Discussion:
Antichrist Agenda
(too old to reply)
Stephen Korsman
2006-06-01 17:11:24 UTC
Permalink
I've been told that some will do biblical and mental gymnastics to make
the
Sabbath fit the New Covenant. You are proving their point.
WT
Mental gymnastics are required to delete the Sabbath
from the NC. You illustrate this point.
Show Sabbath observance taught in the NC or your statement stands like an
idiotic "oh yeah."
I showed him where the Bible used the law of Moses and the law of God as
synonyms, and where ordinances and commandments etc were the same thing.
After that, he diverted into his false claims about what Catholicism teaches
about the 10 commandments by taking one-sided Catholic quotes and refusing
to acknowledge context. This time he has stopped in the same place again
with that, because he has no case. Back to the law issue - I'm reposting
what I posted last year:

You are studying with preconveived notions about the law, thinking it is
divided up into commandments and ordinanances etc. Yet the 10 commandments
are also called ordinances, and the Mosaic law is referred to as
commandments.

Lev 27:34 KJV These are the commandments, which the LORD commanded Moses
for the children of Israel in mount Sinai.

This refers to the law of Moses.

Deu 5:1 KJV And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O
Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that
ye may learn them, and keep, and do them.

This is right before the 10 Commandments.

Eze 20:18-21 KJV But I said unto their children in the wilderness, Walk ye
not in the statutes of your fathers, neither observe their judgments, nor
defile yourselves with their idols: (19) I am the LORD your God; walk in
my statutes, and keep my judgments, and do them; (20) And hallow my
sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that
I am the LORD your God. (21) Notwithstanding the children rebelled against
me: they walked not in my statutes, neither kept my judgments to do them,
which if a man do, he shall even live in them; they polluted my sabbaths:
then I said, I would pour out my fury upon them, to accomplish my anger
against them in the wilderness.

The Sabbath is an ordinance?

Lev 19:37 KJV Therefore shall ye observe all my statutes, and all my
judgments, and do them: I am the LORD.

Includes commands from the 10 Commandments AND the rest, lumping them all
together into statutes and judgements.

Deu 6:24-25 KJV And the LORD commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear
the LORD our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as
it is at this day. (25) And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe
to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded
us.

"These commandments" are "these statutes" and God commanded them.

Animal sacrifices - are they the law of Moses, or the law of God?

Luk 2:23 KJV (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that
openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;)

2Ch 31:3 KJV He appointed also the king's portion of his substance for the
burnt offerings, to wit, for the morning and evening burnt offerings, and
the burnt offerings for the sabbaths, and for the new moons, and for the set
feasts, as it is written in the law of the LORD.

"Honour your father and your mother" - the law of Moses, or the law of God?

Mar 7:10 KJV For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso
curseth father or mother, let him die the death

Can you explain these to me? Surely these passages have got their terms
mixed up?

And is the Torah the book of the law of Moses, or the book of the law of
God?

Neh 8:1 KJV And all the people gathered themselves together as one man into
the street that was before the water gate; and they spake unto Ezra the
scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses, which the LORD had commanded
to Israel.

Neh 8:18 KJV Also day by day, from the first day unto the last day, he read
in the book of the law of God. And they kept the feast seven days; and on
the eighth day was a solemn assembly, according unto the manner.


God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
Stephen Korsman
2006-06-01 17:13:10 UTC
Permalink
I've been told that some will do biblical and mental gymnastics to
make the Sabbath fit the New Covenant. You are proving their point.
WT
Mental gymnastics are required to delete the Sabbath
from the NC. You illustrate this point.
Show Sabbath observance taught in the NC or your statement stands
like an idiotic "oh yeah."
"It is therefore the duty of the people of God to keep the Sabbath."
Heb 4:9 (Lamsa)
Heb 4:1-11
(Heb 4:1) Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering
into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.
(Heb 4:2) For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the
word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that
heard it.
(Heb 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.
(Heb 4:4) 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.
(Heb 4:5) And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.
(Heb 4:6) Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and
they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:
(Heb 4:7) Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, Today, after so
long a time; as it is said, Today if ye will hear his voice, harden not your
hearts.
(Heb 4:8) For if Joshua had given them rest, then would he not afterward
have spoken of another day.
(Heb 4:9) There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
(Heb 4:10) For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from
his own works, as God did from his.
(Heb 4:11) Let us labor therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall
after the same example of unbelief.


Hebrews goes through a list of OLD Covenant signs and compares them to the
NEW Covenant reality. If Hebrews is to be consistent in its treatment of
these OC signs, the Sabbath must be treated the same was as circumcision,
lambicide, and priests.

Adventists claim that the Sabbath is different in this case, that it
continues for Christians today, based on Heb 4:9.

Only by obliterating context can that assertion be made. Go back and read
this section quoted above. Then go and read the ENTIRE book, without
selective quoting, and see if you come up with the idea that the Sabbath is
the single exception to the Old Covenant symbols that are abolished, in
spite of the fact that the book treats it in exactly the same way as those
that are abolished. It compares the Old Covenant lamb sacrifice with Jesus'
death ... the former no longer applicable to Christians. It compares the
Levitical priesthood with the priesthood of Christ ... the former being no
longer relevant to Christians. It compares the Sabbath to our rest in Christ
... and, with no evidence whatsoever, Adventists claim that this is the
single exception within this book, when the book itself treats it exactly
the same as the rest? Sorry, but people who take the Bible for what it says,
and not what they want it to say, won't fall for that.

This text is proof once again that destroys the Sabbatarian point of view.
In verse 4, Paul (the author was probably/possibly Paul, and many believe
him to be Paul, so we will call him Paul) treats the Sabbath with such
nonchalance it is highly doubtful that he had any respect for it any
longer - he says in a blasé fashion, "somewhere" as if the actual
commandment which EVERYONE should have been able to reference in Exodus or
Deuteronomy was quite irrelevant. Every observant Jew, anyone who knew the
Bible at all, would know exactly where the Sabbath was given, where the 10
Commandments were! Why is Paul implying here that this is NOT important?
Such a casual remark about the Sabbath hardly fits in with the rest of the
claims Adventists are making about Heb 4:1-11.

Paul goes on to state that God set aside ANOTHER DAY - "TODAY". That is what
it says in the literal Greek. If we read the ACTUAL words of Heb 4:1-11, it
becomes clear that the Sabbath was for the Jews - quantity time, one
seventh - but TODAY - all the time, continuously, quality time - is for the
Christian.

Heb 4:10 is clearly talking of ETERNAL rest which we find with Christ. Where
Hebrews DOES mention a DAY, it is in 4:4 and 4:7 ... these are contrasted as
being the Sabbath given to Israel, and the "today" given to those who, after
Christ's atonement, accept the Gospel message. We therefore no longer keep
the Sabbath, we find our rest TODAY - and the text quoted by the author of
Hebrews, Ps 95:7-8, supports our view fully - this is a continuous call to
eternal rest, not a weekly reminder of a shadow for which we have already
seen the reality.

The Sabbath is not a commandment we have to obey. Circumcision is also not a
commandment we have to obey. Sacrificing lambs is also not a commandment we
have to obey. God gave all these commandments, but the New Testament shows
us (Acts 15, Gal 5:2, Col 2:14-17, Hebrews) that these things - Sabbath,
circumcision, lamb sacrifice, etc., are all fulfilled in Christ. They have -
as you said - been made FULL in Christ, so we no longer perform empty lamb
sacrifices, we no longer perform useless acts of circumcision, we no longer
keep worthless Sabbaths. Christ is our Lamb, Christ is our Sabbath, and we
are baptised into Christ instead circumcised.

The Sabbath, like the lamb sacrifices and the Levitical priesthood, is
abolished ... and that is exactly what the entire book of Hebrews is about.
ALL these things are abolished and replaced with something better ... the
lamb with the eucharist, the levitical priesthood with Christ's
mediatorship, and the Sabbath with a more perfect rest - eternal rest. So,
to Christians the Sabbath has as much relevance as the Levites and lamb
killing does.

Hebrews ABOLISHES the Sabbath!!! It tells us that while God gave OUR
ANCESTOR the 7th day, he gives US another day - TODAY.

One reply I got to this from an Adventist reads as follows:
Jesus did not, but "if" he did, "then would he not afterward have spoken of
another day?" If He did, where? Why wasn't Paul aware of it?

Paul is NOT saying, "then would he not have spoken of another day?" ... the
Adventist has adding a question mark to what the Bible has as a STATEMENT.
Go back and look in the Bible ... it is NOT a question. Then go and look in
MODERN English Bibles, and any other language you understand ... it is not a
question there. Hebrews is saying that if Joshua had not given them rest,
God would not have spoken of another day ... this shows that since Joshua
DID give them rest, God DID indeed speak of another day. Don't let
Adventists change the Bible ... accept it as it is.
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
Andrew
2006-06-01 20:49:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Korsman
Hebrews ABOLISHES the Sabbath!!!
But Jesus said...


"Whoever breaks one of the least of these
commandments, and teaches men so,
shall be called least
in the kingdom
of heaven."

~ Matt 5:19 ~
Whazit Tooyah
2006-06-02 00:24:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Stephen Korsman
Hebrews ABOLISHES the Sabbath!!!
But Jesus said...
"Whoever breaks one of the least of these
commandments, and teaches men so,
shall be called least
in the kingdom
of heaven."
~ Matt 5:19 ~
Oh Yeah!
Andrew
2006-06-02 01:27:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Whazit Tooyah
Post by Andrew
Post by Stephen Korsman
Hebrews ABOLISHES the Sabbath!!!
But Jesus said...
"Whoever breaks one of the least of these
commandments, and teaches men so,
shall be called least
in the kingdom
of heaven."
~ Matt 5:19 ~
Oh Yeah!
Yep. That's what He said!
Stephen Korsman
2006-06-02 15:44:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Stephen Korsman
Hebrews ABOLISHES the Sabbath!!!
But Jesus said...
"Whoever breaks one of the least of these
commandments, and teaches men so,
shall be called least
in the kingdom
of heaven."
~ Matt 5:19 ~
Referring to the discourse he had just presented, commonly known as the
Sermon on the Mount.

He was obviously not referring to the least of the laws of Moses, because
that would mean he and Paul contradicted each other. He was therefore
talking about the moral principles he had just discussed, which were an
expansion on, and a greater revelation of the moral principles set out in
the Mosaic Law, including the Decalogue.

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
Whazit Tooyah
2006-06-02 03:38:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Korsman
I've been told that some will do biblical and mental gymnastics to make
the
Sabbath fit the New Covenant. You are proving their point.
WT
Mental gymnastics are required to delete the Sabbath
from the NC. You illustrate this point.
Show Sabbath observance taught in the NC or your statement stands like an
idiotic "oh yeah."
I showed him where the Bible used the law of Moses and the law of God as
synonyms, and where ordinances and commandments etc were the same thing.
After that, he diverted into his false claims about what Catholicism teaches
about the 10 commandments by taking one-sided Catholic quotes and refusing
to acknowledge context. This time he has stopped in the same place again
with that, because he has no case. Back to the law issue - I'm reposting
Since I am not Catholic. I wonder what he will post? Actually I don't think
I named a church affiliation for him to rail against. I was raised in a
very conservative and somewhat legalistic church. My Mom basically said
that if you didn't belong to our specific branch of our denomination you
were a hell bound sinner. This applied especially to Catholics and Southern
Baptists. I have found that there are saints and sinners in many churches.
To the Father denominational labels are meaningless. The only label that
matters is the one that says 'adopted into the family of God through the
blood of His Son.' I absolutely guarentee that we have doctrinal
differences that may make for an interesting discussion at some point, but
from what I can tell by what you write, you are my brother in Christ.

WT
By this all men will know that you are My disciples,
if you have love for one another
Post by Stephen Korsman
You are studying with preconveived notions about the law, thinking it is
divided up into commandments and ordinanances etc. Yet the 10
commandments
are also called ordinances, and the Mosaic law is referred to as
commandments.
Lev 27:34 KJV These are the commandments, which the LORD commanded Moses
for the children of Israel in mount Sinai.
This refers to the law of Moses.
Deu 5:1 KJV And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O
Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that
ye may learn them, and keep, and do them.
This is right before the 10 Commandments.
Eze 20:18-21 KJV But I said unto their children in the wilderness, Walk ye
not in the statutes of your fathers, neither observe their judgments, nor
defile yourselves with their idols: (19) I am the LORD your God; walk in
my statutes, and keep my judgments, and do them; (20) And hallow my
sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that
I am the LORD your God. (21) Notwithstanding the children rebelled against
me: they walked not in my statutes, neither kept my judgments to do them,
then I said, I would pour out my fury upon them, to accomplish my anger
against them in the wilderness.
The Sabbath is an ordinance?
Lev 19:37 KJV Therefore shall ye observe all my statutes, and all my
judgments, and do them: I am the LORD.
Includes commands from the 10 Commandments AND the rest, lumping them all
together into statutes and judgements.
Deu 6:24-25 KJV And the LORD commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear
the LORD our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as
it is at this day. (25) And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe
to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded
us.
"These commandments" are "these statutes" and God commanded them.
Animal sacrifices - are they the law of Moses, or the law of God?
Luk 2:23 KJV (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that
openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;)
2Ch 31:3 KJV He appointed also the king's portion of his substance for the
burnt offerings, to wit, for the morning and evening burnt offerings, and
the burnt offerings for the sabbaths, and for the new moons, and for the set
feasts, as it is written in the law of the LORD.
"Honour your father and your mother" - the law of Moses, or the law of God?
Mar 7:10 KJV For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso
curseth father or mother, let him die the death
Can you explain these to me? Surely these passages have got their terms
mixed up?
And is the Torah the book of the law of Moses, or the book of the law of
God?
Neh 8:1 KJV And all the people gathered themselves together as one man into
the street that was before the water gate; and they spake unto Ezra the
scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses, which the LORD had commanded
to Israel.
Neh 8:18 KJV Also day by day, from the first day unto the last day, he read
in the book of the law of God. And they kept the feast seven days; and on
the eighth day was a solemn assembly, according unto the manner.
God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/
IC | XC
---------
NI | KA
add an s before .co.za
Stephen Korsman
2006-06-02 15:45:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Whazit Tooyah
Post by Stephen Korsman
I've been told that some will do biblical and mental gymnastics to make
the
Sabbath fit the New Covenant. You are proving their point.
WT
Mental gymnastics are required to delete the Sabbath
from the NC. You illustrate this point.
Show Sabbath observance taught in the NC or your statement stands like an
idiotic "oh yeah."
I showed him where the Bible used the law of Moses and the law of God as
synonyms, and where ordinances and commandments etc were the same thing.
After that, he diverted into his false claims about what Catholicism teaches
about the 10 commandments by taking one-sided Catholic quotes and refusing
to acknowledge context. This time he has stopped in the same place again
with that, because he has no case. Back to the law issue - I'm reposting
Since I am not Catholic. I wonder what he will post?
That's where it gets really complicated.

