Revisit The Book of Daniel with a Heretical Baptist

[JawgeFromJawja]

JAWGEFORMJAWJA

have you not heard that a lot of Christians of today

call then selves spiritual Israel

so what applies to Physical Israel applies to spiritual Israel

dgrimm60

Of course I have so heard, could not have possibly missed hearing that after 52 wonderful years of marriage to an Adventist whose devout older Adventist brother rapidly became my best friend. Where is the Scripture that clearly mandates self-designated spiritual Jewish Christians to follow the Law given to Israel?

I am committed to Christ Jesus. I Love Him more than ever before. I will keep the commandments Jesus required in Matthew 19: 15 - 21.

Agape

[Overaged]

Where is the Scripture that clearly mandates Christians to follow the Law given to Israel?

I am committed to Christ Jesus. I Love Him more than ever before. I will keep the commandments Jesus required in Matthew 19: 15 - 21.

Agape

Well; if this passage in Mathew were the only passage in the New Testament that mentions God's commandments, you might have half a case here.

[JawgeFromJawja]

JAWGEFROMJAWJA

you can believe any way you want

the devils believe and tremble James 2:19

GOD is a GOD of law and order

HE want us to honor and worship HIM

the right way

dgrimm60

Jas 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

This verse cannot rationally be construed as mandate for Christians to keep the Sabbath.

As a Christian, my Salvation requires only one thing - faith in God through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus, which doctrine is found throughout the New Testament.

Dgrimm, whether or not you or anyone on planet Earth accepts it, I do worship God the RIGHT way. God knows my heart, and I know Him intimately.

I hold you no rancor for your implication that my worship of God is not right. However, do be tactful should you ever again broach that topic with other non-Adventist Christians. Of necessity, I worked through that problem with my wife's relatives and our Adventist friends long ago. The ability of my wife and myself to work through such things is one of the many reasons we have been married for more than 52 years.

Sincerest Agape.

[JawgeFromJawja]

Originally Posted By: John317

When was the new covenant ratified?

Does God need to give you a commandment again in order for you to realize He is serious?

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

John, Christ Himself gave us the relevant commandments for non-Jews. One more time:

Yeah but you didn't answer my question, the first one above. When was the new covenant ratified?

John, I can't see that the timing of the ratification of The New Covenant has any thing to do with this sub-issue.

Agape

[Overaged]

My position on Daniel is that it was inspired by God no matter its origins, date of writing, or historical authenticity. The importance of Daniel is the spiritual message, not the accuracy of portrayed events.

Don't worry, we won't burn you....

I think the book of Daniel is important for both spiritual message, and accuracy of world events. I don't see a need or reason to say it otherwise.

[JawgeFromJawja]

Tereaaq posted:

Referring to the topic, I know an influential person in our church, long dead, who fully agrees with you. But, that does not take away that it is meant literally also.

I believe the bible uses "kingdom of God" in two different senses and that we need to know which is which, and what they are.

George replied:

One of my criticisms of all denominations is the tendency to stretch, twist, or even totally misread prophecy to fit the party doctrine. Look at one verse here:

Dan 2:44 And in the days of these kings, the God of Heaven shall set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed. And the kingdom shall not be left to other people. It shall break in pieces and destroy all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever.

There is nothing in verse 44 that remotely suggests the meaning of this particular Kingdom of God in two senses. Verse 45 strongly suggests a singular meaning for the prophetic dream:

Dan 2:45 Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.

Thedream, singular, and the interpretation, singular.

Despite being from Georgia, I must have some Missouri ancestors' blood coursing in my veins. You gotta show me, sola scriptura.

Her response:

I started a topic for exploring the meaning of the "kingdom of God" in the bible study forum here, unless you want to go only by your understanding, and that one text.

http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/463321/Kingdom_of_God.html#Post463321

--------------------------------------------------------------

Teresaq, I overlooked agreeing to your terms. Agreed. I have been developing a long essay on the Kingdom of God for over a year, and this will be my needed pressure to keep up work on that scribbling.

How different are the nuances and rules for the Bible study forum from the rest of Club Adventist?

Agape,

[JawgeFromJawja]

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

My position on Daniel is that it was inspired by God no matter its origins, date of writing, or historical authenticity. The importance of Daniel is the spiritual message, not the accuracy of portrayed events.

Don't worry, we won't burn you....

I think the book of Daniel is important for both spiritual message, and accuracy of world events. I don't see a need or reason to say it otherwise.

But do you still reserve flagellation and rack torture as an option?

After all, in Adventististan,

"I am a stranger here, within a foreign land,

My home is far away, upon a Golden Strand ---

Ambassador to be from realms beyond the sea,

I'm here on business for my King."

(Theme song of the Royal Ambassadors, a Baptist Boys' Organization)

Agape

[John317]

Gal. 3:15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though [it be] but a man's covenant, yet [if it be] confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.

Paul is saying that once a covenant is ratified, it cannot be added to.

So the question is when did Sunday become a sacred day and part of the Christian calender? And when did the Sabbath cease to be God's holy day?

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja}

Keeping the Sabbath never ceased to be a part of God's covenant with Israel.

