Info on SDA (continued)

[me_again]

The following question was direct to Richard Kastner, but he won’t mind if another person jumps in. :doh2:

Also, do you follow the other old testament commands? Stoning idolators and fornicators, abstaining from unclean foods, etc?

Yes, many SDAs follow the Old Testament command to abstain from unclean meats. The deeper one goes into Adventism, the more rigid their eating standards become. New SDA candidates are first introduced to eating only clean meats, under the SDA belief that unclean meats are unhealthy to eat, as is prescribed by the Old Testament to the Jews.

As a candidate goes deeper into Adventism, he or she will be encouraged to abstain from meats entirely because their prophetess (Ellen Gould White) said that in the last days, the meat supply will become polluted and will become extremely unhealthy to eat (both clean and unclean meats). Many Adventists become totally vegan by completely abstaining from all animal products, to include fish, eggs, milk, etc.

Before Jesus was crucified, He ate lamb, as was the Jewish custom at passover. After Jesus rose from the dead, He ate fish to demonstrate to his disciples that He is flesh and blood – and not an ethereal spirit. Ellen White and other Adventist conveniently omit these dietary tidbits.

Adventism has an entire branch that is devoted exclusively to producing canned and frozen meatless products that look and taste like meat. It has been speculated that some of the unique ingredients in these products may be responsible for a higher incidence of cancer amongst Adventists, though there are no correlative studies to corroborate it.

Regarding stoning Saturday sabbath breakers, an Adventist will answer that one for our inquiring audience.

:tiphat:

 

[CatholicLover]

I see no condescensioon and it is no longer a debate but an arguement and prosylization by the SDA. I have tried to present my side of the story civilly but I keep getting told it is wrong and I am sinning. In other words I am being judged. I try and try to explain but I am insulted and vilified time and again. I have apologized but it seems apologies mean nothing. When you SDA resume the exchange of information without being judgemental,and listen, then, and only then, will we accomplish what is supposed to be taking place.

It is strange that I do not have this problem with any other Protestant or cultic, only with the SDA.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

It hasn’t been my intent to proselytize here, there are certainly more receptive audiences for that. It’s been my pleasure to discuss doctrine in this thread. A person asserting his views during the course of a debate should be expected. In a debate each side at the beginning thinks the other is wrong. In a religious debate, when a person is wrong he is likely also sinning whether knowingly or not. It’s a safe bet to think that each of us thinks the other is wrong and therefore sinning to some extent. I suppose that is judgemental but again, it should be expected.

 

[CatholicLover]

CatholicLover;6905346:

Zwingli was only one among other 16th century reformers whose own bible interpretations on the Body and Blood of Christ were in error. How about you believing the words coming from the mouth of Jesus Christ himself?: “I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my

flesh for the life of the world." “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.” (Jn 6) No less than 4 times our Lord repeated himself about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, how many times do you need before you believed? How about Paul warning those who eat Jesus’ flesh or drink his blood unworthily bringing judgment upon themselves? Why would Paul warn them if these were merely symbols? Bringing judgment on symbols? (1 Cor 11:27-29). Early fathers wrote extensively about the Body and Blood of Jesus to be truly his own – 1st century vs. 16th century writers. Who would you believe?

When Jesus spoke the words “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life” in John 6:63 he is speaking directly about the bread and wine. The spirit gives life, not the flesh. The bread and wine represent Jesus’ words. I think this verse is very clear. What else would Jesus mean here?

 

[Javl]

It hasn’t been my intent to proselytize here, there are certainly more receptive audiences for that. It’s been my pleasure to discuss doctrine in this thread. A person asserting his views during the course of a debate should be expected. In a debate each side at the beginning thinks the other is wrong. In a religious debate, when a person is wrong he is likely also sinning whether knowingly or not. It’s a safe bet to think that each of us thinks the other is wrong and therefore sinning to some extent. I suppose that is judgemental but again, it should be expected.

