Please forgive if this comes off as a foolish question.

[NightEternal]

Remember, for future reference, I'm an Adventist that doesn't agree she was 100% prophetess. That doesn't mean to say that I don't think God had a hand in her writings.

Wow, the same position I have taken on this issue since day one and I get slaughtered and falsely charged with 'attacking' her, 'refuting' her and 'hating' her. Yet a Trad takes the same position and not a murmur is heard from the EGW venerators.

How does that work?

 

[Byfaithalone1]

BFA1, I did not see this post before making my second comment on the topic. If indeed, as you say, this was entirely a post of your generated content, then I most certainly owe you an apology.

I accept your apology and I'm happy to leave it behind us. However, it is my hope that you will be a bit more careful when you consider making any other public allegations about me, especially those that question my integrity. Even though we may disagree, I would think that we could do so in a way that is more pleasing to God. OK?

Of course, I still disagree with the content 100% but that's another story.

Since I spent a great deal of time on that post, I hope that you will respond directly to the points presented and that you will explain the reasons why you disagree with them.

BFA

 

[RND]

So what is Gal 3:24? I believe it to be all law.

Me too!

Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

In other words, we can obey the law by faith in that there is no more law to point us to sin, or adjudicate our sin. That has been done by Christ.

He is our "High Preist" in the sanctuary, always making mediation for us. The smoke from the prayers offered wafes over the curtain into the Most Holy Place.

Symbolic, not literal anymore.

And thanks for telling me about your feelings for EGW.

You're welcome!

 

[RND]

I accept your apology and I'm happy to leave it behind us. However, it is my hope that you will be a bit more careful when you consider making any other public allegations about me, especially those that question my integrity. Even though we may disagree, I would think that we could do so in a way that is more pleasing to God. OK?

Indeed, I will certainly be more careful next time. It just seemed to me that the post was outside of the character of content that you have previously posted. I should not have jumped to conclusions.

Since I spent a great deal of time on that post, I hope that you will respond directly to the points presented and that you will explain the reasons why you disagree with them.

I already did. Your post, while certainly a wonderful compliation ( I hope you saved it) does nothing to reverse the fact that there is a clear and distinct division of the covenant and Mosaic laws.

I have asked repeatedly for you to provide a dissertation that the TC pointed to the Messiah in some way and how it pointed to the Messiah. Short of that, one would be hard pressed to prove that all laws are the same.

Not to belabor the point but clearly a law that says a woman is unclean for X number of days because of her menstruating is considerablly different than "thou shalt not steal." Yet neither points to the coming Messiah. Laws about the sacrifcing of lambs on certain feast days were also laws, yet specifically pointed to the coming Messiah. Therefore, it has to be concluded from shear logic that there was and is a distinct difference in these laws.

Your post said nothing to that effect and did nothing to conclude otherwise. Sorry.

 

[RND]

Wow, the same position I have taken on this issue since day one and I get slaughtered and falsely charged with 'attacking' her, 'refuting' her and 'hating' her. Yet a Trad takes the same position and not a murmur is heard from the EGW venerators.

How does that work?

Honestly? Promise you won't report me.....

I think I'm alot nicer to people than you are.

Nor do I denegrate the woman, but earnestly and honestly believe that she was doing a wonderful work for God and that God worked His mighty hands in all she wrote.

By the way, why call me a Trad in one aspect and yet a 'bleeding heart liberal' in another. I thought the two were mutally exclusive?

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the tag 'bleeding heart liberal.' Jesus was one.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

I already did. Your post, while certainly a wonderful compliation ( I hope you saved it) does nothing to reverse the fact that there is a clear and distinct division of the covenant and Mosaic laws.

You claim that there is a clear and distinct division, and yet my previous post demonstrates that there is no clear and distinct division. I'm afraid I will need more evidence than "the brain" on this one.

I have asked repeatedly for you to provide a dissertation that the TC pointed to the Messiah in some way and how it pointed to the Messiah. Short of that, one would be hard pressed to prove that all laws are the same.

And I've asked for the Biblical relevance. Absent a passage from Scripture that states that God intended that some laws would point to the Messiah and others would not and/or a passage from Scripture that God intended for the old covenant laws to be divided in such a manner, it would seem that you have simply assumed that you have the authority to create man-made distinctions between laws.

Not to belabor the point but clearly a law that says a woman is unclean for X number of days because of her menstruating is considerablly different than "thou shalt not steal." Yet neither points to the coming Messiah.

So, in your opinion, which are we to keep today--the laws that you believe point to Christ, or the ones that you believe do not? Upon what Scripture do you base this conclusion?

Laws about the sacrifcing of lambs on certain feast days were also laws, yet specifically pointed to the coming Messiah. Therefore, it has to be concluded from shear logic that there was and is a distinct difference in these laws.

Do you conclude that sabbaths point to Christ? If so, does this mean that we are to keep them, or that we are NOT to keep them?

