A little confused Matt 16:28

Servant of the Lord said:

You are not honoring God by keeping Sunday.

Click to expand...

Where did he say he was "keeping: Sunday? I have never known a Sunday-keeper though I have attended many churches which celebrate their new-birth in Jesus Christ on Sunday. "Sunday keeping" is something that SDA's talk of often but I doubt they actually know anyone who is trying to "keep" Sunday as a sabbath.

Haldog said:

Where did he say he was "keeping: Sunday? I have never known a Sunday-keeper though I have attended many churches which celebrate their new-birth in Jesus Christ on Sunday. "Sunday keeping" is something that SDA's talk of often but I doubt they actually know anyone who is trying to "keep" Sunday as a sabbath.

Click to expand...

If you take some time to do some research you will find your post to be misleading.

nazar said:

I don't believe you guys/girls.....

i posted a simple post, asking a simple question - and it has been turned into "people bashing each other with scripture"

the general consensus is "Jesus was talking about his assention into heaven or seated at the right hand of his father"...

Jesus said "till they see the son of man coming in his kingdom" not 'going to his kingdom' or 'seated in his kingdom'.

it suggests the coming of Christ in revelations

Click to expand...

Hi Nazar,

Yes, you are correct. Because reading from the previous verse 27

27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

So the context is about Christ's second coming, not ascending/going into His kingdom.

And Jesus didn't lie. So some of those standing there did see Christ coming in His kingdom.

Continue reading into Matt 17. The scriptures were written originally in a continuous scroll. The chapters were divided later on.

So Matt 16:28 and the beginning of Matt 17

1 And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,
2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.
3 And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.
4 Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.

So Peter, James and John on the mount of Transfiguration were given a preview of Christ coming in His kingdom. And Moses and Elias were two types of believers to be taken with Jesus upon His return: dead and were resurrected (Moses) and last generation that never sees death (Elias).

The same account was narrated in Mark 9

1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.
2 And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.
3 And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth can white them.
4 And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.


Hope this helps.

OntheDL said:

Hi Nazar,

Yes, you are correct. Because reading from the previous verse 27

27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

So the context is about Christ's second coming, not ascending/going into His kingdom.

And Jesus didn't lie. So some of those standing there did see Christ coming in His kingdom.

Continue reading into Matt 17. The scriptures were written originally in a continuous scroll. The chapters were divided later on.

So Matt 16:28 and the beginning of Matt 17

1 And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,
2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.
3 And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.
4 Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.

So Peter, James and John on the mount of Transfiguration were given a preview of Christ coming in His kingdom. And Moses and Elias were two types of believers to be taken with Jesus upon His return: dead and were resurrected (Moses) and last generation that never sees death (Elias).

The same account was narrated in Mark 9

1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.
2 And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.
3 And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth can white them.
4 And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.


Hope this helps.

Click to expand...

EDIT........:o:o:o:o
1Cr 1:18¶For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

----------------------------------------------------------------------




Nazar,

some noted commentaries to consider are;

The Geneva Blble 1599 study notes said as follows:
(x) By his kingdom is understood the glory of his ascension, and what follows after that, Eph 4:10, or the preaching of the gospel, Mr 9:1.

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

Notice what your new friend "Servant of the Lord" left out from
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

