Jesus Came To Fulfill Not To Destroy

[Phoneman-777]

Not always implicit, some sources explicitly make this case. NIV was an example.

NIV is based on the Critical Text MSS - it's not to be the final authority for anything

I have no problem pointing out that the Talmud is antiChrist. Primary because it is explicitly antiChrist. I can't say I know enough about the Papacy to say one way or the other.

Any organization governed by mankind is inevitably going to do things that fall short of perfection, but the question comes down to the intention behind the texts. I'm not aware of anything that is explicitly antiChrist in the Greek and Roman Catholic bod ies of elevated texts. But in some organizations, the root is rotten (such as the AntiChrist rhetoric in the Talmud) and therefore any organization driven by that body of elevated texts is necessarily antiChrist.

"Antichrist" means "take the place of Christ" - there is only one "beast" aka "kingdom" that fits all the identifying marks of Bible prophecy: the Papacy, not a book.

Who was advocating that Sunday was sacred above all other days? No one in this thread that I'm aware of. "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." - Romans 14:5 KJV

Why keep applying a text which refers to the Mosaic Law to the Ten Commandments? If you're not willing to keep the Sabbath, you're not getting into heaven, because the Sabbath will be kept perpetually there, as Scripture plainly says...unless you think there's going to be a small corner of the kingdom where you'll be able to hang out while the rest of us go before Jesus in worship?

And if we look at scripture in the New Testament, we see that advise is given to be tolerant and not make an issue over non-essential traditions and rituals that other fellow believers may have taken part in. There is guidance in Romans 14 not partake of things that others of the faith considered unclean in their presence.

Continued illegit application of that which pertains to ceremonial sabbaths to the weekly Sabbath which will be observed by God's people for all eternity

Let's focus on a few things here. Acts 10:14 lists "common" (koinon) and "unclean" (akatharton). In Acts 10:15, we see the response is to not call anything "common/impure" (koinou) which has been "cleansed" (ekatharisen) by God. You might notice that "akatharton" comes from the root "a-" (not) and "katharos" (clean), and "ekatharisen" is antonymous.

You're suggesting God's choice not to clarify as false Peter's supposition that "common" was an actual thing means God recognizes it as a thing...that's weak hermeneutics. The translators rendered Romans 14:14 KJV "unclean of itself" but Paul PLAINLY says "common" in the Greek. You can shut your eyes, stop your ears, and stomp your feet and ignore Isaiah 66 all you want, but the prophet is clear that Jesus is coming back to destroy those who eat pork, mice, and all things abominable. So, keep on eating what you want and twisting the NT all you want - that is between you and God.

It was explicitly the case that God wrote the first tablets using his finger, there is good reason to believe that God wrote the second tablets through the hands of Moses.

No it isn't. The text plainly says God wrote on the second tablets in one place and then uses the pronoun "He" to identify the One who wrote on them in another place - you have no such verse saying explicitly that Moses wrote on the second set, do you? How about a little "here a little, there a little, line upon line, precept upon precept? The method is prescribed so we can avoid just the kind of confusion you are introducing, but alas...

Chickens, cows, goats, sheep, etc. of 1000's of years ago aren't necessarily the same as those of today. Likewise, with swine flesh, to the immediate target audience of the message, swine was seen as something that was without question unclean. But it may only be a metaphor for unclean things and not specifically about the literal case of swine-flesh. I understand that you are trying to break the categories into "unclean", "common", and "clean" and that can be discussed further, but the reference to swineflesh in say Isaiah 66:17 isn't necessarily about literal swineflesh.

A Jew stomach was and is no different than a Gentile stomach, swine were the same then as they are now, and with the advent of medical science telling us exactly now disgusting, unhealthy, and DEADLY swine are, we shouldn't be trying to make these verses metaphorically allegorical as you are attempting to do, but we should be striving to believe the Bible as it is written, and "keep the commandments of God". While there are prophecies that were conditional to meet their fulfillment, such as Zechariah 14, Isaiah 66 is not - it is a declaration of the fate that awaits those who both flatly refuse to give up what they've been told is unfit fare or seek Biblical justification in order to make it fit fare, which you are doing.

 

[Phoneman-777]

It would be nice if you did understand what the experts say.

It would be nice if you'd do the same

It would be nice if you were consistent with your own arguments.

You're the one who argued we should trust the "scholars" who believe Colossians 2:16 refers to the weekly Sabbath, but refuse to apply that same logic these same scholars who told you that the Papacy is the Antichrist of prophecy....which is pretty inconsistent.

Let's call it unclean for a moment, in line with KJV. Romans 14 doesn't say "unclean things are an illusion, nothing is unclean to anyone." No, Romans 14 says explicitly to avoid the things that appear unclean to you (if you esteem them to be unclean, they are unclean to you). The last verse in Romans 14 states explicitly not to eat something if you are doubtful of it. Romans 14 is a deeper discussion about the situation ethics of partaking of things that are circumstantially unfit for a person, depending on how their faith guides them.

