BNW Brave New World
Samenzwering, verborgen agenda's en geheime geschiedenis. De zoektocht naar de wereld die achter de faįade van alledag ligt.
Vervolg op BNW / Lucifer en de misleiding van het zevende dags adventisme
en
BNW / Lucifer en de misleiding van het zevende dags adventisme dl2
[ Bericht 35% gewijzigd door Lavenderr op 26-02-2013 18:26:20 ]
en
BNW / Lucifer en de misleiding van het zevende dags adventisme dl2
[ Bericht 35% gewijzigd door Lavenderr op 26-02-2013 18:26:20 ]
Maar wat ik nu al een aantal posts aan je verstand wil peuteren maar je schijnbaar negeert is dat de sabbat in deze niet het centrale punt van de boodschap is, maar een openbare manifestatie van de rechtvaardiging door geloof als resultaat van het ontvangen van het ware evangelie.quote:Op dinsdag 26 februari 2013 18:14 schreef wiseguy-23 het volgende:
Ali bedankt voor je brede uiteenzetting
Ik ben het met je oneens dat het in de eindtijd op zondag/sabbat aankomt, maar ik denk wel dat er sprake is van een rust-controverse. Namelijk diegenen die in Christus alleen rusten en daarmee automatisch een bedreiging vormen voor de NWO zullen wellicht vervolgd worden. Het prediken van redding door geloof in Jezus alleen zorgt namelijk voor ontzettend veel weerstand. Zelfs in deze tijd, als je het met katholieken zou bespreken kunnen ze giftig worden van woede. Wat zou er dan gebeuren als de NWO er eenmaal is en de religies van deze wereld hun handen inelkaar slaan in lijn van de traditie van Johannes Paulus de tweede die leerde dat alle religies dezelfde God aanbidden? Wat denk je dat er gebeurt als het tweede beest (de RK sinds 1929 toen het een kerk-staat werd) allerlei wonderen doet ten aanzien van de mensen en de wereld enthousiast maakt voor een NWO? Het lijkt me logisch dat diegenen die zich uitspreken tegen de NWO dan ook zwaar vervolgd zullen worden. Maar het gaat hier dan niet om zoiets stoms als een sabbat/zondag, maar om het feit of je gelooft in Jezus alleen voor je redding.
Ieder willekeurig persoon kan vandaag besluiten om de sabbat te houden. Zal hem dat redden? Nee natuurlijk niet.
Ieder willekeurig persoon die zich christen noemt kan vandaag besluiten om de sabbat te houden. Zal dat hem redden? Nee natuurlijk niet.
Het is niet het sabbat houden wat redt, of het sabbat houden dat je rechtvaardig maakt, of het sabbat houden dat de kern van het evangelie is. De kern van het evangelie is rechtvaardiging door geloof in Jezus Christus en de spirituele regeneratie door het ontvangen van de Heilige Geest waardoor je godvruchtig wordt.
God in Zijn liefde heeft ons 6 dagen werk en 1 dag rust gegeven. Die rustdag heeft allelei diepere betekenis, maar het simpele feit dat we stoppen met onze dagelijkse bezigheden is al een zegening op zich in plaats van dat we non stop moeten werken en God vergeten door onze drukke bezigheden. God heeft een specifieke dag gekozen die te maken heeft met de schepping.
De antichrist doet hetzelfde, maar heeft een andere dag gekozen. Uitendelijk is het een kwestie van autoriteit: wie gehoorzaam je?
Het punt is dat aan het einde der tijden geen mens die niet compleet in God is in staat zal zijn de sabbat te houden. Vervolging, economische uitsluiting zal ieder persoon die zwak is door het vlees doen vallen en opgeven.
Het is alleen dankzij de kracht van Gods geest dat iemand vol zal kunnen houden. Daarmee wordt het houden van die sabbat ondanks de oppositie een teken dat iemand gerechtvaardigd is door geloof, Gods geest ontvangen heeft, geheiligd is, en verzegeld.
Het is dan dus een signaal, een teken, een verschijnsel, een gevolg, van rechtvaardiging door geloof in Jezus. Het is niet de manier om gerechtvaardigd te worden, want je eigen werken kunnen je niet rechtvaardigen.
Jakobus zegt dat een geloof zonder werken dood is. Maar hij heeft het hier over de werken die volgen uit geloof. Alleen iemand met geloof zal de werken produceren die God van ons verlangt, omdat het Gods geest is die de werken produceert. Daarom kun je aan de hand van iemands werken afleiden of iemands geloof levend of dood is, aldus Jakobus.
Aan het einde zal men aan de sabbat af kunnen leiden of iemands geloof levend of dood is, omdat het laat zien waar iemand werkelijk staat: onder de volledige autoriteit van God, of onder de autoriteit van antichrist.
Dit is dan opnieuw geen manier om punten te verdienen, maar om de wereld op te roepen tot bekering! God wil een onderscheid maken tussen Zijn volk en de wereld. De mensheid zal iets nodig hebben om te kunnen zien waar zich naar toe te keren. De sabbat wordt als het ware de vlag waaronder Gods leger zich schaart, de banier waaraan herkenbaar zal zijn dat die groep Gods volk is die niet zal gestraft worden met de plagen maar de erfenis van het eeuwige leven zal ontvangen. Het is de sabbat die een zichtbaar onderscheid zal maken tussen Gods volk en de rest van de wereld.
11 Want het zal geschieden te dien dage, dat de Heere ten anderen male Zijn hand aanleggen zal om weder te verwerven het overblijfsel Zijns volks, hetwelk overgebleven zal zijn van Assyrië, en van Egypte, en van Pathros, en van Morenland, en van Elam, en van Sinear, en van Hamath, en van de eilanden der zee.
12 En Hij zal een banier oprichten onder de heidenen, en Hij zal de verdrevenen van Israël verzamelen, en de verstrooiden uit Juda vergaderen, van de vier einden des aardrijks. jesaja 11
15 En wat samenstemming heeft Christus met Belial, of wat deel heeft de gelovige met den ongelovige?
16 Of wat samenvoeging heeft de tempel Gods met de afgoden? Want gij zijt de tempel des levenden Gods; gelijkerwijs God gezegd heeft: Ik zal in hen wonen, en Ik zal onder hen wandelen; en Ik zal hun God zijn, en zij zullen Mij een Volk zijn.
17 Daarom gaat uit het midden van hen, en scheidt u af, zegt de Heere, en raakt niet aan hetgeen onrein is, en Ik zal ulieden aannemen.
18 En Ik zal u tot een Vader zijn, en gij zult Mij tot zonen en dochteren zijn, zegt de Heere, de Almachtige. 2 Korinthers 6
5 Zo wordt gij ook zelven, als levende stenen, gebouwd tot een geestelijk huis, tot een heilig priesterdom, om geestelijke offeranden op te offeren, die Gode aangenaam zijn door Jezus Christus.
6 Daarom is ook vervat in de Schrift: Ziet, Ik leg in Sion een uitersten Hoeksteen, Die uitverkoren en dierbaar is; en: Die in Hem gelooft, zal niet beschaamd worden.
7 U dan, die gelooft, is Hij dierbaar; maar den ongehoorzamen wordt gezegd: De Steen, Dien de bouwlieden verworpen hebben, Deze is geworden tot een hoofd des hoeks, en een steen des aanstoots, en een rots der ergernis;
8 Dengenen namelijk, die zich aan het Woord stoten, ongehoorzaam zijnde, waartoe zij ook gezet zijn.
9 Maar gij zijt een uitverkoren geslacht, een koninklijk priesterdom, een heilig volk, een verkregen volk; opdat gij zoudt verkondigen de deugden Desgenen, Die u uit de duisternis geroepen heeft tot Zijn wonderbaar licht;
10 Gij, die eertijds geen volk waart, maar nu Gods volk zijt; die eertijds niet ontfermd waart, maar nu ontfermd zijt geworden. 1 Petrus 2
Voor de zevende dags adventist sluit de tijd van genade bij de zondagswet, we worden dan ofwel verzegeld of niet.
De rest van de wereld zal dan nog de mogelijkheid hebben zich te bekeren, en de sabbat zal het zichtbare teken zijn waar zich toe te keren.
De sabbat is dan dus niet zozeer voor de adventist zelf die verzegeld is, maar voor degenen die God oproept uit Babylon te komen.
[ Bericht 2% gewijzigd door Ali_Kannibali op 26-02-2013 18:41:11 ]
Maar de hele opzet van de bijbel, het vertrouwen in die ene bron en de onduidelijkheid over de echte betekenis heeft toch helemaal niets met rationaliteit te maken. Het is je geloof erin dat het voor jouw acceptabel maakt.quote:
[..]
Als mijn geloof en ratio met elkaar in tegenspraak zouden zijn zou ik niet geloven denk ik. De oorsprong van mijn geloof zit juist wel in de teksten, al geeft het wel een bevredigend gevoel als ratio en geloof elkaar wederzijds interdependent versterken.
Question authorities, fuck religion, educate yourself, Viva el individualismo!
There's only one way of life, and that's your own!
There's only one way of life, and that's your own!
Ik begrijp je insteek maar de sabbat als uiterlijk kenmerk van iemands redding is niet bijbels. Het is gebasseerd op non-bijbelse aannames. De bijbel leert daarentegen dat mensen die verzegeld zijn door de Heilige Geest gekenmerkt worden door deze eigenschappen:quote:
[..]
Maar wat ik nu al een aantal posts aan je verstand wil peuteren maar je schijnbaar negeert is dat de sabbat in deze niet het centrale punt van de boodschap is, maar een openbare manifestatie van de rechtvaardiging door geloof als resultaat van het ontvangen van het ware evangelie.
Ieder willekeurig persoon kan vandaag besluiten om de sabbat te houden. Zal hem dat redden? Nee natuurlijk niet.
Ieder willekeurig persoon die zich christen noemt kan vandaag besluiten om de sabbat te houden. Zal dat hem redden? Nee natuurlijk niet.
Het is niet het sabbat houden wat redt, of het sabbat houden dat je rechtvaardig maakt, of het sabbat houden dat de kern van het evangelie is. De kern van het evangelie is rechtvaardiging door geloof in Jezus Christus en de spirituele regeneratie door het ontvangen van de Heilige Geest waardoor je godvruchtig wordt.
God in Zijn liefde heeft ons 6 dagen werk en 1 dag rust gegeven. Die rustdag heeft allelei diepere betekenis, maar het simpele feit dat we stoppen met onze dagelijkse bezigheden is al een zegening op zich in plaats van dat we non stop moeten werken en God vergeten door onze drukke bezigheden. God heeft een specifieke dag gekozen die te maken heeft met de schepping.
De antichrist doet hetzelfde, maar heeft een andere dag gekozen. Uitendelijk is het een kwestie van autoriteit: wie gehoorzaam je?
Het punt is dat aan het einde der tijden geen mens die niet compleet in God is in staat zal zijn de sabbat te houden. Vervolging, economische uitsluiting zal ieder persoon die zwak is door het vlees doen vallen en opgeven.
Het is alleen dankzij de kracht van Gods geest dat iemand vol zal kunnen houden. Daarmee wordt het houden van die sabbat ondanks de oppositie een teken dat iemand gerechtvaardigd is door geloof, Gods geest ontvangen heeft, geheiligd is, en verzegeld.
Het is dan dus een signaal, een teken, een verschijnsel, een gevolg, van rechtvaardiging door geloof in Jezus. Het is niet de manier om gerechtvaardigd te worden, want je eigen werken kunnen je niet rechtvaardigen.
Jakobus zegt dat een geloof zonder werken dood is. Maar hij heeft het hier over de werken die volgen uit geloof. Alleen iemand met geloof zal de werken produceren die God van ons verlangt, omdat het Gods geest is die de werken produceert. Daarom kun je aan de hand van iemands werken afleiden of iemands geloof levend of dood is, aldus Jakobus.
Aan het einde zal men aan de sabbat af kunnen leiden of iemands geloof levend of dood is, omdat het laat zien waar iemand werkelijk staat: onder de volledige autoriteit van God, of onder de autoriteit van antichrist.
Dit is dan opnieuw geen manier om punten te verdienen, maar om de wereld op te roepen tot bekering! God wil een onderscheid maken tussen Zijn volk en de wereld. De mensheid zal iets nodig hebben om te kunnen zien waar zich naar toe te keren. De sabbat wordt als het ware de vlag waaronder Gods leger zich schaart, de banier waaraan herkenbaar zal zijn dat die groep Gods volk is die niet zal gestraft worden met de plagen maar de erfenis van het eeuwige leven zal ontvangen. Het is de sabbat die een zichtbaar onderscheid zal maken tussen Gods volk en de rest van de wereld.
11 Want het zal geschieden te dien dage, dat de Heere ten anderen male Zijn hand aanleggen zal om weder te verwerven het overblijfsel Zijns volks, hetwelk overgebleven zal zijn van Assyrië, en van Egypte, en van Pathros, en van Morenland, en van Elam, en van Sinear, en van Hamath, en van de eilanden der zee.
12 En Hij zal een banier oprichten onder de heidenen, en Hij zal de verdrevenen van Israël verzamelen, en de verstrooiden uit Juda vergaderen, van de vier einden des aardrijks. jesaja 11
15 En wat samenstemming heeft Christus met Belial, of wat deel heeft de gelovige met den ongelovige?
16 Of wat samenvoeging heeft de tempel Gods met de afgoden? Want gij zijt de tempel des levenden Gods; gelijkerwijs God gezegd heeft: Ik zal in hen wonen, en Ik zal onder hen wandelen; en Ik zal hun God zijn, en zij zullen Mij een Volk zijn.
17 Daarom gaat uit het midden van hen, en scheidt u af, zegt de Heere, en raakt niet aan hetgeen onrein is, en Ik zal ulieden aannemen.
18 En Ik zal u tot een Vader zijn, en gij zult Mij tot zonen en dochteren zijn, zegt de Heere, de Almachtige. 2 Korinthers 6
5 Zo wordt gij ook zelven, als levende stenen, gebouwd tot een geestelijk huis, tot een heilig priesterdom, om geestelijke offeranden op te offeren, die Gode aangenaam zijn door Jezus Christus.
6 Daarom is ook vervat in de Schrift: Ziet, Ik leg in Sion een uitersten Hoeksteen, Die uitverkoren en dierbaar is; en: Die in Hem gelooft, zal niet beschaamd worden.
7 U dan, die gelooft, is Hij dierbaar; maar den ongehoorzamen wordt gezegd: De Steen, Dien de bouwlieden verworpen hebben, Deze is geworden tot een hoofd des hoeks, en een steen des aanstoots, en een rots der ergernis;
8 Dengenen namelijk, die zich aan het Woord stoten, ongehoorzaam zijnde, waartoe zij ook gezet zijn.
9 Maar gij zijt een uitverkoren geslacht, een koninklijk priesterdom, een heilig volk, een verkregen volk; opdat gij zoudt verkondigen de deugden Desgenen, Die u uit de duisternis geroepen heeft tot Zijn wonderbaar licht;
10 Gij, die eertijds geen volk waart, maar nu Gods volk zijt; die eertijds niet ontfermd waart, maar nu ontfermd zijt geworden. 1 Petrus 2
Voor de zevende dags adventist sluit de tijd van genade bij de zondagswet, we worden dan ofwel verzegeld of niet.
De rest van de wereld zal dan nog de mogelijkheid hebben zich te bekeren, en de sabbat zal het zichtbare teken zijn waar zich toe te keren.
De sabbat is dan dus niet zozeer voor de adventist zelf die verzegeld is, maar voor degenen die God oproept uit Babylon te komen.
Love
Joy
Peace
Longsuffering
Gentleness
Goodness
Faith
Meekness
Temperence
De bijbel noemt de sabbat een schaduw in die zin dat het voor christenen irrelevant is om de sabbat wel of niet te houden.
Ik weet dat je het goed bedoelt, maar de sabbat de kern van het evangelie noemen is hetzelfde als besnijdenis de kern van het evangelie noemen. En wat zegt de bijbel daarover?
11U ziet het aan de grote letters: ik schrijf u nu eigenhandig. 12Degenen die er zo op aandringen dat u zich laat besnijden, willen alleen een goede indruk maken en voorkomen dat ze worden vervolgd omwille van het kruis van Christus. 13Ze zijn voor de besnijdenis maar leven zelf niet volgens de wet; ze willen dat u zich laat besnijden om zich daarop te kunnen laten voorstaan. 14Maar ik – ik wil me op niets anders laten voorstaan dan het kruis van Jezus Christus, onze Heer, waardoor de wereld voor mij is gekruisigd en ik voor de wereld. 15Het is volkomen onbelangrijk of men wel of niet besneden is, belangrijk is dat men een nieuwe schepping is. 16Laat er vrede en barmhartigheid zijn voor allen die bij deze maatstaf blijven, en voor het Israël van God. 17En laat voortaan niemand mij meer tegenwerken, want ik draag de littekens van Jezus in mijn lichaam.
1Galaten, u hebt uw verstand verloren! Wie heeft u in zijn ban gekregen? Ik heb u Jezus Christus toch openlijk en duidelijk als de gekruisigde bekendgemaakt? 2Ik wil maar één ding van u weten: hebt u de Geest ontvangen door de wet na te leven of door te luisteren en te geloven? 3Bent u werkelijk zo dwaas weer op uw eigen kracht te vertrouwen, en niet langer op de Geest? 4Is alles wat u hebt meegemaakt dan voor niets geweest? Dat kan toch niet! 5Geeft God u de Geest en goddelijke krachten omdat u de wet naleeft? Of geeft hij ze omdat u naar hem luistert en op hem vertrouwt?
Babylon representeert de wereld die probeert via eigen werken de hemel te berijken. Het gaat hier niet om zoiets stoms als zondag/sabbat, dat is vanuit bijbels oogpunt ondenkbaar. Genade staat open voor iedereen tot Jezus' wederkomst.
Het is niet 1 bron, in feite zijn het 66 boeken die over een periode van duizenden jaren zijn geschreven. Persoonlijk hecht ik er dan veel waarde aan aan het feit dat deze boeken een geintegreerde consistente eenheid vormen. Het is dan ook niet voor niets het meest verkochte boek van de wereld en nooit heeft iemand zoveel invloed gehad op de wereld als Jezus van Nazareth. Ik heb dan ook niet het gevoel alsof ik mij bevind in het veld van pseudowetenschap als ik daadwerkelijk geloof dat de bijbel Gods woord is voor de mensen.quote:
Maar de hele opzet van de bijbel, het vertrouwen in die ene bron en de onduidelijkheid over de echte betekenis heeft toch helemaal niets met rationaliteit te maken. Het is je geloof erin dat het voor jouw acceptabel maakt.
Je hebt gelijk dat indien je echt wilt geloven dat Gods woord waar is, je veel onderzoek moet doen naar de oorsprong van de bijbel, de manusscripten, de vertalingen, de canonisering van de boeken, archeologie etc. etc. Ik ga ervanuit dat als ik iets niet snap in de bijbel dat er dan een logische bijbelse verklaring voor is. In dat opzicht is het ook heel erg dom van de ZDA kerk dat de kerk weigert gebruik te maken van de kennis die theologen voorhanden hebben om de ware betekenis van de bijbel te doorgronden.
Er is werkelijk geen andere reden om aan te nemen dat god bestaat anders dan die verzameling werken. En die verzameling werken noemen we de bijbel, 1 bron. Het was niet Jesus die zoveel invloed heeft, maar die verzameling werken, die ene bron. Het heeft niets met wetenschap te maken, dat de oorsprong van een tekst bekend is, maakt de inhoud van die tekst niet de waarheid. Een logische bijbelse verklaring is een verklaring van zichzelf, die ene bron. Er is niets rationeels aan om die inhoud te geloven.quote:
[..]
Het is niet 1 bron, in feite zijn het 66 boeken die over een periode van duizenden jaren zijn geschreven. Persoonlijk hecht ik er dan veel waarde aan aan het feit dat deze boeken een geintegreerde consistente eenheid vormen. Het is dan ook niet voor niets het meest verkochte boek van de wereld en nooit heeft iemand zoveel invloed gehad op de wereld als Jezus van Nazareth. Ik heb dan ook niet het gevoel alsof ik mij bevind in het veld van pseudowetenschap als ik daadwerkelijk geloof dat de bijbel Gods woord is voor de mensen.
Je hebt gelijk dat indien je echt wilt geloven dat Gods woord waar is, je veel onderzoek moet doen naar de oorsprong van de bijbel, de manusscripten, de vertalingen, de canonisering van de boeken, archeologie etc. etc. Ik ga ervanuit dat als ik iets niet snap in de bijbel dat er dan een logische bijbelse verklaring voor is. In dat opzicht is het ook heel erg dom van de ZDA kerk dat de kerk weigert gebruik te maken van de kennis die theologen voorhanden hebben om de ware betekenis van de bijbel te doorgronden.
Question authorities, fuck religion, educate yourself, Viva el individualismo!
There's only one way of life, and that's your own!
There's only one way of life, and that's your own!
Het is rationeel in zoverre dat als er een God bestaat hij ook in staat is om ons een handleiding achter te laten die ons antwoord geeft op de vragen die wij als mensen onszelf stellen.quote:
[..]
Er is werkelijk geen andere reden om aan te nemen dat god bestaat anders dan die verzameling werken. En die verzameling werken noemen we de bijbel, 1 bron. Het was niet Jesus die zoveel invloed heeft, maar die verzameling werken, die ene bron. Het heeft niets met wetenschap te maken, dat de oorsprong van een tekst bekend is, maakt de inhoud van die tekst niet de waarheid. Een logische bijbelse verklaring is een verklaring van zichzelf, die ene bron. Er is niets rationeels aan om die inhoud te geloven.
In het verleden is de sabbat al eerder het teken geweest van het feit dat het de God van de Hemel is, en niet een ander, die de persoon heeft geheiligd.quote:
[..]
Ik begrijp je insteek maar de sabbat als uiterlijk kenmerk van iemands redding is niet bijbels. Het is gebasseerd op non-bijbelse aannames. De bijbel leert daarentegen dat mensen die verzegeld zijn door de Heilige Geest gekenmerkt worden door deze eigenschappen:
Love
Joy
Peace
Longsuffering
Gentleness
Goodness
Faith
Meekness
Temperence
De bijbel noemt de sabbat een schaduw in die zin dat het voor christenen irrelevant is om de sabbat wel of niet te houden.
Ik weet dat je het goed bedoelt, maar de sabbat de kern van het evangelie noemen is hetzelfde als besnijdenis de kern van het evangelie noemen. En wat zegt de bijbel daarover?
11U ziet het aan de grote letters: ik schrijf u nu eigenhandig. 12Degenen die er zo op aandringen dat u zich laat besnijden, willen alleen een goede indruk maken en voorkomen dat ze worden vervolgd omwille van het kruis van Christus. 13Ze zijn voor de besnijdenis maar leven zelf niet volgens de wet; ze willen dat u zich laat besnijden om zich daarop te kunnen laten voorstaan. 14Maar ik – ik wil me op niets anders laten voorstaan dan het kruis van Jezus Christus, onze Heer, waardoor de wereld voor mij is gekruisigd en ik voor de wereld. 15Het is volkomen onbelangrijk of men wel of niet besneden is, belangrijk is dat men een nieuwe schepping is. 16Laat er vrede en barmhartigheid zijn voor allen die bij deze maatstaf blijven, en voor het Israël van God. 17En laat voortaan niemand mij meer tegenwerken, want ik draag de littekens van Jezus in mijn lichaam.
1Galaten, u hebt uw verstand verloren! Wie heeft u in zijn ban gekregen? Ik heb u Jezus Christus toch openlijk en duidelijk als de gekruisigde bekendgemaakt? 2Ik wil maar één ding van u weten: hebt u de Geest ontvangen door de wet na te leven of door te luisteren en te geloven? 3Bent u werkelijk zo dwaas weer op uw eigen kracht te vertrouwen, en niet langer op de Geest? 4Is alles wat u hebt meegemaakt dan voor niets geweest? Dat kan toch niet! 5Geeft God u de Geest en goddelijke krachten omdat u de wet naleeft? Of geeft hij ze omdat u naar hem luistert en op hem vertrouwt?
Babylon representeert de wereld die probeert via eigen werken de hemel te berijken. Het gaat hier niet om zoiets stoms als zondag/sabbat, dat is vanuit bijbels oogpunt ondenkbaar. Genade staat open voor iedereen tot Jezus' wederkomst.
13 Gij nu, spreek tot de kinderen Israëls, zeggende: Gij zult evenwel mijn sabbatten onderhouden; want dit is een teken tussen Mij en tussen ulieden, bij uw geslachten; opdat men wete, dat Ik de HEERE ben, Die u heilige. Exodus 31
19 Ik ben de HEERE, uw God, wandelt in Mijn inzettingen, en onderhoudt Mijn rechten, en doet dezelve.
20 En heiligt Mijn sabbatten, en zij zullen tot een teken zijn tussen Mij en tussen ulieden, opdat gij weet, dat Ik, de HEERE, uw God ben.
Alle andere vruchten van de geest zijn eveneens kenmerken, resultaten van Gods heiliging, maar de sabbat is hierin een geval apart. Zij zijn geen teken, de sabbat is dat wel.
De geschiedenis zal zich herhalen, zoals Salomo zegt:
9 Hetgeen er geweest is, hetzelve zal er zijn, en hetgeen er gedaan is, hetzelve zal er gedaan worden; zodat er niets nieuws is onder de zon.
10 Is er enig ding, waarvan men zou kunnen zeggen: Ziet dat, het is nieuw? Het is alreeds geweest in de eeuwen, die voor ons geweest zijn. prediker 1
Het was een teken tussen God en het Joodse volk, dit was HET teken van het oude verbond. In het nieuwe verbond is de sabbat geen teken meer.
150AD JUSTIN: Moreover, all those righteous men already mentioned [after mentioning Adam. Abel, Enoch, Lot, Noah, Melchizedek, and Abraham], though they kept no Sabbaths, were pleasing to God; and after them Abraham with all his descendants until Moses... And you [fleshly Jews] were commanded to keep Sabbaths, that you might retain the memorial of God. For His word makes this announcement, saying, "That you may know that I am God who redeemed you." (Dialogue With Trypho the Jew, 150-165 AD, Ante-Nicene Fathers , vol. 1, page 204)
200AD TERTULLIAN: Let him who contends that the Sabbath is still to be observed a balm of salvation, and circumcision on the eighth day because of threat of death, teach us that in earliest times righteous men kept Sabbath or practiced circumcision, and so were made friends of God. .. ...Therefore, since God originated Adam uncircumcised, and inobservant of the Sabbath, consequently his offspring also, Abel, offering Him sacrifices, uncircumcised and inobservant of the Sabbath, was by Him commended... Noah also, uncircumcised - yes, and inobservant of the Sabbath - God freed from the deluge. For Enoch, too, most righteous man, uncircumcised and inobservant of the Sabbath, He translated from this world... Melchizedek also, "the priest of most high God," uncircumcised and inobservant of the Sabbath, was chosen to the priesthood of God. (An Answer to the Jews 2:10; 4:1, Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 3, page 153)
150AD JUSTIN: Moreover, all those righteous men already mentioned [after mentioning Adam. Abel, Enoch, Lot, Noah, Melchizedek, and Abraham], though they kept no Sabbaths, were pleasing to God; and after them Abraham with all his descendants until Moses... And you [fleshly Jews] were commanded to keep Sabbaths, that you might retain the memorial of God. For His word makes this announcement, saying, "That you may know that I am God who redeemed you." (Dialogue With Trypho the Jew, 150-165 AD, Ante-Nicene Fathers , vol. 1, page 204)
200AD TERTULLIAN: Let him who contends that the Sabbath is still to be observed a balm of salvation, and circumcision on the eighth day because of threat of death, teach us that in earliest times righteous men kept Sabbath or practiced circumcision, and so were made friends of God. .. ...Therefore, since God originated Adam uncircumcised, and inobservant of the Sabbath, consequently his offspring also, Abel, offering Him sacrifices, uncircumcised and inobservant of the Sabbath, was by Him commended... Noah also, uncircumcised - yes, and inobservant of the Sabbath - God freed from the deluge. For Enoch, too, most righteous man, uncircumcised and inobservant of the Sabbath, He translated from this world... Melchizedek also, "the priest of most high God," uncircumcised and inobservant of the Sabbath, was chosen to the priesthood of God. (An Answer to the Jews 2:10; 4:1, Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 3, page 153)
Nou nee, als die zou bestaan had die wel heel veel dingen compleet anders kunnen doen. Bijvoorbeeld een wat duidelijker handleiding, een openbaring aan alle volken op dit bolletje en dan houd ik mijzelf nog in over wat die rationeel gezien anders had kunnen doen. En daarbij ik heb ik het niet over de rationaliteit van die god, maar over diegene die de bijbel als waarheid zien.quote:
[..]
Het is rationeel in zoverre dat als er een God bestaat hij ook in staat is om ons een handleiding achter te laten die ons antwoord geeft op de vragen die wij als mensen onszelf stellen.
Question authorities, fuck religion, educate yourself, Viva el individualismo!
There's only one way of life, and that's your own!
There's only one way of life, and that's your own!
Ik begrijp je frustratie, de werkelijkheid ligt nou eenmaal gewikkelder inelkaar dan we vaak zouden wensen. De handleiding is echter duidelijk voor iedereen die zich er in wil verdiepen. Alhoewel ik het er natuurlijk mee eens ben dat er veel dingen instaan die we nog niet helemaal kunnen doorgronden.quote:Op dinsdag 26 februari 2013 20:20 schreef truthortruth het volgende:
[..]
Nou nee, als die zou bestaan had die wel heel veel dingen compleet anders kunnen doen. Bijvoorbeeld een wat duidelijker handleiding, een openbaring aan alle volken op dit bolletje en dan houd ik mijzelf nog in over wat die rationeel gezien anders had kunnen doen. En daarbij ik heb ik het niet over de rationaliteit van die god, maar over diegene die de bijbel als waarheid zien.
In het nieuwe verbond is het teken alsvolgt:
35Aan jullie liefde voor elkaar zal iedereen zien dat jullie mijn leerlingen zijn.’
35Aan jullie liefde voor elkaar zal iedereen zien dat jullie mijn leerlingen zijn.’
Ik ben niet zo gefrustreerd en ik vind de werkelijkheid vaak een stuk logischer dan dat wat die bijbel beschrijft. En die handleiding is zeker niet duidelijk voor wie zich daarin wil verdiepen, ik dacht dat we daar wel over uit waren. Dus nee, dit verklaart helemaal niets van waarom een rationeel mens die bijbel zou accepteren als antwoord op die essentiële vragen. Dus even terug naar je bewering;quote:
[..]
Ik begrijp je frustratie, de werkelijkheid ligt nou eenmaal gewikkelder inelkaar dan we vaak zouden wensen. De handleiding is echter duidelijk voor iedereen die zich er in wil verdiepen. Alhoewel ik het er natuurlijk mee eens ben dat er veel dingen instaan die we nog niet helemaal kunnen doorgronden.
Ik heb je nog geen verklaring zien geven voor dat die bijbel rationeel is als antwoord op die vragen, dat kan ook helemaal niet.quote:Als mijn geloof en ratio met elkaar in tegenspraak zouden zijn zou ik niet geloven denk ik.
Question authorities, fuck religion, educate yourself, Viva el individualismo!
There's only one way of life, and that's your own!
There's only one way of life, and that's your own!
Laat ik het zo stellen, vanuit mijn optiek geeft de bijbel de meest logische antwoorden op alle levensvragen. Iedereen moet dat natuurlijk voor zichzelf uitzoeken of hij of zij ook zo denkt.quote:
[..]
Ik ben niet zo gefrustreerd en ik vind de werkelijkheid vaak een stuk logischer dan dat wat die bijbel beschrijft. En die handleiding is zeker niet duidelijk voor wie zich daarin wil verdiepen, ik dacht dat we daar wel over uit waren. Dus nee, dit verklaart helemaal niets van waarom een rationeel mens die bijbel zou accepteren als antwoord op die essentiële vragen. Dus even terug naar je bewering;
[..]
Ik heb je nog geen verklaring zien geven voor dat die bijbel rationeel is als antwoord op die vragen, dat kan ook helemaal niet.
Als ik zou moeten uitleggen op welke wijze de bijbel de meest logische antwoorden geeft op levensvragen dan heb ik 1000 van deze fora nodig, dat kan ik hier helaas niet doen.
Ali ik heb een verhelderend artikel gevonden over de sabbat in Genesis 2 en de sabbatismos van Hebreeers 4:
Genesis 2:2-3 -- God's "Rest" and the Sabbath
One of the proof texts used in an attempt to prove that Christians must keep the seventh-day Sabbath is Genesis 2:2-3. For this reason, it is important that we understand what this verse does and doesn’t say about the physical Sabbath rest before we arrive at our conclusions. Further, we must ask what this verse tells us about the Sabbath when viewed against the essential message of Scripture about our salvation in Christ.
After the creation account in Genesis 1, we read the following in chapter 2, verses 2-3: "By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done."
In chapter 1, the writer of Genesis had used the seven-day weekly cycle as an organizing outline to make an important theological point: The one God of Israel is the true God—the Creator of all that exists in the heavens and on earth, including the human race. This was his answer to the myths of the nations that had spun fantastic stories of how their national god or gods and goddesses were responsible for the creation. Genesis 1:1-2:3 sets the record straight about creation. The God of Israel, Yahweh, is Creator.
Yet, the writer of Genesis ends his creation outline by adding the statement that the God of Israel "rested" after creation was complete. What further theological point was he trying to make about God and his purpose in the creation? We shall see the answer unfold in this paper. The concept of the "rest" will prove to be a monumental part of God’s purpose, one the New Testament explains for us in a final sense.
Sabbath rest in Genesis
Before we undertake to solve this mystery, we should consider the idea that Genesis 2:2-3 tells us God made the weekly Sabbath "holy time" at creation, and that this day has been and continues to be a sacred day for all peoples. We notice immediately that the verse in question does not say a physical Sabbath-day rest was to be observed by human beings. This is a most striking fact of Genesis 2:2-3. This verse contains no command for human beings to rest from their labor or to otherwise keep the seventh day as "holy time." God is the one said to be "resting," and by his act he creates something holy about the seventh day. But at this point in the story we haven’t been told what that is.
If the writer of Genesis wanted to make the point that God commanded the Sabbath to be a day of rest for humans since the creation, then he failed to follow up his thesis in further chapters. He provided no evidence that any of the great patriarchs, Abraham included, kept the seventh day as "holy time." Neither did he make any comments to the effect that humanity was breaking the Sabbath-day rest and thereby sinning against God between Adam and Sinai. Not until the old covenant is instituted with only a single nation—Israel—does the Sabbath rest become a command (and only for Israel).
If the Sabbath was commanded since the creation, then it is quite surprising that none of God’s faithful people kept it until Sinai. Conversely, we would also have to ask why evil people are not chastised for Sabbath-breaking during the ages before the giving of the Law of Moses.
However, Genesis 2:2-3 does tell us that God made the seventh day of creation week "holy." What does this mean? For God to make something "holy" is for him to set it apart in some way for his special use, or to use that which is set apart to explain something important in terms of his purpose. For example, the temple had a Most Holy Place whose environs only the High Priest could enter, and that only once a year. The book of Hebrews explains that the "holiness" that God ascribed to this location was to show that a true entry into his presence was not yet available.
But Genesis 2:2-3 does not tell us what lesson we are to learn from the seventh day of creation being made "holy" or set apart through God "resting" from his work. We understand that God does not become tired. Nor is he affected by an earthbound reality in which the motions of planetary bodies create time. This would lead us to believe the writer of Genesis again used a literary device when speaking about the "rest" of God. That is, the "rest" of God had a symbolic meaning for him. But what was that meaning?
Author’s point
The writer had already used the seven-day week as an outline on which he hung various creation events and by which he made his theological point. It’s not surprising, then, that he would use the metaphor of God’s "rest" to make another theological assertion about who this God of Israel was, and his purpose. We should remember that the writer lived under the old covenant. This would lead us to believe that his experience of God taught him something about his purpose with Israel, something that was explained by the "rest" concept.
"Rest" is certainly a key idea here in Genesis 2:2-3. Why did the writer use the concept? What did it mean to the writer, and what should it mean to us as Christians? We have already seen that the seventh day rest follows all the creative acts of God that are summarized in Genesis 1. More than this, the rest of God follows the creation of humanity—male and female—in God’s own image (1:27-31).
The fact that this is mentioned in the context of the creation account implies that the writer understood that humanity has a special purpose beyond the other parts of the creation. First, all of creation is pronounced as being "very good" (1:31). Humanity is to "fill the earth and subdue it"—to be God’s representatives on this planet and caretakers of the creation (1:28). But, in a sense, all is not completely revealed to this point in Genesis about God’s aim in creating humanity. Is there no further purpose for the human race (and, from the writer’s point of view, of his choosing Israel to be his people) than to fill and subdue the earth? And, so the writer refers to God’s "rest," and tells us that it is holy—set apart for some purpose. But for what purpose? And, how does this relate to humanity and Israel?
That the creation of man and woman was announced just before the making of the holy rest could imply that this "rest" has something to do with the creation in general and humanity in particular. God, as it were, "sits back" after setting his creative purpose in motion and pronounces everything as being good. Since God doesn’t literally get tired, we can understand his "rest" as figurative, and as part of his creative purpose. We could see the "rest" in question as extending to humans (and Israel) in some way since they seem to be the end object of God’s creative process.
Humanity’s loss
But whatever this rest is to signify, the ensuing Genesis story tells us it is not something that humans enjoy in a physical sense except, perhaps, for a brief interlude in the Garden of Eden. Almost immediately after creation, we read about the tragic circumstances that befall Adam and Eve in the Garden. They sin and are punished for it by increased labor rather than rest. The notion of labor, of the opposite of rest, becomes a major motif of the Genesis account.
Eve must labor in childbearing. The Lord tells her, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children." (3:16). For mother Eve, childbearing becomes a painful work. Adam will be forced to labor to fill his mouth. The Lord tells him, "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life" (3:17, emphasis ours throughout).
Their son, Cain, murders Abel. The latter’s blood, figuratively finds no rest, as it "cries out" from the ground (4:10). For his sin, Cain will be forced to engage in backbreaking labor. The Lord tells him, "When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you" (4:12). More than that, Cain was to be a "restless wanderer on the earth" (4:12). He would have neither rest in his labor nor rest from enemies seeking to kill him because of his murder of Abel.
The "anti-rest" motif continues in Genesis. When Noah was born, a great hope was attached to his future. It was said of him, "He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the Lord has cursed" (5:29). But humanity found no rest because "the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence" (6:11). The only "rest" humanity could achieve was to rest in peace in death. And God caused the flood to destroy human civilization and end humanity’s suffering.
In Noah, God restated and broadened the covenant made with Adam and Eve in Genesis 1:28-30. He reissued his promise to neither curse the ground nor to destroy humanity despite the fact that he knew "every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood" (8:21; 9:8-17). Despite this covenant of promise, many generations passed during which humans became increasingly alienated from God. The story of Nimrod and the Tower of Babel indicate the condition of the human race. Then God made a covenant with Abraham. This is first found in Genesis 12:2-3:
I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.
Israel in toil and slavery
We know the rest of the story from Genesis. Abraham had a son named Isaac, and he had a son named Jacob. (Jacob himself had to be saved by the Lord from 20 years of servitude at Laban’s hand—Genesis 31:38-42.) As Jacob said to Laban: "If the God of my father, the God of Abraham and the Fear of Isaac, had not been with me, you would surely have sent me away empty-handed. But God has seen my hardship and the toil of my hand"(verse 42).
Jacob had 12 sons. The oldest ten sold their young brother, Joseph, into Egyptian slavery. During a famine, they all moved to Egypt, where the family of Jacob grew into a great nation. But the Egyptians placed the Israelites into slavery and hard bondage. They, too, failed to find the "rest" of God. The first chapter of Exodus, verses 11-14, shows how Israel subsequently suffered as a slave people:
So they [the Egyptians] put slave masters over them [the Israelites] to oppress them with forced labor, and they built Pithom and Rameses as store cities for Pharaoh. . . .The Egyptians came to dread the Israelites and worked them ruthlessly. They made their lives bitter with hard labor in brick and mortar and with all kinds of work in the fields; in all their hard labor the Egyptians used them ruthlessly.
Israel rescued
The writer of Exodus was trying to make a point, again about the notion of "rest." The Israelites were oppressed with hard and forced labor—and they had no rest for their souls. But help was on the way after many generations. We read in Exodus 2:23-24:
The Israelites groaned in their slavery and cried out and their cry for help because of their slavery went up to God. God heard their groaning and he remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac and with Jacob.
The savior of Israel would be Moses, who as a young man had seen his own people in slavery and "watched them at their hard labor" (2:11). Now, after his own exile of 40 years in the desert, the Lord appeared to him and said in Exodus 3:7-8:
I have indeed seen the misery of my people in Egypt. I have heard them crying out because of their slave drivers, and I am concerned about their suffering. So I have come down to rescue them from the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land into a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey.
And, again, Moses was to tell the Israelites about their impending freedom and physical rest:
Say to the Israelites: "I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians. I will free you from being slaves to them, and I will redeem you with outstretched arm and with mighty acts of judgment. I will take you as my own people, and I will be your God" [Exodus 6:6-7].
A covenant of "rest"
Here is the first intimation of a covenant between God and Israel. It is a covenant based on God providing freedom from slavery, and hence rest from interminable labor. Thus, the "rest" of God mentioned in Genesis 2:2, which was not attained by humans because of sin, was now promised in a kind of second Garden of Eden—the Promised Land. The old covenant, then, was a covenantal promise of peace, prosperity and security for Israel in the Promised Land (Leviticus 26:3-13; Deuteronomy 28:1-14). It contained all the elements that give human beings a feeling of well-being and "rest."
In short, the old covenant was a promise of physical rest to God’s people, which (as shown in Genesis 2) was part of God’s creative purpose at the beginning. We will see how this purpose of "rest" unfolds, but we are getting somewhat ahead of our story. Let’s backtrack a moment to God’s promise through Moses that he would provide freedom and rest to the people of Israel.
We know from the Exodus story that the Egyptian Pharaoh did not want to let the Israelites go free. He ordered that they should work even harder for their captors (Exodus 5). But God did rescue the Israelites and brought them into the Wilderness in preparation for their entering the Promised Land of freedom and rest. However, that generation failed to trust the Lord, and they were not allowed to enter. They died without coming into their rest.
The next generation of Israelites did enter the Promised Land under Joshua. They were told to obey the covenant that had been made between the people and the Lord. All the tribes were told to help each other take possession of the land "until the Lord gives them rest, as he has done for you" (Joshua 1:15). We read that this promise was fulfilled. In a summary statement before Joshua’s farewell to the nation, it was said that "the Lord had given Israel rest from all their enemies around them" (Joshua 23:1).
Despite Israel’s lapses from faith and obedience, the Lord fulfilled his promise to give the nation prosperity and rest. The high point of this physical rest and well-being occurred during the days of king Solomon. The writer said of this time: "During Solomon’s lifetime Judah and Israel, from Dan to Beersheba, lived in safety, each man under his own vine and fig tree" (1 Kings 4:25). The nation of Israel had experienced the physical "rest" of God in great fullness.
One of the hallmarks of the Law of Moses was an emphasis on the "rest" that God provided Israel. This included a bounty of unimagined physical blessings (Deuteronomy 7:10-12). God’s merciful grace in saving the nation from extreme toil and servitude in Egypt—and his giving the people bountiful physical blessings in the Promised Land—was to be memorialized in the religious practices of the nation. A weekly Sabbath of rest from work was a main feature of this rest memorial.
A good comparison for Christians is the Lord’s Supper. The bread and wine remind Christians that God has saved them through the redemptive work of Christ. On the other hand, the Israelites rested each week to remind them that God had saved them from Egyptian bondage and had blessed them abundantly.
Exodus 20:11 explains why God gave Israel the Sabbath day. Here, we read: "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." (These are the same words the writer of Genesis wrote for the creation account.) In a restatement of the Sabbath command in Deuteronomy 5:12-15 a related reason was given for the Sabbath "rest" command. "Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the Lord your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day" (5:15).
What had the writer seen here? Possibly, he saw that what God had done with Israel was the beginning of a restoration of God’s purpose through Israel. His purpose, dimly seen in the Garden of Eden story, was that human beings should live in a relationship with him, through which they would be blessed. If they were one with God, then they would enter his rest because he would bless them physically. That was certainly God’s intent, as the Garden of Eden story tells us. But human beings sinned and were cursed. Humans were cut off from the presence of God and the relationship with him was broken.
Reminder of blessings
With Israel, as the Exodus and old covenant show us, God had again moved to begin to bring the human race back into a relationship with himself. Israel would be the starting place. The nations would look at Israel, living in blessedness and loving obedience to Yahweh, and perhaps other nations might also someday come to love the Lord and find blessing as well (Deuteronomy 4:5-8). That was the ideal—just as the Garden of Eden had been an ideal. But as we know from the rest of the story of the Old Testament, the ideal was not achieved.
The reason Israel was to keep the seventh day as a rest period was because of a physical "rest" that was available to the nation. As slaves in Egypt, they had no rest for themselves, but toiled in harsh labor daily, at the whim of their taskmasters. God had freed them from this slavish labor and had given them freedom and prosperity in the Promised Land. Israel was supposed to remember the gracious freedom and rest they had been given—and they were to do this each week
The weekly rest was but one memorial of how God had saved the nation from Egyptian slavery and mindless toil. There were seven yearly "rest" days within three yearly festival seasons that also were celebrated by cessation from labor (Leviticus 23:7-8, 21, 25, 32, 35-36). These were harvest festivals when Israel could give thanks for the bountiful crops they had reaped—and when they could rest from their labor. By contrast, in Egypt the Israelites had toiled ceaselessly for uncaring taskmasters.
Beyond that, the land was to lie idle and not be tilled every seventh year (Leviticus 25:1-7). This means that while the land rested, the people could also rest because they did not need to seed or till. Whatever the land produced on its own could be eaten.
Also, each 50th year was a land rest (Leviticus 25:8-12). More than that, the year was a year of release, as we read in verse 10: "Consecrate the fiftieth year and proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you; each one of you is to return to his family property and each to his own clan." In Egypt, the Israelites had neither land nor inheritance. Now, God had given the nation the Promised Land, and each family was to enjoy its own parcel of ground.
While the Promised Land was not a place of idleness and ease, there was rest from backbreaking and meaningless toil on someone else’s land. On the other hand, the Promised Land would yield abundant produce because of the blessing of the Lord. The nation would rest from war and the fear of famine and disease. The inhabitants could breathe a sigh of relief—and they could "rest" both physically and psychologically in the sure knowledge that God was watching over them.
The meaning
Now we can understand why the writer of Genesis may have been so keen to divide the physical creation into a six day format and then make the seventh day a day of God’s "rest." It must have been driven home to him through his experience with the saving acts of the God of Israel, that his purpose was to rescue humanity from the curse that they had brought upon themselves. This curse had required backbreaking toil in unyielding soil to grow enough to eat. The curse had also brought famine and disease, fighting and war. Life was anything but restful.
The writer of Genesis must have seen the problem of the "curse" and the restless sorrow it had brought as having been solved specifically in the promises to the nation of Israel. Israel had once been in captivity and the people had been forced to toil incessantly under taskmasters. Life was neither prosperous nor restful. But God had purposed to fulfill his covenant with Abraham whereby he would rescue his descendants from terrible toil in slavery. The nation would find true prosperity, peace and rest under the protection and blessing of the Creator, the one true God. The nation’s religious practices including various "rest" days and times reminded the people that they had been saved from toil and slavery in Egypt and now rested in peace and prosperity under the loving hand of their God.
Genesis was written for Israelites who lived in the Promised Land, who were to commemorate each week the rest they had been given by the Creator. Their weekly experience of rest was then associated with the creation by the words of Genesis 2:2-3. The writer of Genesis was informed by and influenced by the weekly Sabbath as he wrote about the "rest" of God. He was writing from the point of view of an Israelite who had been saved from slavery and who enjoyed the "rest" God provided the nation. The writer understood that the various rest days commanded for Israel—the weekly Sabbath, annual festivals, and years of agricultural rest and release—reflected what God had done for the nation. Thus, God’s actions of providing "rest" signaled to the writer that in God’s creative purpose his creatures should find rest in him. In the world there was cursing and trouble, but in God’s kingdom—the Promised Land—there was prosperity, peace and rest.
Genesis 2:2-3, then, is not an early command for all people to keep the seventh day as holy time. It is a reflection of the writer’s understanding that humans should find their rest in God. For the nation of Israel, the old covenant specified that this was to be commemorated by a weekly physical rest on the seventh day. There is no command for other peoples to do the same. Other peoples did not have the physical "rest" of the Promised Land nor the command for physical rest on the seventh day. What the Israelites had was a physical image of a spiritual reality; other nations did not have this.
Future promise
The Old Testament shows that the restful state of affairs did not last very long for Israel. The nation sinned and the people suffered invasion, curses on their land and captivity. The old covenant between God and Israel failed because the nation did not live up to its promises to be faithful to God (Hebrews 4:2).
Later in Israel’s history, the prophets spoke of the need for a new covenant, based on better promises. Isaiah prophesied of a time when God would renew his covenant with Israel and give them a final rest. In chapter 11, Isaiah spoke of a Branch to come, upon whom the Spirit of the Lord would rest. The Spirit of the Lord would be upon him and he would bring justice, mercy and peace. The Branch would usher in God’s kingdom of righteousness and peace.
In soaring metaphorical language, Isaiah said of this new era: "The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat. . .the cow will feed with the bear. . .The lion will eat straw like the ox. The infant will play near the hole of the cobra" (verses 6-8). He summarized this future hope by painting the arrival of an idyllic worldwide kingdom of God: "They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth will be full for the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea" (verse 9). "In that day," when this future kingdom would be established, the Lord would bring his people Israel out from all the nations (verse 11). And what would he give his people? He would give them "rest." Isaiah explains: "In that day the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his place of rest will be glorious" (verse 10).
Jeremiah also spoke of the rest that the Lord would bring. "‘At that time,’ declares the Lord, ‘I will be the God of all the clans of Israel, and they will be my people.’ This is what the Lord says: ‘The people who survive the sword will find favor in the desert; I will come to give rest to Israel ’" (Jeremiah 31:1-2).
It’s no wonder the Jews looked for a Messiah that would save them from their enemies and gather the Jews to Israel. It was a beautiful vision of peace and prosperity. The Messiah would make the regathered clans of Israel in the Promised Land the people of the kingdom of God in which righteousness, justice and prosperity would know no bounds. The enemies of the Jews, whoever they might be, would be defeated and destroyed.
Jesus is our "rest"
The Branch, the Root of Jesse, the Redeemer Messiah, came as promised, in the person of Jesus. He offered the greatest "rest" the world would ever know, but it was not a physical rest of power and prosperity given to a single nation within certain geographic borders. Jesus brought the offer of "rest" of freedom from sin and death to peoples of all nations—and a future life in the eternal kingdom of God.
The notion of "God’s rest" found in Genesis 2:2-3 and the Old Testament was still alive and well. Yes, God would send the Deliverer, and his rest would be glorious. That rest, though, would be the result of the redemptive work of Jesus, and it would be commemorated not through the seventh day, but through Jesus. In Matthew 11:28, Jesus told his hearers: "Come to me, all of you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls." What a glorious promise to a hurting humanity. But we understand that Jesus was not necessarily promising physical rest and peace, but an eternal and spiritual rest.
Jesus said to his disciples: "Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives" (John 14:27). Jesus did not promise his disciples a Promised Land of peace, plenty and security. In fact, in his last talk with the disciples before his arrest, Jesus told them they would have anything but physical rest. "I have told you these things," Jesus warned, "so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world" (John 16:33).
The promise to Israel had been peace, prosperity and rest in the Promised Land in exchange for obedience to the old covenant and Law of Moses. The New Testament "rest" is a rest in Christ. It is the promise of the indwelling Holy Spirit and a spiritual rebirth that leads to eternal life in the kingdom of God. This is the ultimate "rest" of God. God’s purpose in Genesis 2:2-3, not completely understood under the old covenant, is now revealed and fulfilled in its final sense through Christ.
Part 2: The book of Hebrews
This is explained in Hebrews 3:1-4:11, which speaks of something vital Christians share—the "heavenly calling" we have in Christ (3:1). It is in these verses that we learn what the "rest" of Genesis 2:2-3 pictures to Christians. The subject at hand in these verses begins to be addressed under the word "today" in Hebrews 3:7, when the writer quotes Psalm 95:7-11:
Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion, during the time of testing in the desert, where your fathers tested and tried me and for forty years saw what I did. That is why I was angry with that generation, and I said, "Their hearts are always going astray, and they have not known my ways." So I declared an oath in my anger, "They shall never enter my rest."
Psalm 95 refers to the wilderness story as told in Exodus 17:1-7 and Numbers 20:1-13. There are several things we should notice about this passage in Hebrews. The author focuses on the introductory word of the quotation, "today," and the phrase in which it is found. He repeats the word "today" five times (3:7, 13, 15; twice in 4:7) and the phrase, "Today, if you hear his voice do not harden your hearts" three times (3:7, 15; 4:7). The phrase with its opening word "today" is significant for the writer in that it allows him to apply the promise of "rest" found in the Scripture to his readers. William Lane discusses this point in the Word Biblical Commentary on Hebrews:
"Today" provided the writer with a catchword for bringing the biblical statement before his hearers sharply. "Today" is no longer the today of the past, surveyed by the psalmist in his situation, but the today of the present, which continues to be conditioned by the voice of God that speaks day after day through the Scriptures and in the gospel tradition [page 87].
Lane makes the point that Psalm 95 "was a prophetic announcement that God was determining a future date for making his rest available" (page 100). The writer of Hebrews insists that the prophecy is being fulfilled in his day, in the church—and his readers need to heed its call. He wants his readers to make a connection between themselves and the experience of the Israelites in the wilderness. The author emphasizes a key concept: The Old Testament promise that God’s people would enter into "rest" is being fulfilled in the church and through Christ.
He begins by discussing God’s "rest" in terms of the promise of God to bring the rescued Israelites into the Promised Land. But as we know, and as the Scripture points out, the first generation of freed Israelites did not enter God’s "rest," but they died in the wilderness (Numbers 14:26-35). The Israelites Moses led out of Egypt did not enter into God’s "rest." The author wants his Christian readers to focus on the meaning of this tragedy. They are not to turn away from the living God (3:12) or be "hardened by sin’s deceitfulness" (3:13). Rather, they are to "hold firmly till the end" their first confidence (3:14) so that they may enter into God’s "rest."
The writer summarizes his admonition by saying, "Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it" (4:1). The readers of Hebrews are encouraged to keep up their faith and hope in Christ. Otherwise, as the unbelieving Israelites in Moses’ day lost their opportunity to enter the rest in Canaan, the believers may forfeit the greater blessings of the new age "rest."
From the beginning
The author of Hebrews then turns to a discussion of God’s "rest" from another point of view. He says that this "rest"—whatever it is—has been available to humanity since the beginning: "His [God’s] work has been finished since the creation of the world. For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: ‘And on the seventh day God rested from all his work’" (4:3-4).
The "somewhere" is Genesis 2:2. In the days when Hebrews was written, the Scriptures were written on scrolls. It was much more difficult to look up specific passages, so writers often quoted passages from memory. But here is our familiar Scripture, and the one we sought to understand in terms of its meaning for Christians. We can understand the "rest" described in Genesis 2:2-3 as the archetype of all later experiences of rest—including the various rest commands given at Sinai, the actual physical rest Israel received from its enemies under Joshua (a type of Christ), and the promised future rest of the kingdom of God.
From a Christian perspective, the Genesis "rest" of God, applied to God’s creative purpose in Genesis 2:2, can be seen to typify the spiritual salvation of the people of God. That means the weekly Sabbath rest (along with the other rest commands in the Law of Moses) is a lesser expression—a shadow, as it were—of the true "rest" symbolically inaugurated at the seventh day of creation. This makes the weekly Sabbath a metaphor of the Genesis "rest" of God, as was the Canaan rest.
The idea of the Genesis rest is that, beginning with the seventh day of creation, God ceased creating. He continues in a state of nonwork so far as further creating things physical is concerned. However, this doesn’t mean God has been idle. Leon Morris points this out in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary on Hebrews:
It is worth noticing that in the creation story each of the first six days is marked by the refrain "And there was evening, and there was morning." However, this is lacking in the account of the seventh day. There we simply read that God rested from all his work. This does not mean that God entered a state of idleness, for there is a sense in which he is continually at work (John 5:17). But the completion of creation marks the end of a magnificent whole.... So we should think of the rest as something like the satisfaction that comes from accomplishment, from the completion of a task, from the exercise of creativity [page 41].
F.F. Bruce also explained what this means in the volume on Hebrews in The New International Commentary on the New Testament:
When we read that God "rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done" (Gen. 2:2), we are to understand that hebegan to rest then; the fact that he is never said to have completed his rest and resumed his work of creation implies that his rest continues still, and may be shared by those who respond to his overtures with faith and obedience [page 106].
Thus, God’s "rest" has been available from the time the creation was finished—from the foundation of the world. Even though it has been available, very few people entered into it before Jesus’ death and resurrection. The offer of entering this "rest" still stands. The writer of Hebrews makes this point by saying: "It still remains that some will enter that rest" (4:6). Whatever this "rest" is, the writer is emphasizing that it is—at the time of writing—a promise his readers can take advantage of. In fact, they must take advantage of it, and not fail to achieve the "rest" because of disobedience (4:11).
Joshua’s "rest"
The author of Hebrews must have realized as he wrote that, on the surface, there had been an apparent large-scale exception to his claim that no people had ever entered a "rest" of God. After all, the second generation of Israelites who were saved from Egypt did enter the Promised Land under Joshua. We read that under Joshua "the Lord had given Israel rest from all their enemies around them" (Joshua 23:1). But the writer of Hebrews quickly points out that this is not the kind of "rest" he has in mind, or one that constituted God’s ultimate objective—the "rest" promised to Christians. Hundreds of years after Joshua led the Israelites into the rest of the Promised Land, the Psalmist urged people to enter a divine rest, and later still, the author of Hebrews was insisting that there is a "rest" its readers must yet enter into. Clearly, there is more to the "rest" in question than mere entry into Canaan. Hebrews tells us: "For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day. There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God" (4:8-9).
As it turns out, Israel had not secured the true "rest" after all. Thus, the writer can exhort his readers to seek, obtain and hold on to this superior "rest" in Christ. This is the true "rest" to which Genesis 2:2-3, the literal Sabbath, the other festival rests, the Wilderness experience, the Joshua rest, and the prophecy of Psalm 95 all looked forward to. He is interested in the redemptive and eternal rest in the kingdom of God, of which the weekly Sabbath and Canaan rests were but symbols.
William Lane, in the Hebrews commentary in the Word Biblical Commentary, explains why the Joshua rest was but a type of the true "rest":
The settlement of Canaan did not mark the fulfillment of the divine promise but pointed to another, more fundamental reality. If in fact Joshua had achieved the promised rest, there would have been no need for the renewal of the promise in Ps 95. Accordingly, the experience of rest in Canaan was only a type or symbol of the complete rest that God intended for his people, which was prefigured in the Sabbath rest of God [page 101].
We have now come from Genesis 2:2-3 to Hebrews 4:9-11, and we see something interesting. The author is not telling his readers to keep a weekly seventh-day Sabbath holy by resting on it. He is not talking about the weekly Sabbath at all. Rather, he is making the point that there is a spiritual "rest" that God’s people should be entering into. It is the heavenly counterpart of the earthly Canaan, and this is the goal of the people of God today—to achieve this present and eternal rest. The epistle of Hebrews has made this point by creating an analogy between the Israelites entering the Promised Land and Christians entering the better promise of a new-covenant spiritual "rest."
A present "rest"?
The Promised Land was a physical type or foreshadowing of a spiritual "rest" that the Israelites had not yet entered. And the weekly Sabbath was a temporal foreshadowing of the spiritual "rest" that God wants his people to enjoy. Christians have entered God’s "rest" by their faith in Jesus Christ. "Now we who have believed enter [or, "are entering"] that rest," the writer insists (4:3). Christians have the real rest, the spiritual rest, and do not need to observe shadows of it, neither geographically nor temporally. Jesus himself during his ministry had promised a rest for the spirit:
Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls (Matthew 11:28-29).
Leon Morris points out in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary that the word for "enter" in Hebrews 4:3 is in the present tense. This would mean the author of Hebrews was suggesting that his readers were already in the process of entering the "rest" of salvation that Jesus had promised. Some commentators agree that the Hebrews 4:3 "rest" into which Christians have entered begins now, in this life. Leon Morris quotes Hugh Montefiore on this point:
Contrary to some commentators, the Greek means neither that they are certain to enter, nor that they will enter, but that they are already in process of entering [page 40].
In fairness, Morris points out that some other commentators feel that the "rest" is something that occurs in the future. The present tense used here, they insist, is meant to be applied only in a generalizing sense. Morris concludes by saying:
Either view is defensible and probably much depends on our idea of the "rest." If it lies beyond death, then obviously "rest" must be understood in terms of the future. But if it is a present reality, then believers are entering it now [page 40].
We enter now
The view of this paper is that Christians have begun to enter their spiritual "rest" now. We are receiving some of the blessings of salvation, even though we do not yet enjoy them in their fullness. Peter says that Christ "has given us a new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead" (1 Peter 1:3). Paul says God "has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves" (Colossians 1:13). The author of Hebrews says that we are "the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven" (12:23).
It is in part a question of how we understand when the kingdom of God comes—now or in the future? The answer is both. The kingdom is already, but not yet. There is a sense that the kingdom is both present and yet obviously only future in its full reality. Christians can be said to live in the tension between promise and fulfillment, between the already and the not yet, between the glimmer and the reality. But they have nevertheless entered the "rest," even if only in an imperfect and qualified way. The spiritual realities we already enjoy, although incomplete, are enough that we do not need to observe the physical symbols and rituals of the old covenant.
We have already been invited to enter God’s end-of-creation, the Genesis 2:2-3 "rest," by believing in the Son of God. By faith, we have joined with him in his "rest." By faith, we have become new creations—created anew. Our re-creation is not yet complete, but we already have been given entrance, through Christ, into God’s kingdom "rest."
The writer of Hebrews does not state how he views the time in which the "rest" takes place. His concern is with the spiritual reality, not the physical shadow. But as we’ve seen, his concern seems to be with the present time—with today. He no doubt understands that the fullness of rest comes only with a future resurrection (10:37-38; 12:26). But his point of view in Hebrews 3 and 4 is the present time, the time for which he is writing. The writer is thinking of the salvation "rest" as beginning in the present. Otherwise, one can be misled about which "rest" he is interested in—the spiritual one or a physical one such as the weekly Sabbath day.
One traditional commentary, the Critical, Experimental and Practical Commentary by Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, became confused on this issue and came (this paper concludes) to a wrong conclusion:
It is Jesus, the antitype of Joshua, who leads us into the heavenly rest. This verse [4:9] indirectly establishes the obligation of the Sabbath; for the type continues until the antitype supersedes it: so legal sacrifices continued till the great antitypical sacrifice superseded it. As then the antitypical Sabbath rest will not be till Christ comes to usher us into it, the typical earthly Sabbath must continue till then [page 537].
The authors, we believe, have erred. Influenced by the Puritans, they were thinking of a Sunday Sabbath, and reading their own opinions into the text. The principle they enunciate is erroneous. The type does not continue until the antitype supersedes it. Various Old Testament rituals pictured purity and holiness, and even though we do not yet see complete purity and holiness in the church, the rituals are obsolete. More correctly, types continue only as long as God says they do, and God has declared the old covenant obsolete. It has served its purpose, even though God’s plan is not yet complete. Moreover, true spiritual rest is found through faith in Christ, and Christ has already come. The antitype has arrived. Christ has already led us into the heavenly rest just as he is already our sacrifice for sin. We have come to Christ and he has given us rest—seated us in the heavenly realms (Ephesians 2:6). This argues against the commentary’s claim that the literal Sabbath is in force. The antitypical salvation rest has already been ushered in, albeit incompletely. Thus, the shadow (the literal Sabbath) is no longer required.
No matter how the writer of Hebrews conceives of the future "rest" in the post-resurrection kingdom of God, he is not concerned to discuss it in chapters 3 and 4. He is interested in his readers who are alive when he writes—and who need to take hold of the promise of spiritual "rest" in this age. F.F. Bruce agreed that the future rest is not in view here. He stated the following in his commentary on Hebrews in The New International Commentary on the New Testament:
The identification of the rest of God in the Epistle to the Hebrews with a coming millennium on earth has, indeed, been ably defended; but it involves the importation into the epistle of a concept which in fact is alien to it [pages 106-107].
The writer of Hebrews is not so much concerned with the future as with the present spiritual state of his readers. "Tomorrow," so to speak, is not in his view in the passage we are studying. That’s why he stresses the word "today." It was the privilege of the readers to enter God’s "rest" then—and it is our privilege to do so now. For us, today is "today," not some future time. The promise of entering God’s "rest" remains valid for each generation—and is repeated to each successive generation—in the church age.
Rest and work
Hebrews 4:9-11 is telling us we have entered into God’s promised "rest," the one he prophetically inaugurated on the seventh day of creation. This is the writer’s main theme. The epistle has already noted that God’s "work has been finished since the creation of the world" (4:3). That is, the "rest" of salvation has been offered and promised to humanity since the foundation of the world. It was, in a manner of speaking, a work of creation, inaugurated with humanity and for humanity. Donald Guthrie writes the following on this point:
What believers can now enter is none other than the same kind of rest which the Creator enjoyed when he had completed his works, which means that the rest idea is of completion and not of inactivity. . . .It is important to note that the "rest" is not something new that has not been known in experience until Christ came. It has been available throughout the whole of man’s history. This reference back to the creation places the idea on the broadest possible basis and would seem to suggest that it was part of God’s intention for man. "Rest" is a quality that has eluded man’s quest, and in fact cannot be attained except through Christ [Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, "Hebrews," page 113].
As long as we have faith in Christ—the main point of Hebrews—no matter what day of the week it is, we have entered God’s "rest" and we are resting from our own works. "We who have believed enter that rest. . . .Anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his" (4:3, 10). What does the author mean by "work"? He is not discussing the question of employment on the weekly Sabbath day. That is not his interest. (He has been encouraging his readers to enter the spiritual "rest" of salvation throughout Hebrews 3 and 4.) The writer of Hebrews wants his readers to stop putting their faith in the things that humans do, such as the works of the old covenant—and to place their faith in Christ as Savior. He wants them to look to the work of Christ, which gives forgiveness and empowerment through the Holy Spirit, allowing us to enter the true spiritual "rest."
In comparison to Christ, the writer has a low view of the "works" of the Law of Moses. He says of the Law in general and the Levitical priesthood as a whole:
The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced by which we draw near to God (7:18-19).
The author of Hebrews seems to be suggesting that the people to whom he wrote should rest from the ceremonial "work" they needed to do under the Mosaic Law. Their "work" in such things as offering sacrifices could not save nor endear them to God. They were saved by grace through faith in Christ, and were endeared to God by that same grace.
The weekly Sabbath?
The Jewish Christians or Gentile believers to whom Hebrews was written were already attracted to Judaistic practices. This is clear from reading the book. It was written to show the church why Judaistic practices were not necessary for Christians to perform. The individuals to whom the book was written would have already been observing the Sabbath day and would not need any admonishment to rest on this day. Even the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary understands this point. We find this explanation given for Hebrews 4:9 on page 423:
Certainly, in writing to Jews, the author of Hebrews would not consider it necessary to prove to them that Sabbathkeeping "remaineth." If the conclusion of the extended argument beginning with ch. 3:7 is that Sabbathkeeping remains for the people of God, it would seem that the writer of Hebrews is guilty of a non sequitur, for the conclusion does not follow logically from the argument. There would have been no point in so labored an effort to persuade the Jews to do what they were already doing—observing the seventh-day Sabbath. . . .What relationship a protracted argument designed to prove that Sabbath observance remains an obligation to the Christian church might have to the declared theme of chs. 3 and 4—the ministry of Christ as our great High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary—is obscure indeed.
The writer of Hebrews is interested in the spiritual or heavenly meaning of such things as the Sabbath and animal sacrifices, not their literal observances, which are shadows of the true "rest" and sacrifice for sin. In fact, the very Israelites who had been given the Sabbath (the generation that left Egypt) failed to enter God’s "rest." So did the Jews who strictly kept the Sabbath day when Hebrews was written. Keeping the Sabbath does not automatically bring someone to God. Why, then, would the writer of Hebrews insist on it? The fact is, the literal seventh-day Sabbath is not in his view at all.
The book of Hebrews, considered as a whole, tells us that the practices of the Mosaic Law are obsolete (7:11-12, 18-19). This would refer to the works or observances of the Law (of which the Sabbath is one example), as opposed to its great moral principles. These are eternal principles that define our relationship with God and fellow human beings. They precede the old covenant, were imbedded into that covenant, and remain as fundamental principles of the new covenant, which made the old passé.
The new covenant theme of Hebrews suggests—though it doesn’t directly make an issue of this—that the weekly Sabbath day as described in the old covenant has been superseded by a better promise. In particular, Hebrews 4:9-11 tells us that the various allusions of "rest" in the Old Testament, including Genesis 2:2-3 and the weekly Sabbath, picture a spiritual reality to Christians—the eternal rest of God. But that is all Hebrews tells us. It does not seem to address the issue of whether the weekly Sabbath should be kept or not. This is not the author’s interest.
In conclusion
Let us now close the circle between Genesis 2:2-3 and Hebrews 3:1-4:11. We have seen that God had given Israel physical rest in the Promised Land under the leadership of Joshua, just as Adam and Eve would have had physical "rest" in the Garden of Eden. But the first humans, like all others after them, sinned. Adam and Eve and their descendents were cursed and lost their "rest" until God saved Israel from slavery and the nation entered the Promised Land.
As part of its covenantal law, God gave Israel various rest days and years to commemorate their having achieved physical blessings (the "rest") in the Lord (Deuteronomy 5:15). The writer of Genesis saw this reality—which the rest days (especially the weekly Sabbath) commemorated—as a fulfillment of God’s original purpose at the creation. The writer included the statement about the symbolic meaning of the Sabbath (that is, about God’s "rest"—Exodus 20:11) in his description of the creation in Genesis 2:2-3. This was then a prophetical statement of God’s purpose of providing physical bounty to his human creatures, now fulfilled in Israel.
What the writer of Genesis did not clearly see, since he was an individual who lived under the old covenant, is that God’s real purpose was to provide humanity with another "rest"—a true eternal rest. This more fundamental purpose was fulfilled in Christ, and could be understood only after he had completed his redemptive work. Thus, Christ is the true Sabbath rest of Genesis 2:2-3—promised to us from the beginning (Matthew 25:34; Ephesians 1:4-6; Hebrews 4:3; Revelation 13:8). This is how the author of Hebrews (in 3:1-4:11) understands that "rest."
Thanks be to God that through his love he gave us his Son, allowing us in his mercy to begin to enter into his eternal rest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two Greek Words for "Rest"
We should briefly take up the issue of the Greek words for "rest" used in Hebrews 4:9-10. We quote here the verses in question and show the two Greek words being used: "There remains…a Sabbath-rest [sabbatismos] for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest [katapausin] also rests from his own work" (4:9-10).
A Greek-English interlinear of the New Testament shows that the Greek word katapausin is used to denote "rest" throughout Hebrews 3:7-4:11. There is one exception, in 4:9, as shown above. Here, sabbatismos is used, and it is translated "Sabbath-rest" in the New International Version. The word is formed from the verb sabbatizo, which means to "keep/observe/celebrate the Sabbath."
The only time in the Bible that sabbatismos is used is here in Hebrews 4:9. The word is not found in ancient Greek literature until well after the time when Hebrews was written. Some decades later, sabbatismos is found in Plutarch as part of a list of superstitious practices. In his work, the word signifies weekly Sabbath observance. In later Christian documents, sabbatismos sometimes indicates the celebration or festivity associated with the Sabbath day.
With this in mind, William Lane translates Hebrews 4:9 as: "There remains a Sabbath celebration for the people of God." He points out that the use ofsabbatismos is meant to "define more precisely the character of the future rest promised to the people of God" (Word Biblical Commentary, volume 47A, "Hebrews," page 101). The word conveyed something about the promised spiritual rest that katapausin would not have done—"the special aspect of festivity and joy, expressed in the adoration and praise of God" for his wonderful grace (page 102).
On one level, the writer of Hebrews seems to have used the two Greek words interchangeably. In 4:9, he says that a promised Sabbath-rest (sabbatismos) remains for the people of God to enter into, and this same rest is called God’s katapausin "rest." Some scholars suggest that the writer of Hebrews coined the word. He wanted to differentiate between the ultimate spiritual "rest" and the Promised Land rest into which Israel went. If so, the author may also have been making the same difference between the true spiritual "rest" and the weekly Sabbath rest. That is to say, the Sabbath day is a metaphor of the true rest in the same way that the Israelites entering the Promised Land under Joshua was also a metaphor for spiritual rest.
Since the seventh-day Sabbath is but a symbol of the true spiritual rest, the writer would have no logical reason to stress the keeping of the weekly Sabbath. Like the Promised Land, the Sabbath day itself was a shadow that prefigured the coming reality—the spiritual "rest" of the Christian in Christ.
To summarize: The spiritual rest of salvation into which God’s people are entering is a sabbatismos—a "sabbath keeping"—in the sense that it is a participation in God’s own "rest," which we enter by faith (4:3). "Anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his" (4:10). That is to say, the sabbatismos rest of God described in Hebrews 4:9 refers to the salvation "rest" into which all Christians have entered. Of course, as mentioned earlier, the culmination of this rest does not occur until the resurrection. But, upon conversion, we have begun the journey.
The weekly Old Testament Sabbath points to the blessing and joy of the spiritual "rest" Christians have in Christ. This may be why the author of Hebrews coined the word sabbatismos—making a play off the word for the Sabbath day (sabbaton). That is, sabbatismos stressed the joy, the celebration, the peace, the jubilation of the spiritual "rest" Christians enjoy. (We’ve put "rest" in quotes here because it does not really mean inactivity.)
Hebrews is not clear as to the writer’s attitude toward the weekly Sabbath day. Perhaps he wanted his readers, who were attracted to old covenant customs, to understand the Sabbath’s true meaning in the light of the Christ event , but without having to make an issue of whether it needs to be kept or not. This would certainly be in the spirit of Romans 14, in which the apostle Paul avoided making one’s view of "sacred days" a test or issue of faith or fellowship.
The Sabbath is meaningful on its own terms, just as the Festival of Tabernacles or the Passover-Exodus is. After all, the Sabbath stands as a metaphor of the whole purpose and meaning of redemption, as do the sacrifices and other old covenant, Mosaic institutions. They foreshadowed the true spiritual "rest" we have in Christ, which includes a "resting" in forgiveness of sin and "resting" from sin itself through the indwelling Holy Spirit.
But Hebrews 4:9 issues no command about keeping or not keeping the Sabbath. In fact, the book as a whole makes the point that all the old covenant institutions are obsolete now that the reality has come in Christ. The verse in question cannot be used as a proof-text to insist that Christians keep a weekly seventh-day Sabbath rest. The verses in question do not exhort us to keep an old covenant Sabbath, but they do admonish us to enter the spiritual "rest" of God by having faith in Christ.
1The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, volume 3, page 219, edited by Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider, gives the following explanation ofsabbatismos:
1. The NT offers in Hebrews 4:9 the oldest documentation of the noun sabbatismos, which occurs several times in post-NT early Christian writings independently of Hebrews 4:9 (e.g., Justin Dial. 23:3; Origen Orat. 27:16; Epiphanius Haer. xxx.2.2; lxvi 85:9;Acts (Martyrdom) of Peter and Paul 1; Apostolic Constitutions ii.36.2; pseudo-Macarius (Symeon) Homily 12.2.4.... At present,sabbatismos has been documented in non-Christian writings only in Plutarch Superst. 3 (Moralia 166a).
The noun is derived from the verb sabbatizo, which in the LXX [Septuagint] appears as the translation of Hebrew sabbat. The vb. means: a) "celebrate/observe the sabbath" (Exod 16:30; Lev 23:32; 2 Macc 6:6; so also Ign. Magn. 9:1; Pap. Oxy. 1,1.2; Justin Dial.10:1 and passim), b) "observe (sabbath) rest" (Lev 26:34f.; 2 Chr 36:21; 1 Esdr 1:55).
Accordingly, the substantive means sabbath observance (thus in the non-NT passages mentioned) and sabbath rest (thus the understanding of sabbatismos in Heb 4:9 by Origen Cels. v.59; Selecta in Exod on 16:23 [PG XII, 289b]).
2. In Heb 4:9 sabbatismos encompasses both sabbath rest and (cultic) sabbath observance. The word is neither identical in meaning nor interchangeable with katapausis (3:11, 19; 4:1, 3, 5, 10f); it designates more closely what the people of God should expect when they enter the katapausis of God (cf. 4:9 with v.6a). Just as God rested on the seventh day of creation from all his works, so also will believers find the eternal sabbath rest on the day of the completion of salvation in God’s "place of rest" (see 4:10). Quietistic or mystic elements have nothing to do with this expectation. The statement in Heb 4:9f. remains dependent on a Jewish sabbath theology that associates the idea of sabbath rest with ideas of worship and praise of God (Jub. 2:21; 50:9; Bib. Ant. 11:8; 2 Macc 8:27; cf. also 1 Enoch 41:7). Accordingly, the author of Hebrews understands by sabbatismos the eternal sabbath celebration of salvation, i.e., the perfected community’s worship before God's throne.
Genesis 2:2-3 -- God's "Rest" and the Sabbath
One of the proof texts used in an attempt to prove that Christians must keep the seventh-day Sabbath is Genesis 2:2-3. For this reason, it is important that we understand what this verse does and doesn’t say about the physical Sabbath rest before we arrive at our conclusions. Further, we must ask what this verse tells us about the Sabbath when viewed against the essential message of Scripture about our salvation in Christ.
After the creation account in Genesis 1, we read the following in chapter 2, verses 2-3: "By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done."
In chapter 1, the writer of Genesis had used the seven-day weekly cycle as an organizing outline to make an important theological point: The one God of Israel is the true God—the Creator of all that exists in the heavens and on earth, including the human race. This was his answer to the myths of the nations that had spun fantastic stories of how their national god or gods and goddesses were responsible for the creation. Genesis 1:1-2:3 sets the record straight about creation. The God of Israel, Yahweh, is Creator.
Yet, the writer of Genesis ends his creation outline by adding the statement that the God of Israel "rested" after creation was complete. What further theological point was he trying to make about God and his purpose in the creation? We shall see the answer unfold in this paper. The concept of the "rest" will prove to be a monumental part of God’s purpose, one the New Testament explains for us in a final sense.
Sabbath rest in Genesis
Before we undertake to solve this mystery, we should consider the idea that Genesis 2:2-3 tells us God made the weekly Sabbath "holy time" at creation, and that this day has been and continues to be a sacred day for all peoples. We notice immediately that the verse in question does not say a physical Sabbath-day rest was to be observed by human beings. This is a most striking fact of Genesis 2:2-3. This verse contains no command for human beings to rest from their labor or to otherwise keep the seventh day as "holy time." God is the one said to be "resting," and by his act he creates something holy about the seventh day. But at this point in the story we haven’t been told what that is.
If the writer of Genesis wanted to make the point that God commanded the Sabbath to be a day of rest for humans since the creation, then he failed to follow up his thesis in further chapters. He provided no evidence that any of the great patriarchs, Abraham included, kept the seventh day as "holy time." Neither did he make any comments to the effect that humanity was breaking the Sabbath-day rest and thereby sinning against God between Adam and Sinai. Not until the old covenant is instituted with only a single nation—Israel—does the Sabbath rest become a command (and only for Israel).
If the Sabbath was commanded since the creation, then it is quite surprising that none of God’s faithful people kept it until Sinai. Conversely, we would also have to ask why evil people are not chastised for Sabbath-breaking during the ages before the giving of the Law of Moses.
However, Genesis 2:2-3 does tell us that God made the seventh day of creation week "holy." What does this mean? For God to make something "holy" is for him to set it apart in some way for his special use, or to use that which is set apart to explain something important in terms of his purpose. For example, the temple had a Most Holy Place whose environs only the High Priest could enter, and that only once a year. The book of Hebrews explains that the "holiness" that God ascribed to this location was to show that a true entry into his presence was not yet available.
But Genesis 2:2-3 does not tell us what lesson we are to learn from the seventh day of creation being made "holy" or set apart through God "resting" from his work. We understand that God does not become tired. Nor is he affected by an earthbound reality in which the motions of planetary bodies create time. This would lead us to believe the writer of Genesis again used a literary device when speaking about the "rest" of God. That is, the "rest" of God had a symbolic meaning for him. But what was that meaning?
Author’s point
The writer had already used the seven-day week as an outline on which he hung various creation events and by which he made his theological point. It’s not surprising, then, that he would use the metaphor of God’s "rest" to make another theological assertion about who this God of Israel was, and his purpose. We should remember that the writer lived under the old covenant. This would lead us to believe that his experience of God taught him something about his purpose with Israel, something that was explained by the "rest" concept.
"Rest" is certainly a key idea here in Genesis 2:2-3. Why did the writer use the concept? What did it mean to the writer, and what should it mean to us as Christians? We have already seen that the seventh day rest follows all the creative acts of God that are summarized in Genesis 1. More than this, the rest of God follows the creation of humanity—male and female—in God’s own image (1:27-31).
The fact that this is mentioned in the context of the creation account implies that the writer understood that humanity has a special purpose beyond the other parts of the creation. First, all of creation is pronounced as being "very good" (1:31). Humanity is to "fill the earth and subdue it"—to be God’s representatives on this planet and caretakers of the creation (1:28). But, in a sense, all is not completely revealed to this point in Genesis about God’s aim in creating humanity. Is there no further purpose for the human race (and, from the writer’s point of view, of his choosing Israel to be his people) than to fill and subdue the earth? And, so the writer refers to God’s "rest," and tells us that it is holy—set apart for some purpose. But for what purpose? And, how does this relate to humanity and Israel?
That the creation of man and woman was announced just before the making of the holy rest could imply that this "rest" has something to do with the creation in general and humanity in particular. God, as it were, "sits back" after setting his creative purpose in motion and pronounces everything as being good. Since God doesn’t literally get tired, we can understand his "rest" as figurative, and as part of his creative purpose. We could see the "rest" in question as extending to humans (and Israel) in some way since they seem to be the end object of God’s creative process.
Humanity’s loss
But whatever this rest is to signify, the ensuing Genesis story tells us it is not something that humans enjoy in a physical sense except, perhaps, for a brief interlude in the Garden of Eden. Almost immediately after creation, we read about the tragic circumstances that befall Adam and Eve in the Garden. They sin and are punished for it by increased labor rather than rest. The notion of labor, of the opposite of rest, becomes a major motif of the Genesis account.
Eve must labor in childbearing. The Lord tells her, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children." (3:16). For mother Eve, childbearing becomes a painful work. Adam will be forced to labor to fill his mouth. The Lord tells him, "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life" (3:17, emphasis ours throughout).
Their son, Cain, murders Abel. The latter’s blood, figuratively finds no rest, as it "cries out" from the ground (4:10). For his sin, Cain will be forced to engage in backbreaking labor. The Lord tells him, "When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you" (4:12). More than that, Cain was to be a "restless wanderer on the earth" (4:12). He would have neither rest in his labor nor rest from enemies seeking to kill him because of his murder of Abel.
The "anti-rest" motif continues in Genesis. When Noah was born, a great hope was attached to his future. It was said of him, "He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the Lord has cursed" (5:29). But humanity found no rest because "the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence" (6:11). The only "rest" humanity could achieve was to rest in peace in death. And God caused the flood to destroy human civilization and end humanity’s suffering.
In Noah, God restated and broadened the covenant made with Adam and Eve in Genesis 1:28-30. He reissued his promise to neither curse the ground nor to destroy humanity despite the fact that he knew "every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood" (8:21; 9:8-17). Despite this covenant of promise, many generations passed during which humans became increasingly alienated from God. The story of Nimrod and the Tower of Babel indicate the condition of the human race. Then God made a covenant with Abraham. This is first found in Genesis 12:2-3:
I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.
Israel in toil and slavery
We know the rest of the story from Genesis. Abraham had a son named Isaac, and he had a son named Jacob. (Jacob himself had to be saved by the Lord from 20 years of servitude at Laban’s hand—Genesis 31:38-42.) As Jacob said to Laban: "If the God of my father, the God of Abraham and the Fear of Isaac, had not been with me, you would surely have sent me away empty-handed. But God has seen my hardship and the toil of my hand"(verse 42).
Jacob had 12 sons. The oldest ten sold their young brother, Joseph, into Egyptian slavery. During a famine, they all moved to Egypt, where the family of Jacob grew into a great nation. But the Egyptians placed the Israelites into slavery and hard bondage. They, too, failed to find the "rest" of God. The first chapter of Exodus, verses 11-14, shows how Israel subsequently suffered as a slave people:
So they [the Egyptians] put slave masters over them [the Israelites] to oppress them with forced labor, and they built Pithom and Rameses as store cities for Pharaoh. . . .The Egyptians came to dread the Israelites and worked them ruthlessly. They made their lives bitter with hard labor in brick and mortar and with all kinds of work in the fields; in all their hard labor the Egyptians used them ruthlessly.
Israel rescued
The writer of Exodus was trying to make a point, again about the notion of "rest." The Israelites were oppressed with hard and forced labor—and they had no rest for their souls. But help was on the way after many generations. We read in Exodus 2:23-24:
The Israelites groaned in their slavery and cried out and their cry for help because of their slavery went up to God. God heard their groaning and he remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac and with Jacob.
The savior of Israel would be Moses, who as a young man had seen his own people in slavery and "watched them at their hard labor" (2:11). Now, after his own exile of 40 years in the desert, the Lord appeared to him and said in Exodus 3:7-8:
I have indeed seen the misery of my people in Egypt. I have heard them crying out because of their slave drivers, and I am concerned about their suffering. So I have come down to rescue them from the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land into a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey.
And, again, Moses was to tell the Israelites about their impending freedom and physical rest:
Say to the Israelites: "I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians. I will free you from being slaves to them, and I will redeem you with outstretched arm and with mighty acts of judgment. I will take you as my own people, and I will be your God" [Exodus 6:6-7].
A covenant of "rest"
Here is the first intimation of a covenant between God and Israel. It is a covenant based on God providing freedom from slavery, and hence rest from interminable labor. Thus, the "rest" of God mentioned in Genesis 2:2, which was not attained by humans because of sin, was now promised in a kind of second Garden of Eden—the Promised Land. The old covenant, then, was a covenantal promise of peace, prosperity and security for Israel in the Promised Land (Leviticus 26:3-13; Deuteronomy 28:1-14). It contained all the elements that give human beings a feeling of well-being and "rest."
In short, the old covenant was a promise of physical rest to God’s people, which (as shown in Genesis 2) was part of God’s creative purpose at the beginning. We will see how this purpose of "rest" unfolds, but we are getting somewhat ahead of our story. Let’s backtrack a moment to God’s promise through Moses that he would provide freedom and rest to the people of Israel.
We know from the Exodus story that the Egyptian Pharaoh did not want to let the Israelites go free. He ordered that they should work even harder for their captors (Exodus 5). But God did rescue the Israelites and brought them into the Wilderness in preparation for their entering the Promised Land of freedom and rest. However, that generation failed to trust the Lord, and they were not allowed to enter. They died without coming into their rest.
The next generation of Israelites did enter the Promised Land under Joshua. They were told to obey the covenant that had been made between the people and the Lord. All the tribes were told to help each other take possession of the land "until the Lord gives them rest, as he has done for you" (Joshua 1:15). We read that this promise was fulfilled. In a summary statement before Joshua’s farewell to the nation, it was said that "the Lord had given Israel rest from all their enemies around them" (Joshua 23:1).
Despite Israel’s lapses from faith and obedience, the Lord fulfilled his promise to give the nation prosperity and rest. The high point of this physical rest and well-being occurred during the days of king Solomon. The writer said of this time: "During Solomon’s lifetime Judah and Israel, from Dan to Beersheba, lived in safety, each man under his own vine and fig tree" (1 Kings 4:25). The nation of Israel had experienced the physical "rest" of God in great fullness.
One of the hallmarks of the Law of Moses was an emphasis on the "rest" that God provided Israel. This included a bounty of unimagined physical blessings (Deuteronomy 7:10-12). God’s merciful grace in saving the nation from extreme toil and servitude in Egypt—and his giving the people bountiful physical blessings in the Promised Land—was to be memorialized in the religious practices of the nation. A weekly Sabbath of rest from work was a main feature of this rest memorial.
A good comparison for Christians is the Lord’s Supper. The bread and wine remind Christians that God has saved them through the redemptive work of Christ. On the other hand, the Israelites rested each week to remind them that God had saved them from Egyptian bondage and had blessed them abundantly.
Exodus 20:11 explains why God gave Israel the Sabbath day. Here, we read: "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." (These are the same words the writer of Genesis wrote for the creation account.) In a restatement of the Sabbath command in Deuteronomy 5:12-15 a related reason was given for the Sabbath "rest" command. "Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the Lord your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day" (5:15).
What had the writer seen here? Possibly, he saw that what God had done with Israel was the beginning of a restoration of God’s purpose through Israel. His purpose, dimly seen in the Garden of Eden story, was that human beings should live in a relationship with him, through which they would be blessed. If they were one with God, then they would enter his rest because he would bless them physically. That was certainly God’s intent, as the Garden of Eden story tells us. But human beings sinned and were cursed. Humans were cut off from the presence of God and the relationship with him was broken.
Reminder of blessings
With Israel, as the Exodus and old covenant show us, God had again moved to begin to bring the human race back into a relationship with himself. Israel would be the starting place. The nations would look at Israel, living in blessedness and loving obedience to Yahweh, and perhaps other nations might also someday come to love the Lord and find blessing as well (Deuteronomy 4:5-8). That was the ideal—just as the Garden of Eden had been an ideal. But as we know from the rest of the story of the Old Testament, the ideal was not achieved.
The reason Israel was to keep the seventh day as a rest period was because of a physical "rest" that was available to the nation. As slaves in Egypt, they had no rest for themselves, but toiled in harsh labor daily, at the whim of their taskmasters. God had freed them from this slavish labor and had given them freedom and prosperity in the Promised Land. Israel was supposed to remember the gracious freedom and rest they had been given—and they were to do this each week
The weekly rest was but one memorial of how God had saved the nation from Egyptian slavery and mindless toil. There were seven yearly "rest" days within three yearly festival seasons that also were celebrated by cessation from labor (Leviticus 23:7-8, 21, 25, 32, 35-36). These were harvest festivals when Israel could give thanks for the bountiful crops they had reaped—and when they could rest from their labor. By contrast, in Egypt the Israelites had toiled ceaselessly for uncaring taskmasters.
Beyond that, the land was to lie idle and not be tilled every seventh year (Leviticus 25:1-7). This means that while the land rested, the people could also rest because they did not need to seed or till. Whatever the land produced on its own could be eaten.
Also, each 50th year was a land rest (Leviticus 25:8-12). More than that, the year was a year of release, as we read in verse 10: "Consecrate the fiftieth year and proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you; each one of you is to return to his family property and each to his own clan." In Egypt, the Israelites had neither land nor inheritance. Now, God had given the nation the Promised Land, and each family was to enjoy its own parcel of ground.
While the Promised Land was not a place of idleness and ease, there was rest from backbreaking and meaningless toil on someone else’s land. On the other hand, the Promised Land would yield abundant produce because of the blessing of the Lord. The nation would rest from war and the fear of famine and disease. The inhabitants could breathe a sigh of relief—and they could "rest" both physically and psychologically in the sure knowledge that God was watching over them.
The meaning
Now we can understand why the writer of Genesis may have been so keen to divide the physical creation into a six day format and then make the seventh day a day of God’s "rest." It must have been driven home to him through his experience with the saving acts of the God of Israel, that his purpose was to rescue humanity from the curse that they had brought upon themselves. This curse had required backbreaking toil in unyielding soil to grow enough to eat. The curse had also brought famine and disease, fighting and war. Life was anything but restful.
The writer of Genesis must have seen the problem of the "curse" and the restless sorrow it had brought as having been solved specifically in the promises to the nation of Israel. Israel had once been in captivity and the people had been forced to toil incessantly under taskmasters. Life was neither prosperous nor restful. But God had purposed to fulfill his covenant with Abraham whereby he would rescue his descendants from terrible toil in slavery. The nation would find true prosperity, peace and rest under the protection and blessing of the Creator, the one true God. The nation’s religious practices including various "rest" days and times reminded the people that they had been saved from toil and slavery in Egypt and now rested in peace and prosperity under the loving hand of their God.
Genesis was written for Israelites who lived in the Promised Land, who were to commemorate each week the rest they had been given by the Creator. Their weekly experience of rest was then associated with the creation by the words of Genesis 2:2-3. The writer of Genesis was informed by and influenced by the weekly Sabbath as he wrote about the "rest" of God. He was writing from the point of view of an Israelite who had been saved from slavery and who enjoyed the "rest" God provided the nation. The writer understood that the various rest days commanded for Israel—the weekly Sabbath, annual festivals, and years of agricultural rest and release—reflected what God had done for the nation. Thus, God’s actions of providing "rest" signaled to the writer that in God’s creative purpose his creatures should find rest in him. In the world there was cursing and trouble, but in God’s kingdom—the Promised Land—there was prosperity, peace and rest.
Genesis 2:2-3, then, is not an early command for all people to keep the seventh day as holy time. It is a reflection of the writer’s understanding that humans should find their rest in God. For the nation of Israel, the old covenant specified that this was to be commemorated by a weekly physical rest on the seventh day. There is no command for other peoples to do the same. Other peoples did not have the physical "rest" of the Promised Land nor the command for physical rest on the seventh day. What the Israelites had was a physical image of a spiritual reality; other nations did not have this.
Future promise
The Old Testament shows that the restful state of affairs did not last very long for Israel. The nation sinned and the people suffered invasion, curses on their land and captivity. The old covenant between God and Israel failed because the nation did not live up to its promises to be faithful to God (Hebrews 4:2).
Later in Israel’s history, the prophets spoke of the need for a new covenant, based on better promises. Isaiah prophesied of a time when God would renew his covenant with Israel and give them a final rest. In chapter 11, Isaiah spoke of a Branch to come, upon whom the Spirit of the Lord would rest. The Spirit of the Lord would be upon him and he would bring justice, mercy and peace. The Branch would usher in God’s kingdom of righteousness and peace.
In soaring metaphorical language, Isaiah said of this new era: "The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat. . .the cow will feed with the bear. . .The lion will eat straw like the ox. The infant will play near the hole of the cobra" (verses 6-8). He summarized this future hope by painting the arrival of an idyllic worldwide kingdom of God: "They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth will be full for the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea" (verse 9). "In that day," when this future kingdom would be established, the Lord would bring his people Israel out from all the nations (verse 11). And what would he give his people? He would give them "rest." Isaiah explains: "In that day the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his place of rest will be glorious" (verse 10).
Jeremiah also spoke of the rest that the Lord would bring. "‘At that time,’ declares the Lord, ‘I will be the God of all the clans of Israel, and they will be my people.’ This is what the Lord says: ‘The people who survive the sword will find favor in the desert; I will come to give rest to Israel ’" (Jeremiah 31:1-2).
It’s no wonder the Jews looked for a Messiah that would save them from their enemies and gather the Jews to Israel. It was a beautiful vision of peace and prosperity. The Messiah would make the regathered clans of Israel in the Promised Land the people of the kingdom of God in which righteousness, justice and prosperity would know no bounds. The enemies of the Jews, whoever they might be, would be defeated and destroyed.
Jesus is our "rest"
The Branch, the Root of Jesse, the Redeemer Messiah, came as promised, in the person of Jesus. He offered the greatest "rest" the world would ever know, but it was not a physical rest of power and prosperity given to a single nation within certain geographic borders. Jesus brought the offer of "rest" of freedom from sin and death to peoples of all nations—and a future life in the eternal kingdom of God.
The notion of "God’s rest" found in Genesis 2:2-3 and the Old Testament was still alive and well. Yes, God would send the Deliverer, and his rest would be glorious. That rest, though, would be the result of the redemptive work of Jesus, and it would be commemorated not through the seventh day, but through Jesus. In Matthew 11:28, Jesus told his hearers: "Come to me, all of you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls." What a glorious promise to a hurting humanity. But we understand that Jesus was not necessarily promising physical rest and peace, but an eternal and spiritual rest.
Jesus said to his disciples: "Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives" (John 14:27). Jesus did not promise his disciples a Promised Land of peace, plenty and security. In fact, in his last talk with the disciples before his arrest, Jesus told them they would have anything but physical rest. "I have told you these things," Jesus warned, "so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world" (John 16:33).
The promise to Israel had been peace, prosperity and rest in the Promised Land in exchange for obedience to the old covenant and Law of Moses. The New Testament "rest" is a rest in Christ. It is the promise of the indwelling Holy Spirit and a spiritual rebirth that leads to eternal life in the kingdom of God. This is the ultimate "rest" of God. God’s purpose in Genesis 2:2-3, not completely understood under the old covenant, is now revealed and fulfilled in its final sense through Christ.
Part 2: The book of Hebrews
This is explained in Hebrews 3:1-4:11, which speaks of something vital Christians share—the "heavenly calling" we have in Christ (3:1). It is in these verses that we learn what the "rest" of Genesis 2:2-3 pictures to Christians. The subject at hand in these verses begins to be addressed under the word "today" in Hebrews 3:7, when the writer quotes Psalm 95:7-11:
Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion, during the time of testing in the desert, where your fathers tested and tried me and for forty years saw what I did. That is why I was angry with that generation, and I said, "Their hearts are always going astray, and they have not known my ways." So I declared an oath in my anger, "They shall never enter my rest."
Psalm 95 refers to the wilderness story as told in Exodus 17:1-7 and Numbers 20:1-13. There are several things we should notice about this passage in Hebrews. The author focuses on the introductory word of the quotation, "today," and the phrase in which it is found. He repeats the word "today" five times (3:7, 13, 15; twice in 4:7) and the phrase, "Today, if you hear his voice do not harden your hearts" three times (3:7, 15; 4:7). The phrase with its opening word "today" is significant for the writer in that it allows him to apply the promise of "rest" found in the Scripture to his readers. William Lane discusses this point in the Word Biblical Commentary on Hebrews:
"Today" provided the writer with a catchword for bringing the biblical statement before his hearers sharply. "Today" is no longer the today of the past, surveyed by the psalmist in his situation, but the today of the present, which continues to be conditioned by the voice of God that speaks day after day through the Scriptures and in the gospel tradition [page 87].
Lane makes the point that Psalm 95 "was a prophetic announcement that God was determining a future date for making his rest available" (page 100). The writer of Hebrews insists that the prophecy is being fulfilled in his day, in the church—and his readers need to heed its call. He wants his readers to make a connection between themselves and the experience of the Israelites in the wilderness. The author emphasizes a key concept: The Old Testament promise that God’s people would enter into "rest" is being fulfilled in the church and through Christ.
He begins by discussing God’s "rest" in terms of the promise of God to bring the rescued Israelites into the Promised Land. But as we know, and as the Scripture points out, the first generation of freed Israelites did not enter God’s "rest," but they died in the wilderness (Numbers 14:26-35). The Israelites Moses led out of Egypt did not enter into God’s "rest." The author wants his Christian readers to focus on the meaning of this tragedy. They are not to turn away from the living God (3:12) or be "hardened by sin’s deceitfulness" (3:13). Rather, they are to "hold firmly till the end" their first confidence (3:14) so that they may enter into God’s "rest."
The writer summarizes his admonition by saying, "Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it" (4:1). The readers of Hebrews are encouraged to keep up their faith and hope in Christ. Otherwise, as the unbelieving Israelites in Moses’ day lost their opportunity to enter the rest in Canaan, the believers may forfeit the greater blessings of the new age "rest."
From the beginning
The author of Hebrews then turns to a discussion of God’s "rest" from another point of view. He says that this "rest"—whatever it is—has been available to humanity since the beginning: "His [God’s] work has been finished since the creation of the world. For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: ‘And on the seventh day God rested from all his work’" (4:3-4).
The "somewhere" is Genesis 2:2. In the days when Hebrews was written, the Scriptures were written on scrolls. It was much more difficult to look up specific passages, so writers often quoted passages from memory. But here is our familiar Scripture, and the one we sought to understand in terms of its meaning for Christians. We can understand the "rest" described in Genesis 2:2-3 as the archetype of all later experiences of rest—including the various rest commands given at Sinai, the actual physical rest Israel received from its enemies under Joshua (a type of Christ), and the promised future rest of the kingdom of God.
From a Christian perspective, the Genesis "rest" of God, applied to God’s creative purpose in Genesis 2:2, can be seen to typify the spiritual salvation of the people of God. That means the weekly Sabbath rest (along with the other rest commands in the Law of Moses) is a lesser expression—a shadow, as it were—of the true "rest" symbolically inaugurated at the seventh day of creation. This makes the weekly Sabbath a metaphor of the Genesis "rest" of God, as was the Canaan rest.
The idea of the Genesis rest is that, beginning with the seventh day of creation, God ceased creating. He continues in a state of nonwork so far as further creating things physical is concerned. However, this doesn’t mean God has been idle. Leon Morris points this out in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary on Hebrews:
It is worth noticing that in the creation story each of the first six days is marked by the refrain "And there was evening, and there was morning." However, this is lacking in the account of the seventh day. There we simply read that God rested from all his work. This does not mean that God entered a state of idleness, for there is a sense in which he is continually at work (John 5:17). But the completion of creation marks the end of a magnificent whole.... So we should think of the rest as something like the satisfaction that comes from accomplishment, from the completion of a task, from the exercise of creativity [page 41].
F.F. Bruce also explained what this means in the volume on Hebrews in The New International Commentary on the New Testament:
When we read that God "rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done" (Gen. 2:2), we are to understand that hebegan to rest then; the fact that he is never said to have completed his rest and resumed his work of creation implies that his rest continues still, and may be shared by those who respond to his overtures with faith and obedience [page 106].
Thus, God’s "rest" has been available from the time the creation was finished—from the foundation of the world. Even though it has been available, very few people entered into it before Jesus’ death and resurrection. The offer of entering this "rest" still stands. The writer of Hebrews makes this point by saying: "It still remains that some will enter that rest" (4:6). Whatever this "rest" is, the writer is emphasizing that it is—at the time of writing—a promise his readers can take advantage of. In fact, they must take advantage of it, and not fail to achieve the "rest" because of disobedience (4:11).
Joshua’s "rest"
The author of Hebrews must have realized as he wrote that, on the surface, there had been an apparent large-scale exception to his claim that no people had ever entered a "rest" of God. After all, the second generation of Israelites who were saved from Egypt did enter the Promised Land under Joshua. We read that under Joshua "the Lord had given Israel rest from all their enemies around them" (Joshua 23:1). But the writer of Hebrews quickly points out that this is not the kind of "rest" he has in mind, or one that constituted God’s ultimate objective—the "rest" promised to Christians. Hundreds of years after Joshua led the Israelites into the rest of the Promised Land, the Psalmist urged people to enter a divine rest, and later still, the author of Hebrews was insisting that there is a "rest" its readers must yet enter into. Clearly, there is more to the "rest" in question than mere entry into Canaan. Hebrews tells us: "For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day. There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God" (4:8-9).
As it turns out, Israel had not secured the true "rest" after all. Thus, the writer can exhort his readers to seek, obtain and hold on to this superior "rest" in Christ. This is the true "rest" to which Genesis 2:2-3, the literal Sabbath, the other festival rests, the Wilderness experience, the Joshua rest, and the prophecy of Psalm 95 all looked forward to. He is interested in the redemptive and eternal rest in the kingdom of God, of which the weekly Sabbath and Canaan rests were but symbols.
William Lane, in the Hebrews commentary in the Word Biblical Commentary, explains why the Joshua rest was but a type of the true "rest":
The settlement of Canaan did not mark the fulfillment of the divine promise but pointed to another, more fundamental reality. If in fact Joshua had achieved the promised rest, there would have been no need for the renewal of the promise in Ps 95. Accordingly, the experience of rest in Canaan was only a type or symbol of the complete rest that God intended for his people, which was prefigured in the Sabbath rest of God [page 101].
We have now come from Genesis 2:2-3 to Hebrews 4:9-11, and we see something interesting. The author is not telling his readers to keep a weekly seventh-day Sabbath holy by resting on it. He is not talking about the weekly Sabbath at all. Rather, he is making the point that there is a spiritual "rest" that God’s people should be entering into. It is the heavenly counterpart of the earthly Canaan, and this is the goal of the people of God today—to achieve this present and eternal rest. The epistle of Hebrews has made this point by creating an analogy between the Israelites entering the Promised Land and Christians entering the better promise of a new-covenant spiritual "rest."
A present "rest"?
The Promised Land was a physical type or foreshadowing of a spiritual "rest" that the Israelites had not yet entered. And the weekly Sabbath was a temporal foreshadowing of the spiritual "rest" that God wants his people to enjoy. Christians have entered God’s "rest" by their faith in Jesus Christ. "Now we who have believed enter [or, "are entering"] that rest," the writer insists (4:3). Christians have the real rest, the spiritual rest, and do not need to observe shadows of it, neither geographically nor temporally. Jesus himself during his ministry had promised a rest for the spirit:
Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls (Matthew 11:28-29).
Leon Morris points out in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary that the word for "enter" in Hebrews 4:3 is in the present tense. This would mean the author of Hebrews was suggesting that his readers were already in the process of entering the "rest" of salvation that Jesus had promised. Some commentators agree that the Hebrews 4:3 "rest" into which Christians have entered begins now, in this life. Leon Morris quotes Hugh Montefiore on this point:
Contrary to some commentators, the Greek means neither that they are certain to enter, nor that they will enter, but that they are already in process of entering [page 40].
In fairness, Morris points out that some other commentators feel that the "rest" is something that occurs in the future. The present tense used here, they insist, is meant to be applied only in a generalizing sense. Morris concludes by saying:
Either view is defensible and probably much depends on our idea of the "rest." If it lies beyond death, then obviously "rest" must be understood in terms of the future. But if it is a present reality, then believers are entering it now [page 40].
We enter now
The view of this paper is that Christians have begun to enter their spiritual "rest" now. We are receiving some of the blessings of salvation, even though we do not yet enjoy them in their fullness. Peter says that Christ "has given us a new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead" (1 Peter 1:3). Paul says God "has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves" (Colossians 1:13). The author of Hebrews says that we are "the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven" (12:23).
It is in part a question of how we understand when the kingdom of God comes—now or in the future? The answer is both. The kingdom is already, but not yet. There is a sense that the kingdom is both present and yet obviously only future in its full reality. Christians can be said to live in the tension between promise and fulfillment, between the already and the not yet, between the glimmer and the reality. But they have nevertheless entered the "rest," even if only in an imperfect and qualified way. The spiritual realities we already enjoy, although incomplete, are enough that we do not need to observe the physical symbols and rituals of the old covenant.
We have already been invited to enter God’s end-of-creation, the Genesis 2:2-3 "rest," by believing in the Son of God. By faith, we have joined with him in his "rest." By faith, we have become new creations—created anew. Our re-creation is not yet complete, but we already have been given entrance, through Christ, into God’s kingdom "rest."
The writer of Hebrews does not state how he views the time in which the "rest" takes place. His concern is with the spiritual reality, not the physical shadow. But as we’ve seen, his concern seems to be with the present time—with today. He no doubt understands that the fullness of rest comes only with a future resurrection (10:37-38; 12:26). But his point of view in Hebrews 3 and 4 is the present time, the time for which he is writing. The writer is thinking of the salvation "rest" as beginning in the present. Otherwise, one can be misled about which "rest" he is interested in—the spiritual one or a physical one such as the weekly Sabbath day.
One traditional commentary, the Critical, Experimental and Practical Commentary by Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, became confused on this issue and came (this paper concludes) to a wrong conclusion:
It is Jesus, the antitype of Joshua, who leads us into the heavenly rest. This verse [4:9] indirectly establishes the obligation of the Sabbath; for the type continues until the antitype supersedes it: so legal sacrifices continued till the great antitypical sacrifice superseded it. As then the antitypical Sabbath rest will not be till Christ comes to usher us into it, the typical earthly Sabbath must continue till then [page 537].
The authors, we believe, have erred. Influenced by the Puritans, they were thinking of a Sunday Sabbath, and reading their own opinions into the text. The principle they enunciate is erroneous. The type does not continue until the antitype supersedes it. Various Old Testament rituals pictured purity and holiness, and even though we do not yet see complete purity and holiness in the church, the rituals are obsolete. More correctly, types continue only as long as God says they do, and God has declared the old covenant obsolete. It has served its purpose, even though God’s plan is not yet complete. Moreover, true spiritual rest is found through faith in Christ, and Christ has already come. The antitype has arrived. Christ has already led us into the heavenly rest just as he is already our sacrifice for sin. We have come to Christ and he has given us rest—seated us in the heavenly realms (Ephesians 2:6). This argues against the commentary’s claim that the literal Sabbath is in force. The antitypical salvation rest has already been ushered in, albeit incompletely. Thus, the shadow (the literal Sabbath) is no longer required.
No matter how the writer of Hebrews conceives of the future "rest" in the post-resurrection kingdom of God, he is not concerned to discuss it in chapters 3 and 4. He is interested in his readers who are alive when he writes—and who need to take hold of the promise of spiritual "rest" in this age. F.F. Bruce agreed that the future rest is not in view here. He stated the following in his commentary on Hebrews in The New International Commentary on the New Testament:
The identification of the rest of God in the Epistle to the Hebrews with a coming millennium on earth has, indeed, been ably defended; but it involves the importation into the epistle of a concept which in fact is alien to it [pages 106-107].
The writer of Hebrews is not so much concerned with the future as with the present spiritual state of his readers. "Tomorrow," so to speak, is not in his view in the passage we are studying. That’s why he stresses the word "today." It was the privilege of the readers to enter God’s "rest" then—and it is our privilege to do so now. For us, today is "today," not some future time. The promise of entering God’s "rest" remains valid for each generation—and is repeated to each successive generation—in the church age.
Rest and work
Hebrews 4:9-11 is telling us we have entered into God’s promised "rest," the one he prophetically inaugurated on the seventh day of creation. This is the writer’s main theme. The epistle has already noted that God’s "work has been finished since the creation of the world" (4:3). That is, the "rest" of salvation has been offered and promised to humanity since the foundation of the world. It was, in a manner of speaking, a work of creation, inaugurated with humanity and for humanity. Donald Guthrie writes the following on this point:
What believers can now enter is none other than the same kind of rest which the Creator enjoyed when he had completed his works, which means that the rest idea is of completion and not of inactivity. . . .It is important to note that the "rest" is not something new that has not been known in experience until Christ came. It has been available throughout the whole of man’s history. This reference back to the creation places the idea on the broadest possible basis and would seem to suggest that it was part of God’s intention for man. "Rest" is a quality that has eluded man’s quest, and in fact cannot be attained except through Christ [Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, "Hebrews," page 113].
As long as we have faith in Christ—the main point of Hebrews—no matter what day of the week it is, we have entered God’s "rest" and we are resting from our own works. "We who have believed enter that rest. . . .Anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his" (4:3, 10). What does the author mean by "work"? He is not discussing the question of employment on the weekly Sabbath day. That is not his interest. (He has been encouraging his readers to enter the spiritual "rest" of salvation throughout Hebrews 3 and 4.) The writer of Hebrews wants his readers to stop putting their faith in the things that humans do, such as the works of the old covenant—and to place their faith in Christ as Savior. He wants them to look to the work of Christ, which gives forgiveness and empowerment through the Holy Spirit, allowing us to enter the true spiritual "rest."
In comparison to Christ, the writer has a low view of the "works" of the Law of Moses. He says of the Law in general and the Levitical priesthood as a whole:
The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced by which we draw near to God (7:18-19).
The author of Hebrews seems to be suggesting that the people to whom he wrote should rest from the ceremonial "work" they needed to do under the Mosaic Law. Their "work" in such things as offering sacrifices could not save nor endear them to God. They were saved by grace through faith in Christ, and were endeared to God by that same grace.
The weekly Sabbath?
The Jewish Christians or Gentile believers to whom Hebrews was written were already attracted to Judaistic practices. This is clear from reading the book. It was written to show the church why Judaistic practices were not necessary for Christians to perform. The individuals to whom the book was written would have already been observing the Sabbath day and would not need any admonishment to rest on this day. Even the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary understands this point. We find this explanation given for Hebrews 4:9 on page 423:
Certainly, in writing to Jews, the author of Hebrews would not consider it necessary to prove to them that Sabbathkeeping "remaineth." If the conclusion of the extended argument beginning with ch. 3:7 is that Sabbathkeeping remains for the people of God, it would seem that the writer of Hebrews is guilty of a non sequitur, for the conclusion does not follow logically from the argument. There would have been no point in so labored an effort to persuade the Jews to do what they were already doing—observing the seventh-day Sabbath. . . .What relationship a protracted argument designed to prove that Sabbath observance remains an obligation to the Christian church might have to the declared theme of chs. 3 and 4—the ministry of Christ as our great High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary—is obscure indeed.
The writer of Hebrews is interested in the spiritual or heavenly meaning of such things as the Sabbath and animal sacrifices, not their literal observances, which are shadows of the true "rest" and sacrifice for sin. In fact, the very Israelites who had been given the Sabbath (the generation that left Egypt) failed to enter God’s "rest." So did the Jews who strictly kept the Sabbath day when Hebrews was written. Keeping the Sabbath does not automatically bring someone to God. Why, then, would the writer of Hebrews insist on it? The fact is, the literal seventh-day Sabbath is not in his view at all.
The book of Hebrews, considered as a whole, tells us that the practices of the Mosaic Law are obsolete (7:11-12, 18-19). This would refer to the works or observances of the Law (of which the Sabbath is one example), as opposed to its great moral principles. These are eternal principles that define our relationship with God and fellow human beings. They precede the old covenant, were imbedded into that covenant, and remain as fundamental principles of the new covenant, which made the old passé.
The new covenant theme of Hebrews suggests—though it doesn’t directly make an issue of this—that the weekly Sabbath day as described in the old covenant has been superseded by a better promise. In particular, Hebrews 4:9-11 tells us that the various allusions of "rest" in the Old Testament, including Genesis 2:2-3 and the weekly Sabbath, picture a spiritual reality to Christians—the eternal rest of God. But that is all Hebrews tells us. It does not seem to address the issue of whether the weekly Sabbath should be kept or not. This is not the author’s interest.
In conclusion
Let us now close the circle between Genesis 2:2-3 and Hebrews 3:1-4:11. We have seen that God had given Israel physical rest in the Promised Land under the leadership of Joshua, just as Adam and Eve would have had physical "rest" in the Garden of Eden. But the first humans, like all others after them, sinned. Adam and Eve and their descendents were cursed and lost their "rest" until God saved Israel from slavery and the nation entered the Promised Land.
As part of its covenantal law, God gave Israel various rest days and years to commemorate their having achieved physical blessings (the "rest") in the Lord (Deuteronomy 5:15). The writer of Genesis saw this reality—which the rest days (especially the weekly Sabbath) commemorated—as a fulfillment of God’s original purpose at the creation. The writer included the statement about the symbolic meaning of the Sabbath (that is, about God’s "rest"—Exodus 20:11) in his description of the creation in Genesis 2:2-3. This was then a prophetical statement of God’s purpose of providing physical bounty to his human creatures, now fulfilled in Israel.
What the writer of Genesis did not clearly see, since he was an individual who lived under the old covenant, is that God’s real purpose was to provide humanity with another "rest"—a true eternal rest. This more fundamental purpose was fulfilled in Christ, and could be understood only after he had completed his redemptive work. Thus, Christ is the true Sabbath rest of Genesis 2:2-3—promised to us from the beginning (Matthew 25:34; Ephesians 1:4-6; Hebrews 4:3; Revelation 13:8). This is how the author of Hebrews (in 3:1-4:11) understands that "rest."
Thanks be to God that through his love he gave us his Son, allowing us in his mercy to begin to enter into his eternal rest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two Greek Words for "Rest"
We should briefly take up the issue of the Greek words for "rest" used in Hebrews 4:9-10. We quote here the verses in question and show the two Greek words being used: "There remains…a Sabbath-rest [sabbatismos] for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest [katapausin] also rests from his own work" (4:9-10).
A Greek-English interlinear of the New Testament shows that the Greek word katapausin is used to denote "rest" throughout Hebrews 3:7-4:11. There is one exception, in 4:9, as shown above. Here, sabbatismos is used, and it is translated "Sabbath-rest" in the New International Version. The word is formed from the verb sabbatizo, which means to "keep/observe/celebrate the Sabbath."
The only time in the Bible that sabbatismos is used is here in Hebrews 4:9. The word is not found in ancient Greek literature until well after the time when Hebrews was written. Some decades later, sabbatismos is found in Plutarch as part of a list of superstitious practices. In his work, the word signifies weekly Sabbath observance. In later Christian documents, sabbatismos sometimes indicates the celebration or festivity associated with the Sabbath day.
With this in mind, William Lane translates Hebrews 4:9 as: "There remains a Sabbath celebration for the people of God." He points out that the use ofsabbatismos is meant to "define more precisely the character of the future rest promised to the people of God" (Word Biblical Commentary, volume 47A, "Hebrews," page 101). The word conveyed something about the promised spiritual rest that katapausin would not have done—"the special aspect of festivity and joy, expressed in the adoration and praise of God" for his wonderful grace (page 102).
On one level, the writer of Hebrews seems to have used the two Greek words interchangeably. In 4:9, he says that a promised Sabbath-rest (sabbatismos) remains for the people of God to enter into, and this same rest is called God’s katapausin "rest." Some scholars suggest that the writer of Hebrews coined the word. He wanted to differentiate between the ultimate spiritual "rest" and the Promised Land rest into which Israel went. If so, the author may also have been making the same difference between the true spiritual "rest" and the weekly Sabbath rest. That is to say, the Sabbath day is a metaphor of the true rest in the same way that the Israelites entering the Promised Land under Joshua was also a metaphor for spiritual rest.
Since the seventh-day Sabbath is but a symbol of the true spiritual rest, the writer would have no logical reason to stress the keeping of the weekly Sabbath. Like the Promised Land, the Sabbath day itself was a shadow that prefigured the coming reality—the spiritual "rest" of the Christian in Christ.
To summarize: The spiritual rest of salvation into which God’s people are entering is a sabbatismos—a "sabbath keeping"—in the sense that it is a participation in God’s own "rest," which we enter by faith (4:3). "Anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his" (4:10). That is to say, the sabbatismos rest of God described in Hebrews 4:9 refers to the salvation "rest" into which all Christians have entered. Of course, as mentioned earlier, the culmination of this rest does not occur until the resurrection. But, upon conversion, we have begun the journey.
The weekly Old Testament Sabbath points to the blessing and joy of the spiritual "rest" Christians have in Christ. This may be why the author of Hebrews coined the word sabbatismos—making a play off the word for the Sabbath day (sabbaton). That is, sabbatismos stressed the joy, the celebration, the peace, the jubilation of the spiritual "rest" Christians enjoy. (We’ve put "rest" in quotes here because it does not really mean inactivity.)
Hebrews is not clear as to the writer’s attitude toward the weekly Sabbath day. Perhaps he wanted his readers, who were attracted to old covenant customs, to understand the Sabbath’s true meaning in the light of the Christ event , but without having to make an issue of whether it needs to be kept or not. This would certainly be in the spirit of Romans 14, in which the apostle Paul avoided making one’s view of "sacred days" a test or issue of faith or fellowship.
The Sabbath is meaningful on its own terms, just as the Festival of Tabernacles or the Passover-Exodus is. After all, the Sabbath stands as a metaphor of the whole purpose and meaning of redemption, as do the sacrifices and other old covenant, Mosaic institutions. They foreshadowed the true spiritual "rest" we have in Christ, which includes a "resting" in forgiveness of sin and "resting" from sin itself through the indwelling Holy Spirit.
But Hebrews 4:9 issues no command about keeping or not keeping the Sabbath. In fact, the book as a whole makes the point that all the old covenant institutions are obsolete now that the reality has come in Christ. The verse in question cannot be used as a proof-text to insist that Christians keep a weekly seventh-day Sabbath rest. The verses in question do not exhort us to keep an old covenant Sabbath, but they do admonish us to enter the spiritual "rest" of God by having faith in Christ.
1The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, volume 3, page 219, edited by Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider, gives the following explanation ofsabbatismos:
1. The NT offers in Hebrews 4:9 the oldest documentation of the noun sabbatismos, which occurs several times in post-NT early Christian writings independently of Hebrews 4:9 (e.g., Justin Dial. 23:3; Origen Orat. 27:16; Epiphanius Haer. xxx.2.2; lxvi 85:9;Acts (Martyrdom) of Peter and Paul 1; Apostolic Constitutions ii.36.2; pseudo-Macarius (Symeon) Homily 12.2.4.... At present,sabbatismos has been documented in non-Christian writings only in Plutarch Superst. 3 (Moralia 166a).
The noun is derived from the verb sabbatizo, which in the LXX [Septuagint] appears as the translation of Hebrew sabbat. The vb. means: a) "celebrate/observe the sabbath" (Exod 16:30; Lev 23:32; 2 Macc 6:6; so also Ign. Magn. 9:1; Pap. Oxy. 1,1.2; Justin Dial.10:1 and passim), b) "observe (sabbath) rest" (Lev 26:34f.; 2 Chr 36:21; 1 Esdr 1:55).
Accordingly, the substantive means sabbath observance (thus in the non-NT passages mentioned) and sabbath rest (thus the understanding of sabbatismos in Heb 4:9 by Origen Cels. v.59; Selecta in Exod on 16:23 [PG XII, 289b]).
2. In Heb 4:9 sabbatismos encompasses both sabbath rest and (cultic) sabbath observance. The word is neither identical in meaning nor interchangeable with katapausis (3:11, 19; 4:1, 3, 5, 10f); it designates more closely what the people of God should expect when they enter the katapausis of God (cf. 4:9 with v.6a). Just as God rested on the seventh day of creation from all his works, so also will believers find the eternal sabbath rest on the day of the completion of salvation in God’s "place of rest" (see 4:10). Quietistic or mystic elements have nothing to do with this expectation. The statement in Heb 4:9f. remains dependent on a Jewish sabbath theology that associates the idea of sabbath rest with ideas of worship and praise of God (Jub. 2:21; 50:9; Bib. Ant. 11:8; 2 Macc 8:27; cf. also 1 Enoch 41:7). Accordingly, the author of Hebrews understands by sabbatismos the eternal sabbath celebration of salvation, i.e., the perfected community’s worship before God's throne.
Dit spreekt voor zich maar gaat verder niet over onze relatie met God.quote:
In het nieuwe verbond is het teken alsvolgt:
35Aan jullie liefde voor elkaar zal iedereen zien dat jullie mijn leerlingen zijn.’
Jezus zal ook niet over de sabbat gesproken hebben in deze omdat het houden daarvan een vanzelfsprekendheid was.
Hij noemt het echter na het volgende:
34 Een nieuw gebod geef Ik u, dat gij elkander liefhebt; gelijk Ik u liefgehad heb, dat ook gij elkander liefhebt.
Tot de dood aan toe. De ultieme standaard.
Dit artikel is te lang. Vat het samen ajb.quote:
Ali ik heb een verhelderend artikel gevonden over de sabbat in Genesis 2 en de sabbatismos van Hebreeers 4:
Genesis 2:2-3 -- God's "Rest" and the Sabbath
One of the proof texts used in an attempt to prove that Christians must keep the seventh-day Sabbath is Genesis 2:2-3. For this reason, it is important that we understand what this verse does and doesn’t say about the physical Sabbath rest before we arrive at our conclusions. Further, we must ask what this verse tells us about the Sabbath when viewed against the essential message of Scripture about our salvation in Christ.
After the creation account in Genesis 1, we read the following in chapter 2, verses 2-3: "By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done."
In chapter 1, the writer of Genesis had used the seven-day weekly cycle as an organizing outline to make an important theological point: The one God of Israel is the true God—the Creator of all that exists in the heavens and on earth, including the human race. This was his answer to the myths of the nations that had spun fantastic stories of how their national god or gods and goddesses were responsible for the creation. Genesis 1:1-2:3 sets the record straight about creation. The God of Israel, Yahweh, is Creator.
Yet, the writer of Genesis ends his creation outline by adding the statement that the God of Israel "rested" after creation was complete. What further theological point was he trying to make about God and his purpose in the creation? We shall see the answer unfold in this paper. The concept of the "rest" will prove to be a monumental part of God’s purpose, one the New Testament explains for us in a final sense.
Sabbath rest in Genesis
Before we undertake to solve this mystery, we should consider the idea that Genesis 2:2-3 tells us God made the weekly Sabbath "holy time" at creation, and that this day has been and continues to be a sacred day for all peoples. We notice immediately that the verse in question does not say a physical Sabbath-day rest was to be observed by human beings. This is a most striking fact of Genesis 2:2-3. This verse contains no command for human beings to rest from their labor or to otherwise keep the seventh day as "holy time." God is the one said to be "resting," and by his act he creates something holy about the seventh day. But at this point in the story we haven’t been told what that is.
If the writer of Genesis wanted to make the point that God commanded the Sabbath to be a day of rest for humans since the creation, then he failed to follow up his thesis in further chapters. He provided no evidence that any of the great patriarchs, Abraham included, kept the seventh day as "holy time." Neither did he make any comments to the effect that humanity was breaking the Sabbath-day rest and thereby sinning against God between Adam and Sinai. Not until the old covenant is instituted with only a single nation—Israel—does the Sabbath rest become a command (and only for Israel).
If the Sabbath was commanded since the creation, then it is quite surprising that none of God’s faithful people kept it until Sinai. Conversely, we would also have to ask why evil people are not chastised for Sabbath-breaking during the ages before the giving of the Law of Moses.
However, Genesis 2:2-3 does tell us that God made the seventh day of creation week "holy." What does this mean? For God to make something "holy" is for him to set it apart in some way for his special use, or to use that which is set apart to explain something important in terms of his purpose. For example, the temple had a Most Holy Place whose environs only the High Priest could enter, and that only once a year. The book of Hebrews explains that the "holiness" that God ascribed to this location was to show that a true entry into his presence was not yet available.
But Genesis 2:2-3 does not tell us what lesson we are to learn from the seventh day of creation being made "holy" or set apart through God "resting" from his work. We understand that God does not become tired. Nor is he affected by an earthbound reality in which the motions of planetary bodies create time. This would lead us to believe the writer of Genesis again used a literary device when speaking about the "rest" of God. That is, the "rest" of God had a symbolic meaning for him. But what was that meaning?
Author’s point
The writer had already used the seven-day week as an outline on which he hung various creation events and by which he made his theological point. It’s not surprising, then, that he would use the metaphor of God’s "rest" to make another theological assertion about who this God of Israel was, and his purpose. We should remember that the writer lived under the old covenant. This would lead us to believe that his experience of God taught him something about his purpose with Israel, something that was explained by the "rest" concept.
"Rest" is certainly a key idea here in Genesis 2:2-3. Why did the writer use the concept? What did it mean to the writer, and what should it mean to us as Christians? We have already seen that the seventh day rest follows all the creative acts of God that are summarized in Genesis 1. More than this, the rest of God follows the creation of humanity—male and female—in God’s own image (1:27-31).
The fact that this is mentioned in the context of the creation account implies that the writer understood that humanity has a special purpose beyond the other parts of the creation. First, all of creation is pronounced as being "very good" (1:31). Humanity is to "fill the earth and subdue it"—to be God’s representatives on this planet and caretakers of the creation (1:28). But, in a sense, all is not completely revealed to this point in Genesis about God’s aim in creating humanity. Is there no further purpose for the human race (and, from the writer’s point of view, of his choosing Israel to be his people) than to fill and subdue the earth? And, so the writer refers to God’s "rest," and tells us that it is holy—set apart for some purpose. But for what purpose? And, how does this relate to humanity and Israel?
That the creation of man and woman was announced just before the making of the holy rest could imply that this "rest" has something to do with the creation in general and humanity in particular. God, as it were, "sits back" after setting his creative purpose in motion and pronounces everything as being good. Since God doesn’t literally get tired, we can understand his "rest" as figurative, and as part of his creative purpose. We could see the "rest" in question as extending to humans (and Israel) in some way since they seem to be the end object of God’s creative process.
Humanity’s loss
But whatever this rest is to signify, the ensuing Genesis story tells us it is not something that humans enjoy in a physical sense except, perhaps, for a brief interlude in the Garden of Eden. Almost immediately after creation, we read about the tragic circumstances that befall Adam and Eve in the Garden. They sin and are punished for it by increased labor rather than rest. The notion of labor, of the opposite of rest, becomes a major motif of the Genesis account.
Eve must labor in childbearing. The Lord tells her, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children." (3:16). For mother Eve, childbearing becomes a painful work. Adam will be forced to labor to fill his mouth. The Lord tells him, "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life" (3:17, emphasis ours throughout).
Their son, Cain, murders Abel. The latter’s blood, figuratively finds no rest, as it "cries out" from the ground (4:10). For his sin, Cain will be forced to engage in backbreaking labor. The Lord tells him, "When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you" (4:12). More than that, Cain was to be a "restless wanderer on the earth" (4:12). He would have neither rest in his labor nor rest from enemies seeking to kill him because of his murder of Abel.
The "anti-rest" motif continues in Genesis. When Noah was born, a great hope was attached to his future. It was said of him, "He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the Lord has cursed" (5:29). But humanity found no rest because "the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence" (6:11). The only "rest" humanity could achieve was to rest in peace in death. And God caused the flood to destroy human civilization and end humanity’s suffering.
In Noah, God restated and broadened the covenant made with Adam and Eve in Genesis 1:28-30. He reissued his promise to neither curse the ground nor to destroy humanity despite the fact that he knew "every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood" (8:21; 9:8-17). Despite this covenant of promise, many generations passed during which humans became increasingly alienated from God. The story of Nimrod and the Tower of Babel indicate the condition of the human race. Then God made a covenant with Abraham. This is first found in Genesis 12:2-3:
I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.
Israel in toil and slavery
We know the rest of the story from Genesis. Abraham had a son named Isaac, and he had a son named Jacob. (Jacob himself had to be saved by the Lord from 20 years of servitude at Laban’s hand—Genesis 31:38-42.) As Jacob said to Laban: "If the God of my father, the God of Abraham and the Fear of Isaac, had not been with me, you would surely have sent me away empty-handed. But God has seen my hardship and the toil of my hand"(verse 42).
Jacob had 12 sons. The oldest ten sold their young brother, Joseph, into Egyptian slavery. During a famine, they all moved to Egypt, where the family of Jacob grew into a great nation. But the Egyptians placed the Israelites into slavery and hard bondage. They, too, failed to find the "rest" of God. The first chapter of Exodus, verses 11-14, shows how Israel subsequently suffered as a slave people:
So they [the Egyptians] put slave masters over them [the Israelites] to oppress them with forced labor, and they built Pithom and Rameses as store cities for Pharaoh. . . .The Egyptians came to dread the Israelites and worked them ruthlessly. They made their lives bitter with hard labor in brick and mortar and with all kinds of work in the fields; in all their hard labor the Egyptians used them ruthlessly.
Israel rescued
The writer of Exodus was trying to make a point, again about the notion of "rest." The Israelites were oppressed with hard and forced labor—and they had no rest for their souls. But help was on the way after many generations. We read in Exodus 2:23-24:
The Israelites groaned in their slavery and cried out and their cry for help because of their slavery went up to God. God heard their groaning and he remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac and with Jacob.
The savior of Israel would be Moses, who as a young man had seen his own people in slavery and "watched them at their hard labor" (2:11). Now, after his own exile of 40 years in the desert, the Lord appeared to him and said in Exodus 3:7-8:
I have indeed seen the misery of my people in Egypt. I have heard them crying out because of their slave drivers, and I am concerned about their suffering. So I have come down to rescue them from the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land into a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey.
And, again, Moses was to tell the Israelites about their impending freedom and physical rest:
Say to the Israelites: "I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians. I will free you from being slaves to them, and I will redeem you with outstretched arm and with mighty acts of judgment. I will take you as my own people, and I will be your God" [Exodus 6:6-7].
A covenant of "rest"
Here is the first intimation of a covenant between God and Israel. It is a covenant based on God providing freedom from slavery, and hence rest from interminable labor. Thus, the "rest" of God mentioned in Genesis 2:2, which was not attained by humans because of sin, was now promised in a kind of second Garden of Eden—the Promised Land. The old covenant, then, was a covenantal promise of peace, prosperity and security for Israel in the Promised Land (Leviticus 26:3-13; Deuteronomy 28:1-14). It contained all the elements that give human beings a feeling of well-being and "rest."
In short, the old covenant was a promise of physical rest to God’s people, which (as shown in Genesis 2) was part of God’s creative purpose at the beginning. We will see how this purpose of "rest" unfolds, but we are getting somewhat ahead of our story. Let’s backtrack a moment to God’s promise through Moses that he would provide freedom and rest to the people of Israel.
We know from the Exodus story that the Egyptian Pharaoh did not want to let the Israelites go free. He ordered that they should work even harder for their captors (Exodus 5). But God did rescue the Israelites and brought them into the Wilderness in preparation for their entering the Promised Land of freedom and rest. However, that generation failed to trust the Lord, and they were not allowed to enter. They died without coming into their rest.
The next generation of Israelites did enter the Promised Land under Joshua. They were told to obey the covenant that had been made between the people and the Lord. All the tribes were told to help each other take possession of the land "until the Lord gives them rest, as he has done for you" (Joshua 1:15). We read that this promise was fulfilled. In a summary statement before Joshua’s farewell to the nation, it was said that "the Lord had given Israel rest from all their enemies around them" (Joshua 23:1).
Despite Israel’s lapses from faith and obedience, the Lord fulfilled his promise to give the nation prosperity and rest. The high point of this physical rest and well-being occurred during the days of king Solomon. The writer said of this time: "During Solomon’s lifetime Judah and Israel, from Dan to Beersheba, lived in safety, each man under his own vine and fig tree" (1 Kings 4:25). The nation of Israel had experienced the physical "rest" of God in great fullness.
One of the hallmarks of the Law of Moses was an emphasis on the "rest" that God provided Israel. This included a bounty of unimagined physical blessings (Deuteronomy 7:10-12). God’s merciful grace in saving the nation from extreme toil and servitude in Egypt—and his giving the people bountiful physical blessings in the Promised Land—was to be memorialized in the religious practices of the nation. A weekly Sabbath of rest from work was a main feature of this rest memorial.
A good comparison for Christians is the Lord’s Supper. The bread and wine remind Christians that God has saved them through the redemptive work of Christ. On the other hand, the Israelites rested each week to remind them that God had saved them from Egyptian bondage and had blessed them abundantly.
Exodus 20:11 explains why God gave Israel the Sabbath day. Here, we read: "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." (These are the same words the writer of Genesis wrote for the creation account.) In a restatement of the Sabbath command in Deuteronomy 5:12-15 a related reason was given for the Sabbath "rest" command. "Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the Lord your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day" (5:15).
What had the writer seen here? Possibly, he saw that what God had done with Israel was the beginning of a restoration of God’s purpose through Israel. His purpose, dimly seen in the Garden of Eden story, was that human beings should live in a relationship with him, through which they would be blessed. If they were one with God, then they would enter his rest because he would bless them physically. That was certainly God’s intent, as the Garden of Eden story tells us. But human beings sinned and were cursed. Humans were cut off from the presence of God and the relationship with him was broken.
Reminder of blessings
With Israel, as the Exodus and old covenant show us, God had again moved to begin to bring the human race back into a relationship with himself. Israel would be the starting place. The nations would look at Israel, living in blessedness and loving obedience to Yahweh, and perhaps other nations might also someday come to love the Lord and find blessing as well (Deuteronomy 4:5-8). That was the ideal—just as the Garden of Eden had been an ideal. But as we know from the rest of the story of the Old Testament, the ideal was not achieved.
The reason Israel was to keep the seventh day as a rest period was because of a physical "rest" that was available to the nation. As slaves in Egypt, they had no rest for themselves, but toiled in harsh labor daily, at the whim of their taskmasters. God had freed them from this slavish labor and had given them freedom and prosperity in the Promised Land. Israel was supposed to remember the gracious freedom and rest they had been given—and they were to do this each week
The weekly rest was but one memorial of how God had saved the nation from Egyptian slavery and mindless toil. There were seven yearly "rest" days within three yearly festival seasons that also were celebrated by cessation from labor (Leviticus 23:7-8, 21, 25, 32, 35-36). These were harvest festivals when Israel could give thanks for the bountiful crops they had reaped—and when they could rest from their labor. By contrast, in Egypt the Israelites had toiled ceaselessly for uncaring taskmasters.
Beyond that, the land was to lie idle and not be tilled every seventh year (Leviticus 25:1-7). This means that while the land rested, the people could also rest because they did not need to seed or till. Whatever the land produced on its own could be eaten.
Also, each 50th year was a land rest (Leviticus 25:8-12). More than that, the year was a year of release, as we read in verse 10: "Consecrate the fiftieth year and proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you; each one of you is to return to his family property and each to his own clan." In Egypt, the Israelites had neither land nor inheritance. Now, God had given the nation the Promised Land, and each family was to enjoy its own parcel of ground.
While the Promised Land was not a place of idleness and ease, there was rest from backbreaking and meaningless toil on someone else’s land. On the other hand, the Promised Land would yield abundant produce because of the blessing of the Lord. The nation would rest from war and the fear of famine and disease. The inhabitants could breathe a sigh of relief—and they could "rest" both physically and psychologically in the sure knowledge that God was watching over them.
The meaning
Now we can understand why the writer of Genesis may have been so keen to divide the physical creation into a six day format and then make the seventh day a day of God’s "rest." It must have been driven home to him through his experience with the saving acts of the God of Israel, that his purpose was to rescue humanity from the curse that they had brought upon themselves. This curse had required backbreaking toil in unyielding soil to grow enough to eat. The curse had also brought famine and disease, fighting and war. Life was anything but restful.
The writer of Genesis must have seen the problem of the "curse" and the restless sorrow it had brought as having been solved specifically in the promises to the nation of Israel. Israel had once been in captivity and the people had been forced to toil incessantly under taskmasters. Life was neither prosperous nor restful. But God had purposed to fulfill his covenant with Abraham whereby he would rescue his descendants from terrible toil in slavery. The nation would find true prosperity, peace and rest under the protection and blessing of the Creator, the one true God. The nation’s religious practices including various "rest" days and times reminded the people that they had been saved from toil and slavery in Egypt and now rested in peace and prosperity under the loving hand of their God.
Genesis was written for Israelites who lived in the Promised Land, who were to commemorate each week the rest they had been given by the Creator. Their weekly experience of rest was then associated with the creation by the words of Genesis 2:2-3. The writer of Genesis was informed by and influenced by the weekly Sabbath as he wrote about the "rest" of God. He was writing from the point of view of an Israelite who had been saved from slavery and who enjoyed the "rest" God provided the nation. The writer understood that the various rest days commanded for Israel—the weekly Sabbath, annual festivals, and years of agricultural rest and release—reflected what God had done for the nation. Thus, God’s actions of providing "rest" signaled to the writer that in God’s creative purpose his creatures should find rest in him. In the world there was cursing and trouble, but in God’s kingdom—the Promised Land—there was prosperity, peace and rest.
Genesis 2:2-3, then, is not an early command for all people to keep the seventh day as holy time. It is a reflection of the writer’s understanding that humans should find their rest in God. For the nation of Israel, the old covenant specified that this was to be commemorated by a weekly physical rest on the seventh day. There is no command for other peoples to do the same. Other peoples did not have the physical "rest" of the Promised Land nor the command for physical rest on the seventh day. What the Israelites had was a physical image of a spiritual reality; other nations did not have this.
Future promise
The Old Testament shows that the restful state of affairs did not last very long for Israel. The nation sinned and the people suffered invasion, curses on their land and captivity. The old covenant between God and Israel failed because the nation did not live up to its promises to be faithful to God (Hebrews 4:2).
Later in Israel’s history, the prophets spoke of the need for a new covenant, based on better promises. Isaiah prophesied of a time when God would renew his covenant with Israel and give them a final rest. In chapter 11, Isaiah spoke of a Branch to come, upon whom the Spirit of the Lord would rest. The Spirit of the Lord would be upon him and he would bring justice, mercy and peace. The Branch would usher in God’s kingdom of righteousness and peace.
In soaring metaphorical language, Isaiah said of this new era: "The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat. . .the cow will feed with the bear. . .The lion will eat straw like the ox. The infant will play near the hole of the cobra" (verses 6-8). He summarized this future hope by painting the arrival of an idyllic worldwide kingdom of God: "They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth will be full for the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea" (verse 9). "In that day," when this future kingdom would be established, the Lord would bring his people Israel out from all the nations (verse 11). And what would he give his people? He would give them "rest." Isaiah explains: "In that day the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his place of rest will be glorious" (verse 10).
Jeremiah also spoke of the rest that the Lord would bring. "‘At that time,’ declares the Lord, ‘I will be the God of all the clans of Israel, and they will be my people.’ This is what the Lord says: ‘The people who survive the sword will find favor in the desert; I will come to give rest to Israel ’" (Jeremiah 31:1-2).
It’s no wonder the Jews looked for a Messiah that would save them from their enemies and gather the Jews to Israel. It was a beautiful vision of peace and prosperity. The Messiah would make the regathered clans of Israel in the Promised Land the people of the kingdom of God in which righteousness, justice and prosperity would know no bounds. The enemies of the Jews, whoever they might be, would be defeated and destroyed.
Jesus is our "rest"
The Branch, the Root of Jesse, the Redeemer Messiah, came as promised, in the person of Jesus. He offered the greatest "rest" the world would ever know, but it was not a physical rest of power and prosperity given to a single nation within certain geographic borders. Jesus brought the offer of "rest" of freedom from sin and death to peoples of all nations—and a future life in the eternal kingdom of God.
The notion of "God’s rest" found in Genesis 2:2-3 and the Old Testament was still alive and well. Yes, God would send the Deliverer, and his rest would be glorious. That rest, though, would be the result of the redemptive work of Jesus, and it would be commemorated not through the seventh day, but through Jesus. In Matthew 11:28, Jesus told his hearers: "Come to me, all of you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls." What a glorious promise to a hurting humanity. But we understand that Jesus was not necessarily promising physical rest and peace, but an eternal and spiritual rest.
Jesus said to his disciples: "Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives" (John 14:27). Jesus did not promise his disciples a Promised Land of peace, plenty and security. In fact, in his last talk with the disciples before his arrest, Jesus told them they would have anything but physical rest. "I have told you these things," Jesus warned, "so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world" (John 16:33).
The promise to Israel had been peace, prosperity and rest in the Promised Land in exchange for obedience to the old covenant and Law of Moses. The New Testament "rest" is a rest in Christ. It is the promise of the indwelling Holy Spirit and a spiritual rebirth that leads to eternal life in the kingdom of God. This is the ultimate "rest" of God. God’s purpose in Genesis 2:2-3, not completely understood under the old covenant, is now revealed and fulfilled in its final sense through Christ.
Part 2: The book of Hebrews
This is explained in Hebrews 3:1-4:11, which speaks of something vital Christians share—the "heavenly calling" we have in Christ (3:1). It is in these verses that we learn what the "rest" of Genesis 2:2-3 pictures to Christians. The subject at hand in these verses begins to be addressed under the word "today" in Hebrews 3:7, when the writer quotes Psalm 95:7-11:
Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion, during the time of testing in the desert, where your fathers tested and tried me and for forty years saw what I did. That is why I was angry with that generation, and I said, "Their hearts are always going astray, and they have not known my ways." So I declared an oath in my anger, "They shall never enter my rest."
Psalm 95 refers to the wilderness story as told in Exodus 17:1-7 and Numbers 20:1-13. There are several things we should notice about this passage in Hebrews. The author focuses on the introductory word of the quotation, "today," and the phrase in which it is found. He repeats the word "today" five times (3:7, 13, 15; twice in 4:7) and the phrase, "Today, if you hear his voice do not harden your hearts" three times (3:7, 15; 4:7). The phrase with its opening word "today" is significant for the writer in that it allows him to apply the promise of "rest" found in the Scripture to his readers. William Lane discusses this point in the Word Biblical Commentary on Hebrews:
"Today" provided the writer with a catchword for bringing the biblical statement before his hearers sharply. "Today" is no longer the today of the past, surveyed by the psalmist in his situation, but the today of the present, which continues to be conditioned by the voice of God that speaks day after day through the Scriptures and in the gospel tradition [page 87].
Lane makes the point that Psalm 95 "was a prophetic announcement that God was determining a future date for making his rest available" (page 100). The writer of Hebrews insists that the prophecy is being fulfilled in his day, in the church—and his readers need to heed its call. He wants his readers to make a connection between themselves and the experience of the Israelites in the wilderness. The author emphasizes a key concept: The Old Testament promise that God’s people would enter into "rest" is being fulfilled in the church and through Christ.
He begins by discussing God’s "rest" in terms of the promise of God to bring the rescued Israelites into the Promised Land. But as we know, and as the Scripture points out, the first generation of freed Israelites did not enter God’s "rest," but they died in the wilderness (Numbers 14:26-35). The Israelites Moses led out of Egypt did not enter into God’s "rest." The author wants his Christian readers to focus on the meaning of this tragedy. They are not to turn away from the living God (3:12) or be "hardened by sin’s deceitfulness" (3:13). Rather, they are to "hold firmly till the end" their first confidence (3:14) so that they may enter into God’s "rest."
The writer summarizes his admonition by saying, "Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it" (4:1). The readers of Hebrews are encouraged to keep up their faith and hope in Christ. Otherwise, as the unbelieving Israelites in Moses’ day lost their opportunity to enter the rest in Canaan, the believers may forfeit the greater blessings of the new age "rest."
From the beginning
The author of Hebrews then turns to a discussion of God’s "rest" from another point of view. He says that this "rest"—whatever it is—has been available to humanity since the beginning: "His [God’s] work has been finished since the creation of the world. For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: ‘And on the seventh day God rested from all his work’" (4:3-4).
The "somewhere" is Genesis 2:2. In the days when Hebrews was written, the Scriptures were written on scrolls. It was much more difficult to look up specific passages, so writers often quoted passages from memory. But here is our familiar Scripture, and the one we sought to understand in terms of its meaning for Christians. We can understand the "rest" described in Genesis 2:2-3 as the archetype of all later experiences of rest—including the various rest commands given at Sinai, the actual physical rest Israel received from its enemies under Joshua (a type of Christ), and the promised future rest of the kingdom of God.
From a Christian perspective, the Genesis "rest" of God, applied to God’s creative purpose in Genesis 2:2, can be seen to typify the spiritual salvation of the people of God. That means the weekly Sabbath rest (along with the other rest commands in the Law of Moses) is a lesser expression—a shadow, as it were—of the true "rest" symbolically inaugurated at the seventh day of creation. This makes the weekly Sabbath a metaphor of the Genesis "rest" of God, as was the Canaan rest.
The idea of the Genesis rest is that, beginning with the seventh day of creation, God ceased creating. He continues in a state of nonwork so far as further creating things physical is concerned. However, this doesn’t mean God has been idle. Leon Morris points this out in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary on Hebrews:
It is worth noticing that in the creation story each of the first six days is marked by the refrain "And there was evening, and there was morning." However, this is lacking in the account of the seventh day. There we simply read that God rested from all his work. This does not mean that God entered a state of idleness, for there is a sense in which he is continually at work (John 5:17). But the completion of creation marks the end of a magnificent whole.... So we should think of the rest as something like the satisfaction that comes from accomplishment, from the completion of a task, from the exercise of creativity [page 41].
F.F. Bruce also explained what this means in the volume on Hebrews in The New International Commentary on the New Testament:
When we read that God "rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done" (Gen. 2:2), we are to understand that hebegan to rest then; the fact that he is never said to have completed his rest and resumed his work of creation implies that his rest continues still, and may be shared by those who respond to his overtures with faith and obedience [page 106].
Thus, God’s "rest" has been available from the time the creation was finished—from the foundation of the world. Even though it has been available, very few people entered into it before Jesus’ death and resurrection. The offer of entering this "rest" still stands. The writer of Hebrews makes this point by saying: "It still remains that some will enter that rest" (4:6). Whatever this "rest" is, the writer is emphasizing that it is—at the time of writing—a promise his readers can take advantage of. In fact, they must take advantage of it, and not fail to achieve the "rest" because of disobedience (4:11).
Joshua’s "rest"
The author of Hebrews must have realized as he wrote that, on the surface, there had been an apparent large-scale exception to his claim that no people had ever entered a "rest" of God. After all, the second generation of Israelites who were saved from Egypt did enter the Promised Land under Joshua. We read that under Joshua "the Lord had given Israel rest from all their enemies around them" (Joshua 23:1). But the writer of Hebrews quickly points out that this is not the kind of "rest" he has in mind, or one that constituted God’s ultimate objective—the "rest" promised to Christians. Hundreds of years after Joshua led the Israelites into the rest of the Promised Land, the Psalmist urged people to enter a divine rest, and later still, the author of Hebrews was insisting that there is a "rest" its readers must yet enter into. Clearly, there is more to the "rest" in question than mere entry into Canaan. Hebrews tells us: "For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day. There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God" (4:8-9).
As it turns out, Israel had not secured the true "rest" after all. Thus, the writer can exhort his readers to seek, obtain and hold on to this superior "rest" in Christ. This is the true "rest" to which Genesis 2:2-3, the literal Sabbath, the other festival rests, the Wilderness experience, the Joshua rest, and the prophecy of Psalm 95 all looked forward to. He is interested in the redemptive and eternal rest in the kingdom of God, of which the weekly Sabbath and Canaan rests were but symbols.
William Lane, in the Hebrews commentary in the Word Biblical Commentary, explains why the Joshua rest was but a type of the true "rest":
The settlement of Canaan did not mark the fulfillment of the divine promise but pointed to another, more fundamental reality. If in fact Joshua had achieved the promised rest, there would have been no need for the renewal of the promise in Ps 95. Accordingly, the experience of rest in Canaan was only a type or symbol of the complete rest that God intended for his people, which was prefigured in the Sabbath rest of God [page 101].
We have now come from Genesis 2:2-3 to Hebrews 4:9-11, and we see something interesting. The author is not telling his readers to keep a weekly seventh-day Sabbath holy by resting on it. He is not talking about the weekly Sabbath at all. Rather, he is making the point that there is a spiritual "rest" that God’s people should be entering into. It is the heavenly counterpart of the earthly Canaan, and this is the goal of the people of God today—to achieve this present and eternal rest. The epistle of Hebrews has made this point by creating an analogy between the Israelites entering the Promised Land and Christians entering the better promise of a new-covenant spiritual "rest."
A present "rest"?
The Promised Land was a physical type or foreshadowing of a spiritual "rest" that the Israelites had not yet entered. And the weekly Sabbath was a temporal foreshadowing of the spiritual "rest" that God wants his people to enjoy. Christians have entered God’s "rest" by their faith in Jesus Christ. "Now we who have believed enter [or, "are entering"] that rest," the writer insists (4:3). Christians have the real rest, the spiritual rest, and do not need to observe shadows of it, neither geographically nor temporally. Jesus himself during his ministry had promised a rest for the spirit:
Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls (Matthew 11:28-29).
Leon Morris points out in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary that the word for "enter" in Hebrews 4:3 is in the present tense. This would mean the author of Hebrews was suggesting that his readers were already in the process of entering the "rest" of salvation that Jesus had promised. Some commentators agree that the Hebrews 4:3 "rest" into which Christians have entered begins now, in this life. Leon Morris quotes Hugh Montefiore on this point:
Contrary to some commentators, the Greek means neither that they are certain to enter, nor that they will enter, but that they are already in process of entering [page 40].
In fairness, Morris points out that some other commentators feel that the "rest" is something that occurs in the future. The present tense used here, they insist, is meant to be applied only in a generalizing sense. Morris concludes by saying:
Either view is defensible and probably much depends on our idea of the "rest." If it lies beyond death, then obviously "rest" must be understood in terms of the future. But if it is a present reality, then believers are entering it now [page 40].
We enter now
The view of this paper is that Christians have begun to enter their spiritual "rest" now. We are receiving some of the blessings of salvation, even though we do not yet enjoy them in their fullness. Peter says that Christ "has given us a new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead" (1 Peter 1:3). Paul says God "has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves" (Colossians 1:13). The author of Hebrews says that we are "the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven" (12:23).
It is in part a question of how we understand when the kingdom of God comes—now or in the future? The answer is both. The kingdom is already, but not yet. There is a sense that the kingdom is both present and yet obviously only future in its full reality. Christians can be said to live in the tension between promise and fulfillment, between the already and the not yet, between the glimmer and the reality. But they have nevertheless entered the "rest," even if only in an imperfect and qualified way. The spiritual realities we already enjoy, although incomplete, are enough that we do not need to observe the physical symbols and rituals of the old covenant.
We have already been invited to enter God’s end-of-creation, the Genesis 2:2-3 "rest," by believing in the Son of God. By faith, we have joined with him in his "rest." By faith, we have become new creations—created anew. Our re-creation is not yet complete, but we already have been given entrance, through Christ, into God’s kingdom "rest."
The writer of Hebrews does not state how he views the time in which the "rest" takes place. His concern is with the spiritual reality, not the physical shadow. But as we’ve seen, his concern seems to be with the present time—with today. He no doubt understands that the fullness of rest comes only with a future resurrection (10:37-38; 12:26). But his point of view in Hebrews 3 and 4 is the present time, the time for which he is writing. The writer is thinking of the salvation "rest" as beginning in the present. Otherwise, one can be misled about which "rest" he is interested in—the spiritual one or a physical one such as the weekly Sabbath day.
One traditional commentary, the Critical, Experimental and Practical Commentary by Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, became confused on this issue and came (this paper concludes) to a wrong conclusion:
It is Jesus, the antitype of Joshua, who leads us into the heavenly rest. This verse [4:9] indirectly establishes the obligation of the Sabbath; for the type continues until the antitype supersedes it: so legal sacrifices continued till the great antitypical sacrifice superseded it. As then the antitypical Sabbath rest will not be till Christ comes to usher us into it, the typical earthly Sabbath must continue till then [page 537].
The authors, we believe, have erred. Influenced by the Puritans, they were thinking of a Sunday Sabbath, and reading their own opinions into the text. The principle they enunciate is erroneous. The type does not continue until the antitype supersedes it. Various Old Testament rituals pictured purity and holiness, and even though we do not yet see complete purity and holiness in the church, the rituals are obsolete. More correctly, types continue only as long as God says they do, and God has declared the old covenant obsolete. It has served its purpose, even though God’s plan is not yet complete. Moreover, true spiritual rest is found through faith in Christ, and Christ has already come. The antitype has arrived. Christ has already led us into the heavenly rest just as he is already our sacrifice for sin. We have come to Christ and he has given us rest—seated us in the heavenly realms (Ephesians 2:6). This argues against the commentary’s claim that the literal Sabbath is in force. The antitypical salvation rest has already been ushered in, albeit incompletely. Thus, the shadow (the literal Sabbath) is no longer required.
No matter how the writer of Hebrews conceives of the future "rest" in the post-resurrection kingdom of God, he is not concerned to discuss it in chapters 3 and 4. He is interested in his readers who are alive when he writes—and who need to take hold of the promise of spiritual "rest" in this age. F.F. Bruce agreed that the future rest is not in view here. He stated the following in his commentary on Hebrews in The New International Commentary on the New Testament:
The identification of the rest of God in the Epistle to the Hebrews with a coming millennium on earth has, indeed, been ably defended; but it involves the importation into the epistle of a concept which in fact is alien to it [pages 106-107].
The writer of Hebrews is not so much concerned with the future as with the present spiritual state of his readers. "Tomorrow," so to speak, is not in his view in the passage we are studying. That’s why he stresses the word "today." It was the privilege of the readers to enter God’s "rest" then—and it is our privilege to do so now. For us, today is "today," not some future time. The promise of entering God’s "rest" remains valid for each generation—and is repeated to each successive generation—in the church age.
Rest and work
Hebrews 4:9-11 is telling us we have entered into God’s promised "rest," the one he prophetically inaugurated on the seventh day of creation. This is the writer’s main theme. The epistle has already noted that God’s "work has been finished since the creation of the world" (4:3). That is, the "rest" of salvation has been offered and promised to humanity since the foundation of the world. It was, in a manner of speaking, a work of creation, inaugurated with humanity and for humanity. Donald Guthrie writes the following on this point:
What believers can now enter is none other than the same kind of rest which the Creator enjoyed when he had completed his works, which means that the rest idea is of completion and not of inactivity. . . .It is important to note that the "rest" is not something new that has not been known in experience until Christ came. It has been available throughout the whole of man’s history. This reference back to the creation places the idea on the broadest possible basis and would seem to suggest that it was part of God’s intention for man. "Rest" is a quality that has eluded man’s quest, and in fact cannot be attained except through Christ [Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, "Hebrews," page 113].
As long as we have faith in Christ—the main point of Hebrews—no matter what day of the week it is, we have entered God’s "rest" and we are resting from our own works. "We who have believed enter that rest. . . .Anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his" (4:3, 10). What does the author mean by "work"? He is not discussing the question of employment on the weekly Sabbath day. That is not his interest. (He has been encouraging his readers to enter the spiritual "rest" of salvation throughout Hebrews 3 and 4.) The writer of Hebrews wants his readers to stop putting their faith in the things that humans do, such as the works of the old covenant—and to place their faith in Christ as Savior. He wants them to look to the work of Christ, which gives forgiveness and empowerment through the Holy Spirit, allowing us to enter the true spiritual "rest."
In comparison to Christ, the writer has a low view of the "works" of the Law of Moses. He says of the Law in general and the Levitical priesthood as a whole:
The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced by which we draw near to God (7:18-19).
The author of Hebrews seems to be suggesting that the people to whom he wrote should rest from the ceremonial "work" they needed to do under the Mosaic Law. Their "work" in such things as offering sacrifices could not save nor endear them to God. They were saved by grace through faith in Christ, and were endeared to God by that same grace.
The weekly Sabbath?
The Jewish Christians or Gentile believers to whom Hebrews was written were already attracted to Judaistic practices. This is clear from reading the book. It was written to show the church why Judaistic practices were not necessary for Christians to perform. The individuals to whom the book was written would have already been observing the Sabbath day and would not need any admonishment to rest on this day. Even the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary understands this point. We find this explanation given for Hebrews 4:9 on page 423:
Certainly, in writing to Jews, the author of Hebrews would not consider it necessary to prove to them that Sabbathkeeping "remaineth." If the conclusion of the extended argument beginning with ch. 3:7 is that Sabbathkeeping remains for the people of God, it would seem that the writer of Hebrews is guilty of a non sequitur, for the conclusion does not follow logically from the argument. There would have been no point in so labored an effort to persuade the Jews to do what they were already doing—observing the seventh-day Sabbath. . . .What relationship a protracted argument designed to prove that Sabbath observance remains an obligation to the Christian church might have to the declared theme of chs. 3 and 4—the ministry of Christ as our great High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary—is obscure indeed.
The writer of Hebrews is interested in the spiritual or heavenly meaning of such things as the Sabbath and animal sacrifices, not their literal observances, which are shadows of the true "rest" and sacrifice for sin. In fact, the very Israelites who had been given the Sabbath (the generation that left Egypt) failed to enter God’s "rest." So did the Jews who strictly kept the Sabbath day when Hebrews was written. Keeping the Sabbath does not automatically bring someone to God. Why, then, would the writer of Hebrews insist on it? The fact is, the literal seventh-day Sabbath is not in his view at all.
The book of Hebrews, considered as a whole, tells us that the practices of the Mosaic Law are obsolete (7:11-12, 18-19). This would refer to the works or observances of the Law (of which the Sabbath is one example), as opposed to its great moral principles. These are eternal principles that define our relationship with God and fellow human beings. They precede the old covenant, were imbedded into that covenant, and remain as fundamental principles of the new covenant, which made the old passé.
The new covenant theme of Hebrews suggests—though it doesn’t directly make an issue of this—that the weekly Sabbath day as described in the old covenant has been superseded by a better promise. In particular, Hebrews 4:9-11 tells us that the various allusions of "rest" in the Old Testament, including Genesis 2:2-3 and the weekly Sabbath, picture a spiritual reality to Christians—the eternal rest of God. But that is all Hebrews tells us. It does not seem to address the issue of whether the weekly Sabbath should be kept or not. This is not the author’s interest.
In conclusion
Let us now close the circle between Genesis 2:2-3 and Hebrews 3:1-4:11. We have seen that God had given Israel physical rest in the Promised Land under the leadership of Joshua, just as Adam and Eve would have had physical "rest" in the Garden of Eden. But the first humans, like all others after them, sinned. Adam and Eve and their descendents were cursed and lost their "rest" until God saved Israel from slavery and the nation entered the Promised Land.
As part of its covenantal law, God gave Israel various rest days and years to commemorate their having achieved physical blessings (the "rest") in the Lord (Deuteronomy 5:15). The writer of Genesis saw this reality—which the rest days (especially the weekly Sabbath) commemorated—as a fulfillment of God’s original purpose at the creation. The writer included the statement about the symbolic meaning of the Sabbath (that is, about God’s "rest"—Exodus 20:11) in his description of the creation in Genesis 2:2-3. This was then a prophetical statement of God’s purpose of providing physical bounty to his human creatures, now fulfilled in Israel.
What the writer of Genesis did not clearly see, since he was an individual who lived under the old covenant, is that God’s real purpose was to provide humanity with another "rest"—a true eternal rest. This more fundamental purpose was fulfilled in Christ, and could be understood only after he had completed his redemptive work. Thus, Christ is the true Sabbath rest of Genesis 2:2-3—promised to us from the beginning (Matthew 25:34; Ephesians 1:4-6; Hebrews 4:3; Revelation 13:8). This is how the author of Hebrews (in 3:1-4:11) understands that "rest."
Thanks be to God that through his love he gave us his Son, allowing us in his mercy to begin to enter into his eternal rest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two Greek Words for "Rest"
We should briefly take up the issue of the Greek words for "rest" used in Hebrews 4:9-10. We quote here the verses in question and show the two Greek words being used: "There remains…a Sabbath-rest [sabbatismos] for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest [katapausin] also rests from his own work" (4:9-10).
A Greek-English interlinear of the New Testament shows that the Greek word katapausin is used to denote "rest" throughout Hebrews 3:7-4:11. There is one exception, in 4:9, as shown above. Here, sabbatismos is used, and it is translated "Sabbath-rest" in the New International Version. The word is formed from the verb sabbatizo, which means to "keep/observe/celebrate the Sabbath."
The only time in the Bible that sabbatismos is used is here in Hebrews 4:9. The word is not found in ancient Greek literature until well after the time when Hebrews was written. Some decades later, sabbatismos is found in Plutarch as part of a list of superstitious practices. In his work, the word signifies weekly Sabbath observance. In later Christian documents, sabbatismos sometimes indicates the celebration or festivity associated with the Sabbath day.
With this in mind, William Lane translates Hebrews 4:9 as: "There remains a Sabbath celebration for the people of God." He points out that the use ofsabbatismos is meant to "define more precisely the character of the future rest promised to the people of God" (Word Biblical Commentary, volume 47A, "Hebrews," page 101). The word conveyed something about the promised spiritual rest that katapausin would not have done—"the special aspect of festivity and joy, expressed in the adoration and praise of God" for his wonderful grace (page 102).
On one level, the writer of Hebrews seems to have used the two Greek words interchangeably. In 4:9, he says that a promised Sabbath-rest (sabbatismos) remains for the people of God to enter into, and this same rest is called God’s katapausin "rest." Some scholars suggest that the writer of Hebrews coined the word. He wanted to differentiate between the ultimate spiritual "rest" and the Promised Land rest into which Israel went. If so, the author may also have been making the same difference between the true spiritual "rest" and the weekly Sabbath rest. That is to say, the Sabbath day is a metaphor of the true rest in the same way that the Israelites entering the Promised Land under Joshua was also a metaphor for spiritual rest.
Since the seventh-day Sabbath is but a symbol of the true spiritual rest, the writer would have no logical reason to stress the keeping of the weekly Sabbath. Like the Promised Land, the Sabbath day itself was a shadow that prefigured the coming reality—the spiritual "rest" of the Christian in Christ.
To summarize: The spiritual rest of salvation into which God’s people are entering is a sabbatismos—a "sabbath keeping"—in the sense that it is a participation in God’s own "rest," which we enter by faith (4:3). "Anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his" (4:10). That is to say, the sabbatismos rest of God described in Hebrews 4:9 refers to the salvation "rest" into which all Christians have entered. Of course, as mentioned earlier, the culmination of this rest does not occur until the resurrection. But, upon conversion, we have begun the journey.
The weekly Old Testament Sabbath points to the blessing and joy of the spiritual "rest" Christians have in Christ. This may be why the author of Hebrews coined the word sabbatismos—making a play off the word for the Sabbath day (sabbaton). That is, sabbatismos stressed the joy, the celebration, the peace, the jubilation of the spiritual "rest" Christians enjoy. (We’ve put "rest" in quotes here because it does not really mean inactivity.)
Hebrews is not clear as to the writer’s attitude toward the weekly Sabbath day. Perhaps he wanted his readers, who were attracted to old covenant customs, to understand the Sabbath’s true meaning in the light of the Christ event , but without having to make an issue of whether it needs to be kept or not. This would certainly be in the spirit of Romans 14, in which the apostle Paul avoided making one’s view of "sacred days" a test or issue of faith or fellowship.
The Sabbath is meaningful on its own terms, just as the Festival of Tabernacles or the Passover-Exodus is. After all, the Sabbath stands as a metaphor of the whole purpose and meaning of redemption, as do the sacrifices and other old covenant, Mosaic institutions. They foreshadowed the true spiritual "rest" we have in Christ, which includes a "resting" in forgiveness of sin and "resting" from sin itself through the indwelling Holy Spirit.
But Hebrews 4:9 issues no command about keeping or not keeping the Sabbath. In fact, the book as a whole makes the point that all the old covenant institutions are obsolete now that the reality has come in Christ. The verse in question cannot be used as a proof-text to insist that Christians keep a weekly seventh-day Sabbath rest. The verses in question do not exhort us to keep an old covenant Sabbath, but they do admonish us to enter the spiritual "rest" of God by having faith in Christ.
1The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, volume 3, page 219, edited by Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider, gives the following explanation ofsabbatismos:
1. The NT offers in Hebrews 4:9 the oldest documentation of the noun sabbatismos, which occurs several times in post-NT early Christian writings independently of Hebrews 4:9 (e.g., Justin Dial. 23:3; Origen Orat. 27:16; Epiphanius Haer. xxx.2.2; lxvi 85:9;Acts (Martyrdom) of Peter and Paul 1; Apostolic Constitutions ii.36.2; pseudo-Macarius (Symeon) Homily 12.2.4.... At present,sabbatismos has been documented in non-Christian writings only in Plutarch Superst. 3 (Moralia 166a).
