Christ was a Seventh-day Adventist

[OzarkWoman]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

.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?

I finally agree with you about something.

[BobRyan]

Maybe I should have added this ...

Jesus in John 4 says to the Samaritan woman "you worship what you know not WE worship what we know - salvation is of the JEWS" - as a point of context for my question.

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

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?

The question you ask is whether or not the OT saints thought that animal blood was what forgives sin or is it the promised Messiah that forgives sin.

In Heb 10 Paul makes it clear that animal blood could never forgive sins and that there is a repeat of the same sacrifices year after year - since the point was never that an animal could actually pay the 2nd death - lake of fire debt owed by the sinner.

In Psalms David makes it clear that God does not desire the blood of animal sacrifices.

In John 8 Jesus points out "Abraham saw MY day and was glad".

In Gal 3 Paul says that "The GOSPEL was preached to Abraham"

In Heb 4:1 Paul says that "The GOSPEL was preached to US JUST as it was to THEM ALSO".

In 1Cor 10 Paul says that they were all baptized into Christ and drank from the same spiritual ROCK which was Christ.

The entire point of the teaching of Paul in the synagogue of Acts 17:1-4 and later in Acts 17:11 to the Bereans is that the Christ - the Messiah was supposed to die for our sins just as the sacrificial system depicted.

In 1Cor 5 Paul states "Christ our PASSOVER has been slain".

You ask the question above as if you were a Jew just being introduced to the Gospel by Paul.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

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".

[BobRyan]

Since the statement was made recently that someone here is unclear as to whether Ellen White herself understood that her ministry included that of a prophet - I offer some historic data.

God says in Numbers 12:6 "IF there is a prophet among you I will communicate with them by dream or vision"

Quote:

God has made plain to me the various ways in which He would use me to carry forward a special work. Visions have been given me, with the promise, “If you deliver the messages faithfully and endure to the end, you shall eat of the fruit of the tree of life, and drink of the water of the river of life.” {1SM 33.1}

I am now instructed that I am not to be hindered in my work by those who engage in suppositions regarding its nature, whose minds are struggling with so many intricate problems connected with the supposed work of a prophet. My commission embraces the work of a prophet, but it does not end there. It embraces much more than the minds of those who have been sowing the seeds of unbelief can comprehend.—Letter 244, 1906. (Addressed to elders of Battle Creek church.) {1SM 36.2}

You have doubted the Testimonies. When you come back and gather up the rays of light, and take the position that the Testimonies are from God, then you will be settled in your belief and will not thus waver in darkness and weakness. {4T 53.2}

“Be not afraid of man, for My shield shall protect you. It is not you that speaketh: it is the Lord that giveth the messages of warning and reproof. Never deviate from the truth under any circumstances. Give the light I shall give you. The messages for these last days shall be written in books, and shall stand immortalized, to testify against those who have once rejoiced in the light, but who have been led to give it up because of the seductive influences of evil.” {1SM 32.3}

Selected Messages, book 1, p. 34. To claim to be a prophetess is something that I have never done. If others call me by that name, I have no controversy with them. But my work has covered so many lines that I cannot call myself other than a messenger, sent to bear a message from the Lord to His people, and to take up work in any line that He points out.”

As inquiries are frequently made as to my state in vision, and after I come out, I would say that when the Lord sees fit to give a vision, I am taken into the presence of Jesus and angels, and am entirely lost to earthly things. I can see no farther than the angel directs me. My attention is often directed to scenes transpiring upon earth. {1SM 36.3}

At times I am carried far ahead into the future and shown what is to take place. Then again I am shown things as they have occurred in the past. After I come out of vision I do not at once remember all that I have seen, and the matter is not so clear before me until I write, then the scene rises before me as was presented in vision, and I can write with freedom. Sometimes the things which I have seen are hid from me after I come out of vision, and I cannot call them to mind until I am brought before a company where that vision applies, then the things which I have seen come to my mind with force. I am just as dependent upon the Spirit of the Lord in relating or writing a vision, as in having the vision. It is impossible for me to call up things which have been shown me unless the Lord brings them before me at the time that He is pleased to have me relate or write them.—Spiritual Gifts 2:292, 293 (1860). {1SM 36.4}

My brethren, beware of the evil heart of unbelief. The word of God is plain and close in its restrictions; it interferes with your selfish indulgence; therefore you do not obey it. The testimonies of His Spirit call your attention to the Scriptures, point out your defects of character, and rebuke your sins; therefore you do not heed them. And to justify your carnal, ease-loving course you begin to doubt whether the testimonies are from God. If you would obey their teachings you would be assured of their divine origin. Remember, your unbelief does not affect their truthfulness. If they are from God they will stand. Those who seek to lessen the faith of God’s people in these testimonies, which have been in the church for the last thirty-six years, are fighting against God. It is not the instrument whom you slight and insult, but God, who has spoken to you in these warnings and reproofs. {5T 234.3}

It takes very little time to see that Ellen White was claiming all the "dreams and visions" and the "this message is straight from God" claims as any prophet you may care to name.