I see the following options:

1. He ignores you and replies to me (unlikely because he's just had a lot of
evidence put in front of him that will make his point extremely hard to
make)
2. He ignores you, and eventually replies to me, after researching up some
more things he can quote that will make me look as if I am contradicting
Catholicism - more likely
3. He will ignore me and reply to you, pretending my posts don't exist, and
possibly ignoring yours
4. He'll reply to us in the spirit described in points 1-3
5. He will ignore both of us and not see any of this
6. He will ignore both of us, because I have pointed out how I think he'll
reply
7. He will reply, because I have pointed out that he probably won't
8. He won't reply, because I said he might reply because I said he probably
wont
9 ... et cetera
Post by Whazit Tooyah
Actually I don't think
I named a church affiliation for him to rail against. I was raised in a
very conservative and somewhat legalistic church. My Mom basically said
that if you didn't belong to our specific branch of our denomination you
were a hell bound sinner. This applied especially to Catholics and Southern
Baptists. I have found that there are saints and sinners in many churches.
To the Father denominational labels are meaningless. The only label that
matters is the one that says 'adopted into the family of God through the
blood of His Son.' I absolutely guarentee that we have doctrinal
differences that may make for an interesting discussion at some point, but
from what I can tell by what you write, you are my brother in Christ.
Thanks ... there we agree.

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
Andrew
2006-06-02 19:26:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Whazit Tooyah
Since I am not Catholic. I wonder what he will post?
That's where it gets really complicated.
1. He ignores you and replies to me (unlikely because he's just had a lot of
evidence put in front of him that will make his point extremely hard to make)
2. He ignores you, and eventually replies to me, after researching up some
more things he can quote that will make me look as if I am contradicting
Catholicism - more likely
3. He will ignore me and reply to you, pretending my posts don't exist, and
possibly ignoring yours
4. He'll reply to us in the spirit described in points 1-3
5. He will ignore both of us and not see any of this
6. He will ignore both of us, because I have pointed out how I think he'll reply
7. He will reply, because I have pointed out that he probably won't
8. He won't reply, because I said he might reply because I said he probably wont
9 ... et cetera
If you were more concerned what Jesus said, thinks and will do,
you would have far less anxiety as to what I may or may not do.

"If you love me, keep my commandments." John 14:15


"If someone says, "I belong to God," but doesn't obey
God's commandments, that person is a liar." 1 John 2:4
Stephen Korsman
2006-06-03 04:19:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Whazit Tooyah
Since I am not Catholic. I wonder what he will post?
That's where it gets really complicated.
1. He ignores you and replies to me (unlikely because he's just had a lot of
evidence put in front of him that will make his point extremely hard to make)
2. He ignores you, and eventually replies to me, after researching up some
more things he can quote that will make me look as if I am contradicting
Catholicism - more likely
3. He will ignore me and reply to you, pretending my posts don't exist, and
possibly ignoring yours
4. He'll reply to us in the spirit described in points 1-3
5. He will ignore both of us and not see any of this
6. He will ignore both of us, because I have pointed out how I think he'll reply
7. He will reply, because I have pointed out that he probably won't
8. He won't reply, because I said he might reply because I said he probably wont
9 ... et cetera
If you were more concerned what Jesus said, thinks and will do,
you would have far less anxiety as to what I may or may not do.
I don't have any anxiety about what you do. It just interests me how you
fail to respond to the evidence provided, and how you go about attacking
Catholicism but can't defend your position from the Bible.
Post by Andrew
"If you love me, keep my commandments." John 14:15
"If someone says, "I belong to God," but doesn't obey
God's commandments, that person is a liar." 1 John 2:4
He wasn't referring to the Sabbath. He was, however, referring to
truthfulness.

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
Whazit Tooyah
2006-06-03 21:49:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Whazit Tooyah
Since I am not Catholic. I wonder what he will post?
That's where it gets really complicated.
1. He ignores you and replies to me (unlikely because he's just had a lot of
evidence put in front of him that will make his point extremely hard to make)
2. He ignores you, and eventually replies to me, after researching up some
more things he can quote that will make me look as if I am contradicting
Catholicism - more likely
3. He will ignore me and reply to you, pretending my posts don't exist, and
possibly ignoring yours
4. He'll reply to us in the spirit described in points 1-3
5. He will ignore both of us and not see any of this
6. He will ignore both of us, because I have pointed out how I think he'll reply
7. He will reply, because I have pointed out that he probably won't
8. He won't reply, because I said he might reply because I said he probably wont
9 ... et cetera
If you were more concerned what Jesus said, thinks and will do,
you would have far less anxiety as to what I may or may not do.
"If you love me, keep my commandments." John 14:15
"If someone says, "I belong to God," but doesn't obey
God's commandments, that person is a liar." 1 John 2:4
You do like rather loose paraphrases of scripture, don't you!
If God through the apostles has commanded that we turn away from the old
covenant and turn toward Jesus, then is it not those who cling to the old
who are disobeying God?
--
WT

By this all men will know that you are My disciples,
if you have love for one another
Stephen Korsman
2006-06-02 15:57:30 UTC
Permalink
The Law of Moses is the Law of God. It is clear from reading scripture
that
the Law of Moses was commanded and ordered by God. If you are trying to
say
that the Ten Commandments were the Law of God because God wrote them
with
his hand and the Law of Moses is what Moses wrote with a pen, then you
are
diminishing the authority of the entire Bible. You will also have to
start
referring to the book after Acts as the epistle of Tertius to the
Romans
because he penned what Paul dictated. Moses penned what God dictated,
therefore it is the Law of God.
The Levitical law was given by Christ (preincarnate) to Moses, and
therefore
was indeed the law of God. The laws of physics, the laws of nature and
the
laws of health are also all the laws of God.
Yet when the Bible speaks of the "law of God" in the context of the Old
Testament, it refers to that which he gave Moses, not gravity or
thermodynamics.
Some laws pertained to types and were fulfilled at the cross. Some
pertained
to the theocracy of ancient Israel and were applicable at that time. One
of the
great deceptions in modern day Christendom is to tie all of the laws
together,

As the Bible does.
and then use the verses which state that we are no longer subject to the
*law
of Moses* in a false attempt to 'prove' there is no law period. But the
eternal
moral law that He has given us will always remain, forever and ever and
ever.

Yet that eternal moral law existed prior to the Decalogue, and after it.
Jesus showed how it was more than just what the Decalogue said.
Jesus told us..
"Heaven and earth will disappear before
the smallest letter of the Law does."
~ Luke 16:17 ~
Luk 16:17 KJV And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one
tittle of the law to fail.

Your translation is not exactly accurate. Is it the Clear Word Bible?

Jesus died and rose again - signifying the end of an age.
He said..
"If you love me, keep my commandments."
~ Jesus ~
The inspired psalmist tells us..
"All His commandments are sure.
They stand fast forever and ever."
~ Psalms 111:7, 8 ~
So does that include the commandments set out in Leviticus 27 regarding vows
and land ownership and tithing? Do you know when the Jubilee year is?

Or did it refer to God's moral principles, which obviously remain constant?

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
Stephen Korsman
2006-06-02 16:10:12 UTC
Permalink
The Law of Moses is the Law of God. It is clear from reading scripture
that
the Law of Moses was commanded and ordered by God. If you are trying
to
say
that the Ten Commandments were the Law of God because God wrote them
with
his hand and the Law of Moses is what Moses wrote with a pen, then you
are
diminishing the authority of the entire Bible. You will also have to
start
referring to the book after Acts as the epistle of Tertius to the
Romans
because he penned what Paul dictated. Moses penned what God dictated,
therefore it is the Law of God.
The Levitical law was given by Christ (preincarnate) to Moses, and
therefore
was indeed the law of God. The laws of physics, the laws of nature and
the
laws of health are also all the laws of God.
Christ preincarnate? The Bible does not say that. Jehovah Elohim spoke
the
Law. This to me implies the Father or possibly the Godhead including the
Son, but it is not the Son alone.
Some laws pertained to types and were fulfilled at the cross. Some
pertained
to the theocracy of ancient Israel and were applicable at that time. One
of the
great deceptions in modern day Christendom is to tie all of the laws
together,
and then use the verses which state that we are no longer subject to the
*law
of Moses* in a false attempt to 'prove' there is no law period. But the
eternal
moral law that He has given us will always remain, forever and ever and
ever.
The "Law of Moses" is false terminology if it is trying to set up a
heirarchy of the Law. In the Bible, the Law is the Law except when it is
the law. It is man's idea to separate the Law and it doesn't stand up to
a
biblical test. Nehemiah and Luke are two places where the author switches
back and forth between the Law of the Lord and the Law of Moses while
talking about Old Covenant law.
Andrew will (and therefore probably won't - see previous post for that
reasoning) probably give his table of the two laws - commandments (law of
God) vs statutes (law of Moses.)

This is a key issue he needs to address - that the Bible doesn't contain the
distinctions he makes. Both of us have now pointed that out to him.
Jesus told us..
"Heaven and earth will disappear before
the smallest letter of the Law does."
~ Luke 16:17 ~
Yes He did. But ignoring the context of what He said doesn't mean that He
was saying that He meant only the Ten Commandments. The previous verse
seem
to indicate something different.
16 The Law and the Prophets were [proclaimed] until John; since that time
the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is
forcing
his way into it.
He said..
"If you love me, keep my commandments."
~ Jesus ~
And his commandment is to love one another
.
The inspired psalmist tells us..
"All His commandments are sure.
They stand fast forever and ever."
~ Psalms 111:7, 8 ~
The problem is obvious to just about everyone by now. When you and James
see a verse or a passage that says that Christians are not under Law, you
claim that is the Law of Moses. When you see a verse or passage that
says
the Law stands forever, then you say that is not the Law of Moses, but the
Ten Commandments. When you see the word Law it means the Ten Commandments
when it is convenient. When you see the word commandment it means the Ten
Commandments as long as it is convenient.. You conveniently apply
whatever
definition fits your agenda sometimes changing definition within a few
I have seen this phrase pulled out of context so many times that I can't
count them all.
"until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall
pass from the Law"
Then comes the idiotic argument. "See, heaven and earth are still here so
we are still under the Sabbath"
17 Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not
come to abolish but to fulfill.
18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the
smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is
accomplished.
Now it is really difficult to make the point that "the Law" refers only to
the Ten Commandments. When read in context it becomes obvious to a
reasonable person that the term "the Law" is not limited to just the Ten
Commandments. In fact it is not unreasonable to assume that Jesus meant
the
entire Old Testament when He said "the Law and the Prophets" in verse 17.
Therefore if heaven and earth are still here we must be under all of the
Law
because not one jot or tittle has been taken away. Either that or the
term
"until all is accomplished" means something.
My understanding is that Jesus is saying that His purpose is to fullfil
the
Law as a means to fellowship with God among other things, but that the Law
remains until He has accomplished His purpose at the cross.
Joh 19:30 KJV When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is
finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

It is finished:
Strongs G5055
?????
teleo
tel-eh'-o
From G5056; to end, that is, complete, execute, conclude, discharge (a
debt): - accomplish, make an end, expire, fill up, finish, go over, pay,
perform.

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
Whazit Tooyah
2006-06-03 20:39:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Korsman
The Law of Moses is the Law of God. It is clear from reading scripture
that
the Law of Moses was commanded and ordered by God. If you are trying
to
say
that the Ten Commandments were the Law of God because God wrote them
with
his hand and the Law of Moses is what Moses wrote with a pen, then you
are
diminishing the authority of the entire Bible. You will also have to
start
referring to the book after Acts as the epistle of Tertius to the
Romans
because he penned what Paul dictated. Moses penned what God dictated,
therefore it is the Law of God.
The Levitical law was given by Christ (preincarnate) to Moses, and
therefore
was indeed the law of God. The laws of physics, the laws of nature and
the
laws of health are also all the laws of God.
Christ preincarnate? The Bible does not say that. Jehovah Elohim spoke
the
Law. This to me implies the Father or possibly the Godhead including the
Son, but it is not the Son alone.
Some laws pertained to types and were fulfilled at the cross. Some
pertained
to the theocracy of ancient Israel and were applicable at that time. One
of the
great deceptions in modern day Christendom is to tie all of the laws
together,
and then use the verses which state that we are no longer subject to the
*law
of Moses* in a false attempt to 'prove' there is no law period. But the
eternal
moral law that He has given us will always remain, forever and ever and
ever.
The "Law of Moses" is false terminology if it is trying to set up a
heirarchy of the Law. In the Bible, the Law is the Law except when it is
the law. It is man's idea to separate the Law and it doesn't stand up to
a
biblical test. Nehemiah and Luke are two places where the author switches
back and forth between the Law of the Lord and the Law of Moses while
talking about Old Covenant law.
Andrew will (and therefore probably won't - see previous post for that
reasoning) probably give his table of the two laws - commandments (law of
God) vs statutes (law of Moses.)
This is a key issue he needs to address - that the Bible doesn't contain the
distinctions he makes. Both of us have now pointed that out to him.
Jesus told us..
"Heaven and earth will disappear before
the smallest letter of the Law does."
~ Luke 16:17 ~
Yes He did. But ignoring the context of what He said doesn't mean that He
was saying that He meant only the Ten Commandments. The previous verse
seem
to indicate something different.
16 The Law and the Prophets were [proclaimed] until John; since that time
the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is
forcing
his way into it.
He said..
"If you love me, keep my commandments."
~ Jesus ~
And his commandment is to love one another
.
The inspired psalmist tells us..
"All His commandments are sure.
They stand fast forever and ever."
~ Psalms 111:7, 8 ~
The problem is obvious to just about everyone by now. When you and James
see a verse or a passage that says that Christians are not under Law, you
claim that is the Law of Moses. When you see a verse or passage that
says
the Law stands forever, then you say that is not the Law of Moses, but the
Ten Commandments. When you see the word Law it means the Ten
Commandments
when it is convenient. When you see the word commandment it means the Ten
Commandments as long as it is convenient.. You conveniently apply
whatever
definition fits your agenda sometimes changing definition within a few
I have seen this phrase pulled out of context so many times that I can't
count them all.
"until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall
pass from the Law"
Then comes the idiotic argument. "See, heaven and earth are still here so
we are still under the Sabbath"
17 Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not
come to abolish but to fulfill.
18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the
smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is
accomplished.
Now it is really difficult to make the point that "the Law" refers only to
the Ten Commandments. When read in context it becomes obvious to a
reasonable person that the term "the Law" is not limited to just the Ten
Commandments. In fact it is not unreasonable to assume that Jesus meant
the
entire Old Testament when He said "the Law and the Prophets" in verse 17.
Therefore if heaven and earth are still here we must be under all of the
Law
because not one jot or tittle has been taken away. Either that or the
term
"until all is accomplished" means something.
My understanding is that Jesus is saying that His purpose is to fullfil
the
Law as a means to fellowship with God among other things, but that the Law
remains until He has accomplished His purpose at the cross.
Joh 19:30 KJV When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is
finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
Strongs G5055
?????
teleo
tel-eh'-o
From G5056; to end, that is, complete, execute, conclude, discharge (a
debt): - accomplish, make an end, expire, fill up, finish, go over, pay,
perform.
God bless,
Stephen
Which is where I came to my conclusion. I couldn't make that passage in
Matthew make any sense without understanding that "all is accomplished."

