Info on SDA (continued)

[Richard_Kastner]

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.

I don’t want scripture to say anything other than what it says.

The New Covenant was a covenant between the Trinity.

So God made a covenant with himself. Ok

The terms and conditions are not the same as that of the Mosaic covenant.

What’s the difference and where do we find this spelled out?

If they had been, there would have been no need for the Apostle Paul and his writings.

What does Paul have to do with the covenant?

What do I mean about the NT/OT difference? The NT brings to fruition and explains things that the OT only hinted about.

Such as?

The NT has teachings that the OT doesn’t and the two often can’t be reconciled.

Such as?

Ok, you said
“Both the OT and NT are equal in terms of inspiration, but they are NOT equal in terms of authority”

I get the inspiration part, but what do you mean " they are NOT equal in terms of authority"?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

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.

So me you going to comment on this post?

Quote:
Originally Posted by me again
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).

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]

Richard Kastner

The NT has teachings that the OT doesn’t and the two often can’t be reconciled.

Such as?

Ok, you said

“Both the OT and NT are equal in terms of inspiration, but they are NOT equal in terms of authority”

I get the inspiration part, but what do you mean " they are NOT equal in terms of authority"?

The authority for the OT is from the Mosaic Law. The Authority for the NT is from Jesus Christ. I am very surprised that you did not know or realize this since it is so obvious.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Richard_Kastner]

The authority for the OT is from the Mosaic Law. The Authority for the NT is from Jesus Christ. I am very surprised that you did not know or realize this since it is so obvious.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Javl the ten commandments, Mosaic law, are from Jesus. I’m surprised you didn’t know that

 

[Javl]

Javl the ten commandments, Mosaic law, are from Jesus. I’m surprised you didn’t know that

Yes, I know that Jesus is the God of the OT. I’m trying to show the difference in authority.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Yes, I know that Jesus is the God of the OT. I’m trying to show the difference in authority.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

What would that difference be in your opinion?

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
And nowhere in the Bible do we find that Christ or the Apostles COMMANDED that Christians must WORSHIP on Saturday.

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.

Oh Richard,the Sabbath was made by God for who? THE JEWS! Jesus by the way resurrected SUNDAY,not Saturday!

You cannot have it both ways Richard! It is a dead horse issue and SDA are wrong and will always be wrong! Ellen is a false prophet.

Quote:
And nowhere in the Bible do we find that Christ or the Apostles COMMANDED that Christians must only follow the Bible…a compiled book not in existence until centuries later!

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.

---

U-huh and before Moses there was NO BIBLE Richard! Tell me what Bible did Abraham use?

God is NOT A BOOK! Christianity did not evolve from a book…go learn history.

 

[Nicea325]

Javl the ten commandments, Mosaic law, are from Jesus. I’m surprised you didn’t know that

And what commandment by God gave women like Ellen G.White and thousands of others to go start their own church? Where is that commandment Richard?

I am suprised you didn’t know that? Show me the commandment by Jesus were He gave individuals the authority to found thousands upon thousands different churches and I’ll will join the chaos of Protestanism? Better yet,I’ll start my own church.

 

[benidict]

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?

im pretty sure they use the kjv, niv, etc. just like the rest of their protestant brethren javl. they just twist is to say what they want it to say. no different than any other protestant sect. the difference is in their doctrines. the scapegoat doctrine, and the cleansing of the sanctuary, are twisted to meet Ellens view of things. they whole heartedly go along with these. also the doctrine of soul sleep. you have to ignore scripture, or add to scripture, to come to the conclusions that SDA do. this includes their view of the sabbath. where some people or groups are sabbatarian, ie seventh day baptist, etc. the SDA takes it to a whole new level, by stating that anyone who worships on sunday is in danger of receiveing the mark of the beast :bigyikes: which along with their other unique doctrine, they cannot prove through scripture, without doing some fantastic theological gymnastics. their views of daniel and revelation ignore many of the historical fulfillments of these books. Peace

 

[loneviking]

Benedict and Javl, the SDA’s use the same Bible as everyone else. What makes SDA’s so unique and hard to talk to is the way that they read the Bible. The way that they approach the Bible is unique among all of the Protestants. Let me put my old SDA hat on and take you on a tour of one belief that shows how this approach works. In brief, the SDA approach is coming to a text with a presupposition, and then going from that assumption to another proof text that looks like it fits and then repeating the process all over again.

