Do you know where your beliefs and practices come from?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

"for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart" ~ 1 Sam 16:7

[Kevin H]

7 hours ago, Scuba said:

How do you feel about Jesus dying on good Friday and rising on Easter Sunday? How do you feel about Sunday being the Lord's day? How do you feel about telling people that Jesus was born on December 25th? How do you feel about telling people that the early church gathered on the first day of the week rather than on the Sabbath? How about the immortality of the soul?  If you have no problem with these things then you are not seeking the kingdom of God and His righteousness, but rather, you are deep in Babylonian worship which God is calling His people out of.

Hey, hey, hey, this is a bunch of questions. Let's slow down and take them one at a time:

1. How do you feel about Jesus dying on good Friday and rising on Easter Sunday?

Among the early Adventists there were churches who came to a Wednesday crucifixion and Saturday night resurrection. This has been carried on by the Armstrong movement. The pioneers of what became the Seventh-day Adventist church considered this and was not find the evidence convincing so it was held by our sister churches but not ours. Also, having studied Biblical history and archaeology, this theory has not had any credible scholars who see any merit.  Now the last supper was probably on Tuesday night, which was the Essene Passover. And Jesus spending a day in prison before his trials as per Jewish law and Thursday being the days of the trials and on the cross Friday dying at the time of the Temple celebrating the Passover and raising at the feast of first fruits which was early on Sunday morning after the Passover. Thus 20th century scholarship sides with the choice our pioneers made as their friends who did not become Seventh-day Adventists were playing around with the other theory.

 

How do you feel about Sunday being the Lord's day?

Our pioneers noticed that the Sabbath is the Lord's day and thus we happen to be Seventh-day Sabbath-keepers. And again modern scholarship while they might argue whether or not the New Testament required it of Gentile believers, they are saying that the Sabbath has always been (it is just the superficial evangelicals who try to argue that the Sabbath has been done away with.) Current scholarship says that Saturday is the Sabbath, that God expects Jews to keep the Sabbath and that the New Testament invites gentiles to join them in Sabbath keeping.

How do you feel about telling people that Jesus was born on December 25th?

Jesus probably was not born December 25. We don't know when he was born. Some see hints that may lean towards sometime during the feast of tabernacles but even that is not more than hints. Here is an article talking about the old and the new evidence for how we got Jesus' birth on December 25. It was based on Jewish tradition. Not paganism. In fact some scholars are arguing that the Pagans got December 25 from the Christians. http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/how-december-25-became-christmas/

 

How do you feel about telling people that the early church gathered on the first day of the week rather than on the Sabbath?

Even if they did, they still kept Sabbath as Sabbath. There is no change. There is evidence that they went to Synagogue on Sabbath then on Sundays looked at things that were more unique to Christians. We are not sure just when that started, but they never saw Sunday as Sabbath.

 

How about the immortality of the soul?

God alone is immortal. We only have life as we are connected with the source of life. If we disconnect we die.

 

If you have no problem with these things then you are not seeking the kingdom of God and His righteousness, but rather, you are deep in Babylonian worship which God is calling His people out of.

As you see I have major problems with most of these things. The one that I don't have a problem with is the one that our Seventh-day Adventist pioneers heard, considered and rejected and which serious scholarship does not find convincing. You are stuck in tradition and ideas from some of our sister churches latched on to in the 1800s, but which are NOT Seventh-day Adventism.

The Bible gives two signs of having been called out of Babylon: First is of course worshiping God as creator, and the cultic sign of this is keeping the Sabbath. A second thing is in Jeremiah 31 of a woman encompassing a man, or the rejection of the Babylonian idea of male headship.

