Why dont SDA's and Sabbath keepers also keep the Feast Days of Leviticus 23 too???

[VictorC]

You cannot rely on "Story telling alone" to make your case -- you need actual Bible fact.

Even the pro-Sunday sources listed below do not go for your extreme wild speculation.

Here's your latest time stamp:

12th April 2014 06:02 AM

That's the fact supplied by the server for the U.S. Mountain Daylight Time zone.

 

[VictorC]

Incredible!!---You still offer up a diatribe of vile accusations and pretend to know the heart of someone--which God alone can judge.

Compliance with the Law isn't a matter of the heart. Compliance is done in the flesh, and the Law is the objective Standard that determines compliance. I don't need -nor want- to know the heart of anyone. You need to learn the Law instead of pretending compliance in abject ignorance.

Unless you are crediting yourself with the same holiness as God to discern the heart.

The forked tongue of Adventism reminds us of the Holiness of the Law, concurrent with their universal disdain for the Holiness of the Law when they need to excuse their transgressions. As I pointed out, deflecting attention to the heart of an individual is done to draw attention away from the Law.

The commandments of God are His--not yours. He decides what to do with them, not man.

Two points:

• You're calling the old covenant "the commandments of God", a devious slight of hand others aren't going to miss.
• It is God Who determined what to do with the old covenant, as "He takes away the first that He may establish the second" (Hebrews 10:9), and you have no right to retain the bondwoman His Word instructs us to cast off.

Nowhere is circumcision a part of the 10 commandments--nowhere. You're insistance, and that of others, to lump all Levitical laws along with the 10 commandments is not biblical.

The forked tongue of Adventism wants us to embrace the oral covenant contents spoken in Exodus 20, but wants us to reject the equally binding oral contents spoken in Exodus 12 and Leviticus 23. But then in a confused move, the forked tongue of Adventism wants us to embrace the oral commandment spoken in Leviticus 23 to have a sorta-holy convocation on Saturday, and embrace the oral commandment spoken in Exodus 35 to leave the kitchen stove off on Saturday.

In hypocrisy you want to criticize the Law itself when it suits you. As it is Written, "if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge".

It is clear that circumcision is not needed to be a part of the Christian community. It is not needed to be saved.

So what? You haven't responded to that long post quoting Ellen White showing that the Seventh-day Adventist 'church' isn't a member of the Christian community.

The bible says circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing.--But even when the tenets of other churches are shown to you who all claim that keeping of the laws of God are still in effect--you refuse to accept it. The only difference is that they insist on only 9 of the commandments

Argumentum ad populum.

--we say all 10 and because that 4th one is the one that nobody wants, we point it out all the more.

What is the "4th one"? You have yet to find the Sabbath conveyed to us anywhere by the Jerusalem council recorded in Acts 15, so it can't be that.

To refuse the light shown is the sin.

Isaiah 8:20 shows that speaking contrary to the Law is darkness, and not "light shown".

Salvation is still through the grace of God, but to refuse the light He is showing you is to refuse Him, to refuse Him is to refuse Christianity.

You have eloquently summarized why the Christian community considers the Seventh-day Adventist 'church' to be a cult. The requisite grace we embrace in God's redemption from the covenant from Mount Sinai is not a part of Adventism's soteriology.

Acts 15--This chapter that you so idolize--why do you read it and not understand and yet demand that it is prove there is no law??"---Doesn't say any such thing. The whole arguement was about circumcision.

I know that you haven't read Acts 15, because the topic is the Law of Moses and the requisite rite of circumcision the believing Adventist -oops, Pharisees- wanted to impose on the Gentile Christians. Peter's speech is short and eloquent. The council's determination is also short and eloquent. This is the commandments the church was given, and it does not impose the Mosaic Covenant nor the Sabbath that is a part of that covenant, which in turn contains the requisite rite of circumcision for the Sabbaths in the annual cycle. In short, the church doesn't have any commandment for the Sabbath.

