| Author |
Message |
Goldenbear
Registered user
Username: Goldenbear
Post Number: 113
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 8:25 pm: |     |
Schasc,
While I don't have the time frame when Ellen wrote those things, I am fairly confident that when they were written there were people that were questioning Ellen's visions. As I have read over the last year, there have been quite a few and they continue to surface (they may have been there all along, and I just didn't see them).
If you are beginning to see the loss of popularity, you poison the well by saying that people are going to say that you aren't correct.
The concept of the shaking is one that is rampant and I believe haunts those of us who were raised on the fear-giving stories of end-times. I believe that maybe what is happening is that people are starting to see the truth and are drawing closer to the the TRUTH.
On another point Schasc, our mens bible study at work has started reading through Deut. Read the 5th chapter. Moses in his discorse to the C of I before they enter Canaan tells them the reason for the Sabbath. It is uncharacteristicly not what we were told growing up. Read and let me know what you think. |
Schasc
Registered user
Username: Schasc
Post Number: 20
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 12:13 pm: | |
I read through it and what struck me was verse 2 and 3 where it says that God made a covenant with us at Horeb......"It was not with our fathers .....but with those of us alive today." So the Sabbath was not an institution before this point.........Is that whatyou are driving at or was it something else that I missed.....? By the way it is good to hear from you!
|
Jerry
Registered user
Username: Jerry
Post Number: 464
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 8:38 pm: | |
I believe Goldenbear was driving at
quote:Deuteronomy 5:15
And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the LORD thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day.
This is in contrast to the account here:
quote:Exodus 20:11
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
This means that the reference to the creation is only one of the many reasons why the Sabbath was instituted. Rather than a reference to when it was commanded by God to be observed by men.
This is an example of "limited definition" so common in the false logic of Adventists.
Other examples include taking the words "commandment" and "law" to mean only the "Big Ten" when that suits the their purpose.
Another good one is where they confuse the meaning of the Greek sabbaton with the Hebrew shabbath to include the other holy days (as it does in Hebrew). However, in Greek, it never means anything but the weekly Sabbath or one week.
That kind of lets the hot air out of their argument about Collosians 2:16. |
Goldenbear
Registered user
Username: Goldenbear
Post Number: 114
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 10:13 pm: | |
Jerry is on the right track...
The new living translation and even the bible quoted in Jerry's list indicates that moses is telling the CofI that the reason for keeping the sabbath is NOT to commemorate creation and for recognizing God resting on the sabbath, but for the CofI to remember leaving of egypt.
Had you spent much time learning the Deut. commandments? |
Melissa
Registered user
Username: Melissa
Post Number: 1020
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 9:17 am: | |
B actually told me that the "version" of the law in Deuteronomy wasn't the "real" law. Only Ex 20 is the "real" law. |
Jerry
Registered user
Username: Jerry
Post Number: 465
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 11:02 am: | |
How conveeeeeenient! So I guess B can declare any part of the Bible "not-real" if it does not fit his beliefs. So, next time he uses the ol' "don't you believe the WHOLE Bible" put-down, you can say "You have said that you don't believe all of the Bible."
Scary, but rather prevalent. |
Windmotion
Registered user
Username: Windmotion
Post Number: 189
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 11:40 am: | |
The retort that I have heard to this particular arguement is that Christians are spiritual Israel, and we should commemorate God rescuing us from our land of Egypt (umm sin?) by keeping the Sabbath. To which I responded that if we are to take the spiritual Israel thing that literally there are many more things we should be doing to obey God's commandments, such as moving to Israel and claiming the Promised Land! Any other ideas how to refute this?
Concretely,
Hannah |
Melissa
Registered user
Username: Melissa
Post Number: 1023
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 2:08 pm: | |
You know, sometimes that reference of "Spiritual Israel" sure has confused a lot of souls. Spiritual Israel, as I understand it and can always stand correction, is merely a reference of God's chosen people. It doesn't mean we are now tied back into the old covenant as given to physical Isreal. If it did, you're right, we'd have a whole boatload of things tied around our neck. We have our own covenant and it doesn't involve Egypt, figurative or literal. Why else would Paul repeatedly say we're not under the law?
