| Author | Message | ||
| Pw Registered user Username: Pw Post Number: 44 Registered: 6-2004 |
I was only in the SDA for about a year and a half, and only one Christmas went by during this time period. I wasn't quite sure where they stood on the issue but it seems that most SDA's did have Christmas at home, but it wasn't focused on at the church. | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 746 Registered: 11-2002 |
The SDA's do Christmas totally secular. Most do not bring in the immaculate conception, the birth of Jesus, the wise men or any of the rest of the Christmas stroy. At the Lutheran Chistmas is not a day but a season, the Advent season and for 40 days leading up to Christmas we focuse of the why that the world needed a Savior just at that time. It makes a person think and reflect and ponder. | ||
| Ladylittle Registered user Username: Ladylittle Post Number: 24 Registered: 4-2004 |
Just curious what you mean by the immaculate conception. I may be wrong, but I've understood that that refers to Mary, Jesus' mother, also being born without sin. I fully believe Jesus was concieved of the Holy Spirit, but believe that Mary not! | ||
| Pw Registered user Username: Pw Post Number: 45 Registered: 6-2004 |
I remember one topic around Christmas how an SDA member said that the image of Mary riding a donkey to Bethlehem was untrue. She claimed it wasn't in the Bible and most likley they both walked. Anyone else ever hear this one? | ||
| Ladylittle Registered user Username: Ladylittle Post Number: 26 Registered: 4-2004 |
I remember my mother pointing that out to me! When I was reading the Bible Story books, mom pointed out that we don't know alot about what happened surrounding Jesus' birth: There is nowhere in the Bible that says Mary rode on a donkey (it doesn't say she didn't either). It seems to just be an assumption that may not fit with the poverty apparent by the gift of doves as a sacrifice in the temple later. Neither is there a record of exactly how many wise men came to give gifts to Jesus, only a record of three gifts. Someone once pointed out that the gospels are not biography: we are not given all the information that our curiosity seeks. Rather they are the Gospels, "Good News", and contain all the precious information we need to be saved. I actually got upset at Mom and ran to get my Bible and 'prove' she was wrong. . . . Well, I wasn't able too. I'd be interested in others' feedback though! | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 464 Registered: 12-2003 |
Ladylitte, yes, the immaculate conception doctrine is about Mary being conceived of a virgin. I think many Christians don't know that--I was quite surprised to learn it from a friend of mine who was taking theology at Fuller Seminary about 8 years ago or so. It is a Catholic doctrine--I don't know how Greek Orthodoxy sees this doctrine. You know, the donkey (which really is just tradition) as well as the Three Kings (also tradition born of the three gifts) don't really bother me. They're not taught as central to the story or even important in any way. I'll tell you two non-Biblical fictions which do bother me, though, because so many object lessons have been drawn from them (I can't even begin to tell you how often I've heard moral expounding based on at least one of these): the idea that Eve wandered away from Adam in the garden and hence was vulnerable to Satan because she didn't have the strength of his nfluence to help her sort through the deception, and the idea that Cain's offering was rejected because it wasn't a blood offering. Genesis 3:6 says, "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate ite. She also gave some to her husband WHO WAS WITH HER, and he ate it." I realize that the fiction that Eve wandered away from Adam didn't begin with EGWhite, but certainly her expounding on that idea stressed it hugely in my mind and the minds of a lot of Adventists. Really, the true Bible story holds Adam even more responsible than I was led to believe as a child. In Genesis 3 God's first curse was on the serpent because he had deceived Eve. His second curse was on Eve, and that curse is not prefaced by any direct statement to Eve about her behavior. His third curse was on Adam, and God told him it was "because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it.' î Paul says sin entered the world by one man, and by one man all shall be made alive. Adam was with Eve, and that original sin was, by my reading, mutual, but God held Adam ultimately responsible for the implications of this sin for the entire human race. That second idea that God rejected Cain's offering because it wasn't a blood offering is likewise NOT in the Bible. The story is in Genesis 4. Verses 2b-5a say this, "Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord. But Abel brougth fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. the Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor." Nowhere does it even hint that Cain should have brought animals as Abel did. Cain was a vegetable farmer, after all. Abel was a shepherd. They each brought gifts from their own unique work. Israel, after all, was not only instructed to bring blood offerings to God. They were also to bring firstfruits and wave offerings from their produce. The problem here is that Cain did not bring a thoughtful, sacrificial offering. Cain simply brought some of the fruits of the soil. But Abel chose fat protions of the firstborn of his flocks. It's not said that Cain brought firstfruit offerings--he just carelessly gathered some stuff and brought it, while Abel carefully chose the best he had. It was their