When Christ instituted the Last Supper, was the Sabbath still in existence? Was the Sabbath still in existence at the time of Christ's death?

Christ insituted the Last Supper prior to His death because if He had done it after His death, it would have been too late to become part of the New Covenant.

When did Sunday become part of the New Covenant-- or did it ever?

[John317]

[quote name="John317

Yeah but you didn't answer my question' date=' the first one above. When was the new covenant ratified?

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

John, I can't see that the timing of the ratification of The New Covenant has any thing to do with this sub-issue.

[/quote']

It has very much to do with the commandments of God and, specifically, with the keeping of the Sabbath.

It also has to do with the book of Daniel. Daniel 7: 25 says that the little-horn power will "think" or "intend" to change "the times and the law."

This must refer to an attempt to change the law of God since changes of man's law happen every day and are not of significance to God unless such changes violate God's law, forcing people to disobey God.

Does history record an attempt to change God's law?

[John317]

...One of my criticisms of all denominations is the tendency to stretch, twist, or even totally misread prophecy to fit the party doctrine.

Sure, this does happen, and often, but it seems to me that there's no real difference between the denominations doing it and the tendency of individuals to do the same to fit their own personal opinions. Granted, both are not good and should be avoided. But I do believe that a private person-- who is not a part of a denomincation-- is just as likely to twist and stretch as a denomination is.

[JawgeFromJawja]

Originally Posted By: John317

[quote name='John3:17

Yeah but you didn't answer my question' date=' the first one above. When was the new covenant ratified?

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

John, I can't see that the timing of the ratification of The New Covenant has any thing to do with this sub-issue.

Permit me for simplicity to respond in blue within this general quote of your post

It has very much to do with the commandments of God and, specifically, with the keeping of the Sabbath.

There is an opinion of various Judeo-Christian scholars to the effect that God has always mandated a separate set of laws for Jews and Gentiles. Of course, that opinion is not at all unanimous, and obviously among Seventh Day Adventists the opinion would be held invalid by a substantial majority. (Just kidding. That substantial majority would probably be well over 97 percent, if not indeed over 99.72 percent.) If you are interested in either a superficial or deep study of that opinion - separate laws for Jews and Gentiles - Google an excellent site of Jewish scholars called Mechon Mamre. The site is a treasure trove of Jewish Theology.

Obviously I accept that opinion. To me, the concept of Old Covenant and New Covenant is more contrived than real. Johnn317, that is one reason your question seemed meaningless to me. Christ's death, to me, did not ratify a Second Covenant. It fulfilled the promise of God in the only Covenant between Him and all mankind. Beginning in the Book of Genesis, mankind is promised a savior and reconciliation with God, with the eventual establishment of the eternal Kingdom of God among mankind.

For me, that promise beginning in Genesis is the only covenant between God and mankind in general. God certainly has a covenant with Israel, a rather complex covenant that was to have made Israel a nation of priests for the rest of mankind. For that covenant God required a "peculiar people" who were required to keep additional laws as a token of their peculiar covenant with God. Such laws included circumcision and keeping the Sabbath. My reading of Torah leads me to conclude that those additional laws were binding only on Israel not for the rest of mankind, including Christians.

The more I have studied the Bible and history, the more strongly have I concluded a single covenant idea. There are two separate covenants, one established for for all people, and the second, the particular covenant between God and Israel. However there is no reason to label them "The Old Covenant" and "The New Covenant". They are separate, for separate groups. One binds all mankind including Israel, and the other, Israel only.

I love Jews and the Jewish people. One of my favorite medical school teachers was a Reformed Jew who generously gave me a job while I attended medical school. However, I would certainly not like to be obligated with the burdens of the Children of Abraham. The legalism is far too restrictive.

It also has to do with the book of Daniel. Daniel 7: 25 says that the little-horn power will "think" or "intend" to change "the times and the law."

This must refer to an attempt to change the law of God since changes of man's law happen every day and are not of significance to God unless such changes violate God's law, forcing people to disobey God.

Does history record an attempt to change God's law?

John, time restrictions do not permit me to respond to the rest of this post now. I had intended at least three more installments focusing on Daniel Chapters 7,8, and 11 / 12 if the forum will even permit it after my first two installments.

[/quote']

Agape and Highest regards,

[JawgeFromJawja]

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

...One of my criticisms of all denominations is the tendency to stretch, twist, or even totally misread prophecy to fit the party doctrine.

Sure, this does happen, and often, but it seems to me that there's no real difference between the denominations doing it and the tendency of individuals to do the same to fit their own personal opinions. Granted, both are not good and should be avoided. But I do believe that a private person-- who is not a part of a denomincation-- is just as likely to twist and stretch as a denomination is.

John, if I am one of those "private persons", it has been said that if 5 Baptists were asked about a particular point in doctrine, they would come up with 10 different opinions. Baptists, God bless 'em, and thank God, believe in the priesthood of the individual. (With Jesus obviously being our High Priest.)

By the way, I do not grant that both or either is not good, being a pugnacious, contrary Georgia Bulldawg.