The noun is derived from the verb sabbatizo, which in the LXX [Septuagint] appears as the translation of Hebrew sabbat. The vb. means: a) "celebrate/observe the sabbath" (Exod 16:30; Lev 23:32; 2 Macc 6:6; so also Ign. Magn. 9:1; Pap. Oxy. 1,1.2; Justin Dial.10:1 and passim), b) "observe (sabbath) rest" (Lev 26:34f.; 2 Chr 36:21; 1 Esdr 1:55).
Accordingly, the substantive means sabbath observance (thus in the non-NT passages mentioned) and sabbath rest (thus the understanding of sabbatismos in Heb 4:9 by Origen Cels. v.59; Selecta in Exod on 16:23 [PG XII, 289b]).
2. In Heb 4:9 sabbatismos encompasses both sabbath rest and (cultic) sabbath observance. The word is neither identical in meaning nor interchangeable with katapausis (3:11, 19; 4:1, 3, 5, 10f); it designates more closely what the people of God should expect when they enter the katapausis of God (cf. 4:9 with v.6a). Just as God rested on the seventh day of creation from all his works, so also will believers find the eternal sabbath rest on the day of the completion of salvation in God’s "place of rest" (see 4:10). Quietistic or mystic elements have nothing to do with this expectation. The statement in Heb 4:9f. remains dependent on a Jewish sabbath theology that associates the idea of sabbath rest with ideas of worship and praise of God (Jub. 2:21; 50:9; Bib. Ant. 11:8; 2 Macc 8:27; cf. also 1 Enoch 41:7). Accordingly, the author of Hebrews understands by sabbatismos the eternal sabbath celebration of salvation, i.e., the perfected community’s worship before God's throne.
Samenvatting:
Sabbat werd aan Israel gegeven zodat ze Gods rust konden binnengaan ondanks de zondeval. De sabbath voorafschaduwde ook de rust in het beloofde land en de rust in Christus. Eenmaal in het beloofde land was de rust niet voltooid, ze waren immers nog niet volledig in Gods rust binnengegaan omdat Jezus nog niet gekomen was. Dankzij Jezus is de rust die verloren was na de zondeval volledig hersteld. ALs we Jezus aannemen gaan we Gods' rust binnen.
Hebreeers 4 roept niet op om de wekelijkse sabbat te vieren. Je moet het artikel zelf maar eventjes lezen.
Sabbat werd aan Israel gegeven zodat ze Gods rust konden binnengaan ondanks de zondeval. De sabbath voorafschaduwde ook de rust in het beloofde land en de rust in Christus. Eenmaal in het beloofde land was de rust niet voltooid, ze waren immers nog niet volledig in Gods rust binnengegaan omdat Jezus nog niet gekomen was. Dankzij Jezus is de rust die verloren was na de zondeval volledig hersteld. ALs we Jezus aannemen gaan we Gods' rust binnen.
Hebreeers 4 roept niet op om de wekelijkse sabbat te vieren. Je moet het artikel zelf maar eventjes lezen.
Ik ben bezig het te lezen maar het is een beetje teveel van het goede zo laat.quote:
Samenvatting:
Sabbat werd aan Israel gegeven zodat ze Gods rust konden binnengaan ondanks de zondeval. De sabbath voorafschaduwde ook de rust in het beloofde land en de rust in Christus. Eenmaal in het beloofde land was de rust niet voltooid, ze waren immers nog niet volledig in Gods rust binnengegaan omdat Jezus nog niet gekomen was. Dankzij Jezus is de rust die verloren was na de zondeval volledig hersteld. ALs we Jezus aannemen gaan we Gods' rust binnen.
Hebreeers 4 roept niet op om de wekelijkse sabbat te vieren. Je moet het artikel zelf maar eventjes lezen.
Je moet me echter nog steeds uitleggen waarom ik niet wekelijks de rust van de sabbat in zou willen gaan, zowel om te stoppen met werken en verfrist te worden, als om de hemelse rust nu al op aarde te ervaren, en als voorproef op de toekomst, ook om mn broers en zussen in Christus te zien en tijd met hen te besteden (die op dezelfde dag niet werken, zodat we elkaar niet constant mislopen), God aanbidden. Wat je me eigenlijk uit zou moeten leggen is, waarom zou God zo gemeen zijn geweest om de sabbat te schrappen?
Ik vind het lief van Hem dat hij mij gebiedt de sabbat te houden. Stel dat iemand van mij eist dat ik 7 dagen per week moet werken, dan kan ik op grond van de autoriteit van de God van het universum weigeren. En niets dat hij er tegen zal kunnen doen, God zal mij helpen.
[ Bericht 5% gewijzigd door Ali_Kannibali op 27-02-2013 00:27:28 ]
Het is bewonderingswaardig om een dag voor God opzij te zetten, maar niet binnen de sektarische context van het zevende-dags adventisme waarbij het vieren van de sabbat een voorwaarde is om gered te worden, waar niet-sabbatvierders naar de hel gaan, waarbij niet-adventisten worden beschouwd als Babyloniers etc. De sabbat was een rituele schaduw-wet die vervult is in Christus. Jezus is nu onze sabbat en hij is elke dag beschikbaar, 7 dagen per week.quote:
[..]
Ik ben bezig het te lezen maar het is een beetje teveel van het goede zo laat.
Je moet me echter nog steeds uitleggen waarom ik niet wekelijks de rust van de sabbat in zou willen gaan, zowel om te stoppen met werken en verfrist te worden, als om de hemelse rust nu al op aarde te ervaren, en als voorproef op de toekomst, ook om mn broers en zussen in Christus te zien en tijd met hen te besteden (die op dezelfde dag niet werken, zodat we elkaar niet constant mislopen), God aanbidden. Wat je me eigenlijk uit zou moeten leggen is, waarom zou God zo gemeen zijn geweest om de sabbat te schrappen?
Ik vind het lief van Hem dat hij mij gebiedt de sabbat te houden. Stel dat iemand van mij eist dat ik 7 dagen per week moet werken, dan kan ik op grond van de autoriteit van de God van het universum weigeren. En niets dat hij er tegen zal kunnen doen, God zal mij helpen.
Ik raad je van harte aan om je bij een evangelische kerk aan te sluiten, eventueel eentje die ook op sabbat diensten draait als je je daar prettig bij voelt.
Haha nee, want geen enkele andere kerk dan de ZDA is profetisch. Behalve de rooms katholieke kerk, maar we weten beide wie dat is.quote:
[..]
Het is bewonderingswaardig om een dag voor God opzij te zetten, maar niet binnen de sektarische context van het zevende-dags adventisme waarbij het vieren van de sabbat een voorwaarde is om gered te worden, waar niet-sabbatvierders naar de hel gaan, waarbij niet-adventisten worden beschouwd als Babyloniers etc. De sabbat was een rituele schaduw-wet die vervult is in Christus. Jezus is nu onze sabbat en hij is elke dag beschikbaar, 7 dagen per week.
Ik raad je van harte aan om je bij een evangelische kerk aan te sluiten, eventueel eentje die ook op sabbat diensten draait als je je daar prettig bij voelt.
Dus nee, ik blijf bij ZDA.
De schaduw van de sabbat is inderdaad vervuld in Christus.
De nieuwe betekenis van de sabbat is dan de rust door recreatie in Christus en de toekomstige hemelse rust.
Ik vind er niets bewonderenswaardigs aan om een dag opzij te zetten voor God. Ik zou niet weten hoe ik het leven door zou moeten komen zonder.
Ik heb ook een interessant en lang artikel.
The Gospels—Jesus and the Sabbath
Jesus' most memorable teaching about the Sabbath came in the context of controversy. Sampey remarked,
It is worthy of note that, while Jesus pushed the moral precepts of the
Decalogue into the inner realm of thought and desire, thus making the
requirement more difficult and the law more exacting, He fought for a
more liberal and lenient interpretation of the law of the Sabbath.
Rigorous sabbatarians must look elsewhere for a champion of their
views.309
This may be so, particularly in reference to the many regulations which had been added to the Sabbath law in the various rabbinic traditions. And "while none of [Jesus'] actions clearly infringes the written law, the non-emergency healings of Jesus certainly 'stretch' it."310 But Jesus' comparative "leniency" with regard to the Sabbath must be understood within its proper framework.
In Matthew 12:1-8 (cf. Mark 2:23-28; and Luke 6:1-5), Jesus comes under attack for his disciples' actions. On a Sabbath day, while walking along the edge of a grainfield, the disciples plucked some of the heads of grain to eat. Luke adds the detail that the disciples were rubbing the grain in their hands (6:1), doubtless to winnow away the chaff. The Pharisees were aghast, and since it was Jesus' disciples who had done this, the Pharisees rightly assumed that it was with Jesus' approval; implicitly, they accused Jesus of contravening the Mosaic law. Moses specifically allowed one to take of his neighbor's grain by hand (Deut. 23:25), but harvesting on the Sabbath was specifically forbidden (Exod. 34:21). Further, the Pharisees may well have perceived the disciples' "rubbing out of the grain as threshing and their blowing away of the chaff as winnowing."311 It is significant also that the charge was never brought against Jesus or his disciples formally; it evidently would not have stood even in their own religious court.312 The disciples' actions were hardly what was in view in the Mosaic prohibition.
What first strikes us about Jesus' response is that he does not answer on these grounds. He does not argue that they have over-extended Moses, however accurate such an argument would have been. Instead, he argues from 1 Samuel 21:1-6 that he constitutes an exceptional case.313 David and his soldiers, during their flight from King Saul, took and ate the showbread in the house of God. This action constituted a violation of the law; the consecrated bread was to be eaten by the priests only (Lev. 24:5-9). Yet David, when hungry and in need, allowed—demanded—this exception from the priest, and that on the Sabbath day.314 So Jesus' opponents are faced with a dilemma: they must choose between their traditions and interpretations of the law on the one hand, and David their great and revered king on the other. In opting for David, they would thereby exonerate the activities of Jesus' disciples, whom they have already pronounced guilty, and implicitly acknowledge the narrowness of their own teachers. The conclusion was an obvious one, however difficult it would have been for them to admit it.
The justification for the actions of David and his men, and by extension, the actions of Jesus' disciples, is still unexplained. Jesus makes mention of David's hunger, thus demonstrating a parallel situation. David "needed" (chreian eschen) to eat, and so now do Jesus' disciples. But this is not the point at issue, really, for unlike David's men, the disciples of Jesus were not hungry to the point of exhaustion. David's was an extreme case; not so for the disciples of Jesus. By implication Jesus lends some insight into the nature of the Sabbath law itself. If the Sabbath were, as is often assumed, a part of God's "unchangeable moral law," it would be very difficult indeed to admit such an exception as this, especially given that this is an exception grounded in human concerns.315 Jesus does not classify the Sabbath as unchanging moral law, and this brought him into conflict with the Pharisees. The Sabbath was not an end in itself, an absolute that admitted no exceptions. "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27). It was intended for man's benefit, his well-being. To elevate it to a place of tyranny over man is to make more of it than was intended; indeed, it would overthrow it altogether.316
More to the point, it is Jesus who possesses the authority to decide these things—he is "Lord, even [ascensive kai] of the Sabbath" (Matt. 12:8). "As lord of the sabbath he stands above the law and implicitly claims the right to define it . . . . It is the Son of Man who decides what is and what is not acceptable behavior on the sabbath."317 That is, the question is not so much Jesus' relation to the Sabbath but its relation to him. As B. B. Warfield stated, "It [the Sabbath] belongs to him. He is the Lord of it; master of it—for that is what 'Lord' means. He may do with it what he will: abolish it if he chooses."318 Jesus "continually subordinates the Sabbath to the demands of His own mission."319 It is not so much a question of the extent of Sabbath regulations but of Jesus' lordship. In the words of Plummer, "The Son of man controls the sabbath, not is controlled by it."320 This is the point at issue, and this is the high point of Jesus' defense (hoste, Mark 2:28 321). If David had the right to make an exception to Israel's ceremonial laws, Jesus has more. Jesus' defense claims the highest possible ground: he has an authority that surpasses even the Sabbath itself. His greatness gives certain rights to his disciples: they may pluck this grain and eat, even on this day of rest.
As a second illustration of his point, Jesus continues, "'Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?'" (Matt. 12:5). The priests continue their work on the Sabbath; indeed, on the Sabbath they are busier than on any other day! But this does not "profane" the Sabbath, for (it is implied) the temple takes precedence over the Sabbath. Again, Jesus claims higher ground—"in this place there is One greater than the temple'" (v. 6). Jesus' rights surpass not only those of the priests but even the temple itself. He is greater. He is greater than David, greater than Jonah (v. 41), greater than Solomon (v. 42), greater than the temple (v. 6), and greater than even the Sabbath (v. 8). Jesus justifies his disciples' actions on the ground of his unsurpassed lordship.322 "This does not mean that Jesus here actually breaks the Sabbath or overrides it, at least a far as Torah is concerned, but it does mean He claims authority to do so, and in a sense questions the Pharisees' right to question Him."323
Jesus only hints here that the Sabbath is being transformed. Some significant change is taking place. He does not specify exactly what that change is, but it is impossible to think that his lordship over the Sabbath will not be exercised in some way. A claim to authority over the Sabbath demands definition. Accordingly, there are some contextual clues as to what changes the Sabbath would undergo. In the preceding paragraph, Jesus offers "rest" to those who are weary (Matt. 11:28), and it is in connection with this ("at that time," 12:1) that Jesus asserts his lordship over the Sabbath. Matthew seems to imply that the "rest" which Jesus offers is that to which the Sabbath pointed. Here, in Jesus, the Sabbath finds its true meaning. Mark casts this incident more explicitly in redemptive-historical terms. The question of fasting was used to show something of the epochal significance of Jesus' person and presence on earth and the newness of this Messianic age (2:18-22—the question of fasting, the new cloth, the new wineskin). The epochal shift marked by the coming of Jesus Christ had ramifications even in regard to the Sabbath day and how it is to be observed in this age. The Lord Jesus has ushered in an age in which God's promised rest is realized. The fuller details of this await the apostolic writings (see below), but our Lord himself here lays the groundwork for that teaching. The statement, as it is, neither confirms nor disallows the continuation of Sabbath observance, in explicit terms. But it emphatically affirms Jesus' inherent right to do with the law as he pleases, and so the foundation for an epochal change is clearly implied. The arrival of God the Son has forever changed the whole significance of the Sabbath day. He has brought about that which it only anticipated.
It was most often Jesus' works of healing on the Sabbath that gave rise to controversy (e.g., Matt. 12:8-14/Mark3:1-6/Luke 6:6-11; 13:10; 14:1-6; John 9:1-41). Brown asserts that Jesus "went out of his way to heal on the Sabbath," but he offers no explicit support.324 He does note later that Jesus intends by his Sabbath healings to demonstrate his lordship over the day, and this may lend some weight to the point. Jesus remarked that it was "necessary" (dei) for the woman with the spirit of infirmity to be healed on the Sabbath, and Moo concludes from this that "Jesus regarded the day as a particularly appropriate time for his ministry of healing."325 It would seem, then, that Jesus' Sabbath healings are designed to illustrate the rest and relase from Satanic "bondage" (Luke 13:16) that Jesus brought and which is typified in the Sabbath. Jesus' emphasis in these passages, however, generally falls on the harshness of the rabbinic Sabbath regulations and the appropriateness of doing good on any day of the week, Sabbath included.
In John 5:1-18, however, there is a further twist. Jesus' emphasis here is similar to that of Matthew 12:1-8 (and parallels)—it is his inherent right to determine what is good on the Sabbath. "'My Father has been working until now, and I have been working'" (John 5:17). Moreover, his superior authority affects not only his own behavior on the Sabbath, but also that of others (namely, the man whom Jesus commanded to rise and carry his pallet). Beyond that, the illustrative function of his healings is something Jesus himself notes. This particular sickness was evidently due to sin (v. 14), and thus "this Sabbath cure is more directly related to the soteriological work for which the Lamb of God came into the world (1:29)."326 This is both Jesus' and his Father's "work"—a work which they had been at for some time. Presumably, this statement—"'My Father has been working until now, and I have been working'" (John 5:17)—points back to mankind's fall into sin and Genesis 3:15 and the work of redemption/rest which God then took up. It also presupposes a soteriological/eschatological view of Genesis 2:2-3.327 This is the Father's work which Jesus has come to do (John 4:34: 9:4), and it is a work of redemption (John 6:37-40). "Until now" seems to imply that the work is soon coming to completion; this Jesus affirms later—the work will be "finished" when he dies on the cross (John 19:30; cf. 17:4). With these connections in place we have clearer indication of the meaning of the Sabbath—it pointed to a finished work of God in providing redemptive rest for his people through the death of his Son.
Hebrews—Entering into Rest
Hebrews 3:7 - 4:13 confirms that our tracking of this theme has been on the right lines. First, the inspired writer explicitly connects the rest which we enjoy by faith in Christ (4:2, 6), with God's creation rest (vv. 3-4), with the rest of the land under Joshua (v. 5), and with the rest of the Sabbath (sabbatismos, v. 9). For the writer to the Hebrews, this observation arises from a simple chronological reading of the Bible. He notes that in Psalm 95:7b-11, the psalmist invites the people of his day to partake of that rest which that first wilderness generation forfeited because of rebellion and unbelief. He further notes that the psalmist inserts the word "today." From this, he reasons that since in the day of the psalmist (tenth century B.C.) God's rest was still available, then clearly Joshua's rest, although of a piece with it, did not exhaust it (v. 6). He further concludes that this offer of Sabbath-rest (sabbatismos, v. 9) "remains" for us "today." In calling the creation rest a "Sabbath-rest" (v. 9) he links together the ideas of creation rest, the Sabbath day, the rest of Canaan, and the soteric rest that is yet available.
There are indicators that this rest involves still more, a future blessing of which all these have been but a preview.328 This rest "remains" for the people of God (v. 9). This rest is that of Genesis 2:3 (v. 9); that is, it is the final goal for which history was created. Verse 11 also hints of the believer's prospect of rest—"Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience." The concept is an eschatological one, and all these previous "rests" are but pointers and samples of it.329 The point is that this rest is available "today," for those who believe (v. 2) and "cease from their works" (v. 10). So the writer to the Hebrews, like the psalmist, extends the same invitation along with the same warning—"The gospel is preached to you, and this rest is available; be careful that you do not miss it by unbelief as they did." All this is to say that the creation Sabbath portrays a rest which God intended to share with redeemed mankind; all Sabbaths and "rests" since have been in view of this. "Today" the rest of salvation—yes, the rest of the eschaton—is available to those who cease from works and believe.
NP,
Ik vind deze video ook wel interessant. Ik heb tot nog toe niet veel tijd besteed aan het doorgronden van de archeologische vondsten omtrent de bijbel.
[youtube][/youtube]
Ik vind deze video ook wel interessant. Ik heb tot nog toe niet veel tijd besteed aan het doorgronden van de archeologische vondsten omtrent de bijbel.
[youtube][/youtube]
Sommigen leren idd een nieuwe-covenant sabbath, ik ben meer een aanhanger van de nieuwe-covenant theologie waarbij het sabbatsgebod is afgeschaft. Maar een nieuw-covenant sabbat is in ieder geval stukken beter dan de wettistische zda-sabbat.
Wat doe je met deze tekst?
15 Want ziet, de HEERE zal met vuur komen, en Zijn wagenen als een wervelwind; om met grimmigheid Zijn toorn hiertoe te wenden, en Zijn schelding met vuurvlammen.
16 Want met vuur, en met Zijn zwaard zal de HEERE in het recht treden met alle vlees; en de verslagenen des HEEREN zullen vermenigvuldigd zijn.
17 Die zichzelven heiligen, en zichzelven reinigen in de hoven, achter een in het midden derzelve, die zwijnenvlees eten, en verfoeisel, en muizen; te zamen zullen zij verteerd worden, spreekt de HEERE.
18 Hun werken en hun gedachten! Het komt, dat Ik vergaderen zal alle heidenen en tongen, en zij zullen komen, en zij zullen Mijn heerlijkheid zien.
19 En Ik zal een teken aan hen zetten, en uit hen, die het ontkomen zullen zijn, zal Ik zenden tot de heidenen naar Tarsis, Pul, en Lud, de boogschutters, naar Tubal en Javan, tot de ver gelegen eilanden, die Mijn gerucht niet gehoord, noch Mijn heerlijkheid gezien hebben; en zij zullen Mijn heerlijkheid onder de heidenen verkondigen.
20 En zij zullen al uw broeders uit alle heidenen den HEERE ten spijsoffer brengen, op paarden, en op wagenen, en op rosbaren, en op muildieren, en op snelle lopers, naar Mijn heiligen berg toe, naar Jeruzalem, zegt de HEERE, gelijk als de kinderen Israëls het spijsoffer in een rein vat brengen ten huize des HEEREN.
21 En ook zal Ik uit dezelve enigen tot priesters en tot Levieten nemen, zegt de HEERE.
22 Want gelijk als die nieuwe hemel en die nieuwe aarde, die Ik maken zal, voor Mijn aangezicht zullen staan, spreekt de HEERE, alzo zal ook ulieder zaad en ulieder naam staan.
23 En het zal geschieden, dat van de ene nieuwe maan tot de andere, en van den enen sabbat tot den anderen, alle vlees komen zal om aan te bidden voor Mijn aangezicht, zegt de HEERE.
24 En zij zullen henen uitgaan, en zij zullen de dode lichamen der lieden zien, die tegen Mij overtreden hebben; want hun worm zal niet sterven, en hun vuur zal niet uitgeblust worden, en zij zullen allen vlees een afgrijzing wezen. Jesaja 66
Als we in de nieuwe hemel en nieuwe aarde sabbat vieren, waarom zou God vandaag de dag niet willen dat we het doen?
De kwestie is overigens niet of je alleen op de sabbat of 7 dagen per week de rust van Christus kan ervaren. Dat is 7 dagen per week.
Desondanks moeten we nog steeds ploeteren om brood op de plank te krijgen, de effecten van de zondeval zijn nog niet verdwenen. Zou God ons daar geen rust van willen geven om een feestdag te hebben met Hem en onze broers en zussen?
En leg nu voor eenmaal niet de focus op mij die een dag aan God wijdt, maar blijf bij het feit dat God een dag voor ons toegewijd heeft.
[ Bericht 2% gewijzigd door Ali_Kannibali op 27-02-2013 01:08:51 ]
15 Want ziet, de HEERE zal met vuur komen, en Zijn wagenen als een wervelwind; om met grimmigheid Zijn toorn hiertoe te wenden, en Zijn schelding met vuurvlammen.
16 Want met vuur, en met Zijn zwaard zal de HEERE in het recht treden met alle vlees; en de verslagenen des HEEREN zullen vermenigvuldigd zijn.
17 Die zichzelven heiligen, en zichzelven reinigen in de hoven, achter een in het midden derzelve, die zwijnenvlees eten, en verfoeisel, en muizen; te zamen zullen zij verteerd worden, spreekt de HEERE.
18 Hun werken en hun gedachten! Het komt, dat Ik vergaderen zal alle heidenen en tongen, en zij zullen komen, en zij zullen Mijn heerlijkheid zien.
19 En Ik zal een teken aan hen zetten, en uit hen, die het ontkomen zullen zijn, zal Ik zenden tot de heidenen naar Tarsis, Pul, en Lud, de boogschutters, naar Tubal en Javan, tot de ver gelegen eilanden, die Mijn gerucht niet gehoord, noch Mijn heerlijkheid gezien hebben; en zij zullen Mijn heerlijkheid onder de heidenen verkondigen.
20 En zij zullen al uw broeders uit alle heidenen den HEERE ten spijsoffer brengen, op paarden, en op wagenen, en op rosbaren, en op muildieren, en op snelle lopers, naar Mijn heiligen berg toe, naar Jeruzalem, zegt de HEERE, gelijk als de kinderen Israëls het spijsoffer in een rein vat brengen ten huize des HEEREN.
21 En ook zal Ik uit dezelve enigen tot priesters en tot Levieten nemen, zegt de HEERE.
22 Want gelijk als die nieuwe hemel en die nieuwe aarde, die Ik maken zal, voor Mijn aangezicht zullen staan, spreekt de HEERE, alzo zal ook ulieder zaad en ulieder naam staan.
23 En het zal geschieden, dat van de ene nieuwe maan tot de andere, en van den enen sabbat tot den anderen, alle vlees komen zal om aan te bidden voor Mijn aangezicht, zegt de HEERE.
24 En zij zullen henen uitgaan, en zij zullen de dode lichamen der lieden zien, die tegen Mij overtreden hebben; want hun worm zal niet sterven, en hun vuur zal niet uitgeblust worden, en zij zullen allen vlees een afgrijzing wezen. Jesaja 66
Als we in de nieuwe hemel en nieuwe aarde sabbat vieren, waarom zou God vandaag de dag niet willen dat we het doen?
De kwestie is overigens niet of je alleen op de sabbat of 7 dagen per week de rust van Christus kan ervaren. Dat is 7 dagen per week.
Desondanks moeten we nog steeds ploeteren om brood op de plank te krijgen, de effecten van de zondeval zijn nog niet verdwenen. Zou God ons daar geen rust van willen geven om een feestdag te hebben met Hem en onze broers en zussen?
En leg nu voor eenmaal niet de focus op mij die een dag aan God wijdt, maar blijf bij het feit dat God een dag voor ons toegewijd heeft.
[ Bericht 2% gewijzigd door Ali_Kannibali op 27-02-2013 01:08:51 ]
Isaiah, 66:22-23, does not indicate that New Covenant Christians will be keeping the Old Covenant 7th day Sabbath. Isaiah is an Old Covenant prophet describing things in Old Covenant terms that he and his immediate audience would easily understand. Thus he writes that in the New World the bondage of the past in Babylon will be forgotten. They will be full of joy. Babies will not die shortly after birth. Righteous adults will live long lives. They will no longer be slaves so that they will build homes and farm for themselves not harsh Babylonian masters. Their God will never abandon them as it seemed He did during the Babylonian Captivity. A great peace will envelop the people, and even the animals will live in peace with one another. Their God will be worshipped in Jerusalem by all people. This prophecy is not to be taken literally. Note that it is in earthly terms-Old Covenant terms. If we take this prophecy as literal we are presented with several problems concerning it vision of the New World.quote:
Wat doe je met deze tekst?
15 Want ziet, de HEERE zal met vuur komen, en Zijn wagenen als een wervelwind; om met grimmigheid Zijn toorn hiertoe te wenden, en Zijn schelding met vuurvlammen.
16 Want met vuur, en met Zijn zwaard zal de HEERE in het recht treden met alle vlees; en de verslagenen des HEEREN zullen vermenigvuldigd zijn.
17 Die zichzelven heiligen, en zichzelven reinigen in de hoven, achter een in het midden derzelve, die zwijnenvlees eten, en verfoeisel, en muizen; te zamen zullen zij verteerd worden, spreekt de HEERE.
18 Hun werken en hun gedachten! Het komt, dat Ik vergaderen zal alle heidenen en tongen, en zij zullen komen, en zij zullen Mijn heerlijkheid zien.
19 En Ik zal een teken aan hen zetten, en uit hen, die het ontkomen zullen zijn, zal Ik zenden tot de heidenen naar Tarsis, Pul, en Lud, de boogschutters, naar Tubal en Javan, tot de ver gelegen eilanden, die Mijn gerucht niet gehoord, noch Mijn heerlijkheid gezien hebben; en zij zullen Mijn heerlijkheid onder de heidenen verkondigen.
20 En zij zullen al uw broeders uit alle heidenen den HEERE ten spijsoffer brengen, op paarden, en op wagenen, en op rosbaren, en op muildieren, en op snelle lopers, naar Mijn heiligen berg toe, naar Jeruzalem, zegt de HEERE, gelijk als de kinderen Israëls het spijsoffer in een rein vat brengen ten huize des HEEREN.
21 En ook zal Ik uit dezelve enigen tot priesters en tot Levieten nemen, zegt de HEERE.
22 Want gelijk als die nieuwe hemel en die nieuwe aarde, die Ik maken zal, voor Mijn aangezicht zullen staan, spreekt de HEERE, alzo zal ook ulieder zaad en ulieder naam staan.
23 En het zal geschieden, dat van de ene nieuwe maan tot de andere, en van den enen sabbat tot den anderen, alle vlees komen zal om aan te bidden voor Mijn aangezicht, zegt de HEERE.
24 En zij zullen henen uitgaan, en zij zullen de dode lichamen der lieden zien, die tegen Mij overtreden hebben; want hun worm zal niet sterven, en hun vuur zal niet uitgeblust worden, en zij zullen allen vlees een afgrijzing wezen. Jesaja 66
Als we in de nieuwe hemel en nieuwe aarde sabbat vieren, waarom zou God vandaag de dag niet willen dat we het doen?
De kwestie is overigens niet of je alleen op de sabbat of 7 dagen per week de rust van Christus kan ervaren. Dat is 7 dagen per week.
Desondanks moeten we nog steeds ploeteren om brood op de plank te krijgen, de effecten van de zondeval zijn nog niet verdwenen. Zou God ons daar geen rust van willen geven om een feestdag te hebben met Hem en onze broers en zussen?
En leg nu voor eenmaal niet de focus op mij die een dag aan God wijdt, maar blijf bij het feit dat God een dag voor ons toegewijd heeft.
1) Women will continue to have babies (65:20, 23; cf. Matthew 22:30).
2) The righteous will still die (65:20; cf. Revelation 21:4).
3) The Levitical priesthood will be resurrected (66:21; cf. Hebrews 7:11-28; 8:13; 10:9-12).
4) New moons and Sabbaths will be celebrated (66:23; cf. Galatians 4:8-11; Ephesians 2:14-16; Colossians 2:14-17; Hebrews 8:13; 10:9).
5) Corpses will decorate Isaiah’s New World (66:24).
Now let’s look at v. 23. “From one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, all mankind shall come to worship before me, says the Lord.” Firstly, even if we are to celebrate new moons and Sabbaths in the New World, it does not follow that we must celebrate them now. Secondly, is “Sabbath” only the 7th day Sabbath or all the Sabbaths of the Jews? Thirdly, if we are to literally keep the 7th day Sabbath, then to be honest we must also keep new moon feasts. Fourthly, this verse does not say that we will be keeping new moon feasts or Sabbath days. “From one new moon to another…” is a way of saying “continually”. This language points to a continual event not a periodic one. Let me give an example to illustrate this. If I said, “From one Saturday to another I wait for my favorite TV show.” Would that mean that I only waited on Saturday? Or would it mean that I waited continually all week long? Isaiah is saying that we will be worshipping the Lord continually not just on one day a week (see Revelation 4:6-11). Is this not what God wants? Doesn’t He want us to be with Him always?
Another Scripture that uses very similar language is Malachi 1:11. This passage sheds great light on the meaning of “from one Sabbath to another”. We read, “For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations…” (NASB). Does God mean that His name shall be great only when the sun is rising and then again later when it is setting? Of course not, this is a silly understanding of the passage and it is just as silly to interpret Isaiah 66:23 in a like manner. Both passages are obviously speaking of continual worship. The SDA has conveniently overlooked this passage while speaking of letting Scripture interpret Scripture.
Supporting my belief in continual worship is the Book of Revelation. We must recall that under the Old Covenant Isaiah did not have the full revelation. This would only become available with the coming of Christ (see Hebrews 1:1-2). In Revelation we are given a vision of the New Heavens and the New Earth, but in a much fuller form than Isaiah was given. In this revelation we hear nothing about new moon feasts or of Sabbath-keeping in the New World (see ch.21). In this vision we are to be continually with our God. “And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God’”.
(21:3 NIV).
The plain truth is that the SDA church is simply misusing a passage in a vain attempt to support their false belief. As already shown they completely ignore all the things that Isaiah speaks of as being in the New World. Then they grasp at straws when Isaiah uses the word “Sabbath”. Then they, despite a complete lack of evidence, say that we must all keep the Sabbath day. Although Isaiah never explicitly says that all people must keep the Sabbath in the New World, the SDA says that he implies it. We do have a prophet that does explicitly say that all people must keep a Jewish feast day in the New World, but it is not the prophet Isaiah and it is not the Sabbath.
After God brings Jerusalem to victory over the nations the prophet Zechariah says, “Then it will come about that any who are left of all the nations that went against Jerusalem will go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to celebrate the Feast of Booths”
(Zechariah 14:16 NASB). Unlike the passage in Isaiah, Zechariah explicitly states that all peoples will be required to celebrate the feast of Booths also called Tabernacles. He further states that if they do not they will be punished by God with plagues (v. 18). “This will be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all the nations who do not go up to celebrate the feast of Booths” (v. 19 NASB). Of course the SDA ignores this explicit passage because it does not mention the Sabbath day. So we see that it is only an SDA out-of- context reading that can produce a Sabbath-keeping passage out of Isaiah 66:23.
Nee, ik heb het dan ook niet over de inhoud, maar de bron van die inhoud. Het is totaal niet rationeel of logisch om één dergelijke bron als antwoord op die vragen te gebruiken. Er zijn over de eeuwen heen diverse bronnen beschreven met evenveel onderbouwing als de bijbel.quote:
[..]
Laat ik het zo stellen, vanuit mijn optiek geeft de bijbel de meest logische antwoorden op alle levensvragen. Iedereen moet dat natuurlijk voor zichzelf uitzoeken of hij of zij ook zo denkt.
Question authorities, fuck religion, educate yourself, Viva el individualismo!
There's only one way of life, and that's your own!
There's only one way of life, and that's your own!
Goed, toegegeven deze passage kan je ook anders interpreteren.quote:
[..]
Isaiah, 66:22-23, does not indicate that New Covenant Christians will be keeping the Old Covenant 7th day Sabbath. Isaiah is an Old Covenant prophet describing things in Old Covenant terms that he and his immediate audience would easily understand. Thus he writes that in the New World the bondage of the past in Babylon will be forgotten. They will be full of joy. Babies will not die shortly after birth. Righteous adults will live long lives. They will no longer be slaves so that they will build homes and farm for themselves not harsh Babylonian masters. Their God will never abandon them as it seemed He did during the Babylonian Captivity. A great peace will envelop the people, and even the animals will live in peace with one another. Their God will be worshipped in Jerusalem by all people. This prophecy is not to be taken literally. Note that it is in earthly terms-Old Covenant terms. If we take this prophecy as literal we are presented with several problems concerning it vision of the New World.
1) Women will continue to have babies (65:20, 23; cf. Matthew 22:30).
2) The righteous will still die (65:20; cf. Revelation 21:4).
3) The Levitical priesthood will be resurrected (66:21; cf. Hebrews 7:11-28; 8:13; 10:9-12).
4) New moons and Sabbaths will be celebrated (66:23; cf. Galatians 4:8-11; Ephesians 2:14-16; Colossians 2:14-17; Hebrews 8:13; 10:9).
5) Corpses will decorate Isaiah’s New World (66:24).
Now let’s look at v. 23. “From one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, all mankind shall come to worship before me, says the Lord.” Firstly, even if we are to celebrate new moons and Sabbaths in the New World, it does not follow that we must celebrate them now. Secondly, is “Sabbath” only the 7th day Sabbath or all the Sabbaths of the Jews? Thirdly, if we are to literally keep the 7th day Sabbath, then to be honest we must also keep new moon feasts. Fourthly, this verse does not say that we will be keeping new moon feasts or Sabbath days. “From one new moon to another…” is a way of saying “continually”. This language points to a continual event not a periodic one. Let me give an example to illustrate this. If I said, “From one Saturday to another I wait for my favorite TV show.” Would that mean that I only waited on Saturday? Or would it mean that I waited continually all week long? Isaiah is saying that we will be worshipping the Lord continually not just on one day a week (see Revelation 4:6-11). Is this not what God wants? Doesn’t He want us to be with Him always?
Another Scripture that uses very similar language is Malachi 1:11. This passage sheds great light on the meaning of “from one Sabbath to another”. We read, “For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations…” (NASB). Does God mean that His name shall be great only when the sun is rising and then again later when it is setting? Of course not, this is a silly understanding of the passage and it is just as silly to interpret Isaiah 66:23 in a like manner. Both passages are obviously speaking of continual worship. The SDA has conveniently overlooked this passage while speaking of letting Scripture interpret Scripture.
Supporting my belief in continual worship is the Book of Revelation. We must recall that under the Old Covenant Isaiah did not have the full revelation. This would only become available with the coming of Christ (see Hebrews 1:1-2). In Revelation we are given a vision of the New Heavens and the New Earth, but in a much fuller form than Isaiah was given. In this revelation we hear nothing about new moon feasts or of Sabbath-keeping in the New World (see ch.21). In this vision we are to be continually with our God. “And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God’”.
(21:3 NIV).
The plain truth is that the SDA church is simply misusing a passage in a vain attempt to support their false belief. As already shown they completely ignore all the things that Isaiah speaks of as being in the New World. Then they grasp at straws when Isaiah uses the word “Sabbath”. Then they, despite a complete lack of evidence, say that we must all keep the Sabbath day. Although Isaiah never explicitly says that all people must keep the Sabbath in the New World, the SDA says that he implies it. We do have a prophet that does explicitly say that all people must keep a Jewish feast day in the New World, but it is not the prophet Isaiah and it is not the Sabbath.
After God brings Jerusalem to victory over the nations the prophet Zechariah says, “Then it will come about that any who are left of all the nations that went against Jerusalem will go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to celebrate the Feast of Booths”
(Zechariah 14:16 NASB). Unlike the passage in Isaiah, Zechariah explicitly states that all peoples will be required to celebrate the feast of Booths also called Tabernacles. He further states that if they do not they will be punished by God with plagues (v. 18). “This will be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all the nations who do not go up to celebrate the feast of Booths” (v. 19 NASB). Of course the SDA ignores this explicit passage because it does not mention the Sabbath day. So we see that it is only an SDA out-of- context reading that can produce a Sabbath-keeping passage out of Isaiah 66:23.
Wat me steeds geneert in je literatuur is dat het vandaag nog steeds houden van de sabbat (tezamen met de rest van die tien geboden) steeds beschouwd wordt als een middel om rechtvaardig te worden terwijl dat geheel niet het geval is.
Of men zegt je MOET bewaren want je bent onder de wet. Dat is een mengelmoes van termen en concepten die een verkeerde indruk geven van hoe de zaken daadwerkelijk gezien worden.
En nee, ook ZDA zegt niet dat je door het houden van de wet gerechtvaardigd wordt.
It is the righteousness of Christ that makes the penitent sinner acceptable to God and works his justification. However sinful has been his life, if he believes in Jesus as his personal Saviour, he stands before God in the spotless robes of Christ's imputed righteousness.
The sinner so recently dead in trespasses and sins is quickened by faith in Christ. He sees by faith that Jesus is his Saviour, and alive forevermore, able to save unto the uttermost all that come unto God by him.
In the atonement made for him the believer sees such breadth, and length, and height, and depth of efficiency,--sees such completeness of salvation, purchased at such infinite cost, that his soul is filled with praise and thanksgiving. He sees as in a glass the glory of the Lord, and is changed into the same image as by the Spirit of the Lord. He sees the robe of Christ's righteousness, woven in the loom of heaven, wrought by his obedience, and imputed to the repenting soul through faith in his name. When the sinner has a view of the matchless charms of Jesus, sin no longer looks attractive to him; for he beholds the Chiefest among ten thousand, the One altogether lovely. He realizes by a personal experience the power of the gospel, whose vastness of design is equaled only by its preciousness of purpose.
We have a living Saviour. He is not in Joseph's new tomb; he is risen from the dead, and has ascended on high as a substitute and surety for every believing soul. "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." The sinner is justified through the merits of Jesus, and this is God's acknowledgment of the perfection of the ransom paid for man. That Christ was obedient even unto the death of the cross is a pledge of the repenting sinner's acceptance with the Father. Then shall we permit ourselves to have a vacillating experience of doubting and believing, believing and doubting? Jesus is the pledge of our acceptance with God. We stand in favor before God, not because of any merit in ourselves, but because of our faith in "the Lord our righteousness." Ellen White, 1889 Signs of the Times
Wat men zegt is dat de wet, in plaats van in stenen tafelen buiten ons, nu via Gods Heilige Geest in het hart in ons binnenste wordt gegeven.
En dat is gebaseerd op meerdere teksten.
Zelfs indien je die wet 'de grote geboden' wilt noemen, bevat dat de tien geboden, aangezien de grote geboden samenvattingen zijn van de eerste 4 en laatste 6 geboden.
Wat mij betreft is de conclusie dus dat de mens in Christus niet onder de wet is, maar onder genade, en omdat hij onder genade is, leeft de wet in hem en wordt deel van zijn natuur, in plaats van een getuigenis tegen hem buiten hem die hem veroordeelt.
De wet was niet in staat te doen wat Jezus heeft gedaan, omdat de wet geen leven gaf. Maar dankzij Jezus ontvangen we de Heilige Geest, die ons leven geeft, en in staat is te doen wat de wet niet kon doen => ons conform Gods wil te maken in plaats van ons te veroordelen wegens onze ongehoorzaamheid.
God ging een verbond aan met Adam en Eva toen Hij zei: 15 En Ik zal vijandschap zetten tussen u en tussen deze vrouw, en tussen uw zaad en tussen haar zaad; datzelve zal u den kop vermorzelen, en gij zult het de verzenen vermorzelen.
En dit ging door via allen die trouw waren aan God door de tijd heen, van Enoch tot Noach to Abraham, Isaak, Jacob, hun nageslacht in de woestijn, totdat het zaad daadwerkelijk gekomen was. Toen werd Gods originele plan, om de mens te redden van de dood geiniteerd door de zonde van Adam, volbracht door Jezus' verzoenoffer.
De recreatie die daarop volgde, door de spirituele dood en wederopstanding van de gelovige, waarbij wederom Gods wil in het hart van de mens is zoals dat bij Adam en Eva het geval was, is het resultaat van Gods werk om de mens met zichzelf te verzoenen, ondanks de zonden van de mens.
Het eeuwige leven is zodoende vandaag voor iedereen beschikbaar die gelooft in Jezus Christus en zich bekeert van zijn zonden. God zal de gelovige door middel van de Heilige Geest een nieuw hart geven waarin Zijn wet geschreven staat, de vruchten van de geest producerend en de wet niet overtredend, wanneer hij sterft aan zijn zondige natuur, en leeft door de Geest.
De sabbat in het nieuwe verbond is naast een wekelijkse rustdag van aards dagelijks werk om ons geestelijk, lichamelijk en spiritueel welzijn te beschermen een viering van het feit dat we stoppen met onze eigen werken in spirituele zin omdat Christus het werk volbracht heeft en we door geloof gerechtvaardigd zijn in plaats van door onze eigen werken, een dag ter herinnering dat God onze schepper is en onze herschepper in Christus, ter herinnering dat God onze verlosser is van deze wereld en van de zonde en dood en we het leven aan Hem te danken hebben, en ter schaduw en voorproef op de eeuwige rust die we in de hemel zullen ervaren, en het houden ervan is om al deze redenen de stempel of het zichtbare teken van de autoriteit en suprematie van God in het leven van de gerechtvaardigde.
The beneficent Creator, after the six days of Creation, rested on the seventh day and instituted the Sabbath for all people as a memorial of Creation. The fourth commandment of God's unchangeable law requires the observance of this seventh-day Sabbath as the day of rest, worship, and ministry in harmony with the teaching and practice of Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath. The Sabbath is a day of delightful communion with God and one another. It is a symbol of our redemption in Christ, a sign of our sanctification, a token of our allegiance, and a foretaste of our eternal future in God's kingdom. The Sabbath is God's perpetual sign of His eternal covenant between Him and His people. Joyful observance of this holy time from evening to evening, sunset to sunset, is a celebration of God's creative and redemptive acts. (Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 20:8-11; Luke 4:16; Isa. 56:5, 6; 58:13, 14; Matt. 12:1-12; Ex. 31:13-17; Eze. 20:12, 20; Deut. 5:12-15; Heb. 4:1-11; Lev. 23:32; Mark 1:32.)
[ Bericht 15% gewijzigd door Ali_Kannibali op 27-02-2013 13:31:14 ]
Of men zegt je MOET bewaren want je bent onder de wet. Dat is een mengelmoes van termen en concepten die een verkeerde indruk geven van hoe de zaken daadwerkelijk gezien worden.
En nee, ook ZDA zegt niet dat je door het houden van de wet gerechtvaardigd wordt.
It is the righteousness of Christ that makes the penitent sinner acceptable to God and works his justification. However sinful has been his life, if he believes in Jesus as his personal Saviour, he stands before God in the spotless robes of Christ's imputed righteousness.
The sinner so recently dead in trespasses and sins is quickened by faith in Christ. He sees by faith that Jesus is his Saviour, and alive forevermore, able to save unto the uttermost all that come unto God by him.
In the atonement made for him the believer sees such breadth, and length, and height, and depth of efficiency,--sees such completeness of salvation, purchased at such infinite cost, that his soul is filled with praise and thanksgiving. He sees as in a glass the glory of the Lord, and is changed into the same image as by the Spirit of the Lord. He sees the robe of Christ's righteousness, woven in the loom of heaven, wrought by his obedience, and imputed to the repenting soul through faith in his name. When the sinner has a view of the matchless charms of Jesus, sin no longer looks attractive to him; for he beholds the Chiefest among ten thousand, the One altogether lovely. He realizes by a personal experience the power of the gospel, whose vastness of design is equaled only by its preciousness of purpose.
We have a living Saviour. He is not in Joseph's new tomb; he is risen from the dead, and has ascended on high as a substitute and surety for every believing soul. "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." The sinner is justified through the merits of Jesus, and this is God's acknowledgment of the perfection of the ransom paid for man. That Christ was obedient even unto the death of the cross is a pledge of the repenting sinner's acceptance with the Father. Then shall we permit ourselves to have a vacillating experience of doubting and believing, believing and doubting? Jesus is the pledge of our acceptance with God. We stand in favor before God, not because of any merit in ourselves, but because of our faith in "the Lord our righteousness." Ellen White, 1889 Signs of the Times
Wat men zegt is dat de wet, in plaats van in stenen tafelen buiten ons, nu via Gods Heilige Geest in het hart in ons binnenste wordt gegeven.
En dat is gebaseerd op meerdere teksten.
Zelfs indien je die wet 'de grote geboden' wilt noemen, bevat dat de tien geboden, aangezien de grote geboden samenvattingen zijn van de eerste 4 en laatste 6 geboden.
Wat mij betreft is de conclusie dus dat de mens in Christus niet onder de wet is, maar onder genade, en omdat hij onder genade is, leeft de wet in hem en wordt deel van zijn natuur, in plaats van een getuigenis tegen hem buiten hem die hem veroordeelt.
De wet was niet in staat te doen wat Jezus heeft gedaan, omdat de wet geen leven gaf. Maar dankzij Jezus ontvangen we de Heilige Geest, die ons leven geeft, en in staat is te doen wat de wet niet kon doen => ons conform Gods wil te maken in plaats van ons te veroordelen wegens onze ongehoorzaamheid.
God ging een verbond aan met Adam en Eva toen Hij zei: 15 En Ik zal vijandschap zetten tussen u en tussen deze vrouw, en tussen uw zaad en tussen haar zaad; datzelve zal u den kop vermorzelen, en gij zult het de verzenen vermorzelen.
En dit ging door via allen die trouw waren aan God door de tijd heen, van Enoch tot Noach to Abraham, Isaak, Jacob, hun nageslacht in de woestijn, totdat het zaad daadwerkelijk gekomen was. Toen werd Gods originele plan, om de mens te redden van de dood geiniteerd door de zonde van Adam, volbracht door Jezus' verzoenoffer.
De recreatie die daarop volgde, door de spirituele dood en wederopstanding van de gelovige, waarbij wederom Gods wil in het hart van de mens is zoals dat bij Adam en Eva het geval was, is het resultaat van Gods werk om de mens met zichzelf te verzoenen, ondanks de zonden van de mens.
Het eeuwige leven is zodoende vandaag voor iedereen beschikbaar die gelooft in Jezus Christus en zich bekeert van zijn zonden. God zal de gelovige door middel van de Heilige Geest een nieuw hart geven waarin Zijn wet geschreven staat, de vruchten van de geest producerend en de wet niet overtredend, wanneer hij sterft aan zijn zondige natuur, en leeft door de Geest.
De sabbat in het nieuwe verbond is naast een wekelijkse rustdag van aards dagelijks werk om ons geestelijk, lichamelijk en spiritueel welzijn te beschermen een viering van het feit dat we stoppen met onze eigen werken in spirituele zin omdat Christus het werk volbracht heeft en we door geloof gerechtvaardigd zijn in plaats van door onze eigen werken, een dag ter herinnering dat God onze schepper is en onze herschepper in Christus, ter herinnering dat God onze verlosser is van deze wereld en van de zonde en dood en we het leven aan Hem te danken hebben, en ter schaduw en voorproef op de eeuwige rust die we in de hemel zullen ervaren, en het houden ervan is om al deze redenen de stempel of het zichtbare teken van de autoriteit en suprematie van God in het leven van de gerechtvaardigde.
The beneficent Creator, after the six days of Creation, rested on the seventh day and instituted the Sabbath for all people as a memorial of Creation. The fourth commandment of God's unchangeable law requires the observance of this seventh-day Sabbath as the day of rest, worship, and ministry in harmony with the teaching and practice of Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath. The Sabbath is a day of delightful communion with God and one another. It is a symbol of our redemption in Christ, a sign of our sanctification, a token of our allegiance, and a foretaste of our eternal future in God's kingdom. The Sabbath is God's perpetual sign of His eternal covenant between Him and His people. Joyful observance of this holy time from evening to evening, sunset to sunset, is a celebration of God's creative and redemptive acts. (Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 20:8-11; Luke 4:16; Isa. 56:5, 6; 58:13, 14; Matt. 12:1-12; Ex. 31:13-17; Eze. 20:12, 20; Deut. 5:12-15; Heb. 4:1-11; Lev. 23:32; Mark 1:32.)
[ Bericht 15% gewijzigd door Ali_Kannibali op 27-02-2013 13:31:14 ]
Ali de kerk leert dat je door werken gerechtvaardigd wordt in het onderzoekend oordeel. Dit is een feit. Ellen White had een dubbele schizofrene tong. Het ene moment zegt ze dat redding door geloof alleen plaatsvindt, het andere moment zegt ze dat je alleen naar de hemel gaat als je perfect zondeloos bent geworden als Jezus.
De sabbat was een rituele schaduw-wet. Als er in Genesis staat dat de zevende dag gezegend werd staat er niet dat het DIE zevende dag betreft.
Btw, Ali wat vind je van deze interpretatie van Daniel 7?
Daniel makes it abundantly clear the ten kings will "arise from this kingdom". This could not possibly refer to outside entities that come in and conquer Rome. The only reasonable Biblical interpretation is that the ten horns represent ten kings or rulers over Rome. History records that there were, in fact, ten Roman Caesars who ruled Rome prior to the destruction of Jerusalem:
Julius Caeser 49-44BC
Augustus 31BC-14AD
Tiberius (Luke 3:1) 14-37AD
Gaius (aka. Caligula) 37-41AD
Claudius (Acts 17) 41-54AD
Nero 54-68AD
Galba 68-69AD
Otho 69AD
Vitellius 69AD
Vespasian 69-79AD
Do Daniel's Prophecies Point to the Christian Era?
One reason Adventists have gotten confused over the meaning of Daniel's prophecies is that they have tried to stretch Daniel's prophecies out into the Christian era, interpretting the literal time periods in the book (1,260 days and 2,300 evenings-mornings) as long periods of years, stretching many centuries into the Christian era. The truth is that Daniel is a Jewish book, written by a Jew, written for the Jews, containing God's prophecies relating to His Covenantal people (Dan. 9:24). It is all about events that would directly impact the Jewish people and the Jewish nation. The last prophecy of Daniel, the 70-week prophecy, ends with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Except for a few brief comments about future events (Christ's kingdom filling the earth (Dan. 2:34-35), the resurrection (Dan. 12:1-3)), the entire book of Daniel is focused on the Hebrew nation and its interaction with world powers from the time of Babylon up until the final destruction of Israel and the termination of the Old Covenant in 70 AD.
Who is the Little Horn?
It is an established historical fact that the Little Horn of Daniel 7 is Nero. Consider the incredible correlations between Nero and the little horn of Daniel 7:
He will uproot "three of the first horns" (7:24) - Three Emperors, Tiberius, Caligula and Claudius were assassinated to make way for Nero, who was not in the line of succession.18
"He shall speak words against the Most High" (7:25) - Nero encouraged emperor worship and had a huge statue of himself erected in Rome. Inscriptions found in Ephesus called him "Almighty God" and "Saviour...." 19
He "shall wear out the saints of the Most High" (7:25) - Nero was the first Roman Emporer to launch a persecution against Jews and Christians. Some of the saints slain during his persecution include the Missionary Paul and the Apostle Peter. Historians have described the persecution as "the most cruel that ever occurred."20
The saints "shall be given into his hand for time, times, and half a time (7:25) - Nero's persecution began in November of 64 AD, and ended with his death in June of AD 68, a period of exactly 42 months (1260 days).21
"His dominion shall be taken away" (7:26) - The Roman Senate eventually voted to put Nero to death, thus effectively taking away his dominion.
The kingdom "shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High (7:27) - It is a mistake to think this passage is a reference to God's eternal kingdom. It is a reference to God's spiritual kingdom, which was established in approximately 30 AD when John the Baptist announced, "The kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt. 3:2). Christ talked about the "kingdom" as being comtemporary (Matt. 12:28; 16:19; 23:13), not in the far distant future. Daniel talks about a kingdom that gradually fills the earth, and Jesus speaks of a Mustard seed which grew into a great tree. (Dan. 2:34-35; Matt. 13:31-33).22 Therefore, the giving of the kingdom (Rome) to the saints of the Most High began when Christ established his kingdom on this earth, and the kingdom continued to grow until one day Christianity would became the dominant religion in the Roman Empire.
Who is being Judged?
As noted earlier in this study, the Bible clearly indicates that the judgment of Daniel 7 is a judgment against the little horn and the beast power, not an investigative judgment of the saints. Did such an event occur in the first century? Notice carefully the words of Jesus:
Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. (John 12:31)
And when he [Comforter] is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment ...because the prince of this world is judged. (John 16:8,11)
Jesus said that the judgment of Satan was happening "now", during the final hours of His life on earth. He said that the Holy Spirit would come to convict the world that the prince of this world is judged. It was during the reign of the Roman Empire that judgment sat in heaven and passed sentence on the prince of this world and the Roman Empire. It was the Roman Empire, under the guidance of Satan, acting through a Roman governor and Roman soldiers, that crucified the Son of God. The judgment, although decided in heaven, was not instantly executed upon Rome when Jesus died, just as Jerusalem was not instantly punished. A generation of time was given to allow for Rome to manifest what it was going to do with Christ and Christianity. Jesus' death was as a mustard seed being planted in the earth. After His death the gospel sprouted and spread throughout the empire. Nero and later Caesars manifested a Satanic hatred towards Christianity. They thought to persecute it into non-existence, and Nero almost succeeded. However, he was killed, his perseuction halted and his dominion was taken away. The very persecution he started in an attempt to stamp out Christianity would later become the seed that fueled an even more explosive growth of Christianity. Eventually the dominion of Satan was broken in the Roman Empire and it became the dominion of the saints. Christianity was recognized as the official religion of the Roman Empire.
Every specification of Daniel 7 came to pass just as predicted. In fact, the fulfillment in the events of the Roman Empire were so dramatic that atheists and agnostics insisted the book of Daniel was written after Nero's death. These enemies of God were silenced in shame when parts of the book of Daniel were discovered amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls, and were carbon-dated to 165 BC. Only God could have known about Nero and the Roman empire hundreds of years beforehand. Praise God!
De sabbat was een rituele schaduw-wet. Als er in Genesis staat dat de zevende dag gezegend werd staat er niet dat het DIE zevende dag betreft.
Btw, Ali wat vind je van deze interpretatie van Daniel 7?
Daniel makes it abundantly clear the ten kings will "arise from this kingdom". This could not possibly refer to outside entities that come in and conquer Rome. The only reasonable Biblical interpretation is that the ten horns represent ten kings or rulers over Rome. History records that there were, in fact, ten Roman Caesars who ruled Rome prior to the destruction of Jerusalem:
Julius Caeser 49-44BC
Augustus 31BC-14AD
Tiberius (Luke 3:1) 14-37AD
Gaius (aka. Caligula) 37-41AD
Claudius (Acts 17) 41-54AD
Nero 54-68AD
Galba 68-69AD
Otho 69AD
Vitellius 69AD
Vespasian 69-79AD
Do Daniel's Prophecies Point to the Christian Era?
One reason Adventists have gotten confused over the meaning of Daniel's prophecies is that they have tried to stretch Daniel's prophecies out into the Christian era, interpretting the literal time periods in the book (1,260 days and 2,300 evenings-mornings) as long periods of years, stretching many centuries into the Christian era. The truth is that Daniel is a Jewish book, written by a Jew, written for the Jews, containing God's prophecies relating to His Covenantal people (Dan. 9:24). It is all about events that would directly impact the Jewish people and the Jewish nation. The last prophecy of Daniel, the 70-week prophecy, ends with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Except for a few brief comments about future events (Christ's kingdom filling the earth (Dan. 2:34-35), the resurrection (Dan. 12:1-3)), the entire book of Daniel is focused on the Hebrew nation and its interaction with world powers from the time of Babylon up until the final destruction of Israel and the termination of the Old Covenant in 70 AD.
Who is the Little Horn?
It is an established historical fact that the Little Horn of Daniel 7 is Nero. Consider the incredible correlations between Nero and the little horn of Daniel 7:
He will uproot "three of the first horns" (7:24) - Three Emperors, Tiberius, Caligula and Claudius were assassinated to make way for Nero, who was not in the line of succession.18
"He shall speak words against the Most High" (7:25) - Nero encouraged emperor worship and had a huge statue of himself erected in Rome. Inscriptions found in Ephesus called him "Almighty God" and "Saviour...." 19
He "shall wear out the saints of the Most High" (7:25) - Nero was the first Roman Emporer to launch a persecution against Jews and Christians. Some of the saints slain during his persecution include the Missionary Paul and the Apostle Peter. Historians have described the persecution as "the most cruel that ever occurred."20
The saints "shall be given into his hand for time, times, and half a time (7:25) - Nero's persecution began in November of 64 AD, and ended with his death in June of AD 68, a period of exactly 42 months (1260 days).21
"His dominion shall be taken away" (7:26) - The Roman Senate eventually voted to put Nero to death, thus effectively taking away his dominion.
The kingdom "shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High (7:27) - It is a mistake to think this passage is a reference to God's eternal kingdom. It is a reference to God's spiritual kingdom, which was established in approximately 30 AD when John the Baptist announced, "The kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt. 3:2). Christ talked about the "kingdom" as being comtemporary (Matt. 12:28; 16:19; 23:13), not in the far distant future. Daniel talks about a kingdom that gradually fills the earth, and Jesus speaks of a Mustard seed which grew into a great tree. (Dan. 2:34-35; Matt. 13:31-33).22 Therefore, the giving of the kingdom (Rome) to the saints of the Most High began when Christ established his kingdom on this earth, and the kingdom continued to grow until one day Christianity would became the dominant religion in the Roman Empire.
Who is being Judged?
As noted earlier in this study, the Bible clearly indicates that the judgment of Daniel 7 is a judgment against the little horn and the beast power, not an investigative judgment of the saints. Did such an event occur in the first century? Notice carefully the words of Jesus:
Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. (John 12:31)
And when he [Comforter] is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment ...because the prince of this world is judged. (John 16:8,11)
Jesus said that the judgment of Satan was happening "now", during the final hours of His life on earth. He said that the Holy Spirit would come to convict the world that the prince of this world is judged. It was during the reign of the Roman Empire that judgment sat in heaven and passed sentence on the prince of this world and the Roman Empire. It was the Roman Empire, under the guidance of Satan, acting through a Roman governor and Roman soldiers, that crucified the Son of God. The judgment, although decided in heaven, was not instantly executed upon Rome when Jesus died, just as Jerusalem was not instantly punished. A generation of time was given to allow for Rome to manifest what it was going to do with Christ and Christianity. Jesus' death was as a mustard seed being planted in the earth. After His death the gospel sprouted and spread throughout the empire. Nero and later Caesars manifested a Satanic hatred towards Christianity. They thought to persecute it into non-existence, and Nero almost succeeded. However, he was killed, his perseuction halted and his dominion was taken away. The very persecution he started in an attempt to stamp out Christianity would later become the seed that fueled an even more explosive growth of Christianity. Eventually the dominion of Satan was broken in the Roman Empire and it became the dominion of the saints. Christianity was recognized as the official religion of the Roman Empire.
Every specification of Daniel 7 came to pass just as predicted. In fact, the fulfillment in the events of the Roman Empire were so dramatic that atheists and agnostics insisted the book of Daniel was written after Nero's death. These enemies of God were silenced in shame when parts of the book of Daniel were discovered amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls, and were carbon-dated to 165 BC. Only God could have known about Nero and the Roman empire hundreds of years beforehand. Praise God!
En hoe word je perfect zondenloos als Jezus?quote:
Ali de kerk leert dat je door werken gerechtvaardigd wordt in het onderzoekend oordeel. Dit is een feit. Ellen White had een dubbele schizofrene tong. Het ene moment zegt ze dat redding door geloof alleen plaatsvindt, het andere moment zegt ze dat je alleen naar de hemel gaat als je perfect zondeloos bent geworden als Jezus.
Voor mij is de sabbat duidelijk geworden. Ik heb geen zin meer om daar nog tijd aan te besteden. De conclusie die ik in mn vorige post heb getrokken is gebaseerd op alle argumenten die we langs hebben laten komen. Uiteindelijk bleek mijn conclusie dezelfde de te zijn als het fundamentele punt van de ZDA kerk. Het is ook het enige logische, consistente standpunt, wat zowel het schaduw-aspect als het genesis verhaal als Jezus' opmerkingen over de sabbat (en de gehele wet) integreert. Ik ga dus niet meer in op kwesties over de sabbat. Je constante negeren van belangrijke vragen die ik daarover gesteld heb getuigen wat mij betreft ook van de zwakheid van je argument en het weigeren om de zaken vanuit het perspectief te zien waarop ZDA het werkelijk ziet. In plaats daarvan houd je vast aan de verdraaide woorden van obscure websites en youtube filmpjes die vol fouten staan. Dat is jouw keuze en die respecteer ik, maar weet dat je huidige overtuiging over wat ZDA leert niet overeenkomt met het werkelijke standpunt van ZDA.quote:De sabbat was een rituele schaduw-wet. Als er in Genesis staat dat de zevende dag gezegend werd staat er niet dat het DIE zevende dag betreft.
[/quote]quote:Btw, Ali wat vind je van deze interpretatie van Daniel 7?
Daniel makes it abundantly clear the ten kings will "arise from this kingdom". This could not possibly refer to outside entities that come in and conquer Rome. The only reasonable Biblical interpretation is that the ten horns represent ten kings or rulers over Rome. History records that there were, in fact, ten Roman Caesars who ruled Rome prior to the destruction of Jerusalem:
Julius Caeser 49-44BC
Augustus 31BC-14AD
Tiberius (Luke 3:1) 14-37AD
Gaius (aka. Caligula) 37-41AD
Claudius (Acts 17) 41-54AD
Nero 54-68AD
Galba 68-69AD
Otho 69AD
Vitellius 69AD
Vespasian 69-79AD
Interessant. Een paar vragen:
Het 4e beest eet de hele aarde op en zal blijven tot het laatste oordeel (want de kleine hoorn blijft tot het laatste oordeel). In de bovenstaande interpretatie, wordt er niet een eindpunt aan rome gegeven?
Wie waren de 3 ontwortelde hoornen en hoezo?
Het is wat mij betreft een non-argument om te stellen dat Daniel voor de 'mensen onder het oude verbond was'. Dan kun je stellen dat het hele oude testament voor de mensen onder het oude verbond was. Maar wat zegt Jezus? Bestudeer de geschriften, want zij getuigen van mij. Het hele oude testament is gevuld met waarheid voor alle tijden, bijbelverhalen hebben doorgaans 3 lagen van betekenis, voor de tijd dan, voor de tijd van de messias, en voor de eindtijd. Alleen iemand met gelimiteerde kennis van de bijbel en geschiedenis kan zo'n openlijk misleidend argument wat mij betreft aannemen.quote:Do Daniel's Prophecies Point to the Christian Era?
One reason Adventists have gotten confused over the meaning of Daniel's prophecies is that they have tried to stretch Daniel's prophecies out into the Christian era, interpretting the literal time periods in the book (1,260 days and 2,300 evenings-mornings) as long periods of years, stretching many centuries into the Christian era. The truth is that Daniel is a Jewish book, written by a Jew, written for the Jews, containing God's prophecies relating to His Covenantal people (Dan. 9:24). It is all about events that would directly impact the Jewish people and the Jewish nation. The last prophecy of Daniel, the 70-week prophecy, ends with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Except for a few brief comments about future events (Christ's kingdom filling the earth (Dan. 2:34-35), the resurrection (Dan. 12:1-3)), the entire book of Daniel is focused on the Hebrew nation and its interaction with world powers from the time of Babylon up until the final destruction of Israel and the termination of the Old Covenant in 70 AD.
Enkele belangrijke punten worden hier weggelaten:quote:Who is the Little Horn?
It is an established historical fact that the Little Horn of Daniel 7 is Nero. Consider the incredible correlations between Nero and the little horn of Daniel 7:
He will uproot "three of the first horns" (7:24) - Three Emperors, Tiberius, Caligula and Claudius were assassinated to make way for Nero, who was not in the line of succession.18
"He shall speak words against the Most High" (7:25) - Nero encouraged emperor worship and had a huge statue of himself erected in Rome. Inscriptions found in Ephesus called him "Almighty God" and "Saviour...." 19
He "shall wear out the saints of the Most High" (7:25) - Nero was the first Roman Emporer to launch a persecution against Jews and Christians. Some of the saints slain during his persecution include the Missionary Paul and the Apostle Peter. Historians have described the persecution as "the most cruel that ever occurred."20
The saints "shall be given into his hand for time, times, and half a time (7:25) - Nero's persecution began in November of 64 AD, and ended with his death in June of AD 68, a period of exactly 42 months (1260 days).21
"His dominion shall be taken away" (7:26) - The Roman Senate eventually voted to put Nero to death, thus effectively taking away his dominion.
The kingdom "shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High (7:27) - It is a mistake to think this passage is a reference to God's eternal kingdom. It is a reference to God's spiritual kingdom, which was established in approximately 30 AD when John the Baptist announced, "The kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt. 3:2). Christ talked about the "kingdom" as being comtemporary (Matt. 12:28; 16:19; 23:13), not in the far distant future. Daniel talks about a kingdom that gradually fills the earth, and Jesus speaks of a Mustard seed which grew into a great tree. (Dan. 2:34-35; Matt. 13:31-33).22 Therefore, the giving of the kingdom (Rome) to the saints of the Most High began when Christ established his kingdom on this earth, and the kingdom continued to grow until one day Christianity would became the dominant religion in the Roman Empire.
de kleine hoorn zou godslasteringen spreken. Godslastering is 1) zeggen dat je God bent 2) claimen dat je zonden kunt vergeven. Nero deed volgens heirboven 1 maar 2 niet. De RKK doet beide.
de kleine hoorn zou denken de wet en de tijden te kunnen veranderen. Welke wet? Gods wet uiteraard. Bij Nero is hier geen sprake van. De katholieke tien geboden zijn niet hetzelfde als de tien geboden in de bijbel.
de kleine hoorn zal definitief weggenomen worden bij het laatste oordeel, en niet daarvoor.
Als we parallelteksten over de antichrist nemen zien we dat dit wel degelijk om een christelijk-achtig iemand gaat:
3 Dat u niemand verleide op enigerlei wijze; want die komt niet, tenzij dat eerst de afval gekomen zij, en dat geopenbaard zij de mens der zonde, de zoon des verderfs;
4 Die zich tegenstelt, en verheft boven al wat God genaamd, of als God geëerd wordt, alzo dat hij in den tempel Gods als een God zal zitten, zichzelven vertonende, dat hij God is. 2 Thessalonicenzen 2
Voor Paulus is de tempel van God niet een gebouw noch de tempel in Jeruzalem maar het geheel van de gelovigen. Er zal dus iemand in het lichaam van Christus zijn die die rol van antichrist aanneemt. Dat kan geen Romeinse keizer zijn geweest. Behalve de Romeinse Keizer die zichzelf tevens hoofd van de kerk noemt.
Een ander punt dat aantoont dat dit argument niet consistent is is het feit dat de 42 maanden/1260 dagen/3,5 jaar terugkomen in Openbaringen 12 en openbaringen 13. Het gaat hier om het tweede beest dat zal sterven en weer opstaan en zal blijven tot het einde, het geven van het teken.
Dit beest is onderdeel van het beest in openbaringen 17, het is het 8e hoofd, de allerlaatste macht voor het laatste oordeel. Het zijn de koningen der aarde die deze macht gecontroleerd door de hoer zullen vernietigen. Was dat het geval met nero?
Maw je moet de rest van de bijbel negeren wil je dit kloppend maken.
Dit is ook compleet stupide nonsens.quote:Who is being Judged?
As noted earlier in this study, the Bible clearly indicates that the judgment of Daniel 7 is a judgment against the little horn and the beast power, not an investigative judgment of the saints. Did such an event occur in the first century? Notice carefully the words of Jesus:
Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. (John 12:31)
And when he [Comforter] is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment ...because the prince of this world is judged. (John 16:8,11)
Jesus said that the judgment of Satan was happening "now", during the final hours of His life on earth. He said that the Holy Spirit would come to convict the world that the prince of this world is judged. It was during the reign of the Roman Empire that judgment sat in heaven and passed sentence on the prince of this world and the Roman Empire. It was the Roman Empire, under the guidance of Satan, acting through a Roman governor and Roman soldiers, that crucified the Son of God. The judgment, although decided in heaven, was not instantly executed upon Rome when Jesus died, just as Jerusalem was not instantly punished. A generation of time was given to allow for Rome to manifest what it was going to do with Christ and Christianity. Jesus' death was as a mustard seed being planted in the earth. After His death the gospel sprouted and spread throughout the empire. Nero and later Caesars manifested a Satanic hatred towards Christianity. They thought to persecute it into non-existence, and Nero almost succeeded. However, he was killed, his perseuction halted and his dominion was taken away. The very persecution he started in an attempt to stamp out Christianity would later become the seed that fueled an even more explosive growth of Christianity. Eventually the dominion of Satan was broken in the Roman Empire and it became the dominion of the saints. Christianity was recognized as the official religion of the Roman Empire.
Every specification of Daniel 7 came to pass just as predicted. In fact, the fulfillment in the events of the Roman Empire were so dramatic that atheists and agnostics insisted the book of Daniel was written after Nero's death. These enemies of God were silenced in shame when parts of the book of Daniel were discovered amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls, and were carbon-dated to 165 BC. Only God could have known about Nero and the Roman empire hundreds of years beforehand. Praise God!
Hoe kun je in hemelsnaam de woorden 'de prins van deze wereld is geoordeeld' gelijktrekken naar 'het Romeinse Rijk wordt ten onder gebracht en de staatsreligie van Rome wordt het Christelijke (in werkelijkheid Rooms Katholieke) geloof. Wat vervolgens de wereld gedurende 1000 jaar in een spirituele afgrond zou helpen.
Satan werd geoordeeld omdat hij niet in staat was geweest Jezus te laten zondigen en al zijn claims met betrekking tot God onwaar waren gebleken op het moment van de kruisiging (waaruit bleek dat God liefde en genadevol is, evenals rechtvaardig).
(West)Rome zou pas zo'n 500 jaar later werkelijk tot zijn einde komen. Toen Constantinus zogenaamd christen werd en de christelijke religie de staatsreligie was dat een strategische politieke zet en had niets met een hartsbekering van Constantinus te maken. De man was een oorlogsvoerder uit op politiek en economisch gewin, niet op een spirituele bekering van de wereld tot het koninkrijk van God en de leer van Jezus Christus.
De Rooms katholieke kerk die daar uiteindelijk uit voortkwam zou naast een religieuze een voornamelijk politieke en economische invloed uitoefenen en iedereen met eeuwig hellevuur intimideren om vooral veel geld te betalen aan het instituut kerk.
1 En er zijn ook valse profeten onder het volk geweest, gelijk ook onder u valse leraars zijn zullen, die verderfelijke ketterijen bedektelijk invoeren zullen, ook den Heere, Die hen gekocht heeft, verloochenende, en een haastig verderf over zichzelven brengende;
2 En velen zullen hun verderfenissen navolgen, door welke de weg der waarheid zal gelasterd worden.
3 En zij zullen door gierigheid, met gemaakte woorden, van u een koopmanschap maken; over welke het oordeel van over lang niet ledig is, en hun verderf sluimert niet. 2 Petrus 3
Hieruit zou ook de inquisitie voortkomen, ook zo'n fijn christelijk instituut.
Verder is het boek van Daniel door tekstkritiek gedateerd op de 6e eeuw voor christus en niet de 2e.
De duivel is dus wel geoordeeld maar nog lang niet op inactief gezet! Ik weet niet wat voor battles je zelf dagelijks voert maar ik weet dat de duivel hard aan het werk is om mensen op alle fronten tegen te werken. Van welke site heb je dit gehaald als ik vragen mag?
[ Bericht 0% gewijzigd door Ali_Kannibali op 28-02-2013 10:09:09 ]
...Amen !quote:
[..]
Voor mij is de sabbat duidelijk geworden. Ik heb geen zin meer om daar nog tijd aan te besteden. De conclusie die ik in mn vorige post heb getrokken is gebaseerd op alle argumenten die we langs hebben laten komen. Uiteindelijk bleek mijn conclusie dezelfde de te zijn als het fundamentele punt van de ZDA kerk. Het is ook het enige logische, consistente standpunt, wat zowel het schaduw-aspect als het genesis verhaal als Jezus' opmerkingen over de sabbat (en de gehele wet) integreert. Ik ga dus niet meer in op kwesties over de sabbat. Je constante negeren van belangrijke vragen die ik daarover gesteld heb getuigen wat mij betreft ook van de zwakheid van je argument en het weigeren om de zaken vanuit het perspectief te zien waarop ZDA het werkelijk ziet. In plaats daarvan houdt je vast aan de verdraaide woorden van obscure websites en youtube filmpjes die vol fouten staan. Dat is jouw keuze en die respecteer ik, maar weet dat je huidige overtuiging over wat ZDA leert niet overeenkomt met het werkelijke standpunt van ZDA.
[..]
Precies...quote:
[..]
Voor Paulus is de tempel van God niet een gebouw noch de tempel in Jeruzalem maar het geheel van de gelovigen. Er zal dus iemand in het lichaam van Christus zijn die die rol van antichrist aanneemt. Dat kan geen Romeinse keizer zijn geweest. Behalve de Romeinse Keizer die zichzelf tevens hoofd van de kerk noemt.
Een ander punt dat aantoont dat dit argument niet consistent is is het feit dat de 42 maanden/1260 dagen/3,5 jaar terugkomen in Openbaringen 12 en openbaringen 13. Het gaat hier om het tweede beest dat zal sterven en weer opstaan en zal blijven tot het einde, het geven van het teken.
Dit beest is onderdeel van het beest in openbaringen 17, het is het 8e hoofd, de allerlaatste macht voor het laatste oordeel. Het zijn de koningen der aarde die deze macht gecontroleerd door de hoer zullen vernietigen. Was dat het geval met nero?
Maw je moet de rest van de bijbel negeren wil je dit kloppend maken.
De valse interpretaties en uitleg van de profetieen van Daniel en openbaringen zijn rond de 16e eeuw mede in de wereld geholpen door de Jezuiten Francisco Ribera & Louis del Alcazar, om de aandacht af te leiden van de Rooms Katholieke Kerk en om een tegengeluid te bieden aan het opkomend protestantisme die inzagen en ervan overtuigd waren dat de profetieen direct verwezen naar het katholieke systeem als zijnde Babylon, het Beest, de AntiChrist, etc.
Maar vandaag de dag overheerst binnen Protestantse kringen vreemd genoeg de theorie dat de Antichrist nog moet arriveren (futurisme) en dat een fysiek Israel en de bouw van een fysieke 3e tempel een belangrijke rol zullen gaan spelen in de vervulling van de laatste week van Daniel's 70 weken profetie.
Die in werkelijkheid dus al in vervulling is gegaan (...vanaf de doping van Jezus t/m de steniging van Stephanus, precies 7 jaar later en er precies halverwege deze 7-jaarsperiode dus de kruisiging plaats vond).
Bron:quote:The truly amazing part of all this is that the Futurist theory dominates Protestant teaching today. Almost all you hear or read about today is the yet to appear antichrist, who will be unveiled in the last 3.5 years of Daniel's 70th week, when he declares himself to be God in a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. That scenario is directly traceable back to the pen of the Jesuit Francisco Ribera who manufactured this theory for the sole purpose of diverting attention from the papacy. Note what one Protestant writer had to say:
“It is a matter for deep regret that those who hold and advocate the Futurist system at the present day, Protestants as they are for the most part, are thus really playing into the hands of Rome, and helping to screen the Papacy from detection as the Antichrist. It has been well said that 'Futurism tends to obliterate the brand put by the Holy Spirit upon Popery.' More especially is this to be deplored at a time when the Papal Antichrist seems to be making an expiring effort to regain his former hold on men's minds.” Daniel and the Revelation: The Chart of Prophecy and Our Place In It, A Study of the Historical and Futurist Interpretation, by Joseph Tanner, published in London by Hodder and Stoughton, 1898, pages 16, 17.
page 1 >> http://www.daniels70weeks.com
page 2 >> http://www.daniels70weeks.com/daniels70weeks.html
[ Bericht 0% gewijzigd door pappao op 28-02-2013 11:00:39 ]
Maar wie gaat nu wel naar de hemel, Wiseguy of Ali ? 
Question authorities, fuck religion, educate yourself, Viva el individualismo!
There's only one way of life, and that's your own!
There's only one way of life, and that's your own!
Uiteindelijk zal satan zelf gestalte gaan geven aan de valse eindtijdtheorie (futurism) en zal hij deze misconceptie gebruiken om de mensen wereldwijd massaal te misleiden.
Een groot deel van de Protestanten, maar zelfs ook een groot deel van de Adventisten zullen hiervoor vallen.
Het lijkt er zelfs op dat (...na het zien van deze video van Walter Veith) heel Israel is gesticht tot dit doel.
Walther Veith's video over o.a. de oprichting van Israel:
Waarin hij spreekt over: "The greatest counterfit in the history of mankind !"
Walter Veith is na het geven van deze lezing in december 2012, aangeklaagd en er loopt nu een gerechtelijke procedure tegen hem.
Tevens is hij nu naar aanleiding hiervan, zelfs ook binnen zijn eigen Adventistische gemeente niet meer welkom !
Wat naar mijn gevoel aangeeft dat er iemand erg zenuwachtig begint te geworden en liever niet wil dat deze informatie naar buiten wordt gebracht.
[ Bericht 4% gewijzigd door pappao op 28-02-2013 15:45:13 ]
Een groot deel van de Protestanten, maar zelfs ook een groot deel van de Adventisten zullen hiervoor vallen.
Het lijkt er zelfs op dat (...na het zien van deze video van Walter Veith) heel Israel is gesticht tot dit doel.
Walther Veith's video over o.a. de oprichting van Israel:
Waarin hij spreekt over: "The greatest counterfit in the history of mankind !"
Walter Veith is na het geven van deze lezing in december 2012, aangeklaagd en er loopt nu een gerechtelijke procedure tegen hem.
Tevens is hij nu naar aanleiding hiervan, zelfs ook binnen zijn eigen Adventistische gemeente niet meer welkom !
Wat naar mijn gevoel aangeeft dat er iemand erg zenuwachtig begint te geworden en liever niet wil dat deze informatie naar buiten wordt gebracht.
[ Bericht 4% gewijzigd door pappao op 28-02-2013 15:45:13 ]
Hij is aangeklaagd wegens antisemitisme ja...quote:
Uiteindelijk zal satan zelf gestalte gaan geven aan de valse eindtijdtheorie (futurism) en zal hij deze misconceptie gebruiken om de mensen wereldwijd massaal te misleiden.
Een groot deel van de Protestanten, maar zelfs ook een groot deel van de Adventisten zullen hiervoor vallen.
Het lijkt er zelfs op dat (...na het zien van deze video van Walter Veith) heel Israel is gesticht tot dit doel.
Walther Veith's video over o.a. de oprichting van Israel:
Waarin hij spreek over: "The greastest counterfit in the history of mankind !"
Walter Veith is na het geven van deze lezing aangeklaagd en er loopt nu een gerechtelijke procedure tegen hem.
Tevens is hij nu naar aanleiding hiervan, zelfs ook binnen zijn eigen Adventistische gemeente niet meer welkom !
Wat naar mijn gevoel aangeeft dat er iemand erg zenuwachtig begint te geworden en niet wil dat deze informatie naar buiten wordt gebracht.
Terwijl belangrijke Duitse joden die de video hebben gezien er geen spoor van antisemitisme in hebben terug kunnen vinden en graag een praatje zouden willen maken met mr. Veith.
De strijd warmt op naarmate we dichter bij WO3 komen.
Volgens de bijbel word je zondeloos gerekend vanaf het moment dat je in Jezus gelooft. Volgens jouw sekte moet de Heilige Geest eerst met jouw zondige aard aan de slag om dan op wonderlijke wijze jou net zo zondeloos te maken als Jezus. De bijbel is heel duidelijk dat wij niet, zelfs niet met hulp van de Heilige Geest, zondeloos kunnen worden. De hele protestantse christelijke wereld is het erover eens dat Jezus rechtvaardigheid aan een persoon wordt toegerekend en dat deze rechtvaardigheid redt, alleen de ZDA-sekte in hun verwaande blindheid klampt zich vast aan een vals evangelie vanwege de satanische visioenen van Ellen White.
Voor jou is de sabbath duidelijk geworden?
Elk potentieel argument voor de sabbat is 1000x onder de tafel geveegd. De bijbel is duidelijk dat er geen enkele twijfel over bestaat, de sabbat was een rituele wet voor Joden die zijn vervulling vindt in Christus. Jij luistert niet naar de argumenten omdat je hart niet open staat voor bijbelse consistentie. JIj klampt je vast aan je verwrongen wereldbeeld en doet naar de buitenwereld toe alsof de ZDA kerk een normale christelijke kerk is maar dat is het niet!
Mbt tot Daniel 7 ik ben het eens dat er veel onduidelijkheden over bestaan. Echter wat jij doet is ook onzin, zomaar allerlei teksten bij elkaar knippen en plakken. Wanneer je Daniel 7 leest moet je eerst kijken of er vanuit dit hoofdstuk zelf een logische verklaring is te vinden.
Voor jou is de sabbath duidelijk geworden?
Elk potentieel argument voor de sabbat is 1000x onder de tafel geveegd. De bijbel is duidelijk dat er geen enkele twijfel over bestaat, de sabbat was een rituele wet voor Joden die zijn vervulling vindt in Christus. Jij luistert niet naar de argumenten omdat je hart niet open staat voor bijbelse consistentie. JIj klampt je vast aan je verwrongen wereldbeeld en doet naar de buitenwereld toe alsof de ZDA kerk een normale christelijke kerk is maar dat is het niet!Mbt tot Daniel 7 ik ben het eens dat er veel onduidelijkheden over bestaan. Echter wat jij doet is ook onzin, zomaar allerlei teksten bij elkaar knippen en plakken. Wanneer je Daniel 7 leest moet je eerst kijken of er vanuit dit hoofdstuk zelf een logische verklaring is te vinden.
Profetie is niet altijd puur historicistisch, puur preteristisch of puur futuristisch te interpreteren. Ik geloof ook in de historicistische methode, echter wat de ZDA doen is alles toespitsen op Rome, terwijl dit BS is. Daniel 8 gaat bijvoorbeeld over Antiochus, dit is zo ontzettend duidelijk, mja niet voor de ZDA natuurlijk.quote:
Maar vandaag de dag overheerst binnen Protestantse kringen vreemd genoeg de theorie dat de Antichrist nog moet arriveren (futurisme) en dat een fysiek Israel en de bouw van een fysieke 3e tempel een belangrijke rol zullen gaan spelen in de vervulling van de laatste week van Daniel's 70 weken profetie.Die in werkelijkheid dus al in vervulling is gegaan (...vanaf de doping van Jezus t/m de steniging van Stephanus
Walter Veith ziet ze vliegenquote:
Uiteindelijk zal satan zelf gestalte gaan geven aan de valse eindtijdtheorie (futurism) en zal hij deze misconceptie gebruiken om de mensen wereldwijd massaal te misleiden.
Een groot deel van de Protestanten, maar zelfs ook een groot deel van de Adventisten zullen hiervoor vallen.
Het lijkt er zelfs op dat (...na het zien van deze video van Walter Veith) heel Israel is gesticht tot dit doel.
Walther Veith's video over o.a. de oprichting van Israel:
Waarin hij spreek over: "The greastest counterfit in the history of mankind !"
Walter Veith is na het geven van deze lezing in december 2012, aangeklaagd en er loopt nu een gerechtelijke procedure tegen hem.
Tevens is hij nu naar aanleiding hiervan, zelfs ook binnen zijn eigen Adventistische gemeente niet meer welkom !
Wat naar mijn gevoel aangeeft dat er iemand erg zenuwachtig begint te geworden en liever niet wil dat deze informatie naar buiten wordt gebracht.
Dit is in feite het probleem met de ZDA interpretatie van Daniel 7:
Are the Ten Horns really Ten Tribes that defeat the Roman Empire? Daniel 7:24 makes it abundantly clear that the ten horns are not other nations:
And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise... (KJV)
The ten horns are ten kings who shall arise from this kingdom... (NKJV)
Its ten horns are ten kings that will rule that empire. (NLT)
The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom. (NIV)
As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings shall arise... (ESV)
As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings will arise... (NASB)
As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings shall arise... (RSV)
Notice some important truths from this passage that directly contradict SDA teachings:
The Bible clearly says the ten kings will arise from within the Roman Empire. None of the ten tribes arose from within or ruled over the Roman Empire. The ten tribes were outside powers who conquered parts of the Roman Empire and established new nations. They neither came from the Roman Empire nor ruled over it.
The Bible clearly says the ten horns are "kings". The Aramaic word used is melek which literally means "king" and is only translated "king" in the Old Testatment, never "nation" or "kingdom". The ten tribes were nations, not kings. In the very same passage, the word malkuw is used, meaning "kingdom". Notice:
And the ten horns out of this kingdom (malkuw) are ten kings (melek) that shall arise...
If this passage was referring to ten kingdoms that defeated the Roman Empire, then we would have expected Daniel to use the word malkuw (kingdom) instead of melek (king).
SDA's teach the horn on the head of the goat of Daniel 8 was a king (Alexander the Great) who ruled over the kingdom of Greece. If a horn on a head indicates a ruler over that empire in Daniel 8, then why not apply the same principle to Daniel 7?
The fourth beast had ten horns growing out of its head. In Daniel chapter 8, Adventists teach that horns growing out of the head of a beast represent specific kings or rulers over that particular empire. In the vision of the Goat and the Ram, the Goat has a large horn growing on its head and Daniel 8:21 says:
And the male goat is the kingdom of Greece. The large horn that is between its eyes is the first king. (NKJV)
Adventists agree that the horn growing on the head of the Goat represents Alexandar the Great. When that one large horn is later replaced by four smaller horns, Adventists likewise teach the Macedonian empire was ruled by Alexander's four generals. It is entirely inconsistent for Adventists to interpret the horns of Daniel 7 as nations that conquered that beast while at the same time teaching that the horns of Daniel 8 are kings of that nation! The Bible imagery throughout the book of Daniel, and also in the book of Revelation, consistently signifies that horns growing on the head of a beast represent the kings or leaders of that power. To teach that those horns are actually outside powers that invade and conquer the beast is totally inconsistent with the imagery and Biblical usage of the symbol.
Another symbol ignored by Seventh-day Adventists is the two iron legs of the image of Daniel 2. The Roman Empire clearly split into two parts: Western, head-quartered in Rome, and Eastern, ruled from Constantinople. The ten tribes only attacked and conquered the western part of the empire. The eastern part continued on for more than 1,000 years. This destroys the SDA image of the ten toes being synomomous with ten tribes, because that would mean five toes on each foot, and the Eastern Empire was not defeated by any of the ten tribes.
Another problem is that at least 20 tribes invaded the Roman Empire. Therefore, we can conclude:
The SDA teaching contradicts the Bible which says the ten horns arise from within that kingdom
The SDA teaching contradicts the Bible which says the ten horns are kings, not nations
The SDA teaching contradicts their own interpretation of horns, which is that horns are rulers of a particular Kindom (aka Alexander)
The SDA teaching contradicts history which says twenty tribes invaded the western Roman Empire, not ten
2. Did the Papacy uproot three tribes? As noted above, Uriah Smith and other Adventists teach that the Vandals, Ostrogoths, and Heuli were destroyed by the Pope of Rome. Such a revision of history is nothing less than pure fiction. None of these tribes were destroyed by the Pope. Any history textbook will explain that the Heruli were defeated by the Lombards, the Vandals and Ostrogoths by the Byzantines. Now the Pope benefited to some degree by the defeat of the Vandals and Ostrogoths, but it is uncertain, what, if any, role the Pope played in their demise. More importantly, the Heruli were defeated by the Lombards, who were Arians and avowed enemies of the Catholic Church. The Lombards were already identified as one of the other ten horns, and the defeat of the Heruli did not aid the Papacy in any meaningful way, so it makes no sense to claim the Papacy uprooted the Heruli.
In addition, two other tribes were uprooted during the same time period by the Byzantines: the Huns (455 AD) and the Alemanni (495 AD). Why do Adventists ignore these uprooted tribes? There is no reason to ignore them except for the fact that Adventists are trying to make the square pegs of history fit into the round holes of their prophetic jigsaw puzzle. They needed three tribes in order to make their theory fit into Daniel's writings, so they picked three out of the five and ignored the others.
3. Did the Papacy persecute the saints for 1,260 years? There is no doubt at all that Catholics persecuted others, but the 538 - 1798 timeframe of the persecutions does not fit very well with actual historical facts. Persecution actually started more than a century before 538 and finally ended nearly half a century after 1798 :
"Persecution of non-Catholics by Catholic authority began in the 4th Century, and culminated in the Codex Theodosianus (438), which punished all who did not embrace “that religion. . . now professed by the Pontiff.” At the opposite extreme, the Portuguese inquisition operated until 1821; the Spanish inquisition only concluded in 1834; the Roman inquisition in the Papal States also continued into the mid 19th century. Thus, the persecutory activities of Catholics exceed the limits of 538-1798 CE. The papacy does not fit the limits set by the prophecy."6
4. Did the Papacy change the Sabbath and the Ten Commandments? The Catholic Cathecism traces its roots back to Augustine, which was long before Adventists say the "little horn" power arose, and long before the papal power became established. Therefore, it is difficult, if not impossible, to pin the Cathecism's changing of the law on the Papacy.
Adventists claim that the papacy transfered Sabbath observance to Sunday during the dark ages. Prophet Ellen White saw in vision that the Pope changed the day of worship to Sunday:
"I saw that God had not changed the Sabbath, for He never changes. But the pope had changed it from the seventh to the first day of the week; for he was to change times and laws."7
The "official" teaching of the Catholic Church is that the abolition of the Sabbath was confirmed by the early Church Fathers:
The early Church Fathers compared the observance of the Sabbath to the observance of the rite of circumcision, and from that they demonstrated that if the apostles abolished circumcision (Gal. 5:1-6), so also the observance of the Sabbath must have been abolished.8
The above quote has the NIHIL OBSTAT and the IMPRIMATUR which essentially means the quote is considered authentic, accurate, and official by the Catholic Church. So, the "official" Catholic Church teaching is that Sunday-keeping can be traced back to the generation following the Apostles. Adventists point to a series of articles that appeared in September of 1893 in the Catholic Mirror as proof that the Catholic Church changed the day of worship. Those articles do indeed brag that the Catholic Church made the change, but they do not carry either the NIHIL OBSTAT or the IMPRIMATUR. This means the articles are not an official church teaching and represent merely the opinion of the author.9
Seventh-day Adventist theologian Samuele Bacchiocchi had access to the Vatican vaults and researched the oldest material on Sabbath-keeping. His research led him to conclude Sunday-keeping was largely practiced long before the first pope came on the scene:
"I differ from Ellen White, for example, on the origin of Sunday. She teaches that in the first centuries all Christians observed the Sabbath and it was largely through the efforts of Constantine that Sundaykeeping was adopted by many Christians in the fourth century. My research shows otherwise. If you read my essay HOW DID SUNDAYKEEPING BEGIN? which summarizes my dissertation, you will notice that I place the origin of Sundaykeeping by the time of the Emperor Hadrian, in A. D. 135."10
In the first centuries of Christianity there were varied opinions on the day of worship. Many Jewish Christians continued to observe the seventh day Sabbath. Some Christians observed both days, while others gathered for worship only on Sunday. There is evidence that Sunday-keeping was widely practiced by Christians by the generation following the Apostles, and perhaps even while some of the Apostles were still alive. The Didache is an ancient "church manual" dating from the first century. In it, the "Lord's Day", understood by comparison to other literature of that time period to mean "Sunday", is mentioned as the day that the Lord's Supper is celebrated:11
90 A.D. Didache - "Christian Assembly on the Lord's Day: 1. But every Lord's day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure."12
Here are a couple of other early quotes indicating an early introduction of Sunday worship in the Christian Church:
100 A.D. Barnabas - "Moreover God says to the Jews, 'Your new moons and Sabbaths I cannot endure.' You see how he says, 'The present Sabbaths are not acceptable to me, but the Sabbath which I have made in which, when I have rested [heaven: Heb 4] from all things, I will make the beginning of the eighth day which is the beginning of another world.' Wherefore we Christians keep the eighth day for joy, on which also Jesus arose from the dead and when he appeared ascended into heaven."13
110 A.D. Ignatius - "[T]hose who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e. Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death".14
Therefore, Sunday observance started hundreds of years before the Roman bishop's rise to pre-eminence.
5. Did the Papacy have Supremecy for 1260 years? The SDA Prophet Ellen White wrote:
"The 1260 years of papal supremacy began with the establishment of the papacy in A. D. 538, and would therefore terminate on 1798."15
538 AD is the year when the Ostrogoths were driven out of Rome, but nothing of great importance happened to the papacy during this year. In fact, the Ostrogoths later recovered from their defeat, went on the offensive, and re-occupied Rome from 541 to 548 AD. The Ostrogoths were not finally eradicated until 561 AD. The papacy did not achieve temporal sovereignty until 756 when the pope acquired the territories of Central Italy. (The papacy controlled these territories until 1870 when the king of Sardinia took over the papal territories.) So why the 538 date? As noted above, the Catholic persecutions do not adhere to these dates. There is no reason for starting at 538 AD other than the fact that it provides a convenient starting point if counting backwards from 1798--the supposed date of the demise of the papal power.
So, what about the ending date of the 1260-day prophecy? Was the papacy abolished in 1798? Ellen White writes:
"The infliction of the deadly wound points to the abolition of the papacy in 1798."16
While 1798 is a significant year for the papacy, it certainly does not indicate the "abolition" or even the downfall of the papacy. When Pope Pius VI was taken prisoner by the French General Berthier, the papacy suffered humiliation, but it would be a gross exaggeration to describe this event as the "downfall" of the papacy.
SDA Theologian Dr. Bacchiocchi explains what happened after the pope was captured in 1798:
"The imprisonment of Pope Paul VI was condemned by Russia and Austria. Both nations decided to join forces to restore the Pope to his Pontifical throne in Rome. When the French government was confronted with this new coalition and with popular uprisings, it decided to transfer the Pope to Valence, in France, where he died 40 days later, on August 29, 1799.
"The death of Pius VI can hardly be seen as the 'abolishment' or 'the downfall of the Papacy.' It was simply a temporary humiliation of the prestige of the Papacy. In fact, Pius VI was able to give directives for the election of his successor. Few months after his death, the Cardinals met in Venice on December 8, 1799, and elected Barnaba Chiaramonti, who took the name of Pious VII, in deference to his predecessor.
"The new Pope was able to negotiate with Napoleon the Concordat in 1801 and the Organic Articles in 1802. These treatises restored to the Pope some of the territories of the States of the Church and regulated the extent of the Papal authority in France.
"The following years marked, not the downfall, but the resurgence of papal authority, especially under the Pontificate of Pius IX (1846-1878). In 1854, Pius IX promulgated the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. ...
"The crowning event of Pius IX's pontificate was the convening of the First Vatican Council on December 8, 1869. It had a remarkable large attendance from all over the Roman world and on July 18, 1870, the Council promulgated the dogma of Papal Infallibility. This dogma has greatly enhanced the authority of the Pope, and discredits any attempt to attribute to 1798 the downfall of the papacy."17
Thus, the dates of 538 and 1798 do not accurately mark the beginning and ending dates of the period of papal supremacy. The Bishop of Rome was gradually consolidating power for many centuries, and the papacy continued to grow and thrive even after the temporary setback of 1798. These dates were concocted by Adventists because they were convenient. These dates fit nicely into the prophetic jigsaw puzzle they were building. The dates were picked because they fit in the puzzle, not because they actually delineated the years of papal supremacy.
6. Does Daniel 7 Describe a Judgment of the Righteous? Notice the order of events presented in Daniel 7:
Little horn came up (v. 8)
Little horn spoke great things (v. 8)
The judgment was set (v. 10)
The beast was slain and burned (v. 11)
There is nothing said in this sequence of events about investigating the deeds of the righteous. The context is that the little horn spoke blasphemous words, and then judgment occurred, and the very next event after the judgment was the destruction of the beast. The only conclusion that can be arrived at from reading this passage is that the ones being judged are the little horn and the beast power. Now notice the sequence in the latter part of the chapter:
Little horn arises (v. 24)
Little horn speaks against Most High (v. 25)
Little horn persecutes saints for 1260 days (v. 25)
The judgment shall sit (v. 26)
The little horn's dominion is taken away (v. 26)
The little horn's kingdom is given to the saints (v. 27)
Once again, there is nothing said about a judgment of the saints. It is clearly the little horn who is judged unworthy of having dominion, and his kingdom is taken away and given to the saints.
Are the Ten Horns really Ten Tribes that defeat the Roman Empire? Daniel 7:24 makes it abundantly clear that the ten horns are not other nations:
And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise... (KJV)
The ten horns are ten kings who shall arise from this kingdom... (NKJV)
Its ten horns are ten kings that will rule that empire. (NLT)
The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom. (NIV)
As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings shall arise... (ESV)
As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings will arise... (NASB)
As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings shall arise... (RSV)
Notice some important truths from this passage that directly contradict SDA teachings:
The Bible clearly says the ten kings will arise from within the Roman Empire. None of the ten tribes arose from within or ruled over the Roman Empire. The ten tribes were outside powers who conquered parts of the Roman Empire and established new nations. They neither came from the Roman Empire nor ruled over it.
The Bible clearly says the ten horns are "kings". The Aramaic word used is melek which literally means "king" and is only translated "king" in the Old Testatment, never "nation" or "kingdom". The ten tribes were nations, not kings. In the very same passage, the word malkuw is used, meaning "kingdom". Notice:
And the ten horns out of this kingdom (malkuw) are ten kings (melek) that shall arise...
If this passage was referring to ten kingdoms that defeated the Roman Empire, then we would have expected Daniel to use the word malkuw (kingdom) instead of melek (king).
SDA's teach the horn on the head of the goat of Daniel 8 was a king (Alexander the Great) who ruled over the kingdom of Greece. If a horn on a head indicates a ruler over that empire in Daniel 8, then why not apply the same principle to Daniel 7?
The fourth beast had ten horns growing out of its head. In Daniel chapter 8, Adventists teach that horns growing out of the head of a beast represent specific kings or rulers over that particular empire. In the vision of the Goat and the Ram, the Goat has a large horn growing on its head and Daniel 8:21 says:
And the male goat is the kingdom of Greece. The large horn that is between its eyes is the first king. (NKJV)
Adventists agree that the horn growing on the head of the Goat represents Alexandar the Great. When that one large horn is later replaced by four smaller horns, Adventists likewise teach the Macedonian empire was ruled by Alexander's four generals. It is entirely inconsistent for Adventists to interpret the horns of Daniel 7 as nations that conquered that beast while at the same time teaching that the horns of Daniel 8 are kings of that nation! The Bible imagery throughout the book of Daniel, and also in the book of Revelation, consistently signifies that horns growing on the head of a beast represent the kings or leaders of that power. To teach that those horns are actually outside powers that invade and conquer the beast is totally inconsistent with the imagery and Biblical usage of the symbol.
Another symbol ignored by Seventh-day Adventists is the two iron legs of the image of Daniel 2. The Roman Empire clearly split into two parts: Western, head-quartered in Rome, and Eastern, ruled from Constantinople. The ten tribes only attacked and conquered the western part of the empire. The eastern part continued on for more than 1,000 years. This destroys the SDA image of the ten toes being synomomous with ten tribes, because that would mean five toes on each foot, and the Eastern Empire was not defeated by any of the ten tribes.
Another problem is that at least 20 tribes invaded the Roman Empire. Therefore, we can conclude:
The SDA teaching contradicts the Bible which says the ten horns arise from within that kingdom
The SDA teaching contradicts the Bible which says the ten horns are kings, not nations
The SDA teaching contradicts their own interpretation of horns, which is that horns are rulers of a particular Kindom (aka Alexander)
The SDA teaching contradicts history which says twenty tribes invaded the western Roman Empire, not ten
2. Did the Papacy uproot three tribes? As noted above, Uriah Smith and other Adventists teach that the Vandals, Ostrogoths, and Heuli were destroyed by the Pope of Rome. Such a revision of history is nothing less than pure fiction. None of these tribes were destroyed by the Pope. Any history textbook will explain that the Heruli were defeated by the Lombards, the Vandals and Ostrogoths by the Byzantines. Now the Pope benefited to some degree by the defeat of the Vandals and Ostrogoths, but it is uncertain, what, if any, role the Pope played in their demise. More importantly, the Heruli were defeated by the Lombards, who were Arians and avowed enemies of the Catholic Church. The Lombards were already identified as one of the other ten horns, and the defeat of the Heruli did not aid the Papacy in any meaningful way, so it makes no sense to claim the Papacy uprooted the Heruli.
In addition, two other tribes were uprooted during the same time period by the Byzantines: the Huns (455 AD) and the Alemanni (495 AD). Why do Adventists ignore these uprooted tribes? There is no reason to ignore them except for the fact that Adventists are trying to make the square pegs of history fit into the round holes of their prophetic jigsaw puzzle. They needed three tribes in order to make their theory fit into Daniel's writings, so they picked three out of the five and ignored the others.
3. Did the Papacy persecute the saints for 1,260 years? There is no doubt at all that Catholics persecuted others, but the 538 - 1798 timeframe of the persecutions does not fit very well with actual historical facts. Persecution actually started more than a century before 538 and finally ended nearly half a century after 1798 :
"Persecution of non-Catholics by Catholic authority began in the 4th Century, and culminated in the Codex Theodosianus (438), which punished all who did not embrace “that religion. . . now professed by the Pontiff.” At the opposite extreme, the Portuguese inquisition operated until 1821; the Spanish inquisition only concluded in 1834; the Roman inquisition in the Papal States also continued into the mid 19th century. Thus, the persecutory activities of Catholics exceed the limits of 538-1798 CE. The papacy does not fit the limits set by the prophecy."6
4. Did the Papacy change the Sabbath and the Ten Commandments? The Catholic Cathecism traces its roots back to Augustine, which was long before Adventists say the "little horn" power arose, and long before the papal power became established. Therefore, it is difficult, if not impossible, to pin the Cathecism's changing of the law on the Papacy.
Adventists claim that the papacy transfered Sabbath observance to Sunday during the dark ages. Prophet Ellen White saw in vision that the Pope changed the day of worship to Sunday:
"I saw that God had not changed the Sabbath, for He never changes. But the pope had changed it from the seventh to the first day of the week; for he was to change times and laws."7
The "official" teaching of the Catholic Church is that the abolition of the Sabbath was confirmed by the early Church Fathers:
The early Church Fathers compared the observance of the Sabbath to the observance of the rite of circumcision, and from that they demonstrated that if the apostles abolished circumcision (Gal. 5:1-6), so also the observance of the Sabbath must have been abolished.8
The above quote has the NIHIL OBSTAT and the IMPRIMATUR which essentially means the quote is considered authentic, accurate, and official by the Catholic Church. So, the "official" Catholic Church teaching is that Sunday-keeping can be traced back to the generation following the Apostles. Adventists point to a series of articles that appeared in September of 1893 in the Catholic Mirror as proof that the Catholic Church changed the day of worship. Those articles do indeed brag that the Catholic Church made the change, but they do not carry either the NIHIL OBSTAT or the IMPRIMATUR. This means the articles are not an official church teaching and represent merely the opinion of the author.9
Seventh-day Adventist theologian Samuele Bacchiocchi had access to the Vatican vaults and researched the oldest material on Sabbath-keeping. His research led him to conclude Sunday-keeping was largely practiced long before the first pope came on the scene:
"I differ from Ellen White, for example, on the origin of Sunday. She teaches that in the first centuries all Christians observed the Sabbath and it was largely through the efforts of Constantine that Sundaykeeping was adopted by many Christians in the fourth century. My research shows otherwise. If you read my essay HOW DID SUNDAYKEEPING BEGIN? which summarizes my dissertation, you will notice that I place the origin of Sundaykeeping by the time of the Emperor Hadrian, in A. D. 135."10
In the first centuries of Christianity there were varied opinions on the day of worship. Many Jewish Christians continued to observe the seventh day Sabbath. Some Christians observed both days, while others gathered for worship only on Sunday. There is evidence that Sunday-keeping was widely practiced by Christians by the generation following the Apostles, and perhaps even while some of the Apostles were still alive. The Didache is an ancient "church manual" dating from the first century. In it, the "Lord's Day", understood by comparison to other literature of that time period to mean "Sunday", is mentioned as the day that the Lord's Supper is celebrated:11
90 A.D. Didache - "Christian Assembly on the Lord's Day: 1. But every Lord's day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure."12
Here are a couple of other early quotes indicating an early introduction of Sunday worship in the Christian Church:
100 A.D. Barnabas - "Moreover God says to the Jews, 'Your new moons and Sabbaths I cannot endure.' You see how he says, 'The present Sabbaths are not acceptable to me, but the Sabbath which I have made in which, when I have rested [heaven: Heb 4] from all things, I will make the beginning of the eighth day which is the beginning of another world.' Wherefore we Christians keep the eighth day for joy, on which also Jesus arose from the dead and when he appeared ascended into heaven."13
110 A.D. Ignatius - "[T]hose who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e. Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death".14
Therefore, Sunday observance started hundreds of years before the Roman bishop's rise to pre-eminence.
5. Did the Papacy have Supremecy for 1260 years? The SDA Prophet Ellen White wrote:
"The 1260 years of papal supremacy began with the establishment of the papacy in A. D. 538, and would therefore terminate on 1798."15
538 AD is the year when the Ostrogoths were driven out of Rome, but nothing of great importance happened to the papacy during this year. In fact, the Ostrogoths later recovered from their defeat, went on the offensive, and re-occupied Rome from 541 to 548 AD. The Ostrogoths were not finally eradicated until 561 AD. The papacy did not achieve temporal sovereignty until 756 when the pope acquired the territories of Central Italy. (The papacy controlled these territories until 1870 when the king of Sardinia took over the papal territories.) So why the 538 date? As noted above, the Catholic persecutions do not adhere to these dates. There is no reason for starting at 538 AD other than the fact that it provides a convenient starting point if counting backwards from 1798--the supposed date of the demise of the papal power.
So, what about the ending date of the 1260-day prophecy? Was the papacy abolished in 1798? Ellen White writes:
"The infliction of the deadly wound points to the abolition of the papacy in 1798."16
While 1798 is a significant year for the papacy, it certainly does not indicate the "abolition" or even the downfall of the papacy. When Pope Pius VI was taken prisoner by the French General Berthier, the papacy suffered humiliation, but it would be a gross exaggeration to describe this event as the "downfall" of the papacy.
SDA Theologian Dr. Bacchiocchi explains what happened after the pope was captured in 1798:
"The imprisonment of Pope Paul VI was condemned by Russia and Austria. Both nations decided to join forces to restore the Pope to his Pontifical throne in Rome. When the French government was confronted with this new coalition and with popular uprisings, it decided to transfer the Pope to Valence, in France, where he died 40 days later, on August 29, 1799.
"The death of Pius VI can hardly be seen as the 'abolishment' or 'the downfall of the Papacy.' It was simply a temporary humiliation of the prestige of the Papacy. In fact, Pius VI was able to give directives for the election of his successor. Few months after his death, the Cardinals met in Venice on December 8, 1799, and elected Barnaba Chiaramonti, who took the name of Pious VII, in deference to his predecessor.
"The new Pope was able to negotiate with Napoleon the Concordat in 1801 and the Organic Articles in 1802. These treatises restored to the Pope some of the territories of the States of the Church and regulated the extent of the Papal authority in France.
"The following years marked, not the downfall, but the resurgence of papal authority, especially under the Pontificate of Pius IX (1846-1878). In 1854, Pius IX promulgated the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. ...
"The crowning event of Pius IX's pontificate was the convening of the First Vatican Council on December 8, 1869. It had a remarkable large attendance from all over the Roman world and on July 18, 1870, the Council promulgated the dogma of Papal Infallibility. This dogma has greatly enhanced the authority of the Pope, and discredits any attempt to attribute to 1798 the downfall of the papacy."17
Thus, the dates of 538 and 1798 do not accurately mark the beginning and ending dates of the period of papal supremacy. The Bishop of Rome was gradually consolidating power for many centuries, and the papacy continued to grow and thrive even after the temporary setback of 1798. These dates were concocted by Adventists because they were convenient. These dates fit nicely into the prophetic jigsaw puzzle they were building. The dates were picked because they fit in the puzzle, not because they actually delineated the years of papal supremacy.
6. Does Daniel 7 Describe a Judgment of the Righteous? Notice the order of events presented in Daniel 7:
Little horn came up (v. 8)
Little horn spoke great things (v. 8)
The judgment was set (v. 10)
The beast was slain and burned (v. 11)
There is nothing said in this sequence of events about investigating the deeds of the righteous. The context is that the little horn spoke blasphemous words, and then judgment occurred, and the very next event after the judgment was the destruction of the beast. The only conclusion that can be arrived at from reading this passage is that the ones being judged are the little horn and the beast power. Now notice the sequence in the latter part of the chapter:
Little horn arises (v. 24)
Little horn speaks against Most High (v. 25)
Little horn persecutes saints for 1260 days (v. 25)
The judgment shall sit (v. 26)
The little horn's dominion is taken away (v. 26)
The little horn's kingdom is given to the saints (v. 27)
Once again, there is nothing said about a judgment of the saints. It is clearly the little horn who is judged unworthy of having dominion, and his kingdom is taken away and given to the saints.
Ik denk dat Daniel 7 gaat over Vespanianus:
Daniel 7:3-6
And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another. The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings: I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man's heart was given to it. And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh. After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it.
Few commentators, even Daniel "late daters," disagree as to the identification of Beast #1: This is clearly Babylon. Beast #2 is identified by liberals as Media, and Beast #3 as Persia. We argue in this piece that such an interpretation is off the mark, and that #2 is Medo-Persian, while #3 is Greece.
Daniel 7:7-8
It is with Beast #4 that things become relevant for our topic here:
After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns. I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.
Liberal commentators try to make this sound like the Seleucid Empire of Antiochus, but that won't work at all -- Rome is clearly in view here. The Seleucids were neither strong nor crushing; Rome was. But in terms of eschatology, this is where a division of opinion occurs. Dispensationalists (those who adhere to the standard "Left Behind" view) see in this beast a dual fulfillment part ancient Rome, but part fulfillment by an Antichrist figure in our future. But can this really be justified? If the whole of Daniel's words finds fulfillment in 70 AD, secondary fulfillments become possible, of course, but essentially superfluous in context.
My own findings on this subject may not be new. Indeed, my identification of the "little horn" in Daniel 7 has been proposed before; for example, though he identified the little horn differently, the Jewish commentator Rashi (1040-1105) thought of the ten horns in the same way I have. The reader will have to decide whether the connections made are plausible. Our questions for this passage are:
What's the empire? As noted, all on the conservative side agree that Rome is in view in some way. But is it just ancient Rome, or another as well? Or could it be said that Rome never really ended, since the modern nations of Europe essentially carry on the same dominion? The answer turns upon what follows.
Who are the ten horns, the three horns, and the little horn? The standard dispensational answer: These ten horns are ten kings to come, or else ten nations in a federation headed by the Antichrist figure. But does it bear out?
A sub-question here is whether we should expect ten literal entities, whether kings or nations. Miller [Daniel commentary, 203] notes that ten may merely symbolize completeness. The actual number of entities may be different; one might justly argue that the ten horns are programmatic, after the ten toes of Daniel's statue.
That may indeed be the case. But it is worth notice that the first century era provides us with an intriguing basis for total fulfillment of this passage.
The Roman historian Suetonius authored a biographical account entitled The Twelve Caesars [Penguin Books, 1989], which provided historical data about twelve Roman Caesars from Julius Caesar to Domitian at the end of the first century:
Julius Caesar, 49-44 BC
Triumverate: Marc Anthony/Octavian (Augustus)/Lepidus 44-31 BC
Augustus, 31 BC-14 AD
Tiberius, 14-37
Caligula, 37-41
Claudius, 41-54
Nero, 54-68
Galba, 68-69
Otho, 69
Vitellius, 69
Vespasian, 69-79
Titus, 79-81
Domitian, 81-96
In the year 49 BC, Julius Caesar assumed the title of dictator of Rome. In 44 BC, he assumed the title of dictator perpetuus, or dictator for life. He was assassinated before he could enjoy it for long, but he laid the foundation for what would become a dynasty.
The Triumverate is not included in Suetonius' work. However, it consisted of two men who were relatives of Julius Caesar: Marc Anthony, who was a grandson of one of Julius' uncles, and Octavian, who later became Augustus and the first of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. Lepidus was part of the triumverate but was not part of Julius' family.
Of particular interest to us, however, is the place of Vespasian in the list. He is 11th, just as the little horn is 11th in Daniel's order. Vespasian, and his son Titus, were of course responsible for the destruction of Jerusalem in 70. Vespasian was Emperor, and originally the military leader, and Titus was the military commander who actually downed Jerusalem. Now the question: Does Vespasian fit the remaining descriptors of Daniel 7's little horn?
The little horn is given these primary characteristics in Daniel 7:
"Eyes like a man" -- Miller comments [202] that eyes in Scripture are "instruments of observation and learning and are therefore appropriately symbolic of intelligence, insight, and wisdom...This individual will be extremely intelligent and clever." Goldingay [Daniel commentary, 164] states that the eyes signify arrogance (see below). Tatford [Daniel commentary, 111] sees a reference to "intellectual shrewdness and perspicacity," or keen observation and insight.
Is Vespasian the Horn?
Does any of this fit Vespasian? Suetonius' description of Vespasian is of a man who was a survivor, a shrewd politician (he "behaved most generously to all classes", giving out plenty of money), and a patron of the arts. He lived an orderly and structured life, "was nearly always just as good-natured, cracking frequent jokes," had "a knack of apt quotation from the Greek classics..." Daniel's description is quite general; it would fit Vespasian's son Titus just as well (Titus had, according to Suetonius, a phenomenal memory, great artistic talent, and excellent skills as a forger!). But of course, for our thesis, it would have to at least fit Vespasian, and it arguably does.
"A mouth speaking great things" ("very great things", 7:20) -- the word for "great" (rabrab) is used only in Daniel in the OT and is used to refer to "great gifts" given by Nebuchadnezzar, and "great signs" given by God. Commentators take this as a description of arrogance [Miller, 202].
Was Vespasian arrogant? Suetonius has little bad to say about Vespasian, and does not indict him for this sin. As it happens, though, Dan. 7:25 tells us a bit more about the horn's sort of arrogance: "And he shall speak great words against the most High..." This would also not be surprising from any Roman, of course, since the Romans regarded Judaism as a foolish superstition. Yahweh was likely blasphemed by Romans on a daily basis across the Empire. Suetonius offers us some interesting tidbits that may be of relevance:
In Judaea, Vespasian consulted the oracle of the God of Carmel and was given a promise that he would never be disappointed in what he planned or desired, however lofty his ambitions. Also, a distinguished Jewish prisoner of Vespasian's, Josephus by name, insisted that he would soon be released by the very man who had now put him in fetters, and who would then be Emperor.
Josephus himself has some interesting tidbits. Since Vespasian was his sponsor and actually reviewed his work, we would not expect him to recount cases where Vespasian spoke against God, if he did, but he does tell us (War 4.10.7):
...Vespasian's good fortune succeeded to his wishes everywhere, and the public affairs were, for the greatest part, already in his hands; upon which he considered that he had not arrived at the government without divine providence, but that a righteous kind of fate had brought the empire under his power...
A righteous kind of fate? Not God? Credit where it is due -- who does Daniel know who has a problem doing that?
Daniel 4:25 That they shall drive thee [Nebuchadnezzar] from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field, and they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and they shall wet thee with the dew of heaven, and seven times shall pass over thee, till thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.
They took different tacks, but both Nebuchadnezzar and Vespasian clearly had problems knowing who ruled in the kingdom of men and gave out the power cards. Arrogant? Yes -- since it is a "righteous" fate that he thought brought him to power. It wasn't as bad as Nebuchadnezzar crediting himself, but in either case it is an arrogant insult to the Most High.
"Looked more imposing that the others" (7:20) -- the word for imposing is rab, a form of the word noted above. The word "look" (chezev) is also unique to Daniel and refers to appearances; it is the word used to refer to Daniel's "visions". The descriptor is actually of the horn of the vision itself, not the person it represents [Miller, 212], so there is no need to go into whether Vespasian himself looked more imposing than, say, Nero; from a Jewish perspective his role in destroying Judaea may have been enough to earn such a reckoning.
Vespasian certainly seems a plausible candidate for the little horn. (I referred to Rashi earlier; he also identified the horns with Rome's emperors, but made Titus the little horn.) This granted, we are left with two questions. First, what of the three horns that are uprooted? I believe the answer remains in our list of Emperors -- the three horns are to be identified with Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, military men who died in one year, 69 AD. The first and third were murdered by their troops; Otho was compelled to suicide.
Does this fit Daniel's words? Let's consider what actions are effected on these three horns throughout Daniel:
"Before who three were plucked up by the roots" -- the verb here is the same used to describe the hamstringing of horses (Josh. 11:6, 9). Miller [202] says that the word "denotes a violent overthrow and does not imply that an individual will merely succeed a previous king (or kings) to the throne..." or merely displace the previous kings.
"Before whom three fell" (7:20) -- the preposition here can mean, among other things, before, after, or because of. The verb behind "fell" is used only 11 times in the Bible, once in Ezra and 10 times in Daniel. It is used of Nebuchadnezzar falling on his face in worship (2:46), several times of people falling for worship before Nebuchadnezzar's gold idol, and once for a voice coming down from heaven (4:31).
"He shall subdue three kings" (7:24) -- the word subdue is taken within a dispensational paradigm to mean that the little horn king will himself demote three of the kings. But does the word require direct intervention? It is used in the OT only in Daniel, and is found in Dan. 5:19 referring to Nebuchadnezzar ("And for the majesty that he gave him, all people, nations, and languages, trembled and feared before him: whom he would he slew; and whom he would he kept alive; and whom he would he set up; and whom he would he put down.") The word (shephal) means to abase or humble.
Does this work out with Vespasian and the three deposed emperors? Technically items 1 and 2 don't have to -- these are descriptions of the horn in the dream rather than of the king in question. Only the third entry actually describes an action of this king in relation to the other three. But as it happens this does fit well what happened anyway.
Did Vespasian in any sense "put down" or "debase" the three kings? He was not involved directly in any way with their overthrow or deaths that our sources record. Yet the year 68-9, the time of our three rapid Emperors, is known as the time of the Roman civil wars precisely because of this infighting that produced four different emperors in one year. Each of these fellows was a military man with troops that were (at least at some point) loyal to him.
By the rules of war, Vespasian was the winner -- and therefore can be said to have indeed humbled, or put down, the other three. He was the winner, in essence, of the Roman civil wars among four candidates for the highest post, and also the winner of the contest of honor that was ingrained with the conflict.
Daniel 7:9-12
I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened. I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame. As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time.
Daniel, by our view, is predicting the abrupt end of the Roman Empire. The other three kingdoms -- which we see as Babylon, Media-Persia, and Greece -- are said to be given extra time to live, though stripped of their authority. This is seen as fulfilled, under any paradigm, in that these kingdoms continued to exist, albeit absorbed, by the power that conquered them. Rome, however, when it fell, didn't have that option.
(I do not see that it is necessary to suppose that the fall of Rome, to match this vision, would have had to occur at the time that Vespasian died; verse 11 gives no indication that the fate of the little horn was delivered at the same time that Beast #4 was slain. If dispensationalists wish to argue this, I may point out that it is certainly no less reasonable than their idea that there is a spread of at least 2000 years now in the life of the fourth beast!)
Daniel 7:13-14
I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
With this passage we return to the main subject of our eschatology project. We know that the Son of Man envisioned here is Christ. What should be especially noted for our purposes is the Son of Man's mode of transportation, and the direction he is going in. The Son of Man is riding with "the clouds of heaven" (the LXX has the Son of Man actually "on" the clouds) and heading towards the Ancient of Days to be enthroned.
Miller [207] believes that the Son of Man rides from heaven to earth in this picture, but this is quite unlikely in view of the setting of God's heavenly court (7:10). Goldingay [164] acknowledges that the scene of God on a throne of fire, surrounded by attendants, "locate the scene in heaven"; but counters that where "it is specifically a matter of God judging...the scene is normally on earth." The verses he uses in support of this, however, could be said to fall to circular reasoning; for example, Jer. 49:38: "And I will set my throne in Elam, and will destroy from thence the king and the princes, saith the LORD." Did God literally set his throne in Elam? (Other passages, like Ps. 96:10-13, say God will come to judge the earth, but how does this equate with God being physically present on earth?)
The scene fits the placement in heaven better than it fits a placement on earth. Nor does it do to object that the scene must be on earth because of the earth and the sea seen by Daniel (7:3-4). Again, if we are thinking literal geography and envisioning here, then the Mormons must be right about God having a human body!
Casey [Case.SOM, 22, 24-9], for his own purposes, insists that the scene of the AoD is on the earth. He admits that "If the judgment is on earth, God will have to come to earth in order to carry it out" -- then adds that this is not stated explicitly, "because it is not an important aspect of what the author wanted to say!" This does not answer the problem, it merely tries to explain it away with silence!
We will return to this issue in our dealing with the Olivet discourse. For now, we need to round out our treatment of Daniel. Verses 7:15-20 only record Daniel's inquiry and repeat previous information. We may move to this:
Daniel 7:21-2
I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.
Did Vespasian "make war" with the saints and prevail against them? If by "saints" Daniel means Jews then the obvious answer is yes; but it is clear here that "Jews" cannot be intended, if we are to take this prophecy as correct, since the Jews did not in any sense come to possess a kingdom. On the other hand, as we shall argue, this does make sense if the saints are interpreted as the Christians.
But then the question is, "Was war made on the Christians? This was a war against the Jews!" It was indeed in the main -- but there is evidence that Christians were targeted here also. A fragment of Tacitus' Histories, now preserved for us only by Severus tells of deliberations by Titus as to whether to destroy the Jewish temple. In the end he decides to do so, because although the two religions were in conflict, "they nevertheless developed from the same origins. The Christiani arose from the Jews: With the root removed, the branch is easily killed."
If this is right, then Christians were a real, albeit by far secondary, target of the Romans in the successful attack on Jerusalem. (Josephus reports this conversation as well, but does not mention the Christians -- War 6.4.3.)
We will talk more about the "kingdom" language in another essay. For now, more on Daniel. Verses 23 and 24 repeat earlier material; on to:
Daniel 7:25-6
And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.
The first part of verse 25 repeats what is said earlier, and adds this:
"Change times and laws" -- Miller [214] interprets this as referring to a desire to eliminate religious holidays and laws. As noted before, the Romans under Vespasian's ultimate command thought to destroy the Temple as a way of destroying Judaism. Their thinking was misplaced, but this was certainly in mind if we are to believe Tacitus.
The saints will be given over "for a time, times and half a time" -- most see this as referring to a period of three and a half years, and this is the case under any paradigm. The question is, when was this three and a half year period? Can it fit into events of 70 AD?
Yes, it can. The Jewish war lasted 7 years, from 66-73 AD. Jerusalem was destroyed in the middle of this period, in 70. The 3 1/2 years would correspond well with the period from 66-70, or perhaps from 70-73, though the latter is less likely since by this time Christians would have followed Jesus' instructions to flee, and the former fits in line with the statement from Tacitus that there was enmity against the Christians as a branch of Judaism.
His power "will be taken away and completely destroyed forever." Vespasian of course did not remain Emperor forever; he died in 79 AD. This statement could be made of any human leader and does not indicate any special sort of judgment. It is made in contrast to verse 27 and the everlasting kingdom therein.
Daniel 7:27
And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.
We believe that this refers to the established rule of Christ in 70 AD and will address this matter, again, in our Olivet study.
Daniel 7:3-6
And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another. The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings: I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man's heart was given to it. And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh. After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it.
Few commentators, even Daniel "late daters," disagree as to the identification of Beast #1: This is clearly Babylon. Beast #2 is identified by liberals as Media, and Beast #3 as Persia. We argue in this piece that such an interpretation is off the mark, and that #2 is Medo-Persian, while #3 is Greece.
Daniel 7:7-8
It is with Beast #4 that things become relevant for our topic here:
After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns. I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.
Liberal commentators try to make this sound like the Seleucid Empire of Antiochus, but that won't work at all -- Rome is clearly in view here. The Seleucids were neither strong nor crushing; Rome was. But in terms of eschatology, this is where a division of opinion occurs. Dispensationalists (those who adhere to the standard "Left Behind" view) see in this beast a dual fulfillment part ancient Rome, but part fulfillment by an Antichrist figure in our future. But can this really be justified? If the whole of Daniel's words finds fulfillment in 70 AD, secondary fulfillments become possible, of course, but essentially superfluous in context.
My own findings on this subject may not be new. Indeed, my identification of the "little horn" in Daniel 7 has been proposed before; for example, though he identified the little horn differently, the Jewish commentator Rashi (1040-1105) thought of the ten horns in the same way I have. The reader will have to decide whether the connections made are plausible. Our questions for this passage are:
What's the empire? As noted, all on the conservative side agree that Rome is in view in some way. But is it just ancient Rome, or another as well? Or could it be said that Rome never really ended, since the modern nations of Europe essentially carry on the same dominion? The answer turns upon what follows.
Who are the ten horns, the three horns, and the little horn? The standard dispensational answer: These ten horns are ten kings to come, or else ten nations in a federation headed by the Antichrist figure. But does it bear out?
A sub-question here is whether we should expect ten literal entities, whether kings or nations. Miller [Daniel commentary, 203] notes that ten may merely symbolize completeness. The actual number of entities may be different; one might justly argue that the ten horns are programmatic, after the ten toes of Daniel's statue.
That may indeed be the case. But it is worth notice that the first century era provides us with an intriguing basis for total fulfillment of this passage.
The Roman historian Suetonius authored a biographical account entitled The Twelve Caesars [Penguin Books, 1989], which provided historical data about twelve Roman Caesars from Julius Caesar to Domitian at the end of the first century:
Julius Caesar, 49-44 BC
Triumverate: Marc Anthony/Octavian (Augustus)/Lepidus 44-31 BC
Augustus, 31 BC-14 AD
Tiberius, 14-37
Caligula, 37-41
Claudius, 41-54
Nero, 54-68
Galba, 68-69
Otho, 69
Vitellius, 69
Vespasian, 69-79
Titus, 79-81
Domitian, 81-96
In the year 49 BC, Julius Caesar assumed the title of dictator of Rome. In 44 BC, he assumed the title of dictator perpetuus, or dictator for life. He was assassinated before he could enjoy it for long, but he laid the foundation for what would become a dynasty.
The Triumverate is not included in Suetonius' work. However, it consisted of two men who were relatives of Julius Caesar: Marc Anthony, who was a grandson of one of Julius' uncles, and Octavian, who later became Augustus and the first of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. Lepidus was part of the triumverate but was not part of Julius' family.
Of particular interest to us, however, is the place of Vespasian in the list. He is 11th, just as the little horn is 11th in Daniel's order. Vespasian, and his son Titus, were of course responsible for the destruction of Jerusalem in 70. Vespasian was Emperor, and originally the military leader, and Titus was the military commander who actually downed Jerusalem. Now the question: Does Vespasian fit the remaining descriptors of Daniel 7's little horn?
The little horn is given these primary characteristics in Daniel 7:
"Eyes like a man" -- Miller comments [202] that eyes in Scripture are "instruments of observation and learning and are therefore appropriately symbolic of intelligence, insight, and wisdom...This individual will be extremely intelligent and clever." Goldingay [Daniel commentary, 164] states that the eyes signify arrogance (see below). Tatford [Daniel commentary, 111] sees a reference to "intellectual shrewdness and perspicacity," or keen observation and insight.
Is Vespasian the Horn?
Does any of this fit Vespasian? Suetonius' description of Vespasian is of a man who was a survivor, a shrewd politician (he "behaved most generously to all classes", giving out plenty of money), and a patron of the arts. He lived an orderly and structured life, "was nearly always just as good-natured, cracking frequent jokes," had "a knack of apt quotation from the Greek classics..." Daniel's description is quite general; it would fit Vespasian's son Titus just as well (Titus had, according to Suetonius, a phenomenal memory, great artistic talent, and excellent skills as a forger!). But of course, for our thesis, it would have to at least fit Vespasian, and it arguably does.
"A mouth speaking great things" ("very great things", 7:20) -- the word for "great" (rabrab) is used only in Daniel in the OT and is used to refer to "great gifts" given by Nebuchadnezzar, and "great signs" given by God. Commentators take this as a description of arrogance [Miller, 202].
Was Vespasian arrogant? Suetonius has little bad to say about Vespasian, and does not indict him for this sin. As it happens, though, Dan. 7:25 tells us a bit more about the horn's sort of arrogance: "And he shall speak great words against the most High..." This would also not be surprising from any Roman, of course, since the Romans regarded Judaism as a foolish superstition. Yahweh was likely blasphemed by Romans on a daily basis across the Empire. Suetonius offers us some interesting tidbits that may be of relevance:
In Judaea, Vespasian consulted the oracle of the God of Carmel and was given a promise that he would never be disappointed in what he planned or desired, however lofty his ambitions. Also, a distinguished Jewish prisoner of Vespasian's, Josephus by name, insisted that he would soon be released by the very man who had now put him in fetters, and who would then be Emperor.
Josephus himself has some interesting tidbits. Since Vespasian was his sponsor and actually reviewed his work, we would not expect him to recount cases where Vespasian spoke against God, if he did, but he does tell us (War 4.10.7):
...Vespasian's good fortune succeeded to his wishes everywhere, and the public affairs were, for the greatest part, already in his hands; upon which he considered that he had not arrived at the government without divine providence, but that a righteous kind of fate had brought the empire under his power...
A righteous kind of fate? Not God? Credit where it is due -- who does Daniel know who has a problem doing that?
Daniel 4:25 That they shall drive thee [Nebuchadnezzar] from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field, and they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and they shall wet thee with the dew of heaven, and seven times shall pass over thee, till thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.
They took different tacks, but both Nebuchadnezzar and Vespasian clearly had problems knowing who ruled in the kingdom of men and gave out the power cards. Arrogant? Yes -- since it is a "righteous" fate that he thought brought him to power. It wasn't as bad as Nebuchadnezzar crediting himself, but in either case it is an arrogant insult to the Most High.
"Looked more imposing that the others" (7:20) -- the word for imposing is rab, a form of the word noted above. The word "look" (chezev) is also unique to Daniel and refers to appearances; it is the word used to refer to Daniel's "visions". The descriptor is actually of the horn of the vision itself, not the person it represents [Miller, 212], so there is no need to go into whether Vespasian himself looked more imposing than, say, Nero; from a Jewish perspective his role in destroying Judaea may have been enough to earn such a reckoning.
Vespasian certainly seems a plausible candidate for the little horn. (I referred to Rashi earlier; he also identified the horns with Rome's emperors, but made Titus the little horn.) This granted, we are left with two questions. First, what of the three horns that are uprooted? I believe the answer remains in our list of Emperors -- the three horns are to be identified with Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, military men who died in one year, 69 AD. The first and third were murdered by their troops; Otho was compelled to suicide.
Does this fit Daniel's words? Let's consider what actions are effected on these three horns throughout Daniel:
"Before who three were plucked up by the roots" -- the verb here is the same used to describe the hamstringing of horses (Josh. 11:6, 9). Miller [202] says that the word "denotes a violent overthrow and does not imply that an individual will merely succeed a previous king (or kings) to the throne..." or merely displace the previous kings.
"Before whom three fell" (7:20) -- the preposition here can mean, among other things, before, after, or because of. The verb behind "fell" is used only 11 times in the Bible, once in Ezra and 10 times in Daniel. It is used of Nebuchadnezzar falling on his face in worship (2:46), several times of people falling for worship before Nebuchadnezzar's gold idol, and once for a voice coming down from heaven (4:31).
"He shall subdue three kings" (7:24) -- the word subdue is taken within a dispensational paradigm to mean that the little horn king will himself demote three of the kings. But does the word require direct intervention? It is used in the OT only in Daniel, and is found in Dan. 5:19 referring to Nebuchadnezzar ("And for the majesty that he gave him, all people, nations, and languages, trembled and feared before him: whom he would he slew; and whom he would he kept alive; and whom he would he set up; and whom he would he put down.") The word (shephal) means to abase or humble.
Does this work out with Vespasian and the three deposed emperors? Technically items 1 and 2 don't have to -- these are descriptions of the horn in the dream rather than of the king in question. Only the third entry actually describes an action of this king in relation to the other three. But as it happens this does fit well what happened anyway.
Did Vespasian in any sense "put down" or "debase" the three kings? He was not involved directly in any way with their overthrow or deaths that our sources record. Yet the year 68-9, the time of our three rapid Emperors, is known as the time of the Roman civil wars precisely because of this infighting that produced four different emperors in one year. Each of these fellows was a military man with troops that were (at least at some point) loyal to him.
By the rules of war, Vespasian was the winner -- and therefore can be said to have indeed humbled, or put down, the other three. He was the winner, in essence, of the Roman civil wars among four candidates for the highest post, and also the winner of the contest of honor that was ingrained with the conflict.
Daniel 7:9-12
I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened. I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame. As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time.
Daniel, by our view, is predicting the abrupt end of the Roman Empire. The other three kingdoms -- which we see as Babylon, Media-Persia, and Greece -- are said to be given extra time to live, though stripped of their authority. This is seen as fulfilled, under any paradigm, in that these kingdoms continued to exist, albeit absorbed, by the power that conquered them. Rome, however, when it fell, didn't have that option.
(I do not see that it is necessary to suppose that the fall of Rome, to match this vision, would have had to occur at the time that Vespasian died; verse 11 gives no indication that the fate of the little horn was delivered at the same time that Beast #4 was slain. If dispensationalists wish to argue this, I may point out that it is certainly no less reasonable than their idea that there is a spread of at least 2000 years now in the life of the fourth beast!)
Daniel 7:13-14
I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
With this passage we return to the main subject of our eschatology project. We know that the Son of Man envisioned here is Christ. What should be especially noted for our purposes is the Son of Man's mode of transportation, and the direction he is going in. The Son of Man is riding with "the clouds of heaven" (the LXX has the Son of Man actually "on" the clouds) and heading towards the Ancient of Days to be enthroned.
Miller [207] believes that the Son of Man rides from heaven to earth in this picture, but this is quite unlikely in view of the setting of God's heavenly court (7:10). Goldingay [164] acknowledges that the scene of God on a throne of fire, surrounded by attendants, "locate the scene in heaven"; but counters that where "it is specifically a matter of God judging...the scene is normally on earth." The verses he uses in support of this, however, could be said to fall to circular reasoning; for example, Jer. 49:38: "And I will set my throne in Elam, and will destroy from thence the king and the princes, saith the LORD." Did God literally set his throne in Elam? (Other passages, like Ps. 96:10-13, say God will come to judge the earth, but how does this equate with God being physically present on earth?)
The scene fits the placement in heaven better than it fits a placement on earth. Nor does it do to object that the scene must be on earth because of the earth and the sea seen by Daniel (7:3-4). Again, if we are thinking literal geography and envisioning here, then the Mormons must be right about God having a human body!
Casey [Case.SOM, 22, 24-9], for his own purposes, insists that the scene of the AoD is on the earth. He admits that "If the judgment is on earth, God will have to come to earth in order to carry it out" -- then adds that this is not stated explicitly, "because it is not an important aspect of what the author wanted to say!" This does not answer the problem, it merely tries to explain it away with silence!
We will return to this issue in our dealing with the Olivet discourse. For now, we need to round out our treatment of Daniel. Verses 7:15-20 only record Daniel's inquiry and repeat previous information. We may move to this:
Daniel 7:21-2
I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.
Did Vespasian "make war" with the saints and prevail against them? If by "saints" Daniel means Jews then the obvious answer is yes; but it is clear here that "Jews" cannot be intended, if we are to take this prophecy as correct, since the Jews did not in any sense come to possess a kingdom. On the other hand, as we shall argue, this does make sense if the saints are interpreted as the Christians.
But then the question is, "Was war made on the Christians? This was a war against the Jews!" It was indeed in the main -- but there is evidence that Christians were targeted here also. A fragment of Tacitus' Histories, now preserved for us only by Severus tells of deliberations by Titus as to whether to destroy the Jewish temple. In the end he decides to do so, because although the two religions were in conflict, "they nevertheless developed from the same origins. The Christiani arose from the Jews: With the root removed, the branch is easily killed."
If this is right, then Christians were a real, albeit by far secondary, target of the Romans in the successful attack on Jerusalem. (Josephus reports this conversation as well, but does not mention the Christians -- War 6.4.3.)
We will talk more about the "kingdom" language in another essay. For now, more on Daniel. Verses 23 and 24 repeat earlier material; on to:
Daniel 7:25-6
And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.
The first part of verse 25 repeats what is said earlier, and adds this:
"Change times and laws" -- Miller [214] interprets this as referring to a desire to eliminate religious holidays and laws. As noted before, the Romans under Vespasian's ultimate command thought to destroy the Temple as a way of destroying Judaism. Their thinking was misplaced, but this was certainly in mind if we are to believe Tacitus.
The saints will be given over "for a time, times and half a time" -- most see this as referring to a period of three and a half years, and this is the case under any paradigm. The question is, when was this three and a half year period? Can it fit into events of 70 AD?
Yes, it can. The Jewish war lasted 7 years, from 66-73 AD. Jerusalem was destroyed in the middle of this period, in 70. The 3 1/2 years would correspond well with the period from 66-70, or perhaps from 70-73, though the latter is less likely since by this time Christians would have followed Jesus' instructions to flee, and the former fits in line with the statement from Tacitus that there was enmity against the Christians as a branch of Judaism.
His power "will be taken away and completely destroyed forever." Vespasian of course did not remain Emperor forever; he died in 79 AD. This statement could be made of any human leader and does not indicate any special sort of judgment. It is made in contrast to verse 27 and the everlasting kingdom therein.
Daniel 7:27
And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.
We believe that this refers to the established rule of Christ in 70 AD and will address this matter, again, in our Olivet study.
63BC-70AD: The 11 horns of Daniel's 4th Beast (The 11 "Kings" of Daniel's 4th idol-worshipping kingdom to possess Jerusalem)
"horn" = king, (national leader, primary personal representative)
"beast" = idol-worshipping Gentile nation that rules over (subjugates) God's Chosen People
Bible scholars living in the last days of old Jerusalem may have seen some very interesting things in this dream of Daniel 7.
Since this is a prophecy of the Jews, everything must be seen from the outlook of the Jews. Their zeal was for their mother city, Jerusalem, the home of their Temple, their whole reason for being, The biblical Jews would see as a "beast" any Gentile (idol-worshipping) kingdom (empire) that trampled upon Jerusalem, bringing her into subjection. They could count each "king" of such kingdoms as a "horn" on the "beast" since the time of Jerusalem's subjugation. Therefore, everything should be seen from the vantage point of Jerusalem, the mother city of the Jews, ("Israel" being their "fatherland").
"beast" = "idol-worshipping kingdom (empire) trampling upon (possessing) Jerusalem."
"kingdom" = "dominion, empire, extent of rule, totality of territory & peoples governed, reign, administration, etc."
"horn" = "king" = "supreme leader, chief ruler, monarch, emperor, caesar, kaiser, czar, pharoah, president, prime minister, etc."
In this sense the Roman Caesars and their precursor, Pompey the Great, may justly be regarded as "kings" over the Roman "kingdom."
The vision of Daniel 7 describes a destroying beast with ten horns and an eleventh horn that uproots three of those first ten horns. The eleventh horn to appear becomes the eighth horn that remains, (since three horns are removed in the process of its appearing). The "horns" are then explained to be "kings" (supreme leaders) of the fourth kingdom (empire) since the Babylonians to possess Jerusalem: 1-Babylonians, 2-Medo-Persians, 3-Greeks, 4-Romans. These eleven "horns," then, would be the eleven "kings" (supreme leaders) of the Romans from the time Rome subjugated Jerusalem to the time Rome destroyed Jerusalem: 1-Pompey the Great, 2-Julius Ceaser, 3-Augustus, 4-Tiberius, 5-Caligula, 6-Claudius, 7-Nero, 8-Galba, 9-Otho, 10-Vitellius and "the little horn," 11-Vespasian.
The eight horns that remain after the three horns are removed would be: 1-Pompey the Great, 2-Julius Ceaser, 3-Augustus, 4-Tiberius, 5-Caligula, 6-Claudius, 7-Nero, 8-Galba, 9-Otho, 10-Vitellius and "the little horn," Vespasian, (now the 8th of the horns that actually remain). These are the "kings" (supreme leaders) of Rome that actually possessed Jerusalem during their reigns. The three "kings" who were removed were the ones who never possessed Jerusalem since Jerusalem was enjoying freedom through revolt during their reigns.
"Little horn that plucks up three of the ten horns" = 11-Vespasian who was "little" in the sense of his common birth but went on to become the consummate Roman general, a man of war, a soldier in service to Rome and its emperors his whole life, thus "diverse from the first ["ten kings"]. Vespasian made himself emperor by the campaigning of his zealous soldier-followers, usurping the last of the succession of 3 abrupted reigns since 7-Nero's death: 8-Galba, 9-Otho and 10-Vitellius in "69AD: The Year of the Four Emperors". As Emperor, Vespasian possessed the power to cease the war against the Jews but, instead, chose to pursue it to Jerusalem's 70AD destruction and beyond, not satisfied until the fall of Masada in 73AD and the wholesale slaughters of surviving Jews throughout the Roman Empire in massacres-for-display and celebrations. Old Jerusalem's subjugation to the Romans ended when it ceased to exist, hence the terminus of 70AD. Vespasian made light of the Roman religious custom of deifying their emperors at death but took war-making deathly serious, as though serving "a god of fortresses," he conquered for himself both Rome and Jerusalem, prevailing over the most valiant of each, almost simultaneously. "Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war with him?"
Jerusalem's subjugation to beastly Rome ended when it ceased to exist, hence the terminus of 70AD.
"horn" = king, (national leader, primary personal representative)
"beast" = idol-worshipping Gentile nation that rules over (subjugates) God's Chosen People
Bible scholars living in the last days of old Jerusalem may have seen some very interesting things in this dream of Daniel 7.
Since this is a prophecy of the Jews, everything must be seen from the outlook of the Jews. Their zeal was for their mother city, Jerusalem, the home of their Temple, their whole reason for being, The biblical Jews would see as a "beast" any Gentile (idol-worshipping) kingdom (empire) that trampled upon Jerusalem, bringing her into subjection. They could count each "king" of such kingdoms as a "horn" on the "beast" since the time of Jerusalem's subjugation. Therefore, everything should be seen from the vantage point of Jerusalem, the mother city of the Jews, ("Israel" being their "fatherland").
"beast" = "idol-worshipping kingdom (empire) trampling upon (possessing) Jerusalem."
"kingdom" = "dominion, empire, extent of rule, totality of territory & peoples governed, reign, administration, etc."
"horn" = "king" = "supreme leader, chief ruler, monarch, emperor, caesar, kaiser, czar, pharoah, president, prime minister, etc."
In this sense the Roman Caesars and their precursor, Pompey the Great, may justly be regarded as "kings" over the Roman "kingdom."
The vision of Daniel 7 describes a destroying beast with ten horns and an eleventh horn that uproots three of those first ten horns. The eleventh horn to appear becomes the eighth horn that remains, (since three horns are removed in the process of its appearing). The "horns" are then explained to be "kings" (supreme leaders) of the fourth kingdom (empire) since the Babylonians to possess Jerusalem: 1-Babylonians, 2-Medo-Persians, 3-Greeks, 4-Romans. These eleven "horns," then, would be the eleven "kings" (supreme leaders) of the Romans from the time Rome subjugated Jerusalem to the time Rome destroyed Jerusalem: 1-Pompey the Great, 2-Julius Ceaser, 3-Augustus, 4-Tiberius, 5-Caligula, 6-Claudius, 7-Nero, 8-Galba, 9-Otho, 10-Vitellius and "the little horn," 11-Vespasian.
The eight horns that remain after the three horns are removed would be: 1-Pompey the Great, 2-Julius Ceaser, 3-Augustus, 4-Tiberius, 5-Caligula, 6-Claudius, 7-Nero, 8-Galba, 9-Otho, 10-Vitellius and "the little horn," Vespasian, (now the 8th of the horns that actually remain). These are the "kings" (supreme leaders) of Rome that actually possessed Jerusalem during their reigns. The three "kings" who were removed were the ones who never possessed Jerusalem since Jerusalem was enjoying freedom through revolt during their reigns.
"Little horn that plucks up three of the ten horns" = 11-Vespasian who was "little" in the sense of his common birth but went on to become the consummate Roman general, a man of war, a soldier in service to Rome and its emperors his whole life, thus "diverse from the first ["ten kings"]. Vespasian made himself emperor by the campaigning of his zealous soldier-followers, usurping the last of the succession of 3 abrupted reigns since 7-Nero's death: 8-Galba, 9-Otho and 10-Vitellius in "69AD: The Year of the Four Emperors". As Emperor, Vespasian possessed the power to cease the war against the Jews but, instead, chose to pursue it to Jerusalem's 70AD destruction and beyond, not satisfied until the fall of Masada in 73AD and the wholesale slaughters of surviving Jews throughout the Roman Empire in massacres-for-display and celebrations. Old Jerusalem's subjugation to the Romans ended when it ceased to exist, hence the terminus of 70AD. Vespasian made light of the Roman religious custom of deifying their emperors at death but took war-making deathly serious, as though serving "a god of fortresses," he conquered for himself both Rome and Jerusalem, prevailing over the most valiant of each, almost simultaneously. "Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war with him?"
Jerusalem's subjugation to beastly Rome ended when it ceased to exist, hence the terminus of 70AD.
ik hoop allebeiquote:
Maar wie gaat nu wel naar de hemel, Wiseguy of Ali ?
en jij ook
Ik snap je punt wel in dit opzicht. Echter er is nog een optie. Stel dat er idd een oordeel plaatsvond in de eerste eeuw waarin Satan veroordeeld werd en schuldig werd bevonden (maar nog geen straf had ontvangen). Tot dan toe was Satan in staat redelijk ongelimiteerd de aarde te controleren. Tegen Jezus zei hij immers dat hij autoriteit over de aarde had gekregen en dat hij het kon weggeven aan Jezus als Jezus hem zou aanbidden. Nou vanuit dit oogpunt bezien is het einde van het Romeinse Rijk dan geen fysiek einde maar een geestelijk einde. De duivel kon niet meer ongelimiteerd de aarde besturen, christendom kon niet uitgeroeid worden maar christenen kregen de sleutels van het hemelse koninkrijk. Dit koninkrijk werd al op aarde gevestigd. Jezus zei : het koninkrijk van God zit binnenin je. Merk ook op dat de eerste drie voorgaande rijken nog een tijdje te leven kregen maar het Romeinse Rijk niet. Daar kwam ineens een abrupt einde aan. Dit kan alleen verklaard worden als je er idd vanuit gaat dat na Vespinianus Jezus een koninkrijk op aarde oprichtte. Dit is echter een koninkrijk zonder grenzen en een spiritueel koninkrijk. Hoewel de duivel veroordeeld is heeft hij nog geen straf ontvangen, dit verklaard waarom hij nog steeds invloed uitoefent op de wereld maar Jezus' interventie verklaart waarom deze invloed beperkt is.quote:Hoe kun je in hemelsnaam de woorden 'de prins van deze wereld is geoordeeld' gelijktrekken naar 'het Romeinse Rijk wordt ten onder gebracht en de staatsreligie van Rome wordt het Christelijke (in werkelijkheid Rooms Katholieke) geloof. Wat vervolgens de wereld gedurende 1000 jaar in een spirituele afgrond zou helpen.
Satan werd geoordeeld omdat hij niet in staat was geweest Jezus te laten zondigen en al zijn claims met betrekking tot God onwaar waren gebleken op het moment van de kruisiging (waaruit bleek dat God liefde en genadevol is, evenals rechtvaardig).
(West)Rome zou pas zo'n 500 jaar later werkelijk tot zijn einde komen. Toen Constantinus zogenaamd christen werd en de christelijke religie de staatsreligie was dat een strategische politieke zet en had niets met een hartsbekering van Constantinus te maken. De man was een oorlogsvoerder uit op politiek en economisch gewin, niet op een spirituele bekering van de wereld tot het koninkrijk van God en de leer van Jezus Christus.
De Rooms katholieke kerk die daar uiteindelijk uit voortkwam zou naast een religieuze een voornamelijk politieke en economische invloed uitoefenen en iedereen met eeuwig hellevuur intimideren om vooral veel geld te betalen aan het instituut kerk.
1 En er zijn ook valse profeten onder het volk geweest, gelijk ook onder u valse leraars zijn zullen, die verderfelijke ketterijen bedektelijk invoeren zullen, ook den Heere, Die hen gekocht heeft, verloochenende, en een haastig verderf over zichzelven brengende;
2 En velen zullen hun verderfenissen navolgen, door welke de weg der waarheid zal gelasterd worden.
3 En zij zullen door gierigheid, met gemaakte woorden, van u een koopmanschap maken; over welke het oordeel van over lang niet ledig is, en hun verderf sluimert niet. 2 Petrus 3
Hieruit zou ook de inquisitie voortkomen, ook zo'n fijn christelijk instituut.
Verder is het boek van Daniel door tekstkritiek gedateerd op de 6e eeuw voor christus en niet de 2e.
De duivel is dus wel geoordeeld maar nog lang niet op inactief gezet! Ik weet niet wat voor battles je zelf dagelijks voert maar ik weet dat de duivel hard aan het werk is om mensen op alle fronten tegen te werken. Van welke site heb je dit gehaald als ik vragen mag?
Desalniettemin zijn we het beiden wel eens dat de RKK een anti-christelijk instituut is geworden (al hebben ze wel progressie gemaakt tav het evangelie). Maar je kan niet overal obsessief bij elke profetie stellen dat het om de RKK gaat.
Ik ben het ermee eens dat in kader van de contra-reformatie de Jezuieten preterisme op de voorgrond hebben geschoven mbt het boek openbaringen. Echter is het wel logisch te veronderstellen dat het boek van Daniel gaat over de toekomst van het Joodse volk tot en met de vernietiging van Jeruzalem.quote:
[..]
Precies...
De valse interpretaties en uitleg van de profetieen van Daniel en openbaringen zijn rond de 16e eeuw mede in de wereld geholpen door de Jezuiten Francisco Ribera & Louis del Alcazar, om de aandacht af te leiden van de Rooms Katholieke Kerk en om een tegengeluid te bieden aan het opkomend protestantisme die inzagen en ervan overtuigd waren dat de profetieen direct verwezen naar het katholieke systeem als zijnde Babylon, het Beest, de AntiChrist, etc.
Maar vandaag de dag overheerst binnen Protestantse kringen vreemd genoeg de theorie dat de Antichrist nog moet arriveren (futurisme) en dat een fysiek Israel en de bouw van een fysieke 3e tempel een belangrijke rol zullen gaan spelen in de vervulling van de laatste week van Daniel's 70 weken profetie.
Die in werkelijkheid dus al in vervulling is gegaan (...vanaf de doping van Jezus t/m de steniging van Stephanus, precies 7 jaar later en er precies halverwege deze 7-jaarsperiode dus de kruisiging plaats vond).
[..]
Bron:
page 1 >> http://www.daniels70weeks.com
page 2 >> http://www.daniels70weeks.com/daniels70weeks.html
Dat klinkt interessant. Kun je dat nader toelichten?quote:
Wat Daniel is voor de Joden dat is openbaringen voor de christenen.
quote:
Wat Daniel is voor de Joden dat is openbaringen voor de christenen.
Dalijk ga je me ook nog zeggen dat die sleutels aan Petrus werden gegeven en dat Petrus dus de eerste paus was en het dus steeds de paus, de opvolger van Petrus is die bepaalt of iemand de hemel ingaat of de hel.quote:
[..]
Ik snap je punt wel in dit opzicht. Echter er is nog een optie. Stel dat er idd een oordeel plaatsvond in de eerste eeuw waarin Satan veroordeeld werd en schuldig werd bevonden (maar nog geen straf had ontvangen). Tot dan toe was Satan in staat redelijk ongelimiteerd de aarde te controleren. Tegen Jezus zei hij immers dat hij autoriteit over de aarde had gekregen en dat hij het kon weggeven aan Jezus als Jezus hem zou aanbidden. Nou vanuit dit oogpunt bezien is het einde van het Romeinse Rijk dan geen fysiek einde maar een geestelijk einde. De duivel kon niet meer ongelimiteerd de aarde besturen, christendom kon niet uitgeroeid worden maar christenen kregen de sleutels van het hemelse koninkrijk. Dit koninkrijk werd al op aarde gevestigd. Jezus zei : het koninkrijk van God zit binnenin je. Merk ook op dat de eerste drie voorgaande rijken nog een tijdje te leven kregen maar het Romeinse Rijk niet. Daar kwam ineens een abrupt einde aan. Dit kan alleen verklaard worden als je er idd vanuit gaat dat na Vespinianus Jezus een koninkrijk op aarde oprichtte. Dit is echter een koninkrijk zonder grenzen en een spiritueel koninkrijk. Hoewel de duivel veroordeeld is heeft hij nog geen straf ontvangen, dit verklaard waarom hij nog steeds invloed uitoefent op de wereld maar Jezus' interventie verklaart waarom deze invloed beperkt is.
Desalniettemin zijn we het beiden wel eens dat de RKK een anti-christelijk instituut is geworden (al hebben ze wel progressie gemaakt tav het evangelie). Maar je kan niet overal obsessief bij elke profetie stellen dat het om de RKK gaat.
Er kwam geen abrupt einde aan Rome. Dat ging geleidelijk aan over meerdere honderden jaren. Ook is het nooit echt ten einde gekomen: Rome is voortbestaan maar in een nieuwe vorm, de rooms katholieke. De bijbel beschrijft de kleine hoorn als een andere macht dan de voorgaande, een religio-politieke.
Sorry maar ik ben serieus verbaasd over hoe makkelijk je je op een dwaalspoor laat zetten. Wil je hier echt een serieuze discussie over voeren of weet je zelf ook wel dat het een lading onzin is? Indien je er echt over wilt spreken zal ik er niet mee spotten.
Je moet de tekst van Daniel wel heel erg verstoren wil je erin lezen dat dat ophield bij Nero.
Zo wordt de wederopstanding bijv. genoemd bij het laatste oordeel (Daniel 12:2). Hoe wil je dat plaatsen in de tijd tot Nero?
Hoe wil je het kleine boek in openbaringen het boek van Daniel laten zijn als het alleen maar voor de joden was en niets zegt over onze tijd? (Daniel 12:9)
Waarom pakt openbaringen de symboliek van Daniel voor het beschrijven van de antichrist en laat diezelfde tot het einde blijven?
Nogmaals, de 3,5 jaar/42 maanden/1260 dagen komen terug in openbaringen. Deze kun je niet in de tijd van de joden plaatsen. Ze komen overeen met de woestijnperiode en dat is de periode van de katholieke kerk, aan het einde waarvan Johannes de hoer ziet. Dat is bij de val van de Roomse kerk.
Vragen, vragen, vragen....
Ik zie dat je nu overal aan het twijfelen bent gegaan en dat is natuurlijk goed.
Echter ben ik een beetje geschokt van je vatbaarheid voor deze theorien die voor mij persoonlijk onmiddellijk van tafel kunnen worden geveegd. Om ze kloppend te houden moet je wat mij betreft de teksten ernstig verstoren en interpreteren op een manier die andere teksten geheel tegen lijkt te spreken.
Maar wellicht komen we er samen wel uit.
[ Bericht 7% gewijzigd door Ali_Kannibali op 28-02-2013 16:17:48 ]
Uiteraardquote:
[..]
Dat klinkt interessant. Kun je dat nader toelichten?
In Daniel wordt voorzegd wat er met zijn volk zou gebeuren. Het gaat hier om het Joodse volk. Het beschrijft bijvoorbeeld in Daniel 8 de opkomst van een Griekse koning : Antiochius Epifanes. Deze koning voerde oorlog tegen het Joodse volk en stelde een verbod in op het houden van diensten in het Joodse heiligdom. Bovendien offerde hij een zwijn aan Zeus in het Joodse heiligdom. Uiteindelijk vocht het Joodse volk terug en herstelden ze de diensten in dit heiligdom. Dit staat bij Joden bekend als hanukkah.
Ik denk dat in Daniel 7 het einde van het Joodse volk als Gods uitverkoren volk wordt voorzegd. Dit eindigde namelijk met de vernietiging van Jeruzalem in 70 na Christus waarin meer dan een miljoen mensen gedood werden. De Romeinse keizer Vespinianus wou een einde maken aan het Jodendom en wellicht ook het christendom.
Sinds 70 NC is het Joodse tijdperk dus voorgoed voorbij. Het oude verbond was afgeschaft en sindsdien was er sprake van een christelijk tijdperk. Daniel was dus een profetisch boek voor de Joden. In openbaringen worden ook profetieen gegeven en die gaan over de toekomst van het christelijke volk. Protestanten zien hierin veelal de opkomst van de RKK als antichristelijke kerk die Gods volk zou gaan verdrukken etc. De profetieeen uit Daniel zijn dus alleen in zoverre van toepassing op het christelijke tijdperk dat ze dienen als types. De kleine hoorns van Daniel 7 en 8 zijn dus een vertegenwoordiging van wat er gebeurt in het Christelijke tijdperk, maar Daniel zelf gaat puur over het Joodse volk.
Petrus was geen paus, daar zijn we het beiden wel over eens.quote:
[..]
[..]
Dalijk ga je me ook nog zeggen dat die sleutels aan Petrus werden gegeven en dat Petrus dus de eerste paus was en het dus steeds de paus, de opvolger van Petrus is die bepaalt of iemand de hemel ingaat of de hel.
Er kwam geen abrupt einde aan Rome. Dat ging geleidelijk aan over meerdere honderden jaren. Ook is het nooit echt ten einde gekomen: Rome is voortbestaan maar in een nieuwe vorm, de rooms katholieke. De bijbel beschrijft de kleine hoorn als een andere macht dan de voorgaande, een religio-politieke.
Sorry maar ik ben serieus verbaasd over hoe makkelijk je je op een dwaalspoor laat zetten. Wil je hier echt een serieuze discussie over voeren of weet je zelf ook wel dat het een lading onzin is? Indien je er echt over wilt spreken zal ik er niet mee spotten.
Je moet de tekst van Daniel wel heel erg verstoren wil je erin lezen dat dat ophield bij Nero.
Zo wordt de wederopstanding bijv. genoemd bij het laatste oordeel (Daniel 12:2). Hoe wil je dat plaatsen in de tijd tot Nero?
Hoe wil je het kleine boek in openbaringen het boek van Daniel laten zijn als het alleen maar voor de joden was en niets zegt over onze tijd? (Daniel 12:9)
Waarom pakt openbaringen de symboliek van Daniel voor het beschrijven van de antichrist en laat diezelfde tot het einde blijven?
Nogmaals, de 3,5 jaar/42 maanden/1260 dagen komen terug in openbaringen. Deze kun je niet in de tijd van de joden plaatsen. Ze komen overeen met de woestijnperiode en dat is de periode van de katholieke kerk, aan het einde waarvan Johannes de hoer ziet. Dat is bij de val van de Roomse kerk.
Vragen, vragen, vragen....
Ik zie dat je nu overal aan het twijfelen bent gegaan en dat is natuurlijk goed.
Echter ben ik een beetje geschokt van je vatbaarheid voor deze theorien die voor mij persoonlijk onmiddellijk van tafel kunnen worden geveegd. Om ze kloppend te houden moet je wat mij betreft de teksten ernstig verstoren en interpreteren op een manier die andere teksten geheel tegen lijkt te spreken.
Maar wellicht komen we er samen wel uit.
Jij zegt dat de hoorn uit Daniel 7 een religieus-politieke macht moest zijn omdat hij "anders" was. Hier heb je 0 bijbelse onderbouwing voor en dit berust dus op onbijbelse aannames.
Er kwam wel een abrupt einde aan Rome in spirituele zin, het christendom verving de heidense afgoden.
Als je de vorige posts gelezen had dan wist je dat ik zelf overtuigd ben van het feit dat Vespinianus de kleine hoorn was. De 3.5 jaar komen overeen met de Joodse opstand die eindigden met de vernietiging van Jeruzalem in 70 nc.
Probeer ook eens out-of-the-sda-box te denken.
Het is religio-politiek om de volgende reden:quote:
[..]
Petrus was geen paus, daar zijn we het beiden wel over eens.
Jij zegt dat de hoorn uit Daniel 7 een religieus-politieke macht moest zijn omdat hij "anders" was. Hier heb je 0 bijbelse onderbouwing voor en dit berust dus op onbijbelse aannames.
24 Belangende nu de tien hoornen: uit dat koninkrijk zullen tien koningen opstaan, en een ander zal na hen opstaan; en dat zal verscheiden zijn van de vorigen, en het zal drie koningen vernederen.
25 En het zal woorden spreken tegen den Allerhoogsten, en het zal de heiligen der hoge plaatsen verstoren, en het zal menen de tijden en de wet te veranderen, en zij zullen in deszelfs hand overgegeven worden tot een tijd, en tijden, en een gedeelte eens tijds. Daniel 7
Dit is eeng godslasterlijke macht die de tijden en de wet meent te veranderen. Welke wet? Gods wet. Wie anders dan God kan Gods wet veranderen? De positie van deze macht is dus als god op aarde, niet slechts koning.
Ah op die manier wel ja. Maar waarom zou dit gelijk zijn aan:quote:Er kwam wel een abrupt einde aan Rome in spirituele zin, het christendom verving de heidense afgoden.
26 Daarna zal het gericht zitten, en men zal zijn heerschappij wegnemen, hem verdelgende en verdoende, tot het einde toe.
27 Maar het rijk, en de heerschappij, en de grootheid der koninkrijken onder den gansen hemel, zal gegeven worden den volke der heiligen der hoge plaatsen, welks Rijk een eeuwig Rijk zijn zal; en alle heerschappijen zullen Hem eren en gehoorzamen.
Volgens de theorie zou dus sinds de introductie van het christelijke geloof de hele wereld onderworpen zijn aan Jezus Christus en de heiligen zouden over de hele wereld heersen.
Ik zie dit niet in de geschiedenis van de laatste 2000 jaar. Ik zie in tegendeel een oorlog die gaande is tegen de heiligen en tegen de waarheid. Alles lijkt zelfs in het nadeel van de heiligen te zijn vandaag de dag naarmate we de NWO naderen. Alsof de strijd al hopeloos verloren is.
[ Bericht 32% gewijzigd door Ali_Kannibali op 28-02-2013 16:40:20 ]
[/quote]quote:
[..]
Het is religio-politiek om de volgende reden:
24 Belangende nu de tien hoornen: uit dat koninkrijk zullen tien koningen opstaan, en een ander zal na hen opstaan; en dat zal verscheiden zijn van de vorigen, en het zal drie koningen vernederen.
25 En het zal woorden spreken tegen den Allerhoogsten, en het zal de heiligen der hoge plaatsen verstoren, en het zal menen de tijden en de wet te veranderen, en zij zullen in deszelfs hand overgegeven worden tot een tijd, en tijden, en een gedeelte eens tijds. Daniel 7
Dit is eeng godslasterlijke macht die de tijden en de wet meent te veranderen. Welke wet? Gods wet. Wie anders dan God kan Gods wet veranderen? De positie van deze macht is dus als god op aarde, niet slechts koning.
Er kwam wel een abrupt einde aan Rome in spirituele zin, het christendom verving de heidense afgoden.
Als je de vorige posts gelezen had dan wist je dat ik zelf overtuigd ben van het feit dat Vespinianus de kleine hoorn was. De 3.5 jaar komen overeen met de Joodse opstand die eindigden met de vernietiging van Jeruzalem in 70 nc.
Probeer ook eens out-of-the-sda-box te denken.
De Romeinen wilden het hele Jodendom afschaffen, inclusief de Joodse wet en de Joodse feesten etc. De leiders die een dergelijke onderneming ondernemen zijn in die zin godslasterlijk omdat zij een oordeel vellen over een volk dat alleen God zou mogen vellen.
Welke interpretatie we ook kiezen, de ZDA interpretatie kent veel meer haken en ogen dan de mainline interpretatie dat het gaat om Romeinse keizers.
Een antichristelijke kerk is een kerk die anti-christelijk is in de zin dat ze bijbelgelovigen willen vervolgen. Maar het is ook anti-christelijk in de zin dat het zich voordoet als God op aarde. In de bijbel staat dat er sprake is van twee lagen; je hebt God als soevereine heerser en daaronder heb je alle schepsels die aan Hem onderhevig zijn. Toen Jezus naar de hemel ging liet hij een vertegenwoordiger achter; de Heilige Geest. Die is voor iedereen beschikbaar en leidt ons naar de waarheid omtrent Gods woord en werkt in ons. Bovendien leert de bijbel dat vergiffenis van al je zonden plaats vindt vanaf het moment dat je in Jezus gelooft.quote:
Dankjewel TS, het is me duidelijk.
