Info on SDA

[Javl]

Mark2:27And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

John 14:15If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Matt.19:16And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Ya, Javl it doesn’t grieve me at all to say that the law was given to all mankind. Could you please show me in these vs. where Jesus specifies that the law was given exclusively to the Jews. Well, of coarse you can’t because it isn’t. In fact Mark 2:27 states that the law was made for man. If it was exclusively for the Jews, don’t you think He would have said so right here? He doesn’t so it isn’t.

Jer.31:31Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a **new covenant **with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
**32Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers **in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and **write it in their hearts; **and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

The new covenant consists of God writing **His law **on our minds and in our hearts made possible by the sacrifice of Jesus.

Heb.10:12But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
14For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
15Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
16This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

Who cares what these guys say, if it is against what the word of God says, it’s rubbish.

That isn’t what Jesus is saying. You misunderstand.

No just rejecting your misunderstanding.

Richard:

In all Christian charity I say that your mindset has led you to, and put you in, deep error. You misunderstand and misinterpret scripture. You take as symbolic what is literal and you take as literal what is symbolic. I and others have tried to reason with you and have presented our proof of what we know is the truth, and the word of God. But you insist that only you follow the word of God. I admire and respect you for your zealousy for God, but you are going about it the wrong way. And, again, you reflect the theology of Ellen White in your answers, even though you do not refer to her or quote her. We all know that no matter what she has proven to be a false prophet(ess). Doesn’t this tell you anything?

Please, please, reflect on this. Check with some ex-SDA on their reasons for leaving the SDA Church. Also have you visited SDA2RC.com? If not please do so. If Orthodox Hasidic Jews are able to see Jesus’ truth in the scriptures and convert to Catholicism then there has to be truth in what we say. God Bless.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Javl]

It appears that if the Christians were not supposed to be celebrating a religious event and worship on Sunday, someone forgot to let the first Christians know that! The “Lord’s Day” as it was known** PRIOR** to John writing “Revelation” was actually Sunday that is how the churches he wrote to would have understood it. Yet the Adventist church now says that when John said he was in the Spirit “on the Lords Day”, he must have been talking about the Sabbath. This kind of mis-representation about the meaning of the phrase to those to which it was written is exactly why we must understand how the receivers of the books of the New Testament understood them.

So, if the Christians were worshipping on Sunday, why wasn’t there an outcry in the Jewish church in Jerusalem, it was a church that most likely continued to meet on Saturday at the synagogue for several decades to hear the scriptures read. The reason they did not cry out in protest is because Jews believed then, and still believe now, that the Sabbath was given only to Jews. They NEVER expected Gentiles (which made up most of the early church) to keep the Sabbath. Notice the following passages:

``The children of Noah…were given seven Laws only, the observance of the Sabbath not being among them’’ (Midrash Deuteronomy Rabbah 1:21 [Soncino ed., p. 23], as quoted in C. Mervyn Maxwell and P. Gerard Damsteegt, eds., Source Book for the History of Sabbath and Sunday [Berrien Springs, Mich.: Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, 1992], p. 75).

The Noachian laws are also listed in Midrash Genesis Rabbah 16:6 (Soncino ed., p. 131), Sanhedrin 56 a, b; andMidrash Song of Songs Rabbah 1:2(5) (Soncino ed. pp. 26-7) (ibid., p. 74). Gentiles could be considered righteous if they observed these laws, which did not include the Sabbath. Nor did they include restrictions about pork. Rabbi Judah could say that there was a time for the sons of Jacob when unclean beasts were still permitted to them'' (Hullin 7:6, as quoted in Maxwell and Damsteegt, p. 74 The rabbis did not think that the Sabbath had been given to Gentiles: Why does it say, `The Lord hath given you’’ (Ex. 16:29)? To you hath he given it [the Sabbath], but not to the heathen. It is in virtue of this that the Sages stated [Sanh. 56b] that if some of the heathen observed the Sabbath, then not only do they not receive any reward [but they are even considered to be transgressing]’’(Midrash Exodus Rabbah 25:11 [Soncino ed., p. 314], as quoted in Maxwell and Damsteegt, p. 74).