[jbal7]

Growing up my family never really did the whole Christmas tree deal. Mainly because my mother believed it to be a pagen holiday. I was always surprised to find some years that the Church had a tree put up. Past couple it has not. I recently just found in Adventist Home pg 482 (I believe that's the correct reference, it's what the app says) that EGW approves of a Tree (JoMo's correct). Even saying God would be "well pleased" for churches to put one up. This kinda blew my mind a little and I'm not sure yet I agree with her, I'm still searching for myself whether or not I believe her at all. Nevertheless, I do agree in not supporting pagen traditions, even given a good mindset. I feel this parallels SDA'S and jewelry. A pastor told me (correct me of im wrong) that we don't wear jewelry because thats how the heatherns adorned themselves in biblical times, using it to worship idols. And we're to set ourselves apart from them. He said some may say, "well I wear it cause it's pretty. Not for idols." He then gave this example, suppose I put a Nazi flag outside my house. Not because I support the Nazi beliefs or ideas but only because I like the design. Would a Jew be any less offended even though I have a good mindset? I like the design not the nazis themselves. Even still people will be offended, they know the original meaning. Thus with jewelry God's sees it as it was with the pagans and heathens. He knows the root meaning, even if I'm doing it for different reasons. Same goes with Christmas,easter or any other holiday. Whether or not we have a proper mindset God still knows what it originally meant. Now does God really care so long as we have a good mindset? I don't know. Maybe. I wear my wedding ring and my wife and I just put up our first Christmas tree. Salvation issue? Probably not, I think it really comes down to you and Jesus. That's a little long winded sorry, just my two cents  

[Kevin H]

We find Jesus celebrating Hanukkah, which was a new holiday after the Old Testament closes. This is an example to us that as long as we are using things for him and to know about and share him and it's not specifically against keeping his law (such as replacing the Sabbath with Sunday)  it that he will bless us.

Also in Jesus' celebration and message of Hanukkah, he focused on the joys of being together with family and the pain of loosing a loved one and to trust that he is the resurrection and the life and that even though if he was here our loved one would not have died, yet no matter how late he is, no matter how long our loved one was lying in the tomb and decomposing, The resurrection and the life is coming to raise them up and reunite us!!!!

I also see in Jesus placing the focus on the joys of family and the pain of separation at this season as a prophecy that he saw that this season would be important for us in relating to each other and the pain of the empty spot in the holiday table.

Just as God had the Hebrews eat the lamb and unleavened bread on the same night that the people in Jericho and the rest of Canaan were eating lamb and unleavened bread and did not pick another night of the year; so Jesus out of all the year and all the Old Testament feasts he could have chosen from, picked a later holyday from this very season to stress the importance of family and sympathies with the sadness of empty places in family gatherings. Too bad we didn't have these people around to warn Jesus that this is the worst time of year for him to have done this because it is too close to Christmas.

[Gregory Matthews]

jbellew7 K& Jewelry:  I have never before heard the idea that we do not wear jewelry because the heathen used jewelry to worship their gods.  I do not have any idea as to where that came from.  In any case, I do not believe that one could make a Biblical case for not wearing jewelry because the pagans used it to worship their gods. 

SDAs have generally attempted to make a Biblical case on the basis of:  1) Expense and stewardship of money.  2) Desire to attract attention to ones self.

[jbal7]

7 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

jbellew7 K& Jewelry:  I have never before heard the idea that we do not wear jewelry because the heathen used jewelry to worship their gods.  I do not have any idea as to where that came from.  In any case, I do not believe that one could make a Biblical case for not wearing jewelry because the pagans used it to worship their gods. 

SDAs have generally attempted to make a Biblical case on the basis of:  1) Expense and stewardship of money.  2) Desire to attract attention to ones self.

This is just what I was told by a pastor some time ago. I'm not sure where he got his info I just took his word on it. Anyway, I agree with your reasons also. 

[Gregory Matthews]

jbellew7,  let us take a look at your reference to EGWs comment on Christmas trees, found on page 482 of ADVENTIST HOME:

In the comment below, EGW was clearly talking about using Christmas time to place a tree in the church where people could be reminded to bring gifts to give to God and the Church.

