SDA Question

[MrJim]

Is Seventh-Day Adventist generally considered unorthodox? They're not listed as a seperate congregation on the forums. Where are they?

 

[Cliff2]

Is Seventh-Day Adventist generally considered unorthodox? They're not listed as a seperate congregation on the forums. Where are they?

I consider that SDA's are Christian first and foremost.

Then again I am an SDA.

There are other 7th day Sabbath keeping congregations apart from SDA's.

If that means because of keeping the Sabbath we are unorthodox in the eyes of some, I don't know.

 

[Athanasian Creed]

I found this site - Apologetics Index & an entry for SDA -

http://www.apologeticsindex.com/s18.html

The only SDAists i've met over emphasized worshipping on Saturday so much that i got the impression that it was the be-all-and-end-all doctrine -

Colossians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
The Jewish sabbath was a ceremonial ordinance, and a part of that handwriting of ordinances which was to be blotted out by Christ; and consequently the Christian is not obliged to observe it.


Ray

 

[adam332]

Ray,
Your brief interpretation of Col. 2 is completely uncontextual. I will explain later....

First, their were different Sabbaths. The seventh day Sabbath is part of the ten commandment moral law. This 7th day sabbath was blessed by God and given to man on the seventh day of creation. This predates sin. Do you see what that means?

The ceremonial laws which were instituted by God, came after sin. They were a blueprint, shadows, symbols of the process of sanctification, justification and redemption from sin. These shadows became fulfilled during Christ's ministry. In other words there was no reason to sacrifice any more lambs since the true lamb had already been sacrificed, etc....

This in no way negated the moral and civil laws. It is still unlawful for man to break the law. I would guess that you don't try to transfer any of the other 9 commandments into ceremonial status, just this one?

Also, the Sabbath was created and sanctified for MAN, 2300yrs before a Jew existed. The Jews continued to keep God's Sabbath, as did the majority of all Christians for hundeds of years after Christ died. And as do tens of millions of Christians today.

Just a little trivia to chew on that may put a different light on how you feel about the 7th day Sabbath; There were only two things sanctified and made for man that first week. The 7th day Sabbath and woman(wife). Interestingly, the breaking of either of these two sanctified institutions are forbidden in the moral ten commandment law.

More interestingly, the first four commands pertain to mans relationship with God, the last six pertain to mans relationship with our fellow man. Does this equate the Sabbath to a marriage covenant??

More interestingly, the saints are continually referred to as his bride and Christ the husband.

More interestingly, God told Israel(whose promises and covenants we share), that the Sabbath was a sign between Him and them so that He would know they were His people.

More interestingly, their is NO SCRIPTURAL mention of the Sabbath being no longer required, nor it's sanctified status ever removed.

More interestingly, prophecy mentions that in the new heavens and earth, all flesh will come to worship him every Sabbath.

There is much, much more....

IMHO, the breaking of the Sabbath is to God...as...adultery is to my wife.
_________
_________

An SDA might now try to explain to you that there were ceremonial days called Sabbaths, which there were. But they might then try to tell you that these days are the ones referred to in Col.2. This makes for a nice tidy dismissal of any debate over the 7th day Sabbath being negated by any reference from Col. 2.

I could go into detail explaining the function and such of these other Sabbaths, but it would be for nought. Unfortunately, I am more interested in an accurate interpretation than a tidy dismissal. So, I have no intention of trying to pass those ceremonial Sabbaths off as the ones being mentioned in Col. 2. The Sabbath mentioned there, I believe, is the 7th day Sabbath.

Yet, I will still contend that it does not negate the 7th day Sabbath in any way, but magnifies it.
_________
_________

This is the first day I've posted in along time so I'm a little rusty. I hope I wasn't to abrasive in my manner. Also, I will add a part two with a interpretation for Col. 2 tommorrow

 

[Egghead]

This is the first day I've posted in along time so I'm a little rusty. I hope I wasn't to abrasive in my manner. Also, I will add a part two with a interpretation for Col. 2 tommorrow

Im very interested in seeing how you refute that passage.

The best of scholars say it means just as it clearly states.

Funny that Paul didnt differentiate that it wasnt refering to ''sabbaths'' or ''sabbaths''......he just said ''sabbaths''.
Ive a feeling he meant just what he said.

 

[Egghead]

To add, lets look at more of that passage in Colossians.

Col 2:16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or of a new moon or of sabbaths,
Col 2:17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ.

Christ is our sabbath rest. He is the fulfilment of the shadow.

