Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Lysimachus, it is okay to have symbols that tell us about Jesus Christ and the mysteries associated with his birth, life, ministry, death, resurrection, ascension, and reign in heaven. These are all helpful in their own way because they help to summarise the stories about Jesus that we have in the gospels and other new testament writings. But this idea that the sabbath is a symbol of the rest we have in Christ, a sabbath for which there was a commandment given to Israel and about which many rules were also given to Israel, is not helpful and it is not biblical. The passage I quoted for Elder 111 tells us that Christ is himself the one in whom we find our rest. What would be the point of retaining an old testament sign that pointed to Christ once Christ has already come and we need no signs to point to him because we know him?
The passage I quoted for Elder 111 tells us that Christ is himself the one in whom we find our rest. What would be the point of retaining an old testament sign that pointed to Christ once Christ has already come and we need no signs to point to him because we know him?
We have a history in which I have presented Scripture specifically to you which are denied. So do not goad me.
bugkiller
It's incorrect for her to say "As ordained for man, it had its origin when "the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy."" Because one cannot assume that it had it's origin when those things occured. She probably uses it in a general sense here with all of creation but the timing is misleading.
Opps!
Where was baptism instituted before the cross? There is no such command till after the resurretion in my Bible.
Yes I comprehend exactly what was written. We do not agree if that is what comprehension means.
The 10 Cs are ordinances and even hand written ordinances at that. Remember they were written with the very finger of God, Himself. Furthermore God instructed Moses to write the rest of them. Moses did not make them up. They are not his doing in that they came from him. They are from God the Father and have the same exact bearing on the Isrealites and anyone who joins themselves to the Lord thru that covenant.
Paul recognized the 10 Cs but does not teach them as an obligation to the Christian.
This is waht Acts 15 is about.
Ah since Jesus did not write the NT none of it is valid. A testator writes a will and testament prior to death. So since we have no such thing attributable to Jesus nothing in the NT is vaild according to the presented argument.
That covenant mentioned inGal 3:9 has nothing to do with the covenant made with Israel. Sorry.
So reconcile Ps 89:34 with Jer 31:31-34 and Jesus' testimony in 3 Gospels that the NC is the current covenant. Jer says specifically it is not according to the covenant made with their fathers. That does not mean the covenant was moved. It clearly says a new (chadash pronounced khä·däsh' H2319) covenant. It is not chadash pronounced khä·dash' (no mark over the a in the dash part of the word) H2318.
The quote of this verse in Hebrews is even better using the word kainos and not neos. There can be no mistake from the Hebrews 8 rendition.
Well maybe that is what you cleebrate by baptism. With my knowledge of baptism in the SDA church I woudl say definitaly not. But neither do I. I clebrate and signify the new life I have no in Christ Jesus. The old man subject to the law is dead and I have been raised to new life in Christ Jesus.
John the Baptist did not institute the rite of baptism. It is a ceremonial washing rite under the law. If John the Baptist instituted water baptism your baptism is not valid as it does not follow suit (done as John the Baptist preformed the rite).
If the evangelical protestant world is wrong why does your church seek recognition as part of it?
Are we talking about the Bible or religions? I could care less what the RCC or the SDA oragization state. Does it line up with God's Word? Neither of those organizations have any authority over me.
I will simply stay out of trouble by not responding to the remainder of your post. Sorry.
No you do not have my tongue tied. I can refute anything you claim with Scripture.
bugkiller
Lysimachus, the "flag" the christians fly is the cross. We are known as Jesus' disciples by the love we have for one another. We stand apart from worldly attitudes and worldly expedients by following Jesus Christ - he said we must take up our cross and follow him. None of this requires a 7th day observance. In fact 7th day observance is the hallmark of Judaism. So if you are flying a flag by observing the 7th day sabbath it is not a Christian flag at all, it is a "flag" belonging to Judaism.
When you are finish trying to avoid the very clear point, "the Sabbath day rest" and "the Sabbath rest" is the same. Where in the bible do you find Sabbath rest meaning anything else?It does not say "a sabbath day rest still remains" it says "a sabbath rest still remains" and since sabbath means rest it is in fact referring to the rest that Christians enjoy in Christ.ἄρα απολείπεται σαββατισμος τω λαω του Θεου.
ara apoleipetai sabbatismos to lao tou theou.