underlying attitudes that were the problems, not that Cain refused to bring the proper kind of offering. Cain overtly looked good; no one except God would necessarily know that he had not brought firstfruits, or the best of his yield. To a casual observer, Cain's offering probably looked fine. But God knew that Cain was harboring hatred and resentment in his heart. Look at verse 7 where God says to Cain, "If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires tohave you, but you must master it." But Cain refused to take God's warning, and he went out and murdered Abel. Cain was self-centered and self-indulgent, and his offering was a lot like the "offering" of Annanias and Sapphira in Acts. It looked good to the brothers, but it wasn't what they had promised God. They tainted their offering with the sin in their hearts, and God did not tolerate that in Acts any more than He did in Genesis. Again, I'm sure EGW didn't unilaterally originate the idea that Cain's offering was rejected because it wasn't a blood offering, but she surely made a big deal about it! She creates quite a scenario about God killing the first sacrifice from whose skin He fashined clothes for Adam and Eve. She continues by explaining that God taught Adam and Eve to offer sacrifices for their sins at that time. Now, Gensis 3:21 does say that God made skin slothes for them, and it's clear that somehow Cain and Abel understood that sacrifices to God were inorder. But Ellen's telling of the story is pure fiction; it's like learning history from a historical novel instead of from documented facts and not knowing what details to believe or not believe. Ellen's telling of the story eclipses some of the most profound implications of the sketchy stories recorded in Genesis, and they lead us to conclusions that the Bible itself does not lead us to. I certainly learned my Bible stories from an Ellen White perspective rather than from a Biblical one. As I began to realize some of these inconsistencies, I realized that not even The Bible Story books sold by the ABCs are innocuous. They sweetly but subtley teach error, and we end up deriving the wrong "lessons" from those Bible stories. Praise God for revealing the truth in His word! Colleen | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 297 Registered: 3-2004 |
Thank you Colleen, for bringing the offerings of Cain and Abel to my attention. I have to go back and re read them. Then the story of Eve eating the fruit and offering it to Adam. She did not wander away from him and he knew what she was doing. Sometimes I remember something about a Bible story to find it is EGW and not the Bible. Diana | ||
| Doug_s Registered user Username: Doug_s Post Number: 28 Registered: 7-2004 |
Colleen, I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Just because Cain was a tiller of the ground did not exempt him from his duty to bring a blood offering to God. He was born under the curse of sin just as his brother was. The required payment for that is blood. I don't know why Adam is not mentioned as being required to bring an offering to the Lord. Since the scriptures are silent on that I will not speculate at this time. I will say, though, not every household in Israel were land owners or sheep farmers but they were required to at least purchase an animal to bring before the Lord. Cain could have bartered produce of the ground with Abel for a sheep. I expect Abel would have been glad to get some veggies for a lamb, a well balanced meal you know. If Cain had done well by recognizing that he should work in cooperation with his brother by providing to each what the other needs, his heart would have been in the right place. He, as representative of his household, then would have brought before the Lord the required blood sacrifice. I agree that Cain probably was self-centered and self-indulgent and he failed to realize the significance of the blood offering. Once this was done, then God would accept his offering of produce. But he must first acknowledge his need to appease God with the sacrifice. Abel's offering was for Abel and Cain's offering was for Cain. We each stand before the Lord and in the name of Jesus Christ we offer up our confessions of sin individually and they are accepted individually and forgiven. My understanding of these things comes not from EGW but from the bible. I don't recall where I may have read her teachings on these things and it's quite possible - more like probable - that I have read them. I'm just saying that this is my understanding from my personal bible study and not from what I got from her. I'm not a lifelong adventist so it's not something that would have been systematically engrained into my brain from youth. I also praise God for revealing his truth in his word but at this time we may not see it exactly the same way.  Doug | ||
| Pw Registered user Username: Pw Post Number: 47 Registered: 6-2004 |
You know, one thing always puzzled me about SDA's. How is it that they feel they must keep a Jewish Sabbath yet do not hold onto the other holidays like Yom Kippur, Passover, Purim and Rosh Hashanah? Another case of picking and choosing what they like and don't like. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 468 Registered: 12-2003 |
