/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>759451

Legalism based on OT customs. Jesus said no one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back.

>>759455

What about Matthew 5:17?

>Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

>>759457

I think it's self explanatory. Why do you think it means we are still under the old law?

>>759457

He fulfilled the law. So rest in Him, He is the Sabbath.

>>759459

>old law

Which of the two old laws? The Decalogue or the Ceremonial Laws (Moses Law), which were abolished on the cross? There is not much to fulfill in the Decalogue, since it is basically a tutorial of "how to know if you are loving God above all things and loving your neighbor as yourself.".

Legalism is believing that if you obey the laws you will gain salvation, which is not true, because it doesn't matter much to fulfill the Decalogue out of formality and not to love God.

>>759468

Also, the inverse extreme of legalism is also not correct, because saying that you love God and do not fulfill His law shows that you do not really love God.

>1 Jhon 2:4

<Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him

>>759472

Jesus said to the Samaritan woman that a time would come (and we are living in that time now) where we would worship God in Spirit and in Truth. The prophet Jeremiah spoke of a new covenant that God would make with His People where He would write his laws in our hearts.

>>759472

Also if you're in the business of cherry picking verses out of the Buble instead of reading it in it's entirety you're going to get your ass banned pretty quickly. So I suggest you stop listening to some unqualified creepy pastor with some agenda who's handing you these talking points and read the entire Bible for yourself.

They claim they have a new prophet and its a winnie the pooh woman.

Enough said tbh.

There are just slightly less retarded than the Jehovah witnesses.

The most Christian of the unchristian Christian groups like the Mormons and JWs. People get distracted by their focus on the OT and forget that they literally think their founder was a new *prophet*.

>>759493

There are prophets of God these days as laid out in the NT, but she was a false prophet

Judaizers.

>>759480

I've already read the whole Bible, I'm not randomly choosing passages.

>>759477

I don't know how that abolishes the decalogue, really.

>>759487

>ellen white

>not being based

Did you at least read any of his books? The way it says how a family should be structured is pretty based for me.

>>759497

What is a judaizer to you?

>>759502

What a good argument.

It's associated with freemasonry tbh

Pretty much gave birth to some of the looniest cults from America (Davidians, Jehovah's Witnesses)… even if on it's own, it isn't as bad as all of them. Or maybe they were all "Adventist", I should say.. and the 7th Day ones seem like the most normal branch.

>>759499

I couldn't care less about her being based.

Christianity is about the truth, not some gal's opinions.

>>759451

Their church is based on an idiotic conspiracy historicsl narrative.

>>759451

Please lurk more

>>759468

"old law" has been standard Christian terminology for millennia to describe the old covenant

>>759499

>the decalogue

There's nothing in the decalogue about keeping the 7th day sabbath. It states that six days we are to labor, and the seventh to rest, but it does not qualify which days within the week these are to fall upon. While under the old law the sabbath was on the 7th day of the week in memoriam of the creation of the world, since the resurrection of Christ the sabbath was moved to the 1st day in memoriam of the new creation. This is revealed in the New Testament when it shows the apostles worshipping on sunday, the Lord's day.

Their prophetess set our faith back by a century by plagiarizing John Milton's work.

>>759999

>It states that six days we are to labor, and the seventh to rest, but it does not qualify which days within the week these are to fall upon

>Exodus 20:9-10

< 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns.

It states clearly that the seventh day is the Sabbath.

>This is revealed in the New Testament when it shows the apostles worshipping on sunday, the Lord's day.

Yeah, although literally that doesn't happen anywhere in the NT.

>>759955

Not really, only if you are talking about Kellogg, who was excommunicated by Ellen White herself.

>>759961

Her opinions were based on the Bible, and some of her prophecies, which are the most controversial thing about her, have already been fulfilled today.

>>759999

>This is revealed in the New Testament when it shows the apostles worshipping on sunday, the Lord's day.

Where?

>>759451

They're a cult that makes my state somewhat worse.

>>759451

>What do you guys think about the Seventh-Day Adventist Church?

vegans/vegetarians, and scientists have shown that that type of diet turns you into a retard because of the lack of b12. So if you have no problem with turning into a retard, it might be an ok church

They are a judaizing heretics.

I have a friend I hope the conversion will resolve the issue. They're almost as retarded as JW. Each discussion with my friend ends up by me having a headache.

>>760447

>which are the most controversial thing about her, have already been fulfilled today.

Such as…

>>765278

I mean, they're responsible for the creation of the JWs, and the Branch Davidians. They bear a lot of bad fruit to be honest.

>>765281

The First and Second World War in Testimonies Vol 1 and Evangelism. In Selected Messages vol 3, there is a prediction of the atomic bomb.

The growth of spiritism and its approach to the Christian world (Pentecostalism) in Early Writtings.

How Protestantism and Catholicism would later begin to form bonds through ecumenism (something impossible to happen at that time) in The Great Controversy.

That's not to mention his teachings on health that were only confirmed by science many years later.

>>765282

Jehovah's Witnesses are to Adventists what Protestants are to the Catholic Church. One came out of the other, but that doesn't mean they agree, quite the opposite, actually.

I admire their dedication to clean living but isn't Ellen White a prophet to them?

>>765347

Yes.

>>765339

I'd like to see some quotes. Only then I can judge, bevaus ei can say some random Hindu prophet also predicted the wars and etc.

