Seventh-day Adventists and the Torah on the heart.

[tall73]

Honor has CARM confused with a different website that CFians go to in order to vent about CF...uberchristians.

Indeed, there they swear like it is going out of style. But the accusation was that someone who frequents the Adventist area was doing it. They were characterized as "she." So who was this person referred to? I don't remember seeing many from Adventist land there.

 

[TrustAndObey]

Indeed, there they swear like it is going out of style. But the accusation was that someone who frequents the Adventist area was doing it. They were characterized as "she." So who was this person referred to? I don't remember seeing many from Adventist land there.

Without naming names, can you think of anyone that used to go to the Adventist forum that uses uberchristians to drop the "F" bomb like it's going out of style?

 

[tall73]

Without naming names, can you think of anyone that used to go to the Adventist forum that uses uberchristians to drop the "F" bomb like it's going out of style?

Um no, but then I haven't really posted there in some time. Feel free to pm me if you want. I don't remember folks from the Adventist section even being at UC.

 

[tall73]

In any case the UC guidelines are nothing like CARM.

UC started as a grand experiment without rules of any kind. They still have no warnings, no staff bans, etc. They had a ton of people leave due to fights but even then refused to put in some simple disciplinary measures.

Here are their current guidelines:


Staff will not ban members.
Staff will not issue warnings of any kind.
Staff will not attempt to control discussions in any way by using their staff status.
Staff will not remove any posts save commercial spam.

Essentially UC was Seebs' and Flesh's attempt to avoid the sort of heavy-handed moderating they saw other places.

 

[Adventtruth]

Is it in your capacity to have a conversation without the jabs, AT?

I have not thrown a punch at you.

How many times does Colossians 2:14-17 get taken out of context to try to prove the opposite conclusion about Sabbath observance? I'm taking the SAME verses and trying to present an alternative view, and I think that's acceptable.

The text supports that Sabbath observance is not valid for those who have found rest in Christ. To suggest its still binding you must ignor or twist the context.

I've said several times, in this thread alone, that I have recently been convicted to explore the keeping of some of the feasts. For instance, NO ONE to date has proven to me how the Feast of Trumpets was fulfilled by Christ. In fact, I am having trouble finding where ANY of the fall feasts were fulfilled.

If you are having trouble finding how any of the feast are fulfilled, then perhaps you are looking in the wrong place. Just as a suggestion if you need it...don't ever think you are beyound biblical helps.

Some of the feasts were centered around a new moon (Psa 81:3).

Many scholars believe 81:3 refers to the begining of their civil year in the month of Tisri. All things where new of the redeemed of the Lord.

The word "are" is translated to "IS" throughout the Bible...but since it was several things being mentioned, the word "are" was used in proper grammatical order. Present tense at the time it was being written.

Well then I take it that you never understood what I was saying...that I was basically in agreement with you here. The word "are" is in the present tense third person.

The Colossians were Christians, AT. They weren't Jews and Paul was telling them not to let anyone judge them for the observance of Sabbath. Does that tell you anything?

I know they where Chirstians...I never said they where not. Pauls point is that those things are shadows to those who are not in Christ. But being in the body, they have the reality. Being outside you have shadows and have not recieved the Reality of the shadows...we are of the body and have no need for the shadows. Thats Pauls point.

That little word "but" can also mean AND. AND the body of the Christ. It's talking about the Christ's church....His people.

Individuals cannot judge, but the church CAN. There are other verses that say that in scripture as you well know.

The Colossians were Christians...let me prove that with scripture so there's no argument: Colossians 1:2 To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

They were Christians and Paul told them not to let anyone judge them for the observance of Sabbath. Interesting, no?

[/size]

They were in Christ!! Read Colossians 1:2 again.

Pehaps you need to read with a little more understanding of what I wrote. I know they are Christians but you fail to lay aside your bias that you can comprhend. Pauls whole point here is that shadow serves no purpose to those who are of the body. So why live as if you are subject to ordinaces and laws, Paul asked. Kindly go over the text with that in mind and it will become clear to you. THere where those judging them for not keeping the shadows, but Paul told them that the body is of Christ, not the shadows.

