| Author |
Message |
Seekr777 (Seekr777)
| | Posted on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 12:32 pm: |     |
"What does that imply? By itself I don't believe it implies anything.
I fellowship and worship with many nonSDAs and can not recall anyone ever referring to the Holy Spirit as "Holy Spirit God" or Jesus as "Jesus God" in conversation. In fact I doubt if you do yourself. I know I don't talk that way and I strongly believe that both Jesus, the Holy Spirit and God the Father are in every way God and all three equal in all ways to each other.
I'm not here to defend SDAs, but everyone I've ever talked to in my church has always said they believe that the Holy Spirit and Jesus are equal to God the Father in every way. Having said this I'm very aware that there are SDAs who do hold an Arian view of God but please don't include everyone in that "bunch". 
In Christ,
Richard
PS: Susan will you be meeting with the Friday Night study group in Redlands? |
Jerry (Jerry)
| | Posted on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 12:55 pm: | |
Ooo!! Ooo!!
<<stretches hand WAAAYYY into the air>>
I can answer that!
In the early days of the Millerite movement, there were several leaders who did not believe in the full divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. James White was one of the most prominent examples of this.
This diminishment of Christís divinity was retained in offshoots such as Jehovahís Witnesses (even to this day) and the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
The term used for this belief is Arianism defined as follows:
Quote:Arian
Pertaining to Arius, a presbyter of the church of Alexandria, in the fourth century, or to the doctrines of Arius, who held Christ to be inferior to God the Father in nature and dignity, though the first and noblest of all created beings. -- n. One who adheres to or believes the doctrines of Arius. --Mosheim.
Ellen White sprinkled her writing with many references to Jesus as Michael, or as an angel, or as ìnot God almighty.î This was likely at the urging of James or other highly placed members who had this belief.
Later in life, Ellen White embraced Trinitarianism. However, in order to preserve the ìintegrityî of her writing, several clever arguments have been crafted to ìhave it both ways.î
Most Adventists I have heard speak on the subject have stated that Jesus is Michael, but then argued that they were not diminishing His divinity. The problem is that, for those who hold that contradictory belief, they are really unaware how deeply this heresy dwells in the history of Adventism and, unfortunately, early Christianity.
Even if one truly believes that they are completely Trinitarian, this terminology is an implicit attack on Jesus.
The members in your motherís church seem closer to JWís than SDAís. |
Jerry (Jerry)
| | Posted on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 2:46 pm: | |
Here is a good link for a discussion of the history:
Did Ellen White Teach ìa Different God?î |
Steve (Steve)
| | Posted on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 11:58 pm: | |
Hi Susan_2,
The phrase above that includes the wording "Father God" are my words, not the author of that website. According to the author of the website, the Father is God, while the Son and Holy Spirit are manifestations of the Father God, but are not part of the Godhead in the same way as Trinitarians would claim.
I will try to make my own words read differently from the words I'm quoting. I don't want to put the wrong words in anyone's mouth, even if I disagree with them.
I agree with Seekr777 above. In and of itself, it means nothing. However, if someone uses a certain phrase consistently, I would start asking some questions.
For instance, if a person keeps using the phrase "Heavenly Father" rather than "Our Heavenly Father" I would have some strong insight as to what religious group they may be affiliated with. I would not ASSUME that they are affiliated with a specific group, I would always ask.
Words are only flags. They help one to be aware of what to ask of the person who uses the term consistently. The individual may or may not have any reason for using the terrm.
At heart, I'm a researcher. I like to dig. I may not always be the most objective in what I do, but the Lord has taught me some beautiful and horrible lessons through what He's shown me (Oh! I hate that phrase! It's an EGWism.)
As Jerry says above:
"... in order to preserve the ìintegrityî of her writing, several clever arguments have been crafted to ìhave it both ways.î"
The SDA GC and the EGW Estate have carefully crafted their words. Beware of the Wordcrafters.
They can be subtle, like the Snake.
