You are not logged in.
Hey, Cadge, it's your remark, do with it what you will. SHEEEEEEESH!!!
How many different ways can one look at the above formula? Is there absolute truth, not according to Cadge, it is all experiential. Has that formula transformed into 5 for some??
Has salvation got many avenues as my Jewish neighbor would have me believe, and to boot that they weren't reponsible for Chirst's death the Romans were? Give me a break on the subjective BS. There are some things even Obama is finding out can't be subjective, like did Daschle pay his taxes in a timely manner with no purpose of evasion.
Subjectivity when it comes to truth, things that make a difference, can get one in trouble with the wrong pathway, IMO. I am willing to argue for a pathway, such as creation and not primordial pond origination. Each to his own if they want to fiddle with the latter opinion, but it changes the issue of salvation if we have some cousins who were apes, IMHO.
Cadge because someone stands for something and as an example, calls sin by it's right name that is not hatred, but maybe love?
Offline
Sorensen I think is doing some hanging out on Hubb's forum.
Offline
http://www.covenantforum.com/cgi-bin/di … 9#POST3279
There is one of his last entries on 1/20/09. Pretty deep stuff!!!
Offline
Ok, I'm going to plagiarize Cadge:
I want to make this perfectly clear. I have in no way ever held any negative or unkind feelings towards John Alfke, or Neil Walls even, for any opinions or beliefs that they may hold contrary to mine. I believe that they have a right to view lifes circumstances and teachings and assimilate their own beliefs based on their own experiences on this orb which is filled with many myths, mysteries and nonending questions and complexities. They dont have to kowtow to anyone elses beliefs that don't makes sense to them. They have a right to explore and question each and every thing that has been rammed into their cranial lobes from the rest of us imperfect people here on earth from the get go, as do we all.
I believe what I do from my experiences and try to share them and I'm always willing to hear from those with different or even opposing views. I don't always see things correctly, and have had to make many changes in my time. I expect I'll have to make many more too. Anyhow, I don't have to accept their beliefs, nor do they have to accept mine. I do believe that we can learn a lot from each other if we are willing to listen and keep an open mind. I can't see where a spirit of sarcasm and accusation attended by intermittent spasms of vitriole will bring about any peace and respect.
That quote and I adopt that with this additional caveate:
As a result of this independent thought, they would have to cause to blame anyone else for their conclusions. No Bailouts, No Whining, No Excuses. Afterall they went against the flow and came up with conclusions and consequences that they own as a result of this independent exercise.
Now I can adopt Cadged's quickly devised defensive statement, immunizing himself from Neal Walls and John Alfke's wrath. OOOOOHHH!!! Be very afraid!!!
http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/wink.gif
Now our ultimate goal of peace and respect at all costs, can now be obtained and maintained. NOT!!!
Offline
Now, getting back on the topic of the Sabbath, I kind of liked this contribution of mine from the archives of <a href="
Offline
Cadge, lest you think I am attacking you personally, let me revisit your above remarks. You've heard of Bill Maher. He is a true Relativist, as he likes to call himself, rather than Atheist, or Agnostic because then he has to recognize Religion, his words, not mine.
Here is Hank Hanegraaff speaking of Bill's latest movie that mocks Religion, Religulous:
http://www.equip.org/site/apps/nlnet/co … ontent_id=
Hank Speaks Out on Religulous with Bill Maher
-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
I just got back from China and realized again the value of always being able to give an answer, a reason, for the hope that lies within you. I got off the plane and the first thing I started hearing about was Religulous, a movie starring Bill Maher, as he interviews people with the purpose of, as he told Larry King the other day, harpooning the whale of religion once and for all. Religion to him is what is poisoning our society and that whale has to be harpooned. He brings up all kinds of reasons why Christianity is no longer tenable in an age of Scientific Enlightenment. It is dead according to him.
In fact, according to him religious ideas such as the virgin birth of Jesus Christ are merely barrowed from ancient pagan mystery religions, such as Krishna of India, Mithras of Greece, and Horus of Egypt. Well, is that true? Did Christianity borrow from ancient pagan mystery religions? Is Bill Maher correct?
The truth of the matter is this; Krishna was not born of a virgin. Krishna was born according to that mythology to a mother who had seven previous sons, hardly a virgin. Mithras was born of a rock, well maybe the rock was a virgin, and we got to give Maher the benefit of the doubt. In terms of Horus, Isis is said to have had intercourse with Osiris after he had been cut into fourteen pieces and his reproductive organs were swallowed by a fish; again, hardly a virgin birth account like the virgin birth account in Scripture.
