Ellen White on the Sabbath

[MoreCoffee]

My, oh my.

bugkiller

Indeed, it was quite a dummy spit.

Definition for spit the dummy:

Web definitions:

To overreact (as an adult) to a situation, in an angry or frustrated manner.​

 

[Lysimachus]

I believe John the Revelator saw the Ark of the Covenant. I do not believe that John the Revelator saw the contents of the Ark of the Covenant. Neither did EGW BTW.

bugkiller

Whether John saw the contents of the Ark or not, such point is irrelevant in light of the fact that the earthly was patterned after the heavenly. Such law contained on Heaven's Testimony is not hid in a corner, but is revealed in God's Holy Book called "The Bible". Open your Bible and read the Ten Commandments, and lo, there you will read the revelation of God's will!

How simple is that?

"Here are the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus" (Revelation 14:12)

 

[Lysimachus]

What John says he saw in his vision was the ark of the covenant but he would not be referring to the ark of the old covenant which was, of course, an earthly copy of what exists in heaven. The covenant that John would be referring to is the new covenant and its ark is not a wooden box covered in gold. If you want to pursue the vision's image then read on; the next thing that John sees is a woman dressed in the sun and standing on the moon with twelve stars as a crown on her head.

Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. (Revelation 11:19-12:1)​

What did this woman have to do with the temple and the ark of the covenant you might ask, and why is she clothed in the sun (a gold far more bright than any earthly gold) and why does she stand on the moon and have a crown of 12 stars? In addition this woman is not the centre of this continuing vision because she is pregnant and her child draws the apostle's eye thus

She was pregnant and was crying out in birth pains and the agony of giving birth. And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads seven diadems. His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she bore her child he might devour it. She gave birth to a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which she is to be nourished for 1,260 days. (Revelation 12:2-6)​

Of course there is no vision of tablets of stone with the ten commandments in this passage (or any other passage set in heaven in either testament) so the art work in brother Lysimachus' very long post does not correspond to anything mentioned in Revelation. The following image, imperfect as it is, is far closer to what John saw than was the image that brother Lysimachus gave.

The juxtaposition of the ark of the covenant and the woman is interesting, it is also interesting that this woman "contained" a baby, the child born to rule the nations with a rod of iron. There is another passage a little later in Revelation that also speaks of ruling the nations with a rod of iron.

Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. (Revelation 19:11-15)​

The contents of this woman is, it appears, Jesus Christ and it is not surprising that the contents of the woman is the new covenant himself, because, after all, Christ's said that the cup he gave to the apostles was the new covenant in his blood and that appears to identify the new covenant with Christ himself rather with with commandments written in stone. The testimony that gets a mention in Revelation is not the ten commandments but rather the testimony of Jesus.

Then the dragon became furious with the woman and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus. And he stood on the sand of the sea. (Revelation 12:17)​

If ever in my life I saw "inductions" made in scripture, this is by far the most dramatic case I have ever seen.

It takes a great deal of pains and mental gymnastics for me to see a connection between the Ark mentioned in 11:19 and the woman mentioned in chapter 12. The conclusion is that there are lightenings, voices, thunderings, earthquake and great hail---a similar allusion to the thunderings and voices uttered from Mount Sinai.

Chapter 12 begins another vision, another subject. To declare the "Woman standing on the Moon" as the Ark of the Covenant is no different than declaring the Lamb standing on Mount Zion the same as the Beast with the number 666 when reading the transition from Revelation 13:18 to 14:1.

I declare your interpretation to be a perversion of the scriptures, and render the Catholic Church as having no authority whatsoever in ultimate interpretation of scriptures for mankind.

The Testimony of Jesus and the Ten Commandments are intrinsically tied together, for Christ is a "fulfillment of the law"--the embodiment of the Ten Commandments.

Keep in mind that Christ came to "magnify" the law (Isa 42:21), not displace it. So the Testimony of Christ is a "great expansion" and "elaboration" upon the basic precepts of the Law, revealing that, far more than committing adultery, we are not even to look upon another woman to lust after her, or far more than not killing, we are not to even be angry with our brother.

