Info on SDA (continued)

[me_again]

Rom.9
4Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

5Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

6Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

7Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

8That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

The children of God and the sons of God are those who do His will. However, the above scripture does not make Christians slaves in Egypt, nor does it require Christians to keep the Jewish Saturday sabbath in lieu of the Lord’s day (Sunday).

Richard, Christians have historically celebrated the Lord’s resurrection on Sunday. Do you?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Behold Him contemplating the price to be paid for the human soul. In His agony He clings to the cold ground, as if to prevent Himself from being drawn farther from God. The chilling dew of night falls upon His prostrate form, but He heeds it not. From His pale lips comes the bitter cry, “O My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me.” Yet even now He adds, “Nevertheless not as I will, but as Thou wilt.”

The human heart longs for sympathy in suffering. This longing Christ felt to the very depths of His being. In the supreme agony of His soul He came to His disciples with a yearning desire to hear some words of comfort from those whom He had so often blessed and comforted, and shielded in sorrow and distress. The One who had always had words of sympathy for them was now suffering superhuman agony, and He longed to know that they were praying for Him and for themselves.

Page 688
How dark seemed the malignity of sin! Terrible was the temptation to let the human race bear the consequences of its own guilt, while He stood innocent before God. If He could only know that His disciples understood and appreciated this, He would be strengthened.
Rising with painful effort, He staggered to the place where He had left His companions. But He “findeth them asleep.” Had He found them praying, He would have been relieved. Had they been seeking refuge in God, that satanic agencies might not prevail over them, He would have been comforted by their steadfast faith. But they had not heeded the repeated warning, “Watch and pray.” At first they had been much troubled to see their Master, usually so calm and dignified, wrestling with a sorrow that was beyond comprehension. They had prayed as they heard the strong cries of the sufferer. They did not intend to forsake their Lord, but they seemed paralyzed by a stupor which they might have shaken off if they had continued pleading with God. They did not realize the necessity of watchfulness and earnest prayer in order to withstand temptation.

Just before He bent His footsteps to the garden, Jesus had said to the disciples, “All ye shall be offended because of Me this night.” They had given Him the strongest assurance that they would go with Him to prison and to death. And poor, self-sufficient Peter had added, “Although all shall be offended, yet will not I.” Mark 14:27, 29. But the

Page 689
disciples trusted to themselves. They did not look to the mighty Helper as Christ had counseled them to do. Thus when the Saviour was most in need of their sympathy and prayers, they were found asleep. Even Peter was sleeping.
And John, the loving disciple who had leaned upon the breast of Jesus, was asleep. Surely, the love of John for his Master should have kept him awake. His earnest prayers should have mingled with those of his loved Saviour in the time of His supreme sorrow. The Redeemer had spent entire nights praying for His disciples, that their faith might not fail. Should Jesus now put to James and John the question He had once asked them, “Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?” they would not have ventured to answer, “We are able.” Matt. 20:22.

The disciples awakened at the voice of Jesus, but they hardly knew Him, His face was so changed by anguish. Addressing Peter, Jesus said, “Simon, sleepest thou? couldest not thou watch one hour? Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation. The spirit truly is ready, but the flesh is weak.” The weakness of His disciples awakened the sympathy of Jesus. He feared that they would not be able to endure the test which would come upon them in His betrayal and death. He did not reprove them, but said, “Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation.” Even in His great agony, He was seeking to excuse their weakness. “The spirit truly is ready,” He said, “but the flesh is weak.”

Again the Son of God was seized with superhuman agony, and fainting and exhausted, He staggered back to the place of His former struggle. His suffering was even greater than before. As the agony of soul came upon Him, “His sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.” The cypress and palm trees were the silent witnesses of His anguish. From their leafy branches dropped heavy dew upon His stricken form, as if nature wept over its Author wrestling alone with the powers of darkness.

A short time before, Jesus had stood like a mighty cedar, withstanding the storm of opposition that spent its fury upon Him. Stubborn wills, and hearts filled with malice and subtlety, had striven in vain to confuse and overpower Him. He stood forth in divine majesty as the Son of God. Now He was like a reed beaten and bent by the angry storm. He had approached the consummation of His work a conqueror, having at each step gained the victory over the powers of darkness. As

Page 690
one already glorified, He had claimed oneness with God. In unfaltering accents He had poured out His songs of praise. He had spoken to His disciples in words of courage and tenderness. Now had come the hour of the power of darkness. Now His voice was heard on the still evening air, not in tones of triumph, but full of human anguish. The words of the Saviour were borne to the ears of the drowsy disciples, “O My Father, if this cup may not pass away from Me, except I drink it, Thy will be done.”

