Tradition Versus Scripture

[BreadOfLife]

@BreadOfLife
I can see historically the fulfillment of how apostate Jerusalem spoke great words against the Most High, and to a small degree persecute the saints, but wear them out to the degree scriptures alludes to? The persecution of Christians at the hands of Israel was but a slight hint of what the church was to endure a short time later at the hands of pagan Rome, and a drop in the bucket compared to the 1000 years of persecution at the hands of papal Rome.
Another point. According to the prophecies regarding the power of the Antichrist, (little horn of Daniel 7 and the 'mystery of iniquity' of 2Thess.2), among others, it must arise chronologically after the Pagan Rome empire collapses in the west, because the little horn power grows out of the head of pagan Rome and in amongst the 10 barbarian powers that ruled over their respective territories vacated by Rome. Jerusalem, not even in its heyday, ever did such a thing.
Now you said the above are simply Ellen White's ideas. That is just nonsense. The reformers spoke of these things, but they weren't the first either. Speaking of the mystery of iniquity that was being held back by the 'restrainer' in 2Thess.2, several significant church fathers spoke of the fulfillment of this as follows...
But first, slow me to quote the scripture in question...
2 Thess. 2:1 ¶ Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 ¶ Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time…..
Now modern Protestant Christianity informs us that the above Antichrist power is yet to come, and he is to sit in a future temple in Jerusalem and blaspheme and claim to be the Messiah and demand worship. That interpretation came from another Jesuit, no surprise there. The surprise is that so many actually believe it. But take a look at the following...

Tertullian (160-240)
“‘For the mystery of iniquity doth already work; only he who now hinders must hinder, until he be taken out of the way.’ What obstacle is there but the Roman state, the falling away of which, by being scattered into ten kingdoms, shall introduce Antichrist upon (its
own ruins)? ‘And then shall be revealed the wicked one.”

“On the Resurrection of the Flesh,” chapter 24; Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. III, p. 563

There is some debate as to whether the ‘falling away’ referred to here is in reference to the empire, or the church. Some say one, some the other, while some would contend that it can apply equally to both. This author contends that the falling away [spoken of by Paul in 2 Thess. 2:3] is in reference to the church, although when considered in reference to the state, it doesn’t do violence to the passage. The falling away of the church transpired when she aspired to political power at the expense of spiritual, thus committing spiritual adultery. (see Revelation 17:2; James 4:4) Either way, Tertullian was certain in his belief that the restrainer was the Roman Empire. That it was pagan Rome itself that inhibited in some way the rise of the antichrist. This was generally accepted throughout the church at that time, and it was common for the church to pray to God that He would keep the Roman power intact in order to keep the antichrist from coming to power in their time. So the consensus among church leaders of that time was that the moment pagan Rome disappeared, the Antichrist would then be free to rule.

Elsewhere, Tertullian states:

“The very end of all things threatening dreadful woes is only retarded by the continued existence of the Roman Empire.”
(“Apology,” chapter 32; Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. III, p. 43).

Lactanctius, in the early 4th century wrote:
“The subject itself declares that the fall and ruin of the world will shortly take place; except that while the city of Rome remains, it appears that nothing of this kind is to be feared. But when that capital of the world shall have fallen, and shall have begun to be a street, which the Sibyls say shall come to pass, who can doubt that the end has now arrived to the affairs of men and the whole world? It is that city, that only, which still sustains all things.” (“The Divine Institutes,” book 7, chapter 25; Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. VII, p. 220).

Cyril of Jerusalem (318-386).

But this aforesaid Antichrist is to come when the times of the Roman empire have been fulfilled and the end of the world is drawing near. There shall rise up together ten kings of the Romans, reigning in different parts perhaps, but all about the same time; but after those, an eleventh, the Antichrist, who by his magic craft will seize upon the Roman power, and of the kings who reigned before him, “three he shall humble” and the remaining seven he shall keep in subjection to himself.”
(Catechetical Lectures,” section 15, on II Thessalonians 2:4; Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. VII, p. 108 [New York: The Christian Literature Company, 1895]).

Much could be said about this quote; he also is clearly linking the prophecy of Daniel to the text of Paul’s, agreeing with other eminent writers of his time that out of Rome would evolve ten kings, 3 of whom the antichrist would subdue. When the restrainer, Rome, was to be taken out of the way, and the horns of Daniel 7 arise, the antichrist would be revealed

Ambrose (died 398)
“After the falling or decay of the Roman Empire, Antichrist shall appear.”

