Which Day of the Week is the Sabbath? (2)

[Cliff2]

No that's not what I am saying. I am saying give me some scripture. Cliff is giving me the web-site of the SDA.

I want it from the Bible.

IN THE MASTER'S SERVICE,
Normann

Do you think I am going to give you a link from a RCC site to show what I believe?

Every question you have brought up can be answered from the site I gave you.

There is a a very strict limit to the number of characters I can use in my reply so it is better for you to go to the link and then come back to me if you still have any unanswered questions.

 

[oldsage]

No that's not what I am saying. I am saying give me some scripture. Cliff is giving me the web-site of the SDA.

I want it from the Bible.

IN THE MASTER'S SERVICE,
Normann

No, you are saying that, you said you will not click on the link to check out the information. You have been given scriptures as an explaination but rejected the interpretation the website from what I understands gives more proof. You are being hypocritical because you earlier advocated an anti-sda website and wanted the sda to go to it, but you yourself will not go to one of theirs. Besides you have already said you reject history so there is no way from that perspective to prove anything to you, because you take something that was written 2000 years ago as if it was written yesterday for you personally and quite frankly you just can't read the bible that way and get its meaning.

Chris

 

[Normann]

See if this works

http://www.seventh-day.org/index.html

Then click onto whatever subject you desire to study.

Cliff, if you like web-sites look for the one I found the other day...

It's called "What the Adventist don't want you to know"

If we're going to preach the gospel by web-sites, than lets use all of them!

Wow- what a mess that could be!!!!!!!!!

Normann

 

[Montalban]

You are not taking into account that it is the job of the Holy Spirit to give us wisdom and knowledge.

I am indeed. Jesus promised the Apostles a helper, and they went around laying hands upon people - why do you think they even bothered to do that? Your theory would have people just reading the Bible - which didn't exist for 300 years, and the Holy Spirit just coming to people - which it didn't because the Apostles had to be there.

It is not me or any other person. We maybe able to present truth but it is the Holy Spirit that impresses the heart and convicts the soul.

I agree the Holy Spirit has to be there, but if it's just anybody that calls upon the Holy Spirit and is infused with Him, why'd the Apostles lay hands?

You must think that they were going around doing something wholly pointless.

Also, it would be good if either of you actually address the issue of the priests, deacons and bishops in the NT, and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

 

[woobadooba]

Your theory would have people just reading the Bible - which didn't exist for 300 years, and the Holy Spirit just coming to people - which it didn't because the Apostles had to be there.

But the scriptures did exist. And those who were sincere in their quest to discover the truth, were, with the help of the Holy Spirit, able to see Jesus in the OT. 2Tim. 3:15-17

Moreover, being filled with the Holy Spirit wasn't something that all of a sudden happened during the time of the Apostles, as if it never occurred prior to their commission. People were filled with the Holy Spirit long before Peter and Paul even existed, and the OT makes this quite clear. Psalm 51:11

 

[oldsage]

Cliff, if you like web-sites look for the one I found the other day...

It's called "What the Adventist don't want you to know"

If we're going to preach the gospel by web-sites, than lets use all of them!

Wow- what a mess that could be!!!!!!!!!

Normann

Normann, we are not preaching the gospel here, we are discussing theology amongst Christians, this is a Christian only forum.

 

[Cliff2]

Cliff, if you like web-sites look for the one I found the other day...

It's called "What the Adventist don't want you to know"

If we're going to preach the gospel by web-sites, than lets use all of them!

Wow- what a mess that could be!!!!!!!!!

Normann

If I want to know what the RCC teaches I go to their official web site and take it from there.

If you want to know what the SDA Church believes then go to the official SDA web site.

You can go and find as many ant SDA sites as you want but in most case you will find they have been set up by a former member who in most case has a chip on his/her shoulder.

Suggest you take no notice of them as they are not telling you anything new at all.

To find the truth look in the official SDA site.

 

[Montalban]

But the scriptures did exist.