While it is currently popular to suggest that the gospel writers borrowed the virgin birth motif from pagan mythology, the facts simply say otherwise. Stories of gods having sexual intercourse with women, such as the sun god Apollo becoming a snake and impregnated the mother of Augustus Caesar, hardly parallel the virgin birth account. Moreover, given the strict Monotheistic view of the New Testament authors it should stretch credulity beyond the breaking point to suppose they borrowed from pagan mythology; especially mythologies extolling the sexual exploits of pagan gods.
It has become all too common for people to buy into what has been well described as a unique brand of fundamentalism. A brand of fundamentalism that values rhetoric and emotional stereotypes over reason and evidential substance. Those who suppose that the virgin birth is mythology would be well served to consider defensible argument rather than uncritically swallowing dogmatic assertions. Dogmatic assertions are exactly what you get in Religulous, not defensible arguments.
What we’re trying to say to Christians is you need defensible arguments. This is why I answer this and many other questions in The Complete Bible Answer Book: Collectors Edition. I do it in such a way that only the gem emerges. In other words, I don’t overwhelm you with language, or prose, or volumes of words, I give you the nugget. The reason I do that is I want you to be able to remember the truth and use it as an opportunity for the grace, and love, and peace, and joy that only Jesus Christ can bring to the human life.
How many times did you hear Neal Walls suggest the same copying from other pagan religions. Did we ever question his premise. John Alfke, with Darwinistic Evolution does something similar with no question of his premise.
It is a new subjectivism, naturalism, materialism that doubts God as Creator and Savior, but places a belief system in place that requires as much or more faith about it's premises. Is the motive for Truth, or to mock what they wish not to accept as truth, based on their logic and subjectivism.
Offline
I'd like to hear a defensible argument for the virgin birth that has reason and evidential substance.
I wouldn't want to, um, uncritically swallow dogmatic assertions.
I'm just sayin....
Offline
Salvation's hub is the conception in Mary, the life of Christ, and His death and Resurrection. Miss any link, and His gift is impossible. The Bible is very clear on this:
1 Corinthians 2
1When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God.[a] 2For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. 4My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirits power, 5so that your faith might not rest on mens wisdom, but on Gods power.
Wisdom From the Spirit
6We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7No, we speak of Gods secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9However, as it is written:
No eye has seen,
no ear has heard,
no mind has conceived
what God has prepared for those who love him— 10but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit.
The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the mans spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.[c] 14The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any mans judgment:
16For who has known the mind of the Lord
that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
Note the importance this author places on the event and truth of the virgin birth:
The virgin birth is an underlying assumption of everything the Bible says about Jesus. To throw out the virgin birth is to reject Christs deity, the accuracy and authority of Scripture, and a host of other related doctrines that are the heart of the Christian faith. No issue is more important than the virgin birth to our understanding of who Jesus is. If we deny Jesus is God, we have denied the very essence of Christianity. John F. MacArthur, Jr.
Offline
Well, that's one way of looking at it.
Offline
Another:
Concerning the Virgin Birth
http://stthomasioh.org/sermons/2008-12-21_nelson_r.pdf
For me, the reality of Jesus’ Virgin Birth ‘fits’ in every way. First, and I realize I stand
opposite contemporary writers like Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan, I believe God does reveal God’s own nature, Being and especially God’s eternal desire for and means of our salvation within creation in direct, extraordinary ways. God usually reveals such things through human beings whom God calls, equips and empowers for such ministry.
The Old Testament is chock full of such stories: God calls some, not others; often those chosen are the least likely candidates; Scriptures indicates that however unlikely others might think God’s chosen, often with good reason, God equips and empowers them far beyond any “natural attributes”. On a larger scale, the call of the Jews as God’s chosen people seems a bizarre choice.
God had any number of mega-power kingdoms to choose from yet God called a numerically insignificant people and told them to roost on a strip of land between desert and ocean which is crucial for trade and military strategy, and which has been fairly continuously fought over since the first nomads stumbled onto the Jordan River.
In short, the Deist god is not represented in the Old Testament. In the Bible God intervenes in extraordinary, unpredictable ways to call whom God chooses for miraculous ministries.
From this perspective, there is nothing out of the ordinary about God choosing a chaste young woman to be the means through which the Second Person of the Trinity is incarnate.
In my mind, if one discounts or denies the Virgin Birth, we lose something important and crucial to our faith. From at least the 2nd Century, Christian theologians have taught that the Virgin Birth – just as much as Jesus’ ministry, miracles, passion, Cross and Resurrection is also a sign and a means of God’s all-sufficient redeeming action begun at creation, and now brought to fulfillment in the divine only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ.