And the burnt offerings that take the life of two lambs in addition to the two lambs for the daily oblations. And a Levitical priesthood exclusively authorized to perform those burnt offerings. And so forth. It seems that if you want to leave Christianity and embrace the basic tenets of Judaism, it becomes incumbent on you to comply with the entire package the covenant from Mount Sinai demands.

Quit pretending to mix Christianity and Judaism and call the resulting Adventist rendition 'christianity' when it is a synthesis that is no longer either. Adventist dependence on the old covenant for its soteriology was already shown to you by the Pen of Liability:

Testimonies for the Church
Volume Two, page 693, paragraph 2
Chapter Title: No Probation After Christ Comes

As we have followed down the chain of prophecy, revealed truth for our time has been clearly seen and explained. We are accountable for the privileges that we enjoy and for the light that shines upon our pathway. Those who lived in past generations were accountable for the light which was permitted to shine upon them. Their minds were exercised in regard to different points of Scripture which tested them. But they did not understand the truths which we do. They were not responsible for the light which they did not have. They had the Bible, as we have; but the time for the unfolding of special truth in relation to the closing scenes of this earth's history is during the last generations that shall live upon the earth. Special truths have been adapted to the conditions of the generations as they have existed. The present truth, which is a test to the people of this generation, was not a test to the people of generations far back. If the light which now shines upon us in regard to the Sabbath of the fourth commandment had been given to the generations in the past, God would have held them accountable for that light. When the temple of God was opened in heaven, John saw in holy vision a class of people whose attention was arrested and who were looking with reverential awe at the ark, which contained the law of God. The special test upon the fourth commandment did not come until after the temple of God was opened in heaven. Those who died before the light was given upon the law of God and the claims of the fourth commandment were not guilty of the sin of violating the seventh-day Sabbath. The wisdom and mercy of God in dispensing light and knowledge at the proper time, as the people need it, is unsearchable. Previous to His coming to judge the world in righteousness, He sends forth a warning to arouse the people and call their attention to their neglect of the fourth commandment, that they may be enlightened, and may repent of their transgression of His law, and prove their allegiance to the great Lawgiver. He has made provision that all may be holy and happy if they choose. Sufficient light has been given to this generation, that we may learn what our duties and privileges are, and enjoy the precious and solemn truths in their simplicity and power.​

To show Ellen's dependence on 1844, I will include this quote from Early Writings, Pg 42-43:

Sabbath, March 24, 1849, we had a sweet and very interesting meeting with the brethren at Topsham, Maine. The Holy Ghost was poured out upon us, and I was taken off in the Spirit to the city of the living God. Then I was shown that the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ relating to the shut door could not be separated, and that the time for the commandments of God to shine out with all their importance, and for God’s people to be tried on the Sabbath truth, was when the door was opened in the most holy place in the heavenly sanctuary, where the ark is, in which are contained the ten commandments. This door was not opened until the mediation of Jesus was finished in the holy place of the sanctuary in 1844. Then Jesus rose up and shut the door of the holy place, and opened the door into the most holy, and passed within the second veil, where He now stands by the ark, and where the faith of Israel now reaches.

I saw that Jesus had shut the door of the holy place, and no man can open it; and that He had opened the door into the most holy, and no man can shut it (Revelation 3:7, 8); [see page 86. See also appendix.] and that since Jesus has opened the door into the most holy place, which contains the ark, the commandments have been shining out to God’s people, and they are being tested on the Sabbath question.