 

[Javl]

Ok some quotes from Catholic’s –

Monsignor Louis Segur, Plain Talk About the Protestantism of Today (1868), p. 213
“The observance of Sunday by the Protestants is an homage they pay, in spite of themselves, to the authority of the [Catholic] church.”

John Gilmary Shea, American Catholic Quarterly Review, January, 1883.
“Protestantism, In discarding the authority of the (Roman Catholic) Church, has no good reasons for its Sunday theory, and ought logically to keep Saturday as the Sabbath .”

The Catholic Mirror, official publication of James Cardinal Gibbons, Sept. 23, 1893.

“The Catholic Church, . . . by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday.”

The Catholic National, July, 1895.
“The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, but he is Jesus Christ Himself, hidden under veil of flesh.”

The Catholic Press, Sydney, Australia, August, 1900.
“Sunday is a Catholic Institution, and its claims to observance can be defended only on Catholic principles. . . .From beginning to end of Scripture there is not a single passage that warrants the transfer of weekly public worship from the last day of the week to the first.”

Priest Brady, in an address, reported in the Elizabeth, N.J. “News”, March 18, 1903.
“It is well to remind the Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, and all other Christians, that the Bible does not support them anywhere in their observance of Sunday. Sunday is an institution of the Roman Catholic Church, and those who observe the day observe a commandment of the Catholic Church.”

Daniel Ferres, ed., Manual of Christian Doctrine (1916), p.67. Also in Henry Tuberville, An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine (1833 approbation), p.58

"Question: How prove you that the Church hath power to command feasts and holy days?

"Answer: By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of, and therefore they fondly contradict themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same Church.’

Albert Smith, chancellor of the Archdiocese of Baltimore,
replying for Cardinal Gibbons in a letter, February 10, 1920.
“If Protestants would follow the Bible, they should worship God on the Sabbath Day. In keeping the Sunday, they are following a law of the Catholic Church.”

Martin J. Scott, Things Catholics Are Asked About (1927),p. 136.

“Nowhere in the Bible is it stated that worship should be changed from Saturday to Sunday … Now the Church … instituted, by God’s authority, Sunday as the day of worship. This same Church, by the same divine authority, taught the doctrine of Purgatory long before the Bible was made. We have, therefore, the same authority for Purgatory as we have for Sunday.”

John Laux, A Course in Religion for Catholic High Schools and Academies (1936), vol. 1, P. 51.

“Some theologians have held that God likewise directly determined the Sunday as the day of worship in the New Law, that He Himself has explicitly substituted the Sunday for the Sabbath. But this theory is now entirely abandoned. It is now commonly held that God simply gave His Church the power to set aside whatever day or days she would deem suitable as Holy Days. The Church chose Sunday, the first day of the week, and in the course of time added other days as holy days.”

The Catholic Universe Bulletin, August 14, 1942, page 4.
“The Church changed the observance of the Sabbath to Sunday by right of the divine, infallible authority given to her by her founder, Jesus Christ. The Protestant claiming the Bible to be the only guide of faith, has no warrant for observing Sunday. In this matter the Seventh-day Adventist is the only consistent Protestant.”

( Continued )

 

[Richard_Kastner]

The children of God and the sons of God are those who do His will. However, the above scripture does not make Christians slaves in Egypt, nor does it require Christians to keep the Jewish Saturday sabbath in lieu of the Lord’s day (Sunday).

Richard, Christians have historically celebrated the Lord’s resurrection on Sunday. Do you?

Rom.9
4Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

5Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

6Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

7Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

8That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

This passage tells us that those that take hold of the promise of the Messiah to Abraham are counted as the seed of Abraham and therefore the children of Israel. It makes no difference if they were children of the flesh (ethnic Jews) or not. The passage you are so fond of quoting tells us that God is OUR SAVIOR, Just as in Exodus 20:11 11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. tells us that He is OUR CREATOR.

 

[Javl]

Catholic Virginian Oct. 3, 1947, p. 9, art. “To Tell You the Truth.”

“For example, nowhere in the Bible do we find that Christ or the Apostles ordered that the Sabbath be changed from Saturday to Sunday. We have the commandment of God given to Moses to keep holy the Sabbath day, that is the 7th day of the week, Saturday. Today most Christians keep Sunday because it has been revealed to us by the[Roman Catholic] church outside the Bible.”