>The growth of spiritism and its approach to the Christian world (Pentecostalism) in Early Writtings.

She must have lived in a parallel universe.

>How Protestantism and Catholicism would later begin to form bonds through ecumenism

Things that will never happen unless prots cease to be prots.

>The Great Controversy.

The what?

>That's not to mention his teachings on health that were only confirmed by science many years later.

I'd really like quotes about this lol.

>>765354

>because I can say that….

>>765354

Early Writtings, The Great Controversy, Testimonies Vol 1 and Evangelism are some of her books.

>I'd like to see some quotes

<I was shown the inhabitants of the earth in the utmost confusion. War, bloodshed, privation, want, famine, and pestilence were abroad in the land. As these things surrounded God's people, they began to press together, and to cast aside their little difficulties. Self-dignity no longer controlled them; deep humility took its place. Suffering, perplexity, and privation caused reason to resume its throne, and the passionate and unreasonable man became sane, and acted with discretion and wisdom.

My attention was then called from the scene. There seemed to be a little time of peace. Once more the inhabitants of the earth were presented before me; and again everything was in the utmost confusion. Strife, war, and bloodshed, with famine and pestilence, raged everywhere. Other nations were engaged in this war and confusion. War caused famine. Want and bloodshed caused pestilence. And then men's hearts failed them for fear, “and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth.”

>Testimonies Vol 1 pag 268

>I'd really like quotes about this lol.

In 1854, she warned of the health damage caused by smoking.

<“Tobacco is a poison of the most deceitful and malignant kind, having an exciting, then a paralyzing influence upon the nerves of the body. It is all the more dangerous because its effects upon the system are so slow, and at first scarcely perceivable.” Spiritual Gifts 4a:128.

In 1905, she warned that cancer could be caused by bacteria and viruses.

<Flesh was never the best food; but its use is now doubly objectionable, since disease in animals is so rapidly increasing. Those who use flesh foods little know what they are eating. Often if they could see the animals when living and know the quality of the meat they eat, they would turn from it with loathing. People are continually eating flesh that is filled with tuberculous and cancerous germs. Tuberculosis, cancer, and other fatal diseases are thus communicated. MH 313

She warned about the danger of humidity and how sunlight kills bacteria, which was confirmed 80 years later by Dr. Lawrence P. Garrod.

<Rooms that are not exposed to light and air become damp. Beds and bedding gather dampness, and the atmosphere in these rooms is poisonous, because it has not been purified by light and air…. CH 57.2

And warned about the danger of the tea and coffe as stimulants.

<Tea acts as a stimulant and, to a certain extent, produces intoxication. The action of coffee and many other popular drinks is similar. The first effect is exhilarating. The nerves of the stomach are excited; these convey irritation to the brain, and this in turn is aroused to impart increased action to the heart and short-lived energy to the entire system. Fatigue is forgotten; the strength seems to be increased. The intellect is aroused, the imagination becomes more vivid. MH 326.1

>>765371

You are kidding with me right? These are prophecies? Wtf man.

About the war its the most generic shit I've ever read. Who knew there was going to be more wars and suffering?

>tobacco

Everyone knew it was a drug just like alcohol and potentially dangerous.

For example try to chew lots of tobacco and see what happens to you. Don't do it you might die.

>the diseases caused by meat

Although she is right this is a fact well know from her time.

But she is wrong claiming the bacteria that causes tuberculosis comes from meat and was discovered late in the 19th century while she was a young lass. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycobacterium_tuberculosis

More germs is a very broad definition. How can that even be applied to viruses I don't know. One thing I know is that they don't come from the flesh of animals, although some chemicals (which are not germs) might provoke thanks to the industrial production of livestock that begun in the 19th century.

><Rooms that are not exposed to light and air become damp. Beds and bedding gather dampness, and the atmosphere in these rooms is poisonous, because it has not been purified by light and air…. CH 57.2

OK this is bait right? My grandmother is a prophet as well alongside everyone since people started having their own houses. It's common sense damn it.

We now only know why it's good to do that, not that elen white explains why it happens.

><Tea acts as a stimulant and, to a certain extent, produces intoxication. The action of coffee and many other popular drinks is similar. The first effect is exhilarating. The nerves of the stomach are excited; these convey irritation to the brain, and this in turn is aroused to impart increased action to the heart and short-lived energy to the entire system. Fatigue is forgotten; the strength seems to be increased. The intellect is aroused, the imagination becomes more vivid. MH 326.1

Everyone who drinks coffee heavily knows this first hand.

I don't know what you are trying to prove.

Are these prophecies?

Or did you made a mistake posting?

Besides most shit is wrong from a scientific point of view or are literal common sense.

>>765381

One thing more

>The nerves of the stomach are excited; these convey irritation to the brain,

Lmao this lady should go back to middle school biology classes.

Ever heard about hormones and chemicals in the blood stream oh Holy prophet?

>>765381

>I don't know what you are trying to prove.

>Are these prophecies?

>Or did you made a mistake posting?

I'm guess that it was in reply to >>765354

>That's not to mention his teachings on health that were only confirmed by science many years later.

>I'd really like quotes about this lol.

>>765386

You didn't get the sarcasm.

What I mean is that nothing you posted is prophetic. Somethings are common sense and others half truths of already known things from her time.

