Seventh-Day Adventists

[BobRyan]

Claudia simply dares to QUOTE Christ, John, Paul and James -- then DHK said

Claudia is today's modern version of the Judaizers of Paul's day.

Perhaps I should go ahead and quote Christ, Paul, James, John etc so that I too can be slandered.

Well then... ok

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.


Of course we must give DHK his due. He is claiming that Acts 15 is in direct opposition to the NT quotes given above -- as he then gives this quote below --

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.

AS IF we can equivocate between BECOMING a Jew and keeping the Mosaic command "Love your Neighbor as yourself" Lev 19:18.

And yet that is what DHK does!!!

Amazing!!

When SDAs fail to turn a blind eye to the scripture of the NT and of the OT -- they often get attacked as Claudia did.

Pretty sad that failure to "ignore enough Bible" will be viewed as reason to get such negative reactions.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

AS IF we can equivocate between BECOMING a Jew and keeping the Mosaic command "Love your Neighbor as yourself" Lev 19:18.

And yet that is what DHK does!!!

Amazing!!
Bob

Loving your neighbor is a command of Christ.
The Levitical law was fulfilled by Christ. It was abolished, done away with at the Cross. Not loving your neighbor, not loving Christ--but the Levitical law.
As long as you put yourself under the law you are cursed by the law (Gal.3:10).

 

[BobRyan]

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.

In John 6 Christ said "you must EAT my flesh and drink my blood"

then When He asked Peter "are you too going to leave" Peter said "YOU HAVE the words of LIFE" for Christ had also said "Flesh is worthless my WORDS are Spirit and are Life".

Christ did not LIMIT his speach to JUST the WORD being Life - Peter did.

But neither does Peter BITE CHRIST.

So it is the same in Acts 10 -- Peter shows us the meaning is "Call no MAN unclean" -- and he shows this THREE times as he interprets the dream for us THREE times!!

Never Does Peter say "EAT RATS".

But for some Christians this thing of falling off the horse is done in both John 6 and in Acts 10 -- others only fall of the horse in Acts 10.

But please be honest - it is amazingly obvious in John 6 that Christ's disciples did not BITE Christ and it is amazingly obvious that Peter neither ATE RATS in Acts 10 NOR did he tell anyone else to do it. And you have to admit a good lecture on "rat eating "would have HAD to be given to the Jewish Christians Peter was talking to if THAT was the point he wanted to make".

this is so incrdedibly obvious it is impossible to deny. You have to take a blinders-on approach to the text and deny all normal forms of exegesis and reason to go against it both in John 6 and in Acts 10!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Loving your neighbor is a command of Christ.
The Levitical law was fulfilled by Christ. It was abolished, done away with at the Cross. Not loving your neighbor, not loving Christ--but the Levitical law.
As long as you put yourself under the law you are cursed by the law (Gal.3:10).

Christ QOUTES the Mosaic law in Matt 22 "LOVE your neighbor as yourself" PRE-CROSS quoting Lev 19:18.

James quotes the SAME Law in James 2 as does Paul.

It is pretty hard to pretend that these Bible writers were ignoring scripture instead of QUOTING it!

Why are you doing that?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

Claudia....

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

Bob....

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

There you have it from two SDA's. Did anyone see a "yes" or "no"? The SDA do not believe in the biblical free gift salvation. They follow the false prophet EGW and that is why they are looked upon as cultish.

God Bless!

 

[Claudia_T]

that is not true, we believe in the biblical free gift of salvation. I am sorry that you do not seem to "get" what we believe at all. Its very simple.


and I have to say that many of you seem "ignorish" of so many Bible verses, and SDAs do not believe in just pretending those verses do not exist... SORRY!

 

[steaver]

that is not true, we believe in the biblical free gift of salvation. I am sorry that you do not seem to "get" what we believe at all. Its very simple.

Great! Then go back and answer my question "yes" or "no".