As we testify in the Nicene Creed Sunday by Sunday, this is all …for us and for our salvation…. The Virgin Birth is part of the beautiful tapestry of our salvation in Jesus Christ which is God’s most longing desire.
To take the beautiful miracle done through Mary out of the pattern lessens the whole. It is as if a first year art student would take on the task of “improving” some priceless work of a Master by cutting off six inches on the left side.
It is a fantastic story; some may question, refute, deny; relegate the story to the scrap heap of sexual repression, or misogyny, or pre-scientific gullibility. Some simply ignore the story.
Yet to do any of these things is to lose something precious. What is lost is a testimony to God’s infinite, single-minded love, because: For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the
Virgin Mary, and was made Man. Amen.
Offline
Maggie, what's your way of looking at it???
Offline
I've had many years of deeply intense and meaningful experience with the Bible, but I don't know what to think of it now, as I told Pauli, and all of you.
In general, I think that believing in a god that tortures people by burning them alive creates endless emotional, and by extension, social problems which can only be alleviated by:
Positing a god that is kind to all, including his/her enemies.
Developing a free, readily available means of healing all the emotional damage done by belief in a violent god, which people can apply to themselves, and others, to heal the shock and trauma such beliefs impose, and to free human beings to develop along healthy lines. I have no firsthand knowledge that Jehovah inseminated the Virgin Mary, and I know of none, so I can neither argue for or against that belief.
I'm not a fundamentalist.
But I have faith that we can posit a kind God and heal the damage that we have done to ourselves. If I didn't believe that, I would give up.
Offline
But, I can't think of a way to make The Virgin Birth and The Reformed Sabbath tie in, offhand, so I won't say any more about it here.
Offline
Maggie, if you were being raped, and I was in the room with you as the perp was performing this act, would it be wrong for me to perform a violent act to save you from the perp's violence against you, or should I sit down at the desk in the room, scratch my head and presume a non-violent solution to the scenario exists???
http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/uhoh.gif
You are right, these threads have gotten tangled, and maybe we can separate the topics to different threads for clearer meaning???
Offline
Violent solutions to violent problems perpetuate the World System, IMO.
I thought we were here to transcend the World System.
But that's hard when God himself must fall back on violence, in the end, seems to me.
Well, as I said, I don't know what to make of it all, and I certainly don't have The Final Word, but I'll let Tom's thread go back to his original topic.
Offline
Watchman Nee: Love Not the World
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2732686/love- … tchman-nee
But, as we agree...another thread....
Offline
Finding a reformed Sabbath in the Bible is like finding Sunday sacredness there.
Offline
be sure you want to take this ride...
it goes downhill pretty steeply
http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/11/456.jpg
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ … birth.html
http://www.pocm.info/" target="_blank">......could the story have been borrowed
and no whining, no bailouts....whether you complete the ride or bail out on the way.
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
Offline
The perception may be one of borrowed but may be something entirely different. It may be relativists, or materialists judging other peoples stories as like the virgin birth. As pointed out above, perception of opponents of it, like to point out similar stories but not even close to the real thing.
To take the beautiful miracle done through Mary out of the pattern lessens the whole. It is as if a first year art student would take on the task of “improving” some priceless work of a Master by cutting off six inches on the left side.
Offline
Kind of like prophets, for every true one there is a myriad of false.
Let the buyer beware.
Offline
I agree with Tom that the Sabbath is a Reformed Sabbath. In fact, it's not a day at all, it's a person, Jesus Christ, Col 2:16,17;Heb 4. Jesus is the Rest that was never attained by the Jewish nation. The Sabbath was given as a shadow of Christ, until the seed should come, then Christ became the Sabbath Rest.
Offline
Hey, wait a minute.....
http://www.bethmessiah.com/topic6.htm
This guy lists Ford and Goldstein at the bottom of his Sabbath teaching. Goldstein doesn't hold to the same Sabbath teaching in the same way as Ford and Tom Norris do, does he? Surely Ford doesn't view the Sabbath as the guy on the bethmessiah site does?
Rom.7 6&7 say: But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not [in] the oldness of the letter.
What shall we say then? [Is] the law sin? God forbid. Nay,it's only used as a schoolmaster now to convict of sin I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
Thou shalt not covet is in the Ten Commandments, but the converted are not under the letter of the law, they walk after the Spirit. They have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them. Hereby know we that we dwell in Him, and He in us, because He hath given us of His Spirit 1John 4:13.
So, we have to remember that first Timothy tells us: Now the end of the commandment is charity love out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned, but,oh oh, from which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling; desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.