``A non-Jew who observes the Sabbath whilst he is uncircumcised incurs liability for the punishment of death. Why? Because non-Jews were not commanded concerning it… The Sabbath is a reunion between Israel and God, as it is said, `It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel’ (Ex. 31:17); therefore any non-Jew who, being uncircumcised, thrusts himself between them incurs the penalty of death… The Gentiles have not been commanded to observe the Sabbath’’ (Midrash Deuteronomy Rabbah 1:21 [Soncino ed., pp. 23-4], as quoted in Maxwell and Damsteegt, p. 75).

Further evidence of the antiquity of this rabbinic understanding comes from the second-century B.C. book ofJubilees: ``The Creator of all blessed it, but he did not sanctify any people or nations to keep the Sabbath thereon with the sole exception of Israel. He granted to them alone that they might eat and drink and keep the Sabbath thereon upon the earth’’ (Jubilees 2:31, James Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, [New York: Doubleday, 1985], vol. 2, p. 58).

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Richard:

In all Christian charity I say that your mindset has led you to, and put you in, deep error.

Please explain how.

You misunderstand and misinterpret scripture.

You keep saying this, but you refuse to say how.

You take as symbolic what is literal and you take as literal what is symbolic.

What am I taking as symbolic what is literal and literal what is symbolic. How can I fix it if I don’t know exactly what you are talking about.

I and others have tried to reason with you and have presented our proof of what we know is the truth, and the word of God.

The only thing that you have given is an erroneous interpretation of Matt 16

But you insist that only you follow the word of God. I admire and respect you for your zealousy for God, but you are going about it the wrong way. And, again, you reflect the theology of Ellen White in your answers, even though you do not refer to her or quote her. We all know that no matter what she has proven to be a false prophet(ess). Doesn’t this tell you anything?

I have given you scriptures that show that the new covenant is manefest in THE LAW being written in our minds and in our hearts by the Spirit of God. You steadfastly refuse to accept this and I don’t think that I can continue to do this Javl in that it gives you a venue to trample on the word of God.

 

[me_again]

Jesus made a new and everlasting covenant with His Apostles and other followers at His last supper, and that He gave us a new Law.

The SDAs refuse to accept the fact that this was known, understood and disseminated by the Apostles and early Church Fathers (** Ignatius, Clement, Tertullian, Polycarp**, etc. ).

Adventists believe Ellen White more than the church fathers. SDAs frequently read Ellen White’s writings, but SDAs aren’t familiar with the writings of Ignatius, Clement, Tertullian, Polycarp and others. As long as SDAs have the writings of Ellen White, then they believe that they are saved.

In SDA lingo, if a person starts to “believe in Ellen White,” then they affectionately call it “coming to the light.”

Ellen White was a kooky false prophetess who advocated vegetarianism and other false doctrines.

 

[me_again]

Gen9: 8And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying,
9And I, behold, I establish my [old] covenant with you, and with your seed after you;

It’s referring to the Old Covenant. Are you under it? Is the Old Covenant eternal? Or was it replaced with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus? Pray tell?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

It’s referring to the Old Covenant. Are you under it? Is the Old Covenant eternal? Or was it replaced with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus? Pray tell?

Ex.31: 16Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.

Who is the house of Israel?
Rom9: 6Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

1Cor.10:18Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?

Gal6:15For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
16And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

There is an Israel of the flesh (ethnic Jews) and an Israel of God (those who believe in Jesus)

Galatians 3:28-29 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you be Christ’s, then are you Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”

Romans 2:28-29 “For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.”

The wording of the covenant is eternal. The ten commandments are binding on all of Israel and if you are of the Israel of God you keep the commandments (all ten) if you love Jesus.

 

[Javl]

Please explain how.

You keep saying this, but you refuse to say how.

What am I taking as symbolic what is literal and literal what is symbolic. How can I fix it if I don’t know exactly what you are talking about.

The only thing that you have given is an erroneous interpretation of Matt 16

I have given you scriptures that show that the new covenant is manefest in THE LAW being written in our minds and in our hearts by the Spirit of God. You steadfastly refuse to accept this and I don’t think that I can continue to do this Javl in that it gives you a venue to trample on the word of God.

