The Ten Commandments are the Covenant, did you know?

[vassal]

Can you explain what you mean by "dual prophecy"?

I do not accept Matthew 24.

I never knew the law until I was close to 30 years old and I did not grow up in a Christian
family. I never even knew the ten commandments except for stealing and murder, which
I saw in two Christian movies.

I pay very close attention to Paul the apostle to the Gentiles.

Paul rarely quotes the law except in Romans and Galatians and both of these letters, speak
against the law for righteousness.

The concept of dual prophecy holds that some biblical prophecies have two layers of fulfilment — one near-term (historical, often within the prophet's lifetime or shortly after) and one far-term (eschatological, pointing to the end times or the Messiah). The first fulfilment acts as a kind of "preview" or type that guarantees and foreshadows the greater, final fulfilment.

As an example, The Destruction of Jerusalem — 70 AD / End Times Jesus's Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24, Luke 21) prophesied the destruction of the Temple. It was fulfilled literally in 70 AD when Rome under Titus destroyed Jerusalem. But the same passage also points forward to a final "great tribulation" and the return of Christ

What we have from Paul are letters to different places, churches, the details of what he preached is not always fully written but Paul did quote the commandments saying they were just and Good, we cannot say he did not. Jesus did ask Paul to preach his name, make his name known essentially: Acts 9:11–16 , "Jesus speaks to Ananias about Paul: He reveals Paul's mission — to carry his name before Gentiles, kings, and the people of Israel, and that Paul will suffer greatly for his name."
Act 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

 

[Inquisitor]

As an example, The Destruction of Jerusalem — 70 AD / End Times Jesus's Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24, Luke 21) prophesied the destruction of the Temple. It was fulfilled literally in 70 AD when Rome under Titus destroyed Jerusalem. But the same passage also points forward to a final "great tribulation" and the return of Christ

Are you sure about that.

Eschatology is often distorted because people quote from Matthew 24.

The problem with Matthew 24, is that the destruction of the temple in AD 70.

Is blended in with the end times itself and there is no separation between the end of
Israel and the end of the world. Luke 21, separates Israel and the era of the Gentiles.

So masses of Christians believe a third temple must be built before Jesus returns, and there
wrong.

A double fulfillment for this reason will be incorrect also.

What ever you do vassal don't sit there comparing Matthew 24 and Luke 21.

Otherwise, you will see the problem and your Christian life will turn into dust.

 

[Dino246]

The concept of dual prophecy holds that some biblical prophecies have two layers of fulfilment — one near-term (historical, often within the prophet's lifetime or shortly after) and one far-term (eschatological, pointing to the end times or the Messiah). The first fulfilment acts as a kind of "preview" or type that guarantees and foreshadows the greater, final fulfilment.

As an example, The Destruction of Jerusalem — 70 AD / End Times Jesus's Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24, Luke 21) prophesied the destruction of the Temple. It was fulfilled literally in 70 AD when Rome under Titus destroyed Jerusalem. But the same passage also points forward to a final "great tribulation" and the return of Christ

That is an assumption, not a dual fulfillment. Until and unless there is a "final great tribulation", you have nothing but speculation on which to base your view.

 

[Inquisitor]

What we have from Paul are letters to different places, churches, the details of what he preached is not always fully written but Paul did quote the commandments saying they were just and Good, we cannot say he did not.

I agree completely.

That is a quotation from Romans when Paul was narrating the fall of the Jews.

The word 'law' is mentioned 56 times and for good reason.

Read Romans chapters 9 to 11.

It is beyond any question that Paul was explaining why Israel failed.

No one can quote from Romans while ignoring the strict context in Romans.

 

[vassal]

This is a big problem I have with your theology.

The entire law and the prophets were fulfilled by Jesus and that is a fact.

Your saying that a division in the law was not fulfilled and must be fulfilled by you.

Do you understand that the letter of the law is lethal?

first I have no personal theology, I read the bible all i say is from there, I investigate, I search for the truth. What I know I speak of, I dont know everything.

""The entire law and the prophets were fulfilled by Jesus and that is a fact."" no this is not so he did not yes establish the millenial kingdom. Jesus fulfilled ehat was spoken of him in the old testament, the prophecies there Perfectly, but not all. His death opened a direct way for us to GOD, directly , plus Jesus is now interceding for us.

""Your saying that a division in the law was not fulfilled and must be fulfilled by you. "" The law for the Jewish peoples then before Jesus death was the 613, the pharisees added so much more and had not the right to do so., it became a burden. this is not for us gentiles at this time, the Core of the ""LAW"" is the Ten commandments that God declared the Covenant. the division of the Law was made by God not me. the commandments were placed inside the ark of the covenant, the rest of the law of Moses was not inside it.

IMPOTRANT: Deuteronomy 5:22 (KJV): "These words the LORD spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me."

This Verse Is Theologically Significant It establishes several important points worth sitting with.

To begin with, the Ten Commandments represent the complete and distinct covenant between God and His people. God spoke them directly to the whole assembly, with no intermediary involved, and then He stopped. That phrase "he added no more" is doing real work in the text. It sets these ten words apart from everything else given through Moses, all of which came later and through Moses as a go-between rather than directly from God.

This also helps us understand the difference between the ""moral"" covenant and the ceremonial or civil law. Everything else in the Torah, the sacrificial systems, the dietary laws, the civil codes, was delivered through Moses as a human channel. Only the Ten Commandments were spoken by God directly to the people and written by His own hand on stone. That distinction makes them uniquely the foundation of the covenant relationship itself, not just one layer of law among many.

