Seventh Day Adventists

[Javl]

Just another point of information:

Hebrew Catholics ( Jews who are in communion with Rome ) when joining the Catholic Church do not give up their Jewish way of life. They are still Jews. With the agreement of
the Pope, they still keep the law, with one exception. They keep their worship on Sunday,
not because the Pope said so, but because they have accepted Jesus and His delegation of authority to the Apostles and their successors. Who should know better than the Jews?

Ref: HebrewCatholics.org.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[greggy53]

Javl;5717052:

… Who do you think it was that gave us the ten commandments on mount Sianai. It was Jesus Christ. When we say we are not going to keep His and replace them with our laws, we are saying that we recognize the authority of man above the authority of God, but even more than this we are saying that we don’t love Jesus, because we do not keep His laws and I doubt that He is going to allow anyone into His kingdom that doesn’t love Him.

Yes indeed if we love God we will do his will. He told us that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood. Yet you mock and disregard this and the other sacraments that he gave to us. You rebel against the authority that he established here on earth, and replace it with your own will. You rebuke the Church that he called his bride, and call it evil.

 

[Bill_Pick]

You are the SDA on the catholic website.

You are the ones trying to argue catholic doctrine, not me. I’m just defending myself and my faith. I was trying to ask you questions about YOUR faith, but you refuse to answer them.

I have no fascination with ellen nor joseph. I’ve only mentioned them as your leadership and the founders of your Church. Why is that so distasteful to you?

You are the one coming here accusing ME of satanic this and that. I’ve not said one thing about you worshipping anything other than God. I’ve even referred to you as being just like me, Christian.

I’ve gotten way less than that from you. YOU are the one that needs to take a look in the mirror. I may have asked a couple of difficult questions, but I never accused you of being a satan worshipper.

You are rude and nasty.

God Bless your soul.

HC

I am a little confused, Years ago may be about the time Russell was a member did the SDA worship snake, You would play will a snake and if it bit you you would not die if you was with sin and life if you was with out sin,…it was a long time time ago and I just cant remember it seams it was some place in west Va…

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Hi, Richard,
When we say we are not going to keep His and replace them with our laws, we are saying that we recognize the authority of man above the authority of God, but even more than this we are saying that we don’t love Jesus, because we do not keep His laws and I doubt that He is going to allow anyone into His kingdom that doesn’t love Him.

Now, I would like you to square this statement with Matt 16 - when Christ told Peter that He would give him the Keys (symbol of authority and honor - used to this day!) and that WHATEVER Peter bound on earth was bound in Heaven. And, just to make sure that everyone got the message, Christ re-enforces this message in John 21 (after Peter had denied Christ - after the Crucifixion when Peter ran away - and after Peter had turned around and came back!) when Christ tells Peter to feed His lambs and tend His sheep. The bottom line is that Christ put Peter in charge - admittedly, Christ has never left the Church He founded on Peter, but Peter was the visible authority of the Church.

So, if Peter has the Keys and the words of Christ (Who, according to you gave us te 10 Commandments) telling Peter he had the authority to bind and lose at will - why do you doubt this? Why do you argue that Peter did not do this - given all of references to the First Day of the Week. John tells us not everything is spelled out - and connecting the dots is something that reasonable minds can do.

I think it is time to start connecting those dots in light of the Gospels.

God bless

Hi Tom

Dots of Gospel lights. I like that. So lets start connecting. You start with keys and you say “(symbol of authority and honor - used to this day!)”. Well they are that, but not in the way the CC thinks they are. We need to ask ourselves what does a key do? Well it opens doors or at least they unlock the door so that we are able to open it. So what do these specific keys open. The answer is in v. 19:And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: The keys that Jesus gives make it possible To open the doors of the heavenly kingdom. Well, what are those. I would submit to you that these like the bread that Jesus broke and gave to the multitude are symbolic of the words that Jesus spoke. The keys like the bread were not given to Peter exclusively, but to all the disciples to distribute to the people. To spiritually nourish and make it possible for them to open the doos to heaven. I’m sure you have seen the picture of Jesus before a door with no knob with the caption something like I stand at the door and knock. Blessed is he who opens unto me. I believe that door is locked. It’s not locked on Jesus side. It is locked on our side and the only thing that will unlock that door are the keys to the kingdom. THE WORD OF GOD!!!