She errs in every try to look scientifical btw.

>>765390

I'm not that guy. Look at the IDs. I was just giving him the benefit of the doubt.

>>765392

I never look at IDs because I'm retarded.

My only real problem with them is that a lot of their founders denies the Trinity.

>>765381

So… Making that post, you didn't even give yourself the job of examining what public health was like at that time? Many are common sense today, not in those days. Medicine did not know the dangers of tobacco in 1864, nor did it know that sunlight killed bacteria.

The coffee one just noticed that I didn't put in the entire citation.

<The continued use of these nerve irritants is followed by headache, wakefulness, palpitation of the heart, indigestion, trembling, and many other evils; for they wear away the life forces. Tired nerves need rest and quiet instead of stimulation and overwork. Nature needs time to recuperate her exhausted energies. When her forces are goaded on by the use of stimulants, more will be accomplished for a time; but, as the system becomes debilitated by their constant use, it gradually becomes more difficult to rouse the energies to the desired point. The demand for stimulants becomes more difficult to control, until the will is overborne and there seems to be no power to deny the unnatural craving. Stronger and still stronger stimulants are called for, until exhausted nature can no longer respond.

>inb4 everyone with a minimum of scientific knowledge knows that, dumbass.

Ellen White only studied up to the fourth grade and never went back to school for health reasons. Knowing so much about health in those conditions is minimally impressive.

>But she is wrong claiming the bacteria that causes tuberculosis comes from meat

She didn't say that, she said that many meats carried tuberculosis, not that they caused tuberculosis.

https://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/23/health/tuberculosis-from-animals/index.html

>One thing I know is that they don't come from the flesh of animals

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/infectious-agents/infections-that-can-lead-to-cancer/viruses.html

Also, a virus would be a more modern way of describing his statement, since these had just been discovered a couple of years before that book came out.

>>765408

That's true, but the pioneers didn't believe in the Sabbath either until the seventh-day Baptists explained it to them. They also didn't believe in vegetarianism at first. Their knowledge of the Bible expanded over time.

>>765409

I meant common sense even in those days man. What do you think people in the 19th century were? Cavemen?

>the coffee meme

><>inb4 everyone with a minimum of scientific knowledge knows that, dumbass

I say that everyone who is addicted in coffee knows its harmful. I don't need a prophet to tell me that.

>Medicine did not know the dangers of tobacco in 1864,

Did you ever chew tobacco?

>nor did it know that sunlight killed bacteria

Every grandma knows how it's important to put sheets at the sunlight and to air the bedrooms.

>Ellen White only studied up to the fourth grade and never went back to school for health reasons. Knowing so much about health in those conditions is minimally impressive.

But wasn't Ellen inspired by God when she said that? God needs to go back to school then.

>She didn't say that, she said that many meats carried tuberculosis, not that they caused tuberculosis.

Its a different disease from the human tuberculosis, although I agree with her that many meats make you sick, but that's obvious to anyone that has seen how animals are treated in slaughter houses and the chemicals they inject in them.

><>One thing I know is that they don't come from the flesh of animals

I was talking about viruses here.

The same chemicals they inject animals with can make cancer on humans.

I can even give this one to her, let's assume it, but she tries to be specific and errs on it. She should have just said meat nowadays may cause cancer.

Basically she just says thing irrelevant of religion and spirituality.

They are basically old sayings of the lady. Nothing more nothing less.

>>765419

>But wasn't Ellen inspired by God when she said that? God needs to go back to school then.

Looks like your text interpretation rusted here.

>Did you ever chew tobacco?

No, and apparently the medicine of that time didn't either. Her book was launched (but no written) in 1905, the first study on tobacco was done in 1920 by Germans, only in 1954 did a study about its dangers appear in the British Medical Journal.

>Basically she just says thing irrelevant of religion and spirituality.

No. She wrote his health books because it is the duty of a Christian to take care of his body as the temple of the holy spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19).

The prophecies I sent you are only the tip of the iceberg (although it seems very generic to you those of wars, I do not know why, since they clearly speak of a world war. Anyway, it was not his mission to predict wars, her mission was to warn Christianity about the tricks of Satan). Only by reading her entire books will you understand the full extent of her teachings, you cannot simply judge that they are irrelevant by those few citations I sent you.

What about ecumenism? Will it only happen if Protestants stop being Protestants? My friend, then I think they are no longer Protestants, since ecumenism has been happening since Vatican II.

>I say that everyone who is addicted in coffee knows its harmful.

You are not everyone.

>>765453

>Looks like your text interpretation rusted here

?

>No, and apparently the medicine of that time didn't either.

People started chewing tobacco before smoking it.

>No. She wrote his health books because it is the duty of a Christian to take care of his body as the temple of the holy spirit

Doctors who write books are prophets now. Cool.

>seems very generic to you those of wars, I do not know why, since they clearly speak of a world war

She just says there will be a war and lots of people will die and suffer.

I shall do the same thing now. It was revealed to me that a great war will happen. I don't know when or how but it will and lots of people will die. Once the WW3 happens you will see I was right.

>The prophecies I sent you are only the tip of the iceberg

Why didn't you post the best prophecies then?

>her mission was to warn Christianity about the tricks of Satan

Yet she rejected lots of doctrines Christianity holds sacred since the very beggining.