""Do you understand that the letter of the law is lethal?""

ansolutely yes the commandments must be kept in the proper way and not like the pharisees did, Jesus spoke at length on this.
The whole chapter Matthew 23 is one extended rebuke, but these verses cut to the heart of what Jesus was actually confronting, a religion that had become all performance and no soul.

Matthew 23:23 (KJV): "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone."

This is really central of the whole rebuke. What he is calling out is the absurdity of obsessing over the tiniest details while completely walking past the things that matter most, judgment, mercy and faith. He follows it up in verse 24 with one of the most vivid images in all of Scripture, straining out a gnat while swallowing a camel whole. That is a picture of people who had completely lost the plot.

Matthew 23:25–26 (KJV): "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also."

Matthew 23:27–28 (KJV): "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity."

That whited sepulchre image is striking. Beautiful from a distance, but the closer you get, the more you realise something is very wrong on the inside. That was Jesus's diagnosis of a religion lived purely from the outside in.

Matthew 23:4 (KJV): "For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers."

No compassion, no gentleness, no love, no willingness to come alongside the people they were supposed to be shepherding. Just the weight of endless added requirements and not a hand offered to help carry them.

This is where the whole story finds its resolution, and what makes it so beautiful is that God had already seen this problem coming and announced the answer through Jeremiah, hundreds of years before Jesus ever set foot in the Temple courts.
Jeremiah 31:31–33 (KJV): "Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people."

The Pharisees represent the end result of what happens when you try to live the law entirely from the outside. They had the commandments written on scrolls, carved on doorposts, even bound upon their foreheads and arms as the law commanded, and yet Jesus looked at them and said the inside was full of dead men's bones.

Jeremiah through God knew of the real problem. The covenant written on tables of stone was never going to be enough on its own, because the human heart without God's Spirit will always find a way to keep the letter while strangling the life clean out of it. What God promised through Jeremiah was something altogether different, not better rules, but a different kind of people. People with the law written in their inward parts, in a place no one can fake and no one can perform their way into.

That is exactly what the Holy Spirit does in the life of a believer. Paul captures it beautifully in 2 Corinthians 3:3, where he says believers are written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God, not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. The Pharisees kept the letter and killed the spirit. The New Covenant, made possible through Christ and carried out by the Holy Spirit, works the other way around entirely. It starts with the heart, and the obedience that flows from it looks nothing like straining gnats. It looks like judgment, mercy and faith, which is exactly what Jesus said they had thrown away.

 

[vassal]

Are you sure about that.

Eschatology is often distorted because people quote from Matthew 24.

The problem with Matthew 24, is that the destruction of the temple in AD 70.

Is blended in with the end times itself and there is no separation between the end of
Israel and the end of the world. Luke 21, separates Israel and the era of the Gentiles.

So masses of Christians believe a third temple must be built before Jesus returns, and there
wrong.

A double fulfillment for this reason will be incorrect also.

What ever you do vassal don't sit there comparing Matthew 24 and Luke 21.

Otherwise, you will see the problem and your Christian life will turn into dust

Thank you for raising this because it is genuinely worth discussing But I think the conclusion you are drawing actually creates more problems than it solves.

You are absolutely right that Luke 21 gives us additional detail and a slightly different emphasis than Matthew 24. Luke does specifically mention the times of the Gentiles and that is a real and important distinction:

And they shall fall by the edge of the sword and shall be led away captive into all nations and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. (Luke 21:24)​

Jerusalem would be trampled by Gentiles for a period of time until that period came to its end. That prophecy saw a remarkable development in 1967 when Jerusalem came back under Jewish control for the first time in nearly 2000 years. That is a genuinely significant prophetic marker that should not be overlooked.

But here is where I have to respectfully disagree with you. You are suggesting that comparing Matthew 24 and Luke 21 is somehow dangerous and will destroy someone's Christian life. But both accounts come from the same source. Jesus. They are both recording what He said on the Mount of Olives to the same disciples at the same moment. The idea that comparing two accounts of the same teaching by Jesus could be spiritually destructive is something I simply cannot agree with.

Jesus said:Thy word is truth. (John 17:17)

All of it. Every account. Every Gospel. Scripture interprets Scripture and comparing parallel accounts is not dangerous at all. the Gospels often complement each other. It is exactly how careful and honest Bible study works. The differences between Matthew 24 and Luke 21 do not contradict each other. They complement each other and together give us a fuller and richer picture of what Jesus actually said that day on the mountain.

Now you are touching on something real when you say Matthew 24 blends the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD with the end times. There is genuine discussion about which parts refer to 70 AD and which parts refer to the final end times. But the solution to that is not to avoid comparing the accounts. The solution is to read them carefully together and let the full testimony of Jesus across both Gospels clarify the picture. That is exactly what careful students of Scripture have always done and it produces clarity not confusion. On the question of a third temple Jesus Himself pointed His disciples to the prophecy of Daniel and specifically told them to understand it:

When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet stand in the holy place whoso readeth let him understand. (Matthew 24:15)

That is an invitation to careful study not a warning to avoid it. Whether that prophecy requires a literal rebuilt temple or refers to something else is a legitimate discussion but the way to answer it is by honestly examining what Jesus said alongside what Daniel wrote. That is exactly the kind of comparison you are warning against and yet Jesus Himself invited it.

The most important thing I want to say is simply this. No honest and careful engagement with the words of Jesus will ever turn someone's Christian life to dust. His words are the most solid ground that exists:

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them I will liken him unto a wise man which built his house upon a rock. And the rain descended and the floods came and the winds blew and beat upon that house and it fell not for it was founded upon a rock. (Matthew 7:24-25)​

Digging deeply into everything Jesus said in Matthew 24 and Luke 21 together does not weaken faith. It strengthens it. Because the closer you look at what Jesus actually said the more coherent, precise and remarkably accurate His prophetic teaching turns out to be.

