Why dont SDA's and Sabbath keepers also keep the Feast Days of Leviticus 23 too???

[BobRyan]

An hour ago you affirmed Genesis 2:3 wasn't the Sabbath.

Really? Do you have a quote of me saying that??

or are you just quoting you??

I think that even you would admit that the #781 post is what I do "all day long" and the "Gen 2:3 is not the Sabbath" is a post we only get from you.

Has this realm of reality changed -- ??

 

[VictorC]

Really? Do you have a quote of me saying that??

You admitted that Genesis 2:3 records God's rest.

Ex 20:11 insists that in Gen 2:3 God rested - and that this fact alone makes the day binding for all mankind.

God's rest is binding? "Binding"? We had to wait until after the Sabbath ended before it was given to us. What does this have in relation to the Sabbath? You just affirmed your concession that Genesis 2:3 wasn't the Sabbath.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, Genesis 2:1-3 records God's rest.

Ex 20:11 insists that in Gen 2:3 God rested - and that this fact alone makes the day binding for all mankind.

And now we have this post #152 where the BCF language about the "CHANGE" to the still binding 4th commandment is being claimed. There the BCF says it started in Eden as the 4th commandment - Sabbath - seventy-day of the week. But then the BCF says the commandment was bent, edited "Changed" at the cross. Which is an example of "Bending" and "Breaking" that Christ also condemned in Mark 7:6-13 when the Jewish "Magisterium" tried it with their own church tradition.


The BCF points to the scriptures that declare the Sabbath Commandment starting with Adam in the Garden of Eden - Gen 2:3 post #219


You've already seen Scripture attest to the fact that when made it was "Made for Mankind" as the links above point out.

You admitted that Genesis 2:3 records God's rest.

you affirmed Genesis 2:3 wasn't the Sabbath. !

Ahh so it was "you quoting you" in your own "Genesis 2:3 wasn't the Sabbath." -- "you simply 'quote you" -- (sneaky that .)



By contrast - I keep posting this

Indeed and have faith in the WORD of God.

For example - many have seen this post #152 where the BCF language about the "CHANGE" to the still binding 4th commandment is being claimed. There the BCF says it started in Eden as the 4th commandment - Sabbath - seventy-day of the week. But then the BCF says the commandment was bent, edited "Changed" at the cross. Which is an example of "Bending" and "Breaking" that Christ also condemned in Mark 7:6-13 when the Jewish "Magisterium" tried it with their own church tradition.[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
Even the BCF points to the scriptures that declare the Sabbath Commandment starting with Adam in the Garden of Eden - Gen 2:3 post #219

Sabbath in Eden Gen 2:3 found in the Bible itself for "All mankind' even in the OT: (As we see in the "other" post #2)

And that 219 link starts off this way -

Ex 20:11
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

Gen 2:3
3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

===================

You change the word of God so that it would say

Ex 20:11
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore that was NOT the Sabbath and so pay no attention to it - it was just the day God rested -- not at all significant for mankind. Go about your business... nothing to see here.. think more about week-day-1."

(Imagine a story where the boss comes into the office saying "Good news employees - I have taken a break and rested - so that you don't have to". That is the sort of "Good news" we hear from those at war with God's Commandments)

 

[VictorC]

Ahh so it was "you quoting you" in your own "Genesis 2:3 wasn't the Sabbath." -- "you simply 'quote you" -- (sneaky that .)

I was quoted what you wrote. Now you don't accept your own statements. There's a disadvantage that comes from being ridiculously verbose in your posts - you've another can of worms to deal with:

Ex 20:11 insists that in Gen 2:3 God rested
...
You've already seen Scripture attest to the fact that when made it was "Made for Mankind" (in the creation account)

These two statements can't be reconciled. They are inherently contradictory. You can't decide if God rested on the seventh day, or man did. You haven't found any record of man observing the Sabbath anywhere in the Genesis account, nor even the existence of the Sabbath. With the entire canon of Scripture at your disposal, you have nothing to offer for your contention the Sabbath predated Moses except one lonely verse that proves you're completely wrong.

In my previous post, I even pointed out that God's rest remained a promise the Sabbath didn't provide. That went over your head, just as another post you didn't even bother to acknowledge:

Hint Gen 2:1-3.

Bob, Genesis 2:1-3 records God's rest. That wasn't the Sabbath. You've already seen Scripture attest to our entrance into this rest, which wasn't available until after the tenure of the Law driving the Sabbath came to an end.

Even God affirms this point about Gen 2:3 in Ex 20:11

No, Bob. Exodus 20:11 uses God's rest as the reason to ordain the Sabbath in this verse. The impetus has to exist before the result, and Exodus 20:11 proves that God's rest wasn't the Sabbath. It uses the same sentence structure Deuteronomy 5:15 has for the same result:

And remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.​

By your twisted and tortured reasoning, the Sabbath = the exodus from Egyptian bondage - that's how you handle the disparate nouns in Exodus 20:11 that delineate discrete events.

As does Christ in Mark 2:27

Jesus flatly came right out and told you the Sabbath wasn't God's rest. But you don't believe Jesus. You don't believe the Law's record where God Spoke these Words: "Speak also to the children of Israel, saying 'Surely My Sabbaths you shall keep, for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the Lord who sanctifies you'".