(Quoted in, Bishop Thomas Newton, Dissertations on the Prophecies, p. 463)……

Chrysostum (died 407)
“When the Roman Empire is taken out of the way, then he [the Antichrist] shall come. And naturally. For as long as the fear of this empire lasts, no one will willingly exalt himself, but when that is dissolved, he will attack the anarchy, and endeavor to seize upon the government both of man and of God.”
“Homily IV on 2 Thessalonians 2:6-9,” Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. XIII, p. 389
[New York: Charles Scribner’s and Sons, 1905]…..

…..and finally Jerome (died 420)
“He that letteth is taken out of the way, and yet we do not realize that Antichrist is near.”
(Letter to Ageruchia, written about 409A. D. Letter 123, section 16; Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. VI, p. 236

Jerome’s testimony is interesting, because from his perspective, he had seen and witnessed the fall of Rome, but was yet to see the rise of Antichrist. The reason is that history had not yet revealed who the Antichrist actually was, despite the early beginnings of the church of Rome at that time. The 3 nations had yet to be vanquished: It was this event that would definitively prove the Antichrist’s identity.

I think it would be a good time to quote a Catholic source, the eminent historian Cardinal Manning.

“Now the abandonment of Rome was the liberation of the pontiffs. Whatsoever claims to obedience the emperors may have made, and whatsoever compliance the Pontiff may have yielded, the whole previous relation, anomalous, and annulled again and again by the vices and outrages of the emperors, was finally dissolved by a higher power. The providence of God permitted a succession of irruptions, Gothic, Lombard, and Hungarian, to desolate Italy, and to efface from it every remnant of the empire.
The pontiffs found themselves alone, the sole fountains of order, peace, law, and safety. And from the hour of this providential liberation, when, by a divine intervention, the chains fell off from the hands of the successor of St. Peter, as once before from his own, no sovereign has ever reigned in Rome except the Vicar of Jesus Christ.”
(Henry Edward Manning, The Temporal Power of The Vicar of Jesus Christ, Preface, pp. xxviii, xxix. London: Burns and Lambert, 1862).

HOGWASH.

First of all – Tertullian’s words were written WHILE pagan Rome was still in power.
His dire warnings about Rome are About pagan Rome.

As for the rest of the excerpt – they don’t say what YOU are trying to make them say.

For example – Ambrose’s letter states:
“After the falling or decay of the Roman Empire, Antichrist shall appear.”

Chrysostum says:
“When the Roman Empire is taken out of the way, then he [the Antichrist] shall come."

NEITHER of them even hint at the idea that it is the Church.
No – that’s all compliments of the false prophetess, Ellen White’s lunacy.

And the quote from Cardinal Manning makes sense. The Church indeed had more freedom after the demise of the Roman Empire as did many other entities.

YOU need to explain how the Catholic Church can be describes as the "Gret City where our Lord was cricified" (Rev. 11:8), which has become a "Whore" (Isa. 11:21).
BOTH descriptions that have been attributed to Jerusalem in the Bible.

 

[Johann]

Guess this is a win for Catholics-no sound rebuttals from Protestants.
Would love to see more on the Deity of Christ Jesus.
Johann.

 

[Johann]

Yep.

 

[Brakelite]

HOGWASH.

First of all – Tertullian’s words were written WHILE pagan Rome was still in power.
His dire warnings about Rome are About pagan Rome.

As for the rest of the excerpt – they don’t say what YOU are trying to make them say.

For example – Ambrose’s letter states:
“After the falling or decay of the Roman Empire, Antichrist shall appear.”

Chrysostum says:
“When the Roman Empire is taken out of the way, then he [the Antichrist] shall come."

NEITHER of them even hint at the idea that it is the Church.
No – that’s all compliments of the false prophetess, Ellen White’s lunacy.

And the quote from Cardinal Manning makes sense. The Church indeed had more freedom after the demise of the Roman Empire as did many other entities.

YOU need to explain how the Catholic Church can be describes as the "Gret City where our Lord was cricified" (Rev. 11:8), which has become a "Whore" (Isa. 11:21).
BOTH descriptions that have been attributed to Jerusalem in the Bible

Revelation 11 isn't about the Catholic church. It Jerusalem. It's about the conflict between God's people and atheism... Atheism that began in earnest in the 18th century Ruth the French revolution, and developed into communism throughout the world. The details of that chapter is for another thread, but it isn't about Rome. Or Jerusalem.

 

[Brakelite]

HOGWASH.

First of all – Tertullian’s words were written WHILE pagan Rome was still in power.
His dire warnings about Rome are About pagan Rome.