 

[Just_A__Follower]

Thank you for raising this because it is genuinely worth discussing But I think the conclusion you are drawing actually creates more problems than it solves.

You are absolutely right that Luke 21 gives us additional detail and a slightly different emphasis than Matthew 24. Luke does specifically mention the times of the Gentiles and that is a real and important distinction:

And they shall fall by the edge of the sword and shall be led away captive into all nations and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. (Luke 21:24)​

Jerusalem would be trampled by Gentiles for a period of time until that period came to its end. That prophecy saw a remarkable development in 1967 when Jerusalem came back under Jewish control for the first time in nearly 2000 years. That is a genuinely significant prophetic marker that should not be overlooked.

But here is where I have to respectfully disagree with you. You are suggesting that comparing Matthew 24 and Luke 21 is somehow dangerous and will destroy someone's Christian life. But both accounts come from the same source. Jesus. They are both recording what He said on the Mount of Olives to the same disciples at the same moment. The idea that comparing two accounts of the same teaching by Jesus could be spiritually destructive is something I simply cannot agree with.

Jesus said:Thy word is truth. (John 17:17)

All of it. Every account. Every Gospel. Scripture interprets Scripture and comparing parallel accounts is not dangerous at all. the Gospels often complement each other. It is exactly how careful and honest Bible study works. The differences between Matthew 24 and Luke 21 do not contradict each other. They complement each other and together give us a fuller and richer picture of what Jesus actually said that day on the mountain.

Now you are touching on something real when you say Matthew 24 blends the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD with the end times. There is genuine discussion about which parts refer to 70 AD and which parts refer to the final end times. But the solution to that is not to avoid comparing the accounts. The solution is to read them carefully together and let the full testimony of Jesus across both Gospels clarify the picture. That is exactly what careful students of Scripture have always done and it produces clarity not confusion. On the question of a third temple Jesus Himself pointed His disciples to the prophecy of Daniel and specifically told them to understand it:

When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet stand in the holy place whoso readeth let him understand. (Matthew 24:15)

That is an invitation to careful study not a warning to avoid it. Whether that prophecy requires a literal rebuilt temple or refers to something else is a legitimate discussion but the way to answer it is by honestly examining what Jesus said alongside what Daniel wrote. That is exactly the kind of comparison you are warning against and yet Jesus Himself invited it.

The most important thing I want to say is simply this. No honest and careful engagement with the words of Jesus will ever turn someone's Christian life to dust. His words are the most solid ground that exists:

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them I will liken him unto a wise man which built his house upon a rock. And the rain descended and the floods came and the winds blew and beat upon that house and it fell not for it was founded upon a rock. (Matthew 7:24-25)​

Digging deeply into everything Jesus said in Matthew 24 and Luke 21 together does not weaken faith. It strengthens it. Because the closer you look at what Jesus actually said the more coherent, precise and remarkably accurate His prophetic teaching turns out to be.

AI
———————————

This response is a classic Adventist-style defense of dual prophecy and comparing Matthew 24 with Luke 21. They make several points that sound reasonable at first glance but rely on assumptions and interpretive leaps that aren’t explicitly in the text. Here’s a breakdown of the main issues:

---

1.​

• He claims Jerusalem coming under Jewish control in 1967 marks the end of “the times of the Gentiles.”
• Problem: Luke 21 doesn’t give any indication that the “times of the Gentiles” would last until a modern political event. This is reading current history into prophecy, which is exactly the kind of assumption critics warn about.

---

2.​

• He says “both accounts complement each other and together give a fuller picture.”
• Problem: This ignores that the Gospels often focus on different audiences and purposes. Harmonizing them to prove a dual prophecy can involve reading extra meaning into verses rather than letting each text speak in its own context.

---

3.​

• He admits there’s discussion about which parts refer to AD 70 and which to the end times, but frames dual prophecy as the solution.
• Problem: This is exactly the interpretive assumption critics point out: the text never explicitly separates the prophecy into two fulfillments. Many scholars argue Jesus could be talking primarily about Jerusalem’s destruction, and later symbolic or visionary language doesn’t require projecting it into our era.

---

4.​

• He points to Daniel as guidance for interpreting Matthew 24:15.
• Problem: Adventist interpreters often link this to a literal rebuilt temple and future end-time events, but the Bible doesn’t explicitly require a third temple. Using Daniel to reinforce modern prophetic expectations is adding layers that may not be intended in the original text.

---

5.​

• He frames your caution as “warning against honest study,” and says study strengthens faith.
• Problem: This is more about rhetoric than exegesis. While careful study is good, it doesn’t justify reading modern events into the prophecy or assuming dual fulfillment is required.

---

Bottom line​

• Adventists often assume dual fulfillment, link prophecy to modern history, and harmonize Gospels to support their end-time framework.
• The actual texts (Matthew 24, Luke 21) do not explicitly require these interpretations.
• Much of this reading involves projecting current events and church-specific theology onto the text, rather than letting the words speak plainly.

 

[vassal]

AI
———————————

This response is a classic Adventist-style defense of dual prophecy and comparing Matthew 24 with Luke 21. They make several points that sound reasonable at first glance but rely on assumptions and interpretive leaps that aren’t explicitly in the text. Here’s a breakdown of the main issues:

---

1.​

• He claims Jerusalem coming under Jewish control in 1967 marks the end of “the times of the Gentiles.”
• Problem: Luke 21 doesn’t give any indication that the “times of the Gentiles” would last until a modern political event. This is reading current history into prophecy, which is exactly the kind of assumption critics warn about.