As does even the Baptist Confession of Faith and the Westminster Confession of Faith.

The very reason I told you these sources can't be reconciled with Scripture. Neither can your posts. Neither can Adventism. Neither can the quaint notion of a 'Sunday sabbath' you've adopted as your argument.

your own pro-sunday groups

Uh-uh. They aren't 'mine'. They're yours. Bringing them up affirms your disdain for God's Word and a love for mythology.

The fairy tales you offered in your post show complete ignorance of both the Sabbath and God's rest we entered into after the Law's tenure ran its course. I have no interest in your fairy tales.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, Genesis 2:1-3 records God's rest.

Ex 20:11 insists that in Gen 2:3 God rested - and that this fact alone makes the day binding for all mankind.

And now we have this post #152 where the BCF language about the "CHANGE" to the still binding 4th commandment is being claimed. There the BCF says it started in Eden as the 4th commandment - Sabbath - seventh-day of the week.

But then the BCF says the commandment was bent, edited "Changed" at the cross. Which is an example of "Bending" and "Breaking" that Christ also condemned in Mark 7:6-13 when the Jewish "Magisterium" tried it with their own church tradition.


The BCF points to the scriptures that declare the Sabbath Commandment starting with Adam in the Garden of Eden - Gen 2:3 post #219


You've already seen Scripture attest to the fact that when made it was "Made for Mankind" as the links above point out.

You admitted that Genesis 2:3 records God's rest.

Yes but I did not say the following

you affirmed Genesis 2:3 wasn't the Sabbath. !

only you did.

Ahh so it was "you quoting you" in your own "Genesis 2:3 wasn't the Sabbath." -- "you simply 'quote you" -- (sneaky that .)

I was quoted what you wrote. Now you don't accept your own statements

Nope - you said

you affirmed Genesis 2:3 wasn't the Sabbath. !

That is not a quote of me - it is you "you quoting you" in your own "Genesis 2:3 wasn't the Sabbath." --

 

[VictorC]

These two statements can't be reconciled. They are inherently contradictory. You can't decide if God rested on the seventh day, or man did. You haven't found any record of man observing the Sabbath anywhere in the Genesis account, nor even the existence of the Sabbath. With the entire canon of Scripture at your disposal, you have nothing to offer for your contention the Sabbath predated Moses except one lonely verse that proves you're completely wrong.

Yes but

"Yes but" summarizes your entire post. Once you have contradicted yourself -and Scripture- and can't provide anything to support your thesis of a Sabbath predating Moses, the conclusion that you're completely wrong is inescapable.

 

[mmksparbud]

The judge in this case is the Law Adventists have affirmed no intent on compliance with. The Law isn't subject to anyone's opinion.
Besides this, God has already rendered His judgment concerning those He gave the Law to: "For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all" (Romans 11:32).

If by that you mean your ridiculous idea of having animal sacrifices--of course we we will not do that!! You guys keep insisting that we must slaughter animals or we are not keeping His law--bizarre beyond belief. In this case--the law is subject only to your opinion--which is given endlessly and erroneously. And then you will give the opinions of some Jewish folks who I've never heard of--I guess when you run out of anything else, you throw them in.
Endless insistance of animal sacrifice are we are not keeping the law, endless insistance that we do not keep the sabbath, endless departure from the word of God to your own version of what it all means so that your "itchy ears" can be soothed with the balm of not needing to keep any of God's law. But I do realize that's it's not because you do not understand the concept that we keep His law, written in our hearts, and obeyed from love, (or as otherwise stated--we are saved by grace alone, unto good works.)--you do comprehend--you just don't like that we keep the 7th day sabbath. It's always the sabbath that gets everybody all riled up--and want to stone us for keeping it.

You say that to keep any day is not christian. But what are you going to do now that most Ptrotestants have signed an allience with the Pope? You are all to be one faith, One God, One baptism--just like the bible says, of course. Joseph has hugged his brothers after they all bowed down to him. But your new father says this:

2122. What council said that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for the justified? (CCC 2068) The Council of Trent said that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for the justified.
The Council of Trent (AD 1545-63) followed the Reformation. It rejected Protestantism and reinforced orthodoxy.
2123. Why does transgressing one commandment mean to infringe all the others? (CCC 2069) Transgressing one commandment means to infringe all the others, because all the commandments form an organic unity.
Example: One cannot adore God without loving all men, His creatures.
2124. How does St Irenaeus define the Decalogue in terms of natural law? (CCC 2070) St Irenaeus († 200) defines the Decalogue as a reminder of the precepts of the natural law which God has implanted in the heart of man from the beginning.
The natural law is human reason ordaining man to do good and to avoid evil.
2125. Why has the Decalogue been revealed, although it is accessible to reason alone? (CCC 2071) Although it is accessible to reason alone, the Decalogue has been revealed, because in the state of sin human reason was obscured so that man needed a revelation in order to fully understand the requirements of the natural law.
The Decalogue is a privileged expression of the natural law.
2126. What does it mean that the Ten Commandments reveal grave obligations? (CCC 2072) That the Ten Commandments reveal grave obligations means that:
1. they are fundamentally immutable
2. they oblige always and everywhere
3. no one can dispense from them.