I try not to debate or argue. I try to dialogue. I am interested in finding out about the other person’s belief,religion, and why. I, in turn, give my reasons, etc. for mine and then take it from there. I try my darndest not to be judgemental, but so far with the SDA ( you may be an exception ), I have been judged as being in sin by disobeying God’s commandment. I have tried to explain why I believe I’m not but it has fallen on deaf ears. If you have read my posts, you know the rest.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

This is just a way of saying from month to month.

Yeah, I know, I was being moderately facetious.

Isaiah 66

22For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.
23And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.
24And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.

This whole chapter is dealing with the last days of earth and shortly after Jesus comming.
The answer to your question can be found in v. 24 that v. is saying that the Sabbath keepers, which is everyone, “shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me:” What does “transgressed against me” mean?

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

It’s sin, So the righteous go out to view the dead carcasses of those that have transgressed against God. Since these people are only Sabbath keepers, they are looking at the carcasses of those that violate the Sabbath command as well as all the other commandments. I don’t know I just think that I would prefer to be one of the ones viewing rather than one of those viewed.

I cant disagree, those who “transgress against me” are sinners. What is the SDA view of salvation? Are you guys OSAS? Because otherwise, Romans 5:12, Romans 7:
5 For when we were in the flesh, the passions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members, to bring forth fruit unto death.
6 But now we are loosed from the law of death, wherein we were detained; so that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? God forbid. But I do not know sin, but by the law; for I had not known concupiscence, if the law did not say: Thou shalt not covet.
8 But sin taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9 And I lived some time without the law. But when the commandment came, sin revived,
10 And I died. And the commandment that was ordained to life, the same was found to be unto death to me.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, seduced me, and by it killed me.
12 Wherefore the law indeed is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
13 Was that then which is good, made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it may appear sin, by that which is good, wrought death in me; that sin, by the commandment, might become sinful above measure.
14 For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin.

So if you keep the sabbath it gains you nothing as far as Isaiah, since “I am carnal, sold under sin.”

I try. As far as stoning people, I think the police would froun on that practice. And we are to obey the laws of the land. As far as clean and unclean. Yes, I keep those laws.

Why? Matthew 23:25-26, and

9 And on the next day, whilst they were going on their journey, and drawing nigh to the city, Peter went up to the higher parts of the house to pray, about the sixth hour.
10 And being hungry, he was desirous to taste somewhat. And as they were preparing, there came upon him an ecstasy of mind.
11 And he saw the heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending, as it were a great linen sheet let down by the four corners from heaven to the earth:
12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts, and creeping things of the earth, and fowls of the air.
13 And there came a voice to him: Arise, Peter; kill and eat.
14 But Peter said: Far be it from me; for I never did eat any thing that is common and unclean.
15 And the voice spoke to him again the second time: That which God hath cleansed, do not thou call common.
16 And this was done thrice; and presently the vessel was taken up into heaven.

By the way Isaiah 66 has something to say about this too.

Isaiah 66
16For by fire and by his sword will the LORD plead with all flesh: and the slain of the LORD shall be many. (Fire is symbolic of judgement and you probably know what “his sword” means.)

Heb.4
12For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

So, the people of God will be using the word of God to try and bring people back to keeping the commandments.

17They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine’s flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.

Those that eat unclean food will be consumned along with the other transgressors.

Then why did God tell Peter to kill and eat that which was unclean according to the levitical laws?

More to come…
FSC

 

[CatholicLover]

From what I know and understand, Mathew was translated into Greek from the Aramaic strictly for the Hellenized (Greek ) Jews. This information should be available in any Bible concordance.

Please understand that I am presenting these items as facts in our dialogue. I am not arguing them.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

There does seem to be some debate on this topic but the fact is, the earliest text known is in Greek. You can only be speculating on the use of the word Cephas in the original writing. Further, if we are speculating, it seems to me that if the original writing had been in Aramaic and was subsequently translated into Greek, the Greek translation would not contain the play on words Petros and petra unless there were a similar play on words in the Aramaic text.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

So, you don’t know which day to fulfill your weekly mass obligation? Of coarse you do. It’s Sunday the day after Saturday which is the Sabbath day. Man has come up with all kinds of excuses not to do what God wants him to do. That doesn’t change a thing. The fact is that God along with all the physical things of the universe was creating the days. And the morning and eveningwere of the first day, second day etc. But the only ONLY one of these days that He blessed and sanctified was the seventh day Sabbath.