Agape and Highest regards,

a 'Dawg

[Overaged]

But do you still reserve flagellation and rack torture as an option?

After all, in Adventististan,

"I am a stranger here, within a foreign land,

My home is far away, upon a Golden Strand ---

Ambassador to be from realms beyond the sea,

I'm here on business for my King."

(Theme song of the Royal Ambassadors, a Baptist Boys' Organization)

Agape

How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

[Overaged]

John, if I am one of those "private persons", it has been said that if 5 Baptists were asked about a particular point in doctrine, they would come up with 10 different opinions. Baptists, God bless 'em, and thank God, believe in the priesthood of the individual. (With Jesus obviously being our High Priest.)

By the way, I do not grant that both or either is not good, being a pugnacious, contrary Georgia Bulldawg.

Agape and Highest regards,

a 'Dawg

You know Jawge, many have come before you saying this kind of thing about denominations - how they "stretch" the Bible. What has always mystified me about such is how they can say it with such a straight face, all the while as if they would never do the same thing.

Different views are not automatically wrong. You should know that just by the four gospels alone. Read each of the four disciple's account of the crucifixion, some of them saw/remembered slightly different things.

May I ask you please, to briefly outline the Biblical principles that you go by for the study of Bible prophecy? In particular, for the books of Daniel & Revelation? The reason I am asking is that you seem to have taken issue with Adventists and their prophetic interpretation of the book of Daniel, so I think it would be a good idea to briefly cover our Bible principles for studying Bible prophecy.

I still believe that the book of Daniel contains both "spiritual" lessons, as well as historical/literal accounts of various things. I am not sure how you would prove otherwise - sola scriptura - of course...

[JawgeFromJawja]

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

John, if I am one of those "private persons", it has been said that if 5 Baptists were asked about a particular point in doctrine, they would come up with 10 different opinions. Baptists, God bless 'em, and thank God, believe in the priesthood of the individual. (With Jesus obviously being our High Priest.)

By the way, I do not grant that both or either is not good, being a pugnacious, contrary Georgia Bulldawg.

Agape and Highest regards,

a 'Dawg

You know Jawge, many have come before you saying this kind of thing about denominations - how they "stretch" the Bible. What has always mystified me about such is how they can say it with such a straight face, all the while as if they would never do the same thing.

Different views are not automatically wrong. You should know that just by the four gospels alone. Read each of the four disciple's account of the crucifixion, some of them saw/remembered slightly different things.

May I ask you please, to briefly outline the Biblical principles that you go by for the study of Bible prophecy? In particular, for the books of Daniel & Revelation? The reason I am asking is that you seem to have taken issue with Adventists and their prophetic interpretation of the book of Daniel, so I think it would be a good idea to briefly cover our Bible principles for studying Bible prophecy.

I still believe that the book of Daniel contains both "spiritual" lessons, as well as historical/literal accounts of various things. I am not sure how you would prove otherwise - sola scriptura - of course...

Overaged, you are right of course. Different views are not automatically wrong. Neither is a one person view. Gandhi said when it comes to the truth, a minority of one is still right.

Not that this ole guy with his wacky views is right. I may yet be hurled into the Fiery Lake screaming in terror. But I have too much faith in God to serioiusly believe that. Yes, Overaged, it is quite all right to independently describe an event differently than others. Such is the rule, not the exception.

As you know, there are many problems with interpretation of The Bible. An overwhelming number of translations. For original Biblical passages, not much more than scraps of extant passages prior to the Middle Ages remain. Multiple authors. (As far as the ultimate author, I personally do believe The Bible was inspired by God, but largely accurate only for the spiritual messages: “2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine , for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

I personally could not honestly accept as totally inerrant in science or history a Book stating that the sun stood still. For me, it’s the message, the spiritual message, that matters. I worship God, not The Bible. For those who do accept The Bible as inerrant, such is obviously a matter of personal freedom to be respected .

And God respects my freedom, without penalty even should I be wrong, not to believe in Biblical inerrancy except those passages relating to doctrine, reproof, coorection, and instruction in righteousness.

As for giving an opinion about Bible based doctrine with a straight face, doing so with a snicker, a frown, raised eyebrows, and other expressions would not be particularly respectful. Everybody, with no exceptions, is biased. But for now, I do not think I have an agenda to tout any doctrine except God’s Love which is true Agape, true unconditional and unlimited Love, and God’s simple but remarkable plan for salvation.

But I do have an agenda to disagree with doctrinal interpretations that flout history and known scientific facts, or demonstrate conscious or unconscious misinterpretations. Which brings me to this:

For better or worse, I am stuck with you guys and dolls. I am a Church orphan. Most Evangelicals don’t have the tolerance I have found here. However, you are not stuck with me. I would quite understand it if the forum indecorously booted me off, (with flogging, flaying, racking, and a slow burn to boot) even though it would seem to indicate an element of insecurity. I tried to send Stan Jensen a PM several times seeking a dialog about whether my stuff is too extreme for the forum. It is quite understandable that each time the instant automatic message was in effect “this member is not available”. Makes sense. He must be overwhelmed with correspondence.