The law was but the shadow or representation of good things to come; none should rest in it; all that it pointed out is to be sought and obtained in Christ.

NT christianity should, if anything, be keeping the the first day of the week in remembrance of His ressurection.

 

[adam332]

I couldn't wait until tommorrow.....

I’m glad to see that you think Paul clearly says what he means….the thing is did you actually read what he wrote?
~The Sabbath and Col. 2:16~

There is a widespread usage, (in Christianity today), of Col. 2:16’s mention of the Sabbath as evidence that the seventh day Sabbath is no longer applicable as a command. Many believe that this mention somehow voids the one command which we are told to “remember” (Exo. 20:8-11), while strangely leaving the other nine commands intact.

In efforts to disprove such a theory, many Sabbath keepers have come up with a counter interpretation. In it they suggest that the Sabbath spoken of here is not the seventh day Sabbath at all, instead they insist that it is speaking of the ceremonial Sabbaths, (Lev. 23).

The truth of the matter is that neither such interpretation is correct, for both fall short in applying the context of this book and more specifically this chapter. That said, we will begin this study with a look at the context, then we will address the specifics of the passage in question.

The Context

Paul wrote his epistle to the church at Colossae for this purpose…

Col. 1:9-11 For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding; That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God; Strengthened with all might, according to his glorious power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness;

We see that Paul sought to enlighten them, so they may apply this imparted knowledge to their Christian walk in the spiritual manner that is pleasing to the Lord.

Paul emphasizes the concept of Christ’s supremacy throughout this book. He uses it in a comparative nature when dealing with the Colossian heresy issues that were made known to him. These heresy issues are repetitively given the same general labeling throughout the 2nd chapter.

Col. 2:4 And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words.

Col. 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Col. 2:16 “Let no man therefore judge you…”

Col. 2:18 “Let no man beguile you…”

Col. 2:20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,

Col. 2:22 Which all are to perish with the using; after the commandments and doctrines of men?

This gives us no doubt as to the common root of the heresy that Paul was dealing with, they were the worldly doctrines of men. He is contrasting the authority of Christ in all these matters, with that of mans. This alone dispels the idea that he was voiding the Sabbath command as issued by our Lord. Over and over we see Paul was denouncing men’s doctrines about these issues and correctly informing us that such authority for doctrine is in Christ alone.

Also important to note is when this book was written, nearly 30 years after the crucifixion.

The Passage

Col. 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

Not to get ahead of ourselves but, if we listen to what Paul actually says here; we see that he never says the Sabbath was blotted out, or nailed to the cross, nor does he claim it was contrary to us. It tells us plainly that it was, “the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us”, is what was nailed to the cross and blotted out. Then, two verses later when it informs us, “Let no man therefore judge you …of the sabbath”, this is shown simply as the result of what is nailed to the cross.

Let us examine that idea for a moment. What exactly was nailed to “…his cross“? There was the placard that read; “THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS”, (Mat. 27:37, Mark 15:26, Luke 23:38, John 19:19). And, of course there was Jesus Himself which was nailed to the cross.

There is no way one could construe that this sign that was placed on the cross, wiped away the ordinances that v.14 is speaking of. The sign, nor the accusation which was writ upon it, had any power. Therefore, this only leaves our Savior as having the ability for “blotting out” these ordinances. We will touch more upon that shortly.

Again, if we listen to Paul the fact that he says they were “contrary” speaks volumes as to whom these ordinances belonged to. Never did Paul use this word, or any word that had the same definition, when speaking of any of God’s laws, whether they were ceremonial in nature or part of the ten commands. However, he did use such language when speaking of men’s doctrines, (Rom. 16:17, Gal. 5:17, 1Thes. 2:25, 1***. 1:10). If one takes that into consideration along with the context of Col. 2, it becomes undeniable that the ordinances being spoken of are man’s doctrines.

This is where it gets interesting, because one may now wonder; “How did Christ, getting nailed to the cross, blot out these worldly doctrines of men?”. One must remember the context of Colossians, which is the supremacy and authority of Christ in all things. Christ had claimed He was the son of God and that the Father had granted him authority. He also publicly exercised such authority when He forgave sinners.

His authority was challenged by the religious leaders, and they crucified him for blasphemy, (claim of divine title and/or authority). But, in their doing so they unwittingly played a part to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies concerning Christ crucifixion, (Psa. 22:1-19, Isa. 53:1-12), and thus aided in the establishment of His identity and authority!! With His authority established, the worldly doctrines of men held no value and all that was left for any true believer to consider, was the word of God!