No wonder Paul said that God's law is Holy, Just, and Good.

 

[Lysimachus]

MoreCoffee

The art work of the Aaronic priesthood, is, irrelevant.

While Christ is not in the line of the Aaronic priesthood, the Aaronic priestood is simply a "type" pointing to Christ as our Great High Priest after the Order of Melchizedek.

Thus, the Aaronic priesthood argument is futile, and useless.

Thus far, your errors have been exposed.

Catholicism has thus far presented weak arguments from the Holy Scriptures.

 

[Lysimachus]

Nope.

We know that we ought not to let people sit in judgement of us regarding annual feasts, monthly new moons, and weekly sabbaths.

We disagree that the "sabbaths" in question are referring to the weekly Sabbaths.

We believe the formula is thus: Yearly > Monthly > Yearly, in this chiastic structure, based on numerous examples employed in the OT, and also found in Hosea 2:11.

Numerous books have been written on this subject. The qualification, "which are a shadow of things to come" automatically qualifies which sabbaths Paul is talking about. Paul would not contradict his own custom (Acts 17:2), nor would he contradict the descriptive procedure recorded by Luke which implied the continued prescriptive method of Sabbath keeping according to the commandment in Luke 23:56.

If Paul meant the 4th commandment Sabbath in Colossians 2:16, we as Christians would be forced to render him a false Apostle, as he would be contradicting the words of Christ and the rest of the Apostles.

 

[MoreCoffee]

If ever in my life I saw "inductions" made in scripture, this is by far the most dramatic case I have ever seen.

It takes a great deal of pains and mental gymnastics for me to see a connection between the Ark mentioned in 11:19 and the woman mentioned in chapter 12. The conclusion is that there are lightenings, voices, thunderings, earthquake and great hail---a similar allusion to the thunderings and voices uttered from Mount Sinai.

Chapter 12 begins another vision, another subject. To declare the "Woman standing on the Moon" as the Ark of the Covenant is no different than declaring the Lamb standing on Mount Zion the same as the Beast with the number 666 when reading the transition from Revelation 13:18 to 14:1.

I declare your interpretation to be a perversion of the scriptures, and render the Catholic Church as having no authority whatsoever in ultimate interpretation of scriptures for mankind.

The Testimony of Jesus and the Ten Commandments are intrinsically tied together, for Christ is a "fulfillment of the law"--the embodiment of the Ten Commandments.

Keep in mind that Christ came to "magnify" the law (Isa 42:21), not displace it. So the Testimony of Christ is a "great expansion" and "elaboration" upon the basic precepts of the Law, revealing that, far more than committing adultery, we are not even to look upon another woman to lust after her, or far more than not killing, we are not to even be angry with our brother.

No wonder Paul said that God's law is Holy, Just, and Good.

You have difficulty seeing the connection because you think that that big "12" between 11:19 and 12:1-2 makes a difference when it doesn't. "12" doesn't make a new vision, John didn't write "12" between the ark and the woman clothed in the sun. He wrote a continuous description of what he saw in his vision. Thus the passage is: Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. The remainder of the passage adds details about the birth and the opposition of the "dragon". This is all about what John saw in his vision when the temple in the heavens opened. All things considered, you can declare whatever you like about the passages under discussion but your declarations do not make it so.

Albert Barnes, a Protestant commentator, says this:

Revelation 11:19

Analysis of the Chapter 11:19–12

This portion of the book commences, according to the view presented in the closing remarks on the last chapter, a new series of visions, designed more particularly to represent the internal condition of the church; the rise of antichrist, and the effect of the rise of that formidable power on the internal history of the church to the time of the overthrow of that power, and the triumphant establishment of the kingdom of God. See the Analysis of the Book, part 5. The portion before us embraces the following particulars:

(1) A new vision of the temple of God as opened in heaven, disclosing the ark of the testimony, and attended with lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail, Rev_11:19. The view of the “temple,” and the “ark,” would naturally suggest a reference to the church, and would be an appropriate representation on the supposition that this vision related to the church. The attending circumstances of the lightnings, etc., were well suited to impress the mind with awe, and to leave the conviction that great and momentous events were about to be disclosed. I regard this verse, therefore, which should have been separated from the eleventh chapter and attached to the twelfth, as the introduction to a new series of visions, similar to what we have in the introduction of the previous series, Rev_4:1. The vision was of the temple the symbol of the church - and it was “opened” so that John could see into its inmost part - even within the veil where the ark was - and could have a view of what most intimately pertained to it.

