Posted on 07/03/2025 5:38:42 PM PDT by Angelino97
Jesuit trick: Intentionally take a quote out of context and make it appear that it’s heresy. And by all means, absolutely never tell the truth.
——>Jesuit: White’s claim that “Christ was not the Lord God Almighty” (SDA Bible Commentary, Vol. 5, p. 1129) flirts with heresy.
The entire quote:
Christ left His position in the heavenly courts, and came to this earth to live the life of human beings. This sacrifice He made in order to show that Satan’s charge against God is false—that it is possible for man to obey the laws of God’s kingdom. Equal with the Father, honored and adored by the angels, in our behalf Christ humbled Himself, and came to this earth to live a life of lowliness and poverty—to be a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. Yet the stamp of divinity was upon His humanity. He came as a divine Teacher, to uplift human beings, to increase their physical, mental, and spiritual efficiency. (5BC 1129.6)
There is no one who can explain the mystery of the incarnation of Christ. Yet we know that He came to this earth and lived as a man among men. The man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God Almighty, yet Christ and the Father are one. The Deity did not sink under the agonizing torture of Calvary, yet it is nonetheless true that “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (5BC 1129.7)
https://m.egwwritings.org/it/book/94.622
All Jesuits are told to lie. They love to make up lies and repeat them as often as possible in an attempt to make their Antichrist position seem plausible, even the truth. It’s SOP for them.
This is SOP for God: Revelation 22:14Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. 15FOR WITHOUT are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, AND WHOSOEVER LOVETH AND MAKETH A LIE.
Liars will not be in heaven, no matter what the Antichrist church says.
——>Who’s the real antichrist figure here?
Any church that:
Claims authority to change God’s times and laws
Claims infallibility
Has a homosexual priesthood
Has a militant wing of Jesuit liars
Claims equality with Jesus Christ
Claims to be able to forgive sin, OR NOT, and that Christ must abide by that decision.
Is responsible for the torture and death of 10’s of millions of saints (probably in the range of 150-300 million total)
Etc...
Your comeback, flinging Matthew 15:9 at Catholics for Sunday worship and demanding a biblical command for it while claiming the Sabbath was made for all mankind, is a weak attempt to dodge the truth with recycled Adventist nonsense.
You accuse me of obsessing over White while ignoring that the Adventist Sabbath fixation and anti-Catholic venom scream her influence.
You cite Matthew 15:9—“In vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men”—to slam Catholic Sunday worship as a human invention. Your hypocrisy is staggering, and your exegesis is a joke.
Context of Matthew 15:9: Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for prioritizing their oral traditions (e.g., Corban rules) over God’s moral law, like honoring parents (15:3-6). Catholic Sunday worship isn’t a “commandment of men”—it’s rooted in apostolic practice, celebrating Christ’s resurrection (Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:2). The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 2174-2176) explains Sunday as fulfilling the Sabbath’s spiritual purpose, guided by the Church’s God-given authority (Matthew 16:18-19). Early Christians, like Ignatius of Antioch (Letter to the Magnesians, c. 110 AD, Ch. 9), worshipped on Sunday, not Saturday, because of the resurrection. Your accusation is baseless.
SDA claim to follow God’s command, but the Adventist salvific Sabbath obsession comes from Ellen G. White’s The Great Controversy (p. 605-612), not Scripture.
Colossians 2:16-17 calls Sabbaths as “shadows” of Christ; Romans 14:5-6 grants freedom in worship days. Acts 15:28-29 omits Sabbath-keeping for Gentile converts.
The SDA Sabbath dogma is a human invention, born of false 19th-century fiction, not God’s Word. The Adventists are the ones worshipping “in vain,” chained to a false prophetess’s lies.
You demand a verse commanding Sunday worship, implying it’s unbiblical compared to the Sabbath. Your challenge is a red herring—Scripture and history demolish your claim.
Biblical Basis: The New Testament shows early Christians gathering on Sunday, the “Lord’s Day,” to honor Christ’s resurrection (Acts 20:7: “On the first day of the week we came together to break bread”; 1 Corinthians 16:2: “On the first day of the week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money”). Revelation 1:10 mentions the “Lord’s Day,” understood as Sunday by early Christians (Justin Martyr, First Apology, c. 155 AD, Ch. 67). While no verse says “Thou shalt worship on Sunday,” the apostolic practice, guided by the Holy Spirit (John 16:13), establishes it. The Church, founded by Christ (Matthew 16:18-19), has authority to regulate worship (Matthew 18:18, CCC 2174-2176).
Sabbath’s Context: You cite Mark 2:27—“The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath”—to claim it’s for all mankind, not just Jews. Fine, but the Sabbath’s formal observance is tied to Israel’s covenant (Exodus 31:16-17: “a lasting covenant” for the Israelites). Genesis 2:2-3 notes God’s rest, but no pre-Mosaic command mandates weekly Sabbath-keeping for all humanity. The New Testament never requires Christians to keep Saturday (Colossians 2:16-17, Romans 14:5-6). Jesus, as “Lord of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:28), fulfills its purpose (Hebrews 4:9-11), inviting us to rest in Him (Matthew 11:28).
Catholics honor the Sabbath’s principle—rest and worship—on Sunday, the day of Christ’s resurrection, which transforms the Old Covenant (Hebrews 8:6-13). The Eucharist, Christ’s real presence (John 6:53-56, CCC 1324-1327), is our worship’s heart, not a calendar day. Your claim that Sunday is a “commandment of men” ignores its apostolic roots and Christ’s victory over death.
Show me one New Testament verse commanding Christians to keep the seventh-day Sabbath. You can’t, because your Sabbath obsession is Adventism’s fiction, not God’s command.
Your Matthew 15:9 jab is a hypocritical dodge, projecting Adventism’s man-made doctrines onto the Catholic Church. No New Testament verse commands Saturday worship for Christians—your Sabbath-for-mankind claim is White’s lie, not Scripture’s truth. The Catholic Church, Christ’s bride (Ephesians 5:25-27), worships Him on Sunday, honoring His resurrection, not paganism.
These all stem from the Satanic religion of Adventism, whose evils—White’s false prophecies (1856, 1844, 1845), Investigative Judgment heresy, Sabbath idolatry, and anti-Catholic venom—mark Adventism as a satanic cult, not God’s remnant.