You seem to be more knowledgeable about Andrew, so since he won't answer
perhaps you may be able to answer for him. In several instances Andrew has
made to statements that would lead me to conclude that he is of some Jesus
only sect of Adventism, denying the Triune God. Statements like "The
Levitical law was given by Christ (preincarnate) to Moses" among others make
me think he believes in Jesus only.
--
WT

By this all men will know that you are My disciples,
if you have love for one another
Stephen Korsman
2006-06-04 10:29:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Whazit Tooyah
Post by Stephen Korsman
The Law of Moses is the Law of God. It is clear from reading scripture
that
the Law of Moses was commanded and ordered by God. If you are trying
to
say
that the Ten Commandments were the Law of God because God wrote them
with
his hand and the Law of Moses is what Moses wrote with a pen, then you
are
diminishing the authority of the entire Bible. You will also have to
start
referring to the book after Acts as the epistle of Tertius to the
Romans
because he penned what Paul dictated. Moses penned what God dictated,
therefore it is the Law of God.
The Levitical law was given by Christ (preincarnate) to Moses, and
therefore
was indeed the law of God. The laws of physics, the laws of nature and
the
laws of health are also all the laws of God.
Christ preincarnate? The Bible does not say that. Jehovah Elohim spoke
the
Law. This to me implies the Father or possibly the Godhead including the
Son, but it is not the Son alone.
Some laws pertained to types and were fulfilled at the cross. Some
pertained
to the theocracy of ancient Israel and were applicable at that time. One
of the
great deceptions in modern day Christendom is to tie all of the laws
together,
and then use the verses which state that we are no longer subject to the
*law
of Moses* in a false attempt to 'prove' there is no law period. But the
eternal
moral law that He has given us will always remain, forever and ever and
ever.
The "Law of Moses" is false terminology if it is trying to set up a
heirarchy of the Law. In the Bible, the Law is the Law except when it is
the law. It is man's idea to separate the Law and it doesn't stand up to
a
biblical test. Nehemiah and Luke are two places where the author switches
back and forth between the Law of the Lord and the Law of Moses while
talking about Old Covenant law.
Andrew will (and therefore probably won't - see previous post for that
reasoning) probably give his table of the two laws - commandments (law of
God) vs statutes (law of Moses.)
This is a key issue he needs to address - that the Bible doesn't contain the
distinctions he makes. Both of us have now pointed that out to him.
Jesus told us..
"Heaven and earth will disappear before
the smallest letter of the Law does."
~ Luke 16:17 ~
Yes He did. But ignoring the context of what He said doesn't mean that He
was saying that He meant only the Ten Commandments. The previous verse
seem
to indicate something different.
16 The Law and the Prophets were [proclaimed] until John; since that time
the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is
forcing
his way into it.
He said..
"If you love me, keep my commandments."
~ Jesus ~
And his commandment is to love one another
.
The inspired psalmist tells us..
"All His commandments are sure.
They stand fast forever and ever."
~ Psalms 111:7, 8 ~
The problem is obvious to just about everyone by now. When you and James
see a verse or a passage that says that Christians are not under Law, you
claim that is the Law of Moses. When you see a verse or passage that
says
the Law stands forever, then you say that is not the Law of Moses, but the
Ten Commandments. When you see the word Law it means the Ten Commandments
when it is convenient. When you see the word commandment it means the Ten
Commandments as long as it is convenient.. You conveniently apply
whatever
definition fits your agenda sometimes changing definition within a few
I have seen this phrase pulled out of context so many times that I can't
count them all.
"until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall
pass from the Law"
Then comes the idiotic argument. "See, heaven and earth are still here so
we are still under the Sabbath"
17 Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not
come to abolish but to fulfill.
18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the
smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is
accomplished.
Now it is really difficult to make the point that "the Law" refers only to
the Ten Commandments. When read in context it becomes obvious to a
reasonable person that the term "the Law" is not limited to just the Ten
Commandments. In fact it is not unreasonable to assume that Jesus meant
the
entire Old Testament when He said "the Law and the Prophets" in verse 17.
Therefore if heaven and earth are still here we must be under all of the
Law
because not one jot or tittle has been taken away. Either that or the
term
"until all is accomplished" means something.
My understanding is that Jesus is saying that His purpose is to fullfil
the
Law as a means to fellowship with God among other things, but that the Law
remains until He has accomplished His purpose at the cross.
Joh 19:30 KJV When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said,
It
Post by Whazit Tooyah
Post by Stephen Korsman
is
finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
Strongs G5055
?????
teleo
tel-eh'-o
From G5056; to end, that is, complete, execute, conclude, discharge (a
debt): - accomplish, make an end, expire, fill up, finish, go over, pay,
perform.
God bless,
Stephen
Which is where I came to my conclusion. I couldn't make that passage in
Matthew make any sense without understanding that "all is accomplished."
You seem to be more knowledgeable about Andrew, so since he won't answer
perhaps you may be able to answer for him. In several instances Andrew has
made to statements that would lead me to conclude that he is of some Jesus
only sect of Adventism, denying the Triune God. Statements like "The
Levitical law was given by Christ (preincarnate) to Moses" among others make
me think he believes in Jesus only.
Classic Trinitarianism, as held by Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and most of
Protestantism, says that none of the Persons of the Trinity acts alone -
they act as one. So it wasn't God the Son, without God the Father and God
the Holy Spirit, who gave the Levitical law to Moses - it was God the
Trinity.

Adventism is formally Trinitarian, as is Andrew. However, considering that
their founders were anti-Trinitarian to a large extent, and some even
blatantly Arian, and that it took several decades to recover the lost truth
of the Trinity, one would expect that their theology of the Trinity is not
as clear as the older Christian denominations. They still have a lot of
controversy regarding the nature of Christ (especially his nature - sinful
nature vs original Adamic nature, the latter being the mainstream view, and
the official Adventist view, although Andrew holds to the former) and there
is a very vocal group that wants to return to their founders'
non-Trinitarian beliefs. Many even combine their soul-sleep view with their
Christology and claim that God the Son ceased to exist between the
crucifixion and the resurrection. I don't recall Andrew expressing an
opinion on this matter.

The Worldwide Church of God used to, and most of its offshoots currently do,
hold to an idea of Binitarianism - Jesus and the Father are two God-beings
(monotheism was accepted because they were one God-family) and the Holy
Spirit was the power of God. My first encounter with a systematic defence
of the divinity of Christ was through their literature. They led me to
Justin Martyr, who defended the divinity of Christ back in the 100's AD
(?Dialogue with Trypho the Jew). Both argued that God the Son was Yahweh,
and God the Father was Yahweh (Justin also argued that God the Holy Spirit
was Yahweh) and both cited various Old Testament texts. As far as I'm
aware, though, Justin didn't claim that God the Son, but not God the Father,
did X, or Y, whereas the others did. Even if Justin did, it was simply an
early and developing understanding of full Trinitarianism that was only
later explicitly defined.

I'd never come across mainstream explanations of this, so I asked our local
priest (a seminary professor who served the local hospital chapel) and got
the detailed explanation. Had I not asked, I may have just thought that God
the Son did some things, and God the Father did others. I had quite a hard
time coming to grips with the idea that Jesus was one divine person with a
divine nature and a human nature, and not a human person or human/divine
person with two natures.

The average person - Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant - doesn't need to
deal with such intricacies, and probably only those studying theology,
formally or out of interest, will come across them. So if you ask the
average Christian, you may well get an answer that is incorrect - not
because they are some sort of heretic, but simply because they don't
understand the technicalities, and don't need to understand them for their
relationship with God.

So, on the matter of the Levitical law being given by the pre-incarnate
Christ, Andrew appears to fall into the latter group, although he may still
tell us that it was given to Moses by God the Son with the Father and the
Holy Spirit.

On the matter of Christ's human nature, Andrew explicitly does not agree
with either mainstream Christianity or official Adventist belief, but again,
he may just be in the latter group.

He doesn't appear to be part of a Jesus-only group within Adventism, and has
stated that he's not part of the anti-Trinitarian group within Adventism.
Adventist Trinitarianism is just less mature than mainstream Trinitarianism,
at least when it comes to the individual pastor, and certainly Adventism is
quite fragmented when it comes to many issues relating to the Trinity and
the divinity of Christ.

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
JohnSDA
2006-06-09 12:28:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Whazit Tooyah
Post by Stephen Korsman
The Law of Moses is the Law of God. It is clear from reading scripture
that
the Law of Moses was commanded and ordered by God. If you are trying
to
say
that the Ten Commandments were the Law of God because God wrote them
with
his hand and the Law of Moses is what Moses wrote with a pen, then you
are
diminishing the authority of the entire Bible. You will also have to
start
referring to the book after Acts as the epistle of Tertius to the
Romans
because he penned what Paul dictated. Moses penned what God dictated,
therefore it is the Law of God.
The Levitical law was given by Christ (preincarnate) to Moses, and
therefore
was indeed the law of God. The laws of physics, the laws of nature and
the
laws of health are also all the laws of God.
Christ preincarnate? The Bible does not say that. Jehovah Elohim spoke
the
Law. This to me implies the Father or possibly the Godhead including the
Son, but it is not the Son alone.
Some laws pertained to types and were fulfilled at the cross. Some
pertained
to the theocracy of ancient Israel and were applicable at that time. One
of the
great deceptions in modern day Christendom is to tie all of the laws
together,
and then use the verses which state that we are no longer subject to the
*law
of Moses* in a false attempt to 'prove' there is no law period. But the
eternal
moral law that He has given us will always remain, forever and ever and
ever.
The "Law of Moses" is false terminology if it is trying to set up a
heirarchy of the Law. In the Bible, the Law is the Law except when it is
the law. It is man's idea to separate the Law and it doesn't stand up to
a
biblical test. Nehemiah and Luke are two places where the author switches
back and forth between the Law of the Lord and the Law of Moses while
talking about Old Covenant law.
Andrew will (and therefore probably won't - see previous post for that
reasoning) probably give his table of the two laws - commandments (law of
God) vs statutes (law of Moses.)
This is a key issue he needs to address - that the Bible doesn't contain the
distinctions he makes. Both of us have now pointed that out to him.
Jesus told us..
"Heaven and earth will disappear before
the smallest letter of the Law does."
~ Luke 16:17 ~
Yes He did. But ignoring the context of what He said doesn't mean that He
was saying that He meant only the Ten Commandments. The previous verse
seem
to indicate something different.
16 The Law and the Prophets were [proclaimed] until John; since that time
the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is
forcing
his way into it.
He said..
"If you love me, keep my commandments."
~ Jesus ~
And his commandment is to love one another
.
The inspired psalmist tells us..
"All His commandments are sure.
They stand fast forever and ever."
~ Psalms 111:7, 8 ~
The problem is obvious to just about everyone by now. When you and James
see a verse or a passage that says that Christians are not under Law, you
claim that is the Law of Moses. When you see a verse or passage that
says
the Law stands forever, then you say that is not the Law of Moses, but the
Ten Commandments. When you see the word Law it means the Ten Commandments
when it is convenient. When you see the word commandment it means the Ten
Commandments as long as it is convenient.. You conveniently apply
whatever
definition fits your agenda sometimes changing definition within a few
I have seen this phrase pulled out of context so many times that I can't
count them all.
"until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall
pass from the Law"
Then comes the idiotic argument. "See, heaven and earth are still here so
we are still under the Sabbath"
17 Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not
come to abolish but to fulfill.
18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the
smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is
accomplished.
Now it is really difficult to make the point that "the Law" refers only to
the Ten Commandments. When read in context it becomes obvious to a
reasonable person that the term "the Law" is not limited to just the Ten
Commandments. In fact it is not unreasonable to assume that Jesus meant
the
entire Old Testament when He said "the Law and the Prophets" in verse 17.
Therefore if heaven and earth are still here we must be under all of the
Law
because not one jot or tittle has been taken away. Either that or the
term
"until all is accomplished" means something.
My understanding is that Jesus is saying that His purpose is to fullfil
the
Law as a means to fellowship with God among other things, but that the Law
remains until He has accomplished His purpose at the cross.
Joh 19:30 KJV When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is
finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
Strongs G5055
?????
teleo
tel-eh'-o
From G5056; to end, that is, complete, execute, conclude, discharge (a
debt): - accomplish, make an end, expire, fill up, finish, go over, pay,
perform.
God bless,
Stephen
Which is where I came to my conclusion. I couldn't make that passage in
Matthew make any sense without understanding that "all is accomplished."
You seem to be more knowledgeable about Andrew, so since he won't answer
perhaps you may be able to answer for him. In several instances Andrew
has made to statements that would lead me to conclude that he is of some
Jesus only sect of Adventism, denying the Triune God. Statements like
"The Levitical law was given by Christ (preincarnate) to Moses" among
others make me think he believes in Jesus only.
Jesus said

John 8:58

58 Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I
AM."
NKJV


Ex 3:14

14 And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And He said, "Thus you shall say
to the children of Israel,'I AM has sent me to you.'"
NKJV

Jesus is the Word, through Him all things were created.

