Miss conceptions concerning the covenants.

[sparkman]

Come now anyone can see you are blowing smoke. But I guess you wont address it cause you are the one that can't.

What do you mean by blowing smoke? SDAs can't exegete these Scriptures in a manner that comports with their claims.

If they acknowledge the weekly Sabbath is included in Colossians 2:16-17, it sinks their doctrinal position. But, it's obvious it is talking about the weekly Sabbath. Anyone here can do this word study and find out that sabbaton has a weekly context. Sabbaton is translated alternately Sabbath or week.

In addition, the verses align with the seasonal, monthly, weekly configuration which is mentioned over and over in the Old Testament, either ascending or descending. If anyone needs details here, I can provide.

 

[gotime]

Tell me sparkman, In your estimation what parts of the new covenant are the same as the Old and why?

 

[sparkman]

Tell me sparkman, In your estimation what parts of the new covenant are the same as the Old and why?

Christianity isn't a list of rules but as a personal relationship. I may find direction through reading Scripture (Old and New), but I don't create some mental list of rules that defines the relationship.

That's the problem..one's relationship to God can't be confined to a written code. It is guided through the Holy Spirit. The law, to an ancient Israelite, was almost like a substitute for the Holy Spirit. It really had no power to change anything, though, and as history proves, they weren't able to follow it anyways. In fact, rather than aiding, the law incites one to sin according to Paul.

if you're looking for my list of rules, I don't have one that I can compare to the Old Covenant. The Holy Spirit is flexible enough to operate without this mental checklist. I do something that is wrong; I know it because the Holy Spirit (the presence of God) convicts me that it's something I shouldn't have done. He may do that through bringing Scripture to mind, or just the realization that I did wrong because I harmed my relationship with God or another person, even if it's not defined in a written code.

I think I gave you an example of that before. As a teenager, a family member was making fun of my obesity. This person was handicapped, and I called him a cruel name related to his handicap in response. I am confident that was the greatest sin I committed in my life, as it was more injurious to that relationship than sexual immorality or other things I may have done in my life, yet it's not covered in any way by the Ten Commandments, even though you guys claim that everything falls under those 10. It isn't comprehensive enough. Neither is the whole 615 laws of the Torah. The Holy Spirit convicts without a written code like you are operating from, and He works from no limitations imposed by a written code.

The problem with legalists is they want to reduce everything to a written code and a list. The Old Covenant was written for a carnal nation who wasn't led by God's spirit. That's why everything was spelled out in great detail, and even then the law didn't have the power to change them.

If you want to know what is not an expectation, though, Scripture specifically states that Sabbaths, festivals, New Moon observances, various offerings, washings, clean/unclean meat laws, physical circumcision, and the Levitical laws are no longer part of the Christian obligation. There are many things which are civil laws in nature, and we aren't operating from a theonomy so they can't be part of God's expectation for the Church. There are many things which are types and shadows so those things are not applicable (including the Sabbath). So the Holy Spirit would never be using those things to convict me with regards to sin.

But, again, I don't think of Christianity in terms of a set of rules. It's a relationship. And the Holy Spirit is more dynamic than the patchwork quilt legal system that your organization or my former organization created. All wrongdoing is sin, Scripture states, and "wrongdoing" is something the Holy Spirit convicts of, regardless of any written code you can come up with.

Operating outside of a written code, while being more comprehensive, is also more flexible than the Old Covenant allow for. The Old Covenant states that the person must rest on Saturday, and if you don't, you're to suffer death. The Sabbath is tied to salvation as a requirement, condition or necessary fruit of salvation. There is no variation.

Israel was a theonomy so they could control this sort of thing. However, in a country where human slavery is a reality, would you deny the salvation of a person who placed their faith in Jesus Christ, and whose master wouldn't allow them to rest on the Sabbath? I'm pretty sure your organization would...I know Armstrongites would. Your organization might not, though..I know a lot of SDAs actually work on the Sabbath despite their claims.