James 2 said "HE who said do not commit adultery ALSO said - do not murder" -- James argues that authority is based on the "he who said" (GOD) not on the person speaking.

in Christ,

Bob

[Ron Amnsn]

The question you ask is whether or not the OT saints thought that animal blood was what forgives sin or is it the promised Messiah that forgives sin.

In Heb 10 Paul makes it clear that animal blood could never forgive sins and that there is a repeat of the same sacrifices year after year - since the point was never that an animal could actually pay the 2nd death - lake of fire debt owed by the sinner.

Actually, that is not the question I've asked. I am aware of what the OT teaches, and it is all fine. What I'm asking is for Old Testament evidence that "the first" is taken away.

When Hebrews 10 says that animal blood could never forgive sins, it means exactly what it says. "Never" includes all the animal sacrifices that were ever offered. When God instructed Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel how to offer a sacrifice, it was impossible for the blood of that animal to forgive sins, but God taught them to do it anyway. When God (through Moses) commanded the Levitical priests to offer sin offerings, it was at that time impossible that the blood of those animals would forgive sins, but God commanded them to offer the animals anyway. Hebrews 10 is teaching that the sacrifice of Messiah is better than animal sacrifices.

Hebrews 10:18 could possibly be teaching that there is no more need for sin offerings, but it is not said in a way that would convince a Hebrew believer to ignore the instructions God gave to Moses regarding sin offerings. The verse says nothing about all the other animal sacrifices that were not sin offerings-- thanksgiving, votive, fellowship offerings, etc.

If I understand you correctly, you are claiming that "the first" that is taken away is the whole sacrificial system that was instituted by God. The Bereans would want to see Old Testament confirmation that what you claim is true. It is easy to locate Old Testament evidence that shows that such a claim as you are making is contrary to God's Word. If you can't convince the Bereans from the Old Testament, then what you are teaching is evidently different than the gospel that Paul was teaching in all the congregations.

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

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?

[Ron Amnsn]

Paul is showing us - in his letter to "the Hebrews" exactly what the OT basis is for the change.

You apparently think the Bereans were stupid.

Why would the Bereans accept a teaching that makes a liar of the God of the Old Testament?

God promised to the priests and Levites a perpetual portion of the sacrifices and offerings as an inheritance forever, in lieu of a tribal inheritance of land. Do you really expect the Bereans to believe that God was planning all along to revoke that inheritance when Messiah came? What a fickle God that would be.

God said, "And thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their father, that they may minister unto me in the priest’s office: for their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations." (Exodus 40:15) Yet you're trying to tell me (and the Bereans) that God planned all along to abolish that priesthood when Messiah came. What a fickle God that would be.

"Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 'Phinehas the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, has turned away My wrath from the sons of Israel in that he was jealous with My jealousy among them, so that I did not destroy the sons of Israel in My jealousy.' Therefore say, ‘Behold, I give him My covenant of peace; and it shall be for him and his descendants after him, a covenant of a perpetual priesthood, because he was jealous for his God and made atonement for the sons of Israel.' "(Numbers 25:11-12) But you're trying to tell us that even before God gave that covenant to Phinehas, He was already planning to renege on that covenant when Messiah came. What a devious God you believe in.

Thus says the LORD, ‘If you can break My covenant for the day and My covenant for the night, so that day and night will not be at their appointed time, then My covenant may also be broken with David My servant so that he will not have a son to reign on his throne, and with the Levitical priests, My ministers.'(Jer. 33:20-21) Yet you're trying to tell us that God planned all along to break that covenant when Messiah came. What a deceptive God that would be.

Your "Old Testament evidence" is very skimpy on OT evidence and very dependent on interpretations of the New Testament that contradict what is contained in the Scriptures of the Old Testament.

[Ron Amnsn]

According to the EGW quotation provided by Joeb earlier in this thread, Jesus was the God that interacted with Moses at Sinai. So it would be Jesus himself that uttered the words at Sinai which promised to the priests and Levites the very things that you say were "the first" that Jesus "takes away in order to establish the second".

It would be Jesus himself that gave Moses the laws that were recorded in the Book of the Law that was placed beside the Ark of the Covenant, of which Jesus said, "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished."

Jesus said, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away." (Matt 24:25) But you're trying to tell us that when Jesus stated this He was already planning to take away the perpetual priesthood and the portion of the sacrifices that He had given to the descendants of Aaron and Phinehas forever. What a fickle notion you have of Jesus. It's no wonder most Jews don't accept your notion of Jesus as the Messiah. You make Jesus out to be a liar of the worst kind.

Praise God that there are Jews who faithfully interpret the New Testament (as the Bereans did) in a way that does not contradict the Old Testament. May you someday be humble enough to learn from them.

