Seventh Day Adventist

[amun]

You cannot eYou have to take the context or you continue to twist around scripture. It would be absurd to think that Christ expected every man to observe the Sabbath, but then only tell a small group of Jews, and NEVER even roam out of Israel or tell his Apostles to preach the Sabbath. Further, if you take this literally meaning every man, as your trying to do, then it is also true that women must not have to observe the Sabbath since the Sabbath is for MAN and not Woman.xtract the Sabbath from that law, it’s impossible.

The only one twisting things here is you. The Sabbath is part of the law. If you throw out the law there is no sin. You tell me that we don’t need a law because we have Christ and his example, but then you have to throw out Christ too because he was keeping the Sabbath and the law under an old covenant. So in the end, you have NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING.

Furthermore, did you know that Gentiles, non-Jews worshipped on the Sabbath AFTER Christ died on the cross?
“And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath. Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God. And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.”—Acts 13:42-44

Ok… well when Eccl. was written, there were 613 laws (Mitzvah) that God had given Israel. If you are claiming that this verse was written for Christian instruction, rather than information, then you are as big of trouble as we are… because Adventists dont observe all of Gods Commandments of the OT either. This verse does not say “ten commandments” therefore its application cannot be limited only to the 10 you believe are still binding.

Are you referring to the law of ceremonies and rites that was done away with at the cross? Why do you keep bringing this argument up when it actually works AGAINST you. Because this is a contradiction you constantly have to live with, I don’t…because it’s obvious that scripture is speaking of two laws, otherwise The Bible would be CONTRADICTING ITSELF.

Now who is adding to the Bible? LOL… where does scripture say that they were keeping the Sabbath prior to Exodus 16? Remember is a command referring to the future… i.e. remember to do this. Further, if the Jews already knew it was the Sabbath, then why, in Exodus 16:23, does Moses have to tell them that “tomorow is the sabbath”… wouldnt it be redundant to tell them something they already knew? The evidence of their actions and Moses words indicates that the Sabbath was a new concept for them, otherwise, it would have been clear why God was not giving Manna on the Sabbath and there would have been no need for Moses to have to explain it to them.

The Sabbath was instituted at creation and it was blessed and hallowed by God. That’s why the 4th commandment REFERS you to creation in the context of keeping the weekly Sabbath. If this weren’t true, which you are claiming, then God would not have CLEARLY and IRREFUTABLY referred to His “resting” on the 7th day of his Creation if they had nothing to do with eachother. You simply can’t separate that no matter how hard you try and no matter how much you wish to rationalize the point.

Also, we are told that Abraham was already keeping God’s commandments and laws.

See… here you go getting all hung up one one view again, and not thinking out your position… IF the reference in Exodus 20 means that the Sabbath was instituted at Creation… then does the reference in the other narrative of the Ten Commandments to Egypt mean that it was not instituted until Egypt? You have to apply the same standards to both now… dont be inconsistent

Please elucidate your point here, because it’s referring to some hazy “narrative” contained in some commandments hinting that something was not instituted in Egypt? Your phrase is rather confusing here.

I will absolutely argue that the weekly Sabbath did not originate at creation… and scripture is on my side.

Unfortunately, incessantly repeating a lie does not render it any less erroneous. Because God specifically mentioned his resting on the Sabbath in the very same VERSES where he is specifically talking about the weekly Sabbath, it is overwhelmingly beyond dispute — notwithstanding your absolute boldness to go on pretending that one is not referring to a weekly Sabbath and the other is not. So I ask you again, would God qualify then as a Jew?

…continued

 

[amun]

There is no mention of a weekly Sabbath, or a command for anyone to observe a Sabbath ANYWHERE in Genesis. Further, we know that the “resting” of God was symbolic of Christ’s future rest in the tomb. Christ himself said that God does not rest. Which is another question I have for you… If God cannot sin, and breaking the Sabbath is a sin… Does God rest every week too?

Why does there have to be a mention? So let me get this straight. Scripture can have a multitude of verses which stretch all the way through the New Testament upholding both the law AND the Sabbath contained in that law…but because there isn’t a specific mention of the Sabbath being kept by a specific human being before Genesis 16 (which spontaneously occurs as something already being kept BEFORE Sinai) you are going to tell me that this must mean it’s only for the Jews?

Funny, however, that without one single reference to Sunday sacredness or worship or even so much as a HINT ANYWHERE that the “Lord’s Day” refers to Sunday, you still go on firmly in your fantasies that this is what the Bible teaches.

Are you really unable to see such complete hypocrisy in your own position? You are demanding me to provide you with clearly outlined scripture (which I AM providing) and yet you are unable to produce even token evidence to substantiate your claims for Sunday worship (which is supposedly non-obligatory according to you ANYWAY).

Amun.,. Yes… the weekly Sabbath was a memorial of Creation… absolutely. However, your making up stuff out of thin air if your infering that this means that the Sabbath was instituted at creation. It simply was not.

How am I making it up? So tell me this: why would God tell someone “remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy, six days shalt thou labour…….for in six days the lord made heaven and earth…and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.”

Why would he make any reference to the fact that he kept the Sabbath at creation when that Sabbath has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the weekly Sabbath that He is SPELLING OUT in the commandments?

You’re just plain lying to yourself if you can’t see this.

Again, if this is your belief, you please be consistent and apply it also to the reference to Egypt… This must mean then that the Sabbath was instituted at Egypt? Your so bent on one idea that you are not applying your logic to all the angles.

No it doesn’t mean that it was instituted at Egypt. So what are you trying to say?

God commanded the Israelites to keep the Sabbath because of their slavery…not creation. It was a memorial to creation, but creation was not the purpose of the Sabbath. They had been slaves working for 430 years non-stop. God gave them a day each week to REST and remember that God delivered them from this work. This is not my reason for the Sabbath, this is Gods!

Read that again… your were slaves and God delivered you…THEREFORE he commanded you to observe the Sabbath. The Exodus 20 narrative does not say WHY God gave the Sabbath, just tells us that it was a memorial of Creation… however, Duet 5 DOES tell us why… because God was giving them a day a week to not have to work, after working for 430 years nonstop!

So how does this negate that the Sabbath was made for creation? Again, you’re trying to create a straw man in order to look like you have an argument, but it isn’t working. Exodus 20 makes it QUITE clear that the Sabbath was a memorial for creation and God RESTED on the 7th day as an example for humanity. He BLESSED and HALLOWED the actual DAY.

Right before that, right before giving the Commandments, the narrative of Deut 5 tells us: Hear, O Israel, the decrees and laws I declare in your hearing today. Learn them and be sure to follow them. 2 The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. 3 It was not with our fathers that the LORD made this covenant, but with us, with all of us who are alive here today. 4 The LORD spoke to you face to face out of the fire on the mountain.

This is merely saying that he hadn’t posted his law in this way before that day. If you would like to PRETEND that it means that nothing written in that law existed as principals before that day (since it says “all of us who are alive here TODAY”), then you would have to try and deny the fact that the Sabbath was already being kept BEFORE they got to Sinai. Or would you just like to argue that the Bible is contradicting itself?

The pope is a person… just like you and I… he is a pastor… and a teacher. He is not perfect or infallible. If the Pope is speaking Ex-Cathedra then he is perfectly authoritative, however this is EXTREMELY rare. If he is speaking day to day, then he is an authority, but his words are pastoral not dogmatic or binding.

So the Pope really isn’t the vicar of Christ? And he isn’t a God on earth as the papacy claims?

