US Supreme Court & Gay Marriage

Church Fathers on Ephesians 2:8-9

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God--not because of works, lest any man should boast.--Ephesians 2:8-9 RSVThe Fathers of the Church overwhelmingly teach that Ephesians 2:8-9 teaches that works do not save from sin, but it is faith that saves, faith is not strictly from us, but from God (therefore an unmerited gift); that salvation by faith is a gift of God; that we are not saved by our freewill (though we do have a freewill and it must comply with the divine will), but by the Will of God. This does not deny the Church's teaching on justification by works, since Ephesians 2 is about being saved, justification by works only occurs AFTER salvation has taken place, so therefore works are irrelevant to Ephesians 2:8-9 which is why they are only mentioned in verse 10. Nor was it ever seen as denying baptism saves, since it was taught by the fathers, and was never seen as a "work" that we do, but also from God.St John Chrysostom (4th century Greek Patriarch of Constantinople):

Ver. 8. "For by grace," says he "have you been saved." 

In order then that the greatness of the benefits bestowed may not raise you too high, observe how he brings you down: "by grace you have been saved," says he, 

"Through faith;" 

Then, that, on the other hand, our free-will be not impaired, he adds also our part in the work, and yet again cancels it, and adds, 

"And that not of ourselves." 

Neither is faith, he means, "of ourselves." Because had He not come, had He not called us, how had we been able to believe? For "how," says he, "shall they believe, unless they hear?" Romans 10:14 So that the work of faith itself is not our own. 

"It is the gift," said he, "of God," it is "not of works." 

Was faith then, you will say, enough to save us? No; but God, says he, has required this, lest He should save us, barren and without work at all. His expression is, that faith saves, but it is because God so wills, that faith saves. Since, how, tell me, does faith save, without works? This itself is the gift of God. 

Ver. 9. "That no man should glory." 

That he may excite in us proper feeling touching this gift of grace. "What then?" says a man, "Hath He Himself hindered our being justified by works?" By no means. But no one, he says, is justified by works, in order that the grace and loving-kindness of God may be shown. He did not reject us as having works, but as abandoned of works He has saved us by grace; so that no man henceforth may have whereof to boast. And then, lest when you hear that the whole work is accomplished not of works but by faith, you should become idle, observe how he continues....--St John Chysostom, Homily 4 on Ephesians

We see that St John Chrysostom says we do no merit salvation by our deeds, or by our will. Not that those to have no role, but they are not what saves us, God's grace does, He wills that we be saved by faith. St John comments on 1 Corinthians 1:1,

"Called to be Saints." For even this, to be saved by faith, is not says he, of yourselves; for you did not first draw near, but were called; so that not even this small matter is yours altogether. However, though you had drawn near, accountable as you are for innumerable wickednesses, not even so would the grace be yours, but God's. Hence also, writing to the Ephesians, he said, [Ephesians 2:8] "By grace have you been saved through faith, and this not of yourselves;" not even the faith is yours altogether; for you were not first with your belief, but obeyed a call. --St John Chrysostom, Homily 1 on 1 Corinthians

 Pope Leo the Great (5th century Pope of Rome):

And when they pretend to disapprove of and give up all their definitions to facilitate evasion through their complete art of deception, unless their meaning is detected, they make exception of the dogma that the grace of God is given according to the merits of the recipient. And yet surely, unless it is given freely, it is not a gift , but a price and compensation for merits: for the blessed Apostle says, "by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves but it is the gift of God; not of works lest any should perchance be exalted. For we are His workmanship created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God prepared that we should walk in them [Ephesians 2:8-10] ." Thus every bestowal of good works is of God's preparing: because a man is justified by grace rather than by his own excellence: for grace is to every one the source of righteousness, the source of good and the fountain of merit. But these heretics say it is anticipated by men's natural goodness for this reason, that that nature which (in their view) is before grace conspicuous for good desires of its own, may not seem marred by any stain of original sin, and that what the Truth says may be falsified: "For the Son of Man came to seek and to save that which was lost. "--Pope Leo the Great, Letter 1, to the Bishop of Aquileia

St Leo says Ephesians 2:8-10 teaches "grace" is the "source of righteousness."St Polycarp (2nd century Greek bishop of Smyrna in Asian minor):

I have greatly rejoiced with you in our Lord Jesus Christ, because you have followed the example of true love [as displayed by God], and have accompanied, as became you, those who were bound in chains, the fitting ornaments of saints, and which are indeed the diadems of the true elect of God and our Lord; and because the strong root of your faith, spoken of in days Philippians 1:5 long gone by, endures even until now, and brings forth fruit to our Lord Jesus Christ, who for our sins suffered even unto death, [but] "whom God raised from the dead, having loosed the bands of the grave." "In whom, though now you see Him not, you believe, and believing, rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory;" 1 Peter 1:8 into which joy many desire to enter, knowing that "by grace you are saved, not of works," [Ephesians 2:8-9] but by the will of God through Jesus Christ.--St Polycarp, Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, Chapter 1

 St Augustine of Hippo (4th/5th century Latin bishop of Hippo in North Africa):

His last clause runs thus: "I have kept the faith." But he who says this is the same who declares in another passage, "I have obtained mercy that I might be faithful." [1 Corinthians 7:25] He does not say, "I obtained mercy because I was faithful," but "in order that I might be faithful," thus showing that even faith itself cannot be had without God's mercy, and that it is the gift of God. This he very expressly teaches us when he says, "For by grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God." [Ephesians 2:8] They might possibly say, "We received grace because we believed;" as if they would attribute the faith to themselves, and the grace to God. Therefore, the apostle having said, "You are saved through faith," added, And that not of yourselves, but it is the gift of God. And again, lest they should say they deserved so great a gift by their works, he immediately added, "Not of works, lest any man should boast." [Ephesians 2:9] Not that he denied good works, or emptied them of their value, when he says that God renders to every man according to his works; [Romans 2:6] but because works proceed from faith, and not faith from works. Therefore it is from Him that we have works of righteousness, from whom comes also faith itself, concerning which it is written, "The just shall live by faith." [Habakkuk 2:4]--St Augustine, On Grace and Freewill, Chapter 17, AD 426/427 

Council of Orange II (AD 529, local council of bishop in what is modern day southern France):

Canon 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism — if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers. 

