Is the OT Law still in effect?

[Son of Israel]

I have a Redeemer Who has promised "Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more" for a good reason. We need it, while those remaining under the law remain "guilty before God" as Romans 3:19 says they do.

I just realized that BrightCandle has nearly 4 times as many posts here as I do, and yet I have been given 400 times more reputation points in my shorter tenure here. That's a massive difference in peer review that cannot be ignored.
I suspect that a large part of this is because BrightCandle doesn't respond to the posts written for him; he accuses everyone and doesn't write anything compliant with the Bible's narrative describing the Gospel (the real one).

Ellen White was guilty of that practice as well, and wrote that she closed her door against Biblical scholarship for 50 years.

Remove the modifier in a key sentence Ellen wrote, and her message comes through clearly:

That's Adventism in a nutshell.

Yep, sad huh. most of what he speaks doesn't even make sense, it's like a private religion gone cancerous. Time to move on.
Best wishes Victor!

 

[BrightCandle]

Yesterday you claimed to trust in the Bible - now today you rely on Bible commentators (who are theologians) for your doctrine. Who's doing the twisting now?

You will find the idea of the creation sabbath origin codified in the Westminster Confession, which is accepted by the Methodist church. Ellen Harmon (later White) was raised in that environment prior to being ejected from that church over her Millerite fanaticism. Where did you get the idea that the sabbath originated at creation?

You got it from a terrible group of theologians.
You did not get it from the Bible.

• The Genesis account doesn't record a repetitive day observed by any human.
• Exodus 20:11 clearly delineates the seventh day apart from the sabbath, using the same sentence structure Deuteronomy 5:15 does to refer to a single event in the past to ordain the shadow.
• Hebrews 4 calls the seventh day of creation God's "My rest" that remained to be attained by a people who were already observing the sabbath.
• Moses testifies that the ten commandments were unknown to the generation previous to his own in Deuteronomy 5:2-3, and lists the sabbath as a memorial of deliverance from Egyptian bondage in Deuteronomy 5:15.
• Nehemiah 9:13-14 attributes the origin of the sabbath with Moses.

Reliance on the Bible alone will cause you to recognize that the seventh day is consistently handled as a separate subject apart from the sabbath, which didn't originate until "made for man" much later. The sabbath was man's rest, and the seventh day was God's rest, that those who had kept the sabbath for nearly 1500 years didn't attain (Hebrews 4).

Among the quotes I provided was Romans 7:6-7, which proclaims that we have been delivered from the law, and then quotes "You shall not covet" from Exodus 20:17 and Deuteronomy 5:21 to identify the ten commandments as "the law" we have been delivered from.

There is no "moral" vs "ceremonial" division in the law, and you won't find "You shall not covet" contained anywhere but in the ten commandments.

You failed to acknowledge that the rest to be attained was referred to as "another day" (Hebrews 4:8) that living under the sabbath for nearly 1500 years failed to provide.

And yes, Hebrews describes the end of the sabbath. Hebrews 10:1-9 shows that God had no pleasure in all the rites that mandated burnt offerings, and verse 9 explains that the Hand of Jesus Christ took away the first covenant in order to establish the second covenant.

That passage does a double-whammy on the sabbath, Brightcandle.

The sabbath day required the burnt offering of two lambs above and beyond the daily oblation (Numbers 28:9-10), and the sabbath ordinance was contained in the ten commandments, which was the first covenant that was taken away. God ended all ordinances that required the burnt offerings, including the sabbath.

Perhaps you should try to reconcile that notion with Acts 21, when Jerusalem was set into a riot because of Paul's conversation that was witnessed by others: "This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against the people, the law, and this place" (Acts 21:28).

Luke 24:45 states this event that took place after the resurrection: "He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures".
prior to this, the diciples didn't know that the death of the Testator (Hebrews 9:15-16) initiated the new covenant, and they thought the first covenant's sabbath was still binding.

Actually, He did pronounce the freedom that God's adopted children would enjoy, along with the Creator Who is sovereign over the law created for the servants. I cited Matthew 17:24-26 in my last post - go read it.