Jesuits just can’t tell the truth.
——>Jesuit: White’s claim that “Christ was not the Lord God Almighty” (SDA Bible Commentary, Vol. 5, p. 1129) flirts with heresy.
The entire quote:
Christ left His position in the heavenly courts, and came to this earth to live the life of human beings. This sacrifice He made in order to show that Satan’s charge against God is false—that it is possible for man to obey the laws of God’s kingdom. Equal with the Father, honored and adored by the angels, in our behalf Christ humbled Himself, and came to this earth to live a life of lowliness and poverty—to be a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. Yet the stamp of divinity was upon His humanity. He came as a divine Teacher, to uplift human beings, to increase their physical, mental, and spiritual efficiency. (5BC 1129.6)
There is no one who can explain the mystery of the incarnation of Christ. Yet we know that He came to this earth and lived as a man among men. The man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God Almighty, yet Christ and the Father are one. The Deity did not sink under the agonizing torture of Calvary, yet it is nonetheless true that “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (5BC 1129.7)
Yes, and he just keeps repeating lie after lie after lie. Jesuits will do whatever it takes. They are sworn to do it. And if they do a good job, the great white Pope Fuhrer will absolve all their sins and make sure they get into heaven. They follow their church, not Christ.
Revelation 22:14Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. 15FOR WITHOUT are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, AND WHOSOEVER LOVETH AND MAKETH A LIE.
You provide the full quote from White’s SDA Bible Commentary (Vol. 5, p. 1129.6-7), claiming it clarifies her statement, “The man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God Almighty, yet Christ and the Father are one.” Let’s dissect this theological trainwreck:
Context of Matthew 15:9: Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for prioritizing their oral traditions (e.g., Corban rules) over God’s moral law, like honoring parents (15:3-6). Catholic Sunday worship isn’t a “commandment of men”—it’s rooted in apostolic practice, celebrating Christ’s resurrection (Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:2). The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 2174-2176) explains Sunday as fulfilling the Sabbath’s spiritual purpose, guided by the Church’s God-given authority (Matthew 16:18-19). Early Christians, like Ignatius of Antioch (Letter to the Magnesians, c. 110 AD, Ch. 9), worshipped on Sunday, not Saturday, because of the resurrection. Your accusation is baseless.
And you have no response to that
no response except Adventist impotent sputterings
your Adventist retort, accusing me of repeating “indoctrinated lies,” calling me “hopeless” and “lost,” and threatening me with the “lake of fire” from Revelation 21:8, is a desperate, unhinged outburst that exposes the spiritual bankruptcy of Seventh-day Adventism. You claim plain Scripture doesn’t move me, but it’s you who’s blinded by Ellen G. White’s demonic distortions, twisting God’s Word to prop up your Sabbath obsession
The Adventist nonsense is easily proven wring by referring to the Bible
You cited Matthew 15:9—“In vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men”—to slam Catholic Sunday worship as a human invention, and now you double down, ignoring my refutation. Let’s bury your misapplication once and for all:
Context of Matthew 15:9You claim to follow “plain Scripture,” but your salvific Sabbath obsession comes straight from Ellen G. White’s The Great Controversy (p. 605-612), which predicts a Sunday law as the mark of the beast.Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for elevating their oral traditions (e.g., Corban rules) over God’s moral law, like honoring parents (Matthew 15:3-6). Catholic Sunday worship isn’t a “commandment of men”—it’s rooted in apostolic practice, celebrating Christ’s resurrection on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7: “On the first day of the week we came together to break bread”; 1 Corinthians 16:2: “On the first day of the week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money”). Early Christians, like Ignatius of Antioch (Letter to the Magnesians, c. 110 AD, Ch. 9), worshipped on Sunday, the Lord’s Day, not Saturday, to honor the resurrection. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 2174-2176) explains Sunday as fulfilling the Sabbath’s spiritual purpose—rest and worship—under the Church’s God-given authority (Matthew 16:18-19).
Your accusation is baseless; it’s Adventism’s Sabbath dogma that’s man-made.
but
Where’s the New Testament verse mandating Saturday worship for Christians? Colossians 2:16-17 calls Sabbaths “shadows” of Christ, the reality. Romans 14:5-6 grants freedom in choosing worship days. Acts 15:28-29 omits Sabbath-keeping for Gentile converts.You dodge my challenge to produce a New Testament verse mandating Saturday worship. Your silence proves your theology is White’s garbage, not Scripture’s truth.Your Sabbath dogma, born of White’s 19th-century visions, is the true “commandment of men,” not Catholic Sunday worship. You’re worshipping in vain, Phil, chained to a false prophetess’s lies.
Revelation 21:8 condemns those who deceive, including false prophets. Ellen G. White’s failed prophecies mark her as a liar under Deuteronomy 18:22:
Phil, Your Adventist bile, accusing me of “Jesuit” lies and claiming Catholics follow a “Pope Fuhrer” over Christ, is a disgusting rehash of Ellen G. White’s anti-Catholic venom. You cite Revelation 22:14-15 to slam Catholics as liars outside heaven’s gates, but your Sabbath-obsessed cult is the real deceiver.
The Catholic Church, founded by Christ (Matthew 16:18-19), worships Him through the Eucharist (John 6:53-56, CCC 1324-1327), not a pope.
Sunday worship, apostolic in origin (Acts 20:7, CCC 2174-2176), fulfills the Sabbath (Colossians 2:16-17).
White’s failed prophecies (1856, 1844, 1845; Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 1, p. 131-132) and Investigative Judgment heresy (The Great Controversy, p. 421-422) mark Adventism as a satanic lie (Deuteronomy 18:22, Hebrews 9:12). Revelation 22:15’s “liars” fits White, not Catholics.
Produce a New Testament verse mandating Saturday worship or naming the papacy as Antichrist. You can’t. Repent of your cult’s lies and flee to Christ’s Church, or risk the fate you threaten.