Conclusion. And thus according to the passages of holy scripture quoted above or the interpretations of the ancient Fathers we must, under the blessing of God, preach and believe as follows. The sin of the first man has so impaired and weakened free will that no one thereafter can either love God as he ought or believe in God or do good for God's sake, unless the grace of divine mercy has preceded him. We therefore believe that the glorious faith which was given to Abel the righteous, and Noah, and Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and to all the saints of old, and which the Apostle Paul commends in extolling them (Heb. 11), was not given through natural goodness as it was before to Adam, but was bestowed by the grace of God. And we know and also believe that even after the coming of our Lord this grace is not to be found in the free will of all who desire to be baptized, but is bestowed by the kindness of Christ, as has already been frequently stated and as the Apostle Paul declares, "For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake" (Phil. 1:29). And again, "He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and it is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). And as the Apostle says of himself, "I have obtained mercy to be faithful" (1 Cor. 7:25, cf. 1 Tim. 1:13). He did not say, "because I was faithful," but "to be faithful." And again, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7). And again, "Every good endowment and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights" (Jas. 1:17). And again, "No one can receive anything except what is given him from heaven" (John 3:27). There are innumerable passages of holy scripture which can be quoted to prove the case for grace, but they have been omitted for the sake of brevity, because further examples will not really be of use where few are deemed sufficient. --Council of Orange II, AD 529 

Goofy JW interpretation of Rev 12 then and now (Pope is Michael)

Here is how the Jehovah Witnesses interpreted the book of Revelation in 1917/1918 under their founder Charles Taze Russell in the book, The Finished Mystery. Here are some excerpts:

12:1. And there appeared a great wonder.—Sign, Greek.—Rev. 1:1.

        

A Woman.—The early Church, Nominal Zion, (D. 591), originally a chaste Virgin.—2 Cor. 11:2; Matt. 9:15; 22:2; John 3:29; Eph. 5:25, 32.

                            

12:2. And [she] being with child.—As a result of the Mystery of Iniquity which was working within her.—2 Thes. 2:7.

And pained to be delivered.—Desired to get rid of the loathsome thing from which, by the machinations of Satan, she was at the time suffering. In a sense the birth of the Antichrist from the early Church was a counterfeit of the birth of Christ from the virgin Mary, the one a manifestation of the power of God, the other of Satan.—John 16:21, 22.

So far we see that the woman=church, who is unchaste, and the child in here the "mystery of iniquity," and a 'counterfeit' of the Virgin birth. In verse 5 of the commentary, we learn exactly who he think the "child" is:

12:5. And she brought forth a man child.—The papacy.—Z. '79-12-2.

Yet, despite bearing this "mystery of iniquity" Russell says

12:6. And the woman.—The true Church of God.

This is strange, since if the woman is the Church, and the woman is no longer a virgin, and the child is the "mystery of iniquity" who is the father? Is it Christ? Or did she commit adultery or was raped? If the father is Christ, then why is the child the "mystery of iniquity"? If the woman committed adultery, then why is she still called the "true church of God"? If rape, why no mention? When he said the birth in this chapter was a "manifestation of the power....of Satan" was he called Satan the father of the child? Perhaps, we are expecting to much from Chaz Russell!

Continuing on, with the same verse

Fled Into the wilderness.—“Error, always more popular than truth, when exalted to influence and power, hunted down, proscribed and made disreputable the truth, and all who held it. This was the time when the true Church (woman) fled into the wilderness—into solitude—an outcast because of her fidelity to the truth, and to the true Lord and Head of the Church.”—B. 329.

Where she hath a place prepared of God.—“The secret place of the Most High.”—Psa. 91:1.

That they.—The antitypical ravens that fed the Elijah class, the unknown, “faithful men” who, in secret, broke the bread of life to those that hungered for righteousness.

Should feed her there.—As Elijah was fed in the wilderness.—Rev. 2:20.

A thousand two hundred and threescore days.—1260 years, from A. D. 539 to 1799.—Rev. 11:2, 3.

So the "true Church" is the woman (despite not being called a virgin and bearing the wicked child), and she is safe til 1799 in the wilderness--1799 being date the JW's have now discarded.

This next section is by far the most interesting and absurd interpretation of Russell:

12:7. And there was war in heaven.—Between the two ecclesiastical powers, Pagan Rome and Papal Rome.

Michael.—“Who as God,” the Pope.—B. 275; C. 62.

And his angels.—The Bishops. The following is the reply given in the Catholic catechism to the question, “Who are the successors of the Apostles?” Ans. “The bishops who are rightly consecrated, and are in communion with the head of the Church, the Pope.”

[Fought against] TO WAR WITH the dragon.—Attempted to get the temporal power away from the civil rulers.—Rev. 2:12.

And the dragon.—Imperial Rome.—B. 288; Rev. 12:3; 20:2.

Fought and his angels.—Did everything possible to circumscribe the growing power of the papacy, but all in vain.—Rev. 2:12.

Hilariously, the Jehovah Witnesses claimed "Michael" is the Pope, and the angel are Bishops! So far Ruselle said that the "child" is the Papacy, then says Michael is the Papacy! This is strange considering how the Watchtower today uses this verse to "prove" Jesus and Michael are the same person.

Some more ludicrous interpretations:

12:10. And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven.—In the Roman Catholic Church.

So far the child, Michael, angels, and now heaven are all the Catholic Church! Interesting also how "heaven" changes within this chapter from one thing to another!

Interestingly, Charles Russell seems to think there can be Christians in the Catholic Church!

And went to make war with the remnant of her seed.—The true saints in the Roman Catholic communion or wherever otherwise found,—always objects of hatred and oppression by ecclesiasticism.—Rev. 13:7.

This shouldn't be too big of a surprise since many groups, despite being anti-Catholic need to show how they've always been around, I've see Adventists, Baptists and other obscure groups tie themselves to hiding in the Catholic church in the old days.

If we continue on to the next chapter, he says the papacy/Catholic Church is not only the "child," "Michael," the "angels," "heaven," but also the "beast" of Revelation 13:1.

To "prove" the Pope is the antichrist, Russell repeats the "vicarius Filii Dei" lie, a term never used by the Popes, and only can be found in the "donation of Constantine"--and then just of Peter himself. There is no evidence it was ever written on the Papal tiara.

Watchtower vs. Bible---Enoch: Living or Dead?

The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, Jehovah Witnesses, believe that the Prophet Enoch mentioned in Genesis 5 died.  This is an attempt to defend the idea no human went to heaven before Christ ascended (almost always quoting John 3:13). Here is what the Watchtower said September 15, 2001:

“God Took Him”
Enoch was apparently in mortal danger when “God took him.” (Genesis 5:24) Jehovah did not allow his faithful prophet to suffer at the hands of rabid enemies. According to the apostle Paul, “Enoch was transferred so as not to see death.” (Hebrews 11:5) Many say that Enoch did not die—that God took him to heaven, where he kept on living. However, Jesus plainly stated: “No man has ascended into heaven but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man.” Jesus was the “forerunner” of all who ascend to heaven.—John 3:13; Hebrews 6:19, 20. 

So, what happened to Enoch? His being “transferred so as not to see death” may mean that God put him in a prophetic trance and then terminated his life while he was in that state. Under such circumstances, Enoch would not experience the pangs of death. Then “he was nowhere to be found,” apparently because Jehovah disposed of his body, even as he disposed of Moses’ body.—Deuteronomy 34:5, 6. 