John 1:1-5

In the beginning was the Word , and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him,
and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the
life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the
darkness did not comprehend it.
NKJV


As for "it is finished". That means "the law is finished"? I don't think so,
that is a tremendous stretch.
It means the sacrifice is finished, the atonement, the plan of redemption.
Post by Whazit Tooyah
--
WT
By this all men will know that you are My disciples,
if you have love for one another
Stephen Korsman
2006-06-09 18:32:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Whazit Tooyah
Post by Stephen Korsman
The Law of Moses is the Law of God. It is clear from reading scripture
that
the Law of Moses was commanded and ordered by God. If you are trying
to
say
that the Ten Commandments were the Law of God because God wrote them
with
his hand and the Law of Moses is what Moses wrote with a pen, then you
are
diminishing the authority of the entire Bible. You will also have to
start
referring to the book after Acts as the epistle of Tertius to the
Romans
because he penned what Paul dictated. Moses penned what God dictated,
therefore it is the Law of God.
The Levitical law was given by Christ (preincarnate) to Moses, and
therefore
was indeed the law of God. The laws of physics, the laws of nature and
the
laws of health are also all the laws of God.
Christ preincarnate? The Bible does not say that. Jehovah Elohim spoke
the
Law. This to me implies the Father or possibly the Godhead including the
Son, but it is not the Son alone.
Some laws pertained to types and were fulfilled at the cross. Some
pertained
to the theocracy of ancient Israel and were applicable at that time. One
of the
great deceptions in modern day Christendom is to tie all of the laws
together,
and then use the verses which state that we are no longer subject to the
*law
of Moses* in a false attempt to 'prove' there is no law period. But the
eternal
moral law that He has given us will always remain, forever and ever and
ever.
The "Law of Moses" is false terminology if it is trying to set up a
heirarchy of the Law. In the Bible, the Law is the Law except when it is
the law. It is man's idea to separate the Law and it doesn't stand up to
a
biblical test. Nehemiah and Luke are two places where the author switches
back and forth between the Law of the Lord and the Law of Moses while
talking about Old Covenant law.
Andrew will (and therefore probably won't - see previous post for that
reasoning) probably give his table of the two laws - commandments (law of
God) vs statutes (law of Moses.)
This is a key issue he needs to address - that the Bible doesn't
contain
Post by Andrew
Post by Whazit Tooyah
Post by Stephen Korsman
the
distinctions he makes. Both of us have now pointed that out to him.
Jesus told us..
"Heaven and earth will disappear before
the smallest letter of the Law does."
~ Luke 16:17 ~
Yes He did. But ignoring the context of what He said doesn't mean
that
Post by Andrew
Post by Whazit Tooyah
Post by Stephen Korsman
He
was saying that He meant only the Ten Commandments. The previous verse
seem
to indicate something different.
16 The Law and the Prophets were [proclaimed] until John; since that time
the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is
forcing
his way into it.
He said..
"If you love me, keep my commandments."
~ Jesus ~
And his commandment is to love one another
.
The inspired psalmist tells us..
"All His commandments are sure.
They stand fast forever and ever."
~ Psalms 111:7, 8 ~
The problem is obvious to just about everyone by now. When you and James
see a verse or a passage that says that Christians are not under Law, you
claim that is the Law of Moses. When you see a verse or passage that
says
the Law stands forever, then you say that is not the Law of Moses, but the
Ten Commandments. When you see the word Law it means the Ten Commandments
when it is convenient. When you see the word commandment it means the Ten
Commandments as long as it is convenient.. You conveniently apply
whatever
definition fits your agenda sometimes changing definition within a few
I have seen this phrase pulled out of context so many times that I can't
count them all.
"until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall
pass from the Law"
Then comes the idiotic argument. "See, heaven and earth are still
here
Post by Andrew
Post by Whazit Tooyah
Post by Stephen Korsman
so
we are still under the Sabbath"
17 Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not
come to abolish but to fulfill.
18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the
smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is
accomplished.
Now it is really difficult to make the point that "the Law" refers
only
Post by Andrew
Post by Whazit Tooyah
Post by Stephen Korsman
to
the Ten Commandments. When read in context it becomes obvious to a
reasonable person that the term "the Law" is not limited to just the Ten
Commandments. In fact it is not unreasonable to assume that Jesus meant
the
entire Old Testament when He said "the Law and the Prophets" in verse 17.
Therefore if heaven and earth are still here we must be under all of the
Law
because not one jot or tittle has been taken away. Either that or the
term
"until all is accomplished" means something.
My understanding is that Jesus is saying that His purpose is to fullfil
the
Law as a means to fellowship with God among other things, but that the Law
remains until He has accomplished His purpose at the cross.
Joh 19:30 KJV When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said,
It
Post by Andrew
Post by Whazit Tooyah
Post by Stephen Korsman
is
finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
Strongs G5055
?????
teleo
tel-eh'-o
From G5056; to end, that is, complete, execute, conclude, discharge (a
debt): - accomplish, make an end, expire, fill up, finish, go over, pay,
perform.
God bless,
Stephen
Which is where I came to my conclusion. I couldn't make that passage in
Matthew make any sense without understanding that "all is accomplished."
You seem to be more knowledgeable about Andrew, so since he won't answer
perhaps you may be able to answer for him. In several instances Andrew
has made to statements that would lead me to conclude that he is of some
Jesus only sect of Adventism, denying the Triune God. Statements like
"The Levitical law was given by Christ (preincarnate) to Moses" among
others make me think he believes in Jesus only.
Jesus said
Yet this is a discussion of what Andrew said ... which, at times, does
appear to be at odds with what Jesus said. Certainly the teachings of many
modern Adventists are, and the teachings of many of Adventism's founders
were.
Post by Andrew
John 8:58
58 Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I
AM."
NKJV
Ex 3:14
14 And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And He said, "Thus you shall say
to the children of Israel,'I AM has sent me to you.'"
NKJV
Jesus is the Word, through Him all things were created.
John 1:1-5
In the beginning was the Word , and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him,
and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the
life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the
darkness did not comprehend it.
NKJV
As for "it is finished". That means "the law is finished"? I don't think so,
that is a tremendous stretch.
But then again, Jesus never said:

Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or
one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till the law be fulfilled.

Did he?

"It" in "it is finished" obviously doesn't refer to the law - nobody is
claiming that it does. So this is a strawman argument.

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
Stephen Korsman
2006-06-02 18:02:56 UTC
Permalink
I've been told that some will do biblical and mental gymnastics to
make the Sabbath fit the New Covenant. You are proving their point.
WT
Mental gymnastics are required to delete the Sabbath
from the NC. You illustrate this point.
Show Sabbath observance taught in the NC or your statement stands
like an idiotic "oh yeah."
"It is therefore the duty of the people of God to keep the Sabbath."
Heb 4:9 (Lamsa)
"There remaineth therefore a keeping of a Sabbath to the people of
God." Heb 4:9 KJV(margin)
"There remaineth therefore a sabbath rest for the people of God."
Heb 4:9 ASV
"Therefore the sabbath is left to the people of God"
Heb 4:9 (Wycliffe)
"So there is still a Sabbath rest for God's people."
Heb 4:9 NIRV
Yes there is a sabbath rest that remains for Christians, it is resting
continually
in Him and ceasing from our labors of self-righteousness.
How can we "rest in Him" if we refuse to keep His commandments? It is
the
height of absurdity and unreasonableness to say that, because of the
Gospel
and faith in Christ that God now wants us all to work non stop seven
days
a
week with no time to rest and to worship the wonderful God who made and
redeemed us. !
Using your argument it would be a violation of the Sabbath Law to not work
all six days of the week or to take a vacation. "Six days SHALL YOU
LABOR"
The argument is that there is no set Sabbath day but that the Sabbath is
resting in Christ. The food laws are past too but no one is saying that
means we should eat continously until we explode. (Except at Thanksgiving)
Not for Adventists. They eat according to the Old Testament laws; many
don't eat meat at all.

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
Andrew
2006-06-02 18:57:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Korsman
Not for Adventists. They eat according to the Old Testament laws; many
don't eat meat at all.
God bless,
Stephen
The pigs and other unclean animals did not become clean
when Jesus died. Even well after the cross Peter testified:

"I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean."
1 Cor 10:14

"Don't you know that your body is the temple of the Holy
Spirit, who lives in you and was given to you by God?
You do not belong to yourself." 1 Cor 6:19

"If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him.
For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are."
1 Cor 3:17
Stephen Korsman
2006-06-03 04:25:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Stephen Korsman
Not for Adventists. They eat according to the Old Testament laws; many
don't eat meat at all.
God bless,
Stephen
The pigs and other unclean animals did not become clean
when Jesus died.
Ceremonially unclean became irrelevant.
Post by Andrew
"I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean."
1 Cor 10:14
My PC is too busy multitasking to load my Bible, and the print ones I won't
go and fetch because it's too cold. But I think that may have been Paul,
not Peter, and he said that whatever we eat or don't eat is meaningless. He
was a Jew to the Jews and a Gentile to the Gentiles.
Post by Andrew
"Don't you know that your body is the temple of the Holy
Spirit, who lives in you and was given to you by God?
You do not belong to yourself." 1 Cor 6:19
"If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him.
For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are."
1 Cor 3:17
Yet Peter later had a vision regarding unclean food. I doubt God would have
given him a vision that was so inaccurate in its typology.

And Jesus told us that it's not what goes into our mouths that makes us
unclean, but what comes out.

Why a bishop may not drink grape juice

Note to Adventist clergy: do you abstain from drinking grape juice?

The Seventh-day Adventist church teaches that the wine referred to in the
Bible as permissible is unfermented grape juice. They claim that the Bible
condemns the use of fermented grape juice, and only permits the use of
unfermented grape juice. Many Adventists - pastors and laity alike - have
questioned this, and gone to the Bible and discovered that this teaching is
not found there. Instead, the Bible permits drinking of alcoholic beverages
in moderation. But many Adventists, as well as other groups such as certain
Baptists, continue this teaching.

From the Bible:

+ (Rom 14:6 KJV) He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and
he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that
eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not
to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
+ (Rom 14:21 KJV) It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor
any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.

Clearly, Paul is telling is that we should not engage in activities that
cause our brother to fall. But just as eating meat was permitted by God in
the Old Testament, and practised by Jesus in the New Testament, so it is
with alcoholic wine.

If we accept the Adventist teaching on alcohol, we are left with a peculiar
conclusion when we read certain biblical texts.

+ (1Ti 3:2-3 KJV) A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife,
vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach; not
given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a
brawler, not covetous;
+ (Tit 1:7 KJV) For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not
self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to
filthy lucre;

Paul is explaining how a bishop must be of good moral character. I ask
Adventists: why can a bishop not drink grape juice? How does this make him
of a lesser moral character, less able to lead his flock?

+ (1Ti 3:8 KJV) Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not
given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;

Paul is explaining how a deacon must likewise be of good moral character.
But here he says that the deacon must not drink MUCH wine - obviously an
amount that is not "much wine" is permitted. So, if we are Adventists, this
must be grape juice, because it is permitted. But why can a deacon not
drink a lot of grape juice?

+ (Tit 2:3 KJV) The aged women likewise, that they be in behavior as
becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of
good things;

Women who drank alcohol wine were quite scandalous in that time. But a
little is allowed - it is excess that is prohibited. Adventists would have
you believe that women who drank grape juice were causing scandals, and they
were only permitted to drink a little grape juice.

+ (1Pe 4:3 KJV) For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought
the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of
wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries:

Peter criticises the excess of wine. Is he referring to grape juice? I
doubt it. But he never condemns moderate alcohol use.

+ (Lev 23:13 KJV) And the meat offering thereof shall be two tenth deals of
fine flour mingled with oil, an offering made by fire unto the LORD for a
sweet savor: and the drink offering thereof shall be of wine, the fourth
part of a hin.

God even commanded that wine be offered as a sacrifice!

+ (Num 6:20 KJV) And the priest shall wave them for a wave offering before
the LORD: this is holy for the priest, with the wave breast and heave
shoulder: and after that the Nazarite may drink wine.

They MAY drink wine - they have permission to!

This word for wine from Strong's Concordance:

H3196
yayin
yah'-yin
From an unused root meaning to effervesce; wine (as fermented); by
implication intoxication: - banqueting, wine, wine [-bibber].

+ (Num 28:7 KJV) And the drink offering thereof shall be the fourth part of
a hin for the one lamb: in the holy place shalt thou cause the strong wine
to be poured unto the LORD for a drink offering.

This word for strong wine from Strong's Concordance:

H7941
she^ka^r
shay-kawr'
From H7937; an intoxicant, that is, intensely alcoholic liquor: - strong
drink, + drunkard, strong wine.

+ (Deu 14:26 KJV) And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul
lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or
for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD
thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household,

God explicitly permits the drinking of "strong drink" - I have yet to see an
Adventist answer this text.

+ (Pro 31:6-7 KJV) Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and
wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink, and forget his
poverty, and remember his misery no more.

Once again, strong drink is permitted - and the context shows that this is
alcoholic strong drink, not concentrated grape juice, because it allows him
to forget his poverty and misery.

+ (Jdg 9:13 KJV) And the vine said unto them, Should I leave my wine, which
cheereth God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees?

Adventists such as Prof Bacchiocchi argue that grape juice cheers one up.
How many of you have ever had that experience?

+ (1Sa 1:14-15 KJV) And Eli said unto her, How long wilt thou be drunken?
put away thy wine from thee. And Hannah answered and said, No, my lord, I am
a woman of a sorrowful spirit: I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink,
but have poured out my soul before the LORD.