In Genesis , in Exodus, in other portions of Deuteronomy and where ever else it talks about creation in relation the Sabbath, and because it is not mentioned in what you have quoted, all the other statements become void? How ridiculous can we continue to be?I think Ellen White got a few things mixed up and timing was one of them. Clearly neither the nations nor pre-exodus Israel were 7th day observers. And if you look at Deuteronomy 5 the 7th day commandment makes no mention of creation; it points to the harshness of Israel's servitude as a reason for Israelites to be gentle and kind in allowing their servants and slaves to have a day of rest. I think it is significant that one record of the ten commandments leaves off mentioning creation.Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee. Six days thou shalt labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou. And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the LORD thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day.
(Deuteronomy 5:12-15)
What does not belong to Judaism where salvation and Christ is concern?Lysimachus, the "flag" the christians fly is the cross. We are known as Jesus' disciples by the love we have for one another. We stand apart from worldly attitudes and worldly expedients by following Jesus Christ - he said we must take up our cross and follow him. None of this requires a 7th day observance. In fact 7th day observance is the hallmark of Judaism. So if you are flying a flag by observing the 7th day sabbath it is not a Christian flag at all, it is a "flag" belonging to Judaism.
The heart of our issue here has to do with the fact that Christians today are reading Hebrews 4 with a false lens:
That is: That the spiritual katapousis rest spoken in Hebrews 3 and 4 somehow replaces or negates the physical resting on the Sabbath Day of the 4th commandment, but no such message is taught in the passage itself.--as we know this spiritual katapousis rest was available since the foundation of the world.
Hebrews 4:9.When you are finish trying to avoid the very clear point, "the Sabbath day rest" and "the Sabbath rest" is the same. Where in the bible do you find Sabbath rest meaning anything else?
You are arguing against a straw man. I said nothing about "made void".In Genesis , in Exodus, in other portions of Deuteronomy and where ever else it talks about creation in relation the Sabbath, and because it is not mentioned in what you have quoted, all the other statements become void? How ridiculous can we continue to be?
Imagine, a parent tells their child to look to the left and right before crossing the road and then on another occasion tells them to run and not walk when crossing the road. How smart would it be for the child to run across without looking? Does the last statement negate that which when before?
How far would we go to deny the truth in God's word?
Have you heard of a man by the name of John the Baptist? See Luke 3:16; Acts 1:5; 11:16. It was clearly instituted by John, prior to the crucifixion. The Lord's Supper was too.
The expression "handwriting of oridinances" is taken to mean by the hand of Moses. See 2 Chronicles 33:8. Yes, Moses did copy the Ten Commandments down in his book, obviously. But their origin is by the Finger of God, which nowhere is used to mean "handwriting of ordinances". The expression "ordinances" is clearly in reference to the sacrificial and festival system tied to the earthly sanctuary services in Colossians 2. The Ten Commandments, however, stand fast forever and ever (see Psalms 111:7-10).
I could quote you so many passages from Paul that unabashedly reveals your faulty reasoning. Romans 13:8-10 lists several of the Ten Commandments, and reveals that the keeping of those is a result of true "love". If one has no "love", they will not keep the Ten Commandments. The expression, "FOR THIS...." shows what "love manifests itself into". What love "looks like". What love "translates into"--that is, the keeping of the commandments.
Then John says, "We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren." (1 John 3:7)
This is how we know we have salvation. That we LOVE the brethren. And guess what? Paul showed what love "translates" into in Romans 13:8-10--that is, the keeping of the Ten Commandments---not as the only exclusive evidence of love, but as the foundation of love for which all greater acts are built off of.
Are you suggesting that "all" that was required of the Gentiles in Acts 15 was abstaining from blood, strangled meats, and idols?
Are you suggesting that the message of Acts 15 was to give them license to break all 10 commandments, but that they were to only keep these 3 commandments?
So now the Gentiles can murder, dishonor their parents, take God's name in vain, steal, and covet?
Have you considered at all that the context of Acts 15 is dealing with the Mosaic Laws, in relation to circumcision particularly?
The point Paul is making in Acts 15: All that is required, in ADDITION to the Moral Law, is to abstain from these things....
To suggest that Paul in Acts 15 is stating that those are the only 3 requirements they must keep is simply beyond all logic, and is a perversion of the scriptures. It is an unjust and unfair treatment of God's Word.
We are not talking about conduct. We are talking about sacraments. All sacraments, all these conditions are made prior to the ratification of the covenant. The writers of the New Covenant brought out the spiritual implications and applications of what was already established by Christ. Christ laid the CONDITIONS or FOUNDATION of the New Covenant through His 12 Apostles.