But Adventism is based on the lies of Ellen, so what else can one expect except lies from Adventism
You claim I took White’s statement—“The man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God Almighty, yet Christ and the Father are one” (SDA Bible Commentary, Vol. 5, p. 1129)—out of context, providing the full quote to argue it’s orthodox. Let’s dissect this theological dumpster fire:
The Adventist founder's statement “The man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God Almighty” risks heresy by suggesting a division in Christ’s nature. Catholic theology, rooted in Scripture and Tradition, affirms the hypostatic union: Jesus is one divine Person with two natures, fully God and fully man (John 1:1, 14; Philippians 2:6-8; CCC 464-469). Revelation 1:8 calls Jesus “the Almighty,” and John 10:30 (“I and the Father are one”) affirms His equality with God. White’s wording, even with “Christ and the Father are one,” is ambiguous and leans toward Arianism, which denied Christ’s full deity. Her phrase “the stamp of divinity was upon His humanity” reduces Christ’s divinity to a quality, not His essence, contradicting the Nicene Creed’s “consubstantial with the Father."Context Doesn’t Absolve the false prophetess founder of Seventh Day Adventism, Ellen G White
Your full quote—about Christ leaving heaven, humbling Himself, and living as a man—emphasizes His humanity but fails to clearly affirm His eternal divinity. Saying “Equal with the Father” is undercut by “not the Lord God Almighty,” creating confusion. White’s claim that the Incarnation’s “mystery” can’t be explained is a dodge to mask her sloppy theology. The Church defines the Incarnation biblically (Colossians 2:9: “In Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form”), not as a vague “divine Teacher” with a “stamp” of divinity.
Her statement flirts with heresy, and your defense only highlights Adventism’s shaky Christology.
White’s ambiguous language aligns with early Adventism’s semi-Arian tendencies, seen in pioneers like Uriah Smith, who doubted Christ’s full deity. Her writings, revered as divine (SDA Belief #18), risk leading you astray from 1 John 4:2-3, which warns against denying Christ’s full humanity and divinity. You’re defending a false prophetess, not Scripture.
You list seven charges against the Catholic Church, claiming it’s the Antichrist for changing God’s laws, claiming infallibility, and more. Let’s demolish each one:
1. Changing God’s Times and Laws: You link this to Daniel 7:25, claiming Catholics changed the Sabbath to Sunday. No verse names the papacy or ties Sunday to this prophecy. The Little Horn refers to Antiochus IV (Daniel 8, 1 Maccabees 1:41-49) or Nero, not the Church. Sunday worship, rooted in apostolic practice (Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:2), honors Christ’s resurrection (CCC 2174-2176), fulfilling the Sabbath (Colossians 2:16-17). The Church’s authority (Matthew 16:18-19) guided this, not a pagan plot
2. Claiming Infallibility: The Church claims infallibility in defining faith and morals under the Holy Spirit’s guidance (Matthew 16:18-19, CCC 889-892), not human arrogance. This preserves the Gospel, as seen in the Nicene Creed. Adventism’s reliance on White’s fallible visions (The Great Controversy, p. 421-422) lacks such divine promise.
3. Homosexual Priesthood: Your recycled claim of a “homosexual priesthood” stems from Frédéric Martel’s baseless 80% figure (In the Closet of the Vatican, 2019), debunked as anecdotal gossip (Guardian, 2019; CNN, 2019). The Vatican’s 2005 Instruction bans men with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” from seminaries, requiring celibacy (CCC 1579). The 2025 Italian guidelines allow chaste gay candidates, vetted holistically (Reuters, 2025). No evidence supports your “recruitment” lie.
4. Militant Jesuit Liars: Your “Jesuit liars” smear is Adventist conspiracism, not history. Jesuits, like all Catholics, defend the faith (2 Timothy 4:2). White’s anti-Catholic rants (The Great Controversy, p. 50) fuel your hatred, not truth. Show me a Jesuit oath to lie—you can’t, because it’s a myth.
5. Claiming Equality with Christ: The Church never claims equality with Christ—it’s His bride (Ephesians 5:25-27), proclaiming His Gospel (1 Timothy 3:15). White’s claim to divine inspiration (SDA Belief #18) borders on equating herself with Scripture, a far graver offense (Revelation 22:18-19).
6. Forgiving Sins: The Church administers Christ’s forgiveness through the sacrament of reconciliation (John 20:22-23, CCC 1441-1442), not its own power. Christ delegates this authority, not the Church’s whim. Adventism’s Investigative Judgment, judging believers’ works (The Great Controversy, p. 421-422), usurps Christ’s role (Hebrews 9:12).
7. Killing Millions: Your claim of “150-300 million” deaths is a grotesque exaggeration, rooted in 19th-century anti-Catholic propaganda like John Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. Historical estimates of Inquisition deaths range from 3,000-50,000 over centuries (Catholic Answers, 2024). The Crusades and other conflicts had complex causes, not papal bloodlust. Adventism’s slander ignores its own divisive history (Answering Adventism, 2023).
____________
Your accusations are lies, Phil, fueled by White’s anti-Catholic venom, not Scripture or history.
You cite Revelation 22:14-15—“Blessed are they that do his commandments… for without are… whosoever loveth and maketh a lie”—to condemn Catholics as liars outside heaven. This boomerangs on Adventism:
Revelation 22:14’s “commandments” refers to Christ’s law of love (John 13:34, Romans 13:8-10), not the Ten Commandments alone. The New Testament never mandates Saturday worship (Colossians 2:16-17, Romans 14:5-6). Catholics obey God’s moral law (CCC 2055), fulfilled in Christ (Matthew 22:37-40).
Revelation 22:15’s “liars” fits Ellen G. White, whose failed prophecies (1856, 1844, 1845; Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 1, p. 131-132; A Word to the Little Flock, p. 14) mark her as a false prophetess (Deuteronomy 18:22). Her Investigative Judgment heresy (The Great Controversy, p. 421-422) lies about Christ’s atonement (Hebrews 9:12). You’re following a liar in the Adventist cult, Phil, Catholics aren’t
Phil, your “Jesuit liars” and “Antichrist church” rants stem from Seventh-day Adventism’s demonic core, built on White’s lies:
False Prophecies: White’s 1856, 1844, and 1845 failures (Deuteronomy 18:22) deceive millions, including you.
Investigative Judgment Heresy: Her 1844 doctrine denies Christ’s finished work (Hebrews 9:12), a satanic assault on the Gospel.
Sabbath Idolatry: Her salvific Sabbath, with a Sunday law as the mark of the beast (The Great Controversy, p. 605-612), lacks New Testament support (Colossians 2:16-17). It’s Judaizing heresy (Galatians 5:4).
Adventism is a satanic cult, chaining you to White’s lies and a works-based gospel.