Doug, you're probably right that God had instructed Adam and Eve in the process of sacrifices. Yet there is absolutely no instruction regarding sacrifices mentioned in the Bible prior to the story of Cain and Abel. I looked everywhere for evidence that God had instructed them to bring sacrifices before He rejected Cain's offering, and I can find none. That doesn't mean, of course, that they weren't to bring them. Obviously both Cain and Abel brought gifts. Yet there's nothing in the text itself to indicate that God's rejection of Cain's sacrifice had to do with the fact that it was produce. Further, (I found these after I read the passages in Genesis and couldn't find evidence that Cain disobeyed God's command) the notes in the NIV Study Bible and the entry under "Cain" in The New Bible Dictionary by Inter-Varsity Press both say God rejected Cain's sacrifice because of Cain's own heart, not because of what the offering was. I realize that the idea that Cain's sacrifice was rejected because it wasn't animal is not original with EGW. Indeed, perhaps Cain did break a command of God--it's just not in the text. Further, I don't think it's necessarily an important point of difference, and I also do believe that Adam's family had been instructed in the process of sin offerings. Again, it's not in the text, and there's also no evidence that this offering they brought was for sins. It may have been a harvest or thank offering. It's just not clarified. (I suppose the reason I'm so focussed on whether or not it's in the text is that I've had 'way too many students trying to make cases for characters in literature based on their own assumptions of what those characters might have thought or felt instead of using only the text as their evidence. I can't count the times I've told them that you can't make conclusions the text won't support!) Whatever the case, Cain was unrepentant, and that is the sin God could not forgive. I don't mean to be argumentative, Doug! I'm sorry if I've come off sounding like your high school English teacher--I acknowledge this is one of my soap boxes, and I know how opinionated people can sound from their soap boxes! Colleen | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 750 Registered: 11-2002 |
I had always thought the term innaculate conception referred to the Holy Spirit comnig upon Mary and having her conceive the Son of God, Jesus. With the undersanding meaning Mary was conceived through a virgin, well, that is corney because just how many genertions back do the Catholics take this? I was over at the Mission recently and a Catholic lady was doing her evengalism thing and gave me a little booklet. The intent of the booklet is to convice people to come to the truth of Catholicism. I read the book. It got really far out on some things. | ||
| Bb Registered user Username: Bb Post Number: 5 Registered: 7-2004 |
I also got a flyer for a Revelation seminar coming to my town. It had the usual dragons and talk of judgement. It makes me feel depressed when I see it. But I noticed on one of the night's topics it said something about "Why millions of God-fearing people will go to hell"! I was wondering what that was? Is it that millions of Christians (according to SDA's) are deceived about the day of worship? What do you all think that meeting would be about? | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 752 Registered: 11-2002 |
Db, Do you think you could get to the lecture that night so you can share with on here what was said? Maybe you could drink a strong rum and Coke or something first to sort-of numb your brain while you hear what I susspet you will hear. But, please, don't drive and drink. Have someone else do the driving. My guess is it will be a talk on the I.J., which comes to the only true people of God during that time will be only a few of the SDA's. I heard a SDA preacher say oetime that SDA's are the chosen people of God and only one-third of the SDA's will be saved to etermal life. It was after this sermon that my best friend (nearly 30 years ago now and she is still my best friend) lost interest in the SDA church. She figured, "Why bother. I know I'll be in the two-thirds that don't make it" and she pretty much took herself out of the SDA system. Pretty depressing, don't you think? Sure isn't a relgion of peace, hope and joy. | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 5 Registered: 7-2004 |
I was baptised during a Revelation Seminar. I had been studying for months and was ready to join, but I was encouraged to attend the Seminars (perhaps to make the numbers look better). In hindsight what happened just prior to my baptism should have been a turning point for me. I talked to the pastor about baptism, who then had me talk with the evangelist. The evangelist told me that he wanted me to come forward during a particular upcoming alter call. Then during his prayer at that alter call, I sure you all know the kind of prayer, he said something like "Lord I don't anyone here who has made a decision for You, but You do. Lay the burden on their hearts to come forward now..." I was shocked it this outright deceit in a prayer. I "blamed" the deceit on the person not the church. It took a few years for me to learn that deceit was such a common thread within the church. | ||
| Dd Registered user Username: Dd Post Number: 40 Registered: 7-2004 |
Doug and Colleen, Here's my humble opinion regarding Cain: You are both right!! Doug - Take a look at Heb. 11:4 -- "By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings." I think maybe God did give them some insight into the Sacrifical Lamb that maybe just did not get recorded. In Genesis 3, He certainly discussed a bit of His plan (vs 15). Colleen -- I agree that God's concern was Cain's attitude (just like He is with us today!). Vs. 6 and 7 He is sure trying to provide Cain a way out of his anger. But in verse 8 he goes out and takes his anger out on his brother. I Cor. 10:13 seems like what God was saying to Cain in verses 6,7. Isn't the Holy Spirit a wonderful gift? I love how I can read something and see a point and then reread a few days/weeks/months later and see something totally different. Thanks for sharing your points of view. | ||