Are you suggesting that Abraham's covenant was based on faith, then God suddenly switched to a purpose of making the Old Covenant given to Israel based on works, then suddenly shifted back to a covenant of faith in the New? Perhaps you are failing to ascertain that it was never God's purpose for Israel to attain the law of righteousness as it were by the works of the law? See Romans 9:30, 31. The Old Covenant BECAME a covenant of works, not because God made it that way, but because Israel made it that way. They tried to keep the commandments by their own works, not by faith. The Ten Commandments, and all Moral Laws of God can only be kept by faith. Not by works. But keeping commandments by faith does not negate the physical keeping of them. Keeping them by faith means that you have the right motive for keeping them--that you are keeping them because of true genuine love that is being actuated by the Spirit of God working in and through you, and giving you victory over sin, which is the transgression of God's law.
Your problem is only when you fail to make a distinction between the law, and the covenant. You are making them one and the same, but they are not. When the Old Covenant was abolished, the Moral Law of God did not get abolished with it, for it was "perfect". The Old Covenant was "faulty". It had to do with the arrangement of how they agreed to that covenant, not that law itself was faulty. Are you charging God of making a faulty covenant?
There is really only ONE covenant: That is, the Everlasting Covenant. That Everlasting Covenant got cut in TWO by the poor promises of Israel. The Old Covenant is the Everlasting Covenant broken by Israel's poor promises. The New Covenant was the Everlasting Covenant restored and recaptured by the blood of Christ. It was a completely NEW covenant, meaning, a new one had to be made with God's people that was based on the principles of God's true Everlasting Covenant made between the Father and the Son.
Notice that the expression "Old" did not exist in the Old Testament time frame. It only became "OLD" after it was abolished due to Israel's failure to live up to it.
Not sure what your point is. I do not disagree.
John the Baptist did institute Baptism. And yes, we do perform it, just as John the Baptist performed it. The Apostles carried on this rite, just as John the Baptist did.
You tell me, and we'll both know. I don't agree that the SDA Church should be doing this. They have compromised on many points. This is not according to the Spirit of Prophecy. The SDA Church is in danger in coming into ecumenical ties and becoming a sister to fallen Babylon.
But true Adventism is invisible. God's faithful Commandment Keepers are the true Adventists, who do not put their hope in a denomination, but Jesus Christ alone. The SDA Conference in its apostate condition is not my example. The example is what God had intended the SDA conference to be, and Ellen White herself was more than disappointed by the direction the conference was beginning to go.
Same here. I could care less about religions, denominations, or organizations. I go by the Bible alone, and I'm here to tell you that TRUE, historic, uncompromising Adventism, as it was originally laid down, IS Biblical.
The foundations are immovable. The Investigative Judgment and the 2300 year Sanctuary Doctirne is, immovable, and firmly established in God's Word. The day-year principle is immovable. It is solidly proven, and the fact that the visions of Daniel 8 and 9 are connected together as the "same vision" is immovable. The Sabbath message is immovable. "Although the hosts of hell may try to tear them from their foundation, and triumph in the thought that they have succeeded, yet they do not succeed. These pillars of truth stand firm as the eternal hills, unmoved by all the efforts of men combined with those of Satan and his host." {Ev 223}
You're welcome to do so anytime. Nobody is stopping you from attempting to refute me from the Scriptures.
I personally extend the same challenge to you about the sabbath being given to all mankind with out denying Moses. IOW calling Moses a liar.This point can only be made when one does not see how the Cross and the Sabbath are intrinsically tied together. I also challenge you to find one single verse that states, "The sabbath of the Jews", or the "Jewish Sabbath".
You will find, "And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh." John 6:4 and "And the Jews' passover was nigh at hand" (John 11:55)., but you will not once find any allusion to the "Jewish Sabbath".
In fact, you will also find: "Christ our passover" (1 Cor 5:7)
But you will not find: "Christ our Sabbath" (1 MoreCoffee 6:6)
No katapousis rest was not available to the Isrealites. God said they shall not enter into His rest. PS 95:11. Yet they had the sabbath. So the sabbath must not be the rest God was talking about in Ps 95. Jesus offered rest while they had the sabbath Mat 11:28-30. That can not be the same rest.
The sabbath is not God's rest.
bugkiller
Agreed. They will burn in Hell forever.Those who disobeyed, which was the majority, did not enter into His rest.
John the Baptist was using the ceremonial bath of the law. He simply applied it to a confession. There is no command prior to the cross for water baptism which is required to institute a religious requirement as an obligation. If there is one please post it. Acts 1:5 nor 11:16 are in no way related to John's baptism. John's baptism is spoken of here as an historical fact only. John's baptism has nothing to do with baptism of of the Holy Ghost. John's baptism did not symbolize the Holy Spirit.
