Seventh-Day Adventists

[Claudia_T]

Abraham was stopped by God who then provided a substitute. Abraham was obedient.

that wasnt the point... the point is just because God said kill and eat after showing these unclean animals doesnt necessarily mean He is asking Peter to sin.. sometimes God asks us to do something as an object lesson.

 

[LeBuick]

In John 6 Christ said "YOU must EAT my flesh and DRINK my blood to have eternal life" - then HE interprets those symbols as "flesh is worthless it is my WORD that has Spirit and that gives eternal LIFE". HE interprets for us - and yet some argue "NO EAT JESUS as well". But it is instructive that even the disciples that stayed in John 6 did not start biting Jesus.

Bob

I agree, it did not mean start biting Jesus but there is more to that lesson. First, those were Jews he left wondering and scratching their heads.

John 6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

Secondly, the lesson was regarding bread of God vs bread from heaven but that's a whole other story.

That lesson didn't stop their for the Christians, he was serious and meant what he said so the lesson goes on. Again, he provided the substitute and not Man but he does want us to eat His flesh and drink His blood:

Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

He also promised a New Wine in the Kingdom.

 

[LeBuick]

that wasnt the point... the point is just because God said kill and eat after showing these unclean animals doesnt necessarily mean He is asking Peter to sin.. sometimes God asks us to do something as an object lesson.

Correct, the object of the lesson was stated by Christ himself in verse 15.

Acts 10:15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

I bolded the object of the lesson. He didn't limit the object to just people. Peter did that.

 

[DHK]

I point out that EVEN in Act 10 where you are pointing this conversation Peter gives the dream's interpretation three times and NEVER (not even ONCE) says "SO EAT MORE RATS to show that you are a Christian".

If this was tried "verbatim" -- I know I for one would love to have been a fly on the wall of that Bible class!

You basically say that God's Word is of none effect or meaningless.

Let's take one of Jesus parables for an example.
A sower went out to sow. Some seed fell on good ground, some among the thorns, and some by the wayside.
Then the disciples come to Jesus and ask the interpretation thereof. Jesus explains that the seed is the Word of God, and gives the rest of the interpretation. What you are saying is that only the interpretation is true and the actual words of Jesus are false. You are saying that Jesus used lies to tell his parable. That his words are not true but meaningless. This is what you are trying to teach on this board. That is heretical to say the least. It is akin to calling Christ a liar.

God said for Peter to arise, kill and eat. Regardless of the interpretation God did not tell any lies or untruths. The unclean animals were there for Peter to eat. The command was there for Peter to obey. Let's not commit blasphemy by calling God a liar and saying that what he said was not true.

 

[Claudia_T]

God had sent Cornelius, a Gentile, to visit Peter. Peter wouldve refused to see him had God not given him that vision. Its clear what it means.

They could not entertain Gentiles Acts 10:28. When the men arrived, Peter thus welcomed them because of the vision. He explained that ordinarily he wouldnt have done so but "God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean" verse 28


DID YOU GET WHAT GOD HATH SHOWED PETER???

that I should not call ANY MAN common or unclean!

not any animal.... get it?

come on people!!

Acts 10:28: And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.


In the next chapter Acts 11, everybody was criticizing Peter so he tells them the vision and its meaning and:

Acts 11:18
18: When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.


Its not about rats, cats and wombats

 

[DHK]

Acts 10:11-14 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.


Acts 10:15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

It is blasphemous to ignore God's very words and to call him a liar. The above is what he said regardless of Peter's interpretation. Either the words are true and cannot be ignored or they are false. Are they false or not? Which is it?

 

[LeBuick]

They could not entertain Gentiles Acts 10:28. When the men arrived, Peter thus welcomed them because of the vision. He explained that ordinarily he wouldnt have done so but "God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean" verse 28

Now we're getting somewhere, Peter thought he could not entertain Gentiles. But obviously he was wrong from the start. Nothing changed for the Gentiles, what changed was Peter.

That is the point of the discussion, we take the Law or Gods word very literal and misunderstand the true intent. So Jesus says to Peter, if I call it clean who are you to call it unclean? If I tell you to eat it who are you to tell me but it's against the law?

Sin is transgression against God yet Peter is telling the one who would be transgressed what he can or can't do thinking he is adhearing to the Law. Don't you see the irony?

It is like the Sabath, Jesus and his men are eating the corn and the pharasees tell him, God how it will upset God.

That's the whole point of this topic, if God says it's ok you should not go back to Lev 11 and remind him what he said previously. Obviously it we who are confused for we know God is not the arthor of confusion. In that light, we should take both scriptures together to see what comes out.

 

[Amy.G]

God had sent Cornelius, a Gentile, to visit Peter. Peter wouldve refused to see him had God not given him that vision. Its clear what it means.

If the vision means that Gentiles are now clean, why were the objects on the sheet animals to be eaten? Why didn't Peter see Gentiles on the sheet? Why would God use unclean animals on the sheet and say "kill and eat" if He really meant Gentiles? That doesn't make sense.

 

[Claudia_T]

If the vision means that Gentiles are now clean, why were the objects on the sheet animals to be eaten? Why didn't Peter see Gentiles on the sheet? Why would God use unclean animals on the sheet and say "kill and eat" if He really meant Gentiles? That doesn't make sense.

