Ellen White on the Sabbath

[dollarsbill]

Do you know that Jesus quoted 100% OT texts in the NT? Jesus considered the OT as the Bible in the NT, and yet you want to do away with 2/3 of the Bible.

Are you saying I can't be saved by following only the NT?

 

[mmksparbud]

mmksparbud, I see that you've forgotten that "one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled". But I do agree with you that the jots and tittles of the sacrifices have passed from the law so I think that we'd both have to agree that all has been fulfilled. And if all has been fulfilled then the whole law is passed away. I think you're doing that cafeteria thing again. You've decided you like having the ten commandments around so you said that not everything has been fulfilled and now you want to say everything has been fulfilled because you want to say that the sacrifices are a thing of the past. You can't really have it both ways. But I guess you have your reasons, perhaps Ellen White said so?

Ok--now you are being diliberately obtuse---I've plainly stated that all is not fulfilled--not till Jesus returns--I've plainly stated that the 10 commandments are God's law, they had been contained in the earthly sanctuary--which is patterned after the heavenly--the heavenly sanctuary obviously was made long before the earthly sanctuary since Moses had to make the earthly one after it's pattern. The heavenly sanctuary is the heavenly sanctuary--what else you want it called as that is what the bible calls it. The bible also states that Jesus is our high priest--you've read that over and over--after the order of Melchizedek not after the order of the Levites, I know you know all this so you're just trying to be cute here--or something.
It also says that Jesus, as our high Priest, also uses His own blood, instead of as the earthly sanctuary used the blood of animals--that's been said and verses given for all of it. Nothing complicated or "cafeteria" about it. That's what the bible says,not what some pope and high ranking bishops or whatever have said and drilled into you. The bible says that animals sacrifices are no longer needed, for there is a better sacrifice, the blood of Jesus--there is no pick and choose here. Maybe you been so indoctrinated with what others believe so much that you can not see the plain truth when it's spread out before you. You've been provided with all the verses but you want to continue in your train of though--that's fine, just don't pretend to yourself that were cafeteria eaters of the bile--we ate the whole thing, with plenty of the Holy Spirit to wash it all down with, and for dessert, we're expecting Jesus to come back and get us!o wash it all down with.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Ok--now you are being diliberately obtuse---I've plainly stated that all is not fulfilled--not till Jesus returns--I've plainly stated that the 10 commandments are God's law, they had been contained in the earthly sanctuary--which is patterned after the heavenly--the heavenly sanctuary obviously was made long before the earthly sanctuary since Moses had to make the earthly one after it's pattern. The heavenly sanctuary is the heavenly sanctuary--what else you want it called as that is what the bible calls it. The bible also states that Jesus is our high priest--you've read that over and over--after the order of Melchizedek not after the order of the Levites, I know you know all this so you're just trying to be cute here--or something.

It also says that Jesus, as our high Priest, also uses His own blood, instead of as the earthly sanctuary used the blood of animals--that's been said and verses given for all of it. Nothing complicated or "cafeteria" about it. That's what the bible says,not what some pope and high ranking bishops or whatever have said and drilled into you. The bible says that animals sacrifices are no longer needed, for there is a better sacrifice, the blood of Jesus--there is no pick and choose here. Maybe you been so indoctrinated with what others believe so much that you can not see the plain truth when it's spread out before you. You've been provided with all the verses but you want to continue in your train of though--that's fine, just don't pretend to yourself that were cafeteria eaters of the bile--we ate the whole thing, with plenty of the Holy Spirit to wash it all down with, and for dessert, we're expecting Jesus to come back and get us!o wash it all down with.

mmksparbud, I would not need to repeat the same points if you gave any evidence that you understood them and had some sound reasons for rejecting them but since you have done neither I soldier on with the same point.

Now let's go over your points one by one.