>My friend, then I think they are no longer Protestants, since ecumenism has been happening since Vatican II.

This board is the proof that protestants are alive and kicking.

And what did you think the church did in the Vatican II. Is it sinful to hope and try to get the stray sheep from our flock to come back to the Catholic Church? And btw we failed. The conversion of prots is being done only at an individual level and at parish level in the case of Anglicans.

>You are not everyone.

Then start drinking coffee like a madman and this time Ellen White's prophecies will come true. I'm sure of it.

Stop responding to SDAs and heretics. Don't feed them.

>>765479

I think one must try to put some sense in their heads, but people who get into this personality cults need shock therapy to get rid of it, so this threads yeah are kinda pointless.

Polite sage

>>765472

>Doctors who write books are prophets now.

Oh right, you're actually retarded.

>She just says there will be a war and lots of people will die and suffer.

He said that first there will be a terrible war, then there will be a short time of peace followed by a worse war, which all nations will get involved in.

>Yet she rejected lots of doctrines Christianity holds sacred since the very beggining.

She did exactly the opposite.

>Is it sinful to hope and try to get the stray sheep from our flock to come back to the Catholic Church?

Isn't that what happened. Why don't you stop being dishonest?

>Why didn't you post the best prophecies then?

Do you want me to upload the entire Great Controversy in one thread?

Sage because this discussion isn't going to lead anywhere.

Apart from regarding White as a prophet what makes SDA heretical?

>>765620

See: the rest of this thread.

>>765620

Some of the founders denied the Trinity

They don't believe in particular judgment

Hold the sabbath although St. Paul says you don't need to

They believe the punishments of hell aren't eternal and that the people there will disappear after a while.

+

Every other protestant heresy of course.

>>765647

>Some of the founders denied the Trinity

>>765410

>Hold the sabbath although St. Paul says you don't need to

Read the sabbath thread.

>They don't believe in particular judgment

What do you mean by that?

>They believe the punishments of hell aren't eternal and that the people there will disappear after a while.

Yeah, we don't believe in pagan philosophies of soul immortality.

>>765742

>>Some of the founders denied the Trinity

<Their knowledge of the Bible expanded over time.

contradicting previous teachings. I mean one day's you might find out Ellen White was wrong and Catholicism is right.

If you guys make mistakes what guarantees me that your cult isn't a mistake and it's wrong?

>>Hold the sabbath although St. Paul says you don't need to

The Mosaic law is finished.

Colossians 2:16

Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink or in respect of a festival day or of the new moon or of the sabbaths,

>>They don't believe in particular judgment

>What do you mean by that?

Judgment to each soul after death immediately as opposed to literal sleeping until the second coming. Of course there would be later the Great Judgment to judge man now reunited with his soul to show all the world our faults and how God is just, and ultimately for the Glory of God, that's the ultimate goal of creation.

>Yeah, we don't believe in pagan philosophies of soul immortality.

Matthew 25:45-46

Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen: I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me. And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.

>And these shall go into everlasting punishment

Pay attention to these words. Everlasting punishment.

Unless you consider Jesus a pagan of course or the Evangelists.

>>765756

>contradicting previous teachings.

Several of the fathers of the church preached Arianism and not even for that reason the Catholic Church today denies Trinitarianism.

Also, the Catholic Church, as well as the Adventist Church, believe that God's revelation is given progressively. Your argument is not valid.

>Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink or in respect of a festival day or of the new moon or of the sabbaths

Read the sabbath thread.

>Judgment to each soul after death immediately

You lack knowledge of Adventist doctrine.

>Matthew 25:45-46

Eternal Punishment is not in the sense that you want to imply. As it says in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9, it is an eternal destruction without the right to a second chance. In 2 Peter 3:1-13, Eternal Condemnation is compared to the flood, which left no survivors except Noah and his family.

Barely Nicene and by extension barely Christian. They teach bizarre doctrine on many issues and consider Ellen White to be a prophet (she wasn't).

If you're seriously considering becoming Adventist you could do a lot better in a different denomination.

>>759451

They are way less screwed up than they could be considering they're based on a false prophetess' teachings. They at least don't call White's writings scripture. They do call her a prophet, though, which is wrong. They affirm the trinity, although it's debatable whether White and early Adventists did or not. Their views on prophecy are unique nowadays but actually every major protestant denomination used to teach a similar system. They recommend vegetarianism based on White's teachings but don't require it.

Ellen White started having her visions after a head injury when she was 9. For this reason I think she may not be entirely to blame for believing herself to be a prophet. I think she genuinely saw visions but that they were a result of head trauma, not a miracle.

Basically Adventists have some odd and wrong ideas, but are not comparable to Mormons or JWs, and a lot of them are probably saved. Don't become one, but if you meet them be nice to them.

>>766165

>I think she genuinely saw visions but that they were a result of head trauma, not a miracle.