Enoch lived 365 years—not nearly as long as most of his contemporaries. But the important thing for lovers of Jehovah is that they serve him faithfully to the end of their days. We know that Enoch did that because “before his transference he had the witness that he had pleased God well.” The Scriptures do not disclose how Jehovah communicated this to Enoch. Nevertheless, before Enoch died, he was given assurance of God’s approval, and we can be certain that Jehovah will remember him in the resurrection. --Enoch Walked With God in an Ungodly World, w01 9/15 pp. 29-31

 Here the Watchtower contradicts the Bible out right. It quotes Hebrews 11:5 which says Enoch was "transferred so as not to see death" then claims it means God "put him in a prophetic trance then terminated his life while he was in that state." Which does not make sense at all, how is God killing you "not seeing death"? Then it goes on say he did not "experience the pangs of death." Seemingly, equating "transferred so as not to see death" as meaning "he died painlessly." Again, how this is even remotely suggested by the text of Hebrews? What makes this interpretation even more absurd is the little background story the Watchtower concocted in the prior paragraph, which says Enoch was in "mortal danger" (i.e. people wanted to kill him) from his "rabid enemies", which they say is why "God took him."

To simplify the Jehovah Witness explanation, it is, Enoch was about to be killed by his enemies, so God gave him some sort of Divine lethal injection, so God rather than Enoch's enemies would kill him!  Apparently, 'God' thought, "Hey, they can't kill him, he's my friend, if anyone kills him, it's should be me!"

The Jehovah Witness explanation would be reasonable if we did not have Hebrews 11:5, or if Hebrews 11:5 said instead, "Enoch was transferred so as not to see death AT THE HANDS OF HIS ENEMIES." But, even it does not explain "transferred."

Let's go to the book of Genesis to see why its not reasonable to think Enoch died when it says "he was taken."

This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; 2male and female created he them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. 

3And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth: 4and the days of Adam after he begat Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters. 5And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. 

6And Seth lived a hundred and five years, and begat Enosh: 7and Seth lived after he begat Enosh eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters: 8and all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died. 

9And Enosh lived ninety years, and begat Kenan. 10and Enosh lived after he begat Kenan eight hundred and fifteen years, and begat sons and daughters: 11and all the days of Enosh were nine hundred and five years: and he died. 

12And Kenan lived seventy years, and begat Mahalalel: 13and Kenan lived after he begat Mahalalel eight hundred and forty years, and begat sons and daughters: 14and all the days of Kenan were nine hundred and ten years: and he died. 

15And Mahalalel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared: 16And Mahalalel lived after he begat Jared eight hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters: 17and all the days of Mahalalel were eight hundred ninety and five years: and he died.

18And Jared lived a hundred sixty and two years, and begat Enoch: 19and Jared lived after he begat Enoch eight hundred years, and begat sons and daughters: 20And all the days of Jared were nine hundred sixty and two years: and he died. 

21And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah: 22and Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters: 23and all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years: 24and Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.

25And Methuselah lived a hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech: 26and Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years, and begat sons and daughters. 27And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.

28And Lamech lived a hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son: 29and he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us in our work and in the toil of our hands, which cometh because of the ground which Jehovah hath cursed. 30And Lamech lived after he begat Noah five hundred ninety and five years, and begat sons and daughters: 31And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy and seven years: and he died. 

32And Noah was five hundred years old: And Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Genesis 5:32 is where Noah's story starts, and Noah death is mentioned in Genesis 9:29.  What we see is Genesis 5 is a genealogy where each patriarch DIES (in case you missed the subtle "and he died" at the end of their section), with the exception of Enoch who "was not; for God TOOK HIM." If Enoch died, it would have said so, just as the text said so with his fathers and sons.  We also have testimony that the Jews at the 2nd temple believed Enoch was bodily take to heaven (he did not ascend, but was taken) in this piece of Scripture that the Catholic Church and early Christians accepted:

Few have ever been created on earth like Enoch,
    for he was taken up from the earth. --Sirach 49:14

Going, back to Hebrews 11:5 the phrase "not see death" is used elsewhere in the Bible, including Luke 2:26 which reads in the Jehovah Witness "New World Translation":

Furthermore, it had been divinely revealed to him by the holy spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Christ of Jehovah--NWT, Luke 2:26

The meaning here is he would not die, not one would suspect "not see death" would mean "be killed in a trance." That would render the verse into nonsense.

The Watchtower insists John 3:13 teach Christ is the first to go to heaven. The NWT of John 3:13 reads:

Moreover, no man has ascended into heaven but the one who descended from heaven, the Son of man.--John 3:13 NWT

The explanation of the Christian church was that it is saying no one "ASCENDED," and not "no one entered" or "was carried" etc. Ascend suggests having the power to achieve it by your own power, which no one but God has. Enoch was "transferred" and "taken," not "ascended." Elijah was also "taken" according to 2 Kings 2:1, "When the Lord was about to take Elijah up to heaven in a whirlwind..." The only time it appears that humans might have "ascended" is in Revelation 11:12 where the two witnesses, after being resurrected (again?) are told to "ascend" and they are provided a cloud which they hop on that takes them to heaven.

After the three and a half days, spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood on their feet, and great fear fell upon those who saw them. 12  And they heard a loud voice from heaven say to them: “Come up here.” And they went up into heaven in the cloud, and their enemies saw them--Revelation 11:11-12 NWT

 Of course, the Watchtower said this has already happened as of a period between 1914 and 1919:

At the end of their preaching in sackcloth, these anointed ones were symbolically killed when they were thrown into prison for a comparatively shorter period of time, a symbolic three and a half days. In the eyes of the enemies of God’s people, their work had been killed, causing those opponents much joy.—Rev. 11:8-10.
However, true to the words of the prophecy, at the end of the three and a half days, the two witnesses were brought back to life. Not only were these anointed ones released from prison but those who remained faithful received a special appointment from God through their Lord, Jesus Christ. In 1919 they were among those who were appointed to serve as a “faithful and discreet slave” to care for the spiritual needs of God’s people during the last days.—Matt. 24:45-47; Rev. 11:11, 12. -- Watchtower, November 2014, Questions from Readers

But this is another absurd interpretation all together that exaggerates what happened in the early 20th century. The Bible does not call people being taken to heaven as "ascension" unless this cloud that lifts them up is to be counted. Going on, part of the reason the Watchtower does not say this is actually Moses or Elijah (or any other OT figure) is because they deny anyone from the times before Christ will be in heaven, despite Hebrews 11:16 saying about the Old Testament patriarch that:

But now they are reaching out for a better place, that is, one belonging to heaven. Therefore, God is not ashamed of them, to be called on as their God, for he has prepared a city for them--Hebrews 11:16 NWT

Of course the NWT translates it as goofy as a possible to give the impression that its only a place that heaven controls, not heaven itself! Despite the fact the NWT translates the same exact Greek word as "heavenly" in Hebrews 3:1 and 6:4, not including the only other time it appears in the NT--1 Corinthians 15:49.

Conclusion: The Watchtower has to jump through hoops to support its doctrine that Enoch died (creating a fictional story of God putting him in a trance to kill him)!