I saw that the present test on the Sabbath could not come until the mediation of Jesus in the holy place was finished and He had passed within the second veil; therefore Christians who fell asleep before the door was opened into the most holy, when the midnight cry was finished, at the seventh month, 1844, and who had not kept the true Sabbath, now rest in hope; for they had not the light and the test on the Sabbath which we now have since that door was opened. I saw that Satan was tempting some of God’s people on this point. Because so many good Christians have fallen asleep in the triumphs of faith and have not kept the true Sabbath, they were doubting about its being a test for us now.​

Ellen White's soteriology revolves around the Sabbath she failed to keep Holy according the Law that ordained it. This is evident in these quotes provided below that show the Adventist formula for 'salvation' to be compliance with the old covenant from Mount Sinai you don't acknowledge God's redemption from:

No one is saved who is a transgressor of the law of God, which is the foundation of his government in heaven and in earth. {RH June 17, 1890, par. 8}

It means eternal salvation to keep the Sabbath holy unto the Lord. God says: "Them that honor Me I will honor." 1 Samuel 2:30. {6T 356.4}

But if we turn aside from the fourth commandment, so positively given by God, to adopt the inventions of Satan, voiced and acted by men under his control, we cannot be saved. We cannot with safety receive his traditions and subtleties as truth. {RH, July 6, 1897 par. 4}

No one who disregards the fourth commandment, after becoming enlightened in regard to the claims of the Sabbath, can be held guiltless in the sight of God. {RH, July 6, 1897 par. 14}

All will be judged according to the light that has shone upon them. If they have light upon the Sabbath, they cannot be saved in rejecting that light.{HS 234.3}

As persons become convinced from the Scriptures that the claims of the fourth commandment are still binding, the question is often raised, Is it necessary in order to secure salvation that we keep the Sabbath? This is a question of grave importance. If the light has shone from the word of God, if the message has been presented to men, as it was to Pharaoh, and they refuse to heed that message, if they reject the light, they refuse to obey God, and cannot be saved in their disobedience. {RH, January 5, 1886 par. 2}

“God requires of all His subjects obedience, entire obedience to all His commandments. He demands now as ever perfect righteousness as the only title to heaven. Christ is our hope and our refuge. His righteousness is imputed only to the obedient!” (Review & Herald, Sept. 21, 1886)

"Christ does not lessen the claims of the law. In unmistakable language He presents obedience to it as the condition of eternal life—the same condition that was required of Adam before his Fall. The Lord expects no less of the soul now than He expected of man in Paradise, perfect obedience, unblemished righteousness. The requirement under the covenant of grace is just as broad as the requirement made in Eden—harmony with God’s law, which is holy, just, and good." (Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 391)​

How much clearer does it need to be that the SDA church adopts a formula of 'salvation' by compliance to the old covenant? This is not a Christian organization that recognizes God's redemption from the covenant from Mount Sinai, and having one foot in the tenets of Judaism while giving lipservice to our Redeemer is their form of promoting adultery. Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God.

 

[mmksparbud]

Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
Rev 22:15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
1Jn 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
1Jn 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39And the secondislike unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat 22:40On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

On these 2 HANG ALL-- the first 4 tell how to love God--the last 6 how love love man--If He had meant only 2 commandments then why did He say
1Jn 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.

Mar 7:7Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teachingfordoctrines the commandments of men.

The 10 commandments are not the commandments of men, they are of God, written by His own hand.

And still---it is by grace alone that we are saved--we can do as God says when we love Him. God is love--when He is in us and us in Him, we become that love.

And again another was accused of not being a Christian and should not be coming on this forum--that is going against the forum rules--not to mention, not very christian.

The end.

 

[from scratch]

Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
Rev 22:15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
1Jn 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
1Jn 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39And the secondislike unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat 22:40On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

On these 2 HANG ALL-- the first 4 tell how to love God--the last 6 how love love man--If He had meant only 2 commandments then why did He say
1Jn 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.

Mar 7:7Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teachingfordoctrines the commandments of men.

The 10 commandments are not the commandments of men, they are of God, written by His own hand.

And still---it is by grace alone that we are saved--we can do as God says when we love Him. God is love--when He is in us and us in Him, we become that love.

And again another was accused of not being a Christian and should not be coming on this forum--that is going against the forum rules--not to mention, not very christian.

The end.

I wish you'd make up your mind.

