|
Post by R' Y'hoshua Moshe on Apr 14, 2005 19:22:41 GMT -8
Sounds like a good recipe to me
|
|
|
Post by Blake on Apr 29, 2005 11:48:03 GMT -8
They don't sound like your average Seventh Day Adventist Shalom achi, Reuel I am a Seventh-day Adventist and am glad to keep the whole of the . Its interesting to see how what started out as a small group gradually adopted the piece by piece as it was revealed to them. Its saddens me how errors such as the Trinity have infiltrated the Church but it is why I must remain to do my part to purge such heresies and bring even more of teh to light,
|
|
|
Post by Blake on Apr 29, 2005 11:56:43 GMT -8
I've got one friend who's an SDA, but I normally dont' associate with most, because SDA theology teaches that Jesus was an Achangel and not God. Of course, there are different branches of SDA, and many individuals hold differently, so we can't paint them with a wide brush. That is a fallacy. Perhaps try studying the doctrine of teh Church before making such broad assumptions. Archangel is only used twice in the Bible and is simply a title meaning "Lord of the Angels". Mika'el is a title of Messiah used the Bible. Jos 5:14 And he said, Nay; but as prince of the host of YHVH am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant? Jos 5:15 And the prince of Jehovah's host said unto Joshua, Put off thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou standest is holy. And Joshua did so. Note this "Captain of YHVH's Hosts" is bowed to and worshipped. If he was a mere Angel he would've rebuked Yehoshua from worshipping him. And the Apocalypse of Yochannon reveals the name of the Captain of the Hosts of YHVH: Rev 12:7 And there was war in Heaven. Michael and his angels warring against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels warred, Michael is revealed as Divine and must be the same of Messiah.
|
|
|
Post by Rick on Apr 29, 2005 16:45:14 GMT -8
Would you like to explain this statment further?
|
|
|
Post by Chizuk Emunah on Apr 29, 2005 20:33:15 GMT -8
I think I know what he's alluding to, but I'll let Blake go ahead and explain it.
|
|
|
Post by R' Y'hoshua Moshe on Apr 30, 2005 21:27:12 GMT -8
And, what about Acts 10?
|
|
|
Post by Blake on May 4, 2005 7:02:00 GMT -8
Would you like to explain this statment further? The Adventist history contains baby-seps towards full observance. After the Great Disappointment the truth of the Sabbath was shown to them by a Seventh-day Baptist. Next came the kosher diet (based mainly on vegetarianism because in the early days of the CHurch kosher meats were quite hard to come by any place except New York City). Unfortunately in the last 50 years many Babylonian heresies were adopted so the Church wouldn't be lumped in with Mormons as a cult. Errors such as the Trinity were introduced right under people's noses. But, instead of leaving the Church I feel I must stay to tell people of the truth and the because I feel God has a very special mission for the Adventist. Shalom brethern,
|
|
|
Post by Rick on May 4, 2005 9:10:14 GMT -8
|
|
vickylee
New Member
Starting my journey into the Jewish roots of my faith.
Posts: 16
|
Post by vickylee on Aug 4, 2005 18:33:45 GMT -8
interesting that this discussion is here. I have been in this discussion with someone else and I will post a copy of her inquiries to me. I have no idea how to respond to them. I know that her points have no standing, but I do not know how to reply help? plus, it answers Reuel's question about what makes a person believe that meats are clean by this passage snd gets us back on topic her: Okay, I am going to jump in here on this one. Would God lie to Peter to make a point? I don't think so! So if He showed Peter that those meats were NOT unlean, then they aren't. my point is that God would NOT have used an example that caused Him to lie to make a point to Peter. He would NOT have said that the meat was clean if it isn't, because that would be a lie, wouldn't it? If the meat were still unclean, He would've used something else as an example. He would not have used something that confused Peter, and argued it so strongly if it were just an example. Unless you can show me somewhere else where He clearly contradicts Himself just to make a point, I think you have bought into a legalistic lie about this issue. Me: no one has yet shown me how it could mean that meat is clean when Peter makes NO allusion to that WHATSOEVER in the interpretation of the vision. His interpretation was CLEAR. Gentiles are now included. He said it at least 2 times! her: GOD said they weren't unclean, so who cares what PETER said??? I mean, I believe God is a multi-faceted God, and He can easily be teaching Peter a lesson on more than one level, both that the Gentiles are "clean" AND that the meat is now clean as well. I just cannot buy that he wold've put that whole elaborate vision together for Peter, had it written up in His Word, but not meant it!!! I also believe that God does things in season, to teach lessons. The clean vs unclean thing permeated the Israelites lives for many reasons: to show them just how impossible it would be for a man to be righteous and holy on his own, to set the Israelites apart from the surrounding nations who had no such laws, to teach them obedience....and the list could go on, I am sure, but I think you get the idea. Then in another "season," God has the right to teach his people in another way.
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Aug 5, 2005 5:35:01 GMT -8
Hi Vickylee,
THe problem in the generally accepted view of Acts 10 is that it is not read word for word. I'd ask your friend to look and see where in that text that God ever says the word "unclean". He doesn't. He said, "What I have cleansed, don't call common." What is ignored is the difference, biblically between meats that are unclean and meats that are common. Unclean meats are those which are specifically mentioned as being detestable in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. Common meats those which are not defined as abominable in the sight of Adonai yet have been rendered unclean by improper handling. One way that a meat may become common is by association with the unclean. (Leviticus 11).
