Mark of the beast is sunday laws.

[Shiloah]

You're maligning God's Word to "prove" your cult's false theology again just as you malign my words.

The speaker in Luke 16:17 is Jesus Christ who "is the end of the law, so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes" (Rom 10:4). Jesus maintained that the proper way to keep any commandment was to fulfill the purpose for which it was given. The law for Jesus was the expression of God’s will which is eternal and unchangeable. Jesus did not come to modify the will of God; Jesus fulfilled it.

As Jesus said in Matthew 5:17, ""Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Not one jot or tittle would pass from the law until all was fulfilled. With Jesus’ death and resurrection, his exaltation and the sending of the Holy Spirit upon the church, that time of fulfillment came. That which the law foreshadowed was now fulfilled. The law had come through Moses, grace and truth now came through Jesus Christ.

In the past the marks of membership of the people of God were being born a Jew (or becoming a proselyte), circumcision (if a male) and obedience to the Mosaic law. But now the marks of membership were faith in Jesus Christ and participation in His Holy Spirit.

Circumcision and observance of the Mosaic Law were no longer required. However, the love of God and love of neighbor, which summed up what the law required, were to be produced in those who had been reborn, have God's morality "written on their heart," and walk in the Spirit. The Mosaic law was no longer their law any more than the Mosaic covenant was still their covenant; however, their scripture (including the law) was still useful for ‘teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness’ (2 Tim. 3:16), as long as it was read paradigmatically. The Apostles John and Paul got the message, you obviously never did.

Paul makes it clear that with Christ's death and resurrection sinners are now declared righteous, not on the basis of their merits in keeping the old covenant Mosaic Sabbath law, but rather on the basis of their standing "in Christ": "There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus" (Rom 8:1 RSV; cf. Rom 3:21–31; Gal 3:11; Eph 2:8–9). Jesus doesn't then toss them all into hell anyway for failing to adhere to the external observance of the old covenant Mosaic Sabbath law (which the cult of SDA false theology designed by SDA false prophets teach).

Simply, Jesus never doubted the authority of the Mosaic Law for the time preceding the entrance of the kingdom, and his instructions to followers living in that time will naturally include admonitions to obey those Laws. But Jesus clearly reveal that He transcends it and also that a new era of salvation history is indeed breaking in. This is an era in which Jesus’ own teaching will be the central authority for the people of God and that only in Christ can grace now be found with the Mosaic Law no lnoger having the same position and significance that it had before.

Now Paul wrote the Book of Romans and saw Jesus as “abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations” (Eph 2:15). Through him “we have been released from the law” which once “bound us” (Rom 7:6). Serving “in the old way of the written code” (Rom 7:6) and seeking to establish his own righteousness (Rom 10:3) had only brought Paul into opposition to the very purpose of God rather than into peace with God.

In Romans 7 he shows that the law as expression of God’s will remains; that it reveals, as ever, human sin and rebellion against God. But he also shows that the law is powerless to bring about obedience. It is an external norm; it does not provide the power with which to achieve the norm. Therefore the attempt to achieve righteousness based on the law (Rom 10:5) invariably ends in the experience of failure. Paul’s summation of this experience is caught up in the words “What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me?” (Rom 7:24). His answer to that question is “Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom 7:25). Why? Because “Christ is the end of the law.” The word “end” (telos) can designate eitherthe “goal,” “outcome,” “purpose” toward which something is directed, or the “end,” “cessation.” Many Biblical interpreters believe that both meanings are caught up in this text. For Paul, the law “was our custodian until Christ came” (Gal 3:24 RSV). Its temporary function has now been accomplished; and Christ is therefore also the terminus, the cessation of the law.

But Paul is saying much more here than simply repeating the conviction of one aspect of his tradition and the witness of the early church that there is a cessation of the law in the messianic period. He qualifies the conviction that the Mosaic law has been completed and abrogated in Christ with the phrase “unto righteousness.” English translations have not served us well here, for they have generally blunted the connection between the statement “Christ is the end of the law” and the qualifying phrase “unto righteousness.”

The preposition unto expresses purpose or goal. Christ is not the end of the law in an absolute sense. He does not abolish the will of God as expressed in the law. Rather his coming signals its end with regard to the attainment of righteousness (that is, right relationship with God). He is the revelation ofGod’s righteousness (Rom 1:17). His life is an incarnation of God’s relation-restoring action, God’s way of setting us right (Rom 10:3). Therefore, the lawas a means of approach to God, as that which determines relationship with God, as that which was perceived in Paul’s Jewish tradition to lead to life on the basis of conformity, has been abolished.