---

2.​

• He says “both accounts complement each other and together give a fuller picture.”
• Problem: This ignores that the Gospels often focus on different audiences and purposes. Harmonizing them to prove a dual prophecy can involve reading extra meaning into verses rather than letting each text speak in its own context.

---

3.​

• He admits there’s discussion about which parts refer to AD 70 and which to the end times, but frames dual prophecy as the solution.
• Problem: This is exactly the interpretive assumption critics point out: the text never explicitly separates the prophecy into two fulfillments. Many scholars argue Jesus could be talking primarily about Jerusalem’s destruction, and later symbolic or visionary language doesn’t require projecting it into our era.

---

4.​

• He points to Daniel as guidance for interpreting Matthew 24:15.
• Problem: Adventist interpreters often link this to a literal rebuilt temple and future end-time events, but the Bible doesn’t explicitly require a third temple. Using Daniel to reinforce modern prophetic expectations is adding layers that may not be intended in the original text.

---

5.​

• He frames your caution as “warning against honest study,” and says study strengthens faith.
• Problem: This is more about rhetoric than exegesis. While careful study is good, it doesn’t justify reading modern events into the prophecy or assuming dual fulfillment is required.

---

Bottom line​

• Adventists often assume dual fulfillment, link prophecy to modern history, and harmonize Gospels to support their end-time framework.
• The actual texts (Matthew 24, Luke 21) do not explicitly require these interpretations.
• Much of this reading involves projecting current events and church-specific theology onto the text, rather than letting the words speak plainly.

stupid AI, i am not an Adventist and am not part of any denomination, call me a disciples of Christ if you need to put a label on my head.... whatever stupid Ai you used, ditch it, and use your head or simply ask.

 

[Rob7]

Thanks for the lesson in SDA theology, but Christians are not under the Mosaic law, including the Sabbath. Galatians 3:23–25 calls the law a guardian until Christ came, and Galatians 5:18 and Romans 6:14 make clear that believers are led by the Spirit, not bound by law. The law written on the heart in Jeremiah 31:33 refers to the Spirit producing obedience in faith, not reinstating the Sinai covenant. Obedience is real, but it flows from faith in Christ, not legalistic rule-keeping, and Gentile believers are never commanded to observe the Mosaic law.

Happy Saturday, gotta get back to work.

You're statement presented a common misunderstanding of the relationship between the Mosaic law, the New Covenant, and obedience to God’s law. We'll break down the key elements of your argument and show how it's faulty in relation to the righteousness of Christ that leads to obedience to God’s law.

---

1. “Christians are not under the Mosaic law, including the Sabbath.”​

While it is true that Christians are not under the Mosaic law as a civil or ceremonial code, this does not negate the enduring moral principles of God’s law, which were part of the Ten Commandments, including the Sabbath commandment.

• Scriptural Reference:
  • Matthew 5:17 – Jesus clearly states, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.”
  • Romans 3:31 – “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.”
• Spirit of Prophecy ( Revelation 19:10 ) Insight:
  • The moral law (which includes the Ten Commandments, and specifically the Sabbath) is not done away with. The New Covenant law, as spoken of in Jeremiah 31:33, is a writing of God’s law on the heart rather than the abolition of it. Faith in Christ does not negate obedience to the moral law; it empowers it.

---

2. “Galatians 3:23–25 calls the law a guardian until Christ came.”​

The law as a guardian (or tutor) in Galatians 3:23-25 does not mean the law is abolished, but that the purpose of the law was to point us to Christ and prepare us for the new covenant of grace. Under the Mosaic system, the law served as a temporary guide that pointed to the righteousness of Christ, but once Christ fulfilled the law, we are no longer under its tutelage.

• Scriptural Reference:
  • Galatians 3:24-25 – “Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.”
• SOP Insight:
  • While the law pointed forward to Christ, it was never meant to be done away with. The law’s role was to lead us to Christ’s righteousness, which is now available through faith. The believer’s obedience to the moral law (including the Sabbath) is not about following a system of rituals, but about a heart transformed by Christ’s grace.

---

3. “Galatians 5:18 and Romans 6:14 make clear that believers are led by the Spirit, not bound by law.”​

While it is true that believers are led by the Spirit and that we are not under the law in terms of being condemned by it (because Christ fulfilled it), this does not mean the law is irrelevant or that we are free to disobey it. The Spirit leads us to obedience, not away from it. The Spirit empowers us to live according to God’s commandments, fulfilling the law in a way that the flesh could never do.

• Scriptural Reference:
  • Romans 8:4 – “That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”
  • Galatians 5:16-18 – “This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh… But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.”
• SOP Insight:
  • Teaches that the Spirit of God works in the believer to produce obedience to God’s law from the inside, not as a burdensome rule, but as the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23). True Christian freedom is not the freedom to sin or disobey God’s law, but the freedom to obey God through the power of the Spirit.

---

4. “The law written on the heart in Jeremiah 31:33 refers to the Spirit producing obedience in faith, not reinstating the Sinai covenant.”​

The New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:33 is not a new set of laws, but rather a promise of a transformed heart that desires to obey God’s law. The Spirit produces obedience in us, but this obedience is to God’s eternal moral law, which includes the Ten Commandments, as understood in the New Covenant.

• Scriptural Reference:
  • Ezekiel 36:26-27 – “A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you… And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.”
• SOP Insight:
  • The New Covenant involves writing God’s law on the heart, meaning the moral law, which includes the Sabbath, is still relevant. The New Covenant is not a rejection of the law of God but a promise of obedience through the power of the Spirit. The Spirit of God enables believers to keep God’s commandments in a way that was not possible under the Old Covenant without Christ’s righteousness imputed to them.