2181 The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor.119 Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin.


Remember--There are really no more Ptrotestants--the protest is over-whatever you believe is no longer important and has no merit. The video is on YOUtube.

If we do not keep the 7th day because we offer no animal sacrifices, then does the church now have to sacrifice animals to keep sunday holy, or because it's on sunday, that now no longer has to be done?

 

[VictorC]

If by that you mean your ridiculous idea of having animal sacrifices--of course we we will not do that!! You guys keep insisting that we must slaughter animals or we are not keeping His law--bizarre beyond belief. In this case--the law is subject only to your opinion--which is given endlessly and erroneously. And then you will give the opinions of some Jewish folks who I've never heard of--I guess when you run out of anything else, you throw them in.

You haven't responded to any of the posts I've provided for your consideration, so I will make my own observation in brevity.
You think God's final decree is ridiculous, to which He made no exceptions.
You think the Law's requirements are ridiculous.
You think the Sabbath is ridiculous.
So of course it follows that you think Christians who adopt the Gospel of God's redemption are also ridiculous.
That isn't an effective apology you should expect others to accept. We don't.

I mentioned that you made a fatal error concerning the covenant from Mount Sinai, and that error extends to the One who declared that covenant from Mount Sinai. If you think God is as ridiculous as His Word, remember that He has already considered the disposition of the rebellious:
God sets the solitary in families;
He brings out those who are bound into prosperity;
But the rebellious dwell in a dry land.

Endless insistance of animal sacrifice are we are not keeping the law, endless insistance that we do not keep the sabbath, endless departure from the word of God to your own version of what it all means so that your "itchy ears" can be soothed with the balm of not needing to keep any of God's law.

In all fairness, it is prudent to remind you that you're describing your own practice. This is why the Law is met with such rejection when it is shown to you.

But I do realize that's it's not because you do not understand the concept that we keep His law

The OP of this thread points out that you don't keep His Law, and your responses have consistently indicated that you have absolutely no intention to.

You say that to keep any day is not christian. But what are you going to do now that most Ptrotestants have signed an allience with the Pope? You are all to be one faith, One God, One baptism--just like the bible says, of course. Joseph has hugged his brothers after they all bowed down to him. But your new father says this:

2122. What council said that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for the justified? (CCC 2068) The Council of Trent said that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for the justified.
The Council of Trent (AD 1545-63) followed the Reformation. It rejected Protestantism and reinforced orthodoxy.
2123. Why does transgressing one commandment mean to infringe all the others? (CCC 2069) Transgressing one commandment means to infringe all the others, because all the commandments form an organic unity.
Example: One cannot adore God without loving all men, His creatures.
2124. How does St Irenaeus define the Decalogue in terms of natural law? (CCC 2070) St Irenaeus († 200) defines the Decalogue as a reminder of the precepts of the natural law which God has implanted in the heart of man from the beginning.
The natural law is human reason ordaining man to do good and to avoid evil.
2125. Why has the Decalogue been revealed, although it is accessible to reason alone? (CCC 2071) Although it is accessible to reason alone, the Decalogue has been revealed, because in the state of sin human reason was obscured so that man needed a revelation in order to fully understand the requirements of the natural law.
The Decalogue is a privileged expression of the natural law.
2126. What does it mean that the Ten Commandments reveal grave obligations? (CCC 2072) That the Ten Commandments reveal grave obligations means that:
1. they are fundamentally immutable
2. they oblige always and everywhere
3. no one can dispense from them.


2181 The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor.119 Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin.


Remember--There are really no more Ptrotestants--the protest is over-whatever you believe is no longer important and has no merit. The video is on YOUtube.

If we do not keep the 7th day because we offer no animal sacrifices, then does the church now have to sacrifice animals to keep sunday holy, or because it's on sunday, that now no longer has to be done?

Remember my mention that the Roman Catholic Church has its own set of errors. As within their voluminous writings we can locate their declaration of the first covenant's end of tenure along with the Sabbath codified by it, and inconsistent claims of changing the Sabbath when they don't even have the power to reinstate it or modify the limited jurisdiction God placed on it. The SDA church is guilty of the same mindset of unredeemed transgressions under the first covenant (Hebrews 9:15) that excuses their Investigative Judgment as the RCC when it conjured the concept of venal sins and Purgatory to deal with their same failure to recognize God's redemption of our transgressions.

Neither of these has any Biblical basis to exist. Both are rejected by Protestants with uniformity that YouTube videos don't displace. In this discourse your appeal of a 'remnant' non-truth is dependent on the RCC, not the Bible, and such an appeal shares their errors. Biblical Christianity has no need to rely on the RCC or YouTube, and we think your views are ridiculous.

 

[mmksparbud]

You haven't responded to any of the posts I've provided for your consideration, so I will make my own observation in brevity.
You think God's final decree is ridiculous, to which He made no exceptions.
You think the Law's requirements are ridiculous.
You think the Sabbath is ridiculous.
So of course it follows that you think Christians who adopt the Gospel of God's redemption are also ridiculous.
That isn't an effective apology you should expect others to accept. We don't.