Amy, God uses symbolism all the time, think of the dreams Joseph interpreted... its as Peter said, God showed him not to think of any man as UNCLEAN anymore... the gentiles... God was using the symbol of unclean animals, thats something a Jew would understand

 

[DHK]

Amy, God uses symbolism all the time, think of the dreams Joseph interpreted... its as Peter said, God showed him not to think of any man as UNCLEAN anymore... the gentiles... God was using the symbol of unclean animals, thats something a Jew would understand

It wasn't a symbol, and nowhere is there any hint of a symbol. Unclean animals are unclean animals. They are not symbolic. If they are are symbolic then the interpretation is for Peter to go and kill both Jews and Gentiles. Go on a murder campaign of all people that God calls clean. That is the symbolic interpretation.
But these were real animals. Don't make God a liar. Why do you do that? It is blasphemous to do so. And I will maintain that stand. God said what he said, and meant what he said. He called unclean animals clean. And you say he didn't. You are saying that God is lying. And that is blasphemy. God told Peter to arise, and eat of unclean animals. You call God a liar and tell us that God meant something else. You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Claudia_T]

Babylon is full of unclean and hateful birds.

Rv:18:2: And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.


Known any hateful birds lately? Known any organizations with buildings full of birds flying around? unclean ones even?

come on guys, SYMBOLISM! :laugh:


Of course though we have to think God really does mean hateful and unclean birds or else we are calling God a liar and blaspheming Him and ought to therefore be ashamed of ourselves

*Not really just kidding

 

[DHK]

Babylon is full of unclean and hateful birds.

Rv:18:2: And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.


Known any hateful birds lately? Known any organizations with buildings full of birds flying around? unclean ones even?

come on guys, SYMBOLISM! :laugh:

Your quote is from the Book of Revelation. It falls on deaf ears. So your point is??
Your point is that God doesn't mean what he says? True?

 

[LeBuick]

I don't think it's fair to use the book of Revelations to show symbolism. We all know John was in captivity and had to use symbolism's so his letters would be delivered to the Church by his captors.

 

[Amy.G]

Amy, God uses symbolism all the time, think of the dreams Joseph interpreted... its as Peter said, God showed him not to think of any man as UNCLEAN anymore... the gentiles... God was using the symbol of unclean animals, thats something a Jew would understand

Jews also knew that Gentiles were unclean. Peter knew this.
Acts 10:28 Then he said to them, "you know how unlawful it is for Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation.
So, why did God tell Peter to kill and eat the unclean animals if He really meant Gentiles? He could have just said Gentiles are now clean and left the unclean animals out of it completely. This scripture is so plain. I don't understand your argument.

 

[Eric B]

The passage IS symbolic, because it inteprets itself with aparallelism; just like Christ's parables. First the story is told with the symbols (metaphors: comparisons spoken like they are the real thing, rather than using "like" or "as", which are "similes".), then the parallel real meaning is brought out--unclean animals--unclean gentiles. (And Peter was not able to "obey", as he did and could not by himself kill and eat all of those animals on the spot!)
BUT...
The fact that God would tell him, even symbolically to eat the unclean animals, does constitute a de-facto repeal of Lev.11. God never tells anyone, even in a vision, to commit adultery, steal, blaspheme, dishonor parents, kill an innocent man, bear false witness, covet or worship other gods. The fact that it represented "unclean" Gentiles shows that this was what that command was really about all along (rather than "health"). Now that God was cleaning Gentiles, and the "unclean" was the spiritual state of those outside Christ, a meat law made to remind them (Gal.3:19-29) to "be ye holy" (Note Peter's use of this passage from Lev.--1 Pet.1:15) was no longer necessary. Again, "clean and unclean" were ultimately spiritual conditions, and animals are not spiritual, and thus not truly unclean of themselves! (Rom.14:14)

 

[steaver]

What's cult-like about thinking you need to keep the commandments?

Wow, 26 pages. But here it is in a nut shell, notice what Claudia said above (I am only on the first page). Most SDA's will say one does not receive salvation through the keeping of the commandments. But most everyone within the SDA's plus most everyone outside the SDA's come away with the idea that one MUST obey the commandments or else perish (hence the word "need"). This is why most people see them as cultish.

Question for SDA's...Does one "need" to keep the commandments in order to receive salvation? Yes or No will do, no rabbit trails please!

God Bless!

 

[Claudia_T]

Wow, 26 pages. But here it is in a nut shell, notice what Claudia said above (I am only on the first page). Most SDA's will say one does not receive salvation through the keeping of the commandments. But most everyone within the SDA's plus most everyone outside the SDA's come away with the idea that one MUST obey the commandments or else perish (hence the word "need"). This is why most people see them as cultish.

Question for SDA's...Does one "need" to keep the commandments in order to receive salvation? Yes or No will do, no rabbit trails please!

God Bless!

Well what would you say? No? Do you think God is just kidding?



Mt:5:19: Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Mt:19:17: And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

1Cor:7:19: Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

1Jn:2:3: And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.

1Jn:2:4: He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

1Jn:3:22: And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.

1Jn:3:24: And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

1Jn:5:2: By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.

1Jn:5:3: For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

2Jn:1:6: And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.

Rv:12:17: And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Rv:14:12: Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

Rv:22:14: Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

 

[DHK]

Claudia is today's modern version of the Judaizers of Paul's day.
They said that one must keep the law to be saved.

Acts 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

 

[Claudia_T]

well thank you

 

[BobRyan]

Question for SDA's...Does one "need" to keep the commandments in order to receive salvation? Yes or No will do, no rabbit trails please!

God Bless!

Christ said "by their fruits you SHALL know them.. not everyone who SAYS Lord Lord will enter the kingdom but he who DOES the will of My Father" Matt 7.

Paul said "Not the hearers but the DOERS of the Law WILL be justified" Romans 2:11-13

Christ said "IF you Love Me KEEP My commandments" John 14:15

John says that "the one who SAYS he knows Christ should WALK as Christ WALKED - if he does not - he is a liar" 1John 2:4-7

SDAs simply accept the Word of God just as it reads.

Many object to that - but it does not change the Word of God.

In Christ,

Bob