---

5. “Obedience is real, but it flows from faith in Christ, not legalistic rule-keeping, and Gentile believers are never commanded to observe the Mosaic law.”​

Obedience does indeed flow from faith in Christ, but obedience to God’s commandments is never legalistic. It is the fruit of genuine faith and the work of the Spirit in our hearts. The Mosaic law as a system of rituals and ceremonies was fulfilled in Christ, but the moral law remains a foundation for Christian living. The Gentile believers are not exempt from God’s moral law, and the Sabbath is included as part of the moral law.

1. Scriptural Reference:
   • Matthew 28:19-20 – Jesus commands His disciples to teach all nations to observe His commandments, which includes the Ten Commandments.
   • Revelation 14:12 – “Here is the patience of the saints: ( We Christians ) here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.”
2. SOP Insight:
   1. The Sabbath, as part of the moral law, is still binding on all Christians, including Gentiles, obedience to God’s commandments, including the Sabbath, is a sign of true faith and a key aspect of the New Covenant experience.
      1. Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 6, p. 353: “The Sabbath is a perpetual sign of the eternal covenant between God and His people, and it remains a sacred obligation for believers in the New Covenant.”
         
         Also; Sabbath observance is a significant sign of God’s authority because it serves as a reminder ( Exodus 20:8 ) of His sovereignty over creation, His power to sanctify, and His role as The Creator God. Genesis 2:2-3, Exodus 31:13, Exodus 20:8-11, Deuteronomy 5:12-15, Isaiah 56:6-7.

Revelation 14:7 – “Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.” ( <~~ Referencing the Sabbath )

---

Conclusion:​

You statement is faulty because it mistakenly separates the New Covenant from the moral law, including the Sabbath, when in fact, the New Covenant empowers believers to obey God’s law, written on their hearts through the Holy Spirit. The righteousness of Christ, received by faith, enables Christians to obey God’s law not as a legalistic burden, but as a natural result of love and faith in Christ. The moral law, including the Sabbath, is not abolished in the New Covenant but rather fulfilled and internalized in the believer’s life, empowered by the Spirit.

++++++++ ~~ Still enjoying resting in Jesus, on His Sabbath, ... Blessings ~~ ++++++++​

 

[Rob7]

There is no Scripture that says Jesus is the Sabbath rest or the 4th commandment.

Excuse me Brother ! ... but what about;

• Hebrews 4:9-10 – “There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.”
• John 15:5 – “I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.”
• Revelation 14:13 – “And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labors; and their works do follow them.”
• Romans 5:1 – “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Do these imply that through faith in Jesus Christ, believers experience the rest He offers, which is not just a cessation of physical activity but a spiritual rest that brings peace, freedom from guilt, and joy in His righteousness. The resting in Jesus represents a total surrender to His grace and an ongoing relationship with Him.
Ya Think ?

the Sabbath is something man does- keeps the Sabbath day holy, the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD. Exo20:8-11 The Sabbath is made for man, not Jesus,

You are correct ... and I find The Sabbath as a time cut out of the week "to Rest IN my Lord Jesus. Gal 2:20
I might be misunderstanding your statement ?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++​

 

[SabbathBlessing]

Excuse me Brother ! ... but what about;

• Hebrews 4:9-10 – “There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.”
• John 15:5 – “I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.”
• Revelation 14:13 – “And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labors; and their works do follow them.”
• Romans 5:1 – “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Do these imply that through faith in Jesus Christ, believers experience the rest He offers, which is not just a cessation of physical activity but a spiritual rest that brings peace, freedom from guilt, and joy in His righteousness. The resting in Jesus represents a total surrender to His grace and an ongoing relationship with Him.
Ya Think ?

You are correct ... and I find The Sabbath as a time cut out of the week "to Rest IN my Lord Jesus. Gal 2:20
I might be misunderstanding your statement ?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++​

These verses do not say Jesus is rest- He is the rest GIVER, the Creator, not that He is rest i.e. creation. People have come up with a creative doctrine that says Jesus is our Sabbath rest, but there is no Scripture that actually says this. According to the Bible, the Sabbath rest is according to the commandment Luke23:56. We can enter His rest by faith and those who do also cease from their works Heb4:10 as God did on the seventh day. Heb4:4 Exo20:11 people think because God gives us rest that means we can profane the 4th commandment, it was never one or the other- it was always both even in the OT. Most of Hebrews 4 is quoting OT.

Happy Sabbath!

 

[Rob7]

The Gentiles were never under the law so the Gentiles were never required, to rest on the sabbath day.

The New Covenant requires the same obedience to God, His Character => His Law, as obedience was required in the OT Covenant.

~~ The New Covenant Still Requires Obedience to God ~~

The New Covenant, while distinct in some respects from the Old Covenant, does not nullify the need for obedience. Instead, it establishes a deeper, more intimate ( Loving ) relationship with God, centered on faith, grace, and the work of the Holy Spirit.

• Hebrews 8:10 – “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people.”
• Jeremiah 31:33 – “But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.”

Explanation:
In the New Covenant, the law of God—which includes moral commandments such as the Ten Commandments—remains central, but instead of being written on tablets of stone, it is now written on the hearts and minds of believers. This transformation means that God’s law is internalized through the power of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, obedience to God is not about legalism, but about a heart that desires to follow God’s will out of love and gratitude.

2. Obedience is a Fruit of Faith in Christ​

The New Covenant empowers believers to obey God through faith, but it is important to emphasize that obedience does not earn salvation—it is the result of having received the righteousness of Christ through faith.

