Info on SDA

[CatholicLover]

So he was correct when you quoted him, but possibly incorrect when I do? :ehh:

No, whether or not he is correct doesn’t matter. I only meant to show what he believed regarding Scripture.

Nope. It’s like asking someone to prove a prominent tenet of faith from the SOURCE of that faith. Especially when the tenet in question is that the source of the faith is the SOLE source.

Ok, as requested, some texts that support sola Scriptura:

1 Corinthians 4:6 reads when instructing on how to build a church “Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn** not to exceed what is written**, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.”

Luke 1: 1-4 reads, “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.”

Matthew 4: 1-11 tells the story of Jesus being tempted by the devil in the wilderness. Each temptation is refuted by Jesus saying “It is written”. Jesus does not fall back on the tradition of the Jews. He quotes from the Word of God.

I still believe it is up to the Catholic Church to show that the Scripture is not sufficient but these texts I think establish sola Scriptura as Biblical.

 

[RonTheNewJew]

as it is written in galatians. until Christ came, the law WAS our schoolmaster. not IS our schoolmaster. those things we are to follow, are given by the apostles. people like yourself and protestant 101, would have butted heads with the apostle Paul in a big way. we as gentile believers are not required to keep the law that was given to the Jews. Peter makes this perfectly clear in acts. we are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, meat with the blood still in it, and avoid fornification. if we do these things, we do well. James also writes along these lines. what is true religion. to visit the widow and the fatherless in their distress. and that means doing more than just a visit. we are to give relief. if the Adventist wish to follow a covenant that is based on rule keeping, then you are welcome too. but if you wish to do this, then you cannot follow only the 10. many of the proof text you offer are talking about the whole law. all 600 plus commandments. so i ask again. can you keep them? weve gone over this before. if you are going to do so, then you really need to change how you observe the Sabbath. you would be better off, joining with a messianic Jewish congregation, and converting. Peace

Ben,
I, as I’m sure you easily guessed by now, do agree with the other Protestants who have asked the simple question in one way or another, “Is there one Law for Jews and another for Gentiles” that Jesus, who was a Jew, died that Judeo-Christians would understand the deep spiritual nature of and keep in order to become like Jesus was, and hence gain His salvation?

When Paul said “There is neither Jew nor Greek” who are become “Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise made by God to Abraham. We all become grafted into God’s Olive Tree.” Said Jesus through the Apostle John in answer to the question: "How do we become of Abraham’s seed, He answered, “If you would become Abraham’s seed, then DO as Abraham did.” God said of Abraham: “Abraham kept My laws, My statutes and My ordinances.”

Paul clearly indicates that many of those (the ethnic Jews) to whom the Covenant was first given, “fell from the Olive Tree and are LOST.” Minus the animal sacrifices, the Temple and the earthly priesthood. the rest of Torah, with it’s statutes and judgements (which includes not only the weekly Sabbath, but the annual holy convocations (ie., the annual festivals and annual sabbaths with their history of deliverance of God’s people, but their prophetic themes as well.

As far as "the Law as a tutor, or teacher, we might recall that before Yeshua (Jesus) was born, the religious leaders of Israel were both the civil governing power as well as the religious dictums. There was no understood prophetic “grace,” per se. Punishment was decided mostly by the religious leaders, and carried out under their direction.

We now live under Christ’s grace and the process of sanctification which we have as a gift through faith in Jesus as Messiah. The process of sanctification is a gift of God through the Holy Spirit that was sent by Jesus the Messiah on Shavuot, the Feast of Weeks, or Pentecost, and has been with us ever since that day. The day now has not only significance because it reminds us of how God the Son sent the Spirit of the Lord to be with the Israelites as they made their brave escape from Egypt, but how we will yet be both justified and sanctified through the Holy Spirit if we invite Him into our lives as our guide. It’s done through prayer and humility one person at a time. Not accomplished in the corporate sense.

