Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So you accept that some laws are temporary, and the person to over-turn these is Jesus?BrightCandle said:Because the Law of God predated the Priesthood.
Montalban said:I can't because we continue with those traditions, we don't just look to the Sabbath, and deal only with that as an issue; we're more than a single-issue church
In your church, they are, that's the point. Moses was instructed by God on how the priests should behave, and what they should wear. You've not made any case at all for why you priests/ministers, or whatever you want to call them have abrogated those commandments; at best you've made a 'just-so' statement about the abolishing of the priesthood, which is odd, as you're now recognising that the priesthood continues today.
So, if that aspect is removed, which you've not made a case for; other than to state repeatedly that Jesus just abolished that (ignoring his 'new covenant), where does it say that all the other aspects of the priesthood laid down are done away with.
That's the very nature of the problem I'm raising. You can't say
Jesus did away with the priesthood at the same time as noting Paul continued with the church services, and that there's a priesthood today.
Where's the verses of the Bible establishing the new priesthood? And in fact if there are any, you've immediately accepted that commandments given by God to Moses have been modified.
Exactly, he continued with church services. You say that the services are different. This alone suggests that the 'sacrifice of Jesus' did away with old commandments; excepting that Paul continued to go to church (when one was there).
Why not call your churches 'temples' and have garb as commanded by God?
Does it? Where? If so, why'd Paul continue to go to church?It says that Jesus is our high priest, who clears the way into the holy of holies, and His priesthood is superior to the old one
HEB 4:14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet was without sin. 16 Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.
HEB 7:26 Such a high priest meets our need--one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. 27 Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.
HEB 8:1 The point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man.
HEB 8:3 Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. 4 If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. 5 They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: "See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain." 6 But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.
HEB 9:11 When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. 12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!
HEB 9:15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance--now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
HEB 9:23 It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. 25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26 Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.
HEB 10:1 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming--not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2 If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, 4 because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
HEB 10:5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
HEB 10:6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
HEB 10:7 Then I said, `Here I am--it is written about me in the scroll--
I have come to do your will, O God.' "
HEB 10:8 First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made). 9 Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
HEB 10:11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. 13 Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, 14 because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
Indeed, Cain knew it was wrong to kill. But you just said that we didn't have anywhere that it said they were given the commands other than the tree. Obviously the evidence doesn't fit this. And Adam was in fact there when God gave it. And He referenced that giving in the commandment.Cain knew it was wrong (it's aking to Romans II - where it was written on his heart). His example shows it's wrong. There's no example of anyone prior to Moses keeping the Sabbath.
That may well be; as I get rabbais and priests mixed up. (see above)
Where's it say Jesus wears them in heaven?
Like the Sabbath being for man?
Acts 21:27-28:31
Odd then that Paul notes that people continued to meet as commanded (in the quote I gave), and your 'citation above' is just you saying go read the book of Hebrews!
Where?
1PE 2:9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
Montalban said:She supplies your interpretation
Nazaroo said:Yes, I was quite impressed by your listing of various early fathers on the sabbath etc. However, I am sure you'll agree this is only one narrow portion of the evidence that should be sifted on the matter of various Jewish factional and competing traditions, as well as the question of the flexibility and morphology of days and calendars.
For instance, the entire body of evidence from Qumran has been neglected in these discussions, yet along with the Talmud it is the primary evidence of Jewish practices at the time of Jesus.
I don't have any interesting direct references to the 'motion' of days (e.g. the Sabbath) of the week, but it is certainly possible within the scope of Jewish tradition, given its subordination to even intermittent occasions like circumcision! Most Rabbinical interpretations of the Law are 'Jew-centric' in the sense that national identity overrides and overrules even basic ethical and moral behaviour. "Blood is thicker than morality."
Montalban said:None of what we do is against the Bible. The fact that the Bible wasn't around for 300 years of the church meant that the church for a long time lived by tradition alone; until we compiled the bible. We created the Bible.
Montalban said:I don't understand that if you guys accept that Jesus changed the priesthood, why He didn't change the Sabbath?
Normann said:When using the term SDA it is my short-cut to include all Gentiles that claim Saturday is the Sabbath and that we are to keep a Sabbath on the 7th day of the week.
As for the long posts I don't read them as it takes away from my Bible reading.
I infact don't pay much attention to replies that try to show me the "SDA" belief from the Bible because I have read it myself over and over and have studied the word of God for more than 50 years.
