adamjedgar

i think that is exactly the point, through the blood of Jesus we are free from the condemnation of the law...such a great way to put it. Reminds me of this text...written by Paul many years after Jesus ascension to heaven: Romans 6:23 (BSB) 23For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Interesting thing about gifts...on the part of the receiver, unless one performs the physical action of reaching out an taking the gift, it cannot be enjoyed. I think that its a bit of a fallacy that salvation does not require any works at all. The bible talks about the fruits of the spirit...these are manifest in our actions and these actions come from our decisions in our minds...so its a two part process. My thought is, just like the Israelites entering the Promised Land of Cannaan, one cannot enter the "rest" of receiving the gift of salvation without some action on the part of the receiver!

Having said that, how does that even make any difference? Are you suggesting that the definition of "the saints" are different post rapture to pre rapture?

i think in the context of what i have just written, your statement is impossible to rationalise. The bible is about the restoration of sinful man to God...it is about the plan of salvation. I do not see how you manage to gain post rapture statements of that type from such a narrative? Do you have definitive references from the bible that logically and consistently present such an argument that do not conflict?

Proponents of the New Covenant doing away with the Old one state that the 10 commandments are no longer relevant to salvation. However, note something really interesting about the location of the Sanctuary in the Israelite camp that i think completely debuncts that entire theory...the tabernacle was located in the midst of their iniquities...in the heart of the camp of israelites! Leviticus 16:16 New International Version In this way he will make atonement for the Most Holy Place because of the uncleanness and rebellion of the Israelites, whatever their sins have been. He is to do the same for the tent of meeting, which is among them in the midst of their uncleanness. English Standard Version Thus he shall make atonement for the Holy Place, because of the uncleannesses of the people of Israel and because of their transgressions, all their sins. And so he shall do for the tent of meeting, which dwells with them in the midst of their uncleannesses. King James Bible And he shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins: and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness. One cannot say that the Sanctuary is only relevant to the Israelites, because: Hebrews 4:14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God So in order for the saved to follow Jesus through the heavens, we must enter his rest...just like the children of Israel needed to do in order to enter Canaan (the promised land). Ascending into Heaven at the second coming of Jesus is our pathway to the promised land...the covenant that God made with Abraham is also relevant to us right through to the end of time...It is plainly obvious that the covenant God gave to Abraham did not end at the cross...the israelites had already enterred the promised land hundreds of years before the incarnation of Jesus...that is not what it was about. The true covenant dates back to that given to Adam and Eve...it was Jesus sacrifice on the cross. It has always been about salvation, restoring us to the glorious state before the fall of Adam and Eve. That is what entering Gods rest is all about! Hebrews 4:1 1Therefore, while the promise of entering His rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be deemed to have fallen short of it. The Israelites did not believe and did not obey Gods commandments...they grumbled as had been the case since they left Egypt. As a consequence, the were refused entry into Gods rest until the transgressing generation had all died out...they did not enter Gods rest, the promised land. The parallel of the Israelite promised land in Christian terms is the new heaven and new earth. Unless we have faith AND follow Gods commands, we cannot enter that rest. Hebrews 4: 11 11Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following the same pattern of disobedience. Revelation 14:12 I think reinforces the statement in Hebrews: 12Here is a call for the perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. So in answer to the question, does it mean I cannot be saved if I do not follow all of the commandments of God (including the Sabbath), my answer would be… unless all Christians follow the words of Jesus in the pericope adulterae, then no one cannot be saved. John Chapter 8 3And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, 4They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 5Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? 10When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? 11She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. So in reading Jesus response to the adulterous women, there were 2 statements he made in answer to the Pharisees question…conditions by which she could avoid further condemnation at the hands of the law. These were: 1. Only one who is without sin can condemn (so condemnation is Gods right however, it is most certainly applicable to sinners) 2. Go and sin no more So how do we define what sin is? I John3:4 4Everyone who practices sin practices lawlessness as well. Indeed, sin is lawlessness. Psalm 38:1 New Living Translation Sin whispers to the wicked, deep within their hearts. They have no fear of God at all. So sin is found deep within the heart and it is in direct conflict with the covenant (the law of God) that was always in the midst of their iniquities…in the heart/middle of the camp of the Israelites. Jeremiah in chapter 31prophesied concerning the new covenant: 31Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. 32It will not be like the covenant I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt— a covenant they broke, though I was a husband to them,g” declares the LORD. 33“But this is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD. I will put My law in their minds and inscribe it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they will be My people. 34No longer will each man teach his neighbor or his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ because they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquities and will remember their sins no more.” Now i recognise that we are all judged according to our conscience, however, for those who would believe that intentionally not keeping ALL of the commandments of God (including the 4th instead choosing to worship on Sunday) may still go to heaven, i would argue no you cannot! Jesus rightousness did not apply to those israelites who did not obey Gods commands, Sauls crown was given to another and his soul lost because he did not obey Gods commandments...and since the apostle John tells us in the book of Revelation that the Saints are those who fulfill 2 requirements: 1. keep the commandments of God and 2. have the faith of Jesus without BOTH of the above, we are also lost just like king Saul.