 

[from scratch]

Vacuum? What vacuum??----"They're baaaaaack!!"

I took some time off for speculation and prayer and further studies. Obviously my words were not conveying what I think they are. Or, more likely--they are quite simply ignored and, again, being manipulated to say something that I never did. The OP has been answered countless times. Yet, still, you can not get it--so I will try using the words of others--Maybe, in the meantime, someone can answer why the heirs of a will (covenant) chose to change the will after the death of the will maker. Such as, If Christ had changed the 7th day to the 1 day, why didn't He say so before He was crucified as He did with the Communion feast? As has been said before, the 1st day of the week being the new Lords day of worship, was instituted 3 days after His death--(though not by the Apostles)--no man can change what God has done.

"But Jesus also demanded good works to go along with faith. A man came up to Him with a question about eternal salvation. “Teacher,” he asked, “what good deed (ti agathon) must I do, to have eternal life?” Jesus did not send him away or correct him. He didn’t say: “You are asking the wrong question; you need only to believe in me and you will be saved.” Rather Jesus said to him: “Keep the commandments . . . You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself” (Mat 19:16-19). Rather than separate faith and works, Jesus closely united the two as being definitive to Christian life. That’s the undeniable implication of His great discourse we call “Sermon on the Mount.” The Sermon contains a vast amount of teachings and exhortations Christ expected His followers to learn and live by (Mat. chaps. 5-7). “Do not bear false witness . . . Love your enemies . . . Seek first God’s kingdom and His righteousness . . . Judge not, that you be not judged” (Mat 5:33, 44; 6:33; 7:1). Jesus set down these teachings as the necessary standards of moral righteousness. At the end of the Sermon on the Mount He denounced the kind of faith that is only lip service. He said those who relied only on faith risked the loss of eternal salvation. He warned: “On that day many will call out to me ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy and cast out demons in your name?’ And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers’” (Mat 7:21-23)."
Now, some will say that there is no mention of the sabbath when Jesus was saying to keep the commandments, therefore it does not need to be kept--He didn't have to list them all--He was still nameing the 10--It was understood that's what He was talking about. He did not mention coveting, not having other Gods,nor taking the Lord's name in vain. By that reasoning, then these things should be allright??

My questions are -

Did Jesus accuse the man of not keeping the law? I think Jesus agreed with him.

Why then did the man not leave happy?

No madam, Jesus didn't justify or permit sin.

"On another occasion Jesus referred to faith as lifetime work. He urged a crowd not to “labor for the food that perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life.” They asked: “What must we do to be doing the works of God (Ti poiomen ina ergazometha to erga tou Theou)?” He replied: “This is the work of God (to ergon tou Theou): that you believe in Him whom God has sent” (John 6:27-29). The most pleasing work to God is the continuous exercise of faith in Christ as Savior and Lord throughout our lives. Christ promised us a continuous personal communion with Him, a continuous Easter experience, based on love, faith, and the keeping of His commandments. He said: “If you love me, you will keep my commandments . . . If a person loves me, He will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him” (John 14:15-17, 23).

Why do you bring into dispute what the commandments of Jesus are? Why don't the SDA ever first bring up John 15:10 which plainly show Jesus wasn't talking about the Ten Commandments in 14:15?

Our “new birth” is given to us in Baptism according to the words of the Lord: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). And if we lose our way, heartfelt prayer, repentance, Holy Confession and Holy Communion provide personal occasions for spiritual renewal throughout our lives. How important for salvation the Eucharist is, we know from the words of Christ: “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:54). In these many ways, according to Christ, Orthodox Christians throughout their lives receive salvation and renewal through faith, works, and the sacraments of the Church."

Is it any clearer when said by anoher church??