The law to keep a set day per week never existed. Read carefully the commandment and you will find none of those that claim to keep the 7th day Sabbath; really keep it as the scripture of the O. T. instructed.
Evee said:I don't read long posts either Norman... I also don't write any...lol
Montalban said:So you accept that some laws are temporary, and the person to over-turn these is Jesus?
Didn't Abraham make sacrifices to God before the law? Didn't the peoples at the time of Noah, Sodom etc show that one could displease God with false worship?
It is certainly possible. But even during the change of the Julian to the Gregorian, which was referenced earlier it was seen that the weekly cycle was not disrupted at all. This was documented by Palehorse and my wife during the first 1k replies of this topic. If there is no evidence of a change, why would I be paranoid that there was a change. All of the discussion of differences seem to be on the feasts which were often calculated by the lunar calendar as you have mentioned. But the days of the week, I think it goes without saying, have never been calculated by lunar observance. They have had no reason to change.
It comes down to this. If you are the one arguing that the weekly cycle was in dispute, then it is up to you to show that it was. If so, then that is certainly something to look at.
Where does it say this? You just saying "Go read Hebrews" doesn't cut it.tall73 said:You will have to ask Him that. But the Bible clearly says he did change the priesthood and is the true High Priest. It never says that He changed the Sabbath to Sunday.
We still have services on Saturday, always have. But the "Lord's Day" is Sundaytall73 said:Nor did your church apparently which were keeping both 400 years later.
I already did, in the rest of my response to BrightCandle; an analogy about how one can take a verse from the Bible and interpret it a number of ways, and all can claim to be following the Bible.tall73 said:We have already clearly outlined that she did not form our doctrine. If you wish to make such statments, then back it up.
Sounds so much bettertall73 said:We received the Sabbath from the Seventh-day Baptists through Joseph Bates, a retired sea captain and millerite second-tier leader.
Then she got it wrong.tall73 said:We received the state of the dead largely through the Christian Connectionists background of JAMES WHITE and others. Ellen White was a Methodist and accepted Hell fire, etc during the early part of her life.
You're repeating the party-line, I can dig it!tall73 said:We received the Sanctuary teaching from Hiram Edson, and indirectly from William Miller.
Of these only one is a unique Adventist contribution, and it was not initiated by EGW. So if you wish to dispute it you will need to provide some substantiating facts. Otherwise you simply speak from ignorance in order to discredit us.
Likewise, I expect Bright Candle to back up his statements about pagan material.
Nazaroo said:Thank you again for your reasonable replies. Here, I have no dispute or paranoia regarding the Julian/Gregorian alterations. It seems quite reasonable to me that in the latter days the 'sabbath' was immovable as far as keeping track of it goes, in the narrow geographical region we discussed.
Thus I am quite willing to concede that quite possibly, the current 'sabbath' could be traced back with reasonable probability to the era of Jesus and the 2nd Temple establishment practice, that is, counting the days would hypothetically result in a large number factorizable by 'seven'.
This doesn't resolve five important problems I have with the blanket assertion that we have the right 'sabbath'.
(1) Moses' original calendar, made up of 12 months of 30 days, for a year of 360 days was based upon the Egyptian calendar, which in turn was adjusted yearly by the insertion of 5 'days of the gods' to round it to 365 approximating the Solar Orbit of the Earth. The sabbaths throughout the Middle East were often 'adjusted' and weekly cycles reset by referring to the 'First of the Year' or 'First of the Month' for key months. There is in fact evidence for this in the OT, as well as in Egyptian intercalculation records. It is highly likely that the early Israelites followed ordinary Egyptian calendar practises, as evidenced by their choice of 30-day months and the Egyptian Solar year. Moses was trained in the mathematics and astronomy of Egypt, and it was more than adequate for his time.
(2) It is highly likely that the Essenes and other groups celebrated the sabbath on a different day of the week, enabling them to attend their own services as well as those of the Temple. This would be a very effective 'recruiting' practice, making them stand out from the Pharisees as well. According to Josephus, nearly a third of the Jews were 'Essene party' even when living normal integrated lives in Jewish Palestine. This exactly parallels the behaviour of the post-Christian Jewish believers, attending both Christian and Establishment Jewish services on different days, for another 400 years afterward.