There ya go! Ignore the commandments of MEN and obey the commandments of God!

The Commandments of God at this point have no jurisdiction over those who are in the body of Chirst, But you had those who continued to teach that the shadows spoken of above are still binding on the people of God. Thus they have become the comandments of men to those in the body of Chirst. THis is what Paul is teaching in that passage. Others where wrongly teaching the rudements of the world, which was the ordinances of a worldly jewish sanctuary, their rites and cerimonies....the state of the Jews , in contrast to the gospel dispensation and the first coming and death of Christ. All of the above of the Jewish dispensation where shadows in light of the work of Chirst upon His life and blood. (verse 22).

They followed shadows until the first coming of Christ (sacrifices, Hebrews 10:1) and we have shadows that assure us of His second coming.

And what might these shadows be? Kindly answer that please.

Shadows are a good thing brother....Psa 36:7 How excellent is Thy lovingkindness, O God! therefore the children of men put their trust under the shadow of Thy wings.

Psa 63:7 Because thou hast been my help, therefore in the shadow of Thy wings will I rejoice.

[/size]

But this shadow is not an ordance of the law...is it? Kindly answer that!

AT

 

[tall73]

Regarding the feasts, new moon, etc. The Acts council of chapter 15 makes it very plain that Gentiles did not need to keep them.

Some Christians who were of the pharisee party wanted the gentiles to be circumcised and keep the whole law of Moses.

Act 15:5 But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses."

But the church did not agree with that. They only outlined a few basics for them to keep:

Act 15:24 Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions,
Act 15:25 it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
Act 15:26 men who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Act 15:27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth.
Act 15:28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements:
Act 15:29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell."


There is nothing in there regarding keeping feasts. They did not have to keep it. So if your position is that it is the body that decides, the body did decide. Gentiles do not have to keep the whole law of Moses or the feasts. Only a few items were outlined. If some were urging them to keep the feasts they need only remember the council where the church body decided it was not necessary.

 

[TrustAndObey]

I have not thrown a punch at you.

Come on now. The innuendo was that I don't know scripture well, but I'll just answer and say that I have read and studied the Bible and I just came to a different understanding than you did, that's all.

The text supports that Sabbath observance is not valid for those who have found rest in Christ. To suggest its still binding you must ignor or twist the context.

Well then you have the pesky problem of "food and drink" in that verse as well. Is IT not necessary today? Or is it just not necessary for Christians to eat anymore because Christ is the bread of life and the living water?

Obviously we need to eat, we just shouldn't let any MAN judge us for what we eat!

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

I still don't see the word "offering" in there anywhere.

John 6:55 For my flesh is meat (brosis) indeed, and my blood is drink (posis) indeed.

When Jesus said "do this in remembrance of Me", for how long did He mean Adventtruth? Was it a shadow of things to COME (as in the SECOND coming) or no?

Did the new moon go away? Even if you don't observe anything around the new moon, is it still there?

If you are having trouble finding how any of the feast are fulfilled, then perhaps you are looking in the wrong place. Just as a suggestion if you need it...don't ever think you are beyound biblical helps.

I'd say biblical helps are necessary for everyone wouldn't you? Do you personally know of anyone that has all truth? Do any of the scholars you relied on for Psalms 81:3 have "all truth"?

Can you consult one of those scholars and tell me with scripture how the Feast of Tabernacles has been fulfilled and what it pointed TO?

Is the Feast of Trumpets fulfilled or will it be fulfilled "at the last trump"?

Many scholars believe 81:3 refers to the begining of their civil year in the month of Tisri. All things where new of the redeemed of the Lord.

You "Bible only" people seem to stray from that path sometimes to rely on scholars. But fair enough....you admit that it's "many" and not "all" so that's good.

How about this verse then: 2 Chronicles 8:13 Even after a certain rate every day, offering according to the commandment of Moses, on the sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the solemn feasts, three times in the year, [even] in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles.

The new moon is still around, and will be around on the New Earth even.

