before the people. YAHWEH told him to speak to the rock, instead he struck it twice. Moses did not listen to THE VOICE of YAHWEH! Both brothers did not go over to the land of Canaan. What you fail to see that it was YAHWEH through HIS SON THE ANGEL that instructed  Moses, gave him the Commandments.

Behold, I send an ANGEL before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared.  Beware of HIM, and obey HIS VOICE, provoke HIM not; for HE WILL not pardon your transgressions: for MY NAME is in HIM. Exo 23:20, 21  

You do not appear to understand that it was YAHSHUA who came to Abraham, with two messengers who were destroy Sodom of their sins. These people knew the truth, were captured and brought back whole but they became worst. This lesson of Everlasting Fire was to show what will happen to all who reject the true principles of YAHWEH! THE SON said HE came in THE NAME OF HIS FATHER and will return to bring vengeance on all who will not follow in THEIR PRECEPTS. The Pharisees and Scribes were not appointed, nor were they following the truth. If they had, they would have known who YAHSHUA WAS!

Then as you do, you jump on a subject that is so ridiculous and prejudice. Why because I am Black and make truthful statements that come from the Bible about Blacks who worship YAHWEH! You are full of conspiracy theories. First, Elijah Mohammed Islam was a made up lie about White people being devils and were created by men. It was stupid! However, It gave Blacks a since of pride and respect for who they were at the time. Nowhere in the Bible did IsraEL come from a Black person. Jacob was a Hebrew, but did Blacks join with the Hebrews yes they did. The Bible tells us that YAHWEH Said HIS House was for all people. So, please get that straight! Canaanite woman, who were Black followed down the line of ancestry of YAHSHUA. You need to deal with it because it is Biblical. The Hebrews and the Blacks were intimate during the Bible times. Get over it!

Peace!

 

 

So you &  Phkrause agree that the Bible demonstrates that God has chosen and anointed Moses to be the Religious Authority for the Cult? Ok, I agree with you & Phkrause, God did choose and anoint Moses for that position.

Now, the question you need to answer is if the Scribes and Pharisees power that Jesus spoke of was carried down through the ages from the time of Moses and was in fact that same Religious Authority Moses had OR did the Scribes and Pharisees "usurp" or steal this religious authority by illicit means? 

Please answer the question. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stinsonmarri:  It is clear from your answer that you do not understand what the word "sacrament" actually means.   It is a good word that is used by Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants and Seventh-day Adventists.

It is true that Catholics and Protestants do not hold to the exact same meaning of that word as used in actual practice.  But the fact that SDAs use it does not imply that they hold to the same belief about it as do Catholics.

You are entitled to your beliefs.  You do not have to hold the same exact beliefs that I hold, in order to post here.  But, you clearly are out of the ball park in your understanding of the word sacrament.  Your posts make that clear.

  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gustave said:

Stinson, "The Pioneers" you just appealed to as the litmus test for correct Doctrine were heretics who taught heresy - your own Church scholars have been forthright and blunt about this - fact.  Therefore, predicating what you will or will not believe today based on the teaching of heretics of live in the 19th century is an odd logic chain to be sure. 

Isn't Molly Hanson (the author you quoted from) affiliated with the group Freedom from Religion, an ashiest group that believe all religion is poison and should be done away with? Given your copious quotes from what appears to be Molly Hanson. Perhaps Molly Hanson changed her views and accepted the interpretation of Stinson while continuing to slander and misrepresent Catholic beliefs? I don't know, is that what happened? Or, are you simply bottom fishing from any source you can find on the internet and simply quoting statements as if they were your own intellectual property? 

Looking forward to reading your answers 

 

You are weird! The Pioneers of the SDA church had nothing to do with Molly Hanson. You want to call them heretics because they did not follow your god the pope of his doctrines that are not Biblical. Peter is not buried under the Basilica of Rome! We have dna now prove it is Peter, let someone test the bones. You won't because it is a lie! Your church opposes the truth and teach to worship a man who has no power at all. All the popes die now you would think they would have power to live! They can't and they are not in Heaven, they are dead in the ground where all who dies goes. So call us what you want, I know who I stand for and I know who you stand for that opposes YAHWEH, YAHSHUA and THE HOLY SPIRIT! You accept a ghost that does not exist! Weird!