Romans 1:5 – “By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name.”

• Romans 16:26 – “But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith.”
• John 14:15 – “If ye love me, keep my commandments.”
• John 15:10 – “If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love.”

Explanation:
The New Covenant calls us to obedience—but this obedience is rooted in faith in Christ, not in self-effort or legalistic rule-keeping. Faith and obedience go hand in hand. As we believe in Jesus Christ and His sacrifice for us, our love for Him compels us to keep His commandments. Obedience is a response to God’s grace, not a way to earn it.

3. Righteousness of Christ is Received by Faith​

In the New Covenant, the righteousness of Christ is imputed to believers through faith. This means that our obedience is empowered by the righteousness Christ gives us, and through this righteousness, we are able to fear God and give Him glory.

Romans 3:21-22 – “But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference.”

• Romans 5:19 – “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.”
• Philippians 3:9 – “And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.”

Explanation:
The righteousness of Christ is what enables believers to stand before God with confidence, for it is not our own righteousness that saves us, but Christ’s perfect obedience. As we receive His righteousness by faith, we are empowered to obey God’s commandments, and this obedience becomes the fruit of the righteousness of Christ working in us.

4. The Fear of God and Giving Him Glory (Revelation 14:7)​

The call to fear God and give Him glory is not a command to live in terror of God, but to have a reverent awe and deep respect for His holiness, justice, and love. This is the essence of true worship in the last days.

Revelation 14:7 – “Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.”

• Ecclesiastes 12:13 – “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.”

Explanation:
The fear of God, in the context of Revelation 14:7, is not about fearing punishment, but about reverencing His sovereignty and worshipping Him in obedience to His commandments. As we obey God by faith, we demonstrate our fear of Him—we acknowledge His rightful authority over our lives. This obedience to His Word is what gives glory to God because it reflects His character in us.

Conclusion:​

In the New Covenant, obedience to God remains crucial, but it is rooted in faith—faith in Christ’s sacrifice and His righteousness imputed to us. Obedience is not a burden, but a natural result of a heart transformed by the Holy Spirit.

In Revelation 14:7, the call to fear God and give Him glory is a call to obedient worship—worship that acknowledges His sovereignty, trusts in His righteousness, and follows His commandments out of love. The righteousness of Christ is the power that enables us to live in obedience, not through our strength, but through faith in His saving grace.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ~~ Happy Sabbath ~~ +++++++++++++++++++++++++​

 

[Just_A__Follower]

stupid AI, i am not an Adventist and am not part of any denomination, call me a disciples of Christ if you need to put a label on my head.... whatever stupid Ai you used, ditch it, and use your head or simply ask.

It didn’t say you were an Adventist. It said your argument was an Adventist argument. Whether or not you claim a denomination, your theology so far matches up with the SDA. Ai simply showed your assumptions and how you read more into the text than is actually there. You still haven’t been able to answer my one simple question either.

 

[Cameron143]

The New Covenant requires the same obedience to God, His Character => His Law, as obedience was required in the OT Covenant.

The new covenant creates the conditions for obedience. Read Ezekiel 36:26-27. In the new covenant, God actually causes His people to walk in His statutes.

 

[Just_A__Follower]

You're statement presented a common misunderstanding of the relationship between the Mosaic law, the New Covenant, and obedience to God’s law. We'll break down the key elements of your argument and show how it's faulty in relation to the righteousness of Christ that leads to obedience to God’s law.

---

Conclusion:​

You statement is faulty because it mistakenly separates the New Covenant from the moral law, including the Sabbath, when in fact, the New Covenant empowers believers to obey God’s law, written on their hearts through the Holy Spirit. The righteousness of Christ, received by faith, enables Christians to obey God’s law not as a legalistic burden, but as a natural result of love and faith in Christ. The moral law, including the Sabbath, is not abolished in the New Covenant but rather fulfilled and internalized in the believer’s life, empowered by the Spirit.

++++++++ ~~ Still enjoying resting in Jesus, on His Sabbath, ... Blessings ~~ ++++++++​

SOP do you mean the writings of false prophets? You know Jesus warned about those.

AI
——————

1. Claim: Christians are bound by the Sabbath as part of the moral law​

• Error: Paul explicitly states Gentile believers are not under the law (Galatians 2:14, 5:18; Colossians 2:16).
• Assumption: They redefine “moral law” to include Sabbath observance for all Christians.

---

2. Claim: Jeremiah 31:33 and Ezekiel 36:26–27 require Sabbath observance​

• Error: These passages promise a heart transformed by the Spirit, producing obedience in general, not restoring the Mosaic covenant.
• Assumption: They equate internal obedience with literal Sabbath-keeping.

---

3. Use of Matthew 28:19–20 and Revelation 14:12 to mandate Sabbath​

• Error: These passages call for teaching and living in obedience to Christ, not for keeping the Mosaic Sabbath.
• Assumption: Any reference to God’s commandments is automatically interpreted as including Sabbath observance for Gentiles.

---

4. Heavy reliance on Ellen White / SOP as authoritative proof​

• Error: SOP is not Scripture and holds no binding authority for non-Adventists.
• Assumption: Church tradition is treated as equal to or explanatory of God’s Word.

---

5. Matthew 5:17 and Romans 3:31 misapplied​

• Error: Jesus fulfilled the law, not made Gentile obedience to the Mosaic Sabbath mandatory.
• Assumption: “Establishing the law” is read as enforcing the Sabbath on all believers, instead of fulfilled in Christ.