While Chrismon trees had not been developed in the time of EGW,  I will suggest that EGW would clearly have approved of Chrismon trees today.  You can check Wikilpedia and many other references on the Internet to such.  Chrismon trees are entirely devoted to praise and worship of Christ.  Congregations that place Chrismon trees in their churches often have members hand making the decorations as an act of individual worship.  Yes,  Chrismon trees are not generally known by SDAs.  But, they are well known among some Christians.  Personally, I will  suggest that such is to bad.  I think it would be nice if SDA congregations placed Chrismon trees in their  congregatons.

 

 

Quote

 "Shall We Have a Christmas Tree?"--God would be well pleased if on Christmas each church would have a Christmas tree on which shall be hung offerings, great and small, for these houses of worship. [NOTE: REFERENCE IS MADE IN THIS ARTICLE TO CURRENT BUILDING PROJECTS. AS THE PRINCIPLES SET FORTH IN THIS CONNECTION ARE APPLICABLE TODAY, THESE SPECIFIC REFERENCES ARE LEFT IN THE ARTICLE.] Letters of inquiry have come to us asking, Shall we have a Christmas tree? Will it not be like the world? We answer, You can make it like the world if you have a disposition to do so, or you can make it as unlike the world as possible. There is no particular sin in selecting a fragrant evergreen and placing it in our churches, but the sin lies in the motive which prompts to action and the use which is made of the gifts placed upon the tree.  {AH 482.1}

 

 

     The tree may be as tall and its branches as wide as shall best suit the occasion; but let its boughs be laden with the golden and silver fruit of your beneficence, and present this to Him as your Christmas gift. Let your donations be sanctified by prayer.  {AH 482.2} 

 

 

 

     Christmas and New Year celebrations can and should be held in behalf of those who are helpless. God is glorified when we give to help those who have large families to support.  {AH 482.3} 

 

 

 

     A Tree Laden With Offerings Is Not Sinful.--Let not the parents take the position that an evergreen placed in the church for the amusement of the Sabbath school scholars is a sin, for it may be made a great blessing. Keep before their minds benevolent objects. In no case should mere amusement be the object of these gatherings. While there may be some who will turn these occasions into seasons of careless levity, and whose minds will not receive the divine impress, to other minds and characters

 

 

 

                                                                           483

 

 

 

these seasons will be highly beneficial. I am fully satisfied that innocent substitutes can be devised for many gatherings that demoralize.  {AH 482.4} 

 

 

 

 

 

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

5 hours ago, jballew7 said:

He then gave this example, suppose I put a Nazi flag outside my house. Not because I support the Nazi beliefs or ideas but only because I like the design. Would a Jew be any less offended even though I have a good mindset? I like the design not the nazis themselves. Even still people will be offended, they know the original meaning.

that's an interesting analogy.... but, actually, the swastika was a symbol of good luck, long before Hitler selected it as the symbol for the Nazi flag.  My great grandmother had a brooch with that design from the 1870s.

 That analogy demonstrates how original symbols, be it flags or holidays or anything else, can be taken over and used by subsequent generations or cultures to mean something else.  The original history of symbols doesn't necessarily connote the same purpose or meaning in current usage, for example, Christmas trees, or wreaths, or Easter eggs.

[jbal7]

Interesting, I was not familiar with with a "chrismon" tree. So they are just ever greens decorated and fashioned with things that represent Christ. I can't remember what my church's tree looked like, if it was a chrismon tree or just an ordinary christmas tree. It's been sometime since they did it. But, does the christmas/chrismon tree have roots in Christianity or paganism? I've read on some sites that it does come from pagan rituals and others say that it doesn't. My concern is that if the act of decorating a tree comes from paganism, even if its a chrismon tree purely meant for Christ, the act still comes from a pagan tradition. Just re doing the tree and now saying its a tree for Christ doesn't dismiss the origin and original meaning. Now if it is truly a tradition created by Christians than that's great. I personally like Christmas trees. I'm not debating whether or not the trees are or are not appropriate. All I meant was if something has an dark meaning, doing it and saying I'm doing in another mindset dosen't really nullify the issue. 