We keep telling you and keep giving you chapter and verse. We show you what is literal and what is symbolic, and so on. We have done this over and over. We also have shown you that it was so from the beginning and yet you have rejected all and stubbornly insist that you are correct. So from now on you can march to your drummer until you realize that you have been in error all along. Meanwhile, please do not judge us and say we disobey God, for we do not. We uphold all of the ordinances that He ( Jesus ) has given us. Also, we do not judge you, but we do pray the Holy Spirit to open your mind to the falsity of the “teachings” of Ellen White and to lead you to His truth.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem.

 

[Javl]

This is cut and paste from the SDA2RC.com site:

Matt 5:18, Luke 16:16-17
(Matt 5:17) Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
(Matt 5:18) For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
(Matt 5:19) Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
(Matt 5:20) For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

(Luke 16:16) The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
(Luke 16:17) And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

Matt 5:17-19 is actually a key verse for refuting the Adventist position. Jesus says that not one jot or tittle will pass from the law UNTIL all is fulfilled. This implies that a point WILL come when ALL IS fulfilled. Let’s look at texts like Heb 7:12, 2 Cor 3:6-14; Heb 7:12; John 19:28-3, and Acts 15 (where a law given directly by God to Abraham, and called a perpetual law for ALL Abraham’s generations, is abolished by a council of the Church.) Here we get told directly that the law HAS changed (those are the words straight from Hebrews,) so we HAVE to wonder what Jesus meant. He said the heavens and the earth would be replaced with a NEW heaven and a NEW earth in that text, and only THEN could the law change, and here we see the law has changed ALREADY … so what he said MUST have come to pass … so, did we just miss the end of the world, or not?

Well, we need to understand what this expression MEANT - not what we assume it means when we, in the 21st century, read it with no background in the linguistic expressions of the first century. So, we turn to John 19:28-30, where Jesus actually states that ALL IS FULFILLED (COMPLETED). So, if all was fulfilled THEN, we can expect to see the law changing, falling away - and that is exactly what happens. If we turn to Heb 9:26, we see that Jesus came at the END of an age … so, if this was the end of an age, surely we can interpret the new heavens and new earth to mean exactly what the people of that time understood by it - that a new age began, starting from the Cross. A new creation began then, as we are told in 2 Cor 5:17, Gal 6:15, 1 Cor 15:22+45, and Eph 2:10.

2 Corinthians 5:17 “Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come.” Galatians 6:15 “For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.” 1 Corinthians 15:22, 45 “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. (45) Thus it is written, ‘The first man Adam became a living being’; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.” Ephesians 2:10 “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus.” (RSV)

So, if we ask the crucial question, have the heavens and the earth really passed away, the answer is - YES IT HAS!! Those who want to promote the Sabbath conveniently ignore the real meaning of this phrase, and try to mislead us by making us read the English literally, while knowing that the original was not written in English, and the people of the time did not have the same idiomatic expressions.

For those who disagree, either Heb 7:12 is wrong and Matt 5:17-19 is wrong … OR Jesus is right in John 19 when he says that his saving work IS indeed completed. See also Luke 16:16, which says that the law and the prophets lasted until John the Baptist.

Just a note on Acts 15 - God also refers to circumcision as a perpetual covenant in Genesis 17:11-13, to incense as one in Exod 30:8, to the Levitical priesthood as one in Exod 29:9. All these so-called perpetual covenants have been done away with at the cross. Just because they are called perpetual covenants does not mean that their purpose will never come to an end. Circumcision was for ALL Abraham’s generations, yet although we are part of that people, circumcision if not necessary for Christians. The same goes for the Sabbath.

So we can take all the criteria for the passing of the law, and prove from the New Testament that these criteria ARE fulfilled, and that the law HAS passed away. It’s right there in the Bible, if you look around a bit, and place things in the broader context of the entire Bible.

If this doen’t convince the SDA then nothing will.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[me_again]

Ex.31: 16Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.

Who is the house of Israel?
Rom9: 6Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

1Cor.10:18Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?

Gal6:15For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
16And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

There is an Israel of the flesh (ethnic Jews) and an Israel of God (those who believe in Jesus)

Galatians 3:28-29 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you be Christ’s, then are you Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”

Romans 2:28-29 “For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.”

The wording of the covenant is eternal. The ten commandments are binding on all of Israel and if you are of the Israel of God you keep the commandments (all ten) if you love Jesus.

