Christ was a Seventh-day Adventist

[Ted Oplinger]

Originally Posted By: FLO

Jesus celebrated Passover as well as the other Holy days of Lev. 23 and the SDA church does not. (www.EasterTruth.info)

Originally Posted By: Ted Oplinger

That still puts Him square with those within the SDA Church who 1) don't celebrate the pagan holidays, and 2) do recognize and celebrate the Passover and other Holy days.

Not here in BC, Canada. My feast-keeping SDA friends tell me that those who keep God's Feasts are not allowed to hold offices in the local Adventist churches. So apparently Jesus was not qualified for church leadership here.

Hmmm...neither would Paul make the hit parade of church leaders in your area, as he is noted observing and looking forward to Passover in Acts and his epistles.

I guess there is still a lot of garbage from the Church Councils from 350 on about Judaizing that still needs to be cleaned out.

A Christian truly keeping the Commandments of God, and the testimony/faith of Christ (Revelation 12:17, 14:12) will have a decidedly "Jewish" flavor to their walk, as their Redeemer is also decidedly "Jewish".

Blessings,

[BobRyan]

Steering back into the topic, it's very easy for any religion to claim Christ. Just think about it... how easy would it to make Christ look:

1) Catholic

2) Presbyterian

3) Baptist

4) Greek Orthodox

5) Methodist

6) Republican

7) Democrat

You name it...

Indeed - and if we hold the details at enough of a distance - we might view them as all having the same validity as the claim that Christ was a Seventh-day Adventist in terms of doctrine.

Far be it from me to deny such a fact when it comes to the idea that ignoring details can at some level be used to make everything look the same.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

The issue of Adventist superiority of the health message being a 100 years ahead, because it was given to E.G. White by God is quite odd in light of the sources that pre-existed and that talk extensively about both benefits of vegetarian diet, exercise, abstaining from alcohol and tobacco... all of that was fairly contemporary.

By contrast - actual history shows that in Ellen White's day and well into the 20th century the common practice of "prescribing" cigarettes for patients with asthma is well documented.

And in Ellen White's day - the SDA sanitariums were renowned as pretty much the only place that healing was taking place - such that the rich would either go to an SDA sanitarium - or have the doctors visit them at their own homes - rather than risk death by going to a hospital.

This was the case - even to the point that Henry Ford, Harvey Firestone, John Rockefeller Jr., Alfred Du Pont, Booker T. Washington, and President William Howard Taft were among the many who visited Battle Creek Sanitarium or one of its satellite institutions

But if we keep these details of history - at a certain distance I suppose we could "imagine" that nothing was going on.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Quote:

There are likely some people who smoke in order to self-medicate themselves for certain conditions that they have. What these people need to understand though is the problem with the "medication" (their cigarettes) that they have chosen to use to treat a condition. The medication (cigarettes) they are using has certain undesirable side effects.

Think of it this way. Lets say that you have a medical or emotional condition that causes you some level of discomfort. Nothing life threatening, just a problem that is causing some minor disruption in your day to day function. You go to your pharmacy and look through the over the counter remedies and find one that says it "may" be able to treat your exact condition. You buy it.

When you get home you start to read the dosing instructions and contraindications of usage. The medication has the following standard warning:

Medication is habit forming. Medication leads to addiction to most people who use it. Medication known to be one of the most addictive drugs known to man. Medication contains the following ingredients, followed by a list of four thousand chemicals, some with familiar names like arsenic, hydrogen cyanide, carbon monoxide and many many others. Medication known to cause cancer in rodents. Medication known to cause cancer in humans. Medication known to cause heart disease, strokes, peripheral vascular diseases. Medication known to destroy lung tissue. Medication known to cause chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases like emphysema and chronic bronchitis. Medication is known to be the most recognized cause of premature death in the United States. Medication known to cripple millions of people worldwide every year. Medication known to kill over 4.9 million people worldwide every year. Medication known to kill one out of every two people who use it.

The idea that this "medicated cigarette" fiasco was not the accepted medical practice of the 19th and early 20th century is unknown to history books.

in Christ,

Bob

[whatisthis]

Originally Posted By: fccool

Steering back into the topic, it's very easy for any religion to claim Christ. Just think about it... how easy would it to make Christ look:

1) Catholic

2) Presbyterian

3) Baptist

4) Greek Orthodox

5) Methodist

6) Republican

7) Democrat

You name it...