No matter how you slice it, the words "unclean of itself" should have been rendered "common of itself" and Paul was telling people not to concern themselves with man-made rules, not doing what you suggest: telling people to ignore Scripture.

It is entirely possible there are salient facts hidden in the mess of contradictions that you have presented. Calling your opinions facts doesn't help the situation.

It is your "opinion" that Isaiah 66 is allegorical, when nothing in the text suggests that. It is an OT Messianic prophecy of the Second Coming with a warning to those like you who attempt to make Scripture cleanse what God has not cleansed.

Considering you have said this in response to my criticism of granting authority to bodies of text outside of scripture (the Christian Bible), I wonder if that is an affirmation that you have drawn from texts that aren't the inspired word and have confused the matter in manner circumstances.

I fully believe Ellen G. White was a prophetess of God, but I've never appealed to her writings at any time whatsoever as evidence for my spiritual propositions - I only appeal to Bible texts. Understand? "The Bible and the Bible alone is to be our creed; the sole bond of union." is what EGW said herself.

I cited the Greek and Strong's interpretation many times. If you're argument is with Strong's, by all mean, fire away.

According to the Lexicons, "unclean of itself" should have been translated "common of itself". Read it for yourself: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g2839/kjv/tr/0-1/
Now that you've been shown the truth, if you continue to translate Romans 14:14 as "unclean of itself", you do so in spite of having been shown the truth, OK?

It depends on the texts you are drawing from. If it's an antiChrist text, you're probably going to have a hard time integrating that into a valid Christian interpretation, and ultimately that interpretation will not be without contradiction.

I would advise you to study what the Reformers had to say about Antichrist and the verses used to explain the Papacy as such.

I always tell people that to regard the 300+ years the Protestant church held Historicism as the sole eschatological interpretation which was believed and taught with remarkable unanimity as not worthy of even a tertiary investigation into why, is the greatest example of what it means for Christians to practice willful ignorance and eschatological bigotry.

The Word of God is Christ. The typical meal blessing is something along the lines of "Come Lord Jesus, be our guest, and let these gifts to us be bless. Amen." Nothing is done without Christ. And there you go again trying to cut Christ out of the picture and attempt to replace Him with the ordinances of the OT law.

Yes, and the Word of God - Christ - will never contradict the Word of God - written. It's YOU cut Christ out of the picture by making a false dichotomy between the Word of God - manifest in the flesh - and the Word of God - written, making the One cancel out the Other.

 

[Jocund]

NIV is based on the Critical Text MSS - it's not to be the final authority for anything

It certainly has more utility and clout than any of the contradictory mess you have presented. Way to distract from the fact that NIV is one of a vast multitude of examples.

"Antichrist" means "take the place of Christ"

No. AntiChrist means opposed to Christ. There may be a specific antiChrist person that is referenced doing a particular thing, but it shows a woeful lack of understanding if you think that is what antiChrist means.

- there is only one "beast" aka "kingdom" that fits all the identifying marks of Bible prophecy: the Papacy, not a book.

Cool speculation.

Why keep applying a text which refers to the Mosaic Law to the Ten Commandments?

Because the Mosaic ten commandments are part of the Mosaic law. It's not complicated. And they should never be confused with the two greatest commandments.

If you're not willing to keep the Sabbath, you're not getting into heaven, because the Sabbath will be kept perpetually there, as Scripture plainly says...unless you think there's going to be a small corner of the kingdom where you'll be able to hang out while the rest of us go before Jesus in worship?

if you think the righteousness of the law without Christ is your ticket to salvation, you should probably brush up on what Jesus said to the Pharisees.

And are you backtracking on the concept that good works are lawful on the Sabbath? Being in Christ is to do good works. Good works are permitted on the Sabbath.

I'm genuinely curious if you have any answer to that. You've clearly backed yourself into a corner with your contradictions which either requires a concession or some distasteful attempt at gas-lighting. I hope that honesty reigns supreme in your heart.

Continued illegit application of that which pertains to ceremonial sabbaths to the weekly Sabbath which will be observed by God's people for all eternity

Cool speculation.

You're suggesting God's choice not to clarify as false Peter's supposition that "common" was an actual thing means God recognizes it as a thing

If you're not willing to read the entirety of Romans 14, there is nothing that anyone can do for you. And like I posted before it isn't the only chapter in the NT to deal with that subject.

You can shut your eyes, stop your ears, and stomp your feet and ignore Isaiah 66 all you want, but the prophet is clear that Jesus is coming back to destroy those who eat pork, mice, and all things abominable.

Even if you are to argue that it is talking about literal swinemeat (which is not necessarily the case) you still have to look the structure of the description where it talks about people in a particular setting doing a particular set of things. It is not necessarily talking about all people that partake of pork.

No it isn't. The text plainly says God wrote on the second tablets in one place and then uses the pronoun "He" to identify the One who wrote on them in another place

There is nothing indicating one way or the other whether the second set of tablets was written by the finger of God or by God through the hands of Moses. Neither interpretation is necessarily true. But it is absolutely fascinating that you think that the distinction somehow makes a difference in how the OT law should be understood.