Our Sunday Visitor, February 5, 1950.
“Protestants. . .accept Sunday rather than Saturday as the day for public worship after the Catholic Church made the change. . .But the Protestant mind does not seem to realize that . . in observing the Sunday, they are accepting the authority of the spokesman for the church, the Pope.”

Peter Geiermann, C.S.S.R., The Converts Catechism of Catholic Doctrine (1957), p. 50.

"Question: Which is the Sabbath day?

"Answer: Saturday is the Sabbath day.

"Question: Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?

“Answer. We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.”

S.D. Moana, Storia della Domenica, 1969, pages 366-367.
Not the Creator of the Universe, In Geneses 2:1-3, —but the Catholic Church “can claim the honor of having granted man a pause to his work every seven days.”

Peter R. Kraemer, Catholic Church Extension Society (1975),Chicago, Illinois.

"Regarding the change from the observance of the Jewish Sabbath to the Christian Sunday, I wish to draw your attention to the facts:

"1) That Protestants, who accept the Bible as the only rule of faith and religion, should by all means go back to the observance of the Sabbath. The fact that they do not, but on the contrary observe the Sunday, stultifies them in the eyes of every thinking man.

"2) We Catholics do not accept the Bible as the only rule of faith. Besides the Bible we have the living Church, the authority of the Church, as a rule to guide us. We say, this Church, instituted by Christ to teach and guide man through life, has the right to change the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament and hence, we accept her change of the Sabbath to Sunday. We frankly say, yes, the Church made this change, made this law, as she made many other laws, for instance, the Friday abstinence, the unmarried priesthood, the laws concerning mixed marriages, the regulation of Catholic marriages and a thousand other laws.

“It is always somewhat laughable, to see the Protestant churches, in pulpit and legislation, demand the observance of Sunday, of which there is nothing in their Bible.”

It is quite clear that the Catholic position regarding the seventh day Sabbath has been unbending for over 400 years. Pleased to embarrass the Protestant world with their illogical departure from Biblical doctrine, the Roman Church has until very recent years continued to ridicule “the estranged bretheren” in this matter.

Surprisingly, on May 31, 1998 the Vatican took a strange new approach that dramatically altered its historical stand on the Saturday-Sunday issue. Pope John Paul II delivered his apostolic letter, Dies Domini, to the Catholic clergy. Subtitled “On Keeping the Lord’s Day Holy”, this treatise is composed of four chapters and 87 sections that appeal, not to the traditionally arrogant stance of Church authority, but to all the scriptural arguments previously used by Protestants!

The Dies Domini document concludes with the urging of all Christians to become politically responsible in order that they may “ensure that civil legislation respects their duty to keep Sunday holy.” This language is alarming and indicative of Rome’s true and unchanged modus operandi. The switch from Tradition to Scripture merely disarms her real intent to ultimately secure state support. A return to the Dark Ages, when the Church Universal ruled the courts and thrones of Europe, when Inquisition fires cleansed the land of heretics, when individual freedom of conscious and religious liberty was denounced as a threat and attacked by countless crusades–yes, the end of church-state separation would restore the papacy to it’s former “glory” and fully restore its deadly wound.

Fr. Leo Broderick, Saint Catherine Catholic Church Sentinel, Algonac, Michigan, May 21, 1995.

"Perhaps the boldest thing, the most revolutionary change the Church ever did, happened in the first century. The holy day, the Sabbath, was changed from Saturday to Sunday. ‘The Day of the Lord’ (dies Dominica) was chosen, not from any directions noted in the Scriptures, but from the Church’s sense of its own power. The day of resurrection, the day of Pentecost, fifty days later, came on the first day of the week. So this would be the new Sabbath. People who think that the Scriptures should be the sole authority, should logically become 7th Day Adventists, and keep Saturday holy.

Ver good ads, and you say you’re not Adventist! This is typical SDA rhetoric to try to legitimize their position. It usually falls on deaf ears. What are you trying to prove?

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Javl]

personally i prefer to hang out with Mormons. i actually find them the more delightful of the two. lol! probably all the time i hung out in utah.and if you take on Joseph Smith, they have no problem using his writings, or defending them. i respect that. i have worked with alot of Adventist though. they seem to be huge in michigan where im from. just west of battle creek as a matter of fact. Peace

I agree. I find the same with Jehovas Witnesses, believe it or not. At least they listen.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Javl]

The children of God and the sons of God are those who do His will. However, the above scripture does not make Christians slaves in Egypt, nor does it require Christians to keep the Jewish Saturday sabbath in lieu of the Lord’s day (Sunday).