I know Tertullian was a contemporary of pagan Rome, I can read my own quotes. What He was doing was interesting the prophecies of Paul, in reference to 2 Thessalonians, where Paul was speaking of a power, the restrainer, after whose demise would rise the Antichrist. Tertullian was moving at the time when the church was in expectation of that change in power structure. It would have been Paul himself who told the Thessalonians previously that it was pagan Rome who while in power, was restraining the rise of that power the church them feared. The church at that time had not yet formed into the papacy. The churches were local communions United by the common goal of the gospel. It was not a politically empowered institution such as developed when the city of Rome was vacated by the emperors. And I agree, no-one thought it was a church that would take over from pagan Rome, yet that is precisely what happened.

For example – Ambrose’s letter states:
“After the falling or decay of the Roman Empire, Antichrist shall appear.”

Chrysostum says:
“When the Roman Empire is taken out of the way, then he [the Antichrist] shall come."

No other power arises in those early centuries, growing from the head of pagan Rome and developing into a global persecuting power that wore out the saints of the Most High. It certainly could not be Jerusalem, that was long gone as an influential entity. We are talking about the 6th century. When considering prophecy BoL, you cannot discount the whole timeline of history. Not everything took place before the end of the first century.

YOU need to explain how the Catholic Church can be describes as the "Gret City where our Lord was cricified" (Rev. 11:8),

Done. Above, post 364

which has become a "Whore" (Isa. 11:21

The church in Rome became a whore when she forsook her Husband, Jesus, in favour of the emperors and kings of the earth. See Revelation 17:2.

 

[Brakelite]

Guess this is a win for Catholics-no sound rebuttals from Protestants.
Would love to see more on the Deity of Christ Jesus.
Johann.

Not so fast chum. Have you also forgotten the lessons taught by your Protestant forbears, lessons they learnt at the cost of their lives?

 

[Aunty Jane]

Don't we first have to establish the timing of "the Lord's Day" as John said in Rev 1:10?
He was transported in vision to the future.....at a time when his Lord would return as King, and be ruling in his Kingdom, and what would be taking place on earth at that time.
Jesus stated that his return would be identified by events common in Noah's day.....

"For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 38 For as they were in those days before the Flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, 39 and they took no note until the Flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be." (Matt 24:3-39)

We are seeing the moral and spiritual climate in the world again contaminated with graphic sexual immorality and extreme violence.
Blood lust is seen in preferred modes of entertainment, most especially influential to young ones who think that because the violence is not real, that makes it all OK. It is accessible right in their homes via the internet and it is taking away all hatred for what is bad. (Amos 5:15)

As far as sexual morality goes....well, there is no morality anymore in a world ruled by the devil. (1 John 5:19)
The "last days" described by Paul ring an eerily familiar tone....
"But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, 3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, 4 betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, 5 having an appearance of godliness but proving false to its power; and from these turn away." (2 Tim 3:1-5) Do we rightly call these "critical times", when all the world's nations are in turmoil?

Another source of information that points us forward to our day are the prophesies in the book of Daniel. When interpreting a dream given to the King by Jehovah, Daniel foresaw a march of world powers who had dominion over God's people, who had lost possession of their holy land, and never got it back because they could never honor their covenant with Jehovah. They were dominated by Gentile conquerors from the time of the Babylonian exile, right down to our day. The "Gentile Times" had to run their course before the 'coming' of God's Kingdom to take back the reigns and allow God's original purpose for mankind to go ahead. What he began in Eden will be reinstated, because God's purpose cannot fail. (Isaiah 55:11)

Speaking of the rulers in this "time of the end", Daniel foretold...
"In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed. And this kingdom will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it alone will stand forever". (Daniel 2:44)
We are living in the days of those kings, and God will soon crush all vestiges of satan's rulership out of existence. His corruption contaminates politics, commerce and false religion....all will be eliminated from existence along with those who support them. Those who take a stand for God's Kingdom have already separated themselves from those things......because they obey Jesus' command to be "NO PART OF THE WORLD" (John 1:14; John 18:36)

Now is the time to wake up and see where we are in the stream of time......the RCC has not done anything that Christ commanded, nor has it taught its subjects the meaning of the words they recite repetitively....."Thy Kingdom COME, thy will be done ON EARTH as it is in heaven".
Only when you understand what you are praying for, will the words mean what Jesus intended for them to mean.

