Posted on 03/06/2009 9:51:50 AM PST by TaraP
I was thinking of attending there worship. I have admired many of thier teachings on Sabbath Observance Healthy Living, Chatiable Giving and Prophetic teachings. However I am not sure if all thier doctrine is sound.
I understand Ellen G White is the founder of this church In brief, she was a woman of remarkable spiritual gifts who lived most of her life during the nineteenth century (1827-1915), yet through her writings she is still making a revolutionary impact on millions of people around the world.
During her lifetime she wrote more than 5,000 periodical articles and 40 books; but today, including compilations from her 50,000 pages of manuscript, more than 100 titles are available in English. She is the most translated woman writer in the entire history of literature, and the most translated American author of either gender.
Her writings cover a broad range of subjects, including religion, education, social relationships, evangelism, prophecy, publishing, nutrition, and management. Her life-changing masterpiece on successful Christian living, Steps to Christ, has been published in more than 140 languages. Seventh-day Adventists believe that Mrs. White was more than a gifted writer; they believe she was appointed by God as a special messenger to draw the world's attention to the Holy Scriptures and help prepare people for Christ's second advent. From the time she was 17 years old until she died 70 years later, God gave her approximately 2,000 visions and dreams.
Who are the Apostate Churches today? can they easily be recognized?. It is simple to recognize apostate teachings, such as acceptance of homosexuality or teaching another way of salvation other than Jesus Christ, but is there additional teachings of apostate we should be looking for?...If we are not observing the Saturday Sabbath are we apostate? Thoughts on this?
I have no interest in the SDA religion...They may be a cult but I don't see where they are any more of a cult than your religion is...
I haven't put forward any arguments...I just ask you to provide correction where you stated I was wrong...
Apparently you are not capable of doing that...And your defense is to call people names...Does that make you feel smart??? Certainly doesn't make you look too bright...
You tell me I don't understand the scripture, but if you can't correct me, it's pretty clear you are unqualified to even discuss the subject...Nice meeting you...Come back again, when you can't stay so long...
Paul said there was one baptism and you won't admit that you don't believe that.
Water baptism serves no spiritual purpose. None.
You obviously don't even believe your own words with which you contradict yourself within a single posting!
As long as each Baptism contains the correct elements, any additional or ceremonial or spiritual elements do not void the Baptism.
I doubt that your technical legalisms would rank much higher than the priorities of the Pharisees, even if it turns out that you are 100% correct.
Now I never said anything about formulas for baptism...you did...and never said anything about baptism getting one into heaven...you did...and you even in one sentence say that it has to contain the right elements (water?!) but then call it legalism to look at the details.
It doesn't bother me that you don't read the Bible and believe it. I just know better than leave pearls in front of you.
Ok, I’ll bite...what name did I call you?
I know your tactic. It is to divert from your uncomfortable situation to something else. Problem is it doesn’t work.
Start with some fundamentals. Most scripture says exactly what it means where it sits with little help from greek or aramaic texts. Most.
Also, some of us believe that there are no contradictions in God’s Word, perhaps some in the KVJ being that is a version of a translation of a copy of texts. Apparent contradictions either lie in the translation or our understanding.
If Jesus is God as you claim, then there are oodles of contradictions that cannot be explained away with any Biblical integrity or intellectual honesty.
The Bible describes God as the Creator, as invisible spirit, as not being a man nor the son of man, as being in capable of being tempted.
The Bible describes Jesus as being created, visible, physical in form, a man and son of man, and tempted in all ways as we are.
The Bible CLEARLY says that God is one and that there is one God. Clearly.
So any implication that God is three or has three aspects is un Biblical.
God is God and the Father of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is not God but sits at the right hand of God.
Jesus prayed to and obeyed God.
God sent Jesus, not Himself.
God did not die on the cross, nor did he raise Himself from the dead to sit at his own right hand...God did not talk to himself when he said that this is my begotten son in whom I am well pleased.
If one cannot understand the fundamentals then one is not in a position to move to more advanced understanding.
It makes no logical sense at all to discard the hundreds of clear verses that describe God as the Creator and Jesus as his son in order to accept the handful that appear to say something else.
Any verses that appear to describe Jesus as God are either misunderstandings on the reader’s part or translation errors.
Are there similarities between God and Jesus? Of course, but are they identical? No.
If you are not going to believe that there is one God and one mediator between men and God, the man Christ Jesus, then there is no point in playing games with you.
Uh...yes.
The Bible is the primary source for God's revelation to us and it is in...guess what?....WORDS!
Words have meanings.
Words convey thought and messages.
There is a difference between the Kingdom of Heaven that Christ taught and the Church of the Body of Christ that Paul taught.
