Christ was a Seventh-day Adventist

[Ron Amnsn]

I have to ask, Ron, where you come up with your assertion that Ellen White was not applying her statement to the organization? The context of the quote from MM p 49 can only be said to apply to the people of the church if all church members were physicians. As we know that is_not/was_not true then according to context and simple logic she had to have been speaking about the organization.

I'm not someone who will blindly follow the organization whereever it leads, but you seem to be taking the quote wildly out of context to apply it the way you are applying it.

Not being a follower of EGW myself, I read only the part that was posted here. I probably erred in that. I'm trying to interpret EGW's quote in a way that does not contradict Scripture. If that's not possible, then the message must be rejected.

[joeb]

Originally Posted By: joeb

I have to ask, Ron, where you come up with your assertion that Ellen White was not applying her statement to the organization? The context of the quote from MM p 49 can only be said to apply to the people of the church if all church members were physicians. As we know that is_not/was_not true then according to context and simple logic she had to have been speaking about the organization.

I'm not someone who will blindly follow the organization whereever it leads, but you seem to be taking the quote wildly out of context to apply it the way you are applying it.

I'm trying to interpret EGW's quote in a way that does not contradict Scripture. If that's not possible, then the message must be rejected.

Huh? Just how does a "to all intents and purposes" statement become unscriptural? It's not meant as a "be all and end all" statement by its very nature....

[OzarkWoman]

What's really weird is that so many people who don't believe: in any church organization,that Christianity and Christ is not mythology ,that Adventism is uniquely meaningful, that a prophet was a prophet,that the Jews were special to God,ect...ect.. all feel the need to be a integral part of Club ADVENTIST. If, historically, Jesus joined the Jewish church, why, as a Sabbath keeping, second coming Believer, would He not join the SDA denomination? Would He be too Holy and Righteous to join with any imperfect organization? Why wouldn't He not go to those He had given the most "light" to, unless, of course, one believes that the "light" was,in fact,not "light" at all?

I think it is egotystical to even ponder about if Jesus would have joined the SDA denomination.

[Ron Amnsn]

Huh? Just how does a "to all intents and purposes" statement become unscriptural? It's not meant as a "be all and end all" statement by its very nature....

I made an editing error. In trying to trim down the post I was responding to, I evidently omitted the EGW quote I thought I was responding to a few posts back.

But to answer your current question, if EGW made the statement for the intent or purpose of implying that Jesus endorsed all the doctrines of the SDA organization, that would be contrary to Scripture because some SDA teachings are contrary to the teachings of Jesus.

[joeb]

Originally Posted By: joeb

Huh? Just how does a "to all intents and purposes" statement become unscriptural? It's not meant as a "be all and end all" statement by its very nature....

I made an editing error. In trying to trim down the post I was responding to, I evidently omitted the EGW quote I thought I was responding to a few posts back.

But to answer your current question, if EGW made the statement for the intent or purpose of implying that Jesus endorsed all the doctrines of the SDA organization, that would be contrary to Scripture because some SDA teachings are contrary to the teachings of Jesus.

Did Jesus deny His association with the Jewish religion because of the errors they believed during His day?

[Ron Amnsn]

Did Jesus deny His association with the Jewish religion because of the errors they believed during His day?

Was there a "Jewish religion" in the time of Jesus, or were there numerous sects of Jews with various beliefs? There were Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots, Essenes, and a dozen or so other different sects within Judaism at that time (as there are now). Each one was teaching their own way of living out God's Law of Moses.

I don't recall Jesus ever saying, "For all intents and purposes, I am a __________". What Jesus did say was, "I am the way." His followers became known as followers of "the way" and as Nazarenes, which was a sect within Judaism.

Jesus was born into the covenants and promises given by God to Abraham, the Israelites, and David. There was no need for Jesus to disassociate himself from any of the sects, because God was the author of the Old Testament Scriptures by which Jesus lived.

I don't see any Scriptural evidence that Jesus has changed his mind about being "the way" and settled instead for becoming an SDA.

The apostle Paul did say that he was a Pharisee and lived according to the strictest sect of the Jewish religion. Paul also said that he followed the example of Jesus. By doing that he was apparently pushing the boundaries of what was allowed within the sect of the Pharisees because he came into conflict with some of them, but other Pharisees testified, "We find no fault with this man.".