- you have no such verse saying explicitly that Moses wrote on the second set, do you? How about a little "here a little, there a little, line upon line, precept upon precept? The method is prescribed so we can avoid just the kind of confusion you are introducing, but alas...

In the absense of explicit context, interpretations are tested against scripture. There are at least two valid interpretations regarding the second tablets. Either they were written by God through His finger, or they were written by God through the hands of Moses. Neither interpretation can be readily ruled out by logic alone, therefore we have to expand into the concept of utility and after that by feeling. Is there more or less utility for either case? Not in the fulfilment interpretation with the context of 2 Tim 3:16. But I suspect that this distinction is somehow important in your interpretation that some of the OT laws still apply. Still not clear why the distinction is so important in your worldview.

A Jew stomach was and is no different than a Gentile stomach, swine were the same then as they are now

Cool speculation.

we shouldn't be trying to make these verses metaphorically allegorical as you are attempting to do, but we should be striving to believe the Bible as it is written

The Bible was written with metaphor, parables and allegories. Not sure whether a 100% literal Biblical interpretation is feasible. It's amazing that you would wish to reject the metaphoric language only because it is inconvenient to your flawed interpretation. That's some dedication to rejecting scripture.

What you should be saying is that you find the interpetaton of literal swinemeat being eaten by an allegorical person behind trees and subsequently killed by literal swords and literal fire most compelling. At which point I state that I find the figurative reference to swinemeat more compelling. And we can stay at a stalemate of finding eachother's interpretations uncompelling. But unless there is something that directly contradicts scripture, neither case is necessarily wrong.

If your position is that all of scripture is literal and without substitution, your position is necessarily wrong.

, and "keep the commandments of God". While there are prophecies that were conditional to meet their fulfillment, such as Zechariah 14, Isaiah 66 is not - it is a declaration of the fate that awaits those who both flatly refuse to give up what they've been told is unfit fare or seek Biblical justification in order to make it fit fare, which you are doing.

You haven't killed Sabbath breakers therefore you wilfully refuse His commandments that were given through the then head priest, Moses. You damn yourself with your position. Not only do you refuse to acknowledge that the laws have been nailed to the cross, you cherry-pick which rules you feel should apply and also how they apply. Talk about straining gnats and swallowing camels.

 

[Jocund]

You're the one who argued we should trust the "scholars" who believe Colossians 2:16 refers to the weekly Sabbath, but refuse to apply that same logic these same scholars who told you that the Papacy is the Antichrist of prophecy....which is pretty inconsistent.

Completely different kinds of scholars. Completely different fields of study. The fact that you don't understand how a linguist or translator is different than a political historian or theologian is crushing and disheartening.

No matter how you slice it, the words "unclean of itself" should have been rendered "common of itself" and Paul was telling people not to concern themselves with man-made rules,

Read the end of Romans 14. Anything not done in faith is sinful. It's not about manmade rules. It's about how one esteems something.

not doing what you suggest: telling people to ignore Scripture.

I'm not stating that we should ignore "an eye for an eye" I'm just stating that there is an established equivalency that does not require a literal eye in payment. Christ fulfils the law. This doesn't mean that blood sacrifices for forgiveness or entering the covenant are no longer required, they are just fulfilled by Christ. This doesn't mean that Saturday rest doesn't exist, only that it is fulfilled by being in Christ. This doesn't mean that nothing is unclean, only that through faith in Christ these things are rendered clean unto us (the uncleanliness was only ever existent in the relationship with that thing and not by that thing itself). The fulfilment interpretation does not tell people to ignore scripture. But it is very important to receive the right context and that context exists in the NT.

Your view on the other hand necessarily requires you to ignore requirements such as killing Sabbath breakers. Your interpretation requires you to ignore NT scripture stating the OT law is fulfilled in Christ.

It is your "opinion" that Isaiah 66 is allegorical, when nothing in the text suggests that.

Sure... you know, aside from everything about that passage.

You can find that interpretation uncompelling but you would be in err to call the interpretation invalid.

It is an OT Messianic prophecy of the Second Coming with a warning to those like you who attempt to make Scripture cleanse what God has not cleansed.

One's faith through Christ leads them to understand for themselves what is clean or unclean. God can make clean whatever He wishes to make clean. And He may do so differently person to person.

I fully believe Ellen G. White was a prophetess of God, but I've never appealed to her writings at any time whatsoever as evidence for my spiritual propositions -

Never heard of her.

I only appeal to Bible texts.

I wish you only appealed to Bible texts.

According to the Lexicons, "unclean of itself" should have been translated "common of itself". Read it for yourself: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g2839/kjv/tr/0-1/

I see you have finally stumbled across Strong's Greek. I highly recommend backtracking a post or two back to where I discussed Strong's with a variety of passages dealing with clean vs common vs unclean (particularly the one from Acts).

There is a reason that most translators found it contextually appropriate to translate the verse as "unclean" despite the word for "common" appearing. This isn't entry level stuff. I don't feel that I can adequately explain the nuances of translation and context.