 

[Brakelite]

No – that’s all compliments of the prophetess, Ellen White

You give her way to much credit. The historicist hermeneutic has been the property of the true church throughout history since the time of the prophets, including David and the Lord Himself as He prophesied in Eden. Ellen White simply displayed her true credentials as a true prophet by continuing in the historic narrative of the reformation... Which by the way didn't begin with Luther or even in the dark ages of papal supremacy in Europe, but with all the advocates for truth against the lies and deceptions of satanic rebellion from the time of the first rebellion in heaven.

 

[Johann]

Yep.

Not so fast chum. Have you also forgotten the lessons taught by your Protestant forbears, lessons they learnt at the cost of their lives?

Friend-I'm not your "chum"
Get it?

 

[BreadOfLife]

I know Tertullian was a contemporary of pagan Rome, I can read my own quotes. What He was doing was interesting the prophecies of Paul, in reference to 2 Thessalonians, where Paul was speaking of a power, the restrainer, after whose demise would rise the Antichrist. Tertullian was moving at the time when the church was in expectation of that change in power structure. It would have been Paul himself who told the Thessalonians previously that it was pagan Rome who while in power, was restraining the rise of that power the church them feared. The church at that time had not yet formed into the papacy. The churches were local communions United by the common goal of the gospel. It was not a politically empowered institution such as developed when the city of Rome was vacated by the emperors. And I agree, no-one thought it was a church that would take over from pagan Rome, yet that is precisely what happened.

Nuthin’ like a good round of revisionism to start your day . . .

As we read in Irenaeus’s work, Against Heresies, which was written about 100 year BEFORE Tertullian, where he lists ALL of the Popes from Peter to his own time.

This list is the basis for renowned Protestant historian J.N.D. Kelly’s book, Oxford Dictionary of Popes.
Oh, and Tertullian himself acknowledged the Papacy in his treatise, Di Pudicitia:

“I hear that there has even been an edict set forth, and a peremptory one too. The Pontifex Maximus — that is, the bishop of bishops — issues an edict: I remit, to such as have discharged (the requirements of) repentance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication.”

So much for YOUR reinvented fairy tales . . .

No other power arises in those early centuries, growing from the head of pagan Rome and developing into a global persecuting power that wore out the saints of the Most High. It certainly could not be Jerusalem, that was long gone as an influential entity. We are talking about the 6th century. When considering prophecy BoL, you cannot discount the whole timeline of history. Not everything took place before the end of the first century.

And I NEVER made that claim.
To say that NONE of it has been fulfilled is ignorant.

Done. Above, post 364

MASSIVE fail.

Rev, 11:8 speaks of “the great city” where the “Lord was crucified,”.
As you know - this is obviously Jerusalem.

This harken back to the OT, which describes Jerusalem as a “whore” (Isa. 1:21; Ezek. 16:1, 15–35), and the whore is the antithesis of the bride of Christ, the “New Jerusalem” (Rev. 21:2–22:5), which is the Church.

The church in Rome became a whore when she forsook her Husband, Jesus, in favour of the emperors and kings of the earth. See Revelation 17:2.

And unless you can show me a SINGLE teaching from the Catechism – in ANY century – that Jesus is NOT the head of the Church and that we are supposed to worship someone else – you are just vomiting out your usual manure . . .

 

[Johann]

Nuthin’ like a good round of revisionism to start your day . . .

As we read in Irenaeus’s work, Against Heresies, which was written about 100 year BEFORE Tertullian, where he lists ALL of the Popes from Peter to his own time.

This list is the basis for renowned Protestant historian J.N.D. Kelly’s book, Oxford Dictionary of Popes.
Oh, and Tertullian himself acknowledged the Papacy in his treatise, Di Pudicitia:

“I hear that there has even been an edict set forth, and a peremptory one too. The Pontifex Maximus — that is, the bishop of bishops — issues an edict: I remit, to such as have discharged (the requirements of) repentance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication.”

So much for YOUR reinvented fairy tales . . .

And I NEVER made that claim.
To say that NONE of it has been fulfilled is ignorant.

MASSIVE fail.

Rev, 11:8 speaks of “the great city” where the “Lord was crucified,”.
As you know - this is obviously Jerusalem.

This harken back to the OT, which describes Jerusalem as a “whore” (Isa. 1:21; Ezek. 16:1, 15–35), and the whore is the antithesis of the bride of Christ, the “New Jerusalem” (Rev. 21:2–22:5), which is the Church.

And unless you can show me a SINGLE teaching from the Catechism – in ANY century – that Jesus is NOT the head of the Church and that we are supposed to worship someone else – you are just vomiting out your usual manure . . .

