Word of God.
The former is unorthodox and disavows Christ.
By obeying His words?
The latter is fully acceptable.
According to whom?
He died so that I didn't have to be a legalist.
Right. He didn't die for you to disregard His commandments.
He died so that I don't have to sacrifice sheep, goats, and turtle doves.
Right. He did this willingly.
He died so that I could realize that it isn't what I eat but what I say that defiles me.
And it appears that what you say denies the word of God.
You missed the symbolism. Give it another go.
Look, if Christians wish to ignore the "good advice" that God gives us in his word they are free to do so. That's what freedom of choice is all about. But I'm certainly puzzled because where does the Bible say that man shall live by only half of the words that come from God's mouth?
Why not? Because it is a baseless question. I'm not going to waste time when an alternative as I did show is so easily shown. Your False Dichotomy is illogical and void.
Baseless question? I just want to know that if you choose to ignore God's good advice regarding pork and shrimp why not go all the way?
There is a reason we don't eat Kentucky Fried Raven.
St. Paul disagrees with you. He's in Scripture. I'll take God's Revelation over SDA man-made doctrine.
Where does Paul ever adovocate eating "common" animals?
He's talking about the inside, not the outside.
Why all this Gnostic/Manichean stuff?
No, He is talking about the "outside." Garments and clothing are always seen as righteousness in the scriptures. Always.
Gnostic? Is this a "mystery" to you?
It doesn't matter now; the Sabbath is out and Christ is in! Alleluia!
But the question is are we "in Christ" when we disobey Him?
That's an unhistoric interpretation of Scripture. I'll take what has always been believed than the ideas of men well over 2,000 years later.
That was the heart of the problem in the recounting of the Gospels. Man's tradition versus the Truth of the Word.
Which Commandments did Christ quote from? You accuse me of not answering questions and I've asked that one of you a few times now.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
You asked me no question but made an empirical statement.
And yet, look what Christ did quote of the Ten. Ahhhh, fulfilled, but antinomianism, Christ made clear, was no means absolved. He had to be the Living Torah, but He took place of the ritual because HE IS THE RITUAL.
I just want to know what rituals were "fulfilled" in the TC that's all.
Fallacy of Gross Generalization. Again, an illogical and void statement that is contrary to what I have said here and in other places. It isn't worth considering.
Yes, I know...it is a tough question to consider.
Exactly; because they were legalists. They cared about the ritual/holiness laws more than social and moral ones. That is why Isaiah told them to start caring for orphans and widows (social), to give just one example.
And yet, never once did Christ abolish any of the laws they so zealously and incorrectly followed - He told them there "traditions" were to be done away with, not the law.
Their hands were bloodied the same reason why SDA doctrine denies the Messianic Nature of Christ; legalism.
You know, you make alot of claims that have no basis in fact and are unnecessary. Unless you begin to back up your claims you should not make any statements about what SDA's teach or believe.
St. Paul said that God never actually thought eating pork was wrong. He did command it of them however so as to be a Light to the world.
Fortunately for us, Paul never said such a thing. If God never thought eating swine was wrong why did He command it not be eaten or touched?
So it is both the Jews' fault, but St. Paul makes it clear that the Law, in the way that they took it, condemned them. So in that sense, yes; the Law as legalism too.
I can assure you there was no problem with the law, only the people. Paul calls the law Holy and the commandment Holy, just and good.
Rom 7:12 Wherefore the law [is] holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
Without commenting on specific points, ever took a look at the New Testament? Or perhaps Canon Law?
Yes, I have. Many times. In that the NT wasn't complied for nearly 300 years after the death of Christ what was to guide the people?
2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
"All scripture...."
Meat isn't traditionally allowed during Lent. Yet fish is. Been that way for a long, long, LONG time.
Fish isn't canonically meat.
Fish is "scriptural."
It stands, firm and stronger than ever.
Last request. You stated I said something that I did not, nor have ever said on this thread. Please retract your statement or provide verifiable proof of your assertions.
More Gross Generalizations. Null and void.
Legitimate questions that you cannot, nor will not answer.
**Points to a Vatican Catholic** Christian? Follows the New Covenant?
**Points to an Anglican** Same two questions.
**Points to other Apostolics; EOs, OCs, OOs** Well?
**Points to Methodists and Wesleyans** Are they?
**Points to Evangelical Protestants** Well?!
**Points to Lutherans and Moravians** According to you...
**Points to Mainstream Protestants and all other Nicene/Non-Sabbatarian/Non-Legalist categories** ...they aren't!
If any would rather follow man's tradition than the word of God then there are not part of the new covenant, it's as simple as that.
Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Where was He referring to the plan of salvation?