…………………

You also failed to address the issue of Christ being our example in place of the law. Do you believe that Christ was our example and that what His deeds are to be imitated by us as Christians today? Also, please tell me what you think about Paul saying that without the law (the ten commandments) he would not have known what sin was?

 

[SDA2RC]

First… I am typing this on my laptop, which is missing a few keys and has some that dont work well (thanks to my 3 year old), so I apologize about the spelling.

Amun Said: The Sabbath will be the seal because it will distinguish those who are standing firm to principle and choosing to observe the day that God instituted rather than the day instituted by the entity who will “speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws.”
**Amun, your positions are self contradictory. You first say that there are those in all denominations that will be saved. But then you say that the seal of God, which is required of salvation, is the Sabbath, something that those in all denominations do not keep, Can people be saved and have the seal of God without keeping the Sabbath or not? What about those who have not heard of the Sabbath, are they lost even if they have a close relationship with God? You claim it is the Sabbath not the Holy Spirit that is the seal, so how could they be? Scripture says that the seal of God is required for salvation; the Sabbath is not required for Salvation, as we are not saved by works, but by Christ. An external work (keeping the Sabbath) does not seal us to God, nor does it distinguish those who are standing firm. The Holy Spirit seals us and distinguishes us. **

**The common response I have had from Adventists in the past is that the seal is an end of time event, however, scripture refutes that, and even if that were true, does God change the requirements of salvation at the end of time… I don’t think so! **

**So which is it… to be sealed of God, do we have to keep the Sabbath or can faithful from all denominations be saved, including those who have not heard the Sabbath. Your positions are contradictory. **

You said: The problem is that you’re confusing the “church” (merely meaning god’s faithful commandment keeping people) with an organization structure that’s centered on a building.
**Amun, you probably need to go back and look at the Church in scripture again… NO WHERE in scripture, old or new Testament are we presented with an invisible contradicting group of people as comprising the Church. The Church, Jewish or Christian, has always had divinely appointed leadership and authority and was clearly organized. I am afraid you’re the one who is confused. Christ established an organization with visible offices and specific authority. **
**Your concept of Church is self serving because you define what “commandment keeping” means, and who the Church is. God did not leave it up to us to determine, he determined it while on earth. Just as in the OT the High Priest was the final arbitrator, God setup the same thing now. This is how in Matthew 18 He can tell us to take a brother who disagrees with you to THE CHURCH, not to scripture. In addition, directions are given for leaders and even though the Holy Spirit called Barnabas, the Apostles HAD to ordain him because that gift is transferred by the laying on of hands, but can only be transferred by one who already has the gift, you cant give something you have. This is why we can show that our Church’s ordinations can be traced directly back to an apostle… one can not give something they don’t have. **
**We are also told to obey our leaders, that means we have no have visible leaders in to obey! Finally, we are told that the Church would remain until the end, and that its offices were given to protect us from doctrine. How can this be the case if the Church is, as you believe, an invisible body of people with contradicting beliefs! **
**Scripture never identifies the Church apart from a structured organization with offices and a mode of continuation. **

Amun: My salvation has nothing to do with the Seventh - day Adventist church. Most Adventists aren’t even following what they know to be right. “God’s church” is relative to whoever is truly obeying him – God is no respecter of persons. What’s important is that we have a living relationship with him.
**Your wrong… your associations have a huge impact on your salvation, and your relationship with God. God is not a respecter of persons, but He is a respecter of truth, and he only formed one Church, and that one church had visible leaders who ordained other leaders to succeed them. **

 

[SDA2RC]

Amun,
I would like to point out the difference between our approaches.

You have said that we must test the doctrines of our church by scripture alone to determine if it is true. Therefore your approach is as follows:

You read scripture and determine what it says - Personal Interpretation. Then you compare the Church to your personal interpretation to determine if the Church is teaching true doctrines according to your understanding of scripture.

Therefore, YOU (i.e. your interepretation of scripture) become the standard of truth.

Now, lets look at the Catholic approach.

I read scripture and determine my personal interpretation or understanding. I then compare my understanding/interpretation to the Body of Christ, the Church and determine if I am right or wrong.

Therefore, the Church becomes the standard or foundation of truth.

Now… lets see what scripture says:

1 Timothy 3:15 - Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

1Ti 3:15 but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how men ought to behave themselves in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

My method retains the Church as the standard, pillar, or foundation of truth.
Your method is not Biblical, and makes your personal understanding of scripture, or interpretation the pillar or foundation of truth.

Hebrews 13:4 - Obey your Church leaders, they have charge of our souls.

Heb 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit to them: for they watch in behalf of your souls, as they that shall give account; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief: for this were unprofitable for you.

My Method: I submit my personal understandings to the Church for correction and obey them.
Your Method: You submit the Church to your personal understandings of scripture, thereby only obeying them if they agree with you. (The entire basis of the Protestant Reformation)

Even with a human document like the Constitution of the United States, there is a final authority that determines the correct interpretation of the document and issues a final ruling.

If we as simple finite beings could figure out that a final arbitrator or authority was needed, why do you think that God would not leave us with one infinitely better?

With God’s Word (not just scripture) we have a final authority that determines the correct interpretation and can teach us authoritatively. This is the Gift that God gaves us… complete surety of truth!

The Bible tells us that there will be a large falling away from the Church before Christ returns. But make no mistake, it is the men who place themselves above the Church that fall away, the Church NEVER falls away from truth in scripture. Even in the OT when the Jewish people fell away from God, the Jewish Religion was STILL the true religion… and in fact when Christ was on earth he commanded the people to OBEY everything THEIR LEADERS told them to do because their leaders sat on the Chair of Moses!

Likewise, we still must obey the Church Christ established for the New Covenant, and this is what scripture commands of us!

 

[SDA2RC]

Amun Said: But you’re missing the point. The Sabbath is part of the law, the same law that points out sin. If you don’t’ have that law you don’t have sin. You can’t have it both ways. Go read the discussion I had with Francis.

**Your missing the point… just because we dont follow the Old Covenant, does not mean we do not have law or sin. Where are you coming up with this? Sin is breaking the covenant with God. Our Covenant is the New Covenant, not the Old. The Laws are in scripture and in the teachings of the Church. They are the laws of Christ and His body, not the Jewish Religion. If the Old Covenant was good, then there would have been no need for a new covenant! **

Amun: However, you chose to INVOKE the fact that IF scripture DOESN’T mention the Sabbath apart from being in context with the Jewish people that this must mean that it applies ONLY to Jewsh people – when the same could be said for the other commandments which are still applicable. If you choose to dispute this, then you can address the arguments I presented for Francis.

**No… because the other Commandments are repeated either to Christians (i.e. after the resurrection) by the Apostles or by the Church, (Which has the same authority as the Apostles). **

See here is the problem with your position, your are trying to “bind” me somehow to the limits of your beliefs, i.e. scripture. I dont believe that God’s Word is complete in scripture… therefore I am not limited to scripture. Gods Word and truth are much larger than a book, a partial record of some of the events of Judaism and Christianity.

**You however, claim that scripture is our only rule of faith, therefore, you ARE limited to scripture by your own position. The fact that Sunday is not explicity taught in scripture, poses no problem to me… because scripture is only PART of the word of God. **

However, the fact that scripture does not teach that Christians or Gentiles must keep the Sabbath poses a HUGE problem for your position, because you have no where else to look outside of scripture.

