Interesting find on the Internet...

Bingo!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Cath Digest said
The Pagan Romans prayed, each family to its Own household gods, JUST as we do to our patron saints.

In Old Testament times the gentile had local gods for their town or country, and our Christian Saints eventually supplanted Them!



In Christ,

Bob

 

BTW Carson, Ellen Harmon was all of 16 at the time of the Oct 22 1844 "great dissappointment" for Millerites.

It was not Ellen Harmon that set the OCt 22 date it was Samuel Snow.

It was not Ellen Harmon that had the vision directing the small group to the Heb 8 Heavenly sanctuary - it was Hiram Edson.

As is turned out - her "influence" even with one of the 1Cor 12 spiritual gifts - was still minor compared to the adult leaders of the group.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob:

The Body of Christ is one. The communion of saints means we are all one with Christ. When I die, only my body is in the ground, until the redemption of the body my soul is alive and with Christ. There is rejoicing in heaven when a sinner repents, so it seems that those in heaven care about us here on earth.

God Bless

 

When you die - if you are Christian - then the Bible calls you "the Dead in Christ" 1Thess 4. This is the term used to apply to all who are "asleep" as 1Thess 4 states explicitly - who have fallen asleep in Christ. Period.

The injuction against communicating with the dead - applies to those who would try to "contact you" once you have died.

There is no "legal loophole here" to squirm out of. Dead is dead. Dead in Christ is not "alive in Christ". There is no text of scripture that calls the "dead in Christ" - the "Alive in Christ".

There is no revisionism that can change that fact - now that the Bible can no longer be burned out of existence (in terms of the public's ability to access it).

In Christ,

Bob

 

BTW Carson, Ellen Harmon was all of ... It was not Ellen Harmon ... it was Samuel Snow ... It was not Ellen Harmon ... it was Hiram Edson

That's wonderful Bob. I'm sure that your 19th c. 7th Day "saints" and "prophets" are fascinating - and the history is pretty intricate and detailed - the LDS have theirs as well, and to tell you the truth, I find the Mormon history more "interesting".

With all of these sects aside, I'll stick with the Church founded by Jesus Christ, not "so and so who had a revelation or started a sect" 18 centuries removed. I think Jesus had enough "humph" in him to get it right the first time.

"The Roman Catholic church ... the only legitimate inheritor, by an unbroken episcopal succession descending from Saint Peter to the present time, of the commission and powers conferred by Jesus Christ...Until the break with the Eastern church in 1054 and the break with the Protestant churches in the 1500s, it is impossible to separate the history of the Roman Catholic church from the history of Christianity" (The Encarta Encyclopedia © 1997)

"If you are a Roman Catholic, Jesus Christ began your religion in the year 33." (Ann Landers {Jewish}, syndicated columnist in the Daily Record of Morris County, N.J. [from which we take this piece] for Monday, November 11,1996)

"Roman Catholic authority rests upon a mandate that is traced to the action of Jesus Christ himself, when he invested Peter and, through Peter, his successors with the power of the keys in the church. Christ is the invisible head of his church, and by his authority the pope is the visible head." (Encyclopedia Britannica © 1999)

 

If you are Roman Catholic then you must turn a blind eye to the torture and murder practiced by your church in its dark ages - from the 6th century to the 18th century.

If you are Roman Catholic - then you have signed on to errors that "evolved over time" - errors that even your own historians will claim were incorporated from Paganism.

All the "reformations" that came about in Christianity to "correct those errors" that evolved - "you must ignore".

You must view each group that rises up and restores yet one more piece of truth - to get back to the pure NT faith - as "just another fact that I must ignore as a faithful Roman Catholic".


Though you don't approve of Luther, or Wesley or Knox, or Zwingli or Calvin, or Miller or White and would love to lump them together as "so many non-catholics" - AND though your own EWTN answers people admit that "Billy Graham too would be tortured at the stake if he taught the same things he teaches today" in the RCC's dark ages --- yet "still" you must find a way to look down on the many "other Christian groups" that do not have such a sordid past.

My guess is that those behaviors do not come easily - It probably takes practice and continual reminders that the "traditions of man" Mark 7:9-12 must be taken "over" the more Biblical "Sola Scriptura" model.

As you stated - I am protestant in ethic. I believe in the priesthood of ALL believers, in righteousness by faith, in testing all faith and practice "Sola Scriptura" and I believe that the errors that evolved into the Catholic church as the traditions of man - are contrary to Biblical teaching.

That is not a personal - objection, to any particular Catholic "person" - it is simply stating the "truth".

In Christ,

Bob

 

You are the one that started that line of dicussion - "pretending" that you had actual interest in the truth about the historic facts regarding my particular denomination.

I simply responded "as if" you were being genuine and I offered a few corrections to your summary.

Then - you take off your own mask - and say that yo are not really interest in the post that YOU introduced.

Fine with me - I was not the one that brought up the subject in the first place.


Odd how the RC tactic is sometimes to blunder and then blame others for the mistake. But as well as "revisionist history" regarding an RC goofup - worked well in the dark ages - that tactic is not nearly as effective today.

In Christ,

Bob

 

If you are Roman Catholic then you must turn a blind eye to the torture and murder practiced by your church in its dark ages

No blind eye here bro. I can see quite clearly, thank you..

I'm sure that you turn a blind eye to all of the adulteries, murders, viewing of pornography, etc. that the Seventh Day Adventist Church has done.

Or.. perhaps you're confusing individuals' peccability with the promise of Jesus Christ.

You must view each group that rises up and restores

Sorry bro - nothing needs to be restored in a Church against which the gates of hades shall not prevail. There's no room for Seventh Day Adventism, Protestantism, or Mormon revival in Christ's Church. He's a pretty darn good shepherd and can keep his Church together without having it loose any truth that needs to be supposedly "restored".

I believe in the priesthood of ALL believers

Moi aussi, mon ami.

in righteousness by faith

Hey, me too!

You are the one that started that line of dicussion - "pretending" that you had actual interest in the truth about the historic facts regarding my particular denomination.

No pretending here bro.. I was just "proving" by evidential force that you're a Protestant. Nothing more, nothing less.

You shoudn't get all tied up in a knot just because someone else doesn't take as much of an interest as you in the minute details of an obscure sect that arose from a couple of self-made prophets (kind of like Joseph Smith) in the 19th century.

Like I said.. I'll stick with what the God-Man started.

 

As I said "already" I did not bring this subject up "pretending that I had the interest" - you did.

The post you placed at the top of thread 2 here proves it - no possibility of revisionist history used to erase your post. Sorry.

And the "institutionalized" torture and murder endorsed by the RCC over centuries - can "hardly be equivocated" with "just any old sin" that could be found in a "member of any other denomination". You are arguing that "only if each individual member of every other denominatino is sinless can the RCC be held accountable for the institutionalized - authorized - tortures and murders committed for centuries in her dark ages".

Your equivocation and defensive posturing on that point - could only be "believed" by someone who "is ALREADY RC" - it is not an objective compelling point.

In your efforts to make yourself "protestant" you "claim" to hold to protestant principles - but I believe you have a "ways to go along the path of truth" before you become "protestant".

AS for the RC being stoked in error and in dire need of reform at the time OF the reformation - EVEN RC historians admit to the need for reform at that time and we both know it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob, I'm willing to talk about Ellen White and what she did contribute to your church.

Amalgamation - to you subcribe to the belief that this is "all black men" or just "bushmen"?