"Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Faith" - Has 500 Years Taught Us Nothing?

[BreadOfLife]

I and others have shown you repeatedly what blasphemous claims your own church has published. We haven't run from anything - it is YOU who runs from reality. No amount of your denial can prevent anyone reading this from searching up and discovering these blasphemous statements by papal enemies of God.

We've provided you with plenty, silly papist. It is YOU who refuse to accept the writings of your own papal authorities...you're not doing the papacy any good by denying what they freely claim publicly.

I'm not talking about "others" - I'm talking bout YOU, Phoneyman.
Why are YOU so afraid of providing documented evidence for your alleged "quotes"??

ANSWER: Because they DON'T exist.

 

[Phoneman777]

I'm not talking about "others" - I'm talking bout YOU, Phoneyman.

That's your problem: you are so preoccupied with "talking" when you should be LISTENING - it's why God gave you ONE mouth and TWO ears. And why God gave the rest of us two hands: to type in search engines to find the blasphemous claims of the papacy that condemns it as Antichrist.

 

[brakelite]

"THE GREAT DISAPPOINTMENT"
NOTHING else needs to be added to this to conclude that William Miller was a FALSE prophet because he did what the Bible warned AGAINST by trying to guess when Christ would return.

No-one is claiming William Miller was a prophet... Not even himself. And yes, he was wrong in his interpretation of the event that was to take place, but he was not wrong with the day.
Another of your straw man fallacies.

Ellen G. White stated that the Pope's title added up to Six Hundred and Sixty-six.
What she FAILED to mention was that by using the SAME numerology criteria - "Ellen Gould White" ALSO adds up to Six Hundred and Sixty-six.

Please. These straw men are piling up so high your endangering this web site to a wild fire. I don't know if Ellen White wrote of that number, but what I do know is that a man by the name of Helwig connected the title vicarius filei dei to the number 666 in the year 1600. Many others in the mid 18th century picked up the same idea, until the concept became a tidal wave threatening the Vatican. They had to scramble to defuse the issue, by pretending the number could apply to anyone...I can't believe you are still attempting to do the same thing. How gullible do you think the readers here are?

Uhhhhh, no - they were perversions from two PROTESTANT publications, "Evangelical Christendom" and "Church Review".
As I stated the ORIGINAL discourse is ALL available for review.

Talk about doubling down on your stubborn intransigence. Take another look at those pics I posted BoL. They are NOT transcripts from a early 20th century speech!!! Look at them! Now I shall post a screen shot of the original source... Please take note... This is not a Protestant magazine...

 

[brakelite]

Take note.... Documented evidence.... As requested.

 

[BreadOfLife]

That's your problem: you are so preoccupied with "talking" when you should be LISTENING - it's why God gave you ONE mouth and TWO ears. And why God gave the rest of us two hands: to type in search engines to find the blasphemous claims of the papacy that condemns it as Antichrist.

Then type away and FIND the origins of those quotes.
UNTIL you DO - it's just more of your patented hot wind . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

No-one is claiming William Miller was a prophet... Not even himself. And yes, he was wrong in his interpretation of the event that was to take place, but he was not wrong with the day.
Another of your straw man fallacies.

Please. These straw men are piling up so high your endangering this web site to a wild fire. I don't know if Ellen White wrote of that number, but what I do know is that a man by the name of Helwig connected the title vicarius filei dei to the number 666 in the year 1600. Many others in the mid 18th century picked up the same idea, until the concept became a tidal wave threatening the Vatican. They had to scramble to defuse the issue, by pretending the number could apply to anyone...I can't believe you are still attempting to do the same thing. How gullible do you think the readers here are?

Soooooo, Wlliam Miller and Ellen G. White can make ALL of the false prophecies they want - but they're NOT false prophets?? This is the most asinine claim you've made YET.
ONE false prophecy makes them FALSE PROPHETS.

Matt. 7:15-20 WARNS us against these people and tells us that we will know them by their FRUITS.
God doesn't provide "Great Disappointments" - only FALSE PROPHETS can do that.

