Leaderboard

I'll buy it if they promise it comes with a full tank of gas, premium of course. God is Love!~Jesus saves!

The tires do not appear to me to be able t o hold appropriate pressure.

The "Law of Moses" was the Sinai Covenant - a MARRIAGE COVENANT made with Israel. Israel was "married" to the LORD. Later the LORD gave to the 10 Northern tribes (known as Israel) a "bill of divorcement". Still later, what remained of the original "Israel" was WIDOWED when her "husband" died by crucifixion. When a husband dies, his wife is then FREE FROM THE LAW - concerning her husband (Romans 7:3). This necessitates a NEW MARRIAGE COVENANT. Paul says we are betrothed under this New Covenant. Does the NEW marriage covenant cover/include every command from the first/Sinai covenant? 1. Every one of the original 10 Commandments is repeated in the NT. So those I believe ARE included in the New Covenant. They will be written on our hearts. 2. Scavenger and carnivorous animals are STILL presently unfit for food. I seriously doubt there will be any such animals in the new earth. "The lion will eat straw like the ox." 3. I do not believe the "new covenant" will include animal sacrifice. 4. Under the New Covenant, every redeemed Israelite will become a priest - of the order of Melchizedek. (Rev. 20:6). 5. Jerusalem will STILL be the place of "the House of the LORD". 6. No one will visit the Ark of the Covenant, or even remember it. "In that He says, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” (Heb 8:13). My point is that a NEW Covenant allows for changes.

That being said, the original covenant between God and Abraham (and selected offspring - Isaac and not Ishmael, Jacob and not Esau) was unconditional. God basically swore on His own life that the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would receive the land. We as Gentile believers my be grafted in; but we are still dependent upon the root (Christ and Israel. Christians have not replaced the Jews as God's Chosen People. God has simply given us the privilege of joining them. “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. " (John 4:21-23)

We can tell something important about the change that took place in the law just by looking at the plain English meaning of the verse you quoted. The change was a change that was necessary due to the change in the priesthood. Would a change in the priesthood necessitate a change in clean and unclean foods? No. Would it necessitate a change in the Sabbath or Feasts? No. Would it necessitate a change to circumcision? No. Would it necessitate a change in the definition of sin? No. The laws of marriage? No. The agriculture laws? No. Well then, what change would actually be necessary if Jesus were to lawfully become a priest? The next two verses gives us pertinent information. Let's look at them -- "13 Now the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. Oh, that's something that might be necessary to change. Moses wrote down the Law that specifies who can serve as a Levitical priest at the altar of the Sanctuary/Temple and he didn't say anything that would allow someone from the tribe of Judah to serve as a Levitical priest. According to God's Law of Moses Jesus cannot serve as a priest in the earthly Temple. The author of Hebrews confirms this is still true in Hebrews 8:4 -- 4 Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. The author says that the Law regarding the Levitical priests offering gifts was still valid at the time Hebrews was written (a few decades after the veil of the Temple was torn). So that part of the Law didn't change. And Jesus never did serve as a Levitical priest at the Temple on earth, so there is no change necessary to the part of the Law that governs who can be a Levitical priest. Let's look at the context again. At the end of chapter 6 the author tells us that Jesus is a priest forever in the type of priesthood like Melchizedek. Does the Law of Moses allow Jesus to actually be a Melchizedekian priest? Where do we find the laws that govern who can be a Melchizedekian priest? Uh ... not in the Law of Moses. It's useless for that. It mentions Melchzedek in Genesis but he lived before the laws for the Levitical priesthood were given, and Genesis doesn't tell us anything about what qualified Melchizedek to be a priest. It looks like it will be necessary to use a different law than the Law of Moses to govern a different priesthood (the Melchizedekian priesthood) that functions in a different location (not on earth). The Law of Moses still has jurisdiction on earth, but a different law has jurisdiction over the priesthood of Jesus in the heavenly sanctuary. That was the necessary change of law. The Greek of Hebrews 7:12 may confirm that the necessary change in the law had to do with location. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT) indicates that the Greek word (Strongs #3331) that is translated as "changed" in the phrase "The priesthood being changed" (KJV) can have the connotation of a change of physical location. My Greek skills are far too weak to be able to tell if that connotation is actually present in the Greek of this verse. However, that connotation would fit into this context because the location of Jesus' ministry was changed when compared to the Levitical priesthood on earth that Jesus doesn't qualify for because of his ancestry. The Melchizedekian priesthood of Jesus functions in a jurisdiction outside where the Law of Moses applies.

Just had his daughter-in-law and granddaughter at our house today. I went to school with his son and daughter. I think I first met him in NY City when he sort of came to the rescue of his daughter and I when we got separated from the rest of our group from school on the subway and missed our stop on our way to catch the ferry out to the Statue of Liberty. He had driven to meet his daughter to go with our group out to the Statue of Liberty. His daughter and I were too late for the last ferry so we just sat in his car and had a nice visit until we were able to connect up with the rest of our group.