[joeb]

Originally Posted By: joeb

Did Jesus deny His association with the Jewish religion because of the errors they believed during His day?

Was there a "Jewish religion" in the time of Jesus, or were there numerous sects of Jews with various beliefs? There were Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots, Essenes, and a dozen or so other different sects within Judaism at that time (as there are now). Each one was teaching their own way of living out God's Law of Moses.

I don't recall Jesus ever saying, "For all intents and purposes, I am a __________". What Jesus did say was, "I am the way." His followers became known as followers of "the way" and as Nazarenes, which was a sect within Judaism.

Jesus was born into the covenants and promises given by God to Abraham, the Israelites, and David. There was no need for Jesus to disassociate himself from any of the sects, because God was the author of the Old Testament Scriptures by which Jesus lived.

I don't see any Scriptural evidence that Jesus has changed his mind about being "the way" and settled instead for becoming an SDA.

The apostle Paul did say that he was a Pharisee and lived according to the strictest sect of the Jewish religion. Paul also said that he followed the example of Jesus. By doing that he was apparently pushing the boundaries of what was allowed within the sect of the Pharisees because he came into conflict with some of them, but other Pharisees testified, "We find no fault with this man.".

OK. Well, at least I know where you're coming from now.

[BobRyan]

What's really weird is that so many people who don't believe: in any church organization,that Christianity and Christ is not mythology ,that Adventism is uniquely meaningful, that a prophet was a prophet,that the Jews were special to God,ect...ect.. all feel the need to be a integral part of Club ADVENTIST. If, historically, Jesus joined the Jewish church, why, as a Sabbath keeping, second coming Believer, would He not join the SDA denomination? Would He be too Holy and Righteous to join with any imperfect organization? Why wouldn't He not go to those He had given the most "light" to, unless, of course, one believes that the "light" was,in fact,not "light" at all?

In John 4 Jesus said to the Samaritan woman "salvation is of the Jews".

That seems to fit well with the point you are bringing out.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: joeb

Did Jesus deny His association with the Jewish religion because of the errors they believed during His day?

Was there a "Jewish religion" in the time of Jesus, or were there numerous sects of Jews with various beliefs? There were Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots, Essenes, and a dozen or so other different sects within Judaism at that time (as there are now). Each one was teaching their own way of living out God's Law of Moses.

I don't recall Jesus ever saying, "For all intents and purposes, I am a __________".

Then you were holding your Bible at too great a distance when you read John 4 "Salvation is of the Jews".

It went down like this -- Jesus said to the Samaritan woman "YOU worship what you do not know - WE worship that which WE know for salvation is of the Jews".

And God DID say to listen to His prophets in 1Thess 5:19-20.

So I am good with that.

in Christ,

Bob

[Ron Amnsn]

Then you were holding your Bible at too great a distance when you read John 4 "Salvation is of the Jews".

It went down like this -- Jesus said to the Samaritan woman YOU worship what you do not know - WE worship that which WE know for salvation is of the Jews".

[joeb]

Ron,

From what I can understand of your position, I think the following quote addresses it very well.

Quote:

The priest went through the ceremony of his official work. He took the child in his arms, and held it up before the altar. After handing it back to its mother, he inscribed the name “Jesus” on the roll of the first-born. Little did he think, as the babe lay in his arms, that it was the Majesty

of heaven, the King of glory. The priest did not think that this babe was the One of whom Moses had written, “A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; Him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever He shall say unto you.” Acts 3:22. He did not think that this babe was He whose glory Moses had asked to see. But One greater than Moses lay in the priest’s arms; and when he enrolled the child’s name, he was enrolling the name of One who was the foundation of the whole Jewish economy. That name was to be its death warrant; for the system of sacrifices and offerings was waxing old; the type had almost reached its antitype, the shadow its substance. The Desire of Ages page 52

[Ron Amnsn]

From what I can understand of your position, I think the following quote addresses it very well.

Joeb, that's a fine passage to use as a demonstration of how to test something that may be a prophetic message.

Here are some questions we should ask:

• Which parts of the message can be confirmed in Scripture?
• Are there any passages of Scripture that are contradicted by what is said in the message?
• Is the message confirmed by history or current events?

