| Author | Message | ||
| Grace_alone Registered user Username: Grace_alone Post Number: 2159 Registered: 6-2006  |
Hi friends! I've been studying the book of Matthew this year in BSF (Bible Study Fellowship) and came across these verses in this week's notes: Matthew 26:63-65 Jesus Before the Sanhedrin …63But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, "I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God." 64Jesus said to him, "You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN." 65Then the high priest tore his robes and said, "He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy;… Now, as I understand it, according to Ellen White/SDAism, Jesus has moved into an apartment and is conducting the Investigative Judgment. However Jesus' words are clear here that "from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand" (of God). I also understand that SDA's will usually say that they don't hold Ellen's writings as scripture. There's obviously a conflict here. How does SDAsim answer these words of Jesus? Thanks!  Leigh Anne (Message edited by grace_alone on February 04, 2014) | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 1241 Registered: 7-2004  |
I wouldn't have seen a conflict as an SDA. It says "hereafter" not "from now on." They obviously didn't see Jesus immediately sitting at the right hand because He was still on earth at that time, so it was at some point after but doesn't say precisely when. And it's tied with the Second Coming ("coming on the clouds of heaven"). SDA's believe Jesus sits down at the end of the investigative judment and so if He is seen that way at the Second Coming, there is no conflict. | ||
| Grace_alone Registered user Username: Grace_alone Post Number: 2160 Registered: 6-2006 |
Ah, okay. I asked my husband about it and of course, he glazed over, couldn't remember that teaching and then changed the subject and left the room. That's a lot of addition to the text though, adding the IJ in-between Jesus' ascension and the second coming. Thanks Ms. Raven! | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 772 Registered: 2-2003  |
I don't know how SDA sees it, but just to comment, the Greek for "hereafter" says "ap' arti" which means precisely "from now" - so that doesn't leave much room for 1800 years in between. Just sayin' Adrian | ||
| Rioranchoprays Registered user Username: Rioranchoprays Post Number: 29 Registered: 3-2014 |
Great comments. It's amazing how many ideas one learns as a child or young adult that are stuck in the back of your mind. The ideas are just there, not subject to judgment. I find ideas on a regular basis that are in my mind, but when I examine them are not Biblical. I had a friend, a long time SDA, tell me that she didn't see why there was all of that blood in the Bible. She couldn't figure out why Jesus had to die on the cross. Then, come to find out, at Loma Linda University, Dr. Maxwell has a unique view of salvation as Dale Ratzlaff says in his book, Truth Led Me Out explains. Maxwell: The substitutionary view of the Atonement gives the wrong picture of God, and God is not concerned with the forgiveness of sins, but only wants to know if we are willing to trust him so we can be safe to save. Thus the requirement for salvation . . . is a willingness to listen to God and take what he says seriously. Really? This is what's being taught at the SDA's large medical university. Wow! No wonder these people think Christ died for no reason. We didn't need the cross. Now my gal friend's puzzlement makes sense. | ||
| Nowisee Registered user Username: Nowisee Post Number: 1443 Registered: 5-2009 |
We began being indoctrinated early, starting in Cradle Roll….beginning in subtle ways, then going on to doctrinal stuff as we got older. In innocent sounding songs we learned things such as the "fact" that we get 6 days for OURSELVES & God gets ONE. Using pretty flannels of Bible characters, I heard one of the teachers explain to the little tiny children that the disciples caught fish so that they could sell them to buy food they could eat! As far as Graham Maxwell--horrific! Let me quote some things he wrote, found in a book that my parents owned: "Such familiar old phrases as "washed in the blood," "there's power in the blood," "covered by His righteousness," "accepted in the Beloved," "saved by the blood of the Lamb," and so many more, surely qualify as "dark speech." He goes on a little later to mock one of his Christian students who told him that the Bible says that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. This is blasphemous teaching & certainly not Christian or Biblical & it mocks our Savior's shed blood. What were we in? It seemed normal when I was in it, but the more I study the Bible, the more horrifying it becomes. This is no way says that there are not true believers in the SDA church, but IMHO they don't stay…God rescues them & tears their veil in His own timing, for His glory. Oh, & the book is titled "Servants of Friends? Another Look at God". It's "another look", all right…straight from the enemy. | ||
| Rocky Registered user Username: Rocky Post Number: 132 Registered: 3-2012 |
