Leaderboard

On the one hand, just about everything can be associated with pagan rituals. If you think about it, the act of conception can be associated with pagan fertility rites! so, should that mean that no one should ever participate in an act of conception? Well, such would soon bring an end to overpopulation issues. Sorry about that folks, but I could not help myself and I had to post this. [Well, actually I am not sorry about posting it.]

Thanks, all, for a very interesting and wide-ranging discussion. I've been dropping by and reading, but haven't kicked in a lot since most of the points I would have made have already been made more capably by others. I particularly like Woody's question at the top of this page, about being a Christian. If we understand the term 'Christian' as being able to be directly interpreted as 'follower of (Jesus) Christ', then surely a 'pure' Christian is someone who follows Jesus most closely? I do think that's more central than any denominational label, and something on which there's value in reflecting. Mensk asked: It's a fair question in the context of the thread, and I'll answer it as best I can. I no longer identify as a Seventh-day Adventist. I acknowledge it as part of my background, have many SDA friends (including but not limited to here), think that SDAism on most issues is well grounded in the Bible and so on. But I see it as one variant within Christianity and Christianity as one variant within human religiosity and religiosity as one facet of humanity and humanity as one facet of life and... In all that, the SDA box is too small to hold the way I now see the world and my place within it. That simple statement is likely to attract charges of ego, but I do reflect on that and don't think it's that. It's knowledge and embracing knowledge that has brought me to where I am on my lifelong on-going learning journey.

The more important question is: What is required to call yourself a Christian. And is there such a thing as a pure Christian.

Lyndon said: Many of the hymn tunes listed in the traditional SDA hymnal were traditional tunes for songs sung in places where alcoholic beverages were sold and consummed. Study your music hisstory.

Burt, I don't think anyone is doubting the honesty of your posts. Its the way you come across. As far as the Holy Spirit, we should all pray for the Holy Spirit to be with all of us and/or that we allow him to work within us.

CoAspen: Please bear with Bert. His profile tells us that he is only 55 years old, and was born in 1959. People of that young age do not have the maturity of experience that people like you and I have. We must bear with them and seek to guide them through the experiences of life and help them to reach the maturity of wisdom that we have achieved.

In his latest Washington Times editorial, “A Brave New World of Intolerance,” the ever-erudite Robert Knight laments the recent decision of the Montgomery County School Board to eliminate all religiously themed holidays to avoid having to add Muslim holidays to the schedule. This incident might seem to be just another chip in the erosion of our Christian foundations, but I suggest it is the legal equivalent of “checkmate” by the secularists in their battle to eliminate Christianity from public life. Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/the-deadly-religious-liberty-trap/#3MxGYIw49hr0L8SG.99

I'm sorry 8th day priest, but the "history" that Christmas came from pagans is out of date. It comes from a study a few hundred years ago where the scholars were using the best information that they had available to them. They said that December 25 was an important day for pagans and that Christians began celebrating December 25 as the birth of Christ in the fourth century. That Constantine made Christianity a legal religion and to place Jesus' birth on a day that was important to pagans made it easier for Pagans to become Christians. Although the events of the fourth century did indeed bring many things from Paganism into the celebration of Christmas, historians today have more information than our scholars from a couple of hundred years ago had. We now know that it came from inter-testamental Judaism, an attempt of one-ups-manship in the Church/Synagogue split of 135 AD. That the roots of December 25 was not centered on December 25 but that December 25 was the logical conclusion of what happened, and that December 25 was seen as the birth of Jesus in the third century, 100 years earlier than we thought. It was believed by Christians living in the 3rd century AD by Christians who wanted nothing to do with Paganism and were hiding in catacombs. During inter-testamental Judaism Rabbis said that we should expect good things from Passover. Some Rabbis believed that Isaac was born on Passover. Others believed that Isaac was CONSEVED at Passover and born 9 months later. They also believed that it was Passover that Abraham took Isaac to Mt. Mariah to sacrifice him and was stopped by God and they sacrificed a ram caught in the thicket instead. Also, they believed that people who were blessed got to die either on the anniversary of their birthday or conception day. When the church and synagogue split in 135 AD, it was like a divorce with both sides having pain and lashing out at the other to hurt the other. Some truths (such as the trinity) were split in half with the Jews holding one half and the Christians holding the other half of ideas that were oned prior to the split. One of the things that the church did was to say that Jesus was greater than Isaac because Isaac was a type of Jesus. The second century church said that like Sarah with Isaac, Mary became pregnant with Jesus on Passover. (They sided with the Rabbis that saw Isaac's conception as Passover rather than his birth). And that being blessed by God, Jesus got to die on Passover the anniversary of his conception and while Isaac went to be sacrificed on Passover, the anniversary of his conception, so Jesus was the true sacrifice who was sacrificed on Passover, the anniversary of his entering Mary to be born as a baby. For the next several years the second century AD church celebrated the feast of the Annunciation on Passover. It was Passover that was celebrated with the idea that Jesus' actual birth was 9 months later. Thus in the second century AD you find the roots of the birth of Jesus being in the December time period, because they believed that Isaac was born at that time and that Isaac was a type of Christ. After a while that century the church stopped using the Jewish calendar and started to use the Roman calendar. That year, in the Western churches and synagogues was held March 25. In the Greek churches and Synagogues they said it was April 6. Until this time they celebrated the feast of the Annunciation on what ever day Passover landed on. After this time the western church celebrated the feast of the Annunciation every March 25 and April 6 in the eastern churches. As you see so far little though was given to December 25 by these people who were focused on Passover. They were not saying "December 25 is important to the Pagans, so let's take there day for the birth of Isaac or the birth of Jesus. Yet if you add 9 months to Passover you get to the December time frame. Thus we have about 100 years of celebrating the feast of the Annunciation first on Passover, then every March 25 or April 6. In the third century they added 9 months to March 25 and came to December 25 (or in eastern churches they added 9 months to April 6 and came to December 6, the Orthodox Christmas). So we have a few hundred years of Jews believing that Isaac was either conceived or born on Passover. And we had 200 years of Christians believing that Jesus was the antitype of Isaac and that since the type Isaac was conceived at Passover so did Mary become pregnant with Jesus at Passover and 100 years of Christians adding 9 months to March 25 to see his birth as December 25 before Constantine makes Christianity a legal religion. At the best it would be that December 25 was a day that both the church and pagans held in common. However some historians are arguing that while there is evidence of different December holidays dealing with say the solar solstice, that none had specifically December 25 until after Christianity became a legal religion that the pagans turned their attention to December 25 and pretended that they always kept it. If these historians are right then we did not get December 25 from the Pagans but they got it from the Christians. Also, the feasts of the land: Passover, Yom Kippur etc. are the pagan feasts dealing with the agricultural cycle of that piece of Geography. It was not celebrated where their agricultural cycles were different. It was the Canaanites who kept them first long before Abraham. Thus the Jews got them from the pagans.