But surely I am not a real threat. My stuff is too far away from conservative Adventism, and I am not even a Church member, let alone having any authority.

I do not have any organized principles for studying Bible prophecy other than prayerfully and systematically reading the entire Bible repeatedly, and trying to get a handle on history as taught by classical historians such as Josephus, Pliny, and Gibbon; and by contemporary historians. I prayerfully seek the guidance of The Holy Spirit even with the sectarian historians. Not trying to be arrogant, but all theologians are at such variance that I would rather go to the primary sources, The Bible and history, myself than trust their commentaries rather than be confused by those who themselves are confused. I truly do not believe any denomination has the whole truth.

After fifty-two years of marriage to an Adventist, I think I am quite familiar with Adventist principles of prophecy. It is a pity, but I am probably more familiar than over 50 percent of Adventists – please take this as an observation, not arrogance. I seem to be more conversant about Daniel and Revelation, The Investigative Judgment, the Three Angels’ Message, etc., than most Adventists I know – and there are a heap of them.

The bottom line of this post is that I need you folks of the forum more than you need me. However, my challenging your doctrines should strengthen your positions if you are right. Perhaps I should not post additional installments to this topic until I am given some official guidelines – that my stuff is useful, trash, challenging, too satanically influenced to be permitted, too boring, too much of a belly laugh, and so on.

Agape, Good Will, and Highest Regards,

George

Intractibly committed to sola scriptura

[Overaged]

When I saw how you spelled your name; and the fact that you were from Georgia; I thought to myself: "I hope the poor fellow doesn't eat crawdads too." (lol). But, even if you do, we need you just as much as you need us:

Quote:

The bottom line of this post is that I need you folks of the forum more than you need me. However, my challenging your doctrines should strengthen your positions if you are right. Perhaps I should not post additional installments to this topic until I am given some official guidelines

I kind of like the way you challenge our doctrines so no need to worry on that count.

Let us try to consider as a guiding principle for prophetic studies here something that I know you find very important. Agape.

I wonder if you have considered the involvement of Agape, within the Biblical, prophetic context. This is something that is very important to me. You also mentioned "history" as being one of the ways you "interpret" Bible prophecy, and I have come to view true history, as HIS-STORY. Sure, there are secular accounts of history, which also contain a lot of secular sentiments and philosophy.

The book of Daniel definitely deals with history - both past, present, and even extending into the future:

Quote:

Dan 2:21 And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding

God's personal involvement in the affairs of nations; and His direct involvement with the individuals comprising those nations is very clear throughout the book of Daniel. God's personal and direct involvement with nations and individuals could be our first prophetic interpretation principle. Why? Because it is essential not to lose touch with a very personal God & Savior throughout the entire realm of Bible prophecy. As soon as we do; it is no longer "Christian." It is just religion.

What do you say? "How readest thou?" (Luke 10:26).

[JawgeFromJawja]

When I saw how you spelled your name; and the fact that you were from Georgia; I thought to myself: "I hope the poor fellow doesn't eat crawdads too." (lol). But, even if you do, we need you just as much as you need us:

My responses in blue, sil vous plait. Ah'm f'om Jawja, man. They don' eat crawdads in Jawja. But tha's one o' thuh

good customs them wonnerful Cajuns learned me durin' muh 2 years trainin' in Lafayette, Louisiana. Delicacy, 'specially if ya suck out the brains (sweet). Funny thang, Annette never would touch 'em. She got some peculiar hangups. Yer'd almos' think she was a Jew.

I kind of like the way you challenge our doctrines so no need to worry on that count.

[color:#3366FF]Such is always a two way street, with many forks and side streets. Minds always interact.

Simplified Diagram (It's always more complicated)

Mind 1 >>>>>>> Mind 2

Mind 1 <<<<<< Mind 2

Let us try to consider as a guiding principle for prophetic studies here something that I know you find very important. Agape.

I wonder if you have considered the involvement of Agape, within the Biblical, prophetic context. This is something that is very important to me. You also mentioned "history" as being one of the ways you "interpret" Bible prophecy, and I have come to view true history, as HIS-STORY. Sure, there are secular accounts of history, which also contain a lot of secular sentiments and philosophy.

Fantastic recommendation! Now, it does not seem to me that prophecy can be realistically studied without knowing history. But I need not remind you, all, all historians are biased. And everybody, everybody, studying history is biased. Even me, to some extent. (But not much. Ah'm edjuhcated. )

The book of Daniel definitely deals with history - both past, present, and even extending into the future:

Quote:

Dan 2:21 And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding

God's personal involvement in the affairs of nations; and His direct involvement with the individuals comprising those nations is very clear throughout the book of Daniel. God's personal and direct involvement with nations and individuals could be our first prophetic interpretation principle. Why? Because it is essential not to lose touch with a very personal God & Savior throughout the entire realm of Bible prophecy. As soon as we do; it is no longer "Christian." It is just religion.

What do you say? "How readest thou?" (Luke 10:26).