Genesis 2
1Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Ex.20
10But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God

That day is Saturday. lol, semantic issue here, but the seventh day depends entirely on what day you start your week. If I decided to start my week on a monday, then SUNDAY would be my sabbath THat does not change the fact that Christians, since the time of the Apostles have celebrated the Sabbath on the first day, so in essence here you are accurate, but still wrong in your premise.

Luke 23
52This man went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus.
53And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid.
54And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on.
55And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid.
56And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.
Luke 24
1Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.

As these vs. show.

God created man on the sixth day. The very next day he who is the HE you are referring to, I am confused here entered Jesus’ rest. This implies much more than simply resting. It implies fostering a relationship with your God. When you say "It doesn’t matter which day you use for the Sabbath. You are in effect saying that God’s blessing doesn’t matter.

Absolutely not. What we are saying is that God made the sabbath for man, not man for the sabbath. BUT, I will concede that you have a good point.

Do you think that you can keep the spirit of the law and not keep the letter? How do you do that?

Romans 7:6.

Isaiah 66

22For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.
23And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.
24And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.

So Isaiah is mistaken?

No, we are saying that you are mistaken in your assumption here.

Galations Chapter 2

16 But knowing that man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ; we also believe in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

What is your understanding of Justification, Salvation, Faith, Works, etcetera?

Seriously, are you a plant? You are really good at this. WAY better than your average joe protestant on the Catholic site. If so, props on the courage to come to an apologetics site and attempt to evangelize/proselytize. I respect that.

FSC

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

There does seem to be some debate on this topic but the fact is, the earliest text known is in Greek. You can only be speculating on the use of the word Cephas in the original writing. Further, if we are speculating, it seems to me that if the original writing had been in Aramaic and was subsequently translated into Greek, the Greek translation would not contain the play on words Petros and petra unless there were a similar play on words in the Aramaic text.

Do not show your hubris so readily. To assume that they would not have included Petros Petra (which, btw, is NOT a play on words) unless it was in aramaic is just prideful. Its like saying “I wouldnt have done it so neither would they”.

Do I need to explain the Petros petra issue? Or can we just assume that you know the difference and move on?

C/Kephas is aramaic for Rock. One word, used to rename Simon. that whole name change issue. Is that something we should get into on this thread or could you just look that up on other threads?

FSC

 

[CatholicLover]

I would suggest to you that Sunday was a day to Worship God not to preach. They gathered on Sunday to share Euchrist.

That’s an interesting suggestion but that’s not what the text says. The text says they met on Sabbath and Paul preached on Sabbath.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Zwingli was only one among other 16th century reformers whose own bible interpretations on the Body and Blood of Christ were in error. How about you believing the words coming from the mouth of Jesus Christ himself?: “I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world." “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.” (Jn 6) No less than 4 times our Lord repeated himself about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, how many times do you need before you believed? How about Paul warning those who eat Jesus’ flesh or drink his blood unworthily bringing judgment upon themselves? Why would Paul warn them if these were merely symbols? Bringing judgment on symbols? (1 Cor 11:27-29). Early fathers wrote extensively about the Body and Blood of Jesus to be truly his own – 1st century vs. 16th century writers. Who would you believe?

When Jesus spoke the words “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life” in John 6:63 he is speaking directly about the bread and wine. The spirit gives life, not the flesh. The bread and wine represent Jesus’ words. I think this verse is very clear. What else would Jesus mean here?

Perhaps he meant "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.”

But its ok, this is hard teaching who can believe it? Do you choose to be one of those who abandoned Christ at the end or do you wish to be one of those who, like Peter, accept that Christ has the words of life, to whom shall we go?

