Who, or what, is the dreaded bogey man of prophecy?

[Phoneman777]

I suggest you not add your own opinion to Scripture. "As the consequence of a union" is your own added opinion.

If Genesis says man becomes a living soul when God breathes the Breath of Life into the lifeless Body, then me saying "The Soul comes into existence as a consequence of the union of the Body and the Breath of Life" is not opinion: it's Biblical fact.

Was the Body alive before God breathed the Breath into it? No.
Did the Soul begin to exist before the Breath joined the lifeless Body? No.
Did the Soul begin to exist by any other cause other than the Breath joining the lifeless Body? No.

See, what we have here is not my "opinion" but your stubborn refusal to accept facts that disprove the Immortal Soul crowd's claim the Soul continues to exist when the Breath of Life is removed from the Body ...which is no more possible than light from a bulb continuing to exist after electricity is removed.

 

[Phoneman777]

No, Daniel explains what the first 5 Kingdoms are. Revelation states those 5 kingdoms are fallen, dead and gone. Those ten horns appear as humans after the Second Coming. Daniel gives us only 5 heads of the dragon/sea beast/scarlet colored beast. Those 5 heads stopped existing at the Reformation. You know the definition of death you give the soul, non-existence? It applies more so to Daniel's image and any subsequent beast in Daniel. They are all dead, non existent even today, as it has been 500 years since the Reformation. We have been in the mortally wounded, ie dead, ie non-existent 6th kingdom. Kingdoms don't have souls, so they are literally dead when they die. Even in prophetic terms, death is still non existence, for visions of beasts that have come and gone. John said they were fallen, all 5.

Are there still Medes and Persians around? Probably, but not their empire. Are there Greeks around today? Sure, but not their ancient empire. Same with the Romans and the ten papal states of the Holy Roman Empire. People have evolved and changed borders, but those Kingdoms are dead and gone.

My friend, Samuel says "stubborness is as iniquity and idolatry".

You stubbornly refuse to retract your statement "Revelation explains Daniel, not the other way around" when I've clearly disproven that by showing you if it wasn't for Daniel telling us what "horns" are "beasts" mean, we'd be left wondering what in the world these symbols point to in Revelation.

If you can't be honest enough to admit what everyone can see is a colossal error, how do you expect to retain any credibility?

 

[Timtofly]

That verse I quoted:

"The Spirit of God hath made me, and the Breath of the Almighty hath given me life."

...disproves your claim that "the Spirit is not God's Breath".

The Holy Spirit is God as part of the Trinity. How can you say the Holy Spirit is God's breath?

That verse states the Holy Spirit of God hath made me. God gives you life, because God breathed life into you.

That does not negate the point you are a soul in a physical body, waiting to put on the spirit as a robe of white.

 

[Timtofly]

If Genesis says man becomes a living soul when God breathes the Breath of Life into the lifeless Body, then me saying "The Soul comes into existence as a consequence of the union of the Body and the Breath of Life" is not opinion: it's Biblical fact.

Was the Body alive before God breathed the Breath into it? No.
Did the Soul begin to exist before the Breath joined the lifeless Body? No.
Did the Soul begin to exist by any other cause other than the Breath joining the lifeless Body? No.

See, what we have here is not my "opinion" but your stubborn refusal to accept facts that disprove the Immortal Soul crowd's claim the Soul continues to exist when the Breath of Life is removed from the Body ...which is no more possible than light from a bulb continuing to exist after electricity is removed.

The Bible does not say "the consequences of the union of". That is a fact.

Why are you adding something that is not there. You became a living soul. That is a fact.

The verse does not say that "now with the consequences of the union of" God gave you (a physical body), a soul. When you, your physical body dies, that God given soul, ceases to exist. That is not found any where in that verse, nor any other verse for that matter.

You are the soul, and you did not exist prior to conception. God created you by taking the physical body from your mom and dad, and breathing life into that physical body, and you started to exist, a living soul. You will never cease to exist. And the soul cannot either, as that is the only you that exists. You are not your physical body, nor your spirit. You can take off and put on a physical body, as God sees fit. God can take off and put on the spirit over that body as God sees fit. You cannot change either, the only thing you have control over is your soul. Sure, one can kill their body, but they cannot kill themselves, the soul. God did give people the ability to kill their own body, and that of others, but doing so, would be in direct disobedience to God, and obviously a permanent one way decision.

The only fact from that verse that applies to your argument are the words:

"man became a living soul"

That does not mean a dead soul if the body returns to dust. There is no conditional thought that states "living" is temporary. The souls begins, and ever more is a living soul.

 

[Timtofly]

My friend, Samuel says "stubborness is as iniquity and idolatry".

You stubbornly refuse to retract your statement "Revelation explains Daniel, not the other way around" when I've clearly disproven that by showing you if it wasn't for Daniel telling us what "horns" are "beasts" mean, we'd be left wondering what in the world these symbols point to in Revelation.