Why, sho' man. Ah done said that. It's on of the primary lessons of The Book of Daniel. We on the same wave length. (And you give a shudder, like I'm some kinda alien creature. Maybe so. After all, I am from Georgia, USA. )

Highest regards,

[JawgeFromJawja]

Before I post my next installment, it seems relevant to quote excerpts form Acts 15, which is relevant to recent posts. My interpretation of Scripture is that God does not demand the same set of laws from Christians as required of his chosen people, Israel. God simply does NOT put the same legal demands on Christians as He did His chosen people.

Please note, I did not bring this matter up. Committed Adventists did. Obviously, it is a deep seated and emotionally laden matter with most Adventists. But resolution of the matter lies within Scripture.

First, review Matthew 19: 16 - 21. These are the commandments Jesus Himself enumerated as necessary for salvation. While on that subject, I will challenge any Christian, Adventist, Evangelical, Catholic, Orthodox, Church of England, Charismatic, Coptic or any Gnostic tradition, to honestly tell us with a straight face that you do not daily break even these limited Commandments in spirit.

Which brings up another unpleasant subject. All too many Christians of any persuasion (I am NOT just picking on Adventists)who buy into a belief of not being sinless take a stance that we who believe in salvation by faith alone use that belief as an excuse to continue sinning. This is a shamefully judgmental attitude. It just is not true. All committed Christians are dedicated to a Christ-like life, but most realize they DO sin, that sin being washed away by the blood of Jesus by confession and faith. As for even the possibility of your being sinless, you are going to have to show me how this is possible in a reality of endless possibilities. You are simply being dishonest with yourselves. But not to worry. You are saved from the moment of commitment to the promises of salvation given by God. You become an eternal child of God at that time,

Rom 11:29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

Excerpts from Acts:

Act 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

Act 15:2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

Act 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

Act 15:8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;

Act 15:9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

Act 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

Act 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Act 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

Act 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

Act 15:23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:

Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

Act 15:25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,

Act 15:26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Act 15:27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.

Act 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

Act 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

There are other passages in the New Testament explicitly listing the Commandments as required by God for Christians. Keeping the Sabbath is not one of those explicitly listed requirements.

All committed Christians are sinless, not by acts they do or do not do. They are saved by Faith in God.

[Overaged]

You are digressing about all this "sinless" hub bub. I will wait til you are ready to move on with discussions re the Book of Daniel.

[John317]

... To me, the concept of Old Covenant and New Covenant is more contrived than real. Johnn317, that is one reason your question seemed meaningless to me. Christ's death, to me, did not ratify a Second Covenant. ....For me, that promise beginning in Genesis is the only covenant between God and mankind in general. God certainly has a covenant with Israel, a rather complex covenant that was to have made Israel a nation of priests for the rest of mankind. For that covenant God required a "peculiar people" who were required to keep additional laws as a token of their peculiar covenant with God. Such laws included circumcision and keeping the Sabbath. My reading of Torah leads me to conclude that those additional laws were binding only on Israel not for the rest of mankind, including Christians.

....The more I have studied the Bible and history, the more strongly have I concluded a single covenant idea. There are two separate covenants, one established for for all people, and the second, the particular covenant between God and Israel. However there is no reason to label them "The Old Covenant" and "The New Covenant". They are separate, for separate groups. One binds all mankind including Israel, and the other, Israel only.

Do you believe that Christ's death ratified any agreement that God had made with anyone, whether Gentile or Jew? If so, what agreement did the shedding of His blood ratify?

What do you believe the Bible teaches in the following verses:

Luke 22:20-- Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup [is] the new covenant in my blood, which is shed for you.

NOTE that Jesus Himself referred to it as "the new Covenant."

Heb. 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

Hebrews 8:13 In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old [is] ready to vanish away.

[John317]

... While on that subject, I will challenge any Christian, Adventist, Evangelical, Catholic, Orthodox, Church of England, Charismatic, Coptic or any Gnostic tradition, to honestly tell us with a straight face that you do not daily break even these limited Commandments in spirit.

Which brings up another unpleasant subject. All too many Christians of any persuasion (I am NOT just picking on Adventists)who buy into a belief of not being sinless take a stance that we who believe in salvation by faith alone use that belief as an excuse to continue sinning. This is a shamefully judgmental attitude. It just is not true. All committed Christians are dedicated to a Christ-like life, but most realize they DO sin, that sin being washed away by the blood of Jesus by confession and faith. As for even the possibility of your being sinless, you are going to have to show me how this is possible in a reality of endless possibilities. You are simply being dishonest with yourselves. ....All committed Christians are sinless, not by acts they do or do not do. They are saved by Faith in God.

I believe you are laboring under a misconception about SDAs. As a church we have never taught that sinlessness is a requirement for salvation. We teach that all people are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ. We don't believe that people are saved because of their law-keeping. All who will be saved will be saved by the merits of Jesus.

What we teach is that genuine faith in Christ is manifested in the keeping of God's commandments. As Jesus said, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments."

But now I'd like to know your thoughts on the book of Daniel. What, for instance, do you believe is the identity of the four empires in Daniel chapter 2?

[phkrause]

Jawge, the Sabbath was instituted at Creation, not at Sinai. The laws of Moses are the laws that have been done away with not the 10 Commandments or like I like to call them, the Moral Law. I believe the reason that Jesus only mentioned the last six, is because most of the Jews had no problem with the first 4! It was those last six that they seemed to have a problem with.