God Bless!

 

[BobRyan]

I agree, it did not mean start biting Jesus ...

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.

ahh so it was not literal and true in John 6 but later it was in Matt 26. Except... they did not BITE Christ in Matt 25 "either"!!

the point is that the BREAD was used to teach a lesson about THE WORD and Christ is "THE WORD" that was in the beggining WITH God, that WAS God, that BECAME Flesh, that dwelt amont us.

STILL no matter HOW emphatic the text in John 6 about "EAT My flesh and Drink My blood" the obvious fact is NO BITING CHRIST.

He is serious about the WORD giving Life and about us not calling any MAN Unclean -- just because he used a symbol does not mean that the lesson being taught is not serious.

The LESSON of "My WORD is Spirit and is LIFE" in John 6 IS THE LESSON.

The same is true in Acts 10 - NOT the EATING OF RATS -- but rather "Call no MAN unclean" -- is the rule. And obviously in Acts 10 and 11 there was "no EATING RATS".

Why not go with the obvious?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Claudia_T]

Claudia simply dares to QUOTE Christ, John, Paul and James -- then DHK said



Perhaps I should go ahead and quote Christ, Paul, James, John etc so that I too can be slandered.

Well then... ok

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.


Of course we must give DHK his due. He is claiming that Acts 15 is in direct opposition to the NT quotes given above -- as he then gives this quote below --



AS IF we can equivocate between BECOMING a Jew and keeping the Mosaic command "Love your Neighbor as yourself" Lev 19:18.

And yet that is what DHK does!!!

Amazing!!

When SDAs fail to turn a blind eye to the scripture of the NT and of the OT -- they often get attacked as Claudia did.

Pretty sad that failure to "ignore enough Bible" will be viewed as reason to get such negative reactions.

in Christ,

Bob

Isnt that the truth, Bob... it truly amazes me. How can people just pretend all those Bible verses are not there? I really do not know.

 

[BobRyan]

There you have it from two SDA's. Did anyone see a "yes" or "no"? The SDA do not believe in the biblical free gift salvation. They follow the false prophet EGW and that is why they are looked upon as cultish.

God Bless!

Since you quote "only yourself" when you say "SDAS do not believe in the biblical free gift of salvation" you have only yourself to blame for making stuff up.

ALL you were able to muster is the fact that SDAS will quote NEW TESTAMENT TEXTS that don't fit your own doctrinal traditions.

How in the world does that support your wild claims here?

Again - the obvious points seem to be working against you here.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Isnt that the truth, Bob... it truly amazes me. How can people just pretend all those Bible verses are not there? I really do not know.

Actually that was a pretty handy list of NT texts you had showing the Bible position on obedience to God's Word instead of rebellion.

Nice going!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

Pretty sad that failure to "ignore enough Bible" will be viewed as reason to get such negative reactions.

It has nothing to do with "ignoring" scripture. Scripture must be read in context and the full counsel of God must be considered. Many, many times you smother the board with passages of scripture that have nothing to do with the topic being discussed.

God Bless!

 

[steaver]

Since you quote "only yourself" when you say "SDAS do not believe in the biblical free gift of salvation" you have only yourself to blame for making stuff up.

ALL you were able to muster is the fact that SDAS will quote NEW TESTAMENT TEXTS that don't fit your own doctrinal traditions.

How in the world does that support your wild claims here?

Again - the obvious points seem to be working against you here.

In Christ,

Bob

Was that a "yes" or a "no"?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Bob and Claudia, Have either of you ever condemned another to hell for failure to live as you do or as you see Scripture in light of dietary laws? Can one, in your estimation, be saved and have heaven as their hope and violate these dietary laws you feel are commanded to abide by in Scripture? Have you ever, or do you judge another as being a brother or sister in the Lord according to their compliance to the dietary laws as you read them?

 

[DHK]

You are not making sense Bob.
You are really grasping at straws trying to twist the words of God to mean something other then what they really do.