BFA

 

[NightEternal]

Honestly? Promise you won't report me.....

I think I'm alot nicer to people than you are.

Don't worry. That's one of the more polite things people have said to me here.

I don't have time for 'nice' when I am dealing with Trad nonsense. The church is falling apart and it needs reform. NOW. We are losing people by the thousands from our ranks, pastors and lay members both, because of abberant Trad theology, especially sinless perfection. Feelings and pride are just going to have to take a back seat until this crisis is averted and remedied.

Nor do I denegrate the woman,

Nor have I. Ever. Anywhere. My issues are with some of her false claims and assertions which I do not agree with on a lifestyle and theological level. I do not get personal with her like some on CARM and FA do, but the Trads, in thier anger and hate, refuse to see or acknowledge that.

but earnestly and honestly believe that she was doing a wonderful work for God and that God worked His mighty hands in all she wrote.

I agree. In some things she wrote.

By the way, why call me a Trad in one aspect and yet a 'bleeding heart liberal' in another. I thought the two were mutally exclusive?

Theology and politics are not the same. I am Liberal in my SDA theology, but I am a hardcore Conservative in political issues.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the tag 'bleeding heart liberal.' Jesus was one.

Not in every case.

He won't be a bleeding heart Liberal when he rains fire down on the wicked.

Or has the Heavenly Sanctuary crowd convinced you this will not take place?

 

[RND]

You claim that there is a clear and distinct division, and yet my previous post demonstrates that there is no clear and distinct division. I'm afraid I will need more evidence than "the brain" on this one.

But that just it BFA1. Your post doesn't show that there is a clear and distinct difference in the law. You only think it does.

And I've asked for the Biblical relevance.

And I've shown you. Several times. Christ didn't come to fulfill all the law, just the law "concerning" Him. Let's review, one mo' time.

Luk 24:44 ¶ And he (Jesus) said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me.

Jesus said......all things must be fulfilled.......concerning me.

Jesus was clearly demonstrating that not everying in the Law of Moses, nor in the prophets, nor in the Pslams was concerning the coming Messiah.

It's so simple.

Absent a passage from Scripture that states that God intended that some laws would point to the Messiah and others would not and/or a passage from Scripture that God intended for the old covenant laws to be divided in such a manner, you are merely seeking to create man-made classifications of law.

See above.

So, in your opinion, which are to keep today--the laws that you believe point to Christ, or the ones that you believe do not?

Obviously, one only needs a road map to see forwards, i.e. where they are going, not backwards, i.e. where they have been.

Upon what Scripture do you base this conclusion?

Rom 10:4 For Christ [is] the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Do you conclude that sabbaths point to Christ?

The weekly? No.

The sabbaths associated with the feast and holy days? You bet.

 

[RND]

He won't be a bleeding heart Liberal when he rains fire down on the wicked.

To the wicked it's fire. To those anxious to see Him it will simply be glorious light!

Or has the Heavenly Sanctuary crowd convinced you this will not take place?

They haven't convinced me of anything.

 

[Pythons]

Really?!? When did this happen? Where's the proof? Show me the evidence in SDA teaching.

We should go back to post #118 and take it from where DJconklin left it. One can't have a correct understanding of the Law in the Old Covenant if they build it off an incorrect undstanding of God, AKA the Holy Trinity.

 

[JohnT]

Nope. He ascended in bodily form, but decended to earth as spirit. When Christ came to earth it forever changed the nature of of God's bodily form.[/quote]


How many times have I ASKED YOU NICELY where EXACTLY IN THE BIBLE can you find that stated?????

Please supply exact book, chapter and verse.

You stated "Oh, I posted it before!", but have NOT EVER provided a link, nor a book, chapter or verse in the Bible.

Please provide the proof, or else admit that you stated a heresy.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

And I've shown you. Several times. Christ didn't come to fulfill all the law, just the law "concerning" Him. Let's review, one mo' time.

Tell me, RND, Who is our source of rest? Whom is the reality to which the sabbaths pointed?

BFA

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

We should go back to post #118 and take it from where DJconklin left it. One can't have a correct understanding of the Law in the Old Covenant if they build it off an incorrect undstanding of God, AKA the Holy Trinity.

EXACTLY ! WOW... I'm surprisedly happy to see that here!
Since the Jews did not have any idea what 'trinity' was,
except for 'UNHOLY' pagan uses of trinity concept later accepted by the world church,
the Jews abiding in Yahweh's Word had a clear knowledge of Yahweh and His Rules and His Purpose much greater than any gentiles.
So many gentiles have ALWAYS HAD an incorrect understanding of Yahweh (even NOT KNOWING HIS NAME) and were brought up trained since birth that the pagan trinity was from a Biblical Source (obviously not to anyone with a 3rd grade education in Hebrew language)
, but since the gentiles don't know better - how could they know? who would there be to tell them ?? - they continue in ignorance unless they leave their family and friends and church to learn the truth.