 

[SDA2RC]

They don’t have to all be repeated in the NT in order to be extant – THAT is what you are conveniently failing to recognize.

Quite the opposite!!! I realize that they are extant if the Church decree’s or teaches them, even if they are not in scripture. But if they cannot be found in scripture OR Christ’s Church then they are man made additions to the New Covenant and I firmly reject them!

You have absolutely no basis in scripture to claim that the 10 Commandments, which are the Old Covenant are still binding on Christians, especially given the fact that they are specifically identified as being nullified.

So does that mean we can steal? No! Why not? Because the prohibition against stealing has been renewed through the New Covenant, as taught by the Church of Christ and is based on the natural law of love, which was taught by Christ.

We dont refrain from stealing because the Bible says so! We refrain from stealing because it is contrary to Love, which is the basis for the New Covenant, and is taught as such by the Church!

 

[SDA2RC]

Amun Said: This is when I find it hard to believe that you even engaged in a basic bible study on the Sabbath when you were ostensibly an SDA. The Sabbath is merely a part of the law. If you throw out the Sabbath you HAVE to throw out the other 9 commandments as “inapplicable” – but as we’ve established, this can’t be so easily done.

**LOL… The Old Covenant in its entirety was discarded. However, 8 of the 10 commandments as you count them, ARE renewed through the New Covenant as taught by Christ and His Church. **

**Its not a matter of throwing out 9 of them… I throw out all of them, and obey the New Covenant, and under the New Covenant we have similar laws and even more! **

Amun Said: Just as Francis did, you try to muddle the distinction between the moral Decalogue (the ten commandments) and the rites and ceremonies (Law of moses) which were a shadow of things to come.

Um… there is no distinction to Muddle… that is the problem! The Jews had ONE LAW, the Mitzvah, which included all 613 commands given them by God, the 10 Commandments were among them. All the commands of the Mitzvah had the same source, different modes of transmission, but the same source and truth. Adventists have created two laws in order to suppor their theology, but scripture does not support this man made belief of Adventism. Lets walk through this:

Deu 5:3** The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day. **
**DIRECTLY before giving the 10 Commandments, Moses says that this covenant is NEW and that it is a Covenant. **

**Adventist’s claim that the Covenant is not the Law, but instead says the covenant is the agreement that the nation of Israel made when they said they would follow Gods law. **

Let’s let the Bible tell us…
(Exo 34:28 NASB) So he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did not eat bread or drink water. And he wrote on the tablet’s the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.

Notice this verse states that the words of the covenant were the Ten Commandments; it does not mention the Jews acceptance of it as being the covenant.

(Deu 9:11 NASB) "And it came about at the end of forty days and nights that the LORD gave me the two tablet’s of stone, the tablet’s of the covenant.

This verse re-affirms that the two tablet’s of stone were the tablet’s of the covenant.

(1 Ki 8:21 NASB) "And there I have set a place for the ark, in which is the covenant of the LORD, which He made with our fathers when He brought them from the land of Egypt."

Notice this says the covenant is INSIDE the ark, we know the Ten Commandments were in the ark. Do we really believe that the “agreement” was somehow physically placed in the ark? The 10 Commandments and the rest of the Mosaic law were kept in the Ark of the COVENANT! It is named the Ark of the Covenant because of what it contained… the LAW or Covenant.

(2 Chr 6:11 NASB) "And there I have set the ark, in which is the covenant of the LORD, which He made with the sons of Israel."

(Heb 9:4 NASB) having a golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden jar holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod which budded, and the tables of the covenant.

The Bible plainly states that the covenant IS the Ten Commandments!!! So, what does the bible say happened to the covenant? Let’s go back to the Bible:

(2 Cor 3:7 NASB) But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was,
(2 Cor 3:8 NASB) how shall the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory?..

Did you catch that? The ministration of death is in the letters engraved in stone!!! This is the Ten Commandments!!! Can the apostle be any clearer? Do you want to follow the ministration of death?

(Eph 2:14 NASB) For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall,
(Eph 2:15 NASB) by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,

Ok… here it is pretty clear to me, the enmity is THE LAW OF COMMANDMENTS…this refers to all commandments… 613!

Cont…

 

[SDA2RC]

(Heb 8:6 NASB) But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.
(Heb 8:7 NASB) For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second.
(Heb 8:13 NASB) When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

Hebrews 8:13 said that the first covenant Christ made obsolete!!! The Bible says the covenant was the Law. One Final passage I would like you to pay particular attention to… This passage was important to my realizing the truth about the law. We already know that the commandments were the covenant; this is according to clear scriptural statements. This next passage even goes further in tying the covenants to Sinai, where the ten commandments were received, then it goes on to say that if you want to keep the law then YOU are a slave, and the contrasts that with followers of Christ who are free… children of the NEW Covenant, not the Old Covenant (Ten Commandments)

(Gal 4:21 NASB) Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law?
(Gal 4:22 NASB) For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman.
(Gal 4:23 NASB) But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise.
(Gal 4:24 NASB) This is allegorically speaking: for these women are two covenants, one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar.
(Gal 4:25 NASB) Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.
…
(Gal 4:31 NASB) So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, but of the free woman.

This is a clear passage; there is no way around the biblical evidence for the abolishing of the ten commandment covenant by Christ. Those who deny this great Biblical truth are slaves. I want to be free, not slaves denying the liberating work of Christ!

Amun Said: When Christ came those were nailed to the cross – they had come to their fulfillment. They were pointing forward towards Christ and they met their fulfillment. The Sabbath had nothing to do with pointing forward towards Christ’s coming.

Here is where your wrong. Christ fulfilled and supased the Temporal one day rest with an eternal spiritual rest. This happened when he was on Earth. After he rose we were re-created… Christ is the second Adam. Sunday is the Lords Day. We are no longer under the Old Covenant.

Amun: And it’s because you don’t understand very simple distinctions that scripture makes.

Scripture does not make these distinctions, Adventism’s man made doctrines do!

Amun Said: Christ already said: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 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. 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.” – Matthew 5:17-19.

**The Law and the Prophets is speaking of the Old Testament writings, and he did Fulfill them! And notice that Christ said that nothing would pass from the law UNTIL all be fulfilled. Christ completed his fulfillment when he said: **

Joh 19:30** When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, IT IS FINISHED, and he bowed his head, and gave up his spirit.**

Christ said the law would not pass away UNTIL he had finished… He said He is finished… it is gone!

 

[SDA2RC]

Amun Said: The only one twisting things here is you. The Sabbath is part of the law. If you throw out the law there is no sin.

**I think we have already addressed this… it is only in your mind that we have no law… We don’t have the Old Covenant Law, of which the Sabbaths were a part. Your whole argument about not having sin if we are under the New Covenant is hilarious. Let me ask the other Catholics here… **

Do any other Catholics here think that because we don’t follow the Jewish Sabbath we can murder, steal, sleep around, or worship false Gods?

Amun: You tell me that we don’t need a law because we have Christ and his example, but then you have to throw out Christ too because he was keeping the Sabbath and the law under an old covenant. So in the end, you have NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING.