Indeed - and if we hold the details at enough of a distance - we might view them as all having the same validity as the claim that Christ was a Seventh-day Adventist in terms of doctrine.

Far be it from me to deny such a fact when it comes to the idea that ignoring details can at some level be used to make everything look the same.

in Christ,

Bob

Well, Christ is the root of the vine. Every church grown on the root from the Jews on, would be a branch, wouldn't it? Let me read to you what I read this morning in the New English Bible, and it's right on that topic!

"But if some of the branches have been lopped off, and you, a wild olive, have been grafted in among them, and have come to share the same root and sap as the olive, do not make yourself superior to the branches. If you do so, remember that it is not you who sustain the root: the root sustains you."

"You will say, 'Branches were lopped off so that I might be grafted in'. Very well: they were lopped off for lack of faith, and by faith you hold your place. Put away your pride, and be on your guard . . ." Romans 11:17-21

Does it follow that perhaps the question itself is out of place? Is the true question about whether Christ was/is a Seventh Day Adventist, or is the best question, "Are Seventh Day Adventists Christians? And that might be a personal question or a corporate one even, but it's worthy of every day asking, so that we can be on our guard!

The devil is a wily foe. Isn't our best-- and even our only hope-- in being rooted and grounded in Christ Jesus?

[BobRyan]

Jesus was speaking of the Moral Law not the ceremonial law which would end according to His own word given to Paul in Hebrews 10 "he takes AWAY the first in order to establish the second" - and Hebrews 7 "Where there is a CHANGE of priesthood there is a CHANGE of Law ALSO".

As Paul points out in 1Cor 7:19 comparing the ceremonial law to the moral law of God - Paul says that ceremonial laws such as circumcision do not matter "but what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" --

The same thing that the Christian Church approved of in Acts 15.

[whatisthis]

[Ron Amnsn]

I think the obvious answer is that "not eating blood" as with Lev 11 "not eating meat that is not for food" was never "a ritual".

There was never a liturgy or ritual where once a year for example - they would stop eating blood, or stop eating pigs.

Nothing about it was "ritual" or "ceremonial" - so how are you making the leap that there was a ever a ceremony that would have been of the form "and now, today we will not eat blood"??

How did you ever get to such an idea?

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: fccool

The issue of Adventist superiority of the health message being a 100 years ahead, because it was given to E.G. White by God is quite odd in light of the sources that pre-existed and that talk extensively about both benefits of vegetarian diet, exercise, abstaining from alcohol and tobacco... all of that was fairly contemporary.

By contrast - actual history shows that in Ellen White's day and well into the 20th century the common practice of "prescribing" cigarettes for patients with asthma is well documented.

And in Ellen White's day - the SDA sanitariums were renowned as pretty much the only place that healing was taking place - such that the rich would either go to an SDA sanitarium - or have the doctors visit them at their own homes - rather than risk death by going to a hospital.

This was the case - even to the point that Henry Ford, Harvey Firestone, John Rockefeller Jr., Alfred Du Pont, Booker T. Washington, and President William Howard Taft were among the many who visited Battle Creek Sanitarium or one of its satellite institutions

But if we keep these details of history - at a certain distance I suppose we could "imagine" that nothing was going on.

These details of history don't establish that Adventist medicine was 100 years advanced over its contemporaries. This is just triumphal name dropping. Remember Dr. Harvey Kellogg had far more influence on the development of these institutions than Ellen White and he was condemned as a heretic.

Also one of the main reasons for the vegetarian diet was to prevent masturbation because meat and stimulating foods increased sexual desire. You will find this theme throughout the writings of Ellen White including the false idea that masturbation causes cancer and other horrible diseases. Dr. Kellogg practiced sexual mutilation on both boys and girls to prevent masturbation including the removal of the clitoris and circumcision on young boys without the use of anesthetic. He also advocated the application of carbolic acid to the sexual organs of girls and "the application of blisters and other irritants to the sensitive parts of the sexual organs" in his publication "Ladies' Guide in Health and Disease."

This is certainly not 100 years in advance of modern medicine. Apparently keeping these "details of history at a certain distance" is something you have chosen to do.