Considering the physical manifestations that occurred during her visions, it seems unlikely. If memory serves, there was a story when Ellen White began preaching that her visions had already been sent to a man before but he refused to tell them to the church out of fear and God told him that he would send them to someone much weaker than himself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellen_G._White

>J. N. Loughborough, who had seen White in vision 50 times since 1852, and her husband, James White, listed several physical characteristics that marked the visions:

>"In passing into vision, she gives three enrapturing shouts of "Glory!" which echo and re-echo, the second, and especially the third, fainter but more thrilling than the first, the voice resembling that of one quite a distance from you, and just going out of hearing."[20]

>For a few moments she would swoon, having no strength. Then she would be instantly filled with superhuman strength, sometimes rising to her feet and walking about the room. She frequently moved hands, arms, and head in gestures that were free and graceful. But to whatever position she moved a hand or arm, it could not be hindered nor controlled by even the strongest person. In 1845, she held her parents' 18.5 pound family Bible in her outstretched left hand for half an hour. She weighed 80 pounds at the time.[21]

>She did not breathe during the entire period of a vision that ranged from fifteen minutes to three hours. Yet, her pulse beat regularly and her countenance remained pleasant as in the natural state.[20]

>Her eyes were always open without blinking; her head was raised, looking upward with a pleasant expression as if staring intently at some distant object. Several physicians, at different times, conducted tests to check her lack of breathing and other physical phenomena.[20]

>She was utterly unconscious of everything transpiring around her, and viewed herself as removed from this world, and in the presence of heavenly beings.[20]

>When she came out of vision, all seemed total darkness whether in the day time or a well-lighted room at night. She would exclaim with a long-drawn sigh, as she took her first natural breath, "D-a-r-k." She was then limp and strengthless.[20]

>>766317

>Trance state

>Superhuman strength

Non Sanctus Est

>>766321

That reminds me of one time when two preachers who were against Ellen White decided to preach in a church where she was one night. Ellen White began to have visions while they sang hymns, so the two preachers accused her of being possessed and to prove it, they decided to put a Bible in front of her. Ellen White took that bible, lifted it over her head and opening a page she began to read the page without looking.

I don't remember what book that story is in, later I' m going to look for it here if you want.

>>766391

Yeesh. Please do

>>766391

>Woman

>Preaching

Stop right there

>>765835

>Several of the fathers of the church preached Arianism

No they didn't. What the winnie the pooh?

Arius is not a church father wtf.

>Also, the Catholic Church, as well as the Adventist Church, believe that God's revelation is given progressively.

No we don't. Who taught you that?

Revelation ended with the last apostle's death.

>>759451

Seventh-Day Adventism teaches that keeping the Sabbath on Saturday is necessary. This is easily disproved by Romans 14:5-6 and Colossians 2:16-17.

Also, Seventh-Day Adventism teaches that keeping the Sabbath on Sunday is the mark of the beast. It's clearly stated in the book of Revelation that if you don't accept the mark of the beast, that you won't be able to buy or sell. Everyone who refuses to keep the Sabbath on Sunday is still able to buy or sell.. so it's pretty clear that this doctrine is bologna.

>>766747

>Several of the fathers of the church preached Arianism

I confess that I made a mistake here, it wasn't Arianism, everyone believed in something different.

Barnabas believed that Abraham already knew the Greek language séculos before this being invented.

Clement of Alexandria practiced pagan liturgies and believed that Plato was a prophet.

Ignatius considered the Roman bishop as if he were God himself.

Justin was a millenarian, he believed that the sun was created by God to be worshipped and that demons were created by the union of women and angels.

Tertullian became a montanist and founded his own sect, and among the heresies he taught, he said that animals knelt and prayed, and he said that women were to blame for the fall of angels.

>Who taught you that?

A catholic priest.

>Revelation ended with the last apostle's death.

Kek, then why don't you believe in Sola Scriptura?

>>766843

>Romans 14:5-6

<One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

<He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

Paulo refers to the days of fasting. The Jews considered the fourth and sixth days as days of fasting and condemned those who fasted on the third and fifth days.

>Colossians 2:16-17

<Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

Sabbath days is plural, it's referring to festive Sabbaths.

>Everyone who refuses to keep the Sabbath on Sunday is still able to buy or sell

Adventists believe that this is something that is still going to happen, not that it is already happening.

>>766900

>A catholic priest.

He was wrong. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a1.htm

>III. CHRIST JESUS – "MEDIATOR AND FULLNESS OF ALL REVELATION"25

>God has said everything in his Word

>65 "In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son."26 Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father's one, perfect and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one. St. John of the Cross, among others, commented strikingly on Hebrews 1:1-2:

>There will be no further Revelation

>66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

>67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

>Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations".

>>766905

St John of the Cross' comment:

>In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty.

>>766633

Did you know that in the Greece of apostolic times, if a woman preached it probably meant that her husband had not memorized what he should say?

>>766614

>Sargent and Robbins were invited and came to Nichols’ home, but when they learned that Ellen Harmon was present,

>they quickly withdrew, warning Nichols that her visions were “of the devil.” Before they left, Nichols told them that Ellen Harmon would like to attend their next meeting in Boston, to which they gave their approval.

>But the night before the proposed meeting, Ellen was shown in vision that these men had no plan to meet with her; they had alerted their followers to gather in Randolph, thirteen miles south of Boston. In that vision she also was told that she should meet with this group in Randolph, that God would give her a message that would convince “the honest, the unprejudiced ones, whether her visions were of the Lord or from Satan.”

>When Ellen Harmon and her party arrived, Sargent and Robbins groaned in surprise. Robbins told Sarah, Ellen’s sister, that Ellen could not have a vision if he were present! In the afternoon meeting, according to the report of Otis Nichols, Ellen was “taken off in vision with extraordinary manifestations and continued talking in vision with a shrill voice which could be distinctly understood by all present, until about sundown [about four hours].”