Now for binding and loosing. Let’s look at this story from the beginning and see what we can see.

Matt.16:13When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

You will notice in v. 13 Jesus asks His disciples “Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?” and they answer: “Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.” No mention of Peter here Right? Ok, then in v.15He asks: “But whom say ye that I am?” and Peter answers: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Again it’s Peter that answers, but the answer is not about Peter Right? Then Jesus says for the first time specifically to Peter. " Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Now, what I hear you and your church saying is that Jesus asks the disciples these two questions about who He is and then He abandons that topic and goes on to say that He is going to make the foundation of His church a sinner and not only that, Jesus gives to Him carte blanche to do anything His little heart desires with an all knowing God’s plan of salvation. Excuse me, but this doesn’t even make a little sense.

Jesus asks the first two questions so He could tell them exactly on whom He was to build His church and that was on Himself the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Here’s what my commentary say about Upon this rock. These words have been variously interpreted: (1) that Peter is “this rock,” (2) that Peter’s faith in Jesus as the Christ is “this rock,” (3) that Christ Himself is “this rock.” Persuasive reasons have been set forth in favor of each of the three explanations. The best way to determine what Christ meant by these cryptic words is to inquire of the Scriptures themselves what this figure of speech meant to Jewish listeners, particularly to those who heard Jesus use it upon this occasion (see MB 1). The testimony of the writings of the disciples themselves is obviously superior to what men have since thought Jesus meant. Fortunately, some of those who were eyewitnesses upon this occasion (see 2 Peter 1:16; 1 John 1:1–3) have left a record that is clear and unequivocal.
For this part, Peter, to whom the words were addressed, emphatically disclaims, by his teachings, that the “rock” of which Jesus spoke referred to him (see Acts 4:8–12; 1 Peter 2:4–8). Matthew records the fact that Jesus again used the same figure of speech, under circumstances that clearly call for the term to be understood of Himself (see on Matt. 21:42; cf. Luke 20:17, 18). From very early times the figure of a rock was used by the Hebrew people as a specific term for God (see on Deut. 32:4; Ps. 18:2; etc.). The prophet Isaiah speaks of Christ as “a great rock in a weary land” (see on ch. 32:2), and as “a precious corner stone, a sure foundation” (see on ch. 28:16). Paul affirms that Christ was the “Rock” that went with His people in ancient times (see 1 Cor. 10:4; cf. Deut. 32:4; 2 Sam. 22:32; Ps. 18:31). In a secondary sense the truths Jesus spoke are also a “rock” on which men may build safely and securely (see on Matt. 7:24, 25), for He Himself is the living “Word” “made flesh” (see John 1:1, 14; cf. Mark 8:38; John 3:34; 6:63, 68; 17:8).
Jesus Christ is the “rock of our salvation” (Ps. 95:1; cf. Deut. 32:4, 15, 18; DA 413). He alone is the foundation of the church, for “other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11), “neither is there salvation in any other” (Acts 4:12). Closely associated with Jesus Christ as “the chief corner stone” in the foundation of the church are “the apostles and prophets” (Eph. 2:20). In the same sense that Christ is the Rock, “a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God,” all who believe in Him, “as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house” (1 Peter 2:4, 5), “fitly framed together … an holy temple in the Lord” (Eph. 2:21). But Jesus is ever and only the “Rock” on which the entire structure rests, for without Him there would be no church at all. Faith in Him as the Son of God makes it possible for us also to become sons of God (see John 1:12; 1 John 3:1, 2). The realization that Jesus Christ is indeed the Son of God, as Peter emphatically affirmed upon this occasion (see Matt. 16:16), is the key to the door of salvation (see DA 412, 413). But it is incidental, not fundamental, that Peter was the first to recognize and declare his faith, which, upon this occasion, he did as spokesman for all the disciples (see on v. 16).