The New Covenant allows latitude with regards to worship times. New Covenant Christians are not children who must be assigned a specific time and place to meet God, and to fellowship corporately. The Old Covenant specified this because Israel didn't have God's spirit and God treated them like children because of this. An adult or even a teenager is given more latitude due to their maturity.

This may not answer your question, but the short answer is that I can't compare my list to the Old Covenant list because I don't have a list. I am led by the Spirit and not by a written code under the New Covenant. My direction may be influenced by the Old and New Testament, but it's not confined to it. God's Spirit operates dynamically.

 

[prove-all]

Address Colossians 2:16-17. You can't

.

16Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink,
or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

-I would say verse 16 here talks of the sabbath day, holy sabbaths[plural] days
Gods Holy calander, passover [do this]and unleavened bread [a feast] ordenances.

17Which are a shadow of things to come;

-the time of this verse [is after] Christ arose, the [things to come] is
a future event, or meaning about Gods Holy days to come.
this is not refering to the past, but future like the next pentacost[firstfruits]


but the body "is" of Christ.

-this part of verse the word "is" was added in the 4th century, not inspired
by the H.S., this should be : but the body of Christ.

- so really you have: do not let others judge you about keeping Gods Sabbaths and
holy things,[A templete] of things to come, but the body of Christ [chief corner stone]


18Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels,

-you know the bad angeles of light disguised as good trying to trick us.


intruding into those things which he hath [not seen], vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,

-these are not Gods sabbaths here that are not seen.


19And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands
having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.


20Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why,
as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,

-here the rudiments of [the world], and ordinances, are [not] Gods things,


age old Gods Holy statues and judgements verses mans tradations.

 

[prove-all]

What do you mean by blowing smoke? .

can you explain why , in the 8 times the first day of week is recorded in the N.T.,

it is a work day, the first work day of the week?

and not one verse changes the day of worship from the Sabbath to the first day of week?

 

[sparkman]

By the way prove-all I am not answering any of your posts, or reading them, and I haven't for some time. I don't want to read regurgitated information from Armstrongite sites. You cut and paste stuff from them continually.

I had my fill of heretics like Herbert Armstrong. I don't want to read anything from a man who had an incestuous relationship with his daughter. He is worse than vile. God would not use such a man as a prophet or apostle.

If you can show me evidence that he denied the charges, I might consider that he didn't do the act. To my knowledge, he never denied the charges. That tells you something.

 

[gotime]

Christianity isn't a list of rules but as a personal relationship. I may find direction through reading Scripture (Old and New), but I don't create some mental list of rules that defines the relationship.

That's the problem..one's relationship to God can't be confined to a written code. It is guided through the Holy Spirit. The law, to an ancient Israelite, was almost like a substitute for the Holy Spirit. It really had no power to change anything, though, and as history proves, they weren't able to follow it anyways. In fact, rather than aiding, the law incites one to sin according to Paul.

if you're looking for my list of rules, I don't have one that I can compare to the Old Covenant. The Holy Spirit is flexible enough to operate without this mental checklist. I do something that is wrong; I know it because the Holy Spirit (the presence of God) convicts me that it's something I shouldn't have done. He may do that through bringing Scripture to mind, or just the realization that I did wrong because I harmed my relationship with God or another person, even if it's not defined in a written code.

I think I gave you an example of that before. As a teenager, a family member was making fun of my obesity. This person was handicapped, and I called him a cruel name related to his handicap in response. I am confident that was the greatest sin I committed in my life, as it was more injurious to that relationship than sexual immorality or other things I may have done in my life, yet it's not covered in any way by the Ten Commandments, even though you guys claim that everything falls under those 10. It isn't comprehensive enough. Neither is the whole 615 laws of the Torah. The Holy Spirit convicts without a written code like you are operating from, and He works from no limitations imposed by a written code.

The problem with legalists is they want to reduce everything to a written code and a list. The Old Covenant was written for a carnal nation who wasn't led by God's spirit. That's why everything was spelled out in great detail, and even then the law didn't have the power to change them.