 

[RonTheNewJew]

To those who say that God gave the Catholic Church His "authority,"I would just say that God has not given over His authority to any human being, beings, or any form of organization. The Holy Spirit was given on the day, Shavuot, to be our guide as we progress through the daily justification and sanctification, both gifts from God to us. No human being, whatever he claims God gave to him, is capable of making changes in any way to His immutable Law. The Jews created NO Law. If we don’t believe that God gave it to the people then called Jews, then we must believe that the Jews gave it to us, and merely notified God of the law they gave themselves and were to pass on to the world. It is one or the other.

I believe that God gave the Law to the people of Israel to teach others about and to spread to the nations everywhere. The people of Israel were all sinners. Jesus was born an ethnic Jew so He could train up His disciples from among the ethnic Jewish people. This way, there would not be any changes to God’s worship calendar by anyone. When the apostles took the message of salvation through belief and trust in Jesus to the then known world, it was only approximately 150 years before the Goyim (former pagans) began to outnumber the believing ethnic Jews in Yeshua’s synagogue.

The Jews wanted the Christians to join them in fighting the pagan Romans, and, when the Christian Jews refused, along with the Goyim who had become Christians, to join the non-Christian Jews in that fight, the non-Christian Jews kicked the Christian Jews out of the synagogues. That is when the non-ethnic Jewish Christians began slipping away from the Torah teachings that Jesus had given the disciples and first Christians.

The problem then was not God’s Law. It was God’s first people and those they persecuted. The Jews were in the time of Jesus and His disciples and later His apostles just as stubborn and stiffnecked as they had been when Moses pled with God for their survival. That was when, in Exodus 34,that God made a covenant not like the one made with their fathers. That was the New Covenant, but it was not ratified with a blood sacrifice until Jesus told His disciples, “This is My blood of the New Covenant.” There was never another covenant and set of Laws given to anyone later on.

Exodus 34, the New Covenant was based on God’s promises to man. The covenant Israel broke when Moses was on top of Mt. Sinai receiving the Ten Commandments and then came down and found Israel had bowed down to an image of a calf, was based on man’s promise to God when man said: “All that the Lord has commanded we will do.” Big difference between the first and second covenants.

 

[CatholicLover]

Did not the Catholic Church exist for how many years prior to the invention of Sola Scriptura? Does not Scripture INCLUDE the mention of Tradition (hint: it does)

No, the Catholic Church did not exist before sola Scriptura. Certainly it did before it was called sola Scriptura but not before the belief. And you are correct that the Scripture does mention tradition:

Matthew 15: 3-6 - 3Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’[a] and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’** 5But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,’ 6he is not to ‘honor his father[c]’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

Colossians 2:8 - See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

It appears Jesus and his apostles had little regard for putting tradition equal to or ahead of God’s Word.

My apologies . What a difference a character makes. The verse intended was John 16:14. Here is the text:
The Father gives to Christ what Christ later gives to the Apostles, therefore establishing authority which was not mitigated or diminished in any way. I believe this constitutes fulfillment of your previous request, regarding authority to determine whether sola scriptura is valid, as well. (In addition to the previous remarks regarding the inclusion of Tradition in Scripture.)

The apostles then wrote down what Jesus taught them. That written Word is now in the Bible. If what the apostles taught was good enough for the salvation of so many of the first Christians, why isn’t it good enough for me? You have yet to justify why the teachings of the Catholic Church are to be held in such a lofty position.

Sola scriptura means, in essence, only that which is written down. Was all that Christ did and said in three years of public ministry written down? I think not. Go forth and preach means to disseminate all that was contained within His teachings. BIG difference. HUGE.

No, I doubt that everything he did was written down, you’re right. But if the apostles were told by Christ to teach do you believe they would have left out anything that was critical?

No, and I think you know that. Christ said to preach. Indicating, as you well know, that oral dissemination of Truth is equal to other forms of dissemination.

The oral truth of those close to Jesus were equal because it is their words contained in the New Testament.

I know you aren’t. You know how that works-extrapolate to the extreme.

Touche

But they weren’t all able to read. Anything that was written was hand copied. And there were quite a few things circulating that WEREN’T destined to become part of the NT. How did they distinguish between the two? By Oral Tradition.

