You are not logged in.
Bob Sands said:
I think my now decease Mother for instilling a critical mind in me, that differed with her on many of her own positions. Is one locked in to a birthright. I am here to tell you that is a cop out.
Yes and no Bob. If one has the real desire for truth and is willing to leave the safety oh the flock then yes. The problem is that the second generation and on receive the teachings without probing into any other thought. They accept that their parents, grandparents and down the line studied and found truth. Their minds are completely closed to any outside revelation. In the case of Ellen White the Church has painted her in a light that has moved her to sainthood. Tom Norris has shed needed light for the laity, but they will not, because of the veil covering their eyes, even read what he is saying. I say this because of the very limited debate of what he writes.
I must say that Tom also has a veil covering his eyes because he will not recognize Ellen as a main problem
Offline
Bob said: Tom, I still do not concur with you about Ellen White.
Tom said: That’s fine with me so long as you embrace the Protestant Gospel and the rest of the pillars that are contained in the Three Angels Messages.
No one needs Ellen White to understand the Gospel; they have Luther and Dr. Ford for that. But they do need her help to grasp the importance of the Three Angels Messages, as well as their proper definition. Her insistence on this point is necessary and critical for the survival of the Advent Movement.
Today, few SDA’s have a correct view of how Ellen White and all the Pioneers viewed the Three Angels Messages. This must be corrected if the Advent Movement is to go forward. Dr. Ford understood this, but few others do.
Bob said: Maybe the church hierarchy has done a job on her, but she was the one who wrote all that she did.
Tom said: Ha! What is this “maybe they did a job on her”?
They manipulated her into a farce and a fool. They made her into a caricature of rigidity and legalism, using her writings out of context to beat everyone over the head to obey or be lost.
Ellen White wrote before the Civil War and long after it. Her life spanned a very long time and unless this dramatically changing historical context is understood, there will be great misunderstanding about many things.
Moreover, while she wrote what she wrote, the White Estate suppressed many things that she wrote, even as they have ignored the historical context of what they published. They also ignored her doctrinal maturation and changed positions, even as they took great pains to hide the 1888 debates and cover up her debate with Uriah Smith.
Few people actually know what she wrote, most only know what the White Estate wanted them to know. Thus few honest people have read her private letters or other manuscripts to understand her mind. This information was closely guarded and censored so as not to conflict with the published compilations coming from the White Estate that form the basis for what the public knows.
So I think you are being unfair. Her writings have been so manipulated and taken out of context, that many people have formed an incorrect and wrong opinion of her and her theology. You are one of those, but like I said before, it is not your fault. I am not blaming you for the sins of the White Estate.
In addition, if you think Ellen White was such a fraud, why does Dr. Ford not take that position? He has studied her for many years. Why did he not repudiate her? He repudiated the White Estate and TA, but not Ellen White. Why?
Because he knows she is not a fraud, even as he knows the White Estate has been dishonest and incompetent in their representation of her. He knows that she does not support TA. Many still do not, nor does the White Estate want anyone to know this great truth that condemns them and overturns Glacier View.
I agree with Dr. Ford. Ellen White was no fraud.
Bob said: There is much evidence that she propped up her writings by the term “I was shown” all the while it was her own thoughts.
Tom said: Ellen White had spiritual gifts as a teenager, before she was married. The fact that her husband owned a large publishing firm is the reason why she was published in the first place. But her gifts preceded her writings.
It was not uncommon in this early time period for such things to take place and she was hardly the only one with such gifts. Too bad that the White Estate made her into some rare phenomenon when that was not the case. Many others had visions and such in this time period.
Moreover, few understand that after a certain point, as Ellen White aged, her public manifestations stopped.
After 1880 or so, she no longer had ANY public visions. In fact, most of this activity took place when she was young. So even this point has been overlooked as the White Estate tried to embellish her gifts and make them seem more important and active then they were.
But regardless, she did have these gifts—especially when she was young, and thus she was free to write about it, and she did so- under the editorial guidance of James White. All for the good of the Advent Cause. This was the point of all her visions. To call her a fraud is baseless and against the facts.
She was not making things up and in fact had misunderstood some of her own visions, (about the Sabbath), which had to be corrected by others. So I think that you are reacting to the White Estates version of Ellen White, not to the real person of history.
Bob said: We know this because of all the changes she made over the years.
Tom said: The ability to make changes and mature spiritually are natural and good things. I have no idea what kind of changes you think she made that would expose her as a fraud? So you need to show me this list.
But I can assure you she never changed her fundamental beliefs about the history and definition of the Three Angels Messages. For example, she had many visions about the Sabbath and she NEVER retracted her view that the 7th day Sabbath was an important pillar that would stand forever.
Bob said: I believe you know some of this, if not I would be willing to inform you. Adventists try to cover all of this. Don is a good example. Hubert is also. I write on CARM where it is done constantly. Many of her gross statements are found in Early Writings.
Tom said: SDA’s try and cover up all kinds of things and in doing so have caused more problems for themselves. Had the White Estate not given her doctrinal authority and not viewed her visions as if they were like scripture, there would not be this big problem. The modern SDA’s made her out to be more than she was and her visions more important than they were. Big mistake.
Many that defend Ellen White, do so because they are trying to defend TA, which they think she supports. I do not defend her for that reason, because she does not support TA.
So do not place me in the same category as those that embrace the fraud of the White Estate.
I defend Ellen White because someone needs to tell the truth about her. The White Estate has turned her into something she never was, even as they have invented TA and indoctrinated the church to believe many false things about Ellen White and church doctrine.
Bob said: You claim she drank wine. I did not know that.
Tom said: Ha! I bet no SDA’s know this published and historical fact. JR Layman would often go nuts because she ate oysters. His head is going to explode when he learns that she routinely drank wine on an as needed basis for health reasons.
Ellen White drinking wine is incomprehensible to the modern Adventist Community. Why? Because we have all been brainwashed about her by the church into thinking she would never do such a sinful thing. Which is another way of saying that the White Estate has deceived us all.
It is just as stunning to say that Ellen White does NOT support TA; Or that she does NOT teach the IJ as a pillar in the first Angels Message.
This too goes against everything that SDA’s have been taught for generations.
So this point is also incomprehensible for the same reason. The White Estate is a great source of misinformation and error, and it is time for this den of iniquity to be exposed and reformed. They have caused much damage by their lies and propaganda and it needs to stop.
Ellen White drank real wine for health reasons. It was James White that wrote this in the Review, (a number of times). Don’t blame Tom Norris, as if I am making a charge against Ellen White. I say good for her to be so practical and honest enough to admit it to all.
But shame on the White Estate for covering this up and deceiving the church about this and many other things.
Ellen White drinking wine was public knowledge in Battle Creek. The fact that the Takoma Park SDA’s covered this up and claimed that Ellen White would NEVER do such a thing is the real problem.
I have been an SDA for almost 60 years and I can assure you that I was never informed that Ellen White drank wine. The White Estate said the opposite, even as they taught everyone that it was also a sin to eat meat. But this was not the position of Ellen white either.
The White Estate has turned out to be nothing more than a dishonest propaganda machine for the hierarchy. They don’t know how to tell the truth about anything, much less to understand church history correctly. THIS IS THE POINT.
The White Estate was manipulating history and deceiving everyone about Ellen White and church doctrine. And this little fact about wine proves how we have all been horribly lied to and misled by THE WHITE ESTATE as opposed to Ellen White. Ellen White was an honest person.
The White Estate is the problem. They are the source for the catastrophe that has overtaken the SDA’s. They are the root cause for the problems with Ellen White and that place should be shut down until they can confess what they have done and correct the record. They have misrepresented Ellen White on a massive scale and thus no one should believe or trust anything that they say or publish.
Bob said: What I do know is that she drank 19th century vinegar and that it was toxic to her body and mind to the extent that it almost killed her per her own statement. We don’t know how long she had this condition and we have no idea if she wrote while under the influence.
Tom said: Assuming this is true, so what? Many old people become dependent on their meds. So what? If you are saying she was wrong to allow such a thing to take place, then fine. But again, so what? She was mortal and made mistakes. This is hardly news unless you are still thinking like the White Estate. And then you have to think she was perfect and infallible and never drank wine or made a mistake, etc
It is time for the Adventist Community to grow up.
Bob said: No, I will never trust her or the church. All I need is provided and I thank the Lord.
Tom said: No one should have ever placed their “trust” or their theological interpretations in Ellen White. While this is what the White Estate promoted, it was very wrong and against the facts and a proper hermeneutic.
I agree that the White Estate is not to be trusted, nor the corrupt SDA hierarchy that owns and manages this den of deception. Until both are re-organized and a full and complete confession is made, none should support, trust, or defend them.
So perhaps you misunderstood me. I advised that you stay in the Adventist orbit, not that you support the wicked denomination that has gone so bad.
All must distinguish Ellen White from the White Estate, because it is becoming obvious that they are the world’s greatest liars. Arthur White was a cultic con man that needs to be exposed as such. His actions are criminal. And the fact that the church refuses to confess what he has done and correct the record proves that the SDA’s are running a criminal enterprise to make money. Every day that they refuse to confess is another day of willful sin, rebellion, and arrogance.
They will have to deal with the consequences of their criminal actions.
Don said: My grandma, on my mother’s side, was a very strict Adventist. My mother held to much of Grandma’s strictness in principle but did not adhere to it in practice always. Now, her children aren’t very strict at all, by comparison.
Tom said: Don this was a good post from James White. Too bad that so few SDA’s have ever seen it. It is at least 100 years too late.
I bet your grandma NEVER knew that Ellen White drank wine? Those old timers were under the evil spell of the White Estate and thus they embraced their legalistic propaganda without question. Thus, all Takoma Park SDA’s allowed the cultic and dishonest White Estate to control their minds and to brainwash them about everything.
This great error is what set the church up for the debates that led to Glacier View. So once again the point here is to understand that the White Estate is the problem. They are wolves is sheep’s clothing, and unless that den of deception is cleaned out, the SDA’s are doomed.
Don said: It is natural to assume that generations become more and more lax in their standards. That is until one reads the early writings of James White. As the main founder, humanly speaking, of Adventism, his practical mind is a joy to meet in his writings.
Tom said: Ha! It is a little late to be joyful. At this point you should be angry and embarrassed at the White Estate for what they have done. The White Estate has been lying to millions of people for generations about many things, and this issue about wine is only one example of many that could be cited.