Peace!

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, stinsonmarri said:

You are weird! The Pioneers of the SDA church had nothing to do with Molly Hanson. You want to call them heretics because they did not follow your god the pope of his doctrines that are not Biblical. Peter is not buried under the Basilica of Rome! We have dna now prove it is Peter, let someone test the bones. You won't because it is a lie! Your church opposes the truth and teach to worship a man who has no power at all. All the popes die now you would think they would have power to live! They can't and they are not in Heaven, they are dead in the ground where all who dies goes. So call us what you want, I know who I stand for and I know who you stand for that opposes YAHWEH, YAHSHUA and THE HOLY SPIRIT! You accept a ghost that does not exist! Weird!

Peace!

What's weird is your quoting of a source that condemns religious belief of any religion in support of your own interpretation of what religion should / should not be. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Stinsonmarri:  It is clear from your answer that you do not understand what the word "sacrament" actually means.   It is a good word that is used by Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants and Seventh-day Adventists.

It is true that Catholics and Protestants do not hold to the exact same meaning of that word as used in actual practice.  But the fact that SDAs use it does not imply that they hold to the same belief about it as do Catholics.

You are entitled to your beliefs.  You do not have to hold the same exact beliefs that I hold, in order to post here.  But, you clearly are out of the ball park in your understanding of the word sacrament.  Your posts make tha clear.

  

Please do not do that Pastor Green. I have a true understanding of what it means and I do not agree with you. It started with the Catholic Church and you will not find any Pioneer using that word. I grew up in the Church and I also went to church school as a child. That word was never used until reason and I do not accept. Just because leader want to accept false teachings is their chose. I do not obey man, I obey YAHWEH!  You may say, that I am out of the ball park but let me tell you what YAHWEH SAYS!

There is a conspiracy of her prophets in the midst thereof, like a roaring lion ravening the prey; they have devoured souls; they have taken the treasure and precious things; they have made her many widows in the midst thereof.  Her priests have violated MY Law, and have profaned MINE Holy things: they have put no difference between the Holy and profane, neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from MY  Sabbaths, and I am profaned among them. Her princes in the midst thereof are like wolves ravening the prey, to shed blood, and to destroy souls, to get dishonest gain.  And her prophets have daubed them with untempered morter, seeing vanity, and divining lies unto them, saying, Thus saith THE SOVEREIGN YAHWEH, when YAHWEH hath not spoken. Eze 22:25-28  

I stand for truth that the Bible provides and it appears that you and I are walking two different paths. I do know that the pioneers never used that word and I do believe in Marriage, Baptism (which should be done once a year.), washing the feet and taking YAHSHUA'S Supper once a year is a miniature baptism. Which I participate and there are other SDA who do the same! Marriage was instituted in the Garden of Eden. I believe if you are sick that a faithful elder should come and pray over you. I have seen the miracle of prayer many times. However, I have never read where YAHSHUA listed them as sacraments, it is not Biblical! Neither did the Apostles do as well if so show me!

Happy Sabbath!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

The following is a 25 page paper, which I have briefly looked at, but not fully read, which may be of interest  on the subject of SDAs and the Sacraments:

Microsoft Word - Jackson.docx (adventistarchives.org)

 

 

 

One of the most significant disagreements about the nature of ordination pertains to whether ordination should be regarded as a sacrament. Roman Catholics have been foremost in defending the sacramental nature of ordination whereas Protestants have generally rejected the sacramental nature of ordination. Nevertheless, many Protestants have retaining the term sacrament to describe the rites of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Seventh-day Adventists, at least in theory, have aligned themselves with their Protestant counterparts in rejecting the idea of ordination as a sacrament. But unlike many of their Protestant counterparts they have also rejected sacramental terminology in relation to any church practices, preferring instead the title of ordinance to describe baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and Foot Washing. Ministerial Association of Seventh-day Adventists. Seventh-day Adventist Minister’s Manual p. 77

This where I stand and I do not need to use the word sacrament that has no Scripture bearing! It started with the Catholic adopting it from the pagan sacraments. I do not go the ways of the heathens.

Blessings!

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Gustave said:

What's weird is your quoting of a source that condemns religious belief of any religion in support of your own interpretation of what religion should / should not be. 