Psa 89:34 My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.

35 Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David.

36 His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me.

37 It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven. Selah.

When I look up at night, I still see the moon.

Well then I take it that you never understood what I was saying...that I was basically in agreement with you here. The word "are" is in the present tense third person.

I know they where Chirstians...I never said they where not. Pauls point is that those things are shadows to those who are not in Christ. But being in the body, they have the reality. Being outside you have shadows and have not recieved the Reality of the shadows...we are of the body and have no need for the shadows. Thats Pauls point.

Quick observation...to say "those things" are shadows for those that are NOT in Christ includes communion since Jesus called it meat and drink. Would anyone that was NOT in Christ partake in holy communion?

Pehaps you need to read with a little more understanding of what I wrote. I know they are Christians but you fail to lay aside your bias that you can comprhend. Pauls whole point here is that shadow serves no purpose to those who are of the body. So why live as if you are subject to ordinaces and laws, Paul asked.

Kindly go over the text with that in mind and it will become clear to you. THere where those judging them for not keeping the shadows, but Paul told them that the body is of Christ, not the shadows.

I could not disagree with you any more than I do. Seriously. The sacrifices were a shadow of the FIRST coming (Hebrews 10:1), but did God's people have to atone for sin through them? Of course they did. Being a shadow in no way says "don't do it". In fact, they HAD to keep the laws about sacrifices, or they were cut off from their people...God's people.

If you are in the shadow of something, even the shadow of death, it's a reminder that the reality is COMING.

The Commandments of God at this point have no jurisdiction over those who are in the body of Chirst, But you had those who continued to teach that the shadows spoken of above are still binding on the people of God. Thus they have become the comandments of men to those in the body of Chirst. THis is what Paul is teaching in that passage. Others where wrongly teaching the rudements of the world, which was the ordinances of a worldly jewish sanctuary, their rites and cerimonies....the state of the Jews , in contrast to the gospel dispensation and the first coming and death of Christ. All of the above of the Jewish dispensation where shadows in light of the work of Chirst upon His life and blood. (verse 22).

So let me get this straight. The Commandments of God had jurisdiction over Christ Himself while here on earth, but you say they have absolutely NO jurisdiction over those that are in Christ's church now?

He kept the commandments so we shouldn't even try to at all?

AT, that's an incredible assertion considering Christ Himself said differently.

In Matthew 19...when the young man came to Christ and asked what he might do to have eternal life, what did JESUS tell him?

I'm a believer of/in Christ, and at the very least I know that He told us to obey the "Big Two" that He gave to the Pharisees when they questioned Him about the commandments.

So let's consider where the Big Two came from, okay?

Matthew 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

Where did that come from, AT?

Yikes...within the "old" covenant!

Deut 6:2 That thou mightest fear the LORD thy God, to keep all his statutes and his commandments, which I command thee, thou, and thy son, and thy son's son, all the days of thy life; and that thy days may be prolonged. 3 Hear therefore, O Israel, and observe to do [it]; that it may be well with thee, and that ye may increase mightily, as the LORD God of thy fathers hath promised thee, in the land that floweth with milk and honey. 4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God [is] one LORD:

Deut 6:5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

And what about the second great commandment?

Matthew 22:39 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Where did that come from? Same place...from within the "old" covenant!

Lev 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Lev 19:34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

And what might these shadows be? Kindly answer that please.

There are lots of shadows to remind us that Christ is coming again. Anything that points to the second coming of Jesus Christ. Communion, baptism, faith, eventually meeting the Word in Person instead of being in the shadow of His wings. Everything we do is in preparation of His promised return.

But this shadow is not an ordance of the law...is it? Kindly answer that!

Being under the shadow of His wings? No, it's not an ordinance. But it proves that shadows are not a bad thing. If you're in the shadow of a mountain you don't have to SEE the mountain to know it's there, you just have faith and some proof that it is....and you keep going toward the light until there is no more shadow.

 

[TrustAndObey]

Regarding the feasts, new moon, etc. The Acts council of chapter 15 makes it very plain that Gentiles did not need to keep them.

