Resources on Seventh-Day Adventism

[pedja]

So in other words its wrong cause you disagree with it. Gotcha!

Absolutely not. What a bizarre thing to say! You are asking me what exactly is wrong with it and I am telling you that we are already discussing some of the stuff, which I disagree with, in this other thread here! Is that really so hard to understand?!

Edit: it`s in this thread "Question for All Scholars Concerning Sabbath ".

Havent you noticed that we ARE already in the middle of a discussion?!

 

[St_Violet]

just answer the question, sheesh

 

[pedja]

just answer the question, sheesh

I AM ALREADY ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS IN ANOTHER THREAD, SHEEEEEEEEEESH

 

[adventistnomore]

Very nice but factual very wrong

With regard to diesdomini.com, that site contains essays defending BOTH Adventist and Catholic points of view (its a site of interreligious dialogue). How then can you dismiss it entirely as “factually very wrong?” Have you ever even read most of the material on it?

 

[Protestant101]

If Col 2:16 calls the sabbath a shadow, and you disagree with that assessment, I suggest you take it up with Paul–not me. (Catholics believe the Bible; perhaps you do not.) Additionally, Heb 4 implies that the weekly sabbath rest was a shadow giving man access to the eternal rest of God. This paper will help you synthesize the information in that chapter:

diesdomini.com/Papers/Q_Sabbath_Heb4.pdf

Enjoy!

Actually, Colossians 2:16 says “Sabbath days,” and this plural use of the Word Sabbath here shows that it is not calling the seventh-day Sabbath " a shadow" or any such thing.

In all cases of the mention of the seventh-day Sabbath in the Bible; it is called “the Sabbath.” This is not plural, as in the yearly sabbaths mentioned in Col.2:16.

I thought this thread was about “Adventist resources??” All I see are Catholic resources??

 

[adventistnomore]

Protestant101:

In all cases of the mention of the seventh-day Sabbath in the Bible; it is called “the Sabbath.” This is not plural, as in the yearly sabbaths mentioned in Col.2:16.

Um… every Adventist knows this is wrong: Ex 31:13; 2 Chron 8:13; Ez 20:12, etc. The seventh-day sabbath as an institution is also referred to in the plural: “sabbaths,” “my sabbaths,” etc.

I thought this thread was about “Adventist resources??” All I see are Catholic resources??

Th original post says: “resources and links. . . for people looking for more information on examining Adventists beliefs.”

 

[Protestant101]

Um… every Adventist knows this is wrong: Ex 31:13; 2 Chron 8:13; Ez 20:12, etc. The seventh-day sabbath as an institution is also referred to in the plural: “sabbaths,” “my sabbaths,” etc.

Th original post says: “resources and links. . . for people looking for more information on examining Adventists beliefs.”

Well, you can fool some of the people some of the time; but you can’t fool them all, all of the time.

The context of these texts you supplied is clearly about THE seventh-day sabbath; you cannot prove that the one in Col. is about same. It is clearly about the annual sabbaths which the Jews kept along with all those “new moons.” Col.2:16 is actually speaking out against “Traditions” which the Jews were very hypocritical about. I knew those texts were in the Bible that you mentioned; but I didn’t know you would think to use them so out of context with the Bible writer’s intention. It is obvious that one can use the seventh-day sabbath in the plural sense when talking about it in a panoramic context; but Col. was taking specific aim at something else and it had nothing to do with the Sabbath.

 

[SDA2RC]

you cannot prove that the one in Col. is about same. It is clearly about the annual sabbaths which the Jews kept along with all those “new moons.” Col.2:16 is actually speaking out against “Traditions” which the Jews were very hypocritical about. I knew those texts were in the Bible that you mentioned; but I didn’t know you would think to use them so out of context with the Bible writer’s intention.

Protestant,
The proof of the weekly Sabbath reference in Col 2 is inherent in the verse… there is a clear progression recognized by nearly all commentators that I have read, which goes from Yearly, to Monthly to Weekly Sabbaths.

(Col 2:16 NASB) Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival (Yearly) or a new moon (Monthly) or a Sabbath day-- **(WEEKLY)

The evidence within the text is quite clear.
**

 

[adventistnomore]

Well, you can fool some of the people some of the time; but you can’t fool them all, all of the time.

Haha; we’re Catholics–we are all fooled, all the time.

The context of these texts you supplied is clearly about THE seventh-day sabbath; you cannot prove that the one in Col. is about same. It is clearly about the annual sabbaths which the Jews kept along with all those “new moons.”

How is it “clearly” about the annual sabbaths? I’d like evidence, especially granted the fact that even Adventist scholars (e.g., Bacchiocchi), disagree that the verse refers to the annual sabbaths. Rather than refute that position myself, I’ll let the Seventh-day Adventist Church do it for me. From the The Seventh-day Adventist Commentary vol 12, p. 506:

"Many commentators have suggested that the text refers to the “sabbaths” or holy days of the Mosaic “ceremonial law,” not to the weekly Sabbath.