Col. 2:15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

This verse re-iterates much of which was already explained. Over and over we see the spiritual leaders(“principalities and powers”),disarmed (“spoiled”, see Strongs#554), when they accused Christ of breaking their laws. Mind you, these were not God’s laws. Christ did not sin against the word of God, but he constantly sinned against their man made laws. Remember, this chapter is focusing on the contrast of man’s laws and authority with that of God’s, notice in v.10 it says that Christ “is the head of all principality and power”.

The second part of this verse may possibly be referencing two possible scenarios

1.

One of their favorite charges against our Lord, was breaking the seventh day Sabbath. Again, if you notice the context of these accusations they are not found in the Bible, but were found in the man-made ordinances of the religious leaders. Christ did not hide His Biblical and spiritual manner of keeping the Sabbath, but instead He defied them “openly”. When accused He quoted from the scriptures and “triumphed over them”, leaving them nothing to tangible to charge Him with.

2.

Christ’ resurrection could also fit the meaning of this passage. It could definitely be said that a dead guy walking around, who prophesied His own resurrection was an open display of His authority and identity. Also, the word “triumph” implies a victory. It was Paul who indicates in1Cor.15 that death has lost it’s sting and it’s victory. In short His victory over death proves He was who He claimed to be, thus establishing His authority.

Col. 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

This verse sums up perfectly what he was trying to say. Since Christ’s authority has been established, as the head of all principality and power. Put aside your worldly doctrines of men for he has wiped away their authority, and therefore your debts to their ordinances, with His own death. Therefore let no man judge you by the elements of the world, it is by His word alone that we will be judged.

Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ.

Remember that Paul is writing this nearly 30 years after the death of Christ. Did you catch that?!! Again we see, this passage is not speaking of the ceremonial laws that were a shadow of things and that had already been fulfilled, but instead is speaking of a future fulfillment of Sabbaths, new moons etc.... that “are…to come“.

Sound familiar?

Isa 66:22-23 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.

Now one could go into detail about how such things shadow some future event…but that is a different study.

 

[adam332]

Egghead,
you said...

"NT christianity should, if anything, be keeping the the first day of the week in remembrance of His ressurection."

Based on what verse? Nothing in the Bible establishs the 1st day to be held with any regard or rememberence for anything, ever. Considering we are talking about Col.2 which continually denounces man-made doctrines...it's amazing that you would say that. It flies right it the face of what Paul is teaching here. He says that only in God's authority should we place our doctrine.

 

[Egghead]

Therefore do not let anyone judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or of a new moon or of sabbaths,
(Col 2:16)

Let NO ONE judge you...THEN as Paul wrote.....concerning these things.

I have no clue as to how you came to many of your conclusions. Ive never seen anything like that.

Rather than bicker with you, you can argue with the greats.

Col 2:16 - Therefore - Seeing these things are so. Let none judge you - That is, regard none who judge you. In meat or drink - For not observing the ceremonial law in these or any other particulars. Or in respect of a yearly feast, the new moon, or the weekly Jewish sabbaths.-Wesley

The apostle concludes the chapter with exhortations to proper duty, which he infers from the foregoing discourse.
I. Here is a caution to take heed of judaizing teachers, or those who would impose upon Christians the yoke of the ceremonial law: Let no man therefore judge you in meat nor drink, etc., Col_2:16.

Much of the ceremonies of the law of Moses consisted in the distinction of meats and days. It appears by Rom. 14 that there were those who were for keeping up those distinctions: but here the apostle shows that since Christ has come, and has cancelled the ceremonial law, we ought not to keep it up. “Let no man impose those things upon you, for God has not imposed them: if God has made you free, be not you again entangled in that yoke of bondage.” And this the rather because these things were shadows of things to come (Col_2:17), intimating that they had no intrinsic worth in them and that they are now done away.

But the body is of Christ: the body, of which they were shadows, has come;

and to continue the ceremonial observances, which were only types and shadows of Christ and the gospel, carries an intimation that Christ has not yet come and the gospel state has not yet commenced.