great answers Charlie and very insightful. A couple of things we do differ on but all in all i think generally we both agree on most things above. I think its probably a little incorrect that God has not allowed the SDA church to grow...its has more than 3 times the number of world wide members compared with JW church, and twice as many as Mormonism...I think its fair to say that God has indeed blessed the group. I do agree that due to the apparent uniqueness of a few doctrines, it is unfortunate that the SDA movement has been labelled a cult (the bad type of cult), as some of these seemingly unique doctrines are not unique at all: 1. The name - which seems to indicate that its the only christian church which keeps sabbath...obviously a misunderstanding from those who know little about christianity i would imagine) 2. The state of the dead - SDA's believe that "the dead know nothing and have no further reward" until the second coming of Christ (for those who are saved), 3. The wicked do not see the second coming, they are raised after millenium 4. The Sanctuary Doctrine/Investigative Judgement of 1844 5. Vegetarianism 6. Tithing 7. No drinking of Alcohol I found some interesting stuff that i would love to explore...it seems an incredible coincidence that the separation of church and state in Itally (the first time it ever happened) was during the reign of a pope elected in 1846 is close to 2300 years after 457 B.C (it misses out by 2 years). I think the war where papal army was first defeated happened in 1860, although the official invasion of Italy was about 10 years later. The rebellion that forced his initial exit and exile for a time from the Vatican happened in 1848. Pope Pius IX a turning point in the history of the Catholic Church. My guest David Kertzer is the author of the new book "The Pope Who Would Be King: The Exile Of Pius IX And The Emergence Of Modern Europe." Pius became pope in 1846. He was the last pope to rule over the Papal States, which covered much of what is now Italy. There was no separation of church and state until a rebellion by Italian nationalists forced Pope Pius IX into exile, which led to the creation of modern Italy. After the pope returned from exile without the Papal States to rule over, he was confined to the Vatican, giving the Vatican a new significance. Pius also instituted the doctrine of papal infallibility. He saw freedom of speech in of the press as incompatible with Catholicism. https://www.npr.org/2018/04/24/605252936/why-pius-ix-might-be-the-most-important-pope-in-modern-church-history