[Overaged]

OK, hear me out on this. Maybe we are not hearing correctly what Jawge is trying to say. Consider his last phrase in his last post:

Quote:

All committed Christians are sinless, not by acts they do or do not do. They are saved by Faith in God.

I think he is saying that we can be "perfect" (Mat 5:48) in our sphere, as Christ is in His.

But I guess we need him to clarify?

[teresaq]

I understood Jawge's point(s) differently than you did based on your response.

Based on part of what I understood you to be saying, Jawge, I would whole-heartedly agree that yes, the closer I come to Jesus, meaning the more I learn of Him, the more sinful I see myself. Another member, Woody, would address this issue. Usually in such a way that it could be difficult for many to discern what he was saying tho. lol

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

... While on that subject, I will challenge any Christian, Adventist, Evangelical, Catholic, Orthodox, Church of England, Charismatic, Coptic or any Gnostic tradition, to honestly tell us with a straight face that you do not daily break even these limited Commandments in spirit.

Which brings up another unpleasant subject. All too many Christians of any persuasion (I am NOT just picking on Adventists)who buy into a belief of not being sinless take a stance that we who believe in salvation by faith alone use that belief as an excuse to continue sinning. This is a shamefully judgmental attitude. It just is not true. All committed Christians are dedicated to a Christ-like life, but most realize they DO sin, that sin being washed away by the blood of Jesus by confession and faith. As for even the possibility of your being sinless, you are going to have to show me how this is possible in a reality of endless possibilities. You are simply being dishonest with yourselves. ....All committed Christians are sinless, not by acts they do or do not do. They are saved by Faith in God.

I believe you are laboring under a misconception about SDAs. As a church we have never taught that sinlessness is a requirement for salvation. We teach that all people are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ. We don't believe that people are saved because of their law-keeping. All who will be saved will be saved by the merits of Jesus.

What we teach is that genuine faith in Christ is manifested in the keeping of God's commandments. As Jesus said, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments."

...

[JawgeFromJawja]

You are digressing about all this "sinless" hub bub. I will wait til you are ready to move on with discussions re the Book of Daniel.

Overaged, you are correct. I shall stay on topic. The blame for chasing rabbits is largely, but not entirely mine, but rabbits were loosed in the topic. Such happens in the best supervised topics, and this early effort of mine has not been well herded.

On to Daniel 7 and the identity of the four beasts. My favorite commentary on that chapter is Daniel,© 2001,edited by Donald E. Gowan, printed in the Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries. Abingdon Publishers is a Methodist endeavor. I just love the Methodists, whose only major flaw seems to be a pathological fear of water. My professor of Biblical literature at the University of Georgia recommended Abingdon Commentaries as one of the references for that course, and I have continued its use ever since those halcyon days.

My approach to posting on Club Adventist is to open e-Sword under a separate tab. E-Sword is a very powerful Bible study program. Again, avoiding chasing rabbits, but lemme try to sell e-Sword to you who do not have such a program on a hard drive of your computer. My downloaded e-Sword program is formatted to include 30 Bible translations with a display of a whole chapter, or an optional display showing single verses from all 30 translations in parallel comparison, plus toggles for instant display of Nave’s Topical Bible and other references or concordances, dictionaries such as Strong’s catalog, Thayer’s, Noah Webster’s Bible Dictionary, commentaries such as John Wesley’s, Schofield, multiple writings of the early Christian fathers, and many historical documents. You cannot beat the price – it is free. Add on data not in the public domain costs a nominal fee. I only have one of the add ons, Zondervan Publishers’ NIV, costing $10.00 when it was downloaded. It may be free now – several of the previous for fee add ons have become gratuitous.

The free data of e-Sword includes the Geneva Bible, the very translation carried by the Pilgrims to New England. One of the great features of the Geneva Bible is its extensive marginal translation notes, to which I refer and copy below. These Geneva Bible marginal notes are provided separate from the Geneva Bible in e-Sword, but they are free. The notes were written by some of the outstanding leaders of the Protestant reformation.

Daniel’s visions of the four beasts in Chapter caused him considerable mental and physical discomfort. The images of the beasts were disturbing in themselves, and Daniel literally was given the burden of the ages to come.

Contrary to the ram and goat of Daniel 8, the beasts of Daniel 7 are not explicitly identified by the spiritual beings of Chapter 7. The first beast was lion-like with wings. Most scholars identify the beast as Babylon, or the Assyria / Chaldean proto-Babylonian complex: the lion was frequently used in Babylon and in general literature as a symbol of those empires. It’s wings were plucked off, and it was given the heart of a man, suggesting decreased power and moderation in ferocity during its existence.

The blue font below is a copy of Daniel 7 verses from the Geneva Bible, along with the margin notes.

Dan 7:5 And beholde, another beast which was the second, was like a (d)beare & stood vpon the (e)one side: and hee had three ribbes in his (f) mouth betweene his teeth, (g) and they saide thus vnto him, Arise and deuoure much flesh.