Your accusations—changing laws, infallibility, homosexual priesthood, killing millions—are baseless slanders, rooted in White’s demonic fiction, not Scripture. The Catholic Church, founded by Christ (Matthew 16:18-19), worships Him through the Eucharist (CCC 1324-1327), fulfilling the Sabbath on Sunday (Acts 20:7, CCC 2174-2176).
Produce one verse naming the papacy as Antichrist or mandating Saturday worship for Christians. You can’t, because your theology is White’s trash. Repent of Adventism’s satanic lies, burn her books, and flee to Christ’s Church, where grace awaits (Ephesians 2:8-9). Stay in your cult, and you risk Revelation 22:15’s fate
Thank you!
Thank you!
You argue that Revelation 20:1-10 describes a literal 1,000-year reign of Christ, with Satan bound and the martyrs reigning physically. You reject the Catholic view that the “first resurrection” is spiritual, tied to baptism (Col. 2:12; Rom. 6:4). Let’s examine the text.
Revelation is apocalyptic literature, a genre rich in symbolism, as seen in its visions of beasts, horns, and seals (Rev. 13, 17). The “thousand years” (Rev. 20:4-6) is not a literal timeline but a symbol of a significant period, as “thousand” often denotes completeness in Scripture (Ps. 50:10; 2 Pet. 3:8). The Church Fathers, such as St. Augustine (City of God, Book 20), interpreted this as the present age of the Church, where Christ reigns spiritually through His Body (Eph. 1:22-23). Satan is “bound” in the sense that his power to deceive is curtailed by the Gospel’s spread (Matt. 12:29; Luke 10:18), though he remains active until Christ’s return (1 Pet. 5:8).
The “first resurrection” refers to the spiritual rebirth of baptism, where believers are raised with Christ (Eph. 2:5-6) and made priests in His kingdom (1 Pet. 2:9). The martyrs’ reign is their participation in Christ’s victory, not a future earthly kingdom. Your insistence on a literal millennium ignores the genre of Revelation and the Church’s consistent teaching, as affirmed by the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 676), which rejects chiliasm (millenarianism) as a distortion of eschatology.
You claim that interpreting Revelation’s descriptive texts as symbolic is “perverse,” asserting that Satan’s binding cannot be imagined as fulfilled. This misunderstands both Scripture and Catholic exegesis. Revelation’s imagery—dragons, chains, beasts—is not literal but symbolic of spiritual realities. The binding of Satan (Rev. 20:2) reflects Christ’s victory over him through the Cross (John 12:31-32; Heb. 2:14). The Gospel’s power limits Satan’s ability to deceive the nations, as seen in the Church’s mission (Matt. 28:19). This is not imagination but the testimony of Scripture, confirmed by the Fathers like St. Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho, 110) and St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies, Book 5).
Your literalism assumes a future earthly reign, a view rejected by the Church since the early centuries. The Council of Ephesus (431 AD) condemned chiliasm, aligning with Augustine’s view that the millennium is the Church age. To dismiss this as “preterist” or “liberal” is to ignore the consensus of the early Church, which you paradoxically claim to value while rejecting its non-inspired writings.
You dispute that Christ’s rule with a “rod of iron” (Rev. 19:15; Ps. 2:8-9) is His spiritual reign through the Church, instead accusing Rome of being “the gates of Hell.” This is a grave misreading. Psalm 2 and Revelation depict Christ’s universal kingship, exercised now through His Church (Matt. 16:18-19; Eph. 1:22). The “rod of iron” signifies His authority over the nations, fulfilled in the Church’s mission to evangelize and discipline (Matt. 28:18-20; 1 Cor. 5:12-13). The Church, far from being the gates of Hell, is the bulwark against them, as Christ promised (Matt. 16:18).
Your accusation that Rome leads multitudes to Hell is a recycled anti-Catholic trope, unsupported by Scripture or history. The Catholic Church has preserved the Gospel, compiled the Bible, and spread Christ’s teachings for two millennia, often at the cost of martyrdom. To equate this with Hell’s gates is to invert Christ’s own words.
You dismiss the Catholic view that Zechariah 14:16-19—nations worshiping in Jerusalem—is fulfilled in Christ’s first coming, calling it “symbolic imagination.” Yet Scripture supports this interpretation. Zechariah’s prophecy, written post-exile, foreshadows the universal worship of God through the Messiah (Zech. 9:9; John 12:15). The “Jerusalem” of the New Covenant is the Church, the new Israel (Gal. 6:16; Heb. 12:22), where all nations worship through the Eucharist (Mal. 1:11). The Fathers, like St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, 18), saw these prophecies as fulfilled in Christ’s first advent, not a future earthly kingdom.
Your rejection of this as unfulfilled ignores the New Testament’s clear teaching that Christ’s coming inaugurated the Messianic age (Heb. 1:1-2; Acts 2:16-21). Dispensationalism’s insistence on a future literal fulfillment fragments salvation history, contrary to the unity of God’s plan (Eph. 1:10).
You claim that interpreting Ezekiel’s temple vision (Ezek. 40-48) as fulfilled in the post-exilic restoration (Ezra 1-2) reflects “liberal revisionism” and the “discredited JEDP theory.” This is a misunderstanding. The Catholic Church does not endorse the JEDP hypothesis, a 19th-century scholarly theory about the Pentateuch’s authorship. Instead, Catholic exegesis, rooted in the Fathers and the Magisterium, sees Ezekiel’s vision as a symbolic promise of restoration, partially fulfilled in the return from Babylon (Ezra 1:1-4) and fully realized in Christ’s Body, the true temple (John 2:19-21; Eph. 2:19-22).
Your accusation of treating biblical accounts as “fables” is baseless. The Church affirms the historical reliability of Scripture (CCC 106-107) but recognizes that prophetic visions often use symbolic language to convey spiritual truths. Ezekiel’s temple points to the Church, where God dwells among His people (Rev. 21:3), not a future physical structure.
You call the Catholic Church “cultic” for allegedly forcing Scripture to fit its teachings and label preterists my “cousins.” These are not “warranted reproofs” but unfounded slurs. The Church does not twist Scripture but interprets it through the lens of apostolic Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15), as entrusted by Christ (Matt. 16:19). The Fathers—Ignatius, Clement, Irenaeus—are not inspired like Scripture but are authoritative witnesses to the faith of the early Church, which was undeniably Catholic in its structure, sacraments, and doctrine (e.g., Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8, on the Eucharist).