Not at once. Did they exist at the first Pentecost?
What traditions then were they referring to?
Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions as I delivered them to you (I Corinthians 11:2)

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or by our epistle” (II Thessalonians 2:15)

Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35). This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. And therefore Paul himself uses tradition as a guide for teaching.



He also quotes from other non-Biblical sources, such as this early hymn

Ephesians 5:14 for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said: "Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you."

And those who were sincere in their quest to discover the truth, were, with the help of the Holy Spirit, able to see Jesus in the OT. 2Tim. 3:15-17

Indeed, but where's it say that this truth was confined to the written word?

Moreover, being filled with the Holy Spirit wasn't something that all of a sudden happened during the time of the Apostles, as if it never occurred prior to their commission. People were filled with the Holy Spirit long before Peter and Paul even existed, and the OT makes this quite clear. Psalm 51:11

I don't doubt it. We believe that when Moses heard God speak, it was Jesus - because Jesus is the incarnate word of God - God the Father being beyond human reason. Which is also why this material world was created through 'the Word of God' - who is Jesus.

And thus the Jews had glimpses of the truth; such as the reference to God using the plural pronoun 'we'. They also had other glimpses; such as the 'bread' from heaven, etc.

However the way Jesus set 'the Way' to God
He set things out was to pick a set few; commissioning them, and they in turn commissioned others and lay down hands - it is in fact how we can know the truth of the 'spirit' because it's from that way - if someone just comes to you door with promises of these gifts, then they are false. This was so the truth could be guarded and gauranteed.

 

[tall73]

you've missed the point. IF according to your understanding the "High Priest" has been overtaken by Jesus, then why does that mean 'the entire priesthood' when the High Priest is just one rank AND Paul mentions other ranks as people filled those roles; bishops, deacons, priests.

You said that the mediator question was a strawman. But by saying this you once again show that you don't understand the role of a priest. The priest would be a representative before God. He was the only one who could enter into the most holy place, and then once a year. The people were cut off from the direct presence of God.

Jesus is the true High Priest who allows us direct access to God. He revealed the way to the most holy place, and now we can come to God directly.

Your whole invention of three priestly orders is not in the text. The overseers were never said to be priests. In fact only overseers and deacons are there, not three ranks until Ignatius. And even then he doesn't even call them priests. You only way to claim that they are priests is that they offer the new sacrifice. But Hebrews expressly said that Jesus died once, a once for all sacrifice. He was not offered again and again. So they are not priest, if you mean that they offer sacrifices. And they are not priests if you mean that they are a go between for the people. In fact, they are not priests any more than Peter says we are all priests. They are simply what is said. They are overseers and deacons. The overseers lead the church, and the deacons wait on tables. Any priestly identification is your own doing.

Get back to me when you can actually explain that. Simply referring back to Hebrews still does not wash; let alone the idea that Paul has taken the idea (that Jesus did not say) to end the priesthood (or an aspect of it) and that you feel this is 'good', but any 'change' of Sabbath, (after Jesus) is bad.

And of course while you play up the eucharist you miss the fact that it was changing the whole Passover service, which was itself a part of the temple service. And He said the temple would be overthrown, which would destroy the priesthood.



IF you think that Paul invented the High Priesthood of Jesus, then you must think that Paul can dictate to Jesus. But in fact it is clear that Jesus knew it would end as well.



Moreover, the Orthodox church itself claims to hold the unchanged faith of the apostles. So I would think that you would place more stock in Paul than you would people 400 years ago. Because any change 400 years later WOULD be a change in the faith. But in fact Jesus and Paul both agree here. So there is no problem either way.

Well again that's your interpretation. Paul asks us to perform the Eucharist. Ignatius shows this too. Hey, just quote Hebrews again and say I'm making the Bible lie! IF anything your theory doesn't fit all these other facts. Mine does.

How can you say it fits when it never even calls them priests. Nor does it say it is a sacrifice. Even if Ignatius called them priests which he didn’t, it would not change the fact that the eucharist cannot be a sacrifice if Hebrews rules out later sacrifices. The claim is always that tradition does not contradict Scripture. Clearly that would. I would suggest you find out if your church really teaches that the eucharist is a sacrifice.