If it makes you feel happier, you can replace all of the "unclean" references in Romans 14 with "common" and it still expresses the same message about the fitness of a thing for a given person being different.

Now that you've been shown the truth, if you continue to translate Romans 14:14 as "unclean of itself", you do so in spite of having been shown the truth, OK?

Have you ever tried writing a letter to any of the authors of the modern editions of the Bible? You will probably learn more from them about the craft of translating and compiling than you ever could from me. They would probably be able to answer your questions more thoroughly and more constructively from an ground-up approach than I can.

I would advise you to study what the Reformers had to say about Antichrist and the verses used to explain the Papacy as such.

Scripturally there isn't just a singular antiChrist, but i would willingly look at any interpretation that is consistent with scripture.

 

[Phoneman-777]

Completely different kinds of scholars. Completely different fields of study. The fact that you don't understand how a linguist or translator is different than a political historian or theologian is crushing and disheartening.

Moses: "...put it (Mosaic Law written in a book) on the side of the Ark, that it might be there for a witness against thee."
Paul: "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us...nailing it to the Cross."

See what I did there? I showed you the sabbaths which were nailed to the Cross was contained in what Moses wrote, not what God wrote on the tables of stone.

Read the end of Romans 14. Anything not done in faith is sinful. It's not about manmade rules. It's about how one esteems something.

Please stop twisting Romans 14. If you truly believe "every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused" means we must eat anything that crawls across our plate, do you have a human shoulder roast in the freezer? Would you eat a maggot sandwich with a side petri dish of E coli bacteria? It's got to be sanctified by the word of God in Leviticus.

I'm not stating that we should ignore "an eye for an eye" I'm just stating that there is an established equivalency that does not require a literal eye in payment. Christ fulfils the law. This doesn't mean that blood sacrifices for forgiveness or entering the covenant are no longer required, they are just fulfilled by Christ. This doesn't mean that Saturday rest doesn't exist, only that it is fulfilled by being in Christ. This doesn't mean that nothing is unclean, only that through faith in Christ these things are rendered clean unto us (the uncleanliness was only ever existent in the relationship with that thing and not by that thing itself). The fulfilment interpretation does not tell people to ignore scripture. But it is very important to receive the right context and that context exists in the NT.

This is the most convoluted mess of writing yet. The commandment is simple: don't work on the Sabbath. Hebrews 4:9-10 KJV says "It is therefore the duty of the people of God to keep the Sabbath" (Lamsa's Peshitta) because if we're resting inwardly in Christ, we'll demonstrate that by resting outwardly from our labor.

Your view on the other hand necessarily requires you to ignore requirements such as killing Sabbath breakers. Your interpretation requires you to ignore NT scripture stating the OT law is fulfilled in Christ.

I'm ignoring? You ignore stoning Sabbathbreakers disappeared with the theocracy when Saul was made king, the Mosaic Law was nailed to the Cross, and Isaiah 66:15-17 prophesies destruction for those who claim the Bible is OK with anything that crawls across your plate.

Sure... you know, aside from everything about that passage. You can find that interpretation uncompelling but you would be in err to call the interpretation invalid.

So, the Lord coming in fiery judgment is allegorical, too? The only interpretations I find unwelcome are those like yours which are based in twisted, non-contextual verses and piss-poor exegesis.

One's faith through Christ leads them to understand for themselves what is clean or unclean. God can make clean whatever He wishes to make clean. And He may do so differently person to person.

Catholics have faith in Christ He will credit them with His merit to lessen their time in Purgatory...which is as ridiculous as your faith that Christ died to make pork clean when He Himself told Isaiah He's coming to destroy those who eat it.

I wish you only appealed to Bible texts.

I'm not surprised you don't recognize my Bible texts as such: you've got to crack open one once in a while to do so.

I see you have finally stumbled across Strong's Greek. I highly recommend backtracking a post or two back to where I discussed Strong's with a variety of passages dealing with clean vs common vs unclean (particularly the one from Acts).

It's called "leading a horse to water" or in this case, "leading a stubborn ass" No need to read what you've written earlier: Romans 14:14 KJV was incorrectly translated "unclean of itself" instead of "common of itself" so please stop making Paul an accessory to your theological skullduggery.

There is a reason that most translators found it contextually appropriate to translate the verse as "unclean" despite the word for "common" appearing.

Yes, and there's a reason most translators put the comma in John 23:43 KJV before "today" - because of the influence of over 1,000 years of Papal doctrinal error.

If it makes you feel happier, you can replace all of the "unclean" references in Romans 14 with "common" and it still expresses the same message about the fitness of a thing for a given person being different.

There is nothing similar about God declaring a thing unclean and a bunch of wicked Jew hypocrites declaring as Biblical the made up classification "common". Both Jews and the Papacy had their versions of "ex cathedra" where their leaders supposedly enter into a "holy oratory state" and declare unBiblical bulldookey as equal to the Word of God.

Have you ever tried writing a letter to any of the authors of the modern editions of the Bible? You will probably learn more from them about the craft of translating and compiling than you ever could from me. They would probably be able to answer your questions more thoroughly and more constructively from an ground-up approach than I can.