FSC

 

[RonTheNewJew]

It also says from one new moon to another, do you hold services on each new moon?

And if it is referring to the new jerusalem, what is your reasoning behind doing it NOW instead of THEN (which is not to say that I am condemning the practice, simply trying to understand your reasons/understanding).

Also, do you follow the other old testament commands? Stoning idolators and fornicators, abstaining from unclean foods, etc?

FSC

I hope neither of you minds me saying a word or two about the subject of “new moons,” and the Sabbath. The interesting thing to me is that both Catholic and Adventist mention these two festivals (the Sabbath is one of God’s “feasts” as listed in Exodus 34 where the New Covenant is laid out by God through Moses. See KJV), albeit wih intentions to challenge the practices of the other in regard to the Sabbath vs. Sunday issue.

Getting back to the Everlasting Covenant, outlined in the text mentioned above, one might well call God’s description of His feasts, the entire Sabbath feast, thematically covered by each of the annual feasts listed. Passover (feast of unleavened bread), has a past, and at that time, future, and now still has a future meaning, given by Christ at the last Seder celebration as described in Luke 22-23. If we celebrate “the Lord’s Supper” as most Christians do today, then it seems it should be celebrated just as Jesus and His disciples did. That, however, is not the case today. Much meaning is lacking because so much of the Seder is left out. The meal covers the entire plan of salvation, from start to finish.

Thus, as Paul said in Colossians 2, vs. 17, “new moons, feast days which are marked by the new moon for purposes of knowing when the Passover and other days are to be kept, and the Sabbaton (the weekly seventh day Sabbath/Shabbat)-are shadows of things to come.” He was talking about a time in the future here on earth before Christ returns.

The feast of weeks (Shavuot/Pentecost) presents a very special time of celebration of the giving of the Holy Spirit. Alo it isa tie of caring and sharing with the poor, the stranger, the widows, and parenless children. Another theme for the weekly Sabbath study and worship. The Holy Spirit is to be prayed for by Jesus’ followers.

Feast of Trumpets (Yom Tarouha) represents (is a “shadow”) of the soon coming time when the Trumpet of God is sounded, announcing the very soon coming of Jesus. It will announce the giving of the what some call, “Elijah Message.”

Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), the time of soul searching and cleansing of the heart in concert with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot), the second coming of Jesus (Yeshua, the Messiah)…Home at last.

The statutes and judgements, which are partially described above, are part of the religion that Jesus died to graft us into, in part, because the ethnic Jews were not very faithful to the deep spiritual meanings of the religion that God patiently gave them. Greed and lust for money and power are the great destroyers of man’s heart.

His religious days and ways are not subject to changes, or elimination by either denomination. Nor any others. But even keeping the above days will not, because the days and readings and prayers cannot, save anyone. It is both the mind, and also the heart in contrition, gifts of the Holy Spirit of God.

Shalom in Jesus

 

[Richard_Kastner]

That day is Saturday. lol, semantic issue here, but the seventh day depends entirely on what day you start your week. If I decided to start my week on a monday, then SUNDAY would be my sabbath THat does not change the fact that Christians, since the time of the Apostles have celebrated the Sabbath on the first day, so in essence here you are accurate, but still wrong in your premise.

It doesn’t matter which day YOU start your week. The Lord did not bless any other day but the seventh day and that day is Saturday. Read on.

Luke 23
52This man went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus.
53And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid.
54And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on.
55And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid.
56And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.
Luke 24
1Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.

God created man on the sixth day. The very next day he (who is the HE you are referring to, I am confused here) entered Jesus’ rest.

Man.

This implies much more than simply resting. It implies fostering a relationship with your God. When you say "It doesn’t matter which day you use for the Sabbath. You are in effect saying that God’s blessing doesn’t matter.

Absolutely not. What we are saying is that God made the sabbath for man, not man for the sabbath. BUT, I will concede that you have a good point.