They say-"Three strikes-you're out" Guess brakelite has some homework to do.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You give her way to much credit. The historicist hermeneutic has been the property of the true church throughout history since the time of the prophets, including David and the Lord Himself as He prophesied in Eden. Ellen White simply displayed her true credentials as a true prophet by continuing in the historic narrative of the reformation... Which by the way didn't begin with Luther or even in the dark ages of papal supremacy in Europe, but with all the advocates for truth against the lies and deceptions of satanic rebellion from the time of the first rebellion in heaven.

A "true" prophet and teacher??

All it takes is ONCE false teaching or a SINGLE false prophecy or teachimg to make one a FALSE teacher or prophet

Here are but a few examples of this woman’s manure . . .

- Was the Tower of Babel built before the Flood?
Your “prophetess” says it was.
“This system was corrupted before the flood by those who separated themselves from the faithful followers of God, and engaged in the building of the tower of Babel.” (Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, p.301).

The Bible CLEARLY says otherwise (Gen 10:32;11:4).

- Was the man Jesus Christ also truly God?
NOT according to your Wolf in sheep’s clothing
“The man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God Almighty.” (Letter 32, 1999, quoted in the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Vol. 5, p.1129).

However - the Bible CLEARLY says that He was: (Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 9:6, Matt. 4:7, John 1:1, John 1:3, John 8:58, John 10:30, John 15:9, John 20:28, Acts 5:3-4, 2 Cor. 4:4, Phil. 2:6, Col. 2:9, 1 Tim. 3:16, Heb. 1:8, Titus 2:13)

- Was the atonement for sin completed at the cross?
NOT according to your false teacher]
“Instead of…Daniel 8:14 referring to the purifying of the earth, it was now plain that it pointed to the closing work of our High Priest in heaven, the finishing of the atonement, and the preparing of the people to abide the day of His coming.” (Testimonies, Vol. 1, p.58).

“Jesus entered the most holy of the heavenly sanctuary, at the end of the 2300 days of Daniel 8, in 1844, to make a final atonement for all who could be benefited by His mediation.” (Early Writings, p.253).

However - the Bible CLEARLY says that He DID (John 19:30).

THREE STRIKES . . .

 

[Aunty Jane]

Rev, 11:8 speaks of “the great city” where the “Lord was crucified,”.
As you know - this is obviously Jerusalem.

Types and shadows are getting lost here....Rev 11:8, speaks of "the “great city” of Jerusalem, and so Revelation is referring basically to what ancient Jerusalem symbolized. First century Judaism was the type for what was to come in the "the time of the end" before the "coming" of God's Kingdom in the powerful hands of his appointed King. Judaism and Christendom are mirror images of one another.....lost in man-made traditions and paying no heed to scripture.....interpreting it to suit their adopted beliefs.....just as the Pharisees did. (Matt 15:-9) The devil has no new tricks because the old ones still work so well for him. He has no trouble recruiting hypocrites.

This harken back to the OT, which describes Jerusalem as a “whore” (Isa. 1:21; Ezek. 16:1, 15–35), and the whore is the antithesis of the bride of Christ, the “New Jerusalem” (Rev. 21:2–22:5), which is the Church.

And when you speak of "the church" you naturally assume it is what became of Christianity after the first century....and that is where your argument comes undone. The church that developed after the death of the apostles was to become apostate, as Jesus said it would. He said that "while men were sleeping" the devil would sow his weeds in among the wheat so that the crop would be compromised by the multiplication of these men who were willingly doing the devil's work. Corruptible men did exactly what corruptible men had done with the Jewish faith. What did Jesus say about them?
Matt 23:5-10....
"All the works they do, they do to be seen by men, for they broaden the scripture-containing cases that they wear as safeguards and lengthen the fringes of their garments. 6 They like the most prominent place at evening meals and the front seats in the synagogues 7 and the greetings in the marketplaces and to be called Rabbi by men. 8 But you, do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your Teacher, and all of you are brothers. 9 Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One. 10 Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ."

Does this sounds familiar? All the things they did to draw attention to themselves...the dress, the attitudes and the titles were all done before in Judaism...."call no man your Father on earth".....this is a Father that represents God to the people, not the one that gives birth to children.

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut up the Kingdom of the heavens before men; for you yourselves do not go in, neither do you permit those on their way in to go in. . . .

15 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you travel over sea and dry land to make one proselyte, and when he becomes one, you make him a subject for Ge·henʹna twice as much so as yourselves. . . . . “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you resemble whitewashed graves, which outwardly indeed appear beautiful but inside are full of dead men’s bones and of every sort of uncleanness. 28 In the same way, on the outside you appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness."

