Pastor leaves Adventism

[sentipente]

The remnant will always be a minority--

Remnant has never meant minority. Remnant means what remains.

 

[StormyOne]

Remnant has never meant minority. Remnant means what remains.

yep... what's left over... so then, all these folks running around with their Remnant Theology, if they die before Christ returns, safe to say, they were not the remnant...

 

[djconklin]

First of all, the book of Leviticus chapter 23 gives all of the religious feasts. At the top of the list is the seventh-day Sabbath.

This is another lie for the unwary. Verse 2 starts with the feasts, vserse 3 which talks about the Sabbath tells you that these feasts are to be considered as sabbaths and then in verse 4 it repeats verse 2--i.e. verses 2 and 4 form an inclusio. Any decent commentary on Leviticus will tell you this.

From part of my study:

"Wood cites the commentary by Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown which noted that the annual sabbaths "of the day of atonement and feast of tabernacles have come to an end with the Jewish services to which they belonged (Leviticus xxiii. 32, 37-39)," but "the weekly Sabbath rests on a more permanent foundation, having been instituted in Paradise to commemorate the completion of creation in six days."13 The J-F-B Commentary states that "sabbatwn" refers to the sabbaths "of the day of atonement and feast of tabernacles".14 Fausset then goes on to state that "Lev xxiii. 38 expressly distinguishes "The Sabbaths of the Lord" from the other Sabbaths."15"

This writer is playing a game with your head and is basically taking advantage of his readers.

 

[djconklin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by djconklin
The remnant will always be a minority--

Remnant has never meant minority. Remnant means what remains.

Then it's a good thing that I didn't say what it "means", eh? In any case, I doubt anyone would support the cointention that a remnant could be a majority.

 

[djconklin]

[so then, all these folks running around with their Remnant Theology, if they die before Christ returns, safe to say, they were not the remnant...

And which idiot claimed that "remnant" means that you'll be alive when He comes??

 

[djconklin]

... Throughout the Old Testament, the same construction is used. The weekly, the monthly, the seasonal, and sometimes the yearly or sabbatical years are included. Sometimes the order is reversed, but the same principle applies.

From my study:

"Some sources incorrectly claim that the following OT texts exhibit the same, or exact, or identical, progression of terms: 1 Chron. 23:31; 2 Chron. 2:4, 8:13, 31:3; Neh. 10:33; Ezek. 45:17 and Hos. 2:11. In fact, it is only the last two have the same sequence of terms."

How can it be the "same contruction" if sometimes "the order is reveresed"?

You should be asking yourself: "Why didn't he tell me the truth?" Of course, that assumes that he knew what it was before he wrote is "testimony."

Note that at the last he includes whole years (with no supporting evidence).

 

[djconklin]

In order to make the horn power fit the Adventist scenario, one must make this horn grow out of

one of the winds rather than the horns of the Grecian empire where it logically fits. The obvious​

connection to Antiochus Epiphanes is ignored.

So, in order to make his attack work he basically hads to attack Christ for not pointing out that the AC had already come in Antiochus rather than predicting that he will yet come!

From my sstudy on the date of the book of Daniel:

"If Antiochus seems to fulfill the prophecies recorded in 8:8-12 then why is there is no evidence that he fulfilled vs 9 and 12? See also the lack of fulfillment of 11:36-45. Both Daniel 8:9-12 and 11:36-45 deal with the blasphemous character of the king of the north which go far beyond anything that we know about Antiochus. He never destroyed the temple (see Dan. 8:11) and his military accomplishments hardly match those "recorded" in 8:9, 12 and 11:22. And while verse 37 states that "neither shall he regard the God of his fathers" it is "attested by Polybius and Livy [as being] the very opposite of his character. For he was more zealous in their worship, than any of the kings before him." [Pusey, 137] Even Towner notes that from 11:39 onwards Daniel does not fit with anything we know about Antiochus IV. [page 151--this is really disconcerting, to say the least, to the Maccabean hypothesis considering that the "predicted end of Antiochus differs from the stories of his death in I and II Maccabees ..." [William H. Brownlee, The Meaning of the Qumran Scrolls for the Bible. (Oxford, 1964): 35-6; Waltke (1976): 322; Baldwin (1978a): 199 notes that one scholar had to re-write this text in order to make it "approximate more exactly to the known history".] We could go even further by noting that Jesus did not consider that vs 31 had yet been fulfilled in his day! [Lacocque (1979): 229 simply refers the reader to Matt. 24:15 without noting that Jesus hadn't yet considered the verse to be fulfilled. Even the critic on the infidel web site, Larry Taylor, concedes that the events at 9:27 and 11:31 and after do not correspond to actual events.] Barnes reports that Bishop Newton and Sir Isaac Newton have looked at verse 31 and found that it was impossible to apply this verse to Antiochus and so they have suggested instead that it be applied to the Romans. [Barnes, 236-7] We can also note that none of his listeners corrected him by saying that this was fulfilled by Antiochus. Nor, did the Jewish leadership in its struggles against the early Christians point out this as an error. Lacocque attempts to escape this dilemma by dating 11:31 to Dec. 7, 167. [Lacocque (1979): 8] Koch points out that "nearly all the rabbis saw that the terrible catastrophe"--the fall of Jerusalem--strengthened the perception that Daniel's prophecies of 9:24-7 were being fulfilled. [Koch, 128--he refers to Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar, IV, 100-1] BTW, Antiochus also failed to fulfill the destruction of the temple and the city of Jerusalem as called for in 9:26. [Baldwin (1978): 171] Baldwin also notes that "Dan 9:24 has been expounded in detail to refer to the first advent of our Lord, all six items in that verse being shown to have been accomplished in His life, death and resurrection." [Baldwin (1978): 176]
For more information on how Antiochus IV Epiphanes does not fit the prophecies of Daniel see Shea (1982): 25-54."

This just shows how poorly researched and thought out this "testimony" is.

 

[StormyOne]

And which idiot claimed that "remnant" means that you'll be alive when He comes??

hmmm I cannot point fingers.... but it was them over there ------>

 

[djconklin]

Rofl!

 

[djconklin]

Footnote 4: "There are really three schools of thought in regard to the Sabbath. There is a small group which includes the SDA’s that teach that the Sabbath has continuance in the New Testament. A second group teaches a transference theology and states that the Sabbath command is still binding, but sacredness of the day was transferred from Sabbath to Sunday. (This was actually a much later development in the Christian church. Early Christians did not teach either of these first two concepts.)"

The last point is right on. But, the first part is highly flawed and reveals his ignorance of early Christian history. See http://www.remnantofgod.org/sabhist.htm instead.

In short, if this guy tells you that it is raining outside go check for yourself.

Now if he had been consistently wrong, then the people in the stock market would have asked which stocks does he pick to go up or to go down--and then do the oppsoite of whatever he suggests.

 

[Adventtruth]

[/font]

That is a flat-out lie--so now you know what you are dealing with. If you examine how the word "feast" in the Bible is used (http://www.666man.net/Colossians_2_16-17_By_David_Conklin/feast.html) you will find that two ceremonial sabbaths are never EVER called "feasts." Therefore, in those days if you wished to list the ceremonial days of the year without actually naming them you would say/write "feasts, new moons, and sabbath."

Oh I guess we are to take your own bias notes over the bible?

AT

 

[OntheDL]

So, in order to make his attack work he basically hads to attack Christ for not pointing out that the AC had already come in Antiochus rather than predicting that he will yet come!