It was only when scriptural support was sought in behalf of the claims of the bishop of Rome to the primacy of the church (see Vol. IV, p. 836) that the words of Christ upon this occasion were taken from their original context and interpreted to mean that Peter was “this rock.” Leo I was the first Roman pontiff to claim (about a.d. 445) that his authority came from Christ through Peter. Of him, Kenneth Scott Latourette, a leading church historian, says: “He insisted that by Christ’s decree Peter was the rock, the foundation, the door-keeper of the kingdom of heaven, set to bind and loose, whose judgments retained their validity in heaven, and that through the Pope, as his successor, Peter continued to perform the assignment which had been entrusted to him” (A History of Christianity [1953], p. 186). Strange indeed it is, that if this is really what Christ meant, neither Peter nor any other of the disciples, nor other Christians for four centuries thereafter, discovered the fact! How extraordinary that no Roman bishop discovered this meaning in Christ’s words until a fifth-century bishop considered it necessary to find some Biblical support for papal primacy. The significance attributed to Christ’s words, by which they are made to confer primacy upon the so-called successors of Peter, the bishops of Rome, is completely at variance with all the teachings Christ gave to His followers (see ch. 23:8, 10).
Perhaps the best evidence that Christ did not appoint Peter as the “rock” on which He would build His church is the fact that none of those who heard Christ upon this occasion—not even Peter—so construed His words, either during the time that Christ was on earth or later. Had Christ made Peter chief among the disciples, they would not thereafter have been involved in repeated arguments about which of them “should be accounted the greatest” (Luke 22:24; see Matt. 18:1; Mark 9:33–35; etc.; DA 817; see on Matt. 16:19).
The name Peter is derived from the Gr. petros, a “stone,” generally a small slab of stone. The word “rock” is the Gr. petra, the large mass of rock itself, a “ledge” or “shelf of rock,” a “rocky peak.” A petra is a large, fixed, immovable “rock,” whereas a petros is a small “stone.” To what extent Christ may have had this distinction in mind, however, or may have explained it as He spoke, is a matter that cannot be determined from these words themselves, because Christ certainly spoke Aramaic—the common language of Palestine at that time. The Gr. petros undoubtedly represents the word kepha’ (cephas) in Aramaic (see on ch. 4:18). And, very likely, petra also represents the Aramaic word kepha’ though there is a possibility that Christ used some other synonym or expression in Aramaic, which would agree with the distinction between petros and petra that is made by the gospel writers in Greek. It seems probable that Christ must have intended to make such a distinction, however, or Matthew, writing in Greek and guided by the Holy Spirit, would not have made one.
Obviously a petros, or small stone, would make an impossible foundation for any edifice, and Jesus here affirms that nothing less than a petra, or “rock,” could suffice. This fact is made even more sure by the words of Christ in ch. 7:24: “Whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them” is like “a wise man, which built his house upon a rock [Gr. petra].” Any edifice built upon Peter, petros, a weak, erring human being, as the Gospel record makes plain, has a foundation little better than shifting sand (see on ch. 7:27).

Nichol, Francis D.: The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Volume 5. Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1978; 2002, S. 430

 

[Bill_Pick]

Hi, Richard,

I, too, would be interested in your answering HC’s quesiton:

See, my point is this, you believe that at some mysterious point in time (notwithstanding the period between the actual canonization of the Old and New Testaments) that God took away this Apostilic authority and left us with only Scripture to guide His Church.

Looking forward to hearing from you - or, anyone else who can actually answer this question.

God bless

Wow. I also can.t waite to heard this answer

 

[greggy53]

Hi Tom

… Then Jesus says for the first time specifically to Peter. " Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Now, what I hear you and your church saying is that Jesus asks the disciples these two questions about who He is and then He abandons that topic and goes on to say that He is going to make the foundation of His church a sinner and not only that, Jesus gives to Him carte blanche to do anything His little heart desires with an all knowing God’s plan of salvation. Excuse me, but this doesn’t even make a little sense.