Some Christians who were of the pharisee party wanted the gentiles to be circumcised and keep the whole law of Moses.

Act 15:5 But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses."

But the church did not agree with that. They only outlined a few basics for them to keep:

Act 15:24 Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions,
Act 15:25 it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
Act 15:26 men who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Act 15:27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth.
Act 15:28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements:
Act 15:29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell."


There is nothing in there regarding keeping feasts. They did not have to keep it. So if your position is that it is the body that decides, the body did decide. Gentiles do not have to keep the whole law of Moses or the feasts. Only a few items were outlined. If some were urging them to keep the feasts they need only remember the council where the church body decided it was not necessary.

There's nothing in there about not murdering either.

I keep saying that none of you anti-Sabbath Christians agree with each other, but actually you and Eila agree on this one. She gave me those verses as well once.

The problem I see, though, is that circumcision was given to Abraham in promised covenant, before Moses. So the towrah that Abraham kept....was it the same one that Moses later wrote down?

If you don't do any of those things...abstain from blood, etc...aren't you still "under the law" to an extent?

Romans 14 and 1 Cor 8 says that we can eat the food offered to idols, so I'm a little confused.

What does a Christian do that breaks one of those in order to be forgiven?

 

[TrustAndObey]

In any case the UC guidelines are nothing like CARM.

UC started as a grand experiment without rules of any kind. They still have no warnings, no staff bans, etc. They had a ton of people leave due to fights but even then refused to put in some simple disciplinary measures.

Here are their current guidelines:


Staff will not ban members.
Staff will not issue warnings of any kind.
Staff will not attempt to control discussions in any way by using their staff status.
Staff will not remove any posts save commercial spam.

Essentially UC was Seebs' and Flesh's attempt to avoid the sort of heavy-handed moderating they saw other places.

It's really just a drop in the bucket of life, no? Honor was just confused as to which website it was. I don't feel the need to rat anyone out for cursing like a sailor on a site without rules.

It's still offensive to most Christians to hear/see that type of language...even though it's not in Acts 15, eh?

 

[tall73]

There's nothing in there about not murdering either.

I keep saying that none of you anti-Sabbath Christians agree with each other, but actually you and Eila agree on this one. She gave me those verses as well once.

The problem I see, though, is that circumcision was given to Abraham in promised covenant, before Moses. So the towrah that Abraham kept....was it the same one that Moses later wrote down?

If you don't do any of those things...abstain from blood, etc...aren't you still "under the law" to an extent?

The NT has many commands. Some of them reiterate commands similar to those of Moses. But they made it plain that gentiles are not under the law of Moses as a whole.

Now what does that mean? The feasts, part of the law of Moses, which no one denies. Therefore no gentile is required to keep the feasts. So any interpretation of Col. 2 that would be urging feasts on the gentiles is incorrect. The church already made a decision on that.

By the way, all you pro-Sabbath folks are on different pages too apparently. Some of you are keeping feasts, some thinking about it, some keep the whole torah as much as possible, some keep only the 10 commandments. So that argument can be put to rest. We need to look at the merits of the various positions. It is not enough to simply dismiss them because there are more than one.

 

[tall73]

And as to Abraham keeping the same covenant, you have twice already ignored a plain text that says otherwise.

Gal 3:16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to offsprings," referring to many, but referring to one, "And to your offspring," who is Christ.
Gal 3:17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void.

Abraham had commands from God. And he was aware of the sacrificial system, at least in a simple form. The story of the sacrifice of Isaac references such sacrifices. But they make no reference to a temple, temple requirements etc, Abraham was given circumcision. But he was not given all the Mosaic law as Paul says that was put into effect 430 years afterward.

 

[tall73]

It's really just a drop in the bucket of life, no? Honor was just confused as to which website it was. I don't feel the need to rat anyone out for cursing like a sailor on a site without rules.

It's still offensive to most Christians to hear/see that type of language...even though it's not in Acts 15, eh?

If honor was acting out of concern for the feelings of the other person she would have never made the statement in the first place, so I am guessing there is some other reason behind not ratting out now.

