Gen 26:5?

[Green Cochoa]

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.

...

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.

Ron,

Did Paul think his writings superseded scripture? Of course not. I'm sure he felt his writings were not scripture. I don't know of any Bible prophet, with the possible exception of Moses or Jeremiah, who would have felt that his writings were scripture. Nor did the Bible prophets refer to just any writings as "scripture." Yet, in your attempt to redefine scripture would you broaden it to include your shopping list? After all, it is something written, right?

If scripture is anything written, we have much scripture to work with in the world today.

Where do Mrs. White's writings disagree with scripture? I understand them to agree. Actually, Paul's writings may have differed from scripture as much or more than those of Mrs. White.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Ron Amnsn]

Did Paul think his writings superseded scripture? Of course not. I'm sure he felt his writings were not scripture. I don't know of any Bible prophet, with the possible exception of Moses or Jeremiah, who would have felt that his writings were scripture.

[Ron Amnsn]

As for showing that feast day observance is no longer necessary, you show from scripture that:

1. The commandments of God and the law of Moses are distinctly separate

2. That the commandments of God do not include any such requirement for feast keeping.

3. That the would be Saints of God are required to keep the commandments of God and not required to keep the Law of Moses.

Hi Jackson,

I'll respond to your longer post later. But I just wanted to respond quickly to this outline.

1.

The "ten commandments" are not distinctly separate from the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses was written on the "Scroll of the Law" that was placed near the Ark of the Covenant within the Most Holy Place of the sanctuary. There was maybe a 9-inch separation. Scripture is totally silent about the significance of that 9-inch separation. All the explanations about the significance of that 9-inch separation are man-made speculation and non-Scriptural.

The "ten commandments" were recorded within in the Scroll of the Law that was placed beside the ark (see Exodus 20:2-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21). Since the "ten commandments" are found within the Scroll of the Law, they are not actually separate. The "ten commandments" were also placed within the Ark of the Covenant because that Ark was a container specifically built to safeguard the document of the covenant.

2.

You are forcing a narrow non-Scriptural definition onto the word "commandments". In the original Hebrew (and in the Greek Septuagint), the "ten commandments" are actually called the "Ten Words", not the "ten commandments".

Using "commandments" to refer to the "Ten Words" is a mistranslation that misleads many Christians to think that the word "commandment" refers only to the "Ten Words. Using free Bible software like e-Sword, it takes only a simple search of the Hebrew or the Septuagint to verify that the words translated as "commandment" in the New Testament refer not to just the Ten Words, but to dozens of "commandments" of God within the Law of Moses.

3.

I agree that God expects his people today to keep his "commandments", most of which are found within the Law of Moses.

When Jesus was asked which was the greatest "commandment", he selected one from the Law of Moses, not from the Ten Words (Deut 6:4-5). The second-greatest "commandment" that Jesus selected was also found in the Law of Moses, not in the Ten Words (Leviticus 19:18).

[joeb]

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.

Just to add to what you're saying here, no NT writer referred to his writings as "scripture". When they quoted scripture it was always the OT. Even Jesus didn't refer to His own words as scripture. When He referred_to/quoted scripture He was referring_to/quoting the OT.

This idea that Ron is throwing out here is another one of his red herrings.

[Hair]

The Torah, the prophets, and the history, what we call the Old Testament: when Jesus says things like "the law and the prophets". Doesn't that mean the "scriptures" that they had at that time?

I mean, 2,000 years ago, if you asked a Jew what we should do, wouldn't they say something like follow the law and the prophets or the Torah and the prophets... like today we would say follow the scriptures or follow the Bible? We wouldn't mean literally, but the teachings of it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't God's 10 commandments (words) part of the Torah, and there are many other rules that are part of the Torah, like not wearing shoes made of both leather and cloth and burning down your house if you find mold in it. If I remember there's some crazy stuff in there like that... and how to treat others that owe you and how to deal with slaves etc. Isn't all that part of the Torah?

What do you do with all that stuff? Do we live by those rules too? If not, won't we burn in Hell for that too, as we will if we do not keep the Feast Days?