Our Lord said what he said, and he said to only to Peter: " Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

How you or anyone else can invent anything else our of this statement is beyond all logic and reason. The only explaination for it is rebellion, a spirit of rebellion

 

[Bill_Pick]

What is you evidence that the early Church that “collected the NT” were not Catholic?

There is all sorts of written evidence that they were. One example of this is found in the :

The “Damasine list”, issued by Pope Damasus I at the council,(of Rome 387AD) is as follows:

It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun. The list of the Old Testament begins: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book: Leviticus, one book;Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Jesus Nave, one book; of Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; of Kings, four books [First and Second Books of Kings, Third and Fourth Books of Kings]; Paralipomenon, two books; One Hundred and Fifty Psalms, one book; of Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise, Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), one book;

Likewise, the list of the Prophets: Isaiah, one book; Jeremias, one book; along with Cinoth, that is, his Lamentations; Ezechiel, one book; Daniel, one book; Osee, one book; Amos, one book; Micheas, one book; Joel, one book; Abdias, one book; Jonas, one book; Nahum, one book; Habacuc, one book; Sophonias, one book; Aggeus, one book; Zacharias, one book; Malachias, one book.

Likewise, the list of histories: Job, one book; Tobias, one book; Esdras, two books; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; of Maccabees, two books.

Likewise, the list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, one to the Corinthians [2 Corinthians is not mentioned], one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians [First Epistle to the Thessalonians and Second Epistle to the Thessalonians], one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy [First Epistle to Timothy and Second Epistle to Timothy], one to Titus, one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews.

Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book.

Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles [First Epistle of Peter and Second Epistle of Peter]; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles [Second Epistle of John and Third Epistle of John]; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament.

Likewise it is decreed: After the announcement of all of these prophetic and evangelic or as well as apostolic writings which we have listed above as Scriptures, on which, by the grace of God, the Catholic Church is founded, we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Where is your written evidence that tthey were not???

He has no evidence that they were not Cathloic because they is no evidence-----They all where cathloic,is he now saying Peter was not a Cathloic ,WOW

 

[phummel]

Hi all,

I thought these articles were provacative:

The Top Five Reasons Jesus Was A Catholic:
spectrummagazine.org/blog/2009/09/16/top_five_reasons_jesus_was_catholic

The Top Five Reasons Jesus Was A Seventh-day Adventist:
spectrummagazine.org/blog/2009/09/18/top_five_reasons_jesus_was_seventhday_adventist

blessings,
paul

 

[greggy53]

He has no evidence that they were not Cathloic because they is no evidence-----They all where cathloic,is he now saying Peter was not a Cathloic ,WOW

I have been waiting for them to say it, but I guess they are not. The SDA leaders claim that the Catholic Church suppressed all the evidence that the early Christians were in fact “Sabbath Christians”. That of course begs the question. “If all the evidence that the early Christians were “Sabbath Christians” was suppressed then how do you know it?”

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Richard,

I think you got lost in the dots… let’s try to do the connecting…

Rather then jump from book to book stick with Matt 16 - you really do not have to go any further. Here is the essence of your argument:

Now, what I hear you and your church saying is that Jesus asks the disciples these two questions about who He is and then He abandons that topic and goes on to say that He is going to make the foundation of His church a sinner and not only that, Jesus gives to Him carte blanche to do anything His little heart desires with an all knowing God’s plan of salvation. Excuse me, but this doesn’t even make a little sense.

Jesus asks the first two questions so He could tell them exactly on whom He was to build His church and that was on Himself the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Not quite. Really, Richard, just read the words that are there - Christ did not ‘abandon’ the topic. He acknowledged that God the Father had selected that old sinner, Peter, to give a special revelation to - and once that old sinner, Peter, speaks up - Christ acknowledges him! The two quesitons were specifically to lay the foundation for what was to follow.

Seriously, if you do not like the idea of Christ giving that old sinner, Peter, the carte blance then your argument is with Christ - and no one else. Read the words and don’t dance around them with other verses. Read the words and don’t evade the topic. Peter now has the delegated authority - not to change anything his little heart desires - as you deride - but, to act in accordance with the Holy Spirit as you ignore. And, there hangs the story of God’s Love for sinful men - to put a sinful man in charge of His Church - and, that would be the Catholic Church.