Alleen wat wordt er bedoeld met 'antichristelijke kerk' ?
De RKK leert echter dat de paus Gods vertegenwoordiger op aarde is. Bovendien leert de RKK dat het macht heeft gekregen om zondes te vergeven. In de middeleeuwen kon je bijvoorbeeld als je iets ergs gedaan had aflaten kopen. In feite kon je je zonde dus via de kerk afkopen. Tegenwoordig doen ze dit volgens mij niet echt meer, maar ze leren nog wel dat priesters macht hebben om zonden te vergeven. Terwijl de bijbel duidelijk is dat allen God zonden kan vergeven. Christenen hebben 1 hogepriester in de hemel: Jezus. Kortom de RKK misbruikt het christendom in feite om macht naar zichzelf toe te trekken door zich voor te doen als enige bemiddelaar tussen de mens en God.
De 'mainline' interpretatie komt uit de pen van de Jezuieten zoals hierboven al gemeld is.quote:
[..]
De Romeinen wilden het hele Jodendom afschaffen, inclusief de Joodse wet en de Joodse feesten etc. De leiders die een dergelijke onderneming ondernemen zijn in die zin godslasterlijk omdat zij een oordeel vellen over een volk dat alleen God zou mogen vellen.
Welke interpretatie we ook kiezen, de ZDA interpretatie kent veel meer haken en ogen dan de mainline interpretatie dat het gaat om Romeinse keizers.
De ZDA interpretatie is de interpretatie van Luther, Calvijn en alle anderen.
Daar moet ik even over nadenken, want als ik je uitleg goed begrijp is de RK kerk dus eigenlijk antichristelijk?quote:
[..]
Een antichristelijke kerk is een kerk die anti-christelijk is in de zin dat ze bijbelgelovigen willen vervolgen. Maar het is ook anti-christelijk in de zin dat het zich voordoet als God op aarde. In de bijbel staat dat er sprake is van twee lagen; je hebt God als soevereine heerser en daaronder heb je alle schepsels die aan Hem onderhevig zijn. Toen Jezus naar de hemel ging liet hij een vertegenwoordiger achter; de Heilige Geest. Die is voor iedereen beschikbaar en leidt ons naar de waarheid omtrent Gods woord en werkt in ons. Bovendien leert de bijbel dat vergiffenis van al je zonden plaats vindt vanaf het moment dat je in Jezus gelooft.
De RKK leert echter dat de paus Gods vertegenwoordiger op aarde is. Bovendien leert de RKK dat het macht heeft gekregen om zondes te vergeven. In de middeleeuwen kon je bijvoorbeeld als je iets ergs gedaan had aflaten kopen. In feite kon je je zonde dus via de kerk afkopen. Tegenwoordig doen ze dit volgens mij niet echt meer, maar ze leren nog wel dat priesters macht hebben om zonden te vergeven. Terwijl de bijbel duidelijk is dat allen God zonden kan vergeven. Christenen hebben 1 hogepriester in de hemel: Jezus. Kortom de RKK misbruikt het christendom in feite om macht naar zichzelf toe te trekken door zich voor te doen als enige bemiddelaar tussen de mens en God.
Wiseguy:
Hoe verenig ik je interpretatie met het volgende:
5 En hetzelve werd een mond gegeven, om grote dingen en gods lasteringen te spreken; en hetzelve werd macht gegeven, om zulks te doen, twee en veertig maanden.
(Paralleltekst van Daniel 7:25 En het zal woorden spreken tegen den Allerhoogsten, en het zal de heiligen der hoge plaatsen verstoren, en het zal menen de tijden en de wet te veranderen, en zij zullen in deszelfs hand overgegeven worden tot een tijd, en tijden, en een gedeelte eens tijds.)
6 En het opende zijn mond tot lastering tegen God, om Zijn Naam te lasteren, en Zijn tabernakel, en die in den hemel wonen.
7 En hetzelve werd macht gegeven, om den heiligen krijg aan te doen, en om die te overwinnen; en hetzelve werd macht gegeven over alle geslacht, en taal, en volk.
8 En allen, die op de aarde wonen, zullen hetzelve aanbidden, welker namen niet zijn geschreven in het boek des levens, des Lams, Dat geslacht is, van de grondlegging der wereld.
9 Indien iemand oren heeft, die hore.
10 Indien iemand in de gevangenis leidt, die gaat zelf in de gevangenis; indien iemand met het zwaard zal doden, die moet zelf met het zwaard gedood worden. Hier is de lijdzaamheid en het geloof der heiligen.
11 En ik zag een ander beest uit de aarde opkomen, en het had twee hoornen, des Lams hoornen gelijk, en het sprak als de draak.
12 En het oefent al de macht van het eerste beest, in tegenwoordigheid van hetzelve, en het maakt, dat de aarde, en die daarin wonen het eerste beest aanbidden, wiens dodelijke wonde genezen was.
13 En het doet grote tekenen, zodat het ook vuur uit den hemel doet afkomen op de aarde, voor de mensen.
14 En verleidt degenen, die op de aarde wonen, door de tekenen, die aan hetzelve toe doen gegeven zijn in de tegenwoordigheid van het beest; zeggende tot degenen, die op de aarde wonen, dat zij het beest, dat de wond des zwaards had, en weder leefde, een beeld zouden maken.
15 En hetzelve werd macht gegeven om het beeld van het beest een geest te geven, opdat het beeld van het beest ook zou spreken, en maken, dat allen, die het beeld van het beest niet zouden aanbidden, gedood zouden worden.
16 En het maakt, dat het aan allen, kleinen en groten, en rijken en armen, en vrijen en dienstknechten, een merkteken geve aan hun rechterhand of aan hun voorhoofden;
17 En dat niemand mag kopen of verkopen, dan die dat merkteken heeft, of den naam van het beest, of het getal zijns naams.
18 Hier is de wijsheid: die het verstand heeft, rekene het getal van het beest; want het is een getal eens mensen, en zijn getal is zeshonderd zes en zestig. Openbaringen 13
Dit is allemaal gebeurd in de 3,5 jaar van Vespinianus en heeft dus geen betekenis voor de christen?
Het is geen kwestie van -out of the box- denken maar van niet selectief zijn bij het gebruiken van de verzen in je interpretatie, maar alle verzen gebruiken.quote:Als je de vorige posts gelezen had dan wist je dat ik zelf overtuigd ben van het feit dat Vespinianus de kleine hoorn was. De 3.5 jaar komen overeen met de Joodse opstand die eindigden met de vernietiging van Jeruzalem in 70 nc.
Probeer ook eens out-of-the-sda-box te denken.
Hoe verenig ik je interpretatie met het volgende:
5 En hetzelve werd een mond gegeven, om grote dingen en gods lasteringen te spreken; en hetzelve werd macht gegeven, om zulks te doen, twee en veertig maanden.
(Paralleltekst van Daniel 7:25 En het zal woorden spreken tegen den Allerhoogsten, en het zal de heiligen der hoge plaatsen verstoren, en het zal menen de tijden en de wet te veranderen, en zij zullen in deszelfs hand overgegeven worden tot een tijd, en tijden, en een gedeelte eens tijds.)
6 En het opende zijn mond tot lastering tegen God, om Zijn Naam te lasteren, en Zijn tabernakel, en die in den hemel wonen.
7 En hetzelve werd macht gegeven, om den heiligen krijg aan te doen, en om die te overwinnen; en hetzelve werd macht gegeven over alle geslacht, en taal, en volk.
8 En allen, die op de aarde wonen, zullen hetzelve aanbidden, welker namen niet zijn geschreven in het boek des levens, des Lams, Dat geslacht is, van de grondlegging der wereld.
9 Indien iemand oren heeft, die hore.
10 Indien iemand in de gevangenis leidt, die gaat zelf in de gevangenis; indien iemand met het zwaard zal doden, die moet zelf met het zwaard gedood worden. Hier is de lijdzaamheid en het geloof der heiligen.
11 En ik zag een ander beest uit de aarde opkomen, en het had twee hoornen, des Lams hoornen gelijk, en het sprak als de draak.
12 En het oefent al de macht van het eerste beest, in tegenwoordigheid van hetzelve, en het maakt, dat de aarde, en die daarin wonen het eerste beest aanbidden, wiens dodelijke wonde genezen was.
13 En het doet grote tekenen, zodat het ook vuur uit den hemel doet afkomen op de aarde, voor de mensen.
14 En verleidt degenen, die op de aarde wonen, door de tekenen, die aan hetzelve toe doen gegeven zijn in de tegenwoordigheid van het beest; zeggende tot degenen, die op de aarde wonen, dat zij het beest, dat de wond des zwaards had, en weder leefde, een beeld zouden maken.
15 En hetzelve werd macht gegeven om het beeld van het beest een geest te geven, opdat het beeld van het beest ook zou spreken, en maken, dat allen, die het beeld van het beest niet zouden aanbidden, gedood zouden worden.
16 En het maakt, dat het aan allen, kleinen en groten, en rijken en armen, en vrijen en dienstknechten, een merkteken geve aan hun rechterhand of aan hun voorhoofden;
17 En dat niemand mag kopen of verkopen, dan die dat merkteken heeft, of den naam van het beest, of het getal zijns naams.
18 Hier is de wijsheid: die het verstand heeft, rekene het getal van het beest; want het is een getal eens mensen, en zijn getal is zeshonderd zes en zestig. Openbaringen 13
Dit is allemaal gebeurd in de 3,5 jaar van Vespinianus en heeft dus geen betekenis voor de christen?
Het idee hierachter is dat Jezus zijn koninkrijk op aarde plantte en dat die uiteindelijk de hele wereld zal vervullen. Dit koninkrijk gaat naar de hemel en gaat dus nooit verloren.quote:Ah op die manier wel ja. Maar waarom zou dit gelijk zijn aan:
26 Daarna zal het gericht zitten, en men zal zijn heerschappij wegnemen, hem verdelgende en verdoende, tot het einde toe.
27 Maar het rijk, en de heerschappij, en de grootheid der koninkrijken onder den gansen hemel, zal gegeven worden den volke der heiligen der hoge plaatsen, welks Rijk een eeuwig Rijk zijn zal; en alle heerschappijen zullen Hem eren en gehoorzamen.
Volgens de theorie zou dus sinds de introductie van het christelijke geloof de hele wereld onderworpen zijn aan Jezus Christus en de heiligen zouden over de hele wereld heersen.
Ik zie dit niet in de geschiedenis van de laatste 2000 jaar. Ik zie in tegendeel een oorlog die gaande is tegen de heiligen en tegen de waarheid. Alles lijkt zelfs in het nadeel van de heiligen te zijn vandaag de dag naarmate we de NWO naderen. Alsof de strijd al hopeloos verloren is.
Je verbindt hier een tekst van Daniel aan een tekst uit openbaringen. Ik denk dat we eerst vanuit de boeken zelf een verklaringen dienen te zoeken. De ZDA kerk nemen overal teksten vandaan zonder enige fundering, ja zo kan ik wel leren dat de bijbel leert dat je neus een bloedworst is natuurlijk.quote:5 En hetzelve werd een mond gegeven, om grote dingen en gods lasteringen te spreken; en hetzelve werd macht gegeven, om zulks te doen, twee en veertig maanden.
(Paralleltekst van Daniel 7:25 En het zal woorden spreken tegen den Allerhoogsten, en het zal de heiligen der hoge plaatsen verstoren, en het zal menen de tijden en de wet te veranderen, en zij zullen in deszelfs hand overgegeven worden tot een tijd, en tijden, en een gedeelte eens tijds.)
Het klinkt heel cru, het systeem als zodanig is antichristelijk. Dat neemt niet weg dat er ook heel veel christenen zich bevinden in de RKK. De RKK heeft wel ten aanzien van het evangelie progressie gemaakt. Maar de kerk als zodanig leert nog steeds niet het bijbelse evangelie. Meerdere pausen hebben verklaard dat ze God op aarde zijn en dat ze onfeilbaar zijn etc. etc.quote:
[..]
Daar moet ik even over nadenken, want als ik je uitleg goed begrijp is de RK kerk dus eigenlijk antichristelijk?
Was het boek van Daniel niet verzegeld tot het einde?quote:
[..]
Het idee hierachter is dat Jezus zijn koninkrijk op aarde plantte en dat die uiteindelijk de hele wereld zal vervullen. Dit koninkrijk gaat naar de hemel en gaat dus nooit verloren.
[..]
Je verbindt hier een tekst van Daniel aan een tekst uit openbaringen. Ik denk dat we eerst vanuit de boeken zelf een verklaringen dienen te zoeken. De ZDA kerk nemen overal teksten vandaan zonder enige fundering, ja zo kan ik wel leren dat de bijbel leert dat je neus een bloedworst is natuurlijk.
Zou God niet door middel van verdere openbaring begrip kunnen geven aan het boek van Daniel?
Het is puur toeval dat de symboliek uit Daniel exact zo gebruikt wordt in Openbaringen? En niet alleen de symboliek, maar dat de teksten praktisch geciteerd worden?
Dat is nogal wat om over jezelf als mens te zeggen dat je God op aarde bent. Komt eerder narcistisch dan heilig over.quote:
[..]
Het klinkt heel cru, het systeem als zodanig is antichristelijk. Dat neemt niet weg dat er ook heel veel christenen zich bevinden in de RKK. De RKK heeft wel ten aanzien van het evangelie progressie gemaakt. Maar de kerk als zodanig leert nog steeds niet het bijbelse evangelie. Meerdere pausen hebben verklaard dat ze God op aarde zijn en dat ze onfeilbaar zijn etc. etc.
Toon mij eens aan dat Luther, Calvijn en anderen leerden dat de kleine hoorn van Daniel 7 de RKK is?quote:
[..]
De 'mainline' interpretatie komt uit de pen van de Jezuieten zoals hierboven al gemeld is.
De ZDA interpretatie is de interpretatie van Luther, Calvijn en alle anderen.
Inderdaad, maar dit was de geest van de RKK in de middeleeuwen. Er hebben zich toen gruwelijke taferelen afgespeeld omdat bijbelse christenen de autoriteit van de paus niet wilden erkennen.quote:
[..]
Dat is nogal wat om over jezelf als mens te zeggen dat je God op aarde bent. Komt eerder narcistisch dan heilig over.
De middeleeuwen met de heksenjacht. Ook zoiets afschuwelijks.quote:
[..]
Inderdaad, maar dit was de geest van de RKK in de middeleeuwen. Er hebben zich toen gruwelijke taferelen afgespeeld omdat bijbelse christenen de autoriteit van de paus niet wilden erkennen.
[youtube][/youtube]
Dergelijke misdaden heeft de RKK in het verleden begaan, en zelfs erger dan deze want ze hadden speciale marteltuigen voor ketters die ze zelfs niet tijdens WO 2 gebruikten.
Dergelijke misdaden heeft de RKK in het verleden begaan, en zelfs erger dan deze want ze hadden speciale marteltuigen voor ketters die ze zelfs niet tijdens WO 2 gebruikten.
Idd verschrikkelijk!quote:
[..]
De middeleeuwen met de heksenjacht. Ook zoiets afschuwelijks.
Wat wordt er bedoeld met "het einde"? Het kan gaan om het einde van het Joodse volk als uitverkoren volk. Jezus wees immers zijn volgelingen erop dat ze moesten vluchten uit Jeruzalem als ze zagen dat Jeruzalem omsingeld werd zoals voorzegd in het boek van Daniel.quote:
[..]
Was het boek van Daniel niet verzegeld tot het einde?
Zou God niet door middel van verdere openbaring begrip kunnen geven aan het boek van Daniel?
Het is puur toeval dat de symboliek uit Daniel exact zo gebruikt wordt in Openbaringen? En niet alleen de symboliek, maar dat de teksten praktisch geciteerd worden?
Echter ik kan nu simpelweg nog niet concluderen of heel Daniel alleen voor het Joodse volk was. Laten we eerst stapje voor stapje uitzoeken wat de kleine hoorn van Daniel 7 is. Ik zei Vespinianus, echter deze keizer regeerde pas vanaf 69 nc en de onderdrukking begon al vanaf 66 nc. Welke interpretatie we ook kiezen er lijken aldoor haken en ogen aan te zitten. Echter vind ik de ZDA interpretatie wel heel erg veel haken en ogen hebben.
Hier in een citaat van Luther.quote:
[..]
Toon mij eens aan dat Luther, Calvijn en anderen leerden dat de kleine hoorn van Daniel 7 de RKK is?
In 1521 Luther dealt largely with prophecy, in which he broadened the foundations of the Reformation placing them on prophetic faith. His main interest was centered on the prophecy of the Little Horn in Daniel 8:9-12, 23-25. The antichrist of 2 Thessalonians 2 was identified as the power of the Papacy. So too was the Little Horn of Daniel 7, coming up among the divisions of Rome, explicitly applied.[74] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther
En dit over de rest van de hervormers:
Many Protestant reformers, including Martin Luther, John Calvin, Thomas Cranmer, John Thomas, John Knox, and Cotton Mather, identified the Roman Papacy as the Antichrist.[38] The Centuriators of Magdeburg, a group of Lutheran scholars in Magdeburg headed by Matthias Flacius, wrote the 12-volume "Magdeburg Centuries" to discredit the papacy and identify the pope as the Antichrist. The fifth round of talks in the Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue notes,
In calling the pope the "antichrist," the early Lutherans stood in a tradition that reached back into the eleventh century. Not only dissidents and heretics but even saints had called the bishop of Rome the "antichrist" when they wished to castigate his abuse of power.[39]
Calvijn:
To some we seem slanderous and petulant, when we call the Roman Pontiff Antichrist. But those who think so perceive not that they are bringing a charge of intemperance against Paul, after whom we speak, nay, in whose very words we speak. But lest any one object that Paul’s words have a different meaning, and are wrested by us against the Roman Pontiff, I will briefly show that they can only be understood of the Papacy. Paul says that Antichrist would sit in the temple of God (2 Thess. 2:4). In another passage, the Spirit, portraying him in the person of Antiochus, says that his reign would be with great swelling words of vanity (Dan. 7:25). Hence we infer that his tyranny is more over souls than bodies, a tyranny set up in opposition to the spiritual kingdom of Christ. Then his nature is such, that he abolishes not the name either of Christ or the Church, but rather uses the name of Christ as a pretext, and lurks under the name of Church as under a mask. But though all the heresies and schisms which have existed from the beginning belong to the kingdom of Antichrist, yet when Paul foretells that defection will come, he by the description intimates that that seat of abomination will be erected, when a kind of universal defection comes upon the Church, though many members of the Church scattered up and down should continue in the true unity of the faith. But when he adds, that in his own time, the mystery of iniquity, which was afterwards to be openly manifested, had begun to work in secret, we thereby understand that this calamity was neither to be introduced by one man, nor to terminate in one man (see Calvin 2 Thess. 2:3; Dan. 7:9). Moreover, when the mark by which he distinguishes Antichrist is, that he would rob God of his honour and take it to himself, he gives the leading feature which we ought to follow in searching out Antichrist; especially when pride of this description proceeds to the open devastation of the Church. Seeing then it is certain that the Roman Pontiff has impudently transferred to himself the most peculiar properties of God and Christ, there cannot be a doubt that he is the leader and standard-bearer of an impious and abominable kingdom. (Calvin’s Institutes IV:7:25)
Wat je constant ziet is dat de hervormers de kleine hoorn aan 2 thessalonicenzen de 'man van zonde' koppelen.
Allemaal waren ze het erover eens dat dat de papacy was.
Martin Luther (1483-1546) [founder of the Lutheran Church]
“nothing else than the kingdom of Babylon and of very Antichrist….For who is the man of sin and the son of perdition, but he who by his teaching and his ordinances increases the sin and perdition of souls in the church; while he yet sits in the church as if he were God? All these conditions have now for many ages been fulfilled by the papal tyranny.” Martin Luther, First Principles, pp. 196-197 Learn More about Martin Luther
John Calvin (1509-1564) [founder of the Presbyterian Church]
“I deny him to be the vicar of Christ, who, in furiously persecuting the gospel, demonstrates by his conduct that he is Antichrist--I deny him to be the successor of Peter..I deny him to be the head of the church.” “Some persons think us too severe and censorious when we call the Roman pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak and whose language we adopt…I shall briefly show that (Pauls words in 2 Thessalonians 2) are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy” John Calvin, Tracts, Vol. 1, pp. 219,220. John Calvin, Institutes.
John Wesley (1703-1791) [founder of the Methodist Church]
“He is in an emphatical sense, the Man of Sin, as he increases all manner of sin above measure. And he is, too, properly styled the Son of Perdition, as he has caused the death of numberless multitudes, both of his opposers and followers… He it is…that exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped… claiming the highest power, and highest honor… claiming the prerogatives which belong to God alone.” Albert Close, Antichrist and His Ten Kingdoms, London: Thynne and Co., 1917, p. 110.
King James (1566-1625) [Authorized the King James Version of the Bible]
“The faithfull praiseth God for the Popes destruction, and their deliverance," and for "the plagues which are to light on him and his followers." "The Pope by his Pardons makes merchandise of the soules of men: Heaven and the Saints reioyce at his destruction, albiet the earth and the worldlings lament for the same" James I, Paraphrase, in Workes, pp. 47, 57
John Wycliffe (1324-1384) [Completed the 1st English translation of the Bible]
“Why is it necessary in unbelief to look for another Antichrist? Hence in the seventh chapter of Daniel Antichrist is forcefully described by a horn arising in the time of the 4th kingdom. For it grew from [among] our powerful ones, more horrible, more cruel, and more greedy, because by reckoning the pagans and our Christians by name, a lesser [greater?] struggle for the temporals is not recorded in any preceding time. Therefore the ten horns are the whole of our temporal rulers, and the horn has arisen from the ten horns, having eyes and a mouth speaking great things against the Lofty One, and wearing out the saints of the Most High, and thinking that he is able to change times and laws.” (Daniel 7:8, 25 quoted) …"For so our clergy foresee the lord pope, as it is said of the eighth blaspheming little head." Translated from Wyclif's, De Veritate Sacrae Scripturae, vol. 3 pp. 262, 263 Learn more about John Wyclif
William Tyndale (1484-1536) [1st translator of the Bible from the Greek]
“The pope's forbidding matrimony, and to eat of meats created of God for man's use, which is devilish doctrine by Paul's prophecy,… are tokens good enough that he is the right antichrist, and his doctrine sprung of the devil.” 1 Timothy 4:1-3 Tyndale, An Answer to Sir Thomas More's Dialogue, in Works, vol. 3, p. 171 Visit http://www.williamtyndale.com for more information on William Tyndale.
John Knox (1505-1572) [Scottish Reformer]
He preached that Romish traditions and ceremonies should be abolished along with “that tyranny which the Pope himself has for so many ages exercised over the church" and that he should be acknowledged as "the son of perdition, of whom Paul speaks." In a public challenge he declared: "As for your Roman Church, as it is now corrupted… I no more doubt but that it is the synagogue of Satan, and the head therof, called the Pope, to be the man of sin of whom the apostle speaketh." Knox, The Zurich Letters, p.199
Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560) [Associate of Martin Luther]
“Since it is certain that the pontiffs and the monks have forbidden marriage, it is most manifest, and true without any doubt, that the Roman Pontiff, with his whole order and kingdom, is very Antichrist. Likewise in 2 Thess. II, Paul clearly says that the man of sin will rule in the church exalting himself above the worship of God, etc." Translated from Melanchthon, Disputationes, No. 56, "De Matrimonio", in Opera (Corpus Reformatorum), vol. 12 col. 535
Huldreich Zwingli (1484-1531) [great Swiss reformer quoted on Dec. 28, 1524]
“I know that in it works the might and power of the Devil, that is, of the Antichrist… the Papacy has to be abolished… But by no other means can it be more thoroughly routed than by the word of God (2 Thessalonians 2), because as soon as the world receives this in the right way, it will turn away from the Pope without compulsion.” Principle Works of Zwingli, Vol. 7, p. 135.
[ Bericht 0% gewijzigd door Ali_Kannibali op 28-02-2013 17:09:45 ]
De ZDA interpretatie is de interpretatie van de hervormers en de enige consistente, mag men denk ik wel concluderen na 500 jaar aan studie van het onderwerp. Het begrip van die profetie maakte de reformatie mogelijk en zodoende al het andere goede wat er vervolgens voort is gekomen. Zonder het begrip van die profetie hadden we nu nog steeds in de middeleeuwen geleefd en geen bijbel beschikbaar gehad.quote:
[..]
Wat wordt er bedoeld met "het einde"? Het kan gaan om het einde van het Joodse volk als uitverkoren volk. Jezus wees immers zijn volgelingen erop dat ze moesten vluchten uit Jeruzalem als ze zagen dat Jeruzalem omsingeld werd zoals voorzegd in het boek van Daniel.
Echter ik kan nu simpelweg nog niet concluderen of heel Daniel alleen voor het Joodse volk was. Laten we eerst stapje voor stapje uitzoeken wat de kleine hoorn van Daniel 7 is. Ik zei Vespinianus, echter deze keizer regeerde pas vanaf 69 nc en de onderdrukking begon al vanaf 66 nc. Welke interpretatie we ook kiezen er lijken aldoor haken en ogen aan te zitten. Echter vind ik de ZDA interpretatie wel heel erg veel haken en ogen hebben.
De enige reden waarom we die interpretatie vandaag niet meer geloven is omdat de Jezuieten er een stokje voor hebben gestoken.
Persoonlijk ben ik niet zo geinteresseerd in het debunken van alle wilde - en vergezochte - theorien over wie de kleine hoorn is. Dat zou me teveel tijd kosten. Lees je eerst een goed in in waar de interpretatie vandaan komt en waarom, en bekijk dan de alternatieve theorien - futurisme en preterisme - met je nieuwe wapenarsenaal. Wanneer je een conclusie bereikt hebt, zullen we daar over spreken, maar nu is dat vrij zinloos omdat je elke 5 minuten van interpretatie kan veranderen en sowieso niet openstaat voor wat ik zeg aangezien ik ZDA vertegenwoordig.
[ Bericht 6% gewijzigd door Ali_Kannibali op 28-02-2013 17:09:03 ]
Bedankt dat je de moeite hebt genomen dit op te zoeken.quote:
the faith. But when he adds, that in his own time, the mystery of iniquity, which was afterwards to be openly manifested, had begun to work in secret, we thereby understand that this calamity was neither to be introduced by one man, nor to terminate in one man (see Calvin 2 Thess. 2:3; Dan. 7:9). Moreover, when the mark by which he distinguishes Antichrist is, that he would rob God of his honour and take it to himself, he gives the leading feature which we ought to follow in searching out Antichrist; especially when pride of this description proceeds to the open devastation of the Church. Seeing then it is certain that the Roman Pontiff has impudently transferred to himself the most peculiar properties of God and Christ, there cannot be a doubt that he is the leader and standard-bearer of an impious and abominable kingdom. (Calvin’s Institutes IV:7:25)
Wat ik hieruit opmaak is dat idd de RKK de antichristus vertegenwoordigt. Dat lijkt me ook wel duidelijk. Echter merk ook op dat Calvijn stelt dat Daniel 7 over Antiochus gaat en dat dat dient als type voor de RKK maar niet op de RKK zelf. Ik denk ook in dit kader dat Luther overeenkomsten zag. Echter om te stellen dat de RKK de kleine hoorn is uit Daniel 7 is discutabel. Ik zal me er eerst nog eens in verdiepen idd om dit mysterie op te lossen.
Calvijn gelooft ook in predestinatie en nog wel meer errors. Calvijn is niet God en zijn woord is niet autoriteit. Het was om te illustreren dat de ZDA interpretatie niet ZDA-bedacht is maar protestants. Dat maakt het zo sneaky om te doen alsof alles wat ZDA leert ook door ZDA zelf voor het eerst onderwezen is, terwijl het meeste van de hervormers komt. Maar die hervormers zijn al effectief uit de weg geruimd want de hele protestantse wereld is inmiddelds terug in bed met Rome, dus blijft alleen ZDA over als kerk om omver te werpen (al zien we helaas ook in ZDA elementen die hier naar toe sturen, al weten we beide wie die elementen zijn).quote:
[..]
Bedankt dat je de moeite hebt genomen dit op te zoeken.
Wat ik hieruit opmaak is dat idd de RKK de antichristus vertegenwoordigt. Dat lijkt me ook wel duidelijk. Echter merk ook op dat Calvijn stelt dat Daniel 7 over Antiochus gaat en dat dat dient als type voor de RKK maar niet op de RKK zelf. Ik denk ook in dit kader dat Luther overeenkomsten zag. Echter om te stellen dat de RKK de kleine hoorn is uit Daniel 7 is discutabel. Ik zal me er eerst nog eens in verdiepen idd om dit mysterie op te lossen.
Hier een schitterende video hoe de ZDA eigenlijk heeft voortgeborduurd op het werk van de verschillende hervormers, zoals o.a. Wycliff, Wesley, Calvijn, Luther en hoe daarbij de verschillende attributen uit de tabernakel (Heiligdom leer) weer één voor één op hun plaats werden hersteld, die door de RKK waren "vertrapt":
Niet zo geloven die wiseguy-23 en Ali.quote:
[..]
De middeleeuwen met de heksenjacht. Ook zoiets afschuwelijks.
Deze mensen zijn protestant, en die hebben bij voorbaat al een hekel aan de Rooms Katholieken. Ze spugen in principe op hun eigen spiegelbeeld en in de hand die hen gevoed heeft.
Zij geloven namelijk in propaganda van de protestanten, die zij vertelden over de RK ten tijde van de 80-jarige oorlog. Veel mensen menen bijvoorbeeld dankzij deze propaganda dat de RK niet wilde dat leken de bijbel lazen, terwijl het gewone volk de bijbel gewoon mocht lezen, zelfs in de eigen taal.
Ook doen ze alsof de RK zoveel verschrikkelijke dingen heeft gedaan, terwijl ze zelf net zo erg waren op het moment dat ze opkwamen. Kijk maar naar de strijd in de 80jarige oorlog, toen de geuzen bepaalde steden innamen werd daar de RK in de ban gedaan. Priesters vermoord, kastelen geplunderd. Deze mensen waren net zo erg, maar hadden het geluk dat ze in 500 na Christus nog niet bestonden. Het hele christelijk geloof is omgeven van strijd en problemen. Zelfs toen de RK er nog niet was!
"Bettler aber sollte man ganz abschaffen! Wahrlich, man ärgert sich ihnen zu geben und ärgert sich ihnen nicht zu geben."
Friedrich Nietzsche
Friedrich Nietzsche
Het geloof heeft vele oorlogen opgeleverd. Tot op de dag van vandaag.quote:
[..]
Niet zo geloven die wiseguy-23 en Ali.
Deze mensen zijn protestant, en die hebben bij voorbaat al een hekel aan de Rooms Katholieken. Ze spugen in principe op hun eigen spiegelbeeld en in de hand die hen gevoed heeft.
Zij geloven namelijk in propaganda van de protestanten, die zij vertelden over de RK ten tijde van de 80-jarige oorlog. Veel mensen menen bijvoorbeeld dankzij deze propaganda dat de RK niet wilde dat leken de bijbel lazen, terwijl het gewone volk de bijbel gewoon mocht lezen, zelfs in de eigen taal.
Ook doen ze alsof de RK zoveel verschrikkelijke dingen heeft gedaan, terwijl ze zelf net zo erg waren op het moment dat ze opkwamen. Kijk maar naar de strijd in de 80jarige oorlog, toen de geuzen bepaalde steden innamen werd daar de RK in de ban gedaan. Priesters vermoord, kastelen geplunderd. Deze mensen waren net zo erg, maar hadden het geluk dat ze in 500 na Christus nog niet bestonden. Het hele christelijk geloof is omgeven van strijd en problemen. Zelfs toen de RK er nog niet was!
Precies, maar maak dat gelovigen maar wijs. Die zeggen dan gewoon: Dat waren dan geen echte .... (noem maar een geloof). Het welbekende notruescotsman.quote:
[..]
Het geloof heeft vele oorlogen opgeleverd. Tot op de dag van vandaag.
"Bettler aber sollte man ganz abschaffen! Wahrlich, man ärgert sich ihnen zu geben und ärgert sich ihnen nicht zu geben."
Friedrich Nietzsche
Friedrich Nietzsche
Voor de duidelijkheid, wanneer we het over Rome of de Rooms katholieke kerk hebben hebben we het over het instituut en de geest achter het instituut, niet over de gewone doorsnee rooms katholiek die verder ook geen flauw benul heeft waar ie bij betrokken is. Nee, de meeste priesters en bisschoppen weten dat volgens mij niet eens. Ik heb een aantal katholieke vrienden dus ben geen 'katholiekenhater' of oid.
De bijbel zelf veroordeelt het systeem en met goede redenen. Er is geen schaamte om de zaken bij naam te noemen, zonder meteen wapens op te pakken en mensen neer te hakken. Ik citeer hierbij graat Luther:
''Let the minds clash - but keep the fists down''
[ Bericht 5% gewijzigd door Ali_Kannibali op 28-02-2013 19:40:23 ]
De bijbel zelf veroordeelt het systeem en met goede redenen. Er is geen schaamte om de zaken bij naam te noemen, zonder meteen wapens op te pakken en mensen neer te hakken. Ik citeer hierbij graat Luther:
''Let the minds clash - but keep the fists down''
[ Bericht 5% gewijzigd door Ali_Kannibali op 28-02-2013 19:40:23 ]
Dit is zo epic
[youtube][/youtube]
mbt tot de stelling dat geloof oorlogen heeft veroorzaakt:
34Denk niet dat ik gekomen ben om op aarde vrede te brengen. Ik ben niet gekomen om vrede te brengen, maar het zwaard. 35Want ik kom een wig drijven tussen een man en zijn vader, tussen een dochter en haar moeder en tussen een schoondochter en haar schoonmoeder; 36de vijanden van de mensen zijn hun eigen huisgenoten! 37Wie meer van zijn vader of moeder houdt dan van mij, is mij niet waard, en wie meer houdt van zijn zoon of dochter dan van mij, is mij niet waard. 38Wie niet zijn kruis op zich neemt en mij volgt, is mij niet waard. 39Wie zijn leven probeert te behouden zal het verliezen, maar wie zijn leven verliest omwille van mij, die zal het behouden.
[youtube][/youtube]
mbt tot de stelling dat geloof oorlogen heeft veroorzaakt:
34Denk niet dat ik gekomen ben om op aarde vrede te brengen. Ik ben niet gekomen om vrede te brengen, maar het zwaard. 35Want ik kom een wig drijven tussen een man en zijn vader, tussen een dochter en haar moeder en tussen een schoondochter en haar schoonmoeder; 36de vijanden van de mensen zijn hun eigen huisgenoten! 37Wie meer van zijn vader of moeder houdt dan van mij, is mij niet waard, en wie meer houdt van zijn zoon of dochter dan van mij, is mij niet waard. 38Wie niet zijn kruis op zich neemt en mij volgt, is mij niet waard. 39Wie zijn leven probeert te behouden zal het verliezen, maar wie zijn leven verliest omwille van mij, die zal het behouden.
Ik zou me voor mijn innerlijke gemoedsrust toch niet erg prettig voelen bij zo'n schepper.quote:
Dit is zo epic
[youtube][/youtube]
mbt tot de stelling dat geloof oorlogen heeft veroorzaakt:
34Denk niet dat ik gekomen ben om op aarde vrede te brengen. Ik ben niet gekomen om vrede te brengen, maar het zwaard. 35Want ik kom een wig drijven tussen een man en zijn vader, tussen een dochter en haar moeder en tussen een schoondochter en haar schoonmoeder; 36de vijanden van de mensen zijn hun eigen huisgenoten! 37Wie meer van zijn vader of moeder houdt dan van mij, is mij niet waard, en wie meer houdt van zijn zoon of dochter dan van mij, is mij niet waard. 38Wie niet zijn kruis op zich neemt en mij volgt, is mij niet waard. 39Wie zijn leven probeert te behouden zal het verliezen, maar wie zijn leven verliest omwille van mij, die zal het behouden.
Question authorities, fuck religion, educate yourself, Viva el individualismo!
There's only one way of life, and that's your own!
There's only one way of life, and that's your own!
Nja je moet het wel in zijn juiste context bekijken. Jezus wil mensen redden van de eeuwige dood en brengt daartoe een mooie boodschap in de wereld. Echter de duivel oefent heel veel macht uit op deze wereld en wil voorkomen dat mensen deze mooie boodschap aannemen en zo behouden blijven. Dit zorgt voor oorlogen en strijd etc. Het is dus een boodschap van liefde, maar liefde wordt door Satan niet op prijs gesteld.quote:
[..]
Ik zou me voor mijn innerlijke gemoedsrust toch niet erg prettig voelen bij zo'n schepper.
Chapter I - Doctrines and Methods of Seventh-day Adventists (Back to Top)
Seventh-day Adventism originated about seventy-five years ago in the work of Mr. Miller, who set the time for the end of the world in 1843-4. Adding some doctrines to the original faith, Elder James White and wife in 1846 became the leaders of the Seventh-day branch of Adventism. Their headquarters were at different times at Paris, Me., Saratoga, Oswego, and Rochester, N.Y. In 1855 they settled permanently at Battle Creek, Mich., which remained the center of the work till recently.
Their Doctrines
In doctrine they differ radically from evangelical churches. The main points are these as taught in all their books: They hold to the materiality of all things; believe in the sonship of Christ; believe that they only have a correct understanding of the prophecies to which they give most of their attention; that the end of the world is to occur in this generation; that we are now in the Judgment which began in 1844; that the Seventh day, Saturday, must be kept; that keeping Sunday is the mark of the beast; that all should pay tithes; that Mrs. White is inspired as were the writers of the Bible; that the Bible must be interpreted to harmonize with her writings; that they are called of God to give the last warning to the World; that the dead are unconscious; that the wicked and the devil will be annihilated; that all churches but their own are Babylon and rejected of God; that everybody but themselves will soon become spiritualists; that when Christ comes only 144,000 out of all then living on the earth will be saved, and all these will be Seventh-day Adventists. Hence, they have no fellowship with other Christians; never work with them in any way, but zealously proselyte from all.
They believe in the Bible, in conversion, in purity of life, in rigid temperance, in strict morality, and in other good things common to all churches. There are many excellent persons among them. In character they are not to be compared with the spiritualists, infidels, etc., as is sometimes unjustly done.
The Extent of Their Work
Their Year Book for 1912 reports the following:
Conferences, 129; mission fields, 87; organized churches, 2,769; membership, 90,808; unorganized, 15,758; total, 104,528. Ordained ministers, 828; licensed ministers, 458; missionaries, 1,234; book canvassers, 1,697; total laborers, 4,346; Sabbath Schools, 4,151; membership, 101,161; church schools, 594; students, 13,357; colleges and academies, 86; students, 7,169; publishing houses, 28; employees, 610; sanitariums, 74; employees, 1,989; tithes, $1,338,689.65; average per member, $12.81; contributions for missions, home church work, tithes and all funds by the denomination, $2,223,767.52.
They publish 121 periodicals in twenty-eight languages. Books and tracts published in ninety-one languages.
The above will give a fair idea of the strength of that church. However, their main efficiency is in the distribution of their literature. Every member, old and young, down to little children, is taught and urged to engage in every way possible in distributing these tracts, papers and books through every possible channel. Every one believes he is doing God's work when he does this. Hence every member is a missionary in some way. The result is their literature is coming to be widely scattered the world over. Yet the results of all this tremendous outlay of money and work are very meagre. In the last four years with 4,000 laborers in the field, they have only averaged a gain of 4,000 members per year, or one for every worker. They have been at work now for seventy-five years to get 104,000 members. The Mormons, starting about the same date, now number 500,000, nearly five times as many. The Christian Scientists, only about half as old, have over a million members. There is very little real spiritual power in it. The work is done mostly by hard labor and argument, not by any such mighty power as attended the work of the Apostles, or Luther, or Wesley, or Moody and many others. Their work now extends to all parts of the civilized world and into many heathen lands.
The number of their actual converts does not tell the harm they do. Where they convert one they confuse a score, who after that have no settled faith in any church, and are useless for any Christian work. Other conscientious persons are bothered and worried over it for years, not knowing what to do.
Their Hostility to All Other Churches
One of the highly objectionable features of that system is the bitter hostility of its believers towards all other churches. Their theory is that all churches but their own were utterly rejected of God in 1844 for not embracing Miller's doctrine. Thus Mrs. White says: "I saw the state of the different churches since the second angel proclaimed their fall [in 1844]. They have been growing more and more corrupt.... Satan has taken full possession of the churches as a body.... The churches were left as were the Jews; and they have been filling up with every unclean and hateful bird. I saw great iniquity and vileness in the churches; yet they profess to be Christians. Their professions, their prayers and their exhortations are an abomination in the sight of God. Said the angel, God will not smell in their assemblies. Selfishness, fraud and deceit are practiced by them without the reprovings of conscience." Spiritual Gifts, Vol. I, page 189, 190. She says it is the devil who answers their prayers. Thus: "I saw them look up to the throne and pray, Father give us thy spirit; Satan would then breathe upon them an unholy influence." Early Writings, page 47. Again: "The nominal churches are filled with fornication and adultery, crime and murder, the result of base, lustful passion; but these things are kept covered." Testimonies, Vol. II, page 449. All intelligent people know that such statements are a misrepresentation of the evangelical churches today. Elder White says: "Babylon, the nominal church, is fallen; God's people have come out of her. She is now the synagogue of Satan." Present Truth. April, 1850.
Hence they say that the revivals and conversions in the churches are largely a deception, the work of the devil, not of God. Mrs. White says of them: "The converts are not renewed in heart or changed in character." "They will exult that God is working marvelously for them, when the work is that of another spirit. Under a religious guise, Satan will spread his influence over the land. HE HOPES TO DECEIVE MANY BY LEADING THEM TO THINK THAT GOD IS STILL WITH THE CHURCHES." Great Controversy, page 294, 296. On this the Review and Herald, May 3, 1887, says: "we are aware that to assume that this revival work, so unquestionably accepted by all the churches, is not genuine, will cause the hands of Christendom to be raised in holy horror.... If He [God] is with us, He has not been with the popular churches in any marked manner since they rejected the Advent message of 1843-4, and they are congratulating themselves over delusive appearances, and a prosperity which has no existence in fact. The hand of God cannot direct two movements so antagonistic in nature."
Believing this, they eagerly watch for evidence to prove it and shut their eyes to any facts against it. So they rejoice at any unfavorable thing they can hear against ministers, churches, or members. They report it, repeat it, publish it, magnify it, and live on it. To weaken, divide, or break up a church, is their delight. They heartily join with worldlings, infidels and atheists in their opposition to churches, and thus strengthen their unbelief and help them to perdition. They have gathered up all the most unfavorable things possible to find against the churches and put it in a book occupying thirty pages, and this they hand out for all to read. It is sad to see honest men devoting their lives to such highly censurable work, which must please Satan well.
Who is Deceived?
Seventh-day Adventists dwell much on how easy it is to be deceived, to be led by Satan, when we think it is the Lord - to believe a lie for the truth. It is amusing to see how innocently they apply this to all others, and never dream that is has any application to themselves! What, THEY deceived? THEY misled? Impossible! They KNOW they are right. Exactly, and that is just the way all feel, whether they be Mormons, Shakers, Catholics, or what not. The Adventists themselves are an illustration of the ease with which people are misled.
Their Methods of Work
Tent Meetings. Largely they use tents to enter new fields. Being a novelty, they attract attention. At first they present subjects which will offend no one till they gain the confidence of the people. Gradually they introduce their peculiar dogmas, then come out more boldly, till at length they denounce all other churches as Babylon, and their pastors as hirelings and deceivers. They say these pastors cannot defend their doctrines; dare not try. They offer rewards to any who will prove so and so; boast how they have scared this one, defeated that one, and silenced another. If in sermons the least reference is made to them, they call it persecution, give out a review, and do everything to provoke controversy. When the resident pastors are compelled to defend themselves, the Adventists claim to be greatly abused.
If a doctor, lawyer, teacher, or business man should enter a town and denounce all others of his profession as quacks, fools, or deceivers, how would he be treated? All would combine against him as a common enemy.
This is the way the pastors and churches meet the attacks of the Adventists, because compelled to. Like Ishmael of old, the hand of the Adventist is against every man, and hence every man's hand is against them. Gen 16:12. It is useless for them to deny this, for all know it to be true. They all do it. I was taught that way and followed it, and taught others to do the same.
Camp meeting. Adventists hold many camp-meetings yearly. Here their ablest speakers preach their doctrines to thousands, and distribute their literature widely. They hire the papers to print lengthy flattering reports of their meetings, which they write themselves. Their reporters are trained for this special work. They gain wide attention, and impress many in this way.
Bible Readings. Hundreds of their men, women, and even young girls, are trained with printed lessons which they learn by heart, to go from house to house and give Bible readings. At first they conceal their real object and name, till they get a foothold. Then they cautiously introduce their tenets, work against pastors and churches, and lead many away.
Book-selling. Hundreds also are employed to canvass for their doctrinal books. The real nature of the book is studiously concealed, and the subscriber is deceived into buying a radical Advent book.
Distribution of Tracts. In every possible way, publicly, privately, from tent or church, by book-agents, colporteurs, Bible-readers, or private individuals, in depots, on boats, in stores, or families, through the mails, by sale, loan or gift, their tracts are persistently crowded everywhere.
Missions. They have Missions in many of the large cities and in foreign lands; but they are largely proselyting agencies. They do little among the heathen, or for the destitute and fallen, but go into the best families to which they can gain access, and gather the converts whom other missionaries have made. Thus Mrs. White instructs them: "Mistakes have been made in not seeking to reach ministers and the higher classes with the truth.... Educate men and women to labor for these higher classes both here and there and in other countries." Testimony No. 33, pages 108, 109. Jesus sent his disciples into the highways and hedges for the poor, lame and blind, for publicans, harlots and sinners; but Mrs. White does not relish that kind. She wants them from "the ministers and higher classes," "the whole who need no physician," those who can bring talent and money into the cause.
Where They Work. Adventists have the best success in new fields, where they are least known. Hence the western States is where they are most numerous. In New England, where they started, they have had to struggle hard to hold their own. In some of the older fields they have lost in numbers, in others the gain is very small. In hundreds of places where they were fair sized, active churches in the past, now no church at all, or a straggling, discouraged handful. Battle Creek is a fair illustration. This was their headquarters for forty years. Once there were 2,000 Sabbath keepers here, all united. Now there are less than 1,000, divided into four opposing parties, their influence entirely gone. The same is true elsewhere. About all the converts they make are at the outset. After a few years' acquaintance, they have no influence and few or none join them. Their churches grow smaller, generally, till they are unnoticed. The average membership of their churches is 29 - exceedingly small; how different from the evangelical churches! The longer these are in a town the stronger they grow, and the more influence they have generally. But Adventism does not wear.
How to Meet Adventism
People are led into Adventism from lack of information. Hence, when Adventism enters a town the people should be told plainly what it is, what its effects are, and wherein it is unscriptural. Quite generally pastors make a mistake in letting it alone for weeks, till it has gained a foothold. I always noticed that where the pastors united and worked against us on the start, we could do but little. So I would advise churches and pastors to take right hold of the matter earnestly as soon as people are interested in it. Preach on it; visit those who are being led away; hold Bible-readings; furnish them with proper books and tracts. Sit down patiently and answer arguments. Visit them again and again. Adventists will work a whole year, will go a hundred times, will give them scores of tracts to proselyte one person. If we would work a tenth as hard, scarcely one would be led away. People love to be noticed. The very attention they receive from the Adventists often wins them more than their arguments.
What Will Be Their End?
Adventism is founded on time, and time will kill it. It began by setting a definite time, 1844, for the end of the world, and failed. Now they hold that it must come in this generation beginning in 1844. This is only another way of time setting. In time all this will fail and overthrow their system. Then will come doubt, discouragement, divisions, apostasies, infidelity, and ruin to souls. This end is inevitable. The wider their influence now, the more terrible the disaster then. These wild, enthusiastic, fanatical moves which end in failure are the delight of Satan, as they bring disgrace upon the cause of Christ and end in infidelity. That such will be the end of Adventism I have not a doubt.
Lack of Education and Talent Among the Adventist Leaders
The men whom God has chosen to lead out in the great religious movements of the past have, with few exceptions, been men of high education, refinement, and great talents. Moses, the founder of Judaism, "was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds." Acts 7:22. Nehemiah, who restored Jerusalem after the captivity, was cup-bearer to the king. Neh 2. So Daniel, the great prophet, had "knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom." Dan 1:17. He was prime minister of a mighty empire for many years. Paul was so renowned for his learning, that the king said to him: "Much learning doth make thee mad." Acts 26:24. He did for Christianity ten times more than all the other apostles together. It is to him, and not to the other apostles, that the Gentile world is indebted for Christianity. Then the twelve, though uneducated, had the advantage over all other reformers, that they were taught directly by the Son of God, and could work miracles.
St. Augustine, A.D. 353-430, the father of Christian theology, to whom the church owes almost as much as to Paul, was highly educated. As is well known, Luther was a thorough scholar, educated in the best schools of his day, and filled a professor's chair in a university. So Calvin and Melanchton were both profound scholars, occupying professor's chairs in halls of learning. Zwingle, the great Swiss reformer, was celebrated for his learning and scholarship. Wiclif [sp], the "Morning Star of the Reformation," was a graduate of Oxford, England, and a doctor of divinity. Cranmer, the great English reformer, was a graduate, a doctor of divinity, archbishop, and regent of the kingdom. Wesley, the father of Methodism, was a graduate of Oxford, a man of vast reading, the author or editor of commentaries, grammars, dictionaries, etc. It is a false idea that God generally uses ignorant men as leaders in reform, as the above great names will show.
Now look at the founders of our heretical sects. Joanna Southcott was wholly illiterate, a mere washer-woman. Ann Lee, the foundress of the Shakers, received no education, worked in a cotton factory, and was cook in a hospital. Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, received no education, and Brigham Young very little. Not one of these persons were of influence in the world, outside of their own deluded followers.
How is it with the leaders of Adventism? Wm. Miller, the founder, was reared in the backwoods, in poverty, and received only the poor advantages of a common district school. Except some general reading, this was the extent of his education.
Elder White, the leader of the Seventh-day Adventists' party, only secured sufficient education to teach a common district school. He was no student of books. In all my travels with him, I seldom saw him read half an hour in any book. Of the languages or the sciences he knew nothing, and little even of common history. Mrs. White received no school education, except a few weeks when a child. She, like Joanna Southcott, Ann Lee, and Joseph Smith, was wholly illiterate, not knowing the simplest rules of grammar. Not one of the leading men in that work ever graduated from college or university, and many are illiterate as Mrs. White herself. Elder J.N. Andrews, Elder Smith, and one or two more, by diligent study and reading out of school, became well informed men in their line. After Elder White came Elders Butler and Haskell as leaders, neither of them educated men, nor of half the natural talent of Elder White. The present leaders are small men also. Such men are poorly prepared to lead out in a great reformation in this educated age. Not a man among them has now, or ever had, a particle of influence in the world, or any office or responsible position in state or nation. How different from the great reformers of the past, who often had extensive influence for good, not only with the masses, but with the great men and kings of earth. Hence, from whatsoever side we view Adventism, it has none of the marks of a genuine reformation sent of God to bless the world.
Elder A.A. Phelps, for years editor of a First-day Adventist paper says: "I watched and waited, and worked, with patience, meakness and loyalty, in hearty co-operation, and with an earnest desire to see such unity, enterprise, breadth and moral power, as ought to characterize a scriptural and heaven-inspired movement. How slowly and reluctantly I yielded to the conviction - forced by sad facts and illustrations that I have not even dared to detail - that I was only throwing away my life in stemming such waves of discord, indolence, looseness, narrowness, dogmatism and spiritual death as I could not overcome."
Reader, if you are still outside of this spiritual Babylon, take warning from those who have been through the mill, and stay out.
Later, 1914. Already strong men among them admit that, (1) Mrs. White had made many mistakes in her inspired (?) writing; (2) Now contradicts what she once wrote; (3) Has copied from many other authors what she claims as revelations from God; (4) Has often been influenced by others to write what they wanted to help their projects. Time has proved this so clearly that it can no longer be denied. Hence her revelations are steadily losing influence with their able men. She is now eighty-seven years old and is reported as having largely lost her mind. The laity, specially in foreign lands, being ignorant of all these facts, still regard her as the voice of God to them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter II - An Experience of Twenty-Eight Years in Adventism (Back to Top)
I long hesitated about bringing personal matters into this book, but could see no way to tell my story without it. My experience illustrates the power which error and superstition have over men. I am amazed at myself that I was held there so long, after my better judgment was convinced that it was an error. I propose to tell the simple facts, just as they were, hit whom they may. Public men become public property, and as such their conduct and work should be laid open and discussed. This is my reason for criticizing the course of Elder White and wife, and others. They invite criticism by claiming to be reformers, better than other people.
I was born in Kinderhook, Branch county, Mich., Sept. 22, 1840. I had no religious training till I was sixteen. I was converted among the Methodists under the labors of Rev. Mr. Hazzard, and baptized by him in 1858. I soon went to Albion, N.Y., to attend school. Here, in 1859, I heard Elder and Mrs. White. He preached on the Sabbath question. I was uneducated, and knew but little about the Bible. I had no idea of the relation between the Old and New Testaments, the law and the gospel, or the difference between the Sabbath and the Lord's day. I thought he proved that the seventh day was still binding, and that there was no authority for keeping Sunday.
As I was anxious to be right, I began keeping Saturday, but did not expect to believe any more of their doctrine. Of course I attended their meetings on Saturday and worked on Sunday. This separated me entirely from other Christians, and threw me wholly with the Adventists. I soon learned from them that all other churches were Babylon, in the dark and under the frown of God. Seventh-day Adventists were the only true people of God. They had "the truth," the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. They defended Mr. Miller's work of 1844, believed in the visions of Mrs. White, the sleep of the dead, the annihilation of the wicked, feet washing, etc. At first these things staggered me, and I thought of drawing back; but they explained them plausibly and smoothed them over, and said they were no test anyway. Having no one to intelligently aid me, I began to see things as they did, and in a few weeks came to believe the whole system. I was again baptized, as their converts from other churches generally are, so as to get clean out of Babylon. Persuaded that time was short, I gave up going to school, dropped the study of all else, listened to their preaching, devoured their books and studied my Bible day and night to sustain these new views. I was now an enthusiastic believer, and longed to convert everybody to the faith. I had not a doubt that it was the pure truth. This is about the experience of all who go with them, as I have since learned.
In May, 1864, I was licensed to preach. Soon began with Elder Van Horn at Ithaca, Mich. We had good success; raised up three companies that year. In 1865 worked in Tuscola county, and had excellent success. Was ordained by Elder White that year. Up to this date I had not a doubt about the truthfulness of our faith. As I now began to see more of Elder White and wife, and the work at headquarters, I learned that there was much trouble with him. I saw that he ruled everything, and that all greatly feared him. I saw that he was often cross and unreasonable. This troubled me a little, but not seriously. In 1866 I was sent to Maine with Elder J.N. Andrews, the ablest man among them. This was a big thing for me. I threw myself into the work with great enthusiasm, and was very happy. Elder Andrews was strong in the faith and very radical, and I partook of his spirit. We had excellent success. By this time I had become quite a writer. I returned to Battle Creek in 1867. At that time there was great trouble with Elder White, and many church meetings were held to investigate the matter. It was clear to me that he was wrong, but Mrs. White sustained him in her "Testimonies" and severely blamed the church. Elder Andrews and a few others proposed to stand up for the right, and take the consequences. My sympathies were with them; but others feared, and finally all wilted and confessed that "we have been blinded by Satan." This was signed by the leading ministers, and humbly adopted by the whole church. See "Testimonies," Vol. 1, page 612. This shook my faith a good deal, and I began to question Mrs. White's inspiration. I saw that her revelations always favored Elder White and herself. If any dared question their course, they soon received a scathing revelation denouncing the wrath of God against them.
About this time several of our able ministers, with quite a party in the West, drew off from the body, in opposition to Elder White and the visions. They were denounced as "rebels," were doomed to perdition, and it was predicted that they would soon come to ruin! But they have continued their work for about fifty years, having several thousand believers. Their headquarters are at Stanberry, Missouri, where they publish two papers, books, etc. They have done a good work in exposing the fallacy of Mrs. White's inspiration.
But I dared not open my mind to a soul. I was only a youth, and had little experience. Older and stronger men had broken down and confessed. What could I do? I said nothing, but felt terribly. I wished I had never heard of the Adventists. Shortly I was back on my field in Maine. Busy with my work, preaching our doctrine, and surrounded with men who firmly believed it, I soon got over my doubts. I have since learned that scores of others have gone through a similar trial.
In 1868 I went to Massachusetts. Being away from the trouble at headquarters, I got on finely. But in May, 1869, I was in Battle Creek for a month. Things were in bad shape. Elder White was in trouble with most of the leading men, and they with him. I was well convinced that he was the real cause of it all, but Mrs. White sustained him, and that settled it. They were God's chosen leaders, and must not be criticized or meddled with. I felt sad. I was working hard to get men into "the truth," as we called it; to persuade them that this was a people free from the faults of other churches; then to see such a state of things among the leaders disheartened me greatly. So far, I myself had had no trouble with any one, and Elder White had been very cordial to me. But I saw then that if I ever came to be of any prominence in the work I should have to expect the same treatment from him that all of the others got. The more I saw of the work, the more objections I saw to it. I will not stop to give them here, as I will give them together in Chapter V.
I had been so thoroughly drilled in the Advent doctrines that I firmly believed the Bible taught them all. To give up the Advent faith was to give up the Bible. So all my brethren said, and so I thought. That year I went to Iowa to work, where I remained four years, laboring with Elder Butler, who soon became president of their general conference. We had good success and raised up several churches. I finally opened my mind to Elder Butler, and told him my fears. I knew these things troubled him as well as myself, for we often spoke of them. He helped me some, and again I gathered courage and went on, feeling better. Still, I came to see each year more and more that somehow the thing did not work as I had supposed it would and ought. Wherever Elder White and wife went they were always in trouble with the brethren, and the best ones, too. I came to dread to meet them, or have them come where I was, for I knew there would be trouble with some one or some thing, and it never failed of so being. I saw church after church split up by them, the best brethren discouraged and maddened and driven off, while I was compelled to apologize for them continually. For years about this time, the main business at all our big meetings was to listen to the complaints of Elder White against his brethren. Not a leading man escaped - Andrews, Waggoner, Smith, Loughborough, Amadon, Cornell, Aldrich, Walker, and a host of others had to take their turn at being broken on the wheel. For hours at a time, and times without number, I have sat in meetings and heard Elder White and wife denounce these men, till I felt there was little manhood left in them. It violated all my ideas of right and justice, and stirred my indignation. Yet, whatever vote was asked by Elder White, we all voted it unanimously, I with the rest. Then I would go out alone and hate myself for my cowardice, and despise my brethren for their weakness.
Elder and Mrs. White ran and ruled everything with an iron hand. Not a nomination to office, not a resolution, not an item of business was ever acted upon in business meetings until all had been first submitted to Elder White for his approval. Till years later, we never saw an opposition vote on any question, for no one dared to do it. Hence, all official voting was only a farce. The will of Elder White settled everything. If any one dared to oppose anything, however humbly, Elder White or wife quickly squelched him. Long years of such training taught people to let their leaders think for them; hence, they are under as complete subjection as are the Catholics.
These, with other things, threw me into doubt and discouragement, and tempted me to quit the work. I saw many an able minister and scores of valuable men leave us because they would not stand such treatment. I envied the faith and confidence of brethren who went on ignorant of all this, supposing that Battle Creek was a little heaven, when, in fact, it was as near purgatory as anything I could imagine. Many poor souls have gone there full of faith and hope, but have soon gone away infidels. In 1872 I went to Minnesota, where I had good success. By this time I had written much, and so was well known to all our people. In July, 1873, myself and wife went to Colorado to spend a few weeks with Elder White and wife, in the mountains. I soon found things very unpleasant living in the family. Now my turn had come to catch it, but instead of knuckling down, as most of the others had, I told the elder my mind freely. That brought us into open rupture. Mrs. White heard it all, but said nothing. In a few days she had a long written "testimony" for wife and me. It justified her husband in everything, and placed us as rebels against God, with no hope of heaven only by a full surrender to them. Wife and I read it over many times with tears and prayers; but could see no way to reconcile it with truth. It contained many statements which we knew were false. We saw that it was dictated by a spirit of retaliation, a determination to break our wills or crush us. For awhile we were in great perplexity, but still my confidence in much of the doctrine and my fear of going wrong held me; but I was perfectly miserable for weeks, not knowing what to do. However, I preached awhile in Colorado and then went to California, where I worked with my hands for three months, trying to settle what to do. Elders Butler, Smith, White and others wrote to us, and tried to reconcile us to the work. Not knowing what else to do, I finally decided to forget all my objections, and go along as before. So we confessed to Elder White all we could possibly, and he generously forgave us! But from that on my faith in the inspiration of Mrs. White was weak. Elder White was very friendly to me again after that.
Now the Adventists say that I have left them five times, and this is one of the five. It is utterly untrue. I simply stopped preaching for a few weeks, but did not withdraw from the church nor renounce the faith. If this is leaving them, then most of their leading men have left them, too, for they all have had their periods of trial when they left their work awhile. About 1856, Elders J.N. Andrews and J.N. Loughborough, who were then the most prominent ministers among them, and several other persons, left the work and went into business at Waukon, Iowa. Mrs. White gave an account of this in "Experience and Views," pages 219-222. Elder White and wife went there, and, after a long effort, brought them back. Mrs. White says: "A dissatisfied party had settled in Waukon.... Brother J.N. Loughborough in discouragement had gone to work at his trade. He was just about to purchase land," etc., page 222. These men did just what I did.
Elder Uriah Smith, by far the ablest man then in their ranks, also had his seasons of doubt, when he ceased to work, and engaged in secular employments. Hear his own confession: "That I have had in my experience occasional periods of trial, I do not deny. There have been times when circumstances seemed very perplexing; when the way to harmonize apparently conflicting views did not at once appear, and under what have seemed for the time strong provocations to withdraw from the work, I have canvassed the question how far this could reasonably be done, or how much of this work could consistently be surrendered." Replies to Elder Canright, page 107. His own words show that he has doubted different parts of the theory, the same as I did. For years we were on intimate terms; often traveled and labored together. We freely talked over these matters. His doubts and trials were very similar to my own. This ran through a long period of years, till it was feared that he would quit them entirely. His wife was nearly driven to insanity over similar trials. Finally they broke down, "confessed" the same as I did once, and now profess to be satisfied. He wrote to me that he had to endorse Mrs. White's visions out of policy. The thing is so unreasonable, that most of them at times are more or less troubled over it, just as I was. In the language of J.W. Morton, "I pity their delusions, and abominate the spiritual tyranny by which they and others are held to the most unscriptural dogmas. Even Mr. Smith, for whom, however he may denounce me, I entertain only the most kindly feelings, is in a position that calls for tender commiseration. He is expected, as the great man of the denomination (for he undoubtedly is by far the ablest man they have), to give a full and explicit endorsement of Mrs. White's claims of inspiration; and yet whoever scans his public utterances on this point - especially he who has skill to 'read between the lines' - can see that his endorsement is so feeble as to be no endorsement at all. Such a position is one in which I would not place my worst enemy. He is, in part at least, under the heel of a spiritual tyranny. Oh, that Uriah Smith had the courage, and the manliness, to assert, before God and man, his right to that 'soul liberty' which is the inheritance of every child of God!"
Elder Geo. I. Butler, who for many years took the place of Elder White as leader of the denomination, got into trial with his brethren, and, practically, out of the work. Till middle life he was a small farmer. Naturally he was a humble, good man, with a strong sense of fairness. Elder White became jealous of him. Later, Mrs. White also turned against him and required a servile submission which he would not make. Said when he could not be an Adventist, and be a man, then he would be a man, as others had decided. Disappointed and soured, under pretext of ill-health, he went off to Florida on a little farm - another example of the blighting effect of Adventism. He is now doing what I did two or three times, only from a different cause. Has he, then, left them?
In 1874 Elder White had arranged to have a big debate held at Napa City, Cal., between Elder Miles Grant, of Boston, Mass., and one of our ministers. Though Elder White and wife, Elder Cornell and Elder Loughborough, their ablest men, were there, they selected myself to defend our side, which I did for about a week, while the other ministers sat by. I mention this to show the confidence they had in me, though I had been in so great a trial but a few months before. In 1875 we returned to Michigan. Elder Butler was now out with Elder White, who took every possible opportunity to snub him; but I was in high favor, was sent to attend their state meetings in Vermont, Kansas, Ohio and Indiana. With Elder Smith, was sent as delegate to the Seventh-day Baptist General Conference. In 1876 I was sent to Minnesota, then to Texas, and so on through most of the Southern States, to look after our interests there. Each year greater responsibilities were laid upon me. That year I raised up a large church at Rome, New York, and labored over the State. Went with Elder White and wife to Indiana and Illinois, and was then sent to Kansas to hold a debate, and to Missouri for the same purpose. This year I was elected a member of the General Conference Committee of three, with Elder White and Elder Haskell, and continued on the committee two years. It is the highest official authority in the denomination.
In 1877 I went to New England, where I raised up two churches and did other work. I spent 1878 in general work in various States, as Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Colorado, and Ohio. In the fall was president of the Ohio conference. In 1879 labored in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee. At the general conference at Battle Creek in the fall, things were in a bad shape. Elder White was cross, and Mrs. White bore down heavy on several ministers. Harshness, fault-finding and trials were the order of the day. I felt that there was very little of the spirit of Christ present. I got away as quickly as possible. I saw more and more clearly that a spirit of oppression, criticism, distrust and dissension was the result of our work, instead of meekness, gentleness, and love among brethren. For the next whole year these feelings grew upon me, till I began to fear we were doing more harm than good. My work called me among old churches, where I could see the fruit of it. Generally they were cold and dead, backslidden, or in a quarrel, or nearly extinct, where once they had been large and flourishing churches. I lost heart to raise up more churches to go in the same way. One day I would decide to quit them entirely, and the next day I would resolve to go on and do the best I could. I never suffered more mental anguish in my life. I labored that year in New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan and Ohio.
In the fall of 1880 I resolved to leave the Adventists, and, if I could, go with some other church. I was president of the Ohio conference. Our annual state meeting was at Clyde, Ohio. Elder and Mrs. White were there. My mind was made up to leave them as soon as the meeting was over. Against my protest they re-elected me president. Mrs. White urged it. Said I was just the man for the place; yet her special claim is to be able to reveal the hidden wrongs in the church. Here was an important matter. Why did she not have a revelation about it? No, I was all right so far as she knew. The next week I resigned, went east, and wrote Elder White that I would go with them no longer. Then she sent me a long written revelation, denouncing me as a child of hell, and one of the wickedest of men, though only two weeks before she thought me fit to be president of a conference!
For three months I taught elocution. I knew not what to do. I talked with ministers of other churches, but they did not seem to know how to help me. I could settle on nothing. I held on to my Christianity and love for Christ and the Bible, and preached and worked as I had opportunity. I was glad I had decided to leave the Adventists, and felt much better. Finally I met my present wife, who was an Adventist. Then I had a long talk with Elder Butler, Elder White, Mrs. White and others, and was persuaded that things were not as I had imagined. They said I was in the dark, led by Satan, and would go to ruin. All the influence of old friends, associations, habits and long cultivated ideas came up and were too strong for my better judgment. I yielded, and resolved again to live and die with them. In my judgment and conscience I was ashamed of the surrender I had made, yet I tried to feel right and go on.
Death of Elder White
Early in 1881 I went with Elder White to New York. By this time he had lost the leadership of the people. Elders Butler and Haskell had taken his place, and hence he was very hostile to them, working against them, and planning all the while to get them out and get back in again himself. But the people had largely lost confidence in him as a leader. He wished me to work with him against them, saying that we would then be on the General Conference Committee together. He had good grounds to oppose Haskell, who was always a crafty, underhanded man. Elder White wrote me thus: "February 11, 1881 - I wish Elder Haskell were an open, frank man, so I need not watch him." Again: "Battle Creek, Mich., May 24, 1881 - ...Elders Butler and Haskell have had an influence over her [his wife] that I hope to see broken. It has nearly ruined her. These men must not be suffered by our people to do as they have done... I want you to unite with me... It is time there was a change in the offices of the General Conference. I trust that if we are true and faithful, the Lord will be pleased that we should constitute two of that board."
I could give much more to show how little confidence the leading men had in each other. I wrote Elder White that I could not unite with him nor work with him. July 13, 1881, he wrote me again: "I have repeatedly abused you, and if you go to destruction, where many, to say the least, are willing you should go, I should ever feel that I had taken a part in your destruction.... I do not see how any man can labor with me." Soon after this he died. I have no doubt that Elder White believed in the Advent doctrine, and persuaded himself that he was called of God to be a leader. He had some excellent qualities, and doubtless meant to be a Christian, but his strong desire to rule and run everything, together with an irritable temper, kept him always in trouble with some one. No one could work with him long in peace. Elder Butler told me that his death was providential to save the body from a rupture. Mrs. White was so offended at Butler, that she would have no communication with him for a long while. All these things helped me to see that I was being led by selfish, ambitious men, who were poor samples of religious reformers.
That year I labored in Canada, Vermont, Maine, New England, and Michigan, and was elected member of the State Executive Committee of Michigan that fall. I worked another year in Michigan. But I was unhappy; I could not get over my doubts; I had no heart in the work. Several leading ministers in the State felt about the same. I then decided to quietly drop out of the ministry and go to farming. This I did for two years, but retained my membership with the church and worked right along with them. But I was in purgatory all the time, trying to believe what I could not. Yet I was not settled on any other church, and feared I might go wrong and so stood still. In the fall of 1884, Elder Butler, my old friend, and now at the head of the Advent work, made a great effort to get me reconciled and back at work again. He wrote me several times, to which I made no answer. Finally he telegraphed me, and paid my fare to a camp-meeting. Here I met old friends and associations, tried to see things as favorable as possible, heard explanations, etc., etc., till at last I yielded again. I was sick of an undecided position. I thought I could do some good here anyway; all my friends were here, I believed much of the doctrine still, and I might go to ruin if I left them, etc. Now I resolved to swallow all my doubts, believe the whole thing anyway, and stay with them for better or for worse. So I made a strong confession, of which I was ashamed before it was cold.
Was I satisfied? No. Deep in my heart I was ashamed of myself, but tried to feel that it was not so. But soon I felt better, because I had decided. Gradually my faith came back, till I again really felt strong in the whole doctrine, and had no idea I should ever leave it again. In a few weeks I was sent to attend large meetings in Pennsylvania, New York, Minnesota, Iowa, and New England; assisted in revival meetings in Battle Creek; was appointed with Elder Butler to lecture before the ministers on how to labor successfully; conducted a similar course in the Academy at South Lancaster, Mass.; was at the state meetings in New York, Michigan, Indiana and Ohio. In the spring of 1886 was appointed to lecture before the theological class in the Battle Creek College, and Associate Editor of the 'Sickle'.
By my urgent appeal, an effort was made to bring up our ministers to some plan of study in which they are very deficient. I was on the committee to arrange this. I selected the course of studies and framed all the questions, by which they were to be examined. I was then furnished a shorthand reporter, and in the summer was sent to ten different states, namely, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Kansas, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Dakota, and Michigan, to attend their state conferences, examine their ministers, report their meetings for the daily press, etc., and this I did. In our conflict with the Disciples at Des Moines, Iowa, it was agreed that each side should select a representative man and hold a debate on the Sabbath question. They selected Professor D.R. Dungan, president of Drake University. Our people selected me. We expected a notable time, and I made every possible effort to be ready. That preparation did much to convince me of the unsoundness of some of our positions on the covenants, the two laws, etc. In our General Conference that fall, a sharp division occurred between our leading men over the law in Galatians. One party held it was the ceremonial law, the other the moral law - a square contradiction. After a long and warm discussion the conference closed, each party more confident than before. There was also much disagreement over other points of doctrine, and a good deal of warm party feeling. This, with other things, brought up my old feelings of doubt, and decided me that it was time for me now to examine and think for myself, and not be led nor intimidated by men who could not agree among themselves.
I used every minute I could get for several weeks, carefully and prayerfully examining all the evidence on the Sabbath, the law, the sanctuary, the visions, etc., till I had not a doubt left that the Seventh-day Advent faith was a delusion. Then I laid the matter before the leading men at Battle Creek, resigned all the positions I held, and asked to be dismissed from the church. This was granted February 17, 1887. That was the first and only time I ever withdrew from the church, nor was any charge ever made against me during the twenty-eight years I was with them. As soon as I took my stand firmly, to be a free man and think for myself, a great burden, which I had carried all these years, rolled off. I felt like a new man. At last I was out of bondage. I have never for a moment regretted the step I took.
They now report that I left them four or five times before, and then went back. This is entirely untrue. From the time I joined them, in 1859, till I withdrew, in 1887, I remained in good standing in that church. After I was licensed to preach in 1864, my credentials were renewed each year except one, when I was farming and did not ask for them. Till I left them, in 1887, I never preached nor wrote against them once; nor did I unite with any other church, nor teach any doctrine contrary to theirs. Let them deny any of these statements if they can. They say I may yet return to them. They know better. The moment I took my stand decidedly, that matter was settled forever. The fact that I remained with them under all these trials for twenty-eight years, shows that I am not a vacillating man, as they now try to think.
Why I Did Not Leave Them Sooner
I am often asked why I did not leave them sooner. Why it took me so long to find that it was an error. Then the Adventists affirm that I must have been dishonest while with them, or I am dishonest now. They say I am an apostate now, because I left them and joined the Baptists. My answer is this: If to change one's opinion and join another church makes one an apostate, then more than half their members are apostates, for they have come from other churches to join the Adventists. Again, they circulate and commend highly a book called "Fifty Years in Rome," written by a man who was many years a learned priest in the Roman church. They say that his high standing and long experience in that church makes his book invaluable. But they say that the fact that I was with them in high standing so long, and now have left them, only proves that I am a hypocrite!
Any candid man can see the inconsistency of their positions. I united with the Adventists when I was a mere boy, uneducated, with no knowledge of the Bible, of history, or of other churches. I went into it through ignorance. For years my zeal for that faith, and my unbounded confidence in its leaders, blinded me to their errors. But, as I grew older, read my Bible more, read history, met with other churches, heard sermons and read books against Adventism, became better acquainted with our leaders, with the inside workings of the church, learned more about its unfavorable origin, the many mistakes we had made, saw the fruit of it in old churches, on families and society, got hold of the early writings of Mrs. White and others; gradually I began to see that Adventism was not just what I had first supposed it to be. When I embraced it in 1859, Seventh-day Adventism was only fourteen years old, the believers were few, and it was comparatively untried. But when Adventism was twenty-five years older, ten times as large, and had fully developed its spirit and shown its fruits, when I had had the education, observation and experience of a quarter of a century, I think my judgment in the matter ought to be worth more than when I embraced it as a green boy.
Again, it was only during the last few years that I gained possession of early Adventist documents, which show how they now deny and contradict what they once taught. These are now either suppressed or kept out of sight, so that not one in a thousand of them knows or will believe that they ever existed. My doubts of the system did not come to me all at once and clearly. It was well known that for the last dozen years I was with them, I was greatly troubled over these things. Gradually, year by year, the evidence accumulated, till at last it overbalanced the doctrine, and then reluctantly and sorrowfully I had to abandon and renounce it. God pity the soul that has to go through what I did to be honest to his convictions of right.
Positions Which I Held When I Left Them
Notwithstanding it was well known to all that I frequently had serious doubts about their faith, yet, as soon as I took hold with them again, each time they immediately put me forward and set me at the most important work. Elder Butler says: "He doubtless would have been [elected to important office] had he not proved himself unreliable in so many instances. His ability would have justified it." Review and Herald Extra, Nov. 22, 1887. Suppose, now, that I had been an office-seeking man, caring more for place and position than for truth and conscience, what would I have done? I would have gone right along, pretending to be full in faith and in harmony with them. But instead of this, time and again, I went directly to their influential men, Elders White, Butler, Haskell, etc., and told them my doubts. Let candid men judge of my motives.
The day I left them I held the following positions: Was teacher of theology in their college at Battle Creek, where I had a class of nearly two hundred of their best young people; was associate editor of the Gospel Sickle; was writing the lessons for all their Sabbath Schools throughout the world; had the charge of some eighteen churches in Michigan; was member of the Executive Committee of the International Sabbath School Association; member of the Executive Committee of the Michigan State Sabbath School Association; and at the last session of the general conference was chairman of the International Sabbath School Association, and was on nine different committees, several of them the most important in the conference, as the one on distribution of laborers over all the world, the theological committee, the one on camp meetings, on a special course of study in our college, on the improvement of the ministry, etc. This shows what they thought of my ability. I had just gotten out a new pamphlet, "Critical Notes," of which they printed an edition of 10,000 after I left them. Others of my works they have revised, left my name off, and use them still. Why reprint mine after I have left them and renounced what they teach? They now say that my writings are cheap and worthless. But while I was with them they published over twenty different productions of mine, and circulated hundreds of thousands of them, translated several of them into other languages, and paid me hundreds of dollars for them. Strange that all at once I have become so imbecile, and my writings so worthless. Any one can see the animus of all this.
Elder Smith, in Replies to Canright, page 25, says I left them at a time when my withdrawal embarrassed them more than it would have done at any other time. This confesses that I was becoming more and more useful to them, and all know that I was. At the time I left I was getting higher pay than ever before, and was on friendly terms with all. All the leading men, as Butler, Haskell, Smith, etc., were my warm personal friends, ready to do all in their power to assist me. Had I desired office, or better position, all I had to do was to go right along without wavering, and positions would come to me faster than I could fill them. But if I left them, where could I go? What could I do? How even make a living? I took this all in, and it required all the courage and faith in God I could master to take the risk.
It cost me a terrible struggle and a great sacrifice, for in doing it I had to leave all my life-long friends, the cherished hopes of my youth, the whole work of my life, all the means of my support, every honorable position I held, and bring upon myself reproach, hatred and persecution. I had to begin life anew, among strangers, with untried methods, uncertain where to go or what to do. No one who has not tried it can ever begin to realize the fearful struggle it requires. It is the dread of all this which holds many with them who are yet dissatisfied where they are. I know that this is so, for many have confessed it to me, and yet remained where they were. Anyone of candor and fairness can see readily that self-interest and personal ambition would have held me with them. Yet, as soon as I did leave them, though I went out quietly and peaceably, and let them entirely alone, and even spoke favorably of them, they immediately attributed to me all sorts of evil motives, base sins, and ambitious designs. They seemed to feel it a sacred duty to blast my reputation, and destroy my influence, if possible. "Apostate" was the epithet all applied to me. I was compared to Baalam, to Kora, Dathan and Abiram, to Judas, Demas, and a whole list of evil characters. Not one honest or worthy motive was granted me. The meanest and wickedest reports were circulated as to what I had done or said - things that I would despise even to think of. Yet all were eagerly accepted and believed as undoubted truth. But I expected it, for it is the way all are treated who dare to leave them and give a reason for it.
During the twenty years now since I left them, they have had spies constantly on my track, who have watched and reported the least thing I have said or done, to torture it into evil, if possible. This they circulate to the ends of the earth, and it comes back to me in newspapers and letters. They have issued four different publications against me, and Mrs. White, in her last "revelation," has devoted three articles to myself! Yet I don't amount to anything; never did! "Sour grapes," you see. It has been widely reported that I was smitten with a terrible disease, had broken up my church, been expelled from the denomination, and more yet, concerning all which the Lord judge between us. The pastors of all the churches here, and public men of the place have had to make written statements to meet these attacks in distant states. Sometimes this has seemed hard to bear, but knowing that I was right, I have had grace and patience to keep steadily at my work, and leave the rest with God and my friends.
I am in constant receipt of letters from all parts of the country, saying that the Adventists affirm that I have asked to be taken back among them! They will report it till I die, and long after. This book shall be my answer. They are so certain that the curse of God will follow all who leave them, or that they will become infidels, or return to them, that they cannot be reconciled to have it otherwise.
A Sample Letter
"Glenwood Springs, Colo., March 29, 1889. D.M. Canright, Otsego, Mich.: My Dear Friend and Brother - If the lightning's shivering crash had torn my scalp loose from my head, I would not have been more surprised than I was today by having placed in my hands your pamphlet entitled "The Jewish Sabbath." I have read after you for years, sold your valuable works, and preached the "Third Angel's Message." Now, I wish to ask you, how do our people treat you? To my knowledge you were a great favorite, and quoted oftener than any standing near the head. Do they go back on you as hard as they did on Snook? I suppose that your great research and life-long study of the subject in hand goes for nothing with them, and that you are classed among the fallen angels. F.A.B."
Ordained a Baptist Minister
April 19, 1887, at Otsego, Mich., where I had lived for eight years, I was ordained as a minister of the Regular Baptist Church, by an exceptionally large council, composed of several of the ablest ministers of the state. The 'Otsego Union' of that date says: "Regularly appointed delegates were present from Baptist churches in Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, Plainwell, Three Rivers, White Pigeon, Allegan, Battle Creek, Paw Paw, Hickory Corners, Prairieville and Otsego. Rev. A.E. Mather, D.D., of Battle Creek, was elected moderator of the council, and Rev. T.M. Shanafelt, D.D., of Three Rivers, secretary. The order of exercises was as follows: Reading of the Scriptures, by Rev. H.A. Rose, of Kalamazoo; prayer, by Rev. D. Mulhern, D.D., of Grand Rapids; ordination sermon, by Rev. Kendall Brooks, D.D., President of Kalamazoo College; prayer of ordination, by Rev. M.W. Haynes, of Kalamazoo, with laying on of hands by Rev. H.B. Taft, of White Pigeon, Rev. E.A. Gay, of Allegan, and Rev. H.A. Rose, of Kalamazoo; hand of fellowship, by Rev. T.F. Babcock, of Prairieville; charge to the pastor, by Rev. L.B. Fish, of Paw Paw; charge to the church, by Rev. I. Butterfield, of Grand Rapids.
"Rev. D.M. Canright has thus been fully recognized by a large and representative council as a regular Baptist minister, and pastor of the Baptist church in Otsego."
I have never regretted leaving the Adventists, nor for one moment had the slightest desire to return.
Seventh-day Adventism originated about seventy-five years ago in the work of Mr. Miller, who set the time for the end of the world in 1843-4. Adding some doctrines to the original faith, Elder James White and wife in 1846 became the leaders of the Seventh-day branch of Adventism. Their headquarters were at different times at Paris, Me., Saratoga, Oswego, and Rochester, N.Y. In 1855 they settled permanently at Battle Creek, Mich., which remained the center of the work till recently.
Their Doctrines
In doctrine they differ radically from evangelical churches. The main points are these as taught in all their books: They hold to the materiality of all things; believe in the sonship of Christ; believe that they only have a correct understanding of the prophecies to which they give most of their attention; that the end of the world is to occur in this generation; that we are now in the Judgment which began in 1844; that the Seventh day, Saturday, must be kept; that keeping Sunday is the mark of the beast; that all should pay tithes; that Mrs. White is inspired as were the writers of the Bible; that the Bible must be interpreted to harmonize with her writings; that they are called of God to give the last warning to the World; that the dead are unconscious; that the wicked and the devil will be annihilated; that all churches but their own are Babylon and rejected of God; that everybody but themselves will soon become spiritualists; that when Christ comes only 144,000 out of all then living on the earth will be saved, and all these will be Seventh-day Adventists. Hence, they have no fellowship with other Christians; never work with them in any way, but zealously proselyte from all.
They believe in the Bible, in conversion, in purity of life, in rigid temperance, in strict morality, and in other good things common to all churches. There are many excellent persons among them. In character they are not to be compared with the spiritualists, infidels, etc., as is sometimes unjustly done.
The Extent of Their Work
Their Year Book for 1912 reports the following:
Conferences, 129; mission fields, 87; organized churches, 2,769; membership, 90,808; unorganized, 15,758; total, 104,528. Ordained ministers, 828; licensed ministers, 458; missionaries, 1,234; book canvassers, 1,697; total laborers, 4,346; Sabbath Schools, 4,151; membership, 101,161; church schools, 594; students, 13,357; colleges and academies, 86; students, 7,169; publishing houses, 28; employees, 610; sanitariums, 74; employees, 1,989; tithes, $1,338,689.65; average per member, $12.81; contributions for missions, home church work, tithes and all funds by the denomination, $2,223,767.52.
They publish 121 periodicals in twenty-eight languages. Books and tracts published in ninety-one languages.
The above will give a fair idea of the strength of that church. However, their main efficiency is in the distribution of their literature. Every member, old and young, down to little children, is taught and urged to engage in every way possible in distributing these tracts, papers and books through every possible channel. Every one believes he is doing God's work when he does this. Hence every member is a missionary in some way. The result is their literature is coming to be widely scattered the world over. Yet the results of all this tremendous outlay of money and work are very meagre. In the last four years with 4,000 laborers in the field, they have only averaged a gain of 4,000 members per year, or one for every worker. They have been at work now for seventy-five years to get 104,000 members. The Mormons, starting about the same date, now number 500,000, nearly five times as many. The Christian Scientists, only about half as old, have over a million members. There is very little real spiritual power in it. The work is done mostly by hard labor and argument, not by any such mighty power as attended the work of the Apostles, or Luther, or Wesley, or Moody and many others. Their work now extends to all parts of the civilized world and into many heathen lands.
The number of their actual converts does not tell the harm they do. Where they convert one they confuse a score, who after that have no settled faith in any church, and are useless for any Christian work. Other conscientious persons are bothered and worried over it for years, not knowing what to do.
Their Hostility to All Other Churches
One of the highly objectionable features of that system is the bitter hostility of its believers towards all other churches. Their theory is that all churches but their own were utterly rejected of God in 1844 for not embracing Miller's doctrine. Thus Mrs. White says: "I saw the state of the different churches since the second angel proclaimed their fall [in 1844]. They have been growing more and more corrupt.... Satan has taken full possession of the churches as a body.... The churches were left as were the Jews; and they have been filling up with every unclean and hateful bird. I saw great iniquity and vileness in the churches; yet they profess to be Christians. Their professions, their prayers and their exhortations are an abomination in the sight of God. Said the angel, God will not smell in their assemblies. Selfishness, fraud and deceit are practiced by them without the reprovings of conscience." Spiritual Gifts, Vol. I, page 189, 190. She says it is the devil who answers their prayers. Thus: "I saw them look up to the throne and pray, Father give us thy spirit; Satan would then breathe upon them an unholy influence." Early Writings, page 47. Again: "The nominal churches are filled with fornication and adultery, crime and murder, the result of base, lustful passion; but these things are kept covered." Testimonies, Vol. II, page 449. All intelligent people know that such statements are a misrepresentation of the evangelical churches today. Elder White says: "Babylon, the nominal church, is fallen; God's people have come out of her. She is now the synagogue of Satan." Present Truth. April, 1850.
Hence they say that the revivals and conversions in the churches are largely a deception, the work of the devil, not of God. Mrs. White says of them: "The converts are not renewed in heart or changed in character." "They will exult that God is working marvelously for them, when the work is that of another spirit. Under a religious guise, Satan will spread his influence over the land. HE HOPES TO DECEIVE MANY BY LEADING THEM TO THINK THAT GOD IS STILL WITH THE CHURCHES." Great Controversy, page 294, 296. On this the Review and Herald, May 3, 1887, says: "we are aware that to assume that this revival work, so unquestionably accepted by all the churches, is not genuine, will cause the hands of Christendom to be raised in holy horror.... If He [God] is with us, He has not been with the popular churches in any marked manner since they rejected the Advent message of 1843-4, and they are congratulating themselves over delusive appearances, and a prosperity which has no existence in fact. The hand of God cannot direct two movements so antagonistic in nature."
Believing this, they eagerly watch for evidence to prove it and shut their eyes to any facts against it. So they rejoice at any unfavorable thing they can hear against ministers, churches, or members. They report it, repeat it, publish it, magnify it, and live on it. To weaken, divide, or break up a church, is their delight. They heartily join with worldlings, infidels and atheists in their opposition to churches, and thus strengthen their unbelief and help them to perdition. They have gathered up all the most unfavorable things possible to find against the churches and put it in a book occupying thirty pages, and this they hand out for all to read. It is sad to see honest men devoting their lives to such highly censurable work, which must please Satan well.
Who is Deceived?
Seventh-day Adventists dwell much on how easy it is to be deceived, to be led by Satan, when we think it is the Lord - to believe a lie for the truth. It is amusing to see how innocently they apply this to all others, and never dream that is has any application to themselves! What, THEY deceived? THEY misled? Impossible! They KNOW they are right. Exactly, and that is just the way all feel, whether they be Mormons, Shakers, Catholics, or what not. The Adventists themselves are an illustration of the ease with which people are misled.
Their Methods of Work
Tent Meetings. Largely they use tents to enter new fields. Being a novelty, they attract attention. At first they present subjects which will offend no one till they gain the confidence of the people. Gradually they introduce their peculiar dogmas, then come out more boldly, till at length they denounce all other churches as Babylon, and their pastors as hirelings and deceivers. They say these pastors cannot defend their doctrines; dare not try. They offer rewards to any who will prove so and so; boast how they have scared this one, defeated that one, and silenced another. If in sermons the least reference is made to them, they call it persecution, give out a review, and do everything to provoke controversy. When the resident pastors are compelled to defend themselves, the Adventists claim to be greatly abused.
If a doctor, lawyer, teacher, or business man should enter a town and denounce all others of his profession as quacks, fools, or deceivers, how would he be treated? All would combine against him as a common enemy.
This is the way the pastors and churches meet the attacks of the Adventists, because compelled to. Like Ishmael of old, the hand of the Adventist is against every man, and hence every man's hand is against them. Gen 16:12. It is useless for them to deny this, for all know it to be true. They all do it. I was taught that way and followed it, and taught others to do the same.
Camp meeting. Adventists hold many camp-meetings yearly. Here their ablest speakers preach their doctrines to thousands, and distribute their literature widely. They hire the papers to print lengthy flattering reports of their meetings, which they write themselves. Their reporters are trained for this special work. They gain wide attention, and impress many in this way.
Bible Readings. Hundreds of their men, women, and even young girls, are trained with printed lessons which they learn by heart, to go from house to house and give Bible readings. At first they conceal their real object and name, till they get a foothold. Then they cautiously introduce their tenets, work against pastors and churches, and lead many away.
Book-selling. Hundreds also are employed to canvass for their doctrinal books. The real nature of the book is studiously concealed, and the subscriber is deceived into buying a radical Advent book.
Distribution of Tracts. In every possible way, publicly, privately, from tent or church, by book-agents, colporteurs, Bible-readers, or private individuals, in depots, on boats, in stores, or families, through the mails, by sale, loan or gift, their tracts are persistently crowded everywhere.
Missions. They have Missions in many of the large cities and in foreign lands; but they are largely proselyting agencies. They do little among the heathen, or for the destitute and fallen, but go into the best families to which they can gain access, and gather the converts whom other missionaries have made. Thus Mrs. White instructs them: "Mistakes have been made in not seeking to reach ministers and the higher classes with the truth.... Educate men and women to labor for these higher classes both here and there and in other countries." Testimony No. 33, pages 108, 109. Jesus sent his disciples into the highways and hedges for the poor, lame and blind, for publicans, harlots and sinners; but Mrs. White does not relish that kind. She wants them from "the ministers and higher classes," "the whole who need no physician," those who can bring talent and money into the cause.
Where They Work. Adventists have the best success in new fields, where they are least known. Hence the western States is where they are most numerous. In New England, where they started, they have had to struggle hard to hold their own. In some of the older fields they have lost in numbers, in others the gain is very small. In hundreds of places where they were fair sized, active churches in the past, now no church at all, or a straggling, discouraged handful. Battle Creek is a fair illustration. This was their headquarters for forty years. Once there were 2,000 Sabbath keepers here, all united. Now there are less than 1,000, divided into four opposing parties, their influence entirely gone. The same is true elsewhere. About all the converts they make are at the outset. After a few years' acquaintance, they have no influence and few or none join them. Their churches grow smaller, generally, till they are unnoticed. The average membership of their churches is 29 - exceedingly small; how different from the evangelical churches! The longer these are in a town the stronger they grow, and the more influence they have generally. But Adventism does not wear.
How to Meet Adventism
People are led into Adventism from lack of information. Hence, when Adventism enters a town the people should be told plainly what it is, what its effects are, and wherein it is unscriptural. Quite generally pastors make a mistake in letting it alone for weeks, till it has gained a foothold. I always noticed that where the pastors united and worked against us on the start, we could do but little. So I would advise churches and pastors to take right hold of the matter earnestly as soon as people are interested in it. Preach on it; visit those who are being led away; hold Bible-readings; furnish them with proper books and tracts. Sit down patiently and answer arguments. Visit them again and again. Adventists will work a whole year, will go a hundred times, will give them scores of tracts to proselyte one person. If we would work a tenth as hard, scarcely one would be led away. People love to be noticed. The very attention they receive from the Adventists often wins them more than their arguments.
What Will Be Their End?
Adventism is founded on time, and time will kill it. It began by setting a definite time, 1844, for the end of the world, and failed. Now they hold that it must come in this generation beginning in 1844. This is only another way of time setting. In time all this will fail and overthrow their system. Then will come doubt, discouragement, divisions, apostasies, infidelity, and ruin to souls. This end is inevitable. The wider their influence now, the more terrible the disaster then. These wild, enthusiastic, fanatical moves which end in failure are the delight of Satan, as they bring disgrace upon the cause of Christ and end in infidelity. That such will be the end of Adventism I have not a doubt.
Lack of Education and Talent Among the Adventist Leaders
The men whom God has chosen to lead out in the great religious movements of the past have, with few exceptions, been men of high education, refinement, and great talents. Moses, the founder of Judaism, "was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds." Acts 7:22. Nehemiah, who restored Jerusalem after the captivity, was cup-bearer to the king. Neh 2. So Daniel, the great prophet, had "knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom." Dan 1:17. He was prime minister of a mighty empire for many years. Paul was so renowned for his learning, that the king said to him: "Much learning doth make thee mad." Acts 26:24. He did for Christianity ten times more than all the other apostles together. It is to him, and not to the other apostles, that the Gentile world is indebted for Christianity. Then the twelve, though uneducated, had the advantage over all other reformers, that they were taught directly by the Son of God, and could work miracles.
St. Augustine, A.D. 353-430, the father of Christian theology, to whom the church owes almost as much as to Paul, was highly educated. As is well known, Luther was a thorough scholar, educated in the best schools of his day, and filled a professor's chair in a university. So Calvin and Melanchton were both profound scholars, occupying professor's chairs in halls of learning. Zwingle, the great Swiss reformer, was celebrated for his learning and scholarship. Wiclif [sp], the "Morning Star of the Reformation," was a graduate of Oxford, England, and a doctor of divinity. Cranmer, the great English reformer, was a graduate, a doctor of divinity, archbishop, and regent of the kingdom. Wesley, the father of Methodism, was a graduate of Oxford, a man of vast reading, the author or editor of commentaries, grammars, dictionaries, etc. It is a false idea that God generally uses ignorant men as leaders in reform, as the above great names will show.
Now look at the founders of our heretical sects. Joanna Southcott was wholly illiterate, a mere washer-woman. Ann Lee, the foundress of the Shakers, received no education, worked in a cotton factory, and was cook in a hospital. Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, received no education, and Brigham Young very little. Not one of these persons were of influence in the world, outside of their own deluded followers.
How is it with the leaders of Adventism? Wm. Miller, the founder, was reared in the backwoods, in poverty, and received only the poor advantages of a common district school. Except some general reading, this was the extent of his education.
Elder White, the leader of the Seventh-day Adventists' party, only secured sufficient education to teach a common district school. He was no student of books. In all my travels with him, I seldom saw him read half an hour in any book. Of the languages or the sciences he knew nothing, and little even of common history. Mrs. White received no school education, except a few weeks when a child. She, like Joanna Southcott, Ann Lee, and Joseph Smith, was wholly illiterate, not knowing the simplest rules of grammar. Not one of the leading men in that work ever graduated from college or university, and many are illiterate as Mrs. White herself. Elder J.N. Andrews, Elder Smith, and one or two more, by diligent study and reading out of school, became well informed men in their line. After Elder White came Elders Butler and Haskell as leaders, neither of them educated men, nor of half the natural talent of Elder White. The present leaders are small men also. Such men are poorly prepared to lead out in a great reformation in this educated age. Not a man among them has now, or ever had, a particle of influence in the world, or any office or responsible position in state or nation. How different from the great reformers of the past, who often had extensive influence for good, not only with the masses, but with the great men and kings of earth. Hence, from whatsoever side we view Adventism, it has none of the marks of a genuine reformation sent of God to bless the world.
Elder A.A. Phelps, for years editor of a First-day Adventist paper says: "I watched and waited, and worked, with patience, meakness and loyalty, in hearty co-operation, and with an earnest desire to see such unity, enterprise, breadth and moral power, as ought to characterize a scriptural and heaven-inspired movement. How slowly and reluctantly I yielded to the conviction - forced by sad facts and illustrations that I have not even dared to detail - that I was only throwing away my life in stemming such waves of discord, indolence, looseness, narrowness, dogmatism and spiritual death as I could not overcome."
Reader, if you are still outside of this spiritual Babylon, take warning from those who have been through the mill, and stay out.
Later, 1914. Already strong men among them admit that, (1) Mrs. White had made many mistakes in her inspired (?) writing; (2) Now contradicts what she once wrote; (3) Has copied from many other authors what she claims as revelations from God; (4) Has often been influenced by others to write what they wanted to help their projects. Time has proved this so clearly that it can no longer be denied. Hence her revelations are steadily losing influence with their able men. She is now eighty-seven years old and is reported as having largely lost her mind. The laity, specially in foreign lands, being ignorant of all these facts, still regard her as the voice of God to them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter II - An Experience of Twenty-Eight Years in Adventism (Back to Top)
I long hesitated about bringing personal matters into this book, but could see no way to tell my story without it. My experience illustrates the power which error and superstition have over men. I am amazed at myself that I was held there so long, after my better judgment was convinced that it was an error. I propose to tell the simple facts, just as they were, hit whom they may. Public men become public property, and as such their conduct and work should be laid open and discussed. This is my reason for criticizing the course of Elder White and wife, and others. They invite criticism by claiming to be reformers, better than other people.
I was born in Kinderhook, Branch county, Mich., Sept. 22, 1840. I had no religious training till I was sixteen. I was converted among the Methodists under the labors of Rev. Mr. Hazzard, and baptized by him in 1858. I soon went to Albion, N.Y., to attend school. Here, in 1859, I heard Elder and Mrs. White. He preached on the Sabbath question. I was uneducated, and knew but little about the Bible. I had no idea of the relation between the Old and New Testaments, the law and the gospel, or the difference between the Sabbath and the Lord's day. I thought he proved that the seventh day was still binding, and that there was no authority for keeping Sunday.
As I was anxious to be right, I began keeping Saturday, but did not expect to believe any more of their doctrine. Of course I attended their meetings on Saturday and worked on Sunday. This separated me entirely from other Christians, and threw me wholly with the Adventists. I soon learned from them that all other churches were Babylon, in the dark and under the frown of God. Seventh-day Adventists were the only true people of God. They had "the truth," the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. They defended Mr. Miller's work of 1844, believed in the visions of Mrs. White, the sleep of the dead, the annihilation of the wicked, feet washing, etc. At first these things staggered me, and I thought of drawing back; but they explained them plausibly and smoothed them over, and said they were no test anyway. Having no one to intelligently aid me, I began to see things as they did, and in a few weeks came to believe the whole system. I was again baptized, as their converts from other churches generally are, so as to get clean out of Babylon. Persuaded that time was short, I gave up going to school, dropped the study of all else, listened to their preaching, devoured their books and studied my Bible day and night to sustain these new views. I was now an enthusiastic believer, and longed to convert everybody to the faith. I had not a doubt that it was the pure truth. This is about the experience of all who go with them, as I have since learned.
In May, 1864, I was licensed to preach. Soon began with Elder Van Horn at Ithaca, Mich. We had good success; raised up three companies that year. In 1865 worked in Tuscola county, and had excellent success. Was ordained by Elder White that year. Up to this date I had not a doubt about the truthfulness of our faith. As I now began to see more of Elder White and wife, and the work at headquarters, I learned that there was much trouble with him. I saw that he ruled everything, and that all greatly feared him. I saw that he was often cross and unreasonable. This troubled me a little, but not seriously. In 1866 I was sent to Maine with Elder J.N. Andrews, the ablest man among them. This was a big thing for me. I threw myself into the work with great enthusiasm, and was very happy. Elder Andrews was strong in the faith and very radical, and I partook of his spirit. We had excellent success. By this time I had become quite a writer. I returned to Battle Creek in 1867. At that time there was great trouble with Elder White, and many church meetings were held to investigate the matter. It was clear to me that he was wrong, but Mrs. White sustained him in her "Testimonies" and severely blamed the church. Elder Andrews and a few others proposed to stand up for the right, and take the consequences. My sympathies were with them; but others feared, and finally all wilted and confessed that "we have been blinded by Satan." This was signed by the leading ministers, and humbly adopted by the whole church. See "Testimonies," Vol. 1, page 612. This shook my faith a good deal, and I began to question Mrs. White's inspiration. I saw that her revelations always favored Elder White and herself. If any dared question their course, they soon received a scathing revelation denouncing the wrath of God against them.
About this time several of our able ministers, with quite a party in the West, drew off from the body, in opposition to Elder White and the visions. They were denounced as "rebels," were doomed to perdition, and it was predicted that they would soon come to ruin! But they have continued their work for about fifty years, having several thousand believers. Their headquarters are at Stanberry, Missouri, where they publish two papers, books, etc. They have done a good work in exposing the fallacy of Mrs. White's inspiration.
But I dared not open my mind to a soul. I was only a youth, and had little experience. Older and stronger men had broken down and confessed. What could I do? I said nothing, but felt terribly. I wished I had never heard of the Adventists. Shortly I was back on my field in Maine. Busy with my work, preaching our doctrine, and surrounded with men who firmly believed it, I soon got over my doubts. I have since learned that scores of others have gone through a similar trial.
In 1868 I went to Massachusetts. Being away from the trouble at headquarters, I got on finely. But in May, 1869, I was in Battle Creek for a month. Things were in bad shape. Elder White was in trouble with most of the leading men, and they with him. I was well convinced that he was the real cause of it all, but Mrs. White sustained him, and that settled it. They were God's chosen leaders, and must not be criticized or meddled with. I felt sad. I was working hard to get men into "the truth," as we called it; to persuade them that this was a people free from the faults of other churches; then to see such a state of things among the leaders disheartened me greatly. So far, I myself had had no trouble with any one, and Elder White had been very cordial to me. But I saw then that if I ever came to be of any prominence in the work I should have to expect the same treatment from him that all of the others got. The more I saw of the work, the more objections I saw to it. I will not stop to give them here, as I will give them together in Chapter V.
I had been so thoroughly drilled in the Advent doctrines that I firmly believed the Bible taught them all. To give up the Advent faith was to give up the Bible. So all my brethren said, and so I thought. That year I went to Iowa to work, where I remained four years, laboring with Elder Butler, who soon became president of their general conference. We had good success and raised up several churches. I finally opened my mind to Elder Butler, and told him my fears. I knew these things troubled him as well as myself, for we often spoke of them. He helped me some, and again I gathered courage and went on, feeling better. Still, I came to see each year more and more that somehow the thing did not work as I had supposed it would and ought. Wherever Elder White and wife went they were always in trouble with the brethren, and the best ones, too. I came to dread to meet them, or have them come where I was, for I knew there would be trouble with some one or some thing, and it never failed of so being. I saw church after church split up by them, the best brethren discouraged and maddened and driven off, while I was compelled to apologize for them continually. For years about this time, the main business at all our big meetings was to listen to the complaints of Elder White against his brethren. Not a leading man escaped - Andrews, Waggoner, Smith, Loughborough, Amadon, Cornell, Aldrich, Walker, and a host of others had to take their turn at being broken on the wheel. For hours at a time, and times without number, I have sat in meetings and heard Elder White and wife denounce these men, till I felt there was little manhood left in them. It violated all my ideas of right and justice, and stirred my indignation. Yet, whatever vote was asked by Elder White, we all voted it unanimously, I with the rest. Then I would go out alone and hate myself for my cowardice, and despise my brethren for their weakness.
Elder and Mrs. White ran and ruled everything with an iron hand. Not a nomination to office, not a resolution, not an item of business was ever acted upon in business meetings until all had been first submitted to Elder White for his approval. Till years later, we never saw an opposition vote on any question, for no one dared to do it. Hence, all official voting was only a farce. The will of Elder White settled everything. If any one dared to oppose anything, however humbly, Elder White or wife quickly squelched him. Long years of such training taught people to let their leaders think for them; hence, they are under as complete subjection as are the Catholics.
These, with other things, threw me into doubt and discouragement, and tempted me to quit the work. I saw many an able minister and scores of valuable men leave us because they would not stand such treatment. I envied the faith and confidence of brethren who went on ignorant of all this, supposing that Battle Creek was a little heaven, when, in fact, it was as near purgatory as anything I could imagine. Many poor souls have gone there full of faith and hope, but have soon gone away infidels. In 1872 I went to Minnesota, where I had good success. By this time I had written much, and so was well known to all our people. In July, 1873, myself and wife went to Colorado to spend a few weeks with Elder White and wife, in the mountains. I soon found things very unpleasant living in the family. Now my turn had come to catch it, but instead of knuckling down, as most of the others had, I told the elder my mind freely. That brought us into open rupture. Mrs. White heard it all, but said nothing. In a few days she had a long written "testimony" for wife and me. It justified her husband in everything, and placed us as rebels against God, with no hope of heaven only by a full surrender to them. Wife and I read it over many times with tears and prayers; but could see no way to reconcile it with truth. It contained many statements which we knew were false. We saw that it was dictated by a spirit of retaliation, a determination to break our wills or crush us. For awhile we were in great perplexity, but still my confidence in much of the doctrine and my fear of going wrong held me; but I was perfectly miserable for weeks, not knowing what to do. However, I preached awhile in Colorado and then went to California, where I worked with my hands for three months, trying to settle what to do. Elders Butler, Smith, White and others wrote to us, and tried to reconcile us to the work. Not knowing what else to do, I finally decided to forget all my objections, and go along as before. So we confessed to Elder White all we could possibly, and he generously forgave us! But from that on my faith in the inspiration of Mrs. White was weak. Elder White was very friendly to me again after that.
Now the Adventists say that I have left them five times, and this is one of the five. It is utterly untrue. I simply stopped preaching for a few weeks, but did not withdraw from the church nor renounce the faith. If this is leaving them, then most of their leading men have left them, too, for they all have had their periods of trial when they left their work awhile. About 1856, Elders J.N. Andrews and J.N. Loughborough, who were then the most prominent ministers among them, and several other persons, left the work and went into business at Waukon, Iowa. Mrs. White gave an account of this in "Experience and Views," pages 219-222. Elder White and wife went there, and, after a long effort, brought them back. Mrs. White says: "A dissatisfied party had settled in Waukon.... Brother J.N. Loughborough in discouragement had gone to work at his trade. He was just about to purchase land," etc., page 222. These men did just what I did.
Elder Uriah Smith, by far the ablest man then in their ranks, also had his seasons of doubt, when he ceased to work, and engaged in secular employments. Hear his own confession: "That I have had in my experience occasional periods of trial, I do not deny. There have been times when circumstances seemed very perplexing; when the way to harmonize apparently conflicting views did not at once appear, and under what have seemed for the time strong provocations to withdraw from the work, I have canvassed the question how far this could reasonably be done, or how much of this work could consistently be surrendered." Replies to Elder Canright, page 107. His own words show that he has doubted different parts of the theory, the same as I did. For years we were on intimate terms; often traveled and labored together. We freely talked over these matters. His doubts and trials were very similar to my own. This ran through a long period of years, till it was feared that he would quit them entirely. His wife was nearly driven to insanity over similar trials. Finally they broke down, "confessed" the same as I did once, and now profess to be satisfied. He wrote to me that he had to endorse Mrs. White's visions out of policy. The thing is so unreasonable, that most of them at times are more or less troubled over it, just as I was. In the language of J.W. Morton, "I pity their delusions, and abominate the spiritual tyranny by which they and others are held to the most unscriptural dogmas. Even Mr. Smith, for whom, however he may denounce me, I entertain only the most kindly feelings, is in a position that calls for tender commiseration. He is expected, as the great man of the denomination (for he undoubtedly is by far the ablest man they have), to give a full and explicit endorsement of Mrs. White's claims of inspiration; and yet whoever scans his public utterances on this point - especially he who has skill to 'read between the lines' - can see that his endorsement is so feeble as to be no endorsement at all. Such a position is one in which I would not place my worst enemy. He is, in part at least, under the heel of a spiritual tyranny. Oh, that Uriah Smith had the courage, and the manliness, to assert, before God and man, his right to that 'soul liberty' which is the inheritance of every child of God!"
Elder Geo. I. Butler, who for many years took the place of Elder White as leader of the denomination, got into trial with his brethren, and, practically, out of the work. Till middle life he was a small farmer. Naturally he was a humble, good man, with a strong sense of fairness. Elder White became jealous of him. Later, Mrs. White also turned against him and required a servile submission which he would not make. Said when he could not be an Adventist, and be a man, then he would be a man, as others had decided. Disappointed and soured, under pretext of ill-health, he went off to Florida on a little farm - another example of the blighting effect of Adventism. He is now doing what I did two or three times, only from a different cause. Has he, then, left them?
In 1874 Elder White had arranged to have a big debate held at Napa City, Cal., between Elder Miles Grant, of Boston, Mass., and one of our ministers. Though Elder White and wife, Elder Cornell and Elder Loughborough, their ablest men, were there, they selected myself to defend our side, which I did for about a week, while the other ministers sat by. I mention this to show the confidence they had in me, though I had been in so great a trial but a few months before. In 1875 we returned to Michigan. Elder Butler was now out with Elder White, who took every possible opportunity to snub him; but I was in high favor, was sent to attend their state meetings in Vermont, Kansas, Ohio and Indiana. With Elder Smith, was sent as delegate to the Seventh-day Baptist General Conference. In 1876 I was sent to Minnesota, then to Texas, and so on through most of the Southern States, to look after our interests there. Each year greater responsibilities were laid upon me. That year I raised up a large church at Rome, New York, and labored over the State. Went with Elder White and wife to Indiana and Illinois, and was then sent to Kansas to hold a debate, and to Missouri for the same purpose. This year I was elected a member of the General Conference Committee of three, with Elder White and Elder Haskell, and continued on the committee two years. It is the highest official authority in the denomination.
In 1877 I went to New England, where I raised up two churches and did other work. I spent 1878 in general work in various States, as Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Colorado, and Ohio. In the fall was president of the Ohio conference. In 1879 labored in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee. At the general conference at Battle Creek in the fall, things were in a bad shape. Elder White was cross, and Mrs. White bore down heavy on several ministers. Harshness, fault-finding and trials were the order of the day. I felt that there was very little of the spirit of Christ present. I got away as quickly as possible. I saw more and more clearly that a spirit of oppression, criticism, distrust and dissension was the result of our work, instead of meekness, gentleness, and love among brethren. For the next whole year these feelings grew upon me, till I began to fear we were doing more harm than good. My work called me among old churches, where I could see the fruit of it. Generally they were cold and dead, backslidden, or in a quarrel, or nearly extinct, where once they had been large and flourishing churches. I lost heart to raise up more churches to go in the same way. One day I would decide to quit them entirely, and the next day I would resolve to go on and do the best I could. I never suffered more mental anguish in my life. I labored that year in New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan and Ohio.
In the fall of 1880 I resolved to leave the Adventists, and, if I could, go with some other church. I was president of the Ohio conference. Our annual state meeting was at Clyde, Ohio. Elder and Mrs. White were there. My mind was made up to leave them as soon as the meeting was over. Against my protest they re-elected me president. Mrs. White urged it. Said I was just the man for the place; yet her special claim is to be able to reveal the hidden wrongs in the church. Here was an important matter. Why did she not have a revelation about it? No, I was all right so far as she knew. The next week I resigned, went east, and wrote Elder White that I would go with them no longer. Then she sent me a long written revelation, denouncing me as a child of hell, and one of the wickedest of men, though only two weeks before she thought me fit to be president of a conference!
For three months I taught elocution. I knew not what to do. I talked with ministers of other churches, but they did not seem to know how to help me. I could settle on nothing. I held on to my Christianity and love for Christ and the Bible, and preached and worked as I had opportunity. I was glad I had decided to leave the Adventists, and felt much better. Finally I met my present wife, who was an Adventist. Then I had a long talk with Elder Butler, Elder White, Mrs. White and others, and was persuaded that things were not as I had imagined. They said I was in the dark, led by Satan, and would go to ruin. All the influence of old friends, associations, habits and long cultivated ideas came up and were too strong for my better judgment. I yielded, and resolved again to live and die with them. In my judgment and conscience I was ashamed of the surrender I had made, yet I tried to feel right and go on.
Death of Elder White
Early in 1881 I went with Elder White to New York. By this time he had lost the leadership of the people. Elders Butler and Haskell had taken his place, and hence he was very hostile to them, working against them, and planning all the while to get them out and get back in again himself. But the people had largely lost confidence in him as a leader. He wished me to work with him against them, saying that we would then be on the General Conference Committee together. He had good grounds to oppose Haskell, who was always a crafty, underhanded man. Elder White wrote me thus: "February 11, 1881 - I wish Elder Haskell were an open, frank man, so I need not watch him." Again: "Battle Creek, Mich., May 24, 1881 - ...Elders Butler and Haskell have had an influence over her [his wife] that I hope to see broken. It has nearly ruined her. These men must not be suffered by our people to do as they have done... I want you to unite with me... It is time there was a change in the offices of the General Conference. I trust that if we are true and faithful, the Lord will be pleased that we should constitute two of that board."
I could give much more to show how little confidence the leading men had in each other. I wrote Elder White that I could not unite with him nor work with him. July 13, 1881, he wrote me again: "I have repeatedly abused you, and if you go to destruction, where many, to say the least, are willing you should go, I should ever feel that I had taken a part in your destruction.... I do not see how any man can labor with me." Soon after this he died. I have no doubt that Elder White believed in the Advent doctrine, and persuaded himself that he was called of God to be a leader. He had some excellent qualities, and doubtless meant to be a Christian, but his strong desire to rule and run everything, together with an irritable temper, kept him always in trouble with some one. No one could work with him long in peace. Elder Butler told me that his death was providential to save the body from a rupture. Mrs. White was so offended at Butler, that she would have no communication with him for a long while. All these things helped me to see that I was being led by selfish, ambitious men, who were poor samples of religious reformers.
That year I labored in Canada, Vermont, Maine, New England, and Michigan, and was elected member of the State Executive Committee of Michigan that fall. I worked another year in Michigan. But I was unhappy; I could not get over my doubts; I had no heart in the work. Several leading ministers in the State felt about the same. I then decided to quietly drop out of the ministry and go to farming. This I did for two years, but retained my membership with the church and worked right along with them. But I was in purgatory all the time, trying to believe what I could not. Yet I was not settled on any other church, and feared I might go wrong and so stood still. In the fall of 1884, Elder Butler, my old friend, and now at the head of the Advent work, made a great effort to get me reconciled and back at work again. He wrote me several times, to which I made no answer. Finally he telegraphed me, and paid my fare to a camp-meeting. Here I met old friends and associations, tried to see things as favorable as possible, heard explanations, etc., etc., till at last I yielded again. I was sick of an undecided position. I thought I could do some good here anyway; all my friends were here, I believed much of the doctrine still, and I might go to ruin if I left them, etc. Now I resolved to swallow all my doubts, believe the whole thing anyway, and stay with them for better or for worse. So I made a strong confession, of which I was ashamed before it was cold.
Was I satisfied? No. Deep in my heart I was ashamed of myself, but tried to feel that it was not so. But soon I felt better, because I had decided. Gradually my faith came back, till I again really felt strong in the whole doctrine, and had no idea I should ever leave it again. In a few weeks I was sent to attend large meetings in Pennsylvania, New York, Minnesota, Iowa, and New England; assisted in revival meetings in Battle Creek; was appointed with Elder Butler to lecture before the ministers on how to labor successfully; conducted a similar course in the Academy at South Lancaster, Mass.; was at the state meetings in New York, Michigan, Indiana and Ohio. In the spring of 1886 was appointed to lecture before the theological class in the Battle Creek College, and Associate Editor of the 'Sickle'.
By my urgent appeal, an effort was made to bring up our ministers to some plan of study in which they are very deficient. I was on the committee to arrange this. I selected the course of studies and framed all the questions, by which they were to be examined. I was then furnished a shorthand reporter, and in the summer was sent to ten different states, namely, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Kansas, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Dakota, and Michigan, to attend their state conferences, examine their ministers, report their meetings for the daily press, etc., and this I did. In our conflict with the Disciples at Des Moines, Iowa, it was agreed that each side should select a representative man and hold a debate on the Sabbath question. They selected Professor D.R. Dungan, president of Drake University. Our people selected me. We expected a notable time, and I made every possible effort to be ready. That preparation did much to convince me of the unsoundness of some of our positions on the covenants, the two laws, etc. In our General Conference that fall, a sharp division occurred between our leading men over the law in Galatians. One party held it was the ceremonial law, the other the moral law - a square contradiction. After a long and warm discussion the conference closed, each party more confident than before. There was also much disagreement over other points of doctrine, and a good deal of warm party feeling. This, with other things, brought up my old feelings of doubt, and decided me that it was time for me now to examine and think for myself, and not be led nor intimidated by men who could not agree among themselves.
I used every minute I could get for several weeks, carefully and prayerfully examining all the evidence on the Sabbath, the law, the sanctuary, the visions, etc., till I had not a doubt left that the Seventh-day Advent faith was a delusion. Then I laid the matter before the leading men at Battle Creek, resigned all the positions I held, and asked to be dismissed from the church. This was granted February 17, 1887. That was the first and only time I ever withdrew from the church, nor was any charge ever made against me during the twenty-eight years I was with them. As soon as I took my stand firmly, to be a free man and think for myself, a great burden, which I had carried all these years, rolled off. I felt like a new man. At last I was out of bondage. I have never for a moment regretted the step I took.
They now report that I left them four or five times before, and then went back. This is entirely untrue. From the time I joined them, in 1859, till I withdrew, in 1887, I remained in good standing in that church. After I was licensed to preach in 1864, my credentials were renewed each year except one, when I was farming and did not ask for them. Till I left them, in 1887, I never preached nor wrote against them once; nor did I unite with any other church, nor teach any doctrine contrary to theirs. Let them deny any of these statements if they can. They say I may yet return to them. They know better. The moment I took my stand decidedly, that matter was settled forever. The fact that I remained with them under all these trials for twenty-eight years, shows that I am not a vacillating man, as they now try to think.
Why I Did Not Leave Them Sooner
I am often asked why I did not leave them sooner. Why it took me so long to find that it was an error. Then the Adventists affirm that I must have been dishonest while with them, or I am dishonest now. They say I am an apostate now, because I left them and joined the Baptists. My answer is this: If to change one's opinion and join another church makes one an apostate, then more than half their members are apostates, for they have come from other churches to join the Adventists. Again, they circulate and commend highly a book called "Fifty Years in Rome," written by a man who was many years a learned priest in the Roman church. They say that his high standing and long experience in that church makes his book invaluable. But they say that the fact that I was with them in high standing so long, and now have left them, only proves that I am a hypocrite!
Any candid man can see the inconsistency of their positions. I united with the Adventists when I was a mere boy, uneducated, with no knowledge of the Bible, of history, or of other churches. I went into it through ignorance. For years my zeal for that faith, and my unbounded confidence in its leaders, blinded me to their errors. But, as I grew older, read my Bible more, read history, met with other churches, heard sermons and read books against Adventism, became better acquainted with our leaders, with the inside workings of the church, learned more about its unfavorable origin, the many mistakes we had made, saw the fruit of it in old churches, on families and society, got hold of the early writings of Mrs. White and others; gradually I began to see that Adventism was not just what I had first supposed it to be. When I embraced it in 1859, Seventh-day Adventism was only fourteen years old, the believers were few, and it was comparatively untried. But when Adventism was twenty-five years older, ten times as large, and had fully developed its spirit and shown its fruits, when I had had the education, observation and experience of a quarter of a century, I think my judgment in the matter ought to be worth more than when I embraced it as a green boy.
Again, it was only during the last few years that I gained possession of early Adventist documents, which show how they now deny and contradict what they once taught. These are now either suppressed or kept out of sight, so that not one in a thousand of them knows or will believe that they ever existed. My doubts of the system did not come to me all at once and clearly. It was well known that for the last dozen years I was with them, I was greatly troubled over these things. Gradually, year by year, the evidence accumulated, till at last it overbalanced the doctrine, and then reluctantly and sorrowfully I had to abandon and renounce it. God pity the soul that has to go through what I did to be honest to his convictions of right.
Positions Which I Held When I Left Them
Notwithstanding it was well known to all that I frequently had serious doubts about their faith, yet, as soon as I took hold with them again, each time they immediately put me forward and set me at the most important work. Elder Butler says: "He doubtless would have been [elected to important office] had he not proved himself unreliable in so many instances. His ability would have justified it." Review and Herald Extra, Nov. 22, 1887. Suppose, now, that I had been an office-seeking man, caring more for place and position than for truth and conscience, what would I have done? I would have gone right along, pretending to be full in faith and in harmony with them. But instead of this, time and again, I went directly to their influential men, Elders White, Butler, Haskell, etc., and told them my doubts. Let candid men judge of my motives.
The day I left them I held the following positions: Was teacher of theology in their college at Battle Creek, where I had a class of nearly two hundred of their best young people; was associate editor of the Gospel Sickle; was writing the lessons for all their Sabbath Schools throughout the world; had the charge of some eighteen churches in Michigan; was member of the Executive Committee of the International Sabbath School Association; member of the Executive Committee of the Michigan State Sabbath School Association; and at the last session of the general conference was chairman of the International Sabbath School Association, and was on nine different committees, several of them the most important in the conference, as the one on distribution of laborers over all the world, the theological committee, the one on camp meetings, on a special course of study in our college, on the improvement of the ministry, etc. This shows what they thought of my ability. I had just gotten out a new pamphlet, "Critical Notes," of which they printed an edition of 10,000 after I left them. Others of my works they have revised, left my name off, and use them still. Why reprint mine after I have left them and renounced what they teach? They now say that my writings are cheap and worthless. But while I was with them they published over twenty different productions of mine, and circulated hundreds of thousands of them, translated several of them into other languages, and paid me hundreds of dollars for them. Strange that all at once I have become so imbecile, and my writings so worthless. Any one can see the animus of all this.
Elder Smith, in Replies to Canright, page 25, says I left them at a time when my withdrawal embarrassed them more than it would have done at any other time. This confesses that I was becoming more and more useful to them, and all know that I was. At the time I left I was getting higher pay than ever before, and was on friendly terms with all. All the leading men, as Butler, Haskell, Smith, etc., were my warm personal friends, ready to do all in their power to assist me. Had I desired office, or better position, all I had to do was to go right along without wavering, and positions would come to me faster than I could fill them. But if I left them, where could I go? What could I do? How even make a living? I took this all in, and it required all the courage and faith in God I could master to take the risk.
It cost me a terrible struggle and a great sacrifice, for in doing it I had to leave all my life-long friends, the cherished hopes of my youth, the whole work of my life, all the means of my support, every honorable position I held, and bring upon myself reproach, hatred and persecution. I had to begin life anew, among strangers, with untried methods, uncertain where to go or what to do. No one who has not tried it can ever begin to realize the fearful struggle it requires. It is the dread of all this which holds many with them who are yet dissatisfied where they are. I know that this is so, for many have confessed it to me, and yet remained where they were. Anyone of candor and fairness can see readily that self-interest and personal ambition would have held me with them. Yet, as soon as I did leave them, though I went out quietly and peaceably, and let them entirely alone, and even spoke favorably of them, they immediately attributed to me all sorts of evil motives, base sins, and ambitious designs. They seemed to feel it a sacred duty to blast my reputation, and destroy my influence, if possible. "Apostate" was the epithet all applied to me. I was compared to Baalam, to Kora, Dathan and Abiram, to Judas, Demas, and a whole list of evil characters. Not one honest or worthy motive was granted me. The meanest and wickedest reports were circulated as to what I had done or said - things that I would despise even to think of. Yet all were eagerly accepted and believed as undoubted truth. But I expected it, for it is the way all are treated who dare to leave them and give a reason for it.
During the twenty years now since I left them, they have had spies constantly on my track, who have watched and reported the least thing I have said or done, to torture it into evil, if possible. This they circulate to the ends of the earth, and it comes back to me in newspapers and letters. They have issued four different publications against me, and Mrs. White, in her last "revelation," has devoted three articles to myself! Yet I don't amount to anything; never did! "Sour grapes," you see. It has been widely reported that I was smitten with a terrible disease, had broken up my church, been expelled from the denomination, and more yet, concerning all which the Lord judge between us. The pastors of all the churches here, and public men of the place have had to make written statements to meet these attacks in distant states. Sometimes this has seemed hard to bear, but knowing that I was right, I have had grace and patience to keep steadily at my work, and leave the rest with God and my friends.
I am in constant receipt of letters from all parts of the country, saying that the Adventists affirm that I have asked to be taken back among them! They will report it till I die, and long after. This book shall be my answer. They are so certain that the curse of God will follow all who leave them, or that they will become infidels, or return to them, that they cannot be reconciled to have it otherwise.
A Sample Letter
"Glenwood Springs, Colo., March 29, 1889. D.M. Canright, Otsego, Mich.: My Dear Friend and Brother - If the lightning's shivering crash had torn my scalp loose from my head, I would not have been more surprised than I was today by having placed in my hands your pamphlet entitled "The Jewish Sabbath." I have read after you for years, sold your valuable works, and preached the "Third Angel's Message." Now, I wish to ask you, how do our people treat you? To my knowledge you were a great favorite, and quoted oftener than any standing near the head. Do they go back on you as hard as they did on Snook? I suppose that your great research and life-long study of the subject in hand goes for nothing with them, and that you are classed among the fallen angels. F.A.B."
Ordained a Baptist Minister
April 19, 1887, at Otsego, Mich., where I had lived for eight years, I was ordained as a minister of the Regular Baptist Church, by an exceptionally large council, composed of several of the ablest ministers of the state. The 'Otsego Union' of that date says: "Regularly appointed delegates were present from Baptist churches in Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, Plainwell, Three Rivers, White Pigeon, Allegan, Battle Creek, Paw Paw, Hickory Corners, Prairieville and Otsego. Rev. A.E. Mather, D.D., of Battle Creek, was elected moderator of the council, and Rev. T.M. Shanafelt, D.D., of Three Rivers, secretary. The order of exercises was as follows: Reading of the Scriptures, by Rev. H.A. Rose, of Kalamazoo; prayer, by Rev. D. Mulhern, D.D., of Grand Rapids; ordination sermon, by Rev. Kendall Brooks, D.D., President of Kalamazoo College; prayer of ordination, by Rev. M.W. Haynes, of Kalamazoo, with laying on of hands by Rev. H.B. Taft, of White Pigeon, Rev. E.A. Gay, of Allegan, and Rev. H.A. Rose, of Kalamazoo; hand of fellowship, by Rev. T.F. Babcock, of Prairieville; charge to the pastor, by Rev. L.B. Fish, of Paw Paw; charge to the church, by Rev. I. Butterfield, of Grand Rapids.
"Rev. D.M. Canright has thus been fully recognized by a large and representative council as a regular Baptist minister, and pastor of the Baptist church in Otsego."
I have never regretted leaving the Adventists, nor for one moment had the slightest desire to return.
Chapter III - Adventism: A Yoke of Bondage (Back to Top)
Largely, people are drawn into the Seventh-day doctrine through fear, fear of being damned if they refuse. Once in, they try to feel happy, but very few really are. With a large class, the more intelligent ones, there are so many doubts and fears, such a sensible want of something which they do not find, that they are unhappy. Many of their ministers have gone through the same trials that I have, and scores have left them, as I did, while others have fixed it up and remained with them. Elder White himself had doubts. Mrs. White says of him: "He should make it a rule not to talk unbelief or discouragement." "My husband has cherished this darkness so long by living over the unhappy past, that he has but little power to control his mind when dwelling upon these things." Testimonies, Vol. III, pages 96, 97. Mrs. White herself, as we might expect, is troubled with infidelity. She says: "In the night I have awakened my husband, saying, 'I am afraid that I shall become an infidel.'" Testimonies, Vol. I, page 597. Nearly all their prominent ministers had their time of trial, the same as I did, when they ceased preaching and went at other work, as we have seen.
I will quote a few words from letters received: "I have had many blue times in my experience because of these doubts.... Once I decided that I must follow the convictions of my own judgment in these things; but when the time came the pressure was so strong that I tried to convince myself that I was wrong.... The facts are, I am just miserable.... It seems like a terrible thing to take a course that will cause all the cherished friends of this world to look upon you as one fallen from grace; and here I am, bound with these chains." Another writes: "It seems to me that the views held by Seventh-day Adventists are so burdensome that they will crush me. They are a yoke of bondage which I cannot stand up under. Still I do want to be right." Another minister, D.H. Lamson, writes: "How am I straightened, while the fetters are being forged for most unwilling limbs!... What distress we are in as a people! how miserable! and is there no relief?" And still another talented minister, W.C. Gage, writes me: "Our ministers, and people as well, are growing to be a denomination of hypocrites, by a slavish fear of expressing an honest belief.... I am sick and disheartened.... The basis of confidence is gone, and I shall only await the outcome of the matter." Still another, Uriah Smith, writes: "There is a fear, on the part of the powers that be, of free thought and free discussion. So far as this is the case, it is a shame and disgrace to us." And yet these brethren patch up the matter some way, and go right on as though nothing were wrong. I know how to pity them, for I myself have passed through precisely the same experience. And another writes: "I wish I had never heard the Advent doctrine preached. Previous to that, I know that I did enjoy the blessing of God. I was not troubled about doctrine.... I think I then had some influence for good over others, but I fear my change of faith had a bad influence over my children." Strange to say, these are the very men who now denounce me the worst because I had the courage of my convictions, while they haven't.
These are fair samples of how scores among them feel, from men in leading positions, to the humblest in the church. Largely they keep it to themselves, but occasionally it will out. Many of them almost get out, and then fall back, to linger along in bondage all the rest of their lives. "But if these persons are in such bondage, why not break loose, and be free? Who would harm them? Be it remembered that there is a bondage worse than African slavery - the bondage of religious tyranny and superstition. I was held there for years, and know its power.
Milton F. Gowell, Chicago, gives so true a picture of Advent experience, that I quote him in a letter to me. I was often at his father's house, in Portland, Me.; when he was a boy. He says: "My recollections of those days are full of the terrors of law, prophetic charts, Mrs. White's visions, the Sabbath, Sabbath, Sabbath, health reform, bloomer dresses, and a great zeal for being industrious on Sunday, and little or nothing of Christ. All the DOING was indelibly impressed on my mind as a boy, but the BELIEVING on Christ for salvation, and RESTING in his finished work, I have no remembrance of whatever. How many there are that join the Seventh-day Adventists utterly unsaved, knowing nothing of the grace of God, hearing always barely the law. I joined them at the age of fourteen, under conviction, guilty before God, but unsaved, though I was baptized and received into the church as a SABBATH KEEPER. I received no peace, no rest, till I entered into rest by believing about three and a half years ago; saved from the borderland of infidelity." This is just the impression which all the children of that people are receiving - cold legalism. While this young man was finally saved from infidelity, hundreds of them are not, as I well know.
Prominent Persons Who Have Left the Adventists
It is nothing new for men to leave a party, good or bad; but so large a number of prominent persons have left the Adventists as to excite surprise. It is clear that there must be something wrong in the system itself. First, according to the best of my judgment, from one-third to one-half of all who begin the observance of the Sabbath, sooner or later abandon it.
At different times large numbers have left them, mostly on account of Mrs. White's visions. We will name a few of the ministers who have departed from them: J.B. Cook and T.M. Preble, the pioneers who started the movement, both renounced it; O.R.L. Crozier, Ann Arbor, Mich., has renounced the Sabbath; Elder B.F. Snook, the leading man in Iowa, is now a Universalist; Elder W.H. Brinkerhoof, of Iowa, has renounced the faith; Elder Moses Hull, the ablest speaker they ever had, is now a Spiritualist, and Elder Shortridge, a minister of much talent, has also gone the same way; Elders Hall and Stephenson, at the time very prominent in the work, went to the Age-to-Come party; C.B. Reynolds, of New York, has become a noted blasphemer; Elder H.C. Blanchard, Avilla, Mo., renounced the doctrine; ditto T.J. Butler, of the same state; Elder L.L. Howard, Maine, H.F. Haynes, New Hampshire, left them; Nathan Fuller, Wellsville, N.Y., became a libertine; M.B. Czechowski went to Europe and died in disgrace; H.F. Case, Elder Cranmer and Philip Strong, all of Michigan, left them.
Elder J.B. Frisbie, their pioneer and most efficient preacher for years in Michigan, finally left them. Dr. Lee, of Minnesota, who inaugurated the work among the Swedes, now opposes them. Elder A.B. Oyen, missionary to Europe, and editor of their Danish paper, has renounced the faith. Living right at the head of the work for many years, he had the best of opportunity to know all about its workings. Elder D.B. Oviatt, for many years president of the Pennsylvania Conference, renounced the faith, and is now a Baptist minister.
So Elder Rosquist and Elder Whitelaw, both of Minnesota, have recently left them and gone to the Baptists. Other ministers of the West have also gone over to the Baptists. C.A. Russell, Otsego, Mich., an excellent man, once preached that doctrine with me, but is now a Methodist. H.E. Carver, H.C. Blanchard, J.W. Cassady, A.C. Long, Jacob Brinkerhoof, J.C. Day, H.W. Ball, Goodenough, Bunch, and others, once members of that church, have written against it. Elder Hiram Edson and Elder S.W. Rhodes, noted pioneers in the work, died confirmed cranks, and a trial to the church. The sad example of their leading ministers who have been guilty of adultery, proves that their church has nothing to boast of over other churches in the purity of its ministers and members.
Their College Professors
They have been very unfortunate in their college professors. Professor S.S. Brownsburger, the first Principal of their College at Battle Creek, Mich., which position he occupied for years, and then filled the same position in their college in California, is now wholly disconnected from the work. Elder W.H. Littlejohn, who next stood at the head of the college, was expelled from the church and fell into doubts. Next came Professor A. McLearn as head of the college. He has renounced the faith, and now opposes them strongly. Professor Vesey, a learned teacher in that college, has forsaken the faith. Professor C.C. Ramsy, born in that faith, was professor of mathematics in the Battle Creek college for three years; then filled the same place for three years in their college in California; then was called to take charge of their academy in the East, which he did for three years more. He was editor of their educational journal, prominent in Sabbath School work, and many other ways. He has renounced that faith, but remains an earnest Christian. Others of their teachers of lesser note have also left them. What is the cause of such results? There must be something wrong.
Their Physicians
They have been equally unfortunate with their physicians in their sanitarium at Battle Creek. Dr. H.S. Ley, an excellent man, was the first physician-in- chief. He left the institution in a trial, and was out of work for years. Dr. Wm. Russell, a talented doctor, came next. What he there saw of Adventism made him an infidel, and he was dismissed. Next, I believe, came Dr. M.G. Kellogg. The treatment he received drove him into scepticism for years. Then came Dr. Sprague and Dr. Farfield, both of whom renounced the faith, and, I believe, are sceptical now. Mrs. Lamson and Miss Fellows, both matrons of the sanitarium, lost faith in the doctrine. Dr. Smith, brought up in the faith, renounced it. Here again we see that education unfits men for Adventism. I am not acquainted with another church which has lost so large a proportion of its most prominent men. Every year, nearly, so far, more or less have gone away from them, till they have lost more talent than now remains with them.
It Leads to Infidelity
A strong argument with Adventists is, that most of those who leave them become infidels, as all know. But, after long watching, I became satisfied that it is Adventism which has made them infidels. Look at Romanism. Wherever it has had sway a while, it filled the land with infidels. Go among the Mormons at Salt Lake. Large numbers of their children are becoming infidels. The natural rebound from fanaticism and superstition is into infidelity and scepticism. Right here in Otsego we have several infidels, the grown-up children of Adventists. I know them and meet them all over the country, and their numbers are increasing. I feel sure that the ripe fruit of Adventism in the years to come will be a generation of doubters.
Their Church Backsliding
Seventh-day Adventists claim to be raised up of God, to reform the church of to-day. They claim to be purer, more spiritual, and on a higher plane than other Christians. All other churches are Babylon and apostates, while they are the chosen saints. But now, after their church has had only fifty years trial, and hence is still small and young, and so ought to be better than older and larger churches, I can quote confessions from their own writers, proving that they are as wordly, backslidden and corrupt as they make out other churches to be. I will give a few. Elder G.I. Butler, in the Advent Review, May 10, 1887, says: "A terrible stupor like that which enveloped the disciples in the Saviour's agony in the garden, seems to hang over the mass of our people." Mrs. White, in Testimonies, Vol. I, says: "The Spirit of the Lord has been dying away from the church," page 113; "The churches have nearly lost their spirituality and faith," page 119; "I saw the dreadful fact that God's people were conformed to the world with no distinction, except in name," page 133; "Covetousness, selfishness, love of money, and love of the world, are all through the ranks of Sabbath-keepers," page 140; "Vital godliness is lacking," page 153; "There is but little love for one another. A selfish spirit is manifest. Discouragement has come upon the church," page 166; "Spirituality and devotion are rare," page 469. Many of them are not even honest. She says: "As I saw the spirit of defrauding, of over-reaching, of meanness, even among some professed Sabbath-keepers, I cried out in anguish," page 480; "There is but little praying. In fact, prayer is almost obsolete," page 566; "Not one in twenty of those who have a good standing with Seventh-day Adventists, is living out the self-sacrificing principles of the word of God." page 632. Of the Battle Creek church she says: "I can select family after family of children in this house, every one of whom is as corrupt as hell itself." "Right here in this church corruption is teeming on every hand," Vol. II, pages 360, 361; "Sin and vice exist in Sabbath-keeping families," page 391; "We have a dwarfed and defective ministry," Vol. IV, page 441. In Testimony, No. 33, just published, Mrs. White says: "There is a deplorable lack of spirituality among our people.... There has been a spirit of self- sufficiency, and a disposition to strive for position and supremacy. I have seen that self-glorification was becoming common among Seventh-day Adventists," pages 255, 256. Thus as they grow older, the have to confess to all the weaknesses and short- comings which they have so eagerly charged against other churches.
I could quote whole pages of such confessions as these from Mrs. White and their leading men. They are compelled to say it. It is common in their camp- meetings to see half their members forward as backsliders. Their preaching is largely scolding their members for their coldness. In fact, the thing is a practical failure in whatever way you look at it. Are they any better, any more spiritual, than the regular churches which they denounce so? No, as the above shows. After being well acquainted with both, I say confidently that there is as much devotion and spirituality among the Evangelical churches as among Adventists.
If, then, these things in the other churches prove that they are Babylon, they prove the same of the Advent church, too. (See Appendix A)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter IV - Origin, History and Failures of Adventism (Back to Top)
Every little while, from the days of Christ till now, individuals, and often large sects, have arisen, proclaiming the Second Advent at hand and themselves the God-appointed messengers to warn the world. Right on this point Jesus warned his church: "Take heed that no man deceive you.... The end is not yet." Matt. 24:4-6. Yet right away it was said that Jesus would come before John should die. John 21:23. The Thessalonians had to be corrected by Paul for expecting the Advent immediately at hand. II Thess. 2:1-8.
In the middle of the second century arose the Montanists. The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia says: "Ecstatic visions announcing the approach of the Second Advent of Christ... were set forth as divine revelation." Art. 'Montanism.' Like Seventh-day Adventists, they adopted a severe discipline - condemned the wearing of ornaments, intercourse with the world, etc. They created a great sensation, obtained a numerous following, and flourished for a century or more.
Tenth Century Adventism
The following is from the "History of the Christian Church," by M. Reuter, D.D., Century 10, Chapter 2, pages 202, 203: "Among the numerous opinions, however, which disgraced the Latin church and produced from time to time such violent agitations, none occasioned such universal panic, nor such dreadful impressions of terror or dismay, as a notion that prevailed during this [tenth] century of the immediate approach of the day of judgment." "Public and private buildings were suffered to decay, and were even pulled down, from an opinion that they were no longer of any use, since the dissolution of all things was at hand."
The Fifth-Monarchy men of England, about 1660, "believed that the time was near at hand when, to the four great monarchies of Daniel's prophetic vision, was to succeed the fifth, which was to break in pieces all others, and to 'stand forever.'" Johnson's Encyclopedia, article Fifth-Monarchy Men. They undertook to set up the kingdom by overturning the English government.
The Irvingites of England "declare the speedy coming of Christ;" have "prophets," "revelations," "tongues," "gifts," etc. They have gathered large congregations and are spreading over the world.
Swedenborg, Ann Lee, Joanna Southcott, Joe Smith, etc., all made the speedy advent of Christ the ground-work of their systems, as is well known. Hence, movements of this kind are nothing new.
Seventh-day Adventism originated in the well-known movement of William Miller, who set the time for the end of the world in 1843-44. They claim now that Mr. Miller's move was right, and in the providence of God. They claim to be simply carrying on the same work which he began. In all their books and sermons they point to 1844 as their origin, and endorse the work of the Millerites in 1843 and 1844. The following from Mrs. White will settle the point: "I have seen that the 1843 chart was directed by the hand of the Lord, and that it should not be altered; that his hand was over and hid a mistake in some of the figures." Early Writings, page 64. God helped them make the mistake! "I saw that God was in the proclamation of the time in 1843." Spiritual Gifts, Vol. I., page 133. So God wanted them to set that time! "I saw that they were correct in their reckoning of the prophetic periods; prophetic time closed in 1844." Page 107. Again: "The Advent movement of 1840-44 was a glorious manifestation of the power of God." Great Controversy, Vol. IV., page 429. Elder White says: "We hold that the great movement upon the Second Advent question, which commenced with the writings and public lectures of William Miller, has been, in its leading features, in fulfillment of prophecy. Consistently with this view, we also hold that in the providence of God, Mr. Miller was raised up to do a specific work." Life of Miller, page 6. So it will be seen that Seventh-day Adventists still believe in and defend the Millerite movements of 1843 and 1844. Indeed, they claim that all other churches who did not accept and endorse Miller's work were rejected of God on this account. Thus Mrs. White: "As the churches refused to receive the first angel's message [Miller's work], they rejected the light from heaven and fell from the favor of God." Early Writings, page 101.
Here, then, we have the origin of Seventh-day Adventism, the fountain from which it flowed. As a stream will be like its fountain, let us examine it. Elder and Mrs. White, Elder Bates, Andrews, Rhodes, Holt, Edson, and all the founders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church were in the movement of Miller, and helped in setting and preaching the time in 1843, 1844, and carried the Advent work right on afterwards.
The work of Mr. Miller is so well known, that I need but refer to the facts about it. William Miller was born at Pittsfield, Mass., 1782, but he was reared at Low Hampton, N.Y. He was a farmer, with only the poor advantages of a country school. He united with the Baptist church. About 1831 he claimed that he had discovered by the prophecies the exact time, the very year, and, finally, the very day when Christ would appear and the end of the world would come. He succeeded in converting perhaps fifty thousand people to his views. The first date fixed was 1843. It failed. Then he fixed a day in October, 1844, and that failed. Many other times have since been fixed by Mr. Miller's followers, and all have failed. Over fifty years have come and gone, and the end has not come yet.
What was the one great burden of Miller, the one point on which he differed from the Evangelical churches? All these churches believed in the personal Second Advent of Christ just as strongly as Miller did. They loved Jesus and preached the Second Advent, even teaching that it was near at hand. But the Millerites said they knew the TIME when it was to be, and that time was 1843- 4. They staked all upon this. The issue was plain and definite. All who did not endorse their SET TIME were "opposers," "enemies," "in the dark," "evil servants," rejected of God and lost, just because they would not believe in setting a time for the end. Here are Miller's words: "I believe the time can be known by all who desire to understand.... Between March 21, 1840, and March 21, 1844, according to the Jewish mode of computation of time, Christ will come." Life of Miller, page 172. Jesus says: "Ye know not when the time is." Mark 13:33. But the Millerites thought they knew better than Jesus Christ did. So they condemned all who did not agree with them. Here is a mild sample of what they said and the spirit that possessed them: "This is God's truth; it is as true as the Bible." "There is no possibility of a mistake in this time." "Those who reject this light will be lost." "Those who do not accept this argument are backsliders," etc. History of Advent Message, page 596. And this is the spirit that has followed them ever since - a harsh, denunciatory spirit against all who did not agree with their figures, interpretations and theories.
But their set times came and passed without the least regard to their figures and facts, proofs and demonstrations, prayers and predictions. Remorseless old Time, the true tester of every theory, marched right on and demolished them all. This demonstrated the folly and error of the Adventists. Miller's prediction was a wretched abortion. He preached and propagated a falsehood. He preached that the world would end in 1843, and it didn't. He set 1844 for it to come, and it didn't. If ever a religious movement on earth was demonstrated to be a humbug and a failure, it was Millerism. But if Millerism was a failure, then Seventh-day Adventism is also, for that was the fountain from which this has flowed; that was the foundation on which this is built. Deut. 18:22: "When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken." This, surely, is a simple and fair test. By this rule the Lord was not in Miller's move.
"But were not the Adventists in 1843-4 very confident that they were right?" Confident is no name for it. They were SURE that they were right, they KNEW they were right, for they proved it all by the Bible, every word of it, positively. The Bible said so; to deny it was to deny the Bible. But it failed all the same. It is just so with Seventh-day Adventists now. They are the most positive people in the world, though they have made scores of terrible blunders.
That no one will know the time of the second advent is as plainly taught as words can teach. Read the following: "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only;" "Watch, therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come;" "Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh;" "Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh." Matt. 24:36,42,44; 25:13. "Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is." Mark 13:33. "It is not for you to know the time or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power." Acts 1:7. Jesus said, "Ye know not when the time is;" Miller said, "We know when the time is." Jesus said, "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons;" Miller said, "We know all about them." Jesus said, "No man knows the day;" Miller said, "We know the exact day." Which was right? The disappointments of the Adventists, time and again, during the past fifty years, in setting the date for the end of the world have clearly demonstrated their folly. The whole Advent move was conceived in error, born in a mistake, has grown up in folly, and must die in disgrace. "But were not the Millerites honest?" There is no doubt of it, but that proves nothing as to their correctness.
The Fruit of Millerism
"By their fruits ye shall know them." Millerism, for about four years, in a few states, created a great excitement. Churches were divided and broken up, pastors left their flocks to "lecture" on "time," while argument and strife were the order of the day. As the time set drew near, in thousands of cases, the Adventists not only left their work and their business, but gave away their property. Crops were left ungathered, goods were distributed freely, so that many who had been well to do were left penniless. After the time had passed, these were destitute and their families suffered. Many had to be arrested and put under guardianship, to protect their families. Then the wildest fanaticism broke out here and there, which brought disgrace upon the very name of religion. Many said the Lord had come, probation was ended, it was sin to work, all property must be held in common, all the churches were apostate, Babylon, etc. Some Adventists had spiritual wives, some went to the Shakers, many went back into the churches, some into despair, and hundreds into doubt and infidelity - just what might have been expected. The glorious doctrine of the Second Advent was covered with shame, Satan rejoiced, while the cause of Christ was greatly injured. For proof of these facts, I refer to the testimony of thousands now living, and to the published works of the Adventists themselves. Thus Elder U. Smith is compelled to say: "The Advent Body were a unit [in 1844] and their testimony shook the world. Suddenly their power was broken, their strength paralyzed. They passed the point of their expectation, and realized not their hope. That a mistake had been made somewhere, none could deny. From that point the history of a majority of that once happy, united people has been marked by discord, division, confusion, speculation, new mistakes, fresh disappointments, disintegration and apostasy." The Sanctuary, pages 13, 14.
Paul said, "God is not the author of confusion." I Cor. 14:33. Then surely he was not the author of Adventism, for the confusion it produced is unparalleled in religious history. Ten souls were ruined by it where one was saved. Immediately after 1844 they split up into numerous parties, each contradicting and condemning all the rest. Instead of renouncing the whole thing, as sane men ought to have done, each one set himself to find some "explanation" of their mistake. Hardly any two agreed, while each one was sure he had the true explanation. Their utter confusion is well illustrated by the following anecdote told by Mr. Miller himself: The first person in his own parish who fully embraced his views was an old woman, an humble Christian. Mr. Miller sent her his papers when he had read them. One week he received sixteen different sheets, all purporting to be Advent publications, but the most of them advocating contradictory sentiments. He sent them to the old woman. Soon she sent for him, and on his arrival began: "Have you read all these papers?" "I have looked them over." "But are they all Advent papers?" "They profess to be." "Well, then," said she, "I am no longer an Adventist. I shall take the old Bible and stick to that." "But," said Mr. Miller, "we have no confidence in one-half there is advocated in these papers." "We?" exclaimed the old lady, "who is WE?" "Why," replied Mr. Miller, "WE are those who do not fellowship these things." "Well, but I want to know who WE is." "Why, all of us who stand on the old ground." "But that ain't telling me who WE is. I want to know who WE is." "Well," said Mr. Miller, in relating the story, "I was confounded, and was unable to give her any information who WE were." History of Second Advent Message, pages 414, 415.
And so it has continued unto this day. What do Adventists believe? Go ask what language was spoken by the people after the Lord confused their tongues at Babel. Adventism is a second Bable[sp]. But Seventh-day Adventists say "We are united; we believe alike." Partly true, but they are only one branch of this Advent Babel. Such a brood of errors and heresies as has resulted from Adventism, cannot be found in the history of the church before. Time- setting, visions, miracles, fanatics, false prophets, sleep of the dead, annihilation of the wicked, non-resurrection of the wicked, future probation, restoration, community of goods, denial of the divinity of Christ, no devil, no baptism, no organization, etc., etc. Gracious! And these are the people sent with a "message" to warn the church! They had better go back and learn and agree on what their "message" is, before they run to deliver it.
The other Adventists have set the time for the end of the world in 1843, 1844, 1847, 1850, 1852, 1854, 1855, 1863, 1866, 1867, 1868, 1877, and so on, till one is sick of counting. Learning nothing from the past, each time they are quite as confident as before.
This fanatical work has brought disgrace upon the doctrine of the Second Advent, so that it is not dwelt upon as much as formerly in other churches. The study of the prophecies has been brought into disrepute by the unwise course of the Adventists. No thoughtful man can fail to see this.
Seventh-day Adventists and Time-Setting
It is the one constant boast of the Seventh-day Adventists that THEY never set time; THEY don't believe in it. But they deceive themselves and deceive others when they say so. Elder White, their leader, engaged in preaching three different set times for the Lord to come, viz., 1843, 1844, 1845. here are his own statements on this: "I found myself happy in the faith that Christ would come about the year 1843." Life Incidents, page 72. Then he tells how he preached it. Of 1844, he says: "I stated my conviction that Christ would come on the tenth day of the seventh Jewish month of that year [1844]." Pages 166, 167. "It is well known that many were expecting the Lord to come at the seventh month, 1845. That Christ would then come we firmly believed. A few days before the time passed, I was at Fairhaven and Dartmouth, Mass., with a message on this point of time." 'A Word to the Little Flock,' by James White, page 22. So their leader was a time-setter. Mrs. White, their prophetess, was in the time-setting of 1843 and 1844. She herself says: "We were firm in the belief that the preaching of definite times was of God." Testimonies, Vol. 1, page 56. Of the first date she says: "With carefulness and trembling we approached the time when our Saviour was expected to appear." Then she tells her disappointment. Testimonies, Vol. 1, page 48. Again: "Our hopes now centered on the coming of the Lord in 1844." Page 53. She was a time- setter. Elders Bates, Andrews, Rhodes, and all the first crop of Seventh-day Adventists were in the time-setting of 1843, 1844. They still endorse Miller's time-setting of 1843 and 1844 as right and approved of God. How much truth, then, is there in their assertions that they have never set time? But they say, "WE did not keep the Seventh-day when WE set time; therefore WE never set time!" That is too thin. The thief says, "I did not wear this coat when I stole the sheep, therefore I never stole him!" They say that they have given the THREE messages. Well, the first message was in 1844 when they set time. Are they the same people, or are they not?
Again they endorse Mr. Miller's work as of God. But Miller is responsible for all the time-setting done by the Adventists since his time, because they are the legitimate outgrowth of his work. He began setting time. He did it the second time. He taught them how to do it. He fathered the idea. He inculcated it in all his followers. They then simply took up and carried on what he had begun. Seventh-day Adventists claim to be the original Adventists, and endorse Miller's work. In doing this they endorse time- setting, and should justly bear all the odium of that fanatical business.
But don't Seventh-day Adventists rise to explain why they were disappointed in 1843, and again in 1844, and for forty years since? O, yes; but we naturally become a little suspicious of the man who is compelled to be constantly explaining his conduct. Straight works needs no explanation. They say the Lord caused them to be disappointed in 1843, on purpose to test their faith, that was all! In 1844 they made just one little mistake, that was all! They then taught that the earth was the sanctuary. Come to find out, the sanctuary us up in heaven, and Jesus did really come, in a certain sense, that very year! So they were right, after all. Don't you see? Clear as day. Now they have the whole matter removed from the troublesome facts of earth, where we can test them, to the beautiful theories of heaven, where no one can go to report on facts which might spoil their theories. Now they can speculate and argue in safety. But sober, thinking men see through all this. It is merely a make-shift to get out of a difficulty.
Miller's Confession - He Opposes Seventh-day Adventism
All the other Adventists long ago renounced the 1843-4 time-setting as an error. Thus: "The majority of Adventists took the position that the TIME was an error of human judgment." History of the Second Advent Message, page 383. Hear Mr. Miller himself: "On the passing of my published time, I frankly acknowledged my disappointment.... We expected the personal coming of Christ at that time; and now to contend that we were not mistaken, is dishonest. We should never be ashamed frankly to confess our errors. I have no confidence in any of the new theories that grew out of that movement, namely, that Christ then came as the Bridegroom, that the door of mercy was closed, that there is no salvation for sinners, that the seventh trumpet sounded, OR THAT IT WAS A FULFILLMENT OF PROPHECY IN ANY SENSE." History of the Advent Message, pages 410, 412.
From this we see: 1. That Miller, the founder and leader of that move, owned that it was an error. 2. He repudiated the idea that it was a fulfillment of prophecy in any sense. 3. He especially points out the Seventh-day Advent position as utterly wrong. He knew all about their arguments of the three messages, the sanctuary, the Sabbath, etc., and yet he not only rejected them, but earnestly warned his people against them, so that very few of the original Adventists ever accepted them. Hear Mrs. White herself on this point: "I saw leading men watching William Miller, fearing lest he should embrace the third angel's message and the commandments of God. As he would lean towards the light from heaven, these men would lay some plan to draw his mind away. I saw a human influence exerted to keep his mind in darkness, and to retain his influence among them. At length WILLIAM MILLER RAISED HIS VOICE AGAINST THE LIGHT FROM HEAVEN." Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 1, page 167.
Thus the father and founder of Adventism condemned and opposed the position which Seventh-day Adventists took with regard to his own work. He had sense enough to see, and honesty enough to confess, that it was a mistake. But they will not have it so. They know better than he himself. They will have it that it was a wonderful fulfillment of Rev. 14:6,7. Miller denies it. Thus it will be seen that Seventh-day Adventists give an interpretation to Miller's work which he himself condemned. Not a leading man in Miller's work ever embraced the views of the Seventh-day Adventists, but have always opposed them as fanatical and as a side issue. None of the leaders of Seventh-day Adventism, such as White, Andrews, Bates, Rhodes, etc., were ever of any note in Miller's work, though they were all in it; yet afterwards they claimed to be the only ones who had the right view of it. All the rest were "in the dark," "foolish virgins," "apostates," etc. How modest!
Mistakes of Adventists
A people who have made as many mistakes as Adventists have, ought to be very modest in their claims, and ought to see that they have been led by men and not by the Lord. 1. They set the time for the end of the world in 1843, and failed. 2. They set it again in 1844 and failed. 3. Elder White, the leader of the Seventh-day Adventists, set 1845 for the end, and failed again. 4. They held in 1844 that the earth was the sanctuary, another mistake, as they admit now. 5. They all held for some time after 1844 that probation for sinners was ended - a fearful mistake. See chapter 8 of this book. 6. For ten years Seventh-day Adventists began the Sabbath at 6 P.M., instead of at sunset as now. Thus they broke the Sabbath every week! 7. They kept their children out of school for years, because time was so short they would need no education. Those children now have grand-children! 8. They gave away their goods in 1844, because they would not need them after that! 9. They would not vote, for that was like the fallen churches. Now they vote freely. 10. They held that it was wrong to take a church name, for that was Babylon. Now they have a name. 11. Church organization was wrong, for that was like Babylon. Now they organize. 12. For years they said it was denying their faith to set out trees, for they would never grow to bear fruit. 13. Led by a revelation from Mrs. White, the sisters put on short dress with pants. None of them wear it now. 14. For thirty years they would not take up any collection on the Sabbath. Now they do it every week. 15. For fifty years they have been expecting the end of the world to come inside of five years, and it has not come yet. 16. They said Jesus would come to the earth in 1844. Now they say that was a mistake; he came to judgment in the sanctuary above. Thus: "The Adventists of 1844...thought the bridegroom would come; and THEN HE DID COME - not to this earth, as they incorrectly supposed, but to the MARRIAGE." "They simply mistook the KIND of coming referred to." U. Smith, in Parable of the Ten Virgins, page 13,14. He owns that: 1. They got the time wrong in 1843. 2. The place wrong. 3. The event wrong. Now let him add, 4. The whole thing wrong, and he will be right! 17. Then they said the door was shut, Matt. 25:10; now they say that this was wrong; it is open yet. Thus: "There can be no other place for the shut door but at the autumn of 1844." Elder White, in Present Truth, May 1850. "The door is still open, and other guests may come." U. Smith, in Parable of the Ten Virgins, page 17, February, 1889. These are the people who always KNOW they are just right! 18. They once adopted a rigid vegetarian diet - not meat, no butter, only two meals per day, etc., but it was a failure. It killed many and ruined more, till they had to modify it and live like other people.
These are only samples out of numerous mistakes the Adventists have made; and this they have done with an inspired prophetess right at their head for forty-four years! These simple, undeniable facts alone should be enough to open the eyes of all to see that the Lord has not led them in their work.
Largely, people are drawn into the Seventh-day doctrine through fear, fear of being damned if they refuse. Once in, they try to feel happy, but very few really are. With a large class, the more intelligent ones, there are so many doubts and fears, such a sensible want of something which they do not find, that they are unhappy. Many of their ministers have gone through the same trials that I have, and scores have left them, as I did, while others have fixed it up and remained with them. Elder White himself had doubts. Mrs. White says of him: "He should make it a rule not to talk unbelief or discouragement." "My husband has cherished this darkness so long by living over the unhappy past, that he has but little power to control his mind when dwelling upon these things." Testimonies, Vol. III, pages 96, 97. Mrs. White herself, as we might expect, is troubled with infidelity. She says: "In the night I have awakened my husband, saying, 'I am afraid that I shall become an infidel.'" Testimonies, Vol. I, page 597. Nearly all their prominent ministers had their time of trial, the same as I did, when they ceased preaching and went at other work, as we have seen.
I will quote a few words from letters received: "I have had many blue times in my experience because of these doubts.... Once I decided that I must follow the convictions of my own judgment in these things; but when the time came the pressure was so strong that I tried to convince myself that I was wrong.... The facts are, I am just miserable.... It seems like a terrible thing to take a course that will cause all the cherished friends of this world to look upon you as one fallen from grace; and here I am, bound with these chains." Another writes: "It seems to me that the views held by Seventh-day Adventists are so burdensome that they will crush me. They are a yoke of bondage which I cannot stand up under. Still I do want to be right." Another minister, D.H. Lamson, writes: "How am I straightened, while the fetters are being forged for most unwilling limbs!... What distress we are in as a people! how miserable! and is there no relief?" And still another talented minister, W.C. Gage, writes me: "Our ministers, and people as well, are growing to be a denomination of hypocrites, by a slavish fear of expressing an honest belief.... I am sick and disheartened.... The basis of confidence is gone, and I shall only await the outcome of the matter." Still another, Uriah Smith, writes: "There is a fear, on the part of the powers that be, of free thought and free discussion. So far as this is the case, it is a shame and disgrace to us." And yet these brethren patch up the matter some way, and go right on as though nothing were wrong. I know how to pity them, for I myself have passed through precisely the same experience. And another writes: "I wish I had never heard the Advent doctrine preached. Previous to that, I know that I did enjoy the blessing of God. I was not troubled about doctrine.... I think I then had some influence for good over others, but I fear my change of faith had a bad influence over my children." Strange to say, these are the very men who now denounce me the worst because I had the courage of my convictions, while they haven't.
These are fair samples of how scores among them feel, from men in leading positions, to the humblest in the church. Largely they keep it to themselves, but occasionally it will out. Many of them almost get out, and then fall back, to linger along in bondage all the rest of their lives. "But if these persons are in such bondage, why not break loose, and be free? Who would harm them? Be it remembered that there is a bondage worse than African slavery - the bondage of religious tyranny and superstition. I was held there for years, and know its power.
Milton F. Gowell, Chicago, gives so true a picture of Advent experience, that I quote him in a letter to me. I was often at his father's house, in Portland, Me.; when he was a boy. He says: "My recollections of those days are full of the terrors of law, prophetic charts, Mrs. White's visions, the Sabbath, Sabbath, Sabbath, health reform, bloomer dresses, and a great zeal for being industrious on Sunday, and little or nothing of Christ. All the DOING was indelibly impressed on my mind as a boy, but the BELIEVING on Christ for salvation, and RESTING in his finished work, I have no remembrance of whatever. How many there are that join the Seventh-day Adventists utterly unsaved, knowing nothing of the grace of God, hearing always barely the law. I joined them at the age of fourteen, under conviction, guilty before God, but unsaved, though I was baptized and received into the church as a SABBATH KEEPER. I received no peace, no rest, till I entered into rest by believing about three and a half years ago; saved from the borderland of infidelity." This is just the impression which all the children of that people are receiving - cold legalism. While this young man was finally saved from infidelity, hundreds of them are not, as I well know.
Prominent Persons Who Have Left the Adventists
It is nothing new for men to leave a party, good or bad; but so large a number of prominent persons have left the Adventists as to excite surprise. It is clear that there must be something wrong in the system itself. First, according to the best of my judgment, from one-third to one-half of all who begin the observance of the Sabbath, sooner or later abandon it.
At different times large numbers have left them, mostly on account of Mrs. White's visions. We will name a few of the ministers who have departed from them: J.B. Cook and T.M. Preble, the pioneers who started the movement, both renounced it; O.R.L. Crozier, Ann Arbor, Mich., has renounced the Sabbath; Elder B.F. Snook, the leading man in Iowa, is now a Universalist; Elder W.H. Brinkerhoof, of Iowa, has renounced the faith; Elder Moses Hull, the ablest speaker they ever had, is now a Spiritualist, and Elder Shortridge, a minister of much talent, has also gone the same way; Elders Hall and Stephenson, at the time very prominent in the work, went to the Age-to-Come party; C.B. Reynolds, of New York, has become a noted blasphemer; Elder H.C. Blanchard, Avilla, Mo., renounced the doctrine; ditto T.J. Butler, of the same state; Elder L.L. Howard, Maine, H.F. Haynes, New Hampshire, left them; Nathan Fuller, Wellsville, N.Y., became a libertine; M.B. Czechowski went to Europe and died in disgrace; H.F. Case, Elder Cranmer and Philip Strong, all of Michigan, left them.
Elder J.B. Frisbie, their pioneer and most efficient preacher for years in Michigan, finally left them. Dr. Lee, of Minnesota, who inaugurated the work among the Swedes, now opposes them. Elder A.B. Oyen, missionary to Europe, and editor of their Danish paper, has renounced the faith. Living right at the head of the work for many years, he had the best of opportunity to know all about its workings. Elder D.B. Oviatt, for many years president of the Pennsylvania Conference, renounced the faith, and is now a Baptist minister.
So Elder Rosquist and Elder Whitelaw, both of Minnesota, have recently left them and gone to the Baptists. Other ministers of the West have also gone over to the Baptists. C.A. Russell, Otsego, Mich., an excellent man, once preached that doctrine with me, but is now a Methodist. H.E. Carver, H.C. Blanchard, J.W. Cassady, A.C. Long, Jacob Brinkerhoof, J.C. Day, H.W. Ball, Goodenough, Bunch, and others, once members of that church, have written against it. Elder Hiram Edson and Elder S.W. Rhodes, noted pioneers in the work, died confirmed cranks, and a trial to the church. The sad example of their leading ministers who have been guilty of adultery, proves that their church has nothing to boast of over other churches in the purity of its ministers and members.
Their College Professors
They have been very unfortunate in their college professors. Professor S.S. Brownsburger, the first Principal of their College at Battle Creek, Mich., which position he occupied for years, and then filled the same position in their college in California, is now wholly disconnected from the work. Elder W.H. Littlejohn, who next stood at the head of the college, was expelled from the church and fell into doubts. Next came Professor A. McLearn as head of the college. He has renounced the faith, and now opposes them strongly. Professor Vesey, a learned teacher in that college, has forsaken the faith. Professor C.C. Ramsy, born in that faith, was professor of mathematics in the Battle Creek college for three years; then filled the same place for three years in their college in California; then was called to take charge of their academy in the East, which he did for three years more. He was editor of their educational journal, prominent in Sabbath School work, and many other ways. He has renounced that faith, but remains an earnest Christian. Others of their teachers of lesser note have also left them. What is the cause of such results? There must be something wrong.
Their Physicians
They have been equally unfortunate with their physicians in their sanitarium at Battle Creek. Dr. H.S. Ley, an excellent man, was the first physician-in- chief. He left the institution in a trial, and was out of work for years. Dr. Wm. Russell, a talented doctor, came next. What he there saw of Adventism made him an infidel, and he was dismissed. Next, I believe, came Dr. M.G. Kellogg. The treatment he received drove him into scepticism for years. Then came Dr. Sprague and Dr. Farfield, both of whom renounced the faith, and, I believe, are sceptical now. Mrs. Lamson and Miss Fellows, both matrons of the sanitarium, lost faith in the doctrine. Dr. Smith, brought up in the faith, renounced it. Here again we see that education unfits men for Adventism. I am not acquainted with another church which has lost so large a proportion of its most prominent men. Every year, nearly, so far, more or less have gone away from them, till they have lost more talent than now remains with them.