This is simply evidence that religion makes people do harmful things and holds us back as a human race.

You wonder why I am an atheist to the god of the Bible. This is why, not because I'm trying to enjoy the pleasures of the world. Religion is evil.

[Ron Amnsn]

Earlier in this thread when I quoted from Matt. 5:17-18,19 you responded:

Jesus was speaking of the Moral Law not the ceremonial law which would end according to His own word given to Paul in Hebrews 10 "he takes AWAY the first in order to establish the second" - and Hebrews 7 "Where there is a CHANGE of priesthood there is a CHANGE of Law ALSO".

That gives the impression that you believe that anything from the Law of Moses that is not part of the so-called "moral law" is considered to be "ceremonial law", which is a common SDA belief.

But now it seems like you're saying that only the laws that you deem to be associated with rituals or ceremonies are to be classified as "ceremonial law". If that is so, into what category do you place the laws that are not in the "Ten Commandments" and are not rituals or ceremonies (ie. the law to abstain from blood)?

Is there another category of law? If so, what is that category called? Do you consider the laws in this other-category to be part of the enduring law that Jesus said would not pass from the law, or is it part of the temporary law that you deem to have been annulled? It appears that you consider it fine to require Gentiles to observe and keep this third category of law (ie. abstain from blood) as the Council in Acts 15 did.

If you believe there is a third category of law that is still valid (ie abstain from blood, love your neighbor, love God with all your heart, etc.), then there could be no validity to the idea (which Joeb was promoting) that Moses was making a meaningful distinction between various types of law by having the Book of the Law placed beside the Ark of the Covenant rather than inside the Ark. If any of the still-valid laws were in the Book of the Law placed outside the Ark, then that position outside of the Ark could not possibly indicate a non-enduring status for any of the laws written in the Book of the Law. On the other hand if any of the still-valid laws were not placed inside the Ark then then that position inside the Ark could not possibly be a reliable indicator to show which laws endure until heaven and earth pass away.

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: fccool

The issue of Adventist superiority of the health message being a 100 years ahead, because it was given to E.G. White by God is quite odd in light of the sources that pre-existed and that talk extensively about both benefits of vegetarian diet, exercise, abstaining from alcohol and tobacco... all of that was fairly contemporary.

By contrast - actual history shows that in Ellen White's day and well into the 20th century the common practice of "prescribing" cigarettes for patients with asthma is well documented.

And in Ellen White's day - the SDA sanitariums were renowned as pretty much the only place that healing was taking place - such that the rich would either go to an SDA sanitarium - or have the doctors visit them at their own homes - rather than risk death by going to a hospital.

This was the case - even to the point that Henry Ford, Harvey Firestone, John Rockefeller Jr., Alfred Du Pont, Booker T. Washington, and President William Howard Taft were among the many who visited Battle Creek Sanitarium or one of its satellite institutions

But if we keep these details of history - at a certain distance I suppose we could "imagine" that nothing was going on.

[BobRyan]

Earlier in this thread when I quoted from Matt. 5:17-18,19 you responded:

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

Jesus was speaking of the Moral Law not the ceremonial law which would end according to His own word given to Paul in Hebrews 10 "he takes AWAY the first in order to establish the second" - and Hebrews 7 "Where there is a CHANGE of priesthood there is a CHANGE of Law ALSO".

That gives the impression that you believe that anything from the Law of Moses that is not part of the so-called "moral law" is considered to be "ceremonial law", which is a common SDA belief.

But now it seems like you're saying that only the laws that you deem to be associated with rituals or ceremonies are to be classified as "ceremonial law". If that is so, into what category do you place the laws that are not in the "Ten Commandments" and are not rituals or ceremonies (ie. the law to abstain from blood)?

Is there another category of law?

Indeed there are civil laws that can only be applied under a Theocracy - laws about stoning Sabbath breakers for example.

It is not allowed under our current system - and is in fact one of the things we predict will come up in the future.

It is pretty obvious that all feast day laws dealing with sacrifices and offerings and the officiating of a now-defunct priesthood - end as that priesthood ended according to Heb 7 and as all those sacrifices and offerings ended according to Heb 10.

That is the easy part.