Ellens definition of salvation?? You obviously don't know it--it's no different then that which is stated above. The dietary health laws, are just that--laws for a healthier body--trying to get back to God's original diet. He made us, He knows what's best for us. And it's been stated over and over by independent studies that SDAs live longer and lead more active lifestyles than any other group of people. The Japanese come a close 2nd--and those are the ones that are mostly vegetarian, beef is to expensive, seafood for those inland harder to get. I've had friends die of cancer--the first thing that the dr's told them was to eliminate sugar (and by the way--EGW said sugar is worse than eating meat and should be avoided) and then they told them go vegetarian, or at least avoid any red meat, and avoid alcoholo--and those Dr's were not in any way even remotely connected to the church.

Ah but we've EGW's contradicting writings.

 

[from scratch]

The New Covenant wasn't changed or replaced. The vector for being a part of the covenant was changed - not the substance. Instead of a physical body being given a physical, written word to follow physically, we have been given a covenant that says God will write the Law on our hearts, so that we won't need a book, or stone to know His law: we will know it in our hearts, and will delight in it. It does not say anything about said law changing at all, not does it say anything about dismissal of Law of God.

The new covenant, if you pay attention, is a double portion of responsibility on our part, and a double portion of Mercy and Grace on God's part. Look at a woman to lust, you committed adultery (no physical needed, only heart-intentions.) Follow the law of God, your treasures are stored in Heaven.

Even if you do not follow God's Law to perfection, you are still justified by Christ's sacrifice and your faith in Him, and your love for God. That is the double portion of Grace and Mercy, and where the stipulation of "not being under the Law" comes from. You are not under the Law because if you sin, you are not necessarily going to Hell (no questions asked.) Works and propencity to follow Law is no longer the thing that qualifies your salvation: Christ's sacrifice is.

Now, does that mean we throw out God's law? Nope. In fact, the New Covenant/New Testament is about writing that law on our hearts so that we delight in His law, not so we vindicate our salvation. Moreover, faith and love are lukewarm when there is no obedience. And what did God say? Those who love me obey me. They will keep my commandmants (John 14:12-17.) Those commandments are the same commandments the Word of God gave to Moses, Malachai, Enoch, Jacob, Isaac, John, John the Baptist, Peter, Paul, etc. Nothing of the word has changed unless He has said so.

The Passover is coming up soon. As I said, some of us do practice the Sabbath and Feast Days. And, I am not even a SDA.

We must be calling the New Covenant different things. The covenant issued at Sinai has never been called the New Covenant.

 

[from scratch]

I will first address this one thing about the sabbath and EGW---It has been brought up many times and each time totaly out of context and I am going to quote what she has written and not what somebody says she wrote: First, what she says about salvation.

We must learn in the school of Christ. Nothing but his righteousness can entitle us to one of the blessings of the covenant of grace. We have long desired and tried to obtain these blessings, but have not received them, because we have cherished the idea that we could do something to make ourselves worthy of them. We have not looked away from ourselves, believing that Jesus is a living Saviour. We must not think that our own grace and merits will save us; the grace of Christ is our only hope of salvation.Gospel Workers 1892, Page 412]

What is one of the purposes of the IJ? Isn't one of them to determine who can be saved?

There is not a point that needs to be dwelt upon more earnestly, repeated more frequently, or established more firmly in the minds of all than the impossibility of fallen man meriting anything by his own best good works. Salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ alone.
Faith and Works, Page 19

This directly contradicts the teaching of the IJ.

And now comes the oft misquoted line and the whole context under which it has been exctracted.