Talk about doubling down on your stubborn intransigence. Take another look at those pics I posted BoL. They are NOT transcripts from a early 20th century speech!!! Look at them! Now I shall post a screen shot of the original source... Please take note... This is not a Protestant magazine...View attachment 4719

And I gave you the ACTUAL TEXT of what Cardinal from his ACTUAL MANUSCRIPT - and it is NOTHING like what YOU charged:
"The Pope REPRESENTS Jesus Christ Himself, and therefore is a loving father. The life of the Pope is a holocaust of love for the human family. His word is love; love, his weapon; love, the answer he gives to all who hate him; love, his flag, i.e., the Cross, which signed the greatest triumph on earth and in heaven."

He was speaking of the Pope as Vicar and Representative and NOTHING else.
History and EVERY OTHER Protestant scholar has moved on from this phony-baloney charge - except for YOU and your SDA cult.

 

[brakelite]

Soooooo, Wlliam Miller and Ellen G. White can make ALL of the false prophecies they want - but they're NOT false prophets?? This is the most asinine claim you've made YET.
ONE false prophecy makes them FALSE PROPHETS.

Matt. 7:15-20 WARNS us against these people and tells us that we will know them by their FRUITS.
God doesn't provide "Great Disappointments" - only FALSE PROPHETS can do that.

And I gave you the ACTUAL TEXT of what Cardinal from his ACTUAL MANUSCRIPT - and it is NOTHING like what YOU charged:
"The Pope REPRESENTS Jesus Christ Himself, and therefore is a loving father. The life of the Pope is a holocaust of love for the human family. His word is love; love, his weapon; love, the answer he gives to all who hate him; love, his flag, i.e., the Cross, which signed the greatest triumph on earth and in heaven."

He was speaking of the Pope as Vicar and Representative and NOTHING else.
History and EVERY OTHER Protestant scholar has moved on from this phony-baloney charge - except for YOU and your SDA cult.

I have no idea what document/speech you are talking about. Whatever it is it is not the same subject or the same document.

it is NOTHING like what YOU charged:

of course it isn't!!!
Obviously you are either not bothering to look at the actual pictures I posted including a screenshot of the offensive source in Vatican archives or you have no answer and you are desperately trying to divert the conversation. Get with it BoL, I am not taking about a speech given just 120 years ago by some obscure cardinal. Again, I am talking about a document that is accepted as part of Catholic canon law. A document that clearly states, in Latin, Lord God the Pope. Scroll back a little and look again.

 

[brakelite]

Soooooo, Wlliam Miller and Ellen G. White can make ALL of the false prophecies they want - but they're NOT false prophets?? This is the most asinine claim you've made YET.

Being wrong about a prophetic event foretold in scripture due to faulty understanding of scripture a false prophet does not make. No-one gets things right all the time when studying eschatology...does that make us all false prophets? We freely discuss these things, and so we should...and one day, when these events come to pass, we will all understand. Meantime we do what we can to understand scripture, and through prayer, fasting, and discussion, we grow and learn. Just as Miller did. Just as those who were disappointed did. I would presume that if you were there, you would have been one of those who stood to the side and gloated and rejoiced at their sadness. Many did. But the courageous ones didn't give up. They knew the dates were right. Just the event was wrong. They continued to study. They discovered the truth...because they humbled themselves through the embarrassment and ridicule...and despite thousands abandoning their faith, they remained strong and determined to believe that the Lord who had led them so far, would continue to lead them in the future.
That entire time of great awakening ended up as a dividing of the sheep and goats. The goats gave up. Their double mindedness was revealed. Their half heartedness made plain.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I have no idea what document/speech you are talking about. Whatever it is it is not the same subject or the same document.
of course it isn't!!!
Obviously you are either not bothering to look at the actual pictures I posted including a screenshot of the offensive source in Vatican archives or you have no answer and you are desperately trying to divert the conversation. Get with it BoL, I am not taking about a speech given just 120 years ago by some obscure cardinal. Again, I am talking about a document that is accepted as part of Catholic canon law. A document that clearly states, in Latin, Lord God the Pope. Scroll back a little and look again.