 

[thecountrydoc]

Consider This:

There is no one word that has occasioned more contention and strife through the centuries of the story of God’s people than the word for l-o-v-e.

Many have misunderstood; they suppose that the word “love” is weak sentimentalism. They want some solid works, not superficial emotion.

Someone who wants to preach “love” can be accused of being shallow.

But we must walk softly here, and be careful; the problem is that God says that He Himself IS “love” (1 John 4:8). And the last thing anyone wants to do is to despise God Himself!

In order to understand, we must look at the original Greek word that is in the text that tells us what God IS—it’s agape.

(a) It’s the most powerful word in any language; it’s the core word on which the vast universe of God’s creation has been built. The Milky Way is held together by the idea that is in that word.

(b) You and I as human individuals are nothing unless we are acquainted with that word: “Every one that loveth [with agape] is born of God, and knoweth God.”

(c) “He that loveth not [with agape] knoweth not God.”

(d) And here comes that blockbuster statement: “for God IS agape”(1 John 4:7, 8).

(e) Theologians can write their ponderous books and encyclopaedia, trying to explain it; but one can never understand what agape is until he “behold the Lamb of God” (John 1:29) whose agape led Him to die the death of every person on earth.

(f) “We see Jesus [with the eyes of faith], who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death” (Heb. 2:9). You and I have been “made” to live forever. He was “made” to die.

(g) You can’t say that Christ merely went to sleep for “every man.” The text says that “by the grace of God [He] should taste death for every man.” That’s not sleep!

(h) There is only one kind of death that Jesus could die “for every man” who has ever lived on earth: He died our second death.

(i) You may face that ultimate truth today and let “the love of Christ [His agape] “constrain” you to live “henceforth” only unto Him. That will be the beginning of eternal life for you.

(j) Here’s how simple it is:

(k) “The love of Christ constrains us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died; and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again” (2 Cor. 5:14, 15, NKJV).

(l) Everything depends on the dimensions of that “love.” Make them small and narrow, and your devotion will be small and narrow. It’s that simple!
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Respectfully, your brother in Christ,
Doc

 

[Pythons]

EXACTLY ! WOW... I'm surprisedly happy to see that here!
Since the Jews did not have any idea what 'trinity' was,
except for 'UNHOLY' pagan uses of trinity concept later accepted by the world church,
the Jews abiding in Yahweh's Word had a clear knowledge of Yahweh and His Rules and His Purpose much greater than any gentiles.
So many gentiles have ALWAYS HAD an incorrect understanding of Yahweh (even NOT KNOWING HIS NAME) and were brought up trained since birth that the pagan trinity was from a Biblical Source (obviously not to anyone with a 3rd grade education in Hebrew language)
, but since the gentiles don't know better - how could they know? who would there be to tell them ?? - they continue in ignorance unless they leave their family and friends and church to learn the truth.

I'm glad you finally came onto the scene Jeff, this is exactly the point I made in several threads. The majority of Jews dind't know about these things as Sacred Scripture plainly tells us, they were not intended to know.

"Therefore the word of the Lord will be to them precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little; THAT THEY MAY GO, AND FALL BACKWARD, AND BE BROKEN, AND SNARED AND TAKEN". Isaiah 28,13 RSV Catholic Edition

Vs.

"In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets: but in these last days He has spoken to us by a Son, WHOM HE APPOINTED the heir of all things, through whom also He created the world. HE REFLECTS THE GLORY OF GOD AND BEARS THE VERY STAMP OF HIS NATURE, upholding the universe by His word". Hebrews 1,1 RSV Catholic Edition

Syncs EXACTLY with,

"All authority in heaven and on earth HAS BEEN GIVEN TO ME. Go therefore and MAKE DICIPLES of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". Matthew 28,19 RSV Catholic Edition

Which syncs exactly with,

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I WILL GIVE YOU THE KEYS of the Kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven". Matthew 16,18 RSV Catholic Edition

Which syncs exactly with,

"These things I have spoken to you, while I am still here with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, HE WILL TEACH YOU ALL THINGS, AND BRING TO YOUR REMEMBRANCE ALL THAT I HAVE SAID TO YOU". John 14,25 RSV Catholic Edition


Which most certainly PROVES when a question arises that concerns the Christian Faith it is not the individual who determines what the truth is but "The Church" who would not fall prey to the power of "death".

"It hath seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden these these necessary things". Acts 15,28 RSV Catholic Edition

The reason this is reality is because this is the way Christ set it up. Judaism as a religious authority was killed, the law which set Israel apart from the nations slaughtered by Yeshua Himself and after Yeshua killed the Law He did drag the carcass around so that the people could see it peutrefy. This may seem horific to you but it is very Biblical.

If you've read the thread then and don't believe I've used Scripture as my reason then take a shot at what you feel is in error.
_________________________________________________________________

Country Doc, you are indeed "likeable" AND HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!