Mormon website to find the living among the dead

The LDS runs a website called familysearch.org where you can go to find information about deceased people. Unfortunately, depending where you live, you may very well find yourself listed as "deceased." Furthermore, the website takes public records from the State of California (which ordinarily are not EASY to access), and makes them publicly available to all around the world on the internet. You provide people with personal information like birthdays, addresses, phone numbers, mother's maiden names, previous residences, etc. Occasionally, the information will be mistyped. Yet, why does the one true Church need to make people's personal information publicly available on a website? Perhaps, its easier to baptize dead people if they are actually alive!

Do Muslims have the same God as Christians

In an anti-Catholic chat group, several Calvinist apologists were going after the Catholic Church for stating that Catholics have the same God as Muslims. To do this, the Calvinist resorted to mechanically repeating claims against Islam from the internet like Aramaic Broadcasting Network's Jesus or Muhammad, from people like Sam Samoun, and then using things they've just heard.

Part of their argument against Muslims having a different God is that Muslims are Unitarian--meaning they believe there is only one Person in the Godhead, that is no Trinity, and deny the Divine Nature of Christ completely, regulating Him to a mere prophet. This is true about Islam, but does that mean they have a different God because they deny the Trinity and Deity of Christ? Protestants will rarely state Jews have a different God, since they tend to have less animosity towards them than Muslims (and understandably!). Here is roughly how the conversation went before I was kicked out of the room, it will be a paraphrase, since the text was lost when I was kicked:

Matt Slick: The Catholic Church is wrong in saying Muslims and Christians have the same God.
Me: Jews have the same God as Christians, and Jews say their God is the same as Allah.
Reformer*: Maimonides said Muhammad was a 'mad man!"
Me: Calling their prophet mad doesn't mean he was an idolater! He said Muslims were NOT idolaters even.

Since I was kicked out before I could provide evidence for the claim. Let's take "Reformer*" usage of Maimonides, despite him calling Muhammad 'al mashugah' he said Mulims were not idolaters (a term he had no problem applying to Christians).

...When your teacher called you a fool for denying that Muslims are idolaters he sinned grievously, and it is fitting that he ask your pardon, though he be your master. Then let him fast and weep and pray; perhaps he will find forgiveness. Was he intoxicated that he forgot the thirty-three passages in which the Law admonishes concerning "strangers"? For even if he had been in the right and you in error, it was his duty to be gentle; how much more, when the truth is with you and he was in error! And when he was discussing whether a Muslim is an idolater, he should have been cautious not to lose his temper with a proselyte of righteousness and put him to shame...--Maimonides Letter to an Inquirer (found in A Maimonides Reader, p. 477)

So this lays to rest any claim of Maimonides. For more information on the Jewish view Allah is the God of the Hebrew Bible read here (Jews praying in mosques/Allah is God), Jewish view on Islam 

 

So the argument goes like this

 

P1: Jews have the same God as Christians.

P2: Jews believe Muslims have the same God as Jews.

Conclusion: Christians have the same God as Muslims.

 

Of course, some more refined Protestants will bizarrely insist Judaism is idolatrous because they deny the Trinity, and therefore worship a false god. But this is rare.

 

Matt Slick responded to my claim that Jews deny the Trinity like Muslims, he answered that Jews do not deny the trinity, they are just ignorant of it, whereas Muslims explicitly reject it. This is dishonest, if anything, Jews have lived in Christian lands for almost 2000 years, why should we think they are merely IGNORANT of it? Maimonides knew Christians were Trinitarian and insisted that makes them idolaters. This appeal to ignorance is awful.

Many of the Protestants insisted John's epistles state that if you do not have the Son, you do not have the Father. This is not a statement about believing in the true God, its about being IN God, and God in you. No one claims Muslims (or any group) are saved simply because they have the same basic concept of God (One Almighty, omnipresent God) and certainly rejection of Christ is a condition for damnation, a person cannot have the Father without also having the Son. They have to mangle St John's intent make this argument work!

 



Furthermore, the Apostles never accused the Jews of becoming idolaters for denying Christ, but simply "cut off from them people" and even "playing the harlot" by no embracing Christ.

 

During the Arian and modalist controversies the Catholic party never accused them of being idolaters or worshipping a false god because of their heretical understanding of the persons of God. Islam is a form of Arianism. The Church Fathers at the rise of Islam and after, as well as Muslim sources, despite Muhammad as being instructed by a Christian monk named Bahira (Buhaira in Arabic) who the fathers believed filled Muhammad's mind with Arian heresy.  The church father did not accuse Allah of being a "moon-god," though they did accuse Muslims of inadvertently venerating the pagan goddesses image at Mecca.

 

Also, it should be mention Martin Luther, seemed to possibly accept the idea that Muslims worship "one true God."

Racist Mormon General Conferences

Today, I was listening to ex Mormon bishop Lee Baker talk about racism in the LDS General Conference, but he did not give good citations, so I did a search and found it myself. The word "nigger" was used several times in General Conference by Mormon Apostle Heber J Grant and Apostle Reed Smoot. For those outside of the United States, or who are not native English speakers the word "nigger" is the must insulting word you can use for a black person, in fact simply using the word automatically suggests the speaker is hates black people. Now remember, according to Mormons their 12 apostles are ALSO prophets, seers, and revelators, so this Apostle is thought of in the LDS in the same was as the 12 apostles of Jesus were. Also, remember, according to many Mormons that General Conference is as good as scripture (its uncertain if actually LDS doctrine says that though).

https://books.google.com/books?id=Y7UUAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA3-PA36#v=onepage&q=nigger&f=false

Apostle Heber J Grant, in a spiritual talk about paying debts, said in a most pious moment:

"I went to a negro minstrel show once, and there  were about ten or fifteen on stage. One of them rushed in with his hat off and said, "which of these here niggers am lost two dollars?" holding up a two dollar bill. There hadn't any of them lost two dollars. "Well," he said, "if none of you have lost it, I found these two dollars right by the door here and it is my money." They said all right, and he put it in his pocket. No sooner had he got it in his pocket than up jumped a nigger and said: "Look here, George Washington Jones, you owe me two dollars, pay your honest debt!""
Heber J Grant, 71st Semi-Annual Conference pg 36(October 6, 1900, Afternoon Session), Deseret News

Why is an apostle, who is ALSO a prophet/seer/revelator using racist words? He knew and used the word "negro" since he used it in the same sentence, who why did he insist on using the word "nigger." Mormons say because he was a product of his times and was speaking as a man, but the problem is this is general conference--an official church function and these men are supposed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit! Certainly, other churches and clergy said racist things in the time and that does not excuse them, but we must remember how the Church of Jesus Christ, of Latter Day saints views their "apostles" and "general conferences," so there is no excuse!