The White Estate is a criminal enterprise. They have been making millions of dollars promoting a massive consumer fraud about Ellen White that has ruined Ellen White’s reputation and destroyed the Advent Movement. They have deliberately manipulated the record and deceived millions about Ellen White and the fundamentals that define SDA theology and mission.
It is outrageous, immoral, and illegal. It will not stand.
Tom Norris, who knows what the White Estate has done
Offline
Like when she wrote that the reason the Tower of Babel was constructed was because they wanted to escape another flood. This is even reprinted in the Bible Stories for little children to read. The list of mistakes goes on and on.
I believe that it is important to know what is part of the Biblical account and what is not. If it is not in the Biblical account, I usually refer to it as commentary.
The movies of Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Samson and Delilah, David, Solomon, Jeremiah, and Esther all portray the Biblical story by means of what I have come to call visual commentary. Usually, the theatrical portrayal does not contradict the Biblical account though, of necessity, it adds to the story; historical fiction; visual commentary.
Here is Ellen White's Tower of Babel account found in Volume One of the Spirit of Prophecy:
Chapter IX. - The Tower of Babel.
Some of the descendants of Noah soon began to apostatize. A portion followed the example of Noah, and obeyed Gods commandments; others were unbelieving and rebellious, and even these did not believe alike in regard to the flood. Some disbelieved in the existence of God, and in their own minds accounted for the flood from natural causes. Others believed that God existed, and that he destroyed the antediluvian race by a flood; and their feelings, like Cain, rose in rebellion against God, because he destroyed the people from the earth, and cursed the earth the third time by a flood. 1SP 91.
Those who were enemies of God felt daily reproved by the righteous conversation and godly lives of those who loved, obeyed, and exalted God. The unbelieving consulted among themselves, and agreed to separate from the faithful, whose righteous lives were a continual restraint upon their wicked course. They journeyed a distance from them, and selected a large plain wherein to dwell.
They built them a city, and then conceived the idea of building a large tower to reach unto the clouds, that they might dwell together in the city and tower, and be no more scattered.
They reasoned that they would secure themselves in case of another flood, for they would build their tower to a much greater height than the waters prevailed in the time of the flood,and all the world would honor them, and they would be as gods, and rule over the people. This tower was calculated to page 92 exalt its builders, and was designed to turn the attention of others who should live upon the earth from God to join with them in their idolatry. Before the work of building was accomplished, people dwelt in the tower. Rooms were splendidly furnished, decorated and devoted to their idols. Those who did not believe in God, imagined if their tower could reach unto the clouds, they would be able to discover reasons for the flood. 1SP 91.2
They exalted themselves against God. But he would not permit them to complete their work. They had built their tower to a lofty height, when the Lord sent two angels to confound them in their work. Men had been appointed for the purpose of receiving word from the workmen at the top of the tower, calling for material for their work, which the first would communicate to the second, and he to the third, until the word reached those upon the ground. As the word was passing from one to another in its descent, the angels confounded their language, and when the word reached the workmen upon the ground, material was called for which had not been required. And after the laborious process of getting the material to the workmen at the top of the tower, it was not that which they wished for. Disappointed and enraged, they reproached those whom they supposed were at fault. After this, there was no harmony in their work. Angry with one another, and unable to account for the misunderstanding, and strange words among them, they left the work and separated from each other, and scattered abroad in the earth. Up to this time, men had spoken but one language. Lightning from heaven, as a token of God's wrath, broke off the top of (93 their tower, casting it to the ground. Thus God would show to rebellious man that he is supreme.
Now compare this with Josephus account written about A.D. 90:
http://www.interhack.net/projects/libra … /b1c4.html
Antiquities of the Jews, Book I, Chapter 4
Concerning The Tower Of Babylon, And The Confusion Of Tongues
1. Now the sons of Noah were three, -- Shem, Japhet, and Ham, born one hundred years before the Deluge. These first of all descended from the mountains into the plains, and fixed their habitation there; and persuaded others who were greatly afraid of the lower grounds on account of the flood, and so were very loath to come down from the higher places, to venture to follow their examples.
Now the plain in which they first dwelt was called Shinar. God also commanded them to send colonies abroad, for the thorough peopling of the earth, that they might not raise seditions among themselves, but might cultivate a great part of the earth, and enjoy its fruits after a plentiful manner. But they were so ill instructed that they did not obey God; for which reason they fell into calamities, and were made sensible, by experience, of what sin they had been guilty: for when they flourished with a numerous youth, God admonished them again to send out colonies; but they, imagining the prosperity they enjoyed was not derived from the favor of God, but supposing that their own power was the proper cause of the plentiful condition they were in, did not obey him.
Nay, they added to this their disobedience to the Divine will, the suspicion that they were therefore ordered to send out separate colonies, that, being divided asunder, they might the more easily be Oppressed.
2. Now it was Nimrod who excited them to such an affront and contempt of God. He was the grandson of Ham, the son of Noah, a bold man, and of great strength of hand. He persuaded them not to ascribe it to God, as if it was through his means they were happy, but to believe that it was their own courage which procured that happiness.
He also gradually changed the government into tyranny, seeing no other way of turning men from the fear of God, but to bring them into a constant dependence on his power.
He also said he would be revenged on God, if he should have a mind to drown the world again; for that he would build a tower too high for the waters to be able to reach! and that he would avenge himself on God for destroying their forefathers !
3. Now the multitude were very ready to follow the determination of Nimrod, and to esteem it a piece of cowardice to submit to God; and they built a tower, neither sparing any pains, nor being in any degree negligent about the work: and, by reason of the multitude of hands employed in it, it grew very high, sooner than any one could expect; but the thickness of it was so great, and it was so strongly built, that thereby its great height seemed, upon the view, to be less than it really was. It was built of burnt brick, cemented together with mortar, made of bitumen, that it might not be liable to admit water.
When God saw that they acted so madly, he did not resolve to destroy them utterly, since they were not grown wiser by the destruction of the former sinners; but he caused a tumult among them, by producing in them divers languages, and causing that, through the multitude of those languages, they should not be able to understand one another. The place wherein they built the tower is now called Babylon, because of the confusion of that language which they readily understood before; for the Hebrews mean by the word Babel, confusion.
The Sibyl also makes mention of this tower, and of the confusion of the language, when she says thus: When all men were of one language, some of them built a high tower, as if they would thereby ascend up to heaven, but the gods sent storms of wind and overthrew the tower, and gave every one his peculiar language; and for this reason it was that the city was called Babylon." But as to the plan of Shinar, in the country of Babylonia, Hestiaeus mentions it, when he says thus: Such of the priests as were saved, took the sacred vessels of Jupiter Enyalius, and came to Shinar of Babylonia.
Obviously EGW did not make up this idea of flood-avoidance. I doubt that Josephus made it up either. The association is contextual. The flood covered the earth according to the Biblical account ending in chapter 9. Now, in chapter 11 we find people building a high tower. The connection is not too hard to make. But, it is still a non-Biblical commentary.
Offline
Throughout the earth men spoke the same language, with the same vocabulary. Now as they moved eastwards they found a plain in the land of Shinar where they settled. They said to one another, Come, let us make bricks and bake them in the fire. For stone they used bricks, and for mortar they used bitumen. Come, they said let us build ourslves a town and a town with its top reaching heaven. Let us make a name for ourselves, so that we may not be scattered about the whole earth Jerusalem Bible.
And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly.l And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter. And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower whose top may reach unto heaven, and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered arbroad upon the face of the whole earth KJV.
But the whole earth used the same language and the same words. And it came about as they journeyed east, that they found a plain inthe land of Shinar and settled there. And they said to one another Come, let us make bricks and burn them thoroughly. And they used brick for stone and they used tar for mortar. And they said, Come, let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower whose top will reach into heaven, and let us make for ourselves a name, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth; NASB.
How many linguists will say that this is the beginning of the different languages used around the world? It's an etiological tale told by the early peoples to explain their origins and language differences.
If one believes all the various commentaries we might as well believe the movie stories of the Bible as true, also.
No one knows the original language of the first couple. Most linguists are convinced that all the Middle Eastern tongues were Proto-Semitic with a common ancestry but no actual text has ever been found written in it. All languages change over time; they can also
trace different dialects of Hebrew in the Bible: the northern, is actually markedly different from the idiom of Jerusalem. Moses, linguists say, cannot have written the Pentateuch, at least not in the form in which we know it--virtually all of its Hebrew is later than that which putatively existed in the time of Moses. The Pentateuch, Isaiah, or Psalms, or almost any other biblical book is not the work of a single author: the language of all these books apparently represents the Hebrew of at least two different periods and and/or geographic areas.
The story may simply be a tale of human hubris: the desire to build to the heavens and make a name for themselves.
Offline
virtually all of its Hebrew is later than that which existed in the time of Moses.
A question: How can something be proven to be different than something for which there is no extant material?
virtually all of its Hebrew is later than that which existed in the time of Moses.
Offline
whoa!!!! is modern science opening a path for EGW estate to claim that tho she was an user of vinegar, at least its a healthy addiction?
from my daily NewsMax emails....
Absolutely FREE — Just Pay Shipping!
A $14 Value, You Just Can't Miss . . .
Get this book FREE — Go Here Now
A Complete Guide to Nature’s Magic Liquid!
You have always known that vinegar tasted great on your French fries and made your glassware sparkle, but I bet you didn’t know the intense healing powers of this magic liquid.
Vinegar has been a trusted home remedy that your mother, grandmother, and their grandmothers have known. It literally can be used from head to toe. Scalp problems such as dandruff, athlete’s foot, yeast infections, even headaches are no match for this remedy. It can also be used as a cosmetic to help protect and beautify your skin!
In The Healing Powers of Vinegar, author Cal Orey reveals the secret healing powers of red wine vinegar, apple cider vinegar, and other natural vinegars.
New evidence shows that both apple cider and red wine vinegars, which are made from whole apples and red grapes may help you to:
Fight Fat
Enhance your immune system
Lower blood pressure
Lower risk of heart disease
Prevent cancer
Slow the aging process
and more
Apple Cider Vinegar — the Anti-Cancer
No single food or supplement can prevent cancer, amazingly however, vinegar is considered a "weapon" against cancer according to scientists at the A.P. John Institute for Cancer Research.