| Bb Registered user Username: Bb Post Number: 6 Registered: 7-2004 |
Ric it is amazing to me that there is so much deceit! That must have tainted you right away. I really think adventists can rationalize away much sin as long as they "keep" the Sabbath! My ex-husband who does not attend any church, but loves to drink and smoke pot, is so proud that he doesn't touch pork, and when he heard I took my kids to a "Sunday" church, he muttered under his breath (according to my daughter) "Well, she's going to hell". Also I know an adventist girl who could not marry her boyfriend because he was another religion, but then got into a lesbian relationship! It is just unbelievable to me that moral living is not as important as pork and Sabbath keeping! | ||
| Bb Registered user Username: Bb Post Number: 7 Registered: 7-2004 |
And Susan, I just couldn't bring myself to go to one of those, not even if I got drunk! Since childhood I have hated those things. I remember working in the children's dept. just to avoid hearing all of that scary stuff. I would hear bits and pieces, but really hated the whole thing. Where's the gospel? Bb | ||
| Bb Registered user Username: Bb Post Number: 8 Registered: 7-2004 |
Oh, and Pw I have a Christmas story! One week at SDA church I was happy in the wonderful season of Christmas, (I love Christmas) and I sat near the front ready to hear a good sermon, and as usual one of the elders spoke. I believe it may have even been Christmas day! He chose to talk to us about rumors that he had heard about then President Clinton encountering SDA students from Andrews U. and how he told them they were headed for Big Trouble, and he was not nice to them, etc. He scared the blank out of us. He then said it was only a matter of a few years and then the Sunday laws would come, etc. etc. I think he tried to end it with a little small statement about that he was happy about this because Jesus would be coming soon! Well, that Christmas message I was wanting to hear was a horrible scare tactic! I believe fear is the replacement for Joy in the adventist church. Even adventists I know can see that, but they feel trapped into the doctrine of kill-joy EGW!!! | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 753 Registered: 11-2002 |
Several years ago I took an extenstive class on the book of Revelations. It was the same class they give to the ministerial students up at Concordia University, The Lutheran equivelant of Andrews. Only in my class we didn't get the college credit. We bought the textbook and a wonderful retired Lutheran pastor who lives locally gave the class. Finilly for the first time in my life Revelations made sense. I am so thankful I took that class. Not long after the class finished the local SDA's had a Revelations seminar. I was invited to attend with my mom. I told her I'd just finished a three month class on Revelations so I was not going to attend but if she wanted to go I'd be happy to take her each evening. She asked where I took the class. She assumed it must have been SDA. I think she had never even thought that other Christian churches even acknowledge Revelations. When I told her it was given by a retired Lutheran pastor using the textbook that the ministerial students use in their studies she made some rude remarks and comments (which sadly is common-being directed towards me and I'll never get used to it, I hate it and I consider it emotional and verbal abuse even if I am in my 50's) and she never has mentioned the book of Revelation or a Revelation seminar to me again. Just as well. What a downer. | ||
| Doug_s Registered user Username: Doug_s Post Number: 29 Registered: 7-2004 |
Colleen, With all due respect, I'm pretty sure I acknowledged the silence and lack of biblical support, in Genesis, of God instructing Adam and Eve on sacrifices. My opinion comes from other instances of scripture which does discuss offerings and sacrifices. I think we get insight from other places in scripture which enable us to possibly understand those places where all the relevant facts are missing. I agree with you in that we should not try to insert meaning where it doesn't necessarily belong, if that's what you are saying. And I acknowlege that I may be doing that here. But, to me the issue is God's acceptance of Cain and Abel's gift. Why would they even think to bring a gift to God for acceptance? Why is that even an issue for them? Since there is silence in this particular place in scripture, to answer that I feel we have to go to those instances in scripture that provide information regarding the offering of gifts and their purpose. And that is where I went to gain some insight, perhaps a little clearer picture of just what was happening with these two brothers. Also, God told Cain that if he does well then he would be accepted, if not then sin lies at the door. So, Cain was not doing well. What was Cain doing? If you read the text literally, there is nothing there to say Cain had a bad attitude, but I believe he did. But as Dd pointed out (btw, thank you Dd), in Heb 11:4, the issue was the offering not the attitude of Cain. He was not doing well because he was not submitting to God's will by offering up an acceptable gift. Abel brought the firstling, indicating innocence, and of the fat therof, a fatted animal indicating fulness or completeness. These are obvious references to Christ. Cain's offering was not. I still maintain that his attitude was