(Water) baptism is a command issued by Jesus after the cross. That is when water baptism was instituted as a religious obligation Mat 28:19-20.
8 Neither will I any more remove the foot of Israel from out of the land which I have appointed for your fathers; so that they will take heed to do all that I have commanded them, according to the whole law and the statutes and the ordinances by the hand of Moses. II Chron 33 Th e whole law here is by the hand of Moses. This includes the 10 Cs. The law includes the 10 Cs according to Paul in Roman 7 and James in chapter 2.
The 10 Cs are ordinances. An ordinance is 1. an authoritative rule or law; a decree or command. 2. a public injunction or regulation. Mishpat (H4941) is -
1) judgment, justice, ordinance
a) judgment
1) act of deciding a case
2) place, court, seat of judgment
3) process, procedure, litigation (before judges)
4) case, cause (presented for judgment)
5) sentence, decision (of judgment)
6) execution (of judgment)
7) time (of judgment)
b) justice, right, rectitude (attributes of God or man)
c) ordinance
d) decision (in law)
e) right, privilege, due (legal)
f) proper, fitting, measure, fitness, custom, manner, plan
Technically I see nothing about written. But I would believe that is a given and stated as written in Col 2:14.
Please esplain how the sacrificial and festival system was against us.
Surely there is a conflict of understanding with Ps 111:7-10 and Jer 31:31-34 and Hosea 2:11.
I read Rom 13:8-10 very differently. I read if love is practiced one is not guilty of the listed crimes noted by the 10 Cs. Gal 5 states the same thing. Perhaps one could explain how one loving would be guilty of such crimes. I agree that we love the brethern as stated in I Jn 3:14. That by itself is not proof we have pased from death to life. What are the fruits of the Spirit? love....!!!!! Do wicked people love? Yes they love all who do good to them. Have they too passed from death to life? No!!!
Acts 15 basicly states the Gentile Christians are not obligated to the law including the sabbath. Acts 15 does not tell Gentile Christians to practice evil (sin). Sin was in the world befr the law - Rom 5:13. Sin has never been done away with. IOW we still have sin that was before the law these days. The law causes sin to be a chargable violation and that is all. Sin has been charged and punished for the Christian by the blood of Jesus Christ.
I have never, ever suggested anyone gave or possesses a license to sin. The Christian is not obligated to the covenant made with the COI per Jeremiah. Therefore the Christian can not violate the law. There is no Jew in Jesus Christ Gal 3:28. The Christian has not joined the covenant made with the COI in any form. To do so invalidates salvation Gal 5:4.
The idea a Christian can sin (not keep the law) only comes from the mouth and hand of SDA pro law people. I have never heard from any other source.
No sir!!! Paul never promotes the sabbath. Paul does not promote wickedness either. That simply does not mean Paul promotes obligation to the law and especially the sabbath.
The covenants God gave Abraham state not details how this was to take place. The covenant made with Isreal did not change the covenants made with Abraham. Moses said that covenant was not given to Abraham. There is no connection to Abraham with the covenant made with the COI - Deut 5:3.
We are worlds apart on covenant or covenants. The twain shall never meet. The one covenant idea is necessary to dismiss the NC.
Doing what someone told you to do is not wrong in itself. In the case of the law it would make one righteous. However there are none as in no one that can do this according to Scripture such as Ps 14:3. There is one exception however and that is God aka Jesus the Christ. The SDA organization teaches one can be righteous by keeping the law. That is a big, no huge load of BULL!!! Infact case-in-point is Mat 19 about the rich young ruler repeated in the other 2 synoptic Gospels.
The right motive for keeping the law? HMP!! Why did God use fear and deathto motivate the keeping of the law? Sure seem right an proper to me to keep it out of fear. In fact that is still uesd today for not keeping the law withing the SDA organization. Read the testimonies of the formers.
Please explain how Moses has God making a covenant with Noah, Abraham and the COI as being one and the same covenant when they conflict. Moses said the covenant made with the COI was not made with their fathers (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) Deut 5:3. There is a very funny single covenant. If there is going to be a new covenant made, there is obviously more than one covenant.
I can not rectify the theory of one eternal covenat only with Sctipture. I will not accept the convoluted theory presented.
Regretfully I can not answer the rest of your post with any integrity without getting reported so I will pass.
But let me say I have seen a picture of an SDA official kissing the Pope's ring and read the accompaning article that included his name. Do not worry it has already been denied with proof.
Hope there was enough detail and Scripture to satisfy you and TruthWave7.
bugkiller
The sabbath is not God's rest.
bugkiller
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?