Never mind that this point concerning John's vision was refuted in my last post (and the one on the 17th of October you didn't respond to). Never mind you have virtually no comprehension concerning the nature of the Suzerainty covenant God dictated to Israel, of which Moses testified no other nation had (Deuteronomy 4:8), and testified that didn't exist until his own generation (Deuteronomy 5:3). Moses and the Hebrew sages testified that the sabbath didn't exist anywhere outside the covenant they alone had - and you don't accept it.

You prefer to abide by the twisted theologians that fed Ellen White the unBiblical nonsense she in turn fed you.

If you are to return to a claim that the Bible is your authority, then use it instead of appeals to whichever party you think you will get away with next to support a preclusion you have forced upon the Scriptures. Perhaps you didn't know that I was once a sabbatarian within the Messianic Judaism persuasion, and I have had to perform the study to determine when and where the sabbath not only began, but ended as well.

Your turn.
Do the study and provide the Scriptural evidence instead of beating around the bush. The exercise will teach you that the Bible does not support the ideas that you have posted here.

You don't need the Westminster Confession to prove the origins of the Sabbath, it referred to right in the heart of the Exodus 20:8. And God said that, not man. Genesis 2, clearly proves the origin the Sabbath and when it comes to records there were no written records at the dawn of creation, remember God and angels spoke to man face to face, do you really think that they would not know about the Sabbath? What other day would they worship on ? Monday or Wed or Sunday? The fact is that Sabbath was the only day ever mentioned to be made holy by God, so why do you think that it was created and then forgotten for thousands of years? That is ludicrous! Important things spoken by God were past on from generation to generation. The ceremonial law required burnt offerings, but the ceremonial law is not the 10 Commandments. The Sabbath Commandment is what was to be enduring, and as stated in Exodus 20:8, there is no burnt offering requirement, so your reasoning is flawed. Finally, the book of Hebrews and Revelation totally explode your whole premise in that Hebrews proves that Ark of the Covenant was a small model of what is in heaven, therefore when John saw in Revelation 11:19 the Ark of the Covenant in the Most Holy Place in God's Temple, it must have contained the Ten Commandments, and John saw this in the NT time period.

 

[BrightCandle]

Yep, sad huh. most of what he speaks doesn't even make sense, it's like a private religion gone cancerous. Time to move on.
Best wishes Victor!

You cannot understand, because once you reject God's Holy Law, a strong delusion comes over your mind, and you can't see the truth.

 

[tall73]

You cannot understand, because once you reject God's Holy Law, a strong delusion comes over your mind, and you can't see the truth.

Brightcandle, can you please explain whether you think Jesus is talking about

a. the ten commandments only

b. the whole mosaic law

c. the old testament scriptures

when He speaks in Matthew 5?

Thanks.

 

[VictorC]

You misinterpret Romans and Hebrews. Like I said Paul said that the was "holy, just, and good", therefore you must be misinterpreting some of his texts that may be referring to the ceremonial law, not the 10 Commandments.

Please, tell me where the "ceremonial" law contains the phrase "You shall not covet".
Then you can show me where I have misinterpreted Scripture.

No where in the Bible did Jesus ever change the 10 Commandments, you have to quote difficult to interpret texts from Paul's writings to make your case, you have no "smoking gun" Bible that clearly states that the 10 Commandment have been either changed by God or done away with by God. God is the only One who could do not Moses, nor Paul, or any of the other disciples. Why do I say that because Jesus himself wrote them in stone and gave them to Moses. Moses wrote the ceremonial laws, many of which were temporary in nature. However, the 10 Commandments are permanent.

The Finger of God wrote the ten commandments, and the Hand of God took them away, as Hebrew 10:9 states clearly. God retained ownership of the covenant He dictated to Israel, and no one asked you permission for God establishing a new covenant in His Blood.

You also use difficult to understand texts from the book of Hebrews to try and do away with the Sabbath and the other laws making up the 10 Commandments. Did you ever note that it says in those same chapters that you quote that the most of the children of Israel never found God's rest because of disobedience to the 10 Commandments! There history of one of constant rebellion in the form of Sabbath breaking, idol worship, sexual sin, etc., etc. So if ancient Israel sinned by breaking God's why do you think that modern Israel (Christians) can break God's Law and it not be sin?

Well, at least I use texts from the Bible.
Your post is nothing more than opinion, and I note you didn't offer a shred of evidence that the first covenant (the ten commandments) survived God's disposition of it.