I cannot ignore history...i dont think any christian should. In my own training as a school teacher many years ago, history in education, history in Design and Technology, history in the Philosophy of Christian education were all subjects i was required to study. there is good reason for this... The world around us is best explained from the perspective of the Bible, however, to say that history and the Bible are at odds with each other is in my opinion a flawed approach. We cannot look forward without also looking back, God demonstrated that throughout the entire Bible narrative. I dont think its right to say the SDA's personalised the 2300 day/year idea...that was the Millerites not the SDA's. The actual reality is that the SDA's did not obtain this doctrine until later and in the early days the young SDA denomination leadership actually resisted it. Having said that, i think that the reality is, the groups that came out of the Millerite movement of 1844 such as SDA's, Jehovah's Witnesses, Bahai's etc...they all knew that something important had happened, however, it was a matter of figuring out what! Clearly the idea that the end of the world was the "what" is mistaken, however, something significant did happen...I do not personally believe that its just a simple arival of new denominations. Obviously God has through the ages raised up individuals and groups to further his message, and i think that is certainly part of the 1844 event, however, the question is, what was it that God raised up the group/s to do specifically? Once upon a time it was claimed the 3 angels message was the only message. Here is the thing, in reference to your statement about God punishing those who promote such doctrines i ask you this... Can you provide examples of doctrines that are gained specifically from bible texts where God has punished anyone? I would be interested in discussing those because to my understanding Jesus never earbashed anyone for furthering His work. In the bible, in almost every situation i can think of where a false religion is mentioned or illustrated, that religion has aimed to denegrate the one true God and lead people away from him. I do not see any church that genuinely promotes the true God, his plan of salvation, and the work of Jesus as being worthy of any punishment at the judgement. I can find examples of so called religions where i think God will punish those in said religions who know what they are doing is against the wishes of the Almighty...almost always we can isolate such individuals because of their fruits or actions. I think these are highlighted by our Lord in Mark 7 18“Are you still so dull?” He asked. “Do you not understand? Nothing that enters a man from the outside can defile him, 19because it does not enter his heart, but it goes into the stomach and then is eliminated.” (Thus all foods are clean.)i 20He continued: “What comes out of a man, that is what defiles him. 21For from within the hearts of men come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery,j 22greed, wickedness, deceit, debauchery, envy, slander, arrogance, and foolishness. 23All these evils come from within, and these are what defile a man.” I do not believe that SDA church is the one true church...I dont think that the SDA denomination hierarchy believe that either to be honest. My understanding from many Christians in a number of denominations that i have had some dealings with is that the true church has nothing to do with denominations...Jesus did not say such things nor did the apostles. Jesus i think illustrates the one true church beautifully when he started his recruitment of disciples in Matthew 4:19 with the words "come follow me"! (that is the one true church...those who head that call)

Hi Charlie, Actually, my thought is that the Seleucid empire is not about just Epiphanes...he was but one of a number of rulers for that kingdom and it was already well into its decline by the time he defiled jerusalems temple. Having said that, Seleucid I and Antiochus III (the great) saw the kingdom reach a total area of approx 3 million sq kilometers...so it was a massive part of the Hellenistic empire of Greece. And that is the point...this little horn of the Seleucid Empire came out of the 4 horns of Greece after Alexander the Great died. It extended its reach exactly as prophesied...the the south (down to Egypt), to the East (all the way to Afghanistan), and the the Beautifull Land (Israel to the SW of Syria). The traditional SDA view is that Daniel 8 links with Daniel 7 via the little horn. I am convinced that is not historical, however, this does not mean that Daniel 7 and 8 are not linked for the 2300 day/years prophecy. I think the Seleucid Empire of Daniel 8 and 11 actually strengthen the SDA view, but in a way that is completely "out of left field" and not at all what this denomination preaches. I think that the entire book of Daniel is linked by the Sanctuary! The Sanctuary is all about the plan of salvation of man from sin...and your point about the Messiah i think is exactly right in that it gives us a start date for these prophecies in Daniel of the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem by Artaxerxies in 457 B.C. The reason why this particular decree is the correct one (vs 3 other candidates) is because of the following: restore: the right to self govern - install high priests and legal magistrates etc rebuild: the erection of the buildings, city walls, temple etc. The decree in 457 B.C by Artaxerxies is the only one that satisfies both of the above statements in the prophecy in Daniel.

Hi Charlie, (oops i made a spelling mistake in last post...i said little "born"...it was meant to be little "horn". I found a youtube video from a presbyterian teacher and lecturer who i think addresses daniel 11 with history issue brilliantly. his name is Bruce Gore and his channel is https://www.youtube.com/user/GoreBruce I am not a presbyterian, and i dissagree with some of his theology, but on this topic i think he is spot on. Check out his channel and go through his videos on the Seleucid empire (one is on Antiochus IV and the other addresses Daniel 11) ...it is very enlightening and he is very easy to listen too.