What do you mean “Absolutely not” It is a total trampling on the blessing of God.

Quote:
Do you think that you can keep the spirit of the law and not keep the letter? How do you do that?

Romans 7:6.

Let’s do 6&7

Rom.7
6But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
7What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

See Fides There crept into the Jewish minset that men could earn there salvation by keeping the law. Well we know or should know that you can’t earn the free gift of grace that is salvation. I mean it wouldn’t be a gift then would it? Rom. seven is pretty much a rebuttal of this mindset. In other words. We are not under the law as a means of salvation, but that does not mean that the law has been done away with. Ask yourself a couple of questions here. 1) Why did Jesus come to this planet? It was to save us from our sins right? 2) What is the law for? Paul answers this question in v.7 The law shows us that we are sinners. See without the law there is no sin and therefore there is no need for a savior. The law is absolutely vital to our salvation. Because if we do not acknowledge the fact that we are sinners and in NEED of a savior, we have no hope.

No, we are saying that you are mistaken in your assumption here.

What assumption? I merely posted Isaiah 66:22-24

What is your understanding of Justification, Salvation, Faith, Works, etcetera?

A little much for this thread that is comming to a close. Maybe somewhere else.

Seriously, are you a plant? You are really good at this. WAY better than your average joe protestant on the Catholic site. If so, props on the courage to come to an apologetics site and attempt to evangelize/proselytize. I respect that.

FSC

Peace.

 

[benidict]

I had assumed you were talking about the Seventh Day Sabbath when you asked the question. It wasn’t very specific and I did post to ask which doctrines you were asking about. Again, there were obviously no SDA writers prior to 1800s. I’m not sure what your point is here. Are you pointing out that the SDA understanding of these things is unique? Or are you implying that the person who writes their beliefs down the most often over the longest period of time is right. Perhaps both?

If you want to debate the scapegoat doctrine or cleansing of the sanctuary I’d be happy to do it. But let’s talk about content and the differences between Adventist and Catholic belief rather than trying to score cheap points asking questions you already know the answer to that are not relevant to the discussion anyway.

oh i think these points are very relevant. we are talking about an unbroken line that can be traced back to the apostles, and Christ. the adventist have stated that their teachings are all biblically based, and that they can be traced back to the time of the apostles. when the facts are, they cannot trace any of their unique beliefs, including their view of the sabbath, beyond the supposed visions of E.G. White. to state that you are the Church Christ founded, is very relevant. you have not stated this, but others have. if i have to, i will go back and find these quotes. the sabbath view you believe is that anyone who does not worship on this particular day, will at some point recieve the mark of the beast. this view was NEVER taught before E.G. Whites supposed visions. not by the apostles, not by the early Church fathers, not by anyone. you cannot defend the scapegoat doctrine, since that is a figment of imaginiation on the the part of your prophetess too. to come to the cleansing of the sanctuary doctrine you really have to deny alot of historical fulfillments to to daniel, and you really have to do some serious gymnastics biblically. these are not cheap shots. you still have not been able to give me ONE author who expounded Adventist teaching before the 1800s. if what the SDA teaches is correct, we would see authors all the way back expounding these beliefs. i can give you the answer though. the answer is ZERO. no SDA teachings prior to the 1800s. the burden is on you to produce them. Peace :coffeeread:

 

[benidict]

I and others have shown you time and again where you are wrong but you refuse and reject it. You keep coming up with your interpretation and perversion of scripture and keep claiming that it is the only correct interpretation, even though myriads of theologians and scholars disagree with you. You insist that you and you alone know best.

And truthfully, I agree with you. I don’t care what you and the other SDA think of me either.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

javl my brother. the only reason i am still on this thread, is not for the people we are debating. its because of the private messages i have been receiving from folks who are never going to post on this thread. believe me, we are having more influence than you know. so stick to your guns. others we dont see are depending on you. Peace

 

[benidict]

Do you see the condescension in your posts? This thread while once interesting and civil is becoming a sarcastic and insulting excercise in chest bumping.

