Why do SDA preach

[Major1]

We know it was in the context of a list of things that distract from Christ (philosophy, worship of angels, etc.) And we know it warned against judging.

We don't know the details of who was judging.

But the more crucial part is that everything in the list was called shadows. So the question is what was included.

The shadows element is also why Adventists often exclude the weekly Sabbath from the list. But as you noted Ezekiel 45 makes that unlikely since the weekly sabbath was included in the appointed times list which is very similar to Col. 2.

But then you need to explain how the sabbath was a shadow.

That is not the point. The point is that you incorrectly gave the CONTEXT of the Scripture in question.

The details of the context is exactly as I just listed them for you. All YOU have do do is read the Scriptures as I did.

 

[Major1]

I don't know why you think I have a problem with the term "Holy Convocation". It points to it as a day of "solemn assembly" - a day of "Holy Convocation:

and "you guys" would have to include all the non-SDA Bible commentarties
52 minutes ago #307 and confessions of faith, C.H. Spurgeon, D.L. Moody and Bible scholars in almost all Christian denominations on planet =Earth.

Holy Convocation.

In Hebrew, the word “convocation” means “miqra”, spoken as “Mik-raw” (Strong’s concordance number 4744). In Hebrew, this word means “rehearsal”. What does the word rehearsal mean? Rehearsal is defined as “the act of practicing in preparation for an event”.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

I do not agree with your opinion.

your are just invaladating, not countering the argument,

Would you mind posting the source of your post?

try going to bible hub, typing in Col 2, look at the words used there for elements and look it up yourself. I won't do the work for you.

Actually, it has been my understanding here that Paul is talking to Christians that are living in a community with many Ascetics, Stoics, etc. who condemned Christians for not suffering and depriving themselves as they did

he is clearly addressing 2 different group of people, new believer face. that is not even in dispute.

These other people were acting morally superior and making the Christians feel bad for eating meat, drinking wine, celebrating festivals and sabbaths, and feeling the joy of life.

"morally superior" where do you get that, the text never says that. Those are spiritual issues. they were Judging them spiritually, yes. morally no. that is reading into the text, called is eisegesis

Paul's advice is to ignore the judgement of others, and accept only the judgement of the body of Christ which was the Church.

that is exactly what I just said. so you actually agree with me, he is not saying don't keep the sabbath or the new moon, but don't allow other who are not apart of Christ tell you how to observe them. only allow other believer tell you. you say he is saying don't keep them. that is not what it says.

 

[Major1]

Hey---Quite doing that! You are twisting what I said ---I do not appreciate that! I already said she confirmed the doctrines -- did not dictate them. Yes, she had communications from God, through an angel. That is how they were confirmed after everyone had decided through intense study of the bible. They gave the bible reasons for their decisions, they were confirmed. She also had other visions. There are none that go against Biblical teaching.
As for the Mormons---yes, they have an angel of light that they claim told them what to believe. There is no where in their writings where this angels' statements were tested against the bible. I've countless debates with them when they were allowed to post here. They openly state that they test the bible by what the angels said---that is where we totally differ. We believe on testing what any angels may say by the bible. If it contradicts the bible---they are not of God. The say the writings of their prophets are what they go by, as the bible is inaccurate. But they will at the same time insist that what they believe is biblical. Throw out the bible and y0u have lost all ability to know the true word of God. No real angel of God would say that His word is inaccurate. It is we that translate inaccurately.

How do you know she heard from an angel?

Muhammad said the very same thing and we have the Koran.
John Smith said that very same thing and we have the book of Mormon.

Throw out the Bible and people will say that they heard Gods voice or an angel spoke to them.

2 Corth. 11:14.........
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

 

[Major1]

your are just invaladating, not countering the argument,

try going to bible hub, typing in Col 2, look at the words used there for elements and look it up yourself. I won't do the work for you.

he is clearly addressing 2 different group of people, new believer face. that is not even in dispute.

"morally superior" where do you get that, the text never says that. Those are spiritual issues. they were Judging them spiritually, yes. morally no. that is reading into the text, called is eisegesis

[quote}Paul's advice is to ignore the judgement of others, and accept only the judgement of the body of Christ which was the Church.

that is exactly what I just said. so you actually agree with me, he is not saying don't keep the sabbath or the new moon, but don't allow other who are not apart of Christ tell you how to observe them. only allow other believer tell you. you say he is saying don't keep them. that is not what it says.[/QUOTE]

I got those words "Morally superior" from a classroom 60 years ago by a man named Dr. John Walvoord.

 

[tall73]

I'm saying assembly can have two different meanings. "Lets all gather together and shake hands" vs "lets all gather together as a nation".

Otherwise Leviticus 23:3 would be saying "physically gather together, while saying where you are". Which wouldn't make any sense.

Good, that clarifies a bit.

