GOD'S WORD vs TRADITIONS OF MEN; Sabbath vs Sunday

[Matthew ten Verseight]

The Glory was radiating from the tables of stone. It was the reflection from the tablets that was on Moses face.

According to the verse, it was the glory reflected in Moses face that faded, not the glory of the law that was glowing. Its in the masculine.

2Co 3:7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

2Co 3:13 And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:

The text told you, twice even.

That which remaineth then is the Glory of the Law of God as seen in the face of Jesus Christ, as per 2 Cor 4:4-6., since He came to magnify and make it honourable, Isa. 42:21

 

[Bob S]

According to the verse, it was the glory reflected in Moses face that faded, not the glory of the law that was glowing. Its in the masculine.

2Co 3:7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

2Co 3:13 And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:

The text told you, twice even.

That which remaineth then is the Glory of the Law of God as seen in the face of Jesus Christ, as per 2 Cor 4:4-6., since He came to magnify and make it honourable, Isa. 42:21

Okay, I read verse 7 with a different slant so we are at an impasse there. Let's look at verse 8 and see if that verse can be skewed.
8 how shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? What is the ministry of the Spirit that is rather glorious? Rather glorious than what? More glorious than the head of Moses or more glorious than the ministry of death that is identified in verse 7 as the 10 commandments? Verse 9 explains it nicely.
9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. So, now can you say it was the head of Moses that was glorious?

Lets further see what verses 10 and 11 add to our impasse.
10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. Since it is obvious that the subject is not Moses' head, what else can we find that was glorious? Bingo! yes, it was the 10 commandments written on stones that came with Glory. But wait for a second, the verse explains that there is something that excels and Moses' head has been ruled out, so what could it be that is greater than the 10 commandments? The only other glorious account in the subject would have to be found in verse 8, the Holy Spirit. Now to further clinch what was actually done away verse 11 adds more fuel to the subject.
11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious. It is so obvious that what was done away was not the head of Moses but the 10 commandments.

In the book of Galatians chapter 3 verse 19 Paul makes a bold statement: 19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

The Sinai covenant with its 613 laws was added because of transgressions. The Seed is Jesus as explained earlier in the chapter. When Jesus came He came not to abolish the law. The Jews had already transgressed the Sinai covenant which dissolved the "IF" covenant. Jesus came to fulfill that covenant. the best meaning of "fulfill" would be bring to an end. That coincides with 2Cor3:7-11, Eph2:15, Col2:16-17 and many more verses including Jeremiah 31:31-34 where God is telling Jeremiah that the old covenant would be replaced with a new covenant. Again, that happened at Calvary where the new covenant was ratified with the blood of Jesus Himself.

 

[Bob S]

According to the verse, it was the glory reflected in Moses face that faded, not the glory of the law that was glowing. Its in the masculine.

I am not an English major so I have to take it at your word about being in the masculine. What that does to the meaning I cannot see, but I am able to see that the ministration of death is the 10 commandments and I see the "WAS glorious" in verse 7. I did pick up a few tidbits in English class and I know that WAS is past tense. To me, that would mean that today the 10 commandments are not glorious. They were at one time though.

The radiation of the 10 commandments was reflected on the face of Moses. The reflection faded as the radiation of the stones faded.

 

[BobRyan]

According to the verse, it was the glory reflected in Moses face that faded, not the glory of the law that was glowing. Its in the masculine.

2Co 3:7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

2Co 3:13 And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:

The text told you, twice even.

That which remaineth then is the Glory of the Law of God as seen in the face of Jesus Christ, as per 2 Cor 4:4-6., since He came to magnify and make it honourable, Isa. 42:21

nice point. Thanks for posting that.

 

[BobRyan]

, but I am able to see that the ministration of death is the 10 commandments

The old and New Covenant have the same moral law known to Jeremiah and his readers - as Jeremiah points out in Jer 31:31-33.

So then... "still a sin" to take God's name in vain.

 

[sparow]

Fifty percent isn't that bad now, is it? Deut 5:1 Hear, Israel, the decrees and the laws I declare in your hearing today. Learn them and be sure to follow them. 2 The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. 3 It was not with our ancestors that the Lord made this covenant, but with us, with all of us who are alive here today.

It would seem like Moses and you have some differences as to when the command to observe Sabbath came to be. I know SDAs like to assume that Abraham was a payor of tithes on his income, but that is not what scripture tells us. You would like to assume there is a 10 in front of commandments in the New Testament, but that is not what scripture tells us. You would like to deny verses like 2Cor3:7-11 and Eph 2:15. Gal 3 blows Adventism out of the water. All kinds of excuses are made concerning Col 2. It appears to be either the Bible or, not and, Mrs. White. I had to make that decision. I am so glad I chose the Bible.

I am curious about your attack on the SDA. I am also curious about Gen 26:5/6, and Gen 18:19, Duet 5:1, Gal 3., 2Cor 3:7-11, Eph 2:15.

Regarding the sabbath, the SDA, as an institution, are on the right side of a line; keeping the day does not constitute keeping the Sabbath; but individuals in the SDA have an opportunity to get it right, conversely those who abrogate the Sabbath have no chance.


It is always possible to disagree with anyone's opinion but Hebrews 7:1-4 says Abraham paid tithes at least on one occasion.


Genesis 26:5 (NKJV)
5 because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws."


This is Moses giving a brief history of the previous 2000 years, we know sin existed during that time and sin requires to be defined by the Law; it seems to me, Moses is saying what God requires of Israel and us is what God required of Abraham. We are not told what specific laws were given to Abraham, but we know God does not change.


What was given to Moses was a contract; Israel would keep God's charge, keep God's commandments, keep God's statutes and keep God's Laws, as did Abraham and presumably Noah; and in return God would provide the Kingdom of God, which was promised to Abraham, the king or Messiah, the promise of whom preceded Abraham, and of course, salvation for those who will inherit their place in the kingdom.


Christ arrives on cue as per Daniel's prophesy, did He find faith? Yes and no; to the Pharisees He said, “The kingdom of God has been taken from you.” Was there any who kept God's charge, His commandments, His statutes and His Law? Mary and Mary's grandfather and uncles did, John the Baptist's relatives did, and I believe Rev. 12:1, refers to those who kept God's charge; without which the Kingdom of God would not have come; Christ would not have begun confirming the covenant, converting promise to reality. Israel as a nation failed but individuals succeeded.


I guess the issue is, is the Law abrogated or is it simply under new administration? You seem to be suggesting we have the same king, the same kingdom but a different Law or covenant. How is the New covenant different to the Old? The new covenant has a different date and different signatures, but the terms and conditions are the same. Jeremiah mentions two differences; people under the New covenant know the Law with out having to learn it, but this is administration, no terms or conditions are changed; another difference mentioned by Jeremiah is, with the New covenant the consequences of the sins of the father are not carried forward for three generations, but this is also administrative and not the terms and conditions determining the kingdom and its inhabitants. Hebrews states that the law had to be changed so that Jesus could be a High Priest. I believe the Law would require a public service to administrate the Law, but the fact that the Levites were chosen doesn't mean they were critical for salvation, for the Kingdom to come, but only that they were the only and best choice at the time. But if it was a requirement that the High Priest be a Levite in any subsequent renewing of the covenant, and the covenant was renewed each time a remnant came out each time Israel crashed, and the New covenant congregation was a remnant coming out, then looking at the linage of Mary given by Luke, and of course Mathew didn't think Joseph's linage was irreleverent, Jesus appears to have blood from all the twelve tribes and would have been as much Levite as He was Jew.


Considering the proposition; the law is abrogated; would those who keep the Law in the manner God required previously be punished? Of course not.


Considering the proposition; the Law is not abrogated; would those following false prophets lose the salvation? Of course.


Regarding Paul; the SDA use Paul to prove their position.


Ellen White was very good as far as evangelists go. She wasn't perfect but one would be hard pressed to find one better. Her greatest error is to do with the 2300 year prophesy. Recently I asked knowledgeable SDA why they start counting the 2300 years from the 590 years, and he didn't say Snow or any of the old crowd from the great awakening, but rather the start counting from the command to rebuild Jerusalem be cause a group of SDA elders decided that is where they start. I believe the 2300 years are tagged onto the end of the 590 years, is the period between the first and second coming, is the time frame that Revelation covers, is that great and terrible day of the Lord.


One thing that Ellen white has in common with to days Evangelists is the man of sin was not revealed to her. AS the end time climax approaches I expect a woman of sin.

 

[klutedavid]

I am curious about your attack on the SDA. I am also curious about Gen 26:5/6, and Gen 18:19, Duet 5:1, Gal 3., 2Cor 3:7-11, Eph 2:15.

Regarding the sabbath, the SDA, as an institution, are on the right side of a line; keeping the day does not constitute keeping the Sabbath; but individuals in the SDA have an opportunity to get it right, conversely those who abrogate the Sabbath have no chance.


It is always possible to disagree with anyone's opinion but Hebrews 7:1-4 says Abraham paid tithes at least on one occasion.


Genesis 26:5 (NKJV)
5 because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws."


This is Moses giving a brief history of the previous 2000 years, we know sin existed during that time and sin requires to be defined by the Law; it seems to me, Moses is saying what God requires of Israel and us is what God required of Abraham. We are not told what specific laws were given to Abraham, but we know God does not change.


What was given to Moses was a contract; Israel would keep God's charge, keep God's commandments, keep God's statutes and keep God's Laws, as did Abraham and presumably Noah; and in return God would provide the Kingdom of God, which was promised to Abraham, the king or Messiah, the promise of whom preceded Abraham, and of course, salvation for those who will inherit their place in the kingdom.


Christ arrives on cue as per Daniel's prophesy, did He find faith? Yes and no; to the Pharisees He said, “The kingdom of God has been taken from you.” Was there any who kept God's charge, His commandments, His statutes and His Law? Mary and Mary's grandfather and uncles did, John the Baptist's relatives did, and I believe Rev. 12:1, refers to those who kept God's charge; without which the Kingdom of God would not have come; Christ would not have begun confirming the covenant, converting promise to reality. Israel as a nation failed but individuals succeeded.


I guess the issue is, is the Law abrogated or is it simply under new administration? You seem to be suggesting we have the same king, the same kingdom but a different Law or covenant. How is the New covenant different to the Old? The new covenant has a different date and different signatures, but the terms and conditions are the same. Jeremiah mentions two differences; people under the New covenant know the Law with out having to learn it, but this is administration, no terms or conditions are changed; another difference mentioned by Jeremiah is, with the New covenant the consequences of the sins of the father are not carried forward for three generations, but this is also administrative and not the terms and conditions determining the kingdom and its inhabitants. Hebrews states that the law had to be changed so that Jesus could be a High Priest. I believe the Law would require a public service to administrate the Law, but the fact that the Levites were chosen doesn't mean they were critical for salvation, for the Kingdom to come, but only that they were the only and best choice at the time. But if it was a requirement that the High Priest be a Levite in any subsequent renewing of the covenant, and the covenant was renewed each time a remnant came out each time Israel crashed, and the New covenant congregation was a remnant coming out, then looking at the linage of Mary given by Luke, and of course Mathew didn't think Joseph's linage was irreverent, Jesus appears to have blood from all the twelve tribes and would have been as much Levite as He was Jew.


Considering the proposition; the law is abrogated; would those who keep the Law in the manner God required previously be punished? Of course not.


Considering the proposition; the Law is not abrogated; would those following false prophets lose the salvation? Of course.


Regarding Paul; the SDA use Paul to prove their position.


Ellen White was very good as far as evangelists go. She wasn't perfect but one would be hard pressed to find one better. Her greatest error is to do with the 2300 year prophesy. Recently I asked knowledgeable SDA why they start counting the 2300 years from the 590 years, and he didn't say Snow or any of the old crowd from the great awakening, but rather the start counting from the command to rebuild Jerusalem be cause a group of SDA elders decided that is where they start. I believe the 2300 years are tagged onto the end of the 590 years, is the period between the first and second coming, is the time frame that Revelation covers, is that great and terrible day of the Lord.


One thing that Ellen white has in common with to days Evangelists is the man of sin was not revealed to her. AS the end time climax approaches I expect a woman of sin.

Was the law abrogated?

Well of course, because circumcision was abrogated. When even one law is abrogated the rest of the law follows.

You can't keep one law and throw away another.

It's either the whole law or no law.

 

[sparow]

Was the law abrogated?

Well of course, because circumcision was abrogated. When even one law is abrogated the rest of the law follows.

You can't keep one law and throw away another.

It's either the whole law or no law.

do not agree with your reasoning, nor the facts you reason about.

Behind my reasoning is Jesus's warning, “beware lest you be deceived”.

Revelation 18:23 (NKJV)
23 The light of a lamp shall not shine in you anymore, and the voice of bridegroom and bride shall not be heard in you anymore. For your merchants were the great men of the earth, for by your sorcery all the nations were deceived.

Revelation 17:2 (NKJV)
2 with whom the kings of the earth committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth were made drunk with the wine of her fornication."

2 Kings 9:22 (NKJV)
22 Now it happened, when Joram saw Jehu, that he said, "Is it peace, Jehu?" So he answered, "What peace, as long as the harlotries of your mother Jezebel and her witchcraft are so many?"

Nahum 3:4 (NKJV)
4 Because of the multitude of harlotries of the seductive harlot, The mistress of sorceries, Who sells nations through her harlotries, And families through her sorceries.


Jesus gives us a way to test things: two witnesses are required. If Jesus says something and the OT confirms it, then we can know it is true. If Jesus said the Law is abrogated and if the OT, (or the Father) pre-empted or prophesied such an event then it would be known to true; but Jesus said the opposite, confirming no change is possible except maturing, confirming, bringing promise to reality.

Circumcision while a covenant it self is a shell in which THE covenant exists; circumcision is, and introduces the Blood covenant; and as a law established required gentiles living within an Israelite camp to be circumcised. It is prophesied in the OT that the Law/covenant would go the Gentiles; but the new covenant is made with the lost sheep of Israel and extended to gentiles; there are only twelve gates into the New Jerusalem.

We all have our own little belief systems, some believe the scriptures are infallible; I believe that the Law cannot be changed; that the God who knew the end from the beginning could be incompetent such that His Law would need to be changed; if the Law/covenant could be changed the God of Israel would have no identity or credibility.

There is only one Law; one either has it or discards it.

.

 

[klutedavid]

but Jesus said the opposite, confirming no change is possible except maturing, confirming, bringing promise to reality.

But change was possible and a truckload of laws were abrogated. You are living in denial.

Circumcision while a covenant it self is a shell in which THE covenant exists; circumcision is, and introduces the Blood covenant; and as a law established required gentiles living within an Israelite camp to be circumcised. It is prophesied in the OT that the Law/covenant would go the Gentiles; but the new covenant is made with the lost sheep of Israel and extended to gentiles; there are only twelve gates into the New Jerusalem.

Your confusing the new covenant with the old covenant.

We all have our own little belief systems, some believe the scriptures are infallible; I believe that the Law cannot be changed;

We know that's not true because over 600 laws were abrogated. What is it your missing?

that the God who knew the end from the beginning could be incompetent such that His Law would need to be changed;

Unless we are talking about the law of Christ which the law itself was based on.

if the Law/covenant could be changed the God of Israel would have no identity or credibility.

Changed and that is a fact. No one is under the law of Moses anymore.

There is only one Law; one either has it or discards it.

You did not clearly specify ultimately which law you are talking about. We are under the law of Christ.

 

[Bob S]

I am curious about your attack on the SDA. I am also curious about Gen 26:5/6, and Gen 18:19, Duet 5:1, Gal 3., 2Cor 3:7-11, Eph 2:15.

And I am curious as to why you used the word "attack"? It seems like you SDAs can write all that you do telling all the remainder of us that we are wrong like you just did in the next paragraph "we have no chance" meaning we are all going to Hell, but when we tell you that we don't believe you and give our reasons why, we are attacking you. My thoughts on that issue is boo hoo. Blow your nose and debate the issues like the rest of us do.

Regarding the sabbath, the SDA, as an institution, are on the right side of a line;

That is merely your opinion. JWs and Mormons, to name a few, say the same thing.

keeping the day does not constitute keeping the Sabbath; but individuals in the SDA have an opportunity to get it right, conversely those who abrogate the Sabbath have no chance.

Yes, you do have that opportunity, but the fact is you have been programmed to believe what you do and in order to understand the true meaning of the Plan of Salvation you first must allow yourself to at least try to understand the views of others You have been taught that all the remainder of Christians are false and never to listen to what we glean from scripture

It is always possible to disagree with anyone's opinion but Hebrews 7:1-4 says Abraham paid tithes at least on one occasion.

Yes he did. I have never said he didn't. The fact of the story is that he paid tithe on the spoils of the people he fought. Are you able to see the difference? It does not tell us that Abraham paid it on the animals he raised or the crops he raised. The SDA church quotes the Old Testament on tithing, but fails to use the standards God gave Israel set forth for how it was to be paid and by who. Example, Jesus would not have been a tithe payer because He didn't raise livestock or animals. Neither would the sandal maker, tent maker or anything else that was not growing crops and/or animals. Please do not just take my word for it and phew phew it away, read the law concerning the payment of tithe. Levites were given the law that told them to pay tithe on the tithes they received. The remainder was to be the pay on which the Levites were to live.


Genesis 26:5 (NKJV)

5 because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws."

At that time the law must have been that one could marry a half sister and have other wives because Abraham sure did.


T

his is Moses giving a brief history of the previous 2000 years, we know sin existed during that time and sin requires to be defined by the Law; it seems to me, Moses is saying what God requires of Israel and us is what God required of Abraham. We are not told what specific laws were given to Abraham, but we know God does not change.

If you would read your Bible instead of parroting what SDAs tell you, you would find out that either God does change or He planned changes in His Plan of Salvation, Read the accout of Mose up on the mountain with God while the Israelites were building a golden calf. God said He was going to destroy them. Moses persuaded Him to CHANGE HIS MIND.

What was given to Moses was a contract; Israel would keep God's charge, keep God's commandments, keep God's statutes and keep God's Laws, as did Abraham and presumably Noah; and in return God would provide the Kingdom of God, which was promised to Abraham, the king or Messiah, the promise of whom preceded Abraham, and of course, salvation for those who will inherit their place in the kingdom.

Are you sticking by your wrong story because God promised His offspring the land of Canaan. It was a conditional promise. Israel had to live by the covenant. They didn't and the covenant was nullified. It happened at Calvary where Jesus ratified the new covenant with His own blood.

Bed time, will respond to the remainder tomorrow.


Christ arrives on cue as per Daniel's prophesy, did He find faith? Yes and no; to the Pharisees He said, “The kingdom of God has been taken from you.” Was there any who kept God's charge, His commandments, His statutes and His Law? Mary and Mary's grandfather and uncles did, John the Baptist's relatives did, and I believe Rev. 12:1, refers to those who kept God's charge; without which the Kingdom of God would not have come; Christ would not have begun confirming the covenant, converting promise to reality. Israel as a nation failed but individuals succeeded.


I guess the issue is, is the Law abrogated or is it simply under new administration? You seem to be suggesting we have the same king, the same kingdom but a different Law or covenant. How is the New covenant different to the Old? The new covenant has a different date and different signatures, but the terms and conditions are the same. Jeremiah mentions two differences; people under the New covenant know the Law with out having to learn it, but this is administration, no terms or conditions are changed; another difference mentioned by Jeremiah is, with the New covenant the consequences of the sins of the father are not carried forward for three generations, but this is also administrative and not the terms and conditions determining the kingdom and its inhabitants. Hebrews states that the law had to be changed so that Jesus could be a High Priest. I believe the Law would require a public service to administrate the Law, but the fact that the Levites were chosen doesn't mean they were critical for salvation, for the Kingdom to come, but only that they were the only and best choice at the time. But if it was a requirement that the High Priest be a Levite in any subsequent renewing of the covenant, and the covenant was renewed each time a remnant came out each time Israel crashed, and the New covenant congregation was a remnant coming out, then looking at the linage of Mary given by Luke, and of course Mathew didn't think Joseph's linage was irreleverent, Jesus appears to have blood from all the twelve tribes and would have been as much Levite as He was Jew.


Considering the proposition; the law is abrogated; would those who keep the Law in the manner God required previously be punished? Of course not.


Considering the proposition; the Law is not abrogated; would those following false prophets lose the salvation? Of course.


Regarding Paul; the SDA use Paul to prove their position.


Ellen White was very good as far as evangelists go. She wasn't perfect but one would be hard pressed to find one better. Her greatest error is to do with the 2300 year prophesy. Recently I asked knowledgeable SDA why they start counting the 2300 years from the 590 years, and he didn't say Snow or any of the old crowd from the great awakening, but rather the start counting from the command to rebuild Jerusalem be cause a group of SDA elders decided that is where they start. I believe the 2300 years are tagged onto the end of the 590 years, is the period between the first and second coming, is the time frame that Revelation covers, is that great and terrible day of the Lord.


One thing that Ellen white has in common with to days Evangelists is the man of sin was not revealed to her. AS the end time climax approaches I expect a woman of sin.

 

[sparow]

And I am curious as to why you used the word "attack"? It seems like you SDAs can write all that you do telling all the remainder of us that we are wrong like you just did in the next paragraph "we have no chance" meaning we are all going to Hell, but when we tell you that we don't believe you and give our reasons why, we are attacking you. My thoughts on that issue is boo hoo. Blow your nose and debate the issues like the rest of us do.


That is merely your opinion. JWs and Mormons, to name a few, say the same thing.


Yes, you do have that opportunity, but the fact is you have been programmed to believe what you do and in order to understand the true meaning of the Plan of Salvation you first must allow yourself to at least try to understand the views of others You have been taught that all the remainder of Christians are false and never to listen to what we glean from scripture


Yes he did. I have never said he didn't. The fact of the story is that he paid tithe on the spoils of the people he fought. Are you able to see the difference? It does not tell us that Abraham paid it on the animals he raised or the crops he raised. The SDA church quotes the Old Testament on tithing, but fails to use the standards God gave Israel set forth for how it was to be paid and by who. Example, Jesus would not have been a tithe payer because He didn't raise livestock or animals. Neither would the sandal maker, tent maker or anything else that was not growing crops and/or animals. Please do not just take my word for it and phew phew it away, read the law concerning the payment of tithe. Levites were given the law that told them to pay tithe on the tithes they received. The remainder was to be the pay on which the Levites were to live.


Genesis 26:5 (NKJV)
At that time the law must have been that one could marry a half sister and have other wives because Abraham sure did.


T
If you would read your Bible instead of parroting what SDAs tell you, you would find out that either God does change or He planned changes in His Plan of Salvation, Read the accout of Mose up on the mountain with God while the Israelites were building a golden calf. God said He was going to destroy them. Moses persuaded Him to CHANGE HIS MIND.


Are you sticking by your wrong story because God promised His offspring the land of Canaan. It was a conditional promise. Israel had to live by the covenant. They didn't and the covenant was nullified. It happened at Calvary where Jesus ratified the new covenant with His own blood.

Bed time, will respond to the remainder tomorrow.


Christ arrives on cue as per Daniel's prophesy, did He find faith? Yes and no; to the Pharisees He said, “The kingdom of God has been taken from you.” Was there any who kept God's charge, His commandments, His statutes and His Law? Mary and Mary's grandfather and uncles did, John the Baptist's relatives did, and I believe Rev. 12:1, refers to those who kept God's charge; without which the Kingdom of God would not have come; Christ would not have begun confirming the covenant, converting promise to reality. Israel as a nation failed but individuals succeeded.


I guess the issue is, is the Law abrogated or is it simply under new administration? You seem to be suggesting we have the same king, the same kingdom but a different Law or covenant. How is the New covenant different to the Old? The new covenant has a different date and different signatures, but the terms and conditions are the same. Jeremiah mentions two differences; people under the New covenant know the Law with out having to learn it, but this is administration, no terms or conditions are changed; another difference mentioned by Jeremiah is, with the New covenant the consequences of the sins of the father are not carried forward for three generations, but this is also administrative and not the terms and conditions determining the kingdom and its inhabitants. Hebrews states that the law had to be changed so that Jesus could be a High Priest. I believe the Law would require a public service to administrate the Law, but the fact that the Levites were chosen doesn't mean they were critical for salvation, for the Kingdom to come, but only that they were the only and best choice at the time. But if it was a requirement that the High Priest be a Levite in any subsequent renewing of the covenant, and the covenant was renewed each time a remnant came out each time Israel crashed, and the New covenant congregation was a remnant coming out, then looking at the linage of Mary given by Luke, and of course Mathew didn't think Joseph's linage was irreleverent, Jesus appears to have blood from all the twelve tribes and would have been as much Levite as He was Jew.


Considering the proposition; the law is abrogated; would those who keep the Law in the manner God required previously be punished? Of course not.


Considering the proposition; the Law is not abrogated; would those following false prophets lose the salvation? Of course.


Regarding Paul; the SDA use Paul to prove their position.


Ellen White was very good as far as evangelists go. She wasn't perfect but one would be hard pressed to find one better. Her greatest error is to do with the 2300 year prophesy. Recently I asked knowledgeable SDA why they start counting the 2300 years from the 590 years, and he didn't say Snow or any of the old crowd from the great awakening, but rather the start counting from the command to rebuild Jerusalem be cause a group of SDA elders decided that is where they start. I believe the 2300 years are tagged onto the end of the 590 years, is the period between the first and second coming, is the time frame that Revelation covers, is that great and terrible day of the Lord.


One thing that Ellen white has in common with to days Evangelists is the man of sin was not revealed to her. AS the end time climax approaches I expect a woman of sin.

The problem I see is we have a different biblical view, a different paradigm or a different narrative into which we interpret into which we interpret scripture.

“Attack” seems to upset you; I notice other peoples short comings, my own I am to familiar with to notice. Your contention with the SDA seemed to not be a point in argument but a point in identity politics. I am not a SDA; I do expect the imminent return of Christ, (sometime during the next 250 years), in accordance with the Law and the Prophets. Because I am not a SDA your argument is misdirected.

In every sect there are people who believe their section of the Church (Jezebel) is the true church section; some SDA are like that, some Catholics are like that and so on. The SDA as individuals have a chance because they have not discarded the covenant that the King and the kingdom of God are the fruition of; those who discard the covenant how could they have an inheritance resulting from that covenant; instead they have a new covenant that they cannot articulate, that is wordage without substance or definition, sorcery.

The keeping of the Sabbath requires an interaction with God and like the narrow path that leads to life, few find, but the relevance of the Sabbath is easy. The Jerusalem church, with the twelve apostles kept the Sabbath, and Paul kept the Sabbath and the feasts which means there was no command to not do so; in the beginning many Christians kept Sunday so as to not be mistaken for Jews who were being persecuted; it was around three hundred years before Rome officially changed the Sabbath to Sunday and keeping the Sabbath became heresy.

The concept of tithe is ten percent of increase in wealth regardless of where it comes from and it is a tax for governmental services rendered; if no service was to be render tithe would not be paid.

Abraham like the rest of us was not perfect but he did repent regarding the Egyptian maid. I am not aware of any Biblical Law that would prevent a man marrying his half sister today.

I don't see possession of the land as being conditional, but rather those who break the covenant are cast out; the house of Israel went first after abandoning God, keeping Sunday and other Pagan practices. But during the Babylonian captivity there continued to be Jewish Kings and even up until now there have always been some Jews living there. This covenant is the beginning of the setting up of the Kingdom of God, the New Jerusalem is to be situated at the mount of Olives.

 

[klutedavid]

The problem I see is we have a different biblical view, a different paradigm or a different narrative into which we interpret into which we interpret scripture.

The difference is in your interpretation of the scripture with the emphasis on 'interpretation'.

The keeping of the Sabbath requires an interaction with God and like the narrow path that leads to life, few find, but the relevance of the Sabbath is easy. The Jerusalem church, with the twelve apostles kept the Sabbath, and Paul kept the Sabbath and the feasts which means there was no command to not do so;

Your assuming that Paul kept the Sabbath outside of the nation of Israel. Your also just assuming that the apostles did not tell us to keep the Sabbath. That is your interpretation of the scripture.

in the beginning many Christians kept Sunday so as to not be mistaken for Jews who were being persecuted;

Incorrect on this point, as early church letters tell us that the day the early church honored was Sunday. The day Jesus was seen to be risen by the apostles and other disciples.

it was around three hundred years before Rome officially changed the Sabbath to Sunday and keeping the Sabbath became heresy.

The Laodicea council was when the first observable canon was issued against honoring the Sabbath. That Laodicea council occurred in 365 AD.

The church of Rome itself as a seat of authority over other churches took about five centuries to evolve. Even then the Roman church made no mention of honoring the Sabbath as heresy.

The concept of tithe is ten percent of increase in wealth regardless of where it comes from and it is a tax for governmental services rendered; if no service was to be render tithe would not be paid.

Christians give rather than as a legal obligation.

 

[Bro. Dave Gardner]

And I am curious as to why you used the word "attack"?

That would probably be because you are so plainly and documentably hostile toward "Sabbath Salesmen," as you call them.

If you would read your Bible instead of parroting what SDAs tell you

Do you really feel comfortable and justified in being so condescending and insulting?

Yes, you do have that opportunity, but the fact is you have been programmed to believe what you do and in order to understand the true meaning of the Plan of Salvation you first must allow yourself to at least try to understand the views of others You have been taught that all the remainder of Christians are false and never to listen to what we glean from scripture

If there's one thing I admire in another human being, it's omniscience and omnipresence.

The fact of the story is that he paid tithe on the spoils of the people he fought.

This is a textbook example of an opinion. What does "the fact of the story" even mean, anyway? You say elsewhere that it was the tithe issue that first bothered you about Adventist doctrine. Talk about telling. So the solution is to relegate the tithing requirement to agricultural workers only, since the Bible doesn't specify other professions. And God is reduced to a partisan politician who has no regard for those who live off the land. How ridiculous.

Jesus would not have been a tithe payer because He didn't raise livestock or animals.

Any easy, opinionated conclusion to come to when one prefers to rob God.

Malachi, Ch. 3
7Ever since the time of your ancestors you have turned away from my decrees and have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you,” says the Lord Almighty.
“But you ask, ‘How are we to return?’
8“Will a mere mortal rob God? Yet you rob me.
“But you ask, ‘How are we robbing you?’
“In tithes and offerings. 9You are under a curse—your whole nation—because you are robbing me. 10Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this,” says the Lord Almighty, “and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that there will not be room enough to store it. 11I will prevent pests from devouring your crops, and the vines in your fields will not drop their fruit before it is ripe,” says the Lord Almighty. 12“Then all the nations will call you blessed, for yours will be a delightful land,” says the Lord Almighty.
(The mention of livestock is conspicuous by its absence. Perhaps God "changed His mind" again and cut the ranchers a break.)

Then Jesus said to them, "Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." And they were amazed at him.
Mark 12:17

Moses persuaded Him to CHANGE HIS MIND.

Utter, selective, literalist baloney.

At that time the law must have been that one could marry a half sister and have other wives because Abraham sure did.

And now we're calling God a liar. Dark days.

Regarding Paul; the SDA use Paul to prove their position.

Not a shred of Adventist doctrine depends upon the writings of Paul.

Recently I asked knowledgeable SDA why they start counting the 2300 years from the 590 years

What 590 years? I just Googled "SDA 590 years," and I got absolutely nothing.

AS the end time climax approaches I expect a woman of sin.

You might want to be looking for the man at the head of the woman.

 

[Bro. Dave Gardner]

Your assuming that Paul kept the Sabbath outside of the nation of Israel.

No need to assume:
What day is the Sabbath and does it matter? | Sabbath Truth

 

[klutedavid]

No need to assume:
What day is the Sabbath and does it matter? | Sabbath Truth

Your assuming Paul was under the law, when in fact, Paul states he was not under the law.

1 Corinthians 9:19-21
For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.

 

[Bro. Dave Gardner]

Your assuming Paul was under the law, when in fact, Paul states he was not under the law.

1 Corinthians 9:19-21
For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.

I do not assume that Paul was under the law. That would obviously be unscriptural. I also do not assume that the phrase "under the law" is synonymous with being obligated to live by the moral law of the ten commandments. I confess that I'm not even certain that Paul means the same thing every time he uses the phrase, since I take Peter seriously about his warning regarding the difficulty of many Pauline texts. I find enough simple evidence in the rest of Scripture including other texts by Paul to recognize the commandments as holy, just, and good. And I find it interesting that the most persuasive arguments against commandment-keeping are culled from the Great Apostle's pen. It is also odd that the most prominent reformers' disputes and variances found their greatest expressions in the quoting of Paul's writings. In short, I perceive that there is historically a great amount of mishandling of Paul's work, and that although we have been adequately cautioned, we continue (especially in this age of free-flowing "information") to fail to heed even his own words:

Tit 3:9 KJV But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

 

[Bro. Dave Gardner]

keeping the day does not constitute keeping the Sabbath

So the seventh day is not the Sabbath of the the Lord, thy God?

 

[Bob S]

I don't see possession of the land as being conditional, but rather those who break the covenant are cast out; the house of Israel went first after abandoning God, keeping Sunday and other Pagan practices. But during the Babylonian captivity there continued to be Jewish Kings and even up until now there have always been some Jews living there. This covenant is the beginning of the setting up of the Kingdom of God, the New Jerusalem is to be situated at the mount of Olives.

Are you aware that the Israelites living at that time never did inherit the promised land except for Joshua and Caleb. The first generation didn't keep the covenant and wandered the desert until they died off. Their offspring were the ones that inherited the land. Today the Jews regained a small portion of what was the land of Canaan.

 

[Bro. Dave Gardner]

The first generation didn't keep the covenant and wandered the desert until they died off.

Interesting, isn't it?

 

[klutedavid]

I do not assume that Paul was under the law.

Paul tells us that he was not under the law.

"though not being myself under the Law"
(1 Corinthians 9:19-21)

I also do not assume that the phrase "under the law" is synonymous with being obligated to live by the moral law of the ten commandments.

Well that is a result of the interpretation of the scripture that you have been taught to apply, that is a more Reformed interpretation of the scripture.

You see a separation between the moral law and the more general law. So when Paul uses the phrase, 'the law', you then interpret that phrase to mean the ceremonial law.

I confess that I'm not even certain that Paul means the same thing every time he uses the phrase

Paul uses the phrase, 'the law', to refer to the written law.

since I take Peter seriously about his warning regarding the difficulty of many Pauline texts. I find enough simple evidence in the rest of Scripture including other texts by Paul to recognize the commandments as holy, just, and good.

How about we read the scripture more accurately.

Romans 7:12
So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

The law itself is holy, righteous and good. The commandment Paul referred to is also by definition; holy, righteous, and good.

You are attempting to divide the law and confusing that which is holy, righteous and good.

And I find it interesting that the most persuasive arguments against commandment-keeping are culled from the Great Apostle's pen.

The law is not of faith.

It is also odd that the most prominent reformers' disputes and variances found their greatest expressions in the quoting of Paul's writings.

You were taught to interpret the scripture in the way that the Reformers interpreted the scripture.

In short, I perceive that there is historically a great amount of mishandling of Paul's work, and that although we have been adequately cautioned, we continue (especially in this age of free-flowing "information") to fail to heed even his own words

If you just read the text and resist the desire to apply an interpretation to the text, you will understand the text.