Steve |
Susan_2 (Susan_2)
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2003 - 10:47 am: | |
Richard, yes, I am planning on coming to the meeting on Friday evening. Now, I must know if there is a military base nearby. I would prefer spending the night at the base than at a civilian motel. Please, respond to that. In the Lutheran tradition we consistantly say the words, "I believe in One God. The Father Almighty, The Son, fully God and fully man and the Holy Spirit, fully God who is here in our presence as counselor and conforter", etc. I hear nothing in the sda church acknowledging Jesus or/and the Holy Spirit as being fully God. We sing praise songs at church to the Holy Spirit. I don't recall singing songs of praise in the sda church to the HS. And, now a touch of humor. Last night I was visiting on the phone with a friend who lives many miles from me. She told me she recently had been in a restruant and the people in the booth next to her kept talking about Ellen. They would sayu things like, "But, Ellen said" and then say what Ellen said or they would say, "Oh, did Ellen really say that?", etc. Always referring to Ellen by her first name as if Ellen was a close friend. Finilly my friend turned around and asked them if they were sda. They said yes and she asked if they were talking about Ellen White and they said they were. |
Seekr777 (Seekr777)
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2003 - 3:56 pm: | |
Susan:
It is great to hear that you will be visiting in the area and hope that I can meet you at the FAF sometime. The fellowship meets 40+ miles from my home and usually after school the idea of traveling 40 miles in Friday rush hour traffic is not high on my list of "pleasures". I'd much rather go home and spend some quiet time with my wife. <smile>
I sometimes smile to myself as I listen (read) the experiences of others in this discussion. Since I've spend more than 50 years is various stages of "engagement" within the SDA church I don't doubt that they are real experiences. Over the years I've been through just about every stage of "development!!" there is to be found in Adventism.
I'm deeply saddened when I attend a church where the "GOSPEL" is not preached. I feel the gospel should be a part of every worship sevice. We should never forget the "Good News" of his life, death and resurection that paid the price and redeemed us. In the words of a song, "He is RISEN and reigns for ever more."
Richard |
Seekr777 (Seekr777)
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 8:57 am: | |
Susan, I see no one has responded to you regarding Military Bases in the area. Some years ago Norton would have been your best chance but it is closed completely now. The other large one in the area is March but it is some distance away, south of Riverside. I know it has been "downsized" so don't know what is even available. There may be some naval facilities down in the harbor area but that would again be some distance.
Richard |
Susan_2 (Susan_2)
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 11:08 am: | |
In a recent sda plubication, it may have been the Signs, was an article teaching that Jesus is really Michael, the Archangel. It was probably around four months ago or so. I mentioned that article to sda loved ones of mine and the response was almost unbelievable. Their responses went something like this, "Oh well, it doesn't really matter to me if Jesus was ever Michael, the angel or not because I know He came so forgive my sins so the Adventist church can believe and teach whatever it wants on that subject. At least they have the truth of the Sabbath and that's all that really matters to me"> I then asked if the Sabbath teaching and the Sabbath only was/is what keeps them in the SDA church and I was told that it is. |
Terryk (Terryk)
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 11:28 am: | |
It is very sad that we recieve these answers but I would have told you that to last year. It was so ingrained in my head that that was so important. Jesus let us see truth when it was time for us. I think all we can do is pray for them to see light too. I think one of the hardess things in the journey out of the church was to keep my mouth shut and not burn the bridges and just keep praying for them. This is no comfort I know. Can you imagine what God feels like sometimes we are ust so blind. Well God Bless and keep praying and living in Grace and Love |
Pheeki (Pheeki)
| | Posted on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 11:45 am: | |
I have a question that I need an answer to...
Where in the Bible is the command given to congregate for worship on Sabbath? Is this a man-mad tradition?
I have read the Law and it talks about resting and not leaving your dwelling, etc. No where can I find where it says to congregate for worship. I see where it says that it was certain people's custom to do so, such as Paul,etc. but what is this based on?
On that other website (with all the SDA appologists on it) they could only come up with Revelation 14, it doesn't address the question.
I contend it was never commanded, and if so, they are following man-made tradition and the issue of Sabbath vs. Sunday is a moot point! Meaning that if we congregate on Sunday we take the mark of the beast, etc. Moot point!
Also, I know this is a moot point b/c we are no longer under the Law, but SDA think we are...so that is why I want to know!
Thanks. |
Colleentinker (Colleentinker)
| | Posted on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 11:55 am: | |
Pheeki, there's no command to assemble on Sabbath. You're right; the Levitical laws said people were NOT to leave their tents on the Sabbath. I believe the weekly assembling in synagugue began during the intertestamental period (the 400 years of silence between Malachi and the birth of Jesus). The synagogue became the meeting place. In Israel, there was no synagugoe, only the temple.