1. You say, "I've plainly stated that all is not fulfilled"
   I reply: if all is not fulfilled then not one jot or one tittle of the law has passed either and therefore the sacrifices which the law commands are not passed either but since you say that the sacrifices are passed it follows that you are either:
   1. contradicting yourself, or
   2. you really do believe that all is fulfilled, or
   3. you erroneously think that the law is just the ten commandments and nothing else.
2. You say, "I've plainly stated that the 10 commandments are God's law"
   I reply: The ten commandments are a part of the law given by God to Moses at Mount Sinai. Just a part of it, a small but important part, but definitely not the whole law. Remember what Jesus said? "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:17-18)
   
   No mention of ten commandments there, right? Just the Law and the Prophets, which I think is the whole old testament, perhaps with the exception of the wisdom literature.
3. You say, "The bible also states that Jesus is our high priest--you've read that over and over--after the order of Melchizedek not after the order of the Levites, I know you know all this so you're just trying to be cute here--or something."
   I reply: The art work that brother Lysimachus posted had Jesus dressed like an Aaronic high priest with a breast plate with 12 stones in it and a kind of turban hat thing and robes. But Jesus is not an Aaronic high priest so why the art work making him look like that? I reckon Jesus as high priest looks much more like this.
   
   
   
   
4. You say, "The bible says that animals sacrifices are no longer needed, for there is a better sacrifice, the blood of Jesus--there is no pick and choose here."
   I reply: I completely agree that the sacrifices of the old covenant Law are a thing of the past. And I agree that a once for all time sacrifice was made on the cross by the Lord himself under the new covenant. But this is exactly the point with which you seem to be playing cafeteria. Since the old covenant had a great many sacrifices and all were specified in the Law and since you appear to acknowledge that those sacrifices are a thing of the past which we need not engage in then it follows with inexorable logic that the law is also a thing of the past because the sacrifices have ceased to be made and the Aaronic priesthood is gone and the temple is gone and the whole system is over and done with having been fulfilled by the Lord.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by TruthWave7 Do you know that Jesus quoted 100% OT texts in the NT? Jesus considered the OT as the Bible in the NT, and yet you want to do away with 2/3 of the Bible.

Are you saying I can't be saved by following only the NT?

I could actually get along with just having the NT of the Bible. Let the OC Jews of today have the OT

.

 

[mmksparbud]

mmksparbud, I would not need to repeat the same points if you gave any evidence that you understood them and had some sound reasons for rejecting them but since you have done neither I soldier on with the same point.

Now let's go over your points one by one.

1. You say, "I've plainly stated that all is not fulfilled"
   I reply: if all is not fulfilled then not one jot or one tittle of the law has passed either and therefore the sacrifices which the law commands are not passed either but since you say that the sacrifices are passed it follows that you are either:
   1. contradicting yourself, or
   2. you really do believe that all is fulfilled, or
   3. you erroneously think that the law is just the ten commandments and nothing else.
2. You say, "I've plainly stated that the 10 commandments are God's law"
   I reply: The ten commandments are a part of the law given by God to Moses at Mount Sinai. Just a part of it, a small but important part, but definitely not the whole law. Remember what Jesus said? "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:17-18)
   
   No mention of ten commandments there, right? Just the Law and the Prophets, which I think is the whole old testament, perhaps with the exception of the wisdom literature.
3. You say, "The bible also states that Jesus is our high priest--you've read that over and over--after the order of Melchizedek not after the order of the Levites, I know you know all this so you're just trying to be cute here--or something."
   I reply: The art work that brother Lysimachus posted had Jesus dressed like an Aaronic high priest with a breast plate with 12 stones in it and a kind of turban hat thing and robes. But Jesus is not an Aaronic high priest so why the art work making him look like that? I reckon Jesus as high priest looks much more like this.
   
   
4. You say, "The bible says that animals sacrifices are no longer needed, for there is a better sacrifice, the blood of Jesus--there is no pick and choose here."
   I reply: I completely agree that the sacrifices of the old covenant Law are a thing of the past. And I agree that a once for all time sacrifice was made on the cross by the Lord himself under the new covenant. But this is exactly the point with which you seem to be playing cafeteria. Since the old covenant had a great many sacrifices and all were specified in the Law and since you appear to acknowledge that those sacrifices are a thing of the past which we need not engage in then it follows with inexorable logic that the law is also a thing of the past because the sacrifices have ceased to be made and the Aaronic priesthood is gone and the temple is gone and the whole system is over and done with having been fulfilled by the Lord.