The topics in this thread are certainly worthy of discussion and debate but shouldn’t it be civil discussion and reasoned debate?

so sorry… cant help myself. im a soldier, and im kind of like a shark when they smell blood in the water… might i suggest you try to develope a sense of humor? trust me, your going to need it if you ever debate a fundamentalist baptist… i have. and unlike debating with you folks, that really can get nasty. i rather have a vegitarian pizza with a Seventh Day Adventist, than have steak dinner, with some other fundamentalist i know…oh thats right, i have had dinner with Adventist before. it was chinese. very good. anyhow apologies if you were offended. im not going to let up, but i will try not to sound too sarcastic. Peace

 

[benidict]

Someone else aptly noted that he has never seen anyone change their mind as a result of an internet discussion.

Ellen White was unequivocally a false prophetess who lied to people, such as when she promised the Second Coming of Christ to her followers and told them that they would be translated instead of seeing death. They are all dead now.

It should be remembered that the devil is the father of lies and he is more crafty and adept at lying than his spiritual offspring. He was crafty enough to seduce Eve into bringing the entire human race down to his level of sin. He was also crafty enough to tantalize and seduce Ellen White with his lies, false doctrines and misinterpretations of the Word of God, which is exactly what he did with Eve when he quoted the scriptures to her. Today, the devil quotes the scriptures through Adventist lens.

Many SDA followers do not yet realize that they are part of a greater demonic plan to seduce humanity with lies and false doctrines. Out of the integrity of their hearts, many of them are deceived – and it is only the Holy Spirit that can awaken them out of the gooey demonic honey that thickens with the addition of false doctrines. Insulting an Adventist only perpetuates their mis-perception that they are or will be martyrs i.e. they have a martyrs complex e.g. Ellen White taught that the Pope will initiate a persecution of Adventist who go to church on Saturday.

The sweetness of the devil’s doctrine that was presented to Eve seemed right to her. The sweetness of the devil’s doctrine that was presented to Ellen White seemed right to her. There have been many spiritual casualties since those events, all borne of the devil.

This is a spiritual battle that cannot be won with wits or humor.

oh yes me again! and i just thought of something else.(the lack of beer, and the sand seem to agree with me) anyhow. if E.G. White had been a prophetess in the the nation of israel back during the time of say…Joshua. she would have been stoned for her false prophecies. no ifs ands or buts. thats what the law called for, if a prophet got it wrong. stoning. heres my take. there was religious hyteria that swept through the north east. some would call it rivival, i would call that period of history a mess. anyhow, 3 groups came out of this upheaval. the Adventist, the Mormons, and the Jehovas witnesses. two of these groups instrumental founders were tied in with masonry. that would be the Mormons, and the Adventist. Charles taze russell actually had some dealings with the adventist, and took some of their ideas, when HE “discovered” the true meaning of the bible. but he was not tied into any fraternal organiztions that we are aware of. this is the result when there is spiritual chaos in an area. many come saying I AM HE, and deceive many. we were warned by the Lord that in the last days false prophets would arise and deceive many. these are 3 such instances. now if i see 2 in jerusalem preaching and calling down fire…well, thats a different story. if we are to take that literally. since i left the baptist, im not much into prophecy anymore. i prefer to learn to live in the here and now, and how to serve God and my neighbor, so i can prepare for the world to come. whenever that is. all i know is if 1000 years more go by, the Catholic Church will still be here. will the Adventist? doubtful. because just around the corner gets real old after awhile. Peace

 

[loneviking]

As I’ve followed this thread it occurs to me that so often the posters are so far down in the weeds that they can’t see the big picture. The big picture, when it comes to SDA’s and the problems with their viewpoints is this:

1. SDA’s refuse to acknowledge that the way in which God works here on this earth change.
2. SDA’s have a very inconsistent and flawed hermaneutic.

For example, SDA’s refuse to acknowledge that the way in which God works changes and that God can make something sacred, and then remove the sacredness from the object.