Here BOTH words are used! Eli says Hannah is drunk, and she denies this,
saying she has not drunk wine or strong drink - obviously both are capable
of making one drunk.

+ (Lev 10:9 KJV) Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with
thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it
shall be a statute forever throughout your generations:

Finally, the condemnation of alcoholic beverages is limited to two
instances - excessive use, and use in the ministry in cases where such use
would make a mockery of God.

Let's follow the Bible's advice, and not Ellen White.
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
Whazit Tooyah
2006-06-03 21:34:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Stephen Korsman
Not for Adventists. They eat according to the Old Testament laws; many
don't eat meat at all.
God bless,
Stephen
The pigs and other unclean animals did not become clean
The ceremonial laws were a part of the abolished, nailed to the cross "Law
of Moses." A person was made unclean by eating food's on the unclean list,
but were also "unclean" for a number of other reasons.
Post by Andrew
"I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean."
1 Cor [Acts] 10:14
I am assuming a typo here. This is Peter's response when ordered by the
Lord to "arise, kill and eat." It is prefaced by the oxymorinic "Not so
Lord." In verse 15 God says "What God has cleansed, no longer consider
unholy." Couple this verse with Mark 7:18-20 and you have an actual verbal
lifting of the food laws.
18 And He *said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you
not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile
him,
19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is
eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.)
20 And He was saying, "That which proceeds out of the man, that is what
defiles the man.

When you consider the very real possibility that Mark was acting as a
transcriber of what Peter had told him, the two passages have even more
weight of evidence.
Peter must have changed his mind, because in Galatians 2 we see him sitting
down to a ham dinner with the gentiles until the judaizers arrive.
Post by Andrew
"Don't you know that your body is the temple of the Holy
Spirit, who lives in you and was given to you by God?
You do not belong to yourself." 1 Cor 6:19
In Context: 1 Cor 6:18-20
18 Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body,
but the immoral man sins against his own body.
19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is
in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?
20 For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your
body.

Don't see pork in this passage at all.
Post by Andrew
"If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him.
For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are."
1 Cor 3:17
In Context:
16 Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of
God dwells in you?
17 If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the
temple of God is holy, and that is what you are.

Unfortunately the King James renders the same Greek word as "defiles" and
"destroy" with no reason in the verb parsing. Which ever word is chosen it
should be used consistently. This being said, this has nothing to do eating
food.

Out of context, one verse at a time, one can make the Bible say anything.
It is, in context, very consistent in what it teaches. One has to always
consider the context of the author and the times as well as the context of
other facets in other biblical books. The Bible is its own best commentary
and a good knowledge of all of scripture benefits anyone who seeks to know
the truth.
--
WT

By this all men will know that you are My disciples,
if you have love for one another
Stephen Korsman
2006-06-09 18:50:03 UTC
Permalink
I was given a book by my SDA mother-in-law titled "The
Antichrist Agenda." Knowing SDAs I knew that the Sabbath
would be the focal point of the book. I agreed to read it,
but told her that I would write my own commentary on the
book. So far I have read a little over half and have found
it full of generalizations that are not backed by scripture
and in many case are contrary to scripture. ...
...
If the Sabbath arguments are so weak as to require lies and
distortions to support them, then the Sabbath position
supported by this book has to be false.
I am a seventh-day Sabbath keeper who is not a member of the Seventh
Day Adventist church. So I will not try to defend any particular SDA
book, but instead I will merely try to explain the truth.
-----
The Sabbath is one of the Ten Commandments, Exodus 20:8-11,
Deuteronomy 5:12-15.
It is obvious to any sane person that the Ten Commandments have NOT
been "done away" or "abolished", because if they had been "done away",
then it would be permissible to murder, to steal, to commit adultery,
and so forth.
Simplistic logic not befitting a thinking person. No one can follow the
teachings of Christ and do as you have listed above. Jesus named two
primary commands, both involving love. These commands are far superior
in
that not only do they command "do not" they also command "do." One can
ignore the starving under the Ten Commandments, but it is impossible
under
the two commandments of love.
Jesus said that it was necessary to keep the "commandments" to have
Matthew 5:20
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall
exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye
shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Righteousness beyond selfrighteousness, a righteousness that is found in
being in Christ's righteousness. Jesus is not teaching you to follow the
Law, but to follow Him.
And following Him is contrary to the Law-10 commandments?
Outward obedience to the law, which the Pharisees were famous for
is not righteousness at all. If you are ego centric, you whole focus on
following Christ is
YOUR SALVATION. However, God requires His children to be obedient.
And, His children willingly accept this because they are motivated by
love,
in responce to His grace, forgiveness and the gift of His Son on the
cross.
2 Cor 5:14-15
14 For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One
died for all, then all died; 15 and He died for all, that those who live
should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and
rose
again.
NKJV
If your obedience is based on self love or self preservation-fear of hell
or
wanting to go to heaven it is legalistic. Obedience is a heart responce to
God, empowered by the Holy Spirit.
Matt 23:27-28
7 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like
whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are
full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness. 28 Even so you also
outwardly
appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and
lawlessness.
NKJV
Notice Jesus said here "but inside you are full of hypocrisy and
lawlessness."
Jesus did not condemn them obeying the law, but rather that their hearts
were not right with God. They were motivated by self, not love toward God
or
fellow man.
Matthew 7:21
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall
enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will
of my Father which is in heaven.
The will of the Father in heaven is to love His Son
John 6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God,
that you believe in Him whom He has sent."
1 John 3:23 This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of
His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us.24
The one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. We know
by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.
Matthew 19:17
17 ... if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
Name one person other than Jesus who has obeyed this verse.
1 John 2:3-4,7
3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his
commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his
commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
1 John 3:23 This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His
Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us.
...
7 Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old
commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old
commandment is the word which ye have heard from the
beginning.
John 13:34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one
another,
even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.
1 John 5:2-3
2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we
love God, and keep his commandments.
3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his
commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
If one studies the writings of John you will discover that John does not
use the word "commandment" as a reference to the Ten Commandments, but
in
a more informal way as a reference to the teachings of Christ on earth.
Philosphy is nice, but not scriptual. Love towards God or fellow man does
not break the 10 commandments or is it contrary to it. Love in the
biblical
sence is more than just a touchy feely emotion.
James 1:22-27
22 But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.
23
For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man
observing his natural face in a mirror; 24 for he observes himself, goes
away, and immediately forgets what kind of man he was. 25 But he who looks
into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a
forgetful
hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does.
26 If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his
tongue but deceives his own heart, this one's religion is useless. 27 Pure
and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans
and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.
NKJV
James goes on BTW to quite clearly indicate that the 10 commandments are a
governing
Actually, he doesn't. You're reading your church's interpretation into the
term "royal law." Nothing in the text shows that the royal law and the 10
commandments are one and the same thing. The passage would make just as
much sense if the royal law contained the same principles as the 10
commandments, but was a different law from them ... and this is more in
keeping with Paul.

That is what Andrew doesn't want to discuss - that, as a legal code, the
Decalogue is part of the Old Covenant, and is abolished, but we are still
expected to act morally, according to a new law that contains many of the
same commandments, as well as others.
James 2:8-13
8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, "You
shall
love your neighbor as yourself," you do well; 9 but if you show
partiality,
you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For
whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is
guilty
of all. 11 For He who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not
murder." Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have
become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so do as those who will
be
judged by the law of liberty. 13 For judgment is without mercy to the one
who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.
NKJV
So love is more just a feeling. It requires action. Feeling nice and fuzzy
about someone
is not the biblical love in scripture. Certainly it accompanies action, it
is a motivating
force. Having a converted softened heart is the basis and motivating
factor.
Otherwise one would be as the Pharisees, outwardly compliant, by the
letter
of the law and not the spirit-which is love.
Ezek 36:26-27
26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within
you;
and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give
you
a heart of flesh.
27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my
statutes, and ye shall keep mine ordinances, and do them.
ASV
James 2:14-20
What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does
not
have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and
destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace,
be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are
needed
for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it
does
not have works, is dead.
18 But someone will say, "You have faith, and I have works." Show me your
faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You
believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe - and
tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without
works
is dead?
NKJV
The new birth experience is one of dying to the old sinful self and being
reborn to a new life of obedience to God. That is the whole example of
baptism. Dying, being lowered into the water-buried and raised-reborn. We
have died to a life of rebellion against God.
Not so we can continue in sin, and now have an excuse because "we are
under
grace".
Our sin put Jesus on the cross, think about the hypocricy of one who
claims
that it
is lawful now to break God's law.
The misinterpretation of Paul's writing against legalism and to attribute
that to obedience is ridiculous. It is true, OF COURSE, that our
righteousness amounts to nothing, however
that does not mean that God does not require His children to live holy
lives, and yes based on a motivation of love. Our commandment keeping
doesn't contribute to our salvation, but it does show or give evidence of
our faith, love and devotion to God and fellow man.
John was NOT writing about the new commandments of Jesus, or anything
of that sort, because he clarified that he was referring to the "old
commandment", namely the "word which ye have heard from the
beginning". Anybody with a grasp of the English language ought to
have no difficulty understanding that John was referring to the Ten
Commandments, which the Jews had been taught from their infancy.
See above. John is writing to Gentile Christians not to Jews only The
teachings they receaved from the beginning was about Jesus. The word
translated commandment means instruction, teaching or commandment.
Your statement is clearly eisigesis. To think that Gentiles were not
taught
the OT is a fallacy. That was the scripture of that time. The Apostles
taught from
OT scripture as a basis to support Jesus as the Messiah.
Revelation 12:17
17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to
make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the
commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Revelation 14:12
12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that
keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
Revelation 22:14
14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may
have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the
gates into the city.
So why would people think that the "commandments of God", namely the
Ten Commandments, have been ended?
How mant commandments did God give? Answer over 600 according to
rabinical
count. Do you keep all 600? The Ten Commandments were the main points
of
the Law, but the Law didn't stop at ten. How do you know what adultery
is
and where do you find it in scripture? How do you define murder as
opposed to an accidental death and where do you find it? What are the
definitions of theft and where do you find it? How do you observe the
Sabbath and where do you find it? What is the appropriate penalty for
any
of the above and where do you find it?
Murder was murder long before Moses-see Cain and Abel.
Did Cain know it was murder? How did he know?
Not from reading Exodus and seeing the 10 Commandments written there. The
moral principles existed apart from the legal code, as they do today.
1 Corinthians 7:19
19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing,
but the keeping of the commandments of God.
In fact, Paul specifically advocated keeping most of the Ten
Romans 13:9
9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not
kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false
witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other
commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying,
namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Bingo perhaps you are starting to catch on. The principles of the the
law
continue in two laws. Paul names one of them there. Please show me
somewhere in the New Testament where somebody said that the Sabbath day
is
a continuing principle of the new covenant.
The NC states that God writes His law upon our hearts, sort of how Cain
had it and became guilty in his consciousness before God.
God made the 7th day Holy-sanctified it. Please show me a verse that says
God
un-sanctified it. Until He does, it remains a holy day.
It was limited to the Old Covenant. Therefore there is no reason to need a
separate statement saying that we need not keep it. Even then, several are
supplied in the New Testament by Paul.

http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/col2.html
http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/rom14.html
http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/gal4.html
Ephesians 4:28
28 Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him
labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that
he may have to give to him that needeth.
Just because a principle of the Law is named in scripture does not mean
that the entire law is continued forward. How can one steal from and
love
his neighbor as himself at the same time?
Ephesians 6:1-3
1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is
right.
2 Honour thy father and mother; which is the first
commandment with promise;
3 That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long
on the earth.
If you think that Paul taught that the Ten Commandments were ended,
you will have a difficult time explaining any of this.
The principles of the Ten Commandments existed before Moses and still
do,
but the specifics of the Law are different. If you disagree, please
execute the next Sabbath breaker you meet as commanded in the Law.
Also, the Epistle to the Hebrews supports the commandments against
Hebrews 13:4-5
4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but
whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
5 Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be
content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I
will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.
Don't see what this has to do with the Sabbath or the Ten Commandments.
Moreover, the epistle writer James made it clear that the Ten
Commandments were one united package, and that they cannot be
James 2:10-11
10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend
in one point, he is guilty of all.
11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do
not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill,
thou art become a transgressor of the law.
Will you please notice that James named the Law, not the Ten
Commandments.
As stated above, where does one find the definitions of adultery and
murder. By the way, James is using the Ten Commandments to teach a
principle of the what James calls the Law of Liberty, love your neighbor
as yourself. James 2:1-13 is a treatise correcting the common practice
of
showing favoritism to the wealthy and acting scornfully toward the poor.
Lev 19:18
You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of
your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.
NKJV
It wasn't a new teaching by Jesus at all. Love is the basis of all law
keeping.
Jesus did NOT teach that the Sabbath was ended. He taught the correct
Matthew 12:12
12 ... Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.
Is going to work to support one's family doing well on the sabbath?
Jesus corrected the Pharisees on their incorrect understanding of the
Sabbath, Matthew 12:1-13. He told them that it is lawful for the
hungry to gather enough food for their immediate needs, and that it is
lawful to heal on the Sabbath day. It is clear from this that Jesus
was saying that the Sabbath remained in effect, but that the Pharisees
had a false interpretation of what was permitted on this day.
Which is in conflict with the teachings and practises of the Law of the
Sabbath. One was to collect, gather, purchase, harvest and prepare on
Friday for two days. That the Sabbath was a ceremonial practice rather
than moral Jesus made clear in the passage you cite. (12:5 Or have you
not
read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the
Sabbath and are innocent?) Please tell me what moral law can be set
aside
as the Sabbath is?
The Sabbath was not a ceremonial practice. It was founded at creation.
It is a moral imperative, just like the other 9 it's included with.
It was not revealed to any human beings until the time of Moses.

http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/beforemoses.html
http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/gen2.html
Mark 2:27
27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and
So why do people think that the Sabbath is NOT made for man?
Not to be changed by man. But to be used by man for rest, spiritual
refreshing,
a day set aside for comunion with God.
Mark 2:28
28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
Luke 6:5
5 And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also
of the sabbath.
Means has authority over, not the object of.
So why do people think that Jesus does not care about the Sabbath?
Why do people think that they think that they can neglect the Sabbath,
without neglecting Jesus Christ, the Lord of the Sabbath, as well?
Why do you think that making Jesus the Lord of one day a week is
superior
to making Him Lord seven days a week?
He is Lord of of all days. However you are trying to make that a basis for
making the 7th day ambivalent. It is God who set aside one day, not us.
For a certain people at a certain time.

