Seventh Day Adventists say Catholics changed...

[Richard_Kastner]

Rich,

As I read those scriptures that you posted, they testify against you. I interpreted them as exposing that you are rejecting the truth.

What truth would that be me?

7Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

8Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;

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;

Verse 16 is a direct quote of Jer.31:33. What I am saying is that in Hebrews 10 it is saying that Jeremiah 31:33 is talking about the new covenant in Jesus Christ and that covenant is distinguished from the old in that the Spirit of the Living God writes His law (The Ten Commandments) on our minds and in our hearts and that is made possible by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. You say “I interpreted them as exposing that you are rejecting the truth” Isn’t it your duty as a Christian brother to explain to me exactly how I am rejecting the truth. Is there some reason why you won’t share with me the truth that I am rejecting here?

In Catholicism, “Sacred Tradition” is considered to be the Word of God – and you reject it. Sacred Tradition comes from apostolic times. Apostolic times is when the apostles lived on the earth (BTW, the apostles are now living in heaven). The apostles provided traditions (oral messages) that are believed to be truthful, even though it isn’t part of the written Word of God. It is the oral (traditional) Word of God. For example, the apostles didn’t write in the Word of God that Jesus wasn’t married and that He didn’t have children; they orally shared that knowledge (tradition) with the church – and it is widely accepted in Christendom, to include acceptance by SDAs. Thus, Adventists accept some Sacred Tradition from Catholicism, even if they don’t realize it.

You say ““Sacred Tradition” is considered to be the Word of God – and you reject it.” Then you say “Thus, Adventists accept some Sacred Tradition from Catholicism, even if they don’t realize it.” Isn’t this a contradiction me? The bible doesn’t say a lot of things. Is everything that the bible doesn’t say Catholic Tradition? For example, It doesn’t say that pigs cannot fly yet I, almost all Adventists, and some Catholics that I know believe this to be true. So, would this be CT?

Catholics put faith in Sacred Tradition, as put faith in Ellen Gould White’s interpretations of the bible. Like I previously told you**:** You need to study church history, even if you disagree with it, because it will make you a well rounded theologian. Thus far, you are mired in Ellen White’s heretical interpretations.

In my dialogue on this thread I have not once refered to Ellen White except in answer to your misinformed posts. I have not used any Adventist or Ellen White exegesis in my dialogue with Javl on Hebrews and Jeremiah. I have never even seen any Adventist exegesis on the part of Hebrews We are discussing. So, how am I mired ?

 

[benidict]

What truth would that be me?

7Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

8Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;

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;

Verse 16 is a direct quote of Jer.31:33. What I am saying is that in Hebrews 10 it is saying that Jeremiah 31:33 is talking about the new covenant in Jesus Christ and that covenant is distinguished from the old in that the Spirit of the Living God writes His law (The Ten Commandments) on our minds and in our hearts and that is made possible by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. You say “I interpreted them as exposing that you are rejecting the truth” Isn’t it your duty as a Christian brother to explain to me exactly how I am rejecting the truth. Is there some reason why you won’t share with me the truth that I am rejecting here?

You say ““Sacred Tradition” is considered to be the Word of God – and you reject it.” Then you say “Thus, Adventists accept some Sacred Tradition from Catholicism, even if they don’t realize it.” Isn’t this a contradiction me? The bible doesn’t say a lot of things. Is everything that the bible doesn’t say Catholic Tradition? For example, It doesn’t say that pigs cannot fly yet I, almost all Adventists, and some Catholics that I know believe this to be true. So, would this be CT?

In my dialogue on this thread I have not once refered to Ellen White except in answer to your misinformed posts. I have not used any Adventist or Ellen White exegesis in my dialogue with Javl on Hebrews and Jeremiah. I have never even seen any Adventist exegesis on the part of Hebrews We are discussing. So, how am I mired ?

but richard… pigs can fly! just kidding my friend. not goint to debate with you, but i do have a serious question for you. one of the traditions you follow would be the doctrine of the Trinity. this word is not found in the o.t. or the the n.t. but here is my question. have the adventist always been trinitarian in the way Catholics understand the trinity? i have read some literature on line, that at least in the early days, james white was more arian in his beliefs. ellen, its not as clear. did the Adventist at one point in their early history, hold to the arian view of things? appreciate it. thx in advance Peace