(3) The current Greenwich Meantime arrangement is hopelessly flawed. As you are probably aware, the time zones are arbitrary, and even contradictory to the ancient Jewish practice recorded in the Talmud of waiting for the sunrise and using runners and signals to mark the start and stop of the sabbath and other days. At any one time of course, each time zone is assigned, not only an hour, but a DATE. and this date contradicts the natural interpretation of the date that would be assigned to nearby timezones in the Middle East. Even if we were to adopt a system similar to the Greenwich Meantime, the lines and dates would have to be assigned quite differently.
(4) As to the disruption of the sabbath, there actually is in fact evidence, in the form of isolated Jewish communities along the North African shore which can trace their arrival back to the Babylonian Exile, and which celebrate the sabbath on different days than Jews adopting standardized conventions presented by central Rabbinical authorities in Israel. [/quote[
Ok, again, let's see it. Again it would raise the question of why Jesus didn't settle the issue if the day was wrong in His time. And if He took the time to reform the day it might be good to show why this wasn't important.
Similarly, going Eastward, one runs into the glaring error of the modern assignment of days to the actual practices of isolated Jewish communities that can trace their roots back to the Exile and earlier.
Er, I don't actually get you here. Please rephrase, I am afraid I am confused.
(5) You haven't resolved the Arctic Circle issue.
Indeed not. However, you are suggesting we define the rule by the exception.
Even if you have a problematic application for a few, does that in fact warrant changing everything for those who have no such problem applying it literally? In other words, even if concession is necessary, why make concessions where they are NOT necessary?
Good questions though. The arctic question particularly.
Montalban said:What's the connection?
You've no evidence Adam kept the Sabbath, only an assumption.
The only connection I see is you make assumptions when you want.
Montalban said:tall73 said:You will have to ask Him that. But the Bible clearly says he did change the priesthood and is the true High Priest. It never says that He changed the Sabbath to Sunday.
Where does it say this? You just saying "Go read Hebrews" doesn't cut it.
HEB 8:1 The point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest
, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man.
HEB 8:3 Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. 4 If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. 5 They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: "See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain." 6 But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.
So what is your problem with the Sabbath then? I never said you couldn't keep Sunday in honor of the resurrection. Feel free. But replacing the Sabbath with it is not a viable option. If you are now saying that didn't happen fine. If you are though saying that the solemnity as some would say was transferred from one day to another, then that you must demonstrate.We still have services on Saturday, always have. But the "Lord's Day" is Sunday.
Montalban said:I already did, in the rest of my response to BrightCandle; an analogy about how one can take a verse from the Bible and interpret it a number of ways, and all can claim to be following the Bible.
Sounds so much better
Then she got it wrong.
You're repeating the party-line, I can dig it!
"In official publications the SDA church continues to defend Ellen White legends, and maintain there was no difference in the degree of inspiration she received from that received by Bible writers "
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/s18.html
The Seventh-day Adventist Church is evangelical Christian denomination based on the teachings of the Bible and also those of Ellen G. White.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventist_Church
Ellen G. White, along with her husband James White, were the founders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church
http://www.ondoctrine.com/10sevadv.htm
AFFIRMATIONS
We believe that Scripture is the divinely revealed word of God and is inspired by the Holy Spirit.
We believe that the canon of Scripture is composed only of the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments.
We believe that Scripture is the foundation of faith and the final authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.
We believe that Scripture is the Word of God in human language.
We believe that Scripture teaches that the gift of prophecy will be manifest in the Christian church after New Testament times.
We believe that the ministry and writings of Ellen White were a manifestation of the gift of prophecy.
We believe that Ellen White was inspired by the Holy Spirit and that her writings, the product of that inspiration, are applicable and authoritative, especially to Seventh-day Adventists.
We believe that the purposes of the Ellen White writings include guidance in understanding the teaching of Scripture and application of these teachings, with prophetic urgency, to the spiritual and moral life.
We believe that the acceptance of the prophetic gift of Ellen White is important to the nurture and unity of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
We believe that Ellen White's use of literary sources and assistants finds parallels in some of the writings of the Bible.
Exhibit One. From The Adventist Review, December 23, 1982.
http://www.egwtext.whiteestate.org/issues/scripsda.html
The Lord desires you to study your Bibles. He has not given any additional light to take the place of His Word. This light is to bring confused minds to His Word, which, if eaten and digested, is as the lifeblood of the soul. Then good works will be seen as light shining in darkness. (Letter 130, 1901.)