This also may come as a surprise: Apple cider vinegar may be just the remedy to help you stave off type 2 diabetes, which usually develops after age 40. Most people who have type 2 diabetes, much like people with high cholesterol, can control the disease through diet and lifestyle change. And that is where apple cider vinegar comes in.
Researchers at Arizona State University found that including apple cider vinegar in the diet may help to slow the rise of blood sugar after a high-carbohydrate meal.
And there is so much more you’ll learn in The Healing Powers of Vinegar, including dozens of home cures!
From Ancient Folk Medicine to Modern Miracle —
Discover the Amazing Powers of Vinegar.
People from all walks of life — as well as some contemporary medical experts and vinegar pioneers — believe that apple cider vinegar aids digestion, helps maintain weight, and keeps blood pressure down. It’s also known to relieve congestion and maintain healthy skin.
Now you can discover for yourself the amazing healing powers of apple cider vinegar. Find out how vinegar’s curative powers can also help prevent age related diseases like cancer, heart disease, and bone loss.
In The Healing Powers of Vinegar you’ll learn how red wine vinegar contains the same important antioxidants as red wine — without the alcohol.
end quote
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
Offline
John, I don't think you got the full message of Ellen's vinegar habit. the 19th century vinegar that she was addicted to was made with whiskey or bourbon. It had a very high alcohol content. I doubt if anyone has ever become a drunk from drinking the vinegar that is produced today. Ellen counciled against the use of vinegar and I have no idea if she meant the hard stuff or regular cider vinegar.
Offline
Question for Tom Norris:
Tom, in your studies, do you find the bible prohibits the use of wine/beer/alcohol in general (moderation)?
There seems to be much research today that suggests wine "makes glad the heart of man" proving that God really does love us. Your thoughts?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Norris answers: Although the SDA’s teach the doctrine of abstinence, and only use non-fermented, pasteurized grape juice for the Lord’s Supper, they are very wrong. The Bible does not prohibit the use of alcohol in either the Old or New Covenants. Nor does wine in the Bible mean “grape juice” as the Adventist’s incorrectly teach.
See Links below:
SDA Double-talk About Wine
http://www.adventistreview.org/2001-1515/story3.html
ATomorrow Abstinence Discussion:
http://www.atomorrow.com/discus/message … 1228284303
The SDA Scandal of Abstinence
http://www.atomorrow.net/fluxbb/viewtopic.php?id=238
Wine & the Jews
Wine (fermented) was especially important to the Jews, as it was part of the Passover Ceremony, which was transformed into the Eucharist by the New Covenant teachings of Christ. In fact, neither the Jews, nor Jesus ever taught that grape juice should be used for the Lord’s Supper. Those today that follow such a practice are following their own views, not the Bible or the Gospel.
Origin of Abstinence
Where does this idea of abstinence originate? In what system of religion is alcohol prohibited?
It is the Koran that prohibits alcohol, including wine. Not Judaism or the Christian Faith. Thus Roman Catholics are correct to only use real wine for the Eucharist, while the SDA’s are wrong to teach that wine in the Bible is grape juice, and that drinking alcohol is sinful.
Here are a few texts, from many that could be cited, to show that real wine is being referenced and used in the Bible. From Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, and David, as well as Jesus and Paul; they all drank wine and often speak of its wonderful properties, including the fact that it represents Eternal Life.
Gen. 9:20 Then Noah began farming and planted a vineyard.
Gen. 9:21 He drank of the wine and became drunk,
Gen. 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; now he was a priest of God Most High.
Num. 18:30 “You shall say to them, ‘When you have offered from it the best of it, then the rest shall be reckoned to the Levites as the product of the threshing floor, and as the product of the wine vat.
Deut. 14:23 “You shall eat in the presence of the LORD your God, at the place where He chooses to establish His name, the tithe of your grain, your new wine, your oil, and the firstborn of your herd and your flock, so that you may learn to fear the LORD your God always.
Psa. 104:13 He waters the mountains from His upper chambers;
The earth is satisfied with the fruit of His works.
Psa. 104:14 He causes the grass to grow for the cattle,
And vegetation for the labor of man,
So that he may bring forth food from the earth,
Psa. 104:15 And wine which makes man’s heart glad,
So that he may make his face glisten with oil,
And food, which sustains man’s heart.
Although the SDA’s insist otherwise, Jesus teaching about wine is only a reference to the alcoholic version. This was the only wine available at this time in history. This was also what Jesus made at Cana.
No wonder Jesus was known to drink lots of wine during his time on earth. He never taught that it was a sinful drink, but just the opposite. A natural beverage that represents salvation.
It is a fact of history that wine in ancient Israel was real wine. Not grape juice as the SDA’s absurdly claim. I say it is time for the SDA’s to repent of their childish, 19th century myths and legalistic views about wine and the Sabbath, as well as the Judgment.
Israeli wine
Viticulture has existed in the land of Israel since biblical times.
In the book of Deuteronomy, the fruit of the vine was listed as one of the seven blessed species of fruit found in the land of Israel (Deut. 8:8).[4]
The location of Israel along a historic wine trading route between Mesopotamia and Egypt brought winemaking knowledge and influence to the area.
Wine played a significant role in the religion of the early Israelites with images of grape growing, harvesting and winemaking often being used to illustrate religious ideals.[5]
In Roman times, wine from Israel was exported to Rome with the most sought after wines being vintage, dated with the name of the winemaker inscribed on the amphora.
In the 7th century, the Islamic conquest of the Middle East virtually wiped out the region's wine industry with wineries closing down and vineyards, planted with now lost indigenous grape varieties, pulled out.[6]
Winemaking was temporarily revived in the Crusader states from around 1100 to 1300 but the return of Islamic rule and the subsequent Jewish Diaspora extinguished the industry once again.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_wine
See also:
ALCOHOL in the Bible:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_in_the_Bible
http://www.gemsinisrael.com/e_article000033302.htm
http://www.gemsinisrael.com/e_article000033156.htm
http://www.biblicalproductions.com/arti … ulture.htm
Winemaking in Ancient Israel, By Garrett Peck
Winemaking in ancient Israel dates back at least 2,000 years before the Romans occupied the region – and possibly several thousand years before then.
The Israelites probably picked up the craft from the neighboring Canaanites and Phoenicians, and winemaking abounded throughout the Mediterranean. Hundreds of ancient winepresses have been uncovered and excavated throughout modern Israel. Yet wine was much more than a staple of life to Jews: it was a symbol of their freedom from bondage and a necessity in every Jewish religious ceremony.
Haim Gan, Israel’s Grape Man in Old Jaffa, remarked, “Wine is at the heart of the Jewish tradition.”
Two terms for wine are used throughout the Bible. In the Hebrew Scriptures (the Old Testament), the Hebrew word is yayin, while the Christian New Testament, written in Greek, used the word oinos, from which we get our word “wine.” Both meant the same thing: fermented wine. There is no word for unfermented wine in Scripture. Wine is wine. It was always fermented.
In the early nineteenth century, the evangelical Protestants who started the temperance movement in America argued that there were two kinds of wine in ancient Israel: fermented and unfermented. Because they chose to abstain from drinking, they made the unfounded claim that Jesus abstained as well.
They did this to justify their political campaign to ban alcohol, which ultimately resulted in Prohibition (1920-1933). The temperance movement’s claim for two kinds of wine was neither archaeologically, biblically, historically, nor scientifically correct, as we’ll see in this article. The reality is that Judaism has never had a theological issue with alcohol.
Ancient Israel was an agrarian society. Most people farmed. They grew wheat, olives, tended orchards, herded goats, sheep and cattle, and grew grapes. References to winemaking abound in the Hebrew Scriptures. Grape growing, festivals, drunkenness, and thanksgiving for wine – they’re all there. It really shows that wine was part of everyday Jewish culture. Only the Book of Jonah has no reference to either wine or the vine.
The ancients didn’t understand microbes and gastrointestinal disease, but they knew that drinking water led to sickness and sometimes death. The water supply was often contaminated, particularly around settlements that had no sanitation, or even in short supply during droughts. So they drank wine but diluted it with water, both to quench the thirst and to dilute the effects of such strong drink. This kept them healthy. In fact, the phrase “strong drink” in the Bible may refer to undiluted wine.
http://www.prohibitionhangover.com/israelwine.html
Wine was central to Jewish life and religion. Thus it is understandable that Jesus would reference this common drink. And so he does. He is clearly speaking of fermented wine. Why? Because there was no such drink as grape juice.
Matt. 9:17 “Nor do people put new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wineskins burst, and the wine pours out and the wineskins are ruined; but they put new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved.”
This metaphor about wine is originally from the ancient book of Job. Proving again that wine in the Bible means fermented wine.
Job 32:17 “I too will answer my share,
I also will tell my opinion.
Job 32:18 “For I am full of words;
The spirit within me constrains me.
Job 32:19 “Behold, my belly is like unvented wine,
Like new wineskins it is about to burst.
Wine in the Bible is naturally fermented. There was no other kind, nor is there any word in Hebrew for grape juice. The SDA’s are making fools of themselves to teach otherwise. There is no excuse for such myths to be practiced or defended in the 21st century.
Paul did not teach abstinence, and neither did the apostolic church practice such a teaching that has turned out to be a Muslim doctrine. Thus the SDA’s, are following the Koran, not the Bible, when it comes to wine. Shame on the SDA’s!
1Tim. 3:8 Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain,
1Tim. 5:23 No longer drink water exclusively, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.
Titus 1:7 For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain,
Titus 2:3 Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good,
Of course drunkenness was considered sinful in both the OC and the NC. But moderation is not.
Prov. 23:20 Do not be with heavy drinkers of wine,
Is. 5:22 Woe to those who are heroes in drinking wine
And valiant men in mixing strong drink,
Judaism did not promote drunkenness or drinking to excess, and neither did the teachings of Jesus or the church. But at no time did Judaism or the apostolic church teach abstinence.
The SDA’s could not be more wrong to teach that wine in the Bible is grape juice or that it is a sin to drink wine or any other alcoholic drink. They have so misunderstood the Gospel that they do not understand or follow the Lord’s Supper correctly, nor would they feel comfortable in the New Earth, drinking wine with Christ.
Matt. 26:27 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you;
Matt. 26:28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.