---

6. Circular reasoning​

• Error: They argue “Sabbath is part of moral law → moral law is eternal → Sabbath is binding → Spirit enables obedience including Sabbath,” which assumes the very conclusion that needs proof.

---

7. Misinterpretation of Galatians 3:23–25 and 5:18; Romans 6:14​

• Error: Paul clearly shows the law served as a tutor until Christ and that believers are led by the Spirit, not under the law.
• Assumption: Spirit-led obedience must include Mosaic rules like Sabbath observance.

---

8. Overgeneralization of “obedience”​

• Error: They claim obedience to Christ’s law inherently includes Sabbath keeping for Gentiles.
• Assumption: Spiritual obedience = literal ritual observance.

---

9. Misuse of Old Testament Sabbath passages​

• Error: Exodus 20, Deuteronomy 5, Isaiah 56, etc., are cited as binding on Christians today.
• Assumption: Sabbath commands for Israel are automatically moral imperatives for all believers.

---

10. Framing your points as “faulty” without engaging Scripture directly​

• Error: Uses rhetoric (“common misunderstanding,” “faulty”) rather than addressing Galatians and Romans head-on.
• Assumption: The appeal to authority (SOP, Matthew 5, Revelation 14) validates their theology regardless of what Paul actually says.

 

[SabbathBlessing]

Thank you for raising this because it is genuinely worth discussing But I think the conclusion you are drawing actually creates more problems than it solves.

You are absolutely right that Luke 21 gives us additional detail and a slightly different emphasis than Matthew 24. Luke does specifically mention the times of the Gentiles and that is a real and important distinction:

And they shall fall by the edge of the sword and shall be led away captive into all nations and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. (Luke 21:24)​

Jerusalem would be trampled by Gentiles for a period of time until that period came to its end. That prophecy saw a remarkable development in 1967 when Jerusalem came back under Jewish control for the first time in nearly 2000 years. That is a genuinely significant prophetic marker that should not be overlooked.

But here is where I have to respectfully disagree with you. You are suggesting that comparing Matthew 24 and Luke 21 is somehow dangerous and will destroy someone's Christian life. But both accounts come from the same source. Jesus. They are both recording what He said on the Mount of Olives to the same disciples at the same moment. The idea that comparing two accounts of the same teaching by Jesus could be spiritually destructive is something I simply cannot agree with.

Jesus said:Thy word is truth. (John 17:17)

All of it. Every account. Every Gospel. Scripture interprets Scripture and comparing parallel accounts is not dangerous at all. the Gospels often complement each other. It is exactly how careful and honest Bible study works. The differences between Matthew 24 and Luke 21 do not contradict each other. They complement each other and together give us a fuller and richer picture of what Jesus actually said that day on the mountain.

Now you are touching on something real when you say Matthew 24 blends the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD with the end times. There is genuine discussion about which parts refer to 70 AD and which parts refer to the final end times. But the solution to that is not to avoid comparing the accounts. The solution is to read them carefully together and let the full testimony of Jesus across both Gospels clarify the picture. That is exactly what careful students of Scripture have always done and it produces clarity not confusion. On the question of a third temple Jesus Himself pointed His disciples to the prophecy of Daniel and specifically told them to understand it:

When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet stand in the holy place whoso readeth let him understand. (Matthew 24:15)

That is an invitation to careful study not a warning to avoid it. Whether that prophecy requires a literal rebuilt temple or refers to something else is a legitimate discussion but the way to answer it is by honestly examining what Jesus said alongside what Daniel wrote. That is exactly the kind of comparison you are warning against and yet Jesus Himself invited it.

The most important thing I want to say is simply this. No honest and careful engagement with the words of Jesus will ever turn someone's Christian life to dust. His words are the most solid ground that exists:

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them I will liken him unto a wise man which built his house upon a rock. And the rain descended and the floods came and the winds blew and beat upon that house and it fell not for it was founded upon a rock. (Matthew 7:24-25)​

Digging deeply into everything Jesus said in Matthew 24 and Luke 21 together does not weaken faith. It strengthens it. Because the closer you look at what Jesus actually said the more coherent, precise and remarkably accurate His prophetic teaching turns out to be.

I think by Jesus predicting the destruction of Jerusalem sandwiched between the prophecy of His Sabbath being kept by His faithful Mat24:20 to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ- we can look to the destruction of Jerusalem and what was the abomination that led to desolation of Jerusalem and what will be repeated at His Second Coming. Jesus never predicted Jerusalem would be re-built - I believe this will lead to a spiritual deception. Jesus made it clear the veil on the earthy temple was torn, it was done, our bodies are now His temples and He ministers in the heavenly Temple not made with human hands Heb8:1-5

What led to the abomination of desolation:
-Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem
-Pagan Roman standards entering the temple area

The same will repeat itself again

-The greatest abomination according to the Bible

Eze 8:15 Then He said to me, “Have you seen this, O son of man? Turn again, you will see greater abominations than these.” 16 So He brought me into the inner court of the LORD’s house; and there, at the door of the temple of the LORD, between the porch and the altar, were about twenty-five men with their backs toward the temple of the LORD and their faces toward the east, and they were worshiping the sun toward the east.
17 And He said to me, “Have you seen this, O son of man? Is it a trivial thing to the house of Judah to commit the abominations which they commit here? For they have filled the land with violence; then they have returned to provoke Me to anger. Indeed they put the branch to their nose. 18 Therefore I also will act in fury. My eye will not spare nor will I have pity; and though they cry in My ears with a loud voice, I will not hear them.”

They stood inside the Temple court, the holiest place in Israel.
They turned their backs to God’s temple.
They bowed to the sun.