(2) a representation of the church, under the image of a woman about to give birth to a child, Rev_12:1-2. A woman is seen, clothed, as it were, with the sun - emblem of majesty, truth, intelligence, and glory; she has the moon under her feet, as if she walked the heavens; she has on her head a glittering diadem of stars; she is about to become a mother. This seems to have been designed to represent the church as about to be increased, and as in that condition watched by a dragon - a mighty foe - ready to destroy its offspring, and thus compelled to flee into the wilderness for safety. Thus understood, the point of time referred to would be when the church was in a prosperous condition, and when it would be encountered by antichrist, represented here by the dragon, and compelled to flee into the wilderness; that is, the church for a time would be driven into obscurity, and be almost unknown. It is no uncommon thing, in the Scriptures, to compare the church with a beautiful woman. See the notes on Isa_1:8. The following remarks of Prof. Stuart (vol. 2:252), though he applies the subject in a manner very different from what I shall, seem to me accurately to express the general design of the symbol: “The daughter of Zion is a common personification of the church in the Old Testament; and in the writings of Paul, the same image is exhibited by the phrase, Jerusalem, which is the mother of us all; that is, of all Christians, Gal_4:26. The main point before us is the illustration of that church, ancient or later, under the image of a woman. If the Canticles are to have a spiritual sense given to them, it is plain enough, of course, how familiar such an idea was to the Jews. Whether the woman thus exhibited as a symbol be represented as bride or mother depends, of course, on the nature of the case, and the relations and exigencies of any particular passage.”
​

It is the SDA approach to the passage that is eccentric. In my previous posts I've shown how some among the early church fathers also adopted the view I expressed. And they did so before chapter numbers and verse numbers were inserted into the text. They were also native Koine Greek speakers which, in my humble opinion, places them better than you or Ellen White to read and understand what John said in Greek.

God watch over you Lysimachus.

 

[MoreCoffee]

MoreCoffee

The art work of the Aaronic priesthood, is, irrelevant.

While Christ is not in the line of the Aaronic priesthood, the Aaronic priestood is simply a "type" pointing to Christ as our Great High Priest after the Order of Melchizedek.

Thus, the Aaronic priesthood argument is futile, and useless.

Thus far, your errors have been exposed.

Catholicism has thus far presented weak arguments from the Holy Scriptures.

I do not think that the art is irrelevant, it is your denomination's iconography and it is used to illustrate what Ellen White and other SDA leaders teach. So when the heavenly temple's high priest and the ark of the covenant are depicted your denomination chooses to depict them as old testament images. That is an indication of the spirit and meaning of SDA sanctuary doctrine; that is, SDA iconography is old testament because SDA teaching draws more heavily from old testament images and patterns than it does from new testament teaching. So I do not agree with you when you dismiss the art work as irrelevant.

 

[Lysimachus]

MoreCoffee,

While it is true that some Protestant commentators still held to some Roman Catholic graveclothes, it is also true that not all of them had penetrated fully into the full counsel of God, thus we see that some of their interpretations still bear the stamp of Roman apostasy. Many had not yet fully come out the Augustinian Allegorization of the New Jerusalem and the Heavenly Temple--yet they did make great advancements. The confusion that pervaded the Reformation helps us to then realize the utmost historical necessity of the Third Angel's Message--which is not so much a disagreement with previous theology as it is a warning--a warning both to Protestantism as well as to Catholicism. And, those Adventists who know their calling, will go forth with power until the voice is heard--for which nothing will stand in their path.