The law against eating blood and diseased animals etc found in Lev 11 and elsewhere are also applicable as they are not based on a liturgy or worship service of any kind that could be pointing to Christ.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

I think the obvious answer is that "not eating blood" as with Lev 11 "not eating meat that is not for food" was never "a ritual".

There was never a liturgy or ritual where once a year for example - they would stop eating blood, or stop eating pigs.

Nothing about it was "ritual" or "ceremonial" - so how are you making the leap that there was a ever a ceremony that would have been of the form "and now, today we will not eat blood"??

How did you ever get to such an idea?

I think I got that idea from you, but I've also heard the same idea from others who try to create a distinction between the "moral law" and the "ceremonial law".

Earlier in this thread you said,

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

Only ten commandments written on stone with God's own hand - they are part of the moral law - not the ceremonial law.

Only the Ten Commandments spoken by God to the people directly "And he added NO more" Deut 5. A key part of the moral law of God.

It sounded like you were saying only the "Ten Commandments" that were written by God on stone were part of the "moral law". It is possible that I misunderstood your sentence fragment, but I don't think so

My point was that the Ten Commandments are uniquely situated as Moral Law - but that does not mean there are not other laws in the OT that define sin when violated. (Which is what moral law does).

For example Lev 19:18 "Love your neighbor as yourself"

Deut 6:5 "Love God with all your heart".

Moral law "defines sin" and applies to all mankind.

It is not the sort of thing from which you could "exempt gentile Christians" as they do in the case of the ceremonial laws when dealing with gentile Christians in Acts 15, and Acts 21.

in Christ,

Bob

[cardw]

1. Kellogg was never condemned by SDAs for denouncing the use of tobacco.

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: fccool

The issue of Adventist superiority of the health message being a 100 years ahead, because it was given to E.G. White by God is quite odd in light of the sources that pre-existed and that talk extensively about both benefits of vegetarian diet, exercise, abstaining from alcohol and tobacco... all of that was fairly contemporary.

By contrast - actual history shows that in Ellen White's day and well into the 20th century the common practice of "prescribing" cigarettes for patients with asthma is well documented.

And in Ellen White's day - the SDA sanitariums were renowned as pretty much the only place that healing was taking place - such that the rich would either go to an SDA sanitarium - or have the doctors visit them at their own homes - rather than risk death by going to a hospital.

This was the case - even to the point that Henry Ford, Harvey Firestone, John Rockefeller Jr., Alfred Du Pont, Booker T. Washington, and President William Howard Taft were among the many who visited Battle Creek Sanitarium or one of its satellite institutions

But if we keep these details of history - at a certain distance I suppose we could "imagine" that nothing was going on.

[cardw]

Which is why I point to the origin of that message and the fact that it was not something that Kellogg came up with - at the age of 13 as you seem to suggest.

Originally Posted By: cardw

I am serious. I document what I say and I check for accuracy.

I was hoping that your intent was to be serious.

I for one will be interested to see if you can support that claim in fact.

[BobRyan]

Your graceful exit - noted.

I simply pointed out that when I reminded the readers of this thread about Ellen White's health message - I was talking about something well in advance of anything that Kellogg would have been able to claim credit for.

The point remains.

in Christ,

Bob

[cardw]

I simply pointed out that when I reminded the readers of this thread about Ellen White's health message - I was talking about something well in advance of anything that Kellogg would have been able to claim credit for.

It doesn't matter what your point was. You misrepresented what I said.

That is called lying.

[Ron Amnsn]

Even your quote of Acts 24 disproves your own point because it begins with the statement in Acts 21:25 where Paul is asked to engage in an OT style temple vow and take some Jewish Christians with him as a group - while admitting fully in Acts 21 that gentiles are exempt from all such ceremonial laws. Thus the gentiles were exempt from the very thing that Paul was trying to prove that he kept in Acts 21.

Originally Posted By: Ron Amnsn

You haven't yet considered the whole context.

On the contrary - you offered a snipped from Acts 24 and I show how the context and controversy goes all the way back to Acts 21 - and shows that the modern feast day argument falls flat given the way they stated the case in the Acts 21 context for Acts 24.

One's interpretation will depend on whether or not a person believes that God's law is a good and desirable thing, which is what the Scriptures teach. Why would someone want to keep the Gentiles away from something good?