I mentioned that you made a fatal error concerning the covenant from Mount Sinai, and that error extends to the One who declared that covenant from Mount Sinai. If you think God is as ridiculous as His Word, remember that He has already considered the disposition of the rebellious:
God sets the solitary in families;
He brings out those who are bound into prosperity;
But the rebellious dwell in a dry land.

In all fairness, it is prudent to remind you that you're describing your own practice. This is why the Law is met with such rejection when it is shown to you.

The OP of this thread points out that you don't keep His Law, and your responses have consistently indicated that you have absolutely no intention to.

Remember my mention that the Roman Catholic Church has its own set of errors. As within their voluminous writings we can locate their declaration of the first covenant's end of tenure along with the Sabbath codified by it, and inconsistent claims of changing the Sabbath when they don't even have the power to reinstate it or modify the limited jurisdiction God placed on it. The SDA church is guilty of the same mindset of unredeemed transgressions under the first covenant (Hebrews 9:15) that excuses their Investigative Judgment as the RCC when it conjured the concept of venal sins and Purgatory to deal with their same failure to recognize God's redemption of our transgressions.

Neither of these has any Biblical basis to exist. Both are rejected by Protestants with uniformity that YouTube videos don't displace. In this discourse your appeal of a 'remnant' non-truth is dependent on the RCC, not the Bible, and such an appeal shares their errors. Biblical Christianity has no need to rely on the RCC or YouTube, and we think your views are ridiculous.

Never have I said that God's decrees are ridiculous--never--It is you who keep insisting that I am saying things that I haven't! I've answered your posts--you refuse the answers--that's not my problem! We keep God's commandments, and the beatitutes and and we do it without the animal sacrifice that you think we should keep,. but God doesn't. Christ is the sacrificial Lamb--said it over and over and you still don't get it!! His commandments are not grievious--His lifestyle is not a problem, His yoke is easy, and His burden is light. You go right ahead with what you want to do--I will go right ahead with what the bible says.And you can complain all you want--the Evangelicals, and Lutherans and others are all going over to the RCC-They shook hands on it, they signed the agreement-- it's a done deal, there are no more protestants! Kenneth Copeland was up there praying for the Pope and this wonderful new unity in faith--in tongues--and it wasn't Italian! The biggest Evangelical church in Sweden, which this one guy has pastored and developed for 30 years, has left the Evangelical church and is now, along with his wife, a Catholic--it's a big thing over there and the move towards Catholicism is gaining speed all over Europe and it has hit the states--If you stand in opposition to this, you will be, like us, labeled a heretic. It may take a little time, but it's getting here. After all, this actually was all signed back in 1999, or some such thing, it's being worked on for years and it has finally gained the momentum they needed, and Feb. 2014 was the big get together. Good luck--in the not too distant future, if you keep your views, you will be a ridiculous heretic, too!!

 

[VictorC]

You haven't responded to any of the posts I've provided for your consideration, so I will make my own observation in brevity.
You think God's final decree is ridiculous, to which He made no exceptions.
You think the Law's requirements are ridiculous.
You think the Sabbath is ridiculous.
So of course it follows that you think Christians who adopt the Gospel of God's redemption are also ridiculous.
That isn't an effective apology you should expect others to accept. We don't.

I was right.

Never have I said that God's decrees are ridiculous

Replacing "law" with "decrees" doesn't change your previous post's content.

I've answered your posts

No, you haven't.

We keep God's commandments

No, you've replaced God's commandments with the old covenant. And this thread observes that you don't keep that either.

and we do it without the animal sacrifice that you think we should keep,. but God doesn't.

Yes, God does - the reason burnt offerings are mandated by the Law you claim retains you.

Christ is the sacrificial Lamb

Whom you have not acknowledged in His redemption, the reason you keep reverting to the old covenant Christ took away.

-I will go right ahead with what the bible says.

I'm sure that explains your reliance on youTube and RCC writings and have no answers for Scripture when it is presented to you. How are you doing with those venal sins and Purgatory fabricated for the same reason the Investigative Judgment was?
Silence...

 

[LarryP2]

I was right.

Replacing "law" with "decrees" doesn't change your previous post's content.

No, you haven't.

No, you've replaced God's commandments with the old covenant. And this thread observes that you don't keep that either.

Yes, God does - the reason burnt offerings are mandated by the Law you claim retains you.

Whom you have not acknowledged in His redemption, the reason you keep reverting to the old covenant Christ took away.

I'm sure that explains your reliance on youTube and RCC writings and have no answers for Scripture when it is presented to you. How are you doing with those venal sins and Purgatory fabricated for the same reason the Investigative Judgment was?
Silence...

We are having a rousing discussion at http://www.christianforums.com/t7817161/

about the growing recognition among Seventh Day Adventist theologians that the Apostle Paul should not be in the Bible, since his clear and unambiguous statements that the Sabbath was nailed to the Cross are impossible to get around if Sabbath Keeping is to remain sustainable. You will notice immediately a vast world of difference between an honest Sabbatarian versus the deceitful trash that Adventists continuously post on the Sabbath.

 

[mmksparbud]

I was right.

Replacing "law" with "decrees" doesn't change your previous post's content.

No, you haven't.

No, you've replaced God's commandments with the old covenant. And this thread observes that you don't keep that either.

Yes, God does - the reason burnt offerings are mandated by the Law you claim retains you.