From my sstudy on the date of the book of Daniel:

"If Antiochus seems to fulfill the prophecies recorded in 8:8-12 then why is there is no evidence that he fulfilled vs 9 and 12? See also the lack of fulfillment of 11:36-45. Both Daniel 8:9-12 and 11:36-45 deal with the blasphemous character of the king of the north which go far beyond anything that we know about Antiochus. He never destroyed the temple (see Dan. 8:11) and his military accomplishments hardly match those "recorded" in 8:9, 12 and 11:22. And while verse 37 states that "neither shall he regard the God of his fathers" it is "attested by Polybius and Livy [as being] the very opposite of his character. For he was more zealous in their worship, than any of the kings before him." [Pusey, 137] Even Towner notes that from 11:39 onwards Daniel does not fit with anything we know about Antiochus IV. [page 151--this is really disconcerting, to say the least, to the Maccabean hypothesis considering that the "predicted end of Antiochus differs from the stories of his death in I and II Maccabees ..." [William H. Brownlee, The Meaning of the Qumran Scrolls for the Bible. (Oxford, 1964): 35-6; Waltke (1976): 322; Baldwin (1978a): 199 notes that one scholar had to re-write this text in order to make it "approximate more exactly to the known history".] We could go even further by noting that Jesus did not consider that vs 31 had yet been fulfilled in his day! [Lacocque (1979): 229 simply refers the reader to Matt. 24:15 without noting that Jesus hadn't yet considered the verse to be fulfilled. Even the critic on the infidel web site, Larry Taylor, concedes that the events at 9:27 and 11:31 and after do not correspond to actual events.] Barnes reports that Bishop Newton and Sir Isaac Newton have looked at verse 31 and found that it was impossible to apply this verse to Antiochus and so they have suggested instead that it be applied to the Romans. [Barnes, 236-7] We can also note that none of his listeners corrected him by saying that this was fulfilled by Antiochus. Nor, did the Jewish leadership in its struggles against the early Christians point out this as an error. Lacocque attempts to escape this dilemma by dating 11:31 to Dec. 7, 167. [Lacocque (1979): 8] Koch points out that "nearly all the rabbis saw that the terrible catastrophe"--the fall of Jerusalem--strengthened the perception that Daniel's prophecies of 9:24-7 were being fulfilled. [Koch, 128--he refers to Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar, IV, 100-1] BTW, Antiochus also failed to fulfill the destruction of the temple and the city of Jerusalem as called for in 9:26. [Baldwin (1978): 171] Baldwin also notes that "Dan 9:24 has been expounded in detail to refer to the first advent of our Lord, all six items in that verse being shown to have been accomplished in His life, death and resurrection." [Baldwin (1978): 176]
For more information on how Antiochus IV Epiphanes does not fit the prophecies of Daniel see Shea (1982): 25-54."

This just shows how poorly researched and thought out this "testimony" is.

If that preterist interpretation is correct that AntiChrist had already come, then the 2300 prophetic days are really 1500 literal days to fit in the timeline. Then how could the 70weeks or 490years be a part of it or cut off from it? And how does the gap theory work now?

And didn't Daniel 8 say explicitly the vision was for the endtime? Antiochus Epiphanes' desecration was an endtime event now? Did he copy that also from Canwright?

 

[Adventtruth]

[/font]

This is another lie for the unwary. Verse 2 starts with the feasts, vserse 3 which talks about the Sabbath tells you that these feasts are to be considered as sabbaths and then in verse 4 it repeats verse 2--i.e. verses 2 and 4 form an inclusio. Any decent commentary on Leviticus will tell you this.

From part of my study:

"Wood cites the commentary by Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown which noted that the annual sabbaths "of the day of atonement and feast of tabernacles have come to an end with the Jewish services to which they belonged (Leviticus xxiii. 32, 37-39)," but "the weekly Sabbath rests on a more permanent foundation, having been instituted in Paradise to commemorate the completion of creation in six days."13 The J-F-B Commentary states that "sabbatwn" refers to the sabbaths "of the day of atonement and feast of tabernacles".14 Fausset then goes on to state that "Lev xxiii. 38 expressly distinguishes "The Sabbaths of the Lord" from the other Sabbaths."15"

This writer is playing a game with your head and is basically taking advantage of his readers.

Oh I can site commentaries that refute yours. But what does the bible say! Let take a look.

(Lev 23:1) The LORD spoke to Moses, saying,
(Lev 23:2) "Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, These are the appointed feasts of the LORD that you shall proclaim as holy convocations; they are my appointed feasts.
(Lev 23:3) "Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, a holy convocation. You shall do no work. It is a Sabbath to the LORD in all your dwelling places.
(Lev 23:4) "These are the appointed feasts of the LORD, the holy convocations, which you shall proclaim at the time appointed for them....