**ROTFL… well… I never said we don’t need a law… I have **
**specifically said that our laws are in our hearts and in scripture and the Church. Your just sore cause we don’t buy your Old Covenant Theology. J We have Christ… Christ resurrected! I will trade that for a “day” any time! **

Amun: Furthermore, did you know that Gentiles, non-Jews worshipped on the Sabbath AFTER Christ died on the cross?
“And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath. Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God. And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.”—Acts 13:42-44

**I am sure that Jews and Gentiles both worshipped Christ Everyday after Christ died on the Christ, including the Sabbath. Just as Catholics now have mass DAILY to worship the risen Lord. What the verse above that you quoted does not say is that any of the Gentiles OBSERVED THE JEWISH SABBATH. I don’t care when they worshipped… we should worship everyday. Did they OBSERVE THE JEWISH SABBATH. Lets look at the verse again…. Um… nope… it doesn’t say anything about keeping the Sabbath. Sorry… your out of luck. **

Amun: Are you referring to the law of ceremonies and rites that was done away with at the cross? Why do you keep bringing this argument up when it actually works AGAINST you. Because this is a contradiction you constantly have to live with, I don’t…because it’s obvious that scripture is speaking of two laws, otherwise The Bible would be CONTRADICTING ITSELF.

**You quote a verse talking about keeping all of Gods Commandments. Well… here is the news to you… there are more than 10! The verse that YOU quoted did not say… oh only keep 10 of My commandments. So… yes… I am referring to the WHOLE law… the ceremonial laws, the civil laws, the moral laws, and the health laws… this was ONE LAW to the Jews… with one source! When God said in the verse YOU QUOTED to keep all his commandments, he wasn’t talking about only 10. **

**Furthermore, I bring it up because YOU QUOTED the VERSE… but then don’t even follow it! LOL There is nothing contradictory for Catholics in this verse at all. We believe the entire OLD Covenant Law was done away with and replaced with the New Covenant. Period. **
Let me ask you… why don’t YOU and your Church keep all the 10 Commandments if you claim they are still valid?

Amun: The Sabbath was instituted at creation

**Where? Show me one single verse in Genesis that Mentions a Sabbath or Sabbath Command! God rested on one DAY… it never said he made a Sabbath out of it. So please show me your proof. **

Amun: That’s why the 4th commandment REFERS you to creation in the context of keeping the weekly Sabbath.

**That’s a nice theory… but not supported in scripture. The Sabbath was is a memorial of creation, created AS A RESULT OF (meaning after) the slavery of Israel. Scripture never says that the Sabbath was instituted at Creation. This another Adventist Man Made Doctrine. **

 

[SDA2RC]

Amun: Also, we are told that Abraham was already keeping God’s commandments and laws.

**Yup… but it doesn’t say what they were! This is your problem… you read things into scripture in order to support your pet doctrines. I understand though… as an Adventist, I did the same thing. **

Amun: Why does there have to be a mention?

**Because your telling us that you go by the Bible and the Bible doesn’t say what your saying. So I am pointing out your inconsistency. **

Amun: So let me get this straight. Scripture can have a multitude of verses which stretch all the way through the New Testament upholding both the law AND the Sabbath contained in that law…but because there isn’t a specific mention of the Sabbath being kept by a specific human being before Genesis 16 (which spontaneously occurs as something already being kept BEFORE Sinai) you are going to tell me that this must mean it’s only for the Jews?

**Amun YOU made the claim that there was a Sabbath before the Exodus. YOU told us you go by the Bible. I am simply asking you to prove your claims. The problem isn’t that the Sabbath wasn’t mentioned as being kept by a “specific human being” before Exodus 16… the problem is that it is not mentioned as being kept by ANY human being before Exodus. You made the positive assertion that it was kept before Exodus 16… so I asked for proof. You cannot provide any! This is the problem with Adventism… it relies on TONS of assumptions that cannot be proven from scripture. **

**My Bible says to PROVE all things and hold fast to that which is good. your assumptions without scripture… are not proof. **

**And yes… I am going to tell you again that if the Sabbath was only given to the Jews, and said to be a sign between God and the Jews then yes… that is enough, together with the testimony of the New Testament regarding the Old Covenant and New Covenant, and the Church, to conclude that it was for the Jews. We have no record in sacred scripture of anyone being commanded to keep it before Exodus or of any Christian being commanded to observe the Sabbath after Christ. This limits it exclusively to Judaism in scripture. **

Amun: Funny, however, that without one single reference to Sunday sacredness or worship or even so much as a HINT ANYWHERE that the “Lord’s Day” refers to Sunday, you still go on firmly in your fantasies that this is what the Bible teaches.

**I have never said that the bible teaches Sunday Sacredness. I said the Bible teaches the Doctrine of the Church and the Church teaches it. I am afraid you’re the one with a fantasy about this one. **

Amun: Are you really unable to see such complete hypocrisy in your own position? You are demanding me to provide you with clearly outlined scripture (which I AM providing) and yet you are unable to produce even token evidence to substantiate your claims for Sunday worship

**Amun, there is no hypocrisy on my part… I have maintained from the beginning that the Bible is not the entirety of God’s Word… therefore… why would I be worried about having to provide you proof from scripture? Proving everything from scripture is your belief… not mine. **
**As far as providing clearly outlined scriptures… um… not! You still have not provided any scripture that is commanding a Christian after the resurrection of Christ to observe the Jewish Sabbath. **

Amun: No it doesn’t mean that it was instituted at Egypt. So what are you trying to say?

**Amun, the Verse in Deut 5 clearly said that the Sabbath was created as a result of the slavery of Isreal… if you cannot see this… your lying to yourself. **

Deu 5:15** And thou shalt remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and Jehovah thy God brought thee out thence by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm: therefore Jehovah thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day. **

 

[SDA2RC]

Amun: Exodus 20 makes it QUITE clear that the Sabbath was a memorial for creation and God RESTED on the 7th day as an example for humanity.

**The Sabbath was a memorial of Creation… but creation was not the reason for the Sabbath. The Sabbath was given because of the Slavery of Israel. Read Deut. 5:15 again. The word “therefore” means “because of” or “as a result”. **

**Where does scripture say that God rested on the 7th day of Creation as an example for humanity? Once again, we are constantly dealing with your man-made personal interpretations. **L

Amun: This is merely saying that he hadn’t posted his law in this way before that day.

**Umm… no it says that the Covenant (10 commandments) was not made with their fathers… It does not say that he just hadn’t posted the law that way before. Again, we see your personal interpretation clouding the clear word of God in order to support your pet doctrines **L

Amun: So the Pope really isn’t the vicar of Christ? And he isn’t a God on earth as the papacy claims?

You must be getting Desperate. You mean Adventism isn’t a pagan religion formed to worship the female deity of Ellen G. White?

**Yes… the pope is the Vicar of Christ. He is the human head of the Church on earth while Christ is not with us… i.e. the ambassador or designate of Christ. This does not mean he is perfect though… so I am not sure why you would claim that my words in the previous post would deny that he is the Vicar of Christ? They are very much in agreement! **

**As far as whether or not he is God on earth? Your either more ignorant of Christianity than I thought, or you’re a person of bad will. We worship one God… you can read the Catechism from front to back and you will never find anything that states that the Catholic Church believes that the Pope is a God. **

Amun: Also, please tell me what you think about Paul saying that without the law (the ten commandments) he would not have known what sin was?

Paul is talking in past tense… he was raised Jewish… under the Old Covenant… this is how he learned. What of it?

I have four questions for you:

Amun, How does scripture say that the Sabbath should be kept in the Artic Regions where there is neither sunrise or sunset for weeks or months? Can you please provide us a scripture for this problem.