http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/beforemoses.html
Genesis 2:2-3
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.
because that in it he had rested from all his work which God
created and made.
It was also given in memorial of being freed from Egypt.
That's beacuse the Jews could not practice it in Egypt
Actually, it was because the Jews didn't know about the Sabbath until later.

http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/beforemoses.html

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
Exodus 20:11
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea,
wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
That the Sabbath day was a very specific day of the week, and not an
arbitrary choice of any one day in seven, is indicated by the fact
that God provided a double portion of manna to the Israelites on the
sixth day of the week, so that no labor would be required to gather
the manna on the Sabbath day, Exodus 16:22-23. This continued for
FORTY YEARS, Exodus 16:35, Joshua 5:12. By that time there was no
doubt in the minds of the Israelites concerning which day was the
Sabbath, nor was there any thought that one day of the week was the
same as another.
Yet when one looks at the Old Testament the one sin that the Israelites
were punished for by being led away captive in Babylon was the sin of
not
observing the Sabbath--YEAR
There has been no other commandment or revelation from God given on
this question that has changed the day to any other day. Those who
deliberately observe the Sabbath day on some other day of the week do
so by their own initiative, or by the influence of false tradition.
They do so in defiance of the word of God.
Nope, as I read my Bible and came to my conclusions by reading the whole
Bible, not just selected pieces. Most simply put the Ten Commandments
were given to a specific people at a specofic time.
Why did Jesus die on the cross? Was it for the sins of Jews only?
If it's for the sin of the whole world, what defines sin?
Rom 7:7
What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I
would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have
known
covetousness unless the law had said, "You shall not covet."
NKJV
1 John 3:4
4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the
transgression of the law.
KJV
The Old covenant is not
limited to just the Ten Commandments, but includes them in the Law of
Moses. The Sabbath was to be a sign between God and Israel (Ex 31) and
therefore was exclusively meant for Israel. Paul chided believers for
observing special holy days (Rom 14, Gal 4)
That Gal verse is not in regard to Jewish holy day
and said that we are to let no one judge
us about the Sabbath (Col 2:16). We as Christians are to enter His rest
by believing because those who observed the seventh day and those who
entered "rest" in the promised land failed to enter His rest. We have
our
Sabbath rest in Jesus by trusting in His work of salvation and ceasing
from ours. (Heb 4)
I partially agree with your statement, but once again, you are egocentric
and view obedience in regard to YOUR salvation rather that in responce to
it.
Yes Jesus gives us spiritual rest, but the sabbath was also meant as a
physical rest.
Col 2:16 doesn't speak to the weekly sabbath but to festival days which
were
fulfilled
by Christ in His sacrifice and life. A shadow of Christ. The weekly
sabbath
is no more
a shadow than "thou shalt not steal" is a shadow.
Yes Jesus fulfilled the the laws requirements completely. And He is our
substitute
and surety, His righteousness is the basis for our
salvation.....HOWEVER....
Christ IN YOU, sanctification is the life of Christ being fulfilled
through
the life of the believer. That same righteous life that Jesus lived is
regenerated in the life of a believer.
It doesn't save us in an eternal life sense, only the blood of an innocent
could do that.
That is the basis of the atonement. Only through Christ's blood and
sacrifice, His rioghteous life can we be saved. But the question is then,
are we then free to live a
life of sin, is salvation an excuse for sin? God has saved us FROM our
sin,
given us a new heart that that is plyable to His Holy Spirit which enables
obedience.
Why would God save us, allow His Son to die on the cross, so we can be
excused to sin? No, so that we can now live lives according to God's
will.
And that will is not contrary to His law. Sin, breaking of God's law is
what
put Jesus on the cross. God, out of love offered us redemption. Through
His
Son we have that.
But sadly many Christians stay at this point, on the milk and not to solid
food.
If God did away with His law, then Jesus didn't have to die. Because
where there is no law, there is no sin. So God could have said "that's it,
I'll change MYSELF, to fit humanity, I'll do away with my law, so everyone
is now innocent".
"Jesus doesn't have to die". But Jesus DID DIE! God did not change to fit
man.
God gave us a way to become "changed", from glory to glory.
Can you imagine what accusations Satan would have had if God just did away
with His law to excuse humanity?
God so loved us, He gave us His Son. WHY?
2 Cor 5:14-21
14 For the love of Christ compels us , because we judge thus: that if One
died for all, then all died; 15 and He died for all, that those who live
should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and
rose
again.
16 Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even
though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him
thus
no longer. 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old
things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. 18 Now all
things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ,
and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 that is, that God was
in
Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to
them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
20 Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading
through us: we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God. 21
For
He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the
righteousness of God in Him.
NKJV
Anyone who does not keep the Sabbath, or who deliberately keeps it on
the wrong day, does not love God. John wrote that if he claims to
love God, he is a "liar".
- James
The new covenant Sabbath is resting in Christ, if you choose to rest in
a
day instead of Christ, may God have mercy on you. If you choose to rest
in a day and in Christ, then you are a brother in Christ with whom I
have
some disagreements.
In Him
WT
You are very mistaken sadly. The day is not our Lord, as Jesus said God
made
the sabbath FOR MAN not MAN FOR THE SABBATH.
Personally I rest in Christ and His righteousness for my salvation.
I trust in Him only, my righteousness is as filthy rags. However I also
understand that God saved me not to continue in sin, but from Sin, that I,
out of love for Him seek his will,
and to glorify Him. We glorify and honor God by bu living lives out of
obedience.
Obedience is not burden when it is for Him, if it is a burden than we have
1 John 5:3
3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His
commandments are not burdensome .
NKJV
Yes, there is a constant struggle against self, the old man. We have
sinful
natures that will be with us till we die. That nature craves sin and
rebellion against God. But Jesus said, pick up your cross and follow me.
Luke 9:23-25
Then He said to them all, "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him
deny
himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me . 24 For whoever
desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My
sake will save it.
NKJV
The Christian life is one of self-sacrifice, not self improvement.
Too much in Christianity today, the motivation is, "How can I be blessed,
how can I be improved". But truly the Christian life is one of loving God
with all, and your fellow man.
Matt 22:37-40
37 Jesus said to him, "'You shall love the LORD your God with all your
heart, with all your soul , and with all your mind .' 38 This is the
first
and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: 'You shall love your
neighbor as yourself.' 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and
the Prophets."
NKJV
Those two commandments, which BTW are found in the OT, are not contrary to
the 10.
Gen 1:1 - Rom 13:10
Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another
has
fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, "You shall not commit
adultery,"
"You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not bear false
witness," "You shall not covet," and if there is any other commandment,
are
all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as
yourself." 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the
fulfillment of the law.
NKJV
Paul is not speaking against the Law, but rather revealing the true nature
of them and the motivation for keeping them-LOVE!
Gal 5:13-15
13 For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty
as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14
For
all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: "You shall love your
neighbor as yourself." 15 But if you bite and devour one another, beware
lest you be consumed by one another!
NKJV
Gal 5:5-6
6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails
anything, but faith working through love .
NKJV
Hearts that have been changed, who appreciate the great gift that God has
given us
in His Son, desire to please God, to live their lives for Him and for
their
fellow man.
We are truly servants to the world, and children of God.
Jesus foot washing showed the humility in service to others.
Jesus death and righteous life is ours, and the condemnation of the law
13 For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty
as an opportunity for the flesh,
The law serves a purpose, it is the same purpose it always had, not as a
means of salvation or self glorification as the Pharisees distorted it to
be, but as a means of pointing out sin. Written upon the heart of the NC
Christian, through the Holy Spirit,
we are convicted of sin, and constantly led to the foot of cross, where
God
is able to
give us grace and forgiveness. One who has been loved much, loves much.
No confessional is needed, we have a direct contact with the Father
through
Jesus Christ, who is our preist, saviour and God.
Rom 7:9-12
9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin
revived and I died. 10 And the commandment, which was to bring life, I
found
to bring death. 11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived
me,
and by it killed me. 12 Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment
holy
and just and good.
NKJV
Gal 2:21
21 I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through
the law , then Christ died in vain."
NKJV
But many Christians interpret that to mean that Paul was "anti-law". NO!
He
was anti-legalism. There is a difference. Legalism is about
self-righteousness, self salvation.
Rom 8:1-4
There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus,
who
do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. 2 For the
law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of
sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through
the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh,
on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous
requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according
to
the flesh but according to the Spirit.
NKJV
The Spirit and the Law are not in conflict, our sinful flesh and the law
are.
Because the law is spiritual, only the spiritual man can fulfill that
requirement.
Rom 8:4-8
5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things
of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of
the
Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded
is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it
is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who
are in the flesh cannot please God.
NKJV
Gal 5:16-26
I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the
flesh. 17 For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against
the
flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the
things that you wish. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not
under
the law.
19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery,
fornication,
uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions,
jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies,
21
envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you
beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice
such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love , joy, peace, longsuffering,
kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control. Against
such
there is no law. 24 And those who are Christ's have crucified the flesh
with
its passions and desires. 25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in
the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying
one another.
NKJV
May God bless you in researching this. There is a delicate balnce between
law and grace.
The Law has a purpose, that is to point out sin, it can not save anyone.
Grace is God's unmerited favor, He bestows it freely with out us earning
it
in anyway.
Satan will try to twist scripture, either towards legalism or towards
cheap
grace.
What many Christians are not seeing though is past their own perspective
and
their own salvation, it is egocentric. That of course is the basis of our
sinful natures, selfishness.
But meditate upon Christ on the cross, see His face. See the agony, His
weeping for you
and me, how shall I respond? To a life of self improvement? Or self
sacrifice?
God asks for a life of obedience and self denial, it may sound rugged and
hard,
but if you understand, that it is for His glory, not yours, that it is not
for your salvation,
but out of love and appreciation for the wonderful gift that God has given
in His Son.
It is only hard when we see it as "what's in it for me".
We are in a constant battle, daily. But when you realize that we are
fighting for God, not for ourselves, the battle becomes a little bit
easier.
There is something in the fact that fighting for yourself is rugged and
hard.
I'm not sure why that is, something about our condition I suppose.
The 'liberty" Paul spoke of though sets us free, not to sin, but free to
serve out of love.
God Bless,
John
Stephen Korsman
2006-06-11 05:02:46 UTC
Permalink
I was given a book by my SDA mother-in-law titled "The
Antichrist Agenda." Knowing SDAs I knew that the Sabbath
would be the focal point of the book. I agreed to read it,
but told her that I would write my own commentary on the
book. So far I have read a little over half and have found
it full of generalizations that are not backed by scripture
and in many case are contrary to scripture. ...
...
If the Sabbath arguments are so weak as to require lies and
distortions to support them, then the Sabbath position
supported by this book has to be false.
I am a seventh-day Sabbath keeper who is not a member of the Seventh
Day Adventist church. So I will not try to defend any particular SDA
book, but instead I will merely try to explain the truth.
-----
The Sabbath is one of the Ten Commandments, Exodus 20:8-11,
Deuteronomy 5:12-15.
It is obvious to any sane person that the Ten Commandments have NOT
been "done away" or "abolished", because if they had been "done away",
then it would be permissible to murder, to steal, to commit adultery,
and so forth.
Simplistic logic not befitting a thinking person. No one can follow
the
teachings of Christ and do as you have listed above. Jesus named two
primary commands, both involving love. These commands are far superior
in that not only do they command "do not" they also command "do." One
can ignore the starving under the Ten Commandments, but it is
impossible
under the two commandments of love.
Jesus said that it was necessary to keep the "commandments" to have
Matthew 5:20
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall
exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye
shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Righteousness beyond selfrighteousness, a righteousness that is found
in
being in Christ's righteousness. Jesus is not teaching you to follow
the
Law, but to follow Him.
And following Him is contrary to the Law-10 commandments?
Actually, no to your question, but that is not what Jesus was saying .
Following the Law is or can be contrary to following Jesus Christ when
one's
focus is on the Law and what the individual or others is or is not doing
to
comply with one's perception of the law.
Outward obedience to the law, which the Pharisees were famous for
is not righteousness at all. If you are ego centric, you whole focus on
following Christ is
YOUR SALVATION. However, God requires His children to be obedient.
And, His children willingly accept this because they are motivated by
love, in responce to His grace, forgiveness and the gift of His Son on
the
cross.
2 Cor 5:14-15
14 For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if
One
died for all, then all died; 15 and He died for all, that those who live
should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and
rose again.
NKJV
If your obedience is based on self love or self preservation-fear of
hell
or wanting to go to heaven it is legalistic. Obedience is a heart
responce
to God, empowered by the Holy Spirit.
In this we agree
Matt 23:27-28
7 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like
whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside
are
full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness. 28 Even so you also
outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy
and lawlessness.
NKJV
Notice Jesus said here "but inside you are full of hypocrisy and
lawlessness."
Jesus did not condemn them obeying the law, but rather that their hearts
were not right with God. They were motivated by self, not love toward
God
or fellow man.
Still one has to define which law they are talking about. The law of love
that is throughout the NT or the law that Paul refers to as "the ministry
of death" and "the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which
was contrary to us." Which is the old covenant Law.
It's worth noting that "the ministry of death" was written on tablets of
stone.

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
Stephen Korsman
2006-06-12 05:03:13 UTC
Permalink
Still one has to define which law they are talking about.
The law of love that is throughout the NT or the law that
Paul refers to as "the ministry of death" and "the
handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was
contrary to us." Which is the old covenant Law.
It's worth noting that "the ministry of death" was written
on tablets of stone.
That is UNTRUE. The "ministry of death" was NOT written on "tablets"
2 Corinthians 3:7
7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in
stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could
not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his
Look at the context! Paul gives enough clues in what he writes to show
conclusively that he was writing about Moses decending from Horeb/Sinai.
The clues are an exact parallel (a false llel?) to Exodus 34:28-35. It is
unmistakable; one cannot fail to see the parallels unless one is willing
to
rewrite the Bible.
More on the context - verse 3 explicitly states that they were tablets of
stone. That is exactly what Paul is comparing the new law to.