That is, die: till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom; which is not to be understood of his personal coming in his kingdom in the last day, when he will judge quick and dead; for it cannot be thought, that any then present should live to that time, but all tasted of death long before, as they have done; for the story of John's being alive, and to live till then, is fabulous, and grounded on a mistake which John himself has rectified at the close of his Gospel: nor of the glorious transfiguration of Christ, the account of which immediately follows; when he was seen by Peter, James, and John, persons now present; for that, at most, was but an emblem and a pledge of his future glory: rather, of the appearance of his kingdom, in greater glory and power, upon his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension to heaven; when the Spirit was poured down in an extraordinary manner, and the Gospel was preached all over the world; was confirmed by signs and wonders, and made effectual to the conversion and salvation of many souls; which many then present lived to see, and were concerned in: though it seems chiefly to have regard to his coming, to show his regal power and authority in the destruction of the Jews; when those his enemies that would not he should reign over them, were ordered to be brought and slain before him; and this the Apostle John, for one, lived to be a witness of.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
People's New testament 1891
16:28 Shall not taste death, till they see the Son of man. The reference is not to his final coming to judge the world, but to his spiritual coming to establish his kingdom. This was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost. Mark shows the meaning by substituting, Till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power (Mr 9:1). The coming of the Son of man in his kingdom means, therefore, the same as the kingdom of God come with power. Compare Ac 1:8 Lu 24:49. The kingdom came with power on the day of Pentecost (Ac 2:1).
.....................................................................................................

We can consider also Scofield and Wesley among many others.
I'm not sure if SDA has a bible commentary. I wish they did because I hear so many opinions on everythings not said by scriptures.

Haldog said:

Where did he say he was "keeping: Sunday? I have never known a Sunday-keeper though I have attended many churches which celebrate their new-birth in Jesus Christ on Sunday. "Sunday keeping" is something that SDA's talk of often but I doubt they actually know anyone who is trying to "keep" Sunday as a sabbath.

Click to expand...

Yep , they're claim to be experts on truth but they're constantly misrepresent what other denominations claim to believe.

Quoting Catholics is plaid out to the max.....We find our doctrine from the scripture and we agree that Catholic dont.

How can they say we're keeping sabbath when most of us watch football on Sundays? SDA shop at Walmart on Sundays and should understand that we have worship on Sunday not keep a Sabbath.

The fact is, Christ dwells within our hearts from our born again expirience. We worship Him in spirit and in truth. No synagogue is needed. NO special days is needed to be authorized if He trully dwells in you.

Cribstyl said:

Oh my, this is ugly... Did this guy say that Jesus did not die? This is as far from the gospel a person can get. I'm sure he can comment his way back, because commentary is gospel arround here.

1Cr 1:18¶For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Click to expand...

Did not lie or did not die?

I think you are so disagreeable that you perceive things without even reading what was actually written.

For your own sake I think you should take a break from the SDA discussion forum. It's not good for you.

OntheDL said:

Did not lie or did not die?

I think you are so disagreeable that you perceive things without even reading what was actually written.

For your own sake I think you should take a break from the SDA discussion forum. It's not good for you.

Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing

OntheDL said:

Did not lie or did not die?

I think you are so disagreeable that you perceive things without even reading what was actually written.

For your own sake I think you should take a break from the SDA discussion forum. It's not good for you.

Click to expand...

:o I'm man enough to face up to an obvious error...."my mistake"..:o

This place was dead in the water when I came back, so be respectful to your guests.

Why continue to speak falsehood unabated about what others believe.


About the tranfiguration you alude too, did not Moses and Elijah shown in the same brightness and glory? Should we assume they had a kingdom too?

nazar said:

thanks, any ideas about "there will be some standing here that will not taste death"????

Click to expand...

nazar,
Let me know when you feel that your SDA brothers have answered your question. (i dont think they will)
I was the first to respond to your thread, I gave you scriptures rather than just comments #2 . I'm sorry that someone decided to ignor your question in lue of my comments.

Not many people post here anymore......

Years ago, I came here looking for answers but I was dissatisfied with the cooperation I sought. They never answered my questions but deferred to sabbath condemnation rather than scripture to back commentary.
The more I study, the more I see contradictions made by commentaries. Only God's word is true and infallable.
The response we should have to God's word is Yes and Amen. We have no right to add or create doctrines.
Q: Why am I hanging at a SDA forum? A: looking for answers because my life depends on it.
I have a 4yr old and a 6yr old who are growing up as SDA. The church tries to convert me to no end, so I question examine the doctrines against the word of God.