 

[Richard_Kastner]

but richard… pigs can fly! just kidding my friend. not goint to debate with you, but i do have a serious question for you. one of the traditions you follow would be the doctrine of the Trinity. this word is not found in the o.t. or the the n.t. but here is my question. have the adventist always been trinitarian in the way Catholics understand the trinity? i have read some literature on line, that at least in the early days, james white was more arian in his beliefs. ellen, its not as clear. did the Adventist at one point in their early history, hold to the arian view of things? appreciate it. thx in advance Peace

As far as I know Ellen White Had always believed in the Trinity. I’m not sure what you mean by " trinitarian in the way Catholics understand the trinity?" But she and I believe in three individual persons in one Holy God. Ben, how do you interpret Heb. 10:7-16.

 

[benidict]

As far as I know Ellen White Had always believed in the Trinity. I’m not sure what you mean by " trinitarian in the way Catholics understand the trinity?" But she and I believe in three individual persons in one Holy God. Ben, how do you interpret Heb. 10:7-16.

ok, that is what i thought. i had always believed Ellen G. White was a trinitarian, just like the Catholics are. even though trinity is found “nowhere in the bible” interesting. however. you make a slight mistake in asking me what my interpretation of hebrews 10:7-16. any interpretation i would make would be invalid. unless it matches up with the Churches interpretation. are you trying to imply by this passage that the mass is invalid, because of the mis understood sacrifice of the mass? i think this is where you are heading. give me what your attempting to get at, so im not misunderstanding your question. i just want to make sure we are on the same wave length. Peace

 

[benidict]

will have to get back to you richard, so plz be patient. i have to go stand in a hot field, for a few hours… i love army ceramony Peace

 

[Richard_Kastner]

ok, that is what i thought. i had always believed Ellen G. White was a trinitarian, just like the Catholics are. even though trinity is found “nowhere in the bible” interesting. however. you make a slight mistake in asking me what my interpretation of hebrews 10:7-16. any interpretation i would make would be invalid. unless it matches up with the Churches interpretation. are you trying to imply by this passage that the mass is invalid, because of the mis understood sacrifice of the mass? i think this is where you are heading. give me what your attempting to get at, so im not misunderstanding your question. i just want to make sure we are on the same wave length. Peace

It’s not a trick question Ben. I’m just asking what you believe this passage in Hebrews is saying. If you want to parrot how you think the CC interprets this passage, that’s fine. About all I can get out of anyone else on this is that I am wrong. But I never get a responce as to what they think is right. Your (name removed by moderator)ut would be appreciated.

 

[me_again]

how do you interpret Heb. 10:7-16.

The Lord Jesus Christ came to do the Father’s will because Deuteronical sacrifices and offerings for sin did not satisfy the Father, even though they were required by the law. Thus, the Lord Jesus came to satisfy the law and the Father and, hence, the New Covenant was born. As a result, we are sanctified by the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. The sins that were removed by Christ death on the cross were not removed by the Levitical priests; the Levitical sacrifices were simply a precursor to the death of God’s Son.

After Jesus rose from the dead, he sat at the right hand of the Father, which simply means He occupies a place of authority and honor. At the end of the age, all of His enemies will be made his footstool, which simply means that they will be cast into judgment.

After Jesus ascended to the Father, He sent the Holy Spirit back to the earth to indwell God’s people. God is love and, subsequently, when the Holy Spirit enters His people, the law of love is written into their hearts and minds. Jesus said, ”A new commandment I give you, that you love one another, as I have loved you.” Thus, when we love others, we are fulfilling every jot and tittle of the law.

So uhhhhh Rich, why did you want to know how Heb. 10:7-16 is interpreted?

 

[me_again]

In my dialogue on this thread I have not once refered to Ellen White except in answer to your misinformed posts. I have not used any Adventist or Ellen White exegesis in my dialogue with Javl on Hebrews and Jeremiah. I have never even seen any Adventist exegesis on the part of Hebrews We are discussing. So, how am I mired ?

For you to suggest that you’re not using Ellen White’s interpretations of the bible is simply not true. The doctrines that you are espousing are unique to Adventism and were created by Ellen Gould White.