Matt. 26:29 “But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”
I remember explaining this fact about wine to a conservative SDA. He recoiled in horror at the thought of such a great sin. When I told him that Jesus was planning a great party after the 2nd Coming, where real wine will be served for all to drink,- and where Jesus will lead the festivities and drink wine with the saints.
He angrily replied that if this was really going to take place, then he did not want to go to heaven where such sinful activities were allowed or promoted.
I replied that there seemed little chance he would ever have to worry about this issue. Since he had the wrong idea about the Gospel, he would not be allowed into this great Gospel Party anyway.
Those that refuse to follow the Gospel teachings of Christ, including what he teaches about wine, will not be allowed into the Kingdom of God. Which means that all SDA’s had better quickly repent and drink up if they are serious about Eternal Life.
1Cor. 11:25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
While John the Baptist seemed to have followed abstinence, Jesus was infamous for his wine drinking and partying. He drank real wine and made some for a wedding in Cana. This was not grape juice.
John 2:9 When the headwaiter tasted the water which had become wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter *called the bridegroom,
John 2:10 and *said to him, “Every man serves the good wine first, and when the people have drunk freely, then he serves the poorer wine; but you have kept the good wine until now.”
Matt. 11:18 “For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon!’
Matt. 11:19 “The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds.”
In the OC, wine meant freedom from Egyptian bondage. In the NT, wine represents the freedom of the Gospel from the bondage of law, sin, and death, even as it represents Christ’s Righteousness and our Eternal Life.
Wine is a symbol of the Gospel, representing the very blood of Christ on the cross. All Christians should often raise their glasses in a holy toast to Christ their Lord and King, thanking him for their salvation.
Those who refuse the cup, preferring childish fruit juice, are showing their legalism as well as their contempt of Christ and his teaching. They are also showing their ignorance of history, health, and culture, as well as hermeneutics.
At the end of the age, those so foolish will not be admitted into the Kingdom of God, where the saints of all ages will drink real wine with Christ and the apostles.
SDA’s Wrong
The SDA’s must repent for their many errors and false doctrines, including their use of “grape juice” in the Lord’s Supper. They have no right to substitute another drink, much less another Gospel. But this is what they have done. It shows how little understanding and respect they have for the Scriptures. Even as it shows that they have no problem with changing the Gospel Story to fit their legalistic and false views.
Unless the SDA’s repent of their “Grape Juice Gospel,” and stop making up doctrines and manipulating the Gospel Story, they are doomed. Grape Juice is not the same as wine, and no one on earth has the right to change what Christ has commanded the church to follow.
The SDA’s, along with many others in the Temperance minded 19th century, were such legalists that they felt guilty about drinking wine at the Lord’s Supper. The invention of non-alcoholic wine eased their consciences and allowed them to feel less hypocritical as they promoted abstinence in the name of God and County.
Sacramental Wine Invented
Thanks to Dr. Welch’s Pasteurized grape juice, many churches could now exchange their fermented wine for grape juice, and thus the Abstinence Movement gained ground in religious practice like never before. The church would now become a great force for the Temperance Movement, which was promoted as part of the will of God and the duty of every Sanctified Christian.
http://www.ctlibrary.com/ch/2005/issue85/10.13.html
In 1869 Dr. Welch’s Unfermented Wine was created specifically for church communion. That was its original purpose and goal. But as time wore on, it would have a much wider appeal.
In 1890 Dr. Welch broadened his market by changing the name to Welch’s Grape Juice, and the public embraced this new drink that became popular at the 1893 Chicago World’s Fair.
http://www.vineland.org/history/welchs/index.html
http://www.victorybaptist.ws/pp-the-ama … juice.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=1wiHf4 … y+of+Welch
http://www.welchs.com/about-welchs/history
The SDA’s & Wine
Many SDA’s do not know that their early Pioneers, including James and Ellen White, drank wine at communion. After grape juice was invented, the SDA’s and many others, made the switch to grape juice.
However, few modern SDA’s know that Ellen White, and James, drank wine for medicinal purposes. The White Estate has kept this fact hidden, even though it was common knowledge in Battle Creek.
In 1868, in one of his question/ answer articles, James White, Editor of the Review wrote:
“During the past year, Mrs. W. has, at three or four times, had feelings of great debility and faintness in the morning. . . . To prevent distressing faintness at these times, she, immediately after rising, had taken an egg in a little pure, domestic, grape wine, perhaps a spoonful at a time, and never thought that this had to do with drugs, as she uses the term in her writings, more than with the man in the moon.
During the past year, she may have used one pint of wine. It is only in extreme cases that the use of wine is justifiable, and then let it be a ‘little wine,’ to gently stimulate those in a sinking condition.”6
Letter 363, 1907, cited in Counsels on Diet and Foods, p. 466. Messenger of the Lord; by Douglas.
http://www.whiteestate.org/books/mol/chapt27.html
So even though Ellen White embraced abstinence, she still drank wine for medicinal purposes. But few SDA’s in Takoma Park were ever been informed of this fact.
In fact, most SDA’s today are shocked to hear that Ellen White used wine. Here is yet another point where the White Estate has manipulated and suppressed the record. Shame on the SDA’s. They are very dishonest about their history. No one should believe anything they publish.
Modern Science
Today, there are more than 400 studies that prove the health benefits of long-term, moderate, wine consumption. In fact, the scientific evidence shows, over and over, that those who abstain from wine do NOT live as long as those who drink moderately.
The SDA’s do not know how to deal with this modern scientific fact. They were certain that wine was evil and thus it should not be beneficial. So they are once again proven wrong for all to see. When will they repent?
Regular, moderate, drinking of wine has been shown to reduce diabetes and “might even preserve cognitive function in the elderly. Several European studies have shown the prophylactic effects of regular light to moderate alcohol consumption may include the prevention or postponement of Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and other forms of dementia.”
“Other medical studies point to multiple benefits of regular moderate wine drinking that may include lowered risks of stroke, colorectal tumors, skin and other types of cancers, senile dementia, and even the common cold, as well as reduce the effects of scarring from radiation treatments.”
ANTI-CANCER & CORONARY BENEFITS
“Moderate consumption of red wine on a regular basis may be a preventative against coronary disease and some forms of cancer. The chemical components thought to be responsible are catechins, also known as flavonoids and related to tannins. Catechins are believed to function as anti-oxidants, preventing molecules known as "free-radicals" from doing cellular damage. One particular form of flavonoid, called oligomeric procyanidin, recently proved to prevent hardening of the arteries.”
“There are also compounds in grapes and wine (especially red wine, grape juice, dark beers and tea, but absent in white wine, light beers and spirits) called resveratrol and quercetin. Clinical and statistical evidence and laboratory studies have shown these may boost the immune system, block cancer formation, and possibly protect against heart disease and even prolong life.”
http://www.winepros.org/wine101/wine-health.htm
The benefits of moderate drinking of red wine are significant and growing. But none should be surprised. Would Jesus promote an unhealthy drink as the symbol of the Gospel? Would Jesus require his Gospel followers to drink something harmful and unhealthy to symbolize Eternal Life? Hardly.
Health and Wine links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_wine
http://www.winespectator.com/webfeature/show/id/46083
http://www.tree.com/health/red-wine.aspx
http://www.winepros.org/wine101/wine-health.htm
http://news.menshealth.com/can-red-wine … 011/07/08/
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/red-wine/HB00089
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/21478144/ … uN6QJi4LHg
http://www.health.com/health/article/0, … 87,00.html
http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/featu … od-for-you
http://www.beekmanwine.com/prevtopab.htm
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency … 001963.htm
http://www.foodandwine.com/articles/8-h … nking-wine
http://www.ynhh.org/about-us/red_wine.aspx
http://www.howlifeworks.com/lifestyle/red_wine
http://longevity.about.com/od/longevity … edwine.htm
http://www.benefits-of-resveratrol.com/ … -wine.html
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/fa … -uncovered
Conclusion
From ancient times, wine has always had beneficial properties and spiritual significance. Today, the list of health benefits from wine is long, and growing.
How fitting, that as the Gospel becomes better understood in the 21st century, so too the truth about the physical and spiritual benefits of wine.
Those professed Christians who refuse to drink wine, thinking it unhealthy and sinful are wrong on both counts. They have embraced many scientific and theological myths. Even worse, they are denying the Gospel and misunderstanding the teachings and behavior of Christ.
Thus they are unable to observe the Lord’s Supper correctly. Proving they do not follow the genuine Christ, nor do they understand the Bible correctly.
1Cor. 11:23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread;
1Cor. 11:24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
1Cor. 11:25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
1Cor. 11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.
Jesus drank real wine, even as he commanded his followers to also “do this in remembrance” of his sacrifice on the cross for our salvation.
Those who think they can embrace some modern drink made from grapes, have made a fatal mistake. Grape juice in not wine, nor does Christ give any church permission to make such a change to fruit juice.
This is the great sin of Laodicea, they think they can invent doctrine and still please God. Thus all denominations today are following their own views about the Sabbath, the Judgment, and the Lord’s Supper, as well as a long list of polices and doctrines that are not supported by the genuine Christ or his Word.
1Cor. 11:27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.
Let all understand; any denomination or Christian who thinks they have the right to change the Words of Christ and change the Gospel Story, are UNWORTHY to take part in the Lord’s Supper. They are following a Christ of their own making and manipulation; they will not receive Eternal Life.
1Cor. 11:28 But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
1Cor. 11:29 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.
Those who have dared to manipulate the Gospel Story by substituting pasteurized grape juice for genuine wine, “drinks judgment” and destruction, not the nectar of Eternal Life.
Matt. 26:26 While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.”
Matt. 26:27 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you;
Matt. 26:28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.
I trust this answers you excellent question.
Tom Norris for All Experts.Com and Adventist Reform
Offline
Nothing wrong with abstinence. Samson was and many that can not just drink one, find they have to not touch it at all. This is again the Adventist Church majoring in minors, eh????
Offline
Bob said: Nothing wrong with abstinence.
Tom said: Well said, -if one is Muslim. Well said, --if one does not care about the Gospel teachings of Christ, or his authority.
So you have made a good point for those that do not seek Eternal Life through Christ. However, for those that seek entrance into the Kingdom of God, your words are poison.