Richard, Christians have historically celebrated the Lord’s resurrection on Sunday. Do you?

Truthfully, I’m beginning to wonder if the SDA are Christians. They all seem to either misinterpret, ignore, or reject, what Jesus has said and done and the keep reverting back to the OT. I don’t think they understand that the OT is over and done with and that there is a NEW and evelasting Gospel given us by God ( Jesus Christ ).

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[me_again]

In His agony He clings to the cold ground, as if to prevent Himself from being drawn farther from God.

Did Ellen White claim to see the Lord Jesus “clinging to the ground”?

Rising with painful effort, He staggered to the place where He had left His companions.

Is Ellen White claiming to have seen Jesus “stagger” in a vision or is she embellishing?

The disciples awakened at the voice of Jesus, but they hardly knew Him, His face was so changed by anguish.

Is Ellen White claiming to have seen this in vision or is she embellishing?

Again the Son of God was seized with superhuman agony, and fainting and exhausted, He staggered back to the place of His former struggle.

Embellishment or vision?

Richard, let’s not stop with the above embellishments. Let’s reexamine other writings from Ellen White, lest we forget.

In 1856, Ellen Gould White falsely predicted the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. She falsely predicted that her followers would not see death but, instead, would be translated at His coming. They are all dead now. Here are the exact words of the false prophetess Ellen Gould White**:**

“I [Ellen Gould White] was shown the company present at the conference. Said the angel, ‘Some food for worms, some subjects of the seven last plagues, some will be alive and remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus.’”

Reference**:** Testimonies For The [SDA] Church 1:131, 132 (1856)

All of Ellen White’s followers from her 1856 prediction are dead. She is a false prophetess. Here’s another bizarre comment from the SDA false prophetess in the year 1876**:**

“It is really not wise to have children now. Time is short, the perils of the last days are upon us, and the little children will be largely swept off before this.”

Reference**:** [SDA] Letter 48, 1876

Cult leaders tend to mix lies (or embellishments) in with the truth because it lends credibility to the lies. Cult leaders are extremely crafty – and that’s how they get so many people to willingly follow them and their false doctrines.

Ephesians 6:10-18 seems appropriate.

 

[me_again]

Truthfully, I’m beginning to wonder if the SDA are Christians. They all seem to either misinterpret, ignore, or reject, what Jesus has said and done and the keep reverting back to the OT. I don’t think they understand that the OT is over and done with and that there is a NEW and evelasting Gospel given us by God ( Jesus Christ ).

The spirit that is in charge of the SeventhDay Adventist church is very powerful and is very similar to the spirit that is in charge of the Jehovah Witness sect. The humans are their victims.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

I was just cleaning out my files in word perfect and ran across this from my commentary on Romans 3:31
Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

The law through faith. In the Greek, “law” stands without the article (see on 2:12). Paul has previously said that the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law (ch. 3:21) and that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law ( 28). Apparently realizing that these statements could lead to the mistaken idea that faith abolishes the principle of law, Paul raises this rhetorical question and answers it with an immediate and categorical denial. It is true that Paul “made void” the Jewish idea of law as a means of attaining righteousness and the Jewish insistence that the Gentiles must follow the same method (Acts 15:1; Gal. 2:16–19). But law in its true function is confirmed, rather than abrogated, by God’s appointed method of justifying sinners (see on Rom. 3:28).