The context of the story goes back to Acts 15, and Acts 9, and the Gospels (and way beyond that to the beginning of Genesis). Jesus lived according to Law of Moses. Jesus taught that he IS the way. Jesus taught his disciples to follow him. Jesus commissioned his disciples to teach all the Gentiles everything that He had taught the disciples. Paul followed the example of Jesus and taught the Gentiles to follow the example of Jesus. How could someone follow the example of Jesus without following the same Old Testament instructions that Jesus followed?

The Pharisees kept the traditional man-made laws of the Jewish sages in addition to their own interpretation of the Law of Moses. Jesus sometimes rebuked the Pharisees when their traditional laws and interpretations contradicted the way that God intended Law of Moses to be lived out.

In Acts 15, the men who opposed Paul at the Jerusalem Council were specifically identified as Pharisees. Why? We are told in Acts 24 that every person in Jewish congregation of believers in Jerusalem (where the Council was held) were zealous for the Law of Moses. If the problem in Acts 15 was caused by people who were following the Law of Moses, then any of the zealous Jewish believers could have been the cause of the problem. But the people causing the problem in Acts 15 were specifically identified as Pharisees, rather than identified as Jews. What was the significant difference between the Pharisee believers and the rest of the believers who were all zealous for the Law of Moses? The difference was that the Pharisees were also committed to their traditional man-made laws that set them apart from the other Jewish sects. Specifically, the problem was caused by their man-made requirements for bringing Gentiles into membership in Jewish communities. Those requirements had been the status-quo up until Acts 15, so they form an integral part of the context of Acts 15.

Unfortunately, Gentile Christians are mostly ignorant of that part of the context. So when Christians (who are not zealous for the Law of Moses) read what the Pharisees asserted in Acts 15, they imagine that the controversy was Torah-observant Jews vs non-Torah-observant Gentile Christians. But the dispute was actually caused by one sect of Judaism wanting to continue dictating the method by which Gentiles became members of the assembly (through the full man-made proselyte conversion process and rituals of the Pharisees that supposedly turned a Gentile into a Jew). The Pharisees wanted the Gentile believers to pledge to follow the traditional laws of the Pharisees, instead of simply following the Torah-observant example of Jesus.

[debbym]

Quote:

Was Christ a Seventh-day Adventist - for all intents and purposes?

Christ is the head of our church. We have the privilege of living out His attributes. We are very blessed and empowered to be His children.

He knows every need and every failure and he is prepared to lift and bless and help us. He delights in mercy and continues to call more and more broken people into the family of God.

we are simply to follow where he leads, and he is leading this church.

I wonder how much the notion of religion has hindered us in living in the primitive spirituality of the early Church of the apostles in Acts.

[BobRyan]

Even your quote of Acts 24 disproves your own point because it begins with the statement in Acts 21:25 where Paul is asked to engage in an OT style temple vow and take some Jewish Christians with him as a group - while admitting fully in Acts 21 that gentiles are exempt from all such ceremonial laws. Thus the gentiles were exempt from the very thing that Paul was trying to prove that he kept in Acts 21.

Originally Posted By: Ron Amnsn

You haven't yet considered the whole context.

On the contrary - you offered a snipped from Acts 24 and I show how the context and controversy goes all the way back to Acts 21 - and shows that the modern feast day argument falls flat given the way they stated the case in the Acts 21 context for Acts 24.

[Tom Wetmore]

It almost seems selfish to me to claim that Jesus is a Seventh-day Adventist. WHy should we limit him with being just an SDA?

[fccool]

Quote:

WHy should we limit him with being just an SDA?

For the same reason why people associate with celebrities by taking photos and requesting autographs. It makes them feel more important.

[CoAspen]

I would say it is more than selfish, it borders on becoming exclusive. It is like saying 'we own' the rights to Christ and have the only path to God. It is an attempt to make everything, we as a church, put forth as being directly from the lips of Christ. As already alluded to...make our selves more important than others.

[OzarkWoman]

I would say it is more than selfish, it borders on becoming exclusive. It is like saying 'we own' the rights to Christ and have the only path to God. It is an attempt to make everything, we as a church, put forth as being directly from the lips of Christ. As already alluded to...make our selves more important than others.

I believe the remnant will consist of people from all denominations who are true followers of Christ as best as they know and can.