Please do, because that statement is false.
You believe because of that statement.
You are SDA, and in my experience SDAs have ways of reasoning unique to them.
Though the scriptures do not say something SDAs reasoning allow them to see what's not there.
The captives, that were made slaves, including the Gibeonites kept the festivals, and Sabbaths. Do you know why, they had to, according to the scriptures?
Interesting twist.
You have no scripture to support your claim, but I am to have a scripture to prove your assertion false...
I do.
The Bible refutes your claim.
Only, I usually let SDAs provide the scriptural answers.
That way, they cannot deny what they see, and say.
So, after you.
Thank you.
According to Romans 11:24 "if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches,
be grafted back into their own olive tree."
I see a new nation in Acts 15:14
Just as God chose Israel, and put his name on them, he chose a new nation to do the same.
Sorry to use the expression, though.
I wasn't thinking there would be objections to it, since I assumed persons understood the concept was there, even though not explicitly stated.
Similar to how persons use the word Trinity, even though you don't find the word in the Bible.
You don't ask them why add, do you?
My memory isn't 100%, but it's not that bad.
yes correct, and nothing happened to the covenant, the non israelites were grafted in!
Does that mean you are changing your answer?
Thanks for bringing me back to this., though. There was a follow up question.
Please read Exodus 12:43-49; Numbers 9:14; (Numbers 15:16
My question is this:
Were these foreigners now a holy nation of priests simply on the basis that they had to obey God's laws while dwelling with Israel, and if that is the case, why are these words in the Bible - Ephesians 2:11-18... Does circumcision of the flesh make the foreigner one with Israel, or the blood of Christ, and exercising faith in it?
You have stated your belief, that the old covenant was the ten commandments.
I have two questions:
If the ten commandments is the old covenant, why do you keep it, when the Bible says what it does at Jeremiah 31:31, 32?
What did the Bible say the Israelites agreed to, at Exodus 19:5-9; Exodus 24:1-12; Hebrews 9:18-20... the ten commandments or
all the words that God commanded them?
Another question...
What words did Moses write down... the ten commandments alone, or all the words God commanded in Exodus 34:1-28?
Which covenant... the one God said the nation of Israel broke Leviticus 26:14, 15, or the one God was referring to in that Psalm - his covenant with David.
Did you read the verses before? Please do.
Be careful not to mix the covenants up, because there were more than one.
The law written on hearts is not the same law written on stone.
Read Jeremiah 31:31-34 again, and consider the scriptures given to you earlier... including what you quoted a few lines up.
Romans 3:20; Romans 8:3, 4; and Hebrews 7:18, 19 refer to the same law.
Where do you see old priesthood in those verses?
Since the law was only temporary, and it would be replaced, when the faith arrived, the shadow of things would also be replaced by the reality.
Of course, Paul let's his fellow brothers understand the scope of this.
It's not just the law. It involves the entire purpose of God. See Ephesians 1:6-10
Christ is the end of the law does not mean Christ is the end of the law?
How does Matthew 7:23... not sure why you referred to that... Revelation 22:14... not sure why you referred to that either... and 1 Corinthians 7:19 change that fact?
This is according to SDAs reasoning.
They separate the law into ceremonial and other, to arrive at part being dispose, and the other part remaining.
However, this not scriptural. It is "special pleading"...
When you show me from the Bible, that this unique way of reasoning, is actually scriptural, we can talk about it.
As it stands currently, though, the Bible does not separate the law.
In fact, the Israelites agreed to, to the entire law - Exodus 19:5-9; Exodus 24:1-12; Hebrews 9:18-20. Not just part.
The law of commandments is the same Paul refers to at Romans 7:1-12, where he refers to one of the ten - You must not covet.
That statement...
"not sure I will continue responding as its getting too long and not sure if people are trying to harmonize the Scriptures or beleive the promise of God"
You are the second person... rather, third, since
@JesusFollowerForever made the second, who complain about things getting long after making it long.
You wouldn't happen to be wanting to have the say on what is, without it being shown otherwise, or opening an escape hatch, and inching towards it, would you, because that's the message I get from persons on a debate forum, having their say... sometimes quite long... until they are asked pointed questions that require pointed scriptural answers.
The scriptures do have that effect on the vast majority, but there is no need to be in that situation.
If the Jews had listened to Stephen, instead of trying to close their ears, they would have benefited themselves.
The Bible says, they could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking, and so they cried out with a loud voice and stopped their ears and rushed together at him
I've had a lot of experience with SDA, and I have learned that questioning them on scripture, and letting them provide the scriptural answer, makes them uncomfortable, because they are eventually going to see that the scriptures do not support their belief, but rather, the opposite.
I met one who was humble enough to let the scripture lead them, and with that, they changed their religion.
The scriptures are too powerful to go against. That why they couldn't withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which Stephen was speaking.