Whom you have not acknowledged in His redemption, the reason you keep reverting to the old covenant Christ took away.

I'm sure that explains your reliance on youTube and RCC writings and have no answers for Scripture when it is presented to you. How are you doing with those venal sins and Purgatory fabricated for the same reason the Investigative Judgment was?
Silence...

I've given verses and verses, and you don't like them--don't care, either! It says what it says, and the truth is the truth. God's laws are not ridiculous, never said it never will, your posts, however, are. You can't seem to understand that animal sacrifices are no longer needed and keep insisting that we must have them!!--Silly. Goes totally against the bible and the whole plan of salvation, but you know that, you just want to carry on repeating the same silly things. Is English your 2nd language?? Just wondering. How you could possible get we rely on Youtube and RCC writings for our believes--never said that--just more of your rhetoric. I pointed out that on Youtube, the Evangelicals and other denominations have all clasped hands with the Pope via Iphone, no less- and signed agreements of reconciliation and that they have all stated there are no more Protestants!!--Just reporting the news--it seems you don't know anything about it. Instead of just saying so, you make up stuff. You keep insisting that Christians do not believe in keeping Gods commandments and I posted what the catechism says about that so you can see that other churches do beleive in them--But I now understand that you do not consider Catholics are christian anymore than we are. I still believe Catholics are Christians--I just don't believe in what they teach. Venal sins and purgatory are not part of my religious believes--they are now yours, wether you admit it or not as this agreement everyone has signed makes your believes null and void, but you don't get that--yet--
We have stated that salvation is through the grace offered by our risen Christ--and no matter if you go to church everyday, but that salvation brings about a change of heart, a change of mindset and the Holy Spirit leads us to obedience to all God says--including His commandments and beatitutes and everything in our lives is changed because His love for us changes us and we take pleasure in obedience to Him---something you have no desire to do nor understandand. --the bible says it clearly enough and your continual absurd notion that animal sacrifices must be done is totally wacko. That's ok if you want to believe that, I just simply choose to believe that Christ died for my sins, and His blood washes away all sin and His Holy Spirit leads us to our sanctification--but if you would rather kill rabbits, or whatever, that's between you and animal control.

 

[mmksparbud]

We are having a rousing discussion at http://www.christianforums.com/t7817161/

about the growing recognition among Seventh Day Adventist theologians that the Apostle Paul should not be in the Bible, since his clear and unambiguous statements that the Sabbath was nailed to the Cross are impossible to get around if Sabbath Keeping is to remain sustainable. You will notice immediately a vast world of difference between an honest Sabbatarian versus the deceitful trash that Adventists continuously post on the Sabbath.

I don't care what SDA theologians, Or Lutheran theologians, or Catholic theologians, or any other theologians thinks--I have my bible and they can fill everyones heads with what ever silly idea they want. Theologians do not make the SDA doctrines, that is not what they do--period. There are no end of theologians since the time of Christ who are filled with words instead of the Holy Spirit--they get highly educated and are left without much for brains--there are a lot of those on the forums here, also. And they love to spout how much education they've had and how many degrees and blah, blah, blah----I have no intention of throwing Paul or any other bible character away--everyone else can do what they want.

 

[from scratch]

I've given verses and verses, and you don't like them--don't care, either! It says what it says, and the truth is the truth. God's laws are not ridiculous, never said it never will, your posts, however, are. You can't seem to understand that animal sacrifices are no longer needed and keep insisting that we must have them!!--Silly. Goes totally against the bible and the whole plan of salvation, but you know that, you just want to carry on repeating the same silly things. Is English your 2nd language?? Just wondering. How you could possible get we rely on Youtube and RCC writings for our believes--never said that--just more of your rhetoric. I pointed out that on Youtube, the Evangelicals and other denominations have all clasped hands with the Pope via Iphone, no less- and signed agreements of reconciliation and that they have all stated there are no more Protestants!!--Just reporting the news--it seems you don't know anything about it. Instead of just saying so, you make up stuff. You keep insisting that Christians do not believe in keeping Gods commandments and I posted what the catechism says about that so you can see that other churches do beleive in them--But I now understand that you do not consider Catholics are christian anymore than we are. I still believe Catholics are Christians--I just don't believe in what they teach. Venal sins and purgatory are not part of my religious believes--they are now yours, wether you admit it or not as this agreement everyone has signed makes your believes null and void, but you don't get that--yet--
We have stated that salvation is through the grace offered by our risen Christ--and no matter if you go to church everyday, but that salvation brings about a change of heart, a change of mindset and the Holy Spirit leads us to obedience to all God says--including His commandments and beatitutes and everything in our lives is changed because His love for us changes us and we take pleasure in obedience to Him---something you have no desire to do nor understandand. --the bible says it clearly enough and your continual absurd notion that animal sacrifices must be done is totally wacko. That's ok if you want to believe that, I just simply choose to believe that Christ died for my sins, and His blood washes away all sin and His Holy Spirit leads us to our sanctification--but if you would rather kill rabbits, or whatever, that's between you and animal control.

You provide good entertainment on a rainy day (all other days too!).