Lev 23:3 “Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, a holy convocation. You shall do no work. It is a Sabbath to the LORD in all your dwelling places.

The phrase "it is a sabbath to the Lord in all your dwelling places" does not necessarily refer to staying at home. In fact, the phrase recurs with some variation throughout the chapter. And it is speaking of how it is a lasting ordinance, in all the places they may dwell (even out of the promised land.)

Let's take a look at the feast of Pentecost as an example:


Lev 23:15 “You shall count seven full weeks from the day after the Sabbath, from the day that you brought the sheaf of the wave offering.
Lev 23:16 You shall count fifty days to the day after the seventh Sabbath. Then you shall present a grain offering of new grain to the LORD.
Lev 23:17 You shall bring from your dwelling places two loaves of bread to be waved, made of two tenths of an ephah. They shall be of fine flour, and they shall be baked with leaven, as firstfruits to the LORD.

In this case it is clearly stated they are to bring from their dwelling places loaves. Morever, we saw in Exodus 23 that it was one of the three pilgrim feasts when males were to appear before the Lord in Jerusalem.

But then note that at the end of the description somewhat similar regarding the statute enduring in all their dwelling places:


Lev 23:18 And you shall present with the bread seven lambs a year old without blemish, and one bull from the herd and two rams. They shall be a burnt offering to the LORD, with their grain offering and their drink offerings, a food offering with a pleasing aroma to the LORD.
Lev 23:19 And you shall offer one male goat for a sin offering, and two male lambs a year old as a sacrifice of peace offerings.
Lev 23:20 And the priest shall wave them with the bread of the firstfruits as a wave offering before the LORD, with the two lambs. They shall be holy to the LORD for the priest.
Lev 23:21 And you shall make a proclamation on the same day. You shall hold a holy convocation. You shall not do any ordinary work. It is a statute forever in all your dwelling places throughout your generations.
Lev 23:22 “And when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge, nor shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the LORD your God.”

It states it is a statute forever in their generations, throughout their dwelling places. In other words, it was something they were to do always and wherever they lived. But it is not a technical term for staying home or else they could not comply with the other commands of all males leaving during this time and going to the sanctuary. So there is no meaning of stay home when it speaks of your dwelling places.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

We know it was in the context of a list of things that distract from Christ (philosophy, worship of angels, etc.) And we know it warned against judging.

terenc

We know it was in the context of a list of things that distract from Christ (philosophy, worship of angels, etc.) And we know it warned against judging.

We don't know the details of who was judging.

i disagree here. Paul clearly is addressing the Jews, and the entrance requirement to be come a Jew, circumcision. He is also talking about the crucifixion, which address the sacrifice, which was the mean of reconciliation. He is saying because you have accepted Christ you are reconciled back to God and you entitled to enter the covenant and the receive the blessings, because of this you are not to allow the Jews who are complaining about this to discourage you and keep you from the benefits. you are not to allow them to tell you how to observe these things. that is pretty plain

 

[Adventist Heretic]

that is exactly what I just said. so you actually agree with me, he is not saying don't keep the sabbath or the new moon, but don't allow other who are not apart of Christ tell you how to observe them. only allow other believer tell you. you say he is saying don't keep them. that is not what it says.

I got those words "Morally superior" from a classroom 60 years ago by a man named Dr. John Walvoord.[/QUOTE]
none of those things have anything to do directly with morality, except the sabbath

 

[tall73]

that prince is Christ, he provided himself , the burnt offering, grain offering and drink offering

I agree Christ did present all the offerings needed. Which is why the text in Isaiah 66 speaking of some to be priests, levites, grain offerings, and new moons seems so discordant.

But you have given me something else to think about as a possible focus, which is the 1k years.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

I agree Christ did present all the offerings needed. Which is why the text in Isaiah 66 speaking of some to be priests, levites, grain offerings, and new moons seems so discordant.

But you have given me something else to think about as a possible focus, which is the 1k years.

let me know what you come up with

 

[tall73]

clarify please
so are you saying that people will not be present in the 1k

No, I am saying that in Revelation the 1k years happens BEFORE the new earth and new heavens. But in Isaiah it seems to indicate that the assembling happens in association with the enduring of the new heavens and new earth.

So if the passage in Isaiah 66 is speaking of the 1k years, that is difficult to reconcile because the 1k reign you mention would happen before the new heaven and new earth per Revelation.

It is a timing issue. Otherwise it fits better than most of what I have seen.

 

[tall73]

That is not the point. The point is that you incorrectly gave the CONTEXT of the Scripture in question.

The details of the context is exactly as I just listed them for you. All YOU have do do is read the Scriptures as I did.

Are you interested in going verse by verse through the whole chapter to see?

 

[Adventist Heretic]

That is not the point. The point is that you incorrectly gave the CONTEXT of the Scripture in question.