The specified times for public worship according to the Law were

(1) The daily morning and evening sacrifices, sometimes called "the continual burnt-offering."

(2) The weekly Sabbath.

(3) the day of the new moon.

(4) the "set feasts" Num_29:39 or appointed times of annual observance, of which there were five, the Passover, the Day of Pentecost, the Feast of Trumpets, the Day of Atonement, and the Feast of Tabernacles. For each of these occasions special sacrifices were appointed Num. 28; 29.


AT

 

[djconklin]

Oh I can site commentaries that refute yours.

You mean "cite." Please by all means do so.

The specified times for public worship according to the Law were(1) The daily morning and evening sacrifices, sometimes called "the continual burnt-offering."(2) The weekly Sabbath.(3) the day of the new moon.(4) the "set feasts" Num_29:39 or appointed times of annual observance,

That's not the thrust of the passage. The feasts being referred to are to pick up their "sabbathness" from the seventh-day Sabbath--that is what verse 3 is all about.

 

[djconklin]

If that preterist interpretation is correct that AntiChrist had already come, then the 2300 prophetic days are really 1500 literal days to fit in the timeline. Then how could the 70weeks or 490years be a part of it or cut off from it? And how does the gap theory work now?

And didn't Daniel 8 say explicitly the vision was for the endtime? Antiochus Epiphanes' desecration was an endtime event now? Did he copy that also from Canwright?

Your questions reflect how poorly thoughtout the critics claims aree. They haven't thought it through to its logical conclusion. In the stock market this kind of philosophy is called the "bigger fool theory"--you buy a stock at price A hoping you can find a bigger fool that will pay a higher price. They haven't thought about the ultimate consequences--what good is it to say "Oops" then?

 

[djconklin]

Oh I guess we are to take your own bias notes over the bible?

Given that the table shows what the Bible says it is your bias that is showing.

 

[NightEternal]

Excuse me? Who is the fundation of your faith? The Word of God or what the theologians say???

The scholars and theologians who have influenced me teach the word in all its fullness. Sorry, sinless perfection does not even enter into it.

Didn't you just say in another thread something to the effect that some of us don't use our brains and blindly follow others?

Not in those words.

I do not 'blindly follow' anyone. The conclusions that men like George Knight and Edward Heppenstall have come to on this issue are exactly the same ones I have reached in my studies.

Taken out of context?

Yup.

1 Thess 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

We are considered blameless because Christ is blameless and His merits are provided in our behalf. No sinless perfection here.

Romans 12
1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.

No sinless perfection here, sorry. Taken totally out of it's context. The people Paul is speaking to here were in danger of submitting to the temptations of defiling themselves with temple prostitutes. He is addressing the problem of sexual impurity amongst God's people and making a clear deliniation between the purity of Christians and the impurity of the pagans and thier rituals.

2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

No sinless perfection here either, sorry. Same context as above.

What are you going to say? That Christ's righteousness is credited to us?

Yup.

True that's how we are justified. But we still to need be sanctified (made holy).

Christ has justified and sanctified us:

"And those He predestined, He also called; those He called, He also justified; those He justified, He also glorified." Romans 8:30

We are justified, sanctified and declared perfect by His righteousness. We are ready for Heaven right now by virtue of His merits.

Not one verse in the bible that says we can still sin and go to heaven at the same time. No body says we can do it by our own power. But by grace, all things are possible. Whats all? Overcoming sins is not part of all things? Hello?

There is so much wrong with this statement, I don't even know where to begin.

We already have our Heavenly inheritance. Yours maybe under question as a result of your warped theology, but mine is not. We live victorious Christian lives out of a love response for the salvation He has secured on our behalf at the cross. He has already oversome sin and defeated Satan and delivered us from sin's condemnation at the cross. Yes, He will help us to get small victories over some behavioral sins, but that has nothing to do with our salvation. Christian growth and maturity is the fruit not the root of salvation.

1 Peter 2
21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:

We are called to follow His steps, His example. What example? It says in vs 22 did no sin.

Emulating the Pattern set forth does not mean that we equal it in any way. To say we can match the sinless perfection of Christ degrades His divinity and drags Him down to our level at best and is blasphemous at worst.

We strive to be as Christlike as possible, as much as we can in our fallen, sinful condition.

No sinless perfection here either, sorry.

1 Cor 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

No sinless perfection here, sorry.

It says God will not allow you to be tempted above you are able to resist. So whats your excuse for sinning? I'm not saying I've reached the condition of sinless perfection. But that's my goal. With God all things are possible. And He is stronger than him who is in the world.

"My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have One who speaks to the Father in our defense.-Jesus Christ, the righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours, but for the whole world." 1 John 2:1,2

This tells me that the possibility we are going to sin is a no-brainer. We are sinful beings with a fallen nature. God's ideal is for us to be transformed into the state of sinlessness before the fall of Adam. John is outlining what the ideal is in the begining of the verse. The real, as he well knows, is that glorification has not happened yet and we still are burdened by our fallen nature and the sin condition. Thus, we must avail ourselves of Christ's merits, intercession and mediation to accomodate what is inevitable. To strive for the ideal is good, but we are still limited by our inherited condition from Adam. Therefore, it is impossible to reach the state of sinlessness before we are changed by Christ

1 John 4:4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

Christ has overcome the world, Satan, Hell, death, the grave, all of it. We mortal, puny humans have overcome none of these things, except by virtue of His victory. We claim His victory as our own. We accept by faith as our own victory the act of overcoming Christ sucessfully accomplished.

It's not about us, it's about Christ and what He has done on our behalf.

No sinless perfection here, sorry.

1 John 2
1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Already dealt with this verse.

3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

So now I am saying we don't have to keep the commandments?

I am not advocating anti-nomianism anywhere here, so I will thank you for not implying any such thing.

1 John 3
6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

If we are hidden in Christ and His righteousness, we are regarded by God as if we had never sinned. We are declared sinless because our Christ our righteousness is sinless. Those who have rejected the wedding garment and rejected His righteousness will have to answer for thier own sin. Thier sin remains to condemn them. Those who reject Christ's offer of the wedding garment neither have seen Him or known Him.

Sorry, no sinless perfection here either.

8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

We were all of the Devil at one time. He is to blame for the entrance of sin and the instigator of all those who sin. Christ defeated Satan and the condemnation sin held us in at the cross. We now belong to Him and are no longer of the Devil. Even when we fall, stumble and sin, we still belong to the One who's blood purchased us. Nothing will ever take us out of His hands except our own choice. Only sick reasoning would conclude that Christ's blood bought saints go from Christ's ownership to the Devil's ownership over and over everytime they fall into sin. It renders the power of Christ's sacrifice at the cross as anemic and unable to completely and fully accomplish its purposes.

9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

We are declared sinless because Christ is sinless. What you are trying to imply here with this verse is a lie. To believe we will be sinless at any time before Christ changes us is nothing more than a deceptive doctrine:

"If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make Him out to be a liar and His word has no place in our lives." 1 John 1: 8-10

10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

This is referring to spiritual growth and maturity. We were created for good works.

You are really stretching the bounds of credibility if you think this is even remotely talking about sinless perfection.

Pretty plain, not commentary needed.

No, rendered confusing by faulty interpretation.

Spirit of Prophecy puts it even plainer.

Everyone who by faith obeys God's commandments, will reach the condition of sinlessness in which Adam lived before his transgression. ---Maranatha, p224.

Ah yes, now the EGW hammer comes out to trump everything Scripture says.

I have never, anywhere, claimed that EGW did not teach sinless perfection. She most certainly did. She also wrote many things emphasizing Christ's righteousness and resting in His perfection, especially after 1888.

She was heavily influenced by her past Methodism, and, in particular, the perfection theology that Wesley taught. My understanding of inspiration does not demand that I agree with every interpretation she had of Scripture.

Unfortunately, yours does.