I’d say that God protected his Word through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

But what they had at that point was NOT the bible. It wasn’t conceived yet. That means they had more to choose from than just the Bible, as it isn’t the entire Deposit of Faith, is it?
It is all that is needed for salvation, otherwise there will be alot of very disappointed Christians from the early Church.

Judging by the following, I’d say you acknowledge that it is not. So not all that Christ did was important? Did He not command, though, to Observe all that I have commanded you? How does that (Matt 28:20) reconcile with John 20:30? How can we do ALL that was commanded, if only part was written down? Christ didn’t say do only the important parts, or the parts that will be written down.

Matthew 28:20 - It’s not necessary to reconcile this text with John 20:30. See below.
John 20:30 - Is describing signs by Jesus that He was alive and still the Messiah. That fact had already been established by the previous signs recorded. Recording further signs would have been redundant.

I see you missed Thesselonians, which, incidentally, deals with tradition. It keeps popping up, doesn’t it! I’m interested to hear your thoughts on it. But that will have to wait til morning. Have a good night, CL.

Sorry, I missed 2 Thes 2:15 and 3:6. Again, they are talking about the apostles teaching early Christians. What the apostles taught was included in the Bible. It was enough for those early Christians and is enough for us. It should certainly be held above the teachings of others who so far removed from Jesus.**

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Exodus 34, the New Covenant was based on God’s promises to man. The covenant Israel broke when Moses was on top of Mt. Sinai receiving the Ten Commandments and then came down and found Israel had bowed down to an image of a calf, was based on man’s promise to God when man said: “All that the Lord has commanded we will do.” Big difference between the first and second covenants.

A pretty good synopsis of God’s plan of salvation. It’s interesting that in Jeremiah 31 the only distinction between the old and the new covenant is that in the new THE LAW is written on the minds and in the heart. Now I’m thinking that doesn’t mean 6 or 9 of the decalogue. It probably means all ten are written in the mind and on the heart. In Heb.10 we see that that is accomplished by the Spirit, through the sacrifice of Jesus.

Heb10
9Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
14For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
15Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
16This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
17And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

As it is noted hereafter the LAW is put in our minds and hearts by God’s Spirit. Our sins and iniquties will God remember no more. Jesus came to this earth to die for our sins. 1Jn.3:4 identifies sin as the transgression of the LAW. Jesus sacrifice would have been useless if we no longer have the law to impress upon us the fact that we are sinners and in need of a Savior.
As you note the first covenant (with the house of Israel) was flawed. They said “All that the Lord has commanded we will do.” We know that that covenant was flawed because within 40 days of God verbally confirming the ten commandments, the children of Israel had fallen. I believe that is because within this statement “All that the Lord has commanded we will do.” we find no provision for the working of God’s Spirit. The agrrogant implication is that They would do it themselves. Well that didn’t work then and unless the Spirit writes the law on our minds and in our hearts, it won’t work now. The new covenant instead of being with the whole nation of Israel is now with one man Jesus the Christ. And He says “Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.” It is only through Him that we are saved.

 

[me_again]

In the SDA sect, Ellen White said that those who worship on Sunday have received the Mark of the Beast.

Ellen White did not say that those who worship on Sunday have recieved the mark of the beast. That’s a lie

fabricated by me again.

Richard, it’s not a lie. Ellen Gould White claimed to have a vision where she claimed that those who “obey the Pope” by worshiping on Sunday have the Mark of the Beast. Here’s a cut-and-paste of what she wrote (the poor grammar is her own):

“I saw all that ‘would not receive the mark of the Beast, and of his Image, in their foreheads or in their hands,’ could not buy or sell. I saw that the number (666) of the Image Beast was made up; and that it was the beast that changed the Sabbath, and the Image Beast had followed on after, and kept the Pope’s, and not God’s Sabbath. And all we were required to do, was to give up God’s Sabbath, and keep the Pope’s and then we should have the mark of the Beast, and of his Image.”

You can read more about Ellen White’s loony visions and her loony writings here:
whiteestate.org/books/egwhc/EGWHCc18.html

Thank goodness that Ellen White’s own writing was cut-and-pasted here to prove that it’s not a lie.