So, you're saying when the Apostles elected one to their own number he had lesser rights than what they'd been given? ! ?

Indeed. Why was Clement not in the Bible? Why was Ignatius not? They were not foundational apostles. They were not called apostles, they were called overseers. They were not the ones that were with Jesus, which was a requirement of apostleship, even in the one case of a replacement. And then it was only because the Scriptures said to replace him. Where was the replacement for James?

The only one mentioned in the Bible. That does not mean that the church 'stopped' at the time of the writing of Acts. If it did, then the Bible itself would never have been compiled.

Even during Acts James died, but no replacement was seen.

And? What was the significance of this?

The significance is that the Scriptures said to fill his office, as one of the 12. The Scriptures did not say to replace all the rest after them, and we don’t see that they did put in new apostles.

That's false. He was succeeded by Symeon.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08355a.htm

See above.

Montalban, this is not even the same James. The only apostle recorded as killed in the Biblical canon besides Judas was James the brother of John, not James the brother of Jesus who ruled in Jerusalem. This James was killed by Herod who then nearly killed Peter. [/quote]



And no successor is mentioned in the biblical account.

That's false too. Had you read the words of Paul he says it's not just a commerative meal.

No, Jesus said His body is real food.
But as noted, you want to be selective what verses you want to read. Highlighting them and making them larger doesn't make them negate other verses.

Indeed, He did. But when He says that fruit of the vine are we then to think that He meant something else? Just as when Moses said to place the Scriptures always before them so the Pharisees strapped them to their head and arm, I think you miss Jesus’ point. Buf He says we are remembering, then that is what we are doing. And moreover, there is no support whatsoever for leavened bread and alcoholic drink at the Passover.

 

[tall73]

Repeating a just so does not equat to 'answering'.

I cited passages for you where the three offices are mentioned in the Bible. I also mentioned Ignatius.

I know that it can be frustrating for some when presented evidence.

You pointed at the word overseer and said priest. That is evidence? You pointed at the deacon and said some other order of priest. When it is clear their job was to do practical aspects of the work and to preach.

Sorry, there i no evidence in what you quoted that the priesthood was continued. And there is much evidence that you don't need another man to approach God for you.

 

[tall73]

The whole nonsense about 'mediators' made by Tall73 is another attempt at selective use of evidence.

The mere fact Jesus chose 12 men to carry on His work is telling. He didn't leave the Bible behind for people to read for themselves and come to a knowledge of Jesus by themselves.

Let us see if it is non-sense.

Once again, three direct questions:

Is Jesus our High Priest?

Did Paul say that there is one mediator between God and man?

Do you think that the priest in your church who offers sacrifices (according to you) is a mediator?

 

[tall73]

At least you don't just repeat "HEBREWS 8" and call that discussion

Specifically Tall73 missed St. Paul saying it's not just a 'meal'

Who said it was just a meal? No one. Jesus said it was remembering Him, not killing Him again every time. And of course I ask you to read Hebrews. If you did you would know that Jesus made one sacrifice for all time. He is not sacrificed over and over. His sacrifice was deemed better because he was not.

No one denied it was the new covenant. But you remain unwilling to look at the very terms of the covenant or what is said about it.

so far you have demonstrated that you didn't know:

a. Jesus was our High Priest in the Scriptures
b. Paul said that Jesus is the one mediator between God and man.
c. The difference between a rabbi, a priest and a bishop
d. The difference between a synagogue and the temple.
e. The difference between James the brother of Jesus, and James the brother of John.

So far you have demonstrated that you only know how to parrot the claims of anti-Adventist sites and quote Catholic defense sites, and to lie about me, even when I posted my comments over and over, provided the link and made it quite plain what I said.

Perhaps reading Hebrews would not be a bad thing for you. It would certainly be better for us both to read it than to have this kind of a conversation, which is part of why I have avoided this thread for a bit.