**Can you also show me a verse that instructs you do do communion only once every quarter or a 13th Sabbath program? **

**Can you please show me in scripture where it gives the qualifications of baptism? How do you know when you can baptize someone. **

**Can you please show me where scripture states that the Lord’s Supper is only symbolic and that when Christ said “This is my body” and “This is my blood”, that he was just kidding… **

Thanks

 

[amun]

SDA2RC,

Your missing the point… just because we dont follow the Old Covenant, does not mean we do not have law or sin. Where are you coming up with this? Sin is breaking the covenant with God. Our Covenant is the New Covenant, not the Old. The Laws are in scripture and in the teachings of the Church. They are the laws of Christ and His body, not the Jewish Religion. If the Old Covenant was good, then there would have been no need for a new covenant!

But unfortunately, you have absolutely no point for me to miss. The only difference between the old and new covenant is that in the new covenant the law is written in our hearts. What does that mean? That we keep the commandments out of LOVE. That doesn’t mean that they are no longer there and that we can now sin (break the law). And if you are going to throw out the commandments you do NOT have a law, it’s impossible.

You say “The laws are in scripture and in the teachings of the church”. Well, since the teaching of the church is supposedly based on scripture, and you’ve thrown out practically every reference to a “law” in the Bible that refers to our moral obligations, WHERE IS YOUR LAW? You can’t say the law was abrogated and then still keep some illusive floating law somewhere.

And don’t say “sin is breaking the covenant with God” in order to somehow change the more explicit definition that SIN IS THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW.

This is where you have constant contradiction. You are unable to distinguish between the moral Decalogue and law of ORDINANCES (law of moses) and therefore you read verses in the Bible that say the “law” has been done away with, and yet you read where the law is being called “holy”, “Just” and “good”. It can’t be talking about the same law or scripture would be directly contradicting itself – this is something that you are going out of your way not to understand.

So after saying that there is no law, Francis resorted to telling me (and I’m sure you believe the same thing) that our measuring stick is now a PERSON=== Jesus Christ; that HE is our EXAMPLE. But when I pointed out that Jesus Christ kept the commandments she turned around and said he was under the old covenant. What kind of semantic subterfuge is this? Make up your mind!

No… because the other Commandments are repeated either to Christians (i.e. after the resurrection) by the Apostles or by the Church, (Which has the same authority as the Apostles).

Do you know why they were repeated? BECAUSE THE COMMANDMENTS WERE NEVER DONE AWAY WITH. Why would Jesus abolish the commandments and then immediately reinstate the very same commandments right afterward? So you’re saying that we’re bound by 9 of the 10 commandments now? And that we will be judged by them? That doesn’t even make sense.

Your entire rationale is that through Christ we are no longer BOUND to any LAW – but now you are ADMITTING that that at least SOME of the commandments are repeated in the NT, which means that you are BOUND to them. You see, this is your problem. You would LOVE to admit that the commandments are binding, but if you did, then you’d have to accept the Sabbath, so since you aren’t willing to accept the Sabbath along with the other 9 you have to then create a scenario where Christ abolishes the ENTIRE law. But now, you’re put in a quandary because without a law you don’t have sin (a self-contradictory position), so now you have to try and CHANGE your position AGAIN and say that we are obligated to 9 out of the 10 commandments.

So how is it legalistic to be keeping the 10 commandments out of LOVE but it’s NOT legalistic to keep equally binding commandments after Christ comes (abolishing the 10 and then reinstates 8 or 9 of them). What’s the difference? Can’t you see how absurd this is?

The new covenant simply means the law is written in our HEARTS – doesn’t mean that our moral responsibilities are now gone because we’re FREE in Christ to do whatever we want CONTRARY to the law.

…continued.

 

[amun]

See here is the problem with your position, your are trying to “bind” me somehow to the limits of your beliefs, i.e. scripture. I dont believe that God’s Word is complete in scripture… therefore I am not limited to scripture. Gods Word and truth are much larger than a book, a partial record of some of the events of Judaism and Christianity.

OH I was waiting for this one! So why don’t you just admit that your belief system is based on a supposed authority given by God to the church and not what scripture says? But where does the catholic church supposedly GET its authority? FROM THE BIBLE!

You only use scripture when it’s convenient but then you resort to “the bible is not the whole truth” attitude in order to avoid any implications that may contradict the unbiblical TEACHINGS of the catholic church.

You however, claim that scripture is our only rule of faith, therefore, you ARE limited to scripture by your own position.

That’s because if you take away a platform where scripture is no longer the authority anybody can claim anything and believe whatever they want to be true – and then we are wasting our time. Without the BIBLE your church would have no TEACHINGS – because supposedly the scripture is what MANDATES the church.
So of course I go by the Bible. If we’re not, then it’s useless having this discussion

The fact that Sunday is not explicity taught in scripture, poses no problem to me… because scripture is only PART of the word of God.

Glad you admitted finally that Sunday is not taught in scripture. That took quite the effort whew.
Do I believe that we can have ideas apart from scripture? YES. Does that mean that if our ideas are AGAINST scripture that they are okay? NO

However, the fact that scripture does not teach that Christians or Gentiles must keep the Sabbath poses a HUGE problem for your position, because you have no where else to look outside of scripture.

There is nowhere to look outside of scripture unless THAT teaching is based ON scripture – otherwise it’s a doctrine of man and not Scripture.

Now concerning the law (ten commandments) and the sabbath: the NT repeats its obligation numerous times.

Quite the opposite!!! I realize that they are extant if the Church decree’s or teaches them, even if they are not in scripture. But if they cannot be found in scripture OR Christ’s Church then they are man made additions to the New Covenant and I firmly reject them!

An OPINION outside of scripture is not wrong IF it does not conflict with Scripture —but you cannot create an actual teaching that creates a rule unless it’s founded on the Bible. But I would have to agree with your statement that if something cannot be supported by scripture that they are man-made and MUST be rejected. So if the Bible explicitly defines the 7th day as being the Sabbath (one of the 10), He wouldn’t give his church authority to change that day arbitrarily because it makes no sense. And since there’s absolutely no warrant from Scripture hinting that Christ CHANGED the day by his resurrection (you already admitted this finally), then there is absolutely no reason to believe it. However, you choose to do this and therefore eliminate yourself from the very standard that you talk about.

…continued.

 

[amun]

You have absolutely no basis in scripture to claim that the 10 Commandments, which are the Old Covenant are still binding on Christians, especially given the fact that they are specifically identified as being nullified.

I trust that any readers of this exchange would be un-willing to compromise their own honest observations by agreeing with you on such a brazenly deceitful statement.

Allow me to show you SPECIFICALLY where your position contradicts itself. I know you’ve wanted to ignore it despite my repeated efforts to demonstrate it for you, but we can try again:
1st John 3:4 tells us: “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.”
Are you willing to tell me that the “law” being referred to as being the measuring stick for knowing sin from non-sin is EXACTLY the SAME law as?:

“Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances**; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;” – Ephesians 2:15
If you say YES, you have no sin, if you say NO, then you acknowledge that scripture is not talking about only one law but in fact TWO LAWS. Notice that when Paul is taking he says “even the law of commandments contained in ORDINANCES”.

And how do we know that Paul is not talking about the Ten commandments?

Because he said:
“What shall we say then? is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

Notice he’s talking CURRENT TENSE “IS THE LAW SIN? GOD FORBID. NAY”.
Verse 9 goes on to say: “For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.”

Again, he’s talking CURRENT TENSE, and he says that he was alive WITHOUT law once, but when he KNEW the commandments the concept of SIN was REVIVED.