2Co 3:3 KJV Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of
Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the
living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.
Ex 34:28 So he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did
not eat bread or drink water. AND HE WROTE ON THE TABLETS THE WORDS OF THE
COVENANT, THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.
29 It came about when Moses was coming down from Mount Sinai (AND THE TWO
TABLETS OF THE TESTIMONY WERE IN MOSES' HAND as he was coming down from
the
mountain), that Moses did not know that the SKIN OF HIS FACE SHOWN because
of his speaking with Him.
30 So when Aaron and all the sons of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin
of
his face shone, and they were afraid to come near him.
31 Then Moses called to them, and Aaron and all the rulers in the
congregation returned to him; and Moses spoke to them.
32 Afterward all the sons of Israel came near, and he commanded them to
do
everything that the Lord had spoken to him on Mount Sinai.
33 When Moses had finished speaking with them, HE PUT A VEIL OVER HIS
FACE.
34 But whenever Moses went in before the Lord to speak with Him, he would
take off the veil until he came out; and whenever he came out and spoke to
the sons of Israel what he had been commanded,
35 the sons of Israel would see the face of Moses, that the skin of
Moses'
face shone. So Moses would replace the veil over his face until he went in
to speak with Him. (emphasis mine)
The rest of your post stands moot because you cannot bypass this
scripture.

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
Andrew
2006-06-15 21:43:17 UTC
Permalink
It's worth noting that "the ministry of death" was written on tablets of stone.
Paul refers to the "ministration of death" as written on stones - not "tablets"
of stone..and the law of Moses was indeed written on stones (Joshua 8:32).


Andrew
Whazit Tooyah
2006-06-16 05:23:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
It's worth noting that "the ministry of death" was written on tablets of stone.
Paul refers to the "ministration of death" as written on stones - not "tablets"
of stone..and the law of Moses was indeed written on stones (Joshua 8:32).
Andrew
2 cor 3: 2 You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all
men;
3 being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us,
written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets
of stone but on tablets of human hearts.
4 Such confidence we have through Christ toward God.
5 Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming
from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God,
6 who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the
letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
7 But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with
glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of
Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was,
8 how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory?
9 For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the
ministry of righteousness abound in glory.
10 For indeed what had glory, in this case has no glory because of the
glory that surpasses it.

Context Andrew. It was letters engraved on stones that Moses brought, not
Joshua.
--
WT

By this all men will know that you are My disciples,
if you have love for one another
Stephen Korsman
2006-06-16 15:33:37 UTC
Permalink
Sabbath Keepers and genuine seekers, it is for you that I am writing
this message. The anonymous deceiver, "Whazit Tooyah", is making a
desperate attempt to make you think that the truth has been refuted.
----------
Don't worry. We are not deceived by the antinomians who have bowed
to another power. Those who reject the true Sabbath of the Lord, are in
effect rejecting the *Lord of the Sabbath*.. AND are bowing to the auth-
ority of the Catholic Church - the pope.
"The Protestant mind does not realize that in observing the Sunday,
they are accepting the authority of the spokesman for the Church,
THE POPE."
~ Our Sunday Visitor" February 5 1950 ~
Newspaper clippings coupled with your lack of understanding of Catholic
teaching.

Constantine, the Papacy, and the real origins of Sunday

This is an e-mail I wrote in response to a request for commentary got from
Robert Sanders, who has a ministry for Adventists at his website
http://www.truthorfables.com/ - his words are in green, my reply is in
black.

Thanks for offering me the chance to explain how we Catholics feel about the
Sabbath / Sunday "change."

If I understand the Catholic position correctly, they say the Pope did not
change the Seventh Day Sabbath to Sunday. They contend this was done by the
Apostolic Church and there is no record of a "Pope" making the change, but
it was done on authority of the Catholic Church.

Yes, that is pretty much the Catholic position summed up. We do, however,
also hold to the idea that Sunday observance is biblical, and the origins
are referenced in the New Testament (texts like Heb 4, Col 2, Rom 14, Gal 4,
Acts 20, 1 Cor 16 and others.)

One must just be careful in defining one's terms.

One person might say, "The Catholic Church changed the Sabbath" and another
might say, "The Apostles changed the Sabbath" and depending on their
background, they might mean the same thing, or they might be disagreeing
with each other.

Some terms, as used by Catholicism in general, of interest:

- Catholic Church - this refers to the Church as begun by Christ and led by
the Apostles after Pentecost
- Apostolic Church - this is a synonym for the Catholic Church during the
time when the Apostles were alive
- post-Apostolic Church - the Catholic Church once the last Apostle had died
- papacy - the office of Peter instituted in Matt 16:18, and continued in
his successors
- pope - the occupant of the papacy, beginning with Peter in the first
century

I do not expect you to AGREE with these terms or accept the theology we
Catholics accept. All I ask is that when you read Catholic texts written by
Catholics, you TRY to understand what we are saying, instead of applying
YOUR definitions for these words to something WE have written.

For instance, if a Catholic said, "SUNDAY IS A CATHOLIC INSTITUTION" (quotes
from the original e-mail I am responding to) then this needs to be
understood using Catholic definitions, in order to know what the Catholic
means and understands. He is, therefore, NOT saying that Sunday observance
began in 300 AD or 600 AD or whenever it might be that a Protestant feels
the "Roman Catholic Church" <incorrect name, in fact> came into existence.
What the Catholic is actually saying with "SUNDAY IS A CATHOLIC INSTITUTION"
is that Sunday observance is something that came from the Catholic Church -
without specifying era - and he would, in good conscience, say EXACTLY the
same of the decision in Acts 15 about circumcision - he would claim that
THAT TOO was a "Catholic institution" because that IS how he sees the early
Christian Church - as Catholic.

What often happens, then, is that Catholics claim authorship to Sunday
observance because they believe the Apostles began Sunday observance and
they view the Apostles as the first Catholic leaders, but when Adventists
hear these words, they grab them and remove their context and actual
meaning, and make it seem as if the Catholic Church is claiming that Sunday
observance was begun by a group which the Adventists define as the Catholic
Church, and NOT the Apostolic Church.

That said, I must differentiate between THREE types of texts that can be
used as evidence.

1. Statements by Catholics that a) agree with Catholic teaching but b) are
not official sources of Catholic teaching
2. Statements by Catholics that disagree with Catholic teaching
3. Statements that constitute official Catholic teaching

I have almost NEVER seen Adventists quote official Catholic teaching on the
issue of the Sabbath. (Simply because it would destroy what they want people
to believe we teach.) On the rare occasion, one will quote the Catechism of
the Catholic Church, and even more rarely, they will quote it in context.
Virtually ALL of the quotes they offer to support their view, are quotes of
type 2 (not real Catholic teaching) or type 1 quotes where context and the
author's intent have been abused.

Examples of texts of type 3 (official Catholic teaching) include:
- the Bible (Catholics DO view the Bible as an official source of truth)
- the Catechism of the Catholic Church
- papal encyclicals
- Council documents (e.g. from the Council of Nicaea, or the Council of
Trent) - these include catechisms, decrees, canons, letters, etc produced by
the council in question
- other official Vatican documents intended to convey or explain Catholic
teaching

Examples of texts of type 1 (agree with Catholic teaching but the text
itself is not authoritative) include:
- ALL Catholic newspapers
- ALL Catholic periodicals not published by the Vatican (and most which are,
e.g. their tax report)
- books with "Imprimatur" printed in front (this is only permission to
print, and says nothing about accuracy of content)
- books with "Nihil obstat" printed in front (this means that the book is
considered to be faithful to Catholic teaching by the local bishop, NOT that
the book is an official source of Catholic doctrine)
- many books whose titles contain the word "Catechism"
- my website (hopefully, I try to make it agree with Catholic teaching as
far as I can)

Examples of type 2 texts, which disagree with Catholic teaching, include:
- the abundant quotes referenced from the Catholic Mirror newspaper
- other similar texts

Note: I have, on record, Adventist pastors who tell me that the Bible
contains errors, that a lot of what Paul said we need not obey, that it was
merely opinion. I have Adventist pastors who have told me that Ellen White
is indeed infallible and has not erred, that she was inspired by God and
that her writings CAN RIGHTLY be used to interpret difficult passages in the
Bible (and by logical extension, faulty ones if the Bible contains error.)
Do THESE quotes constitute "official Adventist teaching" just because they
come from the mouth of an Adventist pastor? I doubt it. These statements
would fall into the type 2 category I described above. By taking type 1 and
type 2 statements and removing context, a strong straw-man case can be made
for the opposing position - as long as the reader is kept ignorant of the
true nature of these texts, and never shown any type 3 (official) texts
which show authentic teaching of the respective denomination. I will send,
just after this, a case study I have put together on this, which will
hopefully demonstrate the error in the pseudo-Catholic propaganda that many
Sabbatarians spread.

For a full view of Catholic teaching on the origins of the observance of
Sunday, and the removal of the Sabbath observance, I recommend you read the
papal encyclical Dies Domini, written by the current Pope. It can be found
on my website, at http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/jp2dies.html

If this is true, then Ellen White is wrong in saying it was changed by "THE
POPE."

Ellen White would have defined the term "the pope" differently to
Catholics - she would likely have meant someone other than the Apostle
Peter, someone who lived much later in Christian history. She should name
him, and she does not. See also the Catholic Insight web page Ellen White,
F.P. (False Prophet)
(http://www.cathinsight.com/apologetics/adventism/white.htm) to see how
Ellen White prophesied falsely on this matter of the imaginary 4th century
change to Sunday.

It is interesting that the SDA Church cannot put a name on the Pope that
made the change.

That IS interesting :-> Certainly it shows that they are prepared to make
claims, but can't give details when the claims are questioned by informed
questioners.

Please visit the following site to view actual historical Christian quotes
about their Sunday observance dating to long before 300 AD:
ttp://www.bible.ca/H-sunday.htm
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
Whazit Tooyah
2006-06-18 20:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Korsman
Sabbath Keepers and genuine seekers, it is for you that I am writing
this message. The anonymous deceiver, "Whazit Tooyah", is making a
desperate attempt to make you think that the truth has been refuted.
----------
Don't worry. We are not deceived by the antinomians who have bowed
to another power. Those who reject the true Sabbath of the Lord, are in
effect rejecting the *Lord of the Sabbath*.. AND are bowing to the auth-
ority of the Catholic Church - the pope.
"The Protestant mind does not realize that in observing the Sunday,
they are accepting the authority of the spokesman for the Church,
THE POPE."
~ Our Sunday Visitor" February 5 1950 ~
Newspaper clippings coupled with your lack of understanding of Catholic
teaching.
Constantine, the Papacy, and the real origins of Sunday
This is an e-mail I wrote in response to a request for commentary got from
Robert Sanders, who has a ministry for Adventists at his website
http://www.truthorfables.com/ - his words are in green, my reply is in
black.
Thanks for offering me the chance to explain how we Catholics feel about the
Sabbath / Sunday "change."
If I understand the Catholic position correctly, they say the Pope did not
change the Seventh Day Sabbath to Sunday. They contend this was done by the
Apostolic Church and there is no record of a "Pope" making the change, but
it was done on authority of the Catholic Church.
Yes, that is pretty much the Catholic position summed up. We do, however,
also hold to the idea that Sunday observance is biblical, and the origins
are referenced in the New Testament (texts like Heb 4, Col 2, Rom 14, Gal 4,
Acts 20, 1 Cor 16 and others.)
One must just be careful in defining one's terms.
One person might say, "The Catholic Church changed the Sabbath" and another
might say, "The Apostles changed the Sabbath" and depending on their
background, they might mean the same thing, or they might be disagreeing
with each other.
- Catholic Church - this refers to the Church as begun by Christ and led by
the Apostles after Pentecost
- Apostolic Church - this is a synonym for the Catholic Church during the
time when the Apostles were alive
- post-Apostolic Church - the Catholic Church once the last Apostle had died
- papacy - the office of Peter instituted in Matt 16:18, and continued in
his successors
- pope - the occupant of the papacy, beginning with Peter in the first
century
I do not expect you to AGREE with these terms or accept the theology we
Catholics accept. All I ask is that when you read Catholic texts written by
Catholics, you TRY to understand what we are saying, instead of applying
YOUR definitions for these words to something WE have written.
For instance, if a Catholic said, "SUNDAY IS A CATHOLIC INSTITUTION" (quotes
from the original e-mail I am responding to) then this needs to be
understood using Catholic definitions, in order to know what the Catholic
means and understands. He is, therefore, NOT saying that Sunday observance
began in 300 AD or 600 AD or whenever it might be that a Protestant feels
the "Roman Catholic Church" <incorrect name, in fact> came into existence.
What the Catholic is actually saying with "SUNDAY IS A CATHOLIC INSTITUTION"
is that Sunday observance is something that came from the Catholic Church -
without specifying era - and he would, in good conscience, say EXACTLY the
same of the decision in Acts 15 about circumcision - he would claim that
THAT TOO was a "Catholic institution" because that IS how he sees the early
Christian Church - as Catholic.
What often happens, then, is that Catholics claim authorship to Sunday
observance because they believe the Apostles began Sunday observance and
they view the Apostles as the first Catholic leaders, but when Adventists
hear these words, they grab them and remove their context and actual
meaning, and make it seem as if the Catholic Church is claiming that Sunday
observance was begun by a group which the Adventists define as the Catholic
Church, and NOT the Apostolic Church.
That said, I must differentiate between THREE types of texts that can be
used as evidence.
1. Statements by Catholics that a) agree with Catholic teaching but b) are
not official sources of Catholic teaching
2. Statements by Catholics that disagree with Catholic teaching
3. Statements that constitute official Catholic teaching
I have almost NEVER seen Adventists quote official Catholic teaching on the
issue of the Sabbath. (Simply because it would destroy what they want people
to believe we teach.) On the rare occasion, one will quote the Catechism of
the Catholic Church, and even more rarely, they will quote it in context.
Virtually ALL of the quotes they offer to support their view, are quotes of
type 2 (not real Catholic teaching) or type 1 quotes where context and the
author's intent have been abused.
- the Bible (Catholics DO view the Bible as an official source of truth)
- the Catechism of the Catholic Church
- papal encyclicals
- Council documents (e.g. from the Council of Nicaea, or the Council of
Trent) - these include catechisms, decrees, canons, letters, etc produced by
the council in question
- other official Vatican documents intended to convey or explain Catholic
teaching
Examples of texts of type 1 (agree with Catholic teaching but the text
- ALL Catholic newspapers
- ALL Catholic periodicals not published by the Vatican (and most which are,
e.g. their tax report)
- books with "Imprimatur" printed in front (this is only permission to
print, and says nothing about accuracy of content)
- books with "Nihil obstat" printed in front (this means that the book is
considered to be faithful to Catholic teaching by the local bishop, NOT that
the book is an official source of Catholic doctrine)
- many books whose titles contain the word "Catechism"
- my website (hopefully, I try to make it agree with Catholic teaching as
far as I can)
- the abundant quotes referenced from the Catholic Mirror newspaper
- other similar texts
Note: I have, on record, Adventist pastors who tell me that the Bible
contains errors, that a lot of what Paul said we need not obey, that it was
merely opinion. I have Adventist pastors who have told me that Ellen White
is indeed infallible and has not erred, that she was inspired by God and
that her writings CAN RIGHTLY be used to interpret difficult passages in the
Bible (and by logical extension, faulty ones if the Bible contains error.)
Do THESE quotes constitute "official Adventist teaching" just because they
come from the mouth of an Adventist pastor? I doubt it. These statements
would fall into the type 2 category I described above. By taking type 1 and
type 2 statements and removing context, a strong straw-man case can be made
for the opposing position - as long as the reader is kept ignorant of the
true nature of these texts, and never shown any type 3 (official) texts
which show authentic teaching of the respective denomination. I will send,
just after this, a case study I have put together on this, which will
hopefully demonstrate the error in the pseudo-Catholic propaganda that many
Sabbatarians spread.
For a full view of Catholic teaching on the origins of the observance of
Sunday, and the removal of the Sabbath observance, I recommend you read the
papal encyclical Dies Domini, written by the current Pope. It can be found
on my website, at http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/jp2dies.html
If this is true, then Ellen White is wrong in saying it was changed by "THE
POPE."
Ellen White would have defined the term "the pope" differently to
Catholics - she would likely have meant someone other than the Apostle
Peter, someone who lived much later in Christian history. She should name
him, and she does not. See also the Catholic Insight web page Ellen White,
F.P. (False Prophet)
(http://www.cathinsight.com/apologetics/adventism/white.htm) to see how
Ellen White prophesied falsely on this matter of the imaginary 4th century
change to Sunday.
It is interesting that the SDA Church cannot put a name on the Pope that
made the change.
That IS interesting :-> Certainly it shows that they are prepared to make
claims, but can't give details when the claims are questioned by informed
questioners.
Please visit the following site to view actual historical Christian quotes
ttp://www.bible.ca/H-sunday.htm
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/
IC | XC
---------
NI | KA
add an s before .co.za
Interesting and informative article Stephen. My thoughts, just for the
record.
1. The church catholic (universal) is different than the Catholic Church.
The church catholic is what as a protestant I would recognize as the
apostolic and post apostolic church and now as that group of the truly saved
from all churches. The Catholic Church has its roots in the apostolic
church but its formal organization began at Nicea and was strengthened by
the recognition of Constantine.
2. While there were pastors or overseers (what the term episkopos means) of
the churches starting in the first century they were not meant to be the
head of the entire church. I would offer the letters to the seven churches
as an evidence. Written late in the first century, had there been one
church, there would have been one letter to the episkopos of Rome.
3. Attempting to claim authority through a direct lineage to Peter is akin
to Baptist churches claiming a direct line in opposition to the Catholic
Church going back to John. (Know in the past as anabaptists etc., etc)
4. I wont bother with all of the disagreements about what Jesus meant when
he said "upon this rock I will build my church." Needless to say, I don't
believe He meant Peter.
--
WT