As the rabbis wrote the "mishna", their commentaries on the law and the prophets, many traditions emerged that were rabbinic, not scriptural. Meeting at synagogue was not commanded in the law. That was a later development.
Colleen |
Jerry (Jerry)
| | Posted on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 2:05 pm: | |
Really, Colleen?
Could you look at Leviticus 23:3 and tell me what you make of the term ìholy convocation?î
The way I read it this is a command to assemble on the Sabbath.
Even if it means assemble, it does not help the SDA argument, however. They readily drop the other feasts, yet hold the Sabbath as a ìHoly Convocationî because the word ìHolyî appears in the ìbig 10.î
Unfortunately for them, ìkeeping holyî means many things which donít always mean a worship service.
How to keep the seventh-day holy as regards the fourth commandment, means: ìdo no work.î
Now, Colleen, if you meant ìthere is no command to assemble in the Ten Commandmentsî then you are right. |
Freeatlast (Freeatlast)
| | Posted on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 3:56 pm: | |
Jerry, can you explain how one might assemble with the people of God on the 7th day for holy convocation without leaving his/her tent...? |
Colleentinker (Colleentinker)
| | Posted on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 4:45 pm: | |
Jerry, you are right. I had never noticed that Leviticus text calling Sabbath a day of convocation before. Thank you for pointing it out to me. I needed to see that!
Even so, it does not support Sabbath observance today because it is given in the same command as all the other "sacred assemblies". God was saying to Moses, "These are my appointed feasts, the appointed feasts of the Lord, which you are to proclaim as sacred assemblies." (Lev. 23:2) He then lists Sabbath, Passover, Unleavened Bread, Firstfruits, Feast of Weeks, Day of Atonement, and Feast of Tabernacles in the same chapter. All these days were considered sacred days and "appointed feasts". No distinction was made among them.
In Exodus 16:29 it does say, "Bear in mind that the Lord has given you the Sabbath; that is why on the sixth day he gives you bread for two days. Eveyone is to stay where he is on the seventh day; no one is to go out."
For Adventists to say that meeting together on the seventh day began in Israel and has never been "un-commanded", they would have to say the same thing for every other Jewish feast day. They were categorized together as days of convocation.
As for synagogues, the word occurs only once in the OT (Psalm 74:8) and is sometimes translated 'Meeting places" or "place of worship", etc. Scholars are not convinced the word there had the same meaning it has today.
The origin of synagogues is unclear, but many people do believe they began to emerge during the Exile when worship in Jerusalem was impossible. There is no mention in the apocryphal writings about any synagogues being destroyed during Antiochus Epiphanes' persecutions of the Jews during the 2nd century BC. They existed, however, wherever Jews lived by the 1st century AD.
Jewish authorites came to see the synagogue as a replacement for the temple when they were scattered in a world-wide dispersion. One rabbi named Menes wrote, "In the synagogue there was no altar, and prayer and the reading of the Torah took the place of the sacrifice." Further, the synagogue also functioned as a meeting place where people discussed community affairs.
Menes also commented, "Jewish monotheism emancipated itself in religious practice from its bonds to a specific and designated site. God was now brought to the people wherever they dwelt."
(source: New Bible dictionary, Inter-Varsity Press)
You're right, Jerry--Sabbath was called a day of sacred assembly--along with every other feast day. It was a ritual assembling and required two special Sabbath sacrifices (Numbers 28:9-10), and it was not commanded before Exodus when Moses presented Israel with the law.
Further, the idea of gathering, reading Torah and praying together in lieu of sacrifices seems not to be a biblical command; it was a rabbinic interpretation of Sabbath designed to hold onto traditions in the absence of the temple (or the tabernacle) which was a central part of Israel's symbolic ceremonies. There were specific commands that accompanied the Sabbath law, and Adventists, like modern Jews, have abandoned many of the specific requirements that were part of the required day. Without the required commands, the required day loses its meaning.
Colleen |
Colleentinker (Colleentinker)
| | Posted on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 4:56 pm: | |
Freeatlast, I've been struggling with that question also. I can't find a place that defines the "assembling". There is the Numbers command for the sacrifices, but that command may have specifically applied to the priests. The command for this offering is given immediately after the account of Moses commissioning Joshua to take his place. It's possible God reiterated his commands for all festival offerings at this point to underscore the continuity between Moses' administration and Joshua's.