So, lets assume you’ve been to a Revelation Seminar (the usual method of evangelizing is by way of a seminar on the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation–which is a perfect place to persuade someone that this method works.) Then you read how E.G. White said that the best diet is a vegetarian one, and you also read that unclean meats are not to be eaten. So, you ask your SDA friend to explain this to you. Here’s about how it would go:

In the beginning, God created man and gave man the diet he was designed for. You can read what that diet is in Gen. 1:29—every herb bearing seed, and every fruit of the trees. So, the original diet was vegetarian and that is what God designed us to eat.

Later, because of sin, God was forced to adapt that command. After the flood, in Gen. 9:3God says

‘Every moving thing that that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things’.

Now be careful here, as God is only talking about all things that are clean. Even in Noahs time, the distinction between clean and unclean was present. Look at Gen. 7:2 in which God commands Noah to take seven of every clean beast; and two of every unclean beast. So, the command that every moving thing shall be meat for you can only apply to the clean beasts.

God made sure that the Isrealites understood this diet by carefully laying out in the law of Moses what to look for in a clean or unclean animal. That is Leviticus, chap. 11 which ends with verse 47 saying:

‘To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten, and the beast that may not be eaten’.

This diet is still observed and is part of a prophecy centuries later in Hosea 9:3 which prophesies that

‘Ephraim shall return to Egypt; and they shall eat unclean things in Assyria’.

Some Christians like to say that Jesus said that what you eat can’t defile you. The point to Matt. 15:17 where Christ says that

‘whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the sewer’…

But, if you look at v. 20 you can see that the issue is defilement not with food, but by whether you washed your hands or not. As Galatians 4:4 says

‘but when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law’

.
God would not go contrary to His own law and tell someone that you could eat pork or any other unclean food.

Other Christians will refer over to Acts. 10:11-16 where Peter has a vision of a sheet filled with all kinds of creatures, both clean and unclean. Three times Peter is told to kill and eat, three times Peter refused—just as he was supposed to if the dietary law was still in place. In fact, Acts 10:28 tells us exactly what the issue was:

'Ye know how that it is an unlawful thingt for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean’.

Now if God had also shown Peter that he could eat anything—why didn’t Peter mention that fact?

And likewise, in 1 Cor. 10:25, when Paul says that you can go to the ‘shambles’ (another word for meat market) and** ‘eat, asking no question for conscience sake’**, you can’t just stop there. 1 Cor. 10:28 tells us what the real issue is

‘But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it’.

Paul is in no way advocating eating clean or unclean meat here. The issue is clean meats that were being offered to idols!

So, there is no reason for the Christian to be out there eating pork and shrimp and all the other unclean things. There is no difference between a Jewish stomach and that of a Gentile. Got it?

(So, Benedict and Javl, just pass those horrible, grilled pork chops down to me and I’ll take them outside and dispose of them, saving your eternal souls from hell )
See—that’s how the SDA’s prove things to you. Presuppostion read into proof text after proof text…

 

[Javl]

im pretty sure they use the kjv, niv, etc. just like the rest of their protestant brethren javl. they just twist is to say what they want it to say. no different than any other protestant sect. the difference is in their doctrines. the scapegoat doctrine, and the cleansing of the sanctuary, are twisted to meet Ellens view of things. they whole heartedly go along with these. also the doctrine of soul sleep. you have to ignore scripture, or add to scripture, to come to the conclusions that SDA do. this includes their view of the sabbath. where some people or groups are sabbatarian, ie seventh day baptist, etc. the SDA takes it to a whole new level, by stating that anyone who worships on sunday is in danger of receiveing the mark of the beast :bigyikes: which along with their other unique doctrine, they cannot prove through scripture, without doing some fantastic theological gymnastics. their views of daniel and revelation ignore many of the historical fulfillments of these books. Peace

Yep, and here I thought that the Jehovahs Witnesses were weird. Besides their holding the writings and teachings of Ellen White above the Scriptures, which they deny but is so evident in their comments and posts, they reject the teachings and truths of Jesus. This too they deny, but just read their posts and the way they interpret the OT and NT.