I attend SDA church often support my wife who is a SDA member.
Most of my friends are SDA.

Just recently I understood SDA truth......So I'm clear now SDA members say we're unequally yoked. I now see your church as the wolves in sheep clothing.
I formally had the misconception that adding another day of worship would only help me to a deeper relationship with God.
Boy, was I in for a rude awakening.

I've sat though 6yrs of attacks on other churches, because SDA truth is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ, it's all about the Sabbath and techniques of how to convert members from Sunday churches.

My church and other Sunday churches thinks that SDA are partner in Christ who are preaching to the lost. They're being fooled. The fact that your seminars and evangelical outreach often hides who they are is what I mean by wolves in sheeps clothing.

Other church dont accuse other christian churches of following the beast...................well anywayz, I'm vented for now.....

I expect SDA members to be even more enraged at me. I still love you, I do not condemn you nor do I find fault in you. That's God's job, not mine.



Life depends on God's word as only truth for a life of Godliness.

< staff edit > < staff edit >
Agreed. Also, what does one's belief in the state of the dead or hell have to do with one's salvation? Certainly there are secondary doctrines apart from the trust and surrender to Christ; being led by the Spirit and having an unfeigned love for the written Word along with the hope that resides in gospel of Christ. Surely eschatology is one of these secondary issues. Isn't it possible to in err in eschatology and still be saved? Honestly what does mankind have to do with the affairs of God as far as the state of the dead or hell anyway? Can anyone say they have had anything to contribute to what God has planned from the beginning? -- determining that those 'in Christ' through faith alone, by grace alone, will be saved and those that aren't will not share in the same inheritance....

I also know SDA beliefs as I have formally been within it's congregation. I know your teaching on Catholicism and what your implications of "short robed Jesuit" mean. BFA was truly temperate by saying this was "unnecessarily harsh."

nazar said:

thanks, any ideas about "there will be some standing here that will not taste death"????

Click to expand...

Another answer to your question is John. He was one of the Apostles that did not taste death before seeing the Kingdom come. He saw it at Patmos; even wrote a book about it. Also Apostle Paul was caught up to the third heaven and had some divine revelations of the end times. Who knows exactly who else was in the crowd Jesus was addressing? Mark Verse 34 says: "Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said:"... He is quoted speaking to the crowd along with His disciples until Mark Chapter 9:1. (where the verse in question is located)

Anyway, there are several possibilities but only one is the correct answer. Some day we will know the ins and outs of it all but for now we can only theorize. However the Scripture is sufficient for the saving of our souls, and in THIS we can be sure of and truly rejoice in. We really shouldn't let secondary things like this divide us and throw us into strifes and contentions. We should not be ignorant to Satan's devices, but should instead:

Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful. (Colossians 3:15)

Click to expand...

A correct knowledge of the state of the dead, among other fundamental beliefs, are necessary so we do not fall prey to satans deception regarding spiritualism, and for us to have a correct understanding of God's character.

Regarding my comments to the forum trolls, you certainly don't have any problem coming in here to the Adventist forum and openly scoffing and deriding our beliefs. But as soon as you are called on it, you feign righteous indignation. You remind me of the pharisee's... arguing against our beliefs for arguments sake.

Do you think it would be cool if I were to go into the Baptist forum and try to continually comment in their threads and scoff at their beliefs on doctrinal points?

The spirit of BFA, Cribstyl and others is not to edify but to cause dissension and to ridicule our beliefs.

EastCoastRemnant said:

The spirit of BFA, Cribstyl and others is not to edify but to cause dissension and to ridicule our beliefs.

Click to expand...

This is very far removed from my true intentions.

BFA

Intentional or not, again I say, by your fruits are ye known. Although, you pale in comparison to Cribstyl's fruits if thats any consolation...

EastCoastRemnant said:

A correct knowledge of the state of the dead, among other fundamental beliefs, are necessary so we do not fall prey to satans deception regarding spiritualism, and for us to have a correct understanding of God's character.