I see no need to have beliefs that are totally unique.

In response to the OP, I would submit that one could be known as a Seventh day Adventist if one's ethics and beliefs align to the predominant identifying essence of Adventism: Belief that the 7th Day is the Sabbath and in the 2nd coming. The other "rules of behavior" further define the denominational characteristics, i.e., no smoking, drinking, vegetarianism, etc. However, it's interesting that belief in the 7th day Sabbath and 2nd coming isn't limited to the SDA denomination. And neither are the other denominational characteristics.

Adventist Chaplaincy Ministries of the GC/NAD endorse more than 500 clergy for work as chaplains in various positions. Many of those conduct services on Sunday on a regular basis. But those chaplains do not keep Sunday as the Sabbath. Rather they keep the 7th day, as commanded by the Bible, as the Sabbath. Yes, I have preached on the Sabbath of the Bilble and other distinctive doctrines in Sunday services that I have conducted. I have been asked to come to Sunday keeping congregations and in their adult Sunday Schools and/or from the pulpit talk about what Seventh-day Adventists believe and why. These were worship services. The people had come to worship. I came to worship with them. If it is a sin to worship God on Sunday, I could not have gone to those congregations to talk to them about Seventh-day Adventists, what they believe, why and how they became a denomination. Again the Biblical position is that God has set aside the 7thd day for worship. One can worship on any day, but they cannot replace the one day that God has set aside with another day of their choosing. When I went to other congregations on Sunday, I also worshiped in a SDA Congregation on the day before--Saturday.

The Bible does not speak against worship on Sunday any more than it speaks against worship on Wednesday/Thursday--Remember the Prayer Meetings. What the Bible does is to speak of a time dedicated to God--the 7th day. What it speaks against is the attempt of humans to replace the day determined by God with a day not determined by God. In our worship we are not limited to what God has commanded. IOW, we are not limited to worshiping God only on the day that he commanded--the 7th day. At those times of worship, we can remember the major events of Christian faith--even when we may not know the exact day/month/year in which they occurred. The SDA denomination has never said that it is wrong for people to worship on Sunday. Even Ellen White spoke of having religious meetings on Sunday. Ah, so EGW personally had meetings on Sunday. Interesting.

I should explain - I said these kinds of questions are boring, but started the thread with one! My point was that tightening the by-laws of the club is counterproductive. Jesus' attitude was 'go out to the highways and byways and compel them to come in', not 'find arcane rules to keep them out'. Deciding that others don't get to be in the club because they are not like us is the direct opposite of what He stood for and stands for.

My heart longs for two things - my family and the truth. That's it: pretty simple! I'm afraid that much of what would constitute being a 'pure SDA' no longer appears to me as truth. I'm sure I'll get beaten with the Scripture stick for that, but it is what it is. I've probably said it before, but 'is it or isn't it?' questions are tedious and pointless to me. 'Is it or isn't it art?' or 'Is it or isn't it science?' - they're about definitions, and since people have different definitions these debates can never be resolved. Is s/he or isn't s/he an SDA? is a similarly bootless argument. My own inclination would be to leave it between the person and God. If someone is human they deserve my full love and respect. If someone is a good person, I want that person around me. The brand matters not a whit.