The Bible is not of anyone's private interpretation! Do you ever read the Bible? I don't condemns the Bible does.

For the WRATH of YAHWEH is revealed from Heaven against all wickedness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;  Because that which may be known of ELOHIYM is manifest in them; for ELOHIYM hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of HIM from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his ETERNAL POWER and MAJESTY; so that they are without excuse: Rom 1:18-20  

 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness. 2Pe 3:16, 17

And for this cause ELOHIYM shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:   That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 2Th 2:11, 12

Peace!

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, stinsonmarri said:

The Bible is not of anyone's private interpretation! Do you ever read the Bible? I don't condemns the Bible does.

For the WRATH of YAHWEH is revealed from Heaven against all wickedness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;  Because that which may be known of ELOHIYM is manifest in them; for ELOHIYM hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of HIM from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his ETERNAL POWER and MAJESTY; so that they are without excuse: Rom 1:18-20  

 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness. 2Pe 3:16, 17

And for this cause ELOHIYM shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:   That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 2Th 2:11, 12

Peace!

Every time you quote Scripture and assign a meaning different than someone else has you're exercising private interpretation. Unless of course you're arrogant enough to believe you have all the answers. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, stinsonmarri said:

The Bible is not of anyone's private interpretation! Do you ever read the Bible? I don't condemns the Bible does.

For the WRATH of YAHWEH is revealed from Heaven against all wickedness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;  Because that which may be known of ELOHIYM is manifest in them; for ELOHIYM hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of HIM from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his ETERNAL POWER and MAJESTY; so that they are without excuse: Rom 1:18-20  

 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness. 2Pe 3:16, 17

And for this cause ELOHIYM shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:   That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 2Th 2:11, 12

Peace!

You continue to avoid those very simple questions I asked you. Give it a go - answer them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Gustave said:

Every time you quote Scripture and assign a meaning different than someone else has you're exercising private interpretation. Unless of course you're arrogant enough to believe you have all the answers. 

No, I am humble enough to believe what each word means when they are in a sentence and what YAHWEH saids!:flower:

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, stinsonmarri said:

No, I am humble enough to believe what each word means when they are in a sentence and what YAHWEH saids!:flower:

There are countless people who feel the same way that you do AND they come up with different interpretations than you do - which repudiates your logic. Please answer the very simple questions I asked you earlier in this thread about the Religious Authority Moses did / didn't have and if Religious Authority did or didn't exist at the point of Matthew 22. You can do it Stinson, you're humble enough to believe what each word means when they are in a sentence, no? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, JoeMo said:

Why is it that almost every discussion Marri gets in turns hostile?

Yep, just not worth getting into the discussion.

Not only do they turn hostile, but she also goes the way of projection. 

Psychological projection is a defense mechanism in which the ego defends itself against unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves by attributing them to others.

The Babylonian Talmud (500 AD) notes the human tendency toward projection and warns against it: "Do not taunt your neighbour with the blemish you yourself have."

Here is an example:

On 2/8/2021 at 12:04 AM, stinsonmarri said:

Boy are you so full of hate and it shows with you lack of knowledge.

😁  Just for the record, I am not full of hate!  :biglaugh:  ROFLMHO

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2021 at 1:54 PM, B/W Photodude said:

Yep, just not worth getting into the discussion.

Not only do they turn hostile, but she also goes the way of projection. 

Psychological projection is a defense mechanism in which the ego defends itself against unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves by attributing them to others.

The Babylonian Talmud (500 AD) notes the human tendency toward projection and warns against it: "Do not taunt your neighbour with the blemish you yourself have."

Here is an example:

😁  Just for the record, I am not full of hate!  :biglaugh:  ROFLMHO

Not only is all the things I have said that I get to you is true. Surprize, surprize here you are. Hate witH you is like clothing, it surrounds you and eats you up alive. You made it again what you just can't help it! ME!:thumbsup::bpower::cool2:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stinsonmarri, when you quote form the SDA Ministers Manual, please cite either the edition, or the copyright date.    Some of my books are boxed up at the moment.  But, your cited passage does not appear in the edition that I am looking at, on any page.

I remind you that I have stated that the SDA Church calls Baptism and the Lords Sup[per a Sacrament.   Your citation is to ordination.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Gregory Matthews locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...