If you want to know what is not an expectation, though, Scripture specifically states that Sabbaths, festivals, New Moon observances, various offerings, washings, clean/unclean meat laws, physical circumcision, and the Levitical laws are no longer part of the Christian obligation. There are many things which are civil laws in nature, and we aren't operating from a theonomy so they can't be part of God's expectation for the Church. There are many things which are types and shadows so those things are not applicable (including the Sabbath). So the Holy Spirit would never be using those things to convict me with regards to sin.

But, again, I don't think of Christianity in terms of a set of rules. It's a relationship. And the Holy Spirit is more dynamic than the patchwork quilt legal system that your organization or my former organization created. All wrongdoing is sin, Scripture states, and "wrongdoing" is something the Holy Spirit convicts of, regardless of any written code you can come up with.

Operating outside of a written code, while being more comprehensive, is also more flexible than the Old Covenant allow for. The Old Covenant states that the person must rest on Saturday, and if you don't, you're to suffer death. The Sabbath is tied to salvation as a requirement, condition or necessary fruit of salvation. There is no variation.

Israel was a theonomy so they could control this sort of thing. However, in a country where human slavery is a reality, would you deny the salvation of a person who placed their faith in Jesus Christ, and whose master wouldn't allow them to rest on the Sabbath? I'm pretty sure your organization would...I know Armstrongites would. Your organization might not, though..I know a lot of SDAs actually work on the Sabbath despite their claims.

The New Covenant allows latitude with regards to worship times. New Covenant Christians are not children who must be assigned a specific time and place to meet God, and to fellowship corporately. The Old Covenant specified this because Israel didn't have God's spirit and God treated them like children because of this. An adult or even a teenager is given more latitude due to their maturity.

This may not answer your question, but the short answer is that I can't compare my list to the Old Covenant list because I don't have a list. I am led by the Spirit and not by a written code under the New Covenant. My direction may be influenced by the Old and New Testament, but it's not confined to it. God's Spirit operates dynamically.

Really can you ever give an on topic answer?

I am not asking you to make it about rules but you should be able to define some things. This is a petty answer that avoids the question.

You can't say some things that are in common when Paul could and Jesus could and Peter could. Seems you will just do the usual skip the topic to uphold your own nonsensical views. This is why there is no point having dialog with you, You can't sit still and answer a question or reply on topic.

I am done don't answer me or ask my anything cause its a wast of time.

 

[sparkman]

Really can you ever give an on topic answer?

I am not asking you to make it about rules but you should be able to define some things. This is a petty answer that avoids the question.

You can't say some things that are in common when Paul could and Jesus could and Peter could. Seems you will just do the usual skip the topic to uphold your own nonsensical views. This is why there is no point having dialog with you, You can't sit still and answer a question or reply on topic.

I am done don't answer me or ask my anything cause its a wast of time.

OK. If your wife dies, and you marry another woman, how much of your previous wife will carry over into the new marriage? Romans 7:1-6.

I'm not expecting an answer

 

[prove-all]

By the way prove-all I am not answering any of your posts, or reading them, and I haven't for some time. I don't want to read regurgitated information from Armstrongite sites. You cut and paste stuff from them continually.

I had my fill of heretics like Herbert Armstrong. I don't want to read anything from a man who had an incestuous relationship with his daughter. He is worse than vile. God would not use such a man as a prophet or apostle.

If you can show me evidence that he denied the charges, I might consider that he didn't do the act. To my knowledge, he never denied the charges. That tells you something.

well for your imformation no charges where ever filed,
no eye witness of this never came forward too,
not even a so called victim never emerge or come forward.
the whole thing was slander by others from the beginning.

so why or how can he denie anything, with no charges what so ever againest him?


you where given this info by me awhile back, but you keep slandering them anyway.


another lie you said was they believe that, Satan is our sin bearer,

that was another slander you keep pushing, both your views is wrong.

so if this satan thing is not a lie from you, can you prove what you say is true?

 

[sparkman]

OK. If your wife dies, and you marry another woman, how much of your previous wife will carry over into the new marriage? Romans 7:1-6.

I'm not expecting an answer

I didn't quote the Scriptures in the previous post, but some people don't look things up, so I want to quote them and elaborate. gotime, feel free not to comment...I don't care. I don't think you can mount a successful defense anyways

The basic point of my remarks...real Christians are DEAD to the law. Read this...D E A D. Those who try to live under the Law are spiritual adulterers and adulteresses.