[lazarus]

I finally agree with you about something.

That makes me happy. Seriously!

[M. T. Cross]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

.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?

I was just thinking that in looking at how many pages this "debate' has accumulated.

I mean really, does it matter? Take his message, live by it and don't worry about denominational attachments.

The irony I find is right in the thread title.

Christ WAS a Seventh-Day- Adventist

What, did he get caught with some wine, swimming on the Sabbath, or maybe he forgot to pay his tithe.....?

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

Paul is showing us - in his letter to "the Hebrews" exactly what the OT basis is for the change.

You apparently think the Bereans were stupid.

[Ron Amnsn]

I point to a number of examples above where Paul himself argues the Old Testament case for the Gospel and for the role of Christ in both OT and NT.

[CoAspen]

[Ron Amnsn]

Is it your claim that the book of Hebrews is written for the benefit of Christian gentiles?

[Ron Amnsn]

Be very certain that the Bible says a prophet is one whom God speaks to via "Dream or vision" as God says in Numbers in Numbers 12.

So you believe Nebuchadnezzar is an OT prophet? God gave him dreams pertaining to the future and God spoke to him from heaven.

Nebuchadnezzar wrote the fourth chapter of Daniel, so at least that much of his writings must have been true. Why are his other writings not included in Scripture? It seems someone did some picking-and-choosing with Nebuchadnezzar's writings to determine which ones would be included in the Bible.

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

Be very certain that the Bible says a prophet is one whom God speaks to via "Dream or vision" as God says in Numbers in Numbers 12.

So you believe Nebuchadnezzar is an OT prophet? God gave him dreams pertaining to the future and God spoke to him from heaven.

Nebuchadnezzar wrote the fourth chapter of Daniel, so at least that much of his writings must have been true. Why are his other writings not included in Scripture? It seems someone did some picking-and-choosing with Nebuchadnezzar's writings to determine which ones would be included in the Bible.

[BobRyan]

BTW Ron - since you say that you are not a Seventh-day Adventist ... to be fair the opening quote would only have meaning to a Seventh-day Adventist.

I never intended to imply that non-Seventh-day Adventists would think of Jesus as a Seventh-day Adventist.

in Christ,

Bob

[M. T. Cross]

No, but Bob did you not think that a non-SDA Christian might have their interest piqued just a weeeeee little bit by that?

[Ron Amnsn]

You ask the question above as if you were a Jew just being introduced to the Gospel by Paul.

The Bereans were Jews just being introduced to the Gospel by Paul. They were, however, able to confirm Paul's gospel by searching the Old Testament Scriptures.

The Bereans would never be able to confirm your teachings by searching the Old Testament Scriptures, Bob, because your teachings directly contradict what God himself said in the Old Testament. That means your gospel is a different gospel than Paul's gospel.

The Reformation isn't finished yet. Keep pressing on toward truth.

[Ron Amnsn]

I never intended to imply that non-Seventh-day Adventists would think of Jesus as a Seventh-day Adventist.

Ok. I'll consider it an inside joke.

Shalom,

-- Ron

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

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?

[BobRyan]

No, but Bob did you not think that a non-SDA Christian might have their interest piqued just a weeeeee little bit by that?

In my view a non-SDA Christian would respond by saying something like "what about this or that Bible doctrine that I think SDAs have which Christ would not have accepted".

And then we could discuss it.

Maybe the state of the dead - immortality of the soul, breaking the Sabbath commandment etc.

in Christ,

Bob

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

.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?

How do we avoid the fact that Jesus taught and lived by the theological framework that Adventism advocates. In further review of the OP I find that, in deed, Christ was a SDA, so why should we shrink from that fact. It does make our theological case more convincing. However,as Paul warned the Jews so often in his preaching and letters,having the correct theology doesn't give anyone the right to interpret that as being, in and of itself, righteous. It should actually give every one who has the right doctrinal beliefs the responsibiity to determine whether or not they are living in accordance with their professed faith. Most of the book of Romans is dedicated to the reminder of that fact. The OP statement posed was not whether all Adventists are like Christ or vice-versa, why read more into it than was intended?

[doug yowell]

BTW Ron - since you say that you are not a Seventh-day Adventist ... to be fair the opening quote would only have meaning to a Seventh-day Adventist.

I never intended to imply that non-Seventh-day Adventists would think of Jesus as a Seventh-day Adventist.

Why not? If an Adventist was dedicated to Christ in harmony with what they taught about Jesus wouldn't they reflect the truth about Christ to everyone that was watching? Adventism was not given it's truths of Scripture simply in order to win non-believers to Christ but also to foster a deeper, more mature understanding of what it means to follow Him amongst already Christians.Our doctrines are intended to portray Christ not to give us bragging rights on who's got the most truth about Him. The remnant in(of whom?)in Revelation 12 is identified as being those who "keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus" not those who "teach the commandments of God but don't keep them." Romans 2!!