>What did Sargent and Robbins do during this time? “They exhausted all their influence and bodily strength to destroy the effect of the vision. They would unite in singing very loud, and then alternately would talk and read from the Bible in a loud voice in order that Ellen might not be heard, until their strength was exhausted and their hands would shake, so they could not read from the Bible.”

>Mr. Thayer, the owner of the house, was not convinced that Ellen Harmon was of the devil. He had heard that one test of whether the visions were from Satan was to lay an open Bible on the person in vision. He asked Sargent to do so, but he refused.

>Being a man of action, Thayer took his heavy family Bible, opened it, and laid it on Ellen Harmon’s chest (who was inclined against the wall). She arose immediately and walked to the middle of the room, holding the Bible high with one hand. With her free hand, her eyes looking upward and not on the Bible, she began to turn the pages of the Bible, placing her finger on certain texts.

>Many in the room who were able to look at the passages where her finger was pointing while her eyes were looking upward, noted that she was quoting them correctly. But Sargent and Robbins, though now silent, continued to steel themselves against the dramatic refutation of all they had said.

Messenger of the Lord, p.140 and 141

>>766905

I am not saying that Catholics/Adventists support the existence of a "Bible, part 2," as Mormons say, by progressive revelation I mean that Christians increasingly understand the meaning of the Bible as time goes by, abandoning erroneous assumptions.

>>766935

>I am not saying that Catholics/Adventists support the existence of a "Bible, part 2," as Mormons say, by progressive revelation I mean that Christians increasingly understand the meaning of the Bible as time goes by, abandoning erroneous assumptions.

All they have to do is be graced by God and drop a dependence on outside frameworks to understand the Bible (i.e. especially bringing in pagan or atheistic philosophical presuppositions..).

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." - 1 Cor 2:14

As as far as progressive revelation in Catholicism goes, this trend continues. It's what created Vatican II. They still aren't trimming the fat of wrong assumptions.. but just replacing the fat with even worse assumptions (historical-criticism, for example).

>>766938

>They still aren't trimming the fat of wrong assumptions.. but just replacing the fat with even worse assumptions (historical-criticism, for example).

Are you referring to the Catholic Church or the Adventist Church?

>>766946

The modernist V2 Catholic church. They set out to redefine their approach on some things, but they made things worse, and adopted some poor assumptions (at least when it came to the Bible). Don't know much about Adventists, other than the cults they spawned.

>>766964

SDA is literally an anti-Catholic religion and so far I have not won any ban. I don't understand why they say there is censorship here.

>>766900

>Barnabas believed that Abraham already knew the Greek language séculos before this being invented.

Absolutely nothing to do with the faith whatsoever. Also "séculos" bem vi logo que tinhas de ser um protestante brasileiro.

>Clement of Alexandria practiced pagan liturgies

LOL

>believed that Plato was a prophet

He held him in high regard, not as a prophet.

Besides most fathers believed that the sybilas were gentile prophets and tbh it had to be a winnie the pooh coincidence not to be. However its a different kind of prophet from the Bible.

>Ignatius considered the Roman bishop as if he were God himself.

Top kek of course he did. Why don't you actually read what he says. Lol the lies they've told you.

>Justin was a millenarian

Right about that. Saints can be wrong about minor things you know?

>he believed that the sun was created by God

Its true

>to be worshipped

Why do you lie so much?

>demons were created by the union of women and angels

You mean the Nephilim. Some Fathers specially the Greeks gave some credit to the book of Enoch.

>Tertullian became a montanist

He explicitly denied the Catholic faith. Thus what he said later has nothing to do with us. He became an heretic like you.

>founded his own sect,

Wrong. It was prescillia, the Ellen White of the 3rd century.

>and among the heresies he taught, he said that animals knelt and prayed, and he said that women were to blame for the fall of angels.

He wasn't a Catholic anymore. Couldn't care less.

>>Who taught you that?

>A catholic priest.

Sure he did, or the Brazilian church is worse than I taught.

>Kek, then why don't you believe in Sola Scriptura?

Because our sacred Tradition was passed by the apostles to the Bishops until this day.

Again is this bait? You look like a newbie into theology.

>>766947

Except you're talking shit of or ass.

Explaining things better/by other words isn't new doctrine.

Was Nicea and Ephesus new doctrine too?

>>767040

>Top kek of course he did.

<It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil.

Epistle to the Smyrnæans

<It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself.

Epistle to the Ephesians

<Not that I have found any division among you, but exceeding purity. For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop.

Epistle to the Philadelphians

>Why do you lie so much?

<God formerly gave the sun as an object of worship, as it is written, but no one ever was seen to endure death on account of his faith in the sun

Dialogue with Trypho, chap. CXXI.

>Some Fathers specially the Greeks gave some credit to the book of Enoch.

That proves my point. Today's Catholic Church doesn't believe Enoch's book, does it?

>>767058

><It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil.

Epistle to the Smyrnæans

We should respect the Bishops because they were anointed with the Holy Spirit and thus what they teach is of God.

Thus we should honor, yes not worship, the Bishop like we honor God because the Bishop is the ambassador of God of earth.