Unlike many of the feasts which command eating and celebrating together, the Sabbath command is simply to rest. While it's definitely called a day of convocation, they were also told to stay put in their places. Whatever was going on, it wasn't the joyful, noisy, celebratory group activity that marked days such as the Feast of Weeks, for example!
Colleen |
Jerry (Jerry)
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 12:29 pm: | |
Freeatlast,
I believe that this is the explanation for the conflict between the commands to assemble and to stay in oneís tent (oneís place).
First, you must notice that the command to stay occurs in Exodus 16. This is not the weekly Sabbath command of Exodus 20, nor is it the Levitical feast days of Leviticus 23. Instead, it is a preparatory Sabbath. That is to say, it is a command to have a Sabbath on a certain single day where God is teaching the precept of Sabbath before establishing the Covenant on Horeb/Sinai. This was also before establishing the feast ceremonies with their holy convocations.
This specific event involved going out to gather manna. Therefore, staying in oneís place prevented the search for food. This was a potent example to demonstrate that God would provide for them even when they took a day to rest. To people that knew nothing except work for the sake of survival, missing an opportunity to gather the only available food must have appeared extremely illogical. Yet, we know now, it was important for them to learn this lesson in the continuum of Godís plan of salvation.
I do not believe that the Old Covenant Sabbath included a prohibition of travel, per se. The real issue was that one could not carry a load. If you and your household (including animals) cannot carry a load on the Sabbath day, then your ability to travel is severely limited.
With that in mind, we see why the verse in Nehemiah about shutting the city gates makes sense. The point was to make that sure nobody was able to carry loads, whether one was going into or out of a city.
Understanding that the Sabbath is fundamentally about ìdo no workî is critical to interpreting Jesusí actions and teachings about the Sabbath.
If the most important concept about the Sabbath were that we must hold a worship service on Saturday, it would be difficult to understand how Jesus relates to the Sabbath.
This fundamental misunderstanding is at the root of Sabbatarianism error (both seventh day and first day).
When you think in those terms, the verses where Jesus broke the Sabbath do not register as such. It also allows you to misinterpret the ìSabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbathî and ìLord of the Sabbathî verses. |
Freeatlast (Freeatlast)
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 5:03 pm: | |
Thanks Colleen & Jerry! This is an interesting thread. I am driven back to Scripture for more insight, and that's always a good thing! |
Colleentinker (Colleentinker)
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 12:32 pm: | |
You're right, Jerry. Good analysis!
I just have to share something that is so exciting to me right now. We're studying Romans in our Friday night Bible study, and our verses for this week are Romans 2:25-29. They deal very specifically with the Jews' view of circumcision not ensuring them of right standing before God.
As I studied this idea and also looked at Sabbath texts (because Adventists use the Sabbath as a modern substitute for circumcision: a sign of true doctrine and belonging the God's true people), I came upon some (to me) amazing insights which I just have to share with someone!
First, even in Exodus God's Sabbath commands were foreshadowing new covenant reality. Exodus 31:13: "Say to the Isralites, 'You must observe my Sabbaths. This will be a sign between me and you for the generations to come, so you may know that I am the Lord, who makes you holy.". Verses 16-17 confirm the Sabbath as a "lasting covenant", "a sign between me and the Israelites forever."
Wow, in Exodus is says that the Sabbath is a sign that God makes his people holy! Notice that is NOT about making physical time holy; it is his people whom he makes holy. In the new covenant, that holiness is realized when we accept Jesus and his Spirit indwells us, giving us Christ's righteousness. We become holy in God's sight and are FINALLY able to rest from our labors to be acceptable to God! We enter Sabbath rest.
That reality was foreshadowed in Exodus. Of course, I'm certain the Israelites couldn't have clearly understood this eventual reality. Before we were born again and given spiritual eyes to see spiritual truth, most of us (all of us?) couldn't see that, either. Even from the beginning, it was not primarily about time. Sabbath was holy--set apart--for Israel because it represented that God would make them holy.
Now, most of us here probably understand that meaning of the Sabbath now. But I didn't realize before that it was so clearly foreshadowed in Exodus.
Now for the part that I found most amazing. I know that most of us probably have come to see circumcision as representing the set-apartness of Israel's seed, the call of God on his people, and his command to them to set themselves apart for holiness and for not mixing their blood lines or their practices with those of paganism. All of that I believe is true.