Yet you refuse to acknowledge that and call it word games.
Interesting that I ask you to look at the Bible for some answers and you ask me to look at an article about the Bible for answers.
IMO it is very telling where we choose for our sources of truth and answers.
Thanks for reading my post and for the kind words.
Cheers
The SDAs are not a cult, and any assertion that they are is both ridiculous and a blatant misuse of the term.
They don’t live in communes. They don’t dress funny. They don’t have multiple wives.
They are protestants who go to church on Saturday because they think that’s important.
They don’t eat pork, shellfish, or dog. They don’t smoke and they don’t drink alcohol.
You couldn’t pick one out of a crowd if you tried.
Since they observe the Sabbath on Saturday and don’t watch television during that period, they are missing out on much of college football. It’s fair to criticize them for that.
bump
bump
LBF>I of course am really conflicted about all the flavors of Christianity.
Jesus did not come to start a new religion. All religions are man-made. Religion is about rules and regs - rules and regs are about control of the people.
My own opinion is that the New Testament does not teach a Saturday worship day. Jesus was raised from the dead on Sunday. The New Testament teaches that any time wqe, as followers of Jesus Christ come together it is right to celebrate communion to “show forth His death ‘til he come”. He shuggested that this be often.
Every day is a Holy day, in my book - the Bible does not teach me otherwise. Keeping the Sabbath was a command that God gave to the Israelites. I do not see that as a command today.
There are others who also teach “keep the Sabbath” (Saturday). There are some Messianic Christians who do so. I do not have a problem with their doing that. The also keep all of the Old Testament Feasts that God ordained, and they also keep Hanukkah, though Hanukkah is a “man ordained” feast, started by Judas Maccabeus and his followers.
If one wants to adhere to Old Testament teaching to the Israelites about the Sabbath, then they probably should also adhere to the teaching about the six God ordained feasts (three in the spring, three in the autumn). And, of course, go to Jerusalem to celebrate these feasts!
164 posted on March 7, 2009 5:56:02 PM MST by GGpaX4DumpedTea
Amen ! My own opinion is that the New Testament does not teach a Saturday worship day Did Yah'shua teach about the Sabbath ? or to Monday ? or Tuesday ? or Wednesday ? or Thursday ? or Friday ? as followers of Jesus Christ come together it is right to celebrate communion to “show forth His death ‘til he come”. He shuggested that this be often. What Yah'shua commanded was to celebrate Passover in memory of Him. Hanukkah is a “man ordained” feast, started by Judas Maccabeus and his followers. Yah'shua celebrated Chanukah. And, of course, go to Jerusalem to celebrate these feasts! There is no longer a Temple in Jerusalem; it is now within us. Jesus did not come to start a new religion.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
Yes !
See Matthew 12, Matthew 24, Matthew 28,
Mark 1, Mark 2, Mark 3, Mark 6, Mark 15, Mark 16,
Luke 4, Luke 6, Luke 13, Luke 14, Luke 23,
John 5, John 7, John 9, John 19,
Acts 1
Did Yah'shua change the day of worship from Shabbat to Sunday ?
No!
The creator of the universe has stated on many occasions
that He wants His created beings to worship Him on Shabbat.
He even made it one of the Ten Commandments for our understanding.
Some state that the mere created being can say to YHvH
we do not like worshiping you on the day you commanded us to worship,
we are free to pick some other day.
John 10:
22 At that time the Feast of the Dedication took place at Jerusalem;
23 it was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple in the portico of Solomon.
You wrote:
“Uh...yes. The Bible is the primary source for God’s revelation to us and it is in...guess what?....WORDS!”
But not in frequency of words. All the words are true or none of them are true. To say that because Jesus said something one way and Paul used different words that that means they opposed one another is simply insipid.
“Words have meanings.”
Yes, they do. Car and automobile mean exactly the same thing to most Americans. Did anyone accuse Paul - in his day - of teaching a different gospel than Christ? Why didn’t the Apostles accuse him of that? There is onle ONE gospel. If Paul and Christ taught DIFFERENT gospels while Paul was an Apostle then Christ, His Church, and the gospel are all frauds. Either Christ and Paul taught the same gospel or there is no gospel (if Paul was an Apostle).
“Words convey thought and messages.”
Yes, and more than one word can convey THE SAME MESSAGE. Again, “car” and “automobile” to an American mean the same thing.
“There is a difference between the Kingdom of Heaven that Christ taught and the Church of the Body of Christ that Paul taught.”
They both taught the same gospel. You are making the mistake of assuming that an aspect of the gospel IS the gospel in toto. Paul often taught about the kingdom of God. Do you believe the kingdom of God is a foreign concept unconnected to the kingdom of Heaven?