It Leads to Infidelity
A strong argument with Adventists is, that most of those who leave them become infidels, as all know. But, after long watching, I became satisfied that it is Adventism which has made them infidels. Look at Romanism. Wherever it has had sway a while, it filled the land with infidels. Go among the Mormons at Salt Lake. Large numbers of their children are becoming infidels. The natural rebound from fanaticism and superstition is into infidelity and scepticism. Right here in Otsego we have several infidels, the grown-up children of Adventists. I know them and meet them all over the country, and their numbers are increasing. I feel sure that the ripe fruit of Adventism in the years to come will be a generation of doubters.
Their Church Backsliding
Seventh-day Adventists claim to be raised up of God, to reform the church of to-day. They claim to be purer, more spiritual, and on a higher plane than other Christians. All other churches are Babylon and apostates, while they are the chosen saints. But now, after their church has had only fifty years trial, and hence is still small and young, and so ought to be better than older and larger churches, I can quote confessions from their own writers, proving that they are as wordly, backslidden and corrupt as they make out other churches to be. I will give a few. Elder G.I. Butler, in the Advent Review, May 10, 1887, says: "A terrible stupor like that which enveloped the disciples in the Saviour's agony in the garden, seems to hang over the mass of our people." Mrs. White, in Testimonies, Vol. I, says: "The Spirit of the Lord has been dying away from the church," page 113; "The churches have nearly lost their spirituality and faith," page 119; "I saw the dreadful fact that God's people were conformed to the world with no distinction, except in name," page 133; "Covetousness, selfishness, love of money, and love of the world, are all through the ranks of Sabbath-keepers," page 140; "Vital godliness is lacking," page 153; "There is but little love for one another. A selfish spirit is manifest. Discouragement has come upon the church," page 166; "Spirituality and devotion are rare," page 469. Many of them are not even honest. She says: "As I saw the spirit of defrauding, of over-reaching, of meanness, even among some professed Sabbath-keepers, I cried out in anguish," page 480; "There is but little praying. In fact, prayer is almost obsolete," page 566; "Not one in twenty of those who have a good standing with Seventh-day Adventists, is living out the self-sacrificing principles of the word of God." page 632. Of the Battle Creek church she says: "I can select family after family of children in this house, every one of whom is as corrupt as hell itself." "Right here in this church corruption is teeming on every hand," Vol. II, pages 360, 361; "Sin and vice exist in Sabbath-keeping families," page 391; "We have a dwarfed and defective ministry," Vol. IV, page 441. In Testimony, No. 33, just published, Mrs. White says: "There is a deplorable lack of spirituality among our people.... There has been a spirit of self- sufficiency, and a disposition to strive for position and supremacy. I have seen that self-glorification was becoming common among Seventh-day Adventists," pages 255, 256. Thus as they grow older, the have to confess to all the weaknesses and short- comings which they have so eagerly charged against other churches.
I could quote whole pages of such confessions as these from Mrs. White and their leading men. They are compelled to say it. It is common in their camp- meetings to see half their members forward as backsliders. Their preaching is largely scolding their members for their coldness. In fact, the thing is a practical failure in whatever way you look at it. Are they any better, any more spiritual, than the regular churches which they denounce so? No, as the above shows. After being well acquainted with both, I say confidently that there is as much devotion and spirituality among the Evangelical churches as among Adventists.
If, then, these things in the other churches prove that they are Babylon, they prove the same of the Advent church, too. (See Appendix A)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter IV - Origin, History and Failures of Adventism (Back to Top)
Every little while, from the days of Christ till now, individuals, and often large sects, have arisen, proclaiming the Second Advent at hand and themselves the God-appointed messengers to warn the world. Right on this point Jesus warned his church: "Take heed that no man deceive you.... The end is not yet." Matt. 24:4-6. Yet right away it was said that Jesus would come before John should die. John 21:23. The Thessalonians had to be corrected by Paul for expecting the Advent immediately at hand. II Thess. 2:1-8.
In the middle of the second century arose the Montanists. The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia says: "Ecstatic visions announcing the approach of the Second Advent of Christ... were set forth as divine revelation." Art. 'Montanism.' Like Seventh-day Adventists, they adopted a severe discipline - condemned the wearing of ornaments, intercourse with the world, etc. They created a great sensation, obtained a numerous following, and flourished for a century or more.
Tenth Century Adventism
The following is from the "History of the Christian Church," by M. Reuter, D.D., Century 10, Chapter 2, pages 202, 203: "Among the numerous opinions, however, which disgraced the Latin church and produced from time to time such violent agitations, none occasioned such universal panic, nor such dreadful impressions of terror or dismay, as a notion that prevailed during this [tenth] century of the immediate approach of the day of judgment." "Public and private buildings were suffered to decay, and were even pulled down, from an opinion that they were no longer of any use, since the dissolution of all things was at hand."
The Fifth-Monarchy men of England, about 1660, "believed that the time was near at hand when, to the four great monarchies of Daniel's prophetic vision, was to succeed the fifth, which was to break in pieces all others, and to 'stand forever.'" Johnson's Encyclopedia, article Fifth-Monarchy Men. They undertook to set up the kingdom by overturning the English government.
The Irvingites of England "declare the speedy coming of Christ;" have "prophets," "revelations," "tongues," "gifts," etc. They have gathered large congregations and are spreading over the world.
Swedenborg, Ann Lee, Joanna Southcott, Joe Smith, etc., all made the speedy advent of Christ the ground-work of their systems, as is well known. Hence, movements of this kind are nothing new.
Seventh-day Adventism originated in the well-known movement of William Miller, who set the time for the end of the world in 1843-44. They claim now that Mr. Miller's move was right, and in the providence of God. They claim to be simply carrying on the same work which he began. In all their books and sermons they point to 1844 as their origin, and endorse the work of the Millerites in 1843 and 1844. The following from Mrs. White will settle the point: "I have seen that the 1843 chart was directed by the hand of the Lord, and that it should not be altered; that his hand was over and hid a mistake in some of the figures." Early Writings, page 64. God helped them make the mistake! "I saw that God was in the proclamation of the time in 1843." Spiritual Gifts, Vol. I., page 133. So God wanted them to set that time! "I saw that they were correct in their reckoning of the prophetic periods; prophetic time closed in 1844." Page 107. Again: "The Advent movement of 1840-44 was a glorious manifestation of the power of God." Great Controversy, Vol. IV., page 429. Elder White says: "We hold that the great movement upon the Second Advent question, which commenced with the writings and public lectures of William Miller, has been, in its leading features, in fulfillment of prophecy. Consistently with this view, we also hold that in the providence of God, Mr. Miller was raised up to do a specific work." Life of Miller, page 6. So it will be seen that Seventh-day Adventists still believe in and defend the Millerite movements of 1843 and 1844. Indeed, they claim that all other churches who did not accept and endorse Miller's work were rejected of God on this account. Thus Mrs. White: "As the churches refused to receive the first angel's message [Miller's work], they rejected the light from heaven and fell from the favor of God." Early Writings, page 101.
Here, then, we have the origin of Seventh-day Adventism, the fountain from which it flowed. As a stream will be like its fountain, let us examine it. Elder and Mrs. White, Elder Bates, Andrews, Rhodes, Holt, Edson, and all the founders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church were in the movement of Miller, and helped in setting and preaching the time in 1843, 1844, and carried the Advent work right on afterwards.
The work of Mr. Miller is so well known, that I need but refer to the facts about it. William Miller was born at Pittsfield, Mass., 1782, but he was reared at Low Hampton, N.Y. He was a farmer, with only the poor advantages of a country school. He united with the Baptist church. About 1831 he claimed that he had discovered by the prophecies the exact time, the very year, and, finally, the very day when Christ would appear and the end of the world would come. He succeeded in converting perhaps fifty thousand people to his views. The first date fixed was 1843. It failed. Then he fixed a day in October, 1844, and that failed. Many other times have since been fixed by Mr. Miller's followers, and all have failed. Over fifty years have come and gone, and the end has not come yet.
What was the one great burden of Miller, the one point on which he differed from the Evangelical churches? All these churches believed in the personal Second Advent of Christ just as strongly as Miller did. They loved Jesus and preached the Second Advent, even teaching that it was near at hand. But the Millerites said they knew the TIME when it was to be, and that time was 1843- 4. They staked all upon this. The issue was plain and definite. All who did not endorse their SET TIME were "opposers," "enemies," "in the dark," "evil servants," rejected of God and lost, just because they would not believe in setting a time for the end. Here are Miller's words: "I believe the time can be known by all who desire to understand.... Between March 21, 1840, and March 21, 1844, according to the Jewish mode of computation of time, Christ will come." Life of Miller, page 172. Jesus says: "Ye know not when the time is." Mark 13:33. But the Millerites thought they knew better than Jesus Christ did. So they condemned all who did not agree with them. Here is a mild sample of what they said and the spirit that possessed them: "This is God's truth; it is as true as the Bible." "There is no possibility of a mistake in this time." "Those who reject this light will be lost." "Those who do not accept this argument are backsliders," etc. History of Advent Message, page 596. And this is the spirit that has followed them ever since - a harsh, denunciatory spirit against all who did not agree with their figures, interpretations and theories.
But their set times came and passed without the least regard to their figures and facts, proofs and demonstrations, prayers and predictions. Remorseless old Time, the true tester of every theory, marched right on and demolished them all. This demonstrated the folly and error of the Adventists. Miller's prediction was a wretched abortion. He preached and propagated a falsehood. He preached that the world would end in 1843, and it didn't. He set 1844 for it to come, and it didn't. If ever a religious movement on earth was demonstrated to be a humbug and a failure, it was Millerism. But if Millerism was a failure, then Seventh-day Adventism is also, for that was the fountain from which this has flowed; that was the foundation on which this is built. Deut. 18:22: "When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken." This, surely, is a simple and fair test. By this rule the Lord was not in Miller's move.
"But were not the Adventists in 1843-4 very confident that they were right?" Confident is no name for it. They were SURE that they were right, they KNEW they were right, for they proved it all by the Bible, every word of it, positively. The Bible said so; to deny it was to deny the Bible. But it failed all the same. It is just so with Seventh-day Adventists now. They are the most positive people in the world, though they have made scores of terrible blunders.
That no one will know the time of the second advent is as plainly taught as words can teach. Read the following: "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only;" "Watch, therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come;" "Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh;" "Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh." Matt. 24:36,42,44; 25:13. "Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is." Mark 13:33. "It is not for you to know the time or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power." Acts 1:7. Jesus said, "Ye know not when the time is;" Miller said, "We know when the time is." Jesus said, "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons;" Miller said, "We know all about them." Jesus said, "No man knows the day;" Miller said, "We know the exact day." Which was right? The disappointments of the Adventists, time and again, during the past fifty years, in setting the date for the end of the world have clearly demonstrated their folly. The whole Advent move was conceived in error, born in a mistake, has grown up in folly, and must die in disgrace. "But were not the Millerites honest?" There is no doubt of it, but that proves nothing as to their correctness.
The Fruit of Millerism
"By their fruits ye shall know them." Millerism, for about four years, in a few states, created a great excitement. Churches were divided and broken up, pastors left their flocks to "lecture" on "time," while argument and strife were the order of the day. As the time set drew near, in thousands of cases, the Adventists not only left their work and their business, but gave away their property. Crops were left ungathered, goods were distributed freely, so that many who had been well to do were left penniless. After the time had passed, these were destitute and their families suffered. Many had to be arrested and put under guardianship, to protect their families. Then the wildest fanaticism broke out here and there, which brought disgrace upon the very name of religion. Many said the Lord had come, probation was ended, it was sin to work, all property must be held in common, all the churches were apostate, Babylon, etc. Some Adventists had spiritual wives, some went to the Shakers, many went back into the churches, some into despair, and hundreds into doubt and infidelity - just what might have been expected. The glorious doctrine of the Second Advent was covered with shame, Satan rejoiced, while the cause of Christ was greatly injured. For proof of these facts, I refer to the testimony of thousands now living, and to the published works of the Adventists themselves. Thus Elder U. Smith is compelled to say: "The Advent Body were a unit [in 1844] and their testimony shook the world. Suddenly their power was broken, their strength paralyzed. They passed the point of their expectation, and realized not their hope. That a mistake had been made somewhere, none could deny. From that point the history of a majority of that once happy, united people has been marked by discord, division, confusion, speculation, new mistakes, fresh disappointments, disintegration and apostasy." The Sanctuary, pages 13, 14.
Paul said, "God is not the author of confusion." I Cor. 14:33. Then surely he was not the author of Adventism, for the confusion it produced is unparalleled in religious history. Ten souls were ruined by it where one was saved. Immediately after 1844 they split up into numerous parties, each contradicting and condemning all the rest. Instead of renouncing the whole thing, as sane men ought to have done, each one set himself to find some "explanation" of their mistake. Hardly any two agreed, while each one was sure he had the true explanation. Their utter confusion is well illustrated by the following anecdote told by Mr. Miller himself: The first person in his own parish who fully embraced his views was an old woman, an humble Christian. Mr. Miller sent her his papers when he had read them. One week he received sixteen different sheets, all purporting to be Advent publications, but the most of them advocating contradictory sentiments. He sent them to the old woman. Soon she sent for him, and on his arrival began: "Have you read all these papers?" "I have looked them over." "But are they all Advent papers?" "They profess to be." "Well, then," said she, "I am no longer an Adventist. I shall take the old Bible and stick to that." "But," said Mr. Miller, "we have no confidence in one-half there is advocated in these papers." "We?" exclaimed the old lady, "who is WE?" "Why," replied Mr. Miller, "WE are those who do not fellowship these things." "Well, but I want to know who WE is." "Why, all of us who stand on the old ground." "But that ain't telling me who WE is. I want to know who WE is." "Well," said Mr. Miller, in relating the story, "I was confounded, and was unable to give her any information who WE were." History of Second Advent Message, pages 414, 415.
And so it has continued unto this day. What do Adventists believe? Go ask what language was spoken by the people after the Lord confused their tongues at Babel. Adventism is a second Bable[sp]. But Seventh-day Adventists say "We are united; we believe alike." Partly true, but they are only one branch of this Advent Babel. Such a brood of errors and heresies as has resulted from Adventism, cannot be found in the history of the church before. Time- setting, visions, miracles, fanatics, false prophets, sleep of the dead, annihilation of the wicked, non-resurrection of the wicked, future probation, restoration, community of goods, denial of the divinity of Christ, no devil, no baptism, no organization, etc., etc. Gracious! And these are the people sent with a "message" to warn the church! They had better go back and learn and agree on what their "message" is, before they run to deliver it.
The other Adventists have set the time for the end of the world in 1843, 1844, 1847, 1850, 1852, 1854, 1855, 1863, 1866, 1867, 1868, 1877, and so on, till one is sick of counting. Learning nothing from the past, each time they are quite as confident as before.
This fanatical work has brought disgrace upon the doctrine of the Second Advent, so that it is not dwelt upon as much as formerly in other churches. The study of the prophecies has been brought into disrepute by the unwise course of the Adventists. No thoughtful man can fail to see this.
Seventh-day Adventists and Time-Setting
It is the one constant boast of the Seventh-day Adventists that THEY never set time; THEY don't believe in it. But they deceive themselves and deceive others when they say so. Elder White, their leader, engaged in preaching three different set times for the Lord to come, viz., 1843, 1844, 1845. here are his own statements on this: "I found myself happy in the faith that Christ would come about the year 1843." Life Incidents, page 72. Then he tells how he preached it. Of 1844, he says: "I stated my conviction that Christ would come on the tenth day of the seventh Jewish month of that year [1844]." Pages 166, 167. "It is well known that many were expecting the Lord to come at the seventh month, 1845. That Christ would then come we firmly believed. A few days before the time passed, I was at Fairhaven and Dartmouth, Mass., with a message on this point of time." 'A Word to the Little Flock,' by James White, page 22. So their leader was a time-setter. Mrs. White, their prophetess, was in the time-setting of 1843 and 1844. She herself says: "We were firm in the belief that the preaching of definite times was of God." Testimonies, Vol. 1, page 56. Of the first date she says: "With carefulness and trembling we approached the time when our Saviour was expected to appear." Then she tells her disappointment. Testimonies, Vol. 1, page 48. Again: "Our hopes now centered on the coming of the Lord in 1844." Page 53. She was a time- setter. Elders Bates, Andrews, Rhodes, and all the first crop of Seventh-day Adventists were in the time-setting of 1843, 1844. They still endorse Miller's time-setting of 1843 and 1844 as right and approved of God. How much truth, then, is there in their assertions that they have never set time? But they say, "WE did not keep the Seventh-day when WE set time; therefore WE never set time!" That is too thin. The thief says, "I did not wear this coat when I stole the sheep, therefore I never stole him!" They say that they have given the THREE messages. Well, the first message was in 1844 when they set time. Are they the same people, or are they not?
Again they endorse Mr. Miller's work as of God. But Miller is responsible for all the time-setting done by the Adventists since his time, because they are the legitimate outgrowth of his work. He began setting time. He did it the second time. He taught them how to do it. He fathered the idea. He inculcated it in all his followers. They then simply took up and carried on what he had begun. Seventh-day Adventists claim to be the original Adventists, and endorse Miller's work. In doing this they endorse time- setting, and should justly bear all the odium of that fanatical business.
But don't Seventh-day Adventists rise to explain why they were disappointed in 1843, and again in 1844, and for forty years since? O, yes; but we naturally become a little suspicious of the man who is compelled to be constantly explaining his conduct. Straight works needs no explanation. They say the Lord caused them to be disappointed in 1843, on purpose to test their faith, that was all! In 1844 they made just one little mistake, that was all! They then taught that the earth was the sanctuary. Come to find out, the sanctuary us up in heaven, and Jesus did really come, in a certain sense, that very year! So they were right, after all. Don't you see? Clear as day. Now they have the whole matter removed from the troublesome facts of earth, where we can test them, to the beautiful theories of heaven, where no one can go to report on facts which might spoil their theories. Now they can speculate and argue in safety. But sober, thinking men see through all this. It is merely a make-shift to get out of a difficulty.
Miller's Confession - He Opposes Seventh-day Adventism
All the other Adventists long ago renounced the 1843-4 time-setting as an error. Thus: "The majority of Adventists took the position that the TIME was an error of human judgment." History of the Second Advent Message, page 383. Hear Mr. Miller himself: "On the passing of my published time, I frankly acknowledged my disappointment.... We expected the personal coming of Christ at that time; and now to contend that we were not mistaken, is dishonest. We should never be ashamed frankly to confess our errors. I have no confidence in any of the new theories that grew out of that movement, namely, that Christ then came as the Bridegroom, that the door of mercy was closed, that there is no salvation for sinners, that the seventh trumpet sounded, OR THAT IT WAS A FULFILLMENT OF PROPHECY IN ANY SENSE." History of the Advent Message, pages 410, 412.
From this we see: 1. That Miller, the founder and leader of that move, owned that it was an error. 2. He repudiated the idea that it was a fulfillment of prophecy in any sense. 3. He especially points out the Seventh-day Advent position as utterly wrong. He knew all about their arguments of the three messages, the sanctuary, the Sabbath, etc., and yet he not only rejected them, but earnestly warned his people against them, so that very few of the original Adventists ever accepted them. Hear Mrs. White herself on this point: "I saw leading men watching William Miller, fearing lest he should embrace the third angel's message and the commandments of God. As he would lean towards the light from heaven, these men would lay some plan to draw his mind away. I saw a human influence exerted to keep his mind in darkness, and to retain his influence among them. At length WILLIAM MILLER RAISED HIS VOICE AGAINST THE LIGHT FROM HEAVEN." Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 1, page 167.
Thus the father and founder of Adventism condemned and opposed the position which Seventh-day Adventists took with regard to his own work. He had sense enough to see, and honesty enough to confess, that it was a mistake. But they will not have it so. They know better than he himself. They will have it that it was a wonderful fulfillment of Rev. 14:6,7. Miller denies it. Thus it will be seen that Seventh-day Adventists give an interpretation to Miller's work which he himself condemned. Not a leading man in Miller's work ever embraced the views of the Seventh-day Adventists, but have always opposed them as fanatical and as a side issue. None of the leaders of Seventh-day Adventism, such as White, Andrews, Bates, Rhodes, etc., were ever of any note in Miller's work, though they were all in it; yet afterwards they claimed to be the only ones who had the right view of it. All the rest were "in the dark," "foolish virgins," "apostates," etc. How modest!
Mistakes of Adventists
A people who have made as many mistakes as Adventists have, ought to be very modest in their claims, and ought to see that they have been led by men and not by the Lord. 1. They set the time for the end of the world in 1843, and failed. 2. They set it again in 1844 and failed. 3. Elder White, the leader of the Seventh-day Adventists, set 1845 for the end, and failed again. 4. They held in 1844 that the earth was the sanctuary, another mistake, as they admit now. 5. They all held for some time after 1844 that probation for sinners was ended - a fearful mistake. See chapter 8 of this book. 6. For ten years Seventh-day Adventists began the Sabbath at 6 P.M., instead of at sunset as now. Thus they broke the Sabbath every week! 7. They kept their children out of school for years, because time was so short they would need no education. Those children now have grand-children! 8. They gave away their goods in 1844, because they would not need them after that! 9. They would not vote, for that was like the fallen churches. Now they vote freely. 10. They held that it was wrong to take a church name, for that was Babylon. Now they have a name. 11. Church organization was wrong, for that was like Babylon. Now they organize. 12. For years they said it was denying their faith to set out trees, for they would never grow to bear fruit. 13. Led by a revelation from Mrs. White, the sisters put on short dress with pants. None of them wear it now. 14. For thirty years they would not take up any collection on the Sabbath. Now they do it every week. 15. For fifty years they have been expecting the end of the world to come inside of five years, and it has not come yet. 16. They said Jesus would come to the earth in 1844. Now they say that was a mistake; he came to judgment in the sanctuary above. Thus: "The Adventists of 1844...thought the bridegroom would come; and THEN HE DID COME - not to this earth, as they incorrectly supposed, but to the MARRIAGE." "They simply mistook the KIND of coming referred to." U. Smith, in Parable of the Ten Virgins, page 13,14. He owns that: 1. They got the time wrong in 1843. 2. The place wrong. 3. The event wrong. Now let him add, 4. The whole thing wrong, and he will be right! 17. Then they said the door was shut, Matt. 25:10; now they say that this was wrong; it is open yet. Thus: "There can be no other place for the shut door but at the autumn of 1844." Elder White, in Present Truth, May 1850. "The door is still open, and other guests may come." U. Smith, in Parable of the Ten Virgins, page 17, February, 1889. These are the people who always KNOW they are just right! 18. They once adopted a rigid vegetarian diet - not meat, no butter, only two meals per day, etc., but it was a failure. It killed many and ruined more, till they had to modify it and live like other people.
These are only samples out of numerous mistakes the Adventists have made; and this they have done with an inspired prophetess right at their head for forty-four years! These simple, undeniable facts alone should be enough to open the eyes of all to see that the Lord has not led them in their work.
Chapter V - My Objections to the Seventh-day Adventist System (Back to Top)
1. It was born in a mistake. The origin of Adventism was in the Millerite time-setting of 1843 and 1844, which all know was a mistake.
2. That work produced great fanaticism, and wrought disaster to thousands of souls.
3. Out of that movement has grown a whole brood of errors, as they themselves will admit.
4. Seventh-day Adventism is a system of popery - one-man power. From the first, Elder White took this position, and molded the whole system to fit it. He would and did rule and dictate in everything in all the field. He would make it hot for one who dared to start anything which he had not bossed. He was head and president of everything. So now a few run everything. Their word is law. It is contrary to the Gospel, and has resulted in the mental degradation of the mass of that people. A few think for all.
5. The mere word of Mrs. White, an uneducated woman, is accepted as the voice of God to them dictating in everything. "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them." Isa. 3:12.
6. From the start, Elder and Mrs. White would take up publicly the faults, real or imaginary, of any one and every one, ministers, editors and all, and expose them before the whole congregation. If any objected, they were "rebels." All this was then printed in her "Testimonies" as inspired, and circulated for all to read. This has begotten in all a habit of criticising and fault-finding, which is reprehensible to the last degree. Any one might have foreseen that it would result in this. Mrs. White herself now says: "There has been a picking at straws. And when there were no real difficulties in the church, trials have been manufactured." Testimonies, Vol. 1, page 144. "Love for one another had disappeared, and a fault-finding, accusing spirit has prevailed. It has been considered a virtue to hunt up everything about one another that looked wrong, and make it appear fully as bad as it really was." Page 164. Mrs. White herself has set the example, and she is largely followed, till they are a denomination of fault-finders.
7. It is a fundamental doctrine with them that all the other churches are apostate and corrupt. Hence they are eagerly on the watch for every evil thing they can pick up against them. This is poor business, and it begets in themselves a hard, unlovely spirit.
8. They are constantly on the watch for all the evidence they can gather, showing that the world is rapidly growing worse. This again has a bad effect on themselves, tending to make them sour and gloomy.
9. Their ministers are mere lecturers, going from place to place, staying only a few weeks at a time, and repeating the same old sermons over and over. As a consequence they became narrow and small and dry. Their preaching is almost wholly doctrinal and argumentative. This makes them hard and combative, instead of tender and charitable.
10. Their churches are very small, generally numbering from fifteen to forty. They have no pastors, and seldom any preaching. Their meetings are held on Saturday, when others are at work, hence not a soul attends except themselves. So their meetings are small and dull and tiresome, especially to youth and children. Never mingling with other churches, they soon fall into a rut and become very dry. The great mass of them are uncultured, and their local leaders are farmers or mechanics. The decorum seen in other churches is generally wanting in theirs. Their children are noisy, and often the members too. This is not good.
11. Their theory compels them to be narrow and uncharitable. They cannot work at all with other Christians in anything. This is another bad feature of that system. They condemn all Christian workers who do not follow them. See how Jesus rebuked that narrow, bigoted spirit: "And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not, for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me; for he that is not against us is on our part." Mark 9:38-40.
12. In a community they have no influence whatever over the irreligious. Not one of them attends their meetings; not a child outside of their own families attends their Sabbath schools. Other churches, by their public meetings, sermons and schools on Sundays, have a mighty influence for good over the unconverted.
13. Their work is largely proselyting. Truly, "they compass sea and land to make one proselyte." They will work just as hard to get a good old Christian out of another church as they will to convert a sinner. They tear down more than they build up.
14. They count all lost who reject their "message." Their missions of which they boast so much are the dread of all other missionaries, as they work as hard to proselyte members from churches as they do to convert raw heathens or sinners. Thus, of their "mission" in London, Elder Haskell says: "Thirteen have taken their stand on the Sabbath.... These have come principally from the Church of England." Review, April 10, 1888. Yes, their converts are always "principally" from other churches. I became sick of such work.
15. By their arguments they confuse the minds of many, so that they know not what to believe. They set them against other churches, and so they drift away from all and are entirely lost. Adventists have done a large amount of this work, and their influence in that line is fearful.
16. Many of their children grow up to keep neither Saturday nor Sunday, nor to attend any church, and hence they become irreligious.
17. Sunday-breakers who hunt, fish, sport or work that day, are encouraged in it by the arguments and examples of the Adventists. This certainly is evil. A community where Sabbatarians live has no quiet rest-day at all.
18. The power of God does not attend the Advent work as it should, if it is His special work. During my long experience with them, I was impressed with the fact that, as a rule, the work was exceedingly dry and powerless. This disheartened me greatly. I saw that it was so with all their ministers, from large to small. Their year book for 1888 shows that they did not average one convert to each minister!
19. In fields where they have been the longest and are best known, they have the least success. As soon as it is well understood what it really is, they can do nothing.
20. The apostles, the reformers, and others whom God has sent, have built up large societies, and wielded a great influence for good in society. But the Adventists never do. They have no influence for good on society. This feature of the work often troubled me. Notice how the heretical and fanatical sects generally withdraw themselves from community, and build up a little exclusive society by themselves. See the Shakers, the Mormons, the Oneida Community, the followers of Mrs. Southcott, etc. Seventh-day Adventists become a little exclusive party in any community where they are. They go by themselves, and take part in almost nothing which interests others. Take my own town as an example. They have had a church here for thirty years, numbering from fifty to seventy-five. They take no part nor interest in any social, literary, moral, sanitary, temperance or religious work outside of their own. They are never thought of as helpers in any such necessary and noble work. They never attend a prayer meeting, a revival effort, or a Sabbath School except their own. The Young Men's Christian Association, which is wholly unsectarian, is doing a noble work to save the young men of the place. Not one Adventist attends or takes interest in it. On the contrary, the Adventist store is open for trade, and thus becomes a resort for idlers and Sunday breakers. In whatever way considered, their influence is detrimental to the best interests of religion and good society.
How different it was with the followers of the true reformers, Luther, Wesley, Calvin, etc. They stood with the people, worked for them, and made society generally better.
The moment a person becomes a thoroughly converted Seventh-day Adventist, he is spoiled for any further usefulness in society. This is their record everywhere, as all will testify who know them. To convert men to their doctrine is the all-absorbing passion of their lives, leaving them neither interest, time nor means for anything else.
21. I came to see that the great burden of Adventists was about merely speculative theories concerning which they cannot KNOW positively that they are correct after all. Such are their theories about the sleep of the dead, destruction of the wicked, the sanctuary in heaven, the time when Jesus will come, their interpretation of the image beast of Rev. 13:11-18, the mark of the beast, etc. Do they KNOW that they are right about these? No, they think they are, and others equally honest, pious and intelligent, think differently. I came to feel that it was foolish for me to spend my life over what after all I did not know was really so. But we do know that it is right to evangelize the heathen and the vicious of our cities, to save the drunken and fallen, to preach Christ and convert sinners, and to work for everything that will improve the condition of men and society NOW. But with Adventists these things are secondary or neglected entirely, while they constantly put their pet theories first and dwell upon them most of the time.
22. All in their system that has been a blessing to them is held also by all evangelical churches, such as faith in God, in Jesus and the Bible, a pure heart, holy life, self-denial, etc. Nothing good has come to them or to the world by those doctrines which are peculiar to Adventist, as the TIME of the advent, the condition of the dead, the Sabbath, the visions, etc.
23. Having been disappointed so many times and so long, taking so gloomy a view of things generally, they are as a class a very discouraged and unhappy set of people.
24. It is "another gospel," Gal. 1:6, which the apostles never preached. I was long impressed with the fact that we Adventists preached very differently from the apostles. For instance, we were always preaching and writing about the Sabbath, while Paul in all his fourteen epistles mentions it but ONCE, Col. 2:16, and then only to condemn it! "We find in the New Testament 'preach the gospel,' fifty times; 'preach Christ,' twenty-three times; 'preach the word,' seventeen times; 'preach the kingdom,' eight times; 'preach the law,' or 'the Sabbath,' not once!" Warner.
25. They are unpatriotic. Not a soul of them, man or woman, in field or hospital, lifted a finger to aid in putting down the rebellion or slavery. They staid [sp] at home and found fault. See Mrs. White's Testimonies, Vol. 1, pages 253-268. If a man had gone to war he would have been expelled from the church, for Mrs. White forbade it. Hear her: "I was shown that God's people, who are his peculiar treasure, cannot engage in this perplexing war, for it is opposed to every principle of their faith." Testimonies, Vol. 1, page 361. They hold that our nation is "the beast" of Rev. 13:11-18, which will soon become a tyranny. Mrs. White says: "The nation will be on the side of the great rebel leader," the Devil. Testimony No. 31, page 132. So they all feel.
26. Their false ideas of Sunday leads them to join with infidels, atheists, Jews, saloon-keepers and the irreligious generally in opposing any restriction on Sunday desecration. It is one of the anomalies of the age to see a Christian church unite with the worst elements of society and the enemies of Christ, to oppose the best interests of society and the sacrificing work of the most devout and intelligent of the land. What is a religion good for, anyway, which spoils a person for all practical usefulness in society? What does it mean to "love your neighbor"?
The Adventists and the Prophecies
The Adventists claim great light above all others on the prophecies. The old women and the little children among them confidently believe that they know more about the prophecies than all the commentators and scholars in the world. They can tell exactly what every horn, and wing, head and tail, trumpet and vial, beast or angel in all the prophecies means! Any possibility of mistake? Not the slightest. And yet probably no people ever made as many mistakes in the same length of time as Adventists have.
Consider how little critical knowledge of exact historical dates and facts common people really possess. The great mass of intelligent business men, farmers, mechanics, mothers and housekeepers, would be poor judges in such matters. Most of them know nothing about it. They could not intelligently dispute any statement a lecturer might make on such points. These Advent preachers go before such an audience night after night for six or eight weeks, with their positive statements boldly made and often repeated, till their deluded hearers think them to be the most wonderful historians, and accept their statements as undoubted truths! So of their Bible readers, who go from house to house to expound the deep things of God. I know them well, have taught many of them, and have been in their training schools. Many of them could not get a third grade certificate, nor have they ever read a volume of history. They simply learn by rote, parrot-like a lesson which they repeat glibly to the astonished farmer or unread mother. Get them off this track and they are dumb. They are like those whom Paul rebuked, "Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say nor whereof they affirm." 1 Tim. 1:7. This fits them exactly.
1. It was born in a mistake. The origin of Adventism was in the Millerite time-setting of 1843 and 1844, which all know was a mistake.
2. That work produced great fanaticism, and wrought disaster to thousands of souls.
3. Out of that movement has grown a whole brood of errors, as they themselves will admit.
4. Seventh-day Adventism is a system of popery - one-man power. From the first, Elder White took this position, and molded the whole system to fit it. He would and did rule and dictate in everything in all the field. He would make it hot for one who dared to start anything which he had not bossed. He was head and president of everything. So now a few run everything. Their word is law. It is contrary to the Gospel, and has resulted in the mental degradation of the mass of that people. A few think for all.
5. The mere word of Mrs. White, an uneducated woman, is accepted as the voice of God to them dictating in everything. "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them." Isa. 3:12.
6. From the start, Elder and Mrs. White would take up publicly the faults, real or imaginary, of any one and every one, ministers, editors and all, and expose them before the whole congregation. If any objected, they were "rebels." All this was then printed in her "Testimonies" as inspired, and circulated for all to read. This has begotten in all a habit of criticising and fault-finding, which is reprehensible to the last degree. Any one might have foreseen that it would result in this. Mrs. White herself now says: "There has been a picking at straws. And when there were no real difficulties in the church, trials have been manufactured." Testimonies, Vol. 1, page 144. "Love for one another had disappeared, and a fault-finding, accusing spirit has prevailed. It has been considered a virtue to hunt up everything about one another that looked wrong, and make it appear fully as bad as it really was." Page 164. Mrs. White herself has set the example, and she is largely followed, till they are a denomination of fault-finders.
7. It is a fundamental doctrine with them that all the other churches are apostate and corrupt. Hence they are eagerly on the watch for every evil thing they can pick up against them. This is poor business, and it begets in themselves a hard, unlovely spirit.
8. They are constantly on the watch for all the evidence they can gather, showing that the world is rapidly growing worse. This again has a bad effect on themselves, tending to make them sour and gloomy.
9. Their ministers are mere lecturers, going from place to place, staying only a few weeks at a time, and repeating the same old sermons over and over. As a consequence they became narrow and small and dry. Their preaching is almost wholly doctrinal and argumentative. This makes them hard and combative, instead of tender and charitable.
10. Their churches are very small, generally numbering from fifteen to forty. They have no pastors, and seldom any preaching. Their meetings are held on Saturday, when others are at work, hence not a soul attends except themselves. So their meetings are small and dull and tiresome, especially to youth and children. Never mingling with other churches, they soon fall into a rut and become very dry. The great mass of them are uncultured, and their local leaders are farmers or mechanics. The decorum seen in other churches is generally wanting in theirs. Their children are noisy, and often the members too. This is not good.
11. Their theory compels them to be narrow and uncharitable. They cannot work at all with other Christians in anything. This is another bad feature of that system. They condemn all Christian workers who do not follow them. See how Jesus rebuked that narrow, bigoted spirit: "And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not, for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me; for he that is not against us is on our part." Mark 9:38-40.
12. In a community they have no influence whatever over the irreligious. Not one of them attends their meetings; not a child outside of their own families attends their Sabbath schools. Other churches, by their public meetings, sermons and schools on Sundays, have a mighty influence for good over the unconverted.
13. Their work is largely proselyting. Truly, "they compass sea and land to make one proselyte." They will work just as hard to get a good old Christian out of another church as they will to convert a sinner. They tear down more than they build up.
14. They count all lost who reject their "message." Their missions of which they boast so much are the dread of all other missionaries, as they work as hard to proselyte members from churches as they do to convert raw heathens or sinners. Thus, of their "mission" in London, Elder Haskell says: "Thirteen have taken their stand on the Sabbath.... These have come principally from the Church of England." Review, April 10, 1888. Yes, their converts are always "principally" from other churches. I became sick of such work.
15. By their arguments they confuse the minds of many, so that they know not what to believe. They set them against other churches, and so they drift away from all and are entirely lost. Adventists have done a large amount of this work, and their influence in that line is fearful.
16. Many of their children grow up to keep neither Saturday nor Sunday, nor to attend any church, and hence they become irreligious.
17. Sunday-breakers who hunt, fish, sport or work that day, are encouraged in it by the arguments and examples of the Adventists. This certainly is evil. A community where Sabbatarians live has no quiet rest-day at all.
18. The power of God does not attend the Advent work as it should, if it is His special work. During my long experience with them, I was impressed with the fact that, as a rule, the work was exceedingly dry and powerless. This disheartened me greatly. I saw that it was so with all their ministers, from large to small. Their year book for 1888 shows that they did not average one convert to each minister!
19. In fields where they have been the longest and are best known, they have the least success. As soon as it is well understood what it really is, they can do nothing.
20. The apostles, the reformers, and others whom God has sent, have built up large societies, and wielded a great influence for good in society. But the Adventists never do. They have no influence for good on society. This feature of the work often troubled me. Notice how the heretical and fanatical sects generally withdraw themselves from community, and build up a little exclusive society by themselves. See the Shakers, the Mormons, the Oneida Community, the followers of Mrs. Southcott, etc. Seventh-day Adventists become a little exclusive party in any community where they are. They go by themselves, and take part in almost nothing which interests others. Take my own town as an example. They have had a church here for thirty years, numbering from fifty to seventy-five. They take no part nor interest in any social, literary, moral, sanitary, temperance or religious work outside of their own. They are never thought of as helpers in any such necessary and noble work. They never attend a prayer meeting, a revival effort, or a Sabbath School except their own. The Young Men's Christian Association, which is wholly unsectarian, is doing a noble work to save the young men of the place. Not one Adventist attends or takes interest in it. On the contrary, the Adventist store is open for trade, and thus becomes a resort for idlers and Sunday breakers. In whatever way considered, their influence is detrimental to the best interests of religion and good society.
How different it was with the followers of the true reformers, Luther, Wesley, Calvin, etc. They stood with the people, worked for them, and made society generally better.
The moment a person becomes a thoroughly converted Seventh-day Adventist, he is spoiled for any further usefulness in society. This is their record everywhere, as all will testify who know them. To convert men to their doctrine is the all-absorbing passion of their lives, leaving them neither interest, time nor means for anything else.
21. I came to see that the great burden of Adventists was about merely speculative theories concerning which they cannot KNOW positively that they are correct after all. Such are their theories about the sleep of the dead, destruction of the wicked, the sanctuary in heaven, the time when Jesus will come, their interpretation of the image beast of Rev. 13:11-18, the mark of the beast, etc. Do they KNOW that they are right about these? No, they think they are, and others equally honest, pious and intelligent, think differently. I came to feel that it was foolish for me to spend my life over what after all I did not know was really so. But we do know that it is right to evangelize the heathen and the vicious of our cities, to save the drunken and fallen, to preach Christ and convert sinners, and to work for everything that will improve the condition of men and society NOW. But with Adventists these things are secondary or neglected entirely, while they constantly put their pet theories first and dwell upon them most of the time.
22. All in their system that has been a blessing to them is held also by all evangelical churches, such as faith in God, in Jesus and the Bible, a pure heart, holy life, self-denial, etc. Nothing good has come to them or to the world by those doctrines which are peculiar to Adventist, as the TIME of the advent, the condition of the dead, the Sabbath, the visions, etc.
23. Having been disappointed so many times and so long, taking so gloomy a view of things generally, they are as a class a very discouraged and unhappy set of people.
24. It is "another gospel," Gal. 1:6, which the apostles never preached. I was long impressed with the fact that we Adventists preached very differently from the apostles. For instance, we were always preaching and writing about the Sabbath, while Paul in all his fourteen epistles mentions it but ONCE, Col. 2:16, and then only to condemn it! "We find in the New Testament 'preach the gospel,' fifty times; 'preach Christ,' twenty-three times; 'preach the word,' seventeen times; 'preach the kingdom,' eight times; 'preach the law,' or 'the Sabbath,' not once!" Warner.
25. They are unpatriotic. Not a soul of them, man or woman, in field or hospital, lifted a finger to aid in putting down the rebellion or slavery. They staid [sp] at home and found fault. See Mrs. White's Testimonies, Vol. 1, pages 253-268. If a man had gone to war he would have been expelled from the church, for Mrs. White forbade it. Hear her: "I was shown that God's people, who are his peculiar treasure, cannot engage in this perplexing war, for it is opposed to every principle of their faith." Testimonies, Vol. 1, page 361. They hold that our nation is "the beast" of Rev. 13:11-18, which will soon become a tyranny. Mrs. White says: "The nation will be on the side of the great rebel leader," the Devil. Testimony No. 31, page 132. So they all feel.
26. Their false ideas of Sunday leads them to join with infidels, atheists, Jews, saloon-keepers and the irreligious generally in opposing any restriction on Sunday desecration. It is one of the anomalies of the age to see a Christian church unite with the worst elements of society and the enemies of Christ, to oppose the best interests of society and the sacrificing work of the most devout and intelligent of the land. What is a religion good for, anyway, which spoils a person for all practical usefulness in society? What does it mean to "love your neighbor"?
The Adventists and the Prophecies
The Adventists claim great light above all others on the prophecies. The old women and the little children among them confidently believe that they know more about the prophecies than all the commentators and scholars in the world. They can tell exactly what every horn, and wing, head and tail, trumpet and vial, beast or angel in all the prophecies means! Any possibility of mistake? Not the slightest. And yet probably no people ever made as many mistakes in the same length of time as Adventists have.
Consider how little critical knowledge of exact historical dates and facts common people really possess. The great mass of intelligent business men, farmers, mechanics, mothers and housekeepers, would be poor judges in such matters. Most of them know nothing about it. They could not intelligently dispute any statement a lecturer might make on such points. These Advent preachers go before such an audience night after night for six or eight weeks, with their positive statements boldly made and often repeated, till their deluded hearers think them to be the most wonderful historians, and accept their statements as undoubted truths! So of their Bible readers, who go from house to house to expound the deep things of God. I know them well, have taught many of them, and have been in their training schools. Many of them could not get a third grade certificate, nor have they ever read a volume of history. They simply learn by rote, parrot-like a lesson which they repeat glibly to the astonished farmer or unread mother. Get them off this track and they are dumb. They are like those whom Paul rebuked, "Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say nor whereof they affirm." 1 Tim. 1:7. This fits them exactly.
Chapter VIII - Mrs. White and her Revelations (Back to Top)
Seventh-day Adventists regard Mrs. White as a prophetess and her writings as inspired. They make long arguments from the Bible to prove that there should be gifts, miracles and prophets in the church. But these are the same arguments used by the Mormons, Shakers, etc., in favor of their churches. They do not touch the case. The question is not, CAN the Lord inspire men and women? but, HAS he so inspired Mrs. White? The New Testament repeatedly warns us against accepting false prophets. "Beware of false prophets," Matt. 7:15. "There shall arise false Christ's and false prophets," Matt. 24:24. "Believe not every spirit...Many false prophets are gone out into the world." 1John 4:1.
In every generation many have arisen claiming to be prophets. All have found followers more or less. All they have to do is to firmly believe in themselves and make extravagant claims and they will soon have followers. Let us notice a few prominent ones near our own times.
1. Swedenborg
He was born in Stockholm, Sweden, 1688, and died in 1772. His father was a nobleman of high standing. Hence Swedenborg was highly educated and moved in the highest society. He traveled extensively, and conversed with the most learned men of the age. The king appointed him to a high office, which he filled with great acceptance for over thirty years. He rose to eminence in science and wrote seventy-seven books, covering every branch of science. He was of the purest character and devoutly religious.
Swedenborg's Rules of Life
1. Often to read and meditate on the Word of God.
2. To submit in everything to the will of Divine Providence.
3. To observe in everything a propriety of behavior, and to keep the conscience clear.
4. To discharge with fidelity the functions of my employment, and the duties of my office, and to render myself in all things useful to society.
Not a stain rests upon his moral character.
At the age of fifty-five he began to have visions of heaven, hell, angels, and the spiritual world. He says: "I have been called to a holy office by the Lord himself, who most mercifully appeared to me, his servant, in the year 1743, when he opened my sight into the spiritual world and enabled me to converse with spirits and angels." Exactly like Mrs. White claims. This work he continued for thirty years, and wrote about thirty inspired volumes. He made most remarkable predictions, which were exactly fulfilled, it is claimed.
He founded a new religion based upon his revelations. The Bible is sacredly taught and holy living enjoined.
This church has steadily increased, till it has societies in all parts of the world and in the leading languages. They publish three weeklies, five monthly journals, and one quarterly, besides many books. He got the start of Mrs. White just one hundred years. His followers believe in him just as implicitly as hers do in her, and are very zealous in propagating their faith. In many respects both moves are much alike. The above is condensed from Schaff-Herzog's Encyclopedia.
2. Ann Lee and the Shakers
These are so well known in America that I need say but little about them. Ann Lee, their leader, was born in England, in 1736; died 1784. Like Mrs. White, "she received no education." She joined a society who were having remarkable religious exercises, and soon began "to have visions and make revelations," which, just like Mrs. White, she called "testimonies." "Henceforth she claimed to be directed by revelations and visions." Schaff- Herzog Encyclopedia, article "Ann Lee." She was accepted as leader and as "the second appearing of Christ." Like Mrs. White, she required a "peculiar kind of dress," "opposed war and the use of pork." Johnson's Encyclopedia, article "Shakers." They have no intercourse with other churches; are renowned for their purity and devotion. They number about 8,000. A careful comparison shows many points of similarity between Mrs. Lee and Mrs. White. The main evidence upon which Adventists rely for proof of Mrs. White's inspiration is the purity of her life and the high moral and religious tone of her writings. They say her revelations must either be of God or Satan. If of Satan they would not teach such purity and holiness. The same reasoning will prove Mrs. Lee also a true prophetess, for she exceeds Mrs. White in this line, so that "Shaker" has become a synonym for honesty. Adventists, please note this point.
3. Mrs. Joanna Southcott
She was born in England in 1750, of poor parents, and was wholly uneducated. She worked as a domestic servant till over forty years of age. She joined the Methodists in 1790. In 1792 she announced herself as a prophetess, and "published numerous [over sixty] pamphlets setting forth her revelations." Johnson's Encyclopedia, article "Southcott." She had trances the same as Mrs. White does, and announced the speedy advent of Christ. See Encyclopedia Americana, article "Southcott." She carried on a lucrative trade in the sale of her books as Mrs. White does. Strange as it may appear, many learned ministers believed in her, and thousands joined her followers, till in a few years they numbered upwards of one hundred thousand! She made many predictions, which her followers claimed were fulfilled. "The faith of her followers, among whom were several clergymen of the established church, rose to enthusiasm." Encyclopedia Americana, article "Southcott."
She "regarded herself as the bride of the Lamb, and declared herself, when sixty-four years of age, pregnant with the true Messiah, the 'second Shilo,' whom she would bear Oct. 19, 1814... Joanna dies in her self delusion Dec. 27, 1814; but her followers, who at one time numbered a hundred thousand, continued till 1831 to observe the Jewish Sabbath." Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia. "A post mortem examination showed that she had been suffering from dropsy [edema]." Johnson's Cyclopedia. "Death put an end to both her hopes and her fears. With her followers, however, it was otherwise; and, though for a time confounded by her decease, which they could scarcely believe to be real, her speedy resurrection was confidently anticipated. In this persuasion many lived and died, nor is her sect yet extinct." Encyclopedia Americana, article "Southcott."
Let candid people consider these facts. This movement occurring only thirty years before Mrs. White's work, was in several respects like the present Seventh-day Adventist move. An illiterate woman is the leader. She has visions, writes numerous pamphlets and revelations and predicts the speedy advent of Christ. Her honesty is plainly manifested; her enthusiasm and that of her followers is great. In a short period one hundred thousand accept her "testimonies." The present Seventh-day Adventist move is similar in many respects as has already been seen above.
And here notice the terrible tenacity of fanaticism when once started. When Joanna died we would have supposed that all sane persons would have given it up; but they fix it up some way and go right on, and there they are now. So with the followers of Mrs. White. No matter what blunders or failures she makes, they fix them up some way and go right on. They will do it after she is dead and gone.
4. Joseph Smith and the Mormons
This prophet and his visions and revelations are so well known that I mention them briefly. Smith was born in 1805, and died in 1844, the year before Mrs. White began her revelations. He came out in a great religious awakening, as Mrs. White did in the Advent move of 1843-4. In 1823 he also began to have "visions" and "revelations" and see angels. The second advent of Christ was at hand, he said, hence the name, "Latter day saints." His mission was to introduce "the new dispensation." They are the "saints," and all the other churches are "heathen," or Gentiles. Mrs. White's followers are all saints; all other churches are "Babylon" and apostate.
The proof of their inspiration outstrips Mrs. White. They work many miracles, as they strongly assert, have the gift of tongues, and can show many predictions strikingly fulfilled. I have met them frequently, seen Smith's son, and know them well. They also have a new Bible, a new revelation, have started a new sect, and will have nothing to do with others, but proselyte from all.
The Mormons began in 1831, about fifteen years before Seventh-day Adventists did; but they number six hundred thousand, more than five times as many as Adventists. Adventists claim that they must be the true church because they are persecuted; but Mormons have been persecuted a thousand fold more. Smith and others were killed; many have been whipped, tarred and feathered, rotten- egged, stoned, mobbed, run out of town, and outlawed. So they must be the true church? Seventh-day Adventists have suffered no persecution. Not one of them has ever been whipped, or stoned, or egged, or tarred and feathered, or mobbed, or killed. Persecution! They have no idea what it is and never will though they are anxious to pose as great martyrs.
The Visions and their Guide
Mrs. E.G. White, wife of the late Elder White, leader of the Seventh-day Adventists, claims to be divinely inspired as were the prophets of the Bible. This claim is accepted by the whole denomination. They defend her inspiration as earnestly as they do that of the Bible. Year after year, in their State and General Conferences, ironclad resolutions have been unanimously adopted, endorsing her revelations in the strongest manner.
Time and again I have seen these resolutions adopted by a rising vote of the whole congregation, myself with them. "The visions of Mrs. E.G. White, a manifestation of spiritual Gifts according to the Scriptures," is a book of 144 pages published by them defending her inspiration.
They point to her and her visions as the sign and proof that they are the only true church. Rev. 12:17. Hence it can be seen that this is a vital subject with them.
In my debate with the Adventists at Healdsburg, Cal., Feb. 21-28, 1889, they affirmed this proposition: "The visions of Mrs. E.G. White are revelations from God." Her writings are called "Testimonies." In Testimony No. 33, just published, she makes this claim for her writings: "In ancient times God spoke to men by the mouth of prophets and apostles. In these days he speaks to them by the Testimonies of his spirit." Page 189. Again: "It is hardly possible for men to offer a greater insult to God than to despise and reject the instrumentalities [her Testimonies] that he has appointed to lead these." Page 208. Notice that her "Testimonies" are to LEAD God's people now. Of her inspiration Smith says: "It comes to us as a divine message; it is a ray of light from the throne; it is instruction by the Holy Spirit." Replies to Elder Canright, page 77.
In the Advent Review, July 2, 1889, are laid down these, "RULES: 1. We will not neglect the study of the Bible and the Testimonies." This illustrates the place they assign her writings, viz., an appendix to the Bible. She occupies the same relation to her people that Mrs. Southcott did to hers, Ann Lee to the Shakers, and Joe Smith to the Mormons.
Among themselves they quote her as we do Paul. A text from her writings is an end of all controversy in doctrine and discipline. It is common to hear them say that when they give up her visions they will give up the Bible too, and they often do.
Her visions, or "testimonies," as they are called, are so inseparably connected with the whole Seventh-day Adventist doctrine that a person cannot consistently accept the one without accepting the other. Besides, they are so constantly urged upon their people in every possible way, that a person cannot long feel comfortable among them unless he, too accepts them. Any one who rejects or opposes them is branded as a rebel fighting against God. Thus Mrs. White herself says: "If you lessen the confidence of God's people in the testimonies he has sent them, you are rebelling against God as certainly as were Kora, Dathan and Abiram." Testimony No. 31, page 62. She claims that every line she writes, even in a private letter, is directly inspired by God - "the precious rays of light shining from the throne," page 63. Of her own words she says: "It is God, and not an erring mortal, that has spoken." Testimonies, Vol. III, page 257. She states over and over that those who doubt or oppose her are fighting against God, sinning against the Holy Ghost. Thus: "fighting the Spirit of God. Those...who would break down our testimony, I saw, are not fighting against us, but against God," page 260. I could quote scores of passages like these.
These inspired writings now embrace forty bound volumes. Thus they have another Bible, just the same as the Mormons have. They have to read our old Bible in the light of this new Bible. Any interpretation of the Bible found in these "testimonies" settles its meaning beyond further dispute. She says: "I took the precious Bible and surrounded it with several testimonies to the church," Vol. 2, page 605. Exactly; and by the light of these "testimonies" that old Bible must now be read. She continues: "God has, through the testimonies, simplified the great truths already given." Yes, we must now take the Bible as thus simplified by her! Swedenborg, Mrs. Southcott, Ann Lee, Joseph Smith and Mrs. White have each done the same thing - had a new revelation, written inspired books, and started a new sect with a new religion.
There is not a doctrine or a practice of the church, from the observance of the Sabbath to the washing of feet, upon which she has not written. That settles it. No further investigation can be made on any of these matters, only to gather evidence and construe everything to sustain it. How, then, can their ministers or people be free to think and investigate for themselves? They can not, dare not, and do not. How often I have seen some intelligent thought extinguished with this remark: "That contradicts Sister White." This ends the matter. Everything she writes, whether in a private letter or newspaper article, is inspired. Thus: "God was speaking through clay.... In these letters which I write, in the testimonies I bear, I am presenting to you that which the Lord has presented to me. I do not write one article in the paper expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision - the precious rays of light shining from the throne." Testimony No. 31, page 63. There you have it simon pure: every word she writes is a ray of light from the throne of God. Reject that, and you are rejected of God.
Thus it will be seen that Mrs. White claims the very highest inspiration, the voice of God speaking directly through her. Her followers contend that she must either be a true prophetess or else a hypocrite; but she is neither. Few are aware of what a powerful influence an excited religious imagination will have over a person. Enthusiasts and fanatics are generally honest people. Mrs. White is simply a religious enthusiast self-deceived. This I shall prove by stubborn facts.
I long studied Mrs. White to determine for myself her real character till her case is clear to my own mind. Naturally religious, young in years, uneducated, sickly, she was carried away in the Millerite excitement of 1840- 44. Her fits she accepted as the power of God. Encouraged and sustained by her husband, this thought grew to be a reality to her. A careful study of her writings shows that each year she has become a little stronger in her claims of inspiration till now she asserts that all her utterances, even in a letter, or in a sermon, are inspired. She claims that her dreams, her impressions of mind are all the voice of God to her. She devotes 38 pages of her Testimony No. 33 to vindicating her own high inspiration. Probably she has some way of fixing up her mistakes, contradictions and deceptions satisfactory to herself. So now anything she can learn in any way, any impression of mind, any thought clear to herself, is the Spirit speaking to her. I have no doubt that she believes it. She is more deceived than her followers, for many of them privately doubt her inspiration while publicly defending it.
That she is not inspired is plainly shown by many facts. She has never wrought a single miracle. The old prophets and the apostles wrought miracles freely, to prove that God had sent them. In all these seventy years, in all her forty volumes, not a single prediction has she ever made that has come to pass. This is astonishing, considering that she dwells almost wholly in predictions. It seems as though she ought to have blundered into many things which could afterward be construed into a fulfilled prophecy. But not one can be found. This shows how wild and utterly wrong her theories have been.
She says in "Spiritual Gifts," Vol. II, page 293: "I am just as dependent upon the Spirit of the Lord in relating or writing a vision as in having a vision." Here she claims that the very words in which her visions are recorded are of divine inspiration. But I know that the words in her written "testimonies" are not inspired; for -
1. When writing them out she will often change what she has written, and write it very differently. I have seen her scratch out a whole page, or a line, or a sentence, and write it over differently. If God gave her the words, why did she scratch them out and alter them?
2. I have repeatedly seen her sit with pen in hand and read her manuscript to her husband for hours, while he suggested many changes, which she made. She would scratch out her own words and put in his, sometimes whole sentences. Was he inspired, too?
3. As she is ignorant of grammar, of late years she has employed an accomplished writer to take her manuscript and correct it, improve its wording, polish it up, and put it in popular style, so her books will sell better. Thousands of words, not her own, are thus put in by these other persons, some of whom are not even Christian. Are their words inspired, too?
4. She often copies her subject matter without credit or sign of quotation, from other authors. Indeed her last book, "Great Controversy," which they laud so highly as her greatest work, is largely a compilation from Andrew's History of the Sabbath, History of the Waldenses by Wylie, Life of Miller by White, Thoughts on Revelation by Smith, and other books.
This she pretends was all revealed to her directly from heaven. It is not something she has heard or read or studied out, but it is what God has revealed to her by the Holy Ghost. Stubborn facts show that her claim is utterly false and her book a deception the same as the Book of Mormon, which Smith stole from Spaulding.
The Pastor's Union of Healdsburg, Cal., investigated the matter and published many examples out of hundreds where she had copied her matter directly from other authors without anything to show it was copied. They went through several works and scores of pages finding the same thing all through her book. This proves her guilty of stealing her ideas and matter from other authors and putting them off on her followers as a revelation from God!
5. Passages Suppressed. Several important passages in the first edition of her visions have been suppressed in all later ones as they contradict what Adventists now believe. For thirty years they have chafed under this charge of suppression. They have denied it, made light of it; and finally the pressure was so hard that in 1882, they republished her first visions, claiming to give them all and word for word. They say: "No changes from the original work have been made." Preface to Early Writings, page 4. They also say the work was printed "under the authors own eye and with her full approval." Page 4. They denounce it as a wicked slander to say that anything has been suppressed.
But I have before me the original work entitled, "A Word to the Little Flock," published by Jas. White, 1847; also "The Present Truth," August, 1849, containing her original visions. Comparing the present edition with the original, I find seven different places where from FIVE to THIRTY lines in a place have been cut right out with no sign of omission! The suppressed passages are very damaging to her inspiration. I will give one short one as an illustration. It teaches what they now deny, viz., that no one could be converted after 1844. The suppressed lines are in brackets.
As Originally Published
"I saw that the mysterious signs and wonders, and false reformations would increase and spread. The reformations that were shown me were not reformations from error to truth [but from bad to worse, for those who professed a change of heart had only wrapped about them a religious garb, which covered up the iniquity of a wicked heart. Some appeared to have been really converted, so as to deceive God's people, but if their hearts could be seen they would appear as black as ever]. My accompanying angel bade me to look for the travail of soul for sinners as used to be. I looked, but could not see it, for the time for their salvation is past." Present Truth, page 22, published August, 1849.
As Now Published
"I saw that the mysterious signs and wonders, and false reformations would increase and spread. The reformations that were shown me were not reformations from error to truth. My accompanying angel bade me to look for the travail of soul for sinners as used to be. I looked, but could not see it, for the time for their salvation is past." Page 37, edition of 1882.
Now if they mean to be honest and dare publish these suppressed passages, why don't they? They know very well what they are; Mrs. White knows what they are; yet the book is republished "under her own eye" and all these passages left out when it is states that "no changes from the original work have been made." I have both books before me now and know the statement to be untrue and so do they; yet they keep right on sending it out.
6. In 1885 all her "testimonies" were republished in four volumes, under the eye of her own son and a critical editor. Opening hap-hazard to four different pages in Vol. I., I read and compared them with the original publication which I have. I found an average TWENTY-FOUR CHANGES OF THE WORDS ON EACH PAGE! Her words were thrown out and other words put in and other changes made, in some cases so many that it was difficult to read the two together. At the same rate in the four volumes, there would be 63,720 changes.
Taking, then, the words which were put in by her husband, by her copyist, by her son, by her editors, and those copied from other authors, probably they comprise from one-tenth to one quarter of all her books. Fine inspiration that is! The common reader knows nothing about these damaging facts, but I could not avoid knowing them, for I have been where I saw it myself.
I could fill a volume with proof of her mistakes, for all of her books are full of them. I will select but a few.
THE SHUT DOOR. For several years after 1844, Mrs. White had visions saying that probation ended in that year, that there was no more salvation for sinners. Of course she has to deny this now, but the proof is overwhelmingly against her.
1. Seventh-day Adventists are compelled to admit that for some time after 1844 Adventists did hold that probation was ended. Even Mrs. White admits it. She says: "After the passing of the time of expectation, in 1844, Adventists still believed the Saviour's coming to be very near; they held that...the work of Christ as man's intercessor before God had ceased. Having given the warning of the judgment near, they felt that their work for the world was done, and they lost their burden of soul for the salvation of sinners.... All this confirmed them in the belief that probation had ended, or, as they then expressed it, 'the door of mercy was shut.'" Great Controversy, page 268. This statement of Mrs. White herself is enough to settle the point that the Adventists believed "the door of mercy was shut" in 1844. Notice here that the "shut door" means the end of probation, the close of mercy for sinners.
Mr. Miller for a while advocated the shut door in 1844. He says: "We have done our work in warning sinners and in trying to awake a formal church. God in his providence has SHUT THE DOOR; we can only stir one another up to be patient." Advent Herald, Dec. 11, 1844.
Then in the Voice of Truth, Feb. 19, 1845, he says: "I have not seen a genuine conversion since."
Elder G.I. Butler, in the Review and Herald, March 3, 1885, says: "As the time passed there was a general feeling among all the earnest believers that their work for the world was done." "There can be no question that for months after the time passed it was the general sentiment that their work of warning the world was over." "Their burden was gone, and they thought their work was done." Yes; that is just what they did believe, probation was ended.
2. I have conversed with several individuals who affirm positively that they heard her teach this repeatedly. There are many now living who will swear that they heard her teach it.
3. Written testimony. John Megquier, Saco, Me., a man noted for his integrity, writes: "We well know the course of Ellen G. White, the visionist, while in the state of Maine. About the first visions she had were at my house in Poland. She said that God had told her in vision that the door of mercy had closed, and there was no more chance for the world." The True Sabbath, by Miles Grant, page 70. Mrs. L.S. Burdick, San Francisco, California, was well acquainted with Mrs. White. She writes: "I became acquainted with James White and Ellen Harmon (now Mrs. White) early in 1845. At the time of my first acquaintance with them they were in wild fanaticism, used to sit on the floor instead of chairs, and creep around the floor like little children. Such freaks were considered a mark of humility. They were not married, but traveling together. Ellen was having what was called visions; said God had shown her in vision that Jesus Christ arose on the tenth day of the seventh month, 1844, and shut the door of mercy; had left forever the mediatorial throne; the whole world was doomed and lost and there never could be another sinner saved." L.S. Burdick, "True Sabbath," page 72. O.R.L. Crosier kept the Sabbath with them in 1848. He writes: "Ann Arbor, Mich., Dec. 1, 1887. Yes, I KNOW that Ellen G. Harmon, now Mrs. White, held the shut door theory at that date." Then he gives the proof. These persons knew the facts and have put their testimony on record.
4. The Present Truth. James White, editor, Oswego, N.Y., May, 1850, has an article by the editor on the "Sanctuary, 2300 Days, and the Shut Door." Elder White says: "At that point of time [1844] the midnight cry was given, the work for the world was closed up, and Jesus passed into the Most Holy place.... When we came up to that point of time, all our sympathy, burden and prayers for sinners ceased, and the unanimous feeling and testimony was that our work for the world was finished forever.... He [Jesus] is still merciful to his saints, and ever will be; and Jesus is still THEIR advocate and priest; but the sinner, to whom Jesus had stretched out his arms all the day long, and who had rejected the offers of salvation, was LEFT WITHOUT AN ADVOCATE when Jesus passed from the holy place and shut that door in 1844." Any honest man can see that the shut door meant no salvation for sinners, and this is what Elder White taught in 1850. In a report of labor in the Advent Review, May 15, 1850, Elder White, in noticing the death of a sister Hastings, says: "She embraced the Sabbath in 1846, and has ever believed that the work of warning the world closed in 1844."
Again: "Many will point us to one who is said to be converted, for positive proof that the door is not shut, thus yielding the word of God for the feelings of an individual." Present Truth, Dec. 1849. This shows that they held to the shut door idea for years after 1844. What a fanatical and abominable doctrine that was for Christians to teach! Mrs. White was right with them and in full harmony with them on this all these years. She had revelations almost daily. If they were of God, why did she not correct them in this fearful error? Even if she had said nothing confirming this delusion, yet the simple fact that she had no revelation contradicting it all during these years, is enough to destroy her claim to inspiration. But the fact is, she taught this error as strongly in her visions as the brethren did in their arguments.
Here are her own words: "March 24, 1849.... I was shown that the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ, relating to the shut door, could not be separated.... I saw that the mysterious signs and wonders, and false reformations would increase and spread. The reformations that were shown me were not reformations from error to truth but from bad to worse, for those who professed a change of heart had only wrapped about them a religious garb, which covered up the iniquity of a wicked heart. Some appeared to have been really converted, so as to deceive God's people, but if their hearts could be seen they would appear as black as ever. My accompanying angel bade me to look for the travail of soul for sinners as used to be. I looked, but could not see it, for the time for their salvation is past." Present Truth, pages 21-22, published August, 1849.
Here you have the shut door and no mercy for sinners just as clear as language can make it. Every candid reader knows what it teaches. It is pitiable to see the shifts and turns, evasions, dodges, quibbles, if not something worse, resorted to on this passage to save Mrs. White's visions. But there it stands, to mock at all their efforts. Here is another passage teaching the same doctrine: "it was just as impossible for them to get on the path again and go to the city, as all the wicked world which God had rejected." 'A Word to the Little Flock,' page 14, published in 1847. At this time, then, God had rejected the wicked world - shut door, you see.
Here is another vision in which she teaches the doctrine of the shut door in its very worst form, that is that after 1844 not one ray of light comes from Jesus to the wicked but they are all turned over to the devil to whom they now pray instead of to God. After Jesus left the holy place she says: "I did not see one ray of light pass from Jesus to the careless multitude after he arose and they were left in perfect darkness.... Satan appeared to be by the throne trying to carry on the work of God. I saw them look up to the throne and pray, Father give us thy spirit; then Satan would breathe upon them an unholy influence." Early Writings, pages 46-47. Not one ray of light comes to sinners since 1844 but all are left to the Devil! What is the use of their denying that she taught this doctrine? She certainly did and she knows it. This fact and the bold denial of it now, brand her as a false teacher.
I will briefly notice some other mistakes she had made, enough to show that she is wholly unreliable.
1. For over forty years she, herself, has been constantly expecting the end of the world, and it has not come yet. This alone ought to open the eyes of all to see that she has no knowledge of the future.
2. Slaves. In 1849 she foretold what would happen when Jesus comes, and said: "I saw the pious slave rise in triumph and victory and shake off the chains that bound him, while his wicked master was in confusion." Early Writings, page 28. But now there are no slaves. She had not then dreamed of the abolition of slavery.
3. Nations angry. "The nations are NOW getting angry." Early Writings, page 29. That was thirty-eight years ago. It takes a long time for them to get fighting mad!
4. Another mistake. "Some are looking too far off for the coming of the Lord." Page 49. That was thirty-eight years ago, and no Adventist then looked for time to last ten years.
5. Another blunder. "The time for Jesus to be in the most holy place was nearly finished." Page 49. Jesus went there in 1844. Hence, he had then been there six years. She saw that the time for him to be there was nearly finished, but it has continued sixty years since. A false prediction, as any one can see.
6. A few months only in 1849. "Now time is almost finished, and what we have been [six] years learning, they [new converts] will have to learn in a few months." Page 57. But instead of a few months, they have had sixty years!
7. She broke the Sabbath for eleven years. Though she had vision after vision about the Sabbath, yet for eleven years they all began it at six P.M. instead of at sunset as the law requires. Lev. 23:32. When they found their mistake, she saw it, too, in vision. She says: "I acquired why it has been thus that at this late date we must change." Testimony No. 1, page 13. A poor leader she.
8. Her predictions about the rebellion a failure. "Jan. 4, 1862, I was shown some things in regard to our nation." Testimonies, Vol. I, page 253. All will remember the great anxiety and uncertainty of those days. How would the war end? Specially were her people anxious, as they were non-combatants and liable to the draft. Here was an inspired prophetess right in their midst, having abundant revelations about the length of women's dresses, what people should eat, etc. What relief to all would have been a few short words from heaven about the results of the war. The pressure upon her for light was so great that she had to say something. So she took her pen and scribbled away through thirty-two long pages about the war. At this date it is amusing to read it. This "revelation" alone is enough to show that she knows absolutely nothing of the future. All she wrote was merely a restatement of the popular view of the matter at the time. I shall quote a few sentences as samples. "The system of slavery, which has ruined our nation, is left to live and stir up another rebellion." Was slavery left to stir up another rebellion? Now we know that statement was utterly untrue.
Again: "It seemed impossible to have the war conducted successfully," page 256. Another failure, for it was conducted successfully. All can see that her ideas were just those generally rife at the time. I have long watched and studied her carefully, till I have become satisfied that this is always true of her prophesyings - they are wholly moulded by the sentiment around her at the time. Here is another: "This nation will yet be humbled into the dust," page 259. Was it? No. Again: "When England does declare war, all nations will have an interest of their own to serve, and there will be general war," page 259. Did anything of this kind happen? No; but it is just what all then expected. Once more: "Had our nation remained united, it would have had strength; but divided, it MUST FALL," page 260. How it did fall! "I was shown distress and perplexity and famine in the land," page 260. Just what all expected then; but where was the famine? "It looked to me like an impossibility now for slavery to be done away," page 266. Of course it did, for that was just the way it looked to all others then. But did it look that way to God? That was the question. Was he telling her?
She claims that what she writes is not merely her own ideas but the mind of God himself. Thus: "I do not write one article in the paper expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision." Testimony, No. 31, page 63. This, then, was the way the thing looked to God at that time! Again: "Blood has been poured out like water, and for naught." Testimony for the Church, Vol. I, page 367. Was it for naught, ye brave soldiers? Ye liberated slaves? Ye freed nation? I could give scores of such quotations all through her writings, showing how they have failed always and everywhere.
The Reform Dress
One of the worst blunders Mrs. White ever made, one which plainly showed her fanaticism and that God had nothing to do with her work, was the move she made on dress. First she wrote: "God would not have his people adopt the so-called reform dress," Testimonies, Vol. I, page 421. "If women would wear their dresses so as to clear the filth of the streets an inch or two," it would be in harmony with their faith, page 424. Four years pass, and she again writes: "God would now have his people adopt the reform dress," page 525. "Nine inches as nearly accords my views of the matter as I am able to express it in inches," page 521. Here are two revelations exactly opposite as to the style of dress and the length, an inch or two, then nine inches, from the ground is the length. What occasioned this change in the mind of the Lord? The answer is easy: In the time between the two revelations Mrs. White had spent some time at Dr. Jackson's "Home," Dansville, N.Y. Here a short dress with pants was worn, and she fell in with the idea and soon had a vision requiring its adoption as above. That is the whole of it. But the dress was a shame and a disgrace and an utter failure. Think of a modest woman on the streets with pants on, and her dress cut half way up to the knees! But for eight years Mrs. White pushed that dress with all her power, put it on herself as an example, till most of the sisters put it on. But it created a terrible commotion. Husbands swore, brothers refused to walk with their sisters, men sneered and boys hooted. Some of the sisters argued, some cried, some rebelled, but most submitted. I know, for my own wife wore it for eight years - had to. Finally, Mrs. White quietly dropped it off herself, and now no one wears it. Here they are all living in direct violation of a plain revelation from God! Common sense came out ahead of fanaticism.
If God ever spoke through Mrs. White about anything, he did about the dress, requiring the woman to wear it. I was there and know how she urged it, heard her many times. Her Testimonies at the time were full of it. She said: "I have done my duty; I have bourne my testimony, and those who have heard me and read that which I have written, must now bear the responsibility of receiving or rejecting the light given. If they choose to venture to be forgetful hearers, and not doers of the work, they run their own risk, and will be accountable to God!" Testimonies, Vol. I, page 525. Yet they have all run the risk and laid off the dress, Mrs. White with the rest. How does she get out of it? By all sorts of dodges, by blaming everybody but herself. It has been a great stumbling block to them.
Her Revelations Influenced by Others
Mrs. White originates nothing. In her visions she always sees just what she and her friends at the time happen to believe and be interested in. Her husband and other leading men first accept or study out a theory and talk it till her mind is full of it. Then when she is in her trance that is just what she sees. One who has been all through the Advent work and well knows, says: "The visions have brought out no points of faith held by Seventh-day Adventists."
Mrs. White herself confesses that she is influenced by others in writing her "Testimonies." Thus: pages 138-139. "What appeared in Testimony No. 11, concerning the Health Institute should not have been given until I was able to write out all I had seen in regard to it.... I yielded my judgment to that of others and wrote what appeared in No. 11.... In this I did wrong." Testimonies, Vol. I, page 563. She here "lets the cat out of the bag." She made such a blunder that she was compelled to blame some one else for it and so to tell the truth that she was influenced by others to do it! Fine inspiration.
Elder White was well aware of how she was influenced by others to see and write as they impressed her to do. Hence he was very jealous of having leading men talk anything to her alone opposing his views, for he feared she would then have a revelation favoring them and opposing him as indeed she did towards the last. Thus he wrote: "The pressure has been terribly hard on my poor wife. She has been impressed very much by Elders Butler and Haskell." Again: "I think my wife has been more severe than the Lord really required her to be in some cases. Satan has taken great advantage.... Elders Butler and Haskell have had an influence over her that I hope to see broken. It has nearly ruined her. These men must not be supported by our people to do as they have done." James White, Battle Creek, May 25, 1881. That shows the confidence which her own husband had in her revelations.
The Philosophy of Mrs. White's Visions
The proof is abundant that Mrs. White's visions are merely the result of nervous disease, a complication of hysteria, catalepsy and ecstasy. That she honestly believes in them herself, I do not doubt. I have personally known four other women, all Seventh-day Adventists, who likewise had visions. All were sincere Christians, and fully believed in their own visions. But all were sickly, nervous females, and hysterical. Not being encouraged in them, but opposed by their ministers, they finally gave them up. In every age such cases have been numerous, of whom a few, like Mrs. Southcott, Mrs. Ann Lee and Mrs. White, have become noted for awhile.
Medical books and cyclopedias, under the words "hysteria," "catalepsy" and "ecstasy," give a complete description of Mrs. White's case, as stated by herself and husband. This anyone may see by one day's study. My space will allow me to give but a few points.
1. The sex - a female. "The vast preponderance of hysteria in the female sex has given rise to its name." Raynold's System of Medicine, article, Hysteria. So say all the authorities. This fits Mrs. White, a female.
2. The age. "Hysteria is infinitely more common among females, beginning usually from fifteen to eighteen or twenty years of age." Theory and Practice of Medicine, by Roberts, page 399. "In the female sex, hysteria usually commences at or about the time of puberty, i.e., between twelve and eighteen years of age." Raynold's System of Medicine, article, Hysteria. Here again it exactly fits the case of Mrs. White. She had her first vision at the age of seventeen. See Testimonies, Vol. I, page 62. "Notwithstanding this mode of life, their health does not materially deteriorate." Johnson's Cyclopedia, article, Hysteria. So with Mrs. White. She has gradually improved in health and her visions have as gradually ceased. At first she had visions almost daily, but they have grown less frequent as she grew older and healthier, till after about forty-five years of age, since which time she has not averaged one in five years, and even these are short and light, till now she has ceased entirely to have them. Now read this: "Hysteria generally attacks women from the age of puberty to the decline of the peculiar functions of her sex." Johnson's Cyclopedia, article, Hysteria. Mrs. White's case again, exactly.
3. The cause. Hysteria, catalepsy, epilepsy and ecstasy are all nervous diseases, which sometimes co-exist or alternate or blend together so it is difficult to distinguish them. The causes noted are: "1. Mental disturbance, especially emotional; for example, a sudden fright, prolonged grief or anxiety. 2. Physical influences affecting the brain, as a BLOW OR FALL ON THE HEAD." Theory and Practice of Medicine, by Roberts, page 393. "In ten of my cases the disease was due to reflex causes, which consisted in six cases of injuries to the head." Fundamental Nervous Disease, Putzel, page 66. This is Mrs. White again, exactly. At the age of nine she received a terrible blow on the face, which broke her nose and nearly killed her. She was unconscious for three weeks. See her life in Testimony, Vol. I, pages 9-10. This shock to her nervous system was the real cause of all the visions she afterwards had.
4. Always weakly and sickly. "Most hysterical persons are out of health." Theory and Practice of Medicine, by Roberts, page 404. "Fainting fits, palpitation of the heart appear very frequently and are sometimes so severe that persons affected with them seem to be dying." Encyclopedia Americana, article, Hysteria. Now read the life of Mrs. White, and she tells it over and over, times without number, about fainting frequently, pain at the heart, and about being so sick that she expected to die. And it is remarkable that most of her visions were immediately preceded by one of these fainting death spells. This shows plainly that they are the result of nervous weakness. She says: "My feelings were unusually sensitive." Testimonies Vol. I, page 12. Now read this: "Woman...whose nervous system is extremely sensitive, are the most subject to hysterical affections," Encyclopedia Americana, article, Hysteria. An exact fit.
Mrs. White's Physical Condition as Written by Herself in Testimony, Vol. I
When nine years old a girl hit her on the nose with a stone, broke her nose, and nearly killed her. Page 9. "I lay in a stupor for three weeks." Page 10. "I was reduced almost to a skeleton." Page 11. "My health seemed to be hopelessly impaired." Page 12. "My nervous system was prostrated." Page 13. Here was the origin of her hysteria of after years. In this condition she "listened to the startling announcement that Christ was coming in 1843." Page 14. "These words kept ringing in my ears; 'the great day of the Lord is at hand.'" Page 15. "I frequently attended the meetings and believed that Jesus was soon to come." Page 22. Of her impression of hell she says: "My imagination would be so wrought upon that the perspiration would start." Page 24. "I feared that I would lose my reason." Page 25. At one time she did become insane for two weeks as she writes herself. Spiritual Gifts, Vol. II, page 51. She continues: "My health was very poor." Testimonies, Vol. I, page 55. It was thought that she could live but a few days. Then it was that she had her first vision, really a fit. Page 58. "I was but seventeen years of age, small and frail." Page 62. "My strength was taken away," and angels talk with her. Page 64. "My friends thought I could not live.... Immediately taken off in vision." Page 67. Notice that her visions happen when she is very sick! This tells the story; they are the result of her physical weakness. If it was the power of the Holy Ghost, why didn't God send it when she was well? Why not?
"I often fainted like one dead." The next day she was well and "rode thirty-eight miles." Page 80. This is characteristic of hysterical females, as all know who have seen them. They are just dying one hour and all well the next. Mrs. White has gone through that a thousand times. She is just dying, is prayed for, is healed by God, and all well in a few minutes. In a few days she goes right over it again. But if God heals her, why doesn't she stay healed? This used to bother me. When Jesus healed a man, did he have to go back and be healed over again every few days? She goes on: "I fainted under the burden. Some feared I was dying.... I was soon lost to earthly things" - had a vision. Page 86. Again: "I fainted. Prayer was offered for me and I was blessed and taken off in vision." Page 88. There you have it, the same old story. It is simply her hysterical imagination, nothing more. Next page. "I fainted...taken off in vision." So she goes on all through her book. Says the Encyclopedia Americana, article, Hysteria: "Fainting fits, palpitation of the heart appear very frequently and are sometimes so severe that persons afflicted with them seem to be dying." Mrs. White exactly.
On page after page the same story is repeated by herself. In the account of her last vision, Jan. 3, 1875, she was very sick till it ended in a vision. Testimonies, Vol. III, page 570. Dreadful sick, almost dead, then a vision - this is the story, times without number, from her own pen. That tells the story. The vision is the result of her physical weakness.
5. Visions in public. "As a rule a fit of hysteria occurs when other persons are present, and never comes on during sleep." Theory and Practice of Medicine, by Roberts, page 401. Most of her visions occur in public, and generally while she is very sick, or when praying or speaking earnestly. This was the case with her first vision. Spiritual Gifts, Vol. I, page 30. So, again, on pages 37, 48, 51, 62, 83, and many more, she has her visions in the presence of many. I do not know that she ever had a vision alone.
6. Inclination to Exaggerate and Deceive. All medical books state that hysterical persons are given to exaggeration and deception. The inclination is irresistible. Nothing can break them of it. Gurnsey's Obstetrics, article Hysteria, says: "Such persons entertain their hearers with marvelous tales of the greatness and exploits of their past lives.... These accounts are uttered with an air of sincerity well calculated to deceive the honest listener, and such unbridled license of the imagination and total obliviousness in regard to the truth, which are vulgarly attributed to an entire want of principle and the most inordinate vanity, are in reality due to that morbid condition of the female organism which is designed by the comprehensive term hysteria."
Mrs. White is always telling what great things she has done. The deception which she so often practices, and which I have witnessed in her myself, is here accounted for on principles which do not impeach the moral character, and I am glad to accept the explanation.
7. Does not breathe. "Stoppage of respiration usually complete." "Generally appears to hold his breath." Robert's Theory and Practice of Medicine, page 393-394. Elder White, describing her condition in vision says: "She does not breathe." Life Incidents, page 272. They always refer to this fact with great confidence as proof of the supernatural in her visions; but it will be seen that it is common in these diseases.
Seventh-day Adventists regard Mrs. White as a prophetess and her writings as inspired. They make long arguments from the Bible to prove that there should be gifts, miracles and prophets in the church. But these are the same arguments used by the Mormons, Shakers, etc., in favor of their churches. They do not touch the case. The question is not, CAN the Lord inspire men and women? but, HAS he so inspired Mrs. White? The New Testament repeatedly warns us against accepting false prophets. "Beware of false prophets," Matt. 7:15. "There shall arise false Christ's and false prophets," Matt. 24:24. "Believe not every spirit...Many false prophets are gone out into the world." 1John 4:1.
In every generation many have arisen claiming to be prophets. All have found followers more or less. All they have to do is to firmly believe in themselves and make extravagant claims and they will soon have followers. Let us notice a few prominent ones near our own times.
1. Swedenborg
He was born in Stockholm, Sweden, 1688, and died in 1772. His father was a nobleman of high standing. Hence Swedenborg was highly educated and moved in the highest society. He traveled extensively, and conversed with the most learned men of the age. The king appointed him to a high office, which he filled with great acceptance for over thirty years. He rose to eminence in science and wrote seventy-seven books, covering every branch of science. He was of the purest character and devoutly religious.
Swedenborg's Rules of Life
1. Often to read and meditate on the Word of God.
2. To submit in everything to the will of Divine Providence.
3. To observe in everything a propriety of behavior, and to keep the conscience clear.
4. To discharge with fidelity the functions of my employment, and the duties of my office, and to render myself in all things useful to society.
Not a stain rests upon his moral character.
At the age of fifty-five he began to have visions of heaven, hell, angels, and the spiritual world. He says: "I have been called to a holy office by the Lord himself, who most mercifully appeared to me, his servant, in the year 1743, when he opened my sight into the spiritual world and enabled me to converse with spirits and angels." Exactly like Mrs. White claims. This work he continued for thirty years, and wrote about thirty inspired volumes. He made most remarkable predictions, which were exactly fulfilled, it is claimed.
He founded a new religion based upon his revelations. The Bible is sacredly taught and holy living enjoined.
This church has steadily increased, till it has societies in all parts of the world and in the leading languages. They publish three weeklies, five monthly journals, and one quarterly, besides many books. He got the start of Mrs. White just one hundred years. His followers believe in him just as implicitly as hers do in her, and are very zealous in propagating their faith. In many respects both moves are much alike. The above is condensed from Schaff-Herzog's Encyclopedia.
2. Ann Lee and the Shakers
These are so well known in America that I need say but little about them. Ann Lee, their leader, was born in England, in 1736; died 1784. Like Mrs. White, "she received no education." She joined a society who were having remarkable religious exercises, and soon began "to have visions and make revelations," which, just like Mrs. White, she called "testimonies." "Henceforth she claimed to be directed by revelations and visions." Schaff- Herzog Encyclopedia, article "Ann Lee." She was accepted as leader and as "the second appearing of Christ." Like Mrs. White, she required a "peculiar kind of dress," "opposed war and the use of pork." Johnson's Encyclopedia, article "Shakers." They have no intercourse with other churches; are renowned for their purity and devotion. They number about 8,000. A careful comparison shows many points of similarity between Mrs. Lee and Mrs. White. The main evidence upon which Adventists rely for proof of Mrs. White's inspiration is the purity of her life and the high moral and religious tone of her writings. They say her revelations must either be of God or Satan. If of Satan they would not teach such purity and holiness. The same reasoning will prove Mrs. Lee also a true prophetess, for she exceeds Mrs. White in this line, so that "Shaker" has become a synonym for honesty. Adventists, please note this point.
3. Mrs. Joanna Southcott
She was born in England in 1750, of poor parents, and was wholly uneducated. She worked as a domestic servant till over forty years of age. She joined the Methodists in 1790. In 1792 she announced herself as a prophetess, and "published numerous [over sixty] pamphlets setting forth her revelations." Johnson's Encyclopedia, article "Southcott." She had trances the same as Mrs. White does, and announced the speedy advent of Christ. See Encyclopedia Americana, article "Southcott." She carried on a lucrative trade in the sale of her books as Mrs. White does. Strange as it may appear, many learned ministers believed in her, and thousands joined her followers, till in a few years they numbered upwards of one hundred thousand! She made many predictions, which her followers claimed were fulfilled. "The faith of her followers, among whom were several clergymen of the established church, rose to enthusiasm." Encyclopedia Americana, article "Southcott."
She "regarded herself as the bride of the Lamb, and declared herself, when sixty-four years of age, pregnant with the true Messiah, the 'second Shilo,' whom she would bear Oct. 19, 1814... Joanna dies in her self delusion Dec. 27, 1814; but her followers, who at one time numbered a hundred thousand, continued till 1831 to observe the Jewish Sabbath." Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia. "A post mortem examination showed that she had been suffering from dropsy [edema]." Johnson's Cyclopedia. "Death put an end to both her hopes and her fears. With her followers, however, it was otherwise; and, though for a time confounded by her decease, which they could scarcely believe to be real, her speedy resurrection was confidently anticipated. In this persuasion many lived and died, nor is her sect yet extinct." Encyclopedia Americana, article "Southcott."
Let candid people consider these facts. This movement occurring only thirty years before Mrs. White's work, was in several respects like the present Seventh-day Adventist move. An illiterate woman is the leader. She has visions, writes numerous pamphlets and revelations and predicts the speedy advent of Christ. Her honesty is plainly manifested; her enthusiasm and that of her followers is great. In a short period one hundred thousand accept her "testimonies." The present Seventh-day Adventist move is similar in many respects as has already been seen above.
And here notice the terrible tenacity of fanaticism when once started. When Joanna died we would have supposed that all sane persons would have given it up; but they fix it up some way and go right on, and there they are now. So with the followers of Mrs. White. No matter what blunders or failures she makes, they fix them up some way and go right on. They will do it after she is dead and gone.
4. Joseph Smith and the Mormons
This prophet and his visions and revelations are so well known that I mention them briefly. Smith was born in 1805, and died in 1844, the year before Mrs. White began her revelations. He came out in a great religious awakening, as Mrs. White did in the Advent move of 1843-4. In 1823 he also began to have "visions" and "revelations" and see angels. The second advent of Christ was at hand, he said, hence the name, "Latter day saints." His mission was to introduce "the new dispensation." They are the "saints," and all the other churches are "heathen," or Gentiles. Mrs. White's followers are all saints; all other churches are "Babylon" and apostate.
The proof of their inspiration outstrips Mrs. White. They work many miracles, as they strongly assert, have the gift of tongues, and can show many predictions strikingly fulfilled. I have met them frequently, seen Smith's son, and know them well. They also have a new Bible, a new revelation, have started a new sect, and will have nothing to do with others, but proselyte from all.
The Mormons began in 1831, about fifteen years before Seventh-day Adventists did; but they number six hundred thousand, more than five times as many as Adventists. Adventists claim that they must be the true church because they are persecuted; but Mormons have been persecuted a thousand fold more. Smith and others were killed; many have been whipped, tarred and feathered, rotten- egged, stoned, mobbed, run out of town, and outlawed. So they must be the true church? Seventh-day Adventists have suffered no persecution. Not one of them has ever been whipped, or stoned, or egged, or tarred and feathered, or mobbed, or killed. Persecution! They have no idea what it is and never will though they are anxious to pose as great martyrs.
The Visions and their Guide
Mrs. E.G. White, wife of the late Elder White, leader of the Seventh-day Adventists, claims to be divinely inspired as were the prophets of the Bible. This claim is accepted by the whole denomination. They defend her inspiration as earnestly as they do that of the Bible. Year after year, in their State and General Conferences, ironclad resolutions have been unanimously adopted, endorsing her revelations in the strongest manner.
Time and again I have seen these resolutions adopted by a rising vote of the whole congregation, myself with them. "The visions of Mrs. E.G. White, a manifestation of spiritual Gifts according to the Scriptures," is a book of 144 pages published by them defending her inspiration.
They point to her and her visions as the sign and proof that they are the only true church. Rev. 12:17. Hence it can be seen that this is a vital subject with them.
In my debate with the Adventists at Healdsburg, Cal., Feb. 21-28, 1889, they affirmed this proposition: "The visions of Mrs. E.G. White are revelations from God." Her writings are called "Testimonies." In Testimony No. 33, just published, she makes this claim for her writings: "In ancient times God spoke to men by the mouth of prophets and apostles. In these days he speaks to them by the Testimonies of his spirit." Page 189. Again: "It is hardly possible for men to offer a greater insult to God than to despise and reject the instrumentalities [her Testimonies] that he has appointed to lead these." Page 208. Notice that her "Testimonies" are to LEAD God's people now. Of her inspiration Smith says: "It comes to us as a divine message; it is a ray of light from the throne; it is instruction by the Holy Spirit." Replies to Elder Canright, page 77.
In the Advent Review, July 2, 1889, are laid down these, "RULES: 1. We will not neglect the study of the Bible and the Testimonies." This illustrates the place they assign her writings, viz., an appendix to the Bible. She occupies the same relation to her people that Mrs. Southcott did to hers, Ann Lee to the Shakers, and Joe Smith to the Mormons.
Among themselves they quote her as we do Paul. A text from her writings is an end of all controversy in doctrine and discipline. It is common to hear them say that when they give up her visions they will give up the Bible too, and they often do.
Her visions, or "testimonies," as they are called, are so inseparably connected with the whole Seventh-day Adventist doctrine that a person cannot consistently accept the one without accepting the other. Besides, they are so constantly urged upon their people in every possible way, that a person cannot long feel comfortable among them unless he, too accepts them. Any one who rejects or opposes them is branded as a rebel fighting against God. Thus Mrs. White herself says: "If you lessen the confidence of God's people in the testimonies he has sent them, you are rebelling against God as certainly as were Kora, Dathan and Abiram." Testimony No. 31, page 62. She claims that every line she writes, even in a private letter, is directly inspired by God - "the precious rays of light shining from the throne," page 63. Of her own words she says: "It is God, and not an erring mortal, that has spoken." Testimonies, Vol. III, page 257. She states over and over that those who doubt or oppose her are fighting against God, sinning against the Holy Ghost. Thus: "fighting the Spirit of God. Those...who would break down our testimony, I saw, are not fighting against us, but against God," page 260. I could quote scores of passages like these.
These inspired writings now embrace forty bound volumes. Thus they have another Bible, just the same as the Mormons have. They have to read our old Bible in the light of this new Bible. Any interpretation of the Bible found in these "testimonies" settles its meaning beyond further dispute. She says: "I took the precious Bible and surrounded it with several testimonies to the church," Vol. 2, page 605. Exactly; and by the light of these "testimonies" that old Bible must now be read. She continues: "God has, through the testimonies, simplified the great truths already given." Yes, we must now take the Bible as thus simplified by her! Swedenborg, Mrs. Southcott, Ann Lee, Joseph Smith and Mrs. White have each done the same thing - had a new revelation, written inspired books, and started a new sect with a new religion.
There is not a doctrine or a practice of the church, from the observance of the Sabbath to the washing of feet, upon which she has not written. That settles it. No further investigation can be made on any of these matters, only to gather evidence and construe everything to sustain it. How, then, can their ministers or people be free to think and investigate for themselves? They can not, dare not, and do not. How often I have seen some intelligent thought extinguished with this remark: "That contradicts Sister White." This ends the matter. Everything she writes, whether in a private letter or newspaper article, is inspired. Thus: "God was speaking through clay.... In these letters which I write, in the testimonies I bear, I am presenting to you that which the Lord has presented to me. I do not write one article in the paper expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision - the precious rays of light shining from the throne." Testimony No. 31, page 63. There you have it simon pure: every word she writes is a ray of light from the throne of God. Reject that, and you are rejected of God.
Thus it will be seen that Mrs. White claims the very highest inspiration, the voice of God speaking directly through her. Her followers contend that she must either be a true prophetess or else a hypocrite; but she is neither. Few are aware of what a powerful influence an excited religious imagination will have over a person. Enthusiasts and fanatics are generally honest people. Mrs. White is simply a religious enthusiast self-deceived. This I shall prove by stubborn facts.
I long studied Mrs. White to determine for myself her real character till her case is clear to my own mind. Naturally religious, young in years, uneducated, sickly, she was carried away in the Millerite excitement of 1840- 44. Her fits she accepted as the power of God. Encouraged and sustained by her husband, this thought grew to be a reality to her. A careful study of her writings shows that each year she has become a little stronger in her claims of inspiration till now she asserts that all her utterances, even in a letter, or in a sermon, are inspired. She claims that her dreams, her impressions of mind are all the voice of God to her. She devotes 38 pages of her Testimony No. 33 to vindicating her own high inspiration. Probably she has some way of fixing up her mistakes, contradictions and deceptions satisfactory to herself. So now anything she can learn in any way, any impression of mind, any thought clear to herself, is the Spirit speaking to her. I have no doubt that she believes it. She is more deceived than her followers, for many of them privately doubt her inspiration while publicly defending it.
That she is not inspired is plainly shown by many facts. She has never wrought a single miracle. The old prophets and the apostles wrought miracles freely, to prove that God had sent them. In all these seventy years, in all her forty volumes, not a single prediction has she ever made that has come to pass. This is astonishing, considering that she dwells almost wholly in predictions. It seems as though she ought to have blundered into many things which could afterward be construed into a fulfilled prophecy. But not one can be found. This shows how wild and utterly wrong her theories have been.
She says in "Spiritual Gifts," Vol. II, page 293: "I am just as dependent upon the Spirit of the Lord in relating or writing a vision as in having a vision." Here she claims that the very words in which her visions are recorded are of divine inspiration. But I know that the words in her written "testimonies" are not inspired; for -
1. When writing them out she will often change what she has written, and write it very differently. I have seen her scratch out a whole page, or a line, or a sentence, and write it over differently. If God gave her the words, why did she scratch them out and alter them?
2. I have repeatedly seen her sit with pen in hand and read her manuscript to her husband for hours, while he suggested many changes, which she made. She would scratch out her own words and put in his, sometimes whole sentences. Was he inspired, too?
3. As she is ignorant of grammar, of late years she has employed an accomplished writer to take her manuscript and correct it, improve its wording, polish it up, and put it in popular style, so her books will sell better. Thousands of words, not her own, are thus put in by these other persons, some of whom are not even Christian. Are their words inspired, too?
4. She often copies her subject matter without credit or sign of quotation, from other authors. Indeed her last book, "Great Controversy," which they laud so highly as her greatest work, is largely a compilation from Andrew's History of the Sabbath, History of the Waldenses by Wylie, Life of Miller by White, Thoughts on Revelation by Smith, and other books.
This she pretends was all revealed to her directly from heaven. It is not something she has heard or read or studied out, but it is what God has revealed to her by the Holy Ghost. Stubborn facts show that her claim is utterly false and her book a deception the same as the Book of Mormon, which Smith stole from Spaulding.
The Pastor's Union of Healdsburg, Cal., investigated the matter and published many examples out of hundreds where she had copied her matter directly from other authors without anything to show it was copied. They went through several works and scores of pages finding the same thing all through her book. This proves her guilty of stealing her ideas and matter from other authors and putting them off on her followers as a revelation from God!
5. Passages Suppressed. Several important passages in the first edition of her visions have been suppressed in all later ones as they contradict what Adventists now believe. For thirty years they have chafed under this charge of suppression. They have denied it, made light of it; and finally the pressure was so hard that in 1882, they republished her first visions, claiming to give them all and word for word. They say: "No changes from the original work have been made." Preface to Early Writings, page 4. They also say the work was printed "under the authors own eye and with her full approval." Page 4. They denounce it as a wicked slander to say that anything has been suppressed.
But I have before me the original work entitled, "A Word to the Little Flock," published by Jas. White, 1847; also "The Present Truth," August, 1849, containing her original visions. Comparing the present edition with the original, I find seven different places where from FIVE to THIRTY lines in a place have been cut right out with no sign of omission! The suppressed passages are very damaging to her inspiration. I will give one short one as an illustration. It teaches what they now deny, viz., that no one could be converted after 1844. The suppressed lines are in brackets.
As Originally Published
"I saw that the mysterious signs and wonders, and false reformations would increase and spread. The reformations that were shown me were not reformations from error to truth [but from bad to worse, for those who professed a change of heart had only wrapped about them a religious garb, which covered up the iniquity of a wicked heart. Some appeared to have been really converted, so as to deceive God's people, but if their hearts could be seen they would appear as black as ever]. My accompanying angel bade me to look for the travail of soul for sinners as used to be. I looked, but could not see it, for the time for their salvation is past." Present Truth, page 22, published August, 1849.
As Now Published
"I saw that the mysterious signs and wonders, and false reformations would increase and spread. The reformations that were shown me were not reformations from error to truth. My accompanying angel bade me to look for the travail of soul for sinners as used to be. I looked, but could not see it, for the time for their salvation is past." Page 37, edition of 1882.
Now if they mean to be honest and dare publish these suppressed passages, why don't they? They know very well what they are; Mrs. White knows what they are; yet the book is republished "under her own eye" and all these passages left out when it is states that "no changes from the original work have been made." I have both books before me now and know the statement to be untrue and so do they; yet they keep right on sending it out.
6. In 1885 all her "testimonies" were republished in four volumes, under the eye of her own son and a critical editor. Opening hap-hazard to four different pages in Vol. I., I read and compared them with the original publication which I have. I found an average TWENTY-FOUR CHANGES OF THE WORDS ON EACH PAGE! Her words were thrown out and other words put in and other changes made, in some cases so many that it was difficult to read the two together. At the same rate in the four volumes, there would be 63,720 changes.
Taking, then, the words which were put in by her husband, by her copyist, by her son, by her editors, and those copied from other authors, probably they comprise from one-tenth to one quarter of all her books. Fine inspiration that is! The common reader knows nothing about these damaging facts, but I could not avoid knowing them, for I have been where I saw it myself.
I could fill a volume with proof of her mistakes, for all of her books are full of them. I will select but a few.
THE SHUT DOOR. For several years after 1844, Mrs. White had visions saying that probation ended in that year, that there was no more salvation for sinners. Of course she has to deny this now, but the proof is overwhelmingly against her.
1. Seventh-day Adventists are compelled to admit that for some time after 1844 Adventists did hold that probation was ended. Even Mrs. White admits it. She says: "After the passing of the time of expectation, in 1844, Adventists still believed the Saviour's coming to be very near; they held that...the work of Christ as man's intercessor before God had ceased. Having given the warning of the judgment near, they felt that their work for the world was done, and they lost their burden of soul for the salvation of sinners.... All this confirmed them in the belief that probation had ended, or, as they then expressed it, 'the door of mercy was shut.'" Great Controversy, page 268. This statement of Mrs. White herself is enough to settle the point that the Adventists believed "the door of mercy was shut" in 1844. Notice here that the "shut door" means the end of probation, the close of mercy for sinners.
Mr. Miller for a while advocated the shut door in 1844. He says: "We have done our work in warning sinners and in trying to awake a formal church. God in his providence has SHUT THE DOOR; we can only stir one another up to be patient." Advent Herald, Dec. 11, 1844.
Then in the Voice of Truth, Feb. 19, 1845, he says: "I have not seen a genuine conversion since."
Elder G.I. Butler, in the Review and Herald, March 3, 1885, says: "As the time passed there was a general feeling among all the earnest believers that their work for the world was done." "There can be no question that for months after the time passed it was the general sentiment that their work of warning the world was over." "Their burden was gone, and they thought their work was done." Yes; that is just what they did believe, probation was ended.
2. I have conversed with several individuals who affirm positively that they heard her teach this repeatedly. There are many now living who will swear that they heard her teach it.
3. Written testimony. John Megquier, Saco, Me., a man noted for his integrity, writes: "We well know the course of Ellen G. White, the visionist, while in the state of Maine. About the first visions she had were at my house in Poland. She said that God had told her in vision that the door of mercy had closed, and there was no more chance for the world." The True Sabbath, by Miles Grant, page 70. Mrs. L.S. Burdick, San Francisco, California, was well acquainted with Mrs. White. She writes: "I became acquainted with James White and Ellen Harmon (now Mrs. White) early in 1845. At the time of my first acquaintance with them they were in wild fanaticism, used to sit on the floor instead of chairs, and creep around the floor like little children. Such freaks were considered a mark of humility. They were not married, but traveling together. Ellen was having what was called visions; said God had shown her in vision that Jesus Christ arose on the tenth day of the seventh month, 1844, and shut the door of mercy; had left forever the mediatorial throne; the whole world was doomed and lost and there never could be another sinner saved." L.S. Burdick, "True Sabbath," page 72. O.R.L. Crosier kept the Sabbath with them in 1848. He writes: "Ann Arbor, Mich., Dec. 1, 1887. Yes, I KNOW that Ellen G. Harmon, now Mrs. White, held the shut door theory at that date." Then he gives the proof. These persons knew the facts and have put their testimony on record.
4. The Present Truth. James White, editor, Oswego, N.Y., May, 1850, has an article by the editor on the "Sanctuary, 2300 Days, and the Shut Door." Elder White says: "At that point of time [1844] the midnight cry was given, the work for the world was closed up, and Jesus passed into the Most Holy place.... When we came up to that point of time, all our sympathy, burden and prayers for sinners ceased, and the unanimous feeling and testimony was that our work for the world was finished forever.... He [Jesus] is still merciful to his saints, and ever will be; and Jesus is still THEIR advocate and priest; but the sinner, to whom Jesus had stretched out his arms all the day long, and who had rejected the offers of salvation, was LEFT WITHOUT AN ADVOCATE when Jesus passed from the holy place and shut that door in 1844." Any honest man can see that the shut door meant no salvation for sinners, and this is what Elder White taught in 1850. In a report of labor in the Advent Review, May 15, 1850, Elder White, in noticing the death of a sister Hastings, says: "She embraced the Sabbath in 1846, and has ever believed that the work of warning the world closed in 1844."
Again: "Many will point us to one who is said to be converted, for positive proof that the door is not shut, thus yielding the word of God for the feelings of an individual." Present Truth, Dec. 1849. This shows that they held to the shut door idea for years after 1844. What a fanatical and abominable doctrine that was for Christians to teach! Mrs. White was right with them and in full harmony with them on this all these years. She had revelations almost daily. If they were of God, why did she not correct them in this fearful error? Even if she had said nothing confirming this delusion, yet the simple fact that she had no revelation contradicting it all during these years, is enough to destroy her claim to inspiration. But the fact is, she taught this error as strongly in her visions as the brethren did in their arguments.
Here are her own words: "March 24, 1849.... I was shown that the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ, relating to the shut door, could not be separated.... I saw that the mysterious signs and wonders, and false reformations would increase and spread. The reformations that were shown me were not reformations from error to truth but from bad to worse, for those who professed a change of heart had only wrapped about them a religious garb, which covered up the iniquity of a wicked heart. Some appeared to have been really converted, so as to deceive God's people, but if their hearts could be seen they would appear as black as ever. My accompanying angel bade me to look for the travail of soul for sinners as used to be. I looked, but could not see it, for the time for their salvation is past." Present Truth, pages 21-22, published August, 1849.
Here you have the shut door and no mercy for sinners just as clear as language can make it. Every candid reader knows what it teaches. It is pitiable to see the shifts and turns, evasions, dodges, quibbles, if not something worse, resorted to on this passage to save Mrs. White's visions. But there it stands, to mock at all their efforts. Here is another passage teaching the same doctrine: "it was just as impossible for them to get on the path again and go to the city, as all the wicked world which God had rejected." 'A Word to the Little Flock,' page 14, published in 1847. At this time, then, God had rejected the wicked world - shut door, you see.
Here is another vision in which she teaches the doctrine of the shut door in its very worst form, that is that after 1844 not one ray of light comes from Jesus to the wicked but they are all turned over to the devil to whom they now pray instead of to God. After Jesus left the holy place she says: "I did not see one ray of light pass from Jesus to the careless multitude after he arose and they were left in perfect darkness.... Satan appeared to be by the throne trying to carry on the work of God. I saw them look up to the throne and pray, Father give us thy spirit; then Satan would breathe upon them an unholy influence." Early Writings, pages 46-47. Not one ray of light comes to sinners since 1844 but all are left to the Devil! What is the use of their denying that she taught this doctrine? She certainly did and she knows it. This fact and the bold denial of it now, brand her as a false teacher.
I will briefly notice some other mistakes she had made, enough to show that she is wholly unreliable.
1. For over forty years she, herself, has been constantly expecting the end of the world, and it has not come yet. This alone ought to open the eyes of all to see that she has no knowledge of the future.
2. Slaves. In 1849 she foretold what would happen when Jesus comes, and said: "I saw the pious slave rise in triumph and victory and shake off the chains that bound him, while his wicked master was in confusion." Early Writings, page 28. But now there are no slaves. She had not then dreamed of the abolition of slavery.
3. Nations angry. "The nations are NOW getting angry." Early Writings, page 29. That was thirty-eight years ago. It takes a long time for them to get fighting mad!
4. Another mistake. "Some are looking too far off for the coming of the Lord." Page 49. That was thirty-eight years ago, and no Adventist then looked for time to last ten years.
5. Another blunder. "The time for Jesus to be in the most holy place was nearly finished." Page 49. Jesus went there in 1844. Hence, he had then been there six years. She saw that the time for him to be there was nearly finished, but it has continued sixty years since. A false prediction, as any one can see.
6. A few months only in 1849. "Now time is almost finished, and what we have been [six] years learning, they [new converts] will have to learn in a few months." Page 57. But instead of a few months, they have had sixty years!
7. She broke the Sabbath for eleven years. Though she had vision after vision about the Sabbath, yet for eleven years they all began it at six P.M. instead of at sunset as the law requires. Lev. 23:32. When they found their mistake, she saw it, too, in vision. She says: "I acquired why it has been thus that at this late date we must change." Testimony No. 1, page 13. A poor leader she.
8. Her predictions about the rebellion a failure. "Jan. 4, 1862, I was shown some things in regard to our nation." Testimonies, Vol. I, page 253. All will remember the great anxiety and uncertainty of those days. How would the war end? Specially were her people anxious, as they were non-combatants and liable to the draft. Here was an inspired prophetess right in their midst, having abundant revelations about the length of women's dresses, what people should eat, etc. What relief to all would have been a few short words from heaven about the results of the war. The pressure upon her for light was so great that she had to say something. So she took her pen and scribbled away through thirty-two long pages about the war. At this date it is amusing to read it. This "revelation" alone is enough to show that she knows absolutely nothing of the future. All she wrote was merely a restatement of the popular view of the matter at the time. I shall quote a few sentences as samples. "The system of slavery, which has ruined our nation, is left to live and stir up another rebellion." Was slavery left to stir up another rebellion? Now we know that statement was utterly untrue.
Again: "It seemed impossible to have the war conducted successfully," page 256. Another failure, for it was conducted successfully. All can see that her ideas were just those generally rife at the time. I have long watched and studied her carefully, till I have become satisfied that this is always true of her prophesyings - they are wholly moulded by the sentiment around her at the time. Here is another: "This nation will yet be humbled into the dust," page 259. Was it? No. Again: "When England does declare war, all nations will have an interest of their own to serve, and there will be general war," page 259. Did anything of this kind happen? No; but it is just what all then expected. Once more: "Had our nation remained united, it would have had strength; but divided, it MUST FALL," page 260. How it did fall! "I was shown distress and perplexity and famine in the land," page 260. Just what all expected then; but where was the famine? "It looked to me like an impossibility now for slavery to be done away," page 266. Of course it did, for that was just the way it looked to all others then. But did it look that way to God? That was the question. Was he telling her?
She claims that what she writes is not merely her own ideas but the mind of God himself. Thus: "I do not write one article in the paper expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision." Testimony, No. 31, page 63. This, then, was the way the thing looked to God at that time! Again: "Blood has been poured out like water, and for naught." Testimony for the Church, Vol. I, page 367. Was it for naught, ye brave soldiers? Ye liberated slaves? Ye freed nation? I could give scores of such quotations all through her writings, showing how they have failed always and everywhere.
The Reform Dress
One of the worst blunders Mrs. White ever made, one which plainly showed her fanaticism and that God had nothing to do with her work, was the move she made on dress. First she wrote: "God would not have his people adopt the so-called reform dress," Testimonies, Vol. I, page 421. "If women would wear their dresses so as to clear the filth of the streets an inch or two," it would be in harmony with their faith, page 424. Four years pass, and she again writes: "God would now have his people adopt the reform dress," page 525. "Nine inches as nearly accords my views of the matter as I am able to express it in inches," page 521. Here are two revelations exactly opposite as to the style of dress and the length, an inch or two, then nine inches, from the ground is the length. What occasioned this change in the mind of the Lord? The answer is easy: In the time between the two revelations Mrs. White had spent some time at Dr. Jackson's "Home," Dansville, N.Y. Here a short dress with pants was worn, and she fell in with the idea and soon had a vision requiring its adoption as above. That is the whole of it. But the dress was a shame and a disgrace and an utter failure. Think of a modest woman on the streets with pants on, and her dress cut half way up to the knees! But for eight years Mrs. White pushed that dress with all her power, put it on herself as an example, till most of the sisters put it on. But it created a terrible commotion. Husbands swore, brothers refused to walk with their sisters, men sneered and boys hooted. Some of the sisters argued, some cried, some rebelled, but most submitted. I know, for my own wife wore it for eight years - had to. Finally, Mrs. White quietly dropped it off herself, and now no one wears it. Here they are all living in direct violation of a plain revelation from God! Common sense came out ahead of fanaticism.
If God ever spoke through Mrs. White about anything, he did about the dress, requiring the woman to wear it. I was there and know how she urged it, heard her many times. Her Testimonies at the time were full of it. She said: "I have done my duty; I have bourne my testimony, and those who have heard me and read that which I have written, must now bear the responsibility of receiving or rejecting the light given. If they choose to venture to be forgetful hearers, and not doers of the work, they run their own risk, and will be accountable to God!" Testimonies, Vol. I, page 525. Yet they have all run the risk and laid off the dress, Mrs. White with the rest. How does she get out of it? By all sorts of dodges, by blaming everybody but herself. It has been a great stumbling block to them.
Her Revelations Influenced by Others
Mrs. White originates nothing. In her visions she always sees just what she and her friends at the time happen to believe and be interested in. Her husband and other leading men first accept or study out a theory and talk it till her mind is full of it. Then when she is in her trance that is just what she sees. One who has been all through the Advent work and well knows, says: "The visions have brought out no points of faith held by Seventh-day Adventists."
Mrs. White herself confesses that she is influenced by others in writing her "Testimonies." Thus: pages 138-139. "What appeared in Testimony No. 11, concerning the Health Institute should not have been given until I was able to write out all I had seen in regard to it.... I yielded my judgment to that of others and wrote what appeared in No. 11.... In this I did wrong." Testimonies, Vol. I, page 563. She here "lets the cat out of the bag." She made such a blunder that she was compelled to blame some one else for it and so to tell the truth that she was influenced by others to do it! Fine inspiration.
Elder White was well aware of how she was influenced by others to see and write as they impressed her to do. Hence he was very jealous of having leading men talk anything to her alone opposing his views, for he feared she would then have a revelation favoring them and opposing him as indeed she did towards the last. Thus he wrote: "The pressure has been terribly hard on my poor wife. She has been impressed very much by Elders Butler and Haskell." Again: "I think my wife has been more severe than the Lord really required her to be in some cases. Satan has taken great advantage.... Elders Butler and Haskell have had an influence over her that I hope to see broken. It has nearly ruined her. These men must not be supported by our people to do as they have done." James White, Battle Creek, May 25, 1881. That shows the confidence which her own husband had in her revelations.
The Philosophy of Mrs. White's Visions
The proof is abundant that Mrs. White's visions are merely the result of nervous disease, a complication of hysteria, catalepsy and ecstasy. That she honestly believes in them herself, I do not doubt. I have personally known four other women, all Seventh-day Adventists, who likewise had visions. All were sincere Christians, and fully believed in their own visions. But all were sickly, nervous females, and hysterical. Not being encouraged in them, but opposed by their ministers, they finally gave them up. In every age such cases have been numerous, of whom a few, like Mrs. Southcott, Mrs. Ann Lee and Mrs. White, have become noted for awhile.
Medical books and cyclopedias, under the words "hysteria," "catalepsy" and "ecstasy," give a complete description of Mrs. White's case, as stated by herself and husband. This anyone may see by one day's study. My space will allow me to give but a few points.
1. The sex - a female. "The vast preponderance of hysteria in the female sex has given rise to its name." Raynold's System of Medicine, article, Hysteria. So say all the authorities. This fits Mrs. White, a female.
2. The age. "Hysteria is infinitely more common among females, beginning usually from fifteen to eighteen or twenty years of age." Theory and Practice of Medicine, by Roberts, page 399. "In the female sex, hysteria usually commences at or about the time of puberty, i.e., between twelve and eighteen years of age." Raynold's System of Medicine, article, Hysteria. Here again it exactly fits the case of Mrs. White. She had her first vision at the age of seventeen. See Testimonies, Vol. I, page 62. "Notwithstanding this mode of life, their health does not materially deteriorate." Johnson's Cyclopedia, article, Hysteria. So with Mrs. White. She has gradually improved in health and her visions have as gradually ceased. At first she had visions almost daily, but they have grown less frequent as she grew older and healthier, till after about forty-five years of age, since which time she has not averaged one in five years, and even these are short and light, till now she has ceased entirely to have them. Now read this: "Hysteria generally attacks women from the age of puberty to the decline of the peculiar functions of her sex." Johnson's Cyclopedia, article, Hysteria. Mrs. White's case again, exactly.
3. The cause. Hysteria, catalepsy, epilepsy and ecstasy are all nervous diseases, which sometimes co-exist or alternate or blend together so it is difficult to distinguish them. The causes noted are: "1. Mental disturbance, especially emotional; for example, a sudden fright, prolonged grief or anxiety. 2. Physical influences affecting the brain, as a BLOW OR FALL ON THE HEAD." Theory and Practice of Medicine, by Roberts, page 393. "In ten of my cases the disease was due to reflex causes, which consisted in six cases of injuries to the head." Fundamental Nervous Disease, Putzel, page 66. This is Mrs. White again, exactly. At the age of nine she received a terrible blow on the face, which broke her nose and nearly killed her. She was unconscious for three weeks. See her life in Testimony, Vol. I, pages 9-10. This shock to her nervous system was the real cause of all the visions she afterwards had.
4. Always weakly and sickly. "Most hysterical persons are out of health." Theory and Practice of Medicine, by Roberts, page 404. "Fainting fits, palpitation of the heart appear very frequently and are sometimes so severe that persons affected with them seem to be dying." Encyclopedia Americana, article, Hysteria. Now read the life of Mrs. White, and she tells it over and over, times without number, about fainting frequently, pain at the heart, and about being so sick that she expected to die. And it is remarkable that most of her visions were immediately preceded by one of these fainting death spells. This shows plainly that they are the result of nervous weakness. She says: "My feelings were unusually sensitive." Testimonies Vol. I, page 12. Now read this: "Woman...whose nervous system is extremely sensitive, are the most subject to hysterical affections," Encyclopedia Americana, article, Hysteria. An exact fit.
Mrs. White's Physical Condition as Written by Herself in Testimony, Vol. I
When nine years old a girl hit her on the nose with a stone, broke her nose, and nearly killed her. Page 9. "I lay in a stupor for three weeks." Page 10. "I was reduced almost to a skeleton." Page 11. "My health seemed to be hopelessly impaired." Page 12. "My nervous system was prostrated." Page 13. Here was the origin of her hysteria of after years. In this condition she "listened to the startling announcement that Christ was coming in 1843." Page 14. "These words kept ringing in my ears; 'the great day of the Lord is at hand.'" Page 15. "I frequently attended the meetings and believed that Jesus was soon to come." Page 22. Of her impression of hell she says: "My imagination would be so wrought upon that the perspiration would start." Page 24. "I feared that I would lose my reason." Page 25. At one time she did become insane for two weeks as she writes herself. Spiritual Gifts, Vol. II, page 51. She continues: "My health was very poor." Testimonies, Vol. I, page 55. It was thought that she could live but a few days. Then it was that she had her first vision, really a fit. Page 58. "I was but seventeen years of age, small and frail." Page 62. "My strength was taken away," and angels talk with her. Page 64. "My friends thought I could not live.... Immediately taken off in vision." Page 67. Notice that her visions happen when she is very sick! This tells the story; they are the result of her physical weakness. If it was the power of the Holy Ghost, why didn't God send it when she was well? Why not?
"I often fainted like one dead." The next day she was well and "rode thirty-eight miles." Page 80. This is characteristic of hysterical females, as all know who have seen them. They are just dying one hour and all well the next. Mrs. White has gone through that a thousand times. She is just dying, is prayed for, is healed by God, and all well in a few minutes. In a few days she goes right over it again. But if God heals her, why doesn't she stay healed? This used to bother me. When Jesus healed a man, did he have to go back and be healed over again every few days? She goes on: "I fainted under the burden. Some feared I was dying.... I was soon lost to earthly things" - had a vision. Page 86. Again: "I fainted. Prayer was offered for me and I was blessed and taken off in vision." Page 88. There you have it, the same old story. It is simply her hysterical imagination, nothing more. Next page. "I fainted...taken off in vision." So she goes on all through her book. Says the Encyclopedia Americana, article, Hysteria: "Fainting fits, palpitation of the heart appear very frequently and are sometimes so severe that persons afflicted with them seem to be dying." Mrs. White exactly.
On page after page the same story is repeated by herself. In the account of her last vision, Jan. 3, 1875, she was very sick till it ended in a vision. Testimonies, Vol. III, page 570. Dreadful sick, almost dead, then a vision - this is the story, times without number, from her own pen. That tells the story. The vision is the result of her physical weakness.
5. Visions in public. "As a rule a fit of hysteria occurs when other persons are present, and never comes on during sleep." Theory and Practice of Medicine, by Roberts, page 401. Most of her visions occur in public, and generally while she is very sick, or when praying or speaking earnestly. This was the case with her first vision. Spiritual Gifts, Vol. I, page 30. So, again, on pages 37, 48, 51, 62, 83, and many more, she has her visions in the presence of many. I do not know that she ever had a vision alone.
6. Inclination to Exaggerate and Deceive. All medical books state that hysterical persons are given to exaggeration and deception. The inclination is irresistible. Nothing can break them of it. Gurnsey's Obstetrics, article Hysteria, says: "Such persons entertain their hearers with marvelous tales of the greatness and exploits of their past lives.... These accounts are uttered with an air of sincerity well calculated to deceive the honest listener, and such unbridled license of the imagination and total obliviousness in regard to the truth, which are vulgarly attributed to an entire want of principle and the most inordinate vanity, are in reality due to that morbid condition of the female organism which is designed by the comprehensive term hysteria."
Mrs. White is always telling what great things she has done. The deception which she so often practices, and which I have witnessed in her myself, is here accounted for on principles which do not impeach the moral character, and I am glad to accept the explanation.
7. Does not breathe. "Stoppage of respiration usually complete." "Generally appears to hold his breath." Robert's Theory and Practice of Medicine, page 393-394. Elder White, describing her condition in vision says: "She does not breathe." Life Incidents, page 272. They always refer to this fact with great confidence as proof of the supernatural in her visions; but it will be seen that it is common in these diseases.
8. Importance of self. "There is a prevailing belief in the importance of self, and the patient thinks that she differs from every other human being." Raynold's System of Medicine, article, Hysteria. Mrs. White to a hair. Hear her laud herself: "It is God, and not an erring mortal, who has spoken." "God has laid upon my husband and myself a special work." "God has appointed us to a more trying work than he has others." Testimonies, Vol. III, pages 257, 258, 160. I have known her nearly thirty years, and I never knew her to make confession of a single sin or evil in all that time, not she. Seventh-day Adventists ridicule the Pope's claim to infallibility but they themselves are bowing to the authority of a woman who makes higher claims to infallibility than ever pope or prophet did. Space will not allow me to fill out every particular of her experience by quotations from medical works compared with her own statements; but even these given above are sufficient to show the nature and philosophy of her attacks. They are the result of nervous disease, precisely the same as has been often seen in the case of thousands of other sickly females.
9. Testimony of Three Physicians. Dr. Fairfield was brought up a Seventh-day Adventist; was for years a physician in their Sanitarium at Battle Creek. He has had the best opportunity to observe Mrs. White. He writes: "Battle Creek, Mich., Dec. 28, 1887. Dear Sir: You are undoubtedly right in ascribing Mrs. E.G. White's so-called visions to disease. It has been my opportunity to observe her case a good deal, covering quite a period of years, which, with a full knowledge of her history from the beginning, gave me no chance to doubt her ("divine") attacks to be simply hysterical trances. Age itself has almost cured her. W.J. Fairfield, M.D."
Dr. Wm. Russell, long a Seventh-day Adventist, and a chief physician in the Sanitarium, wrote July 12th, 1869, that he had made up his mind some time in the past, "that Mrs. White's visions were the result of a diseased organization or condition of the brain or nervous system." "When giving to a conference at Pilot Grove, Iowa, 1865, an account of her visit at Dr. Jackson's health institute, she stated that the doctor, upon a medical examination, pronounced her a subject of hysteria." Mrs. White's Claims Examined, page 76.
Here is the testimony of three physicians, who have personally examined Mrs. White. She joined the Millerites in their great excitement of 1843-44. In their meetings she often fainted from excitement. In the enthusiasm and fanaticism of the time many had various "gifts," visions, trances, etc. She drank deeply of their spirit. The grief and disappointment of the passing of the set time were too much for her feeble condition. Says Dr. Roberts: "The exciting cause of the first hysterical fit is generally some powerful sudden emotional disturbance." "Sometimes the attack is preceded by disappointment, fear, violent, exciting or even religious emotions." Library of Universal Knowledge, article, Catalepsy. Just her case in 1844, in the great excitement and disappointment she then met.
Has Visions of Heaven, Angels, Etc.
Dr. George B. Wood's "Practice of Medicine," page 721 of Vol. II, in treating of mental disorders, and explaining the cause and phenomena of trances, says: "Ecstasy is an affection in which, with a loss of consciousness of existing circumstances, and insensibility to impression from without, there is an apparent exaltation of the intellectual or emotional functions, as if the individual were raised into a different nature, or different sphere of existence. The patient appears wrapped up in some engrossing thought or feeling, with an expression upon his countenance as of lofty contemplations or ineffable delight.... Upon recovering from the spell, the patient generally remembers his thoughts and feelings more or less accurately, and sometimes tells of wonderful visions that he has seen, of visits to the regions of the blessed, of ravishing harmony and splendor, of inexpressible enjoyment of the senses or affections."
A person perfectly familiar with Mrs. White could not have described her visions more accurately. Another high medical authority, in describing ecstasy and catalepsy, says: "It often happens that the two diseases alternate or co-exist. In ecstasy the limbs are motionless, but not rigid. The eyes are open, the pupils fixed, the livid lips parted in smiles, and the arms extended to embrace the beloved vision. The body is erect and raised to its utmost height, or else is extended at full length in recumbent posture. A peculiar radiant smile illuminates the countenance, and the whole aspect and attitude is that of intense mental exaltation. Sometimes the patient is silent, the mind being apparently absorbed in meditation, or in the contemplation of some beatific vision. Sometimes there is mystical speaking or prophesying, or singing, or the lips may be moved without any sound escaping.... Usually there is complete insensibility to external impressions. Ecstasy is often associated with religious monomania. It was formerly quite common among the inmates of convents, and is now not infrequently met with at camp-meetings and other gatherings of a similar nature. Many truly devout people are extatics." G. Durant, M.D., Ph.D., member of American Medical Association, Fellow of the New York Academy of Medicine, etc., etc., recipient of several medals, etc.
This is Mrs. White's case very clearly. Hundreds of similar ones have occurred in every age, and are constantly occurring now. The sad part of it is that so many honest souls are deluded into receiving all this as a divine revelation.
Much in many ways:
1. It is an error and a deception.
2. She deceives herself and others.
3. She teaches false doctrines.
4. She has a harsh, uncharitable spirit, and begets this in all her followers.
5. She builds up an isolated sect, and thus destroys all their influence for good.
6. Her teachings make her people narrow, bigoted, and gloomy. Thus she blasts the peace of thousands of souls.
7. It leads her advocates to deceive. Being afraid that it will hurt them in new places, if it is known in what light they really hold her visions, they keep them back as long as they can and then they deny that it is a matter of importance with them. This is false and deceptive, for they hold faith in her visions to be as important as keeping the Sabbath, and they hold her visions to be as sacred as the Bible.
8. To defend her mistakes and errors, both she and her apologists have to deny the plainest facts and resort to arguments very questionable.
9. To defend her errors, they compare them to supposed errors in the Bible, and thus destroy faith in that book.
10. She rules her whole people with a rod of iron, and dictates to them in everything, even the smallest and most private affairs of family life. She boasts that her work "is to come down to the minutiae of life." Testimonies, Vol. II, page 608. With this idea she meddles with everything public and private, and all the affairs of families, till it becomes, to a man of spirit, an intolerable bore. She meddles between husband and wife, parents and children, breaks up marriage engagements which do not suit her, dictates to all her followers what they shall eat, how, and when; the cut and color of their dress; their business, the disposition of their means, etc., etc. In proof of this let a person read any of her "Testimonies," for they are full of it.
11. Her severity and harshness have driven many to despair, others to back- slide, and others out of the church. I can name many individuals and families whose happiness she has blasted. She broke the heart and darkened the life of my first wife by her cruel words to her. Any one who dares to get in her way must either succumb, be crushed, or driven out. The effort to bind her visions as inspired upon the faith and consciences of the whole denomination has produced continual wrangling, division, and much bitter feeling, right among themselves for the last sixty years. Families, churches and conferences have been divided over them, while hundreds, yes, thousands, have been driven from them because they would not accept Mrs. White's visions as inspired.
12. They produce doubts and infidelity. When those who have been led to firmly believe them finally come to see that they have been deceived, then they are in danger of losing faith in everything and so becoming out and out infidels, or at least skeptical. Large numbers have gone to ruin that way whom I have personally known. Some have gone to the Spiritualists, some to the Free Thinkers, some to the Shakers, some to the Mormons, and some to the world. They have nearly driven Mrs. White herself into infidelity. Here are her own words: "In the night I have awakened my husband, saying, 'I am afraid that I shall become an infidel.'" Testimonies, Vol. I, page 597. How unlike the apostles that sounds.
Mrs. White Becomes Rich
There is no example in the Bible where a prophet took advantage of his inspiration to enrich himself. They generally worked hard, had little, and died poor. But Mrs. White began poverty poor. She says: "We entered upon our work penniless." Testimonies, Vol. I, page 75. But as soon as they became leaders, they managed to supply themselves well. Since I knew them, thirty years ago, they have had an abundance, and have used means for themselves lavishly. They would always have the best and plenty of it. Everywhere they went they required to be waited upon in the most slavish manner. Mrs. White dresses very richly, often is furnished women to wait on her, and all their time and expenses are paid by the conference.
When Elder White died he left a large fortune. He was a sharp business man, and took advantage of his position to benefit himself and his family, and she aided him in it by her revelations. How different from Mr. Moody! Mrs. White is eighty years old, is worth thousands, has a large income, has not a single soul dependent upon her, says that time is about to end, urges all to cut down their possessions, yet takes large royalty on all her numerous books and seems as eager for money as others. How is this?
The last year I was with them she received $18 per week, was furnished two women to wait upon her and all traveling expenses paid. The same year they sold 20,000 copies of Great Controversy on which she received a royalty of $2,500 besides and income from all her other works. Her inspiration has paid her well financially.
Take an example or two of how she used her revelations to make money: In 1868 Elder White had on hand several thousand dollars' worth of old books which were dead property, as they were not selling and were growing out of date. He hit on a plan to raise a "book fund" for the free distribution of books and tracts. This fund he used to buy out his and her old books! When the money did not come fast enough, she had a revelation about it thus: "Why do not our brethren send in their pledges on the book and tract fund more liberally? And why do not our ministers take hold of this work in earnest? ...We shall not hold our peace upon this subject. Our people will come up to the work. The means will come. And we would say to those who are poor and want books, send in your orders.... We will send you a package of books containing four volumes of Spiritual Gifts, How to Live, Appeal to Youth, Appeal to Mothers, Sabbath Readings and the two large charts, with key of explanation,... and charge the fund four dollars." Testimonies, Vol. I, page 689. Every one of these books was their own. The money came and they pocketed it all. I was there and know.
Mrs. White now has forty inspired books. To sell these, every possible effort is made through every channel. She is constantly urging it by all her inspired authority. Hear her: "The volumes of Spirit of Prophecy and also the Testimonies should be introduced into every Sabbath keeping family.... Let them be worn out in being read by all the neighbors.... Prevail upon them to buy copies.... Light so precious, coming from the throne of God, is hid under a bushel. God will make his people responsible for this neglect." Testimonies, Vol. IV, pages 390, 391. So, of course, her books must be pushed and sold while she makes money. It pays to be inspired!
Why I Once Believed Mrs. White Inspired
1. I once accepted Mrs. White's claim to inspiration for the same reason that most of her followers do. I first accepted the Sabbath and then the other points of the faith till I came to believe it all.
2. Once among and of them I found all stating in strong terms that Mrs. White was inspired of God. I supposed they knew, and so took their word for it; and that is what all the others do as they come in, deny it as they may.
3. I soon found that her revelations were so connected with the whole history and belief of that church that I could not consistently separate them any more than a person could be a Mormon and not believe in Joseph Smith. I believed the other doctrines so firmly that I swallowed the visions with the rest, and that is what all do.
4. When I began to have suspicions about the visions I found the pressure so strong that I feared to express them, or even to admit them to myself. All said such doubts were of the Devil and would lead to a rejection of the truth and then to ruin. So I dared not entertain them nor investigate the matter; and this is the way it is with others.
5. I saw that all who expressed any doubts about the visions were immediately branded as "rebels," as "in the dark," "led by Satan," "infidels," etc.
6. Having no faith in any other doctrine or people, I did not know what to do nor where to go. So I tried to believe the visions and go along just as thousands of them do when really they are in doubt about them all the time.
Her last Testimony just out reveals the fact that there is a wide-spread effort among her people to modify her high claims. She protests vehemently and warns them to keep their hands off. Sooner or later there must be a revolt against her claims.
The following from Chamber's Encyclopedia, article, Southcott, is also applicable to Mrs. White and her followers: "The history of Joanna Southcott herself has not much in it that is marvelous; but the influence which she exercised over others may well be deemed so, and the infatuation of her followers is hard to be understood, particularly when it is considered that some of them were men of some intelligence and of cultivated mind. Probably the secret of her influence lay in the fact that the poor creature was in earnest about her delusions. So few people in the world are really so that they are always liable to be enslaved by others who have convictions of any kind, however grotesque. On her death-bed Joanna said: 'If I have been misled, it has been by some spirit, good or evil.' Poor Joanna never suspected that the spirit which played such vagaries was her own."
Just so of Mrs. White. It is marvelous that with all the proof of her failures intelligent men are still led by her. But the case of Joanna, of Ann Lee, and others, helps us to solve this one. All have earnestly believed in their own inspiration, and this alone has convinced others.
The Adventists' Addition to the Bible
"The Bible and the Bible Only, as a Rule of Faith and Practice," is the Protestant watchword for which saints have fought and martyrs died.
The Catholic church has the Bible and - and - something else - an infallible Pope to interpret it.
The Swedenborg church has the Bible and - and - something else - Swedenborg's revelation to interpret it.
The Shakers have the Bible and - and - something else - Mother Ann Lee's revelation to interpret it.
The Mormons have the Bible and - and - something else - Joe Smith's revelations to interpret it.
Christian Scientists have the Bible and - and - something else - Mrs. Eddy's Science and Health to tell what it means.
Seventh-day Adventists have the Bible and - and - something else - Mrs. White's revelations to interpret it.
9. Testimony of Three Physicians. Dr. Fairfield was brought up a Seventh-day Adventist; was for years a physician in their Sanitarium at Battle Creek. He has had the best opportunity to observe Mrs. White. He writes: "Battle Creek, Mich., Dec. 28, 1887. Dear Sir: You are undoubtedly right in ascribing Mrs. E.G. White's so-called visions to disease. It has been my opportunity to observe her case a good deal, covering quite a period of years, which, with a full knowledge of her history from the beginning, gave me no chance to doubt her ("divine") attacks to be simply hysterical trances. Age itself has almost cured her. W.J. Fairfield, M.D."
Dr. Wm. Russell, long a Seventh-day Adventist, and a chief physician in the Sanitarium, wrote July 12th, 1869, that he had made up his mind some time in the past, "that Mrs. White's visions were the result of a diseased organization or condition of the brain or nervous system." "When giving to a conference at Pilot Grove, Iowa, 1865, an account of her visit at Dr. Jackson's health institute, she stated that the doctor, upon a medical examination, pronounced her a subject of hysteria." Mrs. White's Claims Examined, page 76.
Here is the testimony of three physicians, who have personally examined Mrs. White. She joined the Millerites in their great excitement of 1843-44. In their meetings she often fainted from excitement. In the enthusiasm and fanaticism of the time many had various "gifts," visions, trances, etc. She drank deeply of their spirit. The grief and disappointment of the passing of the set time were too much for her feeble condition. Says Dr. Roberts: "The exciting cause of the first hysterical fit is generally some powerful sudden emotional disturbance." "Sometimes the attack is preceded by disappointment, fear, violent, exciting or even religious emotions." Library of Universal Knowledge, article, Catalepsy. Just her case in 1844, in the great excitement and disappointment she then met.
Has Visions of Heaven, Angels, Etc.
Dr. George B. Wood's "Practice of Medicine," page 721 of Vol. II, in treating of mental disorders, and explaining the cause and phenomena of trances, says: "Ecstasy is an affection in which, with a loss of consciousness of existing circumstances, and insensibility to impression from without, there is an apparent exaltation of the intellectual or emotional functions, as if the individual were raised into a different nature, or different sphere of existence. The patient appears wrapped up in some engrossing thought or feeling, with an expression upon his countenance as of lofty contemplations or ineffable delight.... Upon recovering from the spell, the patient generally remembers his thoughts and feelings more or less accurately, and sometimes tells of wonderful visions that he has seen, of visits to the regions of the blessed, of ravishing harmony and splendor, of inexpressible enjoyment of the senses or affections."
A person perfectly familiar with Mrs. White could not have described her visions more accurately. Another high medical authority, in describing ecstasy and catalepsy, says: "It often happens that the two diseases alternate or co-exist. In ecstasy the limbs are motionless, but not rigid. The eyes are open, the pupils fixed, the livid lips parted in smiles, and the arms extended to embrace the beloved vision. The body is erect and raised to its utmost height, or else is extended at full length in recumbent posture. A peculiar radiant smile illuminates the countenance, and the whole aspect and attitude is that of intense mental exaltation. Sometimes the patient is silent, the mind being apparently absorbed in meditation, or in the contemplation of some beatific vision. Sometimes there is mystical speaking or prophesying, or singing, or the lips may be moved without any sound escaping.... Usually there is complete insensibility to external impressions. Ecstasy is often associated with religious monomania. It was formerly quite common among the inmates of convents, and is now not infrequently met with at camp-meetings and other gatherings of a similar nature. Many truly devout people are extatics." G. Durant, M.D., Ph.D., member of American Medical Association, Fellow of the New York Academy of Medicine, etc., etc., recipient of several medals, etc.
This is Mrs. White's case very clearly. Hundreds of similar ones have occurred in every age, and are constantly occurring now. The sad part of it is that so many honest souls are deluded into receiving all this as a divine revelation.
Much in many ways:
1. It is an error and a deception.
2. She deceives herself and others.
3. She teaches false doctrines.
4. She has a harsh, uncharitable spirit, and begets this in all her followers.
5. She builds up an isolated sect, and thus destroys all their influence for good.
6. Her teachings make her people narrow, bigoted, and gloomy. Thus she blasts the peace of thousands of souls.
7. It leads her advocates to deceive. Being afraid that it will hurt them in new places, if it is known in what light they really hold her visions, they keep them back as long as they can and then they deny that it is a matter of importance with them. This is false and deceptive, for they hold faith in her visions to be as important as keeping the Sabbath, and they hold her visions to be as sacred as the Bible.
8. To defend her mistakes and errors, both she and her apologists have to deny the plainest facts and resort to arguments very questionable.
9. To defend her errors, they compare them to supposed errors in the Bible, and thus destroy faith in that book.
10. She rules her whole people with a rod of iron, and dictates to them in everything, even the smallest and most private affairs of family life. She boasts that her work "is to come down to the minutiae of life." Testimonies, Vol. II, page 608. With this idea she meddles with everything public and private, and all the affairs of families, till it becomes, to a man of spirit, an intolerable bore. She meddles between husband and wife, parents and children, breaks up marriage engagements which do not suit her, dictates to all her followers what they shall eat, how, and when; the cut and color of their dress; their business, the disposition of their means, etc., etc. In proof of this let a person read any of her "Testimonies," for they are full of it.
11. Her severity and harshness have driven many to despair, others to back- slide, and others out of the church. I can name many individuals and families whose happiness she has blasted. She broke the heart and darkened the life of my first wife by her cruel words to her. Any one who dares to get in her way must either succumb, be crushed, or driven out. The effort to bind her visions as inspired upon the faith and consciences of the whole denomination has produced continual wrangling, division, and much bitter feeling, right among themselves for the last sixty years. Families, churches and conferences have been divided over them, while hundreds, yes, thousands, have been driven from them because they would not accept Mrs. White's visions as inspired.
12. They produce doubts and infidelity. When those who have been led to firmly believe them finally come to see that they have been deceived, then they are in danger of losing faith in everything and so becoming out and out infidels, or at least skeptical. Large numbers have gone to ruin that way whom I have personally known. Some have gone to the Spiritualists, some to the Free Thinkers, some to the Shakers, some to the Mormons, and some to the world. They have nearly driven Mrs. White herself into infidelity. Here are her own words: "In the night I have awakened my husband, saying, 'I am afraid that I shall become an infidel.'" Testimonies, Vol. I, page 597. How unlike the apostles that sounds.
Mrs. White Becomes Rich
There is no example in the Bible where a prophet took advantage of his inspiration to enrich himself. They generally worked hard, had little, and died poor. But Mrs. White began poverty poor. She says: "We entered upon our work penniless." Testimonies, Vol. I, page 75. But as soon as they became leaders, they managed to supply themselves well. Since I knew them, thirty years ago, they have had an abundance, and have used means for themselves lavishly. They would always have the best and plenty of it. Everywhere they went they required to be waited upon in the most slavish manner. Mrs. White dresses very richly, often is furnished women to wait on her, and all their time and expenses are paid by the conference.
When Elder White died he left a large fortune. He was a sharp business man, and took advantage of his position to benefit himself and his family, and she aided him in it by her revelations. How different from Mr. Moody! Mrs. White is eighty years old, is worth thousands, has a large income, has not a single soul dependent upon her, says that time is about to end, urges all to cut down their possessions, yet takes large royalty on all her numerous books and seems as eager for money as others. How is this?
The last year I was with them she received $18 per week, was furnished two women to wait upon her and all traveling expenses paid. The same year they sold 20,000 copies of Great Controversy on which she received a royalty of $2,500 besides and income from all her other works. Her inspiration has paid her well financially.
Take an example or two of how she used her revelations to make money: In 1868 Elder White had on hand several thousand dollars' worth of old books which were dead property, as they were not selling and were growing out of date. He hit on a plan to raise a "book fund" for the free distribution of books and tracts. This fund he used to buy out his and her old books! When the money did not come fast enough, she had a revelation about it thus: "Why do not our brethren send in their pledges on the book and tract fund more liberally? And why do not our ministers take hold of this work in earnest? ...We shall not hold our peace upon this subject. Our people will come up to the work. The means will come. And we would say to those who are poor and want books, send in your orders.... We will send you a package of books containing four volumes of Spiritual Gifts, How to Live, Appeal to Youth, Appeal to Mothers, Sabbath Readings and the two large charts, with key of explanation,... and charge the fund four dollars." Testimonies, Vol. I, page 689. Every one of these books was their own. The money came and they pocketed it all. I was there and know.
Mrs. White now has forty inspired books. To sell these, every possible effort is made through every channel. She is constantly urging it by all her inspired authority. Hear her: "The volumes of Spirit of Prophecy and also the Testimonies should be introduced into every Sabbath keeping family.... Let them be worn out in being read by all the neighbors.... Prevail upon them to buy copies.... Light so precious, coming from the throne of God, is hid under a bushel. God will make his people responsible for this neglect." Testimonies, Vol. IV, pages 390, 391. So, of course, her books must be pushed and sold while she makes money. It pays to be inspired!
Why I Once Believed Mrs. White Inspired
1. I once accepted Mrs. White's claim to inspiration for the same reason that most of her followers do. I first accepted the Sabbath and then the other points of the faith till I came to believe it all.
2. Once among and of them I found all stating in strong terms that Mrs. White was inspired of God. I supposed they knew, and so took their word for it; and that is what all the others do as they come in, deny it as they may.
3. I soon found that her revelations were so connected with the whole history and belief of that church that I could not consistently separate them any more than a person could be a Mormon and not believe in Joseph Smith. I believed the other doctrines so firmly that I swallowed the visions with the rest, and that is what all do.
4. When I began to have suspicions about the visions I found the pressure so strong that I feared to express them, or even to admit them to myself. All said such doubts were of the Devil and would lead to a rejection of the truth and then to ruin. So I dared not entertain them nor investigate the matter; and this is the way it is with others.
5. I saw that all who expressed any doubts about the visions were immediately branded as "rebels," as "in the dark," "led by Satan," "infidels," etc.
6. Having no faith in any other doctrine or people, I did not know what to do nor where to go. So I tried to believe the visions and go along just as thousands of them do when really they are in doubt about them all the time.
Her last Testimony just out reveals the fact that there is a wide-spread effort among her people to modify her high claims. She protests vehemently and warns them to keep their hands off. Sooner or later there must be a revolt against her claims.
The following from Chamber's Encyclopedia, article, Southcott, is also applicable to Mrs. White and her followers: "The history of Joanna Southcott herself has not much in it that is marvelous; but the influence which she exercised over others may well be deemed so, and the infatuation of her followers is hard to be understood, particularly when it is considered that some of them were men of some intelligence and of cultivated mind. Probably the secret of her influence lay in the fact that the poor creature was in earnest about her delusions. So few people in the world are really so that they are always liable to be enslaved by others who have convictions of any kind, however grotesque. On her death-bed Joanna said: 'If I have been misled, it has been by some spirit, good or evil.' Poor Joanna never suspected that the spirit which played such vagaries was her own."
Just so of Mrs. White. It is marvelous that with all the proof of her failures intelligent men are still led by her. But the case of Joanna, of Ann Lee, and others, helps us to solve this one. All have earnestly believed in their own inspiration, and this alone has convinced others.
The Adventists' Addition to the Bible
"The Bible and the Bible Only, as a Rule of Faith and Practice," is the Protestant watchword for which saints have fought and martyrs died.
The Catholic church has the Bible and - and - something else - an infallible Pope to interpret it.
The Swedenborg church has the Bible and - and - something else - Swedenborg's revelation to interpret it.
The Shakers have the Bible and - and - something else - Mother Ann Lee's revelation to interpret it.
The Mormons have the Bible and - and - something else - Joe Smith's revelations to interpret it.
Christian Scientists have the Bible and - and - something else - Mrs. Eddy's Science and Health to tell what it means.
Seventh-day Adventists have the Bible and - and - something else - Mrs. White's revelations to interpret it.
Bewijs dat ZDA na alle kritiek, laster, verdraaiingen, ridicuul en beschuldigingen toch al 150 jaar de waarheid verkondigt, bewijs voor een komende internationale zondagsrustwetgeving:
Ali, ik respecteer jou als persoon, echter wanneer het gaat om het geloof moet ik de valse leer van de ZDA kerk resoluut afwijzen, blootleggen en vernietigen. Sabbat was een rituele wet voor Joden. Nog maar een keertje duidelijk maken dan.quote:
Bewijs dat ZDA na alle kritiek, laster, verdraaiingen, ridicuul en beschuldigingen toch al 150 jaar de waarheid verkondigt, bewijs voor een komende internationale zondagsrustwetgeving:
From "Seventh-day Adventism Renounced" by D.M. Canright, 1914
The Sabbath in Genesis
The Sabbath is not mentioned by name in the book of Genesis, nor till the time of Moses. Gen. 2:1-3 states that God finished creation in six days and rested on the seventh day; and that he blessed and sanctified the seventh day "because that in it he had rested." On this we remark: 1.) The day was not holy in itself. 2.) God's rest upon that day did not make it holy. 3.) God sanctified or made holy the seventh day because that in it he HAD rested. His rest was over and passed before he blessed the day. 4.) As to just WHEN God blessed the day the record does not clearly state. Some contend that he sanctified the day then and there in Eden. Others argue that this was not done till the exodus. Plausible arguments are used on both sides; but the simple fact that the most godly and learned men have always disagreed about the institution of the Sabbath in Eden should teach us caution how we build a theory upon a disputed text so meager in statement and so far away in time. In all fairness it must be owned that the definite time when the Sabbath was sanctified can not certainly be determined from this text.
Smith's Dictionary of the Bible truthfully says: "It is in Ex. 16:23-29 that we find the first incontrovertible institution of the day." Art. Sabbath. Of the argument on Gen. 2:1-3 for the institution of the Sabbath in Eden it says: "The whole argument is very precarious." There is no command in Gen. 2 to keep the Sabbath. We must look elsewhere for that. The sanctification of the seventh day there mentioned is claimed by some to have been by anticipation. As Moses wrote his books after he came to Sinai, after the Sabbath had been given in the wilderness, he here mentions one reason why God thus gave them the seventh day, viz.: because God himself had set the example at creation; had worked six days and rested the seventh. Such use of language is common. We say Gen. Grant was born at such a time. We do not mean that he was a general then, but we mention it by anticipation, using a title which he afterwards bore. So in Gen. 3:20, "Adam called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living." Here is a future fact stated as though it had already occurred. So 1Sam. 4:1, the Jews "pitched beside Eben-ezer." But the place was not named Eben-ezer till years after. 1Sam. 7:12. "Judas Iscariot, which was also the traitor." Luke 6:16. Here a future fact with regard to Judas is mentioned when he is first spoken of, though the act of betrayal did not take place till years later. Just so when the seventh day is first mentioned its sanctification is referred to, though it did not occur till afterwards. We must admit that this may have been so.
Ex. 20:8 says: "Remember the Sabbath day," etc. Sabbatarians claim that this shows that the Sabbath existed from creation. It does not prove it, because the Sabbath had been given some weeks before the decalogue was given. So this may refer back only to Ex. 16, when the Sabbath is first named. Or, which is evidently the real truth about it, it may refer to keeping the Sabbath as it comes week by week. "Remember," don't forget, to keep the Sabbath day.
Then it is now generally held by able Christian scholars that the days of creation were indefinite periods of time. There is much to sustain this idea. Sabbatarians themselves admit this. Thus Rev. A.H. Lewis, D.D., Seventh-day Baptist, editor and author of several critical works on the Sabbath, says: "We apprehend that the creation week was infinitely longer than our week of seven days of twenty-four hours." Sabbath and Sunday, page 8. But this fact is fatal to his definite seventh-day theory; for if God's days were not twenty- four hour days like ours, then we do not and can not rest on the same definite day He did. Hence, we can only use God's week as a model - six days work, the seventh rest.
Sabbatarians think that the fourth commandment designates the identical day on which God himself rested. But this is not as clear as they claim. "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." Ex. 20:10. That is, the rest day of the Lord; hence it must be the day on which he himself rested, they say. But this does not necessarily follow. The language simply claims that day as belonging to God. Take the day of the passover: "The fourteenth day of the first month is the passover of the Lord." Num. 28:16. Did the Lord keep the passover that day? Hardly. Again: "These are the feasts of the Lord." Lev. 23:4. Did the Lord feast on those days? Surely not. The language simply claims those days as sacred to God and that is all that Ex. 20:10 claims for the seventh day. The revised version gives the idea clearly: "The seventh day is a Sabbath UNTO THE LORD thy God."
Away back there in the dim past, where the events of an age are covered by one line in the Bible, it is impossible now to determine exactly how it all was. Those ages before Christ are compared to shadows, Col. 2:17, and to the light of the moon, Rev. 12:1, while the gospel is compared to the sun. Rev. 12:1. Is it not the safest for us to walk in the light of the sun instead of groping our way in the moonlight and shadows of the past? But the main reliance of Sabbatarians is upon arguments drawn from those remote times of darkness, while in the New Testament they find little to support their theories, but much to explain away.
There is no statement that any of they patriarchs kept the Sabbath or knew anything about it. Sabbatarians say the record is so brief that it was omitted. Their proof then is WHAT WAS LEFT OUT!
Though the record from Adam to Moses covers a period of 2500 years; though we appear to have a full account of the religious customs and worship of the patriarchs, such as Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, etc.; though we are told about circumcision, the altar, the sacrifices, the priests, the tithe, the oath, marriage, feast days, etc.; yet never a word is said about any one keeping the Sabbath. This does not prove positively that they did not keep it, but it does show a strong probability against it. This is the sum of what can be fairly said about the Sabbath in Genesis. When men go back in Genesis to find their principal argument for the Sabbath, is it not going a long ways and finding little upon which to establish a Christian duty? Would it not be wiser and safer to build our faith upon the plain requirements of the New Testament?
Testimony of Eminent Men
Justin Martyr, who wrote only 44 years after the death of St. John, and who was well acquainted with the doctrine of the apostles, denied that the Sabbath originated at creation. Thus after name Adam, Abel, Enoch, Lot and Melchizedek, he says: "Moreover, all those righteous men already mentioned, though they kept no Sabbaths, were pleasing to God." Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 19.
Irenaeus says: "Abraham believed God without circumcision and the Sabbath." Adv. Hoeres, lib 4, c. 30.
Tertullian, A.D. 200, said: "Let them show me that Adam Sabbatized, or that Abel in presenting his holy offering to God pleased him by Sabbath observance, or that Enoch who was translated was an observer of the Sabbath." Against the Jews, section 4.
Eusebius, A.D. 324, the father of church history, says: "They (the patriarchs) did not, therefore, regard circumcision, nor observe the Sabbath, nor do we." Eccl. Hist., book 1, chapter 4.
From this it will be seen that the early church did not believe that the Sabbath originated at creation. The same doctrine has been maintained by such eminent men as Paley, Hessey, Bishop Bramhall, etc. Paley says: "Now, in my opinion, the transactions in the wilderness above recited were the first actual institution of the Sabbath." Quoted in Watson's Institutes, Vol. II, page 515. The great John Milton says: "Whether its institution was ever made known to Adam, or whether any commandment relative to its observance was given previous to the delivery of the law on Mt. Sinai, much less whether any such was given before the fall of man, can not be ascertained." A Treatise on Christian Doctrine, Vol. I, page 299.
John Bunyan says: "Now as to the imposing of the seventh day Sabbath upon men from Adam to Moses, of that we find nothing in holy writ, either from precept or example." Complete Works, page 892. So many of the best minds have not been able to find clear proof that the Sabbath was kept before Moses. Others, as Clarke, Barnes, Scott, Lange, etc., think it was. We best leave it as an unsettled question.
Granting that the Sabbath was given to Adam in Eden, it does not follow that all men now must keep it. Look at what Adam was to do: 1st. Adam was only allowed to eat the fruit of trees and plants. Gen 1:29. The first permission to eat flesh was given to Noah. Gen 9:3. 2nd. Adam was to tend garden. Gen. 2:15. 3rd. He was forbidden the tree of knowledge. Gen 2:17. 4th. He was given access to the tree of life. Gen 2:16. 5th. Adam was naked. Gen. 2:25. All this was in Eden before the fall. Must all men now eat and work and dress and do just as Adam did in Eden? No one believes that. Then it would not follow that we must keep the seventh day even if Adam did. This simple fact demolishes the most confident argument of Sabbatarians.
The Sabbath at the Exodus
The first mention of Sabbath observance is in Ex. 16. Many eminent scholars hold that God here changed the day of rest from the original seventh day to the sixth day of the creation week. Others hold that the Jews, during their long slavery in Egypt, had lost the Sabbath and that it was here renewed; while others hold that it was here given for the first time. Whichever position is correct, it is clear that the keeping of the Sabbath was a new thing to the Jews. A few facts are plain. The deliverance of Israel from Egypt marked a new era in the history of the church and of Israel. This is kept prominent all through the Bible. Here God gave them a new year and a new beginning of months. "This month shall be unto you the beginning of months; it shall be the first month of the year to you." Ex. 12:2. Hence it is very probable that he might have given them a new Sabbath day or one for the first time. The account of their first keeping the Sabbath shows plainly that they were not accustomed to it before.
Dr. H.C. Benson, the eminent M.E. editor, scholar and author, says of Ex. 16: "It is so explicit that we are not left in doubt as to the fact that the Sabbath, as observed in the wilderness of sin, had not been a day hallowed by the Lord previous to that time." Quoted and approved by Dr. Potts and Bishop Harris in The Lord's Day Our Sabbath, page 15.
John Milton over 200 years ago said: "That the Israelites had not so much as heard of the Sabbath before this time, seems to be confirmed by several passages of the prophets." Treatise on Christian Doctrine, Vol. I, book 2, chapter 7.
John Bunyan also said: "The seventh day Sabbath, therefore, was not from paradise, nor from nature, nor from the fathers, but from the wilderness and from Sinai." Complete Works, page 895.
It was new to them. Read it: Moses said on Friday, "Tomorrow is a solemn rest, a holy Sabbath unto the Lord." (R.V.) The last verse gives the conclusion of the whole matter. "So the people rested on the seventh day." That is, thus and for this reason the people here began resting on the seventh day. There is no sense in the language if this is not the meaning. Several scriptures harmonize well with this idea. Thus, Neh. 9:13-14. "Thou camest down also upon Mount Sinai... and MADEST KNOWN unto them the holy Sabbath." This implies that it was not known before. In harmony with this, Ezek. 20:10- 12 says: "Wherefore I caused them to go forth out of the land of Egypt, and brought them into the wilderness." "Moreover also I gave them my Sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them." When did God give them the Sabbath? When he brought them out of Egypt. Where did he give it to them? In the wilderness. What for? For a sign between himself and them.
It does not say that God RESTORED the Sabbath, but that he gave them the Sabbath. "I gave them my Sabbaths" implies the act of committing it to them, showing that they did not have it before. Surely all these facts are plainly stated. They show that the keeping of this day was a new thing to them and only for them. Deut. 5:15, states that the Sabbath is to be kept as a memorial of Egypt. "Remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence; ...therefore, the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day." This indicates that the Sabbath was a Jewish institution. One reason given why they should keep it was because they had been delivered out of Egypt. Of course they would not keep it till the reason existed for keeping it. The laws regulating how it should be kept show that it was a local institution adapted only to the Jewish worship and to that warm climate. 1.) No fires must be built on the Sabbath. Ex. 35:3. 2.) They must neither bake nor boil that day. Ex. 16:23. 3.) They must not go out of the house. Ex. 16:29. 4.) Their priests must offer two lambs that day. Num. 28:9. 5.) They must compel all among them, living in their land, to keep it. Ex. 20:10. 6.) They must stone all who break it. Ex. 31:14. 7.) It must be kept from sunset to sunset. Lev. 23:32. 8.) Their cattle must rest. Ex. 20:10. No meetings were appointed for that day. It was to be wholly a day of rest.
Seventh-day Adventists observe none of these things. Indeed, it would be impossible for them to do most of them. They would freeze without fires and suffer without warm food. They go many miles on the Sabbath and drive their teams; they offer no lambs; they can compel no one to keep it; nor do they stone those who break it. In the extreme north and in traveling around the earth they do not go by sunset time, for they cannot. Their Sabbathkeeping is no more like that of the Old Testament, such as the law required, than darkness is like light. It shows the folly of their effort to keep an obsolete Jewish day. Nowhere are Gentiles required to keep the Sabbath except such as dwell among the Jews. They were also required to keep the other feast days. Lev. 16:29. All through the Old Testament the Gentiles are denounced over and over for all other sins, but not once for breaking the Sabbath, though none of them kept it. The reason for this must be that it was not binding upon them. John Bunyan says: "We read not that God gave it to any but to the seed of Jacob." Complete Works, page 895.
"The Jewish Sabbath" - A Proper Term for the Seventh Day
Sabbatarians strongly object to our calling the seventh day the "Jewish Sabbath." They ask, "Where does the Bible call it the Jewish Sabbath? It is 'the sabbath of the Lord they God.'" This simple argument has great force with many. But I am satisfied it is perfectly proper to designate the seventh day as the Jewish Sabbath. Seventh-day brethren are constantly talking and writing about "the ceremonial law" and the "moral law," nor could they properly express their ideas of the "two laws" without using these terms. But neither of them is once used in all the Bible. How is this? Will they admit that their idea is unscriptural because these exact words are not used in the Bible? No. They freely use the terms "Jewish festivals," "Jewish sabbaths," "annual sabbaths," "sabbaths of the Hebrews," etc. See "History of the Sabbath," pages 82, 83, 84, etc. Yet not one of these terms is found in the Bible, though they cannot get along without them. It would be amusing to confine a Sabbatarian strictly to the Bible language and then hear him attempt to preach on the two laws and the different sabbaths. "Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones."
1. "Sabbath" is purely a Hebrew word never found till the time of Moses. Ex. 16:23 2. The Word Sabbath is never used in the Bible except in connection with some Jewish holy time. 3. There is no record that the Sabbath was ever kept till the Jews kept it. Ex. 16. 4. The Sabbath was given to the Jews. "I gave them my Sabbaths." Ez. 20:12 If God gave it to the Jews, was it not their Sabbath; was it not the Jewish Sabbath? I give Fred a knife. Is it not Fred's knife? 5. Notice how plain the record is that God gave the Sabbath to the Jews, but to no others. "The Lord hath given YOU the Sabbath." Ex. 16:29. "Speak unto the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, saying Verily, my Sabbaths ye shall keep." Ex. 31:13. Who was told to keep the Sabbath? The children of Israel, the Jews. "It is a sign between me and the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL," the Jews. Verse 17. 6. God himself calls the Sabbath "her Sabbaths." Hosea 2:11. "I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her Sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts." Isn't it the Jewish Sabbath, then? 7. The Sabbath was never given to any other nation. 8. "The children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath throughout their generation." Ex. 31:16. To whom was it confined? To the generation of the Jews. 9. "It is a sign between me and the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL." Ex. 31:17. It was theirs exclusively, Jewish. 10. The Sabbath is classed right in with the other Jewish holy days and sacrifices. See Lev. 23:1-44; Num. 28:2, 16; 1Chron. 23:29-31; 2Chron. 2:4; 8:13, etc. 11. It was abolished with them. Colossians 2:14-17 12. The Jews comprise nearly all those who keep the seventh day; hence "Jewish Sabbath" is a natural and intelligent designation for that day. 13. Christians almost unanimously keep the first day in distinction from the Jews who comprise nearly all those who keep the seventh day. Hence the Jewish Sabbath is intelligent and proper again. 14. The few Christians who keep a different day from the great body of the church keep the Sabbath which the Jews keep. Hence, again, it is significant and proper to designate them as those who keep the Jewish Sabbath. 15. But Sabbatarians say that the seventh day is called "the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." Ex. 20:10, and "my holy day," Isa. 58:10, therefore it is not proper to call it "the Jewish Sabbath." Answer: Every holy season, place, person, or article was called the Lord's as "the Lord's passover." Ex. 12:11. Yet we read, "The passover, a feast of the Jews." John 6:4. So it is "the Sabbath of the Lord" in one place and "her Sabbaths" in another. Hosea 2:11. Hence it is correct and scriptural to call the seventh day "the Jewish Sabbath."
Exodus 31:16-17, The Sabbath Perpetual
Here Sabbatarians find three expressions from which they argue that the Sabbath can never end. 1.) "Throughout their generations." 2.) "Perpetual." 3.) "Forever." Thus: "Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, FOR a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever." They ask, when will PERPETUAL and FOREVER end? They show that the generation of the Jews still continues; hence the Sabbath is still to be kept.
But this argument would also perpetuate all the Levitical law, circumcision, incense, passover, priesthood, etc. Thus the passover: "ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance forever." Ex. 12:14. It must be kept "THROUGHOUT THEIR GENERATIONS" and "FOREVER" just like the Sabbath. So of the offering of incense. "A PERPETUAL incense before the Lord THROUGHOUT YOUR GENERATIONS." Ex. 30:8. Now if the Adventist argument for the Sabbath based on the terms "perpetual," "forever," and "throughout your generations," is good, then they ought to keep the passover and offer incense! This is a fair sample of the weakness of Sabbatarian arguments. The same argument will prove the perpetuity of burnt offerings, Ex. 29:42; atonement, Ex. 30:10; washing of hands and feet, Ex. 30:21; first fruits, Lev. 23:13; meat offering, Lev. 6:18; oil for lamps, Lev. 24:3; fringes, Num. 15:38; pentecost, Lev. 23:21; feast of tabernacles, Lev. 23:41. See also Ex. 40:15; Lev. 3:17; 7:36; Num. 10:8.
The application of these terms to the keeping of the Sabbath is proof that it was to cease. Why? Because in every case where these terms are applied to the observance of any ordinance that ordinance has ceased. Adventists themselves will agree to this in everything except the Sabbath. None of these terms are ever applied to moral laws or duties. Where do you read, "you shall not kill throughout your generations?" "It shall be a perpetual statute that you shall not steal?" "It shall be a statute forever that you shall have no other gods?" This text, then, proves that the Sabbath was to cease with the other Jewish ceremonies.
"Gentile Christians must become Jews, Israelites, and so come under obligation to keep the Sabbath, for the Sabbath was given to Israel forever throughout their generations." This is a favorite Adventists argument for the law and Sabbath. But see its utter fallacy: Burnt offerings, incense, washing of hands and feet, fringes, priesthood, circumcision, passover, and all the Jewish law were also given to ISRAEL to keep forever throughout their generations. See above. Hence the argument proves that we must keep all these as well as the Sabbath! Do Adventists keep any of these? No.
It is argued that the Sabbath must be of perpetual obligation because it is associated in the decalogue with commandments of that nature. But it is also associated time and again with the ceremonial rites, types and shadows which were peculiarly Jewish. Thus: "Keep my Sabbaths and reverence my sanctuary." Lev. 19:30. "The Seventh day is the Sabbath." Lev. 23:3. "At even is the Lord's passover." Verse 5. "The feast of unleavened bread." Verse 6. In verse 38 the Sabbath is named with "gifts," "vows" and "offerings." In Lev. 24:1-8 the Sabbath is named with the offerings of oil, bread, frankincense. In Num. 28:9-10 it is classed with the offerings of lambs, meat and drink offerings, burnt offerings, etc. In 1Chron. 23:29-31, the Sabbath is classed with meat offering, sacrifices, new moons, feasts, etc. This fact offsets all the argument drawn from its place in the decalogue.
The Sabbath in the Historical Books
From Joshua to Job not a word is said indicating that the Sabbath was for any one but Jews; hence no argument can be drawn from this source to bind it upon Gentile Christians.
The Sabbath in the Prophets
The Sabbath is not mentioned in Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Daniel, and most of the minor prophets. Nothing is said about it by any of the prophets which can fairly be made to apply to Christians. Several texts are applied by Adventists to our times, but it is all assumption without proof. For instance, Isa. 56 is used to prove that the Gentile Christians should keep the Sabbath. It says: The stranger, Gentile, "that keepth the Sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar." Verses 6, 7. If this proves that Gentiles must keep the Sabbath, it also proves that they must offer burnt offerings and sacrifices upon God's altar in the temple on Mount Zion in Jerusalem, for all those are mentioned as plainly as the Sabbath. Either, then, this applies to the Jewish age and to those Gentile proselytes who embraced Judaism and were circumcised, Ex. 12:48, and observed all Jewish rites; or if it applies to the Christian age, then these terms "Sabbath," "altar," "sacrifice," "my house," "my holy mountain," must be taken figuratively, for Christians do not offer sacrifices, nor have a literal altar, nor go to Jerusalem to worship in that house nor on that mountain.
So Isa. 58:12-13 is boldly applied to our days and to the work of the Adventists in urging all to keep the Jewish Sabbath. But there is not a word in all the chapter even hinting such a thing. All this they assume without any proof and then apply the words to suit their purpose. I did that a hundred times while with them, just as the rest did. I know just how they do it. As last I lost all confidence in such a reckless way of handling the word of God. Then I had to quit using the most of their proof texts on the Sabbath, this with others. Look at it. The whole chapter is addressed to the Jews, "the house of Jacob," verse 1, the "nation," verse 2, and so on. Often in the Jewish age God called them to reform their lax ways in keeping the Sabbath as well as in other things. This is one of those cases. Isa. 66:22- 23. In the new earth "it shall come to pass THAT from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord." This shows that the Sabbath will be kept in the next world, hence it is perpetual and so should be kept now. But it says just the same of the new moons and places them first before the Sabbath. So if this text proves that we should keep the Sabbath it proves we should keep the new moons also. Do Adventists keep the new moons?