So, you can keep your perfection theology. I want no part of it. Go pollute someone else with it, I've made it clear where I stand.

Again, dont care what anybody says. I never do.

That is becoming painfully obvious.

The new christian religion was once called a sect, did you know? I don't care what people call me. I know who I am and what I believe.

That's fine. I happen to care if my denomination is being classed in the same realm as the Mormons. So, we agree to disagree.

Did I say anyone pressured me into leaving? It was merely an expression of saying those (organizational and structural) things are not key issues. Talk about paranoia!

Fine. Whatever.

 

[Adventtruth]

[/font]

This is another lie for the unwary. Verse 2 starts with the feasts, vserse 3 which talks about the Sabbath tells you that these feasts are to be considered as sabbaths

Ok lets take a look at verse 3.

(Lev 23:3)

"Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, a holy convocation. You shall do no work. It is a Sabbath to the LORD in all your dwelling places.

So where does it tell us that the feast are to be considered as sabbaths? I think you are reading something into that passage. Lets look at the original commandment.

(Exo 20:8) Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
(Exo 20:9) Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
(Exo 20:10) But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
(Exo 20:11) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

They pretty much say the samething.

and then in verse 4 it repeats verse 2--i.e. verses 2 and 4 form an inclusio. Any decent commentary on Leviticus will tell you this.

From part of my study:

"Wood cites the commentary by Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown which noted that the annual sabbaths "of the day of atonement and feast of tabernacles have come to an end with the Jewish services to which they belonged (Leviticus xxiii. 32, 37-39)," but "the weekly Sabbath rests on a more permanent foundation, having been instituted in Paradise to commemorate the completion of creation in six days."13 The J-F-B Commentary states that "sabbatwn" refers to the sabbaths "of the day of atonement and feast of tabernacles".14 Fausset then goes on to state that "Lev xxiii. 38 expressly distinguishes "The Sabbaths of the Lord" from the other Sabbaths."15"

This writer is playing a game with your head and is basically taking advantage of his readers.

But it still does not negate the fact that the Sabbath of the forth commandment was a feast day and convocation. The bible still tells us we are dead to the law...all of it! God tells us He gave the Sabbath to Israel for for three reasons.

1) Becasue He was creator God.

2) Becasue He brought them out of bondage.

3) Becasue He sanctified them.

These are all pointers to what Christ has done for the justified believer...He

1) Recreated us.

2) He brought us out of bondage.

3) He has sanctified us.

The bible plainly tells us...

(Rom 10:4) For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

Last time I checked, the Sabbath is a part of the law, and it can't give you righteousness.

(Rom 7:4) Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God.

The Justified are dead to the law. You can't belong to Christ and follow after law to perform it. We bear fruit through Christ, not law.

(Gal 3:19) Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary.

The law, all of it, had a begining and an ending. It begain with the COI and ended with Christ.

(Gal 3:24) So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith.
(Gal 3:25) But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian,

The law is to bring us to Christ that we can be released from it.

By your own argument DJ the Sabbath of the 4th commandment is not a feast. But the bible plainly points to the fact that it is.

The hebrew word moed is translated feast and it means
מועדה / מעד / מועד
mô‛êd / mô‛êd / mô‛âdâh
BDB Definition:
1) appointed place, appointed time, meeting 1a) appointed time 1a1) appointed time (general) 1a2) sacred season, set feast, appointed season 1b) appointed meeting 1c) appointed place 1d) appointed sign or signal 1e) tent of meeting
Part of Speech: noun masculine


The bible even calls the Sabbath which is a feast day, a holy convocation.

The Sabbath is right up there with the other feast days.

AT

 

[StormyOne]

good points NE.... speak the truth... in love of course....

 

[djconklin]

Ok lets take a look at verse 3.


Quote:
(Lev 23:3)
Quote:
"Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, a holy convocation. You shall do no work. It is a Sabbath to the LORD in all your dwelling places.
So where does it tell us that the feast are to be considered as sabbaths? I think you are reading something into that passage.

I very clearly told you before verses 2 and 4 form an inclusio--do you know what that means?