If you can't be honest enough to admit what everyone can see is a colossal error, how do you expect to retain any credibility?

You stubbornly refuse to see that no one can know who those ten horns are until the Second Coming.

For starters the horns are not kingdoms. Even the horns in Daniel are not kingdoms.

The horns in Revelation are not the ten toes. The tens toes are the 5th Kingdom after Rome the 4th kingdom has "fallen".

The 5th kingdom stopped having influence (fallen) at the Reformation. Revelation does not cover the first five kingdoms, so what is Daniel covering if nothing in Revelation is about the first 5 kingdoms? John states they are fallen, and that is not a first century perspective. That is a Second Coming perspective.

John never claims when the first 5 fell, but that they did. Revelation explains Daniel by saying all of Daniel has been fulfilled in the past, and the 7th Trumpet will end the mystery given in Daniel and all other prophecy about the Second Coming. Daniel explains most up until the birth of Jesus, but not much about Rome nor the ten toes, so the 5th kingdom is never explained by Daniel either. To say he does is deceiving one's self.

Obviously many try to write in all different times in history to make some claim, Daniel never makes.

The ten toes only applies to a period between the 4th kingdom and the 6th kingdom. Daniel never even talks about a 6th kingdom. Daniel covers portions of history dealing with the first 4, and briefly the 5th.

Now Revelation explains the ten horns as having no kingdom yet, nor ever will. They would have to kill Jesus, the Lamb of God to obtain their own kingdoms.

"And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast. These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings."

They are destroyed by the Lamb and never are kingdoms.

So Daniel does not explain Revelation on the basis there is nothing to explain from that perspective. All of Daniel is past history, and has been for 500 years. We are in sorta the same silence as the 483 silent years that Daniel gave us several vivid accounts of life during. While God was silent, all that Daniel prophecied came to pass, as Rome the 4th beast was in their golden years when Jesus came as the Messiah.

Once again the silence of the 6th kingdom years have literally been prophetically quiet while the church has filled the earth as promised like a large mountain, governing kingdom, but no authority to be a dictator like government over humanity. The 5th kingdom tried, but only because of an apostate church. But in order to have the woman ride on the back of this 6 headed historical beast with Satan as one of the heads you have to have Israel back into something recognizable as a rider.

Israel was semi part of Babylon, was restored under the Medes and Persians. Tolerated by Greece. Dominated and destroyed by Rome. Left lifeless by the 5th and 6th kingdoms, but restored prior to the Second Coming just as Jesus promised. Revelation explains Israel's part, that Daniel is silent on.

Daniel is troubled when it comes to how his people fit in. Chapter 9 was supposed to be a comfort, but still Israel gone again at the end with Jerusalem rebuilt and destroyed all in the promised time of 70 weeks.

You are being just as stubborn, and not even pointing out how you think Daniel explains Revelation. Revelation 10 explains how Daniel's 70 weeks and the mystery is resolved:

"And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven, And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer: But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets."

That explains Daniel. The 7th Trumpet is the fulfillment of the 70 weeks and the mystery will no longer be a mystery, but finished.

You seem to want Revelation to be a road map of the first 5 kingdoms, the statue in Daniel 2. That is not the explanation John gives. John states Daniel is fulfilled, and the first 5 kingdoms have fallen, the 6th with a mortal wound, and Satan is the 7th head as the dragon, sea beast, and scarlet colored beast explains Daniel's statue and that there is a 6th kingdom between the ten toes, and the Second Coming.

Daniel only saw the coming of Messiah the Prince as a blur, that was still not quite resolved when Paul wrote. He still saw through a glass darkly. Surely 2 millenia after the Cross, things are getting even clearer, unless you are stuck in the Reformation rut, even though that 5fh kingdom has been gone for 500 years. Sounds like those in the first century after 500 years, and they still misunderstood the prophets.

 

[Phoneman777]

The Holy Spirit is God as part of the Trinity. How can you say the Holy Spirit is God's breath?

I don't recognize "trinity" as Biblical - it's "Godhead" which is "Three Beings, One God" as proved by 1 John 5:7 KJV.

That verse states the Holy Spirit of God hath made me. God gives you life, because God breathed life into you.

That does not negate the point you are a soul in a physical body, waiting to put on the spirit as a robe of white.

The Bible is full of Hebrew parallelisms, of which this is one.

"Spirit" is rhymed with "Breath"
"God" is rhymed with "Almighty"
"made me" is rhymed with "given me life".

Another such parallelism is in Job 34, where "take from man" is rhymed and "death of man" is rhymed and Spirit is rhymed with Breath:

"If He set His heart upon man (meaning "if he decides to take something from man")
"If He gather unto Himself his Spirit and his Breath
"all flesh shall perish together
"and man shall turn again into dust".