He then concludes by saying: “Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.”

Oooh, but remember you said that he was talking about past tense? So now, by looking at context can you admit to me that he ISN’T talking about past tense when he says that he would not have known lust except the law said “thou shalt not covet” (specifically referring to one of the 10 commandments).

So you see, it’s impossible for the verses you use to say that the commandments were done away with, when we are given PLENTY of evidence ALL OVER scripture – of which, what I’m giving you here is merely a sample. But since it’s so difficult for you to see scripture in its entirety, it’s important for me to show you from a SPECIFIC handful of verses where you are in error.

So in the end, you discover that there is no man-made creation of two laws – there ARE two, and it’s overwhelmingly clear.
Now I guess I’ll have to wait and find out if you want to change your position again by saying that “thou shalt not covet” is one of the laws of the 10 that was REINSTATED after Christ rose from the dead. But then of course, we’d still be OBLIGED to a LAW which would render the entire original argument obsolete and self-contradictory; that Christ FREED us from ANY OBLIGATION to a law because it’s “legalism”.
So now you’re stuck!

(On a side note: you don’t even understand legalism. It is man’s attempt to justify himself by his own works and to claim that his works are meritorious and therefore that God OWES him salvation. It has nothing to do with not being bound by a law anymore.)
…continued**

 

[amun]

So does that mean we can steal? No! Why not? Because the prohibition against stealing has been renewed through the New Covenant, as taught by the Church of Christ and is based on the natural law of love, which was taught by Christ.

But if it’s a prohibition then it’s a LAW. So if you go on your whole life being a stealer and do not repent for your SIN (breaking of the law) then it is impossible to be saved because you are separating yourself from the character of God. The law is merely a REFLECTION of the character of God written in STONE.
The reason why stealing is wrong in the New Covenant is because it was ALWAYS wrong, and it was already in the Ten Commandments posted at Sinai in Exodus (Oh but remember, that was only for the Jews, lol). In the New Covenant we do it out of LOVE and gratitude, not because we don’t want to be punished.

Does that mean that we are saved through works and by merely keeping the commandments? NO, we are saved by faith through grace which acts from love – and if this is truly the case, then we will AUTOMATICALLY KEEP the COMMANDMENTS.
Also, you say “the natural law of love, which was taught by Christ”. But if you will remember correctly, according to YOU, Christ was under the old covenant, and therefore anything he said about keeping the commandments MUST be thrown out. You can’t have it both ways. If you acknowledge that Christ was our example when he was ministering on earth, you have to accept that the law was never done away with.

We dont refrain from stealing because the Bible says so! We refrain from stealing because it is contrary to Love, which is the basis for the New Covenant, and is taught as such by the Church!

Umm…being contrary to love is to be contrary to what the Bible says, therefore we do refrain from stealing because the law says we are to not do it – otherwise it wouldn’t be WRONG and doing it would be perfectly acceptable. A “law” simply means: This is the way things are. If God says “stealing is wrong” then we are under that law. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend, or rather, why are you trying so hard NOT to comprehend it?

LOL… The Old Covenant in its entirety was discarded. However, 8 of the 10 commandments as you count them, ARE renewed through the New Covenant as taught by Christ and His Church.

Its not a matter of throwing out 9 of them… I throw out all of them, and obey the New Covenant, and under the New Covenant we have similar laws and even more!

So if God freed us from the law so that we are no longer UNDER the law but under GRACE, why would he then make ANOTHER law (set of rules) with exactly the same prohibitions right afterward? That makes no sense whatsoever. I cannot believe how contrary to honesty your reasoning is, it’s almost staggering. I’ve never seen such desperate verbal gymnastics and flat-out denials in my whole life, and I’ve engaged in A LOT of discussions.

Being under a covenant of love means you keep the commandments OUT of love, that doesn’t mean the rules aren’t there anymore.

You might also remember that most of those “8” commandments which were repeated in the NT were all quoted as being said by Jesus when he was on this earth. SO GUESS WHAT! They are all meaningless, because Christ was still under the old covenant, remember? OH, but it even gets better! Then you have the disciples aimlessly REPEATING commandments that we are no longer bound to, because they are all being taken from Christ’s words (words telling us to obey the 10 commandments).

Um… there is no distinction to Muddle… that is the problem! The Jews had ONE LAW, the Mitzvah, which included all 613 commands given them by God, the 10 Commandments were among them. All the commands of the Mitzvah had the same source, different modes of transmission, but the same source and truth. Adventists have created two laws in order to suppor their theology, but scripture does not support this man made belief of Adventism. Lets walk through this:

Oh but there is, because if there WASN’T a distinction between the two, then your position would be contradictory. The law of ordinances (law of moses) contained numerous practices which all pointed forward to Christ’s death on the cross – they were NOT MORAL OBLIGATIONS. They were a SHADOW of things to come (Colossians 2:16, 2:17).

That is NOT the same law as the one mentioned in being able to identify sin, otherwise scripture would be contradicting itself and there would be no such thing as wrong-doing.

I demonstrated to you earlier EXACTLY how scripture supports two laws. Not an invention by the SDA church AT ALL. However, you have consistently and persistently REFUSED to see this.
Again, if you had actually done a thorough study on all of this when you were an SDA, you wouldn’t have become so misguided in your understanding. Not because the SDA church is infallible or holy, but because they happen to have a very balanced understanding of the relationship between the law and grace.

continued…

 

[amun]

Deu 5:3 The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.
DIRECTLY before giving the 10 Commandments, Moses says that this covenant is NEW and that it is a Covenant.

So are you saying then that the Sabbath was instituted right then and there? – Because you’re obviously trying to use the fact that it says “the lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us…all of us here alive this day”.

However, if you say that then you are contradicting the fact that the Sabbath was already being KEPT before they go to Sinai.
Are you also trying to say that the principles of stealing and murdering had not yet existed in God’s rules UNTIL SINAI?
Of course, it’s clear that you simply don’t understand that the above verse is merely talking about God POSTING his LAW in its entirety for the first time and making a covenant. That doesn’t mean these principles hadn’t already existed.

The principles contained in the law are basic principles of morality that constitute God’s character – they have ALWAYS existed. The Sabbath, however, was specifically instituted at creation when God said that he not only RESTED on the 7th day but he BLESSED AND HALLOWED THE DAY (he references this event in the 4th commandment immediately after saying “remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy”). You have flat-out dismissed this and anyone reading this debate can see clearly that you are lying about it.

Adventist’s claim that the Covenant is not the Law, but instead says the covenant is the agreement that the nation of Israel made when they said they would follow Gods law.

A covenant is an agreement based on or including some kind of law. That’s even what the dictionary tells us:

“a usually formal, solemn, and binding agreement : COMPACT2 a: a written agreement or promise usually under seal between two or more parties especially for the performance of some action”—Merriam Webster.

So obviously it’s not specifically only meaning a law, but an agreement surrounding that law.

It’s interesting you even bring this up because it’s an understanding that completely backfires and even BELIES your position, because if a covenant means a LAW, then how is it that you can have a “New covenant” without having a law? YOU CAN’T! You say “we are no longer under the “old covenant”, but under the “new covenant”. A covenant includes an AGREEMENT around a LAW. So you really don’t have a new covenant, because you said we are free from the law.

Because according to you, if there’s a law that we are bound to, it is “legalism”, otherwise there’d be no basis for you saying that Christ abolished any law if there was no reason to. In order to not be “legalistic”, in your mind, you have to throw out the law. But if you do that, then you have no sin and you have no new covenant, because there is no LAW that you are in agreement to.