**Establish the law. **Paul is emphasizing the place of law as a principle, and particularly, in the context of this chapter, as it is embodied in the revealed law of the OT . He has already spoken of the witness of the OT to the teachings that were soon to become known as the OT (v. 21). Now he asserts that law, viewed as a revelation of the holy will of God and of the eternal principles of morality, is fully vindicated and established by the gospel of righteousness by faith in Jesus Christ. Jesus came to this earth to magnify the law (Isa. 42:21; Matt. 5:17) and to reveal by His life of perfect obedience that Christians can, through the empowering grace of God, give obedience to His law. The plan of justification by faith reveals God’s regard for His law in demanding and providing the atoning sacrifice. If justification by faith abolishes law, then there was no need for the atoning death of Christ to release the sinner from his sins, and thus restore him to peace with God.
Moreover, genuine faith implies in itself an unreserved willingness to fulfill the will of God in a life of obedience to His law (see on Rom. 3:28). Real faith, based on wholehearted love for the Saviour, can lead only to obedience. The fact that Christ endured such suffering because of our transgression of God’s law is one of the strongest motives for obedience. We do not easily and readily repeat a course of conduct that overwhelms our earthly friends in calamity. Likewise we can only hate the sins that inflicted such woes on the best Friend of all. One of the chief glories of the plan of salvation is that while the plan makes possible the sinner’s justification through faith, it also provides powerful influences to produce in him a desire to obey.
The plan of righteousness by faith places law in its proper position. The function of law is to convict of sin (v. 20) and to reveal the great standard of righteousness. The sinner who is confronted with the law sees not only his sin; he sees also his lack of positive qualities. The law thus leads him to Christ and the gospel (Gal. 3:24). Then faith and love bring forth a new obedience to the law of God, the obedience that springs from faith (Rom. 1:5; 16:26), the obedience of love (ch. 13:8, 10).
It is on this question of the authority and function of God’s law that the final conflict will come in the great controversy between Christ and Satan. That it is now no longer necessary to give complete obedience to every precept of God’s law is the last great deception that Satan will bring upon the world (Rev. 12:17; 14:12; cf. DA 763).

 

[benidict]

I was just cleaning out my files in word perfect and ran across this from my commentary on Romans 3:31
Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

The law through faith. In the Greek, “law” stands without the article (see on 2:12). Paul has previously said that the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law (ch. 3:21) and that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law ( 28). Apparently realizing that these statements could lead to the mistaken idea that faith abolishes the principle of law, Paul raises this rhetorical question and answers it with an immediate and categorical denial. It is true that Paul “made void” the Jewish idea of law as a means of attaining righteousness and the Jewish insistence that the Gentiles must follow the same method (Acts 15:1; Gal. 2:16–19). But law in its true function is confirmed, rather than abrogated, by God’s appointed method of justifying sinners (see on Rom. 3:28).

**Establish the law. **Paul is emphasizing the place of law as a principle, and particularly, in the context of this chapter, as it is embodied in the revealed law of the OT . He has already spoken of the witness of the OT to the teachings that were soon to become known as the OT (v. 21). Now he asserts that law, viewed as a revelation of the holy will of God and of the eternal principles of morality, is fully vindicated and established by the gospel of righteousness by faith in Jesus Christ. Jesus came to this earth to magnify the law (Isa. 42:21; Matt. 5:17) and to reveal by His life of perfect obedience that Christians can, through the empowering grace of God, give obedience to His law. The plan of justification by faith reveals God’s regard for His law in demanding and providing the atoning sacrifice. If justification by faith abolishes law, then there was no need for the atoning death of Christ to release the sinner from his sins, and thus restore him to peace with God.
Moreover, genuine faith implies in itself an unreserved willingness to fulfill the will of God in a life of obedience to His law (see on Rom. 3:28). Real faith, based on wholehearted love for the Saviour, can lead only to obedience. The fact that Christ endured such suffering because of our transgression of God’s law is one of the strongest motives for obedience. We do not easily and readily repeat a course of conduct that overwhelms our earthly friends in calamity. Likewise we can only hate the sins that inflicted such woes on the best Friend of all. One of the chief glories of the plan of salvation is that while the plan makes possible the sinner’s justification through faith, it also provides powerful influences to produce in him a desire to obey.
The plan of righteousness by faith places law in its proper position. The function of law is to convict of sin (v. 20) and to reveal the great standard of righteousness. The sinner who is confronted with the law sees not only his sin; he sees also his lack of positive qualities. The law thus leads him to Christ and the gospel (Gal. 3:24). Then faith and love bring forth a new obedience to the law of God, the obedience that springs from faith (Rom. 1:5; 16:26), the obedience of love (ch. 13:8, 10).
It is on this question of the authority and function of God’s law that the final conflict will come in the great controversy between Christ and Satan. That it is now no longer necessary to give complete obedience to every precept of God’s law is the last great deception that Satan will bring upon the world (Rev. 12:17; 14:12; cf. DA 763).

who was the commentary written by richard? this would help us understand their slant. matthew henry wrote a huge commentary. big deal. it, like E.G. Whites commentaries, are nothing but the ramblings and musing of men,(and women). apparently her commentaries bind you though. as surely as the true authority given to us, bind me a Catholic. i will stick to the authority set up by Yeshua thank you very kindly. Peace oooh wait! i see it now! this little tidbit you offer us, is from Ellen too! let me guess? the great controversy? been years since i read it. do i get a prize?