Click to expand...

This is a valid opinion and you are certainly entitled. I personally wouldn't consider the state of the dead or the specifics of hell a "fundamental belief". This also is nowhere to be found among the SDA 28 fundamental beliefs (the only one that comes close is #27 but this has to do with the millenium) so this goes back to your personal opinion. Your concern for people without the specific knowledge of the state of the dead falling "prey to satans deception regarding spiritualism" I see as a direct conflict with #8: -- "To assist His people in this controversy, Christ sends the Holy Spirit and the loyal angels to guide, protect, and sustain them in the way of salvation." Either you believe this or you don't. If one has received the Holy Spirit -- trust and surrender to Christ, is being led by the Spirit and has an unfeigned love for the written Word (which reflects and gives understanding to the Character of the Incarnate Word) who then will God let to be snatched out of His hand?

My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father&#8217;s hand. (John 10:27-29)

Click to expand...

For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:38-39)

Click to expand...

There is no verse in the Bible nor is there any fundamental SDA believe that says the knowledge of the state of the dead and the specifics of hell produces saving faith unto salvation. Therefore this doctrine is secondary and certainly not a reason to breed strife and contention or separate ourselves over. "Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices." (2 Corinthians 2:11)

EastCoastRemnant said:

Regarding my comments to the forum trolls, you certainly don't have any problem coming in here to the Adventist forum and openly scoffing and deriding our beliefs. But as soon as you are called on it, you feign righteous indignation. You remind me of the pharisee's... arguing against our beliefs for arguments sake.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure who is being addressed here but I'm positive that I never scoffed at or derided SDA beliefs. I merely made the claim that secondary doctrines should not divide us and I agreed that the short robed Jesuit comment was unnecessarily harsh.

EastCoastRemnant said:

Do you think it would be cool if I were to go into the Baptist forum and try to continually comment in their threads and scoff at their beliefs on doctrinal points?

Click to expand...

There is certainly nothing wrong with interaction among believers as long as we abide by the forum rules. Openly scoffing at beliefs is certainly not charitable, but it is a two way street. In other words, there would be no problem to go to a Baptist forum (which is a bad example by the way because Baptists have such diverse beliefs within their denomination from free-will, open theism, to 5 point Calvinism) and share what you personally believe regarding the original OP's topic. However if someone on that forum (who is a Baptist) scoffs at your beliefs they would be in violation of forum rules, but you wouldn't as long as you were not there to covert everyone into the SDA or ridicule them. It is amazing what can be learned in the light of a charitable and peaceful dialog between denominations.

I am not advocating positive tolerance but instead negative tolerance. There is a big difference. Joshua Liebman in the 1940's coined "negative tolerance" as: "the posture and cordial effort to understand another's beliefs, practices, and habits without necessarily sharing or accepting them." Positive tolerance is "the posture and cordial effort to understand another's beliefs, practices, and habits, and to accept them as equally valid approaches to life."

The first can be done charitably and peacefully while the latter certainly is not biblical and is unfortunately embedded into our current society today.

EastCoastRemnant said:

The spirit of BFA, Cribstyl and others is not to edify but to cause dissension and to ridicule our beliefs.

Click to expand...

I cannot speak for the others but I will say that I have never personally seen BFA set out to cause dissension and to ridicule beliefs. There is an unfortunate weakness in this medium and it is easy to misjudge the intent of every post and reply.

There is an unfortunate weakness in this medium and it is easy to misjudge the intent of every post and reply.

Click to expand...

I agree.

I cannot speak for the others but I will say that I have never personally seen BFA set out to cause dissension and to ridicule beliefs.

Click to expand...

Thank you.

BFA

Thank you for that post Hotpepper....

Regarding your last point on negative vs positive tolerance, I will respectfully disagree as I see both as slippery slopes. Obviously, positive tolerance will most certainly lead into ecumenicalism but I see negative tolerance as a platform for creeping compromise.