Here the discourse was broken in upon by questions from one who had kept the Sabbath a short time, but who had recently given it up. Rising in the congregation, he said, “This Sabbath question has been a great trouble to me during the last year, and now I would like to ask a question: Is the observance of the Sabbath necessary to my salvation? Answer, yes or no.” I answered promptly, This is an important question, and demands something more full than yes or no. All will be judged according to the light that has shone upon them. If they have light upon the Sabbath, they cannot be saved in rejecting that light. But none will be held accountable for light which they have never received. I then quoted the words of Christ, “If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin; but now they have no cloak for their sin.” It was with the greatest difficulty, however,
that I made these remarks; for the questioner kept jumping to his feet, and interrupting me, and in the most excited manner and with the most violent gestures demanding that the answer be yes or no.
Several times while I was speaking he tried to restate my remarks, giving them just the meaning that he wished them to have, and that he has since given them; and as many times he was corrected by persons present who understood both French and English. [Notwithstanding the fact that his misstatements of my position were repeatedly corrected at the meeting, this man has since stated publicly that at first my response was evasive; but that as he insisted I became affirmative, then negative, as follows: “If the Christian is persuaded that he ought to keep the Sabbath, the Sabbath is necessary to his salvation. If he does not believe it duty to keep the Sabbath, the Sabbath is not necessary to his salvation.” This is a gross misrepresentation, as will be seen by comparing it with the facts as given above; but to just such misrepresentations will those resort who oppose the truth.] He then began to read and comment upon something which he had written in regard to the Sabbath. But he proceeded so rapidly that he gave little opportunity for his remarks to be interpreted, and therefore I could get but little idea of what he was trying to say. One statement which I did understand, however, was to the effect that Christ, instead of teaching the Sabbath, broke it. To this I felt that I must respond. I said: “I hope our brother will not place himself on the side of the Pharisees in their accusations against Christ; for if their charge of Sabbath-breaking could have been sustained against him, they would not have been under the necessity of hiring false witnesses to testify against him.” At this he became very much enraged, and charged me with calling him a Pharisee. This, however, was corrected by several persons present, and he said, “I beg pardon.”Historical Sketches of the Foreign Missions of the Seventh-day Adventists, Page 234-235

There is more said about this individual but this is the most repeated part--I will get to the other remarks later. I can only sit at the computer so long. That's why it takes me so long to get to these statements.
I sincerely hope tnhat these quotes are read as it has become obvious that most of my posts are not read completely, merely skimmed through and then twisted--Try and restrain the impulse.

No I read your entire post. The statement I bolded and changed to black is EGW's remarks and requires the keeping of the 7th day Sabbath to be saved.

 

[Sophrosyne]

What is one of the purposes of the IJ? Isn't one of them to determine who can be saved?

To me it sounds like the IJ nullifies salvation by faith entirely and tarnishes the cross big time and mocks Paul's gospel of grace to the point of where it doesn't exist there.

 

[from scratch]

Who taught you that the ten commandments were abolished for Christians? What minister preahes that - that is what I want to know.

Nothing comes close to meeting the standards of Christ, but Christ's "Great Commandments" is no different from what God said as Law - because He is the literal breathing word of God.

Christ said:

1) Love God with all of your heart, might and soul.

That meant follow all the laws of God that connect Him with you - if you want to be strict (i.e. minus Law arguments inclusively,) then that includes the first four commandments.

2) Love your neighbor as you love yourself.

That is (again, minus LAw arguments inclusively,) is the last six commandments.

Notice how 4 is a spiritual number (of ten commandments,) and six is a number of man (of the ten commandments.) You can follow all of the Law - given to Moses in word or stone - from the 10 commandments, and Christ never changed anything about that. What He did was perfectly do what we couldnt - follow the Law 100% correctly. That is His fulfillment of the Law. He never abolished it. The 10 commandments are a cornerstone of how to worship and be obedient to God. God has other rules/laws, but the 10 commandments are foundations.

Taking up your cross means you struggle through the "thorn in your side" that doesn't allow you to be 100% sinless, and lets you know that you deserve death by Universal Law. The Grace is that you are no longer justified/under the Law, so not following the Law 100% perfectly like Christ does not disqualify you for being with God. Christ's sacrifice save us.


Does that mean we throw out the rulebook? Nope. Carry your cross; [try to] be perfect like your Father, and be obedient like Christ.