Now – I already gave you the ACTUAL text from Cardinal Sardo’s ACTUAL manuscript – and you STILL can’t let it go.

Because of people like YOU and your SDA cult who spread lies with impunity - Vatican Librarians have gone to the trouble of locating the ACTUAL document, which was entitled:

‘Dominum nostrum Papam’ - NOT ‘Dominum Deum nostrum Papam’.

Whatever copies YOU might have downloaded are NOT authentic.
YOU are textbook case of an ignorant, obstinate, anti-Catholic . . .

 

[brakelite]

Now – I already gave you the ACTUAL text from Cardinal Sardo’s ACTUAL manuscript – and you STILL can’t let it go.

I don't give two hoots what you have as evidence of the Cardinals speech. I am sure he gave a very fine speech, and I hope all that heard it enjoyed it thoroughly.
But I am not taking about a speech from some cardinal. You can talk about it all you like . But do it with someone else... I'm not interested. My interest is in the fact that in the Catholic church canons, is several accepted copies of
1511 edition of Extravagantes viginti Johannis vigesimisecundi.
Basel, Switzerland

The context, or English translation and Latin original of the text is as follows....

Credere autem Dominum Deum nostrum Papam conditorem Dictae Dectretalis et istius, non sic potuisse statuere prout statuit, haereticum censeretur.

But to believe that our Lord God the Pope, the establisher of said decretal, and of this, could not decree, as he did decree, should be accounted heretical.

This is Canon. From the 16th century. Not a speech from the 20th century. Stop deflecting.

 

[brakelite]

For anyone interested in this to and fro between BoL and myself, and whether or not the Pope had indeed been referenced in history as Lord God the Pope, then I refer you to the below link which is a full scholarly factual study of the documents and the history and circumstances surrounding their acceptance into papal Canon Law,, including that blasphemous title mentioned above.
Dominum Deum Nostrum Papam - Our Lord God the Pope - DOCUMENTED.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I don't give two hoots what you have as evidence of the Cardinals speech. I am sure he gave a very fine speech, and I hope all that heard it enjoyed it thoroughly.
But I am not taking about a speech from some cardinal. You can talk about it all you like . But do it with someone else... I'm not interested. My interest is in the fact that in the Catholic church canons, is several accepted copies of
1511 edition of Extravagantes viginti Johannis vigesimisecundi.
Basel, Switzerland

The context, or English translation and Latin original of the text is as follows....

Credere autem Dominum Deum nostrum Papam conditorem Dictae Dectretalis et istius, non sic potuisse statuere prout statuit, haereticum censeretur.

But to believe that our Lord God the Pope, the establisher of said decretal, and of this, could not decree, as he did decree, should be accounted heretical.

This is Canon. From the 16th century. Not a speech from the 20th century. Stop deflecting.

ONE more time, Einstein.
The document was never called “Dominus DEUM Nostrum Papam”. It was called “Dominum Nostrum Papam”.

The Vatican archives EVERY OFFICIAL DOCUMENT.
Now, go to the Vatican website and FIND “Dominus DEUM Nostrum Papam”. It DOESN’T exist.
There are PLENTY of scholarly sources that corroborate what I am telling you – but YOU chose to believe the ones that still perpetuate a 500 year-old FALSE rumor.

That’s what you SDAs do. That is the history of your cult.
Your Popess, Ellen G. White spewed ALL sorts of false – easily-debunkable lies against the Church that are laughable to anybody with even a rudimentary knowledge of history.

What YOU posted was the erroneous SWISS version of the document from the SAME year as the FRENCH version from Lyons. THIS was the reason the original manuscript was presented at the time – so that people understood that “Domnius DEUM Nostrum Papam” was NOT what was written.

Here is a shot of the ACTUAL French document – with an ENLARGED shot of the section containing the text, “DOMINUM NOSTRUM PAPAM”:

Here are some of the more reliable scholarly sources on the subject – and, unlike you SDAs - they get their history RIGHT . . .