Those who embrace the doctrine of abstinence in the church do so without the blessing of Christ. They are following the Koran, not the NT. They do not understand, or correctly follow the Gospel. They have their own agenda, their own views, rules, and doctrines, which are very different from that of Christ.
This is the great sin of Laodicea; they think they can make up their own Gospel doctrines and still please God and pass the judgment. This is a great delusion.
Let all beware.
Bob said: Samson was, and many that cannot just drink one, find they have to not touch it at all.
Tom said: Judaism did not teach abstinence. Wine was featured in the Passover, and used in the Temple. Moreover, it could be watered down, so there is still no excuse for anyone today trying to substitute another drink.
Bob said: This is again the Adventist Church majoring in minors, eh????
Tom said: It is hardly a minor matter to misunderstand the Eucharist and repudiate the teachings of Christ. This is the most prominent and sacred of all Christian ceremonies, given to the church by Christ himself, just before the Cross.
Moreover, the SDA’s have embraced this error because they are great legalists. They have made up their own laws and rules, even as they have been very dishonest about the history of wine in the Bible. The SDA’s think drinking wine is sinful, even though the Bible teaches no such thing.
Those in Laodicea that are so foolish as to misread the Bible and repudiate the clear teachings of Christ, are doomed. They will not come close to entering the Kingdom of God, where real wine will flow for those who follow the genuine Christ.
I suggest that the SDA’s stop trying to defend their many false doctrines and repent. This is their only hope. The same goes for all others as well.
I hope this helps,
Tom Norris for Adventist Reform
Offline
Tom, I'm gradually getting your message:
1. Reformed Sabbath, a Sabbath you can work on, and if you don't you are not following Jesus Gospel.
2. Drink fermented wine only in your communion, even underaged kids, which breaks the local laws. "Whatsa goina say when COPS show up?"
Offline
The question of alchol or wine=grape juice, read the problem you run into:
Although most schools do not give an explanation for their policies, it is likely that they take a view similar to that advanced by Regent University:
Regent also forbids the use of alcohol on campus and prohibits the abuse of these substances. The Apostle Paul exhorted the Body of Christ that, if they truly loved their fellow man, they would set aside their personal freedom by refraining from behavior that might be a stumbling block to their weaker brother. Regent University encourages members of the Regent community to exercise their personal responsibility and, guided by Paul’s admonition, appropriately set aside their personal freedom and refrain from the use of these substances.
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/ … esus-drink
Offline
Tom, why not go the whole way, and drink from a single chalice, not to represent Jesus body as in many pieces:
Leaders who accepted the Protestant Reformation, such as the Lutheran Church, insisted on use of wine in celebrating the Lord's Supper. As a reaction to this, even in those Western European countries that, while remaining Roman Catholic had continued to give the chalice to the laity, this practice faded out, in order to emphasize Catholic belief that the whole Christ is received under either form. The Eastern Churches in full communion with Rome continued to give the Eucharist to the faithful under the forms of both bread and wine. The twentieth century, especially after the Second Vatican Council, saw a return to more widespread sharing in the Eucharist under the forms of both bread and wine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacramental_wine
What's that you say, germs, risk getting sick from others, is that why drinking out of little cups is OK, Tom?
Offline
Bob2 sarcastically said: Tom, I'm gradually getting your message:
Tom said: My “message” is the genuine Gospel of Christ. I doubt you see anything clearly as yet. Because if you did; you would repent of your many false views instead of trying to defend them.
Bob said: 1. Reformed Sabbath, a Sabbath you can work on, and if you don't you are not following Jesus Gospel.
Tom said: The doctrine of the NC Sabbath is more complex than you are obviously willing to admit. There is more to it than just the point about work.
First off, you have to get the day correct. Thus the Gospel Sabbath can only be a 7th day doctrine, so the SDA’s, and some others, are correct on this point. Let’s give them some credit.
Second, one must also understand that the basis for Christ’s Gospel Sabbath, is the change in the Priesthood. Because all that follow Christ are now Priests in the NC, they are given an exemption against the prohibition of work of the 4th Commandment. Misunderstand this critical theological point and little will make sense.
Third, the Gospel Sabbath is not a resting Sabbath, but an active doctrine. Just as the Levites were very busy every 7th day, so too all that follow Christ, their high Priest. Thus the SDA Sabbath, with its’ many rules and regulations against doing this or that, is wrong. They have embraced the OC Sabbath of forced rest. They are following the teaching of the enemies of Christ in the Gospels, which is the wrong Sabbath.
Fourth, the Gospel Sabbath is still a day for Israel, now the Church, to meet in praise of the Creator God and his Christ. So it is not an ordinary day of the week for the church. It is a time when the followers of Christ meet together for a portion of the day. There are no rules against any kind of work or play. Nor is it necessary to sleep half the day away, waiting for sundown, when life can return to normal. Away with these OC views of the 7th day!
Those who misunderstand the Gospel, which is all of Laodicea, will also misunderstand the doctrine of the Sabbath. They all have it wrong. And the Sunday keepers are double wrong. Not only do they have the wrong day, they too have embraced the “no work” Sabbath of the OC. This is why the church promoted Sunday “blue laws.” They wanted to force people to stop working on the Sunday Sabbath. This is absurd. Jesus taught the opposite view of the Sabbath.
The great issue for the last church is this: will they repent and listen to the teachings of Christ and follow them? Or will they make up whatever they want, twisting the scriptures like the Pharisees of old? The Sabbath is a good doctrine to examine, because it shows who is paying attention to the Word and who is not. The latter will not be saved.
Bob 2 said: Drink fermented wine only in your communion, even underaged kids, which breaks the local laws. "Whatsa goina say when COPS show up?"
Tom said: Real wine can easily be diluted with water, which solves your imaginary problems with the police.
The object of drinking wine in the church is not to get drunk. Paul made this clear to the divided and confused Corinthian church.
1Cor. 11:19 For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you.
1Cor. 11:20 Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper,
1Cor. 11:21 for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk.
1Cor. 11:22 What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you.
The Gospel teachings of Christ, whether about the Sabbath or drinking wine, are what they are. Those who think they can manipulate, change, and adjust the Gospel to fit this or that situation are on very dangerous ground. No one has the right to change the Gospel, and those so foolish to think otherwise, are lost. Jesus teaches that “many” will be surprised to learn this point too late.
Matt. 22:14 “For many are called, but few are chosen.”
While the 19th century church in America thought they were helping Christ by saving society from the scourge of drunkenness, they were causing more problems then they solved, even as they showed that were not following the teachings of Christ at all. Thus, the debacle of prohibition was the result of legalistic and clueless Christians who not only had the wrong view of the Sabbath and drinking, but the very Gospel itself. Sad.
Bob2 said: The question of alcohol or wine=grape juice, read the problem you run into: (which is about not being a “stumbling block” to others.)
Tom said: This is another example of people looking to Paul in order to change the teachings of Christ. Those who play such dishonest games, will never enter the Kingdom of God. Paul does not pretend that wine is grape juice, much less that it is a sin to drink it.
Moreover, grape juice is not wine. The ancients never defined it as wine, nor should it ever be considered wine by anyone today. Wine is a fermented product that is made from natural occurring causes. It is a miracle drink that has been in production since ancient times.
http://www.winemonthclub.com/winemaking.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_wine
Modern man manipulates grape Juice in order to stop the natural fermentation process before it ever becomes wine. Grape Juice is wine, - interrupted by man, and prevented, by man, - from becoming wine. Such interference and change to a naturally produced, health-giving product is not a good, or valid, metaphor for the Gospel. Nor is this what Jesus had in mind when he invented the Lord’s Supper.
Moreover, Jesus made wine and drank wine. He even ordered all that follow him to do likewise as part of the Eucharist. Those that disobey Christ, so as not to offend uneducated Christians, are not following the Gospel, but their own false views.
Paul’s admonition about not being a stumbling block was not made so that the Lord’s Supper and the direct Gospel commands of Christ could be ignored or repudiated. If that were the case, then all manner of false doctrine could be practiced under the guise of not wanting to make someone stumble.
There is no such thing as a “stumbling” hermeneutic. The teachings of Christ are not to be interpreted by the feelings of anyone. Thus the point is not about wine, or the Sabbath, but about following the genuine Christ and paying close attention to his Words.
Those who embrace false doctrine are following a false Christ. Those who refuse to repent, as instructed by Christ in the genuine “pre-advent Judgment” of the last church, will not be allowed into the Kingdom of God, regardless what they think or say.
Matt. 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
Matt. 7:22 “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’
Matt. 7:23 “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’
Bob2 posted: Although most schools do not give an explanation for their policies, it is likely that they take a view similar to that advanced by Regent University:
Tom said: First off, all these Christian schools are full of false doctrine and worthless tradition. Neither the students nor the professors know the genuine Gospel, including the SDA schools. So who care what they say? It’s all a bunch of double talk, tradition, and nonsense.
Second, you have taken this article out of context, failing to show that the author repudiates abstinence. In fact, he correctly admits that Jesus made and drank wine, and that it is not a sinful drink. So why did you not make this point clear?
In fact, if someone told this author that it is a sin to drink wine, he would refute this point, because he knows it is not true.
Listen to what he said:
“Although I tend to refrain from consuming alcohol—I have a difficult enough time getting people to take me seriously when I’m stone cold sober—my own view on the issue is similar to that held by theologian D.A. Carson:
‘If I’m in one of those parts [of the United States] and everyone’s going to be all upset if I drink alcohol, then—I don’t drink alcohol, it’s not worth the fight and so on. But if somebody says to me, “You cannot be a Christian and drink alcohol,” I will say, “pass the Bourgogne’!” Do you see?’
Because you do not ever allow anything to jeopardize the absolute sufficiency of Christ. Not anything!
As sympathetic as I am to the prohibitionists’ rationales, their arguments never address the obvious question: Why did Jesus not refrain from drinking alcohol if it is an obvious "stumbling block" to our "weaker brothers"?
There is no disputing the fact that alcohol abuse is, as my SBC brethren point out, the cause of much "physical, mental, and emotional damage."
No doubt that was as true in first century Palestine as it is in twenty-first century America. So why didn’t Jesus warn that we should avoid alcohol? If nothing else, why did he not refrain from drinking alcohol himself in order to set an example for future generations of believers?