“Yet you refuse to acknowledge that and call it word games.”
Because that’s what you’re doing...playing word games.
“Interesting that I ask you to look at the Bible for some answers and you ask me to look at an article about the Bible for answers.”
No, it isn’t interesting. It’s simply presumptuous of you to presume that you actually understand the Bible when you don’t. I asked you to look at the article because you know too little and understand even less about God’s word. You take God’s word and play word games just like the liberals do.
“IMO it is very telling where we choose for our sources of truth and answers.”
Yes, it is. You choose to distort the word of God’s meaning to satisfy your own desires. I do not. That is the difference between us. And I, unlike you, realize that to state that Paul opposed Jesus (which is what you’re doing) is to say that a major part of the New Testament is worthless because it was composed by someone who taught a false gospel while all along Christians have believed him to be inspired.
You’re mocking St. Paul, and calling God’s word and the Church liars.
However car and truck are never confused to be the same thing...And they're both automobiles...
What was Peter the Apostle teaching before Acts chapter 10???
Act 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Was there any salvation by Grace thru Faith in Acts, chapter 2??? No there wasn't...
Of course there is more than one Gospel...And we'd better get the right one...The that was revealed to Paul by Jesus Christ, to pass on to us...The Gospel of the Grace of God, without works, lest any man should boast...
They both taught the same gospel. You are making the mistake of assuming that an aspect of the gospel IS the gospel in toto.
No, they are not different aspects of the same gospel...That's like saying red and black are the same aspects of the color yellow...<
It was just revealed to you that Peter started out with one gospel, to the Jews, which included faith AND works, and because of the Jew's rejection of the Messiah, was given another Gospel by Jesus to include any and all, by Grace thru Faith, without any works...
Paul DID NOT SAY if anyone preach another aspect of his Gospel...
Paul often taught about the kingdom of God. Do you believe the kingdom of God is a foreign concept unconnected to the kingdom of Heaven?
Ya figure maybe Matthew got tired of saying the long word heaven, so he just replaced it with the shorter God???
They are NOT unconnected but they are not the same either...
Luk 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
The Kingdom of God is within you...It is Jesus Christ in you...It is not physical...It is the Holy Spirit within the Christian...
Mat 8:11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
The Kingdom of Heaven is a place...It's a physical Kingdom...
Isa 11:4 But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.
Isa 11:5 And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins.
Isa 11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
Isa 11:7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
Isa 11:8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice's den.
Isa 11:9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.
THIS, is the Kingdom of Heaven...
You wrote:
“However car and truck are never confused to be the same thing...And they’re both automobiles...”
Yes, and a “car” can be a Train car as well. But we know cars and automobiles are still the same thing in everyday speech.
The rest of your post is essentially meaningless to this debate. Jesus and Paul taught ONE gospel not two - unless you believe Christ or Paul were liars.
The easy thing to do would be for me to say 'prove it'...But we know that won't happen...
When Jesus told Paul to preach the Gospel of Grace, did Jesus say it was the same Gospel initially given to Peter???
Your logic is not logical...I'm reminded of someone with both hand over his ears, screaming, I'M NOT LISTENING, I'M NOT LISTENING, I'M NOT LISTENING...
Jesus never told Paul to continue teaching the same Gospel as Jesus taught the Jews...And Paul never claimed he was preaching the same Gospel...
The fact is, both Gospels came from Jesus...And neither one is lying about anything...
“If you are not going to believe that there is one God and one mediator between men and God, the man Christ Jesus, then there is no point in playing games with you.”
I do believe that there is one God and one mediator between men and God, the man Christ Jesus.
I believe he is both God and man.
Texts that show his humanity are profuse, and you and I apparently agree that he is a man.
Tests that show He is God are also profuse, but you are denying them (or not addressing them. Did Isaiah call Jesus the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, or not?)
God created this world. But of Jesus we read: “all things were created by Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” (John 1:3)
God alone is to be worshipped. But of Jesus we read of many worshipping Him without rebuke, from the wise men to Thomas to the disciples. . .”And as they went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, ‘Rejoice!’ And they came and held Him by the feet and worshipped Him.”
God alone is omniscient, but Jesus shows omniscience. God alone can forgive sins, but Jesus forgives sins. God alone is without sin, but Jesus is without sin.
You have to ignore half the Bible to ignore that fact that Jesus is both God and man.
And fair enough, you didn’t call me any perjorative names. But your tone and accusations in your posts are harsh and ugly. Perhaps you are comfortable with them. But I like to call people on antagonistic speech when I hear it/read it.
