Info on SDA

[Javl]

The year when Jesus was crucified, Passover began on a Friday, Nisan 15, starting at sundown, Thursday evening. The third day of Passover is when Jesus was resurrected. The following year, the “third day” would have come on a different day than today’s Sunday. Passover comes on a different day each year.

And so does Easter, which all Christians celebrate, it comes on a different date each year. Jesus’ resurrection was on the first day of the week, a Sunday. Therefore all Christians ( except for Adventists ) keep Sunday holy as the Lord’s day since Jesus rose from the dead on that day. It actually has nothing to do with passover.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom haMeshiach

 

[Richard_Kastner]

And so does Easter, which all Christians celebrate, it comes on a different date each year. Jesus’ resurrection was on the first day of the week, a Sunday. Therefore all Christians ( except for Adventists ) keep Sunday holy as the Lord’s day since Jesus rose from the dead on that day. It actually has nothing to do with passover.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom haMeshiach

Are you seriously saying that Passover has nothing to do with the death and resurrection of Jesus?

 

[adrift]

Are you seriously saying that Passover has nothing to do with the death and resurrection of Jesus?

What has nothing to do with Passover is Sunday observation as a holy day. He wasn’t saying that it had nothing to do with the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Therefore all Christians ( except for Adventists ) **keep Sunday holy **as the Lord’s day since Jesus rose from the dead on that day. It actually has nothing to do with passover.

 

[RonTheNewJew]

The year when Jesus was crucified, Passover began on a Friday, Nisan 15, starting at sundown, Thursday evening. The third day of Passover is when Jesus was resurrected. The following year, the “third day” would have come on a different day than today’s Sunday. Passover comes on a different day each year.

But, if the Ten Commandmens are, as you say they are (and I agree with you that they are), then that means that the Sabbath Command is also binding on man, just as it was under what you call the Covenant between God and Israel. The only problem is that Jesus,the Testator who, once slain as propitiation for sin, did not change any of His Father’s Law before He sacrificed Himself (took out place on the cross). That is why Jesus’ New Covenant was carried forward because He was the first and only sacrifice made to ratify the Covenant described in Exodus 34.

Peter was not set free to change the unchangeable Law of God. Jesus never changed it. He kept it and told His followers and disciples to do the same and teach others to do the same. The Holy Spirit is one with the Father and the Son. Schma Israel: The Lord, our God, is One. When we become followers of Jesus,we become followers of what Jesus called (as repeated by John, the Revelator in Rev. 2, vs. 9, “the True Jew.” The word, “Jew” means “one who praises God.” Jesus praises His Father. If we follow His examples while He was here on earth, as He commanded us to do, we will do the works He did because He did the works of His Father Who had sent Him.

One Lord, one Law, one sacrifice for sin, both before and after the cross, and one salvation.

Shalom

 

[adrift]

But, if the Ten Commandmens are, as you say they are (and I agree with you that they are), then that means that the Sabbath Command is also binding on man, just as it was under what you call the Covenant between God and Israel. The only problem is that Jesus,the Testator who, once slain as propitiation for sin, did not change any of His Father’s Law before He sacrificed Himself (took out place on the cross). That is why Jesus’ New Covenant was carried forward because He was the first and only sacrifice made to ratify the Covenant described in Exodus 34.

Peter was not set free to change the unchangeable Law of God. Jesus never changed it. He kept it and told His followers and disciples to do the same and teach others to do the same. The Holy Spirit is one with the Father and the Son. Schma Israel: The Lord, our God, is One. When we become followers of Jesus,we become followers of what Jesus called (as repeated by John, the Revelator in Rev. 2, vs. 9, “the True Jew.” The word, “Jew” means “one who praises God.” Jesus praises His Father. If we follow His examples while He was here on earth, as He commanded us to do, we will do the works He did because He did the works of His Father Who had sent Him.

One Lord, one Law, one sacrifice for sin, both before and after the cross, and one salvation.

Shalom

Since Jesus was the Son of Man, he had authority to change the sabbath if he wished. When his disciples were chastised for plucking grain on the sabbath (Mark 2:23-28), Christ pointed to an example from the life of David to justify the conclusion, “The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath. Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the sabbath” (v. 27-28).

MORE

Jesus was criticized more than once for not keeping Sabbath. He horrified the Jewish leaders by healing on a Sabbath. Jesus fulfilled the old Law bringing in the new. You never answered my question. Do you think we must still observe dietary, circumcision etc.