The answers to these questions have implications that extend beyond concerns about drinking beer or wine. Where does Christian liberty end and institutional authority over matters of conscience begin? Obviously there are times when we need to delineate such boundaries, especially for young Christians. But we should be careful about where we mark those lines—especially when they put Jesus on the wrong side.
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/ … esus-drink
The author went on to say that “while my fellow Southern Baptists consider Christ to be the Creator and Sustainer of the cosmos, we would not consider him fit to serve as a trustee for the Southern Baptist Convention.”
He went on to say: Not only was Jesus a "user of alcoholic beverages" (Luke 7:33-34), but he had the audacity to turn perfectly good water into wine. If performed today, the miracle at the Canaanite wedding would meet with frowns from Southern Baptist believers, who are in "total opposition to the manufacturing, advertising, distributing, and consuming of alcoholic beverages." (According to the Gospel of John, Jesus would be guilty of all but the advertising.)
Unfortunately, SBC committee rooms are not the only place where his behavior would be considered inappropriate. In fact, many in other evangelical circles consider such pro-alcohol behavior unacceptable as well.
A prime example is evangelical higher education. On almost every evangelical college campus in America, Jesus' consumption of wine would put him in violation of the code of conduct.
While a handful of colleges (Calvin, Dordt, Wheaton) would have no problem with his imbibing (provided he drank his wine off-campus), the vast majority would consider such behavior inappropriate if Jesus were enrolled as an undergraduate, seminarian, or faculty member. Bethel, Biola, Covenant, Eastern Nazarene, Messiah, Liberty, and Oral Roberts University are just some of the colleges and universities where The Savior’s wine-bibbing would get him a scolding from the dean.
Although most schools do not give an explanation for their policies, it is likely that they take a view similar to that advanced by Regent University:
Regent also forbids the use of alcohol on campus and prohibits the abuse of these substances. The Apostle Paul exhorted the Body of Christ that, if they truly loved their fellow man, they would set aside their personal freedom by refraining from behavior that might be a stumbling block to their weaker brother. Regent University encourages members of the Regent community to exercise their personal responsibility and, guided by Paul’s admonition, appropriately set aside their personal freedom and refrain from the use of these substances.
The "weaker brother" argument often serves as a justification for self-imposed (and institutionally mandated) teetotalism. And for good reason. It is a scriptural admonition that must be prayerfully considered.
However, as pastor Chuck Swindoll has said, “Be careful, there are some people out there who are professional weaker brethren.” Likewise, we should be leery of professional weaker brother arguments that would rein in all Christian liberty because of the abstract concern that innocuous behavior might cause someone, somewhere, somehow, to stumble.
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/ … esus-drink
Here is the real point: Those Christians, like the SDA’s and Baptists, etc., that teach it sinful to drink wine are only proving that they do not follow the Gospel or understand the teachings of Christ. They are self-condemned by their own words, with one false doctrine after another spilling from their mouths.
Matt. 12:37 “For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
Those who teach abstinence are not following the genuine Christ. And neither are those that have embraced a Sabbath that Christ never knew or taught. All churches and denominations today have embraced legions of errors and false doctrines. It is a systemic and fatal situation that must be confronted. Error, error, everywhere error, even as legions of false Christ’s have led many astray.
Bob2 said: Tom, why not go the whole way, and drink from a single chalice, not to represent Jesus body as in many pieces:
Leaders who accepted the Protestant Reformation, such as the Lutheran Church, insisted on use of wine in celebrating the Lord's Supper.
Tom said: First off, it is the bread that represents the body of Christ, not the wine, or the cups. So your point about a single cup is not valid.
Here are a number of points that refute the “one cup” theory.
1) There is ample evidence that each had his own cup due to the Rabbinic Passover instructions of the day. Jesus clearly said "I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer". The context makes it clear that this was the Passover. During the Passover, each participant was to have his own cup. If he couldn't afford one, it was directed that he was either to pawn his clock or hire himself out to get his own cup.
2) Since it was taken "while they were eating" (Mark 14:22), it was during the Passover, and each would have had his own cup.
(Note: the word "supper" is actually a verb, but it has been translated as a noun in some translations. So a better rendering would be -- "similarly, after they ate, he was saying..." -- So it wasn't after "supper", but after they ate of the unleavened bread that they took of the fruit of the vine. Notice the placement of the phrase, "after they ate", between the taking of the bread and the taking of the fruit of the vine. The accounts in Matthew and Mark make it clear that this was during the Passover.)
Jesus took the cup and told the disciples to divide it among themselves JUST BEFORE he gave significance to the bread and wine (Luke's account).
This is in total harmony with the fact that each was to have his own cup.
The Mark passage could also be translated that they all drank "OF" it, meaning the contents. This fits in with the fact that the fruit of the vine was divided up among themselves BEFORE they partook of the bread and partook of the fruit of the vine.
3) If Jesus had taken a cup and passed it around, and each emptied some of the contents into their own cups, -- and Jesus then held his own cup and said "this cup (singular) is my blood of the new Covenant", -- it would still be an accurate account even though each person had their own cup.
4) When Jesus commanded to "do this in rememberance of me". He wasn't making reference to a cup, but to the fact that they were to observe it in "REMEMBERANCE" of him. "Do this" proves nothing about one cup. Even if they had one or many cups, he could still say "do this in rememberance of me", and it would prove nothing about the number of cups.
5) We don't simply practice something during the Lord's Supper simply because that is what the first disciples did, otherwise, we would also recline, take it at evening, and do it in an upper room on Thursday. If they had a single cup, it doesn't necessarily mean we should. Just because they had multiple cups doesn't mean we should have multiples either.
6) What we do in the Lord's Supper is very much linked to the meaning (or symbolism, sign) behind it. Reclining, Upper Rooms, and Evening have no memorial meaning behind it, therefore they are insignificant.
7) Both the Gospel Accounts and Paul's account make it clear that the "cup" refers to the contents of the cup. "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes". When we ask for coffee and say "I would like a cup", we don't mean we are drinking a cup, but the contents of it. We do not proclaim the Lord's covenant, but his death when we partake (I Cor 11). To talk about the blood of Christ and his death is talking about the same thing, the life is in the blood, which is what Jesus offered to God on our behalf. We remember the shedding of his life when we partake of the fruit of the vine. The Cup clearly refers to the contents.
8) Jesus made no distinction between the cup and the contents of the cup, contrary to the one-cup position that the cup represents one thing while the contents represent another.
9) If the cup (which clearly means the contents of the cup) represents the covenant, then nothing represents the blood! This is the obvious conclusion if each account of the Lord's Supper is read carefully.
The ONLY way to make the assertion that there are three rather than two elements during the Lord's Supper is to mesh the accounts together into one as if for some reason Matthew and Mark forgot to mention the fact that the cup represents the new covenant. By that same token, it would also mean Luke forgot to mention that the fruit of the vine represents the blood!
None of the accounts of the Lord's Supper mention three elements, all mention only two.
So, if the cup represents the covenant, then there is no blood represented, and the blood is what established the covenant in the first place!
http://epreacher.org/sermons/e-cups.html
Bob, our discussion is about wine, not the cup.
Is wine in the Bible grape juice as the SDA’s teach? No.
Is it wrong to drink wine? No.
Does abstinence fit with the Gospel teachings of Christ? No.
Did Jesus teach abstinence? No.
Is it healthier to embrace abstinence? No.
Does the Lord’s Supper require real wine? Yes.
Let all those who are honest, understand the Gospel view of wine and repent.
Bob 2 said: As a reaction to this, even in those Western European countries that, while remaining Roman Catholic had continued to give the chalice to the laity, this practice faded out, in order to emphasize Catholic belief that the whole Christ is received under either form. The Eastern Churches in full communion with Rome continued to give the Eucharist to the faithful under the forms of both bread and wine. The twentieth century, especially after the Second Vatican Council, saw a return to more widespread sharing in the Eucharist under the forms of both bread and wine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacramental_wine
Tom said: Here is the point. Both the Eastern and Western versions of the RC church only use real wine for the Eucharist. They would never allow grape juice to become part of this ancient Christian ceremony that can only be performed with real wine.
See also:
Origin of the Eucharist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Eucharist
From Jewish Passover to Christian Eucharist: The Story of the Todah
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articl … p0124.html
A FIRST-CENTURY JEWISH PASSOVER
http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/NTIntro/Li … PCHAP1.htm
Was Jesus’ Last Supper a Seder?
http://www.bib-arch.org/e-features/jesu … supper.asp
PASSOVER, LAST SUPPER AND EUCHARIST
http://www.leaderu.com/theology/passover.html
The Last Supper - The Eucharist
http://www.ourcatholicfaith.org/thelastsupper.html
In conclusion, those who think wine in the Bible is grape juice are not paying attention to the Gospel Story. They misunderstand the genuine teachings of Christ and have been fooled into following myths, even as they have embraced one false doctrine after another, not just this one error about wine
Anyone who thinks grape juice can be substituted for real wine at the Eucharist is following a false Christ, with a worthless Gospel. They need to quickly repent and determine to only follow the genuine Christ of the Gospels.
I hope this helps,
Tom Norris for Adventist Reform
Offline
Second, one must also understand that the basis for Christ’s Gospel Sabbath, is the change in the Priesthood. Because all that follow Christ are now Priests in the NC, they are given an exemption against the prohibition of work of the 4th Commandment. Misunderstand this critical theological point and little will make sense.
This only shows how misguided people can get once they start conjecturing. The Levite priesthood were allowed to "work" on Sabbath in the Temple. Their is nothing in scripture that would allow them to work in in any other employment nor is there any scripture that would allow them to play on the Sabbath.
Of course you miss the larger picture in that the law, which included Sabbath law, was abrogated at the Cross. We are now under Jesus law of Love. See Col 2, Matt 5:17-19, 2Cor 3:7-12, 1Jn 3:21-24
Offline
Those who misunderstand the Gospel, which is all of Laodicea, will also misunderstand the doctrine of the Sabbath. They all have it wrong. And the Sunday keepers are double wrong. Not only do they have the wrong day, they too have embraced the “no work” Sabbath of the OC. This is why the church promoted Sunday “blue laws.” They wanted to force people to stop working on the Sunday Sabbath. This is absurd. Jesus taught the opposite view of the Sabbath.
I believe you should get out of the 18th century and come to the realization that blue laws are a thing of the past and Christians who worship Our Lord on Sunday are not trying to "keep" it with the exception of a very few misguided souls. The one that has it most wrong is you Tom.