CONCORDATA INTER SANCTISSIMUM DOMINUM NOSTRUM PAPAM LEONEM DECIMUM https://www.lawbookexchange.com/pages/books/53107/pierre-rebuffi/concordata-inter-sanctissimum-dominum-nostrum-papam-leonem-decimum


CONCORDATA INTER SANCTISSIMUM DOMINUM NOSTRUM PAPAM LEONEM DECIMUM https://books.google.com/books?id=0eMxAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA486&lpg=PA486&dq=Dominum+Nostrum+Papam&source=bl&ots=QIBCTgwLKR&sig=Cr8zxlNXfQxfToL5E_3hluK1OKI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiOyt7chfreAhXIx1QKHaMWCO4Q6AEwAnoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=Dominum%20Nostrum%20Papam&f=false


CONCORDATA INTER SANCTISSIMUM DOMINUM NOSTRUM PAPAM LEONEM DECIMUM https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k9623094t/f496.image.texteImage

Another FALSE accusation from another FALSE "church" . . .

 

[brakelite]

ONE more time, Einstein.
The document was never called “Dominus DEUM Nostrum Papam”. It was called “Dominum Nostrum Papam”.

The Vatican archives EVERY OFFICIAL DOCUMENT.
Now, go to the Vatican website and FIND “Dominus DEUM Nostrum Papam”. It DOESN’T exist.
There are PLENTY of scholarly sources that corroborate what I am telling you – but YOU chose to believe the ones that still perpetuate a 500 year-old FALSE rumor.

That’s what you SDAs do. That is the history of your cult.
Your Popess, Ellen G. White spewed ALL sorts of false – easily-debunkable lies against the Church that are laughable to anybody with even a rudimentary knowledge of history.

What YOU posted was the erroneous SWISS version of the document from the SAME year as the FRENCH version from Lyons. THIS was the reason the original manuscript was presented at the time – so that people understood that “Domnius DEUM Nostrum Papam” was NOT what was written.

Here is a shot of the ACTUAL French document – with an ENLARGED shot of the section containing the text, “DOMINUM NOSTRUM PAPAM”:

Here are some of the more reliable scholarly sources on the subject – and, unlike you SDAs - they get their history RIGHT . . .

CONCORDATA INTER SANCTISSIMUM DOMINUM NOSTRUM PAPAM LEONEM DECIMUM https://www.lawbookexchange.com/pages/books/53107/pierre-rebuffi/concordata-inter-sanctissimum-dominum-nostrum-papam-leonem-decimum


CONCORDATA INTER SANCTISSIMUM DOMINUM NOSTRUM PAPAM LEONEM DECIMUM https://books.google.com/books?id=0eMxAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA486&lpg=PA486&dq=Dominum+Nostrum+Papam&source=bl&ots=QIBCTgwLKR&sig=Cr8zxlNXfQxfToL5E_3hluK1OKI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiOyt7chfreAhXIx1QKHaMWCO4Q6AEwAnoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=Dominum%20Nostrum%20Papam&f=false


CONCORDATA INTER SANCTISSIMUM DOMINUM NOSTRUM PAPAM LEONEM DECIMUM https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k9623094t/f496.image.texteImage

Another FALSE accusation from another FALSE "church" . . .

In 1578, Pope Gregory XIII formally appointed a small commission of learned cardinals and other clerics, generally referred to as the Correctores Romani, to set about the task of editing the Decretum. From the early 1570s at least, scholars working under papal auspices had been preparing the way. They had gone through the Vatican's manuscripts, then sent letters out across Catholic Europe, asking for the loan of, or copies of, manuscripts of Gratian and earlier canonical collections, seeking to collect the best examples local churches could provide. Responses came from curia cardinals, from remote Spanish monasteries, from beleaguered prelates in the Low Countries. The Correctores worked their way though the texts of the Decretum, collating the manuscripts, comparing and discussing variant readings they encountered, and keeping copious notes as they chose the readings they thought most accurate for the new edition. That Roman edition, published in 1582 with Gregory XIII's letter of authorization as its preface, became the standard text within the Catholic world. — The Treatise on Laws (Decretum Dd. 1-20) With the Ordinary Gloss, copyright 1993, The Catholic University of America, pg. xix.