Matt 5:17-19 is actually a key verse for refuting the Adventist position. Jesus says that not one jot or tittle will pass from the law UNTIL all is fulfilled. This implies that a point WILL come when ALL IS fulfilled.

Let’s look at texts like Heb 7:12, 2 Cor 3:6-14; Heb 7:12; John 19:28-3, and Acts 15 (where a law given directly by God to Abraham, and called a perpetual law for ALL Abraham’s generations, is abolished by a council of the Church.) Here we get told directly that the law HAS changed (those are the words straight from Hebrews,) so we HAVE to wonder what Jesus meant. He said the heavens and the earth would be replaced with a NEW heaven and a NEW earth in that text, and only THEN could the law change, and here we see the law has changed ALREADY … so what he said MUST have come to pass … so, did we just miss the end of the world, or not?

 

[benidict]

Benedict, Thank you for your inquisitiveness. Most refreshing.
First God commanded Moses to strike the rock. Moses did so. Then, to get water to flow from the rock, God told Moses to only speak softly to the rock. Instead, because he was upset that the rock didn’t produce water, Moses disobeyed God’s instruction, and struck the rock again. God was upset with Moses because, even though God (really God the Son, the One whose voice Moses heard speak the laws, statutes and judgments to, ie. God’s Law) is willing to hear us cry out to him in anguish, He is still the God Who, once He has instructed us, as He did Moses at the rock, we are to obey His laws, statutes and judgments as we seek, through the Holy Spirit, to obey His Ten Commandments just as He gave them to Moses on tables of stone. God the Son is the “Rock of Ages.”

God said of His Everlasting Covenant as recorded in Exodus 34, vs. 10 and onward, "I shall not alter the things that have gone out of My lips. his second or “Everlasting Covenant” is where He spoke to Moses about having no graven images to bow down to, to keep the feast of unleavened bread (a perpetual reminder of the flight from Egypt to physical freedom, also looking forward to the sacrifice of Yeshua for our sins, both before and after Yeshua’s death, resurrection and ascension, and to the remembrance of deliverance to be celebrated in the New Jerusalem, etc.) Also, the Feast of Weeks (Shavuot/Pentecost), the Day of Atonement, and the Feast of Booths/Tabernacles). They are listed in Exodus 34. But there was no animal sacrifice after God spoke this to Moses.

There had been no ratification of this new covenant with a sacrifice as there had been with the one just before it. The first one was where man told God, “all that the Lord has commanded we will do.” Man broke the first one, the one in which man made the promises. The Everlasting Covenant was the one in which God the Son made the promises. That was the only “New Covenant” which existed when Christ said to His disciples, “This is My blood of the New Covenant.”

Ezekiel said that God the Son would write His laws, His Statutes and His Judgments on their hearts of flesh after “taking from them their hearts of stone.” He said, through the prophet, Ezekiel, that He would “cause them to obey My laws and My statutes, and keep my Judgments and DO THEM.” I know I’m rambling…it’s late and I’m now 65 yers old. But, tis is so very important.

The One who said He would cause us to "obey My laws and My statutes and keep My Judgments and do them was none other than the Yeshua who was nailed to the cross. He died that we might see His beauty in His Law, that many selfish and sinful Jews refused to see or “do.” The fault did not lie with the Law. It was man’s problem of selfish blindness that caused the Holy One of Israel to come, live the Law He gave to Moses perfectly, die and be resurrected that we might see that beauty.

The difference between the “old” law and the “new law of liberty” is that, because Jesus was and is our Lamb slain, and He sent the Holy Spirit to comfort and guide us, we live, as we learn more how, the Law He gave us. Jesus grafted us in among the faithful of Israel, to follow His original Plan, whose basis in His just precepts has never changed. \

Come on home to His Olive Tree; Y’Israel (only means Salvation).