The great issue for the last church is this: will they repent and listen to the teachings of Christ and follow them? Or will they make up whatever they want, twisting the scriptures like the Pharisees of old? The Sabbath is a good doctrine to examine, because it shows who is paying attention to the Word and who is not. The latter will not be saved.
Well now isn't that a chunk of judgment. How about leaving it up to our Savior who will or will not not be saved. If, in fact, some will not be saved because they twist scripture, you fit into that category like a glove.
Offline
Tom said: First off, all these Christian schools are full of false doctrine and worthless tradition. Neither the students nor the professors know the genuine Gospel, including the SDA schools. So who care what they say? It’s all a bunch of double talk, tradition, and nonsense.
Yes Bob2, all ministry, except what Tom teaches, is false and tradition. Tom is the only one who has it figured out. It is either Tom's way or the highway. This smacks of cultism. Kinda reminds me of David Koresh doesn't it.
Offline
Bob said: This only shows how misguided people can get once they start conjecturing. The Levite priesthood were allowed to "work" on Sabbath in the Temple. There is nothing in scripture that would allow them to work in any other employment nor is there any scripture that would allow them to play on the Sabbath.
Tom said: So Jesus is “misguided” about the Sabbath? He is the one that came up with this point about the Levites and the Sabbath to defend his new view about an active Sabbath. Not Tom Norris. So what is left to conjecture? That he fulfilled and abolished the Sabbath? This is total conjecture and fiction.
How sad that the NCT crowd is so arrogant as to challenge the very words of Christ about his reformed Sabbath. Why do they hate the teachings of Christ so much?
Why do they even pretend to be Christians? They are no such thing. They do not know nor care what Jesus really teaches, they are truly blind and naked by choice, just as Christ says.
Bob said: Of course you (Tom) miss the larger picture in that the law, which included Sabbath law, was abrogated at the Cross. We are now under Jesus law of Love. See Col 2, Matt 5:17-19, 2Cor 3:7-12, 1Jn 3:21-24
Tom said: The “No Sabbath” crowd claims that the “law of love” has abolished the Sabbath.
Too bad such a phrase does not exist in the Bible. And neither does their twisted theory called NCT. There is no such passage as they claim, and neither is there any place where Jesus was supposed to “fulfill” the Sabbath and then abolish it.
It should clear to all, that NCT is fiction; blatant disinformation and blasphemy. The “large picture” that they claim is so true,- does not exist. They are great liars and false shepherds.
There is a NC “Law of Christ” and an OC “Law of God,” and both contain a doctrine of the Sabbath. Another way to say the same thing is the NC “Commandments of Christ” and the OC "Commandments of God." But there is no “law of love.” It is just a made up phrase for made up doctrines.
1Cor. 9:21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.
Gal. 6:2 Bear one another’s burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ.
1Cor. 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.
John 14:15 “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.
John 14:21 “He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him.”
John 15:10 “If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.
1Th. 4:2 For you know what commandments we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus.
NCT is very much like the heresy of Gnosticism. They too made things up, even as they refused to embrace the Gospels as the genuine words of Christ. Anyone who embraces such a false hermeneutic is not following the genuine Christ.
There is no such thing as the “law of love.” There is no such doctrine or phrase in the Bible. It is an invented phrase; made up theology by religious blowhards, put forth by those that cannot bring themselves to repent and be saved. Let all beware of those that that are so very dishonest and incompetent with the Word. They are false teachers, exposed as such for all to see.
Bob said: I believe you (Tom) should get out of the 18th century and come to the realization that blue laws are a thing of the past and Christians who worship Our Lord on Sunday are not trying to "keep" it with the exception of a very few misguided souls. The one that has it most wrong is you Tom.
Tom said: Billions of church members have met every week on Sunday (or Sat) for a reason. The church has been doing this since its beginning. Moreover, there are any number of explanations from all denominations that try to explain how this practice should be observed and why. To deny this empirical fact, and pretend there is no doctrine of the Christian Sabbath is beyond absurd.
It is delusional to pretend that Christ does not teach a NC Sabbath for the Church. Why refute what Christ so clearly teaches in all four Gospels? And what the church has been trying to follow for so many centuries?
Bob, we all need to better understand the 1st century teachings of Christ, including what he teaches about wine and the Sabbath and the Judgment. This is the real point.
The post apostolic church quickly misunderstood the NC Sabbath, which is why Sunday became the Sabbath, and the law of the land.
In America, the authorities also forced people to rest on the 1st Day, starting in 1617. There are still many such laws in place today.
Blue laws in America- 1617
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Contro … 80608.html
While the SDA’s are wrong to think that Sunday laws will have anything to do with the start of the time of trouble, they are not wrong to insist that only the 7th day can be the NC Sabbath. Nor are they wrong to teach that the Sabbath will play a role in the final Gospel proclamation to the world in Rev 18.
Bob replied to Tom’s point about the last church needing to repent. Bob does not believe this point.
Bob said: Well now isn't that a chunk of judgment. How about leaving it up to our Savior who will or will not be saved. If, in fact, some will not be saved because they twist scripture, you fit into that category like a glove.
Tom said: This “judgment” comes from Christ. His words are clear for those whose ears are tuned to the Gospel.
Since when does the NCT crowed even care what Jesus says? They don’t know what he teaches about the Judgment any more than they do about his Reformed Sabbath or drinking wine.
The Gospels are unknown documents for them, too deep for their damaged brains to comprehend. So they embrace many false assumptions, even as they attack those who know the facts.
Jesus demands that all in the last church, meaning every person and every denomination, understand their horrible situation and repent. They must understand that they are blind to the genuine Gospel and full of false doctrine and worthless works.
I agree with this pre-advent judgment of the last church. I also admit that I had a false view of the law and the Gospel, as well as the Sabbath and tithe and food laws, and eschatology, etc. I fully admit that I was wrong and that I had been instructed by the SDA’s to believe a long list of errors, for which I repent.
Every SDA is going to have to repent before they can go forward and embrace the true Gospel and genuine Sabbath of Christ. So too everyone else from whatever denomination they hail. This is what the genuine Christ teaches. Those who truly follow him, will understand.
There are only two basic types of Laodiceans; Those who admit they have false doctrine and repent, and those that refuse to repent, thinking their views valid. I am in the first category’ you are in the second. The latter are not represented in Rev 18.
Rev. 18:1 After these things I saw another angel coming down from heaven, having great authority, and the earth was illumined with his glory.
Those in Laodicea, who refuse to follow the genuine Christ of the Gospels, will not go forward to prepare for the 2nd Coming of Christ. They will not join with those who have repented and who are shown proclaiming the original Gospel of Christ, complete with wine drinking and an active, reformed, 7th day Sabbath.
Bob said with disdain and sarcasm: Yes Bob2, all ministry, except what Tom teaches, is false and tradition.
Tom said: Ha! Spoken like someone that cannot bring themselves to admit they are wrong,- and repent.
Also spoken like someone who is unable to defend their many false doctrines. So all they have left is worthless and snide remarks, combined with made up phrases like the “law of love.” They act like spoiled children, unable and unwilling to be corrected. Nothing will please them.
Luke 7:32 “They are like children who sit in the market place and call to one another, and they say, ‘We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not weep.’
It is Christ, speaking directly to the last church, the Laodicean church, that declares every church and denomination to be blind and naked, full of false doctrine and worthless tradition. Don’t shoot the messenger.
I agree.
Thus I am pointing to the Sabbath doctrine as but one example that proves Jesus Pre-Advent Judgment correct. Today, there is NOT ONE denomination that teaches the NC Sabbath correctly, including the SDA’s. This stunning fact cannot be refuted, least of all by the confused and dishonest NCT crowd. Their view of the Sabbath is one of the worst around. It is built on hermeneutical fraud, and by closing their eyes to the Gospel teachings of Christ.
Rev. 3:14 “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this:
Rev. 3:15 ‘I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot.
Rev. 3:16 ‘So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth.
Rev. 3:17 ‘Because you say, “I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,” and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked,
Those who think they are smarter than Christ, are free to spin his words anyway they want, and believe whatever they want. Many will do this. But for those that take the Gospel seriously, and want Eternal Life, they must pay close attention to what the real Christ teaches.
It is clear that many will not do this. Not about wine, or the Sabbath, tithe, or anything. They are spiritually blind and naked for all to see. They will be lost, even though they arrogantly and foolishly think they are following Jesus and Paul and thus will be saved.
2Tim. 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires,
2Tim. 4:4 and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.
So mock this Gospel discussion all you want, but it changes nothing. Any in the church that refuse to repent of their many false doctrines, whether it be about wine, the Sabbath, or the Judgment, will not be saved. It is a very simple concept that should not be misunderstood.
2Pet. 3:3 Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts,
Not only does Peter predict that mockers will proliferate at the end of time, he also teaches that many will also misuse the writings of Paul. Taking his words out of context in order to defend their own false views. The NCT crowd have become expert as such stunts. But they have been caught for all to see.
2Pet. 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up.
2Pet. 3:11 Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness,
2Pet. 3:12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat!
2Pet. 3:13 But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.
2Pet. 3:14 Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless,
2Pet. 3:15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,
2Pet. 3:16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
2Pet. 3:17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness,
2Pet. 3:18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.
Those growing in the Gospel, who have the Spirit of Christ, will come to better understand the teachings of Christ. They will not be “carried away by error”.
Rather they will remain steadfast in the Word, not allowing it to be “distorted” and twisted by false teachers. Thus, for all that are honestly following Christ, they will come to understand the truth about wine as well as the Sabbath, the Judgment, as well as tithe and all Gospel doctrine.
Bob said: Tom is the only one who has it figured out. It is either Tom's way or the highway. This smacks of cultism. Kinda reminds me of David Koresh doesn't it.
Tom said: We all stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before. Tom Norris is not teaching original doctrine, but what has been written down from ancient times. The active and reformed 7th day Sabbath of Christ is a 1st century doctrine, recorded in all four Gospels.
The fact that the Gospel Sabbath has been lost for a long time is beside the point. Furthermore, the recent clarity of this doctrine could not have taken place without the theological witness of Dr. Ford. He is the one that “figured out” that the Gospel Sabbath was the 7th day, even as he also figured out that Traditional Adventism was full of legalistic error and false doctrine.
Had the SDA’s paid attention to Dr. Ford, they would be much nearer to understanding the Gospel today. This includes all those that left, as well as the many that fell into the NCT trap.
As for wine, it has always been fermented. Everyone in the world has known this for thousands of years, except a few uneducated legalists. So my position, while shocking to the uneducated and cultic, is ancient truth. It is not new.
In conclusion, Christ teaches that only 25% that hear the Gospel will understand it and find Eternal Life. The rest, a full 75%, will not be able to grasp the Words of Christ. Sad.
Mark 4:3 “Listen to this! Behold, the sower went out to sow;
So be it. People prove this point every day, including all those like Bob1 and Bob2 who cannot hear the voice of the Good Shepherd, nor comprehend his Gospel Sabbath. Sad.
Mark 4:23 “If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.”
Tom Norris, for the genuine Gospel, and the 25% that will embrace it…
Offline
Tom, I know you mean well, but believe me I can read between your lines and you have a way of translating scripture and then try to sell it as gospel. For instance you take Mark 4 and translate that into 25% of the people who hear the Gospel will receive it. How could you possibly translate that chapter as meaning 25%? Doing that sort of thing makes you look more than foolish. You take Jesus words else ware and translate those words as meaning we now have a new covenant Sabbath. Sorry, but I have never seen those verses that change the Sabbath, in any way, over into the new covenant. I don't see where Jesus gave any hint of any change relating to Sabbath. If you see something I don't I am sure you have garnered all the scripture that pertains to all the change and would be glad to present the information in a precise package, without commentary, for all to see and judge.
I noticed in your post to me that you completely ignored the scripture I presented as to why I believe the New Testament is not promoting the old or new covenant Sabbath. Was it because you think those scriptures do not have true meaning and should be ignored? Is it that you are so hell bent on your theory that you will not recognize anyone else's Bible thoughts?
Also, you are on the wine kick. I could care less if the wine we drink for communion is any percent alcoholic. Along with the Sabbath it is not salvational. You seem to continue to make mountains out of mole hills, too bad.l
Offline
Check out the "Allexperts" profile: Tom Norris, Matt, Kendra Perry, Glenn Hansen, Anthony, Dennis Wicklund, Sal and Dave L Clark. http://www.allexperts.com/ep/2318-70484 … Norris.htm
Offline
if you ask me who I nominated for expert of the month. Tom Norris is the man because he is Knowledgeable and knows what he's talking about. I have been checking him out since 2007. I'll say, he's pretty good at answering questions.
Offline
I.Miller, your comfort with Tom Norris is not backed by the Word of God, and his speak is nasty and "blast to hell" all that differ with him even if the item is a debateable matter. You are easily pacified, Miller. Use the Word of God and not what appears to be right. By his fruits you will know him. I think he gives the wrong impression with his pseudoReform Seventhday Adventist position. The ones that know the truth will take Tom with a grain of salt, the wise ones with look more closely at what he says. Beware of Tom's threats and damn them to hell speech. It is hardly the spirit of Christians and hardly follows the direct reading of the Bible. EGW goes one way, Norris goes another and the Truth goes another. I don't damn him to hell as he does of those that differ with him, but state my belief and let the Bible clarify the matter. The Bible cautions too many times of not judging others. Norris gives the wrong impression to those not aware of SDAs. I was born one and know when Norris gets in the tall weeds.
Last edited by bob_2 (12-30-11 2:29 am)
Offline
if you ask me who I nominated for expert of the month. Tom Norris is the man because he is Knowledgeable and knows what he's talking about. I have been checking him out since 2007. I'll say, he's pretty good at answering questions.
Hi I, it is very easy to be taken in by someone who strongly voices opinions. Look at all the Mormons and JWs. Before being taken in by anyone do the homework. Like P. T. Barnum once said: "There's a sucker born every minute". A certain number of people will fall for anything. There are millions of people with a bunch of bull like Tom. One that comes to mind is our current president.
Offline
Bob2 said: Tom, I know you mean well, but believe me I can read between your lines and you have a way of translating scripture and then try to sell it as gospel.
Tom said: Bob, you do not understand the Gospel, nor do you want to admit this fact so you can repent and learn.
Bob2 said: For instance you take Mark 4 and translate that into 25% of the people who hear the Gospel will receive it.
Tom said: First off, you are complaining about the wrong point. You should have complained that you were placed in the wrong category, the unsaved group.
Second, Jesus is the one that made four categories of those who heard the Gospel, with only one of them representing those that are saved. That is not my “translation.” That is what Jesus taught.
Mark 4:3 “Listen to this! Behold, the sower went out to sow;
Mark 4:4 as he was sowing, some seed fell beside the road, and the birds came and ate it up.
Mark 4:5 “Other seed fell on the rocky ground where it did not have much soil; and immediately it sprang up because it had no depth of soil.
Mark 4:6 “And after the sun had risen, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away.
Mark 4:7 “Other seed fell among the thorns, and the thorns came up and choked it, and it yielded no crop.
Mark 4:8 “Other seeds fell into the good soil, and as they grew up and increased, they yielded a crop and produced thirty, sixty, and a hundredfold.”
Mark 4:9 And He was saying, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”
The Jews understood numbers, and so too did Jesus. The fact that you are not paying close attention to Jesus is the real problem.
When Jesus says: “Listen to this!— you need to “listen” and “hear” his Gospel words. It is clear that you have not been doing this. Otherwise you would not be so unfamiliar with his teachings.
Jesus teaches that only 25% that hear the Gospel, will be saved. This is the “few” that Jesus speaks about even as the “many” represent 75%. But not everyone can understand this simple equation. Most, like you, will not understand. This is exactly what Jesus teaches, and thus you are fulfilling his words for all to see.
Luke 8:10 And He said, “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest it is in parables, so that SEEING THEY MAY NOT SEE, AND HEARING THEY MAY NOT UNDERSTAND.
Luke 8:11 “Now the parable is this: the seed is the word of God.
Luke 8:12 “Those beside the road are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart, so that they will not believe and be saved.
Luke 8:13 “Those on the rocky soil are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no firm root; 1they believe for a while, and in time of temptation fall away.
Luke 8:14 “The seed which fell among the thorns, these are the ones who have heard, and as they go on their way they are choked with worries and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to maturity.
Luke 8:15 “But the seed in the good soil, these are the ones who have heard the word in an honest and good heart, and hold it fast, and bear fruit with perseverance.
Let us all strive to be part of the “honest” and “perseverant” 25%.
Bob2 asked: How could you possibly translate that chapter as meaning 25%?
Tom said: How could you not? The Bible is full of numbers, and math. God even numbers all the stars and Jesus teaches, “the very hairs of our heads are all numbered.” So why not expect some numbers about the Gospel?
Psa. 147:4 He counts the number of the stars;
He gives names to all of them.
Matt. 10:30 “But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
The second book of the Bible is called “Numbers” for a reason; it is full of numbers and people counts. It is the census of Israel. So why is it hard to understand Jesus teachings about the numbers associated with those who embrace the Gospel?
Num. 1:2 “Take a census of all the congregation of the sons of Israel, by their families, by their fathers’ households, according to the number of names, every male, head by head
Bob2 said: Doing that sort of thing makes you look more than foolish.
Tom said: For the 25% that understand the Gospel, and pay attention to Jesus teaching, it is you, the 75% that looks foolish.
Matt. 7:26 “Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand.
Bob2 said: You take Jesus words else ware and translate those words as meaning we now have a new covenant Sabbath. Sorry, but I have never seen those verses that change the Sabbath, in any way, over into the new covenant. I don't see where Jesus gave any hint of any change relating to Sabbath.
Tom said: For those that are paying attention to Christ, it is obvious that he teaches a NC Sabbath. Which is why the church has always had a weekly Sabbath from the very beginning. The fact that it became Sunday and forced people to rest is beside the point.
The Reformed Sabbath
http://www.atomorrow.net/fluxbb/viewtopic.php?id=228
Again, only 25% of people are going to understand the Gospel and embrace Jesus as their teacher and doctrinal guide. Those in the majority, the 75%, will not understand the Gospel or the Gospel Sabbath. This is normative. They do not have eyes to see nor ears to hear the Gospel.
Bob2 said: If you see something I don't, I am sure you have garnered all the scripture that pertains to all the change and would be glad to present the information in a precise package, without commentary, for all to see and judge.
Tom said: The threads on this site are preserved for all to read and judge.
Bob2 said: I noticed in your post to me that you completely ignored the scripture I presented as to why I believe the New Testament is not promoting the old or new covenant Sabbath. Was it because you think those scriptures do not have true meaning and should be ignored? Is it that you are so hell bent on your theory that you will not recognize anyone else's Bible thoughts?
Tom said: We need to get back on the Reformed Sabbath Thread, this one is about wine.
Bob2 said: Also, you are on the wine kick.
Tom said: I am on a “Gospel Kick.” Those who are serious about the teachings of Christ, must study to understand what he teaches about all things, big and little, --including how the Lord’s Supper should be observed, which is an important matter.
Those who are too lazy, busy, or naive to understand the teachings of Christ, will be wrong about many points, not just one.
Luke 16:10 “He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous also in much.
Bob2 said: I could care less if the wine we drink for communion is any percent alcoholic. Along with the Sabbath it is not salvational. You seem to continue to make mountains out of mole hills, too bad.
Tom said: Your own words condemn you. Those who “could care less” about what Jesus teaches about the Eucharist, or the Sabbath, or anything, have sealed their fate in the wrong direction. They are part of the “many” (75%) that will not be saved.
John 10:27 “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;
John 18:37 Therefore Pilate said to Him, “So You are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.”
Rev. 3:20 ‘Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.
Mark 4:9 And He was saying, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”
Tom Norris for Adventist Reform
Offline
Tom, one again you skirt every issue. You may think you are slick, but in reality you know you are not or you would have admitted that 25% isn't in the quoted verses. There may have been 40% in one category, 30% in one 22% in one and 8% in one. Jesus didn't say, so how can you know. See what I mean, you are not reliable.
I just read http://www.atomorrow.net/fluxbb/viewtopic.php?id=228 and you do not quote one verse in the whole post. Until you prove your NC Sabbath with scripture from Jesus it is nothing but meaningless theory.
I do apologize for dis-railing the thread. Stuff happens and I need to pay closer attention.
Offline