Also, besides the Sabbath and “soul sleep”, they also believe that Jesus was once the archangel Michael! Talk about misunderstanding, misinterpeting, and distorting scripture! Sheesh! Now, I wonder who stole from who? The Jehovahs Witnesses also hold these same beliefs as do the SDA. I think Ellen stole from Charles, or is it the other way around? It suprises me that the SDA didn’t rewrite the Bible too ( as did the JW’s ) so as to support and legitimize their “theology”.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Javl]

Benedict and Javl, the SDA’s use the same Bible as everyone else. What makes SDA’s so unique and hard to talk to is the way that they read the Bible. The way that they approach the Bible is unique among all of the Protestants. Let me put my old SDA hat on and take you on a tour of one belief that shows how this approach works. In brief, the SDA approach is coming to a text with a presupposition, and then going from that assumption to another proof text that looks like it fits and then repeating the process all over again.

So, lets assume you’ve been to a Revelation Seminar (the usual method of evangelizing is by way of a seminar on the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation–which is a perfect place to persuade someone that this method works.) Then you read how E.G. White said that the best diet is a vegetarian one, and you also read that unclean meats are not to be eaten. So, you ask your SDA friend to explain this to you. Here’s about how it would go:

In the beginning, God created man and gave man the diet he was designed for. You can read what that diet is in Gen. 1:29—every herb bearing seed, and every fruit of the trees. So, the original diet was vegetarian and that is what God designed us to eat.

Later, because of sin, God was forced to adapt that command. After the flood, in Gen. 9:3God says

Now be careful here, as God is only talking about all things that are clean. Even in Noahs time, the distinction between clean and unclean was present. Look at Gen. 7:2 in which God commands Noah to take seven of every clean beast; and two of every unclean beast. So, the command that every moving thing shall be meat for you can only apply to the clean beasts.

God made sure that the Isrealites understood this diet by carefully laying out in the law of Moses what to look for in a clean or unclean animal. That is Leviticus, chap. 11 which ends with verse 47 saying:

This diet is still observed and is part of a prophecy centuries later in Hosea 9:3 which prophesies that

Some Christians like to say that Jesus said that what you eat can’t defile you. The point to Matt. 15:17 where Christ says that But, if you look at v. 20 you can see that the issue is defilement not with food, but by whether you washed your hands or not. As Galatians 4:4 says
.
God would not go contrary to His own law and tell someone that you could eat pork or any other unclean food.

Other Christians will refer over to Acts. 10:11-16 where Peter has a vision of a sheet filled with all kinds of creatures, both clean and unclean. Three times Peter is told to kill and eat, three times Peter refused—just as he was supposed to if the dietary law was still in place. In fact, Acts 10:28 tells us exactly what the issue was:
.

Now if God had also shown Peter that he could eat anything—why didn’t Peter mention that fact?

And likewise, in 1 Cor. 10:25, when Paul says that you can go to the ‘shambles’ (another word for meat market) and** ‘eat, asking no question for conscience sake’**, you can’t just stop there. 1 Cor. 10:28 tells us what the real issue is

Paul is in no way advocating eating clean or unclean meat here. The issue is clean meats that were being offered to idols!

So, there is no reason for the Christian to be out there eating pork and shrimp and all the other unclean things. There is no difference between a Jewish stomach and that of a Gentile. Got it?