Two examples of this—the old Jewish temple. At one time, the Most Holy Compartment was so sacred that if anyone other than the high priest entered, then death was the result. At Christs death, the curtain dividing the holy from the most holy place was ripped in two and death has not resulted from entering this compartment for the last two thousand years.

Another example, is the Day of Atonement. This was a high Sabbath; it was to be observed in the same manner and with the same penalty as the weekly Sabbath. And yet, I don’t see SDA’s still observing the Day of Atonement. Why? It was done away with—Christs’ atonement was what the Day of Atonement pointed towards and that arrived with the cross. The weekly Sabbath pointed to the true rest needed by mankind, and likewise a weekly Sabbath on Saturday is no longer a requirement.

You also need to understand SDA hermaneutics. They go right back to William Miller who wrote out fifteen proofs that the world would end in 1844. The hermaneutic he used seems to work pretty good when you’re dealing with subjects that are vague or ambigous–such as prophecy.

As you can see, this approach doesn’t work so well in cases like Isaih 66 with the references to the Sabbath and the New Moon. These references are to be taken in a Jewish context (that’s the subject audience and the writer is Jewish); and the references are two very common ways that the Jews had to tell time. The week was tracked by the Sabbath; the month by the New Moon. But the SDA hermaneutic can’t allow for this as it destroys their contention that the Sabbath will be observed in the New Earth—just as the Millerites had to invent excuses as to why the gospel text that said of Christs’ return ‘of that day and hour knoweth no man’ could not mean what it so clearly stated.

SDA’s have a flawed approach to Scripture (and was proven flawed when nothing happened in 1844) which is compounded by the error of believing EGW’s writings, and even worse putting them on a par with Scripture. It’s a cultic approach, and all you Catholics are going to do is waste your time trying to argue with them!

 

[benidict]

As I’ve followed this thread it occurs to me that so often the posters are so far down in the weeds that they can’t see the big picture. The big picture, when it comes to SDA’s and the problems with their viewpoints is this:

1. SDA’s refuse to acknowledge that the way in which God works here on this earth change.
2. SDA’s have a very inconsistent and flawed hermaneutic.

For example, SDA’s refuse to acknowledge that the way in which God works changes and that God can make something sacred, and then remove the sacredness from the object.

Two examples of this—the old Jewish temple. At one time, the Most Holy Compartment was so sacred that if anyone other than the high priest entered, then death was the result. At Christs death, the curtain dividing the holy from the most holy place was ripped in two and death has not resulted from entering this compartment for the last two thousand years.

Another example, is the Day of Atonement. This was a high Sabbath; it was to be observed in the same manner and with the same penalty as the weekly Sabbath. And yet, I don’t see SDA’s still observing the Day of Atonement. Why? It was done away with—Christs’ atonement was what the Day of Atonement pointed towards and that arrived with the cross. The weekly Sabbath pointed to the true rest needed by mankind, and likewise a weekly Sabbath on Saturday is no longer a requirement.

You also need to understand SDA hermaneutics. They go right back to William Miller who wrote out fifteen proofs that the world would end in 1844. The hermaneutic he used seems to work pretty good when you’re dealing with subjects that are vague or ambigous–such as prophecy.

As you can see, this approach doesn’t work so well in cases like Isaih 66 with the references to the Sabbath and the New Moon. These references are to be taken in a Jewish context (that’s the subject audience and the writer is Jewish); and the references are two very common ways that the Jews had to tell time. The week was tracked by the Sabbath; the month by the New Moon. But the SDA hermaneutic can’t allow for this as it destroys their contention that the Sabbath will be observed in the New Earth—just as the Millerites had to invent excuses as to why the gospel text that said of Christs’ return ‘of that day and hour knoweth no man’ could not mean what it so clearly stated.