A third phrase in this text adds a further qualifier to the assertion that Christ is the end of the law. Namely, he is the end of the law “for everyone who believes.” For it is only in the response of faith to Christ, in the humble submission to God’s righteousness (Rom 10:3) that the bondage of the law—consisting of its revelation of sin and its inability to help us beyond it—can come to its end.

Paul provides no grounds for imposing the Hebrew sabbath on the Christian. The Christian is free from the burden because the Spirit of Christ enables him to fulfill God's will apart from external observance. The author of Hebrews likewise speaks of the Hebrew sabbath only as a type of "God's rest," which is theinheritance of all the people of God (Heb 4:1-10). He does not tell his readers to keep the sabbath, but rather urges them to "strive to enter that rest" (4:11).

Such a travel motif becomes all the more related to an eschatological mindset when we recall that Jesus is described in Hebrews 12:2 as the “Pioneer and Perfector” of faith, the one who not only begins but brings to completion the journey of faith. It is difficult not to see the future Parousia of Jesus Christ as the time when his role as “Perfector” is played out, a suggestion which also helps to make sense of the curious declaration made in Hebrews 4:9 about Joshua not giving “rest” to the people of God. It seems certain that the author is playing with the name “Joshua” (Iēsous), seeing the OT character as a prefigurement of the Lord Jesus Christ.

And it was all good for centuries until someone made the mistake of asking a certain William Miller to speak in their church in 1831 which resulted in him making a false prophecy and a small group of people in denial who couldn't accept the fact that the false prophecy failed weaving ridiculous heresys together to try and "prove" that it actually had happened. Rachel Oakes Preston's arrival only got them more lost and in bondage and here we are today with SDA "evangelists" maligning God's Word on CC to "save" everyone by pulling them into their gross hermeneutical error.

Everything presented has been entirely scriptural. Name calling makes no points. Calling people heretical to what the church in general believes makes no points. It all comes down to what Christ says and scriptures says. Throwing stones at SDAers just establishes the fact that your arguments are based on a logical fallacies. You claim that SDAers are cult members, and therefore, everything they say should be ignored. You do not base your arguments on why you believe their interpretation of scriptures regarding the specific argument is incorrect. You are not an authority, though clearly, you think you are.

You make these claims that Paul was speaking of the 7th day, but Paul didn't say that. This is your interpretation as is everything else you've stated. And then at the end again, you wrap up your argument calling 7th day Adventist cult members. The fact the 7th day Adventists believe this has nothing whatsoever to do with this argument! I am not a 7th day adventist and I agree with them on this issue!

Your claim to authority means nothing to me. I do not see that the verses you've presented say what you CLAIM they say. I also am educated, thank you, and I can read for myself. Miles and miles of text does not make your point if it doesn't make sense!

 

[danschance]

Dan, Acts chapter 10 has nothing to do with diet.

Dan,, The subject of peter's vision is not animals,, it is about people!!!!

God gave peter this vision to show him that the Gentiles were not unclean as the Jews believed. (perhaps you didn't know that).

God had intructed Cornelius, a Gentile , to send men to meet Peter. But Peter would have refused to see them if God had not given him this vision, because Jewish law forbade entertaining Gentiles (verse28).

But when the men finally arrived, Peter welcomed them, explaining that ordinarily he would not have done so, But, 'God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean." (Verse 28).

In the next chapter (Acts 11), the church members criticized Peter for speaking with these Gentiles. So peter told them the whole story of his VISION AND IT'S MEANING. And Acts 11:18 says:

"When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also granted the Gentile repentance unto life."


Because you like pig so much,, you justify your appetite, even though you can give no reason why God would relax His Dietary laws.

Dan, Acts chapter 10 has nothing to do with diet.

Oh that is a gem. Whenever I feel down or sad, I am going to read this so I can laugh until I am out of breath. Thank you for this ridiculous statement.

"Dan,, The subject of peter's vision is not animals,, it is about people!!!!"
Oh, Please stop, my sides are hurting from laughing so hard.
Lets look at the verse and see if your delusion is rooted in reality.