Ez. 22:26. "Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things; they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they showed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my Sabbaths, and I am profaned among them." This text they also apply to their work now and to the ministers who oppose the Jewish Sabbath. But there is not a word in the whole chapter that even intimates that this applies away down here in the gospel and to Gentiles. But God himself applies it to the Jewish nation when they were overthrown by Babylon several hundred years before Christ. Read the whole chapter and compare it with Neh. 13:17- 18. See verses 2, 6, 18, 19, etc. "Wilt thou judge the bloody city," etc. "Behold, the princes of Israel." "The house of Israel is to me become dross." "Therefore will I gather you into the midst of Jerusalem." The evidence is clear that it applies there, while no proof whatever can be given to show that it belongs away down here where Adventists apply it. I became fully convinced that it was by such groundless assumptions as these, by roundabout and far- fetched arguments, that the seventh-day theory is sustained. When you look for one plain, direct statement in all the Bible requiring Gentile Christians to keep the Sabbath, it cannot be found. It has to be INFERRED from this; QUESSED from that, and CONCLUDED from the other; all inference, nothing direct. So the Old Testament furnishes no evidence that Christians are to keep the Jewish Sabbath. If such proof is to be found, it must be in the New Testament itself.
Chapter XIV - The Sabbath in the New Testament
From "Seventh-day Adventism Renounced" by D.M. Canright, 1914
The Sabbath in the Gospels
With the opening of the gospel comes the most glorious period of the church's history. The Son of God himself stands before us clothed with all the authority of heaven. Matt 28:8. God says, "Hear ye him." Matt 17:5. He came to introduce the gospel, "a new and living way," Heb 10:20, "the new covenant," "a better covenant," Heb 8:6,8, which sets aside and supersedes the old, verse 13. Compared to the Jewish age it is a "great light," Matt 4:16, and the gospel church is represented as "a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet." Rev 12:1. Much which was before was dark, shadowy and mysterious, is now light and plain. Rom 16:25-26.
A great and radical change in the mode of worshipping God is now introduced. Many institutions of the Old Testament, which were once given in the most solemn manner, and by the authority of God himself, are no longer binding.
Now, where shall we look to find the clearest light upon these old institutions? Where shall we go to learn the real design of them all? Where shall we turn to obtain the necessary rules for a Christian to live by? Shall we go back to the moonlight of the Jewish law? To the starlight of the patriarchal age? Or shall we come to the full sunlight of the gospel? Evidently the New Testament furnishes the clearest, and only authoritative guide for the Christian. The Old Testament can be read and rightly understood only in the light of the New. But it is a fact that Sabbatarians have to go back to the Old Testament, even clear back to the uncertain institutions of the patriarchal age, as their clearest and most certain authority for the seventh day. The evidence from the New Testament only comes in as secondary and collateral. All their strongest arguments for the Sabbath are away back among the shadows of the Old Testament. Take these from them, and the very foundation has fallen out from their theory. I know that this is so, for I have gone over the ground a thousand times. I know just how a seventh-day man feels, and where he rests his confidence. Of the New Testament he is a little shy. But is there any other Christian duty which is plainly laid down only in the Old Testament? I do not think of a single one, though in the past I tried hard and long to find it. On al other points the New Testament is clear and full. In it we have chapter after chapter, epistle after epistle, and book after book packed full of instruction on every Christian duty in every possible phase of it. The duty or sin covered by each of the other nine commandments is directly named many times over in the New Testament. But the duty to keep the seventh day is not once mentioned. We arrange side by side:
The Ten Commandments of The Ten Commandments of the Old Testament the New Testament
1. Thou shalt have no other gods 1. We preach unto you that ye should before me. Ex 20:3 turn from these vanities unto the 2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any living God, which made heaven and graven image; Thou shalt not bow earth and the seas. Acts 14:15 down thyself to them, nor serve them. 2. Little children keep yourself Ex 20:4,5 from idols. John 5:21 3. Thou shalt not take the name of the 3. But above all things, my brethren, LORD thy God in vain. Ex 20:7 swear not, neither by heaven, neither by earth, neither by any other oath. James 5:12 4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it 4. There is no command in all the New holy. Ex 20:8 Testament to keep the seventh day. 5. Honour thy father and thy mother. 5. Children, obey your parents in the Ex 20:12 Lord, for this is right. Eph 6:1 6. Thou shalt not kill. Ex 20:13 6. Thou shalt not kill. Rom 13:9 7. Thou shalt not commit adultery. 7. Neither fornicators nor idolators Ex 20:14 nor adulterers...shall inherit the kingdom of God. 1Cor 6:9-10 8. Thou shalt not steal. Ex 20:15 8. Steal no more. Eph 4:28 9. Thou shalt not bear false witness. 9. Lie not. Col. 3:9 Ex 20:16 10.Covetousness, let it not be named 10. Thou shalt not covet. Ex 20:17 among you. Eph 5:3
"The duty of men to worship the Lord God only as taught in the first commandment is found no less than fifty times in the New Testament. Idolatry, which is the second commandment, is condemned twelve times. Profanity, the third commandment, is plainly condemned four times. Honor thy father and mother, which is the fifth commandment, is taught six times at least. Murder, which is the sixth prohibition, is found condemned twelve times. Theft, the eight, six times. False witness, the ninth, four times. Covetousness, the tenth, nine times. Now, with these facts before us, how can there be any danger that the law of God will be made void? Another remarkable fact is that the fourth commandment is not repeated in the New Testament, that no Christian was ever commanded to observe it, that no Christian was ever condemned for Sabbath breaking." Time and again, all through the New Testament long lists of sins embracing every possible shade of wickedness are given, but a disregard of the seventh day is never once included. Thus: Mark 7:21-22, thirteen sins; Rom 1:29-31, nineteen sins; Gal 5:19-21, seventeen sins; 2Tim 3:1-4, eighteen sins, etc. How is this? Would the Sabbatarians have left it so?
Strange to say, the duty to keep the seventh day is not once mentioned in the whole New Testament. There is not one single command from either Christ or any of the apostles to keep that day. It is not once said that it is wrong to work on the seventh day, or that God will bless any one for observing it. There is no promise for keeping it, no threatening for not keeping it. No one is ever reproved for working on the seventh day, nor approved for observing it. If disregarding the seventh day is so great a crime as its advocates now claim, it is unaccountable that no warning against it should be given in all the New Testament, not even once. Is all this silence merely accidental? So Sabbatarians have to believe; but the supposition is absurd. Evidently it was left out on purpose, the same as the pentecost, passover, new moons, sacrifices and the like.
Paul, in all his fourteen epistles never even names the Sabbath but once, and that only to show its abolition. Col 2:6. Contrast this with Adventists' literature!
The usual answer is that the Jews were already keeping the Sabbath, even too strictly, and therefore the Jewish Christians needed no instruction on this point. But this answer is not satisfactory. The Jews were just as strictly opposed to false gods and images, and yet over and over Christians are warned against these things. Thus Paul says: "Neither be ye idolaters," and "Flee from idolatry." 1Cor 10:7,14. But where does it say, "Keep the seventh day?" or "Flee from Sabbath breaking?" Besides, the great body of the Christian converts in the latter years of the gospel, were Gentiles, who had never kept the seventh day at all. Why should they not be instructed how to keep it? Why should they be repeatedly warned against all other evil practices of their former lives, but never warned against breaking the Sabbath as they certainly had done before? This was a point which I was never able to answer satisfactorily to myself while I kept the seventh day. The simple and manifest fact is, that it was not intended to bind the Jewish Sabbath upon the Christian church. Hence it was quietly allowed to drop out with the other old covenant holy days and institutions.
The arguments offered out of the New Testament for the observance of the seventh day are few and not hard to answer. Let us examine the main ones.
Jesus Kept the Seventh Day, Therefore We Must
With Sabbatarians this argument has more weight than all others from the New Testament. It always did with me. But now I am not satisfied that, when fairly considered, there is nothing in it. Jesus was born and lived all his life under the law. Gal. 4:4. That law was binding till his death. Col. 2:14. Of course he ought to have kept every item of that law till the cross, just as he evidently did do. On this point Elder George I. Butler, Seventh-day Adventist, says: "He lived under all the ceremonies and observances of the law of Moses, the same as did the other Jews. Thus he was 'born under the law' and subject to it. All his life he was careful not to break any of its provisions, and he never permitted his disciples to do it to the day of his death." The Law in Galatians, page 59.
This is the plain truth in the case. But it shows the utter fallacy of arguing that we must keep the seventh day just because Jesus did. If we observe one institution of the Old law just because Jesus did, then we should also keep all that he did; that is, live just as the Jews did under the law of Moses! For that is just what Jesus did. He instructed his disciples to offer gifts upon the altar, Matt. 5:23-24, sent a man to offer a gift, Matt. 8:4, commanded his disciples to observe all that the scribes taught, Matt. 23:2-3, and was very particular to keep the passover just according to law only the day before his death. Luke 22:7-15. But who thinks now of doing all these things because Jesus did? No one. Jesus was circumcised. Do Sabbatarians circumcise? No. Then why pick out the seventh day from all other holy days and rites and hold on to that while rejecting all the rest which he also observed? It seems as though a candid man must admit that this argument for the Jewish Sabbath is not a success. If that day is binding upon Christians it must be upon some other ground than because Jesus kept it while living as a Jew under the Jewish law.
Mark 2:27-28. The Sabbath Made for Man
The Sabbatarian use of this text is directly contrary to its plainest meaning. Jesus was not giving a history of the origin of the Sabbath, nor defending its sacredness against desecration, now showing that it was made for all the race. No such thought is the subject of his remarks. He is not claiming the Jewish Sabbath as his day, as the day consecrated to himself. It was not as God, the Creator, that he claimed to be its Lord; but it was as the SON OF MAN, the representative of man, that he claimed to be lord over the Sabbath.
Notice his premises and his conclusions: "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath: THEREFORE the son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath." He says that as the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath, THEREFORE he, a son of man, was Lord of it. Why was Jesus Lord of the Sabbath? Because he was the Son of God and had made it? Not at all; but because he was the Son of man, man for whom the Sabbath was made. It is as a MAN that he claims to be its Lord. And this he said to defend his disciples against the charge of breaking the Sabbath. How did it apply? Why, the Sabbath was made for them and hence it was only their servant. They were superior to the Sabbath. Notice the cases he used to illustrate his statement. Matt 12:3-12.
1) David went to the priest and ate holy bread which the law forbade to any but priests. His needs were superior to that ceremonial precept.
2) "The priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are blameless." Verse 5. They would slay cattle all the Sabbath day. Their service was superior to the Sabbath.
3) If a sheep fall into a pit on the Sabbath they would work hard to get him out. The preservation of animal life was superior to the Sabbath. I have seen Adventists work hard on the Sabbath in case of a fire to save even the goods, though the law says, "In it thou shalt not do any work." Would they dare violate the letter of any other commandment that way? No. Then, surely, Jesus himself being judge, the observance of the strict letter of the Sabbath law is not a matter of the highest importance. This is the lesson plainly taught here by Christ, the Lord of the Sabbath. It squarely condemns the rigid interpretation of the Sabbatarians who make the Sabbath more important than man himself for whom it was made.
4) The Sabbath was made for MAN, hence the necessities of men are above the Sabbath law. So, then, this text, when fairly read, gives no support to the sacredness of the Jewish Sabbath under the gospel.
Matt. 24:20
As this is one of their favorite texts we will examine it. Foretelling the fall of Jerusalem which occurred forty years after his death, Jesus said that when they saw the armies come around the city, they must flee immediately or be caught in the city, and perish with the others. Hence he said, "Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take anything out of his house. Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day. For then shall be great tribulation." Matt. 24:17-21.
From this it is argued that the Sabbath would continue to be a sacred day after the resurrection. Adventists admit that it would not be a violation of the Sabbath to flee on that day in case of necessity. Then where is there any argument in the text? If their flight had occurred on the Sabbath to save their lives, would that have desecrated the day? They own that it would not. Then the sacredness of the day was not what Jesus had in view.
The context plainly shows that it was for their SAFETY that he was providing, not for the keeping of the say. The proper observance of the Sabbath is not the subject at all. The dangers and tribulations of that time was the subject. Notice four points: 1) Those with child. 2) Those with nursing babes. 3) Fleeing in the winter. 4) Fleeing on the Sabbath. If they had to flee suddenly, in haste, and without preparation, even without their ordinary clothes, women with child or with little babes, or persons in the cold of winter would be liable to suffer or die. So in all these three cases Jesus refers to the inconvenience and danger of their flight; and this is exactly why he mentions the Sabbath. On that day the gates of the city would be shut and so hinder them greatly of not detain them entirely. The gates of all the villages through which they must pass would be closed. The Jews would suspect them and arrest them as traitors. Hence it would be dangerous, almost impossible, to flee on that day. A candid person can see that this is all there is to that text. Of this I became convinced sometime before I gave up the Sabbath, and so I stopped using it.
Matt. 28:1, Mark 16:1-2. "The Sabbath" is the Day Before "The First Day of the Week
"In the end of the Sabbath as it began to dawn towards the first day of the week." "When the Sabbath was past, ***the first day of the week." According to this the Sabbath, after the death of Christ, is still the day before the first day of the week. Hence the first day of the week on which Christ rose was not the Sabbath yet. Answer: All the days in the week, in the month, and in the year, still continued to be called by their old Jewish names for many years after Christ; but it does not follow that they continued to be sacred days, for Paul expressly states that all those feast days, new moons, and Sabbath days were nailed to the cross. Col. 2:14,16; Gal. 4:10-11; Rom. 14:5-6. Take three examples: "When the day of Pentecost was fully come," Acts 2:1. "Then were the days of unleavened bread." Acts12:3. "Went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day/" Acts 13:14. Here, long after the cross, we have the same old names for three of the Jewish holy days, viz: Pentecost. Days of unleavened bread, and Sabbath day. Are all these days still holy days because they are still called by their former names? If so, then we ought to observe Pentecost and the days of unleavened bread as well as keep the Sabbath. So there is no force in the argument from the use of the Word Sabbath after the cross. The resurrection day was not called the Sabbath in the New Testament nor by Christians for several hundred years after Christ. It was called "Lord's Day." Rev. 1:10.
"THE SABBATH" was the name of the Jewish rest day, "which was a shadow of things to come." Col. 2:16-17, but the resurrection day is another day entirely. It is called "the first day of the week," "the eighth day," or the "Lord's Day." It is only in an accommodated sense that it is called the Sabbath now as we use the words "altar," "sanctuary," "temple," "sacrifice," "Israel," etc.
Luke 23:56. The Woman "Rested the Sabbath Day According to the Commandment"
This was after Christ died; hence it shows that they thought that the Sabbath was still to be kept. They were the followers of Jesus and knew what he taught. Answer: But this was before Jesus rose from the dead, before they knew anything about his resurrection, and before they had any idea of the great change which the gospel was to make in the service of God. Their old Jewish idea still blinded their minds so that they could not at once take in the nature of what Jesus had really come to do. Just before this Jesus said: "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." John 16:12. So he had not tried to explain all these less important matters to them; but he said that he would, after the resurrection, send them the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth. John 16:13. It was not till after the Holy Ghost came upon them at Pentecost that they began to comprehend the true nature of the gospel. So it is no proof that the Jewish Sabbath is binding on Gentiles because the Jewish women kept it while Jesus was dead and in his grave. Turn to Acts 1:14, and 2:1, and we find all these same women fifty days after the resurrection still carefully keeping "the day of Pentecost," another Jewish holy day. But do our Sabbatarians keep Pentecost because these women kept it? No, but they should if they keep the Sabbath because those women kept it. This shows how groundless that argument is.
The Sabbath 59 Times in the New Testament
They say, the fact that the Sabbath is named 59 times in the New Testament is proof that it was still of great importance and should be kept. Well, the temple is mentioned in the New Testament 115 times; circumcision, 55 times; sacrifices, 38 times; the passover, 28 times, etc. Then I suppose we ought also to have all these over in the gospel!
Sabbatarians think they have a fair argument in the Acts. Here the seventh day is always called "the Sabbath," and it may be that the Jewish Christians still observed it, and met with the Jews in worship on that day. From this it is concluded that all Christians should keep that day, too. This is based upon the false assumption that whatever customs and laws of the old covenant were still observed for a few years by the Jewish Christians after the resurrection, must be binding upon the Gentile church now.
A careful examination of what the disciples did really do for many years after the resurrection will show that they kept all the Mosaic law, including feast days, the Sabbath day, sacrifices, circumcision, vows, and the whole Jewish ritual. But they did this as Jews, according to their national law and long established custom. That they did not do so as a Christian duty is manifest from the fact that Gentile Christians were not required to observe these things. Acts 15:19-28; 21:25. "As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observed no such things." Every mention of the Sabbath in Acts, without a single exception, is in connection with the Jewish worship on that day. Acts 13:14-15, 42-45; 15:21; 16:13; 17:1- 2; 18:4. The law and the prophets were read, and Jewish worship conducted as usual. Certainly the disciples could not hold distinctively Christian meeting here under these circumstances. They must assemble by themselves to worship Jesus and have the Lord's supper, and that is just what we find them doing on the first day of the week. Acts 20:7. There is no record of a single meeting of Gentile Christians upon the seventh day, nor of Jewish Christians, except in the Jewish worship.
Consider a few facts as to why the Jewish Christians did not immediately give up the observance of the Mosaic law. How carefully and gradually Jesus unfolded his new doctrines, even to the chosen apostles. To the multitude he spoke only in parables "as they were able to hear it." Mark 4:33. Had Jesus at once and plainly told the people the radical change which he had come to make in the Jewish system of worship, they would have killed him immediately. Even the apostles would doubtless have left him. During all the ministry of our Lord, nothing stands out more prominently than the fact that he was gradually, but cautiously, preparing the minds of his disciples for the great change which his gospel was destined to make in the worship of God. The great obstacles he had to contend with were their narrow views, their tenacity for the forms and ceremonies and letter of the law, and Jewish ideas of God's kingdom. That he was to take the throne of David, subjugate the world to Israel, and carry on the Jewish mode of worship with the temple service - this idea was so firmly rooted in the minds of even the apostles, that they could not understand Jesus even when he plainly told them to the contrary. Hence the Saviour simply left them to outgrow these ideas as the nature of his gospel more fully dawned upon them, after his resurrection and ascension and the descent of the Holy Spirit. Just before Jesus died, he said: "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth." John 16:12-13. How often he had to say to them, "O fools, and slow of heart to believe." Luke 24:25. "Are ye also yet without understanding?" Matt. 15:16.
During all the ministry of Christ he never once stated directly that any of the Jewish rites would be abolished, not even sacrifices, the temple service, circumcision, the feast days, or anything. Yet he well knew that all these were soon to end, and designed that they should. Neither the people nor the disciples were then prepared for such an announcement. Hence he left these things for them to learn later. It is in the epistles of Paul that these changes are distinctly stated, just where we find the Jewish Sabbath abrogated.
Forty days after the resurrection still found them clinging to their old Jewish idea of the temporal reign of Jesus at Jerusalem. "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" Knowing that it was impossible to correct their wrong notions by a mere statement, Jesus left them to outgrow these errors as they learned more of the gospel. Now follow them through the book of Acts, and observe how long and tenaciously they held on to all the observances of the old Jewish law, not only the Sabbath, but all the temple service and ceremonies of the Mosaic law. On Pentecost we find them keeping the sacred day with the other Jews. Acts 2. As late as ten years after the resurrection they were "preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only." Acts 11:19. Not a sermon had they thought of preaching to a Gentile till God, by a special miracle, sent Peter to Cornelius. Acts 10. As late as this Peter was scrupulously regarding the Mosaic law of meats. He said, "I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean." Verse 14. And he designed to keep right on observing it. And when the Holy Spirit came upon the Gentiles, the disciples were astonished "because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost." Verse 45. When he returned to Jerusalem, the whole church was in an uproar over it. "And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them." Acts 11:2-3.
Up to this time, then, we find the church at Jerusalem, with Peter at its head, still keeping the Jewish law concerning food, and refusing to eat with Gentiles. Now study the great council at Jerusalem, held over twenty years after the resurrection. Acts 15. Not only did the whole church in Judea keep the entire Mosaic law in all its rites, including circumcision, but some of them endeavored also to force it upon the Gentile converts. Verses 1-19. But through the influence of Paul, this move was defeated. If it had not been that, in the providence of God, Paul was raised up to oppose it, the whole Christian church would have been placed under the bondage of the Mosaic Law. As it was, that council freed only the Gentile converts from obedience to Moses' law. Acts 15:19,23; 21:25. All the Jewish Christians still kept it.
Even as late as A.D. 60, or nearly thirty years after the cross, we still find the whole Jewish church in Judea strictly keeping the law of Moses as to circumcision, offerings, vows, shaving the head, etc. Not only did they themselves observe all these rites of the old law, but they required all Jewish Christians throughout the world to do the same. When Paul went up to Jerusalem only a few years before his death, they demanded of him a pledge that he himself also kept these rites. Read carefully Acts 21: 20-26.
These words show conclusively that the Jewish Christians observed all the rites of the laws of Moses as late as that, which was but a few years before the fall of Jerusalem. All church historians agree that the Jewish Christians continued to observe the seventh day, even for some time after the fall of Jerusalem, as we have seen.
Philip Schaff, the greatest of living authors, in his History of the Apostolical Church, page 118, says: "So far as we know, the Jewish Christians of the first generation, at least in Palestine, scripturally observed the Sabbath, the annual Jewish feasts, and the whole Mosaic ritual, and celebrated in addition to these the Christian Sunday, the death and resurrection of the Lord, and the holy supper. But this union was gradually weakened, and was at last entirely broken by the destruction of the temple. ***The Jewish Sabbath passed into the Christian Sunday." Elder Waggoner, Adventist, says: "Dr. Schaff is justly esteemed as a man of extensive learning, and whose testimony regarding facts no one would call in question," Replies to Canright, page 132. Good. Now let them accept Dr. Schaff's statement and cease their denials.
Elder Butler, Adventist, truly says: "Indeed, it may well be doubted whether a large portion of the early church who were Jews before conversion ever fully realized the scope and extent of the gospel in setting aside those laws peculiarly Jewish. They clung to them, and were zealous for them long after they were abolished at the cross. To Paul we are indebted, through the blessing of God, for the only full explanation of the proper relation of these laws to the plan of salvation." Law in Galatians, page 8.
How much, then, does it prove in favor of the Jewish Sabbath to find that it was still called "the Sabbath," or that it was kept by the Jewish Christians, or even by Paul himself? Just nothing at all; for by the same argument, as we have seen, we must observe the passover, pentecost, offer offerings, make vows, shave your heads, be circumcised, and keep all the rites of the Mosaic law the same as those disciples did for years.
The Apostle Paul and the Keeping of the Sabbath Day
Seventh-day Adventists try to make an argument for the Jewish Sabbath from Paul's example. They count up some 84 Sabbaths which they claim he kept, and they say that if he kept it we ought also. I used to think there was great force in this argument and have used it scores of times to convince others. But I became satisfied finally that the whole argument was a fallacy. Let us examine it.
1. Paul was a Jew, but we are Gentiles.
2. Paul was brought up in all the observances of the Jewish law. Acts 22:3. We were not.
3. The great desire of Paul's heart was to win his Jewish brethren to Christ. To do this he was willing to die, yea even to be accursed himself. Rom. 9:3-4.
4. To win these Jewish brethren he was very cautious not to do anything, as far as he could possibly avoid it, which would prejudice them against him and so cut off his access to them.
5. As these Jews were very zealous in the observance of all Jewish law, Paul knew that he must himself also keep this law if he were to obtain any access to them. Hence he says: "Unto the Jews I became as a Jew that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law [the Jews], as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law." "And this I do for the gospel's sake." 1Cor. 9:20,23. See what he did in the case of Timothy. "Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters; for they knew all that his father was a Greek." Acts 16:3. Paul wanted Timothy to help him among the Jews, but he knew that the Jews would not listen to him if he were not circumcised. So he circumcised Timothy to gain the Jews, though he said, "Circumcision is nothing." 1Cor. 7:19. For just the same reason he kept the Pentecost, Acts 18:21; 20:16; shaved his head, Acts 18:8; made offerings, Acts 21:20-26; and lived the same as the Jews did, though he knew and taught that all these things were done away.
Now suppose it could be shown that Paul always kept the Sabbath, would that prove that he regarded it as obligatory upon all Christians, specially the Gentile Christians? Surely not. To them he wrote very plainly that they were not to keep the law concerning meats, drinks, feast days, new moons and Sabbath days. See Col. 2:14-17; Rom. 14:1-5; Gal. 4:10. He taught with regard to all these just as he did about circumcision, Gal. 5:2, that none of these were necessary, yet he himself circumcised Timothy.
We will now examine every text where Paul is said to have kept the Sabbath. Acts 13:14-15. "He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day and sat down. After the reading of the law and the prophets" he was invited to preach to them, which he did. This was with the Jews in Jewish worship, in the Jewish synagogue, on the Jewish Sabbath. Paul as a Jew joined them in this, in order to preach the gospel to them. So, verses 42-46, on the next Sabbath he met with them again in the same place for the same purpose. This was two Sabbaths Paul kept. Acts 16:13, "on the Sabbath he went out of the city by a river side where prayer was wont to be made," or rather where there was a PROSEUCHE, a Jewish house of prayer. So the Syriac and Greek. Here he found Jewish women at worship, and preached Jesus to them. This was the third Sabbath he kept. Acts 17:1-2. Paul "came to Thessalonica where was a synagogue of the Jews, ***and three Sabbath days reasoned with them." Here again it was in the Jewish worship among the Jews in their synagogue on their Sabbath. Three more Sabbath here, six so far. Acts 18:1-4. Paul is again among the Jews "and he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks." Same as before, his Sabbath keeping is every time while he is among the Jews in their Sabbath worship. But how many Sabbaths did he meet with them here? Verse 11 says: Paul remained there in Corinth one "year and six months," which would be 78 weeks. Hence Adventists say he kept 78 Sabbaths here. These added to the six before make 84. But verses 6 and 7 put a different face on the matter. Instead of reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath all this time, he withdrew from the Jews and said, "Henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles." Then he went into the house of Justus near the synagogue. So there is no evidence that he preached in the synagogue more than a few Sabbaths. So their 84 Sabbaths that Paul kept dwindled down to ten or a dozen and all these were with the Jews in Jewish worship. And this he himself explains by saying, "Unto the Jews I became as a Jew that I might gain the Jews." 1Cor. 9:20.
Not one single case can be found where Paul kept the Sabbath in a Christian assembly, nor is it ever mentioned in any way in connection with Christian meetings, while it is said that the disciples met on the first day of the week. Mark this: "Wherever the apostles entered the Jewish synagogues on the Sabbath to preach, it was before the Christian church was planted in such places."
Paul Did Nothing Against the Custom of the Jews, Hence Kept the Sabbath
In Acts 25:8, Paul says he had done nothing "against the law of the Jews," and in Acts 28:17 says, he had "committed nothing against the people or customs of our fathers." From this it is claimed that he must have kept the Sabbath, for that was the law and custom of the fathers. True, but so it was their custom to circumcise, to offer sacrifices, to keep the new moons, yearly feasts, etc. Hence Paul must have done all these. Shall we then do all these because Paul as a Jew did? Hardly. Notice that nearly every argument applies equally as well to all the Jewish law and would bind that whole system on Christians!
From "Seventh-day Adventism Renounced" by D.M. Canright, 1914
The Sabbath in the Gospels
With the opening of the gospel comes the most glorious period of the church's history. The Son of God himself stands before us clothed with all the authority of heaven. Matt 28:8. God says, "Hear ye him." Matt 17:5. He came to introduce the gospel, "a new and living way," Heb 10:20, "the new covenant," "a better covenant," Heb 8:6,8, which sets aside and supersedes the old, verse 13. Compared to the Jewish age it is a "great light," Matt 4:16, and the gospel church is represented as "a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet." Rev 12:1. Much which was before was dark, shadowy and mysterious, is now light and plain. Rom 16:25-26.
A great and radical change in the mode of worshipping God is now introduced. Many institutions of the Old Testament, which were once given in the most solemn manner, and by the authority of God himself, are no longer binding.
Now, where shall we look to find the clearest light upon these old institutions? Where shall we go to learn the real design of them all? Where shall we turn to obtain the necessary rules for a Christian to live by? Shall we go back to the moonlight of the Jewish law? To the starlight of the patriarchal age? Or shall we come to the full sunlight of the gospel? Evidently the New Testament furnishes the clearest, and only authoritative guide for the Christian. The Old Testament can be read and rightly understood only in the light of the New. But it is a fact that Sabbatarians have to go back to the Old Testament, even clear back to the uncertain institutions of the patriarchal age, as their clearest and most certain authority for the seventh day. The evidence from the New Testament only comes in as secondary and collateral. All their strongest arguments for the Sabbath are away back among the shadows of the Old Testament. Take these from them, and the very foundation has fallen out from their theory. I know that this is so, for I have gone over the ground a thousand times. I know just how a seventh-day man feels, and where he rests his confidence. Of the New Testament he is a little shy. But is there any other Christian duty which is plainly laid down only in the Old Testament? I do not think of a single one, though in the past I tried hard and long to find it. On al other points the New Testament is clear and full. In it we have chapter after chapter, epistle after epistle, and book after book packed full of instruction on every Christian duty in every possible phase of it. The duty or sin covered by each of the other nine commandments is directly named many times over in the New Testament. But the duty to keep the seventh day is not once mentioned. We arrange side by side:
The Ten Commandments of The Ten Commandments of the Old Testament the New Testament
1. Thou shalt have no other gods 1. We preach unto you that ye should before me. Ex 20:3 turn from these vanities unto the 2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any living God, which made heaven and graven image; Thou shalt not bow earth and the seas. Acts 14:15 down thyself to them, nor serve them. 2. Little children keep yourself Ex 20:4,5 from idols. John 5:21 3. Thou shalt not take the name of the 3. But above all things, my brethren, LORD thy God in vain. Ex 20:7 swear not, neither by heaven, neither by earth, neither by any other oath. James 5:12 4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it 4. There is no command in all the New holy. Ex 20:8 Testament to keep the seventh day. 5. Honour thy father and thy mother. 5. Children, obey your parents in the Ex 20:12 Lord, for this is right. Eph 6:1 6. Thou shalt not kill. Ex 20:13 6. Thou shalt not kill. Rom 13:9 7. Thou shalt not commit adultery. 7. Neither fornicators nor idolators Ex 20:14 nor adulterers...shall inherit the kingdom of God. 1Cor 6:9-10 8. Thou shalt not steal. Ex 20:15 8. Steal no more. Eph 4:28 9. Thou shalt not bear false witness. 9. Lie not. Col. 3:9 Ex 20:16 10.Covetousness, let it not be named 10. Thou shalt not covet. Ex 20:17 among you. Eph 5:3
"The duty of men to worship the Lord God only as taught in the first commandment is found no less than fifty times in the New Testament. Idolatry, which is the second commandment, is condemned twelve times. Profanity, the third commandment, is plainly condemned four times. Honor thy father and mother, which is the fifth commandment, is taught six times at least. Murder, which is the sixth prohibition, is found condemned twelve times. Theft, the eight, six times. False witness, the ninth, four times. Covetousness, the tenth, nine times. Now, with these facts before us, how can there be any danger that the law of God will be made void? Another remarkable fact is that the fourth commandment is not repeated in the New Testament, that no Christian was ever commanded to observe it, that no Christian was ever condemned for Sabbath breaking." Time and again, all through the New Testament long lists of sins embracing every possible shade of wickedness are given, but a disregard of the seventh day is never once included. Thus: Mark 7:21-22, thirteen sins; Rom 1:29-31, nineteen sins; Gal 5:19-21, seventeen sins; 2Tim 3:1-4, eighteen sins, etc. How is this? Would the Sabbatarians have left it so?
Strange to say, the duty to keep the seventh day is not once mentioned in the whole New Testament. There is not one single command from either Christ or any of the apostles to keep that day. It is not once said that it is wrong to work on the seventh day, or that God will bless any one for observing it. There is no promise for keeping it, no threatening for not keeping it. No one is ever reproved for working on the seventh day, nor approved for observing it. If disregarding the seventh day is so great a crime as its advocates now claim, it is unaccountable that no warning against it should be given in all the New Testament, not even once. Is all this silence merely accidental? So Sabbatarians have to believe; but the supposition is absurd. Evidently it was left out on purpose, the same as the pentecost, passover, new moons, sacrifices and the like.
Paul, in all his fourteen epistles never even names the Sabbath but once, and that only to show its abolition. Col 2:6. Contrast this with Adventists' literature!
The usual answer is that the Jews were already keeping the Sabbath, even too strictly, and therefore the Jewish Christians needed no instruction on this point. But this answer is not satisfactory. The Jews were just as strictly opposed to false gods and images, and yet over and over Christians are warned against these things. Thus Paul says: "Neither be ye idolaters," and "Flee from idolatry." 1Cor 10:7,14. But where does it say, "Keep the seventh day?" or "Flee from Sabbath breaking?" Besides, the great body of the Christian converts in the latter years of the gospel, were Gentiles, who had never kept the seventh day at all. Why should they not be instructed how to keep it? Why should they be repeatedly warned against all other evil practices of their former lives, but never warned against breaking the Sabbath as they certainly had done before? This was a point which I was never able to answer satisfactorily to myself while I kept the seventh day. The simple and manifest fact is, that it was not intended to bind the Jewish Sabbath upon the Christian church. Hence it was quietly allowed to drop out with the other old covenant holy days and institutions.
The arguments offered out of the New Testament for the observance of the seventh day are few and not hard to answer. Let us examine the main ones.
Jesus Kept the Seventh Day, Therefore We Must
With Sabbatarians this argument has more weight than all others from the New Testament. It always did with me. But now I am not satisfied that, when fairly considered, there is nothing in it. Jesus was born and lived all his life under the law. Gal. 4:4. That law was binding till his death. Col. 2:14. Of course he ought to have kept every item of that law till the cross, just as he evidently did do. On this point Elder George I. Butler, Seventh-day Adventist, says: "He lived under all the ceremonies and observances of the law of Moses, the same as did the other Jews. Thus he was 'born under the law' and subject to it. All his life he was careful not to break any of its provisions, and he never permitted his disciples to do it to the day of his death." The Law in Galatians, page 59.
This is the plain truth in the case. But it shows the utter fallacy of arguing that we must keep the seventh day just because Jesus did. If we observe one institution of the Old law just because Jesus did, then we should also keep all that he did; that is, live just as the Jews did under the law of Moses! For that is just what Jesus did. He instructed his disciples to offer gifts upon the altar, Matt. 5:23-24, sent a man to offer a gift, Matt. 8:4, commanded his disciples to observe all that the scribes taught, Matt. 23:2-3, and was very particular to keep the passover just according to law only the day before his death. Luke 22:7-15. But who thinks now of doing all these things because Jesus did? No one. Jesus was circumcised. Do Sabbatarians circumcise? No. Then why pick out the seventh day from all other holy days and rites and hold on to that while rejecting all the rest which he also observed? It seems as though a candid man must admit that this argument for the Jewish Sabbath is not a success. If that day is binding upon Christians it must be upon some other ground than because Jesus kept it while living as a Jew under the Jewish law.
Mark 2:27-28. The Sabbath Made for Man
The Sabbatarian use of this text is directly contrary to its plainest meaning. Jesus was not giving a history of the origin of the Sabbath, nor defending its sacredness against desecration, now showing that it was made for all the race. No such thought is the subject of his remarks. He is not claiming the Jewish Sabbath as his day, as the day consecrated to himself. It was not as God, the Creator, that he claimed to be its Lord; but it was as the SON OF MAN, the representative of man, that he claimed to be lord over the Sabbath.
Notice his premises and his conclusions: "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath: THEREFORE the son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath." He says that as the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath, THEREFORE he, a son of man, was Lord of it. Why was Jesus Lord of the Sabbath? Because he was the Son of God and had made it? Not at all; but because he was the Son of man, man for whom the Sabbath was made. It is as a MAN that he claims to be its Lord. And this he said to defend his disciples against the charge of breaking the Sabbath. How did it apply? Why, the Sabbath was made for them and hence it was only their servant. They were superior to the Sabbath. Notice the cases he used to illustrate his statement. Matt 12:3-12.
1) David went to the priest and ate holy bread which the law forbade to any but priests. His needs were superior to that ceremonial precept.
2) "The priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are blameless." Verse 5. They would slay cattle all the Sabbath day. Their service was superior to the Sabbath.
3) If a sheep fall into a pit on the Sabbath they would work hard to get him out. The preservation of animal life was superior to the Sabbath. I have seen Adventists work hard on the Sabbath in case of a fire to save even the goods, though the law says, "In it thou shalt not do any work." Would they dare violate the letter of any other commandment that way? No. Then, surely, Jesus himself being judge, the observance of the strict letter of the Sabbath law is not a matter of the highest importance. This is the lesson plainly taught here by Christ, the Lord of the Sabbath. It squarely condemns the rigid interpretation of the Sabbatarians who make the Sabbath more important than man himself for whom it was made.
4) The Sabbath was made for MAN, hence the necessities of men are above the Sabbath law. So, then, this text, when fairly read, gives no support to the sacredness of the Jewish Sabbath under the gospel.
Matt. 24:20
As this is one of their favorite texts we will examine it. Foretelling the fall of Jerusalem which occurred forty years after his death, Jesus said that when they saw the armies come around the city, they must flee immediately or be caught in the city, and perish with the others. Hence he said, "Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take anything out of his house. Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day. For then shall be great tribulation." Matt. 24:17-21.
From this it is argued that the Sabbath would continue to be a sacred day after the resurrection. Adventists admit that it would not be a violation of the Sabbath to flee on that day in case of necessity. Then where is there any argument in the text? If their flight had occurred on the Sabbath to save their lives, would that have desecrated the day? They own that it would not. Then the sacredness of the day was not what Jesus had in view.
The context plainly shows that it was for their SAFETY that he was providing, not for the keeping of the say. The proper observance of the Sabbath is not the subject at all. The dangers and tribulations of that time was the subject. Notice four points: 1) Those with child. 2) Those with nursing babes. 3) Fleeing in the winter. 4) Fleeing on the Sabbath. If they had to flee suddenly, in haste, and without preparation, even without their ordinary clothes, women with child or with little babes, or persons in the cold of winter would be liable to suffer or die. So in all these three cases Jesus refers to the inconvenience and danger of their flight; and this is exactly why he mentions the Sabbath. On that day the gates of the city would be shut and so hinder them greatly of not detain them entirely. The gates of all the villages through which they must pass would be closed. The Jews would suspect them and arrest them as traitors. Hence it would be dangerous, almost impossible, to flee on that day. A candid person can see that this is all there is to that text. Of this I became convinced sometime before I gave up the Sabbath, and so I stopped using it.
Matt. 28:1, Mark 16:1-2. "The Sabbath" is the Day Before "The First Day of the Week
"In the end of the Sabbath as it began to dawn towards the first day of the week." "When the Sabbath was past, ***the first day of the week." According to this the Sabbath, after the death of Christ, is still the day before the first day of the week. Hence the first day of the week on which Christ rose was not the Sabbath yet. Answer: All the days in the week, in the month, and in the year, still continued to be called by their old Jewish names for many years after Christ; but it does not follow that they continued to be sacred days, for Paul expressly states that all those feast days, new moons, and Sabbath days were nailed to the cross. Col. 2:14,16; Gal. 4:10-11; Rom. 14:5-6. Take three examples: "When the day of Pentecost was fully come," Acts 2:1. "Then were the days of unleavened bread." Acts12:3. "Went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day/" Acts 13:14. Here, long after the cross, we have the same old names for three of the Jewish holy days, viz: Pentecost. Days of unleavened bread, and Sabbath day. Are all these days still holy days because they are still called by their former names? If so, then we ought to observe Pentecost and the days of unleavened bread as well as keep the Sabbath. So there is no force in the argument from the use of the Word Sabbath after the cross. The resurrection day was not called the Sabbath in the New Testament nor by Christians for several hundred years after Christ. It was called "Lord's Day." Rev. 1:10.
"THE SABBATH" was the name of the Jewish rest day, "which was a shadow of things to come." Col. 2:16-17, but the resurrection day is another day entirely. It is called "the first day of the week," "the eighth day," or the "Lord's Day." It is only in an accommodated sense that it is called the Sabbath now as we use the words "altar," "sanctuary," "temple," "sacrifice," "Israel," etc.
Luke 23:56. The Woman "Rested the Sabbath Day According to the Commandment"
This was after Christ died; hence it shows that they thought that the Sabbath was still to be kept. They were the followers of Jesus and knew what he taught. Answer: But this was before Jesus rose from the dead, before they knew anything about his resurrection, and before they had any idea of the great change which the gospel was to make in the service of God. Their old Jewish idea still blinded their minds so that they could not at once take in the nature of what Jesus had really come to do. Just before this Jesus said: "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." John 16:12. So he had not tried to explain all these less important matters to them; but he said that he would, after the resurrection, send them the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth. John 16:13. It was not till after the Holy Ghost came upon them at Pentecost that they began to comprehend the true nature of the gospel. So it is no proof that the Jewish Sabbath is binding on Gentiles because the Jewish women kept it while Jesus was dead and in his grave. Turn to Acts 1:14, and 2:1, and we find all these same women fifty days after the resurrection still carefully keeping "the day of Pentecost," another Jewish holy day. But do our Sabbatarians keep Pentecost because these women kept it? No, but they should if they keep the Sabbath because those women kept it. This shows how groundless that argument is.
The Sabbath 59 Times in the New Testament
They say, the fact that the Sabbath is named 59 times in the New Testament is proof that it was still of great importance and should be kept. Well, the temple is mentioned in the New Testament 115 times; circumcision, 55 times; sacrifices, 38 times; the passover, 28 times, etc. Then I suppose we ought also to have all these over in the gospel!
Sabbatarians think they have a fair argument in the Acts. Here the seventh day is always called "the Sabbath," and it may be that the Jewish Christians still observed it, and met with the Jews in worship on that day. From this it is concluded that all Christians should keep that day, too. This is based upon the false assumption that whatever customs and laws of the old covenant were still observed for a few years by the Jewish Christians after the resurrection, must be binding upon the Gentile church now.
A careful examination of what the disciples did really do for many years after the resurrection will show that they kept all the Mosaic law, including feast days, the Sabbath day, sacrifices, circumcision, vows, and the whole Jewish ritual. But they did this as Jews, according to their national law and long established custom. That they did not do so as a Christian duty is manifest from the fact that Gentile Christians were not required to observe these things. Acts 15:19-28; 21:25. "As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observed no such things." Every mention of the Sabbath in Acts, without a single exception, is in connection with the Jewish worship on that day. Acts 13:14-15, 42-45; 15:21; 16:13; 17:1- 2; 18:4. The law and the prophets were read, and Jewish worship conducted as usual. Certainly the disciples could not hold distinctively Christian meeting here under these circumstances. They must assemble by themselves to worship Jesus and have the Lord's supper, and that is just what we find them doing on the first day of the week. Acts 20:7. There is no record of a single meeting of Gentile Christians upon the seventh day, nor of Jewish Christians, except in the Jewish worship.
Consider a few facts as to why the Jewish Christians did not immediately give up the observance of the Mosaic law. How carefully and gradually Jesus unfolded his new doctrines, even to the chosen apostles. To the multitude he spoke only in parables "as they were able to hear it." Mark 4:33. Had Jesus at once and plainly told the people the radical change which he had come to make in the Jewish system of worship, they would have killed him immediately. Even the apostles would doubtless have left him. During all the ministry of our Lord, nothing stands out more prominently than the fact that he was gradually, but cautiously, preparing the minds of his disciples for the great change which his gospel was destined to make in the worship of God. The great obstacles he had to contend with were their narrow views, their tenacity for the forms and ceremonies and letter of the law, and Jewish ideas of God's kingdom. That he was to take the throne of David, subjugate the world to Israel, and carry on the Jewish mode of worship with the temple service - this idea was so firmly rooted in the minds of even the apostles, that they could not understand Jesus even when he plainly told them to the contrary. Hence the Saviour simply left them to outgrow these ideas as the nature of his gospel more fully dawned upon them, after his resurrection and ascension and the descent of the Holy Spirit. Just before Jesus died, he said: "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth." John 16:12-13. How often he had to say to them, "O fools, and slow of heart to believe." Luke 24:25. "Are ye also yet without understanding?" Matt. 15:16.
During all the ministry of Christ he never once stated directly that any of the Jewish rites would be abolished, not even sacrifices, the temple service, circumcision, the feast days, or anything. Yet he well knew that all these were soon to end, and designed that they should. Neither the people nor the disciples were then prepared for such an announcement. Hence he left these things for them to learn later. It is in the epistles of Paul that these changes are distinctly stated, just where we find the Jewish Sabbath abrogated.
Forty days after the resurrection still found them clinging to their old Jewish idea of the temporal reign of Jesus at Jerusalem. "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" Knowing that it was impossible to correct their wrong notions by a mere statement, Jesus left them to outgrow these errors as they learned more of the gospel. Now follow them through the book of Acts, and observe how long and tenaciously they held on to all the observances of the old Jewish law, not only the Sabbath, but all the temple service and ceremonies of the Mosaic law. On Pentecost we find them keeping the sacred day with the other Jews. Acts 2. As late as ten years after the resurrection they were "preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only." Acts 11:19. Not a sermon had they thought of preaching to a Gentile till God, by a special miracle, sent Peter to Cornelius. Acts 10. As late as this Peter was scrupulously regarding the Mosaic law of meats. He said, "I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean." Verse 14. And he designed to keep right on observing it. And when the Holy Spirit came upon the Gentiles, the disciples were astonished "because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost." Verse 45. When he returned to Jerusalem, the whole church was in an uproar over it. "And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them." Acts 11:2-3.
Up to this time, then, we find the church at Jerusalem, with Peter at its head, still keeping the Jewish law concerning food, and refusing to eat with Gentiles. Now study the great council at Jerusalem, held over twenty years after the resurrection. Acts 15. Not only did the whole church in Judea keep the entire Mosaic law in all its rites, including circumcision, but some of them endeavored also to force it upon the Gentile converts. Verses 1-19. But through the influence of Paul, this move was defeated. If it had not been that, in the providence of God, Paul was raised up to oppose it, the whole Christian church would have been placed under the bondage of the Mosaic Law. As it was, that council freed only the Gentile converts from obedience to Moses' law. Acts 15:19,23; 21:25. All the Jewish Christians still kept it.
Even as late as A.D. 60, or nearly thirty years after the cross, we still find the whole Jewish church in Judea strictly keeping the law of Moses as to circumcision, offerings, vows, shaving the head, etc. Not only did they themselves observe all these rites of the old law, but they required all Jewish Christians throughout the world to do the same. When Paul went up to Jerusalem only a few years before his death, they demanded of him a pledge that he himself also kept these rites. Read carefully Acts 21: 20-26.
These words show conclusively that the Jewish Christians observed all the rites of the laws of Moses as late as that, which was but a few years before the fall of Jerusalem. All church historians agree that the Jewish Christians continued to observe the seventh day, even for some time after the fall of Jerusalem, as we have seen.
Philip Schaff, the greatest of living authors, in his History of the Apostolical Church, page 118, says: "So far as we know, the Jewish Christians of the first generation, at least in Palestine, scripturally observed the Sabbath, the annual Jewish feasts, and the whole Mosaic ritual, and celebrated in addition to these the Christian Sunday, the death and resurrection of the Lord, and the holy supper. But this union was gradually weakened, and was at last entirely broken by the destruction of the temple. ***The Jewish Sabbath passed into the Christian Sunday." Elder Waggoner, Adventist, says: "Dr. Schaff is justly esteemed as a man of extensive learning, and whose testimony regarding facts no one would call in question," Replies to Canright, page 132. Good. Now let them accept Dr. Schaff's statement and cease their denials.
Elder Butler, Adventist, truly says: "Indeed, it may well be doubted whether a large portion of the early church who were Jews before conversion ever fully realized the scope and extent of the gospel in setting aside those laws peculiarly Jewish. They clung to them, and were zealous for them long after they were abolished at the cross. To Paul we are indebted, through the blessing of God, for the only full explanation of the proper relation of these laws to the plan of salvation." Law in Galatians, page 8.
How much, then, does it prove in favor of the Jewish Sabbath to find that it was still called "the Sabbath," or that it was kept by the Jewish Christians, or even by Paul himself? Just nothing at all; for by the same argument, as we have seen, we must observe the passover, pentecost, offer offerings, make vows, shave your heads, be circumcised, and keep all the rites of the Mosaic law the same as those disciples did for years.
The Apostle Paul and the Keeping of the Sabbath Day
Seventh-day Adventists try to make an argument for the Jewish Sabbath from Paul's example. They count up some 84 Sabbaths which they claim he kept, and they say that if he kept it we ought also. I used to think there was great force in this argument and have used it scores of times to convince others. But I became satisfied finally that the whole argument was a fallacy. Let us examine it.
1. Paul was a Jew, but we are Gentiles.
2. Paul was brought up in all the observances of the Jewish law. Acts 22:3. We were not.
3. The great desire of Paul's heart was to win his Jewish brethren to Christ. To do this he was willing to die, yea even to be accursed himself. Rom. 9:3-4.
4. To win these Jewish brethren he was very cautious not to do anything, as far as he could possibly avoid it, which would prejudice them against him and so cut off his access to them.
5. As these Jews were very zealous in the observance of all Jewish law, Paul knew that he must himself also keep this law if he were to obtain any access to them. Hence he says: "Unto the Jews I became as a Jew that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law [the Jews], as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law." "And this I do for the gospel's sake." 1Cor. 9:20,23. See what he did in the case of Timothy. "Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters; for they knew all that his father was a Greek." Acts 16:3. Paul wanted Timothy to help him among the Jews, but he knew that the Jews would not listen to him if he were not circumcised. So he circumcised Timothy to gain the Jews, though he said, "Circumcision is nothing." 1Cor. 7:19. For just the same reason he kept the Pentecost, Acts 18:21; 20:16; shaved his head, Acts 18:8; made offerings, Acts 21:20-26; and lived the same as the Jews did, though he knew and taught that all these things were done away.
Now suppose it could be shown that Paul always kept the Sabbath, would that prove that he regarded it as obligatory upon all Christians, specially the Gentile Christians? Surely not. To them he wrote very plainly that they were not to keep the law concerning meats, drinks, feast days, new moons and Sabbath days. See Col. 2:14-17; Rom. 14:1-5; Gal. 4:10. He taught with regard to all these just as he did about circumcision, Gal. 5:2, that none of these were necessary, yet he himself circumcised Timothy.
We will now examine every text where Paul is said to have kept the Sabbath. Acts 13:14-15. "He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day and sat down. After the reading of the law and the prophets" he was invited to preach to them, which he did. This was with the Jews in Jewish worship, in the Jewish synagogue, on the Jewish Sabbath. Paul as a Jew joined them in this, in order to preach the gospel to them. So, verses 42-46, on the next Sabbath he met with them again in the same place for the same purpose. This was two Sabbaths Paul kept. Acts 16:13, "on the Sabbath he went out of the city by a river side where prayer was wont to be made," or rather where there was a PROSEUCHE, a Jewish house of prayer. So the Syriac and Greek. Here he found Jewish women at worship, and preached Jesus to them. This was the third Sabbath he kept. Acts 17:1-2. Paul "came to Thessalonica where was a synagogue of the Jews, ***and three Sabbath days reasoned with them." Here again it was in the Jewish worship among the Jews in their synagogue on their Sabbath. Three more Sabbath here, six so far. Acts 18:1-4. Paul is again among the Jews "and he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks." Same as before, his Sabbath keeping is every time while he is among the Jews in their Sabbath worship. But how many Sabbaths did he meet with them here? Verse 11 says: Paul remained there in Corinth one "year and six months," which would be 78 weeks. Hence Adventists say he kept 78 Sabbaths here. These added to the six before make 84. But verses 6 and 7 put a different face on the matter. Instead of reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath all this time, he withdrew from the Jews and said, "Henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles." Then he went into the house of Justus near the synagogue. So there is no evidence that he preached in the synagogue more than a few Sabbaths. So their 84 Sabbaths that Paul kept dwindled down to ten or a dozen and all these were with the Jews in Jewish worship. And this he himself explains by saying, "Unto the Jews I became as a Jew that I might gain the Jews." 1Cor. 9:20.
Not one single case can be found where Paul kept the Sabbath in a Christian assembly, nor is it ever mentioned in any way in connection with Christian meetings, while it is said that the disciples met on the first day of the week. Mark this: "Wherever the apostles entered the Jewish synagogues on the Sabbath to preach, it was before the Christian church was planted in such places."
Paul Did Nothing Against the Custom of the Jews, Hence Kept the Sabbath
In Acts 25:8, Paul says he had done nothing "against the law of the Jews," and in Acts 28:17 says, he had "committed nothing against the people or customs of our fathers." From this it is claimed that he must have kept the Sabbath, for that was the law and custom of the fathers. True, but so it was their custom to circumcise, to offer sacrifices, to keep the new moons, yearly feasts, etc. Hence Paul must have done all these. Shall we then do all these because Paul as a Jew did? Hardly. Notice that nearly every argument applies equally as well to all the Jewish law and would bind that whole system on Christians!
Chapter XV - The Jewish Sabbath Abolished. Colossians 2.
From "Seventh-day Adventism Renounced" by D.M. Canright, 1914
1. We now come to the direct statement of Paul that the Sabbath was abolished: Col. 2:14, 16, 17. "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross. * * * Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days; which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." With other Jewish ordinances, the Sabbath was blotted out and nailed to the cross; therefore no man is to judge us about keeping "the Sabbath days." The statement is positive and plain. When I kept the seventh day this text always perplexed me as it does my Advent brethren now, say what they will. Paul directly names "the Sabbath" or "the Sabbath days," for there is no difference, as among the shadows which have passed away.
2. It is said by some that "the Sabbath days," plural number, is not the same as "the Sabbath," singular number, hence is not the weekly Sabbath. This is a groundless objection, for both the singular and the plural numbers are used indifferently for the weekly Sabbath. Thus Greenfield's Greek N. T. Lexicon says: "Sabbaton. The Sabbath, * * * both in the singular and plural." Bagster's Greek Lexicon says: "The Jewish Sabbath both in the singular and plural." So plain is this fact that even Elder Smith, Adventist, is compelled to admit it though he tries to save his theory by excepting Col. 2, and Acts 17:2, but without reason. He says: "When it [Sabbaton] is used in the plural form [excepting Acts 17:2 and Col. 2:16], it means just the same as if it had been written in the singular." Greek Falsehood, page 8. Col. 2:16, is no exception to the rule. In Acts 17:2, the word THREE is what marks the plural. The Revised Version properly renders Col. 2:16, in the singular, thus: "Let no man therefore judge you in respect of a Sabbath day," singular number. Sawyer's translation says: "In respect to a feast, or new moon, or Sabbath," singular. The Bible Union says: "Of a feast day, or of a new moon, or of a Sabbath," singular.
A few quotations will show that both the singular and plural numbers are used for the weekly Sabbath. "My Sabbaths [plural] shall ye keep for it [singular] is a sign between me and you." Ex. 31:13. This is the weekly Sabbath. "Keep my Sabbaths." Lev. 19:3. "Beside the Sabbaths of the Lord." Lev. 23:38. Adventists argue that this is the weekly Sabbath. "Blessed is the man that * * * keepeth the Sabbath," "the eunuchs that keep my Sabbaths." Isa. 56:3,4. Either singular or plural, no difference. "I gave them my Sabbaths to be a sign." Ez. 20:12. This is the weekly Sabbath, as Adventists well know. "On the Sabbath days [plural] the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath" [singular]. Matt. 12:5. Here we have in the same verse both the plural and singular used for the weekly Sabbath. "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath days?" Matt. 12:10. "Taught them on the Sabbath days." Luke 4:31. "Three Sabbath days reasoned with them." Acts 17:2. "Let no man therefore judge you * * * in respect of the Sabbath days." Col. 2:16.
Who can read this list of texts and not be profoundly impressed that by "the Sabbath days" of Col. 2:16 Paul means just what that language means in all the other cases? Of course he did, and no other reasonable application can be made of it.
3. In the Greek, in which Paul wrote Col. 2:16, he uses not only the same word which is always used for the weekly Sabbath, but exactly the same form of the word used in the fourth commandment itself! I will give the Greek word for "Sabbath days" in Col. 2:16 and other texts where the same word and same form of the word, letter for letter, is used for the weekly Sabbath. Col. 2:16. "Let no man judge you in respect to the Sabbath days," Greek, Sabbaton, genitive plural.
Ex. 20:8,10, fourth commandment, "Remember the Sabbath day (Greek, Sabbaton, genitive plural) to keep it holy." "But the seventh day is the Sabbath [Greek, Sabbate, accusative plural] of the Lord." Here it will be seen that Paul uses the same Greek word, letter for letter, that is used in the decalogue. Hence he surely meant that very Sabbath day. Notice, further, that in each case in the fourth commandment where the word "Sabbath" occurs it is plural in the Greek.
So if the use of the plural in Col. 2 shows any thing, it shows that the Sabbath of the decalogue is meant. Moreover, the Revised Version renders Ex. 20:10, and Col. 2:16, exactly alike. Thus: "The seventh day is a Sabbath unto the Lord." "Let no man judge you in respect of 'a Sabbath.' " Plainly, then, Col. 2:16, refers to the Sabbath of Ex. 20:8-11.
Further, Sabbaton, genitive plural, the form of the word used in Col. 2:16, is the one often used in other texts for the weekly Sabbath. Thus: Ex. 35:3, "Kindle no fire * * * upon the Sabbath day," [Sabbaton]. Lev. 23:38. "Besides the Sabbaths [Sabbaton] of the Lord." Lev. 24:8. "Every Sabbath [Sabbaton] he shall set it in order." Num. 15:32. "Gathered sticks upon the Sabbath day," [Sabbaton] Numbers 28:9. "On the Sabbath [Sabbaton] day two lambs." Deut. 5:12. Fourth commandment again, "Keep the Sabbath [Sabbaton] day." Isa. 58:13. "Turn away thy foot from the Sabbath," [Sabbaton] Matt. 28:1. "In the end of the Sabbath," [Sabbaton] Luke 4:16. "He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath [Sabbaton] day." Acts 13:14. "Went into the synagogue on the Sabbath [Sabbaton] day." Col. 2:16. "Let no man therefore judge you * * * in respect of the Sabbath [Sabbaton] days."
Unless a man is blinded by a pet theory, he must see that Col. 2:16 does surely mean the weekly Sabbath, as in all the other texts where the same word occurs.
4. The only word ever used in the Bible, for the weekly Sabbath is the very one Paul did use, Sabbaton. So if he had meant to name that Sabbath, what else could he have said than just what he did say, the Sabbath days? Why, then, deny that he means just what he says when he could have said nothing else if he had meant the Sabbath?
5. The word Sabbath occurs in the New Testament 60 times. Seventh-Day Adventists admit that in 59 out of these 60 cases it means the weekly Sabbath; but in the 60th case, where exactly the same word is used both in Greek and English, as we have seen, they say it must mean something else! Isn't that remarkable? Hear them: "In the New Testament the Sabbath of the Lord is mentioned 59 times, and those local Sabbaths, which expired by limitation and ceased at the cross, are mentioned once." Scripture References, p. 9. Strange that the Sabbath means the Sabbath 59 times and the 60th time it don't! "Jewish feasts are often spoken of in the New Testament but, not one of them anywhere is called a Sabbath or credited with the nature of a Sabbath." The Sabbath for Man, p. 544.
6. "The feast days and new moons" of Col. 2:16, include all the holy days of the Jews except the weekly Sabbath; hence there was nothing else left to which it could apply but that Sabbath. The entire list is given in Num. 28 and 29.
7. But what settles it beyond a reasonable doubt that Col. 2:16, does refer to the weekly Sabbaths is the fact that exactly the same list of holy days here given by Paul is given about a dozen times in the Old Testament, where we know it means the seventh day.
Turn to Num. 28 and 29, and you have a detailed law as to just what offerings shall be made on each day of the whole year. The first were the daily offerings of "two lambs," day by day, for a continual burnt offering. "The one lamb shalt thou offer in the morning, and the other lamb shalt thou offer at the even." Verse 3 and 4. The second were the offerings on the sabbath. "And on the sabbath day two lambs of the first year without spot," verse 9 and 10. None will deny that this was the weekly sabbath. Third, in the very next verse come the new moons. "And in the beginning of your months ye shall offer a burnt offering unto the Lord," verses 11-15. Fourth comes the annual feast days. "And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the passover of the Lord," verse 16. Then follows a complete list of all the annual feast days, closing with these words, "These things shall ye do unto the Lord in your set feasts," Num. 29:39.
Here we have the law for the daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly offerings; or, those on each day, on the weekly sabbaths, on the new moons, and on the yearly feast days. Now read the following texts, and notice how this list of daily offerings, offerings on the sabbaths, on the new moons, and on the set feasts, as laid down in the law of Moses, is repeatedly referred to in almost exactly the words of Col. 2:16.
1 Chron., 23:3O, 31: "To stand every morning to thank and praise the Lord, and likewise at even; and to offer all burnt sacrifices unto the Lord in the sabbaths, in the new moons, and on the set feasts, by number, according to the order commanded unto them." Here is a direct reference to the daily offerings, offerings on the weekly sabbaths, new moons and set feasts, just as ordered in Num. 28 and 29. Can any one doubt that "the sabbaths" here are the weekly sabbaths, the same as there? Certainly not.
2 Chron. 2:4: "Behold, I build an house to the name of the Lord my God, to dedicate it to him, and to burn before him sweet incense, and for the continual shew bread, and for the burnt offerings morning and evening [daily], on the sabbaths [weekly], and on the new moons, [monthly], and on the solemn feasts [yearly] of the Lord." Precisely the same list again, and in the same order, hence the weekly sabbaths are the ones named. Besides, it would be absurd to suppose that Solomon would name all the other and minor holy days, but say nothing about the chiefest of all days, the weekly sabbaths. Every candid man would admit that "the sabbaths" here are the weekly sabbaths, and so they are in all the passages which follow.
2 Chron. 8:13: "Even after a certain rate every day [daily again], offering according to the commandment of Moses, on the sabbaths [weekly], and on the new moons [monthly], and on the solemn feasts [yearly], three times in the year." Same list and order as before.
2 Chron. 31:3: "The morning and evening burnt offerings, and the burnt offerings for the sabbaths, and for the new moons, and for the set feasts, as it is written in the law of the Lord." The same list again, daily, weekly, monthly and yearly offerings, just in the order they would naturally come, and just as given "in the law of the Lord." Num. 28 and 29. But if the sabbaths are not the weekly sabbaths, then the Lord names the daily, monthly and yearly offerings, but skips the weekly offerings. Every thinking man knows that such an interpretation is false. But it is the only way the sabbaths can be saved from Paul's list, Col. 2:16, for that is the same as all these. As the object in these passages is to mention the service of God which must be performed on each of the holy days, it would be absurd to suppose that all the other sacred days in the whole year would be carefully mentioned time and again, while no reference whatever it made to the weekly sabbaths, the most important and the most numerous of all the sacred days.
Neh. 10:33: "For the shew bread, and for the continual meat offering, and for the continual burnt offering, of the sabbaths, of the new, moons, for the set feasts." Same list again, daily, weekly, monthly and yearly. Either the weekly sabbaths are meant here, or else reference to the worship of God on the Sabbath is always studiously avoided, while all the rest is carefully mentioned. The evidence is too plain to mistake which.
Ezek. 45:17: "Offerings in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the sabbaths." Here are named exactly the same days that Paul gives in Col. 2:16, and in the same order, yearly, monthly, weekly.
Hosea 2:11: "I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts." Same list of holy days that we have had over and over, where we know that sabbath meant the seventh day.
Col. 2:16: "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day, (Rev. Version), or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days." Here, as before, are the yearly, monthly and weekly holy days just as laid down in the law where we know the weekly sabbaths are meant. It is evident that Paul had in his mind those lists of holy days so often given in the Old Testament, where the sabbath is included.
The words "the sabbath days" would certainly embrace the weekly sabbaths unless they were especially named as excepted. But no such exception is made. Hence we must apply the term as it is used in the law, to the seventh day.
Hosea 2:11, is a plain prophecy that all these holy days should cease just as we know has happened in fact; and in Col. 2:16, is proof that they were nailed to the cross.
8. TESTIMONY OF OTHERS ON COL. 2:14-17
Bunyan: On this text, John Bunyan, than whom no man ever studied his Bible more closely, says: "Here also as he [Paul] serveth other holy days he serveth the Sabbath, he gives a liberty to believers to refuse the observation of it. Nor hath the apostle (since he saith, or of the sabbath), one would think, left any hole out at which men's inventions could get." Again: "The old seventh-day Sabbath is abolished and done away." Bunyan's Complete Works, pages 899, 900.
Dr. Scott says: "Doubtless, this last related principally to the weekly Sabbath, which, as observed on the seventh day, was now become a part of the abrogated Jewish law."
The Pulpit Commentary on this text says: "The Sabbath days' referred to the Jewish Sabbath which was always observed on Saturday." "If the ordinance of the Sabbath had been in any form of lasting obligation on the Christian church, it would have been quite impossible for the apostle to have used this language."
John Wesley: "In respect of a yearly feast, the new moon, or the weekly Jewish Sabbath."
Dr. Lee, Methodist: "The apostle refers to the seventh day Sabbath and he gives them clearly to understand that they are not morally bound to observe it. * * * By a 'holy day' and the 'new moon,' he included all other feasts and rests which might be called Sabbaths, leaving nothing but the seventh day Sabbath to be meant by the Sabbath days." Lee's Theology, page 375.
9. That upon which Seventh-Day Adventists rely to save this text from applying to the sabbath is the assertion that there were several yearly or annual sabbath days, and that Paul's language must apply to these instead of to the weekly sabbaths. Thus Elder Andrews, in his "History of the Sabbath," says, "There were seven annual sabbaths," and then he names all the Jewish feast days, as the pentecost, day of atonement, etc., and cites Lev. 23. It is true that in our English version the word sabbath is applied to four of these feast days. But we turn to the Greek, in which Paul wrote, and find that the word for "sabbath" is sabbaton. Is that the term used where the word sabbath is applied to the annual feast days? No, indeed, except in just barely one instance. The day of atonement is called a sabbath (sabbaton) in the Greek. Lev. 23:32. "In the Old Testament Hebrew none of those feast days are ever termed a Sabbath, save the day of atonement." Sabbath for Man, page 544.
The Hebrew word for sabbath is shabbath. In only this one instance is it ever applied to any of the annual festivals. But the word "sabbath" in the English version, when applied to these annual feasts, is from the Greek term ANAPAUSIS, and in the Hebrew from shabbathon. These words should not be translated "sabbath," but should be rendered "rest," as they are in the Revised Version. Thus all these texts read in the New Version: "In the seventh month, in the first day of the month, there shall be a solemn rest unto you." Lev. 23:24. "On the first day shall be a solemn rest, and on the eighth day shall be a solemn rest," verse 39. So also in the English version of the Hebrew used by the Jews these words are translated rest, not sabbath. Thus: "In the seventh month, on the first day of the month, shall ye have a rest," not sabbath, verse 24. "On the first day shall be a rest, and on the eighth day shall be a rest," verse 39.
Hence, except the weekly sabbaths, among all the feast days and holy days of the Old Testament only one single day in the whole year is ever called a sabbath. So it is not correct to speak of "the annual sabbaths," much less to say that there were seven of them. There was just one, and no more, and this one was included in the annual feast days. Even Elder Andrews confesses that "the annual sabbaths, were part and parcel of these feasts and could have no existence until after the feasts to which they belonged had been instituted. Thus the first and second of these Sabbaths were the first and seventh days of the pascal feast. The third annual sabbath was identical with the feast of pentecost." History of the Sabbath, page 86. By his own confession the days he calls annual sabbaths were all included in those yearly feasts and could have no existence separate from them. Feast days (heortes) is the term embracing all those days, as we have seen. Hence "the sabbath days" (sabbaton) must apply only to the weekly sabbaths. Or, to say the least, this term being pre-eminently, almost exclusively, applied to the weekly sabbaths, must include them any way, whether it did any others or not.
10. Seventh-Day Adventists try to make a difference between "the Sabbaths of the Lord," Lev. 23:38; Ex. 20:10, and "her Sabbaths," Hosea 2:11. They say that "her Sabbaths," were the Jewish Sabbaths, yearly feast days; but that the Lord's Sabbath is never called her Sabbaths. The assertion is contrary to facts.
Why, were the yearly holy days her days? Did the Jews appoint them? No; the Lord appointed them just as he did the sabbath, and gave them to Israel to keep, just as he gave them the sabbath to keep. Hence, from one point of view they are the Lord's, but from another view they are her days. God's, because he commanded them; hers, because given to them. "I gave them my sabbaths." So we read of nearly every sacred institution of the Bible. In one place it is "the Lord's" and in the next it is "hers," "yours" or "theirs," but the same institution all the time. Thus we read of the temple: "Mine house," Isa. 56:7; "your house," Matt. 23:38. Of the sacrifices: "The sacrifices of the Lord," Lev. 10:13; "my offering, and my bread for my sacrifices," Num. 28:2; "your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes," Deut. 12:6. Of the law: "My law," Jer. 6:19; "your law," John 10:34. Now notice particularly that the feast days are spoken of in exactly the same manner that the sabbath is; that is, "my feasts," and "her feasts," "my sabbaths" and "her sabbaths." Thus: "The Lord's passover," Ex. 12:11; "the feast of the Lord," Lev. 23:4; "the sabbaths of the Lord," verse 38; "my feasts," verse 2; "my sabbaths," Ex. 31:13; "a feast unto the Lord," Lev. 23:41; "the holy sabbath unto the Lord," Ex. 16:23; "her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths," Hosea 2:11. These quotations are sufficient to show the fallacy of trying to make a distinction between "my sabbaths" and "her sabbaths." The same argument would prove that "my feasts" and "her feasts," "my sacrifices" and "your sacrifices," "my house" and "your house," etc., were entirely different. But everybody knows better. These experiences apply to the same thing from different standpoints; the sabbaths of the Lord as appointed by him; her sabbaths as kept by them; and this is the whole of it.
11. Paul represents these things as "blotted out," "nailed to the cross." Col. 2:14. It is said that this could not apply to the Sabbath which was engraved in the stones in the decalogue, as you could not blot out nor nail up this. The answer is easy. To blot out and to nail up are only used as an illustration. Anciently a document that had been canceled, or abolished, was rubbed or blotted out, or a nail was driven through it, as now a conductor punches a ticket to show that it has been used up. As an illustration it could be applied to laws written in any manner, no matter what. Such objections are unworthy a candid man. Paul says these things were against us; but it is said that the Sabbath was not against us; hence it cannot mean that. Answer: 1. Paul says it was; that ought to settle it. 2. The Jewish Sabbath was the great sign of Judaism. Ez. 20:10-13; Deut. 5:15. As such, it carried with it that whole system and so was against Christians.
12. It is said that the weekly Sabbath was never associated with meats, drinks, feast days, etc., as in Col. 2:16. This is a great mistake as we have already seen. It is classed with these a score of times. See Lev. 23:2-6; Num. 28: 3-11; 1 Chron. 23:29-31, etc.
13. But it is argued that as "the sabbath days" of Col. 16, "are a shadow of things to come," verse 17, and the weekly Sabbath is a memorial of creation, pointing back to the beginning, therefore they cannot be the same, for the sabbath could not point both ways. But is not this a mere assertion without any proof? How do we know that it cannot point both ways? The passover was a memorial of their deliverance from Egypt, and always pointed back to that event. Ex. 12:11-17. Yet it was also a shadow of Christ. Col. 2:16-17. "Even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us," 1 Cor. 5:7. So all these annual feasts were types of Christ in some way, and yet all were memorials also of past events, as all know. But who would ever have thought of this if the apostles had not said so? If, then, these feast days could be both memorials and types, pointing both ways, so can the, Sabbath. Paul says plainly that the Sabbath days are a shadow of things to come; and one plain statement of inspiration is worth a thousand of our vain reasonings. This is in harmony with Paul's argument in Heb. 4:1-11, that the seventh day is a type. For forty years they have tried to explain away this text , and to show that it really cannot mean what it says; but there it stands and mocks all their theories. The Sabbath is a type, for inspiration says so. Again, it is said that the Sabbath was instituted before the fall, but types could not have been instituted till after the fall. How do you know that they could not be? Where does the Bible say so? Peter says of Christ: "Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifested in these last times, for you," 1 Peter 1:20.
The revelator says, "The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world," Rev. 13:8. If, then, Christ before the foundation of the world was ordained to die, then the Sabbath might have been designed even before the creation of the earth, as a type of Christ. Dr. Watson says: "It is used as an expressive type of the heavenly and internal rest." Theol. Inst. Vol. II, page 509. The Pulpit Commentary says: "The Sabbath of the Jews was typical." On Col. 2:17. Dr. Adam Clarke says: "The truth is, the Sabbath is considered as a type." On Ex. 20:8. Even Elder Andrews, Seventh-Day Adventist, says: "When the Creator gave existence to our world, did he not foresee the fall of man? And, foreseeing that fall, did he not entertain the purpose of redeeming man? And does it not follow that the purpose of redemption was entertained in that of creation?" History of the Sabbath, page 151. Exactly; and so the Sabbath as a type of that redemption might have been given in Eden according to their own showing. So, on close inspection, every argument of our Seventh-Day brethren on Col. 2 fails them.
14. By a false and ungrammatical construction of the relative pronoun "which" in Col. 2:17, Adventists try to exclude the weekly Jewish Sabbath from the text. They make the pronoun which refer only to "the Sabbath days," making it read, "Those, Sabbath days which are a shadow." This they say, implies that there are other Sabbaths which are not a shadow, that is the seventh day. But the Greek word for "Sabbath days" is Sabbaton, genitive plural, while the word for "which" is HA, nominative plural, neuter. Hence which cannot agree with Sabbath days, as any scholar knows. "Which are a shadow" relates to the whole list given in verse 16, viz., meats, drinks, feast days, new moons and Sabbaths. The revised version renders it, "a feast day, or a new moon, or a Sabbath day, which are a shadow." Not simply the Sabbath alone, but all these together were a shadow. Hence the phrase, "which are a shadow," applies to each item in verse 16. Does Paul, then, mean to say that only certain feast days, certain new moons, and certain Sabbaths were shadows, while there were other feast days, other new moons and other Sabbaths which were not shadows and so were excepted from his list? No, he makes no exception whatever, neither of feasts, moons, or Sabbaths. All were included, none were excepted. Hence as Paul included every feast day, and every new moon, so he also included every Sabbath of the Old Testament, and that took in the weekly Sabbath as the chief of all, to say the least. So the last peg on which to hang the Jewish Sabbath goes down.
Professor A. M. Weston, President of Eureka College, Ill., says very truly: "If the Sabbath does not look to Christ for its underlying principle, then it is the one important observance of the Old and New Testament that fails to do so." The Evolution of a Shadow, page 16. We know that there was in Eden one type of Christ, that was Adam, for the Bible says so, Rom. 5:14. "Adam * * * who is the figure of him that was to come." Figure is from the Greek TUPOS, type. "Who was the type of him that was to come." Syriac, Diaglott, Sawyer, Living Oracles, and Bible Union Translations. Hence types were instituted in Eden. Therefore the Sabbath cannot be excepted from the types on that ground.
In Gal. 4:10, 11, Paul sets aside the keeping the Jewish Sabbath and all those holy days of the law. "Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you." That this refers to the holy days of the old law is proved by his reference to that law, both before and after this text. Thus: "The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come we are no longer under a schoolmaster." Gal. 3:24, 25. That law has ended at the cross as Paul said in Col. 2:14-17. Again: "Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?" Gal. 4:21. "Ye are not under the law." Gal. 5:18. So, then, he means the holy days of the law and these included the Sabbath as the chief of all. Look at his list: Days, (Sabbath days, weekly), months (new moons), times (yearly feasts), and years (Sabbatical years). This is exactly the list of Jewish holy times.
To the Romans Paul taught the same doctrine: the observance of the Jewish holy days was not to be regarded. "One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." Rom. 14:5.
Dr. Potts, Methodist, says: "That the Sabbath question entered into Paul's reasonings on the occasion is evident from Rom. 14:1-6." The Lord's Day Our Sabbath, page 27. These were the days enjoined in the law for it is of the law that he treats all through the book of Romans. He makes no exception of the Sabbath day, but says plainly " every day." Only a few verses before he has quoted five of the ten commandments, Chap. 13:9, showing that he included the days of the decalogue. It does not avail to say that Paul means only the annual Sabbaths because he mentions eating meat and herbs. I have already proved that the weekly Sabbath was associated with these time and again.
What proves that Paul did intend to set aside the Sabbath, as his words naturally mean, is the fact that nowhere does he ever in all his instructions to the churches say one word in favor of keeping the Sabbath. Time and again he enjoins every other duty, but never a word about keeping the Sabbath in all his fourteen letters. Most of those to whom he wrote were Gentiles who never had kept the Sabbath and hence needed instructions in it if they were to keep it. But not a word does he say to them about it; though he does command them about the first day of the week. 1 Cor. 16:1, 2.
But it is said that this view of Paul's language abolishes all holy days and leaves the church without any rest day. The answer is easy and manifest. Paul was treating of the old institutions which had been nailed to the cross. Col. 2:14. Hence his language has no reference to the new institutions of the gospel, of which there might have been a dozen holy days, so far as these texts are concerned.
From "Seventh-day Adventism Renounced" by D.M. Canright, 1914
1. We now come to the direct statement of Paul that the Sabbath was abolished: Col. 2:14, 16, 17. "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross. * * * Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days; which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." With other Jewish ordinances, the Sabbath was blotted out and nailed to the cross; therefore no man is to judge us about keeping "the Sabbath days." The statement is positive and plain. When I kept the seventh day this text always perplexed me as it does my Advent brethren now, say what they will. Paul directly names "the Sabbath" or "the Sabbath days," for there is no difference, as among the shadows which have passed away.
2. It is said by some that "the Sabbath days," plural number, is not the same as "the Sabbath," singular number, hence is not the weekly Sabbath. This is a groundless objection, for both the singular and the plural numbers are used indifferently for the weekly Sabbath. Thus Greenfield's Greek N. T. Lexicon says: "Sabbaton. The Sabbath, * * * both in the singular and plural." Bagster's Greek Lexicon says: "The Jewish Sabbath both in the singular and plural." So plain is this fact that even Elder Smith, Adventist, is compelled to admit it though he tries to save his theory by excepting Col. 2, and Acts 17:2, but without reason. He says: "When it [Sabbaton] is used in the plural form [excepting Acts 17:2 and Col. 2:16], it means just the same as if it had been written in the singular." Greek Falsehood, page 8. Col. 2:16, is no exception to the rule. In Acts 17:2, the word THREE is what marks the plural. The Revised Version properly renders Col. 2:16, in the singular, thus: "Let no man therefore judge you in respect of a Sabbath day," singular number. Sawyer's translation says: "In respect to a feast, or new moon, or Sabbath," singular. The Bible Union says: "Of a feast day, or of a new moon, or of a Sabbath," singular.
A few quotations will show that both the singular and plural numbers are used for the weekly Sabbath. "My Sabbaths [plural] shall ye keep for it [singular] is a sign between me and you." Ex. 31:13. This is the weekly Sabbath. "Keep my Sabbaths." Lev. 19:3. "Beside the Sabbaths of the Lord." Lev. 23:38. Adventists argue that this is the weekly Sabbath. "Blessed is the man that * * * keepeth the Sabbath," "the eunuchs that keep my Sabbaths." Isa. 56:3,4. Either singular or plural, no difference. "I gave them my Sabbaths to be a sign." Ez. 20:12. This is the weekly Sabbath, as Adventists well know. "On the Sabbath days [plural] the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath" [singular]. Matt. 12:5. Here we have in the same verse both the plural and singular used for the weekly Sabbath. "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath days?" Matt. 12:10. "Taught them on the Sabbath days." Luke 4:31. "Three Sabbath days reasoned with them." Acts 17:2. "Let no man therefore judge you * * * in respect of the Sabbath days." Col. 2:16.
Who can read this list of texts and not be profoundly impressed that by "the Sabbath days" of Col. 2:16 Paul means just what that language means in all the other cases? Of course he did, and no other reasonable application can be made of it.
3. In the Greek, in which Paul wrote Col. 2:16, he uses not only the same word which is always used for the weekly Sabbath, but exactly the same form of the word used in the fourth commandment itself! I will give the Greek word for "Sabbath days" in Col. 2:16 and other texts where the same word and same form of the word, letter for letter, is used for the weekly Sabbath. Col. 2:16. "Let no man judge you in respect to the Sabbath days," Greek, Sabbaton, genitive plural.
Ex. 20:8,10, fourth commandment, "Remember the Sabbath day (Greek, Sabbaton, genitive plural) to keep it holy." "But the seventh day is the Sabbath [Greek, Sabbate, accusative plural] of the Lord." Here it will be seen that Paul uses the same Greek word, letter for letter, that is used in the decalogue. Hence he surely meant that very Sabbath day. Notice, further, that in each case in the fourth commandment where the word "Sabbath" occurs it is plural in the Greek.
So if the use of the plural in Col. 2 shows any thing, it shows that the Sabbath of the decalogue is meant. Moreover, the Revised Version renders Ex. 20:10, and Col. 2:16, exactly alike. Thus: "The seventh day is a Sabbath unto the Lord." "Let no man judge you in respect of 'a Sabbath.' " Plainly, then, Col. 2:16, refers to the Sabbath of Ex. 20:8-11.
Further, Sabbaton, genitive plural, the form of the word used in Col. 2:16, is the one often used in other texts for the weekly Sabbath. Thus: Ex. 35:3, "Kindle no fire * * * upon the Sabbath day," [Sabbaton]. Lev. 23:38. "Besides the Sabbaths [Sabbaton] of the Lord." Lev. 24:8. "Every Sabbath [Sabbaton] he shall set it in order." Num. 15:32. "Gathered sticks upon the Sabbath day," [Sabbaton] Numbers 28:9. "On the Sabbath [Sabbaton] day two lambs." Deut. 5:12. Fourth commandment again, "Keep the Sabbath [Sabbaton] day." Isa. 58:13. "Turn away thy foot from the Sabbath," [Sabbaton] Matt. 28:1. "In the end of the Sabbath," [Sabbaton] Luke 4:16. "He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath [Sabbaton] day." Acts 13:14. "Went into the synagogue on the Sabbath [Sabbaton] day." Col. 2:16. "Let no man therefore judge you * * * in respect of the Sabbath [Sabbaton] days."
Unless a man is blinded by a pet theory, he must see that Col. 2:16 does surely mean the weekly Sabbath, as in all the other texts where the same word occurs.
4. The only word ever used in the Bible, for the weekly Sabbath is the very one Paul did use, Sabbaton. So if he had meant to name that Sabbath, what else could he have said than just what he did say, the Sabbath days? Why, then, deny that he means just what he says when he could have said nothing else if he had meant the Sabbath?
5. The word Sabbath occurs in the New Testament 60 times. Seventh-Day Adventists admit that in 59 out of these 60 cases it means the weekly Sabbath; but in the 60th case, where exactly the same word is used both in Greek and English, as we have seen, they say it must mean something else! Isn't that remarkable? Hear them: "In the New Testament the Sabbath of the Lord is mentioned 59 times, and those local Sabbaths, which expired by limitation and ceased at the cross, are mentioned once." Scripture References, p. 9. Strange that the Sabbath means the Sabbath 59 times and the 60th time it don't! "Jewish feasts are often spoken of in the New Testament but, not one of them anywhere is called a Sabbath or credited with the nature of a Sabbath." The Sabbath for Man, p. 544.
6. "The feast days and new moons" of Col. 2:16, include all the holy days of the Jews except the weekly Sabbath; hence there was nothing else left to which it could apply but that Sabbath. The entire list is given in Num. 28 and 29.
7. But what settles it beyond a reasonable doubt that Col. 2:16, does refer to the weekly Sabbaths is the fact that exactly the same list of holy days here given by Paul is given about a dozen times in the Old Testament, where we know it means the seventh day.
Turn to Num. 28 and 29, and you have a detailed law as to just what offerings shall be made on each day of the whole year. The first were the daily offerings of "two lambs," day by day, for a continual burnt offering. "The one lamb shalt thou offer in the morning, and the other lamb shalt thou offer at the even." Verse 3 and 4. The second were the offerings on the sabbath. "And on the sabbath day two lambs of the first year without spot," verse 9 and 10. None will deny that this was the weekly sabbath. Third, in the very next verse come the new moons. "And in the beginning of your months ye shall offer a burnt offering unto the Lord," verses 11-15. Fourth comes the annual feast days. "And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the passover of the Lord," verse 16. Then follows a complete list of all the annual feast days, closing with these words, "These things shall ye do unto the Lord in your set feasts," Num. 29:39.
Here we have the law for the daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly offerings; or, those on each day, on the weekly sabbaths, on the new moons, and on the yearly feast days. Now read the following texts, and notice how this list of daily offerings, offerings on the sabbaths, on the new moons, and on the set feasts, as laid down in the law of Moses, is repeatedly referred to in almost exactly the words of Col. 2:16.
1 Chron., 23:3O, 31: "To stand every morning to thank and praise the Lord, and likewise at even; and to offer all burnt sacrifices unto the Lord in the sabbaths, in the new moons, and on the set feasts, by number, according to the order commanded unto them." Here is a direct reference to the daily offerings, offerings on the weekly sabbaths, new moons and set feasts, just as ordered in Num. 28 and 29. Can any one doubt that "the sabbaths" here are the weekly sabbaths, the same as there? Certainly not.
2 Chron. 2:4: "Behold, I build an house to the name of the Lord my God, to dedicate it to him, and to burn before him sweet incense, and for the continual shew bread, and for the burnt offerings morning and evening [daily], on the sabbaths [weekly], and on the new moons, [monthly], and on the solemn feasts [yearly] of the Lord." Precisely the same list again, and in the same order, hence the weekly sabbaths are the ones named. Besides, it would be absurd to suppose that Solomon would name all the other and minor holy days, but say nothing about the chiefest of all days, the weekly sabbaths. Every candid man would admit that "the sabbaths" here are the weekly sabbaths, and so they are in all the passages which follow.
2 Chron. 8:13: "Even after a certain rate every day [daily again], offering according to the commandment of Moses, on the sabbaths [weekly], and on the new moons [monthly], and on the solemn feasts [yearly], three times in the year." Same list and order as before.
2 Chron. 31:3: "The morning and evening burnt offerings, and the burnt offerings for the sabbaths, and for the new moons, and for the set feasts, as it is written in the law of the Lord." The same list again, daily, weekly, monthly and yearly offerings, just in the order they would naturally come, and just as given "in the law of the Lord." Num. 28 and 29. But if the sabbaths are not the weekly sabbaths, then the Lord names the daily, monthly and yearly offerings, but skips the weekly offerings. Every thinking man knows that such an interpretation is false. But it is the only way the sabbaths can be saved from Paul's list, Col. 2:16, for that is the same as all these. As the object in these passages is to mention the service of God which must be performed on each of the holy days, it would be absurd to suppose that all the other sacred days in the whole year would be carefully mentioned time and again, while no reference whatever it made to the weekly sabbaths, the most important and the most numerous of all the sacred days.
Neh. 10:33: "For the shew bread, and for the continual meat offering, and for the continual burnt offering, of the sabbaths, of the new, moons, for the set feasts." Same list again, daily, weekly, monthly and yearly. Either the weekly sabbaths are meant here, or else reference to the worship of God on the Sabbath is always studiously avoided, while all the rest is carefully mentioned. The evidence is too plain to mistake which.
Ezek. 45:17: "Offerings in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the sabbaths." Here are named exactly the same days that Paul gives in Col. 2:16, and in the same order, yearly, monthly, weekly.
Hosea 2:11: "I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts." Same list of holy days that we have had over and over, where we know that sabbath meant the seventh day.
Col. 2:16: "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day, (Rev. Version), or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days." Here, as before, are the yearly, monthly and weekly holy days just as laid down in the law where we know the weekly sabbaths are meant. It is evident that Paul had in his mind those lists of holy days so often given in the Old Testament, where the sabbath is included.
The words "the sabbath days" would certainly embrace the weekly sabbaths unless they were especially named as excepted. But no such exception is made. Hence we must apply the term as it is used in the law, to the seventh day.
Hosea 2:11, is a plain prophecy that all these holy days should cease just as we know has happened in fact; and in Col. 2:16, is proof that they were nailed to the cross.
8. TESTIMONY OF OTHERS ON COL. 2:14-17
Bunyan: On this text, John Bunyan, than whom no man ever studied his Bible more closely, says: "Here also as he [Paul] serveth other holy days he serveth the Sabbath, he gives a liberty to believers to refuse the observation of it. Nor hath the apostle (since he saith, or of the sabbath), one would think, left any hole out at which men's inventions could get." Again: "The old seventh-day Sabbath is abolished and done away." Bunyan's Complete Works, pages 899, 900.
Dr. Scott says: "Doubtless, this last related principally to the weekly Sabbath, which, as observed on the seventh day, was now become a part of the abrogated Jewish law."
The Pulpit Commentary on this text says: "The Sabbath days' referred to the Jewish Sabbath which was always observed on Saturday." "If the ordinance of the Sabbath had been in any form of lasting obligation on the Christian church, it would have been quite impossible for the apostle to have used this language."
John Wesley: "In respect of a yearly feast, the new moon, or the weekly Jewish Sabbath."
Dr. Lee, Methodist: "The apostle refers to the seventh day Sabbath and he gives them clearly to understand that they are not morally bound to observe it. * * * By a 'holy day' and the 'new moon,' he included all other feasts and rests which might be called Sabbaths, leaving nothing but the seventh day Sabbath to be meant by the Sabbath days." Lee's Theology, page 375.
9. That upon which Seventh-Day Adventists rely to save this text from applying to the sabbath is the assertion that there were several yearly or annual sabbath days, and that Paul's language must apply to these instead of to the weekly sabbaths. Thus Elder Andrews, in his "History of the Sabbath," says, "There were seven annual sabbaths," and then he names all the Jewish feast days, as the pentecost, day of atonement, etc., and cites Lev. 23. It is true that in our English version the word sabbath is applied to four of these feast days. But we turn to the Greek, in which Paul wrote, and find that the word for "sabbath" is sabbaton. Is that the term used where the word sabbath is applied to the annual feast days? No, indeed, except in just barely one instance. The day of atonement is called a sabbath (sabbaton) in the Greek. Lev. 23:32. "In the Old Testament Hebrew none of those feast days are ever termed a Sabbath, save the day of atonement." Sabbath for Man, page 544.
The Hebrew word for sabbath is shabbath. In only this one instance is it ever applied to any of the annual festivals. But the word "sabbath" in the English version, when applied to these annual feasts, is from the Greek term ANAPAUSIS, and in the Hebrew from shabbathon. These words should not be translated "sabbath," but should be rendered "rest," as they are in the Revised Version. Thus all these texts read in the New Version: "In the seventh month, in the first day of the month, there shall be a solemn rest unto you." Lev. 23:24. "On the first day shall be a solemn rest, and on the eighth day shall be a solemn rest," verse 39. So also in the English version of the Hebrew used by the Jews these words are translated rest, not sabbath. Thus: "In the seventh month, on the first day of the month, shall ye have a rest," not sabbath, verse 24. "On the first day shall be a rest, and on the eighth day shall be a rest," verse 39.
Hence, except the weekly sabbaths, among all the feast days and holy days of the Old Testament only one single day in the whole year is ever called a sabbath. So it is not correct to speak of "the annual sabbaths," much less to say that there were seven of them. There was just one, and no more, and this one was included in the annual feast days. Even Elder Andrews confesses that "the annual sabbaths, were part and parcel of these feasts and could have no existence until after the feasts to which they belonged had been instituted. Thus the first and second of these Sabbaths were the first and seventh days of the pascal feast. The third annual sabbath was identical with the feast of pentecost." History of the Sabbath, page 86. By his own confession the days he calls annual sabbaths were all included in those yearly feasts and could have no existence separate from them. Feast days (heortes) is the term embracing all those days, as we have seen. Hence "the sabbath days" (sabbaton) must apply only to the weekly sabbaths. Or, to say the least, this term being pre-eminently, almost exclusively, applied to the weekly sabbaths, must include them any way, whether it did any others or not.
10. Seventh-Day Adventists try to make a difference between "the Sabbaths of the Lord," Lev. 23:38; Ex. 20:10, and "her Sabbaths," Hosea 2:11. They say that "her Sabbaths," were the Jewish Sabbaths, yearly feast days; but that the Lord's Sabbath is never called her Sabbaths. The assertion is contrary to facts.
Why, were the yearly holy days her days? Did the Jews appoint them? No; the Lord appointed them just as he did the sabbath, and gave them to Israel to keep, just as he gave them the sabbath to keep. Hence, from one point of view they are the Lord's, but from another view they are her days. God's, because he commanded them; hers, because given to them. "I gave them my sabbaths." So we read of nearly every sacred institution of the Bible. In one place it is "the Lord's" and in the next it is "hers," "yours" or "theirs," but the same institution all the time. Thus we read of the temple: "Mine house," Isa. 56:7; "your house," Matt. 23:38. Of the sacrifices: "The sacrifices of the Lord," Lev. 10:13; "my offering, and my bread for my sacrifices," Num. 28:2; "your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes," Deut. 12:6. Of the law: "My law," Jer. 6:19; "your law," John 10:34. Now notice particularly that the feast days are spoken of in exactly the same manner that the sabbath is; that is, "my feasts," and "her feasts," "my sabbaths" and "her sabbaths." Thus: "The Lord's passover," Ex. 12:11; "the feast of the Lord," Lev. 23:4; "the sabbaths of the Lord," verse 38; "my feasts," verse 2; "my sabbaths," Ex. 31:13; "a feast unto the Lord," Lev. 23:41; "the holy sabbath unto the Lord," Ex. 16:23; "her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths," Hosea 2:11. These quotations are sufficient to show the fallacy of trying to make a distinction between "my sabbaths" and "her sabbaths." The same argument would prove that "my feasts" and "her feasts," "my sacrifices" and "your sacrifices," "my house" and "your house," etc., were entirely different. But everybody knows better. These experiences apply to the same thing from different standpoints; the sabbaths of the Lord as appointed by him; her sabbaths as kept by them; and this is the whole of it.
11. Paul represents these things as "blotted out," "nailed to the cross." Col. 2:14. It is said that this could not apply to the Sabbath which was engraved in the stones in the decalogue, as you could not blot out nor nail up this. The answer is easy. To blot out and to nail up are only used as an illustration. Anciently a document that had been canceled, or abolished, was rubbed or blotted out, or a nail was driven through it, as now a conductor punches a ticket to show that it has been used up. As an illustration it could be applied to laws written in any manner, no matter what. Such objections are unworthy a candid man. Paul says these things were against us; but it is said that the Sabbath was not against us; hence it cannot mean that. Answer: 1. Paul says it was; that ought to settle it. 2. The Jewish Sabbath was the great sign of Judaism. Ez. 20:10-13; Deut. 5:15. As such, it carried with it that whole system and so was against Christians.
12. It is said that the weekly Sabbath was never associated with meats, drinks, feast days, etc., as in Col. 2:16. This is a great mistake as we have already seen. It is classed with these a score of times. See Lev. 23:2-6; Num. 28: 3-11; 1 Chron. 23:29-31, etc.
13. But it is argued that as "the sabbath days" of Col. 16, "are a shadow of things to come," verse 17, and the weekly Sabbath is a memorial of creation, pointing back to the beginning, therefore they cannot be the same, for the sabbath could not point both ways. But is not this a mere assertion without any proof? How do we know that it cannot point both ways? The passover was a memorial of their deliverance from Egypt, and always pointed back to that event. Ex. 12:11-17. Yet it was also a shadow of Christ. Col. 2:16-17. "Even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us," 1 Cor. 5:7. So all these annual feasts were types of Christ in some way, and yet all were memorials also of past events, as all know. But who would ever have thought of this if the apostles had not said so? If, then, these feast days could be both memorials and types, pointing both ways, so can the, Sabbath. Paul says plainly that the Sabbath days are a shadow of things to come; and one plain statement of inspiration is worth a thousand of our vain reasonings. This is in harmony with Paul's argument in Heb. 4:1-11, that the seventh day is a type. For forty years they have tried to explain away this text , and to show that it really cannot mean what it says; but there it stands and mocks all their theories. The Sabbath is a type, for inspiration says so. Again, it is said that the Sabbath was instituted before the fall, but types could not have been instituted till after the fall. How do you know that they could not be? Where does the Bible say so? Peter says of Christ: "Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifested in these last times, for you," 1 Peter 1:20.
The revelator says, "The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world," Rev. 13:8. If, then, Christ before the foundation of the world was ordained to die, then the Sabbath might have been designed even before the creation of the earth, as a type of Christ. Dr. Watson says: "It is used as an expressive type of the heavenly and internal rest." Theol. Inst. Vol. II, page 509. The Pulpit Commentary says: "The Sabbath of the Jews was typical." On Col. 2:17. Dr. Adam Clarke says: "The truth is, the Sabbath is considered as a type." On Ex. 20:8. Even Elder Andrews, Seventh-Day Adventist, says: "When the Creator gave existence to our world, did he not foresee the fall of man? And, foreseeing that fall, did he not entertain the purpose of redeeming man? And does it not follow that the purpose of redemption was entertained in that of creation?" History of the Sabbath, page 151. Exactly; and so the Sabbath as a type of that redemption might have been given in Eden according to their own showing. So, on close inspection, every argument of our Seventh-Day brethren on Col. 2 fails them.
14. By a false and ungrammatical construction of the relative pronoun "which" in Col. 2:17, Adventists try to exclude the weekly Jewish Sabbath from the text. They make the pronoun which refer only to "the Sabbath days," making it read, "Those, Sabbath days which are a shadow." This they say, implies that there are other Sabbaths which are not a shadow, that is the seventh day. But the Greek word for "Sabbath days" is Sabbaton, genitive plural, while the word for "which" is HA, nominative plural, neuter. Hence which cannot agree with Sabbath days, as any scholar knows. "Which are a shadow" relates to the whole list given in verse 16, viz., meats, drinks, feast days, new moons and Sabbaths. The revised version renders it, "a feast day, or a new moon, or a Sabbath day, which are a shadow." Not simply the Sabbath alone, but all these together were a shadow. Hence the phrase, "which are a shadow," applies to each item in verse 16. Does Paul, then, mean to say that only certain feast days, certain new moons, and certain Sabbaths were shadows, while there were other feast days, other new moons and other Sabbaths which were not shadows and so were excepted from his list? No, he makes no exception whatever, neither of feasts, moons, or Sabbaths. All were included, none were excepted. Hence as Paul included every feast day, and every new moon, so he also included every Sabbath of the Old Testament, and that took in the weekly Sabbath as the chief of all, to say the least. So the last peg on which to hang the Jewish Sabbath goes down.
Professor A. M. Weston, President of Eureka College, Ill., says very truly: "If the Sabbath does not look to Christ for its underlying principle, then it is the one important observance of the Old and New Testament that fails to do so." The Evolution of a Shadow, page 16. We know that there was in Eden one type of Christ, that was Adam, for the Bible says so, Rom. 5:14. "Adam * * * who is the figure of him that was to come." Figure is from the Greek TUPOS, type. "Who was the type of him that was to come." Syriac, Diaglott, Sawyer, Living Oracles, and Bible Union Translations. Hence types were instituted in Eden. Therefore the Sabbath cannot be excepted from the types on that ground.
In Gal. 4:10, 11, Paul sets aside the keeping the Jewish Sabbath and all those holy days of the law. "Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you." That this refers to the holy days of the old law is proved by his reference to that law, both before and after this text. Thus: "The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come we are no longer under a schoolmaster." Gal. 3:24, 25. That law has ended at the cross as Paul said in Col. 2:14-17. Again: "Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?" Gal. 4:21. "Ye are not under the law." Gal. 5:18. So, then, he means the holy days of the law and these included the Sabbath as the chief of all. Look at his list: Days, (Sabbath days, weekly), months (new moons), times (yearly feasts), and years (Sabbatical years). This is exactly the list of Jewish holy times.
To the Romans Paul taught the same doctrine: the observance of the Jewish holy days was not to be regarded. "One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." Rom. 14:5.
Dr. Potts, Methodist, says: "That the Sabbath question entered into Paul's reasonings on the occasion is evident from Rom. 14:1-6." The Lord's Day Our Sabbath, page 27. These were the days enjoined in the law for it is of the law that he treats all through the book of Romans. He makes no exception of the Sabbath day, but says plainly " every day." Only a few verses before he has quoted five of the ten commandments, Chap. 13:9, showing that he included the days of the decalogue. It does not avail to say that Paul means only the annual Sabbaths because he mentions eating meat and herbs. I have already proved that the weekly Sabbath was associated with these time and again.
What proves that Paul did intend to set aside the Sabbath, as his words naturally mean, is the fact that nowhere does he ever in all his instructions to the churches say one word in favor of keeping the Sabbath. Time and again he enjoins every other duty, but never a word about keeping the Sabbath in all his fourteen letters. Most of those to whom he wrote were Gentiles who never had kept the Sabbath and hence needed instructions in it if they were to keep it. But not a word does he say to them about it; though he does command them about the first day of the week. 1 Cor. 16:1, 2.
But it is said that this view of Paul's language abolishes all holy days and leaves the church without any rest day. The answer is easy and manifest. Paul was treating of the old institutions which had been nailed to the cross. Col. 2:14. Hence his language has no reference to the new institutions of the gospel, of which there might have been a dozen holy days, so far as these texts are concerned.
En Ali voordat je alles afwijst, Canright was een van de higher-ups van het zevende dags adventisme. Hij kende Ellen White persoonlijk, was verantwoordelijk voor veel van de ZDA-les materiaal waar jij tegenwoordig nog je kennis uit haalt. Lees zijn teksten eens eerlijk door. De waarheid kan elke test doorstaan niet? Als het niet waar is zou je zo aan moeten kunnen geven waarom Canright dwaalt. Laat je niet meeslepen door het sensationalisme van Walter Veith, zijn politieke en theologische kennis hebben net zoveel inhoud als het gegeven dat Bassie van slagroomtaartjes houdt.
En jij weet wel alles? Echt waar, mijn broek zakt af als ik jullie discussie zo lees. Ellenlange stukken, alles in het Engels. Alsof jullie zelf geen mening hebben, en alles knippen en plakken.quote:
Voor de duidelijkheid, wanneer we het over Rome of de Rooms katholieke kerk hebben hebben we het over het instituut en de geest achter het instituut, niet over de gewone doorsnee rooms katholiek die verder ook geen flauw benul heeft waar ie bij betrokken is. Nee, de meeste priesters en bisschoppen weten dat volgens mij niet eens. Ik heb een aantal katholieke vrienden dus ben geen 'katholiekenhater' of oid.
En als priesters en bisschoppen het niet weten, waartoe ben jij van mening dat jij het wel weet? Weet je niet hoe hoogmoedig jij en al die andere protestantse grappenmakers zijn?
Helemaal niet Ali, want ten tijde van de geschriften die in de Bijbel staan bestond het Rooms Katholicisme niet eens. Hoe kan men dan iets veroordelen?quote:De bijbel zelf veroordeelt het systeem en met goede redenen.
Het is jouw interpretatie van de geschriften, dankzij de mensen die filmpjes maken en mensen erop "attent" maken.
Dat je geen schaamte kent weet ik. Maar of je er geen mensen bij neerhakt, dat betwijfel ik. Doet mij denken aan al die opmerkingen van Wilders over de Koran. En dan zegt hij ook nog: Ik zeg het enkel over de koran, niet over de moslims.quote:Er is geen schaamte om de zaken bij naam te noemen, zonder meteen wapens op te pakken en mensen neer te hakken. Ik citeer hierbij graat Luther:
''Let the minds clash - but keep the fists down''
Dat die twee niet van elkaar te scheiden zijn ontgaat hem, en jou ook.
Helaas pindakaas.
"Bettler aber sollte man ganz abschaffen! Wahrlich, man ärgert sich ihnen zu geben und ärgert sich ihnen nicht zu geben."
Friedrich Nietzsche
Friedrich Nietzsche
Je vertrouwen in priesters en bisschoppen stellen.quote:
[..]
En jij weet wel alles? Echt waar, mijn broek zakt af als ik jullie discussie zo lees. Ellenlange stukken, alles in het Engels. Alsof jullie zelf geen mening hebben, en alles knippen en plakken.
En als priesters en bisschoppen het niet weten, waartoe ben jij van mening dat jij het wel weet? Weet je niet hoe hoogmoedig jij en al die andere protestantse grappenmakers zijn?
[..]
Helemaal niet Ali, want ten tijde van de geschriften die in de Bijbel staan bestond het Rooms Katholicisme niet eens. Hoe kan men dan iets veroordelen?
Het is jouw interpretatie van de geschriften, dankzij de mensen die filmpjes maken en mensen erop "attent" maken.
[..]
Dat je geen schaamte kent weet ik. Maar of je er geen mensen bij neerhakt, dat betwijfel ik. Doet mij denken aan al die opmerkingen van Wilders over de Koran. En dan zegt hij ook nog: Ik zeg het enkel over de koran, niet over de moslims.
Dat die twee niet van elkaar te scheiden zijn ontgaat hem, en jou ook.
Helaas pindakaas.
Jezus wijze jongen, ik heb toch wel meer geschreven dan dat? Waar haal jij het trouwens uit op dat ik vertrouwen stel in bisschoppen en kardinalen? Dat heb ik immers nergens geschreven?quote:
[..]
Je vertrouwen in priesters en bisschoppen stellen.
Ik vind je vrij naief, die denkt de waarheid in pacht te hebben. Maar eigenlijk zijn het vooral de bronnen die de waarheid in pacht hebben, niet jijzelf. Vanwege jouw knip en plak werk.
Ook het feit dat mensen een tekstje pakken en daarop reageren zegt mij genoeg. Dat doen christenen bijna altijd (om niet te generaliserend te zijn) als ik met ze in gesprek ben. Heb ik een half uur gedaan om iets te typen, met bronvermelding en dergelijke erbij (in dit geval dus niet) en dan citeren ze een zinnetje, de rest laten ze zitten.
"Bettler aber sollte man ganz abschaffen! Wahrlich, man ärgert sich ihnen zu geben und ärgert sich ihnen nicht zu geben."
Friedrich Nietzsche
Friedrich Nietzsche
quote:
[..]
Jezus wijze jongen, ik heb toch wel meer geschreven dan dat? Waar haal jij het trouwens uit op dat ik vertrouwen stel in bisschoppen en kardinalen? Dat heb ik immers nergens geschreven?
Ik vind je vrij naief, die denkt de waarheid in pacht te hebben. Maar eigenlijk zijn het vooral de bronnen die de waarheid in pacht hebben, niet jijzelf. Vanwege jouw knip en plak werk.
Ook het feit dat mensen een tekstje pakken en daarop reageren zegt mij genoeg. Dat doen christenen bijna altijd (om niet te generaliserend te zijn) als ik met ze in gesprek ben. Heb ik een half uur gedaan om iets te typen, met bronvermelding en dergelijke erbij (in dit geval dus niet) en dan citeren ze een zinnetje, de rest laten ze zitten.
Jij stelde dat als priesters en bisschoppen de ware betekenis van de bijbel niet kunnen ontrafelen, dat dan de gewone leek dat helemaal niet kan. Ik betwist dat standpunt aangezien de bijbelkennis van priesters en bisschoppen bedroevend laag is.Je hebt gelijk dat ik veel knip en plak, ik ben een echte luiwammes, als ik waardevolle info zie dan knip-en-plak ik dat, waarom tijd verspillen als dat niet hoeft?
Mbt je laatste opmerking. Veel christenen zijn idd niet goed geworteld in hun geloof en daardoor niet goed in staat om je van een uitgebreide reply te voorzien. Maar laten we eerlijk zijn, welke geloofsvisie je ook aanhangt er schijnen altijd haken en ogen aan te zitten.
Dat jij die scheiding niet kan maken betekend niet dat andere dat niet kunnen.quote:
Dat je geen schaamte kent weet ik. Maar of je er geen mensen bij neerhakt, dat betwijfel ik. Doet mij denken aan al die opmerkingen van Wilders over de Koran. En dan zegt hij ook nog: Ik zeg het enkel over de koran, niet over de moslims.
Dat die twee niet van elkaar te scheiden zijn ontgaat hem, en jou ook.
Helaas pindakaas.
Question authorities, fuck religion, educate yourself, Viva el individualismo!
There's only one way of life, and that's your own!
There's only one way of life, and that's your own!
Maar waarom laat je die mensen die volgens Jezus de verkeerde keuze maken niet gewoon met rust of overtuig je ze met argumenten ipv geweld.quote:
[..]
Nja je moet het wel in zijn juiste context bekijken. Jezus wil mensen redden van de eeuwige dood en brengt daartoe een mooie boodschap in de wereld. Echter de duivel oefent heel veel macht uit op deze wereld en wil voorkomen dat mensen deze mooie boodschap aannemen en zo behouden blijven. Dit zorgt voor oorlogen en strijd etc. Het is dus een boodschap van liefde, maar liefde wordt door Satan niet op prijs gesteld.
Question authorities, fuck religion, educate yourself, Viva el individualismo!
There's only one way of life, and that's your own!
There's only one way of life, and that's your own!
Het is nooit goed om geweld te gebruiken vanuit het christelijk geloof. Al is het natuurlijk wel begrijpelijk dat als je aangevallen wordt dat je jezelf verdedigd.quote:
[..]
Maar waarom laat je die mensen die volgens Jezus de verkeerde keuze maken niet gewoon met rust of overtuig je ze met argumenten ipv geweld.
Overtuigen moet idd altijd met argumenten en als mensen het er niet mee eens zijn moet je ze verder met rust laten. God wil sowieso dat niemand Hem aanbidt uit angst of iets dergelijks.
Idd als mensen geen onderscheid maken tussen hunzelf en hun standpunten dan zouden we nergens meer over kunnen discussieren zonder dat iemand gekwetst wordt.quote:
[..]
Dat jij die scheiding niet kan maken betekend niet dat andere dat niet kunnen.
Kijk eens naar zijn rechterhand op 28:57quote:
Hier een schitterende video hoe de ZDA eigenlijk heeft voortgeborduurd op het werk van de verschillende hervormers, zoals o.a. Wycliff, Wesley, Calvijn, Luther en hoe daarbij de verschillende attributen uit de tabernakel (Heiligdom leer) weer één voor één op hun plaats werden hersteld, die door de RKK waren "vertrapt":
In dat geval zal god geen blij man zijnquote:
God wil sowieso dat niemand Hem aanbidt uit angst of iets dergelijks.
Conscience do cost.
Dat is waar, maar ligt dat aan mij? Ik denk eerder aan hen die dat wel kunnen. Die denken gewoon niet rationeel na. Ik kan ook niet zeggen: De bijbel is een pervers kutboek, maar voor de christenen heb ik groot respect. Dat is gewoon schijnheilig.quote:
[..]
Dat jij die scheiding niet kan maken betekend niet dat andere dat niet kunnen.
"Bettler aber sollte man ganz abschaffen! Wahrlich, man ärgert sich ihnen zu geben und ärgert sich ihnen nicht zu geben."
Friedrich Nietzsche
Friedrich Nietzsche
Nee, dat stelde ik niet. Lees anders even wat beter. Ik heb het nooit gehad over de ware betekenis van de bijbel.quote:
[..]
Omdat mensen ook wel graag jouw eigen mening willen horen, en niet wat anderen ergens van vinden. Zo leer je toch ook niks?quote:Je hebt gelijk dat ik veel knip en plak, ik ben een echte luiwammes, als ik waardevolle info zie dan knip-en-plak ik dat, waarom tijd verspillen als dat niet hoeft?
Als ik nu eens zaken terugkijk op dit topic van wat ik allemaal schreef vroeger, dan leer ik veel bij. Ik heb een enorme sprong gemaakt in manier van discussieren, en mijn manier van denken. Van christelijk, naar anti christelijk en esoterisch, naar atheīstisch. Dat is toch leuk om terug te kijken, en dat kan niet als je enkel knipt en plakt.
Daar heb je gelijk in, dus kan je beter atheist zijn.quote:Mbt je laatste opmerking. Veel christenen zijn idd niet goed geworteld in hun geloof en daardoor niet goed in staat om je van een uitgebreide reply te voorzien. Maar laten we eerlijk zijn, welke geloofsvisie je ook aanhangt er schijnen altijd haken en ogen aan te zitten.
"Bettler aber sollte man ganz abschaffen! Wahrlich, man ärgert sich ihnen zu geben und ärgert sich ihnen nicht zu geben."
Friedrich Nietzsche
Friedrich Nietzsche
Ik heb het gehad over henzelf en de koran. Stel je voor dat ik zou zeggen dat de bijbel een slecht boek is, dan zeg ik toch ook wat over de lezers van het boek? Vooral als die mensen het als de waarheid zien, en het volgen.quote:
[..]
Idd als mensen geen onderscheid maken tussen hunzelf en hun standpunten dan zouden we nergens meer over kunnen discussieren zonder dat iemand gekwetst wordt.
Na een tijdje zoeken heb ik een mooi citaat van Raoul Heertje die ik volkomen begreep, maar veel mensen schijnbaar niet:
In het begin van het filmpje gaat het specifiek daarover.
"Bettler aber sollte man ganz abschaffen! Wahrlich, man ärgert sich ihnen zu geben und ärgert sich ihnen nicht zu geben."
Friedrich Nietzsche
Friedrich Nietzsche
Ik snap niet dat jij mensen zo één dimensionaal ziet. Een geloof is slechts één van de vele eigenschappen van een mens. Als je één van de eigenschappen van een mens afkeurt, keur je nog niet die mens volledig af. Zelfs als die mensen dat zelf misschien wel zo ervaren, maar dat is hun tekortkoming.quote:
[..]
Dat is waar, maar ligt dat aan mij? Ik denk eerder aan hen die dat wel kunnen. Die denken gewoon niet rationeel na. Ik kan ook niet zeggen: De bijbel is een pervers kutboek, maar voor de christenen heb ik groot respect. Dat is gewoon schijnheilig.
Je kan tegen mij zeggen dat je het belachelijk vindt dat ik niet geloof, dan neem ik niet gelijk aan dat je een hekel aan mij hebt.
Question authorities, fuck religion, educate yourself, Viva el individualismo!
There's only one way of life, and that's your own!
There's only one way of life, and that's your own!
Laten we even bij het onderwerp blijven, en niet op de koran ingaan daar gaat dit topic niet over namelijk.quote:
[..]
Ik snap niet dat jij mensen zo één dimensionaal ziet. Een geloof is slechts één van de vele eigenschappen van een mens. Als je één van de eigenschappen van een mens afkeurt, keur je nog niet die mens volledig af. Zelfs als die mensen dat zelf misschien wel zo ervaren, maar dat is hun tekortkoming.
Je kan tegen mij zeggen dat je het belachelijk vindt dat ik niet geloof, dan neem ik niet gelijk aan dat je een hekel aan mij hebt.
Ali beweerde dat het instituut RK slecht is en een slechte geest heeft (wat dit ook maar betekend), en dat hij toch niet de volgelingen bedoelt. Dit bedoelde ik dus met een vreemde redenatie. Ik noem het ook nog erg schijnheilig. En waarom? De RK is het leven van de rooms katholieken. Zij doen alles wat hun leer hen vertelt. Dus doe dan niet alsof je de Rooms Katholieken wel waardeert, maar wat zij doen eigenlijk van satan afkomstig is. Dat slaat namelijk helemaal nergens op. Mensen zijn nou eenmaal wat zij doen.
Daarom heb ik ook weinig respect voor gelovigen, van welke soort dan ook. En dat zeg ik gewoon eerlijk, zonder om de pot te draaien. Vooral voor hen die de joodse/christelijke god dienen en denken dat het liefde is heb ik weinig respect. Respect moet je verdienen, en als je een god dient die genocides gebiedt en als je als mens een ander spaart (zie koning Saul bij de koning van AI) dan straf krijgt dan verdien je mijn respect niet.
als je beweert dat een god die zijn zoon laat offeren liefde is dan verdien je ook weinig respect.
als je beweert dat atheisten verblind zijn door de satan en in hun eigenwaan god afwijzen dan verdien je geen respect.
als je beweert dat joden door hun eigen god verblind zijn tot meerdere glorie van de christenen, enkel omdat zij de christelijke god en diens plan afwijzen, verdien je geen respect.
Enz...
Enz...
Enz...
ZZZzzz....
"Bettler aber sollte man ganz abschaffen! Wahrlich, man ärgert sich ihnen zu geben und ärgert sich ihnen nicht zu geben."
Friedrich Nietzsche
Friedrich Nietzsche
Je kan een paus niet met een gewone burgerkatholiek vergelijken. Of een kardinaal met een zuster die een parochie leidt. Zoals je ook de CEO van Goldman Sachs niet vergelijkt met de schoonmaakster in een willekeurig filiaal. Of de minister president met de locale buschauffeur. Het woord 'Rooms Katholiek' omvat meer dan een miljard mensen maar die kun je niet allemaal op dezelfde manier beschouwen. Zo doet de paus andere dingen dan een gewone burgerkatholiek. Hij stuurt de kerk, schrijft brieven, spreekt buls uit, enzovoorts. De gewone burgerkatholiek heeft die autoriteit niet en definieert daarmee niet wat rooms katholicisme is. Volgens je eigen interpretatie van wat mensen zijn kun je ze dus niet als gelijk beschouwen. Verder kunnen mensen in de overtuiging van iets zijn wat niet waar is. Mensen kunnen om de tuin geleid zijn. Het is aan niemand om andere mensen te veroordelen. Maar het instituut als onpersoonlijk geheel van gedachtengoed, filosofie en praktische daden kun je wel degelijk veroordelen. De bijbel doet dat, en inderdaad er was nog geen katholieke kerk ten tijden van de geschriften. Maar daarom heet het ook profetie. Dat maakt de bijbel speciaal.quote:
[ Bericht 24% gewijzigd door Ali_Kannibali op 03-03-2013 20:42:25 ]
Denk je werkelijk dat "paulus", "petrus" en "johannes" al in hun hoofd hadden wat pas 200-300 jaar later tot stand gebracht zou worden? Is het niet veel logischer dat jij dit interpreteert omdat je de RK graag van alles de schuld wil geven? Zelf de handen wassen in onschuld en met de vingers van dezelfde gewassen hand wijzen naar de RK en dergelijke?quote:
[..]
Je kan een paus niet met een gewone burgerkatholiek vergelijken. Of een kardinaal met een zuster die een parochie leidt. Zoals je ook de CEO van Goldman Sachs niet vergelijkt met de schoonmaakster in een willekeurig filiaal. Of de minister president met de locale buschauffeur. Het woord 'Rooms Katholiek' omvat meer dan een miljard mensen maar die kun je niet allemaal op dezelfde manier beschouwen. Zo doet de paus andere dingen dan een gewone burgerkatholiek. Hij stuurt de kerk, schrijft brieven, spreekt buls uit, enzovoorts. De gewone burgerkatholiek heeft die autoriteit niet en definieert daarmee niet wat rooms katholicisme is. Volgens je eigen interpretatie van wat mensen zijn kun je ze dus niet als gelijk beschouwen. Verder kunnen mensen in de overtuiging van iets zijn wat niet waar is. Mensen kunnen om de tuin geleid zijn. Het is aan niemand om andere mensen te veroordelen. Maar het instituut als onpersoonlijk geheel van gedachtengoed, filosofie en praktische daden kun je wel degelijk veroordelen. De bijbel doet dat, en inderdaad er was nog geen katholieke kerk ten tijden van de geschriften. Maar daarom heet het ook profetie. Dat maakt de bijbel speciaal.
Jij wil graag ergens een profetie in zien, want de enige reden waarom jij gelooft in de bijbel is de profetie wat erin zou staan. Een zelf vervullend gebeuren dus eigenlijk.
En jij en wijze jongen moeten geen systemen veroordelen, daarvoor heb je te weinig kennis. Ik ook trouwens, maar ik veroordeel de RK dan ook niet op de manier wat jullie doen.
"Bettler aber sollte man ganz abschaffen! Wahrlich, man ärgert sich ihnen zu geben und ärgert sich ihnen nicht zu geben."
Friedrich Nietzsche
Friedrich Nietzsche
Dan zal ik ook maar wat knippen en plakken.quote:
...
Je hebt gelijk dat ik veel knip en plak, ik ben een echte luiwammes, als ik waardevolle info zie dan knip-en-plak ik dat, waarom tijd verspillen als dat niet hoeft?
...
Ik doe dat ook graag, vooral als iemand het beter kan zeggen dan ikzelf, wat nogal vaak het geval is.
In dit geval het antwoord van de gechannelde Jezus op de vraag "wat is de ware religie"', een niet onbelangrijke vraag voor deze discussie, dunkt me.
Van de site www.askrealjesus.nl , een zeer interessante site. Lees die site!
http://www.askrealjesus.nl/node/2571quote:WAT IS DE WARE RELIGIE?
Vraag: Wat is de ware religie? Moeten we de Bijbel, de Koran, het Boek van de Mormonen, de zevende dag Adventisten, of de Katholieken volgen? Ik ben christen, maar ik wil geen ongelijk hebben wanneer het op de hemel aankomt. Iedereen gelooft dat zijn religie de enig juiste is, hoe kunnen zoveel religies nu de enig echte zijn?
Als je deze vragen kunt beantwoorden, heel graag. Ik heb geprobeerd met christenen te chatten, maar ze geloven dat het christendom de enige is, zoals ik ook altijd gedacht heb, maar als dat nu eens niet zo is?
Antwoord van Jezus:
Zoals je aan een antwoord kunt zien op een andere vraag, is er inderdaad meer dan één ware en deugdelijke religie. In werkelijkheid is de ware religie de religie die je hart voor God opent en je helpt naar een bewustzijnsstaat te stijgen waarin je kunt zien en volledig accepteren dat je daadwerkelijk een zoon of dochter van God bent die het waard is het koninkrijk van de Vader binnen te gaan.
Ik ben er zeker van dat jij kunt inzien dat het proces om van je huidige bewustzijnsstaat naar de bewustzijnsstaat toe te gaan waar ik over spreek, binnenin jou moet plaatsvinden. We hebben het hier niet over lid worden van een organisatie in de buitenwereld, die trouw zweert aan haar uiterlijke doctrines of het deelnemen aan rituelen in de buitenwereld. Er is eenvoudig geen organisatie op aarde die je verlossing kan garanderen. Er is nog nooit zo’n organisatie geweest en er zal ook nooit – ondanks wat er beweerd wordt – nooit zo één komen.
Eén van mijn belangrijkste uitspraken, zoals je die in de huidige Bijbel vindt, is de uitspraak dat het koninkrijk van God binnenin jou is.
20 Toen de farizeeën Jezus vroegen wanneer het koninkrijk van God zou komen, antwoordde hij hun: “De komst van het koninkrijk van God laat zich niet aanwijzen,
21 en men kan niet zeggen: “Kijk, hier is het!” of: “Daar is het!” Maar weet wel: het koninkrijk van God ligt binnen uw bereik.” (Lucas 17)
Je ziet dat ik heb gezegd dat de komst van het koninkrijk van God zich niet laat aanwijzen. Je kunt het niet door activiteiten in de buitenwereld zien; het kan slechts worden gevonden door je hart te zuiveren en je bewustzijnsstaat te transformeren. Dus de juiste religie voor jou persoonlijk is die die je hart opent en je helpt de hogere bewustzijnsstaat te manifesteren die waarachtig het koninkrijk van God is, het innerlijke koninkrijk is. Op deze website en tijdens mijn missie in Galilea, noemde ik deze bewustzijnsstaat het Christusbewustzijn. Je kunt echter elke naam gebruiken die je wilt, omdat de naam niet belangrijk is. Wat belangrijk is, is de bewustzijnsstaat.
Er zijn veel religies op aarde die inderdaad mensen hebben opgeleverd die het bewustzijn verwierven die ze het koninkrijk der hemelen liet binnengaan. Er zijn ook mensen die deze bewustzijnsstaat hebben verworven zonder tot een formele religie te behoren. Je weet wel dat ik heb gezegd dat de mensen met een zuiver hart gezegend zijn, want zij zullen God zien. Wanneer jij je hart zuivert, krijg je het bewustzijn dat het je mogelijk maakt te zien dat je één bent met God, omdat God jou als een individualisatie van zichzelf heeft geschapen. Dit besef krijg je alleen wanneer je bewust contact met je Christuszelf en IK BEN Aanwezigheid krijgt.
In tegenstelling tot de overtuigingen die zoveel orthodoxe mensen uit bijna iedere religie hebben, houdt God zich niet bezig met welke religie jij hebt. God maakt geen onderscheid tussen mensen en daarom maakt God ook geen onderscheid tussen de religie die de enig ware is. In feite kan ik je er wel van verzekeren dat het hele idee dat er maar één ware religie kan zijn, nooit van God of van de Opgevaren Schare is gekomen. Dit vindt haar oorsprong is het slangachtige bewustzijn dat wil bewijzen dat God geen gelijk heeft, zoals Moeder Maria in haar prachtige verhandeling heeft uitgelegd.
Dit hele slangachtige bewustzijn, waar vaak naar verwezen wordt als het menselijke denken, wil geloven dat er een verlossing in de buitenwereld te vinden is, een automatische verlossing, een gegarandeerde verlossing. Dit is het verkeerde pad waar ik het in een andere verhandeling over heb en waar de Bijbel naar verwijst in het gezegde dat ‘een mens denkt de juiste weg te gaan, terwijl die eindigt bij de dood.’ (Spreuken 14:12)
Je ziet dat ik vaak de wetgeleerden, schriftgeleerden en de farizeeërs kastijdde omdat ze dit uiterlijke pad volgden en aanbevolen. Je ziet dat ik de mensen kastijdde omdat ze in het openbaar hun aalmoezen gaven en gebeden deden. Ik heb gewaarschuwd tegen ijdele herhalingen, niet omdat herhalingen fout zijn, maar omdat een ritueel dat uitgevoerd wordt zonder ermee bezig te zijn en het hart te openen, weinig waarde heeft in de ogen van God.
De slangachtige geest wil dat jij gelooft dat verlossing door uiterlijke middelen kan worden bereikt; dat het een mechanisch proces is. Met andere woorden, als je bepaalde regels opvolgt en bepaalde doctrines gelooft, dan moet God je wel redden. Dus veel religies proberen het gewoon op een akkoordje met God te gooien, maar God geeft de verlossing vrijuit aan allen die haar willen accepteren. Het probleem is dat jij Gods geschenk niet kunt accepteren als je nog in het menselijke denken vastzit. Zoals ik in mijn parabel over het bruiloftsfeest heb uitgelegd. (Matteüs 21: 1-14), kun je niet naar het bruiloftsfeest als je geen bruiloftskleding draagt. De bruiloftskleding is het Christusbewustzijn en niets minder zal je toegang verschaffen tot het koninkrijk van God.
De slangachtige geest wil ook dat jij gelooft dat als je eenmaal je verlossing hebt gekregen, het een staat is die niet verandert en je nooit weer ergens naar hoeft te streven. Maar in werkelijkheid is God de eeuwige schepper. God staat ooit stil, omdat God voortdurend aan het scheppen is. De enige manier waarop God kan scheppen, is door zichzelf en zijn identiteitsgevoel te transcenderen. Daarom is het de bedoeling dat jij als zoon of dochter van God mede-schepper met God bent, en dus kun jij ook niet stil blijven staan. Je moet bereid zijn constant jezelf te transcenderen en dit is daadwerkelijk de sleutel tot het koninkrijk der hemelen. Daarom kun je nooit stilstaan zolang je op aarde bent – maar ook niet in de Hemel.
Je kunt eenvoudig geen kerk vinden die je als de ene ware kerk definieert, haar doctrines accepteert en haar rituelen uitvoert en dan denken dat je wel in de hemel komt. Je moet er voortdurend naar streven je inzichten in de spirituele kant van het leven te vergroten, je hart te zuiveren en je bewustzijnsstaat te verhogen, zodat je iedere dag meer van je goddelijke individualiteit tot uitdrukking kunt brengen. Er zijn mensen die decennia lang forse schreden hebben gemaakt op het spirituele pad en die op een punt komen dat ze het gevoel hebben dat ze genoeg hebben gedaan, en dat het nu tijd is om te ontspannen en op hun lauweren te rusten. Vanwege de neerwaartse aantrekkingskracht van de materie zelf, in combinatie met het slangachtige bewustzijn, zullen mensen onmiddellijk, en vaak zonder dat ze het beseffen, beginnen terug te glijden naar een lagere bewustzijnsstaat. Als ze niet alert zijn, kunnen ze op den duur veel van hun spirituele verworvenheden verliezen die ze door hun inspanningen van tientallen jaren hadden opgebouwd.
De ware religie is er één die je hart opent voor God en haar open houdt, zodat je kunt doorgaan met het transcenderen van jezelf en iedere dag meer van God tot uitdrukking te brengen. Ik ben me ervan bewust dat veel orthodoxe religies de slangachtige leugen bevorderen van een verlossing in de buitenwereld. Toch zitten er binnen in die kerken mensen die de leugen kunnen doorzien en hun hart openstellen voor mij en God. Ik prijs zulke mensen, welke religie ze ook hebben, en ik hoop alleen maar dat steeds meer mensen het innerlijke pad naar Christusschap zullen ontdekken. Dit is waarachtig de sleutel om de oude, verouderde, religies te transformeren in levende kerken die zich opnieuw kunnen openstellen voor de Heilige Geest. Want God is Geest, dus wie hem aanbidt, moet dat doen in geest en in waarheid. (Johannes 4:24)
Wat een dwaalleer. Ik hoop niet dat je die onzin serieus neemt.quote:
[..]
Dan zal ik ook maar wat knippen en plakken.
Ik doe dat ook graag, vooral als iemand het beter kan zeggen dan ikzelf, wat nogal vaak het geval is.
In dit geval het antwoord van de gechannelde Jezus op de vraag "wat is de ware religie"', een niet onbelangrijke vraag voor deze discussie, dunkt me.
Van de site www.askrealjesus.nl , een zeer interessante site. Lees die site!
[..]
http://www.askrealjesus.nl/node/2571
Ik vind dit persoonlijk wel een interessant filmpje. Hierin krijg je een beetje een globale indruk van de sneaky cult-tactics van de ZDA sekte:
[youtube][/youtube]
[youtube][/youtube]
Ik heb zojuist een gedeeltelijke studie van Daniel 8 achter de rug, met betrekking tot Antiochus Epiphanus. Wil je het daar nog over hebben?quote:
Tis helaas een beetje stilgevallen in dit topic. Als er vragen zijn dan hoor ik het wel.
Dit is idd dwaalleer. Wij zijn geen transcendente eminenties van God maar aparte wezens geschapen door het Woord van God. Dat is wat de bijbel iig leert.quote:
[..]
Wat een dwaalleer. Ik hoop niet dat je die onzin serieus neemt.
Uiteraard. Ga je gang.quote:
[..]
Ik heb zojuist een gedeeltelijke studie van Daniel 8 achter de rug, met betrekking tot Antiochus Epiphanus. Wil je het daar nog over hebben?
Ali, ik begin alvast. Ik heb wat bruikbare info gevonden voor de discussie:
Did the papacy really uproot the 3 horns of Daniel 7:8,24 ?
September 14, 1998
By Stephen Korsman
Seventh-day Adventists distort history to fit in with their false claims about the Catholic Church
This article was written in 1998. Today we have far better resources available which demonstrate this point even better. I hope, in time, to update this with additional sources. In the mean time, the Wikipedia articles on the Vandals, Ostrogoths, and Heruli will suffice. They support what I have to say below, and in particular the dating problem Adventists find themselves with.
I received an e-mail from an Adventist called Tony Valentino, who refused to discuss the matter any further after this, saying the following:
[Dan 7:24] The Roman Empire fell apart in 476AD. In 538AD, pagan rome gave all authority over to papal rome. which began the “Time of papal supremecy”
He followed that statement with the following:
In AD 265, the Heruli were crushingly defeated by a Roman emperor after intructions from the pope. Vandals and the Ostrogoths were also destroyed. This can easily be verified.
I pointed out to him that his statements were inconsistent – he was admitting that the papacy not only existed, but had political power as early as 265 AD, if it was indeed the pope that instructed the Roman Emperor to defeat the Heruli. That was inconsistent with his first statement, and general SDA “history”, which say that the papacy came into power in 538 AD. He backed off briefly, and then sent me a fresh file with the dates and information changed, corrected. This is what he said:
[Dan 7:24] The Roman Empire fell apart in 476AD. In 538AD, pagan rome gave all authority over to papal rome. which began the “Time of papal supremecy”. Let us note proof of this fact because of the time of its appearance. it must appear after the division of the Roman Empire. “And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them;” [Daniel 7:24.] The Papacy was established in A.D. 538 when it subdued the Ostrogoths. The ten horns, or the divided kingdom, was established in A.D. 476. Thus you can see at a glance that the Papacy arose immediately after the ten kingdoms, exactly as the prophecy states, “and another shall rise after them.” NO other system or power fits in here besides the papacy. Not to then acknowledge the papacy as this system or power, would then doubt God’s Word of prophecies which have time after time proven to be 100% ACCURATE.
… History reveals that the Papacy destroyed three of the ten kingdoms, which were as follows. (1) The Heruli in A.D. 493, (2) the Vandals in A.D. 534, (3) the Ostrogoths in A.D. 538.
In what follows, I would like to try to prove two things – a) the three tribes were NOT defeated by the papacy, and were NOT the only three tribes to be defeated like they were, and b) the most essential part of this SDA prophetic scenario will be debunked when it is shown that the neither the Western Roman Empire, nor the nations of Western Europe, fit into the “10 horn” image of Daniel/Revelation. Because there were NOT 10 “horns” or kingdoms in this area at this time, it is totally ridiculous to say that these 15-20 nations represent a 10-horned beast !!!
Without that, none of the SDA’s claims can be applied to the papacy, simply because they have found the papacy in entirely the wrong place, and have grossly misunderstood what the Bible, specifically the book of Daniel, is saying. It is obvious to me from the study I have made into the SDA theory that the SDA Church simply has no clue about what the facts really are.
The SDA who wrote the above to me insisted that I give him good references for what I claimed – probably because he was shocked at learning the truth, and could not believe that such information could come from real sources. He, on the other hand, did not provide the sources he expected me to provide, except one or two here or there that were SDA sources anyway, and which are all easily proved to be the same distortion of history that I am going to demonstrate. For this reason I have listed my sources. below.
The encyclopedic references I have used are as follows:
1. Encyclopedia Britannica
2. The World Book Encyclopedia
3. The New Book of Knowledge
4. Purnell’s new English Encyclopedia
5. Collier’s Encyclopedia
6. Funk and Wagnall’s New Standard Dictionary of the English Language
Please see the articles: Papal States, Rome, Pope, papacy, Catholicism, Roman Empire, Belisarius, Pius VI, Pius VII, Stephen II, Stephen III, Pepin, Franks, Lombards, Burgundians, Vandals, Heruli, Goths, Orthogoths, Visigoths, Celts, Saxons, Germani, Teutonics, Huns, Suebi (Suevi), Quodi, Helveti, Belgi, Gauls, Cimbri, Alemanni, Dacians, Walloons, Venetians, Iberians, Marcomanni, Magyars, Basques, Hungary, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Switzerland, Holland, Belgium, Austria, England, Rumania, France, Germany, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Mauritania.
The books I looked into are:
1. E Gibbon – The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
2. P De Rosa – Vicars of Christ – The Dark Side of the Papacy
3. A Momigliano (ed.) – Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century
4. Millar – The Roman Empire and its neighbours
5. AHM Jones – The Later Roman Empire: 284-602AD
6. J Pelikan – The Excellent Empire – The Fall of Rome and the Triumph of the Church
7. S Bullough – Roman Catholicism
8. J Richards – The Popes and the Papacy in the Early Middle Ages: 476-752AD
These references will be adequate to provide all the information I claim. Basically all of the data was taken from encyclopedias, and the books are merely there for backup proof. Further references which contain still the same information, but which I won’t quote as references, as they are not as extensive and all-encompassing, are:
1. G Barraclough – The Origins of Modern Germany
2. H Chadwick – The Early Christian Church
3. O Chadwick – Catholicism and History
4. JG Davies – The Early Christian Church
5. L Duchesne – The Beginnings of the Temporal Sovereignty of the Popes
6. L Duchesne – The Early History of the Christian Church
7. Gregory of Tours – The History of the Franks
8. PA Hughes – A Short History of the Catholic Church
9. P Johnson – A History of Christianity
10. KS Latourette – A History of Christianity
I hope that is sufficient. If you want to look stuff up, I would suggest you go to the encyclopedias first. They contain all the relevant information. The rest contain it too, but it is more difficult to locate. Encyclopedias are easier to obtain in libraries too.
The dates given by the SDA for the destruction of the Heruli, Ostrogoths, and Vandals are as follows:
- Heruli – 265 AD. I pointed out that this was wrong, and he subsequently changed his story. He then gave the more correct date of 493 AD.
- Vandals in 534 AD
- Ostrogoths in 538 AD
I accept the two dates for the first two (493 and 534). They are correct. The date for the defeat of the Ostrogoths was NOT 538 AD, but rather 555 AD. A minor defeat occurred previously, but my sources give me the date of 540 AD for that one, two years AFTER Adventism’s required date. However, that is irrelevant – the Bible says that the three horns were uprooted – history shows that the uprootment of the final of these three horns, the Ostrogoths, was not complete until 555 AD. So either one must count from 555 AD, or one must not count at all from the defeat of the Ostrogoths. To count their defeat from 2 years before a minor irrelevant defeat and 17 years before their actual defeat and annihilation is dishonest manipulation of history, something very typical of SDAs and people like them who have a prophetic agenda to force the facts into.
It is interesting to note that the Visigoths (the western split of the Gothic kingdom) suffered the same type of defeat the SDAs classify as the uprooting of the Ostrogoths (the eastern part) – but they don’t say they are also a horn that was uprooted. Why ? Is it because it is invonvenient to have more that the biblically required 3 horns to deal with ? In fact, if one includes the Visigoths’ defeat in Aquitania (equivalent to what the Adventists want to call the Ostrogoths’ defeat) then there are SIX horns that were uprooted, NOT THREE. (see later.)
The next point is that Dan 7:24 says that it is the 11th horn that uproots or puts down the three kings. However, in all three cases at hand, the papacy had NOTHING to do with their uprootment !!! The person who defeated the Ostrogoths and the Vandals was Belisarius, a general in the army of Justinian, emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire. Justinian was a Christian, but his political actions were clearly not influenced by the bishop of a foreign city, Rome. It is yet another SDA untruthful distortion of the facts to say this.
But that is all irrelevant. Let’s turn to the Heruli, and see what influence the papacy had in their uprootment. All my sources say they were uprooted by the Lombards in 493 AD. Which is very interesting, because the Lombards were NOT Catholic – they were Arians, enemies of the Catholic Church and of the papacy, and CERTAINLY NOT influenced in their political decisions by their enemy the pope. So, completely contrary to Daniel 7:24, the Heruli were NOT put down by the papacy at all, but by the Lombards. Either the SDA interpretation of Daniel 7:24 is incorrect, or, if the SDAs are right, the actual prophecy given by God to Daniel was faulty.
It is interesting to note that these Arian Lombards were to rule Italy, and Rome, thus allowing the pope no political power in Rome or Italy, from 568 – 774 AD. It was only after a request by Pope Stephen II to King Pepin of the Franks, that caused the Lombards to be kicked out of Rome in 755-6. Pepin then gave land to the papacy – this was the first land the papacy owned, and it is from this point that the temporal rule of the papacy began – NOT as Adventists claim in 538 AD. And what is more, the papal political power did no begin in 538 either – history clearly shows that it began under Constantine the Great, when Christianity became the official religion of the Empire – 380 AD. Some say it started before this, as is evidenced by the activities of the Council of Nicaea in 324-5 AD, but either way, the date cannot be set as late as 538 AD. So here we have incontrovertible proof that the political power of the papacy began in the 300′s, and the temporal reign over people and land began in the 700′s, and between those dates other people, Arians and Romans, held rule over the land where the pope lived.
Furthermore, the ending of the papal political power (which Adventists claim is the mortal wound) occurred in the 1870′s. The papal states were restored to the papacy after 1798 when Napoleon took them away – thus that was NOT a mortal wound, for it was only temporary. The ACTUAL wound, or permanent event, occurred in 1870.
In summary, SDA dates are wrong, and the three horns were finished being uprooted only in 555 AD. Also, your theory blatantly contradicts the Bible (Dan 7:24) because the papacy could NOT have had any influence in the Lombardish decision to wipe out the Heruli.
Furthermore, the SDA theory is wrong because Adventists have failed to accurately identify a 10 horned beast, with 3 horns that get uprooted. The Huns (455 AD) were also a people who were uprooted – this time by the waning Roman Empire, and later finally by the other tribes, the Eastern Empire, and by civil war. Also uprooted were the Alemanni (495 AD). So one has a problem of FIVE horns (SIX if you count the Visigoths) that were uprooted, NOT THREE. One cannot ignore the Huns or the Alemanni, because they were just like the other barbarian tribes that tried to invade Western Rome, e.g. Lombards, Heruli, Ostrogoths, Vandals, Franks, etc. Nor can you call the Huns the present day Hungarians – these are the descendants of the Magyars; the Huns were absorbed into the surrounding peoples after their defeat, just like the Heruli were, never to be a tribe on their own again.
One SDA source (Marvin Moore) says that the 10 horns are 10 barbarian nations that tried to invade the Western Roman Empire. The three that were uprooted, he claims were uprooted by the papacy (I have shown that to be a lie) because they were Arian, and not Catholic. But the Franks were ALSO Arian – they converted to Catholicism in 486. The Lombards were Arian, and only converted long after Pepin kicked them out of Rome in 755 AD. So it is a lie to say that Catholics ruled Italy and the city of Rome from 538 onwards – they did not. The Visigoths were Arian, and converted in 589 AD. So here we have several more Arian tribes that invaded the Western Empire, yet Moore claims that what made these three horns (Ostrogoths, Vandals, Heruli) different, unique, and worthy of uprooting was that they were the only Arian tribes. Yet another obvious SDA distortion of the truth.
Summary – there were more than 3 Arian horns, and there were more than three uprooted horns.
Let’s now count the number of horns in the whole of the Western Empire.
The SDA who wrote to me counted the following: Germany, England, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Switzerland. And obviously the three uprooted ones – Heruli, Ostrogoths, and Vandals. It appears that Adventists are not united on this matter (see above, where Marvin Moore claims that the 10 tribes were barbarians who invaded the Roman Empire – something the English and the Roman Italians were not. But anything that appears to add up to 10 and looks good and is anti-Catholic, is acceptable to the Adventist Church, it seems.
But here they have made an obvious fallacy – the countries today were NOT the same countries or nations that were around in the days of the Empire. Borders were completely different, and people were completely different. The Spanish and French did not even exist (as single entities) in 538 AD – how on earth could they make up an existing horn of a beast that was current in 538 AD ??? Furthermore, it is dishonest to classify Italy as only one country, because at that time, and for a long time afterwards, they were made up of different peoples – a least three – the Venetians, the Lombards, and the Italians/Romans themselves. And once again the SDA has conveniently left out the Huns. And if you want to include Switzerland (the Helvetians), a very minor group in those times, you have to include the more prominent Belgium (made up of the Flemings and the Belgians) as well – they were part of the Western Empire just as much as the rest of the countries were. And since the SDA wants to include parts of North Africa (the Vandals – Algeria and Tunisia) I feel free to insert Libya and Mauritania as well. So already, counting as the Adventists want us to count, if we look at history and geography honestly, we have more than 10 horns or tribes or nations.
In order to find out who precisely the 10 (or more) horns were, we must look at who the distinct and separate tribes/nations of people were at that time.
I don’t know whether the Adventists want to count the nations of the Western Roman Empire, or just the nations that invaded the Western Roman Empire. Since the one who wrote to me included England, who never invaded the Western Roman Empire, but who was part of it, as a horn, I assume that he meant the former grouping. So I’ll deal with that fallacy first.
Let’s list the nations/tribes who were to be found within the borders of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD, the time when the SDA claims they were all present (including the three he claims were uprooted.)
England (i.e. the Saxons.)
Franks
Lombards
Burgundians
Gauls (French Gauls)
Belgi
Helvetii (Swiss)
Italians (i.e. Romans)
Iberians
Visigoths
Basques
Libyans
Mauritanians (North Africa, next to where the Vandals were located)
Dacians (Rumania, a Roman province)
Assorted Slavic peoples
Alemanni
And then the 3 the Adventists want uprooted – Ostrogoths, Vandals, and Heruli
Well, that is more than 10 horns/peoples, so I will stop there. If we wanted to get technical, we could go on.
Notice that I leave out the Germans (specifically the Germani tribe to which the SDA must be referring), who did not form part of the Western Roman Empire, but were to be found north of the Empire’s borders. Some of the Teutonic Germans were found in the Roman Empire (e.g. the Heruli, to name but one) but specifically the Teutonic tribe called the Germani, which was later to become Germany, was outside of the Empire.
Well, that proves that the Western Empire simply cannot be a 10 horned beast.
Let’s take a look at the alternative view of this confused group of people, the one used by Moore – that the horns are kingdoms that invaded Rome. First I think it appropriate to note that the Papacy was not a kingdom until 755 AD, and therefore it is dishonest to classify it as a horn here. But we’ll let that slip by for now. But note that we can’t include England because it never invaded the Empire – it was part of it, though.
Here are a list of barbarian tribes that invaded the Western Roman Empire:
Huns
Heruli
Ostrogoths
Visigoths
Vandals
Franks
Burgundians
Lombards
Allemanni
Germani (they DID invade, they just weren’t part of it)
Suevi
Quodi
Gauls (still on the go at that time)
Celts (in England)
Moors (in North Africa)
Well, here again we have more than 10 horns to this beast. Personally I don’t think this is what you mean, so we won’t go any further.
Summary – there were more than 10 horns to the Western Empire (or her invaders), therefore the biblical prophecy is clearly misplaced. There were more than 3 uprootions, hence again the biblical prophecy is misapplied to these people. Furthermore, the papacy was NOT responsible for the uprootions (as required by Dan 7:24), and thus it is even more clear that the Adventist idea of prophecy is false and deluded.
Personally I feel that this type of prophecy interpretation is clearly what follows on in the followers of false prophets like William Miller, and Ellen White. These two individuals predicted events that quite clearly did not come to pass. Miller, one could say, was merely deceived – he did not claim to be a prophet. Ellen White, on the other hand, is clearly what the Bible calls a False Prophet - her predictions did not come to pass, and she even contradicted herself and the Bible. I feel that a church should be honest with the facts of history when trying to dabble in prophecy – something the Seventh-day Adventist Church clearly is not doing.
Did the papacy really uproot the 3 horns of Daniel 7:8,24 ?
September 14, 1998
By Stephen Korsman
Seventh-day Adventists distort history to fit in with their false claims about the Catholic Church
This article was written in 1998. Today we have far better resources available which demonstrate this point even better. I hope, in time, to update this with additional sources. In the mean time, the Wikipedia articles on the Vandals, Ostrogoths, and Heruli will suffice. They support what I have to say below, and in particular the dating problem Adventists find themselves with.
I received an e-mail from an Adventist called Tony Valentino, who refused to discuss the matter any further after this, saying the following:
[Dan 7:24] The Roman Empire fell apart in 476AD. In 538AD, pagan rome gave all authority over to papal rome. which began the “Time of papal supremecy”
He followed that statement with the following:
In AD 265, the Heruli were crushingly defeated by a Roman emperor after intructions from the pope. Vandals and the Ostrogoths were also destroyed. This can easily be verified.
I pointed out to him that his statements were inconsistent – he was admitting that the papacy not only existed, but had political power as early as 265 AD, if it was indeed the pope that instructed the Roman Emperor to defeat the Heruli. That was inconsistent with his first statement, and general SDA “history”, which say that the papacy came into power in 538 AD. He backed off briefly, and then sent me a fresh file with the dates and information changed, corrected. This is what he said:
[Dan 7:24] The Roman Empire fell apart in 476AD. In 538AD, pagan rome gave all authority over to papal rome. which began the “Time of papal supremecy”. Let us note proof of this fact because of the time of its appearance. it must appear after the division of the Roman Empire. “And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them;” [Daniel 7:24.] The Papacy was established in A.D. 538 when it subdued the Ostrogoths. The ten horns, or the divided kingdom, was established in A.D. 476. Thus you can see at a glance that the Papacy arose immediately after the ten kingdoms, exactly as the prophecy states, “and another shall rise after them.” NO other system or power fits in here besides the papacy. Not to then acknowledge the papacy as this system or power, would then doubt God’s Word of prophecies which have time after time proven to be 100% ACCURATE.
… History reveals that the Papacy destroyed three of the ten kingdoms, which were as follows. (1) The Heruli in A.D. 493, (2) the Vandals in A.D. 534, (3) the Ostrogoths in A.D. 538.
In what follows, I would like to try to prove two things – a) the three tribes were NOT defeated by the papacy, and were NOT the only three tribes to be defeated like they were, and b) the most essential part of this SDA prophetic scenario will be debunked when it is shown that the neither the Western Roman Empire, nor the nations of Western Europe, fit into the “10 horn” image of Daniel/Revelation. Because there were NOT 10 “horns” or kingdoms in this area at this time, it is totally ridiculous to say that these 15-20 nations represent a 10-horned beast !!!
Without that, none of the SDA’s claims can be applied to the papacy, simply because they have found the papacy in entirely the wrong place, and have grossly misunderstood what the Bible, specifically the book of Daniel, is saying. It is obvious to me from the study I have made into the SDA theory that the SDA Church simply has no clue about what the facts really are.
The SDA who wrote the above to me insisted that I give him good references for what I claimed – probably because he was shocked at learning the truth, and could not believe that such information could come from real sources. He, on the other hand, did not provide the sources he expected me to provide, except one or two here or there that were SDA sources anyway, and which are all easily proved to be the same distortion of history that I am going to demonstrate. For this reason I have listed my sources. below.
The encyclopedic references I have used are as follows:
1. Encyclopedia Britannica
2. The World Book Encyclopedia
3. The New Book of Knowledge
4. Purnell’s new English Encyclopedia
5. Collier’s Encyclopedia
6. Funk and Wagnall’s New Standard Dictionary of the English Language
Please see the articles: Papal States, Rome, Pope, papacy, Catholicism, Roman Empire, Belisarius, Pius VI, Pius VII, Stephen II, Stephen III, Pepin, Franks, Lombards, Burgundians, Vandals, Heruli, Goths, Orthogoths, Visigoths, Celts, Saxons, Germani, Teutonics, Huns, Suebi (Suevi), Quodi, Helveti, Belgi, Gauls, Cimbri, Alemanni, Dacians, Walloons, Venetians, Iberians, Marcomanni, Magyars, Basques, Hungary, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Switzerland, Holland, Belgium, Austria, England, Rumania, France, Germany, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Mauritania.
The books I looked into are:
1. E Gibbon – The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
2. P De Rosa – Vicars of Christ – The Dark Side of the Papacy
3. A Momigliano (ed.) – Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century
4. Millar – The Roman Empire and its neighbours
5. AHM Jones – The Later Roman Empire: 284-602AD
6. J Pelikan – The Excellent Empire – The Fall of Rome and the Triumph of the Church
7. S Bullough – Roman Catholicism
8. J Richards – The Popes and the Papacy in the Early Middle Ages: 476-752AD
These references will be adequate to provide all the information I claim. Basically all of the data was taken from encyclopedias, and the books are merely there for backup proof. Further references which contain still the same information, but which I won’t quote as references, as they are not as extensive and all-encompassing, are:
1. G Barraclough – The Origins of Modern Germany
2. H Chadwick – The Early Christian Church
3. O Chadwick – Catholicism and History
4. JG Davies – The Early Christian Church
5. L Duchesne – The Beginnings of the Temporal Sovereignty of the Popes
6. L Duchesne – The Early History of the Christian Church
7. Gregory of Tours – The History of the Franks
8. PA Hughes – A Short History of the Catholic Church
9. P Johnson – A History of Christianity
10. KS Latourette – A History of Christianity
I hope that is sufficient. If you want to look stuff up, I would suggest you go to the encyclopedias first. They contain all the relevant information. The rest contain it too, but it is more difficult to locate. Encyclopedias are easier to obtain in libraries too.
The dates given by the SDA for the destruction of the Heruli, Ostrogoths, and Vandals are as follows:
- Heruli – 265 AD. I pointed out that this was wrong, and he subsequently changed his story. He then gave the more correct date of 493 AD.
- Vandals in 534 AD
- Ostrogoths in 538 AD
I accept the two dates for the first two (493 and 534). They are correct. The date for the defeat of the Ostrogoths was NOT 538 AD, but rather 555 AD. A minor defeat occurred previously, but my sources give me the date of 540 AD for that one, two years AFTER Adventism’s required date. However, that is irrelevant – the Bible says that the three horns were uprooted – history shows that the uprootment of the final of these three horns, the Ostrogoths, was not complete until 555 AD. So either one must count from 555 AD, or one must not count at all from the defeat of the Ostrogoths. To count their defeat from 2 years before a minor irrelevant defeat and 17 years before their actual defeat and annihilation is dishonest manipulation of history, something very typical of SDAs and people like them who have a prophetic agenda to force the facts into.
It is interesting to note that the Visigoths (the western split of the Gothic kingdom) suffered the same type of defeat the SDAs classify as the uprooting of the Ostrogoths (the eastern part) – but they don’t say they are also a horn that was uprooted. Why ? Is it because it is invonvenient to have more that the biblically required 3 horns to deal with ? In fact, if one includes the Visigoths’ defeat in Aquitania (equivalent to what the Adventists want to call the Ostrogoths’ defeat) then there are SIX horns that were uprooted, NOT THREE. (see later.)
The next point is that Dan 7:24 says that it is the 11th horn that uproots or puts down the three kings. However, in all three cases at hand, the papacy had NOTHING to do with their uprootment !!! The person who defeated the Ostrogoths and the Vandals was Belisarius, a general in the army of Justinian, emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire. Justinian was a Christian, but his political actions were clearly not influenced by the bishop of a foreign city, Rome. It is yet another SDA untruthful distortion of the facts to say this.
But that is all irrelevant. Let’s turn to the Heruli, and see what influence the papacy had in their uprootment. All my sources say they were uprooted by the Lombards in 493 AD. Which is very interesting, because the Lombards were NOT Catholic – they were Arians, enemies of the Catholic Church and of the papacy, and CERTAINLY NOT influenced in their political decisions by their enemy the pope. So, completely contrary to Daniel 7:24, the Heruli were NOT put down by the papacy at all, but by the Lombards. Either the SDA interpretation of Daniel 7:24 is incorrect, or, if the SDAs are right, the actual prophecy given by God to Daniel was faulty.
It is interesting to note that these Arian Lombards were to rule Italy, and Rome, thus allowing the pope no political power in Rome or Italy, from 568 – 774 AD. It was only after a request by Pope Stephen II to King Pepin of the Franks, that caused the Lombards to be kicked out of Rome in 755-6. Pepin then gave land to the papacy – this was the first land the papacy owned, and it is from this point that the temporal rule of the papacy began – NOT as Adventists claim in 538 AD. And what is more, the papal political power did no begin in 538 either – history clearly shows that it began under Constantine the Great, when Christianity became the official religion of the Empire – 380 AD. Some say it started before this, as is evidenced by the activities of the Council of Nicaea in 324-5 AD, but either way, the date cannot be set as late as 538 AD. So here we have incontrovertible proof that the political power of the papacy began in the 300′s, and the temporal reign over people and land began in the 700′s, and between those dates other people, Arians and Romans, held rule over the land where the pope lived.
Furthermore, the ending of the papal political power (which Adventists claim is the mortal wound) occurred in the 1870′s. The papal states were restored to the papacy after 1798 when Napoleon took them away – thus that was NOT a mortal wound, for it was only temporary. The ACTUAL wound, or permanent event, occurred in 1870.
In summary, SDA dates are wrong, and the three horns were finished being uprooted only in 555 AD. Also, your theory blatantly contradicts the Bible (Dan 7:24) because the papacy could NOT have had any influence in the Lombardish decision to wipe out the Heruli.
Furthermore, the SDA theory is wrong because Adventists have failed to accurately identify a 10 horned beast, with 3 horns that get uprooted. The Huns (455 AD) were also a people who were uprooted – this time by the waning Roman Empire, and later finally by the other tribes, the Eastern Empire, and by civil war. Also uprooted were the Alemanni (495 AD). So one has a problem of FIVE horns (SIX if you count the Visigoths) that were uprooted, NOT THREE. One cannot ignore the Huns or the Alemanni, because they were just like the other barbarian tribes that tried to invade Western Rome, e.g. Lombards, Heruli, Ostrogoths, Vandals, Franks, etc. Nor can you call the Huns the present day Hungarians – these are the descendants of the Magyars; the Huns were absorbed into the surrounding peoples after their defeat, just like the Heruli were, never to be a tribe on their own again.
One SDA source (Marvin Moore) says that the 10 horns are 10 barbarian nations that tried to invade the Western Roman Empire. The three that were uprooted, he claims were uprooted by the papacy (I have shown that to be a lie) because they were Arian, and not Catholic. But the Franks were ALSO Arian – they converted to Catholicism in 486. The Lombards were Arian, and only converted long after Pepin kicked them out of Rome in 755 AD. So it is a lie to say that Catholics ruled Italy and the city of Rome from 538 onwards – they did not. The Visigoths were Arian, and converted in 589 AD. So here we have several more Arian tribes that invaded the Western Empire, yet Moore claims that what made these three horns (Ostrogoths, Vandals, Heruli) different, unique, and worthy of uprooting was that they were the only Arian tribes. Yet another obvious SDA distortion of the truth.
Summary – there were more than 3 Arian horns, and there were more than three uprooted horns.
Let’s now count the number of horns in the whole of the Western Empire.
The SDA who wrote to me counted the following: Germany, England, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Switzerland. And obviously the three uprooted ones – Heruli, Ostrogoths, and Vandals. It appears that Adventists are not united on this matter (see above, where Marvin Moore claims that the 10 tribes were barbarians who invaded the Roman Empire – something the English and the Roman Italians were not. But anything that appears to add up to 10 and looks good and is anti-Catholic, is acceptable to the Adventist Church, it seems.
But here they have made an obvious fallacy – the countries today were NOT the same countries or nations that were around in the days of the Empire. Borders were completely different, and people were completely different. The Spanish and French did not even exist (as single entities) in 538 AD – how on earth could they make up an existing horn of a beast that was current in 538 AD ??? Furthermore, it is dishonest to classify Italy as only one country, because at that time, and for a long time afterwards, they were made up of different peoples – a least three – the Venetians, the Lombards, and the Italians/Romans themselves. And once again the SDA has conveniently left out the Huns. And if you want to include Switzerland (the Helvetians), a very minor group in those times, you have to include the more prominent Belgium (made up of the Flemings and the Belgians) as well – they were part of the Western Empire just as much as the rest of the countries were. And since the SDA wants to include parts of North Africa (the Vandals – Algeria and Tunisia) I feel free to insert Libya and Mauritania as well. So already, counting as the Adventists want us to count, if we look at history and geography honestly, we have more than 10 horns or tribes or nations.
In order to find out who precisely the 10 (or more) horns were, we must look at who the distinct and separate tribes/nations of people were at that time.
I don’t know whether the Adventists want to count the nations of the Western Roman Empire, or just the nations that invaded the Western Roman Empire. Since the one who wrote to me included England, who never invaded the Western Roman Empire, but who was part of it, as a horn, I assume that he meant the former grouping. So I’ll deal with that fallacy first.
Let’s list the nations/tribes who were to be found within the borders of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD, the time when the SDA claims they were all present (including the three he claims were uprooted.)
England (i.e. the Saxons.)
Franks
Lombards
Burgundians
Gauls (French Gauls)
Belgi
Helvetii (Swiss)
Italians (i.e. Romans)
Iberians
Visigoths
Basques
Libyans
Mauritanians (North Africa, next to where the Vandals were located)
Dacians (Rumania, a Roman province)
Assorted Slavic peoples
Alemanni
And then the 3 the Adventists want uprooted – Ostrogoths, Vandals, and Heruli
Well, that is more than 10 horns/peoples, so I will stop there. If we wanted to get technical, we could go on.
Notice that I leave out the Germans (specifically the Germani tribe to which the SDA must be referring), who did not form part of the Western Roman Empire, but were to be found north of the Empire’s borders. Some of the Teutonic Germans were found in the Roman Empire (e.g. the Heruli, to name but one) but specifically the Teutonic tribe called the Germani, which was later to become Germany, was outside of the Empire.
Well, that proves that the Western Empire simply cannot be a 10 horned beast.
Let’s take a look at the alternative view of this confused group of people, the one used by Moore – that the horns are kingdoms that invaded Rome. First I think it appropriate to note that the Papacy was not a kingdom until 755 AD, and therefore it is dishonest to classify it as a horn here. But we’ll let that slip by for now. But note that we can’t include England because it never invaded the Empire – it was part of it, though.
Here are a list of barbarian tribes that invaded the Western Roman Empire:
Huns
Heruli
Ostrogoths
Visigoths
Vandals
Franks
Burgundians
Lombards
Allemanni
Germani (they DID invade, they just weren’t part of it)
Suevi
Quodi
Gauls (still on the go at that time)
Celts (in England)
Moors (in North Africa)
Well, here again we have more than 10 horns to this beast. Personally I don’t think this is what you mean, so we won’t go any further.
Summary – there were more than 10 horns to the Western Empire (or her invaders), therefore the biblical prophecy is clearly misplaced. There were more than 3 uprootions, hence again the biblical prophecy is misapplied to these people. Furthermore, the papacy was NOT responsible for the uprootions (as required by Dan 7:24), and thus it is even more clear that the Adventist idea of prophecy is false and deluded.
Personally I feel that this type of prophecy interpretation is clearly what follows on in the followers of false prophets like William Miller, and Ellen White. These two individuals predicted events that quite clearly did not come to pass. Miller, one could say, was merely deceived – he did not claim to be a prophet. Ellen White, on the other hand, is clearly what the Bible calls a False Prophet - her predictions did not come to pass, and she even contradicted herself and the Bible. I feel that a church should be honest with the facts of history when trying to dabble in prophecy – something the Seventh-day Adventist Church clearly is not doing.
Het probleem met de kleine hoorn en de drie hoorns is dat de manier waarop die profetie in vervulling zou zijn gegaan vaak op een zeer persoonlijke manier geinterpreteerd wordt en niet op een bijbelse manier.quote:
Ali, ik begin alvast. Ik heb wat bruikbare info gevonden voor de discussie:
Did the papacy really uproot the 3 horns of Daniel 7:8,24 ?
September 14, 1998
By Stephen Korsman
Seventh-day Adventists distort history to fit in with their false claims about the Catholic Church
This article was written in 1998. Today we have far better resources available which demonstrate this point even better. I hope, in time, to update this with additional sources. In the mean time, the Wikipedia articles on the Vandals, Ostrogoths, and Heruli will suffice. They support what I have to say below, and in particular the dating problem Adventists find themselves with.
I received an e-mail from an Adventist called Tony Valentino, who refused to discuss the matter any further after this, saying the following:
[Dan 7:24] The Roman Empire fell apart in 476AD. In 538AD, pagan rome gave all authority over to papal rome. which began the “Time of papal supremecy”
He followed that statement with the following:
In AD 265, the Heruli were crushingly defeated by a Roman emperor after intructions from the pope. Vandals and the Ostrogoths were also destroyed. This can easily be verified.
I pointed out to him that his statements were inconsistent – he was admitting that the papacy not only existed, but had political power as early as 265 AD, if it was indeed the pope that instructed the Roman Emperor to defeat the Heruli. That was inconsistent with his first statement, and general SDA “history”, which say that the papacy came into power in 538 AD. He backed off briefly, and then sent me a fresh file with the dates and information changed, corrected. This is what he said:
[Dan 7:24] The Roman Empire fell apart in 476AD. In 538AD, pagan rome gave all authority over to papal rome. which began the “Time of papal supremecy”. Let us note proof of this fact because of the time of its appearance. it must appear after the division of the Roman Empire. “And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them;” [Daniel 7:24.] The Papacy was established in A.D. 538 when it subdued the Ostrogoths. The ten horns, or the divided kingdom, was established in A.D. 476. Thus you can see at a glance that the Papacy arose immediately after the ten kingdoms, exactly as the prophecy states, “and another shall rise after them.” NO other system or power fits in here besides the papacy. Not to then acknowledge the papacy as this system or power, would then doubt God’s Word of prophecies which have time after time proven to be 100% ACCURATE.
… History reveals that the Papacy destroyed three of the ten kingdoms, which were as follows. (1) The Heruli in A.D. 493, (2) the Vandals in A.D. 534, (3) the Ostrogoths in A.D. 538.
In what follows, I would like to try to prove two things – a) the three tribes were NOT defeated by the papacy, and were NOT the only three tribes to be defeated like they were, and b) the most essential part of this SDA prophetic scenario will be debunked when it is shown that the neither the Western Roman Empire, nor the nations of Western Europe, fit into the “10 horn” image of Daniel/Revelation. Because there were NOT 10 “horns” or kingdoms in this area at this time, it is totally ridiculous to say that these 15-20 nations represent a 10-horned beast !!!
Without that, none of the SDA’s claims can be applied to the papacy, simply because they have found the papacy in entirely the wrong place, and have grossly misunderstood what the Bible, specifically the book of Daniel, is saying. It is obvious to me from the study I have made into the SDA theory that the SDA Church simply has no clue about what the facts really are.
The SDA who wrote the above to me insisted that I give him good references for what I claimed – probably because he was shocked at learning the truth, and could not believe that such information could come from real sources. He, on the other hand, did not provide the sources he expected me to provide, except one or two here or there that were SDA sources anyway, and which are all easily proved to be the same distortion of history that I am going to demonstrate. For this reason I have listed my sources. below.
The encyclopedic references I have used are as follows:
1. Encyclopedia Britannica
2. The World Book Encyclopedia
3. The New Book of Knowledge
4. Purnell’s new English Encyclopedia
5. Collier’s Encyclopedia
6. Funk and Wagnall’s New Standard Dictionary of the English Language
Please see the articles: Papal States, Rome, Pope, papacy, Catholicism, Roman Empire, Belisarius, Pius VI, Pius VII, Stephen II, Stephen III, Pepin, Franks, Lombards, Burgundians, Vandals, Heruli, Goths, Orthogoths, Visigoths, Celts, Saxons, Germani, Teutonics, Huns, Suebi (Suevi), Quodi, Helveti, Belgi, Gauls, Cimbri, Alemanni, Dacians, Walloons, Venetians, Iberians, Marcomanni, Magyars, Basques, Hungary, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Switzerland, Holland, Belgium, Austria, England, Rumania, France, Germany, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Mauritania.