But look at the following text. In Genesis 17:13 God declares circumcision to be "my covenant in your flesh [which would] be an everlasting covenant." In other places God called circumcision a sign of his covenant and also the covenant between himself Abraham and his descendants. It startled me when I saw those words: "My covenant IN YOUR FLESH".
What, then was the fulfillment of circumcision, the one-time sign of God's covenant with his chosen people?
It had to be Jesus' physical suffering and the eternal physical scars in his body which forever remind all creation of His covenant with his people. On one level, Jesus, as the perfect Israel, now bears the marks of His covenant with us in his flesh. But on another level there must be also a fulfillment of circumcision in our experience.
Now, in the new covenant, Jesus' suffering the penalty for our sin has resulted in the Holy Spirit literally indwelling us while we are still in our sinful flesh. When we in the new covenant accept Jesus, he now puts the mark of his covenant in our flesh: he gives us the Holy Spirit who performs circumcision of the heart on us.
Even in the Old Testament, cirucmcision was always representing the circumcision of the heart God wanted in his people. In fact, in Deuteronomy 30:6 Moses said that God would circumcise Israel's hearts so they could love him with all their hearts and minds.
So, circumcision, the one-time entrance sign into God's covenant, was fulfilled with the once-for-all sacrifice of Jesus for humanity. The sign of his covenant is now in our flesh: the Holy Spirit who gives us a new heart while we are still in our unredeemed flesh.
As believers, our one-time entrance sign into the new covenant is baptism. It is our physical sign of obedience and surrender, but it leaves no permanent physical marks. Those are now born in the flesh of Jesus, while our flesh bears the spiritual marks of the covenant.
Simmilarly, the Sabbath was for Israel a repeated sign of their covenant with God and of their obedience to him. They had to rest repeatedly as a sign of dependence and trust in God--and as a foreshadowing of resting from their work of law-keeping and ultimately resting in Jesus' finished work.
In the new covenant, our repeated sign is communion. Instead of cyclical physical rest to foreshadow eternal rest, we now cyclically remember Jesus' death as a symbol of our relationship with him which has already given us eternal spiritual rest. Communion is also foreshadowing our ultimate physical eternal relationship with him.
I owe Dale Ratzlaff a debt of gratitude for pointing out in his books Sabbath in Crisis (now Sabbath in Christ) the fact of these symbols' representing the two covenants' one-time and repeated signs.
The way they dovetail, though, and the reality of Jesus' physical death and Pentecost fulfilling circumcision and Sabbath as well as the way the old covenant symbols flow seamlessly into baptism and communion because of Jesus and the Holy Spirit really took my breath away.
I hope I haven't been confusing. I just had to share this!
Praise God for his sovereign, eternal, unbroken work in all of creation!
Colleen |
Freeatlast (Freeatlast)
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 5:26 pm: | |
Colleen, everything in Scripture always has been - and always will be - about JESUS. Any doctrine or theology that emphasizes anything else misses the point of the Gospel and cheats the believer out of the full richness of relationship available in Him. This is exactly what Satan wants. If he can't get the believer to despise his faith in Jesus, perhaps he can cause "static" in the believer's connection with God and then use that leverage to get him to despair and ultimately despise his faith. A personal parable comes to mind... My Mother hated it when my Father watched football. If he refused to turn the game off, she would run the vacuum, blend up a smoothie, whatever she could do to make the picture snowy. Ultimately Dad would get frustrated, give up, and go mow the lawn - which is exactly what Mom had wanted in the first place. The law profession has a saying that goes something like, "if you don't have a strong argument, then muddy up the water around the argument and maybe the jury will bite." If you can't beat 'em, cheat 'em, so to speak...
Personal purity is a wonderful thing, of course, but that is not even the ultimate goal of our faith in Jesus. It is not to make us more "pure". The ultimate goal of Christianity is restored (redeemed, reconciled, etc.) relationship with God through the life and death of His Christ, Jesus. Exercising personal purity merely removes obstacles that stand in the way of deeper, more intimate relationship with God which IS the point of the Gospel. Any other christ (the Sabbath, for example) is insufficient to meet our needs. That is why keeping the law can never make someone pure anyway. One can only become truly pure as a result of a deep, intimate relationship with the living, breathing, ever-present Christ that God provided - JESUS. Such a person doesn't want anything to stand between him and his relationship with Jesus. No wonder He called the legalists "poor, blind, and naked!"