Have you studied into how the Bible came to exist as it is today? You would learn much as to why the Papacy previously banned Protestant Bibles based on the Byzantian MSS family, like the Textus Receptus, but now is perfectly happy for anyone to read anything based on the Western (Catholic) MSS or the Alexandrian MSS, the latter being that upon which all the new versions are based, including the NIV, ASV, TEV, NASB, NKJV, etc.

Scripturally there isn't just a singular antiChrist, but i would willingly look at any interpretation that is consistent with scripture.

"Anti-" means "instead of" , "in place of", "in behalf of", "for", as well as "against". The Papacy for centuries claims to take the place of Christ.

 

[Yahshua]

"Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it."

I think we should breakdown what Paul says here:

"The handwriting of ordinances that was against us"​

Paul clarifies the "ordinances" he's referring to a few lines later in the letter...


Colossians 2:20-22
20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,

21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;

22 Which all are to perish with the using) after the commandments and doctrines of men?

23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.

"Why...are ye subject to ordinances...after the commandments and doctrine of men?"​

Paul defines the ordinances as the traditions of the Pharisees that they added to God's law to make them APPEAR holier and more set apart from others. These were called the "takanot" & "ma'asim" of the Rabbis (becoming the basis of modern-day Judaism).

This is why Paul says they "indeed have a show (i.e. the appearance) of wisdom, good worship, humility" etc, but they don't do anything but satisfy the flesh. Thus Paul is ABSOLUTELY NOT speaking about The Almighty's Commandments. The flesh hates God's law, and so obedience to God's law would never "satisfy the flesh" unlike he says these man-made ordinances did.

"which was contrary to us"​

These ordinances are not in the Almighty's law but are traditions men came up with (based on His law) that "puff up" the message (like leaven) and placed a heavier burden on the people as opposed to Messiah's "easy" yoke. The following are not written in The Almighty's law:


Matt 9:10-12 - Pharisee tradition: to sit separately from sinners and tax collectors...to not even be touched by them.

Matt 12:1-8 - Pharisee tradition: even so much as plucking grain with the hand to eat it was breaking Sabbath.

Matt 12:10; John 9:13-16 - Pharisee tradition: no healings on Sabbath. No making mud on Sabbath.

John 5:10 - Pharisee tradition: even so much as carrying a (bamboo-type) matt was breaking Sabbath.

Matt 15:1; Mark 7:1-4; John 1:6 - Pharisee tradition: must wash hands (and dishware in ritual washing) before eating food, else it makes even clean food being eaten unclean.

Matt 15:4-6 - Pharisee tradition: that it's not "dishonoring parents" to refuse to help them financially if that potential aid is "devoted to God" (i.e. given to the Pharisees).

Matt 23:16 - Pharisee tradition: Oaths sworn by the temple and/or altar aren't valid, but oaths sworn by temple gold and/or altar gifts are binding.


Matthew 23:4-7; 28
They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

5 “Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.

28...on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

"And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it"​

Almost every miracle that the Messiah performed openly and defiantly contradicted a man-made Pharisaic tradition that nullified the Almighty's Law.

- Breaking bread with "unclean" people
- Using "sacred" water pots for cleansing for wine
- Making mud with spital to heal a blind man
- Telling a man to take up his mat and walk
- Plucking Grain and eating it
- Telling the people not to do as the Pharisees do because they are hypocrites
- Teaching parables that directly implicated and embarrassed the Pharisees
- Passing every "test" and scriptural "trap" they thought of, stumping them


-----

This is what Paul is referring to in Colossians 2; the religious traditions that made the Law of none effect, which is why Paul concludes his point in the next passage:


Colossians 3:1-6
Therefore, since you have been raised with Christ, strive for the things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with Him in glory.

5 Put to death, therefore, the components of your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires, and greed, which is idolatry. Because of these, the wrath of God is coming on the sons of disobedience


Being raised with Christ, we are put to death sinful flesh which leads to disobedience. We are to obey.

 

[justbyfaith]

I believe that it is the law as it was given to us by God that is related by Paul as being done away with (Romans 6:14, Romans 7:4, Galatians 2:19, Romans 7:6, Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14, Hebrews 7:18-19, Galatians 3:24-25, Galatians 5:18) as concerning condemnation;

While the author of Hebrews makes it clear that the law is not done away with as concerning obedience; as well as apostles Paul and John (Hebrews 8:8-10, Hebrews 10:16, Romans 8:7, Romans 8:4, 1 John 5:3, 2 John 1:6, Romans 13:8-10; Romans 5:5; 1 John 2:3-6)

 

[AworkINprogress]

Ellen G White had some good insight. Her book, “Christ Object Lessons” was a classic. It’s amazing how the Holy Ghost leads. I remember reading that book years ago, and then wanted to pick it up again and had no interest whatsoever. It’s like reading my first bible the charismatic version, when I started reading the KJV later on, it was hard to read it again. We move on, oh just a second, I am hearing mice chattering behind the wall, probably discussing their next meal later tonight when I’ve gone to bed. How shall I deal with these little munchkins.