The books I looked into are:
1. E Gibbon – The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
2. P De Rosa – Vicars of Christ – The Dark Side of the Papacy
3. A Momigliano (ed.) – Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century
4. Millar – The Roman Empire and its neighbours
5. AHM Jones – The Later Roman Empire: 284-602AD
6. J Pelikan – The Excellent Empire – The Fall of Rome and the Triumph of the Church
7. S Bullough – Roman Catholicism
8. J Richards – The Popes and the Papacy in the Early Middle Ages: 476-752AD
These references will be adequate to provide all the information I claim. Basically all of the data was taken from encyclopedias, and the books are merely there for backup proof. Further references which contain still the same information, but which I won’t quote as references, as they are not as extensive and all-encompassing, are:
1. G Barraclough – The Origins of Modern Germany
2. H Chadwick – The Early Christian Church
3. O Chadwick – Catholicism and History
4. JG Davies – The Early Christian Church
5. L Duchesne – The Beginnings of the Temporal Sovereignty of the Popes
6. L Duchesne – The Early History of the Christian Church
7. Gregory of Tours – The History of the Franks
8. PA Hughes – A Short History of the Catholic Church
9. P Johnson – A History of Christianity
10. KS Latourette – A History of Christianity
I hope that is sufficient. If you want to look stuff up, I would suggest you go to the encyclopedias first. They contain all the relevant information. The rest contain it too, but it is more difficult to locate. Encyclopedias are easier to obtain in libraries too.
The dates given by the SDA for the destruction of the Heruli, Ostrogoths, and Vandals are as follows:
- Heruli – 265 AD. I pointed out that this was wrong, and he subsequently changed his story. He then gave the more correct date of 493 AD.
- Vandals in 534 AD
- Ostrogoths in 538 AD
I accept the two dates for the first two (493 and 534). They are correct. The date for the defeat of the Ostrogoths was NOT 538 AD, but rather 555 AD. A minor defeat occurred previously, but my sources give me the date of 540 AD for that one, two years AFTER Adventism’s required date. However, that is irrelevant – the Bible says that the three horns were uprooted – history shows that the uprootment of the final of these three horns, the Ostrogoths, was not complete until 555 AD. So either one must count from 555 AD, or one must not count at all from the defeat of the Ostrogoths. To count their defeat from 2 years before a minor irrelevant defeat and 17 years before their actual defeat and annihilation is dishonest manipulation of history, something very typical of SDAs and people like them who have a prophetic agenda to force the facts into.
It is interesting to note that the Visigoths (the western split of the Gothic kingdom) suffered the same type of defeat the SDAs classify as the uprooting of the Ostrogoths (the eastern part) – but they don’t say they are also a horn that was uprooted. Why ? Is it because it is invonvenient to have more that the biblically required 3 horns to deal with ? In fact, if one includes the Visigoths’ defeat in Aquitania (equivalent to what the Adventists want to call the Ostrogoths’ defeat) then there are SIX horns that were uprooted, NOT THREE. (see later.)
The next point is that Dan 7:24 says that it is the 11th horn that uproots or puts down the three kings. However, in all three cases at hand, the papacy had NOTHING to do with their uprootment !!! The person who defeated the Ostrogoths and the Vandals was Belisarius, a general in the army of Justinian, emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire. Justinian was a Christian, but his political actions were clearly not influenced by the bishop of a foreign city, Rome. It is yet another SDA untruthful distortion of the facts to say this.
But that is all irrelevant. Let’s turn to the Heruli, and see what influence the papacy had in their uprootment. All my sources say they were uprooted by the Lombards in 493 AD. Which is very interesting, because the Lombards were NOT Catholic – they were Arians, enemies of the Catholic Church and of the papacy, and CERTAINLY NOT influenced in their political decisions by their enemy the pope. So, completely contrary to Daniel 7:24, the Heruli were NOT put down by the papacy at all, but by the Lombards. Either the SDA interpretation of Daniel 7:24 is incorrect, or, if the SDAs are right, the actual prophecy given by God to Daniel was faulty.
It is interesting to note that these Arian Lombards were to rule Italy, and Rome, thus allowing the pope no political power in Rome or Italy, from 568 – 774 AD. It was only after a request by Pope Stephen II to King Pepin of the Franks, that caused the Lombards to be kicked out of Rome in 755-6. Pepin then gave land to the papacy – this was the first land the papacy owned, and it is from this point that the temporal rule of the papacy began – NOT as Adventists claim in 538 AD. And what is more, the papal political power did no begin in 538 either – history clearly shows that it began under Constantine the Great, when Christianity became the official religion of the Empire – 380 AD. Some say it started before this, as is evidenced by the activities of the Council of Nicaea in 324-5 AD, but either way, the date cannot be set as late as 538 AD. So here we have incontrovertible proof that the political power of the papacy began in the 300′s, and the temporal reign over people and land began in the 700′s, and between those dates other people, Arians and Romans, held rule over the land where the pope lived.
Furthermore, the ending of the papal political power (which Adventists claim is the mortal wound) occurred in the 1870′s. The papal states were restored to the papacy after 1798 when Napoleon took them away – thus that was NOT a mortal wound, for it was only temporary. The ACTUAL wound, or permanent event, occurred in 1870.
In summary, SDA dates are wrong, and the three horns were finished being uprooted only in 555 AD. Also, your theory blatantly contradicts the Bible (Dan 7:24) because the papacy could NOT have had any influence in the Lombardish decision to wipe out the Heruli.
Furthermore, the SDA theory is wrong because Adventists have failed to accurately identify a 10 horned beast, with 3 horns that get uprooted. The Huns (455 AD) were also a people who were uprooted – this time by the waning Roman Empire, and later finally by the other tribes, the Eastern Empire, and by civil war. Also uprooted were the Alemanni (495 AD). So one has a problem of FIVE horns (SIX if you count the Visigoths) that were uprooted, NOT THREE. One cannot ignore the Huns or the Alemanni, because they were just like the other barbarian tribes that tried to invade Western Rome, e.g. Lombards, Heruli, Ostrogoths, Vandals, Franks, etc. Nor can you call the Huns the present day Hungarians – these are the descendants of the Magyars; the Huns were absorbed into the surrounding peoples after their defeat, just like the Heruli were, never to be a tribe on their own again.
One SDA source (Marvin Moore) says that the 10 horns are 10 barbarian nations that tried to invade the Western Roman Empire. The three that were uprooted, he claims were uprooted by the papacy (I have shown that to be a lie) because they were Arian, and not Catholic. But the Franks were ALSO Arian – they converted to Catholicism in 486. The Lombards were Arian, and only converted long after Pepin kicked them out of Rome in 755 AD. So it is a lie to say that Catholics ruled Italy and the city of Rome from 538 onwards – they did not. The Visigoths were Arian, and converted in 589 AD. So here we have several more Arian tribes that invaded the Western Empire, yet Moore claims that what made these three horns (Ostrogoths, Vandals, Heruli) different, unique, and worthy of uprooting was that they were the only Arian tribes. Yet another obvious SDA distortion of the truth.
Summary – there were more than 3 Arian horns, and there were more than three uprooted horns.
Let’s now count the number of horns in the whole of the Western Empire.
The SDA who wrote to me counted the following: Germany, England, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Switzerland. And obviously the three uprooted ones – Heruli, Ostrogoths, and Vandals. It appears that Adventists are not united on this matter (see above, where Marvin Moore claims that the 10 tribes were barbarians who invaded the Roman Empire – something the English and the Roman Italians were not. But anything that appears to add up to 10 and looks good and is anti-Catholic, is acceptable to the Adventist Church, it seems.
But here they have made an obvious fallacy – the countries today were NOT the same countries or nations that were around in the days of the Empire. Borders were completely different, and people were completely different. The Spanish and French did not even exist (as single entities) in 538 AD – how on earth could they make up an existing horn of a beast that was current in 538 AD ??? Furthermore, it is dishonest to classify Italy as only one country, because at that time, and for a long time afterwards, they were made up of different peoples – a least three – the Venetians, the Lombards, and the Italians/Romans themselves. And once again the SDA has conveniently left out the Huns. And if you want to include Switzerland (the Helvetians), a very minor group in those times, you have to include the more prominent Belgium (made up of the Flemings and the Belgians) as well – they were part of the Western Empire just as much as the rest of the countries were. And since the SDA wants to include parts of North Africa (the Vandals – Algeria and Tunisia) I feel free to insert Libya and Mauritania as well. So already, counting as the Adventists want us to count, if we look at history and geography honestly, we have more than 10 horns or tribes or nations.
In order to find out who precisely the 10 (or more) horns were, we must look at who the distinct and separate tribes/nations of people were at that time.
I don’t know whether the Adventists want to count the nations of the Western Roman Empire, or just the nations that invaded the Western Roman Empire. Since the one who wrote to me included England, who never invaded the Western Roman Empire, but who was part of it, as a horn, I assume that he meant the former grouping. So I’ll deal with that fallacy first.
Let’s list the nations/tribes who were to be found within the borders of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD, the time when the SDA claims they were all present (including the three he claims were uprooted.)
England (i.e. the Saxons.)
Franks
Lombards
Burgundians
Gauls (French Gauls)
Belgi
Helvetii (Swiss)
Italians (i.e. Romans)
Iberians
Visigoths
Basques
Libyans
Mauritanians (North Africa, next to where the Vandals were located)
Dacians (Rumania, a Roman province)
Assorted Slavic peoples
Alemanni
And then the 3 the Adventists want uprooted – Ostrogoths, Vandals, and Heruli
Well, that is more than 10 horns/peoples, so I will stop there. If we wanted to get technical, we could go on.
Notice that I leave out the Germans (specifically the Germani tribe to which the SDA must be referring), who did not form part of the Western Roman Empire, but were to be found north of the Empire’s borders. Some of the Teutonic Germans were found in the Roman Empire (e.g. the Heruli, to name but one) but specifically the Teutonic tribe called the Germani, which was later to become Germany, was outside of the Empire.
Well, that proves that the Western Empire simply cannot be a 10 horned beast.
Let’s take a look at the alternative view of this confused group of people, the one used by Moore – that the horns are kingdoms that invaded Rome. First I think it appropriate to note that the Papacy was not a kingdom until 755 AD, and therefore it is dishonest to classify it as a horn here. But we’ll let that slip by for now. But note that we can’t include England because it never invaded the Empire – it was part of it, though.
Here are a list of barbarian tribes that invaded the Western Roman Empire:
Huns
Heruli
Ostrogoths
Visigoths
Vandals
Franks
Burgundians
Lombards
Allemanni
Germani (they DID invade, they just weren’t part of it)
Suevi
Quodi
Gauls (still on the go at that time)
Celts (in England)
Moors (in North Africa)
Well, here again we have more than 10 horns to this beast. Personally I don’t think this is what you mean, so we won’t go any further.
Summary – there were more than 10 horns to the Western Empire (or her invaders), therefore the biblical prophecy is clearly misplaced. There were more than 3 uprootions, hence again the biblical prophecy is misapplied to these people. Furthermore, the papacy was NOT responsible for the uprootions (as required by Dan 7:24), and thus it is even more clear that the Adventist idea of prophecy is false and deluded.
Personally I feel that this type of prophecy interpretation is clearly what follows on in the followers of false prophets like William Miller, and Ellen White. These two individuals predicted events that quite clearly did not come to pass. Miller, one could say, was merely deceived – he did not claim to be a prophet. Ellen White, on the other hand, is clearly what the Bible calls a False Prophet - her predictions did not come to pass, and she even contradicted herself and the Bible. I feel that a church should be honest with the facts of history when trying to dabble in prophecy – something the Seventh-day Adventist Church clearly is not doing.
Zo kun je de begindatum van de papacy op allerlei willekeurige manieren bepalen maar de belangrijke manier is de bijbelse manier. Bij de bijbel gaat het bij politieke evenementen zowel om de werkelijke situatie als de geschreven wetten bij het definieren van het een of ander als een rijk of in dit geval een hoorn en het wegvallen ervan. Beide moeten aanwezig zijn om een start te bepalen.
IN 538 kon Justinians decree, al eerder geschreven, bekrachtigd worden door het terugwinnen van Rome. Dit definieerde de startdatum voor de Roomse kerk als autoritair in politieke en spirituele zin.
The 1260 Years Begin with the Implementation of Emperor Justinian's Decree
Arian Ostrogoths under Theodoric had controlled Italy since 493, and had even imprisoned Pope John I, who died in Ostrogoth custody in Ravenna in 526. Catholic Emperor Justinian, who began waging open war with the Arians in the 530s, declared the Bishop of Rome the head of all Christian churches in 533, and commissioned his General Belisarius to destroy the Arian Vandals and Ostrogoths. The Vandals were defeated in 534 in the battle of Tricamarum. Turning his attention to the Ostrogoths, General Belisarius took Rome in December of 536, and under the direction of Emperor Justinian, deposed and exiled Pope Silverius who had been installed by the last Ostrogoth King of Italy, Theodahad, who had terrorized the clergy into electing his pro-Gothic candidate. Silverius died a prisoner. Belisarius installed Vigilius, a confidant of Empress Theodora, as the Bishop of Rome in March of 537. In quick reply, the Ostrogoths rallied and laid siege to Rome. When the siege was finally broken by General Belisarius in March of 538, the Ostrogoths withdrew from Rome in defeat, leaving it in the Emperor's control, and Vigilius as the Bishop of Rome (who reigned until 555 A.D.). So it was in 538 A.D. that Emperor Justinian's Decree of the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome over the Church could actually be implemented, beginning the prophetic 1260 years of temporal rule by the papacy.
Pope Pius IX gave this remarkable testimony:
La Chiesa Cattolica fondata e istituita da Cristo Signore per provvedere alla salvezza eterna degli uomini, avendo conseguito, in forza della sua divina istituzione, la forma di societā perfetta, deve godere, nell’esercizio del suo sacro ministero, di quella libertā che la sottrae alla soggezione di qualsivoglia potere civile.
Poiché per operare liberamente, come era necessario, doveva fruire di quei supporti che rispondevano alle condizioni e alle esigenze dei tempi, per una speciale disposizione della divina Provvidenza avvenne che, quando l’Impero Romano si dissolse e fu diviso in vari regni, il Romano Pontefice, costituito da Cristo capo e centro di tutta la Chiesa, ottenne un Principato civile.
Questo fu disposto con somma sapienza da Dio stesso, perché in mezzo ad una tale moltitudine e varietā di sovrani temporali, il Sommo Pontefice disponesse di quella libertā politica che era indispensabile per esercitare, senza alcun impedimento, il suo potere spirituale, la sua autoritā e la sua giurisdizione sul mondo intero. − Pius IX, Apostolic Letter Cum Catholica Ecclesia, March 26, 1860.
The Catholic Church which was founded and instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ to procure the eternal salvation of men, has, by reason of this divine institution, the form of a perfect society. Therefore, she must possess liberty such that she cannot be subject to any civil power in the execution of her sacred ministry.
To act with freedom, as it is just she should, she has always needed the assistance which was suitable to the conditions and the necessities of the age. It is, therefore, by a particular decree of Divine Providence that, at the fall of the Roman Empire and its partition into separate kingdoms, the Roman Pontiff, whom Christ made the head and center of his entire Church, acquired civil power.
Certainly, it was by a most wise design of God Himself that in the midst of so great a multitude and variety of temporal princes, the Sovereign Pontiff enjoyed political liberty, which is so necessary for him to exercise his spiritual power, his authority, and his jurisdiction over the whole world.
Source: Papal Teachings: The Church, selected and arranged by the Benedictine Monks of Solesmes, translated by Mother E. O'Gorman, R.S.C.J., Manhattanville College of the Sacred Heart, St. Paul Editions, Boston, Š 1980, 1962 by Daughters of St. Paul, Library of Congress catalog card number 62-12454, par. #225, page 160.
See also: Early Church Fathers on the Timing of the Rise of Antichrist.
[ Bericht 0% gewijzigd door Ali_Kannibali op 11-03-2013 14:59:14 ]
Dat is nu eenmaal een begrip, mede vanwege dit soort teksten uit de bijbel: 'omdat Hij zijn enige Zoon gegeven heeft om voor uw zonden te sterven'.quote:Op maandag 11 maart 2013 14:58 schreef Gray het volgende:
[..]
Leuk, dat ingebakken seksisme. Alsof God een man is...
Das waar, al is het om dezelfde reden dat de bijbelse god een hij genoemd is.quote:
[..]
Dat is nu eenmaal een begrip, mede vanwege dit soort teksten uit de bijbel: 'omdat Hij zijn enige Zoon gegeven heeft om voor uw zonden te sterven'.
Als je deze profetie in bijbelse context wilt interpreteren, kan je me dan aangeven waar in de bijbel wordt aangegeven dat een hoorn geen koning maar een koninkrijk/religio-politieke macht is?quote:
[..]
Het probleem met de kleine hoorn en de drie hoorns is dat de manier waarop die profetie in vervulling zou zijn gegaan vaak op een zeer persoonlijke manier geinterpreteerd wordt en niet op een bijbelse manier.
Zo kun je de begindatum van de papacy op allerlei willekeurige manieren bepalen maar de belangrijke manier is de bijbelse manier. Bij de bijbel gaat het bij politieke evenementen zowel om de werkelijke situatie als de geschreven wetten bij het definieren van het een of ander als een rijk of in dit geval een hoorn en het wegvallen ervan. Beide moeten aanwezig zijn om een start te bepalen.
IN 538 kon Justinians decree, al eerder geschreven, bekrachtigd worden door het terugwinnen van Rome. Dit definieerde de startdatum voor de Roomse kerk als autoritair in politieke en spirituele zin.
The 1260 Years Begin with the Implementation of Emperor Justinian's Decree
Arian Ostrogoths under Theodoric had controlled Italy since 493, and had even imprisoned Pope John I, who died in Ostrogoth custody in Ravenna in 526. Catholic Emperor Justinian, who began waging open war with the Arians in the 530s, declared the Bishop of Rome the head of all Christian churches in 533, and commissioned his General Belisarius to destroy the Arian Vandals and Ostrogoths. The Vandals were defeated in 534 in the battle of Tricamarum. Turning his attention to the Ostrogoths, General Belisarius took Rome in December of 536, and under the direction of Emperor Justinian, deposed and exiled Pope Silverius who had been installed by the last Ostrogoth King of Italy, Theodahad, who had terrorized the clergy into electing his pro-Gothic candidate. Silverius died a prisoner. Belisarius installed Vigilius, a confidant of Empress Theodora, as the Bishop of Rome in March of 537. In quick reply, the Ostrogoths rallied and laid siege to Rome. When the siege was finally broken by General Belisarius in March of 538, the Ostrogoths withdrew from Rome in defeat, leaving it in the Emperor's control, and Vigilius as the Bishop of Rome (who reigned until 555 A.D.). So it was in 538 A.D. that Emperor Justinian's Decree of the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome over the Church could actually be implemented, beginning the prophetic 1260 years of temporal rule by the papacy.
Pope Pius IX gave this remarkable testimony:
La Chiesa Cattolica fondata e istituita da Cristo Signore per provvedere alla salvezza eterna degli uomini, avendo conseguito, in forza della sua divina istituzione, la forma di societā perfetta, deve godere, nell’esercizio del suo sacro ministero, di quella libertā che la sottrae alla soggezione di qualsivoglia potere civile.
Poiché per operare liberamente, come era necessario, doveva fruire di quei supporti che rispondevano alle condizioni e alle esigenze dei tempi, per una speciale disposizione della divina Provvidenza avvenne che, quando l’Impero Romano si dissolse e fu diviso in vari regni, il Romano Pontefice, costituito da Cristo capo e centro di tutta la Chiesa, ottenne un Principato civile.
Questo fu disposto con somma sapienza da Dio stesso, perché in mezzo ad una tale moltitudine e varietā di sovrani temporali, il Sommo Pontefice disponesse di quella libertā politica che era indispensabile per esercitare, senza alcun impedimento, il suo potere spirituale, la sua autoritā e la sua giurisdizione sul mondo intero. − Pius IX, Apostolic Letter Cum Catholica Ecclesia, March 26, 1860.
The Catholic Church which was founded and instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ to procure the eternal salvation of men, has, by reason of this divine institution, the form of a perfect society. Therefore, she must possess liberty such that she cannot be subject to any civil power in the execution of her sacred ministry.
To act with freedom, as it is just she should, she has always needed the assistance which was suitable to the conditions and the necessities of the age. It is, therefore, by a particular decree of Divine Providence that, at the fall of the Roman Empire and its partition into separate kingdoms, the Roman Pontiff, whom Christ made the head and center of his entire Church, acquired civil power.
Certainly, it was by a most wise design of God Himself that in the midst of so great a multitude and variety of temporal princes, the Sovereign Pontiff enjoyed political liberty, which is so necessary for him to exercise his spiritual power, his authority, and his jurisdiction over the whole world.
Source: Papal Teachings: The Church, selected and arranged by the Benedictine Monks of Solesmes, translated by Mother E. O'Gorman, R.S.C.J., Manhattanville College of the Sacred Heart, St. Paul Editions, Boston, Š 1980, 1962 by Daughters of St. Paul, Library of Congress catalog card number 62-12454, par. #225, page 160.
See also: Early Church Fathers on the Timing of the Rise of Antichrist.
Ik zie 538 niet als een beginpunt van de suprematie van het katholieke instituut. Ik bedoel, laten we eerlijk wezen, het was niet alsof in 538 ineens de katholieke kerk macht had of dat toen ineens alle omstandigheden om macht te vergaren ideaal waren. Neem dan 610 ofzo als jaartal.
het vaticaal voert in het geheim het zionistisch/lucifer geloof door. ze spelen een hele belangrijk rol bij de illuminati agenda
ben een 17 jarig jongen die woont in nederland. mijn woonplaats hou ik graag prive.
Ik begrijp je antwoord niet, eigenlijk...quote:Op maandag 11 maart 2013 18:22 schreef Gray het volgende:
[..]
Das waar, al is het om dezelfde reden dat de bijbelse god een hij genoemd is.
Van wat ik heb vernomen is de tekst vertaald waarbij een onzijdige benaming van het woord god tot een mannelijke vorm is vermaakt.quote:
[..]
Ik begrijp je antwoord niet, eigenlijk...
Kan ik me in vergissen tho.
Oh zo! Op het eerste gezicht lijkt het nl. alsof je herhaalt wat Lavenderr zegt.quote:Op maandag 11 maart 2013 20:44 schreef Gray het volgende:
[..]
Van wat ik heb vernomen is de tekst vertaald waarbij een onzijdige benaming van het woord god tot een mannelijke vorm is vermaakt.
Kan ik me in vergissen tho.
Wat ik probeerde aan te geven is dat zulk seksisme al een rol speelde vķķr de vertaling naar de huidige teksten, welke datzelfde seksisme tot de dag van vandaag propageren. Er is echter geen enkele reden om aan te nemen dat een godswezen als dit mannelijk is, of überhaupt beperkt is tot een sekse, of slechts één enkele sekse. Het is immers omnipotent, omniscient en omnipresent.quote:
[..]
Oh zo! Op het eerste gezicht lijkt het nl. alsof je herhaalt wat Lavenderr zegt.
Hoi iedereen,
Na een tijdje afwezig te zijn geweest en me verdiept te hebben in kwantum-mechanica, ichnologie, baraminologie, (micro)biologie, astrophysica, geologie, evolutionisme etc. etc. dacht ik dat het wellicht verstandig was om de Zevende Dags Adventisten sekte aan te kaarten.
Waarom? Nou, omdat deze sekte vanuit de Verenigde Staten komt overwaaien en hun identiteit geheim houdt om te zorgen dat je niet onmiddellijk wegrent wanneer je de naam "zevende dags adventisten" hoort.
Ik heb behoorlijk wat onderzoek gedaan, en in het algemeen kan ik concluderen dat Nederland op het gebied van wetenschappelijke kennis zwaar achterloopt ten opzichte van wetenschappers in Engeland en Amerika. Ik zie de ZDA sekte dan ook in Nederland nog wel talrijke mensen misleiden zoals ze dat ook in Derde Wereldlanden doen. Zieltjes winnen om een valse, door mensen bedachte, religie in stand te houden. Kijk bijvoorbeeld eens naar de volgende website waar 1000en onwetende Hollanders op afkomen...
http://de-schepping.eu/
Laat deze site merken dat ze een propagandakanaal zijn voor ZDA-hersenspoeling? Nope, ze komen als wolven in schaapskleren.
Anywayz ik ben zo zat van de leugens en het bedrog van deze sekte dat ik er maar een youtube video van gemaakt hebt. Zie link:
[youtube][/youtube]
Een andere landgenoot heeft ook een filmpje gemaakt over de ZDA sekte:
[youtube][/youtube]
Dus mensen, wees gewaarschuwd, ze proberen ook hier in Nederland voet aan de grond te krijgen! Gewoon nuchter blijven, laat je niet brainwashen door sektes die iets anders leren dan redding door geloof alleen.
Na een tijdje afwezig te zijn geweest en me verdiept te hebben in kwantum-mechanica, ichnologie, baraminologie, (micro)biologie, astrophysica, geologie, evolutionisme etc. etc. dacht ik dat het wellicht verstandig was om de Zevende Dags Adventisten sekte aan te kaarten.
Waarom? Nou, omdat deze sekte vanuit de Verenigde Staten komt overwaaien en hun identiteit geheim houdt om te zorgen dat je niet onmiddellijk wegrent wanneer je de naam "zevende dags adventisten" hoort.
Ik heb behoorlijk wat onderzoek gedaan, en in het algemeen kan ik concluderen dat Nederland op het gebied van wetenschappelijke kennis zwaar achterloopt ten opzichte van wetenschappers in Engeland en Amerika. Ik zie de ZDA sekte dan ook in Nederland nog wel talrijke mensen misleiden zoals ze dat ook in Derde Wereldlanden doen. Zieltjes winnen om een valse, door mensen bedachte, religie in stand te houden. Kijk bijvoorbeeld eens naar de volgende website waar 1000en onwetende Hollanders op afkomen...
http://de-schepping.eu/
Laat deze site merken dat ze een propagandakanaal zijn voor ZDA-hersenspoeling? Nope, ze komen als wolven in schaapskleren.
Anywayz ik ben zo zat van de leugens en het bedrog van deze sekte dat ik er maar een youtube video van gemaakt hebt. Zie link:
[youtube][/youtube]
Een andere landgenoot heeft ook een filmpje gemaakt over de ZDA sekte:
[youtube][/youtube]
Dus mensen, wees gewaarschuwd, ze proberen ook hier in Nederland voet aan de grond te krijgen! Gewoon nuchter blijven, laat je niet brainwashen door sektes die iets anders leren dan redding door geloof alleen.
Heerlijk, ik pak de popcorn voor de strijd van de sprookjesboek-aanhangers.
Game on !
Game on !
Sam the American Eagle : You, sir, are a demented, sick, degenerate, barbaric, naughty freako!
Alice Cooper : Why, thank you!
Sam the American Eagle : Freakos: One. Civilization: Zero.
Alice Cooper : Why, thank you!
Sam the American Eagle : Freakos: One. Civilization: Zero.
[youtube][/youtube]quote:
Heerlijk, ik pak de popcorn voor de strijd van de sprookjesboek-aanhangers.
Game on !
Das stimmt! En Antoinette Hertsenberg is er ook eentje. De kerk leert hun dat ze als het ware "zondeloos" moeten worden om naar de hemel te mogen door zich perfect aan Gods wetten te houden. Aanhangers van deze sekte beschouwen zichzelf dan ook vaak superieur boven anderen, zijn vaak trots en zelfingenomen en denken dat iedereen die niet perfect de Wet van Mozes houdt naar de hel gaat. Bovendien leren ze dat iedereen die op zondag naar de kerk gaat ook naar de hel gaat. Ze houden zichzelf dus gigantisch voor de gek en alleen een idioot koopt zulke leugens. De ZDA sekte zijn echter meesters in het vermommen van hun sektarische boodschap. Vaak bieden ze gratis presentaties aan over profetie, gezondheid of de schepping zonder dat ze bekendmaken wie ze zijn. Ze voeren je een beetje leugens en daarna haken ze je om je de sekte binnen te slepen. Als je eenmaal deelgenoot bent van deze sekte is het zeer lastig om hieruit te komen.quote:
Waarom ga je eigenlijk zo fel tekeer tegen uitgerekend die sekte, TS?
Er zijn veel meer gevaarlijke sektes..
Er zijn veel meer gevaarlijke sektes..
Het je precies aan een aantal wetten houden is echt de slechtste vorm van godsdienst die er is.quote:
[..]
Das stimmt! En Antoinette Hertsenberg is er ook eentje. De kerk leert hun dat ze als het ware "zondeloos" moeten worden om naar de hemel te mogen door zich perfect aan Gods wetten te houden. Aanhangers van deze sekte beschouwen zichzelf dan ook vaak superieur boven anderen, zijn vaak trots en zelfingenomen en denken dat iedereen die niet perfect de Wet van Mozes houdt naar de hel gaat. Bovendien leren ze dat iedereen die op zondag naar de kerk gaat ook naar de hel gaat. Ze houden zichzelf dus gigantisch voor de gek en alleen een idioot koopt zulke leugens. De ZDA sekte zijn echter meesters in het vermommen van hun sektarische boodschap. Vaak bieden ze gratis presentaties aan over profetie, gezondheid of de schepping zonder dat ze bekendmaken wie ze zijn. Ze voeren je een beetje leugens en daarna haken ze je om je de sekte binnen te slepen. Als je eenmaal deelgenoot bent van deze sekte is het zeer lastig om hieruit te komen.
En het is bijna nog onmogelijk ook.
Ich hock in meinem Bonker
Dat is een goede vraag! Die vraag kreeg ik ook gesteld in mijn youtube video. Ik zal het in het kort uitleggen. Hieronder zal ik de relevante bijbelteksten plaatsen en daarna een korte interpretatie:quote:
Waarom ga je eigenlijk zo fel tekeer tegen uitgerekend die sekte, TS?
Er zijn veel meer gevaarlijke sektes..
Openbaring 13
1Toen zag ik uit de zee een beest opkomen. Het had tien horens en zeven koppen; het had een kroon op elke horen, en er stonden godslasterlijke namen op zijn koppen. 2Het beest dat ik zag leek op een panter, met poten als van een beer en een bek als de muil van een leeuw. De draak droeg zijn kracht en heerschappij en gezag aan het beest over. 3Een van de koppen van het beest zag eruit alsof hij geslacht was; het was een dodelijke verwonding, maar de wond genas. Vol bewondering ging de hele wereld achter het beest aan. 4Iedereen aanbad de draak, omdat hij het beest gezag had gegeven. Ook het beest zelf aanbaden ze, met de woorden: ‘Wie is gelijk aan het beest? Wie kan het tegen hem opnemen?’ 5Het beest kon zijn bek gebruiken voor grootspraak en godslasteringen, en dat tweeënveertig maanden lang. 6Het opende zijn bek en lasterde God, zijn naam en zijn woning en hen die in de hemel wonen. 7Het mocht de strijd met de heiligen aanbinden en hen overwinnen. Ook kreeg het macht over alle landen en volken, over mensen van elke stam en taal. 8Alle mensen die op aarde leven zullen het beest aanbidden, iedereen van wie de naam niet vanaf het begin van de wereld in het boek van het leven staat, het boek van het lam dat geslacht is.
9Wie oren heeft, moet horen. 10Wie gevangenschap moet verduren, zal in gevangenschap gaan. En wie door het zwaard moet sterven, zal sterven door het zwaard. Hier komt het aan op de standvastigheid en trouw van de heiligen.
11Toen zag ik een tweede beest, dat opkwam uit de aarde. Het had twee horens, net als een lam, en het sprak als een draak. 12Voor de ogen van het eerste beest oefende het heel diens macht uit. Het dwong de aarde en alle mensen die erop leefden het eerste beest, dat van zijn dodelijke verwonding genezen was, te aanbidden. 13Het verrichtte indrukwekkende tekenen, het liet voor de ogen van de mensen zelfs vuur uit de hemel neerdalen op de aarde. 14Het wist de mensen die op aarde leven te misleiden door de tekenen die het voor de ogen van het eerste beest kon verrichten. Het droeg hun op een beeld te maken voor het beest dat ondanks zijn steekwond toch leefde. 15Het kreeg de macht om dat beeld leven in te blazen, zodat het beeld van het beest ook kon spreken en ervoor kon zorgen dat iedereen die het beeld niet aanbad, gedood zou worden. 16Verder liet het bij alle mensen, jong en oud, rijk en arm, slaaf en vrije, een merkteken zetten op hun rechterhand of op hun voorhoofd. 17Alleen mensen met dat teken – dat wil zeggen de naam van het beest of het getal van die naam – konden iets kopen of verkopen.
18Hier komt het aan op wijsheid. Laat ieder die inzicht heeft het getal van het beest ontcijferen; er wordt een mens mee aangeduid. Het getal is zeshonderdzesenzestig.
Openbaring 17
Het oordeel over Babylon
1Een van de zeven engelen met de offerschalen kwam op me af en zei: ‘Ik wil je laten zien hoe de grote hoer die aan talrijke waterstromen zit, veroordeeld wordt. 2De koningen op aarde hebben ontucht met haar gepleegd, en de mensen die op aarde leven hebben zich bedronken aan de wijn van haar ontucht.’ 3Ik raakte in vervoering, en hij nam mij mee naar de woestijn. Ik zag een vrouw zitten op een scharlakenrood beest vol godslasterlijke namen, met zeven koppen en tien horens. 4Ze droeg purperen en scharlakenrode kleren en gouden sieraden, edelstenen en parels. In haar hand had ze een gouden beker vol gruwelijkheden, al haar liederlijke wandaden, 5en op haar voorhoofd stond een naam met een geheime betekenis: ‘Het grote Babylon, moeder van alle hoeren en van alle gruwelijkheden ter wereld’. 6Ik zag dat de vrouw dronken was van het bloed van de heiligen en het bloed van hen die van Jezus hadden getuigd. Ik was ontzet toen ik haar zag. 7Toen zei de engel: ‘Waarom ben je zo ontzet? Ik zal je de betekenis onthullen van die vrouw en het beest waarop ze zit, met zijn zeven koppen en tien horens. 8Het beest dat je zag, was, en is niet; het stijgt binnenkort op uit de onderaardse diepte en zal vernietigd worden. Alle mensen die op aarde leven van wie de naam niet vanaf het begin van de wereld in het boek van het leven staat, zullen verbaasd zijn bij het zien van het beest, omdat het was, niet is, en toch weer zal zijn.’
9Hier komt het aan op wijsheid en inzicht.
‘De zeven koppen zijn zeven heuvels waarop de vrouw zit, en het zijn zeven koningen. 10Vijf van hen zijn omgekomen, één is er nu, en de laatste moet nog komen en zal dan maar kort blijven. 11Het beest dat was, en niet is, is zelf de achtste koning, al is het een van de zeven, en het zal vernietigd worden. 12De tien horens die je zag zijn tien koningen die nu nog geen koning zijn, maar straks samen met het beest voor één uur koninklijke macht zullen krijgen. 13Ze hebben allemaal hetzelfde doel voor ogen en dragen hun macht en gezag over aan het beest. 14Ze binden de strijd aan met het lam, maar het lam zal hen overwinnen. Want het lam is de hoogste heer en koning, en wie hem toebehoren, wie geroepen zijn en uitgekozen, zijn trouw. 15De waterstromen die je zag,’ zei de engel, ‘waar de hoer aan zit, zijn vele landen en volken en stammen. 16De tien horens die je zag en het beest zelf zullen een afschuw krijgen van de hoer en ze zullen haar te gronde richten. Ze zullen haar uitkleden, haar vlees eten en haar in brand steken. 17Want God heeft hen ertoe aangezet om zijn plan uit te voeren, zodat ze allemaal met hetzelfde doel voor ogen hun macht aan het beest overdragen, tot wat God gezegd heeft werkelijkheid wordt. 18De vrouw die je zag is de grote stad, die heerst over de koningen op aarde.’
Interpretatie:
Een beest in de bijbel is een wereldmacht. Het eerste Beest in openbaringen 13 en het Beest in openbaringen 17 zijn hetzelfde Beest. In openbaringen 17 leren we dat het Beest 1 van de 7 is en zelf de achtste is. De zeven wereldrijken die in de bijbelse context worden genoemd zijn:
1. Assyrie
2. Egypte
3 Babylon
4 Medo-Perzie
5 Griekse Rijk
6 Romeinse Rijk
7.Ottomaanse rijk (1453)
Nou de 8e laatste wereldmacht is 1 van de zeven. In openbaringen 13 wordt ingezoomd op het Rijk dat ten tijde van Johannes bestond. Dit wat het Romeinse Rijk en kreeg een dodelijke wond door het zwaar (het woord van Jezus). Tot de komst van Jezus bezat Satan nog in zeer hoge mate controle over de wereld, dankzij het christendom kwam hier een einde aan. Enfin, in openbaringen 13 lezen we dat deze wond van het eerste beest geneest, met andere woorden, het Romeinse Rijk komt terug! Kortom het Romeinse Rijk is de 8e en is uit de 7 en staat symbool voor de Nieuwe Wereld Orde.
Openbaringen 13 geeft ons details over hoe de Nieuwe Wereld Orde tot stand komt. Het Tweede Beest representeert de katholieke kerk sinds 1929 toen het een kerkstaatje werd. Vuur in de hemel staat symbool voor de Heilige Geest en het vuur van de katholieke kerk zal een impersonatie van de Heilige Geest zijn. Met behulp van deze misleiding zal het Pausdom, dat inmiddels al meerdere oproepen heeft gedaan tot de stichting van een Nieuwe Wereldorde, de volkeren misleiden om als de NWO eenmaal is opgezet een organisatie te stichten onder het mom van wederzijds begrip en vrede waarbij alle religies zijn aangesloten. Dit is het Beeld van Het Beest.
Het bijbelse christendom is het enige geloof ter wereld wat leert dat je behouden blijft door geloof in Jezus alleen. Dit maakt bijbels christendom een vijand van alle andere religies die leren dat je door eigen werken naar de hemel kan gaan. Dit is precies Babylonisch gedachtegoed! Babylon staat symbool voor het systeem om via eigen werken in de hemel te komen.
Nou wat heeft de ZDA sekte hiermee te maken? De ZDA sekte is een zeer geraffineerde creatie van duistere machten om te infiltreren in het bijbelse christendom door mensen te leren dat ze in plaats van te vertrouwen op hun geloof voor hun redding, dienen te geloven dat ze door hun eigen rechtvaardigheid behouden dienen te worden. De werkelijkheid is veel complexer, echter dit is wat er spoedig staat te gebeuren in een notendop volgens de bijbel. Als Satan erin zou slagen om het bijbelse christendom te doen geloven dat sabbath aanbidding noodzakelijk is voor christenen in de eindtijd, dan aanbidden zelfs bijbelse christenen het Beeld van het Beest.
Ironisch genoeg zijn ZDA's die prediken voor het gevaar van het Beest en het Beeld van het Beest zelf de grootste promotors van het merkteken van het beest (valse redding door een vals evangelie). Als je je verdiept in hoe subtiel en meesterlijk de ZDA misleiding is bedacht dan krijg je een perceptie van de enorme intelligentie van de duivel. Alleen hij kan leugens veranderen in overtuigende waarheid en overtuigende waarheid veranderen in leugens. Ik anticipeer alvast voor de toekomst door mensen nu dus te waarschuwen voor deze misleiding.
Merk ook op dat het Tweede Beest uit openbaringen 13 hetzelfde is als de hoer in openbaringen 17; het Pausdom...
Klopt, de Wet van Mozes was gegeven om ons te laten hoe erg we in gebreke zijn qua karakter in de ogen van God. Dit komt omdat we met zonde in ons geboren worden. Niemand kon de Wet van Mozes, die uit 613 regeltjes bestond, houden. De wet is er dus om ons aan te klagen. Maar Jezus is er om ons vrij te spreken van het oordeel van de wet. Hoe? Simpelweg door te geloven. Alles wat je nodig hebt om naar de hemel te gaan heeft Christus al voor je gedaan, het enige wat je moet doen om ervan te profiteren is door in hem te geloven. Het christelijke geloof gaat puur om genade, liefde, zekerheid, rust etc.quote:
[..]
Het je precies aan een aantal wetten houden is echt de slechtste vorm van godsdienst die er is.
En het is bijna nog onmogelijk ook.
heb je het nou over de priestersekte of zoquote:
[..]
Das stimmt! En Antoinette Hertsenberg is er ook eentje. De kerk leert hun dat ze als het ware "zondeloos" moeten worden om naar de hemel te mogen door zich perfect aan Gods wetten te houden. Aanhangers van deze sekte beschouwen zichzelf dan ook vaak superieur boven anderen, zijn vaak trots en zelfingenomen en denken dat iedereen die niet perfect de Wet van Mozes houdt naar de hel gaat. Bovendien leren ze dat iedereen die op zondag naar de kerk gaat ook naar de hel gaat. Ze houden zichzelf dus gigantisch voor de gek en alleen een idioot koopt zulke leugens. De ZDA sekte zijn echter meesters in het vermommen van hun sektarische boodschap. Vaak bieden ze gratis presentaties aan over profetie, gezondheid of de schepping zonder dat ze bekendmaken wie ze zijn. Ze voeren je een beetje leugens en daarna haken ze je om je de sekte binnen te slepen. Als je eenmaal deelgenoot bent van deze sekte is het zeer lastig om hieruit te komen.
ben een 17 jarig jongen die woont in nederland. mijn woonplaats hou ik graag prive.
Lijkt er wel op he? In feite zijn de ZDA sekte en de Katholieke Kerk gestoeld op hetzelfde valse evangelie. Beide leren namelijk dat persoonlijke rechtvaardigheid een vereiste is om in de hemel te komen.quote:Op donderdag 9 mei 2013 20:56 schreef tribalwars het volgende:
[..]
heb je het nou over de priestersekte of zo
De bijbel leert echter duidelijk dat we ons niet kunnen beroepen op onze eigen rechtvaardigheid voor onze redding, dan zouden mensen trots worden. De Heilige Geest kan mensen die weigeren te erkennen dat ze hopeloze zondaren zijn en vasthouden aan hun trots niet verzegelen.
16Ik zeg u dus: laat u leiden door de Geest, dan bent u niet gericht op uw eigen begeerten. 17Wat wij uit onszelf najagen is in strijd met de Geest, en wat de Geest verlangt is in strijd met onszelf. Het een gaat in tegen het ander, dus u kunt niet doen wat u maar wilt. 18Maar wanneer u door de Geest geleid wordt, bent u niet onderworpen aan de wet. 19Het is bekend wat onze eigen wil allemaal teweegbrengt: ontucht, zedeloosheid en losbandigheid, 20afgoderij en toverij, vijandschap, tweespalt, jaloezie en woede, gekonkel, geruzie en rivaliteit, 21afgunst, bras- en slemppartijen, en nog meer van dat soort dingen. Ik herhaal de waarschuwing die ik u al eerder gaf: wie zich aan deze dingen overgeven, zullen geen deel hebben aan het koninkrijk van God. 22Maar de vrucht van de Geest is liefde, vreugde en vrede, geduld, vriendelijkheid en goedheid, geloof, 23zachtmoedigheid en zelfbeheersing. Er is geen wet die daar iets tegen heeft. 24Wie Christus Jezus toebehoort, heeft zijn eigen natuur met alle hartstocht en begeerte aan het kruis geslagen. 25Wanneer de Geest ons leven leidt, laten we dan ook de richting volgen die de Geest ons wijst.
maar de priestersekte is dat niet het zelfde als de jezuitenquote:
[..]
Lijkt er wel op he? In feite zijn de ZDA sekte en de Katholieke Kerk gestoeld op hetzelfde valse evangelie. Beide leren namelijk dat persoonlijke rechtvaardigheid een vereiste is om in de hemel te komen.
De bijbel leert echter duidelijk dat we ons niet kunnen beroepen op onze eigen rechtvaardigheid voor onze redding, dan zouden mensen trots worden. De Heilige Geest kan mensen die weigeren te erkennen dat ze hopeloze zondaren zijn en vasthouden aan hun trots niet verzegelen.
16Ik zeg u dus: laat u leiden door de Geest, dan bent u niet gericht op uw eigen begeerten. 17Wat wij uit onszelf najagen is in strijd met de Geest, en wat de Geest verlangt is in strijd met onszelf. Het een gaat in tegen het ander, dus u kunt niet doen wat u maar wilt. 18Maar wanneer u door de Geest geleid wordt, bent u niet onderworpen aan de wet. 19Het is bekend wat onze eigen wil allemaal teweegbrengt: ontucht, zedeloosheid en losbandigheid, 20afgoderij en toverij, vijandschap, tweespalt, jaloezie en woede, gekonkel, geruzie en rivaliteit, 21afgunst, bras- en slemppartijen, en nog meer van dat soort dingen. Ik herhaal de waarschuwing die ik u al eerder gaf: wie zich aan deze dingen overgeven, zullen geen deel hebben aan het koninkrijk van God. 22Maar de vrucht van de Geest is liefde, vreugde en vrede, geduld, vriendelijkheid en goedheid, geloof, 23zachtmoedigheid en zelfbeheersing. Er is geen wet die daar iets tegen heeft. 24Wie Christus Jezus toebehoort, heeft zijn eigen natuur met alle hartstocht en begeerte aan het kruis geslagen. 25Wanneer de Geest ons leven leidt, laten we dan ook de richting volgen die de Geest ons wijst.
ben een 17 jarig jongen die woont in nederland. mijn woonplaats hou ik graag prive.
In mijn ogen is de Katholieke Kerk 1 grote sekte light, en de Jezuīeten zijn dan zeg maar de promotors van deze sekte achter de schermen. De oprichter Ignatius Loyola schijnt net als Ellen White geleid te zijn door bovennatuurlijke krachten. Aan de basis ervan ligt dus een duistere macht die de wereld misleidt met behulp van het katholieke systeem. Wat de Jezuīeten daadwerkelijk doen is denk ik voor de meesten een raadsel omdat ze veelal in het geheim werken. Wel wordt hun gedachtegoed gekenmerkt door valse leerstellingen die neigen naar het occulte. Ook schijnen ze banden te hebben met andere occulte groeperingen zoals de vrijmetselaars etc.quote:
[..]
maar de priestersekte is dat niet het zelfde als de jezuiten
Het is een beetje zoals dat liedje: " he's got the whole world, in his hands lalala", niet voor niets spelen ze dat liedje ook in de loges van de vrijmetselaars.
Ik zou zeggen het gaat er veel meer om hoe je als mens in elkaar steekt. rechtvaardigen ofzo.quote:
[..]
Klopt, de Wet van Mozes was gegeven om ons te laten hoe erg we in gebreke zijn qua karakter in de ogen van God. Dit komt omdat we met zonde in ons geboren worden. Niemand kon de Wet van Mozes, die uit 613 regeltjes bestond, houden. De wet is er dus om ons aan te klagen. Maar Jezus is er om ons vrij te spreken van het oordeel van de wet. Hoe? Simpelweg door te geloven. Alles wat je nodig hebt om naar de hemel te gaan heeft Christus al voor je gedaan, het enige wat je moet doen om ervan te profiteren is door in hem te geloven. Het christelijke geloof gaat puur om genade, liefde, zekerheid, rust etc.
Ich hock in meinem Bonker
In de ogen van God is niemand rechtvaardig, maar Jezus is wel rechtvaardig en daarom kunnen we als rechtvaardigen worden aangenomen door simpelweg in Jezus te gelovenquote:
[..]
Ik zou zeggen het gaat er veel meer om hoe je als mens in elkaar steekt. rechtvaardigen ofzo.
Zie ook altijd een groot gouden driehoek met het alles ziende oog in de kerk. Dat is illuminati symboliek dat hoort niet bij het christendom. Maar hebben ze volgens jouw ook de bijbel later nog aangepast. Met later bedoel ik na 600 . Dus je kunt nog beter moslim worden dan roomse katolieken blijven volgens jouw of zelf naar god bidden met de bijbel.quote:
Loyola schijnt net als Ellen White geleid te zijn door bovennatuurlijke krachten. Aan de basis ervan ligt dus een duistere macht die d
[/quot[quote]
[..]
In mijn ogen is de Katholieke Kerk 1 grote sekte light, en de Jezuīeten zijn dan zeg maar de promotors van deze sekte achter de schermen. De oprichter Ignatius Loyola schijnt net als Ellen White geleid te zijn door bovennatuurlijke krachten. Aan de basis ervan ligt dus een duistere macht die de wereld misleidt met behulp van het katholieke systeem. Wat de Jezuīeten daadwerkelijk doen is denk ik voor de meesten een raadsel omdat ze veelal in het geheim werken. Wel wordt hun gedachtegoed gekenmerkt door valse leerstellingen die neigen naar het occulte. Ook schijnen ze banden te hebben met andere occulte groeperingen zoals de vrijmetselaars etc.
Het is een beetje zoals dat liedje: " he's got the whole world, in his hands lalala", niet voor niets spelen ze dat liedje ook in de loges van de vrijmetselaars.
ben een 17 jarig jongen die woont in nederland. mijn woonplaats hou ik graag prive.
De katholieke kerk heeft idd apocriefe geschriften opgenomen in hun bijbel. Dit zijn geschriften die niet in lijn zijn met de harmonie van de geschriften die de kerkvaders als betrouwbaar hadden gekenmerkt. De katholieke sekte gebruikt deze valse geschriften om hun valse leer te rechtvaardigen.quote:
[..]
Zie ook altijd een groot gouden driehoek met het alles ziende oog in de kerk. Dat is illuminati symboliek dat hoort niet bij het christendom. Maar hebben ze volgens jouw ook de bijbel later nog aangepast. Met later bedoel ik na 600 . Dus je kunt nog beter moslim worden dan roomse katolieken blijven volgens jouw of zelf naar god bidden met de bijbel.
Moslims geloven dat je door eigen werken gered wordt, dit is een leugen, we kunnen alleen gered worden door in Jezus te geloven. Persoonlijk ga ik niet naar een kerk, de hele wereld is misleidt, en echt bijbelse kerken zijn bijna uitgestorven. Je kan idd beter zelf tot God bidden en zelf de bijbel bestuderen want zeer veel kerken verkopen alleen maar praatjes, zijn voornamelijk geinteresseerd in je portemonnee of laten zich misleiden door bijvoorbeeld de valse Heilige Geest zoals die zich manifesteerd in charismatische bewegingen. Ik schaam me er dan ook voor om me een christen te noemen omdat ik niet geassocieerd wil worden met al die achterlijke bewegingen. Ik noem me liever een bijbelgelovige. Als ik geen bijbelgelovige was was ik waarschijnlijk een atheist. Ik kan begrijpen waarom veel atheīsten slecht denken over het christendom.
ok, nou dat is fijn om te weten. En makkelijk ook, je zegt ik geloof in Jezus en je wordt aangenomen.quote:
[..]
In de ogen van God is niemand rechtvaardig, maar Jezus is wel rechtvaardig en daarom kunnen we als rechtvaardigen worden aangenomen door simpelweg in Jezus te geloven
Ich hock in meinem Bonker
Maar de bijbel is toch niet gemanipuleerd.quote:
[..]
De katholieke kerk heeft idd apocriefe geschriften opgenomen in hun bijbel. Dit zijn geschriften die niet in lijn zijn met de harmonie van de geschriften die de kerkvaders als betrouwbaar hadden gekenmerkt. De katholieke sekte gebruikt deze valse geschriften om hun valse leer te rechtvaardigen.
Moslims geloven dat je door eigen werken gered wordt, dit is een leugen, we kunnen alleen gered worden door in Jezus te geloven. Persoonlijk ga ik niet naar een kerk, de hele wereld is misleidt, en echt bijbelse kerken zijn bijna uitgestorven. Je kan idd beter zelf tot God bidden en zelf de bijbel bestuderen want zeer veel kerken verkopen alleen maar praatjes, zijn voornamelijk geinteresseerd in je portemonnee of laten zich misleiden door bijvoorbeeld de valse Heilige Geest zoals die zich manifesteerd in charismatische bewegingen. Ik schaam me er dan ook voor om me een christen te noemen omdat ik niet geassocieerd wil worden met al die achterlijke bewegingen. Ik noem me liever een bijbelgelovige. Als ik geen bijbelgelovige was was ik waarschijnlijk een atheist. Ik kan begrijpen waarom veel atheīsten slecht denken over het christendom.
Wat is er dan slecht in het geloof van de moslims ken iemand die moslim is daarom ben ik benieuwd. Interessant topic
ben een 17 jarig jongen die woont in nederland. mijn woonplaats hou ik graag prive.
Precies, zo simpel is het!quote:
[..]
ok, nou dat is fijn om te weten. En makkelijk ook, je zegt ik geloof in Jezus en je wordt aangenomen.
Ik geloof dat het proces van de samenstelling van de bijbel oorspronkelijk was geleid door de Heilige Geest van God zelf zodat de bijbel zoals protestanten die kennen kan worden gekenmerkt als waarheidsgetrouw. Je kan je voorstellen dat de duivel niet blij was met de bijbelse waarheid en op allerlei manieren geprobeerd heeft om de bijbel te vernietigen dan wel te vervuilen met leugens. Niet voor niets zijn er ontzettend veel valse evangelies in omloop die leiden bijvoorbeeld tot spectaculaire leugens zoals deze b.v. door Dan Brown worden verkondigt.quote:
[..]
maar de bijbel is toch niet gemanipuleerd
En als je eenmaal gelooft dan komt de Heilige Geest in je wonen en die zal je leven leiden, je zal daardoor enorm veranderen in een beter gelukkiger mens en beter met stress en dergelijke omgaan.quote:
[..]
ok, nou dat is fijn om te weten. En makkelijk ook, je zegt ik geloof in Jezus en je wordt aangenomen.
quote:
bel zoals protestanten die kennen kan worden gekenmerkt als waarheidsgetrouw. Je kan je voorstellen dat de duivel niet blij
Dus wat is er dan fout aan de bijbel het oude of het nieuwe testament.quote:
[..]
Ik geloof dat het proces van de samenstelling van de bijbel oorspronkelijk was geleid door de Heilige Geest van God zelf zodat de bijbel zoals protestanten die kennen kan worden gekenmerkt als waarheidsgetrouw. Je kan je voorstellen dat de duivel niet blij was met de bijbelse waarheid en op allerlei manieren geprobeerd heeft om de bijbel te vernietigen dan wel te vervuilen met leugens. Niet voor niets zijn er ontzettend veel valse evangelies in omloop die leiden bijvoorbeeld tot spectaculaire leugens zoals deze b.v. door Dan Brown worden verkondigt.
ben een 17 jarig jongen die woont in nederland. mijn woonplaats hou ik graag prive.
Ik geloof dat er niks mis is met zowel het oude als het nieuwe testament.quote:
[..]
[..]
Dus wat is er dan fout aan de bijbel het oude of het nieuwe testament.
16Elke schrifttekst is door God geīnspireerd en kan gebruikt worden om onderricht te geven, om dwalingen en fouten te weerleggen, en om op te voeden tot een deugdzaam leven, 17zodat een dienaar van God voor zijn taak berekend is en voor elk goed doel volledig is toegerust.
Dus dan zijn sommige acteurs die stukken aan de bijbel toevoegden vervalst of zo.quote:
[..]
Ik geloof dat er niks mis is met zowel het oude als het nieuwe testament.
16Elke schrifttekst is door God geīnspireerd en kan gebruikt worden om onderricht te geven, om dwalingen en fouten te weerleggen, en om op te voeden tot een deugdzaam leven, 17zodat een dienaar van God voor zijn taak berekend is en voor elk goed doel volledig is toegerust.
ben een 17 jarig jongen die woont in nederland. mijn woonplaats hou ik graag prive.
De bijbel zoals protestanten die kennen is het waarheidsgetrouwe woord van God.quote:
[..]
Dus dan zijn sommige acteurs die stukken aan de bijbel toevoegden vervalst of zo.
De bijbel van katholieken bevatten inderdaad stukken die niet van God afkomstig zijn en niet onder inspiratie van God schreven.
Iedereen die vragen heeft omtrent de bijbel kan ik van harte aanraden om hier even een kijkje te nemen :
http://www.gotquestions.org/Nederlands/
:http://www.gotquestions.org/Nederlands/
wel stukken of acteurs die in de bijbel schrijven zijn later door de katholieken kerk toegevoegd.quote:
[..]
De bijbel zoals protestanten die kennen is het waarheidsgetrouwe woord van God.
De bijbel van katholieken bevatten inderdaad stukken die niet van God afkomstig zijn en niet onder inspiratie van God schreven.
ben een 17 jarig jongen die woont in nederland. mijn woonplaats hou ik graag prive.
Ik moet helaas ff dingen doen. Ik kan je van harte aanraden hier een kijkje te nemen. Ik denk dat hier (bijna) al jouw vragen omtrent de bijbel beantwoord worden:quote:
[..]
wel stukken of acteurs die in de bijbel schrijven zijn later door de katholieken kerk toegevoegd.
http://www.gotquestions.org/Nederlands/Vragen-over-Bijbel.html
Dus dat is het gevolg van je geloof? Jammer voor al die mensen die niet met stress om kunnen gaan maar wel dachten te geloven.quote:
[..]
En als je eenmaal gelooft dan komt de Heilige Geest in je wonen en die zal je leven leiden, je zal daardoor enorm veranderen in een beter gelukkiger mens en beter met stress en dergelijke omgaan.
Ich hock in meinem Bonker
Tja, wat ik bedoel te zeggen is, als je echt gelooft in God en een hiernamaals dan kan je wereldse problemen in perspectief plaatsen omdat je weet dat het echte leven pas begint als dit aardse leven voorbij is.quote:
[..]
Dus dat is het gevolg van je geloof? Jammer voor al die mensen die niet met stress om kunnen gaan maar wel dachten te geloven.
Ik begrijp wat je wil zeggen maar daar heb je niks aan als je de werkelijkheid van dit leven onder ogen moet zien.quote:
[..]
Tja, wat ik bedoel te zeggen is, als je echt gelooft in God en een hiernamaals dan kan je wereldse problemen in perspectief plaatsen omdat je weet dat het echte leven pas begint als dit aardse leven voorbij is.
Ich hock in meinem Bonker
maar is dat geen vlucht uit de werkelijkheid? Opium voor het volk, zogezegd.
quote:
[..]
Tja, wat ik bedoel te zeggen is, als je echt gelooft in God en een hiernamaals dan kan je wereldse problemen in perspectief plaatsen omdat je weet dat het echte leven pas begint als dit aardse leven voorbij is.
Ik ben nuchter en ik keur de ZDA af, maar ook jouw religie. En ik begrijp niet goed wat wetenschap te maken heeft met de ZDA, want dat is religie. Toch?quote:
Hoi iedereen,
Na een tijdje afwezig te zijn geweest en me verdiept te hebben in kwantum-mechanica, ichnologie, baraminologie, (micro)biologie, astrophysica, geologie, evolutionisme etc. etc. dacht ik dat het wellicht verstandig was om de Zevende Dags Adventisten sekte aan te kaarten.
Waarom? Nou, omdat deze sekte vanuit de Verenigde Staten komt overwaaien en hun identiteit geheim houdt om te zorgen dat je niet onmiddellijk wegrent wanneer je de naam "zevende dags adventisten" hoort.
Ik heb behoorlijk wat onderzoek gedaan, en in het algemeen kan ik concluderen dat Nederland op het gebied van wetenschappelijke kennis zwaar achterloopt ten opzichte van wetenschappers in Engeland en Amerika. Ik zie de ZDA sekte dan ook in Nederland nog wel talrijke mensen misleiden zoals ze dat ook in Derde Wereldlanden doen. Zieltjes winnen om een valse, door mensen bedachte, religie in stand te houden. Kijk bijvoorbeeld eens naar de volgende website waar 1000en onwetende Hollanders op afkomen...
http://de-schepping.eu/
Laat deze site merken dat ze een propagandakanaal zijn voor ZDA-hersenspoeling? Nope, ze komen als wolven in schaapskleren.
Anywayz ik ben zo zat van de leugens en het bedrog van deze sekte dat ik er maar een youtube video van gemaakt hebt. Zie link:
[youtube][/youtube]
Een andere landgenoot heeft ook een filmpje gemaakt over de ZDA sekte:
[youtube][/youtube]
Dus mensen, wees gewaarschuwd, ze proberen ook hier in Nederland voet aan de grond te krijgen! Gewoon nuchter blijven, laat je niet brainwashen door sektes die iets anders leren dan redding door geloof alleen.
Tevens merk ik hier een afkeer van een sekte, zoals de ZDA weer een afkeer heeft van andere sekten. Allemaal claimen ze dat zij de ware religie zijn en de rest komt van de boze, bijgenaamd lucifer.
Voor mij is lucifer de lichtgever, oftewel Venus, oftewel Morgenster, en in de Bijbel noemt Jezus zichzelf Morgenster. II Petrus zegt iets als "....opdat de Morgenster opgaan in uw harte" (beetje vrij vertaald maar heb het niet meer helemaal paraat in mijn hersenen opgeslagen).
Oftewel: De mensen die bang zijn voor lucifer hebben gewoon geen idee waar ze het over hebben. Die verwarren satan met lucifer, en verwarren satan met de duivel. En zo "dwalen" ze verder.
Genesis (waar mensen de slang verwarren met satan en met de duivel, dankzij Openbaring overigens. Openbaring is weer verkregen door hallucinatie) laat zien dat de mensen het zelfbewustzijn kregen door te luisteren naar de slang, en die slang is Lucifer de lichtbrenger/gever. Leve de slang en Lucifer dus! Zonder hem/het waren we nu als de dieren.
"Bettler aber sollte man ganz abschaffen! Wahrlich, man ärgert sich ihnen zu geben und ärgert sich ihnen nicht zu geben."
Friedrich Nietzsche
Friedrich Nietzsche
Het zou een vlucht uit de werkelijkheid zijn als de bijbel een sprookjesboek zou zijn. Voor hen die geloven is het geen vlucht uit de werkelijkheid maar in de werkelijkheid. Ik geloof met heel mijn hart, maar ik denk ook dat zelfs mensen die zoiets hebben van "oke Jezus zou best wel eens de waarheid gezegd kunnen hebben" zouden zich meer moeten verdiepen in de bijbel en God vragen of Hij zichzelf kenbaar wil maken. Waarom? Nou het gegeven dat je dood gaat is een vast gegeven, het gegeven dat dit leven superkort is vergeleken met de eeuwigheid die meer dan 99999999999999999999999999999999 tot de 9999999999999999999999999 jaren duurt, maakt duidelijk dat de keuze die je in dit leven maakt enorme eeuwige consequenties kan hebben.quote:
maar is dat geen vlucht uit de werkelijkheid? Opium voor het volk, zogezegd.
[..]
Uiteraard zijn er vele meningen en opvattingen. Jij ziet geen licht in mijn opvattingen, ik zie geen licht in jouw opvattingen en Zevende Dags Adventisten zien geen licht in onze opvattingen. Iedereen moet dus maar lekker zelf uitmaken waar hij/zij in wil geloven. Zoals ze in het Engels zeggen:quote:
[..]
Ik ben nuchter en ik keur de ZDA af, maar ook jouw religie. En ik begrijp niet goed wat wetenschap te maken heeft met de ZDA, want dat is religie. Toch?
Tevens merk ik hier een afkeer van een sekte, zoals de ZDA weer een afkeer heeft van andere sekten. Allemaal claimen ze dat zij de ware religie zijn en de rest komt van de boze, bijgenaamd lucifer.
Voor mij is lucifer de lichtgever, oftewel Venus, oftewel Morgenster, en in de Bijbel noemt Jezus zichzelf Morgenster. II Petrus zegt iets als "....opdat de Morgenster opgaan in uw harte" (beetje vrij vertaald maar heb het niet meer helemaal paraat in mijn hersenen opgeslagen).
Oftewel: De mensen die bang zijn voor lucifer hebben gewoon geen idee waar ze het over hebben. Die verwarren satan met lucifer, en verwarren satan met de duivel. En zo "dwalen" ze verder.
Genesis (waar mensen de slang verwarren met satan en met de duivel, dankzij Openbaring overigens. Openbaring is weer verkregen door hallucinatie) laat zien dat de mensen het zelfbewustzijn kregen door te luisteren naar de slang, en die slang is Lucifer de lichtbrenger/gever. Leve de slang en Lucifer dus! Zonder hem/het waren we nu als de dieren.
Everybody is entitled to his/her own opinion.
Desondanks is het erg bijzonder als jij beweert je verdiept te hebben in kwantum-mechanica, ichnologie, baraminologie, (micro)biologie, astrophysica, geologie, evolutionisme etc. etc. dat je dan toch nog in die bijbelse god gelooft. Overigens best een hoop om je even in te verdiepen en dan ook nog te doorgronden....quote:
[..]
Uiteraard zijn er vele meningen en opvattingen. Jij ziet geen licht in mijn opvattingen, ik zie geen licht in jouw opvattingen en Zevende Dags Adventisten zien geen licht in onze opvattingen. Iedereen moet dus maar lekker zelf uitmaken waar hij/zij in wil geloven. Zoals ze in het Engels zeggen:
Everybody is entitled to his/her own opinion.
Question authorities, fuck religion, educate yourself, Viva el individualismo!
There's only one way of life, and that's your own!
There's only one way of life, and that's your own!
Ik heb je bron gelezen.quote:
[..]
Ik moet helaas ff dingen doen. Ik kan je van harte aanraden hier een kijkje te nemen. Ik denk dat hier (bijna) al jouw vragen omtrent de bijbel beantwoord worden:
http://www.gotquestions.org/Nederlands/Vragen-over-Bijbel.html
Geloof je trouwens in god?
ben een 17 jarig jongen die woont in nederland. mijn woonplaats hou ik graag prive.
Lees zijn posts nog maar eens, dan weet je dat dat zo is.quote:
[..]
Ik heb je bron gelezen.
Geloof je trouwens in god?
Sorry hoor maar hier ga je toch echt te ver. Ik heb genoeg discussies gehad met Ali, die ziet de RK als de antichrist, of in elk geval als iets satanisch (waar ik overigens niet eens in geloof, bijgelovige onzinquote:
[..]
Das stimmt! En Antoinette Hertsenberg is er ook eentje. De kerk leert hun dat ze als het ware "zondeloos" moeten worden om naar de hemel te mogen door zich perfect aan Gods wetten te houden. Aanhangers van deze sekte beschouwen zichzelf dan ook vaak superieur boven anderen, zijn vaak trots en zelfingenomen en denken dat iedereen die niet perfect de Wet van Mozes houdt naar de hel gaat. Bovendien leren ze dat iedereen die op zondag naar de kerk gaat ook naar de hel gaat. Ze houden zichzelf dus gigantisch voor de gek en alleen een idioot koopt zulke leugens. De ZDA sekte zijn echter meesters in het vermommen van hun sektarische boodschap. Vaak bieden ze gratis presentaties aan over profetie, gezondheid of de schepping zonder dat ze bekendmaken wie ze zijn. Ze voeren je een beetje leugens en daarna haken ze je om je de sekte binnen te slepen. Als je eenmaal deelgenoot bent van deze sekte is het zeer lastig om hieruit te komen.
) maar hij heeft het er nooit over dat hij de wet perfect moet houden of anders naar de hel gaat. Hij beweert dat Jezus voor de zonden van de mensheid gestorven is, net als de rest van de christenheid. En Ali is een ZDA-er, voor de duidelijkheid. Wel zegt hij dat mensen die op zondag naar de kerk gaan niet goed bezig zijn, want yhwh heeft de zaterdag geheiligd en niet de zondag. Ook dat is weer onzin, want het maakt de vulkaangod niet uit wanneer ze hem aanbidden, als ze het maar doen.
Als je toch zo tegen leugens bent, waarom ze dan zelf ook verkopen?
Tevens zei je in een reactie op mij dat iedereen zo zijn mening heeft, terwijl je hier redelijk hard bent in je oordeel naar hen die ZDA-er zijn ("enkel een idioot koopt deze leugens").
Dus tegen mij doe je braaf alsof je iedereens mening waardeert en accepteert (waarschijnlijk omdat je met mij geen discussie wilt), maar anders zeg je dit soort dingen? Vind ik nogal tegenstrijdig.
"Bettler aber sollte man ganz abschaffen! Wahrlich, man ärgert sich ihnen zu geben und ärgert sich ihnen nicht zu geben."
Friedrich Nietzsche
Friedrich Nietzsche
Het roomse katholiek geloof is op zich niet zo slecht. Maar de bisschoppen en pauzen zijn slecht die hangen het satan geloof in het geheim aan. daardoor kun er beste vals verzen aan de bijbel van de RK zijn toegevoegd.
ben een 17 jarig jongen die woont in nederland. mijn woonplaats hou ik graag prive.
Het hele principe van wolven-in-schaapskleren is dat valse religies zich voordoen als schaapjes vanwege een lust naar macht, geld, trots etc. Ali vertegenwoordigt niet de ware kern van het Zevende Dags Adventisme. Juist het feit dat de sekte zichzelf vermomd als een onschuldig schaapje maakt dat ze gevaarlijk is en de ware aard van deze sekte blootgesteld moet worden om misleiding te voorkomen. Echter snap ik wel dat dit voor jou niet relevant is aangezien jij niet in de bijbel gelooft. Ik vind het ironisch dat jij mij aanvalt vanwege het blootleggen van de leugens van de ZDA sekte terwijl deze sekte zelf gekenmerkt wordt door het doodzwijgen en onderdrukken van ander gedachtegoed. Enfin, ik ben iemand die niet goed moedwillige leugens kan tolereren, wellicht ligt dat bij jou anders.quote:
[..]
Sorry hoor maar hier ga je toch echt te ver. Ik heb genoeg discussies gehad met Ali, die ziet de RK als de antichrist, of in elk geval als iets satanisch (waar ik overigens niet eens in geloof, bijgelovige onzin
Wel zegt hij dat mensen die op zondag naar de kerk gaan niet goed bezig zijn, want yhwh heeft de zaterdag geheiligd en niet de zondag. Ook dat is weer onzin, want het maakt de vulkaangod niet uit wanneer ze hem aanbidden, als ze het maar doen.
Als je toch zo tegen leugens bent, waarom ze dan zelf ook verkopen?
Tevens zei je in een reactie op mij dat iedereen zo zijn mening heeft, terwijl je hier redelijk hard bent in je oordeel naar hen die ZDA-er zijn ("enkel een idioot koopt deze leugens").
Dus tegen mij doe je braaf alsof je iedereens mening waardeert en accepteert (waarschijnlijk omdat je met mij geen discussie wilt), maar anders zeg je dit soort dingen? Vind ik nogal tegenstrijdig.
Sowieso zou ik me eerst wat dieper in de materie verdiepen voordat je je oordeel velt:
[youtube][/youtube]
Je veroordeeld een sekte, maar je bent zelf wel erg dogmatisch. Het lijkt wel alsof het ene dogma het andere probeert te bestrijden..quote:
[..]
Het hele principe van wolven-in-schaapskleren is dat valse religies zich voordoen als schaapjes vanwege een lust naar macht, geld, trots etc. Ali vertegenwoordigt niet de ware kern van het Zevende Dags Adventisme. Juist het feit dat de sekte zichzelf vermomd als een onschuldig schaapje maakt dat ze gevaarlijk is en de ware aard van deze sekte blootgesteld moet worden om misleiding te voorkomen. Echter snap ik wel dat dit voor jou niet relevant is aangezien jij niet in de bijbel gelooft. Ik vind het ironisch dat jij mij aanvalt vanwege het blootleggen van de leugens van de ZDA sekte terwijl deze sekte zelf gekenmerkt wordt door het doodzwijgen en onderdrukken van ander gedachtegoed. Enfin, ik ben iemand die niet goed moedwillige leugens kan tolereren, wellicht ligt dat bij jou anders.
Sowieso zou ik me eerst wat dieper in de materie verdiepen voordat je je oordeel velt:
[youtube][/youtube]
Klopt inderdaad. We leven in een wereld met concurrerend gedachtegoed. De wereld is ontzettend gefragmenteerd. Je hebt Abrahamistische wereldreligies en non-Abrahamistische wereldreligies. Binnen elke categorie heb je mensen die elkaar met woord en daad bestrijden. Binnen het christendom is er een spectrum aan bewegingen die claimen te geloven in de God van de bijbel en het met elkaar oneens zijn en elkaar bestrijden. Je hebt een atheīstische massa die vasthoudt aan het uniformitaire evolutionistische wereldbeeld en alle religies beschouwen als achterlijk en daartegen ageren etc. etc.quote:
[..]
Je veroordeeld een sekte, maar je bent zelf wel erg dogmatisch. Het lijkt wel alsof het ene dogma het andere probeert te bestrijden..
Persoonlijk hecht ik veel waarde aan wat Jezus zei en wat Hij daadwerkelijk leerde, en op basis daarvan probeer ik een zinvolle invulling te geven aan mijn geloof. En uiteraard zaait dat verdeeldheid. Helemaal in onze maatschappij waarin het christelijke geloof grotendeels is veranderd in christelijke cultuur, kom ik dus erg dogmatisch overkomen. En ik ben me er terdege van bewust dat dat mij verre van populair maakt.
Voor mij persoonlijk is of de hele bijbel waar en Jezus is de schepper van het heelal en al het leven, of de bijbel is onzin. Er zijn voor mij dus maar 2 opties: of de bijbel aannemen, of de bijbel in zijn geheel verwerpen.
Ik denk dat het correct is te stellen dat Jezus een grote onruststoker was, echter een noodzakelijke onruststoker:
34Denk niet dat ik gekomen ben om op aarde vrede te brengen. Ik ben niet gekomen om vrede te brengen, maar het zwaard. 35Want ik kom een wig drijven tussen een man en zijn vader, tussen een dochter en haar moeder en tussen een schoondochter en haar schoonmoeder; 36de vijanden van de mensen zijn hun eigen huisgenoten! 37Wie meer van zijn vader of moeder houdt dan van mij, is mij niet waard, en wie meer houdt van zijn zoon of dochter dan van mij, is mij niet waard. 38Wie niet zijn kruis op zich neemt en mij volgt, is mij niet waard. 39Wie zijn leven probeert te behouden zal het verliezen, maar wie zijn leven verliest omwille van mij, die zal het behouden.
Dan heb je dus iig. je eigen idee gevormd, dat is op zich al toe te juichen.. Maar je neemt de bijbel aan als absolute waarheid? Dat lijkt me nogal tricky. De bijbel is vaak vertaald, gecensureerd en voordat de oudste verhalen werden opgeschreven werden ze mondeling doorgegeven waardoor ze uiteraard ook veranderden.quote:
[..]
Klopt inderdaad. We leven in een wereld met concurrerend gedachtegoed. De wereld is ontzettend gefragmenteerd. Je hebt Abrahamistische wereldreligies en non-Abrahamistische wereldreligies. Binnen elke categorie heb je mensen die elkaar met woord en daad bestrijden. Binnen het christendom is er een spectrum aan bewegingen die claimen te geloven in de God van de bijbel en het met elkaar oneens zijn en elkaar bestrijden. Je hebt een atheīstische massa die vasthoudt aan het uniformitaire evolutionistische wereldbeeld en alle religies beschouwen als achterlijk en daartegen ageren etc. etc.
Persoonlijk hecht ik veel waarde aan wat Jezus zei en wat Hij daadwerkelijk leerde, en op basis daarvan probeer ik een zinvolle invulling te geven aan mijn geloof. En uiteraard zaait dat verdeeldheid. Helemaal in onze maatschappij waarin het christelijke geloof grotendeels is veranderd in christelijke cultuur, kom ik dus erg dogmatisch overkomen. En ik ben me er terdege van bewust dat dat mij verre van populair maakt.
Voor mij persoonlijk is of de hele bijbel waar en Jezus is de schepper van het heelal en al het leven, of de bijbel is onzin. Er zijn voor mij dus maar 2 opties: of de bijbel aannemen, of de bijbel in zijn geheel verwerpen.
Ik denk dat het correct is te stellen dat Jezus een grote onruststoker was, echter een noodzakelijke onruststoker:
34Denk niet dat ik gekomen ben om op aarde vrede te brengen. Ik ben niet gekomen om vrede te brengen, maar het zwaard. 35Want ik kom een wig drijven tussen een man en zijn vader, tussen een dochter en haar moeder en tussen een schoondochter en haar schoonmoeder; 36de vijanden van de mensen zijn hun eigen huisgenoten! 37Wie meer van zijn vader of moeder houdt dan van mij, is mij niet waard, en wie meer houdt van zijn zoon of dochter dan van mij, is mij niet waard. 38Wie niet zijn kruis op zich neemt en mij volgt, is mij niet waard. 39Wie zijn leven probeert te behouden zal het verliezen, maar wie zijn leven verliest omwille van mij, die zal het behouden.
Het is ook heel goed mogelijk dat er een behoorlijke mythevorming rondom Jezus is geweest. Hij had nogal wat rivalen en het zou heel goed kunnen dat allerlei daden later onterecht aan Jezus worden toegeschreven. Om een voorbeeld te noemen.
Dat is een heel goed punt idd, is de bijbel nog wel waarheidsgetrouw? Persoonlijk geloof ik dat de bijbel inderdaad betrouwbaar is en dat God op Zijn wijze de bijbel heeft beschermd tegen dwaalleer. Dat wil niet zeggen dat er absoluut geen foutjes in de bijbel kunnen zitten.quote:
[..]
Dan heb je dus iig. je eigen idee gevormd, dat is op zich al toe te juichen.. Maar je neemt de bijbel aan als absolute waarheid? Dat lijkt me nogal tricky. De bijbel is vaak vertaald, gecensureerd en voordat de oudste verhalen werden opgeschreven werden ze mondeling doorgegeven waardoor ze uiteraard ook veranderden.
Het is ook heel goed mogelijk dat er een behoorlijke mythevorming rondom Jezus is geweest. Hij had nogal wat rivalen en het zou heel goed kunnen dat allerlei daden later onterecht aan Jezus worden toegeschreven. Om een voorbeeld te noemen.
Wellicht de bekendste bijbelcriticus van deze tijd is prof. Bart. D. Ehrman die dankzij zijn kritiek op de bijbel geliefd is bij moslims omdat deze idd geloven dat er met de bijbel geknoeid is.
Bart Ehrman was aanvankelijk een evangelist, echter hij heeft 30 jaar besteed aan het onderzoeken van de manusscripten van de bijbel. Zijn levenswerk kun je teruglezen in boeken als "forged" en "misquoting Jesus". Zijn videos zijn ook voor iedereen op youtube toegankelijk.
Wat hij heeft ontdekt in een notendop is alsvolgt:
1. Er bestaan honderdduizenden verschillen in manusscripten.
2. Er zijn een paar passages (bijvoorbeeld die van Jezus en de overspelige vrouw) die alleen in latere manusscripten zijn te vinden en dus aan de originelere manusscripten zijn toegevoegd.
Persoonlijk ben ik niet overtuigd aan de conclusies die Bart Ehrman aan zijn 30-jarig onderzoek verbindt. Bart stelt namelijk dat als de bijbel idd Gods woord was, dat God in staat zou moeten zijn om ons een perfect onfeilbaar woord na te laten. Met andere woorden, dan zou God ons in 1 keer een perfect getuigenis hebben nagelaten. Echter als je de bijbel beschouwd als Gods levende woord dat onder geleiding van de Heilige Geest wordt omgevormd tot perfectie als een pottenbakker die van klei potten bakt, dan is er absoluut geen probleem om te geloven dat de bijbel idd. Gods woord is. De passages die dan later aan de manusscripten zijn toegevoegd zijn dan geen verzinsels maar mondelinge tradities die vanwege diverse reden nog niet in de eerdere manusscripten waren opgeschreven. Een paar redenen die daarvoor gegeven kunnen worden zijn bijvoorbeeld:
Commentators and other scholars tell us that the earliest manuscripts of John’s gospel do not include the story of the adulterous woman. It does not appear in any Greek manuscript until the fifth century, and no Greek church father comments on the passage prior to the twelfth century. Even then, the comments state that the accurate manuscripts do not contain this story. When it was inserted in later manuscripts, the story of the adulterous woman appeared in different places: after John 7:52, after Luke 21:38, at the end of John; and when it does appear it is often marked off by asterisks to signal doubt about where it belongs. The story is part of an oral tradition that was circulated in the Western church, eventually finding its way into the Latin Vulgate, and from there into later Greek manuscripts.
For many who hold a high view of the reliability and total accuracy of Scripture in the original manuscripts, , the evidence against John having included this particular story in his gospel is conclusive. Many scholars point out that the vocabulary used in this passage does not match the rest of John. Therefore, it seems this story was not originally part of this section of John. However, even if the passage was not written by John. it still may be regarded as a true story. The actions and words of Jesus are consistent with what we know of him from the rest of the Gospels. There is no new or unusual information in the passage that adds evidence against its inclusion. The encounter appears as an added snapshot of Jesus in John’s collection, though we can tell that someone else probably took the picture.
But I believe Ken Bailey's landmark book Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes offers a fascinating, and most culturally plausible theory as to why the woman caught in adultery does not appear in some manuscripts:
For centuries traditional Middle Eastern culture has understood the honor of the family to be attached to the sexual behavior of its women. Thereby in conservative traditional village life, women who violate the sexual code are sometimes killed by their families.
Added to this is the fact that in the days of hand-copied manuscripts, the person who wanted a copy of anything usually acquired it by hiring a copyist. This was a private business arrangement. Since printing began, official committees of churches have determined the text of any Bible selected for publication. But in the early centuries of the life of the church it would have been very easy for the head of a household to take a copy of the Gospel of John to a professional copyist and say
"I want a copy of this document. Please leave out the story of this adulterous woman. I don’t want my daughters committing adultery and telling me, ‘Jesus forgave this woman and therefore you should forgive me!’"
The copyist would naturally oblige his customer. Other Christians were brave enough to preserve the story even though it violated deeply rooted cultural attitudes. The end result is that this story appears in some ancient texts and is missing from others. If this view is accepted…the story is authentic to Jesus. Raymond Brown writes, “There is nothing in the story itself or its language that would forbid us to think of it as an early story concerning Jesus.” Brown also notes, “Its succinct expression of the mercy of Jesus is as delicate as anything in Luke; its portrayal of Jesus as the serene judge has all the majesty that we would expect of John." With Metzger and Brown, I am convinced that it is a historical account.
For me, I adore this, my favorite of all accounts of Jesus’ life-changing grace. But I cannot cling to the passage and consider it Scripture just because “I like it”. There are some parts of Scripture that I quite frankly, do not appreciate nearly so much. Does that make them less authoritative? Are they less Scripture? Of course not! Scripture is reliable because its origin is from God. I hold to Doctor Bailey’s consensus that the Woman caught in adultery is, indeed, Scripture. I teach it as such and I have no qualms encouraging you to rely on its authenticity as well.
Hoe zit het dan met die honderdduizenden verschillen in manusscripten? Je moet je bedenken dat er duizenden manusscripten zijn en dat het in 98-99 procent van de gevallen gaat om stijlfoutjes, bijvoorbeeld een weggelaten komma, dan heb je het al gauw over honderden/duizenden verschillen vanwege 1 komma! Voor een bijbelgelovige is er dus niets aan de hand.
Kortom na 30 jaar bijbelkritisch onderzoek vind ik persoonlijk niet dat Barh Ehrman de bijbel onderuit heeft gehaald, integendeel, ik had verwacht dat als een dergelijke beroemde toegewijde professor 30 jaar onderzoek besteed aan een dergelijke kwestie dat hij met veel overtuigender kritiek had kunnen komen.
Enfin, een korte psycho-analyse van Bart Ehrman. Hij is professor Hoge Kritiek, dat betekent dat hij de bijbel puur bestudeert van een historische context. Hoe kan je een boek dat inherent bovennatuurlijk is onderwerpen aan historische kritiek? Wat ik bedoel bijvoorbeeld is dat er discrepanties lijken te zijn in de evangelieen volgens historici die de teksten lezen. Echter als je de evangelies met elkaar vergelijkt kun je ook concluderen dat ze complementair zijn en dus juist de geloofwaardigheid van de bijbel vergroten. Ik geloof dat dat laatste idd het geval is.
Maar nogmaals, iedereen moet helemaal zelf bepalen wat hij/zij wil geloven, zolang niemand zijn/haar geloof opdringt aan anderen of leugens verkoopt vind ik alles best.
Hoe kan je een boek dat zegt een waarheid te bevatten als enig bewijs voor die waarheid erkennen.quote:
Hoe kan je een boek dat inherent bovennatuurlijk is onderwerpen aan historische kritiek?
Question authorities, fuck religion, educate yourself, Viva el individualismo!
There's only one way of life, and that's your own!
There's only one way of life, and that's your own!
Dat is een mooi betoog!quote:
[..]
Dat is een heel goed punt idd, is de bijbel nog wel waarheidsgetrouw? Persoonlijk geloof ik dat de bijbel inderdaad betrouwbaar is en dat God op Zijn wijze de bijbel heeft beschermd tegen dwaalleer. Dat wil niet zeggen dat er absoluut geen foutjes in de bijbel kunnen zitten.
Wellicht de bekendste bijbelcriticus van deze tijd is prof. Bart. D. Ehrman die dankzij zijn kritiek op de bijbel geliefd is bij moslims omdat deze idd geloven dat er met de bijbel geknoeid is.
Bart Ehrman was aanvankelijk een evangelist, echter hij heeft 30 jaar besteed aan het onderzoeken van de manusscripten van de bijbel. Zijn levenswerk kun je teruglezen in boeken als "forged" en "misquoting Jesus". Zijn videos zijn ook voor iedereen op youtube toegankelijk.
Wat hij heeft ontdekt in een notendop is alsvolgt:
1. Er bestaan honderdduizenden verschillen in manusscripten.
2. Er zijn een paar passages (bijvoorbeeld die van Jezus en de overspelige vrouw) die alleen in latere manusscripten zijn te vinden en dus aan de originelere manusscripten zijn toegevoegd.
Persoonlijk ben ik niet overtuigd aan de conclusies die Bart Ehrman aan zijn 30-jarig onderzoek verbindt. Bart stelt namelijk dat als de bijbel idd Gods woord was, dat God in staat zou moeten zijn om ons een perfect onfeilbaar woord na te laten. Met andere woorden, dan zou God ons in 1 keer een perfect getuigenis hebben nagelaten. Echter als je de bijbel beschouwd als Gods levende woord dat onder geleiding van de Heilige Geest wordt omgevormd tot perfectie als een pottenbakker die van klei potten bakt, dan is er absoluut geen probleem om te geloven dat de bijbel idd. Gods woord is. De passages die dan later aan de manusscripten zijn toegevoegd zijn dan geen verzinsels maar mondelinge tradities die vanwege diverse reden nog niet in de eerdere manusscripten waren opgeschreven. Een paar redenen die daarvoor gegeven kunnen worden zijn bijvoorbeeld:
Commentators and other scholars tell us that the earliest manuscripts of John’s gospel do not include the story of the adulterous woman. It does not appear in any Greek manuscript until the fifth century, and no Greek church father comments on the passage prior to the twelfth century. Even then, the comments state that the accurate manuscripts do not contain this story. When it was inserted in later manuscripts, the story of the adulterous woman appeared in different places: after John 7:52, after Luke 21:38, at the end of John; and when it does appear it is often marked off by asterisks to signal doubt about where it belongs. The story is part of an oral tradition that was circulated in the Western church, eventually finding its way into the Latin Vulgate, and from there into later Greek manuscripts.
For many who hold a high view of the reliability and total accuracy of Scripture in the original manuscripts, , the evidence against John having included this particular story in his gospel is conclusive. Many scholars point out that the vocabulary used in this passage does not match the rest of John. Therefore, it seems this story was not originally part of this section of John. However, even if the passage was not written by John. it still may be regarded as a true story. The actions and words of Jesus are consistent with what we know of him from the rest of the Gospels. There is no new or unusual information in the passage that adds evidence against its inclusion. The encounter appears as an added snapshot of Jesus in John’s collection, though we can tell that someone else probably took the picture.
But I believe Ken Bailey's landmark book Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes offers a fascinating, and most culturally plausible theory as to why the woman caught in adultery does not appear in some manuscripts:
For centuries traditional Middle Eastern culture has understood the honor of the family to be attached to the sexual behavior of its women. Thereby in conservative traditional village life, women who violate the sexual code are sometimes killed by their families.
Added to this is the fact that in the days of hand-copied manuscripts, the person who wanted a copy of anything usually acquired it by hiring a copyist. This was a private business arrangement. Since printing began, official committees of churches have determined the text of any Bible selected for publication. But in the early centuries of the life of the church it would have been very easy for the head of a household to take a copy of the Gospel of John to a professional copyist and say
"I want a copy of this document. Please leave out the story of this adulterous woman. I don’t want my daughters committing adultery and telling me, ‘Jesus forgave this woman and therefore you should forgive me!’"
The copyist would naturally oblige his customer. Other Christians were brave enough to preserve the story even though it violated deeply rooted cultural attitudes. The end result is that this story appears in some ancient texts and is missing from others. If this view is accepted…the story is authentic to Jesus. Raymond Brown writes, “There is nothing in the story itself or its language that would forbid us to think of it as an early story concerning Jesus.” Brown also notes, “Its succinct expression of the mercy of Jesus is as delicate as anything in Luke; its portrayal of Jesus as the serene judge has all the majesty that we would expect of John." With Metzger and Brown, I am convinced that it is a historical account.
For me, I adore this, my favorite of all accounts of Jesus’ life-changing grace. But I cannot cling to the passage and consider it Scripture just because “I like it”. There are some parts of Scripture that I quite frankly, do not appreciate nearly so much. Does that make them less authoritative? Are they less Scripture? Of course not! Scripture is reliable because its origin is from God. I hold to Doctor Bailey’s consensus that the Woman caught in adultery is, indeed, Scripture. I teach it as such and I have no qualms encouraging you to rely on its authenticity as well.
Hoe zit het dan met die honderdduizenden verschillen in manusscripten? Je moet je bedenken dat er duizenden manusscripten zijn en dat het in 98-99 procent van de gevallen gaat om stijlfoutjes, bijvoorbeeld een weggelaten komma, dan heb je het al gauw over honderden/duizenden verschillen vanwege 1 komma! Voor een bijbelgelovige is er dus niets aan de hand.
Kortom na 30 jaar bijbelkritisch onderzoek vind ik persoonlijk niet dat Barh Ehrman de bijbel onderuit heeft gehaald, integendeel, ik had verwacht dat als een dergelijke beroemde toegewijde professor 30 jaar onderzoek besteed aan een dergelijke kwestie dat hij met veel overtuigender kritiek had kunnen komen.
Enfin, een korte psycho-analyse van Bart Ehrman. Hij is professor Hoge Kritiek, dat betekent dat hij de bijbel puur bestudeert van een historische context. Hoe kan je een boek dat inherent bovennatuurlijk is onderwerpen aan historische kritiek? Wat ik bedoel bijvoorbeeld is dat er discrepanties lijken te zijn in de evangelieen volgens historici die de teksten lezen. Echter als je de evangelies met elkaar vergelijkt kun je ook concluderen dat ze complementair zijn en dus juist de geloofwaardigheid van de bijbel vergroten. Ik geloof dat dat laatste idd het geval is.
Maar nogmaals, iedereen moet helemaal zelf bepalen wat hij/zij wil geloven, zolang niemand zijn/haar geloof opdringt aan anderen of leugens verkoopt vind ik alles best.
Je streeft een bepaalde puurheid na, zo te lezen en je stelt je niet boven een ander door te stellen dat je de waarheid in pacht hebt. Dat is al meer dan menig ander diepgelovige kan zeggen.
Vanwege de inhoudquote:
historische kritiek?Hoe kan je een boek dat zegt een waarheid te bevatten als enig bewijs voor die waarheid erkennen
ik raad je aan het te lezen. en niet zonder het te lezen het als waardeloos aan te stempelen.quote:
[..]
Hoe kan je een boek dat zegt een waarheid te bevatten als enig bewijs voor die waarheid erkennen.
ben een 17 jarig jongen die woont in nederland. mijn woonplaats hou ik graag prive.
Die dus door mensen is geschreven, aangepast en geinterpreteerd/vertaald.quote:
Question authorities, fuck religion, educate yourself, Viva el individualismo!
There's only one way of life, and that's your own!
There's only one way of life, and that's your own!
Ik ben ermee opgevoed en grootgebracht.quote:Op vrijdag 10 mei 2013 19:30 schreef tribalwars het volgende:
[..]
ik raad je aan het te lezen. en niet zonder het te lezen het als waardeloos aan te stempelen.
Question authorities, fuck religion, educate yourself, Viva el individualismo!
There's only one way of life, and that's your own!
There's only one way of life, and that's your own!
quote:
[..]
Dat is een mooi betoog!
Je streeft een bepaalde puurheid na, zo te lezen en je stelt je niet boven een ander door te stellen dat je de waarheid in pacht hebt. Dat is al meer dan menig ander diepgelovige kan zeggen.
Dank je, je hebt idd gelijk, mensen moeten zichzelf niet meer maken dan een ander ongeacht wat ze weten en/of geloven. Uiteindelijk zitten we als mensen allemaal in hetzelfde schuitje en verlangen we allemaal naar antwoorden op dezelfde soort vragen. Wie ben ik? Is er leven na de dood? Waarom is er kwaad in de wereld? etc. etc. Vaak is het inderdaad zo dat mensen wanneer ze overtuigd zijn van een bepaalde wereldvisie zich laten meeslepen door trots, selectieve blindheid met betrekking tot andere wereldvisies (cognitieve dissonantie) etc. Dit zijn vaak kenmerken van krampachtigheid voortkomend uit een onderbewust bewustzijn dat andere wereldvisies een bedreiging kunnen vormen voor de wereldvisie die een persoon aanhangt. Waarheid hoeft zich niet te laten onderdrukken door dergelijke irrationele gedachtegangen. We leven in een tijdperk waarin de grenzen van wereldvisies overschreden worden en er een dialoog op gang komt. In de wetenschap is het vaak zo dat de waarheid niet tot stand komt vanuit een paradigma, maar juist door een debat tussen verschillende paradigma's. Krampachtig vasthouden aan starre wereldvisies is mijn inziens niet van deze tijd. De waarheid moet triomferen, no matter where it takes us.
Dan heb je misschien slecht ervaring met pastoors of bisschoppen en de streng houding van de kerk.quote:
[..]
Ik ben ermee opgevoed en grootgebracht.
Dat zegt niks over de bijbel allen over het roomse katholieke geloof.
Je kunt ook zelf de bijbel lezen. en bidden je hebt helemaal geen kerk nodig.
ben een 17 jarig jongen die woont in nederland. mijn woonplaats hou ik graag prive.
Als het geheim is, hoe weet jij/jullie dat dan?quote:
Het roomse katholiek geloof is op zich niet zo slecht. Maar de bisschoppen en pauzen zijn slecht die hangen het satan geloof in het geheim aan. daardoor kun er beste vals verzen aan de bijbel van de RK zijn toegevoegd.
"Bettler aber sollte man ganz abschaffen! Wahrlich, man ärgert sich ihnen zu geben und ärgert sich ihnen nicht zu geben."
Friedrich Nietzsche
Friedrich Nietzsche
Nee, hoor allemaal hele vriendelijke mensen. Maar de bijbel als waarheid aannemen is in mijn ogen bizar en staat compleet haaks op rationaliteit. Ik kan met allerlei voorbeelden aankomen met inhoudelijk supersterke verhalen maar die complete fictie zijn, inhoud alleen kan dus nooit een argument zijn.quote:
[..]
Dan heb je misschien slecht ervaring met pastoors of bisschoppen en de streng houding van de kerk.
Dat zegt niks over de bijbel allen over het roomse katholieke geloof.
Je kunt ook zelf de bijbel lezen. en bidden je hebt helemaal geen kerk nodig.
Question authorities, fuck religion, educate yourself, Viva el individualismo!
There's only one way of life, and that's your own!
There's only one way of life, and that's your own!
quote:
suck on my balls en aanbid me stelletje heidenen!
No thanks, me don't like your apples 
Het is wel een inhoudelijk sterkte tekst, ik aanbid je!quote:
suck on my balls en aanbid me stelletje heidenen!
Question authorities, fuck religion, educate yourself, Viva el individualismo!
There's only one way of life, and that's your own!
There's only one way of life, and that's your own!
Misschien IS de ZDA wel een onschuldig schaapje en denk jij er meer achter te zien dan er daadwerkelijk is?quote:
[..]
Het hele principe van wolven-in-schaapskleren is dat valse religies zich voordoen als schaapjes vanwege een lust naar macht, geld, trots etc. Ali vertegenwoordigt niet de ware kern van het Zevende Dags Adventisme. Juist het feit dat de sekte zichzelf vermomd als een onschuldig schaapje maakt dat ze gevaarlijk is en de ware aard van deze sekte blootgesteld moet worden om misleiding te voorkomen. Echter snap ik wel dat dit voor jou niet relevant is aangezien jij niet in de bijbel gelooft. Ik vind het ironisch dat jij mij aanvalt vanwege het blootleggen van de leugens van de ZDA sekte terwijl deze sekte zelf gekenmerkt wordt door het doodzwijgen en onderdrukken van ander gedachtegoed. Enfin, ik ben iemand die niet goed moedwillige leugens kan tolereren, wellicht ligt dat bij jou anders.
Sowieso zou ik me eerst wat dieper in de materie verdiepen voordat je je oordeel velt:
[youtube][/youtube]
Je hebt het hoog in de bol dat je denkt de leugens wel even te moeten blootleggen. Waarschijnlijk heb je ooit eens filmpjes gezien (zo gaat het bestuderen vaak) en denk je dat je weet hoe het precies zit. Of ben je daar weleens wezen kijken?
Zoals ik al eerder schreef hier (in dit topic dat is bijgevoegd) klopt hetgeen Paulus zegt over de wet en de werking van de wet (aantonen dat de mens zondig is en zich er niet aan kan houden) van geen kanten. Waarschijnlijk las hij de Thora ondersteboven ofzo want in Deut 30:10 staat heel duidelijk dat iedereen zich aan die wet kon houden, daar was niemand van boven of onder voor nodig.
Hier heb ik het met Ali ook al eens over gehad, maar dit negeerde hij dan maar. Want dit kun je niet uitleggen aan de hand van het christelijk geloof. Niemand hoefde van boven te komen, of van beneden. Dus in feite zouden we het christelijk geloof al af kunnen schaffen en het jodendom aanhangen. Want de christenen geloven dat Jezus de Zoon van God is, die zijn heerlijkheid heeft afgedaan en zo is afgedaald vanuit de hemel naar de Aarde. Het lijkt er dus op dat "YHWH" (tussen aanhalingstekens want dit is natuurlijk bedacht door de priesters ten tijde van de ballingschap) al wist dat er later een man zou komen die zou beweren dat A) de mensen zondig zijn en zo geboren zijn en B) dat er iets of iemand moet komen om te sterven zodat mensen bij God zouden kunnen komen. Dit is de enige profetie die inderdaad eerder is opgetekend dan de werkelijkheid.quote:10 Wanneer gij der stemme des HEEREN, uws Gods, zult gehoorzaam zijn, houdende Zijn geboden en Zijn inzettingen, die in dit wetboek geschreven zijn; wanneer gij u zult bekeren tot den HEERE, uw God, met uw ganse hart en met uw ganse ziel.
11 Want ditzelve gebod, hetwelk ik u heden gebiede, dat is van u niet verborgen, en dat is niet verre.
12 Het is niet in den hemel, om te zeggen: Wie zal voor ons ten hemel varen, dat hij het voor ons hale, en ons hetzelve horen late, dat wij het doen?
13 Het is ook niet op gene zijde der zee, om te zeggen: Wie zal voor ons overvaren aan gene zijde der zee, dat hij het voor ons hale, en ons hetzelve horen late, dat wij het doen?
14 Want dit woord is zeer nabij u, in uw mond, en in uw hart, om dat te doen.
Dus in feite heeft zowel de een als de ander ongelijk.
"Bettler aber sollte man ganz abschaffen! Wahrlich, man ärgert sich ihnen zu geben und ärgert sich ihnen nicht zu geben."
Friedrich Nietzsche
Friedrich Nietzsche
quote:
Gaan we hier nog serieus op reageren, of ga je simpelweg wat trollen?quote:10 Wanneer gij der stemme des HEEREN, uws Gods, zult gehoorzaam zijn, houdende Zijn geboden en Zijn inzettingen, die in dit wetboek geschreven zijn; wanneer gij u zult bekeren tot den HEERE, uw God, met uw ganse hart en met uw ganse ziel.
11 Want ditzelve gebod, hetwelk ik u heden gebiede, dat is van u niet verborgen, en dat is niet verre.
12 Het is niet in den hemel, om te zeggen: Wie zal voor ons ten hemel varen, dat hij het voor ons hale, en ons hetzelve horen late, dat wij het doen?
13 Het is ook niet op gene zijde der zee, om te zeggen: Wie zal voor ons overvaren aan gene zijde der zee, dat hij het voor ons hale, en ons hetzelve horen late, dat wij het doen?
14 Want dit woord is zeer nabij u, in uw mond, en in uw hart, om dat te doen.
Alleen God is goed, en dan jezelf wiseguy noemen. Schitterend is dat
"Bettler aber sollte man ganz abschaffen! Wahrlich, man ärgert sich ihnen zu geben und ärgert sich ihnen nicht zu geben."
Friedrich Nietzsche
Friedrich Nietzsche
Volgens de bijbel is zelfs het geloof genade, en niet iets dat jezelf kan doen. Dus het is niet van "ik ga geloven, dan komt de heilige geest om mij een beter mens te maken". Nee "de heilige geest doet zeggen "abba vader".quote:
[..]
En als je eenmaal gelooft dan komt de Heilige Geest in je wonen en die zal je leven leiden, je zal daardoor enorm veranderen in een beter gelukkiger mens en beter met stress en dergelijke omgaan.
Dat kun je allemaal wel geloven, maar de werkelijkheid is toch anders. Die valse evangelieeen werden ook in de vroege gemeenten gewoon gelezen en er was ruilhandel in (de ene groep had een evangelie uit en gaf dat aan een andere groep, die vervolgens dat evangelie weer gaf aan de eerste groep). Daar leerden ze van. De eerste christenen hadden ook nog geen idee wie Jezus was, en daar hadden ze allemaal hun eigen mening over. Dat mocht gewoon toen. Totdat men besloot dat er een hierarchie moest komen (die was er dus al eerder dan de officiele RK, dat was gewoon de voortzetting van de orthodoxe groep). Die orthodoxe groep reageerde al net zo primitief als jij: Er is een waarheid, en de rest is van de duivel "die is er niet zo blij mee". Denk je echt dat de duivel een wezen is, die blij kan zijn of boos, of verdrietig? Je kan wel bijbels onderlegd zijn, maar kennis hebben van de geschiedenis in deze zaken is nog veel belangrijker.quote:
[..]
Ik geloof dat het proces van de samenstelling van de bijbel oorspronkelijk was geleid door de Heilige Geest van God zelf zodat de bijbel zoals protestanten die kennen kan worden gekenmerkt als waarheidsgetrouw. Je kan je voorstellen dat de duivel niet blij was met de bijbelse waarheid en op allerlei manieren geprobeerd heeft om de bijbel te vernietigen dan wel te vervuilen met leugens. Niet voor niets zijn er ontzettend veel valse evangelies in omloop die leiden bijvoorbeeld tot spectaculaire leugens zoals deze b.v. door Dan Brown worden verkondigt.
Goed, laten we eens twee opties bekijken. Eerst de christelijke optie:quote:
[..]
Ik geloof dat er niks mis is met zowel het oude als het nieuwe testament.
16Elke schrifttekst is door God geīnspireerd en kan gebruikt worden om onderricht te geven, om dwalingen en fouten te weerleggen, en om op te voeden tot een deugdzaam leven, 17zodat een dienaar van God voor zijn taak berekend is en voor elk goed doel volledig is toegerust.
Deze tekst is geschreven door Paulus, in het jaar zoveel na christus. Ik geloof dat deze voor 70 geschreven moet zijn. Wat betekent dit voor deze tekst? Gaat deze tekst bijvoorbeeld ook over de teksten die nog geschreven moeten worden? Gaat deze tekst ook over het Thomasevangelie (de oudste tekst van de niet canonieke boeken)? Of gaat dit toevallig over de teksten die enkel in de bijbel staan, en die pas sinds de tweede eeuw als canoniek aanvaard werden?
De niet christelijke optie:
Deze brief is geschreven door een orthodox christen, en niet door Paulus. Dan heeft die tekst dus ook geen enkele waarde bij het bewijzen van de geestelijk/goddelijkheid van de bijbelteksten.
"Bettler aber sollte man ganz abschaffen! Wahrlich, man ärgert sich ihnen zu geben und ärgert sich ihnen nicht zu geben."
Friedrich Nietzsche
Friedrich Nietzsche
Oke, ff in het kortquote:
[..]
Volgens de bijbel is zelfs het geloof genade, en niet iets dat jezelf kan doen. Dus het is niet van "ik ga geloven, dan komt de heilige geest om mij een beter mens te maken". Nee "de heilige geest doet zeggen "abba vader".
[..]
Dat kun je allemaal wel geloven, maar de werkelijkheid is toch anders. Die valse evangelieeen werden ook in de vroege gemeenten gewoon gelezen en er was ruilhandel in (de ene groep had een evangelie uit en gaf dat aan een andere groep, die vervolgens dat evangelie weer gaf aan de eerste groep). Daar leerden ze van. De eerste christenen hadden ook nog geen idee wie Jezus was, en daar hadden ze allemaal hun eigen mening over. Dat mocht gewoon toen. Totdat men besloot dat er een hierarchie moest komen (die was er dus al eerder dan de officiele RK, dat was gewoon de voortzetting van de orthodoxe groep). Die orthodoxe groep reageerde al net zo primitief als jij: Er is een waarheid, en de rest is van de duivel "die is er niet zo blij mee". Denk je echt dat de duivel een wezen is, die blij kan zijn of boos, of verdrietig? Je kan wel bijbels onderlegd zijn, maar kennis hebben van de geschiedenis in deze zaken is nog veel belangrijker.
[..]
Goed, laten we eens twee opties bekijken. Eerst de christelijke optie:
Deze tekst is geschreven door Paulus, in het jaar zoveel na christus. Ik geloof dat deze voor 70 geschreven moet zijn. Wat betekent dit voor deze tekst? Gaat deze tekst bijvoorbeeld ook over de teksten die nog geschreven moeten worden? Gaat deze tekst ook over het Thomasevangelie (de oudste tekst van de niet canonieke boeken)? Of gaat dit toevallig over de teksten die enkel in de bijbel staan, en die pas sinds de tweede eeuw als canoniek aanvaard werden?
De niet christelijke optie:
Deze brief is geschreven door een orthodox christen, en niet door Paulus. Dan heeft die tekst dus ook geen enkele waarde bij het bewijzen van de geestelijk/goddelijkheid van de bijbelteksten.
. Het verbond van Mozes was een verbond van "doen" en het nieuwe verbond van Christus is het verbond van "gedaan". Het Nieuwe Testament zegt dat niemand door werken gerechtvaardigd kan worden en dat Joden ook behouden werden door hun geloof en niet doordat ze de wet probeerden na te leven. Bovendien stelt het NT expliciet dat niemand de wet van Mozes kon houden. Je hebt gelijk dat geloof idd ook beschreven wordt als een gave van God. Echter daar eindigt het verhaal niet, je moet immers blijven geloven en je niet laten meeslepen door de vele antichristelijke boodschappen in de wereld zodat je je geloof verliest. Persoonlijk bestudeer ik dan ook alle mogelijke kritiek op mijn geloof en kijk of er een logische verklaring voor is te vinden, zolang dat het geval is ben ik zeker van mijn geloof.
Met betrekking tot de kritiek op de bijbel, daar ben ik bekend mee. Ik geloof idd dat de duivel getracht heeft om de boodschap van God te vernietigen door valse evangelies te verspreiden. De duivel is idd een echt wezen, super intelligent en hij misleidt (bijna) de hele wereld. Ik ben het oneens met je stelling dat de eerste christenen niet wisten wie Christus was. Het was niet bepaald profitabel om in de eerste eeuwen een christen te zijn aangezien je destijds zwaar vervolgd werd. Toch waren deze mensen bereid hun leven op te offeren voor het christendom. Het begin van het christendom was echter geen samenzwering zoals pseudo-wetenschappelijke documentaires als Zeitgeist je willen doen geloven. Je hebt echter gelijk dat toen de duivel niet in staat bleek om het christendom te vernietigen, hij het christendom van binnenuit corrumpeerde.
Met betrekking tot je commentaar, ik geloof dat dat vers idd geschreven is door Paulus onder invloed van de Heilige Geest, en dat dat vers betrekking heeft op alle geschriften die zijn geschreven door auteurs onder invloed van de Heilige Geest, en dat het dus verwijst naar de canon zoals protestanten die kennen.
Feel free to disagree
Mbt. mijn username, die is al van een heel tijdje geleden. Koos deze niet om te zeggen "kijk mij eens wijs zijn" maar omdat ik destijds de film Donnie Brasco had gezien en het daar altijd ging om "wiseguys" enzo
. Als het mogelijk is mijn username te wijzigen let me know how to dit, dan zal ik dat namelijk doen. Vind mijn username zelf ook wel ongepast eigenlijk.
Ik vind dit persoonlijk wel een interessant filmpje. De duivel is een meester in misleiding en wil dan ook zoveel mogelijk mensen doen geloven dat hij niet bestaat, maar ik denk dat hij hier zijn invloed wel duidelijk laat zien:
[youtube][/youtube]
Merk ook op, precies bij 5:00 dat een demon in het lichaam van Kenneth Copeland gaat en hij zoiets heeft van GTFO en daarna kijkt of hij bij het gekkenhuis afgeleverd moet worden.
Mensen hebben vaak de neiging om de duivel te onderschatten als een dom lelijk wezen waarvan zijn leugens makkelijk analyseerbaar zouden moeten zijn. Dit is een grove fout, de duivel is bij uitstek zeer bekwaam in het misleiden van mensen. Dat is ook de reden dat ik de ZDA sekte serieus neem want het is mijn inziens zijn meest bekwame misleiding die hij ooit bedacht heeft binnen het christendom. Deze misleiding zal, indien deze niet duidelijk blootgelegd wordt, zeker ook zeer veel mensen misleiden in de eindtijd. Momenteel zijn er iets van 18 miljoen ZDA's wereldwijd. Het is als een virus, als je eenmaal besmet bent met het ZDA-virus is het bijna onmogelijk te ontsnappen. Veel ZDA pastors hebben zichzelf neurolinguistisch programmeren aangeleerd, een vorm van hypnose. De diepte van de ZDA misleiding gaat ontzettend diep. Zelfs de meest befaamde neurochirurg ter wereld, Dr Ben Carson met 38 doctoraat-graden, is niet in staat om de misleiding van de ZDA sekte te bevatten. Hij is niet de enige hoogbegaafde die deel uitmaakt van deze sekte, wat duidelijk maakt dat het hier een zeer gevaarlijke betreft voor christenen die hun bijbel niet lezen...
[youtube][/youtube]
Merk ook op, precies bij 5:00 dat een demon in het lichaam van Kenneth Copeland gaat en hij zoiets heeft van GTFO en daarna kijkt of hij bij het gekkenhuis afgeleverd moet worden.
Mensen hebben vaak de neiging om de duivel te onderschatten als een dom lelijk wezen waarvan zijn leugens makkelijk analyseerbaar zouden moeten zijn. Dit is een grove fout, de duivel is bij uitstek zeer bekwaam in het misleiden van mensen. Dat is ook de reden dat ik de ZDA sekte serieus neem want het is mijn inziens zijn meest bekwame misleiding die hij ooit bedacht heeft binnen het christendom. Deze misleiding zal, indien deze niet duidelijk blootgelegd wordt, zeker ook zeer veel mensen misleiden in de eindtijd. Momenteel zijn er iets van 18 miljoen ZDA's wereldwijd. Het is als een virus, als je eenmaal besmet bent met het ZDA-virus is het bijna onmogelijk te ontsnappen. Veel ZDA pastors hebben zichzelf neurolinguistisch programmeren aangeleerd, een vorm van hypnose. De diepte van de ZDA misleiding gaat ontzettend diep. Zelfs de meest befaamde neurochirurg ter wereld, Dr Ben Carson met 38 doctoraat-graden, is niet in staat om de misleiding van de ZDA sekte te bevatten. Hij is niet de enige hoogbegaafde die deel uitmaakt van deze sekte, wat duidelijk maakt dat het hier een zeer gevaarlijke betreft voor christenen die hun bijbel niet lezen...
Ja, dit weet ik. Maar in het OT (deut zoveel vers zoveel) staat toch duidelijk dat de joden zich wel aan de wet konden houden en dat er niemand van boven moest komen die het zou regelen. Dit gaat dus dwars tegen de woorden van Paulus in. Hoe zie je dit dan?quote:
[..]
Oke, ff in het kort
Dit is overigens met dank aan Haushofer (ken je wel geloof ik, zit ook op dit forum), want zonder zijn aanwijzing kende ik dit vers niet. Er wordt simpelweg niet over gepredikt. Zoals met zoveel van die teksten in het OT die moeilijk liggen voor christenen. Ik ben zelf 20 jaar kerkelijk geweest, dus ik weet wel een beetje van de hoed en de rand.
Jij denkt dat het NT hoger staat aangeschreven dan het OT, maar als het NT dwars tegen de leer van het OT ingaat, is er iets mis lijkt mij. Met het een, of met het ander.
En als die logische verklaring krom is, dan praat je ze maar recht?quote:Je hebt gelijk dat geloof idd ook beschreven wordt als een gave van God. Echter daar eindigt het verhaal niet, je moet immers blijven geloven en je niet laten meeslepen door de vele antichristelijke boodschappen in de wereld zodat je je geloof verliest. Persoonlijk bestudeer ik dan ook alle mogelijke kritiek op mijn geloof en kijk of er een logische verklaring voor is te vinden, zolang dat het geval is ben ik zeker van mijn geloof.
Oke dan, hij is een super intelligent wezen? Zullen we de proef op de som nemen? Jezus kwam op Aarde, toch? En waarom volgens de christenen? Om te sterven voor de zonden van de mensheid. Zou de duivel dit moeten willen? Lijkt mij niet toch?quote:Met betrekking tot de kritiek op de bijbel, daar ben ik bekend mee. Ik geloof idd dat de duivel getracht heeft om de boodschap van God te vernietigen door valse evangelies te verspreiden. De duivel is idd een echt wezen, super intelligent en hij misleidt (bijna) de hele wereld.
Waarom nam hij dan "bezit" van Judas om Jezus uit te leveren aan de Romeinen? En waarom liet hij hem dan kruisigen? Als hij wist wat het plan was, waarom werkte hij er dan aan mee?
Eigenlijk vind ik het wel mooi. Zo kwamen er ooit eens missionarissen in het Oosten. Ze zagen dat ze daar dezelfde rituelen uitvoerden als bij de toenmalige Kerk. Die missionarissen kwamen terug en melden dat bij hun bazen. Toen hebben ze in hun wijsheid besloten dat de duivel die rituelen had voorgekopieerd, omdat hij precies wist welke rituelen zij gingen gebruiken. Dit om de mensen af te houden van de ware Godsdienst. Dus enerzijds is de duivel heel slim (als het de christenen uitkomt, en ze anderen kunnen demoniseren) maar anderzijds is hij wel in het plannetje van god getrapt. Zou de duivel bestaan EN slim zijn dan zou hij Jezus juist niet hebben laten kruisigen, daar had hij verschillende keren de mogelijkheid toe. Dan zou Jezus van ouderdom gestorven zijn en ging de hele mensheid alsnog naar de hel. Of men moest weer een maagd zover krijgen om als draagmoeder dienst te doen.
Wat maakt het precies uit of het profitabel was of niet om christen te zijn? De mensen nu laten zich ook vervolgen om een jezus die zij in hun hoofd hebben zitten. Dit zegt niks over het feit dat ze weten wie jezus is. En de eerste beelden van Jezus waren niet eenduidig. De een zei een profeet, een ander zei een goed mens, weer een ander zei dat het een mythe was en dan was er nog een groepje die zei dat het god zelf was. Dat groepje heeft de strijd gewonnen en nou gelooft iedereen dat het god zelf was.quote:Ik ben het oneens met je stelling dat de eerste christenen niet wisten wie Christus was. Het was niet bepaald profitabel om in de eerste eeuwen een christen te zijn aangezien je destijds zwaar vervolgd werd. Toch waren deze mensen bereid hun leven op te offeren voor het christendom.
En zo erg waren die vervolging niet hoor, dat is behoorlijk opgehemeld door Eusebius en zijn manschappen.
Ik denk niet dat jij in staat bent pseudowetenschap en echte wetenschap uit elkaar te houden. Daarvoor volg jij iets te veel de traditie van de kerk. Maar zeitgeist is inderdaad nogal onzin, al hebben ze hier en daar wel een punt. Er zijn overigens veel meer mensen die bepaalde dingen van de kerk achterhaald hebben als mythen, daar een boekje over lezen zou ook mooi zijn, en leerzaam.quote:Het begin van het christendom was echter geen samenzwering zoals pseudo-wetenschappelijke documentaires als Zeitgeist je willen doen geloven. Je hebt echter gelijk dat toen de duivel niet in staat bleek om het christendom te vernietigen, hij het christendom van binnenuit corrumpeerde.
Ik geloof ook dat Nietzsche onder de leiding van het heilige olifantelulletje zijn boeken geschreven heeft, en daarom zijn al deze boeken Waarheid. Leest ze en leert...quote:Met betrekking tot je commentaar, ik geloof dat dat vers idd geschreven is door Paulus onder invloed van de Heilige Geest, en dat dat vers betrekking heeft op alle geschriften die zijn geschreven door auteurs onder invloed van de Heilige Geest, en dat het dus verwijst naar de canon zoals protestanten die kennen.
Oftewel: Je gelooft, en aan geloven heb je niks. Wetenschappelijk bezig zijn is veel beter, ook al zullen dan heilige huisjes omver geworpen worden en denkbeelden vernietigd.
De canon van de protestanten is net zo als de canon van de katholieken. Dus waarom wil je hier een nadruk op leggen?
Stel dat de RK corruptie gepleegd heeft met de Bijbel, dan hebben de protestanten die dus ook in hun bijbeltjes.
http://nl.wikipedia.org/w(...)l#cite_note-luther-9
Hieruit blijkt dat jij de protestanten verkeerd inschat, of je doet dit met de katholieken. Tegen Ali heb ik ook eens gezegd dat ik een kerkdienst bekeek en dat ik pas na afloop doorhad dat het een RK kerkdienst was. De woorden en belijdenissen waren precies hetzelfde!
O, en dat ben ikquote:Feel free to disagree
O, dat weet ik niet. Van mij hoeft het ook niet. Maar een slimme jongen die klakkeloos aanneemt wat de traditie vertelt is een contradictie in mijn ogen.quote:Mbt. mijn username, die is al van een heel tijdje geleden. Koos deze niet om te zeggen "kijk mij eens wijs zijn" maar omdat ik destijds de film Donnie Brasco had gezien en het daar altijd ging om "wiseguys" enzo
"Bettler aber sollte man ganz abschaffen! Wahrlich, man ärgert sich ihnen zu geben und ärgert sich ihnen nicht zu geben."
Friedrich Nietzsche
Friedrich Nietzsche
Met betrekking tot deze passage:
8En u zult de HEER weer gehoorzaam zijn en al zijn geboden, zoals ik ze u vandaag heb voorgehouden, in acht nemen. 9De HEER, uw God, zal u voorspoed geven in alles wat u onderneemt, u kinderrijk maken en uw vee en uw land vruchtbaar maken. Hij zal er weer vreugde in vinden om u te zegenen, zoals voorheen bij uw voorouders. 10Want u toont de HEER, uw God, dan uw gehoorzaamheid door de geboden en bepalingen in dit wetboek in acht te nemen, en u wilt hem weer met hart en ziel toebehoren.
11De geboden die ik u vandaag heb gegeven, zijn niet te zwaar voor u en liggen niet buiten uw bereik. 12Ze zijn niet in de hemel, dus u hoeft niet te zeggen: “Wie stijgt voor ons op naar de hemel om ze daar te halen en ze ons bekend te maken, zodat wij ernaar kunnen handelen?” 13Ook zijn ze niet aan de overkant van de zee, dus u hoeft niet te zeggen: “Wie steekt de zee voor ons over om ze daar te halen en ze ons bekend te maken, zodat wij ernaar kunnen handelen?” 14Nee, die geboden zijn heel dichtbij, u kunt ze in u opnemen en ze u eigen maken; u kunt ze volbrengen.
Het oude verbond bestond uit een wet waaraan het Joodse volk zich moest houden. Deze 613 regeltjes waren het verbond. Iedereen die dus willig de wet overtrad, overtrad het verbond en kreeg de doodstraf, wat overigens symbool kan staan voor wat er gebeurt met mensen die geen deel uitmaken van het Nieuwe Verbond. Anywayzzz het Levitische priesterschap was bedoeld om op ceremoniele wijze offers te brengen voor zonden die per ongeluk waren begaan. Het was echter niet zo dat dit priesterschap daadwerkelijk zonde kon wegnemen. Nou als Deuteronium 30 zou stellen dat het inderdaad perfect mogelijk was om de Wet van Mozes te houden, waarom is er dan een orde van priesters nodig om op ceremoniele wijze zonde uit te delgen? Het enige antwoord kan zijn dat Deuteronium 30 niet in een perfectionistische modus moet worden gelezen. Kortom Deuteronium 30 is een algemene aansporing tot het houden van de Wet van Mozes, wat niet betekent dat God verwachtte dat niemand zou zondigen.
Het NT moet idd altijd het OT interpreteren.
De duivel is een intelligent wezen maar hij is niet God. Gelukkig was hij ook niet intelligent genoeg om te doorgronden wat Jezus precies kwam doen op aarde. Neem bijvoorbeeld de demonen in acht die Jezus vroegen of Hij gekomen was om hun te pijnigen. Ik denk dat dit de reden is dat de honderden profetieën in het oude testament die naar Jezus verwijzen cryptisch verwerkt waren, zodat als de vervulling eenmaal daar was, de schrijvers van het NT onder invloed van de Heilige Geest door middel van het OT konden aantonen dat Jezus de Messias was.
Met betrekking tot rituelen, ik weet niet waar je het over hebt. Wat voor rituelen? Het Christelijk geloof gaat niet om rituelen, het laatste avondmaal en de doop daargelaten. Hadden deze Oosterse mensen ook een avondmaal om Jezus als de Messias te gedenken en hadden zij ook het ritueel om zich te laten dopen in naam van de Vader, de Zoon en de Heilige Geest? Zo ja, waarom moesten ze dan bekeerd worden? Zo nee, waarom vergelijk je hun geloof met het christelijke geloof?
Met betrekking tot de identiteit van Jezus. Natuurlijk was er in de eerste eeuwen verwarring, ook nu is er nog verwarring. Echter voor iedereen die de bijbel ter harte neemt is verwarring onnodig. De bijbel zegt namelijk dat Jezus de schepper is van hemel en aarde en dat Hij God is en stierf voor de zonde van de mens.
Met betrekking tot de canon, ik denk dat jij meer onderzoek moet doen naar de kerkvaders en de wijze waarop de canon tot stand kwam. De katholieken hebben apocriefe geschriften opgenomen in de late middeleeuwen als wijze om hun dwaalleer te rechtvaardigen. Je hebt wel gelijk dat de grens tussen het protestantse geloof en het katholieke geloof vervaagd is.
Tenslotte kan ik je garanderen dat ik nooit zomaar iets aanneem van welke traditie dan ook. Ik raadpleeg altijd deskundige bronnen, geleerde theologen etc. Ik denk dat jij diegene bent die klakkeloos overneemt wat critici zeggen, maar dat is slechts mijn mening
8En u zult de HEER weer gehoorzaam zijn en al zijn geboden, zoals ik ze u vandaag heb voorgehouden, in acht nemen. 9De HEER, uw God, zal u voorspoed geven in alles wat u onderneemt, u kinderrijk maken en uw vee en uw land vruchtbaar maken. Hij zal er weer vreugde in vinden om u te zegenen, zoals voorheen bij uw voorouders. 10Want u toont de HEER, uw God, dan uw gehoorzaamheid door de geboden en bepalingen in dit wetboek in acht te nemen, en u wilt hem weer met hart en ziel toebehoren.
11De geboden die ik u vandaag heb gegeven, zijn niet te zwaar voor u en liggen niet buiten uw bereik. 12Ze zijn niet in de hemel, dus u hoeft niet te zeggen: “Wie stijgt voor ons op naar de hemel om ze daar te halen en ze ons bekend te maken, zodat wij ernaar kunnen handelen?” 13Ook zijn ze niet aan de overkant van de zee, dus u hoeft niet te zeggen: “Wie steekt de zee voor ons over om ze daar te halen en ze ons bekend te maken, zodat wij ernaar kunnen handelen?” 14Nee, die geboden zijn heel dichtbij, u kunt ze in u opnemen en ze u eigen maken; u kunt ze volbrengen.
Het oude verbond bestond uit een wet waaraan het Joodse volk zich moest houden. Deze 613 regeltjes waren het verbond. Iedereen die dus willig de wet overtrad, overtrad het verbond en kreeg de doodstraf, wat overigens symbool kan staan voor wat er gebeurt met mensen die geen deel uitmaken van het Nieuwe Verbond. Anywayzzz het Levitische priesterschap was bedoeld om op ceremoniele wijze offers te brengen voor zonden die per ongeluk waren begaan. Het was echter niet zo dat dit priesterschap daadwerkelijk zonde kon wegnemen. Nou als Deuteronium 30 zou stellen dat het inderdaad perfect mogelijk was om de Wet van Mozes te houden, waarom is er dan een orde van priesters nodig om op ceremoniele wijze zonde uit te delgen? Het enige antwoord kan zijn dat Deuteronium 30 niet in een perfectionistische modus moet worden gelezen. Kortom Deuteronium 30 is een algemene aansporing tot het houden van de Wet van Mozes, wat niet betekent dat God verwachtte dat niemand zou zondigen.
Het NT moet idd altijd het OT interpreteren.
De duivel is een intelligent wezen maar hij is niet God. Gelukkig was hij ook niet intelligent genoeg om te doorgronden wat Jezus precies kwam doen op aarde. Neem bijvoorbeeld de demonen in acht die Jezus vroegen of Hij gekomen was om hun te pijnigen. Ik denk dat dit de reden is dat de honderden profetieën in het oude testament die naar Jezus verwijzen cryptisch verwerkt waren, zodat als de vervulling eenmaal daar was, de schrijvers van het NT onder invloed van de Heilige Geest door middel van het OT konden aantonen dat Jezus de Messias was.
Met betrekking tot rituelen, ik weet niet waar je het over hebt. Wat voor rituelen? Het Christelijk geloof gaat niet om rituelen, het laatste avondmaal en de doop daargelaten. Hadden deze Oosterse mensen ook een avondmaal om Jezus als de Messias te gedenken en hadden zij ook het ritueel om zich te laten dopen in naam van de Vader, de Zoon en de Heilige Geest? Zo ja, waarom moesten ze dan bekeerd worden? Zo nee, waarom vergelijk je hun geloof met het christelijke geloof?
Met betrekking tot de identiteit van Jezus. Natuurlijk was er in de eerste eeuwen verwarring, ook nu is er nog verwarring. Echter voor iedereen die de bijbel ter harte neemt is verwarring onnodig. De bijbel zegt namelijk dat Jezus de schepper is van hemel en aarde en dat Hij God is en stierf voor de zonde van de mens.
Met betrekking tot de canon, ik denk dat jij meer onderzoek moet doen naar de kerkvaders en de wijze waarop de canon tot stand kwam. De katholieken hebben apocriefe geschriften opgenomen in de late middeleeuwen als wijze om hun dwaalleer te rechtvaardigen. Je hebt wel gelijk dat de grens tussen het protestantse geloof en het katholieke geloof vervaagd is.
Tenslotte kan ik je garanderen dat ik nooit zomaar iets aanneem van welke traditie dan ook. Ik raadpleeg altijd deskundige bronnen, geleerde theologen etc. Ik denk dat jij diegene bent die klakkeloos overneemt wat critici zeggen, maar dat is slechts mijn mening
Sommige mensen die bij de jezuiten of priesterorde zitten stappen uit die orde. En dan vertellen in een documetary dat die orde slecht is. En zo doen dat er wel meerdere.quote:
[..]
Als het geheim is, hoe weet jij/jullie dat dan?
ben een 17 jarig jongen die woont in nederland. mijn woonplaats hou ik graag prive.
Maar allemaal hebben ze nog steed diezelfde bron, die jij zomaar aanneemt.quote:
Met betrekking tot deze passage:
Tenslotte kan ik je garanderen dat ik nooit zomaar iets aanneem van welke traditie dan ook. Ik raadpleeg altijd deskundige bronnen, geleerde theologen etc. Ik denk dat jij diegene bent die klakkeloos overneemt wat critici zeggen, maar dat is slechts mijn mening
Question authorities, fuck religion, educate yourself, Viva el individualismo!
There's only one way of life, and that's your own!
There's only one way of life, and that's your own!
Je interpreteert er maar op los he, enkel om jouw idee en tegelijkertijd van Paulus en het christendom te kunnen blijven houden. Het staat er toch duidelijk dat niemand het voor hen hoeft te doen, niet uit de hemel komend en niemand hoeft de zee over te steken. Dit is een regelrechte aanklacht tegen het huidige "geloof maar dan ben je gerechtvaardigd" geloof van de protestanten en katholieken. Ik begrijp best het probleem hoor. Jij denkt dat Paulus dingen deed geīnspireerd door de heilige geest. Daarom ga je er vanuit dat deze ideeën van Paulus meer zijn dan ideeën. Je denkt dat ze door voortschrijdend inzicht uitleggen wat er in het OT staat. En dat is, mijns inziens, gewoonweg kolder. Het huidige christendom heeft niks met het jodendom te maken. Maar het misbruikt het OT gewoon voor hun eigen theologie.quote:
Met betrekking tot deze passage:
8En u zult de HEER weer gehoorzaam zijn en al zijn geboden, zoals ik ze u vandaag heb voorgehouden, in acht nemen. 9De HEER, uw God, zal u voorspoed geven in alles wat u onderneemt, u kinderrijk maken en uw vee en uw land vruchtbaar maken. Hij zal er weer vreugde in vinden om u te zegenen, zoals voorheen bij uw voorouders. 10Want u toont de HEER, uw God, dan uw gehoorzaamheid door de geboden en bepalingen in dit wetboek in acht te nemen, en u wilt hem weer met hart en ziel toebehoren.
11De geboden die ik u vandaag heb gegeven, zijn niet te zwaar voor u en liggen niet buiten uw bereik. 12Ze zijn niet in de hemel, dus u hoeft niet te zeggen: “Wie stijgt voor ons op naar de hemel om ze daar te halen en ze ons bekend te maken, zodat wij ernaar kunnen handelen?” 13Ook zijn ze niet aan de overkant van de zee, dus u hoeft niet te zeggen: “Wie steekt de zee voor ons over om ze daar te halen en ze ons bekend te maken, zodat wij ernaar kunnen handelen?” 14Nee, die geboden zijn heel dichtbij, u kunt ze in u opnemen en ze u eigen maken; u kunt ze volbrengen.
Het oude verbond bestond uit een wet waaraan het Joodse volk zich moest houden. Deze 613 regeltjes waren het verbond. Iedereen die dus willig de wet overtrad, overtrad het verbond en kreeg de doodstraf, wat overigens symbool kan staan voor wat er gebeurt met mensen die geen deel uitmaken van het Nieuwe Verbond. Anywayzzz het Levitische priesterschap was bedoeld om op ceremoniele wijze offers te brengen voor zonden die per ongeluk waren begaan. Het was echter niet zo dat dit priesterschap daadwerkelijk zonde kon wegnemen. Nou als Deuteronium 30 zou stellen dat het inderdaad perfect mogelijk was om de Wet van Mozes te houden, waarom is er dan een orde van priesters nodig om op ceremoniele wijze zonde uit te delgen? Het enige antwoord kan zijn dat Deuteronium 30 niet in een perfectionistische modus moet worden gelezen. Kortom Deuteronium 30 is een algemene aansporing tot het houden van de Wet van Mozes, wat niet betekent dat God verwachtte dat niemand zou zondigen.
Nee, je moet het OT uitleggen aan de hand van wat er staat. Niet aan de hand van het christelijk NT.quote:Het NT moet idd altijd het OT interpreteren.
Ja, de heilige geest. Laat ik daar nou niet in geloven. De Heilige Geest is gewoon een manier om een idee als heilig te aanvaarden en als de waarheid. Als ik kolder zeg dan gelooft niemand mij. Zeg ik dat ik geīnspireerd ben door de heilige geest dan is het ineens waarheid. De heilige geest is onzichtbaar, niet te peilen, niet te zien en je leest het ook niet terug in de brieven van hen die zogenaamd geīnspireerd zouden zijn. Vroeger nam ik Paulus ook enorm serieus. Tot ik zag hoe hij zijn discussies beslechtte met zijn tegenstanders. "die zij vervloekt!" "die zijn overgeleverd aan hun lusten en zullen door god gestraft worden" "de mensen die niet in god geloven zijn niet te verontschuldigen. Want zij konden god zien in de natuur". Dat soort onzin zou geschreven zijn onder inspiratie van de heilige geest? Het aantonen van de messias door middel van het OT is overigens ook heel menselijk gegaan hoor. Men had de Griekse versie van het OT, en daarin stonden weleens wat foutjes. Zoals de maagdelijke geboorte, wat overigens een profetie was voor Hizkia dat hij gered zou worden van zijn tegenstanders. Het betrof hier ook gewoon een jonge vrouw en geen maagd. En zie hier, Maria is een maagd als ze Jezus krijgt. Er staat zelfs profetiewoorden in het NT die in het OT niet voor komen.quote:De duivel is een intelligent wezen maar hij is niet God. Gelukkig was hij ook niet intelligent genoeg om te doorgronden wat Jezus precies kwam doen op aarde. Neem bijvoorbeeld de demonen in acht die Jezus vroegen of Hij gekomen was om hun te pijnigen. Ik denk dat dit de reden is dat de honderden profetieën in het oude testament die naar Jezus verwijzen cryptisch verwerkt waren, zodat als de vervulling eenmaal daar was, de schrijvers van het NT onder invloed van de Heilige Geest door middel van het OT konden aantonen dat Jezus de Messias was.
Soms vraag ik mij af hoeveel je inderdaad weet van het geloof, of dat je het gewoon leuk vindt om anderen te demoniseren. Het avondmaal en de doop zijn inwijdingsrituelen. Inderdaad, die kwamen overal al voor in de tijd waarin paulus zijn zaken schreef. Maar daar gaat het mij niet om. Ik heb het over het Oosten. De tijd waar ik het over had had nog geen "Sola Scriptura". Dat kwam pas bij de protestanten. Toen de eerste zendelingen naar het Oosten togen kwamen ze kerkjes tegen voor de goden, ze kwamen beelden tegen van heiligen, en toen zeiden de kerkleiders dat dit kwam door voorgekopieerd te zijn door de duivel. Zo zie je maar weer, de duivel werd altijd al met zijn haren erbij gesleept. En dan kun je wel zeggen dat dat niet "bijbels" is. En dat klopt. Dat neemt niet weg dat er ook iets is als traditie, en qua traditie lijkt het christendom nou eenmaal erg op andere godsdiensten. Eigenlijk vind ik Sola Scriptura het domste wat de mens heeft uitgevonden. Er is en was traditie, en ook dingen die men dus niet opschreef omdat het voor de mensen in die tijd nou eenmaal erg normaal was. De meeste teksten worden niet geschreven voor honderden jaren later. Als ik een brief schrijf in de hoop dat het 500 jaar later gelezen gaat worden zou ik inderdaad alles opschrijven waar wij ons nu mee bezig houden. Schrijf ik een brief voor iemand die nu leeft, dan hoef ik het niet te hebben over hele normale zaken. Zoals dat ik zowel zittend als staand kan plassen. Dat we riolering hebben. Dat we TV hebben etc....quote:Met betrekking tot rituelen, ik weet niet waar je het over hebt. Wat voor rituelen? Het Christelijk geloof gaat niet om rituelen, het laatste avondmaal en de doop daargelaten. Hadden deze Oosterse mensen ook een avondmaal om Jezus als de Messias te gedenken en hadden zij ook het ritueel om zich te laten dopen in naam van de Vader, de Zoon en de Heilige Geest? Zo ja, waarom moesten ze dan bekeerd worden? Zo nee, waarom vergelijk je hun geloof met het christelijke geloof?
Tevens hebben de oosterse religies het kruis ook lief, zij noemen dat een swastika. Ook dat leidde tot verwarring bij de christelijke missionarissen. Dus nam men aan dat ook dit het werk was van mijnheer de duivel.
Ik weet echt niet wat ik hier mee aanmoet. Nooit gehoord van "de winnaars schrijven de geschiedenis". Die evangeliën komen allemaal na de brieven van Paulus. Paulus was dus de eerste mens die in Jezus dood een offer ziet. De groeperingen daarentegen zagen Jezus allemaal anders, en dat kon want niemand had hem in levende lijve gezien. Enkel de orthodoxe kliek denkt dat de evangeliën geschreven zijn door de apostelen. Maar gewoon door mensen met een mening over Jezus. Hij is later pas vergoddelijkt. Vergeet ook niet dat het oudste evangelie stamt van 65 nC, en dan komen Mattheus en Lucas (70-80 nC) en dan pas Johannes (100 nC). Er gaat dus een hele theologiseren aan de evangeliën en dus het NT vooraf. En die schijn jij volkomen te vergeten. Of je hangt het aan de heilige geest die het proces geleidt heeft. En dan nemen ze jou nog serieus ook?quote:Met betrekking tot de identiteit van Jezus. Natuurlijk was er in de eerste eeuwen verwarring, ook nu is er nog verwarring. Echter voor iedereen die de bijbel ter harte neemt is verwarring onnodig. De bijbel zegt namelijk dat Jezus de schepper is van hemel en aarde en dat Hij God is en stierf voor de zonde van de mens.
De katholieken hebben die geschriften niet opgenomen in hun canon. Ze volgen precies dezelfde canon als de protestanten. Je kan het beter andersom zeggen: De protestanten volgen dezelfde canon als de katholieken, aangezien het katholieke geloof ouder is. Wel mogen hun leden die apocriefe boeken zelf lezen. Je gelooft teveel de complottheorieen die de protestanten over hun katholieke broeders en zusters in de wereld hebben geholpen. Een van die zaken is deze:quote:Met betrekking tot de canon, ik denk dat jij meer onderzoek moet doen naar de kerkvaders en de wijze waarop de canon tot stand kwam. De katholieken hebben apocriefe geschriften opgenomen in de late middeleeuwen als wijze om hun dwaalleer te rechtvaardigen. Je hebt wel gelijk dat de grens tussen het protestantse geloof en het katholieke geloof vervaagd is.
http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl(...)reen-de-Bijbel.dhtml
Een andere is de vele duizenden martelaren die gedood zouden zijn door de Kerk. Blijft ook weinig van over.
Alles wat ik hier van jou lees zijn precies de woorden van iemand die de orthodoxie volgt. De heilige geest die dingen geleidt zou hebben. De duivel die kwaad is en de zaken probeert te misleiden, de RK die een andere canon zou hebben, de NT die het OT wel even uit zou leggen, de kerkvaders die op hun blauwe ogen geloofd worden, etc..etc...quote:Tenslotte kan ik je garanderen dat ik nooit zomaar iets aanneem van welke traditie dan ook. Ik raadpleeg altijd deskundige bronnen, geleerde theologen etc. Ik denk dat jij diegene bent die klakkeloos overneemt wat critici zeggen, maar dat is slechts mijn mening
Geen een geleerde theoloog zou het proces van de totstandkoming van de bijbel als een geestelijke inspiratie zien, en een duivelse misleiding. Zelfs de orthodoxie zou dit niet erkennen.
En dan tegen mij zeggen dat ik mij meer in deze zaken moet verdiepen? Belachelijk.
Zolang iemand een andere mening heeft moet dat zijn omdat de ander zich er te weinig in verdiept heeft. Want jouw mening is waarheid.
"Bettler aber sollte man ganz abschaffen! Wahrlich, man ärgert sich ihnen zu geben und ärgert sich ihnen nicht zu geben."
Friedrich Nietzsche
Friedrich Nietzsche
Het hangt er maar net vanaf welke bril je draagt wat je allemaal ziet. Ik als bijbelgelovige zie theologische kwesties vanuit een heel ander perspectief. Hierdoor zouden we een eeuwige discussie op gang kunnen brengen maar dat gaat allemaal veel te diep om in een forum te behandelen. Wat ik wel duidelijk wil maken is dat er niet zoiets is als een "katholieke" bijbel en een "protestantse" bijbel, dat is niet slechts een semantische constatering. Van de gotquestions website:quote:
[..]
Je interpreteert er maar op los he, enkel om jouw idee en tegelijkertijd van Paulus en het christendom te kunnen blijven houden. Het staat er toch duidelijk dat niemand het voor hen hoeft te doen, niet uit de hemel komend en niemand hoeft de zee over te steken. Dit is een regelrechte aanklacht tegen het huidige "geloof maar dan ben je gerechtvaardigd" geloof van de protestanten en katholieken. Ik begrijp best het probleem hoor. Jij denkt dat Paulus dingen deed geīnspireerd door de heilige geest. Daarom ga je er vanuit dat deze ideeën van Paulus meer zijn dan ideeën. Je denkt dat ze door voortschrijdend inzicht uitleggen wat er in het OT staat. En dat is, mijns inziens, gewoonweg kolder. Het huidige christendom heeft niks met het jodendom te maken. Maar het misbruikt het OT gewoon voor hun eigen theologie.
[..]
Nee, je moet het OT uitleggen aan de hand van wat er staat. Niet aan de hand van het christelijk NT.
[..]
Ja, de heilige geest. Laat ik daar nou niet in geloven. De Heilige Geest is gewoon een manier om een idee als heilig te aanvaarden en als de waarheid. Als ik kolder zeg dan gelooft niemand mij. Zeg ik dat ik geīnspireerd ben door de heilige geest dan is het ineens waarheid. De heilige geest is onzichtbaar, niet te peilen, niet te zien en je leest het ook niet terug in de brieven van hen die zogenaamd geīnspireerd zouden zijn. Vroeger nam ik Paulus ook enorm serieus. Tot ik zag hoe hij zijn discussies beslechtte met zijn tegenstanders. "die zij vervloekt!" "die zijn overgeleverd aan hun lusten en zullen door god gestraft worden" "de mensen die niet in god geloven zijn niet te verontschuldigen. Want zij konden god zien in de natuur". Dat soort onzin zou geschreven zijn onder inspiratie van de heilige geest? Het aantonen van de messias door middel van het OT is overigens ook heel menselijk gegaan hoor. Men had de Griekse versie van het OT, en daarin stonden weleens wat foutjes. Zoals de maagdelijke geboorte, wat overigens een profetie was voor Hizkia dat hij gered zou worden van zijn tegenstanders. Het betrof hier ook gewoon een jonge vrouw en geen maagd. En zie hier, Maria is een maagd als ze Jezus krijgt. Er staat zelfs profetiewoorden in het NT die in het OT niet voor komen.
[..]
Soms vraag ik mij af hoeveel je inderdaad weet van het geloof, of dat je het gewoon leuk vindt om anderen te demoniseren. Het avondmaal en de doop zijn inwijdingsrituelen. Inderdaad, die kwamen overal al voor in de tijd waarin paulus zijn zaken schreef. Maar daar gaat het mij niet om. Ik heb het over het Oosten. De tijd waar ik het over had had nog geen "Sola Scriptura". Dat kwam pas bij de protestanten. Toen de eerste zendelingen naar het Oosten togen kwamen ze kerkjes tegen voor de goden, ze kwamen beelden tegen van heiligen, en toen zeiden de kerkleiders dat dit kwam door voorgekopieerd te zijn door de duivel. Zo zie je maar weer, de duivel werd altijd al met zijn haren erbij gesleept. En dan kun je wel zeggen dat dat niet "bijbels" is. En dat klopt. Dat neemt niet weg dat er ook iets is als traditie, en qua traditie lijkt het christendom nou eenmaal erg op andere godsdiensten. Eigenlijk vind ik Sola Scriptura het domste wat de mens heeft uitgevonden. Er is en was traditie, en ook dingen die men dus niet opschreef omdat het voor de mensen in die tijd nou eenmaal erg normaal was. De meeste teksten worden niet geschreven voor honderden jaren later. Als ik een brief schrijf in de hoop dat het 500 jaar later gelezen gaat worden zou ik inderdaad alles opschrijven waar wij ons nu mee bezig houden. Schrijf ik een brief voor iemand die nu leeft, dan hoef ik het niet te hebben over hele normale zaken. Zoals dat ik zowel zittend als staand kan plassen. Dat we riolering hebben. Dat we TV hebben etc....
Tevens hebben de oosterse religies het kruis ook lief, zij noemen dat een swastika. Ook dat leidde tot verwarring bij de christelijke missionarissen. Dus nam men aan dat ook dit het werk was van mijnheer de duivel.
[..]
Ik weet echt niet wat ik hier mee aanmoet. Nooit gehoord van "de winnaars schrijven de geschiedenis". Die evangeliën komen allemaal na de brieven van Paulus. Paulus was dus de eerste mens die in Jezus dood een offer ziet. De groeperingen daarentegen zagen Jezus allemaal anders, en dat kon want niemand had hem in levende lijve gezien. Enkel de orthodoxe kliek denkt dat de evangeliën geschreven zijn door de apostelen. Maar gewoon door mensen met een mening over Jezus. Hij is later pas vergoddelijkt. Vergeet ook niet dat het oudste evangelie stamt van 65 nC, en dan komen Mattheus en Lucas (70-80 nC) en dan pas Johannes (100 nC). Er gaat dus een hele theologiseren aan de evangeliën en dus het NT vooraf. En die schijn jij volkomen te vergeten. Of je hangt het aan de heilige geest die het proces geleidt heeft. En dan nemen ze jou nog serieus ook?
[..]
De katholieken hebben die geschriften niet opgenomen in hun canon. Ze volgen precies dezelfde canon als de protestanten. Je kan het beter andersom zeggen: De protestanten volgen dezelfde canon als de katholieken, aangezien het katholieke geloof ouder is. Wel mogen hun leden die apocriefe boeken zelf lezen. Je gelooft teveel de complottheorieen die de protestanten over hun katholieke broeders en zusters in de wereld hebben geholpen. Een van die zaken is deze:
http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl(...)reen-de-Bijbel.dhtml
Een andere is de vele duizenden martelaren die gedood zouden zijn door de Kerk. Blijft ook weinig van over.
[..]
Alles wat ik hier van jou lees zijn precies de woorden van iemand die de orthodoxie volgt. De heilige geest die dingen geleidt zou hebben. De duivel die kwaad is en de zaken probeert te misleiden, de RK die een andere canon zou hebben, de NT die het OT wel even uit zou leggen, de kerkvaders die op hun blauwe ogen geloofd worden, etc..etc...
Geen een geleerde theoloog zou het proces van de totstandkoming van de bijbel als een geestelijke inspiratie zien, en een duivelse misleiding. Zelfs de orthodoxie zou dit niet erkennen.
En dan tegen mij zeggen dat ik mij meer in deze zaken moet verdiepen? Belachelijk.
Zolang iemand een andere mening heeft moet dat zijn omdat de ander zich er te weinig in verdiept heeft. Want jouw mening is waarheid.
Wat het Nieuwe Testament betreft begon het proces van erkenning en verzameling in de eerste eeuwen van de Christelijke kerk. Al zeer vroeg werden enkele boeken van het Nieuwe Testament erkend. Paulus beschouwde de geschriften van Lucas als net zo gezaghebbend als het Oude Testament (1 Timoteüs 5:18; zie ook Deuteronomium 25:4 en Lucas 10:7). Petrus erkende de geschriften van Paulus als Schriftteksten (2 Petrus 3:15-16). Enkele boeken van het Nieuwe Testament werden onder de kerken verspreid (Kolossenzen 4:16; 1 Tessalonicenzen 5:27). Clemens van Rome noemde tenminste acht boeken uit het Nieuwe Testament (95 na Christus). Ignatius van Antiochië erkende ongeveer zeven boeken (115 na Christus). Polycarpus, een discipel van de Apostel Johannes, erkende 15 boeken (108 na Christus). Later noemde Irenaeus 21 boeken (185 na Christus). Hippolytus erkende 22 boeken (170-235 na Christus). De boeken van het Nieuwe Testament die het meest betwist werden waren Hebreeën, Jakobus, 2 Petrus, 2 Johannes en 3 Johannes. De eerste “canon” was de Muratorische Canon, die in 170 na Christus werd samengesteld. De Muratorische Canon bevatte alle boeken van het Nieuwe Testament behalve Hebreeën, Jakobus en 3 Johannes. In 363 na Christus stelde het Concilie van Laodicea dat het Oude Testament (samen met de Apocriefen) en de 27 boeken van het Nieuwe Testament in de kerken zouden moeten worden gelezen. Het Concilie van Hippo (393 na Christus) en het Concilie van Carthago (397 na Christus) bevestigden eveneens dat diezelfde 27 boeken gezagdragend waren.
Om te bepalen of een boek van het Nieuwe Testament werkelijk door de Heilige Geest was geīnspireerd, volgden deze concilies een methode die eender is aan de volgende principes: 1) Was de auteur een apostel of had deze een nauwe relatie met een apostel? 2) Is het boek in het algemeen door Het Lichaam van Christus geaccepteerd? 3) Bevatte het boek een consequente doctrine en orthodoxe leerstellingen? 4) Droeg het boek de kenmerken van een hoge moraliteit en geestelijke waarden die door een werkzaamheid van de Heilige Geest zou worden weerspiegeld? Nogmaals, het is cruciaal om te onthouden dat de canon niet door de kerk werd vastgesteld. Geen enkel vroeg kerkelijk concilie besliste wat de canon zou zijn. De boeken die in de Bijbel thuishoorden werden door God, en alleen door God, bepaald. God overtuigde Zijn volgelingen eenvoudigweg van wat Hij Zelf reeds had besloten. Het menselijk proces van het verzamelen van de boeken van de Bijbel had zijn tekortkomingen, maar in Zijn soevereiniteit leidde God, ondanks onze onwetendheid en koppigheid, de vroege kerk er toe om de boeken te erkennen die door Hem waren geīnspireerd.
Ik als gelovige neem aan dat de Heilige Geest het proces van canonisering heeft geleid in de eerste eeuwen na Christus. Dat mag je uiteraard volstrekt belachelijk en idioot vinden
. We leven immers in een vrij land waar je alles mag geloven .Aangezien je een veel voorkomend geluid laat horen mbt. commentaar op het auteurschap van de bijbel lijkt het me wel interessant een lijstje van auteurs te vermelden
.Vraag: "Wie waren de schrijvers van de boeken van de Bijbel?"
Antwoord: Uiteindelijk is het zo dat de Bijbel door God werd geschreven. 2 Timoteüs 3:16 vertelt ons dat de Bijbel door God “ingegeven” of “geīnspireerd” werd. God zag toe op de menselijke schrijvers van de Bijbel zodat zij precies vastlegden wat God had bedoeld, ook al gebruikten zij ieder hun eigen schrijfstijl en persoonlijkheid. De Bijbel werd niet door God gedicteerd, maar werd wel op perfecte manier door Hem geleid en volledig door Hem ingegeven.
Op menselijk niveau werd de Bijbel door ongeveer 40 mannen met verscheidene achtergronden geschreven, over een periode van ongeveer 1500 jaar. Jesaja was een profeet, Ezra was een priester, Matteüs was een belastinginner, Johannes was een visser, Paulus was een tentmaker, Mozes was een herder, Lucas was een arts. Ondanks het feit dat de Bijbel over een periode van meer dan 15 eeuwen door verschillende auteurs werd geschreven, spreekt de Bijbel zichzelf niet tegen en bevat de Bijbel geen enkele fouten. Elk van de schrijvers biedt een ander perspectief, maar zij verkondigen allemaal de ene ware God en dezelfde ene weg naar de redding – Jezus Christus (Johannes 14:6; Handelingen 4:12). Slechts enkele van de boeken van de Bijbel vermelden specifiek wie de schrijver was. Hier volgen de boeken van de Bijbel, samen met de naam van de meest waarschijnlijke schrijver volgens de Bijbelse schriftgeleerden en (ruwweg) de datum van schrijven:
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri, Deuteronomium = Mozes - 1400 v.C.
Jozua = Jozua - 1350 v.C.
Rechters, Ruth, 1 Samuël, 2 Samuël = Samuël/Natan/Gad - 1000 - 900 v.C.
1 Koningen, 2 Koningen = Jeremia - 600 v.C.
1 Kronieken, 2 Kronieken, Ezra, Nehemia = Ezra - 450 v.C.
Ester = Mordechai - 400 v.C.
Job = Mozes - 1400 v.C.
Psalmen = diverse schrijvers, vooral David - 1000 - 400 v.C.
Spreuken, Prediker, Hooglied = Salomo - 900 v.C.
Jesaja = Jesaja - 700 v.C.
Jeremia, Klaagliederen = Jeremia - 600 v.C.
Ezechiël = Ezechiël - 550 v.C.
Daniël = Daniël - 550 v.C.
Hosea = Hosea - 750 v.C.
Joël = Joël - 850 v.C.
Amos = Amos - 750 v.C.
Obadja = Obadja - 600 v.C.
Jona = Jona - 700 v.C.
Micha = Micha - 700 v.C.
Nahum = Nahum - 650 v.C.
Habakuk = Habakuk - 600 v.C.
Zefanja = Zefanja - 650 v.C.
Haggai = Haggai - 520 v.C.
Zacharia = Zacharia - 500 v.C.
Maleachi = Maleachi - 430 v.C.
Matteüs = Matteüs – 55 n.C.
Marcus = Johannes Marcus - 50 n.C.
Lucas = Lucas – 60 n.C.
Johannes = Johannes – 90 n.C.
Handelingen = Lucas – 65 n.C.
Romeinen, 1 Korintiërs, 2 Korintiërs, Galaten, Efeziërs, Filippenzen, Kolossenzen, 1 Tessalonicenzen, 2 Tessalonicenzen, 1 Timoteüs, 2 Timoteüs, Titus, Filemon = Paulus – 50-70 n.C.
Hebreeën = onbekend, waarschijnlijk Paulus, Lucas, Barnabas of Apollos – 65 n.C.
Jakobus = Jakobus – 45 n.C.
1 Petrus, 2 Petrus = Petrus – 60 n.C.
1 Johannes, 2 Johannes, 3 Johannes = Johannes – 90 n.C.
Judas = Judas - 60 n.C.
Openbaring = Johannes – 90 n.C.
Met betrekking tot je suggestie dat de bijbel een fraudulent boek is, is dit mijn visie:
Vraag: "Is de Bijbel verdraaid, gewijzigd, aangepast of herzien, of is er mee geknoeid?"
Antwoord: De boeken van het Oude Testament werden ongeveer tussen 1400 en 400 v.C. geschreven. De boeken van het Nieuwe Testament werden ongeveer tussen 40 en 90 n.C. geschreven. Er zijn dus tussen 3400 tot 1900 jaar verstreken sinds een bepaald boek van de Bijbel werd geschreven. Sindsdien zijn de originele manuscripten verloren gegaan. Het is waarschijnlijk dat die niet meer bestaan. Sindsdien zijn de boeken van de Bijbel ook steeds weer gekopieerd. Er zijn kopieën van kopieën van kopieën gemaakt. Kunnen we de Bijbel, met dit alles in het achterhoofd, nog steeds vertrouwen?
Toen God de mannen oorspronkelijk inspireerde om Zijn Woord op te schrijven, was dit door Hem ingegeven en foutloos (2 Timoteüs 3:16-17, Johannes 17:17). De Bijbel beweert nergens dat dit ook geldt voor kopieën van de originele manuscripten. Ook al waren de Joodse kopieerders ontzettend nauwgezet in hun overlevering van de Schriftteksten, toch is niemand perfect. Hierdoor ontstonden kleine verschillen tussen de diverse kopieën van de teksten. Van alle duizenden Griekse en Hebreeuwse manuscripten waren er geen twee identiek vķķr de uitvinding van de drukpers in de 16e eeuw.
Maar, elke onbevooroordeelde schriftgeleerde zal het er mee eens zijn dat de Bijbel door de eeuwen heen opmerkelijk goed behouden is gebleven. Kopieën van de Bijbel uit de 14e eeuw zijn inhoudelijk bijna identiek aan kopieën uit de 3e eeuw na Christus. Toen de Dode Zee Rollen werden ontdekt, waren de schriftgeleerden geschokt door de overeenkomsten van deze rollen met andere oude kopieën van het Oude Testament, ook al waren de Dode Zee Rollen honderden jaren ouder dan enige andere Bijbelse tekst die ooit ontdekt was. Zelfs een groot aantal geharde sceptici en critici van de Bijbel geeft toe dat de Bijbel door de eeuwen heen veel nauwkeuriger is overgeleverd dan enig ander document uit de oudheid.
Er bestaat absoluut geen bewijs dat de Bijbel herzien of aangepast is, of dat er op een systematische wijze mee geknoeid zou zijn. Het overweldigende aantal Bijbelse manuscripten maakt het eenvoudig om pogingen om Gods Woord te verdraaien te herkennen. Geen enkele van de belangrijke doctrines van de Bijbel kan in twijfel worden getrokken vanwege de verschillen die er tussen de diverse manuscripten bestaan.
De vraag is dus, nogmaals, kunnen we de Bijbel vertrouwen? Absoluut! God heeft Zijn Woord behouden ondanks de onbewuste fouten en de doelgerichte aanvallen van menselijke wezens. We kunnen het grootste vertrouwen hebben dat de Bijbel die wij tegenwoordig hebben dezelfde Bijbel is die oorspronkelijk werd geschreven. De Bijbel is Gods Woord, en wij kunnen er op vertrouwen (2 Timoteüs 3:16; Matteüs 5:18).
Ik ben inderdaad een orthodoxe christen, een zeldzame soort en jij bent helemaal vrij om dat als achterlijk, debiel, idioot, pseudowetenschappelijk, middeleeuws, dom, selectief cognitief dissonant etc. te beschouwen. Het verbaasd me eerlijk gezegd dat je nog niet het argument van Bart Ehrman hebt aangehaald van Forged waarin hij beweert dat de boeken in het Nieuwe Testament niet door de toegeschreven auteurs zelf zijn geschreven. Critici die het Nieuwe Testament bestuderen claimen namelijk dat de stijl van sommige brieven van Paulus bijvoorbeeld soms zo sterk wisselen dat ze niet door Paulus zijn geschreven maar door iemand anders.
Nou ik heb geen zin om er nu op in te gaan waarom deze visie niet klopt, daarvoor heb ik veeeeeeeel te veel tekst nodig en ligt veel te ingewikkeld. Wil ook zoveel mogelijk on-topic blijven.
ik heb je regel perongeluk doorgestreept.. sorry.quote:
[..]
Het hangt er maar net vanaf welke bril je draagt wat je allemaal ziet. Ik als bijbelgelovige zie theologische kwesties vanuit een heel ander perspectief. Hierdoor zouden we een eeuwige discussie op gang kunnen brengen maar dat gaat allemaal veel te diep om in een forum te behandelen. Wat ik wel duidelijk wil maken is dat er niet zoiets is als een "katholieke" bijbel en een "protestantse" bijbel, dat is niet slechts een semantische constatering. Van de gotquestions website:
Wat het Nieuwe Testament betreft begon het proces van erkenning en verzameling in de eerste eeuwen van de Christelijke kerk. Al zeer vroeg werden enkele boeken van het Nieuwe Testament erkend. Paulus beschouwde de geschriften van Lucas als net zo gezaghebbend als het Oude Testament (1 Timoteüs 5:18; zie ook Deuteronomium 25:4 en Lucas 10:7). Petrus erkende de geschriften van Paulus als Schriftteksten (2 Petrus 3:15-16). Enkele boeken van het Nieuwe Testament werden onder de kerken verspreid (Kolossenzen 4:16; 1 Tessalonicenzen 5:27). Clemens van Rome noemde tenminste acht boeken uit het Nieuwe Testament (95 na Christus). Ignatius van Antiochië erkende ongeveer zeven boeken (115 na Christus). Polycarpus, een discipel van de Apostel Johannes, erkende 15 boeken (108 na Christus). Later noemde Irenaeus 21 boeken (185 na Christus). Hippolytus erkende 22 boeken (170-235 na Christus). De boeken van het Nieuwe Testament die het meest betwist werden waren Hebreeën, Jakobus, 2 Petrus, 2 Johannes en 3 Johannes. De eerste “canon” was de Muratorische Canon, die in 170 na Christus werd samengesteld. De Muratorische Canon bevatte alle boeken van het Nieuwe Testament behalve Hebreeën, Jakobus en 3 Johannes. In 363 na Christus stelde het Concilie van Laodicea dat het Oude Testament (samen met de Apocriefen) en de 27 boeken van het Nieuwe Testament in de kerken zouden moeten worden gelezen. Het Concilie van Hippo (393 na Christus) en het Concilie van Carthago (397 na Christus) bevestigden eveneens dat diezelfde 27 boeken gezagdragend waren.
Om te bepalen of een boek van het Nieuwe Testament werkelijk door de Heilige Geest was geīnspireerd, volgden deze concilies een methode die eender is aan de volgende principes: 1) Was de auteur een apostel of had deze een nauwe relatie met een apostel? 2) Is het boek in het algemeen door Het Lichaam van Christus geaccepteerd? 3) Bevatte het boek een consequente doctrine en orthodoxe leerstellingen? 4) Droeg het boek de kenmerken van een hoge moraliteit en geestelijke waarden die door een werkzaamheid van de Heilige Geest zou worden weerspiegeld? Nogmaals, het is cruciaal om te onthouden dat de canon niet door de kerk werd vastgesteld. Geen enkel vroeg kerkelijk concilie besliste wat de canon zou zijn. De boeken die in de Bijbel thuishoorden werden door God, en alleen door God, bepaald. God overtuigde Zijn volgelingen eenvoudigweg van wat Hij Zelf reeds had besloten. Het menselijk proces van het verzamelen van de boeken van de Bijbel had zijn tekortkomingen, maar in Zijn soevereiniteit leidde God, ondanks onze onwetendheid en koppigheid, de vroege kerk er toe om de boeken te erkennen die door Hem waren geīnspireerd.
Ik als gelovige neem aan dat de Heilige Geest het proces van canonisering heeft geleid in de eerste eeuwen na Christus. Dat mag je uiteraard volstrekt belachelijk en idioot vinden
Aangezien je een veel voorkomend geluid laat horen mbt. commentaar op het auteurschap van de bijbel lijkt het me wel interessant een lijstje van auteurs te vermelden
Vraag: "Wie waren de schrijvers van de boeken van de Bijbel?"
Antwoord: Uiteindelijk is het zo dat de Bijbel door God werd geschreven. 2 Timoteüs 3:16 vertelt ons dat de Bijbel door God “ingegeven” of “geīnspireerd” werd. God zag toe op de menselijke schrijvers van de Bijbel zodat zij precies vastlegden wat God had bedoeld, ook al gebruikten zij ieder hun eigen schrijfstijl en persoonlijkheid. De Bijbel werd niet door God gedicteerd, maar werd wel op perfecte manier door Hem geleid en volledig door Hem ingegeven.
Op menselijk niveau werd de Bijbel door ongeveer 40 mannen met verscheidene achtergronden geschreven, over een periode van ongeveer 1500 jaar. Jesaja was een profeet, Ezra was een priester, Matteüs was een belastinginner, Johannes was een visser, Paulus was een tentmaker, Mozes was een herder, Lucas was een arts. Ondanks het feit dat de Bijbel over een periode van meer dan 15 eeuwen door verschillende auteurs werd geschreven, spreekt de Bijbel zichzelf niet tegen en bevat de Bijbel geen enkele fouten. Elk van de schrijvers biedt een ander perspectief, maar zij verkondigen allemaal de ene ware God en dezelfde ene weg naar de redding – Jezus Christus (Johannes 14:6; Handelingen 4:12). Slechts enkele van de boeken van de Bijbel vermelden specifiek wie de schrijver was. Hier volgen de boeken van de Bijbel, samen met de naam van de meest waarschijnlijke schrijver volgens de Bijbelse schriftgeleerden en (ruwweg) de datum van schrijven:
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri, Deuteronomium = Mozes - 1400 v.C.
Jozua = Jozua - 1350 v.C.
Rechters, Ruth, 1 Samuël, 2 Samuël = Samuël/Natan/Gad - 1000 - 900 v.C.
1 Koningen, 2 Koningen = Jeremia - 600 v.C.
1 Kronieken, 2 Kronieken, Ezra, Nehemia = Ezra - 450 v.C.
Ester = Mordechai - 400 v.C.
Job = Mozes - 1400 v.C.
Psalmen = diverse schrijvers, vooral David - 1000 - 400 v.C.
Spreuken, Prediker, Hooglied = Salomo - 900 v.C.
Jesaja = Jesaja - 700 v.C.
Jeremia, Klaagliederen = Jeremia - 600 v.C.
Ezechiël = Ezechiël - 550 v.C.
Daniël = Daniël - 550 v.C.
Hosea = Hosea - 750 v.C.
Joël = Joël - 850 v.C.
Amos = Amos - 750 v.C.
Obadja = Obadja - 600 v.C.
Jona = Jona - 700 v.C.
Micha = Micha - 700 v.C.
Nahum = Nahum - 650 v.C.
Habakuk = Habakuk - 600 v.C.
Zefanja = Zefanja - 650 v.C.
Haggai = Haggai - 520 v.C.
Zacharia = Zacharia - 500 v.C.
Maleachi = Maleachi - 430 v.C.
Matteüs = Matteüs – 55 n.C.
Marcus = Johannes Marcus - 50 n.C.
Lucas = Lucas – 60 n.C.
Johannes = Johannes – 90 n.C.
Handelingen = Lucas – 65 n.C.
Romeinen, 1 Korintiërs, 2 Korintiërs, Galaten, Efeziërs, Filippenzen, Kolossenzen, 1 Tessalonicenzen, 2 Tessalonicenzen, 1 Timoteüs, 2 Timoteüs, Titus, Filemon = Paulus – 50-70 n.C.
Hebreeën = onbekend, waarschijnlijk Paulus, Lucas, Barnabas of Apollos – 65 n.C.
Jakobus = Jakobus – 45 n.C.
1 Petrus, 2 Petrus = Petrus – 60 n.C.
1 Johannes, 2 Johannes, 3 Johannes = Johannes – 90 n.C.
Judas = Judas - 60 n.C.
Openbaring = Johannes – 90 n.C.