Richard, not one of her so called phrophesies ever came true…why would this one? Remember the test of a a phrophet?
Richard Kastner;6870748:

This is not only her prophecy, it’s [also] in the bible.

Thank goodness that all this information is printed here for all the world to see because it exposes the SDA cult for what it is e.g. filled with heresies and false prophesies from their false prophetess**:** Ellen Gould White! Her so-called visions [sic] prove that she was demonically inspired.

 

[Protestant101]

Richard, your mincing words. Thank goodness that Ellen White’s own writing was cut-and-pasted here to prove that it’s not a lie e.g. Ellen White wrote that the “Mark of the Beast” encompasses those who worship on Sunday instead of Saturday.

Richard, it’s hard to fight against the pricks, isn’t it? You’ve committed your life to following a dead false prophet named Ellen Gould White.

her writings do say WILL encomapss, meaning in the future at a certain point in Bible Prophecy. None of her writings state that anyone receives this mark now.

 

[RonTheNewJew]

The sabbaths talked about in Col.2 were shadows (prophetic) yearly sabbaths. When Jesus came He completed the prophecy. The temple veil was torn from top to bottom and there was no more need for the prophetic sabbaths.The seventh day Sabbath is not a shadow of anything. It is a COMMANDMENT OF GOD.

But you do insist that Catholics keep the Sunday under penalty of sin. Thinking to substitute the sanctity of the Sabbath to the Sunday. Thereby attempting to usurp the power of God. The Sabbath is still the Sabbath of the Lord thy God that will never change. The laws of the old testament are the same laws of the new testament.

Your bishops have no authority to change a law of God.

Ya that’s the whole point of this discusion. While it is certainly ok to worship God on any day, you have no authority to change the sanctity of the day.

The bible warns against judging (condemning) because that is the sole perogative of God.

Matthew 7
1Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

But it encourages, no commands, us to make disserning righteous judgements.

1.Leviticus 19:15
Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.

1 Corinthians 6:2
Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

“Saturday is an arbitrary distinction” Now there’s an oxymoron if I ever head one. Saturday is the word used to designate the seventh day in the weekly cycle.

Not that hard you can look at just about any calender.

Ya, you see Maryroses all this is irrelevant. The fact is that if you are truly trying to keep the Sabbath day. then you are keeping the Sabbath day. See although the day is important. It is only used to find out to whom your allegiance is. Whether it is to the dictates of man (Sunday) or allegiance to God (Sabbath)

Colosians 2, 13 through 17 shows Paul speaking to a group of former pagans who had converted to Judeo-Christianity. He said that they “are uncircumcized in your (their) flesh.”
Definitely not former Jews as was thought by so many not so long ago.
The verse that refers to “ordinances which were against us,” is a complete misnterpretation of the Greek words, “chierrographonus dogmassen.” Those words mean, in fact, “the handwriting of accusations which was against us, and nailed them to His cross.” Thus, the Law of God remains, but Jesus died and rose on the third day of Passover and thus offered and offers us Justification intermingled with Sanctification, in which one first recognizes his sins when he sees God’s Law, asks Jesus to forgive him, and then asks for the Holy Spirit to come into his life and heart he cooperates with the Holy Spirit to work changes in his life and behavior.

The Everlasting Covenant’s Law becomes a “lamp unto my feet.” Psalms, 119.

The next verse which states Let no man judge you in name of meat nor drink, nor of the new moons or a feast day or the Sabbaton (seventh-day Sabbath) means that Paul’ new converts who had been former pagans who worshipped Ashteroth, Tammuz, Diana, etc. were beginning to be pressured by their pagan families and neighbors, etc. to return to the pagan practices. Paul exhorted them to stand firmly and follow the, as he said in another place, “traditions as I have delivered them unto you.” These were Passover, Pentecost (Shavuot), Trumpets, Yom Kipper, Sukkot, etc. The annual holy convocations and sabbaths had been infused by Jesus at Capernaum, and in Jerusalem with Messianic meaning. Paul and John and the rest continued teaching the Gentiles about the feast days, and the Messianic themes in each of them.