 

[justbyfaith]

Seventh-Day Adventism has been identified as a borderline pseudo-Christian cult.

 

[Jocund]

Moses: "...put it (Mosaic Law written in a book) on the side of the Ark, that it might be there for a witness against thee."
Paul: "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us...nailing it to the Cross."

See what I did there? I showed you the sabbaths which were nailed to the Cross was contained in what Moses wrote, not what God wrote on the tables of stone.

I see that the OT "place the Book of the Law beside the ark" reference is Deuteronomy 31:26. That book of the law would have included the Mosaic ten commandments.

I assume we fundamentally have a disagreement about the best approach for interpreting Col 2:14.

What counts as the "handwriting of ordinances that was against us"? One interpretation is that this is talking about the letter of the law as it was passed down. The spirit of the law (the law unto righteousness) would then still remain but the written ordinances (inclusive of the Book of Law) would be covered by Christ.

From what I can gather from your position, you are identifying different passages or instructions in the OT that somehow fall outside of the scope of the "handwriting of ordinances".

I don't understand the scheme you are using in order to make that identification possible. It would be helpful if you made that aspect of your argument clear.

If you truly believe "every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused" means we must eat anything that crawls across our plate, do you have a human shoulder roast in the freezer? Would you eat a maggot sandwich with a side petri dish of E coli bacteria?

Yes. If you find someone that esteems a bug crawling across a plate to be clean to eat, he is good to go in accordance with scripture. If anyone is unnerved by eating a bucket of crickets, it is unclean to them. But since Jesus can turn a rock into bread, anything can be fit to eat (but your conscience and faith will lead you to understand whether it is or isn't).

There are some exceptions we see in the NT, but a bucket of crawling crickets can be clean to eat, yes.

I suspect that most people would inherently not esteem human flesh, blood, and maggots to be fit for consumption. The opposite can be true too. Something might esteem milk to be unfit for consumption because they are lactose intolerant and it would therefore be unfit for them (and sinful for them to consume if they doubted the cleanliness of milk for them).

It's got to be sanctified by the word of God in Leviticus.

I will again emphasis the importance for you to clearly identify the scheme you are using in order to differentiate between what was nailed to the cross and what wasn't.

if we're resting inwardly in Christ, we'll demonstrate that by resting outwardly from our labor.

What is rest? What is labour?

What are good works? How do you determine what is a good work and what is not?

These are important questions you need to address in order to make your position clear. You have brought up examples of what you felt were permissible exceptions to not outwardly resting from labour but have not thoroughly explained your position for how you make these determinations.

E.g. At what point did you make the determination that the Katrina event went from emergency to routine? And if we have a circumstance like the current SARS-2 state of emergency declared by the state, is it the state's declaration that makes it an emergency or something else?

You ignore stoning Sabbathbreakers disappeared with the theocracy when Saul was made king

Citation please.

Isaiah 66:15-17 prophesies destruction for those who claim the Bible is OK with anything that crawls across your plate.

1) Isaiah 66:15-17 is not necessarily about literal swineflesh.
2) Isaiah 66:15-17 is not necessarily a condemnation of all partakers of pork
3) Isaiah 66:15-17 necessarily does not describe sanctification of food through Christ

If you are suggesting that your quoted statement is necessarily true, that would be false. You can propose that your statement is possibly true. And you can argue that your statement is compellingly true (and then make your case for that argument).

If the reason you feel your position on Isaiah 66:15-17 is compelling is due to another argument, you need to first establish that other argument as either necessarily true or compelling.

I can show you how points 1)-3) are supported by other scripture. You should be able to do the same in order to counter those points, if you have a valid counter (which there aren't).

So, the Lord coming in fiery judgment is allegorical, too?

Yes. It is entirely possible that fire is a metaphor for an extremely unpleasant sensation that is not necessarily literal sustained chemical combustion.

Catholics have faith in Christ He will credit them with His merit to lessen their time in Purgatory...

This is branching into a different topic, but the RCC concept is that:

1) There are saved individuals (referenced as sheep and wheat in some cases)
2) There are unsaved individuals (referenced as goats and tares in some cases)
3) A person at their time of death is either saved or unsaved
4) A saved individual requires or is destined to experience purification
5) Purgatory is a purification process
6) The weight of one's sins determines the extent of a person that must be purified
7) The purification process is temporal, therefore more required purification (more sin) translates to a longer stay in purgatory
8) More time doing good works necessarily means less time doing sinful works ("idle hands are the devil's play things")
9) Conclusion: Therefore, doing good works equates to less time in Purgatory.

I don't represent the RCC, but the concept is consistent with scripture.

You can argue that you find the concept of Purgatory uncompelling, or that you find a particular iteration of Purgatory uncompelling, but the concept stands as valid by scripture alone.

which is as ridiculous as your faith that Christ died to make pork clean when He Himself told Isaiah He's coming to destroy those who eat it.

Your statement "Isaiah 66:15-17 supports the view that pork is forever bad" is not necessarily true.
Your statement "Pork was never made clean through Christ" is not necessarily true.