The new covenant gaurantees that no one has to live by the written law anymore, and that the Law of God would be on the heart of men who fear (revere) God. I don't need the ten commandments to tell me adultery is wrong. As a matter of fact, the Hebrews shouldn't have had to receive the Law from God, but because they were so far from Him in their hearts, they got it in written form/verbalized from the Source.

Adam did not need written Law to know what was right and wrong.
Abel, Seth and even Cain did not need the written law to tell them how to/compel them so sacrifice to God. They already knew. No one is "living for the 10 commandments." At the same time, it is quite ascinine to suggest that the 10 commandments are not to be followed, or were abolished as if they are no longer in function. None of God's law is abolished. All of His law is Universal - as in like Christ said, not one iota of the Law will pass until all has been fulfilled. That means His law will still be in effect when Christ brings the Kingdom here, resurrects us to perfection, and His people reign with Him. It will still be in effect when saints judge angels. It will be in effect until everything has been fulfilled: 10 commandments included.

You refuse to accept the full Word of God IMHO. You delete the prophets and Hebrews not to mention the Gospels in the above quoted post.

 

[from scratch]

Blah blah "early church human said this, changed this time, etc." I don't care. What did God say?

And, no one is elevating the 10 commandments, certainly not me. All of God's law is what substantiates obedience, not picking and choosing. The Sabbath was before "Moses," before the "10 Commandments," and so on. God gave the Hebrew the Sabbath when they were wandering - before they were set up to receive the rest of the Law from Moses. It is not Moses' Law; it is God's Law. If it were Moses' law, then you could say it changes with time, because Moses is human and corruptible. God is not, and He doesn't change.

The Sabbath was before the "Law."

The Circumcision was the first agreement/compact God made with His people. It was for a generation of generations until the Word of God Himself made a new compact/covenant with His people. See, only God Himself can change His law - technology, progress, times, humans, or grievences don't change his law. You aren't in a position to wear 100% same woolen? That isn't His fault: how far are you willing to go to be obedient? Will you live in the big city and amend His Law, or will you reject "the world," and live according to the bible (to be extreme)?

The Church has been changing laws, times and rituals since the beginning. That is why I asked you what minister told you that the 10 commandments were abolished for christians.

Obviously you really haven't fully considered what you wrote above.

 

[from scratch]

Paul is not saying the Law of God is abolished, he is saying those who follow the Law of God with the intention of being saved and vindicated by the mere obedience of the Law is under a vail (of ignorance.) It is a one thing to teach that following God's law for the purpose of self-salvation is wrong and against Christ's teachings. It is another thing to insinuate in any way that God's law is abolished (i.e. void) in any way without proper context (as Paul had, and which is ignored.)

No minister would say God's Law is abolished and mean someone didn't have to follow His law, especially when God and Christ both explicitly state the opposite (several times.) Now, whether you are mistaken because you are erroneously parroting a biblical hero, or you are purposefully misleading people is no matter. Show me one place where God, or Christ says God's law is null, and no Christian or Hebrew should follow the "old laws" given by God to Moses.

You seem to be missing part of the conversation. Please go back and read mmksparbud's post and/or my responses to them.

 

[Lollerskates]

You refuse to accept the full Word of God IMHO. You delete the prophets and Hebrews not to mention the Gospels in the above quoted post.

I am happy you said IMHO.

 

[from scratch]

I had this exact same exchange before; maybe it was even with you.

1) I believe the one called Jesus, (whose name is Immanuel, Yahoshuah, Christ and the Annointed One among other things,) is my Lord, Savior, and way to Life. He died for all of our sins without blemish, died in my place, and was resurrected to sit at the right hand of God to full glory. He is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. With His sacrifice, I can have confidence that though I fall short of God's law, He has grace with me and will forgive me for my sins if I confess them to Him - in the name of our Christ. Christ is the Son of God, and He perfectly followed 100% of God's Law, something I or no human can do in our current state. He will come back to perfect those worthy, and He will restore our Life to the Life we are to have.

Without Christ's sacrifice, I would be DEAD. With Him, I can have Life.



