G
goitalone
Guest
It was about not having to sacrifice animals anymore…it was Jesus that led up to the doing away with sacrifices as He gave Himself
- Status
G
goitalone
Guest
S
SDA2RC
Guest
GoItAlone,
You know, your not doing any good for your cause by posting flippant remarks about Catholics thinking Christ sinned (which you obviously know we are not), or making general statements about the Sabbath that are based on assumptions that you have not been able to prove here yet. There are probably THOUSANDS of people who will read this thread over the life of the forum, and you will be their representative of Adventism.
People on here have posted some serious questions and often you come off with simlpy a one liner, rather than serious Bible exegesis which would support your beliefs. I know you mean well, and I realize that a lot of what you are saying is sarcastic and off the cuff, but others may not know that especially if they do not understand Adventism.
In my mind, the real issue that you need to address is authority. As an Adventist, you are asking us to believe your, or your churches interpretation of the scriptures, the Sabbath is not simply base on Ex. 20, what happened after that, and what happened before that? No one here contests that the Sabbath was given to the Jews, was the Seventh-Day, and was kept until the time of Christ. You have not dealt with why we no longer keep it, or why we should, nor have you dealt with why we should believe your interpretation of what the NT teaches about the Sabbath over the Churches. This is the real issue… authority to determine doctrine and interpret scriptures.
btw… I will try to drop by your forums soon.
You know, your not doing any good for your cause by posting flippant remarks about Catholics thinking Christ sinned (which you obviously know we are not), or making general statements about the Sabbath that are based on assumptions that you have not been able to prove here yet. There are probably THOUSANDS of people who will read this thread over the life of the forum, and you will be their representative of Adventism.
People on here have posted some serious questions and often you come off with simlpy a one liner, rather than serious Bible exegesis which would support your beliefs. I know you mean well, and I realize that a lot of what you are saying is sarcastic and off the cuff, but others may not know that especially if they do not understand Adventism.
In my mind, the real issue that you need to address is authority. As an Adventist, you are asking us to believe your, or your churches interpretation of the scriptures, the Sabbath is not simply base on Ex. 20, what happened after that, and what happened before that? No one here contests that the Sabbath was given to the Jews, was the Seventh-Day, and was kept until the time of Christ. You have not dealt with why we no longer keep it, or why we should, nor have you dealt with why we should believe your interpretation of what the NT teaches about the Sabbath over the Churches. This is the real issue… authority to determine doctrine and interpret scriptures.
btw… I will try to drop by your forums soon.
G
goitalone
Guest
Yeah …if you could go test it…but I think I just realized I need to contact my new host for it to run properly…I have to request global permissions and safe mode offGoItAlone,
You know, your not doing any good for your cause by posting flippant remarks about Catholics thinking Christ sinned (which you obviously know we are not), or making general statements about the Sabbath that are based on assumptions that you have not been able to prove here yet. There are probably THOUSANDS of people who will read this thread over the life of the forum, and you will be their representative of Adventism.
People on here have posted some serious questions and often you come off with simlpy a one liner, rather than serious Bible exegesis which would support your beliefs. I know you mean well, and I realize that a lot of what you are saying is sarcastic and off the cuff, but others may not know that especially if they do not understand Adventism.
In my mind, the real issue that you need to address is authority. As an Adventist, you are asking us to believe your, or your churches interpretation of the scriptures, the Sabbath is not simply base on Ex. 20, what happened after that, and what happened before that? No one here contests that the Sabbath was given to the Jews, was the Seventh-Day, and was kept until the time of Christ. You have not dealt with why we no longer keep it, or why we should, nor have you dealt with why we should believe your interpretation of what the NT teaches about the Sabbath over the Churches. This is the real issue… authority to determine doctrine and interpret scriptures.
btw… I will try to drop by your forums soon.
S
SDA2RC
Guest
I just tried to register, and it said that the conf. code was wrong, I tried it three times… I am pretty sure I typed it in correctly.Yeah …if you could go test it…but I think I just realized I need to contact my new host for it to run properly…I have to request global permissions and safe mode off
G
goitalone
Guest
Yeah I gotta fax my ID in to my host so they will turn ON the send mail function! cry
R
RNRobert
Guest
I’m sorry, but you are mistaken. Again (now I’ve asked thrice) quote to me the book/chapter/verse of the NT that says we must obey the Jewish dietary laws. In Acts 15 James tells the Gentile Christians to abstain from blood and meat sacrificed to idols. **NEVER **does he say ANYTHING about not eating pork.
The SDAs try to have it both ways. They say Jesus abolished the ceremonial law but not the Decalogue, but then say we must follow the dietary laws which are in the ‘ceremonial law.’ So, tell me, which is it?
R
RNRobert
Guest
He cannot do that because any serious Bible exegesis (or even study of secular history) would undermine said beliefs. Goitalone has implied on this thread (and the SDAs teach, per writings like National Sunday Law and The Great Controversy) that the Catholics drove off the “true Sabbath-keeping Christians” into hiding. I asked him in two different posts to offer up evidence of these groups, or proof of any Sabbath keeping Christians that existed prior to the 19th century. He has not made the slightest attempt to do so.
G
goitalone
Guest
Well I have said it all before…none of you believe in the 1260 prophecy etc so I personally can clearly see that Bible reveals that all that happened about driving the true Sabbath-keeping Christians into hiding for that time period…but the argument is always the same…history dates are wrong…well, they aren’t wrong…and sorry…I have not been reading all or had time lately to get too into detail…my new forum thing is about make me pull my hair out…er well if I had any hair to pull out that is, I would be!