I have alot of studying to do thanks to you and Jerry. Very interesting thread! |
Colleentinker (Colleentinker)
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 7:08 pm: | |
Freeatlast, you're absolutely right. I loved your metaphor of your dad's TV game and your mom's electronic interference! That really does describe the situation!
I just today finished reading the John Piper book I mentioned earlier, The Legacy of Sovereign Joy. In it Piper summarized the main foci of Augustine's, Luther's, and Calvin's contributions to Christianity. One of the overriding impacts of the book for me was Luther's (and also Calvin's) commitment to the written word of God as the place where we discover the truth about Jesus.
When I think about it, the way we view the Bible and its reliability colors all of our theology and practice.
I took my son to his sax lesson at the University of Redlands this afternoon. The campus was filled with booths and tables for an annual Methodist convocation held every year at the university. When the lesson was over he asked me what Methodists believe.
I replied that I didn't know the specifics of their practices, but I did know that originally they were founded on true Biblical doctrines of the essential truths of salvation, and they have no modern prophet to rewrite the Bible for them. I also realized, however, that many Methodists seem to have a more liberal view of Scripture than do most Evangelicals. As I pondered that thought, I realized that in Christianity today, one's view of Scripture really is a major line of division.
As Piper explained as he wrote about Calvin's conversion, the ability to read the Bible and to KNOW that it is true, that it is the reliable revelation of God's will and salvation and identity, comes from the enlightening of the Holy Spirit. It's never our own analysis that convinces us the Bible is true. Always, the Holy Spirit awakens our Spirits and reveals Jesus. It is a miracle of God.
I know many of us have experienced this awakening. It's impossible to explain to someone who hasn't experienced it. But as you said above, Freeatlast, the Bible is all ultimately about Jesus. Revealing Him is the work of the Holy Spirit. Honoring Him and speaking well of Him is the work of the Spirit through His people.
Purity is God's work in us. It never preceeds knowing Jesus; it is always the result. And yes, we often have to choose to walk away from things the Holy Spirit reveals to us as hindrances in our intimacy with Jesus. But that choice never becomes truly possible for us to make with freedom until we meet Jesus.
I'm afraid I'm sounding a bit esoteric--my reading today has really given me a lot to ponder.
Praise God for Summer vacation!!!!
Colleen |
Terryk (Terryk)
| | Posted on Thursday, June 19, 2003 - 4:46 am: | |
Freeatlast I enjoyed your last post. I see even in other churches that I think they too try and focus on being prue. I know God has a lot of work to do on me but I sure see things differently then before. Its wondrful to know that it does not metter what your position or how many times you go to church does not determine your relationship with Christ. Its wonderful to know that it is in Christ's hands and not mine. I again pray for friends who do not understand this yet. Well have a good day everyone. |
Susan_2 (Susan_2)
| | Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 11:34 am: | |
I guess you all noticed that I did nat make it to the meeting on Friday night. I cancelled my trip. My son ran away from the grouphome and he's out and about now. But back to the previous conversation on this thread: I got a letter in the mail from a very dear elderly person who I love very much. The letter was in the mail today. She identifies herself as an Historical Adventist. In it she tells me that she prays to Jesus and to God every day. I think that she is coming from the Arian belief and not a Trinatartan belief. |
Susan_2 (Susan_2)
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 2:15 pm: | |
Last Saturday while listening to the sermon at the SDA church with my mom the minister said that the SDA church can trace its roots back to Daniel. Honest, I did not burst out laughing, I actually sat in that pew in amazement that he actually had the nerve to say such a thing and that the congreants didn't call him on it. I thought the SDA church had its roots back to the early 1830's. Oh, silly me. |
Colleentinker (Colleentinker)
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 7:34 pm: | |
Daniel, huh? Do you think he meant the book of the Bible (as in Daniel 8:14, the text they use to try to support the IJ), or the person?
Wow, Christianity isn't that old!
It's always interesting...
Colleen |
Susan_2
Registered user
Username: Susan_2
Post Number: 499
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 4:15 pm: | |
In my mons latest issue of the Review is a discussion about the year Jesus was crusified. I believe the general Christian understanding is the year 33. However, the Review says this is wrong and it is really the year 31 (I think that is what it says, anyway the Review gives a different year than the traditional Christian understsanding). First of all, I personally don't think it matters to my salvation what year it happened, only that it happened. Second, it is my guess that this is important to the SDA denomination so they can get their Investigative Judgement doctrine to come out with the time. Any comments? |
|