 

[emarc]

Peace to all:
The thread offers very interesting readings, but could not finish reading them all. I’m a simple man and have a simple question to SDA. If your religion was founded in 1863, how could you guys claim your church is the true church Jesus founded? Where have you been prior to 1863? Can you name any person who lived during apostolic times and his writings to back up your existence and you doctrine?
If truly you believe in your heart that Jesus is your Lord and Savior, believing in his words, why do SDA can’t believe when Jesus said “This is my body, this is my blood.” Why do you claim that Jesus’ words here were not to be understood literally because they were meant to be symbols? When Jesus said this to his disciples, “truly, truly I tell you unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood there is no life in you” his disciples departed. Jesus did not call them back, ‘hey fellows, I only meant symbols.’ But Jesus let them go. As a matter of fact Jesus asked his disciples if they would also leave and Peter said no, for they truly believe what he said. But there was one who did not believe and Jesus knew who he was – Judas Iscariot. If you guys can’t believe either, don’t you think you belong to Judas’ company? Anyway, i thought w/ all your affirmation as Bible believers it seems to me you’re being hypocritical. Your answer will definitely help me understand your position better.
God bless.

 

[Protestant101]

you are soo correct my brother, you get the prize. this is the gist of the matter. who is the persons authority. is it the God given Church of Jesus Christ? or some generic teaching of men or women. ive made my choice. and i for one would rather die, than deny the things i have seen and learned in HIS Holy Church. Peace as it is written. do not be decieved by philosophy or vain conceit. bible is back at my c.h.u. so im paraphrasing.

Hey that’s NO FAIR!! I didn’t know there was a prize being offered here!!

What does an Adventist have to do to get “the prize?”

 

[Protestant101]

MORE

Jesus was criticized more than once for not keeping Sabbath. He horrified the Jewish leaders by healing on a Sabbath. Jesus fulfilled the old Law bringing in the new. You never answered my question. Do you think we must still observe dietary, circumcision etc.

Jesus was not “criticised” by the Father; or by any other Christian. He broke the rules made by religious leaders of the day about the Sabbath; but those rules were not in the Bible. Jesus didn’t break the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; rather, he broke the traditions of man. Jesus did not break one of the ten commandments ever. He Himself declared: “I have kept My Father’s commandments.”

 

[Protestant101]

Peace to all:
The thread offers very interesting readings, but could not finish reading them all. I’m a simple man and have a simple question to SDA. If your religion was founded in 1863, how could you guys claim your church is the true church Jesus founded? Where have you been prior to 1863? Can you name any person who lived during apostolic times and his writings to back up your existence and you doctrine?
If truly you believe in your heart that Jesus is your Lord and Savior, believing in his words, why do SDA can’t believe when Jesus said “This is my body, this is my blood.” Why do you claim that Jesus’ words here were not to be understood literally because they were meant to be symbols? When Jesus said this to his disciples, “truly, truly I tell you unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood there is no life in you” his disciples departed. Jesus did not call them back, ‘hey fellows, I only meant symbols.’ But Jesus let them go. As a matter of fact Jesus asked his disciples if they would also leave and Peter said no, for they truly believe what he said. But there was one who did not believe and Jesus knew who he was – Judas Iscariot. If you guys can’t believe either, don’t you think you belong to Judas’ company? Anyway, i thought w/ all your affirmation as Bible believers it seems to me you’re being hypocritical. Your answer will definitely help me understand your position better.
God bless.

Well; one could also ask: “where was the Catholic Church before the death of Jesus?” Or, “where is the Catholic Church in the Bible?” The truth is, is that neither of our denominations are mentioned in the Bible; however, various doctrines, and people who believed those doctrines, do exist in OT times. Adventist History traces these doctrines back to these times. Catholicism cannot do this.

 

[adrift]

Well; one could also ask: “where was the Catholic Church before the death of Jesus?” Or, “where is the Catholic Church in the Bible?” The truth is, is that neither of our denominations are mentioned in the Bible; however, various doctrines, and people who believed those doctrines, do exist in OT times. Adventist History traces these doctrines back to these times. Catholicism cannot do this.

The Catholic Church began on Pentecost. The key to your statement is ADVENTIST HISTORY I am not sure what you are saying that Cathollics cannot do but if you are referring to dogmas they all may be traced back to the beginnings of the Church. Claims can be made but what documentation do you have for your claims?

 

[RonTheNewJew]

MORE

Jesus was criticized more than once for not keeping Sabbath. He horrified the Jewish leaders by healing on a Sabbath. Jesus fulfilled the old Law bringing in the new. You never answered my question. Do you think we must still observe dietary, circumcision etc.