P
Pug
Guest
I have looked on the Amazing Facts website to hear the snips from the show about clean and unclean. It seems that the gentleman who is speaking (I assume he is representative of the SDA) believes that the bible prohibits the eating of pork, shellfish, etc. for Gentiles at this time. He gives the argument that the distinction between clean and unclean foods predates Moses, and that presumably Noah didn’t eat food like that. So it is still in effect, even though it is listed in the laws of Moses.
In my own words, I’d say he is approximately making an argument that Gentiles are bound by the Noahide laws only. My issue with his argument is that God told Noah he could *eat *any animal. However, likely God only wanted Noah to sacrifice clean ones? I’m not fully versed here. Here is a bible verse:
God goes on to explain to Noah about strangled animals or animals that are still living or animals with blood in them, or however you interpret it. Ie they must be slaughtered in a Kosher fashion (cut throat, and hung to bleed out, maybe this also includes salting some things to draw the rest of the blood out, I don’t know).
Still puzzling this one out as to why unclean foods are considered by SDA to be forbidden to Gentiles at this time.
J
JonathanKinsman
Guest
R
RNRobert
Guest
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the 1260 prophecy refers to Mrs White’s looking at prophecies in Daniel and Revelation and relating them to the papacy. Supposedly the 1260 years has to do with the papacy starting in Constantines time and running until it’s “fatal wound” in losing the Papal Estates in the 1870s. This is bunk. First off, the loss of the Papal Estates did not effect the Catholic Church one whit, Secondly, I believe on this or another thread, someone debunked the SDA teaching since Revelation said the beast ruled for a time AFTER receiving the fatal wound.
As for the Catholic Church persecuting Christians, I never said anything about wrong dates. E.G. White claims in her books that Sabbath keeping Christians were subjected to all sorts of horrible tortures by the Catholic Church (and if she wrote lies like that about a living person, her butt would be dragged into court on libel charges faster than you can say Jack Robinson). The various Inquisitions of the Catholic Church are a matter of historical fact, and yes, people were put to death (although blown out of proportion by Protestants), but I ask you again (and again and again…:banghead
to give me proof that Catholics ever persecuted Sabbath-keepers. You won’t because you CAN’T. There is none. After Luther’s revolt, all sorts of sects claiming all sorts of things sprang forth and were tolerated.Why didn’t the Sabbath-keepers appear then? Also, in the 16th century, the English government jailed and even executed people who refused to attend the Church of England. This included Catholics as well as Calvinists, Lutherans, etc. Yet, there is NO record of any Christians being jailed or hanged for being Sabbath-keepers.For the last time, show me historical proof, that sabbath-keeping was part of any Christian sect prior to the 19th century.
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
Pork!
Nuff Said!
S
servus
Guest
“Your Church does not condone abortions”! The word “condone” means to allow. So we do not allow abortions. It does not say “The Church does not condemn abortions”.
The SDA Church, as it says in the article, does not act as a persons conscience. If a woman gets an abortions it is not only her failure, but the Churches failure, and her parents failure. It is our failure as a nation.
I am an Adventist, but I disagree with the Adventist stance on abortion. Although we don;t allow them, I think that this statement on Adventist.org is too liberal. I think it should read something like, “The Adventist Church is absolutely opposed to abortion for all reasons of convinience, birth control, gender selection, emotional or physical crisis, such as a case involving rape, etc” Only God can decide matters of life and death.
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
Condone:
- to disregard or overlook (something illegal, objectionable, or the like).
- to give tacit approval to: By his silence, he seemed to condone their behavior.
- to pardon or forgive (an offense); excuse.
- to cause the condonation of.
- Law. to forgive or act so as to imply forgiveness of (a violation of the marriage vow).
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
Even that gives a degree of lenincy(SP).
It is just saying “You can have abortion, just be mindful that we oppose it, we don’t condemn it, it’s your choice”.
P
Pug
Guest
The Amazing Facts guy did address Peter and the sheet with animals on it. He stuck with the idea that Peter said he would not kill and eat them because it is wrong, and that the vision was not there to get Peter to eat them or to call them clean. Rather, he said the vision was there so that Peter would understand not to call any MAN unclean. His interpretation is that it only had to do with men, not food.
That’s why I went with the Noah thing about Gentiles (Peter was Jewish, of course). I figured that argument was easier to begin with. Here is the line from Acts that he hung his argument from (Peter speaking):
Aside: what is it with Peter and saying things three times?
That’s why I went with the Noah thing about Gentiles (Peter was Jewish, of course). I figured that argument was easier to begin with. Here is the line from Acts that he hung his argument from (Peter speaking):
Feel free to attack this argument. It is not my argument, but it is at least an argument.
Aside: what is it with Peter and saying things three times?
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
This can be extended to the vision:
“God has shown me that I should not call any man, EVEN IF THE MAN EATS PORK, unholy or unclean.”
M
Mommyof02green
Guest
I misread that part… However this is also on the same page:
What is a most serious reason to kill a baby?
What’s a crisis pregnancy? What about the men? What about those that end the pregnancy?
Where in the bible does it say it’s okay to end the life of a baby that has “defects”? Or to end the life of a baby from rape or incest? The woman has the right to choose to kill her baby: Where can I find that in the bible, that it’s okay for a woman to kill her baby?
I understand that it is your personal opinion that the statements on Adventist.org are too liberal. However, on the home page: www.adventist.org it states: welcome to the OFFICAL website of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
So in short, I miss read the one part I quoted earlier, however after reading the whole article it is clear that the Seventh-day Adventist Church does NOT have a problem with women having abortions. So in short the Seventh-day Adventist Church does NOT have a problem with women breaking the commandment: Thou Shall NOT kill.
Anyone can read the whole thing here: adventist.org/beliefs/guidelines/main_guide1.html
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
- Status