My favorite line from B is the 2 Tim 3:16 partial quote ("all scripture is from God, profitable for doctrine, correction,... etc") and then diving into some OT scripture where God calls the sabbath "My sabbaths" as proof we are to keep the sabbath. The alternative topic of choice is when he runs to Isaiah where God calls pork an abomination....as though that proves vegetarianism.
"conveeeeeenient" doesn't even begin to describe it...it's plain sad. He wants to prove adventism correct so bad, he sacrifices the simple and plain word of God. |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 2465
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 3:59 pm: | |
Great points, Hannah and Melissa. "Spiritual Israel", in Adventist-ese, means "Adventists". Of COURSE we can't expect plain Christians to be keeping the 10 Commandments; they aren't part of spiritual Israel.
You know, there's another Adventist argument I've heard several times recently that really annoys me: Jesus died to honor and establish the law. He fulfilled the law and thus established the law as authoritative for us.
It's absoltuely horrifying to say that Jesus died for the sake of honoring the law. He died to pay for sin. He died because His own law condemned sinful man to death. He died because he took the curse of the law and BROKE that curse!
Calm down, Colleen...
|
Freeatlast
Registered user
Username: Freeatlast
Post Number: 412
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 4:31 pm: | |
amen, Amen, and AMEN!
At the core of SDA theology is that God loves His law more than He loves His children. That disgusts me!
As dad, I make rules in my house. One of my rules is that we don't throw our milk at each other. If my 20-month-old throws milk at her mother, there are negative consequences for my child. That's appropriate. But what about the milk she threw? My child made a mess that I have to mop up - not her, she doesn't have to do a thing - and that milk must be replaced.
My little daughter cannot even comprehend milk. She needs it, it helps her to grow, and she just loves to drink it. When she abuses the milk I freely gave her, she still needs more milk, and so I freely give her more. She does she not possess the means to replace the milk she abused. So even though I have done nothing wrong, I go out on MY time, buy more milk with MY money, and freely give it to MY daughter. I take full responsibility for her abusing what essentially is MY milk. I do this freely, gladly, and perpetually. Even when I know she will throw it again! Why? Because I love my little daughter infinitely more than I love my rule that we don't throw milk at each other. There's nothing wrong with my rule at all. But my little daughter is a milk-thrower by nature. So now what? I continue to love her just the same as if she never wasted a drop of milk in her life, and I will make sure the milk will never run out, no matter how much of it she throws away. Would anyone dare to call that "cheap milk"?
Now if utterly sinful ol' me can extend such grace to my child, what then has God done for us? |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 701
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 6:11 pm: | |
There is an excellent review on the meanig of the two different versions of the Decalogue in Ex. and Deuteronomy at a link posted on another thread www.soundofgrace.com/tablets/tos.html Scroll down on the left to chapter two on the two versions of the law.
Stan |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 933
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 9:43 pm: | |
Hannah, you could go both directions with that. You could tell them that they also should be keeping all of the other ceremonial feasts, etc., if they're supposed to keep the Sabbath because they're "spiritual Israel." Also, you could tell them that if they are "spiritual Israel" rather than physical, and if "Egypt" is "spiritual" rather than physical, then we should also keep the Sabbath spiritually by resting in Christ 24/7, rather than keeping the physical Sabbath day!
Jeremy
(Message edited by Jeremy on August 25, 2005) |
Cindy
Registered user
Username: Cindy
Post Number: 785
Registered: 7-2000
| | Posted on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 2:26 pm: | |
Great point, Jeremy!
grace,
cindy |
Windmotion
Registered user
Username: Windmotion
Post Number: 190
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 5:43 pm: | |
Hey, I like that.  I'm spiritual Israel so I'm going to keep the Sabbath spiritually! Can't argue with that.
Simply,
Hannah |