The Sabbath was, when it was originally given to man, made for man’s rest and spiritual refeshment, and for purposes of worship, which is how many Jews understood and kept it. Jesus, when He said that He is Lord of the Sabbath only made reference to bringing man back to it’s original purposes. The religious leaders had added many regulations to it, thus making it, as they did the annual festivals and holy convocations, overbearing burdens. These multiple additions by mere men were not found in the Torah as heard and written in the Book of the Law by Moses.

Thus, when Jesus said that “the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath,” he was in no way changing, or allowing anyone else to change which day it was to be observed during.

As far as the dietary laws, they were given for the health of Israel, and they were to share this knowledge with the widows, orphans, the poor, and the strangers from other lands. They were to share God’s Law of love with all with whom they might come into contact.

Circumcision, on the other hand was a sign, a type of sign of the Covenant. Abraham was instructed by God to be circumcised, even though God had already made the Covenant with Abraham. Moses told the men of Israel that they should not only be circumcised in their flesh, but also in their hearts where God’s Covenantal laws, statutes and judgments were to be remembered and obeyed because they served a loving God.

Paul told his converts that it was more important to be circumcised in their hearts rather than in their flesh. But, Paul, who had Timothy circumcised and then took a lot of heat for it from the Gentile Christians who did not understand that circumcision, though it had, at one time significance as a type of sign of being brought up under the Covenant, it also had significance for health reasons, as has been born out in recent years and decades of medical research into various types of ovarian cancers, and males who more easily contract, then carry, the AIDS virus. I either heard or read somewhere that someone in the Bible said that Christ is our circumcision. That would mean that His blood which was shed instead of ours, as may have been the pre-Christ symbolism for circumcision, is why it’s apparently no longer required as a sign of the Covenant. Jesus fulfilled the blood sacrifices of animals, and apparently blood shed by males at circumcision.

Long answer, but I have nothing more on that subject.

Shalom in Yeshua’s Name

The best I can say about circumcision is that it is good idea for male babies to be circumcised because it is supposedly less painful over a period of time after birth than it is for adult men. he health benefits, alone, are reason enough for it’s practice.

 

[Farsight001]

What do you think “replaced” means?

It means exactly what it says it means. “replaced” and “changed” are not the same thing.

 

[adrift]

It means exactly what it says it means. “replaced” and “changed” are not the same thing.

Oh? Webster definition changed-to replace with another
replace- to put something new in the place of

 

[adrift]

Thus, when Jesus said that “the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath,” he was in no way changing, or allowing anyone else to change which day it was to be observed during…

If He wasn’t He wouldn’t have made the statement that He was Lord of the Sabbath.

Circumcision, on the other hand was a sign, a type of sign of the Covenant.

The Old Covenant.

Paul told his converts that it was more important to be circumcised in their hearts rather than in their flesh. But, Paul, who had Timothy circumcised and then took a lot of heat for it from the Gentile Christians who did not understand that circumcision, though it had, at one time significance as a type of sign of being brought up under the Covenant,.

The Chruch got together and decided that circumcision was no longer required. Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). He refers to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ”. The Church had the authority to omit circumcision just like the Church replaced Saturdy with Sunday Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:2, Colossians 2:16-17, and Revelation 1:10 indicate that, even during New Testament times, the Sabbath is no longer binding and that Christians are to worship on the Lord’s day, Sunday, instead.

 

[me_again]

The Sabbath was, when it was originally given to man, made for man’s rest and spiritual refeshment, and for purposes of worship, which is how many Jews understood and kept it.

The Old Testament order to keep the Saturday sabbath is strictly for the Jews and here is what our Lord specifically said about it**:**

Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the Lord your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord your God has commanded you to observe the [Saturday] Sabbath day. (Deut. 5:15)

Saturday worshipers will insist that the sabbath was given at creation and was not just for Israel. But look at the introduction to Deuteronomy 5:1-3:

Moses summoned all Israel and said**:** Hear, O Israel, the decrees and laws I declare in your hearing today. Learn them and be sure to follow them. The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. It was not with our fathers that the Lord made this covenant, but with us, with all of us who are alive here today.

 

[emarc]

Well; one could also ask: “where was the Catholic Church before the death of Jesus?” Or, “where is the Catholic Church in the Bible?” The truth is, is that neither of our denominations are mentioned in the Bible; however, various doctrines, and people who believed those doctrines, do exist in OT times. Adventist History traces these doctrines back to these times. Catholicism cannot do this.