God bless

 

[Rexpi]

When studying the bible we cannot just base ourselves in one verse, the bible eventhough is many books in one still one only Author. To understand it then is wise to use the whole lot which will give us more light regarding different topics. For example when studying prophecy in Daniel it helps a lot to study Revelations at the same time.
And upon everything before opening the bible we should pray to God so He can guide us through with the Holy Spirit and also to give us a humble heart to accept any true we might find in it. it doesn’t matter what religion you stand for… If you sincerily want to really know Jesus, He will help you to find Him!

You see, God loves us and He doesn’t want us to fight over His word, I know we get excited with what we know and want to tell others. Satan wins when we fight… Instead we should pray more for each other so we all can get closer to Jesus. I am a
Seventh Day Adventist but it doesn’t make me
save… You can belong to any religion but if you
don’t belong to Jesus you are building your house in the sand.

There is something I am really sure and that is the fact that Jesus is so, so close to come! So let’s get ready! Let’s put aside our traditions and concentrate in getting to know Him that love us. His word is in our hands and is clear than ever if we go to it with humble hearts.

If I learn something that I didn’t know about God from a Catholic friend or a Baptist friend or an Adventist friend the only thing I have to do is to tested with the bible… If I find true in there that I didn’t know before well… Maybe I can improve my relationship with God.

I hope we can share what we know with the only goal of getting closer to Jesus and to worship Him who created heavens and earth!

 

[Protestant101]

Here is a question that maybe some of you folks can help me with:

Why is it that Seventh Day Adventists on this forum almost never list “Seventh Day Adventist” or “SDA” under Religion on their profiles? Instead they tend to either leave it blank, or put “Christian” or “Protestant” in that spot. Are they hiding something? Or just ashamend?

It is the same way with their evangelistic meetings and a lot of their literature. Is it a secret or what?

Howdy Marsha

That is such a tired, cliche’ approach, and it is really old. Many do not do that here or elsewhere. (check my profile out for one) Here in my city, the flyers I still have here in my office for our last crusade here very clearly say to the public “Sponsored by your local Seventh-day Adventists.”

You should not pay so much attention to the cult “ministries” that you get these cookie-cutter objections from. They are quite simply, not true.

 

[Javl]

Howdy Marsha

That is such a tired, cliche’ approach, and it is really old. Many do not do that here or elsewhere. (check my profile out for one) Here in my city, the flyers I still have here in my office for our last crusade here very clearly say to the public “Sponsored by your local Seventh-day Adventists.”

You should not pay so much attention to the cult “ministries” that you get these cookie-cutter objections from. They are quite simply, not true.

If it’s such an old cliche’ then why not satisfy everyone by posting SDA? Methodists list themselves as Methodists, Baptists as Baptists, even Jehovahs Witnesses list themselves as such, and so on. I have no qualms in listing myself as a Roman Catholic. Why should you as an SDA? Everytime I meet and have a conversation with an SDA, I’m
always told they are protestant. It is only after much conversation that they say they are
SDA. Why? Are they afraid of ridicule?

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Protestant101]

If it’s such an old cliche’ then why not satisfy everyone by posting SDA? Methodists list themselves as Methodists, Baptists as Baptists, even Jehovahs Witnesses list themselves as such, and so on. I have no qualms in listing myself as a Roman Catholic. Why should you as an SDA? Everytime I meet and have a conversation with an SDA, I’m
always told they are protestant. It is only after much conversation that they say they are
SDA. Why? Are they afraid of ridicule?

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Some who choose to not say what denomination they are from have good reasons; and there is nothing wrong with their motives. This is not something limited to Adventists, or any other particular group. You are supporting a beautiful red herring here. By saying “Why are they afraid of ridicule,” you admit that that’s exactly what yourself and many others intend to do here; so perhaps you have answered your own question.