 

[loneviking]

Truthfully, I’m beginning to wonder if the SDA are Christians. They all seem to either misinterpret, ignore, or reject, what Jesus has said and done and the keep reverting back to the OT. I don’t think they understand that the OT is over and done with and that there is a NEW and evelasting Gospel given us by God ( Jesus Christ ).

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

You’re right—they don’t understand nor do they agree that the OT is over and done with. In fact, that’s part of their flawed hermaneutic approach. Both the OT and NT are equal in terms of inspiration, but they are NOT equal in terms of authority…except to the SDA’s. And trying to make both the OT and NT say the same things is why they make such a mess out of Christianity. What they really are is modern day Ebionites.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

You’re right—they don’t understand nor do they agree that the OT is over and done with. In fact, that’s part of their flawed hermaneutic approach. Both the OT and NT are equal in terms of inspiration, but they are NOT equal in terms of authority…except to the SDA’s. And trying to make both the OT and NT say the same things is why they make such a mess out of Christianity. What they really are is modern day Ebionites.

Well, you obviously have not been reading the posts on this thread, or you would know that there is a big difference between the old and the new testaments, but there is no difference in the wording of the covenant, the ten commandments. The only diffeence is in WHO THE COVENANT IS WITH. The old covenant was made exclusively with the children of Israel. The new covenant is made with their representative, Jesus Christ. The law of the covenant is still binding, but now it is written on the heart and in the minds of the children of Israel, who are BELIEVERS in Jesus Christ. If you disagree with this I can again post the scriptures that bear it out.

What do you mean by this “Both the OT and NT are equal in terms of inspiration, but they are NOT equal in terms of authority”?

And what’s an “Ebionite”?

 

[loneviking]

Well, you obviously have not been reading the posts on this thread, or you would know that there is a big difference between the old and the new testaments, but there is no difference in the wording of the covenant, the ten commandments. The only diffeence is in WHO THE COVENANT IS WITH. The old covenant was made exclusively with the children of Israel. The new covenant is made with their representative, Jesus Christ. The law of the covenant is still binding, but now it is written on the heart and in the minds of the children of Israel, who are BELIEVERS in Jesus Christ. If you disagree with this I can again post the scriptures that bear it out.

What do you mean by this “Both the OT and NT are equal in terms of inspiration, but they are NOT equal in terms of authority”?

And what’s an “Ebionite”?

Post away, but don’t expect to change my mind. Remember, I’m a former SDA, third generation at that, 40 years in the church. I know why those Scriptures you post don’t say what you want them too.

The New Covenant was a covenant between the Trinity. The terms and conditions are not the same as that of the Mosaic covenant. If they had been, there would have been no need for the Apostle Paul and his writings.

What do I mean about the NT/OT difference? The NT brings to fruition and explains things that the OT only hinted about. The NT has teachings that the OT doesn’t and the two often can’t be reconciled.

 

[me_again]

You’re right—they [the SDAs] don’t understand nor do they agree that the OT is over and done with. In fact, that’s part of their flawed hermaneutic approach. Both the OT and NT are equal in terms of inspiration, but they are NOT equal in terms of authority…except to the SDA’s. And trying to make both the OT and NT say the same things is why they make such a mess out of Christianity. What they really are is modern day Ebionites.
Richard Kastner;6951015:

Well, you obviously have not been reading the posts on this thread, or you would know that there is a big difference between the old and the new testaments,

Richard, he has been reading your comments, as is evidenced by his commenting on them, but he simply disagrees with your [and Ellen White’s] SDA interpretations of the bible.

You are incorrectly assuming that if people disagree with your posts that they aren’t reading them. The vast majority of born again Christians vehemently disagree with you and Ellen White.

Very few people believe in the doctrines of the SDA and Jehovah Witnesses.

 

[benidict]

Well, you obviously have not been reading the posts on this thread, or you would know that there is a big difference between the old and the new testaments, but there is no difference in the wording of the covenant, the ten commandments. The only diffeence is in WHO THE COVENANT IS WITH. The old covenant was made exclusively with the children of Israel. The new covenant is made with their representative, Jesus Christ. The law of the covenant is still binding, but now it is written on the heart and in the minds of the children of Israel, who are BELIEVERS in Jesus Christ. If you disagree with this I can again post the scriptures that bear it out.

What do you mean by this “Both the OT and NT are equal in terms of inspiration, but they are NOT equal in terms of authority”?

And what’s an “Ebionite”?

your right richard. loneviking is ignorant because he left the SDA church. javl, me again, and myself, have views that are just silly, and irrelevant because they disagree with your views. your words not mine. this being the case, you are right and every one who disagrees with you is wrong. thank you for enlightening us. do you ever read your own post, and see the arrogant attitude you possess? oh well, i deal with worse on a daily basis. its ok, post your scriptures. but its getting redundant, pointing out how you take them out of context, and take out of context to whom they were written. feel free.

 

[benidict]

Here’s where we are commanded to keep the Sabbath.

Ex.20
8Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

The first books of the bible were written by Moses some 2,000 years before Christ. Jesus Himself called it the “Law and the Prophets”. And why wouldn’t we follow the bible? It is the WORD OF GOD. Jesus said

John 5:39
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Why wouldn’t you if you can attain eternal life by getting to know our Savior through His inspired word. Do you only do things if you absolutely have to Nicea.

1Jn.3
4Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Sin is the transgression of THE LAW. That would be the ten commandments.

Rom.6
12Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.

The word reign there means in a regal sense. In other words we should not let sin become the king of our bodies. Why?

Rom.6
16Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

I think this is pretty clear Nicea. If we sin we will DIE. If we are obedient, we will atain to the righteousness that was purchased for us on the cross.

so the command to keep the sabbath in the new testatment passages are where? nowhere. completely taken out of context once again. it like the older mennonites, they read do not wear a veil over your lip, and take it to mean they cant have a mustache. also do not trim the sides of your beard. they get this wrong too, just look at an orthodox Jew. they grow the side locks as prescribed by the law. do you do this richard? the law spoken of is more than just the ten. if you are going to follow the ten commandments perfectly, then you need to follow ALL the moral law. apparently for all her judgementalism, Ellen couldnt even control her lust for shellfish(forbidden) and fried chicken! (not healthy) for by which measure you judge, ye yourself shall be judged. something to think about hmmm?

 

[Javl]

Well, you obviously have not been reading the posts on this thread, or you would know that there is a big difference between the old and the new testaments, but there is no difference in the wording of the covenant, the ten commandments. The only diffeence is in WHO THE COVENANT IS WITH. The old covenant was made exclusively with the children of Israel. The new covenant is made with their representative, Jesus Christ. The law of the covenant is still binding, but now it is written on the heart and in the minds of the children of Israel, who are BELIEVERS in Jesus Christ. If you disagree with this I can again post the scriptures that bear it out.

What do you mean by this “Both the OT and NT are equal in terms of inspiration, but they are NOT equal in terms of authority”?

And what’s an “Ebionite”?

Ebionites were a heretical Christian sect infected with judaic errors. newadvent.org/cathen/05242c.htm. I’m surprised you know nothing of the early Christians and their heresies. The SDA is in the midst of them, or do you ignore/reject that too?

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem
Shalom Aleichem

 

[Javl]

You’re right—they don’t understand nor do they agree that the OT is over and done with. In fact, that’s part of their flawed hermaneutic approach. Both the OT and NT are equal in terms of inspiration, but they are NOT equal in terms of authority…except to the SDA’s. And trying to make both the OT and NT say the same things is why they make such a mess out of Christianity. What they really are is modern day Ebionites.

You are SO right!! I had forgetten about the Ebionites. They are a modern day version with the way they ignore Christ’s Law and Covenant and cling to the old Law and covenant and judaization. I’ll give you a double Gold Star for that one.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Javl]

Richard, he has been reading your comments, as is evidenced by his commenting on them, but he simply disagrees with your [and Ellen White’s] SDA interpretations of the bible.

You are incorrectly assuming that if people disagree with your posts that they aren’t reading them. The vast majority of born again Christians vehemently disagree with you and Ellen White.

Very few people believe in the doctrines of the SDA and Jehovah Witnesses.

I wonder if the SDA has dared to re-write the Bible as the Jehovahs Witnesses have done. Since a lot of the scripture postings done by these SDA reflect not only Ellen White’s “theology” but the Jehovahs Witnesses “theology” as well. By the way, I don’t have a Bible issued by the SDA church. Do you?