Observe the advantages we have under the gospel, above what they had under the law: they had the shadows, we have the substance. -Henry

Or of the sabbath days, or "sabbaths"; meaning the jubilee sabbath, which was one year in fifty; and the sabbath of the land, which was one year in seven; and the seventh day sabbath, and some copies read in the singular number, "or of the sabbath"; which were all peculiar to the Jews, were never binding on the Gentiles, and to which believers in Christ, be they who they will, are by no means obliged; nor ought they to observe them, the one any more than the other; and should they be imposed upon them, they ought to reject them; and should they be judged, censured, and condemned, for so doing, they ought not to mind it. It is the sense of the Jews themselves, that the Gentiles are not obliged to keep their sabbath; no, not the proselyte of the gate, or he that dwelt in any of their cities; for they say (g), that "it is lawful for a proselyte of the gate to do work on the sabbath day for himself, as for an Israelite on a common feast day; R. Akiba says, as for all Israelite on a feast day; R. Jose says, it is lawful for a proselyte of the gate to do work on the sabbath day for himself, as for an Israelite on a common or week day: -Gill

we see that he never says the Sabbath was blotted out, or nailed to the cross, nor does he claim it was contrary to us. .

What, Paul needed to specify each and every item of the Law that was contrary?
If he didnt mention something specifically then it MUST still be effective?
Was the law of ordinances blotted out or not?


Something of interest in Acts.
Like it or not, the sabbath thing was LAW.
But in Acts 15 Paul NEVER mentions it when showing the gentiles what to observe of the law.

Act 15:5 But some of those from the sect of the Pharisees rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses."
Act 15:6 And the apostles and elders gathered together to see about this matter.

Act 15:7 And after much dispute, Peter arose and said to them: "Men, brothers, you know that from early days God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.


Act 15:10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

Act 15:19 Therefore I judge that we must not cause trouble for those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles;
Act 15:20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.

Not a single word of keeping the sabbath in any manner.
And Paul and the others are dealing with pharisees who are teaching men to follow the Mosiac Law.
If adhering to the sabbath was so important, Id say that Paul would definetly have mentioned it.
But he doesnt, and he does end up telling them not to let anyone judge them concerning sabbaths AND we have Jesus casually allowing His disciples to break the sabbath by plucking grain as was unlawful for them to do.

Jesus Himself has shown that HE is the Lord, even of the sabbath.
He defended his disciple for plucking grain on the sabbath.....something that the pharisee who understood that this was not lawful to do.
Jesus never said the pharisees were wrong, but presented that even David had broken the law out of necessity.

At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. And His disciples became hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat.

But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to Him, "Look, Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath!"

But He said to them, "Have you not read what David did when he became hungry, he and those who were with him: how they entered the house of God, and ate the showbread which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, except only for the priests?

Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are guiltless?

Yet I say to you that One greater than the temple is here.

But if you had known what this means, 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the guiltless.

For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."
(Mat 12:1-8)

Do you know what that means? "I desire mercy and not sacrifice"
Then do not condemn those of us who are innocent.

And it happened that He went through the grainfields on the sabbath day.

And as they walked His disciples began to pluck the heads of grain. And the Pharisees said to Him, Behold, why do they do that which is not lawful on the sabbath day?

And He said to them, Have you never read what David did, when he had need and was hungry, he, and those with him? How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest and ate the showbread, which it is not lawful to eat, except for the priests, and also gave to those with him?

And He said to them, The sabbath came into being for man's sake, and not man for the sabbath's sake.

Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the sabbath.
(Mar 2:23-28)

The sabbath was for OUR rest, for US.

And He said to them, The sabbath came into being for man's sake, and not man for the sabbath's sake.
(Mar 2:27)

Mar 2:23-28 -
The sabbath is a sacred and Divine institution; a privilege and benefit, not a task and drudgery. God never designed it to be a burden to us, therefore we must not make it so to ourselves. The sabbath was instituted for the good of mankind, as living in society, having many wants and troubles, preparing for a state of happiness or misery. Man was not made for the sabbath, as if his keeping it could be of service to God, nor was he commanded to keep it outward observances to his real hurt. Every observance respecting it, is to be interpreted by the rule of mercy.
-Henry

Mar 2:27 - The Sabbath was made for man - And therefore must give way to man's necessity.

Now, Im not against worshipping on the sabbath, if that is what you are presenting.

I personally think ALL days are Gods days and we should keep EVERY day holy, not just the one.

But if you are saying that it is forbidden that we should do any work on the sabbath ever, then you are just plain wrong.

 

[MrJim]

Enough about the sabbath worship-I get the point.

I was checking out AC's link. What about Ellen White's book being on par with scripture and Jesus being Michael the Archangel. Anyone heard this before?

 

[adam332]

Sure, Matthew Henry's commentary agrees that Michael is Christ.