My NT just says "You created all things." It doesn't say "all things in this realm. CJB Revelation 5:13 And I heard every creature in heaven, on earth, under the earth and on the sea - yes, everything in them - saying, "To the One sitting on the throne and to the Lamb belong praise, honor, glory and power forever and ever!" Only TWO beings are praised here.

(this showed up as an ad on my Facebook page!)

I disagree hch. Which is OK. I'm giving my opinion (based in Scripture), and you are giving us your opinion. You can quote EGW - sure, but that will just tell us that your opinion agrees with her. Your post tells me that you believe "the hour of His judgment" began on October 22nd, 1844. I understand that belief - very well. I just do not share it - for many reasons.

Martn, you might be surprised at the level of "discourse" that is "tolerated" here at CA. The primary RULE is civility. If a poster starts calling someone else a "false prophet" or a "liar" or such, THAT will get him shut down. Profanity is also not "tolerated". But open discussion of ideas. Yes! This forum exists for many reasons. One of those reasons is for ideas to be challenged - even those today called "fundamentals" by devout SDAs. My website is prophecyviewpoint.com. At my website there is a series on the nature of God - specifically why I do NOT believe our God is a Trinity of three divine beings. I also do NOT believe our God is one divine being who manifests in three ways. I believe that God our Father beget another divine being - out of Himself - in His exact likeness. That being incarnated into the womb of Mary, becoming Jesus the Christ.

LOL .... the ad didn't give a year..

Revelation 4:11 [To the One who sits on the throne] “You are worthy, O Lord, To receive glory and honor and power; For You created all things, And by Your will they exist and were created.” I don't see in this verse, another divine intelligence (the Spirit) existing before "the One who sits on the throne". In this verse, the One who sits on the throne, IS the source of all life.

Literally our father, I believe. "The first" and "the last" Adam both, Alpha and Omega. We are the next generation

"God IS spirit" (John 4). Therefore - when HE beget a son in His "express image" (meaning an exact copy) - that "begotten son" was also "spirit". This is how HE could be everywhere present. Is it not also possible that God (the Father) and His Son, could take on form - in order to be seen and heard by finite created beings? A photon is the smallest unit of energy. It also has mass. Spirit (pure energy) could take on mass.

In vision, John HEARD the angel giving the message. John was also shown many things which had not yet taken place. Why is it not possible that John also "heard" a message which had not yet been given? John did not "hear" a year or date.

I agree. Isaiah 9:6 "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. (Isa 9:6 NIV) Jesus is our "Father" because he created everything. But He has a Father (and God by the way). God the being that most called "God the Father" is in fact our divine Grandfather. In Hebrew there was no such word as "grandfather", so he is simply called "Father". [Incidentally - when I pray - I call Him Grandfather. I call Jesus LORD, which means "master".] God the Father (of Jesus) is the "head of Christ" (I Cor. 1 Cor 11:3). He is also the "God" of Jesus Christ (Rev. 1:6, Rev. 3:13 were written many year after Jesus returned to the Father's right hand.).

appears to be rust free.. How old is it?

Rossw, your post is NOT out of line. It is well within what is permissible. Green, the issue with me in not what you believe about the NIV. I do not have any desire to change your mind. I have no intention of debating with you the appropriate translation of any verse. If anyone want to do that, it would be quite appropriate to do so in another thread. In my personal opinion, when someone comes here and refers to a Bible translation as the "Not Inspired Version (NIV)" that person is presenting themself to me as mocking what many consider to be a Bible. While I often disagree with Green, I also am known to agree with him. In spite of my disagreement with him at times, I have respected him in the past and I have respected his sojourn her in CA many times. But, I am deeply offended by his use of those term in relation to the NIV and to be blunt, in this regard, I think that he is doing the work of Satan. As I said, his offense does not rise to the level of the other person, whom I blocked (hid). So, I have not hidden Greens post. It is open. Others may read it and form their own opinion.

HEY ALL 1ST evening 10 children---4 NON S.D.A. 2ND evening 14 children---7 NON S.D.A. dgrimm60

I'm no NT expert but I read the texts as Tom explained above. I also see 1 Corinthians 10:23 as relevant. "I have the right to do anything," you say--but not everything is beneficial. "I have the right to do anything"--but not everything is constructive. (NIV). For me, eating pork is not beneficial, so I refrain from eating it.

Hebrews 7:12 "For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well." (NRS) Ron, your arguments all seem to be based on a belief that no part of the Torah (Law) could ever, or can ever be changed. But the author of the Letter to the Hebrews says there has been "a change in the law". Do you believe the Letter to the Hebrews belongs with the Apostolic Writings? If there has been "a change in the law" then is it not possible that physical circumcision (a type of sacrifice) was also changed. It is my understanding that the amputated foreskins were always burned in fire. Can you tell me how they are disposed of by Jews today?