 

[tall73]

I am indeed. Jesus promised the Apostles a helper, and they went around laying hands upon people - why do you think they even bothered to do that? Your theory would have people just reading the Bible - which didn't exist for 300 years, and the Holy Spirit just coming to people - which it didn't because the Apostles had to be there.

I agree the Holy Spirit has to be there, but if it's just anybody that calls upon the Holy Spirit and is infused with Him, why'd the Apostles lay hands?

You must think that they were going around doing something wholly pointless.

Also, it would be good if either of you actually address the issue of the priests, deacons and bishops in the NT, and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

And who laid hands on the gentiles when Peter didn't even think the gentiles could receive the Holy Spirit? God Himself.

And we have addressed the roles of the bishops etc. And the only priests mentioned besides Jesus our High Priest, and the royal priesthood of all the belivers were the OT kind that offered goats and doves an made nazarite vows. But you have made it clear those are not the ones you mean.

No one denies that there were leaders in the church. We deny that there are mediators who stand in for people before God. We don't need that. We have Jesus.

 

[Montalban]

And who laid hands on the gentiles when Peter didn't even think the gentiles could receive the Holy Spirit? God Himself.

The 'way' shown in Acts - which you've still not been able to explain was for the Apostles to lay on hands - obviously you think this was a useless exercise - every time, after pentecost, someone saught the Holy Spirit - the Apostles rocked up to lay on hands

And we have addressed the roles of the bishops etc.

No, we haven't. You've simply repeated your belief without any recourse to answering my questions -and you cite Hebrews 8, as if this negates all the other verses that show bishops etc.

And the only priests mentioned besides Jesus our High Priest, and the royal priesthood of all the belivers were the OT kind that offered goats and doves an made nazarite vows. But you have made it clear those are not the ones you mean.

I've no idea why you continue with this falsehood. I've cited the passages. But then again you maintain that Paul never visited the Temple, regardless of me using the Bible - so when the Bible disagrees with you, just plough on ahead

No one denies that there were leaders in the church. We deny that there are mediators who stand in for people before God. We don't need that. We have Jesus.

Obviously again Jesus was wrong, and so were the Apostles!

 

[tall73]

Not at once. Did they exist at the first Pentecost?
What traditions then were they referring to?
Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions as I delivered them to you (I Corinthians 11:2)

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or by our epistle” (II Thessalonians 2:15)

Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35). This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. And therefore Paul himself uses tradition as a guide for teaching.



He also quotes from other non-Biblical sources, such as this early hymn

Ephesians 5:14 for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said: "Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you."


Indeed, but where's it say that this truth was confined to the written word?

I don't doubt it. We believe that when Moses heard God speak, it was Jesus - because Jesus is the incarnate word of God - God the Father being beyond human reason. Which is also why this material world was created through 'the Word of God' - who is Jesus.

And thus the Jews had glimpses of the truth; such as the reference to God using the plural pronoun 'we'. They also had other glimpses; such as the 'bread' from heaven, etc.

However the way Jesus set 'the Way' to God
He set things out was to pick a set few; commissioning them, and they in turn commissioned others and lay down hands - it is in fact how we can know the truth of the 'spirit' because it's from that way - if someone just comes to you door with promises of these gifts, then they are false. This was so the truth could be guarded and gauranteed.

But for all that there are no records of the passed down oral teaching, as all acknowledge.We have only a reflection in the generation right after. And they don't agree among themselves on many matters. So how do we know when they reflect the true oral tradition?

The truth is that the people on this forum who claim tradition read the very words of the apostles through the lens of later works which should be subject to the teaching of the apostles. If these men were reflections, flawed at times, of the apostles teachings, then why should not the actual words, the actual teachings be regarded even more highly?

And your insistence that the bishops were priests, that the eucharist is a sacrifice, etc. is an example of how your tradition goes against the biblical record.

 

[Montalban]

But for all that there are no records of the passed down oral teaching, as all acknowledge.

There are records. The Gospels were in part passed down by oral teaching.
And Paul, as I quoted, stated in written form what he had heard.
Try again.