 

[deu58]

Hello Adam 332

Long time no see,

This gives us no doubt as to the common root of the heresy that Paul was dealing with, they were the worldly doctrines of men. He is contrasting the authority of Christ in all these matters, with that of mans. This alone dispels the idea that he was voiding the Sabbath command as issued by our Lord. Over and over we see Paul was denouncing men’s doctrines about these issues and correctly informing us that such authority for doctrine is in Christ alone.

Also important to note is when this book was written, nearly 30 years after the crucifixion.

Where did Jesus ever issue the Sabbath commandment??? Where is it ever mentioned that there is a Sabbath commandment after the cross???

I may have missed it but it seems your source omitted an important clue as to what was being talked about,


Col 2:18 Let no man rob you of your prize by a voluntary humility and worshipping of the angels, dwelling in the things which he hath seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,

Was what was given by angels the oral Torah??? What did Paul mean when he was talking about Angels???

Ga 3:19 What then is the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made; [and it was] ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator.

Heb 2:2 For if the word spoken through angels proved stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward;

Paul was speaking of the Law of Moses itself. Not the oral torah,

yours in Christ
deu 58

 

[deu58]

Hi Menno

Enough about the sabbath worship-I get the point.

I was checking out AC's link. What about Ellen White's book being on par with scripture and Jesus being Michael the Archangel. Anyone heard this before?

Ellen G White is the SDA prophetess, Same as Joseph Smith and Mary Baker Eddy,

They refer to her as the lesser lightand to the Bible as the greater light, No SDA will publicly say that they believe Ellen White to be on par with the bible but privately that is a different matter all together,

yours in Christ
deu 58

 

[adam332]

Egghead, it makes me sad that you dismiss it without really trying to hear.

It is simple, Col. 2 is denouncing mens docrtrines over and over and over,(v.4,8,16,20,22). I guess these "greats" failed to employ those little things called CONTEXT and SUBJECT.

Paul tells us VERY CLEARLY that these laws were contrary to Gods, he emphasis through the entire book of Col. the authority and supremacy of Christ over all things. PAUL NEVER USED THE WORD "CONTRARY" TO DESCRIBE GOD'S LAWS, HE DID HOWEVER USE IT MANY TIMES WHEN REFERRING TO THE DOCTRINES OF MEN. I guess your greats missed that little tidbit as well, huh.

Maybe you should read the Mishnah, it contains the laws which the Jews added to God's law. These laws were never endorsed by God, yet the Jews held them alongside God's laws as holding equal authority. One could be judged as a sinner based on their man-made laws.

If you then followed the life of Christ you would see that they constantly accused him of sinning when He broke THEIR LAWS. The picking the grain, the healing, the washing of hands, etc... are all NON-BIBLICAL laws, these were found in the ordinances of men. Christ never broke Biblical law! Again that appears to be something you missed, when the Bible said over and over that Christ was sinless, they meant it.

The point being is that the laws being done away with were invented by man and held NO ECCLESIATICAL AUTHORITY. That is the heresy being dealt with by Paul. That along with other heresy issues, such as worshipping of angels(v.18).

We are now free to worship on our Sabbath, in the manner God prescribed, mans authority has been disproven and Christ' has been eastablished. Let therefore no man judge you!!!

If you would like to dicuss any other areas of Sabbath mentions and discuss them, I would be happy to after you actually read an address that which you wanted to see.

Please put away your commentaries of men, and think for yourself on this. Cannot you and I reason together with the scriptures without them. The Holy Spirit can impart more knowledge to you about this in a single second than all of them combined.

It would also greatly increase your understanding in many areas of scripture if you read a little historical background on the Mishnah, and familiarized yourself with the ordinances it contains.

Also, before trying to analyze or defend your position you may in the future want to examine the book and it's purpose, and the subject matter of the chapter in question. Also the author and the way he uses words can show definite patterns as it does in this case.

Your great sunday keeping commentary writers, conveniently tossed the most basic of study methods out the window on this one, and came up with something that didn't disagree with their current doctrine.

 

[MrJim]

Sure, Matthew Henry's commentary agrees that Michael is Christ.

Where? I have that commentary 3' from me-I'll check it out.

 

[adam332]

Hey deu,
good to see you as well. I had to break for a long while not sure how long I'll feel like staying, but I'm here now...

back to business eh?