The next verse says of the new moons, the feast days and the seventh day Sabbath, that “these ARE shadows of things to come.” Not were shadows, but are shadows of things to come." KJV based on the Textus Receptus, not the Origen-doctored antecedents of the Deuiway version.

 

[Protestant101]

You interpretation ignores the rest of the statement, that such sabbaths and new moons were SHADOWS of things to come. Argue it with St. Paul!

Well; no need to argue with the Apostle - the Bible does not call the seventh-day sabbath a “shadow” anywhere. Did God bless a “shadow” when He made the seventh day?

Because of the limit on how many words can be posted in each post; I will make more than one post to respond to your post#673 My notes will be in blue fonts:

Originally Posted by Protestant101
Adventists do not teach that one day is “superior over another.” We teach what the Bible teaches; and the Bible only teaches “the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” “Sunday” cannot be found either in what you call “natural law.” The text in Col you quote does not say: “don’t keep the seventh day Sabbath of the Lord thy God;” it just says don’t let people judge you for doing so.

 

[Protestant101]

Saturday is an arbitrary distinction, based on local laws and culture, therefore a specific day cannot be the intention of the commandment, for it is not found in nature.

"The seventh day is found in every week; incluing the first week of creation; so yes, the sabbath is “found in nature.”

If you think its easy to identify the correct day of the week consider the following:

If you can count to seven; you should be able to “find” the Sabbath.

Adventists follow the dateline in keeping their sabbath.

Adventists in Kiribati go to church on their Saturday… even though at the same exact time on the same line of longitude a few hundred miles to the north, it is Friday in Hawaii and Adventists are hard at work preparing for their sabbath, which is still in the future.

Any attempt to ascertain the Biblical teaching on the time for beginning and ending the Sabbath ought to start from a study of the Fourth Commandment itself as found in . After all, the manner and the time of Sabbathkeeping ought to be reflective of the principles enunciated in the commandment itself.

It may be surprising to some to note that no specific instructions are given in the Fourth Commandment on the manner and time of Sabbathkeeping. The only injunction given is to “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy” by doing all one’s work in six days and by resting the seventh day “to the Lord your God.” Therefore, Catholics who charge Adventists with some quibblings about Adventists not really knowing the day have totally missed the main points of the Biblical text on the fourth commandment.

I have pointed this inconsistency out Many MANY times on this forum, no adventist wants to tackle this difficult problem of theirs.

Not true MarysRoses; I have been tackling this every time you do; and I have been doing it for a long time. Adventists are not scared to examine what we believe with others; atleast I am not.

Regarding the manner of keeping the Sabbath, the commandment does not offer, for example, any injunction to attend religious services on the Sabbath. Why? The reason may be found in the divine awareness of the plight of those believers who through the centuries have been prevented by sickness or circumstances from participating in a corporate religious service. Catholics who try to say that they “transferred the solemnity” of the Sabbath, meaning in part, the day of worship, do not have a Biblical leg to stand on; for once again, the Biblical text does not even say “You must go to church on Sabbath.” The Sabbath is much more than just a day of worship

The fourth commandment is for everybody, no matter what day they go to church, and no matter when the sun sets, or does not set in their area of the world. Regardless of the excuses offered; God’s Sabbath will always be “the seventh day.” If the Fourth Commandment had spelled out that the seventh-day Sabbath is to be observed everywhere on earth from sunset to sunset, then those believers who live in those northern regions, where at least for a time there is no sunset, would have felt guilty for beginning and ending the Sabbath according to a different criterion.

The absence, then, in the Fourth Commandment of specific instructions on the exact manner and time of Sabbathkeeping is indicative of divine wisdom in formulating a principle whose application could be adapted to different cultures and geographical locations. It is thus important to note at the outset that the method of observing the Sabbath from sunset to sunset, is dictated not by the Fourth Commandment itself, but by the method of sunset reckoning which became normative in Jewish history. And this is what the Church goes by in areas where there are questions about sunsets and datelines.

 

[Protestant101]

Evidently, this eternal, immutable law they like to talk about is easily changed by any civil government!