 

[greggy53]

…If I learn something that I didn’t know about God from a Catholic friend or a Baptist friend or an Adventist friend the only thing I have to do is to tested with the bible… If I find true in there that I didn’t know before well… Maybe I can improve my relationship with God

How then do you “test” it with the Bible? Whos interpretaion do you believe? Your own?, What you think God tells you?, Your leaders in the SDA?..That is the problem. Who has the correct interpretation of the scriptures, and How do you know?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Hi, Richard,
Not quite. Really, Richard, just read the words that are there - Christ did not ‘abandon’ the topic. He acknowledged that God the Father had selected that old sinner, Peter, to give a special revelation to - and once that old sinner, Peter, speaks up - Christ acknowledges him! The two quesitons were specifically to lay the foundation for what was to follow.

Ok, if you want to stick to the words here then why leave out the message that the Father reveals to Peter. In v. 15 Jesus asks: But whom say ye that I am? Not who Peter was, but who I am. To which Peter answers " Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Why in your response did you leave these words out Tom? Did you think that they weren’t important to this discussion. This is the main thing that Jesus wanted His disciples to get. That He is the Christ, the anionted of God, the Messiah that was talked about in the Prophets. It was Him, not Peter that is the Rock of ages

Deut. 34:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
Deut 32:18 Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee.
Psalm18:2 The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower.
Psalm18:31For who is God save the LORD? or who is a rock save our God?

Seriously, if you do not like the idea of Christ giving that old sinner, Peter, the carte blance then your argument is with Christ - and no one else.

I have no problem with anythig that Christ did. It is your church that has twisted what Christ has said in order to usurp the authority that belongs to God and God alone.

Read the words and don’t dance around them with other verses. Read the words and don’t evade the topic.

What are you afraid of in the rest of the bible? Why don’t you want to look at other bible verses. Are you afraid that the truth will be known and you will have to admit, not so much to me or anyone else, but to yourself, that you have benn lied to.

Peter now has the delegated authority - not to change anything his little heart desires - as you deride - but, to act in accordance with the Holy Spirit as you ignore. And, there hangs the story of God’s Love for sinful men - to put a sinful man in charge of His Church - and, that would be the Catholic Church.

God bless

So you think the pope was working under the guidance of the Holy Spirit when He thought to change laws and times Dan.7:25 and done many other things that no man can do.

 

[phummel]

…

You see, God loves us and He doesn’t want us to fight over His word, I know we get excited with what we know and want to tell others. Satan wins when we fight… Instead we should pray more for each other so we all can get closer to Jesus.

Amen, thank you.

So let’s get ready! Let’s put aside our traditions and concentrate in getting to know Him that love us. His word is in our hands and is clear than ever if we go to it with humble hearts.

Amen.

I hope we can share what we know with the only goal of getting closer to Jesus and to worship Him who created heavens and earth!

Amen, again.

 

[phummel]

How then do you “test” it with the Bible? Whos interpretaion do you believe? Your own?, What you think God tells you?, Your leaders in the SDA?..That is the problem. Who has the correct interpretation of the scriptures, and How do you know?

Hello greggy,

Great question! I test interpretation and doctrine against the fruits of the Spirit. Sometimes it takes time to observe and see.
Matthew 7:16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
Galatians 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

Bottom line, what does such a belief do to a person and what does it say about God? I see God as a loving Father and friend - and thus I am rather fond of Galatians 1:8:
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!

blessings,
paul

 

[Bill_Pick]

Some who choose to not say what denomination they are from have good reasons; and there is nothing wrong with their motives. This is not something limited to Adventists, or any other particular group. You are supporting a beautiful red herring here. By saying “Why are they afraid of ridicule,” you admit that that’s exactly what yourself and many others intend to do here; so perhaps you have answered your own question.

Why do they have a good reason not to tell people what denomination they are,I think they are ashame of they church they belong to,if you are Baptist say I.am Baptist,If your Mormon say Iam Mormon,if you are Cathloic say Iam cathloic,why try to hide what you are,most people here are protestant or Cathloic so why not just tell the truth