This makes more sense as to why there were ALL MANNER of four-footed beasts. Some were clean and some were unclean, yet, because of the association, even the clean would be considered common. God didn't say "Eat of the unclean." In fact, He made no distinction at all. Keep in mind that, to a Jew, unclean meats were not a food item. It would be as though you were offered a plate with steak and maggots. You would conclude that the food being offered was the steak, though it would be unacceptable because of its association.
Here's the basic question: is God immutable? Does He change? Your friend's god certainly seems to have- or at least to be a respecter of persons. In Ecclesiastes 3:14 we are told, "I know that whatever Adonai does, it shall stand forever. Nothing can be added to it. Nothing can be taken away. Adonai does it so that men shall fear before Him." Ask your friend if she honestly has a healthy fear of God. If she is honest, I seriously doubt that she does. She is rather presumptuous concerning His commands. This seems a little harsh; but the state of lawlessness to which she holds so tightly is tragic- she is literally pushing away the love of Adonai, saying, "I will not folllow after You."
|
|
|
Post by R' Y'hoshua Moshe on Aug 9, 2005 10:08:46 GMT -8
Very good response! I would also add if it truly was G-d’s intention to proclaim to His people that they can now eat unclean animals…why did not Kefa (Peter) promptly do so? Did he break a direct order from Adonai? I don’t think so. You are right, Kefa made known the true interpretation of the dream. Also, your friend speaks of G’d lying…would G’d not be lying by going back on His word regarding the everlasting statutes concerning Vayikra (Lev.) 11? In other words, He would have to first lie to establish what you friend is saying in Kefa’s dream. It really is ridiculious to say that G’d changed His mind regarding His original words in Vayikra (Lev.) 11.
Amein.
Shalom chaverim,
Reuel
|
|
|
Post by Chizuk Emunah on Aug 11, 2005 5:06:13 GMT -8
I'm gonna jump on board and agree with Mark and Reuel here.
Agreed. Acts 10 does not say, "and after the vision Kefa immediately went to the market and bought a porkchop." In fact, Kefa obviously did not believe it meant that all foods were were now clean because Acts 10 does say that after he had the vision he wondered what it meant. That statement alone should blow any Christian mis-interpretation out of the water. 'So you're telling me that Kefa didn't understand the vision right away, but a Christian pastor can point to that passage and say that all foods are clean?' What's wrong with that picture??
|
|
|
Post by R' Y'hoshua Moshe on Aug 21, 2005 11:34:09 GMT -8
Good point
|
|
|
Post by Wavy_Wonder on Dec 7, 2005 14:04:36 GMT -8
I think the truth about Acts 10 is quite obvious. I agree with other interpretations here and can elaborate on the original post. I do believe Cornelius was an exiled Israelite. The four-cornered sheet I tie into Isaiah 11:12; a Messianic prophecy about the true nature of Messiah's mission: Is. 11:12 And he shall set up a miraculous banner for the nations and he shall gather the outcasts of Israel and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.Also, I think it may have been said, but YHWH told Peter not to call common what he had made clean. He didn't repeat unclean. Only "common". Thus, the unclean or akathartos in the Greek, is not pure/clean. Perfect typology of how the Israelite exiles were considered by Jews (Judah). Considered common pagans and as gentiles, when in truth, Messiah's mission to Judah was to tell them to love their brother. Indeed this is the theme of the whole NT, really, imo. And while it may be sort of "hidden" in mystery understanding, I believe most of the people Paul and other NT writers wrote to were Israelites, although they were scattered out in the nations according to the scriptures. For the argument that "did God lie to Peter?" for those anti- teachers, I'd say that was a silly argument. The question now becomes, "did PETER lie?". His exact words: Acts 10:28 And he said to them, You know how that it is forbidden for a man the is a Jew to keep company, or come to one of another nation; but YHWH has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.Is that what YHWH said? No. But that was the interpretation of the vision, as Peter was puzzled about in Acts 10:17. He KNEW it was not a command to go eat unclean meats or a reversal of kashrut laws according to this verse. And for the final proof that all animals are not clean, Revelation 18:2 needs to be read: Rev. 18:2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice saying, Babylon the great has fallen, has fallen and has become the habitation of demons, and the haunt of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.It's obvious that at least ONE type of animal is still unclean, thus any claims that "by this Jesus declared all foods clean" in Mark 7:19 or any claims that the kashrut laws were reversed in Acts 10 or that Paul said they were all clean in Romans 14, or that every creature can be eaten according to 1 Timothy 4 are lies according to this scripture. Peace/love in Moshiach Yeshua.
|
|
|
Post by Firestorm on Dec 8, 2005 6:31:59 GMT -8
;DI belive scripture doesn't lie, but I'm hard pressed to explain Mark7:19, Romans 14 or 1Timothy 4 unless it means that one ought not ot keep kosher laws as a way of earning salvation or "brownie points" with God.
|
|