But we know that the law is good if a man use it lawfully correctly, as the schoolmaster to convict of sin
Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man the converted one,under grace,who walks after the Spirit, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
According to the glorious Gospel of the blessed God...1Tim 1:5-11
Well, no wonder it's called good news. Those who are under the Spirit are not under the letter of the law, because the Spirit is Christ in you, the hope of glory Col.1:27.
And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. Jhn 17:22,23
Cadge
Offline
Many assume that only 90% of the Ten Commandments are “restated” in the New Testament. But this assumption that the Sabbath has been overlooked and omitted, or that it is only a ceremonial law, like ritual circumcision or tithing is very wrong.
The Sabbath resides in the center of the Moral law, and this is how Jesus and the Jews always viewed this doctrine. Which has a very special place in the Gospel Story, even as Jesus Sabbath Reforms was the catalyst that sent him to the cross.
The Sabbath is mentioned over 138 times in the Bible, and almost half of this number, 60, is found in 7 books of the New Testament. The vast majority of these Sabbath references are in the four Gospels.
In fact, Luke mentions the Sabbath more than any book in the Bible, 18 times, followed by Mark and John with 11 references each. Matthew has 10 and Acts 8. Colossians and Hebrews mention the Sabbath just once.
By contrast, the leading OT books that use the word Sabbath are Exodus with 15 references, Leviticus 13, and Nehemiah 13. Isaiah and Jeremiah follow this with only 7 references each while Numbers and Deuteronomy only contain 3 references each. The Psalms, like Hebrews, has only one reference.
The Old Testament is full of references and information about the Sabbath, and so too is the NT. Thus it is wrong to say that the 4th Commandment has not been “restated” in the NT, it has. It has not only been “restated” but also revised and REFORMED by Jesus, the head of the church and the greatest of all the apostles.
There is no excuse for anyone to think that the NT went silent about the Sabbath or that there is not a Sabbath for the church to understand. The major apostles, meaning Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, plus Paul, deals with the Sabbath. Anyone that thinks otherwise is not very informed about the contents of the NT.
Out of the top 7 books in the Bible that mention the Sabbath;when compared on a per 1000 word basis, 5 are from the NT. This means that the NT writers deals with the Sabbath more than the OT authors. It also means that there is plenty of information in the NT about the Sabbath.
The leading books of the Bible that mention the Sabbath are broken down based on this use per 1,000 words:
1. Nehemiah 1.02
2. Mark .58
3. Luke .55
4. Leviticus .45
5. John .43
6. Colossians .36
7. Matthew .33
Such a statistic should dispel this myth that the Sabbath has been overlooked or marginalized by the New Testament writers. In fact, the opposite is the case. On a statistical basis, the Gospel writers spend more time dealing with the Sabbath than most all the OT writers.
Of course such a statistical analysis does not deal with the meaning or usage of the Sabbath, nor does it take into account other references like the Seventh day, etc. But it is sufficient to show that the NT, especially the Gospels, contains a large amount of Sabbath discussion and content. It shows that the NT is full of Sabbath information and thus is a myth to think that the NT is silent about the Sabbath or that it was not “restated” and reformed for the church.
One reason for this confusion is that many do not distinguish between the Old Covenant, “schoolmaster” Sabbath of Moses and the New Covenant Gospel Sabbath of Jesus. Thus many have fallen into the error of thinking that the Sabbath, whether Sunday or Saturday, is to be observed in an Old Covenant manner. Complete with many rules and regulations, especially about work.
However, when one understands the Gospel and then searches for the New Covenant Sabbath, the Gospel Sabbath emerges for all to see. It has been there in the Gospels all the time.
The New Covenant Sabbath
There is a New Covenant Sabbath for the Church. It is found in the four Gospels. The reformed, 7th day Sabbath of Jesus is the correct Sabbath for the church. It is not Sunday, nor is it a day of rules and regulation, including the mandatory refrain from work, as the SDA’s teach. This is the Old Covenant Sabbath of the Pharisees, not the one that Jesus promotes in the Gospel's.
There is a Lord’s Day clearly taught in the NT. This Gospel Sabbath is a sign to all that they are following the teachings of the genuine Christ, the Lord of the REFORMED, 7th day Sabbath.
So there is a 7th day Sabbath for the church. The New Covenant Sabbath has not been omitted from the NT. All the Gospels contain Jesus’ Sabbath reforms, even as Paul supports this reformed view of the Sabbath in Romans and Colossians;
Col. 2:16 Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day —
Rom. 14:4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
Rom. 14:5 One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.