Your dismissal of the Fathers as “non-inspired” and judged by Rome’s “self-proclaimed veracity” ignores their proximity to the apostles and their role in defining the canon of Scripture. Without them, you would have no New Testament to cite. Your claim that Catholic teachings are absent from the “wholly inspired” New Testament is false. The Eucharist (1 Cor. 11:23-25), apostolic succession (Acts 1:26; 2 Tim. 2:2), and the Church’s authority (Matt. 18:17-18) are all biblical.
You link my defense of Catholic eschatology to the Church’s alleged “reluctance” to recognize Israel, citing a Free Republic post. This is a red herring. The Church’s stance on modern Israel is a matter of prudential diplomacy, not doctrine. The Vatican recognized Israel in 1993, affirming its right to exist while advocating peace for all in the region (CCC 2307-2317). This has no bearing on salvation or eschatology. Your accusation of “cultic devotion” for defending Catholic teaching is a rhetorical dodge, not an argument.
You cite a website claiming the Catholic Church deformed the New Testament Church with a “false gospel.” This is a standard Protestant polemic, refuted by history. The early Church was hierarchical (Acts 15), sacramental (John 6:53-56; 1 Cor. 10:16), and universal (Matt. 28:19). The writings of Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clement show a Church with bishops, priests, and the Eucharist—distinctly Catholic. Your claim that distinctive Catholic teachings are absent from Scripture ignores passages like James 2:24 (justification by faith and works), 1 Timothy 3:15 (the Church as the pillar of truth), and John 20:23 (confession).
Your insistence on a literal 1,000-year reign stems from dispensationalism, a 19th-century innovation by John Nelson Darby, not the historic Christian faith. The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit (John 16:13), has consistently taught that Christ’s kingdom is spiritual and present in the Church, awaiting its consummation at His return (CCC 668-682). Your rejection of this as “liberal” or “cultic” dismisses 2,000 years of Christian witness, from the Fathers to the present.
I urge you to study the early Church, read the Fathers, and compare their teachings to Scripture. Test dispensationalism against the historic faith, not websites with anti-Catholic agendas. The Catholic Church is not the enemy but the Bride of Christ (Eph. 5:25-27), entrusted with the fullness of truth. Let us seek unity in that truth (John 17:21).
In Christ, our true King,
Return to the Church founded by Christ at Pentecost, the Catholic Church
The article you cite, “One Thousand Years Means One Thousand Years” from jesuskingdomgospel.com, argues for a literal interpretation of the 1,000-year reign in Revelation 20:1-10, claiming that a symbolic reading undermines the text’s plain meaning and the broader testimony of Scripture. As a Catholic, I respectfully but firmly disagree with this dispensationalist perspective. The article’s arguments rest on flawed assumptions about biblical interpretation, ignore the apocalyptic genre of Revelation, and misrepresent the historic Christian understanding of the millennium. Below, I address the article’s main points, refuting them with Scripture, Tradition, and reason, as guided by the Catholic Church, the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15).
The article asserts that the six-fold repetition of “thousand years” in Revelation 20:1-10 demands a literal interpretation, as the Greek term for “year” (ἔτος, etos) with a number always denotes a literal duration in the New Testament. It argues that a symbolic reading renders other numbers in Revelation (e.g., 144,000, 42 months) meaningless.
Refutation: The Catholic Church acknowledges the importance of numbers in Scripture but recognizes that Revelation’s apocalyptic genre uses numbers symbolically to convey spiritual truths, not literal chronologies. The number 1,000, as a cube of 10, signifies completeness or fullness in biblical numerology (e.g., Ps. 50:10, “the cattle on a thousand hills”). St. Augustine, in City of God (Book 20, ch. 7), interprets the “thousand years” as the entire Church age, from Christ’s first coming to His return, during which Satan is bound by the Gospel’s power (Matt. 12:29). This view, known as amillennialism, was affirmed by the early Church and remains the Catholic standard (Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 676).
The article’s claim that a symbolic 1,000 years undermines other numbers in Revelation is flawed. Numbers like 144,000 (12 x 12 x 1,000) symbolize the totality of God’s people (Rev. 7:4), and 42 months (Rev. 11:2) reflects a period of tribulation, echoing Daniel 7:25. These are not literal counts but theological signposts, as the Church Fathers, including St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies, Book 5), recognized. The article’s insistence on literalism ignores the genre’s context, where John uses vivid imagery—dragons, beasts, chains—to depict spiritual realities, not historical timelines (Rev. 12:3; 13:1).
The article argues that a symbolic interpretation of the 1,000 years negates the purpose of the Gospel, which it claims is tied to a literal millennial reign where Christians rule with Christ. It cites Revelation 20:4-5, asserting that the “first resurrection” is a physical resurrection of martyrs to reign on earth.
Refutation: The Catholic Church teaches that the Gospel’s purpose is the salvation of souls through Christ’s death and resurrection, fulfilled in the New Covenant and proclaimed by the Church (CCC 849-856). The “first resurrection” in Revelation 20:5 is spiritual, referring to baptism, where believers are raised with Christ (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12; Eph. 2:5-6). This aligns with Jesus’ teaching on spiritual rebirth (John 5:24-25) and the Church’s mission to make disciples (Matt. 28:19). The martyrs’ “reign” is their participation in Christ’s heavenly kingship (Rev. 3:21), not a future earthly kingdom.
The article’s literalist view of the “first resurrection” as physical contradicts other Scriptures. John 5:28-29 and Acts 24:15 speak of a single physical resurrection of both the righteous and unrighteous at the end of time, not a staggered resurrection before a millennium. The Catholic interpretation, rooted in the Fathers like St. Augustine and St. Jerome, sees the millennium as the Church age, where the saints reign spiritually with Christ (Eph. 2:6). The article’s claim that a symbolic view disrupts the Gospel is baseless; rather, it is dispensationalism’s fragmentation of salvation history into distinct eras that obscures the unity of God’s plan (Eph. 1:10).
The article cites early Church Fathers like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Papias, claiming they universally held a literal (premillennial) view of the 1,000 years, implying that the Catholic amillennial view deviates from apostolic teaching.