But it is clear now that the statement does nothing to implicate CARM people. So that puts to rest that argument.

As to Acts 15, you seem to miss the point that there are many commands in the NT. The law of Moses is not required. But that does not make Christians antinomian.

Eph 4:29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.

 

[tall73]

What does a Christian do that breaks one of those in order to be forgiven?

Same as any other sin, confess, repent and receive forgiveness.

1Jo 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

 

[tall73]

Romans 14 and 1 Cor 8 says that we can eat the food offered to idols, so I'm a little confused.

A. Romans 14 does not even mention idols. But I agree it is likely related. Some were eating NO meat, probably to avoid meat sacrificed to idols.

B. I Cor. 8 is not Paul's final word in that book on the subject.

Notice what he says in chapter 8:

1Co 8:10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
1Co 8:11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?
1Co 8:12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.
1Co 8:13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.


In chapter 11 he says more on the topic:


1Co 10:14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.
1Co 10:15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.
1Co 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
1Co 10:17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
1Co 10:18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?
1Co 10:19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?
1Co 10:20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.
1Co 10:21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.
1Co 10:22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?
1Co 10:23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
1Co 10:24 Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth.
1Co 10:25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:
1Co 10:26 For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof.
1Co 10:27 If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.
1Co 10:28 But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof:
1Co 10:29 Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience?


A. They were not to participate in the temples with the idolatry that went on there.

B. They were free to eat meat sold in the temple or in someone's home when they did not know for sure that it was sacrificed to idols.

C. They were not to eat what was knowingly offered to idols.

Romans 14 hints that some had cut out all meat for fear of eating food sacrificed to idols. Paul says that is not necessary, but that food knowingly sacrificed to idols should not be eaten as it could destroy the conscience of those who see, and because the offerings to idols were really to devils.

 

[TrustAndObey]

The NT has many commands. Some of them reiterate commands similar to those of Moses. But they made it plain that gentiles are not under the law of Moses as a whole.

Indeed the NT does contain many commands, but when you ask a former which ones exactly that we're supposed to keep...the answer is different every time.

All the way down to "we're not under the law but under grace", yet they'll quote laws that we're supposed to keep, while at the same time saying "if you keep ANY, you're under the WHOLE law."

If there is law(s) for new covenant Christians, shouldn't we know exactly what those laws are?

It's fine that you disagree with Adventists, Tall, but instead of asking us what we think those laws are, isn't it imcumbent upon you as well to tell us exactly what New Testament commands we're supposed to obey if we're wrong?

Now what does that mean? The feasts, part of the law of Moses, which no one denies. Therefore no gentile is required to keep the feasts. So any interpretation of Col. 2 that would be urging feasts on the gentiles is incorrect. The church already made a decision on that.

You can't quote Acts 15 and say that we shouldn't keep ANY of the Law of Moses. Jesus was very clear that He came to fulfill everything in the Law of Moses that concerned HIM. How did HE fulfill the Feast of Tabernacles?

By the way, all you pro-Sabbath folks are on different pages too apparently. Some of you are keeping feasts, some thinking about it, some keep the whole torah as much as possible, some keep only the 10 commandments. So that argument can be put to rest. We need to look at the merits of the various positions. It is not enough to simply dismiss them because there are more than one.

Us crazy Adventists are on the same page about the Sabbath written on stone, though right?

The ones that don't agree that it's part of a New Covenant Christian's life have a lot of scripture to deny, including Luke 23:56.

You'll get no argument from me on this actually. I will never understand the people that rely on EGW for some things but not others. Someone quoted her telling us to keep the fall feasts. Some do, some don't. I was already convicted to study it out long before I saw the quote anyway and as you know, I've never read any of her books.

Can YOU tell me how the Feast of Tabernacles was fulfilled by Christ, even if you don't agree with keeping it?

 

[tall73]

Now Acts 15 is the only time we see the elders from the churches and the apostles gathering to make a decision for the whole church. It made plain that the gentiles need only keep a few requirements from the law of Moses. Feasts were not among them. Therefore the body did judge, and feasts were not necessary to be kept. If anyone judged the Colossian believers over feast keeping they were wrong to do so as they were never bound with keeping them.