I have not said these things---the bible says it. It says plainly that the sacrifices are not longer needed as Jesus is that sacrifice--it also says that not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law till all be fulfilled--I am not making this up--now, are you calling Jesus a liar?? Is He confused? No--you are the one that says it has to be all, or nothing, Jesus doesn't say that. Jesus said it is finished and died---is that it?---It is as far as His part in giving Himself up as our sacrifice for the forgiveness of our sins--but for it ALL to be finished, He's got to come back, get us, have judgement on the lost--then it will all be finished. If He never comes back, if there is no judgement--then all would be for nothing.
As far as what Jesus wears as our High priest after the order of Melchizadek--how should I know?!! And you don't know either and the picture is just that, a picture of what the Levitical High priests wore, and since everything else in the sanctuary is a pattern of the heavenly one, it's only logical to think that Christ may be wearing the same thing. It would make more sense then what you think He should be dressed like--and it is not important what He is wearing, He is our High Priest--that's what is important. This is the best I can do to explain this.
Now--are you going to continue to ignore my 2 questions???



OOOps---that's the other thread

 

[MoreCoffee]

I have not said these things---the bible says it. It says plainly that the sacrifices are not longer needed as Jesus is that sacrifice--it also says that not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law till all be fulfilled--I am not making this up--now, are you calling Jesus a liar?? Is He confused? No--you are the one that says it has to be all, or nothing, Jesus doesn't say that. Jesus said it is finished and died---is that it?---It is as far as His part in giving Himself up as our sacrifice for the forgiveness of our sins--but for it ALL to be finished, He's got to come back, get us, have judgement on the lost--then it will all be finished. If He never comes back, if there is no judgement--then all would be for nothing.

As far as what Jesus wears as our High priest after the order of Melchizadek--how should I know?!! And you don't know either and the picture is just that, a picture of what the Levitical High priests wore, and since everything else in the sanctuary is a pattern of the heavenly one, it's only logical to think that Christ may be wearing the same thing. It would make more sense then what you think He should be dressed like--and it is not important what He is wearing, He is our High Priest--that's what is important. This is the best I can do to explain this.
Now--are you going to continue to ignore my 2 questions???

OOOps---that's the other thread

Far be it from me, sister mmksparbud, to ever do what you accuse me of saying, "are you calling Jesus a liar??" The Lord is Truth himself, he never spoke a lie and never will and that makes it all the more necessary to be careful about quoting him accurately because Jesus did not say "not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law till all be fulfilled" as you do. Jesus said "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." There are three things to notice:

1. Jesus first speaks of the law and the prophets, thus setting the context for his remarks. He did not come to destroy the law or the prophets. Had he wanted to restrict his teaching to the ten commandments alone then he had opportunity to do so but he did not. He was explicit that he did not come to destroy the law or the prophets.
2. And Jesus was explicit that till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Now the thing to notice here is that Jesus first establishes that heaven and earth would pass before any of the law would pass without being fulfilled, and second he says "till all be fulfilled" when speaking of the passing of the law. Obviously some of the law is passed even according to your own statements because you keep affirming that the sacrifices have passed. So it follows with divine sanction that the law has been fulfilled and consequently has passed.
3. The "all" to which Jesus refers is preceded by "the law" and so it is grammatically correct to associate the "all" with "the law". Thus when the law is fulfilled it passes. It is you that makes the "all ... fulfilled" apply to end times events, Jesus doesn't do that, you do. Perhaps a modern translation will help to clarify what is being said,
   Don't suppose that I came to do away with the Law and the Prophets. I did not come to do away with them, but to give them their full meaning. Heaven and earth may disappear. But I promise you that not even a period or comma will ever disappear from the Law. Everything written in it must happen. (Matthew 5:17-18, CEV)​

Now, what I have written above is not new, it was taught and believed in the early church as these words witness:

Our Saviour speaks in this manner, to prepare the minds of the Jews for his new instructions. For although they were not very solicitous about fulfilling the law, still they were extremely jealous of any change exacted a more perfect morality. Our Lord fulfilled the law three several ways:

1. By his obedience to the prescribed rites; therefore he says, it behoveth us to fulfil all justice: and who shall accuse me of sin?
2. He observes the law, not only by his own observance of it, but likewise by enabling us to fulfil it. It was the wish of the law to make man just, but found itself too weak; Christ therefore came justifying man, and accomplished the will of the law.
3. He fulfilled the law, by reducing all the precepts of the old law to a more strict and powerful morality.