Such commentators and interpreters, however, generally have not grappled with the fact that the references in Colossians 2:16 seems comparable to the repeated OT references to a trilogy in the pattern of annual-monthly-weekly observances (in that order or in the reverse)."

You claim that the text “clearly” refers to the annual sabbaths. And yet, a major work published by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists does not endorse the opinion that Col 2:16 refers to annual sabbaths, but has serious concerns with that point of view.

 

[SDA2RC]

You claim that the text “clearly” refers to the annual sabbaths. And yet, a major work published by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists does not endorse the opinion that Col 2:16 refers to annual sabbaths, but has serious concerns with that point of view.

Protestant101… for shame… perhaps it is you that doesn’t really understand Adventist theology… it appears that the General Conference would like you to “grapple” with the verse a bit more j/k

 

[SDA2RC]

In all cases of the mention of the seventh-day Sabbath in the Bible; it is called “the Sabbath.”

Protestant101, perhaps someone should have told Paul that he used the wrong words in Colossians? Don’t worry… he is watching

 

[SDA2RC]

In all cases of the mention of the seventh-day Sabbath in the Bible; it is called “the Sabbath.” This is not plural, as in the yearly sabbaths mentioned in Col.2:16.

Hmmm… perhaps you can explain what Sabbath this verse is referring to then: (Exo 31:13 NASB) "But as for you, speak to the sons of Israel, saying, 'You shall surely observe **My sabbaths; **for this is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the LORD who sanctifies you.

God uses the plural of Sabbath when speaking of the weekly Sabbath here… could not the Holy Spirit have done the same in Colossians? Me thinks so!

Remember… you said that the plural is NEVER used in the Bible when speaking of the weekly Sabbath.

 

[pedja]

Protestant101… for shame… perhaps it is you that doesn’t really understand Adventist theology… it appears that the General Conference would like you to “grapple” with the verse a bit more j/k

Who says Protestant101 needs to agree with the Adventist theology or the General Conference? Im SDA member but Im here not because I want to defend SDA or whatever, I`m only presenting **my presonal **understanding of the matter regardless of what denomination I belong to.

 

[Maria1212]

Very nice but factual very wrong

Where are they factually wrong. Please be specific. Otherwise you are just stating a personal opinion, which is not credible without evidence to support it.

Sincerely,

Maria1212

 

[pedja]

Where are they factually wrong. Please be specific. Otherwise you are just stating a personal opinion, which is not credible without evidence to support it.

Sincerely,

Maria1212

Maria, on that first website when you go to the Sabbath/Sunday controversy, some of those verses are being discussed here already. I just did not want to open yet another thread on that topic, I think there are at least 3 in this forum already, it`s hard to even follow them all.

 

[Maria1212]

Who says Protestant101 needs to agree with the Adventist theology or the General Conference? Im SDA member but Im here not because I want to defend SDA or whatever, I`m only presenting **my presonal **understanding of the matter regardless of what denomination I belong to.

If a poster does not agree with something his/her Church teaches, then the poster should not represent his personal opinion as that of that of his/her church. Otherwise it may mislead readers to think that his personal opinion represents the doctrine of that particular church. This could lead to the SDA faith being misrepresented/misunderstood.

This thread is on SDA. Not on Protestantism in general. Hence, it is not the place to discuss personal opinion, but rather official teaching/doctrine. Since this thread is meant to lead the reader to a better understanding of SDA beliefs, and where and why it differs from Catholicism, let`s leave personal opinion out of this thread.

I am grateful I have the Church to rely on. I would be in trouble if just left to my personal opinion. My knowledge is not perfect, and my understanding not without error. The Catholic Church is the compass that helps me and guides me on my journey to better know, and love, Christ.

Sincerely,

Maria1212

 

[Maria1212]

Maria, on that first website when you go to the Sabbath/Sunday controversy, some of those verses are being discussed here already. I just did not want to open yet another thread on that topic, I think there are at least 3 in this forum already, it`s hard to even follow them all.

Hi Pedja,

I am confused on what part was factually wrong on the site. Opinion and interpretation are debatable. But was something stated on the site factually incorrect regarding Adventist beliefs etc?

Sincerely,

Maria1212

 

[St_Violet]

It’s nut to hear that even the General Conference’s own scholars finally realized that the SDAs misinterpreted Colossians, but I find it nuts that the adventists still believe in the misinterpretation of that Verse, I’m sure even Pastors still preaches it that way.

also what I find nuts is that, this SDA pastor one time preached how we’re no longer under the law, but yet he at the same time expects his adventists to keep the sabbath.

I don’t know, I pray that the Adventists will come to know truth.

 

[St_Violet]

pedja I still fail to see where in the SDA2RC website is factually wrong, instead why don’t you copy and paste the statements that you find flawed.

 

[SDA2RC]

pedja I still fail to see where in the SDA2RC website is factually wrong, instead why don’t you copy and paste the statements that you find flawed.

My website is wrong? Where… Where…? LOL