Rom. 14:6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God.
Rom. 14:7 For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself;
Rom. 14:8 for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s.
Moreover, the writer of Hebrews has made clear that there is a Gospel Sabbath for the church to understand and celebrate, even as the apostle John received his view of the last days on the Gospel Sabbath, or the Lord’s Day, which is only a reference to the reformed 7th day Sabbath.
Heb. 4:9 So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God.
http://www.wcg.org/lit/law/sabbath/hebrews4.9.htm
http://www.wcg.org/lit/law/sabbath/hebrews4.9.htm
http://www.cbcg.org/franklin/SA/SA_sabbathrest.pdf
http://www.cbcg.org/franklin/SA/SA_sabbathrest.pdf
http://www.come2jesus.com.au/hebrews4.htm
http://www.come2jesus.com.au/hebrews4.htm
Rev. 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like the sound of a trumpet,
http://sabbath.org/index.cfm/fuseaction … n-1-10.htm
http://sabbath.org/index.cfm/fuseaction … n-1-10.htm
http://www.cogwriter.com/lordsday.htm
http://www.cogwriter.com/lordsday.htm
There is sufficient information in the NT for all to understand the doctrine of the Sabbath. There is no excuse for all this confusion and error.
One Gospel & One Sabbath
There is only one Gospel and one New Covenant Sabbath for the church. The NT explains both. But few are paying any attention to either.
Today, the entire Laodicean Church, meaning all denominations, both Catholic and Protestant, have a distorted Gospel and a false view of the Sabbath.
Neither Sunday as the Lord’s Day, or the Old Covenant 7th day Sabbath of the SDA’s, is supported by the New Testament. Both the Sunday keepers and the Sabbatarians are wrong and thus they must both repent and embrace the New Covenant Sabbath as taught by Jesus in the Gospels.
There is a 7th day Gospel & Sabbath for the church. There is a New Covenant Sabbath for all in Laodicea to learn and embrace. It has been overlooked and buried under centuries of error, myth, and tradition.
Let all study the Sabbath teachings of Jesus and the apostles and understand that there is a New Covenant Sabbath for the church waiting to be discovered. It is very different from what the SDA’s, and all others promote.
Consequently, all must repent of their false Sabbath views, starting with the SDA’s. They are the ones that claimed to be the experts about Sabbath Reform. But they have failed for all to see. There is no Old Covenant Sabbath keeping for the church, - regardless of what day. Only the 7th day Gospel Sabbath, as explained in the NT by Jesus, can be correct Sabbath doctrine for the church.
Let all repent and embrace the Gospel Sabbath.
Here are some additional links for further study:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbath_in_Christianity
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … us-Old.htm
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … abbath.htm
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … sion-1.htm
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … bath-2.htm
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … ath-30.htm
http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/message … 1237132266
http://www.atomorrow.com/discus/message … POST60353/
I hope this helps.
Tom Norris for All Experts. Com and Adventist Reform
Last edited by tom_norris (01-31-10 3:56 pm)
Offline
The Temple curtain was not rent from top to bottom until Jesus death. He was born under the LAW and was obligated to keep it, as he defined the OT Sabbath, but when he said to come to Him for rest, it was a soul rest not a physical one. The possibility that Tom leaves out is the evident one in Col 2:16,17.
Colossians 2:16-17 (New International Version)
16Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.
and
Matthew 11:28 (Amplified Bible)
28Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy-laden and overburdened, and I will cause you to rest. [I will (a)ease and relieve and (b)refresh (c)your souls.]
(Message edited by Bob_2 on January 16, 2010)
Offline
Those who say the law is still binding and that Sabbath, tithing and clean and unclean laws are requirements seem to forget that the law was comprised of 613 laws. In Matt 5 Jesus tells us that not one jot nor one tittle would pass from the 613 laws until all is accomplished. SDAs admit that part of the Torah law was fulfilled and no longer required, but due to their insistence on the above laws, they refuse to believe that all the law was fulfilled.
My question is how do SDAs know from scripture what is retained and what is no longer binding?
Also, in the old forum Tom did answer as to what is expected of Sabbath observers in the New Covenant. Actually, I couldn't tell the difference between Sabbath and any other day. If groceries are needed go shopping. If asked to work then work. He went on about what is expected and it was not much. Where he picked all this up from scripture is beyond me. (Where any SDA finds what is required on the day is beyond me. They say that the part of the law that tells the observer how to observe is not binding.) Maybe he or someone will be able to find the post. It was pure conjecture and no scripture reference. I must say that Tom has a big imagination.
Offline