[jbal7]

I just skimmed these but they seem to contradict each other. Does anyone have creditable sources on the origin of decorating ever greens?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_tree.htm

http://www.history.com/topics/christmas/history-of-christmas-trees

[Gregory Matthews]

36 minutes ago, rudywoofs said:

. . . the swastika was a symbol of good luck, long before Hitler selected it as the symbol for the Nazi flag.

It is more involved than the above.

When I once lived in an Asian country I noted that a very close adaption of the swastika was deeply involved in a major religion in that country.

[Gregory Matthews]

Saturday is a day that has major religious significance and may require that one attend a Temple and worship.  It is a special day dedicated to a number of pagan gods.  [NOTE:  I will list a URL that will mention two such gods.]

In addition to attending a Temple, one may be required to wear black and to eat less and more simple food.

For more on this see:     http://londonsrimurugan.org/pdf/EachDayoftheWeek.pdf 

Yet, we SDAs follow this pagan example or worshiping in a Temple, wearing black (sometimes) and eating a more simple diet.

Pagan history can be attached to everything that we do in our religious life.  Baptism has a non-Christian connection. 

Current intention as to our religious practice is more  important than is past history.

 

 

[jbal7]

True Gregory, but couldn't we say we had the Sabbath first? Before the pagans. We believe that the Law was present in eden, thus the command to honor and respect it was there too. Adam and Eve would have upheld the Sabbath long before any pagans came and twisted into their beliefs.

[phkrause]

3 minutes ago, jballew7 said:

True Gregory, but couldn't we say we had the Sabbath first? Before the pagans. We believe that the Law was present in eden, thus the command to honor and respect it was there too. Adam and Eve would have upheld the Sabbath long before any pagans came and twisted into their beliefs.

Good point, and obviously they did keep the Sabbath long before any others did.

[Kevin H]

1 hour ago, jballew7 said:

True Gregory, but couldn't we say we had the Sabbath first? Before the pagans. We believe that the Law was present in eden, thus the command to honor and respect it was there too. Adam and Eve would have upheld the Sabbath long before any pagans came and twisted into their beliefs.

We MIGHT be able to use the same argument for December 25. In the articles that Biblical Archaeology Review and Bible Review has been quite good at publishing over recent years, and which is also starting to cross over into other articles and sermons and programs. Some of the scholars looking at this evidence are saying that there is no historical evidence of December 25 being a special date for the Pagans until the time of Constantine when they moved their different important days around this date to this date specifically. This may or may not be true but if it is true then Christians had December 25 first.

In the Bible we find Sabbath from the beginning, but it was not fully revealed and understood as Sabbath until the exodus. So it is not what came first but how it is used.

Remember Mrs. White's counsel about Sunday Laws, that we are then to give Sunday to the Lord and use it for a day of evangelism and meetings. Sunday keeping is clearly paganism, but the problem with Sunday keeping is how it is used in place of the Sabbath. We can do special things on Sunday just as long as we remember that Sabbath is Sabbath. While not sure just when it started, it appears that the early church went to Synagogue on Sabbath and kept the Sabbath, but on Sunday got together to study the life of Christ and writings of Paul and things that were more specifically of interest to Christians as opposed to the Jewish/Christian topics of Sabbath worship in the Synagogue. The problem came when the Sunday get together started to replace the Sabbath.

[Gregory Matthews]

. . . the problem with Sunday keeping is how it is used in place of the Sabbath.

 

The above is exactly right.  There is nothing wrong with having a worship service on Sunday.  What is wrong is substituting Sunday for the Sabbath.

In my many years as a clergyperson, I have, in working for the Federal government, preached more often on Sunday morning than on Saturday morning.  I kept the Sabbath, as much as I in my human way could do.  But, I never kept Sunday as the Sabbath.

 

 

[JoeMo]

I wouldn't have a problem worshipping on Sunday.  I WOULD have a problem being prohibited from worshipping on Sabbath.