Why don't you offer evidence from Scripture, BrightCandle?
At least try, for a change.

 

[VictorC]

You don't need the Westminster Confession to prove the origins of the Sabbath, it referred to right in the heart of the Exodus 20:8.

You didn't even cite the correct verse - you meant Exodus 20:11, which uses the same sentence structure that Deuteronomy 5:15 does - and it establishes the sabbath because of a single event in the past in both cases.

And God said that, not man. Genesis 2, clearly proves the origin the Sabbath

Where? Where does Genesis 2 mention anything at all about the sabbath, or any rest that man participated in?
Don't you read the Bible you claim as an authority?

and when it comes to records there were no written records at the dawn of creation, remember God and angels spoke to man face to face, do you really think that they would not know about the Sabbath?

That is the Biblical record.
Notice that the first time the sabbath existed, it took the children of Israel a couple of attempts to follow the concept, evidence that the sabbath was new to them. You will find that record in Exodus 16, and verse 4 of that chapter even tells you the reason that the sabbath was ordained at that time - it was in relation to the manna, and it tested Israel's readiness for the covenant that was about to be dictated to them at Sinai, the ten commandments.

What other day would they worship on ? Monday or Wed or Sunday?

Where do you see the sabbath referred to as a day of worship?
It mandated a convocation according to Leviticus 23:3, which you have relegated as "ceremonial" law that you have dismissed.

The fact is that Sabbath was the only day ever mentioned to be made holy by God, so why do you think that it was created and then forgotten for thousands of years? That is ludicrous! Important things spoken by God were past on from generation to generation. The ceremonial law required burnt offerings, but the ceremonial law is not the 10 Commandments. The Sabbath Commandment is what was to be enduring, and as stated in Exodus 20:8, there is no burnt offering requirement, so your reasoning is flawed.

False.
Numbers 28:9-10 require a burnt offering above the offering of the daily oblation, and numbers 28:6 states that the oblations were ordained at Sinai.
The burnt offerings are linked to the reason that God was displeased with the sabbath and new moon, according to Isaiah 1:11-14 - and these two rites both have the burnt offerings in common.

Finally, the book of Hebrews and Revelation totally explode your whole premise in that Hebrews proves that Ark of the Covenant was a small model of what is in heaven, therefore when John saw in Revelation 11:19 the Ark of the Covenant in the Most Holy Place in God's Temple, it must have contained the Ten Commandments, and John saw this in the NT time period.

Did you forget (yes) that this was refuted October 17th, and you failed to respond to that? Why is it that you're making the same false claim again once it has been shown to be false?

BrightCandle, your ideas are foreign to the Bible, and anathema to the Gospel.
Your post does not adequately answer anything that I wrote, and your tenor shows that you have rejected Scripture in the same manner that Ellen White wrote that she did. You do realize that you have proven my point when I quoted the false prophet the SDA church claims as it's authority, don't you?

 

[VictorC]

Victor: You must make up your own theology to please your view of things. I have never in all of the thousands of posts that I have read on CF read as spin that you put on God's law! Jesus reply was to clear up any conception that he was trying to do away with God's Law, and in not uncertain terms he told all with in hearing distance that as long as you see heaven and earth God's Law will be there! Your spin makes you look smart, but doesn't make sense at all. It God's Law could have been done away with, then Jesus would not have had to die! Did you ever think about that? But, because mankind had sinned, and broken God's law, Jesus died in our place, so how in the world does that give us freedom to continue in sin by breaking God's Law after we have just repented of breaking it? Your doctrines presents an easy religion that has not accountability to anything except yourself.

This post makes it very clear that you do not know the Gospel of Jesus Christ. You have no idea why Jesus died for our sins.

Hebrews 9:15-16 states the reason why Jesus died:

15 ¶ And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

Without the death of the Testator, there is no such thing as a new covenant, and there would be no such thing as Christianity.

You're living under the first covenant mediated by Moses, which was the ten commandments, for a simple reason: You have rejected the new covenant in the Blood of Jesus Christ. You have rejected His propitiation that completed the law, and so you remain "guilty before God" as Romans 3:19 states that you do.