Most people don't realize where Sunday worship came from. It didn't come from our Bibles. God never even names Sunday, He only named the Sabbath and it is the holy day of the LORD Isa58:13 the same day He commanded us to keep holy Exo20:8-11 because we are made in His image and likeness.

...pastoral intuition suggested to the Church the christianization of the notion of Sunday as "the day of the sun", which was the Roman name for the day and which is retained in some modern languages.(29) This was in order to draw the faithful away from the seduction of cults which worshipped the sun, and to direct the celebration of the day to Christ, humanity's true 'sun'.
—John Paul II, Dies Domini, 27. The day of Christ-Light, 1998 (Prominent protestant leaders agree with this statement - See here for a statement by Dr. E. T. Hiscox, author of the ‘Baptist Manual’)

The Sun was a foremost god with heathen-dom…The sun has worshippers at this hour in Persia and other lands…. There is, in truth, something royal, kingly about the sun, making it a fit emblem of Jesus, the Sun of Justice. Hence the church in these countries would seem to have said, to 'Keep that old pagan name [Sunday]. It shall remain consecrated, sanctified.' And thus the pagan Sunday, dedicated to Balder, became the Christian Sunday, sacred to Jesus.
—William Gildea, Doctor of Divinity, The Catholic World, March, 1894, p. 809

The retention of the old pagan name of Dies Solis, for Sunday is, in a great measure, owing to the union of pagan and Christian sentiment with which the first day of the week was recommended by Constantine to his subjects - pagan and Christian alike - as the 'venerable' day of the sun.
—Arthur P. Stanley, History of the Eastern Church, p. 184

The Sabbath was Saturday, not Sunday. The Church altered the observance of the Sabbath to the observance of Sunday. Protestants must be rather puzzled by the keeping of Sunday when God distinctly said, 'Keep holy the Sabbath Day.' The word Sunday does not come anywhere in the Bible, so, without knowing it they are obeying the authority of the Catholic Church.
—Canon Cafferata, The Catechism Explained, p. 89.

No wonder why God is calling all of His people out of these false teachings Rev18:4 and back to worshipping the God of Creation Rev14:7 Exo20:11 before its too late.

I do not believe its a coincidence on what the 4th plague is before Jesus comes.

 

[Mem]

Mem ! Hits VERY hard for you to argue against, "Faith that leads to Obedience" as in Acts 26:14 "And when we were all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? ( as in DISOBEY ) It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks." ( It's hard to argue against ( The Truth ) => believing and following our Lord )

True faith is not mere belief, but a trusting relationship with God that produces obedience to His commandments, especially the Ten Commandments. The Bible presents this consistently.

1. Faith and Obedience Are United in Abraham’s Example​

• Genesis 26:5 – “Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.”
• Genesis 22:1-18 – Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac shows faith expressed through obedience.
• Romans 4:20-21 – “He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.”

Faith is inseparable from obedience. Abraham’s faith was demonstrated by action, fulfilling God’s commandments. Abraham’s faith was “a faith that works by love and obedience”

2. Faith Without Obedience Is Dead​

• James 2:17 – “Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.”
• James 2:21-22 – “Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?”

Faith that does not result in obedience is incomplete. “Faith is not a passive thing; it is a living principle, producing obedience”

3. Obedience as the Fruit of Faith in Christ​

• John 14:15 – “If ye love me, keep my commandments.”
• John 14:21 – “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.”
• Romans 1:5 – “…by whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations…”

Obedience flows from faith in Christ. ... “the faith which works by love” produces a life of obedience to God’s law.

4. Faith Leads to Righteousness Through Obedience​

• Habakkuk 2:4 – “The just shall live by his faith.”
• Romans 1:17 – “…the just shall live by faith.”
• Revelation 14:12 – “Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.”

True faith is demonstrated in a life in harmony with God’s commandments, called “the faith OF Jesus.” This as obedience being the proof and fruit of saving faith.

“The faith of obedience” is not optional; it is biblically grounded. True faith inherently results in obedience to God, showing love for Him and trusting His promises.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
​

Again, you are arguing with for the faith of obedience rather than for the obedience of faith. But you'd need an eye operation to see it.

 

[Rob7]

These verses do not say Jesus is rest- He is the rest GIVER, the Creator, not that He is rest i.e. creation. People have come up with a creative doctrine that says Jesus is our Sabbath rest, but there is no Scripture that actually says this. According to the Bible, the Sabbath rest is according to the commandment Luke23:56. We can enter His rest by faith and those who do also cease from their works Heb4:10 as God did on the seventh day. Heb4:4 Exo20:11 people think because God gives us rest that means we can profane the 4th commandment, it was never one or the other- it was always both even in the OT. Most of Hebrews 4 is quoting OT.

Happy Sabbath!

Yes ! This experience and understanding of "resting IN Jesus" or "Jesus is my Sabbath Rest" is very profound, and inherently spiritually subjective. You can't really express it with words, like trying to expressing verbally the taste of chocolate. It's the same as the experience of Gal 2:20. which leads to repentance, salvation, obedience, sanctification ~~> glorification, IN CHRIST. I'm just experiencing the Sabbath a bit different that you are understanding, I believe .. ! ... but not sure ... being "a spiritual matter"

Here's a VERY pertinent video teaching, from Michael McCaffery, I highly recommend all his video production as been in line with Christ and His Righteousness.
The Gospel of Rest – Part 1: The Sign of Faith

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++​

 

[Rob7]

Again, you are arguing with for the faith of obedience rather than for the obedience of faith. But you'd need an eye operation to see it.

You'll need a heart transplant to understand it.

 

[Mem]

You'll need a heart transplant to understand it.

Hopefully not performed by a crossed-eye surgeon.