If Ellen White’s interpretations had never been introduced, then Adventism would not exist. The underpinnings of Adventism are all predicated upon what she wrote. For example, Ellen White wrote the following:

**We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. This has been done over and over again during the past fifty years. And while the Scriptures are God’s Word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar of the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave Power and force to the past messages that have come to the [Adventist] people of God.
(White, 1910, p. 20)

Reference:

White, E. G. (1910). Call to the watchman. [Brochure].**

While you may deny mentioning Ellen Gould White, you are nonetheless hoodwinked by some of her heretical writings. If Ellen White is removed from the equation, then Adventism crumbles. Similarly, if Joseph Smith is removed from the Mormon equation, then Mormonism also crumbles. Lastly, if Charles Taze Russell is removed from the JW equation, then it too crumbles. These prolific heretical writers created the underpinnings of their theological bend. They mix the truth with lies, which deceives many unknowing people, to include yourself.

 

[me_again]

You say “Sacred Tradition” is considered to be the Word of God – and you [Rich] reject it."

Then you say “Thus, Adventists accept some Sacred Tradition from Catholicism, even if they don’t realize it.” Isn’t this a contradiction me?

Yes, it is a contradiction. Let’s look at this contradiction a little bit more closely.

• Adventism purportedly does not accept the Sacred Traditions of Catholicism.
  .
• As a refresher, Sacred Traditions are oral stories that were given by the apostles when they lived and have since been handed down to us. Sacred Tradition is considered to be the oral Word of God, whereas the scriptures are considered to be the written Word of God. Both are the Word of God.
  .
• Nowhere in the written Word of God does it say that Jesus wasn’t married with children. However, in Catholic Sacred Tradition from the apostles, we know that Jesus wasn’t married and He didn’t have children. Since this cannot be found in the written Word of God, why do Adventists accept this teaching? Answer**:** Because they have accepted this teaching without understanding or realizing that it is Sacred Tradition from the Catholic Church.
  .
• Thus, Adventists claim that they don’t accept Catholic Sacred Tradition, but they unknowingly do on many points. Is this a contradiction? Yes.

The bible doesn’t say a lot of things. Is everything that the bible doesn’t say Catholic Tradition? For example, It doesn’t say that pigs cannot fly yet I, almost all Adventists, and some Catholics that I know believe this to be true. So, would this be CT?

A pig’s lack of ability to fly cannot be theologically equated to the Sacred Tradition that Jesus didn’t have a wife and children. The major tenants of Christendom that aren’t expressly described in the written Word of God are expressly described in Catholic Sacred Tradition, which is from the apostles.

I am kindly asking you to do a study of the early Church fathers, starting with the apostles and their immediate proteges, from the first century and onwards. Don’t just take Ellen White’s word for it. Instead, read the biblical interpretations of the fathers.

 

[benidict]

It’s not a trick question Ben. I’m just asking what you believe this passage in Hebrews is saying. If you want to parrot how you think the CC interprets this passage, that’s fine. About all I can get out of anyone else on this is that I am wrong. But I never get a responce as to what they think is right. Your (name removed by moderator)ut would be appreciated.

i understand its not a trick question richard. i would like to give the best answer i can. is your question in reguards to the mass and the sacrifice therein? the mass is a much more complicated issue, than even some Catholics understand. if your question is in reguards to the sacrifice of the mass, i can help you out. but its gonna be kind of a deep answer, and there is a possibility that it has, or has not been explained to you this way before. because what happens at the mass, is more than just a mere liturgical exercise. something actually happens. before i go on, i need to know just where your coming from to give you a profitable answer. thanks in advance Peace

 

[Richard_Kastner]

i understand its not a trick question richard. i would like to give the best answer i can. is your question in reguards to the mass and the sacrifice therein? the mass is a much more complicated issue, than even some Catholics understand. if your question is in reguards to the sacrifice of the mass, i can help you out. but its gonna be kind of a deep answer, and there is a possibility that it has, or has not been explained to you this way before. because what happens at the mass, is more than just a mere liturgical exercise. something actually happens. before i go on, i need to know just where your coming from to give you a profitable answer. thanks in advance Peace

Let’s start with this passage.
Heb.10
4For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

5Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

6In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.

7Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

8Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;

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;

How do you or your church interpret this passage? I would prefer it if you took it line by line, but any way you feel comfortable is fine. I would ask that you read Jeremiah 31:31-34 and I would ask that you compare Jer.31:33 with Heb.10:16. In Jer.31:31 it talks about a new covenant and v.33 talks about that covenant written in the mind and heart. Heb.10 :16 as far as I can see is a direct quote of Jer. 31:33. So, what’s your take on all this? Who is this covenant with? How and what law is written on our minds and hearts? Who made it possible to do this and anything else you can pick out of these passages would be appreciated.

 

[benidict]

Let’s start with this passage.
Heb.10
4For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

5Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

6In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.

7Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

8Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;

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;

How do you or your church interpret this passage? I would prefer it if you took it line by line, but any way you feel comfortable is fine. I would ask that you read Jeremiah 31:31-34 and I would ask that you compare Jer.31:33 with Heb.10:16. In Jer.31:31 it talks about a new covenant and v.33 talks about that covenant written in the mind and heart. Heb.10 :16 as far as I can see is a direct quote of Jer. 31:33. So, what’s your take on all this? Who is this covenant with? How and what law is written on our minds and hearts? Who made it possible to do this and anything else you can pick out of these passages would be appreciated.

ok, i think i see where you are coming from on this richard. and to give you a solid answer, i will need to study up on the Churches teaching on this passage, i think you are inquiring about the parts of the passages that refer to the law. correct? there is alot more in this passage, but to give you a good answer, i will need a little time. i could also if you prefer, try to get a Catholic Priest to answer these questions for you, seeing how they would do a much better job than i. you honestly may need to go to apologetics for your answer, but i will try to do the best i can. Peace to you and yours.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

The Lord Jesus Christ came to do the Father’s will because Deuteronical sacrifices and offerings for sin did not satisfy the Father, even though they were required by the law.

Were’nt the Jews required by God to sacrifice animals
Heb.8
5Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

Thus, the Lord Jesus came to satisfy the law and the Father

How did Jesus satisfy the law and the Father?

and, hence, the New Covenant was born.

Isn’t a covenant an agreement between two parties? How did Jesus’ comming create a new covenant?

As a result, we are sanctified by the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. The sins that were removed by Christ death on the cross were not removed by the Levitical priests; the Levitical sacrifices were simply a precursor to the death of God’s Son.

This sounds amazingly accurate. I would use the word shadow though as per Heb.8:5 above instead of precursor

After Jesus rose from the dead, he sat at the right hand of the Father, which simply means He occupies a place of authority and honor. At the end of the age, all of His enemies will be made his footstool, which simply means that they will be cast into judgment.

Sounds about right.

After Jesus ascended to the Father, He sent the Holy Spirit back to the earth to indwell God’s people. God is love and, subsequently, when the Holy Spirit enters His people, the law of love is written into their hearts and minds. Jesus said, ”A new commandment I give you, that you love one another, as I have loved you.” Thus, when we love others, we are fulfilling every jot and tittle of the law.

So uhhhhh Rich, why did you want to know how Heb. 10:7-16 is interpreted?

So, let me get this straight. You are saying that Heb. 10 7-16 is talking about the new covenant in Jesus Christ and this covenant is defined as God’s law of love written in our minds and on our hearts by the Spirit of God and this is made possible by the sacrifice of the body of Christ as per Heb. 10
10By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Would you say that this is the official CC’s stance on this passage?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

ok, i think i see where you are coming from on this richard. and to give you a solid answer, i will need to study up on the Churches teaching on this passage, i think you are inquiring about the parts of the passages that refer to the law. correct? there is alot more in this passage, but to give you a good answer, i will need a little time. i could also if you prefer, try to get a Catholic Priest to answer these questions for you, seeing how they would do a much better job than i. you honestly may need to go to apologetics for your answer, but i will try to do the best i can. Peace to you and yours.

I’m not interested in going to apologetics. What I am interested in is your take on this passage. If you feel that you need to fortify your position with research by all means do or with a priest’s opinion. That’s fine. The more the merrier. However I must warn you that I hold a priest’s opinion as just that, an opinion. In my opinion it has no more weight than anyone else that has studied the bible. However what I am most interested in is what these passages say to you personally. As long as we’re at it why don’t you read over Heb.8 also.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Departed from topic and closed.