bad. I was thinking of that yesterday after my post to you and I was wondering why his attitude was bad. It hit me on my drive home and if you don't mind I'd like to share that here. Why was Cainís attitude bad when he brought his offering of produce before the Lord? God told him if he does well he will be accepted and if he does not well it is because sin lies at the door and he will desire it instead of doing well and sin will rule over him. Sounds like to me that sin was beginning to rule over Cain. But, why was sin at the door ruling over him? Could it be he was angry because his younger brother was given the responsibility of caring for the sheep? It was from the sheep that the blood sacrifice was made, the payment or ransom for sin. Both were born under sin and its curse. The wages (payment) of sin is death. Payment must be made in blood. Something had to be sacrificed to provide the blood. God provided the spotless life in the firstling lamb which was used for sacrifice. Firstling implies innocence. Nothing could be produced from the will of man that was acceptable as an offering for sin. Abelís responsibility was one of caretaker for that which God provided. Abel could not produce of himself the blameless lamb, but rather he accepted it, as it had to be born not of his will. His job was to simply care for it and then present it to God. It was a very important job and Cain may have thought that the job of caring for the flock should have gone to the first born, him. Remember that God had cursed the ground and it was difficult to get anything to grow so I can imagine that Cainís job of tilling the soil was a very hard job. In reference to the labor involved in working the ground we can look to Noah. He was named such because it carries the meaning of ìrestî. He was the one who would give mankind rest from their hard labor of tilling the cursed ground, Gen 5:29. It must have taken a lot of work to get the soil to yield its produce. When something did finally produce I imagine that he was filled with pride in making this happen. And yet, Abel had the gift that God accepted without having to endure the arduous toil of his older brother. In addition, Cain would have to humble himself and go to his younger brother to get the means of appeasing God. He was in effect, in bondage to the younger brother. I suspect that the older son, who worked very hard for every inch of progress and produce, finally got fed up with the arrangement, not understanding Godís plan and motive, and took it upon himself to do what he wanted. The older had to go to the younger for the means of appeasing God and this didnít sit well with him. This theme of the younger possessing the grace, favor and freedom from bondage and the older in bondage is consistent throughout scripture. Jesus said that the last shall be first and the first shall be last. Examples are Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, Joseph and his brothers, and even Christianity over Judaism. We see the new heavenly Jerusalem over the old earthly Jerusalem. In Galatians, Paul spoke of the two covenants being an allegory, that Hagar was the covenant of Sinai and bondage, and the earthly Jerusalem that is now is in bondage with her children, but the heavenly Jerusalem is free from bondage and is the mother of us all. The first born is supposed to be privileged simply by being born first. The first born doesnít have to do anything but be born first to receive the favor of the inheritance. Why didnít Cain get this honor bestowed upon him? Why did he get assigned the lesser of jobs, tiller of the cursed ground? Could it be that in this case the older represents pride in status and effort, work, our own means of surviving whereas, the younger represents the gift of grace, favor of God. This grace and life comes through something other than what we know or can do. The Tree of Life is a symbol of this, obedience to trust in God. The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is a symbol of our own knowledge and ability to try and obtain life, disobedience through self sufficiency. Simply by eating of the tree of life we have life because it has life in itself, whereas the tree of knowledge of good and evil represents that effort we try to put forth to obtain knowledge, wisdom and skills and abilities in order to attain to life eternal. We think we can utilize our own selves, skills, knowledge, power to obtain acceptance and life but it only leads to death. There is a correlation between the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the law of sin and death ñ that is the law of Sinai. In them man thinks he has life but finds only death. The law of the Spirit of life in Christ correlates to the tree of life. In one we obtain the life which exists in Him, in the other we have death in our own efforts to obtain knowledge and power. But we must submit one to the other. We must humble our selves and seek out the one with life. Itís not about us or what we can do, but rather it is what has been done for us. If Cain had realized this and submitted to Godís will by seeking out his younger brother who possessed the lamb he would have done well and been accepted. His countenance would not have fallen, he would not have gotten angry and sin would not have ruled over him leading him to commit murder. WHOA! Colleen, I truly do appreciate you and your ministry here in this forum and I am grateful for the opportunity to let it all hang out here. This is really the only place I have to go to express my views. And I thank you and praise God for you and Richard and all those who participate in this forum. Doug |