“Arianism is the theological teaching of Arius (ca. AD 250–336), a Christian priest, who was first ruled a heretic at the First Council of Nicea, later exonerated and then pronounced a heretic again after his death.
Arius lived and taught in Alexandria, Egypt. The most controversial of his teachings dealt with the relationship between God the Father and the person of Jesus, saying that Jesus was not of one substance with the Father and that there had been a time before he existed. This teaching of Arius conflicted with other christological positions held by Church theologians (and subsequently maintained by the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Churches and most Protestant Churches).
The term “Arianism” is also used to refer to other nontrinitarian theological systems of the 4th century, which regarded the Son of God, the Logos, as a created being (as in Arianism proper and Anomoeanism) or as neither uncreated nor created in the sense other beings are created (as in “Semi-Arianism”).”
1Jo 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
1Jo 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
The Greek word for "in" is 'en' and means to be in and remaining in. One is either 'in' or one is not, no partway, no halfway
viii. (8) en governs only one case (the Dative), and denotes being or remaining within, with the primary idea of rest and continuance. It has regard to place and space (e.g. Matthew 10:16. Luke 5:16), or sphere of action (e.g. Matthew 14:2. Romans 1:5,8; 6:4).
So Jesus is either in the flesh or he is not. I agree with the Bible and say he was in the flesh.
You do not. You say he is God/man despite clear verses that say is was/is a man.
YOu say that he is God despite God Almighty's own testimony that Jesus is His son.
The trinity is today's version of ancient baal worship.
Those who do not confess (head and heart in agreement) that Jesus is come in the flesh are antichrist.
No, I am staunchly and firmly standing on what Paul wrote as inspired by God while you are typing volumes in denial.
Based on your responses it is impossible to tell if you've actually turned the pages of a Bible and read the words yourself since you deny some simple and easily verifiable statements that I've made.
The Church of the one body of Christ did not exist until after Christ's death and resurrection and Christ did not teach about the mystery of 'Christ in you the hope of glory'.
Jesus taught to get Israel to recognize him as their messiah. And until God revealed it to Paul, no one knew about the way God would bring the Jew and Gentile together into one body of Christ.
So twist and turn all you want, Paul and Christ did not teach the same thing however what they taught did not contradict.
I do confess that Jesus is come in the flesh.
And, with Isaiah, John, the various disciples, the wise men, and so on, I further confess that He is God.
I do not deny He is a man. I do however confess that He is God, as well. As does most of Christendom.
Yep, Araianism.
EE, don’t know if there are any Arian Churches around today, but your doctrine is rejected by every Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox Christian Church.
In short, if Jesus is not Divine, then it’s not Christianity. Which is fine if that’s what you wish, but the debate was in the fourth century and settled and done.
Note, it was not a debate among the Apostles, including Paul, or the Early Fathers, but about three hundred years later.
Still, it is old and well-plowed ground. If you follow the debate at the councils on the heresy, you’ll find all the argument you can handle, and why the Church rejected Arian and reaffirmed the doctrine of the Apostles and the Apostolic Church.
Iscool,
I have read about the same sort of argument you are trying to muster now. Has the following ever occured to you:
1) If ONLY Paul taught the “gospel of grace” then no one in the Church was saved before he started preaching.
2) If ONLY Paul taught the gospel of grace wouldn’t he have said so - say, for instance, when he mentioned that he had rebuked Peter to his face?
3) If only Paul taught the gospel of grace, then why wasn’t there a split in the early Church over it at the time of the Judaizers?
There is only ONE gospel taught by Jesus, Peter and Paul. ONE. If they taught different gospels, then at least two of them were wrong or lying. If Jesus lied, Christianity is a sham and He isn’t the Messiah. If Peter lied, then everyone was wrecked. If Paul was lying, then everyone was wrecked - and he had cleared his teachings with Peter already!
Protestants simply have a problem understanding reality on this score. I remember the old story about a Moody Bible teacher who refused to teach anything but the letters of St. Paul because only the gospel was found there he insisted. No, the gospel is found first and foremost in the person of Jesus Christ. The heart of the gospel is not a forensic rendering, but a living Divine Person - Jesus Christ.
The idea that you are putting forward is not only novel (and that is not a good thing), but essentially ridiculous. Logically, at the very least, it must make Jesus, Peter and all those before Paul liars or fools. Or, conversely, it must make - if you insist on bifurcating all things Pauline from the rest of Christianity before him - Paul out to be false, a liar, a fraud.
Which is it?
“EE, don’t know if there are any Arian Churches around today,”
Jehovah’s Witnesses, The Way, and certain Pentecostals. That’s about it. Oh, and Unitarians.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.