 

[Montalban]

Who said it was just a meal? No one. Jesus said it was remembering Him, not killing Him again every time.

Jesus is not lessened by the Eucharistic meal

And of course I ask you to read Hebrews. If you did you would know that Jesus made one sacrifice for all time. He is not sacrificed over and over. His sacrifice was deemed better because he was not.

So you keep reckoning, but Paul, as I pointed out, said its something to be repeated; which is akin to praying repeatedly, and going to church repeatedly, but you're intent at selectively use of these items.

No one denied it was the new covenant. But you remain unwilling to look at the very terms of the covenant or what is said about it.

Funny, because you're guilty of exactly that. Paul said it's to be repeated. Ignatius confirms it. You ignore it. And around we go.

so far you have demonstrated that you didn't know:
a. Jesus was our High Priest in the Scriptures[/qutoe]
You mean I didn't address it, because it's irrelevant. IF Jesus is High Priest, how are the lower priestly orders done away with? You just think so.

b. Paul said that Jesus is the one mediator between God and man.

Odd then that he tells us to obey our bishops, and the Apostles went around laying on hands.

c. The difference between a rabbi, a priest and a bishop

You've still not addressed the fact that you said Paul never went to the Temple.

d. The difference between a synagogue and the temple.

You are correct here. See also above point.

e. The difference between James the brother of Jesus, and James the brother of John.

Where?

So far you have demonstrated that you only know how to parrot the claims of anti-Adventist sites and quote Catholic defense sites, and to lie about me,

So far you've used a wad of emotive language, repeating "HEBREWS 8" as if that amounts to discussion, and refusing to look at your mistakes about Ignatius, the Temple, etc.

even when I posted my comments over and over, provided the link and made it quite plain what I said.

Like merely citing "HEBREWS 8" amounts to discussion

Perhaps reading Hebrews would not be a bad thing for you.

Oops, there you go again, like a wind-up doll

It would certainly be better for us both to read it than to have this kind of a conversation, which is part of why I have avoided this thread for a bit.

Your contribution to this is to state over and over again the same 'answer' as if it fits any question.

 

[woobadooba]

Not at once. Did they exist at the first Pentecost?

Of course they did.

I think there's some confusion here. 2Tim. 3:15-17 is referring to the OT; and the OT existed before the time of the apostles.

What traditions then were they referring to?
Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions as I delivered them to you (I Corinthians 11:2)

Is it hard to believe that the traditions spoken of here were not recorded in the OT?

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or by our epistle” (II Thessalonians 2:15)

But the question is: can we not find the principles of these traditions in the OT?

Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35).

Doesn't the OT teach us this principle?

This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. And therefore Paul himself uses tradition as a guide for teaching.

But did Paul use God-ward traditions as a basis for his teaching, or man-ward traditions?

 

[Montalban]

Let us see if it is non-sense.

As long as you believe 'respect' works both ways; so far you're not showing any inclination of this, so I in turn, though answering you will be brief, and let others speak.

Once again, three direct questions:

Is Jesus our High Priest?

It's irrelevant. If He is, it doesn't negate any lesser prirestly office, which is why the NT has bishops, priests and deacons.

Did Paul say that there is one mediator between God and man?

In what context? (See below), there are different forms of 'mediator'.*

Do you think that the priest in your church who offers sacrifices (according to you) is a mediator?

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10118a.htm

But then again answering you and you repeating "HEBREWS 8" are signs of different modes of respect.

There's another good article at
http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/1998-07-08/who.html, though I as an Orthodox disagree with some aspects.


*Jesus says we have one Father, but this too is not true, unless you understand the sense of the word, because we have an earthly father and a spiritual father.

 

[Montalban]

Of course they did.

I think there's some confusion here. 2Tim. 3:15-17 is referring to the OT; and the OT existed before the time of the apostles.

My apologies, I thought you were speaking of NT scripture only. Which were not present at Pentecost, so when the Apostles were preaching about what Jesus did, they 'could' use the OT, but it's obviously limited in referring to what Jesus did.