 

[from scratch]

I don't care what SDA theologians, Or Lutheran theologians, or Catholic theologians, or any other theologians thinks--I have my bible and they can fill everyones heads with what ever silly idea they want. Theologians do not make the SDA doctrines, that is not what they do--period. There are no end of theologians since the time of Christ who are filled with words instead of the Holy Spirit--they get highly educated and are left without much for brains--there are a lot of those on the forums here, also. And they love to spout how much education they've had and how many degrees and blah, blah, blah----I have no intention of throwing Paul or any other bible character away--everyone else can do what they want.

You only insult yourself.

 

[VictorC]

If by that you mean your ridiculous idea of having animal sacrifices--of course we we will not do that!! You guys keep insisting that we must slaughter animals or we are not keeping His law--bizarre beyond belief. In this case--the law is subject only to your opinion--which is given endlessly and erroneously. And then you will give the opinions of some Jewish folks who I've never heard of--I guess when you run out of anything else, you throw them in.

You haven't responded to any of the posts I've provided for your consideration, so I will make my own observation in brevity.
You think God's final decree is ridiculous, to which He made no exceptions.
You think the Law's requirements are ridiculous.
You think the Sabbath is ridiculous.
So of course it follows that you think Christians who adopt the Gospel of God's redemption are also ridiculous.
That isn't an effective apology you should expect others to accept. We don't.

The above is to remind you of where you considered the Law to be ridiculous.

I've given verses and verses, and you don't like them--don't care, either! It says what it says, and the truth is the truth. God's laws are not ridiculous, never said it never will, your posts, however, are. You can't seem to understand that animal sacrifices are no longer needed and keep insisting that we must have them!!--Silly. Goes totally against the bible and the whole plan of salvation, but you know that, you just want to carry on repeating the same silly things. Is English your 2nd language?? Just wondering. How you could possible get we rely on Youtube and RCC writings for our believes--never said that--just more of your rhetoric. I pointed out that on Youtube, the Evangelicals and other denominations have all clasped hands with the Pope via Iphone, no less- and signed agreements of reconciliation and that they have all stated there are no more Protestants!!--Just reporting the news--it seems you don't know anything about it. Instead of just saying so, you make up stuff. You keep insisting that Christians do not believe in keeping Gods commandments and I posted what the catechism says about that so you can see that other churches do beleive in them--But I now understand that you do not consider Catholics are christian anymore than we are. I still believe Catholics are Christians--I just don't believe in what they teach. Venal sins and purgatory are not part of my religious believes--they are now yours, wether you admit it or not as this agreement everyone has signed makes your believes null and void, but you don't get that--yet--
We have stated that salvation is through the grace offered by our risen Christ--and no matter if you go to church everyday, but that salvation brings about a change of heart, a change of mindset and the Holy Spirit leads us to obedience to all God says--including His commandments and beatitutes and everything in our lives is changed because His love for us changes us and we take pleasure in obedience to Him---something you have no desire to do nor understandand. --the bible says it clearly enough and your continual absurd notion that animal sacrifices must be done is totally wacko. That's ok if you want to believe that, I just simply choose to believe that Christ died for my sins, and His blood washes away all sin and His Holy Spirit leads us to our sanctification--but if you would rather kill rabbits, or whatever, that's between you and animal control.

I think that you have repeated every single error in this post of yours. I don't think that you have ever caught onto the distinction that your claim has been one of retention by the old covenant from Mount Sinai, which is the Law. The only difference in this post is changing your description from 'ridiculous' to 'totally whacko' to describe the Law's requirements.

From there you failed to address the common philosophical theme behind the SDA Investigative Judgment and the RCC Purgatory.

The one thing that shines in your post is an opinion rendered that all of Christianity is indeed divided into either Ellen White's 'harlot of Babylon' for the RCC and 'daughters of the harlot' for Protestant denominations. This affirms your view that the Seventh-day Adventist 'church' is not counted among any of the Christian denominations. I would agree with this one assessment.

 

[LarryP2]

I don't care what SDA theologians, Or Lutheran theologians, or Catholic theologians, or any other theologians thinks--I have my bible and they can fill everyones heads with what ever silly idea they want. Theologians do not make the SDA doctrines, that is not what they do--period. There are no end of theologians since the time of Christ who are filled with words instead of the Holy Spirit--they get highly educated and are left without much for brains--there are a lot of those on the forums here, also. And they love to spout how much education they've had and how many degrees and blah, blah, blah----I have no intention of throwing Paul or any other bible character away--everyone else can do what they want.

Your own honest theologians do not accept your fairy tale that Paul did not denounce the Mosaic Law for Christians. Actually, in order to keep the Sabbath, you have to dishonestly read what Paul was actually saying: Gentile Christians were not under the Mosaic Law, would not be circumcised and would not keep the Sabbath, and what was "nailed to the Cross" was not only just the "ceremonial laws." Which is precisely why Paul so carefully spelled out in great detail what New Testament "moral laws" Christians are under. And NEVER does he mention that the Sabbath is one of them.

Any other reading of Paul is simply deceitful scripture sculpting. So no, you are NOT getting your views from the Bible.

 

[VictorC]

We are having a rousing discussion at http://www.christianforums.com/t7817161/

about the growing recognition among Seventh Day Adventist theologians that the Apostle Paul should not be in the Bible, since his clear and unambiguous statements that the Sabbath was nailed to the Cross are impossible to get around if Sabbath Keeping is to remain sustainable. You will notice immediately a vast world of difference between an honest Sabbatarian versus the deceitful trash that Adventists continuously post on the Sabbath.