While I may be informed through reading the entire Bible, and the details of the Old Covenant, they are not my guiding force. I am lead by the Holy Spirit. God himself informs me about what is right and wrong.

Romans 7:1 Or do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? [SUP]2 [/SUP]For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. [SUP]3 [/SUP]Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.
[SUP]4 [/SUP]Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. [SUP]5 [/SUP]For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. [SUP]6[/SUP]But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.[SUP]7 [/SUP]What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” [SUP]7 [/SUP]What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” [SUP]8 [/SUP]But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. [SUP]9 [/SUP]I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. [SUP]10 [/SUP]The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. [SUP]11 [/SUP]For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. [SUP]12 [/SUP]So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

By the way, it's unmistaken that this is talking about the Ten Commandments, too, as it is part of the Law. Coveting is mentioned in the same context, and that is the tenth commandment.

What part of this do you not understand? Real Christians operate on a different principle than the Jews did. They are not spiritual children, that must be told every detail on how to behave. Those under the Old Covenant did not have God's Spirit and every decision concerning worship was dictated for them. An example of this is the showbread. They were told exactly how to make it, in terms of ingredients and details. The bread for the Lord's Supper..no such instructions. I think it should be unleavened, but even that is not specified in Scripture...it is fitting due to Christ's sinlessness.

How does this jive with the Sabbath? Colossians 2:16-17 says that Sabbaths and festivals were mere shadows, but the reality was Christ, and the Gentile Colossians were told not to allow others to judge them over it. The Sabbath and festivals were grouped with other irrelevant things such as New Moons and food and drink offerings (see Hebrews 9:9-11). Just the language of shadows implies relative insignificance (see Hebrews 10:1-2). In addition, clean and unclean meat laws are not applicable, per Mark 7 and Romans 14.

God doesn't spell out every detail of how and when to worship Him, like he did with the ancient Israelites. Christians are led by the Holy Spirit. They are not carnal rebellious Israelites. They have been regenerated by the power of the Holy Spirit, who guides them into right behavior. You guys want to claim that a law given to carnal, rebellious Israelites is the standard of behavior..it is not! It is enough to convict an unconverted person of sin, like Paul says above, so it is a faint glimmer of God's holiness, but it is not the ultimate Christian standard. God's holiness is, and that manifests itself through the life of the believer OUTSIDE OF THE WRITTEN CODE. The Lawgiver lives in the Christian through the Holy Spirit.

So, the essence is this..I am not a spiritual adulterer, and I am not under the law. I am married to Jesus Christ, not the Law. I am not bound by its constraints, either. Judaizers and others are the ones who define the relationship with God and themselves by a list of rules. I follow a Person, I do not make the Law my God like Judaizers do..they even stoop so low as to say that Christ was the Living Torah, which is idolatry..the Word of John 1:1-3 is talking about the Greek concept of the Logos who ordered the universe..the Creator..not a book. Judaizers are idolaters who worship the Law, and not the Lawgiver.

I have the Holy Spirit in me that guides me. The Holy Spirit may inform me, though reading the entire Bible, of spiritual and moral principles that are God's will for me, but the specific applications that were given to the nation of Israel are not applicable to me. You guys are trying to live by the specific applications to the nation of Israel, and not being led by the Holy Spirit, especially when the Holy Spirit tells you in these verses that you aren't bound by the law if you are a believer.

And, by the way, the Law does bind the person, and it enslaves just like sin. You guys can deny it all you want, but Acts 15:10 clearly calls it a yoke, and so does Galatians 5:1-4.

Acts 15:10 Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

Galatians 5:1-4 5 For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.
[SUP]2 [/SUP]Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. [SUP]3 [/SUP]I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. [SUP]4 [/SUP]You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified[SUP][a][/SUP] by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

Notice that all of the above verses talk about obligation, and not being under the "penalty of the law". Judaizers claim that Christians are not under the "penalty of the law" but they are still under the law. Their view is in error, and the above verses prove it. The obligation to the law does not remain. They are not married to the Law, and those that claim they are, Romans 7 calls them spiritual adulterers.