Now, what about that is completely against Christianity - the entire collection of denominations? Or, did you mean that your particular denominational stance nowhere agrees with what I said? (This is why there are 180+ Christian denominations - all calling each other heretics in some way.)

2) You asked me why I am even on Christian forums...

Do you ask atheists, agnostics, muslims, Hebrews, pagans, wiccans, etc. the same question, with the same loaded reasoning? Certainly, they aren't Christian, so by your logic, why are they even here? Do you see how ridiculous that question is?

I gave you my creed in 1). You can either stop beating around the bush, and call me a heretic, or you can understand I just may not fit in your denomination. But, let's skip the circumlocution: say what you mean.

I also wonder because you seem to be making every effort to tear down orthodox Christianity.

 

[VictorC]

Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
Rev 22:15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
1Jn 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
1Jn 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39And the secondislike unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat 22:40On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

On these 2 HANG ALL-- the first 4 tell how to love God--the last 6 how love love man--If He had meant only 2 commandments then why did He say
1Jn 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.

Mar 7:7Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teachingfordoctrines the commandments of men.

The 10 commandments are not the commandments of men, they are of God, written by His own hand.

And still---it is by grace alone that we are saved--we can do as God says when we love Him. God is love--when He is in us and us in Him, we become that love.

And again another was accused of not being a Christian and should not be coming on this forum--that is going against the forum rules--not to mention, not very christian.

The end.

Pop-quiz time: Can anyone spot the fatal error made in this post, which was pointed out just ahead of it?
Hint: The verb 'are' is a plural expression that has been applied to a singular entity.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Pop-quiz time: Can anyone spot the fatal error made in this post, which was pointed out just ahead of it?
Hint: The verb 'are' is a plural expression that has been applied to a singular entity.

I don't see the "are" but I do see someone attempting to take Jesus' 2 commandments and trying to expand them back into 10 commandments which goes against what Jesus was saying entirely.

 

[VictorC]

I don't see the "are" but I do see someone attempting to take Jesus' 2 commandments and trying to expand them back into 10 commandments which goes against what Jesus was saying entirely.

Well, the 'are' is used to describe something declared in the singular, and the tense of the verb mmksparbud used is in error as well, being used in the present tense rather than the past that would be more accurate. I don't want to give more away just yet, just to be fair to others. It is a worthwhile quiz that isn't hard to find.

On an unrelated note, go back to Matthew 22. Jesus didn't issue any commandments in the discourse presented to an attorney asking for an answer from a specific source. Yes, the expansion is in error as you pointed out, but I think you're a missing a larger error in how the discourse is misapplied completely.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Well, the 'are' is used to describe something declared in the singular, and the tense of the verb mmksparbud used is in error as well, being used in the present tense rather than the past that would be more accurate. I don't want to give more away just yet, just to be fair to others. It is a worthwhile quiz that isn't hard to find.

On an unrelated note, go back to Matthew 22. Jesus didn't issue any commandments in the discourse presented to an attorney asking for an answer from a specific source. Yes, the expansion is in error as you pointed out, but I think you're a missing a larger error in how the discourse is misapplied completely.

I'm sure there is a lot of error going on, I just don't put a lot of effort into finding it as those who are in error don't really seem to appreciate the effort in pointing them out.

 

[VictorC]

I'm sure there is a lot of error going on, I just don't put a lot of effort into finding it as those who are in error don't really seem to appreciate the effort in pointing them out.

Whatever happened to the thirst for knowledge the Bereans were commended for?

 

[from scratch]

Pop-quiz time: Can anyone spot the fatal error made in this post, which was pointed out just ahead of it?
Hint: The verb 'are' is a plural expression that has been applied to a singular entity.

That isn't the only fatal misunderstood error.

 

[from scratch]

Whatever happened to the thirst for knowledge the Bereans were commended for?

Oh my, aren't we all spoon feed these days? Now open and swallow. I'm one of those who spit it back out.