"It is quite as certain that the Popes have never reproved or rejected this title, for the passage in the gloss referred to, appears in the edition of the Canon Law, published at Rome in 1580, by Gregory XIII., and the "Index Expurgatorius" of Pius V., which orders the erasure of other passages, yet leaves this one."

Source: Tentativa theologica: Episcopal rights and ultramontane usurpations by Fr. António Pereira de Figueiredo, Priest and Doctor of Lisbon, translated from the original Portuguese, with notes, and some additional matter by the Rev. Edward H. Landon, M.A. ... London, 1847. See pg. 180, footnote 1. Here is the book in Portuguese. See also: Appendix, E Illustracaō Da Tentativa Theologica, Sobre O Poder Dos Bispos em tempo de Rotura, seu autor Antonio Pereira ... Lisboa, 1768, pgs. 123-124. Also at Bavarian State Library.

The point being made is that Pius V (1566-1572) did not order the word Deum be removed from the gloss, and in the corrected and approved edition published under Pope Gregory XIII (1572-1585), Deum was present (See Corpus Juris Canonici - Principle Editions). That corrected and approved "editio Romana" edition, directed by Pope Gregory XIII and printed in 1582 & 1584 in Rome itself, is presented below, and it does indeed read Dominum Deum nostrum Papam, as does the 1584 Lyons edition as mentioned above (in 2 different typesets). As can be seen, 8 editions presented here are confirmed as using the word "Deum". Note also that the editions presented here with "Deum", are all different typesets from one year to another, each requiring a proofing of its own for errors. The standard of accuracy for subsequent printings being the "In Aedibus Populi Romani" edition, as subsequent editions dutifully state - "ad exemplar Romanum diligenter recognitum" (and diligently compared with the Roman text). And as shown above, Deum was already present in the 1511 printing, so it was not introduced in just a late untrustworthy edition, and it continued to appear in perhaps as many as 10 printings over a span of a hundred years or more, 1612 apparently being the last.

 

[brakelite]

Extravagantes XX Joannis vigesimisecundi. - Lyon - 1543

Credere autem dominum Deum nostrum papam conditorem dictae dectretalis et istius, sic non potuisse statuere prout statuit, haereticum censeretur.

But to believe that our lord God the pope, the establisher of said decretal, and of this, could not decree, as he did decree, should be accounted heretical. -translation source.

Clementinae Clementis Quinti Constitutiones : quas Clementinas vocant / ab Egidio Perrino ... dilige[n]ter recognitae ... cum summarijs, casibus notabilibus ... ac additionibus, tam ex Ioannis Imolae, quam Petri Ancharani, Zabarellae ... aliorumque doctorum commentarijs, collectis, Lugduni : apud Hugonem, & Haeredes Aemonis a Porta, 1543, Biblioteca Virtual de la Rioja. (Visual index link 19, - for 227, folio 34r, click on the small blue icon and then descargar.)

Utilitas Extravagantium
Lyon - 1553

Sextvs Liber Decretalivm Cvm Epitomis, diuisionibus, & Glossa ordinaria Do. Io. Andre, vna cum vtilibus additionibus nouissime recognitus, & infinitis prope mendis purgatus studio & industria clarissimi Iureconsulti Parisiensis VV. Doctoris celeberrimi ... Lyon, 1553, Bavarian State Library Munich, pg. 107.

Credere autem dominum nostrum papam conditorem dictae dectretalis et istius, sic non potuisse statuere prout statuit, haereticum censeretur.

But to believe that our lord the pope, the establisher of said decretal, and of this, could not decree, as he did decree, should be accounted heretical.