Nothing has ever been unclean in itself. Uncleanliness has always been a relationship between the person and object. Even in OT scripture it states "don't eat this because it is unclean to you", and in the NT we see that anything can be sanctified (made clean for a person) by God.

The equivalent of your argument is essentially the proposition: "It is impossible for God to make pork clean for his children" which I reject on the basis that God is omnipotent and it is not outside of His options to do.

Romans 14:14 KJV was incorrectly translated "unclean of itself" instead of "common of itself"

"Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”" - 1 Corinthians 10:25-26 NIV

There is no explicit exception in Corinthians 10:25 for pork. You could add one, but it isn't a necessary addition.

"And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man." - Mark 7:18-20 KJV

This is another passage that is often brought to the forefront as evidence that all meats are clean. You could add a context about ceremonial cleansing of meats, but it isn't a necessary addition.

The word for purging in this section is "katharizōn" which means to purify or make clean.

 

[Jocund]

Yes, and there's a reason most translators put the comma in John 23:43 KJV before "today" - because of the influence of over 1,000 years of Papal doctrinal error.

Luke 23:43.

It might have been a difference in grammar of the day of King James versus modern grammar. But it's entirely possible to have transcription errors and the like between editions. I don't necessarily see KJV as absolutely correct in all regards. The "kill" vs "murder" translation choice is one KJV example that deserves attention and criticism. I'm not a KJV purist (KJV is just my usual go-to).

There is nothing similar about God declaring a thing unclean and a bunch of wicked Jew hypocrites declaring as Biblical the made up classification "common".

I believe you are trying to make the case that unclean and common are two different things. But that still brings us back to Acts 10.

"But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common." - Acts 10:14-15 KJV

The word for "cleansed" here is antonymous to "unclean". The voice is functionally saying to not call something common because its unclean nature has been removed. You could add a context that this isn't saying that God can or will clean everything, but it isn't a necessary addition.

Both Jews and the Papacy had their versions of "ex cathedra" where their leaders supposedly enter into a "holy oratory state" and declare unBiblical bulldookey as equal to the Word of God.

I agree. The Bible should be seen as the top written authority and everything written stemming from it should be considered secondary.

Have you studied into how the Bible came to exist as it is today? You would learn much as to why the Papacy previously banned Protestant Bibles based on the Byzantian MSS family, like the Textus Receptus, but now is perfectly happy for anyone to read anything based on the Western (Catholic) MSS or the Alexandrian MSS, the latter being that upon which all the new versions are based, including the NIV, ASV, TEV, NASB, NKJV, etc.

I'm not terrible familiar with this kind of thing. I try to sample from a wide range of editions when I look at things. I would gladly look at arguments based on the differences between translations.

"Anti-" means "instead of" , "in place of", "in behalf of", "for", as well as "against". The Papacy for centuries claims to take the place of Christ.

The Rabbinic Order, the Roman Catholic Papacy, and the Greek Catholic Patriarchy each claim to represent the priesthood in some capacity. The Rabbinic Order flat out states that Christ has no place with them, which the Papacy and Patriarchy each claim to be earthy representatives of Christ (a middle man instead of a replacement). The Rabbinic Order is inherently antiChrist, but the Papacy and Patriarchy aren't inherently antiChrist. The Papacy or Patriarchy may be circumstantially antiChrist (if an antiChrist decree where declared, etc). I don't know enough about the history and structure of the Catholic decrees to give a hard assessment as to whether they would fit into that category (but I imagine that they diligently ensure it doesn't fit into that category).

 

[BroTan]

What feast are you talking about?

If you didn't read the verse then I will leave this part conversation alone.

 

[BroTan]

If they are redeemed then they already have life.

This statement you making further let me know you don't really understand the word of God and or what's really going on.
Before Jesus came in the flesh the whole creation of man was headed to the lake of fire, because of Adam sin. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. (Romans 5:14)

If you want to be redeemed then you have to do what every other righteous person have done. You have to repent and come under the blood of Jesus for your past sin, not future, and keep the Commandments.

 

[BroTan]

As New Covenant believers, we are no longer bound by the letter of the law but have been set free to become obedient to the spirit of what is written (Romans 7:6).

I believe that the Old Testament sabbath day law is a type or a shadow (Colossians 2:16-17) of the substance which is Christ; as we find that Christ is our sabbath rest in Matthew 11:28-30.

The lord have not changed his ways. For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed (Malachi 3:6) or Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. Honoring the Sabbath on the 7th day is a commandment from God given from the beginning of the creation. The Sabbath did not start with Moses; understand that the Sabbath day is intended to be observe by all nation of people. Its origin goes back to the creation of the world and of mankind. In (Genesis 2:1) Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 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.