 

[Phoneman777]

The Bible does not say "the consequences of the union of". That is a fact.

It says "man became a living soul" when God "breathed" the Breath of Life into the Body...right?

Why are you adding something that is not there. You became a living soul. That is a fact.

The verse does not say that "now with the consequences of the union of" God gave you (a physical body), a soul. When you, your physical body dies, that God given soul, ceases to exist. That is not found any where in that verse, nor any other verse for that matter.

God gave us brains with which to reason things.
Can light from a bulb continue to exist nce the current is removed?
Can a Soul continue to exist once the Breath departs from the Body?

You are the soul, and you did not exist prior to conception. God created you by taking the physical body from your mom and dad, and breathing life into that physical body, and you started to exist, a living soul.

Amen

You will never cease to exist. And the soul cannot either, as that is the only you that exists.

At death we absolutely cease to exist.

You are not your physical body, nor your spirit.

Yes - we're the "whole" Biblically referred to as "Soul" that's comprised of the parts "Spirit" and "Body".

You can take off and put on a physical body, as God sees fit. God can take off and put on the spirit over that body as God sees fit. You cannot change either, the only thing you have control over is your soul. Sure, one can kill their body, but they cannot kill themselves, the soul. God did give people the ability to kill their own body, and that of others, but doing so, would be in direct disobedience to God, and obviously a permanent one way decision.

When we're "unclothed" or "naked" without a body, we're dead, lying in the grave, awaiting the resurrection - we can't know, hear, feel, praise, speak, see, understand, etc., according to the wisest man who ever lived.

The only fact from that verse that applies to your argument are the words:

"man became a living soul"

That does not mean a dead soul if the body returns to dust. There is no conditional thought that states "living" is temporary. The souls begins, and ever more is a living soul.

According to Genesis 2:7 KJV, the fact remains that if the living soul comes into existence as a consequence of the union of the body and the Breath of Life, it cannot continue to exist at disunion of the same.

 

[Phoneman777]

You stubbornly refuse to see that no one can know who those ten horns are until the Second Coming.

For starters the horns are not kingdoms. Even the horns in Daniel are not kingdoms.

The horns in Revelation are not the ten toes. The tens toes are the 5th Kingdom after Rome the 4th kingdom has "fallen".

The 5th kingdom stopped having influence (fallen) at the Reformation. Revelation does not cover the first five kingdoms, so what is Daniel covering if nothing in Revelation is about the first 5 kingdoms? John states they are fallen, and that is not a first century perspective. That is a Second Coming perspective.

John never claims when the first 5 fell, but that they did. Revelation explains Daniel by saying all of Daniel has been fulfilled in the past, and the 7th Trumpet will end the mystery given in Daniel and all other prophecy about the Second Coming. Daniel explains most up until the birth of Jesus, but not much about Rome nor the ten toes, so the 5th kingdom is never explained by Daniel either. To say he does is deceiving one's self.

Obviously many try to write in all different times in history to make some claim, Daniel never makes.

The ten toes only applies to a period between the 4th kingdom and the 6th kingdom. Daniel never even talks about a 6th kingdom. Daniel covers portions of history dealing with the first 4, and briefly the 5th.

Now Revelation explains the ten horns as having no kingdom yet, nor ever will. They would have to kill Jesus, the Lamb of God to obtain their own kingdoms.

"And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast. These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings."

They are destroyed by the Lamb and never are kingdoms.

So Daniel does not explain Revelation on the basis there is nothing to explain from that perspective. All of Daniel is past history, and has been for 500 years. We are in sorta the same silence as the 483 silent years that Daniel gave us several vivid accounts of life during. While God was silent, all that Daniel prophecied came to pass, as Rome the 4th beast was in their golden years when Jesus came as the Messiah.

Once again the silence of the 6th kingdom years have literally been prophetically quiet while the church has filled the earth as promised like a large mountain, governing kingdom, but no authority to be a dictator like government over humanity. The 5th kingdom tried, but only because of an apostate church. But in order to have the woman ride on the back of this 6 headed historical beast with Satan as one of the heads you have to have Israel back into something recognizable as a rider.

Israel was semi part of Babylon, was restored under the Medes and Persians. Tolerated by Greece. Dominated and destroyed by Rome. Left lifeless by the 5th and 6th kingdoms, but restored prior to the Second Coming just as Jesus promised. Revelation explains Israel's part, that Daniel is silent on.

Daniel is troubled when it comes to how his people fit in. Chapter 9 was supposed to be a comfort, but still Israel gone again at the end with Jerusalem rebuilt and destroyed all in the promised time of 70 weeks.

You are being just as stubborn, and not even pointing out how you think Daniel explains Revelation. Revelation 10 explains how Daniel's 70 weeks and the mystery is resolved:

"And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven, And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer: But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets."