 

[BrightCandle]

I have a Redeemer Who has promised "Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more" for a good reason. We need it, while those remaining under the law remain "guilty before God" as Romans 3:19 says they do.

I just realized that BrightCandle has nearly 4 times as many posts here as I do, and yet I have been given 400 times more reputation points in my shorter tenure here. That's a massive difference in peer review that cannot be ignored.

The reason for your popularity is because most the CF members have bought into the Jesuit inspired theology called Dispensationalism. And in light of the fact that the majority has always been wrong in the church and outside the church, makes being popular something you don't want to be known for!

 

[BrightCandle]

Did you forget (yes) that this was refuted October 17th, and you failed to respond to that? Why is it that you're making the same false claim again once it has been shown to be false?

[/QUOTE]

You tried to refute the clear texts that I quote, but your refuting was lame and illogical. There is no denying has to what John saw in God's Temple (Rev.11:19), it was the Ark of the Covenant! And what is inside the Ark of the Covenant? The 10 Commandments! And the Ark of the Covenant was located in the Most Holy Place.

 

[VictorC]

Did you forget (yes) that this was refuted October 17th, and you failed to respond to that? Why is it that you're making the same false claim again once it has been shown to be false?

You tried to refute the clear texts that I quote, but your refuting was lame and illogical. There is no denying has to what John saw in God's Temple (Rev.11:19), it was the Ark of the Covenant! And what is inside the Ark of the Covenant? The 10 Commandments! And the Ark of the Covenant was located in the Most Holy Place.

The post I wrote October 17th has been bumped up to the top of the thread more than once, and I stopped doing it when it became evident you were not going to respond to it. That is still the case - you continue to avoid that post. It appeared on the SDA proof text thread, and here is a link to the post you have refused to acknowledge: --> please answer the posts you read, just to prove that you read them <-- That is where your use of Revelation 11:19 was originally refuted.

The ten commandments were a covenant that was made with no other nation or people, just as Moses stated in his rhetorical question found in Deuteronomy 4:8. No one else had or has the ten commandments, and John's vision in Revelation 11:19 is missing the book of the law that was the witness against the people who received the ten commandments. There is no ten commandments inside the ark of God's testimony.

There is the hilasterion Mercyseat, that Adventism doesn't have any interest in.

 

[VictorC]

The reason for your popularity is because most the CF members have bought into the Jesuit inspired theology called Dispensationalism. And in light of the fact that the majority has always been wrong in the church and outside the church, makes being popular something you don't want to be known for!

You love to toss around terms that you evidently have no comprehension regarding the meaning of. You love to accuse the brethren in the same manner that the destroyer does. You love to avoid meaningful discussion in the interest of the Biblical mandate to grow in the unity of the faith (Ephesians 4:11-13).

But what gets me is your claim that Jesuits wrote the Scriptures we appeal to as our final authority. The contents of the Bible were inspired and canonized long before the Jesuits existed, which seems to be a fact you want to ignore.

I don't regard reputation points to be a popularity contest, although they can be used in that way. Rather, I regard them to be the product of a peer review from fellow academics for posts written that reflect Biblical literacy accurately. The disparity between what you have received compared to your fellows with fewer posts is an eye-opener, that reading your posts confirm.

 

[visionary]

Seek ye first the Kingdom of God, then all things will be added unto you.

 

[tall73]

Brightcandle, can you please explain whether you think Jesus is talking about

a. the ten commandments only

b. the whole mosaic law

c. the old testament scriptures

when He speaks in Matthew 5?

...

 

[bbbbbbb]

The reason for your popularity is because most the CF members have bought into the Jesuit inspired theology called Dispensationalism. And in light of the fact that the majority has always been wrong in the church and outside the church, makes being popular something you don't want to be known for!

Your mindset reminds of that of an elderly Christian lady I once knew. After service one Sunday she began a discourse with me concerning the strive in the Middle East (this was in 1975, so things have not changed since then). She summarized her belief by stating that it was entirely the fault of John Darby. I had never heard of this chap and thought him to be probably as great a culprit as Mussolini. I did find out who he was much later and understood that he had as much influence in Middle East politics of the late twentieth century as the Jesuits had on Dispensational theology.

By the way, it is Darby and associates who developed Dispensational theology in the early nineteenth century and onward.