1) "Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray." vs9 That is 12 noon or about lunchtime.
2) "he became hungry and was desiring to eat" vs.10 See? I told you sixth hour = lunch, I knew it!
3) "but while they were making preparations..." vs.10 Obviously they are preparing a meal or do you think this is about the easter bunny?
4) " he fell into a trance; 11and he saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground, 12and there were in it all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air. vs. 10-12. Now we get to the good part. It is a vision from God so we know this lesson is true. So do you claim some people are four footed? Which group of gentiles in your half baked theory are crawlies?

5) "A voice came to him, “Get up, Peter, kill and eat!” vs.13 Sounds like God is saying kill and eat, but Sabbath creepers like your self, think this is about gentiles. LOL!

6) "By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean."vs.14 Lookie here! Peter is saying he never consumed gentiles...should we eat gentiles?... according to your half baked dribble.

7) "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy." vs.14 The vision repeats but this time God scolds Peter for his response.

8) "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]This happened three times"vs.18 SHUCKINS! This happened three times! When I tell my kids three times in a row it means I am pissed and they had better listen. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]What comes after this in scripture is about the gentiles being accepted by the jews. The gentiles receive the Holy Spirit.
[/FONT]
So my question to you is how is the first part, which is absolutely about eating unclean meat and the gentiles becoming God's people?

How is eating unclean meat related to the gentiles?
I know the answer.


[QUOTE]God had intructed Cornelius, a Gentile , to send men to meet Peter. But Peter would have refused to see them if God had not given him this vision, because Jewish law forbade entertaining Gentiles (verse28).[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/QUOTE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Big problem with your theory right here. It never makes any reference to the vision of the unclean food. It never references gentiles to killing and eating unclean food. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]What you can't see because your eyes are clogged with false theology, is that the only thing that connects unclean food to gentiles is the both were unclean but now declared clean. You are so pig headed and spiritually blind and stuck in a cult that you are unable to see the forest from the trees. A five year old can see what this means but you can't.

[/FONT]Because you like pig so much,, you justify your appetite, even though you can give no reason why God would relax His Dietary laws.[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

Well, at least you finally got one thing right. I love all food God made and has declared clean to eat with thanksgiving to God who made it for me and my family and friends. I have eaten clams, shrimp, lobster, pork, beef, lamb, turkey, dove, deer, cougar, sea squirt snails, fish, quail, scallops, oysters, blood sausage, goat, turtle, frog legs, scorpions on garlic cheese toast, chocolate covered ants, [/FONT]chocolate covered [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]bees, a cricket in a lolly pop and almost any type of veggie. I no longer eat blood sausage as I believe the new testament confirms the prohibition on eating blood. I refuse to eat dog because I love dogs. Cats maybe.

[/FONT]1Ti 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving..[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/FONT]

 

[danschance]

Brother they always seem to miss this part of Acts 10 for some reason.

Show me how the two are realated?

Show me how a vision about killing and eating unclean food at lunch time while hungry is really about gentiles?

 

[Shiloah]

Everything presented has been entirely scriptural. Name calling makes no points. Calling people heretical to what the church in general believes makes no points. It all comes down to what Christ says and scriptures says. Throwing stones at SDAers just establishes the fact that your arguments are based on a logical fallacies. You claim that SDAers are cult members, and therefore, everything they say should be ignored. You do not base your arguments on why you believe their interpretation of scriptures regarding the specific argument is incorrect. You are not an authority, though clearly, you think you are.

You make these claims that Paul was speaking of the 7th day, but Paul didn't say that. This is your interpretation as is everything else you've stated. And then at the end again, you wrap up your argument calling 7th day Adventist cult members. The fact the 7th day Adventists believe this has nothing whatsoever to do with this argument! I am not a 7th day adventist and I agree with them on this issue!

Your claim to authority means nothing to me. I do not see that the verses you've presented say what you CLAIM they say. I also am educated, thank you, and I can read for myself. Miles and miles of text does not make your point if it doesn't make sense!

In all of your posted text, AgeofKnowledge, all I saw is your opinions. You stated your interpretations as if they are fact as if you are the one to correct anyone who interprets those things differently. You didn't even bother, in most cases, to explain why you were stating your opinions as fact. There are those of us here that think for ourselves. We don't just believe people that get up and yell at us as if we are expected to accept your preaching as gospel. We search the scriptures and come to the knowledge of their meaning through prayer and study.

Hint: If you'd stop your presumptuous name calling based on your opinions and nothing else, it would help your credibility.

 

[danschance]

You use your own opinion to get the answer and not the Bible when if you were to read all Acts 10 would find out the vision is not about being alowed to eat unclean food but about Gentiles. BTW John832 is not a SDA

Thank you for another one of your opinions.

 

[Laodicea]

Show me how the two are realated?

Show me how a vision about killing and eating unclean food at lunch time while hungry is really about gentiles?

Read the Bible for yourself. It is right there. BTW it was a vision that Peter had it was not literal. Do you know what a vision is? Peter later finds out the meaning to the vision and gives the meaning in the same chapter.
Acts 10:15 KJV
(15) And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
Acts 10:28 KJV
(28) And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

How much easier do you want it? When did God show Peter not to call any man common or unclean? If you think verse 28 has nothing to do with verse 15 then show me from the Bible when God showed him.

 

[Laodicea]

Exodus 31:18 KJV
(18) And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.
Revelation 11:19 KJV
(19) And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.
Revelation 15:5 KJV
(5) And after that I looked, and, behold, the temple of the tabernacle of the testimony in heaven was opened:

The tables of testimony are the 10 commandments. Why are the 10 commandments mentioned in the Book of Revelation? They are mentioned as being in heaven, the tabernacle on earth was a copy the original is in heaven. That means the sabbath of the Lord is in there in the book of Revelation. The sabbath of the Lord is written in heaven and seen by John in vision.

Revelation 14:12 KJV
(12) Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

So reading the context what are the commandments of God in this text?

​

 

[Shiloah]

Exodus 31:18 KJV
(18) And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.
Revelation 11:19 KJV
(19) And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.
Revelation 15:5 KJV
(5) And after that I looked, and, behold, the temple of the tabernacle of the testimony in heaven was opened:

The tables of testimony are the 10 commandments. Why are the 10 commandments mentioned in the Book of Revelation? They are mentioned as being in heaven, the tabernacle on earth was a copy the original is in heaven. That means the sabbath of the Lord is in there in the book of Revelation. The sabbath of the Lord is written in heaven and seen by John in vision.

Revelation 14:12 KJV
(12) Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

So reading the context what are the commandments of God in this text?

​

For the life of me; I don't see how it comes more straightforward than this.

 

[danschance]

You use your own opinion to get the answer and not the Bible when if you were to read all Acts 10 would find out the vision is not about being alowed to eat unclean food but about Gentiles. BTW John832 is not a SDA

By the way, you just lied. This is not just your opinion. This is you twisting the things I post into a big fat lie. I post plenty of scripture which you ignore. Then you grab a post of mine that isn't scripture and claim this is how I post. You should be ashamed of yourself for twisting reality and posting libel.

 

[Shiloah]

Exodus 31:18 KJV
(18) And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.
Revelation 11:19 KJV
(19) And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.
Revelation 15:5 KJV
(5) And after that I looked, and, behold, the temple of the tabernacle of the testimony in heaven was opened:

The tables of testimony are the 10 commandments. Why are the 10 commandments mentioned in the Book of Revelation? They are mentioned as being in heaven, the tabernacle on earth was a copy the original is in heaven. That means the sabbath of the Lord is in there in the book of Revelation. The sabbath of the Lord is written in heaven and seen by John in vision.

Revelation 14:12 KJV
(12) Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

So reading the context what are the commandments of God in this text?

​

What confounds me the most, Laodicea, is that people that defend the Sunday worship belief always talk about what Paul said. Even if Paul had actually tried to change a law of God, what in the world gives anybody the outrageously wild idea that Paul had authority over Jesus Christ-- who IS GOD?? What about what Christ said specifically about these laws never passing away, and that any man that broke them, etc. etc. could possibly be misunderstood? He said what He said! Nothing Paul or any other disciple might ever have said could have changed one word of what Jesus Christ Himself said!

P.S. Kind of looks like the Ark of the Covenant isn't anywhere around here anymore. Hm. Just realized that.

 

[danschance]

Read the Bible for yourself. It is right there. BTW it was a vision that Peter had it was not literal. Do you know what a vision is? Peter later finds out the meaning to the vision and gives the meaning in the same chapter.

This is your opinion/interpretation of the vision of the table cloth being lowered. If I point to a red ball and then a red car, can I claim the car came from the ball? This is what you are doing. You are assuming this vision is not literal. You are assuming it is not about food.

 

[Laodicea]

By the way, you just lied. This is not just your opinion. This is you twisting the things I post into a big fat lie. I post plenty of scripture which you ignore. Then you grab a post of mine that isn't scripture and claim this is how I post. You should be ashamed of yourself for twisting reality and posting libel.

I never said you did not post scripture but you use your opinion to get the answer. Answer my previous post linking verse 28 to verse 15.

 

[Laodicea]

This is your opinion/interpretation of the vision of the table cloth being lowered. If I point to a red ball and then a red car, can I claim the car came from the ball? This is what you are doing. You are assuming this vision is not literal. You are assuming it is not about food.

http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/70200-mark-beast-sunday-laws-17.html#post1135252 Are you afraid to answer my question in this post?

 

[danschance]

Read the Bible for yourself. It is right there. BTW it was a vision that Peter had it was not literal. Do you know what a vision is? Peter later finds out the meaning to the vision and gives the meaning in the same chapter.
Acts 10:15 KJV
(15) And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
Acts 10:28 KJV
(28) And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

How much easier do you want it? When did God show Peter not to call any man common or unclean? If you think verse 28 has nothing to do with verse 15 then show me from the Bible when God showed him.

I did answer this.

Let me expand on this. The vision is clearly about unclean food being declared clean by God, literally. The second part is absolutely about gentiles no longer being considered unclean. However, you fail to see the greater significance of what this is all about. It is the end of the concept of unclean things. So in a sense you are right and yet you have missed it. It is not only about gentiles being clean and unclean but also everything that God has made is now clean.


You don't believe me? Read this:

1Ti 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
1Ti 4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

 

[Shiloah]

members of your cult are not servants of God at all...

in fact their spirit of confusion shows that they are not even christian...biblically a spirit of confusion is one of God's divine judgments against the unsaved...

so that is scripture's warning to you...repent and pray to God to remove your spirit of confusion...

Actually lately I've read quite a bit about the 7th day Adventists. You're wrong. They (I mean the Millerites) actually repented as in fasted and prayed and repented of misinterpreting scriptures to the point they actually thought Christ would return on a specific day. That they later thought this date was relevant to something else had nothing to do with their repenting for misinterpreting scriptures. See, you say they made a prophecy, which is not true as they based their belief on an interpretation of scripture that was clearly incorrect. But your claim that it was a prophecy is untrue. Does that make you a cult member? Does this mean God has turned you over to the spirit of confusion because I have not seen you yet repent of claiming they prophecied when they didn't?

I guess I should assume this of you then. Since you've made a false claim about the Millerites (which weren't even 7th day Adventists) and you clearly do not repent, I think I'll make the claim that God has clearly turned you over to the spirit of confusion which is why you believe in a Sunday law and have thrown away entirely the sabbath law of God written by the finger of God Himself. Yeah! I think this works for me. So I'll just ignore anything else you have to say.

Should I also assume you're unsaved?

 

[Shiloah]

This is your opinion/interpretation of the vision of the table cloth being lowered. If I point to a red ball and then a red car, can I claim the car came from the ball? This is what you are doing. You are assuming this vision is not literal. You are assuming it is not about food.

He showed you the ensuing scriptures where it is stated that the vision was about intermingling with non-Jews. It says this specifically. This is the problem with taking scriptures out of context. Gotta read the whole thing. Then you need to look at what happened afterward. Peter went and preached to gentiles. Scriptures say nowhere that he started eating bacon and shrimp.

 

[Laodicea]

I did answer this.

Let me expand on this. The vision is clearly about unclean food being declared clean by God, literally. The second part is absolutely about gentiles no longer being considered unclean. However, you fail to see the greater significance of what this is all about. It is the end of the concept of unclean things. So in a sense you are right and yet you have missed it. It is not only about gentiles being clean and unclean but also everything that God has made is now clean.


You don't believe me? Read this:

So you do agree but only in part, so then verse 28 is referring to verse 15. Also if you think all unclean food is now clean then you believe it is OK to eat rats and cockroaches and flies? Verse 28 explains verse 15 and shows it is not about God saying unclean food is now clean. Jesus died to make us clean, He did not die to make food clean.

 

[zone]

LYING FOR GOD

2010 AD

Fighting Dirty In Defense Of The Three Pillars of Adventism

BOOK I - SABBATH IMPOSSIBILITIES

Chapter 1 - Dr. Bacchiocchi Opens Pandora's Box
Chapter 2 - What Adventists Don't Want You to Know About Early Church History
Chapter 3 - What Adventists Don't Want You to Know About Biblical Themes and Concepts

BOOK II - HISTORY OF ADVENTISM'S LONG WAR AGAINST TRUTH

Chapter 4 - The Cover-Up 1844 to 1899
Chapter 5 - The Cover-Up 1900-1919
Chapter 6 - The Cover-Up 1920-1939
Chapter 7 - The Cover-Up 1940-1959
Chapter 8 - Cover-Up During the 1960's and 1970's
Chapter 9 - The Cover-Up 1980-1989
Chapter 10 - The Cover-Up 1990 to Present

BOOK III - BACCHIOCCHI, DU PREEZ, AND MACCARTY WREAK THEOLOGICAL HAVOC

Chapter 11 - Dr. Bacchiocchi and Dr. du Preez Wreak Havoc
Chapter 12 - Dr. MacCarty Wreaks Havoc

BOOK IV - THE TITHING MYTH + HYPOCRISY CREATES CORRUPTION

Chapter 13 - Ellen Makes Millions With Her Visions
Chapter 14 - Ellen Makes Billions For The Church With Her Visions
Chapter 15 - Church Corruption Since The 1970's

APPENDIXES

Appendix I - Sabbath Not A Law For Christians, Robert K. Sanders
Appendix II - J. N. Andrews on the Didache
Appendix III - Tertullian: Was he Sabbatarian Or Anti-Sabbatarian?

By

Kerry B. Wynne

M.A., educational administration, Andrews University (1978)
B.A., English (1970) and history (1972), Pacific Union College

And

William H. Hohmann, B.A., theology, Ambassador College (1976)


Kerry Wynne is a former third generation Seventh-day Adventist. William Hohmann is a former Worldwide Church of God member. The Sabbath "heritage" of both authors goes back to one, single group of believers which adopted Sabbatarianism almost immediately after the Great Disappointment of 1844. Thus, these denominations are truly "sister" churches. Both authors graduated from the universities which host(ed) the theological seminaries of their respective denominations. The authors have worked in association with biblical researcher, Robert K. Sanders, a former Seventh-day Adventist who now hosts a comprehensive web-site which addresses issues in Adventism and Sabbatarianism—Truth Or Fables.Com.

3rd edition - November 27, 2010 - Copyright 2010 by Amazing Lies Publications

This work may be freely distributed in either print or electronic form without violation of copyright laws as long as the book's content is not altered and credit to the authors is retained.

Sabbatatrians Refuted and Sabbath keepers Exposed: 2011 AD < click






get out the Snuggies and hot choklit, folks

it's a very long read....very long and very well worth it, so far (1/3 way through).

will try to post highlights tomorrow, separate thread i reckon
it'll be tough because it's all cool.

.......




and lookee here...but i am trying not to skip ahead. tsk:

"Furthermore, the Jews believed the Gentiles would be eternally saved if they kept the basic moral laws given to Mankind in the Book of Genesis. The rabbinical writings make this fact very clear as documented in the Jewish Encyclopedia. It is no surprise that the Jews would view the Sabbath this way, since they read the books of Moses in their own language. The meaning indicators that are invisible to us are perfectly clear to them. They have recognized, "from the beginning," that Moses contraindicated a Sabbath commandment at the time of Creation. In his classic "A Digest of the Sabbath Question," Robert D. Brinsmead says:

The Book of Jubilees (a Jewish pseudepigraphal work of the second century B.C.) says that "the Creator of all things.., did not sanctify all peoples and nations to keep Sabbath thereon, but Israel alone" ("The Book of Jubilees," in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, ed. R.H. Charles, vol. 2, Pseudepigrapha [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913], p. 15).

The Jews referred to these universal moral laws given to Mankind in the Book of Genesis as the "Noachian Laws." The Sabbath was not a part of Noachian Law. Therefore, the Jews believe that the Gentiles who keep the Noachian laws will be saved without keeping the Sabbath, and there is no indication in the rabbinical records that the Jews ever believed otherwise. God never sent an Israelite prophet to rebuke a heathen nation or city for Sabbath-breaking, but He did so for disregarding Noachian Law. If Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Adam were saved without keeping the Sabbath, Christians can be saved without keeping it also. I will explain more about the Noachian Laws later."

...

hmmm: maybe two threads tomorrow

 

[zone]

and lookee here...but i am trying not to skip ahead. tsk:

"Furthermore, the Jews believed the Gentiles would be eternally saved if they kept the basic moral laws given to Mankind in the Book of Genesis. The rabbinical writings make this fact very clear as documented in the Jewish Encyclopedia. It is no surprise that the Jews would view the Sabbath this way, since they read the books of Moses in their own language. The meaning indicators that are invisible to us are perfectly clear to them. They have recognized, "from the beginning," that Moses contraindicated a Sabbath commandment at the time of Creation. In his classic "A Digest of the Sabbath Question," Robert D. Brinsmead says:

The Book of Jubilees (a Jewish pseudepigraphal work of the second century B.C.) says that "the Creator of all things.., did not sanctify all peoples and nations to keep Sabbath thereon, but Israel alone" ("The Book of Jubilees," in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, ed. R.H. Charles, vol. 2, Pseudepigrapha [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913], p. 15).

The Jews referred to these universal moral laws given to Mankind in the Book of Genesis as the "Noachian Laws." The Sabbath was not a part of Noachian Law. Therefore, the Jews believe that the Gentiles who keep the Noachian laws will be saved without keeping the Sabbath, and there is no indication in the rabbinical records that the Jews ever believed otherwise. God never sent an Israelite prophet to rebuke a heathen nation or city for Sabbath-breaking, but He did so for disregarding Noachian Law. If Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Adam were saved without keeping the Sabbath, Christians can be saved without keeping it also. I will explain more about the Noachian Laws later."

...

hmmm: maybe two threads tomorrow

In Judaism, the Seven Laws of Noah (Hebrew: שבע מצוות בני נח‎ Sheva mitzvot B'nei Noach), or the Noahide Laws, are a set of moral imperatives that, according to the Talmud, were given by God[1] as a binding set of laws for the "children of Noah" – that is, all of humankind.[2][3]

According to Judaism, any non-Jew who adheres to these laws is regarded as a righteous gentile, and is assured of a place in the World to Come (Hebrew: עולם הבא‎ Olam Haba), the final reward of the righteous.[4][5] Adherents are often called "B'nei Noach" (Children of Noah) or "Noahides," and may sometimes network in Jewish synagogues.[citation needed]

The seven laws listed by the Tosefta and the Talmud are:[6]
The prohibition of Idolatry.
The prohibition of Murder.
The prohibition of Theft.
The prohibition of Sexual immorality.
The prohibition of Blasphemy.
The prohibition of eating flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive.
The requirement of maintaining courts to provide legal recourse.

The Noahide laws comprise the six commandments which were given to Adam in the Garden of Eden, according to the Talmud's interpretation of Gen 2:16,[7] and a seventh precept, which was added after the Flood of Noah. According to Judaism, the 613 commandments given in the written Torah, as well as their explanations and applications discussed in the oral Torah, are applicable to the Jews only, and non-Jews are bound only to observe the seven Noahide laws

Seven Laws of Noah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia < click

.....


Dual-covenant theology is a Christian view of the Old Covenant which holds that Jews may simply keep the "Law of Moses", because of the "everlasting covenant" (Genesis 17:13) between Abraham and God expressed in the Hebrew Bible, whereas Gentiles (those not Jews or Jewish proselytes) must convert to Christianity or alternatively accept the Seven Laws of Noah to be assured of a place in the World to Come.

Dual-covenant theology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia < click

 

[danschance]

So you do agree but only in part, so then verse 28 is referring to verse 15. Also if you think all unclean food is now clean then you believe it is OK to eat rats and cockroaches and flies? Verse 28 explains verse 15 and shows it is not about God saying unclean food is now clean. Jesus died to make us clean, He did not die to make food clean.

I do not agree with your interpretation of the vision. You claim it is about Gentiles only and I claim it is the end to the concept of unclean. Verse fifteen is saying all foods are fit to eat and 28 says gentiles are now no longer unclean. The one concept that is common to both verses is the end to calling things unclean. This is the end of of circumcision, the end of ceremonial law, the end of dietary law and the beginning of the new covenant of grace.

....you believe it is OK to eat rats and cockroaches and flies?

Yes. These types of things were in the vision Peter saw. If you want to make a meal of rats, pray over them and give God the thankx for it. Keep in mind locusts are kosher, but I will pass on them.

21‘Yet these you may eat among all the winged insects which walk on all fours: those which have above their feet jointed legs with which to jump on the earth. 22‘These of them you may eat: the locust in its kinds, and the devastating locust in its kinds, and the cricket in its kinds, and the grasshopper in its kinds. Lev. 11:21-22

A kosher locust, any takers?