God is lifting the lid on the evil deeds of those who pretend to be Christ's representatives on earth, no matter what "denomination" they claim as their own, but the "mother" church is the one who gave birth to all of them. The harlot has many daughters who all hold the same basic beliefs in common.

And unless you can show me a SINGLE teaching from the Catechism – in ANY century – that Jesus is NOT the head of the Church and that we are supposed to worship someone else – you are just vomiting out your usual manure . . .

What teaching from the Catechism has anything to do with the Bible? Again Catholicism, like the first century Jews for whom the Talmud became their "go to" for Bible interpretation, finds its counterpart in the Catholic Catechism. Both advocated the traditions of men, whilst rejecting scripture.

Jesus is most definitely the head of his church.....but he is not the head of a church that he says he has NEVER known. (Matt :21-23)

 

[Aunty Jane]

Was the man Jesus Christ also truly God?.....the Bible CLEARLY says that He was: (Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 9:6, Matt. 4:7, John 1:1, John 1:3, John 8:58, John 10:30, John 15:9, John 20:28, Acts 5:3-4, 2 Cor. 4:4, Phil. 2:6, Col. 2:9, 1 Tim. 3:16, Heb. 1:8, Titus 2:13

It's good to examine scripture, so lets see what these verses actually say, as opposed to how they have been interpreted.
First of all these scriptures were written by Jews, with a Jewish understanding of scripture, so beginning with Isaiah, these verses say....
"Therefore, Jehovah himself will give you a sign: Look! The young woman will become pregnant and will give birth to a son, and she will name him Im·manʹu·el."

A young woman or virgin would give birth to this promised one and he would be called "Immanuel"....was Mary's son named Immanuel? Obviously not because he was always called Jesus (or Yeshua). So what is the meaning of the name Immanuel?..."With us is God". How was God "with" his people in ancient times?....it was by means of the ones he chose to represent him...men like Abraham, Moses, Elijah...and finally, Jesus.

"For a child has been born to us,
A son has been given to us;
And the rulership will rest on his shoulder.
His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace."

Does calling the promised Messiah "Mighty God" mean that he is the "Almighty" God?
Is he a "father" in the same sense that Jehovah is? A father is a life giver.....and so was Jesus.
Why call a King, a "Prince".....a prince is the son of a king. You have misinterpreted that whole prophesy trying to prop up a lie.

According to Strongs Concordance, the meaning of the word "god" (El) is...

• god, god-like one, mighty one
  
  
  1. mighty men, men of rank, mighty heroes
  2. angels
  3. god, false god, (demons, imaginations)
  4. God, the one true God, Jehovah

So this word does not always refer to Jehovah.

How does Jesus himself explain the use of the word "god" in relation to humans?
In John 10:31-36, he says to the Jews who were trying to pin a charge of blasphemy on him....
“I displayed to you many fine works from the Father. For which of those works are you stoning me?” 33 The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy; for you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” 34 Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’? 35 If he called ‘gods’ those against* whom the word of God came—and yet the scripture cannot be nullified— 36 do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?"
Jesus was referring to judges in Israel whom his Father called "gods" because their position in judging his people was authorized by him.
One who represents the true God can rightly be called a "god" according the meaning of those terms which both the Jews and Christians of the first century understood. The trinity was not a belief held by the first Christians...it was not until the foretold apostasy had overtaken the church that this blasphemous teaching took hold.

So, from a Jewish perspective, rather than a Catholic one, you can see how these verses should be understood.
Both relate to the promised Messiah whom the Jews knew was coming.
They had a slightly different understanding at that point in history, but the "sacred secret" or "mystery" of the Kingdom was not fully revealed until Christ came.

What about John 1:1? Using the same understanding of the term "god" ("theos" in Greek) we again see that interpretation is the problem.
John was not saying that Jesus was Almighty God but that he was a godlike one.
The word "theos" according to Strongs primary definition is...
"a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities."
So again, Jesus is rightly said to be "a god"....a divine being of course, but not God incarnate. The Jews would never have accepted a Messiah who claimed to be God, as that would have given them grounds to execute him for blasphemy....but he had to die as an innocent man.

He is also said to be "with God" "in the beginning"....so we then have to ask...how can Jesus be "with God" if he IS God?
And "what beginning"is this?...because we know that the eternal being that is Jehovah had no beginning....but according to Revelation 3:14, God's son was the "beginning of God's creation".....so Jesus is not God, but has been "with God" since his creation. He is God's "firstborn". (Colossians 1:15)

The woeful misinterpretation of scripture by the church system that began with the RCC and its predecessors, is responsible for the "many" heading for the destruction that Jesus foretold in Matthew 7:13-14. Only a "few" relatively speaking, are on the narrow road to life.