 

[BrightCandle]

Brightcandle, can you please explain whether you think Jesus is talking about

a. the ten commandments only

b. the whole mosaic law

c. the old testament scriptures

when He speaks in Matthew 5?

Thanks.

Jesus mentioned all of the above, but its doesn't take much study to realize that their are different types of laws. Moral, Ceremonial, Civil, and Health. With the moral law, the 10 Commandments as being the highest and most enduring form of Law.

 

[BrightCandle]

Your mindset reminds of that of an elderly Christian lady I once knew. After service one Sunday she began a discourse with me concerning the strive in the Middle East (this was in 1975, so things have not changed since then). She summarized her belief by stating that it was entirely the fault of John Darby. I had never heard of this chap and thought him to be probably as great a culprit as Mussolini. I did find out who he was much later and understood that he had as much influence in Middle East politics of the late twentieth century as the Jesuits had on Dispensational theology.

By the way, it is Darby and associates who developed Dispensational theology in the early nineteenth century and onward.

True, but Darby and his cohorts were greatly influenced by counter reformation books written by Jesuits, that formed the basis of Dispenstionalism.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Darby was influenced by the early Brethern

 

[BrightCandle]

The post I wrote October 17th has been bumped up to the top of the thread more than once, and I stopped doing it when it became evident you were not going to respond to it. That is still the case - you continue to avoid that post. It appeared on the SDA proof text thread, and here is a link to the post you have refused to acknowledge: --> please answer the posts you read, just to prove that you read them <-- That is where your use of Revelation 11:19 was originally refuted.

The ten commandments were a covenant that was made with no other nation or people, just as Moses stated in his rhetorical question found in Deuteronomy 4:8. No one else had or has the ten commandments, and John's vision in Revelation 11:19 is missing the book of the law that was the witness against the people who received the ten commandments. There is no ten commandments inside the ark of God's testimony.

There is the hilasterion Mercyseat, that Adventism doesn't have any interest in.

Just to let you know, I'm not payed to post on this forum, and you are not Pope Victor I, who has the authority to tell other members when and where to post replies. I post when I have the time to do so.

You say that the Ark of the Covenant that Johns saw in vision, did not contain the 10 Commandments, but that is where the Ten Commandments were always kept in the OT tabernacle, so why would they not be in the heavenly? Hebrews clearly says that the earthly articles of furniture were models of the originals in the heavenly. John was shown the other articles in the heavenly sanctuary like the golden candlesticks and the altar of incense (see Rev.4:5;8:3). Therefore, the only logical and rational conclusion is that the God's Holy Law, the 10 Commandments that were written by God's own finger (not Moses), were right where they should be in the Ark. After all who would even think of removing them? Only Satan would want to do that, because he hates God's Law, and wants mankind to continue breaking it, which is sin, which leads to eternal death.

 

[BrightCandle]

You love to toss around terms that you evidently have no comprehension regarding the meaning of. You love to accuse the brethren in the same manner that the destroyer does. You love to avoid meaningful discussion in the interest of the Biblical mandate to grow in the unity of the faith (Ephesians 4:11-13).

But what gets me is your claim that Jesuits wrote the Scriptures we appeal to as our final authority. The contents of the Bible were inspired and canonized long before the Jesuits existed, which seems to be a fact you want to ignore.

I don't regard reputation points to be a popularity contest, although they can be used in that way. Rather, I regard them to be the product of a peer review from fellow academics for posts written that reflect Biblical literacy accurately. The disparity between what you have received compared to your fellows with fewer posts is an eye-opener, that reading your posts confirm.

My answer to you is: Truth is not popular, lies are! (And I would like to know who are the "academics" who are posting on the threads in question?)

I never claimed that the Jesuits wrote the Scriptures. Several Jesuits were instrumental in writing books that countered the efforts and theology of the Protestant Reformers. Copied below are the details:


THE JESUIT'S COUNTER INTERPRETATIONS

"The Society of Jesus was established by the papacy in 1540 as a very special ‘fighting unit' at the total and exclusive disposal of the Roman Pope. From their beginnings, the Jesuits were conceived in a military mode. Soldiers of Christ, they were given only two purposes: to propagate the religious doctrine and the moral law of the Roman Catholic Church as proposed and taught by the Roman Pope." (The Jesuits, page 41, Malachi Martin)

Their first job was to counter the Reformation. They must, by plausible exposition of Scripture break the unbroken harmony of the reformers positions.