We have another example of it being used in 1907 by Utah Senator and LDS Apostle Reed Smoot:

"He went to one of the business corners of the city, where a little stand was erected, and in order to hold the crowd until he could convince some of them that they had worms, or something worse, he had three or four niggers sing songs--by the way, I have been told that the niggers furnished the best part of the entertainment."--US Senator & LDS Apostle Reed Smoot, General Conference, 78th Semi-annual conference, pg 56, Sunday, October 6, 1907, 10 A.M., Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA

Some might think maybe "nigger" was not a derogatory term in the 1900s in Utah. To which I answer: https://books.google.com/books?id=stMRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA261#v=onepage&q=nigger

 

 

(from Improvement Era, Volume 3, Issue 1 Anecdotes, pg. 261, 1899-1900)

 

We clearly see in this 1900 Utah LDS publication that "black" or "negro" were acceptable normal words for a black man, and "nigger" was a pejorative.

 

For the history of the n-world http://www.aaregistry.org/historic_events/view/nigger-word-brief-history http://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2011/jan/05/censoring-mark-twain-n-word-unacceptable

Adventists and Conspiracy

This is a great article written on an Adventist website that explains why Adventists (Seventh-Day Adventists) are gullible and obsessed with conspiracy theories. http://spectrummagazine.org/article/news/2012/05/30/seventh-day-adventists-and-conspiracy-theories

A portion reads

So why are Adventists attracted to conspiracy theories? The ones most attractive to Seventh-day Adventists involve religion, especially the subject of Last Day Events. If the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy writings give some details, they want more. But curiosity can be a very dangerous element. Adventists are especially vulnerable to theories of a New World Order because they want so badly to see any signs that might confirm their belief that Jesus is coming very soon and the dreaded Mark of the Beast is just around the corner. In my view people believe in New World Order because it is what people with their “itching ears” want to hear.

Why Catholics cannot be Scientologists

Scientology is a very deceptive "religion", especially to potential converts.  So as to ease the conversion process, they will inform you that can you keep your current religion and also join the Scientologist "religion."

Recently, I went to a Scientology tour and the guide informed me that there is a Baptist minister who was a Scientologist. This is obviously to make adopting Scientology seem harmless with no risks. I should mention that the minister they mentioned they claimed was somewhere around south Los Angeles (Compton I think), and just like many churches in Los Angeles they may have liberal leanings, just as there is a Baptist church in LA that's part of the Southern Baptist Convention that has recently adopted a stance in support of homosexual marriage. The Scientologist also informed me of Jews that practice Judaism and are Scientologist--which makes it very unlikely they are Orthodox Jews. However, all of this is just deception by Scientology.

Scientology is more associated with far eastern philosophy, if we should call it that, than any form of religion, Scientology books even admits to their Far East origin in "Church" writings. Scientology insists make does have a spirit, but practically ignores the concept of god, though they insist there is a god or something similar. It perhaps can best be described as a self help cult. The IRS fought the Church of Scientology tooth and nail to try to deny it tax exempt status as a religion and church, but eventually gave up. Some speculate because the government could not afford all the lawsuits and it would tie up resources.

There is an alleged report online where the Church of Scientology answers questions from the IRS saying they expect members to only follow Scientology scriptures to the exclusion of others.

Scientology believes in reincarnation, which is contrary to Christianity, in fact higher level Scientologists have to sign a Billion year contract, meaning they agree that when they die and reincarnate into another body will continue their work to advance scientology.

According to L Ron Hubbard's own son, L Ron Hubbard Jr (who renamed himself Ron DeWolf) said his father and Scientology was involved in black magic, the occult and Satanism. Watch the interview here, the black magic discussion starts at around 3:10.

 

 

My video:

Ellen G White: on the Pope, Sabbath, her bad history

Remembering the official SDA writings state Ellen G White and her comments on scripture are inspired by God, I thought to look at what she says about the Pope since Seventh-Day Adventists are known for their pope obsessions--blaming him for everything and anything that's wrong in the world, the worst crime of all being "changing the Sabbath day to Sunday!"

I saw that the Sabbath was not nailed to the cross. If it was, the other nine commandments were; and we are at liberty to go forth and break them all, as well as to break the fourth. I saw that God had not changed the Sabbath, for he never changes. But the Pope had changed it from the seventh to the first day of the week; for he was to change times and laws.--The Review and Herald, Experience and Views. July 21, 1851

This is the typical SDA interpretation of Daniel that says pope is the one spoken of:

And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.--Daniel 7:25 KJV

She also makes the absurd statement that if God's law changed, then God changes! But the fact is we KNOW God did change the Law since He no longer requires a person to baptize themselves after touching a dead person, or declares a woman unclean after giving birth, or requiring physical circumcision on the 8th day of a male. Also, the problem there is no evidence the Pope ever changed the Sabbath day, all that Adventists can point to is a bunch of writings from magazines in the 19th century some of which are inaccurate, misleading, or fraudulent. Sometimes, they will point to a statement by early Christian writings talking about not keeping the Sabbath day, however, in either case, the SDA are never able to produce any actual evidence the Pope ever instructing the Church to cease observing a seventh day Sabbath and do a Sunday Sabbath. In fact, you will not find any reference in Catholic magisterium where Sunday is called the Sabbath day itself. Several early Catholic writings state they went to Mass on both the Sabbath and Sunday--showing Sunday was not considered by them to be the Sabbath day! The best Adventists can come up with is councils where Judaizers are addressed for keeping customs like the Sabbath, or a quote of 19th century bishop saying the Solemnity of the Sabbath was transferred, though not saying the Sabbath itself was! Its interesting the "prophet" Ellen cannot provide any evidence that it was the Pope that adopted the "Sunday Sabbath" as she would see it. Here is another statement I felt was riddled with errors in the same section:

For a number of years Milan was the capital of the kingdom of Italy, and since the fourth century it has surpassed Rome in extent, and in many respects in importance also. Here was the head of the church founded by St. Ambrose, whose diocese maintained its independence of the popes until the middle of the eleventh century. His diocese included not only the flourishing plains of Lombardy, but also the plains and mountain valleys of Piedmont, and the southern provinces of France. Although it is not to be supposed that the light of this people was entirely undimmed by the surrounding darkness of their age, still their faith was essentially Protestant, and in strong opposition to the Roman creed. --Ellen White, The Review and Herald, June 1, 1886, Visit to the Vaudois Valleys

It seems "God" has mislead the "Prophetess Ellen" once again! First, her description of St Ambrose's diocese of Milan included "also the plains and mountain valleys of Piedmont, and the southern provinces of France" is a massive exaggeration. We know this is inaccurate because St Ambrose wrote a letter to the church in Vercellæ (now spelled Vercelli), which is a city and province of Piedmont about how they need to select a new bishop to replace their now deceased bishop Limenius:

Ambrose, a servant of Christ, called to be a Bishop, to the Church of Vercellæ;, and to those who call on the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, Grace be fulfilled unto you in the Holy Spirit from God the Father and His only-begotten Son. I am spent with grief that the Church of God which is among you is still without a bishop--St Ambrose, Letter 63, Letter to the Church of Vercellæ

Now, if Vercelli was part of St Ambrose's diocese why would he address it to "the Church of Vercellae" and then say they were still "without a bishop" if according to Ellen White, he, Ambrose, was their bishop?! St Ambrose did have a relationship to the Vercellae, since it was a suffragan to Milan, but he didn't appoint or elect their bishop, Milan was a metropolitan diocese, or archdiocese, so the smaller dioceses are out rank by the metropolitan and will answer to it. To say that Vercellae is part of the diocese is plainly false, and to say St Ambrose founded it is absurd.