(St. John Chrysostom, hom. xvi.)​

So, all things considered, SDA theology fails to take proper account of the grammar of the passage we're examining (Matthew 5:17-20) and so fails to properly understand what fulfilment signifies in the crucial verses (17 & 18).

As for the High Priestly clothing depicted in brother Lysimachus' art work, my comments remain; Jesus was not a high priest in the line of Aaron so he would not wear the vestments of that priesthood. He has other vestments and offers a different sacrifice and brings complete salvation to his people; unlike Aaron and his descendants.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I have not said these things---the bible says it. It says plainly that the sacrifices are not longer needed as Jesus is that sacrifice--it also says that not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law till all be fulfilled--I am not making this up--now, are you calling Jesus a liar?? Is He confused? No--you are the one that says it has to be all, or nothing, Jesus doesn't say that. Jesus said it is finished and died---is that it?---It is as far as His part in giving Himself up as our sacrifice for the forgiveness of our sins--but for it ALL to be finished, He's got to come back, get us, have judgement on the lost--then it will all be finished. If He never comes back, if there is no judgement--then all would be for nothing.
As far as what Jesus wears as our High priest after the order of Melchizadek--how should I know?!! And you don't know either and the picture is just that, a picture of what the Levitical High priests wore, and since everything else in the sanctuary is a pattern of the heavenly one, it's only logical to think that Christ may be wearing the same thing. It would make more sense then what you think He should be dressed like--and it is not important what He is wearing, He is our High Priest--that's what is important. This is the best I can do to explain this.
Now--are you going to continue to ignore my 2 questions???



OOOps---that's the other thread

Now, I am the one who is confused here.

Jesus said that not one jot or tittle of the Law would pass away until all was fulfilled. That seems to cover absolutely everything commanded in the Old Testament, does it not?

If it does and if it has been fulfilled, as you seem to clearly indicate by stating that "the sacrifices are no longer needed as Jesus is that sacrifice" then a lot more than a jot or a tittle has been fulfilled. If this has passed away, as you have said yourself, then it is evident that all has been fulfilled (of the Law). One can argue that prophecy remains yet to be fulfilled, but prophecy is not Law.

Therefore, if the Law has been fulfilled, as you clearlly indicate, then why do you suppose there remain unfulfilled sections?

As morecoffee has posited you believe one of these three things -

1. The Law has been fulfilled, meaning every single jot and tittle.
2. The Law has not been fulfiled and every jot and tittle remains in effect with its just penalties. This includes the necessary sacrifices to be offered in Jerusalem on the altar of the Temple.
or 3. The Law has only been partially fulfilled and Jesus was either severely mistaken or He was lying.

Which of these three do you believe?

 

[mmksparbud]

Now, I am the one who is confused here.

Jesus said that not one jot or tittle of the Law would pass away until all was fulfilled. That seems to cover absolutely everything commanded in the Old Testament, does it not?

If it does and if it has been fulfilled, as you seem to clearly indicate by stating that "the sacrifices are no longer needed as Jesus is that sacrifice" then a lot more than a jot or a tittle has been fulfilled. If this has passed away, as you have said yourself, then it is evident that all has been fulfilled (of the Law). One can argue that prophecy remains yet to be fulfilled, but prophecy is not Law.

Therefore, if the Law has been fulfilled, as you clearlly indicate, then why do you suppose there remain unfulfilled sections?

As morecoffee has posited you believe one of these three things -

1. The Law has been fulfilled, meaning every single jot and tittle.
2. The Law has not been fulfiled and every jot and tittle remains in effect with its just penalties. This includes the necessary sacrifices to be offered in Jerusalem on the altar of the Temple.
or 3. The Law has only been partially fulfilled and Jesus was either severely mistaken or He was lying.

Which of these three do you believe?

It is your and Coffee's interpretation that when Jesus says "the law and the prophets" He means all the other laws given to Moses, I'm not sure what you think He means by the prophets.
Sorry--but I do not agree--the law is the 10 commandments, what God wrote--the prophets means just that--all the prophetic words spoken through His prophets. Jesus, and the deciples plainly state that Jesus is now our sacrifice so anything that the Jews did that pointed to His death, no longer are in effect. The 10 commandments are--you don't want to believe that, it's ok--but you can't twist my words around to mean something that they do not. It's not rocket science. You can dance around this all you want--or just agree to disagree.