I have no problem with pagan and papal Rome prophetic views, however, I think that the idea originally came out of Greece. Romans deified Alexander the great for centuries after his death. In spite of this, the problem is that it's difficult to directly link the little born in chapters 7 & 8 whilst ignoring the Seleucid empire. (which was still Greek I believe).

Hi charlie, I too have heard for a long time a particular line of reasoning concerning the link between Daniel and Revelation. Clearly they go together...to me its probably because one points to a type and the other an antitype. In light of this, i think that I have now taken a turn i did not expect in my studies of Daniel 8 in particular. I have never believed this was Anitiochus Epiphanes but to be honest, after looking at some historical videos and writings about the Seleucid kingdom (one of the four horns that came out of the greek empire), I am almost certain now that this is the kingdom of Daniel 8 and 11. I do not believe that Antiochus 4 is the king responsible for the growth of the Selecid Empire, but he certainly is responsible for the 'man humiliated at work kicking the cat when he went home' outburst on Jerusalem after his humliation in Egypt at the hands of the Roman Senate representative who drew a circle in the sand around him demanding he either leave immediately or be at war with Rome. Having said the above, I now think that the link between Daniel 7 and 8 is not the little horn as such...but perhaps the Sanctuary itself...it seems to me that the sole aim of the Israelites was always to return to their traditional religious roots. These roots lie in the sanctuary and its services...that was their culture that was regularly under attack. Thats as far as i have time for right now off to work...I have 21 hours of work to do in the next 24 hours i will come back in a day or so.

I have skipped over a couple of pages before replying here...i hope i dont repeat something that someone who wrote in those pages i skipped! I see the following issues regarding any evolutionary theory in Christianity... 1. Evolution states categorically that man evolved from animals! 2. God specifically states, he formed Man out of the dust of the ground and breathed life into him directly... 7Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being. There is simply no room in either world view for the other...they are completely at odds with each other. Theistic evolution is incompatible with the Bible and there is no way to resolve this dilemma without stating that certain passages of the Bible are wrong (which in itself defeats the belief in the inerrancy of the Bible and its author) here is another real problem for theistic evolution... “In no sense… can the Neanderthal bones be regarded as the remains of a human being intermediate between men and apes. At most, they demonstrate the existence of a man… somewhat toward the pithecoid type… the Neanderthal cranium… forms… the extreme term of a series leading gradually from it to the highest and best developed of human crania” (Huxley 1863, p. 149).

hmmm

I have had to skip over a lot of the posts here...there is simply too much to read and most of it are well known arguments made time and time before. Firstly, one has no choice as a Christian but to first consider the over riding theme of the Bible...in the Beginning God made the heavens and the earth and all that is in them! there is simply no room in the above statement to read it any other way other than, God literally created the earth and the universe and everything else. Also, note that Adam names all the animals. Question for theistic evolutionists and those who do not believe in a young earth...how did Adam name all the animals in his lifetime if the earth took millions of years to evolve? sorry but the creation view is an all or nothing world view...Christianity does not allow for evolution, they are fundamentally opposed to each other! might i suggest for those wishing to find possible explanations to these dilemmas that you visit the following creation science youtube channel on this topic. they have lots of excellent information about this very topic. https://www.youtube.com/c/IsGenesisHistory

Does traditional Judaism historically agree that the average age for a priest to be ordained was about the age of 30 years?