(So, Benedict and Javl, just pass those horrible, grilled pork chops down to me and I’ll take them outside and dispose of them, saving your eternal souls from hell )
See—that’s how the SDA’s prove things to you. Presuppostion read into proof text after proof text…

Oy Vey iss mia! I’m not supposed to eat pork chops? I though Peter said that God said I could. I guess I made a boo-boo. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Now I have to go to confession. I just spent my SS check buying a side of pork!!! OY!

( Thank you very much for this information. I’d put this in the same category as adding to the scriptures. )

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[benidict]

Yep, and here I thought that the Jehovahs Witnesses were weird. Besides their holding the writings and teachings of Ellen White above the Scriptures, which they deny but is so evident in their comments and posts, they reject the teachings and truths of Jesus. This too they deny, but just read their posts and the way they interpret the OT and NT.

Also, besides the Sabbath and “soul sleep”, they also believe that Jesus was once the archangel Michael! Talk about misunderstanding, misinterpeting, and distorting scripture! Sheesh! Now, I wonder who stole from who? The Jehovahs Witnesses also hold these same beliefs as do the SDA. I think Ellen stole from Charles, or is it the other way around? It suprises me that the SDA didn’t rewrite the Bible too ( as did the JW’s ) so as to support and legitimize their “theology”.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

yes, i had forgotten about michael the archangel thing. the jws stole this from the Adventist. heres the problem with that though. when Jesus was tempted in the desert, he rebuked satan to his face. the archangel michael on the other hand did not have this authority, as evidenced by the book of jude. he had to say the Lord rebuke you. also if they believe Jesus was the archangel, then they believe that Jesus was a created being. therefore, they cannot hold to the trinitarian doctrine. therefore they cannot be known as Christians. Peace

 

[benidict]

Benedict and Javl, the SDA’s use the same Bible as everyone else. What makes SDA’s so unique and hard to talk to is the way that they read the Bible. The way that they approach the Bible is unique among all of the Protestants. Let me put my old SDA hat on and take you on a tour of one belief that shows how this approach works. In brief, the SDA approach is coming to a text with a presupposition, and then going from that assumption to another proof text that looks like it fits and then repeating the process all over again.

So, lets assume you’ve been to a Revelation Seminar (the usual method of evangelizing is by way of a seminar on the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation–which is a perfect place to persuade someone that this method works.) Then you read how E.G. White said that the best diet is a vegetarian one, and you also read that unclean meats are not to be eaten. So, you ask your SDA friend to explain this to you. Here’s about how it would go:

In the beginning, God created man and gave man the diet he was designed for. You can read what that diet is in Gen. 1:29—every herb bearing seed, and every fruit of the trees. So, the original diet was vegetarian and that is what God designed us to eat.

Later, because of sin, God was forced to adapt that command. After the flood, in Gen. 9:3God says

Now be careful here, as God is only talking about all things that are clean. Even in Noahs time, the distinction between clean and unclean was present. Look at Gen. 7:2 in which God commands Noah to take seven of every clean beast; and two of every unclean beast. So, the command that every moving thing shall be meat for you can only apply to the clean beasts.

God made sure that the Isrealites understood this diet by carefully laying out in the law of Moses what to look for in a clean or unclean animal. That is Leviticus, chap. 11 which ends with verse 47 saying:

This diet is still observed and is part of a prophecy centuries later in Hosea 9:3 which prophesies that

Some Christians like to say that Jesus said that what you eat can’t defile you. The point to Matt. 15:17 where Christ says that But, if you look at v. 20 you can see that the issue is defilement not with food, but by whether you washed your hands or not. As Galatians 4:4 says
.
God would not go contrary to His own law and tell someone that you could eat pork or any other unclean food.

Other Christians will refer over to Acts. 10:11-16 where Peter has a vision of a sheet filled with all kinds of creatures, both clean and unclean. Three times Peter is told to kill and eat, three times Peter refused—just as he was supposed to if the dietary law was still in place. In fact, Acts 10:28 tells us exactly what the issue was:
.