I entreat you to exercise the spirit of Christians. Do not let strong feelings of prejudice arise, for we should be prepared to investigate the Scriptures with unbiased minds, with reverence and candor. It becomes us to pray over matters of difference in views of Scripture. Personal feelings should not be allowed to influence our words or our judgment. It will grieve the Spirit of God if you close your understanding to the light which God sends you.
Dr. Waggoner has spoken to us in a straightforward manner. There is precious light in what he has said. Some things presented in reference to the law in Galatians, if I fully understand his position, do not harmonize with the understanding I have had of this subject; but truth will lose nothing by investigation, therefore I plead for Christ's sake that you come to the living Oracles, and with prayer and humiliation seek God. Everyone should feel that he has the privilege of searching the Scriptures for himself, and he should do this with earnest prayer that God will give him a right understanding of His word, that he may know from positive evidence that he does know what is truth.
I would have humility of mind, and be willing to be instructed as a child. The Lord has been pleased to give me great light, yet I know that He leads other minds, and opens to them the mysteries of His Word, and I want to receive every ray of light that God shall send me, though it should come through the humblest of His servants.
Of one thing I am certain, as Christians you have no right to entertain feelings of enmity, unkindness, and prejudice toward Dr. Waggoner, who has presented his views in a plain, straightforward manner, as a Christian should. If he is in error, you should, in a calm, rational,
164
Christlike manner, seek to show him from the Word of God where he is out of harmony with its teachings. If you cannot do this you have no right as Christians to pick flaws, to criticize, to work in the dark, to prejudice minds with your objections. This is Satan's way of working.
Some interpretations of Scripture given by Dr. Waggoner I do not regard as correct. But I believe him to be perfectly honest in his views, and I would respect his feelings and treat him as a Christian gentleman. I have no reason to think that he is not as much esteemed of God as are any of my brethren, and I shall regard him as a Christian brother, so long as there is no evidence that he is unworthy. The fact that he honestly holds some views of Scripture differing from yours or mine is no reason why we should treat him as an offender, or as a dangerous man, and make him the subject of unjust criticism. We should not raise a voice of censure against him or his teachings unless we can present weighty reasons for so doing and show him that he is in error.
Minneapolis, Minnesota, November 1888 - Ms 15, 1888
It would greatly benefit our schools if regular meetings were held frequently in which all the teachers could unite in the study of the word of God. They should search the Scriptures as did the noble Bereans. They should subordinate all preconceived opinions, and taking the Bible as their lesson book, comparing scripture with scripture, they should learn what to teach their students, and how to train them for acceptable service.
The teacher's success will depend largely upon the spirit which is brought into the work. A profession of faith does not make men Christians; but if teachers will open their hearts to the study of the word, they will be able to aid their students to a clearer understanding. Let not the spirit of controversy come in, but let each seek earnestly for the light and knowledge that he needs. Counsels to Parents, Teachers and Students (1913), page 432
One man may be conversant with the Scriptures, and some particular portion of the Scripture may be especially appreciated by him; another sees another portion as very important, and thus one may present one point, and another, another point, and both may be of highest value. This is all in the order of God. But if a man makes a mistake in his interpretation of some portion of the Scripture, shall this cause diversity and disunion? God forbid. We cannot then take a position that the unity of the church consists in viewing every text of Scripture in the very same light. The church may pass resolution upon resolution to put down all disagreement of opinions, but we cannot force the mind and will, and thus root out disagreement. These resolutions may conceal the discord, but they cannot quench it and establish perfect agreement. Nothing can perfect unity in the church but the spirit of Christlike forbearance. Satan can sow discord; Christ alone can harmonize the disagreeing elements. Then let every soul sit down in Christ's school and learn of Christ, who declares Himself to be meek and lowly of heart. Christ says that if we learn of Him, worries will cease and we shall find rest to our souls. {11MR 266.1}
Indeed, because I didn't see you mention Jesus overturning it, you mentioned Paul did.tall73 said:Montalban, are you asking where it says that Jesus is the true High Priest again?
The Sabbath is replaced by "The Lord's Day" as the prime day of worshipping God. That is in fact why you picked up that Ignatius mentions Saturday. Which is odd then that you didn't pick up on where he said that Sunday is the day of the new covenant.tall73 said:So what is your problem with the Sabbath then? I never said you couldn't keep Sunday in honor of the resurrection. Feel free. But replacing the Sabbath with it is not a viable option. If you are now saying that didn't happen fine. If you are though saying that the solemnity as some would say was transferred from one day to another, then that you must demonstrate.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?