She states St Ambrose founded the Church of Milan, yet St Ambrose was the 11th bishop of Milan, not counting the Arian bishop he displaced named Auxentius (a man whom St Ambrose writes about in nothing but negative language). St Ambrose was elected bishop 374 and served until his death in 397. The Church of Milan is written before St Ambrose became bishop by St Athanasius of Alexandria who visited Milan and died in 373--before St Ambrose was even bishop of Milan!

But while they thought that they were carrying on their designs against many by his means, they knew not that they were making many to be confessors, of whom are those who have lately made so glorious a confession, religious men, and excellent Bishops, Paulinus Bishop of Treveri, the metropolis of the Gauls, Lucifer, Bishop of the metropolis of Sardinia, Eusebius of Vercelli in Italy, and Dionysius of Milan, which is the metropolis of Italy. --St Athanasius, History of the Arians, Part IV,  28. Second Arian Persecution under Constantius

St Athanasius plainly states before St Ambrose was bishop of Milan that Dionysius was! Since St Ambrose would not be elected bishop until after St Athanasius death! Notice also the bishop "Eusebius of Vercelli" who was bishop of this Piedmont town. So, the "Prophet" Ellen White is wrong, St Ambrose did not found the Church of Milan at all! We see Dionysius being mentioned as bishop by St Ambrose himself in his letter to the nearby bishopless church of Vercellæ. 

Another city of Piedmont is Turin which also had its own bishop. The successor of St Jerome, Gennadius, in writing "Supplement to De Viris Illustribus" includes a few recent prominent Italian prelates St Jerome did not include, one of them is the bishop of Turin. The work is from the 5th century.

Maximus, bishop of the church at Turin, a man fairly industrious in the study of the Holy Scripture, and good at teaching the people extemporaneously, composed treatises In praise of the apostles and John the Baptist, and a Homily on all the martyrs. Moreover he wrote many acute comments on passages from the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. He wrote also two treatises, On the life of Saint Eusebius, bishop of Vercelli, and confessor, and On Saint Cyprian, and published a monograph On the grace of baptism. I have read his On avarice, On hospitality, On the eclipse of the moon, On almsgiving, On the saying in Isaiah, Your winedealers mix wine with water, On Our Lord's Passion, A general treatise On fasting by the servants of God, On the quadragesimal fast in particular, and That there should be no jesting on fast day, On Judas, the betrayer, On Our Lord's cross, On His sepulchre, On His resurrection, On the accusation and trial of Our Lord before Pontius Pilate, On the Kalends of January, a homily On the day of Our Lord's Nativity, also homilies On Epiphany, On the Passover, On Pentecost, many also, On having no fear of carnal Foes, On giving thanks after meat, On the repentance of the Ninivites, and other homilies of his, published on various occasions, whose names I do not remember. He died in the reign of Honorius and Theodosius the younger.-

Supplement to De Viris Illustribus Chapter 41, Gennadius 

White also makes the claim that the diocese of Milan "maintained its independence of the popes."  The only time the Milan church was independent in some sense was when it was ruled by a heretical bishop that were Arian like Auxentius, because of this heresy they rejected the bishop of Rome. Before Ambrose was made bishop, bishops from around the world accepted the Council of Sardica in AD 344 which gave the Bishop of Rome authority to judge bishops, settle disputes, or appoint judges, there is no reason why Milan would be any different.  In St Ambrose's funeral homily of his brother Satyrus, he writes about how important Satyrus thought communion with the Church of Rome was (note Satyrus was involved with the administration of the Diocese of Milan):

 But he was not so eager as to lay aside caution. He called the bishop to him, and esteeming that there can be no true thankfulness except it spring from true faith, he enquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church? And possibly at that place the Church of the district was in schism. For at that time Lucifer had withdrawn from our communion, and although he had been an exile for the faith, and had left inheritors of his own faith, yet my brother did not think that there could be true faith in schism. For though schismatics kept the faith towards God, yet they kept it not towards the Church of God, certain of whose limbs they suffered as it were to be divided, and her members to be torn. For since Christ suffered for the Church, and the Church is the body of Christ, it does not seem that faith in Christ is shown by those by whom His Passion is made of none effect, and His body divided.--St Ambrose, On the Death of Satyrus: Book I, 47

In St Ambrose's letter to Emperor Gratian he writes:

"Your grace must be besought not to permit any disturbance of the Roman Church, the head of the whole Roman World and of the most holy faith of the Apostles, for from thence flow out to all the bonds of sacred communion."—St Ambrose, To Emperor Gratian, Epistle 11:4(A.D. 381),in SPP,160

I have to wonder about White obsession with St Ambrose since he wrote that he was a priest and practiced things she would consider "Roman." She goes on to say the people of Piedmont were essentially Protestants, a claim she cannot prove, and a claim that the Waldensians even deny, who themselves claims to have been a 12th century breakaway group from the Catholic Church.

Let's continue on to another instance where the prophetess White writes of the Pope.

The Bible is presented to us as a sufficient guide; but the pope and his workers remove it from the people as if it were a curse, because it exposes their pretensions and rebukes their idolatry.--Ellen White, The Review and Herald, Visit to the Vaudois Valleys, June 1, 1886

 This state is pretty ironic since the Seventh-Day Adventists have since then accepted White's Bible commentary as divinely inspired making them some sort of scripture (though they would object to it being called that):

Seventh-day Adventists believe that God inspired Ellen G. White. Therefore, her expositions on any given Bible passage offer an inspired guide to the meaning of texts without exhausting their meaning or preempting the task of exegesis (for example, see Evangelism, 256; The Great Controversy, 193, 595;Testimonies, vol. 5, pp. 665, 682, 707-708; Counsels to Writers and Editors, 33-35). --Methods of Bible Study: Bible Study: Presuppositions, Principles, and Methods, 4.l (Methods of Bible Study) [Official statement]

Somehow, this is not a contradiction to Adventists.  Continuing on, White writes a typical statement of a Protestant from that error--Catholics tried to hide the Bible and were idol worshippers! Ignoring the fact Mass readings included different parts of the Bible, the 10 commandments were always standard teaching. Also, venerating icons and relics is not idolatry since idolatry is making physical objects divine representations of false gods. The practice of making images and statues was not forbidden either since in Exodus 25 we see God commanding Moses to make golden angel statues, then in Joshua 7:6 we see Moses' successor Joshua bowing to the Ark of the Covenant. Later on the Temple of Solomon itself contained lots of images and even larger angel statues.