(d) Meaning the Persians who were barbarous and cruel.

(e) They were small in the beginning, and were shut up in the mountains, and had no strength.

(f) That is, destroyed many kingdoms and whose hunger could not be satisfied.

(g) That is, the angels by God's commandment, who by this means punished the ingratitude of the world.

Dan 7:6 After this I behelde, and loe, there was an other like a (h)leopard, which had vpon his backe (i)foure wings of a foule: the beast had also foure heads, and dominion was giuen him.

(h) Meaning Alexander the king of Macedonia.

(i) That is, his four chief captains, which had the empire among them after his death. Selencus had Asia the great, Antigonus the less, Cassander and after him Antipater was king of Macedonia, and Ptolemeus had Egypt.

(k) It was not of himself nor of his own power that he gained all these countries: for his army contained only thirty thousand men, and he overcame in one battle Darius, who had one million, when he was so heavy with sleep that his eyes were hardly open, as the stories report: therefore this power was given to him from God. << These notes are in the original words, but with the spelling Anglicized. >>

Okay, Marginal Note (k) is another assertion that God works in the affairs of man, which is one of my solid beliefs for individuals, groups, and governments.

Dan 7:7 After this I saw in the visions by night, and beholde, the (l)fourth beast was fearefull and terrible and very strong. It had great (m) yron teeth: it deuoured and brake in pieces and stamped (n) the residue vnder his feete: and it was vnlike to the beasts that were before it: for it had (o) ten hornes.

(l) That is, the Roman empire which was a monster, and could not be compared to any beast, because there was no beast that was even comparable.

(m) Signifying the tyranny and greediness of the Romans.

(n) That which the Romans could not quietly enjoy in other countries, they would give it to other kings and rulers, so that whenever they wanted to, they might take it again: which liberality is here called the stamping of the rest under the feet.

(o) That is, various and different provinces which were governed by the deputies and proconsuls: and each one of these might be compared to a king.

Dan 7:8 As I considered the hornes, beholde, there came vp among them another litle horne, before whome there were three of the first hornes pluckt away: and behold, in this horne were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking presumptuous things.

(p) Which is meant of Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero, etc., who were as kings in effect, but because they could not rule, except by the consent of the senate, their power is compared to a little horn. For Muhammad did not come from the Roman Empire, and the pope has no vocation of government: therefore this cannot be applied to them, and also in this prophecy the Prophet's purpose is chiefly to comfort the Jews until the revelation of Christ. Some take it for the whole body of antichrist.

(q) Meaning a certain portion of the ten horns: that is, a part from the whole estate was taken away. For Augustus took from the senate the liberty of choosing the deputies to send into the provinces, and took the governing of certain countries to himself.

® These Roman emperors at the first used a certain humanity and gentleness, and were content that others, as the consuls, and senate, should bear the names of dignity, so that they might have the profit. And therefore in election and counsels they would behave themselves according as did other senators: yet against their enemies and those that would resist them, they were fierce and cruel, which is here meant by the proud mouth.

Dan 7:9 I behelde, till the (s) thrones were set vp, and the (t) Ancient of dayes did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the heare of his head like the pure wooll: his throne was like the fierie flame, and his wheeles as burning fire.

(s) Meaning, the places where God and his angels would come to judge these monarchies, which judgment would begin at the first coming of Christ.

(t) That is, God who was before all times, and is here described in a way such that man's nature is able to comprehend some portion of his glory.

Dan 7:10 A fierie streame yssued, and came foorth from before him: thousand thousandes ministred vnto him, and tenne thousand (u) thousands stoode before him: the iudgement was set, and the (x) bookes opened.

(u) That is, an infinite number of angels, who were ready to execute his commandment.

(x) This is meant of the first coming of Christ, when the will of God was plainly revealed by his Gospel.

Dan 7:11 Then I behelde, (y) because of the voyce of the presumptuous wordes, which the horne spake: I behelde, euen till the beast was slaine, and his body destroyed, and giuen to the burning fire.

(y) Meaning that he was astonished when he saw these emperors in such dignity and pride, so suddenly destroyed at the coming of Christ, when this fourth monarchy was subject to men of other nations.

Dan 7:12 As (z) concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time.

(z) As the three former monarchies had an end at the time that God appointed, even though they flourished for a time, so will this fourth have an end, and they that patiently wait for God's appointment, will enjoy the promises.

Dan 7:13 As I behelde in visions by night, behold, (a) one like the sonne of man came in the cloudes of heauen, and (b)approched vnto the Ancient of dayes, and they brought him before him.

(a) Which is meant of Christ, who had not yet taken upon him man's nature, neither was he yet the son of David according to the flesh, as he was afterward: but he appeared then in a figure, and that in the clouds, that is, being separated from the common sort of men by manifest signs of his divinity.

( That is, when he ascended into the heavens, and his divine majesty appeared, and all power was given to him, in respect that he was our mediator.

Dan 7:14 And he gaue him © dominion, and honour, and a kingdome, that all people, nations and languages should serue him: his dominion is an euerlasting dominion, which shall neuer bee taken away: and his kingdome shall neuer be destroyed.