Refutation: While some early Fathers, such as Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 80) and Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 5.33), held premillennial views, this was not universal. Papias’ chiliasm was based on oral traditions, not Scripture alone, and was later questioned by Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, 3.39). By the 4th century, the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit (John 16:13), rejected premillennialism as incompatible with the broader witness of Scripture. The Council of Ephesus (431 AD) condemned chiliasm, and St. Augustine’s amillennial interpretation became the dominant view, as it harmonized Revelation 20 with the New Testament’s teaching on Christ’s present reign (Matt. 28:18; Col. 1:13).
The article’s appeal to select Fathers ignores the development of doctrine under the Church’s authority (Matt. 16:19). The early Church was not uniform on eschatology, but the consensus, guided by the Magisterium, clarified that the millennium is not a future earthly reign but the present spiritual reality of the Church. The article’s claim that the Catholic view distorts the “plain sense” of Scripture echoes Protestant sola scriptura, which rejects the Church’s interpretive authority, contrary to Scripture itself (2 Thess. 2:15; 1 Tim. 3:15).
The article argues that Revelation 20:1-10 is the “capstone” of Old Testament prophecies about a messianic kingdom, citing passages like Isaiah 11:6-9 and Zechariah 14:16-19, which it claims require a literal 1,000-year reign on earth to fulfill God’s promises to Israel.
Refutation: The Catholic Church teaches that Old Testament prophecies find their fulfillment in Christ and His Church, the new Israel (Gal. 6:16; Rom. 9:6-8). Isaiah 11:6-9, describing peace among animals, points to the restoration of creation through Christ’s redemptive work, ultimately fulfilled in the new heavens and new earth (Rev. 21:1). Zechariah 14:16-19, where nations worship in Jerusalem, is realized in the Church’s universal worship through the Eucharist (Mal. 1:11; Heb. 12:22). These prophecies were inaugurated at Christ’s first coming (Luke 4:18-21) and will be consummated at His return, not in a temporary earthly kingdom.
The article’s dispensationalist view, which separates God’s promises to Israel from the Church, contradicts the New Testament’s teaching that Christ fulfilled the covenants (Rom. 15:8; Heb. 8:6-13). The Abrahamic, Davidic, and New Covenants are realized in Christ’s spiritual kingdom (Luke 1:32-33; Acts 2:29-36), not a future geopolitical reign. The Catholic view, as articulated by the Fathers like St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, 15), sees the Church as the fulfillment of Israel’s hopes, not a parenthesis awaiting a literal millennium.
The article insists that a symbolic interpretation of Revelation 20 makes the text “nonsensical and meaningless,” particularly regarding the two resurrections and Satan’s binding. It argues that a literal reading is necessary to preserve the text’s chronological and theological integrity.
Refutation: Far from rendering Revelation 20 meaningless, the Catholic amillennial view gives it profound theological depth. The “first resurrection” (Rev. 20:5) is the spiritual rebirth of believers through baptism (John 5:25; Eph. 2:5-6), and the “second resurrection” is the bodily resurrection at Christ’s return (John 5:28-29). Satan’s binding (Rev. 20:2-3) symbolizes the limitation of his power through Christ’s victory on the Cross (John 12:31; Heb. 2:14), allowing the Gospel to spread to all nations (Matt. 28:19). This interpretation, rooted in the Fathers and affirmed by the CCC (668-682), integrates Revelation 20 into the broader narrative of salvation history.
The article’s literalist approach, conversely, creates inconsistencies. If the 1,000 years are literal, why are other elements—like the “dragon” or “chain”—not taken literally? The dispensationalist view also struggles to explain why a physical reign is needed when Christ already possesses all authority (Matt. 28:18) and will return to judge the living and dead (2 Tim. 4:1). The Catholic view avoids these contradictions by recognizing Revelation’s symbolic language as a vehicle for eternal truths, not a historical timetable.
The article’s arguments stem from dispensationalism, a 19th-century theology developed by John Nelson Darby, which divides salvation history into distinct dispensations and anticipates a literal millennial reign. This view, absent from the early Church’s consensus, contrasts sharply with Catholic eschatology, which sees Christ’s kingdom as present in the Church (CCC 668-670) and awaiting its final consummation (Rev. 21-22). Dispensationalism’s emphasis on a future earthly kingdom for Israel separates God’s people into two groups (Jews and Gentiles), contradicting the unity of the Church (Gal. 3:28; Eph. 2:14-16).
The Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, has consistently rejected chiliasm (CCC 676), affirming that Christ’s reign began at His first coming and continues through the Church until His return. The article’s reliance on a literal 1,000 years ignores this apostolic witness, as seen in the writings of St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and the Magisterium’s consistent teaching.
Your citation of this article reflects a sincere desire to uphold Scripture’s truth, but its dispensationalist lens distorts the biblical message. The Catholic Church invites you to consider the fullness of the faith, as preserved by the apostles and their successors (Acts 2:42; 2 Tim. 2:2). Study the early Fathers—not just the premillennial ones cited selectively by the article, but the broader consensus that rejected chiliasm. Compare dispensationalism to the New Testament’s teaching on the Church as the fulfillment of God’s promises (Rom. 11:17-24). The Catholic Church is not a cultic distortion but the Bride of Christ (Eph. 5:25-27), entrusted with interpreting Scripture under the Spirit’s guidance (John 16:13).
Let us seek the unity Christ prayed for (John 17:21), grounded in the truth of His Word and the Church He founded.
I needed to read through this to try and figure out what the author meant, then try to guess what you meant etc.
The ukapologetics.net article argues that the JEDP theory, which posits that the Pentateuch was compiled from four distinct sources (J, E, D, P) rather than authored by Moses, is an anti-supernaturalist attempt to undermine Scripture’s divine inspiration. The Catholic Church agrees that the JEDP theory, as articulated by Wellhausen, is incompatible with the faith. The Church affirms that the Pentateuch is divinely inspired and substantially authored by Moses, as stated by the Pontifical Biblical Commission (1906) and reaffirmed in Dei Verbum 11 (Second Vatican Council). The Church allows for minor editorial additions under divine inspiration but rejects JEDP’s claim of independent, late sources that deny Mosaic authorship.