 

[MoreCoffee]

It is your and Coffee's interpretation that when Jesus says "the law and the prophets" He means all the other laws given to Moses, I'm not sure what you think He means by the prophets.

Sorry--but I do not agree--the law is the 10 commandments, what God wrote--the prophets means just that--all the prophetic words spoken through His prophets. Jesus, and the deciples plainly state that Jesus is now our sacrifice so anything that the Jews did that pointed to His death, no longer are in effect. The 10 commandments are--you don't want to believe that, it's ok--but you can't twist my words around to mean something that they do not. It's not rocket science. You can dance around this all you want--or just agree to disagree.

Now we see the source of your errors; you think "the law" is a synonym for "the ten commandments" when it is not. The ten commandments are part of the law. The Torah, also known as the five books of Moses, is the law. The Prophets is the collection of writings from Israel's prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve minor prophets. The writings make up the rest of the Jewish scriptures. Christians, of course, chose their canon independently of the Judaism that arose after the time of Christ, thus Christians include the entire new testament as scripture. So when Jesus speaks of "the law and the prophets" he speaks of the Torah and the Prophets as I listed them above.

You may have noticed that I did not include Daniel among the prophets, that is because Daniel is not included among the prophets by the Jews of our time, in Jesus' time it may have been different. Some research into the Dead Sea Scrolls might reveal if Daniel was included in the scrolls of the prophets or if Daniel was included among the scrolls of the writings. Anyway, that is not a major matter. The point here is that "the law and the prophets" is not the ten commandments but it included them.

 

[bugkiller]

Ok--now you are being diliberately obtuse---I've plainly stated that all is not fulfilled--not till Jesus returns--I've plainly stated that the 10 commandments are God's law, they had been contained in the earthly sanctuary--which is patterned after the heavenly--the heavenly sanctuary obviously was made long before the earthly sanctuary since Moses had to make the earthly one after it's pattern. The heavenly sanctuary is the heavenly sanctuary--what else you want it called as that is what the bible calls it. The bible also states that Jesus is our high priest--you've read that over and over--after the order of Melchizedek not after the order of the Levites, I know you know all this so you're just trying to be cute here--or something.
It also says that Jesus, as our high Priest, also uses His own blood, instead of as the earthly sanctuary used the blood of animals--that's been said and verses given for all of it. Nothing complicated or "cafeteria" about it. That's what the bible says,not what some pope and high ranking bishops or whatever have said and drilled into you. The bible says that animals sacrifices are no longer needed, for there is a better sacrifice, the blood of Jesus--there is no pick and choose here. Maybe you been so indoctrinated with what others believe so much that you can not see the plain truth when it's spread out before you. You've been provided with all the verses but you want to continue in your train of though--that's fine, just don't pretend to yourself that were cafeteria eaters of the bile--we ate the whole thing, with plenty of the Holy Spirit to wash it all down with, and for dessert, we're expecting Jesus to come back and get us!o wash it all down with.

The chief reason the SDA message is not commonly accepted is the double speak.

The point is made that jots and tittles of the law have not changed against clear stated Scripture. Such a standard makes Jesus Christ a full liar and sinner. This alone disqualifies Jesus as Saviour. Thus there is still no slavation for anyone under such a concept. This puts us on God's level or degrades God to our level.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

I have not said these things---the bible says it. It says plainly that the sacrifices are not longer needed as Jesus is that sacrifice--it also says that not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law till all be fulfilled--I am not making this up--now, are you calling Jesus a liar?? Is He confused? No--you are the one that says it has to be all, or nothing, Jesus doesn't say that. Jesus said it is finished and died---is that it?---It is as far as His part in giving Himself up as our sacrifice for the forgiveness of our sins--but for it ALL to be finished, He's got to come back, get us, have judgement on the lost--then it will all be finished. If He never comes back, if there is no judgement--then all would be for nothing.
As far as what Jesus wears as our High priest after the order of Melchizadek--how should I know?!! And you don't know either and the picture is just that, a picture of what the Levitical High priests wore, and since everything else in the sanctuary is a pattern of the heavenly one, it's only logical to think that Christ may be wearing the same thing. It would make more sense then what you think He should be dressed like--and it is not important what He is wearing, He is our High Priest--that's what is important. This is the best I can do to explain this.
Now--are you going to continue to ignore my 2 questions???