I know feast keepers get upset when we distinguish between the 5 different types of laws: Natural Laws (like gravity), Health Laws, Civil Law, Ceremonial laws, and God's Moral Law. They (feast keepers) say that there is no separation and separating them has no scriptural support, but it does seem that there are some differences in how these laws are managed, given, stored, etc. in the OT. It does seems like they are treated differently.

Both sides, as I think, agree that circumcision is no longer required. If that law was removed and replaced spiritually, and it was the "door" for participation in any of these ceremonies, then wouldn't it be plausible that the others have been replaced spiritually as well?

I don't know...I'm just kicking my thoughts around here.

[Ron Amnsn]

Just to add to what you're saying here, no NT writer referred to his writings as "scripture". When they quoted scripture it was always the OT. Even Jesus didn't refer to His own words as scripture. When He referred_to/quoted scripture He was referring_to/quoting the OT.

[Hair]

It all depends - is this red herring that we are referring clean or unclean??

[joeb]

Originally Posted By: joeb

Just to add to what you're saying here, no NT writer referred to his writings as "scripture". When they quoted scripture it was always the OT. Even Jesus didn't refer to His own words as scripture. When He referred_to/quoted scripture He was referring_to/quoting the OT.

Agreed.

Originally Posted By: joeb

This idea that Ron is throwing out here is another one of his red herrings.

You quoted Green Cochoa, not Ron, so it's not clear what I said that you consider to be a "red herring". Not adding to or subtracting from God's Word is something that is considered important in Scripture.

I'm referring to your objection to considering Ellen White to be inspired, in that she didn't refer to her own writings as "scripture". As I pointed out, Jesus didn't even refer to His own words as "scripture", so your insinuation is a red herring.

What I find interesting in your posts is that if Ellen White disagrees with your interpretation of scripture she isn't inspired because, you say, she doesn't agree with scripture. Who made you the inspired source of commentary on scripture?

[Ron Amnsn]

I'm referring to your objection to considering Ellen White to be inspired, in that she didn't refer to her own writings as "scripture". As I pointed out, Jesus didn't even refer to His own words as "scripture", so your insinuation is a red herring.

[8thdaypriest]

But Paul wasn't speaking against the kind of circumcision which he performed on Timothy -- the kind that was the sign of Abraham's covenant and was commanded in Torah. That type of circumcision, which the "circumcision party" did not consider valid for Gentiles, was probably the kind of circumcision that Titus already had when he went to Jerusalem with Paul.

So Paul told the Galatians that Titus was NOT circumcised.

But Ron says that he WAS circumcised.

Who ya gonna believe.

I choose Paul.

Timothy was a different story:

Acts 16:3 Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. (Act 16:3 NIV)

Doesn't say that Paul circumcised Timothy because it was necessary for his salvation. It says he did it solely to avoid arguments from the Jews, who would reject him AND Paul, and cause a distracting disturbance, because the young man was HALF Jewish.

The following verse (Acts 16:4) says that Paul and Timothy "delivered to them the decrees to keep, which were determined by the apostles and elders at Jerusalem.

So what were the decrees, and WHY was the Jerusalem Council sending out these decrees anyway?

It was about circumcision.

NIV Acts 15:1 Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." (Act 15:1 NIV)

15:2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. (Act 15:2 NIV)

What question? Circumcision - required or not??

So - at the meeting Paul and the Peter testify to say that God is pouring out His Spirit on UNCIRCUMCISED Gentiles. He is "purifying their hearts by faith." So "why do you test God by putting a yoke on their neck" ??

The council's decision does NOT mention any requirement for circumcision. v. 19-20 & 28-29.

The believing Pharisees (the circumcision party) who had come from Jerusalem to Antioch, and disputed with Paul were NOT sent from the Jerusalem council. See verse 24.

This whole council was sparked by the issue of circumcision.

Because without it, one CANNOT eat of the Passover, and CANNOT enter the Temple Court (Feast or not).

It is foundational to the discussion here about the Feasts.

Shalom

www.prophecyviewpoint.com

[8thdaypriest]

Hair,

I liked how you pointed out several Torah commands that are not practical to keep today.

I have studied the list of 613 commands in the Torah. It is available on the net, if you google it.

Most of them can still be obeyed today. But a few are not quite feasible.

Like not wearing clothing made of two different type fabrics. Everything out there is a blend nowadays.

Like stoning people: for adultery, for homosexual acts, for communicating with the dead, etc. etc. We don't stone people anymore - unless you live in Iran.

Like the jealous husband taking his wife to the priest, who makes her drink the bitter waters, which will kill her if she has been unfaithful.

Some of those commands had to do with the land - inheritance in the land.

Like a man (married or not) had to sleep with his widowed sister-in-law until she gave birth to a male heir for her dead husband's estate.

Like the land had to be returned to the original owner at the 50th year.

How could we today even determine WHO the original Israelite owner WAS?

Concerning the Feasts:

I believe they WILL be celebrated for all eternity - as memorials of the great events in the victory over Satan and sin. But for now - we do NOT have the Temple, and we do NOT have a priesthood, and physical circumcision is NOT necessary. So we CANNOT "keep" them in the way originally commanded.

I do think it is good to stop and commemorate them at the times they are celebrated in the Jewish calendar. Be reminded of all they prophesied. It's a whole lot better than celebrating the winter solstice or the goddess of fertility (Easter).

Shalom

www.prophecyviewpoint.com

[8thdaypriest]

WHEN you are come to "the land." Lev. 23:10, Lev. 25:2, Num. 15:2, Num. 15:18.

Num. 34:2 outlines the borders of this promised "land." At present it is STILL not occupied by the LORD's Israel (the redeemed).

NKJ Exodus 12:25 "It will come to pass when you come to the land which the LORD will give you, just as He promised, that you shall keep this service (Passover). (Exo 12:25 NKJ)

NKJ Exodus 13:5 "And it shall be, when the LORD brings you into the land of the Canaanites and the Hittites and the Amorites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, which He swore to your fathers to give you, a land flowing with milk and honey, that you shall keep this service in this month (Feast of Unleavened Bread). (Exo 13:5 NKJ)

WE ARE NOT YET - "come to the land."

We are still in the wilderness.

When we "come into the land" - THEN we will keep the Feasts.

THEN we will be circumcised by Christ Himself.

We will present Christ Himself as our Passover sacrifice.

It is soooooo simple.

www.prophecyviewpoint.com

Shalom

[Ron Amnsn]

So Paul told the Galatians that Titus was NOT circumcised?

But Ron says that he WAS circumcised.

In which verse did Paul actually say that Titus was NOT circumcised?

Remember, we're working with two different definitions of "circumcision".

• The man-made method of Jewish tradition, which over the centuries had become the status quo for male Gentile proselytes to Judaism. Proselytes were not circumcised until they had completed extensive training in the Law of Moses and in the traditional man-made laws of the Jews (oral law) and had made a solemn vow to keep it all. This year-long circumcision program supposedly turned a Gentile into a Jew, which it was believed, was the only way that a Gentile could be saved. The circumcision itself, which was performed at the culmination of the proselyte program, had to be done according to the traditions of the Jews, with three Jewish witnesses, etc.
• God's method, which God instructed Abraham to do to his descendants and to their purchased servants (Genesis 17). This circumcision is what is commanded in the Law of Moses. When it is done to baby boys it is done on the 8th day. When it is done to men who are older than 8 days, it can be done without preconditions and without witnesses, as soon as the same day it is requested, or when a servant is purchased (with money) by a descendant of Abraham.

Someone who is circumcised according the traditional Jewish method meets the requirements of Abraham's covenant, but someone circumcised according to God's method does not meet the requirements of Jewish tradition and would be considered "uncircumcised" by those of the Circumcision Party.

There are still other methods of circumcision mentioned in Scripture.

• Circumcision of the heart. This is referred to in both the Old Testament (Deut 10:16, Deut 30:6, Jer 4:4) and the New Testaement (Romans 2:29).
• Circumcision made without hands, or circumcision of Christ. (Col 2:11)

Are you suggesting, Rachel, that Titus had not been circumcised at all by any of these methods of circumcision?

By the way, Gentiles who accept Jesus as Lord become purchased servants of Jesus, who is a descendant of Abraham.

[Dr. Waite]

Originally Posted By: joeb

I'm referring to your objection to considering Ellen White to be inspired, in that she didn't refer to her own writings as "scripture". As I pointed out, Jesus didn't even refer to His own words as "scripture", so your insinuation is a red herring.

JoeB, I didn't say anything about EGW not being inspired. I have said her writings were not Scripture, and I have shown from EGW's own writings that she was of the same opinion. I firmly believe that God speaks to his people through the Holy Spirit. But not every inspired person writes Scripture, and being inspired doesn't mean that everything the person says is error-free. For example, King David was inspired, and even wrote some of Scripture, yet not everything he wrote became Scripture, and some of what he said was evil-- like his command to have Uriah the Hittite killed in battle.

Originally Posted By: joeb

What I find interesting in your posts is that if Ellen White disagrees with your interpretation of scripture she isn't inspired because, you say, she doesn't agree with scripture. Who made you the inspired source of commentary on scripture?

I make no claim to being inspired.

I'm not the only one who sees that EGW doesn't agree with the Scripture passages I have posted. Some who are participating in this thread see the conflict between what Moses wrote and what EGW wrote, but apparently believe that EGW was justified in contradicting what Moses wrote, as if EGW had the authority to nullify the Word of God.

You are welcome to show from Scripture where I have erred. When I have previously asked questions about how you would resolve the apparent contradictions you have declined to answer. I'm willing to learn, but I'm not willing to accept man-made doctrines that contradict what is written in Scripture.

JoeB, in a way you and I are in the same boat regarding the writings of EGW. I disagree with her when it appears that her writings disagree with what is written in Scripture. You seem to disagree with EGW when she says her writings are not Scripture, are not on the same level as Scripture, and should be tested by Scripture.

Have you noticed what it says in SDA Fundamental Belief #18?

Quote:

18. The Gift of Prophecy:

One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White . As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested.

So, how do we go about actually testing the teachings of EGW by the Bible? The official Fundamental Beliefs of the SDA church says "the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested." But nobody here seems to know how to do that when it comes to the writings of EGW. There appears to be a large discrepancy between the official public statement and what the members are actually taught in practice.

SDAs, including EGW, during the lifetime of Ellen White believed and taught the following:

"That the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, were given by inspiration of God, contain a full revelation of his will to man, and are the only infallible rule of faith and practice."

Ellen White wrote this:

"But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines, and the basis of all reforms. The opinions of learned men, the deductions of science, the creeds or decisions of ecclesiastical councils, as numerous and discordant as are the churches which they represent, the voice of the majority,-- not one or all of these should be regarded as evidence for or against any point of religious faith. Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain "Thus saith the Lord" in its support." {GC88 595.1}

[8thdaypriest]

Ron said,

"Remember, we're working with two different definitions of "circumcision". "

Rachel replies:

No Ron. YOU are working with two different definitions of physical circumcision.

I only know of ONE type of physical circumcision. The ONE commanded in the LAW of MOSES, which began with Abraham.

Just because the Pharisees required a very long process before they would approve one being physically circumcised, doesn't mean that it was a different KIND.

And yes, I'm sure that Titus was being spiritually circumcised - just like all of us are in that process. My point is that it is a process, and will NOT be complete for all of Israel redeemed UNTIL "the 8th Day."

I think that is why the word "sealed" is in the aorist tense in the Greek. It means that a process has begun which (if not deterred) will end in perfect completion.

NKJ 2 Corinthians 1:22 who also has sealed us and given us the Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee. (2Co 1:22 NKJ)

It could better be translated "who also is sealing us"

Interesting that the tense changes at Rev. 7:3, where the 144,000 are presented as "sealed" - perfect tense - done deal.

Shalom

[8thdaypriest]

I see the physical Israel of the Torah, as the type and shadow of Israel redeemed.

Our journey through this wilderness, from slavery in Egypt (under Satan) to the promised land, was portrayed in that story. Physical circumcision was the symbol which the LORD chose, to represent Abraham's covenant promise. Those with this physical sign would be entitled to the covenant promise - so long as they remained faithful to the terms of that covenant.

In Romans, Paul is saying that those with the same faith (which Abraham had) would also be entitled to this covenant promise, whether or NOT they were physically circumcised, BECAUSE the LORD has declared them legally adopted - as descendants of Abraham. They are NOW sons, not simply slaves. We cry out "Abba" - "Father".

NKJ Romans 4:11 And he (Abraham) received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness (right standing before God) might be imputed to them also, (Rom 4:11 NKJ)

I believe that physical circumcision actually symbolizes the change from physical "flesh" to immortal spiritual "flesh." Joshua circumcised the people AFTER they cross the Jordan. Jesus will circumcise US - when we are "changed in a moment" and given new spiritual bodies.

NKJ 1 Corinthians 15:44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. (1Co 15:44 NKJ)

Physical circumcision symbolized THIS transition.

Shalom

Rachel

[8thdaypriest]

Does every discussion have to end with a debate on whether EVERY written statement made by Ellen White was inspired of God?

[Ron Amnsn]

I only know of ONE type of physical circumcision. The ONE commanded in the LAW of MOSES, which began with Abraham.

Just because the Pharisees required a very long process before they would approve one being physically circumcised, doesn't mean that it was a different KIND.

Paul believed there were different kinds of circumcision. He wrote to the Galatians, "Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you." (Gal 5:2) Yet, later Paul circumcised Timothy. If there were only one type of physical circumcision, then Paul's action made it so that Christ was of no benefit to Timothy. If you believe Paul was that kind of a mega-hypocrite, I don't see why you pay any attention to anything he wrote (except that you seem to be intent on having parts of God's law annulled, and the traditional Christian interpretations of Paul's epistles seem to support that position, in a shallow and out-of-context sort of way).

The Circumcision Party also thought their Circumcision was a different kind than the circumcision practiced by some of the surrounding nations. They would discriminate against anyone without a traditional Jewish circumcision-- just as Orthodox Jews today discriminate against those Gentiles who go through a conversion process supervised by Conservative Jews or Reform Jews.

If I walked into an Orthodox Jewish synagogue today, they would think my circumcision was not sufficient to make me a full member in the synagogue. I'd have to go through their proselyte process, just like the Galatians were expecting the Gentile believers to go through the full traditional proselyte program that would supposedly change them into a Jew. And in the end I'd have to be re-circumcised according to traditional Jewish standards.

There are different kinds of circumcision in the Jewish world, which is the audience Paul was writing his epistles to.

Paul was not against physical circumcision. Not one of his statements against circumcision pertains to the circumcision of baby boys on the 8th day. Paul's statements only pertain to people that are old enough to make choices for themselves.

There was something about the traditional Circumcision program for Gentile proselytes that Paul was strongly against.

It could have been the required vow to keep all of the oral law of Jewish traditions that Paul objected to.

Or it could have been something about the timing-- perhaps it was making Gentiles wait until they finished the lengthy proselyte training that preceded a traditional Circumcision before they could be fully accepted into fellowship. Or perhaps if the Gentiles read in the Scriptures about circumcision and wanted to be circumcised (as some choose today), Paul may have objected to making them wait to complete the traditional Circumcision training program.

Or Paul may have objected to the motivation that was used to convince Gentiles to be circumcised. The doctrine that salvation was only available to Gentiles who went through the traditional Circumcision program for proselytes (which supposedly transformed Gentiles into Jews) is contrary to both the Old Testament and the gospel.

Most likely it was a combination of many factors, but especially the man-made traditions that had been adopted which were contrary to God's Law.

[Ron Amnsn]

SDAs, including EGW, during the lifetime of Ellen White believed and taught the following:

"That the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, were given by inspiration of God, contain a full revelation of his will to man, and are the only infallible rule of faith and practice."

Ellen White wrote this:

"But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines, and the basis of all reforms. The opinions of learned men, the deductions of science, the creeds or decisions of ecclesiastical councils, as numerous and discordant as are the churches which they represent, the voice of the majority,-- not one or all of these should be regarded as evidence for or against any point of religious faith. Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain "Thus saith the Lord" in its support." {GC88 595.1}

Thank you. I can agree with that.

[Ron Amnsn]

And yes, I'm sure that Titus was being spiritually circumcised - just like all of us are in that process.

So, are you retracting your previous assertion that Paul said Titus was NOT circumcised? Or did you find a verse where Paul actually says that?

[Ron Amnsn]

Timothy was a different story:

Acts 16:3 Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. (Act 16:3 NIV)

Doesn't say that Paul circumcised Timothy because it was necessary for his salvation. It says he did it solely to avoid arguments from the Jews, who would reject him AND Paul, and cause a distracting disturbance, because the young man was HALF Jewish.

The following verse (Acts 16:4) says that Paul and Timothy "delivered to them the decrees to keep, which were determined by the apostles and elders at Jerusalem.

So what were the decrees, and WHY was the Jerusalem Council sending out these decrees anyway?

It was about circumcision.

Paul was not one prone to avoiding disturbances, especially if it gave him an opportunity to teach truth.

It is true that Timothy's mother was Jewish, but that is not what is mentioned in connection with Timothy's circumcision. It is Timothy's Greek father that is mentioned. Everyone knew that Timothy was uncircumcised and half Gentile, which would have made him a hugely powerful "Exhibit A" as evidence in support of the decree of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), if their decision had actually been primarily about Gentiles not being circumcised. Paul could have taken with him a Gentile who was uncircumcised even though he had a Jewish mother. That would have forever settled the issue for all Gentiles, even those who might have some Jewish ancestors (as most of us probably do).

If Paul had been purposely looking for a way to take the wind out of the sails of the Council's decree, he couldn't have found a better way to do so than by circumcising Timothy and doing it just before taking Timothy with him to deliver that decision to the congregations. If the decision reached in Acts 15 had been primarily about circumcision, Paul would have been much better off leaving Timothy's circumcision until a more propitious circumstance and/or leaving Timothy at home with his kinfolk.

What was Paul thinking? Obviously he wasn't thinking what Christians have been thinking for hundreds of years. If placed in that situation, even the most slow-witted Christian would have shaken his head and said, "Paul, don't do that, especially not now !"

[Hair]

Originally Posted By: 8thdaypriest

Timothy was a different story:

Acts 16:3 Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. (Act 16:3 NIV)

Doesn't say that Paul circumcised Timothy because it was necessary for his salvation. It says he did it solely to avoid arguments from the Jews, who would reject him AND Paul, and cause a distracting disturbance, because the young man was HALF Jewish.

The following verse (Acts 16:4) says that Paul and Timothy "delivered to them the decrees to keep, which were determined by the apostles and elders at Jerusalem.

So what were the decrees, and WHY was the Jerusalem Council sending out these decrees anyway?

It was about circumcision.

Paul was not one prone to avoiding disturbances, especially if it gave him an opportunity to teach truth.

It is true the Timothy's mother was Jewish, but that is not what is mentioned in connection with Timothy's circumcision. It is Timothy's Greek father that is mentioned. Everyone knew that Timothy was uncircumcised and half Gentile, which would have made him a hugely powerful "Exhibit A" as evidence in support of the decree of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), if their decision had actually been primarily about Gentiles not being circumcised. Paul could have taken with him a Gentile who was uncircumcised even though he had a Jewish mother. That would have forever settled the issue for all Gentiles, even those who might have some Jewish ancestors (as most of us probably do).

If Paul had been purposely looking for a way to take the wind out of the sails of the Council's decree, he couldn't have found a better way to do so than by circumcising Timothy and doing it just before taking Timothy with him to deliver that decision to the congregations. If the decision reached in Acts 15 had been primarily about circumcision, Paul would have been much better off leaving Timothy's circumcision until a more propitious circumstance and/or leaving Timothy at home with his kinfolk.

What was Paul thinking? Obviously he wasn't thinking what Christians have been thinking for hundreds of years. If placed in that situation, even the most slow-witted Christian would have shaken his head and said, "Paul, don't do that, especially not now !"

I agree with 8THday on this - the Bible plainly says in Acts 16:3 that he circumcised him "because of the Jews" it also plainly says in Gal 2:3 "Titus, being a Greek" was not circumcised. Then in several places Paul plainly says that circumcision is not required. It seems obvious that Timothy was circumcised to make him acceptable for the Jewish evangelism work. As a matter of fact, Paul states this very thing in I Cor 9:20 - "and unto the Jews I became as a Jew that I might gain the Jews"

I think the Bible is very clear on this and 8THday is correct.

[Gerr]

If you want to hear from an SDA pastor who seems to know the arguments of the Feast Keepers & rebuts them very well, you might want to see Pastor St. Hilare's (sp) presentation.

[Ron Amnsn]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't God's 10 commandments (words) part of the Torah, and there are many other rules that are part of the Torah, like not wearing shoes made of both leather and cloth and burning down your house if you find mold in it. If I remember there's some crazy stuff in there like that... and how to treat others that owe you and how to deal with slaves etc. Isn't all that part of the Torah?

What do you do with all that stuff? Do we live by those rules too? If not, won't we burn in Hell for that too, as we will if we do not keep the Feast Days?

Hair,

First, Torah doesn't say anything about Hell. I don't remember it making any threats about the afterlife. And it says very little about Heaven (just stuff like the ladder in Jacob's dream reaching up to heaven). It doesn't deal with the afterlife. It deals with how to live this life to honor God. Most people who want to follow Torah aren't doing it to earn Heaven nor to avoid Hell. We have an awesome God who gave us good laws for our own good in this life. Jesus followed Torah and we want to follow Jesus.

Next, nobody is expected to follow all the rules in Torah. Some pertain to men, some to women, some to kings, some to slaves, some to soldiers, some to farmers, some to slave owners, some to judges and lots pertain to priests. We can only follow the laws that pertain to us in the situation where we are.

Scripture teaches that God's instructions in Torah are good and perfect. So it is worthwhile to spend some time thinking about those instructions and what is good about them. Ever since the Garden of Eden, Satan has been trying to convince humans that God's laws are bad laws, and he's been quite successful. So much so that when we are unfamiliar with Torah, we find many of God's laws repulsive, without ever taking the time to think about those laws, and how the world would be in the long run if those laws were followed.

Once you study Torah, you find that the laws aren't nearly as cumbersome as they look at first glance. (There are fewer rules than for a professional hockey or football game, and we call those activities "fun".)

There are some instructions in the Torah we can't follow when Israel is in exile and in subjection to the laws of the countries where God has scattered us. So, for example, we don't stone people for the various infractions for which Torah specifies stoning. That doesn't mean those aren't good laws, it just means we can't follow them right now.

When I started wanting to follow Torah, the law that I found the most challenging (before I tried it) was wearing tzit-tzit (tassels) on my garments. I was afraid people would think I was too strange. What I found was that people don't even notice four short dangly things in a world where people have purple hair and intentional rips in their clothes to show off gruesome tattoos.

It's interesting that many Christians willingly wear crosses or fish symbols, perhaps to show their devotion to God, but they won't even think about wearing the thing that God has asked them to wear -- tzit-tzit. How's that for devotion?

[Green Cochoa]

Originally Posted By: Dr. Waite

SDAs, including EGW, during the lifetime of Ellen White believed and taught the following:

"That the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, were given by inspiration of God, contain a full revelation of his will to man, and are the only infallible rule of faith and practice."

Ellen White wrote this:

"But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines, and the basis of all reforms. The opinions of learned men, the deductions of science, the creeds or decisions of ecclesiastical councils, as numerous and discordant as are the churches which they represent, the voice of the majority,-- not one or all of these should be regarded as evidence for or against any point of religious faith. Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain "Thus saith the Lord" in its support." {GC88 595.1}

Thank you. I can agree with that.

I suppose you can agree the more readily because you say you are not an SDA. I find that Adventists no longer believe that statement in general. We have now adopted the Bible PLUS the "28 Fundamentals." Ellen White would have disagreed strongly with such a position. So would J.N. Loughborough and James White.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.