The details of the context is exactly as I just listed them for you. All YOU have do do is read the Scriptures as I did.

you picked on the wrong person.

 

[tall73]

i disagree here. Paul clearly is addressing the Jews, and the entrance requirement to be come a Jew, circumcision.

We agree he addresses circumcision. However, the Judaizers within the church also emphasized that as we see Paul addressing throughout his letters. He clearly addresses circumcision, but is it from the perspective of outside Jewish critics, or Judaizers?

He is also talking about the crucifixion, which address the sacrifice, which was the mean of reconciliation. He is saying because you have accepted Christ you are reconciled back to God and you entitled to enter the covenant and the receive the blessings, because of this you are not to allow the Jews who are complaining about this to discourage you and keep you from the benefits. you are not to allow them to tell you how to observe these things. that is pretty plain

Agreed there as well, but again, could that apply to the Judaizers?

It may also somewhat depend on how you read the last part about the body of Christ.

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body of Christ.

If the "body of Christ" is completing the shadow analogy then these things are shadows, but the body (casting the shadow) is Christ.

Some, however, have proposed that this is actually concluding the initial clause from vs. 16.

Let no man therefore judge you..... but the body of Christ.

If you take the latter reading then the critics would be outside the body of Christ.

In another sense the Judaizers were not officially sanctioned either as the letter in Acts 15 made clear. So either way the body decided on the circumcision issue, etc. indicating that the gentiles did not need to do so.

So even if it were Judaizers within the church Paul would be saying "we already had that conversation, and the body decided."

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I case you missed me saying so, I observe the Sabbath. I put aside any labors and restrict my activities to keep it holy. Not that I'm into doing unholy things the rest of the week, but I'm extra strict during the Sabbath. And I make sure to pray and worship. So it's not like I'm anti-sabbath. So I have no reason to deny any New Testimement scripture saying Christians kept the Sabbath. If it's there. Now those verses in Acts you gave, are not telling me the disciples kept the Sabbath. I'm not arguing they didn't. I'm just saying I don't see those verses really saying they did. And the real question is, is there anything about the churches Paul wrote his letters to keeping the Sabbath or any instruction for them to do so? I'll go over those whole chapters in Acts to see if my mind is changed any. I'm perfectly open to having my mind changed regarding this.

Good for you MMXX that you have an interest in keeping the Sabbath. There should be no argument with you then on this topic. Why would you think that those verses shared with you are not about the early disciples or apostles keeping the Sabbath when they so as much verbatim in the scriptures? Those in Acts are only a few of many. For me this is pretty clear when you have scriptures after the death of Jesus saying....

Acts of the Apostles 13:14 [14], But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down.

Note: Going to church on the Sabbath. There is no need to mention the Sabbath and Synagogue together if they were not keeping the Sabbath btw.

Acts of the Apostles 13:27 [27], For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him.

Note: Reading from the old testament scriptures every Sabbath.

Acts of the Apostles 13:44 [44], And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.

Note: Why could not the everyone come together the next day and why did they wait to hear the Word of God the next Sabbath if they were not keeping the Sabbath? Seems pretty clear here they were keeping the Sabbath right?

Acts of the Apostles 15:21 [21], For Moses of old time has in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day

Note: Seems pretty clear here that they were keeping the Sabbath

Acts of the Apostles 16:13, And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spoke to the women which resorted thither.

Note: Seems also pretty clear here that they were keeping the Sabbath

Acts of the Apostles 17:2, And Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

Note: It seems it was Paul's custom to keep the Sabbath just like Jesus (see Luke 4:16).

.................

Now I am not sure why you say that that disciples were not keeping the Sabbath when the scriptures above say that they are. Let's through in a few more and build on the above if it might be helpful.

Matthew 28:1 [1], In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulcher.

Note: The disciples were still keeping the Sabbath here according to God's 4th commandment and left Jesus in the tomb on the preparation evening (see Mark 15:42-47).

Matthew 24:20 [20], But pray you that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day

Note: Jesus is speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the world (see Matthew 24:1-3). This is an event well after the death and resurrection of Jesus and a sign of the end of the world. Jesus clearly here still expected the disciples to be keeping the Sabbath.

....................

All the above scriptures clearly show the disciples were keeping the Sabbath and were expected to be keeping the Sabbath of God's 4th commandment well after the death and resurrection of Jesus.

That's the impression I got.

I see. So no one ever said to you that unless you go to an SDA Church on the Sabbath your not obeying God's 4th commandment. Well that is good to know. What gave you that impression? I am happy that God is guiding to to keep the Sabbath and his commandments because you love him.

God bless.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

We agree he addresses circumcision. However, the Judaizers within the church also emphasized that as we see Paul addressing throughout his letters. He clearly addresses circumcision, but is it from the perspective of outside Jewish critics, or Judaizers?