That explains Daniel. The 7th Trumpet is the fulfillment of the 70 weeks and the mystery will no longer be a mystery, but finished.

You seem to want Revelation to be a road map of the first 5 kingdoms, the statue in Daniel 2. That is not the explanation John gives. John states Daniel is fulfilled, and the first 5 kingdoms have fallen, the 6th with a mortal wound, and Satan is the 7th head as the dragon, sea beast, and scarlet colored beast explains Daniel's statue and that there is a 6th kingdom between the ten toes, and the Second Coming.

Daniel only saw the coming of Messiah the Prince as a blur, that was still not quite resolved when Paul wrote. He still saw through a glass darkly. Surely 2 millenia after the Cross, things are getting even clearer, unless you are stuck in the Reformation rut, even though that 5fh kingdom has been gone for 500 years. Sounds like those in the first century after 500 years, and they still misunderstood the prophets.

We rely on Daniel to understand Revelation as much as we rely on Revelation to understand Daniel - this is a no-brainer for serious prophecy students.

 

[amigo de christo]

You are looking at events in the world, then fitting them into scripture. That isn't how prophetic study works. Do it the other way round. Study the prophecies, and then find the fulfilment in history or if it isn't in history or it doesn't meet all the criteria of the prophecy, it hasn't happened yet.

The mystery of inquity , that which is of anti Christ was even at work in the days of paul and the other apostels .
What i find rather interesting
is it talks about this name , this number , a great seat , great authority .
The name adds up to six hundred and sixty six .
Rather odd that a very familiar entity which has long mixed in the pagan with the true
has such a number that do add up to six hundred three score and six .
and this is the same seat , same power that is and has brought
unto the kings of this earth , unto christendom and the faiths , unto even the false religoins
the lie that is now merging them as one .
Kings bow to its will
many protestant churches now also bow to its will , its agenda .
Its agenda is not just in america but has infiltrated world wide .
There is no singular entity that has and holds the power and influence
over the world as do this entity . And its number do add up to six hundred three score and six .
Yet most cannot see this and now it is centering the unfication of the religoins to again be IN JERUSALEM .
WHO is it if you dare to even say its name . YET everyone seems to want to have unity with IT .

 

[amigo de christo]

I dont have unity with HOs i expose harlots and all who partake of her cup too .

 

[amigo de christo]

Read what Jesus said about world events, in context with the timeline, then look to history. That's what I'm doing with this thread.
I refuse to look at some random war somewhere, then go to some obscure text in the middle of Ezekiel and claim prophecy fulfilled. That's nonsense Bible study.

Then tell them who this entity whose number adds up to six hundred three score and six .
I mean everyone seems to be chasing after her unity judge not , lets be one false love lie . expose the ho
her doctrine of false love gotta GO .

 

[amigo de christo]

Too many are drinking of her all inclusive cup .

 

[amigo de christo]

Read what Jesus said about world events, in context with the timeline, then look to history. That's what I'm doing with this thread.
I refuse to look at some random war somewhere, then go to some obscure text in the middle of Ezekiel and claim prophecy fulfilled. That's nonsense Bible study.

The ho knows how to deceive , how to infiltrate any camp .
The doctrine of the HO , gotta go . Sip not of her cup .
She has long been a unifyer and a blender to encourage folks to enter into her chamber .
She will blend the pagan right in . JUSt like she doing RIGHT NOW . expose the HO , her doctrine gotta go brakelite .
You know i expose her big time . WHO is this entity whose number addeth up to six hundred three score and six
and has sat over the world to influence any and all to enter into covenant with her ..........

 

[Brakelite]

Then tell them who this entity whose number adds up to six hundred three score and six .

What's next, and who's implementing it?

That will help others understand what SDA believes regarding eschatology. I think this It isn't about what SDA believe. You and I are already discussing that on another thread. And I'm not afraid of defending our position. I can do so biblically and historically. Revelation 20:8 is not the...

www.christianityboard.com

 

[Brakelite]

Then tell them who this entity whose number adds up to six hundred three score and six .