><It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself.

Epistle to the Ephesians

Same as above.

One has to be stupid to even claim the author is equating bishops as God equals. My God your delusion.

><Not that I have found any division among you, but exceeding purity. For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop.

Epistle to the Philadelphians

Also know as Extra ecclesiam nulla salum

><God formerly gave the sun as an object of worship, as it is written, but no one ever was seen to endure death on account of his faith in the sun

Dialogue with Trypho, chap. CXXI.

He is litteraly saying pagans who worship the Sun are going to hell.

<God gave the sun as…

Is the same as when the bible says God made the hearts of the Jews hard. Does God a want the Jews to perish or does he wanted them saved as well?

And implying trypho would go batshit crazy if what you say was true.

>That proves my point. Today's Catholic Church doesn't believe Enoch's book, does it?

Some Fathers did. Notice the some.

And besides I already told you Saints can make small mistakes.

Study what Catholicism really believes.

I wouldn't expect more from someone who says that lots of church fathers taught arianism for Ellen White's sake.

>>767068

>He is litteraly saying pagans who worship the Sun are going to hell.

No, he is not.

>Is the same as when the bible says God made the hearts of the Jews hard.

No, it's not the same, if he were speaking in a figurative sense that would make sense, but he clearly isn't.

>Some Fathers did. Notice the some.

Some Adventist pioneers didn't believe in the trinity, notice the some. Some didn't believe on the Sabbath either, there were even those who didn't believe in Ellen White, that doesn't make Adventist beliefs wrong, just as those "little mistakes" of the saints don't make the beliefs of the Catholic church wrong, in your opinion.

>I wouldn't expect more from someone who says that lots of church fathers taught arianism for Ellen White's sake.

Anybody can make a mistake. I think it was at CACP that I read that about Arianism, but now it seems to me that it wasn't about the fathers of the church.

>>767070

>No, he is not.

>No, it's not the same, if he were speaking in a figurative sense that would make sense, but he clearly isn't.

That's what you alone think he is.

Like you don't even bother to read the whole book.

Let me just pick up this sentence that isolated looks stupid.

>Adventist beliefs wrong, just as those "little mistakes" of the saints don't make the beliefs of the Catholic church wrong, in your opinion.

Every adventist teaching that differs from the Church is wrong and its been proved all over this thread.

All you can do is to claim shit without any proof.

>>767078

>and its been proved all over this thread

I think you're blind.

>Like you don't even bother to read the whole book.

Dude, what are you talking about? The subject doesn't even get to be about false gods or not, it explains that Jesus is more powerful than the sun god, but makes it clear that the sun is the object of worship. It does not say "the Gentiles used the sun as an object of worship" or "the sun is a false god and therefore no one dies for it", it says "the sun was created by god to be worshipped, but no one would die for it because Jesus is more powerful than the sun". I don't know what mental juggling you want to do.

>>767126

>that the sun god

*that the sun

>>767126

>god with g

*God

That's what I get for writing fast.

>>765278

>judaizing

This pretty much sums them up, it's a weird denomination

>>759451

Heretical, but Desmond Doss and Ben Carson are pretty cool

>>767043

Oh, you're going to defend Historical Criticism now? And doubting divine inspiration of holy scripture is merely evolving to a new doctrine? You equate this with Nicea? Really? Literally defending the nature of Christ to DOUBTING Christ? This is magically the same?

Come on now.

Go ahead and defend Catholicism, but don't defend this trash. Perhaps you're naive and don't know just how damaging historical-criticism is. But I assure you, it comes from no holy place.

Stop cursing too.

fake church

not made by jesus

>>767179

What?

This anon >>766947 was the one implying that to Vatican II.

I don't even know why I waste my time.

All go guys do is twisting other peoples words and then say Ellen White is a prophet because she said tobacco was bad.

Just no wonder everyone calls you guys a cult.

>>767261

Wait, wait… WAIT..

I'm the SAME anon in both posts. Sorry, but I use VPNs and clear caches. I'm paranoid like that. Maybe I should stop doing this.

First off, I'm not Adventist. I said I didn't know anything about them, other than that they spawned cults.

We have a failure to communicate. And it seems at least mostly my fault.

I'm Orthodox, and merely perusing the thread. I only touched on the error of historical-criticism (my own church has gay scholars engaging in it too). And by all means, like I said already.. defend Catholicism. Just not that. Even previous your previous popes (Pius X) condemned modernism.

Peace

>>767272

Oh sorry I didn't figured it out.

But my point isn't to use historical criticism which I too hate.

I say what I said regarding your answer to an adventist who said revelation in the Catholic Church was progressive like in their cult.

>The modernist V2 Catholic church. They set out to redefine their approach on some things, but they made things worse, and adopted some poor assumptions (at least when it came to the Bible).

I think that by this you meant there was some new doctrines or something like the schismaticals sede vacantists claim.

And then I said:

>Explaining things better/by other words isn't new doctrine

>Was Nicea and Ephesus new doctrine too?

With this I meant that if one assumes Vatican II is another chain of progressive revelation or stated new doctrine then they should assume so the same in every council, which leads to a contradiction because it isn't true.

Yes there are developments like expressing the doctrine of the Trinity in a well defined creed with well defined terms, but the doctrine on the Trinity or Christology was the same since apostolic times.