My previous responses never invoked the JEDP theory. The Church has always interpreted prophetic texts like Ezekiel 40-48 and Zechariah 14:16-19 as fulfilled in Christ and His Church, following the New Testament’s typological approach (e.g., Heb. 8:5; Gal. 6:16). This is not a denial of their historical context—Ezekiel was written during the Babylonian exile, and Zechariah post-exile—but a recognition of their spiritual fulfillment in the New Covenant. Your accusation that we treat these texts as “fables” is baseless; we affirm their divine inspiration and theological truth (CCC 106-107).
You equate our symbolic reading of apocalyptic texts (e.g., Revelation 20’s “1,000 years” or Ezekiel’s temple) with the JEDP theory’s alleged reduction of Scripture to myths. This conflation is misguided. The Catholic Church recognizes that Scripture employs various literary genres—historical, poetic, prophetic, apocalyptic—each requiring appropriate interpretation (CCC 110). Apocalyptic texts like Revelation and parts of Ezekiel use symbolic imagery to convey spiritual realities, not literal blueprints. For example:
This approach is not “liberal revisionism” but the historic Christian method of exegesis, seen in the Church Fathers (e.g., St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 15) and the New Testament itself (e.g., Heb. 12:22).Your dispensationalist insistence on literalism ignores the genre of these texts, leading to a fragmented view of salvation history.
The ukapologetics.net article claims that JEDP reduces biblical narratives to “folklore” by denying their historicity.
Your accusation that we treat biblical accounts as “fables” misrepresents our position. For example, our interpretation of Ezekiel’s temple as symbolic of the Church does not deny the exile’s historical reality (2 Kings 25; Ezra 1) but sees its ultimate fulfillment in Christ, as the New Testament teaches (John 4:21-24). This is consistent with the Church’s teaching on Scripture’s unity and Christocentric focus (CCC 112).
Your reliance on dispensationalism, which insists on a literal 1,000-year reign and a future earthly kingdom, drives your accusation. The ukapologetics.net article, while critiquing JEDP, does not endorse dispensationalism; in fact, another article on the same site (“Realized Millennialism,” archived link) rejects dispensational premillennialism, favoring a symbolic view of Revelation 20, akin to Catholic amillennialism. This undermines your appeal to the site as supporting your literalist stance.[](https://web.archive.org/web/20190612043102/http://www.ukapologetics.net/realized.html)
Dispensationalism, a 19th-century innovation by John Nelson Darby, divides salvation history into distinct eras and separates God’s plan for Israel from the Church. This contradicts the New Testament’s teaching that Christ fulfilled the covenants (Rom. 15:8; Heb. 8:6-13) and united Jew and Gentile in one Body (Gal. 3:28; Eph. 2:14-16). The Catholic view, rooted in the Fathers and the Magisterium, sees the Church as the new Israel (Gal. 6:16), fulfilling Old Testament prophecies in Christ’s spiritual kingdom (Luke 1:32-33).
You dismiss the Church Fathers as “non-inspired” and subject to Rome’s “self-proclaimed veracity.” The ukapologetics.net article similarly critiques liberal scholarship but does not reject the Fathers’ authority. The Fathers—Ignatius, Irenaeus, Augustine—are not inspired like Scripture but are authoritative witnesses to the apostolic faith (2 Thess. 2:15). They compiled the New Testament canon, defined core doctrines (e.g., the Trinity), and interpreted Scripture in a way that aligns with Catholic teaching. For example, St. Augustine’s amillennial view of Revelation 20 became the Church’s standard, rejecting chiliasm as a misreading (CCC 676).
Your claim that Catholic teaching forces Scripture to fit its doctrines is a caricature. The Church interprets Scripture within the context of Tradition, as Christ entrusted to His apostles (Matt. 16:19; John 16:13). The Eucharist (1 Cor. 11:23-25), apostolic succession (Acts 1:26; 2 Tim. 2:2), and the Church’s authority (1 Tim. 3:15) are biblical, not inventions.
Your accusation of “liberal revisionism” and JEDP adherence stems from a misreading of Catholic exegesis. Our symbolic interpretation of prophetic texts is not a denial of Scripture’s truth but a recognition of its multifaceted genres and Christocentric fulfillment. The Catholic Church rejects the JEDP theory and affirms the Pentateuch’s divine inspiration and substantial Mosaic authorship. Your dispensationalist lens, not our responses, introduces a novel hermeneutic, absent from the early Church.
I urge you to study the Fathers, particularly Augustine’s City of God, and the Church’s teaching in Dei Verbum and the CCC. Compare dispensationalism to the New Testament’s unified view of salvation (Eph. 1:10). The Catholic Church is not a purveyor of myths but the guardian of truth, entrusted by Christ to guide His people (Matt. 28:20). Let us seek unity in that truth (John 17:21).
The article argues that the NT Church, as depicted in Acts through Revelation, is the sole normative model for Christian faith and practice, and that the Catholic Church deviated from this by adopting hierarchical structures, sacramental theology, and other “inventions.” It contrasts the supposed simplicity of the NT Church with the “corruptions” of Rome, such as the papacy, priestly celibacy, and the Mass.
Refutation: The Catholic Church agrees that the NT Church, as described in Scripture, is a foundational model, but it rejects the notion that Scripture alone (sola scriptura) defines the fullness of Christian faith. The NT itself shows that the early Church relied on both written and oral apostolic teaching (2 Thess. 2:15; 1 Cor. 11:2). Acts through Revelation reveal a Church with structure, authority, and sacramental practices, all of which align with Catholic teaching:
The article’s claim of a “deformation” ignores that the NT Church was dynamic, not static. The early Church developed its practices under the Holy Spirit’s guidance (John 16:13), as seen in the writings of the Church Fathers, who were closer to the apostles than modern dispensationalists. For example, Ignatius of Antioch (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8, c. 107 AD) affirms the centrality of the Eucharist and the authority of bishops, reflecting Catholic continuity with the NT Church.
The article lists supposed Catholic inventions—e.g., the papacy, sacramentalism, Mariology, and clerical celibacy—as absent from or contrary to Scripture, particularly Acts through Revelation. It argues that these developed later, distorting the NT Church’s simplicity.
Refutation: Far from being inventions, these Catholic teachings are rooted in Scripture and apostolic Tradition, as evidenced in the NT and early Church writings:
The article’s claim that these are unbiblical ignores the NT’s implicit foundations and the early Church’s explicit development of these teachings under the Spirit’s guidance (John 16:13). Acts through Revelation show a Church with embryonic structures and practices that matured in Catholic Tradition, not a “deformed” institution.