Their logic is erroneous, as Galatians 4:4 clearly proves. If their view is true, then Christ was born "under the penalty of the law" and they have no Savior.

Galatians 4:4 [SUP]4 [/SUP]But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law.

So, at this juncture some of you will probably claim that I am a hypergrace sort of guy. I am not..following the Spirit is a much more demanding way than your list of rules. I don't have a list; I have a Person who wants more from me than 615 or 10 rules, depending on your flavor of legalism.

John 13:34-35 [SUP]34 [/SUP]A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. [SUP]35 [/SUP]By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”

 

[prove-all]

By the way prove-all I am not answering any of your posts, or reading them, and I haven't for some time. I don't want to read regurgitated information from Armstrongite sites. You cut and paste stuff from them continually.

I had my fill of heretics like Herbert Armstrong. I don't want to read anything from a man who had an incestuous relationship with his daughter. He is worse than vile. God would not use such a man as a prophet or apostle.

If you can show me evidence that he denied the charges, I might consider that he didn't do the act. To my knowledge, he never denied the charges. That tells you something.

well that makes it convient for you , post things and not answer rebuttals,
or questions I have asked you about your posts, or showed its error.
but you can slander more, and ask me more of your questions ?


I could say "That tells us something about you" too, but will not.

Did Jesus go around denying every slanderer, that was spoken to Him?

 

[prove-all]

If you can show me evidence that he denied the charges, I might consider that he didn't do the act. To my knowledge, he never denied the charges. That tells you something.

Originally Posted by sparkman

One last post to you and you're on iggie again.
-
Do you know that Herbert Armstrong practiced incest with his own daughter?

this same answer I gave, to your question was avoided back then to.
I guess you did not read, or you do not care and keep reposting someones slander

pdf. Herbert W. Armstrong Did [NOT] Commit Incest!
http://www.herbert-armstrong.org/Mis...t Incest.pdf

how can you tell bad things about a dozen church org., but shut your ears and call foul
when I post there response, and not even let someone defend them? found quilty ?

funny I told you several times, I was never in H.A church, or E.W. s,
after you started demanding I declair my faith,the more you spread lies,
the more I read to defend there cause, thank you.

so why such hatred for your past, and continue to attack Sabbath keepers?

Proverbs 6:16-19 (NIV)
16 There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him:
17 haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood,
18 a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil,

19 a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension [among brothers].

 

[eternallife7]

Warning not short and will require thought and study.

Many today will say that the 10 commandments are done away with in the Old Covenant and will often quote such scriptures as:

Deu 4:13 And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.

here it is claimed that the ten commandments are called the covenant but let us examine the truth of this matter. Before I deal with this verse we will go back and examine the first covenant, to do this we know where to look as it is written:

Deu 5:2 The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.
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.

So the covenant was established at Horeb after the exodus with Israel, so lets take a look and we find the covenant first given in Exodus 19 as it is written:

Exo 19:2 For they were departed from Rephidim, and were come to the desert of Sinai, and had pitched in the wilderness; and there Israel camped before the mount.

here they are at Horeb and what happens?

Moses goes up to God and God speaks to Moses these words:

Exo 19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:

So the very first Covenant known as the Old covenant was to "obey my voice and keep my covenant" So here we first see that they were to obey His voice and keep his covenant.

and then Moses comes down to the people and tells them these words and they respond:

Exo 19:8 And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD.

so the People willingly enter into covenant with God. what is a covenant?

Webster defines it this way: "A mutual agreement of two or more persons or parties, in writing and under seal, to do or to refrain from, some act or thing; a contract; stipulation."

So here we can see that two parties, God and the Israel make an agreement. It is important to note that at this point they have entered into covenant with God Yet the 10 commandments are not Yet given.

So what about Deut 4 which said:

Deu 4:13 And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.

