"Private Interpretation"

I spent quite some time writing and looking up references for you. It just shows your level of interest in wanting an answer. 0.

 

Feast or famine, doesn't matter:

Mat 11:16 But whereunto shall I liken this generation? It is like unto children sitting in the markets, and calling unto their fellows,

Mat 11:17 And saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented.

Mat 11:18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil.

Mat 11:19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

 

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Hope that was succinct and clear enough.

 

Roman Ctholicism says that the following 'woman' (of Revelation 12) is 'Mary', but is that correct, is that what God interpreted, or is that "private interpretation" and condemned by Peter himself?

Rev 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

Rev 12:2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

Rev 12:3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

Rev 12:4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

Rev 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

 

We can go straight to the scripture itself:

1. Is the woman still pregnant (with child) in Rev. 12:1-2,5?

2. Is the “great red Dragon” also “in heaven” ready to devour the ‘man child’ as soon as He is born in Rev. 12:3-5, and if so, is the devil in Heaven right now with this ‘Mary’ then?

3. Does the Bible anywhere say that ‘Mary’, whether dead or alive, was ‘assumed’ bodily into Heaven?

4. Is the context or Rev. 12:1-2 in pre-AD (Anno Domini) times, since the child was not yet born and the 'woman' still pregnant?

5. Is the context of Rev. 11:15-19 in post BC (Before Christ) times, even at the end of time, during the 7th trumpet (Rev. 11:15), wherein the 7 last plagues are mentioned (Rev. 11:18, ‘thy wrath is come’)

I hope you seriously consider those questions.

Anyone may download an entire study (full Powerpoint, free to distribute), line upon line, for Revelation 12 - here - TinyUpload.com - best file hosting solution, with no limits, totaly free

Is there any Biblical or Historical data to confirm such a claim that Mary was "assumed" into Heaven?

No, and even Rome fully admits this, for they base it on mere "tradition" and fallen human "reason".

“I answer that, Nothing is handed down in the canonical Scriptures concerning the sanctification of the Blessed Mary as to her being sanctified in the womb; indeed, they do not even mention her birth. But as Augustine, in his tractate on the Assumption of the Virgin, argues with reason, since her body was assumed into heaven, and yet Scripture does not relate this...” [Thomas Aquinas; Summa Theologica; Third Part; Question 27; Article I; “I answer that...”] [The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas Second and Revised Edition, 1920 Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province Online Edition Copyright © 2008 by Kevin Knight Nihil Obstat. F. Innocentius Apap, O.P., S.T.M., Censor. Theol. Imprimatur. Edus. Canonicus Surmont, Vicarius Generalis. Westmonasterii. APPROBATIRDINIS Nihil Obstat. F. Raphael Moss, O.P., S.T.L. and F. Leo Moore, O.P., S.T.L. Imprimatur. F. Beda Jarrett, O.P., S.T.L., A.M., Prior Provincialis Angliæ MARIÆ IMMACULATÆ - SEDI SAPIENTIÆ ] - SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The sanctification of the Blessed Virgin (Tertia Pars, Q. 27)

“... At the same time, it must be confessed that we do not possess any authentic documents bearing directly on Mary's post-Pentecostal life. ...” [Roman Catholic Online Encyclopedia; “V”; “The Most Blessed Virgin Mary”; subsection “The Post-pentesoctal Life Of Mary”] - CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Blessed Virgin Mary

“... Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady's death, nothing certain is known. ...” [Roman Catholic Online Encyclopedia; “A”; “Assumption Of Mary”; subsection “The Fact Of The Assumption”] - CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Assumption of Mary

"St. John Damascene

St. John of Damascus (P.G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem: St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven." [Roman Catholic Online Encyclopedia; “A”; “Assumption Of Mary”; subsection “The Fact Of The Assumption”] - CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Assumption of Mary

"The feast of the Assumption

Regarding the origin of the feast we are also uncertain. It is more probably the anniversary of the dedication of some church than the actual anniversary of Our Lady's death. That it originated at the time of the Council of Ephesus, or that St. Damasus introduced it in Rome is only a hypothesis. ..." [Roman Catholic Online Encyclopedia; “A”; “Assumption Of Mary”; subsection “The Feast Of The Assumption”] - CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Assumption of Mary

 

A sure sign of a failed argument and defeated position is clearly known in the resorting to a non-coherent response with ad hominems ('cult', Acts 24:5), and especially with no other evidence than a mere saying so from subjective, biased, personal opinion. Why not at least take a look and go through the texts yourself? You do not have to look at anything else other than the texts cited in the identification of the symbols used in Revelation. Do you want me to repost just that section here, only the texts?

 

Well SDA often get accused of being a cult for things that appear deceptive like the clear word bible and seminars.

Or the meat and potatos of the faith are hidden in the closet.