Baruch ata Elohim
Amen. Shalom alechem)

That was the one the laws of which they knew before Moses went up the mountain the first time, but disobeyed it by bowing down to the golden calf that Aaron had built.

shema y’Isrel. adonai elahinu, adonia eghad. forgive my spelling my hebrew prayer book is back in the united states. anyhow. thank you i appreciate you answer in reguards to moses speaking to the rock. maybe i missed it. but the main gist of my question had to do with the two men executed for picking up sticks. you stated the execution was “illegal”. my question was, why did God not confront moses for so grievious an error, that cost two human lives. if moses was acting contrary to the law he had just recieved, why did God not correct him? shalom

 

[benidict]

But, if the Ten Commandmens are, as you say they are (and I agree with you that they are), then that means that the Sabbath Command is also binding on man, just as it was under what you call the Covenant between God and Israel. The only problem is that Jesus,the Testator who, once slain as propitiation for sin, did not change any of His Father’s Law before He sacrificed Himself (took out place on the cross). That is why Jesus’ New Covenant was carried forward because He was the first and only sacrifice made to ratify the Covenant described in Exodus 34.

Peter was not set free to change the unchangeable Law of God. Jesus never changed it. He kept it and told His followers and disciples to do the same and teach others to do the same. The Holy Spirit is one with the Father and the Son. Schma Israel: The Lord, our God, is One. When we become followers of Jesus,we become followers of what Jesus called (as repeated by John, the Revelator in Rev. 2, vs. 9, “the True Jew.” The word, “Jew” means “one who praises God.” Jesus praises His Father. If we follow His examples while He was here on earth, as He commanded us to do, we will do the works He did because He did the works of His Father Who had sent Him.

One Lord, one Law, one sacrifice for sin, both before and after the cross, and one salvation.

Shalom

but peter DID change it. otherwise, we as gentiles would be forced to be circumcised. also we would be tied to the dietary restrictions that were given only to the Jews. is it your view that the apostle Paul was wrong to challenge the Judaizers? paul goes further. he wishes all that teach circumcision would go all the way and castrate themselves. his words not mine. the apostles were most vehement about us being freed from the old law. did peter make a mistake? when i say peter changed it, im talking about the laws in general. the issue was circumcision. the Church certainly has the right to bind and loose on earth, as Christ himself gave her the power to do. or did Jesus, yeshua if you will. make a mistake by giving peter so much of his authority?shalom

 

[CatholicLover]

It means exactly what it says it means. “replaced” and “changed” are not the same thing.

I think for the sake of this discussion the distinction between the two words does not matter much. Whether the Catholic Church replaced the Sabbath with Sunday or changed the Sabbath to Sunday amounts to about the same thing. It is clear that the Catholic Church claims it did one of the two. The discussion again falls to whether the Catholic Church had the authority to do what it claims it did.

 

[Javl]

I think for the sake of this discussion the distinction between the two words does not matter much. Whether the Catholic Church replaced the Sabbath with Sunday or changed the Sabbath to Sunday amounts to about the same thing. It is clear that the Catholic Church claims it did one of the two. The discussion again falls to whether the Catholic Church had the authority to do what it claims it did.

Again I say that, whether you believe it or not, the Catholic Church has that authority. Simon-Peter, as the head of the Church ( Matt. 16:16-17 and Jn 21:15-17 ), was given the authority by Jesus. The Church, then, has this authority through Simon=Peter.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Again I say that, whether you believe it or not, the Catholic Church has that authority. Simon-Peter, as the head of the Church ( Matt. 16:16-17 and Jn 21:15-17 ), was given the authority by Jesus. The Church, then, has this authority through Simon=Peter.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Heb.9
16For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
18Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
Gal.3
15Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.

These vs. say that neither Peter nor anyone else had the authority to change the wording of the covenant after the covenant was confirmed by the blood of Jesus. The covenant could only be changed while He lived and that didn’t happen.

 

[adrift]

Again I say that, whether you believe it or not, the Catholic Church has that authority. Simon-Peter, as the head of the Church ( Matt. 16:16-17 and Jn 21:15-17 ), was given the authority by Jesus. The Church, then, has this authority through Simon=Peter.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Heb.9
16For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
18Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
Gal.3
15Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.

These vs. say that neither Peter nor anyone else had the authority to change the wording of the covenant after the covenant was confirmed by the blood of Jesus. The covenant could only be changed while He lived and that didn’t happen.

What does Jesus telling Peter he is being given authority have to do with the Covenant.

You left out Heb. 9 :15

15For 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.

 

[Javl]

Heb.9
16For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
18Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
Gal.3
15Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.