In the Leviticus, 23rd Chapter the sabbath day and the High Holy Days which begin I believe on the new moon. Are the feast of the Lord's. These days are to be observe in their season. In Colossians 2:16-17, "Let 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. Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. These feast days are the plans of God, they represent the future, with example from the past. All Holy Days are not to eat or drink, such as the atonement, but still to be observe. So this is actually what a person would say to someone who do not keep these feast day of the Lord, if they were judging them on those High and Holy Sabbath days, they were keeping. They would quoted Colossians 2: 16-17. So if you keep the first day of the week, Sunday, then it makes no sense to use this verse. You cannot worship other days that’s not written in the Bible to do, and then use the Bible to justify it. So if you keep another day thats not written in the Bible, then you are doing something on your own, thus it would really be contradictorily.

In the scriptures it written in Isaiah 8: 20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

 

[justbyfaith]

This statement you making further let me know you don't really understand the word of God and or what's really going on.
Before Jesus came in the flesh the whole creation of man was headed to the lake of fire, because of Adam sin. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. (Romans 5:14)

If you want to be redeemed then you have to do what every other righteous person have done. You have to repent and come under the blood of Jesus for your past sin, not future, and keep the Commandments.

All anyone needs to do to be saved is to call upon the name of the Lord (Romans 10:13).

Obeying the commandments will come to those who do so as the result of the fact that they have been made into new creatures in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17).

 

[BroTan]

Yes Jesus is my Lord; and I also generally do not work on the sabbath day. (For I am retired and I also consider every day to be alike.) But I do not go so far as to worship the Lord only on Saturday.

Paul said in (Titus 1:16) They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him; being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate. Yea, most people are talking about how they know God with their lips, but by they works they are doing something totally different. The Lord God commanded people to remember the Sabbath day (which is the seventh day of the week) to keep it holy and most people deny him to his face by saying “I go to church on Sunday (the first day of the week) because Paul broke bread on Sunday or Jesus died Good Friday and rose Easter Sunday Morning”.

 

[justbyfaith]

The lord have not changed his ways. For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed (Malachi 3:6) or Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. Honoring the Sabbath on the 7th day is a commandment from God given from the beginning of the creation. The Sabbath did not start with Moses; understand that the Sabbath day is intended to be observe by all nation of people. Its origin goes back to the creation of the world and of mankind. In (Genesis 2:1) Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 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.

In the Leviticus, 23rd Chapter the sabbath day and the High Holy Days which begin I believe on the new moon. Are the feast of the Lord's. These days are to be observe in their season. In Colossians 2:16-17, "Let 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. Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. These feast days are the plans of God, they represent the future, with example from the past. All Holy Days are not to eat or drink, such as the atonement, but still to be observe. So this is actually what a person would say to someone who do not keep these feast day of the Lord, if they were judging them on those High and Holy Sabbath days, they were keeping. They would quoted Colossians 2: 16-17. So if you keep the first day of the week, Sunday, then it makes no sense to use this verse. You cannot worship other days that’s not written in the Bible to do, and then use the Bible to justify it. So if you keep another day thats not written in the Bible, then you are doing something on your own, thus it would really be contradictorily.

In the scriptures it written in Isaiah 8: 20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

See Hebrews 4:10 for my understanding of how the sabbath of the Lord applies today.

This is something that is found in the testimony of scripture (the New Testament).

 

[BroTan]

All anyone needs to do to be saved is to call upon the name of the Lord (Romans 10:13).

Obeying the commandments will come to those who do so as the result of the fact that they have been made into new creatures in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17).

Paul says in (Heb. 3:14) For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end; You must believe in what you are doing that’s what faith is, you most be confident unto the end. You must keep God’s law until death or until the coming of the Lord, if you expect salvation.

Just as you freely accepted Jesus in your life you can also freely choose to stop serving him. Jesus said with his own mouth; (Matt. 24:13) But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. That is until the end of your life, or until the Second Coming of the Lord. To teach someone that all they have to do is believe on Christ and you are saved is a doctrine of the devil. Many who teach eternal security teach that once a man is saved no matter how wicked he becomes he is still saved.

 

[justbyfaith]

Paul said in (Titus 1:16) They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him; being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate. Yea, most people are talking about how they know God with their lips, but by they works they are doing something totally different. The Lord God commanded people to remember the Sabbath day (which is the seventh day of the week) to keep it holy and most people deny him to his face by saying “I go to church on Sunday (the first day of the week) because Paul broke bread on Sunday or Jesus died Good Friday and rose Easter Sunday Morning”.

I think that instead of focusing on one of the ten commandments you should be focusing on Jesus Christ and Him crucified (1 Corinthians 2:2).

 

[BroTan]

See Hebrews 4:10 for my understanding of how the sabbath of the Lord applies today.

This is something that is found in the testimony of scripture (the New Testament).

The Lord had completed the heavens and the earth along with the creation of man. This day represent a future day of rest, after the Great tribulation period. This day is not alike any other day, it's set apart. Paul understood in Hebrews 4: 3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, If they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. 4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works. 5 And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest. 6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief: 7 again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, Harden not your hearts. 8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. 9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

So this is what the whole world would be missing out on, because some don’t believe, they believe Sunday is the day to have an Holy Convocation on and it’s not written in the Bible. They will not come up in the first resurrection for this day of rest.