 

[tall73]

Indeed the NT does contain many commands, but when you ask a former which ones exactly that we're supposed to keep...the answer is different every time.

Much like we get different answers from those Adventist who keep feasts, those who think about keeping some feasts, those who keep only the 10, etc.

That is a red herring. You need to argue for your view on the evidence, not based on how many hold your view or some other view.

 

[TrustAndObey]

And as to Abraham keeping the same covenant, you have twice already ignored a plain text that says otherwise.

Gal 3:16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to offsprings," referring to many, but referring to one, "And to your offspring," who is Christ.
Gal 3:17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void.

Abraham had commands from God. And he was aware of the sacrificial system, at least in a simple form. The story of the sacrifice of Isaac references such sacrifices. But they make no reference to a temple, temple requirements etc, Abraham was given circumcision. But he was not given all the Mosaic law as Paul says that was put into effect 430 years afterward.

Tall, I completely understand your position on this subject, but you did ask what the SDA position is as well, so that's what I'm trying to present.

It was not okay for Cain to murder Abel, long before there was law on stone. Would it have been okay for Abraham to murder?

Sodom and Gomorrah had grievous SINS. Would it have been okay for Abraham to have those same grievous sins?

God spoke directly to those men, and yet His will appears to always be the same, before any of it was written on stone.

The atonement for the sins has changed, I do not deny that for a second. But did what MAKES a person a sinner change?

 

[VictorC]

Well then you have the pesky problem of "food and drink" in that verse as well. Is IT not necessary today? Or is it just not necessary for Christians to eat anymore because Christ is the bread of life and the living water?

Obviously we need to eat, we just shouldn't let any MAN judge us for what we eat!

Obviously - and judgment of others for obedience to dietary and sabbath ordinances can only conclude that those ordinances don't have any jurisdiction over the recipients of this epistle.

I'd say biblical helps are necessary for everyone wouldn't you? Do you personally know of anyone that has all truth? Do any of the scholars you relied on for Psalms 81:3 have "all truth"?

Can you consult one of those scholars and tell me with scripture how the Feast of Tabernacles has been fulfilled and what it pointed TO?

Where do you get the idea Psalm 81 is referencing Trumpets or Tabernacles? Read it again:

Psalm 81:2-5
2 Take a psalm, and bring hither the timbrel, the pleasant harp with the psaltery.
3 Blow up the trumpet in the new moon, in the time appointed, on our solemn feast day.
4 For this was a statute for Israel, and a law of the God of Jacob.
5 This he ordained in Joseph for a testimony, when he went out through the land of Egypt: where I heard a language that I understood not.

This was given prior to the annual feasts of Leviticus, and even prior to the monthy trumpet ordained in Numbers 10:10. Passover alone was ordained in Egypt "for Israel".

Quick observation...to say "those things" are shadows for those that are NOT in Christ includes communion since Jesus called it meat and drink. Would anyone that was NOT in Christ partake in holy communion?

Obviously you don't consider communion in its context of a Passover seder.

So let me get this straight. The Commandments of God had jurisdiction over Christ Himself while here on earth, but you say they have absolutely NO jurisdiction over those that are in Christ's church now?

They did?

Please explain Paul's exclusion of Moses' jurisdiction over the Sovereign Creator in Galatians 4:1-5:

1 ¶ Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.
3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:
4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

I have before many times observed that Adventism doesn't accept Biblical concepts that salvation depends on: redemption and adoption. This is why you think His "example" of following Moses denies the purpose identified above:

He kept the commandments so we shouldn't even try to at all?

I rest my case.

I'm a believer of/in Christ, and at the very least I know that He told us to obey the "Big Two" that He gave to the Pharisees when they questioned Him about the commandments.

So let's consider where the Big Two came from, okay?

Matthew 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

Hmmmm.
A lawyer asked Jesus to identify the greatest commandment from the law, and Jesus answered him as requested.