Interestingly enough, they came up with two alternatives that were actually conflicting and contradicting each other, yet the Catholic Church sanctioned both! So much for truth! What they did achieve was to push the prophecies away from the papacy.

Through the Jesuits Ribera, of Spain and Bellarmine, of Rome came the Futurist interpretation. This interpretation leaps over the immense era of papal dominance, and crowds the antichrist prophecies into the far distant future.

THE JESUIT RIBERA'S FUTURIST COUNTER INTERPRETATIONS

Jesuit Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) " assigned the first few chapters of the Apocalypse to ancient Rome, in John's own time; the rest he restricted to a literal three and a half years' reign of an infidel Antichrist, who would bitterly oppose and blaspheme the saints just before the second advent. He taught that Antichrist would be a single individual, who would rebuild the temple in Jerusalem, abolish the Christian religion, deny Christ, be received by the Jews, pretend to be God, and conquer the world--all in this brief space of three and one-half literal years!" (Prophetic Faith Vol.2 p. 490)

Here we see that Ribera "laid the foundation for the great structure of Futurism...and then, wonder of wonders, in the nineteenth century this Jesuit scheme of interpretation came to be adopted by a growing number of Protestants, until today Futurism, amplified and adorned with the rapture theory, has become the generally accepted belief of the Fundamentalist wing of popular Protestantism!" (Prophetic Faith Vol. 2 p. 493) How could Protestantism forsake it's main foundation of prophetic interpretation and adopt a Jesuit counterfeit? How did this happen?

THE JESUIT BELLARMINE'S COUNTER INTERPRETATIONS

There was also (Saint) Robert Bellarmine, Jesuit, cardinal and theologian who, as an outstanding controversialist opposing the Protestant doctrines of the Reformation, was regarded by the Roman Catholic Church as one of its most powerful defenders. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1560....He was a lecturer at the new Jesuit College in Rome.

Between 1576 and 1589, in addition to his teaching Bellarmine lectured to large audiences. He insisted that the prophecies concerning Antichrist in Daniel, Paul and John, had no application to the papal power. This formed the third part of his "Disputations de Controversiis Christianae Fidei Adversus Huius Temporis Haereticos" published between 1581-1593.

Bellarmine's assault on the Protestant interpretations of prophecy was centered upon the year-day principle which stood at the base of the historic interpretation of prophecy and had risen to general notice and wide acceptance among both Catholics and Protestants. He went out of his way to do this.

Determined to nullify the day = year prophetic principle, used by Protestants as the basis of the 1260 year period of Antichrist's tyranny, he sought to deprive this symbol of its Scriptural support. He came up with the argument that Ezekiel 4 was in reverse, that is saying a year = a day, when in actuality Ezekiel's acted out prophecy was in days and symbolized years.

Ballarmine was very methodical as he dissected the Protestant position, his works fill nine ponderous folio tomes, attacking the standard prophecies pertaining to Antichrist.

Ballarmine capitalized on Luther's weakness. Luther had declared the Bible as the source for truth, yet Luther was selective in what he considered inspired in the Bible. Luther rejected the book of Revelation. "There is too much lacking in this book to call it apostolic or prophetic," he had written in the preference to his first edition of the new Testament. Zwingli made the same mistake in interpreting prophecy. He too refused to recognize the Revelation as apostolic. Now the Jesuit Ballarmine posed himself as the defender of the Bible against the Reformers who, he declared had rejected it. He then shaped the Revelation to fit the futurist view, thereby by- passing the whole Christian era and the real antichrist.

Actually Ballarmine assigned the apocalyptic symbols to the distant past and the distant future. Antichrist, according to him, had not yet come, for he would abolish the daily sacrifice— or the Eucharist (daily mass) and would reign for three and a half literal years.

Bellarmine maintained that the little horn of Daniel 7 as well as the end power in Daniel 11 was a single king--who like Antiochus— would take away three kings and subdue seven other to himself, who, he contends, would therefore be one man only, and not a kingdom. Antiochus was a figure or symbol of the Antichrist of the last days.