© This is meant of the beginning of Christ's kingdom, when God the Father gave unto him all dominion, as the the Mediator, with the intent that he would continually govern his Church which is here on earth, until the time that he brought them to eternal life.

Dan 7:15 I Daniel was (d) grieved in my spirit in the midst of [my] body, and the visions of my head troubled me.

(d) Because of the strangeness of the vision.

Dan 7:16 Therefore I came vnto (e) one of them that stoode by, and asked him the trueth of all this: so he tolde me, and shewed me the interpretation of these things.

(e) Meaning one of the angels, as in See Dan_7:10

Dan 7:17 These great beastes which are foure, are foure Kings, which shall arise out of the earth,

Dan 7:18 And they shall take the kingdome of the Saintes of the (f) most High, and possesse the kingdome for euer, euen for euer and euer.

(f) That is, of the most high things, because God has chosen them out of this world, that they should look up to the heavens, upon which all their hope depends.

(g) Because Abraham was appointed heir of all the world, (Rom_4:13), and in him all the faithful, therefore the kingdom of him is theirs by right, which these four beasts or tyrants would invade, and usurp until the world were restored by Christ. And this was to strengthen and encourage those that were in troubles, that their afflictions would eventually have an end.

Dan 7:19 After this, I woulde knowe the trueth of the fourth beast, which was (h) so vnlike to all the others, very fearefull, whose teeth were of yron, and his nailes of brasse: which deuoured, brake in pieces, and stamped the (i)residue vnder his feete.

(h) For the other three monarchies were governed by a king, and the Roman empire by consuls: the Romans changed their governors yearly, and the other monarchies retained them for term of life: also the Romans were the strongest of all the others, and were never at peace among themselves.

(i) Read (Dan_7:7).

Dan 7:20 Also to know of the tenne hornes that were in his head, and of the other which came vp, before whome three fell, and of the horne that had eyes, and of the mouth that spake presumptuous thinges, whose (k) looke was more stoute then his fellowes. << For us “moderns”, a very quaint style of expression. >>

(k) This is meant of the fourth beast, which was more terrible than the others.

Dan 7:21 I beheld, and the same (l)horne made battel against the Saintes, yea, & preuailed against them,

(l) Meaning the Roman emperors, who were most cruel against the Church of God, both of the Jews and of the Gentiles.

Dan 7:22 (m)Vntill the Ancient of dayes came, and iudgement was giuen to the Saintes of the most High: and the time approched, that the Saintes possessed the kingdome.

(m) Until God showed his power in the person of Christ, and by the preaching of the Gospel gave unto his own some rest, and so obtained a famous name in the world, and were called the Church of God, or the kingdom of God.

Dan 7:23 Then he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdome in the earth, which shall be vnlike to all the kingdomes, and shall deuoure the whole earth, and shall treade it downe and breake it in pieces.

Dan 7:24 And the ten hornes out of this kingdome are tenne Kings that shall rise: and an other shall rise after them, and he shall be vnlike to the first, and he shall subdue (n) three Kings,

(n) See Dan_7:8

Dan 7:25 And shall speake wordes against (o) the most High, and shall consume the Saintes of the most High, and thinke that he may (p) change times and lawes, and they shalbe giuen into his hand, vntill a (q) time, and times and the deuiding of time.

(o) That is, will make wicked decrees and proclamations against God's word, and send throughout all their dominion, to destroy all that did profess it.

(p) These emperors will not consider that they have their power from God, but think it is in their own power to change God's laws and man's, and as it were the order of nature, as appears by Octavius, Tiberius, Calligula, Nero, Domitianus, etc.

(q) God will allow them to rage in this way against his saints for a long time, the time and times, but at length he will soften these troubles, and shorten the time for his elect's sake, (Mat_24:22), which is here meant by the dividing of time.

Dan 7:26 But the® iudgement shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and destroy it vnto the ende.

® God by his power will restore things that were out of order, and destroy this little horn in such a way that it will never rise up again.

Dan 7:27 And the (s) kingdome, and dominion, and the greatnesse of the kingdome vnder the whole heauen shalbe giue to the holy people of the most High, whose kingdome is an euerlasting kingdome and all (t) powers shall serue and obey him.

(s) He shows why the beast would be destroyed, that is, so that his Church might have rest and quietness, which though they do not fully enjoy here, yet they have it in hope, and by the preaching of the Gospel enjoy the beginning of it, which is meant by these words, "under the whole heaven". And therefore he speaks here of the beginning of Christ's kingdom in this world, which kingdom the faithful have by the participation that they have with Christ their head.

(t) That is, some of every type that rule.

Dan 7:28 Euen this is the ende of the matter, I Daniel had many cogitations which troubled mee, and my countenance changed in me: but I kept the matter in mine (u) heart.

(u) Even though he had many motions in his heart which moved him to and fro to seek out this matter curiously, yet he was content with that which God revealed, and kept it in memory, and wrote it for the use of the Church.

After prayer and consideration, I endorse most of the Marginal Translation Notes of the Geneva Bible. The next installment will be on my personal beliefs of Daniel 7.

Agape,