God’s law is never changed by any civil government. As I have said many times before on this forum; this is not a problem to Adventists at all; only to our opposers, such as yourself. God does not hold us to nit picky things such as the dateline confusion. In order to keep up with the solar cycle the calendar was changed once in October 1582, but it did not alter the weekly cycle. Ten dates were omitted from the calendar following October 4, 1582. What would have been Friday, October 5, became Friday, October 15. and so it is easy to see how that this change in the calendar did not actually change the days of the week or mix them up in any way.

And interestingly, there are both Catholics and Adventists living on Kiribati. According to a forum member who lives on Kiribati, a Catholic who has adventist relatives… both groups follow the local calendar. That means at the very same time…while SDA people on Kiribati are “keeping” the sabbath on Saturday, local time, Adventists just north of them in Hawaii are busily working on their Friday, local time, to get ready for their sabbath the “next” day. MarysRoses post#673

Near where I live here; there is a Catholic Church right beside our Adventist Church. It is actually quite a sight. On Sunday; we are busy working so there is not much chance to meet them and say hello; but then when we go to church on Sabbath; there’s not much chance to meet them either. But in both cases, we each respectively know which day it is each week. Catholics always know when it is Sunday; and we always know when it is Sabbath; or the seventh day.

The absence then, in the fourth commandment of specific instructions on the exact manner and time of Sabbath keeping is indicative of Divine Wisdom in formulating a principle whose application could be adapted to different cultures and geographical locations. Therefore, the problems you state, infact do not even exist.

 

[benidict]

Where does it say in the Bible that people who worship on Sunday have the mark of the beast???

it doesnt. nor is there any indication in prophecy, that toward the end of time, that sunday worship would be enforced and saturday worship illegal. who do we follow? Jesus, and the apostles who he gave authority to. who, knowing that Christ coming was a long time off set up a means of apostlic succession, so we would have that authority to this day? or do we follow a prophet, that has failed to pass the test of the prophets. hmmmm? not too hard a choice now my friend. is it? Peace

 

[me_again]

Ellen Gould White claimed to have a vision about those worshiping on Sunday (instead of Saturday) having the Mark of the Beast. Ellen White’s writing is cut-and-paste below as proof of her lunacy. The poor grammar is her own**:**

“I [Ellen Gould White] saw all that ‘would not receive the mark of the Beast, and of his Image, in their foreheads or in their hands,’ could not buy or sell. I saw that the number (666) of the Image Beast was made up; and that it was the beast that changed the Sabbath, and the Image Beast had followed on after, and kept the Pope’s, and not God’s Sabbath. And all we were required to do, was to give up God’s Sabbath, and keep the Pope’s and then we should have the mark of the Beast, and of his Image.”

You can read more about Ellen White’s loony visions and her loony writings here**:**
whiteestate.org/books/egwhc/EGWHCc18.html
Protestant101;6877245:

her writings do say WILL encompass, meaning in the future at a certain point in Bible Prophecy.

Ellen White is dead, but when she was alive, she was a fraud, a liar and a false prophet who led others astray, even as she has led you and other SDAs astray.

Ellen White’s lies are on par with Joseph Smith (Mormonism), Mary Baker Eddy (Church of Christ, Scientist) and other Protestant cult leaders.

 

[Protestant101]

Ellen White is dead, but when she was alive, she was a fraud, a liar and a false prophet who led others astray, even as she has led you and other SDAs astray.

Ellen White’s lies are on par with Joseph Smith (Mormonism), Mary Baker Eddy (Church of Christ, Scientist) and other Protestant cult leaders.

As you wish; I suppose. But you have just been kind enough to link to one of many of her articles which proves what I said to be correct. She has made it very clear that no one can possibly receive this “mark” NOW for this mark can only be received at a specific point in the future of Bible prophecy.

Yesterday; I was talking to an Anglican who keeps a copy of The Great Controversy in his car to read during his spare time. He thinks it is a great book, and very Christ-centered. He, and the Pastor of the Presbyterian Church that I was at both called it “strong meat,” but they both thought it was well written. I have had Catholics, who are open-mined to the truth also say the same thing to me.

This book points to Jesus as our Savior during a time of persecution marked in Bible prophecy by all kinds of “beast” symbols and actions. On page 622 we can read: “we must now aquaint ourselves with God by proving His promises.” Her major interest, even in this book, is to point to Jesus as the One who will lead us through all the tough times predicted in Bible prophecy.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

The verse that refers to “ordinances which were against us,” is a complete misnterpretation of the Greek words, “chierrographonus dogmassen.” Those words mean, in fact, “the handwriting of accusations which was against us, and nailed them to His cross.”

Since I do not know Greek. I must rely on the Blue Letter Bible lexicon for my interpretation. In the BLB it has for “handwriting” “cheirographon” which means

1. a handwriting, what one has written by his own hand
2. a note of hand or writing in which one acknowledges that money has either been deposited with him or lent to him by another, to be returned at the appointed time

And for “ordinances” it has “dogma” which means

1. doctrine, decree, ordinance
   a) of public decrees
   b) of the Roman Senate
   c) of rulers
2. the rules and requirements of the law of Moses; carrying a suggestion of severity and of threatened judgment
3. of certain decrees of the apostles relative to right living

So, according to the BLB the interpretation for Col.2: 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; is pretty accurate. This however is not talking about the ten commandments. There is nothing in the ten commandments that was against us. And since the only barometer that we have to show us that we are sinners is the decalogue Jesus cerrtainly would not have done away with them. And He says as much in
Matt.5;17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Thus, the Law of God remains

The Decalogue remains. The laws of types and shadows that were against us, are nailed to the cross.

but Jesus died and rose on the third day of Passover and thus offered and offers us Justification intermingled with Sanctification, in which one first recognizes his sins when he sees God’s Law, asks Jesus to forgive him, and then asks for the Holy Spirit to come into his life and heart he cooperates with the Holy Spirit to work changes in his life and behavior.

Sure, justification is the instantanious responce of God to the truly repentant sinner. In other words the grace of salvation that Jesus paid such a dear price for is attributed to the repentant sinner instantaneosly when with a contrite and broken heart we cry out to the Lord. “Have mercy on me a sinner”. Sanctification is the lifelong process of becoming more and more like Jesus. That is accomplished through the study of the word.
Jn.17: 17Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

The Everlasting Covenant’s Law becomes a “lamp unto my feet.” Psalms, 119.

Amen!

The next verse which states Let no man judge you in name of meat nor drink, nor of the new moons or a feast day or the Sabbaton (seventh-day Sabbath) means that Paul’ new converts who had been former pagans who worshipped Ashteroth, Tammuz, Diana, etc. were beginning to be pressured by their pagan families and neighbors, etc. to return to the pagan practices. Paul exhorted them to stand firmly and follow the, as he said in another place, “traditions as I have delivered them unto you.” These were Passover, Pentecost (Shavuot), Trumpets, Yom Kipper, Sukkot, etc. The annual holy convocations and sabbaths had been infused by Jesus at Capernaum, and in Jerusalem with Messianic meaning. Paul and John and the rest continued teaching the Gentiles about the feast days, and the Messianic themes in each of them.

The next verse says of the new moons, the feast days and the seventh day Sabbath, that “these ARE shadows of things to come.” Not were shadows, but are shadows of things to come." KJV based on the Textus Receptus, not the Origen-doctored antecedents of the Deuiway version.