It is by the Holy Scriptures that we Adventists declare that we make no such connection between the Ark of the Covenant and the Woman standing on the moon, any different then the Lamb standing on Mount Zion is the Beast in the previous chapter. The conjunction "and" does not testify to a continuous description of what is in chapter 11, rather, is simply illustrating a point of God's true Church in the wilderness who uphold the very law of God contained in the Ark.

It is with deep regret MoreCoffee, that you err in your interpretation of the scriptures.

The Adventist pioneer position is rendered as follows concerning the Heavenly and the Earthly Temple:

The Spiritual Things of Earth Compared to The Literal Things of Heaven

Historic Adventism believes that the SPIRITUAL things on earth mirror the LITERAL things in heaven.

Here is the Biblical, Adventist, Pioneer view. We are living in the Dispensation of the Holy Spirit, and under this Dispensation, we have the following:

The things of God up in heaven have a literal application, and the things of God on earth have a spiritual application. As long as we remember this principle, we will save ourselves from a lot of confusion and error.

1. In heaven, God is a Literal God. On earth, God is a Spiritual God--through the Holy Spirit.

2. Christ in heaven is present Literally. On earth He is present with you Spiritually.

3. In heaven there is a Literal Holy City. On earth there is a Spiritual Holy City--the Christian Church.

4. In heaven there is a Literal Temple. On earth there is a Spiritual Temple--the Temple of the Christian Church--believers--each believer is a Spiritual Temple. And all believers together make up a vast glorious Spiritual Temple made up of spiritual living stones.

5. In heaven there is a Literal Throne. On earth, there is a Spiritual Throne--the throne of the heart.

6. In heaven there are Literal Stones that are a part of the Holy City. On earth there are Spiritual Stones--each believer is a living stone.

7. In heaven there is a Literal Priesthood--Christ and the 24 elders. On earth there is a Spiritual Priesthood of believers--we are spiritual creatures.

8. In heaven there is a Literal Intercessor--the man Christ Jesus. On earth there is a Spiritual Intercessor--the Holy Spirit--who makes intercession with groanings and utterances.

9. In heaven there is a Literal Altar of Incense. On earth there is a Spiritual Altar--the Altar of the Heart.

10. In heaven there is Literal Incense. On earth there is Spiritual Incense, which represents the prayers of the saints.

11. In heaven there is a Literal offering of Christ's blood and His righteousness. On earth there are Spiritual offerings--the offerings of prayer, praise, and thanksgiving according to 1 Peter 2:5.

12. In heaven there are Literal Lampstands. On earth there are Spiritual Lampstands representing the Church--the 7 churches.

13. In heaven there is Literal light in the lampstands. On earth there is Spiritual light in the Church--the light of the Holy Spirit, the light of truth.

14. In heaven there is a Literal shewbread. On earth there is a Spiritual shewbread--the Word of God.

15. In heaven there is a Literal Tree of Life. On earth, there is a Spiritual Tree of Life--the Word of God, the leaves of the Bible.

16. In heaven there is a Literal River of Life. On earth there is a Spiritual River of Life--the Holy Spirit (John 7:38,39)

17. In heaven there is a Literal resurrection of believers--when we enter the Kingdom of Glory there is a Literal resurrection. On earth there is a Spiritual resurrection of believers that are being born again.

18. In heaven there is Eternal Life for the believer Literally. On earth now we have Eternal Life Spiritually.

19. In heaven God's law is on Literal Tables in a Literal Temple. On earth God's law is on Spiritual Tables of the Spiritual Temple of the believer.

20. In heaven believers will sit Literally with Christ sharing His throne. On earth now believers sit with Christ in heavenly places in the Spiritual sense according to Ephesians 2.

21. In heaven it's a Literal Kingdom of Glory. On earth it's a Spiritual Kingdom of Grace.

22. In heaven Jesus is king--Literally king. On earth He is a Spiritual king now in the Kingdom of Grace.

(Principles derived from Austin P. Cooke’s sermon: “In Defense of the Sanctuary Doctrine&#8221​

Thus we see how the literal things in heaven stand as symbols that reflect and mirror the spiritual things on earth.