OOOps---that's the other thread

Yes art does matter. It is a statement of facts. What most do not understand is the message art gives passes undetected by most as a subliminal submittal to the belief system held by a person. Yes it passes undetected.

bugkiller

 

[MoreCoffee]

The chief reason the SDA message is not commonly accepted is the double speak.

The point is made that jots and tittles of the law have not changed against clear stated Scripture. Such a standard makes Jesus Christ a full liar and sinner. This alone disqualifies Jesus as Saviour. Thus there is still no slavation for anyone under such a concept. This puts us on God's level or degrades God to our level.

bugkiller

I do not think that mmksparbud sees the desperate situation in which SDA theology puts the Lord (if SDA theology were true). It not only makes him a prevaricator when he speaks in Matthew 5:17-18 but it also makes the salvation wrought by him a mere extension of the system of animal sacrifices of the Aaronic priesthood. And what was the angel with the pen doing in that terribly misconceived image from Lysimachus? It is so un-new-testament like.

Look at what they have, some poor chap dressed in a black suit - presumably from his funeral or maybe his resurrection suit prior to being given a white robe as the new testament declares the dead in Christ receive - being interviewed and maybe judged and corrected as he stands before a gigantic copy of the ten commandments with an angel writing down the transcript of the trial! I truly can't see what a SDA would have to object to regarding purgatory when they create such a legalistic system for post resurrection Christians. What a dreadful prospect they make.

 

[bugkiller]

I do not think that mmksparbud sees the desperate situation in which SDA theology puts the Lord (if SDA theology were true). It not only makes him a prevaricator when he speaks in Matthew 5:17-18 but it also makes the salvation wrought by him a mere extension of the system of animal sacrifices of the Aaronic priesthood. And what was the angel with the pen doing in that terribly misconceived image from Lysimachus? It is so un-new-testament like.

Look at what they have, some poor chap dressed in a black suit - presumably from his funeral or maybe his resurrection suit prior to being given a white robe as the new testament declares the dead in Christ receive - being interviewed and maybe judged and corrected as he stands before a gigantic copy of the ten commandments with an angel writing down the transcript of the trial! I truly can't see what a SDA would have to object to regarding purgatory when they create such a legalistic system for post resurrection Christians. What a dreadful prospect they make.

It is obvious more than one person does not know the Bible from the SDA organization. Personally I see nothing but religion being persued by them.

bugkiller

 

[MoreCoffee]

It is obvious more than one person does not know the Bible from the SDA organization. Personally I see nothing but religion being persued by them.

bugkiller

Well, their art work is disturbing. Take a good look at this one:

The URL names the image ChristHighPriest and he's dressed like this:

CHRISTIAN MESSAGES: "THE JEWISH HIGH PRIEST GARMENTS" - By Dr. Terry Harman - YouTube

The video clip is a little amusing, but it shows a modern example of high priestly garments. It is very like the garment in which the SDA art dresses the heavenly Jesus.

And why are there apparently living angels on top of a big gold covered box? Is that what SDAs think the ark of the covenant in heaven is like? And why all those weird billowy cloud things surrounding stuff?

 

[bbbbbbb]

It is your and Coffee's interpretation that when Jesus says "the law and the prophets" He means all the other laws given to Moses, I'm not sure what you think He means by the prophets.
Sorry--but I do not agree--the law is the 10 commandments, what God wrote--the prophets means just that--all the prophetic words spoken through His prophets. Jesus, and the deciples plainly state that Jesus is now our sacrifice so anything that the Jews did that pointed to His death, no longer are in effect. The 10 commandments are--you don't want to believe that, it's ok--but you can't twist my words around to mean something that they do not. It's not rocket science. You can dance around this all you want--or just agree to disagree.

Well, that does simplify things for us. I see that we are now free from observing the dietary law because is it not one of the ten commandments. What type of pork do you enjoy eating most? I tend to favor ham.