Going on Ellen White mentions the Pope in passing in respects to her concept of God's law:

God’s will is expressed in his holy law. This is the only correct standard of righteousness, and if a man’s character stands in harmony with the Lord’s standard, his testimony may be received and relied upon; but if he stands in opposition to the requirements of God, he measures himself and others by his own finite, fallible standard, and may claim as much as does the pope of Rome.--Ellen White, The Review and Herald, How do we Stand?, July 24, 1888

He then measures himself by his own finite standard, and may claim for himself as much as does the pope of Rome; but in the light of the detector of sin, his character may be wholly wanting.--Ellen White, The Review and Herald, The Obedient Approved of God, August 28, 1894 

This is a shot White takes against the Pope, and appealing to common Protestant hatred of the Pope she says failing to keep or accept the Law makes you no better than the Pope. She's possibly mocking Vatican I also in referring to "fallible standard."

Going on:

 A former Wesleyan local preacher’s family are all interested, and thoroughly convinced of the truth. Even the children ask why they should “keep the pope’s Sunday when they know it is not the true Sabbath.”--Ellen White, The Review and Herald, The Australian Camp-Meeting, January 7, 1896

Ellen was smart, what better way to persuade your fellow Protestants something is wrong that associating it with their "boogey man" of the day--the Pope! Never mind the fact there's no evidence the Pope himself started Sunday worship.

Going on, she talks about the remission of sins and the pope:

Remission of sins can be obtained only through the merits of Christ. On no man, priest or pope, but on God alone, rests the power to forgive sins.--Ellen White, The Review and Herald, The Remission of Sins, June 13, 1899

Ellen G White insists the Catholic concept of Confession is wrong and no one has the power to forgive sins, despite what John 20:22-23 says, in which she reworks it to be about ecclesiastical censuring:

Remitting sins or retaining applies to the church in her organized capacity. God has given directions to reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all long-suffering and doctrine. Censure is to be given. This censure is to be removed when the one in error repents and confesses his sin.--Ellen White, The Review and Herald, The Remission of Sins, June 13, 1899

 To her forgive sins does not mean forgive sins it means to "remove" a censure, and retain means to "reprove, rebuke, exhort," "censure." However, the Apostles already had this ability since its mentioned in Matthew 18, so they did not need this special event. She disables the text rather than deal with what it plainly states.

Let's look at another time she mentions the pope:

Through the Holy Spirit’s guidance the disciples would remember the lessons Christ had given them; and in their future work, their language would express the divine thought of God. Thus the truth would come down through pure channels, commending itself to the hearts of the receivers. Christ’s followers are to plant their feet, not on the word of pope or prelate, not on the word of the clergy, who mystify everything that is plain, and confuse the minds of the ignorant; they must place their feet upon the sure foundation.--Ellen G White, The Review and Herald, The Parable of the Sower, October 3, 1899 

This statement is itself somewhat ironic since Ellen's commentaries of the scriptures are considered inspired by the Seventh-Day Adventists and therefore to be studied.  So its just a switch and bait--don't follow them--what do they know!? Follow me instead!

Another step in papal assumption was taken, when, in the eleventh century, Pope Gregory VII. proclaimed the perfection of the Romish Church. Among the propositions which he put forth, was one declaring that the church had never erred, nor would it ever err, according to the Scriptures. But the Scripture proofs did not accompany the assertion. The proud pontiff next claimed the power to depose emperors, and declared that no sentence which he pronounced could be reversed by any one, but that it was his prerogative to reverse the decisions of all others.--Ellen White, The Great Controversy 1888, Page 57

First of all, though I do not know for sure if Gregory VII made statement of the "perfection of the Romish Church" and that it could "never erred, nor would, according to Scripture"  and that no sentence "could be reversed by anyone" but I can say dozens of popes,  and bishops Church Fathers long before him made that statement. The indefectibility of the church as a whole if found in the Church Fathers long before Pope Gregory VII. Also, Pope Gregory in his letters DO use scriptural citations for his claims by he ought to be obeyed and respected as Pope, for example

Since thou dost confess thyself a son of the church it would have beseemed thy royal dignity to look more respectfully upon the master of the church,-that is, St. Peter, the chief of the apostles. [Matthew 10:2] To whom, if thou art of the-Lord's sheep, thou west given over by the Lord's voice and authority to be fed; Christ Himself saying: " Peter, feed my sheep." [John 21:17] And again: " To thee are given over the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth shall be bound also in Heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth shall be loosed also in Heaven." [Matthew 16:18] --Pope Gregory VII, Letter of Gregory VII. to Henry IV., December 1075

It seems Ellen White had in mind the "Dictatus Papae" which is uncertain if it was even written by Pope Gregory VII. In any case, the Dictatus had 27 points, ironically at one time the Seventh-Day Adventist church had "27 Fundamentals"--key doctrines they believed in from 1980-2005 when they added another making it 28 fundamentals.  Also, there is no indication the Dictatus Papae was a public document that was sent to people. Regardless, as I mention above claims of infallibility were not new, nor where Scripture passages for it unknown, just the Dictatus Papae does not cite them.

White in the some work goes on to says:

The advancing centuries witnessed a constant increase of error in the doctrines put forth from Rome. Even before the establishment of the papacy, the teachings of heathen philosophers had received attention and exerted an influence in the church. Many who professed conversion still clung to the tenets of their pagan philosophy, and not only continued its study themselves, but urged it upon others as a means of extending their influence among the heathen. Serious errors were thus introduced into the Christian faith. Prominent among these was the belief in man’s natural immortality and his consciousness in death. This doctrine laid the foundation upon which Rome established the invocation of saints and the adoration of the virgin Mary. From this sprung also the heresy of eternal torment for the finally impenitent, which was early incorporated into the papal faith.--Ellen White, The Great Controversy 1888, Page 58

 She says the heathen philosophers got much attention even before she thinks the papacy was established. Clearly, she disproves of listening to "pagan" and "heathen" philosophers. Who can be blame for this? St Paul actually!

“One of them, a prophet of their own, once said, "Cretans have always been liars, vicious beasts, and lazy gluttons."”—Titus 1:12 *He quotes the Cretan philosopher-poet, Epimenides of Knossos, who lived around the 6^th Century BC

For 'In him we live and move and have our being,'—Acts 17:28a *Many attribute the first half to the philosopher-poet Epimenides of Knossos, who lived around the 6^th Century BC  

as even some of your poets have said, 'For we too are his offspring.'—Acts 17:28b *This is a quote of the poet Aratus of Soli, a fellow Cilician of St Paul’s, from the 3^rd Century before Christ.

 So we see quoting, read, and using "pagan" philosophers is not inherently wrong, otherwise St Paul corrupted the Bible.

As far as her other claims about the doctrines of immortality of the soul and consciousness after death--those too are taught in the Bible and were believed by the Jews of the time.