 

[Brakelite]

This harken back to the OT, which describes Jerusalem as a “whore” (Isa. 1:21; Ezek. 16:1, 15–35), and the whore is the antithesis of the bride of Christ, the “New Jerusalem” (Rev. 21:2–22:5), which is the Church.

I agree with the above. And that's the point. What makes you think a section of the church is incapable of becoming a whore, and being unfaithful to He who espoused her as His bride? Did you not know that the very word apostate, which Paul uses in a future context in describing a falling away yet to take place, (2Thess.2) ...
646 ἀποστασία apostasia ap-os-tas-ee’-ah
‭
‭feminine of the same as 647; n f; TDNT-1:513,88; {See TDNT 116}
‭
‭AV-to forsake + 575 1, falling away 1; 2
‭
‭1) a falling away, defection, apostasy

Is the same as...

647 ἀποστάσιον apostasion ap-os-tas’-ee-on
‭
‭neuter of a (presumed) adj. from a derivative of 868; n n; { See TDNT 116}
‭
‭AV-divorcement 2, writing of divorcement 1; 3
‭
‭1) divorce, repudiation
‭2) a bill of divorce

This is what Paul is talking about and the very reason the falling away means a separation of the church, or at least a section of the church, from her former Husband. This falling away, this separation, took place as the pagan empire dissolved. It took place because the church sought for power in the legislature of civil authorities in order to coerce the people into obedience to her dogma. There is no sane reasonable student of history who could possibly deny that the above is what took place in the 6th century and onward.
Have you not already argued that individual Christians can fall away in your rebuke to OSAS? Why not a group of Christians that calls itself a church?
Have you not already argued when discussing persecution, that it was the state that tortured and killed heretics?
And were there not inquisitors present at the executions and torture sessions to oversee and record all that was taking place? Were they not in fact priests, Dominicans and later Jesuits, who did this?
How is that not worthy of a divorce? How else could Paul describe what took place just a few hundred years after Rome fell?
And who else could that falling away, that apostasy, apply to other than the only institution of that era that claimed a legal and spiritual connection to the state powers, and after 1500 years continues that to this very day???
A connection I might add that the early church did not seek after nor accept. In fact, other churches were persecuted when they refused to submit to that connection were they not?

 

[Brakelite]

I agree with the above. And that's the point. What makes you think a section of the church is incapable of becoming a whore, and being unfaithful to He who espoused her as His bride? Did you not know that the very word apostate, which Paul uses in a future context in describing a falling away yet to take place, (2Thess.2) ...
646 ἀποστασία apostasia ap-os-tas-ee’-ah
‭
‭feminine of the same as 647; n f; TDNT-1:513,88; {See TDNT 116}
‭
‭AV-to forsake + 575 1, falling away 1; 2
‭
‭1) a falling away, defection, apostasy

Is the same as...

647 ἀποστάσιον apostasion ap-os-tas’-ee-on
‭
‭neuter of a (presumed) adj. from a derivative of 868; n n; { See TDNT 116}
‭
‭AV-divorcement 2, writing of divorcement 1; 3
‭
‭1) divorce, repudiation
‭2) a bill of divorce

This is what Paul is talking about and the very reason the falling away means a separation of the church, or at least a section of the church, from her former Husband. This falling away, this separation, took place as the pagan empire dissolved. It took place because the church sought for power in the legislature of civil authorities in order to coerce the people into obedience to her dogma. There is no sane reasonable student of history who could possibly deny that the above is what took place in the 6th century and onward.
Have you not already argued that individual Christians can fall away in your rebuke to OSAS? Why not a group of Christians that calls itself a church?
Have you not already argued when discussing persecution, that it was the state that tortured and killed heretics?
And were there not inquisitors present at the executions and torture sessions to oversee and record all that was taking place? Were they not in fact priests, Dominicans and later Jesuits, who did this?
How is that not worthy of a divorce? How else could Paul describe what took place just a few hundred years after Rome fell?
And who else could that falling away, that apostasy, apply to other than the only institution of that era that claimed a legal and spiritual connection to the state powers, and after 1500 years continues that to this very day???
A connection I might add that the early church did not seek after nor accept. In fact, other churches were persecuted when they refused to submit to that connection were they not?