These vs. say that neither Peter nor anyone else had the authority to change the wording of the covenant after the covenant was confirmed by the blood of Jesus. The covenant could only be changed while He lived and that didn’t happen.

And again you’re putting your ( SDA ) spin on the scriptures. You are reading into them meanings which are NOT there. That is what happens with “Sola Scriptura” which is leading you into gross error. Matt 16:16-19 and Jn 21:15-18 are NOT symbolic but are to be understood as directly spoken by Jesus. Simon-Peter IS the rock on which Jesus, as the cornerstone, builds His Church. And Jesus HAS given Simon-Peter FULL authority to act in His Name.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[me_again]

Heb.9
16For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
18Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
Gal.3
15Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.

These vs. say that neither Peter nor anyone else had the authority to change the wording of the covenant after the covenant was confirmed by the blood of Jesus. The covenant could only be changed while He lived and that didn’t happen.

The New Covenant has nothing to do with the Lord’s order for the Jews to honor the Saturday sabbath since they were slaves in Egypt. Here is what our Lord specifically said about it**:**

Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the [Saturday] Sabbath day. (Deut. 5:15)

 

[RonTheNewJew]

MORE

Jesus was criticized more than once for not keeping Sabbath. He horrified the Jewish leaders by healing on a Sabbath. Jesus fulfilled the old Law bringing in the new. You never answered my question. Do you think we must still observe dietary, circumcision etc.

Following Moses’ receipt of the Law, on tables of stone and written in the Book of the Law the second time, there had been only two Covenants up to the time Jesus was born, lived the unchangeable Law He gave Moses, died because mankind, the vast majority of mankind at least, had NOT kept the Law of God O(Shavout is a good case in point. The day is called Pentecost by many Christians today). many Jews who attended the special meal, to be paid for by tithe monies, had taken the places of honor which they had set up. and either left mere trimmings for the poor, or barreed the poor and widows, orphans, strangers, etc. from the meal that ended Shavuot, entirely.

The people were to treat the poor and widows, orphans and strangers with deep respect, and honor them for coming to the land of Israel to meet, socialize with, and later, if these special people became interested, were to be included into the family of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Instead of keeping the weekly Sabbath and annual holy festivals ordained by God, with humility and love for God and fellow human beings, most Jews turned these holy times into occasions of selfishness and mirth. To make themselves feel better about their self-centered “keeping” of the Sabbath and the annual feasts, they created minutuae (many rules and regulations to add to these required celebrations to such an extent that the people could not then actually keep the Sabbath and festivals in the way God had ordained in the Law.

Jesus got rid of the multiple added rules and regulations that the rabbi’s and “sages,” had burdened the people with, during Sabbath and the feasts. He also taught His disciples an followers the proper way that the Sabbath and feast days were to be observed and kept.

Jesus never changed the day/days for the annual feasts. He changed the way His followers kept, and would keep, them.

Shalom in Yeshua’s Name

 

[adrift]

Following Moses’ receipt of the Law, on tables of stone and written in the Book of the Law the second time, there had been only two Covenants up to the time Jesus was born,

It is very difficult to follow this. It isn’t the subject of this thread but it would make an interesting subject of how many covenants there are. I count more that two. Obviously the law could be change otherwise we wouldn’t mix materials, eat pork, and circumcise plus other laws. I would agree with you that Jesus obeyed the laws even unto death. That doesn’t mean that they are still in effect. As another pointed out, Jesus said they would remain UNTIL all was fulfilled upon the cross.

If I understand you correctly, about why Jesus died, you do not understand His death. What you claim is unsubstantiated. I do not see in the Bible that Pentecost was paid by tithes nor did it have anything to do with the poor and widows.
Is this belief of SDA?

 

[Protestant101]

The Catholic Church began on Pentecost. The key to your statement is ADVENTIST HISTORY I am not sure what you are saying that Cathollics cannot do but if you are referring to dogmas they all may be traced back to the beginnings of the Church. Claims can be made but what documentation do you have for your claims?

Actually, the key to your statement is ROMAN CATHOLIC HISTORY. Adventist doctrines can be traced back to Genesis, which is well before Pentecost. And I might add that not all Roman Catholic beliefs were born at Pentecost! Some came years later.