The only difference between the old and new covenants is that during the time of Israel God dealt on a “break the law and you’re punished” principle. In the new covenant, the law is WRITTEN IN OUR HEARTS — meaning we keep it out of love. The wages of sin (breaking of the law) is still death, but the methods have changed. We will be judged at the end of time.

…continued

 

[amun]

Let’s let the Bible tell us…
(Exo 34:28 NASB) So he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did not eat bread or drink water. And he wrote on the tablet’s the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.

So let’s read that in different words: “And he wrote on the tablets the words of the agreement, the ten commandments”.
Makes perfect sense to me! I have no problem with any of the verses you’re mentioning. Don’t forget now that just the very word “new covenant” alone undermines your entire position.

(Deu 9:11 NASB) "And it came about at the end of forty days and nights that the LORD gave me the two tablet’s of stone, the tablet’s of the covenant.

This verse re-affirms that the two tablet’s of stone were the tablet’s of the covenant.

The tablets of the agreement which contains a law. What about it?

The Bible plainly states that the covenant IS the Ten Commandments!!! So, what does the bible say happened to the covenant? Let’s go back to the Bible:

(2 Cor 3:7 NASB) But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was,
(2 Cor 3:8 NASB) how shall the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory?..

Did you catch that? The ministration of death is in the letters engraved in stone!!! This is the Ten Commandments!!! Can the apostle be any clearer? Do you want to follow the ministration of death?

Sorry to disappoint you again, but the ministration of death does not refer to the law, it refers to the condemnation of the law, and that condemnation never changes (old or new testament). God applied the condemnation QUICKLY in the old testament. It’s the difference between achan being stoned right away for stealing and lying, and someone who steals nowadays paying for it at the end of time (if they haven’t repented).

The children of Israel were to obey and live, disobey and die. The new covenant brings in a different methodology – a law that is written in our hearts. We obey because we love God.

(Eph 2:14 NASB) For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall,
(Eph 2:15 NASB) by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,

Ok… here it is pretty clear to me, the enmity is THE LAW OF COMMANDMENTS…this refers to all commandments… 613!

Nope. You go out of your way again to overlook context. The law of commandments CONTAINED IN ORDINANCES (meaning RITES & CEREMONIES). I already established with you that it can’t be talking about the Ten Commandments. If you want to tell me that it IS, then you must refute my earlier arguments which are unmistakably scriptural.

(Heb 8:6 NASB) But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.
(Heb 8:7 NASB) For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second.
(Heb 8:13 NASB) When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

A covenant is an agreement which includes a law, even the dictionary will tell you this.

Now do I believe in an old and new covenant? ABSOLUTELY. Was the old covenant replaced by the New Covenant?

ABSOLUTELY. Are you living in a new covenant? No, because a covenant means an agreement around a law and since you have no law you can’t be in any covenant at all.

Hebrews 8:13 said that the first covenant Christ made obsolete!!!

Yup, that’s right! The initial covenant included all of the rites and ceremonies of the mosaic law which are no longer binding. However, the commandments never ceased to be obligatory.

The Bible says the covenant was the Law.

Nope. The covenant is an agreement that includes a law, it isn’t ONLY the law itself. The dictionary will tell you this; that it’s an agreement based on writing.

But let’s say hypothetically that your concept about a covenant WERE true – your idea would be even MORE dead meat, because it would even go beyond the definition of “an agreement with a law” and it would be a law ITSELF! And a law to you means legalism because a law is something you are bound to – so a “new covenant” would mean “new law”. Why was the old law done away with? You say it was because those were legalistic practices and we shouldn’t need to have to obey a law to be saved (and that we should look to Christ as our example). But NOW you’re going to introduce a NEW LAW based on the very same PRINCIPLE of obedience that’s absolutely no different from the first one! And now, we arrive at the demise of your understanding on this point.

(And this is all besides the all too overwhelmingly ironic fact that this supposed “new law” reintroduces the very same principles from the Ten Commandments.)

This passage was important to my realizing the truth about the law. We already know that the commandments were the covenant; this is according to clear scriptural statements. This next passage even goes further in tying the covenants to Sinai, where the ten commandments were received, then it goes on to say that if you want to keep the law then YOU are a slave, and the contrasts that with followers of Christ who are free… children of the NEW Covenant, not the Old Covenant (Ten Commandments)

Well I’m afraid you’re going to have to realize a new truth about the law if you want to be consistent with scripture and not some man-made teachings.
…continued.

 

[amun]

(Gal 4:21 NASB) Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law?(Gal 4:22 NASB) For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman.
(Gal 4:23 NASB) But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise.(Gal 4:24 NASB) This is allegorically speaking: for these women are two covenants, one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar.
(Gal 4:25 NASB) Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children…(Gal 4:31 NASB) So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, but of the free woman.
This is a clear passage; there is no way around the biblical evidence for the abolishing of the ten commandment covenant by Christ. Those who deny this great Biblical truth are slaves. I want to be free, not slaves denying the liberating work of Christ!

Those verses are KEY in understanding that there are TWO covenants, the old and the new. The old covenant included the Ten Commandments (moral Decalogue) along with the law contained in ordinances (law of moses). We are no longer BOUND by those ceremonial rites and regulations which were a shadow of things to come, and anyone who decides to keep judaizing by keeping all of those practices and ceremonies that were ABOLISHED at the cross are SLAVES and they are not FREE.
In the NEW COVENANT the law is now written in our hearts – we still have the commandments (otherwise there’d be no “covenant”), meaning that we are now bidden to keep them out of LOVE, but not to attain merit by keeping them.
But the irony in all of this is that since you consider a law to be something that makes you a “SLAVE”, you then have to throw out the “new covenant” too, because a covenant is a “law” according to you (to me and the dictionary it’s an agreement based around a law). So you’re still a slave according to your own definition!

The OTHER irony is that since you believe a covenant means a law, you are automatically accepting (contrary to what you said earlier) that there are 2 LAWS, or there could be no such thing as 2 covenants. You may wish to say that Christ is our covenant, but as already mentioned, he was under the “old covenant” according to you and therefore his example was meaningless.
Talk about confusion!

Here is where your wrong. Christ fulfilled and supased the Temporal one day rest with an eternal spiritual rest. This happened when he was on Earth. After he rose we were re-created… Christ is the second Adam. Sunday is the Lords Day. We are no longer under the Old Covenant.

NO! Christ said that he came to FULFILL THE LAW – meaning TO KEEP IT! He already said that he came not to DESTROY the law. How is it that you so effortlessly read what you want to?

And stop inserting that Sunday is the Lord’s day when we just established that there’s no precedent for it being the Lord’s day in scripture – that’s a man-made invention that you are CHOOSING to believe apart from the clear word of God which PROVES that the Sabbath has never been done away with. The Sabbath is part of the moral Decalogue and it was something instituted at Creation. How do we know it was instituted at creation? Because it not only mentions that he rested and blessed and hallowed the day, but he REFERS BACK TO THAT VERY INSTANCE when he’s giving the Sabbath commandment to the children of Israel.

Scripture does not make these distinctions, Adventism’s man made doctrines do!

OH but it does! And you better be thankful that it does, or the Bible would be a self-contradictory book and therefore unreliable.