When God said: "Arise Peter and eat." There is no symbolism there. It is a direct command by God. The answer by Peter was a direct statement: "I have never eaten anything uncommon." God's rebuke was just as clear.
"Call thou not unclean what I have called clean," (referring to animals) is not symbolic. To say so is calling God a liar. All of this is straight forward language. There is no symbolism involved at all.

A sower went out to sow. Where is the symbolism? Was there a lie involved that was not true?
A man had two sons. One asked for his inheritance and spent it all.
--Though it be a parable are there any untruths in it. Does he teach with lies.

God gave Peter direct commands. Peter was the one that had the interpretation, not God. God was literal. Arise Peter and eat. It was a literal command for Peter to go and eat unclean animals, verified by other Scripture.

1 Timothy 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

But if you believe not the Scripture, then what will you believe?

 

[BobRyan]

Steaver said -
Was that a "yes" or a "no"?

Our view is that you must alway accept ALL of scripture. When man-made-tradition drives you to the point that simply SEEING the NT quoted in text after text drives you to "make stuff up" -- you know that you are on the wrong track.

Salvation is by grace through faith - the gift of God EVEN THOUGH the NT texts I gave you are STILL be read and STILL true.

The fact that your reaction to seeing them posted is to instantly make stuff up - should help you see the flaw in the traditions that you are holding.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

I'm going to have an ice cream while I wait for you guy's answer...."yes" or "no"....God Bless! :wavey:

 

[BobRyan]

Bob and Claudia, Have either of you ever condemned another to hell for failure to live as you do or as you see Scripture in light of dietary laws? Can one, in your estimation, be saved and have heaven as their hope and violate these dietary laws you feel are commanded to abide by in Scripture? Have you ever, or do you judge another as being a brother or sister in the Lord according to their compliance to the dietary laws as you read them?

This thread is 28 pages long - plenty of space to find me or Claudia saying "believe as I do or you can not be saved". If someone has such a quote - please provide it.

What you DO find is that we quote Bible texts that others choose to ignore.

I start out by saying that this debate is really between those who slice up scripture into "good bible vs bad bible" then complain about anyone who quotes from what they label as "the bad bible".

Claudia's NT list of text and DHK's response to them (as well as Steaver's response to that same list) proves the point in triplicate!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Claudia_T]

I'm going to have an ice cream while I wait for you guy's answer...."yes" or "no"....God Bless! :wavey:

well what I said was pretty obvious... you cant go to heaven and disregard God's authority, His law,

is that plain enough? go read your Bible


HOWEVER, I also believe that the Bible says that to him who knows it is sin, then it is sin... meaning that many have not been CONVICTED on certain areas of the scriptures, and therefore nobody can judge anybody's salvation.

Jms:4:17: Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

Once you KNOW you should keep God's Law then yes you are in trouble should you choose to ignore it.


I dont claim to speak for Bob Ryan, but this is the way that I personally view things.

I believe there are going to be lots of Catholics in Heaven... Many are living up to the light that they have...


God's people are in all denominations.


Claudia

 

[BobRyan]

Appealing for a little honesty here --

Quote:
Steaver said -
Was that a "yes" or a "no"?

I reply --

----------------------
Our view is that you must alway accept ALL of scripture. When man-made-tradition drives you to the point that simply SEEING the NT quoted in text after text drives you to "make stuff up" -- you know that you are on the wrong track.

Salvation is by grace through faith - the gift of God EVEN THOUGH the NT texts I gave you are STILL be read and STILL true.

The fact that your reaction to seeing them posted is to instantly make stuff up - should help you see the flaw in the traditions that you are holding.
-----------------------

Steaver then claims not to understand the post since I quoted Eph 2 and apparently it is confusing to him.

question for the group - does Eph 2 also confuse the rest to the point of not seeing the answer?

In Christ,

Bob