 

[mmksparbud]

<edit>
I do not know how to do that copy paste thing--or I would post some of those paintings that are so admired by everybody--Esp the ones depicting hellfire with little goblins chewing on people and I'm sure that the artwork on that ceiling over in Italy is just exactly as God, Satan, Adam and Eve Moses and everyone else looked like. It's no wonder that there are so many atheists after growing up with those visions of a sadistic, torturing God. And, of course the deciples and even Jesus dressed in Rennasaunce clothing is very realistic, not to mention all those lovely, adorable little fat cherubs. Yes, indeed, very telling. And don't you just love that accurate portrait of a beautifully draped Jesus at Gesthemane that has Him looking like He"s having just a simple little chat while looking up at the sky--The worst night of His life--up until then, with Him facing crucifixtion and so much more--and the bible clearly says, "and He fell on His face" Matt 26:31. Facts are important. And I have no doubt that Mary, Jesus mother, looks just like she's portrayed, complete with a gold ring floating over head. And that picture you put up that has Jesus in that get-up--oh--so very realistic--I'm sure it must be true.
The Lord's supper--very realistic, all of them sitting around a table--the bible says they were laying down, but it's much more realistic to have them all sitting on chairs at the table when that was not the custom in those days, it was to recline . And the feast of unleavened bread--is always shown with a loaf of bread--instead of the traditional matza flat bread.
Now, how about you just pull up all those paintings, pictures, murals, and statues--like the one of Mary with the dead Jesus on her lap--He sure looks like He has just been flogged, tortured, beaten, and His whole body marred beyond recognition---
Is this the best you can do--critic an artists work---except the work that has been done for the Catholic church??---Now that is sad, indeed. I dare say that this artwork is far more accurate than anything that the Catholic church has got--fat, little babies with wings, really??? But they are cute!

Rev 11:19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in His temple the ark of the testament.."---
The earthly ark of the testament was described by God Himself and is patterned after the heavenly--You can read it for yourself in Exodus 37--

Just wondering--that ceiling were Adam is reaching to touch the hand of God--is that what the hand Of God really looks like??---And Adam and Eve--did they have belly buttons??---Imean, the button is formed from the placenta joining to the baby and they never had a placenta, so why would they have a belly button??---I'm sure the salvation of all is based on your opinions of what the bible says things look like. The world has soooo many religious works of art--and you're upset over this???---

 

[dollarsbill]

The chief reason the SDA message is not commonly accepted is the double speak.

The point is made that jots and tittles of the law have not changed against clear stated Scripture.

And then they procede to remove the commands to stone sinners.

 

[MoreCoffee]

mmksparbud, art is art eh?

Realism is not the point, though some art work is quite realistic.

The Orthodox like icons, some are very beautiful, but they are not intended to be realistic - not like a photograph. Here's one set for your contemplation.

Some of the images on that Iconostasis are these.

The Holy Supper.

Mary, mother of the Lord, Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ, the teacher.

I am afraid the iconostasis has no icon of the ten commandments and none of the third commandment surrounded by a halo of light. I feel sure, however, that in SDA art such things are depicted.

God keep you.

 

[bugkiller]

Now we see the source of your errors; you think "the law" is a synonym for "the ten commandments" when it is not. The ten commandments are part of the law. The Torah, also known as the five books of Moses, is the law. The Prophets is the collection of writings from Israel's prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve minor prophets. The writings make up the rest of the Jewish scriptures. Christians, of course, chose their canon independently of the Judaism that arose after the time of Christ, thus Christians include the entire new testament as scripture. So when Jesus speaks of "the law and the prophets" he speaks of the Torah and the Prophets as I listed them above.

You may have noticed that I did not include Daniel among the prophets, that is because Daniel is not included among the prophets by the Jews of our time, in Jesus' time it may have been different. Some research into the Dead Sea Scrolls might reveal if Daniel was included in the scrolls of the prophets or if Daniel was included among the scrolls of the writings. Anyway, that is not a major matter. The point here is that "the law and the prophets" is not the ten commandments but it included them.

They do ignoring and/or disbelieving what Paul says in Romans 7 where he identifies the 10 Cs as the law and tells us we are delivered from the law.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Your argument above doesn't mean anything, because we are all "IN Christ Jesus". Since Jesus is the "second Adam", the expression "the man" for Christ Jesus is adequate.

Yes I know that. It is for no other reason that I disagree with you. It avoids the problem you have with what you brought up. There is quite a difference between the and all anthropos as previously contended. Your revealing the Greek says the man is a very large can-o-worms or pandora's box for you. The word the indicates a singular solitary personand not a general or all mankind as previously argued.

bugkiller