[Ron Amnsn]

3 hours ago, Kevin H said:

We MIGHT be able to use the same argument for December 25. In the articles that Biblical Archaeology Review and Bible Review has been quite good at publishing over recent years, and which is also starting to cross over into other articles and sermons and programs. Some of the scholars looking at this evidence are saying that there is no historical evidence of December 25 being a special date for the Pagans until the time of Constantine when they moved their different important days around this date to this date specifically. This may or may not be true but if it is true then Christians had December 25 first.

This seems rather incomplete and perhaps misleading.  The pagans were celebrating the winter solstice, which falls around December 21 on our present Gregorian calendar.  But they weren't using the Gregorian calendar at the time of Constantine.  Constantine would have been using the Julian calendar, in which the winter solstice drifted slowly as the centuries passed.  The pagans in northern Europe, where many of the Christmas practices came from, probably weren't using Constantine's calendar at all until many centuries after Constantine, so to say that "December 25" was not a special date for pagans could be misleading, since "December" probably had no meaning to them at all.  Were they using a calendar where the months were determined by the moon itself, rather than being determined by the Roman emperor and later by the Pope?

There is no doubt that "Christ Mass" at it's best is a Catholic holiday, which was once outlawed in Britain and parts of the US because of its pagan roots and popish trappings.  Both Constantine and the Catholics brought pagan practices into the Church and "christianized" them in order to make the Church more appealing to local pagans.

 

[Kevin H]

Pretty good post Ron, and that is exactly why is it hard to say that we got December 25 from the pagans and whey some scholars are saying that they actually got December 25 from us.

Now it's hard to call it a Catholic holiday as the roots of it stem from prior to the emergence of the Catholic church. It was held by Christians who were hiding in the catacombs.

Judging from the evidence there were the different December holidays dealing with the solstice among the Pagans. Then there was in Judaism Hanukkah (which the New Testament made into a Biblical Holyday with a special connection to family and the hope of the resurrection). and the Jewish belief that Isaac was either born on Passover or conserved on Passover and thus born 9 months after Passover which would have place the birth of Isaac ACCORDING TO TRADITION in the December period and then a later Passover be taken to Mt. Moriah.

Among the second century, as the church and synagogue split the church wanted to one up the Jews by taking the tradition of Isaac being conserved on Passover and born 9 months later, and then be the true sacrifice at a later Passover. These Christians were celebrating the feast of the Annunciation first every Passover, until they stopped taking the Jewish Calendar and started using the Roman calendar. That year (as in other years) there was a dispute over which day was Passover with the churches and synagogues in the East celebrating Passover/feast of the annunciation on April 6 but the churches in the west celebrating Passover/feast of the annunciation on March 25. There after in the east they celebrated every April 6 and in the west every March 25 not thinking much about when Jesus would have been born.

During the 3rd century while hiding in the catacombs from the pagans their were Christians who continued to celebrate the feast of the Annunciation every March 25 and then they started adding 9 months to March 25 and picked December 25 as the birth of Jesus. Once again all this was based on Jewish LEGEND about Isaac being either born or conceived on Passover, and if conceived on Passover would have been born 9 months later.

Then we get to the 4th century. Pockets of Christians were believing Jesus was born December 25 and were teaching this for about 100 years. And for about 200 years they were saying that the angel came to Mary and she became pregnant with Jesus at first Passover then on March 25 in the west or April 6 in the east. Constantine made Christianity a legal religion. And the pagans unite their different but around the same time feast days and place it on the day Christians said that Jesus was born. As the Christians and Pagan became united on the date much of the pagan traditions crept into the church and we got the Catholic Christmas.

[8thdaypriest]

How about BAPTISM by sprinkling? 

I read that it started in Antioch.  There was a severe drought, with water rationing.  There was NO bathing, etc. etc.  New converts could not be immersed, but they wanted to use some water, so they began just sprinkling.  Dr. Jeffrey Seif sites sources for this, in his book "To the Ends of the Earth".   It could have been seen as a continuation of the sprinkling with the ashes of the red heifer - for cleansing. 

Numbers 19:18 "A clean person shall take hyssop and dip it in the water (which contained some ashes of the red heifer), sprinkle it on the tent, on all the vessels, on the persons who were there, or on the one who touched a bone, the slain, the dead, or a grave."