I fully recognise the immutability of the Catholic Church and the infallibility of the Ecumenical councils inspired by the Holy Ghost, something I assume you guys think too about the Orthodox Church.

>my own church has gay scholars engaging in it too

Sad tbh. They are a cancer everywhere it seems. I really thought orthodoxy was free from that shit.

>Even previous your previous popes (Pius X) condemned modernism.

And I completely agree with him as should every Catholic.

Peace for you too man.

Btw my IP changes as well because I'm a phonefag.

>>766935

Did you know that it doesn't matter even if that's true, because a woman is forbidden to preach biblically?

>>767337

Sorry about that. Yes, my main point of sadness here is historical-criticism. There's actually other things from V2 (or at least the Catechism.. which is it's product, right?) that sound like things even Orthodox can agree with (such as some similarity in language on Original Sin..), so I wouldn't say this is modernist at all to clarify statements the way they did. Taking more patristics into account to broaden a statement would only be a good thing. I mostly frown on taking modernist agnostic and/or Protestant scholars who doubt the scriptures. It's led nowhere good. And yes, some Orthodox teach the same things sadly. Not as a trend per se, but there are popular teachers and some professors in this vein.

>>767349

>I mostly frown on taking modernist agnostic and/or Protestant scholars who doubt the scriptures. It's led nowhere good.

And the problem is that most Catholic bibles have ultra modernistic coentaries like outright denying the authorship of the Gospels and stuff in the OT.

Fortunatly many people complained about that and things are now changing.

The Vatican itself had to intervene and forbid some crap specially bibles that used gender neutral nouns instead of the original.

The RSV2CE and other new versions have orthodox Catholic commentaries, but sadly only in English. (I mean orthodox in the sense of correct in the Faith).

>Not as a trend per se, but there are popular teachers and some professors in this vein.

Catholic universities were a mistake.

>>767354

I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt and even say the papal call for historical-critical approaches (Divino Afflante Spiritu?) meant well. I doubt he intended it to get as bad as it did. But like the mass adjustments in V2, things like this got abused by people who took it to extremes.

I like the NAB translation btw, but boy, those notes are pozzed. Along with some obvious bad renderings (Isaiah 7:14). That they insist on printing those bibles ONLY with the notes saddens me even more. I would hope the average Catholic just humbling wanting the Word of God doesn't read them. It's a disservice to them especially (speaking as non-Catholic and all.. but still. I still have love for them.. and confusing people's faith is not done out of love).

>>767362

>historical-critical approaches (Divino Afflante Spiritu?) meant well.

Pius XII even warns. Use those methods but stop once they mess around with the tradition. Of course people never listen.

>For Catholic exegetes, by a right use of those same scientific arms, not infrequently abused by the adversaries, proposed such interpretations, which are in harmony with Catholic doctrine and the genuine current of tradition,

>but also may attempt to find a satisfactory solution, which will be in full accord with the doctrine of the Church, in particular with the traditional teaching regarding the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, and which will at the same time satisfy the indubitable conclusion of profane sciences.

Its basically the whole point of the encyclical.

Use the historical criticism method in order to btfo our adversaries, while being careful not to fall for the bait ourselves.

>I like the NAB translation btw, but boy, those notes are pozzed.

I think it is on that bible that says the sin of the Sodomites wasn't being a fags, but because they didn't welcome well Lot's visitors.

Its a complete contradiction with everything the church says.

The catechism says their sin is one of the five sins that cry to heaven.

Yet these fags say otherwise.

The Ignatius Bible so I heard is one of the new bibles and it has traditional commentaries.

And there's always the DRA.

Non English speakers like me are winnie the poohed of course.

>>765339

>The growth of spiritism

The only reason she "predicted" is because:

a)America at the time LOVED spiritism;

b)She had a hateboner for any denom that believed in immaterial souls, so in her opinion, any christian that subscribes to that might as well be practicing voodoo.

>and its approach to the Christian world (Pentecostalism) in Early Writtings.

>How Protestantism and Catholicism would later begin to form bonds through ecumenism (something impossible to happen at that time) in The Great Controversy.

Seraphim Rose's Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future did a much better job with that.

>>767411

>America at the time LOVED spiritism

That's not true, mainly because spiritism had just started in America at that time.

>Seraphim Rose's Orthodoxy

>born Eugene Dennis Rose; August 13, 1934 – September 2, 1982

The first stage of ecumenism began in 1910, Eugene had already lived in the times of ecumenism, with Ellen White ecumenism had not even begun.

>>767343

>because a woman is forbidden to preach biblically?

I just explained why women could not teach IN APOSTOLIC TIMES. Ellen White was not a pastor anyway because in the Seventh-day Adventist Church it is forbidden to have female pastors. That doesn't mean she couldn't counsel the church. If that were really forbidden by the Bible, we would not have the prophetess of the NT (Acts 21:9) and Deborah in the OT (Judges 4: 4 e 5).

In our present culture, it is not shameful for a woman to speak publicly as in those times, so that teaching is no longer valid.

>>767261

>Ellen White is a prophet because she said tobacco was bad.

>>766401

>>767147

Appeal to Ridicule Fallacy

>the fullnes of YHWH theology was fringe for nearly four millenia

>it also grew out of panteism and the ramblings of literally some random carpenter

>in Galilea

Sage to not revive this thread.