SDA’s have a flawed approach to Scripture (and was proven flawed when nothing happened in 1844) which is compounded by the error of believing EGW’s writings, and even worse putting them on a par with Scripture. It’s a cultic approach, and all you Catholics are going to do is waste your time trying to argue with them!

you are a God send! where have you been all our lives? could you perhaps give a brief testamony on how you came out of the SDA church? Peace and Grace to you and yours

 

[benidict]

That’s an interesting suggestion but that’s not what the text says. The text says they met on Sabbath and Paul preached on Sabbath.

:hypno: really? from a reading of acts, it looks like they met every day. and celebrated the Eucharist together every day. also on sunday, they were to bring what they were going to give to the poor. Catholics still meet every day to share the Eucharist, and still have a poor box. why do the Adventist not meet every day of the week, and break bread as the apostles did? after all, we want to be biblical. yes? not to mention, that Paul would take any opportunity to preach. sabbath or not. it got so late one night, that a young man fell asleep, fell off the roof. the Apostles did not limit themselves to ONE day. Peace

 

[Richard_Kastner]

1. SDA’s refuse to acknowledge that the way in which God works here on this earth change.

Malachi 3:6
For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

Hebrews 13:8
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

1. SDA’s have a very inconsistent and flawed hermaneutic.

For example, SDA’s refuse to acknowledge that the way in which God works changes and that God can make something sacred, and then remove the sacredness from the object.

Two examples of this—the old Jewish temple. At one time, the Most Holy Compartment was so sacred that if anyone other than the high priest entered, then death was the result. At Christs death, the curtain dividing the holy from the most holy place was ripped in two and death has not resulted from entering this compartment for the last two thousand years.

Aside from th fact that the temple has not been in existance for 1970 of those 2000 years and no one has entered it at all, you as a former SDA display a surprising ignorance of God’s plan. At Christ’s death when the veil was ripped from top to bottom, it symbolised the fulfillment of what the sanctuary was set up to show in the first place. The Lamb of God had taken the place of the animal sacrifices on earth and had made atonement for us in heaven.

Heb10
18Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
19Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
20By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

What did the veil symbolise?

Isaiah 59
1Behold, the LORD’s hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear:
2But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.

Jesus made it possible to enter the most holy place and be in the presence of the most holy God without the fear of death. Because Jesus has covered us with His righteousness.
He has made atonement for our sins. The veil of our sins has been ripped asunder by the cross.

Another example, is the Day of Atonement. This was a high Sabbath; it was to be observed in the same manner and with the same penalty as the weekly Sabbath. And yet, I don’t see SDA’s still observing the Day of Atonement. Why? It was done away with—Christs’ atonement was what the Day of Atonement pointed towards and that arrived with the cross.

This is exactly right. Ron the New Jew has pointed out that perhaps this feast and the others still needs to be celebrated, without the animal sacrifices. So, what do you see as being changed?

The weekly Sabbath pointed to the true rest needed by mankind, and likewise a weekly Sabbath on Saturday is no longer a requirement.

So, you think that God removed His blessing from the Sabbath?
Gen.2
3And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
Why would He do that? And Where do you find this change?

You also need to understand SDA hermaneutics. They go right back to William Miller who wrote out fifteen proofs that the world would end in 1844. The hermaneutic he used seems to work pretty good when you’re dealing with subjects that are vague or ambigous–such as prophecy.

As you can see, this approach doesn’t work so well in cases like Isaih 66 with the references to the Sabbath and the New Moon. These references are to be taken in a Jewish context (that’s the subject audience and the writer is Jewish); and the references are two very common ways that the Jews had to tell time. The week was tracked by the Sabbath; the month by the New Moon. But the SDA hermaneutic can’t allow for this as it destroys their contention that the Sabbath will be observed in the New Earth

Isaiah 66:2For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.

It’s quite obvious that Isaiah 66 is not talking exclusively to or about the Jews, but about “him that is poor and of a contrite spirit” and indeed in v. 3He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog’s neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine’s blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations.

Says that the things that the Jews once did in thier sanctuary would now be considered an abomination. For the simple fact that these things had been done away with by Jesus’ sacrifice, the fulfillment of the prophetic reason for the sanctuary in the first place.