Romanism is now regarded by Protestants with far greater favor than in former years. In those countries where Catholicism is not in the ascendancy, and the papists are taking a conciliatory course in order to gain influence, there is an increasing indifference concerning the doctrines that separate the reformed churches from the papal hierarchy; the opinion is gaining ground that, after all, we do not differ so widely upon vital points as has been supposed, and that a little concession on our part will bring us into a better understanding with Rome. The time was when Protestants placed a high value upon the liberty of conscience which had been so dearly purchased. They taught their children to abhor popery and held that to seek harmony with Rome would be disloyalty to God. But how widely different are the sentiments now expressed!
The defenders of the papacy declare that the church has been maligned, and the Protestant world are inclined to accept the statement. Many urge that it is unjust to judge the church of today by the abominations and absurdities that marked her reign during the centuries of ignorance and darkness. They excuse her horrible cruelty as the result of the barbarism of the times and plead that the influence of modern civilization has changed her sentiments.
Have these persons forgotten the claim of infallibility put forth for eight hundred years by this haughty power? So far from being relinquished, this claim was affirmed in the nineteenth century with greater positiveness than ever before. As Rome asserts that the "church never erred; nor will it, according to the Scriptures, ever err" (John L. von Mosheim, Institutes of Ecclesiastical History, book 3, century II, part 2, chapter 2, section 9, note 17), how can she renounce the principles which governed her course in past ages?
The papal church will never relinquish her claim to infallibility. All that she has done in her persecution of those who reject her dogmas she holds to be right; and would she not repeat the same acts, should the opportunity be presented? Let the restraints now imposed by secular governments be removed and Rome be reinstated in her former power, and there would speedily be a revival of her tyranny and persecution.
A well-known writer speaks thus of the attitude of the papal hierarchy as regards freedom of conscience, and of the perils which especially threaten the United States from the success of her policy:
"There are many who are disposed to attribute any fear of Roman Catholicism in the United States to bigotry or childishness. Such see nothing in the character and attitude of Romanism that is hostile to our free institutions, or find nothing portentous in its growth. Let us, then, first compare some of the fundamental principles of our government with those of the Catholic Church.
"The Constitution of the United States guarantees liberty of conscience. Nothing is dearer or more fundamental. Pope Pius IX, in his Encyclical Letter of August 15, 1854, said: `The absurd and erroneous doctrines or ravings in defense of liberty of conscience are a most pestilential error—a pest, of all others, most to be dreaded in a state.' The same pope, in his Encyclical Letter of December 8, 1864, anathematized `those who assert the liberty of conscience and of religious worship,' also 'all such as maintain that the church may not employ force.'
"The pacific tone of Rome in the United States does not imply a change of heart. She is tolerant where she is helpless. Says Bishop O'Connor: 'Religious liberty is merely endured until the opposite can be carried into effect without peril to the Catholic world.'... The archbishop of St. Louis once said: 'Heresy and unbelief are crimes; and in Christian countries, as in Italy and Spain, for instance, where all the people are Catholics, and where the Catholic religion is an essential part of the law of the land, they are punished as other crimes.'...
"Every cardinal, archbishop, and bishop in the Catholic Church takes an oath of allegiance to the pope, in which occur the following words: 'Heretics, schismatics, and rebels to our said lord (the pope), or his aforesaid successors, I will to my utmost persecute and oppose.'"—Josiah Strong, Our Country, ch. 5, pars. 2-4.
The Great Controversy
Ellen White

 

[Timtofly]

I don't recognize "trinity" as Biblical - it's "Godhead" which is "Three Beings, One God" as proved by 1 John 5:7 KJV.

The Bible is full of Hebrew parallelisms, of which this is one.

"Spirit" is rhymed with "Breath"
"God" is rhymed with "Almighty"
"made me" is rhymed with "given me life".

Another such parallelism is in Job 34, where "take from man" is rhymed and "death of man" is rhymed and Spirit is rhymed with Breath:

"If He set His heart upon man (meaning "if he decides to take something from man")
"If He gather unto Himself his Spirit and his Breath
"all flesh shall perish together
"and man shall turn again into dust".

The body returns to dust.

The soul will eventually be given a body or tossed into the LOF.


"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."

English is full of parallels: Trinity is the same thing as Godhead.

 

[Timtofly]

Can a Soul continue to exist once the Breath departs from the Body?

The soul is not reliant on the body, but on God. You are not a light in a bulb. You are a soul that Paul clearly states can change bodies without dropping in and out of existence.

Is God's breath, literal air, or something much more like God, ie the Holy Spirit? You seem to have Hebrew all figured out, you even acknowledge a brain, but then fail in your interpretation ability.

Is life a tangible wiff of air, wind? Or is life God in you?

 

[amigo de christo]