It is per tenant to realize that the ten commandments as mentioned were given after Israel had made covenant with God. Its also obvious to the observant mind that here Moses does not say, the covenant or a covenant but "his covenant" It is Gods covenant this is not the Old covenant itself but Gods covenant which He spoke from the mount. But "the" covenant was made before this and now God gives his Covenant which the people of Israel would obey as they have already entered into covenant with God in chapter 19.

In fact the same language is used in exodus 19 notice:

Exo 19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:

The covenant itself is not the ten commandments as they come after but rather the first covenant is a mutual agreement to obey Gods voice and keep his covenant. between God and Israel. But his covenant is only binding on the basis of the mutual agreement/covenant made in Exodus 19.

It is also a point of note that the Deut 4:23 is not a covenant made but a covenant commanded by God, on the premise that they have covenanted with God to do so. It is assumed that one can see the difference between a covenant mutually agreed upon by two parties as seen in Exodus 19 and a covenant command as seen in duet 4. One is contingent on the other. God commands those who have made covenant with Him.





Thus it is clear that the 10 commandments were the basis of the agreement made in chapter 19. And this is why that are called his covenant. It is also evident that the 10 commandments existed before exodus 20 as Goad already had his covenant.

The same can be seen today in how we live in our states. To be a citizen we make agreement to obey and conform to the state. This then brings the commands of the law of that state upon us. Thus when we covenant to become a citizen we also agree to follow that states commands/law. To become a citizen is an agreement between two parties the person and the state. But the conditions are to keep the state laws. this is the second definition of covenant

"a writing containing the terms of agreement between parties." Thus the conditions upon which an agreement or covenant rests.

Paul connects these concepts here:

Eph 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

when you have no citizenship you are not part of the covenants of promise. Notice that within the agreements are covenants of promise. The promises of God which are in conjunction with the commands of God. God graciously blesses those who follow His commands. His covenant. Thus we have the blessings of the law which come from following the commands of God which come from entering into the covenant in exodus 19.

I will continue this later addressing other scriptures on the covenant as I have time and then eventually looking at the new covenant.

With a new priest comes a change in the law as well. Christ didn't come to do away with the law but now it is not written for Israel it is now for the ungodly 1 Timothy 1:9. Following the Gospel is not lawlessness in fact the beatitudes go more in depth.

 

[gotime]

With a new priest comes a change in the law as well. Christ didn't come to do away with the law but now it is not written for Israel it is now for the ungodly 1 Timothy 1:9. Following the Gospel is not lawlessness in fact the beatitudes go more in depth.

Yes indeed and those changes are recorded in Hebrews. Ps if you think the beatitudes go more in depth then you simply don't understand the law as everything Jesus teaches is found in the law and the prophets.

 

[sparkman]

I am not addressing individuals who don't claim that the Sabbath, festivals and clean/unclean meat laws are conditions or necessary fruits or salvation, or that non-observers are sinning.

I find it hilarious that the rest of these guys quote these verses continually from Matthew 5:17-19, claiming that they support the continued obligation of Christians under the New Covenant to follow their particular cafeteria plan Old Covenant:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
[SUP]18 [/SUP]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. [SUP]19 [/SUP]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.

Heaven and earth hasn't passed.

However, if they use these verses to prove their point, why aren't they following EVERY JOT AND TITTLE? The Law includes a lot more than what they are observing.

And, if these things were not fulfilled at the Cross, according to them, there's a continuing obligation. Physical circumcision and animal sacrifices would be two of the items that are included under the Law.

But, when it boils down to it, that they are doing is trying to force their legal code upon the rest of Christianity, and judging non-observers.

All the word of God, including the Torah, has spiritual and moral principles that Christians can learn from, but the Old Covenant simply does not apply anymore to anyone. The Sabbath, Holy Days, and clean/unclean meat laws are part of the Old Covenant.

And, if you think the Old Covenant applies, the way that it is entered into is through physical circumcision. So, pretty much you eliminate the salvation of uncircumcised individuals, because Paul condemns physical circumcision and says it is a fall from grace (Galatians 5:1-4).

Remember..not one jot or tittle will pass from the Law...not even the one which says that you need to put your menstrual wife or daughter out of the house during menstruation. NOT ONE JOT OR TITTLE...