THE JESUIT ALCASAR'S PRETERIST COUNTER INTERPRETATIONS

On the flip side of the Counter Reformation was another Jesuit. Jesuit Luis De Alcazar, or Alcasar (1554-1613) of Seville Spain.

Alcasar advanced the Preterist interpretation. He made all prophecy stop short of the papal domination. He maintained that the apocalypse describes the war of the church in the early centuries. Partly between the Jews and their adversaries and then the Church and paganism. Revelation 1-11 he applied to the rejection of the Jews and the desolation of Jerusalem by the Romans. Revelation 12-19 Alcazar allotted to the overthrow of Roman paganism and the conversion of the empire to the church, the judgment of the great Harlot being effected by the downfall of pagan idolatry. Revelation 20 he applied to the final persecution by Antichrist and chapters 21 referring to the New Jerusalem he made descriptive of the glorious and endless triumphant state of the Roman church. ( See Prophetic Faith vol 2 p. 507)

The three Jesuits who worked most effectively to overthrow the Protestant understanding of prophecy, and whose theories are now (in modified forms) almost universally accepted are:

Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) From Italy.
Jesuit Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) of Salamanca Spain
Jesuit Luis De Alcazar, or Alcasar (1554-1613) of Seville Spain.

 

[VictorC]

Just to let you know, I'm not payed to post on this forum, and you are not Pope Victor I, who has the authority to tell other members when and where to post replies. I post when I have the time to do so.

My issue isn't concerning the frequency of your posts, but rather the content. For the most part you do not respond to the material that is presented to you.
And, in case this eludes you, I don't think anyone is being paid to post here.

You say that the Ark of the Covenant that Johns saw in vision, did not contain the 10 Commandments, but that is where the Ten Commandments were always kept in the OT tabernacle, so why would they not be in the heavenly? Hebrews clearly says that the earthly articles of furniture were models of the originals in the heavenly. John was shown the other articles in the heavenly sanctuary like the golden candlesticks and the altar of incense (see Rev.4:5;8:3). Therefore, the only logical and rational conclusion is that the God's Holy Law, the 10 Commandments that were written by God's own finger (not Moses), were right where they should be in the Ark. After all who would even think of removing them? Only Satan would want to do that, because he hates God's Law, and wants mankind to continue breaking it, which is sin, which leads to eternal death.

Did you read the post that I linked? I didn't think so.

The ten commandments were not a part of the tabernacle Moses was commissioned to build, as I had pointed out to you. I had also pointed out several times that the ten commandments were a covenant dictated solely to one group of people, and Moses confirms that in Deuteronomy 4:8. No other people had the covenant comprised by the ten commandments, and that relationship extends to outer space as well as the earth.
I had also pointed out that John's vision of the heavenly temple doesn't have a division inside of it, or "apartments" in typical SDA terminology. The event of moving from one "apartment" to another in 1844 was a fabrication that places the Investigative Judgment outside of the claim of inspiration.

You don't acknowledge that the Bible clearly explains the ten commandments as a temporal covenant that has both a beginning and an end that can be identified, and it also had a limited jurisdiction. Something with those qualities is the antithesis of eternal. And, 1 Timothy 1:9 tells us that "that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless", and it has no purpose existing in heaven where righteousness dwells.

There is no evidence that the ten commandments were copied in heaven, and plenty of evidence to suggest that your idea is flat wrong. God took away the first covenant with His own Hand (Hebrews 10:9), which is every bit as authoritative as writing that covenant onto two stone tablets with His fingers. It is called "the ministry of death" in 2 Corinthians 3:7, and that same chapter goes on to explain how that covenant was abolished, and there is no other component of the law that was written onto tables of stone other than the ten commandments. "Abolished" decrees the end of what you had considered to be eternal, and demonstrates that it was not. Moses testified that the ten commandments didn't exist before his generation in Deuteronomy 5:2-3 (making Ellen White's "law of love" a complete lie), Isaiah prophesied the annulling of Israel's "covenant with death" (Isaiah 28:18) which was confirmed in Hebrews 7:18-19, and Paul ordered the Galatian church to cast off the covenant from Sinai in Galatians 4:30, which was the ten commandments.

The temporal covenant has been abolished, and it has been replaced with the permanent covenant that was promised to Abraham long ago and realized in Jesus Christ.