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

Quote:

Christ was a Seventh-day Adventist, to all intents and purposes. It was He who called Moses into the mount and gave him instruction for His people. . . . In awful grandeur Christ made known the law of Jehovah, giving, among other charges, this charge: "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." Medical Missionary, p. 49

So then we can either put each one of our own opinions above the word that God gave His prophet in the quote above - or we can choose to listen to 1Thess 5:19-20. Another opportunity to exercise free will - just as Adam and Eve did.

Bob, both the Old Testament and the New Testament teach us to test prophetic messages by Scripture. EGW also taught people to test her messages by Scripture. But you have totally left out that necessary part of the process, even neglecting to mention verse 21 in the reference you posted to 1 Thess 5:19-20. It appears that you intentionally left out verse 21 which talks about the process of examining and testing such teachings by Scripture, as the Bereans were commended for doing to the teachings of the apostle Paul (an author of the New Testament).

Here's the passage you referenced with verse 21 included:

Quote:

Do not quench the Spirit; do not despise prophetic utterances. But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; (1 Thess 5:19-21)

In your false dichotomy that you set up above, you have given us the options:

• accept the statement of EGW (without testing it), or
• doubt God like Adam and Eve did when they sinned.

False dichotomies such as this are what deceptive

Indeed - and since I gave no such thing - you simply make it up to make your case. How instructive.

I never argue that any prophet should be accepted without applying the test of a prophet.

And even your own point above is self-conflicted because it leads your argument to claim that the Bereans were accepting some of Paul's teaching and trashing the rest of it - to fit your strained notion of 1Thess 5:21 where you seem to insist that accepting that which is good is license to pick-and-choose when it comes to messages from God to His prophets.

You're holding the details of the text at too great a distance from your point.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

Then you were holding your Bible at too great a distance when you read John 4 "Salvation is of the Jews".

It went down like this -- Jesus said to the Samaritan woman YOU worship what you do not know - WE worship that which WE know for salvation is of the Jews".

You're right that Jesus knew he was a Jew. When you read the Gospels, there is no question about his Jewishness. If the SDA church was a sect within Judaism, there would be a slight chance that Jesus might be an SDA.

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

And God DID say to listen to His prophets in 1Thess 5:19-20.

Then why are you so reluctant to listen to those prophets when the prophets tell us to examine and test prophetic messages according to Scripture to determine if they are true?

Since I have yet to oppose testing God's prophets - your accusation above simply relies on you quoting you - to sustain it.

Why keep doing that?

in Christ,

Bob

[Ron Amnsn]

And even your own point above is self-conflicted because it leads your argument to claim that the Bereans were accepting some of Paul's teaching and trashing the rest of it - to fit your strained notion of 1Thess 5:21 where you seem to insist that accepting that which is good is license to pick-and-choose when it comes to messages from God to His prophets.

You're probably right that the testing of Paul's teaching that the Bereans did in Acts 17 was different than the examining of prophetic messages that Paul taught in 1 Thess 5:19-21. I don't think either one could be classified as "pick-and-choose", which sounds like an irresponsible process based on personal likes, dislikes, and whims. But I suppose if a person believes that the "ceremonial law" has been abolished and they feel qualified to pick-and-choose which of God's Law can be placed into the no-longer-relevant category they call "ceremonial law", then the process of testing a prophetic message by whatever is left of Scripture could become an irresponsible process subject to pick-and-choose.

The Bereans were searching the Old Testament Scriptures to determine whether Paul's teachings were true. Using God's Word as the standard of truth is a responsible process (unless a person has decided that part of God's Word is no longer relevant). Paul was probably not presenting himself to the Bereans as a prophet, but rather as an apostle or teacher. If the Bereans had found errors in Paul's gospel, they probably would have rejected the whole thing.