So ALL HAS BEEN FUFILLED, else you need to keep the WHOLE OLD COVENANT, and EVERY JOT AND TITTLE. The Cross was the most colossal event in human history.

Jesus was speaking this to people who WERE under the Old Covenant. No one is under the Old Covenant now. To use it to support your assertions regarding the Sabbath, festivals, or clean/unclean meat laws ignores this context. You are also ignoring the fact that the Old Covenant has been fulfilled in Christ.

 

[sparkman]

Just so it's clear and to avoid the ad-hominem attacks, the Old Covenant has spiritual and moral principles which a spirit-led Christian can discern and profit from, so I am not claiming that the Old Covenant has no value to Christians. The specific applications given to the nation of Israel may not apply, but the enduring spiritual and moral principles do.

Romans 7:1-7, in my opinion, is one of the clearest statements in this regard.

 

[sparkman]

Just for your information we are growing faster than ever before. As for costing it sounds like a joke to me. To give you an Idea of our growth for 2014 we opened a church every 3.5 hours around the world. The last figures 2014 for people who were baptized into the church was at 1,167,796 that is 3,197 people a day or 133 people every hour. we were at a total membership of 18,479,257 as of the end of 2014. and every year our growth is getting bigger.

I don't know the stats for this year as they are not out yet. This only includes actual members, We have many who attend our churches on a weekly basis and study with us who are not yet members.

According to my sources, the SDAs mentioned at their last General Conference that they have an attrition rate of 60%. In other words, 60% of those who become members leave the SDA church eventually.

Here's the quote from the General Conference:

{quote}
Looking at this picture of growth is not complete, however, without reviewing attrition. In the five-year period 2010 through 2014, 6,212,919 people were added to the church. During the same period, 3,717,683 members left the church. Apart from those church members who fell asleep in Jesus, the net loss rate for the quinquennium is 60 per 100 converts.
{end quote}

If you have a better source of information or challenge this statistic, Id appreciate knowing. That works out to 744,000 per year who left the church each year...even more than I mentioned. So it is a revolving door like I mentioned.

I'd rather see people in the SDAs than Armstrongite organizations, though..at least some SDAs have a basic understanding of evangelical Christianity, and don't deny justification by faith alone and declare all others to be unbelievers. I definitely don't agree with their theology either though, especially the investigative judgment and the Mark of the Beast thing.

 

[eternallife7]

Yes indeed and those changes are recorded in Hebrews. Ps if you think the beatitudes go more in depth then you simply don't understand the law as everything Jesus teaches is found in the law and the prophets.

I know everything I need to know about the law and it is found in 1 Timothy 1:9.

 

[prove-all]

And, if these things were not fulfilled at the Cross, according to them, there's a continuing obligation. Physical circumcision and animal sacrifices would be two of the items that are included under the Law.

lets see what the bible has to say about this subject, continuing obligation.


Circumcision not required?

Romans 2:29 (KJV)
But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and [circumcision] is that of [the heart],
in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Deuteronomy 30:6 (KJV)
And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed,
to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.

Deuteronomy 10:16 (KJV)
[Circumcise] therefore the foreskin of [your heart], and be [no more stiffnecked].



Sacrifices not required?

Romans 12:1 (KJV)
I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God,
that ye present your bodies [a living sacrifice], holy, acceptable unto God,
which is your reasonable service.

1 Peter 2:5 (KJV)
Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood,
to [offer up spiritual sacrifices], acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

[Circumcision is of the heart] and [our bodies now living sacrifices]

is still [a continuing obligation] of us to do.

 

[prove-all]

But, when it boils down to it, that they are doing is trying to force their legal code
upon the rest of Christianity, and judging non-observers.

Funny when we lok at all your posts
the Christianity you preach is to judge others,

and have judged and attacked sabbaths observers more ,
then anyone here has judging or judged non-observers.

please show us where you have been really attacked,
saying you are going to hell for non-observice.

why spread discourse with brothers, all those sabbath keeping groups?


1 Corinthians 10:30 (KJV)
For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks?