Gen 26:5?

[Ron Amnsn]

Without the TEMPLE, at Jerusalem - without the Levite priests - one CANNOT offer animal sacrifices, which means one CANNOT "keep" the Feasts as originally commanded.

I have questions about this, because I don't think it was/is true for all categories of people.

When I read the Torah (Books of Moses) it sounds like the only people who were required to go to Jerusalem for the feasts were the men living within Israel, and they were required to go to Jerusalem for only three of the feasts - Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles. For the rest of the people living within Israel (women, children, and possibly the infirm), attendance at Jerusalem appears to be optional, as it was for those living outside of Israel. If I remember correctly, nobody was required to travel to Jerusalem for the Day of Atonement or the Day of Trumpets/Shouting.

So, it looks like God originally intended/commanded that some people would keep the feasts away from Jerusalem, at home in their towns and villages where there were probably no priests and definitely no sacrifices.

What would the people do who were not in Jerusalem on the Day of Atonement? Would they just ignore the day? It doesn't sound like that is what God originally intended.

What would the women and children do at Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles if they stayed home while the men traveled to Jerusalem for those feasts? Would they just ignore the feast days because they were at a distance and didn't have a sacrifice? Probably not.

There's no indication in Scripture that these people who were lawfully not in Jerusalem on feast days were unable to keep the feasts exactly as God originally intended/commanded people to keep the feasts under those circumstances.

It is true that the people who were in Jerusalem for the Feasts could not celebrate the Feasts properly without priests and sacrifices, but what about the rest of the people? What would keep those people who were lawfully at a distance from the Temple from celebrating the Feasts properly according to God's original commands?

What would keep people today who are at a distance from the Temple to celebrate those feasts just as they were celebrated by those who were lawfully not at the Tabernacle/Temple for the Feast days during the eras when the Levitical priests offered sacrifices on the altar?

The New Testament teaches that we currently have a better high priest officiating at a better Temple with a better sacrifice. Why can't we celebrate the feasts at a distance from that Temple, just as God expected (at least some) people to celebrate the Feasts from a distance in the original commands?

[Ron Amnsn]

I do NOT believe that the writer of Hebrews was referring to the Oral Law, when He wrote "a change of the Law." I believe He was speaking of THE Law. The Torah.

I know someone is going to quote: "I am the LORD. I change not."

But what if the change was a part of His plan from the beginning. Then it wouldn't be a "change" for Him. Just for us. Many times the LORD told individuals to change the place where they lived, or something about the way they lived or worshiped. Those would be changes for the individuals - but NOT for the LORD.

[8thdaypriest]

Hi Ron, I'm not posting the following especially for you. I'm posting it for others who may read it and think about it.

I believe the Melchizedek priesthood came BEFORE the Aaronic.

And it WAS on the earth.

In the beginning the "firstborn" was the priest of the family unit before the LORD after the Melchizedek order.

Adam was priest and offered sacrifice.

Noah, Job, and Abraham would have been also.

Melchizedek of Salem was a priest of the Most High God. (He was NOT Aaronic.) He may actually have been Shem.

The LORD's intention and plan was that Israel would be a "kingdom of priests."

So men from EVERY tribe would be priests.

When all but Levi broke covenant before even completing the consecration,

the LORD chose the only tribe that did NOT break covenant, and fulfilled his covenant promise to them.

But His priestly covenant was NOT unconditional.

NKJ 1 Samuel 2:27 Then a man of God came to Eli and said to him,

"Thus says the LORD: "Did I not clearly reveal Myself to the house of your father (Aaron)when they were in Egypt in Pharaoh's house?

28 `Did I not choose him out of all the tribes of Israel to be My priest, to offer upon My altar, to burn incense, and to wear an ephod before Me? And did I not give to the house of your father [Levi] all the offerings of the children of Israel made by fire? (See Num. 18:26)

29 `Why do you kick at My sacrifice and My offering which I have commanded in My dwelling place, and honor your sons more than Me, to make yourselves fat with the best of all the offerings of Israel My people?'

30 "Therefore the LORD God of Israel says:`I said indeed that your house [Eli] and the house of your father [Levi/Aaron] would walk before Me forever.'

But now the LORD says:`Far be it from Me; for those who honor Me I will honor, and those who despise Me shall be lightly esteemed.

31 `Behold, the days are coming that I will cut off your arm and the arm of your father's house, so that there will not be an old man in your house. [A man old enough to serve as High Priest or to serve as Elder]

32 `And you will see an enemy in My dwelling place, despite all the good which God does for Israel. [ultimately Satan himself. He will sit in the Temple.]

And there shall not be an old man in your house forever.

33 `But any of your men whom I do not cut off from My altar shall consume your eyes and grieve your heart. And all the descendants of your house shall die in the flower of their age. 34 `Now this shall be a sign to you that will come upon your two sons, on Hophni and Phinehas: in one day they shall die, both of them.

35 `Then I will raise up for Myself a faithful priest [ultimately Christ] who shall do according to what is in My heart and in My mind.

I will build him a sure house, and he shall walk before (Me as) My anointed forever.

36 `And it shall come to pass that everyone who is left in your house will come and bow down to him for a piece of silver and a morsel of bread, and say, "Please, put me in one of the priestly positions, that I may eat a piece of bread."'" (1Sa 2:27 NKJ)

NOTE: Eli as NOT descended from Phinehas. He was descended from Ithamar - another son of Aaron. The LORD did not appoint Ithamar to wear the Ephod.

I understand this passage to predict the END of the Levirate/Aaronic priesthood.

In the coming kingdom EVERY Israelite - meaning everyone who has remained faithful to covenant and is redeemed at the Second Coming - will be a "priest of God and of Christ."

We will "reign with Him on the earth"

The 24 elders are NOT Levite/Aaronic priests because they sing that they have been redeemed to God by Your blood, out of every tribe, and tongue, and people and nation." And NO - I do not believe that the Levirate/Aaronic priests were dispersed to EVERY "tribe, tongue, people, and nation" on the earth.

The priests in the prophecy of Isaiah 61, are NOT Levite priests BECAUSE they possess a "double portion" "in the land." The Levites were given NO inheritance in the land.

The prophecy of Isa. 61 was spoken to ALL of Israel - not just the Levites. Christ actually quote the first part of it, announcing His ministry and mission. The Jews were quick to recognize the passage and what the REST of the passage was predicting.

Here's the passage:

NKJ Isaiah 61:1-9 "The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon Me, Because the LORD has anointed Me To preach good tidings to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives, And the opening of the prison to those who are bound; 2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD,

And the day of vengeance of our God; To comfort all who mourn, 3 To console those who mourn in Zion, To give them beauty for ashes, The oil of joy for mourning, The garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; That they may be called trees of righteousness, The planting of the LORD, that He may be glorified."

4 And they shall rebuild the old ruins, They shall raise up the former desolations, And they shall repair the ruined cities, The desolations of many generations.

5 Strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, And the sons of the foreigner Shall be your plowmen and your vinedressers.

[Here's the Gentiles living in the land with Israel restored.]

6 But you shall be named the priests of the LORD, They shall call you the servants of our God. You shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, And in their glory you shall boast. 7 Instead of your shame you shall have double honor, And instead of confusion they shall rejoice in their portion. Therefore in their land they shall possess double; Everlasting joy shall be theirs. 8 "For I, the LORD, love justice; I hate robbery for burnt offering; I will direct their work in truth, And will make with them an everlasting covenant. 9 Their descendants shall be known among the Gentiles, And their offspring among the people. All who see them shall acknowledge them, That they are the posterity whom the LORD has blessed."

I believe that we will "reign with Him" on the earth, AS PRIESTS of the order of Melchizedek. We will govern and teach the nations raised "after the 1000 years have passed."

We will fulfill the LORD's original intention for Israel, to teach and govern "the nations."

There is a study at my website: www.prophecyviewpoint.com titled "A Kingdom of Priests."

[joeb]

"Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures" (Matt 22:29)

I've observed, Ron, that many of us "do err" because we disagree with you, not because we disagree with scripture. We're all learning, and will continue to learn throughout eternity, so statements about "pooled ignorance" are very arrogant. On that statement that you and I are in agreement.

[Hair]

Jackson - I agree with everything that you stated as the feast were literally fulfilled. However, there is a problem with the way that we (SDA's) explain that to people.

We make it sound as if Jesus' literal fulfillment of the Passover and the other feasts being literally fulfilled as they were, is what removed the requirement to practice these feasts. When we explain it that way, it leaves the door open for a misunderstanding.

Example: Day of Atonement did not begin until 1844 therefore weren't we supposed to be keeping that feast until 1844 because it had not been "fulfilled" until then?... or... The fulfillment of the Feast of Trumpets will not be "fulfilled" until Jesus returns, so should we not keep it until Jesus returns?

We need to explain that it is NOT the literal fulfillment that makes these feasts obsolete, but the fact that the purpose of the feasts (sacrifice) has been removed and fulfilled by Jesus on the cross. They are now obsolete because there is no reason to gather for a sacrifice. The SACRIFICE is GONE. The literal fulfillment may still be ahead, but the reason behind the feasts (sacrifice) has been removed.

So, in the sacrificial sense, Jesus DID fulfill ALL of the feasts. And I'm not disagreeing with you Jackson, just clarifying.

Now, my feast keeping brothern on here will strongly disagree with most of what I wrote, but I am currently in agreement with the standard SDA view that the feasts have been "fulfilled" as you said.

[Ron Amnsn]

We need to explain that it is NOT the literal fulfillment that makes these feasts obsolete, but the fact that the purpose of the feasts (sacrifice) has been removed and fulfilled by Jesus on the cross. They are now obsolete because there is no reason to gather for a sacrifice. The SACRIFICE is GONE. The literal fulfillment may still be ahead, but the reason behind the feasts (sacrifice) has been removed.

Hair,

The weak point in that argument is that it's not Scripture that says that the only valid reason for to celebrate the feasts was to sacrifice. It's just humans saying that. If our aim was to follow a man-made religion then your explanation would be fine. But I think our aim should be to follow what God has revealed in Scripture.

Scripture doesn't say what you're saying. You are merely speculating that the primary reason for the feasts was to sacrifice.

Perhaps one of the reasons for the feasts is to give the world an easy way to see who is called by YHWH's name.

"The LORD will establish you as a holy people to Himself, as He swore to you, if you keep the commandments of the LORD your God and walk in His ways. So all the peoples of the earth will see that you are called by the name of the LORD, and they will be afraid of you." (Deut 28:9-10)

Or perhaps the feasts may show which people are loyal to God because they keep His calendar rather than Pope Gregory's gregorian calendar.

Or perhaps God built living lessons into His annual calendar, which help people understand the plan of salvation.

Of course, these reasons are merely speculation, just like your reason is speculation. Do you really want to persuade people to stop obeying God's plain instructions for a reason as flimsy as man-made speculation? Do you really think you know all the reasons that God had for implementing his appointed times?

"For as the heavens are higher than the earth,

So are My ways higher than your ways

And My thoughts than your thoughts." (Isaiah 55:9)

"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matt 5:19)

We know Jesus wasn't talking about the "ten commandments" in that verse because later when Jesus was asked which was the greatest "commandment" he didn't choose one of the "ten commandments", but rather one of the many commandments found in the rest of God's Law of Moses. If the "greatest commandment" and the "second greatest commandment" are NOT found in the "ten commandments" but in the Law of Moses, why would the "least of these commandments" be found in the "ten commandments"? The Scriptures refer to the "ten commandments" not as the "ten commandments" but rather as the "Ten Words". The translators of our English versions have dumbed us down by translating it as the "ten commandments" rather than as the "Ten Words".

[Hair]

Not all the feasts have been fulfilled in the strict sense. The Anti-typical day of Atonement is in progress and the Feast of Tabernacles is yet to come.

Yeah, I hear ya. We're talking the same thing. I agree, but if we're going to use EGW, we need to back her up with scripture. "IF" the Bible does not agree with EGW then EGW needs to go to the garbage can. Like Ron says, show me in the BIBLE where it says "he would bring an end" and "to continue these rites would be an insult" etc. If we can't do it without EGW, we better just give-up now. We can't say "Oh, we don't know what the Bible says, but we do this because some woman told us to." Her words must be tested and proven by scripture; not the other way around.

Ron - I'm still trying to digest that last paragraph or yours :)

[Ron Amnsn]

It was Christ's desire to leave to his disciples an ordinance that would do for them the very thing they needed,--that would serve to disentangle them from the rites and ceremonies which they had hitherto engaged in as essential, and which the reception of the gospel made no longer of any force. To continue these rites would be an insult to Jehovah. Eating of the body, and drinking of the blood, of Christ, not merely at the sacramental service, but daily partaking of the bread of life to satisfy the soul's hunger, would be in receiving his word and doing his will. {RH, June 14, 1898 par. 16}

EGW taught that her writings were to be tested by Scripture. The Bible certainly teaches that we are to test all things by Scripture. Has anyone ever been taught how to routinely test EGW's writings by Scripture? Seriously, have any of you ever been shown how to test each paragraph of EGW's writings by Scripture? Why not?

The things written in this paragraph EGW could have learned as a child in a Sunday sermon, a magazine, or a book, rather than by direct revelation from God. This sort of teaching closely echoes what has been taught by the non-Torah-observant theologians ever since Gentile Christians quit following the example of Jesus, Paul and the other apostles around 135 AD. At that time there was a reversal among Gentile Christians regarding the role of the Law of Moses for believers. Since then there has been an embarrassing amount of hateful anti-Semitic and erroneous anti-Law teachings propagated by the Christian church to try to justify why they were not doing what is written in Scripture.

Several things in EGW's paragraph can't be backed up by Scripture, and some things in the paragraph seem to directly contradict verses like 1 Cor 5:7-8 where Paul tells us we should celebrate the festival of Passover because Messiah our Passover has been offered.

The paragraph also directly contradicts God's instructions to the Israelites. God specifically commanded them to keep these appointed times "throughout your generations" (rather than "until Messiah dies"):

- the weekly Sabbath (Exodus 31:13,16)

- Passover (Exodus 12:14)

- the Day of the Wave Sheaf (Leviticus 23:14)

- Unleavened Bread (Exodus 12:17)

- Feast of Weeks [Penetecost] (Leviticus 23:21)

- Day of Atonement (Exodus 30:10, Leviticus 23:31)

- Feast of Tabernacles (Leviticus 23:41)

At the time God instructed the Israelites to keep God's appointed times "throughout your generations", He knew that the Israelites would continue to have generations well beyond the time when Messiah would die. Or do you think the death of Messiah caught God by surprise?

Seems like a rather fickle god who would command his people to do something for a specific time period like "throughout your generations", and then get "insulted" when people obediently do what they have been commanded to do. If these things were indeed an "insult" to God, the New Testament is strangely silent about that, especially considering that there were tens of thousands of believing Jews that were "zealous for the Law" and coming to Jerusalem for the Feast of Pentecost at the time of Paul's final visit to Jerusalem (Acts 21).

I think EGW knew that some things she wrote came from human teachings that might not be correct, so she wasn't just acting humble when she instructed people to test her writings by Scripture. Those who claim to follow EGW's teachings but don't test her writings by Scripture, aren't really following her teachings or the teachings of the Bible. Don't be hesitant to test EGW's writings-- the Bereans were commended in Acts 17 for using Scripture daily to test the teachings of the apostle Paul himself, who, as an author of the New Testament, would deserve greater respect than someone like EGW.

[Green Cochoa]

Ron appears to be ready to give up Ellen White as an inspired source. Ellen White told us that many would do this. Furthermore, she said that those who give up her testimonies would finally give up the Bible as well.

Ron, please don't go down that path. God is interested in your salvation.

Regarding the definition of "scripture," the Bible is clear:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for...."

--rebuke

--doctrine

--correction

--instruction in righteousness

Ellen White's writings were given for each of those purposes. In them she frequently rebuked and corrected people and their views. She gave troves of instruction in righteousness. Her writings have given us doctrinal understandings.

The Bible says:

And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. (Numbers 12:6)

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

#656321 - 46 minutes 55 seconds ago

Excellent treatise on the difference between the permanent Principles found in the Ten Commandments and "present truth" found in the law of Moses for a time now largely past. Strengthens placement of Who has authority and why, for the Everlasting Covenant between God and His chosen.

"“I am the Lord your God, who rescued you from the.....the place of your slavery.

For in six days the Lord made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and everything in them; but on the seventh day he rested. That is why the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy." Exodus 20:2,11 NLT

"When the bow is in the cloud, then I will look upon it, to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.”" Genesis 9:16 NASB

God cares!

[Hair]

JACKSON - Now that's what I'm talking about! Good answers!!

If Ron feels like it, he will be all over that refuting everything you said, pointing out Greek and Hebrew language flaws etc., but still, that was good.

[Ron Amnsn]

Ron appears to be ready to give up Ellen White as an inspired source. Ellen White told us that many would do this. Furthermore, she said that those who give up her testimonies would finally give up the Bible as well.

Ron, please don't go down that path. God is interested in your salvation.

[Green Cochoa]

Ron,

Thanks for your studious reply. It is good that you are referencing what Mrs. White has to say on these things. According to your interpretation of her writings, all things spiritual should be defined and understood by the Bible, is this right?

How does the Bible define "scripture?" What verses would you use to find the Bible's own definition of this term? You say that 1 Timothy 3:16 does not define scripture. Which verses do better?

In which of Mrs. White's statements did she say that her writings were not scripture? When Paul referred to the scriptures, he did not mean to include his own writings, did he? Do you believe his writings are scripture? If so, why? If Mrs. White referred to the Bible as scripture, and not her own writings, how would she be any different from Paul? In other words, if you reject her writings as being scripture for the reasons you have stated above, how can you without contradiction claim that Paul's writings are scripture?

God bless,

Green Cochoa.

[Johann]

Ron,

Thanks for your studious reply. It is good that you are referencing what Mrs. White has to say on these things. According to your interpretation of her writings, all things spiritual should be defined and understood by the Bible, is this right?

How does the Bible define "scripture?" What verses would you use to find the Bible's own definition of this term? You say that 1 Timothy 3:16 does not define scripture. Which verses do better?

In which of Mrs. White's statements did she say that her writings were not scripture? When Paul referred to the scriptures, he did not mean to include his own writings, did he? Do you believe his writings are scripture? If so, why? If Mrs. White referred to the Bible as scripture, and not her own writings, how would she be any different from Paul? In other words, if you reject her writings as being scripture for the reasons you have stated above, how can you without contradiction claim that Paul's writings are scripture?

God bless,

Green Cochoa.

[Green Cochoa]

Johann,

What you say is true. Some people misuse Mrs. White's writings. But I'm sure you would agree that it would be disingenuous to claim that Mrs. White taught that no one should use her writings just because they might be misused by someone.

I am not a sympathizer with Hope International's interpretations. They may not use Mrs. White's writings in a balanced way nor in their proper context. Their views have seemed to be against the church, and Mrs. White's writings are in support of the church.

This thread is relating to a topic in which the Bible is seemingly being interpreted in a manner that would be against the church--to say that the feasts should still be kept when Mrs. White clearly says otherwise. To refrain from using Mrs. White's writings to defend these important truths would not be a misuse of them, nor would Mrs. White have prohibited such usage of her writings.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Ron Amnsn]

It is good that you are referencing what Mrs. White has to say on these things. According to your interpretation of her writings, all things spiritual should be defined and understood by the Bible, is this right?

Green, I didn't quote EGW in order to establish what I believe. What I believe is determined by Scripture. Some SDA's don't accept what Scripture teaches unless EGW endorses that teaching (which means they consider EGW authoritative, but do not consider the Bible to be authoritative). I quoted EGW for those people. I was showing that their method of using EGW's writings is contrary to what EGW herself taught.

The scriptures do teach that our beliefs and actions should agree with Scripture.

I believe further that Scripture must be interpreted in the complete context, so that each passage means (as much as we are able to determine) what it meant to the person who originally wrote it. So we are not free to redefine the words to our own liking and traditions. For example, when some SDA's read Isaiah 8:20, "To the law and to the testimony: If they speak not according to this word, It is because there is no light in them, " they interpret "law" as the "ten commandments" and "testimony" as the writings of EGW, making the verse mean something totally different than what it meant to Isaiah when it was written. So we know it is impossible for that interpretation to be valid. In Isaiah's day "the law" referred to the book (or scroll) of the law written by Moses, and "testimony" referred to the writings of Torah-observant men that testified about God's dealings with his people-- the prophets, history, and psalms. Of course, to Isaiah that would not have included the books of the Bible that would be written after this verse was written. So the first books of the Bible carry more authority than the books that came later.

[Ron Amnsn]

How does the Bible define "scripture?" What verses would you use to find the Bible's own definition of this term?

One of the marks of authenticity of the Bible is that it doesn't waste any effort trying to prove its own validity (which would involve circular reasoning exemplified by a sentence like, "This sentence is true because it declares itself to be true," which invokes a logical fallacy).

The word "scripture" just means "writings", which in some contexts could mean all existing writings without regard to whether those writings were pagan, secular, or sacred.

But if we're talking about the sacred Scriptures then we have definite criteria to filter out writings that don't belong. First, we start with God's first written revelation about Himself, Genesis, as the foundation of the truth. Everything that comes after Genesis has to agree with Genesis, or it isn't truth. Then we add the other writings by the same author, Moses. Within the Books of Moses we hear the story of how God spoke from Sinai to prove to the people that it was God speaking, and that Moses was His servant with whom God spoke face to face. We aren't just accepting Moses' word that what he wrote was true-- we have the testimony of men like Caleb and Joshua and the whole assembly of Israelites who were present at Sinai and who preserved the writings of Moses because they knew the author and they knew it to contain the words of God spoken to Moses. So the "Book of the Law" written by Moses became accepted by the people of God as the first sacred Scripture. Those writings became known as "the Law". From there on, the process continued, with each author living according to instructions given to Moses, and each known by the community of the Israelites. If the life and teachings of an author agreed with the writings previously known to be true, then the writings were preserved as Scripture. If there was evidence that the author was a prophet and that the words were directly from God, then the writings were added to "the Prophets" section of Scripture, otherwise they were added to "the Writings" section of Scripture.

The life and teachings of Jesus give us an additional checkpoint to confirm that the Scriptures that existed at that time were true. The Jews did not call the existing Scriptures the "Old Testament" as we do now. They were known as "the Law" (the Books of Moses, or Torah), "the Prophets" (the major and minor prophets) and "the Writings" (the books of history and poetry, etc.). Jesus quoted from many of the books of Scripture that existed at that time, and he also endorsed, as a whole, the sections of Scripture known as "the Law" and "the Prophets". The Scriptures used by the Jews were also used as Scripture by Messiah.

If Jesus had taught contrary to the existing Scripture of his day, he would have disqualified himself as Messiah in the eyes of all the people who were wanting to obey God.

The same is true of the apostles who wrote the New Testament. If they had not lived according to existing Scripture and written in agreement with existing Scripture, their writings would not have come to be accepted by the community of believers as Scripture.

After the death of the original apostles, the great apostasy that had been foretold by Paul to be characterized by "lawlessness" or "Torah-lessness" came to the forefront of Christianity. After AD 135 or so, none of the Gentile Christians were living or teaching according to existing Scripture and the Jewish Christians were persecuted by the others, so it became impossible for more writings to be added to sacred Scripture. There were lots of things written, some of them beneficial, but none of the authors were living according to previously existing Scripture, and none of the writings passed the test of agreeing with previous Scripture.

Those of us who have grown up during the great apostasy think it is normal and even beneficial to set aside the foundation of Scripture, the Books of Moses. But Scripture teaches otherwise. EGW did well by pointing people back to the Scriptures, but her writings will never qualify as Scripture themselves because they lack the qualities of sacred Scripture.

[Ron Amnsn]

In which of Mrs. White's statements did she say that her writings were not scripture?

[Ron Amnsn]

When Paul referred to the scriptures, he did not mean to include his own writings, did he? Do you believe his writings are scripture? If so, why? If Mrs. White referred to the Bible as scripture, and not her own writings, how would she be any different from Paul? In other words, if you reject her writings as being scripture for the reasons you have stated above, how can you without contradiction claim that Paul's writings are scripture?

I think I answered this in a previous post.

Paul's life and teachings as a believer agreed with all previous Scripture (when interpreted in the full context). EGW's didn't, although she did a lot to help people move closer to following Scripture.

[Textus Receptus]

http://egw-sdaresearch.ncu.edu.jm/articles/july2004_feasts_ofthe_Lord.asp

[8thdaypriest]

I must say, your dialog has motivated me to go back and read thru Galatians, Ephesians, and Hebrews.

The question is: WAS PAUL INSPIRED by Christ?? Christ is the "one mediator" so He would be the one to communicate with men (Old Testament AND New).

Paul says that he received his gospel directly from Christ.

Galatians 1:12 "For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ."

The LORD gave Paul credibility in the eyes of the early congregation, thru miracles and such, which is why his letters were copied and preserved.

Seventeen years AFTER the Damascus road conversion, Paul says that he went up to Jerusalem "by revelation" meaning the LORD told him to go there. And he says that Titus was with him on that trip. "Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised." (Gal. 2:5) We assume that Titus was one of the "Gentiles in Christ"(3:14).

If Paul was inspired, and he was writing to those who "desire to be under the law" (Gal 4:21), who want every believer to be physically circumcised and to swear to keep ALL the Torah, then what do we do with Chapter 5 ?

"Do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law keeping; you have fallen from grace." "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avail anything, but faith working through love."

Sounds like circumcision was part of the "yoke of bondage" that Paul is arguing against.

To become circumcised meant MUCH MORE than simply the physical change to the body part. It meant that one had sworn to keep the entire TORAH including the sacrifice of animals and the pilgrimage to Jerusalem three times in the year. It meant one had become a proselyte.

Without circumcision, one could NOT enter the Temple court to offer sacrifice! (Eze. 44:7&9). Paul is advocating a departure from circumcision. Now - according to Torah, a man may NOT eat of the Passover, without being physically circumcised first (Exo. 12:43-49).

So - without physical circumcision - there is no need to travel to Jerusalem to partake of the Passover - as commanded by the LORD thru Moses.

SO - did Paul get his message directly from Christ - or NOT?

The other day Ron asked if there is any Old Testament passage which suggests a change.

How about Jeremiah 3:14-16

NIV Jeremiah 3:14 "Return, faithless people," declares the LORD, "for I am your husband. I will choose you-- one from a town and two from a clan-- and bring you to Zion. 15 Then I will give you shepherds after my own heart, who will lead you with knowledge and understanding. 16 In those days, when your numbers have increased greatly in the land," declares the LORD, "people will no longer say, 'The ark of the covenant of the LORD.' It will never enter their minds or be remembered; it will not be missed, nor will another one be made. (Jer 3:14 NIV)

www.prophecyviewpoint.com

Shalom

[Ron Amnsn]

http://egw-sdaresearch.ncu.edu.jm/articles/july2004_feasts_ofthe_Lord.asp

The article tries to add things to Scripture that are not said in Scripture.

Here's just one example. It says, "The Passover was to be a perpetual observance among the Israelites – until type should meet antitype." The Scriptures don't say anything about "until type should meet antitype". That is a man-made doctrine created to set-aside (if possible) the instructions of God.

God has never said, "Every element of Passover has already been totally fulfilled by Jesus." People have been asserting that for centuries, but they are apparently not familiar with the Scriptures and they probably can not read the mind and thoughts of God. Nor has God said, "I didn't really mean what I commanded about celebrating Passover forever in remembrance of Israel's deliverance from Egypt."

At what Christians call the "Last Supper" Jesus said, "I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I shall never again eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God." (Luke 22:15-16) If Passover was totally fulfilled at the death of Jesus, then Jesus would have been able to start eating the Passover again in the kingdom of God the very next year. That seems unlikely though. It sounds like Jesus was probably referring to a future event that would include his disciples such as the one Peter mentioned in Acts 3:21, "until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time."

God told the Israelites to observe Passover to commemorate their freedom from bondage in Egypt. Jesus told his disciples to do Passover "in remembrance of Me", commemorating deliverance from the bondage of sin. Because God's people are still not totally free of the effects of sin, it is quite possible that Passover will have one more fulfillment when God's people are finally released from the effects of sin and death.

[Ron Amnsn]

If Paul was inspired, and he was writing to those who "desire to be under the law" (Gal 4:21), who want every believer to be physically circumcised and to swear to keep ALL the Torah, then what do we do with Chapter 5 ?

"Do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law keeping; you have fallen from grace." "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avail anything, but faith working through love."

Sounds like circumcision was part of the "yoke of bondage" that Paul is arguing against.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

At what Christians call the "Last Supper" Jesus said, "I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I shall never again eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God." (Luke 22:15-16) If Passover was totally fulfilled at the death of Jesus, then Jesus would have been able to start eating the Passover again in the kingdom of God the very next year.

Why would Jesus continue celebrating the passover feast when He, as the passover Lamb which the passover feast pointed forward to,

had sacrificed Himself, the Lamb of God and entered into Heaven to make sure all He had wished to fulfill on this earth had been accepted.

"Jesus *said to her, “Mary!” She turned and *said to Him in Hebrew, “Rabboni!” (which means, Teacher). Jesus *said to her, “Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.’” Mary Magdalene *came, announcing to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord,” and that He had said these things to her."John 20:16-18 NASB brackets their's LHC

God cares!

[Ron Amnsn]

Why would Jesus continue celebrating the passover feast when He, as the passover Lamb which the passover feast pointed forward to, had sacrificed Himself, the Lamb of God and entered into Heaven to make sure all He had wished to fulfill on this earth had been accepted.

Because it is written in the Scriptures, "Now this day will be a memorial to you, and you shall celebrate it as a feast to the LORD; throughout your generations you are to celebrate it as a permanent ordinance." (Exo 12:14)

And because it is written in the Scriptures, "And you shall observe this event as an ordinance for you and your children forever. When you enter the land which the LORD will give you, as He has promised, you shall observe this rite. And when your children say to you, 'What does this rite mean to you?' you shall say, 'It is a Passover sacrifice to the LORD who passed over the houses of the sons of Israel in Egypt when He smote the Egyptians, but spared our homes.'" (Exodus 12:25-27)

And because it is also written in the Scriptures, "It is a night to be observed for the LORD for having brought them out from the land of Egypt; this night is for the LORD, to be observed by all the sons of Israel throughout their generations." (Exodus 12:42)

And because it is written in the Scriptures, "Observe the month of Abib and celebrate the Passover to the LORD your God, for in the month of Abib the LORD your God brought you out of Egypt by night." (Deut 16:1)

Jesus knew about these Scriptures. So should you.

Yes, those who read the New Testament know now that the Passover sacrifice pointed forward to Jesus' sacrifice. But that was not the reason that God gave the Israelites for observing Passover. The original reason was to commemorate the Lord's deliverance of Israel from Egypt. That is one of the reasons for observing Passover that the Scriptures teach. That reason is still perfectly valid and will continue to be a valid reason to celebrate Passover throughout the generations of the Israelites, just as God instructed. The other reason that Scriptures give for observing Passover is because "Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed." (1 Corinthians 5:7-8)

The Scriptures I quoted above are not hidden away in some secret document. They are available in every Bible on earth. Yet people keep claiming erroneously on this thread that the only valid reason to observe Passover was to point forward to the death of Jesus. Don't you folks read the Scriptures for yourselves? Or do you only read the anti-Scriptural propaganda that tells you (contrary to what Scripture says) that the only valid reason to observe Passover was to point forward to the death of Jesus? Every anti-feastkeeping article, book, and video I've seen makes the same ignorant claim. The claim is false. How long will people keep teaching falsehoods about Passover?

God instructed the Israelites to observe the Passover throughout their generations as a memorial to commemorate Israel's deliverance from Egypt. The death of Messiah does not change God's instructions in any way. There is not one verse in Scripture that even hints that God's original reason for instructing the Israelites to observe the Passover is no longer valid.