The article traces a supposed decline from the NT Church, alleging that by the 2nd-3rd centuries, the Church adopted unbiblical practices (e.g., singular bishops, sacramentalism) under Roman influence, culminating in the “corruptions” of the Middle Ages. It cites events like the rise of the papacy and Constantine’s influence as evidence of deformation.
Refutation: This narrative is a Protestant revisionist history that misrepresents the early Church’s development. The NT Church was not a static, non-institutional entity but a living Body that grew under apostolic authority (Eph. 4:11-16). Historical evidence refutes the article’s claims:
The Catholic Church is not a departure from the NT Church but its organic continuation, as Christ promised it would endure (Matt. 16:18; 28:20). The article’s dispensationalist lens, which seeks a “pure” NT Church apart from Tradition, reflects a 19th-century Restorationist ideal, not the historical reality of the early Church.
Your claim that Scripture (especially Acts through Revelation) is the “only wholly God-inspired, substantive, authoritative record” of the NT Church’s beliefs assumes sola scriptura, a Protestant principle foreign to the early Church. The article reinforces this by dismissing Tradition and the Church’s teaching authority as unbiblical.
Refutation: The NT itself refutes sola scriptura. Paul instructs the Thessalonians to hold fast to both oral and written traditions (2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6). The Church, not Scripture alone, is the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). Acts through Revelation show the apostles teaching and governing with authority (Acts 15:28; 1 Cor. 5:3-5), a role passed to their successors (2 Tim. 2:2). The early Church compiled the NT canon through this authority, as seen in Athanasius’ Paschal Letter (367 AD), which listed the 27 books we recognize today.
The article’s rejection of Tradition ignores that the NT was written within a living Church, which interpreted and applied it under the Holy Spirit’s guidance (John 16:13). Catholic teachings like the papacy, sacraments, and Mariology are not absent from Scripture but are clarified and developed in Tradition, as seen in the Fathers’ writings (e.g., Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.3, on Rome’s primacy).
Your dispensationalist view, reflected in the article, assumes a literalist reading of Scripture and a fragmented view of salvation history, separating God’s plan for Israel from the Church. This leads to the claim that Catholic teachings are “unbiblical” because they don’t align with a dispensationalist reconstruction of the NT Church.
Refutation: Dispensationalism, developed by John Nelson Darby in the 19th century, is a novel hermeneutic absent from the early Church. It divides salvation history into distinct dispensations, expecting a future literal millennium (Rev. 20:1-6) and a restored Israel, contrary to the NT’s teaching that Christ fulfilled the covenants (Rom. 15:8; Heb. 8:6-13) and united Jew and Gentile in the Church (Gal. 3:28; Eph. 2:14-16). The Catholic view, rooted in the Fathers like Augustine (City of God, Book 20), sees the Church as the new Israel (Gal. 6:16), fulfilling OT prophecies in Christ’s spiritual kingdom (Luke 1:32-33).
The article’s claim that Catholic teachings are “deformations” stems from this dispensationalist lens, which ignores the NT’s typological and spiritual interpretation of the OT (e.g., Heb. 8:5; 10:1). For example, Ezekiel’s temple (Ezek. 40-48) is fulfilled in Christ’s Body (John 2:19-21), not a future physical structure, as Catholics and many Fathers taught.
The article cites specific “deformations” (e.g., singular bishops by 160 AD, loss of local church autonomy by 180 AD) but misrepresents history. For instance:
These errors stem from the article’s bias toward a Restorationist ideal, which seeks to recreate a supposed NT Church purity that never existed in isolation from Tradition.
Your claim that Catholic teachings are not in Scripture reflects a misunderstanding of the NT Church and a reliance on dispensationalist assumptions not shared by the early Church. The peacebyjesus.net article’s narrative of “deformation” is a selective reconstruction that ignores the NT’s evidence for Catholic practices and the Fathers’ testimony to their apostolic origins. The Catholic Church is not a deformation but the living continuation of the NT Church, guided by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 16:18; John 16:13).
I urge you to study the early Church Fathers—Ignatius, Clement, Irenaeus, Augustine—who show the Catholic Church’s continuity with the NT. Compare dispensationalism’s 19th-century origins to the 2,000-year witness of the Church Christ founded. The Eucharist, the papacy, and other Catholic teachings are not inventions but the unfolding of the “faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3). Let us seek unity in the truth of Christ’s Church (John 17:21).
In Christ, the Head of the Church,
——>The Problematic Claim: White’s assertion that “the man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God Almighty” is heresy.
——>Context Doesn’t Save Her: The broader quote you provide—about Christ leaving heaven, humbling Himself, and living as a man—emphasizes His human sacrifice but fails to affirm His full divinity.
——>Incarnation “Mystery” Dodge: White claims, “There is no one who can explain the mystery of the incarnation of Christ.” This is a cop-out to mask her theological sloppiness.
Your Jesuit teachers are absolute dopes, trying to argue that EGW denied the full divinity of Christ on earth. Makes me laugh. Trying to deceive gets one barred from heaven and a one-way trip to the lake of fire.
(Matthew 27:54; 1 Timothy 3:16.) But although Christ’s divine glory was for a time veiled and eclipsed by His assuming humanity, yet He did not cease to be God when He became man. The human did not take the place of the divine, nor the divine of the human. This is the mystery of godliness. The two expressions “human” and “divine” were, in Christ, closely and inseparably one, and yet they had a distinct individuality. Though Christ humbled Himself to become man, the Godhead was still His own. His deity could not be lost while He stood faithful and true to His loyalty. Surrounded with sorrow, suffering, and moral pollution, despised and rejected by the people to whom had been intrusted the oracles of heaven, Jesus could yet speak of Himself as the Son of man in heaven. He was ready to take once more His divine glory when His work on earth was done. (5BC 1129.3)
https://m.egwwritings.org/it/book/94.622#648
Was the human nature of the Son of Mary changed into the divine nature of the Son of God? No; the two natures were mysteriously blended in one person—the man Christ Jesus. In Him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. When Christ was crucified, it was His human nature that died. Deity did not sink and die; that would have been impossible.—The S.D.A. Bible Commentary 5:1113. (7ABC 446.2)
https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/97.70#81
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.