Romanism is now regarded by Protestants with far greater favor than in former years. In those countries where Catholicism is not in the ascendancy, and the papists are taking a conciliatory course in order to gain influence, there is an increasing indifference concerning the doctrines that separate the reformed churches from the papal hierarchy; the opinion is gaining ground that, after all, we do not differ so widely upon vital points as has been supposed, and that a little concession on our part will bring us into a better understanding with Rome. The time was when Protestants placed a high value upon the liberty of conscience which had been so dearly purchased. They taught their children to abhor popery and held that to seek harmony with Rome would be disloyalty to God. But how widely different are the sentiments now expressed!
The defenders of the papacy declare that the church has been maligned, and the Protestant world are inclined to accept the statement. Many urge that it is unjust to judge the church of today by the abominations and absurdities that marked her reign during the centuries of ignorance and darkness. They excuse her horrible cruelty as the result of the barbarism of the times and plead that the influence of modern civilization has changed her sentiments.
Have these persons forgotten the claim of infallibility put forth for eight hundred years by this haughty power? So far from being relinquished, this claim was affirmed in the nineteenth century with greater positiveness than ever before. As Rome asserts that the "church never erred; nor will it, according to the Scriptures, ever err" (John L. von Mosheim, Institutes of Ecclesiastical History, book 3, century II, part 2, chapter 2, section 9, note 17), how can she renounce the principles which governed her course in past ages?
The papal church will never relinquish her claim to infallibility. All that she has done in her persecution of those who reject her dogmas she holds to be right; and would she not repeat the same acts, should the opportunity be presented? Let the restraints now imposed by secular governments be removed and Rome be reinstated in her former power, and there would speedily be a revival of her tyranny and persecution.
A well-known writer speaks thus of the attitude of the papal hierarchy as regards freedom of conscience, and of the perils which especially threaten the United States from the success of her policy:
"There are many who are disposed to attribute any fear of Roman Catholicism in the United States to bigotry or childishness. Such see nothing in the character and attitude of Romanism that is hostile to our free institutions, or find nothing portentous in its growth. Let us, then, first compare some of the fundamental principles of our government with those of the Catholic Church.
"The Constitution of the United States guarantees liberty of conscience. Nothing is dearer or more fundamental. Pope Pius IX, in his Encyclical Letter of August 15, 1854, said: `The absurd and erroneous doctrines or ravings in defense of liberty of conscience are a most pestilential error—a pest, of all others, most to be dreaded in a state.' The same pope, in his Encyclical Letter of December 8, 1864, anathematized `those who assert the liberty of conscience and of religious worship,' also 'all such as maintain that the church may not employ force.'
"The pacific tone of Rome in the United States does not imply a change of heart. She is tolerant where she is helpless. Says Bishop O'Connor: 'Religious liberty is merely endured until the opposite can be carried into effect without peril to the Catholic world.'... The archbishop of St. Louis once said: 'Heresy and unbelief are crimes; and in Christian countries, as in Italy and Spain, for instance, where all the people are Catholics, and where the Catholic religion is an essential part of the law of the land, they are punished as other crimes.'...
"Every cardinal, archbishop, and bishop in the Catholic Church takes an oath of allegiance to the pope, in which occur the following words: 'Heretics, schismatics, and rebels to our said lord (the pope), or his aforesaid successors, I will to my utmost persecute and oppose.'"—Josiah Strong, Our Country, ch. 5, pars. 2-4.
The Great Controversy
Ellen White

You know what should concern every man woman and child .
The fact that there is no such thing as a false leader , prophet , teacher , or person
that cannot speak truths and even identify error and yet lead the peoples into greater error .
Something that we ALSO see BIG TIME in these latter years as well .
I challenge everyone to do ONE thing . Read that bible and DO IT without the help of any organziation , its manuels
its scholars , its commentaries , its greek , its anything .
THEM folks WILL UNIFY , and though the number will be very small
their unity will have NOTHING to do with this other unity which has taken so many captive now in the wrong direction .
wanna example of deception .
Now visualize this brakelite and you visualize it well .
A man has appeared who speaks against the liberal agenda
against the one world order
has been heard to speak even against the pope .
YET DO ITS WILL through the religious tolerance act and the abraham accords . AND GUESS what
THEY cannot see through it .
Darn scary and frightening times with upmost delusoin are upon this age and its peoples .
And about every denomination on the conservative side , cause woe wail the liberal side its well advanced in the delusion ,
Cannot see THEY ARE UNDER the delusion in part already .
THIS IS NOT GONNA BODE WELL brakelite . and every denomination of the last few standing
thinks NO WAY IS THIS AGENDA infiltrated OUR SYSTEM . OH IT HAS BRAKELITE . IT HAS .
IT just comes in as do a chameleon . It gonna come in with a common mindset as to who and what group it enters .
But guess what , BY GOLLY IT HAS NOT HIT THE SEVEN DAY ADVENTISTS , OR SO THEY THINK . OR SO THEY THINK .
ITS IN YA CHURCH PARD . i am seeing it . NOW its BIBLE TIME for ourselves .