On the other hand, when Paul instructed the Corinthians how to use spiritual gifts in an orderly manner, Paul wrote, "And let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment." (1Cor 14:29)

SDA's tend to treat all of the writings of EGW as if every word were part of a "Thus saith the Lord" message that cannot be examined and tested by Scripture. It's as if they believe a person to whom God has spoken can never write letters and books in the normal manner by expressing their own thoughts and opinions; and that God's messengers could never repeat the things they learned from other other books and sermons or be influenced by the philosophies and attitudes they learned in Sunday School before God spoke to them. SDA's usually take an all-or-nothing approach to EGW's writings, rather than examining each teaching to see whether it agrees with Scripture. Once an SDA has decided to accept EGW as God's messenger, they seem to believe that it would be sacrilegious to test any part of EGW's writings to see if it agrees with Scripture, which effectively puts EGW's writings above the Bible. I think EGW would be appalled at how her writings are used today.

[CoAspen]

Good comments.

[Woody]

Good comments.

[BobRyan]

And even your own point above is self-conflicted because it leads your argument to claim that the Bereans were accepting some of Paul's teaching and trashing the rest of it - to fit your strained notion of 1Thess 5:21 where you seem to insist that accepting that which is good is license to pick-and-choose when it comes to messages from God to His prophets.

[BobRyan]

SDA's tend to treat all of the writings of EGW as if every word were part of a "Thus saith the Lord" message that cannot be examined and tested by Scripture.

Hint -- Nathan the prophet that David went to.

This was never about the fictional idea that SDAs take every word Ellen White said at the dinner table as having come directly from God. THIS IS about her God-given work of publishing the messages God sent to his church.

in Christ,

Bob

[doug yowell]

In John 4 Jesus said to the Samaritan woman "salvation is of the Jews".

Not to mention the Scripture's many direct references to the same fact: How bout just two (out of hundreds)for starters? 1)Luke 2:21-24+ 2)John 1:11 3)Rom.9:3-5 4)Matt.27:11

[lazarus]

Not to mention the Scripture's many direct references to the same fact: How bout just two (out of hundreds)for starters? 1)Luke 2:21-24+ 2)John 1:11 3)Rom.9:3-5 4)Matt.27:11

No one has denied that salvation is of the Jews.

[doug yowell]

No one has denied that salvation is of the Jews.

Jesus was a Jew.He had the testimony of Himself and kept the commandments of God.He was a Sabbath keeper and believed that when a person was dead they were asleep until the resurrection. He believed that His second coming would not be a secret nor would His kingdom evolve into a world domination in His absence.He taught that He would ascend into heaven to serve as high priest for mankind in the heavenly sanctuary and that He would be actively involved in the investigative pre-Advent judgment.He believed in baptism by immersion and that it was a necessary human response of faith.He taught that by faith mankind could develope a perfectly Christlike character.So if we are going to speculate, why can't we assume that if He were to join (or be born into)a church today He would choose one whose doctrines were in harmony with what He Himself taught and believed? Adventism in it's most basic teachings resembles more closely the true Bible doctrines of the OT.Where else would He go,LDS? Islam?? Rome? Metro? Liberty Univ.? Calvary Chapel? Home Church? ACLU? The fact that He became a Jew doesn't mean that He endorsed the behavior of the Jews but it was ( as Bob Ryan noted)an endorsement of the gospel to be preached by the Jews. Why a different stroke for being a SDA?

[Ron Amnsn]

The "pick and choose" model you are preaching when it comes to the prophets of God - is not endorsed in all of scripture.

Paul's statement in 1Thess 5 cannot be wrenched into "take whatever you want from a message God gives one of His prophets and ignore whatever does not please preferences".

[Ron Amnsn]

The same is true of testing Paul's statements in Hebrews 10 where he informs us that God "takes away the first to establish the second".

Ok Bob, let's imagine that your interpretation of this passage in Hebrews 10 was actually what Paul was preaching in all the congregations. When Paul gets to the Jewish synagogue in Berea he (supposedly) teaches that Jesus (or God) "takes away the first to established the second". When the Bereans search the Old Testament daily to confirm that this teaching is true, which passages would they find in the Old Testament to confirm that "the first" was taken away?

There are numerous passages in the Old Testament that the Bereans would find to easily disprove your interpretation of Hebrews 10. I doubt you can find even one Old Testament passage that the Bereans could use to confirm your interpretation, but I'm interested in seeing what you come up with.

[lazarus]

.So if we are going to speculate, why can't we assume that if He were to join (or be born into)a church today

To what end do we argue that Christ was an SDA? Does it make our theological case more convincing?