The worshipping of angels was one of the heretical issues Paul was responding to after learning of them. That particular heretical issue has no bearing the subject on the Sabbath...other that it also came from man and not from God.

you said,
"Paul was speaking of the Law of Moses itself. Not the oral torah,"

The subject of the chapter is quite plain and very repetitive throughout...I pointed it out twice but for those who don't have their own copy of Col. 2...here it is again.

Paul emphasizes the concept of Christ’s supremacy throughout this book. He uses it in a comparative nature when dealing with the Colossian heresy issues that were made known to him. These heresy issues are repetitively given the same general labeling throughout the 2nd chapter.

He was not speaking about the laws of Moses.
He is speaking about mans doctrines.

Col. 2:4 And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words.

Col. 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.


Col. 2:16 “Let no man therefore judge you…”

Col. 2:18 “Let no man beguile you…”


Col. 2:20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,

Col. 2:22 Which all are to perish with the using; after the commandments and doctrines of men?

Again, PAUL NEVER, EVER ONCE REFERRED TO ANY OF GODS LAWS AS CONTRARY. HE REPEATEDLY, THROUGHOUT HIS WRITINGS, REFERRED TO MANS DOCTRINES BEING CONTRARY.

Can you not see what the subject is, the contrary doctrines of man. How many times does Paul need to tell us in a single chapter before we see it?
Evidently more than six...

 

[deu58]

Hi Adam332


This guy does not want us to screw up his thread, Want to start a new one???

I really do not have a lot of time for this any more either these days, We have a new ministry that is taking up large amounts of my time and i have actually been considering leaving C/F all together, The only reason I was here now was I had an ot question that I posted in the Messianic section and happened to see you were back and just checked to see what you were posting,

yours in christ
deu 58

 

[adam332]

menno,
hope this helps...

http://www.ccel.org/h/henry/mhc2/MHC27010.HTM
(from Dan. 10:21)

"Here is Michael our prince, the great protector of the church, and the patron of its just but injured cause: The first of the chief princes, v. 13. Some understand it of a created angel, but an archangel of the highest order, 1 Thess. iv. 16; Jude 9. Others think that Michael the archangel is no other than Christ himself, the angel of the covenant, and the Lord of the angels, he whom Daniel saw in vision, v. 5. He came to help me (v. 13); and there is none but he that holds with me in these things, v. 21. Christ is the church's prince; angels are not, Heb. ii. 5."

...also...

http://www.ccel.org/h/henry/mhc2/MHC27012.HTM
(from Dan. 12:1)

"I. Jesus Christ shall appear his church's patron and protector: At that time, when the persecution is at the hottest, Michael shall stand up, v. 1. The angel had told Daniel what a firm friend Michael was to the church, ch. x. 21. He all along showed this friendship in the upper world; the angels knew it; but now Michael shall stand up in his providence, and work deliverance for the Jews, when he sees that their power is gone, Deut. xxxii. 3. 6. Christ is that great prince, for he is the prince of the kings of the earth, Rev. i. 5. And, if he stand up for his church, who can be against it"

 

[adam332]

deu,
you came over here for wittle ol' me....{blushing}

Sure, let's get our own started if I remember correctly we'll gonna' need our own...maybe even more than one thread...

Anywho...when you see this throw me a link of where to go...and we'll transfer some of this stuff over.

 

[MrJim]

menno,
hope this helps...

http://www.ccel.org/h/henry/mhc2/MHC27010.HTM
(from Dan. 10:21)

"Here is Michael our prince, the great protector of the church, and the patron of its just but injured cause: The first of the chief princes, v. 13. Some understand it of a created angel, but an archangel of the highest order, 1 Thess. iv. 16; Jude 9. Others think that Michael the archangel is no other than Christ himself, the angel of the covenant, and the Lord of the angels, he whom Daniel saw in vision, v. 5. He came to help me (v. 13); and there is none but he that holds with me in these things, v. 21. Christ is the church's prince; angels are not, Heb. ii. 5."

...also...

http://www.ccel.org/h/henry/mhc2/MHC27012.HTM
(from Dan. 12:1)

"I. Jesus Christ shall appear his church's patron and protector: At that time, when the persecution is at the hottest, Michael shall stand up, v. 1. The angel had told Daniel what a firm friend Michael was to the church, ch. x. 21. He all along showed this friendship in the upper world; the angels knew it; but now Michael shall stand up in his providence, and work deliverance for the Jews, when he sees that their power is gone, Deut. xxxii. 3. 6. Christ is that great prince, for he is the prince of the kings of the earth, Rev. i. 5. And, if he stand up for his church, who can be against it"

Thanks, I will check into this further...