Agreed there as well, but again, could that apply to the Judaizers?

It may also somewhat depend on how you read the last part about the body of Christ.

it is sacrifice that solves this problem. Judaizers would circumcise but not sacrifice, only Jews do that.

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body of Christ.

If the "body of Christ" is completing the shadow analogy then these things are shadows, but the body (casting the shadow) is Christ.

Some, however, have proposed that this is actually concluding the initial clause from vs. 16.

Let no man therefore judge you..... but the body of Christ.

If you take the latter reading then the critics would be outside the body of Christ.

this actually makes my point. he is not saying don't keep them, he saying don't let people outside the body of Christ tell you how to observe them.

In another sense the Judaizers were not officially sanctioned either as the letter in Acts 15 made clear. So either way the body decided on the circumcision issue, etc. indicating that the gentiles did not need to do so.

So even if it were Judaizers within the church Paul would be saying "we already had that conversation, and the body decided."

ok

 

[tall73]

it is sacrifice that solves this problem. Judaizers would circumcise but not sacrifice, only Jews do that.

Acts 21 calls that into question. The Jewish believers, even apart form the Judaizers, were zealous for the whole law. James and the bretheren in Jerusalem noted that others were slandering Paul saying he turned Jews in the diaspora from circumcision (he actually opposed gentile circumcision, but that was the accusation.) He was also accused of turning them away from the customs of the Jews. And the proposed plan to set their mind at ease that Paul also followed the law was to assist in men performing vows, which included sacrifices:

Act 21:17 When we had come to Jerusalem, the brothers received us gladly.
Act 21:18 On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.
Act 21:19 After greeting them, he related one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.
Act 21:20 And when they heard it, they glorified God. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law,
Act 21:21 and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs.
Act 21:22 What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come.
Act 21:23 Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow;
Act 21:24 take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law.
Act 21:25 But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality.”
Act 21:26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself along with them and went into the temple, giving notice when the days of purification would be fulfilled and the offering presented for each one of them.


The issue in Acts 15 was what to do with the believing gentiles. But the Jewish believers apparently kept on observing all of the law. Though it was made clear that it was the sacrifice of Jesus that saved, not animals. They just pointed to Jesus:

Act 15:11 But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”

 

[mmksparbud]

Yeah, I put that in the form of a question to seek clarity. I'll try remember to word things more carefully from now on so that it doesn't appear that way to you.



Well actually regarding the Mormons, one person they call their profit (the same way an SDA member referred to EGW as "our prophetess") said he received messages from an angle which he then passed on to the people who believed him. I still have to wonder why in both cases, why God would wait until the 19th century to send an angel with such important messages. Although I'm sure both LDS and SDA have a good explanation for it. While I don't think SDA is as unbiblical as LDS, things I hear from SDA members remind me of things I've heard from Mormon missionaries.

Though Joseph Smith is the writer of their books and Main Prophet---actually, every top Mormon leader is a prophet and can actually reverse his orders. The top leader is considered a living prophet and has final authority during his time in office.
God did not wait----He called every Protestant leader and gave them all a new direction, true---the did not employ an angel for them. Why did He then use one for EGW??? Well, I actually can not give you a reason that either she or the church has given (that I remember)There was light given to someone all the way through the middle ages who responded, (like the Waldenses and others) who was given more light each time, But each one stopped short of the full light and a new one would be called. A woman was not accept very well, I just assume God knew more than usual authority was needed for a small, frail woman among all those well established previous males. She was examined by doctors (non-believers) who examined her during her visions and they attested to the fact she was not breathing during these times. And to her increased strength during these times. This message was actually given to 2 others who refused---one was a black man. He later said he had the same vision but had refused. He was very sorry later and did some preaching on it, as I remember. The other I think, turned away from all religion.

 

[BobRyan]

Then what does the part that keeps getting edited out mean?

‘For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there is a sabbath of complete rest, a holy convocation. You shall not do any work; it is a sabbath to the Lord in all your dwellings. Leviticus 23:3

How is it you think that "Solemn assembly" and "holy convocation" would require digging ditches and laying bricks instead of resting?? How does that even come up as a conflict in what you are suggesting as the problem of a day of rest that is a day of "holy convocation" ?

 

[BobRyan]

Holy Convocation.

In Hebrew, the word “convocation” means “miqra”, spoken as “Mik-raw” (Strong’s concordance number 4744). In Hebrew, this word means “rehearsal”. What does the word rehearsal mean? Rehearsal is defined as “the act of practicing in preparation for an event”.

Lev 23:3 is not saying that the Sabbath was a day of "practice". Rather it is for "solemn assembly" as we see in the many examples of it even in the NT and in Is 66:23 for all eternity after the cross in the New Earth.