Even talking with you.... you didn't reveal yourself to be SDA till a MONTH later?

"The name Seventh-day Adventist is a living witness unto all, a living sermon, a living demonstration, it is from Alpha to Omega, from Beginning unto Ending, from First to Last, from Author to Finisher, from Creation to Redemption, from the Garden to Garden, and there is no other like it upon the earth:"

Sounds like idolatry.. SDA is God



For example I don't expect to hear you Tell them according to "the great controversy" the part about in the end how SATAN will bear your sins , not Jesus.

Sure it will sit well with your new buddies here.

 

Exactly! A cult that teaches that people who don't keep the Jewish Sabbath will NOT go to heaven, a cult that worships Moloch, has nothing I am interested in.

 

Yea, but I gave evidence from square one. You gave ...? Oh, that's right, your "I think" and "opinion".

Psa 2:1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
Psa 2:2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
Psa 2:3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
Psa 2:4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
Psa 2:5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.

Psa 37:12 The wicked plotteth against the just, and gnasheth upon him with his teeth.
Psa 37:13 The Lord shall laugh at him: for he seeth that his day is coming.

Psa 52:1 To the chief Musician, Maschil, A Psalm of David, when Doeg the Edomite came and told Saul, and said unto him, David is come to the house of Ahimelech. Why boastest thou thyself in mischief, O mighty man? the goodness of God endureth continually.
Psa 52:2 Thy tongue deviseth mischiefs; like a sharp razor, working deceitfully.
Psa 52:3 Thou lovest evil more than good; and lying rather than to speak righteousness. Selah.
Psa 52:4 Thou lovest all devouring words, O thou deceitful tongue.
Psa 52:5 God shall likewise destroy thee for ever, he shall take thee away, and pluck thee out of thy dwelling place, and root thee out of the land of the living. Selah.
Psa 52:6 The righteous also shall see, and fear, and shall laugh at him:

It is written for you:

Luk_6:25 Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep.

It is written for me:

Luk_6:21 Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh.

I have prayed for you. I weep for your sorrow that is coming.

Rev 18:8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.

 

I know of no such thing in scripture as a "Jewish Sabbath" (and you couldn't even produce one single text which even says it - see here also Rome's own Challenge to Protestants study (almost as good as a Seventh-day Adventist study - almost ...), therefore could never teach any such thing. That you even call the Lord's Day that, means you have not read scripture and are ignorant or purposefully lie, but is instead merely a Roman Catholic construct to defame and denigrate Christ Jesus, once more, going back many centuries.

 

There's no option to choose Seventh-day Adventist., only 'non-baptist Christian'. I also freely let anyone know who desires if they ask sincerely. I have no shame in who I am in Christ Jesus, only in what I once was outside of Him.

 

"Sounds like ..." based upon what criteria? Jesus is God (the person of the Son of the Father), and He is Himself Seventh-day Adventist (think about it).

 

You will have to explain what you mean here, as I choose not to guess at it.

 

You refer to a one man (Jack Blanco) paraphrase? That thing is NOT a Bible, and never was one, inspite of what others seem to think. It was never sanctioned by the General Conference body of Seventh day Adventists, and was a personal project that he was ultimately convinced (foolish) to share with the public, and sold in 'Adventist' publishing houses, though they had long ago abandoned the true publications (as sister White foretold, but who listens?). What a travesty! What a black eye that thing has been! It has brought nothing but reproach (and rightfully so). It doesn't even get all of the Seventh-day Adventist position correct in it, and has its own personal bias (of the singular author).

Yet, even so, there are other paraphrases, such as "the Message" by Eugene Peterson, or "the Living Bible" by Kenneth N Taylor, etc. People read that garbage and don't bat an eye (though some knowledgeable do), but simply point to Blanco's and become hypocrites in the matter. If a person judges it bad, judge them all bad (and I will be the first to say, "AMEN & AMEN!") Waste of tree, ink and effort. Better to write a commentary, and even then.

Are there people that use it (and the others)? Yep. Why I have no idea, other than to say they know no better and think it easier to understand (nothing could be further from the truth). Sister White explicitly stated that nearly all (a time when the RV was out) had the 'common Bible' (KJB) and that it is the word of God.

Yet, I could say the same thing of all the modern 'translations' (of corrupt mss) (iow 'bad'), yet I would even trade those, over those 'paraphrases'.

This too has been addressed in several places by Seventh-day Adventists who understand the subject and history of how it came to be.

So if people call the 'Seventh-day Adventist' a 'cult' because of that, well that is one reason I cannot fault them for. I agree with their feeling on the matter, though just because one persons does what they wanted to do, why blame the whole group for it?

I can only assume you mean the advertising of Seminars which do not directly say 'Seventh-day Adventist' on the front cover of the leaflet, etc, or something to that effect?