I recently saw a picture on a social media site of a table meant to be set up for communion at an SDA service - it was so odd, candles in holders with greenery accents, a cross draped with purple cloth, black backdrop- it looked like theater props or a decorators idea of a Christian theme, but not like communion- when you don't believe the cross was necessary I guess it becomes an accessory...? | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 10116 Registered: 3-2004  |
Wish this site had a like I could click on as I like what Nowisee and Rocky have said. Diana | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 3316 Registered: 7-2007 |
What about this verse? "But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, He sat down at the right hand of God" Hebrews 10:12 So do Adventists "explain away" this verse by saying that there is someplace that's holier than God Himself??? Because Ellen White says very firmly in her book "Early Writings" that Jesus DID NOT go into the Most Holy Place until 1844! (They also would have to ignore Hebrews 6:19-20 which says Jesus went there after His ascension.) | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 14760 Registered: 12-2003  |
Nowisee, thank you for that post. I agree...the longer I am out of Adventism, the more horrific I see it to be. They are consummately deceptive. It is hard to see the truth of what they are. We are running an article by Paul Carden in this next issue of Proclamation. It is essentially the talk he gave at the 2013 FAF Conference last year. He tells how he "discovered" Adventism. It took him years. He explains that as he read the appendix about Adventism in the back of Walter Martin's "Kingdom of the Cults", he would glaze over. He could not get his mind to focus on the details, and since Martin had said they weren't a cult, he decided not to worry about it. He tells of going to Brazil in the early 80s, of two of his kids being born in the SDA hospital in Sao Paul, of their eagerly buying and eating Adventist peanut butter and honey and patronizing their vegetarian restaurant. But even though the Brazilian staff of Christian Research Institute were deeply troubled by and opposed to Adventism because of their persistent proselytizing of Christians, he just didn't "get it". In fact, he didn't begin to realize there was a real problem until he heard Dale Ratzlaff speak at a meeting of the Evangelical Ministries to New Religions Conference early in the 2000's (or late 1990's). He suddenly realized he had never understood Adventism. Eventually he met again with Dale and Carolyn and also with Richard and me, and he began to see that Adventism distorts every essential doctrine of the Christian faith. As he puts it,
We were systematically "programmed" to believe heretical things about Jesus, the Father, ourselves, salvation, sin, and Satan. It was very subtle and slow, and it was never presented as a package of heresy; it was couched in sweet sounds, lovely flannels, nice words about God's goodness and character...and it was completely false. Under the normal-sounding words, the worldview and the understanding of the words of Scripture were completely off. In John 14 Jesus tells His disciples—and specifically answers Thomas and Philip—by saying they are to believe that He is IN the Father and the Father is IN Him. Even His words are from the Father, and the Father abiding in Him does His works. Jesus taught He was ONE with the Father. He is not a separate being, but He is part of the One God in three Person. (Nor is Jesus merely a manifestation of God; He is the second person of the Trinity, the eternal God the Son.) It is a mystery we can't explain, but unless we believe that Jesus is One with the Father, not just a good representation of Him, we are not believing in the biblical Jesus. Jesus always had ALL the attributes of God. He was never without omniscience, omnipotence, or omnipresence, even though He took a physical body. God is Spirit. The heresy of our teaching that He had to send the Spirit because He could no longer be everywhere at once is a horrifying perversion. A Jesus who cannot be omnipresent is not God. We believed in a non-biblical Jesus. No wonder He seemed embarrassingly meek, even weak, and somewhat "elementary". Adventism is subtle and dangerous because its heresy is so cleverly hidden behind normal-sounding words. Praise God He knows how to draw and extract His own from the death-grip of darkness, deception, and spiritual night! Colleen | ||
| Skeeter Registered user Username: Skeeter Post Number: 2053 Registered: 12-2007  |
Amen Colleen... Amen ! | ||
| Rioranchoprays Registered user Username: Rioranchoprays Post Number: 37 Registered: 3-2014 |
This thread reminds me of a dear older lady we knew. After a great Gospel sermon she remarked, "I don't know why Jesus had to die on the cross. He didn't die for me because I have kept the commandments all of my life. As Dr. Des Ford once said, It isn't just what we do, but who we are. We are sinful sons and daughters of Adam. Even if we stopped sining when we find Jesus, we would still need the cross because of our sinful human nature. |