Now if God had also shown Peter that he could eat anything—why didn’t Peter mention that fact?

And likewise, in 1 Cor. 10:25, when Paul says that you can go to the ‘shambles’ (another word for meat market) and** ‘eat, asking no question for conscience sake’**, you can’t just stop there. 1 Cor. 10:28 tells us what the real issue is

Paul is in no way advocating eating clean or unclean meat here. The issue is clean meats that were being offered to idols!

So, there is no reason for the Christian to be out there eating pork and shrimp and all the other unclean things. There is no difference between a Jewish stomach and that of a Gentile. Got it?

(So, Benedict and Javl, just pass those horrible, grilled pork chops down to me and I’ll take them outside and dispose of them, saving your eternal souls from hell )
See—that’s how the SDA’s prove things to you. Presuppostion read into proof text after proof text…loneviking. your help here is a godsend, and indespensable. your inside information is just what we need. it is very very good to have you here. i think someone higher had a hand in sending you to this thread. Peace and grace to you and yours.

 

[me_again]

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?

The SDAs have a re-written bible called The Clear Word Bible. Do a google search on that term and you’ll get multiple hits on it. It’s been rewritten to give credence to Ellen White’s beliefs in Jewish sabbath keeping on Saturday, the soul sleep heresy, the SDA 1844 investigative judgment, etc.

 

[me_again]

I don’t want scripture to say anything other than what it says.

The Clear Word Bible has been rewritten to conform to the heresies of Ellen White. But you knew that.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

The Clear Word Bible has been rewritten to conform to the heresies of Ellen White. But you knew that.

All the quotes I use have been from the KJV.

 

[loneviking]

The Clear Word Bible has been rewritten to conform to the heresies of Ellen White. But you knew that.

The Clear Word Bible was a personal project of one man. The SDA church wasn’t behind what he was doing. Adventism has a really good grapevine and folks found about the translation he had done and the book sales took off.

The New World translation was a project of the Watchtower Society. Without that translation, JW’s have a very hard time proving their doctrine.

SDA’s though, don’t need the Clear Word Bible to prove their point. As I said, they use all of the usual translations and quite a few use the KJV exclusively.

 

[loneviking]

loneviking. your help here is a godsend, and indespensable. your inside information is just what we need. it is very very good to have you here. i think someone higher had a hand in sending you to this thread. Peace and grace to you and yours.

Thank you Benedict. I just hope I truly can shed some light on SDA’s. You find 'em on just about every internet forum and they really puzzle and frustrate a lot of Christians. One important point that goes along with my post is that many SDA’s use that system of proving their beliefs honestly. They don’t do it maliciously, they truly see that as the only approach that makes sense and they also have a prophet that agrees with that approach. That’s why arguing Scripture with an SDA just doesn’t work—they have a system that seems to work and they don’t understand why you don’t see the logic of it!

If you ask most former SDA’s what it takes to get an SDA to really listen, it will either be:

1. The SDA is tired of the cognotive dissonance (the contradictions that crop up from the approach that they use) or
2. The SDA is spiritually starving because there are questions they have that they can’t answer using the SDA approach to Scripture.

Without a spiritual crisis to get their attention, most SDA’s will not be bothered at all by any of your arguments.

 

[Javl]

yes, i had forgotten about michael the archangel thing. the jws stole this from the Adventist. heres the problem with that though. when Jesus was tempted in the desert, he rebuked satan to his face. the archangel michael on the other hand did not have this authority, as evidenced by the book of jude. he had to say the Lord rebuke you. also if they believe Jesus was the archangel, then they ( have to ) believe that Jesus was a created being. therefore, they cannot hold to the trinitarian doctrine. therefore they cannot be known as Christians. Peace

That’s probably one of the reasons why they haven’t pushed it on us. If they believe it and push that “doctrine” then they’ll really be a non-Christian cult. It’s bad enough that they’re so adament and persistent in propagating their heresies.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem