Legalism or Sunday keeping - what is the mark?

[Dave-W]

I use more scripture in my posts than posters on this board.

You need to go listen (or better yet READ) Derek Prince's entire Foundation Series, and then his "Self Study Bible Course." It will show you how to properly and logically use scripture.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

I use more scripture in my posts than posters on this board.

Satan could run circles around you posting scripture but it doesn't mean he's speaking truth....

 

[1John2:4]

I have said this so many times:

If God said the sky is red, it is red. If God says do something, we do it.

It doesn't matter if Gabriel, Michael, Moses, Paul, Noah, Enoch, Raphael, Uriel, Heylel, or Azazel* say different, they are categorically wrong.

We got this "game" wrong the first time when God clearly laid down His law for Eden, and we believed the serpent*, abdicating our God-given dominion on this planet. Adam went so far as to BLAME God for giving him Eve, denying responsibility! We are still trusting lesser authorities over God!



*(In Enoch, it was Azazel, not the generalized "satan/lucifer" who used an avatar serpent to tempt eve. He was a leader angel in the assault and rape of human women to produce hybrids in an attempt to pollute all human genetics so that the Christ wouldn't be born. In other apocrypha, Azazel has always been seen with a serpent as his avatar. Azazel IS the "Lucifer" people actually think about - highly intelligent beautiful, but prideful. In Islam, Iblis (Azazel) refused to bow to Adam, and that conflagrated his prideful rebellion.)

Just a side note Azazel is the scapegoat during the day of Atonement. The one that the Kohen Gadol puts his hands on to place all of the unintentional sin of the people and sends it into the wilderness. You may already know that

 

[BobRyan]

Of course.

Ah - I seem to assume (and I DO know how to spell that word) that my discussion opponents value scripture as much as I do. But that is a serious question about this guy .... He seems to have his mind made up whether it agrees with scripture or not. Or he finds a way to twist it around to fit his opinions.

Everyone has a right to their own opinion of course - but at some point when people just quote themselves non-stop no matter the efforts to get the conversation focused on Bible details -- well then you have a problem on your hands.

 

[BobRyan]

Just a side note Azazel is the scapegoat during the day of Atonement.

True - a lot of people think that goat is symbolic of Satan. Because the other goat is the "Lord's Goat" and is called the "Sin Offering". Only the Sin offering is sacrificed and burned -- the Azazel goat is kept alive and sent away - because there is no substitutionary atoning sacrifice in the case of the scape goat.

 

[BobRyan]

I use more scripture in my posts than posters on this board.

Well then I look forward to such a post.

 

[1John2:4]

True - a lot of people think that goat is symbolic of Satan. Because the other goat is the "Lord's Goat" and is called the "Sin Offering". Only the Sin offering is sacrificed and burned -- the Azazel goat is kept alive and sent away - because there is no substitutionary atoning sacrifice in the case of the scape goat.

Sometimes on Yom Kippur I wonder if Azazel ever wondered back into the camp, that would be awkward. Sorry I am totally derailing this thread.
Shabbat Shalom Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Sometimes on Yom Kippur I wonder if Azazel ever wondered back into the camp, that would be awkward. Sorry I am totally derailing this thread.
Shabbat Shalom Bob

There is a "tradition" that says that the one who took out the azazel goat - also killed it to make sure it would not "wander back". But that is a tactic they used - it is not in the text - because the text does not want the reader to confuse the symbol of scape-goat -- to -- satan. Satan's death is not substitutionary and it atones for no one but himself.

 

[1John2:4]

There is a "tradition" that says that the one who took out the azazel goat - also killed it to make sure it would not "wander back". But that is a tactic they used - it is not in the text - because the text does not want the reader to confuse the symbol of scape-goat -- to -- satan. Satan's death is not substitutionary and it atones for no one but himself.

I heard they used to send it off a cliff but I think that is just superstition. Leviticus 16:8 does not command them to kill Azazel "Then Aaron shall cast lots for the two goats: one lot for the Lord and the other lot for the scapegoat. 9 And Aaron shall bring the goat on which the Lord’s lot fell, and offer it as a sin offering. 10 But the goat on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat shall be presented alive before the Lord, to make atonement upon it, and to let it go as the scapegoat into the wilderness."

 

[Dave-W]

I heard they used to send it off a cliff but I think that is just superstition.

Not superstition - history as recorded in the Targums, Mishnah and Talmuds. (Yoma 67b; Sifra, Aḥare, ii. 2; Targ. Yer. Lev. xiv. 10)

The idea that the azazel (scapegoat) was associated with the devil came from the pseudopigraphical book of Enoch (written in the first centuries bc and ad)

 

[1John2:4]

Not superstition - history as recorded in the Targums, Mishnah and Talmuds. (Yoma 67b; Sifra, Aḥare, ii. 2; Targ. Yer. Lev. xiv. 10)

The idea that the azazel (scapegoat) was associated with the devil came from the pseudopigraphical book of Enoch (written in the first centuries bc and ad)

Thanks for the information, I have not I have not read or studied any the Jewish commentary relating to this. When I went to the synagogue with my mother for Yom Kippur the Rabbi said that it was superstition even though it was recorded in the Talmud, however have not looked into the Talmud or the book of Enoch to research it for myself. I just am aware that in the Torah it does not say to kill the scapegoat. Thanks again for the insight.

 

[Dave-W]

You are welcome.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Thanks for the information, I have not I have not read or studied any the Jewish commentary relating to this. When I went to the synagogue with my mother for Yom Kippur the Rabbi said that it was superstition even though it was recorded in the Talmud, however have not looked into the Talmud or the book of Enoch to research it for myself. I just am aware that in the Torah it does not say to kill the scapegoat. Thanks again for the insight.

The scapegoat is lead into the wilderness at the end of the antitypical day of atonement. Just as Satan will be bound on the desolate earth for a 1000 years after the typical time of atonement is complete.

 

[1John2:4]

The scapegoat is lead into the wilderness at the end of the antitypical day of atonement. Just as Satan will be bound on the desolate earth for a 1000 years after the typical time of atonement is complete.

Nice parallel

 

[bloodygrace]

bump

 

[BobRyan]

Many Sabbath/law proponents are very vocal in their belief that Sunday keeping is the mark of the beast.

While most mainline Christians who have no set teaching on this see legalism or a fall from grace as the worst sin a Christian can commit.

So please vote and share your thoughts.

And a number of non-SDA non-Bible-Sabbath keeping pro-sunday scholars freely admit that all TEN of the TEN commandments are included in the moral law of God - written on the heart under the NEW Covenant.

I am glad these Sunday sources all affirm the Ten Commandments for Christians.

The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith ,
D.L. Moody,
R.C Sproul,
Matthew Henry,
Thomas Watson
Eastern Orthodox Catechism
The Catholic Catechism.

 

[bloodygrace]

And a number of non-SDA non-Bible-Sabbath keeping pro-sunday scholars freely admit that all TEN of the TEN commandments are included in the moral law of God - written on the heart under the NEW Covenant.

I am glad these Sunday sources all affirm the Ten Commandments for Christians.

The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith ,
D.L. Moody,
R.C Sproul,
Matthew Henry,
Thomas Watson
Eastern Orthodox Catechism
The Catholic Catechism.

The law or ten commandments are only for Christians to teach them that they are sinners. Once we figure out our lost state we go to Christ and stay with him forever. The law convicts and condemns but it can never forgive or save or make righteous. Honestly, if you haven't figured out that you're a sinner by now it's not going to happen.

 

[Dave-W]

The law

See? There is your first problem.

are only for Christians to teach them that they are sinners.

The Hebrew word translated "law" (and "nomos" in the LXX) is "Torah," which means primarily "instruction" and "teaching." All 613 are instructions on how to live as a redeemed believer in the Lord.

That is a lot more than just showing someone that they are a sinner.

 

[Isaiah60]

I used to be an SDA for sometime but left the church and mainly because of the mark of the beast doctrine. I've been a part of a few denominations before I became an Anglican. Though looking back on my SDA years I still have no regrets leaving the church. The mark of the beast doctrine held by the SDAs is simply absurd and not true.
Now I'm still new to this forum and I think the rules forbid making comments on another denomination's section. I just had to weigh in because of the years I had been an SDA. I do not see a grain of truth in that mark of the beast being Sunday doctrine. Jesus rose on Sunday which back then they called both the 1st day of the week and soon after the resurrection the Lord's Day. They didn't call it Sunday until Christianity spread throughout the gentile kingdoms (Isaiah 60:3).
In recent years, even before becoming an Anglican, I discovered a view which made sense to me and fit prophecy so much better than the SDA view. The view concerns Islam and how the rise of the Antichrist comes from the lamb-like beast of Islam. For Islam represents a false Jesus...the Jesus of the Gnostic heresies. Here is my article on the beast out of the earth. Other than this I don't want to start up a big debate here as I already got into trouble once over a denominational difference between the Anglican Continuum and the Episcopal/Canterbury Anglicans, so I don't want to create a heated argument here. But the SDA view is the main reason I gave up on Adventism.
The Beast Out Of The Earth--SOLVED!

 

[Kenny'sID]

I used to be an SDA for sometime but left the church and mainly because of the mark of the beast doctrine. I've been a part of a few denominations before I became an Anglican. Though looking back on my SDA years I still have no regrets leaving the church. The mark of the beast doctrine held by the SDAs is simply absurd and not true.
Now I'm still new to this forum and I think the rules forbid making comments on another denomination's section. I just had to weigh in because of the years I had been an SDA. I do not see a grain of truth in that mark of the beast being Sunday doctrine. Jesus rose on Sunday which back then they called both the 1st day of the week and soon after the resurrection the Lord's Day. They didn't call it Sunday until Christianity spread throughout the gentile kingdoms (Isaiah 60:3).
In recent years, even before becoming an Anglican, I discovered a view which made sense to me and fit prophecy so much better than the SDA view. The view concerns Islam and how the rise of the Antichrist comes from the lamb-like beast of Islam. For Islam represents a false Jesus...the Jesus of the Gnostic heresies. Here is my article onr the beast out of the earth. Other than this I don't want to start up a big debate here as I already got into trouble once over a denominational difference between the Anglican Continuum and the Episcopal/Canterbury Anglicans, so I don't want to create a heated argument here. But the SDA view is the main reason I gave up on Adventism.
The Beast Out Of The Earth--SOLVED!

There's not a lot I disagree with when it comes to SDA, but the mark you mention is probably the one I disagree with the most. Also, as I understand it, all SDA's don't believe that.

Fortunately, we can all have a few differences,and still remain Christian and let God sort it all out in the end, but I would warn, don't stretch biblical meaning, and if you aren't absolutely sure of it, whatever we do, we shouldn't teach any of these new, or even bad, old teachings, and there are plenty to go around.

There will always be some disagreement, but when someone comes on to the scene to awe us with something completely new, instead if seeing them as someone of higher knowledge, someone we need to follow as so many often will, we most likely need only... watch out.