 

[amigo de christo]

Romanism is now regarded by Protestants with far greater favor than in former years. In those countries where Catholicism is not in the ascendancy, and the papists are taking a conciliatory course in order to gain influence, there is an increasing indifference concerning the doctrines that separate the reformed churches from the papal hierarchy; the opinion is gaining ground that, after all, we do not differ so widely upon vital points as has been supposed, and that a little concession on our part will bring us into a better understanding with Rome. The time was when Protestants placed a high value upon the liberty of conscience which had been so dearly purchased. They taught their children to abhor popery and held that to seek harmony with Rome would be disloyalty to God. But how widely different are the sentiments now expressed!
The defenders of the papacy declare that the church has been maligned, and the Protestant world are inclined to accept the statement. Many urge that it is unjust to judge the church of today by the abominations and absurdities that marked her reign during the centuries of ignorance and darkness. They excuse her horrible cruelty as the result of the barbarism of the times and plead that the influence of modern civilization has changed her sentiments.
Have these persons forgotten the claim of infallibility put forth for eight hundred years by this haughty power? So far from being relinquished, this claim was affirmed in the nineteenth century with greater positiveness than ever before. As Rome asserts that the "church never erred; nor will it, according to the Scriptures, ever err" (John L. von Mosheim, Institutes of Ecclesiastical History, book 3, century II, part 2, chapter 2, section 9, note 17), how can she renounce the principles which governed her course in past ages?
The papal church will never relinquish her claim to infallibility. All that she has done in her persecution of those who reject her dogmas she holds to be right; and would she not repeat the same acts, should the opportunity be presented? Let the restraints now imposed by secular governments be removed and Rome be reinstated in her former power, and there would speedily be a revival of her tyranny and persecution.
A well-known writer speaks thus of the attitude of the papal hierarchy as regards freedom of conscience, and of the perils which especially threaten the United States from the success of her policy:
"There are many who are disposed to attribute any fear of Roman Catholicism in the United States to bigotry or childishness. Such see nothing in the character and attitude of Romanism that is hostile to our free institutions, or find nothing portentous in its growth. Let us, then, first compare some of the fundamental principles of our government with those of the Catholic Church.
"The Constitution of the United States guarantees liberty of conscience. Nothing is dearer or more fundamental. Pope Pius IX, in his Encyclical Letter of August 15, 1854, said: `The absurd and erroneous doctrines or ravings in defense of liberty of conscience are a most pestilential error—a pest, of all others, most to be dreaded in a state.' The same pope, in his Encyclical Letter of December 8, 1864, anathematized `those who assert the liberty of conscience and of religious worship,' also 'all such as maintain that the church may not employ force.'
"The pacific tone of Rome in the United States does not imply a change of heart. She is tolerant where she is helpless. Says Bishop O'Connor: 'Religious liberty is merely endured until the opposite can be carried into effect without peril to the Catholic world.'... The archbishop of St. Louis once said: 'Heresy and unbelief are crimes; and in Christian countries, as in Italy and Spain, for instance, where all the people are Catholics, and where the Catholic religion is an essential part of the law of the land, they are punished as other crimes.'...
"Every cardinal, archbishop, and bishop in the Catholic Church takes an oath of allegiance to the pope, in which occur the following words: 'Heretics, schismatics, and rebels to our said lord (the pope), or his aforesaid successors, I will to my utmost persecute and oppose.'"—Josiah Strong, Our Country, ch. 5, pars. 2-4.
The Great Controversy
Ellen White

The ho has long been at work .
and even joseph the smith could identify the ho and its errors but had no idea
he led his own into a far darker path . THEY COME barney and can expose certain errors
and yet they BRING in the worst of errors themselves .
BUT NOW in the end its all about the regathering , the reclamation of these losts souls
to gather them back under the HO of all HOs
as she too gathers the false religoins to merge as one .
YOU GONNA HEAR MORE BULLDUNG about not judging other religoins in time brakelite .
And ideas are gonna come in which focus on ideals about how the lost religoins might just be okay
and not to judge them . It knows how to seduce braklite
and it will begin even with ideals , thoughts which say , WHAT IF a muslim did good works
and yet didnt repent to BELEIVE ON JESUS , WOULD he not still be saved .
You might have already even thought it yourself or heard this .
ITS about planting an idea into our heads .
It will plant thoughts about how their are so called good people in every religion
who perhaps heard not the gospel , and yet did them some lovey do . THE DEVIL BE SLICK brakelite .
So allow me some parting words .
SHOW ME ONE MAN OR WOMAN who is GOOD . Who has not fallen short of the glory of GOD .
AND I WILL SHOW YOU THE ONLY ONE WHO DID , JESUS THE CHRIST and remind all bout the dire NECESSITY
to have to BELEIVE ON HIM . i offer up NO FALSE HOPE brakelite , NOT A WORD OF IT .
I OFFER UP THE ONLY HOPE THERE IS , JESUS THE CHRIST and not some other sin accepting jesus that wont save SQUAT .
TIME TO DO THE SAME . the devil has come to distract us brakelite
TO distract us through some kind of cause . Like politics , or doing good works and finding common ground
a cause that sounds good , But it will not CORRECT certain sins
it will not REMIND of the dire need to BELEIVE ON JESUS THE CHRIST
and it will rather have us overlook our differences and focus on the cause and do so with even unbeleivers .
ITS SLICK homie . its very slick . we will see
more and more conservatives uniting with buddist , muslims and etc for a cause to get the conservative elected .
THIS IS ALL BAD NEWS . JESUS is not GETTING preached , TRUTH is not getting told
the hopes are in the wrong stuff . The devil is very wise brakelite
but by the grace of GOD guess who wont be fooled by his methods , THE LAMBS WONT . THE REST WILL .