I note the mention of the 70 week prophecy...and would like to go slightly offtrack onto that pathway for a bit. (i think its relevant) I note that when we read Daniel 9:26-27… 25Know and understand this: From the issuance of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, until the Messiah,g the Prince, there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks. It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of distress. 26Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and will have nothing. Then the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood, and until the end there will be war; desolations have been decreed. 27And he will confirm a covenant with many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of the temple will come the abomination that causes desolation, until the decreed destruction is poured out upon him.” So that ells me that we have 69 weeks from the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the coming of the Messiah. Now my understanding is that Messiah is an Old testament term used to denote the first coming of a saviour as prophesied by Isaiah in Chapter 53... 3He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, acquainted with grief. Like one from whom men hide their faces, He was despised, and we esteemed Him not. 4Surely He took on our infirmities and carried our sorrows;b yet we considered Him stricken by God, struck down and afflicted. 5But He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed.c 6We all like sheep have gone astray,d each one has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid upon Him the iniquity of us all. 7He was oppressed and afflicted, yet He did not open His mouth. He was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so He did not open His mouth. 8By oppression and judgment He was taken away, and who can recount His descendants? For He was cut off from the land of the living;e He was stricken for the transgression of My people. So this tells me that the prophecy in Daniel relates to that of Isaiah 53 and the coming Messiah. If so, could we not work backwards from Jesus Crucifixion to determine if this prophecy in Daniel 9 is fullfilled with Jesus ministry, crucifixion and the stoning of Stephen? for example, 1. Jesus ministry was about 3.5 years (which is what i believe history demonstrates) 2. Stephen was stoned exactly 3.5 years after the crucifixion (another historical fact i believe) So from the start of the Jesus ministry until the stoning of Stephen was 7 years! If we then consider the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem... What do restore and rebuild actually mean? So when we consider the actual time period statement given for the prophecy in Daniel 9:25 25Know and understand this: From the issuance of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, until the Messiah,g the Prince, I do not see that there is any point to use the same term twice in a single statement...so these words (restore and rebuild) must represent 2 things! one theory i have heard is the following restored = a decree to self govern (appoint magistrates and other leadership positions to self govern) rebuild = the physical process of rebuilding the city destroyed by the Babylonians many years before thoughts?

Hi and thank you for the information. For some reason newbies are not able to post anywhere else but here in the welcome section. I have already introduced myself a few days ago however was still unable to post anywhere else. My next assumption after reading the information contained at the top of this thread and trying to fill in the blanks just a little bit, is that i must first post here, a moderator will look at it, then move it to the correct location and enable my ability to post in the other forums? kind regards Adam

Hi guys, I have been doing a lot of research lately on the book of Daniel in particular chapters 2, 7 and 8. Its a very controversial topic it seems Daniel 2 is important i believe because it sets the theme of the entire book of daniel...ie the great statue is in reality all about the future from the time of Daniel until the time of the end (when the stone cut without hands hits the statute on the feet and completely demolishes it...i believe this will be fulfilled at the second coming of Christ) My belief is that Daniel 2 links with Daniel 7 because in chapter 7 we see that whilst the statue in chapter 2 appears royal, grand and refined, in truth those kingdoms represented by it act as beasts in their behaviour towards the wishes of God and his people and this is illustrated by the use of beasts instead of a statute of refined royalty. I also see a link between daniel 7 and 8 because of: 1. the overriding theme set forth in chapter 2 - this book is about future kingdoms. 2. The little horn is mentioned and this links with Revelation 13 3. clearly these two animals are conquering world powers Over the last few months i have read a number of posts on various forums about this topic...one very popular theory is that Daniel 8 is fulfilled by Antiochus Epiphanes. I think that from my research thus far it is pretty clear that this theory is dead in the water...he was not a particularly successful conquerer nor was he a significant world power at the time. For example, he was humiliated by the Romans in Egypt when the local Roman Governor drew a circle around him in the sand and gave him an ultimatum...he must make up his mind on returning home with his army before he could leave the circle...thus Antiochus left behind his Egyptian campaign with his tail between his legs at the hands of the Romans (who were very clearly a far more dominant world power at this time)...hardly the spoils of war from a great conqueror! Another part of this popular Antiochus theory requires one to attempt to even link him with Daniel 8:14 by changing the interpretation of the 2300 day prophecy timeline. The proponents of this theory state that 2300 days is actually 2300 sacrificial days and that as the tradition contained 2 sacrifices per day (one in the morning and one in the evening), then in fact its only 1150 days. I am interested in this last part from a traditional Jewish point of view...does the Jewish tradition read Daniel 8:14 as being 2300 days or 1150 days?