Jesus identified Deuteronomy 6:5, which was a commandment issued by Moses.
Jesus concluded that all the law and prophets hung on that, as well as a commandment from Leviticus 19:18 that He saw fit to replace with a new commandment recorded in John 13:34.

But, nowhere in that passage from Matthew 22 did Jesus instruct His redeemed to "keep Moses".

Being under the shadow of His wings? No, it's not an ordinance. But it proves that shadows are not a bad thing. If you're in the shadow of a mountain you don't have to SEE the mountain to know it's there, you just have faith and some proof that it is....and you keep going toward the light until there is no more shadow.

Try climbing the shadow of a mountain while claiming that you have arrived at that mountain. Colossians 2:16-17 declares in no uncertain words that the dietary laws and various sabbaths are the shadows of the reality that has already come: Jesus Christ.

You can remain in the shadows, or come to Jesus.
You cannot do both.

Victor

 

[tall73]

All the way down to "we're not under the law but under grace", yet they'll quote laws that we're supposed to keep, while at the same time saying "if you keep ANY, you're under the WHOLE law."

Sorry, I don't have to answer for all of Sabbath-rejecting Christianity. That is a red herring.

We are given commandments in the NT. We are not under the law of Moses as Gentiles.

If there is law(s) for new covenant Christians, shouldn't we know exactly what those laws are?

You have a new testament. You can read the imperatives.

It's fine that you disagree with Adventists, Tall, but instead of asking us what we think those laws are, isn't it imcumbent upon you as well to tell us exactly what New Testament commands we're supposed to obey if we're wrong?

I don't think there is any confusion on that point. The commands given in the NT to gentiles are the ones for gentiles to keep. The church said that they did not have to keep the whole law of Moses.

You can't quote Acts 15 and say that we shouldn't keep ANY of the Law of Moses. Jesus was very clear that He came to fulfill everything in the Law of Moses that concerned HIM. How did HE fulfill the Feast of Tabernacles?

Red herring again.

He came to fulfill the books of Moses and nothing would be removed from them until He did. But not everything in the book of Moses concerned him.

That does not mean everything else is left to do or you would be keeping a whole lot more laws than you are.

What was the point? Jesus didn't come to destroy Moses, but to fulfill His words.

Now you can argue with Acts 15 if you want. It clearly says Gentiles are not under the law of Moses. They were never given the feasts. They don't have to keep them.

Us crazy Adventists are on the same page about the Sabbath written on stone, though right?

The division you first made was non-Sabbatarian Christians, ,not just Adventists.

And since the division you have made is about those who accept Sabbath and those who don't that would definitionally have to be true would it not? So I don't see that you have proved anything.
"Those who agree with spanking are all agreed on spanking, so they are unified." What does that prove? All those who are agreed on any topic agree with each other on that point, or else you couldn't refer to them as a group.

And as to Adventists, actually no. Don't forget the progressives. Nor do they all agree on what should or should not be done on Sabbath. And it is not just Adventists. It is all the Sabbatarians you are lumped in with, just as you say I am with all the non-Sabbatarians. Even Old Sage is not on the same page as you. He says that the torah is optional for gentiles.

But again your argument is a red herring. It doesn't matter who holds a view. It matters if it is right.

The ones that don't agree that it's part of a New Covenant Christian's life have a lot of scripture to deny, including Luke 23:56.

So far I have argued only about the feasts. That is in reference to the Sabbath. And I don't see gentiles keeping the Sabbath there.

You'll get no argument from me on this actually. I will never understand the people that rely on EGW for some things but not others. Someone quoted her telling us to keep the fall feasts. Some do, some don't. I was already convicted to study it out long before I saw the quote anyway and as you know, I've never read any of her books.

Can YOU tell me how the Feast of Tabernacles was fulfilled by Christ, even if you don't agree with keeping it?

I never mentioned EGW in that statement.

Now, as to the feast of tabernacles I believe it is yet to be fulfilled though the sacrifice of it was fulfilled in Christ already.

I also believe that it was never something imposed upon gentiles and that Acts says they don't have to keep it.