Met betrekking tot je suggestie dat de bijbel een fraudulent boek is, is dit mijn visie:
[s]Vraag: "Is de Bijbel verdraaid, gewijzigd, aangepast of herzien, of is er mee geknoeid?"[/s]
Antwoord: De boeken van het Oude Testament werden ongeveer tussen 1400 en 400 v.C. geschreven. De boeken van het Nieuwe Testament werden ongeveer tussen 40 en 90 n.C. geschreven. Er zijn dus tussen 3400 tot 1900 jaar verstreken sinds een bepaald boek van de Bijbel werd geschreven. Sindsdien zijn de originele manuscripten verloren gegaan. Het is waarschijnlijk dat die niet meer bestaan. Sindsdien zijn de boeken van de Bijbel ook steeds weer gekopieerd. Er zijn kopieën van kopieën van kopieën gemaakt. Kunnen we de Bijbel, met dit alles in het achterhoofd, nog steeds vertrouwen?
Toen God de mannen oorspronkelijk inspireerde om Zijn Woord op te schrijven, was dit door Hem ingegeven en foutloos (2 Timoteüs 3:16-17, Johannes 17:17). De Bijbel beweert nergens dat dit ook geldt voor kopieën van de originele manuscripten. Ook al waren de Joodse kopieerders ontzettend nauwgezet in hun overlevering van de Schriftteksten, toch is niemand perfect. Hierdoor ontstonden kleine verschillen tussen de diverse kopieën van de teksten. Van alle duizenden Griekse en Hebreeuwse manuscripten waren er geen twee identiek vķķr de uitvinding van de drukpers in de 16e eeuw.
Maar, elke onbevooroordeelde schriftgeleerde zal het er mee eens zijn dat de Bijbel door de eeuwen heen opmerkelijk goed behouden is gebleven. Kopieën van de Bijbel uit de 14e eeuw zijn inhoudelijk bijna identiek aan kopieën uit de 3e eeuw na Christus. Toen de Dode Zee Rollen werden ontdekt, waren de schriftgeleerden geschokt door de overeenkomsten van deze rollen met andere oude kopieën van het Oude Testament, ook al waren de Dode Zee Rollen honderden jaren ouder dan enige andere Bijbelse tekst die ooit ontdekt was. Zelfs een groot aantal geharde sceptici en critici van de Bijbel geeft toe dat de Bijbel door de eeuwen heen veel nauwkeuriger is overgeleverd dan enig ander document uit de oudheid.
Er bestaat absoluut geen bewijs dat de Bijbel herzien of aangepast is, of dat er op een systematische wijze mee geknoeid zou zijn. Het overweldigende aantal Bijbelse manuscripten maakt het eenvoudig om pogingen om Gods Woord te verdraaien te herkennen. Geen enkele van de belangrijke doctrines van de Bijbel kan in twijfel worden getrokken vanwege de verschillen die er tussen de diverse manuscripten bestaan.
De vraag is dus, nogmaals, kunnen we de Bijbel vertrouwen? Absoluut! God heeft Zijn Woord behouden ondanks de onbewuste fouten en de doelgerichte aanvallen van menselijke wezens. We kunnen het grootste vertrouwen hebben dat de Bijbel die wij tegenwoordig hebben dezelfde Bijbel is die oorspronkelijk werd geschreven. De Bijbel is Gods Woord, en wij kunnen er op vertrouwen (2 Timoteüs 3:16; Matteüs 5:18).
Het verbaasd me eerlijk gezegd dat je nog niet het argument van Bart Ehrman hebt aangehaald van Forged waarin hij beweert dat de boeken in het Nieuwe Testament niet door de toegeschreven auteurs zelf zijn geschreven. Critici die het Nieuwe Testament bestuderen claimen namelijk dat de stijl van sommige brieven van Paulus bijvoorbeeld soms zo sterk wisselen dat ze niet door Paulus zijn geschreven maar door iemand anders.
Nou ik heb geen zin om er nu op in te gaan waarom deze visie niet klopt, daarvoor heb ik veeeeeeeel te veel tekst nodig en ligt veel te ingewikkeld. Wil ook zoveel mogelijk on-topic blijven.
Maar zie het zo maak een rijtje van 10 personen vertel de eerste een zin in zijn oor en laat die m doorgeven aan de volgende etc etc tot je alle 10 hebt gehad.
je komt tot een compleet andere zin.
zo geld het ook voor de bijbel, die is meerdere keren herschreven, van letterlijk over geschreven tot aanpassingen van de auteur.
nadeel is de oudste bijbel is van ongeveer 300 jaar naar Christus geschreven.
persoonlijk beschouw ik de bijbel als richtlijnen.
ben katholiek opgevoed, maar .....
[ Bericht 1% gewijzigd door theguyver op 11-05-2013 20:44:39 ]
Er staat nog een vraag voor u open!!
Klopt, maar er zijn duizenden manusscripten en die zijn bijna in het geheel identiek. Bovendien was het Joodse volk gespecialiseerd in mondelinge overdracht van verhalen. Hoe het schrijfproces precies gegaan is weet ik ook niet, maar ik geloof wel dat God in staat is om dat proces te geleiden. Als mensen in vreemde talen kunnen spreken om zo de heidenen te bekeren, dan kan hij ook middels de Heilige Geest ervoor zorgen dat de auteurs van de manusscripten correct hun info opschreven. Uiteindelijk hoe je het ook went of keert komt het toch op geloof aan. Geloof je niet dan kan je heel veel redenen aandragen om niet te geloven, geloof je wel kan je ook heel veel redenen aandragen om wel te geloven.quote:
[..]
ik heb je regel perongeluk doorgestreept.. sorry.
Maar zie het zo maak een rijtje van 10 personen vertel de eerste een zin in zijn oor en laat die m doorgeven aan de volgende etc etc tot je alle 10 hebt gehad.
je komt tot een compleet andere zin.
zo geld het ook voor de bijdel, die is meerdere keren herschreven, van letterlijk over geschreven tot aanpassingen van de auteur.
Iedereen zijn eigen geloof..quote:
[..]
Klopt, maar er zijn duizenden manusscripten en die zijn bijna in het geheel identiek. Bovendien was het Joodse volk gespecialiseerd in mondelinge overdracht van verhalen. Hoe het schrijfproces precies gegaan is weet ik ook niet, maar ik geloof wel dat God in staat is om dat proces te geleiden. Als mensen in vreemde talen kunnen spreken om zo de heidenen te bekeren, dan kan hij ook middels de Heilige Geest ervoor zorgen dat de auteurs van de manusscripten correct hun info opschreven. Uiteindelijk hoe je het ook went of keert komt het toch op geloof aan. Geloof je niet dan kan je heel veel redenen aandragen om niet te geloven, geloof je wel kan je ook heel veel redenen aandragen om wel te geloven.
Ik heb er misschien te veel over nagedacht.
Nou heb ik wel veel interesse over het geloof zelf.
het word veelal gebruikt in films over vampieren, de verhalen zelf the passion of the christ, the exorsist, end of day's the davincy code etc etc etc.
ow en natuurlijk onze eigen tijdsaanduiding ook al ben je niet christelijk we gebruiken allemaal het jaartal 2013
Er staat nog een vraag voor u open!!
quote:
[..]
Iedereen zijn eigen geloof..
Ik heb er misschien te veel over nagedacht.
Nou heb ik wel veel interesse over het geloof zelf.
het word veelal gebruikt in films over vampieren, de verhalen zelf the passion of the christ, the exorsist, end of day's the davincy code etc etc etc.
ow en natuurlijk onze eigen tijdsaanduiding ook al ben je niet christelijk we gebruiken allemaal het jaartal 2013
Klopt, het christelijke geloof is op een bepaalde Westerse manier nog erg populair, maar op een orthodoxe wijze is het christelijke geloof zeer zeker niet populair. Zolang alle mensen elkaar maar in hun waarde laten vind ik alles best .
drom, zelf Jehova getuigen mogen mij altijd lastig vallen.quote:
[..]
Heerlijk ze zijn vaak opdringerig maar dat kan ik beter.
nu tijd voor MUZIEK!!!!
Er staat nog een vraag voor u open!!
Interessante muzieksmaak voor een kerkdienst iddquote:
[..]
drom, zelf Jehova getuigen mogen mij altijd lastig vallen.
Heerlijk ze zijn vaak opdringerig maar dat kan ik beter.
nu tijd voor MUZIEK!!!!
Dit stukje vind ik zo mooi he
[youtube][/youtube]
Als ik dat luister krijg ik weer zin om naar de kerk te gaan. Maar dat is ook al ruim 13 jaar geleden dat ik een kerk heb bezocht
...
... oke ik absoluut niet...quote:
[..]
Interessante muzieksmaak voor een kerkdienst idd
Dit stukje vind ik zo mooi he
[youtube][/youtube]
Als ik dat luister krijg ik weer zin om naar de kerk te gaan. Maar dat is ook al ruim 13 jaar geleden dat ik een kerk heb bezocht
maja wat je ook kan doen is morgenvroeg kerkradio opzetten.
ik ben absoluut geen kerkganger meer, tenzij begravenis etc..
misschien wel katholiek opgevoed maar dat was het ook wel.
Er staat nog een vraag voor u open!!
Misschien moet je eens een Lutherse kerk bezoeken, dat is heel andersquote:
[..]
... oke ik absoluut niet...
maja wat je ook kan doen is morgenvroeg kerkradio opzetten.
ik ben absoluut geen kerkganger meer, tenzij begravenis etc..
misschien wel katholiek opgevoed maar dat was het ook wel.
. Persoonlijk vind ik de katholieke kerk maar een kil en koud instituut. (No offense) Wat ik me kan herinneren van protestantse kerkdiensten was dat er altijd over liefde werd gepraat, mensen waren aardig en er was gewoon een sfeer van liefde, niet te beschrijven eigenlijk. Ik denk dat het de aanwezigheid van de Heilige Geest is ofzo.
Dude, ehm no!quote:
[..]
Misschien moet je eens een Lutherse kerk bezoeken, dat is heel anders
no offense taken
Zoals ik al zei, ik heb niks meer met dat geloof..
behalve dat ik veel interessant vind ik ben geen gelovige meer.
nou ja.. behalve..dit
Er staat nog een vraag voor u open!!
haha, het spaghetti monster!! vind dit filmpje over dat monster wel geinigquote:
[..]
Dude, ehm no!
no offense taken
Zoals ik al zei, ik heb niks meer met dat geloof..
behalve dat ik veel interessant vind ik ben geen gelovige meer.
nou ja.. behalve..dit
[youtube][/youtube]
Again, het gaat om richtlijnen he.quote:
[..]
haha, het spaghetti monster!! vind dit filmpje over dat monster wel geinig
[youtube][/youtube]
NIet te veel over nadenken.
wie goed doet goed ontmoet
Er staat nog een vraag voor u open!!
Daar ben ik het wel mee eens. In dit leven is dat een zeer goed motto om bij te leven.quote:
[..]
Again, het gaat om richtlijnen he.
NIet te veel over nadenken.
wie goed doet goed ontmoet
Echter vanuit orthodox christelijk perspectief bezien zijn alle mensen geboren als zondige mensen en kunnen we alleen naar de hemel als we Jezus aannemen als offer voor onze zonden.
Sorry kan het niet mooier maken dan het is.
quote:
[..]
Daar ben ik het wel mee eens. In dit leven is dat een zeer goed motto om bij te leven.
Echter vanuit orthodox christelijk perspectief bezien zijn alle mensen geboren als zondige mensen en kunnen we alleen naar de hemel als we Jezus aannemen als offer voor onze zonden.
no thanks bevalt me goed zo
Er staat nog een vraag voor u open!!
To each his own. Moet ook wel eerlijk bekennen dat het niet altijd makkelijk is om een orthodoxe christen te zijn. Helemaal niet toen ik net geconfronteerd werd met een enorme berg kritiek. Er zat voor mij niks anders op dan mijzelf door die enorme berg heen te worstelen, en uiteindelijk is mijn geloof in de bijbel daardoor juist versterkt en niet afgenomen.quote:
Hoe dan ook, ik ben blij dat we elkaar kunnen dulden
. Heel vaak is het zo dat christenen en atheīsten elkaar gelijk aanvallen etc. Is allemaal nergens voor nodig Weet ook niet precies wie wel of niet naar de hemel gaan, ben tenslotte God niet. Weet ook niet hoe God oordeelt etc.Ik weet wel dat mensen zichzelf vaak overschatten. Zo dacht ik tot recentelijk nog redelijk goed over mijzelf totdat ik me herinnerde wat ik iemand had aangedaan. Kreeg toen een enorm schuldgevoel over me heen, niet te beschrijven. Dacht toen bij mijzelf, dit is wat mensen voelen als ze naar de hel gaan, een schuldbesef, een geweten dat gruwelijk aan je vreet. Ik denk dat mensen vaak niet beseffen wie ze werkelijk zijn. Maar dat is slechts mijn opvatting he
In elk geval is jouw levensinstelling van nuchterheid idd de beste. Atheīsme staat tweedes op mijn lijstje van beste "religies"
haha geen vliegend spaghetti monster? bedoel als je naar de algemene voorwaarden kijkt is zo gek nog niet + is altijd leuk om in te vullen op officiële papieren.quote:
[..]
To each his own. Moet ook wel eerlijk bekennen dat het niet altijd makkelijk is om een orthodoxe christen te zijn. Helemaal niet toen ik net geconfronteerd werd met een enorme berg kritiek. Er zat voor mij niks anders op dan mijzelf door die enorme berg heen te worstelen, en uiteindelijk is mijn geloof in de bijbel daardoor juist versterkt en niet afgenomen.
Hoe dan ook, ik ben blij dat we elkaar kunnen dulden
Ik weet wel dat mensen zichzelf vaak overschatten. Zo dacht ik tot recentelijk nog redelijk goed over mijzelf totdat ik me herinnerde wat ik iemand had aangedaan. Kreeg toen een enorm schuldgevoel over me heen, niet te beschrijven. Dacht toen bij mijzelf, dit is wat mensen voelen als ze naar de hel gaan, een schuldbesef, een geweten dat gruwelijk aan je vreet. Ik denk dat mensen vaak niet beseffen wie ze werkelijk zijn. Maar dat is slechts mijn opvatting he
of tijdens enquęte, staan ze je altijd raar aan te kijken, prachtig.
en inderdaad iedereen heeft zijn eigen geloof en als je het goed bekijkt zijn grotendeels de richtlijnen identiek.
helaas houd niet iedereen zich er aan, tenminste de belangrijkste richtlijnen.
Er staat nog een vraag voor u open!!
Het spaghettimonsterisme is tenminste wel een vreedzaam geloofquote:
[..]
haha geen vliegend spaghetti monster? bedoel als je naar de algemene voorwaarden kijkt is zo gek nog niet + is altijd leuk om in te vullen op officiële papieren.
of tijdens enquęte, staan ze je altijd raar aan te kijken, prachtig.
en inderdaad iedereen heeft zijn eigen geloof en als je het goed bekijkt zijn grotendeels de richtlijnen identiek.
helaas houd niet iedereen zich er aan, tenminste de belangrijkste richtlijnen.
. Nu nog een mooie spaghettibijbel met recepten, kokchef Ramsey als profeet, en een nieuwe religie doet zijn intrede Je hebt gelijk dat religies elkaar beter zouden moeten verdragen.
quote:
[..]
Het spaghettimonsterisme is tenminste wel een vreedzaam geloof
Je hebt gelijk dat religies elkaar beter zouden moeten verdragen.
Er staat nog een vraag voor u open!!
Dat is de traditie ja, die dit zegt. Maar de wetenschap heeft aangetoond dat dit onzin is. Jij zegt dat het er maar net aan ligt welke bril je ophebt. Ik heb zelf een bril en ik weet dat ik niet kan kijken door een bril met glazen van -1 sterkte, en mensen die slechts -1 hebben kunnen door mijn bril weer niks zien! En zo zit het ook met de orthodoxe kliek, jullie hebben gewoon eigenlijk een -7 sterkte nodig maar jullie zien door -2. Nogal wazig.quote:
[..]
Het hangt er maar net vanaf welke bril je draagt wat je allemaal ziet. Ik als bijbelgelovige zie theologische kwesties vanuit een heel ander perspectief. Hierdoor zouden we een eeuwige discussie op gang kunnen brengen maar dat gaat allemaal veel te diep om in een forum te behandelen. Wat ik wel duidelijk wil maken is dat er niet zoiets is als een "katholieke" bijbel en een "protestantse" bijbel, dat is niet slechts een semantische constatering. Van de gotquestions website:
Wat het Nieuwe Testament betreft begon het proces van erkenning en verzameling in de eerste eeuwen van de Christelijke kerk. Al zeer vroeg werden enkele boeken van het Nieuwe Testament erkend. Paulus beschouwde de geschriften van Lucas als net zo gezaghebbend als het Oude Testament (1 Timoteüs 5:18; zie ook Deuteronomium 25:4 en Lucas 10:7). Petrus erkende de geschriften van Paulus als Schriftteksten (2 Petrus 3:15-16). Enkele boeken van het Nieuwe Testament werden onder de kerken verspreid (Kolossenzen 4:16; 1 Tessalonicenzen 5:27). Clemens van Rome noemde tenminste acht boeken uit het Nieuwe Testament (95 na Christus). Ignatius van Antiochië erkende ongeveer zeven boeken (115 na Christus). Polycarpus, een discipel van de Apostel Johannes, erkende 15 boeken (108 na Christus). Later noemde Irenaeus 21 boeken (185 na Christus). Hippolytus erkende 22 boeken (170-235 na Christus). De boeken van het Nieuwe Testament die het meest betwist werden waren Hebreeën, Jakobus, 2 Petrus, 2 Johannes en 3 Johannes. De eerste “canon” was de Muratorische Canon, die in 170 na Christus werd samengesteld. De Muratorische Canon bevatte alle boeken van het Nieuwe Testament behalve Hebreeën, Jakobus en 3 Johannes. In 363 na Christus stelde het Concilie van Laodicea dat het Oude Testament (samen met de Apocriefen) en de 27 boeken van het Nieuwe Testament in de kerken zouden moeten worden gelezen. Het Concilie van Hippo (393 na Christus) en het Concilie van Carthago (397 na Christus) bevestigden eveneens dat diezelfde 27 boeken gezagdragend waren.
Petrus erkende de brieven van Paulus in een brief die hij zelf niet eens geschreven heeft. Briljante vondst
En ik lees net even jouw tekst door, jij beweert nu ineens dat er niet iets is als een katholieke en protestante bijbel. Laat ik dat aldoor al beweert hebben, ik heb zelfs een wikipagina laten zien met daarop de canon van zowel de katholieke kerk als de protestantse kerk (in het Westen dan vooral) en die was precies gelijk. Er stond ook nog dat Luther er even aan dacht om bepaalde brieven uit zijn canon te houden (dat ging over bepaalde brieven van Paulus en zelfs Openbaring, die niet geschreven was door Johannes) maar dat hij daar toch vanaf zag. Dus OF je hebt mijn verhaal niet goed begrepen OF niet goed gelezen.
Goede genade zeg. Dit mag je allemaal best geloven hoor, maar je kan het beter voor je houden. Als je enkel punt 1 neemt zou je in principe alle boeken uit het NT kunnen halen. Want niemand van de apostelen heeft ook maar een jota geschreven.quote:Om te bepalen of een boek van het Nieuwe Testament werkelijk door de Heilige Geest was geīnspireerd, volgden deze concilies een methode die eender is aan de volgende principes: 1) Was de auteur een apostel of had deze een nauwe relatie met een apostel? 2) Is het boek in het algemeen door Het Lichaam van Christus geaccepteerd? 3) Bevatte het boek een consequente doctrine en orthodoxe leerstellingen? 4) Droeg het boek de kenmerken van een hoge moraliteit en geestelijke waarden die door een werkzaamheid van de Heilige Geest zou worden weerspiegeld? Nogmaals, het is cruciaal om te onthouden dat de canon niet door de kerk werd vastgesteld. Geen enkel vroeg kerkelijk concilie besliste wat de canon zou zijn. De boeken die in de Bijbel thuishoorden werden door God, en alleen door God, bepaald. God overtuigde Zijn volgelingen eenvoudigweg van wat Hij Zelf reeds had besloten. Het menselijk proces van het verzamelen van de boeken van de Bijbel had zijn tekortkomingen, maar in Zijn soevereiniteit leidde God, ondanks onze onwetendheid en koppigheid, de vroege kerk er toe om de boeken te erkennen die door Hem waren geīnspireerd.
God zelf heeft ook niks bepaald, dat deden die bisschoppen en dergelijke op de concilies. Wel eens gelezen hoe dat er aan toe ging, en hoe ze komaf maakten met iedereen die hun zin niet deed? Of houdt je je hier doof en blind voor en blijf je maar orakelen over de fantastische werking van de onzichtbare Heilige Geest. Dit is hetzelfde als de kleren van de keizer. Mooie kleren he Wiseguy?
Ik vind het ook volkomen belachelijk en niet meer van deze tijd. Maar, en dat is een zeer belangrijke vraag, waarom kom je hier om mensen te waarschuwen voor de ZDA terwijl je zelf deze kinderlijke zaken veronderstelt en gelooft? Denk je echt dat mensen die jou nu lezen jou nog serieus nemen als het gaat om de ZDA en hun leer? Als je al gelooft in de werking van een onzichtbaar iets, hoe kun jij dan oordelen of een sekte goed of slecht is? Straks ga je nog beweren dat je gelooft in kaboutertjes die in de nacht de afwas doen voor jou.quote:Ik als gelovige neem aan dat de Heilige Geest het proces van canonisering heeft geleid in de eerste eeuwen na Christus. Dat mag je uiteraard volstrekt belachelijk en idioot vinden
Echt grappig zeg. Je doet alsof ik vragen stel en jij die eens eventjes kan gaan beantwoorden. Zo zie ik dat niet. Jij bent nog vreemder dan Ali en KoningDavid bij elkaar, serieus. In je geloof dan, hoe je werkelijk bent weet k natuurlijk niet. Die 2 Tim hoort bij de herderlijke brieven van Paulus, en wetenschappers zeggen dat die niet van Paulus zijn.quote:Aangezien je een veel voorkomend geluid laat horen mbt. commentaar op het auteurschap van de bijbel lijkt het me wel interessant een lijstje van auteurs te vermelden
Vraag: "Wie waren de schrijvers van de boeken van de Bijbel?"
Antwoord: Uiteindelijk is het zo dat de Bijbel door God werd geschreven. 2 Timoteüs 3:16 vertelt ons dat de Bijbel door God “ingegeven” of “geīnspireerd” werd. God zag toe op de menselijke schrijvers van de Bijbel zodat zij precies vastlegden wat God had bedoeld, ook al gebruikten zij ieder hun eigen schrijfstijl en persoonlijkheid. De Bijbel werd niet door God gedicteerd, maar werd wel op perfecte manier door Hem geleid en volledig door Hem ingegeven.
Helemaal niet. Mozes is OF fictie of gebaseerd op meerdere personen. Mattheus is geschreven door een onbekende man of vrouw. Johannes idem dito.quote:Op menselijk niveau werd de Bijbel door ongeveer 40 mannen met verscheidene achtergronden geschreven, over een periode van ongeveer 1500 jaar. Jesaja was een profeet, Ezra was een priester, Matteüs was een belastinginner, Johannes was een visser, Paulus was een tentmaker, Mozes was een herder, Lucas was een arts.
http://www.bol.com/nl/p/wie-schreef-de-bijbel/1001004006421079/
Lees dit boek maar eens, dan weet je een beetje de werking van de profeten en priesters ten bate van geschriften uit de bijbel.
De meeste geschriften uit de Bijbel zijn geschreven ongeveer 500 vC toen de Joden in ballingschap waren in Babylonië.
Weleens gegoogled op contradicties in de bijbel?quote:Ondanks het feit dat de Bijbel over een periode van meer dan 15 eeuwen door verschillende auteurs werd geschreven, spreekt de Bijbel zichzelf niet tegen en bevat de Bijbel geen enkele fouten.
http://home-1.tiscali.nl/~ti112509/contradict.htm
http://www.freethinker.nl/forum/viewtopic.php?t=253
En dit is zware kost met bijna 500 tegenstrijdigheden:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html
Dus je beweert ook nog dat er in het OT verwezen wordt naar Jezus Christus, en dat ze ook allemaal verwijzen naar het zoenoffer om weer bij god te komen? Menselijk zoenoffer wel ter verstaan. Ik durf te wedden dat dit niet zo is. Wel hebben de schrijvers zaken zodanig geīnterpreteerd en daar een verhaal omheen geschreven.quote:Elk van de schrijvers biedt een ander perspectief, maar zij verkondigen allemaal de ene ware God en dezelfde ene weg naar de redding – Jezus Christus (Johannes 14:6; Handelingen 4:12).
Een mooi voorbeeld is dit: http://www.bol.com/nl/p/de-schaduw-van-jezus/9200000002578454/
Een boek over de profetieeen die zogenaamd over Jezus zouden gaan. Wat zien we bij de recensie staan? " De auteurs gaan echter voorbij aan het feit dat de evangelisten het levensverhaal van Jezus destijds deels gemodelleerd hebben naar het Oude Testament om hun idee dat Jezus de aangekondigde Messias was kracht bij te zetten. Er is dan ook sprake van een cirkelredenering als men vervolgens parallellen ontdekt. Het boek richt zich duidelijk op de gelovige lezer." En jij bent dus een gelovige, die geheel aan de hedendaagse kijk van zaken langs gaat. En vervolgens wel andere sekten allemaal dingen verwijt. Vind ik niet kloppen, serieus.
Ik wist niet dat christenen zoveel leugens mochten vertellen, maar liegen voor de Goede Zaak mag zeker wel? Genesis tot Deut is niet geschreven door Mozes maar door verschillende groepen.quote:Slechts enkele van de boeken van de Bijbel vermelden specifiek wie de schrijver was. Hier volgen de boeken van de Bijbel, samen met de naam van de meest waarschijnlijke schrijver volgens de Bijbelse schriftgeleerden en (ruwweg) de datum van schrijven:
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri, Deuteronomium = Mozes - 1400 v.C.
Jozua = Jozua - 1350 v.C.
Rechters, Ruth, 1 Samuël, 2 Samuël = Samuël/Natan/Gad - 1000 - 900 v.C.
1 Koningen, 2 Koningen = Jeremia - 600 v.C.
1 Kronieken, 2 Kronieken, Ezra, Nehemia = Ezra - 450 v.C.
Ester = Mordechai - 400 v.C.
Job = Mozes - 1400 v.C.
Psalmen = diverse schrijvers, vooral David - 1000 - 400 v.C.
Spreuken, Prediker, Hooglied = Salomo - 900 v.C.
Jesaja = Jesaja - 700 v.C.
Jeremia, Klaagliederen = Jeremia - 600 v.C.
Ezechiël = Ezechiël - 550 v.C.
Daniël = Daniël - 550 v.C.
Hosea = Hosea - 750 v.C.
Joël = Joël - 850 v.C.
Amos = Amos - 750 v.C.
Obadja = Obadja - 600 v.C.
Jona = Jona - 700 v.C.
Micha = Micha - 700 v.C.
Nahum = Nahum - 650 v.C.
Habakuk = Habakuk - 600 v.C.
Zefanja = Zefanja - 650 v.C.
Haggai = Haggai - 520 v.C.
Zacharia = Zacharia - 500 v.C.
Maleachi = Maleachi - 430 v.C.
Matteüs = Matteüs – 55 n.C.
Marcus = Johannes Marcus - 50 n.C.
Lucas = Lucas – 60 n.C.
Johannes = Johannes – 90 n.C.
Handelingen = Lucas – 65 n.C.
Romeinen, 1 Korintiërs, 2 Korintiërs, Galaten, Efeziërs, Filippenzen, Kolossenzen, 1 Tessalonicenzen, 2 Tessalonicenzen, 1 Timoteüs, 2 Timoteüs, Titus, Filemon = Paulus – 50-70 n.C.
Hebreeën = onbekend, waarschijnlijk Paulus, Lucas, Barnabas of Apollos – 65 n.C.
Jakobus = Jakobus – 45 n.C.
1 Petrus, 2 Petrus = Petrus – 60 n.C.
1 Johannes, 2 Johannes, 3 Johannes = Johannes – 90 n.C.
Judas = Judas - 60 n.C.
Openbaring = Johannes – 90 n.C.
http://www.statenvertaling.net/oude-testament.html
Dit met betrekking tot Paulus zijn echte brieven http://www.statenvertaling.net/bijbel/romeinen.html
http://www.statenvertaling.net/nieuwe-testament.html
Je gebruikt een aantal debatteermanieren die mij niet aanstaan. Elke onbevooroordeelde schriftgeleerde? Dus iemand die het niet met je eens is is niet onbevooroordeeld. Ik geloof mijn ogen niet. Dat het OT niet is aangepast, dat is mij wel duidelijk. Maar dat het NT niet is aangepast? Nee, daar geloof ik niks van. Het begon al met de totstandkoming van de canon. Vervolgens werden brieven van namen voorzien die niks met die brief of evangelie te maken hadden. En dit werd vervolgens 1500 jaar zo enorm de mensheid ingewreven dat zelfs nu mensen klakkeloos van de waarheid uitgaan. Paulus brieven zijn door bijbelvertalers willens en weten anders gemaakt omdat ze niks met zijn uitspraken konden, die gnostische termen in zich hadden. Enz enz.quote:Met betrekking tot je suggestie dat de bijbel een fraudulent boek is, is dit mijn visie:
Vraag: "Is de Bijbel verdraaid, gewijzigd, aangepast of herzien, of is er mee geknoeid?"
Antwoord: De boeken van het Oude Testament werden ongeveer tussen 1400 en 400 v.C. geschreven. De boeken van het Nieuwe Testament werden ongeveer tussen 40 en 90 n.C. geschreven. Er zijn dus tussen 3400 tot 1900 jaar verstreken sinds een bepaald boek van de Bijbel werd geschreven. Sindsdien zijn de originele manuscripten verloren gegaan. Het is waarschijnlijk dat die niet meer bestaan. Sindsdien zijn de boeken van de Bijbel ook steeds weer gekopieerd. Er zijn kopieën van kopieën van kopieën gemaakt. Kunnen we de Bijbel, met dit alles in het achterhoofd, nog steeds vertrouwen?
Toen God de mannen oorspronkelijk inspireerde om Zijn Woord op te schrijven, was dit door Hem ingegeven en foutloos (2 Timoteüs 3:16-17, Johannes 17:17). De Bijbel beweert nergens dat dit ook geldt voor kopieën van de originele manuscripten. Ook al waren de Joodse kopieerders ontzettend nauwgezet in hun overlevering van de Schriftteksten, toch is niemand perfect. Hierdoor ontstonden kleine verschillen tussen de diverse kopieën van de teksten. Van alle duizenden Griekse en Hebreeuwse manuscripten waren er geen twee identiek vķķr de uitvinding van de drukpers in de 16e eeuw.
Maar, elke onbevooroordeelde schriftgeleerde zal het er mee eens zijn dat de Bijbel door de eeuwen heen opmerkelijk goed behouden is gebleven. Kopieën van de Bijbel uit de 14e eeuw zijn inhoudelijk bijna identiek aan kopieën uit de 3e eeuw na Christus. Toen de Dode Zee Rollen werden ontdekt, waren de schriftgeleerden geschokt door de overeenkomsten van deze rollen met andere oude kopieën van het Oude Testament, ook al waren de Dode Zee Rollen honderden jaren ouder dan enige andere Bijbelse tekst die ooit ontdekt was. Zelfs een groot aantal geharde sceptici en critici van de Bijbel geeft toe dat de Bijbel door de eeuwen heen veel nauwkeuriger is overgeleverd dan enig ander document uit de oudheid.
Man man, waar ben je mee bezig?quote:Er bestaat absoluut geen bewijs dat de Bijbel herzien of aangepast is, of dat er op een systematische wijze mee geknoeid zou zijn. Het overweldigende aantal Bijbelse manuscripten maakt het eenvoudig om pogingen om Gods Woord te verdraaien te herkennen. Geen enkele van de belangrijke doctrines van de Bijbel kan in twijfel worden getrokken vanwege de verschillen die er tussen de diverse manuscripten bestaan.
De bijbel is waar, want dat staat er. Toevallig staat er in mijn bijbel in Kolossensen 4:19 "P.S. ik schrijf deze brief in de hoop dat mensen mij gaan geloven. Hoe dom ik ook uit mijn nek sta te kletsen. Dan kom ik ongeveer 3000 jaar na dato terug en kijk wat ze van mijn brieven gemaakt hebben. Dan kan ik nog eens goed lachen. Mijn bode Filemon zal deze brief op de post doen, en ik zet dan nog even snel de spuit in mijn arm. Daar krijg ik visioenen van. Tabee, en droom er niet van groetjes Paulus"quote:De vraag is dus, nogmaals, kunnen we de Bijbel vertrouwen? Absoluut! God heeft Zijn Woord behouden ondanks de onbewuste fouten en de doelgerichte aanvallen van menselijke wezens. We kunnen het grootste vertrouwen hebben dat de Bijbel die wij tegenwoordig hebben dezelfde Bijbel is die oorspronkelijk werd geschreven. De Bijbel is Gods Woord, en wij kunnen er op vertrouwen (2 Timoteüs 3:16; Matteüs 5:18).
Al die termen heb ik wel even gedacht ja. Maar eigenlijk zijn dit soort discussies wel lachen. Goed voor mijn ego. Hoe meer onzin jij hier neerzet hoe minder ik bang hoef te zijn om overgehaald te worden ook christen te worden. Integendeel.quote:
Ik heb hier toch al eens geroepen dat de ene brief van paulus niet van hemzelf is? Maar daar heb ik Bart Ehrman niet voor nodig. Daar heb ik persoonlijk niet zo'n hoge pet van op. Die man loopt mij iets te veel achter de muziek aan.quote:Het verbaasd me eerlijk gezegd dat je nog niet het argument van Bart Ehrman hebt aangehaald van Forged waarin hij beweert dat de boeken in het Nieuwe Testament niet door de toegeschreven auteurs zelf zijn geschreven. Critici die het Nieuwe Testament bestuderen claimen namelijk dat de stijl van sommige brieven van Paulus bijvoorbeeld soms zo sterk wisselen dat ze niet door Paulus zijn geschreven maar door iemand anders.
Ik heb weinig pet op van die Ehrman, maar nog minder van jou. Ik ben benieuwd welke "argumenten" jij hebt tegen zijn argumenten. Zal waarschijnlijk weer zijn in de trend van "alle schrift is van gode gekomen" dat staat in Timotheus zoveel vers zoveel. En ook Petrus zegt dat het allemaal geestelijk geinspireerd is, dat staat in Petrus II:27. En zelfs Mozes zegt in Leviticus 28 dat we de hele bijbel moeten geloven, of anders zullen we de plagen krijgen die ook over Egypte zijn gekomen.quote:Nou ik heb geen zin om er nu op in te gaan waarom deze visie niet klopt, daarvoor heb ik veeeeeeeel te veel tekst nodig en ligt veel te ingewikkeld. Wil ook zoveel mogelijk on-topic blijven.
"Bettler aber sollte man ganz abschaffen! Wahrlich, man ärgert sich ihnen zu geben und ärgert sich ihnen nicht zu geben."
Friedrich Nietzsche
Friedrich Nietzsche
"Bettler aber sollte man ganz abschaffen! Wahrlich, man ärgert sich ihnen zu geben und ärgert sich ihnen nicht zu geben."
Friedrich Nietzsche
Friedrich Nietzsche
quote:
Ik heb weinig pet op van die Ehrman, maar nog minder van jou. Ik ben benieuwd welke "argumenten" jij hebt tegen zijn argumenten. Zal waarschijnlijk weer zijn in de trend van "alle schrift is van gode gekomen" dat staat in Timotheus zoveel vers zoveel. En ook Petrus zegt dat het allemaal geestelijk geinspireerd is, dat staat in Petrus II:27. En zelfs Mozes zegt in Leviticus 28 dat we de hele bijbel moeten geloven, of anders zullen we de plagen krijgen die ook over Egypte zijn gekomen.
Als je denkt dat ik al je commentaar ga debunken heb je het mis, want dan ben ik volgende week nog bezig. Ik wil alleen duidelijk vooropstellen dat ik bekend ben met al jouw kritiek en dat ik mijn huiswerk heb gedaan en tot de conclusie gekomen ben dat de bijbel waarheidsgetrouw is .FF kort wat foutjes in je post aanhalen
:Wat ik bedoelde met de term "katholieke" bijbel is dat het niet zo is dat de katholieke kerk verantwoordelijk is voor het feit dat we een bijbel hebben. Jij leek dit in een vorige post te impliceren.
Met betrekking tot het auteurschap van de bijbel, daar zijn de meningen over verdeeld inderdaad. Jij stelt dat Mozes niet de auteur is van de eerste 5 Bijbelboeken en gebruikt daarbij een link die zelf verklaart dat:
De joodse Tenach bestond uit drie delen: de Thora (=wet, de vijf boeken van Mozes).....
Zelf ben ik van mening dat jouw visie verkeerd is en de mijne juist is
. Ik ben bekend met die aanklachten, de boeken waar jij naar verwijst zijn babyliteratuur vergeleken met de boeken van Dr. Bart Ehrman. Hij was de eerste die kwam met de claim dat de bijbel een fraudulent boek is. Met betrekking tot tegenstrijdigheden, ik ben er nog nooit eentje tegengekomen
. Wel veel schijnbare tegenstellingen, maar als je deze in context plaatst etc. zijn er altijd logische verklaringen voor te vinden.Met betrekking tot de samenstelling van de bijbel is het duidelijk dat we inderdaad uiteenlopende visies hebben.
Temidden van alle discussie, doctrines, feiten, meningen, opinies, alle 'ik weet het beter', 'ik heb gelijk', 'ik heb de waarheid', 'ik ben slim' en 'wat een onzin allemaal', zou ik graag de de kern van het geloof in zang willen plaatsen, Jezus Christus en Zijn liefde voor de mensheid.
What a Friend we have in Jesus, all our sins and griefs to bear!
What a privilege to carry everything to God in prayer!
O what peace we often forfeit, O what needless pain we bear,
All because we do not carry everything to God in prayer.
Have we trials and temptations? Is there trouble anywhere?
We should never be discouraged; take it to the Lord in prayer.
Can we find a friend so faithful who will all our sorrows share?
Jesus knows our every weakness; take it to the Lord in prayer.
Are we weak and heavy laden, cumbered with a load of care?
Precious Savior, still our refuge, take it to the Lord in prayer.
Do your friends despise, forsake you? Take it to the Lord in prayer!
In His arms He’ll take and shield you; you will find a solace there.
Blessed Savior, Thou hast promised Thou wilt all our burdens bear
May we ever, Lord, be bringing all to Thee in earnest prayer.
Soon in glory bright unclouded there will be no need for prayer
Rapture, praise and endless worship will be our sweet portion there.
Wat een Vriend hebben we in Jezus, al onze zonden en pijnen gedragen!
Wat een privilege om alles tot God te dragen!
O wat een vrede we verlaten, o wat een nodeloze pijn we dragen,
Allemaal omdat we niet alles tot God in gebeden dragen.
Hebben we beproevingen en verleidingen? Zijn er ergens problemen?
We zouden nooit ontmoedigd moeten raken, breng het naar de Heer in gebeden.
Kunnen we een vriend zo trouw vinden die al ons leed zal delen,
Jezus kent al onze zwakheden, neem het tot de Heer in gebeden.
Zijn we zwak en zwaar beladen, belast met een lading zorgen?
Dierbare Redder, nog altijd onze vlucht, neem het tot de Heer in gebeden.
Verlaten en bespotten je vrienden je? Neem het tot de Heer in gebeden!
In Zijn armen zal Hij je nemen en beschermen, daar zul je rust vinden.
Gezegende Redder, U heeft beloofd, U zal al onze zorgen dragen.
Dat we altijd, Heer, alles tot U in eerlijke gebeden mogen brengen.
Spoedig in glorie helder onbewolkt dar zal geen noodzaak zijn voor bidden,
Verlossing, prijs en oneindige aanbidding daar zal ons zoete deel zijn.
[ Bericht 2% gewijzigd door Ali_Kannibali op 11-05-2013 23:44:20 ]
What a Friend we have in Jesus, all our sins and griefs to bear!
What a privilege to carry everything to God in prayer!
O what peace we often forfeit, O what needless pain we bear,
All because we do not carry everything to God in prayer.
Have we trials and temptations? Is there trouble anywhere?
We should never be discouraged; take it to the Lord in prayer.
Can we find a friend so faithful who will all our sorrows share?
Jesus knows our every weakness; take it to the Lord in prayer.
Are we weak and heavy laden, cumbered with a load of care?
Precious Savior, still our refuge, take it to the Lord in prayer.
Do your friends despise, forsake you? Take it to the Lord in prayer!
In His arms He’ll take and shield you; you will find a solace there.
Blessed Savior, Thou hast promised Thou wilt all our burdens bear
May we ever, Lord, be bringing all to Thee in earnest prayer.
Soon in glory bright unclouded there will be no need for prayer
Rapture, praise and endless worship will be our sweet portion there.
Wat een Vriend hebben we in Jezus, al onze zonden en pijnen gedragen!
Wat een privilege om alles tot God te dragen!
O wat een vrede we verlaten, o wat een nodeloze pijn we dragen,
Allemaal omdat we niet alles tot God in gebeden dragen.
Hebben we beproevingen en verleidingen? Zijn er ergens problemen?
We zouden nooit ontmoedigd moeten raken, breng het naar de Heer in gebeden.
Kunnen we een vriend zo trouw vinden die al ons leed zal delen,
Jezus kent al onze zwakheden, neem het tot de Heer in gebeden.
Zijn we zwak en zwaar beladen, belast met een lading zorgen?
Dierbare Redder, nog altijd onze vlucht, neem het tot de Heer in gebeden.
Verlaten en bespotten je vrienden je? Neem het tot de Heer in gebeden!
In Zijn armen zal Hij je nemen en beschermen, daar zul je rust vinden.
Gezegende Redder, U heeft beloofd, U zal al onze zorgen dragen.
Dat we altijd, Heer, alles tot U in eerlijke gebeden mogen brengen.
Spoedig in glorie helder onbewolkt dar zal geen noodzaak zijn voor bidden,
Verlossing, prijs en oneindige aanbidding daar zal ons zoete deel zijn.
[ Bericht 2% gewijzigd door Ali_Kannibali op 11-05-2013 23:44:20 ]
quote:
Temidden van alle discussie, doctrines, feiten, meningen, opinies, alle 'ik weet het beter', 'ik heb gelijk', 'ik heb de waarheid', 'ik ben slim' en 'wat een onzin allemaal', zou ik graag de de kern van het geloof in zang willen plaatsen, Jezus Christus en Zijn liefde voor de mensheid.
What a Friend we have in Jesus, all our sins and griefs to bear!
What a privilege to carry everything to God in prayer!
O what peace we often forfeit, O what needless pain we bear,
All because we do not carry everything to God in prayer.
Have we trials and temptations? Is there trouble anywhere?
We should never be discouraged; take it to the Lord in prayer.
Can we find a friend so faithful who will all our sorrows share?
Jesus knows our every weakness; take it to the Lord in prayer.
Are we weak and heavy laden, cumbered with a load of care?
Precious Savior, still our refuge, take it to the Lord in prayer.
Do your friends despise, forsake you? Take it to the Lord in prayer!
In His arms He’ll take and shield you; you will find a solace there.
Blessed Savior, Thou hast promised Thou wilt all our burdens bear
May we ever, Lord, be bringing all to Thee in earnest prayer.
Soon in glory bright unclouded there will be no need for prayer
Rapture, praise and endless worship will be our sweet portion there.
Wat een Vriend hebben we in Jezus, al onze zonden en pijnen gedragen!
Wat een privilege om alles tot God te dragen!
O wat een vrede we verlaten, o wat een nodeloze pijn we dragen,
Allemaal omdat we niet alles tot God in gebeden dragen.
Hebben we beproevingen en verleidingen? Zijn er ergens problemen?
We zouden nooit ontmoedigd moeten raken, breng het naar de Heer in gebeden.
Kunnen we een vriend zo trouw vinden die al ons leed zal delen,
Jezus kent al onze zwakheden, neem het tot de Heer in gebeden.
Zijn we zwak en zwaar beladen, belast met een lading zorgen?
Dierbare Redder, nog altijd onze vlucht, neem het tot de Heer in gebeden.
Verlaten en bespotten je vrienden je? Neem het tot de Heer in gebeden!
In Zijn armen zal Hij je nemen en beschermen, daar zul je rust vinden.
Gezegende Redder, U heeft beloofd, U zal al onze zorgen dragen.
Dat we altijd, Heer, alles tot U in eerlijk gebeden mogen brengen.
Spoedig in glorie helder onbewolkt dar zal geen noodzaak zijn voor bidden,
Verlossing, prijs en oneindige aanbidding daar zal ons zoete deel zijn.
Bedankt voor je positieve insteek Ali!
Blessed assurance, Jesus is mine!
O what a foretaste of glory divine!
Heir of salvation, purchase of God,
born of his Spirit, washed in his blood.
Refrain:
This is my story, this is my song,
praising my Savior all the day long;
this is my story, this is my song,
praising my Savior all the day long.
2. Perfect submission, perfect delight,
visions of rapture now burst on my sight;
angels descending bring from above
echoes of mercy, whispers of love.
(Refrain)
3. Perfect submission, all is at rest;
I in my Savior am happy and blest,
watching and waiting, looking above,
filled with his goodness, lost in his love.
(Refrain)
Gezegende geruststelling, Jezus is de mijne!
Oh wat een voorproef van hemelse glorie!
Erfgenaam van verlossing, gekochte door God,
geboren uit Zijn Geest, gewassen in Zijn bloed.
Dit is mijn verhaal, dit is mijn lied,
mijn Verlosser prijzen, de hele dag lang,
dit is mijn verhaal, dit is mijn lied,
mijn Verlosser prijzen, de hele dag lang.
Perfecte onderwerping, perfecte heerlijkheid,
visioenen van verlossing verpletteren mijn zicht,
engelen neerdalend brengen van boven,
echo's van genade, fluisteringen van liefde.
Perfecte onderwerping, alles is tot rust.
Ik in mijn Redder ben gelukkig en gezegend.
Kijkend en wachtend, kijkend naar boven,
gevuld met Zijn goedheid, verloren in Zijn liefde.
O what a foretaste of glory divine!
Heir of salvation, purchase of God,
born of his Spirit, washed in his blood.
Refrain:
This is my story, this is my song,
praising my Savior all the day long;
this is my story, this is my song,
praising my Savior all the day long.
2. Perfect submission, perfect delight,
visions of rapture now burst on my sight;
angels descending bring from above
echoes of mercy, whispers of love.
(Refrain)
3. Perfect submission, all is at rest;
I in my Savior am happy and blest,
watching and waiting, looking above,
filled with his goodness, lost in his love.
(Refrain)
Gezegende geruststelling, Jezus is de mijne!
Oh wat een voorproef van hemelse glorie!
Erfgenaam van verlossing, gekochte door God,
geboren uit Zijn Geest, gewassen in Zijn bloed.
Dit is mijn verhaal, dit is mijn lied,
mijn Verlosser prijzen, de hele dag lang,
dit is mijn verhaal, dit is mijn lied,
mijn Verlosser prijzen, de hele dag lang.
Perfecte onderwerping, perfecte heerlijkheid,
visioenen van verlossing verpletteren mijn zicht,
engelen neerdalend brengen van boven,
echo's van genade, fluisteringen van liefde.
Perfecte onderwerping, alles is tot rust.
Ik in mijn Redder ben gelukkig en gezegend.
Kijkend en wachtend, kijkend naar boven,
gevuld met Zijn goedheid, verloren in Zijn liefde.
Die heb ik niet gezien. De titel geeft al weer met wat voor soort geest dat gemaakt is, ik ga mijn tijd daar niet aan verdoen.quote:
Ali wat vond je van het filmpje van Nephtali1981?
Kijk em nou gewoonquote:
[..]
Die heb ik niet gezien. De titel geeft al weer met wat voor soort geest dat gemaakt is, ik ga mijn tijd daar niet aan verdoen.
Berjan, jij trekt wel erg snel conclusies met betrekking tot het auteurschap van de Torah. Zelfs Britannica is gematigder dan jou:
Historical views of Moses
Few historical figures have engendered such disparate interpretations as has Moses. Early Jewish and Christian traditions considered him the author of the Torah (“Law,” or “Teaching”), also called the Pentateuch (“Five Books”), comprising the first five books of the Bible, and some conservative groups still believe in Mosaic authorship.
Opposing this is the theory of the German scholar Martin Noth, who, while granting that Moses may have had something to do with the preparations for the conquest of Canaan, was very skeptical of the roles attributed to him by tradition. Although recognizing a historical core beneath the Exodus and Sinai traditions, Noth believed that two different groups experienced these events and transmitted the stories independently of each other. He contended that the biblical story tracing the Hebrews from Egypt to Canaan resulted from an editor’s weaving separate themes and traditions around a main character Moses, actually an obscure person from Moab.
This article, following the lead of the biblical archaeologist and historian W.F. Albright, presents a point of view that falls somewhere between these two extremes. While the essence of the biblical story (narrated between Exodus 1:8 and Deuteronomy 34:12) is accepted, it is recognized that, during the centuries of oral and written transmission, the account acquired layers of accretions. The reconstruction of the documentary sources of the Pentateuch by literary critics is considered valid, but the sources are viewed as varying versions of one series of events (see biblical literature: The Torah [Law, Pentateuch, or Five Books of Moses]). Other critical methods (studying the biblical text from the standpoint of literary form, oral tradition, style, redaction, and archaeology) are equally valid. The most accurate answer to a critical problem is therefore likely to come from the convergence of various lines of evidence. The aid of critical scholarship notwithstanding, the sources are so sketchy that the man Moses can be portrayed only in broad outline.
The date of Moses
According to the biblical account, Moses’ parents were from the tribe of Levi, one of the groups in Egypt called Hebrews. Originally the term Hebrew had nothing to do with race or ethnic origin. It derived from Habiru, a variant spelling of Ḫapiru (Apiru), a designation of a class of people who made their living by hiring themselves out for various services. The biblical Hebrews had been in Egypt for generations, but apparently they became a threat, so one of the pharaohs enslaved them. Unfortunately, the personal name of the king is not given, and scholars have disagreed as to his identity and, hence, as to the date of the events of the narrative of Moses. One theory takes literally the statement in I Kings 6:1 that the Exodus from Egypt occurred 480 years before Solomon began building the Temple in Jerusalem. This occurred in the fourth year of his reign, about 960 bce; therefore, the Exodus would date about 1440 bce.
Historical views of Moses
Few historical figures have engendered such disparate interpretations as has Moses. Early Jewish and Christian traditions considered him the author of the Torah (“Law,” or “Teaching”), also called the Pentateuch (“Five Books”), comprising the first five books of the Bible, and some conservative groups still believe in Mosaic authorship.
Opposing this is the theory of the German scholar Martin Noth, who, while granting that Moses may have had something to do with the preparations for the conquest of Canaan, was very skeptical of the roles attributed to him by tradition. Although recognizing a historical core beneath the Exodus and Sinai traditions, Noth believed that two different groups experienced these events and transmitted the stories independently of each other. He contended that the biblical story tracing the Hebrews from Egypt to Canaan resulted from an editor’s weaving separate themes and traditions around a main character Moses, actually an obscure person from Moab.
This article, following the lead of the biblical archaeologist and historian W.F. Albright, presents a point of view that falls somewhere between these two extremes. While the essence of the biblical story (narrated between Exodus 1:8 and Deuteronomy 34:12) is accepted, it is recognized that, during the centuries of oral and written transmission, the account acquired layers of accretions. The reconstruction of the documentary sources of the Pentateuch by literary critics is considered valid, but the sources are viewed as varying versions of one series of events (see biblical literature: The Torah [Law, Pentateuch, or Five Books of Moses]). Other critical methods (studying the biblical text from the standpoint of literary form, oral tradition, style, redaction, and archaeology) are equally valid. The most accurate answer to a critical problem is therefore likely to come from the convergence of various lines of evidence. The aid of critical scholarship notwithstanding, the sources are so sketchy that the man Moses can be portrayed only in broad outline.
The date of Moses
According to the biblical account, Moses’ parents were from the tribe of Levi, one of the groups in Egypt called Hebrews. Originally the term Hebrew had nothing to do with race or ethnic origin. It derived from Habiru, a variant spelling of Ḫapiru (Apiru), a designation of a class of people who made their living by hiring themselves out for various services. The biblical Hebrews had been in Egypt for generations, but apparently they became a threat, so one of the pharaohs enslaved them. Unfortunately, the personal name of the king is not given, and scholars have disagreed as to his identity and, hence, as to the date of the events of the narrative of Moses. One theory takes literally the statement in I Kings 6:1 that the Exodus from Egypt occurred 480 years before Solomon began building the Temple in Jerusalem. This occurred in the fourth year of his reign, about 960 bce; therefore, the Exodus would date about 1440 bce.
Psalmen 119
1 Aleph. Welgelukzalig zijn de oprechten van wandel, die in de wet des HEEREN gaan.
2 Welgelukzalig zijn zij, die Zijn getuigenissen onderhouden, die Hem van ganser harte zoeken;
3 Ook geen onrecht werken, maar wandelen in Zijn wegen.
4 HEERE! Gij hebt geboden, dat men Uw bevelen zeer bewaren zal.
5 Och, dat mijn wegen gericht werden, om Uw inzettingen te bewaren!
6 Dan zou ik niet beschaamd worden, wanneer ik merken zou op al Uw geboden.
7 Ik zal U loven in oprechtheid des harten, als ik de rechten Uwer gerechtigheid geleerd zal hebben.
8 Ik zal Uw inzettingen bewaren; verlaat mij niet al te zeer.
9 Beth. Waarmede zal de jongeling zijn pad zuiver houden? Als hij dat houdt naar Uw woord.
10 Ik zoek U met mijn gehele hart, laat mij van Uw geboden niet afdwalen.
11 Ik heb Uw rede in mijn hart verborgen, opdat ik tegen U niet zondigen zou.
12 HEERE! Gij zijt gezegend; leer mij Uw inzettingen.
13 Ik heb met mijn lippen verteld al de rechten Uws monds.
14 Ik ben vrolijker in den weg Uwer getuigenissen, dan over allen rijkdom.
15 Ik zal Uw bevelen overdenken, en op Uw paden letten.
16 Ik zal mijzelven vermaken in Uw inzettingen; Uw woord zal ik niet vergeten.
17 Gimel. Doe wel bij Uw knecht, dat ik leve en Uw woord beware.
18 Ontdek mijn ogen, dat ik aanschouwe de wonderen van Uw wet.
19 Ik ben een vreemdeling op de aarde, verberg Uw geboden voor mij niet.
20 Mijn ziel is verbroken vanwege het verlangen naar Uw oordelen te aller tijd.
21 Gij scheldt de vervloekte hovaardigen, die van Uw geboden afdwalen.
22 Wentel van mij versmaadheid en verachting, want ik heb Uw getuigenissen onderhouden.
23 Als zelfs de vorsten zittende tegen mij gesproken hebben, heeft Uw knecht Uw inzettingen betracht.
24 Ook zijn Uw getuigenissen mijn vermakingen, en mijn raadslieden.
25 Daleth. Mijn ziel kleeft aan het stof; maak mij levend naar Uw woord.
26 Ik heb U mijn wegen verteld, en Gij hebt mij verhoord; leer mij Uw inzettingen.
27 Geef mij den weg Uwer bevelen te verstaan, opdat ik Uw wonderen betrachte.
28 Mijn ziel druipt weg van treurigheid; richt mij op naar Uw woord.
29 Wend van mij den weg der valsheid, en verleen mij genadiglijk Uw wet.
30 Ik heb verkoren den weg der waarheid, Uw rechten heb ik mij voorgesteld.
31 Ik kleef vast aan Uw getuigenissen; o HEERE! beschaam mij niet.
32 Ik zal den weg Uwer geboden lopen, als Gij mijn hart verwijd zult hebben.
33 He. HEERE! leer mij den weg Uwer inzettingen, en ik zal hem houden ten einde toe.
34 Geef mij het verstand, en ik zal Uw wet houden; ja, ik zal ze onderhouden met gansen harte.
35 Doe mij treden op het pad Uwer geboden, want daarin heb ik lust.
36 Neig mijn hart tot Uw getuigenissen, en niet tot gierigheid.
37 Wend mijn ogen af, dat zij geen ijdelheid zien; maak mij levend door Uw wegen.
38 Bevestig Uw toezegging aan Uw knecht, die Uw vreze toegedaan is.
39 Wend mijn smaadheid af, die ik vreze, want Uw rechten zijn goed.
40 Zie, ik heb een begeerte tot Uw bevelen; maak mij levend door Uw gerechtigheid.
41 Vau. En dat mij Uw goedertierenheden overkomen, o HEERE! Uw heil, naar Uw toezegging;
42 Opdat ik mijn smader wat heb te antwoorden, want ik vertrouw op Uw woord.
43 En ruk het woord der waarheid van mijn mond niet al te zeer, want ik hoop op Uw rechten.
44 Zo zal ik Uw wet steeds onderhouden, eeuwiglijk en altoos.
45 En ik zal wandelen in de ruimte, omdat ik Uw bevelen gezocht heb.
46 Ook zal ik voor koningen spreken van Uw getuigenissen, en mij niet schamen.
47 En ik zal mij vermaken in Uw geboden, die ik liefheb.
48 En ik zal mijn handen opheffen naar Uw geboden, die ik liefheb, en ik zal Uw inzettingen betrachten.
49 Zain. Gedenk des woords, tot Uw knecht gesproken, op hetwelk Gij mij hebt doen hopen.
50 Dit is mijn troost in mijn ellende, want Uw toezegging heeft mij levend gemaakt.
51 De hovaardigen hebben mij boven mate zeer bespot; nochtans ben ik van Uw wet niet geweken.
52 Ik heb gedacht, o HEERE! aan Uw oordelen van ouds aan, en heb mij getroost.
53 Grote beroering heeft mij bevangen vanwege de goddelozen, die Uw wet verlaten.
54 Uw inzettingen zijn mij gezangen geweest, ter plaatse mijner vreemdelingschappen.
55 HEERE! des nachts ben ik Uws Naams gedachtig geweest, en heb Uw wet bewaard.
56 Dat is mij geschied, omdat ik Uw bevelen bewaard heb.
57 Cheth. De HEERE is mijn deel, ik heb gezegd, dat ik Uw woorden zal bewaren.
58 Ik heb Uw aanschijn ernstelijk gebeden van ganser harte, wees mij genadig naar Uw toezegging.
59 Ik heb mijn wegen bedacht, en heb mijn voeten gekeerd tot Uw getuigenissen.
60 Ik heb gehaast, en niet vertraagd Uw geboden te onderhouden.
61 De goddeloze hopen hebben mij beroofd; nochtans heb ik Uw wet niet vergeten.
62 Te middernacht sta ik op, om U te loven voor de rechten Uwer gerechtigheid.
63 Ik ben een gezel van allen, die U vrezen, en van hen, die Uw bevelen onderhouden.
64 HEERE! de aarde is vol van Uw goedertierenheid; leer mij Uw inzettingen.
65 Teth. Gij hebt bij Uw knecht goed gedaan, HEERE, naar Uw woord.
66 Leer mij een goeden zin en wetenschap, want ik heb aan Uw geboden geloofd.
67 Eer ik verdrukt werd, dwaalde ik, maar nu onderhoud ik Uw woord.
68 Gij zijt goed en goeddoende; leer mij Uw inzettingen.
69 De hovaardigen hebben leugens tegen mij gestoffeerd; doch ik bewaar Uw bevelen van ganser harte.
70 Hun hart is vet als smeer; maar ik heb vermaak in Uw wet.
71 Het is mij goed, dat ik verdrukt ben geweest, opdat ik Uw inzettingen leerde.
72 De wet Uws monds is mij beter, dan duizenden van goud of zilver.
73 Jod. Uw handen hebben mij gemaakt, en bereid; maak mij verstandig, opdat ik Uw geboden lere.
74 Die U vrezen, zullen mij aanzien, en zich verblijden, omdat ik op Uw woord gehoopt heb.
75 Ik weet, HEERE! dat Uw gerichten de gerechtigheid zijn, en dat Gij mij uit getrouwheid verdrukt hebt.
76 Laat toch Uw goedertierenheid zijn om mij te troosten, naar Uw toezegging aan Uw knecht.
77 Laat mij Uw barmhartigheden overkomen, opdat ik leve, want Uw wet is al mijn vermaking.
78 Laat de hovaardigen beschaamd worden, omdat zij mij met leugen nedergestoten hebben; doch ik betracht Uw geboden.
79 Laat hen tot mij keren, die U vrezen, en die Uw getuigenissen kennen.
80 Laat mijn hart oprecht zijn tot Uw inzettingen, opdat ik niet beschaamd worde.
81 Caph. Mijn ziel is bezweken van verlangen naar Uw heil; op Uw woord heb ik gehoopt.
82 Mijn ogen zijn bezweken van verlangen naar Uw toezegging, terwijl ik zeide: Wanneer zult Gij mij vertroosten?
83 Want ik ben geworden als een lederen zak in den rook; doch Uw inzettingen heb ik niet vergeten.
84 Hoe vele zullen de dagen Uws knechts zijn? Wanneer zult Gij recht doen over mijn vervolgers?
85 De hovaardigen hebben mij putten gegraven, hetwelk niet is naar Uw wet.
86 Al Uw geboden zijn waarheid; zij vervolgen mij met leugen, help mij.
87 Zij hebben mij bijna vernietigd op de aarde, maar ik heb Uw bevelen niet verlaten.
88 Maak mij levend naar Uw goedertierenheid, dan zal ik de getuigenis Uws monds onderhouden.
89 Lamed. O HEERE! Uw woord bestaat in der eeuwigheid in de hemelen.
90 Uw goedertierenheid is van geslacht tot geslacht; Gij hebt de aarde vastgemaakt, en zij blijft staan;
91 Naar Uw verordeningen blijven zij nog heden staan, want zij allen zijn Uw knechten.
92 Indien Uw wet niet ware geweest al mijn vermaking, ik ware in mijn druk al lang vergaan.
93 Ik zal Uw bevelen in der eeuwigheid niet vergeten, want door dezelve hebt Gij mij levend gemaakt.
94 Ik ben Uw, behoud mij, want ik heb Uw bevelen gezocht.
95 De goddelozen hebben op mij gewacht, om mij te doen vergaan; ik neem acht op Uw getuigenissen.
96 In alle volmaaktheid heb ik een einde gezien; maar Uw gebod is zeer wijd.
97 Mem. Hoe lief heb ik Uw wet! Zij is mijn betrachting den gansen dag.
98 Zij maakt mij door Uw geboden wijzer, dan mijn vijanden zijn, want zij is in eeuwigheid bij mij.
99 Ik ben verstandiger dan al mijn leraars, omdat Uw getuigenissen mijn betrachting zijn.
100 Ik ben voorzichtiger dan de ouden, omdat ik Uw bevelen bewaard heb.
101 Ik heb mijn voeten geweerd van alle kwade paden, opdat ik Uw woord zou onderhouden.
102 Ik ben niet geweken van Uw rechten, want Gij hebt mij geleerd.
103 Hoe zoet zijn Uw redenen mijn gehemelte geweest, meer dan honig mijn mond!
104 Uit Uw bevelen krijg ik verstand, daarom haat ik alle leugenpaden.
105 Nun. Uw woord is een lamp voor mijn voet, en een licht voor mijn pad.
106 Ik heb gezworen, en zal het bevestigen, dat ik onderhouden zal de rechten Uwer gerechtigheid.
107 Ik ben gans zeer verdrukt, HEERE! maak mij levend naar Uw woord.
108 Laat U toch, o HEERE! welgevallen de vrijwillige offeranden mijns monds, en leer mij Uw rechten.
109 Mijn ziel is geduriglijk in mijn hand; nochtans vergeet ik Uw wet niet.
110 De goddelozen hebben mij een strik gelegd; nochtans ben ik niet afgedwaald van Uw bevelen.
111 Ik heb Uw getuigenissen genomen tot een eeuwige erve, want zij zijn mijns harten vrolijkheid.
112 Ik heb mijn hart geneigd, om Uw inzettingen eeuwiglijk te doen, ten einde toe.
113 Samech. Ik haat de kwade ranken, maar heb Uw wet lief.
114 Gij zijt mijn Schuilplaats en mijn Schild; op Uw Woord heb ik gehoopt.
115 Wijkt van mij, gij boosdoeners! dat ik de geboden mijns Gods moge bewaren.
116 Ondersteun mij naar Uw toezegging, opdat ik leve; en laat mij niet beschaamd worden over mijn hope.
117 Ondersteun mij, zo zal ik behouden zijn; dan zal ik mij steeds in Uw inzettingen vermaken.
118 Gij vertreedt al degenen, die van Uw inzettingen afdwalen, want hun bedrog is leugen.
119 Gij doet alle goddelozen der aarde weg als schuim, daarom heb ik Uw getuigenissen lief.
120 Het haar mijns vleses is te berge gerezen van verschrikking voor U, en ik heb gevreesd voor Uw oordelen.
121 Ain. Ik heb recht en gerechtigheid gedaan; geef mij niet over aan mijn onderdrukkers.
122 Wees borg voor Uw knecht ten goede; laat de hovaardigen mij niet onderdrukken.
123 Mijn ogen zijn bezweken van verlangen naar Uw heil, en naar de toezegging Uwer rechtvaardigheid.
124 Doe bij Uw knecht naar Uw goedertierenheid, en leer mij Uw inzettingen.
125 Ik ben Uw knecht, maak mij verstandig, en ik zal Uw getuigenissen kennen.
126 Het is tijd voor den HEERE, dat Hij werke, want zij hebben Uw wet verbroken.
127 Daarom heb ik Uw geboden lief, meer dan goud, ja, meer dan het fijnste goud.
128 Daarom heb ik al Uw bevelen, van alles, voor recht gehouden; maar alle valse pad heb ik gehaat.
129 Pe. Uw getuigenissen zijn wonderbaar, daarom bewaart ze mijn ziel.
130 De opening Uwer woorden geeft licht, de slechten verstandig makende.
131 Ik heb mijn mond wijd opengedaan, en gehijgd, want ik heb verlangd naar Uw geboden.
132 Zie mij aan, wees mij genadig, naar het recht aan degenen, die Uw Naam beminnen.
133 Maak mijn voetstappen vast in Uw Woord, en laat geen ongerechtigheid over mij heersen.
134 Verlos mij van des mensen overlast, en ik zal Uw bevelen onderhouden.
135 Doe Uw aangezicht lichten over Uw knecht, en leer mij Uw inzettingen.
136 Waterbeken vlieten af uit mijn ogen, omdat zij Uw wet niet onderhouden.
137 Tsade. HEERE! Gij zijt rechtvaardig, en elkeen Uwer oordelen is recht.
138 Gij hebt de gerechtigheid Uwer getuigenissen, en de waarheid hogelijk geboden.
139 Mijn ijver heeft mij doen vergaan, omdat mijn wederpartijders Uw woorden vergeten hebben.
140 Uw woord is zeer gelouterd, en Uw knecht heeft het lief.
141 Ik ben klein en veracht, doch Uw bevelen vergeet ik niet.
142 Uw gerechtigheid is gerechtigheid in eeuwigheid, en Uw wet is de waarheid.
143 Benauwdheid en angst hebben mij getroffen, doch Uw geboden zijn mijn vermakingen.
144 De gerechtigheid Uwer getuigenissen is in der eeuwigheid; doe ze mij verstaan, zo zal ik leven.
145 Koph. Ik heb van ganser harte geroepen: verhoor mij, o HEERE! ik zal Uw inzettingen bewaren.
146 Ik heb U aangeroepen, verlos mij, en ik zal Uw getuigenissen onderhouden.
147 Ik ben de morgen schemering voorgekomen, en heb geschrei gemaakt; op Uw woord heb ik gehoopt.
148 Mijn ogen komen de nacht waken voor, om Uw rede te betrachten.
149 Hoor mijn stem naar Uw goedertierenheid, o HEERE! maak mij levend naar Uw recht.
150 Die kwade praktijken najagen, genaken mij, zij wijken verre van Uw wet.
151 Maar Gij, HEERE! zijt nabij, en al Uw geboden zijn waarheid.
152 Van ouds heb ik geweten van Uw getuigenissen, dat Gij ze in eeuwigheid gegrond hebt.
153 Resch. Zie mijn ellende aan, en help mij uit, want Uw wet heb ik niet vergeten.
154 Twist mijn twistzaak, en verlos mij, maak mij levend, naar Uw toezegging.
155 Het heil is verre van de goddelozen, want zij zoeken Uw inzettingen niet.
156 HEERE! Uw barmhartigheden zijn vele; maak mij levend naar Uw rechten.
157 Mijn vervolgers en mijn wederpartijders zijn vele, maar van Uw getuigenissen wijk ik niet.
158 Ik heb gezien degenen, die trouwelooslijk handelen, en het verdroot mij, dat zij Uw woord niet onderhielden.
159 Zie aan, dat ik Uw bevelen lief heb, o HEERE! maak mij levend naar Uw goedertierenheid.
160 Het begin Uws woords is waarheid, en in der eeuwigheid is al het recht Uwer gerechtigheid.
161 Schin. De vorsten hebben mij vervolgd zonder oorzaak; maar mijn hart heeft gevreesd voor Uw woord.
162 Ik ben vrolijk over Uw toezegging, als een, die een groten buit vindt.
163 Ik haat de valsheid, en heb er een gruwel van; maar Uw wet heb ik lief.
164 Ik loof U zevenmaal des daags, over de rechten Uwer gerechtigheid.
165 Die Uw wet beminnen, hebben groten vrede, en zij hebben geen aanstoot.
166 O HEERE! ik hoop op Uw heil, en doe Uw geboden.
167 Mijn ziel onderhoudt Uw getuigenissen, en ik heb ze zeer lief.
168 Ik onderhoud Uw bevelen en Uw getuigenissen, want al mijn wegen zijn voor U.
169 Thau. O HEERE! laat mijn geschrei voor Uw aanschijn genaken, maak mij verstandig naar Uw woord.
170 Laat mijn smeken voor Uw aanschijn komen, red mij naar Uw toezegging.
171 Mijn lippen zullen Uw lof overvloediglijk uitstorten, als Gij mij Uw inzettingen zult geleerd hebben.
172 Mijn tong zal spraak houden van Uw rede, want al Uw geboden zijn rechtvaardigheid.
173 Laat Uw hand mij te hulp komen, want ik heb Uw bevelen verkoren.
174 O HEERE! ik verlang naar Uw heil, en Uw wet is al mijn vermaking.
175 Laat mijn ziel leven, en zij zal U loven, en laat Uw rechten mij helpen.
176 Ik heb gedwaald als een verloren schaap; zoek Uw knecht, want Uw geboden heb ik niet vergeten.
1 Aleph. Welgelukzalig zijn de oprechten van wandel, die in de wet des HEEREN gaan.
2 Welgelukzalig zijn zij, die Zijn getuigenissen onderhouden, die Hem van ganser harte zoeken;
3 Ook geen onrecht werken, maar wandelen in Zijn wegen.
4 HEERE! Gij hebt geboden, dat men Uw bevelen zeer bewaren zal.
5 Och, dat mijn wegen gericht werden, om Uw inzettingen te bewaren!
6 Dan zou ik niet beschaamd worden, wanneer ik merken zou op al Uw geboden.
7 Ik zal U loven in oprechtheid des harten, als ik de rechten Uwer gerechtigheid geleerd zal hebben.
8 Ik zal Uw inzettingen bewaren; verlaat mij niet al te zeer.
9 Beth. Waarmede zal de jongeling zijn pad zuiver houden? Als hij dat houdt naar Uw woord.
10 Ik zoek U met mijn gehele hart, laat mij van Uw geboden niet afdwalen.
11 Ik heb Uw rede in mijn hart verborgen, opdat ik tegen U niet zondigen zou.
12 HEERE! Gij zijt gezegend; leer mij Uw inzettingen.
13 Ik heb met mijn lippen verteld al de rechten Uws monds.
14 Ik ben vrolijker in den weg Uwer getuigenissen, dan over allen rijkdom.
15 Ik zal Uw bevelen overdenken, en op Uw paden letten.
16 Ik zal mijzelven vermaken in Uw inzettingen; Uw woord zal ik niet vergeten.
17 Gimel. Doe wel bij Uw knecht, dat ik leve en Uw woord beware.
18 Ontdek mijn ogen, dat ik aanschouwe de wonderen van Uw wet.
19 Ik ben een vreemdeling op de aarde, verberg Uw geboden voor mij niet.
20 Mijn ziel is verbroken vanwege het verlangen naar Uw oordelen te aller tijd.
21 Gij scheldt de vervloekte hovaardigen, die van Uw geboden afdwalen.
22 Wentel van mij versmaadheid en verachting, want ik heb Uw getuigenissen onderhouden.
23 Als zelfs de vorsten zittende tegen mij gesproken hebben, heeft Uw knecht Uw inzettingen betracht.
24 Ook zijn Uw getuigenissen mijn vermakingen, en mijn raadslieden.
25 Daleth. Mijn ziel kleeft aan het stof; maak mij levend naar Uw woord.
26 Ik heb U mijn wegen verteld, en Gij hebt mij verhoord; leer mij Uw inzettingen.
27 Geef mij den weg Uwer bevelen te verstaan, opdat ik Uw wonderen betrachte.
28 Mijn ziel druipt weg van treurigheid; richt mij op naar Uw woord.
29 Wend van mij den weg der valsheid, en verleen mij genadiglijk Uw wet.
30 Ik heb verkoren den weg der waarheid, Uw rechten heb ik mij voorgesteld.
31 Ik kleef vast aan Uw getuigenissen; o HEERE! beschaam mij niet.
32 Ik zal den weg Uwer geboden lopen, als Gij mijn hart verwijd zult hebben.
33 He. HEERE! leer mij den weg Uwer inzettingen, en ik zal hem houden ten einde toe.
34 Geef mij het verstand, en ik zal Uw wet houden; ja, ik zal ze onderhouden met gansen harte.
35 Doe mij treden op het pad Uwer geboden, want daarin heb ik lust.
36 Neig mijn hart tot Uw getuigenissen, en niet tot gierigheid.
37 Wend mijn ogen af, dat zij geen ijdelheid zien; maak mij levend door Uw wegen.
38 Bevestig Uw toezegging aan Uw knecht, die Uw vreze toegedaan is.
39 Wend mijn smaadheid af, die ik vreze, want Uw rechten zijn goed.
40 Zie, ik heb een begeerte tot Uw bevelen; maak mij levend door Uw gerechtigheid.
41 Vau. En dat mij Uw goedertierenheden overkomen, o HEERE! Uw heil, naar Uw toezegging;
42 Opdat ik mijn smader wat heb te antwoorden, want ik vertrouw op Uw woord.
43 En ruk het woord der waarheid van mijn mond niet al te zeer, want ik hoop op Uw rechten.
44 Zo zal ik Uw wet steeds onderhouden, eeuwiglijk en altoos.
45 En ik zal wandelen in de ruimte, omdat ik Uw bevelen gezocht heb.
46 Ook zal ik voor koningen spreken van Uw getuigenissen, en mij niet schamen.
47 En ik zal mij vermaken in Uw geboden, die ik liefheb.
48 En ik zal mijn handen opheffen naar Uw geboden, die ik liefheb, en ik zal Uw inzettingen betrachten.
49 Zain. Gedenk des woords, tot Uw knecht gesproken, op hetwelk Gij mij hebt doen hopen.
50 Dit is mijn troost in mijn ellende, want Uw toezegging heeft mij levend gemaakt.
51 De hovaardigen hebben mij boven mate zeer bespot; nochtans ben ik van Uw wet niet geweken.
52 Ik heb gedacht, o HEERE! aan Uw oordelen van ouds aan, en heb mij getroost.
53 Grote beroering heeft mij bevangen vanwege de goddelozen, die Uw wet verlaten.
54 Uw inzettingen zijn mij gezangen geweest, ter plaatse mijner vreemdelingschappen.
55 HEERE! des nachts ben ik Uws Naams gedachtig geweest, en heb Uw wet bewaard.
56 Dat is mij geschied, omdat ik Uw bevelen bewaard heb.
57 Cheth. De HEERE is mijn deel, ik heb gezegd, dat ik Uw woorden zal bewaren.
58 Ik heb Uw aanschijn ernstelijk gebeden van ganser harte, wees mij genadig naar Uw toezegging.
59 Ik heb mijn wegen bedacht, en heb mijn voeten gekeerd tot Uw getuigenissen.
60 Ik heb gehaast, en niet vertraagd Uw geboden te onderhouden.
61 De goddeloze hopen hebben mij beroofd; nochtans heb ik Uw wet niet vergeten.
62 Te middernacht sta ik op, om U te loven voor de rechten Uwer gerechtigheid.
63 Ik ben een gezel van allen, die U vrezen, en van hen, die Uw bevelen onderhouden.
64 HEERE! de aarde is vol van Uw goedertierenheid; leer mij Uw inzettingen.
65 Teth. Gij hebt bij Uw knecht goed gedaan, HEERE, naar Uw woord.
66 Leer mij een goeden zin en wetenschap, want ik heb aan Uw geboden geloofd.
67 Eer ik verdrukt werd, dwaalde ik, maar nu onderhoud ik Uw woord.
68 Gij zijt goed en goeddoende; leer mij Uw inzettingen.
69 De hovaardigen hebben leugens tegen mij gestoffeerd; doch ik bewaar Uw bevelen van ganser harte.
70 Hun hart is vet als smeer; maar ik heb vermaak in Uw wet.
71 Het is mij goed, dat ik verdrukt ben geweest, opdat ik Uw inzettingen leerde.
72 De wet Uws monds is mij beter, dan duizenden van goud of zilver.
73 Jod. Uw handen hebben mij gemaakt, en bereid; maak mij verstandig, opdat ik Uw geboden lere.
74 Die U vrezen, zullen mij aanzien, en zich verblijden, omdat ik op Uw woord gehoopt heb.
75 Ik weet, HEERE! dat Uw gerichten de gerechtigheid zijn, en dat Gij mij uit getrouwheid verdrukt hebt.
76 Laat toch Uw goedertierenheid zijn om mij te troosten, naar Uw toezegging aan Uw knecht.
77 Laat mij Uw barmhartigheden overkomen, opdat ik leve, want Uw wet is al mijn vermaking.
78 Laat de hovaardigen beschaamd worden, omdat zij mij met leugen nedergestoten hebben; doch ik betracht Uw geboden.
79 Laat hen tot mij keren, die U vrezen, en die Uw getuigenissen kennen.
80 Laat mijn hart oprecht zijn tot Uw inzettingen, opdat ik niet beschaamd worde.
81 Caph. Mijn ziel is bezweken van verlangen naar Uw heil; op Uw woord heb ik gehoopt.
82 Mijn ogen zijn bezweken van verlangen naar Uw toezegging, terwijl ik zeide: Wanneer zult Gij mij vertroosten?
83 Want ik ben geworden als een lederen zak in den rook; doch Uw inzettingen heb ik niet vergeten.
84 Hoe vele zullen de dagen Uws knechts zijn? Wanneer zult Gij recht doen over mijn vervolgers?
85 De hovaardigen hebben mij putten gegraven, hetwelk niet is naar Uw wet.
86 Al Uw geboden zijn waarheid; zij vervolgen mij met leugen, help mij.
87 Zij hebben mij bijna vernietigd op de aarde, maar ik heb Uw bevelen niet verlaten.
88 Maak mij levend naar Uw goedertierenheid, dan zal ik de getuigenis Uws monds onderhouden.
89 Lamed. O HEERE! Uw woord bestaat in der eeuwigheid in de hemelen.
90 Uw goedertierenheid is van geslacht tot geslacht; Gij hebt de aarde vastgemaakt, en zij blijft staan;
91 Naar Uw verordeningen blijven zij nog heden staan, want zij allen zijn Uw knechten.
92 Indien Uw wet niet ware geweest al mijn vermaking, ik ware in mijn druk al lang vergaan.
93 Ik zal Uw bevelen in der eeuwigheid niet vergeten, want door dezelve hebt Gij mij levend gemaakt.
94 Ik ben Uw, behoud mij, want ik heb Uw bevelen gezocht.
95 De goddelozen hebben op mij gewacht, om mij te doen vergaan; ik neem acht op Uw getuigenissen.
96 In alle volmaaktheid heb ik een einde gezien; maar Uw gebod is zeer wijd.
97 Mem. Hoe lief heb ik Uw wet! Zij is mijn betrachting den gansen dag.
98 Zij maakt mij door Uw geboden wijzer, dan mijn vijanden zijn, want zij is in eeuwigheid bij mij.
99 Ik ben verstandiger dan al mijn leraars, omdat Uw getuigenissen mijn betrachting zijn.
100 Ik ben voorzichtiger dan de ouden, omdat ik Uw bevelen bewaard heb.
101 Ik heb mijn voeten geweerd van alle kwade paden, opdat ik Uw woord zou onderhouden.
102 Ik ben niet geweken van Uw rechten, want Gij hebt mij geleerd.
103 Hoe zoet zijn Uw redenen mijn gehemelte geweest, meer dan honig mijn mond!
104 Uit Uw bevelen krijg ik verstand, daarom haat ik alle leugenpaden.
105 Nun. Uw woord is een lamp voor mijn voet, en een licht voor mijn pad.
106 Ik heb gezworen, en zal het bevestigen, dat ik onderhouden zal de rechten Uwer gerechtigheid.
107 Ik ben gans zeer verdrukt, HEERE! maak mij levend naar Uw woord.
108 Laat U toch, o HEERE! welgevallen de vrijwillige offeranden mijns monds, en leer mij Uw rechten.
109 Mijn ziel is geduriglijk in mijn hand; nochtans vergeet ik Uw wet niet.
110 De goddelozen hebben mij een strik gelegd; nochtans ben ik niet afgedwaald van Uw bevelen.
111 Ik heb Uw getuigenissen genomen tot een eeuwige erve, want zij zijn mijns harten vrolijkheid.
112 Ik heb mijn hart geneigd, om Uw inzettingen eeuwiglijk te doen, ten einde toe.
113 Samech. Ik haat de kwade ranken, maar heb Uw wet lief.
114 Gij zijt mijn Schuilplaats en mijn Schild; op Uw Woord heb ik gehoopt.
115 Wijkt van mij, gij boosdoeners! dat ik de geboden mijns Gods moge bewaren.
116 Ondersteun mij naar Uw toezegging, opdat ik leve; en laat mij niet beschaamd worden over mijn hope.
117 Ondersteun mij, zo zal ik behouden zijn; dan zal ik mij steeds in Uw inzettingen vermaken.
118 Gij vertreedt al degenen, die van Uw inzettingen afdwalen, want hun bedrog is leugen.
119 Gij doet alle goddelozen der aarde weg als schuim, daarom heb ik Uw getuigenissen lief.
120 Het haar mijns vleses is te berge gerezen van verschrikking voor U, en ik heb gevreesd voor Uw oordelen.
121 Ain. Ik heb recht en gerechtigheid gedaan; geef mij niet over aan mijn onderdrukkers.
122 Wees borg voor Uw knecht ten goede; laat de hovaardigen mij niet onderdrukken.
123 Mijn ogen zijn bezweken van verlangen naar Uw heil, en naar de toezegging Uwer rechtvaardigheid.
124 Doe bij Uw knecht naar Uw goedertierenheid, en leer mij Uw inzettingen.
125 Ik ben Uw knecht, maak mij verstandig, en ik zal Uw getuigenissen kennen.
126 Het is tijd voor den HEERE, dat Hij werke, want zij hebben Uw wet verbroken.
127 Daarom heb ik Uw geboden lief, meer dan goud, ja, meer dan het fijnste goud.
128 Daarom heb ik al Uw bevelen, van alles, voor recht gehouden; maar alle valse pad heb ik gehaat.
129 Pe. Uw getuigenissen zijn wonderbaar, daarom bewaart ze mijn ziel.
130 De opening Uwer woorden geeft licht, de slechten verstandig makende.
131 Ik heb mijn mond wijd opengedaan, en gehijgd, want ik heb verlangd naar Uw geboden.
132 Zie mij aan, wees mij genadig, naar het recht aan degenen, die Uw Naam beminnen.
133 Maak mijn voetstappen vast in Uw Woord, en laat geen ongerechtigheid over mij heersen.
134 Verlos mij van des mensen overlast, en ik zal Uw bevelen onderhouden.
135 Doe Uw aangezicht lichten over Uw knecht, en leer mij Uw inzettingen.
136 Waterbeken vlieten af uit mijn ogen, omdat zij Uw wet niet onderhouden.
137 Tsade. HEERE! Gij zijt rechtvaardig, en elkeen Uwer oordelen is recht.
138 Gij hebt de gerechtigheid Uwer getuigenissen, en de waarheid hogelijk geboden.
139 Mijn ijver heeft mij doen vergaan, omdat mijn wederpartijders Uw woorden vergeten hebben.
140 Uw woord is zeer gelouterd, en Uw knecht heeft het lief.
141 Ik ben klein en veracht, doch Uw bevelen vergeet ik niet.
142 Uw gerechtigheid is gerechtigheid in eeuwigheid, en Uw wet is de waarheid.
143 Benauwdheid en angst hebben mij getroffen, doch Uw geboden zijn mijn vermakingen.
144 De gerechtigheid Uwer getuigenissen is in der eeuwigheid; doe ze mij verstaan, zo zal ik leven.
145 Koph. Ik heb van ganser harte geroepen: verhoor mij, o HEERE! ik zal Uw inzettingen bewaren.
146 Ik heb U aangeroepen, verlos mij, en ik zal Uw getuigenissen onderhouden.
147 Ik ben de morgen schemering voorgekomen, en heb geschrei gemaakt; op Uw woord heb ik gehoopt.
148 Mijn ogen komen de nacht waken voor, om Uw rede te betrachten.
149 Hoor mijn stem naar Uw goedertierenheid, o HEERE! maak mij levend naar Uw recht.
150 Die kwade praktijken najagen, genaken mij, zij wijken verre van Uw wet.
151 Maar Gij, HEERE! zijt nabij, en al Uw geboden zijn waarheid.
152 Van ouds heb ik geweten van Uw getuigenissen, dat Gij ze in eeuwigheid gegrond hebt.
153 Resch. Zie mijn ellende aan, en help mij uit, want Uw wet heb ik niet vergeten.
154 Twist mijn twistzaak, en verlos mij, maak mij levend, naar Uw toezegging.
155 Het heil is verre van de goddelozen, want zij zoeken Uw inzettingen niet.
156 HEERE! Uw barmhartigheden zijn vele; maak mij levend naar Uw rechten.
157 Mijn vervolgers en mijn wederpartijders zijn vele, maar van Uw getuigenissen wijk ik niet.
158 Ik heb gezien degenen, die trouwelooslijk handelen, en het verdroot mij, dat zij Uw woord niet onderhielden.
159 Zie aan, dat ik Uw bevelen lief heb, o HEERE! maak mij levend naar Uw goedertierenheid.
160 Het begin Uws woords is waarheid, en in der eeuwigheid is al het recht Uwer gerechtigheid.
161 Schin. De vorsten hebben mij vervolgd zonder oorzaak; maar mijn hart heeft gevreesd voor Uw woord.
162 Ik ben vrolijk over Uw toezegging, als een, die een groten buit vindt.
163 Ik haat de valsheid, en heb er een gruwel van; maar Uw wet heb ik lief.
164 Ik loof U zevenmaal des daags, over de rechten Uwer gerechtigheid.
165 Die Uw wet beminnen, hebben groten vrede, en zij hebben geen aanstoot.
166 O HEERE! ik hoop op Uw heil, en doe Uw geboden.
167 Mijn ziel onderhoudt Uw getuigenissen, en ik heb ze zeer lief.
168 Ik onderhoud Uw bevelen en Uw getuigenissen, want al mijn wegen zijn voor U.
169 Thau. O HEERE! laat mijn geschrei voor Uw aanschijn genaken, maak mij verstandig naar Uw woord.
170 Laat mijn smeken voor Uw aanschijn komen, red mij naar Uw toezegging.
171 Mijn lippen zullen Uw lof overvloediglijk uitstorten, als Gij mij Uw inzettingen zult geleerd hebben.
172 Mijn tong zal spraak houden van Uw rede, want al Uw geboden zijn rechtvaardigheid.
173 Laat Uw hand mij te hulp komen, want ik heb Uw bevelen verkoren.
174 O HEERE! ik verlang naar Uw heil, en Uw wet is al mijn vermaking.
175 Laat mijn ziel leven, en zij zal U loven, en laat Uw rechten mij helpen.
176 Ik heb gedwaald als een verloren schaap; zoek Uw knecht, want Uw geboden heb ik niet vergeten.
Wat ben ik blij dat ik dat niet hoefde te zingen toen ik nog in een jongerenkoor zat.quote:
Psalmen 119
en dan een ONMEUNIGE LAP TEKST!
HOLYSHITBALLS!!!
Er staat nog een vraag voor u open!!
Galaten 1
1Van Paulus, een apostel die niet is aangesteld of gezonden door mensen, maar door Jezus Christus en God, de Vader, die Christus uit de dood heeft opgewekt. 2Aan de gemeenten in Galatië, ook namens alle broeders en zusters die bij mij zijn. 3Genade zij u en vrede van God, onze Vader, en van onze Heer Jezus Christus, 4die zichzelf gegeven heeft voor onze zonden om ons te bevrijden uit deze door het kwaad beheerste wereld. Dat is de wil van onze God en Vader. 5Hem komt de eer toe tot in alle eeuwigheid. Amen.
Het ware evangelie
6Het verbaast me dat u zich zo snel hebt afgewend van hem die u door de genade van Christus heeft geroepen en dat u zich tot een ander evangelie hebt gekeerd. 7Er is geen ander evangelie, er zijn alleen maar mensen die u in verwarring brengen en het evangelie van Christus willen verdraaien. 8Wanneer iemand u iets verkondigt dat in strijd is met wat ik u verkondigd heb, al was ik het zelf of een engel uit de hemel – vervloekt is hij! 9Ik heb het al eerder gezegd en zeg het nu opnieuw: wanneer iemand u iets verkondigt dat in strijd is met wat u hebt ontvangen – vervloekt is hij! 10Probeer ik nu mensen te overtuigen of God? Probeer ik soms mensen te behagen? Als ik dat nog altijd zou doen, zou ik geen dienaar van Christus zijn. 11Ik verzeker u, broeders en zusters, dat het evangelie dat ik u verkondigd heb niet door mensen is bedacht 12– ik heb het ook niet van een mens ontvangen of geleerd – maar dat Jezus Christus mij is geopenbaard.
13U hebt gehoord hoe ik vroeger volgens de Joodse godsdienst leefde, dat ik de gemeente van God fanatiek vervolgde en haar probeerde uit te roeien. 14Ik leefde de Joodse wetten heel wat strikter na dan velen van mijn generatie en zette mij vol overgave in voor de tradities van ons voorgeslacht. 15Maar toen besloot God, die mij al vķķr mijn geboorte had uitgekozen en die mij door zijn genade heeft geroepen, 16zijn Zoon in mij te openbaren, opdat ik hem aan de heidenen zou verkondigen. Ik heb toen geen mens om raad gevraagd 17en ben ook niet naar Jeruzalem gegaan, naar hen die eerder apostel waren dan ik. Ik ben onmiddellijk naar Arabia gegaan en ben van daar weer teruggekeerd naar Damascus. 18Pas drie jaar later ging ik naar Jeruzalem om Kefas te ontmoeten, en bij hem bleef ik twee weken. 19Maar van de overige apostelen heb ik niemand gezien, behalve Jakobus, de broer van de Heer. 20God is mijn getuige dat ik u de waarheid schrijf. 21Daarna ging ik naar het kustgebied van Syrië en van Cilicië. 22De christengemeenten in Judea hadden mij nog nooit ontmoet, 23maar iedereen had over mij horen vertellen: ‘De man die ons vroeger vervolgde, verkondigt nu het geloof dat hij toen probeerde uit te roeien.’ 24En zij prezen God om mij.
Rechtvaardig voor God door het geloof in Jezus Christus
15Hoewel wij Joden van geboorte zijn en geen zondaars uit andere volken, 16weten we dat niemand als rechtvaardige wordt aangenomen door de wet na te leven, maar door het geloof in Jezus Christus. Ook wij zijn tot geloof in Christus Jezus gekomen om daardoor, en niet door de wet, rechtvaardig te worden, want niemand wordt rechtvaardig door de wet na te leven. 17En in ons streven om door Christus rechtvaardig te worden, blijkt dat wijzelf ook zondaars zijn. Betekent dit dat Christus dus in dienst staat van de zonde? Natuurlijk niet. 18Maar wanneer ik weer aanneem wat ik had verworpen, maak ik van mezelf opnieuw een overtreder. 19Want ik ben gestorven door de wet en leef niet langer voor de wet, maar voor God. Met Christus ben ik gekruisigd: 20ikzelf leef niet meer, maar Christus leeft in mij. Mijn leven hier op aarde leef ik in het geloof in de Zoon van God, die mij heeft liefgehad en zich voor mij heeft prijsgegeven. 21Ik verwerp Gods genade niet; als we door de wet rechtvaardig zouden kunnen worden, zou Christus voor niets gestorven zijn.
Het geloof en de wet
1Galaten, u hebt uw verstand verloren! Wie heeft u in zijn ban gekregen? Ik heb u Jezus Christus toch openlijk en duidelijk als de gekruisigde bekendgemaakt? 2Ik wil maar één ding van u weten: hebt u de Geest ontvangen door de wet na te leven of door te luisteren en te geloven? 3Bent u werkelijk zo dwaas weer op uw eigen kracht te vertrouwen, en niet langer op de Geest? 4Is alles wat u hebt meegemaakt dan voor niets geweest? Dat kan toch niet! 5Geeft God u de Geest en goddelijke krachten omdat u de wet naleeft? Of geeft hij ze omdat u naar hem luistert en op hem vertrouwt?
6Van Abraham wordt gezegd: ‘Hij vertrouwde op God, en dat werd hem als een daad van gerechtigheid toegerekend.’ 7U ziet dus dat zij die geloven kinderen van Abraham zijn. 8Nu heeft de Schrift voorzien dat God ook andere volken door geloof zou aannemen en daarom aan Abraham verkondigd: ‘In jou zullen alle volken gezegend worden.’ 9En dus wordt iedereen die gelooft samen met Abraham, de gelovige, gezegend. 10Maar iedereen die op de wet vertrouwt is vervloekt, want er staat geschreven: ‘Vervloekt is eenieder die niet alles doet wat het boek van de wet bepaalt.’ 11Dat niemand door de wet voor God rechtvaardig wordt, is volkomen duidelijk, want er staat ook geschreven: ‘De rechtvaardige zal leven door geloof.’ 12De wet daarentegen is niet gegrond op geloof, want er staat: ‘Wie doet wat de wet voorschrijft, zal leven.’ 13Maar Christus Jezus heeft ons vrijgekocht van deze vloek door voor ons te worden vervloekt, want er staat geschreven: ‘Vervloekt is ieder mens die aan een paal hangt.’ 14Zo zouden door hem alle volken delen in de zegen van Abraham en zouden wij, zoals ons is beloofd, door het geloof de Geest ontvangen.
15Broeders en zusters, ik geef u het voorbeeld van een rechtsgeldig testament, een testament dat door een mens bekrachtigd is. Niemand kan zo’n testament ongeldig verklaren of er iets aan toevoegen. 16Nu gaf God zijn beloften aan Abraham en zijn nakomeling. Let wel, er staat niet ‘nakomelingen’, alsof het velen betreft, maar het gaat om één: ‘je nakomeling’ – en die nakomeling is Christus. 17Ik bedoel dit: de wet, die vierhonderddertig jaar na de belofte werd gegeven, maakt het testament dat door God bekrachtigd is niet ongeldig. De wet kan de belofte nooit ontkrachten. 18Immers, als de erfenis afhankelijk van de wet zou zijn, zou ze niet afhankelijk zijn van de belofte, maar het is nu juist door zijn belofte dat God zijn genade aan Abraham heeft geschonken.
19Waarom dan toch de wet? De wet is later ingevoerd om ons bewust te maken van de zonde, in de tijd dat de nakomeling aan wie de belofte was gedaan nog komen moest. Ze werd door engelen aan een bemiddelaar gegeven. 20Maar bemiddeling is niet nodig wanneer er maar één is die handelt, en God handelt alleen. 21Is de wet daarom in strijd met Gods belofte? Absoluut niet. Als de wet leven zou kunnen brengen, zou de wet ons ook rechtvaardig kunnen maken. 22Maar de Schrift heeft alles in de macht van de zonde gelegd, zodat de belofte kon worden gegeven op grond van geloof in Jezus Christus, aan wie op hem vertrouwen. 23Voordat dit geloof kwam, werden we door de wet bewaakt; we leefden in gevangenschap tot het geloof geopenbaard zou worden. 24Kortom, de wet hield toezicht op ons totdat Christus kwam, zodat we door ons vertrouwen op God als rechtvaardigen konden worden aangenomen. 25Maar nu het geloof gekomen is, staan we niet langer onder toezicht, 26want door het geloof en in Christus Jezus bent u allen kinderen van God. 27U allen die door de doop één met Christus bent geworden, hebt u met Christus omkleed. 28Er zijn geen Joden of Grieken meer, slaven of vrijen, mannen of vrouwen – u bent allen één in Christus Jezus. 29En omdat u Christus toebehoort, bent u nakomelingen van Abraham, erfgenamen volgens de belofte.
1Van Paulus, een apostel die niet is aangesteld of gezonden door mensen, maar door Jezus Christus en God, de Vader, die Christus uit de dood heeft opgewekt. 2Aan de gemeenten in Galatië, ook namens alle broeders en zusters die bij mij zijn. 3Genade zij u en vrede van God, onze Vader, en van onze Heer Jezus Christus, 4die zichzelf gegeven heeft voor onze zonden om ons te bevrijden uit deze door het kwaad beheerste wereld. Dat is de wil van onze God en Vader. 5Hem komt de eer toe tot in alle eeuwigheid. Amen.
Het ware evangelie
6Het verbaast me dat u zich zo snel hebt afgewend van hem die u door de genade van Christus heeft geroepen en dat u zich tot een ander evangelie hebt gekeerd. 7Er is geen ander evangelie, er zijn alleen maar mensen die u in verwarring brengen en het evangelie van Christus willen verdraaien. 8Wanneer iemand u iets verkondigt dat in strijd is met wat ik u verkondigd heb, al was ik het zelf of een engel uit de hemel – vervloekt is hij! 9Ik heb het al eerder gezegd en zeg het nu opnieuw: wanneer iemand u iets verkondigt dat in strijd is met wat u hebt ontvangen – vervloekt is hij! 10Probeer ik nu mensen te overtuigen of God? Probeer ik soms mensen te behagen? Als ik dat nog altijd zou doen, zou ik geen dienaar van Christus zijn. 11Ik verzeker u, broeders en zusters, dat het evangelie dat ik u verkondigd heb niet door mensen is bedacht 12– ik heb het ook niet van een mens ontvangen of geleerd – maar dat Jezus Christus mij is geopenbaard.
13U hebt gehoord hoe ik vroeger volgens de Joodse godsdienst leefde, dat ik de gemeente van God fanatiek vervolgde en haar probeerde uit te roeien. 14Ik leefde de Joodse wetten heel wat strikter na dan velen van mijn generatie en zette mij vol overgave in voor de tradities van ons voorgeslacht. 15Maar toen besloot God, die mij al vķķr mijn geboorte had uitgekozen en die mij door zijn genade heeft geroepen, 16zijn Zoon in mij te openbaren, opdat ik hem aan de heidenen zou verkondigen. Ik heb toen geen mens om raad gevraagd 17en ben ook niet naar Jeruzalem gegaan, naar hen die eerder apostel waren dan ik. Ik ben onmiddellijk naar Arabia gegaan en ben van daar weer teruggekeerd naar Damascus. 18Pas drie jaar later ging ik naar Jeruzalem om Kefas te ontmoeten, en bij hem bleef ik twee weken. 19Maar van de overige apostelen heb ik niemand gezien, behalve Jakobus, de broer van de Heer. 20God is mijn getuige dat ik u de waarheid schrijf. 21Daarna ging ik naar het kustgebied van Syrië en van Cilicië. 22De christengemeenten in Judea hadden mij nog nooit ontmoet, 23maar iedereen had over mij horen vertellen: ‘De man die ons vroeger vervolgde, verkondigt nu het geloof dat hij toen probeerde uit te roeien.’ 24En zij prezen God om mij.
Rechtvaardig voor God door het geloof in Jezus Christus
15Hoewel wij Joden van geboorte zijn en geen zondaars uit andere volken, 16weten we dat niemand als rechtvaardige wordt aangenomen door de wet na te leven, maar door het geloof in Jezus Christus. Ook wij zijn tot geloof in Christus Jezus gekomen om daardoor, en niet door de wet, rechtvaardig te worden, want niemand wordt rechtvaardig door de wet na te leven. 17En in ons streven om door Christus rechtvaardig te worden, blijkt dat wijzelf ook zondaars zijn. Betekent dit dat Christus dus in dienst staat van de zonde? Natuurlijk niet. 18Maar wanneer ik weer aanneem wat ik had verworpen, maak ik van mezelf opnieuw een overtreder. 19Want ik ben gestorven door de wet en leef niet langer voor de wet, maar voor God. Met Christus ben ik gekruisigd: 20ikzelf leef niet meer, maar Christus leeft in mij. Mijn leven hier op aarde leef ik in het geloof in de Zoon van God, die mij heeft liefgehad en zich voor mij heeft prijsgegeven. 21Ik verwerp Gods genade niet; als we door de wet rechtvaardig zouden kunnen worden, zou Christus voor niets gestorven zijn.
Het geloof en de wet
1Galaten, u hebt uw verstand verloren! Wie heeft u in zijn ban gekregen? Ik heb u Jezus Christus toch openlijk en duidelijk als de gekruisigde bekendgemaakt? 2Ik wil maar één ding van u weten: hebt u de Geest ontvangen door de wet na te leven of door te luisteren en te geloven? 3Bent u werkelijk zo dwaas weer op uw eigen kracht te vertrouwen, en niet langer op de Geest? 4Is alles wat u hebt meegemaakt dan voor niets geweest? Dat kan toch niet! 5Geeft God u de Geest en goddelijke krachten omdat u de wet naleeft? Of geeft hij ze omdat u naar hem luistert en op hem vertrouwt?
6Van Abraham wordt gezegd: ‘Hij vertrouwde op God, en dat werd hem als een daad van gerechtigheid toegerekend.’ 7U ziet dus dat zij die geloven kinderen van Abraham zijn. 8Nu heeft de Schrift voorzien dat God ook andere volken door geloof zou aannemen en daarom aan Abraham verkondigd: ‘In jou zullen alle volken gezegend worden.’ 9En dus wordt iedereen die gelooft samen met Abraham, de gelovige, gezegend. 10Maar iedereen die op de wet vertrouwt is vervloekt, want er staat geschreven: ‘Vervloekt is eenieder die niet alles doet wat het boek van de wet bepaalt.’ 11Dat niemand door de wet voor God rechtvaardig wordt, is volkomen duidelijk, want er staat ook geschreven: ‘De rechtvaardige zal leven door geloof.’ 12De wet daarentegen is niet gegrond op geloof, want er staat: ‘Wie doet wat de wet voorschrijft, zal leven.’ 13Maar Christus Jezus heeft ons vrijgekocht van deze vloek door voor ons te worden vervloekt, want er staat geschreven: ‘Vervloekt is ieder mens die aan een paal hangt.’ 14Zo zouden door hem alle volken delen in de zegen van Abraham en zouden wij, zoals ons is beloofd, door het geloof de Geest ontvangen.
15Broeders en zusters, ik geef u het voorbeeld van een rechtsgeldig testament, een testament dat door een mens bekrachtigd is. Niemand kan zo’n testament ongeldig verklaren of er iets aan toevoegen. 16Nu gaf God zijn beloften aan Abraham en zijn nakomeling. Let wel, er staat niet ‘nakomelingen’, alsof het velen betreft, maar het gaat om één: ‘je nakomeling’ – en die nakomeling is Christus. 17Ik bedoel dit: de wet, die vierhonderddertig jaar na de belofte werd gegeven, maakt het testament dat door God bekrachtigd is niet ongeldig. De wet kan de belofte nooit ontkrachten. 18Immers, als de erfenis afhankelijk van de wet zou zijn, zou ze niet afhankelijk zijn van de belofte, maar het is nu juist door zijn belofte dat God zijn genade aan Abraham heeft geschonken.
19Waarom dan toch de wet? De wet is later ingevoerd om ons bewust te maken van de zonde, in de tijd dat de nakomeling aan wie de belofte was gedaan nog komen moest. Ze werd door engelen aan een bemiddelaar gegeven. 20Maar bemiddeling is niet nodig wanneer er maar één is die handelt, en God handelt alleen. 21Is de wet daarom in strijd met Gods belofte? Absoluut niet. Als de wet leven zou kunnen brengen, zou de wet ons ook rechtvaardig kunnen maken. 22Maar de Schrift heeft alles in de macht van de zonde gelegd, zodat de belofte kon worden gegeven op grond van geloof in Jezus Christus, aan wie op hem vertrouwen. 23Voordat dit geloof kwam, werden we door de wet bewaakt; we leefden in gevangenschap tot het geloof geopenbaard zou worden. 24Kortom, de wet hield toezicht op ons totdat Christus kwam, zodat we door ons vertrouwen op God als rechtvaardigen konden worden aangenomen. 25Maar nu het geloof gekomen is, staan we niet langer onder toezicht, 26want door het geloof en in Christus Jezus bent u allen kinderen van God. 27U allen die door de doop één met Christus bent geworden, hebt u met Christus omkleed. 28Er zijn geen Joden of Grieken meer, slaven of vrijen, mannen of vrouwen – u bent allen één in Christus Jezus. 29En omdat u Christus toebehoort, bent u nakomelingen van Abraham, erfgenamen volgens de belofte.
quote:
[..]
Wat ben ik blij dat ik dat niet hoefde te zingen toen ik nog in een jongerenkoor zat.
HOLYSHITBALLS!!!
Amen!
Het is het langste hoofdstuk in de bijbel en volledig gewijd aan Gods wet en getuigenis.quote:
[..]
Wat ben ik blij dat ik dat niet hoefde te zingen toen ik nog in een jongerenkoor zat.
HOLYSHITBALLS!!!
Er zijn meer redenen om daar blij mee te zijn maar dat is voor een ander topic.quote:
[..]
Wat ben ik blij dat ik dat niet hoefde te zingen toen ik nog in een jongerenkoor zat.
HOLYSHITBALLS!!!
Health In Harmony is een non-profitorganisatie die regenwoudgemeenschappen helpt met gezondheidszorg en duurzame inkomens in ruil voor bosbescherming, en zo tegelijk klimaatverandering en armoede aanpakt. - https://www.healthinharmony.org/
Inderdaad een mooie beschrijving van wat het Joodse verbond betekende voor het Joodse volkquote:
[..]
Het is het langste hoofdstuk in de bijbel en volledig gewijd aan Gods wet en getuigenis.
. Christenen zijn echter deelgenoot van een nog beter en nieuw verbond
De wet wijst mij op mijn noodzaak voor Christus en Christus wijst mij naar de wet die mij wijst op mijn noodzaak voor Christus die mij wijst op de wet enzovoorts.quote:
Galaten 1
1Van Paulus, een apostel die niet is aangesteld of gezonden door mensen, maar door Jezus Christus en God, de Vader, die Christus uit de dood heeft opgewekt. 2Aan de gemeenten in Galatië, ook namens alle broeders en zusters die bij mij zijn. 3Genade zij u en vrede van God, onze Vader, en van onze Heer Jezus Christus, 4die zichzelf gegeven heeft voor onze zonden om ons te bevrijden uit deze door het kwaad beheerste wereld. Dat is de wil van onze God en Vader. 5Hem komt de eer toe tot in alle eeuwigheid. Amen.
Het ware evangelie
6Het verbaast me dat u zich zo snel hebt afgewend van hem die u door de genade van Christus heeft geroepen en dat u zich tot een ander evangelie hebt gekeerd. 7Er is geen ander evangelie, er zijn alleen maar mensen die u in verwarring brengen en het evangelie van Christus willen verdraaien. 8Wanneer iemand u iets verkondigt dat in strijd is met wat ik u verkondigd heb, al was ik het zelf of een engel uit de hemel – vervloekt is hij! 9Ik heb het al eerder gezegd en zeg het nu opnieuw: wanneer iemand u iets verkondigt dat in strijd is met wat u hebt ontvangen – vervloekt is hij! 10Probeer ik nu mensen te overtuigen of God? Probeer ik soms mensen te behagen? Als ik dat nog altijd zou doen, zou ik geen dienaar van Christus zijn. 11Ik verzeker u, broeders en zusters, dat het evangelie dat ik u verkondigd heb niet door mensen is bedacht 12– ik heb het ook niet van een mens ontvangen of geleerd – maar dat Jezus Christus mij is geopenbaard.
13U hebt gehoord hoe ik vroeger volgens de Joodse godsdienst leefde, dat ik de gemeente van God fanatiek vervolgde en haar probeerde uit te roeien. 14Ik leefde de Joodse wetten heel wat strikter na dan velen van mijn generatie en zette mij vol overgave in voor de tradities van ons voorgeslacht. 15Maar toen besloot God, die mij al vķķr mijn geboorte had uitgekozen en die mij door zijn genade heeft geroepen, 16zijn Zoon in mij te openbaren, opdat ik hem aan de heidenen zou verkondigen. Ik heb toen geen mens om raad gevraagd 17en ben ook niet naar Jeruzalem gegaan, naar hen die eerder apostel waren dan ik. Ik ben onmiddellijk naar Arabia gegaan en ben van daar weer teruggekeerd naar Damascus. 18Pas drie jaar later ging ik naar Jeruzalem om Kefas te ontmoeten, en bij hem bleef ik twee weken. 19Maar van de overige apostelen heb ik niemand gezien, behalve Jakobus, de broer van de Heer. 20God is mijn getuige dat ik u de waarheid schrijf. 21Daarna ging ik naar het kustgebied van Syrië en van Cilicië. 22De christengemeenten in Judea hadden mij nog nooit ontmoet, 23maar iedereen had over mij horen vertellen: ‘De man die ons vroeger vervolgde, verkondigt nu het geloof dat hij toen probeerde uit te roeien.’ 24En zij prezen God om mij.
Rechtvaardig voor God door het geloof in Jezus Christus
15Hoewel wij Joden van geboorte zijn en geen zondaars uit andere volken, 16weten we dat niemand als rechtvaardige wordt aangenomen door de wet na te leven, maar door het geloof in Jezus Christus. Ook wij zijn tot geloof in Christus Jezus gekomen om daardoor, en niet door de wet, rechtvaardig te worden, want niemand wordt rechtvaardig door de wet na te leven. 17En in ons streven om door Christus rechtvaardig te worden, blijkt dat wijzelf ook zondaars zijn. Betekent dit dat Christus dus in dienst staat van de zonde? Natuurlijk niet. 18Maar wanneer ik weer aanneem wat ik had verworpen, maak ik van mezelf opnieuw een overtreder. 19Want ik ben gestorven door de wet en leef niet langer voor de wet, maar voor God. Met Christus ben ik gekruisigd: 20ikzelf leef niet meer, maar Christus leeft in mij. Mijn leven hier op aarde leef ik in het geloof in de Zoon van God, die mij heeft liefgehad en zich voor mij heeft prijsgegeven. 21Ik verwerp Gods genade niet; als we door de wet rechtvaardig zouden kunnen worden, zou Christus voor niets gestorven zijn.
Het geloof en de wet
1Galaten, u hebt uw verstand verloren! Wie heeft u in zijn ban gekregen? Ik heb u Jezus Christus toch openlijk en duidelijk als de gekruisigde bekendgemaakt? 2Ik wil maar één ding van u weten: hebt u de Geest ontvangen door de wet na te leven of door te luisteren en te geloven? 3Bent u werkelijk zo dwaas weer op uw eigen kracht te vertrouwen, en niet langer op de Geest? 4Is alles wat u hebt meegemaakt dan voor niets geweest? Dat kan toch niet! 5Geeft God u de Geest en goddelijke krachten omdat u de wet naleeft? Of geeft hij ze omdat u naar hem luistert en op hem vertrouwt?
6Van Abraham wordt gezegd: ‘Hij vertrouwde op God, en dat werd hem als een daad van gerechtigheid toegerekend.’ 7U ziet dus dat zij die geloven kinderen van Abraham zijn. 8Nu heeft de Schrift voorzien dat God ook andere volken door geloof zou aannemen en daarom aan Abraham verkondigd: ‘In jou zullen alle volken gezegend worden.’ 9En dus wordt iedereen die gelooft samen met Abraham, de gelovige, gezegend. 10Maar iedereen die op de wet vertrouwt is vervloekt, want er staat geschreven: ‘Vervloekt is eenieder die niet alles doet wat het boek van de wet bepaalt.’ 11Dat niemand door de wet voor God rechtvaardig wordt, is volkomen duidelijk, want er staat ook geschreven: ‘De rechtvaardige zal leven door geloof.’ 12De wet daarentegen is niet gegrond op geloof, want er staat: ‘Wie doet wat de wet voorschrijft, zal leven.’ 13Maar Christus Jezus heeft ons vrijgekocht van deze vloek door voor ons te worden vervloekt, want er staat geschreven: ‘Vervloekt is ieder mens die aan een paal hangt.’ 14Zo zouden door hem alle volken delen in de zegen van Abraham en zouden wij, zoals ons is beloofd, door het geloof de Geest ontvangen.
15Broeders en zusters, ik geef u het voorbeeld van een rechtsgeldig testament, een testament dat door een mens bekrachtigd is. Niemand kan zo’n testament ongeldig verklaren of er iets aan toevoegen. 16Nu gaf God zijn beloften aan Abraham en zijn nakomeling. Let wel, er staat niet ‘nakomelingen’, alsof het velen betreft, maar het gaat om één: ‘je nakomeling’ – en die nakomeling is Christus. 17Ik bedoel dit: de wet, die vierhonderddertig jaar na de belofte werd gegeven, maakt het testament dat door God bekrachtigd is niet ongeldig. De wet kan de belofte nooit ontkrachten. 18Immers, als de erfenis afhankelijk van de wet zou zijn, zou ze niet afhankelijk zijn van de belofte, maar het is nu juist door zijn belofte dat God zijn genade aan Abraham heeft geschonken.
19Waarom dan toch de wet? De wet is later ingevoerd om ons bewust te maken van de zonde, in de tijd dat de nakomeling aan wie de belofte was gedaan nog komen moest. Ze werd door engelen aan een bemiddelaar gegeven. 20Maar bemiddeling is niet nodig wanneer er maar één is die handelt, en God handelt alleen. 21Is de wet daarom in strijd met Gods belofte? Absoluut niet. Als de wet leven zou kunnen brengen, zou de wet ons ook rechtvaardig kunnen maken. 22Maar de Schrift heeft alles in de macht van de zonde gelegd, zodat de belofte kon worden gegeven op grond van geloof in Jezus Christus, aan wie op hem vertrouwen. 23Voordat dit geloof kwam, werden we door de wet bewaakt; we leefden in gevangenschap tot het geloof geopenbaard zou worden. 24Kortom, de wet hield toezicht op ons totdat Christus kwam, zodat we door ons vertrouwen op God als rechtvaardigen konden worden aangenomen. 25Maar nu het geloof gekomen is, staan we niet langer onder toezicht, 26want door het geloof en in Christus Jezus bent u allen kinderen van God. 27U allen die door de doop één met Christus bent geworden, hebt u met Christus omkleed. 28Er zijn geen Joden of Grieken meer, slaven of vrijen, mannen of vrouwen – u bent allen één in Christus Jezus. 29En omdat u Christus toebehoort, bent u nakomelingen van Abraham, erfgenamen volgens de belofte.
Zonder wet die ik dien te gehoorzamen maar overtreden heb waardoor ik dien te sterven, geen noodzaak voor Christus die voor mij gestorven is en het leven geeft.
Welterusten.
Aber NEIN! De wet wijst je naar Christus, als je Hem accepteert komt de Heilige Geest in je wonen en die doet zijn werken in je, je hoeft dan niet steeds te denken "dit mag wel, dit mag niet" want als je wandelt naar de Geest sta je niet onder de wet. Oude verbond = doen, Nieuwe verbond = gedaan.quote:
[..]
De wet wijst mij op mijn noodzaak voor Christus en Christus wijst mij naar de wet die mij wijst op mijn noodzaak voor Christus die mij wijst op de wet enzovoorts.
Zonder wet die ik dien te gehoorzamen maar overtreden heb waardoor ik dien te sterven, geen noodzaak voor Christus die voor mij gestorven is en het leven geeft.
Welterusten.
Slaap lekker, ik ben ook pleite
En de Heilige Geest schrijft Gods wet in je hart.quote:
[..]
Aber NEIN! De wet wijst je naar Christus, als je Hem accepteert komt de Heilige Geest in je wonen en die doet zijn werken in je, je hoeft dan niet steeds te denken "dit mag wel, dit mag niet" want als je wandelt naar de Geest sta je niet onder de wet. Oude verbond = doen, Nieuwe verbond = gedaan.
31 Ziet, de dagen komen, spreekt de HEERE, dat Ik met het huis van Israël en met het huis van Juda een nieuw verbond zal maken;
32 Niet naar het verbond, dat Ik met hun vaderen gemaakt heb, ten dage als Ik hun hand aangreep, om hen uit Egypteland uit te voeren, welk Mijn verbond zij vernietigd hebben, hoewel Ik hen getrouwd had, spreekt de HEERE;
33 Maar dit is het verbond, dat Ik na die dagen met het huis van Israël maken zal, spreekt de HEERE: Ik zal Mijn wet in hun binnenste geven, en zal die in hun hart schrijven; en Ik zal hun tot een God zijn, en zij zullen Mij tot een volk zijn.
Je zou je dus af kunnen vragen in welke mate je de Heilige Geest hebt als je verkondigt dat Gods wet niet meer van belang is. We zouden Gods wet lief moeten hebben omdat Hij heilig, goed en rechtvaardig is. Wetteloosheid leidt tot anarchie, gehoorzaamheid tot orde en vrede. Gods wet spiritueel gelezen = liefde, en God = liefde. Gods wet en Gods karakter zijn 1 en hetzelfde. Je kunt niet Christus aannemen en de wet overboord gooien, want Christus was de verwezenlijking van de wet, vervulde hem. Niet als een farizeeer, maar als een man gehoorzaam aan de Vader.
Jouw interpretatie is niet bijbels. De wet in het hart geschreven betekent dat als je geleid wordt door de Heilige Geest dat je daardoor automatisch de wet gaat volgen. Je wordt immers een nieuw wezen, je leeft dan niet meer naar de letter van de wet maar naar de Geest.quote:
[..]
En de Heilige Geest schrijft Gods wet in je hart.
31 Ziet, de dagen komen, spreekt de HEERE, dat Ik met het huis van Israël en met het huis van Juda een nieuw verbond zal maken;
32 Niet naar het verbond, dat Ik met hun vaderen gemaakt heb, ten dage als Ik hun hand aangreep, om hen uit Egypteland uit te voeren, welk Mijn verbond zij vernietigd hebben, hoewel Ik hen getrouwd had, spreekt de HEERE;
33 Maar dit is het verbond, dat Ik na die dagen met het huis van Israël maken zal, spreekt de HEERE: Ik zal Mijn wet in hun binnenste geven, en zal die in hun hart schrijven; en Ik zal hun tot een God zijn, en zij zullen Mij tot een volk zijn.
Je zou je dus af kunnen vragen in welke mate je de Heilige Geest hebt als je verkondigt dat Gods wet niet meer van belang is. We zouden Gods wet lief moeten hebben omdat Hij heilig, goed en rechtvaardig is. Wetteloosheid leidt tot anarchie, gehoorzaamheid tot orde en vrede. Gods wet spiritueel gelezen = liefde, en God = liefde. Gods wet en Gods karakter zijn 1 en hetzelfde. Je kunt niet Christus aannemen en de wet overboord gooien, want Christus was de verwezenlijking van de wet, vervulde hem. Niet als een farizeeer, maar als een man gehoorzaam aan de Vader.
21Vertelt u eens, u wilt u onderwerpen aan de wet, maar luistert u wel naar de wet? 22Er staat geschreven dat Abraham twee zonen had: een van zijn slavin en een van zijn vrijgeboren vrouw. 23De zoon van de slavin dankte zijn geboorte aan de loop van de natuur, maar die van de vrijgeboren vrouw aan de belofte. 24-25Dit is een beeld: de vrouwen staan voor twee verbonden. Hagar staat voor het verbond van de berg Sinai in Arabia, dat slaven baart. Als beeld van dat verbond belichaamt Hagar het huidige Jeruzalem, dat met zijn kinderen in slavernij leeft. 26Maar het hemelse Jeruzalem is vrij, en dat is onze moeder, 27want er staat geschreven: ‘Wees verheugd, onvruchtbare vrouw, jij die niet baart. Jubel en juich, jij die geen weeën kent. Want zij die zonder man is, heeft meer kinderen dan zij die met een man is.’ 28En u, broeders en zusters, bent net als Isaak kinderen van de belofte. 29Maar zoals de zoon die krachtens de natuur geboren werd de zoon vervolgde die krachtens de Geest geboren werd, zo worden nu ook wij vervolgd. 30Maar wat zegt de Schrift? ‘Jaag de slavin en haar zoon weg, want de zoon van de vrijgeboren vrouw mag niet de erfenis delen met de zoon van de slavin.’ 31Daarom dus, broeders en zusters, zijn wij geen kinderen van de slavin, maar van de vrijgeboren vrouw.
Ik kan je van harte aanraden te luisteren naar de volgende uiteenzetting:
[youtube][/youtube]
Maar dit sluit niet uit dat je geen keuze meer hebt om de wet te verwerpen of te gehoorzamen. Gods geest vernieuwt je geweten en verhoogt je moraal, maar de keuze om aan een verleiding toe te geven bestaat nog steeds, en je kunt ook nog steeds zondigen. Dit weet je zelf toch ook wel uit eigen ervaringen? Of ben jij de dag van je bekering ineens perfect geworden Christus geworden, zonder ooit nog een vleselijke zondige daad te doen? Is er geen sprake van heiligmaking, transformatie, opoffering?quote:
[..]
Jouw interpretatie is niet bijbels. De wet in het hart geschreven betekent dat als je geleid wordt door de Heilige Geest dat je daardoor automatisch de wet gaat volgen. Je wordt immers een nieuw wezen, je leeft dan niet meer naar de letter van de wet maar naar de Geest.
Euh ja? ik ben ook niet diegene die beweert dat christenen 100 procent een zondeloos moeten/kunnen leven. De zonde zit immers ook na je bekering nog steeds in je.quote:
Maar dit sluit niet uit dat je geen keuze meer hebt om de wet te verwerpen of te gehoorzamen. Gods geest vernieuwt je geweten en verhoogt je moraal, maar de keuze om aan een verleiding toe te geven bestaat nog steeds, en je kunt ook nog steeds zondigen. Dit weet je zelf toch ook wel uit eigen ervaringen? Of ben jij de dag van je bekering ineens perfect geworden Christus geworden, zonder ooit nog een vleselijke zondige daad te doen? Is er geen sprake van heiligmaking, transformatie, opoffering?
Maar je zegt het volgende:quote:
[..]
Euh ja? ik ben ook niet diegene die beweert dat christenen 100 procent een zondeloos moeten/kunnen leven. De zonde zit immers ook na je bekering nog steeds in je.
De wet in het hart geschreven betekent dat als je geleid wordt door de Heilige Geest dat je daardoor automatisch de wet gaat volgen.
Dus geleid worden door Heilige Geest = volgen van de wet.
Overtreden van de wet = zonde.
Waarom is het volgen van het sabbatsgebod geen onderdeel van het geleid worden door de heilige geest? En het overtreden ervan zonde?
Heeft God zijn volk geen rustdag van zijn werken gegarandeerd?
Was het nieuwe verbond niet in eerste instantie aan joden beloofd, die de sabbat volgden?
31 Ziet, de dagen komen, spreekt de HEERE, dat Ik met het huis van Israël en met het huis van Juda een nieuw verbond zal maken;
32 Niet naar het verbond, dat Ik met hun vaderen gemaakt heb, ten dage als Ik hun hand aangreep, om hen uit Egypteland uit te voeren, welk Mijn verbond zij vernietigd hebben, hoewel Ik hen getrouwd had, spreekt de HEERE;
33 Maar dit is het verbond, dat Ik na die dagen met het huis van Israël maken zal, spreekt de HEERE: Ik zal Mijn wet in hun binnenste geven, en zal die in hun hart schrijven; en Ik zal hun tot een God zijn, en zij zullen Mij tot een volk zijn.
Als een jood dit leest, zal hij dan hieruit opmaken dat de sabbat niet meer van toepassing is?
Omdat de bijbel expliciet zegt dat de sabbath een schaduw is (kolossenzen 2:16) die vervuld is in Christus. De sabbath was dus geen morele wet maar een ceremoniele wet voor het volk van Israel. Er waren vele sabbaths voor het Joodse volk, de wekelijkse sabbath was een teken van het oude verbond. Mijn beargumentatie omtrent de sabbath heb ik geknipt en geplakt:quote:
[..]
Maar je zegt het volgende:
De wet in het hart geschreven betekent dat als je geleid wordt door de Heilige Geest dat je daardoor automatisch de wet gaat volgen.
Dus geleid worden door Heilige Geest = volgen van de wet.
Overtreden van de wet = zonde.
Waarom is het volgen van het sabbatsgebod geen onderdeel van het geleid worden door de heilige geest? En het overtreden ervan zonde?
Here I will just give some other thoughts on why I have concluded that the 7th day Sabbath is ceremonial.
A moral law is one that tells us what God is like. It reflects His character. A ceremonial law is a tool God uses to teach a spiritual truth. The Sabbath doesn’t tell us what God is like. The Sabbath points back to God’s creative works in forming our world (Genesis 1 & 2). It also pointed forward to God’s creative work of redemption in Jesus Christ. The Sabbath teaches us where we are to find our rest. Is it in a day or in the person of Jesus?
“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light” (Matthew 11:28-30 NIV).
The Sabbath, like a ceremonial law, teaches the great spiritual truth that man must rest from trying to find salvation in his own works. Rather we must rest in the saving work of Christ. We must have faith to rest from our works and to put complete faith in Him.
"Therefore, since a promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear lest any of you seem to have come short of it. For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it. For we who have believed do enter that rest, as He has said: ‘So I swore inMy wrath, They shall not enter My rest,’ although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. For He has spoken in a certain place of the seventh day in this way: ‘And God rested on the seventh day from all His works’; and again in this place: ‘They shall not enter My rest.’ Since therefore it remains that some must enter it, and those to whom it was first preached did not enter because of disobedience, again He designates a certain day, saying in David, “Today,” after such a long time, as it has been said: ‘Today, if you will hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts.’ For if Joshua had given them rest, then He would not afterward have spoken of another day. There remains therefore a rest for the people of God. For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His. Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience” (Hebrews 4:1-11 NKJV).
A moral law is part of man’s being. Special revelation is not needed for man to know a moral law. God did not have to give man special revelation in order for man to know that murder is wrong. All mankind knows this moral truth. Ceremonial laws are not so known. The Sabbath is not known to all. A man living in deepest, darkest Africa knows not to murder, but he does not know that he should be observing the 7th day Sabbath from sundown Friday until sundown Saturday each week. This would require special revelation from God. The Sabbath was received by special revelation given to Israel.
“You came down also on Mount Sinai, And spoke with them from heaven, And gave them just ordinances and true laws, Good statutes and commandments. You made known to them Your holy Sabbath, And commanded them precepts, statutes and laws, By the hand of Moses Your servant” (Nehemiah 9:13-14 NKJV).
Moral laws have always existed and will always exist. Ceremonial laws are instituted only for a specific period of time and for a specific people. The Sabbath was instituted as a part of the Old Covenant after Israel’s Exodus from Egypt (Exodus 16:22-30) and codified at Mount Sinai (Exodus 20:8-11). The Law Covenant which the Sabbath belonged to came into being 430 years after the promise made to Abraham and was brought to an end by Christ (Galatians 3:17-19). Only the Israelites were given the Sabbath. Only the Israelites were required to observe the Sabbath. No other people were ever commanded to observe it or condemned for not observing it. Thus the Sabbath was never universally binding on all people as moral laws are. The Sabbath was the special sign of the covenant that God made with the Israelites.
Then the Lord said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites, ‘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. “‘Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it is to be put to death; those who do any work on that day must be cut off from their people. For six days work is to be done, but the seventh day is a day of sabbath rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day is to be put to death. The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed” (Exodus 31:12-17 NIV).
Moral laws take precedence over ceremonial laws. The Sabbath was set aside for moral law (Matthew 12:9-12) and even for other ceremonial laws (John 7:22-23).
Moral laws are valid regardless of the situation. Compliance with ceremonial laws depends on the situation. The Sabbath could be broken depending on the situation (Matthew 12:1-12; John 7:22-23).
The Sabbath consistently appears in lists of ceremonial laws.
“[A]nd at every presentation of a burnt offering to the LORD on the Sabbaths and on the New Moons and on the set feasts, by number according to the ordinance governing them, regularly before the LORD” (1 CHRONICLES 23:31 NKJV).
“The king also appointed a portion of his possessions for the burnt offerings: for the morning and evening burnt offerings, the burnt offerings for the Sabbaths and the New Moons and the set feasts, as it is written in the Law of the Lord” (2 Chronicles 31:3 NKJV).
“Then it shall be the prince’s part to give burnt offerings, grain offerings, and drink offerings, at the feasts, the New Moons, the Sabbaths, and at all the appointed seasons of the house of Israel…” (Ezekiel 45:17 NKJV).
“So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ” (Colossians 2:16-17 NKJV).
See also 2 Kings 4:23; 2 Chronicles 2:3-4; 8:13; Nehemiah 10:32-33; Isaiah 1: 13-14; 66:23; Ezekiel 46:1-7; Hosea 2:11; and Amos 8:5; Galatians 4:8-11.
Paul treats the Sabbath as he does ceremonial laws, i.e. as a shadow of Christ’s work (Colossians 2:16-17; Hebrews 4). Consequently, he advises liberty be given in Sabbath observance. Do not judge a fellow Christian on his Sabbath observance or lack of Sabbath observance is Paul’s advise (Colossians 2:16; Romans 14:5).
Jesus taught that the violation of a ceremonial law and the violation of the Sabbath were equal.
“At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath”. He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. (Matthew 12:1-4 NIV).
From the evidence I note that the Sabbath has attributes of a ceremonial law, it is treated as a ceremonial law, and it is listed with ceremonial laws. Therefore, the evidence leads me to conclude that the Sabbath is a ceremonial law.
I will just point out that I believe that, like all the Sabbaths, the 7th day Sabbath was ceremonial. I believe this to be the clear teaching of the Bible. I see Leviticus 23 as very strongly teaching that all the Sabbaths are one unit of ceremonial feasts of the Lord God. For example, at the very beginning of the chapter God calls all Sabbaths, “My feast days” (v. 2). Then Moses begins listing all the Sabbaths God gave to the Israelites. Moses makes absolutely no distinction between the 7th day Sabbath and all the other “feast days”. The chapter concludes, “Thus did Moses announce to the Israelites the feasts of the Lord” (v. 44). I find nothing in this chapter to indicate that the 7th day Sabbath is moral and the other Sabbaths ceremonial. I do not find God making any distinction between the Sabbaths that He calls, “My feast days.”
I believe that the 7th day Sabbath is ceremonial because its restrictions are allowed on other days. To me this clearly indicates that the 7th day Sabbath is ceremonial. The very idea that a moral law can be judged valid or invalid based on what day of the week it happens to be is absurd. A moral law is valid no matter what day of the week it is. Can you imagine adultery being judged as allowable because it happens to be Wednesday? What moral law may one violate 85% of the time and that be acceptable to God?
Also the 7th day Sabbath could be set-aside in order to not violate a ceremonial law. Circumcision was given priority over the Sabbath. If a boy’s 8th day of life was on the Sabbath the ceremonial law of circumcision was performed and the Sabbath violated (John 7:22-23). What moral law could be violated in order to keep a ceremonial law?
God continually grouped the 7th day Sabbath with ceremonial feasts in the Old Testament. Please read 2 Kings 4:23; 1 Chronicles 23:31; 2 Chronicles 2:3-4; 8:13; 31:3; Nehemiah 10:33-34; Isaiah 1: 13-14; 66:23; Ezekiel 45:17; 46:1-7; Hosea 2:11; Amos 8:5. In the New Testament Paul continued this way of seeing all the feasts as one ceremonial unit. Please read Galatians 4:10 & Colossians 2:16. This fact strongly indicates to me that the 7th day Sabbath is ceremonial.
Another strong indicator is that God grouped the 7th day Sabbath with things that could be stopped. “I will stop all her celebrations: her yearly festivals, her New Moons, her Sabbath days—all her appointed feasts” (Hosea 2:11). As stated in Leviticus 23 God’s feast days included the 7th day Sabbath. What moral law does God ever say He will stop? “Your New Moon festivals and your appointed feasts my soul hates. They have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them” (Isaiah 1:14). What moral law does God ever say that He hates?
Just like all the other ceremonial feast days it was absolutely necessary to offer sacrifices in order to properly observe the 7th day Sabbath (Numbers 28:9-10). The 7th day Sabbath was part of the unit or package of ceremonial feast days particular to Israel. Numbers 28 & 29 lists the necessary sacrifices that Israel was to offer each morning and evening, each Sabbath, each New Moon, each Passover, each Pentecost, each New Year’s Day, each Day of Atonement, and each Feast of Booths. What moral law had sacrifices associated with its validity?
To me the passage in question, Exodus 16:16-30, indicates that Moses is delivering something new to the Israelites. For one thing after Moses tells them about the Sabbath they immediately break its restriction (v. 27) so Moses has to tell them again about what they may do and may not do (v. 29). For another thing even though they broke the Sabbath they were not punished. God only rebuked them through Moses. Since it was something knew to them the death penalty was foregone. Later, after the Sabbath became the sign of the covenant given at Sinai being placed in the midst of the Ten Commandments or the covenant document, a man was punished with death for simply picking up some sticks (Numbers 15:32-36).
We should also look beyond Exodus 16 to see what the rest of the Bible has to say about the Sabbath being a Creation Ordinance. What one finds is that there is no biblical evidence that anyone observed the Sabbath prior to Exodus 16. That’s the cold hard fact. Therefore, your belief that the 7th day Sabbath was known to the Israelites before their slavery in Egypt must rest upon unbiblical assumptions. Likewise, those that believe that the Sabbath was instituted at Creation because God “rested” in Genesis 2 also must rely on unbiblical assumptions. The statement in Genesis 2:2-3 does not sound like a command from God at all. Compare “By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done” (Genesis 2:2-3). With “God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground’" (Genesis 1:28). And “And the LORD God commanded the man, ‘You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die’" (Genesis 2:16-17).
Further there are two places that I know of that give an outline of salvation history. "You came down on Mount Sinai; you spoke to them from heaven. You gave them regulations and laws that are just and right, and decrees and commands that are good. You made known to them your holy Sabbath and gave them commands, decrees and laws through your servant Moses” (Nehemiah 9:13-14). The key here is “made known” This indicates a new thing not “repeated” or “reminded”, but “made known”. The other passage is from Ezekiel. “I gave them my decrees and made known to them my laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them. Also I gave them my Sabbaths as a sign between us, so they would know that I the LORD made them holy” (20:11-12). The keys here are “made known” and “gave them” these indicate that the Israelites never had the Sabbath before this time. This agrees with Paul when he wrote that the Law didn’t come until centuries after Abraham. “My point is this: a covenant (the Abrahamic) formally ratified by God is not set aside as invalid by any law (the Mosaic) that came into being 430 years later, nor is its promise nullified…it (the Mosaic Covenant) was valid only until that descendant or offspring (Jesus) came to whom the promise had been given” (Galatians 3:17, 19). No Sinai Law equals no Sabbath command. Since Jesus has ended the Old Covenant the Sabbath, too, is finished as a binding command.
I have to say in all Christian love that your resorting to saying that people before Moses kept the Sabbath “because the words of Exodus 15:26 are similar to those spoken to Abraham many years previously when God had said: ‘Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.’ Genesis 26:5” is pathetic. Can you see how you are grasping at straws in order to preserve your strongly held belief in opposition to the Bible?
Your argument that if the Sabbath is only for the Jews then so are the rest of the Ten Commandments misunderstands the tablets of stone. The tablets were a covenant document between God and Israel and no one else. The Sabbath was the ceremonial sign of that covenant. The Ten Commandments contain nine moral laws and one ceremonial law. As I have previously shown the Sabbath was that ceremonial sign. The nine moral laws are binding on all people, but the ceremonial sign was a sign between God and Israel only (Exodus 31:13, 16-17; Ezekiel 20:12, 20). It was to show that the Israelites were loyal to that covenant, a covenant that was only between God and Israel.
I believe that the 7th day Sabbath is ceremonial because its restrictions are allowed on other days. To me this clearly indicates that the 7th day Sabbath is ceremonial. The very idea that a moral law can be judged valid or invalid based on what day of the week it happens to be is absurd. A moral law is valid no matter what day of the week it is. Can you imagine adultery being judged as allowable because it happens to be Wednesday? What moral law may one violate 85% of the time and that be acceptable to God?
Also the 7th day Sabbath could be set-aside in order to not violate a ceremonial law. Circumcision was given priority over the Sabbath. If a boy’s 8th day of life was on the Sabbath the ceremonial law of circumcision was performed and the Sabbath violated (John 7:22-23). What moral law could be violated in order to keep a ceremonial law?
God continually grouped the 7th day Sabbath with ceremonial feasts in the Old Testament. Please read 2 Kings 4:23; 1 Chronicles 23:31; 2 Chronicles 2:3-4; 8:13; 31:3; Nehemiah 10:33-34; Isaiah 1: 13-14; 66:23; Ezekiel 45:17; 46:1-7; Hosea 2:11; Amos 8:5. In the New Testament Paul continued this way of seeing all the feasts as one ceremonial unit. Please read Galatians 4:10 & Colossians 2:16. This fact strongly indicates to me that the 7th day Sabbath is ceremonial.
Another strong indicator is that God grouped the 7th day Sabbath with things that could be stopped. “I will stop all her celebrations: her yearly festivals, her New Moons, her Sabbath days—all her appointed feasts” (Hosea 2:11). As stated in Leviticus 23 God’s feast days included the 7th day Sabbath. What moral law does God ever say He will stop? “Your New Moon festivals and your appointed feasts my soul hates. They have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them” (Isaiah 1:14). What moral law does God ever say that He hates?
Just like all the other ceremonial feast days it was absolutely necessary to offer sacrifices in order to properly observe the 7th day Sabbath (Numbers 28:9-10). The 7th day Sabbath was part of the unit or package of ceremonial feast days particular to Israel. Numbers 28 & 29 lists the necessary sacrifices that Israel was to offer each morning and evening, each Sabbath, each New Moon, each Passover, each Pentecost, each New Year’s Day, each Day of Atonement, and each Feast of Booths. What moral law had sacrifices associated with its validity?
To me the passage in question, Exodus 16:16-30, indicates that Moses is delivering something new to the Israelites. For one thing after Moses tells them about the Sabbath they immediately break its restriction (v. 27) so Moses has to tell them again about what they may do and may not do (v. 29). For another thing even though they broke the Sabbath they were not punished. God only rebuked them through Moses. Since it was something knew to them the death penalty was foregone. Later, after the Sabbath became the sign of the covenant given at Sinai being placed in the midst of the Ten Commandments or the covenant document, a man was punished with death for simply picking up some sticks (Numbers 15:32-36).
We should also look beyond Exodus 16 to see what the rest of the Bible has to say about the Sabbath being a Creation Ordinance. What one finds is that there is no biblical evidence that anyone observed the Sabbath prior to Exodus 16. That’s the cold hard fact. Therefore, your belief that the 7th day Sabbath was known to the Israelites before their slavery in Egypt must rest upon unbiblical assumptions. Likewise, those that believe that the Sabbath was instituted at Creation because God “rested” in Genesis 2 also must rely on unbiblical assumptions. The statement in Genesis 2:2-3 does not sound like a command from God at all. Compare “By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done” (Genesis 2:2-3). With “God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground’" (Genesis 1:28). And “And the LORD God commanded the man, ‘You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die’" (Genesis 2:16-17).
Further there are two places that I know of that give an outline of salvation history. "You came down on Mount Sinai; you spoke to them from heaven. You gave them regulations and laws that are just and right, and decrees and commands that are good. You made known to them your holy Sabbath and gave them commands, decrees and laws through your servant Moses” (Nehemiah 9:13-14). The key here is “made known” This indicates a new thing not “repeated” or “reminded”, but “made known”. The other passage is from Ezekiel. “I gave them my decrees and made known to them my laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them. Also I gave them my Sabbaths as a sign between us, so they would know that I the LORD made them holy” (20:11-12). The keys here are “made known” and “gave them” these indicate that the Israelites never had the Sabbath before this time. This agrees with Paul when he wrote that the Law didn’t come until centuries after Abraham. “My point is this: a covenant (the Abrahamic) formally ratified by God is not set aside as invalid by any law (the Mosaic) that came into being 430 years later, nor is its promise nullified…it (the Mosaic Covenant) was valid only until that descendant or offspring (Jesus) came to whom the promise had been given” (Galatians 3:17, 19). No Sinai Law equals no Sabbath command. Since Jesus has ended the Old Covenant the Sabbath, too, is finished as a binding command.
I have to say in all Christian love that your resorting to saying that people before Moses kept the Sabbath “because the words of Exodus 15:26 are similar to those spoken to Abraham many years previously when God had said: ‘Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.’ Genesis 26:5” is pathetic. Can you see how you are grasping at straws in order to preserve your strongly held belief in opposition to the Bible?
Your argument that if the Sabbath is only for the Jews then so are the rest of the Ten Commandments misunderstands the tablets of stone. The tablets were a covenant document between God and Israel and no one else. The Sabbath was the ceremonial sign of that covenant. The Ten Commandments contain nine moral laws and one ceremonial law. As I have previously shown the Sabbath was that ceremonial sign. The nine moral laws are binding on all people, but the ceremonial sign was a sign between God and Israel only (Exodus 31:13, 16-17; Ezekiel 20:12, 20). It was to show that the Israelites were loyal to that covenant, a covenant that was only between God and Israel.
De sabbat is een morele wet omdat Hij Gods autoriteit benadrukt.quote:
[..]
Omdat de bijbel expliciet zegt dat de sabbath een schaduw is (kolossenzen 2:16) die vervuld is in Christus. De sabbath was dus geen morele wet maar een ceremoniele wet voor het volk van Israel. Er waren vele sabbaths voor het Joodse volk, de wekelijkse sabbath was een teken van het oude verbond. Mijn beargumentatie omtrent de sabbath heb ik geknipt en geplakt:
Here I will just give some other thoughts on why I have concluded that the 7th day Sabbath is ceremonial.
A moral law is one that tells us what God is like. It reflects His character. A ceremonial law is a tool God uses to teach a spiritual truth. The Sabbath doesn’t tell us what God is like. The Sabbath points back to God’s creative works in forming our world (Genesis 1 & 2). It also pointed forward to God’s creative work of redemption in Jesus Christ. The Sabbath teaches us where we are to find our rest. Is it in a day or in the person of Jesus?
“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light” (Matthew 11:28-30 NIV).
The Sabbath, like a ceremonial law, teaches the great spiritual truth that man must rest from trying to find salvation in his own works. Rather we must rest in the saving work of Christ. We must have faith to rest from our works and to put complete faith in Him.
"Therefore, since a promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear lest any of you seem to have come short of it. For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it. For we who have believed do enter that rest, as He has said: ‘So I swore inMy wrath, They shall not enter My rest,’ although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. For He has spoken in a certain place of the seventh day in this way: ‘And God rested on the seventh day from all His works’; and again in this place: ‘They shall not enter My rest.’ Since therefore it remains that some must enter it, and those to whom it was first preached did not enter because of disobedience, again He designates a certain day, saying in David, “Today,” after such a long time, as it has been said: ‘Today, if you will hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts.’ For if Joshua had given them rest, then He would not afterward have spoken of another day. There remains therefore a rest for the people of God. For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His. Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience” (Hebrews 4:1-11 NKJV).
A moral law is part of man’s being. Special revelation is not needed for man to know a moral law. God did not have to give man special revelation in order for man to know that murder is wrong. All mankind knows this moral truth. Ceremonial laws are not so known. The Sabbath is not known to all. A man living in deepest, darkest Africa knows not to murder, but he does not know that he should be observing the 7th day Sabbath from sundown Friday until sundown Saturday each week. This would require special revelation from God. The Sabbath was received by special revelation given to Israel.
“You came down also on Mount Sinai, And spoke with them from heaven, And gave them just ordinances and true laws, Good statutes and commandments. You made known to them Your holy Sabbath, And commanded them precepts, statutes and laws, By the hand of Moses Your servant” (Nehemiah 9:13-14 NKJV).
Moral laws have always existed and will always exist. Ceremonial laws are instituted only for a specific period of time and for a specific people. The Sabbath was instituted as a part of the Old Covenant after Israel’s Exodus from Egypt (Exodus 16:22-30) and codified at Mount Sinai (Exodus 20:8-11). The Law Covenant which the Sabbath belonged to came into being 430 years after the promise made to Abraham and was brought to an end by Christ (Galatians 3:17-19). Only the Israelites were given the Sabbath. Only the Israelites were required to observe the Sabbath. No other people were ever commanded to observe it or condemned for not observing it. Thus the Sabbath was never universally binding on all people as moral laws are. The Sabbath was the special sign of the covenant that God made with the Israelites.
Then the Lord said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites, ‘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. “‘Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it is to be put to death; those who do any work on that day must be cut off from their people. For six days work is to be done, but the seventh day is a day of sabbath rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day is to be put to death. The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed” (Exodus 31:12-17 NIV).
Moral laws take precedence over ceremonial laws. The Sabbath was set aside for moral law (Matthew 12:9-12) and even for other ceremonial laws (John 7:22-23).
Moral laws are valid regardless of the situation. Compliance with ceremonial laws depends on the situation. The Sabbath could be broken depending on the situation (Matthew 12:1-12; John 7:22-23).
The Sabbath consistently appears in lists of ceremonial laws.
“[A]nd at every presentation of a burnt offering to the LORD on the Sabbaths and on the New Moons and on the set feasts, by number according to the ordinance governing them, regularly before the LORD” (1 CHRONICLES 23:31 NKJV).
“The king also appointed a portion of his possessions for the burnt offerings: for the morning and evening burnt offerings, the burnt offerings for the Sabbaths and the New Moons and the set feasts, as it is written in the Law of the Lord” (2 Chronicles 31:3 NKJV).
“Then it shall be the prince’s part to give burnt offerings, grain offerings, and drink offerings, at the feasts, the New Moons, the Sabbaths, and at all the appointed seasons of the house of Israel…” (Ezekiel 45:17 NKJV).
“So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ” (Colossians 2:16-17 NKJV).
See also 2 Kings 4:23; 2 Chronicles 2:3-4; 8:13; Nehemiah 10:32-33; Isaiah 1: 13-14; 66:23; Ezekiel 46:1-7; Hosea 2:11; and Amos 8:5; Galatians 4:8-11.
Paul treats the Sabbath as he does ceremonial laws, i.e. as a shadow of Christ’s work (Colossians 2:16-17; Hebrews 4). Consequently, he advises liberty be given in Sabbath observance. Do not judge a fellow Christian on his Sabbath observance or lack of Sabbath observance is Paul’s advise (Colossians 2:16; Romans 14:5).
Jesus taught that the violation of a ceremonial law and the violation of the Sabbath were equal.
“At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath”. He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. (Matthew 12:1-4 NIV).
From the evidence I note that the Sabbath has attributes of a ceremonial law, it is treated as a ceremonial law, and it is listed with ceremonial laws. Therefore, the evidence leads me to conclude that the Sabbath is a ceremonial law.
God kiest de rustdag en niet iemand anders een andere dag zoals de zondag.
Verwerping van de sabbat is verwerping van Gods autoriteit en dat is een morele kwestie.
De sabbat werd al gegeven voordat er een verbond opgezet was (exodus 16) en is dus geen teken van het oude verbond, dat is uit de duim gezogen. De sabbat benadrukte onder andere de redding uit Egypte maar dit wil niet zeggen dat de sabbat zijn oorsprong vindt in die redding. Iedere christen wordt uit Egypte gered en naar het beloofde land geleid, via de doop in de jordaan, enzovoorts. In dat opzicht was de hele toch van de joden slechts een voorbeeld van het ware plan van redding en kun je dus ook gemakkelijk stellen dat de sabbat een teken is de ware redding onder het nieuwe verbond (en dat is het ook).
Verder is het garanderen van een rustdag door God een bescherming tegen slavernij van 7 dagen/week werken. Dat is een uiting van liefde van God voor de mens.
Laat je lappen tekst achterwege ajb want ik lees ze toch niet.
[ Bericht 0% gewijzigd door Ali_Kannibali op 12-05-2013 12:06:21 ]
quote:
[..]
De sabbat is een morele wet omdat Hij Gods autoriteit benadrukt.
God kiest de rustdag en niet iemand anders een andere dag zoals de zondag.
Verwerping van de sabbat is verwerping van Gods autoriteit en dat is een morele kwestie.
De sabbat werd al gegeven voordat er een verbond opgezet was (exodus 16) en is dus geen teken van het oude verbond, dat is uit de duim gezogen.
Verder is het garanderen van een rustdag door God een bescherming tegen slavernij van 7 dagen/week werken. Dat is een uiting van liefde van God voor de mens.
Laat je lappen tekst achterwege ajb want ik lees ze toch niet.
Als je wil mag je geloven dat je neus een bloedworst is, zolang je het maar niet presenteert als bijbelse doctrines. Je wil niet geconfronteerd worden met de duidelijke leerstellingen van de bijbel, dat mag. Je mag zelf bepalen wat je wil geloven. Maar doe dan niet alsof je gelooft dat je gelooft dat de bijbel Gods onfeilbare woord is. Wellicht is dat de reden dat jouw "gemeente" niet gelooft in de onfeilbaarheid van de bijbel. De officiele positie van jouw "gemeente" is dat ze niet geloven in verbale inspiratie maar gedachteninspiratie.quote:
[..]
De sabbat is een morele wet omdat Hij Gods autoriteit benadrukt.
God kiest de rustdag en niet iemand anders een andere dag zoals de zondag.
Verwerping van de sabbat is verwerping van Gods autoriteit en dat is een morele kwestie.
De sabbat werd al gegeven voordat er een verbond opgezet was (exodus 16) en is dus geen teken van het oude verbond, dat is uit de duim gezogen.
Verder is het garanderen van een rustdag door God een bescherming tegen slavernij van 7 dagen/week werken. Dat is een uiting van liefde van God voor de mens.
Laat je lappen tekst achterwege ajb want ik lees ze toch niet.
Feit is dat de sabbath werd geintroduceerd in Exodus 16, ruim 2500-3000 jaar na de schepping. Feit is dat christenen niet gebonden zijn aan een specifieke rustdag, we zouden zelfs op woensdag naar de kerk kunnen gaan. De eerste christenen hielden zondagsvergaderingen omdat dat de dag was dat Jezus was opgestaan. Met betrekking tot je laatste argument dat we rust nodig hebben, dat is een gewetenskwestie. Ik vind het erg teleurstellend dat je weigert de bijbel te lezen wanneer het jou niet goed uitkomt. Wat zegt dat over jouw geloofsovertuiging?
Ik vind het jammer dat je niet in staat bent zelf je eigen argumenten aan te dragen zonder met hele lappen tekst te komen en video's die ik moet kijken.quote:
[..]
[..]
Als je wil mag je geloven dat je neus een bloedworst is, zolang je het maar niet presenteert als bijbelse doctrines. Je wil niet geconfronteerd worden met de duidelijke leerstellingen van de bijbel, dat mag. Je mag zelf bepalen wat je wil geloven. Maar doe dan niet alsof je gelooft dat je gelooft dat de bijbel Gods onfeilbare woord is. Wellicht is dat de reden dat jouw "gemeente" niet gelooft in de onfeilbaarheid van de bijbel. De officiele positie van jouw "gemeente" is dat ze niet geloven in verbale inspiratie maar gedachteninspiratie.
Feit is dat de sabbath werd geintroduceerd in Exodus 16, ruim 2500-3000 jaar na de schepping. Feit is dat christenen niet gebonden zijn aan een specifieke rustdag, we zouden zelfs op woensdag naar de kerk kunnen gaan. De eerste christenen hielden zondagsvergaderingen omdat dat de dag was dat Jezus was opgestaan. Met betrekking tot je laatste argument dat we rust nodig hebben, dat is een gewetenskwestie. Ik vind het erg teleurstellend dat je weigert de bijbel te lezen wanneer het jou niet goed uitkomt. Wat zegt dat over jouw geloofsovertuiging?
Onderzoek je eigen standpunten eerst en leer die concreet te verwoorden en beargumenteren voordat je met ad hominems komt, of dat nu tegen Ellen White is, de kerk, of tegen mijzelf. Me een schuldgevoel aan willen praten helpt je ook niet verder.
Ik wil je geen schuldgevoel aanpraten, maar als ik lappen tekst gebruik die 100 procent mijn gedachtegang tonen, waarom zou ik het dan in mijn eigen woorden moeten neerpennen? Je kan het toch makkelijk lezen en op basis daarvan zeggen waar je het niet mee eens bent. Dat zou ik ook doen als jij mij lappen tekst presenteert. Bovendien heb ik geen ad-hominems gebruikt, ik probeer alleen maar aan te kaarten het feit dat je selectieve cognitivieve dissonantie reducerende kenmerken vertoont zoals deze vaak bij sektes plaatsvindt. Ik probeer je juist te helpen...quote:
[..]
Ik vind het jammer dat je niet in staat bent zelf je eigen arugmenten aan te dragen zonder met hele lappen tekst te komen en video's die ik moet kijken.
Onderzoek je eigen standpunten eerst en leer die concreet te verwoorden en beargumenteren voordat je met ad hominems komt, of dat nu tegen Ellen White is, de kerk, of tegen mijzelf. Me een schuldgevoel aan willen praten helpt je ook niet verder.
Omdat zolang je het niet zelf neerpent en onder woorden brengt, het ook niet zeker is of je uberhaupt begrijpt wat je plaatst. Klakkeloos aannemen is dan eerder van toepassing. De zin van studie is nu juist dat je begrijpt wat je leest en dat op een zinnige manier aan een ander kan communiceren. Zolang je slechts kopieert en plakt weet ik helemaal niet wat jouw positie exact is.quote:
[..]
Ik wil je geen schuldgevoel aanpraten, maar als ik lappen tekst gebruik die 100 procent mijn gedachtegang tonen, waarom zou ik het dan in mijn eigen woorden moeten neerpennen? Je kan het toch makkelijk lezen en op basis daarvan zeggen waar je het niet mee eens bent. Dat zou ik ook doen als jij mij lappen tekst presenteert. Bovendien heb ik geen ad-hominems gebruikt, ik probeer alleen maar aan te kaarten het feit dat je selectieve cognitivieve dissonantie reducerende kenmerken vertoont zoals deze vaak bij sektes plaatsvindt. Ik probeer je juist te helpen...
Ik beschouw je opmerking over 'gemeente' tussen aanhalingstekens als een ad hominem. Wat mij betreft val je hiermee individuen aan, individuen door God gekozen en geaccepteerd. Dat is niet verstandig. Ik maak deel uit van die gemeente.
Het plaatsen van die video over 'Ellen G Witch' is een ad hominem.
Me presenteren als iemand die selectief leest en negeert en daarmee mijn eerlijkheid openbaar in twijfel trekken is een ad hominem.
Waarom lees je niet zelf ook de counter-argumenten van alles wat je nu leest op een site als http://www.ellenwhitedefend.com/ of http://adventist-defense-league.blogspot.fr/. Praktisch alles wat je aandraagt wordt daarin behandeld en wat mij betreft verhelderd en uitgelegd. Je ziet dan ook dat veel van de teksten en citaten die je aandraagt vreselijk uit hun verband zijn gerukt en gepresenteerd op een manier die niet trouw is aan de bedoeling van de auteurs. Het is dwaas om daar in te trappen.
Wat ik meer vermoed is dat je een verkeerd begrip van wat ZDA leert hebt gekregen en het als legalisme ziet. Maar nergens in ZDA zul je de wet los zien van redding in Christus en het ontvangen van de Heilige Geest. God maakt ons nieuwe schepsels gehoorzaam aan Hem. Gehoorzaamheid impliceert regels, wetten, een standaard van goed en kwaad. Die standaard is de wet, de wet verwoordt liefde voor God en liefde voor naasten. Maar niets wat een mens aan gehoorzaamheid produceert is een prijs om zijn ticket naar de hemel te betalen. Redding is door genade via geloof en behelst heiligmaking door de Heilige Geest die ons conform Gods wil ie.wet herschept. Van nature ongehoorzame wezens worden we van nature gehoorzame wezens.
[ Bericht 2% gewijzigd door Ali_Kannibali op 12-05-2013 12:35:13 ]
Een ad-hominem is volgens mij een persoonlijke aanval op jou als persoon. Dat doe ik niet, ik vind jou zelfs best aardig. Ik ageer echter tegen jouw gedachtegoed en tegen jouw misleidende kerk om jou als persoon wakker te schudden en te helpen.quote:
trappen.Wat ik meer vermoed is dat je een verkeerd begrip van wat ZDA leert hebt gekregen en het als legalisme ziet. Maar nergens in ZDA zul je de wet los zien van redding in Christus en het ontvangen van de Heilige Geest. God maakt ons nieuwe schepsels gehoorzaam aan Hem. Gehoorzaamheid impliceert regels, wetten, een standaard van goed en kwaad. Die standaard is de wet, de wet verwoordt liefde voor God en liefde voor naasten. Maar niets wat een mens aan gehoorzaamheid produceert is een prijs om zijn ticket naar de
Ik ben bekend met alle mogelijke argumenten voor en tegen het Zevende Dags Adventisme. Echter dit zijn de feiten:
Ellen White was een valse profetes die een millionaire lifestyle leidde dankzij het plegen van plagiaat met behulp van een persoonlijke bibliotheek met meer dan 1200 boeken en hoogopgeleide secretaresses. Deze boeken bevatten vele valse leerstellingen zoals de sabbath, het onderzoekend oordeel, een vals evangelie van werken, verkeerde interpretatie van profetieeen etc. etc. etc. De overeenkomsten tussen de Mormoonse profeet Joseph Smith en Ellen White zijn vrijwel in het geheel identiek (zie truthorfables.com). etc. etc.
Nogmaals maar eens verwoorden waarom de sabbath een ceremoniele wet was:
- Sabbath werd in de bijbel heel vaak in 1 adem genoemd met de andere sabbathen, wat aangeeft dat ook de wekelijkse sabbath ceremonieel was.
- Jezus brak de sabbath door te verwijzen naar een andere ceremoniele wet. Dit zou Jezus nooit gedaan hebben als de sabbath een moreel gebod was.
- In Hosea 2 wordt geprofeteerd dat er een einde zal komen aan de wekelijkse sabbath
- De sabbath was het merkteken van het oude verbond dat volgens hebreeers is afgewisseld door het nieuwe verbond; de enige logische conclusie is dan ook dat de sabbath niet meer voor christenen is
- Dit wordt bevestigd in kolossenzen 2: 16 waarin de sabbath een schaduw wordt genoemd...
Je overschat jezelf.quote:
Ik ben bekend met alle mogelijke argumenten voor en tegen het Zevende Dags Adventisme.
1 Aangaande nu de dingen, die den afgoden geofferd zijn, wij weten, dat wij allen te zamen kennis hebben. De kennis maakt opgeblazen, maar de liefde sticht.
2 En zo iemand meent iets te weten, die heeft nog niets gekend, gelijk men behoort te kennen.
3 Maar zo iemand God liefheeft, die is van Hem gekend.
Huiswerk maken doe je maar op school, dit betreft wetenschap.quote:
[..]
O zo, maar de katholieke kerk bestond natuurlijk ook al wat langer dan wat we nu katholieke kerk noemen. De orthodoxe stroming zeg maar, waar bepaalde kerkvaders ook aanhanger van waren.quote:FF kort wat foutjes in je post aanhalen
Wat ik bedoelde met de term "katholieke" bijbel is dat het niet zo is dat de katholieke kerk verantwoordelijk is voor het feit dat we een bijbel hebben. Jij leek dit in een vorige post te impliceren.
Dat is de joodse traditie ja.quote:Met betrekking tot het auteurschap van de bijbel, daar zijn de meningen over verdeeld inderdaad. Jij stelt dat Mozes niet de auteur is van de eerste 5 Bijbelboeken en gebruikt daarbij een link die zelf verklaart dat:
De joodse Tenach bestond uit drie delen: de Thora (=wet, de vijf boeken van Mozes).....
Wat een onzin vertel je hier zeg. Het boek "wie schreef de bijbel" staat echt wel beter aangeschreven dan de boeken van Ehrman. En die man is niet de eerste die beweerde dat de bijbel frauduleus is. Dit toont wel aan hoe jij je huiswerk gedaan zeg, jezus christus, moeder maria en de zeven maagden.quote:Zelf ben ik van mening dat jouw visie verkeerd is en de mijne juist is
Als je eens wat discussies van die man zou volgen dan zou je ook horen dat hij vroeger dacht dat de bijbel helemaal waar was. En dat hij zijn conclusies nog niet zo lang geleden getrokken had over de fraude van de bijbel. Zelfs de kerkvaders waren eerder met hun vragen over de fraude van de bijbel! En Luther stelde zich ook al vragen bij bepaalde boeken (zoals Hebreeen en Openbaring, zoals ik al liet zien in mijn links naar de canon van de katholieken en protestanten).
Ja hoor, als de een zegt dat God David opzette om de volkstelling uit te voeren en de ander zegt dat het satan was die dat deed dan is dat een kwestie van contextquote:Met betrekking tot tegenstrijdigheden, ik ben er nog nooit eentje tegengekomen
Je bent gewoon een enorme dwaas die niet serieus onderzoek gedaan heeft naar de bijbel maar dat wel steeds claimt.
Onze visies kan mij gestolen worden, mij gaat het om wetenschappelijk onderzoek en daar valt niets aan af te dingen. "ik geloof dit en dat" is voor mij weinig steekhoudend. Ik geloof dat des nachts kaboutertjes komen om mijn huis schoon te maken. Maar als ik in de morgen wakker word is het nog steeds zo'n klerezooi. Dus dan geloof ik dat net voor ik wakker ben de trollen komen, die de boel weer verzieken...quote:Met betrekking tot de samenstelling van de bijbel is het duidelijk dat we inderdaad uiteenlopende visies hebben.
Volgens de Bijbel is zelfs geloof genade. Dus je moet niet zelf geloven en dan komt de HG in je wonen.quote:
[..]
Aber NEIN! De wet wijst je naar Christus, als je Hem accepteert komt de Heilige Geest in je wonen en die doet zijn werken in je, je hoeft dan niet steeds te denken "dit mag wel, dit mag niet" want als je wandelt naar de Geest sta je niet onder de wet. Oude verbond = doen, Nieuwe verbond = gedaan.
En dit is een makkelijk geloof zeg, ik mag alles als ik maar geloof dat Jezus gristus gestorven is voor onze zonden. Dus ik mag zelfs liegen in mijn discussies met niet gelovigen! Sterker nog, hoe meer ik lieg voor de goede zaak, hoe dichter ik bij Jezus zal zitten bij het avondmaal die in de hemelen zijt.
"Bettler aber sollte man ganz abschaffen! Wahrlich, man ärgert sich ihnen zu geben und ärgert sich ihnen nicht zu geben."
Friedrich Nietzsche
Friedrich Nietzsche
quote:
Ik heb alle mogelijke bronnen onderzocht. Zelfs een versimpelde versie van Dr. Des Fords zijn 1000 pagina-tellende dissertatie ten opzichte van het Onderzoekend Oordeel. Ik ben bekend met vrijwel alle geschriften van Ellen White. Heb de discussie omtrent Walter Martin en de ZDA sekte bestudeerd en de wijze waarop de sekte tegen hem had gelogen. Heb ge-emailed met een voormalige werknemer van de White Estate (Tom Norris). Heb de boeken van Ellen White haar eigentijdse voormalige aanhangers onderzocht, o.a. van D.M. Canright. Heb geluisterd naar de verhalen van voormalige ZDA's, sommige waren een pastoor in die kerk voor meer dan 30 jaar voordat ze doorhadden dat ze deel uitmaakten van een sekte. Ben bekend met de defense-websites en hun argumenten zijn eenvoudig te doorprikken. Heb de gelijkenissen tussen Ellen White en Joseph Smith in acht genomen. Heb een psycho-analyse gedaan van Ellen White EN Walter Veith. Heb onafhankelijke getuigenverklaringen in acht genomen omtrent Ellen White, waaronder rechtszaken die onder ede zijn afgenomen. Heb bovendien de getuigenissen van Roger Morneau meegewogen, zelfs zijn zoon ageert nu tegen de ZDA sekte als een misleiding. Heb Ellen White haar inconsistenties meegewogen waaruit blijkt dat ze geen idee had waarover ze praatte maar alleen veel wou schrijven om het schrijven en zo veel boeken te verkopen. Heb de ondertekende getuigenverklaringen in acht genomen die aanduiden dat de bekendste boeken van Ellen White (Steps 2 christ en Desire of Ages) door haar secretaresses geschreven waren en niet door Ellen zelf. Heb in acht genomen de aard van haar bovennatuurlijke ervaringen en de boodschappen die haar engel haar meegaf.En dan begin ik nog maar aan de oppervlakte te krabben. Ik heb mijn huiswerk gedaan, maar als je nu beweert dat ik mijzelf overschat of dat ik niet weet wat jouw sekte eigenlijk leert, dan weet ik het ook niet meer....
Ehrman was de eerste die officieel mediabekendheid kreeg vanwege zijn boek "forged" waarin de stelling dat de bijbel door andere auteurs zou zijn geschreven voor het eerst bekend werdquote:
[..]
Huiswerk maken doe je maar op school, dit betreft wetenschap.
[..]
O zo, maar de katholieke kerk bestond natuurlijk ook al wat langer dan wat we nu katholieke kerk noemen. De orthodoxe stroming zeg maar, waar bepaalde kerkvaders ook aanhanger van waren.
[..]
Dat is de joodse traditie ja.
[..]
Wat een onzin vertel je hier zeg. Het boek "wie schreef de bijbel" staat echt wel beter aangeschreven dan de boeken van Ehrman. En die man is niet de eerste die beweerde dat de bijbel frauduleus is. Dit toont wel aan hoe jij je huiswerk gedaan zeg, jezus christus, moeder maria en de zeven maagden.