Hebrews 10:22  "let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water."

[Kevin H]

Good point. I have not learned all the details but from what I understand the church did not argue over how to baptize. That it was simple: if there was water it was immersion. If no water or someone who could not be immersed then it was sprinkling. Immersion carries the full imagery and with eastern thought there was an understanding of going back to the situation and being with them.

Some of the images is the promise of Genesis 3:15 of the bruised heel and wounded head which Noah passed on to his children and ended up in the universal myths about a supernatural being (Baal to the Canaanites, Thor to the Scandinavians, St. George etc. who fight the dragon, the sea monster) and that we go into the sea and the victory becomes our victory. And the Hebrews crossing the Red Sea and Jordan River, and dying and raising with Christ.

However, sadly as time went on what was to only be used as an emergency when immersion was not possible became the standard.  But that becoming standard misses all the imagery and message and the experience that can only come through immersion.

[jbal7]

Kevin H, I agree with you about how immersion conveys a much deeper message than just sprinkles. A few drops, hardly worth the effort. I'm not trying to get off topic but what do you, or anyone, think about being re baptized? I got baptized when I was around 13ish  years old. I knew what it meant back then but now I have a deeper understanding of it. However I go in and out of a good relationship with Jesus. And when I'm "in" I think about being re baptized. I don't think baptism is a salvation requirement and i think God knows the heart, which makes me think re baptizing isnt necessary.

[8thdaypriest]

I've heard Rico Cortes speak about the adoption ceremony in the ancient world.  Adoption was common in the Roman world.  A man without a son to inherit his estate would adopt one.  An adopted son was accepted in society AS no less than the son of his adoptive father.  The adoption ceremony involved an immersion in water, to symbolize the "waters" from the womb.  There's a scene in the movie "Ben Hur" where he is about to be adopted by the Roman he saved from the shipwreck.

Christian baptism is also a BIRTH ceremony, and we are adopted by our heavenly Father.   The individual must consent to the adoption, so baptism would be VERY important.  Sprinkling would not have the same "birth" significance, to someone in the ancient world.  Sprinkling would only symbolize cleansing.  Of course - to them - especially those who were Jews, it would actually BE cleansing.  The LORD would cleanse you, or declare you cleansed BECAUSE you received the sprinkling. 

For the ancients, there was little separation between symbol and reality.  We look at the sacrifices, and the priests, and the Temple, and the Feasts - all as symbolic - as prophecy, but an ancient Jew would not see things this way.  He would not believe his sin was actually atoned for, without that Lamb, or that ceremony at the Temple. 

On the downside, the Pharisees believed they were forgiven, or cleansed, etc. BECAUSE they did the ceremonies. 

[Ron Amnsn]

On 12/25/2015 at 11:01 PM, Kevin H said:

Pretty good post Ron, and that is exactly why is it hard to say that we got December 25 from the pagans and whey some scholars are saying that they actually got December 25 from us.

Kevin, there have always been apologists and historical revisionists able to justify every non-biblical tradition and practice that has come into the church.  Among Christians who start out with what they want to believe, and then "study" the Bible to show how those beliefs are supported by the Bible, it is simple enough for them to do the same thing with history.

So far, all of the articles I've seen claiming that Christians had December 25 first, have focused on the date "December 25" without even dealing with the proximity of the winter solstice, if they mention it at all.
 

 

[Ron Amnsn]

On 12/25/2015 at 11:01 PM, Kevin H said:

Now it's hard to call it a Catholic holiday as the roots of it stem from prior to the emergence of the Catholic church. It was held by Christians who were hiding in the catacombs.

Did those who celebrated the birth of Jesus prior to the emergence of the Catholic church call it "Christ's Mass" ?   I doubt it.

If it weren't for the Roman Catholics, how would we have learned to call December 25 "Christ Mass"?

"Christ Mass" is a Catholic holiday.

Edited December 26, 2015 by Ron Amnsn