As for the state of the dead and whether or not it is salvational, here is my take...

Sister White is very clear on it importance and while not a requirement for gaining salvation, it could be a factor in losing it...

Correct Understanding Vital.--A correct understanding of "what saith the Scriptures" in regard to the state of the dead is essential for this time. God's Word declares that the dead know not anything, their hatred and love have alike perished. We must come to the sure word of prophecy for our authority. Unless we are intelligent in the Scriptures, may we not, when this mighty miracle-working power of Satan is manifested in our world, be deceived and call it the workings of God; for the Word of God declares that, if it were possible, the very elect should be deceived. Unless we are rooted and grounded in the truth, we shall be swept away by Satan's delusive snares. We must cling to our Bibles. If Satan can make you believe that there are things in the Word of God that are not inspired, he will then be prepared to ensnare your soul. We shall have no assurance, no certainty, at the very time we need to know what is truth.-- Review and Herald, Dec. 18, 1888

Through the two great errors, the immortality of the soul and Sunday sacredness, Satan will bring the people under his deceptions. While the former lays the foundation of spiritualism, the latter creates a bond of sympathy with Rome.--GC 588

EastCoastRemnant said:

Thank you for that post Hotpepper....

Regarding your last point on negative vs positive tolerance, I will respectfully disagree as I see both as slippery slopes. Obviously, positive tolerance will most certainly lead into ecumenicalism but I see negative tolerance as a platform for creeping compromise.

Click to expand...

I totally agree with you with the positive tolerance. However I can't see how not sharing or accepting beliefs leads to compromise? In evangelicalism or even better.... apologetics for instance, what good would one do without a knowledge of what another truly believes? In other words it would be hard to disprove something if you have no idea how it works. Take evolution for example, many Christian apologists have done well sowing seeds and harvesting for Christ. Remembering though that it is He that is the causation of the grow.

EastCoastRemnant said:

As for the state of the dead and whether or not it is salvational, here is my take...

Sister White is very clear on it importance and while not a requirement for gaining salvation, it could be a factor in losing it...

Correct Understanding Vital.--A correct understanding of "what saith the Scriptures" in regard to the state of the dead is essential for this time. God's Word declares that the dead know not anything, their hatred and love have alike perished. We must come to the sure word of prophecy for our authority. Unless we are intelligent in the Scriptures, may we not, when this mighty miracle-working power of Satan is manifested in our world, be deceived and call it the workings of God; for the Word of God declares that, if it were possible, the very elect should be deceived. Unless we are rooted and grounded in the truth, we shall be swept away by Satan's delusive snares. We must cling to our Bibles. If Satan can make you believe that there are things in the Word of God that are not inspired, he will then be prepared to ensnare your soul. We shall have no assurance, no certainty, at the very time we need to know what is truth.-- Review and Herald, Dec. 18, 1888

Click to expand...

Interesting... I personally hold to soul sleep and annihilationism myself

Hotpepper said:

Interesting... I personally hold to soul sleep and annihilationism myself

Click to expand...

I'm confused, what about my statement of state of the dead contradicts your belief? It would seem to me they are the same....

EastCoastRemnant said:

What are your beliefs on the state of the dead or hell? These teachings are also fundamental to our beliefs.... if you cannot see the truth in these doctrines, being a man that stands on the Word, then you are truly a short robed Jesuit...

Click to expand...

Why tilt the tables before we get a chance to reason together? (It's my hunch you've change your name and you're looking to make war.)

Yes, I frequent this SDA forum to discuss some doctrines. 90% of the time I am refuting rather than initiating a doctrine. I find that some SDA members present commentary rather than true biblical doctrines. I have never discussed the state of the dead with SDA. As a nondenominational christian I post scriptures for every doctrine I hold.
You can repost anything within a thread and counter my arguments.

If you dont want to be called out of your name why call others names?