Adventism has long relied on redefining Biblical terms used by the Apostle Paul to address the covenant from Mount Sinai, and not just the Sabbath it contains. Ellen's mental gymnastics to alternate between feigning an appearance of orthodoxy and retaining her 'distinctives' that deny Christ's redemption led to her vacillating definitions of the term 'Law':

Ellen White's difinition of the Law mentioned in Galatians 3:24, which says "The law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ":

In 1856 Ellen White identified that law as the ceremonial law system of ancient times, and specifically not the Ten Commandments.
White, Letter to E. J. Waggoner and A. T. Jones (Letter 37, 2-18-1887). J. H. Waggoner, The Law of God, an Examination of the Testimony of Both Testaments, Rochester, N.Y., The Advent Review Office, 1854, pp. 70, 108. In 1856 James and Ellen White and others met for two days in Battle Creek, Michigan, and decided that Waggoner was wrong in identifying the law in Galatians as the Ten Commandments. James White withdrew the book from circulation.

In 1883 she again identified that "law" as "the obsolete ceremonies of Judaism."
White, Sketches from the Life of Paul, pp. 188-192.

In 1896 she wrote: "In this Scripture, the Holy Spirit through the apostle is speaking especially of the moral law."
Selected Messages, Book 1, p. 234.

In 1900 she wrote: "I am asked concerning the law in Galatians. ... I answer: both the ceremonial and moral code of Ten Commandments."
Selected Messages, Book 1, p. 233.

In 1911 she again identified the law in Galatians as exclusively "the obsolete ceremonies of Judaism."
Acts of the Apostles, pp. 383-388.​

 

[LarryP2]

Adventism has long relied on redefining Biblical terms used by the Apostle Paul to address the covenant from Mount Sinai, and not just the Sabbath it contains. Ellen's mental gymnastics to alternate between feigning an appearance of orthodoxy and retaining her 'distinctives' that deny Christ's redemption led to her vacillating definitions of the term 'Law':

Ellen White's difinition of the Law mentioned in Galatians 3:24, which says "The law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ":

In 1856 Ellen White identified that law as the ceremonial law system of ancient times, and specifically not the Ten Commandments.
White, Letter to E. J. Waggoner and A. T. Jones (Letter 37, 2-18-1887). J. H. Waggoner, The Law of God, an Examination of the Testimony of Both Testaments, Rochester, N.Y., The Advent Review Office, 1854, pp. 70, 108. In 1856 James and Ellen White and others met for two days in Battle Creek, Michigan, and decided that Waggoner was wrong in identifying the law in Galatians as the Ten Commandments. James White withdrew the book from circulation.

In 1883 she again identified that "law" as "the obsolete ceremonies of Judaism."
White, Sketches from the Life of Paul, pp. 188-192.

In 1896 she wrote: "In this Scripture, the Holy Spirit through the apostle is speaking especially of the moral law."
Selected Messages, Book 1, p. 234.

In 1900 she wrote: "I am asked concerning the law in Galatians. ... I answer: both the ceremonial and moral code of Ten Commandments."
Selected Messages, Book 1, p. 233.

In 1911 she again identified the law in Galatians as exclusively "the obsolete ceremonies of Judaism."
Acts of the Apostles, pp. 383-388.​

And of course, her ludicrous and contrived "distinctions" have NEVER been a part of Judaism's interpretation of the Mosaic law system. All of the Apostles well knew where Judaism stood on the issue:

"G-d gave the Jewish people 613 mitzvot (commandments). All 613 of those mitzvot are equally sacred, equally binding and equally the word of G-d. All of these mitzvot are treated as equally important, because human beings, with our limited understanding of the universe, have no way of knowing which mitzvot are more important in the eyes of the Creator. Pirkei Avot, a book of the Mishnah, teaches "Be as meticulous in performing a 'minor' mitzvah as you are with a 'major' one, because you don't know what kind of reward you'll get for various mitzvot." It also says, "Run after the most 'minor' mitzvah as you would after the most 'important' and flee from transgression, because doing one mitzvah draws you into doing another, and doing one transgression draws you into doing another, and because the reward for a mitzvah is a mitzvah and the punishment for a transgression is a transgression." In other words, every mitzvah is important, because even the most seemingly trivial mitzvot draw you into a pattern of leading your life in accordance with the Creator's wishes, rather than in accordance with your own."

Judaism 101: Aseret ha-Dibrot: The "Ten Commandments"
http://www.tithing-russkelly.com/theology/id12.html

Knowing this iron rule of Judaism which has never ever changed in 3,000 years, it is just utterly laughable and absurd that Paul in Colossians 2:13-18 was not referring to the entire law, including the Ten Commandments and its Sabbath ordinance. The Sabbath is just one of 613 equal commandments, nothing more, nothing less. Christianity supports the indivisibility of the Mosaic Law:

"Perhaps the clearest explanation of this principle comes from Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum of Ariel Ministries, when he teaches:

It is the principle of the unity of the Law of Moses that lies behind the statement found in James 2:10: “For whosoever shall keep the whole law; and yet stumble in one point, he is become guilty of all.” The point is clear: a person needs only to break one of the 613 commandments to be guilty of breaking all of the Law of Moses. This can only be true if the Mosaic Law is a unit...To bring the point closer to home, if a person eats ham, according to the Law of Moses he is guilty of breaking the Ten Commandments, although none of them says anything about eating ham.