With due respect you did not answer my question. The question was specific - Can you name any person who lived during apostolic times who witnessed to the existence and doctrines of SDA? I want to know because I’m interested to learn what they say. Throwing back the question to me is not an answer but I can name you quickly Policarp, Clement, Tertullian, Iraneus, etc. etc. You can research them and see for yourself how they witnessed to the existence of the Catholic Church and its doctrines. They also believed in the Holy Eucharist – the true Body and Blood of our Lord. Again, if you are sincere (only you and God know what’s in your heart) in seeking Jesus, the Holy Spirit will guide you to the Truth just as he did to Cardinal Newmann, Scott Hahn, SDA2RC, and others. Debating leads us nowhere.
God bless.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

The Old Testament order to keep the Saturday sabbath is strictly for the Jews and here is what our Lord specifically said about it**:**

Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the Lord your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord your God has commanded you to observe the [Saturday] Sabbath day. (Deut. 5:15)

Saturday worshipers will insist that the sabbath was given at creation and was not just for Israel. But look at the introduction to Deuteronomy 5:1-3:

Moses summoned all Israel and said**:** Hear, O Israel, the decrees and laws I declare in your hearing today. Learn them and be sure to follow them. The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. It was not with our fathers that the Lord made this covenant, but with us, with all of us who are alive here today.

Gen9: 8And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying,
9And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you;

Genesis 17:1And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.
2And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.
3And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying,
4As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.
5Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.

Genesis 17:19And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.

Ex.2:24And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob.

What’s the difference between the passage in Deu. 5 and these passages me? The difference can be seen in these two phrases. 1st from Deu.5**:“Moses summoned all Israel” **Then From Gen.17 **“And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him” **All it is saying in Deu.5 is that this is the first time in history that God has made a covenant with an entire nation. This is not to say that God did not give His law to man from the beginning.

Genesis 26:5
Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

 

[Javl]

It grieves me to say that no matter how you slice it, the SDA refuse to accept the fact that the Law is/was for the Jews ( Israel and Judah ) alone. That ** Jesus made a new and everlasting covenant with His Apostles and other followers at His last supper, and that He gave us a new Law.** The SDA refuse to accept the fact that this was known, understood and disseminated by the Apostles and early Church Fathers ( Ignatius, Clement, Tertullian, Polycarp, etc. ). They also refuse to accept the fact of Jesus’ literal words that He built His Church on Simon-Peter and gave Simon-Peter His full authority and through Simon-Peter His Church. By doing so, The SDA are rejecting the words and truths of Jesus. They fall into the same category as the Jews who rejected Jesus. They live in the past and wish to take us with them AGAINST GOD’S WORD!

PAX DOMINI

Shalom haMeshiach

 

[Richard_Kastner]

It grieves me to say that no matter how you slice it, the SDA refuse to accept the fact that the Law is/was for the Jews ( Israel and Judah ) alone. That ** Jesus made a new and everlasting covenant with His Apostles and other followers at His last supper, and that He gave us a new Law.**

Mark2:27And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

John 14:15If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Matt.19:16And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Ya, Javl it doesn’t grieve me at all to say that the law was given to all mankind. Could you please show me in these vs. where Jesus specifies that the law was given exclusively to the Jews. Well, of coarse you can’t because it isn’t. In fact Mark 2:27 states that the law was made for man. If it was exclusively for the Jews, don’t you think He would have said so right here? He doesn’t so it isn’t.

Jer.31:31Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a **new covenant **with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
**32Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers **in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and **write it in their hearts; **and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

The new covenant consists of God writing **His law **on our minds and in our hearts made possible by the sacrifice of Jesus.

Heb.10:12But 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;

The SDA refuse to accept the fact that this was known, understood and disseminated by the Apostles and early Church Fathers ( Ignatius, Clement, Tertullian, Polycarp, etc. ).

Who cares what these guys say, if it is against what the word of God says, it’s rubbish.

They also refuse to accept the fact of Jesus’ literal words that He built His Church on Simon-Peter and gave Simon-Peter His full authority and through Simon-Peter His Church.

That isn’t what Jesus is saying. You misunderstand.

By doing so, The SDA are rejecting the words and truths of Jesus. They fall into the same category as the Jews who rejected Jesus. They live in the past and wish to take us with them AGAINST GOD’S WORD!

No just rejecting your misunderstanding.

 

[adrift]

Who cares what these guys say, if it is against what the word of God says, it’s rubbish.

That isn’t what Jesus is saying. You misunderstand.

No just rejecting your misunderstanding.

It doesn’t surprise me that you call what these men say is rubbish. They don’t go against the word of God. They learned about God directly from the apostles. No they don’t go against the word of God only your misunderstanding of the word of God.