This Adventist understanding was a revolutionary, God-ordained understanding that totally turns Evangelical and Catholic thought upside down. It completely overturns not only the literalistic perspective of an earthly millennial reign by modern Dispensationalists, but also demolishes the Allegorization of Augustinian and Origenistic thought that pervaded the Papal Apostasy throughout the Dark Ages.

*Hats off my friend*

~Lysimachus

 

[MoreCoffee]

MoreCoffee,

.....

This Adventist understanding was a revolutionary, God-ordained understanding that totally turns Evangelical and Catholic thought upside down. It completely overturns not only the literalistic perspective of an earthly millennial reign by modern Dispensationalists, but also demolishes the Allegorization of Augustinian and Origenistic thought that pervaded the Papal Apostasy throughout the Dark Ages.

You will be in our prayers MoreCoffee, as we continue to plead on your behalf so that you might escape the power of the Beast, and come fully and penetrate into the Whole Counsel of God.

*Hats off my friend*

~Lysimachus

The SDA perspective is indeed new, it is indeed a revolution, and it is in error. The sanctuary doctrine - investigative judgement being another name by which it is known - is an error and that is why it is new.

Novelty in religion is not a virtue, brother Lysimachus

 

[Lysimachus]

The SDA perspective is indeed new, it is indeed a revolution, and it is in error. The sanctuary doctrine - investigative judgement being another name by which it is known - is an error and that is why it is new.

Novelty in religion is not a virtue, brother Lysimachus

With this said, I think it is only proper that we consider wrapping this thread up with an agreement to disagree.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Not yet, there are more paragraphs from Ellen White to examine.

 

[bugkiller]

Whether John saw the contents of the Ark or not, such point is irrelevant in light of the fact that the earthly was patterned after the heavenly. Such law contained on Heaven's Testimony is not hid in a corner, but is revealed in God's Holy Book called "The Bible". Open your Bible and read the Ten Commandments, and lo, there you will read the revelation of God's will!

How simple is that?

"Here are the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus" (Revelation 14:12)

Why of course it is irrelevant, I simply disagree with you. You make an upprovable claim and then say other ideas are irrelevant. What a cop out, deinal and refusal to examine the arguments. The truth is John the Revelator did not see the stone tablets. And neither did EGW by her guiding angel who just happens to show her this which solves a problem in the organization.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

MoreCoffee

The art work of the Aaronic priesthood, is, irrelevant.

While Christ is not in the line of the Aaronic priesthood, the Aaronic priestood is simply a "type" pointing to Christ as our Great High Priest after the Order of Melchizedek.

Thus, the Aaronic priesthood argument is futile, and useless.

Thus far, your errors have been exposed.

Catholicism has thus far presented weak arguments from the Holy Scriptures.

NTL the Aaronic priesthood is part of the law which is now void and self negates your argument based on Mat 5:17-18.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

We disagree that the "sabbaths" in question are referring to the weekly Sabbaths.

We believe the formula is thus: Yearly > Monthly > Yearly, in this chiastic structure, based on numerous examples employed in the OT, and also found in Hosea 2:11.

Numerous books have been written on this subject. The qualification, "which are a shadow of things to come" automatically qualifies which sabbaths Paul is talking about. Paul would not contradict his own custom (Acts 17:2), nor would he contradict the descriptive procedure recorded by Luke which implied the continued prescriptive method of Sabbath keeping according to the commandment in Luke 23:56.

If Paul meant the 4th commandment Sabbath in Colossians 2:16, we as Christians would be forced to render him a false Apostle, as he would be contradicting the words of Christ and the rest of the Apostles.

No, no this is a list and not a chiastic structure.

bugkiller

 

[Elder 111]

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

For everyone to see I will post part of Romans 7
5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. ( in the flesh: is this not saying that we were doing fleshly things as in Gal. 5)

6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. ( Why are we deliver from the law? Is it not because we serve in the Spirit and not that the law is removed as in Gal. 5)

7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. ( so what is he saying? is it not that the law still is?)