The Law and the Prophets is speaking of the Old Testament writings, and he did Fulfill them! And notice that Christ said that nothing would pass from the law UNTIL all be fulfilled. Christ completed his fulfillment when he said:

First off, it doesn’t say “the law AND the prophets”, it says “the law OR the prophets”. Meaning that he hasn’t come to destroy the law that he already established NOR what the prophets have said. He came to FULFILL them, which means what? TO KEEP!

This is how you’re reading it: “I came not to destroy the law but to destroy it”. LOL

What does the dictionary tell us that “fulfill” means?
a: **to put into effect : EXECUTE b: to meet the requirements of (a business order) c: to bring to an end d: to measure up to : SATISFY3 a: to convert into reality b: to develop the full potentialities of
Now notice that only definition C says “to bring to an end”. How do we know that the definition for “fulfill” in this context can’t mean that? Because then he wouldn’t have said “I come not to destroy”. The “till heaven and earth pass” is an expression that as long as you see the heavens and the earth you have to keep the law.

He concludes by saying: “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.”

Joh 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, IT IS FINISHED, and he bowed his head, and gave up his spirit.Christ said the law would not pass away UNTIL he had finished… He said He is finished… it is gone!

LOL! No no no. When he said “it is finished” that has nothing to do with the law. This is a classic example of eisegesis. Type had met antitype, and the salvation of humanity had been completed. It was the culmination of his agreement with the Father that he would become the lamb of God.

And no, he didn’t say that the law would not pass away until he had finished. The word “finished” was never used anywhere. Your wild extrapolations know no bounds!
…continued

 

[amun]

Let me ask you… why don’t YOU and your Church keep all the 10 Commandments if you claim they are still valid?

Which of the ten commandments am I not keeping? You seem to know quite a lot about me. And although I’m not claiming to be perfect, I do want to keep God’s law out of love and not because I’m going to be punished.

Where? Show me one single verse in Genesis that Mentions a Sabbath or Sabbath Command! God rested on one DAY… it never said he made a Sabbath out of it. So please show me your proof.

Since you’re so willingly blind, I’ll quote it for you again:
Genesis 2:2, 3: “and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Exodus 20 REFERS BACK TO THIS AND SAYS:
“Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: REFERS BACK to this and says:”…For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Do you want to keep disputing the parallel here? If you don’t accept this, you’re just plain lying to yourself. God instituted the seventh-day Sabbath day RIGHT AT CREATION – BEFORE THE JEWS EVEN EXISTED.

That’s a nice theory… but not supported in scripture. The Sabbath was is a memorial of creation, created AS A RESULT OF (meaning after) the slavery of Israel. Scripture never says that the Sabbath was instituted at Creation. This another Adventist Man Made Doctrine.

I already showed you where you’re wrong on this point. See above.

Yup… but it doesn’t say what they were! This is your problem… you read things into scripture in order to support your pet doctrines. I understand though… as an Adventist, I did the same thing.

Do you think that they might have included “thou shalt not kill” and “thou shalt not commit adultery”? Of course, they couldn’t have POSSIBLY included the Sabbath!

Because your telling us that you go by the Bible and the Bible doesn’t say what your saying. So I am pointing out your inconsistency.

But it does say what I’m saying. You’re wanting to create extra straw man arguments on top of what I’ve already demonstrated clearly with the words of scripture. There is no inconsistency apart from your position.

Amun YOU made the claim that there was a Sabbath before the Exodus. YOU told us you go by the Bible. I am simply asking you to prove your claims.

LOL! GOD RESTED (REST MEANS SABBATH) on the seventh day and blessed and hallowed the day in Genesis 2. HE THEN REFERS BACK TO THAT VERY INSTANCE IN EXODUS WHEN HE SAYS: “REMEMBER THE SABBATH DAY TO KEEP IT HOLY”. What more proof do you want?

Stop trying to insult your own intelligence.

The problem isn’t that the Sabbath wasn’t mentioned as being kept by a “specific human being” before Exodus 16… the problem is that it is not mentioned as being kept by ANY human being before Exodus.

This is a classic example of you trying to install meaning into something meaningless. It’s like you trying to argue that “thou shalt not kill” or “thou shalt not commit adultery” did not exist in writing in Genesis and therefore they were alright to do until they were posted officially at Sinai.

“Loving your neighbor as thyself” is not mentioned as being kept by a specific human being before it was posted as a law in Exodus 20, THEREFORE, IT MUST ONLY BE SOMETHING FOR THE JEWS!
Your arguments degenerate with each successive post you make!

You made the positive assertion that it was kept before Exodus 16… so I asked for proof. You cannot provide any! This is the problem with Adventism… it relies on TONS of assumptions that cannot be proven from scripture.

It was kept by God (he rested—sabbath), and he blessed and hallowed the day and then referred back to that instance in his command to keep the Sabbath holy.

You made the positive assertion that the lord’s day is Sunday…so I asked for proof. You cannot provide any! This is the problem with Catholicism…it relies on TONS of assumptions that cannot be proven from scripture.
Sound familiar? Now provide me the same evidence that I just gave you!

My Bible says to PROVE all things and hold fast to that which is good. your assumptions without scripture… are not proof.

That’s right! And this is exactly what I’ve done. However, you rely on a multitude of assumptions…you even conjured up some foolishness about “it is finished” referring to the law. That’s called AN ASSUMPTION!

…continued

 

[amun]

I have never said that the bible teaches Sunday Sacredness. I said the Bible teaches the Doctrine of the Church and the Church teaches it. I am afraid you’re the one with a fantasy about this one.

Yes you did. You said: “The fact is that when Christians at the time of the Apostles used the term “Lord’s Day” it always referred to Sunday. This can be proven from their writings.”
The writings of the apostles are only found in scripture, so please, show me that this exists in actual scriptures and not in your fantasies as I suggested.

Amun, there is no hypocrisy on my part… I have maintained from the beginning that the Bible is not the entirety of God’s Word… therefore… why would I be worried about having to provide you proof from scripture? Proving everything from scripture is your belief… not mine.

“My Bible says to PROVE all things and hold fast to that which is good. your assumptions without scripture… are not proof”—SDA2RC

A little cognitive dissonance perhaps?

As far as providing clearly outlined scriptures… um… not! You still have not provided any scripture that is commanding a Christian after the resurrection of Christ to observe the Jewish Sabbath.

The Sabbath is part of the law and we are told in the NT to keep the law, a law that you said was abolished and part of the old covenant. The Sabbath is no more of a “Jewish” thing than “thou shalt not kill” or “honour thy father and they mother”. They are all listed together.

The Bible says that if you break one of the commandments you’ve broken them all.

Amun, the Verse in Deut 5 clearly said that the Sabbath was created as a result of the slavery of Isreal… if you cannot see this… your lying to yourself.

The overdose in irony is almost too much! Your entire argument about the Sabbath being created as a result of slavery in Egypt would mean that you are denying that the Sabbath was a memorial of creation – and if you admit that the Sabbath includes being a memorial of creation (as stated in exodus) then it renders your entire argument obsolete and meaningless.

Neeexxtt……

The Sabbath was a memorial of Creation… but creation was not the reason for the Sabbath. The Sabbath was given because of the Slavery of Israel. Read Deut. 5:15 again. The word “therefore” means “because of” or “as a result”.

The Lord already blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it before Israel came around, so what are you trying to argue? Even if the Sabbath INCLUDES being a memorial of creation then it totally makes you argument worthless. That’s besides the fact that you’re just picking at straws because everything else is falling apart on you.

…continued.