My commentary has this.
The type of sabbath under consideration is shown by the phrase “which are a shadow of things to come” (Col. 2:17). The weekly Sabbath is a memorial of an event at the beginning of earth’s history (Gen. 2:2, 3; Ex. 20:8–11; PP 48). Hence, the “sabbath days” Paul declares to be shadows pointing to Christ cannot refer to the weekly Sabbath designated by the fourth commandment, but must indicate the ceremonial rest days that reach their realization in Christ and His kingdom (see Lev. 23:6–8, 15, 16, 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 37, 38).
17. Which are a shadow. This phrase is the key to the understanding of v. 16. All the items the apostle lists in v. 16 are “shadows,” or types, symbolizing the reality that is Christ. A shadow has no substance; it is cast by something substantial. Compare the use of the word “shadow” in Heb. 8:5 and 10:1. The Jewish ceremonies were shadows cast by heavenly realities. Christ’s life, ministry, and kingdom are the reality. The portrayal of this in the ceremonial law was only the shadow.
On this passage Albert Barnes, Presbyterian commentator, well observes:
“There is no evidence from this passage that he [Paul] would teach that there was no obligation to observe any holy time, for there is not the slightest reason to believe that he meant to teach that one of the ten commandments had ceased to be binding on mankind. … He had his eye on the great number of days which were observed by the Hebrews as festivals, as a part of their ceremonial and typical law, and not to the moral law, or the ten commandments. No part of the moral law—no one of the ten commandments could be spoken of as ‘a shadow of good things to come.’ These commandments are, from the nature of moral law, of perpetual and universal application.”

 

[me_again]

Yesterday; I was talking to an Anglican who keeps a copy of The Great Controversy [a book by Ellen White] in his car to read during his spare time. He thinks it is a great book, and very Christ-centered. He, and the Pastor of the Presbyterian Church that I was at both called it “strong meat,” but they both thought it was well written. **I have had Catholics, who are open-mined to the truth also say the same thing to me. **

And in Adventism, openness to Ellen White is openness to the truth, right? LOL :banghead:

Please watch the following 3-minute youtube and then see if you’re open to the truth**:**

youtube.com/user/RealCatholicTV#p/u/11/2Dcfj0PU_JQ

 

[Protestant101]

And in Adventism, openness to Ellen White is openness to the truth, right? LOL :banghead:

LOL, no. Not always. But please, don’t bang ur head too hard against that wall.

Please watch the following 3-minute youtube and then see if you’re open to the truth**:**

youtube.com/user/RealCatholicTV#p/u/11/2Dcfj0PU_JQ

Well; this fellow in the video is very entertaining; maybe even a bit theatrical. I enjoyed listening to him; but there was nothing in this video clip to establish as truth what he was saying. He really just re-capped what forum members here have told me years ago. I guess you are having a struggle explaining why my last three posts are not true? It’s OK. God works in each one of us at His speed, not our’s.

 

[Protestant101]

Ellen White is dead, but when she was alive, she was a fraud, a liar and a false prophet who led others astray, even as she has led you and other SDAs astray.

I’m sure that if I were to say these same kinds of things about your Pope, that I would either get an infraction, or an eviction from the forum moderators. Take care & may God continue to bless…

 

[Javl]

Once again:

We know Jesus to be the God of the Old Testament ( Jn 1:1-3). As such, He is the author and giver of the Law to the Jews, of which the Decalogue is a part. Therefore, as God, He has also given the Apostles the power and authority to “bind and loose” on earth and it will be so in Heaven ( Matt.16:19 ). Under this power and authority, through and from the Apostles, the primitive Church “loosed” the obligation of Saturday Sabbath worship and “bound” Sunday as “the Lord’s Day”, the Christian Sabbath. This is also so in Heaven, as per Jesus’ words. Christians are not under any obligation to keep Saturday as the Sabbath, but they are under obligation to keep Sunday as "the Lord’s Day ( the Christian Sabbath ).

Through misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the scriptures ( sola scriptura ), the SDA insist that the only Sabbath is Saturday and will reject the above explanation. Doing so is to deny and reject Jesus’ words which they do to their own detriment.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[me_again]

Ellen White is dead, but when she was alive, she was a fraud, a liar and a false prophet who led others astray, even as she has led you and other SDAs astray.

Ellen White’s lies are on par with Joseph Smith (Mormonism), Mary Baker Eddy (Church of Christ, Scientist) and other Protestant cult leaders.
Protestant101;6880191:

I’m sure that if I were to say these same kinds of things about your Pope, that I would either get an infraction, or an eviction from the forum moderators.

The Pope never called Ellen Gould White a whore, BUT Ellen White did say that the Catholic Church is a whore – and that is a lie.