A Christian can’t pick a few elements from the Law (e.g., the Ten Commandments) and place them in a special category apart from the rest of the Mosaic Law, especially if our purpose in doing so is an attempt to preserve them along side the Law of Christ. Rather, the Mosaic Law is an all or nothing proposition: either a man lives under the Law of Moses and keeps all 613 laws, or he lives by faith and dispenses with the Mosaic Law entirely in favor of the newer, better law of Christ."

http://www.versebyverseministry.org/devotionals/on_law_and_liberty_part_2
http://www.tithing-russkelly.com/theology/id12.html

"Forty-seven (47) times God’s Word states that His Law is an indivisible whole. One either obeys ALL or is guilty of transgressing all as a set of instructions (Deu 28-29).

No Hebrew, Jew or inspired Bible writer defined only the Ten Commandments as the moral law and downgraded the statutes and judgments to become disposable parts of the law.

Ex 19:5; 23:22; 24:3, 7; Lev 19:37; 20:22; 26:14-15; Num 15:40; Deu 5:1, 29, 31; 6:2, 24-25; 8:1; 11:8, 22, 32; 12:14, 28; 13:18; 15:5; 17:19; 19:9; 26:16-19; 27:1; 28:1, 15, 45, 58; 29:29; 30:2, 8; 31:12; 32:46; Josh 1:7-8; 22:5; 23:6; 1 Kg 2:3; 6:12; 8:58; 9:4; Jer 7:23; 1:4; 2 Chron 33:8; Matt 5:19; 22:40; Gal 5:3; James 2:10."
http://www.tithing-russkelly.com/theology/id12.html

And most egregiously, Seventh Day Adventists willfully ignore the First Commandment completely, rejecting it whole cloth, which Judaism would never allow:

"First Commandment (Exodus 20:2): I am the Lord Your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage."
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/hol...ading_and_Haftarah/The_Ten_Commandments.shtml
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/the-ten-commandments-according-to-the-torah.html
http://www.tithing-russkelly.com/theology/id12.html

I'm still hunting for a Seventh Day Adventist who has followed the First Commandment by being "brought out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage." That's a real muddle for Adventists: Was this First Commandment "nailed to the Cross" which would technically give Adventists permission to keep the other 9? Or was it a "Moral Law" that continues to control who the Commandments were meant for by its plain and unambiguous wording? Or is it merely a "ceremonial law?" If so, how and when is it observed?

Ellen White was simply a liar when she said there was a distinction between the moral and ceremonial law. Clearly, none of the Apostles would have thought or said anything so ignorant. And clearly the Apostles would have kept the First Commandment the way it had always been observed in the history of Judaism. The First Commandment explicitly-excluded Gentiles from keeping the Ten Commandments LONG before the Cross. And that recognition obviously controlled the terms and conditions of the Council of Jerusalem in AD 50, which is outlined in Acts 15.

The Gentiles were given their own law, at the time of Noah which remains in effect today. The Noahide laws apply to the entire world outside of Judaism:

"According to traditional Judaism, G-d gave Noah and his family seven commandments to observe when he saved them from the flood. These commandments, referred to as the Noahic or Noahide commandments, are inferred from Genesis Ch. 9, and are as follows: 1) to establish courts of justice; 2) not to commit blasphemy; 3) not to commit idolatry; 4) not to commit incest and adultery; 5) not to commit bloodshed; 6) not to commit robbery; and 7) not to eat flesh cut from a living animal. These commandments are fairly simple and straightforward, and most of them are recognized by most of the world as sound moral principles."

http://www.jewfaq.org/gentiles.htm
http://www.tithing-russkelly.com/theology/id12.html

And the Apostle's recognition of the applicable laws regarding Gentiles obviously controlled the terms and conditions of the Council of Jerusalem in AD 50, which is outlined in Acts 15.

Curiously, Seventh Day Adventists are fired up about keeping the Commandments of the Mosaic Law, but are strangely reticent about keeping the Judgments of the Law:

"Sarcastically speaking, those Saturday Sabbath-keeping churches which consider themselves to be God’s new Israel ought to be shouting like the ancient Sanhedrin to our civil government --“we have a law , and by our law he ought to die” (Jn 19:7)-- to have their own Sabbath-breaking members put to death. SDAs cast Exodus 31:13-17 at others and ignore it themselves by making Saturday their busiest day of the week."
http://www.tithing-russkelly.com/theology/id12.html

Any fully-committed Sabbath Keepers out there really willing get with it and really start to follow the law? A couple of hundred Adventists getting executed for driving their car on the Sabbath will have the salutary effect of sparking more rigorous Sabbath Keeping among the survivors.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by LarryP2

We are having a rousing discussion at http://www.christianforums.com/t7817161/

about the growing recognition among Seventh Day Adventist theologians that the Apostle Paul should not be in the Bible,................
​

Thanks for that link. Good thread!


.