By this all men will know that you are My disciples,
if you have love for one another
Stephen Korsman
2006-06-19 02:49:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Whazit Tooyah
Post by Stephen Korsman
Sabbath Keepers and genuine seekers, it is for you that I am writing
this message. The anonymous deceiver, "Whazit Tooyah", is making a
desperate attempt to make you think that the truth has been refuted.
----------
Don't worry. We are not deceived by the antinomians who have bowed
to another power. Those who reject the true Sabbath of the Lord, are in
effect rejecting the *Lord of the Sabbath*.. AND are bowing to the auth-
ority of the Catholic Church - the pope.
"The Protestant mind does not realize that in observing the Sunday,
they are accepting the authority of the spokesman for the Church,
THE POPE."
~ Our Sunday Visitor" February 5 1950 ~
Newspaper clippings coupled with your lack of understanding of Catholic
teaching.
Constantine, the Papacy, and the real origins of Sunday
This is an e-mail I wrote in response to a request for commentary got from
Robert Sanders, who has a ministry for Adventists at his website
http://www.truthorfables.com/ - his words are in green, my reply is in
black.
Thanks for offering me the chance to explain how we Catholics feel about the
Sabbath / Sunday "change."
If I understand the Catholic position correctly, they say the Pope did not
change the Seventh Day Sabbath to Sunday. They contend this was done by the
Apostolic Church and there is no record of a "Pope" making the change, but
it was done on authority of the Catholic Church.
Yes, that is pretty much the Catholic position summed up. We do, however,
also hold to the idea that Sunday observance is biblical, and the origins
are referenced in the New Testament (texts like Heb 4, Col 2, Rom 14,
Gal
Post by Whazit Tooyah
Post by Stephen Korsman
4,
Acts 20, 1 Cor 16 and others.)
One must just be careful in defining one's terms.
One person might say, "The Catholic Church changed the Sabbath" and another
might say, "The Apostles changed the Sabbath" and depending on their
background, they might mean the same thing, or they might be disagreeing
with each other.
- Catholic Church - this refers to the Church as begun by Christ and led by
the Apostles after Pentecost
- Apostolic Church - this is a synonym for the Catholic Church during the
time when the Apostles were alive
- post-Apostolic Church - the Catholic Church once the last Apostle had died
- papacy - the office of Peter instituted in Matt 16:18, and continued in
his successors
- pope - the occupant of the papacy, beginning with Peter in the first
century
I do not expect you to AGREE with these terms or accept the theology we
Catholics accept. All I ask is that when you read Catholic texts written by
Catholics, you TRY to understand what we are saying, instead of applying
YOUR definitions for these words to something WE have written.
For instance, if a Catholic said, "SUNDAY IS A CATHOLIC INSTITUTION" (quotes
from the original e-mail I am responding to) then this needs to be
understood using Catholic definitions, in order to know what the Catholic
means and understands. He is, therefore, NOT saying that Sunday observance
began in 300 AD or 600 AD or whenever it might be that a Protestant feels
the "Roman Catholic Church" <incorrect name, in fact> came into existence.
What the Catholic is actually saying with "SUNDAY IS A CATHOLIC INSTITUTION"
is that Sunday observance is something that came from the Catholic Church -
without specifying era - and he would, in good conscience, say EXACTLY the
same of the decision in Acts 15 about circumcision - he would claim that
THAT TOO was a "Catholic institution" because that IS how he sees the early
Christian Church - as Catholic.
What often happens, then, is that Catholics claim authorship to Sunday
observance because they believe the Apostles began Sunday observance and
they view the Apostles as the first Catholic leaders, but when Adventists
hear these words, they grab them and remove their context and actual
meaning, and make it seem as if the Catholic Church is claiming that Sunday
observance was begun by a group which the Adventists define as the Catholic
Church, and NOT the Apostolic Church.
That said, I must differentiate between THREE types of texts that can be
used as evidence.
1. Statements by Catholics that a) agree with Catholic teaching but b) are
not official sources of Catholic teaching
2. Statements by Catholics that disagree with Catholic teaching
3. Statements that constitute official Catholic teaching
I have almost NEVER seen Adventists quote official Catholic teaching on the
issue of the Sabbath. (Simply because it would destroy what they want people
to believe we teach.) On the rare occasion, one will quote the Catechism of
the Catholic Church, and even more rarely, they will quote it in context.
Virtually ALL of the quotes they offer to support their view, are quotes of
type 2 (not real Catholic teaching) or type 1 quotes where context and the
author's intent have been abused.
- the Bible (Catholics DO view the Bible as an official source of truth)
- the Catechism of the Catholic Church
- papal encyclicals
- Council documents (e.g. from the Council of Nicaea, or the Council of
Trent) - these include catechisms, decrees, canons, letters, etc
produced
Post by Whazit Tooyah
Post by Stephen Korsman
by
the council in question
- other official Vatican documents intended to convey or explain Catholic
teaching
Examples of texts of type 1 (agree with Catholic teaching but the text
- ALL Catholic newspapers
- ALL Catholic periodicals not published by the Vatican (and most which are,
e.g. their tax report)
- books with "Imprimatur" printed in front (this is only permission to
print, and says nothing about accuracy of content)
- books with "Nihil obstat" printed in front (this means that the book is
considered to be faithful to Catholic teaching by the local bishop, NOT that
the book is an official source of Catholic doctrine)
- many books whose titles contain the word "Catechism"
- my website (hopefully, I try to make it agree with Catholic teaching as
far as I can)
- the abundant quotes referenced from the Catholic Mirror newspaper
- other similar texts
Note: I have, on record, Adventist pastors who tell me that the Bible
contains errors, that a lot of what Paul said we need not obey, that it was
merely opinion. I have Adventist pastors who have told me that Ellen White
is indeed infallible and has not erred, that she was inspired by God and
that her writings CAN RIGHTLY be used to interpret difficult passages in the
Bible (and by logical extension, faulty ones if the Bible contains error.)
Do THESE quotes constitute "official Adventist teaching" just because they
come from the mouth of an Adventist pastor? I doubt it. These statements
would fall into the type 2 category I described above. By taking type 1 and
type 2 statements and removing context, a strong straw-man case can be made
for the opposing position - as long as the reader is kept ignorant of the
true nature of these texts, and never shown any type 3 (official) texts
which show authentic teaching of the respective denomination. I will send,
just after this, a case study I have put together on this, which will
hopefully demonstrate the error in the pseudo-Catholic propaganda that many
Sabbatarians spread.
For a full view of Catholic teaching on the origins of the observance of
Sunday, and the removal of the Sabbath observance, I recommend you read the
papal encyclical Dies Domini, written by the current Pope. It can be found
on my website, at http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/jp2dies.html
If this is true, then Ellen White is wrong in saying it was changed by "THE
POPE."
Ellen White would have defined the term "the pope" differently to
Catholics - she would likely have meant someone other than the Apostle
Peter, someone who lived much later in Christian history. She should name
him, and she does not. See also the Catholic Insight web page Ellen White,
F.P. (False Prophet)
(http://www.cathinsight.com/apologetics/adventism/white.htm) to see how
Ellen White prophesied falsely on this matter of the imaginary 4th century
change to Sunday.
It is interesting that the SDA Church cannot put a name on the Pope that
made the change.
That IS interesting :-> Certainly it shows that they are prepared to make
claims, but can't give details when the claims are questioned by informed
questioners.
Please visit the following site to view actual historical Christian quotes
ttp://www.bible.ca/H-sunday.htm
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/
IC | XC
---------
NI | KA
add an s before .co.za
Interesting and informative article Stephen. My thoughts, just for the
record.
1. The church catholic (universal) is different than the Catholic Church.
The church catholic is what as a protestant I would recognize as the
apostolic and post apostolic church and now as that group of the truly saved
from all churches. The Catholic Church has its roots in the apostolic
church but its formal organization began at Nicea and was strengthened by
the recognition of Constantine.
The way I see it is that the structure was fully present prior to this, as
seen in the historical records and the writings of the early Christians. It
was merely legalised by Constantine, which enabled a more formal gathering
like Nicaea. Theologically, it's hard to argue that they were not Catholic.
Post by Whazit Tooyah
2. While there were pastors or overseers (what the term episkopos means) of
the churches starting in the first century they were not meant to be the
head of the entire church. I would offer the letters to the seven churches
as an evidence. Written late in the first century, had there been one
church, there would have been one letter to the episkopos of Rome.
Not really ... if there were 7 different churches that could be symbolic of
different types of Christians, whether at that time, throughout time, or at
the end time, depending on your interpretation, the existence of a church at
Rome would not have changed the use of those 7. Rome and Jerusalem never
got a letter ... it was just a select few chosen as examples.
Post by Whazit Tooyah
3. Attempting to claim authority through a direct lineage to Peter is akin
to Baptist churches claiming a direct line in opposition to the Catholic
Church going back to John. (Know in the past as anabaptists etc., etc)
The difference being the historical evidence.
Post by Whazit Tooyah
4. I wont bother with all of the disagreements about what Jesus meant when
he said "upon this rock I will build my church." Needless to say, I don't
believe He meant Peter.
Then I won't bother much with a detailed reply :-) Convenient, because I
need to be offline for some time, which makes such discussion problematic
:-)

http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp and
http://www.catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp give good
explanations for the Catholic position, though. Also
http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
Stephen Korsman
2006-06-16 15:32:48 UTC
Permalink
it is not a sin by the old covenant to gossip
"You shall not go up and down as a dispenser
of gossip and scandal among your people." Lev 19:16
Hmm, it seems I misspoke, I meant the Ten Commandments
The Decalogue has no provision permitting gossip, but rather
condemns it. Because gossip is a violation of the law of love.
All transgressions are a violation of the principle of (and law of)
love (Matt 22:37-40).
since it is what you say remains of the Law,
What?
the "Law of Moses" was nailed to the cross being written in a book.
Yes, and the Decalogue was not, being written on
stone signifying its immutable and enduring nature.
What is more permanent than stone?

(2Co 3:3 KJV) Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of
Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the
living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

(2Co 3:7 KJV) But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in
stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly
behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was
to be done away:

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
Teresita
2006-06-17 00:05:46 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:32:48 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"
Post by Stephen Korsman
What is more permanent than stone?
Human error.

--
Encyclopedia Teresita

http://home.comcast.net/~rubyredinger
Loading...