Protestants should take careful cognizance of the above. They are seeking affiliation and ecumenical connection to an institution that is not Christian, has fallen away from biblical truth and is in apostasy. Divorced. And she actively fights against everything you believe in. Unless what you believe in was a part of her tradition. Then she will love you. But Catholicism as an institution still despises Protestantism and there are sections of her institutional body that desires nothing less than the destruction of all things Protestant.
Did you know there are statutes and images showing various Catholic dignitaries such as Mary, and Ignatius of Loyola crushing Martin Luther under their feet, and tearing up the scriptures? You think Rome has changed? Can a leopard change its spots? Can He that is accustomed to do evil, do good?

 

[MatthewG]

Normally traditions fail in comparsion to reading and looking in to the scriptures and asking God to help you understand parables of Jesus. Sometimes you really cant find an answer either when you read the bible but you can see the traditions on how things where taught. Jesus, He was against the traditions of man; so it is definitely a subjective topic as well. The problem becomes if people demand you must do this or you must do that; that puts people in bondage.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Normally traditions fail in comparsion to reading and looking in to the scriptures and asking God to help you understand parables of Jesus.

In order to understand anything you read in the Bible, you must first acknowledge why God put us here on planet Earth in the first place.
Humans were the last creation on this earth and they were given an assignment that would have given their lives purpose and much joy.....and yet here we are all these millenniums later and the world is nothing like the one that God intended.......what went wrong?

Sometimes you really cant find an answer either when you read the bible but you can see the traditions on how things where taught. Jesus, He was against the traditions of man; so it is definitely a subjective topic as well.

To understand what went wrong and why....and then to appreciate what God's response was to Adam's sin.....and why he chose a long term solution rather than a short term one, all adds to the big picture. And its dead set simple. Not complicated at all until people start introducing their own ideas and ignoring what is plainly stated in God's word.
What Adam lost for his children in the beginning, will be returned to them because Christ's sacrifice paid for Adam's sin......he redeemed them from the sin inherited from their forefather. What God starts, he finishes.......Isaiah 55:11.

The problem becomes if people demand you must do this or you must do that; that puts people in bondage.

People are already in bondage to sin and death...Jesus has released his true disciples (the wheat) from that bondage, provided that they are found "doing the will" of his Father when the time of judgment arrives. (Matt 7:21-23) The "weeds" are too busy promoting themselves to recognize who the true Christians are....a hated and persecuted minority. (John 15:18-21) God's people have never been "mainstream".

 

[Johann]

A "true" prophet and teacher??

All it takes is ONCE false teaching or a SINGLE false prophecy or teachimg to make one a FALSE teacher or prophet

Here are but a few examples of this woman’s manure . . .

- Was the Tower of Babel built before the Flood?
Your “prophetess” says it was.
“This system was corrupted before the flood by those who separated themselves from the faithful followers of God, and engaged in the building of the tower of Babel.” (Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, p.301).

The Bible CLEARLY says otherwise (Gen 10:32;11:4).

- Was the man Jesus Christ also truly God?
NOT according to your Wolf in sheep’s clothing
“The man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God Almighty.” (Letter 32, 1999, quoted in the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Vol. 5, p.1129).

However - the Bible CLEARLY says that He was: (Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 9:6, Matt. 4:7, John 1:1, John 1:3, John 8:58, John 10:30, John 15:9, John 20:28, Acts 5:3-4, 2 Cor. 4:4, Phil. 2:6, Col. 2:9, 1 Tim. 3:16, Heb. 1:8, Titus 2:13)

- Was the atonement for sin completed at the cross?
NOT according to your false teacher]
“Instead of…Daniel 8:14 referring to the purifying of the earth, it was now plain that it pointed to the closing work of our High Priest in heaven, the finishing of the atonement, and the preparing of the people to abide the day of His coming.” (Testimonies, Vol. 1, p.58).

“Jesus entered the most holy of the heavenly sanctuary, at the end of the 2300 days of Daniel 8, in 1844, to make a final atonement for all who could be benefited by His mediation.” (Early Writings, p.253).

However - the Bible CLEARLY says that He DID (John 19:30).

THREE STRIKES . . .

That's why I'm leaving this Forum-the deity of our Lord is under attack-
J.

 

[Johann]

Does calling the promised Messiah "Mighty God" mean that he is the "Almighty" God?
Is he a "father" in the same sense that Jehovah is? A father is a life giver.....and so was Jesus.
Why call a King, a "Prince".....a prince is the son of a king. You have misinterpreted that whole prophesy trying to prop up a lie.

This is so subtle-sly. How about "God WITH God?