Als je eens wat discussies van die man zou volgen dan zou je ook horen dat hij vroeger dacht dat de bijbel helemaal waar was. En dat hij zijn conclusies nog niet zo lang geleden getrokken had over de fraude van de bijbel. Zelfs de kerkvaders waren eerder met hun vragen over de fraude van de bijbel! En Luther stelde zich ook al vragen bij bepaalde boeken (zoals Hebreeen en Openbaring, zoals ik al liet zien in mijn links naar de canon van de katholieken en protestanten).
[..]
Ja hoor, als de een zegt dat God David opzette om de volkstelling uit te voeren en de ander zegt dat het satan was die dat deed dan is dat een kwestie van context
Je bent gewoon een enorme dwaas die niet serieus onderzoek gedaan heeft naar de bijbel maar dat wel steeds claimt.
[..]
Onze visies kan mij gestolen worden, mij gaat het om wetenschappelijk onderzoek en daar valt niets aan af te dingen. "ik geloof dit en dat" is voor mij weinig steekhoudend. Ik geloof dat des nachts kaboutertjes komen om mijn huis schoon te maken. Maar als ik in de morgen wakker word is het nog steeds zo'n klerezooi. Dus dan geloof ik dat net voor ik wakker ben de trollen komen, die de boel weer verzieken...
[..]
Volgens de Bijbel is zelfs geloof genade. Dus je moet niet zelf geloven en dan komt de HG in je wonen.
En dit is een makkelijk geloof zeg, ik mag alles als ik maar geloof dat Jezus gristus gestorven is voor onze zonden. Dus ik mag zelfs liegen in mijn discussies met niet gelovigen! Sterker nog, hoe meer ik lieg voor de goede zaak, hoe dichter ik bij Jezus zal zitten bij het avondmaal die in de hemelen zijt.
.Nogmaals ik ben bekend met jouw "kritiek", en zolang ik deze voor mijzelf makkelijk kan debunken blijft mijn geloof gewaarborgd
. Ik krijg een beetje de indruk dat jij jezelf overschat en dat je maar blindelings alle kritiek op de bijbel als waarheid accepteert. Het dunning-kruger-effect is een psychisch verschijnsel. Het treedt op bij incompetente mensen die juist door hun incompetentie het metacognitieve vermogen missen om in te zien dat hun keuzes en conclusies soms verkeerd zijn.[1]
Incompetente mensen overschatten nogal eens hun eigen kunnen, en daardoor wanen ze zich bovengemiddeld competent. Mensen die werkelijk bovengemiddeld competent zijn, hebben daarentegen de neiging hun eigen kunnen te onderschatten. Minder competente mensen slaan zodoende hun eigen capaciteiten hoger aan dan zij die veel competenter zijn. Dat kan een verklaring zijn voor het gebrek aan intellectueel zelfvertrouwen waar sommige competente mensen mee kampen: zij gaan ervan uit dat anderen net zo capabel zijn als zijzelf. Incompetente mensen vergissen zich dus doordat ze zichzelf te hoog inschatten, terwijl competente mensen zich vergissen doordat ze anderen te hoog inschatten.[1]
Het verschijnsel is waargenomen door tal van filosofen, onder wie de Brit Bertrand Russell, die er het volgende over opmerkte: "In de wereld van vandaag lopen de domkoppen over van zelfverzekerdheid, terwijl de slimmeriken een en al twijfel zijn".[2]
De video die je gemaakt hebt getuigt hier allemaal niet van.quote:
[..]
En dan begin ik nog maar aan de oppervlakte te krabben. Ik heb mijn huiswerk gedaan, maar als je nu beweert dat ik mijzelf overschat of dat ik niet weet wat jouw sekte eigenlijk leert, dan weet ik het ook niet meer....
met betrekking tot je "tegenstelling"Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel? God or Satan?
2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1
1.
God did (2 Samuel 24:1) - "Now again the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and it incited David against them to say, "Go, number Israel and Judah."
2.
Satan did (1 Chronicles 21:1) - "Then Satan stood up against Israel and moved David to number Israel."
Is this a contradiction? Not at all. In 2 Samuel 24:1, God incited David to number Israel because God was angry with David. Ultimately, God wanted to teach David not to trust in his number of fighting men, but to trust in Him. So, He moved to let David count the fighting men of Israel. He used Satan to do it which is why in 1 Chronicles 21:1, it says Satan moved David to count the men. Both are true. God most probably either sent Satan or allowed Satan to incite David. But, how can God send Satan to do a job and yet God is not responsible for the sin? Simple.
God's authority extends even over Satan. God can use Satan to accomplish His ultimate will by simply giving permission to Satan to do that which Satan already desires to do. We see this in the crucifixion of Christ where evil men brought Jesus to death. Yet, at the same time, it was the predetermined plan of God that this be done.
"For truly in this city there were gathered together against Thy holy servant Jesus, whom Thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28to do whatever Thy hand and Thy purpose predestined to occur," (Acts 4:27-28, NASB).
Furthermore, we see in Job that God allowed Satan to test Job and demonstrate Job's character (Job 1:8-13). We see in John 13:25-27 that Satan entered into Judas to betray Jesus, but it was the plan of God that Jesus be betrayed as Acts 4:27-28 above tells us.
God allows the evil one to work His evil yet that word is ultimately used for the glory of God. All this is done without God sinning and it demonstrates God's absolute sovereignty over all creation.
Kon helaas geen teksten knippen en plakken, was ondoenlijk om alle info te verwerken, heb een paar kernthemaas gekozen om nietsvermoedende christenen te waarschuwen. De video als zodanig is idd. ontoereikend om geharde ZDA's te overtuigen, het kan hun hooguit aan het denken zetten, daarom had ik links geplaatst onder mijn video die ZDA's kunnen helpen...quote:
[..]
De video die je gemaakt hebt getuigt hier allemaal niet van.
Maar juist die stukken die je geselecteerd hebt zijn enorm eenzijdig gepresenteerd, het typische alarmistische, halve citaten, enzovoorts.quote:
[..]
Kon helaas geen teksten knippen en plakken, was ondoenlijk om alle info te verwerken, heb een paar kernthemaas gekozen om nietsvermoedende christenen te waarschuwen. De video als zodanig is idd. ontoereikend om geharde ZDA's te overtuigen, het kan hun hooguit aan het denken zetten, daarom had ik links geplaatst onder mijn video die ZDA's kunnen helpen...
Het is niet opmerkelijk dat er zoveel anti-informatie tegen ZDA te vinden is wat mij betreft, dat is het werk van de duivel via halve waarheden, verdraaiingen, enzovoorts. De 'bewijzen' tegen de kerk zijn hoog opgestapeld. Zouden we anders moeten verwachten? Maar als je de zaken in meer detail bekijkt is het nooit zo moeilijk om de denkfouten te spotten. Bij je video haalde ik bovengenoemde websites erbij en daarin wordt uitgelegd hoe de zaken verkeerd gepresenteerd worden en wat de realiteit is, of in ieder geval benaderd wordt, wat soms moeilijk is bij historische evenementen en het interpreteren van werken waarvan de auteur niet meer levend is.
Verder voel ik mij niet gevangen in een sekte of iets, de sabbat is voor mij ook totaal geen last maar een lust, ik zou niet zonder meer willen leven, het zou mijn spirituele leven geen goed doen (dat heb ik ook ondervonden toen ik m gedurende enkele maanden min of meer negeerde).
Verder zijn we het met elkaar eens dat het de Heilige Geest in ons is die ons transformeert, en dankzij welke ik in staat ben om het goede te doen, terwijl in mijzelf niets goeds is.
Ik maak deel uit van een spirituele familie van allerlei mensen jong en oud, wit en zwart, die mijn vrienden zijn.
Ik zou dus niet weten waarmee je me wilt helpen. Mijn verlossing is in Christus en niet in een denominatie, maar profetie toont voor mij aan dat dit wel de denominatie is die God voor het einde gesticht heeft om de terugkomst boodschap te verkondigen.
Je daartegen verzetten is voor mij hetzelfde als tegen God vechten.
Je bent echt EN knettergek dat je dit blijft beweren EN je bent eigenwijs dat je deze stelling blijft houden. Als zelfs in de vroegste jaren van de kerk de vraag al gesteld wordt, en ook Luther zo zijn vraagtekens zet bij bepaalde brieven dan is die stelling simpelweg niet houdbaar.quote:
[..]
Ehrman was de eerste die officieel mediabekendheid kreeg vanwege zijn boek "forged" waarin de stelling dat de bijbel door andere auteurs zou zijn geschreven voor het eerst bekend werd
Ik raad je overigens aan om eens op filosofie en levensbeschouwing te kijken. Daar had ik samen met ene ATON al discussies met veel christenen (zoals Ali en KoningDavid) en ook over het ontstaan van de bijbel en wie de brieven en evangelieeen geschreven zou hebben. Daarin komt deze Ehrman ook naar voren en daarin stelden wij al dat die man niet al te snel is met zijn bevindingen.
Of anders kijk je even op Freethinker, een forum waar ze ook al bezig waren met de brieven en wie ze wel of niet geschreven hadden.
Echt waar, die stellingen van jou. Soms denk ik dat je gewoon een troll bent.
Je hebt nog niks gedebunked, het enige wat je steeds doet is zeggen dat je het wel kan maar dat het te veel tekst en tijd kost.quote:Nogmaals ik ben bekend met jouw "kritiek", en zolang ik deze voor mijzelf makkelijk kan debunken blijft mijn geloof gewaarborgd
Waarom zeg je dit? Probeer je jezelf aan een analyse te onderwerpen? Waarom je doet alsof je alles al weet en niks meer kan leren?quote:Het dunning-kruger-effect is een psychisch verschijnsel. Het treedt op bij incompetente mensen die juist door hun incompetentie het metacognitieve vermogen missen om in te zien dat hun keuzes en conclusies soms verkeerd zijn.[1]
Incompetente mensen overschatten nogal eens hun eigen kunnen, en daardoor wanen ze zich bovengemiddeld competent. Mensen die werkelijk bovengemiddeld competent zijn, hebben daarentegen de neiging hun eigen kunnen te onderschatten. Minder competente mensen slaan zodoende hun eigen capaciteiten hoger aan dan zij die veel competenter zijn. Dat kan een verklaring zijn voor het gebrek aan intellectueel zelfvertrouwen waar sommige competente mensen mee kampen: zij gaan ervan uit dat anderen net zo capabel zijn als zijzelf. Incompetente mensen vergissen zich dus doordat ze zichzelf te hoog inschatten, terwijl competente mensen zich vergissen doordat ze anderen te hoog inschatten.[1]
En gelijk had hij. Maar wat heeft dit met die topic te maken?quote:Het verschijnsel is waargenomen door tal van filosofen, onder wie de Brit Bertrand Russell, die er het volgende over opmerkte: "In de wereld van vandaag lopen de domkoppen over van zelfverzekerdheid, terwijl de slimmeriken een en al twijfel zijn".[2]
"Bettler aber sollte man ganz abschaffen! Wahrlich, man ärgert sich ihnen zu geben und ärgert sich ihnen nicht zu geben."
Friedrich Nietzsche
Friedrich Nietzsche
Nogmaals, ik ben bekend met de controverse omtrent het auteurschap van de bijbel. Heb geen zin om er diep op in te gaan, kost teveel tijd. Persoonlijk vind ik dergelijke kritiek niet geloofswaardig.quote:
[..]
Je bent echt EN knettergek dat je dit blijft beweren EN je bent eigenwijs dat je deze stelling blijft houden. Als zelfs in de vroegste jaren van de kerk de vraag al gesteld wordt, en ook Luther zo zijn vraagtekens zet bij bepaalde brieven dan is die stelling simpelweg niet houdbaar.
Ik raad je overigens aan om eens op filosofie en levensbeschouwing te kijken. Daar had ik samen met ene ATON al discussies met veel christenen (zoals Ali en KoningDavid) en ook over het ontstaan van de bijbel en wie de brieven en evangelieeen geschreven zou hebben. Daarin komt deze Ehrman ook naar voren en daarin stelden wij al dat die man niet al te snel is met zijn bevindingen.
Of anders kijk je even op Freethinker, een forum waar ze ook al bezig waren met de brieven en wie ze wel of niet geschreven hadden.
Echt waar, die stellingen van jou. Soms denk ik dat je gewoon een troll bent.
[..]
Je hebt nog niks gedebunked, het enige wat je steeds doet is zeggen dat je het wel kan maar dat het te veel tekst en tijd kost.
[..]
Waarom zeg je dit? Probeer je jezelf aan een analyse te onderwerpen? Waarom je doet alsof je alles al weet en niks meer kan leren?
[..]
En gelijk had hij. Maar wat heeft dit met die topic te maken?
Ik meen goede argumenten te hebben voor mijn geloofsovertuiging en jij meent goede argumenten te hebben voor argumenten tegen mijn geloofsovertuiging.
Laten we het maar gewoon eens zijn dat we het oneens zijn 
Goed kerel, je hebt dus niet zelf nagedacht maar gewoon iets geknipt en geplakt van een andere site? Dat is een beetje jouw niveau, net zoals die van Ali overigens. Die kan ook ineens hele bijbelteksten knippen en plakken. Het liefst in het Engels, dat komt beter over.quote:
Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel? God or Satan?
2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1
1.
God did (2 Samuel 24:1) - "Now again the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and it incited David against them to say, "Go, number Israel and Judah."
2.
Satan did (1 Chronicles 21:1) - "Then Satan stood up against Israel and moved David to number Israel."
Is this a contradiction? Not at all. In 2 Samuel 24:1, God incited David to number Israel because God was angry with David. Ultimately, God wanted to teach David not to trust in his number of fighting men, but to trust in Him. So, He moved to let David count the fighting men of Israel. He used Satan to do it which is why in 1 Chronicles 21:1, it says Satan moved David to count the men. Both are true. God most probably either sent Satan or allowed Satan to incite David. But, how can God send Satan to do a job and yet God is not responsible for the sin? Simple.
God's authority extends even over Satan. God can use Satan to accomplish His ultimate will by simply giving permission to Satan to do that which Satan already desires to do. We see this in the crucifixion of Christ where evil men brought Jesus to death. Yet, at the same time, it was the predetermined plan of God that this be done.
"For truly in this city there were gathered together against Thy holy servant Jesus, whom Thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28to do whatever Thy hand and Thy purpose predestined to occur," (Acts 4:27-28, NASB).
Furthermore, we see in Job that God allowed Satan to test Job and demonstrate Job's character (Job 1:8-13). We see in John 13:25-27 that Satan entered into Judas to betray Jesus, but it was the plan of God that Jesus be betrayed as Acts 4:27-28 above tells us.
God allows the evil one to work His evil yet that word is ultimately used for the glory of God. All this is done without God sinning and it demonstrates God's absolute sovereignty over all creation.
Ik heb je link gegeven met maar liefst 500 tegenstellingen, en jij beweert dat er geen tegenstellingen zijn in de bijbel. Er zullen veel van bij zijn die lijken op mierenneukerij, maar er zijn ook zeer serieuze gevallen bij. En dat staat natuurlijk lijnrecht tegenover jouw bewering dat er geen tegenstellingen in zitten en geen fouten (een kinderlijk geloof is grappig, maar die kun je beter voor je houden en elke dag god op je blote knieën danken dat je als een kind geworden bent).
Toch vind ik dit geen goede uitleg. Zo zegt deze tekst dat God kwaad was en David opzette om een volkstelling te houden. Maar in de bijbel wordt God juist kwaad nadat David een volkstelling ging houden. Daarvoor lezen we niks van de kwaadheid van God. Nee, die was juist gericht op David nadat de volkstelling er was! Een groot verschil, als je tenminste een beetje kan nadenken.
Zie je nou wel wat je doet? Je poneert stellingen die ik dan kan ontkrachten en dan zeg je ineens "ik kan het ontkrachten, maar ik doe het niet want het kost mij teveel tijd" "persoonlijk vind ik dergelijke kritiek niet geloofwaardig" (maar de stelling dat de onzichtbare goddelijke geest er achter zit die alles in de hand had vind je dan wel geloofwaardigquote:
[..]
Nogmaals, ik ben bekend met de controverse omtrent het auteurschap van de bijbel. Heb geen zin om er diep op in te gaan, kost teveel tijd. Persoonlijk vind ik dergelijke kritiek niet geloofswaardig.
Ik meen goede argumenten te hebben voor mijn geloofsovertuiging en jij meent goede argumenten te hebben voor argumenten tegen mijn geloofsovertuiging.
) "Ik heb mijn mening, jij de jouwe". Vind ik nogal flauwe uitspraken, vooral van iemand die minderwaardig doet naar de ander en denkt dat hij wel alles weet maar dat de ander te veel geloof hecht aan de kritiek op de bijbel (maar dat hij zelf gelooft in de stelling van 2 Tim zoveel: "alle schrift is gegeven door de geest, ter opbouw van het geloof blabla" vind hij dan niet teveel geloof hechten aan
).Tevens vind ik het ook vreemd dat je nu ineens zo "schappelijk" probeert te doen (ik heb de ene mening jij de jouwe) terwijl je zelf andersdenkenden (zoals ZDA) op een vreselijk dogmatische manier in het satanische kamp probeert te krijgen. Dan is het opeens niet dat beide partijen zo hun eigen mening kunnen hebben.
"Bettler aber sollte man ganz abschaffen! Wahrlich, man ärgert sich ihnen zu geben und ärgert sich ihnen nicht zu geben."
Friedrich Nietzsche
Friedrich Nietzsche
het ligt er een beetje aan hoe je de tekst bekijkt en wat je eigen opvatting er van is.quote:
[..]
Goed kerel, je hebt dus niet zelf nagedacht maar gewoon iets geknipt en geplakt van een andere site? Dat is een beetje jouw niveau, net zoals die van Ali overigens. Die kan ook ineens hele bijbelteksten knippen en plakken. Het liefst in het Engels, dat komt beter over.
Ik heb je link gegeven met maar liefst 500 tegenstellingen, en jij beweert dat er geen tegenstellingen zijn in de bijbel. Er zullen veel van bij zijn die lijken op mierenneukerij, maar er zijn ook zeer serieuze gevallen bij. En dat staat natuurlijk lijnrecht tegenover jouw bewering dat er geen tegenstellingen in zitten en geen fouten (een kinderlijk geloof is grappig, maar die kun je beter voor je houden en elke dag god op je blote knieën danken dat je als een kind geworden bent).
Toch vind ik dit geen goede uitleg. Zo zegt deze tekst dat God kwaad was en David opzette om een volkstelling te houden. Maar in de bijbel wordt God juist kwaad nadat David een volkstelling ging houden. Daarvoor lezen we niks van de kwaadheid van God. Nee, die was juist gericht op David nadat de volkstelling er was! Een groot verschil, als je tenminste een beetje kan nadenken.
[..]
Zie je nou wel wat je doet? Je poneert stellingen die ik dan kan ontkrachten en dan zeg je ineens "ik kan het ontkrachten, maar ik doe het niet want het kost mij teveel tijd" "persoonlijk vind ik dergelijke kritiek niet geloofwaardig" (maar de stelling dat de onzichtbare goddelijke geest er achter zit die alles in de hand had vind je dan wel geloofwaardig
Vind ik nogal flauwe uitspraken, vooral van iemand die minderwaardig doet naar de ander en denkt dat hij wel alles weet maar dat de ander te veel geloof hecht aan de kritiek op de bijbel (maar dat hij zelf gelooft in de stelling van 2 Tim zoveel: "alle schrift is gegeven door de geest, ter opbouw van het geloof blabla" vind hij dan niet teveel geloof hechten aan
Tevens vind ik het ook vreemd dat je nu ineens zo "schappelijk" probeert te doen (ik heb de ene mening jij de jouwe) terwijl je zelf andersdenkenden (zoals ZDA) op een vreselijk dogmatische manier in het satanische kamp probeert te krijgen. Dan is het opeens niet dat beide partijen zo hun eigen mening kunnen hebben.
zoals Herman Finkers het ooit verwoorde je het de “de heilige” moederkerk met daaronder verschillende kut kerkjes elk met hun eigen afscheiding. En elke groep pretendeert de ware geloof te zijn
lijst met verschillende richtingen
Er staat nog een vraag voor u open!!
Precies, en allemaal vanuit de opvattingen van een frauduleus boekje dat enkele barbaren ooit eens geschreven hebben.quote:
[..]
het ligt er een beetje aan hoe je de tekst bekijkt en wat je eigen opvatting er van is.
zoals Herman Finkers het ooit verwoorde je het de “de heilige” moederkerk met daaronder verschillende kut kerkjes elk met hun eigen afscheiding. En elke groep pretendeert de ware geloof te zijn
lijst met verschillende richtingen
Dat zou ongeveer hetzelfde zijn als beweren dat jij Harry Potter goed interpreteert en de rest het fout heeft. De rest is betoverd door zwarte Magica, omdat zwarte Magica niet wil dat de rest vrij wordt omdat ze de Waarheid kennen.
"Bettler aber sollte man ganz abschaffen! Wahrlich, man ärgert sich ihnen zu geben und ärgert sich ihnen nicht zu geben."
Friedrich Nietzsche
Friedrich Nietzsche
oke, misschien niet te veel over nadenken.quote:
[..]
Precies, en allemaal vanuit de opvattingen van een frauduleus boekje dat enkele barbaren ooit eens geschreven hebben.
Dat zou ongeveer hetzelfde zijn als beweren dat jij Harry Potter goed interpreteert en de rest het fout heeft. De rest is betoverd door zwarte Magica, omdat zwarte Magica niet wil dat de rest vrij wordt omdat ze de Waarheid kennen.
Ben het eens dat het vol tegenstrijdigheden staat, en dat iedereen zijn eigen meningen er uit haalt.
Waar het in feite om draait zijn richtlijnen, op zich niet eens zo verkeerd.
het nadeel is dat, zoals in de Islam het kan vormen tot radicalisering.
Er staat nog een vraag voor u open!!
Dat lijkt mij dus ook.quote:
[..]
Waar het in feite om draait zijn richtlijnen, op zich niet eens zo verkeerd.
Het grappige is dan ook dat de verschillende stromingen mekaar van alles verwijten.
Stroming A verwijt stroming B zich te veel met voorwaarden bezig te houden om vervolgens weer een voorwaarde voor stroming A te stellen. Enz enz.
Ich hock in meinem Bonker
Voor de liefhebbers nog een lapje tekst over de valse leerstellingen van de ZDA sekte:
THE HISTORY OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISM
Seventh-day Adventism originated with the Second Coming movement of the 1800’s. William Miller, a Baptist preacher, concluded in 1818 that Christ would return to earth in 1843. When that was proven wrong, he changed the date to October 22, 1844. His belief was based largely on an interpretation of Daniel chapters nine and twelve using the erroneous day/year equation (one prophetic day equals one historical year). Tens of thousands of people followed Miller, and many different groups sprang up within this excited religious atmosphere, all of them looking for the immediate return of Christ.
After 1844, Miller quit setting dates and admitted his mistake, but some of his followers went on to form Seventh-day Adventism.
James White, Joseph Bates, and others began practicing sabbath-keeping in 1844 and published their views through pamphlets.
They also followed the visions of 17-year-old Ellen Harmon. She claimed that God showed her that in October 1844 Jesus entered the holy of holies in heaven to begin the “investigative judgment.” This is a foundational doctrine of the Adventist Church. Ellen taught that Jesus began investigating the records of every person to determine who would be saved and who would be lost. She also claimed to receive a vision about the “Third Angel’s Message” in Revelation 14:9-12. She said that the mark of the beast (the antichrist) would be Sunday worship, and those who worshipped on Sunday would be punished. She said that the ones who keep the commandments of God refers to those who keep the sabbath in the last days. This is where the Seventh-day Adventists get their name. They claim to be the church of the last days that keeps the sabbath and that prepares the way for Christ’s return.
Ellen Harmon married James White in 1846 and they became the main leaders of Seventh-day Adventism. Between 1844 and 1915 Mrs. White supposedly received 2,000 visions and dreams. Claiming that she was commanded to write her visions for preservation, she produced over 100,000 handwritten manuscript pages.
While Adventist leaders claim that the Bible is their sole rule for faith and conduct, the fact is that without Ellen White there would be no Seventh-day Adventism.
We see, therefore, that the advent movement was unbiblical from its beginning. It was led by a woman, which is forbidden in Scripture (1 Timothy 2:12), and it set a date for Christ’s return, which is also forbidden.
“But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only” (Mt. 24:36).
“Watch therefore; for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come” (Mt. 24:42).
“Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh” (Mt. 24:44).
“Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh” (Mt. 25:13).
“But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is” (Mk. 13:32-33).
“It is not for you to know the time or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power” (Acts 1:7).
By ignoring the plain teaching of the Bible about Christ’s return, the Adventists were led into more and more error.
SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST DOCTRINE
In the following study we analyze some of the false Seventh-day Adventist doctrines and compare them with Bible truth.
FALSE TEACHING # 1: A GOSPEL OF GRACE PLUS LAW
Seventh-day Adventism professes to teach salvation by grace through faith, but they redefine this to add works to grace.
According to Adventist doctrine, grace is the power and forgiveness God gives to enable a sinner to keep God’s law and to thereby build a holy character fit for Heaven. The individual that fails to build the right character by God’s grace will never see Heaven. Faith and works are said to be the two oars by which the believer is propelled to glory.
These false teachers are aptly described by the apostle Paul in his epistle to the Galatians: “And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage” (Gal. 2:4).
It is important that we carefully document the Seventh-day Adventist doctrine of salvation, since it is very subtle. Often, in their literature produced for the general public, the Seventh-day Adventists modify what they believe in an attempt to appear orthodox. The Christian should beware of the deceitfulness of the false churches. They are like the chameleon that changes colors according to varying situations. On one hand they try to appear orthodox. “We are just like you,” they protest. On the other hand they promote all sorts of heretical teachings and attempt to draw converts away from the Bible-believing churches. This should not surprise us. The New Testament refers frequently to the deception of false teachers. Jesus called false teachers wolves in sheep’s clothing (Mat. 7:15). He warned that they would try to deceive many (Mat. 24:4-5). The apostle Paul called them “deceitful workers” (2 Cor. 11:13). He said they use “cunning craftiness” (Eph. 4:14). He said they “speak lies in hypocrisy” (1 Tim. 4:2).
Consider carefully the following statements about salvation from Adventist publications. While professing to believe in salvation by grace alone through faith alone, they redefine grace. The result is a false gospel that mixes grace and law.
From a Seventh-day Adventist Tract:
“Christ says to every man in this world what He said to the rich young ruler: ‘If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments,’ Matthew 19:17. In other words, THE STANDARD FOR ADMISSION INTO HEAVEN IS A CHARACTER BUILT ACCORDING TO THE TEN SPECIFICATIONS, OR COMMANDMENTS, OF GOD’S LAW. ...... THE MASTER BUILDER WILL STAND RIGHT WITH YOU AND IN YOU, AND SEE TO IT PERSONALLY THAT YOUR LIFE COMES UP TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF GOD’S LAW” (Charles Everson, Saved by Grace, pp. 45-46).
From a Seventh-day Adventist Correspondence course:
“Do you want to be a Christian? ... The steps to Christ are few and plain and easy to understand, and we will turn to God’s Guidebook now for information. ... Believe; that’s the first step toward becoming a Christian. ... the second step is repentance ... repentance is simply being sorry for our sins and putting them away ... the next step in becoming a Christian is confession ... real repentance and confession mean not only to stop sinning, but to do everything possible to make past wrongs right ... The next step is baptism, and the proof for that is found in Acts 2:38-39 ... Fifth, obedience through Christ in us ... So we have clearly outlined the steps that we need to take in order to become a Christian: to believe in God, to repent of and to confess our sins, to be baptized, AND TO OBEY ALL THE COMMANDMENTS OF THE LORD. ... He may stumble and fall, but he gets up and presses forward again, determined to overcome by God’s enabling power. Such a fall is not counted against him when he repents and asks forgiveness and divine help to live the right life” (New Life Voice of Prophecy Guide, #12).
Adventism labels this doctrine “salvation by grace,” but it is not the grace that was preached by the Lord’s apostles.
1. According to the Bible, salvation is by grace ALONE through faith ALONE, without the works of the law. See John 3:16; 6:28-29; Acts 15:10-11; 16:30-31; Romans 3:19-25; 4:1-8; 11:6; Galatians 3:10-13; Ephesians 2:8-10; Titus 3:4-7.
The Good News of Christ is not that we are saved through a grace that produces the works of the law. The Good News is that we are saved by God’s grace alone through faith alone WITHOUT THE LAW. All who will be saved must come on these glorious terms, trusting in the shed blood alone for full salvation.
Those who attempt to return to the Mosaic Law to perfect their salvation are committing the same error as the Galatians in the first century.
“O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham” (Gal. 3:1-7).
Those who persist in placing themselves under the Mosaic Law in spite of clear New Testament teaching are outside of true salvation. Seventh-day Adventist teachers who believe the doctrine of their own denomination as stated in such publications as the New Life Voice of Prophecy correspondence courses are of this number; they are Galatian legalizers.
“But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain” (Gal. 4:9-11).
“My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you, I desire to be present with you now, and to change my voice; for I stand in doubt of you” (Gal. 4:19-20).
“Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again in the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith” (Gal. 5:1-5).
2. Salvation is secure. The true gospel says that the believer is saved entirely by God’s grace through Christ and he has eternal life.
We know that salvation is secure because it is a free gift, entirely unmerited by the sinner (Ephesians 2:8-9). If the recipient does anything or pays anything, the “gift” is no longer a gift.
We know that salvation is secure because it means that the believer is declared righteous by God (Romans 3:21-24). This is the meaning of the word “justified.” Notice how the terms “justified” and “the righteousness of God” are used interchangeably in Romans 3:21-24. Notice too, that this righteousness is obtained “by faith” and “freely by his grace.” What is the sinner’s problem? Is it not his lack of righteousness? Therefore, if God declares that sinner righteous, what more does he need? Biblical salvation is an exchange. Jesus takes the sinner’s unrighteousness, and the sinner receives Jesus’ righteousness (2 Corinthians 5:21).
We know that salvation is secure because it is a present possession.
In the following verses salvation is not described as a possibility, but as a certainty, as a present possession.
Justification is a present possession (Rom. 5:9).
Peace with God is a present possession (Rom. 5:1).
Reconciliation is a present possession (Rom. 5:10).
Atonement is a present possession (Rom. 5:11)
Eternal life is a present possession (1 Jn. 5:11- 13).
Being a child of God is a present possession (Eph. 1:6).
Being accepted in Christ is a present possession (Eph. 1:6).
Forgiveness of sin is a present possession (Eph. 1:7).
Being made alive in Christ is a present possession (Eph. 2:1).
Being made fit for heaven is a present possession (Col. 1:12).
Being delivered from the power of darkness is a present possession (Col. 1:13).
Having been translated into Jesus’ kingdom is a present possession (Col. 1:13).
Mercy is a present possession (1 Pet. 2:10).
Healing of sin is a present possession (1 Pet. 2:24).
A person is either saved or he is lost, either entirely saved or entirely lost. There is no middle ground, no growing into or perfecting of salvation. Are you trusting the blood of Christ, and the blood of Christ ALONE for salvation? If so, the Bible says you possess all the spiritual blessings listed above, plus much more, and they are secure blessings in Christ!
We know that salvation is secure because it is an entirely new position before God.
Salvation is an entirely new position in Christ (Romans 5:1-2). The sinner is either in Adam or he is in Christ. If he is in Christ, he has all spiritual blessings. “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ” (Eph. 1:3). See also Romans 6:11; Ephesians 1:6; 1 John 5:12.
The believer has a new standing before God in Christ, and he also has a walk in this world. The new standing cannot change because it depends entirely upon what Jesus did for us on the cross. To confuse standing and walk is to pervert the gospel. Consider the book of Ephesians. Chapters 1-3 describe the believer’s new position in Christ; chapters 4-6 describe the believer’s walk in this world. Ephesians 5:8 says, “For ye were sometimes darkness, but NOW are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light.” The believer has a new position in Christ that can never change, and he is called to live up to this position in this world by walking in obedience to God. Colossians 3:1, 3 says the same thing: “If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God ... For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.” In his new position, the Christian is dead to sin and risen with Christ. In practice he is to live up to this eternal calling by seeking the things which are above.
The believer’s new standing is eternally secure the moment he is born again. His walk, on the other hand, changes according to his obedience.
What a wonderful salvation! The better the believer understands his secure position in Christ, the more heartily he desires to serve his Savior God.
We know that salvation is secure because the believer is promised certain deliverance from sin.
“Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we SHALL BE saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we SHALL BE saved by his life” (Rom. 5:9-10).
We know that salvation is secure because the believer is kept by the power of God.
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, WHO ARE KEPT BY THE POWER OF GOD through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time” (1 Pet. 1:3-5).
The believer can be sure that he will enjoy the inheritance spoken of in verse four solely because of the power of God.
This does not mean that a person can live as he pleases and still go to heaven just because he says he “believes.” The Lord Jesus Christ said that it is impossible to be saved without being born again (John 3:3, 7), and the new birth is a dramatic, life-changing experience. “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new” (2 Cor. 5:17). When a sinner is born again, he receives a new nature from God. He has new desires. God’s nature within him impels him to live God’s way. The indwelling Holy Spirit ministers a desire for holiness and truth. The professor in Christ who does not love God’s way is not a saved man who falls away from salvation; he is a hypocrite or a deceived person who has never possessed true salvation.
From the previous studies, it is evident that true Bible salvation does not have the uncertainty and legalistic admixture of the Adventist gospel. The SDA gospel is false.
FALSE TEACHING # 2: SABBATH-KEEPING
Seventh-day Adventism says that the sabbath was given to Adam in the Garden of Eden and that God intended for all men to keep it.
“God instituted the Sabbath in Eden; and so long as the fact that He is our Creator continues to be a reason why we should worship Him, so long the Sabbath will continue as its sign and memorial. ... The keeping of the Sabbath is a sign of loyalty to the true God” (Ellen White, The Great Controversy, p. 386).
Adventism says that Jesus and the apostles kept the sabbath and that it is binding upon all Christians.
“... from this it is evident that all Ten Commandments are binding in the Christian dispensation, and that Christ had no thought of changing any of them. One of these commands is the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath...” (Bible Footlights, p. 37).
“The example of Jesus is clear and consistent. His custom was a Sabbath-keeping custom. ... Yet in spite of this, we find a strange situation in the world today. For though we have the same Christ as our example, the same Bible as our guide, yet we find two Sabbath days kept by Christians...” (George Vandeman, Planet in Rebellion, p. 277).
They claim that Christians kept the sabbath until the fourth century when Constantine changed the law and forced churches to worship on Sunday.
“Constantine was the Roman emperor. He was a sun worshiper, but he was also a keen politician. He wanted to please everybody. It was while still a pagan that he decreed that all government offices should be closed upon the first day of the week—’the venerable day of the sun.’ The church, which had now been established in Rome, had been quick to see the temporal advantage of compromise with paganism ... so it was that after a few brief years, when Sunday had gained a foothold, the Roman church in the Council of Laodicea set aside the clear command of God and decreed the change from the seventh to the first day of the week” (Planet in Rebellion, p. 290).
WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS
1. The sabbath, though mentioned in Genesis 2:2-3, was not delivered to man until it was given to Israel in the wilderness (Nehemiah 9:13-14). Ellen White added to Scripture when she taught that Adam and the patriarchs kept the sabbath.
2. The sabbath was not given to mankind in general, but to Israel alone as a special sign between her and God (Ex. 31:13, 17). If the sabbath had been kept by mankind from the creation, it could not have been given as a special sign to Israel.
3. The New Testament teaches that the believer is not bound by the sabbath law. See Colossians 2:16-17.
4. The sabbath was a type of salvation. “There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his” (Heb. 4:9-10). As God rested on the seventh day from His work of creation, the believer today rests in the completed work of Christ. In order to enter into God’s rest, a person must accept God’s work and must cease from his own work (Jn. 6:28-29). Salvation must be accepted as God’s gift.
5. Jesus kept the sabbath because He was born under the law to fulfill the demands of the law. See Galatians 4:4-5. The Lord Jesus made Himself a servant and was born under the law of Moses that He might redeem sinners from the curse of the law and bring them into the eternal liberty of sonship.
6. It cannot be proven that the apostle Paul and the early churches observed the sabbath. It is true that Paul met in the synagogues on the sabbath in order to preach to the Jews assembled there, but this does not mean that he observed the sabbath. According to the Bible, the reason Paul visited synagogues on the sabbath was to preach the gospel. Paul’s desire was to preach Christ. He was burdened for his own people, the Jews. So he went where the Jews were to preach Christ to them. Consider Acts 13:14-44; 16:13-14; 17:2-4; 18:4.
7. There is much evidence in the Bible and elsewhere that the early Christians met and worshiped on the first day rather than on the sabbath.
On the first day Jesus rose from the dead (Mk. 16:9).
On the first day Jesus first appeared to his disciples (Mk. 16:9).
On the first day Jesus met with the disciples at different places (Mk. 16:9-11; Mt. 28:8-10; Lk. 24:34; Mk. 16:12-13; Jn. 20:19-23).
On the first day Jesus blessed the disciples (Jn. 20:19).
On the first day Jesus imparted to the disciples the gift of the Holy Spirit (Jn. 20:22).
On the first day Jesus commissioned the disciples to preach the gospel (Jn. 20:21; with Mk. 16:9-15).
On the first day Jesus ascended to Heaven, was seated at the right hand of the Father, and was made Head of all (Jn. 20:17; Eph. 1:20).
On the first day the gospel of the risen Christ was first preached (Lk. 24:34).
On the first day Jesus explained the Scriptures to the disciples (Lk. 24:27, 45).
On the first day the Holy Spirit descended (Acts 2:1). Pentecost was on the 50th day after the sabbath following the wave offering (Le. 23:15-16). Thus, Pentecost was always on a Sunday.
The Christians met to worship on the first day (Acts 20:6-7; 1 Cor. 16:2).
Since those days, the vast majority of Christians have met to worship on the first day of the week. They do this in honor of the resurrection of their Savior. Christ was in the tomb on the sabbath and rose as the firstborn from the dead on the first day. The sabbath signifies the last day of the old creation (Gen. 2:2). Sunday is the first day of the new creation.
8. Sunday is not the sabbath. Bible-believing Christians do not observe the sabbath by assembling on Sunday. The New Testament believer is redeemed from the obligations of the Law of Moses. Romans 14:1-13 and Colossians 2:16 clearly state that believers are not to be judged in respect to holy days. The Galatians’ respect of holy days caused the apostle Paul to fear that they were not even saved! See Galatians 4:10-11, 20.
9. The idea that Sunday observance will be the mark of the beast is not found in Scripture. This idea came from Ellen White. It is true that the Antichrist will “think to change times and laws” (Daniel 7:25), yet nowhere does the Bible say that this will involve the sabbath or Sunday. The Bible does not reveal exactly what laws the Antichrist will change.
FALSE TEACHING # 3: SOUL SLEEP
The Seventh-day Adventist Church teaches that those who die do not go to heaven or to hell but their soul sleeps unconsciously in the grave until the resurrection.
“To be dead does not mean to go to heaven; it does not mean to go to hell; it does not mean to go to purgatory. Indeed, it does not mean to go anywhere at all. It means simply an end of life. ... Death is cessation of life, an absence of life, the exact opposite of life. ... The man does not live; the body does not live; the soul does not live; the spirit does not live; the mind does not live. Intelligence ends, consciousness ends, memory ends, knowledge ends, thought ends” (When A Man Dies, p. 20).
Adventism teaches that the body and soul are not separate entities that can be parted at death.
“...the soul of man nowhere is represented as a separate, conscious part of man existing as such when the body sleeps in death... the soul of man comes with the breath; it goes with the breath. ... It has no function or power of manifestation or of action, no existence, apart from the body...” (When A Man Dies, pp. 32, 33).
They teach that the spirit is the breath.
“... notice Job 27:3: ‘All the while my breath is in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils.’ Again we find in the margin that spirit might also be translated ‘breath.’ The two words are often used interchangeably in Scripture. ... Now listen. ‘And breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.’ Nowhere are we told in Scripture that God gave man a living soul. Man became a living soul as the result of the union of the body with the breath of life. ... It is clear that the spirit that a man received from God and that goes back to God when he dies, is what God put into his nostrils. ... when he dies, the two separate. The dust returns to the ground. The breath, or spark of life, from saint or sinner, returns to God who gave it. The living, loving, acting soul does not go anywhere. It simply ceases to be a conscious entity until the resurrection morning, when the body and the breath of life are united again. That is Scripture pure and simple!” (Planet in Rebellion, pp. 320-323).
WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS
1. The word “soul” has different meanings in Scripture. Sometimes it does refer to the whole man. Often, though, it refers to a conscious, immaterial part of man that exists apart from the body beyond death. Words in the Bible must be defined by the context in which they are found.
Old Testament examples of the soul as an immaterial, conscious part of the man are seen in Genesis 35:18 and 1 Kings 17:21-22. In Genesis 35 the death of Rachel is recorded, and we are told that her soul departed when she died. “... as her soul was in departing, (for she died)...” In 1 Kings 17 a young boy died and was raised again through Elijah’s ministry. The Bible plainly says that his soul departed and then returned: “... O Lord my God, I pray thee, let this child’s soul come into him again. And the Lord heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived.” Obviously the prophet Elijah did not have the same idea about the soul and death as the Adventists do.
In the New Testament, the word “soul” is also used to describe a spiritual part of man distinct from his body. “... I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Th. 5:23). Here we are told that man has three parts. Paul did not say man IS a soul; he says man HAS a soul.
2. The word “spirit” also has various meanings in Scripture. Just as the word “soul” does not always refer to the whole man, but often refers to the immaterial part of man, even so the word “spirit” does not always mean breath. Spirit often refers to the conscious, immaterial part of man that is distinct from his body and that is separated from the body at death.
This is the meaning in Genesis 45:26-27, where the spirit is used interchangeably with the heart. “And Jacob’s HEART FAINTED, for he believed them not. And they told him all the words of Joseph, which he had said unto them: and when he saw the wagons which Joseph had sent to carry him, THE SPIRIT OF JACOB THEIR FATHER REVIVED.” Obviously, this passage does not refer to the spirit as the breath! In Exodus 6:9, the children of Israel had “anguish of spirit.” Was it their breath that was anguished! How silly. The word “spirit” obviously means something different in Scripture than breath. Again, in Exodus 35:21, the Bible describes those who contributed toward the construction of the tabernacle as those “whose heart stirred him up, and every one whom his spirit made willing.” Deuteronomy 2:30 is another example of this. Here we find God hardening the spirit of King Sihon. In 1 Kings 21:5 King Ahab is said to have had a “sad spirit.” Certainly none of these references could be construed as speaking of the spirit as the breath. The Seventh-day Adventist doctrine that the spirit is limited to breath is contrary to the Bible’s own teaching.
3. The New Testament plainly describes death as a departure of the spirit from the body. When we come to the New Testament, any uncertainty remaining from our Old Testament studies disappears in the light of full revelation. One uniform doctrine of death is found throughout the New Testament. Here death is plainly seen as a departure of the spirit from the body. Death means separation, not cessation. (This is how Adam and Eve could die the same day they partook of the fruit. They died spiritually. They were “dead in trespasses and sins.” Later they died physically and the soul was separated from the body.) This has been the orthodox doctrine of death throughout the New Testament age.
New Testament reasons for believing that death is a departure of the spirit from the body to another conscious realm of existence.
First, it is the body that dies (Jam. 2:26).
Second, Paul testified that death is a journey. See 2 Corinthians 5:6-7; Philippians 1:23-24; and 2 Timothy 4:6.
Third, Jesus’ promise to the thief on the cross shows that death is a departure. “And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise” (Lk. 23:43). Adventists claim that this passage is not translated correctly, that the comma should be after the word “today.” “Verily I say unto thee today, ‘Thou shalt be with me in paradise.’” No Bible translation reads like this. It is merely an effort to twist the passage to fit false Adventist doctrine, but the Lord Jesus Christ promised the repentant thief that he would be with him in paradise that very day.
Fourth, the story of Lazarus and the rich man shows that death is a departure. The proper names (Lazarus, Abraham) Jesus used in this story prove that He was speaking about an historical scene, rather than giving a parable. The Lord’s parables did not contain such details. Yet even if it this was a parable, it would still teach literal truth. “... the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; and in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments...” (Lk. 16:22-23). This passage teaches that death is a journey of the soul either to Heaven or to Hell.
Fifth, the dead saints will return with Christ from Heaven at the time of the resurrection and rapture of the saved. This shows that dead saints go to Heaven at death. “For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so THEM ALSO WHICH SLEEP IN JESUS WILL GOD BRING WITH HIM” (1 Th. 4:14). According to the Bible, the dead are not sleeping in the grave as the Adventists claim. Rather, they are in Heaven and they will return from there with Jesus!
Sixth, John’s heavenly visions show dead saints in Heaven before the resurrection and during the Great Tribulation on earth. See Revelation 6:9-11. This is another indisputable testimony that dead saints are not sleeping in the grave, but are residing in Heaven awaiting the return of Christ to earth.
Seventh, Moses’ and Elijah’s appearance on the Mount of Transfiguration proves that the dead have conscious existence between death and resurrection. See Luke 9:28-33. That Peter and the other apostles were not just seeing a future millennial scene is demonstrated by the fact that Moses and Elijah were speaking with the Lord Jesus about His approaching death. Moses and Elijah, though dead, appeared on that mountain and conversed about events that were soon to take place in Jerusalem. It is obvious that Moses and Elias are not sleeping in the grave.
It is plain from this survey of the New Testament that man has a spirit or soul that departs from his body at death and that lives eternally either in Heaven or in Hell. The Bible speaks of death BOTH as a sleep and as a journey. It is the sleep of the body and the journey of the spirit.
Even in the Old Testament we are taught that death meant separation from the body by the spirit. In Genesis 25:8 Abraham “gave up the ghost, and died ... and was gathered to his people.” This cannot mean simply that he was gathered to the grave, because Abraham’s people were not buried in Mamre. They were buried in Haran a long distance away (Ge. 11:31-32). In Genesis 35:18, it is recorded that Rachel’s soul departed at her death. 1 Kings 17 tells us that when the widow’s son died, his soul had departed (vv. 21-22). God told Moses in Numbers 27:13 that he would be “gathered unto” his people. For two reasons, this could not mean that he would sleep in a grave. First, Moses’ people were not buried in the wilderness where he died. Second, Moses appeared centuries later with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration, and he was quite conscious at that time.
Thus, no matter where we look in the Scripture, we see that death does not mean sleeping unconsciously in the grave. The passages that speak of death as sleep are speaking poetically. Some Old Testament references to death, particularly in the book of Ecclesiastes, speak of it from the viewpoint of this world. In that sense, it is true that the dead do not praise God in this world. The theme of Ecclesiastes is “under the sun,” and it describes man’s attempt to understand life apart from divine revelation.
4. The doctrine of immortality was not fully revealed until the New Testament. See 1 Timothy 1:9-10. It was with the coming of Christ that the doctrine of life beyond the grave was brought to full light. Thus, we must not interpret the New Testament in light of the Old Testament, but the Old in light of the New!
THE HISTORY OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISM
Seventh-day Adventism originated with the Second Coming movement of the 1800’s. William Miller, a Baptist preacher, concluded in 1818 that Christ would return to earth in 1843. When that was proven wrong, he changed the date to October 22, 1844. His belief was based largely on an interpretation of Daniel chapters nine and twelve using the erroneous day/year equation (one prophetic day equals one historical year). Tens of thousands of people followed Miller, and many different groups sprang up within this excited religious atmosphere, all of them looking for the immediate return of Christ.
After 1844, Miller quit setting dates and admitted his mistake, but some of his followers went on to form Seventh-day Adventism.
James White, Joseph Bates, and others began practicing sabbath-keeping in 1844 and published their views through pamphlets.
They also followed the visions of 17-year-old Ellen Harmon. She claimed that God showed her that in October 1844 Jesus entered the holy of holies in heaven to begin the “investigative judgment.” This is a foundational doctrine of the Adventist Church. Ellen taught that Jesus began investigating the records of every person to determine who would be saved and who would be lost. She also claimed to receive a vision about the “Third Angel’s Message” in Revelation 14:9-12. She said that the mark of the beast (the antichrist) would be Sunday worship, and those who worshipped on Sunday would be punished. She said that the ones who keep the commandments of God refers to those who keep the sabbath in the last days. This is where the Seventh-day Adventists get their name. They claim to be the church of the last days that keeps the sabbath and that prepares the way for Christ’s return.
Ellen Harmon married James White in 1846 and they became the main leaders of Seventh-day Adventism. Between 1844 and 1915 Mrs. White supposedly received 2,000 visions and dreams. Claiming that she was commanded to write her visions for preservation, she produced over 100,000 handwritten manuscript pages.
While Adventist leaders claim that the Bible is their sole rule for faith and conduct, the fact is that without Ellen White there would be no Seventh-day Adventism.
We see, therefore, that the advent movement was unbiblical from its beginning. It was led by a woman, which is forbidden in Scripture (1 Timothy 2:12), and it set a date for Christ’s return, which is also forbidden.
“But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only” (Mt. 24:36).
“Watch therefore; for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come” (Mt. 24:42).
“Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh” (Mt. 24:44).
“Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh” (Mt. 25:13).
“But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is” (Mk. 13:32-33).
“It is not for you to know the time or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power” (Acts 1:7).
By ignoring the plain teaching of the Bible about Christ’s return, the Adventists were led into more and more error.
SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST DOCTRINE
In the following study we analyze some of the false Seventh-day Adventist doctrines and compare them with Bible truth.
FALSE TEACHING # 1: A GOSPEL OF GRACE PLUS LAW
Seventh-day Adventism professes to teach salvation by grace through faith, but they redefine this to add works to grace.
According to Adventist doctrine, grace is the power and forgiveness God gives to enable a sinner to keep God’s law and to thereby build a holy character fit for Heaven. The individual that fails to build the right character by God’s grace will never see Heaven. Faith and works are said to be the two oars by which the believer is propelled to glory.
These false teachers are aptly described by the apostle Paul in his epistle to the Galatians: “And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage” (Gal. 2:4).
It is important that we carefully document the Seventh-day Adventist doctrine of salvation, since it is very subtle. Often, in their literature produced for the general public, the Seventh-day Adventists modify what they believe in an attempt to appear orthodox. The Christian should beware of the deceitfulness of the false churches. They are like the chameleon that changes colors according to varying situations. On one hand they try to appear orthodox. “We are just like you,” they protest. On the other hand they promote all sorts of heretical teachings and attempt to draw converts away from the Bible-believing churches. This should not surprise us. The New Testament refers frequently to the deception of false teachers. Jesus called false teachers wolves in sheep’s clothing (Mat. 7:15). He warned that they would try to deceive many (Mat. 24:4-5). The apostle Paul called them “deceitful workers” (2 Cor. 11:13). He said they use “cunning craftiness” (Eph. 4:14). He said they “speak lies in hypocrisy” (1 Tim. 4:2).
Consider carefully the following statements about salvation from Adventist publications. While professing to believe in salvation by grace alone through faith alone, they redefine grace. The result is a false gospel that mixes grace and law.
From a Seventh-day Adventist Tract:
“Christ says to every man in this world what He said to the rich young ruler: ‘If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments,’ Matthew 19:17. In other words, THE STANDARD FOR ADMISSION INTO HEAVEN IS A CHARACTER BUILT ACCORDING TO THE TEN SPECIFICATIONS, OR COMMANDMENTS, OF GOD’S LAW. ...... THE MASTER BUILDER WILL STAND RIGHT WITH YOU AND IN YOU, AND SEE TO IT PERSONALLY THAT YOUR LIFE COMES UP TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF GOD’S LAW” (Charles Everson, Saved by Grace, pp. 45-46).
From a Seventh-day Adventist Correspondence course:
“Do you want to be a Christian? ... The steps to Christ are few and plain and easy to understand, and we will turn to God’s Guidebook now for information. ... Believe; that’s the first step toward becoming a Christian. ... the second step is repentance ... repentance is simply being sorry for our sins and putting them away ... the next step in becoming a Christian is confession ... real repentance and confession mean not only to stop sinning, but to do everything possible to make past wrongs right ... The next step is baptism, and the proof for that is found in Acts 2:38-39 ... Fifth, obedience through Christ in us ... So we have clearly outlined the steps that we need to take in order to become a Christian: to believe in God, to repent of and to confess our sins, to be baptized, AND TO OBEY ALL THE COMMANDMENTS OF THE LORD. ... He may stumble and fall, but he gets up and presses forward again, determined to overcome by God’s enabling power. Such a fall is not counted against him when he repents and asks forgiveness and divine help to live the right life” (New Life Voice of Prophecy Guide, #12).
Adventism labels this doctrine “salvation by grace,” but it is not the grace that was preached by the Lord’s apostles.
1. According to the Bible, salvation is by grace ALONE through faith ALONE, without the works of the law. See John 3:16; 6:28-29; Acts 15:10-11; 16:30-31; Romans 3:19-25; 4:1-8; 11:6; Galatians 3:10-13; Ephesians 2:8-10; Titus 3:4-7.
The Good News of Christ is not that we are saved through a grace that produces the works of the law. The Good News is that we are saved by God’s grace alone through faith alone WITHOUT THE LAW. All who will be saved must come on these glorious terms, trusting in the shed blood alone for full salvation.
Those who attempt to return to the Mosaic Law to perfect their salvation are committing the same error as the Galatians in the first century.
“O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham” (Gal. 3:1-7).
Those who persist in placing themselves under the Mosaic Law in spite of clear New Testament teaching are outside of true salvation. Seventh-day Adventist teachers who believe the doctrine of their own denomination as stated in such publications as the New Life Voice of Prophecy correspondence courses are of this number; they are Galatian legalizers.
“But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain” (Gal. 4:9-11).
“My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you, I desire to be present with you now, and to change my voice; for I stand in doubt of you” (Gal. 4:19-20).
“Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again in the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith” (Gal. 5:1-5).
2. Salvation is secure. The true gospel says that the believer is saved entirely by God’s grace through Christ and he has eternal life.
We know that salvation is secure because it is a free gift, entirely unmerited by the sinner (Ephesians 2:8-9). If the recipient does anything or pays anything, the “gift” is no longer a gift.
We know that salvation is secure because it means that the believer is declared righteous by God (Romans 3:21-24). This is the meaning of the word “justified.” Notice how the terms “justified” and “the righteousness of God” are used interchangeably in Romans 3:21-24. Notice too, that this righteousness is obtained “by faith” and “freely by his grace.” What is the sinner’s problem? Is it not his lack of righteousness? Therefore, if God declares that sinner righteous, what more does he need? Biblical salvation is an exchange. Jesus takes the sinner’s unrighteousness, and the sinner receives Jesus’ righteousness (2 Corinthians 5:21).
We know that salvation is secure because it is a present possession.
In the following verses salvation is not described as a possibility, but as a certainty, as a present possession.
Justification is a present possession (Rom. 5:9).
Peace with God is a present possession (Rom. 5:1).
Reconciliation is a present possession (Rom. 5:10).
Atonement is a present possession (Rom. 5:11)
Eternal life is a present possession (1 Jn. 5:11- 13).
Being a child of God is a present possession (Eph. 1:6).
Being accepted in Christ is a present possession (Eph. 1:6).
Forgiveness of sin is a present possession (Eph. 1:7).
Being made alive in Christ is a present possession (Eph. 2:1).
Being made fit for heaven is a present possession (Col. 1:12).
Being delivered from the power of darkness is a present possession (Col. 1:13).
Having been translated into Jesus’ kingdom is a present possession (Col. 1:13).
Mercy is a present possession (1 Pet. 2:10).
Healing of sin is a present possession (1 Pet. 2:24).
A person is either saved or he is lost, either entirely saved or entirely lost. There is no middle ground, no growing into or perfecting of salvation. Are you trusting the blood of Christ, and the blood of Christ ALONE for salvation? If so, the Bible says you possess all the spiritual blessings listed above, plus much more, and they are secure blessings in Christ!
We know that salvation is secure because it is an entirely new position before God.
Salvation is an entirely new position in Christ (Romans 5:1-2). The sinner is either in Adam or he is in Christ. If he is in Christ, he has all spiritual blessings. “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ” (Eph. 1:3). See also Romans 6:11; Ephesians 1:6; 1 John 5:12.
The believer has a new standing before God in Christ, and he also has a walk in this world. The new standing cannot change because it depends entirely upon what Jesus did for us on the cross. To confuse standing and walk is to pervert the gospel. Consider the book of Ephesians. Chapters 1-3 describe the believer’s new position in Christ; chapters 4-6 describe the believer’s walk in this world. Ephesians 5:8 says, “For ye were sometimes darkness, but NOW are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light.” The believer has a new position in Christ that can never change, and he is called to live up to this position in this world by walking in obedience to God. Colossians 3:1, 3 says the same thing: “If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God ... For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.” In his new position, the Christian is dead to sin and risen with Christ. In practice he is to live up to this eternal calling by seeking the things which are above.
The believer’s new standing is eternally secure the moment he is born again. His walk, on the other hand, changes according to his obedience.
What a wonderful salvation! The better the believer understands his secure position in Christ, the more heartily he desires to serve his Savior God.
We know that salvation is secure because the believer is promised certain deliverance from sin.
“Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we SHALL BE saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we SHALL BE saved by his life” (Rom. 5:9-10).
We know that salvation is secure because the believer is kept by the power of God.
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, WHO ARE KEPT BY THE POWER OF GOD through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time” (1 Pet. 1:3-5).
The believer can be sure that he will enjoy the inheritance spoken of in verse four solely because of the power of God.
This does not mean that a person can live as he pleases and still go to heaven just because he says he “believes.” The Lord Jesus Christ said that it is impossible to be saved without being born again (John 3:3, 7), and the new birth is a dramatic, life-changing experience. “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new” (2 Cor. 5:17). When a sinner is born again, he receives a new nature from God. He has new desires. God’s nature within him impels him to live God’s way. The indwelling Holy Spirit ministers a desire for holiness and truth. The professor in Christ who does not love God’s way is not a saved man who falls away from salvation; he is a hypocrite or a deceived person who has never possessed true salvation.
From the previous studies, it is evident that true Bible salvation does not have the uncertainty and legalistic admixture of the Adventist gospel. The SDA gospel is false.
FALSE TEACHING # 2: SABBATH-KEEPING
Seventh-day Adventism says that the sabbath was given to Adam in the Garden of Eden and that God intended for all men to keep it.
“God instituted the Sabbath in Eden; and so long as the fact that He is our Creator continues to be a reason why we should worship Him, so long the Sabbath will continue as its sign and memorial. ... The keeping of the Sabbath is a sign of loyalty to the true God” (Ellen White, The Great Controversy, p. 386).
Adventism says that Jesus and the apostles kept the sabbath and that it is binding upon all Christians.
“... from this it is evident that all Ten Commandments are binding in the Christian dispensation, and that Christ had no thought of changing any of them. One of these commands is the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath...” (Bible Footlights, p. 37).
“The example of Jesus is clear and consistent. His custom was a Sabbath-keeping custom. ... Yet in spite of this, we find a strange situation in the world today. For though we have the same Christ as our example, the same Bible as our guide, yet we find two Sabbath days kept by Christians...” (George Vandeman, Planet in Rebellion, p. 277).
They claim that Christians kept the sabbath until the fourth century when Constantine changed the law and forced churches to worship on Sunday.
“Constantine was the Roman emperor. He was a sun worshiper, but he was also a keen politician. He wanted to please everybody. It was while still a pagan that he decreed that all government offices should be closed upon the first day of the week—’the venerable day of the sun.’ The church, which had now been established in Rome, had been quick to see the temporal advantage of compromise with paganism ... so it was that after a few brief years, when Sunday had gained a foothold, the Roman church in the Council of Laodicea set aside the clear command of God and decreed the change from the seventh to the first day of the week” (Planet in Rebellion, p. 290).
WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS
1. The sabbath, though mentioned in Genesis 2:2-3, was not delivered to man until it was given to Israel in the wilderness (Nehemiah 9:13-14). Ellen White added to Scripture when she taught that Adam and the patriarchs kept the sabbath.
2. The sabbath was not given to mankind in general, but to Israel alone as a special sign between her and God (Ex. 31:13, 17). If the sabbath had been kept by mankind from the creation, it could not have been given as a special sign to Israel.
3. The New Testament teaches that the believer is not bound by the sabbath law. See Colossians 2:16-17.
4. The sabbath was a type of salvation. “There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his” (Heb. 4:9-10). As God rested on the seventh day from His work of creation, the believer today rests in the completed work of Christ. In order to enter into God’s rest, a person must accept God’s work and must cease from his own work (Jn. 6:28-29). Salvation must be accepted as God’s gift.
5. Jesus kept the sabbath because He was born under the law to fulfill the demands of the law. See Galatians 4:4-5. The Lord Jesus made Himself a servant and was born under the law of Moses that He might redeem sinners from the curse of the law and bring them into the eternal liberty of sonship.
6. It cannot be proven that the apostle Paul and the early churches observed the sabbath. It is true that Paul met in the synagogues on the sabbath in order to preach to the Jews assembled there, but this does not mean that he observed the sabbath. According to the Bible, the reason Paul visited synagogues on the sabbath was to preach the gospel. Paul’s desire was to preach Christ. He was burdened for his own people, the Jews. So he went where the Jews were to preach Christ to them. Consider Acts 13:14-44; 16:13-14; 17:2-4; 18:4.
7. There is much evidence in the Bible and elsewhere that the early Christians met and worshiped on the first day rather than on the sabbath.
On the first day Jesus rose from the dead (Mk. 16:9).
On the first day Jesus first appeared to his disciples (Mk. 16:9).
On the first day Jesus met with the disciples at different places (Mk. 16:9-11; Mt. 28:8-10; Lk. 24:34; Mk. 16:12-13; Jn. 20:19-23).
On the first day Jesus blessed the disciples (Jn. 20:19).
On the first day Jesus imparted to the disciples the gift of the Holy Spirit (Jn. 20:22).
On the first day Jesus commissioned the disciples to preach the gospel (Jn. 20:21; with Mk. 16:9-15).
On the first day Jesus ascended to Heaven, was seated at the right hand of the Father, and was made Head of all (Jn. 20:17; Eph. 1:20).
On the first day the gospel of the risen Christ was first preached (Lk. 24:34).
On the first day Jesus explained the Scriptures to the disciples (Lk. 24:27, 45).
On the first day the Holy Spirit descended (Acts 2:1). Pentecost was on the 50th day after the sabbath following the wave offering (Le. 23:15-16). Thus, Pentecost was always on a Sunday.
The Christians met to worship on the first day (Acts 20:6-7; 1 Cor. 16:2).
Since those days, the vast majority of Christians have met to worship on the first day of the week. They do this in honor of the resurrection of their Savior. Christ was in the tomb on the sabbath and rose as the firstborn from the dead on the first day. The sabbath signifies the last day of the old creation (Gen. 2:2). Sunday is the first day of the new creation.
8. Sunday is not the sabbath. Bible-believing Christians do not observe the sabbath by assembling on Sunday. The New Testament believer is redeemed from the obligations of the Law of Moses. Romans 14:1-13 and Colossians 2:16 clearly state that believers are not to be judged in respect to holy days. The Galatians’ respect of holy days caused the apostle Paul to fear that they were not even saved! See Galatians 4:10-11, 20.
9. The idea that Sunday observance will be the mark of the beast is not found in Scripture. This idea came from Ellen White. It is true that the Antichrist will “think to change times and laws” (Daniel 7:25), yet nowhere does the Bible say that this will involve the sabbath or Sunday. The Bible does not reveal exactly what laws the Antichrist will change.
FALSE TEACHING # 3: SOUL SLEEP
The Seventh-day Adventist Church teaches that those who die do not go to heaven or to hell but their soul sleeps unconsciously in the grave until the resurrection.
“To be dead does not mean to go to heaven; it does not mean to go to hell; it does not mean to go to purgatory. Indeed, it does not mean to go anywhere at all. It means simply an end of life. ... Death is cessation of life, an absence of life, the exact opposite of life. ... The man does not live; the body does not live; the soul does not live; the spirit does not live; the mind does not live. Intelligence ends, consciousness ends, memory ends, knowledge ends, thought ends” (When A Man Dies, p. 20).
Adventism teaches that the body and soul are not separate entities that can be parted at death.
“...the soul of man nowhere is represented as a separate, conscious part of man existing as such when the body sleeps in death... the soul of man comes with the breath; it goes with the breath. ... It has no function or power of manifestation or of action, no existence, apart from the body...” (When A Man Dies, pp. 32, 33).
They teach that the spirit is the breath.
“... notice Job 27:3: ‘All the while my breath is in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils.’ Again we find in the margin that spirit might also be translated ‘breath.’ The two words are often used interchangeably in Scripture. ... Now listen. ‘And breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.’ Nowhere are we told in Scripture that God gave man a living soul. Man became a living soul as the result of the union of the body with the breath of life. ... It is clear that the spirit that a man received from God and that goes back to God when he dies, is what God put into his nostrils. ... when he dies, the two separate. The dust returns to the ground. The breath, or spark of life, from saint or sinner, returns to God who gave it. The living, loving, acting soul does not go anywhere. It simply ceases to be a conscious entity until the resurrection morning, when the body and the breath of life are united again. That is Scripture pure and simple!” (Planet in Rebellion, pp. 320-323).
WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS
1. The word “soul” has different meanings in Scripture. Sometimes it does refer to the whole man. Often, though, it refers to a conscious, immaterial part of man that exists apart from the body beyond death. Words in the Bible must be defined by the context in which they are found.
Old Testament examples of the soul as an immaterial, conscious part of the man are seen in Genesis 35:18 and 1 Kings 17:21-22. In Genesis 35 the death of Rachel is recorded, and we are told that her soul departed when she died. “... as her soul was in departing, (for she died)...” In 1 Kings 17 a young boy died and was raised again through Elijah’s ministry. The Bible plainly says that his soul departed and then returned: “... O Lord my God, I pray thee, let this child’s soul come into him again. And the Lord heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived.” Obviously the prophet Elijah did not have the same idea about the soul and death as the Adventists do.
In the New Testament, the word “soul” is also used to describe a spiritual part of man distinct from his body. “... I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Th. 5:23). Here we are told that man has three parts. Paul did not say man IS a soul; he says man HAS a soul.
2. The word “spirit” also has various meanings in Scripture. Just as the word “soul” does not always refer to the whole man, but often refers to the immaterial part of man, even so the word “spirit” does not always mean breath. Spirit often refers to the conscious, immaterial part of man that is distinct from his body and that is separated from the body at death.
This is the meaning in Genesis 45:26-27, where the spirit is used interchangeably with the heart. “And Jacob’s HEART FAINTED, for he believed them not. And they told him all the words of Joseph, which he had said unto them: and when he saw the wagons which Joseph had sent to carry him, THE SPIRIT OF JACOB THEIR FATHER REVIVED.” Obviously, this passage does not refer to the spirit as the breath! In Exodus 6:9, the children of Israel had “anguish of spirit.” Was it their breath that was anguished! How silly. The word “spirit” obviously means something different in Scripture than breath. Again, in Exodus 35:21, the Bible describes those who contributed toward the construction of the tabernacle as those “whose heart stirred him up, and every one whom his spirit made willing.” Deuteronomy 2:30 is another example of this. Here we find God hardening the spirit of King Sihon. In 1 Kings 21:5 King Ahab is said to have had a “sad spirit.” Certainly none of these references could be construed as speaking of the spirit as the breath. The Seventh-day Adventist doctrine that the spirit is limited to breath is contrary to the Bible’s own teaching.
3. The New Testament plainly describes death as a departure of the spirit from the body. When we come to the New Testament, any uncertainty remaining from our Old Testament studies disappears in the light of full revelation. One uniform doctrine of death is found throughout the New Testament. Here death is plainly seen as a departure of the spirit from the body. Death means separation, not cessation. (This is how Adam and Eve could die the same day they partook of the fruit. They died spiritually. They were “dead in trespasses and sins.” Later they died physically and the soul was separated from the body.) This has been the orthodox doctrine of death throughout the New Testament age.
New Testament reasons for believing that death is a departure of the spirit from the body to another conscious realm of existence.
First, it is the body that dies (Jam. 2:26).
Second, Paul testified that death is a journey. See 2 Corinthians 5:6-7; Philippians 1:23-24; and 2 Timothy 4:6.
Third, Jesus’ promise to the thief on the cross shows that death is a departure. “And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise” (Lk. 23:43). Adventists claim that this passage is not translated correctly, that the comma should be after the word “today.” “Verily I say unto thee today, ‘Thou shalt be with me in paradise.’” No Bible translation reads like this. It is merely an effort to twist the passage to fit false Adventist doctrine, but the Lord Jesus Christ promised the repentant thief that he would be with him in paradise that very day.
Fourth, the story of Lazarus and the rich man shows that death is a departure. The proper names (Lazarus, Abraham) Jesus used in this story prove that He was speaking about an historical scene, rather than giving a parable. The Lord’s parables did not contain such details. Yet even if it this was a parable, it would still teach literal truth. “... the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; and in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments...” (Lk. 16:22-23). This passage teaches that death is a journey of the soul either to Heaven or to Hell.
Fifth, the dead saints will return with Christ from Heaven at the time of the resurrection and rapture of the saved. This shows that dead saints go to Heaven at death. “For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so THEM ALSO WHICH SLEEP IN JESUS WILL GOD BRING WITH HIM” (1 Th. 4:14). According to the Bible, the dead are not sleeping in the grave as the Adventists claim. Rather, they are in Heaven and they will return from there with Jesus!
Sixth, John’s heavenly visions show dead saints in Heaven before the resurrection and during the Great Tribulation on earth. See Revelation 6:9-11. This is another indisputable testimony that dead saints are not sleeping in the grave, but are residing in Heaven awaiting the return of Christ to earth.
Seventh, Moses’ and Elijah’s appearance on the Mount of Transfiguration proves that the dead have conscious existence between death and resurrection. See Luke 9:28-33. That Peter and the other apostles were not just seeing a future millennial scene is demonstrated by the fact that Moses and Elijah were speaking with the Lord Jesus about His approaching death. Moses and Elijah, though dead, appeared on that mountain and conversed about events that were soon to take place in Jerusalem. It is obvious that Moses and Elias are not sleeping in the grave.
It is plain from this survey of the New Testament that man has a spirit or soul that departs from his body at death and that lives eternally either in Heaven or in Hell. The Bible speaks of death BOTH as a sleep and as a journey. It is the sleep of the body and the journey of the spirit.
Even in the Old Testament we are taught that death meant separation from the body by the spirit. In Genesis 25:8 Abraham “gave up the ghost, and died ... and was gathered to his people.” This cannot mean simply that he was gathered to the grave, because Abraham’s people were not buried in Mamre. They were buried in Haran a long distance away (Ge. 11:31-32). In Genesis 35:18, it is recorded that Rachel’s soul departed at her death. 1 Kings 17 tells us that when the widow’s son died, his soul had departed (vv. 21-22). God told Moses in Numbers 27:13 that he would be “gathered unto” his people. For two reasons, this could not mean that he would sleep in a grave. First, Moses’ people were not buried in the wilderness where he died. Second, Moses appeared centuries later with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration, and he was quite conscious at that time.
Thus, no matter where we look in the Scripture, we see that death does not mean sleeping unconsciously in the grave. The passages that speak of death as sleep are speaking poetically. Some Old Testament references to death, particularly in the book of Ecclesiastes, speak of it from the viewpoint of this world. In that sense, it is true that the dead do not praise God in this world. The theme of Ecclesiastes is “under the sun,” and it describes man’s attempt to understand life apart from divine revelation.
4. The doctrine of immortality was not fully revealed until the New Testament. See 1 Timothy 1:9-10. It was with the coming of Christ that the doctrine of life beyond the grave was brought to full light. Thus, we must not interpret the New Testament in light of the Old Testament, but the Old in light of the New!
FALSE TEACHING # 4: ANNIHILATION OF THE WICKED
Seventh-day Adventism teaches that the unsaved will be burned up in the lake of fire.
“The theory of eternal torment is one of the false doctrines that constitute the wine of the abomination of Babylon. ... There will then be no lost souls to blaspheme God as they writhe in never-ending torment; no wretched beings in hell will mingle their shrieks with the songs of the saved” (Ellen White, The Great Controversy, pp. 470, 477).
They claim that the eternal torment of the wicked cannot be reconciled with God’s love and mercy.
“How repugnant to every emotion of love and mercy, and even to our sense of justice, is the doctrine that the wicked dead are tormented with fire and brimstone in an eternally burning hell” (Ellen White, The Great Controversy, p. 469).
WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS
1. The Bible teaches that the unsaved will endure eternal conscious torment. See Matthew 25:46; Revelation 14:10-11; Revelation 20:10-15. Three times in Mark 9 Christ spoke of hell as “the fire that never shall be quenched: where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched...” (Mk. 9:43-48). This is the language of eternal suffering.
Adventists argue that though the fire is eternal, the punishment is not. This is an impossible interpretation, because Christ taught that the punishment of the unsaved will be worse than a violent destruction or loss of existence. Mark 9:42 warns that would be better for the wicked to hang a millstone about his neck and to be cast into the sea than to endure God’s judgment. In the very next verse, Jesus began to describe the horrors of Hell. In other words, Hell is going to be worse than any violent destruction. The suffering is eternal in duration. In Matthew 26:24, the Lord said Judas’ punishment will be worse than loss of existence. “... it had been good for that man if he had not been born.”
The doctrine of eternal torment might be difficult for us to understand, but God has revealed it and our part is to accept it by faith. Hell is a place of fire, and it is a place where the suffering is eternal. These Scriptures should be a loud warning to every man, woman, and child that life is no game; salvation is not a thing to delay for even an hour. No time should be wasted in finding security in the Saviour whose blood “cleanseth us from all sin.” No effort should be spared in reaching lost souls for Christ. Hell’s torment is as eternal in duration as Heaven’s bliss.
2. God’s mercy does not erase His holy justice. God’s justice was satisfied in the atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ, but those who reject His great salvation must suffer for their own sins. God has given His Son to die on the cross to redeem men from their sins. Through this atonement, God’s holy justice was satisfied (Isaiah 53:11), and He offers full pardon and eternal life to every sinner that responds in repentance and faith. Those who reject the Savior’s suffering must suffer for their own sin. Adventism claims that God would be unjust to make Christ-rejecters suffer eternally for their sins, but who are we to question God’s justice?
FALSE TEACHING # 5: ELLEN WHITE A PROPHETESS
Seventh-day Adventism believes that Ellen White was a prophetess. Consider some quotes from their writings:
“Seventh-day Adventists believe that Mrs. Ellen G. White exercised the true prophetic gift. They believe that God graciously spoke to her in divine revelations, and that through her He sent inspired messages to His church. ... The Seventh-day Adventist Church is indebted to her as a spiritual leader and a pioneer builder and guide. In most of the soul-winning activities of the church, from its very beginnings, the leaders received guidance from what they believed were the prophetic insights of this servant of God” (D.A. Delafield, Ellen G. White and the Seventh-day Adventist Church, pp. 2, 10-11).
“The Holy Spirit that inspired Moses, Paul, and John, also inspired Sister White. The inspiration of the prophets is one thing” (The Spirit of Prophecy Treasure Chest, p. 30).
“The Ellen White books have been likened also to a telescope which greatly enlarges the vision of God’s plans as revealed in His word” (Ellen G. White and the Seventh-day Adventist Church, p. 34).
“These messages, we believe, should be faithfully followed by every believer. Next to the Bible, and in connection with it, they should be read and studied. They throw a floodlight upon the Sacred record” (Prophetic Guidance, Lesson 16, p. 60).
“Consistency calls for acceptance of the Spirit of Prophecy writings as a whole. We cannot justify accepting part and rejecting part. For example, to accept one of Mrs. White’s books of a devotional character while questioning what she has written on doctrine, morals, or health standards, is really accepting one part and rejecting another” (Prophetic Guidance, Lesson 18, p. 70).
WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY?
1. Mrs. White taught doctrines that deviate from New Testament Revelation. See Isaiah 8:20; Romans 16:17-18. The fact that a group holds many true doctrines does not mean we are to overlook its heresies. False imitations of Christianity have always been characterized by a mixture of truth and error. The Galatian heretics were apparently orthodox in most of their doctrines. We have no reason to believe they were anything but orthodox about the Trinity, Christ’s Deity, the Resurrection, and Biblical Inspiration, but the fact that they added to Paul’s gospel brought upon them a divine curse (Galatians 1:8-9). In fact, they were all the more dangerous because of their seeming orthodoxy. Rat poison is at least 95% harmless.
Romans 16:17 warns us to mark and avoid those that cause divisions contrary to the doctrine which we have learned. Seventh-day Adventism is guilty of this. They cause divisions contrary to the apostolic doctrine of death, of sabbath-keeping, of Hell, of the ministry of Christ during this present age, of the Mosaic Law, of the woman’s place in the church, and of the apostolic doctrine of the last days, and others.
2. Ellen White contradicted herself and was a hypocrite.
Consider two examples:
She taught that women should abstain from wearing jewelry.
“To dress plainly, abstaining from display of jewelry and ornaments of every kind, is in keeping with our faith” (White, Testimonies, vol. 3, p. 366).
Ellen White did not follow her own teaching. She wore jewelry, including broaches, expensive pins with white stones, and chains. In “Did Ellen White Wear Jewelry?” S. Cleveland and D. Anderson document this fact (http://www.ellenwhiteexposed.com/contra7.htm).
She taught that photography is idolatry.
“This making and exchanging of photographs is a species of Idolatry. Satan is doing all he can to eclipse heaven from our view. Let us not help him by making picture-idols” (White, Messages to Young People, p. 316).
Mrs. White often sat for pictures, contrary to her own teaching.
3. Women are not to teach nor usurp authority over men. God calls men, not women, to lead the churches (1 Timothy 2:11-12). There were no female apostles, and women are not qualified to be pastor-elders (1 Tim. 3:1-2; Tit. 1:5-6). Ellen White lived in direct opposition to these commands. She was a leading figure in the development of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. She addressed large crowds of men.
4. The true prophetic gift was to cease when its purposes for this age were fulfilled.
“Charity never faileth: but WHETHER THERE BE PROPHECIES, THEY SHALL FAIL; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away” (1 Cor. 13:8-10).
The context of 1 Corinthians 13 pertains to spiritual gifts. The entire section from chapter 12 to 14 deals with this subject. 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 refers to the revelation gifts of prophecy, knowledge, and tongues, through which God spoke to the early churches. These gifts were to pass away upon completion of their divine purpose, just as many other elements of God’s program for the ages have passed away.
Since the Bible says that point prophecy will cease, when did this happen? The answer is found in Ephesians 2:20. This verse groups the prophets and the apostles together and says that they laid the foundation for the church. They preached the gospel, established the first churches, and wrote the New Testament Scriptures under divine inspiration. Their job was then complete. The foundation was firmly laid, and they were no longer needed. Just as there are no apostles today, in the early church sense, there are also no prophets in the sense of receiving and imparting revelation. In this sense, “prophecy” has “failed.”
Ellen White could not have had the New Testament gift of prophecy, because that gift ceased with the passing of the apostles and prophets and the completion of the Bible.
The Christian faith was delivered once for all to the saints during the days of the apostles (Jude 3). It is not to be added to or tampered with. Rather, it is to be contended for. The Holy Spirit has given everything necessary to make the “man of God perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). This refers to the completed Scriptures, and a seal was placed in the last chapter of the Book, warning all men against claiming to have some new or fresh word from God (Rev. 22:18-19).
Did Mrs. White add to the things contained in the Bible? In just one vision that in the book Early Writings (pages 14-20), she added the following things: She said that Jesus’ hair is curly and shoulder length and that His trumpet is silver. She said that it takes seven days to ascend to heaven. She described tree trunks of transparent gold, fruit that looks like gold mixed with silver, houses that have the appearance of silver supported by pillars set with pearls, and shelves of gold, fields of flowers, “little ones” with wings, tables of stone engraved with the 144,000, and a silver table many miles in length.
She also said that God offered Satan a pardon (The Great Controversy, pp. 495-96), that the serpent had wings (Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, pp. 39-40), that Enoch’s face radiated light (Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p. 57), and that angels who golden cards that they carry with them (Early Writings, p. 39).
There is no doubt that Ellen White’s visions added to the Bible’s prophecies. Those who refuse to accept the Bible as the final Word of God for this age always receive another word through false visions and prophecies. Seventh-day Adventism is the product of this great error.
5. Ellen White’s prophecies did not come to pass. See Deuteronomy 18:22.
In the book Seventh-day Adventism and the Writings of Ellen White, J. Mark Martin documents many false prophecies that were published by Mrs. White. These include the following:
Old Jerusalem Never Built Up
“I also saw that Old Jerusalem never would be built up; and that Satan was doing his utmost to lead the minds of the children of the Lord into these things now, in the gathering time” (Early Writings, p. 75).
In fact, old Jerusalem has been built up extensively since the birth of the modern state of Israel in 1948.
Adventists Living in 1856 Would See Jesus Return
In May 1865 Ellen White declared in a meeting in Battle Creek, Michigan, that some present would “remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus” (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1, pp. 131-132).
England Would Attack the United States
“... when England does declare war, all nations will have an interest of their own to serve, and there will be general war, general confusion. ... this nation [the United States] will ... be humbled into the dust” (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1, p. 259).
In fact, England did not declare war and the United States was not humbled into the dust.
FALSE TEACHING # 6: INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT
According to Ellen White, Jesus entered the heavenly holy of holies to begin an investigative judgment of the records (deeds and thoughts) of those that have professed faith in Christ. The judgment is supposedly based on the Ten Commandments, and the character of each person will be tested by the standard of this law to determine his eternal destiny. During this heavenly judgment, God has allegedly raised up the Seventh-day Adventist Church to proclaim the gospel to the world. When the judgment is finished, Christ will return to the earth, destroy the wicked, resurrect the saved (who have allegedly been sleeping in the grave), and place all sins upon Satan.
“Every man’s work passes in review before God and is registered for faithfulness or unfaithfulness. Opposite each name in the books of heaven is entered with terrible exactness every wrong word, every selfish act, every unfulfilled duty, and every secret sin, with every artful dissembling. ... The law of God is the standard by which the characters and the lives of men will be tested in the judgment. ... Every name is mentioned, every case closely investigated. Names are accepted, names rejected. When any have sins remaining upon the books of record, unrepented of and unforgiven, their names will be blotted out of the book of life, and the record of their good deeds will be erased from the book of God’s remembrance. ... All who have truly repented of sin, and by faith claimed the blood of Christ as their atoning sacrifice, have had pardon entered against their names in the books of heaven; as they have become partakers of the righteousness of Christ, and their characters are found to be in harmony with the law of God, their sins will be blotted out, and they themselves will be accounted worthy of eternal life. ... Sins that have not been repented of and forsaken will not be pardoned and blotted out of the books of record, but will stand to witness against the sinner in the day of God” (Ellen White, The Great Controversy, pp. 424-425, 428).
“The righteous dead will not be raised until after the judgment at which they are accounted worthy of ‘the resurrection of life.’ Hence they will not be present in person at the tribunal when their records are examined and their cases decided. ... Everyone must be tested and found without spot or wrinkle or any such thing. ... When the work of the investigative judgment closes, the destiny of all will have been decided for life or death” (Ellen White, The Great Controversy, pp. 431-432).
“When the investigative judgment closes, Christ will come, and His reward will be with Him to give every man as his work shall be. ... Christ will place all these sins upon Satan, the originator and instigator of sin. The scapegoat, bearing the sins of Israel, was sent away ‘unto a land not inhabited’ (Lev. 16:22); so Satan, bearing the guilt of all the sins which he has caused God’s people to commit, will be for a thousand years confined to the earth, which will then be desolate, without inhabitant, and he will at last suffer the full penalty of sin in the fires that shall destroy all the wicked” (Ellen White, The Great Controversy, p. 427).
WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS
1. The believer will not be judged by the Ten Commandments and will not lose his salvation if his service is unacceptable. The believer has eternal life (John 3:16). He has already passed from death unto life (John 5:24). He is safe in Christ and stands and rejoices in hope of the glory of God (Romans 5:1-2). He has no fear of future wrath, for he is complete in Christ (Romans 5:9). All punishment for his sin fell on Christ, and he is forever free. Christ took the believer’s unrighteousness upon Himself and gave the believer His very righteousness (2 Corinthians 5:21).
2. The believer’s judgment is an examination of his service to Christ to determine whether he will be rewarded or suffer loss of reward. See 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 and 2 Corinthians 5:5, 9-10.
Consider some important differences between the judgment described in these passages and the Investigative Judgment of Seventh-day Adventism: (1) Christ’s judgment of believers does not determine their salvation. Those who stand at the judgment of 1 Corinthians 3 will be there because they have already been saved, not in order to determine whether or not they will be saved. The ones judged in 1 Corinthians 3 are those that have established their lives upon the solid foundation of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 3:11-12). (2) The believer’s judgment will not result in damnation, torment, or separation from God. Believers whose works fail the test will suffer shame and loss of reward, but not loss of salvation. “If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire” (1 Cor. 3:15). Words could not be plainer. (3) Notice, too, that the believer shall appear personally before his Lord. “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ” (2 Cor. 5:10). According"to Adventist theology, the believer’s judgment occurs in the heavenly holy of holies between 1844 and the Second Coming, while the believer himself is supposedly on earth or sleeping in the grave. This is not what the apostle Paul taught.
3. It is unscriptural to identify Satan with the scapegoat of Leviticus 16. Both goats of the Day of Atonement—the one slain and the one released into the wilderness—represent the Lord Jesus Christ. The slain goat pictures the act of Christ’s atonement: it is a bloody sacrifice. The released goat pictures the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement: it is accomplished once for all and is forever complete. To interpret the scapegoat as a reference to Satan is blasphemous. Adventism finds confirmation of this doctrine, not in Scripture rightly divided, but in the visions of Ellen White, which is yet another example of how they have added to the Bible’s revelation.
FALSE TEACHING # 7: MISUSING THE LAW OF MOSES
A foundational error of Seventh-day Adventism is its misuse of the Law of Moses. This is the same heresy that many of the Jews of Paul’s day were guilty of. It is the heresy that he confronted in his epistle to the Galatians.
Four Adventist Errors about the Law
1. According to Adventism, law and grace are not opposing systems, but both work together for man’s salvation.
“The fact that all who are redeemed are saved by grace does not dispense with the law of God any more in the one dispensation than in the other. The law is not against grace, and grace is not against the law” (Charles Everson, Saved By Grace, p. 11).
2. The Law of Moses is the standard by which God shall judge believers.
“The law of God is the standard by which the characters and the lives of men will be tested in the judgment. ... Those who in the judgment are ‘accounted worthy’ will have a part in the resurrection of the just” (Ellen White, The Great Controversy, pp. 423-425).
3. The Law of Moses is the believer’s rule of life.
“Instead of being free to ignore and break the law because he is saved by grace, he is now doubly obligated to keep it. ... It is very evident, then, that in the new covenant we do not see the law a thing of no consequence, but we find it occupying the center of the covenant” (Charles Everson, Saved By Grace, pp. 23, 36).
“The Ten Commandments are the only perfect rule of conduct in this world today. God gave man the Decalogue as a rule of life” (J.L. Shuler, The Great Judgment Day, pp. 113-114).
WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS
The following is a summary of every major New Testament passage dealing with the law. The reader is encouraged to look up and study each one of the passages. We are confident the Lord will encourage you in the glorious eternal liberty the believer has in Christ Jesus.
1. The Law of Moses has one main purpose, and that is to lead men to Jesus Christ. A man is saved and justified by faith ALONE through grace ALONE, apart from the law. Because of man’s fallen condition, the law can only condemn him. The law is indeed holy and good, but it can do nothing for sinful man except to reveal his wicked condition and lead him to Christ. See Romans 3:19-20; 5:20; Romans 7:7-13; 1 Corinthians 15:56; 2 Corinthians 5:5-13; Galatians 2:16; 3:9-24; 1 Timothy 1:6-11.
“The law demands strength from one that has none, and curses him if he cannot display it. The Gospel gives strength to one that has none, and blesses him in the exhibition of it. The law proposes life as the end of obedience, the Gospel gives life as the only proper ground of obedience” (C.H. Mackintosh, Notes on the Pentateuch, pp. 232-233).
2. The Law of Moses holds no power over the believer; he is placed in Christ entirely out of the law’s grasp. The law can no more bring condemnation to the believer than it can to Christ Himself, since the believer has been made perfect in Christ. The law has no more power over the believer than the dead husband has over a living wife. The apostles did not teach the Adventist doctrine that the believer is to conform his life to the standard of the law by the power of the resurrected Christ, and that if he fails to do so the law will condemn him in the day of judgment. See Romans 5:1-2, 6-11; 6:3-7; 8:8-10; 10:4; 7:4; Galatians 3:24-29.
3. The Ten Commandments is a covenant of death that is done away with in Christ. Adventist teachers protest that the moral law, represented in the Ten Commandments, was not done away at the cross of Christ and that only the ceremonial law was done away. But the New Testament describes even the Ten Commandments as a covenant of death! The Mosaic Law as a whole had one chief purpose. It was given by God to fallen man in order to show him his sin and his need of the Savior. See 2 Corinthians 3:6-13.
The apostle said that the law written in stone is done away with in Christ, and that refers to the Ten Commandments. Two times the apostle tells us that the Ten Commandments are abolished. Two times he tells us that the Ten Commandments were a ministration of death and condemnation! Words could not be plainer. For the Adventist teacher to come along and point the believer back to the Law of Moses as a rule of life is a great evil.
5. The Law of Moses is not the believer’s rule of life. The believer is told to put on Christ and to follow the Spirit of God. The believer’s objective is not to be conformed to the law, but to be conformed to the image of Christ (Rom. 8:29). The Holy Spirit molds and transforms the believer’s life into the image of the Lord Jesus. Romans 8:11-14; 8:29; 13:13-14; 2 Corinthians 3:18; Galatians 5:16-25; Ephesians 4:20-24; Colossians 3:9-11.
“If the law be indeed the rule of a believer’s life, where are we to find it so presented in the New Testament? The inspired Apostle evidently had no thought of its being the rule when he penned the following words: ‘For in Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and on the Israel of God’ (Gal. 6:15-16). What ‘rule’? The law? No; but the ‘new creation.’ Where shall we find this in Exodus 20? It speaks not a word about ‘new creation.’ On the contrary, it addresses itself to man as he is—in his natural or old-creation state—and puts him to the test as to what he is really able to do. Now if the law were the rule by which believers are to walk, why does the apostle pronounce his benediction on those who walk by another rule altogether? Why does he not say, as many as walk according to rule of the Ten Commandments? Is it not evident, from this one passage, that the Church of God has a higher rule by which to walk?” (C.H. Mackintosh, Notes on the Pentateuch, pp. 232-233).
“I, as a Christian, obey all law that is moral in the Decalogue, not because it is in the Law, but because it is in the Gospel. Worship of God only is enjoined fifty times in the New Testament; idolatry is forbidden twelve times; profanity four times; honor of father and mother is commanded six times; adultery is forbidden twelve; theft six; false witness four; and covetousness, nine times. ‘The Ten Commandments,’ as Luther says, ‘do not apply to us Gentiles and Christians, but only to the Jews.’ So therefore, Paul, in all his fourteen epistles, never once names the Sabbath—except in a single passage where, classing it with the entire law, he declares it has been totally abolished. So the early church held” (William C. Irvine, Heresies Exposed, p. 165).
6. Law and Grace are two different systems that cannot be mixed in salvation. We have already looked at this under the section on the Seventh-day Adventist’s false gospel of grace plus law. See Acts 15:8-11; Romans 3:18-25; 4:4-5; 11:6; Ephesians 2:8-10.
7. To point believers back to the Law of Moses as a rule of life is to place them back under legalistic bondage, bringing a curse upon the one who teaches this heresy as well as upon the one who follows it. The apostles condemned in the strongest language those who tried to get believers to return to the Law of Moses as a rule of life. This refutes the Seventh-day Adventist doctrine that the law is a blessing to the justified man. See Galatians 1:7-9; 2:4; 3:1-9; 4:9-11, 19-21; 5:1-9.
Christ came to redeem men from bondage to the law, to remove their condemnation by paying the price the law demanded for man’s sin. Those who try to bring believers back under the law are deceiving men and pointing them away from the finished work of Christ and true Bible freedom in Him. They themselves are cursed because of their false gospel, and they are leading others away from the truth. The goal of salvation is not to bring the believer to the law, but to present him perfect in Christ!
FALSE TEACHING # 8: VEGETARIANISM
Ellen White warned against eating meat and promoted vegetarianism.
“Among those who are waiting for the coming of the Lord, meat eating will eventually be done away; flesh will cease to form a part of their diet. We should ever keep this end in view, and endeavor to work steadily toward it. I cannot think that in the practice of flesh eating we are in harmony with the light which God has been pleased to give us. All who are connected with our health institutions especially should be educating themselves to subsist on fruits, grains, and vegetables” (Ellen White, Counsels on Diet and Foods, pp. 380-81).
“Let not any of our ministers set an evil example in the eating of flesh-meat. Let them and their families live up to the light of health reform. Let not our ministers animalize their own nature and the nature of their children” (Ellen White, Spalding and Magan, p. 211).
This teaching was part of White’s health program, which she claimed was given to her by divine revelation in 1863.
Today the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventist’s Nutrition Council recommends abstaining from meat, fish, coffee, and tea.
Here we will only deal with the issue of vegetarianism. From Adam to Noah, men were vegetarians, stemming from God’s command in Genesis 1:29-30, but after the flood, men were instructed to eat meat as well as vegetables (Genesis 9:3). Under the Law of Moses, the nation Israel continued to eat meat, and some animals were designated clean and others unclean. The Lord Jesus Christ lived under the law as a Jew and followed the Mosaic dietary system. He was not a vegetarian. We know that He ate fish (Lk. 24:42-43) and He ate lamb, which was required during the Passover (Exodus 12:6-8).
There are only three teachings about diet in the New Testament.
First, Peter was taught that the Old Testament dietary restrictions are no longer in effect for the New Testament believer (Acts 10:9-16). The truth of this was emphasized in that the command to rise, kill, and eat was repeated three times. This passage single-handedly refutes the following claims: that the Mosaic dietary restrictions are in force in the New Testament churches, that the Mosaic dietary restrictions were for health purposes (if that were true, God would have kept them in force), that eating meat is unhealthy, that vegetarianism is a superior program, and that is cruel to kill animals.
Second, we are taught that in the New Testament dispensation diet is entirely a matter of personal liberty (Romans 14:1-6) and we are not to judge others in such matters (Romans 14:13).
Third, we have a warning about those who teach against eating meat (1 Timothy 4:1-6) and we are told that to require a vegetarian diet is a doctrine of devils. This one heresy is sufficient to mark Ellen White as a heretic who was under the control of the Devil.
To go beyond the Bible’s clear teaching in this matter and to create dietary programs that purport to have a scriptural basis and or to be derived from extra-biblical prophecy or otherwise to have divine approval is heresy.
The New Testament plainly states that “every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer” (1 Timothy 4:4-5).
Thus, according to Scripture, diet in this dispensation is a personal and individual matter. Each person is different, with his own metabolism, taste, culture, lifestyle, health, and occupation; and diet must be determined on this basis and not on some plan purporting to be from the Bible.
I am not saying that all diets are equally healthy; I am merely saying that there is no one diet that is required by the Bible, and vegetarianism is certainly not upheld by Scripture.
The writer of Hebrews warned:
“Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein” (Heb. 13:9).
Salvation and spirituality are not determined by what you eat but by whether or not you have submitted to the gospel of Christ’s grace. A doctrine of meats or special diet is a strange and unscriptural doctrine!
In spite of her own teaching against eating meat, which she claimed was based on a vision she had in 1863, Ellen White continued eating meat most of her life. This is documented extensively in “Oysters and Herrings” by M. Chugg and D. Anderson, http://www.ellenwhiteexposed.com/contra6.htm.
Seventh-day Adventism teaches that the unsaved will be burned up in the lake of fire.
“The theory of eternal torment is one of the false doctrines that constitute the wine of the abomination of Babylon. ... There will then be no lost souls to blaspheme God as they writhe in never-ending torment; no wretched beings in hell will mingle their shrieks with the songs of the saved” (Ellen White, The Great Controversy, pp. 470, 477).
They claim that the eternal torment of the wicked cannot be reconciled with God’s love and mercy.
“How repugnant to every emotion of love and mercy, and even to our sense of justice, is the doctrine that the wicked dead are tormented with fire and brimstone in an eternally burning hell” (Ellen White, The Great Controversy, p. 469).
WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS
1. The Bible teaches that the unsaved will endure eternal conscious torment. See Matthew 25:46; Revelation 14:10-11; Revelation 20:10-15. Three times in Mark 9 Christ spoke of hell as “the fire that never shall be quenched: where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched...” (Mk. 9:43-48). This is the language of eternal suffering.
Adventists argue that though the fire is eternal, the punishment is not. This is an impossible interpretation, because Christ taught that the punishment of the unsaved will be worse than a violent destruction or loss of existence. Mark 9:42 warns that would be better for the wicked to hang a millstone about his neck and to be cast into the sea than to endure God’s judgment. In the very next verse, Jesus began to describe the horrors of Hell. In other words, Hell is going to be worse than any violent destruction. The suffering is eternal in duration. In Matthew 26:24, the Lord said Judas’ punishment will be worse than loss of existence. “... it had been good for that man if he had not been born.”
The doctrine of eternal torment might be difficult for us to understand, but God has revealed it and our part is to accept it by faith. Hell is a place of fire, and it is a place where the suffering is eternal. These Scriptures should be a loud warning to every man, woman, and child that life is no game; salvation is not a thing to delay for even an hour. No time should be wasted in finding security in the Saviour whose blood “cleanseth us from all sin.” No effort should be spared in reaching lost souls for Christ. Hell’s torment is as eternal in duration as Heaven’s bliss.
2. God’s mercy does not erase His holy justice. God’s justice was satisfied in the atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ, but those who reject His great salvation must suffer for their own sins. God has given His Son to die on the cross to redeem men from their sins. Through this atonement, God’s holy justice was satisfied (Isaiah 53:11), and He offers full pardon and eternal life to every sinner that responds in repentance and faith. Those who reject the Savior’s suffering must suffer for their own sin. Adventism claims that God would be unjust to make Christ-rejecters suffer eternally for their sins, but who are we to question God’s justice?
FALSE TEACHING # 5: ELLEN WHITE A PROPHETESS
Seventh-day Adventism believes that Ellen White was a prophetess. Consider some quotes from their writings:
“Seventh-day Adventists believe that Mrs. Ellen G. White exercised the true prophetic gift. They believe that God graciously spoke to her in divine revelations, and that through her He sent inspired messages to His church. ... The Seventh-day Adventist Church is indebted to her as a spiritual leader and a pioneer builder and guide. In most of the soul-winning activities of the church, from its very beginnings, the leaders received guidance from what they believed were the prophetic insights of this servant of God” (D.A. Delafield, Ellen G. White and the Seventh-day Adventist Church, pp. 2, 10-11).
“The Holy Spirit that inspired Moses, Paul, and John, also inspired Sister White. The inspiration of the prophets is one thing” (The Spirit of Prophecy Treasure Chest, p. 30).
“The Ellen White books have been likened also to a telescope which greatly enlarges the vision of God’s plans as revealed in His word” (Ellen G. White and the Seventh-day Adventist Church, p. 34).
“These messages, we believe, should be faithfully followed by every believer. Next to the Bible, and in connection with it, they should be read and studied. They throw a floodlight upon the Sacred record” (Prophetic Guidance, Lesson 16, p. 60).
“Consistency calls for acceptance of the Spirit of Prophecy writings as a whole. We cannot justify accepting part and rejecting part. For example, to accept one of Mrs. White’s books of a devotional character while questioning what she has written on doctrine, morals, or health standards, is really accepting one part and rejecting another” (Prophetic Guidance, Lesson 18, p. 70).
WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY?
1. Mrs. White taught doctrines that deviate from New Testament Revelation. See Isaiah 8:20; Romans 16:17-18. The fact that a group holds many true doctrines does not mean we are to overlook its heresies. False imitations of Christianity have always been characterized by a mixture of truth and error. The Galatian heretics were apparently orthodox in most of their doctrines. We have no reason to believe they were anything but orthodox about the Trinity, Christ’s Deity, the Resurrection, and Biblical Inspiration, but the fact that they added to Paul’s gospel brought upon them a divine curse (Galatians 1:8-9). In fact, they were all the more dangerous because of their seeming orthodoxy. Rat poison is at least 95% harmless.
Romans 16:17 warns us to mark and avoid those that cause divisions contrary to the doctrine which we have learned. Seventh-day Adventism is guilty of this. They cause divisions contrary to the apostolic doctrine of death, of sabbath-keeping, of Hell, of the ministry of Christ during this present age, of the Mosaic Law, of the woman’s place in the church, and of the apostolic doctrine of the last days, and others.
2. Ellen White contradicted herself and was a hypocrite.
Consider two examples:
She taught that women should abstain from wearing jewelry.
“To dress plainly, abstaining from display of jewelry and ornaments of every kind, is in keeping with our faith” (White, Testimonies, vol. 3, p. 366).
Ellen White did not follow her own teaching. She wore jewelry, including broaches, expensive pins with white stones, and chains. In “Did Ellen White Wear Jewelry?” S. Cleveland and D. Anderson document this fact (http://www.ellenwhiteexposed.com/contra7.htm).
She taught that photography is idolatry.
“This making and exchanging of photographs is a species of Idolatry. Satan is doing all he can to eclipse heaven from our view. Let us not help him by making picture-idols” (White, Messages to Young People, p. 316).
Mrs. White often sat for pictures, contrary to her own teaching.
3. Women are not to teach nor usurp authority over men. God calls men, not women, to lead the churches (1 Timothy 2:11-12). There were no female apostles, and women are not qualified to be pastor-elders (1 Tim. 3:1-2; Tit. 1:5-6). Ellen White lived in direct opposition to these commands. She was a leading figure in the development of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. She addressed large crowds of men.
4. The true prophetic gift was to cease when its purposes for this age were fulfilled.
“Charity never faileth: but WHETHER THERE BE PROPHECIES, THEY SHALL FAIL; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away” (1 Cor. 13:8-10).
The context of 1 Corinthians 13 pertains to spiritual gifts. The entire section from chapter 12 to 14 deals with this subject. 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 refers to the revelation gifts of prophecy, knowledge, and tongues, through which God spoke to the early churches. These gifts were to pass away upon completion of their divine purpose, just as many other elements of God’s program for the ages have passed away.
Since the Bible says that point prophecy will cease, when did this happen? The answer is found in Ephesians 2:20. This verse groups the prophets and the apostles together and says that they laid the foundation for the church. They preached the gospel, established the first churches, and wrote the New Testament Scriptures under divine inspiration. Their job was then complete. The foundation was firmly laid, and they were no longer needed. Just as there are no apostles today, in the early church sense, there are also no prophets in the sense of receiving and imparting revelation. In this sense, “prophecy” has “failed.”
Ellen White could not have had the New Testament gift of prophecy, because that gift ceased with the passing of the apostles and prophets and the completion of the Bible.
The Christian faith was delivered once for all to the saints during the days of the apostles (Jude 3). It is not to be added to or tampered with. Rather, it is to be contended for. The Holy Spirit has given everything necessary to make the “man of God perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). This refers to the completed Scriptures, and a seal was placed in the last chapter of the Book, warning all men against claiming to have some new or fresh word from God (Rev. 22:18-19).
Did Mrs. White add to the things contained in the Bible? In just one vision that in the book Early Writings (pages 14-20), she added the following things: She said that Jesus’ hair is curly and shoulder length and that His trumpet is silver. She said that it takes seven days to ascend to heaven. She described tree trunks of transparent gold, fruit that looks like gold mixed with silver, houses that have the appearance of silver supported by pillars set with pearls, and shelves of gold, fields of flowers, “little ones” with wings, tables of stone engraved with the 144,000, and a silver table many miles in length.
She also said that God offered Satan a pardon (The Great Controversy, pp. 495-96), that the serpent had wings (Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, pp. 39-40), that Enoch’s face radiated light (Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p. 57), and that angels who golden cards that they carry with them (Early Writings, p. 39).
There is no doubt that Ellen White’s visions added to the Bible’s prophecies. Those who refuse to accept the Bible as the final Word of God for this age always receive another word through false visions and prophecies. Seventh-day Adventism is the product of this great error.
5. Ellen White’s prophecies did not come to pass. See Deuteronomy 18:22.
In the book Seventh-day Adventism and the Writings of Ellen White, J. Mark Martin documents many false prophecies that were published by Mrs. White. These include the following:
Old Jerusalem Never Built Up
“I also saw that Old Jerusalem never would be built up; and that Satan was doing his utmost to lead the minds of the children of the Lord into these things now, in the gathering time” (Early Writings, p. 75).
In fact, old Jerusalem has been built up extensively since the birth of the modern state of Israel in 1948.
Adventists Living in 1856 Would See Jesus Return
In May 1865 Ellen White declared in a meeting in Battle Creek, Michigan, that some present would “remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus” (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1, pp. 131-132).
England Would Attack the United States
“... when England does declare war, all nations will have an interest of their own to serve, and there will be general war, general confusion. ... this nation [the United States] will ... be humbled into the dust” (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1, p. 259).
In fact, England did not declare war and the United States was not humbled into the dust.
FALSE TEACHING # 6: INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT
According to Ellen White, Jesus entered the heavenly holy of holies to begin an investigative judgment of the records (deeds and thoughts) of those that have professed faith in Christ. The judgment is supposedly based on the Ten Commandments, and the character of each person will be tested by the standard of this law to determine his eternal destiny. During this heavenly judgment, God has allegedly raised up the Seventh-day Adventist Church to proclaim the gospel to the world. When the judgment is finished, Christ will return to the earth, destroy the wicked, resurrect the saved (who have allegedly been sleeping in the grave), and place all sins upon Satan.
“Every man’s work passes in review before God and is registered for faithfulness or unfaithfulness. Opposite each name in the books of heaven is entered with terrible exactness every wrong word, every selfish act, every unfulfilled duty, and every secret sin, with every artful dissembling. ... The law of God is the standard by which the characters and the lives of men will be tested in the judgment. ... Every name is mentioned, every case closely investigated. Names are accepted, names rejected. When any have sins remaining upon the books of record, unrepented of and unforgiven, their names will be blotted out of the book of life, and the record of their good deeds will be erased from the book of God’s remembrance. ... All who have truly repented of sin, and by faith claimed the blood of Christ as their atoning sacrifice, have had pardon entered against their names in the books of heaven; as they have become partakers of the righteousness of Christ, and their characters are found to be in harmony with the law of God, their sins will be blotted out, and they themselves will be accounted worthy of eternal life. ... Sins that have not been repented of and forsaken will not be pardoned and blotted out of the books of record, but will stand to witness against the sinner in the day of God” (Ellen White, The Great Controversy, pp. 424-425, 428).
“The righteous dead will not be raised until after the judgment at which they are accounted worthy of ‘the resurrection of life.’ Hence they will not be present in person at the tribunal when their records are examined and their cases decided. ... Everyone must be tested and found without spot or wrinkle or any such thing. ... When the work of the investigative judgment closes, the destiny of all will have been decided for life or death” (Ellen White, The Great Controversy, pp. 431-432).
“When the investigative judgment closes, Christ will come, and His reward will be with Him to give every man as his work shall be. ... Christ will place all these sins upon Satan, the originator and instigator of sin. The scapegoat, bearing the sins of Israel, was sent away ‘unto a land not inhabited’ (Lev. 16:22); so Satan, bearing the guilt of all the sins which he has caused God’s people to commit, will be for a thousand years confined to the earth, which will then be desolate, without inhabitant, and he will at last suffer the full penalty of sin in the fires that shall destroy all the wicked” (Ellen White, The Great Controversy, p. 427).
WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS
1. The believer will not be judged by the Ten Commandments and will not lose his salvation if his service is unacceptable. The believer has eternal life (John 3:16). He has already passed from death unto life (John 5:24). He is safe in Christ and stands and rejoices in hope of the glory of God (Romans 5:1-2). He has no fear of future wrath, for he is complete in Christ (Romans 5:9). All punishment for his sin fell on Christ, and he is forever free. Christ took the believer’s unrighteousness upon Himself and gave the believer His very righteousness (2 Corinthians 5:21).
2. The believer’s judgment is an examination of his service to Christ to determine whether he will be rewarded or suffer loss of reward. See 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 and 2 Corinthians 5:5, 9-10.
Consider some important differences between the judgment described in these passages and the Investigative Judgment of Seventh-day Adventism: (1) Christ’s judgment of believers does not determine their salvation. Those who stand at the judgment of 1 Corinthians 3 will be there because they have already been saved, not in order to determine whether or not they will be saved. The ones judged in 1 Corinthians 3 are those that have established their lives upon the solid foundation of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 3:11-12). (2) The believer’s judgment will not result in damnation, torment, or separation from God. Believers whose works fail the test will suffer shame and loss of reward, but not loss of salvation. “If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire” (1 Cor. 3:15). Words could not be plainer. (3) Notice, too, that the believer shall appear personally before his Lord. “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ” (2 Cor. 5:10). According"to Adventist theology, the believer’s judgment occurs in the heavenly holy of holies between 1844 and the Second Coming, while the believer himself is supposedly on earth or sleeping in the grave. This is not what the apostle Paul taught.
3. It is unscriptural to identify Satan with the scapegoat of Leviticus 16. Both goats of the Day of Atonement—the one slain and the one released into the wilderness—represent the Lord Jesus Christ. The slain goat pictures the act of Christ’s atonement: it is a bloody sacrifice. The released goat pictures the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement: it is accomplished once for all and is forever complete. To interpret the scapegoat as a reference to Satan is blasphemous. Adventism finds confirmation of this doctrine, not in Scripture rightly divided, but in the visions of Ellen White, which is yet another example of how they have added to the Bible’s revelation.
FALSE TEACHING # 7: MISUSING THE LAW OF MOSES
A foundational error of Seventh-day Adventism is its misuse of the Law of Moses. This is the same heresy that many of the Jews of Paul’s day were guilty of. It is the heresy that he confronted in his epistle to the Galatians.
Four Adventist Errors about the Law
1. According to Adventism, law and grace are not opposing systems, but both work together for man’s salvation.
“The fact that all who are redeemed are saved by grace does not dispense with the law of God any more in the one dispensation than in the other. The law is not against grace, and grace is not against the law” (Charles Everson, Saved By Grace, p. 11).
2. The Law of Moses is the standard by which God shall judge believers.
“The law of God is the standard by which the characters and the lives of men will be tested in the judgment. ... Those who in the judgment are ‘accounted worthy’ will have a part in the resurrection of the just” (Ellen White, The Great Controversy, pp. 423-425).
3. The Law of Moses is the believer’s rule of life.
“Instead of being free to ignore and break the law because he is saved by grace, he is now doubly obligated to keep it. ... It is very evident, then, that in the new covenant we do not see the law a thing of no consequence, but we find it occupying the center of the covenant” (Charles Everson, Saved By Grace, pp. 23, 36).
“The Ten Commandments are the only perfect rule of conduct in this world today. God gave man the Decalogue as a rule of life” (J.L. Shuler, The Great Judgment Day, pp. 113-114).
WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS
The following is a summary of every major New Testament passage dealing with the law. The reader is encouraged to look up and study each one of the passages. We are confident the Lord will encourage you in the glorious eternal liberty the believer has in Christ Jesus.
1. The Law of Moses has one main purpose, and that is to lead men to Jesus Christ. A man is saved and justified by faith ALONE through grace ALONE, apart from the law. Because of man’s fallen condition, the law can only condemn him. The law is indeed holy and good, but it can do nothing for sinful man except to reveal his wicked condition and lead him to Christ. See Romans 3:19-20; 5:20; Romans 7:7-13; 1 Corinthians 15:56; 2 Corinthians 5:5-13; Galatians 2:16; 3:9-24; 1 Timothy 1:6-11.
“The law demands strength from one that has none, and curses him if he cannot display it. The Gospel gives strength to one that has none, and blesses him in the exhibition of it. The law proposes life as the end of obedience, the Gospel gives life as the only proper ground of obedience” (C.H. Mackintosh, Notes on the Pentateuch, pp. 232-233).
2. The Law of Moses holds no power over the believer; he is placed in Christ entirely out of the law’s grasp. The law can no more bring condemnation to the believer than it can to Christ Himself, since the believer has been made perfect in Christ. The law has no more power over the believer than the dead husband has over a living wife. The apostles did not teach the Adventist doctrine that the believer is to conform his life to the standard of the law by the power of the resurrected Christ, and that if he fails to do so the law will condemn him in the day of judgment. See Romans 5:1-2, 6-11; 6:3-7; 8:8-10; 10:4; 7:4; Galatians 3:24-29.
3. The Ten Commandments is a covenant of death that is done away with in Christ. Adventist teachers protest that the moral law, represented in the Ten Commandments, was not done away at the cross of Christ and that only the ceremonial law was done away. But the New Testament describes even the Ten Commandments as a covenant of death! The Mosaic Law as a whole had one chief purpose. It was given by God to fallen man in order to show him his sin and his need of the Savior. See 2 Corinthians 3:6-13.
The apostle said that the law written in stone is done away with in Christ, and that refers to the Ten Commandments. Two times the apostle tells us that the Ten Commandments are abolished. Two times he tells us that the Ten Commandments were a ministration of death and condemnation! Words could not be plainer. For the Adventist teacher to come along and point the believer back to the Law of Moses as a rule of life is a great evil.
5. The Law of Moses is not the believer’s rule of life. The believer is told to put on Christ and to follow the Spirit of God. The believer’s objective is not to be conformed to the law, but to be conformed to the image of Christ (Rom. 8:29). The Holy Spirit molds and transforms the believer’s life into the image of the Lord Jesus. Romans 8:11-14; 8:29; 13:13-14; 2 Corinthians 3:18; Galatians 5:16-25; Ephesians 4:20-24; Colossians 3:9-11.
“If the law be indeed the rule of a believer’s life, where are we to find it so presented in the New Testament? The inspired Apostle evidently had no thought of its being the rule when he penned the following words: ‘For in Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and on the Israel of God’ (Gal. 6:15-16). What ‘rule’? The law? No; but the ‘new creation.’ Where shall we find this in Exodus 20? It speaks not a word about ‘new creation.’ On the contrary, it addresses itself to man as he is—in his natural or old-creation state—and puts him to the test as to what he is really able to do. Now if the law were the rule by which believers are to walk, why does the apostle pronounce his benediction on those who walk by another rule altogether? Why does he not say, as many as walk according to rule of the Ten Commandments? Is it not evident, from this one passage, that the Church of God has a higher rule by which to walk?” (C.H. Mackintosh, Notes on the Pentateuch, pp. 232-233).
“I, as a Christian, obey all law that is moral in the Decalogue, not because it is in the Law, but because it is in the Gospel. Worship of God only is enjoined fifty times in the New Testament; idolatry is forbidden twelve times; profanity four times; honor of father and mother is commanded six times; adultery is forbidden twelve; theft six; false witness four; and covetousness, nine times. ‘The Ten Commandments,’ as Luther says, ‘do not apply to us Gentiles and Christians, but only to the Jews.’ So therefore, Paul, in all his fourteen epistles, never once names the Sabbath—except in a single passage where, classing it with the entire law, he declares it has been totally abolished. So the early church held” (William C. Irvine, Heresies Exposed, p. 165).
6. Law and Grace are two different systems that cannot be mixed in salvation. We have already looked at this under the section on the Seventh-day Adventist’s false gospel of grace plus law. See Acts 15:8-11; Romans 3:18-25; 4:4-5; 11:6; Ephesians 2:8-10.
7. To point believers back to the Law of Moses as a rule of life is to place them back under legalistic bondage, bringing a curse upon the one who teaches this heresy as well as upon the one who follows it. The apostles condemned in the strongest language those who tried to get believers to return to the Law of Moses as a rule of life. This refutes the Seventh-day Adventist doctrine that the law is a blessing to the justified man. See Galatians 1:7-9; 2:4; 3:1-9; 4:9-11, 19-21; 5:1-9.
Christ came to redeem men from bondage to the law, to remove their condemnation by paying the price the law demanded for man’s sin. Those who try to bring believers back under the law are deceiving men and pointing them away from the finished work of Christ and true Bible freedom in Him. They themselves are cursed because of their false gospel, and they are leading others away from the truth. The goal of salvation is not to bring the believer to the law, but to present him perfect in Christ!
FALSE TEACHING # 8: VEGETARIANISM
Ellen White warned against eating meat and promoted vegetarianism.
“Among those who are waiting for the coming of the Lord, meat eating will eventually be done away; flesh will cease to form a part of their diet. We should ever keep this end in view, and endeavor to work steadily toward it. I cannot think that in the practice of flesh eating we are in harmony with the light which God has been pleased to give us. All who are connected with our health institutions especially should be educating themselves to subsist on fruits, grains, and vegetables” (Ellen White, Counsels on Diet and Foods, pp. 380-81).
“Let not any of our ministers set an evil example in the eating of flesh-meat. Let them and their families live up to the light of health reform. Let not our ministers animalize their own nature and the nature of their children” (Ellen White, Spalding and Magan, p. 211).
This teaching was part of White’s health program, which she claimed was given to her by divine revelation in 1863.
Today the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventist’s Nutrition Council recommends abstaining from meat, fish, coffee, and tea.
Here we will only deal with the issue of vegetarianism. From Adam to Noah, men were vegetarians, stemming from God’s command in Genesis 1:29-30, but after the flood, men were instructed to eat meat as well as vegetables (Genesis 9:3). Under the Law of Moses, the nation Israel continued to eat meat, and some animals were designated clean and others unclean. The Lord Jesus Christ lived under the law as a Jew and followed the Mosaic dietary system. He was not a vegetarian. We know that He ate fish (Lk. 24:42-43) and He ate lamb, which was required during the Passover (Exodus 12:6-8).
There are only three teachings about diet in the New Testament.
First, Peter was taught that the Old Testament dietary restrictions are no longer in effect for the New Testament believer (Acts 10:9-16). The truth of this was emphasized in that the command to rise, kill, and eat was repeated three times. This passage single-handedly refutes the following claims: that the Mosaic dietary restrictions are in force in the New Testament churches, that the Mosaic dietary restrictions were for health purposes (if that were true, God would have kept them in force), that eating meat is unhealthy, that vegetarianism is a superior program, and that is cruel to kill animals.
Second, we are taught that in the New Testament dispensation diet is entirely a matter of personal liberty (Romans 14:1-6) and we are not to judge others in such matters (Romans 14:13).
Third, we have a warning about those who teach against eating meat (1 Timothy 4:1-6) and we are told that to require a vegetarian diet is a doctrine of devils. This one heresy is sufficient to mark Ellen White as a heretic who was under the control of the Devil.
To go beyond the Bible’s clear teaching in this matter and to create dietary programs that purport to have a scriptural basis and or to be derived from extra-biblical prophecy or otherwise to have divine approval is heresy.
The New Testament plainly states that “every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer” (1 Timothy 4:4-5).
Thus, according to Scripture, diet in this dispensation is a personal and individual matter. Each person is different, with his own metabolism, taste, culture, lifestyle, health, and occupation; and diet must be determined on this basis and not on some plan purporting to be from the Bible.
I am not saying that all diets are equally healthy; I am merely saying that there is no one diet that is required by the Bible, and vegetarianism is certainly not upheld by Scripture.
The writer of Hebrews warned:
“Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein” (Heb. 13:9).
Salvation and spirituality are not determined by what you eat but by whether or not you have submitted to the gospel of Christ’s grace. A doctrine of meats or special diet is a strange and unscriptural doctrine!
In spite of her own teaching against eating meat, which she claimed was based on a vision she had in 1863, Ellen White continued eating meat most of her life. This is documented extensively in “Oysters and Herrings” by M. Chugg and D. Anderson, http://www.ellenwhiteexposed.com/contra6.htm.
Jouw commentaar gaat nergens over. Volgens mij weet je niks van het christendom en heb je ooit eens een boekje gelezen met kritiek. Ik vind dat je een hoop onzin loopt te blaten.quote:
[..]
Precies, en allemaal vanuit de opvattingen van een frauduleus boekje dat enkele barbaren ooit eens geschreven hebben.
Dat zou ongeveer hetzelfde zijn als beweren dat jij Harry Potter goed interpreteert en de rest het fout heeft. De rest is betoverd door zwarte Magica, omdat zwarte Magica niet wil dat de rest vrij wordt omdat ze de Waarheid kennen.
. Zomaar dingen roepen als een papegaai zonder enige onderbouwing en ad-hominems zijn niet echt geloofwaardig
Hoezo erroneous? Het dag/jaar principe vindt zijn oorsprong in het jodendom en werd geadopteerd door nagenoeg alle protestantse groepen. Miller adopteerde het dus slechts van hen. De datum 1843 was niet juist omdat hij begon te rekenen vanaf het begin van het startjaar van de 2300 dagen profetie in plaats van in de herfst. Na correctie kwam hij uit op 1844, een datum die niet alleen het einde was van de langste profetie in de bijbel, maar tevens de startdatum was van vele andere grote stromingen, zoals spiritisme, evolutionisme en communisme, welke allen het evangelie ondermijnen.quote:
Voor de liefhebbers nog een lapje tekst over de valse leerstellingen van de ZDA sekte:
THE HISTORY OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISM
Seventh-day Adventism originated with the Second Coming movement of the 1800’s. William Miller, a Baptist preacher, concluded in 1818 that Christ would return to earth in 1843. When that was proven wrong, he changed the date to October 22, 1844. His belief was based largely on an interpretation of Daniel chapters nine and twelve using the erroneous day/year equation (one prophetic day equals one historical year).
Maar Miller ging ervan uit dat de datum correct was, alleen de interpretatie ervan verkeerd. Een handvol overgeblevenen ging dus verder met zoeken, en concludeerde dat 1844 niet het jaar van de terugkomst van Christus was, maar het begin van de tijd waarin Christus het allerheiligste ingaat ter voorbereiding op de reiniging van het hemelse heiligdom en Zijn uiteindelijke terugkomst.quote:Tens of thousands of people followed Miller, and many different groups sprang up within this excited religious atmosphere, all of them looking for the immediate return of Christ.
After 1844, Miller quit setting dates and admitted his mistake, but some of his followers went on to form Seventh-day Adventism.
Ellen White heeft nooit een autoriteitspositie gehad in de kerk. Het krijgen van visioenen en inspiratie door vrouwen is bijbels. Er zijn meerdere bijbelse vrouwelijke profeten en belangrijke vrouwen in het NT. Maar nooit zijn ze pastors of ouderlingen, en die rol heeft ze ook nooit aangenomen. Ze refereerde naar zichzelf als het kleine licht, en de bijbel het grote licht.quote:James White, Joseph Bates, and others began practicing sabbath-keeping in 1844 and published their views through pamphlets.
They also followed the visions of 17-year-old Ellen Harmon. She claimed that God showed her that in October 1844 Jesus entered the holy of holies in heaven to begin the “investigative judgment.” This is a foundational doctrine of the Adventist Church. Ellen taught that Jesus began investigating the records of every person to determine who would be saved and who would be lost. She also claimed to receive a vision about the “Third Angel’s Message” in Revelation 14:9-12. She said that the mark of the beast (the antichrist) would be Sunday worship, and those who worshipped on Sunday would be punished. She said that the ones who keep the commandments of God refers to those who keep the sabbath in the last days. This is where the Seventh-day Adventists get their name. They claim to be the church of the last days that keeps the sabbath and that prepares the way for Christ’s return.
Ellen Harmon married James White in 1846 and they became the main leaders of Seventh-day Adventism. Between 1844 and 1915 Mrs. White supposedly received 2,000 visions and dreams. Claiming that she was commanded to write her visions for preservation, she produced over 100,000 handwritten manuscript pages.
While Adventist leaders claim that the Bible is their sole rule for faith and conduct, the fact is that without Ellen White there would be no Seventh-day Adventism.
We see, therefore, that the advent movement was unbiblical from its beginning. It was led by a woman, which is forbidden in Scripture (1 Timothy 2:12), and it set a date for Christ’s return, which is also forbidden.
Ze vergisten zich wat betreft deze verzen die vandaag de dag ronduit bekend zijn maar dat 160 jaar geleden wellicht niet waren. Na 1844 heeft men nooit meer een datum gesteld.quote:“But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only” (Mt. 24:36).
“Watch therefore; for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come” (Mt. 24:42).
“Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh” (Mt. 24:44).
“Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh” (Mt. 25:13).
“But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is” (Mk. 13:32-33).
“It is not for you to know the time or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power” (Acts 1:7).
By ignoring the plain teaching of the Bible about Christ’s return, the Adventists were led into more and more error.
14 Jaagt den vrede na met allen, en de heiligmaking, zonder welke niemand den Heere zien zal;quote:SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST DOCTRINE
In the following study we analyze some of the false Seventh-day Adventist doctrines and compare them with Bible truth.
FALSE TEACHING # 1: A GOSPEL OF GRACE PLUS LAW
Seventh-day Adventism professes to teach salvation by grace through faith, but they redefine this to add works to grace.
According to Adventist doctrine, grace is the power and forgiveness God gives to enable a sinner to keep God’s law and to thereby build a holy character fit for Heaven. The individual that fails to build the right character by God’s grace will never see Heaven. Faith and works are said to be the two oars by which the believer is propelled to glory.
15 Toeziende, dat niet iemand verachtere van de genade Gods; dat niet enige wortel der bitterheid, opwaarts spruitende, beroerte make en door dezelve velen ontreinigd worden.
16 Dat niet iemand zij een hoereerder, of een onheilige, gelijk Ezau, die om een spijze het recht van zijn eerstgeboorte weggaf.
17 Want gij weet, dat hij ook daarna, de zegening willende beërven, verworpen werd; want hij vond geen plaats des berouws, hoewel hij dezelve met tranen zocht. Hebreeen 12
Dit is de juiste interpretatie.quote:These false...and law.
From a Seventh-day Adventist Tract:
“Christ says ... Saved by Grace, pp. 45-46).
15 Indien gij Mij liefhebt, zo bewaart Mijn geboden. Johannes 14quote:From a Seventh-day Adventist Correspondence course...AND TO OBEY ALL THE COMMANDMENTS OF THE LORD. ..Prophecy Guide, #12).
Het punt is niet dat je in je goede werken vertrouwt, maar in de werken die Christus in jou doet omdat God in je leeft omdat Hij genade heeft door je geloof.quote:Adventism labels this doctrine “salvation by grace,” but it is not the grace that was preached by the Lord’s apostles.
1. According to the Bible, salvation is by grace ALONE through faith ALONE, without the works of the law. See John 3:16; 6:28-29; Acts 15:10-11; 16:30-31; Romans 3:19-25; 4:1-8; 11:6; Galatians 3:10-13; Ephesians 2:8-10; Titus 3:4-7.
The Good News of Christ is not that we are saved through a grace that produces the works of the law. The Good News is that we are saved by God’s grace alone through faith alone WITHOUT THE LAW. All who will be saved must come on these glorious terms, trusting in the shed blood alone for full salvation.
19 Zo wie Ik liefheb, die bestraf en kastijd Ik; wees dan ijverig, en bekeer u.
20 Zie, Ik sta aan de deur, en Ik klop; indien iemand Mijn stem zal horen, en de deur opendoen, Ik zal tot hem inkomen, en Ik zal met hem avondmaal houden, en hij met Mij.
21 Die overwint, Ik zal hem geven met Mij te zitten in Mijn troon, gelijk als Ik overwonnen heb, en ben gezeten met Mijn Vader in Zijn troon. Openbaringen 3
5 Ik ben de Wijnstok, en gij de ranken; die in Mij blijft, en Ik in hem, die draagt veel vrucht; want zonder Mij kunt gij niets doen.
6 Zo iemand in Mij niet blijft, die is buiten geworpen, gelijkerwijs de rank, en is verdord; en men vergadert dezelve, en men werpt ze in het vuur, en zij worden verbrand. Johannes 15
Het krijgen van Jezus' rechtvaardigheid wil niet zeggen dat Jezus niet wil dat we rechtvaardige werken doen. Het produceren van rechtvaardige werken is het resultaat van het accepteren van Gods genade en geest in ons. Geloof zonder werken is dood. En aangezien we door geloof gerechtvaardigd worden, zullen we door dood geloof niet gerechtvaardigd worden. Levend geloof produceert werken.quote:Those who ...We know that salvation is secure because it means that the believer is declared righteous by God (Romans 3:21-24). This is the meaning of the word “justified.” Notice how the terms “justified” and “the righteousness of God” are used interchangeably in Romans 3:21-24. Notice too, that this righteousness is obtained “by faith” and “freely by his grace.” What is the sinner’s problem? Is it not his lack of righteousness? Therefore, if God declares that sinner righteous, what more does he need? Biblical salvation is an exchange. Jesus takes the sinner’s unrighteousness, and the sinner receives Jesus’ righteousness (2 Corinthians 5:21).
Jakobus legt het toch duidelijk en onweerlegbaar uit:
12 Spreekt alzo, en doet alzo, als die door de wet der vrijheid zult geoordeeld worden.
13 Want een onbarmhartig oordeel zal gaan over dengene, die geen barmhartigheid gedaan heeft; en de barmhartigheid roemt tegen het oordeel.
14 Wat nuttigheid is het, mijn broeders, indien iemand zegt, dat hij het geloof heeft, en hij heeft de werken niet? Kan dat geloof hem zaligmaken?
15 Indien er nu een broeder of zuster naakt zouden zijn, en gebrek zouden hebben aan dagelijks voedsel;
16 En iemand van u tot hen zou zeggen: Gaat henen in vrede, wordt warm, en wordt verzadigd; en gijlieden zoudt hun niet geven de nooddruftigheden des lichaams, wat nuttigheid is dat?
17 Alzo ook het geloof, indien het de werken niet heeft, is bij zichzelven dood.
18 Maar, zal iemand zeggen: Gij hebt het geloof, en ik heb de werken. Toon mij uw geloof uit uw werken, en ik zal u uit mijn werken mijn geloof tonen.
19 Gij gelooft, dat God een enig God is; gij doet wel; de duivelen geloven het ook, en zij sidderen.
20 Maar wilt gij weten, o ijdel mens, dat het geloof zonder de werken dood is?
21 Abraham, onze vader, is hij niet uit de werken gerechtvaardigd, als hij Izak, zijn zoon, geofferd heeft op het altaar?
22 Ziet gij wel, dat het geloof mede gewrocht heeft met zijn werken, en het geloof volmaakt is geweest uit de werken?
23 En de Schrift is vervuld geworden, die daar zegt: En Abraham geloofde God, en het is hem tot rechtvaardigheid gerekend, en hij is een vriend van God genaamd geweest.
24 Ziet gij dan nu, dat een mens uit de werken gerechtvaardigd wordt, en niet alleenlijk uit het geloof?
25 En desgelijks ook Rachab, de hoer, is zij niet uit de werken gerechtvaardigd geweest, als zij de gezondenen heeft ontvangen, en door een anderen weg uitgelaten?
26 Want gelijk het lichaam zonder geest dood is, alzo is ook het geloof zonder de werken dood. Jakobus 2
Het verschil met een waar geloof en een geloof van ijdele woorden en professies van geloof zonder substantie is dus de werken die men produceert: ''ik zal u mijn geloof tonen uit mijn werken''. Een boom herken je aan zijn vruchten, indien een boom geen bladeren en vruchten heeft is hij dood. Zo is ook een mens die geen goede werken produceert, dood, en niet verlost. Hij heeft het leven niet ontvangen, want het leven van God produceert goede werken.
8 Ja, gewisselijk, ik acht ook alle dingen schade te zijn, om de uitnemendheid der kennis van Christus Jezus, mijn Heere; om Wiens wil ik al die dingen schade gerekend heb, en acht die drek te zijn, opdat ik Christus moge gewinnen.quote:We know ...From the previous studies, it is evident that true Bible salvation does not have the uncertainty and legalistic admixture of the Adventist gospel. The SDA gospel is false.
9 En in Hem gevonden worde, niet hebbende mijn rechtvaardigheid, die uit de wet is, maar die door het geloof van Christus is, namelijk de rechtvaardigheid, die uit God is door het geloof;
10 Opdat ik Hem kenne, en de kracht Zijner opstanding, en de gemeenschap Zijns lijdens, Zijn dood gelijkvormig wordende;
11 Of ik enigszins moge komen tot de wederopstanding der doden.
12 Niet dat ik het alrede gekregen heb, of alrede volmaakt ben; maar ik jaag er naar, of ik het ook grijpen mocht, waartoe ik van Christus Jezus ook gegrepen ben.
De zekerheid van verlossing hangt van je geloof af en levend geloof produceert werken. Zolang je blijft geloven en Gods genade blijft accepteren welke komt in de vorm van de Heilige Geest die ons achterna zit tot heiligmaking, is verlossing zeker.
6 Want dien de Heere liefheeft, kastijdt Hij, en Hij geselt een iegelijken zoon, die Hij aanneemt.
7 Indien gij de kastijding verdraagt, zo gedraagt Zich God jegens u als zonen; (want wat zoon is er, dien de vader niet kastijdt?)
8 Maar indien gij zonder kastijding zijt, welke allen deelachtig zijn geworden, zo zijt gij dan bastaarden, en niet zonen. Hebreeen 12
27 En Hij zeide tot hen: De sabbat is gemaakt om den mens, niet de mens om den sabbat. Markus 2quote:FALSE TEACHING # 2: SABBATH-KEEPING
Seventh-day Adventism says that the sabbath was given to Adam in the Garden of Eden and that God intended for all men to keep it.
Uiteraard zal de antichrist Gods wetten veranderen en geen mensenwetten. De sabbat maakt deel uit van Gods wet.quote:“God instituted
9. The idea that Sunday observance will be the mark of the beast is not found in Scripture. This idea came from Ellen White. It is true that the Antichrist will “think to change times and laws” (Daniel 7:25), yet nowhere does the Bible say that this will involve the sabbath or Sunday. The Bible does not reveal exactly what laws the Antichrist will change.
Geen van deze teksten duidt op een ziel als een distincte entiteit met een eigen los bestaan. Ik ga niet alle teksten los behandelen, daar zijn websites voor.quote:FALSE TEACHING # 3: SOUL SLEEP
The Seventh-day Adventist Church... a soul.
Wat Jezus hier doet is een typische griekse fabel gebruiken om iets te illustreren. Het parabel gaat niet over de hemel of de hel, maar over het gedrag van de beide mannen. Het is een parabel, een voorbeeld wat niet letterlijk genomen moet worden. Zo zal Jezus ook niet de bokken en de schapen scheiden aan het einde der tijden, maar de rechtvaardigen en onrechtvaardigen. Het is beeldspraak, in dit geval genomen uit contemporaine ideeen.quote:Fourth, the story of Lazarus and the rich man ...to Heaven or to Hell.
Slapen in Jezus wil zeggen dat je verzegeld bent voor het eeuwige leven, niet dat je fysiek ergens bent. Het is niet eens logisch: sterven om naar de hemel te gaan, om vervolgens terug te komen en door Jezus weer naar de hemel genomen te worden. Waarom dan de opstanding?quote:Fifth, the dead saints will return with Christ from Heaven at the time of the resurrection and rapture of the saved. This shows that dead saints go to Heaven at death. “For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so THEM ALSO WHICH SLEEP IN JESUS WILL GOD BRING WITH HIM” (1 Th. 4:14). According to the Bible, the dead are not sleeping in the grave as the Adventists claim. Rather, they are in Heaven and they will return from there with Jesus!
Het is een profetisch visioen, openbaringen staat vol symbolen.quote:Sixth, John’s heavenly visions show dead saints in Heaven before the resurrection and during the Great Tribulation on earth. See Revelation 6:9-11. This is another indisputable testimony that dead saints are not sleeping in the grave, but are residing in Heaven awaiting the return of Christ to earth.
Elie is nooit gestorven maar ging direct de hemel in zoals Henoch en Mozes heeft een speciale opstanding gehad (zie de brief aan Judas).quote:Seventh, Moses’ and Elijah’s appearance on the Mount of Transfiguration proves that the dead have conscious existence between death and resurrection. See Luke 9:28-33. That Peter and the other apostles were not just seeing a future millennial scene is demonstrated by the fact that Moses and Elijah were speaking with the Lord Jesus about His approaching death. Moses and Elijah, though dead, appeared on that mountain and conversed about events that were soon to take place in Jerusalem. It is obvious that Moses and Elias are not sleeping in the grave.
Er zijn anderen die opgestaan zijn bij de dood van Christus evenals nog enkele andere gevallen.
Eeuwig leven is ook in het oude testament, zoals in psalm 71: 18 Daarom ook, terwijl de ouderdom en grijsheid daar is, verlaat mij niet, o God, totdat ik dezen geslachte verkondige Uw arm, allen nakomelingen Uw macht.quote:It is plain ... of the New!
19 Ook is Uw gerechtigheid, o God, tot in de hoogte; Gij, Die grote dingen gedaan hebt; o God! wie is U gelijk?
20 Gij, Die mij veel benauwdheden en kwaden hebt doen zien, zult mij weder levend maken, en zult mij weder ophalen uit de afgronden der aarde.
De bijbel leert dat er een wederopstanding uit de dood is. Indien we een onsterfelijke ziel hebben, is die wederopstanding nergens voor nodig. Ook is het eeuwig martelen van mensen in de hel een vreselijke voorstelling van wat de bijbel weergeeft: eeuwige vernietiging door vuur. Dat is de tweede dood. De eerste dood sterven we allemaal en duurt tot de wederopstanding. De tweede dood is voor de onrechtvaardigen na de wederopstanding.
. 13 En de zee gaf de doden, die in haar waren; en de dood en de hel gaven de doden, die in hen waren; en zij werden geoordeeld, een iegelijk naar hun werken.
14 En de dood en de hel werden geworpen in den poel des vuurs; dit is de tweede dood.
15 En zo iemand niet gevonden werd geschreven in het boek des levens, die werd geworpen in den poel des vuurs. Openbaringen 20
'Alleen God is goed!'quote:
[..]
Jouw commentaar gaat nergens over. Volgens mij weet je niks van het christendom en heb je ooit eens een boekje gelezen met kritiek. Ik vind dat je een hoop onzin loopt te blaten.
Hoe kan iets goed zijn als het niet bestaat?
Ik denk het zelfde over goden als jij denkt over vliegende eenhoorns.
BULLSHIT
Hopelijk zijn je maffe dromen nu voorbij.
Overwatch: zweef boven het systeem en neem het systeem waar voor wat het daadwerkelijk is.
Dat is beeldspraak voor het feit dat die bestraffing niet geeindigd zal worden en men alsnog vrijuit zal gaan.quote:
FALSE TEACHING # 4: ANNIHILATION OF THE WICKED
Seventh-day Adventism teaches that the unsaved will be burned up in the lake of fire.
“The theory of eternal torment is one of the false doctrines that constitute the wine of the abomination of Babylon. ... There will then be no lost souls to blaspheme God as they writhe in never-ending torment; no wretched beings in hell will mingle their shrieks with the songs of the saved” (Ellen White, The Great Controversy, pp. 470, 477).
They claim that the eternal torment of the wicked cannot be reconciled with God’s love and mercy.
“How repugnant to every emotion of love and mercy, and even to our sense of justice, is the doctrine that the wicked dead are tormented with fire and brimstone in an eternally burning hell” (Ellen White, The Great Controversy, p. 469).
WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS
1. The Bible teaches that the unsaved will endure eternal conscious torment. See Matthew 25:46; Revelation 14:10-11; Revelation 20:10-15. Three times in Mark 9 Christ spoke of hell as “the fire that never shall be quenched: where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched...” (Mk. 9:43-48). This is the language of eternal suffering.
Wat voor walgelijke God zal mensen eeuwig martelen voor een leven van 80 jaar in zonde? Het is een vreselijke doctrine en komt van de heidenen en de katholieke kerk. De bestraffing is eeuwig en die bestraffing is de dood. Sodom en Gomorra werden ook bestraft met 'eeuwig vuur'. Branden Sodom en Gomorra nog steeds? Nee.quote:Adventists argue ... not been born.”
Nee helemaal niet. Het is een misvorming van Gods karakter.quote:The doctrine of eternal torment might be difficult for us to understand, but God has revealed it and our part is to accept it by faith.
Context, context, context.quote:FALSE TEACHING # 5: ELLEN WHITE A PROPHETESS
5 Want toen wij in het vlees waren, wrochten de bewegingen der zonden, die door de wet zijn, in onze leden, om den dood vruchten te dragen.quote:FALSE TEACHING # 7: MISUSING THE LAW OF MOSES
6 Maar nu zijn wij vrijgemaakt van de wet, overmits wij dien gestorven zijn, onder welken wij gehouden waren; alzo dat wij dienen in nieuwigheid des geestes, en niet in de oudheid der letter.
7 Wat zullen wij dan zeggen? Is de wet zonde? Dat zij verre. Ja, ik kende de zonde niet dan door de wet; want ook had ik de begeerlijkheid niet geweten zonde te zijn, indien de wet niet zeide: Gij zult niet begeren.
8 Maar de zonde, oorzaak genomen hebbende door het gebod, heeft in mij alle begeerlijkheid gewrocht; want zonder de wet is de zonde dood.
9 En zonder de wet, zo leefde ik eertijds; maar als het gebod gekomen is, zo is de zonde weder levend geworden, doch ik ben gestorven.
10 En het gebod, dat ten leven was, hetzelve is mij ten dood bevonden.
11 Want de zonde, oorzaak genomen hebbende door het gebod, heeft mij verleid, en door hetzelve gedood.
12 Alzo is dan de wet heilig, en het gebod is heilig, en rechtvaardig, en goed.
13 Is dan het goede mij de dood geworden? Dat zij verre. Maar de zonde is mij de dood geworden; opdat zij zou openbaar worden zonde te zijn; werkende mij door het goede den dood; opdat de zonde boven mate wierd zondigende door het gebod.
14 Want wij weten, dat de wet geestelijk is, maar ik ben vleselijk, verkocht onder de zonde.
15 Want hetgeen ik doe, dat ken ik niet; want hetgeen ik wil, dat doe ik niet, maar hetgeen ik haat, dat doe ik.
16 En indien ik hetgene doe, dat ik niet wil, zo stem ik de wet toe, dat zij goed is.
17 Ik dan doe datzelve nu niet meer, maar de zonde, die in mij woont.
18 Want ik weet, dat in mij, dat is, in mijn vlees, geen goed woont; want het willen is wel bij mij, maar het goede te doen, dat vind ik niet.
19 Want het goede dat ik wil, doe ik niet, maar het kwade, dat ik niet wil, dat doe ik.
20 Indien ik hetgene doe, dat ik niet wil, zo doe ik nu hetzelve niet meer, maar de zonde, die in mij woont.
21 Zo vind ik dan deze wet in mij; als ik het goede wil doen, dat het kwade mij bijligt.
22 Want ik heb een vermaak in de wet Gods, naar den inwendigen mens;
23 Maar ik zie een andere wet in mijn leden, welke strijdt tegen de wet mijns gemoeds, en mij gevangen neemt onder de wet der zonde, die in mijn leden is.
24 Ik ellendig mens, wie zal mij verlossen uit het lichaam dezes doods?
25 Ik dank God, door Jezus Christus, onzen Heere.
26 Zo dan, ik zelf dien wel met het gemoed de wet Gods, maar met het vlees de wet der zonde.
8 Zijt niemand iets schuldig, dan elkander lief te hebben; want die den ander liefheeft, die heeft de wet vervuld.
9 Want dit: Gij zult geen overspel doen, gij zult niet doden, gij zult niet stelen, gij zult geen valse getuigenis geven, gij zult niet begeren; en zo er enig ander gebod is, wordt in dit woord als in een hoofdsom begrepen, namelijk in dit: Gij zult uw naaste liefhebben gelijk uzelven.
10 De liefde doet den naaste geen kwaad. Zo is dan de liefde de vervulling der wet.
Ondertussen weet men dat de kwaliteit van voedsel afneemt door industriele productie, vervuiling, soms gevaarlijk is door gekke koeienziekte, vogelgriep enzovoorts, dat zuivel niet goed is, dat een compleet veganistisch dieet wel degelijk het beste is en tot de langste levensduur leidt. Ellen White waarschuwde voor deze dingen, en tevens omdat we zijn wat we eten en ons eten een invloed heeft niet alleen op onze fysieke gezondheid, maar tegelijkertijd onze algehele welzijn en morele kracht.quote:FALSE TEACHING # 8: VEGETARIANISM
Hallo vriendquote:
[..]
'Alleen God is goed!'
Hoe kan iets goed zijn als het niet bestaat?
Ik denk het zelfde over goden als jij denkt over vliegende eenhoorns.
BULLSHIT
Hopelijk zijn je maffe dromen nu voorbij.
Jij ook hier om meer te weten te komen over Gods onfeilbare woord?
Ali mijn persoonlijke overtuiging gebaseerd op de bijbel is dat als je sterft je ziel of naar death row gaat in de hel, of je ziel gaat naar de hemel. Bij het laatste oordeel zal de hel zelf in het vuur gegooid worden en zullen deze zielen vernietigd worden.quote:
[..]
Dat is beeldspraak voor het feit dat die bestraffing niet geeindigd zal worden en men alsnog vrijuit zal gaan.
[..]
Wat voor walgelijke God zal mensen eeuwig martelen voor een leven van 80 jaar in zonde? Het is een vreselijke doctrine en komt van de heidenen en de katholieke kerk. De bestraffing is eeuwig en die bestraffing is de dood. Sodom en Gomorra werden ook bestraft met 'eeuwig vuur'. Branden Sodom en Gomorra nog steeds? Nee.
[..]
Nee helemaal niet. Het is een misvorming van Gods karakter.
[..]
Context, context, context.
[..]
5 Want toen wij in het vlees waren, wrochten de bewegingen der zonden, die door de wet zijn, in onze leden, om den dood vruchten te dragen.
6 Maar nu zijn wij vrijgemaakt van de wet, overmits wij dien gestorven zijn, onder welken wij gehouden waren; alzo dat wij dienen in nieuwigheid des geestes, en niet in de oudheid der letter.
7 Wat zullen wij dan zeggen? Is de wet zonde? Dat zij verre. Ja, ik kende de zonde niet dan door de wet; want ook had ik de begeerlijkheid niet geweten zonde te zijn, indien de wet niet zeide: Gij zult niet begeren.
8 Maar de zonde, oorzaak genomen hebbende door het gebod, heeft in mij alle begeerlijkheid gewrocht; want zonder de wet is de zonde dood.
9 En zonder de wet, zo leefde ik eertijds; maar als het gebod gekomen is, zo is de zonde weder levend geworden, doch ik ben gestorven.
10 En het gebod, dat ten leven was, hetzelve is mij ten dood bevonden.
11 Want de zonde, oorzaak genomen hebbende door het gebod, heeft mij verleid, en door hetzelve gedood.
12 Alzo is dan de wet heilig, en het gebod is heilig, en rechtvaardig, en goed.
13 Is dan het goede mij de dood geworden? Dat zij verre. Maar de zonde is mij de dood geworden; opdat zij zou openbaar worden zonde te zijn; werkende mij door het goede den dood; opdat de zonde boven mate wierd zondigende door het gebod.
14 Want wij weten, dat de wet geestelijk is, maar ik ben vleselijk, verkocht onder de zonde.
15 Want hetgeen ik doe, dat ken ik niet; want hetgeen ik wil, dat doe ik niet, maar hetgeen ik haat, dat doe ik.
16 En indien ik hetgene doe, dat ik niet wil, zo stem ik de wet toe, dat zij goed is.
17 Ik dan doe datzelve nu niet meer, maar de zonde, die in mij woont.
18 Want ik weet, dat in mij, dat is, in mijn vlees, geen goed woont; want het willen is wel bij mij, maar het goede te doen, dat vind ik niet.
19 Want het goede dat ik wil, doe ik niet, maar het kwade, dat ik niet wil, dat doe ik.
20 Indien ik hetgene doe, dat ik niet wil, zo doe ik nu hetzelve niet meer, maar de zonde, die in mij woont.
21 Zo vind ik dan deze wet in mij; als ik het goede wil doen, dat het kwade mij bijligt.
22 Want ik heb een vermaak in de wet Gods, naar den inwendigen mens;
23 Maar ik zie een andere wet in mijn leden, welke strijdt tegen de wet mijns gemoeds, en mij gevangen neemt onder de wet der zonde, die in mijn leden is.
24 Ik ellendig mens, wie zal mij verlossen uit het lichaam dezes doods?
25 Ik dank God, door Jezus Christus, onzen Heere.
26 Zo dan, ik zelf dien wel met het gemoed de wet Gods, maar met het vlees de wet der zonde.
8 Zijt niemand iets schuldig, dan elkander lief te hebben; want die den ander liefheeft, die heeft de wet vervuld.
9 Want dit: Gij zult geen overspel doen, gij zult niet doden, gij zult niet stelen, gij zult geen valse getuigenis geven, gij zult niet begeren; en zo er enig ander gebod is, wordt in dit woord als in een hoofdsom begrepen, namelijk in dit: Gij zult uw naaste liefhebben gelijk uzelven.
10 De liefde doet den naaste geen kwaad. Zo is dan de liefde de vervulling der wet.
[..]
Ondertussen weet men dat de kwaliteit van voedsel afneemt door industriele productie, vervuiling, soms gevaarlijk is door gekke koeienziekte, vogelgriep enzovoorts, dat zuivel niet goed is, dat een compleet veganistisch dieet wel degelijk het beste is en tot de langste levensduur leidt. Ellen White waarschuwde voor deze dingen, en tevens omdat we zijn wat we eten en ons eten een invloed heeft niet alleen op onze fysieke gezondheid, maar tegelijkertijd onze algehele welzijn en morele kracht.
Verder gebruikte je Hebreeuwen 12:14 om aan te tonen dat zonder heiligheid we God niet zullen zien. Heiligheid betekent echter niet dat je je perfect aan de wet houdt, dat kan niemand. Het betekent simpelweg dat je het goede najaagt.
Met betrekking tot een vegetarisch dieet. Ja, dat is zeer nuttig en gezond, echter dat is een gewetenskwestie en moet iedereen voor zichzelf uitmaken. Het probleem met de ZDA kerk is dat ze een vegetarisch dieet als voorwaarde stellen voor redding. Maw. een vals evangelie.
Tenslotte denk ik dat je goed in acht dient te nemen dat het oude testament plaatsvindt in de context van het oude verbond en het nieuwe testament plaatsvindt in de context van het Nieuwe Verbond, alhoewel Jezus natuurlijk voor zijn hemelvaart leefde als een Jood onder het oude verbond (al brak hij wel de ceremoniele sabbath wet). Je kan dus niet teksten uit het Oude Testament gebruiken om aan te tonen dat Christenen onder de wet van Mozes staan. Wanneer Johannes bijvoorbeeld praat over "zijn geboden" refereert hij niet naar de wet van Mozes maar naar de wet die Christus had ingesteld. Dit weten we 100 procent zeker omdat in het Grieks Johannes altijd "nomos" gebruikt voor de wet van het oude testament en "entole" voor de geboden van Christus.
Moge God je ogen openen voor de mooie waarheid die de bijbel bevat. Rechtvaarding>heiliging>glorificatie...
Ik denk dat dit filmpje over de geloofwaardigheid van de manuscripten van het Nieuwe Testament voor iedereen interessant is, vooral ook voor Berjanll die er absoluut van overtuigd is dat bijbelcritici gelijk hebben en dat er geknoeid is met de bijbel.
[youtube][/youtube]
[youtube][/youtube]
Rechtvaarding in de zin van moraal? Daarvoor heb je geen religie of goden nodig.quote:
[..]
Ali mijn persoonlijke overtuiging gebaseerd op de bijbel is dat als je sterft je ziel of naar death row gaat in de hel, of je ziel gaat naar de hemel. Bij het laatste oordeel zal de hel zelf in het vuur gegooid worden en zullen deze zielen vernietigd worden.
Verder gebruikte je Hebreeuwen 12:14 om aan te tonen dat zonder heiligheid we God niet zullen zien. Heiligheid betekent echter niet dat je je perfect aan de wet houdt, dat kan niemand. Het betekent simpelweg dat je het goede najaagt.
Met betrekking tot een vegetarisch dieet. Ja, dat is zeer nuttig en gezond, echter dat is een gewetenskwestie en moet iedereen voor zichzelf uitmaken. Het probleem met de ZDA kerk is dat ze een vegetarisch dieet als voorwaarde stellen voor redding. Maw. een vals evangelie.
Tenslotte denk ik dat je goed in acht dient te nemen dat het oude testament plaatsvindt in de context van het oude verbond en het nieuwe testament plaatsvindt in de context van het Nieuwe Verbond, alhoewel Jezus natuurlijk voor zijn hemelvaart leefde als een Jood onder het oude verbond (al brak hij wel de ceremoniele sabbath wet). Je kan dus niet teksten uit het Oude Testament gebruiken om aan te tonen dat Christenen onder de wet van Mozes staan. Wanneer Johannes bijvoorbeeld praat over "zijn geboden" refereert hij niet naar de wet van Mozes maar naar de wet die Christus had ingesteld. Dit weten we 100 procent zeker omdat in het Grieks Johannes altijd "nomos" gebruikt voor de wet van het oude testament en "entole" voor de geboden van Christus.
Heiliging, aangezien het woord heilig aan fictie verbonden is, heeft het leven daar niets mee te maken.
De mooie waarheid bevat de bijbel niet, aangezien ik al de rode pil heb genomen.
De mooie leugen welke zich voordoet als de waarheid en de mensheid (voor een deel) nog steeds in zijn ban weet te houden.
Overwatch: zweef boven het systeem en neem het systeem waar voor wat het daadwerkelijk is.
Rechtvaardiging in de bijbelse zin betekent dat je door God als rechtvaardige wordt geaccepteerd wanneer je Jezus aanneemt als verlosser. Het is dus Jezus' rechtvaardigheid die jou rechtvaardig maakt in Gods ogen want van nature is geen enkel mens rechtvaardig. Het bijbelse christendom is het enige geloof ter wereld dat leert dat mensen niet door werken maar door geloof gerechtvaardigd worden.quote:
[..]
Rechtvaarding in de zin van moraal? Daarvoor heb je geen religie of goden nodig.
Heiliging, aangezien het woord heilig aan fictie verbonden is, heeft het leven daar niets mee te maken.
De mooie waarheid bevat de bijbel niet, aangezien ik al de rode pil heb genomen.
De mooie leugen welke zich voordoet als de waarheid en de mensheid (voor een deel) nog steeds in zijn ban weet te houden.
Hel in de bijbel = dodenrijk. Maar er is geen vuur in de hel, de hel wordt in het vuur gegooid. De dood komt ten einde.quote:
[..]
Ali mijn persoonlijke overtuiging gebaseerd op de bijbel is dat als je sterft je ziel of naar death row gaat in de hel, of je ziel gaat naar de hemel. Bij het laatste oordeel zal de hel zelf in het vuur gegooid worden en zullen deze zielen vernietigd worden.
48 Weest dan gijlieden volmaakt, gelijk uw Vader, Die in de hemelen is, volmaakt is.quote:Verder gebruikte je Hebreeuwen 12:14 om aan te tonen dat zonder heiligheid we God niet zullen zien. Heiligheid betekent echter niet dat je je perfect aan de wet houdt, dat kan niemand. Het betekent simpelweg dat je het goede najaagt.
Als Jezus het kon, en Jezus in mij kan leven, dan kan ik het dankzij Jezus ook.
Het is een kwestie van je lusten volgen als je dit niet aanvaardt. En er is veroordeling voor hen die achter hun lusten aanlopen.quote:Met betrekking tot een vegetarisch dieet. Ja, dat is zeer nuttig en gezond, echter dat is een gewetenskwestie en moet iedereen voor zichzelf uitmaken. Het probleem met de ZDA kerk is dat ze een vegetarisch dieet als voorwaarde stellen voor redding. Maw. een vals evangelie.
Welke wet heeft Christus ingesteld?quote:Tenslotte denk ik dat je goed in acht dient te nemen dat het oude testament plaatsvindt in de context van het oude verbond en het nieuwe testament plaatsvindt in de context van het Nieuwe Verbond, alhoewel Jezus natuurlijk voor zijn hemelvaart leefde als een Jood onder het oude verbond (al brak hij wel de ceremoniele sabbath wet). Je kan dus niet teksten uit het Oude Testament gebruiken om aan te tonen dat Christenen onder de wet van Mozes staan. Wanneer Johannes bijvoorbeeld praat over "zijn geboden" refereert hij niet naar de wet van Mozes maar naar de wet die Christus had ingesteld. Dit weten we 100 procent zeker omdat in het Grieks Johannes altijd "nomos" gebruikt voor de wet van het oude testament en "entole" voor de geboden van Christus.
De mooie waarheid van de bijbel is Gods wet die het kwaad op deze aarde veroordeelt en ons allen tot bekering kan drijven.quote:
150 Die kwade praktijken najagen, genaken mij, zij wijken verre van Uw wet.
151 Maar Gij, HEERE! zijt nabij, en al Uw geboden zijn waarheid.
Maar de wet geeft ons geen leven, Jezus geeft ons leven.
Hoe het dodenrijk eruitziet kunnen we alleen maar naar gissen. Waar we het beiden over eens zijn is dat de hel in het vuur gegooid wordt.quote:
[..]
Hel in de bijbel = dodenrijk. Maar er is geen vuur in de hel, de hel wordt in het vuur gegooid. De dood komt ten einde.
[..]
48 Weest dan gijlieden volmaakt, gelijk uw Vader, Die in de hemelen is, volmaakt is.
Als Jezus het kon, en Jezus in mij kan leven, dan kan ik het dankzij Jezus ook.
[..]
Het is een kwestie van je lusten volgen als je dit niet aanvaardt. En er is veroordeling voor hen die achter hun lusten aanlopen.
[..]
Welke wet heeft Christus ingesteld?
[..]
11Toen zag ik een grote witte troon en hem die daarop zat. De aarde en de hemel vluchtten van hem weg en verdwenen in het niets. 12Ik zag de doden, jong en oud, voor de troon staan. Er werden boeken geopend. Toen werd er nog een geopend: het boek van het leven. De doden werden op grond van wat in de boeken stond geoordeeld naar hun daden. 13De zee stond de doden die ze in zich had af, en ook de dood en het dodenrijk stonden hun doden af. En iedereen werd geoordeeld naar zijn daden. 14Toen werden de dood en het dodenrijk in de vuurpoel gegooid. Dit is de tweede dood: de vuurpoel. 15Wie niet in het boek van het leven bleek te staan werd in de vuurpoel gegooid.
Met betrekking tot heiliging. Wij zijn niet als Jezus. Jezus is 100 procent God. Wij zijn niet in staat om in dit leven volmaakt te worden als Jezus omdat wij zonde in ons hebben. Als we verlost willen worden zullen we ons dus op Jezus moeten focussen en niet op onze persoonlijke rechtvaardigheid. Alhoewel persoonlijke rechtvaardigheid goed is en een gevolg van versossing, speelt het geen rol in onze verlossing.
Met betrekking tot lusten. Dit moet je in een breed, evangelisch perspectief beschouwen. De fruit van verlossing is dat je een beter leven gaat leiden, minder naar de lusten van het vlees. Kortom minder zelfingenomen trots, hoererij, liegen etc. etc. Dat is een natuurlijke respons van onze redding. Dat betekent niet dat christenen compleet zondeloos leven en faploos door het leven gaan. We zijn immers nog steeds zondige mensen, alhoewel de Heilige Geest onze zonde binnen een bepaalde bandbreedte houdt en ervoor zorgt dat we niet uit de bocht vliegen.
Christus heeft de simpele wet van geloof en liefde ingesteld. Geloof in hem en heb je naaste lief als jezelf. Het is zo simpel, helaas maken vele groeperingen het geloof moeilijker dan het daadwerkelijk is.
En dus is de hel niet een eeuwig brandend vuur waar mensen in terecht komen tot in de eeuwigheid.quote:
[..]
Hoe het dodenrijk eruitziet kunnen we alleen maar naar gissen. Waar we het beiden over eens zijn is dat de hel in het vuur gegooid wordt.
quote:11Toen zag ik een grote witte troon en hem die daarop zat. De aarde en de hemel vluchtten van hem weg en verdwenen in het niets. 12Ik zag de doden, jong en oud, voor de troon staan. Er werden boeken geopend. Toen werd er nog een geopend: het boek van het leven. De doden werden op grond van wat in de boeken stond geoordeeld naar hun daden. 13De zee stond de doden die ze in zich had af, en ook de dood en het dodenrijk stonden hun doden af. En iedereen werd geoordeeld naar zijn daden. 14Toen werden de dood en het dodenrijk in de vuurpoel gegooid. Dit is de tweede dood: de vuurpoel. 15Wie niet in het boek van het leven bleek te staan werd in de vuurpoel gegooid.
De Heilige Geest laat ons onze zonden zien. Die dienen we op te biechten en op te geven door Jezus' victorie aan het kruis erover te claimen voor onszelf. Mijn zonde is overwonnen door Christus. Als ik in Hem en de kracht van Zijn wederopstanding geloof, kan die victorie ook voor mij zijn.quote:Met betrekking tot heiliging. Wij zijn niet als Jezus. Jezus is 100 procent God. Wij zijn niet in staat om in dit leven volmaakt te worden als Jezus omdat wij zonde in ons hebben. Als we verlost willen worden zullen we ons dus op Jezus moeten focussen en niet op onze persoonlijke rechtvaardigheid. Alhoewel persoonlijke rechtvaardigheid goed is en een gevolg van versossing, speelt het geen rol in onze verlossing.
Zou je niet perfect heilig willen leven?quote:Met betrekking tot lusten. Dit moet je in een breed, evangelisch perspectief beschouwen. De fruit van verlossing is dat je een beter leven gaat leiden, minder naar de lusten van het vlees. Kortom minder zelfingenomen trots, hoererij, liegen etc. etc. Dat is een natuurlijke respons van onze redding. Dat betekent niet dat christenen compleet zondeloos leven en faploos door het leven gaan. We zijn immers nog steeds zondige mensen, alhoewel de Heilige Geest onze zonde binnen een bepaalde bandbreedte houdt en ervoor zorgt dat we niet uit de bocht vliegen.
Wat als het je je familie kost?
En je vrienden?
En je spullen?
Je gezondheid?
Je leven?
Je maakt er een wollig sprookje van. Het christelijk geloof is geen wollig pad maar een kruis waar je aan sterft. Indien je niet sterft kun je ook niet leven. De mosterdzaad moet eerst doodgaan voordat het een boom kan worden. Zo ook de christen: je dient aan je zonden te sterven en uit de geest herboren te worden indien je vruchten van bekering wilt dragen. Sterven en lijden is niet leuk, voor Jezus was het ook niet leuk, maar dat is de heiligmaking, ons kruis opnemen en Jezus volgen.quote:Christus heeft de simpele wet van geloof en liefde ingesteld. Geloof in hem en heb je naaste lief als jezelf. Het is zo simpel, helaas maken vele groeperingen het geloof moeilijker dan het daadwerkelijk is.
Ik vind persoonlijk richtlijnen die aanmoedigen tot het doden van hen die "verkeerd" doen wel verkeerd. Echt waar, mensen die beweren dat de bijbel een leuk boek is met leuke moraal en normen en waarden hebben die bijbel nog nooit gelezen. Zowel het OT als het NT is verschrikkelijk funest voor hen die niet joods of christelijk zijn en zich zo gedragen. Wees blij dat we geen christelijk of joods land zijn, prijs god op je blote knieen hiervoor.quote:
[..]
oke, misschien niet te veel over nadenken.
Ben het eens dat het vol tegenstrijdigheden staat, en dat iedereen zijn eigen meningen er uit haalt.
Waar het in feite om draait zijn richtlijnen, op zich niet eens zo verkeerd.
het nadeel is dat, zoals in de Islam het kan vormen tot radicalisering.
"Bettler aber sollte man ganz abschaffen! Wahrlich, man ärgert sich ihnen zu geben und ärgert sich ihnen nicht zu geben."
Friedrich Nietzsche
Friedrich Nietzsche
En waar staat dat in het boek?quote:
[..]
Ik vind persoonlijk richtlijnen die aanmoedigen tot het doden van hen die "verkeerd" doen wel verkeerd. Echt waar, mensen die beweren dat de bijbel een leuk boek is met leuke moraal en normen en waarden hebben die bijbel nog nooit gelezen. Zowel het OT als het NT is verschrikkelijk funest voor hen die niet joods of christelijk zijn en zich zo gedragen. Wees blij dat we geen christelijk of joods land zijn, prijs god op je blote knieen hiervoor.
Guess i missed that part.
Er staat nog een vraag voor u open!!
In het oude testament staat bijvoorbeeld dat je mannen die met elkaar naar bed gaan moet stenigen. Hetzelfde geldt voor hen die vreemdgaan.quote:
[..]
En waar staat dat in het boek?
Guess i missed that part.
Ongelovigen worden gedood, zowel in het OT als in het NT. Als je dat leuke verhalen vindt, geef mij dan maar de dwerg in de zeven sneeuwwitjes, of hoe je die sprookjes maar moet noemen.
Jezus heeft beweerd (volgens de schrijvers van evangelieen althans) dat hij de wet niet zou afschaffen, en dat de wet pas volbracht was als de zoon des mensen weder terug zou komen. Dus we mogen blij zijn dat veel christenen de menselijke evolutie een beetje volgen qua normen en waarden en niet de woorden van die Jezus (die hij gezegd zou hebben volgens de evangelisten).
Anders zou het christendom een tweede Islam zijn, al is de Islam nu vooral een tweede soort christendom.
"Bettler aber sollte man ganz abschaffen! Wahrlich, man ärgert sich ihnen zu geben und ärgert sich ihnen nicht zu geben."
Friedrich Nietzsche
Friedrich Nietzsche
Ik houd het dan maar bij het enige echte geloof, bedoel als we onze religie elke keer moeten aanpassen omdat het anders gewoon niet door de beugel kan.quote:
[..]
In het oude testament staat bijvoorbeeld dat je mannen die met elkaar naar bed gaan moet stenigen. Hetzelfde geldt voor hen die vreemdgaan.
Ongelovigen worden gedood, zowel in het OT als in het NT. Als je dat leuke verhalen vindt, geef mij dan maar de dwerg in de zeven sneeuwwitjes, of hoe je die sprookjes maar moet noemen.
Jezus heeft beweerd (volgens de schrijvers van evangelieen althans) dat hij de wet niet zou afschaffen, en dat de wet pas volbracht was als de zoon des mensen weder terug zou komen. Dus we mogen blij zijn dat veel christenen de menselijke evolutie een beetje volgen qua normen en waarden en niet de woorden van die Jezus (die hij gezegd zou hebben volgens de evangelisten).
Anders zou het christendom een tweede Islam zijn, al is de Islam nu vooral een tweede soort christendom.
en.. i have proof
Er staat nog een vraag voor u open!!
in de bijbel komt het woord 'kerk of church' niet voor
verontrust en zeer betrokken met onze samenleving, politiek kritisch maar geen voorkeur. darwinist en atheīst.
|
|