8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. ( no law no sin, so that if there is now no law no one can be guilty of sin period.)

9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. (certainly here Paul is saying that when he looked at the ten commandments that he was fully aware of his sins)

10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. (Does it not at all sound strange that that which is unto life would be abolished? Is there not something fundamentally wrong with that idea in this context? Would it not be that what is removed is the death sentence because we are in Christ and not the law?)

11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. (Sin is the problem not the law! If the law could have been removed then there would have been no need for Christ to die for sin)

12Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
(Glory to God! Would we also remove God He is also Good and Just and Holy).

 

[bugkiller]

For everyone to see I will post part of Romans 7
5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. ( in the flesh: is this not saying that we were doing fleshly things as in Gal. 5)

6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. ( Why are we deliver from the law? Is it not because we serve in the Spirit and not that the law is removed as in Gal. 5)

7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. ( so what is he saying? is it not that the law still is?)

What do you, mean? Are you asking if the law is applicable to the Christian? or maybe if the law is an historical fact?

To answer the first question, I ask another - how? Does Moses say the law including the 10 Cs were not given to anyone else before or after the Isrealites - Deut 5:3. Does Moses identify this covenant law in Deut 4:13 as the 10 Cs? Does Paul say the law was added and applicable until the Seed (Jesus - Gen 3:15) should ccome? Does Dr Luke say the law was until John (the Baptist) in 16:16? Does John say the law came by Moses or Jesus? What does the same verse say came by Jesus? the law? JN 1:17 Did grace and truth come by Moses? No!!! Are we denying the historical records? No!!!

I gather the law is a has been. How can any other conclusion be arrived at?

8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. ( no law no sin, so that if there is now no law no one can be guilty of sin period.)

Brilliant and correct conclusion.

9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. (certainly here Paul is saying that when he looked at the ten commandments that he was fully aware of his sins)

Yes the law brings only condemnation and death. It does not provide life.

10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. (Does it not at all sound strange that that which is unto life would be abolished? Is there not something fundamentally wrong with that idea in this context? Would it not be that what is removed is the death sentence because we are in Christ and not the law?)

There are two (2) truths in the above verse. Here is the way the verse says that- And the commandment, which was ordained to life.

And the commandment I found to be unto death.
First if and only if one never violates the law it does provide (physical) life in a sense. See the Book of the Law say about Deut 28-30.

11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. (Sin is the problem not the law! If the law could have been removed then there would have been no need for Christ to die for sin)

That is correct the law always kills. The law is called the ministration of death. II Cor 3:7

12Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
(Glory to God! Would we also remove God He is also Good and Just and Holy).

about the law being holy, just and good. Now who is it that removes the law? See Jer 31:31-33 and Hosea 2:11. In Hosea God says very clearly the sabbath (4th commandment) ceases. God gave the sabbath to them - Eze 20:12. I think you even brought that verse up. Thus it is proper to call the sabbath - her sabbaths.

bugkiller

 

[Lysimachus]

Why of course it is irrelevant, I simply disagree with you. You make an upprovable claim and then say other ideas are irrelevant. What a cop out, deinal and refusal to examine the arguments. The truth is John the Revelator did not see the stone tablets. And neither did EGW by her guiding angel who just happens to show her this which solves a problem in the organization.

bugkiller

Even if they didn't see the tables, I still have faith that they read the same. I have faith that, the earthly tables given were an adapted version for humanity's fallen condition. All the principles of God's law are written in heaven.

As I have stated on numerous occasions in the past, if we are going to spiritualize away the 4th commandment to mean simply nothing more than a spiritual rest, and not a physical rest on the 7th day, then consistency demands that we also spiritualize all other 9 commandments as well.

It is my belief that all commandments must be kept both spiritually AND physically. We do not worship other gods because not doing so is written in our heart. We must honor our parents not only physically, but it must be coming from our hearts. But it is impossible for these laws to be written in our heart if we do not show it in our actions. If the law is truly written in our hearts spiritually, by the spirit, then it will be shown in how we treat our parents. It will be seen in how we physically treat them, for example.