 

[amigo de christo]

Romanism is now regarded by Protestants with far greater favor than in former years. In those countries where Catholicism is not in the ascendancy, and the papists are taking a conciliatory course in order to gain influence, there is an increasing indifference concerning the doctrines that separate the reformed churches from the papal hierarchy; the opinion is gaining ground that, after all, we do not differ so widely upon vital points as has been supposed, and that a little concession on our part will bring us into a better understanding with Rome. The time was when Protestants placed a high value upon the liberty of conscience which had been so dearly purchased. They taught their children to abhor popery and held that to seek harmony with Rome would be disloyalty to God. But how widely different are the sentiments now expressed!
The defenders of the papacy declare that the church has been maligned, and the Protestant world are inclined to accept the statement. Many urge that it is unjust to judge the church of today by the abominations and absurdities that marked her reign during the centuries of ignorance and darkness. They excuse her horrible cruelty as the result of the barbarism of the times and plead that the influence of modern civilization has changed her sentiments.
Have these persons forgotten the claim of infallibility put forth for eight hundred years by this haughty power? So far from being relinquished, this claim was affirmed in the nineteenth century with greater positiveness than ever before. As Rome asserts that the "church never erred; nor will it, according to the Scriptures, ever err" (John L. von Mosheim, Institutes of Ecclesiastical History, book 3, century II, part 2, chapter 2, section 9, note 17), how can she renounce the principles which governed her course in past ages?
The papal church will never relinquish her claim to infallibility. All that she has done in her persecution of those who reject her dogmas she holds to be right; and would she not repeat the same acts, should the opportunity be presented? Let the restraints now imposed by secular governments be removed and Rome be reinstated in her former power, and there would speedily be a revival of her tyranny and persecution.
A well-known writer speaks thus of the attitude of the papal hierarchy as regards freedom of conscience, and of the perils which especially threaten the United States from the success of her policy:
"There are many who are disposed to attribute any fear of Roman Catholicism in the United States to bigotry or childishness. Such see nothing in the character and attitude of Romanism that is hostile to our free institutions, or find nothing portentous in its growth. Let us, then, first compare some of the fundamental principles of our government with those of the Catholic Church.
"The Constitution of the United States guarantees liberty of conscience. Nothing is dearer or more fundamental. Pope Pius IX, in his Encyclical Letter of August 15, 1854, said: `The absurd and erroneous doctrines or ravings in defense of liberty of conscience are a most pestilential error—a pest, of all others, most to be dreaded in a state.' The same pope, in his Encyclical Letter of December 8, 1864, anathematized `those who assert the liberty of conscience and of religious worship,' also 'all such as maintain that the church may not employ force.'
"The pacific tone of Rome in the United States does not imply a change of heart. She is tolerant where she is helpless. Says Bishop O'Connor: 'Religious liberty is merely endured until the opposite can be carried into effect without peril to the Catholic world.'... The archbishop of St. Louis once said: 'Heresy and unbelief are crimes; and in Christian countries, as in Italy and Spain, for instance, where all the people are Catholics, and where the Catholic religion is an essential part of the law of the land, they are punished as other crimes.'...
"Every cardinal, archbishop, and bishop in the Catholic Church takes an oath of allegiance to the pope, in which occur the following words: 'Heretics, schismatics, and rebels to our said lord (the pope), or his aforesaid successors, I will to my utmost persecute and oppose.'"—Josiah Strong, Our Country, ch. 5, pars. 2-4.
The Great Controversy
Ellen White

I am well interested in your thoughts about this . be not as the many who bring the thoughts of their leaders
specially when said leaders had plenty of faults of thier own .
Let us start afresh brakelite in the book commonly called and known as THE HOLY BIBLE
This honkey , this gringo , do forgive the words , staying glued IN THE BIBLE and i suggest
we all do the same . I have watched for many years
people often bringing massive quoates , clipped stuff , but they themselves dont seem to know the bible very well .
IF we have to run to google or to our leaders for info
to debate , THEN WE JUST aint learned our bible well enough for ourselves .
There is a huge reason i am reminding us about this my friend .
MANY sit under leaders who have already led them astary and into the great seduction .
THEY have little to no bible knowledge , OTHER than the twisted versions of their own leaders .
I say ITS TIME we put down every book , and pick up JUST the bible and give that some fat reading on our own
and SEE what happens in time .