 

[brakelite]

Utilitas Extravagantium - Venice - 1567

Sextus Decretalium liber / a Bonifacio octavo in concilio Lugdunensi editus ; cum epitomis, divisionibus & glossa ordinaria Io. andreae una cum... additionibus nouissime recognitus... Venetiis : [s.n.], 1567, turn to pg. 107 (422 in the reader) -- University of Zaragoza

This edition does not include the word Deum, and while the glossa ordinaria is attributed to another canonist, Io. Andreae, the end of that section of gloss, at the bottom of that page, still bears the name of Zenzelinus.

Credere autem dominum nostrum papam conditorem dictae dectretalis et istius, sic non potuisse statuere prout statuit, haereticum censeretur.

But to believe that our lord the pope, the establisher of said decretal, and of this, could not decree, as he did decree, should be accounted heretical. - translation source.

Utilitas Extravagantium
Constitutiones XX Joannis Papae XXII:
cum apparatu Zenzelini de Cassanis - 1582 - Rome

Credere autem Dominum Deum nostrum Papam conditorem dictae dectretalis et istius, sic non potuisse statuere prout statuit, haereticum censeretur.

But to believe that our Lord God the Pope, the establisher of said decretal, and of this, could not decree, as he did decree, should be accounted heretical.

 

[brakelite]

Extravagantes Tum Viginti D. Joannis Papae XXII:
Una cum Glossis Restitutae - 1584 - Rome

This is a second printing of the official "In Aedibus Populi Romani" edition.
Goettingen State and University Library, pg. 961, - 107.

Constitutiones XX Joannis Papae XXII:
cum apparatu Zenzelini de Cassanis - 1584 - Lyon

University of Grenada
Contitutiones XX: title pg. 580,
Cols. 147-148 pg. 651

Below is a second 1584 edition, with a different typeset.

Liber Sextus, Decretalium, Lugduni (Lyon), 1584, Cols. 153-154, pg. 128, .pdf download -- University of Paris

Liber Sextus, Decretalium, Venetiis, 1600, pg. 107.

Liber Sextus, Decretalium, Venetiis, 1605, pg. 107.

All above information courtesy Michael Sheifler bible light.net

 

[BreadOfLife]

Extravagantes Tum Viginti D. Joannis Papae XXII:
Una cum Glossis Restitutae - 1584 - Rome

This is a second printing of the official "In Aedibus Populi Romani" edition.
Goettingen State and University Library, pg. 961, - 107.

Constitutiones XX Joannis Papae XXII:
cum apparatu Zenzelini de Cassanis - 1584 - Lyon

University of Grenada
Contitutiones XX: title pg. 580,
Cols. 147-148 pg. 651

Below is a second 1584 edition, with a different typeset.

Liber Sextus, Decretalium, Lugduni (Lyon), 1584, Cols. 153-154, pg. 128, .pdf download -- University of Paris

Liber Sextus, Decretalium, Venetiis, 1600, pg. 107.

Liber Sextus, Decretalium, Venetiis, 1605, pg. 107.

All above information courtesy Michael Sheifler bible light.net

And ONCE AGAIN Einstein - I have addressed this.

The original manuscript did NOT have the term "DEUM" in it - although SOME of the first published versions erroneously DID.
From the Vatican Library:

Vatican Library, Reference Service. "Re: Fwd: Verifying Information." E-mail to Marno Retief. 2 June 2004.
'It is, of course, a huge mistake. With much pain and time we found the passage you are quoting in the original manuscripts (Vaticanus latinus 2583, f. 258 v; Vat. lat. 1404, f. 22 r, both from 14th century), and in both it is clearly said "Dominum nostrum Papam". The wrong formulation, "Dominum Deum nostrum Papam", we found in an edition of the end of the 16th century, but these old editions cannot be philologically trusted. The original manuscripts have the correct version, and there is no word "Deum" in that sentence.'

This is typical of you SDA cultists - and THIS is why no reputable Protestant scholars even bring this up - because it was NEVER part of the original manuscript.
It was a PRINTING ERROR - and has been historically verified by the original manuscript..