I believe the same principle applies to the 4th commandment. God is not the author of confusion. If we keep 1 only spiritually, then the other 9 must be kept only spiritually as well. But, consistency demands that if we keep the other 9 spiritually and physically, then the 4th commandment must be kept spiritually as well as physically too.

You are free to disagree, but I'm just telling you how I see it. I feel it's pretty simple.

 

[mmksparbud]

Indeed, it was quite a dummy spit.

Definition for spit the dummy:

Web definitions:

To overreact (as an adult) to a situation, in an angry or frustrated manner.​

Not at all--but what was said about the artwork was downright rude, now that was a real dummy spit, and not needed. So, why not turn it right back at you?? Seems only fair.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Not at all--but what was said about the artwork was downright rude, now that was a real dummy spit, and not needed. So, why not turn it right back at you?? Seems only fair.

The art work reflects SDA beliefs; somebody thinks that heaven has a gigantic set of ten commandments with angels and light behind and billowing clouds around and steps before and an angel with book and pen and Jesus talking to, admonishing, a black suited resurrected man .... while somebody else thinks that Jesus is in heaven dressed like Aaron the high priest with a big gold covered box and angels on the lid with lots of billowing clouds around and Jesus gesturing towards the box and towards the viewer of the art work ...

These things show in pictures something about what SDAs teach and believe.

 

[MoreCoffee]

We disagree that the "sabbaths" in question are referring to the weekly Sabbaths.

We believe the formula is thus: Yearly > Monthly > Yearly, in this chiastic structure, based on numerous examples employed in the OT, and also found in Hosea 2:11.

Paul's letter to the Colossians is not an old testament writing, it is a letter written in prose. The letter's use of festivals (annual celebrations with which Jews were familiar), new moons (monthly observances with which Jews were familiar) and sabbaths (weekly observances with which Jews were familiar) was intended by Paul to cover all of the "holy days" that Israel kept as sacred obligations and in which Paul did not want Christians to become entangled.

Numerous books have been written on this subject. The qualification, "which are a shadow of things to come" automatically qualifies which sabbaths Paul is talking about. Paul would not contradict his own custom (Acts 17:2), nor would he contradict the descriptive procedure recorded by Luke which implied the continued prescriptive method of Sabbath keeping according to the commandment in Luke 23:56.

I agree that 7th day observing Christians do write a great many books about why Paul did not mean what he plainly says but we who do not share 7th observers' predilection for eisegesis in Colossians 2:16 ff have no difficulty understanding that Paul wants to prevent his readers from falling into false beliefs by trying to observe old testament laws and regulations about food and drinks and festivals, new moons, or sabbath.

If Paul meant the 4th commandment Sabbath in Colossians 2:16, we as Christians would be forced to render him a false Apostle, as he would be contradicting the words of Christ and the rest of the Apostles.

Paul means what he says and he says, You were dead, because you were sinners and uncircumcised in body: he has brought you to life with him, he has forgiven us every one of our sins. He has wiped out the record of our debt to the Law, which stood against us; he has destroyed it by nailing it to the cross; and he has stripped the sovereignties and the ruling forces, and paraded them in public, behind him in his triumphal procession. Then never let anyone criticise you for what you eat or drink, or about observance of annual festivals, New Moons or Sabbaths. (Colossians 2:13-16) Paul says these things because, These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. (Colossians 2:17).

Christians live in the full light of Christ and consequently do not dwell in the shadows and types of the old covenant. Christians understand that the shadows and types are instructive when read in the light of Christ but that to place one's self under them as a code of law to be obeyed is to abandon the gospel. Do not be cheated of your prize by anyone who chooses to grovel to angels and worship them, pinning every hope on visions received, vainly puffed up by a human way of thinking (Colossians 2:18). Thus Paul writes that, In these rules you can indeed find what seems to be good sense -- the cultivation of the will, and a humility which takes no account of the body; but in fact they have no value against self-indulgence. (Colossians 2:23)