And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell.--Matthew 10:28

Notice Christ says "destroy" rather than use "kill" when referring to damnation, showing even the damned are not wiped out of existence.

The claim about consciousness after death is refuted by the story of the Witch of Endor. Saul and Samuel where the Biblical text explicitly states the dead Samuel appears.

“An old man is coming up,” she said. “He’s wrapped in a robe.” Then Saul knew that it was Samuel, and he bowed low out of respect, nose to the ground.

 “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?” Samuel asked Saul.

"I’m in deep trouble!” Saul replied. “The Philistines are at war with me, and God has turned away from me and no longer answers me by prophets or by dreams. So I have called on you to tell me what I should do.”--1 Samuel 28:14-15

Also stories like Judas Maccabee meeting the Prophet Jeremiah and Jesus talking to Moses shows that soul sleep is not the case. Also Revelation 6:9

When he broke open the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slaughtered because of the witness they bore to the word of God. They cried out in a loud voice, “How long will it be, holy and true master, before you sit in judgment and avenge our blood on the inhabitants of the earth?”--Revelation 6:9-10

As far as Mary "worship", its interesting she praises St Ambrose in her writings yet St Ambrose said:

"Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin." Ambrose, Sermon 22:30(A.D. 388),in JUR,II:166

And why should I tell how great is the grace of virginity, which was found worthy to be chosen by Christ, that it might be even the bodily temple of God, in which as we read the fulness of the Godhead dwelt bodily. A Virgin conceived the Salvation of the world, a Virgin brought forth the life of all. Virginity then ought not to be left to itself, seeing that it benefited all in Christ. A Virgin bore Him Whom this world cannot contain or support. And when He was born from His mother’s womb, He yet preserved the fence of her chastity and the inviolate seal of her virginity. And so Christ found in the Virgin that which He willed to make His own, that which the Lord of all might take to Himself. Further, our flesh was cast out of Paradise by a man and woman and was joined to God through a Virgin.--St Ambrose, Epistle LXIII: 33

 And eternal hell is taught plainly in the Bible in Daniel 12, the aforementioned reference in Matthew 10:28 and other places like Revelation.

And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to reproaches and everlasting abhorrence. --Daniel 12:2

It is better for thee to enter lame into life everlasting, than having two feet, to be cast into the hell of unquenchable fire:--Mark 9:44 

 There is no indication that causes us to believe anyone will be wiped out of existence

 

Evidence the SDA teaches Jesus is Michael

Some who are Seventh Day Adventist, sympathetic, or just uneducated about them believe they do not officially teach that Michael the Archangel is Jesus Christ. [As I mentioned several times before Jesus=Michael was a common Protestant doctrine among Calvinists and some Baptists until the 19th century] In a sense, this is true since their official website will you see very little about the Archangel being Jesus. I did find this:

Even before time on Earth began, the universe was engaged in a terrible conflict. John, the last living disciple of Jesus, described this conflict from what he saw in a vision while a prisoner on the island of Patmos. "There was war in heaven," he said. "Michael [another name for Jesus] and his angels fought against the dragon [Satan], and the dragon and his angels fought back" (Revelation 12:7).--A Lesson from History, Rodney Woods  [emphasis mine]

This is only a reference in passing. For more definitive proof the SDA states White is a prophet and her interpretation of the Bible is to be used since it was inspired by God. We see their official statement on Methods of Bible Study under Methods of Bible study 4.l says:

l.          Seventh-day Adventists believe that God inspired Ellen G. White. Therefore, her expositions on any given Bible passage offer an inspired guide to the meaning of texts without exhausting their meaning or preempting the task of exegesis (for example, see Evangelism, 256; The Great Controversy, 193, 595;Testimonies, vol. 5, pp. 665, 682, 707-708; Counsels to Writers and Editors, 33-35). --Methods of Bible Study: Bible Study: Presuppositions, Principles, and Methods, 4.l (Methods of Bible Study) [Official statement]

The preamble of this statement says:

This statement is addressed to all members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church with the purpose of providing guidelines on how to study the Bible, both the trained biblical scholar and others. --Methods of Bible Study, 1. Preamble

Also, at the bottom of the statement on the webpage says:

This statement was approved and voted by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists Executive Committee at the Annual Council Session in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, October 12, 1986

Their official Church Manual under their 28 Fundamentals also states about Ellen White:

"One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White . As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10.)."--Chapter 14: Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-Day Adventists, 18. The Gift of Prophecy, page 162. Seventh-Day Adventist Church Manual, Revised 2010. 18th edition. [pdf] [A smaller PDF of the relevant fundamental beliefs are found here]

The Adventists state this statement was lead by the Holy Spirit, but admit the Spirit might later cause them to better express their beliefs:

Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed and hold certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. These beliefs, as set forth here, constitute the church's understanding and expression of the teaching of Scripture. Revision of these statements may be expected at a General Conference Session when the church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding of Bible truth or finds better language in which to express the teachings of God's Holy Word."--Chapter 14: Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-Day Adventists, page 156. Seventh-Day Adventist Church Manual, Revised 2010. 18th edition. [pdf] [A smaller PDF of the relevant fundamental beliefs are found here]

So, its plainly clear that Seventh-Day Adventists must believe in the divine inspiration of Ellen G White's writings. (Interestingly. despite the SDA often saying the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon, here they seem to make a church structure like the Catholic with Ellen White being the equivalent to the Pope, and the General Conference being equal to Ecumenical Councils,) Here is what the "prophetess" White says about Michael the Archangel [all writings are on an SDA website], remember according to the SDA her writings are "inspired" by God according to them:

The words of the angel, “I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God,” show that he holds a position of high honor in the heavenly courts. When he came with a message to Daniel, he said, “There is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael [Christ] your Prince.” Daniel 10:21. --The Desire of Ages, page 99 (1898) Ellen G White

Again: Christ is called the Word of God. John 1:1-3. He is so called because God gave His revelations to man in all ages through Christ. It was His Spirit that inspired the prophets. 1 Peter 1:10, 11. He was revealed to them as the Angel of Jehovah, the Captain of the Lord’s host, Michael the Archangel.--Patriarchs and Prophets, Page 761. (1890) Ellen G White

Moses passed through death, but Michael came down and gave him life before his body had seen corruption. Satan tried to hold the body, claiming it as his; but Michael resurrected Moses and took him to heaven. Satan railed bitterly against God, denouncing Him as unjust in permitting his prey to be taken from him; but Christ did not rebuke His adversary, though it was through his temptation that the servant of God had fallen. He meekly referred him to His Father, saying, “The Lord rebuke thee.”--Early Writings, Page 164, Ellen G White [statement also found in The Story of Redemption, Page 206]

Michael, or Christ, with the angels that buried Moses, came down from heaven,--The Truth About Angels, Page 104, Ellen G White

 We see that since the Seventh-Day Adventists regard Ellen G White as a prophet with her writings inspired and "authoritative truth," and those writings teach Jesus is Michael, that logically this would make official Adventists doctrine to be Jesus is Michael.