 

[brakelite]

And ONCE AGAIN Einstein - I have addressed this.

The original manuscript did NOT have the term "DEUM" in it - although SOME of the first published versions erroneously DID.
From the Vatican Library:

Vatican Library, Reference Service. "Re: Fwd: Verifying Information." E-mail to Marno Retief. 2 June 2004.
'It is, of course, a huge mistake. With much pain and time we found the passage you are quoting in the original manuscripts (Vaticanus latinus 2583, f. 258 v; Vat. lat. 1404, f. 22 r, both from 14th century), and in both it is clearly said "Dominum nostrum Papam". The wrong formulation, "Dominum Deum nostrum Papam", we found in an edition of the end of the 16th century, but these old editions cannot be philologically trusted. The original manuscripts have the correct version, and there is no word "Deum" in that sentence.'

This is typical of you SDA cultists - and THIS is why no reputable Protestant scholars even bring this up - because it was NEVER part of the original manuscript.
It was a PRINTING ERROR - and has been historically verified by the original manuscript..

Okay. Now it seems finally we are talking about the same subject. Not some speech as you seemed determined to promote. Just to remind the readers, that "printing error" found its way into 8 different editions over a period of 100 years and survived a series of strict editorial copy writing by several well educated and highly qualified Cardinals who it seemed deemed the phrase quite acceptable.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Okay. Now it seems finally we are talking about the same subject. Not some speech as you seemed determined to promote. Just to remind the readers, that "printing error" found its way into 8 different editions over a period of 100 years and survived a series of strict editorial copy writing by several well educated and highly qualified Cardinals who it seemed deemed the phrase quite acceptable.

It’s only scandal-mongers like your SDA cult who point sanctimonious fingers at everybody else – while ignoring the GLARING heresies and false prophecies of your founders.

Perversions like Soul Sleep/Soul Death require feats of Scriptural acrobatics that would amaze the most gifted Olympic gymnast. The Transfiguration shows us what a counterfeit, man-made doctrine Soul Sleep/Soul Death is . . .

- William Miller’s publicly FALSE prophecy of Christ’s return and that Earth would be engulfed in fire sometime between March 21, 1843, and March 21, 1844 NEVER came. So, what did he do? He CHANGED the date to Oct. 23rd. – which ALSO never came. This resulted in what is now referred to as “The Great Disappointment.” He was the Harold Camping of his day . . .

- Ellen G. White’s completely FALSE prophecy that England would invade the U.S. during the Civil War

- Regarding FALSE prophet William Miller: "I have seen that the 1843 chart (Wm. Miller's) was directed by the hand of the Lord and that it should not be altered that the figures were as he wanted them." (EARLY WRITINGS p. 64 edition 1882)

- She prophesied the world would end in 1843, 1844, 1845 & 1851: "Now time is almost finished, (1851) and what we have been 6 years in learning they will have to learn in months." (EARLY WRITINGS p. 57)

- She blamed her failed prophecy on the members of the SDA sect:

"Thus the work was hindered, and the world was left in darkness. Had the whole Adventist body united upon the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, how widely different would have been our history." (SELECTED MESSAGES, Book 1, p. 299)

This garbage goes on and on for the rest of her life. I couldn’t make this up if I TRIED . . .

And YOU make such a fuss over a TYPO??
YOU should be more worried about the FALSE Prophets that YOU have chosen to gamble your salvation on. Remember – it only takes ONE false prophecy to make a FALSE PROPHET (Matt. . . .

Matthew 7:15
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.

1 John 4:1
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.

2 Peter 2:1
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.

 

[Phoneman777]

Then type away and FIND the origins of those quotes.
UNTIL you DO - it's just more of your patented hot wind . . .

Anyone can google them, Dead Bread - even you if you can somehow pull yourself away from praying to idols and engaging in the monumental delusion that a pedophile priest can magically transform a piece of stale bread and a cup of putrefied booze into the "bod and blood of Christ", though it look, smell, taste and exist as just stale bread and booze.